CHARLESTON, W. Va. -- One of the first bills introduced in West Virginia's 2020 legislative session, which opened Wednesday, is by Republican House Speaker Roger Hanshaw to create a state investment fund to kickstart new businesses.

But environmental groups in the state oppose the bill because the fund's first project would be a giant underground natural gas storage plant called the Appalachian Storage Hub, according to Jim Kotcon, political chair of the Sierra Club West Virginia chapter.

Kotcon says the hub would store and transport natural gas liquids produced from fracking, such as ethane, which is used in making plastics.

"This would dramatically expand the use of fossil fuels and, in particular, natural gas drilling in West Virginia," he points out. "And we need to be reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, not increasing it."

The Appalachian Storage Hub has support from the state's congressional delegations and Gov. Jim Justice, who says it will bring much-needed jobs to the depressed Ohio Valley region and could turn West Virginia into a national economic center for the natural gas and plastics industries.

In the works for nearly a decade, the mammoth project is expected to cost as much as $10 billion for a plant that can hold 10 million barrels of natural gas liquid byproducts.

Kotcon says the nation has similar natural gas industrial centers, including one along the Mississippi River in Louisiana between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. He says that facility has emitted so much air and water pollution over the years that the surrounding area is called Cancer Valley.

"West Virginia already has very high cancer rates, and we have not seen anything to suggest that our industry would develop in any way safer than what's already being done elsewhere," he states.

A 2019 study by Harvard University's School of Public Health showed that more people in the nation live much closer to underground natural gas storage wells than previously thought, and that accidents at those facilities have caused fatalities, explosions and exposure to noxious odors.

The Port of New York and New Jersey is receiving funding to cut emissions. It's part of the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Ports Program.

Of the $3 billion national grant, the port will get more than $402 million to monitor emissions and transition equipment to electric power.

Jordan Stutt, CALSTART's northeast region senior director, said zero-emission vehicles can help port operations in many ways.

"So, we're going to see everything from electric forklifts and drayage trucks," said Stutt, "to shore power systems - to help major ships use electricity at ports, instead of burning diesel while they idle there for days."

Particulate emissions have been steadily declining at the port, but carbon emissions are rising.

In 2019, the port of New York and New Jersey was one of the highest emitting ports nationwide, with one million tons of carbon being released from it.

Cutting port emissions will have widespread benefits for nearby communities. Research shows municipalities near ports often face poor air quality and the health impacts of it.

Stutt noted that this $3 billion is going to existing technologies for ports to reduce emissions. He said the money's other uses will help bolster ports' climate-friendly futures.

"Through these investments, we will gather really critical data to help us better understand the benefits of this transition," said Stutt. "It'll help build out the workforce to support deployment and maintenance of all this equipment, and it'll help encourage increased manufacturing of zero-emission equipment."

He added that these will help lower costs for the next generation of zero-emission vehicles.

By already having these vehicles and the equipment, it will ensure lower costs in the future - meaning the government funds won't be as necessary to make up the cost differential.

From cow waste to clean energy, Michigan will soon have a couple of new state-backed digesters to get the job done.

Last Tuesday, the Michigan Strategic Fund approved Freehold Energy RNG to pursue a tax-exempt bond for its project.

The company plans to build facilities in St. Joseph and Muskegon counties to produce renewable natural gas from dairy waste.

The estimated cost for the project is between $75 to $80 million of local investment. Freehold's Principal Project Developer CW Alexander shared the environmental benefits of the initiative.

"It equates to about 4.3 million gallons of gasoline equivalent per year, which equates to about 90,000 metric tons of CO2 reduction," said Alexander, "or about equivalent of 20,000 cars removed off the road."

Construction is expected to begin next year - with the facilities becoming operational in 2026.

Digesters can range from small systems for single farms to large facilities handling waste from thousands of cows - producing biogas and nutrient-rich fertilizers as byproducts.

Alexander highlighted additional benefits, such as odor reduction around farms. He also said his company plans to repurpose excess sand used by farmers for cow bedding.

"With the benefit of that is it improves agricultural land quality, because you're not moving sand onto the fields," said Alexander. "It's now just the manure as fertilizer, once processed, is going onto the fields. So that's a pretty significant benefit to the land quality over the long term."

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's MI Healthy Climate Plan aims for Michigan to achieve 100% clean energy by 2040, and carbon neutrality by 2050.






get more stories like this via email

Nationwide, 76% of Trump voters and 86% of all voters oppose attempts to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency, according to a new poll commissioned by the Environmental Protection Network.

President-elect Donald Trump last month announced former New York Congressman Lee Zeldin as his pick to run the EPA.

Matt George, partner and head of research for the firm Seven Letter, said the data show the vast majority of voters want legislation such as the Clean Air Act to remain in place, and want strengthened regulations to curb pollution.

"The majority of voters really do recognize the value of regulations that keep our air and water clean and keep us healthy," George reported. "They want to maintain those regulations."

The poll also found opposition to weakening the EPA is higher among Latino, suburban and independent voters who shifted Republican in this year's presidential election. Critics of a second Trump administration said the president-elect wants to dismantle the EPA by significantly cutting staff and funding. According to the League of Conservation Voters, during his time in office, Zeldin repeatedly voted against clean-water and clean-air legislation.

A recent Environmental Protection Network report found widespread benefits from agency regulations, showing rules passed during the last four years will save more than 200,000 lives through 2050, prevent more than 100 million asthma attacks, and deliver more than $250 billion in net public health gains each year.

George added support for the EPA has increased since 2017.

"We see that those numbers have only gotten better in 2024, in this year where we have one percentage point gain in 'strengthened' or 'expanded,' but we see that the numbers for 'weakened' or 'eliminated' have been cut effectively in half," George explained.

Without knowing who Trump had named as EPA administrator, almost two-thirds of voters who supported Trump in the election expressed concern his EPA pick would put the interests of corporations ahead of protecting clean water, clean air and public health. Last week the agency announced it will likely allow the state of California permission to ban the sales of new gas-powered cars and trucks by 2035.


get more stories like this via email