The following was taken from Paige Knutsen’s opening remarks at the 2025 Midwest Energy Solutions Conference. The remarks have been shortened and edited for clarity. Watch the full remarks here.  

With any new administration, there are lots of changes. We can expect changes at the Department of Energy. We can expect changes at FERC and the EPA and more. Load growth is a big concern – with data centers, batteries and new reshoring of industry – all these different things are putting additional strain on our grid, and it is our responsibility to help bring solutions together.  

Virtual power plant (VPP) enthusiasts gathered on January 29 at our Midwest Energy Solutions (MES) Conference in Chicago for a collaborative workshop on how to accelerate VPP deployments across the U.S. organized around the imperatives listed in the Department of Energy (DOE) Liftoff Report for VPPs. Virtual power plants are collections of distributed energy resources (DERs) that can be called on to reduce electricity demand peaks. VPPs have the potential capacity to address 10-20% of peak load by 2030 according to the report. 

Building on the first part of this blog series, we’ll discuss the essential roles that stakeholders—program administrators, contractors, community agencies and government bodies—should play in helping underserved households secure the most suitable and cost-effective heat pump system. We will cover strategies that should be considered to mitigate upfront costs and help customers avoid negative utility bill impacts when installing a heat pump.

Heat pumps have been a viable option for heating and cooling for many years, but they are now becoming a leading solution for decarbonization due to their efficiency and ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By transferring heat rather than generating it, heat pumps offer a sustainable way to decrease energy consumption. As America transitions from traditional heating and cooling systems to heat pumps, it is vital to prioritize equity. Although heat pumps can result in significant energy savings, they can sometimes lead to higher utility bills, particularly in regions with low natural gas prices and high electricity costs, like in parts of the Midwest.

In our recent blog post Energy Markets 101: Regional Transmission Organizations, Independent System Operators and Energy Efficiency we discussed Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs), Independent System Operators (ISOs) and wholesale electricity markets. If you’re not familiar with the RTOs and their capacity markets, go back and read Part 1. In this follow up, we’ll dive into how energy efficiency has historically participated in PJM’s capacity market and recent complaints filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in more detail.

We all know that the cheapest kilowatt is the one not used, but how is energy efficiency actually valued? The organizations that operate electricity markets, the Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs) have a large hand in customer rates and therefore, the price of energy efficiency. With that in mind, we thought it would be a great time to discuss RTOs, ISOs and the structure of our energy markets.

In June, more than 100 MEEA members gathered in St. Louis, MO for a workforce development workshop led by Quinn Parker, Founder and CEO, Encolor and Paul Douglas, President, JPI Group.

Our curious readers might be itching to know if MEEA is at the forefront of the distributional equity analysis (DEA) implementation effort, so I’m happy to share that we are participating in a DEA case study taking place in Illinois! The case study, funded by the Joyce Foundation and E4TheFuture, consists of team members from E4TheFuture, Synapse Energy Economics and MEEA.

We’re seeing a lot of positive movement across the energy landscape, especially regarding electric and gas utilities. There’s a lot of available funding and new policies being proposed and passed, highlighting energy efficiency as a major goal across the country. With opportunities beckoning and energy system improvements seemingly just around the corner, it can be hard to resist the urge to strike while the iron is hot. However, all communities in the Midwest will be unable to reap the benefits of energy efficiency without an intentional reflection on how these proposed energy system changes affect different customers and communities.   

Off-site construction can decrease project time by 50% (Page 3) due to industrialization of the building components and the ability to complete site work, such as laying the foundation, concurrently. These time-saving benefits are lost, however, when there is uncertainty about who or how these structures and processes are inspected and deployed. Since the process of how these structures get commissioned varies from state to state and even city to city, each new project may encounter its own set of hurdles.