ROME, Wis. (WSAW) – The Wisconsin Public Service Commission voted unanimously on Thursday to approve a certificate of public convenience and necessity for Akron Solar’s proposed solar energy facility in Rome in Adams County.
The three-member commission approved the project following months of filings and an approximately hour-and-a-half proceeding on Thursday of the April, 2025 application, with conditions. The project includes up to 200 megawatts of solar generation capacity, a 200/800 megawatt-hour battery energy storage system, and approximately 24.6 miles of underground collector circuits sited on approximately 1,691 acres of private land.
The spokesperson for NextEra Energy Resources, Akron’s parent company, said in a statement that the company is pleased with the commission’s decision and committed to the conditions it imposed.
“This project represents a long-term investment in the region and is expected to generate about $1 million annually in tax revenue, along with hundreds of construction jobs that will support the local economy,” Marshall Hastings said. “We remain committed to being a strong community partner as Akron Solar moves forward.”
Town chair: Commission ignored local opposition
Carl Hasdal, chair of the Town of Rome, which is home to about 3,100 people, said the outcome was not a surprise.
“Our attorney told us at the beginning our chances were probably one-tenth of one percent because they just approve and rubber-stamp everything,” Hasdal said.
Hasdal believes the commission relied primarily on documents and testimony from Akron Solar and dismissed the town’s own experts, including its fire chief and zoning administrator.
Hasdal said the town gathered more than 2,000 signatures opposing the project, received more than 200 public comments against it, and had 39 residents speak at a public hearing the commission did not attend in person.
“Their reasoning was, obviously, pro-favor of Akron. They were not really interested in what the Town of Rome had to say. Thirty-one to nothing,” Hasdal said, referencing the number of solar projects the PSC has approved so far. “Some record.”
Fire safety concerns
The town raised concerns about the potential for fires related to the project’s battery energy storage system. Commissioner Kristy Nieto said the failure rate per deployed gigawatt-hour of battery storage systems decreased 97% from 2018 to 2023, and that the project meets current national fire and safety codes, including NFPA 855.
Hasdal said that data does not reflect the full picture, pointing to fires at battery storage facilities in Warwick, New York (though village leaders said the facility did not have a valid compliance certificate) and Moss Landing, California.
Hasdal said the town is in the top 10% of the state for fire danger and expressed concern about a battery storage fire spreading in a forested area.
“If we get a fire going there with one of these BESS units and it starts spreading, it’s going to be quite nasty,” he said.
NextEra Energy Resources responded to Hasdal’s concerns in an email to NewsChannel 7.
“The battery energy storage system will meet rigorous national safety and fire code standards, undergo third-party testing and certification, and be monitored 24/7 from our operations center as well as staff based in the community,” Hastings said. “We will continue working with local officials and emergency responders and will ensure the project operates safely and responsibly.”
About the PSC and its review process
The PSC describes itself as a quasi-judicial body composed of three full-time commissioners who make decisions in cases related to utility operations, rates, and construction projects. In each case, commissioners are responsible for independently reviewing the application and the full record of evidence, analyzing and weighing the evidence, and reaching a decision that complies with state law.
PSC Chairperson Summer Strand pushed back on criticism that the commission ignored public input, saying commissioners independently reviewed the full record before the meeting.
“I want to ensure everyone that’s listening or watching that we do care about those things. We read those comments. They factor into our decisions and to the various aspects of things that we have to balance in issuing these decisions,” Strand said.
Strand noted the project is sited entirely on private land under voluntary lease agreements with landowners, including a single primary landowner, Meteor Timber. She said the land had already been cleared of some of its commercial pine plantation and that the sandy soil left behind is not suitable for agricultural crops.
“Landowners have the right to voluntarily make decisions about the use of their land,” Strand said during the meeting. “This is not a transmission situation where there is eminent domain being exercised.”
Hasdal disputed that framing.
“That’s why we have zoning laws,” he said, adding that the solar project does not fit within the town’s comprehensive plan.
Project details and commission findings
The commission found the project consistent with Wisconsin’s energy priorities law, which ranks non-combustible renewable energy resources as the highest priority generation source. All three commissioners voted in favor of each issue in the decision matrix.
The PSC said it has developed a comprehensive list of standard conditions that applicants must follow as part of any construction authorization, and also considers project-specific conditions intended to provide additional protections or address issues unique to each application.
Commissioner Nieto noted the applicant had proactively agreed to several environmental commitments early in the proceeding — including raising fence lines six inches above ground to allow movement of ground-dwelling animals, and limiting tree clearing from April 1 to Oct. 31 to protect migratory birds and roosting bats — reducing the number of contested issues before the commission.
Commissioner Marcus Hawkins said the project stood out among solar applications the commission has reviewed, citing its compact and contiguous footprint and the fact that only one residence fell within reportable proximity to the project area.
“There is a very, I’d say, rare opportunity to reduce visual disturbance,” Hawkins said during the meeting. “We typically see many more residences nearby that have direct line of sight.”
The commission imposed two project-specific conditions related to vegetative buffers and recreational trail access, and encouraged the applicant to work with the Town of Rome and interested groups on both. The PSC said additional details on those conditions will be included in a final written decision to be issued at a later date.
Hasdal said he was not encouraged by those additions.
“That’s simply appeasement,” he said. “We have no say in the matter. We can say we’d like to see this, this, and this. They can say no — there’s nothing telling them that they have to follow anything we want done.”
Hasdal also questioned the buffer commitment, saying many of the trees in the area are trimmed high enough that visibility through them is not blocked.
On the buffer condition, Hastings said the company will comply with the commission’s order.
State lawmaker: Process is broken
State Rep. Scott Krug who represents and is from Rome said he watched the majority of Thursday’s PSC discussion on the Rome project and said the outcome underscored what he described as a broken siting process.
“Whether it was the town of Saratoga in Wood County, the town of Grant in Portage County, here and now in Rome, it’s just a process that just does not work for people who have local concerns about these issues,” Rep. Krug said.
Rep. Krug gave the commission some credit for limited discussion of issues the town raised, but said commissioners never visited Rome during the nine-month proceeding. The public hearing was held in the city of Nekoosa before an administrative law judge, with no PSC commissioner present at any point in the local process.
“My question for them would be if they’ve ever even been to Rome,” Rep. Krug said. “There was no direct conversation with any PSC commissioner on any part of this process from beginning to end.”
Rep. Krug said the commission’s approval of conditions encouraging, but not requiring, negotiations with the town fell short.
“They didn’t even get to the point of requiring a joint developers agreement. They just said, if there’s conversations, great. If there’s not, we’re just going to approve this either way,” Rep. Krug said.
He said he plans to reach out to NextEra directly to press for meaningful engagement on buffer and trail commitments.
“When we talk 30- to 50-foot buffers with pine trees, well, pine trees are Q-tips. You see right through the sticks, right? So, we’re going to have to work with them now, unfortunately, because the decision was taken out of our hands,” Rep. Krug said.
Bill to give municipalities more control stalls
Rep. Krug authored legislation that would give local municipalities final approval authority over solar and wind siting projects, with the PSC offering a recommendation rather than making the final call. He said the bill was prompted by contested projects in central Wisconsin, including in Rome, Saratoga, Grant and communities in Waushara County.
“Making sure that we do this with local governments instead of to local governments,” Rep. Krug explained.
Under the bill, a local unit of government would take an affirmative or negative vote — requiring a three-fifths majority of the town board — before a project could proceed. He explained the bill also originated as a Community Solar measure intended to expand opportunities for smaller-scale projects, such as a farmer using five acres or a business installing panels on a parking lot.
“Hundreds of those is better in the long run than one 2,000-acre project,” Rep. Krug said.
The bill received executive action in committee, meaning it is available for a floor vote, but the regular legislative session has concluded. Krug said he does not anticipate a special session being called.”
“If Governor Evers is looking to get something done this session, I think it’s high time for PSC reform,” Krug said.
If not taken up in a special session, the bill would need to be reintroduced in the next legislative session.
“I just think residents would be more open to these concepts if they had some more input.”
Town says fight is not over
Hasdal said the town plans to pursue several avenues to challenge or impede the project, though he declined to share specifics. He said he planned to speak with the town’s attorney and that at least one option could create significant complications for the developer.
“We’ve got a few tricks up our sleeves,” Hasdal said. “There’s one that will put a serious dent in their plans. Apparently, had they done their homework, they would already know what I’m talking about.”
Hasdal said the town will bring the matter to residents at future board meetings.
“I got a feeling that they’re going to say fight until we can’t anymore,” he said. “We’re not done.”
Click here to download the WSAW news app or WSAW First Alert weather app.
Click here to submit a news tip or story idea.
Copyright 2026 WSAW. All rights reserved.