A new bill in the state legislature would ban hemp-derived THC products in Wisconsin. Producers say it would destroy their businesses.

The post Wisconsin lawmakers and hemp producers both want regulations on THC products. They disagree on how. appeared first on WPR.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a case that could impact state laws around the country that ban “conversion therapy,” a controversial counseling practice for LGBTQ+ youth. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a case that could reverse or solidify state laws across the country that ban a controversial counseling practice for LGBTQ+ youth.

The case challenges a 2019 Colorado law that bans “conversion therapy” for children and teens. Conversion therapy is a catchall term for efforts to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQ+ people. Sometimes called “reparative therapy,” it can range from talk therapy and religious counseling to electrical shocks, pain-inducing aversion therapy and physical isolation. The therapy has been widely discredited by medical groups.

More than half of states — including some led by Republicans — have banned or restricted the practice for children and teens since California became the first to do so in 2012, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a left-leaning nonprofit research organization that tracks LGBTQ+-related laws and policies.

In recent years, however, Republicans in several states have worked to reverse bans, with some success. A poll in June by Data for Progress, a liberal think tank, found that although less than half of Republican voters, 43%, support or strongly support conversion therapy, more than half — 56% — said the Supreme Court ought to allow states to ban it.

A decision in the Colorado case, expected next year, could have far-reaching ramifications for dozens of other states.

“I think we’re all really worried about the implications,” said Cliff Rosky, a professor of law at the University of Utah. Rosky helped draft Utah’s 2023 law prohibiting licensed professionals from practicing conversion therapy on LGBTQ+ youth. That measure unanimously passed the Republican-controlled legislature.

“We certainly hope the court will uphold the right of states to regulate the behavior of therapists that it licenses and protect children from a lethal public health threat,” he told Stateline.

The impact on other states’ laws would depend on the scope of the high court’s ruling. But most of those laws are similar to Colorado’s, Rosky said.

“Certainly, a broad ruling against Colorado’s law would jeopardize the constitutionality of all the other laws.”

In Chiles v. Salazar, a licensed counselor in Colorado Springs, Kaley Chiles, sued state officials in 2022 over a law that bars licensed mental health professionals from conducting conversion therapy on clients under 18. She argues the law violates her First Amendment right to free speech and interferes with her ability to practice counseling in a way that aligns with her religious convictions. Chiles is represented by conservative religious law firm Alliance Defending Freedom.

“The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors,” Jim Campbell, chief legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a news release when the group filed its opening brief in June. “Colorado’s law harms these young people by depriving them of caring and compassionate conversations with a counselor who helps them pursue the goals they desire.”

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, said in an August news conference that the law doesn’t prohibit a provider from sharing information or viewpoints with a patient, and that therapists are still allowed to talk with patients about conversion practices offered by religious groups.

But he called conversion therapy a “substandard, discredited practice.” Conversion therapy has been denounced by major medical organizations including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

“This practice has been used in the past to try to force patients to change their sexual orientation or their gender identity,” Weiser said. “The science, however, says that this practice is harmful. It doesn’t work.

“Regardless of how it’s performed, there can be real harms from this practice. And those harms can include depression, self-hatred, loss of faith, even suicide.”

The key question in the case is whether Colorado’s law regulates professional standards of conduct and speech, or whether it attempts to regulate the right to free speech, said Marie-Amélie George, a legal historian who has published extensively on LGBTQ+ rights and is a professor of law at Wake Forest University School of Law.

“What is really interesting about these laws is that most licensed health professionals don’t offer conversion therapy because professional associations across the board have condemned it as extremely harmful,” George told Stateline. After the mainstream mental health community disavowed efforts to change people’s sexual orientation by the late 1980s, conversion therapy “became primarily the province of religious and lay ministers,” she said.

State laws like Colorado’s don’t restrict clergy and lay ministers from engaging in conversion therapy, she said. They address only the small subset of state-licensed mental health professionals who wish to use it.

In August, attorneys general in 20 states and the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief supporting Colorado’s law. They argue the First Amendment doesn’t shield mental health practices from regulation when the state deems them dangerous or ineffective, and that states have a long and established history of regulating professional standards of care.

Colorado isn’t the only recent battleground over conversion therapy, as conservative majorities in the courts, state legislatures and at the federal level have opened the door for Republican lawmakers and conservative Christian groups to reinstate the practice.

Earlier this year, Kentucky’s Republican-controlled legislature passed a bill canceling Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s 2024 executive order that banned conversion therapy for minors. Beshear promptly vetoed the bill, but the legislature overrode his veto in March.

In April, a coalition of Republican attorneys general from 11 states, led by Iowa and South Carolina, appealed a January decision by a U.S. district court judge to uphold a 2023 Michigan law that’s similar to Colorado’s. It prohibits mental health professionals from trying to alter a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The case began when Catholic Charities of three Michigan counties filed a lawsuit targeting Michigan’s law in 2024 on behalf of a licensed therapist.

In July, a Virginia court partially struck down the state’s 2020 ban on conversion therapy for minors. Republican lawmakers in Michigan introduced a bill in July to repeal their state’s ban, while Missouri’s Republican attorney general sued to overturn local conversion therapy bans.

From the mid-1990s until the mid-2010s, LGBTQ+ rights advocates won a lot of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, said George, the Wake Forest professor.

“But in the years since, the Supreme Court has been more hostile to LGBTQ+ rights claims,” she said. “I think, with the political environment of the court, it will be interesting to see what they do given how they have treated other LGBTQ+ rights cases in recent years.

“States are extremely similar in the laws they have enacted, so the decision in this case will probably affect all of the conversion therapy bans in this country.”

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An administrative law judge may decide whether the roughly $450 million plan to reroute an oil and gas pipeline around the Bad River tribe's reservation can move forward after a lengthy hearing wraps up on Friday.

The post Sides clash in permit challenge hearing on Enbridge’s Line 5 reroute appeared first on WPR.

President Donald Trump signs an executive order on Sept. 19, 2025, introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas that allows foreign nationals permanent residency and a pathway to U.S. citizenship. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

A proclamation signed by President Donald Trump last week seeking to restrict entry of non-immigrant workers to the U.S. and apply a $100,000 fee to H-1B visa applications created confusion and concern within the tech industry over the weekend. 

Immediately after Friday’s announcement, companies of all sizes, including tech giants Microsoft and Amazon and smaller startups, began calling any workers with H-1B visas who were traveling outside the U.S. to return to the country by the proclamation’s deadline of midnight Sunday. 

“It’s been seismic, to say the least,” said Nicole Gunara, a principal immigration lawyer with Manifest Law. “People are trying to fight to get out of planes, cancel flights, fly back as quickly as possible, privately chartering boats and planes in the night.”

The Trump administration has since clarified that only new H-1B visa applications would be subject to the fee. Officials also said the proclamation would not impact the ability of visa holders to travel to and from the U.S., but the announcement sent many companies and their foreign workers into a “panic,” Gunara said.

H-1B visas are given to non-immigrant foreign candidates with college degrees who fill highly skilled positions that U.S. companies struggle to hire for. Each year, the U.S. caps the number of new visas to about 85,000, and there were about 730,000 H-1B workers in the U.S. at the start of 2025. 

The visas have traditionally cost between just under $1,000 to a few thousand dollars a year, and are paid by the companies. Companies must pay their H-1B workers at least an average wage for their geographical area, to not undercut the cost of wages for other workers. In 2023, the median wage for H-1B workers was $118,000, on par with the 90th percentile ($121,000) of all U.S. wages.

Many of these roles are in information technology, with Amazon, Microsoft and Meta leading the top Fortune 500 companies with the most H-1B visa workers, with 12,391 workers, 5,189 workers and 5,123 workers respectively. About 70% of H-1B visas went to Indian workers and nearly 12% went to Chinese workers last year. 

Trump’s proclamation calls for American companies to rely on American workers for these roles, saying there is “abuse” of the H-1B program. But domestic educational institutions just aren’t preparing Americans for the type of skilled labor that many of the tech companies are seeking, said Elizabeth Ricci, immigration attorney and partner at Rambana & Ricci.

Trump has cut science funding to its lowest level in at least 35 years, and his cuts to the National Science Foundation and other research organizations are having direct effects on K-12 and college tech education. 

“It’ll have a huge effect,” Ricci said of the cost of fees on the industry. “We can’t have it both ways, where we’re not educating the people we need and also having such an incredibly high fee to be able to get a visa to bring someone in to do work for places like Apple and Google.”

U.S. companies have faced a shortage of skilled tech workers for years. Recruiting and talent firm Robert Half reported 87% of tech leaders said they faced challenges finding skilled talent earlier this year. And Silicon Valley tech giants have long sought global talent to help build American companies.  

“There is a dire shortage of extremely talented and motivated engineers in America,” X CEO Elon Musk posted on the platform, earlier this year. He compared tech companies to a pro sports team scouting players. 

“If you force the world’s best talent to play for the other side, America will LOSE,” he wrote.

But large tech companies will not be the only ones to feel the effects of the change if it is upheld. Startup companies, many of whom are responsible for new technology advances, also rely on H-1B visa workers. 

Pedro David Espinoza, a Peruvian-American entrepreneur and investor, said that many of the startups he works with in the Bay Area have hired H-1B workers to their small teams of 20 or 30 people. 

“We probably are going to skip on many foreign hires altogether, because it’s really expensive, and this will definitely, to a certain degree, stifle innovation,” he said.

Ricci said she thinks the $100,000 fee will result in fewer jobs, and may make America’s global competitors more attractive to these highly-skilled workers. 

“People aren’t going to want to come here if the rules are changing day by day, and they’re going to be put in jeopardy just by going home for a vacation or to see a loved one and not know if they’re going to be able to come back. It’s too tenuous,” she said. “And if they can have promises of continuity in places like the UK, they’re going to go there, and they’re going to make those countries better.”

Gunara said she’s unsure that Trump’s proclamation will have the desired effect of hiring more American workers. In the last few days, she’s heard from clients that they’re considering offshoring tech teams, or setting up entities outside of the U.S., maybe in Canada or somewhere with similar time zones. Companies may also pursue alternative plans for these foreign workers, like a J1 visa, which allows people to research in the U.S. for a temporary period of time. 

Gunara said she believes many people are aligned on the idea that America needs the “best and brightest” talent, but that we could be more mindful of cultivating domestic talent where possible. She suspects there will be legal challenges to the action, but that it speaks to the larger Trump administration attitude toward immigration. 

“Innovation moves immediately, right? Innovation doesn’t wait for that talent to already be trained,” Gunara said. “And I think that that’s going to be the inflection point between the initiatives of the government versus what companies are going to be able to do.”

The E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C., home of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, pictured on July 14, 2025. (Photo by Jacob Fischler/States Newsroom) 

WASHINGTON — A Friday lawsuit from a civil rights group accused the Trump administration of bypassing deportation restrictions on immigrants slated for removal by sending them to Ghana and having the West African nation deport them to their countries of origin, despite credible findings they could face harm there.

The move violates not only the due process rights of immigrants, but circumvents deportation restrictions placed by immigration judges who determined those immigrants could not be returned to their home country, attorneys from the Asian Americans Advancing Justice, wrote in their suit. 

“Defendants know that they may not, consistent with U.S. immigration law, directly deport non-citizens to countries from which they have been granted fear-based protection,” according to the brief. “As an end-run around this prohibition, Defendants have enlisted the government of Ghana to do their dirty work.”

The Department of Homeland Security and government of Ghana did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.  

Ghana President John Dramani Mahama confirmed to Business Insider Africa this week that the country struck a deal with the U.S. to accept a group of 14 deportees and send some back to their countries of origin. 

The attorneys argued that immigration judges granted their five plaintiffs fear-based deportation protections to their home country under the Immigration Nationality Act and Convention Against Torture. 

They are asking U.S District Judge Tanya Chutkan to require the return of the plaintiffs to the U.S. 

Chutkan sits on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. She was appointed by former President Barack Obama. 

The plaintiffs are nationals of Nigeria and The Gambia.

Third-country removals

A deportation protection, such as a “withholding of removal,” doesn’t create blanket protections from removal. It requires the U.S. to find what is known as a third country that will accept the deportee. 

Certain other requirements do apply. The government must notify the deportee of the country of removal and give them a chance to object if they fear persecution there. 

The U.S. government must ensure that a third country that accepts a deportee won’t then conduct a removal to their home country, where U.S. immigration officials have found they could face harm.

The suit says that none of the plaintiffs were notified they would be removed to Ghana and instead they were placed on a U.S. military plane and none were given a credible fear interview of being sent to the West African country. 

They were placed in straitjackets and remained on the plane for 16 hours, according to the suit. 

The plaintiffs are referred to by initials in court documents. 

One, referred to as K.S., “is hiding and fears for his life” in The Gambia.

K.S. was granted protections under the Convention Against Torture, a United Nations treaty, because he is bisexual and fears returning to The Gambia where he could face harm, according to court records. The Ghanaian government deported him to The Gambia on Wednesday, according to the suit. 

Four others are detained in Ghana. They are referred to as D.A., T.L., I.O., and D.S in court documents. 

Ghana is planning to remove them to their countries of origin by Friday, according to court records. 

“The comments by U.S. officials on the plane on the way to Ghana, combined with news reports about Ghana’s involvement in a deal with the U.S. about repatriating non-citizens to their countries of origin in Africa, indicate that the U.S. is deporting people to Ghana with the intention that they be deported to their countries of origin,” according to the suit. 

Minister of Justice and Public Security Héctor Villatoro, right, accompanies Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, center, during a tour of the Terrorist Confinement Center on March 26, 2025 in Tecoluca, El Salvador.  (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration paid El Salvador $4.76 million to detain up to 300 immigrant men for up to a year at a notorious mega-prison and barred the funds from being used to help asylum seekers, reproductive care or diversity initiatives, according to a court document filed Tuesday. 

It’s the first time the financial agreement has been made public after the White House initially said the deal amounted to $6 million. 

The payments were part of the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown and decision to invoke a wartime law to remove Venezuelan nationals. 

The four-page agreement between the United States and El Salvador verifies that the funds came out of the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law, which gives financial assistance to security forces and is subject to a human rights law known as the Leahy Law. 

That human rights law bars State’s financial support of “units of foreign security forces” — which can include military and law enforcement staff in prisons —  facing credible allegations of gross human rights violations. 

“The purpose of this grant is to provide funds to be used by the Salvadoran law enforcement and corrections agencies for its law enforcement needs, which includes costs associated with detaining the 238 TdA members recently deported to El Salvador,” according to the agreement.

Those who drafted the law raised concerns that those payments violated human rights laws, as more than 250 Venezuelan men were removed from the U.S. to the brutal prison, Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, despite a federal judge’s order barring such action.

Congressional Democrats have asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the White House for a copy of the financial agreement for months, over concerns the funds were being used in violation of human rights. 

March flight to El Salvador

On March 15, the Trump administration sent 238 men to CECOT, after invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to apply to Venezuelan nationals 14 and older who are suspected members of the gang Tren de Aragua. 

The agreement, dated March 22, noted the men could be detained up to a year. 

It also bars any of the $4.76 million to be used to help asylum seekers seek legal counsel for the U.S. asylum process, for access to abortion, funds for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency that provides humanitarian assistance to Palestinians or for programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion.

The men were released back to Venezuela as part of a prison swap in July, but they remained at CECOT for four months. Some of those detained, including Kilmar Abrego Garica, of Maryland, whose mistaken deportation captured national attention, detailed psychological and physical torture. 

No protection from torture

The document was obtained through a lawsuit by Democracy Forward, which specifically argued the financial agreement between El Salvador and the U.S. “was created without any legal basis.” 

“The correspondence between the U.S. State Department and El Salvador confirms what we have long suspected: the Trump-Vance administration did nothing to meaningfully ensure that individuals disappeared from the U.S. to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison were protected from torture, indefinite confinement, or other abuses,” Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said in a statement. “The agreement did, however, go to lengths to ensure that the funds the U.S. provided to El Salvador not be used to provide reproductive health care or to assist asylum seekers in accessing resources and counsel.”  

That case is being overseen by District of Columbia Judge James Boasberg, who also ordered the Trump administration to turn around planes carrying men removed under the wartime law. Instead, the planes landed in El Salvador. 

Reading Time: 2 minutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are events just ‘checking a box’?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Details remain to be worked out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advocates frustrated by lack of transparency, engagement on regional hydrogen hub projects is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.