Reading Time: 3 minutes

Last month, the Wisconsin town of Hazelhurst postponed discussion of a proposed ordinance due to a typo. The meeting agenda had incorrectly listed “wake board” instead of the intended “wake boat.” Said town chairman Ted Cushing, “I’m not going to violate the Open Meetings Law.”

It was the right call, one that affirms my belief that public officials in Wisconsin are, by and large, intent on complying with the state’s openness laws. But, sadly, this is not always the case.

Recent weeks have brought forth two of the most egregious violations of the public’s right to know that I have seen in more than three decades of tracking openness issues on the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council. 

The first happened in the village of St. Francis, south of Milwaukee, on June 2. Megan Lee, a reporter for television station TMJ4, and photographer Dan Selan tried to attend a meeting of the St. Francis school board. The district superintendent, Deb Kerr, confronted Lee, in an exchange that Selan captured on video.

“You are not allowed to come to our meetings because you did not give us any notice or tell us why you were here,” declared Kerr, saying she had just spoken with the district’s lawyer. “Like you said, it’s an open board meeting, but you’re not filming.”

When Lee pressed for an explanation, Kerr replied, “I’m going to ask you to leave now, and if you don’t leave, I’ve already told you, I will call the police.” Thankfully, this did not occur. 

For the record, no one is required to give advance notice before attending a public meeting. And the state’s Open Meetings Law, at 19.90, expressly directs all public bodies to “make a reasonable effort to accommodate any person desiring to record, film or photograph the meeting,” so long as it is not disruptive.

Kerr, a one-time candidate for state school superintendent, did apologize, sort of, saying “I wish I had handled it differently.” TMJ4 has filed a verified complaint against the school district with Milwaukee County’s corporation counsel, the first step toward possible legal action.

The second transgression involves Steven H. Gibbs, a circuit court judge in Chippewa County. Gibbs recently issued an order that not only barred the media from recording witness testimony at pretrial evidentiary hearings but also instructed that they “may not directly quote the testimony of the witnesses, and may only summarize the content of the testimony,” or else face contempt proceedings.

“Wow, this is quite the court order,” said Robert Drechsel, a UW-Madison professor emeritus of journalism and mass communication and expert on media law and the First Amendment, when I asked for his thoughts. He cited a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, which limited judges’ ability to impose constraints on media, requiring that they consider less restrictive alternatives and ponder whether the order would be effective.

That was not done here. And, in fact, requiring summation over quotation “would be more likely to introduce a risk of error and possible prejudice,” Drechsel said. “So no, I do not think the judge can prohibit the media from directly quoting what they hear during an open court proceeding. And I don’t think it’s a close call.”

Judge Gibbs, asked under what authority he was forbidding direct quotation, cited a Wisconsin Supreme Court rule that allows judges to “control the conduct of proceedings” before them. Gibbs said he believes in the First Amendment and freedom of the press but “my concern is a fair jury pool in this matter not tainted by any media reports” about evidence that may or may not be introduced. He did not explain how threatening the media for trying to be as accurate as possible would achieve this end. (Here are links to Gibbs’ and Drechsel’s full responses.)

The truth is that public officials, even if they’re well intentioned, sometimes broadly overstep. Let’s just be grateful that this is the exception and not the rule. You can quote me on that.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Bill Lueders is the group’s president.

Your Right to Know: When transparency is disregarded is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Probably the most commonly used — and, in my opinion, abused — exemption in our state’s Open Meetings Law is the one that lets governmental bodies meet behind closed doors “whenever competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session.”

The exemption, 19.85(1)(e) in Wisconsin state statutes, is used by all manner of public bodies, from city councils to school boards. It is supposed to be used sparingly, when needed to protect ongoing negotiations. But many bodies use this exemption to conceal everything about a potential deal or development, keeping the public in the dark until it is too late for their input.

Thankfully, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals issued a recent opinion, in a case known as Oitzinger v. City of Marinette, that should significantly curtail such abuses. The court ruled that the city’s attempts to use this exemption on two occasions violated the law. 

The first involved an agreement (negotiated for months behind the scenes and presented to the common council for the first and only time in that closed session) that released a PFAS polluter from liability in exchange for a “donation” toward equipment to help address the pollution it caused. The second involved an engineering analysis of methods to provide safe drinking water for people whose well water had been contaminated.

Both closed sessions were illegal, the appeals court ruled, because neither included discussions of negotiation strategies that needed to be kept secret. The court’s ruling does three very important things.

First, the court held Marinette officials accountable for their illegal behavior. The plaintiff, Douglas Oitzinger, was a city council member who thought his colleagues had abused this exemption. He was willing to stand up to his colleagues, endure their scorn and not give up until he won. (His efforts earned him an award from the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council in 2022.)

Second, the case reaffirms an important principle: The law’s exemption protects bargaining tactics, not all discussions about a possible deal. It exists so that government boards don’t have to negotiate at a disadvantage by divulging their strategies, such as the most it is willing to pay to buy a piece of land. But those kinds of discussions are the only thing that is supposed to happen in closed session. Other discussions — particularly debates about the merits of a course of action — need to be held publicly.

Third, the court emphasized that a board’s members need to cast an informed vote to go into closed session. That means it needs to be explained to them — on the record in open session — what kind of information is going to be discussed and why secrecy is necessary. Too often the process for going into a closed session is just a formulaic reading of a vague agenda item and a vote with no explanation or discussion. The court of appeals concluded that more is necessary, not just in this case but whenever this exemption is invoked.

I believe this is the part of the court’s decision that has the most impact. Government board members usually do this work on a part-time basis for little or no pay. They’re frequently happy to follow the lead of full-time government administrators or experienced board members. Administrators or presiding officers now must take the time to explain why they want to go into closed session. That will not only provide more information to the public, it will help board members think about and answer the question of whether secrecy is really necessary.

As an advocate for government openness, my hopes are high. I’ve seen reports from around the state that government attorneys are advising their clients about this case and explaining these requirements. I’m hopeful that abuse of this exemption will significantly decline.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Tom Kamenick, a council member, is the president and founder of the Wisconsin Transparency Project.

Your Right to Know: Want a closed session? Explain yourself! is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

In any community, the role of the medical examiner is vital. 

Medical examiners — or coroners, in the nearly half of Wisconsin’s 72 counties that have them as an alternative — determine the cause and manner of death, support the criminal justice system and track data to identify trends that can impact public health and safety.

For me and other Milwaukee-area journalists, the insights provided by the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner’s Office are integral to our coverage, providing crucial details and important context. Among the recent examples where the level of openness has played a key role are the COVID-19 pandemic, the tragic deaths of three men due to extreme cold last January and the high-profile case of D’Vontaye Mitchell last June.

Traditionally, the office has supplied “demographic reports” as well as “narrative reports.” Demographic reports include information such as the name of the deceased, where the death occurred, and the name of a family member who was notified. Narrative reports, in contrast, delve into the circumstances surrounding each case. 

“Narrative reports are particularly illustrative when compared to other available public information,” wrote David Clarey in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in March. “Contextual information, such as whether a driver ran a red light or if a homicide resulted from a heated argument, is often missing (from demographic reports) and requires time-consuming requests from media and families alike.”

The media in Milwaukee were pleased with the level of openness we experienced from Karen Domagalski, the longtime operations manager for the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner’s Office. But when Domagalski retired on Feb. 19, the county’s medical examiner, Dr. Wieslawa Tlomak, announced a change in policy. Henceforth, she said, the office would stop sharing narrative reports until investigations were concluded and cases closed. She acknowledged that this shift represented a significant change in past practices.

Concerned by the change in policy, several news executives, including me, sent Tlomak a letter on April 4. It read, in part:

“The decision to curtail access to these preliminary findings poses a troubling scenario for our news organizations and, more importantly, for the residents of Milwaukee County. Withholding this essential information may leave the public waiting weeks, months, or even longer for basic insights into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of community members. This delay not only hampers our ability to keep the public informed but also undermines trust in the transparency of governmental processes.”

The letter noted that having access to narrative reports helps “clarify the circumstances” surrounding deaths and fosters “a better understanding among citizens about the events that impact their safety.”

Tlomak replied to our letter nearly three weeks later on April 23. Her response read, in part:

“I recognize that this shift in operational policies and procedures is new to members of the media that cover death investigations and public safety matters in Milwaukee County. After an internal review of operational policies and procedures, it became apparent that it is not within the ME’s Office mission and purpose to provide inaccurate and/or incomplete information to the public, as the disclosure of these draft details have the potential to cause significant harm to family members most affected by a death.”

Here’s my response to that: Dr. Tlomak, if your concern is releasing inaccurate information, the appropriate next step would be to correct the information rather than stopping its release altogether. I urge you to work with the journalists who rely on the reports provided by your office to develop a solution that ensures timely access to vital information without compromising the integrity of ongoing investigations. 

Transparency is crucial for maintaining public trust.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Tim Vetscher, a council member, is news director at TMJ4 in Milwaukee. 

Your Right to Know: When people die, openness matters is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Wisconsin’s municipal courts can have a significant and devastating impact on the lives of people who can’t afford to pay a citation due to poverty. Without critical legal protections, unpaid municipal citations can lead to warrants, arrests and incarceration.

There is no right to counsel in Wisconsin’s municipal courts, meaning people unable to afford an attorney face court alone, compounding the cycle of poverty and punishment. These courts risk operating in ways that undermine constitutional standards and disproportionately harm vulnerable communities. Hence, there is a heightened need for transparency and accountability.

Public access to accurate court records and data is essential to upholding constitutional and statutory requirements. In December, a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge ordered the Milwaukee Municipal Court and its judges to comply with statutory requirements mandating electronic recordings of all hearings on motions to reopen because of a defendant’s inability to pay a judgment due to poverty. Judge David Borowski found that the court and its judges “have violated and very likely will continue to act in violation of their plain duties” to record these hearings. 

These hearings can determine whether an individual faces severe sanctions, including arrest warrants, writs of commitment, or driver’s license suspensions. They also establish whether a judge is required to abide by certain poverty protections, like community service in lieu of payment for a defendant who faces incarceration due to poverty. 

The ACLU of Wisconsin, for which I work, released a report last fall that underscores both the scope and the severe consequences of municipal court practices. The data used in this report was gathered from open records requests sent to each of Wisconsin’s 219 municipal courts and 73 county jails. 

Each court and jail operates independently, with differing policies, procedures and levels of transparency. Many courts and jails either failed to respond to our open records requests or provided incomplete data. Some jails claimed they could not separate out municipal warrants or commitments, while others demanded exorbitant fees to locate records. 

Municipal courts face minimal oversight and reporting requirements. They are encouraged, but not required, to submit an annual voluntary questionnaire. 

The only statewide municipal court data published consists of the total number of cases by state, county and year, but these statistics are self-reported, unauthenticated and often incomplete. The result is an unreliable, outdated and incomplete data set that fails to provide the transparency necessary for meaningful review. 

We can’t rely only on open records as the primary tool for oversight. Governments must implement systems for collecting, vetting and reporting court data. Basic information, such as the number of warrants and commitments issued annually, how many people are jailed for failure to pay, and for how long, should be readily available. If a court or jail cannot provide this information, it should not have the ability to impose or enforce these sanctions.

Transparency is not an abstract ideal; it is a safeguard against unconstitutional practices and a tool for ensuring justice. When courts operate without transparency, individuals, especially those who are economically disadvantaged, are at a heightened risk of having their rights violated. 

Courts and carceral institutions must have standardized, reliable systems for recording, analyzing and reporting data. Wisconsin’s municipal courts must be held to higher standards of transparency, and the state must implement policies that ensure courts are accountable to the communities they serve. 

Without meaningful change, without appropriate oversight, many municipal courts will continue to punish poverty, making it difficult to ensure that community members receive the constitutional and statutory protections to which they are entitled.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Emma Shakeshaft is a senior staff attorney and researcher for the ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation.

Your Right to Know: Improve access to municipal court records is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

The following commentary was written by Jesse Velazquez, Climate Justice Manager at the Ohio Environmental Council. See our commentary guidelines for more information.

---

In his victory speech, President-elect Donald Trump promised to further boost “liquid gold,” also known as oil and gas. Today, oil and gas production is at record highs and continues to grow. As the industry expands, so do concerns about methane pollution.

The primary component of natural gas is methane, a potent greenhouse gas that warms the planet more than 80 times as much as carbon dioxide over 20 years. It’s also a significant contributor to smog and public health issues like asthma and respiratory disease, disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities. Yet, efforts to reduce methane emissions present a rare win-win opportunity: they not only curb pollution but also create jobs and foster innovation.

Take Pennsylvania, one of the largest natural gas producers, for example. By adopting innovative methane mitigation strategies, the state is reducing harmful emissions from oil and gas operations while creating jobs and fostering a cleaner, more sustainable energy future. This balanced approach showcases how economic growth and environmental responsibility can go hand in hand, offering a model that Ohio should replicate.

According to the 2024 State of the Methane Mitigation Industry Report, developing and implementing technologies to cut methane pollution would create jobs ranging from manufacturing leak-detection equipment to technicians skilled in repairing faulty infrastructure. Pennsylvania saw a 22.2% growth in methane mitigation companies over the last three years. Since 2014, the industry has expanded by 65% with the state now hosting 33 methane mitigation companies. In fact, Pennsylvania is now home to 8.5% of the total employee locations in this sector nationwide.

These good-paying, family-sustaining jobs bolster local economies while addressing critical environmental challenges. And the opportunity for Ohio is immense.

The benefits extend far beyond jobs. Reducing methane emissions means less wasted energy. Nationally, oil and gas companies emit enough methane waste annually that could be utilized to meet the energy needs of millions of homes. Capturing the lost gases would translate directly into increased efficiency and cost savings. For a state like Ohio, with its large-scale oil and gas operations, this represents a tangible economic benefit.

This isn’t just about economic gains. Methane mitigation is also a crucial climate strategy. The U.S. EPA’s Section 111 Methane Rule, finalized a year ago, set robust federal standards to limit methane emissions from oil and gas operations. While essential, this rule relies heavily on state-level implementation to achieve its full potential. States like Ohio have a chance to lead by adopting and building on these standards, aligning economic growth with environmental stewardship.

And we know clean air and economic growth are priorities that transcend party lines, as evidenced by the broad coalition of businesses, environmental advocates, and community leaders rallying behind these initiatives.

Ohio is at a crossroads. We can continue business as usual, or we can follow Pennsylvania’s lead, investing in proven technologies and practices that cut emissions, prevent waste, protect public health, and drive economic growth.

By prioritizing methane mitigation, the state can chart a path that aligns with both the nation’s energy ambitions and the pressing need for climate action. This is not just a moral imperative but an economic one that promises cleaner air, healthier communities, and a thriving workforce for generations to come.

Commentary: Ohio should replicate Pennsylvania’s success cutting methane pollution is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

The following commentary was written by Carrie Zalewski, former Chair of the Illinois Commerce Commission and currently vice president of markets and transmission at the American Clean Power Association; and Brent Bailey, former Mississippi Public Service Commissioner and current vice president of operations at Efficient Power & Light LLC. See our commentary guidelines for more information.

---

Building the power grid of the future requires deploying every available tool in the present.

When it comes to electricity generation, energy wonks often reference an “all-the-above” strategy, which includes all available power sources — fossil fuels, renewable energy, and storage technologies. But generation is just one part of the reliability and affordability equation.

The Midwestern transmission grid must also evolve and adopt an “all-the-above” mentality to withstand increasingly frequent extreme weather events and support rapidly growing power demand while ensuring reliable and low-cost electricity for consumers. This is no small task. As such, policymakers and grid operators must carefully consider all near-term and long-term solutions.

New high-voltage transmission lines are essential to ensure the grid of the future is prepared for surging load growth. But new transmission line development and construction can take many years. To address immediate needs, there are other solutions that can improve capacity in the near term. Enter: advanced grid technologies.

Significant technological advancements are available now that can come online in one to three years compared to the decade or so it takes to build new transmission lines. Such advancements include: grid-enhancing technologies (GETs) — hardware and/or software that can increase the capacity and efficiency of existing transmission lines most hours of the year — as well as high-performance conductors (HPCs) — which offer greater capacity and efficiency benefits compared to traditional conductors.

While these advanced grid technologies cannot provide enough capacity to meet long-term system needs, they are relatively inexpensive and drive enormous cost savings until we can bring regional backbone lines into service. Deploying GETs and HPCs in the near term to help meet projected demand growth while simultaneously planning and constructing new regional and interregional transmission lines is key to ensuring the delivery of reliable, low-cost power across the Midwest.

MISO, the central U.S. grid operator, is considering a second portfolio of transmission projects aimed at creating a regional backbone of long-distance lines that will enable power to flow across the Upper and Central Midwest. These transmission lines will build upon investments made in the first tranche of projects, approved by the grid operator in 2022, which began to lay the groundwork for an evolution of the system.

The second batch of potential projects aims to “reliably and efficiently enable MISO member goals and load growth,” delivering benefits that significantly outweigh costs. Across much of the current system, MISO found that at least 10% of facilities are overloaded and annual curtailments exceed 15%, meaning available generators are forced offline because there is not enough grid capacity to carry their power.

MISO will also soon consider transmission projects for the Southern region of MISO as well as measures to increase the flow of electricity between the MISO regions.  A regional problem requires regional solutions, including well-vetted, long-distance transmission lines.

Additionally, there is a significant need for greater interregional transmission capacity between MISO and its neighbors. The U.S. Department of Energy identified especially high congestion between the Midwest and Plains states. This means there are bottlenecks in the system that hinder the ability to deliver electricity between these areas. As a result, more interregional transmission ties from MISO to the Plains would offer considerable consumer benefits in the form of increased reliability and decreased costs when affordable clean energy can be accessed and transmitted back to MISO members.

Building the grid of the future will require every technology at our disposal. It’s critical that grid operators and state regulators consider and implement all transmission technology tools when planning and building a system that will enhance national security, facilitate regional economic development, and withstand new and growing reliability threats for generations to come.

Commentary: To keep the lights on, the Midwest needs an ‘all of the above’ power grid is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

The following commentary was written by Daksh Arora, a project engineer at GameChange Solar, content director for the MIT Energy Conference 2025, and a fellow at the Clean Energy Leadership Institute. See our commentary guidelines for more information.

---

States like Massachusetts must take the lead in advancing the United States’ climate goals, especially under the incoming Trump administration. While the Biden Administration’s landmark Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 made significant strides, the U.S. is still on track to achieve only 66% of its greenhouse gas reduction targets by 2030.

With the potential for further setbacks, such as a possible second withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, states like Massachusetts must step up to drive the deployment of clean energy and climate solutions.

The “Direct Pay” provision in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is a game-changer for municipalities, state and local governments, and other tax-exempt entities to access federal clean energy tax credits. This provision allows entities such as nonprofits, schools, tribal governments, and municipal utilities to receive tax credits directly from the IRS, rather than relying on tax liability to claim them.

Before the IRA, only private entities could benefit from these credits, putting public entities at a disadvantage in developing clean energy projects. The Direct Pay provision has no cap on government spending through 2032, offering new opportunities for public sector investment in clean energy. Furthermore, IRA also increases the maximum available tax credit for certain clean energy projects, from 30% to 50%, with the potential for up to 70% or more for projects in energy or low-income communities, or those using American-made materials, helping overcome financial barriers that previously slowed public clean energy development.

To claim direct pay, eligible entities must complete their energy projects before receiving payment from the federal government, which will occur the following year. While the tax credits will lower overall project costs, upfront capital is still needed to finance projects before the refund arrives.

To help address this, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), a $27 billion program established by another IRA provision, provides increased green bank financing, supporting an equitable green financing ecosystem across the U.S. The IRS just finalized the direct pay rules and it would be really difficult for the next administration to repeal it. 

City governments like in Somerville and Cambridge can use direct pay to supplement the costs of deploying renewable energy infrastructure such as solar panels and storage technologies on public lands and buildings; electrifying vehicle fleets; and building out electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

The cities can also establish their own municipal clean energy utility. In 2024, voters in Ann Arbor approved the creation of a “Sustainable Energy Utility” (SEU) with 79% support. The SEU is designed to supplement the existing energy grid and help residents transition to cleaner, more reliable energy sources. The SEU plans to initially secure 20 megawatts of demand, using that to finance and install solar panels, batteries, and energy-efficiency upgrades for customers. The utility will own and maintain the solar systems, providing power to customers at cost, with no markup, allowing residents to access solar and backup power without upfront costs or debt.

Direct Pay is also a significant shift that allows public power entities, like the New York Power Authority (NYPA), to directly own renewable energy projects instead of relying on complex public-private partnerships. This makes it easier for NYPA to scale up clean energy projects by bypassing the need for third-party ownership structures that were previously required.

While there is an urgent need for funding in renewable energy, infrastructure, and other green initiatives, challenges like high capital costs and slow land acquisition complicate the transition. Some critics argue that financial de-risking may lead to the privatization of public goods and place the private sector in control of the green transition, raising concerns about the fairness of these arrangements. Despite these challenges, the question remains whether private investors can truly finance the world’s vast unmet green infrastructure needs and whether it’s technically possible to overcome the barriers in place. 

Regardless of this question, investing in public capacity is a net win for the environment as direct pay not only levels the playing field between for-profit and tax-exempt entities but also shifts energy generation ownership from private to public and nonprofit sectors, enabling more consumer-focused management of energy assets. States like Massachusetts should ensure that benefits from the IRA reach low-income and marginalized communities.

Massachusetts just streamlined the process for building solar and wind farms, transmission lines, and other energy infrastructure to help meet its climate goals by 2050. The state can do more by working to help communities understand the types of investments eligible for direct pay and how to secure financing for clean energy projects, making access to this funding easier and more efficient. The state can also lead by setting an example by deploying climate solutions at scale and ensuring utilities maximize the federal clean energy tax credits by regulatory oversight.

At the moment, when the state is experiencing a historic drought fueled by climate change, the inaction to expand clean energy infrastructure and advance environmental justice is no longer an option.

Commentary: Trump may struggle to repeal this IRA provision; Massachusetts should use it is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

The following commentary was written by John Szoka. Szoka is is the CEO of Conservative Energy Network, a national network of state-based organizations focused on promoting clean energy innovation rooted in conservative values. See our commentary guidelines for more information.

---

It’s been three years since the North Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill 951, legislation known as the Energy Solutions for North Carolina Act. It was a historic occasion to get consensus across the aisle and across House and Senate chambers to pass this bill. It served as a compact with all North Carolinians that the appropriate planning and consideration would go into plotting out an energy future for our state that would keep power bills affordable and stable, accelerate innovation and economic development in clean energy technologies, all while significantly reducing emissions from the electric power sector. 

That legislation — and all the work that’s gone into it so far by the NC Utilities Commission, the utilities, industry groups, and a wide range of stakeholders — is already propelling North Carolina to make meaningful headway towards its shared goals for our state. Its endurance is critical to keeping us on the right path.

Keeping electric rates affordable is a central priority of the law. And whether or not you’re a proponent of clean energy as an ideology, this law is based on a business case: diversifying North Carolina’s energy mix to incorporate more modern power-generating technologies protects ratepayers from the unpredictable and volatile whims of global oil and gas markets. Looking through data from utility rate cases over the last several years, it’s simply a fact that natural gas market price spikes drove the overwhelming majority of increases we all saw on our monthly power bills. The more we can diversify our energy mix with technologies that come with no-fuel-cost sources like onshore and offshore wind, and solar with battery storage, the better off our wallets will be.

And it’s not just residential ratepayers who are better off with the kind of clean energy mix that House Bill 951 legislates, it’s North Carolina’s economy as a whole. When rates are lower, it makes our state a much more attractive place for business and industry to choose to set up shop, bringing with them huge investment dollars and quality local jobs. We should not underestimate how significant a factor that keeping North Carolina’s electricity rates competitive is in driving business investment. We currently enjoy a ranking as one of the best states to do business in, which is directly tied to being able to keep electricity rates below the national average. Electricity prices across the country are anticipated to rise over the coming decade, but if we stay the course with the energy objectives defined in House Bill 951, North Carolina should remain competitive in this area.

The energy plan is so far working as intended. Utilities and stakeholders are working with the NC Utilities Commission to make some very complex decisions about the long-term state of North Carolina’s electricity grid. Making the right decisions that will best accommodate new technologies and strengthen the grid’s reliability, while also controlling costs is a tough task. It’s clear that the Utilities Commission is taking the task laid upon them by this law seriously. And we need to continue to engage in and trust that process, as defined by the consensus legislation we deliberated upon and passed.

An energy plan that keeps rates low for customers and drives economic growth is a sound business model. And North Carolina’s voters know it. Poll after poll shows that North Carolinians understand the correlation between high gas prices and the dollar signs on their monthly power bills. Meanwhile, clean energy technology prices drop year after year. Clean energy reliability and operability rise year after year.

Intentionally diversifying those technologies into our energy mix via House Bill 951 was a common sense business decision for North Carolina’s economy. The leaders who passed this bill into law three years ago had the foresight to establish energy policy that will serve our state well for generations to come. Ensuring that the next sitting legislature supports and sustains this policy will be critical for the affordability and durability of North Carolina’s energy future.

Commentary: Consensus-driven bill protects North Carolina from high power bills and spurs innovation is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

This article is a paid promotion and the Energy News Network is not responsible for its contents.

Reliable hot water is critical for restaurants for preparing food and washing dishes and equipment, as well as hand washing.

However, water heating is one of the biggest energy users in restaurants. Heating water for restaurant use accounts for 16% of all commercial gas usage in California. Food service buildings are among the highest intensive energy users on a per-square-foot basis, largely because of their hot water usage. Foodservice operations may soon feel the pressure to electrify. The California Air Resources Board is analyzing proposed zero-emission GHG standards for new space and water heaters. It is currently planned for consideration in 2025 with any implementation beginning in 2030, and would only be applicable to the purchase of new equipment

Doing so will be difficult, particularly for existing restaurants. Many food service operations, especially small and independent businesses, do not have the space for the size of a storage tank that would be required for a heat pump water heater. Restaurants in California, as with most states, are legally required to have sufficient hot water to meet all these demands under peak conditions.

In response to these challenges, an emerging technology, the heat pump-assisted water heater, is gaining traction. It is designed to meet this existing gap between what the market needs and the cost and challenges of installing available heat pump water heaters. It is geared to meet the needs of existing food service businesses that want to be able to transition to a heat pump while still retaining the benefits of their current water heating system.

With funding from CalNEXT — California’s statewide emerging technology initiative — the TRC Advanced Energy team recently published a report, “Market Potential for Heat Pump Assisted Hot Water Systems in Foodservice Facilities.” This report, which TRC Advanced Energy developed with research support from Frontier Energy and Energy Solutions, assesses the benefits and challenges of adopting heat pump-assisted water heater technology for a range of food service establishments.

“Heat pump-assisted water heaters are a solution that we have available today,” said Amin Delagah, Associate Director of Research and Consulting for TRC Advanced Energy, an environmental services provider. “Heat pump water heater adoption rates in restaurants are still very low due to a lack of familiarity, space and electrical capacity requirements and primarily, the health department water heater sizing regulatory barrier, but the heat pump assist concept is a solution that we can move forward today to overcome these barriers.”

The heat pump-assisted water heater, as its name suggests, is designed to operate in series with an existing water heater, which makes it attractive for restaurants that do not want to overhaul their current system completely. During down times for the business, the existing heater would maintain the recirculation temperature of already heated water in its system. During off hours, the heat pump-assisted water heater would produce sufficient hot water to restock the system. Because the existing heater is already large enough to meet food service needs during business hours, the heat pump-assisted water heater system can be built to fit the available space, even if it is undersized.

The benefits of using a heat pump-assisted water heater are similar to those of a heat pump: improved energy efficiency and possibly lower long-term energy costs, although cost issues largely depend on the type of system being replaced. Natural gas fuel, which is used by 90 percent of food service operations for water heating, is currently cheaper than electricity in most of California.

Heat pump systems also provide cooling as a byproduct, which could be useful to counteract kitchen heat.

Heat pump-assisted water heaters are designed to address the big disadvantage of heat pump water heaters for restaurants — the longer time needed to heat the water from cold. One workaround is a much larger tank, but floor space is typically at a premium in restaurants, making this workaround unappealing for many food service operations. For a heat pump water heater to meet health department requirements, it would need a much bigger tank than its gas-fired counterpart (because the gas-fired water heater can heat water faster).

Heat pump-assisted water heaters may also be cheaper to install than a conventional, retrofitted heat pump water heater system, and the heat pump-assisted water heater does not need to meet these sizing regulations because the legacy water heater still functions as a backup system. At this point, the technology is still emerging and has not been installed commercially, but the authors estimate that initial costs for the heat pump water heater that acts as the assist, including installation, could range between $6,000 to $20,000. This amount, while significant, is still much cheaper than what it could cost a full-service restaurant to install a heat pump water heater capable of meeting water demands, which could well exceed $100,000.  

“The costs for heat pump assisted heat pumps are largely driven by the electrical work and the space required, and there may be incentives available to offset these,” Delagah said.

Another benefit is that because the heat pump-assisted water heater is a backup system, it does not require health department approval, making the process simpler.  

Both heat pump water heaters and heat pump-assisted water heaters also have the additional operational benefit of being able to benefit from time-of-use rates and the additional cooling they could provide for kitchens.

“This year in October, it was 95 degrees in the Bay Area,” Delagah said. “There are new California OSHA rules on the books for indoor temperatures — if your facilities are over an 82°F temperature indoors, you have to provide cooling centers for employees. That’s becoming an emerging concern for restaurants to meet a new heat illness standard.”

On the downside, the higher upfront costs will likely still be a significant barrier to the adoption of heat pump-assisted water heaters, even if they are relatively less expensive than heat pump water heaters.

One big hurdle is that health departments, by and large, are not familiar with the technology — and may be more resistant to its approval. The relatively high price of electricity in California, compared with gas, may be another barrier. 

Yet regulations and the need to decarbonize are moving closer, with California’s 2030 deadlines for reducing its overall greenhouse gas emissions by 40%, in comparison with 1990 levels. Restaurants are well positioned to be the public face of doing their part.

“This is great equipment for restaurants that are thinking about positioning themselves for where things are going in terms of air quality regulations,” Delagah said. “If you’re a chain restaurant, you should probably be trying this out, kicking the tires a bit, and preparing for what your solution is going to be when there is a mandate.”

To learn more about this project, read the report on the CalNEXT website, calnext.com  

About CalNEXT: CalNEXT is a statewide initiative to identify, test, and grow electric technologies and delivery methods to support California’s decarbonized future. CalNEXT is funded by the ratepayers of California investor-owned utilities and provides a means for studying emerging technologies and energy-efficiency innovations that have the potential to save energy via utility programs and/or market support.

Article written by Emily Pickrell, Energy Solutions

Commentary: Heat pump-assisted water heater technology could make big lift is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

The following commentary was written by Kelley Trombley, senior manager of state policy at Ceres. See our commentary guidelines for more information.

---

This campaign season, the state of Washington was a battleground for energy and climate policy. The pitched fight over Initiative 2117 became one of the most expensive ballot measures in state history, drawing millions of dollars in political funding to each side of the issue, which would have repealed Washington’s Climate Commitment Act to end its nation-leading cap-and-invest system. In its first year alone, the policy has driven $2.2 billion into projects designed to protect the state from the effects of climate change while fighting pollution, but faced opposition from those who argued it hurt the economy. 

Yet it was some of the top employers in the state – and for that matter on the planet – that urged voters to keep the program in place. Amazon, Microsoft, and REI were among the many companies urging a no vote. And in the end, voters agreed, decisively defeating the ballot measure by a wide margin. It turns out that this kind of climate action is actually an economic boon. 

The strong showing of corporate support for the CCA shouldn’t be surprising. Take it from me and my colleagues at Ceres, a sustainability nonprofit that works with businesses and investors across the country on sustainability issues. Over the last decade, leading businesses have increasingly come to recognize that climate and clean energy policies are key economic drivers. Business leaders have rallied to support them – from the federal Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, marking the nation’s largest-ever investment into confronting climate change, to ambitious legislation in states across the U.S., including here in Washington. 

To understand why, just think about what businesses need to prosper. Reliable and affordable electricity to power their operations. Good transportation networks to ensure people and goods can get where they need to be. Infrastructure investment and job growth to bolster local economies. Market-based systems to efficiently solve pressing economywide problems. And, last but not least, a healthy workforce. 

The CCA is delivering all of that.  

By putting a cap on carbon pollution designed to all but eliminate it by 2050, the policy uses basic economic principles to address the challenge and financial risks of climate change. It promises to reduce impacts such as floods, drought, heatwaves, and severe storms that threaten pillars of the economy that businesses depend on, such as infrastructure, facilities, supply chains, and workforces. Not only that, the CCA is also investing in improving and fortifying many of those very things: its revenue is being used to improve and modernize energy and transportation infrastructure, invest in energy efficiency, and protect communities from climate impacts. Repealing it was projected to cost some 45,000 good-paying jobs and do $9 billion in economic damage. 

Businesses understood the CCA is about protecting and strengthening our economic future, one that we are all in together. And voters did too. By voting no, Washington has signaled to companies across the U.S. that it is acting to address a major economic challenge and is investing in solutions that businesses of the future will rely on.  

There’s a lesson here for state policymakers around the country, especially those committed to strengthening their communities as an attractive and reliable place to conduct business. The private sector will continue to seize business opportunities as clean energy investment grows, and states will find broad support when they address the economic imperative to reduce pollution and advance clean power, transportation, and building policies. In Washington, voters made it abundantly clear that their “no” vote wasn’t about just protecting the climate. It was about protecting the economy as well. 

Commentary: Why businesses stood up for Washington state’s cap-and-invest policy is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

The following commentary was written by Mel Mackinm, director of state policy at Ceres, a nonprofit that works with investors and companies to advance clean energy policy. See our commentary guidelines for more information.

---

Look out across Michigan and you’ll see groundbreakings for major solar panel manufacturing sites, huge investments to build battery cells, and sparkling new facilities to ensure the state stays in the driver’s seat as the auto industry moves into the future.

It seems Michigan manufacturing is having a moment.

It’s little wonder why. Michigan has always had the legacy, the workforce, the supply chains, and the know-how to serve as the epicenter of an American manufacturing renaissance. That’s exactly what’s happened since Congress finalized the nation’s largest-ever clean energy investment in the summer of 2022.

Powered by incentives for companies to manufacture and deploy clean energy infrastructure and technology here in the U.S., the Inflation Reduction Act has unlocked more than $360 billion in private-sector investment in less than two years, according to research from Climate Power. Its impact has been felt in every corner of the country with hundreds of new projects taking shape to build innovative technologies, employ hundreds of thousands of workers, and power the economy – all while cutting costs and pollution. But no other state has seen as much activity as Michigan, the site of 58 new clean energy projects.

Michigan policymakers deserve some credit for moving quickly to take full advantage of this opportunity. In 2022, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer made clear in her MI Healthy Climate Plan that she wanted to make Michigan one of the best places in the world to build and deploy clean energy. Lawmakers since followed her lead with legislation that will move the state to 100% clean electricity by 2040 and ensure clean power infrastructure can be built both quickly and responsibly – a pair of laws that boasted ample support from Michigan companies that recognize confronting climate change is also an economic opportunity.

These policies were designed to fully harness the Inflation Reduction Act, making clear that the state is ready to support the growing number of businesses that supply or rely on innovative clean technology. In response, businesses that include classic Michigan manufacturers like GM, global brands like Corning, and upstarts like Lucid Motors have flooded the state with more than $21.5 billion in new clean energy innovation and manufacturing investment, creating some 20,100 new jobs.

With projects located from Detroit to Holland to Traverse City, so much of the state is already benefitting. That includes communities that have so far been left behind in the 21st century economy. About half of the state’s recent clean energy investment is located in rural or low-income areas, such as Norm Fasteners’ $77 million facility that will create 200 electric vehicle supply chain jobs in Bath Charter Township.

Now is not the time to slow down. We are now in the throes of the 2024 election, and we all know Michigan has been getting a lot of attention. No matter what happens in November, Michigan and the U.S. must continue investing in this revamped manufacturing base. Policymakers on both sides of the aisle have prioritized rebuilding American industry to provide good jobs and bolster U.S. leadership

Michigan’s clean energy manufacturing boom provides clear evidence that this shared goal is coming to fruition. Policymakers at both the federal and state levels, along with leaders in the private sector, must maintain this momentum and the strong policy environment that will allow the U.S. and its workforce to lead the global economy in the emerging industries of the future – with Michigan, as it so often has, standing strong as the foundation.

Commentary: Michigan is the epicenter of America’s clean energy manufacturing renaissance is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

The following commentary was written by Laura Sherman, president of the Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council. See our commentary guidelines for more information.

---

Last year, Michigan got attention as the first Midwestern state to adopt an energy storage standard. Energy storage is essential for the clean energy transition because it allows clean electricity initially generated by sources like wind and solar to be available at all times.

The standard calls for 2,500 MW of energy storage to be deployed by 2030. This storage will be fulfilled by a range of technologies, with lithium-ion batteries, the type of the storage that has grown rapidly across the U.S. and the world in recent years, chief among them. But it’s not too early to start thinking about how this standard (and future standards) will also involve new technologies that serve different needs, including shifting low-cost energy over longer periods of time to support electric reliability and affordability. A U.S. Department of Energy report found that to achieve a net-zero economy, the U.S. grid may need 225 GW to 460 GW of long-duration energy storage by 2050. By comparison, the U.S. currently has over 500 GW of gas power plants, and battery storage capacity is expected to double to about 30 GW by the end of this year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Fortunately, Michigan’s energy legislation anticipated this need. The legislation that created the 2030 storage target also ordered Michigan regulators to report to lawmakers on the potential for long-duration and multi-day energy storage. The Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) is in the midst of this study right now.

But how is “long-duration” energy storage different from the battery storage that is growing quickly in Michigan and across the country right now? It’s all about the concept of duration, which refers to how long a storage resource like a battery can discharge stored energy until it is out of capacity. Most of the batteries being built at utility scale right now have a duration of around four hours. But long-duration storage refers to resources that have a duration of over 8 hours and up to well over 100 hours.

This longer duration unlocks capabilities that will make 100% clean electricity a reality. Short-duration storage right now can cover shortfalls in wind and solar on an hour-by-hour basis. But what about if there is a shortfall in energy supply expected not for just a few hours, but from one day to the next? Or from one month to the next? Those situations arise especially in seasons like winter, where cloud cover can linger and hamper solar energy production for extended periods of time. That is where the need for long-duration storage comes in. Long-duration storage could become a capacity resource that grid operators can tap to reliably deal with long-term fluctuations in energy supply, like those caused by changes in the season from summer to winter.

What would this type of energy storage actually look like in practice? Two companies that are members of the Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council are potential examples.

• Energy Dome’s above ground compressed gas technology, the “CO2 Battery,” is a closed-loop system that holds carbon dioxide gas in a large dome structure. Using electricity from solar panels and wind turbines, this gas is heated and compressed into a liquid, which can be easily stored at room temperature. When discharging, the liquid is evaporated, and the resulting gas spins a turbine, generating electricity when needed, often with one full cycle per day (8+ hours of discharging). The company is currently constructing its first full-scale plant in Sardinia, Italy, with the project nearing completion. In the U.S., another plant is soon to follow, with project proponent Alliant Energy recently filing for regulatory approval of the Columbia Energy Storage Project in Wisconsin.
• Form Energy is commercializing a multi-day energy storage technology, a 100-hour duration iron-air battery for utility-scale applications. Essentially, the battery rusts and un-rusts iron to store and release electricity. Form Energy has constructed a new factory to manufacture these batteries domestically, and is working to deploy the first large-scale demonstrations of its technology with utilities like Great River Energy, Xcel Energy, Dominion and Georgia Power in 2025 and 2026.

A tremendous amount of innovative work will need to happen between now and the realization of the full potential for long-duration storage. There are a few things Michigan regulators should do with their study to best set up the state to reap the benefits from these emerging technologies:

First, the Commission should set clear targets for how much long-duration and multi-day storage utilities need to procure in coming years. Utilities are generally conservative and hesitant to pursue new technologies unless pushed or clearly allowed. But this problem is particularly heightened when it comes to long-duration storage. That’s because utilities, if given a megawatt target for storage they must deploy, will likely acquire storage without considering the benefits of having a diverse portfolio of technologies that can deliver energy over different durations. As a result, Michigan may lose out on the operational benefits that come from having a diversified storage portfolio. These benefits include the ability of long-duration storage to make firing up high-emitting, fossil-fuel-burning peaker plants unnecessary because the storage can provide more reliable, cleaner and cheaper alternatives. They also include overall cost and land-use savings, by storing renewable energy when it would otherwise be wasted and shifting it over long time periods when it is most needed.

Second, speaking of substitutes for fossil fuel plants, the Commission should identify which power plant sites around the state could be good candidates for being replaced with long-duration storage projects. Michigan’s coal-fired power plants are almost all retired, with Consumers Energy this year set to retire its final coal plant in Ottawa County. Long-duration storage could be fitting replacements for not only those plants, but also gas plants that will be reaching the end of their life cycles in coming years.

With its storage targets, Michigan has already become one of the national leaders in energy storage. Let’s further cement that reputation by taking steps now for smart planning for long-duration storage. All Michiganders stand to benefit from the potential for long-duration storage to enable an electric grid that is cleaner, lower-cost and more reliable.

Commentary: How Michigan regulators can help advance energy storage 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.