The New York HEAT Act might not make the final budget.

The bill reduces the state's reliance on natural gas and cuts ratepayer costs by eliminating certain rules. It was in both legislative chambers' one-house budgets, but last-minute scrambling could remove it.

New York League of Conservation Voters Policy Director Patrick McClellan said, aside from people's preference for natural gas, other challenges have made the bill hard to pass.

"I think that there has also been some irresponsible fear-mongering against this bill from some people who oppose it," said McClellan, "basically telling people this means that their natural gas service is going to be taken away from them tomorrow, or it's going to happen without warning, and that's just not the case."

The bill would not mean gas companies could walk away from providing service to new customers, since its effects occur over a longer period.

Rural lawmakers have been skeptical about relying solely on electricity, since people could lose power in bad storms.

If the bill isn't part of the budget, McClellan said the Public Service Commission can do more to require gas utilities factor climate change into their long-term plans.

It will take more than one bill for New York State to reach its climate goals.

McClellan said developing thermal energy networks is one way to build on what the HEAT Act would do, and provide good ways to decarbonize on a larger scale instead of going house by house.

"You're able to get a larger number of buildings and people all at once," McClellan explained. "The other exciting thing about thermal energy networks is, because you are talking fundamentally about piping systems that are underground, it's an extremely similar skill set for people who already work in the fossil fuel industry."

The bill would also eliminate the Hundred Foot Rule. This requires utilities to connect new customers to a gas line for free based on their distance to an existing main gas line, typically 100 feet.

This rule allowed utilities to shift around $1 billion in costs onto about 170,000 ratepayers.

Although most Virginians support and prefer solar energy, misinformation is keeping more of it from being built.

Several counties and cities have banned solar energy farms because of misinformation, saying solar requires too much land or energy, which stunts the state's progress on its climate goals.

Jim Purekal, director of the advocacy group Advanced Energy United, said other misconceptions prevent solar from being as widely considered as it should be.

"We're also seeing stories that solar wrecks the land for future development, and that's not true either," Purekal asserted. "Some of us can also go into how to develop or actually develop that land. It should also be possible to be able to reuse that land once the solar project is done."

Virginia lawmakers introduced legislation to remove solar-energy installation bans aggravated by county-level moratoriums. Had the law gone forward, localities would not have been able to ban solar projects until they hit 4% of their landmass. Lifting bans can increase dual-use solar projects and solar grazing, which uses livestock to keep a solar panel field's vegetation contained. Farmers can also keep bees on the land to pollinate flowers.

Solar siting bans could mean communities see more fossil-fuel plant and natural gas pipeline development. Although it aligns with Gov. Glenn Youngkin's All of the Above energy plan, it works against the goals outlined in the 2020 Clean Economy Act.

Purekal pointed out communities can utilize other forms of renewable energy besides solar.

"People should also look at wind, both onshore and offshore; that's another reliable revenue stream that counties should look at," Purekal urged. "We're talking about -- and people will have a question too about -- what happens if the wind's not blowing, which leads to battery storage."

He added battery storage needs to be a part of the growing conversation surrounding renewable energy. It serves as an answer to the age-old question of how renewables work when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing. Battery storage saves up energy so it can be used at different times.

As Fayette County considers approving industrial-scale solar operations on farmland, more communities in the Commonwealth are considering special zoning ordinances for solar field sites aiming to protect landowners, while supporting the shift to renewable energy.

Ashley Wilmes, executive director of the Kentucky Resources Council, said her organization has developed a model planning and zoning ordinance local officials can use as a resource.

"Our model ordinance offers a menu of options in certain areas," Wilmes explained. "To allow local officials, hopefully with the input from county residents, to select the options that best meet the needs and future land use plans of those communities."

Solar projects in the state are increasing. In Eastern Kentucky, there are plans to turn 7,000 acres of former surface-mine land into a large-scale solar operation crossing several counties. Critics of industrial-scale solar operations on agricultural land said they disrupt local wildlife habitat, contribute to soil erosion and topsoil loss, and could pose a risk to future food production.

Wilmes pointed out land sold for subdivisions or commercial development is permanently lost, while solar energy systems may be a good interim use of land, which can be restored at the end of the solar farm's life, typically about 25 years, and provide alternative sources of income to farmers. She added large-scale solar farms are not the only path forward.

"We need solar energy systems of all sizes and types, from roof-mounted to integrated to ground-mounted systems," Wilmes urged. "To make this shift to clean, reliable and renewable energy."

Daniel Bell, a sheep farmer in Garrard County, said a partnership with the Nashville-based solar developer Silicon Ranch has allowed him to graze his flock of around 300 sheep on the company's solar fields and boost income by growing his herd. He explained sheep are natural grass cutters and help protect solar arrays from debris and damage from mowing.

"We provide them the benefits they need and we benefit as well," Bell noted. "It's just a really great mutual situation, but also a fantastic opportunity for farmers."

Kentucky ranks 45th nationwide for total installed solar capacity, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

In a new poll, 81% of registered voters from several Midwestern states said they oppose corporations resorting to eminent domain for private projects.

The results come amid high-profile carbon capture efforts in North Dakota and elsewhere. Companies such as Summit Carbon Solutions have drawn attention in trying to scale up carbon-capture technology. Summit is seeking approval to build a multistate pipeline which would transport ethanol plant emissions for underground storage in North Dakota.

Emma Schmit, pipeline organizer for the coalition Bold Alliance, which commissioned the survey, said opposition to how land is secured for proposed routes falls across many demographics.

"While we do see that the rural voters that carbon-capture projects most adversely affect - they do have these strongest levels of opposition - I was interestingly surprised to see that urban and suburban voters really did not lag far behind in their overwhelming opposition," Schmit observed.

In North Dakota specifically, 90% of survey respondents called it a "serious" concern if "corporations are allowed to seize people's private property to build carbon capture and storage projects." Summit insists its goal is to secure "100% voluntary easement agreements," but it could not rule out pursuing practices such as eminent domain as landowner negotiations continue.

Summit has seen mixed results at the regulatory level for necessary permits, including an initial rejection in North Dakota. However, the company said it has secured 83% of the land easements along the state's pipeline route while filing a revised application.

Zach Cassidy, pipeline organizer for the Dakota Resource Council, said more broadly, the survey revealed an interesting dynamic.

"The fact of the matter is here in North Dakota, most policymakers have supported this pipeline, but most voters have not," Cassidy asserted.

In addition to landowner rights, the Summit project has sparked a backlash over environmental and public safety concerns. The survey, conducted in late July, included nearly 2,500 interviews with registered voters across six states.