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 State authorized utilities to develop thermal energy network pilot programs to further its decarbonization goals. Thermal energy networks use non-emitting energy sources like geothermal boreholes or waste-heat, to heat and cool buildings. Eleven pilot projects stem from commitments made in the 2022 Utility Thermal Energy Network and Jobs Act.

Allison Considine, senior campaigns and communications manager for New York, Building Decarbonization Coalition, said college campuses with these systems are seeing a striking number of benefits.

"Using a thermal energy network, especially with geothermal is about six times more efficient than using a traditional gas furnace or oil furnace," she explained.

She added that buildings must go electric if New York will reach its decarbonization goals. Though the state's Building Code Council included the All-Electric Buildings Act in its 2025 draft code update, neighborhoods still face challenges in implementing thermal energy networks. Considine said barriers in state law prevent utilities from connecting multiple independently owned buildings to a thermal energy network.

The pilot programs could reach active construction by 2026 or 2027. They'll be online for five years so the respective utility agencies can gather data about their efficacy. But, to ensure the transition to cleaner fuels, Considine said certain laws have to be changed to move New York away from fossil fuel energy systems.

"And there's a provision on the books, we kind of call it New York's pro-gas mandate, which requires utilities to continue delivering gas service if a customer demands it, even if there is a less polluting, more affordable alternative for that customer," she added.

The New York HEAT Act would end this rule and allow the state to move toward a more energy-efficient future. The bill gives the state's Public Service Commission authority to align utility companies with the state's climate laws. It also phases out gas line extension allowances, which reduced the use of gas in the state.

As parts of the country brace for and continue to recover from hurricanes, flooding and a new normal, research shows wind and solar resources tend to be available during extreme weather events. Energy experts in Kentucky say the data highlight how installing solar and batteries can help support the state's shared electric grid.

Josh Bills, a senior energy analyst with the Mountain Association, explained that solar has the advantage of requiring no moving parts, and relies on electrons generated from the sun that rises and sets in a predictable fashion.

"It's not a centrally located energy resource, a large generator that has to be distributed hundreds of miles through infrastructure, whereas a lot of the wind and solar is much closer to the points of use," he said.

The analysis shows that certain types of extreme weather are a good fit for renewable sources. For example, a heat wave that triggers a higher grid load from the use of fans and air conditioning also often coincides with bright, sunny days that trigger high levels of solar power. Similarly, a strong wintertime cold front that increases the need for heating also brings strong wind gusts that can power wind generation to meet those needs.

Bills added those who've made the shift to solar in the Commonwealth are seeing increased resiliency.

"Here in Kentucky, with the people and businesses and nonprofits that we work with, we see firsthand enterprises benefiting from adding solar to facilities, " he continued.

The study also found long periods of low wind and sun could in the future be the new "extreme" weather when it comes to the impact on the local renewable power supply.


get more stories like this via email

By Dan Gearino for Inside Climate News.
Broadcast version by Joe Ulery for Indiana News Service reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

Duke Energy is proposing a three-year extension for the Gibson power plant in southwest Indiana, the second-largest coal-fired power plant in the country.

Gibson, originally scheduled to close in 2035, would remain open until 2038 and would get a retrofit to be able to run on natural gas or coal, according to a plan the utility released this week.

Duke said the proposal, if adopted by state regulators, will give it the resources and flexibility needed to handle a projected increase in electricity demand. At the same time, environmental advocates said the plan reflects an overreliance on fossil fuels and is a retreat from what they already saw as a weak approach to reducing emissions.

The dynamics in Indiana are similar to other states as the growth of data centers and regulatory backlogs in building renewable energy are making utilities more cautious about closing fossil fuel power plants.

But Indiana is a special case for a few reasons, including its history of coal mining and its heavy use of coal for producing electricity. The state ranks fourth in the country in electricity generation from coal, behind Texas, West Virginia and Kentucky, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Just a few years ago, Indiana was notable for taking steps away from coal. One of its utilities, NIPSCO, got national attention for its plan to close all its coal plants by 2028. Three years ago, the utility AEP said it would close the Rockport coal plant, the second-largest in Indiana and among the 10 largest in the country, by 2028.

The new Duke plan, which covers its Indiana power plants through 2044, is likely to add to concerns that Indiana utilities are backsliding on the progress they seemed to be making.

“These utility commitments are not really commitments,” said Ben Inskeep, program director for Citizens Action Coalition, a consumer and environmental advocacy group based in Indianapolis. “When the utility says they’re doing X by Y year, you know, if there’s no law forcing them to do so, they can change those plans on a dime.”

Indiana law requires electricity utilities to issue long-term plans for power plants every three years. Regulators will review the filing, take testimony from interested parties and then issue comments.

Nathan Gagnon, Duke’s managing director for Midwest resource planning, explained the proposal during an hours-long video meeting with interested parties. He spoke about a summary of the plan, with a more detailed filing to come in November.

“Coal drops off pretty steeply,” he said about the later years under the proposal. “There’s not much coal in the mix after ‘31 when you get down to it.”

He fielded questions from viewers, including members of the public, who had concerns about climate change and also wanted the company to explore developing new nuclear plants.

His answers highlighted that it takes years to implement big changes to electricity resources and that the company is looking for scenarios that have low costs while still meeting customers’ needs and following federal emissions rules.

Duke, based in North Carolina, is one of the country’s largest utilities, with customers in the Carolinas, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio.

It is proposing various changes to the five generating units at Gibson, which together have a summer generating capacity of 3,132 megawatts. Southern Co.’s Plant Bowen in Georgia, with capacity of 3,200 megawatts, is the only coal-fired plant that’s larger.

Under Duke’s preferred planning scenario, Gibson units 1 and 2 would be retrofitted by 2030 to be able to burn both coal and natural gas. Units 3 and 4 would be replaced by natural gas generating units by that same year and have no timetable for closing. Unit 5 would close by 2030.

Duke also is proposing to convert the Cayuga and Edwardsport coal plants to run on natural gas. (Edwardsport is unlike the other coal plants in that it uses a “coal gasification” technology that Duke once promoted as highly efficient, and now would be replaced by a less expensive process.)

Duke’s plan includes several gigawatts of new wind and solar, but most of this is in the last few years of the timeline.

The slow rollout of renewables is a detail that jumped out to Brendan Pierpont, director of electricity modeling for the think tank Energy Innovation. He said Duke’s modeling of future costs of renewables look high to him, and creates a distorted picture.

“That’s a clear place where they have put their thumb on the scales,” he said.

He said Duke’s lack of near-term progress on renewables detracts from the company’s credibility when it talks about reducing emissions.

Duke issued this statement along with the plan:

“Duke Energy’s carbon emissions reduction goals remain unchanged, but our progress will not be linear as we retire coal and bring new generation resources online. Over time our diverse energy mix will enable us to reach our 2050 net-zero carbon emission ambitions.”


Dan Gearino wrote this article for Inside Climate News.


get more stories like this via email