Category: Midwest

Among an early-November blizzard of clean energy-related bills approved by Michigan legislators is one requiring electric utilities to source 100 percent of electricity generation from renewable sources by 2040.

Signed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, SB 271 makes Michigan the third Midwestern state to set a 100 percent clean energy standard in statutory stone — joining Illinois and Minnesota — and the 17th nationwide to do so. Four other states, including Wisconsin, have declared 100 percent clean energy goals by an executive order.

SB 271 also sets a statewide energy storage requirement of 2.5 gigawatts of utility-scale battery capacity by 2030 to store wind and solar power, making Michigan the second Midwestern state (after Illinois) to do so. The new law is part of a five-bill package that codifies myriad provisions in Whitmer’s September 2020 executive order that called for a completely carbon-neutral state economy by 2050.

Others will likely be part of legislation in 2024, says SB 271’s main sponsor, Michigan Sen. Sam Singh.

“We wanted to be able to codify a lot of those ideas [in Whitmer’s order],” Singh says. “A lot of states have begun the process of working toward 100 percent clean energy, this provides stronger guidelines to our utilities and a more aggressive timeline.”

That timeline includes an interim benchmark of 80 percent clean energy-sourced electricity by 2035.

To meet the storage goal, utilities must petition the Michigan Public Service Commission by the end of 2029 for approval to build storage facilities, along with plans to build them.

Each utility’s share of the statewide storage capacity total will be based on its annual average contribution to Michigan’s in-state electric load for the five-year period immediately preceding the filing of those plans.

Michigan’s new law is similar to Illinois’ 2021 Clean Energy & Jobs Act and Minnesota’s 2023 energy omnibus bill.

Illinois’s law (SB 2408) includes interim benchmarks of 40 percent by 2030 and 50 percent by 2040, and directs the Illinois Commerce Commission to set energy storage goals to be met by 2032 for all utilities serving more than 200,000 customers.

Minnesota’s SF 4 sets an interim of 80 percent by 2030 and raises the state’s renewable portfolio standard — the amount of electricity that must be generated by renewable technologies — to 55 percent by 2035, but doesn’t set energy storage requirements.

Clean energy goals are the latest development from a trend that began in 1983, when Iowa enacted the nation’s first renewable portfolio standard.

Minnesota adopted one in 1994, Wisconsin in 1998, then Illinois in 2007 and both Michigan and Ohio in 2008, and Kansas in 2009.

Why set clean energy standards?

Setting clean energy goals or standards in law is important because they give clear direction to utilities and energy developers, says Warren Leon, executive director of the Clean Energy States Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of energy agencies in 18 states that advocates for the rapid expansion of clean energy technologies.

A law is more permanent than an executive order, thus it signals to energy markets that your state has better stability in its renewable energy sector, Leon adds.

Michigan Sen. Sean McCann, chair of the Senate Energy & Environment Committee, says legal standards also ensure an energy transition actually happens. While the state’s two biggest utilities (DTE Energy and Consumers Energy) are working aggressively to meet self-set clean energy goals, legislators weren’t inclined to leave that to them alone, he says.

“We can’t leave things to hope and wishes,” McCann says.

Singh agrees, adding Michigan’s version provides flexibility by letting the Public Service Commission review and extend deadlines if it determines circumstances warrant a delay.

Another bill signed into law, HB 5120, wasn’t part of this legislative package, but is related.

Like Illinois’ new siting law (HB 4412), it shifts siting authority for wind, solar and energy storage projects from local governments to the state (the Michigan Public Service Commission) and bars local jurisdictions from imposing requirements more restrictive than those in state law.

“There was a strong sense that we needed to review our siting process” and treat renewable energy infrastructure the same as other critical energy infrastructure like pipelines, Singh says.

Of all Midwestern states, Illinois has the shortest path to 100 percent clean energy — if clean energy is defined as not carbon-based, which would include nuclear power. In that case, 66.4 percent of electricity generation in Illinois was fueled by clean energy in 2022, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

While the definition of clean energy varies from state to state, Leon says its definitions generally fit within a framework of decarbonization.

“We say we want to help you learn from other states, we want to help you learn about best practices, we want to help you be successful,” he says, “but it’s your decision on how to proceed and which direction you choose to go.”

---

NEW LAWS IN MICHIGAN’S ‘CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE’ LEGISLATIVE PLAN

• SB 273 limits energy waste benchmarks to 1.5 percent of the previous year’s total megawatts for electric utilities and 0.875 percent for natural gas utilities (starting in 2026).

• SB 277 allows farmers to use land for solar projects without jeopardizing state income tax credits under Michigan’s Farmland & Open Space Preservation program.

• SB 502 requires the Michigan Public Service Commission to approve financial incentives for utilities to sign power purchase agreements with third parties for clean energy or energy storage.

• SB 519 creates the Community & Worker Transition Office in the Department of Labor & Economic Opportunity to help workers and communities shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy resources. 

The post Michigan’s new clean energy laws include a 100 percent clean energy goal, but what does that mean in practical policy? appeared first on CSG Midwest.

Emily Dievendorf’s legislative district includes the urban center of Lansing as well as many acres of farmland surrounding Michigan’s capital city.

Among the issues the first-term lawmaker has found to unite her constituents, regardless of where they live, is an interest in helping families hold on to land as it passes from one generation to the next. That includes the preservation of family farms across her district and the state.

Earlier this year, Dievendorf introduced HB 4924, a bill that aims to improve the process of property transfers as well as provide new protections for heirs. “Many folks would be assumed to be on different sides of the political conversation and when it comes to this, they aren’t,” explains Dievendorf, “because we’re recognizing what happens over hundreds of years when you are not able to pass on the results of your work.”

If HB 4924 becomes law, Michigan would join two other states in the Midwest, Iowa and Illinois, that have made similar statutory changes in recent years.

In all, 20 U.S. states have adopted the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act (or measures  “substantially similar”) since the nonpartisan Uniform Law Commission drafted the model legislation in 2010.

What is heirs’ property?

When a landowner dies without a will, the land passes to his or her heirs according to state law. When there are multiple heirs, they all become owners of an undivided interest in land as “tenants-in-common.”

After several generations of land being passed without a will, it is possible (and common) for land to be owned by many individuals. In some instances, there may be as many as 80 owners of a single tract of land.

Unanimous decision-making on the property is required by the tenants-in-common. Additionally, each tenant-in-common has the right to seek partition from the court in one of two ways:

1) request the physical division of the land into smaller parcels, known as partition-in-kind; or, if that is not possible,

2) partition by a court-ordered sale.

When the Uniform Law Commission drafted the legislation, it described flaws within the current system this way:

“Tenants-in-common are vulnerable because any individual tenant can force a partition. Too often, real estate speculators acquire a small share of heirs’ property in order to file a partition action and force a sale. Using this tactic, an investor can acquire the entire parcel for a price well below its fair market value and deplete a family’s inherited wealth in the process.”

The Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act aims to preserve generational land wealth — whether that land is a city lot or a family farm.

“[The act] doesn’t change a state’s inheritance laws, it changes the processes,” says Rusty Rumley, an attorney with the National Agricultural Law Center.

For example, it requires notice, a court-ordered independent appraisal of the property’s value, and a right of first refusal, thus allowing co-tenants to buy out the party seeking partition. Perhaps most importantly, Rumley says, the act requires an open-market commercial sale rather than auction if the co-tenants cannot come to an agreement.

Traditionally, court-ordered sales are completed via an auction. Often, though, the only bidders are the speculators or investors who initially requested the partition; as a result, they have been able to purchase the land for less than the market value.

Complications for farmland heirs

Across the Midwest, an estimated 1.24 million acres of land is being held as heirs’ property, according to a 2023 study in the U.S. Journal of Rural Social Sciences. The assessed value of that land is estimated at a little more than $3 billion.

These numbers could rise as more property, particularly farmland, gets transferred to the next generation. (More than one-third of the nation’s are age 65 or older.) While most farmers have estate plans, a significant number of them do not. Even if there is a plan, complications can lead to land being classified as heirs’ property.

“Any language (whether in a formal estate plan or following the laws of intestacy) that creates a tenancy-in-common ends up as heirs’ property unless those heirs do something proactively to address the issue,” Rumley explains, “such as buying other siblings out or putting the property in a trust.”

Farming land held as heirs’ property is difficult.

Lending agencies will not use heirs’ property as collateral for purposes of issuing financing because the title is considered “clouded.” Without such financing options, investments in farm operations, such as purchasing new land or more equipment, may not be feasible.

Additionally, until passage of the 2018 farm bill, there had been no way for heirs’ property owners to get a farm number, which is necessary to secure federal crop insurance and lending.

That 2018 update was critical, Rep. Dievendorf says. Now, heirs’ property owners can get a farm number, and it is easier if they farm in a state that has adopted the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act. It’s one of the reasons Dievendorf is pushing for the passage of HB 4924 in Michigan.

Still, complications remain for heirs. As a result, those who want to farm may be pushed out of the industry, forced to sell, or rent the land rather than farm it themselves.

‘For future generations’

Of all the reasons for introducing the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act, Dievendorf says, the most compelling to her was the nation’s history of stripping property from generations of Black and Indigenous Americans, partly through the use of inheritance laws.

Graphic from the Center for Agriculture & Food Systems

Between the end of slavery and 1910, African American farmers acquired 16 million acres of land. Over the next 100 years, their land ownership fell to less than 3 million acres. David Dietric, as co-chair of the American Bar Association’s Property Preservation Task Force, described the ramifications of heirs’ property law as “the worst problem you never heard of.”

Mavis Gragg, a leading expert on heirs’ property, explains that for many years, African American farmers “intentionally would pass ownership through intestate succession” and “forgo having wills that you have to file with the county clerk.” That’s because it was safer if ownership was obscured.

Heirs’ property has impacted Indigenous land ownership as well.

The 1887 Dawes Act permitted the allotment of Native American reservations. Individual members were allowed to own individual parcels, but they were subject to state inheritance laws. Because Native Americans were not legally permitted to use wills to transfer land until 1910, a significant amount of these allotments became heirs’ property.

Fast-forward to today, and legislators such as Dievendorf are looking for a way to ensure future generations don’t unfairly lose their land or wealth.

“[I]t closes a loophole that absolutely should not have existed,” says Dievendorf, adding that by making a change in the law, a state can show “that property equity is not just for the present generation, but for future generations.”

The post Family losses of land and wealth are part of nation’s history; protecting future generations is among the goals of new laws on heirs’ property appeared first on CSG Midwest.

Nine state officials from the Midwest, including seven legislators, have earned a 20 Under 40 Leadership Award from The Council of State Governments. The annual leadership award is for individuals who exemplify strong leadership and a passion for public service.

Among this year’s award recipients are three graduates of the Bowhay Institute for Legislative Leadership Development, a signature program of the CSG Midwestern Legislative Conference that is for legislators in their first four years of service. The award-winning BILLD graduates are Kansas Rep. Tory Marie Blew, North Dakota House Minority Leader Zachary Ista, and Ohio House Assistant Minority Leader Dontavius Jarrells.

Four other legislators from the Midwest also won a CSG 20 Under 40 Leadership Award. They are Michigan Senate Assistant Majority Leader Darrin Camilleri, Kansas House Speaker Pro Tempore Blake Carpenter, Ohio House Democratic Whip Jessica Miranda, and Michigan House Majority Whip Ranjeev Puri.

In all, 20 elected and appointed officials in state government from around the country were chosen for the award. Recipients from the Midwest also include Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services Secretary Dan Hereth and Indiana Division of Mental Health and Addiction Director Jay Chaudhary.

Learn more »

The post Nine state officials from the Midwest are recipients of CSG’s ’20 Under 40′ Leadership Award appeared first on CSG Midwest.

Members of the The Council of State Governments’ Midwestern Radioactive Materials Transportation Committee met in October as part of an ongoing partnership among states and the U.S. Department of Energy. Through the CSG-led interstate committee, legislators and representatives from the Midwest’s state executive branches work across state lines on issues related to the DOE’s transport of radioactive waste and materials, including possible shipments of spent nuclear fuel, through the region.

At their recent meeting, members discussed the inspection processes for highway and rail shipments; learned about a proposed, private interim storage facility in New Mexico where used nuclear fuel from U.S. nuclear plants could be shipped and stored; and toured DOE’s Waste Isolation Plant in New Mexico.

The committee also elected officers at its fall meeting. They are shown in the picture to the right: Tad Rumas of the Ohio Public Services Commission will continue to serve as co-chair, and the new co-chair is Mark Paulson of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

If you have questions about the work of the committee, please contact CSG Midwest’s Mitch Arvidson, program manager for the Midwestern Radioactive Materials Transportation Project.

 

The post CSG Midwest leads project to ensure safe shipment of radioactive materials through region appeared first on CSG Midwest.

Every state in the Midwest has a poverty rate lower than the U.S. average, and Wisconsin and Minnesota have among the smallest percentage of residents living at or below the poverty threshold set by the federal government, the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau show.

When using the supplemental poverty measure, or SPM, the rates in this region range from a low of 5.1 percent in Wisconsin to a high of 8.0 percent in Michigan. The SPM has become a preferred way of gauging poverty because it takes into account several factors that the “official” poverty measure does not — for example, government programs that assist low-income families, geographic variation in housing expenses, state and federal taxes, and work and medical expenses.

Among U.S. states, California has the highest percentage of residents living in poverty (13.2 percent).

Part of a U.S. Census Bureau study released in September, the state-by-state data are based on poverty rates in 2020, 2021 and 2022. The same study also compares changes in national rates between 2021 and 2022, a period in which the number of U.S. residents living in poverty increased significantly, as measured by the SPM. That’s due in large part to the end of pandemic-
related government policies that had expanded the reach of child tax credits, earned income tax credits and health coverage.

Here are some notable national trends and statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau report:

• The overall SPM poverty rate was 12.4 percent in 2022; that is a year-over-year increase of 59 percent.
• The SPM child poverty rate more than doubled: 5.2 percent in 2021 to 12.4 percent in 2022. Among married-couple households, the rate in 2022 was 7.6 percent, compared to 22.6 percent for female-headed households and 14.7 percent for male-headed households.
• In 2022, the most significant government programs moving individuals out of poverty were Social Security (28.9 million people), refundable tax credits (6.4 million) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (3.7 million). On the flip side, medical expenses moved 7.1 million people into poverty.

The post Number of people living in poverty spiked in 2022; rates are relatively low across Midwest appeared first on CSG Midwest.

As companies innovate and develop new products, those products become increasingly complex and computerized, and include more features. Contending that those features are proprietary, companies frequently restrict access to diagnostic tools or repair schematics, leaving consumers without the ability to repair the products they now own. Ideally, a free market would correct this problem without intervention.

Consumers simply wouldn’t buy products from manufacturers who fail to provide access to repair information. However, that approach gets muddled when the product is a durable good, designed to last many years.

The need for consumer protection also increases when product servicing is vertically integrated into an original equipment manufacturer’s business model. Some businesses may generate more revenue from servicing a product than from selling it. For example, Bloomberg News reported in 2020 that John Deere earned three to six times more in revenue from its sales on parts and servicing equipment than it earned from original sales.

How can consumers be better protected, including Midwestern farmers and ranchers whose operations rely on the purchase and repair of durable equipment?.

State right-to-repair laws and private-party memorandums of understanding (MOUs) are two options to ensure access to the diagnostics and data embedded in a whole range of products — from $800,000 tractors to small household appliances. Both methods have advantages.

Well-crafted repair laws or MOUs give owners and independent shops the information and tools necessary to fix products. When the law or MOU contains strong compliance provisions, competition within the aftermarket repair industry adds a second layer of consumer protection — a viable marketplace filled with choices for consumers on how to repair a product (including where the work is done and by whom).

First-in-the-Midwest law excludes farm equipment

Over the past several years, there has been an uptick in right-to-repair legislative proposals, with measures introduced in 30 different states in 2023, according to the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG). Among them: Illinois’ HB 3593, Iowa’s HF 587, Michigan’s HB 4562, Ohio’s SB 273 and South Dakota’s SB 194.

These state measures vary on which products are covered and which are exempted from a right-to repair statute. For example, a new Colorado law (HB 23-1011) includes farm equipment, while Minnesota’s recently enacted SF 2744 excludes these products.

According to Minnesota Sen. Robert Kupec, author of his state’s right-to-repair measure (part of the omnibus SF 2744), the exclusion of farm equipment was intentional. These products were removed from the bill due in part to a national MOU signed in early 2023 by the American Farm Bureau Federation and John Deere.

In that MOU, John Deere agreed to provide diagnostic tools and information to farmers and independent repair shops. In exchange, the Farm Bureau agreed to discontinue right-to-repair lobbying efforts.

Other major agriculture equipment manufacturers such as Case, New Holland, AGCO, Kubota and CLAAS have since signed national MOUs with the Farm Bureau. The issue in the farm sector had been addressed, Kupec says, allowing Minnesota lawmakers to focus on other products and industries.

The right-to-repair provisions in SF 2744 ultimately received broad legislative support and have been hailed as one of the most comprehensive actions by a U.S. state to date. It also is the first right-to-repair law in the Midwest.

Pierce Bennett, policy director for the Minnesota Farm Bureau, says agricultural producers in the state support the national MOU between the Farm Bureau and John Deere. According to Bennett, members generally prefer resolutions through private-party measures, thus limiting the need for government regulation. And more specifically, the agreements allow farmers to buy access to software manuals, as well as the diagnostic tools needed to service their equipment.

Previously, farmers had to wait for technicians to resolve issues, sometimes a costly delay during harvesting seasons. Still, as evidenced by the Colorado law, some legislators believe right-to-repair laws should cover farm equipment to provide stronger consumer protection.

Enforcing private right-to-repair agreements

An MOU, just like any law, is only as good as written, and state legislators should take a close look at the details of these new agreements, says PIRG’s Nathan Proctor, an advocate for state right-to-repair laws. Does the MOU contain provisions on enforcement? Does it apply to the entire industry? If so, Proctor says, it can be just as effective as a law.

He points to a 2014 agreement between the automotive industry and independent repair shops as an example of an effective MOU. Regarding farm equipment, though, Proctor says the MOUs have failed to include enforceability mechanisms. He also notes that while the American Farm Bureau is the largest organization of farmers, not all groups were included in the negotiations and some are still seeking state laws because of the lack of enforceability.

Another concern is the quality of the information and diagnostic tools made available. According to Proctor, PIRG investigators found instances of a company’s own technicians having better diagnostic tools and repair information than those made available to farmers and independent repair shops, placing these groups at a disadvantage.

When considering MOUs as a substitute for a right-to-repair law, Proctor adds, policymakers also should also consider differences among industry sectors and the legal environment. The automotive industry’s MOU worked because a Massachusetts law would have taken effect if the agreement had been breached. Perhaps even more significantly, Proctor notes, roughly 75 percent of the aftermarket car-repair industry is comprised of independent shops (non-manufacturers). In contrast, only a small percentage of farm equipment repairs are made independent of the manufacturer.

The Farm Bureau maintains that its MOUs will compel manufacturers to produce meaningful repair information and will demonstrate their effectiveness over time. Bennett says he has not heard any complaints from Minnesota members regarding access to repair information.

Colorado’s right-to-repair law was signed in April. Starting in January, agriculture equipment manufacturers will be required to make repair information and tools available. Provisions in the farm sector’s new MOUs allow manufacturers to withdraw from these agreements upon enactment of state right-to-repair measures; however, none have done so since passage of the Colorado law.

The post Year of ‘right to repair’: Activity has included new state laws, private agreements covering farm equipment and many legislative proposals appeared first on CSG Midwest.

In the Midwest, drops in students’ test scores on reading are widespread and, in many states, predate the COVID-19 pandemic. One group that has taken notice and recent action to reverse that trend: state legislators.

“Kids that don’t know how to read or aren’t reading at a proficient level by third grade are exponentially more likely to drop out of school,” notes Indiana Rep. Jake Teshka, chief author of a new law on reading in his state.

The research is definitive on that point, he adds, and the consequences also are clear. Young people don’t attain the postsecondary credentials they need for economic and career success, and the state as a whole is left with a workforce problem.

“Jobs coming to Indiana are increasingly going to require some sort of postsecondary education,” Teshka adds.

He believes a new law in Indiana can help turn around those trends in reading performance.

In Wisconsin, Rep. Joel Kitchens authored a like-minded bill in his home state, with some of the same long-term concerns about student outcomes in mind.

“When people ask me, ‘What scares you the most about the future,’ [it] is seeing more and more people trapped in that cycle of poverty, one generation after the other,” Kitchens says. “The only chance we have of breaking that is education. And basically, if we don’t get [students] reading early, it’s just not going to happen.”

Laws in Indiana, Wisconsin and other states are revamping schools’ reading instructional strategies and promoting (sometimes requiring) approaches that adhere to what is known as the “science of reading,” or SoR.

Context of new laws on reading instruction

Although not comprised of a universally recognized curriculum model, SoR is an approach to reading instruction that emphasizes phonetic learning, the sounding out of letters and words. For the last few decades, a “reading war” of sorts has waged throughout academia regarding reading instruction.

Is phonics the best approach? Or do other strategies work best for students?

For example, with the “three-cueing” model, an emphasis is placed on students using context clues and analyzing syntax in order to understand written language. In practice, a teacher using this method would prompt students, or “cue” them, to ascertain the meaning of a word in a sentence by asking a series of questions: Does it make sense? Does it sound right? Does it look right?

The problem with this method, according to critics, is this style of instruction simply makes students better guessers. It’s more akin to the strategies used by people who have difficulty reading, they say.

Proponents of the recently enacted state laws say SoR is more closely aligned with the tenets of cognitive science. That’s because lessons built on phonemic awareness and phonics better connect how children auditorily learn how to speak, a primal ability of humans, to how they learn to read, a more complex and relatively modern skill.

“We have tangible physical evidence as far as the way that the brain works and the way that orthographic mapping works and the way that we commit words to memory,” Teshka says. “And the process by which we do that is all encompassed in this body of research called ‘science of reading.’ ”

Teshka’s goal with this year’s HB 1558 (signed into law in May) is to make sure evidence-based instruction from that research is used in Indiana classrooms.

The SoR movement has also gained traction in part because of recent progress in Mississippi, a state that traditionally has had among the nation’s lowest reading scores. A turnaround has occurred in that state over the past decade, since passage of the Literacy-Based Promotion Act and the Early Learning Collaborative Act.

With those laws in place, money started going toward SoR-based professional development for all early-grade teachers and school administrators.

Mississippi schools also received new resources from the state, including literacy coaches — individuals with advanced degrees who work with teachers as well as one-on-one with students.

“[The] coaches were put through a rigorous interview process to make sure they had the right background knowledge and knew how to work with adults,” former Mississippi State Superintendent Carey Wright said during an interview earlier this year with McKinsey & Company.

“We were strategic in how we deployed these people and how we built capacity for teachers and leaders.”

Between 2013 and 2019, average fourth-grade reading scores in Mississippi increased significantly. Additionally, 65 percent of students in this grade were reading at a basic level or higher, up from 53 percent in 2013. These advances were also seen across multiple racial and ethnic groups.

The post With ‘science of reading’ laws, states eye turnaround in recent trends appeared first on CSG Midwest.

Across the Midwest, interest in new solar and wind projects is on the rise, but who should make the  decisions on approving or denying proposals to build them?

The policy choice on siting authority ultimately rests with state legislatures, which in this region have generally taken one of two approaches: 1) leave it to local governments; or 2) carve out a role for state review and decision-making, especially when it comes to larger wind or solar farms (see map).

This question of state vs. local control has been getting a close look in state capitols. The result has been legislative proposals in many Midwestern states, and new laws in at least three: Ohio, Illinois and  Indiana.

A regional overview

States such as Indiana, Iowa, Kansas and Michigan leave siting decisions entirely or mostly with counties or other local jurisdictions.

In contrast, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin split siting authority in some way between state and local authorities based on a proposed project’s size: larger projects fall under state jurisdiction while smaller ones are left to local authorities.

That threshold on when siting authority transfers from local to state control varies. For wind projects, for example, it is:

• 0.5 megawatts in North Dakota,
• 5 MW in Minnesota (though local authorities have the option to retain permitting authority as well for projects up to 25 MW in size); and
• 100 MW in Wisconsin.

In South Dakota, local jurisdictions have authority over facilities of less than 100 MW, but the Public Utility Commission must be notified for construction of facilities above 5 MW.

“There’s a logic behind that,” Brian Ross, vice president of renewable energy for the Minneapolis-based Great Plains Institute for Sustainable Development, says about this hybrid approach to siting. “When a project reaches a certain size, it has impacts that are regional in scope and should be considered  regionally.”

In most cases, he adds, state agencies are the ones big enough to have the expertise necessary to take that broader, regional view.

More local control in Ohio

In Ohio, the state’s Power Siting Board has long had control over the siting decisions of major utility facilities. A 2021 law (SB 52), however, gave local authorities a much bigger say in the approval or  rejection of wind and solar projects.

First, the county board president and township commissioner (or their designees) where a project has  been proposed now become ad hoc voting members of this board, which has seven standing, voting members and four non-voting legislative members.

Second, county boards can now designate any unincorporated areas within their jurisdiction as “restricted,” meaning new wind or solar facilities cannot be built there. This designation also can be  sought by local residents via a referendum.

Since passage of the law, several Ohio counties have used their new powers to ban large wind and solar projects.

A similar trend had been occurring in Illinois, but led to a much different response from the General Assembly.

Illinois: Binding standards

Before 2023, Illinois was among the Midwestern states that left siting decisions to local authorities. But after passage of the Climate & Equitable Jobs Act of 2021 (SB 2408), which sets a binding target of  having a carbon-free power sector by 2045, Sen. Bill Cunningham says legislators began seeing counties enact wind and solar siting regulations so strict they were de facto bans.

“There was a feeling that that was a violation of the intent of the [2021] law, and why state standards were necessary,” he says.

Hence HB 4412, an amended bill that he sponsored and became law in early 2023. It establishes statewide siting, zoning and setback standards for commercial-size wind and solar projects.

For instance, setback distances for wind towers are set at 1.1 times the maximum blade tip height from
public rights-of-way and property lines, and 2.1 times that height from schools, houses of worship, day care or community centers, libraries or residences on properties that are not part of the project. Setback distances for solar facilities are set at 50 feet.

Illinois’ new law still allows county boards to vote on proposed projects, but bans county ordinances from being more restrictive than the state setback standards. It also requires counties with siting or zoning standards for wind and solar facilities to hold a public hearing within 45 days of a project application’s submission for approval.

And another provision in the new law bars counties and municipalities from instituting outright bans.

Illinois’ new hybrid approach is unusual among states, Ross says.

“It certainly removed a procedural barrier, but I would raise the point that there were 15 counties that had effectively banned renewable energy projects,” he adds. “There were 90 counties that didn’t, and they had their right stripped just like those 15 had.”

Cunningham notes, though, that the 2021 law left it to counties to adopt reasonable standards for wind and solar. Most did just that, he says, and the new state-level standards embrace and reflect many of those recently set at the county level.

He believes the new law strikes a good balance — establish state standards but leave counties with the final say. That’s different, he adds, from state standards for livestock containment facilities that remove all local control.

“We didn’t want to go that far,” Cunningham says.

Indiana: Voluntary Rules

Signed into law in 2022, Indiana’s SB 411 sets out voluntary criteria covering common siting and zoning issues; for example, height restrictions, setback requirements, sound limits, drainage-related infrastructure repair, and steps for project decommissioning.

By adopting these standards, local jurisdictions receive the designation as “wind ready” and/or “solar ready” communities and can get technical assistance from the state.

In 2023, legislators approved a follow-up measure (SB 390) that may provide future financial incentives
($1 per megawatt hour of electricity generated) to these wind- and solar-ready counties. SB 390 did not appropriate state dollars for the incentive fund, however; instead, federal grant money would be needed.

In a March 2023 press release, Indiana Sen. Mark Messmer, who authored both recent laws, said  communities are now able to “send a signal” to developers that they are interested in exploring wind or solar opportunities.

Ross notes Indiana’s SB 411 was “a consensus piece of legislation” that retains local control. Bills in Indiana to establish mandatory standards have failed to advance.

“Which one of these processes [in the states] will result in more renewable energy development? We’ll have to wait and see,” Ross says.

The post Siting of wind, solar projects differs across region; new laws in Ohio, Illinois and Indiana employ varying approaches to state vs. local control appeared first on CSG Midwest.

The launch of a potentially transformative service to help people in a mental health crisis began with laws and funding from the U.S. Congress. But over the long term, states will determine the scope of the new 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline and how it is funded.

The 988 system began in July 2022, and call volume has been up 40 percent in comparison to what it replaced: the 10-digit National Suicide Prevention Line.

“There has been a huge contact surge, and that’s with very little national promotion,” says Stephanie Pasternak, director of state affairs for the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI).

The fact that more people in crisis are being reached means more suicides can be prevented and more individuals can be connected to counseling and services. For states, though, the challenge becomes building up an infrastructure and workforce to meet increased demand.

‘Vital for people in crisis’

Under a 2020 federal law, states were given the authority to create a dedicated telecommunications fee for 988 services. This money can be used not only to ensure call centers are adequately staffed with trained crisis counselors, but also to fund mobile crisis response teams and stabilization services.

Three years later, eight U.S. states, including Minnesota, have created a dedicated fee structure — a monthly, per-line charge on phone bills along with a retailer-based fee for prepaid wireless services.
“We view 988 as vital for people who are in crisis,” Minnesota Sen. Melissa Wiklund says, “and so we wanted to find a way to provide sustainable funding for it, similar to the 911 telecommunications fee.

“It’s a way to emphasize that having appropriate access to a crisis line is equally important as having access to critical emergencies with physical health impacts.”

She and other legislators decided to set the monthly, per-line surcharge on phone bills at a maximum of 25 cents.

It could be lower, though.

The state’s health commissioner will recommend the rate based on what is needed to support the lifeline. Minnesota’s new law spells out how revenue from the fee can be used: staffing and technology needs, data collection, promotion of 988, and administration and oversight.

Among the eight states with dedicated fee structures, the monthly surcharge on phone bills ranges from 12 cents to 60 cents, according to NAMI. That variation is partially because of differences in how states want the fee to be used.

In Virginia, a 12-cent surcharge will raise about $10 million a year and only go toward establishing and administering a crisis call center. In contrast, the state of Washington expects to collect $47 million in fiscal year 2027 from its 40-cent fee; this money can be used to fund call centers, mobile crisis response teams and stabilization services.

“What we’ve been seeing is states taking a close look at all the funding sources that they have for mental health services, where there are gaps and where they’d like to expand, and then using the fee to fill those gaps,” Pasternak says.

Minnesota’s new fee was a part of a much larger 2023 omnibus health budget bill. The section of the legislation on 988 doesn’t specifically reference mobile crisis teams or stabilization services. However, other parts of SF 2995 fund an expansion of mental health services, including $17 million in grants over the next two years for mobile crisis teams.

Made up of mental health professionals, these teams provide rapid responses to crisis situations, helping divert individuals from psychiatric hospitalization while connecting them to ongoing care.

Minnesota has included these grants over the past several budget cycles to expand mobile crisis services across the state.

‘A good time for states to move’

Most Midwestern state legislatures have passed 988 laws over the past few years (see map). These measures have established new 988 trust funds, set up statewide councils to oversee the system, and/or appropriated general-fund dollars.

This year, for instance, Ohio adopted a two-year budget that includes more than $46 million to support 988-related operations and services. A separate measure in that state, HB 231, would create a 10-cent surcharge on monthly phone bills.

Kansas Rep. Brenda Landwehr says discussions in her state about 988 funding began with the idea of some kind of telecommunications fee, but very few states had adopted such a dedicated funding source at the time.

In 2022, the Legislature instead chose to fund the system, at least over the next few years, via an annual general-fund appropriation of $10 million (SB 19). This money must be used to ensure the “efficient and effective routing of calls,” or for the personnel needed for follow-up responses to these calls (including mobile crisis teams and stabilization services).

One notable part of this 2022 law, Landwehr says, was to include people with intellectual or developmental disabilities as among the individuals served by the 988 system. Over the long run, her hope with 988 is that Kansas residents are guaranteed adequate, rapid responses to mental health crises — regardless of where they live.

That guarantee gets more difficult in some rural areas of the state, especially due to shortages in the mental-health workforce. “We’re strapped just like all other states are … we just do not have enough therapists out there,” Landwehr says.

In future sessions, she expects the Kansas Legislature to again consider adopting a telecommunications fee for 988, instead of depending on year-to-year general-fund appropriations.

Many other legislatures are likely to do the same.

Early on, Pasternak says, states have been able to rely on federal dollars and grants to support these systems, but fiscal conditions are changing while calls and texts to the new lifeline system are going up.

“The [telecommunications] fee opportunity doesn’t expire; states can take advantage of that anytime,” she notes. “So it’s something that may roll out over time.

“But now is really a good time for states to move. They’ve got a year’s worth of data on their 988 systems, and so they now have a much better idea of what the costs are and about the revenue they need to sustain [988] over the long term.”

 

 

The post Call volume has jumped with rollout of 988 lifeline; in many states, long-term funding of new crisis-care system is not yet settled appeared first on CSG Midwest.

The 2023 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission took place Sept. 18-20 in Chicago and Normal, Illinois.

The meeting began at Chicago Union Station, where commissioners, partners and allies gathered to hear presentations as well as tour the station. They then took a late-afternoon Lincoln Service train to Normal, Illinois, for the remainder of the meeting.

In Chicago, meeting participants were briefed on plans for the station’s renovation and track/platform capacity expansion and new equipment for regional service in the Midwest. They also got a preview of improvements made by Illinois to allow for 110-mile-per-hour service in the Chicago-St. Louis corridor.

In Normal, they were welcomed by Mayor (and Amtrak Board nominee) Chris Koos on the morning of Sept. 19 before getting presentations on the commission’s activities in 2023, passenger rail updates from member state departments of transportation, and officials from Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration.

On Sept. 20, MIPRC commissioners preliminarily set the 2024 Annual Meeting for Minnesota (with dates to be determined), gave final approval to the fiscal year 2024 budget and elected (or re-elected) a new slate of officers. They are, from left to right in the picture, Scott Rogers, Beth McCluskey and Peter Anastor.

• McCluskey, associate vice president and director of intermodal growth at TYLin International (the Illinois governor’s designee to the commission), is the new MIPRC chair. She previously served as chair from 2017-19.
• Anastor, director of the Michigan Department of Transportation’s Office of Rail (Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s designee), was re-elected as MIPRC vice chair.
• Rogers, vice president of governmental affairs for the Eau Claire Area Chamber of Commerce (Wisconsin’s private sector appointee), returns as the MIPRC financial officer.

MIPRC is an eight-state interstate compact organization that promotes, coordinates and supports regional improvements to passenger rail service. Member states are Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and Wisconsin. Iowa, Ohio, Nebraska and South Dakota are also eligible to join.

CSG Midwest provides secretariat services to MIPRC.

 

 

 

 

 

The post Leaders of passenger rail explore future improvements to system in the Midwest appeared first on CSG Midwest.