Fifteen percent of Wisconsin's electricity comes from one place: the Point Beach nuclear plant near Two Rivers. It runs day and night, produces zero carbon, and because it was paid off decades ago, it's some of the cheapest power on the grid.

Wisconsin used to have a second nuclear plant — Kewaunee, up the coast. It shut down in 2013, not because it was unsafe, but because cheap natural gas undercut it. The local economy lost over six hundred jobs and never fully recovered.

Now there's a plan to build a new reactor on that same site, driven by data center demand. But building new nuclear is expensive, and it wouldn't come online until the late 2030s.

Kewaunee closed because of a short-term bet on cheap gas that turned out to be wrong. Now gas prices are volatile, data centers want low-carbon power, and the demand for reliable electricity has never been higher. The lesson isn't about any one technology — it's about what happens when short-term economics drive long-term energy decisions.

Learn More

Point Beach is Wisconsin's only operating nuclear plant — two reactors near Two Rivers on Lake Michigan, running since the early 1970s. It provides about 15% of the state's electricity with a capacity factor above 90% and zero carbon emissions during operation. Because construction was paid off decades ago, its marginal operating cost is roughly $25-35/MWh — among the cheapest power on the grid. (EIA Wisconsin State Energy Profile; World Nuclear Association)

Why Kewaunee closed: The 556 MW plant shut down May 7, 2013 after 39 years. Owner Dominion Resources said the decision was "based purely on economics." The shale gas revolution had flooded the market with cheap natural gas, driving wholesale electricity prices below Kewaunee's operating costs. Power purchase agreements expired and Wisconsin utilities refused to renew them. As a small, single-unit plant, Kewaunee had high fixed costs (~$40/MWh vs. industry average under $20/MWh) that couldn't be spread across multiple reactors the way Point Beach's costs can. (Power Engineering; CSIS)

Economic devastation: The closure eliminated 600+ jobs, $70 million+ in annual wages, and an estimated $630 million in total economic impact to the three-county area. Town of Carlton chairman David Hardtke: "That plant never should have been shut down." (ANS Nuclear Newswire; WisPolitics)

The new build plan: EnergySolutions filed a Notice of Intent with the NRC on January 15, 2026, to apply for major licensing by June 2028, in partnership with WEC Energy Group. This is not a restart — the old reactor is being decommissioned (3-5 years remaining). It would be an entirely new facility, possibly using advanced designs like molten salt reactors or small modular reactors. Construction could begin in the early 2030s, with the plant coming online by the late 2030s. Data center demand is the explicit driver, with potential for co-located data centers on site. (Daily Reporter; WPR)

New nuclear is expensive. Lazard puts new nuclear LCOE at $141-220/MWh — compared to $38-92/MWh for solar. Vogtle in Georgia, the only new U.S. reactor completed in decades, came in at roughly $35 billion, double the original estimate. Clean Wisconsin's general counsel noted it "wouldn't be built for probably 10-15 years" and questions what it's being built for given data centers need power now. (Lazard LCOE+ 2025; WPR)

Bipartisan support in Wisconsin: The Assembly passed a nuclear tax incentive bill 86-11. Governor Evers signed two nuclear-supporting bills (a siting study and a Nuclear Power Summit Board). (WisPolitics)

Community concerns: Residents are broadly supportive of a new plant but nervous about transparency. EnergySolutions has been purchasing hundreds of acres of farmland around the site without confirming what it intends to build beyond a nuclear plant. Residents want assurance the land won't be used for data centers. (Wisconsin Watch)

Related Civic Minute segments: Where Does Your Electricity Come From? (CM-34), Who Decides Your Electric Bill? (CM-39), The Sun Doesn't Send a Bill (CM-30)