Eminent-domain concerns are a focal point as Iowa considers the idea of allowing underground pipelines to transfer carbon dioxide for storage.

Summit Carbon Solutions recently filed its initial permit request with state regulators. If approved, the pipeline would run through several states to gather carbon from ethanol plants, eventually storing it underground in North Dakota.

As part of the process, Summit is trying to secure voluntary land easements from property owners.

Wally Taylor, an attorney representing the Sierra Club of Iowa, said the company's filing did not include information about easements.

"They said they would, quote, 'update it later,' " Taylor observed. "I think what that means is that they're struggling to get people to sign voluntary easements."

In its filing, Summit said it is uncertain to what extent it will have to use eminent domain, the process of seizing land, to move forward on the project.

Taylor noted he and landowners have filed motions to force Summit to release details regarding private property. Summit argues it is heavily focused on landowner engagement as part of its efforts.

But it has not quelled backlash from property owners, including the formation of a coalition to fight such projects.

Taylor pointed out a bill recently proposed in the Legislature to limit the scope of eminent domain for a private venture like this was abruptly pulled from consideration, despite the bill's sponsor noting strong demand for the proposal.

"Obviously, there was some political pressure from powerful interests that got to the legislators," Taylor asserted.

Property owners argued the lack of a proper debate hinders their ability to protect the health of their land, including farms.

Taylor emphasized despite what companies such as Summit are promising about reducing their carbon footprint, his group is not convinced underground storage is a solution to climate change. There are at least two other carbon pipeline projects in the works in Iowa.

Backers say a law adding nuclear power to the definition of "green" energy will give Ohioans another option to cut carbon emissions but some environmentalists are skeptical.

House Bill 308, signed in December by Gov. Mike DeWine, is designed to open the state to nuclear power research and development. However, critics are concerned it could be used to diminish the roles of renewables, such as wind and solar energy in reaching future climate goals.

Rep. Sean Brennan, D-Parma, is a co-sponsor of the bill. He is unsure the state can reach its climate goals with the current mix of renewables.

"My belief is that if we're ever going to wean ourselves off of coal and natural gas, fossil fuels, we've got to expand our nuclear portfolio in Ohio. We just have to do it," Brennan asserted. "Wind and solar just aren't going to do it for us."

Environmental groups such as Earthjustice say the measure is similar to a controversial 2022 law classifying natural gas as green energy despite the fact its use creates hydrocarbon emissions. Critics also fear the language could be used to divert public funding from renewable energy projects.

Brennan noted the bill does not promise any financial incentives for nuclear power or divert public funds from renewable energy projects. He argued opening up to nuclear energy, which does not emit carbon into the atmosphere, will help attract jobs and federal funding.

"We need to continue to expand on solar and wind," Brennan contended. "I truly believe we have to do that, but I believe nuclear is going to be hugely important for our future energy independence, and hopefully, Ohio will become an exporter of electricity in the future."

Ohio ended its renewable energy standard in 2019 in the midst of a corruption and bribery scandal involving nuclear and coal-powered energy plants in the state. Brennan emphasized Ohio needs to move forward in its efforts to fight climate change.

"I decided to join the legislation because I believe it's a good idea to send a message to stakeholders that Ohio is open to explore expanding nuclear, whereas some states have moratoriums on nuclear," Brennan added. "I think it's going to be important to our future energy needs in Ohio."

This story is based on original reporting by Kathiann M. Kowalski for Energy News Network.


get more stories like this via email

Many contend Utah, like the greater United States, is facing an energy crisis, and the fast development and expansion of artificial intelligence could make the problem even worse.

It is estimated AI data centers will require 14 gigawatts of new power capacity by 2030. Estimates show one gigawatt alone is enough energy to power about 750,000 homes.

Gov. Spencer Cox announced Operation Gigawatt late last year, an initiative he said will double Utah's energy production over the next decade. The main goals of the initiative are to increase transmission capacity, expand and develop more energy production, enhance Utah's policies and invest in Utah research.

Cox argued the state needs more energy.

"We've looked at the future and where we are headed," Cox explained. "We've made a determination that we have to do something bold. We have to change the way we develop power in the state of Utah, and we are so fortunate to live in a state where we have these opportunities."

Coal fuels almost 50% of Utah's total electricity net generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Natural gas accounts for about 34% and the rest primarily comes from renewable energy. Cox and others want to diversify the state's energy portfolio and bring nuclear and geothermal power into the mix. Opponents of nuclear power said it is expensive and dangerous.

Dusty Monks, deputy director of the Utah Office of Energy Development, said while nuclear power has a smaller footprint and is a zero-emissions energy source, getting nuclear power to Utah could be a long and complicated challenge. The state does not currently have a nuclear reactor at a commercial scale.

"We need to make sure that we have a policy pathway, policies that allow for us to align with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that we are not an obstacle but we're in line with," Monks outlined. "Then as we talk about energy, or nuclear, we actually need to deploy a project."

Monks added his office will bring local, regional and national resources over the next year to consider what would be required to build a nuclear project in the Beehive State.


get more stories like this via email

The Department of Energy is taking a close look at the economic and environmental impacts of liquefied natural gas exports, which some experts argue are driving up household energy costs and worsening climate challenges.

The report comes as LNG export projects rapidly expand, with U.S. demand at record levels and expected to grow as new facilities open.

In Virginia, household natural-gas bills have increased 50% since 2016, far outpacing inflation, said Jeremy Symons, principal at Symons Public Affairs. He attributed the increase to growing LNG exports, which limit domestic supply and drive energy costs.

"A single LNG plant - the controversial CP2 facility that's being proposed for Louisiana - would export twice as much gas every day than Virginia consumes," he said. "That means that, even though it's happening on the other side of the country, it drives up energy prices across the country."

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network Action Fund has gathered more than 5,000 signatures urging the Biden administration to pause LNG export licenses until a full review is completed.

Supporters of these exports argue that expanding infrastructure bolsters U.S. energy independence and strengthens global energy markets.

Symons encouraged the public to use the 60-day comment period to ensure that affected communities are heard.

Quentin Scott, federal policy director for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network Action Fund, emphasized the environmental risks and called on the Biden administration to act decisively.

"Secretary [Jennifer] Granholm said it in her own words," he said, "that continuing to export LNG at the scale and the trajectory in which the United States has been exporting LNG over the last few years is unsustainable and not good for consumers, not good for businesses, not good for our environmental and climate goals."

As Virginia faces rising costs and environmental pressures, the debate over LNG exports has become more urgent. Scott said he hopes the Department of Energy's findings and public comment period will bring attention to the local and national implications of America's growing liquefied natural-gas industry.