A planned 325-megawatt battery energy storage system at a key location on New England’s power grid could boost Connecticut’s access to carbon-free power — but only if it can overcome complicated legal and political barriers. 

An Israeli firm, Sunflower Sustainable Investments, filed an application in October for the project with the Connecticut Siting Council, which has regulatory authority over the siting of power facilities.

The $200 million project, called Windham Energy Center, would be located on a largely undeveloped 63-acre site in Killingly, Connecticut, that was slated for construction of a fossil fuel power plant a few years ago. There is existing electric transmission infrastructure immediately adjacent to the site, and the project will connect to the grid via a 345-kilovolt transmission line. 

A spokesman for Windham Energy, Jonathan Milley, said the location is ideal for a battery facility. 

“If you look at the topology of the New England grid, this is at the intersection of the Millstone nuclear power plant and Brayton Point,” in Somerset, Massachusetts, where approved offshore wind projects will eventually be connected to the grid, Milley said. “This nodal location will at certain times of the day and under certain conditions have some of the lowest cost energy available to it on the grid.” 

The project would consist of lithium-ion batteries installed in racks in prefabricated containers, and a switching station operated by Eversource to connect them to the transmission line. The equipment would be located within 20 acres of the total project site. 

But the project is currently hung up by an administrative roadblock. That’s because in 2019, the siting council approved an application from NTE Energy to build a 650-megawatt natural gas plant on a portion of the same property. 

That project, which ran into a storm of opposition from environmental advocates, was never built, and NTE Energy has since dissolved. But nevertheless, on Nov. 8, the siting council’s executive director, Melanie Bachman, notified Windham Energy that it is “premature” for the body to review their application because the Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need previously issued to NTE still exists. 

The certificate has not been surrendered to the council, she said. And it will otherwise only be void if construction on the gas plant has not been completed by September 28, 2026. 

Windham Energy has asked the council to declare the certificate no longer valid, noting that NTE Energy no longer exists nor holds an option to purchase the property, and that its energy supply agreement with regional grid operator ISO-New England was also revoked in 2022. 

Milley said battery storage is needed to complement the state’s offshore wind goals; the batteries can store surplus energy from wind sources when production is high, and then dispatch it to the grid when it is needed. In 2021, state lawmakers set a goal of at least 1,000 megawatts of energy storage deployment by December 31, 2030.

“If there’s a developer willing to build what the state is looking for and not asking for anything else, it doesn’t seem like asking too much for the council to nullify an existing certificate for an entity that doesn’t exist,” Milley said. 

For now, counsel for Windham Energy has sent a letter by certified mail to Stephanie Clarkson, who they say is the last known contact for NTE Energy, asking her to “advise whether the Certificate issued to NTE should be an impediment” to their proposed project.

Addressing safety concerns

The town of Killingly has requested party status in the hearings before the siting council. 

In a letter to Windham Energy following a meeting with the developers, Town Council chair Jason Alexander and vice chair Tammy Wakefield raised concerns about the potential for fire at the facility, pointing to a recent fire at a battery storage facility in New York, and asked how they would prevent a similar event.  

Three battery storage projects caught fire in New York in 2023, prompting Gov. Kathy Hochul to convene a working group to draft updates to the state’s fire code to improve safety and emergency preparedness in the planning of such projects. 

Other towns in Connecticut have also raised concerns about fires for much smaller battery storage projects proposed by Key Capture Energy, of Albany, New York.

Milley says town officials are “right to ask these questions,” and he is focused on addressing their concerns. He noted that Windham plans to use lithium iron phosphate batteries, a type of lithium battery he says is much less prone to fire.

“The element in the battery is iron, which doesn’t burn,” he said. 

However, he added, Windham fully intends to work with town and state fire authorities to develop a response plan “whether it’s a strict requirement or not.” 

In the meantime, Windham Energy has filed a motion with the siting council to reopen the docket concerning NTE Energy so that it might modify its decision and revoke the earlier issued certificate. 

The council is expected to take up that motion during its Feb. 6 meeting. 

Legal snafu over canceled natural gas plant site ensnares Connecticut energy storage project is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

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.

Commentary: Ohio should replicate Pennsylvania’s success cutting methane pollution is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

As a state committee studies ways to wean Rhode Island off of natural gas, several of its members want the group’s final report to dismiss one potential pathway as wholly unrealistic.

Switching to renewable natural gas or other alternative fuels appears to be neither a feasible nor a financially viable solution at this time, say multiple stakeholders who have commented on a draft outline of a report a consulting group prepared for Rhode Island regulators.

RNG is derived from biomass or other renewable resources. It is a biogas, captured from the decomposition of organic matter, such as animal manure or food waste.

Many gas utilities around the country are pushing for RNG as part of the solution to lowering greenhouse gas emissions. But Michael Walsh, a partner at Groundwork Data, a clean energy consultancy that worked with the Conservation Law Foundation and the Sierra Club in the committee process, told the Energy News Network that “we don’t see a lot of viability with the RNG pathway,” both because of limited availability and because it is much more expensive then fossil fuel gas to produce.

While RNG is interchangeable with conventional natural gas, “realism about the availability and cost of alternative fuels for the gas system is necessary” for the planning process, wrote Nicholas Vaz, Rhode Island special assistant attorney general, in his comments on the draft. 

Vaz cited a 2019 study prepared for the American Gas Foundation that looked at RNG production potential by 2040, based on the availability of source materials and utilization. Based on those findings, Vaz concluded that the amount of RNG available by 2050 would only allow for about 17% of Rhode Island households to remain connected to the gas system.

Currently, more than half of Rhode Island homes receive natural gas service.

The state Public Utilities Commission established the stakeholder committee as part of its “Future of Gas” docket, an investigation of the future of the regulated gas distribution business in Rhode Island. That docket was opened in 2022 in response to the passage of the state’s Act on Climate, which mandates a 45% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2030, 80% by 2040, and net-zero by 2050.

The natural gas system operated by Rhode Island Energy accounts for almost 40% of statewide emissions. So the PUC, which regulates the utility, is in the tricky position of having to craft a plan for getting commercial and residential customers off natural gas, finding a way to pay for it, and ensuring that consumers aren’t harmed in the process. Regulators will use the committee’s report to help inform the strategy it lays out.

The neighboring state of Massachusetts is a little farther along in that process; its state Department of Public Utilities issued an order last December outlining a strategy for getting the state off natural gas.

While utilities there initially pushed for a plan that was heavily reliant on RNG, regulators ultimately rejected that approach, citing concerns about availability, cost and whether such alternative fuels will actually lead to a reduction in emissions.

To some extent, Massachusetts’ work to date helped inform the committee process in Rhode Island, Walsh said.

“We had a lot of Massachusetts folks in the room to share lessons learned,” he said. “We at least got through some of the questions faster.”

Ben Butterworth, director of climate, energy and equity analysis for the nonprofit Acadia Center, told ENN his organization would like to see Rhode Island prioritize much of what is in the Massachusetts strategy: a focus on electrification and energy efficiency, disincentivizing further expansion of the gas system, and pilot programs focused on the strategic decommissioning of the gas system.

The PUC must also consider how to fund the transition, Butterworth noted. Vermont and Massachusetts are pursuing a clean heat standard as a funding mechanism for climate goals, while New York is pursuing a cap-and-invest approach. 

“Finding that mechanism is critical, and the report should include at least those options,” Butterworth said.

At the same time, the report should include a discussion of possible mechanisms to protect low-income ratepayers from “the inevitable initially increased costs of electrification,” urged Jennifer Wood, executive director of the Rhode Island Center for Justice, in her comments on the draft.

These might include capping the amount a household pays for electricity as a percentage of their income; rate reforms; and assistance programs to defray the costs of installing electric heat pumps.

“Low-income utility customers living in rented homes that are least well equipped for energy efficiency are already most harmed by the social effects of climate change,” Wood wrote. “The only way to ensure that they will not be doubly harmed by unsustainably higher utility bills during the transition…is to decouple income-eligible consumers’ energy costs from the near-term impacts of necessary, but initially more costly, electrification.”

The committee is expected to issue a final report with its findings and recommendations to the PUC by the end of the year.

As Rhode Island considers future of gas, advocates call for ‘realism’ on cost, availability of RNG is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

North Carolina regulators on Friday accepted Duke Energy’s controversial plan for curbing carbon pollution, a blueprint that ramps up renewable energy and ratchets down coal power but also includes 9 gigawatts of new plants that burn natural gas.

The biennial plan is mandated under a 2021 state law, which requires Duke to zero out its climate-warming emissions by midcentury and cut them 70% by the end of the decade.

The timing of the order from the North Carolina Utilities Commission, two months ahead of schedule, caught many advocates by surprise. But its content did not: it hewed closely to a settlement deal Duke reached this summer with a trade group for the renewable energy industry; Walmart; and Public Staff, the state-sanctioned ratepayer advocate.

But critics were dismayed by regulators’ abdication of the 2030 deadline. The ruling said Duke no longer needed a plan to make the reductions by decade’s end, instead telling it to “pursue ‘all reasonable steps’ to achieve the [70%] target by the earliest possible date.”

“Major step back on climate,” Maggie Shober, research director at the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy,” wrote on X, the website formerly known as Twitter, adding, “for those that say it couldn’t be done, Duke had a 67% reduction by 2030 in its 2020 [long-range plan.] The utility industry generally, and Duke in particular, has had opportunity after opportunity to do better. They chose not to, and here we are.”

EPA rules could complicate plans for gas plants

And while many observers say the three large gas plants approved in the near-term carbon plan are better than the five originally proposed by Duke, detractors note the facilities still could run afoul of rules finalized this spring by the Biden-Harris administration.

“Duke’s plan isn’t even compliant with the latest EPA regulations related to greenhouse gas pollution,” David Rogers, deputy director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, said in a statement. 

Concerns about the Biden-Harris rules, along with doubt that the natural gas plants could be converted to burn carbon-free hydrogen, appeared not to persuade regulators. 

“The Commission acknowledges that there are uncertainties and risks associated with new natural gas-fired generation resources, but this is true of all resources,” the panel wrote. 

On the contrary, regulators believe Duke can make use of gas plants after the state’s 2050 zero-carbon deadline, even if clean hydrogen doesn’t pan out.

“Accordingly,” the panel said, “the Commission determines that a 35-year anticipated useful life of new natural gas-fired generation and its assumed capital costs are reasonable for planning purposes.”

The greenlight for the gas infrastructure is not absolute, commissioners emphasized in their order, since Duke still must obtain a separate permit for the facilities. But advocates still bemoaned the anticipated impact on customers.

“This order leaves the door open for Duke Energy to stall on carbon compliance in order to develop additional resources, like natural gas, that largely benefit their shareholders over ratepayers,” Matt Abele, the executive director of the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association, said via text message.

‘Positive step’ for offshore wind

Still, Abele and other advocates acknowledged the plan’s upsides, including its increase in renewables like solar and batteries. The 2022 plan limited those resources to about 1 gigawatt per year; this year’s version increases the short-term annual addition to about 1.7 gigawatts.

Regulators’ decision to bless 2.4 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2034 and call for Duke to complete an “Acquisition Request for Information” by next summer also drew measured praise. 

“This order is an overall positive step for offshore wind,” Karly Lohan, North Carolina program manager for the Southeastern Wind Coalition, said in an email, adding, “we still need to see Duke move with urgency and administer the [request for information] as soon as possible.”

With regulators required to approve a new carbon-reduction plan for Duke every two years, advocates are already looking ahead to next year, when the process begins anew.

“Proceedings in 2025 present another chance to get North Carolina back on track to achieving the carbon reduction goals as directed by state law,” Will Scott, Environmental Defense Fund’s director of Southeast climate and clean energy, said in a statement.

“By accelerating offshore wind and solar, the Commission could still set a course for meaningful emissions reductions from the power sector that are fueling the effects of climate change, including dangerous and expensive storms like Hurricane Helene.”

And like Scott, David Neal, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, isn’t giving up on the state’s 2030 carbon-reduction deadline, the commission’s latest order notwithstanding.

“We’ll continue to push for the clean energy future that North Carolinians deserve and that state law and federal carbon pollution limits mandate,” he said in a statement.

Months ahead of schedule, North Carolina regulators accept Duke Energy’s controversial plan to reduce carbon is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Nearly a year after Massachusetts regulators laid out a vision for the state’s evolution from natural gas distribution to clean energy use, lawmakers are coalescing around legislation that would start converting principles into policy. 

The wide-ranging climate bill includes several provisions that would allow utilities to explore alternatives to gas and empower regulators to place more limits on the expansion and continuation of natural gas infrastructure, changes that supporters say are critical to a successful transition away from fossil fuels. 

“This bill is a major first step in empowering [regulators] to do something rather than just rubber stamping the utilities’ plans,” said Lisa Cunningham, co-founder of ZeroCarbonMA.

Natural gas is currently the primary heating source for half the homes in Massachusetts, a number that needs to drop if the state is going to meet its ambitious climate goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, advocates and state leaders say. In 2020, the state department of public utilities opened an investigation into the role natural gas utilities would play in the transition to cleaner energy. In December 2023, the department issued a lengthy order concluding that the state must move “beyond gas” and outlining a broad framework for making the shift. 

Lawmakers attempted to start turning these general ideas into binding law earlier this year, but the legislative session closed at the end of July before the Senate and House reconciled the differences between their versions of a climate bill. Legislators returned to work this fall and hammered out an agreement, and the Senate passed the resulting bill last month. The House speaker has said the body will vote when it returns to formal session later this year. The bill is generally expected to pass and be signed into law. 

“A lot of people were skeptical we’d get a bill at all, but I’m happy with where this bill ended up,” said Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director for climate nonprofit Acadia Center. “It shows a step toward that needed urgency.”

At the heart of the bill’s energy transition provisions is a change to the definition of a natural gas utility that allows the companies to also provide geothermal power. Networked geothermal — systems that draw heat from the earth and deliver it to a group of buildings — is widely seen as a promising alternative to natural gas, and both National Grid and Eversource have pilot projects in the works. However, current law prevents the utilities from pursuing such projects without specific authorization from regulators. The climate bill would remove this barrier, making it easier for gas companies to explore new approaches to business.

“The gas utilities deeply need a new business model that can help them step into the future,” said Audrey Schulman, founder of climate solutions incubator HEETlabs. “That allows them to potentially evolve.”

This definition change supports other provisions aimed at slowing the expansion of natural gas use in the state. The bill would end the requirement that natural gas utilities provide service to any customer in their service area who requests it, with few exceptions. Under the new law, utilities could decline these requests when other alternatives are available. 

The bill would also allow regulators to consider the impact of emissions when deciding whether to approve requests to expand natural gas service into new communities. In 2023, the state approved a request to bring gas service to the central Massachusetts town of Douglas. Regulators at the time noted that the decision works against the state’s goal of phasing out natural gas, but said the law gave them no choice but to approve the plan. Provisions in the climate bill would untie regulators’ hands in such cases in the future.

“The [Department of Public Utilities] can consider the public interest, including climate, it doesn’t have to say yes to more gas service,” said Amy Boyd Rabin, vice president of policy at the Environmental League of Massachusetts. And the inclusion of geothermal in gas utilities’ definition means “now there’s also something else to offer the customers.” 

Another major element of the bill would reform the state’s Gas System Enhancement Plans program, which encourages utilities to repair or replace pipes in the state’s aging and leak-prone natural gas distribution system. Clean energy advocates have often argued that these plans are problematic, investing billions of ratepayer dollars into shoring up a system that is increasingly obsolete. The climate bill would allow utilities to choose to retire segments of pipe rather than fixing them. 

“For the first time ever they are able to look at a pipe and say, ‘You know what, this is not worth the cost,’” Murray said. “We don’t want ratepayers shouldering the burden for a lot of stuff that’s not going to be useful in five to 10 years.”

Environmental advocates praised the bill’s gas provisions, and are already focusing on what more there is to be done. Several would have liked to see a more aggressive phasing out of Gas System Enhancement Plans, with a specific end date. Others champion an expansion of a pilot program that allows cities and towns to ban fossil fuel use in new construction and major renovations. 

“There is no reason why communities that want to enact this via home rule petition should be restricted from enacting the will of their constituents,” Cunningham said. 

In the meantime, advocates are ready to see the climate bill turning into reality. 

“There’s a lot of good stuff in there that will do a lot of good for the commonwealth,” Boyd Rabin says.

Massachusetts legislation looks to remove barriers to the state’s shift from natural gas is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

A prospective buyer’s recent commitment to reinvest in a Gary, Indiana, steel plant sought to address union and government leaders’ worries about the sale’s potential impact on jobs and U.S. steelmaking capacity.

The plan to extend the life of the country’s largest and most carbon-emitting coal-fired blast furnace, however, has also heightened concerns from Northwest Indiana residents most affected by the facility’s air pollution.

“This is not acceptable,” said Susan Thomas, director of legislation and policy for Just Transition Northwest Indiana. “We now have technology for doing this much more sustainably.”

A study released Monday quantifies the public health threat highlighted by local clean air advocates, linking the Indiana plant to dozens of annual emergency room visits and premature deaths, as well as thousands of asthma attacks. 

Japan-based Nippon Steel is seeking approval from U.S. regulators for a $15 billion acquisition of U.S. Steel, the storied domestic steelmaker whose facilities include the Gary Works plant in Northwest Indiana, along with others in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, key battleground states where the proposed sale has been a subject of presidential campaigning. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump oppose the sale, as does President Joe Biden.

Much of the public discussion around the proposed sale has centered on its economic and national security implications, but those living near the plant have different concerns and demands. They say they’ve suffered for too long from steel industry pollution, and they only want Nippon as a neighbor if the company installs a new type of furnace that burns with lower or even zero emissions. 

“I would love to see Gary Works transform to green sustainable steel, bringing more jobs, cleaning up the area, that would be an amazing win-win,” said Libré Booker, a librarian who grew up near the mill. “The people have lived under these conditions for far too long. It’s definitely time for a change.”

Gary Works is the largest integrated steel mill in North America, employing about 2,200 people. Northwest Indiana is also home to two other steel mills — Burns Harbor and Indiana Harbor — and two coke plants that turn coal into the high-density raw material for steel. 

The populations in a three-mile radius of the Gary Works and Indiana Harbor steel mills are 96%-97% people of color, and almost two-thirds low-income people. The new study by Industrious Labs, a nonprofit focused on emissions reduction, used the EPA’s COBRA model to find emissions from the Gary Works plant likely are linked to 57-114 premature deaths, 48 emergency room visits and almost 32,000 asthma attacks each year.

The report cited the mills’ and coke plants’ emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and lead, all pollutants with direct impacts on public health. Gary Works is the number one emitter of PM2.5 particulate matter in the state, according to the company’s self-reported data analyzed by Industrious Labs. 

Industrious Labs steel director Hilary Lewis said the results bolster the demands of clean steel advocates, who want to see coal-fired blast furnaces replaced by direct-reduction iron, or DRI, furnaces powered by hydrogen made with renewable energy, known as green hydrogen. 

Booker was among 15 locals who participated in a recent “Sustainable Steel Community Cohort” run by Industrious Labs, attending five workshops learning about the science and policy of cleaner steel. 

Green hydrogen, green steel 

Green hydrogen is still not produced in large quantities anywhere in the U.S., and all the hydrogen currently produced in the country would not even be enough to power one steel mill, noted Seth Snyder, a partner in the Clean Energy Venture Group, at a recent conference in Chicago focused on clean hydrogen. 

But DRI furnaces can be powered by natural gas, which results in much lower emissions than coal. Cleveland Cliffs — which owns the Indiana Harbor and Burns Harbor mills — is transforming its Middletown, Ohio steel mill to gas-burning DRI with the help of a $500 million incentive under the Inflation Reduction Act. The company says the conversion will make it the steel mill with the lowest emissions in the world. 

With some modifications, DRI furnaces can burn a blend of natural gas and hydrogen or almost entirely hydrogen, experts say, meaning investment in a gas-burning DRI furnace could be a step on the way to “clean steel.” Lewis and other advocates, however, say gas-burning furnaces are not their goal, and they want the industry to transition off fossil fuels entirely. 

Hydrogen can be blended into fuel for traditional blast furnaces too, but the maximum emissions reductions that can be achieved that way are 21%, according to a paper on hydrogen-powered steel production in Europe by the Norwegian non-profit science organization Bellona. 

Nippon has announced it would invest $300 million in restoring the aging blast furnace at Gary Works, keeping it running for another 20 years. Installing a DRI furnace, meanwhile, typically costs over $1 billion.

“There is a gap,” said Lewis. “But these companies have the funding available. They have the money to make these decisions, they’re just choosing not to.” 

Incentives for change 

The IRA incentives tapped by Cleveland Cliffs are no longer available, but this summer California U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna introduced the Modern Steel Act, which would provide $10 billion in low-cost loans and grants, plus tax breaks and other incentives for new and revamped low-emissions steel mills, including hydrogen-fueled DRI.

Separately, lucrative tax credits soon to be available for “clean hydrogen” under the IRA could also make hydrogen-powered steel more financially viable. The specific rules for the tax credit — known as 45V — are still being finalized, amid controversy over what should qualify a project’s hydrogen as “clean.” 

“There are a number of different incentives in the IRA that can help steel companies build out their own green hydrogen infrastructure,” Lewis said. “Everything should be on the table. Steel companies would be such huge off-takers for green hydrogen, they can build their own economy here.”

At the BP Whiting oil refinery, 10 miles from Gary Works, there are plans underway for production of blue hydrogen, or hydrogen made with natural gas followed by capture and sequestration of the emissions. The plan is a marquee part of the Midwest (MachH2) hydrogen hub, one of seven planned hubs nationwide slated to receive $7 billion total in federal funding. Such blue hydrogen could be used to power a steel mill, with theoretically no resulting greenhouse gas or public health-harming emissions.

However, local environmental and public accountability leaders are strongly opposed to blue hydrogen production in the region, since carbon sequestration has not yet been done successfully on a large scale in the U.S., and it would entail pipelines carrying carbon dioxide from the refinery to a sequestration site. 

“The carbon capture component makes us very nervous, it seems to me they’re rushing into this without really taking the time to study it more seriously,” said Northwest Indiana resident Connie Wachala, another graduate of the sustainable steel program. “That might be because of all the money DOE is making available to industry. I wish our elected and industry officials would start thinking more creatively about how to make [green hydrogen] happen, how to make things better for the people in the neighborhoods and around the steel mills as well as for the shareholders.”

A different future 

All four of Wachala’s grandparents came from Poland to work in the steel mills. 

“Growing up in the 1950s, I remember my mom hanging the laundry up in the yard on a clothes line. If the wind was blowing a certain way, you’d get black particles on the clothes,” remembered Wachala, who worked as a creative writing teacher before retiring. “My dad’s car was always covered with that soot.”

Booker’s mother worked as a crane operator at the now-closed Bethlehem Steel mill in Burns Harbor, Indiana — among the first wave of women of color to be hired.

“I was proud she worked in the mill and took care of us, but I did not want [that job] whatsoever, seeing her come home every night after the swing shift, with the big old boots and jacket,” said Booker. “I wanted to go to college. It was a source of contention with my mom and I for some years.” 

That was in the days when locals largely believed, “if you want a good partner, you’ve got to get one that works in the mill,” she continued. “It was like a prestigious job and position. People looked up to people who worked in the mill.” 

Now, Booker laments, “Gary is like a joke,” scorned for its economic decline since the steel industry automated and shrunk — hemorrhaging jobs, and for the pollution that is still emitted. If the merger with Nippon does not go through, it’s widely believed U.S. Steel would eventually close the mill, as it closed its South Works plant in Southeast Chicago decades ago. At their height, the South Works and Gary Works plants together employed about 40,000 people in the Chicago area. 

Thomas wrote a frustrated rebuttal to the Chicago Tribune editorial board opining that the Nippon merger was crucial to Gary’s future. She and other local leaders say they don’t want the mill to close, but they can demand better than the extension of heavily polluting industry. 

“It’s just perpetuation of this as a sacrifice zone,” said Thomas. “‘This is what you’ve always been, this is how we’re going to keep you.’ But that’s not going to fly anymore.”

Steelmaker’s bid to buy U.S. Steel would extend life of Indiana plant — along with its emissions is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.