Understanding Detroit’s Energy and Water Benchmarking Law
In November 2023, the City of Detroit enacted an Energy and Water Benchmarking Ordinance requiring buildings 25,000 square feet and larger to annually report their energy and water usage to the city. The policy focuses on transparency, giving building owners and city leaders insight into how buildings perform and where opportunities may exist to improve efficiency and reduce costs. SBN Detroit interviewed Maria Galarza, Deputy Director of the City of Detroit’s Office of Sustainability, and Zahra Seblini, Senior Energy Analyst, about how the ordinance works, what early data is revealing about Detroit’s building stock, and why benchmarking can be an important first step toward improving building performance. Q: For readers who may not be familiar, what is Detroit’s benchmarking ordinance in simple terms, and why was the city ready to implement it now? Galarza: At its core, the ordinance simply requires certain buildings to report how much energy and water they use each year. Building owners submit 12 months of consumption data annually through a standardized reporting system. It’s important to note that the ordinance does not set limits on how much energy a building can use. It’s strictly about reporting and understanding consumption patterns. The policy grew out of several years of community engagement and research led by the Green Task Force – Energy Waste Reduction Committee. Members studied benchmarking programs in other cities across the country and worked with Council Member Scott Benson to introduce the ordinance. Once it was approved by the City Council, the Office of Sustainability was tasked with administering the program. Q: Beyond compliance, what is the larger goal behind requiring buildings to report their energy and water usage? Galarza: The broader goal is to better understand how buildings contribute to energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Across the state, region, and city, there are ongoing efforts to reduce emissions as part of climate planning strategies. Buildings represent one of the largest opportunities to make progress because they account for a significant share of energy use. Detroit, as the largest city in Michigan, has a large concentration of commercial, institutional, and multifamily buildings. By focusing on these properties, we can begin identifying where efficiency improvements could have the greatest impact. Q: Many building owners may initially view reporting as another administrative requirement. How is the city helping them see the financial and operational value behind benchmarking? Galarza: Energy costs continue to rise, and benchmarking can help building owners better understand where those costs are coming from. When owners begin analyzing their energy data – looking at kilowatt hours used over time, how consumption changes with temperature, and where spikes occur – it can reveal patterns they may not have noticed before. That information can be extremely valuable when making the case for capital improvements. If a building is operating inefficiently, benchmarking data helps demonstrate the potential financial benefits of upgrades or renovations. In that sense, benchmarking becomes the foundation for identifying opportunities to reduce operating costs over the long term. Q: What kinds of insights can building owners gain by comparing their data to similar properties? Galarza: One of the most valuable aspects of benchmarking is the ability to compare buildings that serve similar functions. A fire station should be compared with other fire stations. An office building should be compared with other office buildings. That type of comparison helps owners understand whether their building is performing efficiently relative to similar properties. The reporting platform used for benchmarking, EPA’s ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager, also provides a national efficiency score. That score allows building owners to see how their building performs compared with similar buildings across the country. For many owners, that benchmark becomes a clear goalpost. If the score is lower than expected, it can prompt a closer look at building systems and potential upgrades. Q: Have any early trends emerged from the first round of data that either confirmed expectations or revealed new insights? Seblini: We are still analyzing the early data, but a few patterns have started to emerge. One example involves houses of worship. Detroit has nearly 2,000 houses of worship, and those that fall under the ordinance have shown energy use levels that are often significantly higher than the national median. In many cases, this appears to be tied to deferred maintenance. Houses of worship often operate large buildings but have limited revenue streams to support major infrastructure upgrades. We’re also seeing the impact of Detroit’s aging building stock. Many buildings were constructed before the 1970s, particularly during construction booms in the 1920s, 1930s, 1950s, and 1960s. While these buildings have strong architectural character, the mechanical systems inside them can be inefficient if they have not been modernized. Q; Other cities have implemented benchmarking policies before Detroit. What lessons has the city drawn from those examples? Seblini: We looked closely at other municipalities that already have benchmarking ordinances in place. Ann Arbor has been particularly helpful because it’s a regional example that implemented benchmarking a few years before Detroit. Chicago has also provided insights into outreach strategies and program administration. One key lesson is that education and communication are essential. We’ve used a combination of outreach methods, from direct mail reminders to webinars and technical assistance sessions, to help building owners understand the process. We’ve also hosted in-person events we call “data jams.” These sessions allow building owners to receive technical support while also connecting with others who are navigating the same reporting process. Partnerships have been important as well. Organizations like the Detroit 2030 District and the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance bring valuable expertise and help expand the support network available to building owners. Q: As Detroit continues to see both new development and reinvestment in older buildings, how does this ordinance position the city for the future? Seblini: Energy efficiency is one of the most immediate and practical ways to address rising energy costs. Detroit is experiencing growth in new development, but we also have a large number of older buildings that will require ongoing investment. Benchmarking
The Cost of Energy Inequality
Detroit-based nonprofit Elevate focuses on the intersection of energy equity, housing stability, and workforce development. Through community partnerships and programs that connect residents with energy-efficiency upgrades, education, and job-training opportunities, the organization works to strengthen neighborhoods while helping families reduce costs and improve living conditions. SBN Detroit interviewed Shawna Forbes Henry, Director of Community Programs at Elevate, about the broader implications of energy access, the structural barriers communities face, and what real progress could look like in the years ahead. Q: What first drew you to the work Elevate does, and what problem did you most want to help solve? A: One of the things that initially drew me to Elevate is that the organization recognizes energy isn’t just about utility usage. It’s about whether communities can remain stable and whether residents can afford to stay in their homes. The cost of maintaining a safe and comfortable home can place a significant financial burden on families. When utility bills become too high, people are forced to make difficult decisions about whether to pay for food, medicine, or energy. Over time, those choices can push households into deeper financial hardship. As a community leader, I’ve seen firsthand how significant the burden of utility costs can be. The issue I most wanted to help address is the cycle of energy burden and the disproportionate impact it has on low-income communities. Q: Many people don’t realize how closely energy and water access are tied to economic stability and public health. What are some of the most overlooked consequences when communities lack reliable access? A: One of the most overlooked consequences is the long-term health impact. Homes that aren’t properly heated, cooled, or ventilated can worsen chronic health conditions. When water systems are unreliable, that also introduces serious public health risks. We’re seeing these issues more frequently. Poor housing conditions can contribute to asthma, respiratory problems, and other chronic illnesses. There’s also the financial instability that comes with it, as I mentioned, which can ultimately lead to displacement if people can no longer afford to remain in their homes. As an educator by training, I also think about how these challenges affect daily life. If a home is too cold, too hot, or lacks consistent power, it becomes difficult for children to focus in school or for adults to maintain stable employment. Q: Elevate is rooted in Detroit. How does Southeast Michigan shape your priorities, strategy, or the challenges you see most often? A: Southeast Michigan provides a powerful lens for understanding the challenges around energy equity. Michigan is often recognized as a leader in the clean energy space, but we also have one of the oldest housing stocks in the country. Much of our infrastructure is aging, and many neighborhoods have experienced long periods of disinvestment. At the same time, the region has a strong commitment to workforce development and neighborhood revitalization. When you bring those elements together, it creates opportunities for community-driven solutions. Our work has to address several interconnected issues at once—housing rehabilitation, economic mobility, and workforce development. If we want to build strong communities, we have to think about the system as a whole. When we talk about strengthening pathways into the green economy, those foundational issues need to be stabilized first. Q: In your view, what are the biggest barriers preventing progress on equitable energy access? A: One of the biggest barriers is fragmentation. Housing systems, energy systems, and water systems are often addressed separately. These sectors frequently operate in silos, which makes it difficult to create coordinated solutions. Another challenge is access to capital. Many homes require significant updates because of aging infrastructure, but homeowners and landlords often don’t have the resources to make those improvements. As a result, energy upgrades that could lower costs and improve efficiency are frequently overlooked. There’s also an awareness gap. Resources and programs exist to help residents improve efficiency or reduce energy costs, but many people simply don’t know about them. Communication gaps make it harder for those resources to reach the communities that need them most. Q: What are some of the biggest opportunities for progress? A: One of the greatest opportunities is bringing these systems together rather than continuing to work separately. Workforce development is a big part of that. As the energy efficiency sector continues to grow, we need to ensure people are trained and prepared to do the work. Many individuals in the trades still aren’t fully aware of the opportunities within the energy efficiency industry. By aligning workforce training, housing upgrades, and funding streams, we can create a more coordinated approach. When those resources are connected, the impact becomes much greater. Q; What’s one misconception people often have about energy equity, and how would you clarify it for business or civic leaders? A: One common misconception is that energy equity is primarily about subsidies or assistance programs. In reality, it’s about structural access. It’s about ensuring people live in energy-efficient homes, have reliable infrastructure, and can benefit from economic opportunities tied to the clean energy transition. When communities have access to efficient housing and reliable systems, it reduces costs for families and lowers strain on public systems. It also creates jobs and strengthens local economies. For business leaders, energy equity should be viewed as an investment in resilience and long-term economic growth—not simply a social program. Q: Looking ahead five years, what would real progress look like to you—not just for Elevate, but for the communities you serve? A: Real progress would mean that families who have historically been underserved are spending less of their income on energy and water. Their homes would be safer, healthier, and more efficient. Residents would be participating in the clean energy economy and understanding that they have a voice in shaping it. That progress would also include more quality jobs, small business opportunities, and greater community ownership. Communities should have a role in shaping the systems that affect their daily lives. Different neighborhoods face different challenges, and solutions may vary.
How Sustainability Has Become a Core Business Discipline
The Green Business Lab, founded in 2002 by Samantha Svoboda, aims to help organizations strengthen decision-making about sustainability through immersive business simulations and strategic advisory services. Working with leadership teams across industries, the Lab creates structured environments where executives can explore how environmental, operational, and market forces intersect with core business strategy. Over more than two decades, the Green Business Lab has worked with companies toward moving sustainability out of isolated initiatives and into the center of business planning and leadership development. Below, Svoboda shares her perspective on how sustainability thinking inside organizations has matured, where companies still struggle, and why the strongest leaders increasingly view sustainability as essential to long-term resilience and growth. Q: Over the past year, how has the conversation around sustainability inside organizations changed, and what differences are you seeing in how leaders approach it today? A: What we’re seeing is a clear maturation. Leaders are starting from a different place because the business case for sustainability has been demonstrated in very practical ways. Efficiency initiatives have delivered measurable financial returns. Supply chain disruptions during the pandemic showed how vulnerable companies can be to external shocks. And climate-related risks that were once theoretical are now operational realities. As a result, sustainability is no longer viewed as abstract or aspirational. Leaders recognize that it affects cost structure, supply continuity, and long-term competitiveness. At the same time, many practitioners feel a tension between long-term commitments and a rapidly changing environment. Companies are navigating geopolitical shifts, emerging technologies, and evolving regulatory expectations. The challenge for leadership is creating enough stability to execute long-term strategies while remaining adaptive to constant change. That balance is becoming a defining leadership capability. Q: What kinds of real-world decisions or internal shifts most often happen within the companies you work with? A: Supply chain is often the most immediate focus. Companies may have strong internal operations, but their overall resilience depends on suppliers. Sustainability and risk exposure extend across the entire value chain, particularly in what’s known as Scope 3 emissions and external dependencies. Another shift involves how companies think about stakeholders. Many organizations initially treat sustainability as a communications issue, focusing on crafting narratives for investors, employees, or customers. But stakeholders often have fundamentally different priorities, and communication alone cannot resolve those differences. The more effective approach is to build business models that create value across stakeholder groups. That shifts sustainability from messaging into operational and strategic decision-making. We also see companies beginning to view sustainability as a lens for innovation. Rather than reacting to external pressure, leaders are exploring how sustainability can open new markets, attract talent, and shape product development. That perspective reframes sustainability as a source of opportunity. Q: Many organizations say sustainability is a priority but struggle to operationalize it. Where do you most often see the gap between intention and execution? A: This question is another way of asking why people and organizations miss their goals. I think how the goals are set matters. Goals improve when they are set with stakeholders in mind. That’s because stakeholders will evaluate performance on the issues most important to them, and they will make that evaluation in comparison to your competitors. When you understand what is material to your stakeholders and how you stand relative to the market, you can focus on achieving what matters the most. Q: In your work with executive teams, how does sustainability influence collaboration and decision-making internally? A: One of the most valuable outcomes is increased cross-functional awareness. Sustainability touches finance, operations, marketing, strategy, and risk. When leaders work through complex scenarios together, they begin to see how decisions in one area affect others. For example, capital allocation decisions may look very different from a financial perspective versus a risk or operational perspective. When teams work through those tradeoffs collaboratively, they gain a more complete understanding of the business. Participants also develop a greater appreciation for how different roles approach problems. That awareness improves communication and alignment when they return to their day-to-day responsibilities. It strengthens leadership effectiveness beyond sustainability itself. Q: What distinguishes organizations that successfully embed sustainability into their business model from those that treat it as a side initiative? A: The most important difference is how leaders frame the question. Some companies ask, “What should we do for our sustainability strategy?” Others ask, “What does sustainability require us to do differently in our core strategy?” That second question integrates sustainability directly into business decisions. It influences capital investment, product development, operations, and growth strategy. When sustainability is embedded this way, it becomes part of how the company evaluates opportunity and risk. It is no longer isolated within a single department. It becomes a company-wide capability. Q: What role does cross-functional alignment play, and why is it often harder than leaders expect? A: Sustainability is often introduced as an enterprise-level commitment, but it becomes effective only when translated into functional terms. Operations teams may see benefits through reduced downtime or improved efficiency. Supply chain leaders may see increased resilience. Human resources may see advantages in attracting and retaining talent. Finance may see clearer risk management and capital planning. When sustainability is connected directly to each function’s objectives, it becomes relevant to day-to-day decisions. It strengthens performance across the organization rather than existing as a separate initiative. Q: As economic pressures fluctuate, sustainability is sometimes framed as optional. What are companies missing when they view it that way? A: They are deferring risk rather than eliminating it. A useful example is supply chain strategy prior to Hurricane Katrina. Many companies had optimized operations for efficiency, reducing redundancy and backup capacity. When disruption occurred, those systems proved fragile. In response, companies rebuilt supply chains with greater resilience. That required investment, but it reduced vulnerability. Sustainability operates in a similar way. Investments in efficiency, resilience, and risk management strengthen long-term performance. Treating those investments as optional increases exposure to future disruption. The business case for sustainability has always been rooted in resilience, efficiency, and long-term value
Detroit Entrepreneur Builds Eco-Conscious Candle Brand
Unique Monique Scented Candles, a Detroit-based business founded by Monique Bounds., aims to produce candles and household products with clean ingredients and local supply chains. What began as a personal hobby during college has evolved into a full-time venture producing coconut oil and soy-based candles made with essential oils and locally sourced materials. SBN Detroit interviewed Bounds about launching a sustainable product line, sourcing challenges in Michigan, and how small manufacturers are navigating the growing demand for eco-conscious home goods. Q: Tell us how Unique Monique began and what motivated you to turn candle-making into a business. A: I started making candles about five or six years ago. It began as a hobby – something calming and creative that helped me manage stress while balancing college classes I was taking and work. I shared them with friends and family, and the response was positive. As I continued experimenting, I began taking business mentoring classes. My mentor helped me understand how to turn my hobby into a business, including forming my LLC and developing relationships with local stores. That’s when I realized there was real potential to grow this into something sustainable. Over time, I also became more intentional about ingredients. I noticed some of the natural components I was using felt better for people in my own household, especially those with allergies or respiratory sensitivities. That shaped the direction of the brand. Q: What distinguishes your candles from traditional scented candles on the market? A: The foundation of my candles is soy flakes derived from soybeans and coconut oil, blended with pure essential oils. I avoid harsh chemicals and synthetic additives. The goal is to create a cleaner burn with minimal soot and no heavy chemical residue. For me, sustainability starts with setting non-negotiable ingredient standards. I use boiled wax methods, essential oils, and thicker glass jars to prevent cracking and extend product life. Packaging also matters. I try to use materials that are safe and environmentally responsible. Q: From your perspective, what does building a genuinely eco-conscious product require beyond just ingredients? A: It requires discipline. Sustainability isn’t something you add later, it has to be built into your foundation. That means being selective about suppliers, understanding where materials come from, and balancing cost with integrity. Many ingredients are processed in ways that aren’t obvious at first glance, so sourcing responsibly takes research. I’ve also had certain ingredients lab tested to ensure they align with my standards. Beyond ingredients, packaging, waste reduction and long-term product use all matter. I think about how the product lives in someone’s home and what happens after it’s finished. Q: How are consumer attitudes around indoor air quality and “clean” products evolving? A: Consumers are more informed now. People ask questions about what’s in their products. They want to know about essential oils, wax types, and where ingredients come from. There’s more awareness around chemical exposure in everyday products. At the same time, there are misconceptions. For example, some people have concerns about soy wax because of misinformation online. Education is important – not everything labeled “natural” is automatically good or bad. It’s about understanding the sourcing and processing behind it. Q: You also emphasize sourcing locally. Why is that important to you? A: Whenever possible, I source ingredients locally in Michigan. I want to keep money circulating within the state and reduce transportation impact. Local sourcing helps minimize carbon footprint and supports other small businesses. It does require careful vetting. But I believe strengthening local supply chains is part of long-term sustainability. Q: How has community engagement played a role in your growth? A: Community events have been very important. I’ve participated in local showcases like the Henry Ford Museum during Black History Month, as well as events connected to the NFL Draft and the Detroit Grand Prix. These events create opportunities not only to sell products but to educate consumers about clean ingredients and sustainable manufacturing. Being present in the community has helped build awareness. Q: Beyond candles, are you expanding into other product categories? A: Yes. I recently launched an antibacterial laundry detergent made with biodegradable, plant-based ingredients. It’s currently carried by More Herbs, a local health and wellness store. I’m also exploring home cleaning kits, and other self-care products. The long-term vision is to build a marketplace that supports other small businesses with similar sustainability values. Q: Looking ahead, what does growth look like for Unique Monique? A: Right now, most of the business is online, but I do have a physical office location. I’d like to expand retail partnerships and possibly open a brick-and-mortar space in the future. Workshops and classes are another goal… teaching others about candle-making and sustainable product development. Ultimately, I want every decision the company makes to support healthier homes, stronger communities and a cleaner environment. Be sure to subscribe to our newsletter for regular updates on sustainable business practices in and around Detroit.
Building More Sustainable Homes Through Automation
Citizen Robotics is a Detroit-based nonprofit that advances the use of robotics and digital manufacturing in residential construction, focusing on improving productivity, sustainability, and long-term affordability. Best known for its early work in 3D-printed housing, it explores how alternative construction methods and new financial models can reduce material waste, lower lifetime operating costs, and enhance the resilience of homes. SBN Detroit interviewed Tom Woodman, founder and president of Citizen Robotics, about why housing has lagged behind other industries in adopting new technologies, the structural barriers facing innovative construction methods, and what it would take for models like 3D-printed housing to move from experimentation to scale. Q: Tell me about Citizen Robotics and the impetus behind it. A: The homebuilding industry largely missed the digital revolution. Productivity has been flat for decades and, that has directly contributed to the rising cost of new construction. It has also limited progress on sustainability, from material efficiency to energy performance. At the same time, the industry has struggled to attract younger workers, in part because it’s perceived as manual and outdated. Citizen Robotics was formed in response to that dynamic. The idea was to demonstrate that a robotic future for homebuilding is not only possible, but achievable now. We centered our early work on 3D construction printing because it brings together robotics, digital design, and material innovation in a way that could fundamentally change how homes are built. Q: Citizen Robotics drew early attention for its work in 3D-printed housing. Where is the organization today? A: That early work generated a lot of interest from the community and the media. One of the most important outcomes was that people could physically experience the technology. Thousands of people toured the house, touched it, walked through it, and asked questions. You could see perceptions shift once people understood what was actually possible. Today, we’re working more directly with municipalities and partners to move toward a structure that can support real-world deployment. We’re exploring a for-profit framework that would allow 3D printing to achieve broader impact, including a model we call “Build for Equity,” which combines rental housing with shared equity over time. Q: In your experience, what are the biggest barriers to scaling new housing technologies like 3D printing? A: Many people assume the barrier is more innovation — better robots, better materials. In reality, we’ve shown that even existing robotic systems can deliver meaningful gains, not only in productivity but in material efficiency and long-term performance. The real barriers fall into four areas: market acceptance, continuity of capital, industry conservatism, and a funding gap around productivity. Housing is expensive no matter how it’s built, and resale value is always top of mind. Anything outside the mainstream creates anxiety for buyers, lenders, and developers. Sustainability benefits, such as durability, resilience, and lower operating costs, are rarely reflected in how homes are valued or financed, which makes adoption harder. There’s also a Catch-22. To make homes cheaper, you need volume and repetition. But to get volume, you need lenders to underwrite projects, and they need comparable data that doesn’t yet exist. Q: Why has housing been so slow to adopt automation compared to other industries? A: A big part of it comes down to incentives. Construction largely delivers what the system pays for. The way homes are financed, maintained, and insured often works against affordability over the long term. If we want healthier, more durable homes, we need to reward innovation rather than cost-cutting that degrades quality. Right now, the system works well for those already positioned to profit from it. Changing outcomes requires changing incentives. Q: From your vantage point, where is the greatest opportunity to rethink how homes are built? A: One of the biggest opportunities is Detroit’s inventory of residential lots, combined with a different financial model paired with industrialized construction methods. Build for Equity is about constructing homes for rent while allowing renters to build equity over time through a shared fund structure. That model allows us to focus on the total cost of ownership. From a sustainability standpoint, materials like concrete offer fire, flood, and storm resilience, along with lower long-term maintenance and operating costs. When homes are evaluated based on total cost of ownership — including energy use and durability — innovation becomes much easier to justify. Q: What does it take to keep an innovation-focused organization viable during periods of uncertainty? A: It’s difficult, particularly in a challenging fundraising environment. But the need hasn’t gone away. Around the world, 3D construction printing is advancing – in Texas, Florida, Ontario, Kenya, Japan, and beyond. We learn from those efforts and adapt what makes sense locally. The key is securing capital for repeatable projects so the technology can move beyond prototypes and generate the data lenders need. Q: What would meaningful progress look like for Citizen Robotics over the next few years? A: Moving from prototypes to a repeatable playbook that lenders are comfortable underwriting. Training and placing at least 60 workers into high-tech construction roles. Scaling projects across multiple municipalities. Michigan has the ingredients to become a proving ground for innovative and more sustainable construction, from advanced manufacturing expertise to policy interest in sustainability. The challenge is unlocking the first wave of projects. Q: What needs to change for innovative housing models to become permanent? A: We need financing structures that optimize for total cost of ownership, not just upfront cost. Philanthropy can play a role in de-risking early projects and funding workforce development. Policy matters too. Zoning reform, incentives for net-zero housing, and support for local job creation all help create space for innovation. With the right mix of public, private, and philanthropic investment, we can keep jobs local, improve housing quality, and move toward a more sustainable construction system. Be sure to subscribe to our newsletter for regular updates on sustainable business practices in and around Detroit.
Rethinking Hydrogen Production
Detroit-based OneSix Energy is a clean-energy technology company focused on advancing a lower-carbon approach to hydrogen production. Headquartered at Newlab in Detroit, the startup is developing a proprietary methane pyrolysis system designed to produce hydrogen without carbon dioxide emissions, while also generating solid carbon as a co-product. SBN Detroit interviewed with cofounder Stefan Sysko about the company’s origins, its approach to hydrogen production, and why Detroit is positioned to play a leading role in the next phase of the energy transition. Q: Can you give us the elevator version of OneSix Energy — how it got started, the impetus behind it, and the approach you’re taking to hydrogen production? A: OneSix Energy really began with my co-founder, Dan Darga, who back in 2002 was working at General Motors. He read about the hydrogen economy and immediately knew he wanted to be part of it. He transferred to GM’s fuel cell division in upstate New York, then later worked for a solid oxide fuel cell company. While there, he kept running into the same problem: carbon buildup clogging systems. His perspective was that we were fighting nature instead of working with it. That led him to start thinking differently about surfaces, materials, and how carbon behaves. Dan eventually left to work at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, where he learned how to take ideas from concept to deployment in extreme, real-world conditions. He combined these two experiences, refined them, and approached me. I’ve been a lifelong entrepreneur, and I felt I had one more startup in me — one that could genuinely address a major global challenge. We incorporated OneSix Energy nearly two years ago, bootstrapped the initial design and modeling, filed a patent that’s now pending, raised a friends-and-family round, built and independently tested a prototype, and are now moving toward a pilot phase. Q: What problem is hydrogen uniquely positioned to solve that other energy carriers can’t? A: Hydrogen is incredibly energy-dense by mass, and when it’s used, the only byproduct is water vapor. It’s versatile — it can be used as a fuel for power generation or as a chemical feedstock. Hydrogen has been called “the fuel of the future” for decades but it’s difficult and expensive to produce cleanly. Today, about 90 percent of hydrogen is made using steam methane reformation, which is cheap but very dirty — roughly 11 tons of CO₂ for every ton of hydrogen produced. Electrolysis, on the other hand, is clean but extremely expensive and water-intensive. It requires fresh water, significant electricity, and even when powered by renewables, you lose about half the energy in the process. When you look at sectors like data centers — which already consume enormous amounts of electricity and water — electrolysis actually worsens the problem. Our system is different. We’re off-grid. We recirculate a fraction of the hydrogen we produce to power our reactor, so we don’t need external energy, and we don’t use water. In fact, we generate fresh water as a byproduct. Q: Can you explain methane pyrolysis and what OneSix Energy has developed? A: Methane pyrolysis involves taking methane — CH₄, the main component of natural gas — and breaking it into hydrogen and carbon using high temperatures in the absence of oxygen. Because there’s no oxygen, you don’t form CO₂. Instead, you produce solid carbon. That solid carbon – or “carbon black” – is actually valuable. It’s used in products like tires, shoe soles, and industrial materials. There’s a roughly $40 billion global market for carbon black today. Our goal is to upcycle that carbon while producing hydrogen at a lower cost than electrolysis, without water use or external energy input. Q: Hydrogen production often involves trade-offs. What innovations are helping overcome those barriers? A: Right now, the industry is stuck between options that are either cheap and dirty or clean and expensive. What’s changing is the recognition that we need new pathways — not just incremental improvements. Innovations in materials science, reactor design, and system efficiency are making approaches like methane pyrolysis viable at scale. The key is eliminating emissions without introducing new resource constraints. Q: Where do you see the earliest and most impactful applications for clean hydrogen? A: Two areas stand out immediately: data centers and shipping ports. Ports face increasing regulatory pressure because of emissions from ships idling while docked. Hydrogen-powered equipment and shore power could significantly reduce pollution while keeping operations moving. We also see opportunities in power generation for buildings, factories, and industrial facilities. Long-term, hydrogen fuel for heavy-duty transportation — Class 8 trucks, for example — is very compelling. Electrifying those vehicles requires massive and expensive batteries that reduce payload capacity. Hydrogen avoids that issue. Q: Why build a clean-energy technology company in Detroit? A: Detroit put the world on wheels. There’s no reason it shouldn’t lead the energy transformation. We’re at Newlab, surrounded by engineers, manufacturers, and people who understand how to scale physical systems. Detroit is a perfect microcosm — a place where you could demonstrate how an entire city transitions to clean energy. Plus, I was born and raised in the city, so it’s home to me. Q: What misconceptions do you encounter most often about hydrogen? A: The first is safety. People immediately think of the Hindenburg. But hydrogen is actually lighter than air and dissipates quickly, whereas gasoline fumes stay low and linger. When you look at safety data, hydrogen performs very well compared to other fuels. The Hindenburg taught us the hard way that we need to develop unique handling procedures for hydrogen – and we have. Q: What should Michiganders understand about hydrogen’s role in a sustainable energy future? A: Michigan potentially has significant natural hydrogen resources, which should be explored. But we need to remember that it will likely be years, if not decades, before that becomes viable, We also have the Great Lakes — which must be protected. If all hydrogen today were produced via electrolysis, the water consumed would be equivalent to Lake St. Clair
Inside Michigan’s Environmental Justice Landscape
Regina Strong serves as Michigan’s first Environmental Justice Public Advocate, leading the state’s Office of the Environmental Justice Public Advocate. Her role focuses on addressing environmental justice concerns raised by communities, helping residents navigate environmental systems, and working across state agencies to improve equity in environmental decision-making. SBN Detroit interviewed Strong about the challenges communities are facing across Michigan and what environmental justice work looks like in practice. Q: As Environmental Justice Public Advocate, what does your work look like day to day? A: There really is no typical day. This role was created to address environmental justice concerns and complaints, to advocate for equity, and to help communities navigate systems that can feel opaque or inaccessible. That can mean many things. On a given day, I might be working on our Environmental Justice Screening Tool as we migrate it to a new platform, meeting with one of our 43 grantees across the state, or sitting down with other state departments or divisions within EGLE, where my office is housed. Other days are spent directly with community members – listening to concerns, helping them understand what levers exist, and figuring out how to move forward. The work ebbs and flows depending on what’s happening in communities. Over the past seven years, we’ve seen some issues emerge seasonally, in response to new development, extreme weather, or long-standing infrastructure issues. Ultimately, my work is deeply relational and constantly evolving. Q: What are the most pressing environmental justice issues you’re hearing across Michigan and how do they differ between urban, suburban, and rural communities? A: There’s actually a lot of overlap across geographies. Whether people live in dense urban neighborhoods, suburban communities, or rural areas, we consistently hear concerns about water – lead service lines, contaminated wells in rural areas, and flooding. Air quality is another major issue, especially near industrial corridors or transportation infrastructure. In more densely populated areas, concerns often cluster around industry, waste facilities, landfills, and cumulative air pollution. In rural areas, it may be wells, septic systems, or access to clean drinking water. Across all regions, energy burden comes up frequently, particularly during winter months, when households are forced to spend a disproportionate share of income on utilities. Climate change is amplifying many of these issues. Flooding, power outages, and extreme weather events are becoming more common, and their impacts are not evenly distributed. The underlying issues may differ by location, but the throughline is vulnerability tied to infrastructure, income, and exposure. Q: What are the hardest gaps to close when translating community concerns into action? A: One of the biggest challenges is that environmental justice issues rarely fall under a single authority. A concern may involve state permitting, local zoning, county health departments, and federal regulations all at once. Our office often helps communities navigate those layers. From an environmental justice perspective, equitable access to decision-making is critical. We work to ensure voices are heard, especially in communities that have historically been underserved. We do a lot of resilience planning in – for example – the 48217 ZIP code (Southwest Detroit) in the heart of a very dense industrial corridor. We also work with communities near hazardous waste facilities and communities with drinking water concerns. Many of these challenges have deep historical roots. Our role is often about helping communities access resources, understand processes, and advocate effectively while acknowledging that solutions are rarely immediate, yet possible. Q: To that end, how does history complicate environmental justice work today? A: History matters a great deal. Many environmental regulations around air and water are set at the federal level and applied category by category. Communities, however, experience impacts cumulatively – air, water, land use, and health intersecting in daily life. That mismatch creates tension. Residents want holistic solutions, but regulatory frameworks don’t always account for cumulative impacts. Before the Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, people lived near industrial facilities for decades – and still do. Laws have improved, but legacy exposure and infrastructure decisions remain. Balancing regulatory constraints with community realities is one of the most complex aspects of this work. Q: What structural or systemic barriers are hardest to change? A: Policy is often written within narrow frameworks that don’t always center people’s lived experiences. That’s a persistent barrier. Another is data – how it’s collected, interpreted, and applied. MI EJ Screen, the state’s environmental justice screening tool is designed to help address that gap. It looks at environmental conditions, demographics, and health indicators together, creating a shared reference point for communities, government, and industry. The first version was launched in 2024, and expanding its usability is a priority because shared data helps align conversations and advocacy. Understanding how existing laws interact and where they fall short remains both a challenge and an opportunity. Q: How has your background in clean energy advocacy and community development shaped your approach? A: Where you live often determines the challenges you face. Working in community development and later in clean energy made that clear. Lower-income communities and communities of color are more likely to experience environmental burdens, often due to proximity to industry or aging infrastructure. That perspective informs everything I do. Some issues can be addressed through regulation, but others require working directly with communities to improve daily quality of life. Our Environmental Justice Impact Grant Program is one example – 43 grants statewide, including many in Detroit, supporting grassroots organizations, schools and communities addressing local concerns. This office sits outside of regulatory enforcement, which allows us to take a broader, more human-centered view. Q: How do you think about progress for residents living with impacts right now? A: Progress can look small but be very meaningful. Having a dedicated office focused on environmental justice is progress. Having tools that didn’t exist before is progress. If progress means a senior is no longer dealing with basement flooding because they received support for a sump pump, that matters. We have to focus on both micro-level quality-of-life improvements and
Navigating Environmental Compliance
Butzel is one of Michigan’s longest-standing law firms, advising businesses across industries on regulatory compliance, environmental law, and complex commercial matters. As environmental expectations evolve alongside shifting regulatory realities, the firm plays a key role in helping companies navigate both legacy challenges and emerging risks. SBN Detroit interviewed Butzel shareholder Beth Gotthelf to discuss how environmental compliance, sustainability, and innovation are intersecting today — particularly in Southeast Michigan — and what businesses should be paying attention to in the years ahead. Q: From your perspective, what are the most consequential changes shaping how companies approach compliance and sustainability today? A: Many companies still treat compliance and sustainability as separate conversations. Compliance is something they aim for while sustainability is framed as an aspirational goal. Where those two intersect most often is when sustainability also makes business sense. Reducing water use, reusing materials, and improving efficiency often lower costs. Recycling and waste reduction can improve margins. As a result, many organizations are approaching sustainability less as a branding exercise and more as a fiscal and operational strategy. Q: How are businesses navigating the tension between accelerating sustainability goals and increasingly complex regulatory frameworks at the state and federal levels? A: Right now, I don’t see the same level of tension that existed a year or two ago, particularly in Michigan, unless they also have facilities outside of the U.S. or in California. Many companies still believe in climate action and sustainability, but they’re not always using that language domestically given the current federal environment. That said, sustainability reporting is mandated outside the US, with the European Union leading the way for larger firms, and nations like Australia, China, India, and Japan requiring disclosures. Those requirements still apply across all divisions, including U.S. facilities. One area where regulatory complexity is very real is battery recycling, particularly lithium batteries. The regulatory framework in the U.S. makes recycling more difficult than in other countries. That’s an area where we need better alignment to compete in the global market. There is progress happening, but it remains a challenge. Q: Southeast Michigan has a deep industrial legacy alongside growing environmental expectations. What challenges does that history create for remediation and compliance in this region? A: There are many. One challenge, for example, is that materials historically considered “clean fill” may no longer be viewed that way under current standards. The question becomes: do we excavate and remove it all? That creates dust for the area, truck traffic, emissions, road wear, and additional environmental impacts. In some cases, the net environmental benefit is questionable. We also face decisions around highly contaminated sites — whether to cap and manage contamination in place or attempt full remediation to pre-industrial conditions, which can be extremely costly and disruptive. I have simplified the issue but there is a balance between the desire to re-use contaminated sites (brownfield), finding a new productive use, and moving to a ‘greenfield,’ where you do not have to incur the cost, time, and worry of a brownfield. On the compliance side, Southeast Michigan has dense industrial areas adjacent to residential neighborhoods, particularly in places like Southwest Detroit. That proximity creates ongoing tension between maintaining industrial activity and protecting air quality and public health. These are not simple issues, and they require balance rather than absolutes. Q: Are you seeing a shift from reactive environmental compliance to more proactive strategies? A: Yes, overall companies are more proactive than they were decades ago. There’s greater environmental stewardship and awareness. There are better tools to allow for reuse, recycling, lower emissions, fewer chemicals being discharged in wastewater, better management of stormwater, etc. Companies are constantly looking and then implementing those tools. People, whether a resident, employee, or both–want products that last, clean water for swimming and boating, and healthy ecosystems — and they also want manufacturing and economic growth. Balancing those priorities is ongoing but can be done. We can build manufacturing and provide jobs while protecting the environment. Larger companies tend to have more resources to implement sustainability strategies and work with suppliers to raise standards. That said, the last year has been different. Incentives to pursue sustainability have diminished, and in some cases, companies feel penalized for investing in these efforts. That has slowed momentum for some organizations. Q: What role does innovation play in helping companies meet environmental obligations without stalling growth? A: Innovation is essential. It shows up in many forms — energy management software, automation, detection systems, improved chemicals, safer materials, and better protective equipment to name a few. There’s also a real opportunity to expand access to innovation, especially for small and midsize companies. More forums, education, and exposure to tools like energy tracking, water reuse, stormwater management, and greywater systems would help accelerate adoption. Innovation should be encouraged, not siloed. Q: How are climate-related risks influencing environmental decision-making in the Great Lakes region? A: Water quality has become a major concern. The Flint water crisis highlighted how municipal systems directly affect not just residential, but industrial operations. Poor water quality can damage equipment and disrupt production, forcing companies to install additional filtration and safeguards. Flooding is another growing issue. We’re seeing more frequent and severe rain events, impacting facilities across urban and rural areas alike. It is not good when a facility is flooded, potentially allowing chemicals to flow into the environment or causing work to stop. There are a variety of causes of flooding, some related to the drainage system on property, and some off property. Managing flood risk increasingly requires coordination between municipalities and private operators. Extreme weather — snow, wind, heat, flooding — is becoming part of long-term planning. Some larger companies are building redundancy across regions, but many Michigan businesses are smaller and must do the best they can within limited resources. Q: Compared to other regions, what opportunities does Southeast Michigan offer for sustainable redevelopment and clean manufacturing? A: Southeast Michigan has an abundance of industrial sites suitable for adaptive reuse, along with a strong workforce
Building a Circular Future
In the manufacturing world, sustainability is increasingly defined not just by recycling, but by what kind of recycling. For PolyFlex Products, based in Farmington Hills and part of Nefab Group, the future lies in creating closed-loop systems where materials are reused for equal or higher-value purposes — not simply “downcycled” into lower-grade goods. PolyFlex, which designs and manufactures reusable packaging and material handling solutions for the automotive and industrial sectors, is investing in circularity across its operations. The company’s goal is to ensure that plastics and packaging materials stay in circulation longer, retain value at end-of-life, and contribute to a more resilient supply chain. SBN Detroit interviewed Director of Sustainability Richard Demko, about the shift from downcycling to true circularity, the technical and cultural changes required, and what this evolution could mean for Michigan’s workforce and manufacturing economy. Q: What does “recycling for equivalent or higher use” actually look like in practice — and why is moving away from downcycling so important? A: Circularity, at its core, means manufacturing, recovering, and returning materials at end-of-life back into feedstock form to create something new. It’s about closing the loop — but we have to start with the basics: improving capture rates and diverting more material from landfills. The challenge is that recovery alone doesn’t guarantee success. One of the biggest barriers we face is the lack of demand for recycled feedstock. You can pour your heart into developing a fantastic recycling process, but if there’s no market for that material, the effort falls short. That’s why we need collaborative extended producer responsibility (EPR) systems that stabilize demand and make recycled regrind valuable, instead of punitive frameworks that simply point fingers. No single stakeholder can shoulder all the responsibility for circularity. It’s an ecosystem. Downcycling, meanwhile, is more like an off-ramp — it keeps materials out of landfills for a time but doesn’t truly close the loop. The goal is to return materials to their highest possible value so they can re-enter the economy at an equivalent or higher use. Q: In automotive supply chains, what opportunities do you see for keeping plastics and industrial packaging materials in circulation longer? A: Analyzing packaging fleets at the component level and asking what can be reused, what needs to be redesigned, and what truly has reached end-of-life is a great place to start. Pallets and lids are good examples. Often, those parts can be redeployed across multiple programs if you plan for it upfront. Traditionally, packaging was treated as disposable — once a product launched, everything associated with it ended up scrapped. Now we’re seeing a paradigm shift. Companies are designing for recyclability and reusability from the start. Some are even creating universal packaging platforms that can be shared across product lines. I like to say that carbon has become a kind of currency. When companies invest in reusable packaging, the return isn’t always measured dollar-for-dollar — it’s measured in carbon reduction. Those gains directly support broader sustainability goals, and, in some cases, they even help manufacturers comply with regulations that exempt circular packaging streams from waste classifications. At PolyFlex, we’ve already helped our customers divert several million pounds of plastic from landfills simply by applying design-for-recyclability principles and re-use strategies. It’s a shift toward smarter design — and it’s happening fast. Q: What are the biggest technical challenges in turning used materials back into high-value products — and where is the industry making progress? A: The biggest technical hurdle is consistency. Regrind blends vary depending on their source, and that variability can affect performance. The key is to manage it intentionally — introduce recycled feedstocks in small increments, fine-tune the process, and ramp up gradually. On the positive side, both equipment and operators are getting smarter. We’re seeing tremendous innovation in process technology that allows manufacturers to work with higher recycled content without sacrificing quality or throughput. Q: How do you design a product from the beginning with its second or third life in mind? A: It starts with identifying components that can become standards — like pallet dimensions or lid configurations that can be used across multiple applications. The more we can standardize, the more opportunities we create for re-use. It also requires a macro mindset. Instead of thinking in one product lifecycle, you think in systems. If you’re shipping a component from Detroit to Arizona, ask what can be sent back in that same flow. Can the packaging be refilled, reused, or repurposed? That kind of circular thinking transforms how supply chains operate. Material choice is another major factor. Corrugated packaging might last only a few trips, while plastics designed with the right impact resistance, UV stability, and weather tolerance can circulate for years. It’s about matching the material to its environment and expected lifespan. Q: Are there specific materials where circularity is advancing fastest — and others where it’s still a struggle? A: Rigid plastics — things like pallets, totes, and containers — are advancing the fastest because they’re high volume and easier to process. PET, HDPE, and polypropylene are particularly strong candidates because they can be reprocessed multiple times. Where we still struggle is with single-use, multi-layer packaging — the snack wrappers, films, and laminates that mix materials for barrier protection or freshness. Those layers make recycling extremely difficult. There’s exciting research happening in that space, but large-scale solutions are still developing. Q: What does a more circular plastics industry mean for jobs and skills in Southeast Michigan? A: It means opportunity — but it also means we need education. There isn’t a single university or technical program I know of that teaches recycling as part of its core curriculum. You can find polymer science programs but not recycling operations or circular systems. Training people for this industry is critical. If you lose a skilled recycling technician, you can’t just hire a replacement from a temp agency. It takes months or even years to become proficient. And with plastics recycling, mistakes are costly — something as simple as
How Sesame Solar is Aiming to Build a Mobile Clean Energy Future
Sesame Solar, based in Jackson, Michigan, is pioneering a new model for clean, mobile power. The company’s self-generating “nanogrids” — compact, solar- and hydrogen-powered units that deploy in minutes — are designed to deliver renewable electricity anywhere it’s needed. From emergency response and telecom operations to defense and community resilience, the technology provides an alternative to the diesel generators that have long powered temporary and remote sites. SBN Detroit interviewed co-founder Lauren Flanagan about redefining energy resilience, the challenges of scaling clean power, and why Michigan is the right place to lead this transformation. Q: Tell me about Sesame Solar — what inspired it, and how did it begin? A: After Hurricane Katrina, it hit me that extreme weather was becoming more frequent and more severe. And it was clear that government alone couldn’t handle the response. Every time disaster struck, I saw diesel generators being deployed to restore power, even though they caused massive environmental damage and logistical problems. That was the “aha” moment. I wanted to create a clean, mobile, self-generating power solution that could replace diesel. Q: How did that vision turn into the nanogrid model you use today? A: We realized that to change behavior, we had to make the better solution easier — something that could be deployed quickly, run cleanly, and adapt to different uses. We created a model that is modular and scalable, like Lego blocks. The nanogrids can power emergency offices, communications systems, field kitchens, drone refueling stations and more. The first units were deployed in the Caribbean after Hurricane Maria (2017), and they’re still operating today. From there, we’ve expanded across the U.S. — our systems are used by cities from Ann Arbor to Santa Barbara, and by telecom companies like Comcast, Cox, and Charter. Q: What kinds of situations demonstrate the greatest need for deployable clean power? A: Disaster recovery is one, of course, but our nanogrids are also being used anywhere grid power is unreliable or unavailable. The Air Force and the Army Corps of Engineers use them for unmanned operations, including surveillance and communications. We’ve also developed hydrogen-powered drone refueling stations with partners like Heven Aerotech. We’re seeing use cases across emergency management, defense, telecommunications, and community resilience — really, any situation where people need dependable, sustainable power quickly. Q: What challenges come with making energy both mobile and self-generating? A: It’s hard. To make something that sets up in 15 minutes and runs off solar and hydrogen, you need deep integration between hardware, software, and automation. We hold multiple patents, and our engineering team has solved challenges around rapid deployment, autonomous energy management, and safety. Every component — from insulation and vapor barriers to passive energy systems — contributes to efficiency. We have a unit deployed with the Army Corps of Engineers that’s been running unmanned for nearly a year with zero downtime. Imagine if a diesel-powered generator was running for that long. And maintenance of the unit consists of blowing sand off the panels twice a year because it’s located in the desert. That’s the level of reliability we’re aiming for. Q: How do you measure the environmental benefits compared to diesel generators? A: We quantify it in CO₂ savings. Our software platform tracks every kilowatt generated and consumed, calculating gallons of diesel avoided and total emissions saved in real time. It’s data our customers can use to validate their sustainability goals. Beyond emissions, diesel generators are noisy, polluting, and often dependent on supply chains that fail during crises. A self-sustaining nanogrid avoids all of that. Q: You moved the company from California to Michigan. Why build here? A: Honestly, I wouldn’t have opened this business in California. Michigan offers lower operating costs, a strong manufacturing base, and deep expertise in mobility and electrification — all areas that align with our long-term vision to make nanogrids more automated. The state has a world-class supply chain. We buy from companies like Alro Steel, we hire engineers locally, and we also source as locally as possible. I like to say we take a farm-to-table approach to manufacturing: how much can we build right here in Michigan? Q: What opportunities does this create for Michigan’s workforce and suppliers? A: We’re growing quickly — we have 23 employees and are hiring more technicians now. The roles require multidisciplinary skills like fabrication, welding, mechanical, and electrical. Increasingly, there are opportunities for advanced computer-assisted and AI-driven roles too. Michigan’s existing fabrication and automotive supply chain is a huge advantage. As that sector transitions toward electrification, it’s opening new opportunities for clean-tech manufacturing to scale. Q: What does the next decade look like as extreme weather becomes more frequent and the energy transition accelerates? A: It’s predicted that we’ll see a significant number of billion-dollar weather events in the next five or six years. Even as we make progress in slowing climate change, we’ll still need to adapt. That’s where mobile, renewably powered systems can come in. They bridge the gap between infrastructure and immediacy — bringing clean energy wherever it’s needed. I’m an optimist. I believe the technology exists to stabilize the climate, but it won’t get easier before it gets better. At Sesame Solar, our mission has always been about people, planet, and profit. It sounds a bit fluffy, but we are working to help communities, companies, and governments prepare for the future — not just by responding to disasters, but by rethinking how we power the world in the first place. Be sure to subscribe to our newsletter for regular updates on sustainable business practices in and around Detroit.
