Both are cross-subsidies. One has 9.4/10 approval. The other has near-unanimous opposition.
Focus on Energy and the WE Energies VLC tariff both use ratepayer dollars to fund programs benefiting a subset of customers. Public response is opposite. The difference: visibility, framing, and who is perceived to benefit.
Publicly AcceptedMixedFiercely Opposed
Focus on Energy ratepayer charge
Funded by ratepayer charges on all utility customers. Delivers efficiency rebates, HOMES/HEAR programs.
9.4 / 10 SATISFACTION
Accepted
Renewable energy riders
Voluntary adder ($0.002–$0.012/kWh) for renewable sourcing. ERER1-4, RPP.
VOLUNTARY OPT-IN
Accepted
EV overnight credit
$0.04/kWh credit midnight–8am. Cost diffused across all ratepayers via base rate.
SMALL + DIFFUSE
Accepted
BYOD thermostat credit
$6.25/device/month Jun–Sep. 24K–64K device caps. Cost in base rate.
ACCEPTED
Accepted
Opposed
VLC tariff — 75/25 capital split
25% of data center resource costs allocated to all ratepayers. Proposed 500 MW threshold.
NEAR-UNANIMOUS
Opposed
VLC tariff — 100% fuel cost pass-through
All fuel costs for capacity resources built to serve data centers paid by non-VLC customers.
FIERCELY OPPOSED
Fierce
Alliant/Meta contract (redacted)
Individual contract rate with key terms redacted from public view. Unknown allocation.
TRANSPARENCY CRISIS
Opposed
4.17 : 1
Focus on Energy benefit-cost ratio. Returns $4.17 per $1 invested. This documented return helps justify the cross-subsidy from non-participants.
~50+
Individual commenters opposing the VLC 75/25 split across hearing sessions. Near-unanimous opposition. One labor union supported (construction jobs).
Same mechanism — ratepayer dollars funding programs for a subset of customers. Opposite public response. The differentiator is framing: "saving money for everyone" vs. "making you pay for a billionaire's infrastructure."
Key design variables: (1) Embedded in existing program vs. new standalone charge. (2) Per-customer cost diffuse vs. concentrated. (3) Beneficiary perceived as LMI households vs. wealthy corporations. (4) Framing: shared benefit vs. cost-shifting.
Sources: Focus on Energy satisfaction (9.4/10), ROI ($4.17:1) — WI CEP 2025, p.20. Renewable riders — WE brochure pp.7-9; WPSC E6.20-E6.26. EV-R credit — WE brochure p.4; WPSC E13.10. BYOD — WPSC E5.10; WE brochure p.4. VLC tariff opposition — PSCW Hearings transcripts: Keys, Sen. Larson, Carvajal, Dr. Walz, Dr. Jerais, Dr. Patz, Curry, Zarling, Ducas, Pierce, Lane, Rogers, and 30+ additional commenters. Supportive: IBEW Locals 2150/494. Alliant/Meta redaction — Keys, Carvajal, Lane testimony.