A North Dakota legislative committee on Thursday took up a trio of bills about landowners' rights as states in this region are eyed for carbon-capture projects.

The measures stem from public scrutiny of Summit Carbon Solutions' plans for a multistate pipeline in the Midwest, to capture ethanol plant emissions for underground storage in North Dakota. State regulators have signed off on it, but some landowners don't like the idea of signing land deals with the company.

Ann Bernhardt of Linton, who lives near the proposed route, provided testimony in favor of a bill to block developers of these projects from turning to "eminent domain."

"All we're asking for from our representatives is a little bit of protection," she said. "Just do what's right."

Eminent domain is a legal move where private property is forcefully turned over for public use, with compensation provided. Groups such as Dakota Resource Council have questioned whether a venture such as Summit's has a public benefit or is driven by corporate profit. The company has said voluntary agreements are the goal but added that these legal tools are needed for the state to take advantage of this technology.

Bernhardt countered that if concerns from landowners and other opponents are overblown, as the project backers imply, then Summit would have all the land agreements in place already.

"If it's a good project, if it's good for everybody," she said, "there's no need for eminent domain."

The company told lawmakers that so far it has agreements with more than 80% of affected landowners in North Dakota for the pipeline to go through their property.

Beyond landowner rights, other concerns include safety issues in the event of a pipeline rupture, and skeptics say this project is touted as an environmental aid but could be used to expand fossil-fuel production.

No action was taken Thursday, but Charlie Adams, Summit's agriculture and stakeholder relations manager, did urge the panel to maintain existing laws that define carbon pipelines as a "common carrier," meaning they transport commodities. He said revoking that status and restricting eminent domain would set North Dakota back.

"Without this law," he said, "there will be no additional development of CO2 projects."

Michigan taxpayers may end up footing the bill to keep an aging coal plant open.

The J.H. Campbell plant was scheduled to close on May 31, but a last-minute order from the Department of Energy is forcing it to stay open.

The owner of the plant, Consumers Energy, says it wants the facility shuttered, but its hands are tied.

Dennis Wamsted, energy analyst with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, said the Trump administration can use the Federal Power Act to force aging coal plants to stay open under emergency conditions.

"A really severe winter storm requires plants to continue to operate above what might be their normal generation levels," said Wamsted. "So there are provisions to operate plants or order them to remain online if there's a real emergency. This was not a real emergency."

Since 2021, Consumers Energy has built new solar and wind generation resources and purchased a natural gas-fired power plant.

These moves were made to replace energy produced by the J.H. Campbell plant and for a complete transition from coal production by the end of 2025.

President Donald Trump issued an executive order in April authorizing the Department of Energy to keep plants open using the Federal Power Act.

Trump said he wants to meet a rise in electricity demand due to an anticipated surge in domestic manufacturing and the construction of artificial intelligence data processing centers.

Wamsted said he believes the taxpayer burden to support J.H. Campbell is unfair and expensive.

When estimating the plant's operating costs, he cited an example from 2023, when the owners of a West Virginia coal plant were forced to keep a site open.

Monthly operating costs were at $3 million. Wamsted called that a "good figure" for J.H. Campbell's operational costs.

"They have to pay the staff to keep the plant there," said Wamsted. "They have to pay to run the pipes and keep the turbine so it can actually produce electricity. So you end up paying that $3 million or more just to keep the plant able to operate."

Wamsted said he is not aware of any legal action taken to force the plant's closure, move upkeep expenses out of taxpayers' hands, or recover the money at a later date.

He said things could change if there's a filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which would allow outside intervenors to force the plant to close or challenge a tariff.

Pennsylvania's U.S. Senators are being asked to do what they can to safeguard federal clean energy tax credits, which are on the chopping block in the big budget reconciliation bill in Congress.

The nonpartisan think tank Energy Innovation said repealing these credits could lead to a loss of 26,000 jobs in Pennsylvania by 2030 and even more by 2035.

Robbie Orvis, senior director of modeling and analysis for Energy Innovation, said losing tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act would make clean energy manufacturing and clean power projects less viable and increase household energy bills.

"In Pennsylvania in particular, we found that the loss of the clean energy tax credits would lead to $60 per year in higher household energy bills by 2030 growing to $80 per year by 2035," Orvis reported. "That amounts to more than $2 billion more in spending on energy for Pennsylvanians between 2025 and 2035."

He added the lost incentives would also mean $5 billion in lost state gross domestic product by 2030, and $6 billion by 2035. In Congress, Senators are divided over whether to keep the Biden-era tax credits.

Aaron Nichols, solar policy and research specialist for the Bucks County system installer Exact Solar, said solar allows thousands of Pennsylvania homes and businesses to save on energy bills and gives them a choice beyond big utilities. The tax credits make the switch easier.

"Solar energy made up 66% of the new electricity-generating capacity added to the grid last year," Nichols pointed out. "As people have taken advantage of these incentives, the solar industry has grown, creating thousands of good-paying jobs."

Mike Zimmerman, senior attorney for electrification at the advocacy group EDF Action in Pittsburgh, said they have seen more than $1 billion in clean energy investments in the state from battery manufacturing in Turtle Creek to solar manufacturing in Leetsdale and grid technology production in Williamsport. He added 27 gigawatts of mostly solar, wind and battery projects are waiting to connect to the grid.

"These facilities are doing much more than creating jobs," Zimmerman emphasized. "They're cutting energy costs for families, meeting growing energy demand and reducing the pollution that threatens our health and our state's natural resources."

Backers of keeping the clean energy tax credits said repealing them would lead to more fossil fuel use, which worsens air quality and is linked to serious health problems.

An influx of data center infrastructure in neighboring Virginia will likely leave Mountain State residents with higher energy bills, according to a new report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

Regional grid operator PJM has proposed building two new high-voltage transmission lines to increase power capacity for data centers beginning in 2027. Both lines would cut through parts of West Virginia.

Cathy Kunkel, energy consultant at the institute, said data centers are massive computing facilities used by artificial intelligence, cloud computing and other large-scale computing industries.

"We found that West Virginia ratepayers are going to be contributing over $440 million to the cost of those transmission lines, even though the benefit is to data centers and the tech industry," Kunkel reported.

West Virginia ratepayers are served by subsidiaries of two utilities, FirstEnergy and American Electric Power. Kunkel noted the multimillion dollar price tag for the lines was determined by estimating the annual cost or revenue requirement of each of the two transmission lines during their useful life and then allocating the costs to the utilities.

Kunkel added the West Virginia Public Service Commission will have to decide whether the transmission lines ultimately serve the interests of residents.

"I do think it's unfair that data centers are imposing all these costs on the electrical grid and not fully paying for them," Kunkel asserted.

According to the report, as of 2023, data centers already account for 26% of Virginia's total electricity consumption. Power demand in Virginia's "Data Center Alley" transmission zone is expected to double over the next two decades.