A marker for a segment of Enbridge Line 6 in northern Wisconsin. A leak in the line in Jefferson County is now under investigation by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. (Photo | Frank Zufall)
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is investigating a major leak from a pipeline managed by the Canadian oil giant Enbridge. Last weekend environmental groups sounded the alarm after learning that Enbridge’s Line 6 pipeline had spilled the equivalent of 1,650 barrels — more than 69,000 gallons — of crude oil in the town of Oakland in Jefferson County.
The DNR issued a statement saying that a report of a two-gallon spill was sent to the state agency on Nov. 11. Notifications were sent by Enbridge to the DNR, the National Response Center (NRC), and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). The DNR then visited the site on Nov. 11 and 12, with additional follow-up on Dec. 6, according to the agency. On Nov. 14, the spill quantity was updated to 126 gallons (or 2-3 barrels). On Dec. 13, Enbridge again revised the spill estimation to 1,650 barrels (or 69,300 gallons) of crude oil.
“Under Wisconsin law, entities that cause environmental contamination are responsible for reporting and remediating the contamination,” the DNR states. “Enbridge is providing weekly updates to the DNR regarding the investigation and cleanup process. As investigation and cleanup is an iterative process, the DNR continues to evaluate appropriate next steps, including any potential enforcement actions such as a corrective action order.”
Using the GPS coordinates from the accident report and Google Maps, Wisconsin Examiner found that the spill occurred near a roadway running through a grassy, wooded area. The spill occurred near a waterway that flows into Lake Ripley, close to a grouping of nature preserves and campgrounds. The accident report noted that the pipeline’s leak detection systems did not notify anyone of the leak.
The Line 6 leak occurred during the same week that environmental and tribal groups filed new legal challenges against Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 pipeline reroute. Opponents of Line 5 are concerned that the pipeline, which currently runs through the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa’s reservation, will still present environmental hazards even if it is rerouted around tribal lands. The Bad River Band argues that the pipeline poses a risk to the health of the Bad River, which the tribe relies on for food, medicine, and important cultural practices. Environmental groups echo those concerns, and feel state and federal agencies have failed to adequately evaluate the environmental risks posed by Enbridge Line 5.
A spending bill to be debated in Congress this week includes a provision to allow sales of a gasoline blend that includes up to 15% ethanol nationwide throughout the year. (Getty Images stock photo)
A spending bill U.S. House appropriators released Tuesday evening to keep the government open into next spring includes a provision to allow sales of a gasoline blend that includes up to 15% ethanol nationwide throughout the year.
After years of prohibiting the blend, known as E15, from being sold at gas stations during the summer months, the Environmental Protection Agency this year allowed year-round sales in eight Midwestern states. The provision in the stopgap funding bill would allow E15 sales in all states throughout the year.
The provision is a major win for corn producers and their allies in Congress from both parties. Supporters of ethanol, which is derived from corn, say it boosts U.S. production and lowers gas prices.
Sen. Deb Fischer, a Nebraska Republican who sponsored a bill to make the blend available all year, said the move was part of the GOP agenda to “unleash American energy.”
“My bill puts an end to years of patchwork regulations and uncertainty — year-round, nationwide E15 will now be a reality,” Fischer said. “This legislation also delivers on the mandate we received in November to unleash American energy. Not only will my bill lower gas prices and give consumers more choices, but it will also create new opportunity for American producers, who are especially hurting right now from lower prices.”
House Energy and Commerce ranking Democrat Frank Pallone of New Jersey applauded inclusion of the measure, saying it would help reduce gas prices and bolster U.S. energy production.
“By allowing for a higher blend of ethanol in our gasoline, Americans can rely more on homegrown biofuels that save drivers money at the pump and help insulate Americans from dramatic global price fluctuations,” Pallone said in a statement.
U.S. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., one of a handful of farm-state House Republicans pushing for the E15 provision, said in a statement, “Year around E-15 is the most important policy we can embrace for Midwestern farmers and ranchers. I was glad to advocate for this on the Agriculture Committee and to our Speaker, and glad to see it embraced. I also know our entire Nebraska delegation was pulling for this. It is a team win.”
At a U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing last year, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, and Sen. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska promoted E15 availability as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions and lower prices.
The EPA issued a waiver in May 2022 to allow the blend to be available nationwide throughout the year, as President Joe Biden’s administration sought to tame gas prices.
The stopgap measure, known as a continuing resolution, would keep the government funded at current levels through mid-March. It includes a few additional provisions, including funding to rebuild the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Maryland.
The House and Senate are expected to pass the catch-all measure before members depart for their holiday break on Friday. Biden is expected to sign the bill.
Nebraska Examiner reporter Aaron Sanderford and D.C. Bureau senior reporter Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.
A sign protesting Enbridge Line 5 in Michigan. (Laina G. Stebbins | Michigan Advance)
“The land does not belong to us, it is borrowed by us from our children’s children” said Robert Blanchard, chairman of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. “We harvest our wild rice from the waters, we hunt from the land, fish from the lake, streams, and rivers to feed our families and gather the medicines to heal our relatives.”
The Bad River Band cites this relationship with the land in its fight against the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline, which has operated in trespass on the Bad River Band’s reservation for years. Now, the Band and its allies are challenging the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) decision to grant permits that the Canadian oil company Enbridge will need to construct a re-route of the pipeline. The new route no longer trespasses on the reservation, it will still run through the Bad River watershed. The tribe and a coalition of state environmental groups say a spill in that area could be devastating.
Last Thursday, Midwest Environmental Advocates, 350 Wisconsin, the Sierra Club of Wisconsin and the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin filed a petition for a contested case hearing with the DNR, challenging DNR permitting for Line 5. Shortly after filing the challenge, Midwest Environmental Advocates received a report of a 69,000-gallon oil spill in Jefferson County.
According to an accident report shared with Wisconsin Examiner, the spill originated from Enbridge’s Line 6 pipeline. Some 1,650 barrels of crude oil are estimated to have leaked from the pipeline, with 42 gallons to a barrel. When plugged into Google Maps, GPS data in the accident report point to a roadway running through a grassy, wooded area. The map shows that the spill occurred near a waterway that flows into Lake Ripley, not far from a group of nature preserves and campgrounds. Although the pipeline segment had a leak detection system, the accident report states that this didn’t alert anyone to the leak, which was first noticed on Nov. 11 by an Enbridge technician.
Line 6 is one of four pipeliness that run from Superior, Wisconsin, to Illinois. It carries crude oil from Superior to Lockport, Illinois.
Anti-Line 5 graffiti at Enbridge’s pumping station in Mackinaw City, Mich., May 12, 2021. (Laina G. Stebbins | Michigan Advance)
Tony Wilkin Gibart, executive director of Midwest Environmental Advocates, said in a statement that the Line 6 spill highlights the dangers of Line 5. “Consider that in the very same week that DNR issued permits for Line 5 based on its conclusion that the risk for a spill would be ‘low,’ DNR was investigating a significant oil leak on another Enbridge pipeline in Wisconsin,” said Gibart. “DNR’s reasoning for approving Line 5 defies common sense.”
In November, the DNR decided to issue wetland and waterway permits to Enbridge as a step towards moving the pipeline off the Bad River reservation. The DNR highlighted that the wetland permits would include over 200 conditions which Enbridge would need to honor, and which would keep the company in compliance with Wisconsin’s wetland and waterway standards. Both the DNR and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would need to approve the permits before construction of the reroute could begin.
“Many of our people will feel the effects if we lose these resources,” said Blanchard. “In my view, the DNR failed our children when it gave Enbridge the permits to build this reroute. They failed to consider the company’s multiple disasters in Minnesota and in Michigan, which are still being cleaned up. They failed to consider our tribe, our water quality, and the natural resources of the entire Bad River watershed. As a tribal chairman and an elder, it’s my responsibility to protect the generations still to come. That’s why we are fighting this reroute in court.”
The Band is represented by EarthJustice in a lawsuit filed against the DNR which, like the petition filed last week by the environmental groups, accuses the state agency of producing an inadequate final Environmental Impact Statement on the reroute which violates the Wisconsin Environmental Protection Act.
Blanchard highlighted his tribe’s reliance on wild rice fields growing along the Bad River and Lake Superior, as well as natural medicines, wild game, and the land itself which are crucial to the Bad River Band’s cultural practices and way of life. Every year the tribe holds an annual wild rice harvest, and Bad River Band members hunt and gather from the land all year.
“If something was to happen during that time, or when that pipeline is in place, you know, it’s really going to affect a lot of things that we do here, and the way that we do things here on the reservation as far as our way of life,” Blanchard warned.
Currently the Line 5 pipeline crosses the Bad River inside the boundaries of the reservation. If the reroute goes through, Enbridge would construct 41 miles of new pipeline to cross the river outside of reservation land. The reroute would still place the natural resources the tribe relies on in danger if an oil spill or leak were to occur.
Enbridge, Sti. Ignace | Susan J. Demas
Stefanie Tsosie, senior staff attorney at Earthjustice, also warned that constructing new pipeline damages natural formations and resources which are often irreplaceable. “Once construction starts they can’t undo the damage,” Tsosie said in a statement. “Enbridge has a terrible track record for pipeline construction and operation. And this place — this watershed and this territory — is not another place they can just plow through.”
Today, an area known as the “meander” is also creating concern for the Bad River Band. “The river is changing course, and it does that throughout the way it runs,” said Blanchard. At the meander where the pipeline crosses, he added, “If we have high water events, flooding, harsh winter with a lot of ice build up, and all that breaks loose in the spring, then we get this high water that very well could take that pipeline out, and cause a spill.”
A billboard promoting Enbridge Inc. (Susan Demas | Michigan Advance)
The tribe is monitoring the situation regularly, but this does little to ease their anxieties. The meander is “quite difficult to get to,” said Blanchard, and it’s also just one area of concern along the pipeline’s route. “A few years back, we had an exposed pipeline coming down one of the sidehills up there,” said Blanchard. “There was quite a ways where the pipeline was exposed and just kind of hanging in mid-air, which could have been disastrous if it wasn’t found and something done about it.”
If Line 5 were rerouted, it would still go through other wetlands and habitats outside the reservation. “These are some of the most treasured areas in Wisconsin,” said Brett Korte, an attorney with Clean Wisconsin. “When we think of the beauty of our state, our precious freshwater resources, the places we must protect, these areas are at the top of the list.”
In a statement, Korte added, “This push from Canadian oil giant Enbridge is getting national attention because what it’s proposing to do here in Wisconsin is dangerous.”
This report was updated with additional information about Line 6.
Amid a surge in utility shutoffs, and in the face of a groundbreaking study finding racial disparities in those outcomes, Minnesota’s largest utility is taking a closer look at the issue.
In a November agreement with consumer groups and the state’s Public Utilities Commission, Xcel Energy has outlined a series of steps to provide more information to customers and make it easier for them to restore service.
Xcel also agreed to hire an outside consultant to conduct a one-year study of disparity issues related to disconnections and outages and, separately, do its own analysis of outages. The move came in response to a University of Minnesota study released earlier this year that found that people of color were more likely than White households to have their service disconnected for falling behind on bills, even when controlling for income and home ownership status.
The agreement falls short of a demand from the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office for Xcel to institute a temporary moratorium on shutoffs until racial disparities are addressed, based on a recommendation from Fresh Energy and a coalition formed by Cooperative Energy Futures, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Sierra Club, and Vote Solar.
Erica McConnell, staff attorney for the Environmental Law & Policy Center, represented the clean energy organizations advocating for grid equity. She supported the agreement but believes it will do little to help reduce disparities in shutoffs.
“These are very important improvements that don’t really address — and the commission didn’t discuss — the disparate impacts and the racial disparity (of disconnections) and how to address that specifically,” she said.
A temporary moratorium on disconnections would have allowed for time to study disparities and find ways to address them.
“The commission didn’t talk about that,” McConnell said. “They didn’t address it at all, so that was disappointing. I understand it’s uncomfortable and it’s a tough issue, but it’s disappointing they shied away taking it head on.”
Shutoffs soaring
Beyond the challenge of disparities, Xcel’s number of service disconnections has skyrocketed. More than 45,000 Xcel customers saw their power shut off this year, a number that has grown significantly over the last two decades.
Xcel agreed to many proposals from the Citizens Utility Board of Minnesota, the Energy CENTS Coalition, clean energy organizations and the Public Utilities Commission to create more consumer protection against shutoffs.
Xcel Energy’s involuntary disconnection notices began rising significantly in 2023 before skyrocketing in 2024, when shutoffs doubled the prior year’s total for May through July. Despite Minnesota’s cold weather protection rules that limit disconnections during the winter through April 30, shutoffs even grew during the winter months.
This chart, based on Xcel Energy data and submitted by consumer and clean energy groups to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, shows a sharp increase in utility shutoffs in 2023 and 2024, which the groups attribute to the utility’s new ability to use smart meters to disconnect customers remotely. Credit: Minnesota PUC Docket E002/M-24-27
Clean energy and consumer organizations point to Xcel’s ability to remotely disconnect customers who have smart meters as a major reason for the shutoffs, along with inflation, escalating rate increases and challenging repayment requirements. Xcel had demanded customers pay 50% of what they owe to reconnect, which may have violated Minnesota law, according to the Citizens Utility Board.
Xcel’s pact with the Citizens Utility Board and Energy CENTS “is going to make payment agreements more affordable and hopefully help households that are behind on their bills avoid getting shut off and get caught back up,” said Annie Levenson-Falk, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board of Minnesota.
The utility board and Energy CENTS Coalition forged the agreement with Xcel under the purview of the Public Utilities Commission, which will issue a final order later. The agreement requires the following:
Customers will pay 10% of what they owe to have the power turned back on, instead of 50%.
The amount due will have to be at least $180 before Xcel can send a disconnect notice.
Xcel cannot shut off power until a customer reaches a $300 past due balance. Xcel’s data from this year showed disconnected customers were $441 in arrears on average in October and much higher in other months.
The utility must wait at least 10 days after a shutoff notice has been sent to disconnect, up from five days.
Xcel must post clear disconnection and payment policies on its website, along with information about customers’ right to develop an affordable repayment plan. Any changes Xcel makes to shutoff policies and repayments have to be reported to the commission, and it must collect data on repayments and customer agreements.
A variance allowing remote disconnections without field visits from Xcel remains, but the utility must contact customers via voicemail and use at least one other form of electronic communication.
Xcel spokesperson Kevin Coss said the utility believes “this agreement is a great step toward reducing disconnections for some of our customers who continue to struggle economically.”
Options for customers
George Shardlow, Energy CENTS executive director, said he thought a clearer explanation of the disconnection process on Xcel’s website brings a transparency that had been lacking.
“I don’t think the average person even knows that they have a right to negotiate when they’re struggling to pay their bills,” he said. “It’s all sort of opaque. We’re excited to see better documentation of people’s rights on Xcel’s website.”
Minnesota law says utility customers are “entitled” to a payment plan they can afford, Shardlow said. Customers who cannot afford the 10% down payment can still negotiate for a settlement that fits their budget, he added.
Shutoffs have been growing. This year Xcel sent disconnection notices to 51,000 customers in January and 71,000 in July. But not all notices result in shutoffs. The highest month for disconnections, May, saw more than 10,000 shutoffs. By August, slightly more than 8,400 customers had been disconnected.
Coss said Xcel works with customers to avoid disconnection by starting a nine-week process of contacting them through multiple channels to “point them to available options for energy assistance — both through the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and our own affordability programs — and offer flexible payment plans tailored to their circumstances.”
Minnesota also has cold weather protections that greatly reduce utilities’ ability to disconnect customers in winter months. But people who fail to pay their bills in winter see their balances grow, leading to higher disconnections in summer when they fail to catch up.
Xcel agreed to monitor progress and collect more data on racial disparities involving customers involuntarily shut off. The utility has already hired a third party evaluator, as the agreement requires, to study its shutoff policies and hold stakeholder engagement meetings during the year-long process.
Coss said disparities result in inequities throughout society and Xcel has been doing its part to address them. The utility has worked with the study’s authors and advocacy groups to identify actions to reduce disparities, he said.
Earlier this year, the commission also approved a proposal by Xcel for a pilot program that will provide bill credits to select census tracts with high levels of disconnections. Coss said Xcel will provide $500 bill credits to customers in low-income census areas who have a greater than $2,000 past-due balance, using money available from a quality of service program.
Minnesota Public Utilities Commissioner Joe Sullivan said he believed the agreement negotiated among the nonprofits and utility would reduce the financial strain on households facing disconnections and assist Xcel in recovering debt.
“I thought that in that docket people came together and were constructive,” he said. “I feel like I’m hopeful that the order will make some progress.”
PUC Chair Katie Sieben said the commission is “always looking at affordability, and especially as it pertains to low-income customers, I think we have a great track record on working with stakeholders and with utilities to provide robust low-income assistance to customers.”
She mentioned the commission’s role in approving an Xcel pilot to decrease payments for low-income, low-usage customers and a September decision that used a penalty for the utility’s service quality underperformance to provide bill credits to around 1,000 customers with the oldest outstanding balances in low-income census tracts.
‘Still more work to do’
The agreement does not solve the problem of low-income customers struggling to pay utility bills. Shardlow said Energy CENTS and the Citizens Utility Board lobbied the state legislature to allow households to apply for energy assistance funding the entire year instead of the current policy of having a deadline of May 31. Only 20% of eligible Minnesota households participate in the program, he said.
Levenson-Falk wants Xcel to consider eliminating the 1.5% late fee it charges customers on their balance, or consider donating the money to affordability programs.
The Citizens Utility Board also wants Xcel to develop a plan to reconnect customers quickly on days of high heat or poor air quality. Coss said Xcel will evaluate reconnecting customers disconnected during days of air quality alerts.
Levenson-Falk said the agreement at least makes progress. “I think we resolved everything that we had discussed with Xcel but that’s not to say that we think this is going to solve the problem, because, of course, there are still going to be continuing shutoffs, and those are still very concerning,” she said. “There’s still more work to do.”
This story was updated to include a statement from Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Chair Katie Sieben.
Fresh Energy staff, board members and funders do not have access to or oversight of the Energy News Network’s editorial process. More about our relationship with Fresh Energy can be found in our code of ethics.
A new contract between Kalamazoo, Michigan, and utility Consumers Energy signals a change in direction for the city’s clean energy strategy as it seeks to become carbon neutral by 2040.
Solar was seen as a pillar of the city’s plans when it declared a climate emergency in 2019 and set a goal of zeroing out carbon emissions by 2040. After spending years exploring its options, though, the Michigan city is tempering a vision for rooftop solar in favor of large, more distant solar projects built and owned by the utility. It’s not alone either, with Grand Rapids, Milwaukee, Muskegon and other cities taking a similar approach.
“Folks want to see solar panels on parking lots and buildings, but there’s no way as a city we can accomplish our net-zero buildings just putting solar panels on a roof,” said Justin Gish, Kalamazoo’s sustainability planner. “Working with the utility seemed to make the most sense.”
Initially there was skepticism, Gish said — “environmentalists tend to not trust utilities and large corporate entities” — but the math just didn’t work out for going it alone with rooftop solar.
The city’s largest power user, the wastewater treatment pumping station, has a roof of only 225 square feet. Kalamazoo’s largest city-owned roof, at the public service station, is 26,000 square feet. Spending an estimated $750,000 to cover that with solar would only provide 14% of the power the city uses annually — a financial “non-starter,” he said.
So the city decided to partner with Consumers Energy, joining a solar subscription program wherein Kalamazoo will tell Consumers how much solar energy it wants, starting in 2028, and the utility will use funds from its subscription fee to construct new solar farms, like a 250-megawatt project Consumers is building in Muskegon.
Under the 20-year contract, Kalamazoo will pay a set rate of 15.8 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) — 6.4 cents more than what it currently pays — for 43 million kWh of solar power per year. If electricity market rates rise, the city will save money, and Kalamazoo receives Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) to help meet its energy goals.
The subscription is expected to eliminate about 80% of Kalamazoo’s emissions from electricity, Gish said. The electricity used to power streetlights and traffic signals couldn’t be covered since it is not metered. As the city acquires more electric vehicles — it currently has two — electricity demand may increase, but city leaders hope to offset any increases by improving energy efficiency of city buildings.
Consumers Energy spokesperson Matt Johnson said the company relies “in part” on funds from customers specifically to build solar and considers it a better deal for cities than building it themselves, “which would be more costly for them, and they have to do their own maintenance.”
“We can do it in a more cost-effective way, we maintain it, they’re helping us fund it and do it in the right way, and those benefits get passed on to arguably everybody,” Johnson said.
Grand Rapids, Michigan, joined the subscription program at the same time as Kalamazoo. Corporate customers including 7-Eleven, Walmart and General Motors are part of the same Consumers Energy solar subscription program, as is the state of Michigan.
Costs and benefits
“There’s a growing movement of cities trying to figure out solar — ‘Yes we want to do this, it could save us money over time, but the cost is prohibitive,’” said John Farrell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.
Until the Inflation Reduction Act, cities couldn’t directly access federal tax credits. The direct-pay incentives under the IRA have simplified financing, Farrell said, but cities still face other financial and logistical barriers, such as whether they have sufficient rooftop space.
Advocates acknowledge deals with utilities may be the most practical way for budget-strapped cities to move the needle on clean energy, but they emphasize that cities should also strive to develop their own solar and question whether utilities should charge more for clean power that is increasingly a cheaper option than fossil fuels.
“Our position is rooftop and distributed generation is best — it’s best for the customers, in this case the cities; it’s best for the grid because you’re putting those resources directly on the grid where it’s needed most; and it’s best for the planet because it can deploy a lot faster,” said John Delurey, Midwest deputy director of the advocacy group Vote Solar. “I believe customers in general and perhaps cities in particular should exhaust all resources and opportunities for distributed generation before they start to explore utility-scale resources. It’s the lowest hanging fruit and very likely to provide the most bang for their buck.”
Utility-scale solar is more cost-effective per kilowatt, but Delurey notes that when a public building is large enough for solar, “you are putting that generation directly on load, you’re consuming onsite. Anything that is concurrent consumption or paired with a battery, you are getting the full retail value of that energy. That is a feature you can’t really beat no matter how good the contract is with some utility-scale projects that are farther away.”
Delurey also noted that Michigan law mandates all energy be from clean sources by 2040; and 50% by 2030. That means Consumers needs to be building or buying renewable power, whether or not customers pay extra for it.
“So there are diminishing returns (to a subscription deal) at that point,” Delurey said. “You better be getting a price benefit because the power on their grid would be clean anyways.”
“Some folks are asking ‘Why do anything now? Just wait until Consumers cleans up the grid,’” Gish acknowledged. “But our purchase shows we have skin in the game.”
A complement to rooftop
In 2009, Milwaukee adopted a goal of powering 25% of city operations — excluding waterworks — with solar by 2025. The city’s Climate and Equity Plan adopted in 2023 also enshrined that goal.
For a decade, Milwaukee has been battling We Energies over the city’s plan to install rooftop solar on City Hall and other buildings through a third-party owner, Eagle Point Solar. The city sought the arrangement — common in many states — to tap federal tax incentives that a nonprofit public entity couldn’t reap. But We Energies argued that third party ownership would mean Eagle Point would be acting as a utility and infringing on We Energies’ territory. A lawsuit over Milwaukee’s plans with Eagle Point is still pending.
In 2018 in Milwaukee, We Energies launched a pilot solar program known by critics as “rent a roof,” in which the utility leased rooftop space for its own solar arrays. Advocates and Milwaukee officials opposed the program, arguing that it encouraged the utility to suppress the private market or publicly owned solar. In 2023, the state Public Service Commission denied the utility’s request to expand the program.
Wisconsin’s Citizens Utility Board opposed the rent-a-roof arrangement since it passed costs it viewed as unfair on to ratepayers. But Wisconsin CUB Executive Director Tom Content said the city’s current partnership with We Energies is different since it is just the city, not ratepayers, footing the cost for solar that helps the city meet its goals.
Solar panels atop Milwaukee’s Central Library. (City of Milwaukee)
Milwaukee is paying about $84,000 extra per year for We Energies to build solar farms on a city landfill near the airport and outside the city limits in the town of Caledonia. The deal includes a requirement that We Energies hire underemployed or unemployed Milwaukee residents.
The Caledonia project is nearly complete and will provide over 11 million kWh of energy annually, “enough to make 57 municipal police stations, fire stations and health clinics 100% renewable electricity,” said Milwaukee Environmental Collaboration Office director Erick Shambarger.
The landfill project is slated to break ground in 2025. The two arrays will total 11 MW and provide enough power for 83 city buildings, including City Hall – where Milwaukee had hoped to do the rooftop array with Eagle Point.
Meanwhile, Milwaukee is building its own rooftop solar on the Martin Luther King Jr. library and later other public buildings, and Shambarger said the city will apply for direct pay tax credits made possible by the Inflation Reduction Act — basically eliminating the need for a third-party agreement.
“Utility-scale is the complement to rooftop,” said Shambarger. “They own it and maintain it, we get the RECs. It worked out pretty well. If you think about it from a big picture standpoint, to now have the utility offer a big customer like the city an option to source their power from renewable energy — that didn’t exist five years ago. If you were a big customer in Wisconsin five years ago, you really had no option except for buying RECs from who knows where. We worked hard with them to make sure we could see our renewable energy being built.”
We Energies already owns a smaller 2.25 MW solar farm on the same landfill, under a similar arrangement. Building solar on the landfill is less efficient than other types of land since special mounting is needed to avoid puncturing the landfill’s clay cap, and the panels can’t turn to follow the sun. But Shambarger said the sacrifice is worth it to have solar within the city limits, on land useful for little else.
“We do think it’s important to have some of this where people can see it and understand it,” he said. “We also have the workforce requirements, it’s nice to have it close to home for our local workers.”
Madison is also pursuing a mix of city-owned distributed solar and utility-scale partnerships.
On Earth Day 2024, Madison announced it has installed 2 MW of solar on 38 city rooftops. But a utility-scale solar partnership with utility MGE is also crucial to the goal of 100% clean energy for city operations by 2030. Through MGE’s Renewable Energy Rider program, Madison helped pay for the 8 MW Hermsdorf Solar Fields on a city landfill, with 5 MW devoted to city operations and 3 MW devoted to the school district. The 53-acre project went online in 2022.
Farrell said such “all of the above” approaches are ideal.
“The lesson we’ve seen generally is the more any entity can directly own the solar project, the more financial benefit you’ll get,” he said. “Ownership comes with privileges, and with risks.
“Energy is in addition to a lot of other challenging issues that cities have to work on. The gold standard is solar on a couple public buildings with battery storage, so these are resiliency places if the grid goes down.”
A coalition of groups are challenging permits issued by state regulators to Canadian energy firm Enbridge for the company’s plan to reroute an oil and gas pipeline around the Bad River tribe’s reservation.
We Energies hopes to build a new natural gas-fired power plant in Kenosha County, the utility arguing the project is critical to meeting increasing demand from industry in southeast Wisconsin.
By Joel Jaeger, Katrina McLaughlin, Lori Bird and Karl Hausker Building a clean, reliable, cost-effective power grid will require many different types of energy. The bulk will come from solar and wind; but since these aren’t available 24/7, 365 days a year, they must be paired with a smaller amount of clean, “firm” power that’s always available when needed. …
Massive data centers used for cloud computing and artificial intelligence are consuming enormous amounts of energy, and developers are eyeing South Dakota as a potential location, regulators say.
These “hyperscale data centers,” or “hyperscalers,” are designed to handle immense computing demands and are often operated by tech giants. The centers are characterized by their large size — often tens of thousands of square feet — and thousands of computer servers that require significant energy to operate.
Nick Phillips with Applied Digital in Texas, a developer of the centers, highlighted South Dakota’s appeal: a cold climate that cuts down on cooling a room full of hot servers, and abundant wind energy that’s considered one of the most cost-effective renewable energy sources, which can help keep operating costs down.
State regulators are not aware of any hyperscale data centers currently operating in South Dakota.
“There isn’t a requirement to report hyperscale data centers to the commission, so we don’t have a formal method to track that information,” said Leah Mohr with the Public Utilities Commission.
Commissioner Kristie Fiegen noted that the state’s largest proposed data center is a 50-megawatt facility in Leola.
“We don’t know what’s coming,” she said. “But the utilities are getting calls every week from people trying to see if they have the megawatts available.”
The commission recently hosted a meeting in Pierre with representatives from regional utilities, regional power grid associations and data centers. The goal was to understand the emerging demands and facilitate an information exchange.
Bob Sahr, a former public utilities commissioner and current CEO of East River Electric Cooperative in Madison, emphasized the scale of energy needed.
“We’re talking loads that eclipse some of the largest cities in South Dakota,” he said.
A single data center campus can require anywhere from 300 to 500 megawatts of electricity to operate. One megawatt can power hundreds of homes. By one estimate, there are over 1,000 hyperscalers worldwide, with the U.S. hosting just over half of them.
Ryan Long, president of Xcel Energy, headquartered in Minneapolis, illustrated the extreme nature of the demand.
“We now have, I would say, north of seven gigawatts of requests across the Xcel Energy footprint for data centers to locate in one of our eight states,” he said. “And I’ll be very frank that there’s no way that we’re going to be able to serve all of that in a reasonable amount of time.”
Protecting existing customers from potential costs or energy shortages is another shared concern. Utility representatives emphasized the need for coal and natural gas to maintain a reliable “base load” when renewable sources like wind and solar are unavailable. Arick Sears of Iowa-based MidAmerican Energy underscored the point, noting that costs for each data center should depend on how much energy it consumes.
“We need to ensure that large-scale energy users are paying their fair share,” he said.
Utilities also flagged the risk of “stranded costs,” referring to a data center ceasing operations, leaving a utility with added infrastructure to meet a demand that no longer exists. They said financial safeguards will need to be written into power agreements with hyperscalers.
Speed of deployment is another pressing issue. Representatives from Montana-Dakota Utilities, headquartered in North Dakota, and NorthWestern Energy, headquartered in Sioux Falls, noted that some facilities expect to be operational within months of making a deal, straining infrastructure, planning and resources.
Grid managers Brian Tulloh of Indiana-based Midcontinent Independent System Operator and Lanny Nickell of Arkansas-based Southwest Power Pool echoed those concerns. They warned that data center growth is outpacing the grid’s ability to meet demand and cautioned against decommissioning coal power plants too quickly. Setting aside how much it would cost to produce the required energy, Tulloh estimated that MISO needs $30 billion in electric transmission infrastructure to support the demand from hyperscalers.
“The grid wasn’t designed for that,” Public Utilities Commissioner Chris Nelson told South Dakota Searchlight after the meeting.
Nelson was glad to hear the data centers will include backup generators, similar to hospitals, for power outages or when homes need prioritization. He said some even aim to have huge batteries to power the plant until the generators get going. They would consume massive amounts of diesel and natural gas until the outage is over.
Nelson said all of this makes modern nuclear energy facilities more attractive. He said few alternative “base load” options remain, and the public has little appetite for ramping up coal power.
NorthWestern Energy is exploring the possibility of constructing a small nuclear power plant in South Dakota, with an estimated cost of $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion for a 320-megawatt facility. The plant would be the first in the state since a test facility near Sioux Falls in the 1960s.
The company is conducting a study, partially funded by the Department of Energy. Details about the study and potential plant sites remain confidential.
Additionally, South Dakota’s Legislature has shown interest in nuclear energy, passing a resolution for further study on the topic that led to the publication of an issue memorandum by the Legislative Research Council.
Environmental groups are asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear their case, challenging approval of a planned $1 billion gas-fired power plant in Superior.
Top British onlyfans pornstars Top british Pornstars are lovable and kinky women that make a great addition in any adult film. They are able to perform in a variety of genres and are found in femdom, fetish, and group sexual scenes. A gorgeous big blonde tits British MILF, Stella Cox started thrilling fans in 2013. …
Electric power lines. (Scott Olson | Getty Images)
The Sierra Club of Wisconsin says that the decision to delay the retirement of a Columbia County coal power plant until 2029 to consider converting it to a natural gas plant will harm the environment and expose nearby residents to harmful emissions.
The Columbia Energy Center was initially set to be closed this year, but two years ago the plant’s retirement was delayed until 2026. In a statement on Wednesday, the co-owners of the plant, Alliant Energy, Madison Gas and Electric and Wisconsin Public Service, said keeping the plant open another three years will allow them to “explore converting at least one of Columbia’s units to natural gas.” The companies added that the decision will allow them to maintain the reliability and affordability of energy.
Utility companies have said that using natural gas allows them to keep providing power while moving away from more harmful fuels such as coal.
“Natural gas plays an important role in enabling the ongoing transition toward greater use of renewable resources by providing a flexible, dispatchable resource to serve customers reliably and affordably when necessary,” the companies said in the statement.
But environmental advocates lamented the decision, which will keep coal burning at the plant south of Portage for three more years than previously expected. On Friday, the Sierra Club criticized the use of natural gas at all.
The environmental group said that gas plants are vulnerable to failure, especially in places that experience harsh winters. The environmental group accused the companies of making the decision to boost their own profits.
The group also said that emissions from methane gas-burning plants are more harmful to the environment than coal plants and pose health risks to neighbors.
“We are enraged that Alliant, MG&E, and WPS have once again kicked the can on the Columbia Energy Center’s retirement date, and further exasperated with their considerations to convert the station to deadly methane gas,” the Sierra Club’s Cassie Steiner said in a statement. “Make no mistake: methane gas is not a ‘transition fuel’; it’s a way for utilities to keep exploiting captive customers for an even greater corporate profit while polluting those same communities they are supposed to serve.”
“Clean energy sources can reliably meet customers’ needs at a far cheaper cost and at no risk to their health,” Steiner continued. “Utilities like Alliant have continued to backpedal on their clean energy commitments and then hold their customers hostage to pay for their poor decisions. We simply cannot afford to extend our dependency on costly, polluting fossil fuels like coal and methane gas.”
The Columbia Energy Center was originally slated to shut down by the end of 2024, but two years ago that retirement was pushed back to 2026. Now, it will remain open through 2029.
This article was originally published by Floodlight.
A small town in North Carolina has taken a bold step, filing the first climate “deception” lawsuit against an electric utility in the United States.
In a civil lawsuit, the Town Council of Carrboro accuses Duke Energy, one of the largest power companies in the United States, of orchestrating a decades-long campaign of denialism and cover up over the dangers of fossil fuel emissions. The lawsuit claims Duke’s actions stalled the transition to clean energy and exacerbated the climate crisis.
Over the past decade, similar suits have been filed by states and communities against large oil companies and — in at least one instance — a gas utility. But Carrboro, N.C., is the first municipality to ever file such a suit against an electric utility.
“We’re a very bold group,” Carrboro Mayor Barbara Foushee told Floodlight. “And we know how urgent this climate crisis is.”
Duke Energy said in a statement, “We are in the process of reviewing the complaint. Duke Energy is committed to its customers and communities and will continue working with policymakers and regulators to deliver reliable and increasingly clean energy while keeping rates as low as possible.”
The suit, filed in Orange County, North Carolina, accuses Duke Energy of intentionally spreading false information about the negative effects of fossil fuels for decades, despite knowing since the late 1960s about planet-warming properties of carbon dioxide emissions. It claims the power company funded trade organizations and climate skeptic scientists who created doubts about the greenhouse effect and obstructed policy and public action on climate change.
“Duke misled the public concerning the causes and consequences of climate change and thereby materially slowed the transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy. Duke’s deception campaign served to protect its fossil fuel-based business model.” the lawsuit reads.
Between 2005 and 2023, the company reported reducing its CO2 emissions from electricity generation by 44%. But in 2023, at least 45% of the electricity Duke produced was still generated by burning coal or methane gas.
“(Duke) was one of the ringleaders behind deceiving the public and municipalities and governments about the causes and consequences of manmade climate change,” said Raleigh attorney Matthew Quinn, who is representing the town.
Carrboro is a town of about 20,000 with an annual budget of $81 million, Foushee said. Quinn, the attorney, estimates the town will incur some $60 million in costs in adapting to climate change impacts, including repairs to roads, upgrades to stormwater systems and increased heating and cooling costs.
At a press conference Wednesday, Quinn explained that expert analysts had arrived at that number based on the amount and cost of climate adaptation that Carrboro would have undertaken had it not been for Duke’s alleged deception.
“There’s a major gulf between where we should be at and where we are right now,” Quinn said at the press conference.
“Really, what this case is about is that Carrboro has been a victim of the climate deception campaign by Duke Energy, (and) as a result of Duke’s conduct, Carrboro has suffered a lot of damages and injustice,” Quinn said in an interview.
Added Danny Nowell, Carrboro Mayor pro tem: “We have paid for it. We have paid for excess road repairs. We have faced the effects of stormwater, and we will continue to pay for other expenses as we uncover them. It’s time for Carrboro to be repaid.”
Quinn’s fees are being paid by NC Warn, a climate nonprofit, Foushee said.
“People that run local governments and others and people that run corporations, they all better get heavily serious about the climate crisis,” said Jim Warren, executive director of NC Warn. “It’s already harming so many across this state.”
Bob Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University, called such lawsuits “cute.”
“And I use that term very, you know, intentionally. These lawsuits are cute in the sense that they’re trying to shame companies … into doing better,” said Jarvis, adding that they are rarely successful. “Companies have duties to their shareholders to maximize profits. And so what these lawsuits are really saying is that companies should be punished for maximizing profit.”
“It’s interesting with this as a case directly against a utility,” said Korey Silverman-Roati, a senior fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. “It’s a shift in perspective from companies just producing fossil fuels to those burning it.”
Although this is the first climate deception lawsuit ever filed against an electric utility, it is not the first time that electric utilities have found themselves in legal trouble for the climate warming pollution their power plants spew as they burn fossil fuels to generate electricity.
In 2004, electric companies faced federal litigation brought by eight U.S. states, New York City and several land trusts seeking to cap the companies’ CO2 emissions. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the plaintiffs.
Floodlight is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powerful interests stalling climate action.
$1.2 Trillion+ opportunity for Floating Offshore Wind (FOW) developers globally says UK report 1 FOW developers urged to learn lessons from European deployment Seoul, South Korea, 27 November 2024 — As the global wind industry prepares for GWEC’s Wind Energy Summit in South Korea later this week, Principle Power and Shoreline Wind demonstrate how Floating …
Charlotte, North Carolina, may soon get access to a new tool to deploy in its push toward 100% clean power: data.
The Tar Heel state’s largest city aims to power all government operations with carbon-free electricity by the end of the decade, including the city-owned Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, one of the busiest in the world.
But the hub is a big question mark for the city’s climate target. Officials don’t actually know how much energy it uses — or how much renewable energy they need to offset it — because the utility bills for the five-terminal airport are paid by dozens of individual customers, from Cinnabon to Jamba Juice to airline club lounges.
Now, after a decade of urging by Charlotte and others, Duke Energy has a proposal to change that: an eight-page plan for improved data access that has sign-off from the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association; Public Staff, the state-sanctioned customer advocate; and Dominion Energy, which serves the northeast corner of the state.
Filed last month with regulators for approval, Duke’s proposed rules could have wide application, said Ethan Blumenthal, regulatory counsel for the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association.
“For municipalities applying for federal grants, large customers pursuing energy efficiency, and homeowners and solar companies that are trying to right-size solar installations,” Blumenthal said, “this access to data is essential.”
Avoiding a ‘laborious process’
The Charlotte airport is a prime example of one hurdle facing local communities with climate goals. Today, getting total energy usage data for government-owned buildings with multiple meters means reaching out to individual tenants to get permission to access their accounts.
“It would be a very laborious process to do that at the airport and anywhere else we have tenants,” said Aaron Tauber, Charlotte’s sustainability analyst.
The problem extends to private building owners who aim to reduce their carbon footprints or improve efficiency but don’t have insight into their renters’ energy consumption. Honeywell, for instance, is a partner in the city’s “Power Down the Crown” initiative, whereby building managers look to reduce energy use by optimizing efficiency.
“They don’t own all of the data,” Tauber said. “They have tenants in their properties. So, they don’t have visibility to the entire building’s energy use.”
The new rule will allow a large user, from Honeywell to Charlotte, to access aggregated data for a large building with multiple tenants by request to Duke, so long as at least 15 individual accounts are involved, and none consumes more than 15% of the building’s energy use.
“Being a larger city, we do have a lot of large buildings with multiple tenants,” said Tauber. “I’m just really excited for these building owners to really — for the first time — gain an understanding of how their buildings are using energy.”
That understanding, he said, is critical for commercial properties to access a new law that allows them to borrow public money for energy efficiency upgrades and pay it back on their property tax bills.
“Being able to unlock a financing mechanism based on this data will really go a long way for the city to be able to meet our strategic energy action goal of being a low-carbon community,” said Tauber.
Not just for big buildings
The data access rule also applies to a census block, zip code, or other area with at least 15 accounts, which will help local governments meet community-wide climate goals.
“You can use the aggregated data to make good decisions for program design, and where you might want to target,” said Ann Livingston, senior executive and director of programs with the Southeast Sustainability Directors Network. “You can assess: is this particular block or neighborhood really using a lot more energy per house per square foot than others?”
Durham County, for instance, together with neighboring Granville and Orange counties, has a $1.5 million federal grant to help low-income homeowners cut their energy use through weatherization and other upgrades.
“We want to focus in areas where there’s a higher energy use or higher energy burden,” said Tobin Freid, the county’s sustainability manager. “We’d like information at a more granular level than just the county.”
If the new Duke rule is approved, it will also help county officials better tailor the program to individual households and assess its impacts. The proposal would ease the approval process for allowing third-party access to data and ensure that at least two years of prior energy use is included.
“For every home that we work on, we would need historic data to see: what was your energy use before?” Freid said.
Both the aggregated data and third-party access provisions will also be critical for federal programs like Solar for All, aimed at deploying rooftop solar on low-income households.
“Often, those federal funding opportunities require you to assess and report on energy impact,” said Livingston. “Solar for All will be a very clear example of this, where you need to report energy savings for individual participants.”
Growing interest in local impact
Apart from the sustainability goals, government officials also have a commitment to manage public dollars efficiently, Livingston noted. That’s especially pertinent for large energy users like Durham County, who may pay a higher “demand charge” for a single 30-minute spike in energy use. Large customers with net-metered solar power also pay more during times of peak demand.
The proposed rules will help solve these challenges by allowing third parties access to machine-readable, easily analyzed data for customers of all sizes. The format would essentially meet national “Green Button” standards, one familiar to the many companies around the country dedicated to managing building energy performance.
The Green Button initiative, a project of the U.S. Department of Energy that originated in Canada, has been around for over a decade – about as long as the Sustainable Energy Association has been advocating for improved customer data access, along with counties like Durham.
But the issue seems to have gained new steam in recent months, as local governments look to take advantage of new federal grants and laws aimed at reducing climate pollution.
What’s more, Blumenthal said, Duke has pledged to implement the rules within 18 months of their approval and help expedite any data requests in the interim.
“There is a commitment to doing everything they can, essentially, to provide data for federal funding purposes up until [the proposal] is fully implemented,” Blumenthal said. “A commitment to try to bridge the gap.”
Asked what prompted the agreement with Blumenthal’s group and others after all this time, Duke spokesperson Logan Stewart said over email:
“A lot has changed in the last decade from a technology, cybersecurity, and customer engagement perspective that made this stipulation possible. Duke Energy is always looking for ways to collaborate with stakeholders to achieve outcomes that benefit customers.”
A new U.S. president will be announced to the world this month. Why does the outcome of the 2024 presidential race play a role in advancing school transportation? I believe the outcome will have a significant impact on the future of electric school buses, particularly through policy direction, federal funding, and regulatory support for clean energy initiatives.
The public perception and imagery of the dirty, black smoke-spewing school bus are things of the past. Today’s buses are cleaner, greener and safer than ever. Does the
school bus industry have a chance to shift the public’s perception of school buses as being antiquated? Absolutely.
Headlines abound, especially in the wake of the growing zero-emission school bus movement. Remember when Kamala Harris couldn’t resist sharing her love for school buses? “Who doesn’t love a yellow school bus?” she asked, emphasizing the nostalgic bond so many Americans have with these iconic vehicles.
This increased attention isn’t a coincidence. It aligns with an unprecedented wave of federal funding. The latest application round of EPA Clean School Bus Program funds offers $986 million dollars in rebates. I hope you’re taking full advantage of these funds to modernize your fleet, as it might be the last time we see this sort of unprecedented federal funding.
If the winning administration prioritizes green energy and climate action, could we expect continued or even increased federal support for electric school buses? Congress would have a say, but the Biden-Harris administration has already demonstrated strong support for transitioning to zero-emission vehicles. A new administration with similar priorities could push to expand these programs, increase funding, and implement more aggressive timelines for phasing out diesel buses. Conversely, an administration less focused on climate change might reduce or eliminate such funding, slowing the progress toward electrification in school transportation.
Still, some transportation directors have told me electric school buses don’t make sense for their school districts because of battery range limitations, or they simply found them too complex to navigate with local utilities and infrastructure partners.
At STN EXPO West in Reno, Nevada, this past summer, I heard a lot of renewed interest in diesel school buses, which are cleaner and more efficient than ever before. Yet while newer models and engine technologies have made great strides due to EPA and California Air Resources Board emission standards, the reality is that environmental concerns and negative public perceptions persist, especially in districts where budget constraints prevent timely fleet upgrades. Many school districts are still relying on aging, less fuel-efficient buses, with older engine or emission technology that contributes to a larger carbon footprint.
Federal regulations on emissions standards play a key role in driving the transition to electric vehicles. A president who prioritizes environmental regulations would likely continue or strengthen mandates that push school districts to adopt electric buses over traditional diesel ones. Tighter emission rules could force the retirement
of older, higher polluting buses, creating an increased demand for electric alternatives. Conversely, a president who favors deregulation might relax emission standards, making it easier for school districts to continue operating older diesel fleets without financial or regulatory pressure to upgrade.
Perceptions are shaped by media coverage, politics, public opinion, and how well we communicate the advancements in school bus technology and environmental impact. With the right messaging, we can shift the narrative toward one that highlights the progress we’re making.
In many cases, the gap between perception and reality boils down to communication. Stakeholders—parents, school officials, and government representatives—need to understand the complexities of operating school buses, including the challenges posed by budget limitations and aging vehicles. We also need to emphasize the advancements being made, particularly with green energy.
The yellow school bus is more than a means of transportation. It’s a symbol of family, education and community. The time is now to redefine the public’s perception and showcase the modern realities of school transportation.
The presidential race will either accelerate or slow the adoption of electric school buses, depending on the winning candidate’s stance on environmental policy, regulatory frameworks, infrastructure development, and economic incentives. A government committed to sustainability and clean energy would likely propel the school bus industry toward an electric future.
Whatever the outcome of this election, it’s up industry stakeholders like you to spread the word about the benefits of all school buses—a future that’s safer, greener and cleaner than ever before.
Editor’s Note: As reprinted in the November 2024 issue of School Transportation News.
A top executive with Minnesota’s largest utility says data center growth will not prevent it from meeting the state’s 100% clean electricity law, but it may extend the life of natural gas power plants into the next decade.
“As we take all of that coal off the system — even if you didn’t add data centers into the mix — I think we may have been looking to extend some gas (contracts) on our system to get us through a portion of the 2030s,” said Ryan Long, president of Xcel Energy’s division serving Minnesota and the Dakotas. “Adding data centers could increase the likelihood of that, to be perfectly honest.”
Long made the comments at a Minnesota Public Utilities Commission conference this fall exploring the potential impact of data centers on the state’s 2040 clean electricity mandate.
The expansion of power-hungry data centers, driven by artificial intelligence, has caused anxiety across the country among utility planners and regulators. The trend is moving the goalposts for states’ clean electricity targets and raising questions about whether clean energy capacity can keep up with demand as society also tries to electrify transportation and building heat.
Minnesota PUC commissioner Joe Sullivan organized last month’s conference in response to multiple new data centers projects, including a $700 million facility by Facebook’s parent company Meta that’s under construction in suburban Rosemount. Microsoft and Amazon have each acquired property near a retiring Xcel coal plant in central Minnesota.
“We need to ensure that our system is able to serve these companies if they come,” Sullivan said, “and that it can serve them with clean resources consistent with state law.”
Alongside concerns about whether clean energy can keep up with new electricity demand, there’s also an emerging view that data centers — if properly regulated — could become grid assets that help accelerate the transition to carbon-free power. Several stakeholders at the Oct. 31 event shared that view, including Xcel’s regional president.
A 100-megawatt data center could generate as much as $64 million in annual revenue for Xcel, enough to help temper rate increases or cover the cost of other projects on the system, Long said. He said the company wants to attract 1.3 gigawatts worth of data centers to its territory by 2032, and it thinks it can absorb all of that demand without harming progress toward its 2040 clean energy requirement.
Long said data center expansion will not change the company’s plans to close all of its remaining coal-fired power plants by 2040, but it may cause them to try to keep gas plans operating longer. Ultimately, meeting the needs of data centers will require more renewable generation, battery storage, and grid-enhancing technology, but rising costs and supply chain issues have slowed deployment of those solutions.
Other utilities echoed that optimism. Julie Pierce, Minnesota Power’s vice president for strategy and planning said the company has experience serving large customers such as mines in northeastern Minnesota and would be ready to serve data centers. Great River Energy’s resource planning director Zachary Ruzycki said the generation and transmission cooperative “has a lot of arrows in its quiver” to accommodate data centers.
Ruzycki noted, too, that much of the interest it has received from data center developers is because of the state’s commitment to clean energy. Many large data center operators have made corporate commitments to power them on 100% carbon-free electricity, whether from renewables or nuclear power.
Pete Wyckoff, deputy commissioner for energy at the Minnesota Department of Commerce, expressed doubts about the ability to meet unchecked demand from data centers. Even with the state’s recent permitting reforms, utilities are unlikely to be able to deliver “power of any sort — much less clean power — in the size and timeframes that data centers are likely to request.”
He sees hydrogen, long-duration batteries, carbon capture, and advanced nuclear among the solutions that will eventually be needed, but in the short-term the grid could serve more data centers with investments in transmission upgrades, virtual power plants, and other demand response programs.
“These solutions can be deployed faster and cheaper than building all new transmission and large clean energy facilities, though we’ll need those, too,” Wyckoff said.
Aaron Tinjum, director of energy policy and regulatory affairs for the Data Center Coalition, said data centers provide the computing power for things like smart meters, demand response, and other grid technologies. The national trade group represents the country’s largest technology and data center companies.
“We can’t simply view data centers as a significant consumer of energy if they’re all helping us become more efficient, and helping us save on our utility bills,” Tinjum said.
He also pointed to data centers’ role in driving clean energy development. A recent report from S&P Global Commodity Insights found that data centers account for half of all U.S. corporate clean energy procurement.
The true impact of data centers on emissions and the grid is complicated, though. Meta, which participated in the recent Minnesota conference, says it matches all of its annual electricity use with renewable energy, but environmental groups say there is evidence that its data centers are increasing fossil fuel use and emissions in the local markets where they are built.
Amelia Vohs, climate program director with the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, raised concerns at the conference about whether data center growth will make it harder to electrify transportation and heating. She pointed to neighboring Wisconsin, where utilities are proposing to build new gas plants to power data centers.
“This commission and the stakeholders here today have all done a ton of work and made great progress in decarbonizing the electric sector in our state,” Vohs said. “I worry about possibly rolling that back if we all of a sudden have a large load that needs to be served with fossil fuels, or [require] a fossil fuel backup.”
The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office argued that state regulators need to scrutinize data center deals to make sure developers are paying the total cost of their impact on the system, including additional regulatory, operational and maintenance work that might be required on the grid.
In an interview, Sullivan said he was impressed by tech companies’ interest in having data centers in Minnesota because of the 2040 net zero goal, not despite it. They want to buy electricity from Minnesota utilities rather than build their own power systems or locate in neighboring states, he added, and the October meeting left him confident that “we can deal with this.”
Login
