President Donald Trump signs a Congressional Review Act resolution Thursday, with congressional Republicans looking on. Left to right are Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Sen. Deb Fischer of Nebraska, Rep. John Joyce of Pennsylvania, Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, Rep. John James of Michigan, House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. (Screeenshot from White House webcast)
President Donald Trump signed a Congressional Review Act resolution Thursday that revokes California’s authority to set tailpipe emissions standards, upending policy in California and 17 other states that tie their standards to that of the Golden State.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Democratic attorneys general in 10 other states immediately sued to block enforcement of the law. Through a process that allows Congress to undo recent executive branch rules, the law repeals a U.S. Environmental Protection Act waiver allowing California to set a schedule for emissions standards for cars and trucks.
Trump signed two other resolutions that repeal the state’s authority to ban sales of new gas-powered vehicles in the state by 2035 and to regulate emissions on heavy trucks.
At a White House signing ceremony, Trump said the law would allow greater consumer choice and lead to less expensive vehicles.
“Your cars are going to cost you $3,000, $4,000 less and you’re going to have what you want,” he said. “Again, you can get any car you want.”
Simple majority vote
The procedure used to pass the law was controversial because of the use of the Congressional Review Act, or CRA, which allows a simple majority vote in the U.S. Senate instead of the chamber’s usual 60-vote threshold.
Both the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian ruled that the EPA waiver was not a rule and that the CRA could not be used. But Senate Majority Leader John Thune used the procedure anyway, and the measure passed 51-46.
The states suing over the law argued that process was illegal, saying that the CRA was “deemed inapplicable by every nonpartisan arbiter and expert who analyzed the question.”
“While all fifty States consented—through their Senators—to these expedited procedures for congressional disapproval of federal rules, no State consented to the CRA as a means for Congress to negate state rules,” the Democratic attorneys general wrote. “Nor would any State have done so.”
The states joining California in the lawsuit are Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Vermont and Washington.
Clean Air Act
The federal Clean Air Act of 1970 generally prohibits states from setting their own air quality standards. But a section of the bedrock environmental law allows California, which had stringent environmental standards at the time the federal law was passed, to set its own standards.
While the other 49 states may not set their own standards, any state can adopt California’s standards as its own.
That means the law Trump signed Thursday has effects far beyond California’s borders, which the president noted.
“The federal government gave left-wing radicals in California dictatorial powers to control the future of the entire car industry, all over the country, all over the world, actually,” he said.
The law, which both chambers of Congress passed last month, applies to 17 states that follow California standards. In addition to those suing, those states are Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
Rep. Tony Kurtz testifies on his proposed legislation to reauthorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
Organizations representing wildlife, land conservation and local governments testified Wednesday at a public hearing to push for the passage of a Republican bill to reauthorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program while advocating for a number of amendments to the bill’s text.
The proposal’s authors, Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), say the current version of the bill is a starting point for negotiations. Without a deal, the 35-year-old program will lapse despite its popularity among voters.
The challenge for legislators is that despite overwhelming public support for land conservation, a subset of the Republican members of the Legislature have grown opposed to the grant program. In their view, the grant program allows land to be taken off the local property tax roll and blocks commercial development.
That opposition has grown stronger since the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in a 6-1 decision last year that the Legislature’s Republican-controlled Joint Finance Committee’s authority to place anonymous holds on stewardship grant projects is unconstitutional.
Kurtz has said that without returning some level of legislative oversight, the Republican opposition to the program won’t get on board with reauthorizing it. But the bill also needs to be palatable to Democratic Gov. Tony Evers so that he will sign it and any Republican opposition to the bill could make the votes of Democratic legislators more important.
In an effort to recruit Republican holdouts, the bill includes a provision that requires the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to submit a list to the Legislature each January of any major land acquisitions costing more than $1 million the department plans to purchase with stewardship funds that year. The Legislature would then need to approve each proposed project in a piece of legislation and provide the required appropriation.
To gain the support of environmental groups, the bill allows stewardship dollars to be used for the first time to fund habitat restoration projects.
Following a recent trend of Republican-authored legislation, the bill separates the policy changes to the program from the budget appropriation to fund it in an attempt to sidestep Evers’ partial veto pen.
Charles Carlin, the director of strategic initiatives at non-profit land trust organization Gathering Waters, said in his testimony at the hearing Wednesday that the bill’s authors had to “try and thread a challenging political path towards reauthorization.”
At the hearing, testifying members of the public mainly highlighted two areas for improvement on the bill — clarifying how the DNR should prioritize habitat restoration, facility upkeep and land acquisition in award grants and more clearly laying out how the legislative approval process for major land acquisitions will work.
As currently written, the bill would require the DNR to prioritize property development over land acquisition projects.
Brian Vigue, freshwater policy director for Audubon Great Lakes, said those types of grants are so different that they should be considered separately.
“Because habitat management projects are so different from land acquisition projects, it really will make it difficult for the DNR to determine which of the two types of grant applications would have priority over the other,” he said. “It’s kind of an apples to oranges comparison to make so I think a practical solution to this challenge is to create a separate appropriation for wildlife habitat grants.”
A number of organizations testifying called for more direct language outlining how the legislative oversight process will work, such as binding timelines for when the Legislature must consider the projects on the DNR list, clear guidelines for how projects will be evaluated and quickly held votes on project approval.
Representatives of organizations that work to purchase private land and conserve it through conservation easements or deals with the state said that the opportunities to purchase a piece of land and save it for future enjoyment by the broader public come rarely and that those real estate transactions can often be complicated and take a long time. If a deal is largely in place except for the required legislative approval — which could potentially take years or never even come up for a vote — landowners might be unwilling to participate in the process.
“Opportunities to provide such access sometimes only come once in a generation,” said Tony Abate, conservation director at Groundswell Conservancy, a non-profit aimed at conserving land in south central Wisconsin. “We are concerned with the funding threshold and the logistics of the proposed major land acquisition program. Real estate near population centers is expensive, and we often compete with non-conservation buyers to secure farmland or recreational lands.”
Abate said that of the conservancy’s 16 current projects, four would surpass the $1 million threshold and require legislative approval. He suggested raising the threshold to $5 million.
Carlin, with Gathering Waters, said the provision as currently written could indefinitely delay projects.
“We appreciate legislators’ concerns with oversight, and we welcome discussion about how to provide effective and efficient oversight,” he said. “Unfortunately, the current proposal lacks defined timelines, transparent evaluation processes or mechanisms to require timely votes. Without these elements, worthy conservation projects could languish indefinitely. So we would ask that any review process include binding timelines, transparent project evaluation and timely votes to ensure strong oversight while maintaining predictability for applicants.”
At the hearing, members of the committee asked few questions of the testifying groups and members of the public. Democrats on the committee pushed more than once to make sure they see the partner bill providing the money for the program before voting on the policy changes.
All of the testimony at the hearing Wednesday was either to provide information only to the legislators or in favor of the bill. The committee received one written comment against the bill’s passage, from the Wisconsin Bear Hunters’ Association.
Republicans on the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee rejected a funding request from the City of Ashland to build a new boat launch at Kreher Park. (City of Ashland)
A pair of Republican lawmakers has introduced legislation that would re-authorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program, a popular program that allows the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to fund the purchase of public land and the upkeep of recreational areas.
The decades-old program is set to expire next year and despite its bipartisan support among the state’s voters, a subset of Republicans in the Legislature — largely from the northern part of the state — have become increasingly opposed to the program due to concerns that it stops land from being developed for commercial activities.
Until a 6-1 decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court last summer, members of the Legislature’s powerful Joint Finance Committee had the ability to place anonymous holds on proposed grants through the program, which resulted in many projects being delayed or prevented altogether. Without that ability, Republicans who were already wary of the program became more opposed because of what they characterize as a lack of legislative oversight. Proponents of the program say the Legislature exercises oversight through the budget writing process when it allocates funding for the program.
In recent years, the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program has received $33 million annually in the state budget. In his budget request this year, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers proposed re-authorizing the program with a $100 million annual budget. Republicans stripped that provision out of the budget along with most of Evers’ other proposals.
Last week, Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) introduced a bill that would keep the program alive with $28 million in annual funding. The bill would also create a major land acquisitions program for stewardship grant awards which would require the DNR to annually submit a list of all its proposed land acquisitions costing more than $1 million for that year.
Those acquisitions would need to be approved by votes of the full Legislature.
Additionally, the bill would create a sub-program to use stewardship grant funds for habitat restoration projects, require the DNR to prioritize projects that develop already existing public lands over new land acquisition, require local governments to match 20% of the state funding, get rid of the current 10-acre minimum size requirement and limit the state’s contribution to 40% of the total cost if the sale of a piece of land is already closed when stewardship funds are applied for.
In a co-sponsorship memo, Kurtz and Testin, who did not respond to requests for an interview about the bill, said the initial proposal is meant to be the start of negotiations, not the final version of the bill.
“It’s important to note what we’re proposing is not an agreed upon deal,” the memo states. “It’s a first offer to provide a starting place for negotiations on this important program. It’s very likely the bill will continue to change during the legislative process, but it’s important to put something forward to allow feedback, have open-minded conversations and ultimately find a good place to ensure the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program’s legacy continues.”
At a meeting with the Wisconsin chapter of the Audubon Society in April, Kurtz said the program was on “life support” and he was trying to save it from dying but any bill would need to put some oversight on the DNR in order to receive enough Republican support.
The opposition to the stewardship program from a subset of the Republican caucus in both chambers means the bill might require Democratic votes to pass the Legislature and reach Evers’ desk.
Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) has spent months pushing for the program’s reauthorization – often pointing to a stewardship grant project in her district that was subjected to an anonymous hold, the Cedar Gorge Clay Bluffs on Lake Michigan. She said the hold on that project angered a lot of her constituents of both parties.
“That really got people upset,” she told the Wisconsin Examiner. “People would not at all want to see a reenactment in any fashion of that anonymous objection process.”
Habush Sinykin said that she’s closely watching the bill to make sure it protects a program that enjoys wide support outside of the Capitol building and will stir up significant opposition if it’s allowed to die.
“Once people understand that this program is at risk, they are coming forward to express their opposition to any permanent damage to the program,” she said. “And so what we are engaged in right now is this process to keep it going forward, and there is going to be ongoing negotiation, because the devil is in the details. We need to make sure that what is one step forward will not ultimately be two steps backward.”
Charles Carlin, director of strategic initiatives for Gathering Waters, a non-profit aimed at land conservation across Wisconsin, said that Kurtz and Testin should be credited for working to get the conversation started and provisions in the bill like the habitat restoration program. But he added that there are still a lot of questions about how provisions such as the requirement for legislative approval will work.
“I think part of what they are trying to balance here is a recognition that this is an incredibly popular program with voters, while trying to balance that against the fact that there are a handful of legislators who are deeply skeptical of the DNR and deeply skeptical of additional investments in conservation,” he said. “So I see that major land acquisitions component as a way for them to try and balance those competing interests. The way that that major land acquisitions program is currently described in the bill just leaves a lot of question marks.”
The bill is set to receive a public hearing in the Assembly Committee on Forestry, Parks and Outdoor Recreation Wednesday at 11 a.m.
Wisconsin might lose federal funding that supports state staff working to keep air, water and lands clean under proposed budget cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Anti-Line 5 graffiti at Enbridge’s pumping station in Mackinaw City, Mich. (Laina G. Stebbins | Michigan Advance)
Canadian energy company Enbridge’s Line 5 traverses an extremely sensitive ecological area across northern Wisconsin, 400 rivers and streams as well as a myriad of wetlands, in addition to a path under the Mackinac Straights between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, all the while skirting the southern shore of Lake Superior. Such close proximity to the Great Lakes, lakes that hold over 20% of the world’s fresh surface water, lakes that supply drinking water to nearly 40 million people, yes, that does indeed make Line 5 a ticking time bomb.
Northern Wisconsin is also a very culturally sensitive area, home to the Bad River Reservation. The Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa were guaranteed rights to their lands by an 1854 treaty with the U.S. government. The easements for Line 5 across the reservation, granted to Enbridge by the Chippewa, expired in 2013 and the Bad River Band chose not to renew them. Enbridge continues to operate the line, illegally and in direct violation of the Bad River Band’s right to sovereignty over their land.
The Bad River Band has a guaranteed legal right to their land. They also have a right to Food Sovereignty, the internationally recognized right of food providers to have control over their land, seeds and water while rejecting the privatization of natural resources. Line 5 clearly impinges on the Band’s right to hunt, fish, harvest wild rice, to farm and have access to safe drinking water.
A federal court ruled that Enbridge has been trespassing on lands of the Bad River Band since 2013 and ordered the company to cease operations of Line 5 by June of 2026 (seems that immediate cessation would make more sense), but rather than shut down the aging line, Enbridge plans to build a diversion around the Bad River Reservation. They plan to move the pipeline out of the Bad River Band’s front yard into their back yard, leaving 100% of the threats to people and the environment in place.
Liquid petroleum (crude oil, natural gas and petroleum product) pipelines are big business in the U.S. With 2.6 million miles of oil and gas pipelines, the U.S. network is the largest in the world. If we continue our heavy and growing dependence on liquid fossil fuels, we must realize that we will continue to negatively impact the climate and the lives of everyone on the planet.
Instead of moving to a just transition away from fossil fuels, liquid or otherwise, the government continues to subsidize the industry through direct payments and tax breaks, refusing to acknowledge the cost of pollution-related health problems and environmental damage, a cost which is of course, incalculable.
There are nearly 20,000 miles of pipelines planned or currently under construction in the U.S., thus it would appear that government and private industry are in no hurry to break that addiction, much less make a just transition. While no previous administration was in any hurry to break with the fossil fuel industry, they at least gave the illusion of championing a transition to cleaner energy.
The current administration is abundantly clear. Their strategy is having no strategy. They don’t like wind and solar and they plan to end any support for renewable energy. They don’t care if they upend global markets, banking, energy companies or certainly any efforts to help developing countries transition away from fossil fuels.
Pipelines are everywhere across the U.S., a spiderweb connecting wells, refineries, transportation and distribution centers. The vast majority of pipelines are buried and many, if not all, at some point cross streams, rivers, lakes and run over aquifers. Pipeline ruptures and other assorted failures will continue and spillage will find its way into the bodies of water they skirt around or pass under. It’s not a question if they will leak, but when.
Enbridge controls the largest network of petroleum pipelines in the Great Lakes states, and they are hardly immune to spills. Between 1999 and 2013 it was reported that Enbridge had over 1,000 spills dumping a reported 7.4 million gallons of oil.
In 2010 Enbridge’s Line 6B ruptured and contaminated the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history. Over 1.2 million gallons of oil were recovered from the river between 2010 and 2014. How much went downstream or was buried in sediment, we’ll never know.
In 2024 a fault in Enbridge Line 6 caused a spill of 70 thousand gallons near Cambridge Wisconsin. And Enbridge’s most infamous pipeline, the 71-year-old Line 5 from Superior Wisconsin to Sarnia Ontario, has had 29 spills in the last 50 years, loosing over 1 million gallons of oil.
Some consider Line 5 to be a “public good” because, as Enbridge argues, shutting the line down will shut down the U.S. economy and people will not be able to afford to heat their homes — claims they have never supported with any evidence. A public good is one that everyone can use, that everyone can benefit from. A public good is not, as Enbridge apparently believes, a mechanism for corporate profit.
Line 5 is a privately owned property, existing only to generate profits for Enbridge. If it were a public good, Enbridge would certainly be giving more attention to the rights of the Bad River Band, the well-being of all the people who depend on the clean waters of the Great Lakes and to protecting the sensitive environment of northern Wisconsin and Michigan. They are not. Their trespassing, their disregard for the environment, their continuing legal efforts to protect their bottom line above all else, only points to their self-serving avarice.
The Bad River Band wants Enbridge out, and in their eyes it is not a case of “not in my back yard” they do not want Line 5 in anyone’s back yard.
The prairie chicken of central Wisconsin is an elusive grouse that is rarely seen, and its conservation efforts are connected to Aldo Leopold. But over the past 70 years, the prairie chicken population has steeply declined.
A Taylor County judge has denied a northern Wisconsin tribe’s request to temporarily bar state approval of a mining company’s plans to drill for copper and gold on Forest Service land near Medford.
For the people of Green Bay, the long-awaited deal to move century-old coal piles from the riverfront near downtown is a big deal.
How big?
“This is our Louisiana Purchase. This is our purchasing of Alaska,” said state Rep. Dave Steffen, R-Howard. “It doesn’t get any bigger than this. We are not only just witnessing history, we’re part of it today.”
Steffen was one of the Green Bay-area lawmakers of both parties who were on hand Thursday before the Brown County Board of Supervisors approved a deal that will pave the way toward moving the hulking black piles that local officials and residents have hoped to oust for decades.
Thursday’s deal, approved unanimously after a closed session of the county board, sets the general framework for a lease agreement that will allow the coal to be relocated.
The coal sits on land along the Fox River that community leaders see as ripe for redevelopment. A very visible and not-so-pretty symbol of the city’s industrial heritage, it is also a nuisance for some residents who say dust from the piles blows into nearby neighborhoods.
A desire to move the coal piles to someplace less visible has been on the wish list of generations of city leaders.
“It’s literally something that mayors of the city of Green Bay and other community leaders have been working on for upwards of 75 years,” said Green Bay Mayor Eric Genrich.
Thursday’s vote means the county will not lose a $15 million federally-funded state grant that was in jeopardy after the county board altered a previous deal in December and negotiations stalled. The county had until Tuesday to come to an agreement and until Friday for the board to approve it, or risk losing the grant.
C. Reiss Co. owns the coal piles. The company has operated the bulk commodities storage facility on Mason Street, located along the the Fox River, since 1900.
Under the deal, C. Reiss and the county will work to finalize a lease agreement for a 16-acre parcel of land at a former power plant site the county is redeveloping for the Port of Green Bay. The company would also lease up to 1.5 acres for a stormwater pond that it would maintain.
But the agreement stipulates that C. Reiss, or other users, may not store coal at the power plant site.
Rather, CEO Keith Hasselhoff said coal would be stored at a site near the power plant, known as the Fox River Terminal. C. Reiss’ parent company currently stores salt and other bulk commodities at the Fox River Terminal.
When the 16-acre parcel is ready, Hasselhoff said C. Reiss plans to move salt from the terminal site to the power plant.
“As that salt at Fox River depletes and opens up more space at Fox River, we’ll be able to land new vessels of coal at Fox River, which then will allow us to deplete the inventories that we have at Mason Street,” Hasselhoff said.
At a press conference before the meeting, Brown County Executive Troy Streckenbach said moving the coal from downtown “is not going to happen overnight” and could take “a number of years.”
County Board chair Patrick Buckley said the final negotiations came down to the eleventh hour. He said talks were ongoing up through Tuesday night, when all parties came to a consensus. He said the county’s corporation counsel spent Wednesday and Thursday getting the agreement in writing for the board’s approval.
“It’s really a group effort here to get this done,” he said. “A lot of people did not think this was going to get done. … But a lot of hard work went into it.”
The lease for the power plant site still needs to be fully ironed out, but the agreement requires the lease be fully executed by Sept. 15 or the parties could be required to go to arbitration.
According to the conditions approved Thursday, it would run for 60 years with the annual rent set at $350,000 with inflationary increases every five years.
The length of a lease had been one of the biggest sticking points in past agreements. Back in December, C. Reiss had wanted a lease that ran up to 75 years, while the county board wanted a 30-year lease with a 10-year extension option.
Streckenbach acknowledged that the board previously had reservations about a long-term lease. But he said all sides had to make concessions in the negotiation.
“Ultimately, because of what we came to an agreement with and everybody making concessions, the county board felt comfortable going forward with the length that was proposed,” he said.
The agreement also stated that the city of Green Bay would provide up to $2.2 million if the county faces funding shortfalls related to the coal relocation effort.
Genrich said the addition of the city’s financial commitment was “one of the latter changes” that was made to the agreement and was something that he and Council President Brian Johnson had committed to in their discussions with county officials.
“Our priority is Mason Street and (doing) whatever was necessary within reason to make that redevelopment project possible,” he said. “The commitment that we all made to each other in the room was like, ‘We’re going to get this done regardless.’”
Genrich said the full Green Bay City Council will discuss the up to $2.2 million in funding at its meeting on Tuesday.
Smoke from Canadian wildfires started making air quality worse in the eastern U.S. on Wednesday as several Midwestern states battled conditions deemed unhealthy by the federal government.
The fires have forced thousands of Canadians to flee their homes and sent smoke as far as Europe.
In the U.S., smoke lingered on the skylines of cities from Kansas City to Minneapolis, and a swath of the region had unhealthy air quality Wednesday, according to an Environmental Protection Agency map.
In Stoughton, Wisconsin, Nature’s Garden Preschool was keeping its kids indoors Wednesday due to the bad air quality, which interferes with the daily routine, said assistant teacher Bailey Pollard. The smoke looked like a coming storm, he said.
The 16 or 17 kids ages 12 weeks to 5 years old would typically be outdoors running or playing with water, balls and slides, but were instead inside doing crafts with Play-Doh or coloring. The situation was unfortunate because kids need to be outside and have fresh air and free play, Pollard said.
“It’s something where we’ve got to take precaution for the kids,” he said. “Nobody wants to stay inside all day.”
Iowa issued a statewide air quality alert through early Thursday, urging residents to limit certain outdoor activities and warning of possible health effects due to the thick smoke. Wisconsin officials made similar suggestions as the smoke drifted southeast across the state.
In Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, authorities advised people to shut windows at night, avoid strenuous activity outside and watch for breathing issues.
Parts of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and New York had areas of moderate air quality concern, and officials advised sensitive people to consider reducing outdoor activity.
Unhealthy conditions persist in Midwest
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency issued an alert for almost the entire state into Wednesday, but the Twin Cities area got the region’s worst of it Tuesday.
Children’s Minnesota, a network of pediatric clinics and hospitals in the Twin Cities area, has seen a “modest increase” increase this week in patients with symptoms that doctors attributee to polluted air, Dr. Chase Shutak said.
Their symptoms have included breathing problems, including asthma and other upper respiratory issues, said Shutak, who stays in close touch with other pediatricians in his role as medical director of the Minneapolis primary care clinic at Children’s.
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources warned that air quality in a band from the state’s southwest corner to the northeast could fall into the unhealthy category through Thursday morning. The agency recommended that people — especially those with heart and lung disease — avoid long or intense activities and to take extra breaks during strenuous activity outdoors.
Conditions at ground level are in the red
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s AirNow map showed a swath of red for “unhealthy” conditions across Wisconsin and northern Iowa. Northern Michigan was also the site of many unhealthy zones, the agency said. The Air Quality Index was around 160 in many parts of the upper Midwest, indicating unhealthy conditions.
The Air Quality Index — AQI — measures how clean or polluted the air is, focusing on health effects that might be experienced within a few hours or days after breathing polluted air. It is based on ground-level ozone, particle pollution, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. Particulates are the main issue from the fires.
The index ranges from green, where the air quality is satisfactory and air pollution poses little or no risk, to maroon, which is considered hazardous. That level comes with health warnings of emergency conditions where everyone is more likely to be affected, according to AirNow.
There were areas of reduced air quality all over the U.S. on Wednesday, with numerous advisories about moderate air quality concerns as far away as Kansas and Georgia.
The air quality was considerably better Wednesday in Minnesota, where only the barest hint of haze obscured the downtown Minneapolis skyline. The city experienced some of the worst air in the country on Tuesday. But the air quality index, which had reached the mid-200 range, or “very unhealthy” on Tuesday, was down to 60, or “moderate,” by Wednesday afternoon.
The Canadian fire situation
Canada is having another bad wildfire season. Most of the smoke reaching the American Midwest has been coming from fires northwest of the provincial capital of Winnipeg in Manitoba.
Canada’s wildfires are so large and intense that the smoke is even reaching Europe, where it is causing hazy skies but isn’t expected to affect surface-air quality, according the European climate service Copernicus.
This story was written by the Associated Press’ Patrick Whittle, in Portland, Maine, and Steve Karnowski, who reported from Minneapolis. Associated Press writers Jack Dura in Bismarck, North Dakota; Kathy McCormack in Concord, New Hampshire; Tammy Webber in Fenton, Michigan; and Scott McFetridge in Des Moines, Iowa, contributed to this report.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup.This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.
Some Wisconsin lawmakers are proposing a bill that would create a $10,000 tax credit for people who moved to Wisconsin from Los Angeles County and North Carolina following disasters there.
Southern Wisconsin has been seeing some of the worst air quality in the nation Wednesday as smoke from Canadian wildfires continues to blanket much of the state.
“Wildflowers of Wisconsin” is a crocheted mural depicting native flora and pollinators that’s on display at McKee Farms Park in Fitchburg. The Madison Public Art Project, the group behind the artwork, hopes that it inspires people to take better care of the environment.
Hydrogen has the potential to be a climate-friendly fuel since it doesn’t release carbon dioxide when used as an energy source. Currently, however, most methods for producing hydrogen involve fossil fuels, making hydrogen less of a “green” fuel over its entire life cycle.
A new process developed by MIT engineers could significantly shrink the carbon footprint associated with making hydrogen.
Last year, the team reported that they could produce hydrogen gas by combining seawater, recycled soda cans, and caffeine. The question then was whether the benchtop process could be applied at an industrial scale, and at what environmental cost.
Now, the researchers have carried out a “cradle-to-grave” life cycle assessment, taking into account every step in the process at an industrial scale. For instance, the team calculated the carbon emissions associated with acquiring and processing aluminum, reacting it with seawater to produce hydrogen, and transporting the fuel to gas stations, where drivers could tap into hydrogen tanks to power engines or fuel cell cars. They found that, from end to end, the new process could generate a fraction of the carbon emissions that is associated with conventional hydrogen production.
In a study appearing today in Cell Reports Sustainability, the team reports that for every kilogram of hydrogen produced, the process would generate 1.45 kilograms of carbon dioxide over its entire life cycle. In comparison, fossil-fuel-based processes emit 11 kilograms of carbon dioxide per kilogram of hydrogen generated.
The low-carbon footprint is on par with other proposed “green hydrogen” technologies, such as those powered by solar and wind energy.
“We’re in the ballpark of green hydrogen,” says lead author Aly Kombargi PhD ’25, who graduated this spring from MIT with a doctorate in mechanical engineering. “This work highlights aluminum’s potential as a clean energy source and offers a scalable pathway for low-emission hydrogen deployment in transportation and remote energy systems.”
The study’s MIT co-authors are Brooke Bao, Enoch Ellis, and professor of mechanical engineering Douglas Hart.
Gas bubble
Dropping an aluminum can in water won’t normally cause much of a chemical reaction. That’s because when aluminum is exposed to oxygen, it instantly forms a shield-like layer. Without this layer, aluminum exists in its pure form and can readily react when mixed with water. The reaction that occurs involves aluminum atoms that efficiently break up molecules of water, producing aluminum oxide and pure hydrogen. And it doesn’t take much of the metal to bubble up a significant amount of the gas.
“One of the main benefits of using aluminum is the energy density per unit volume,” Kombargi says. “With a very small amount of aluminum fuel, you can conceivably supply much of the power for a hydrogen-fueled vehicle.”
Last year, he and Hart developed a recipe for aluminum-based hydrogen production. They found they could puncture aluminum’s natural shield by treating it with a small amount of gallium-indium, which is a rare-metal alloy that effectively scrubs aluminum into its pure form. The researchers then mixed pellets of pure aluminum with seawater and observed that the reaction produced pure hydrogen. What’s more, the salt in the water helped to precipitate gallium-indium, which the team could subsequently recover and reuse to generate more hydrogen, in a cost-saving, sustainable cycle.
“We were explaining the science of this process in conferences, and the questions we would get were, ‘How much does this cost?’ and, ‘What’s its carbon footprint?’” Kombargi says. “So we wanted to look at the process in a comprehensive way.”
A sustainable cycle
For their new study, Kombargi and his colleagues carried out a life cycle assessment to estimate the environmental impact of aluminum-based hydrogen production, at every step of the process, from sourcing the aluminum to transporting the hydrogen after production. They set out to calculate the amount of carbon associated with generating 1 kilogram of hydrogen — an amount that they chose as a practical, consumer-level illustration.
“With a hydrogen fuel cell car using 1 kilogram of hydrogen, you can go between 60 to 100 kilometers, depending on the efficiency of the fuel cell,” Kombargi notes.
They performed the analysis using Earthster — an online life cycle assessment tool that draws data from a large repository of products and processes and their associated carbon emissions. The team considered a number of scenarios to produce hydrogen using aluminum, from starting with “primary” aluminum mined from the Earth, versus “secondary” aluminum that is recycled from soda cans and other products, and using various methods to transport the aluminum and hydrogen.
After running life cycle assessments for about a dozen scenarios, the team identified one scenario with the lowest carbon footprint. This scenario centers on recycled aluminum — a source that saves a significant amount of emissions compared with mining aluminum — and seawater — a natural resource that also saves money by recovering gallium-indium. They found that this scenario, from start to finish, would generate about 1.45 kilograms of carbon dioxide for every kilogram of hydrogen produced. The cost of the fuel produced, they calculated, would be about $9 per kilogram, which is comparable to the price of hydrogen that would be generated with other green technologies such as wind and solar energy.
The researchers envision that if the low-carbon process were ramped up to a commercial scale, it would look something like this: The production chain would start with scrap aluminum sourced from a recycling center. The aluminum would be shredded into pellets and treated with gallium-indium. Then, drivers could transport the pretreated pellets as aluminum “fuel,” rather than directly transporting hydrogen, which is potentially volatile. The pellets would be transported to a fuel station that ideally would be situated near a source of seawater, which could then be mixed with the aluminum, on demand, to produce hydrogen. A consumer could then directly pump the gas into a car with either an internal combustion engine or a fuel cell.
The entire process does produce an aluminum-based byproduct, boehmite, which is a mineral that is commonly used in fabricating semiconductors, electronic elements, and a number of industrial products. Kombargi says that if this byproduct were recovered after hydrogen production, it could be sold to manufacturers, further bringing down the cost of the process as a whole.
“There are a lot of things to consider,” Kombargi says. “But the process works, which is the most exciting part. And we show that it can be environmentally sustainable.”
The group is continuing to develop the process. They recently designed a small reactor, about the size of a water bottle, that takes in aluminum pellets and seawater to generate hydrogen, enough to power an electric bike for several hours. They previously demonstrated that the process can produce enough hydrogen to fuel a small car. The team is also exploring underwater applications, and are designing a hydrogen reactor that would take in surrounding seawater to power a small boat or underwater vehicle.
This research was supported, in part, by the MIT Portugal Program.
MIT engineers have developed a new aluminum-based process to produce hydrogen gas, that they are testing on a variety of applications, including an aluminum-powered electric vehicle, pictured here.
Three zookeepers introduced WPR’s “Wisconsin Today” to the newest additions at their grounds: Canada lynx kittens, a baby camel born at 99 pounds and two North American river otters.
Building an underground tunnel for an aging Enbridge oil pipeline that stretches across a Great Lakes channel could destroy wetlands and harm bat habitats but would eliminate the chances of a boat anchor rupturing the line and causing a catastrophic spill, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said Friday in a long-awaited draft analysis of the proposed project’s environmental impacts.
The analysis moves the corps a step closer to approving the tunnel for Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac. The tunnel was proposed in 2018 at a cost of $500 million but has been bogged down by legal challenges. The corps fast-tracked the project in April after President Donald Trump ordered federal agencies in January to identify energy projects for expedited emergency permitting.
A final environmental assessment is expected by autumn, with a permitting decision to follow later this year. The agency initially planned to issue a permitting decision in early 2026.
With that permit in hand, Enbridge would only need permission from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy before it could begin constructing the tunnel. That’s far from a given, though.
Environmentalists have been pressuring the state to deny the permit. Meanwhile, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer are trying to win court rulings that would force Enbridge to remove the existing pipeline from the straits for good.
Construction could have major short-term, long-term impacts
The analysis notes that the tunnel would eliminate the risk of a boat anchor rupturing the pipeline and causing a spill in the straits, a key concern for environmentalists. But the construction would have sweeping effects on everything from recreation to wildlife.
Many of the impacts, such as noise, vistas marred by 400-foot (121-meter) cranes, construction lights degrading stargazing opportunities at Headlands International Dark Sky Park and vibrations that would disturb aquatic wildlife would end when the work is completed, the report found.
Other impacts would last longer, including the loss of wetlands and vegetation on both sides of the strait that connects Lake Huron and Lake Michigan, and the loss of nearly 300 trees that the northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat use to roost. Grading and excavation also could disturb or destroy archaeological sites.
The tunnel-boring machine could cause vibrations that could shift the area’s geology. Soil in the construction area could become contaminated and nearly 200 truck trips daily during the six-year construction period would degrade area roads, the analysis found. Gas mixing with water seeping into the tunnel could result in an explosion, but the analysis notes that Enbridge plans to install fans to properly ventilate the tunnel during excavation.
Enbridge has pledged to comply with all safety standards, replant vegetation where possible and contain erosion, the analysis noted. The company also has said it would try to limit the loudest work to daytime hours as much as possible, and offset harm to wetlands and protected species by buying credits through mitigation banks. That money can then be used to fund restoration in other areas.
“Our goal is to have the smallest possible environmental footprint,” Enbridge officials said in a statement.
The Sierra Club issued a statement Friday saying the tunnel remains “an existential threat.”
“Chances of an oil spill in the Great Lakes — our most valuable freshwater resource — skyrockets if this tunnel is built in the Straits,” the group said. “We can’t drink oil. We can’t fish or swim in oil.”
Julie Goodwin, a senior attorney with Earthjustice, an environmental law group that opposes the project, said the corps failed to consider the impacts of a spill that could still happen on either side of the straits or stopping the flow of oil through the Great Lakes.
“My key takeaways are the Army corps has put blinders are in service to Enbridge and President Trump’s fossil fuel agenda,” she said.
Tunnel would protect portion of Line 5 running through straits
Enbridge has been using the Line 5 pipeline to transport crude oil and natural gas liquids between Superior, Wisconsin, and Sarnia, Ontario, since 1953. Roughly 4 miles of the pipeline runs along the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac.
Concerns about the aging pipeline rupturing and causing a potentially disastrous spill in the straits have been building over the last decade. Those fears intensified in 2018 when an anchor damaged the line.
Enbridge contends that the line remains structurally sound, but it struck a deal with then-Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder’s administration in 2018 that calls for the company to replace the straits portion of the line with a new section that would be encased in a protective underground tunnel.
Enbridge and environmentalists spar in court battles
Environmentalists, Native American tribes and Democrats have been fighting in court for years to stop the tunnel and force Enbridge to remove the existing pipeline from the straits. They’ve had little success so far.
A Michigan appellate court in February validated the state Public Service Commission’s permits for the tunnel. Nessel sued in 2019 seeking to void the easement that allows Line 5 to run through the straits. That case is still pending. Whitmer revoked the easement in 2020, but Enbridge challenged that decision and a federal appellate court in April ruled that the case can proceed.
Another legal fight over Line 5 in Wisconsin
About 12 miles (19 kilometers) of Line 5 runs across the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa’s reservation in northern Wisconsin. That tribe sued in 2019 to force Enbridge to remove the line from the reservation, arguing it’s prone to spilling and that easements allowing it to operate on the reservation expired in 2013.
Enbridge has proposed a 41-mile (66-kilometer) reroute around the reservation. The tribe has filed a lawsuit seeking to void state construction permits for the project and has joined several other groups in challenging the permits through the state’s contested case process.
Enbridge's proposed Line 5 tunnel project would harm water and wetlands. But a draft environmental review released Friday by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers found most environmental effects would be short-lived.
A lawsuit against a small northern Wisconsin town seeks to overturn a local ban on wake surfing, saying the regulation is illegal and unconstitutional.
Login
