Reading Time: 3 minutes

A homeowner in Wauwatosa can do exactly what public messaging asks: take shorter showers, time irrigation thoughtfully, fix leaks and otherwise reduce water use. Then the quarterly bill arrives, and the cost barely moves. The homeowner might jump to a dangerous conclusion: that conservation is symbolic, not economic.

It’s an understandable reaction to misaligned incentives.

Utilities need stable revenue to maintain infrastructure that does not shrink with short-term changes in household use. At the same time, households need bills that make conservation visibly and promptly worthwhile. If both are true, the issue is not whether residents are wrong to feel frustrated, but whether rate design effectively translates public goals into household-level incentives.

This tension — between conservation messaging and what bills actually show — points to a broader public accountability issue for utilities across Wisconsin.

Wauwatosa is a useful case study because the city publishes its bill components clearly enough to reveal this trade-off.

What the Wauwatosa bill structure shows

As published by Wauwatosa’s water utility, a residential bill combines multiple components across water, sewer and storm water. For common 5/8-inch and 3/4-inch meters, the city page currently lists:

• A fixed quarterly water service charge: $20.00.
• A fixed public fire protection charge: $15.99.
• A fixed quarterly Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (regional sewer) connection charge: $16.41.
• A fixed quarterly storm water charge (per equivalent residential unit): $35.63.

Taken together, that amounts to $88.03 per quarter in fixed charges before any usage-based costs, local sanitary flows or temporary surcharges are added. For many households, that fixed baseline stands out because it does not change with daily behavior.

The Wauwatosa webpage notes another key detail: Residential sewer charges are based on average water use from the previous winter quarter. That approach can make engineering sense for irrigation-heavy months, but it also means residents who cut back now may not immediately see those savings reflected in their sewer charges.

When customers see both that delay and a large fixed baseline, the takeaway is simple: “My effort doesn’t matter.”

That is the policy risk.

Why this perception matters beyond one city

This pattern extends beyond Wauwatosa to utility systems statewide.

The Wisconsin Public Service Commission describes rate setting as a balancing problem among cost recovery, financial stability, affordability and system sustainability. EPA guidance similarly explains why many utilities use fixed-plus variable charges: Fixed charges support pipes, treatment assets and financing obligations that exist regardless of short-term household demand.

So yes, a large fixed component is not automatically evidence of bad intent. Often it reflects the cost profile of infrastructure.

But even well-designed systems can produce a weak conservation signal.

EPA water finance resources note that some pricing structures are better than others at encouraging conservation. If a city publicly asks for conservation while bill design makes savings hard to notice, policy and pricing are misaligned where customers experience them: on the bill.

The accountability test 

Can a typical resident estimate cost savings before taking action to reduce use?

If the answer is no, then the price signal is too opaque.

If customers must decode fixed charges, lagged sewer formulas and unclear unit rates to understand marginal savings, the bill functions more as a revenue tool than a behavior signal — preserving cash flow but weakening conservation and public trust.

Residents do not need a lecture about civic virtue. They need rate transparency and faster feedback.

What Wauwatosa could pilot 

This does not require a simplistic “slash fixed fees” response. It requires clearer design and better signal delivery.

• Publish a one-page “marginal savings” table for typical homes.The table should answer: “If I reduce use by 1, 3 or 5 CCF this quarter, what is the expected bill impact now and next quarter?” Include timing notes for winter-quarter sewer logic.
• Add bill lines for “behavior-sensitive charges” and “system-fixed charges.” Split the bill into two subtotals so the customer can see immediately which share was behavior-driven and which paid for infrastructure. 
• Introduce a conservation dividend. If systemwide demand drops below peak projections and defers capacity costs, return part of those savings as a visible credit in the next cycle. Make conservation legible.
• Run a transparent pilot on stronger conservation pricing bands. EPA and national guidance point to increasing-block rates as one way to strengthen conservation signals. Pilot carefully, publish distributional impacts and protect affordability with targeted credits.
• Publish a trust metric: “conservation-to-bill responsiveness.” Track how often conservation leads to measurable bill changes within one cycle. If responsiveness is weak, publish a redesign plan.

The larger policy point

When homeowners conclude, “the city designed this to extract money no matter what,” leaders should not dismiss it but treat it as a warning sign in the system.

Most residents are not accusing utilities of villainy. They are describing an incentive mismatch.

If Wisconsin cities want durable conservation, they need bill designs that preserve financial integrity and reward action quickly enough for residents to feel the loop. Otherwise, we train households to stop caring, then blame them for not conserving.

Water policy fails when the math is defensible on paper but illegible at the kitchen table.

Michael V. Haley is a Wisconsin freelance writer focused on accountability commentary about how public systems affect household outcomes. His work translates municipal policy, utility design and implementation choices into practical impacts for residents.

Opinion: How to fix water bills so conservation pays off 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: 5 minutes

On a rainy Friday afternoon, I walked into the Manitowoc County Jail. I asked tentatively into the metal box at the door: “I’m here to see Randy Curtis?”

I was there to deliver a simple message. What I stumbled into was something much larger, a reality I had not previously fully understood.

Randy had missed a few shifts without calling in. His supervisor looked for him where we sometimes do when an employee disappears without a word: the inmate list at the county jail. Sure enough, there was his name.

Randy is a knockout pourer at Wisconsin Aluminum Foundry, doing hard physical work for $27.53 an hour – good money, the kind that, if you’re careful and nothing goes wrong, can be the beginning of something. He had spent years rebuilding his life in Manitowoc after a troubled young adulthood in Milwaukee. He had a girlfriend. He was saving for a car. Then an old legal matter surfaced, along with a small claims debt.

It is not uncommon for our employees to find themselves in jail. Often it’s a DUI, delinquent child support or drugs. The ones who don’t have money for bail spend weeks or months awaiting resolution. Usually in these situations we let the employment relationship expire.

But Randy’s supervisor called me: “We have to keep his job for him.” Of course we would. But how would we let him know? I pictured him in that cell, cut off from the outside world, assuming he had lost his job and maybe his apartment and girlfriend too, watching his precarious new life crash down.

I went to tell him myself.

The corrections officer was polite but matter-of-fact. I could not see the inmate in person. To speak with him, I would need to create an account on a third-party video service, deposit money, schedule a window and wait.

I am a CEO. I work on computers all day. It still took me the better part of an hour to figure it all out.

The service was called CIDNET, operated by Encartele, a corporation in Nebraska. The site defaulted to a purchase of 150 megabytes at 30 cents per megabyte. That’s $45, before a “Data Security Token” fee and a 5% merchant surcharge on top. I put $10 on the account, enough for a few minutes. On Sunday evening I logged on, saw Randy on a small screen and quickly told him his job was waiting. He looked relieved.

I want to be fair. Someone has to pay for that infrastructure. The same logic applies to bank overdraft fees and payday loan rates. Even the $2.59 Snickers bar in our plant vending machine, nearly four times what my family pays at Costco, is bought by a worker without the time or transportation to shop elsewhere. Each of these charges is, on its own terms, defensible. Together they amount to something else: a compounding tax on not having enough.

Being poor, it turns out, is expensive.

Randy made it through. Another of our employees didn’t fare as well.

I’ll call him Michael. He had spent his entire life in America, brought here as a small child. He was a DACA recipient – a “Dreamer” – tantalizingly close to getting his papers in order for permanent residency, but first he had to navigate old speeding tickets, lawyer fees, court dates and filing costs. He had a newborn and two toddlers at home. He could not even afford a cellphone. Outside of work, he reached me through Facebook Messenger when he could find Wi-Fi.

The fees accumulated the way fees do: the lawyer, the filings, the court dates that cost him wages he couldn’t replace, the paid leave that drained away appointment by appointment. Everything was a small thing.

But Michael had no margin for small things.

The weight of it followed him onto the shop floor. He grew distracted, made mistakes — costly ones in a manufacturing environment — and we had to let him go. I think about that a lot.

The word I keep coming back to is margin. In business, margin is everything. The difference between a company that survives a bad few years and one that doesn’t is not always the size of the problem. It is the cushion beneath it.

Families have margins, too.

A salaried employee who gets a DUI posts bond and goes home. She takes a long lunch for a dental appointment and loses nothing. When life disrupts her, it disrupts her. When life disrupts Randy or Michael, there is no category called disruption. There is functioning, and there is collapse. A car breaks down, the flu strikes, child care closes unexpectedly — attendance points rack up, the job is suddenly in jeopardy, and the carefully assembled structure of a life starts to come apart.

What I find remarkable is not that Randy and Michael sometimes stumble. It’s that they hold everything together as long as they do, maintaining a level of daily discipline against a backdrop of distress that most of us will never be tested to match.

My 8-year-old and I have been reading about black holes. The closer you get, the more energy you need to escape – until escape becomes physically impossible. That is what I witnessed. Not a failure of will. A gravitational pull that compounds with every setback, every fee, every missed day. 

There is a threshold, call it escape velocity, below which the system’s small relentless extractions become unsurvivable. My former college professor Lisa Dodson, who spent years embedded with low-income workers across the country, calls this the “house of cards” – the architecture of poverty where there is no redundancy, no reserve, no margin for the ordinary turbulence of a human life.

So what can we do? At Wisconsin Aluminum Foundry, we’ve introduced daily pay so workers can access wages as they earn them rather than waiting two weeks. We offer $400 per month in child care reimbursement, structured specifically to help newer, younger employees.

Most traditional benefits – vacation time, tenure-based wage levels, pension plans – naturally favor workers already on solid footing. Our most expensive benefit, health care, is the one our youngest and lowest-paid employees use the least. We can design benefit structures with that reality in mind, and we are trying.

These are imperfect responses to a structural problem. They are what one employer can do.

On policy, cash bail reform deserves serious attention. In theory, judges already weigh risk when setting bail. In practice, a $500 bail amount means freedom for one person and months in jail for another. A system that makes that distinction irrelevant might have kept Randy’s life from nearly unraveling.

The full set of public policy answers is beyond my grasp. But what I do know is that the national conversation about affordability — housing, gas, airfares — is largely about the middle class. Randy and Michael aren’t worried about buying a house. They are fighting for the basic foothold that most of us take entirely for granted.

My parents came to this country with very little and found the American Dream to be real. I believe it can still be real. Randy believed in it enough to leave Milwaukee and start over in a city where no one knew him. Michael believed in it enough to show up every single day while his entire future hung on a bureaucratic decision somewhere.

Just this week, JPMorgan Chase announced its “American Dream Initiative” aimed at strengthening small businesses, homeownership and economic mobility – a recognition that the American Dream is not self-sustaining and requires constant effort from institutions large and small.

At our holiday party earlier this year, my wife and I spotted Randy across the room — arm around his girlfriend, at a table full of co-workers, dressed in his best, laughing. 

Michael messaged me last week. He’s been out of work for two months, getting by on his wife’s income. He said he’s going to reapply at the foundry. When he does, we’ll take him back.

Neither story is finished yet. They haven’t reached escape velocity. But they are defying gravity, every single day.

Sachin Shivaram is the chief executive officer of Wisconsin Aluminum Foundry in Manitowoc.

Opinion: How poverty’s gravity pulls workers under 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

Wisconsin’s Open Records Law gives requesters the right to request records from their government. After all, as the law states, “a representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate.” 

But how to get started? Under the law, “any person” can make a request for records from any Wisconsin state or local government agency or official, verbally or in writing. You don’t have to start from square one: There are many tools available to help you make requests and ensure you get the records you want with minimal fuss. 

The Wisconsin Freedom of Information Counsel has long posted a records request template on its website, wisfoic.org. It cites Wisconsin law and uses language to target your request and help you avoid surprise fees.

Many national groups also post letter generators online that can be used to make requests to state and local governments.  

For example, the Student Press Law Center, a nonprofit organization devoted to assisting student journalists, posts a heavily used letter generator, which is available for free and can be used to make requests.

An organization called MuckRock not only has a letter generator, but also allows users to post responsive records they receive on its website at muckrock.com. Here you can search through records others have received from all over the country.

Other groups post records they have received through their own open records and U.S. Freedom of Information Act requests.  

For example, a group called Reclaim the Records posts genealogical and historical records on its website, reclaimtherecords.org. The website governmentattic.org provides a searchable collection of oddball federal government records and reports.

Of course, this is in addition to records the government proactively publishes or posts online itself. A wealth of information is already available on Wisconsin agency and local government websites, or in local libraries. 

Federal agencies are even required to follow the “Rule of 3,” or make electronically available records that have been requested three or more times. The website data.gov contains more than 400,000 datasets, from what it describes as the home of the U.S. government’s open data.

In some cases, it may be easiest just to start with a phone call to the state or local agency that has the records you want. It may be able to send you the record on the spot, or help you understand available records to target your request.  

If you’re looking to better understand the law, the Wisconsin Department of Justice Office of Open Government posts numerous resources online, including its Public Records Compliance Guide, which is helpful for requesters and records custodians alike.  

A well-drafted records request is useful for everyone: It can help requesters get the records they want, in less time, and at a lower cost. It can also help custodians find records more easily, freeing them up to respond to others’ requests and carry out other duties.

But the most important tip is to not be intimidated by the process: There are no magic words required to trigger your right to get records, and the law must be interpreted broadly in favor of access.

Wisconsin’s Open Records Law, by design, makes it easy to get records, to fulfill its important objective of informing the electorate. Don’t hesitate to exercise your right to use it.

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 group’s vice president and a partner at the law firm Pines Bach LLP.

Your Right to Know: How to jump-start your 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.

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service invites community members to submit opinion pieces of 500-800 words on topics of interest to central city Milwaukee. To send a submission for consideration, please email info@milwaukeenns.org. The views expressed are solely those of the authors.

There is a kind of pain that does not wait its turn. It crashes into your life, rearranges everything you thought you understood about safety, justice and faith, and then expects you to keep going.

This is not just about grief. This is about trauma and grief, intertwined, unfolding in real time in our homes, schools, workplaces and communities.

I know this kind of pain intimately.

My brother Sam

My siblings were my first friends. My brother Sam was my twin in every way that mattered. We shared a bunk bed, childhood routines and milestones. We grew up side by side, experiencing life in sync in a way only siblings that close can understand.

He was part of my beginning.

And then, suddenly, he was gone. 

NNS wrote about it here. 

My brother was taken in a violent and publicly misunderstood way. While the investigation unfolded over months, narratives spread in hours. His life was debated in real time. People stepped into the roles of judge, jury and executioner before the facts had even begun to surface.

What I experienced was not just grief, but the added trauma of watching my brother’s humanity be debated and misrepresented in real time.

And then there is the part people do not talk about enough.

Reliving our tragedy

His death was broadcast and circulated repeatedly, forcing our family to relive a moment we were already struggling to survive. And even after the headlines fade, the process continues. 

Legal cases, policy discussions, public commentary. Each step pulls you back into the trauma.

It follows you. In the news. In conversations. In the things you used to enjoy.

This is what navigating trauma and grief looks like in real time. It is not a single moment. It is ongoing.

I am a grown woman, well into my 40s, and nothing prepared me for this. And still, in the middle of that devastation, I was expected to show up to work, to function, to perform.

Three days

That is what we give people to grieve.

Three days to process a lifetime of connection. Three days to make arrangements, gather family and return as if something that significant can be contained and concluded.

Three days is not enough for natural loss.

So it is certainly not enough for loss that is sudden, violent or intentional.

And this is not exclusive to murder.

Trauma lives in all loss. Illness. Old age. Accidents. The loss of a child. Some loss we may anticipate, but none of it prepares us.

Yet the expectation remains the same: return to normal.

We have built systems that understand the need to bond with life, but not the need to grieve its loss. We offer time to welcome a child into the world, but minimal time to process losing one.

What kind of system measures productivity with more care than it measures pain?

We earn more time off to rest from work than we are given to recover from loss.

And it forces a deeper question:

How pro-life are we, really?

Because what we see does not reflect a culture that values life in a meaningful way. We see cruelty in comment sections, judgment attached to loss and a detachment that forgets every headline represents a real person and a real family.

Cycle of trauma continues

Trauma does not end when the news cycle moves on.

It lives in the people who are still here.

It lives in individuals carrying invisible weight, in people one moment, one word, one interaction away from the edge.

And when that trauma goes unprocessed, we see the consequences.

People snap.

And then we ask children and teenagers to be resilient in environments where even adults are barely holding it together.

We expect them to focus, to behave, to perform, while ignoring a critical truth: Their brains are not fully developed. They do not yet have the tools to process trauma and grief at this level.

So when we see emotional outbursts, withdrawal, defiance or risky behavior, we rush to label it.

But what if what we are witnessing is not defiance but distress?

What if something has gone wrong emotionally, mentally, developmentally, and no one has stopped long enough to ask why?

And it may not always be loss. It could be trauma in all its forms.

When trauma goes unaddressed, it does not disappear. It shows up.

This is not a failure of character. This is the impact of unprocessed trauma and grief.

Hard questions and a simple truth

So we have to ask:

Who decided that three days was enough? Enough for who? Enough for what kind of loss?

Why are people forced to prove how close they were to someone in order to be granted the space to grieve?

What about chosen family? Do they matter less?

How do we expect people to return to life carrying something that has not even begun to settle?

Have we truly gone so far to the dark side that we no longer have compassion for people who have lost loved ones, regardless of how they left this place?

How do we continue to call ourselves compassionate while enforcing timelines on pain?

Because the truth is simple.

Three days ain’t enough.

---

Angelique Sharpe, known in the community as “MsLadyInc,” works at the intersection of broken systems and resilient people. She lifts their voice and helps organize solutions. You can visit her website here.

Opinion: 3 days ain’t enough. Grief, trauma and the expectation to perform 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: 3 minutes

State Rep. Lisa Subeck, D-Madison, this month introduced legislation requiring crisis pregnancy centers to obtain permission from clients before sharing their sensitive health information.

Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), also known as unregulated pregnancy centers or pregnancy resource centers, provide some services for pregnant people but largely aim to dissuade clients from choosing abortion care. Importantly, most CPCs are not licensed medical facilities and are intentionally vague about their inability and unwillingness to provide abortions or make referrals. They attract clients with targeted advertising that promises free pregnancy testing, ultrasounds and options counseling.

Without the restrictions proposed by Subeck and more like it, Wisconsinites will continue to be victimized by this industry.

Since CPCs are not medical providers and do not charge for services,they are not subject to the same consumer protection laws and licensing requirements, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA.

Without confidentiality protections, CPCs are not required to protect sensitive client information and may misuse private client data with no accountability. Subeck’s bill would help close this loophole and ensure that client information is secure.

While this legislation would be a step in the right direction, privacy is just one of many instances in which CPCs violate medical ethics.

With the funding they receive from faith-based organizations, anti-abortion advocacy groups and taxpayer dollars, CPCs may present themselves in ways that resemble medical settings. Staff and volunteers may wear white coats, visit with clients in exam rooms and adopt language used by clinicians. But many of their services fail to meet evidence-based standards of care.

For example, CPCs have been reported to overestimate gestational age to convince clients they are too far along in pregnancy to legally access abortion. They also readily share medically inaccurate information about abortion.

CPCs across Wisconsin claim that abortion can lead to depression, substance abuse, nightmares, and future fertility issues. Major medical organizations say there is no evidence that abortion leads to mental illness or negative impacts on future fertility. In fact, research suggests that denying people abortion care is associated with worse outcomes to their long-term health and well-being.

Many CPC websites list “abortion reversal” as a service. This involves taking progesterone to “reverse” the effects of mifepristone, the first medicine used in medication abortion. University of California-Davis researchers attempted to test the effectiveness of this treatment, but the study was stopped early due to ethical and safety concerns. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has determined that abortion reversal is “not supported by science.”

Despite their questionable practices, CPCs in Wisconsin continue to benefit from public funding, and some state legislators want them to receive even more. In 2023, Sen. Robert Quinn, R-Birchwood, proposed legislation that would give $1 million a year to Choose Life Wisconsin, a statewide network of CPCs.

Funds raised through Choose Life license plates are also directed to CPCs. Meanwhile, some of Wisconsin’s legislative Republicans have not supported measures that would benefit pregnant people and new parents. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, repeatedly blocked proposals to expand postpartum Medicaid coverage, calling it “an expansion of welfare,” until the Assembly this session finally sent the bill to Gov. Tony Evers’ desk.

In Wisconsin, legitimate providers of abortion care must navigate a litany of restrictions. Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers, or TRAP laws, are widely criticized by medical groups and exist only to make obtaining and providing abortion care harder. Yet CPCs are free to operate under limited regulations while they enjoy our tax dollars.

In other states, efforts to regulate CPCs have failed on the grounds that these organizations are protected under the First Amendment. But these centers are a growing public health risk, and protecting people’s health and safety should take priority. This is especially important as the network of CPCs continues to grow. In Wisconsin, there are just five clinics that provide abortion care, compared to an estimated 60 CPCs.

When pregnant people reach out for support, they deserve to be met with compassion, honesty and the opportunity to consider all of their options. The ongoing failure of our lawmakers to regulate these facilities is an affront to evidence-based sexual and reproductive healthcare. It is time that Wisconsin’s lawmakers uphold respect and humanity, not deception and manipulation.

Layne Donovan was born and raised in Wisconsin and holds a degree from Barnard College. She has studied the history of abortion in the United States, and currently works in reproductive health, rights, and justice. 

Opinion: Wisconsin must regulate crisis pregnancy centers to protect patients  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: 3 minutes

Two attempts to peel back the veil of secrecy over the proliferation of data centers, including one by Wisconsin Watch reporter Tom Kertscher, are being honored in this year’s Openness in Government Awards, or Opees, bestowed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council.

In advance of national Sunshine Week (sunshineweek.org), March 15-21, the council has named the winners of its 20th annual Opees. These recognize outstanding efforts to protect the state’s tradition of open government, as well as highlight some threats to it. Winners have been invited to appear at a free public event in Madison on March 19. (See WFOIC website for details.)

The winners are:

Public Openness Advocate (Popee): Vilas County District Attorney Karl Hayes. District attorneys in Wisconsin are statutorily empowered to enforce the state’s open records and open meetings laws, but in practice rarely do so. Early this year, Hayes showed how it can be done, warning officials in the town of Presque Isle that they needed to comply with a nearly year-old request from the Lakeland Times newspaper for records regarding the town’s computers. His intervention succeeded, and the records were released. Other DAs might look for occasions where they can turn the lever in favor of openness.

Citizen Openness Advocate (Copee): Midwest Environmental Advocates. This nonprofit public interest law firm last year filed two pivotal lawsuits challenging the secrecy surrounding data center projects. The first, against the city of Racine, forced the prompt release of water usage projections for Microsoft’s Mount Pleasant campus. The second lawsuit, against the state Public Service Commission (PSC), contested the “trade secret” status of energy demand data for Meta’s proposed data center in Beaver Dam; that case is pending. Kudos to MEA for insisting on the public’s right to know.

Media Openness Advocate (Mopee): The Badger Project. In recent years, this nonprofit news outlet has been requesting records from police departments around the state about internal investigations of police officers and suing when they are not provided. In 2025, it filed three such lawsuits — against a police department in Racine County, the state Department of Transportation and St. Croix County. All led to the release of records. The Badger Project is now appealing St. Croix County’s refusal to pay attorney fees, which could lead to the overturning of a deeply problematic state Supreme Court decision. Fingers crossed. 

Open Records Scoop of the Year (Scoopee): Tie: Tom Kertscher of Wisconsin Watch; Danielle DuClos of The Cap Times. Among much other good reporting on openness issues, the work of these two journalists stands out. Kertscher pulled back the curtain on the secrecy surrounding data centers, including at least four projects in which local officials signed nondisclosure agreements with the companies. And DuClos reported on how the state Department of Public Instruction secretly investigated more than 200 Wisconsin K-12 educators accused of sexual misconduct or grooming behaviors toward students, prompting a statewide audit and legislative action.

No Friend of Openness (Nopee): Deborah Kerr, superintendent of the St. Francis School District. While there were other contenders for this award, there was also little question that Kerr would be the winner and new champion. Last June, she threatened to have a TMJ4 News reporter and camera operator arrested for wanting to film a school board meeting “because you did not give us any notice or tell us why you were here,” neither of which is required. The jaw-dropping video (see for yourself at https://tinyurl.com/zvam889a) went viral, and Kerr issued a weak apology, but her eruption is one for the ages. Credit reporter Megan Lee for her deft handling of the situation.

Whistleblower of the Year (Whoopee): John Sigwart. This former Port Washington city council member refused to keep the public in the dark about a clandestinely proposed microchip production facility, revealing that local officials had signed nondisclosure agreements. The city’s mayor retaliated by stripping Sigwart of his committee appointments, precipitating an end to his many years of public service, said an editorial in the Ozaukee Press. Sigwart died in August at age 80, but his example of courage will live on.

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. Bill Lueders is the group’s president.

Your Right to Know: Opees highlight good works, and bad 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

If we care about addressing alcohol addiction in Wisconsin, we must start thinking about it as a public health issue. Alcohol use is deeply embedded in Wisconsin’s history and has maintained its prevalence through the socialization and normalization of drinking culture. 

Rather than focusing on an individual’s capacity to remain sober in a state known for its beer-battered you-name-its, pub crawls, wine walks, and pedal taverns, we need to shift our focus toward making our communities more welcoming spaces for sobriety.

To consider something a public health issue, it must pose a physical or mental health risk to populations rather than just individuals. 

Alcohol use is a highly socialized activity and has been embraced by Wisconsin since its inception, due largely to its population of German immigrants in the 1800s. German-founded breweries laid the economic groundwork in Wisconsin’s early years, supporting farmers, employing families, fostering community and generating profit. With a culture that has prospered from the industrial, financial and social aspects of brewing throughout the years, it is no wonder that Wisconsin carries on this tradition.

In a state where drinking runs generations-deep, so do the health effects, and addressing a widespread issue calls for widespread changes. 

Alcohol addiction must be considered a community risk rather than an individual’s shortcoming. The majority of Wisconsinites, more than six in 10 adults, reported consuming alcohol within the past month, and nearly 20% reported binge drinking. In 2024, alcohol-related hospitalizations in Wisconsin reached their highest number since 2015. Reports from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that more than 3,450 Wisconsinites die from excessive drinking each year.

Wisconsin is the only U.S. state in which every county has reported engaging in excessive alcohol consumption among at least 23% of its adult population. We are also home to 10 out of 20 of the “drunkest cities in America” as reported by 24/7 Wall St. last year. 

The average number of alcoholic beverages consumed throughout Wisconsin has decreased in recent years, but people are consuming more ethanol over the same time span. This means people are tending to consume drinks with higher alcohol content. As the data illustrates, this is a statewide concern, not a private matter.

We can make our communities easier places to be sober, not only in the interest of addiction recovery, but for the sake of promoting community well-being. On a structural level, this looks like advocating for greater access to recovery facilities and services. It also looks like supporting and sustaining local third spaces that are sober-friendly. 

Want to be part of the solution? Then consider hosting alcohol-free gatherings, socializing at a café or a mocktail lounge and welcoming conversations about your choice to do so. Setting the bar starts with us, and this time, it’s not a bar with alcohol.

Kayla Doege is a graduate student at University of Wisconsin-Whitewater’s Master of Social Work program. She lives in Neosho and has spent five years working in youth mental health and substance use intervention.

Opinion: To curb alcohol harm, Wisconsin must rethink its drinking culture 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

If you’re following recent national headlines, you know that attacks on press freedom are having a moment — from the FBI’s raid on the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson and seizure of her devices to the arrests of journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort following their coverage of a protest at a Minneapolis church.

But some positive news is emerging in Wisconsin: State legislation is advancing that would make it harder to use the courts to silence people speaking on matters of public concern — whether they’re journalists or private citizens — by draining their time and resources.

About 14 months ago, I wrote about how Wisconsin is particularly vulnerable to these kinds of lawsuits, one of just 11 states without legislation to shield residents from them. Our friends at the Wausau Pilot & Review felt the consequences firsthand, spending $200,000 to defend themselves against a since-dismissed defamation lawsuit.

There was little momentum for anti-SLAPP legislation when I wrote the column. But that has since changed. 

Lawmakers last year introduced bills that would create a clearer process for quickly dismissing SLAPP suits and require defendants’ legal fees to be paid by plaintiffs who bring meritless claims: AB 701/SB 666, introduced by Republican Reps. Jim Piwowarczyk and Sen. Eric Wimberger, with a suite of co-sponsors, including Democratic Reps. Sylvia Ortiz-Velez and Randy Udell.

The Assembly passed AB 701 last month with unanimous consent — a rare show of bipartisan agreement. The legislation still requires Senate passage before reaching Gov. Tony Evers’ desk.

If it makes it to the finish line before the Senate wraps up for the year, its impact would extend well beyond newsrooms. Everyday people face SLAPP risks, too. People in other states have been sued for leaving negative reviews online. 

As a fiercely independent newsroom, Wisconsin Watch doesn’t typically opine on specific policies; we assemble information on matters of public concern so residents can form their own views through their own value systems. But free expression is fundamental to what we do — and fundamental to a functioning democracy.

That’s why Wisconsin Watch is joining other newsrooms and free speech advocates in urging the Senate to enact protections against frivolous lawsuits.

Have thoughts about this legislation or this moment for free speech in Wisconsin and the U.S.? I’d love to hear from you. Reach me at jmalewitz@wisconsinwatch.org.

Opinion: How Wisconsin can slap down efforts to silence speech 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

I have visited many after-school and summer programs across Wisconsin, from large urban sites to small rural schools, and what I’ve seen has stayed with me. I’ve watched students immersed in creative writing, acting and robotics. I’ve observed staff working one-on-one with kids navigating intense emotional challenges. And I’ve seen the smiles on middle schoolers’ faces as they reconnect with trusted mentors at the end of the school day. These programs are not “extras”; they provide crucial support to kids, families and entire communities.

The access gap

And yet, for far too many Wisconsin families, these opportunities remain out of reach. According to the latest America After 3PM report, nearly 275,000 Wisconsin children who would participate in after-school programs are not enrolled because none are available. Four in five children who could benefit from these supports are missing out. Parents cite cost, lack of transportation and a simple lack of local programming as the biggest barriers.

The benefits are clear

The impact of these programs is undeniable. Parents overwhelmingly rate their children’s after-school programs as excellent or very good, reporting that they keep kids safe, build social skills and support mental wellness. Research in Wisconsin shows that students who participate in extracurricular activities are less likely to report anxiety or depression and more likely to feel a sense of belonging.

Out-of-school-time programs often provide the space for deep, long-term mentoring, a powerful protective factor in a young person’s life. While teachers are often stretched thin during the academic day, out-of-school-time staff can focus on the relational side of development.

The cost of instability

When funding is unstable, it undermines the very connections that make these programs transformative. Recently, a Boys & Girls Club director shared the human cost of budget constraints: They were forced to reduce a veteran staff member to part-time. This didn’t just trim a budget; it severed a multi-year mentorship. When that bond was broken, several youths stopped attending entirely.

Wisconsin lags behind national trends

Across the country, after-school and summer programs are increasingly viewed as essential to youth development. Twenty-seven states provide dedicated state funding for these programs; Wisconsin provides none. States as different as Alabama and Texas recognize that federal funding alone is not enough. So do our Midwestern neighbors.

• Minnesota and Illinois have invested in these programs for years.
• Michigan established a $73 million grant program to expand before-school, after-school and summer learning statewide.
• Pennsylvania created the $11.5 million Building Opportunity through Out-of-School Time (BOOST) program.

The opportunity to act

Public support for these programs is strong and bipartisan. Families across Wisconsin want safe, enriching opportunities for their children. With a significant budget surplus, Wisconsin is uniquely positioned to invest in its future.

State leaders should view out-of-school programming as a foundation for safety, mental health and long-term economic opportunity. We have the resources; now we need the will. By committing to consistent state funding, we can ensure that every young person in Wisconsin has a place to belong when the school bell rings.

Daniel Gage is a consultant with the Afterschool Alliance and Wisconsin Out of School Time Alliance, focusing on advocacy and outreach. He co-founded the Wisconsin Partnership for Children and Youth, a coalition that promotes after-school and summer programs as vital for healthy youth development and future citizenship.

Opinion: After-school programs are essential. Wisconsin should fund them that way. 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: 3 minutes

The headlines are full of stories about the Trump administration’s aggressive new approach to immigration enforcement. We hear about ICE raids and mass deportations. But there’s another, less publicized policy change that’s making it difficult for immigrants to defend themselves from deportation, even when they have a strong claim for immigration relief. 

The Department of Homeland Security has changed how it responds to federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests from immigrants facing deportation, in a way that deprives many immigrants of their only tool for obtaining information they need to prove they deserve to remain in the country.

Immigration court affords immigrants no formal right to discovery, the process by which the parties exchange information to ensure a fair, fact-based process. As a result, immigration attorneys must rely almost exclusively on FOIA requests to obtain a noncitizen’s Alien Registration File (“A-File”) from agencies within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

A-Files typically include prior immigration applications, enforcement records and notes from interviews. But these documents frequently contain falsehoods and inaccuracies, particularly where summaries replace verbatim transcripts and trauma affects the ability of immigrants to tell their stories. Immigration attorneys need access to their clients’ A-Files so they can identify and challenge inaccuracies in the records and hold the government to its burden of proof. 

My friend and fellow attorney Gabriela Parra practices immigration law in Wisconsin. Many of her clients are asylum seekers now living in Wisconsin who fled to the United States because they feared persecution in their home countries. Since April 2025, she has observed a marked change in how immigration agencies respond to the FOIA requests she files on behalf of her clients. 

The agencies are refusing to provide documents, or heavily redacting the documents they provide, thus denying Parra the information she needs to prepare her clients’ cases. In multiple cases, asylum seekers represented by her firm have asserted that they articulated a fear of return during border interviews, while DHS claims the opposite. 

FOIA requests in these cases resulted in partial A-File disclosures, with interview notes withheld entirely. In other words, DHS has withheld the most important information that would help Parra prove her clients’ version of events.

Late last year, I joined Parra in filing a federal lawsuit asking the court to enforce FOIA. Our client in this case is a foreign national who filed an asylum application before he obtained legal assistance. He is now facing removal proceedings in immigration court. 

In response to Parra’s FOIA request, DHS provided some documents, but they contained serious inaccuracies. Moreover, the agency produced only eight pages of unredacted records and 14 pages that were heavily redacted. It fully withheld 31 pages of our client’s file, including records necessary to identify and challenge errors. 

Days after we filed our FOIA lawsuit, DHS provided us with some additional files. But others are still missing, and our client’s removal proceedings are looming. We are in a race against time to get our client’s records so he can make the strongest asylum case.

Immigration lawyers across the country are fighting similar battles against the administration’s FOIA practices. A December 2025 whistleblower report alleges that the government is intentionally blocking FOIA requests. It says this denies immigrants the information they need to avoid “life-altering impacts” including “family separation and prolonged detention.”

Our country’s current fight over immigration enforcement is also a fight over government transparency. Here in Wisconsin, we are doing our part.

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. Elisabeth Lambert is the founder and principal of the Wisconsin Education Law and Policy Hub (wisconsinelph.org). Thanks to Gabriela Parra for her help on this column.

Your Right to Know: A FOIA fight over immigration records 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: < 1 minute

As media outlets that regularly report on newsworthy events, we, the undersigned, vigorously condemn the recent arrests of journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort. 

Lemon and Fort were arrested after covering a January 18 protest at a church in Minneapolis. They were conducting the constitutionally protected activities of a working journalist: observing, recording and documenting a newsworthy event and attempting to obtain quotes from participants. 

Their arrest on charges of allegedly obstructing a place of worship, and even worse, under federal conspiracy law, alarms all of us who believe in the First Amendment and seek to do our jobs without fear of obstruction by law enforcement or retaliation by agents of the government. 

The principle of a free press animated the founding of the United States of America 250 years ago, and countless Americans have fought valiantly for it. We cannot allow colleagues to be subjected to spurious and unwarranted arrest for committing acts of journalism.

We call on federal authorities to drop all charges against Lemon and Fort and to publicly affirm their unqualified support for the work of professional journalists in this critical time.

SIGNATORIES:

Wisconsin Watch

Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service

Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting

Block Club Chicago

Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism

CalMatters

Capital B

Cardinal News

Center for Investigative Reporting

Dallas Free Press

Documented

East Lansing News

ecoRI News

El Paso Matters

Epicenter

FaVS News

Florida Trident

Grist

InDepthNH.org

Injustice Watch

Invisible Institute

La Voz Chicago

Lookout News

New Bedford Light

New York magazine, part of Vox Media LLC

NY Focus

Philadelphia Hall Monitor

San Francisco Public Press

South Side Weekly

The 19th

The Cityside Journalism

Initiative

THE CITY

The Guardian US

The Intercept

The Jersey Bee

The Jersey Vindicator

The Journal of Olympia, Lacey and Tumwater

The Lens

The Marshall Project

The Providence Eye

The Trace

The TRiiBE

The Xylom

Vox Populi

Wasau Pilot and Review

Wisconsin Watch joins media outlets in condemning arrests of journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort 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: 3 minutes

Wisconsin stands at a pivotal moment.

Artificial intelligence, cloud computing and hyperscale data centers are arriving quickly, bringing enormous demand for electricity and water. The real question is not whether these investments will come, but how we manage them and who pays the costs if we get it wrong.

As a purple state, Wisconsin has long shown that good energy policy is practical, not ideological. Families want affordable bills. Businesses want reliable power. Communities want clean water and economic opportunity. That same common-sense approach must guide how we respond to rapid data center growth.

An unprecedented load and a real affordability risk

The scale of proposed data centers is unlike anything Wisconsin has seen.

Just two projects, one in Port Washington and another in Mount Pleasant, have requested nearly four gigawatts of electricity combined. That is more power than all Wisconsin households use today.

Meeting this demand will require massive investments in power plants, transmission lines, substations, pipelines and water infrastructure. But under Wisconsin’s current utility model, these costs are not paid only by the companies driving demand. They are instead spread across all of us who pay electric bills, including families, farms and small businesses that won’t benefit from data center power.

For small businesses operating on thin margins, even modest increases in electric or water rates affect hiring, pricing and long-term viability. In rural communities with fewer customers sharing infrastructure costs, the impact can be even more severe.

This concern is already becoming real. Utilities are citing data center demand to justify new methane gas plants and delaying coal plant retirements. Utilities doubling down on fossil fuels should give every one of us pause.

Why costly gas is the wrong answer

Building new methane gas plants for data centers would lock customers into decades of fuel price volatility, even though cleaner options have become cheaper and faster to deploy.

Wind, solar and battery storage can come online far more quickly than fossil fuel plants and without exposing families and businesses to unpredictable fuel costs. Battery storage costs alone have fallen nearly 90% over the past decade. 

Across the country, these tools are replacing methane gas plants in states as different as Texas and California.

There is also a serious risk that we will pay higher bills for decades, even when data centers stop using those methane gas plants. In Nevada, a major utility has acknowledged that only about 15% of proposed data centers are likely to be built. When speculative projects fall through, all of us are left to pay for infrastructure we actually never needed.

This is not ideology. It is basic financial risk management, and basic fairness.

Clean energy is the lowest-cost path

Wisconsin policymakers and elected officials need to put guardrails into place to protect everyday residents from the AI bubble that’s threatening the state. The core principle? That data centers operate on 100% clean energy, not as a slogan, but because it is the lowest-cost and lowest-risk option over time.

A smart framework would require developers to:

• Supply at least 30% of their power from on-site and Wisconsin-based renewable energy.
• Offset additional demand through energy efficiency, demand response – at least 25% of peak capacity – and smart grid flexibility.
• Participate fully in utility efficiency and renewable energy programs rather than opting out.

Each data center project should require a legally binding Community Benefit Agreement that clearly defines community protections and benefits, negotiated among developers, local governments, neighborhood-based organizations, and underserved communities.

This approach reduces peak demand, lowers infrastructure costs and protects existing customers while allowing data centers to advance.

Major companies like Microsoft, Google and Meta have already publicly committed to operating on carbon-free energy. We need to hold them to that. Wisconsin risks losing our competitive advantage if we default to gas-heavy solutions instead of offering clean, flexible grids.

Water is a non-negotiable constraint

Energy is not the only concern. Water matters just as much.

A single hyperscale data center can use millions of gallons of water per day, either directly for cooling or indirectly through power generation. In communities with limited water systems, that can crowd out agricultural use and raise residents’ water bills.

Wisconsin should require closed-loop cooling systems, full accounting of direct and indirect water use and ongoing public reporting to ensure local water supplies are protected.

A practical path forward

Wisconsin does not have to choose between economic growth and affordability. We can do both if we insist on clear guardrails.

That means requiring data centers to pay the full cost of service, powering growth with clean energy first and protecting water resources and ratepayers from unnecessary risk.

Data centers are coming. The question is whether Wisconsin families and small businesses will be partners in that growth or be left paying higher bills for decades to come.

If we choose smart clean power over costly gas, Wisconsin can lead.

For more information

Check out the Clean Economy Coalition of Wisconsin (CECW) Data Center Accountability Framework, a statewide roadmap for policymakers to manage the rapid expansion of large-scale data centers in the state.

John Imes is co-founder and executive director of the Wisconsin Environmental Initiative and village president of Shorewood Hills. He has spent decades working with businesses, policymakers and local governments to advance pragmatic clean energy and infrastructure solutions that protect ratepayers, strengthen communities and support Wisconsin’s economy.

Opinion: How Wisconsin can protect consumers and the environment during the data center boom 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

Wisconsin Watch welcomes submissions of commentary pieces on issues important to Wisconsin for potential publication. 

We aim to produce journalism that helps residents navigate their lives, be seen and heard, hold power to account and come together in community and civic life. We’re looking for commentary from a diversity of voices and perspectives toward those goals. Submissions could take a variety of forms, whether a response to Wisconsin Watch reporting, an idea for solving a community challenge, a perspective you feel is missing from a public debate — or even a reflection on how you’re finding hope and community.

Guidelines

Guest commentaries reflect the views of their authors and are independent of the nonpartisan, in-depth reporting produced by Wisconsin Watch’s newsroom staff.

Length

We prefer that submissions run no more than 750 words and encourage clear, concise writing.

We want to hear from:

• People who live in Wisconsin or otherwise care about its future.
• People who are affected by issues of public concern. 
• Subject matter experts who can offer context about important issues and explain how systems work.

Please include:

• Concrete solutions to problems, supported by facts (such as estimated costs and proposed revenue sources), success in other places and scientific research.
• An honest assessment of the challenges faced in dealing with an issue.
• Links to authoritative, independent sources, including news reports on the topic at hand.
• Civility, grace, decency.

We don’t want:

• Misinformation, disinformation, falsehoods and logical fallacies.
• Product advertising, fundraising appeals or links to fundraising pages.
• Commentary from representatives of organizations that don’t disclose their donors or don’t clearly state their point of view.
• Obscenity, personal attacks, name-calling.

We reserve the right to edit submissions for grammar, clarity, brevity, and legal or factual concerns. We may suggest edits to improve accessibility but will not alter the views expressed by the author. We may also request additional information for fact-checking purposes and reserve the right to decline publication.

Wisconsin Watch does not pay for guest commentary.

How to submit

Please email submissions to opinion@wisconsinwatch.org. We prefer that commentaries be included in the body of the email rather than as attachments. Include a one- or two-sentence bio with your organization, city of residence and any relevant background. Feel free to reach out with questions or to propose an idea for feedback.

Add your voice to Wisconsin Watch 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

Every year in Wisconsin state government, billions of taxpayer dollars are spent on programs and policies that impact every citizen, community, school and business.

While many people roll their eyes and tune out the sometimes messy, partisan, unpredictable work of state government, WisconsinEye Public Affairs Network encourages citizens to lean in. For the past 18 years, Wisconsin’s equivalent to C-SPAN has provided an inside look into the workings of state government. This inside look, which I have been involved in from the start, has included:

•  Free, live and unedited coverage of the Wisconsin Legislature, executive branch and state Supreme Court.
•  Fourteen thousand hours of searchable and shareable archived video of official state proceedings.
• An additional 16,000 hours of unedited and spin-free coverage of news conferences, interviews, campaigns, elections, and related civic events that add context and perspective. 

As the nation’s first independent, non-government-controlled state Capitol network, WisconsinEye does not favor the political left or right, but is rooted firmly in that all-important middle ground where diverse voices are welcome and informed dialogue contributes to positive outcomes for Wisconsin. The transparency that it delivers is essential to building the trust that keeps democracy functioning. Once citizens in a democracy come to understand how decisions are made, they can better use their voices and voting power to shape outcomes.

As an independent not-for-profit resource, WisconsinEye has relied on charitable donations to support its lean annual budget of $900,000. But this funding approach is no longer sustainable in what has become a highly competitive, post-pandemic philanthropic environment. That’s why the painful decision was made to shut down the functions of WisconsinEye, beginning Dec. 15, until the funding gap is plugged.

To this end, WisconsinEye is asking the Legislature and governor to reconfigure a previously designated $10 million matching grant approved in a unanimous bipartisan act, to help WisconsinEye build a permanent $20 million endowment. We are asking for lawmakers to remove the “match” requirement and instead allocate $900,000 for the network’s 2026 budget.

Additionally, we are calling on the state to invest the rest of the endowment, with earnings flowing annually to the network to cover two-thirds of its annual budget. The remaining one-third will be raised through three proven streams: annual program sponsorships, small-gift and online donations, and an annual fundraising dinner.

Meetings with state officials are underway, but it will potentially take three months to work its way through the state process.

In the meantime, WisconsinEye needs to raise $250,000 (three months of its operating budget) to bridge the financial gap and allow state Capitol programming to resume. Without this bridge funding, WisconsinEye could lose up to four highly skilled, cross-trained staff members. The domino effect would put the network at considerable risk of failure.

An alternative plan, that of a state government takeover of the network, was introduced by several Democratic legislators. Their plan, in my view, is in opposition with the decades-long commitment of the Wisconsin Legislature to provide citizens with an independent, trusted, neutral view of state government.

WisconsinEye cannot continue to provide a valued space where citizens can see for themselves, consider events and issues in context, and draw their own conclusions — if it is operated and controlled by the very entity it exists to cover.

Please consider joining the movement to save WisconsinEye by going to wiseye.org/donate. Your donation is tax-deductible. 

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. Jon Henkes is the president and CEO of Wisconsin Eye.

Your Right to Know: Protect transparency, save WisconsinEye 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: 3 minutes

In 2018, a mobile home park owner in Stevens Point lost his operator’s license after submitting falsified drinking water samples to the state, purportedly leaving longtime residents of the park at risk of consuming excess iron and manganese. He appealed.

In 2022, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources authorized the spreading of human waste on farmland in Vilas County. A nearby Indigenous tribe contested the permit when it became apparent the state hadn’t included sufficient setbacks from tribal land.

And in 2021, a wildlife rehabilitator in Frederic, Wisconsin, who also served as a local police chief, lost her rehabilitation license after a raccoon in her care — Gimpy — bit an employee. The rehabilitator appealed.

These cases, all of which went to administrative hearings, pit state regulatory authority against individual residents. That’s why I was interested in reading them in my role as an investigative reporter. But I learned vital information in these and other cases, nearly always the parties’ names and places of work, is missing. 

Wisconsin’s Division of Hearings and Appeals, the agency that oversees administrative hearings for several state departments, has taken to posting only heavily redacted records on its website. That means readers will often see black bars drawn through the names of people and businesses, state employees who evaluate permits and licenses, attorneys who represent parties and even newspapers that publish notices related to the cases.

Division Administrator Brian Hayes told me that last year’s passage of a state law prompted the DHA to evaluate how it posts personally identifying information on its website. That law enables judges to request that their personal information, including addresses and telephone numbers, be removed from public view. 

The DHA, Hayes said, extended this protection to witnesses and petitioners, saying disclosing this information “needlessly opens up litigants to scams and stalkers.”

Hayes noted, however, that personally identifying information likely would have to be released to someone who submitted a records request for unaltered documents.

So I submitted one.

It took two months and the assistance of an attorney to wrestle the name of Gimpy’s owner from the agency. (Gimpy, however, was named.) The employees I encountered in this process offered a moving target of justifications.

First, DHA’s records custodian said she can provide unredacted documents only to parties to a case and suggested that I request the redacted version. I pointed out that the law requires her to either release the requested record or offer a legal justification for withholding it.

Another employee cited Wisconsin’s 1980 victims’ rights law, which provides a bill of rights for witnesses and victims of crime. The problem with this excuse is that the protections are situated in Wisconsin criminal code, not licensing.

In the end, I received unredacted records in the raccoon case and an apology from DHA for the difficulties I encountered in obtaining this information. But I still am moved to question the will to secrecy at the heart of this matter.

In fact, many of these cases involve public hearings. Anyone who attended could presumably observe witnesses and evidence — or see the names of parties on public notices state agencies post to announce hearing schedules.

When protective laws are zealously applied to contexts for which they were not intended, it can cause its own form of harm. The public is circuitously deprived of information related to potentially unscrupulous activity on the part of both individuals and government.

It shouldn’t take an attorney to pry open the gates for administrative decisions, even if the state means well.

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. Bennet Goldstein is an investigative reporter with Wisconsin Watch.

Your Right to Know: The problem with the will to secrecy 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.