Ferrari has dropped the first details about its maiden EV, next year’s Elettrica crossover, and some people might be wondering if, by doing so, it’s dropped the ball as well. Because while its peak output will be over 986 hp (1,000 PS / 735 kW), Ferrari has confirmed it will not make as much power as the new breed of rapid Chinese electric cars.

“You can see on the market some electric cars that already have 2,000 horsepower,” Ferrari product boss Gianmaria Fulgenzi told media.

Related: Ferrari’s EV Mystery Prototype Teases Breadvan But It’s An Illusion

“It’s very easy and simple to create that power with an electric engine. So you can see in the market a lot of companies that have never done cars, and now they’re able to produce a car with 1,000 horsepower.”

Fulgenzi didn’t mention smartphone firm turned automaker Xiaomi by name, or its 1,526 hp (1,547 PS / 1,138 kW) Xiaomi SU7 Ultra. But it’s the car that most obviously springs to mind, and we know that Ferrari recently had its hands on an SU7 at its Maranello HQ.

He could also have been thinking of the BYD’s 2,977 (3,018 PS / 2,220 kW) YangWang U9 Xtreme, which this month recorded 308 mph (491 km/h) at VW’s Ehra-Lessien test track, beating the Bugatti Chiron Super Sport 300+’s record.

Super-Power EVs Are “Elephants”

“But what is the joke? What do you feel when you drive this kind of car?” he asked journalists, per Auto Express. “They are elephants because you need very big engines and a very big battery.”

Let’s leave aside the elephant in Fulgenzi’s room – the Elettrica’s huge 122 kWh battery dwarfs the ones in the SU7 and U9 – and look at the other figures.

A combination of a 282 hp (210 kW / 286 PS) front axle from the F80 supercar and 831 hp (620 kW / 843 PS) from the rear motors will give “more than” 986 hp, Ferrari says, enough for a 2.5-second zero to 62 mph (100 km/h) time and electronically limited 193 mph (310 km/h) top speed. Those are still impressive numbers in absolute terms, but won’t set the Elettrica apart from the crowd.

It’s kind of funny to hear a company like Ferrari, which for years pushed power outputs, acceleration and top speeds to new highs, talking about how pointless the fastest modern cars are. But Fulgenzi is right: we (and automakers) seem to have crossed a line here in terms of power and performance and don’t know how to stop.

Why? Because horsepower, top speed, and 0-60 times are the metrics by which we’ve judged performance cars for decades. Remove them and we’re kind of lost, unless we actually get a chance to jump behind the wheel and experience them ourselves.

It’d be difficult to explain to a potential customer why they should buy your car if it made less power and was slower than the one they already have (though Detroit had to do that during the emissions-strangled 1970s), so automakers keep pushing. And for years, that was fine.

When you traded in your naturally aspirated E46 330i that required 6.5 seconds to get to 60 mph for a turbocharged E90/92 335i that did the job in 5.5 seconds, you could feel the difference, and that could be fun.

How Much Is Enough?

But when even fairly ordinary electric cars like the $54,990 Tesla Model 3 Performance can get to 60 in 2.9 seconds, you have to wonder how much longer automakers can keep pushing in this direction. Beyond bragging rights, there’s little extra benefit in having a car that accelerates more quickly than that.

And definitely none to insurance companies, because an uptick in accident rates is surely inevitable if we keep going. Rarely mentioned today is that crippling insurance premiums had as much to do with the death of the original American muscle car in the early 1970s as tightening emissions regulations.

Related: Ferrari’s New Playground Might End Maranello’s Favorite Spectator Sport

Anyone who lifts weights for recreation might recognise a parallel in all of this to men’s bodybuilding. From the mid 1990s, partly off the back of the use of new drugs like insulin and growth hormone, the guys competing in the top tier literally exploded in size, shifting the focus from aesthetics to freak-show levels of mass.

It was, and still is, fascinating to see what the body can achieve when pushed to the limit, in the same way that it’s impressive that a BYD can do 308 mph. But more recently we’ve seen a huge boom in the popularity of the Classic Physique division, whose shapes hark back to the “golden era” of bodybuilding, when men like Arnold Schwarzenegger still looked super, but also human.

Stepping Back From The Speed Wars

Andrea Canuri for SHProshots

Is Ferrari (of all people) leading a similar shift in the car world with its Elettrica (seen above, testing)? If it is, it wouldn’t be the first time it’s turned its back on the battle to have the biggest numbers.

Although the F40’s 202 mph (325 kmh) top speed broke new ground, for the past 25 years Ferrari has capped its fastest cars at 217 mph (350 kmh) and was content to let Bugatti build cars that ate up a drag strip in less time. That decision in no way diminished Ferrari’s credibility in the eyes of enthusiasts.

But letting other brands make everyday crossovers that are more powerful, accelerate more quickly, and cost less, while also still not publishing any other metrics like a Nurburgring lap time to show us how the sum of the car, including its chassis and brakes, is more important than the schoolyard stats? Now that’s a bold move.

And it’s one that’ll really test Ferrari’s brand strength, particularly among younger buyers who are less familiar with Maranello’s history – one built in large part on cars that were the fastest and most powerful of their time.

Can you see an end to the performance wars? Do you think legislators might eventually step in to curtail the madness? What is the sweet spot for power and acceleration anyway? And is Ferrari right to take its foot off the gas? Throw a comment down below and let us know your thoughts.

Ferrari hasn’t released any exterior images of the Elettrica yet, but it has given us a peek under the skin at the battery and motors, which you can see in the gallery below.

Ferrari

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., joined by President Donald Trump, delivers an announcement on “significant medical and scientific findings for America’s children” in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Sept. 22, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Federal health officials suggested a link between the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy as a risk for autism, although many health agencies have noted inconclusive results in the research. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans disapprove of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s job performance and the federal government’s evolving vaccine policy, according to a poll released Thursday by the nonpartisan health organization KFF.

In addition, the vast majority of those surveyed have heard the unproven claims made by President Donald Trump, Kennedy and others in late September that taking acetaminophen, also known as Tylenol, during pregnancy could be one possible environmental factor in a child later being diagnosed with autism.

A total of 77% of the people KFF polled said they knew of the statements, though whether people believe the claims, which have yet to be established by the medical community, varied.

Only 4% of those surveyed said it is “definitely true” that taking Tylenol during pregnancy increases the risk of the child developing autism, and 35% said the claim is “definitely false.” Thirty percent said it is “probably true” and 30% said it is “probably false.”

Combined, 65% said it’s either probably or definitely false to say that taking acetaminophen during pregnancy increases the chance of a child developing autism, a complex disorder that experts believe is the result of both genetic and environmental factors.

When broken down by political party, 86% of Democrats, 67% of independents and 43% of Republicans said the claims were either probably or definitely false.

The survey shows 59% somewhat or strongly disapprove of how Kennedy is handling his new role at the top of the country’s public health infrastructure.

The level of support changes considerably depending on political party affiliation, with 86% of Democrats, 64% of independents and 26% of Republicans disapproving.

A slightly higher number, 62%, either somewhat or strongly disapprove of the United States’ vaccine policy.A similar trend emerged when those polled were broken up by political parties. Eighty-eight percent of Democrats, 67% of independents and 31% of Republicans somewhat or strongly disapproved of vaccine policy.

The survey shows a declining share of Americans have faith in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide trusted information about vaccines, compared with previous KFF polls in September 2023 and earlier this year.

A total of 63% of respondents two years ago trusted the CDC on vaccines, but that has declined to 50%.

Democrats’ faith in the CDC’s vaccine recommendations has dropped from 88% two years ago to 64%, independents have gone from 61% to 47% and Republicans have remained relatively steady, only going from 40% to 39%.

Across political parties, a person’s own doctor as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association remain broadly trusted for vaccine information.Eighty-three percent said they trust their doctor or health care provider, 69% believed information from the American Academy of Pediatrics and 64% had faith in the AMA.

The poll of 1,334 adults took place from Sept. 23 to Sept. 29 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full survey. Questions broken down by a person’s political ideology had a margin of error of plus or minus 6 percentage points.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 3 minutes

In a 2007 ruling known as Zellner v. Cedarburg School District, the Wisconsin Supreme Court declared that because public school teachers “are entrusted with the responsibility of teaching children,” the public has a clear right to know about allegations of misconduct against educators.

I wonder what the justices would think of a school district trying to charge $5,600 for this information. Or $40,000. Or $245,000.

Those were among the actual cost estimates that Wisconsin school districts provided when my paper, the Cap Times, asked for public records about teachers accused of sexual misconduct.

Such misconduct is a more pervasive problem in schools than you might think. An estimated one in 10 students experiences sexual harassment or assault from an educator during their K-12 schooling, according to one comprehensive case study in 2004. In Wisconsin, that rate would amount to more than 93,000 school children based on last year’s private and public school statewide enrollment.

But there is no statewide comprehensive data tracking of such allegations, so the Cap Times set out to determine how often educators are investigated for sexual misconduct toward students, and how allegations to this effect are handled.

For a report to be published later this month, the Cap Times sought employee investigation records, reprimands and resignation agreements over the last eight years from districts across Wisconsin.

The responses took the newspaper by surprise. I’m not referring to the actual records — which, when the Cap Times eventually received them, were shocking in other ways. What first stunned us were the amounts the districts demanded just to look for these documents.

The Middleton-Cross Plains Area School District outside of Madison put the upfront cost of locating these records at $40,000. Sheboygan wanted $18,000, Oshkosh wanted $6,600, Appleton wanted $5,600, and Madison wanted $4,500.

Leading the pack was the Janesville School District, which asked for $245,000. The district has 9,400 students and roughly 1,500 employees, making it the ninth largest district in the state. Milwaukee Public Schools, the largest school district in the state at 66,000 students, quoted the Cap Times about $1,100 for the exact same records request. MPS also has six times more employees, meaning more records to search.

After a Cap Times reporter spoke on the phone with Janesville assistant superintendent Scott Garner, this charge disappeared. For some of the districts, the newspaper had to identify names of specific teachers and narrow the scope of its requests to get a reasonable cost estimate. For others, including Madison, we still have not received records despite our attempts to make their searches easier.

The suspicion remains that the initial price tags from some of these districts were not based on the “actual, necessary and direct cost” of locating these records, as the Open Records Law allows, but on a desire to make these requests go away.

Then there were school districts, including Racine and Waukesha, where officials said they couldn’t fulfill the request at all because it would be too burdensome.

Refusing to provide this information, or charging prohibitive fees for such records, is antithetical to school districts’ legal duty — and moral obligation — of transparency. 

Educators have unique access to children and an enormous amount of responsibility for their safety at school. By far the majority can be trusted with those responsibilities. But in some cases that trust is violated — as in the state Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling, involving an educator who was viewing adult websites on his school computer.

As the court said in its decision, “The public has an interest in knowing about such allegations of teacher misconduct and how they are handled.”

And, I would add, members of the public shouldn’t have to take out a loan to get this information.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group dedicated to open government. Council secretary Mark Treinen (mtreinen@captimes.com) is editor of the Cap Times in Madison.

Your Right to Know: Costs shouldn’t be used to deter records requests is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

The U.S. Capitol on the evening of Tuesday, Sept. 30, 2025, just hours before a federal government shutdown. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The vast majority of Americans, including Republicans and those who identify as strong supporters of President Donald Trump, want Congress to renew the enhanced tax credits for people who buy their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act Marketplace, according to a poll released Friday. 

More than 78% of people surveyed by the nonpartisan health organization KFF in late September said they want lawmakers to keep the enhanced credits. Their extension has become a major linchpin in debate about the government shutdown. 

When broken down by political party, 92% of Democrats, 82% of independents and 59% of Republicans supported renewing the credits.

Within the Republican Party, 57% of people who identified as supporting Trump’s Make America Great Again policies and 70% of GOP voters who identified as non-MAGA supporters want to see the tax credits extended, according to the poll.  

Spending bill held up over tax credit debate

The ACA tax credit expansion was created by Democrats in a coronavirus relief bill approved during the Biden administration and set to expire at the end of the year. 

Democrats have repeatedly called on Republicans to negotiate an extension of the enhanced tax credits and have held up a stopgap spending bill to force those talks to happen now, rather than later in the year. 

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Thursday the discussion should happen during the next few months and that GOP lawmakers will press for “major reform.” 

“That’s not a simple issue. That’s going to take weeks to deliberate and discuss and debate, but that’s the beauty of the process. We have three months to do that. That is not an issue for today,” Johnson said. “Today the only issue is whether they’re going to vote to keep the government operating for the people.”

Democrats strongly disagree, saying a bipartisan accord must be struck before the open enrollment period for ACA plans begins on Nov. 1, when consumers will see large cost increases for next year. 

“We can’t accept an empty promise, which is, ‘Oh, we’ll deal with this later,’” Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said on a call with reporters Thursday. “The fact is that this crisis is in front of us now. People are getting this month their premium increases if the Senate does not act.”

Murray said she finds it “ironic” that Republican leaders are saying they’ll negotiate with Democrats on health care once the government reopens after they “refused to negotiate with us during that entire time when government was open.”

The House voted mostly along party lines in mid-September to approve a seven-week stopgap spending bill that has since stalled in the Senate, leading to the shutdown.

The upper chamber, where major legislation needs at least 60 votes to advance, is set to vote again Friday to try to advance Republicans’ short-term government funding bill, though it’s unlikely to move forward amid the stalemate.  

Many of those polled knew little about shutdown debate 

The KFF poll looked at public knowledge and understanding about the enhanced tax credits for ACA Marketplace health insurance plans, finding 61% of respondents knew nothing or only a little about the issue. 

Another 32% of those surveyed said they know some about the policy debate and 7% said they know a lot. 

The poll of 1,334 adults took place Sept. 23 to Sept. 29 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points for a full survey. Each political affiliation question has a margin of error of plus or minus 6 percentage points.

The government shutdown began on Oct. 1, just after the poll wrapped. 

Concern about the ramifications of letting the enhanced tax credits expire fluctuated when KFF asked the question in different ways, though those who said they were “very concerned” never dipped below a majority. 

Fifty-six percent were very concerned and 30% were somewhat concerned when told “health insurance would be unaffordable for many people who buy their own coverage” if the enhanced tax credits weren’t extended. 

The number of people who would be very or somewhat concerned was high among Republicans, 78%, and MAGA supporters, 76%. 

Respondents who were very concerned rose to 60% when told “about 4 million people will lose their health insurance coverage” if they do not keep receiving the enhanced credits. An additional 26% said they were somewhat concerned and 10% said they were not too concerned, with the rest of those polled saying they were not concerned at all. 

When broken down by political party, the number of people very or somewhat concerned remained high, with 76% of Republicans and 73% of MAGA supporters citing worry. 

Small business staff, self-employed people

Fifty-one percent of those polled said they were very concerned when told “millions of people who work at small businesses or who are self-employed would be directly impacted as many of them rely on the ACA marketplace.”

Another 33% said they were somewhat concerned, 11% said they were not too concerned and the remainder said they were not concerned at all. 

Seventy-five percent of Republicans and 72% of MAGA supporters responded they would be very or somewhat concerned when asked that question. 

The poll showed that Congress extending the enhanced tax credits as they exist now comes with some trepidation about the price tag. 

When asked how concerned people would be if they heard “it would require significant federal spending that would be largely paid for by taxpayers,” 27% said they would be very concerned, 36% somewhat concerned, 28% not too concerned and 8% not at all concerned. 

Forty-one percent of Republicans said they would be very concerned, with another 41% responding they would be somewhat concerned. An additional 15% said they would be not too concerned with the rest saying they were not concerned at all.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

As homelessness grows across Wisconsin, social service agencies are feeling a crunch. The federal government is slashing funding for tackling the problem, and state lawmakers aren’t helping much either. 

Reporters for Wisconsin Watch, the nonprofit news organization for which I work, unpacked those challenges in a mid-July story. They noted the Legislature’s budget writing committee rejected a $24 million proposal by Gov. Tony Evers to boost funding for homelessness support services and shelter operations. 

The reason? Committee leaders won’t say. 

The 2,358-word story included perspectives of multiple service providers and policy experts, but the lawmakers were conspicuously absent. My colleagues sent multiple requests for comment to four members of the committee, including its two co-chairs. One declined an interview request. The others did not reply.

The silence leaves the public guessing. 

Do the lawmakers disagree on the scope of the problem? Do they think money can be better spent on other issues? How much is just politics between a Republican-controlled committee and a Democratic governor? 

We don’t know because they won’t tell us.

It’s hard to address homelessness — or any complex challenge —  if we don’t even know where leaders stand.

Unfortunately, independent journalists are growing accustomed to being ignored. In a trend spanning multiple levels of government and political parties, public officials are increasingly avoiding answering inconvenient questions about matters of public concern. They’re sending generic statements instead of agreeing to interviews that are more likely to yield clarity. That’s if they respond at all. 

It’s happening in Wisconsin and beyond.

“Patterns of media evasion and selective engagement have become the norm for many newsmakers. They may work with media that are friendly to or aligned with the source’s views, resulting in little to no accountability questions or pushback,” states a 2024 Poynter Institute report. “Many sources who once engaged with reporters, even if grudgingly, have become masters of media avoidance.” 

Such tactics are less harmful to journalists than they are to constituents. We ask questions on behalf of the public — not to satisfy our own curiosities. Ignoring us is ignoring the public. 

In Wisconsin, the silence means less information on everything from state prison staffing shortages to the politics behind state conservation funding or dormant city initiatives in Milwaukee. 

Earlier this year, a McFarland man who arrived three years ago from Cuba attended what he thought would be the first hearing in his asylum case —  after following steps laid out by the federal government. Instead, a judge dismissed Miguel Jerez Robles’ case and agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested him.

“He had everything in order, and he was arbitrarily arrested and placed in expedited removal when he doesn’t qualify to be in expedited removal,” his attorney told the Capital Times and Wisconsin Watch. 

The news outlets reached out to ICE for comment. It did not respond. A month after his arrest, the man was released, still with no explanation. 

Thankfully, such stonewalling is not universal. Some officials still value transparency, agreeing to interviews that help the public understand their actions. It’s probably not always easy. Engaging with journalists takes time and energy, and requests may flow in with tight deadlines.

But their constituents are better off for it.

While writing this column, I emailed the four lawmakers who did not comment during Wisconsin Watch’s homelessness reporting in July: Rep. Mark Born, R-Beaver Dam; Sen. Howard Marklein, R-Spring Green; Sen. Romaine Robert Quinn, R-Birchwood; and Sen. Eric Wimberger, R-Oconto. I offered a fresh chance to discuss their vote and share their perspectives on receiving media requests. 

None of them responded. 

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Council member Jim Malewitz is managing editor of Wisconsin Watch.

Your Right to Know: ‘No comment’ is no help to the public is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

This month, for the first time in 30 years, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is without Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. It is also without one of its most consistent advocates for transparency in government. 

Bradley served three 10-year terms on the court, the last of which expired July 31. During this time, she wrote nearly 600 opinions, including quite a few that contained important interpretations of Wisconsin’s open records and meetings laws.

In a 1996 opinion, Bradley rejected the argument that open records and meetings lawsuits had to be preceded by 120 days notice. Bradley, writing for a unanimous court, said the laws require “timely access to the affairs of government.” 

In 2007, Bradley’s majority opinion in Buswell v. Tomah Area School District strengthened the public notice requirements of the state’s open meetings law. That case required meeting notices to be more specific about the subject matter of topics to be discussed, to better inform the public. 

In another majority opinion in 2008, Bradley provided some clarity as to when “quasi-governmental corporations” are subject to the open meetings law. In that case, the Beaver Dam city economic development office had closed, then was immediately replaced by a private corporation that continued to use city offices and receive tax dollars. Bradley’s opinion concluded that because the corporation still resembled the government in function, purpose and effect, it had to follow the laws.

Not every opinion written by Bradley was for the majority. In 2017, she dissented from a decision to exempt from disclosure unredacted immigration detainer forms sent by the Milwaukee County jail to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Her opinion methodically rejected the county’s arguments in favor of redaction, arguing that “continuous ‘chipping away’ has substantially gutted Wisconsin’s commitment to open government.” 

Just one year later, Bradley dissented again, this time from an opinion that denied a public union’s request for certification forms. “The unfounded speculation that the records might be used for improper purposes,” she wrote, “does not outweigh the strong public interest in opening the records to inspection.”

Regardless of whether Bradley wrote a majority, dissenting or concurring opinion, she always emphasized the strong public policy in favor of open government set forth in Wisconsin’s open records and open meetings laws. And she condemned decisions that paid only “lip service” to these principles, calling them “all hat and no cattle.” 

Bradley even had occasion to apply open government principles to the Wisconsin Supreme Court itself. In 2012, she opposed its 4-3 decision to close some of the court’s rules and operations conferences to the public. As reported by Wisconsin Watch at the time, Bradley questioned the change, asking, “What is the good public policy reason to exclude the public from this process? I can’t think of any.” 

In 2017, Bradley was one of two justices who voted against closing all such conferences. (Fortunately, in 2023, a newly constituted court decided to reopen its conferences, with Bradley in the majority.)

Bradley told Wisconsin Lawyer magazine that she intends to stay engaged with organizations that support law and civics education. Her dedication to open government in these endeavors should serve her well, as it has the citizens of Wisconsin for three decades.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group dedicated to open government. Christa Westerberg is the council’s vice president and a partner at the Pines Bach law firm in Madison. Heather Kuebel contributed research to this column.

Your Right to Know: Ann Walsh Bradley and the cause of openness is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

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.

The following commentary was written by Carrie Zalewski, former Chair of the Illinois Commerce Commission and currently vice president of markets and transmission at the American Clean Power Association; and Brent Bailey, former Mississippi Public Service Commissioner and current vice president of operations at Efficient Power & Light LLC. See our commentary guidelines for more information.

---

Building the power grid of the future requires deploying every available tool in the present.

When it comes to electricity generation, energy wonks often reference an “all-the-above” strategy, which includes all available power sources — fossil fuels, renewable energy, and storage technologies. But generation is just one part of the reliability and affordability equation.

The Midwestern transmission grid must also evolve and adopt an “all-the-above” mentality to withstand increasingly frequent extreme weather events and support rapidly growing power demand while ensuring reliable and low-cost electricity for consumers. This is no small task. As such, policymakers and grid operators must carefully consider all near-term and long-term solutions.

New high-voltage transmission lines are essential to ensure the grid of the future is prepared for surging load growth. But new transmission line development and construction can take many years. To address immediate needs, there are other solutions that can improve capacity in the near term. Enter: advanced grid technologies.

Significant technological advancements are available now that can come online in one to three years compared to the decade or so it takes to build new transmission lines. Such advancements include: grid-enhancing technologies (GETs) — hardware and/or software that can increase the capacity and efficiency of existing transmission lines most hours of the year — as well as high-performance conductors (HPCs) — which offer greater capacity and efficiency benefits compared to traditional conductors.

While these advanced grid technologies cannot provide enough capacity to meet long-term system needs, they are relatively inexpensive and drive enormous cost savings until we can bring regional backbone lines into service. Deploying GETs and HPCs in the near term to help meet projected demand growth while simultaneously planning and constructing new regional and interregional transmission lines is key to ensuring the delivery of reliable, low-cost power across the Midwest.

MISO, the central U.S. grid operator, is considering a second portfolio of transmission projects aimed at creating a regional backbone of long-distance lines that will enable power to flow across the Upper and Central Midwest. These transmission lines will build upon investments made in the first tranche of projects, approved by the grid operator in 2022, which began to lay the groundwork for an evolution of the system.

The second batch of potential projects aims to “reliably and efficiently enable MISO member goals and load growth,” delivering benefits that significantly outweigh costs. Across much of the current system, MISO found that at least 10% of facilities are overloaded and annual curtailments exceed 15%, meaning available generators are forced offline because there is not enough grid capacity to carry their power.

MISO will also soon consider transmission projects for the Southern region of MISO as well as measures to increase the flow of electricity between the MISO regions.  A regional problem requires regional solutions, including well-vetted, long-distance transmission lines.

Additionally, there is a significant need for greater interregional transmission capacity between MISO and its neighbors. The U.S. Department of Energy identified especially high congestion between the Midwest and Plains states. This means there are bottlenecks in the system that hinder the ability to deliver electricity between these areas. As a result, more interregional transmission ties from MISO to the Plains would offer considerable consumer benefits in the form of increased reliability and decreased costs when affordable clean energy can be accessed and transmitted back to MISO members.

Building the grid of the future will require every technology at our disposal. It’s critical that grid operators and state regulators consider and implement all transmission technology tools when planning and building a system that will enhance national security, facilitate regional economic development, and withstand new and growing reliability threats for generations to come.

Commentary: To keep the lights on, the Midwest needs an ‘all of the above’ power grid 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 Daksh Arora, a project engineer at GameChange Solar, content director for the MIT Energy Conference 2025, and a fellow at the Clean Energy Leadership Institute. See our commentary guidelines for more information.

---

States like Massachusetts must take the lead in advancing the United States’ climate goals, especially under the incoming Trump administration. While the Biden Administration’s landmark Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 made significant strides, the U.S. is still on track to achieve only 66% of its greenhouse gas reduction targets by 2030.

With the potential for further setbacks, such as a possible second withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, states like Massachusetts must step up to drive the deployment of clean energy and climate solutions.

The “Direct Pay” provision in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is a game-changer for municipalities, state and local governments, and other tax-exempt entities to access federal clean energy tax credits. This provision allows entities such as nonprofits, schools, tribal governments, and municipal utilities to receive tax credits directly from the IRS, rather than relying on tax liability to claim them.

Before the IRA, only private entities could benefit from these credits, putting public entities at a disadvantage in developing clean energy projects. The Direct Pay provision has no cap on government spending through 2032, offering new opportunities for public sector investment in clean energy. Furthermore, IRA also increases the maximum available tax credit for certain clean energy projects, from 30% to 50%, with the potential for up to 70% or more for projects in energy or low-income communities, or those using American-made materials, helping overcome financial barriers that previously slowed public clean energy development.

To claim direct pay, eligible entities must complete their energy projects before receiving payment from the federal government, which will occur the following year. While the tax credits will lower overall project costs, upfront capital is still needed to finance projects before the refund arrives.

To help address this, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), a $27 billion program established by another IRA provision, provides increased green bank financing, supporting an equitable green financing ecosystem across the U.S. The IRS just finalized the direct pay rules and it would be really difficult for the next administration to repeal it. 

City governments like in Somerville and Cambridge can use direct pay to supplement the costs of deploying renewable energy infrastructure such as solar panels and storage technologies on public lands and buildings; electrifying vehicle fleets; and building out electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

The cities can also establish their own municipal clean energy utility. In 2024, voters in Ann Arbor approved the creation of a “Sustainable Energy Utility” (SEU) with 79% support. The SEU is designed to supplement the existing energy grid and help residents transition to cleaner, more reliable energy sources. The SEU plans to initially secure 20 megawatts of demand, using that to finance and install solar panels, batteries, and energy-efficiency upgrades for customers. The utility will own and maintain the solar systems, providing power to customers at cost, with no markup, allowing residents to access solar and backup power without upfront costs or debt.

Direct Pay is also a significant shift that allows public power entities, like the New York Power Authority (NYPA), to directly own renewable energy projects instead of relying on complex public-private partnerships. This makes it easier for NYPA to scale up clean energy projects by bypassing the need for third-party ownership structures that were previously required.

While there is an urgent need for funding in renewable energy, infrastructure, and other green initiatives, challenges like high capital costs and slow land acquisition complicate the transition. Some critics argue that financial de-risking may lead to the privatization of public goods and place the private sector in control of the green transition, raising concerns about the fairness of these arrangements. Despite these challenges, the question remains whether private investors can truly finance the world’s vast unmet green infrastructure needs and whether it’s technically possible to overcome the barriers in place. 

Regardless of this question, investing in public capacity is a net win for the environment as direct pay not only levels the playing field between for-profit and tax-exempt entities but also shifts energy generation ownership from private to public and nonprofit sectors, enabling more consumer-focused management of energy assets. States like Massachusetts should ensure that benefits from the IRA reach low-income and marginalized communities.

Massachusetts just streamlined the process for building solar and wind farms, transmission lines, and other energy infrastructure to help meet its climate goals by 2050. The state can do more by working to help communities understand the types of investments eligible for direct pay and how to secure financing for clean energy projects, making access to this funding easier and more efficient. The state can also lead by setting an example by deploying climate solutions at scale and ensuring utilities maximize the federal clean energy tax credits by regulatory oversight.

At the moment, when the state is experiencing a historic drought fueled by climate change, the inaction to expand clean energy infrastructure and advance environmental justice is no longer an option.

Commentary: Trump may struggle to repeal this IRA provision; Massachusetts should use it 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 John Szoka. Szoka is is the CEO of Conservative Energy Network, a national network of state-based organizations focused on promoting clean energy innovation rooted in conservative values. See our commentary guidelines for more information.

---

It’s been three years since the North Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill 951, legislation known as the Energy Solutions for North Carolina Act. It was a historic occasion to get consensus across the aisle and across House and Senate chambers to pass this bill. It served as a compact with all North Carolinians that the appropriate planning and consideration would go into plotting out an energy future for our state that would keep power bills affordable and stable, accelerate innovation and economic development in clean energy technologies, all while significantly reducing emissions from the electric power sector. 

That legislation — and all the work that’s gone into it so far by the NC Utilities Commission, the utilities, industry groups, and a wide range of stakeholders — is already propelling North Carolina to make meaningful headway towards its shared goals for our state. Its endurance is critical to keeping us on the right path.

Keeping electric rates affordable is a central priority of the law. And whether or not you’re a proponent of clean energy as an ideology, this law is based on a business case: diversifying North Carolina’s energy mix to incorporate more modern power-generating technologies protects ratepayers from the unpredictable and volatile whims of global oil and gas markets. Looking through data from utility rate cases over the last several years, it’s simply a fact that natural gas market price spikes drove the overwhelming majority of increases we all saw on our monthly power bills. The more we can diversify our energy mix with technologies that come with no-fuel-cost sources like onshore and offshore wind, and solar with battery storage, the better off our wallets will be.

And it’s not just residential ratepayers who are better off with the kind of clean energy mix that House Bill 951 legislates, it’s North Carolina’s economy as a whole. When rates are lower, it makes our state a much more attractive place for business and industry to choose to set up shop, bringing with them huge investment dollars and quality local jobs. We should not underestimate how significant a factor that keeping North Carolina’s electricity rates competitive is in driving business investment. We currently enjoy a ranking as one of the best states to do business in, which is directly tied to being able to keep electricity rates below the national average. Electricity prices across the country are anticipated to rise over the coming decade, but if we stay the course with the energy objectives defined in House Bill 951, North Carolina should remain competitive in this area.

The energy plan is so far working as intended. Utilities and stakeholders are working with the NC Utilities Commission to make some very complex decisions about the long-term state of North Carolina’s electricity grid. Making the right decisions that will best accommodate new technologies and strengthen the grid’s reliability, while also controlling costs is a tough task. It’s clear that the Utilities Commission is taking the task laid upon them by this law seriously. And we need to continue to engage in and trust that process, as defined by the consensus legislation we deliberated upon and passed.

An energy plan that keeps rates low for customers and drives economic growth is a sound business model. And North Carolina’s voters know it. Poll after poll shows that North Carolinians understand the correlation between high gas prices and the dollar signs on their monthly power bills. Meanwhile, clean energy technology prices drop year after year. Clean energy reliability and operability rise year after year.

Intentionally diversifying those technologies into our energy mix via House Bill 951 was a common sense business decision for North Carolina’s economy. The leaders who passed this bill into law three years ago had the foresight to establish energy policy that will serve our state well for generations to come. Ensuring that the next sitting legislature supports and sustains this policy will be critical for the affordability and durability of North Carolina’s energy future.

Commentary: Consensus-driven bill protects North Carolina from high power bills and spurs innovation 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.

This article is a paid promotion and the Energy News Network is not responsible for its contents.

Reliable hot water is critical for restaurants for preparing food and washing dishes and equipment, as well as hand washing.

However, water heating is one of the biggest energy users in restaurants. Heating water for restaurant use accounts for 16% of all commercial gas usage in California. Food service buildings are among the highest intensive energy users on a per-square-foot basis, largely because of their hot water usage. Foodservice operations may soon feel the pressure to electrify. The California Air Resources Board is analyzing proposed zero-emission GHG standards for new space and water heaters. It is currently planned for consideration in 2025 with any implementation beginning in 2030, and would only be applicable to the purchase of new equipment

Doing so will be difficult, particularly for existing restaurants. Many food service operations, especially small and independent businesses, do not have the space for the size of a storage tank that would be required for a heat pump water heater. Restaurants in California, as with most states, are legally required to have sufficient hot water to meet all these demands under peak conditions.

In response to these challenges, an emerging technology, the heat pump-assisted water heater, is gaining traction. It is designed to meet this existing gap between what the market needs and the cost and challenges of installing available heat pump water heaters. It is geared to meet the needs of existing food service businesses that want to be able to transition to a heat pump while still retaining the benefits of their current water heating system.

With funding from CalNEXT — California’s statewide emerging technology initiative — the TRC Advanced Energy team recently published a report, “Market Potential for Heat Pump Assisted Hot Water Systems in Foodservice Facilities.” This report, which TRC Advanced Energy developed with research support from Frontier Energy and Energy Solutions, assesses the benefits and challenges of adopting heat pump-assisted water heater technology for a range of food service establishments.

“Heat pump-assisted water heaters are a solution that we have available today,” said Amin Delagah, Associate Director of Research and Consulting for TRC Advanced Energy, an environmental services provider. “Heat pump water heater adoption rates in restaurants are still very low due to a lack of familiarity, space and electrical capacity requirements and primarily, the health department water heater sizing regulatory barrier, but the heat pump assist concept is a solution that we can move forward today to overcome these barriers.”

The heat pump-assisted water heater, as its name suggests, is designed to operate in series with an existing water heater, which makes it attractive for restaurants that do not want to overhaul their current system completely. During down times for the business, the existing heater would maintain the recirculation temperature of already heated water in its system. During off hours, the heat pump-assisted water heater would produce sufficient hot water to restock the system. Because the existing heater is already large enough to meet food service needs during business hours, the heat pump-assisted water heater system can be built to fit the available space, even if it is undersized.

The benefits of using a heat pump-assisted water heater are similar to those of a heat pump: improved energy efficiency and possibly lower long-term energy costs, although cost issues largely depend on the type of system being replaced. Natural gas fuel, which is used by 90 percent of food service operations for water heating, is currently cheaper than electricity in most of California.

Heat pump systems also provide cooling as a byproduct, which could be useful to counteract kitchen heat.

Heat pump-assisted water heaters are designed to address the big disadvantage of heat pump water heaters for restaurants — the longer time needed to heat the water from cold. One workaround is a much larger tank, but floor space is typically at a premium in restaurants, making this workaround unappealing for many food service operations. For a heat pump water heater to meet health department requirements, it would need a much bigger tank than its gas-fired counterpart (because the gas-fired water heater can heat water faster).

Heat pump-assisted water heaters may also be cheaper to install than a conventional, retrofitted heat pump water heater system, and the heat pump-assisted water heater does not need to meet these sizing regulations because the legacy water heater still functions as a backup system. At this point, the technology is still emerging and has not been installed commercially, but the authors estimate that initial costs for the heat pump water heater that acts as the assist, including installation, could range between $6,000 to $20,000. This amount, while significant, is still much cheaper than what it could cost a full-service restaurant to install a heat pump water heater capable of meeting water demands, which could well exceed $100,000.  

“The costs for heat pump assisted heat pumps are largely driven by the electrical work and the space required, and there may be incentives available to offset these,” Delagah said.

Another benefit is that because the heat pump-assisted water heater is a backup system, it does not require health department approval, making the process simpler.  

Both heat pump water heaters and heat pump-assisted water heaters also have the additional operational benefit of being able to benefit from time-of-use rates and the additional cooling they could provide for kitchens.

“This year in October, it was 95 degrees in the Bay Area,” Delagah said. “There are new California OSHA rules on the books for indoor temperatures — if your facilities are over an 82°F temperature indoors, you have to provide cooling centers for employees. That’s becoming an emerging concern for restaurants to meet a new heat illness standard.”

On the downside, the higher upfront costs will likely still be a significant barrier to the adoption of heat pump-assisted water heaters, even if they are relatively less expensive than heat pump water heaters.

One big hurdle is that health departments, by and large, are not familiar with the technology — and may be more resistant to its approval. The relatively high price of electricity in California, compared with gas, may be another barrier. 

Yet regulations and the need to decarbonize are moving closer, with California’s 2030 deadlines for reducing its overall greenhouse gas emissions by 40%, in comparison with 1990 levels. Restaurants are well positioned to be the public face of doing their part.

“This is great equipment for restaurants that are thinking about positioning themselves for where things are going in terms of air quality regulations,” Delagah said. “If you’re a chain restaurant, you should probably be trying this out, kicking the tires a bit, and preparing for what your solution is going to be when there is a mandate.”

To learn more about this project, read the report on the CalNEXT website, calnext.com  

About CalNEXT: CalNEXT is a statewide initiative to identify, test, and grow electric technologies and delivery methods to support California’s decarbonized future. CalNEXT is funded by the ratepayers of California investor-owned utilities and provides a means for studying emerging technologies and energy-efficiency innovations that have the potential to save energy via utility programs and/or market support.

Article written by Emily Pickrell, Energy Solutions

Commentary: Heat pump-assisted water heater technology could make big lift 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 Kelley Trombley, senior manager of state policy at Ceres. See our commentary guidelines for more information.

---

This campaign season, the state of Washington was a battleground for energy and climate policy. The pitched fight over Initiative 2117 became one of the most expensive ballot measures in state history, drawing millions of dollars in political funding to each side of the issue, which would have repealed Washington’s Climate Commitment Act to end its nation-leading cap-and-invest system. In its first year alone, the policy has driven $2.2 billion into projects designed to protect the state from the effects of climate change while fighting pollution, but faced opposition from those who argued it hurt the economy. 

Yet it was some of the top employers in the state – and for that matter on the planet – that urged voters to keep the program in place. Amazon, Microsoft, and REI were among the many companies urging a no vote. And in the end, voters agreed, decisively defeating the ballot measure by a wide margin. It turns out that this kind of climate action is actually an economic boon. 

The strong showing of corporate support for the CCA shouldn’t be surprising. Take it from me and my colleagues at Ceres, a sustainability nonprofit that works with businesses and investors across the country on sustainability issues. Over the last decade, leading businesses have increasingly come to recognize that climate and clean energy policies are key economic drivers. Business leaders have rallied to support them – from the federal Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, marking the nation’s largest-ever investment into confronting climate change, to ambitious legislation in states across the U.S., including here in Washington. 

To understand why, just think about what businesses need to prosper. Reliable and affordable electricity to power their operations. Good transportation networks to ensure people and goods can get where they need to be. Infrastructure investment and job growth to bolster local economies. Market-based systems to efficiently solve pressing economywide problems. And, last but not least, a healthy workforce. 

The CCA is delivering all of that.  

By putting a cap on carbon pollution designed to all but eliminate it by 2050, the policy uses basic economic principles to address the challenge and financial risks of climate change. It promises to reduce impacts such as floods, drought, heatwaves, and severe storms that threaten pillars of the economy that businesses depend on, such as infrastructure, facilities, supply chains, and workforces. Not only that, the CCA is also investing in improving and fortifying many of those very things: its revenue is being used to improve and modernize energy and transportation infrastructure, invest in energy efficiency, and protect communities from climate impacts. Repealing it was projected to cost some 45,000 good-paying jobs and do $9 billion in economic damage. 

Businesses understood the CCA is about protecting and strengthening our economic future, one that we are all in together. And voters did too. By voting no, Washington has signaled to companies across the U.S. that it is acting to address a major economic challenge and is investing in solutions that businesses of the future will rely on.  

There’s a lesson here for state policymakers around the country, especially those committed to strengthening their communities as an attractive and reliable place to conduct business. The private sector will continue to seize business opportunities as clean energy investment grows, and states will find broad support when they address the economic imperative to reduce pollution and advance clean power, transportation, and building policies. In Washington, voters made it abundantly clear that their “no” vote wasn’t about just protecting the climate. It was about protecting the economy as well. 

Commentary: Why businesses stood up for Washington state’s cap-and-invest policy 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 Mel Mackinm, director of state policy at Ceres, a nonprofit that works with investors and companies to advance clean energy policy. See our commentary guidelines for more information.

---

Look out across Michigan and you’ll see groundbreakings for major solar panel manufacturing sites, huge investments to build battery cells, and sparkling new facilities to ensure the state stays in the driver’s seat as the auto industry moves into the future.

It seems Michigan manufacturing is having a moment.

It’s little wonder why. Michigan has always had the legacy, the workforce, the supply chains, and the know-how to serve as the epicenter of an American manufacturing renaissance. That’s exactly what’s happened since Congress finalized the nation’s largest-ever clean energy investment in the summer of 2022.

Powered by incentives for companies to manufacture and deploy clean energy infrastructure and technology here in the U.S., the Inflation Reduction Act has unlocked more than $360 billion in private-sector investment in less than two years, according to research from Climate Power. Its impact has been felt in every corner of the country with hundreds of new projects taking shape to build innovative technologies, employ hundreds of thousands of workers, and power the economy – all while cutting costs and pollution. But no other state has seen as much activity as Michigan, the site of 58 new clean energy projects.

Michigan policymakers deserve some credit for moving quickly to take full advantage of this opportunity. In 2022, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer made clear in her MI Healthy Climate Plan that she wanted to make Michigan one of the best places in the world to build and deploy clean energy. Lawmakers since followed her lead with legislation that will move the state to 100% clean electricity by 2040 and ensure clean power infrastructure can be built both quickly and responsibly – a pair of laws that boasted ample support from Michigan companies that recognize confronting climate change is also an economic opportunity.

These policies were designed to fully harness the Inflation Reduction Act, making clear that the state is ready to support the growing number of businesses that supply or rely on innovative clean technology. In response, businesses that include classic Michigan manufacturers like GM, global brands like Corning, and upstarts like Lucid Motors have flooded the state with more than $21.5 billion in new clean energy innovation and manufacturing investment, creating some 20,100 new jobs.

With projects located from Detroit to Holland to Traverse City, so much of the state is already benefitting. That includes communities that have so far been left behind in the 21st century economy. About half of the state’s recent clean energy investment is located in rural or low-income areas, such as Norm Fasteners’ $77 million facility that will create 200 electric vehicle supply chain jobs in Bath Charter Township.

Now is not the time to slow down. We are now in the throes of the 2024 election, and we all know Michigan has been getting a lot of attention. No matter what happens in November, Michigan and the U.S. must continue investing in this revamped manufacturing base. Policymakers on both sides of the aisle have prioritized rebuilding American industry to provide good jobs and bolster U.S. leadership

Michigan’s clean energy manufacturing boom provides clear evidence that this shared goal is coming to fruition. Policymakers at both the federal and state levels, along with leaders in the private sector, must maintain this momentum and the strong policy environment that will allow the U.S. and its workforce to lead the global economy in the emerging industries of the future – with Michigan, as it so often has, standing strong as the foundation.

Commentary: Michigan is the epicenter of America’s clean energy manufacturing renaissance 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 Laura Sherman, president of the Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council. See our commentary guidelines for more information.

---

Last year, Michigan got attention as the first Midwestern state to adopt an energy storage standard. Energy storage is essential for the clean energy transition because it allows clean electricity initially generated by sources like wind and solar to be available at all times.

The standard calls for 2,500 MW of energy storage to be deployed by 2030. This storage will be fulfilled by a range of technologies, with lithium-ion batteries, the type of the storage that has grown rapidly across the U.S. and the world in recent years, chief among them. But it’s not too early to start thinking about how this standard (and future standards) will also involve new technologies that serve different needs, including shifting low-cost energy over longer periods of time to support electric reliability and affordability. A U.S. Department of Energy report found that to achieve a net-zero economy, the U.S. grid may need 225 GW to 460 GW of long-duration energy storage by 2050. By comparison, the U.S. currently has over 500 GW of gas power plants, and battery storage capacity is expected to double to about 30 GW by the end of this year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Fortunately, Michigan’s energy legislation anticipated this need. The legislation that created the 2030 storage target also ordered Michigan regulators to report to lawmakers on the potential for long-duration and multi-day energy storage. The Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) is in the midst of this study right now.

But how is “long-duration” energy storage different from the battery storage that is growing quickly in Michigan and across the country right now? It’s all about the concept of duration, which refers to how long a storage resource like a battery can discharge stored energy until it is out of capacity. Most of the batteries being built at utility scale right now have a duration of around four hours. But long-duration storage refers to resources that have a duration of over 8 hours and up to well over 100 hours.

This longer duration unlocks capabilities that will make 100% clean electricity a reality. Short-duration storage right now can cover shortfalls in wind and solar on an hour-by-hour basis. But what about if there is a shortfall in energy supply expected not for just a few hours, but from one day to the next? Or from one month to the next? Those situations arise especially in seasons like winter, where cloud cover can linger and hamper solar energy production for extended periods of time. That is where the need for long-duration storage comes in. Long-duration storage could become a capacity resource that grid operators can tap to reliably deal with long-term fluctuations in energy supply, like those caused by changes in the season from summer to winter.

What would this type of energy storage actually look like in practice? Two companies that are members of the Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council are potential examples.

• Energy Dome’s above ground compressed gas technology, the “CO2 Battery,” is a closed-loop system that holds carbon dioxide gas in a large dome structure. Using electricity from solar panels and wind turbines, this gas is heated and compressed into a liquid, which can be easily stored at room temperature. When discharging, the liquid is evaporated, and the resulting gas spins a turbine, generating electricity when needed, often with one full cycle per day (8+ hours of discharging). The company is currently constructing its first full-scale plant in Sardinia, Italy, with the project nearing completion. In the U.S., another plant is soon to follow, with project proponent Alliant Energy recently filing for regulatory approval of the Columbia Energy Storage Project in Wisconsin.
• Form Energy is commercializing a multi-day energy storage technology, a 100-hour duration iron-air battery for utility-scale applications. Essentially, the battery rusts and un-rusts iron to store and release electricity. Form Energy has constructed a new factory to manufacture these batteries domestically, and is working to deploy the first large-scale demonstrations of its technology with utilities like Great River Energy, Xcel Energy, Dominion and Georgia Power in 2025 and 2026.

A tremendous amount of innovative work will need to happen between now and the realization of the full potential for long-duration storage. There are a few things Michigan regulators should do with their study to best set up the state to reap the benefits from these emerging technologies:

First, the Commission should set clear targets for how much long-duration and multi-day storage utilities need to procure in coming years. Utilities are generally conservative and hesitant to pursue new technologies unless pushed or clearly allowed. But this problem is particularly heightened when it comes to long-duration storage. That’s because utilities, if given a megawatt target for storage they must deploy, will likely acquire storage without considering the benefits of having a diverse portfolio of technologies that can deliver energy over different durations. As a result, Michigan may lose out on the operational benefits that come from having a diversified storage portfolio. These benefits include the ability of long-duration storage to make firing up high-emitting, fossil-fuel-burning peaker plants unnecessary because the storage can provide more reliable, cleaner and cheaper alternatives. They also include overall cost and land-use savings, by storing renewable energy when it would otherwise be wasted and shifting it over long time periods when it is most needed.

Second, speaking of substitutes for fossil fuel plants, the Commission should identify which power plant sites around the state could be good candidates for being replaced with long-duration storage projects. Michigan’s coal-fired power plants are almost all retired, with Consumers Energy this year set to retire its final coal plant in Ottawa County. Long-duration storage could be fitting replacements for not only those plants, but also gas plants that will be reaching the end of their life cycles in coming years.

With its storage targets, Michigan has already become one of the national leaders in energy storage. Let’s further cement that reputation by taking steps now for smart planning for long-duration storage. All Michiganders stand to benefit from the potential for long-duration storage to enable an electric grid that is cleaner, lower-cost and more reliable.

Commentary: How Michigan regulators can help advance energy storage 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.