Critics say miners get gold, ratepayers get shaft in Upper Peninsula transmission upgrade

Posted on 07/31/2012 by Kari Lydersen

The fate of the Presque Isle power plant in Marquette, Michigan is among the factors driving a major transmission upgrade in the Upper Peninsula. (Photo by Christopher P. Bills via Creative Commons)

As plans progress for a major transmission upgrade to serve Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, opponents say the region’s revived mining industry – not ratepayers – should shoulder the cost.

American Transmission Company (ATC) plans to build hundreds of miles of new high voltage lines, at a cost of $1 billion, through the forests of northern Wisconsin and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

The Wisconsin-based company says the upgrade is necessary to alleviate the area’s chronic blackouts and ensure a stable power supply as the futures of various coal-burning power plants in the region are in doubt.

Critics — including major environmental and utility watchdog groups and residents – question the scale of the upgrade, and whether the new lines will contribute to ongoing environmental harm by continuing the region’s reliance on coal-fired power.

But also at issue is whether the project is primarily to facilitate new industrial mining operations, a distinction that would change the way the line’s costs are allocated. →

CapX 2020 transmission project enters final stretch

Posted on 07/17/2012 by Frank Jossi

Courtesy of CapX2020

Correction appended.

After years of planning, debate, and regulatory procedures, one of the largest transmission projects in the country is on track to be completed by 2015.

CapX2020 reached a major milestone in receiving an approval from Wisconsin officials in May, while igniting an ownership battle over a related line in the Badger State.

The Wisconsin Public Service Commission in May gave approval to the final CapX2020 leg, which crosses the Mississippi River at Alma, Wisconsin, before heading south toward LaCrosse. Prior to that, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission approved the state’s final portion, from Hampton to Alma, in April.

Although landowners and individuals opposed to CapX have raised objections, the Wisconsin PSC denied all 14 petitions by a 3-0 vote last week. Minnesota’s PUC will soon hear two petitions against the project. →

Why wind farms sometimes pay to get rid of power

Posted on 07/03/2012 by Dan Haugen

The Buffalo Ridge wind farm in Minnesota. (Photo by Nic McPhee via Creative Commons)

Wind farms on the wrong side of a congested transmission line sometimes can’t give away the power they produce.

Instead, they have to pay someone to take it off their hands.

Negative prices are a rare quirk in the wholesale electricity market. They usually occur at night in areas with lots of wind, nuclear or hydropower and not enough customers or transmission to absorb it all.

After California, the Midwest’s regional electricity grid has the second most-frequent occurrences of negative wholesale prices, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

It’s still not very common. On the hourly day-ahead market managed by the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator (MISO), negative prices occur just over 0.02 percent of the time. →

A ‘rural energy revolution’ in Germany

Posted on 06/14/2012 by Dan Haugen

Solar panels on a farm in Germany. (Photo by Ingmar Zihorsky via Creative Commons)

Germany’s electricity grid operators warned last month that if the country wants to meet its goal of phasing out nuclear power by 2022, it’s going to need more than 2,300 miles of additional transmission lines to carry electricity from new renewable sources.

The scale of grid expansion, let alone the gigawatts of proposed offshore wind farms and other renewable generation that will have to be built, has some questioning whether the post-Fukushima energy transition is realistic.

There may be another way for Germany — and the world — to meet its renewable energy goals, and it leads through the rural countryside.

Germany is seeing a “rural energy revolution,” according to a report from the Heinrich Böll Foundation, a nonprofit with ties to the country’s Green Party. German farmers are pooling resources with their neighbors to buy and install solar panels, erect wind turbines, and build biogas digesters and district heating systems.
→

Q&A: Envisioning Minnesota’s future electricity system

Posted on 01/31/2012 by Dan Haugen

What do Minnesotans want their electricity system look like in the year 2040?

That’s the question a group of civic, business and community leaders are working to answer as part of a nonprofit policy forum.

Annie Levenson-Falk, policy director for the Citizens League

The Citizen League is a “multi-issue, multi-partisan” organization that aims to build common ground around important policy matters in Minnesota. The organization is just turning 60 years old, and over the last six decades it’s worked on “pretty much any state policy issue you can think of,” says policy manager Annie Levenson-Falk.

The organization brought together about 100 people last year (including policy experts from Fresh Energy, which publishes Midwest Energy News) to begin envisioning the state’s future electricity infrastructure.

The group recently released a report covering the first phase of its discussion, which identified affordability, competitiveness, efficiency, self-reliance, and minimizing environmental impact as goals to strive for. In the next phase, beginning early this year, the group will attempt to develop policy recommendations to help meet those goals.

Midwest Energy News spoke with Levenson-Falk last week about how the project is progressing:

MwEN: How and why did the Citizens League decide to look at the state’s electrical system?

Levenson-Falk: Electrical energy is one of the major [issues] that we are working on. The way this project came together is that our members identified electrical energy as an issue that is not at a crisis point in Minnesota, so it’s not something that’s at the front of a lot of people’s agendas unless you work in the field, but it is really important for the future of the state. It’s a lot of major infrastructure, so change happens over the course of decades. So we really need to get out in front of this before it becomes a problem.

Minnesota is pretty well positioned in terms of our university, the research that we do here, the business community that we have here and the things that are developing. We really want to take advantage of this opportunity to be a leader on energy issues. A lot of people already are working on electrical energy, and we don’t want to overlap things that are already being done, but a lot of that work is happening within particular sectors, the focus of business or if it’s solar or wind. They don’t often come together and work across sectors with a long term view of what’s best for the state, what that state needs.

Who’s involved and how has the process worked?

We’ve had more than 100 people involved overall. It’s really a host of folks from the business community, from different types of utilities, academic, environmental organizations, citizens who aren’t affiliated with any particular group but are interested in good policy and because they want Minnesota to succeed.

When you’re talking about something like electricity it’s so ubiquitous that everybody has an interest in it.

What does an ideal Minnesota electrical energy system look like?

Everyone pretty much agrees on six or seven key characteristics, like it has to be affordable, it has to be efficient, it has to be sustainable… those types of things, which you can’t really say no to. When you start to dig a little bit deeper, everyone has a different meaning behind those. So the point of our first phase was before we start talking about how do we make it affordable or efficient, let’s talk about what that actually means.

The next phase of the project is going to be: how do we get there?

Why not just leave this up to the utilities and their regulators to worry about?

Utilities are certainly doing a lot of work on this, and Minnesota is in a better position than a lot of other states … but we really heard there is a lack of a space for folks from the utility sector, the business sector, the community, citizens, environmentalists, to all come together and talk about the common good for the state and the long-term focus.

How do you plan to keep this from becoming just a document that sits on the shelf but is never implemented?

We really take that into consideration in all of our policy work. We try to involve the people who are impacted by a problem to help define it and come up with the solutions, but then we also say when you’re coming to the table you have to bring your resources with you. What “resources” means might vary. Obviously if you are the head of Xcel versus a residential customer, the kind of experience and expertise and resources you bring to the table are different.

The next phase is going to be convening a lot of those same people to come up with recommendations to reach [those goals], and then hopefully along the line we’ll have those people involved who need to be a part of moving those recommendations forward.

The Citizen League’s Electrical Energy Phase I report is available here. People who want to get involved with Phase II can contact Annie Levenson-Falk at alevensonfalk@citizensleague.org or 651-289-1072.

Playing the health card

Posted on 01/24/2012 by Ken Paulman

What does this bowl of carrots have in common with a smart meter? Keep reading.

Today’s story on smart meter opposition takes a closer look at health claims made by critics of the technology.

Smart meter opponents say radio waves emitting from the devices can be harmful to human health. But existing research has found no evidence to support these claims, and many common household devices, like baby monitors and wireless routers, put out similar doses of microwave energy.

There is equally thin evidence to support claims that power lines are a health hazard, as reporter Dan Haugen found out earlier this month. Opponents cite concerns about magnetic fields from high-voltage lines, which are in reality only a fraction of the strength of the natural magnetic field one is exposed to merely by standing on the earth.

Similarly, numerous reviews of research have failed to find evidence supporting claims that wind turbines are a health hazard. The latest, conducted on behalf of the state of Massachusetts, found only that the noise from turbines could potentially cause sleep disruptions, echoing earlier studies.

So why do these claims persist? Two reasons.

One is that they can’t be fully dismissed – while there’s no solid evidence to date to support these health claims, there’s always the possibility that science simply hasn’t uncovered a connection yet. So while it’s incredibly unlikely that a power line will give you cancer, science can never 100 percent eliminate the possibility. And a few minutes on the internet will turn up dozens of “experts” raising the alarm about just about anything (for instance, baby carrots). For some, that’s all the proof that is needed.

But a more important reason is that these arguments appear to be effective. While we’ve learned to internalize the risk from our cell phones or the microwave oven in the kitchen, new technology (or development that is new to our neighborhood) is more of a mystery. So these claims often get repeated without question in media coverage.

“Linda,” an opponent of a power line project in Montana, put it rather candidly in her comment on Haugen’s post:

Health problems or not, I think many people just have no interest in living under these things. They are loud, ugly, invasive and ultimately reduce quality of life/property for those forced to reside nearby. Not to mention that the benefit of these things is rarely seen by those who have to carry the burden of housing them, yet they see others further down the line having no negative impact but receiving all the “good.” Unfortunately, none of those things seem to hold up very well in court, so people hold on to the health threat potential, as small as it may (or may not) be.

So the fundamental debate here isn’t whether these things are harmful to your health. The opposition is driven more by a sense of fairness – not wanting to bear a disproportionate share of the burden for our shared electricity infrastructure, as well as a desire to control changes to the physical landscape around one’s home.

All of which is completely understandable. But until we all start generating our own electricity, these things have to go in someone’s backyard.

Is there a way to continue developing our electricity infrastructure without disenfranchising affected neighbors? Your thoughts are welcome below-

Photo by Edgar Barrera via Creative Commons

Energy storage creates many winners, so who pays?

Posted on 01/23/2012 by Dan Haugen

The benefits of energy storage projects are far reaching, from reduced maintenance costs at power plants to less price volatility for electricity customers.

That raises a tricky market question for pumped-hydro, compressed air and other types of energy storage projects: Who should pay for them?

Technical difficulties postponed a webinar on Friday, when backers of a recently abandoned energy storage project in Iowa planned to debrief the industry on lessons learned from the project. The group did release its final report, published by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Sandia National Laboratory.

Among its recommendations is a call for electricity grid operators to develop tariffs that would allow storage developers to collect money from others who would benefit.

The Iowa Stored Energy Park was to have been a 270-megawatt compressed-air energy storage facility located near Des Moines. The association of municipal utilities that was exploring the project terminated it over the summer after concluding that Iowa’s sandstone aquifers weren’t suitable for compressed air storage.

In the eight years they studied the concept, the team says they learned several lessons that might help other bulk storage developers, and most of them apply regardless of the geology or storage technology used, they say. Many of them deal with economic, legislative, and transmission issues.

Here are some highlights from the report, Lessons From Iowa:

On economics: Compressed-air energy storage facilities cost more to build than natural gas generators and have similar operation and maintenance costs. However, bulk storage facilities can be more cost-effective than conventional generators because of other “unique attributes” that can make other plants more profitable. They decrease the amount of cycling — dialing output up or down — that needs to happen at other plants, which helps those power plants run more efficiency with less wear and tear. Storage facilities also help reduce hourly price volatility in a market.

On transmission: The potential for the Iowa storage to reduce or defer transmission line investments was “disappointing,” the report says. The project offered “little or no such benefits.” The reason is that the storage facility wasn’t slated to be “collocated” next to a generation source, such as a wind farm. That means there’s potential for the energy to encounter congestion between the power plant and the storage site. “[L]ocation of the storage on the transmission system, particularly relative to generation facilities that could benefit from the storage, matters.”

Who gains, who pays: The benefits of energy storage projects spread far beyond the owner, unless the owner also owns all of the nearby generation. Lessons From Iowa suggests that electric grid operators should come up with a system of tariffs to help “commoditize” these benefits, such as reduced cycling and maintenance at power plants. The existing computer planning models used by utilities do a poor job of modeling the benefits of storage and would need to be improved.

On renewable policies: Bulk storage facilities help utilities get more value out of renewable investments. Wind tends to blow most at night, when electricity demand (and prices) are low. Being able to store energy until daytime when it is needed enables more renewable development, which is why states should allow energy storage projects to count toward their renewable energy standards, the report argues. “Legislation or other policy initiatives are necessary to enable the full benefits of storage in encouraging and supporting renewables development.”

On community relations: Energy storage developers can’t forget they need to win the support of people who will live near the facilities. Lessons From Iowa recommends being as transparent and accessible to the community as possible. The local community should be involved in where the facilities will be located, it says. “Community objections to a new project are often based on lack of information.”

On geology: This is what ultimately derailed the Iowa project. Finding an aquifer that will work as a site for compressed-air energy storage is “time-consuming and challenging.” Also: “problematic.” The economics of this project looked favorable enough, but “the geology was a negative factor.”

The Lessons From Iowa report is available for download at http://www.lessonsfromiowa.org.

Why unproven health fears persist around grid projects

Posted on 01/11/2012 by Dan Haugen

It’s been 20 years since Congress tried to settle the debate over power-line health risks.

In the 1992 Energy Policy Act, lawmakers instructed the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to lead a five-year investigation into the health effects of electric and magnetic fields, or EMFs.

The process involved scores of scientists from dozens of disciplines, from electrical engineers to molecular biologists. The results were compiled in a 500-plus-page report written at a nine-day meeting in Brooklyn Park, Minn., and released in 1998.

It concluded — despite studies in the 1980s suggesting a link — that two decades of research showed only a “weak association” between EMF exposure and childhood leukemia, and no link between EMF exposure and adult cancers.

For all its depth and breadth, though, the institute’s report was hardly the final word for transmission line opponents. Health fears regularly come up during power-line disputes, most recently with the CapX2020 project.

“It’s a hearty perennial,” says John Farley, a UNLV physics professor who has followed the controversy for decades.

While worries about cell phone EMFs have received more attention in recent years, Farley said he still gets emails once every week or two from people asking whether it is safe to buy a home near a power transmission line.

“I say I don’t think it’s a problem,” says Farley.

Magnetic fields are measured using a unit called a gauss (named after German physicist Carl Friedrich Gauss).

We’re naturally exposed to between 300 and 500 milligauss from the Earth’s magnetic field, says Farley. The precise amount depends on your proximity to the planet’s magnetic poles. The magnetic field at ground level from a power line, by comparison, is usually only 1 or 2 milligauss.

“The additional magnetic field from the power line is maybe 1 percent or less than the magnetic field you get from just standing around on Earth,” says Farley. “I just don’t think it’s an issue.”

Meanwhile, an MRI exposes people to a magnetic field of about 10 million milligauss.

So why are power-line fears so persistent? Farley has a few theories.

One: people don’t trust experts. “There’s a distrust of experts, and to a certain extent it’s a healthy thing. The experts have reassured us about things that weren’t true at all,” says Farley. “So now, even if the experts are telling the truth, some people don’t believe them.”

Secondly, “People don’t know what a magnetic field is, unless you’ve had a physics class,” says Farley.

And lastly, you can’t prove a negative. “The problem is you can never prove there is absolutely no risk,” says Farley.

You can, however, compare the known risk to other risks, he says. “Last time I checked, something like 35,000 Americans are killed each year in auto accidents,” says Farley. “But no one’s ever going to say ‘never get in a car.’”

Concerns about power-line health effects first originated from a flawed and never-reproduced study in 1979, says Farley. They’ve persisted for decades, despite the lack of scientific evidence.

The fears were popularized by a series of New Yorker articles by Paul Brodeur, who later wrote a book called Currents of Death. In 1995, a PBS Frontline investigation called Currents of Fear questioned Brodeur’s reporting.

“The researchers have been researching this for a couple of decades and they haven’t found anything,” says Farley. “Either there’s no effect — and it’s hard to prove there is absolutely no effect — or the effect is small enough that you don’t have to worry about it.”

Photo by Emily Hoyer via Creative Commons

New Michigan transmission line to multiply wind capacity

Posted on 01/10/2012 by Jeff Kart

Michigan's wind capacity is currently limited by a lack of transmission lines - but not for long. (Photo by frankenzan via Creative Commons)

January 10, 2012

By Jeff Kart

Michigan’s Thumb is tapped out when it comes to the ability to host new wind farms.

The agricultural region of the state is home to two commercial-scale wind power developments, with a total of 72 turbines near Ubly and Elkton. There’s plenty of room to build additional wind farms, but not enough capacity on the transmission grid to handle the power they could generate.

Which is why a company called ITC Holdings Corp. is working on a $510 million Thumb Loop Project, to construct 140 miles of 345 kilovolt lines and four new substations across the Thumb, through Tuscola, Huron, Sanilac and St. Clair counties.

Think of it as a pipeline that carries renewable energy. The system, due to be in operation by 2015, will be capable of supporting up to 5,000 megawatts of capacity, or more than 2,800 additional wind turbines.

Local and county officials say there’s wide support for the transmission project, which will help the state meet a renewable energy standard enacted in 2008 that requires utilities to get 10 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2015.

“A lot of the development that’s going to happen in the future in Huron County is dependent on that line. There’s no question about it,” said Jeff Smith, director of the Huron County Building and Zoning Department.

Working with landowners

An example of the monopoles that will be used to string 140 miles of double-circuit, 345,000-volt lines. (Courtesy ITC Holdings)

The Thumb Loop Project is to be constructed in stages, with the first segment on the western side of the Thumb due to begin in the spring of 2012, and be complete 2013, according to ITC.

The new transmission system is to be built mostly with tubular steel monopoles, up to 150 feet high depending on location, with average spans between poles of 900 feet. The bundle of wires required to carry the electricity will be about two inches in diameter.

ITC is currently working from west to east in the Thumb, on easement and right-of-way agreements with landowners, said Tom Vitez, vice president of planning for ITC in Novi, Michigan.

Siting of the line has already been approved by the Michigan Public Service Commission. Property owners will receive a one-time payment from ITC for putting a pole on their land, generally based on the fair market value of one acre.

“Right now, the Thumb basically has a very small 120-kilovolt loop through it,” Vitez said. “There is somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 to 120 megawatts of (wind) generation in the Thumb. That’s all that the (existing) line can basically carry.”

The Thumb Loop Project will install a double-circuit line, which exponentially expands the amount of power than can be transmitted. The current, 120-kilovolt line is a single-circuit line, without as much capacity.

The $510 million Thumb Loop Project will be funded by ratepayers across 13 states that make up MISO (formerly the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator), Vitez said. The cost for an average residential customer is unclear, but is estimated to be about $1.10 per year, based on data from MISO.

New projects lining up

A map of the Thumb Loop Project. (Courtesy ITC Holdings)

ITC owns and maintains more than 8,200 miles of high-voltage electric lines in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula, along with 236 substations. The company has targeted the Thumb for improvements in part because the region was identified in 2009 as having the highest wind potential in Michigan by a Wind Energy Resource Zone Board appointed by the Public Service Commission.

Wind energy developers are already making plans to connect to the new Thumb Loop.

Minneapolis-based RES Americas Inc. is developing two wind projects in the region, one called Pheasant Run and another called Deerfield, with a combined total of 200 to 250 turbines spread over 60,000 acres, according to development manager Brad Lila.

Other wind projects are under development in the region by companies including Consumers Energy, DTE Energy, Exelon, Geronimo, and NextEra.

A small group of residents, however, say enough turbines have already been planted in the Thumb. They don’t want to see more big blades on the landscape, and say existing turbines near Ubly and Elkton have created noise and other problems.

“They are talking now a total of 700 (turbines) in Huron County” from projects under development, said Carl Duda, a farmer from Bad Axe, at the tip of the Thumb. “We’ve got 72 now. It’s 10 times that. That is scary.”

Duda, 68, was part of a petition drive last year to stop the Deerfield project. He and about a dozen others were able to gather 350 signatures by a late-November deadline. A total of 667 were needed to put the question on a February 2012 ballot.

Duda says he ran out of time, and into problems from people he claims were harassed after signing a similar petition that forced a November 2010 vote on wind projects proposed by DTE Energy and Heritage Sustainable Energy. That ballot proposal was approved, 60 percent to 40 percent.

”It’s splitting the county up,” Duda said of wind power projects. “There’s no two ways about it.”

Smith said he believes most people in the region are enthusiastic about the Thumb Loop Project. “Most of the people I’ve talked to have been in favor of it,” Smith said. “This community is farm-driven, and farmers are behind it … (The opposition) is a minority group, for sure.”

There’s also concern in the county and state about a proposal from Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder to eliminate the personal property tax on equipment like wind turbines. That would mean local governments like Huron County couldn’t collect taxes from such equipment, which bring millions of dollars into local coffers.

Either way, Lila says the ITC improvements should help lower the cost of wind power in Michigan, making it more competitive with traditional sources of power like coal.

Already, wind power is selling for as low as $61 per megawatt hour in Michigan, compared to $115 per megawatt hour when the first wind projects were constructed here, according to state records. The cost of power from a new, conventional coal plant in Michigan is higher, at about $133 per megawatt hour.

“Huron County has some of the best wind you will find in all of the Eastern U.S.,” Lila said. “The potential to export it out of there is real.”

Vitez, from ITC, agrees. The current process for building a wind farm also includes costly studies of whether the current infrastructure can handle more capacity.

“It provides renewable developers with some certainty,” he said of the Thumb Loop Project. “Now, projects will be able to be fast-tracked.”

Jeff Kart is principal at Enviroprose, an online communications consulting business based in Bay City, Michigan, that specializes in environmental media. He spent 14 years at The Bay City Times, the last several as an environmental reporter.

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that a November 2010 vote was on two RES projects.

This work by Midwest Energy News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Grid operator approves major Midwest transmission plan

Posted on 12/08/2011 by Dan Haugen

By Dan Haugen

The Midwest electricity grid is getting a big upgrade.

The Midwest’s regional electricity grid operator approved a long-term plan Thursday that calls for $6.5 billion in new transmission projects aimed at helping states meet their renewable energy mandates and spreading the cost of renewable transmission across the region.

The plan is also expected to deliver economic benefits to customers by making the grid more reliable and efficient. The total amount of planned investment, which includes 215 projects, far exceeds previous years’ long-term plans, which have typically been around $1.5 billion.

“The Midwest has not seen this significant of a transmission expansion for decades,” Beth Soholt, executive director of the St. Paul-based advocacy group Wind on the Wires, said in a statement.

The board of directors of MISO (formerly the Midwest Independent Systems Operator), the nonprofit that manages the region’s high-voltage power lines, unanimously approved the plan.

Wind is expected to be a winner, but so are electricity customers. MISO said the benefits to ratepayers are projected to outweigh costs by more than a two-to-one margin. A retail customer that paid $11 in additional fees can expect to see $23 in benefits.

“Inflation in energy prices is something we anticipate, so anything we can do as a region to keep those costs in check is important,” Clair Moeller, MISO’s vice president of transmission asset management, said during a phone call with reporters Thursday morning.

The plan, known as the MISO Transmission Expansion Plan 2011, or MTEP11, includes 16 so-called “multi-value projects” — transmission lines that have broad, regional benefits that go beyond meeting local energy and reliability needs.

MISO said in its release that these multi-value projects will create up to 39,800 construction and 74,000 total annual jobs. They’re also expected to reduce costs by making sure less low-cost electricity is wasted through transmission losses, it said.

“In addition, all of MTEP11 projects are essential to helping the region manage the severe drop in planning reserve margins that is likely to occur in the next several years if pending environmental regulations proceed as planned,” Bear said.

Editor’s note: Policy associates for Fresh Energy, which publishes Midwest Energy News, have advocated for the MISO plan but were not involved in the reporting of this story.

Tag Archives: transmission

Critics say miners get gold, ratepayers get shaft in Upper Peninsula transmission upgrade

CapX 2020 transmission project enters final stretch

Why wind farms sometimes pay to get rid of power

A ‘rural energy revolution’ in Germany

Q&A: Envisioning Minnesota’s future electricity system

Playing the health card

Energy storage creates many winners, so who pays?

Why unproven health fears persist around grid projects

New Michigan transmission line to multiply wind capacity

Working with landowners

New projects lining up

Grid operator approves major Midwest transmission plan

White House seeks to re-calculate “social cost of carbon”

Receive the Daily Digest in
your inbox every weekday

Working with landowners

New projects lining up

Receive the Daily Digest in your inbox every weekday

Receive the Daily Digest in
your inbox every weekday