A court hearing is scheduled for this week as environmental and tribal advocates continue to voice concerns about an oil and gas pipeline that runs across northern Wisconsin.

Line 5, operated by Enbridge Energy, goes through a reservation that is home to the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.

The tribe recently filed a court motion seeking an emergency shutdown of the pipeline. The filing says the line is at risk of exposure because of soil erosion, brought on by spring flooding, along the Bad River.

Jadine Sonoda, campaign coordinator for the Sierra Club's Wisconsin Chapter, said it's another reason why groups like hers feel it's time to end Line 5 operations permanently.

"This pipeline is not safe to have," said Sonoda. "It doesn't benefit Wisconsinites and it's really just a danger to the region."

She said not only would a pipeline spill be an ecological disaster for tribal lands, but the Great Lakes as well because the river feeds into Lake Superior.

In an e-mailed statement, Enbridge contended that there is no pipeline safety issue - and that it has offered numerous plans to reinforce the riverbank.

The hearing prompted by the court filing is due to get underway Thursday morning.

Enbridge is currently seeking permit approval to reroute a section of Line 5 around the reservation in light of mounting tensions with the Bad River Band.

Sonoda pointed to construction issues that popped up with a similar Enbridge project in Minnesota, where there was an aquifer breach last year. She said government agencies need to reject these proposals because of the risks.

"Water is at risk, aquifers are at risk, long-term ecosystem and environmental health is at risk," said Sonoda. "And it's a really, really big deal and a really big opportunity for us to prevent something from happening beforehand."

As part of its statement, Enbridge says Line 5 is "critical infrastructure" that provides millions of people in the Great Lakes region with energy that they rely on daily.

New polling suggests most Americans support nationwide efforts to boost renewable energy capacity under the threat of climate change, and a local government leader from Wisconsin said municipalities are doing what they can, even with some challenges in their way.

The survey from the Pew Research Center found two-thirds of U.S. adults said America should prioritize developing sources such as wind and solar over fossil fuels.

Madison Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway said at the local level, elected officials are becoming increasingly aware climate threats are no longer just a "future scenario" to deal with.

"We have to prepare for the impacts that we know are here and are coming and we have to reduce our emissions so that they don't get worse in the future," Rhodes-Conway urged. "And we have to do both of those things at the same time."

The mayor offered those comments in a panel discussion led by the Center for American Progress. She acknowledged federal policies, such as the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act, are helping cities fund climate-friendly projects. But she added most local governments, especially in smaller towns, still lack key staffing to help carry out the work.

Still, Rhodes-Conway pointed out federal policies are sending a lot of direct funding support to cities, which helps if there are potential legislative constraints in various states. She noted the infrastructure law is giving Madison more flexibility to gain steam on certain projects.

"[It's helping] both our John Nolen Drive bridges to be safer, more pedestrian- and bike-friendly with better stormwater management," Rhodes-Conway explained. "We also just built a new pedestrian and bike bridge over a critical intersection."

As for other hurdles to clear, the mayor argued there is still room for improvement in getting the word out to local residents and businesses about tax incentives to make their own clean energy investments. Lingering supply-chain issues are another factor municipalities face in trying to get more of these projects off the ground.


get more stories like this via email

New Mexico wants more residents to drive electric vehicles, and is hosting a series of meetings to explain its advanced clean cars and trucks rules.

State rules require automakers to deliver an increasing percentage of new zero-emission cars and light-duty trucks for sale each year. The new rules are meant to improve air quality by reducing ground-level ozone and greenhouse-gas emissions.

Mona Blaber, communications director for the Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club, said adoption of the new rules through 2035 would provide $44 billion in economic benefits, including cost savings to drivers, and prevention of unnecessary deaths and health incidents.

"They're more affordable than people think," Blaber explained. "But we need these kinds of policies to keep bringing the price down, bring them to cost parity and make sure that all the infrastructure gets installed that we need."

The new rules would ensure by 2032, more than 80% of cars delivered to the state are electric, and a smaller percentage of medium- and heavy-duty trucks are electric by 2035. The first of three meetings to take public comment is today at Santa Fe's Southside Library.

Geographically, New Mexico is the fifth-largest state in the nation, with many rural roads. Blaber noted a $38 million network of charging stations will support electric vehicle owners.

"New Mexico is using federal money to install charging stations every 50 miles along both interstates," Blaber pointed out. "The next phase of that grant would be rural roads, and roads on the Navajo Nation."

She added the rules and substantial tax credits also encourage the purchase of plug-in hybrids capable of running 30 to 50 miles on a charge, before they switch to gas when the battery runs low.

"If you're going on a long road trip, you don't have to worry about making sure there's a charging station somewhere along the way," Blaber emphasize. "But most people hardly ever need to buy gas with a plug-in hybrid because most of your daily driving is less than 30 miles."

An online meeting about the rules is set for Oct. 4. A second in-person meeting will be held at Albuquerque's International District Library on Oct 16.

The wait to curb emissions from Seattle buildings has gone on long enough, climate groups say.

The Seattle City Council is considering Building Emissions Performance Standards, which would require the city's biggest buildings to cut their climate pollution completely by 2045. Apartments would have a 2050 deadline.

Jess Wallach, campaigns co-director for 350 Seattle, said buildings are the second largest source of carbon emissions in the city, but this policy has been delayed and watered down over the past two years.

"This is an opportunity to ensure that the biggest buildings in Seattle, which are by and large owned by wealthy corporations and real estate giants, are on track for a just transition to move their buildings off of fossil fuels and onto Seattle's clean-energy grid," he said.

A report recently released by 350 Seattle found almost none of the largest buildings in Seattle is owned by individuals or families and that about half are owned by private entities based outside the city. Building owners have said the plan is too costly.

Wallach said the city council was going to vote on the standards in September but has delayed it, likely until the beginning of next year.

Deepa Sivarajan, Washington local policy manager for Climate Solutions, said Seattle is facing increased threats from climate change, including hotter summers, and noted that transitioning away from fossil-fuel use will help the city build climate resiliency and lower utility costs.

"So many of our buildings are not air conditioned in Seattle," she said, "and electric heat pumps, which are the most cost-effective and energy-efficient solution when you're switching over from a fossil fuel to electricity - they provide heating and cooling together."

The state of Washington has passed its own energy-efficiency standard for buildings. However, Wallach said rather than duplicating those rules, Seattle's standards would increase their effectiveness.

"Seattle's policy is going to help ensure that the state-level policy is not only implemented here but actually goes further and faster and more successfully," he said, "and in that way we can be a model for other cities around Washington."

The Building Emissions Performance Standards would reduce Seattle building emissions 27% by 2050, according to the city.


get more stories like this via email