Last week’s record-setting and hazardous wildfire smoke that covered much of the state for days limited several outdoor activities.
The post How wildfire smoke impacted Milwaukee Zoo animals and Apostle Islands economic activity appeared first on WPR.
Wildfire smoke engulfs the Capitol in Madison, Wisconsin on July 16, 2026 (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)
For the second time in three years, noxious clouds of wildfire smoke are smothering Wisconsin, dangerously degrading air quality and restricting people’s ability to go outside. In Madison, smoke began drifting in during the early morning hours on Thursday. By sunrise, the stench of burning forests had settled in and coated the Badger State’s capitol city in a gray smog, compounding a multi-day heatwave bringing temperatures to nearly 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
The smoke originated from 17 wildfires in the Superior National Forest caused by lightning strikes in far northeastern Minnesota. Severe drought and heat fueled the fires, threatening a 1.1 million acre forest that is the most visited wilderness area in the U.S. Rangers are searching for 6,000 to 10,000 people who might be in an area that has been evacuated because of the fires, PBS reported. Officials have cancelled all Boundary Water canoe permits, and closed public access to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness as part of a 3.9 million acre closure covering the entire Superior National Forest.
In Wisconsin, the fallout has been far-reaching. A statewide air quality advisory has been issued by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), with the air expected to remain unhealthy until at least Friday.
Local health departments from Milwaukee to Kenosha are warning residents to avoid the outdoors as much as possible, especially children, older people, pregnant women and those with respiratory ailments like asthma and heart disease. Even healthy people may experience eye irritation, coughing, sore throats or shortness of breath due to exposure to the smoke.
“While breathing problems and respiratory health dangers are often considered the biggest health impact from wildfire smoke, it’s important to recognize the impact on cardiovascular health as well,” said Dr. Art Coffey, a board member of the Milwaukee American Heart Association and a ProHealth Care cardiologist. “Wildfire smoke contains a lot of pollutants including fine, microscopic particles linked to cardiovascular risk. As these fires continue to burn, that contaminated smoke is traveling many miles beyond the immediately affected area.”
A press release from the American Heart Association warns that smoke exposure can increase the risk of sudden cardiac arrest and increase burdens on local emergency services. One study in the Journal of the American Heart Association found that heavy wildfire smoke exposure increased the risk of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests by 70%, with that risk elevated among both men and women, particularly in adults from 35-64 years of age and those in high-poverty communities.
In a new analysis, the environmental advocacy group Clean Wisconsin estimated that 250 premature deaths occur each year in Wisconsin due to wildfire smoke exposure. The environmental group warns that these trends are likely to worsen. From 2010 to 2020, Clean Wisconsin stated, wildfire smoke caused unhealthy air quality conditions in the state for less than one day per year. Since 2020, however, wildfire smoke has caused unhealthy air in Wisconsin for an average of nine days per year. The smoke also carries particulate matter which is so small that it can penetrate the lungs deeply and cross into the blood stream, potentially leading to heart disease, cancer, dementia, blood clots, stroke and early death.
Milwaukee’s health and public works departments have suspended or modified some services. Garbage and recycling collection is suspended until further notice, and the city’s drop-off centers are also closed. The city tow lot closed Thursday afternoon. Air quality in the Milwaukee area is considered dangerous, and people are advised to stay inside, run air conditioning, use portable air cleaners or air filters, wear N95 masks or similar protection if they have to go outside, and to check on their neighbors and loved ones.
Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley said in a statement that this has become “the worst air quality on record for our community,” adding, “I encourage everyone to take this situation seriously, limit time outdoors when possible, and follow guidance from public health officials.”
All beer gardens, splash pads, outdoor and indoor pools and wading pools have closed in Milwaukee County parks. Residents rely on some of these services to cope with the high temperatures, but the smoke makes their continued operation unsafe. The Milwaukee County Zoo has also had to move some animals inside and cancel attractions and programming.
The Irwin A. and Robert D. Goodman Pool in Madison in Madison is also closed. In Kenosha, two park pools have closed as well as a municipal golf course, bulk and recycling and compost drop-off sites. A local “Peanut Butter & Jam concert” has also been canceled until further notice.
Experts and advocates stress the connection between repeated wildfire smoke emergencies and climate change, which creates the heatwaves and extreme drought conditions which set the stage for massive blazes.
“Increasingly smoky skies underscore the importance of a rapid transition to clean energy rather than building more polluting fossil fuel infrastructure that further contributes to climate change,” Dr. Paul Matthewson, science program director for Clean Wisconsin, said in a statement. “The faster we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and slow climate change, the more summer days we will be able to enjoy outside without worrying about whether the air is safe to breathe.”
“The wildfire smoke blanketing Wisconsin is a reminder that climate change is not a distant threat,” said Peg Shaeffer, spokesperson for Midwest Environmental Advocates. “It is already harming public health and disrupting our daily lives. While no single fire can be attributed solely to climate change, we know that a warming climate is making large wildfires more frequent and more severe.”
Chelsea Chandler, Clean Wisconsin’s climate, energy and air program director, said, “This is hurting everybody — our kids on the playground, farmers, construction workers.” Chandler added, “The public health threat we are all enduring must be a wakeup call…Wisconsin is moving in the wrong direction. Our energy companies are doubling down on burning dangerous fossil fuels to meet soaring AI data center demand, adding to the hazardous air pollution we breathe and damaging our climate. Wisconsinites are paying the price.”
Chandler said that Wisconsin needs to rapidly employ several policies including:
“These ideas are not new; in fact, many other states are already taking action,” said Chandler. “For example, Wisconsin is last in the Midwest when it comes to wind energy production, far behind our neighbors…We’ve got to realize that Wisconsin is not an island. No community is safe from the impacts of climate change. The question is, what are we — and our state leaders — doing to help?”
It’s a question young people, especially those who have grown up in an era of climate emergency, ask their elders with increasing audacity. Last year, a group of young Wisconsinites attempted to take the government to court, asking the state to eliminate laws that worsen the climate crisis and accusing those in power of robbing them of their right to a safe and stable future due to policies which contribute to climate change. In April, a Dane County judge dismissed the case, saying that although she was sympathetic to the children, that what they demanded was a political question beyond judicial review.
“Needless to say, we strongly disagree,” said Shaeffer. Midwest Environmental Advocates, which represented the children in the court action. “These kids deserve more than sympathy. They deserve to have their day in court.”
The children involved in the case had suffered the effects of wildfire smoke exposure in recent years, Shaeffer said in an emailed statement to the Wisconsin Examiner. One 18-year-old girl named Madeline has asthma, and must stay indoors and avoid the smoke to avoid flare-ups, preventing her from biking, hiking or running outdoors. Another 16-year-old named Indy must stay indoors for weeks on end due to his asthma. Caroline, a 9-year-old girl, said she feels “trapped” when heat and smoke prevent her from playing outside. Those kinds of experiences were also shared by 18-year-old Lucy, who quit the cross-country ski team because practices were cancelled due to a lack of snow in the winter and smoke in the summer. 16-year-old Ted must do farm chores when smoke is heavy in the air. And 12-year-old Elia suffers migraines which are worsened by the heat and smoke.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly called climate change a hoax and a scam. Under both his administrations, climate policies ground to a halt as fossil fuel companies were given carte blanche to “drill baby drill,” as Trump is fond of saying.
“These are the real, lived experiences of Wisconsin young people whose health and wellbeing are being harmed by state laws that exacerbate climate change,” said Shaeffer. “We believe the court has both the authority and the obligation to address that harm.”
Fairy Lake, Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, July 2025 (Photo by Ruth Conniff/Wisconsin Examiner)
Last week, for a brief, beautiful span of days, all three of our young-adult daughters were immersed in nature, reveling in the delicious freedom of summertime. One, a camp counselor, was leading a group on a two-week trek through Yellowstone National Park. She sent us photos of the mountains, campfires, sweaty, grinning campers, a herd of bison they encountered by the side of the road. The other two sisters were on a canoe trip in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. They paddled from lake to lake, fell asleep to the sound of loons, woke up early to plunge in the crystal clear water.
Just as all three girls were ending their trips, more than a dozen wildfires swept through the Superior National Forest, prompting the Forest Service to close all entry points to the Boundary Waters. Some visitors were stranded. Eight Forest Service rangers paddled in to rescue people throughout the 150-mile stretch of wilderness on the U.S.-Canadian border. Our daughter who led the trip to Yellowstone returned to her base camp in Grand Marais, Minnesota, to learn that further trips have been canceled. A group of campers who were stuck in the Boundary Waters had to be rescued by helicopter. The smoke was chokingly thick. “It feels like the apocalypse,” she texted.
In Madison we woke up Thursday morning to the stinging haze of wildfire smoke blanketing the city, drifting down on us from the same forest fires.
The abrupt end of summer’s idyll is a heartache, not just for the immediate shock, but for what it means — a world on fire, a feeling of dread of the losses to come. There is no escape from the rapidly accelerating disasters caused by climate change. All of us are touched by it in our interconnected world. Yet somehow, we can’t get our act together to respond. As a country, we seem determined to kid ourselves about what we are seeing with our own eyes. Wisconsin U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the Republican candidate for governor, has called warnings about extreme weather triggered by climate change “doomsaying, sky-is-falling rhetoric.”
Last summer, Tiffany and fellow Wisconsin Republican U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman, along with three of their Republican colleagues from Minnesota wrote a letter to the Canadian embassy to complain that wildfire smoke was ruining summer across the Midwest.
“In our neck of the woods, summer months are the best time of the year to spend time outdoors recreating, enjoying time with family, and creating new memories, but this wildfire smoke makes it difficult to do all those things,” Tiffany and his colleagues wrote, demanding to know what the Canadians planned to do about it. Tens of thousands of Canadians were being displaced by raging fires at the time. “With all the technology that we have at our disposal, both in preventing and fighting wildfires, this worrisome trend can be reversed if proper action is taken,” Tiffany and his colleagues wrote.
Wildfires are getting worse because of climate change. The problem is particularly acute for Canada, where the Arctic region is rapidly warming and hotter, drier summers are turning forest land into a tinderbox, where a stray lightning strike can start a conflagration. The same thing is happening in the Superior National Forest this summer, where the fires are caused by lightning and the hot, dry conditions that are not letting up.
Instead of working to mitigate the threat, the Trump administration has dismantled the arm of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that researches wildfires and other climate-related threats, as well as the Forest Service’s firefighting teams. In 2025, the Forest Service lost nearly 6,000 employees. Trump’s fiscal year 2027 budget aims to cut the Forest Service budget by 75%.
Tiffany’s scolding letter to Canada aside, the policies he has supported under Trump have directly increased fire hazards. To the eight rangers now searching the Boundary Waters for people trapped by the fires, the Forest Service office in Minnesota is hoping to add back some of the staff they’ve lost to Trump’s ill-advised reorganization and cuts.
“We are actively trying through our existing staff to reach out to former staff that have retired or moved to another position off-forest that still have firefighting skills and credentials,” Forest Service spokesperson Christine Kolinski told the Minnesota Star Tribune.
This summer’s fires are more than just a wake-up call. They are a five-alarm emergency alert. We are losing so much so fast. We all have a stake in facing it and acting now. It does no good to pretend the disaster isn’t happening or to blame our neighbors, as if they could fix things for us by getting out their rakes. The least we can demand of our political leaders is that they stop dismantling the only tools we have to fight the incineration of our world. We owe that much to every kid who looks forward to every future summer.
A potters field, or mass grave from a decommissioned mental health hospital, completely flooded in Wauwatosa. (Photo courtesy of Baiba Rozite)
Communities that ask for federal assistance when climate disasters hit can’t count on that help to arrive. That increasingly common reality was reviewed in a recent report by Wisconsin Policy Forum, which focused on the historic floods in the state last August, finding that federal aid to help rebuild public infrastructure damaged by the record-breaking storms fell short of what was needed.
The report took a close look at the Milwaukee area, where 14.6 inches of rain set Wisconsin’s all-time record for the largest rainfall in a 24-hour period. “As a result, the Menomonee, Milwaukee, and Kinnickinnic rivers all overflowed, and rainwater flooded homes, streets, businesses, and schools in low-lying areas. Recovery efforts continue today and have been expanded to address the impacts of another massive storm that hit the area in April 2026.” Those storms earlier this year also dropped record-breaking amounts of rain in Green Bay and Wausau, and caused historic flooding along the Wolf River basin in Shiocton, New London, and Porterfield. Researchers have long warned that increased risks of flooding and more severe storms would increase in Wisconsin due to climate change, which the administration of President Donald Trump has downplayed and dismissed as a hoax.
Not only did the August storms fill up basements and damage homes, but there was also extensive damage to roads, parks, bridges and other public infrastructure. In and around Milwaukee, damage to public property owned by the county property, public schools, the city of Milwaukee and 18 other localities came to at least $34.7 million. That included $10 million each for Milwaukee’s public school and sewage district, as well as $1.4 million in damage calculated by county officials, half of which was road-related damage. City officials estimated $1.7 million in damage, plus $5 million in additional costs related to cleaning up debris. Wauwatosa, one of Milwaukee County’s surrounding suburban communities, estimated $6.8 million in damage to city parks, roads and buildings.
All in all, about $240 million in damage to private and public property was left behind by the August storms in the Milwaukee-area. After deploying the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Trump administration approved $210 million in aid to help individuals rebuild, but would not provide funding to support local governments, despite multiple requests from state and local leaders.
Wisconsin’s Democratic Gov. Tony Evers immediately declared a state of emergency after the August storms, requesting a federal major disaster declaration for Milwaukee, Waukesha, Washington, Door, Grant, and Ozaukee counties. Evers made the request both for individual and public assistance, the Wisconsin Policy Forum report notes. Over 26,000 individual damage reports were received throughout the state as the damage was being assessed. FEMA concluded that the 2025 flooding was “sufficient in severity to warrant a disaster declaration in Milwaukee, Waukesha, and Ozaukee counties but only authorized assistance to individuals and said that aid to public entities was not warranted based on the severity of the disaster,” the report states. “This meant that only individuals in these counties would be eligible for assistance and that governments have not received aid.”
It is rare for the federal government to approve one form of disaster aid while denying another, according to the report, with only 2.7% of named disasters since the year 2000 resulting in individual assistance being approved but public assistance being denied. In 2008, when severe storms and flooding hit the Milwaukee area, the federal government approved $4.5 million in assistance to local governments, as well as another $10.3 million when severe storms hit in 2010. “Milwaukee County has also received $6.1 million to help with costs associated with snowstorm cleanup since 2000,” the Wisconsin Policy Forum noted.
Earlier this month, $22.6 million in assistance was provided to several counties. President Trump used the allocation to promote Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany as a candidate for governor of Wisconsin.
Local governments have tried to pick up the slack, but at a high cost. Normally the state distributes $1 million to $3 million to local governments to cover disaster costs, but in 2025 the damage was so extensive that $16.9 million was needed to cover damage claims, the highest annual amount in records going back to the year 2000. “This was due both to the extent of the flooding in August 2025 and the denial of federal funding that potentially could have covered at least some of these costs,” the report states. Nearly 46,000 residents in Waukesha, Washington and Milwaukee counties applied for the individual assistance following the August storms, and as of June aid has been distributed to 36,800 of eligible applicants.
Some local governments including Milwaukee County have undertaken policies to help adapt to the effects of climate change. “The sewage district has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into flood control systems in the area, including concrete infrastructure like the Deep Tunnel system as well as green infrastructure efforts such as wetland preservation, the reduction of hard surfaces such as concrete that create runoff, and other methods to limit the speed and volume of flood waters,” the Wisconsin Policy Forum reports. Without those measures, the August floods could have been “much worse,” according to the Policy Forum. “However, it’s clear from the two storms in the last 10 months that there are still thousands of structures in the area that are vulnerable to flooding.”
Recovering from disasters causes hardship. And more frequent severe weather is likely to bring on more disasters, even as, the Policy Forum found, “the availability of federal disaster relief has become more difficult to predict.” When the federal government decides to reject local communities’ calls for help, “state residents have limited recourse beyond petitioning FEMA and Congress to provide assistance.”
The report recommends that state leaders authorize additional funding to pay for disaster relief using state tax revenue. Attempts to do this by Evers and other lawmakers have previously been rejected by the Republican-controlled Legislature. State and local leaders could also make investments in flood control and mitigation efforts and expand green infrastructure. Developing community-based insurance policies to address “these unpredictable and increasingly likely disasters” is another solution the Policy Forum suggests.
“State and local leaders have limited control over when and where floods strike, but they can be prepared to respond when they occur,” the report concludes. “They can also reduce flood risk by investing in infrastructure that slows, stores, and redirects water.” Even these efforts may still be overwhelmed by the scale of disasters. And with the federal government demonstrating that, for whatever reason, aid isn’t guaranteed to come, Wisconsin may need to become “more self-sufficient” in responding to future disasters.
The U.S. has had a busy tornado season so far, and the majority of the storms are blasting through the Midwest, east of what’s traditionally thought of as Tornado Alley.
The post Tornadoes are breaking records in Midwest states as Tornado Alley moves east appeared first on WPR.
The "super" El Niño the world is facing will mean a warmer winter in Wisconsin, but also potentially more pests, diseases and world-wide hunger.
The post How effects of a ‘super’ El Niño will feel in Wisconsin appeared first on WPR.
A man stands in the Rio Grande north of Albuquerque, N.M., after summer storms briefly bumped up flows in mid-June. New research suggests climate change could nearly double the costs of household water in some American cities. (Photo by Laura Paskus/Source New Mexico)
Household water costs could nearly double in some American cities, new research suggests, as climate change further stresses municipal water systems.
Researchers at Stanford University and other institutions studied how a hotter, drier climate is poised to spike water bills for residents of Santa Cruz, California, in a peer-reviewed study published this week in the journal Nature Sustainability. While the study focused on that coastal city, the outlook is similar for many cities that will be forced to make costly upgrades to water systems as climate change intensifies, said lead author Jennifer Skerker, who worked on the research while studying for her doctorate in civil and environmental engineering at Stanford.
Without significant government funding, the costs of new water transport systems, desalination plants and sewage water reuse systems are likely to be borne by individual water systems, which are expected to pass them onto consumers through water bills.
“So this really pits water affordability against water reliability, when in reality we need both of these to have safe, accessible and affordable water for everyone,” said Skerker, who now works for a local water utility.
Though low-income residents use significantly less water, they will be hit hard by rising rates, which force them to spend a larger share of their resources, she said. Water rates have increased at three times the rate of inflation over the past two decades, as water providers updated aging infrastructure and addressed deferred maintenance backlogs.
The research comes as many Americans are already struggling with high energy bills: One in six American households are behind on utility bills, according to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association. While rising electric prices have sparked outrage among ratepayers, regulators and state lawmakers, relatively cheaper water has not always received the same level of attention.
“I think water affordability definitely needs to be part of the conversation with energy affordability,” Skerker said. “…On the water side, households might be using less water than is healthy, or we can even see households making tradeoffs between paying for water or energy, or paying for groceries or medical bills.”
Like other Western cities, Santa Cruz has implemented many water conservation practices: By 2021, locals had cut water use by nearly two-thirds over two decades. That leaves few low-cost options to increase water supplies in an area entirely reliant on surface water.
The study lays out several potential scenarios for local water bills depending on climate conditions and water investments. In one of the driest scenarios, researchers predict median water bills for the poorest residents could rise from about $60 to $111 per month (in 2026 dollars) by the middle of the century. That means more than one-third of households in Santa Cruz could struggle to afford water.
The study acknowledges that cities with larger reservoirs, more interconnected systems or access to lower-cost water sources may not experience the same acceleration in water bills. But it does envision “water affordability hotspots” across the country as more areas struggle to source and treat enough drinking water.
“It does seem unsustainable,” Skenker said, “and I think cities really need more help from the state and federal government.”
Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.
This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
Wisconsin needs to step it up and hold major climate polluters responsible for the damage they have caused. Fossil fuel corporations are polluting our world at the public’s expense, causing increasingly frequent climate disasters. The U.S. government provides an estimated $29.4 billion a year in direct subsidies, according to the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning think tank. While oil companies are gobbling up taxpayer money, the public is footing the bill for disaster cleanup. The good news is that there is a straightforward fix. Wisconsin can follow Vermont and New York’s lead by making the polluters pay.
Vermont and New York have already created climate superfunds, which hold polluters accountable for their share in the billions of dollars in damages climate change is causing. These funds are accounts into which fossil fuel companies must pay, with the money used to help communities become more resilient to climate change.
The number of billion-dollar weather and climate disasters continues to grow in the U.S., with 23 occurring in just last year, according to Climate Central, a nonprofit organization that researches and reports facts about the changing climate. These disasters are not only happening in the South. They are right here in the Midwest. Wisconsin has been battered by an increasing number of extreme climate events in recent years. From tornadoes to hailstorms, it feels as though Wisconsin cannot catch a break. In April, another devastating hailstorm hit the east side of Madison and damaged hundreds of homes and cars with its baseball-sized hail.
Wisconsinites need to talk to their representatives and let them know that they are fed up with paying for climate-disaster-related damages while the fossil fuel companies earn record profits. The state needs resources to prepare for future climate disasters, and a Wisconsin climate superfund would fill that need. Please urge your state representatives to make polluters pay for climate damages.
Leo Rain is a Madison resident and member of the Madison chapter of Climate Changemakers, which describes itself as a “modern climate advocacy program built for busy, productive people who are looking for meaningful civic engagement.”
Guest commentaries reflect the views of their authors and are independent of the nonpartisan, in-depth reporting produced by Wisconsin Watch’s newsroom staff. Want to join the Wisconversion? See our guidelines for submissions.
Guest opinion: Wisconsin should make polluters pay 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.
If you think you're seeing less nature on your nature walks or fewer birds while birding, you're not wrong. WPR's Lee Rayburn spoke with a researcher on Wisconsin's striking biodiversity loss — and how we can get it back.
The post Biodiversity biopsy: How we can reverse species loss in Wisconsin appeared first on WPR.
Wind turbines generate electricity at the Block Island Wind Farm near Block Island, Rhode Island. As the Trump administration blocks new permits and dangles billion-dollar buyout offers to convince developers to walk away from their wind projects, state leaders are hoping some companies share their conviction that the industry can be revived after Trump leaves office. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)
President Donald Trump has shown the immense power of the executive branch to stymie offshore wind development, as nearly all projects are in waters where federal agencies operate as the landlord.
Now, as the feds block new permits and dangle billion-dollar buyout offers to convince developers to walk away from their projects, state leaders are hoping some companies share their conviction that the industry can be revived after Trump leaves office.
“Any honest assessment of where we need to be to meet our climate goals depends on a thriving offshore wind sector,” said New York state Sen. Andrew Gounardes, a Democrat.
New York and many other East Coast states have set aggressive targets for offshore wind power, both to meet rising energy demands and transition to clean energy sources. But Trump’s attacks on the industry threaten to scare off companies from making the massive long-term investments required to pursue offshore wind projects.
“If there’s no business opportunity here, then they’re not going to stay here and invest here,” Gounardes said. “They’re not going to lay around with good intentions doing nothing, and we’re going to lose out because of that.”
Last week, Trump’s Department of the Interior announced a $129 million deal with Duke Energy to relinquish its lease to build an offshore wind farm off the coast of North Carolina. The company pledged to reinvest the money into other forms of energy.
Since March, Trump officials have struck four such agreements totaling more than $2.5 billion to get developers to give up on their offshore wind plans. Some analysts say the federal government’s ability to blockade pending projects has caused some companies to reconsider their investments.
“If you have a lease that appears to be going nowhere for at least the next three years, you want to pivot to other options,” said Timothy Fox, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners LLC, an independent research firm. “There’s still a lot of leases out there, but the Trump administration has made this aggressive push, and we think there could be future similar announcements.”
According to Fox, developers hold leases for roughly two dozen other offshore wind areas, agreements that could be targeted for similar buyout deals.
While developers consider buyout offers from the federal government, state leaders say such deals are illegal. Seven states filed a lawsuit earlier this month saying the administration lacks the authority to cancel the leases and pay out funds, focused on a March deal with TotalEnergies to block a project off of New York.
The lawsuit challenges the administration’s use of a federal fund set aside to pay court judgments and settlements of lawsuits against the government. The deal, state attorneys general argue, “is not the result of a compromise settlement between adverse parties, but rather an agreement resulting from [federal officials’] pretextual national security concerns and TotalEnergies’ desire to receive unauthorized compensation for an expensive offshore wind lease.”
The state of California has also announced that it intends to file a lawsuit over another buyout targeting a lease area off the state’s Pacific coast.
Since taking office, Trump has halted permits and leases for other planned offshore wind projects, canceled hundreds of millions in funding to support manufacturing and ports and ended clean energy tax credits. His administration also issued stop-work orders for five offshore wind projects that were already under construction, but courts have overturned those orders and allowed work to resume.
Aside from the five wind farms currently being built, progress on dozens of other pending projects has ground to a halt.
“There’s little to be done if the federal government still controls the permits, leases and pace of development,” said Fox, the researcher.
The clash comes as many East Coast states have been counting heavily on the maturation of the offshore wind industry to meet their energy needs. Eight Atlantic states have committed to building more than 45 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2040 — enough to power more than 30 million homes. They’ve made major investments in ports, manufacturing facilities, transmission infrastructure and workforce training.
In addition to their climate goals, many states are facing surging energy demands, largely driven by data centers and artificial intelligence.
State leaders say that offshore wind farms can harness massive amounts of electricity, especially during nighttime and winter periods when solar power is in short supply. For heavily populated East Coast states, with limited areas to put sprawling energy projects on land, tapping into strong winds over the ocean has become a major part of their strategy.
“Offshore wind is key to a future that allows us to move off of fossil fuels,” said Maryland state Del. Lorig Charkoudian, a Democrat who has been a strong backer of offshore wind. “Every time the (Trump administration) makes these moves, it reminds me that their numbers show how much offshore (wind) would allow us to retire fossil fuel plants.”
Trump has long opposed offshore wind, falsely asserting that it harms whales, is unreliable and drives up energy costs. While offshore wind generation is intermittent, it has a much higher capacity factor than onshore renewables, meaning that it operates for longer periods at its maximum output level. New offshore wind projects have capacity factors that match some gas and coal-fired power plants, according to the International Energy Agency.
While still more expensive than onshore renewables, offshore wind projects globally produce electricity at a rate cheaper than natural gas and coal plants, according to Energy Solutions Intelligence, a digital consulting platform.
Backers and energy analysts say offshore wind in the U.S. should become cheaper over time as supply chains mature and investments in ports and other infrastructure pay off.
The Department of the Interior did not grant a Stateline interview request about its buyout deals for offshore wind projects, but the agency has claimed in statements that the deals will lower energy prices.
Many state leaders acknowledge that the delays caused by Trump’s opposition will cause them to miss their targets for building new projects over the next 5 to 10 years. But they say the industry is still essential for meeting their long-term climate goals and energy needs.
“I don’t think anyone is at the point of saying no offshore wind ever again,” said Gounardes, the New York lawmaker. “It might not be part of the alchemy in the near future, but it certainly must be part of the alchemy to meet our overall goals.”
For now, state leaders are hoping their ongoing commitments to offshore wind will convince developers to wait out the remainder of Trump’s term and stay in the U.S. market.
“[The buyouts] are a blow to the industry, but it’s not a death knell but there are other projects out there that are still in some stage of development,” said Sam Schacht, project director for offshore wind with the Clean Energy States Alliance, a nonprofit coalition of state energy agencies.
“There’s this bad news story happening about the attempts to erode these future projects, while at the same time there’s a very positive story about the projects that are under construction and producing power now and their ability to capably meet states’ power demands.”
While states play the waiting game with offshore wind, they’re making new plans to meet their energy needs in the near term. Lawmakers in Maryland have invested in battery storage, which Charkoudian described as a “no-regrets” option that can help meet energy needs today while complementing offshore wind once it comes online.
Other states, including New York and New Jersey, have looked at increasing subsidies for nuclear power.
“I wouldn’t say that they’re giving up on offshore wind, but states are pivoting to other carbon-free resources that are favored by this administration, namely nuclear power,” said Fox, the energy researcher.
Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.
This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
While the federal government has released aid in response to April's weather disasters in Wisconsin, aid has been denied for previous storms including the one that caused this flooding at Hart Park in Wauwatosa in August 2025. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)
After denying requests for disaster relief to Wisconsin over recent months, President Donald Trump has approved $22.6 million in assistance to several counties that experienced extreme weather in April. Wisconsin Emergency Management determined that over $27 million in damage occurred as a result of the historic April storms that hit communities, bringing tornados, heavy rain and flash flooding.
The storms broke records as rivers overflowed and skies darkened under heavy cloud cover, high winds and torrential rain. According to the National Weather Service, a record-breaking 8.56 inches of precipitation accumulated in Green Bay during the month of April, breaking the prior record set in 1929 by more than 2 inches. Wausau also broke the record for precipitation with 8.74 inches accumulating in April, compared to the 6.06 inch record set in 1954. Historic flooding flowed out along the Wolf River basin in Shiocton and New London, as well as near the Embarrass and Peshtigo rivers near Porterfield. The Menominee River at McAllister reached its second highest level on record, and multiple dams overflowed in Waupaca and Shawano counties.
Residents living in the counties of Bayfield, Brown, Jackson, Jefferson, Juneau, Kenosha, Manitowoc, Marathon, Milwaukee, Outagamie, Racine, Rock, Sauk, Vernon, Washington, Waukesha, Waupaca and Winnebago, along with the Oneida Nation, will have access to the assistance. The funding will cover temporary housing and home repairs, low-cost loans to cover uninsured property losses and other programs. Federal funding is also available to state, tribal, and local governments which are eligible for assistance, as well as certain private nonprofit organizations to help replace damaged facilities.
Trump posted on Truth Social that he’d contacted U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany — the Republican candidate he endorsed for Wisconsin governor — about greenlighting the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assistance. Trump said that “the wonderful people of Wisconsin are in good hands with Tom,” alongside other Republican politicians which have been endorsed by the president. Meanwhile, Tiffany posted on X saying he called the White House after the storms and thanking the Trump administration “for their partnership.” Tiffany said in his post, “We’ll keep working to ensure every Wisconsin community has the resources needed to recover.”
Trump’s effort to spotlight Tiffany in connection with the announcement of emergency assistance comes ahead of the gubernatorial primary in August. Tiffany is the leading Republican contender, while six Democrats with a range of experiences and political leanings are competing for their party’s nomination.
When Trump first announced the emergency relief for Wisconsin, saying he had contacted Tiffany to inform him, neglecting to mention the current Gov. Tony Evers, Evers said in a statement posted to X, “Wisconsinites and I will believe it when we see it.”
“President Trump and the Trump Administration have declined tens of millions of dollars in Wisconsin disaster relief requests,” Evers wrote, “and have been playing politics by withholding emergency FEMA assistance from states across our country that’s supposed to go to helping families and communities rebuild and recover after a disaster—and all while he uses taxpayer dollars to build himself a golden ballroom.”
In February, the Trump administration denied disaster relief — for a second time — which would have helped Wisconsin communities recover from historic, record-breaking flooding and storms that hit in August. Over 1,800 homes in the Milwaukee area alone were left either damaged or destroyed, and multiple parks were left virtually underwater. The state fair shut down early as people fled the fairgrounds through waist-high water, and some were left stranded on roadways after their vehicles were flooded. Collectively, the August floods caused about $76 million in damage to private homes and public infrastructure, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.
A letter sent to Evers by FEMA in February said that assistance was “not warranted” but didn’t explain the rationale the agency had used to make that decision. Flood assistance was also denied for Milwaukee in November and October. A month after the FEMA denial, Wisconsinites endured a historic blizzard so bad that it shut down plowing services in a state used to snowfall. This summer, residents have been contending with a dangerous heatwave.
These are just the latest bouts of extreme and dangerous weather which have challenged the ability of residents to adapt and of local and state governments to respond. Researchers have long warned that extreme weather including more intense flooding, heatwaves and blizzards would become more common due to climate change. Trump has called climate change a hoax and his administration has cut back the federal programs to improve climate resilience.
A lone star tick, which is a very aggressive tick that bites humans. A circular rash sometimes follows the bite. (Photo courtesy Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
WASHINGTON — The prime time for ticks is here in the United States, and after an especially active start to the season, experts are urging the public to stay alert and take preventive measures.
Monthly emergency department visits for tick bites in April spiked to their highest level since 2017 and continued to remain high throughout May and June, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s tick bite tracker.
Though it’s hard to predict what the rest of the season will look like, given that tick activity depends on a number of different factors, there has definitely been a recent geographic expansion of the area ticks inhabit, said Pilar Fernandez, a disease ecologist and assistant professor at Washington State University.
The tiny blood-suckers, which tend to thrive in warmer climates, are spreading to places that used to be too cold for their existence, she said during a July 1 SciLine media briefing, as temperatures rise in the United States and around the world.
With more ticks comes a greater risk of individuals developing tick-borne diseases such as Lyme disease, Alpha-gal syndrome and anaplasmosis. That’s why researchers are encouraging people to know their facts and learn how to protect themselves from bites as they venture outdoors.
According to the CDC, an estimated 31 million people are bitten by ticks each year, with most encounters taking place between April and October. But in 2026, ER visits began rising as early as March.
Weekly ER trips for tick bites are also up in every U.S. region except for South Central as of June 28, the online tick tracker shows.
Global warming is certainly one reason behind this recent surge in tick activity, though Fernandez said the whole picture is much more complicated.
Because ticks can live for up to two to three years, it’s difficult to understand the delayed seasonal effects of increased temperatures or precipitation on their population, she said.
Other factors including local environmental conditions and how much time people spend outside can have an impact on annual tick encounters, she added.
Every spring and summer, she said, people ask her if it’s going to be a “big year” for ticks, which is “a really hard question to answer, because it’s not equal across all locations.”
Most tick cases are recorded in the Northeast and Midwest, but different species of ticks are found in every region of the country. And as the population expands into areas where people are unaware of how to protect themselves and unaccustomed to checking for bites, the threat of contracting a tick-borne infection grows, Fernandez said.
Ticks carry pathogens that they then pass on to humans by biting into their skin and feeding on their blood. An untreated tick bite can lead to the development of one of nearly 20 different human diseases in the U.S., the most common of which is Lyme disease — about 476,000 patients are treated annually, according to the CDC.
Another tick-borne infection that has been on the rise is Alpha-gal syndrome, which causes people to experience a serious allergic reaction after they eat red meat or other animal products that contain the sugar molecule alpha-gal. It is most commonly associated with the lone star species of tick distributed throughout the Northeastern, Southern and Midwestern United States.
Initial symptoms of tick-borne illnesses are unspecific and often the same as those that come with regular sickness, such as a fever, headache, muscle aches and joint pain, according to Alvaro Toledo, an associate professor in the Department of Entomology at Rutgers who also spoke at the July 1 media briefing.
“Physicians need to be vigilant and aware if they receive a patient with symptoms that are compatible with a tick-borne disease,” he said.
If one discovers a tick on the skin, Toledo said the proper response is to first quickly remove the tick with tweezers by pinching and pulling it up in a vertical motion, then disinfecting the area and monitoring for signs of sickness.
People should not, on the other hand, deal with a tick by burning it off or applying petroleum jelly to the bite, said University of Wisconsin-Madison Assistant Professor Adela Oliva Chavez, a tick researcher, at the briefing.
“Those are myths,” she warned.
Ticks typically do not transmit infection until after they have been attached to the skin for 24 hours, which is why the CDC recommends people aim to remove the pests as soon as possible within the first day.
However, experts say the most effective way to prevent tickborne disease in humans is by limiting exposure to ticks in the first place.
Toledo said people should use chemical sprays such as permethrin on their clothing and classic bug repellents on their skin to keep ticks away. It’s also a good idea to wear long, light-colored clothing when spending time in forests and other highly vegetated areas where ticks are abundant.
But, he added as a reminder to the public, there is “no zero-risk zone anywhere when you go out … even in your backyard, risk is not zero.”
Individuals can further reduce their chance of acquiring a tick bite by checking their pets just as often themselves, according to Oliva Chavez. Dogs and cats can easily bring ticks into the house from outside, and if they aren’t yet attached to the animal’s flesh, they can make their way onto humans, she said.
As heat blazes across Wisconsin, a new analysis finds that the state’s hottest month has been growing even hotter due to climate change.
The post New analysis says Wisconsin’s hottest month is growing hotter for some cities appeared first on WPR.
People sit with their feet in the fountain at the World War II Monument amidst a heat wave on the National Mall on June 19, 2024, in Washington, D.C. Temperatures in Washington reached 98 degrees as heat rose drastically throughout the East Coast. (Anna Rose Layden | Getty Images)
Communities across Wisconsin are enduring a heatwave that’s breaking records across the nation and around the world. According to the National Weather Service, east central, south central and southeast Wisconsin are all under an extreme heat warning until 7 p.m. Wednesday, with the heat index nearing or exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit in Milwaukee, Kenosha, Madison and Green Bay. Local officials are highlighting access to cooling shelters and other emergency resources.
In Kenosha, heat index could reach 107 degrees Fahrenheit, city officials warn. Residents should stay hydrated by drinking water, staying cool indoors and be aware of signs of heat stroke including confusion, dizziness, nausea or headaches. The Milwaukee Health Department offered similar warnings.
A spokesperson for the Milwaukee County Department of Health and Human Services said the county has a “No Wrong Door” model, which allows residents to connect with the department at many different health and human services agencies. Local housing navigators are out in the community checking on people who are unhoused and offering them access to cooling sites, shelters and temporary housing. Residents can locate cooling sites by dialing 2-1-1 and many public cooling sites have been set up along county transit routes. Residents who own properties they want to turn into a public cooling location should email IMPACT 211 at resourcechange@impactinc.org.
The Department of Natural Resources has issued air quality alerts for the Kenosha, Milwaukee, Racine, Ozaukee, Racine and Sheboygan counties. Local health officials in Dane County and Madison noted that over 1,000 deaths from extreme heat occur each year in the United States. People who are most at risk are older adults, people working outside, infants, children, unhoused people and those with chronic medical conditions.
Wisconsin state law prohibits a utility from disconnecting electrical service to occupied dwellings during a heat advisory, warning, or emergency situation, according to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.
Utilities are also required to make “reasonable attempts” to reconnect service to dwellings disconnected due to unpaid bills when an occupant notifies them that there is a potential threat to health or life. However, the utility may require a licensed physician’s statement or a notice from a public health, social service or law enforcement official in those circumstances. When the heat warning is over, the utility is allowed to disconnect the power again.
Scientists have long warned that worsening heatwaves and extreme weather are becoming more common due to man-made climate change. Green Bay is still recovering from severe floods that hit last week, damaging roadways and businesses. In April, Milwaukee County, which has also experienced historic flooding in the last year, re-affirmed its commitment to the Paris Climate Accords, which called on the world to take necessary steps to prevent average global temperatures from increasing beyond 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
A state climatology specialist breaks down what to expect for Wisconsin’s summer weather outlook, including the impact of El Niño.
The post ‘Precipitation ping-pong’ in Wisconsin leads to summer outlook challenges appeared first on WPR.
In addition to being a health hazard for anyone living downwind of the coal-burning plants, coal is more expensive and less reliable than other cleaner sources for power. (Photo of AES Indiana's Petersburg Generation Station by Robert Zullo/States Newsroom)
Recent administrative efforts to endorse new coal-fired power plants and repair outdated plants are making my blood boil. For more than 30 years, I have worked tirelessly along with thousands of other public health and climate scientists to understand the very real public health threats posed by burning fossil fuels like coal. Coal-fired power plants are some of the worst offenders when it comes to causing harm to human health and the environment. In addition to being a health hazard for anyone living downwind of the coal-burning plants, it’s more expensive and less reliable than other cleaner sources for power.
Let’s look at some of the reasons why coal is bad for health.
Prior to this administration, many utilities had already started phasing out coal plants in favor of clean energy because coal plants often need expensive repairs and emit costly, dirty fuel. Coal power is so expensive that, according to a 2023 study, 99% of the time it would be cheaper to get electricity by building entirely new wind and solar farms than it would be to buy power from existing coal plants.
The Trump administration announced plans to provide up to $500 million in funding to coal-fired power plants in 10 states, along with an export terminal in California. The Columbia Energy Center, coal-fired plant co-owned by Alliant Energy, Madison Gas and Electric, and Wisconsin Public Service near Pardeeville, is expected to receive $19 million in federal funding for a modernization project. The plant was originally scheduled to retire by 2024. Alliant is exploring a gas conversion for one of the two primary generating units, so there is a potential for continued operations beyond the end of 2029 (the updated retirement date for the facility).
Note the Columbia plant has released more emissions of the health-harming pollutants nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide than any other Wisconsin coal-fired power plant from 2019 to 2023, the most recent five years for which data are available.
Additional costs for coal-fired energy also come from federal taxpayers subsidizing the industry for nearly 100 years. In 2026, the subsidies will be around $5.5 billion. Plus think about all the additional costs that taxpayers must absorb from the impacts of air pollutants on their health – at a time when healthcare subsidies have lapsed for millions of Americans.
There is no such thing as clean or cheap coal. As we approach America’s 250th anniversary, it’s more than time for a real Energy Independence Day from throwback policies that harm Americans and a focus on cleaner energy sources that protect human health and the environment.
Despite regional variability in climate, electricity sources, congestion, and the wide variation in individual driving patterns, electric vehicles generate less greenhouse gas emissions and do not cost more than comparable gas-powered vehicles for drivers and vehicle fleet owners in most parts of the United States, according to a new study by MIT researchers.
The team’s approach captures many key factors that contribute to regional and individual differences in the life-cycle emissions and ownership cost of electric vehicles, including meteorological data, the distance and duration of trips, and fuel prices.
To paint a fuller picture of emissions and costs than was previously available, the researchers sourced data from thousands of U.S. zip codes and drilled down to the level of individual drivers within those locations. Their study considers time-averaged fuel prices so as not to be overly influenced by fluctuations in prices at any one point in time. They finalized their analysis at the end of 2024 and early 2025.
Their results indicate that a person’s driving behaviors can matter as much as regional factors like the local electricity mix when it comes to the emissions savings of an electric vehicle, compared to a similar gas-powered vehicle. In most locations, a battery-electric vehicle reduces emissions between 40 and 60 percent, with larger impacts in urban areas.
They also found that colder climates do not reduce overall emission benefits as much as some media reports assume.
The researchers utilized this detailed analysis to update a public tool they previously developed, carboncounter.com, which enables individuals to compare the life-cycle emissions and total ownership costs of nearly any car on the market. A new version of carboncounter.com is also being released today.
“There are a lot of statements being thrown around, like that electric vehicles don’t reduce emissions very much in cool climates, and we wanted to analyze these factors systematically and evaluate these statements against one another simultaneously. Rather than simply asking, ‘Are EVs better?’, this paper helps answer ‘better for whom, and under what conditions?’” says Marco Miotti PhD ’20, a senior researcher at ETH Zurich who completed this research while a graduate student in the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS) at MIT.
He is joined on the paper by senior author Jessika Trancik, a professor in IDSS. The research appears today in Environmental Research Letters.
A holistic approach
Many prior studies that compare emissions and costs of electric vehicles (EVs) to combustion-engine vehicles cover a few factors, like the amount of renewable energy in the grid and how gas prices impact affordability, Miotti says.
“To our knowledge, there have been few efforts so far that bring all these factors together. But if someone wants to buy a car and have a better understanding of the factors that affect emissions and costs, this holistic approach is important,” he adds.
The researchers focused on two types of EVs: battery-electric vehicles, which only operate on electricity, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, which also have a combustion engine that works in tandem with the battery to optimize fuel savings.
The team expanded and improved a set of previously developed vehicle cost and emissions models to incorporate a wider variety of factors and data types.
For instance, they refined an existing model that estimates energy use and gas mileage so it could capture more nuances of local climate variability.
“But the real effort was not just in extending these different models, but in bringing together all these different data and making them work with the models in a consistent manner,” Miotti says.
The team sourced data on a wide variety of factors for each U.S. zip code, such as typical drive cycles, the amount of traffic, local gas and electricity prices, makeup of the regional electricity mix, meteorological profiles, and more. They used statistical approaches to amalgamate different types of data.
For example, the team used a probabilistic matching technique to combine data on how often people drive, which was drawn from nationwide travel surveys, with more detailed GPS data that includes factors like drivers’ acceleration patterns and the distance they usually drive on each day of the week.
The researchers designed their analysis to focus on the spatial picture of emissions and costs, based on U.S. zip codes, while simultaneously considering the impact of the size and features of each specific vehicle model.
“At the end of the day, it’s the vehicle and fleet owners who make decisions about vehicle purchases. So, we wanted to make sure to consider their wide-ranging individual perspectives rather than simply performing a region-by-region comparison,” says Trancik.
Lower emissions, comparable costs
In the end, their modeling framework revealed that all factors they analyzed matter about equally in determining emissions-reduction potential of EVs compared to internal combustion vehicles.
EVs reduce emissions the most in areas with a cleaner electricity mix, denser traffic, higher annual travel distances, and a mild climate, in decreasing order of importance. In each area, emission reductions increase for drivers who drive more often, drive larger vehicles, and are more frequently stuck in traffic.
In a colder area like North Dakota, fuel economy of battery-electric vehicles might be reduced by as much as 50 percent on a particularly frigid night, but the effect on annual emission benefits is minimal.
“We even did a sensitivity study to see if the range is reduced in very cold climates, and we found that, even in the most unfavorable conditions, EVs still reduce emissions by a substantial amount,” Miotti says.
On the cost side, the models show that, in most places across the U.S., EVs are competitive with comparable combustion-engine vehicles in terms of lifetime ownership cost, even without clean vehicle tax credits. And in areas where electricity is relatively affordable, battery-electric vehicles tend to cost less than their plug-in hybrid or combustion-engine counterparts.
In the future, the researchers want to expand this analysis to include a temporal dimension, so the framework also considers how changes in vehicle, fuel, and electricity prices affect emissions and costs over time.
“While we found that the electricity mix is a big driver of the spatial variation in emissions savings of EVs, the electricity grid is decarbonizing everywhere. As that happens, emissions savings across space will become more homogenous for EVs, but the differences across one driver to another will remain,” Miotti says.
They could also use the framework to explore regions outside the United States or incorporate data on hybrid-electric vehicles that cannot be plugged in.
This work was funded, in part, by the MIT Martin Family Society of Fellows for Sustainability.
© Credit: iStock
Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce Fact Briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.
Climate researchers predict storms that produce golf ball-size or larger hail will become more frequent, thanks to climate change.
According to a 2024 study by Northern Illinois University, a warmer climate increases water vapor in the air, which provides energy for thunderstorms like those seen April 14, 2026, in Wisconsin that produced large hail.
Hail is created when strong updrafts of air are pushed up into the colder atmosphere, freezing water droplets and pushing them around, making the droplets bigger and bigger. Eventually, those hailstones get too heavy and fall to earth.
“Our study suggests golf ball-size hail or larger will become more common because of more atmospheric instability, which leads to stronger thunderstorm updrafts,” NIU Atmospheric Science Professor Victor Gensini said.
A 2017 study in Nature that looked at historic patterns and forecasts also found hailstone size is expected to increase due to climate change.
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
Is golf ball-sized hail expected to increase due to climate change? 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.
Four New Nuclear Reactors and Forever Radioactive Waste in Calhoun County, Texas First Intervention Against SMRs in the U.S. LONG MOTT, Texas – This week, San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper (Waterkeeper) intervened to stop four proposed experimental nuclear power reactors targeted for Long Mott, Texas – a community in coastal Calhoun County – the first …
The post San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper Challenges appeared first on Alternative Energy HQ.
Jessika Trancik, a professor in MIT’s Institute for Data, Systems, and Society, has been named the new director of the Sociotechnical Systems Research Center (SSRC), effective July 1. The SSRC convenes and supports researchers focused on problems and solutions at the intersection of technology and its societal impacts.
Trancik conducts research on technology innovation and energy systems. At the Trancik Lab, she and her team develop methods drawing on engineering knowledge, data science, and policy analysis. Their work examines the pace and drivers of technological change, helping identify where innovation is occurring most rapidly, how emerging technologies stack up against existing systems, and which performance thresholds matter most for real-world impact. Her models have been used to inform government innovation policy and have been applied across a wide range of industries.
“Professor Trancik’s deep expertise in the societal implications of technology, and her commitment to developing impactful solutions across industries, make her an excellent fit to lead SSRC,” says Maria C. Yang, interim dean of engineering and William E. Leonhard (1940) Professor of Mechanical Engineering.
Much of Trancik’s research focuses on the domain of energy systems, and establishing methods for energy technology evaluation, including of their costs, performance, and environmental impacts. She covers a wide range of energy services — including electricity, transportation, heating, and industrial processes. Her research has applications in solar and wind energy, energy storage, low-carbon fuels, electric vehicles, and nuclear fission. Trancik is also known for her research on extreme events in renewable energy availability.
A prolific researcher, Trancik has helped measure progress and inform the development of solar photovoltaics, batteries, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and other low-carbon technologies — and anticipate future trends. One of her widely cited contributions includes quantifying learning rates and identifying where targeted investments can most effectively accelerate innovation. These tools have been used by U.S. federal agencies, international organizations, and the private sector to shape energy R&D portfolios, climate policy, and infrastructure planning.
Trancik is committed to engaging and informing the public on energy consumption. She and her team developed the app carboncounter.com, which helps users choose cars with low costs and low environmental impacts.
As an educator, Trancik teaches courses for students across MIT’s five schools and the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing.
“The question guiding my teaching and research is how do we solve big societal challenges with technology, and how can we be more deliberate in developing and supporting technologies to get us there?” Trancik said in an article about course IDS.521/IDS.065 (Energy Systems for Climate Change Mitigation).
Trancik received her undergraduate degree in materials science and engineering from Cornell University. As a Rhodes Scholar, she completed her PhD in materials science at the University of Oxford. She subsequently worked for the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, and the Earth Institute at Columbia University. After serving as an Omidyar Research Fellow at the Santa Fe Institute, she joined MIT in 2010 as a faculty member.
Trancik succeeds Fotini Christia, the Ford International Professor of Social Sciences in the Department of Political Science and director of IDSS, who previously served as director of SSRC.
Login