Public hearings are scheduled this month as Minnesota regulators consider a permit for a proposed pipeline to transport carbon emissions from ethanol plants.

Skeptics say an environmental assessment tied to the application has shortcomings.

The maze of underground pipes crossing several Midwestern states would be what's described as the largest carbon capture project in the world.

The company behind it wants permit approval for a 28-mile stretch in northwestern Minnesota. The state just released a Final Environmental Impact Statement before the decision is made.

Peg Furshong, and organizer with the environmental group CURE, said they're not satisfied with language like "impacts will be minimal," and need more details.

"We should not be rushing out the gate, because this is the first-of-its-kind project," said Furshong, "and we want to get it right."

Opponents worry about a pipeline rupture and the project draining water sources.

When asked for comment, the Commerce Department referred to the assessment, which says the project could result in a net benefit in reducing emissions, depending on certain variables.

But it acknowledges public safety risks if there's a rupture. The hearings are scheduled for August 20 and 21.

The Public Utilities Commission will lead those meetings and will decide on Minnesota's permit. Despite predictions of emission reductions, Furshong said she's still skeptical.

"When you figure out how much energy it takes to actually capture carbon," said Furshong, "it takes more energy to convert the gas to a liquid and put it in a pipeline than it does to actually make ethanol."

The applicant, Summit Carbon Solutions, won permit approval in Iowa, but has seen regulatory hurdles in other states. It says the emissions would be stored underground in North Dakota.

Summit has long touted environmental improvements and economic opportunities it feels the project would create.

The company still has to apply for a permit for another stretch of proposed pipeline in Minnesota.




get more stories like this via email

Natural gas is an unpredictable source of affordable energy, Ohio experts said, as more communities work to electrify homes and buildings to lower costs in the long-term and invest in renewable sources.

One Dayton nonprofit is even helping low-income residents swap out gas appliances for electric ones.

Aileen Hull, community engagement coordinator for the Dayton Energy Collaborative, said her organization is working through grant funding to expand the number of households eligible for free electrification, home repair and weatherization programs.

"Especially if you have gas-powered appliances, you're creating on-site carbon emissions, and that's not helpful for the health of the home, nor the neighborhood," Hull contended. "It's directly related to people's health."

Ohio was awarded $249 million in federal funding through the Inflation Reduction Act, to offer rebates to residents for home energy efficiency projects. The Ohio Department of Development's Office of Energy and Environment is hosting upcoming virtual and in-person public feedback sessions on the program's design and implementation. Information is online at development.ohio.gov.

Nat Ziegler, program manager for the coalition Power A Clean Future Ohio, said the unpredictability in prices, including extreme volatility and highs in 2022, have raised concerns about the sustainability of relying on natural gas. Ziegler added federal tax incentives are expanding options for people who want to electrify their homes and boost energy efficiency.

"There are not only market dynamics that are making electricity much more affordable than natural gas, but there are also particular programs and policies that are coming online soon in Ohio that will continue to accelerate that transition to more affordable electricity," Ziegler explained.

Jon-Paul d'Aversa, senior energy policy adviser for Power A Clean Future Ohio, said expanding the state's renewable energy sources is one way to keep costs down and reduce emissions. He pointed out solar and wind have good track records for supplying cost-effective electricity.

"When you dig into the numbers, you start to see a few interesting things," d'Aversa observed. "One is that the price of electricity is really consistent, so it's something that folks can rely on when you have bills and you're trying to plan."

Local governments can reduce energy costs through "aggregation," or the process of collectively buying electricity from a specific source at a lower price. The coalition has developed a toolkit with resources to help communities get started.

By Hilary Beaumont for Floodlight and Investigate Midwest.
Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan for Ohio News Connection reporting for the Investigate Midwest-Public News Service Collaboration

Solar farms and wind turbines are popping up across America as a new climate law boosts the economics of renewables through billions of dollars of incentives. But in Ohio, one of the most hostile states for renewables, developers are walking a tightrope.

For the first time, renewable energy in the United States is the same price as energy from burning fossil fuels. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) — the largest investment in combating climate change in U.S. history — has helped developers by boosting tax credits. 

But solar advocates and developers in Ohio are pessimistic that the IRA will help them overcome fossil fuel-backed opposition groups spreading misinformation about solar and a harsh regulatory regime in the Republican-run state.

“Ohio is probably one of the most biased states in terms of its treatment of renewables as this catastrophic thing that needs to be limited and banned,” said Dave Anderson, policy and communications manager for the Energy and Policy Institute, a watchdog group that exposes dark money.

The state has set up an uneven playing field that favors fossil fuels. Ohio rebranded gas as “renewable” energy and passed a law, Senate Bill 52, that gives local governments the power to veto solar and wind farms. No such veto power exists for fossil fuel projects. 

Developers say SB52 is having a chilling effect on solar projects in a state where only 54% of residents believe climate change is caused by human activities — 4 percentage points less than the national average.

“It’s been pretty nuts to watch how far it’s gone,” Anderson said of SB52.

The law is part of a growing wave of organized opposition to renewables in 41 states, resulting in nearly 400 significant local restrictions against wind, solar and other projects, according to a 2024 report by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School.

How the IRA is playing out in Ohio

At first glance, the Midwestern state might seem like a surprising place for solar. But relatively cheap land, a decent amount of sunshine, plus increasing demand from data centers means solar energy is crucial to meet the state’s future energy needs.

New solar construction in Ohio is set to accelerate to third place among the states by 2027. Ohio recently approved its largest solar installation, the 6,000-acre, 800-megawatt Oak Run project.

Passed in 2022, the IRA is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% compared to 2005 levels. It would do this mostly by creating $270 billion in tax incentives plus $100 billion in other and other federal subsidies for climate and energy spending.

The biggest boost to solar is the extension of the solar investment tax credit for 10 years, creating long term policy certainty for the industry.

Solar projects that meet certain requirements are eligible for a 30% investment tax credit, and another 10% if the project is in a community that historically relied on fossil fuel production — including shuttered coal facilities — to employ local residents.

The extended tax credit is critical for solar farms: While solar manufacturing plants can start turning out parts within a year or two, it can take up to a decade for solar installation to come online.

In Ohio, solar developers say the IRA is creating momentum for projects that face siting hurdles, interconnection delays, supply chain uncertainty, tariffs, high interest rates and inflation.

The IRA is also contributing to the solar boom in Ohio by driving down costs.

“The costs of panels and mounting equipment, and basically everything tied to a solar farm goes down, because in general, these tax credits and incentives for both small and large products are creating an economy of scale,” explained Nolan Rutschilling, managing director of energy policy for the Ohio Environmental Council. “So we’re seeing the economics price out much better for solar projects and clean energy projects in general because of the IRA.”

Solar factories across the state have benefitted from IRA investment, including manufacturing facilities run by Illuminate USA, First Solar and Toledo Solar.

Illuminate USA has already started firing out solar panels, noted Jack Conness, policy analyst at Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology and creator of a map tracking IRA manufacturing spending. 

Illuminate USA also has solar farms in Ohio. “You would hope that creating these (manufacturing) facilities and creating jobs, and hopefully positive conversations around what they’re doing in the community then has some sort of trickle-down impact on solar installations in Ohio,” Conness said.

Lightsource BP, the developer behind three solar farms in Ohio, is seeing benefits from IRA job creation in Ohio, according to Alyssa Edwards, senior vice president of government relations and environmental affairs at Lightsource BP.

“The IRA is bringing benefits to American workers that most definitely is bringing a positive sentiment,” Edwards wrote in an email.

How SB52 blocks solar

While solar development is benefitting from the tailwinds of the IRA, it still faces the headwinds of SB52.

Before SB52 passed in 2021, the Ohio Power Siting Board had exclusive jurisdiction over large energy projects, and counties had no authority to stop them. After SB52 passed, it handed counties new regulatory powers to veto individual projects and establish restricted areas where wind and solar projects are banned.

Now, 24 of Ohio’s 88 counties have restricted areas against solar, according to Matthew Eisenson, senior fellow at the Renewable Energy Legal Defense Initiative at the Sabin Center. He said: “This number is going up.”

Added Eisenson: “A really important feature of SB52 is that this is a carve-out just for wind and solar — it doesn’t apply to fossil fuel projects.”

Led by state agency heads with backgrounds in the environment and agriculture, the Ohio Power Siting Board is equipped to make decisions on solar projects, he said, but commissioners at the county level often lack such expertise. 

“They’re ordinary citizens, elected by their peers,” Eisenson said. “Some of them run on an anti-solar, anti-wind platform. It’s much more of a political decision at the county level.”

When SB52 was proposed, solar developers struck a compromise with the bill’s sponsors, who were sympathetic to the need for business certainty. They grandfathered in projects that had a significant amount of investment and were deep into the study process, meaning they would move forward under the legacy set of rules. 

But new projects that are not grandfathered face the full weight of SB52, meaning they will first be screened by local commissioners before being considered by the Ohio Power Siting Board.

“SB52 adds another hurdle where the county has an opportunity to veto the project or establish a restricted area,” Eisenson explained. “After these grandfathered projects have all been resolved, counties will have the final say on wind and solar projects.” 

In short, the state could see a wave of solar construction, followed by relatively little installation.

The chilling effect of SB52 is already apparent: solar applications filed with the Ohio Power Siting Board decreased sharply the year it was enacted and have not recovered. 

Edwards, of Lightsource BP, didn’t directly comment on SB52, saying only, “As developers of renewable energy, we appreciate a regulatory structure that provides a clear process with certainty and is free from political influence and false narratives.”

Opposition stoked by fossil fuel groups

It was Lightsource BP’s own project, Birch Solar, that became the first large solar project to be rejected by the Ohio Power Siting Board after residents united against it.

In late 2020, opponents began organizing to stop the 300-megawatt, 2,300-acre Birch Solar project near Lima in northern Ohio — starting a Facebook group, establishing Against Birch Solar as an LLC, and launching a GoFundMe to raise $75,000 to fight the project. 

The group moved swiftly to engage with policymakers. In December 2020, the group’s leader Jim Thompson met with the Auglaize County Board of Commissioners to ask the board to pass resolutions against the solar farm. In February 2021, the group held a public meeting to stop Birch Solar, attended by the top two legislative leaders: Ohio Senate President Matt Huffman and Ohio House Speaker Bob Cupp. 

Weeks later, lawmakers introduced SB52, which was cosponsored by Huffman. Representatives from Against Birch Solar emailed Huffman and scheduled a meeting with him to show support for the law, according to emails obtained through a public records request. Thompson requested amendments and draft language.

The group listed dozens of concerns, outlined in documents sent to Huffman, including visual issues like “glint and glare,” potential harms to wildlife from construction and fencing, stormwater runoff, decreasing property values and a shift away from farming crops.

Thompson received inspiration from a group that has used a hub-and-spoke model to use disinformation about solar to stoke opposition in at least 12 states. Thompson told Floodlight and NPR that Susan Ralston, founder of Citizens for Responsible Solar, gave him advice and connected him with other anti-solar people in Ohio.

It’s unclear who is funding Citizens for Responsible Solar. While Ralston denied that the group received fossil fuel money, Floodlight and NPR reported that her consulting firm received $300,000 from a foundation with ties to coal companies. And while setting up the group, Ralston consulted with John Droz, an anti-wind strategist connected to the fossil fuel industry.

Thompson did not respond to questions, but denied that Against Birch Solar has ties to dark money.

Ohio has a history of fossil fuel groups supporting anti-renewable activists, according to research by the Energy and Policy Institute. The leader of anti-wind group Save Western Ohio was a paid consultant for a fossil fuel-funded think tank. And coal producer Murray Energy secretly paid an attorney to represent locals in their fight against an offshore wind project in Lake Erie.

Another solar project is facing opposition that critics say is linked to fossil fuel interests. Developers are proposing the Frasier Solar project in Knox County, near the headquarters of Ariel Corp., a major manufacturer in the gas industry.

One opposition group, Knox Smart Development, is linked to Ariel Corp. and the Empowerment Alliance, an anti-renewable dark-money group allied with the gas industry. An early version of the Knox Smart Development site had fingerprints of the Empowerment Alliance, including a hyperlink to The Empowerment Alliance with the words “Our Mission: Empowering America.”

Knox Smart Development has hosted town halls and bought advertising targeting locals. According to Energy News Network, speakers at the events include Tom Whatman, chief strategist of Majority Strategies, the highest paid contractor for The Empowerment Alliance. Knox Smart Development, Ariel Corp. and the Empowerment Alliance did not respond to requests for comment.

“They are a dark money organization that definitely is trying to promote fossil fuels and oppose clean energy,” said Rutschilling of the Ohio Environmental Council. “Yes, it’s a problem, but it also shows that the solar industry is growing and gaining and the fossil fuel industry is threatened by that.”

Some solar developers are pessimistic that IRA incentives can overcome SB52. Edwards of Lightsource BP said: “Unfortunately, I don’t believe they (IRA incentives) are enough to overcome such hurdles.”

But Rutschilling thinks the IRA will help swing public opinion. 

“We’re seeing a number of programs that were created by the IRA that are going to result in a significant amount of economic development and jobs in the state of Ohio,” he said. 

“That will shift the political tide in favor of the clean energy industry.”


Hilary Beaumont wrote this article for Floodlight and Investigate Midwest.


get more stories like this via email

A coalition of environmental groups is asking the California Public Utilities Commission to dismiss a plan by gas utilities to blend hydrogen into the natural gas lines that help heat our homes and businesses. Opponents say hydrogen is too expensive, risks indoor air pollution and gas leaks, and is not guaranteed to be produced using renewable sources.

Jim Dennison, a staff attorney with the Sierra Club, said in the long term, the state needs to phase out appliances that use natural gas in favor of electric models.

"Ultimately, any kind of partial system that relies on this blending is going to prolong the reliance on the gas system, rather than giving a 100% solution to the problem through electrification," he contended.

So Cal Gas argues that the hydrogen will reduce the amount of natural gas used, and result in lower carbon emissions and less air pollution. They also cite a study from U.C. Riverside that found that blends of up to 5% hydrogen could be used without significantly increasing risk factors in storage, transmission and utilization. People can make input on the CPUC website.

Dennison noted that So Cal Gas, San Diego Gas & Electric, PG&E and Southwest Gas Corporation are seeking approval to pass $200 million in costs onto ratepayers for the pilot projects.

"This is the utilities' third try to get an application for hydrogen blending pilots approved. And so far, they keep failing to present applications that address basic questions about how to do this safely, and in a way that effectively engages the communities that are affected," he continued.

If approved, the projects would be built at U.C. Irvine, U.C. San Diego, Truckee, Lodi, and Orange Cove. The federal government is spending billions to build hydrogen hubs across the U.S., including one in Long Beach, in part to help decarbonize industries such as shipping.