The following commentary was written by Jesse Velazquez, Climate Justice Manager at the Ohio Environmental Council. See our commentary guidelines for more information.
In his victory speech, President-elect Donald Trump promised to further boost “liquid gold,” also known as oil and gas. Today, oil and gas production is at record highs and continues to grow. As the industry expands, so do concerns about methane pollution.
The primary component of natural gas is methane, a potent greenhouse gas that warms the planet more than 80 times as much as carbon dioxide over 20 years. It’s also a significant contributor to smog and public health issues like asthma and respiratory disease, disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities. Yet, efforts to reduce methane emissions present a rare win-win opportunity: they not only curb pollution but also create jobs and foster innovation.
Take Pennsylvania, one of the largest natural gas producers, for example. By adopting innovative methane mitigation strategies, the state is reducing harmful emissions from oil and gas operations while creating jobs and fostering a cleaner, more sustainable energy future. This balanced approach showcases how economic growth and environmental responsibility can go hand in hand, offering a model that Ohio should replicate.
According to the 2024 State of the Methane Mitigation Industry Report, developing and implementing technologies to cut methane pollution would create jobs ranging from manufacturing leak-detection equipment to technicians skilled in repairing faulty infrastructure. Pennsylvania saw a 22.2% growth in methane mitigation companies over the last three years. Since 2014, the industry has expanded by 65% with the state now hosting 33 methane mitigation companies. In fact, Pennsylvania is now home to 8.5% of the total employee locations in this sector nationwide.
These good-paying, family-sustaining jobs bolster local economies while addressing critical environmental challenges. And the opportunity for Ohio is immense.
The benefits extend far beyond jobs. Reducing methane emissions means less wasted energy. Nationally, oil and gas companies emit enough methane waste annually that could be utilized to meet the energy needs of millions of homes. Capturing the lost gases would translate directly into increased efficiency and cost savings. For a state like Ohio, with its large-scale oil and gas operations, this represents a tangible economic benefit.
This isn’t just about economic gains. Methane mitigation is also a crucial climate strategy. The U.S. EPA’s Section 111 Methane Rule, finalized a year ago, set robust federal standards to limit methane emissions from oil and gas operations. While essential, this rule relies heavily on state-level implementation to achieve its full potential. States like Ohio have a chance to lead by adopting and building on these standards, aligning economic growth with environmental stewardship.
And we know clean air and economic growth are priorities that transcend party lines, as evidenced by the broad coalition of businesses, environmental advocates, and community leaders rallying behind these initiatives.
Ohio is at a crossroads. We can continue business as usual, or we can follow Pennsylvania’s lead, investing in proven technologies and practices that cut emissions, prevent waste, protect public health, and drive economic growth.
By prioritizing methane mitigation, the state can chart a path that aligns with both the nation’s energy ambitions and the pressing need for climate action. This is not just a moral imperative but an economic one that promises cleaner air, healthier communities, and a thriving workforce for generations to come.
The following commentary was written by Carrie Zalewski, former Chair of the Illinois Commerce Commission and currently vice president of markets and transmission at the American Clean Power Association; and Brent Bailey, former Mississippi Public Service Commissioner and current vice president of operations at Efficient Power & Light LLC. See our commentary guidelines for more information.
Building the power grid of the future requires deploying every available tool in the present.
When it comes to electricity generation, energy wonks often reference an “all-the-above” strategy, which includes all available power sources — fossil fuels, renewable energy, and storage technologies. But generation is just one part of the reliability and affordability equation.
The Midwestern transmission grid must also evolve and adopt an “all-the-above” mentality to withstand increasingly frequent extreme weather events and support rapidly growing power demand while ensuring reliable and low-cost electricity for consumers. This is no small task. As such, policymakers and grid operators must carefully consider all near-term and long-term solutions.
New high-voltage transmission lines are essential to ensure the grid of the future is prepared for surging load growth. But new transmission line development and construction can take many years. To address immediate needs, there are other solutions that can improve capacity in the near term. Enter: advanced grid technologies.
Significant technological advancements are available now that can come online in one to three years compared to the decade or so it takes to build new transmission lines. Such advancements include: grid-enhancing technologies (GETs) — hardware and/or software that can increase the capacity and efficiency of existing transmission lines most hours of the year — as well as high-performance conductors (HPCs) — which offer greater capacity and efficiency benefits compared to traditional conductors.
While these advanced grid technologies cannot provide enough capacity to meet long-term system needs, they are relatively inexpensive and drive enormous cost savings until we can bring regional backbone lines into service. Deploying GETs and HPCs in the near term to help meet projected demand growth while simultaneously planning and constructing new regional and interregional transmission lines is key to ensuring the delivery of reliable, low-cost power across the Midwest.
MISO, the central U.S. grid operator, is considering a second portfolio of transmission projects aimed at creating a regional backbone of long-distance lines that will enable power to flow across the Upper and Central Midwest. These transmission lines will build upon investments made in the first tranche of projects, approved by the grid operator in 2022, which began to lay the groundwork for an evolution of the system.
The second batch of potential projects aims to “reliably and efficiently enable MISO member goals and load growth,” delivering benefits that significantly outweigh costs. Across much of the current system, MISO found that at least 10% of facilities are overloaded and annual curtailments exceed 15%, meaning available generators are forced offline because there is not enough grid capacity to carry their power.
MISO will also soon consider transmission projects for the Southern region of MISO as well as measures to increase the flow of electricity between the MISO regions. A regional problem requires regional solutions, including well-vetted, long-distance transmission lines.
Additionally, there is a significant need for greater interregional transmission capacity between MISO and its neighbors. The U.S. Department of Energy identified especially high congestion between the Midwest and Plains states. This means there are bottlenecks in the system that hinder the ability to deliver electricity between these areas. As a result, more interregional transmission ties from MISO to the Plains would offer considerable consumer benefits in the form of increased reliability and decreased costs when affordable clean energy can be accessed and transmitted back to MISO members.
Building the grid of the future will require every technology at our disposal. It’s critical that grid operators and state regulators consider and implement all transmission technology tools when planning and building a system that will enhance national security, facilitate regional economic development, and withstand new and growing reliability threats for generations to come.
The following commentary was written by Daksh Arora, a project engineer at GameChange Solar, content director for the MIT Energy Conference 2025, and a fellow at the Clean Energy Leadership Institute. See our commentary guidelines for more information.
States like Massachusetts must take the lead in advancing the United States’ climate goals, especially under the incoming Trump administration. While the Biden Administration’s landmark Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 made significant strides, the U.S. is still on track to achieve only 66% of its greenhouse gas reduction targets by 2030.
With the potential for further setbacks, such as a possible second withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, states like Massachusetts must step up to drive the deployment of clean energy and climate solutions.
The “Direct Pay” provision in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is a game-changer for municipalities, state and local governments, and other tax-exempt entities to access federal clean energy tax credits. This provision allows entities such as nonprofits, schools, tribal governments, and municipal utilities to receive tax credits directly from the IRS, rather than relying on tax liability to claim them.
Before the IRA, only private entities could benefit from these credits, putting public entities at a disadvantage in developing clean energy projects. The Direct Pay provision has no cap on government spending through 2032, offering new opportunities for public sector investment in clean energy. Furthermore, IRA also increases the maximum available tax credit for certain clean energy projects, from 30% to 50%, with the potential for up to 70% or more for projects in energy or low-income communities, or those using American-made materials, helping overcome financial barriers that previously slowed public clean energy development.
To claim direct pay, eligible entities must complete their energy projects before receiving payment from the federal government, which will occur the following year. While the tax credits will lower overall project costs, upfront capital is still needed to finance projects before the refund arrives.
To help address this, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), a $27 billion program established by another IRA provision, provides increased green bank financing, supporting an equitable green financing ecosystem across the U.S. The IRS just finalized the direct pay rules and it would be really difficult for the next administration to repeal it.
City governments like in Somerville and Cambridge can use direct pay to supplement the costs of deploying renewable energy infrastructure such as solar panels and storage technologies on public lands and buildings; electrifying vehicle fleets; and building out electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
Direct Pay is also a significant shift that allows public power entities, like the New York Power Authority (NYPA), to directly own renewable energy projects instead of relying on complex public-private partnerships. This makes it easier for NYPA to scale up clean energy projects by bypassing the need for third-party ownership structures that were previously required.
Regardless of this question, investing in public capacity is a net win for the environment as direct pay not only levels the playing field between for-profit and tax-exempt entities but also shifts energy generation ownership from private to public and nonprofit sectors, enabling more consumer-focused management of energy assets. States like Massachusetts should ensure that benefits from the IRA reach low-income and marginalized communities.
Massachusetts just streamlined the process for building solar and wind farms, transmission lines, and other energy infrastructure to help meet its climate goals by 2050. The state can do more by working to help communities understand the types of investments eligible for direct pay and how to secure financing for clean energy projects, making access to this funding easier and more efficient. The state can also lead by setting an example by deploying climate solutions at scale and ensuring utilities maximize the federal clean energy tax credits by regulatory oversight.
The other day, in my role as an advocate for open government, I heard from a Wisconsin resident who has waited more than five months for records he requested from a local law enforcement agency. He has gently prodded the agency several times, asking, “How much more time is my request going to take?” More than three months have passed since these queries have yielded a response.
Such long, frustrating wait times are not uncommon. Wisconsin’s Open Records Law allows any person to obtain any document in the possession of state and local government officials, with limited exceptions. But, unlike in some other states, there is no set time limit. Rather, the law simply directs record custodians to act “as soon as practicable and without delay.”
What does that mean? Good question.
The state Justice Department has said that “10 working days is a reasonable time for an authority to respond” to simple records requests. But this is not binding advice. Moreover, no court has ever ruled that a particular wait time was excessive.
Bill Lueders
I tell people experiencing long wait times to practice their “Ps”: Be polite. Be persistent. And be pragmatic — offer to clarify or refine your request to make it more manageable. Sometimes, this helps move things along. Other times, it seems to make no difference.
That’s where Tom Kamenick comes in. He is the founder and president of the Wisconsin Transparency Project, the state’s only law firm devoted entirely to open government litigation. Since 2019, Kamenick has filed seven lawsuits alleging illegal delays in the processing of open records requests. He has lost only one case — in which the records were provided but had ended up in the requester’s spam folder.
His other six cases ended in settlements favorable to the requestors: Records were provided, legal costs were covered and, in at least one case, the custodian apologized. The problem is that these settlement wins do not set a legal precedent that can be cited by others, although they do add credibility to threats of legal action.
Last year, Kamenick sued the Madison Police Department on my behalf after it told me to expect a wait time of 14 months to obtain records related to police discipline. The office hired additional staff and authorized overtime to reduce its backlog. Last month, Kamenick sued the Racine County Sheriff’s Department on behalf of a local resident, Mitchell Berman, over its long delays in producing records including video footage. “Delays like this are all too common,” Kamenick noted in a statement.
Custodians often contend they lack the staff and resources to handle requests more promptly. Kamenick’s response is to say it isn’t a question of resources but priorities. One school district he sued had a $600 million budget and assigned a single staff position devoted to records requests, then allowed that position to go unfilled.
Indeed, the records law expressly states that handling records requests “is declared to be an essential function of a representative government and an integral part of the routine duties of officers and employees whose responsibility it is to provide such information.” That means it should be more of a priority.
Eventually the courts should weigh in on this, in a precedent-setting case. The problem also cries out for a legislative solution. A revised law could still say “as soon as practicable and without delay,” but also set a time limit of, say, 30 days, for records to be provided, absent extraordinary circumstances. Perhaps the state could provide additional funding or guidance to help make this doable — certainly there are worse ways it could spend its $4.6 billion budget surplus.
There is an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied; the same is true for records requests. If you don’t get the records until you can hardly remember what you wanted them for, the law is not working as intended.
Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Bill Lueders, a writer in Madison and editor-at-large of The Progressive, is the group’s president.
The following commentary was written by John Szoka. Szoka is is the CEO of Conservative Energy Network, a national network of state-based organizations focused on promoting clean energy innovation rooted in conservative values. See our commentary guidelines for more information.
It’s been three years since the North Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill 951, legislation known as the Energy Solutions for North Carolina Act. It was a historic occasion to get consensus across the aisle and across House and Senate chambers to pass this bill. It served as a compact with all North Carolinians that the appropriate planning and consideration would go into plotting out an energy future for our state that would keep power bills affordable and stable, accelerate innovation and economic development in clean energy technologies, all while significantly reducing emissions from the electric power sector.
That legislation — and all the work that’s gone into it so far by the NC Utilities Commission, the utilities, industry groups, and a wide range of stakeholders — is already propelling North Carolina to make meaningful headway towards its shared goals for our state. Its endurance is critical to keeping us on the right path.
Keeping electric rates affordable is a central priority of the law. And whether or not you’re a proponent of clean energy as an ideology, this law is based on a business case: diversifying North Carolina’s energy mix to incorporate more modern power-generating technologies protects ratepayers from the unpredictable and volatile whims of global oil and gas markets. Looking through data from utility rate cases over the last several years, it’s simply a fact that natural gas market price spikes drove the overwhelming majority of increases we all saw on our monthly power bills. The more we can diversify our energy mix with technologies that come with no-fuel-cost sources like onshore and offshore wind, and solar with battery storage, the better off our wallets will be.
And it’s not just residential ratepayers who are better off with the kind of clean energy mix that House Bill 951 legislates, it’s North Carolina’s economy as a whole. When rates are lower, it makes our state a much more attractive place for business and industry to choose to set up shop, bringing with them huge investment dollars and quality local jobs. We should not underestimate how significant a factor that keeping North Carolina’s electricity rates competitive is in driving business investment. We currently enjoy a ranking as one of the best states to do business in, which is directly tied to being able to keep electricity rates below the national average. Electricity prices across the country are anticipated to rise over the coming decade, but if we stay the course with the energy objectives defined in House Bill 951, North Carolina should remain competitive in this area.
The energy plan is so far working as intended. Utilities and stakeholders are working with the NC Utilities Commission to make some very complex decisions about the long-term state of North Carolina’s electricity grid. Making the right decisions that will best accommodate new technologies and strengthen the grid’s reliability, while also controlling costs is a tough task. It’s clear that the Utilities Commission is taking the task laid upon them by this law seriously. And we need to continue to engage in and trust that process, as defined by the consensus legislation we deliberated upon and passed.
An energy plan that keeps rates low for customers and drives economic growth is a sound business model. And North Carolina’s voters know it. Poll after poll shows that North Carolinians understand the correlation between high gas prices and the dollar signs on their monthly power bills. Meanwhile, clean energy technology prices drop year after year. Clean energy reliability and operability rise year after year.
Intentionally diversifying those technologies into our energy mix via House Bill 951 was a common sense business decision for North Carolina’s economy. The leaders who passed this bill into law three years ago had the foresight to establish energy policy that will serve our state well for generations to come. Ensuring that the next sitting legislature supports and sustains this policy will be critical for the affordability and durability of North Carolina’s energy future.
This article is a paid promotion and the Energy News Network is not responsible for its contents.
Reliable hot water is critical for restaurants for preparing food and washing dishes and equipment, as well as hand washing.
However, water heating is one of the biggest energy users in restaurants. Heating water for restaurant use accounts for 16% of all commercial gas usage in California. Food service buildings are among the highest intensive energy users on a per-square-foot basis, largely because of their hot water usage. Foodservice operations may soon feel the pressure to electrify. The California Air Resources Board is analyzing proposed zero-emission GHG standards for new space and water heaters. It is currently planned for consideration in 2025 with any implementation beginning in 2030, and would only be applicable to the purchase of new equipment
Doing so will be difficult, particularly for existing restaurants. Many food service operations, especially small and independent businesses, do not have the space for the size of a storage tank that would be required for a heat pump water heater. Restaurants in California, as with most states, are legally required to have sufficient hot water to meet all these demands under peak conditions.
In response to these challenges, an emerging technology, the heat pump-assisted water heater, is gaining traction. It is designed to meet this existing gap between what the market needs and the cost and challenges of installing available heat pump water heaters. It is geared to meet the needs of existing food service businesses that want to be able to transition to a heat pump while still retaining the benefits of their current water heating system.
With funding from CalNEXT — California’s statewide emerging technology initiative — the TRC Advanced Energy team recently published a report, “Market Potential for Heat Pump Assisted Hot Water Systems in Foodservice Facilities.” This report, which TRC Advanced Energy developed with research support from Frontier Energy and Energy Solutions, assesses the benefits and challenges of adopting heat pump-assisted water heater technology for a range of food service establishments.
“Heat pump-assisted water heaters are a solution that we have available today,” said Amin Delagah, Associate Director of Research and Consulting for TRC Advanced Energy, an environmental services provider. “Heat pump water heater adoption rates in restaurants are still very low due to a lack of familiarity, space and electrical capacity requirements and primarily, the health department water heater sizing regulatory barrier, but the heat pump assist concept is a solution that we can move forward today to overcome these barriers.”
The heat pump-assisted water heater, as its name suggests, is designed to operate in series with an existing water heater, which makes it attractive for restaurants that do not want to overhaul their current system completely. During down times for the business, the existing heater would maintain the recirculation temperature of already heated water in its system. During off hours, the heat pump-assisted water heater would produce sufficient hot water to restock the system. Because the existing heater is already large enough to meet food service needs during business hours, the heat pump-assisted water heater system can be built to fit the available space, even if it is undersized.
The benefits of using a heat pump-assisted water heater are similar to those of a heat pump: improved energy efficiency and possibly lower long-term energy costs, although cost issues largely depend on the type of system being replaced. Natural gas fuel, which is used by 90 percent of food service operations for water heating, is currently cheaper than electricity in most of California.
Heat pump systems also provide cooling as a byproduct, which could be useful to counteract kitchen heat.
Heat pump-assisted water heaters are designed to address the big disadvantage of heat pump water heaters for restaurants — the longer time needed to heat the water from cold. One workaround is a much larger tank, but floor space is typically at a premium in restaurants, making this workaround unappealing for many food service operations. For a heat pump water heater to meet health department requirements, it would need a much bigger tank than its gas-fired counterpart (because the gas-fired water heater can heat water faster).
Heat pump-assisted water heaters may also be cheaper to install than a conventional, retrofitted heat pump water heater system, and the heat pump-assisted water heater does not need to meet these sizing regulations because the legacy water heater still functions as a backup system. At this point, the technology is still emerging and has not been installed commercially, but the authors estimate that initial costs for the heat pump water heater that acts as the assist, including installation, could range between $6,000 to $20,000. This amount, while significant, is still much cheaper than what it could cost a full-service restaurant to install a heat pump water heater capable of meeting water demands, which could well exceed $100,000.
“The costs for heat pump assisted heat pumps are largely driven by the electrical work and the space required, and there may be incentives available to offset these,” Delagah said.
Another benefit is that because the heat pump-assisted water heater is a backup system, it does not require health department approval, making the process simpler.
Both heat pump water heaters and heat pump-assisted water heaters also have the additional operational benefit of being able to benefit from time-of-use rates and the additional cooling they could provide for kitchens.
“This year in October, it was 95 degrees in the Bay Area,” Delagah said. “There are new California OSHA rules on the books for indoor temperatures — if your facilities are over an 82°F temperature indoors, you have to provide cooling centers for employees. That’s becoming an emerging concern for restaurants to meet a new heat illness standard.”
On the downside, the higher upfront costs will likely still be a significant barrier to the adoption of heat pump-assisted water heaters, even if they are relatively less expensive than heat pump water heaters.
One big hurdle is that health departments, by and large, are not familiar with the technology — and may be more resistant to its approval. The relatively high price of electricity in California, compared with gas, may be another barrier.
Yet regulations and the need to decarbonize are moving closer, with California’s 2030 deadlines for reducing its overall greenhouse gas emissions by 40%, in comparison with 1990 levels. Restaurants are well positioned to be the public face of doing their part.
“This is great equipment for restaurants that are thinking about positioning themselves for where things are going in terms of air quality regulations,” Delagah said. “If you’re a chain restaurant, you should probably be trying this out, kicking the tires a bit, and preparing for what your solution is going to be when there is a mandate.”
To learn more about this project, read the report on the CalNEXT website, calnext.com
About CalNEXT: CalNEXT is a statewide initiative to identify, test, and grow electric technologies and delivery methods to support California’s decarbonized future. CalNEXT is funded by the ratepayers of California investor-owned utilities and provides a means for studying emerging technologies and energy-efficiency innovations that have the potential to save energy via utility programs and/or market support.
Article written by Emily Pickrell, Energy Solutions
The following commentary was written by Kelley Trombley, senior manager of state policy at Ceres. See our commentary guidelines for more information.
This campaign season, the state of Washington was a battleground for energy and climate policy. The pitched fight over Initiative 2117 became one of the most expensive ballot measures in state history, drawing millions of dollars in political funding to each side of the issue, which would have repealed Washington’s Climate Commitment Act to end its nation-leading cap-and-invest system. In its first year alone, the policy has driven $2.2 billion into projects designed to protect the state from the effects of climate change while fighting pollution, but faced opposition from those who argued it hurt the economy.
Yet it was some of the top employers in the state – and for that matter on the planet – that urged voters to keep the program in place. Amazon, Microsoft, and REI were among the many companies urging a no vote. And in the end, voters agreed, decisively defeating the ballot measure by a wide margin. It turns out that this kind of climate action is actually an economic boon.
The strong showing of corporate support for the CCA shouldn’t be surprising. Take it from me and my colleagues at Ceres, a sustainability nonprofit that works with businesses and investors across the country on sustainability issues. Over the last decade, leading businesses have increasingly come to recognize that climate and clean energy policies are key economic drivers. Business leaders have rallied to support them – from the federal Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, marking the nation’s largest-ever investment into confronting climate change, to ambitious legislation in states across the U.S., including here in Washington.
To understand why, just think about what businesses need to prosper. Reliable and affordable electricity to power their operations. Good transportation networks to ensure people and goods can get where they need to be. Infrastructure investment and job growth to bolster local economies. Market-based systems to efficiently solve pressing economywide problems. And, last but not least, a healthy workforce.
The CCA is delivering all of that.
By putting a cap on carbon pollution designed to all but eliminate it by 2050, the policy uses basic economic principles to address the challenge and financial risks of climate change. It promises to reduce impacts such as floods, drought, heatwaves, and severe storms that threaten pillars of the economy that businesses depend on, such as infrastructure, facilities, supply chains, and workforces. Not only that, the CCA is also investing in improving and fortifying many of those very things: its revenue is being used to improve and modernize energy and transportation infrastructure, invest in energy efficiency, and protect communities from climate impacts. Repealing it was projected to cost some 45,000 good-paying jobs and do $9 billion in economic damage.
Businesses understood the CCA is about protecting and strengthening our economic future, one that we are all in together. And voters did too. By voting no, Washington has signaled to companies across the U.S. that it is acting to address a major economic challenge and is investing in solutions that businesses of the future will rely on.
There’s a lesson here for state policymakers around the country, especially those committed to strengthening their communities as an attractive and reliable place to conduct business. The private sector will continue to seize business opportunities as clean energy investment grows, and states will find broad support when they address the economic imperative to reduce pollution and advance clean power, transportation, and building policies. In Washington, voters made it abundantly clear that their “no” vote wasn’t about just protecting the climate. It was about protecting the economy as well.
In 2022, the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council created a designated fund to help cover legal costs associated with fighting to pry records into the public domain. Called simply the WFOIC Legal Fund, it has never had more than $4,000 in its coffers. But the council, of which I am a member, has put what money that is there to good use.
The council last year awarded a grant to The Badger Project, which together with a watchdog group known as the Invisible Institute is suing the state Department of Justice for refusing to release records about police officers. That case remains pending.
The Legal Fund also helped cover some expenses in journalist Daniel Libit’s suit against the University of Wisconsin-Madison and UW Foundation over access to records about publicity deals for student athletes. A Dane County circuit judge dismissed the lawsuit in September on technical grounds, and Libit did not appeal. But the suit ultimately prompted disclosure of the requested information.
And the council in 2022 provided funds to an individual who successfully sued the La Crosse Police Department and the Holmen Police Department for records related to criminal investigations.
Jonathan Anderson (Provided photo)
The council’s goal in establishing this fund, which began with a $1,700 contribution from a citizens group grateful for the council’s guidance, is to help individuals and journalists who are confronting improper government secrecy. We are focused on funding lawsuits that are likely to succeed, that could help clarify and strengthen the public’s right of access to government meetings or records or that involve clear or egregious violations of law. We also consider the financial need of the applicant.
There are some strings attached. Cases must involve Wisconsin’s public records or open meetings laws, and the requester must be represented by an attorney with a valid license to practice law in the state. Expenses eligible for grant funding include fees for filing, process service, depositions and expert witnesses. At present, attorney’s fees are not covered, and in cases where the plaintiff prevails and wins recovery of litigation costs, the money contributed by the council must be returned.
Down the line, the council hopes the fund can be substantial enough to cover at least some attorney fees in cases that do not lead to successful outcomes or for actions in which no financial restitution is possible, such as letters from attorneys contesting denials. We’re not there yet.
The Legal Fund is a new dimension to the council’s existing efforts to advocate for access to government information. In addition to public education and legislative engagement, we have long been a voice for the public’s right to know in Wisconsin courts by filing friend-of-the-court briefs.
This year, the council joined the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty in a brief in Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Secord at the Wisconsin Supreme Court involving the public records law. The council also joined the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, Wisconsin Broadcasters Association and the Society of Professional Journalists in a brief to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in Oitzinger v. City of Marinette involving the open meetings law.
Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Council Treasurer Jonathan Anderson is a former Wisconsin journalist and current Ph.D. candidate at the University of Minnesota.
The following commentary was written by Mel Mackinm, director of state policy at Ceres, a nonprofit that works with investors and companies to advance clean energy policy.See our commentary guidelines for more information.
Look out across Michigan and you’ll see groundbreakings for major solar panel manufacturing sites, huge investments to build battery cells, and sparkling new facilities to ensure the state stays in the driver’s seat as the auto industry moves into the future.
It seems Michigan manufacturing is having a moment.
It’s little wonder why. Michigan has always had the legacy, the workforce, the supply chains, and the know-how to serve as the epicenter of an American manufacturing renaissance. That’s exactly what’s happened since Congress finalized the nation’s largest-ever clean energy investment in the summer of 2022.
Powered by incentives for companies to manufacture and deploy clean energy infrastructure and technology here in the U.S., the Inflation Reduction Act has unlocked more than $360 billion in private-sector investment in less than two years, according to research from Climate Power. Its impact has been felt in every corner of the country with hundreds of new projects taking shape to build innovative technologies, employ hundreds of thousands of workers, and power the economy – all while cutting costs and pollution. But no other state has seen as much activity as Michigan, the site of 58 new clean energy projects.
Michigan policymakers deserve some credit for moving quickly to take full advantage of this opportunity. In 2022, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer made clear in her MI Healthy Climate Plan that she wanted to make Michigan one of the best places in the world to build and deploy clean energy. Lawmakers since followed her lead with legislation that will move the state to 100% clean electricity by 2040 and ensure clean power infrastructure can be built both quickly and responsibly – a pair of laws that boasted ample support from Michigan companies that recognize confronting climate change is also an economic opportunity.
These policies were designed to fully harness the Inflation Reduction Act, making clear that the state is ready to support the growing number of businesses that supply or rely on innovative clean technology. In response, businesses that include classic Michigan manufacturers like GM, global brands like Corning, and upstarts like Lucid Motors have flooded the state with more than $21.5 billion in new clean energy innovation and manufacturing investment, creating some 20,100 new jobs.
With projects located from Detroit to Holland to Traverse City, so much of the state is already benefitting. That includes communities that have so far been left behind in the 21st century economy. About half of the state’s recent clean energy investment is located in rural or low-income areas, such as Norm Fasteners’ $77 million facility that will create 200 electric vehicle supply chain jobs in Bath Charter Township.
Now is not the time to slow down. We are now in the throes of the 2024 election, and we all know Michigan has been getting a lot of attention. No matter what happens in November, Michigan and the U.S. must continue investing in this revamped manufacturing base. Policymakers on both sides of the aisle have prioritized rebuilding American industry to provide good jobs and bolster U.S. leadership
Michigan’s clean energy manufacturing boom provides clear evidence that this shared goal is coming to fruition. Policymakers at both the federal and state levels, along with leaders in the private sector, must maintain this momentum and the strong policy environment that will allow the U.S. and its workforce to lead the global economy in the emerging industries of the future – with Michigan, as it so often has, standing strong as the foundation.
The following commentary was written by Laura Sherman, president of the Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council.See our commentary guidelines for more information.
Last year, Michigan got attention as the first Midwestern state to adopt an energy storage standard. Energy storage is essential for the clean energy transition because it allows clean electricity initially generated by sources like wind and solar to be available at all times.
The standard calls for 2,500 MW of energy storage to be deployed by 2030. This storage will be fulfilled by a range of technologies, with lithium-ion batteries, the type of the storage that has grown rapidly across the U.S. and the world in recent years, chief among them. But it’s not too early to start thinking about how this standard (and future standards) will also involve new technologies that serve different needs, including shifting low-cost energy over longer periods of time to support electric reliability and affordability. A U.S. Department of Energy report found that to achieve a net-zero economy, the U.S. grid may need 225 GW to 460 GW of long-duration energy storage by 2050. By comparison, the U.S. currently has over 500 GW of gas power plants, and battery storage capacity is expected to double to about 30 GW by the end of this year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Fortunately, Michigan’s energy legislation anticipated this need. The legislation that created the 2030 storage target also ordered Michigan regulators to report to lawmakers on the potential for long-duration and multi-day energy storage. The Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) is in the midst of this study right now.
But how is “long-duration” energy storage different from the battery storage that is growing quickly in Michigan and across the country right now? It’s all about the concept of duration, which refers to how long a storage resource like a battery can discharge stored energy until it is out of capacity. Most of the batteries being built at utility scale right now have a duration of around four hours. But long-duration storage refers to resources that have a duration of over 8 hours and up to well over 100 hours.
This longer duration unlocks capabilities that will make 100% clean electricity a reality. Short-duration storage right now can cover shortfalls in wind and solar on an hour-by-hour basis. But what about if there is a shortfall in energy supply expected not for just a few hours, but from one day to the next? Or from one month to the next? Those situations arise especially in seasons like winter, where cloud cover can linger and hamper solar energy production for extended periods of time. That is where the need for long-duration storage comes in. Long-duration storage could become a capacity resource that grid operators can tap to reliably deal with long-term fluctuations in energy supply, like those caused by changes in the season from summer to winter.
What would this type of energy storage actually look like in practice? Two companies that are members of the Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council are potential examples.
Energy Dome’s above ground compressed gas technology, the “CO2 Battery,” is a closed-loop system that holds carbon dioxide gas in a large dome structure. Using electricity from solar panels and wind turbines, this gas is heated and compressed into a liquid, which can be easily stored at room temperature. When discharging, the liquid is evaporated, and the resulting gas spins a turbine, generating electricity when needed, often with one full cycle per day (8+ hours of discharging). The company is currently constructing its first full-scale plant in Sardinia, Italy, with the project nearing completion. In the U.S., another plant is soon to follow, with project proponent Alliant Energy recently filing for regulatory approval of the Columbia Energy Storage Project in Wisconsin.
Form Energy is commercializing a multi-day energy storage technology, a 100-hour duration iron-air battery for utility-scale applications. Essentially, the battery rusts and un-rusts iron to store and release electricity. Form Energy has constructed a new factory to manufacture these batteries domestically, and is working to deploy the first large-scale demonstrations of its technology with utilities like Great River Energy, Xcel Energy, Dominion and Georgia Power in 2025 and 2026.
A tremendous amount of innovative work will need to happen between now and the realization of the full potential for long-duration storage. There are a few things Michigan regulators should do with their study to best set up the state to reap the benefits from these emerging technologies:
First, the Commission should set clear targets for how much long-duration and multi-day storage utilities need to procure in coming years. Utilities are generally conservative and hesitant to pursue new technologies unless pushed or clearly allowed. But this problem is particularly heightened when it comes to long-duration storage. That’s because utilities, if given a megawatt target for storage they must deploy, will likely acquire storage without considering the benefits of having a diverse portfolio of technologies that can deliver energy over different durations. As a result, Michigan may lose out on the operational benefits that come from having a diversified storage portfolio. These benefits include the ability of long-duration storage to make firing up high-emitting, fossil-fuel-burning peaker plants unnecessary because the storage can provide more reliable, cleaner and cheaper alternatives. They also include overall cost and land-use savings, by storing renewable energy when it would otherwise be wasted and shifting it over long time periods when it is most needed.
Second, speaking of substitutes for fossil fuel plants, the Commission should identify which power plant sites around the state could be good candidates for being replaced with long-duration storage projects. Michigan’s coal-fired power plants are almost all retired, with Consumers Energy this year set to retire its final coal plant in Ottawa County. Long-duration storage could be fitting replacements for not only those plants, but also gas plants that will be reaching the end of their life cycles in coming years.
With its storage targets, Michigan has already become one of the national leaders in energy storage. Let’s further cement that reputation by taking steps now for smart planning for long-duration storage. All Michiganders stand to benefit from the potential for long-duration storage to enable an electric grid that is cleaner, lower-cost and more reliable.
This article is a paid promotion and the Energy News Network is not responsible for its contents.
Interest in heat pump water heater technology is rapidly growing, given its energy efficiency relative to gas-fueled equipment. For apartment building owners, especially those of large buildings, emerging heat pump technology now offers the possibility of using the stored hot water as a thermal battery, to better manage a building’s power use.
These systems, known as central heat pump water heaters, use largely the same technological approach as residential heat pump water heaters. If used to replace gas heaters in California multifamily buildings, a new study finds they could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1.7 million tons per year and produce $350 million in overall benefits annually from the increased efficiency of the systems, compared with gas water heaters.
The ability to use the stored hot water as a battery means that water can be heated in low-demand periods and later provided during high-consumption periods without adding demand to the grid during its highest-use period – a strategy known as load shifting.
“Load shifting is going to be really important, not just to benefit the grid, but also to ensure that these technologies provide the most cost control for the building owners,” said M M Valmiki, an energy efficiency engineer with the energy engineering consulting firm ASK Energy. “When we are electrifying buildings, especially those with really big loads like hot water for a whole building, it is important to minimize the costs of electrification, especially in comparison with natural gas.”
To better understand the benefits and challenges of using central heat pump water heaters in large multifamily buildings, researchers installed customized systems in two buildings with 120 and 135 single-room units, respectively, that house low-income senior residents in San Francisco. The results of this study can be found in the report “Commercial and Multifamily CO2 Heat Pump Water Heater Market Study and Field Demonstration.” The study was co-led by experts at ASK Energy and Ecotope, an engineering firm focused on low-carbon building solutions, with funding from California’s emerging technology initiative, CalNEXT.
This study used central heat pump water heaters that utilize carbon dioxide refrigerants, which have the lowest global warming potential compared to other more common refrigerants on the market. Another benefit of carbon dioxide is that, unlike most refrigerants, it is not synthetic, thus avoiding environmental concerns about the impact of possible leakage.
The installations were retrofits in already occupied buildings, and a primary goal of the study was to assess the challenges involved in installing these heat pumps in existing housing stock.
Like their residential counterparts, central heat pump water heaters use refrigerants to move heat from the surrounding air to heat the water tank. Central heat pump systems need larger hot water storage tanks than natural gas-fueled systems, so they require more room than gas-fired boilers. “Heat pumps are not really that much more complicated than boilers,” said Scott Spielman, a research engineer at Ecotope and leader of the study. “It’s just that you need a bigger thermal storage system and thermal storage has costs: there’s a cost to have more water, both in the expense of the physical materials, like a storage tank, as well as in the floorspace that the tanks take up.”
For the study, the researchers considered different tank and related piping configurations to determine how to optimize the heat pump systems. For example, water heating can be done in single-pass or multi-pass stages — and tank sizing is important since oversizing can lead to lower efficiency and higher cost. Plumbing between storage tanks in the system created a challenge, because the length of time water circulates in the system impacts its temperature. These considerations and others were used to determine how to optimize thermal storage in the heat pump system as a whole.
“There haven’t been a lot of studies that show how thermal storage really operates in different, vibrant configurations,” Spielman said, noting that standardization of the design of these systems in the future will help make their installation easier and less expensive.
The research project demonstrated how the hot water storage volume could function as a thermal battery. The large volume creates the opportunity to store energy and serve as a battery. Heating water during periods of low grid demand helps to lower energy use during peak times and enhances grid reliability, especially as utilities increasingly integrate intermittent solar and wind energy into their power mix. The finding has implications for California’s grid, where concerns about additional load are sometimes used as an argument against electrification.
“Central heat pump water heaters are a much-needed way to get creative in terms of grid demand management,” said Madison Johnson, a data analyst with Ecotope, who assessed the results of the study. “By centrally managing that demand, we are not only using less electricity overall than an electric resistance system would use, but we are also able to control what time of day we would like to use that energy.”
Researchers found that access to hot water was no issue for residents, following the installation of the central heat pump water heaters, which consistently provided the 25 gallons-per-day residential demand without any issues, even during periods of load shifting.
They also found that shifting load to a lower demand time did not necessarily reduce the cost of the power to run the systems.
This result is based on the design of the test plan, which aimed to shift as much energy (that is, kilowatt-hours) out of the on-peak periods as possible. It did so successfully.
However, two issues kept the project from generating cost savings, according to Valmiki. Firstly, there were some slight increases in energy consumption outside of the peak periods. Secondly, the team did not test the controls that could reduce peak demand during those on-peak periods.
“Even though we were successful in shifting kilowatt-hours out of on-peak periods, the kilowatt demand spikes during on-peak periods were not reduced,” Valmiki said.
In a follow-up study, the researchers plan to better manage how the system triggers demand charges.
“The demand charges, in particular, are something that we will try to limit in our follow-up study since they are a large portion of utility bills for buildings that have them in their tariff,” Valmiki said.
It is still early days for central heat pump water heaters in multifamily buildings, and this study aimed to document the technology’s readiness. Seeing how the technology performs in real time is an important step, both for optimizing system design and for assessing how best to maintain the grid while increasing electrification.
To learn more about this project, read the report on the CalNEXT website.
CalNEXT is a statewide initiative to identify, test, and grow electric technologies and delivery methods to support California’s decarbonized future. CalNEXT is funded by the ratepayers of California investor-owned utilities and provides a means for studying emerging technologies and energy-efficiency innovations that have the potential to save energy via utility programs and/or market support.
On Tuesday, Sept. 17, the Sauk County Board voted to spend $40,500 to buy a sheriff’s department vehicle to replace one totaled in a July incident. The resolution printed on the agenda included details of the incident, the car dealer and a fiscal note explaining that the money would come from insurance accounts.
This display of transparency happened one week to the day after the same county board approved contracts to sell the county-owned nursing home to a private entity. That agenda stated the board would meet in closed session to discuss the sale. It did not name the buyer or include the sale price. While the buyer was disclosed in the 45-minute public discussion following the closed session, the sale price was not. The $5.1 million price was revealed the following day in an attachment to a press release. There was no fiscal note on the agenda.
A note might have explained why the county accepted an offer $3.4 million less than the $8.5 million sought when it first marketed the nursing home, which has 48 residents. Nor did the county explain why the price was so much less than the $19 million value for which the county insures the nursing home. All these numbers are from records I obtained.
The December 2023 resolution that started the process included as a condition: “The potential buyer shall demonstrate a history of 5-star care ratings in the senior health care industry.” That was the county nursing home’s rating at the time.
Medicare’s star system for rating nursing homes is based on regular inspections and citation history. Five-star is much above average, 4-star is above average, 3-star is average, 2-star is below average and 1-star is much below average. The buyer, Aria, operates three nursing homes in the north Milwaukee suburbs that currentlyhave one- and two-star ratings.
Jeff Seering (Provided photo)
The five-star condition was interpreted by most as meaning that the county would seek a private buyer with a history of high-quality care similar to that provided by the county nursing home, which had a 5-star rating in December 2023. That was the county’s official public position concerning the sale, up until Sept. 10, when the board voted to approve the sale to Aria. In the Sept. 10 motion that passed, all of the conditions in the December resolution were superseded by the sale contract.
Between December and September, the board held two closed-session meetings. The only information that came out of those meetings was that the county had chosen to negotiate with a single interested buyer, whose name was kept secret, though it leaked out in late July. A petition drive collected 1,300 signatures opposing the nursing home sale that were presented to the county.
After numerous citizens expressed dismay about Aria’s care rating in public comment on Sept. 10, the board met in closed session with an Aria representative, which was said to be reassuring. After the board came back into open session, one board supporter of the sale turned to the audience and said, “I really wish you could have all been here for the meeting.”
Yes. The audience — made of citizens and taxpayers and people with loved ones in the home — would also have liked to hear the presentation. That this was not allowed was typical of the entire process, in which the public was given less information about the sale of the home for 48 Sauk County residents than it was about replacing a damaged squad car.
Why is the state’s tradition of open government important? Just ask the citizens of Sauk County, who have been treated as though it isn’t.
Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Jeff Seering, a retired journalist, is a Sauk County resident.
The following commentary was written by Todd Olinsky-Paul, senior project director at the Clean Energy Group in Montpelier, Vermont.See our commentary guidelines for more information.
During the past decade, Massachusetts became a national leader in energy storage policy and programs, adopting an ambitious energy storage procurement target and launching several groundbreaking programs designed to provide incentives and revenue opportunities for energy storage owners. Concurrently, Massachusetts has also adopted strong clean energy equity commitments: for example, the 2016 Affordable Access to Clean and Efficient Energy Initiative and the 2022 Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2025 and 2030, which states, “Thoughtful policies and careful program design are essential to ensure that all Massachusetts residents can fully access and participate in the transition to a low-carbon economy…. Differences in income-level, location, English proficiency, and previous marginalization must not hinder equitable access to and distribution of benefits of the transition.”
A new report by Clean Energy Group (CEG) asks the question: are Massachusetts’ energy storage programs, advanced as they are, living up to the Commonwealth’s clean energy equity commitments?
It is an opportune moment to ask such a question. At this writing, the Commonwealth’s three key energy storage-supporting programs – the SMART solar incentive, ConnectedSolutions, and the Clean Peak Standard – are entering a period of internal review, as recommended in the December 2023 report, Charging Forward: Energy Storage in a Net Zero Commonwealth. As part of this review, we felt it was important to review equity provisions and participation levels in these programs, and assess their effectiveness in providing energy storage access to the Commonwealth’s income-eligible and underserved communities – those that need its benefits the most.
To conduct this program review, CEG contracted the Applied Economics Clinic (AEC). AEC’s assessment reveals that two of the Commonwealth’s energy storage programs (ConnectedSolutions and the Clean Peak Standard) lack specific equity provisions and do not report on equity participation. The third program, SMART, despite revisions aimed at improving low-income participation, continues to see very low enrollment by income-eligible customers – a category that is narrowly defined in a way that excludes other types of underserved communities that might benefit from participation.
In short, this report finds that the current energy storage-incentivizing programs in Massachusetts, while they are innovative and successful in many ways, do not live up to the Commonwealth’s clean energy equity commitments.
Fortunately, there are comparable programs in other states that demonstrate how it is possible to do better; there are even pilot programs in Massachusetts that provide good examples, such as the Cape & Vineyard Electrification Offering from Cape Light Compact. These programs, which are summarized in the report, include model equity provisions that could be adapted and applied to the statewide programs in Massachusetts.
It is not too late to take action! Equity provisions that should have been in place from the outset can still be added in the current round of program revisions. Such equity provisions could include best practices modeled by other programs, such as equity incentive adders and low- or no-cost financing, to help overcome cost barriers; participation targets or carve-outs for low-income and underserved communities (the federal Justice40 standard provides one model); and public reporting requirements, so that progress can be tracked and measured.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has set a high bar for itself in committing to clean energy equity. It now needs to live up to that high bar. Not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because full decarbonization requires full participation. In 2022, approximately 10.4 percent of Massachusetts’ population lived below the poverty line, and 50 percent – 3.5 million people – lived in environmental justice communities. It is not possible for Massachusetts to reach its decarbonization and clean energy goals while leaving these communities behind.
In comparing Massachusetts’ energy storage programs with those of other states such as California, New York and Connecticut, one thing seems clear: little progress on equity will be made if the state does not require it. Utilities may be well-positioned to administer these programs, but legislators, policymakers and regulators are tasked with defining the goals, establishing the rules and overseeing progress through public reporting. The other states mentioned here have taken concrete steps in their energy storage programs to establish clear equity goals, overcome barriers to equitable participation, and measure outcomes. When necessary, course corrections have been made.
Massachusetts now has an opportunity to do the same.
Clean Energy Group’s new report, Energy Storage Equity: An Assessment of Three Massachusetts Programs, can be downloaded here. A free webinar on this report will be held on October 8; register here.
This article is a paid promotion and the Energy News Network is not responsible for its contents.
In the real estate, energy development, and infrastructure sectors, curative work is essential for ensuring clean, insurable title. Yet, for many underwriters and asset developers, managing curative projects remains a challenging and time-consuming process. Often, professionals rely on Excel spreadsheets and other manual tools to juggle the immense amount of documentation and communication involved, creating barriers to stakeholders having real-time access to relevant information. Inked Land Company’s proprietary platform, LandFlow®, offers a solution that is not only powerful and efficient but also simple and intuitive—designed specifically to meet the needs of users who are wary of complicated software.
“Many developers and underwriters still rely on Excel spreadsheets and mountains of emails to manage curative work, ” says Inked Land Company CEO Lance Fondren. “This works for small curative projects but creates a real barrier and unnecessary stress when managing complex projects or large development pipelines. Many developers fear that adopting a technology will cause more hassle than it’s worth, but LandFlow®was built with that concern in mind. It’s user-friendly, easy to learn, and intuitive for all stakeholders, including underwriters, developer or real estate managers, and title or curative agents.”
The Challenge of Curative Projects
At its core, curative work resolves title defects and satisfies title requirements that could prevent a development project from having marketable title and securing a title insurance policy. Defects or requirements often include, but are not limited to:
Resolving conflicting legal descriptions in deeds or contracts
Settling property boundary disputes
Obtaining affidavits when something is unclear or needs attested
Resolving unreleased or unresolved liens
Securing subordination, non-disturbance, and attornment agreements
Obtaining estoppel certificates
Securing releases of various instruments
Negotiating crossing agreements with owners of existing infrastructure, such as pipelines, roads, or power lines
Correcting errors in recorded documents
These tasks are often tedious and require seamless coordination between multiple parties. Handling them with traditional methods—scattered emails, disjointed data tracking—can slow down the project and introduce risks of missed deadlines or overlooked details.
The problem? Each defect or requirement has a different process, and collectively, these tasks require processing mountains of information from numerous stakeholders, including, but not limited to:
Underwriters
Developers
Curative agents
Landowners
Title attorneys
Private infrastructure operators
Lenders
Public agencies
Managing communication with all stakeholders, overseeing tasks to cure defects or satisfy all requirements, and maintaining access to real-time information is time-consuming and can create an operational bottleneck. Doing this manually, with spreadsheets and scattered emails, introduces inefficiencies that can delay projects and inflate costs.
“Curative work can be a real bottleneck for developers, particularly in the energy space, where projects are complex and time-sensitive,” says Fondren. “In my almost two decades working in the oil and gas and renewable sectors, I have never encountered a solution that truly addresses the complexities and inefficiencies related to curative projects. There’s a lot of land technology out there, but nothing like LandFlow® for this purpose.”
LandFlow®: A Simple, Intuitive Solution
This is where LandFlow® comes in, providing a streamlined, efficient solution without the complexity that many developers and underwriters fear when adopting new technology. One of LandFlow®’s core strengths is its ease of use. Despite its advanced capabilities as a management and execution tool for curative projects, the platform remains simple and intuitive, making it easy for underwriters, developers, and curative agents to navigate and adopt.
“The flexibility of LandFlow® allows it to adapt to the unique needs of any project—whether it’s a large-scale renewable energy development or a smaller real estate transaction. No project is too big or small, and the platform’s intuitive design makes it an asset from day one,” adds Fondren.
How LandFlow® Adds Value to Curative Work
Alignment of Stakeholders. Curative work requires real-time collaboration between many stakeholders.
Underwriters are all about precision. They want defects cured and requirements met. Some of the many questions they ask themselves include: What document have we secured? Has it been recorded? Are there any exceptions we’ve missed? And where’s all the critical information? How can they ensure nothing gets lost in communication when coordinating with all the stakeholders?
Developers want to see progress. They want to know: What’s the status of my curative project? What’s happening now, and what still needs to kick off? Where do we need to step in? Are they in the loop enough to keep up with underwriters and their management team?
Curative agents need tools to get the job done. They juggle many details, like: Who’s the contract for Requirement 59 on Policy 156786? What was the last conversation with Peoples National Bank about that SNDA for Property Number 5489675? Where’s the latest affidavit draft to satisfy the requirement on Tom Johnson’s estate? Can someone send me a report outlining all the remaining curative items for that mineral endorsement on the Boomerang Solar Project?
LandFlow® enables seamless communication between these parties to manage curative projects, reduce email fatigue, ensure alignment, and drive progress. Stakeholders always know the status of every curative item on a project, ensuring nothing is missed.
Centralized Data and Documentation. For underwriters, developers, and curative agents, the ability to centralize all curative project data is crucial. Instead of relying on spreadsheets, emails, or fragmented databases, LandFlow® consolidates all necessary information into accessible, organized records. This standardization reduces time spent searching for documents or reconciling different formats and ensures all parties can access up-to-date information quickly. Imagine if every curative project you look at is presented in the same format every time versus searching your inbox and various file storage systems for the most recent correspondence and attachments.
Real-Time Reporting and Analytics. One of the greatest advantages of LandFlow® is its ability to provide real-time updates and reporting on curative work. This feature allows developers and underwriters to quickly identify outstanding tasks, track progress, and produce comprehensive reports for stakeholders. With these insights, users can make informed decisions faster, accelerating the project timeline. Do you need a high-level overview of your project? Log in, download a report, and send it to your internal stakeholders. Do you want to dive into the status of a specific requirement? Log in, navigate to the requirement number, investigate relevant information, and engage. Finally, a tool exists to create efficiencies in your day-to-day activities!
Fondren underscores the value LandFlow® brings to title underwriters, noting, “In my discussions with the top five title companies and some of the largest renewable developers in the country, it’s clear that LandFlow® presents a unique opportunity to add significant value to their underwriting process. We are giving them a way to streamline curative work and issue title policies faster than ever before. What we’ve built isn’t just another land management tool—it’s groundbreaking, a next-generation solution for curative projects that has the potential to reshape the industry.”
A Better Way Forward for Developers and Underwriters
For underwriters and developers alike, the pressure to resolve curative issues quickly and efficiently is always present. Yet, relying on outdated systems like Excel can lead to delays and frustration. LandFlow® changes the game by offering a user-friendly, intuitive platform that improves efficiency without adding complexity.
“We’ve recently released LandFlow® as a SaaS beta to selected clients, and we are eager to enhance it based on their feedback,” highlights Fondren. “This initiative aims to reshape how curative projects are managed from start to finish, aligning with Inked’s vision to set the gold standard in land and title services.”
Inked Land Company’s LandFlow® is an industry-first solution designed to address the unique challenges of curative work in land and real estate management. By reducing inefficiencies and mitigating risks, the platform is helping underwriters, developers, and curative agents complete their projects faster and more confidently. For more information, contact Troy Dixon here and follow Inked on LinkedIn.
The following commentary was written by Mark Dyen, a member of the Statewide Legislative Team for 350 Mass, and Lee Ketelsen, a member of the Clean Heat Clean Air state team of Mothers Out Front Massachusetts.See our commentary guidelines for more information.
This year’s Massachusetts climate bill lies unconscious on the floor of the State House with a pipe next to it. Observers suspect foul play. The question is, who did it?
As with all good mysteries, the first thing you should consider is who had the means and the motivation. A key goal of the energy and climate bill was to accelerate the renewable energy and electric infrastructure upgrades needed to shift us to clean electricity. Thus, it seems unlikely that the solar industry or electric companies are guilty. They stand to lose too much from the bill’s possible death. Instead they are calling for help on their phones and sobbing.
According to press reports, the legislative fight is over the gas provisions in a climate bill passed by the Senate. During negotiations something happened behind closed doors that left the climate bill on life support. The gas companies are positioned near the victim, looking solemn, but they don’t seem to have any tears in their eyes. Why?
Massachusetts gas companies are in the midst of a 20-year program to replace thousands of miles of gas pipes across the state, digging trenches and blocking traffic. The total cost to us gas customers for this work is predicted to be more than $42 billion — double the cost of Boston’s megaproject, the Big Dig, when adjusted for inflation.
The Big Dig resulted in upgraded highways and new parks. But it is unlikely that those expensive new methane gas pipes will be “used and useful” through more than a few years of their total lifespan.
Already, heat pumps are outselling gas furnaces in New England and nationally. The direction of the future is so clear that even National Grid is aiming to upgrade 80% of all Massachusetts buildings to efficient, electric equipment within 25 years.
So these new plastic methane gas pipes that will get paid off by customers over the next 60 years clearly aren’t intended primarily for the benefit of the customers. Who then are they intended to benefit?
Gas companies don’t make profit from selling gas; that’s a pass-through cost. Their profit comes from capital expenditures such as replacing pipes, paid for by increased gas bills for families.
The Senate climate bill’s moderate response to this unwise spending is to gradually end the current financing system that pre-approves pipe replacement over other approaches. The gas companies would still be obligated to keep the pipes safe, but by having to pay the upfront cost of the work, the gas companies would be more careful about which pipes to replace and how much they paid for it. The Senate bill would also require the gas companies to prove each new pipe is more cost effective than other measures such as leak repair. Without these changes, gas bills will continue to rise for families, and so will gas company profits.
So the gas companies stand near the victim with $42 billion of motivation and with plenty of cover thanks to Massachusetts’s notorious track record as having one of the least transparent legislative processes in the country. However, are all of the gas companies equally motivated?
Of the six gas companies in the Commonwealth, the multinational National Grid is likely to receive almost 70% of the remaining pipe replacement funds — partly because so many miles of National Grid’s pipes are aging, and partly because National Grid spends almost twice as much per mile as the other companies. Given the tens of billions of dollars at risk, it’s clear which company is the most likely to have fingerprints on the pipe.
We call for legislative leaders to revive the climate bill negotiations in order to end this gas company boondoggle. The legislature should call a formal session this fall to pass a comprehensive climate bill to rein in the gas companies and to start to transition to clean heat. Families cannot continue to pay mounting gas bills and navigate blocked-off roads so that for-profit gas companies can continue to milk this cash cow for their shareholders.
Last March, the Wisconsin Examiner asked the Black River Falls Police Department to search for emails regarding the death of a missing Indigenous man. The department said it would process the request but the news outlet would have to pay $4,400. That’s the amount the city’s IT vendor, Tech Pros, quoted to perform the search.
It was a dramatic illustration of a growing problem. More and more government agencies are using outside vendors to store their electronic records and relying on those vendors to do the searching when somebody makes a request for emails, bodycam videos, or other records. Such outsourcing is touted as a cost-saving measure, but it can make obtaining records prohibitively expensive, as the Examiner found.
Government agencies typically pay vendors a set fee for storage, but there often is a separate charge for search and retrieval of archived files. Can a government authority in Wisconsin pass those vendor fees on to record requesters?
The Black River Falls Police Department thinks that it can. In response, the law firm I run, the Wisconsin Transparency Project, filed a lawsuit against the department on the Examiner’s behalf.
I don’t intend to dive into the weeds of the legal arguments of that case. Rather, the case highlights some of my serious concerns with the practice of hiring outside parties and then passing on those costs to records requesters.
Tom Kamenick is the president and founder of the Wisconsin Transparency Project.
Wisconsin’s open records law allows government custodians to charge only their “actual, necessary, and direct costs” to fulfill record requests. In other words, they are not allowed to profit from records requests. I would argue that this also means they cannot fob off their record-keeping responsibilities to somebody who does.
The law itself says this rule remains in place for records “produced or collected by a person who is not an authority pursuant to a contract entered into by that person with an authority.” That raises several issues.
First, the fees quoted by an outside vendor are not a “direct” cost. They’re a cost being imposed (and even calculated or arbitrarily decided) by the vendor, not the government.
Second, is it really “necessary” to use such an expensive vendor? Can a government agency intentionally develop an arrangement that shifts additional and outrageous costs onto record requesters?
Finally, is this an “actual” cost? It may be what the vendor is charging the government, but the vendor’s actual costs are likely far lower because the vendor is making a profit. The vendor is incentivized to charge an exorbitant amount, knowing its true customer (the government) won’t have to pay it.
Another problem with the use of outside vendors is compliance with record retention laws. Government agencies are required to keep their records for a certain amount of time before disposing of them. Different agencies and categories of records are subject to different retention periods, but most records need to be kept at least seven years.
I’ve twice recently run into situations where outside vendors weren’t following those laws. In the first instance, emails produced by a vendor were missing all their images. Those images had been replaced by a placeholder question mark. In the second instance, the vendor was completely unable to produce emails that had been sent by the government agency more than a year prior.
When vendors mess up like this, any liability falls on the government agency for failing to keep records properly. That’s a big risk to take. Government officials should make sure their vendors are aware of retention laws and ideally agree to indemnify the government for any liability caused by their mistakes.
The use of outside vendors to store government records raises a host of potential problems. The better practice would be to keep records “in house,” or at the very least use a service that permits the government unfettered access and searching without the need to pay the vendor additional money.
Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Tom Kamenick, a council member, is the president and founder of the Wisconsin Transparency Project.
This article is a paid promotion and the Energy News Network is not responsible for its contents.
Forward-looking contractors working with heat pump technology say their skills in installing them are rapidly paying off.
“The last quarter of 2023 was our highest grossing month, because of the 100 heat pump water heaters we installed,” said Chris Flores, the owner of Water Heater Warehouse in Fullerton, California. “With everything going electric, heat pump water heaters are becoming the new Teslas, they will be everywhere soon. The best thing we can do for the company’s growth is to work on all the heat pump water heaters we can get.”
Giving contractors the necessary tools is at the heart of an innovative state initiative, TECH Clean California. The State of California is targeting the installation of 6 million heat pump systems in homes across California, as part of a push towards clean energy and overall carbon emissions reductions.
Contractors drive an estimated 85 percent of the decision making on these products and having a contractor workforce that sees their benefits is essential. Recognizing their importance in customer decision-making, the program focuses on the need for skilled contractors, well versed in what heat pump technology offers. To do so, TECH Clean California has combined educational training and incentives to make sure they are well-prepared for the new technology.
TECH Clean California provides a broad range of courses focused on the technical side of HVAC equipment. It has partnered with the National Comfort Institute (NCI) to do so. NCI offers courses that provide contractors with the necessary knowledge, not only to properly install equipment, but to accurately be able to assess and select the right equipment for a particular home.
Because the technology is fundamentally different from a gas furnace, there are new considerations, explained Ben Lipscomb, who oversees contractor HVAC training programs at the National Comfort Institute.
“What a heat pump does is it moves heat from outside to inside, and it can also operate in reverse as an air conditioner and move heat from inside to outside,” Lipscomb said. “For that heat transfer to take place, those indoor and outdoor air flows have to be within a certain range, or things start not working right, and that can cause like issues with the equipment breaking down, or just the air being delivered, not being at the right temperature.”
For Tom Walsh, a contractor and owner of DaVinci Mechanical, TECH Clean California’s educational courses have made a dramatic difference in the quality of the job he can offer.
“I try to distinguish myself from the other contractors by taking these classes,” Walsh said. “They are fantastic, talking about how to do proper duct design and how to explain the heat pump benefits. I stand out by being educated and educating the customers so that they can go benefit from this new technology.”
Contractors typically also need to explain to customers why it is beneficial to move from gas heating, even if there is an initial upfront investment. For this reason, in conjunction with Electrify My Home, TECH Clean California gives courses on the contractor’s business model and whole-home electrification.
“We teach them how to understand electrification on a case-by-case basis for each home, and how to design the systems properly,” said Larry Waters, owner of Electrify My Home. “We teach them about all the new products that are available that are better choices to help reduce the overall need for energy.”
Educating contractors on the benefits of heat pump technology for their own businesses is a message that has resonated in the community.
“When you see it side by side and get a comparison with the gas technology, you realize – this technology actually makes great business sense, especially when you have these incredible rebate programs,” said Ben Shamoon, owner of LivSmart Home Services. “I’m not going to do our customers a disservice by selling them equipment that’s going to be less efficient and drive their energy prices up.”
Contractors say these courses are invaluable in getting better at installations and in learning how to communicate their benefits to their customers. In fact, more than 95 percent of contractors who participated in a survey by Opinion Dynamics said that they will use the learnings from these courses on a daily basis in their work.
“I took myself and my apprentice to the classes TECH Clean California offered, and it blew his mind how helpful the classes were,” Walsh said. “They are free classes through TECH Clean California. I have paid for these classes before, and they can be as much as $900 per class.”
Contractors who participated in a May 2024 survey of the program by Opinion Dynamics say that the education and technical support provided by the TECH Clean California team has made the transition to the new technology possible.
“I think the TECH team has done a great job at being accessible to contractors,” said one survey participant. “I’ve even heard from friends who work for really small plumbing companies that say anytime they have a question, they get it answered immediately.”
For Flores, the initial exposure he and his team got to heat pumps came through manufacturers in 2021, but the TECH Clean California courses gave them a lot more expertise that enabled them to feel confident in offering installations by 2023.
“A lot of plumbers are not confident or comfortable with the technology, but we are now partnering with a company who is consistently pushing the technology, and we feel comfortable doing the installations,” Flores said. “TECH Clean California has been there every step of the way, offering trainings, supporting us, and it has made a huge difference.”
TECH Clean California also offers a way for its participants to market their new skills. To become a TECH Clean California contractor, they first must register at switchison.org, provide documentation about their business and license, and complete the TECH Clean California training, including a range of installation-related courses. Additional technical and sales training from manufacturers is also available. TECH Clean California contractors are listed in the dedicated contractor search tool on the Switch Is On website. Successful completion of the coursework then enables the contractor to be identified as such via the Switch Is On, which includes a dedicated contractor search tool.
For contractors, being included on TECH Clean California recommended contractor lists also generate leads that are much more likely to result in an accepted bid, Walsh said.
“I close about three out of 10 customers who are not educated about the benefits of heat pump systems,” Walsh said. “For the kind of energy-educated customers that use these contractor lists, it is almost 90 percent closing rates.”
Contractors have also found that the incentive programs for adopting the technology have played a critical role in helping stimulate customer interest. These incentive programs are an important part of TECH Clean California’s broader implementation strategy, and it is planning to launch new heat pump HVAC and HPWH incentives later in 2024 with a new incentive structure. Contractors have also found the support provided by TECH Clean California has been invaluable in determining how best to process rebates. To let contractors weigh in on how the incentives system could be further improved, TECH Clean California offers an “office hours” program every week. In these sessions, contractors can meet with each other and with program managers to discuss how best to navigate new incentive requirements and optimize incentive application process to minimize waiting periods for rebates.
“We have established a dedicated time to bring up specific topics that may be pain points for contractors, and we talk about them via Zoom,” explained Lauren Gray, a program manager with Energy Solutions involved with overseeing contractor engagement issues.
As the rebate program has evolved, so too have the strategies for helping contractors adjust to any changes. Weekly office hours are part of the help that the program provides contractors, said Sam Khamseh, a senior program manager at Frontier Energy, which has partnered with TECH Clean California to administer contractor incentive programs. The TECH Clean California team has learned that providing direct support and discussing rebate issues with contractors has made a huge difference in their ability to navigate the program.
“I think that the forefront of the success of the program has come from the program representatives that we have been in touch with,” Shamoon said. “I’ve had some moments where we didn’t know if something was going to be able to be pushed through – a lot of things did change, from the 1.0 program to the 2.0 program, for example – and these guys held our hand throughout the process and are still doing so today.”
One of the challenges ahead for the program is how best to get the word out to the thousands of contractors who could benefit. Contractors like Flores and Walsh say that one of the best strategies is for contractors like themselves to spread the word.
“The heat pumps are more efficient, and the energy savings are nuts,” Walsh said, explaining that households that already have solar power could easily utilize this power with their heat pump system, removing much of their utility bills. At least 40 percent of Californians with solar panels do not use all their solar energy, meaning heat pump technology would give them the opportunity to save more by putting that solar generation to use.
“If you have solar plus capacity back up, you are just throwing money away if you are still mucking around with gas,” Walsh said.
And it is a great message to share with their colleagues: heat pump technology makes excellent business sense for contractors, right from the start, because of the training and the rebate incentives, and how it positions them for the future.
“If a contractor participates in TECH Clean California, they can be on the leading edge of this trend,” Lipscomb said. Indeed, more than two-thirds of contractors surveyed by Opinion Dynamics said that the training they received led to additional work opportunities, including promotions and raises.
“Long term, those leading companies are going to be the companies that people continue to look for first when they need a new heat pump or just need HVAC work done in general,” Lipscomb said. “It puts them at the forefront of this curve.”
Written by Emily Pickrell. For more information about this and other projects, please visit TECH Clean California’s Annual Report at techcleanca.com. The report highlights learnings and accomplishments through the initiative’s statewide focus and collaboration. The guiding principle of TECH Clean California puts the state on a pathway to six million heat pumps by 2030 and carbon-free homes by 2045.
The following commentary was written by Bill Hayes, a finance executive who focuses on electricity and environmental markets, and Joe Tedino, a Chicago-based writer focusing on the environment and sustainability.See our commentary guidelines for more information.
Last month, 13 senators — including the two representing our state of Illinois — sent a strongly worded letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen calling out rules around the proposed tax credits for the green hydrogen industry as “inconsistent with the intent and requirements” of the legislation they approved.
They noted that the tax credits can be vital for incentivizing the production and market-viability of renewable hydrogen power, but the current proposed guidance could undermine the intent of the Inflation Reduction Act and hinder the green hydrogen economy.
We applaud this Senate effort and are pleased to see Illinois Democrats Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth were onboard in calling for revising the Treasury’s overly stringent rules. Both have been strong advocates of the Midwest’s MachH2 clean hydrogen hub, and they recently secured $1 billion in federal funding for this project.
The green hydrogen production tax credit in the IRA — the largest investment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in U.S. history — has the potential to secure a significant role for clean, zero-carbon hydrogen energy in the U.S. by providing a tax credit of up to $3 for each kilogram of fuel produced.
Yet as the Treasury Department grapples with how to implement rules for awarding the tax credit to hydrogen producers, there are warning signs that overly restrictive regulations may stifle the growth of what had been projected to be a $515B global market by 2035, according to global consultant Research Nester.
We support the position led by Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) that asked for a host of changes to the rules in the interest of boosting a burgeoning energy supply that will achieve the intended carbon reduction in a less burdensome way.
At issue are the so-called “Three Pillars,” which are the standards adopted by the Treasury Department for determining whether hydrogen producers are entitled to receive the tax credit. The standards specify how, when, and where renewable electricity must be added to the grid to match the electrical load drawn to power the hydrogen electrolysis operations.
One of these pillars requires that hydrogen producers add renewable generation to the grid that matches their hydrogen load on an hourly basis, instead of an annual basis. The other two add specific location and facility requirements that further limit the flexibility for how and where hydrogen producers add renewable generation to the grid.
Here’s the problem: the standards are overly restrictive, leading to unnecessarily excessive costs for achieving the targeted carbon reduction impacts in the hydrogen sector, according to new research published in response to the Treasury guidelines.
With regard to the extra costs, energy data analytics firm Wood Mackenzie analyzed the impact of just one of the pillars — hourly matching — and found that this requirement alone would raise the total costs of green hydrogen by 68 to 175%, compared to annually matched generation.
Other researchers found that there is no additional carbon reduction benefit to this fine-tuned hourly matching. Comprehensive research by the consulting firm Energy and Environmental Economics, also known as E3, found that both annual and hourly matching have similar impact on CO2 emissions, across a wide range of scenarios and geographies. The Open Energy Outlook Initiative of Carnegie Mellon has come to the same conclusion. It’s not surprising, since both annual matching and hourly matching lead to identical increases in new renewable generation, and hydrogen producers have a clear incentive to generate their new renewable electricity in times and locations that maximize the amount of displaced fossil fuels.
In short, the hydrogen industry and the good jobs it will support will simply not grow as planned by the U.S. Energy Department if their costs double unnecessarily.
We hope the Treasury Department will look at this research and feedback closely, in order to achieve the targeted carbon reduction in the hydrogen sector at a competitive cost with environmental concerns in mind. Growth in the hydrogen sector is needed to clean up hard-to-abate sectors like steel and airlines, and it is also vital to address climate change.
There’s a global consensus that we need to urgently decarbonize to address the impacts of climate change. The Biden Administration’s goal to reduce GHG’s by 50% by 2030 and become net-zero by 2050 requires robust incentives to develop green energy industries as fast as possible. Without a viable hydrogen sector, we run the risk of being unable to fully decarbonize our economy.
Business leaders and individuals should call or write to the White House and to their representatives in Congress, urging them to revise the tax credit eligibility rules for hydrogen production to ensure the economic viability of this vital emerging industry.
The following commentary was written by Larry Glover, a Maryland-based energy marketing & communications SME. See our commentary guidelines for more information.
This heat wave is only the beginning. As climate disasters and extreme weather events become more frequent, ensuring reliable and affordable access to electricity for all communities has never been more urgent. Places that we typically think of as pleasant in the summer months are becoming heat domes, and many electricity providers remain overwhelmed when their peak energy demand threatens the stability of the entire electric grid.
Clean, distributed, energy resources such as solar and batteries are anchoring our country’s electric grid in the face of extreme summer heat. And while the federal government has a duty here, state policymakers and regulators hold an immense amount of power to pave the way for these clean energy technologies.
Let’s start with the good news. Several states are beginning to realize the need for clean energy – both out of protecting energy users from losing power during extreme weather and as an equitable path forward. I’m heartened to see that Maryland is the latest state to heed those calls to action by enacting key legislation that will tackle this challenge head-on, establishing an equitable path toward a sustainable energy future.
This year, Maryland passed a trio of bills — signed by Gov. Wes Moore — to expand access to solar, stimulate the solar industry and require utilities to leverage distributed energy resources that will ultimately benefit underserved communities, which suffer the most from high-energy burdens and pollution. The Brighter Tomorrow Act directs the Maryland Energy Administration to earmark tens of millions of dollars in the coming years to provide upfront grants for low and moderate-income households across the state to install solar. The Drive Act, encourages utilities to harness these home solar and battery systems into virtual power plants (VPPs), which are networks of connected solar and battery systems that function as a unified power source. Finally, the Empower Act ensures those who invest in home batteries are fairly compensated, allowing people to invest in these resources to take care of their neighbors.
There’s not a one-size-fits-all approach to state policy promoting distributed energy, and other states have taken alternative routes. In Illinois, the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act (CEJA), designed to cut emissions across the state, encouraged a rooftop solar boom since its 2021 passage. Texas is on California’s tail for solar and storage, bolstered by a VPP pilot program approved by ERCOT last year.
Unfortunately, for every state or region moving forward, others are moving back. Cuts to the net-metering program in California have caused the solar industry to contract to 2014 levels, and cost 17,000 jobs. Puerto Rico, a territory that is perhaps most in need of solar and storage as it faces frequent heat waves and hurricanes threatening the electric grid, also has net metering on the chopping block, with hurricane season barely underway. It’s truly mind-boggling.
Through the hottest summer many of us have experienced, every state is grappling with the escalating consequences of climate change. As the White House, rightfully, continues to prioritize environmental justice initiatives, our state governments also have a duty to incentivize and enable clean energy resources. Our grid and our lives depend on it.
The following commentary was written by Sophie Loeb, policy analyst at the Center for Progressive Reform, and Michelle Carter, director of clean energy campaigns at the North Carolina League of Conservation Voters. See our commentary guidelines for more information.
If your energy bills seem high this very hot summer, brace yourself. Without drastic measures to curb pollution, summers will be hotter and staying cooler will be more expensive. Unfortunately, the biggest strain on our future electricity bills isn’t our air conditioning, our electric cars, or even our businesses — it’s artificial intelligence (AI).
Data centers have been consuming power all over the country since the 1960s. As the Internet has rapidly been integrated into our lives, so too have data centers. Big data’s assault on North Carolina continues unabated, creating more demand on our energy system and raising our bills.
The new wave of artificial intelligence has the power to change the very nature of our society, in many ways for the worse. Data centers running AI require a constant and consistent power supply, something the utilities in the Southeast have struggled with for decades. These centers raise our bills while providing virtually no benefits to our communities. Data centers across the nation have been given tax incentives, lower electricity rates, and have created few jobs for the amount of resources they use.
As more energy intensive industries take root, we must protect our residents from both the increases in our power needs and our monthly power bills. Unfortunately, Duke Energy’s plans to meet the growing needs of industry expose us to further financial and health risks. Duke Energy claims that their plan, which proposes the biggest methane gas build out in the nation, is needed to meet growing demand, particularly for data centers.
Duke has also warned that ratepayers’ bills will rise if they don’t build these plants, but the opposite is true. Building out solar and utility-scale battery storage instead of gas would yield $8 to $12 billion in electricity savings by 2030 and $18 to $23 billion in savings by 2050. An Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) analysis shows that, for Duke Energy Carolinas customers, increases in fuel costs account for roughly 67 percent of rate increases since 2017. The research is clear: more dirty methane gas means higher energy bills, both now and in the future.
According to Goldman Sachs, data centers will require a $50 billion expansion in electricity generation infrastructure to meet the industry’s demand. This money to build big power plants will come directly from North Carolina consumers like you and me without proper protections from the state.
Why should residential customers, particularly those who struggle to pay their energy bills, pay for these costly plants? Who really benefits from the environmental, social, and economic burdens of artificial intelligence?
Unfortunately, protections from the pressures of data centers are nowhere to be found — for now. Duke Energy has undertaken deals with Microsoft, Google, and other major power consumers to expand renewable generation and protect our grid. Through these agreements, large customers can transition to clean energy while lessening the burden of their power demands on the rest of Duke’s consumer base.
Data centers must be subject to these same agreements — and more — to keep North Carolina ratepayers safe from massive price increases. Consumers deserve transparency and accountability with any new data center project in our state.
In lieu of data centers, North Carolina should invest in good, clean energy manufacturing jobs that promote economic development, resilience, and environmental sustainability. Already, the Inflation Reduction Act is slated to create almost 40,000 jobs by 2030. Tech companies could support these efforts with electric vehicle manufacturing plants, solar panel and battery storage manufacturing facilities, and further build the Southeast as a hub of clean energy manufacturing.
To better center people over tech companies and promote an affordable energy transition:
Utility commissions should require utilities to highlight explicit data on load growth from data centers so additional capacity is not passed on to residential customers.
Regulators should prohibit data centers from receiving subsidized industrial use rates.
The General Assembly should pass legislation enhancing stronger consumer protection laws for electricity ratepayers.
The state should form an Office of the People’s Counsel to protect customers from absorbing rate increases from industrial customers like tech companies.
As temperatures get hotter, there is no doubt our energy bills will go up. However, we must do everything we can to prevent massive projects from raising our bills even more. Investing in energy-draining artificial intelligence data centers not only increases electric rates for everyone, it takes away valuable jobs for rural communities. It’s time to invest in people over profits in North Carolina!
Login
