BISMARCK, N.D. — A coalition of groups, including members of the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota, are suing the Trump administration for its decision to rescind the methane-waste prevention rule on oil and gas operations.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management recently rolled back protections in the waste-prevention rule, which was put in place to reduce flaring and venting of the potent greenhouse gas on federal and tribal lands. Without this regulation, the groups suing say taxpayers could lose $80 million in royalties over the next decade.

Robin Cooley is an attorney with Earthjustice, which is representing the groups.

"The rule defines waste so that BLM is looking only at an oil and gas operator's profits and completely ignoring its legal obligations to protect the public welfare when leasing publicly and tribally owned minerals,” Cooley said.

The Trump administration says the 2016 rule put in place by the Obama administration was a burden on small drilling companies. Cooley said the administration has ignored the environmental impacts on communities living on the front lines of oil and gas development such as the Fort Berthold Reservation.

There are more than 1,400 oil and gas wells on the reservation. Lisa DeVille, president of the Fort Berthold Protectors of Water and Earth Rights, lives on the reservation within a half mile of a well. She said the well has had a real impact on her health as well as that of her husband.

"Since the start of extraction, we have experienced respiratory illnesses and what our physician calls the Bakken cough,” DeVille said. “My husband and I suffered for weeks from uncontrollable coughing and congestion that limited the free flow of air to our lungs. Never in our lives have we had an illness last this long."

California and New Mexico also have filed a lawsuit against the Interior Department over rolling back the waste-prevention rule.


get more stories like this via email

Connecticut environmental groups want Gov. Ned Lamont to reject a fracked gas pipeline expansion. Their concerns revolve around Enbridge's Project Maple - a proposed fracked gas pipeline extension from New Jersey to Rhode Island, running across Connecticut. Enbridge says new capacity is needed to keep up with demand. But a major concern is leaking gas, which can lead to a range of health issues, from respiratory diseases to cancer.

Martha Klein, lead volunteer with Beyond Gas Campaign, Sierra Club Connecticut chapter, said expanding the pipeline would also have sharp economic impacts on ratepayers.

"Fracked gas infrastructure expansion has already driven ratepayer prices much higher over the last decade, and with more fracked gas expansion, it will push it higher still," she explained.

Gas utilities in the state were granted rate increases earlier this year, which strained many Connecticut residents' budgets. Groups have rallied against the project, and presented Lamont with a letter from environmental groups and elected officials to direct the state's Department of Energy and Environmental Conservation to deny state air and water permits for the proposal.

Project Maple could also set back Connecticut's clean energy goals, which has prompted negative feedback from residents. The Energy Information Administration says natural gas is Connecticut's largest energy source with nuclear power running second, but Klein said this isn't the end of the state's climate-friendly future.

"Basically, we could make buildings more efficient, especially the least efficient buildings, which tend to be where poor people live and rent in cities. The number one thing is not build any more fracked gas infrastructure, any new infrastructure. We need to ramp up solar - which our state has had actual limitations on," she continued.

She said New England states could also benefit from ramping up offshore wind production - although Lamont just pulled Connecticut out of a multistate offshore wind development deal, citing potential project costs. But a Sierra Club Connecticut report finds it would save the region's ratepayers about $630 million annually.

Maine officials are stepping up land conservation projects as climate change continues to alter the state's terrain.

New funding from the Land for Maine's Future program will preserve more than 3,500 acres of farmland, forests and working waterfront.

Steven Walker, executive director of the Brunswick Topsham Land Trust, emphasized the effects of climate change make it more critical than ever to protect green spaces.

"We really are excited about adding it to our list of spaces that will forever be open to the public and available for public recreation," Walker said.

Walker noted new funding will preserve more than 80 acres off West Bay Bridge Road in Topsham, including more than 4,000 feet of shoreline on the Muddy River wetland complex. It is just one of a handful of land parcels identified as containing statewide ecological significance.

Other recipients of the state funding include the Town of Wells Conservation Commission, which will preserve more than 160 acres of critical habitat for the endangered New England Cottontail and other wildlife. The City of Ellsworth will add nearly 300 acres to its existing public forest.

Walker pointed out the funding will also help preserve some of the state's iconic salt marshes and freshwater tidal areas, already being altered as sea level continues to rise.

"This parcel will function to help mitigate that effect," Walker explained. "To make sure marshes continue to be part of the landscape moving forward."

Walker added climate change is affecting every corner of Maine and he's already seeing changes around Bowdoin, Brunswick and Topsham.

The Land for Maine's Future program was boosted by the state legislature in 2021 with an infusion of $40 million to step up the pace of land conservation projects. So far, the program has preserved more than 600,000 acres.


get more stories like this via email

Washington's clean energy law could bring thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to the state, according to a new report.

Greenline Insights' analysis of the Climate Commitment Act, the state's cap-and-invest law passed in 2021, finds it will create 45,000 jobs and generate more than $9 billion in economic output over the next five years.

Jonah Kurman-Faber, founder of Greenline Insights and report co-author, said says the law has outsized returns for local economies and gains for the state as well.

"These investments from the Climate Commitment Act support labor-intensive local industries. We're thinking things like construction, manufacturing, business operations, transportation," he said.

The law could be repealed if Initiative 2117 on the November ballot is approved. Opponents of the Climate Commitment Act call it a "sneaky tax" on consumers.

Kurman-Faber noted that 45,000 jobs and $9 billion of return for the law is actually on the low end of their estimates.

The Climate Commitment Act is able to leverage money from sources like the federal government, and once this is factored in, the law could create 263,000 jobs and generate $50 billion over the next eight years. Kurman-Faber said states that get the most out of their money are the ones that use those investments to attract new sources to match funds.

"Think of things like federal dollars flowing in to provide grants or private industries investing in projects. The Climate Commitment Act is very good at attracting leverage," he continued.

The analysis finds jobs will be created in a wide range of sectors and that jobs created will pay, on average, 9% higher than the state median. Kurman-Faber said the new jobs will also have a high level of accessibility, too, since many will be open to people of any education level.

"With these jobs, there's not only a higher pay but also an easier route to career transition, or easier routes to opportunities for career transition for more residents in Washington," he continued.


get more stories like this via email