Former Judge Hannah Dugan handed in her immediate resignation on Saturday after she was convicted of a felony last month.

The post Judge appointed to fill Hannah Dugan’s former role appeared first on WPR.

Neighbors confront Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Special Response Team officers following an immigration raid at the Italian restaurant Buono Forchetta in San Diego on May 30, 2025. (Photo courtesy of Pedro Rios)

This story was originally published by CalMatters. 

A series of immigration raids across California in 2025 had one thing in common: Most of the federal agents detaining people wore masks over their faces.

This month, the state of California and its largest county will ban law enforcement officers from covering their faces, with a few exceptions, putting local and state police at odds with masked immigration agents.

The state law gives law enforcement officers a choice: If they cover their faces, they lose the ability to assert “qualified immunity,” the doctrine that protects officers from individual liability for their actions. That means they can be sued for assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest or malicious prosecution, and the law adds a clause that says the minimum penalty for committing those offenses while wearing a mask is $10,000.

Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez, a Los Angeles Democrat who co-authored the law, said it was necessary to rein in anonymous federal agents.

“We initially were under the understanding that, oh, they’re only targeting folks who were not citizens,” Gonzalez said, “And then actually over time you learn they don’t give a [crap] who you are, they’re attacking you no matter what, with no due process.”

The Trump administration has sued to block the bill, and more than a century of federal court precedent is on its side. An 1890 Supreme Court case provides that a state cannot prosecute a federal law enforcement officer acting in the course of their duties.

The Trump administration said in its brief to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that forcing agents to reveal their identities would put the agents at risk.

During Immigration and Customs Enforcement “actions, individuals can be heard threatening to doxx and find out who officers and their family members are and where they live,” the administration’s lawyers said in the Nov. 17 brief. “There are even public websites that seek and publish personal information about ICE and other federal officers to harass and threaten them and their families.”

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, said the issue may not be as cut-and-dried as one or two Supreme Court cases. He pointed to a 2001 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that allowed the case of a federal sniper who killed a woman during the 1992 Ruby Ridge, Idaho, standoff to go to trial.

“It basically says that a federal officer can be criminally prosecuted for unreasonable actions,” Chemerinsky said. “Federal officers, by virtue of being federal officers, do not get immunity from all state civil and criminal laws.”

Brian Marvel, president of an organization that represents California police unions, said the law will make life harder for local cops and county sheriffs’ deputies. The organizations that represent police chiefs, sheriffs, agents in the attorney general’s office and California Highway Patrol officers opposed the law, too.

“I think that the state has put us in a tenuous position with this battle they’re having with the Trump administration,” said Marvel of the Peace Officers Research Association of California. “We don’t want to be in the middle of this fight. But unfortunately, [with] the desire for higher name recognition and elections in 2026, they decided to create things that are much more political and not geared toward legitimate public safety issues.”

Marvel said another drawback of the law is giving “a false sense of hope to the immigrant community in California” that the law will force federal agents to leave the state.

Los Angeles County supervisors have also approved a local mask ban on law enforcement for unincorporated areas of the county, a measure that will go into effect in mid-January, unless a court decision comes sooner.

Gonzalez noted that masks have played a significant role in recent California history. First, California temporarily made masks mandatory in public and at work during the pandemic. Then, a couple of years later, a rush of smash-and-grab robberies were harder to solve because the suspects all wore masks. Now, California finds itself in its third back-and-forth over face coverings.

The law provides exemptions for N-95 or medical-grade masks to prevent infection transmission, and permits undercover operatives to wear a mask.

“This is specifically aimed to federal agents because we gotta combat these kidnappings somehow,” Gonzalez said, “and this was our way in.”

Justice has been getting quicker in recent years as Wisconsin works through post-pandemic backlog of criminal cases.

The post How long are cases taking to go through Wisconsin’s court system? appeared first on WPR.

The case against Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan has pitted the authority of a local judge against the Trump administration's immigration crackdown.

The post Court awaits verdict in case against Judge Dugan appeared first on WPR.

The founder of an avian rehabilitation facility in Antigo said it’s the worst year she’s ever seen for shootings of protected birds, including an American white pelican that’s currently undergoing treatment.

The post Wisconsin raptor rehab facility sees spike in illegal shootings of protected birds appeared first on WPR.

In a new lawsuit, the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa alleges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers violated federal environmental laws when it granted a permit to Enbridge for its proposed Line 5 reroute.

The post Bad River tribe sues Army Corps to overturn federal permit for Line 5 reroute appeared first on WPR.

The federal trial against Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan begins Monday. It pits the authority of a local judge against President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown.

The post National spotlight on Milwaukee as trial against Judge Hannah Dugan begins appeared first on WPR.

Gov. Tony Evers signed “Bradyn’s Law,” which creates a new crime for sexual extortion and the “Swenson Starkie Act,” which extends the statute of limitations for hiding a corpse. Evers addresses the Legislature in his 2024 State of the State message. (Baylor Spears | Wisconsin Examiner)

Gov. Tony Evers signed two bills this week introduced in response to crimes, including “Bradyn’s Law,” which creates a new crime for sexual extortion and the “Swenson Starkie Act,” which extends the statute of limitations for hiding a corpse. 

AB 201, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 48, was introduced by Rep. Patrick Snyder and Sen. Jesse James after the death of 15-year-old Bradyn Bohn from Kronenwetter, a village outside of Wausau. Bohn died by suicide in March after being targeted online by a perpetrator who convinced him to send photos of himself and told him that he needed to send money or face major consequences. He suffered through hours of threats and was coerced into sending money before his death.

“Today is an important day to remember Bradyn as we honor him and his memory, because now, moving forward, we will be able to hold bad actors responsible for reprehensible behavior, especially when they prey on our kids, and that is so important,” Evers said in a statement. “We wouldn’t be here today without Bradyn’s family and their relentless advocacy to keep kids safe online and hold predators accountable. We will be able to protect more of Wisconsin’s kids because of Bradyn’s family’s efforts to fight back.”

Sexual extortion, or “sextortion” is defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a crime in which “an offender coerces a minor to create and send sexually explicit images or video and then uses that material to extort the victim by threatening to release it.” 

2025 Wisconsin Act 48 makes it a Class I felony to coerce someone to engage in sexual conduct or to produce “an intimate representation” by threatening to injure someone’s property or representation, by threatening to commit violence or by threatening to distribute intimate photos of another person. The crime would be a Class H felony if the victim does any of those acts or is under the age of 18, and a Class G felony if the defendant was previously convicted of a sexually violent offense, the violation was committed during the course of a child abduction or the victim is under age 18 and the defendant is more than four years older than the victim. 

A person can also be prosecuted for felony murder if the person commits extortion and it causes the death of the victim. 

Sexual extortion has become a growing threat in the U.S. in recent years. The FBI observed from October 2022 to March 2023 an increase of more than 20% in reports of financially motivated sextortion incidents involving minor victims. 

From October 2021 to March 2023, the FBI and Homeland Security Investigations received over 13,000 reports of online financial sextortion of minors that included at least 12,600 victims, mostly boys, and led to at least 20 suicides.

Rep. Brent Jacobson (R-Mosinee) said in a statement that the bill is the first step towards “protecting vulnerable Wisconsinites from exploitation.” 

“As technology creates new avenues for exploitation, my colleagues and I have an obligation to make sure our laws protect our constituents, and that Wisconsin parents have the resources and awareness to keep their children safe from harm,” Jacobson said. “We must continue to come together to prevent these heinous crimes from claiming children in our state.”

Statute of limitations for hiding a corpse

SB 423, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 59, extends the statute of limitations for prosecuting the crime of hiding or burying a corpse by specifying that it only begins “once the victim’s remains are found and identified or when the crime occurs, whichever is later.” The current statute of limitations is six years in Wisconsin.

The legislation was introduced by Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) and Rep. Ron Tusler (R-Harrison) after the case of Starkie Swenson. Swenson disappeared in 1983 but his remains weren’t found until 2021, 38 years later. 

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, John C. Andrews accepted a plea in the case and was convicted on a charge of homicide by negligent use of a vehicle in 1994 and served 16 months in prison. He refused to reveal where Swenson’s body was. 

Police charged him with hiding a corpse after identifying the remains in 2021, but the charges were dismissed due to the statute of limitations. 

“The killer should’ve faced justice for hiding the remains in an attempt to conceal his crime. However, because of a loophole in Wisconsin law, Starkie’s killer was able to avoid charges,” Tusler said in a statement. “Although we cannot heal the wounds caused by the murder of Starkie Swenson, 2025 Wisconsin Act 59 ensures that no violent criminal will be able to exploit the corpse-hiding loophole again,” Tusler said in a statement.

Notifying parents of sex offenses

AB 74, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 57, requires Wisconsin schools to notify a pupil’s parent or guardian if the pupil is an alleged victim, target or recipient of alleged sex offenses while at school. The law also requires school boards to provide parents and guardians each year with information on their rights to access records regarding school employee discipline.

“Doing everything we can to keep our kids safe at school, at home, and in our communities is a top priority for me, as well as our schools and education professionals, who are frontlines of doing what’s best for our kids every day,” Evers said in a statement. “This bill will strengthen transparency by making sure parents and family members are notified if any misconduct at school affects their kids’ safety or well-being and bolster accountability by ensuring they know what their rights are and what their kids’ rights are.”

Evers signs several other bills this week

Under AB 136, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 55, the penalty for impersonating a peace officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical services practitioner or an emergency medical responder is increased from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class I felony. Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) and Rep. Chuck Wichgers (R-Muskego) introduced the legislation this year following an incident in New Berlin.

AB 388, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 75, creates a legal framework to establish a behavioral health hospital in Chippewa Falls using $10 million, which was set aside in the state budget this year to be used for Rogers Behavioral Health. Sen. Jesse James, who coauthored the bill, said in a statement that it “is extremely monumental for the people of northwestern Wisconsin” and provides “a renewed sense of optimism” to the community as it will provide mental health support for children and adults in the area.

Under SB 11, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 79, principals will now be required to allow youth membership organizations, including the Girl Scouts and the Boy Scouts, to schedule at minimum one time to visit their school to encourage students to join their organization. The visit can consist of both spoken and written information on how the organization helps students with educational interests and civic engagement. 

Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton) celebrated Evers signing the bill, saying that the organizations “create more engaged, confident, and community-minded citizens” and the law “ensures the next generation of Wisconsin children will continue to benefit from these life-changing experiences.” She also criticized Evers for vetoing another bill that would have added new requirements on schools related to military recruiters, saying the state should “proudly support our military, not slam the door shut when they’re offering students legitimate career options, which is precisely what the governor did with this veto.”

SB 310, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 61, limits the amount of time covered by an emergency power proclamation by a local government’s chief executive officer to 60 days, unless extended by a local governing body. The bill was part of a controversy surrounding Rep. Sylvia Ortiz-Velez earlier this year who claimed that Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, who is running for governor, abused his power during the COVID-19 pandemic when he issued emergency orders in 2021.

AB 265, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 56, requires judges to sentence offenders to a minimum of 10 years in prison if convicted of a human trafficking crime and 15 years for a child trafficking crime.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Wisconsin Act 20, a 2023 law that made major changes to literacy education in the state, requires school districts to provide short literacy screenings to students as a way of identifying “at-risk” students. A girl reads a book in a school library. (Getty Images)

The Department of Public Instruction (DPI) released data on the first year of annual literacy screenings this week, finding about 36% of 4K through third-grade students fell below the 25th percentile for reading.

Wisconsin Act 20, a 2023 law that made major changes to literacy education in the state, requires school districts to provide short literacy screenings to students as a way of identifying “at-risk” students. Students who scored below the 25th percentile on the reading screener are required under the law to receive a personal reading plan and additional support. Schools must report data on the screenings to the DPI, which is required to compile a report. 

The first annual report covers screenings done in the 2024-25 school year. 

The response rate to the reporting requirement was 98% with 428 out of 437 local education agencies submitting data.

State Superintendent Jill Underly said in a statement that the rate represents a strong commitment to the state’s literacy efforts, and that the report overall provides the state with a baseline.

“These data are critical in helping schools guide instruction and intervention — not to define a student’s potential,” Underly said. “School districts have already demonstrated their strong commitment to this effort, and I am encouraged by how fully they embraced the work from day one.” 

According to the report, 36.8% of Wisconsin students in 4K through the third grade — or 97,414 students — scored below the 25th percentile on their assessment of fundamental skills on universal screening assessments. 

The report also provides information on the number of students who have started receiving interventions. 

For students in 5K through third grade, a total of 86,228 students — or 40% of the total enrollment — began receiving interventions. Students in 4k are not required to have a personal reading plan.

The implementation of the law has been drawn out over the last couple of years. According to DPI, schools have also started receiving funding from the $50 million that was initially set aside in the 2023-25 state budget to help with professional development and training requirements as well as curriculum costs, but wasn’t released until the budget approved this year due to disagreements between lawmakers and Gov. Tony Evers.

“With time and a sustained investment in strengthened classroom instruction and, as needed, additional reading support, we can move steadily toward our goal of making sure every Wisconsin child excels at reading by the end of third grade,” Underly said.

Sen. John Jagler (R-Watertown), who assisted with leading the law through the Legislature, said in the statement that the results show the depth of the issues that Wisconsin students are facing.

“This shows why this law was needed in the first place. Hopefully, education leaders will focus on getting these students the interventions they need,” Jagler said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 3 minutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reading Time: 2 minutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Community and environmental justice advocates say the Biden administration is failing to deliver promised transparency and public engagement around its $7 billion clean hydrogen hub initiative.

“Engagement isn’t merely leading people into a process that’s going to happen with or without them,” said Tom Torres, hydrogen program director for the Ohio River Valley Institute, a nonprofit serving one of the regions where federally funded partnerships are trying to lay the groundwork for new local hydrogen economies. “It means meaningfully involving people in the decisions about the project.”

The U.S. Department of Energy announced funding in October 2023 for seven regional clean hydrogen hubs — clusters of interconnected projects meant to kickstart production of the fuel with little or no greenhouse gas emissions. Since then, the department has held online briefings and virtual listening sessions for each hub, but advocates say they are not getting the kind of information necessary to assess who will be impacted by the projects and how.

Torres and others say they want more than just dots on a map. They want to know how hydrogen will be produced, how it will be used, and how it will get to end users. For projects that depend on carbon capture, they want to know how and where the carbon will be captured, transported and stored. And once the specifics are known, they want a chance to have meaningful input on the final projects.

Spokespeople for the Department of Energy and regional hubs said the answers to those questions are still being worked out and that more engagement is on the horizon.  Advocates are increasingly frustrated and fear that community input will come too late to affect how the hubs are developed.

“It doesn’t make sense … on one hand to say there’s not enough on paper to tell the public about, but on the other hand there is enough to allocate almost $1 billion for these companies,” Torres said.

Are events just ‘checking a box’?

When burned as a fuel source, hydrogen does not emit carbon dioxide, but its production today almost always comes from fossil fuels. Some see a potential for hydrogen to replace natural gas in certain hard-to-electrify sectors such as industry or heavy duty transportation, but the benefits for addressing climate change hinge on whether it can be produced cleanly and at scale.

The Biden administration’s hydrogen hub program, part of the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, aims to ramp up production of hydrogen made with low-carbon energy, including renewables, nuclear power, and fossil fuels paired with carbon capture. 

“It is literally like building the natural gas infrastructure that we have all over the place again for hydrogen,” said Shawn Bennett, energy and resilience manager for Battelle, the project manager for the Appalachian Regional Hydrogen Hub, ARCH2, which includes projects for Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. A majority of its projects will use steam methane reforming to make hydrogen from natural gas, along with carbon capture and storage. Other projects in the hub plan to make hydrogen from waste gases or from electrolysis, which uses energy to split water molecules. 

In May, dozens of groups urged the Department of Energy to suspend funding discussions for the ARCH2 project until the public receives detailed information beyond general maps and short project descriptions. On July 31 the Department of Energy formally committed the first $30 million of federal funding to ARCH2, with a total of up to $925 million to be spent over the next decade or so.

Last month, the Department of Energy committed up to $1 billion for the Midwest Alliance for Clean Hydrogen, MachH2, which spans Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Iowa and plans to produce hydrogen from a mix of nuclear power, wind energy and natural gas. The department will hold a December 9 briefing on MachH2.

In response to the Energy News Network’s questions about community groups’ complaints about a lack of outreach, a Department of Energy spokesperson provided a statement saying it “has been actively engaged with these communities in support of the economic playbook” of the Biden-Harris administration.

The ARCH2 project held a community outreach session in West Virginia in November, and additional meetings will be held in Ohio and Pennsylvania early next year, Bennett said. Some community group members protested outside at the West Virginia session but then came inside for a good discussion, he added.

Torres said there was no general presentation at the West Virginia meeting, and company representatives were present for only a handful of the hub’s projects. Even then, project information was still sparse. 

“It wasn’t an opportunity for people’s voices to be heard,” he said. “What is the value of these events other than checking a box for these companies?”

Advocacy groups focusing on the MachH2 project said months went by without getting updates or details. Then last month, they got less than 24 hours’ notice for a briefing with general descriptions about the MachH2 hub projects.

During that session, representatives for the Department of Energy said a decision on the hub’s funding commitment would come soon, “probably next week sometime,” said Susan Thomas, the legislative and policy director and communications manager for Just Transition Northwest Indiana. Minutes after the November 20 session ended, the Department of Energy announced the MachH2 funding commitment. 

“Our jaws were on the table,” Thomas said.

Details remain to be worked out

Groups have been trying to get answers from the Department of Energy for more than a year, said Chris Chyung, executive director of Indiana Conservation Voters. In his view, the agency’s approach “is just flouting the law.” According to the Department of Energy’s website, engagement with communities and labor is a key principle required in hubs’ community benefits plans, which are part of hubs’ contractual obligations for funding.

Community groups learned in the November 20 briefing that the MachH2 community engagement would not address concerns related to any pipelines associated with the hub. Instead, those would be handled by a separate office within the Department of Energy. 

But a pipeline for northwestern Indiana “is absolutely part and parcel of [a] dirty hydrogen project that is part of MachH2,” and the community should get a say on it, said Lauren Piette, an attorney with Earthjustice, which does not consider hydrogen made with natural gas to be climate-friendly, even with carbon capture.

The Department of Energy spokesperson did not respond to the Energy News Network’s question about how community benefits for hub projects can fully be assessed if they don’t include consideration of issues and input related to necessary pipelines.

Representatives of the MachH2 and ARCH2 hubs who spoke at an Ohio Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Consortium program last month said they couldn’t practically engage in community outreach until funding commitments had been negotiated with the Department of Energy. Until then, it wasn’t certain whether each hub would move forward.

Also, as a practical matter, “there was no budget for these things,” Bennett said. Details for each hub’s projects are still being worked out, and ARCH2 is still trying to add additional project partners.

Even then, details for projects won’t be finalized until review under the National Environmental Policy Act, according to Neil Banwart, who is the chief integration officer for the MachH2 hub and also the managing director for hydrogen at Energy Systems Network. 

“It’s not a certainty that all of the projects will get built in the locations that we shared on a map,” he said.

Chyung said he felt the comments about funding were “a complete dodge on behalf of these extremely wealthy national corporations that have said since 2023 they were eager to get started on community outreach.”

Advocates frustrated by lack of transparency, engagement on regional hydrogen hub projects 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.