Environmental groups are suing over the expansion of one of the state's largest crude-oil operations.

The lawsuit contends that the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District illegally approved permits without environmental review of the risks of importing millions of gallons of toxic and potentially explosive oil.

Matt Krough, campaign director for ForestEthics, said 5 million Californians live in the evacuation zone for an oil train derailment or explosion. He said it's too dangerous to allow the Bakersfield Crude Terminal to increase traffic without investigating the threat to air quality and public safety.

"You see the potential for these oil trains passing through every major population center of California," he said, "crossing critical waterways and aquifer recharge zones, crossing through valuable farmland."

The lawsuit, filed by Earthjustice, maintains that Air District officials approved the permits in a piecemeal fashion to keep the project from getting public scrutiny.

The Kern County terminal opened last year and is allowed to accept up to 100 crude-oil trains a day, including those carrying volatile crude from the Bakken shale formation as well as heavier and highly toxic tar sands.

According to the California Energy Commission, oil shipments by railroad into California have hit an all-time record, which Krough said also increases the risk of a disastrous spill.

"That's rare, but it's a real risk," he said. "The other side, though, is that there is a chronic exposure for people all along the rail route to emissions from the trains in transit, and from this terminal itself."

Krough said California's weather also is a hazard for trains carrying volatile crude oil.

"These tank cars, black ones, coming through California in the summer - and you actually have boiling contents, with the constant popping of these pressure-released valves," he said. "This is the sort of thing that needs to be studied and understood."

The lawsuit contends that the expansion of the Bakersfield Crude Terminal could lead to a 1,000 percent increase in the amount of crude imported by rail into California each year.

The petition is online at earthjustice.org.


get more stories like this via email

Large, energy-intense buildings used in Bitcoin mining, cloud computing and artificial intelligence data processing industries could become more common in West Virginia under legislation being considered by lawmakers.

Advocacy groups said high-impact data centers pose environmental and public health risks for communities.

Morgan King, climate and energy program manager for the West Virginia Citizen Action Group, pointed out Mingo, Mason and Tucker counties have already seen data center growth, along with an increased strain on natural resources. She added under House Bill 2014, such facilities would not be required to follow local zoning, land use or noise ordinances.

"These centers can take up anywhere from three to four square miles of land that will be repurposed for construction of these buildings for data centers," King explained. "Even more, they require an intense water use and energy use."

The bill would allow companies to develop independent energy grids using coal and gas. Supporters of the legislation, including West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey, argued the bill would bring significant investment to the state.

The bill places no limits on how much of the water supply these facilities can draw upon. King noted in neighboring Virginia, some data centers are using nearly a million gallons of water a day.

"It doesn't put any restrictions on the facility, which could have an impact on local water resources," King emphasized. "It also requires that the power generation of coal throughout the state be remaining at a 69% base load."

She added there is increased exposure to light and sound pollution for residents and disruption of wildlife habitats.

"One of these centers is posed for Tucker County, right outside of Davis, that's in one of the most beautiful natural areas of the state," King observed. "If we put a data center in there, it's going to create a lot of noise and light pollution that will impact local ecosystems."

Energy experts are concerned data centers could lead to higher electricity bills for Mountain State households, and worsen communities' climate change resilience.


get more stories like this via email

As Congress debates cuts to offset tax-cut extensions, the future of the Clean Fuels Production Tax Credit remains uncertain, with potential impacts on Michigan's growing clean-fuel industry. The Clean Fuels Production Tax credit was established under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. It offers 20 cents per gallon for nonaviation fuels and 35 cents for aviation fuels which cut emissions by 50% compared with petroleum. Michigan has six key clean-fuel and alternative-energy initiatives, including Sustainable Aviation Fuel.

Alex Muresianu, senior policy analyst for Tax Foundation, estimates that repealing the credit could net about $12.8 billion over a decade based on Treasury projections, although he questions the math.

"That was based on some estimates from Treasury. It doesn't make sense to take a revenue cost estimate from Treasury and assume it will one-for-one translate into revenue raised from reversing a policy," she said.

Critics call credit initiative costly, favoring big companies while possibly raising fuel prices and distorting the market. It started on January 1st and is slated to run through 2027 unless extended.

Congress is divided on the future of these tax credits. While some want to eliminate them altogether to offset tax cuts, others warn that doing so could harm energy investments and job growth.

Nan Swift, a resident fellow of the Governance Program at R Street Institute, believes that right now, Congress is likely far from debating the finer details, and the tax credit is just one of those specifics.

"Certainly, it's on a a wish list for a lot of members, but we don't even know yet if the House and Senate can find agreement between their two-bill or one-bill plans," she explained.

Shortly after the Clean Fuels Production Tax Credit was enacted, debates arose about its cost, effectiveness and fairness over the broader economy.


get more stories like this via email

In the wake of plans to reopen the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Covert Township after three years of inactivity, major tech companies have pledged to triple global nuclear energy output by 2050.

The tech giants include Amazon, Google and Meta, signing the "Large Energy Users Pledge" at a major energy conference in Houston this month. The pledge backs development of small modular reactors for data centers and artificial intelligence but raises concerns over regulations and public opposition.

M. V. Ramana, professor of disarmament, global and human security at the University of British Columbia, a physicist and nuclear expert, said nuclear energy is environmentally risky and expensive, and despite the wealth of Big Tech, he pointed out, they will not be footing the bill.

"Much of the funding for any of these activities -- whether it's building new reactors or reopening old, shuttered reactors -- is coming from the public," Ramana emphasized. "Tax money that's going in, it'll be the ratepayers' money."

For Michigan's Indigenous communities opposed to nuclear expansion, it is much deeper than just a financial issue. They urged listening to the natural world and ancestral teachings rather than allowing outsiders to dictate their future. Supporters argued expansion is crucial for meeting energy demands and cutting carbon emissions.

Critics contended most small reactors exist only on paper. They have not been built or tested, so claiming they are safe for the public, or for powering artificial intelligence and data centers is merely theoretical. Ramana warned those critics, the tech giants backing a boost in nuclear energy will be tough to stand up against.

"It is going to increase the pressure on the Department of Energy to approve funds," Ramana observed. "Not that the DOE requires any kind of prodding, they are only too happy to shovel out our money to all of these nuclear companies."

Supporters maintained small modular reactors will be safer, more efficient, and tested for reliability in powering the energy-intensive industries using them.


get more stories like this via email