A new poll shows most South Dakotans don't approve of legislation that restricts local control on carbon pipelines.

South Dakotans this November will vote on a referendum that would provide new regulations for linear transmission facilities, like Summit Carbon Solutions and its proposed $8 billion multistate pipeline, that could curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The project would transport ethanol plant emissions underground to long-term storage, traveling through 18 eastern South Dakota counties and impacting about 1,000 private landowners along the way - according to DominaLaw Group.

The law would allow counties a $1 per-foot surcharge on pipelines, but Chase Jensen - senior organizer with Dakota Rural Action - said if voters pass the bill, companies will have more power on private land.

"Among some softball benefits to landowners," said Jensen, "this bill stripped county authority and majorly reduced their ability to regulate these projects."

Jensen said the law's language around creating a "landowner bill of rights" is a misnomer.

According to a recent poll from Embold research, 65% of South Dakotans disapprove of the law.

In a statement, Summit said its goal is to secure "100% voluntary easement agreements" - but it did not rule out using eminent domain, or the taking of private property for public use.

In an opinion filed last month, South Dakota's Supreme Court remanded a case involving Summit, and is asking a lower court whether carbon transported through a pipeline is a commodity.

If it is, then it's easier for Summit to invoke eminent domain. Jensen said that's a problem.

"If you think even of just like your own garbage service, you're not retaining ownership of the garbage when it's picked up and brought to the dump," said Jensen. "You can't go to the dump and say, 'that's my garbage,' right? That's effectively what they're doing. "

Last year, the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission denied permit applications from both Summit Carbon Solutions and Navigator COtwo.

There are also concerns about public and environmental safety.




get more stories like this via email

New York lawmakers are focusing on electrifying municipal buildings.

Buildings statewide make up 32% of New York's greenhouse gas emissions and experts said electrifying them would lower heating and cooling costs, as well as reducing emissions. Inflation Reduction Act funds are available for municipalities to convert public buildings to use electricity.

Marian Brown, elected official fellow for Elected Officials to Protect America, said there is one challenge worrying elected leaders.

"One of the biggest challenges right now, and we were hearing this from folks, is uncertainty over the durability of Inflation Reduction Act funding, the IRA, with a new federal administration that's already signaling that it's not supportive of clean energy technologies," Brown explained.

President-elect Donald Trump has said he will repeal the Inflation Reduction Act but it comes with significant trade-offs. Research shows it could terminate many manufacturing jobs and cost America a chance at energy independence. Reports find conservative states are seeing the greatest benefits from Inflation Reduction Act investments.

The 2023 All-Electric Buildings Act will help get more buildings electrified by banning fossil-fuel systems in new buildings. All-electric cooking and heating will be required for new buildings under seven stories by 2026 and by 2029 for taller buildings.

Dominic Frongillo, cofounder and executive director of Elected Officials to Protect America, said the legislation comes with many benefits.

"We need to make sure we have the cleanest, most efficient, most modern technology that can protect the public health and improve indoor air quality, and make sure that we're keeping our dollars locally in our communities and our pockets," Frongillo outlined. "We need to build on that policy that New York State has passed."

The state's Building Code Council is deciding whether to include the All-Electric Buildings Act in its 2025 code update. Another bill establishing the Green Affordable Pre-Electrification Fund could help with the effort. It would allocate funds for buildings deemed unfit for weatherization and electrification, removing a major barrier to existing programs.

After years of double-digit rate hikes on electricity bills, some relief might be in sight.

Oregon Citizens' Utility Board, or CUB, has proposed a 7% to 10% yearly limit on rate increases for Pacific Gas & Electric and Pacific Power.

It is up to the Oregon Public Utility Commission to approve the proposal, and it will be making a decision this week.

Bob Jenks - CUB's executive director - said customers are struggling to absorb the 40% or 50% rate hikes from the last few years, and that something needs to be done to rein in this trend.

"We're concerned that this isn't going to stop," said Jenks. "This is in the interest of utilities to keep raising rates like this as long as they can."

Last winter's ice storm led to record power shutoffs for Oregon households, due to lack of payment of their utility bills.

If the PUC decides to adopt the cap, than PG&E's planned 10.9% increase and Pacific Power's planned 14.9% increase for January would need to be lowered.

Jenks said the system favors large companies, which pay much lower rates than households.

While industries need less infrastructure due to proximity to power supplies, he noted that new data centers are driving the need to grow the grid.

Yet, residential rates are rising more than three times faster than industrial rates.

"We think that residential customers and small-business customers are being asked to subsidize the big server farms," said Jenks, "the big data centers, like Amazon and Meta."

The Portland suburb of Hillsboro is newly home to many power-hungry data centers.

Jenks said PG&E's recent numbers show the centers use more electricity than all the residents in Washington County combined, and those numbers are expected to keep growing.

Jenks said CUB's proposal requires the PUC to mitigate rate increases that are higher than 10%.

They can do that by deferring part of the increase to the following year, or by setting the rate to the lowest level legally allowed that would still be profitable for the utility.

"Needless to say," said Jenks, "the utilities don't agree. "





get more stories like this via email

The power grid will need to be dramatically upgraded and expanded in the coming years to handle the transition to renewable energy - and two new reports look at the impact on wildlife, both on and off-shore.

The placement of large onshore power grids can greatly affect migratory species such as mule deer, elk, and sage grouse.

Veronica Ung-Kono is a clean-energy policy transmission specialist and staff attorney with the National Wildlife Federation.

"Proactively planning transmission development helps to strike a balance," said Ung-Kono, "that can help wildlife have their needs met while also helping people have access to low-cost and clean energy."

Ung-Kono said more research is needed because there's still a lot we don't know about the implications for wildlife as more transmission lines crisscross the landscape.

A second report on offshore wind farms recommends buffer zones around sensitive coral habitat.

It also says cables for windmills fixed to the ocean floor must be shielded and buried to reduce impacts from electromagnetic fields.

Co-author Shayna Steingard - an offshore wind senior policy specialist with the National Wildlife Federation - said if it's done right, the clean-energy transition will preserve habitat, and slow ocean warming and sea-level rise linked to climate change.

"I think climate change presents an existential threat to all species, particularly ocean species," said Steingard. "The threats from offshore wind development pale in comparison to the threat from not addressing climate change. There is no climate solution without offshore wind."

President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to kill offshore wind development. So far, site surveys have been approved for the five wind farms planned off the California coast, but they still face years of permitting and environmental review.