President Joe Biden's infrastructure law contains $10 billion to sow the seeds for the creation of pipelines to capture, transport and store carbon emitted from coal and gas-fired power plants.

Critics say capturing carbon is expensive, risky, and based on largely unproven technology.

Sean O'Leary, senior researcher at the Ohio River Valley Institute, argued embarking on a plan to build carbon capture pipelines in West Virginia would double or triple the cost of generating electricity from the state's coal-fired power plants.

"The problem is that carbon capture and sequestration technology is horrifically expensive," O'Leary pointed out. "It's an expense that we would have to pay for, through our taxes and/or our utility bills in some combination."

According to the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the Ohio Valley pipeline network and three other carbon-capture hubs planned in other locations would cost more than $170 billion to construct.

Companies like ExxonMobil say carbon-capture technology is a key solution to the challenge of reaching net-zero emissions.

O'Leary countered wind, solar battery storage, and making energy-efficiency upgrades to insulation, ventilation and air conditioning would be a smarter choice for Mountain State communities.

"We could do it far less expensively than what's being proposed in the form of a hydrogen and carbon capture hub," O'Leary contended. "At the same time, it would do a much better job of greatly reducing emissions."

O'Leary noted the Appalachian region has been dazzled before by the fracking boom of the mid-2000s, which promised hundreds of thousands of new jobs across more than 20 counties in West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

"What we've seen repeatedly since the beginning of the natural gas boom, is that these visions are dangled before policymakers who give the industry subsidies and regulatory favors," O'Leary recounted. "But we never see the visions come to fruition and never receive the benefits."

According to a report by the Ohio Valley River Institute, jobs in the region at the peak of the natural gas boom increased by 1.6%, more than eight percentage points below the national average. More than 37,000 residents left those counties in the same period.

The construction of more solar farms in the U.S. has been contentious but a new survey shows their size makes a difference in whether solar projects are favored by neighbors.

South Dakota's largest solar installation, the Wild Springs project in New Underwood, began operations in March and covers more than 1.5 square miles. The survey showed projects under 100 megawatts are generally favored by neighbors, while larger ones like Wild Springs are unpopular.

Kristi Pritzkau, finance officer for the City of New Underwood, said the construction traffic was tough on the town of just over 600 but the project's builder, National Grid Renewables, is giving back to the community.

"They had to use our well, so they paid for the water, and they paid for a new pump for it, too," Pritzkau pointed out. "They've been really great with the city."

Prtizkau noted the company donated to the town's pool and Lions Club and has created a school scholarship program, all part of the more than $500,000 of charitable giving it has promised in the project's first 20 years of operation. It is also expected to bring in $12 million of tax revenue to the county in the same time frame.

Sioux Falls-based Missouri River Energy Services has plans to build a new solar project near Brookings and build a transmission line from South Dakota into Minnesota.

Tim Blodgett, vice president of member services and communications for the company, said federal grant programs and tax credits provide incentives and South Dakota produces more energy than it can use.

"With the development of more wind, the development of solar, there's a lot planned right now to get these resources out of this area," Blodgett explained. "Into Minneapolis and other places where there's larger demand for the energy."

Currently, more than half the state's power generation comes from wind, followed by hydropower.


get more stories like this via email

Virginia officials support the Environmental Protection Agency's new emissions rule. The federal clean truck standards will reduce emissions by up to 60% in 2032 and prevent 1-billion metric tons of carbon pollution. Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Virginia and nationwide.

Phillip Jones, Newport News Mayor, said the new rule helps end the city's environmental disparities.

"We have a very large multiple coal company in downtown Newport News in the southeast part of our community," he said. "That's going to lead to higher rates of asthma for that community. There's a lot of air-quality issues in downtown Newport News."

Jones noted the city has taken steps to reduce emissions. The city's school district has been using propane-powered buses and Newport News is purchasing alternate energy-powered vehicles. He added any opposition to this work centers on larger upfront costs, but the long-term benefits are worthwhile. The EPA's rule goes into effect in 2027.

Transportation agencies are also working to cut emissions. Hampton Roads Transit has been working to cut emissions with cleaner buses.

Sibyl Pappas, chief engineering and facilities officer with Hampton Roads Transit, said the agency's upcoming bus maintenance facility furthers its emissions-reduction goals.

"It's very near where Dominion Energy is bringing offshore wind onshore. So, we've talked with Dominion about buying wind power. So, potentially, those buses are zero emissions at the tailpipe and zero emissions at the generation point," Pappas said.

The facility will open in 2029 and be net zero-ready upon completion. While HRT had some hiccups with electric buses, Pappas feels the EPA rule encourages climate-smart initiatives for all economic sectors.

As state budget negotiations continue, groups fighting climate change are asking California lawmakers to cut subsidies for oil and gas companies rather than slash programs designed to slow global warming.

Gov. Gavin Newsom's current proposal would cut oil and gas tax breaks by $22 million this year and $17 million the following year.

Barry Vesser, COO for The Climate Center, a nonprofit advocacy group, would like to see all subsidies eliminated.

"Oil and gas companies are one of the drivers of climate change, so we should not be making their profit margins bigger by providing public subsidies, and making it harder for renewables to compete against them," Vesser argued.

Gov. Newsom has also proposed to cut funding for climate-friendly programs helping lower-income families buy an electric vehicle or switch from gas to electric appliances.

Kevin Slagle, vice president of strategic communications for the Western States Petroleum Association, said in a statement, "California's already tough business climate is pushing companies to the brink. Removing incentives will drive California straight into the arms of more expensive foreign oil, ramping up costs for everyday Californians who can least afford it."

Vesser countered the threat of higher gas prices is a red herring.

"There's a lot that goes into calculating how much the cost of gas is, and this is not even pennies on the dollar," Vesser contended.

The state Senate's early action proposal estimated the budget deficit will be between $38 billion and $53 billion. The governor is expected to release new details on his budget priorities in mid-May. The Legislature must pass a balanced budget by June 15.