
<Box as="article">

<Text fontSize="md" mb={4}>
The US EPA is considering the balance between low-cost electricity and water resource protection. This could have major consequences as discharge from power plants is one of the biggest sources of wastewater in the USA, Klarifi data shows.
</Text>

<Heading as="h2" id="regulatory-backdrop" fontSize="2xl" fontWeight="bold" mt={8} mb={4} color="gray.800">
The regulatory pendulum swings
</Heading>

<Text fontSize="md" mb={4}>
In March 2024, the EPA issued its <a href="https://www.epa.gov/eg/steam-electric-power-generating-effluent-guidelines-2024-final-rule" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">2024 Final Rule</a> to strengthen certain discharge limitations in the Steam Electric Power Generating industry (fossil fuel power plants). The final rule was estimated to reduce pollutants discharged through wastewater from coal-fired power plants by approximately 660 million pounds per year.
</Text>

<Text fontSize="md" mb={4}>
The pendulum is now swinging in the other direction with the EPA's recent announcement of the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-launches-biggest-deregulatory-action-us-history" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history</a>, which includes a "Reconsideration of limitations, guidelines and standards (ELG) for the Steam Electric Power Generating Industry to ensure low-cost electricity while protecting water resources".
</Text>

<Heading as="h2" id="impact" fontSize="2xl" fontWeight="bold" mt={8} mb={4} color="gray.800">
EPA's reconsideration impact
</Heading>

<Text fontSize="md" mb={4}>
EPA's reconsideration could impact over 900 fossil fuel power plants discharging wastewater into U.S. surface waters, with potentially major implications for water quality and public health – see the map below.
</Text>

<Box my={6}>
  <Box position="relative" width="100%" height="auto">
    <Image
      src="/analyses/assets/deregulation-of-power-plant-wasterwater-what-is-at-stake/map-of-944-fossil-fuel-power-plants-discharging-wastewater-to-US-surface-waters.webp"
      alt="Map of 944 fossil fuel power plants discharging wastewater to U.S. surface waters"
      width={1920}
      height={1080}
      priority
      style={{
        width: '100%',
        height: 'auto',
        objectFit: 'contain',
        backgroundColor: 'white'
      }}
    />
  </Box>
  <Text fontSize="sm" color="gray.600" mt={2} textAlign="center">
    Figure 1: 969 fossil fuel power plants with direct wastewater discharge.
  </Text>
</Box>

<Heading as="h2" id="fossil-share-discharge" fontSize="2xl" fontWeight="bold" mt={8} mb={4} color="gray.800">
Fossil fuel power plants account for 31% of total non-hydro discharge
</Heading>

<Text fontSize="md" mb={4}>
Klarifi's wastewater data platform provides insights into the plants' effluent, which is subject to limits on pH, suspended solids, oil & grease, nutrients, heavy metals, and more. Crucially, fossil fuel power plants account for 31% of the total daily discharge from US facilities (disregarding hydroelectric power plants), so the deregulation is affecting a very significant wastewater stream and could have major consequences for receiving waters.
</Text>

<Box my={6}>
  <Box position="relative" width="100%" height="auto">
    <Image
      src="/analyses/assets/deregulation-of-power-plant-wasterwater-what-is-at-stake/daily-point-source-discharge-by-industry.webp"
      alt="Daily point-source discharge by industry (MGD) excluding hydro"
      width={1920}
      height={1080}
      priority
      style={{
        width: '100%',
        height: 'auto',
        objectFit: 'contain',
        backgroundColor: 'white'
      }}
    />
  </Box>
  <Text fontSize="sm" color="gray.600" mt={2} textAlign="center">
    Figure 2: Total daily point source discharge from US facilities, by industry (MGD), excluding hydroelectric power plants, only facilities submitting reporting on daily flow.
  </Text>
</Box>

<Heading as="h2" id="state-level-impact" fontSize="2xl" fontWeight="bold" mt={8} mb={4} color="gray.800">
Texas is the state most affected by fossil power plant wastewater
</Heading>

<Text fontSize="md" mb={4}>
Unsuprisingly, energy powerhouse Texas is the state with the largest daily flow, followed by New Jersey, Indiana, Florida and New York – see the chart below for the 10 states with largest total daily wastewater flow from fossil fuel power plants.
</Text>

<Box my={6}>
  <Box position="relative" width="100%" height="auto">
    <Image
      src="/analyses/assets/deregulation-of-power-plant-wasterwater-what-is-at-stake/top-ten-states-by-fossil-power-plant-wastewater-flow.webp"
      alt="Top ten states by fossil power-plant wastewater flow"
      width={1920}
      height={1080}
      priority
      style={{
        width: '100%',
        height: 'auto',
        objectFit: 'contain',
        backgroundColor: 'white'
      }}
    />
  </Box>
  <Text fontSize="sm" color="gray.600" mt={2} textAlign="center">
    Figure 3: Ten states with the highest total daily flow from fossil-fuel power plants.
  </Text>
</Box>

<Heading as="h2" id="conclusion" fontSize="2xl" fontWeight="bold" mt={8} mb={4} color="gray.800">
Key takeaways
</Heading>

<Text fontSize="md" mb={4}>
As the EPA scales back the 2024 Steam Electric rule, power utilities could potentially defer wastewater treatment investments—but downstream water-quality burdens may grow.
</Text>

<Text fontSize="md" mb={4}>
With fossil plants releasing nearly a third of point source wastewater, even modest regulatory relief could translate into substantial pollutant loads.
</Text>

<Text fontSize="md" mb={4}>
Klarifi will continue tracking permit revisions, compliance reports, and capital-project plans so stakeholders can quantify risks and opportunities in near real-time.
</Text>

<BlogEndSection />
</Box>

Exploring the potential impacts of the EPA's proposed rollback of effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) for fossil-fuel power plants and what it could mean for U.S. water quality.

The regulatory pendulum swings

EPA's reconsideration impact

Fossil fuel power plants account for 31% of total non-hydro discharge

Texas is the state most affected by fossil power plant wastewater

Key takeaways

Deregulation of powerplant wastewater: what's at stake?


<Box as="article">

<Heading as="h2" id="introduction" fontSize="2xl" fontWeight="bold" mt={8} mb={4} color="gray.800">
Michigan cities prioritize wastewater and sewer infrastructure with over $3.5 Billion in planned investments
</Heading>

<Text fontSize="md" mb={4}>
An increasing number of cities across Michigan are now publishing Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs), 
enhancing transparency and long-term infrastructure planning. This article presents a comprehensive analysis
of water and sewer-related capital improvement projects planned to begin in 2025 or later. 
Drawing on data from 120 Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) and adopted municipal budgets, 
the analysis covers 2,628 individual projects representing a total planned investment of $3,518,245,978 across 103 cities in Michigan in
the years to come. The objective is to assess the scale, geographic distribution, and projected timelines of these critical infrastructure investments, 
offering insights into how cities are addressing essential water and sewer system upgrades.
</Text>

<Heading as="h2" id="key-findings" fontSize="2xl" fontWeight="bold" mt={8} mb={4} color="gray.800">
Key findings
</Heading>

- *Significant investments*: Approximately $3.52 billion is allocated across 2,628 identified water, wastewater and sewer projects in 103 Michigan cities.

- *Dominant spending hub*: Kalamazoo shows exceptionally high planned spending at ~$895 million, significantly overshadowing other cities. Ann Arbor follows with ~$503 million.

- *Near-term budget allocation*: Spending is heavily concentrated in the near future, with 2027 projected to have the highest investment (~$422 million), followed by 2026 (~$419 million) and 2028 (~$278 million).

- *Project size distribution*: While the average project budget is ~$1.4 million, the median is much lower ($300,000), indicating most projects are relatively small. However, large projects significantly impact total spending such as the KWRP sustainable residual biosolids project. 

<Heading as="h2" id="spending-by-city" fontSize="2xl" fontWeight="bold" mt={8} mb={4} color="gray.800">
Infrastructure investments varies widely across Michigan cities
</Heading>

<Text fontSize="md" mb={4}>
Capital investment in waste and sewer infrastructure varies considerably across Michigan cities. Kalamazoo leads by a substantial margin, with a total projected budget of $895 million. 
This is dominated by a few large-scale, high-budget projects such as the extension of the water system in sections of both Richland Township and Ross Township in response to PFAS contamination in some areas of the local groundwater. Ann Arbor, Battle Creek, and Saginaw also rank among the top cities by projected spending, though their totals remain significantly lower than Kalamazoo's.
</Text>

<Box my={6}>
  <Box position="relative" width="100%" height="auto">
    <Image 
      src="/analyses/assets/michigan-cip-wastewater-analysis/top-ten-michigan-cities-by-total-wastewater-project-spending.png" 
      alt="Top-ten-michigan-cities-by-total-wastewater-project-spending"
      width={1920}
      height={1080}
      priority
      style={{
        width: '100%',
        height: 'auto',
        objectFit: 'contain',
        backgroundColor: 'white'
      }}
    />
  </Box>
  <Text fontSize="sm" color="gray.600" mt={2} textAlign="center">Figure 1: Top 10 Michigan Cities by Total Wastewater Project Spending (Millions $)</Text>
</Box>

<Heading as="h2" id="spending-over-time" fontSize="2xl" fontWeight="bold" mt={8} mb={4} color="gray.800">
Near-term focus dominates planned infrastructure projects
</Heading>

<Text fontSize="md" mb={4}>
Planned spending on wastewater and sewer infrastructure is heavily concentrated in the earlier years of the forecast period. Investment levels remain high through fiscal years 2026 and 2027, after which projected budgets decline. This pattern indicates a near-term focus on advancing critical infrastructure improvements. As additional Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) are released, it is expected that future spending will increasingly target projects scheduled to begin in and beyond 2026. Klarifi continues to closely monitor CIP publications to support early planning and informed decision-making.
</Text>

<Box my={6}>
  <Box position="relative" width="100%" height="auto">
    <Image 
      src="/analyses/assets/michigan-cip-wastewater-analysis/total-planned-projects-spending-in-michigan-by-year.png" 
      alt="total-planned-projects-spending-in-michigan-by-year"
      width={1920}
      height={1080}
      priority
      style={{
        width: '100%',
        height: 'auto',
        objectFit: 'contain',
        backgroundColor: 'white'
      }}
    />
  </Box>
  <Text fontSize="sm" color="gray.600" textAlign="center">Figure 2: Total planned projects spending in Michigan by year (Millions $)</Text>
</Box>

<Heading as="h2" id="spending-by-project-type" fontSize="2xl" fontWeight="bold" mt={8} mb={4} color="gray.800">
Spending by project type
</Heading>

<Text fontSize="md" mb={4}>
Across Michigan cities, capital improvement investments reveal a strong emphasis on core utility infrastructure, 
with pump related projects commanding a big share at over $157 million in planned spending. 
This substantial spending highlights the foundational role pumps play in water and wastewater systems. 
PFAS-related projects follow with nearly $90 million,
reflecting growing urgency around emerging contaminants and water safety. 
However, this is primarily driven by four major projects planned across Kalamazoo, 
Grand Rapids, and Prescott, all of which are expected to commence in 2025.
</Text>


<Box my={6}>
  <Box position="relative" width="100%" height="auto">
    <Image 
      src="/analyses/assets/michigan-cip-wastewater-analysis/selected-planned-project-spending-across-six-categories.png" 
      alt="selected-planned-project-spending-across-six-categories"
      width={1920}
      height={1080}
      priority
      style={{
        width: '100%',
        height: 'auto',
        objectFit: 'contain',
        backgroundColor: 'white'
      }}
    />
  </Box>
  <Text fontSize="sm" color="gray.600" mt={2} textAlign="center">Figure 3: Selected planned project spending across 6 categories (Millions $)</Text>
</Box>


<Text fontSize="md" mb={4}>
UV disinfection and SCADA systems received $16 million and $9 million, respectively, 
signaling efforts to modernize treatment technologies and enhance operational control. 
Meanwhile, blower and lagoon projects, though smaller in scale with $4.4 million and $3.3 million, 
point to targeted upgrades in treatment processes and support for rural systems. 
Overall, the distribution suggests a dual focus on modernization and environmental compliance, while continuing to invest in essential infrastructure.
</Text>

<Heading as="h2" id="project-budgets" fontSize="2xl" fontWeight="bold" mt={8} mb={4} color="gray.800">
Small projects dominate in number, but big projects drive the dollars
</Heading>

<Text fontSize="md" mb={4}>
While the total spending figures are large, the distribution of individual project budgets reveals that the majority of initiatives are smaller in scale. The median project budget is only $300,000, and 75% of all projects are budgeted at $1 million or less. However, the presence of a smaller number of very large projects (up to $142 million) significantly skews the average budget upwards and contributes heavily to the total spending.
<Box my={6}>
  <Box position="relative" width="100%" height="auto">
    <Image 
      src="/analyses/assets/michigan-cip-wastewater-analysis/nearly-three-quarters-of-projects-are-small-scale.png" 
      alt="nearly-three-quarters-of-projects-are-small-scale"
      width={1920}
      height={1080}
      priority
      style={{
        width: '100%',
        height: 'auto',
        objectFit: 'contain',
        backgroundColor: 'white'
      }}
    />
  </Box>
  <Text fontSize="sm" color="gray.600" mt={2} textAlign="center">Figure 4: Nearly three-quarters of projects are small scale, with almost half under $250K</Text>
</Box>
</Text>

<Heading as="h2" id="how-to-find-projects" fontSize="2xl" fontWeight="bold" mt={8} mb={4} color="gray.800">
How to find details about individual projects using Klarifi's platform
</Heading>

<Text fontSize="md" mb={4}>
  <Box as="span" display={{ base: 'block', md: 'none' }}>
    Klarifi collects, organizes, and makes Capital Improvement Projects easily searchable at the line-item level. Visit our platform to explore these insights in detail.
  </Box>
  <Box as="span" display={{ base: 'none', md: 'block' }}>
    Klarifi collects, organizes, and makes Capital Improvement Projects easily searchable at the line-item level. Explore the walkthrough below and experience the difference for yourself.
  </Box>
</Text>

<Box display={{ base: 'none', md: 'block' }}>
  <WalkthroughGuide
    steps={[
      {
        image: '/guides/city-budgets/klarifi-city-budgets-step-one.webp',
        description: "Let's start by looking for upcoming projects in Michigan",
        hotspot: { x: 644, y: 183 },
        descriptionPosition: 'bottom',
      },
      {
        image: '/guides/city-budgets/klarifi-city-budgets-step-two.webp',
        description: "Search for 'expansion' projects in Michigan",
        hotspot: { x: 230, y: 185 },
        descriptionPosition: 'bottom',
      },
      {
        image: '/guides/city-budgets/klarifi-city-budgets-step-three.webp',
        description: 'Include project descriptions in the text search',
        hotspot: { x: 274, y: 151 },
        descriptionPosition: 'bottom',
      },
      {
        image: '/guides/city-budgets/klarifi-city-budgets-step-four.webp',
        description:
          'Look only at projects expecting to begin in 2026 or later',
        hotspot: { x: 515, y: 245 },
        descriptionPosition: 'bottom',
      },
      {
        image: '/guides/city-budgets/klarifi-city-budgets-step-five.webp',
        description: "Let's run the search",
        hotspot: { x: 950, y: 245 },
        descriptionPosition: 'bottom',
      },
      {
        image: '/guides/city-budgets/klarifi-city-budgets-step-six.webp',
        description: 'See details by clicking on a specific project',
        hotspot: { x: 220, y: 380 },
        descriptionPosition: 'bottom',
      },
      {
        image: '/guides/city-budgets/klarifi-city-budgets-step-seven.webp',
      },
    ]}
  />
</Box>

<Heading as="h2" id="conclusion" fontSize="2xl" fontWeight="bold" mt={8} mb={4} color="gray.800">
Conclusion
</Heading>

<Text fontSize="md" mb={4}>
Michigan cities are planning substantial investments in wastewater infrastructure, particularly in the 2026-2027 timeframe. While spending is widespread across many cities, Kalamazoo represents a significant concentration of the planned budget. The majority of individual projects are relatively small, but large-scale initiatives drive the overall investment figures. This analysis provides a valuable snapshot of planned spending based on the available CIP data from Klarifi's market intelligence platform, highlighting key areas and timelines for wastewater infrastructure development in Michigan.
</Text>


<BlogEndSection />

</Box>

An in-depth analysis of planned wastewater and sewer project spending in Michigan cities, based on Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) data.

Michigan cities prioritize wastewater and sewer infrastructure with over $3.5 Billion in planned investments

Key findings

Infrastructure investment varies widely across Michigan cities

Near-term focus dominates planned infrastructure projects

Spending by project type

Small projects dominate in number, but big projects drive the dollars

How to find details about individual projects using Klarifi's platform

Conclusion

Analysis of Michigan Wastewater Project Spending (CIP Data)

Access comprehensive wastewater market analysis, industry reports, and focus analyses. Stay informed about market trends, regulatory changes, and business opportunities.

Market Reports & Analyses

Focus Analyses

Deregulation of powerplant wastewater: what's at stake?

Analysis of Michigan Wastewater Project Spending (CIP Data)

Try Klarifi for free