Iowa utilities regulators have published previously undisclosed information on Des Moines-based energy giant MidAmerican Energy's proposal to construct a massive alternative-energy system called Wind PRIME. The studies cited cost-effective ways to build the project without relying on fossil fuels as a secondary energy source.

The $4 billion project would dot even more of Iowa's landscape with wind turbines. The state is already among the largest wind producers in the nation, but MidAmerican has been tight-lipped about plans for Wind PRIME, specifically what other sources of energy it will continue to use and how economical the wind project would be.

Laurie Williams, senior attorney for the Sierra Club, said the Iowa Utilities Board's choice to publicize MidAmerican's studies on the project is crucial to the people who will ultimately pay for it.

"Ratepayers deserve to know what kinds of investment decisions MidAmerican is making on their behalf," Williams contended. "And whether MidAmerican is truly planning for the carbon-free electricity system they've said that they're going to bring to customers."

MidAmerican has said Wind PRIME could generate 50 megawatts of solar power and more than 2,000 megawatts of wind energy, and is part of its commitment to provide net-zero emissions to its customers.

While Wind PRIME will reportedly produce additional solar and wind power for its customers, it will still fall back on coal as a secondary energy source, which Williams contended is not a true commitment to clean energy.

"If they were truly committed to delivering carbon-free electricity, they should probably be pursuing battery storage additions and should be making plans to retire their coal plants," Williams argued. "That's not what they're currently proposing to do."

Regulators have not given MidAmerican final approval to build Wind PRIME and there is no timeline on when a decision will be made.

Federal rules meant to better control harmful methane emissions will not take effect since Congress and President Donald Trump have intervened but their action is unlikely to affect New Mexico because of stricter laws already in place.

The U.S. Senate voted to overturn the Biden administration's proposed fee on oil and gas companies over methane emissions and Trump signed a resolution in support.

Jon Goldstein, associate vice president of the energy transition for the Environmental Defense Fund, said New Mexico is somewhat insulated from broad federal rollbacks because of state laws passed since 2021. There is anecdotal evidence they are working.

"Emissions have come down, waste has come down and obviously, the oil and gas industry is not suffering any ill effects of these rules," Goldstein outlined. "It is producing at record levels in New Mexico."

Methane emissions are a significant driver of global warming and can affect people by damaging airways, aggravating lung disease and asthma. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated repealing the methane fee will cost American taxpayers more than 7 billion in lost revenue over the next decade.

Biden's previous methane fee program also provided funds to help companies install emission-reducing technology. Goldstein pointed out some companies, including ExxonMobil, supported the effort to reduce emissions while other trade groups, including some in New Mexico, pushed for the rollbacks.

"That should've made, you would think, producers in New Mexico want to see efforts like this federal rule remain in place, so that others are being brought up to the levels that they're meeting," Goldstein observed. "But unfortunately, we've got this sort-of broad brush effort to try and undo progress at the federal level."

Following his election, Trump declared a national energy emergency, calling for more oil and gas production and fewer environmental reviews.

By Kathiann M. Kowalski for Canary Media.
Broadcast version by Farah Siddiqi for Ohio News Connection reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

A regulatory board’s rejection of a permit for a large solar farm in southwestern Ohio has “essentially rewritten” state law to give local governments veto power over clean energy projects, an attorney for the project’s developer argued last week before the Ohio Supreme Court.

The Ohio Power Siting Board’s 2022 decision denying Vesper Energy the right to build a 175-megawatt solar facility in Greene County is the subject of a high-stakes legal challenge with potentially “devastating” consequences for the state’s ability to grow its electricity generation capacity, the developer’s attorney said.

“All of Ohio’s energy infrastructure will be affected by this decision,” said Michael Settineri, who represents Vesper’s Kingwood Solar project, in an oral argument before the court on March 13.

The company claims the siting board failed to follow state law in its analysis of whether its project is in the public interest — one of eight criteria that power generation projects must meet to receive a site permit. Instead of evaluating the merits of opponents’ arguments, the board used the mere existence of local government opposition as reason to deny the permit, Kingwood Solar’s attorney said.

A lawyer for the Ohio Power Siting Board argued that it has wide discretion to make policy judgments and that members used “a broad lens” to make their decision.

Local criticism has killed multiple Ohio solar projects 

Renewable energy permitting has become especially difficult in Ohio over the last four years. A 2021 law lets counties block most new utility-scale wind and solar energy projects before they even get to the Ohio Power Siting Board. Others, like Kingwood Solar, have been denied based on local opposition, even though they are exempt from that part of the law because they filed permit applications or got in the grid operator’s queue prior to the legislation’s passage.

In 2022, the board found that the proposed Kingwood Solar facility met all the other legal requirements for a permit, yet it concluded “that the unanimous opposition of every local government entity” bordering the project was “controlling” on the public interest question. The board denied the permit.

Settineri urged the court to reverse the Ohio Power Siting Board’s decision, arguing that it was clearly not supported by evidence. And, as a legal matter, the board essentially rewrote the law for granting or denying a permit in a way that gives local governments control that they shouldn’t have, he said.

Justice Jennifer Brunner noted another part of Ohio law that says local governments can’t require their own consent for the construction of power facilities. When the board’s Kingwood Solar decision said “that unanimous opposition is controlling, that actually infers that consent is required by the locality. Isn’t the board violating the statute?” she asked Settineri.

He answered,“The way I read the board’s decision, it is giving the local governments veto power … contrary to the concept of a state siting regimen.”

Renewable developer says Ohio regulators failed to consider evidence 

The board’s ruling was also “internally inconsistent,” Settineri said. The board claimed it gave weight to the “vigor and rationale” of local governments’ objections, which included worries about visual impacts, preservation of agricultural land, and construction.

But the solar developer presented experts and other evidence addressing those topics during a 2022 hearing in the case. It was also willing to accept permit conditions to minimize any impacts. As a result, the board sided with the developer on those issues in its findings on statutory criteria other than public interest, including considerations related to agriculture and the environment, Settineri said.

“There has to be evidence, and the board has to consider the evidence,” Settineri said, arguing that the fact some people say they don’t want the project shouldn’t be enough to decide the case.

Judge Marilyn Zayas, a court of appeals judge sitting in for Justice Patrick DeWine, who recused himself, asked Stephen Funk, the lawyer representing the Ohio Power Siting Board, whether the board is “able to weigh the factors any way they wish.”

Funk told Zayas that the board has broad discretion, and it “made a policy judgment that this would not serve the public interest” after considering the vigor and rationale of arguments by the local opposition.

Brunner appeared skeptical of Funk’s efforts to make it seem as if the board members did more than cede to local governments’ opposition. The board didn’t say it was giving those governmental entities veto power, “but in effect they did,” she countered.

Responding to questions from Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy, Funk said each permitting case is considered individually. He also said public comments weren’t used as evidence by the board and didn’t determine the outcome.

On rebuttal, Settineri stressed that, in light of the rest of the board’s decision on Kingwood Solar, there is no evidence backing up the claim that the vigor and rationale of local governments’ opposition meant that the project would not serve the public interest. “If I yell loud enough, does that give me a win?” he asked.

The board appeared to accept local objections at face value, said Chris Tavenor, general counsel at the Ohio Environmental Council, which is not a party to this case. “The evidence on the record needs to be interrogated closely to see whether what the government is bringing forward is factually accurate and correct.”

“The board needs to actually weigh reasons for opposition,” Tavenor added. “The mere existence of opposition or support shouldn’t be enough.”

A looming decision

The Ohio Supreme Court will debate the case and is expected to come out with a decision in the coming months.

A decision against Kingwood Solar would establish a legal precedent that makes it much harder for companies to overcome local pushback, which has often been fueled by misinformation. An adverse ruling for the solar developer also would continue the uncertain regulatory standards and framework from the past several years.

Layne Ashton, a senior project development advisor focused on utility-scale solar at Engie North America, said his company would be very cautious about moving ahead with new facilities in Ohio.

“We’d do some significant due diligence up front” for any potential projects in the state, he said. That would include testing whether local officials would welcome them. The court’s judgment will also impact the broader legal question of whether Ohio Power Siting Board decisions must be based on evidence, versus politics or opinions.


Kathiann M. Kowalski wrote this article for Canary Media.


get more stories like this via email

Tennessee is emerging as a key hub for global nuclear energy innovation, with recent investments in the state and a commitment to expand nuclear from the governor.

Backed by the Tennessee Nuclear Energy Fund, East Tennessee is attracting global industry leaders such as Kairos, X Energy and Orano.

Curtis Roberts, vice president of communications for Orano USA, said the state's largest ever investment in Oak Ridge will play a critical role in meeting the nation's growing energy demands, provide energy security and economic opportunities.

"More than 300 folks are going to be hired by this facility," Roberts noted. "We're going to become a very strong employer for the area, and we always watch out for employees. It's always safety first."

Gov. Bill Lee requested nearly $100 million for energy innovation in his proposed spending plan.

The U.S. strives to triple its nuclear energy output by 2050, with the bipartisan ADVANCE Act signed into law last year, which will help build new nuclear reactors. The state has backed the nuclear supply chain, and a new advisory council has issued recommendations. Critics warned uranium projects heighten radiation risks.

The Tennessee Valley Authority said rising energy demands from economic growth and manufacturing require renewed investment in nuclear power, and contended energy security is really national security. Roberts points out the uranium enrichment process is one of the steps in producing fuel for nuclear reactors. He added a lot of the enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel was mostly provided by Russia.

"Orano is one of the other significant providers but ours was about 12%," Roberts reported. "Russia was much, much larger, and so to create a uranium fuel supply free from Russian influence, a lot of activity has to occur."

Roberts emphasized the need for support at all levels and the governor said U.S. enrichment will require substantial resources and broad federal support.


get more stories like this via email