By 2030, Minnesota wants 20% of all light-duty vehicles on its roads to be electric. But a lot of charging stations are needed to help achieve that goal, and clean-energy advocates say there's positive movement in that direction.

Supporters of electric vehicles, or EV's, point to Xcel Energy's new proposal, which involves adding 750 high-speed charging stations, as a big step in building up the region's capacity.

Along with commitments from other utilities there's also $68 million from the federal infrastructure law to help add locations. M.K. Anderson, senior policy associate for energy transition for Fresh Energy, said these are all important steps.

"So," said Anderson, "if all of this happens, our state will be just incredibly equipped for the EV revolution that is coming."

Xcel's plan, which still needs to be considered by regulators, includes figuring out locations in rural areas where charging stations are harder to come by.

The utility estimates roughly 8,000 public fast-charging ports are needed statewide as Minnesota prepares for the market shift toward EV's. Xcel's plan does call on ratepayers to help cover construction costs.

Right now, less than 1% of vehicle registrations in Minnesota are EV's.

Tim Sexton, chief sustainability officer and assistant commissioner for sustainability and public health with the state Department of Transportation, said boosting infrastructure will play a big role in convincing more car-buyers to change their approach.

"I think it's really important that people see those chargers out there," said Sexton, "you know, to help them think about opportunities for EVs."

As the state bolsters this infrastructure, Sexton said they're trying to be mindful of how people use these vehicles, depending on their location.

"In the Twin Cities metro," said Sexton, "a lot of people, you know, may only be driving 20 miles a day and may have access to charging at work and they don't need, necessarily, the same kind of public chargers - or at least not as frequently - as people who live in rural communities because they need to travel further."

Local officials concerned about climate change are urging Democrats to scuttle a deal reached with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., to pass a bill to fast-track permitting for energy projects.

Some 445 officials from across the country are asking the Democratic National Committee to support a resolution condemning the proposed bill before the committee's summer meeting ends tomorrow.

Devin Murphy, mayor pro-tem of the City of Pinole, north of San Francisco, said Democratic leaders promised to support the proposal in exchange for Manchin's vote on the Inflation Reduction Act.

Murphy thinks the plan runs counter to what is happening in the Golden State.

"The deal that Sen. Manchin made would undo many of the new gains that this legislature just enacted," Murphy asserted. "It really turns back the clock, and we can't afford that here in California."

The Inflation Reduction Act makes a historic investment of $370 billion to fight climate change over the next decade. The oil and gas industry has long argued the permitting process and environmental reviews for new energy development on public lands are overly complex and time-consuming.

But Murphy pointed out by rushing the process, it gives the public less time to weigh in.

"It also undermines democratic norms," Murphy contended. "The permitting reform bill also will prevent meaningful public input from those communities in the crosshairs of harmful fossil fuel projects."

The letter to the committee also raised issues of environmental justice. It argued the permitting bill would likely lead to more drilling sites and refineries polluting the air, often located in lower-income communities of color.

South Dakota regulators could get an updated map proposal this fall from a company behind a multistate pipeline for underground storage of carbon dioxide. As that plays out, a public-policy expert says research for these endeavors doesn't look promising.

Summit Carbon Solutions wants to capture carbon emissions from ethanol plants and move it through states such as South Dakota, to be stored underground in North Dakota. June Sekera, a visiting scholar at The New School for Social Research and a senior research fellow at Boston University's Global Development Policy Center, said there's a body of research about this technology for coal plants that cuts into arguments about its effectiveness.

"The studies have shown that process actually emits 3.4 to 4.7 tonnes of CO2 for each tonne that's captured and stored," she said. "So, it emits more carbon dioxide than it captures and stores underground."

A new report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis noted most large-scale projects have underperformed, with only a couple of successful ones. Another complication is this year's findings that ethanol has a higher carbon intensity than gasoline.

South Dakota's Public Utilities Commission has said Summit is altering its proposed pipeline route for the state ahead of the permit review. Summit has insisted its project will be good for the environment, but Sekera said these often are taxpayer-subsided ventures pushed by private companies. She argued there would need to be an overwhelming investment to yield any actual benefits.

"One study by Princeton shows 66,000 miles of CO2 pipelines would be needed to operate at the one-gigaton level," she said, "and the United States emits five gigatons of CO2 a year."

She added that having a maze of these pipelines around the country could also pose a safety risk.

Republican leaders, mainly in Iowa, have been proponents of the Summit project, but the Biden administration also has dedicated resources for carbon capture. Sekera said she thinks policymakers should stay on the path of proven sources such as wind and solar.

"Our resources and time should be spent elsewhere on non-carbon sources of energy," she said.

Meanwhile, the Summit project also has angered property owners, who have claimed they're being threatened with eminent domain if they don't agree to land easements.

The Inflation Reduction Act aims to revolutionize the clean-energy sector in the United States. But in Idaho, critics think its investment in nuclear power is misguided.

Like wind and solar, the legislation provides tax credits for existing nuclear power plants - in some cases, preventing the early shutdown of these facilities. Hannah Smay, president of the Boise-based Snake River Alliance's board of directors and a digital organizer for the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said these groups disagree with the funding.

"These provisions, in our view, steal resources from real climate and environmental justice solutions and perpetuate the polluting and corrupt status quo," she said.

Nuclear power provides about one-fifth of the country's energy. Supporters of the industry have said the energy source is necessary to move the country away from fossil fuels and achieve the Biden administration's goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. A Princeton study found the Inflation Reduction Act could reduce emissions by 42% by 2030.

The nuclear industry isn't betting on simply sustaining existing plants. The climate bill also funds new, smaller reactor designs. NuScale Power at the Idaho National Laboratory is among the companies developing small, modular reactors. While there has been some interest, Smay noted these new designs have yet to be built or receive federal approval.

"The development of new nuclear is far too slow to meet the urgent challenge of solving the energy and climate crisis," she said.

Smay said plans to invest in nuclear also overlook the fact that it produces waste that is radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years.

"It's really just a false narrative that nuclear is 'clean,'" she said, "because it produces nuclear waste, which is one of the dirtiest substances ever created, and is responsible for numerous environmental and health problems."