A Minnesota organization opposed to a Midwestern carbon pipeline project plans to file a request with state regulators Thursday, asking them to reconsider permit approval. They say upheaval in South Dakota raises new questions. Summit Carbon Solutions has been trying to secure permits and voluntary land agreements for a multi-state pipeline to capture ethanol plant emissions for underground storage. The company just asked that its South Dakota application be suspended indefinitely following a new action to ban seizing land by eminent domain.

Maggie Schuppert, director of strategic initiatives for the environmental group CURE, said it is one reason Minnesota's Public Utilities Commission should take a second look.

"They didn't know South Dakota was going to pass this law, which again, sort of calls into question the entire project," she said.

In December, the PUC greenlighted Summit to build a 28-mile pipeline in western Minnesota. The project has angered some residents about property owner rights and safety concerns. South Dakota's new law bans eminent domain proceedings when a landowner raises objections to a carbon pipeline. The company, which didn't respond to requests for comment, claims the state "changed the rules in the middle of the game."

In Minnesota, Schuppert said they wouldn't be surprised if regulators stick with their original decision. But she says they want their new arguments to go on record, in the likelihood Summit and other companies seek approval for additional routes in the state.

"It is a documentation of what we believe to be the various errors in terms of their decision-making. And it's something that would be relied on if we or others were going to take any further action on this in the future," she continued.

For these situations, Minnesota doesn't have eminent domain, a legal procedure where land is forced to be given up for a public-related project, with compensation for the property owner. Instead, Minnesota leans more on environmental impact statements. Summit has won permit approval in other states, but some of those rulings are contingent on meeting regulatory milestones elsewhere.

Pennsylvania is among the five states projected to be hit hardest if the Inflation Reduction Act is repealed.

A report from the think tank Energy Innovation showed the law has brought more than $1.33 billion dollars in clean energy and transportation investments, creating nearly 4,700 jobs.

Megan Ziegler, CEO of the Southwest Pennsylvania Municipal Project Hub, said the Inflation Reduction Act helps modernize infrastructure and supports local governments and schools in upgrading outdated facilities. She added reducing tax credits and clean energy projects would negatively affect the Pennsylvania economy and environment.

"These are called direct pay or elective pay," Ziegler explained. "This was a great tool because this was the first time that local governments, nonprofits and schools, because of their tax-exemption status, were able to offset these investments in their buildings and their systems the way that private industry has been leveraging those for years."

The report revealed repealing existing federal clean energy tax credits and funding programs would increase average annual household energy costs in Pennsylvania by nearly $60 per year in 2030 and more than $80 per year in 2035.

Zeigler pointed out many homeowners in southwest Pennsylvania have used state rebates and tax credits to make energy efficient upgrades, helping to lower costs as temperatures rise. She warned cutting the programs would raise expenses and stressed the need for bipartisan support because clean energy investments create jobs and strengthen the economy.

"There was a lot of IRA funding that was dedicated to grid stability," Zeigler noted. "Ultimately, our region needs to make smart investments by diversifying our grid with more renewables, microgrids or even hydroelectric systems. This reduces blackouts and saves ratepayers over time as well."

Robbie Orvis, senior director for modeling and analysis at Energy Innovation, said the nationwide study showed what would happen to energy projects and jobs between 2025 and 2035 if cuts are made.

"When we compared the top 10 states for each of those side by side, we found that there were five states that were in the top 10 in both of those categories, and those were Texas, Florida, California, Pennsylvania and Georgia," Orvis reported.

He added those states risk higher energy bills and job losses due to growth in population, manufacturing and electricity demand. A Moody's analysis found President Donald Trump's 2024 policy plan could fuel inflation, slow the economy and trigger a recession by the middle of this year.

As President Donald Trump rolls back clean energy initiatives at the federal level, states like Maryland are pushing ahead with their own energy transitions.

Legislation moving through the Maryland General Assembly includes a bill to codify Gov. Wes Moore's campaign pledge, to transition the state to 100% clean energy by 2035. Another bill, known as the Abundant Affordable Clean Energy Act, would expand battery storage to the regional grid.

Rebecca Rehr, director of climate policy and justice for the Maryland League of Conservation Voters, said clean energy investments can also help the economy and combat rising energy costs.

"We can create a model of economic growth and clean energy adoption that other states can follow," Rehr contended. "We can really lead here, especially in the face of federal rollbacks. You can have economic growth and a growth of the clean energy industry here in Maryland at the same time. These go hand in glove."

Energy costs for many Maryland households have recently gone up 50% for gas and 30% for electricity.

Clean energy advocates in the state are also playing defense. Top Democratic leaders in the General Assembly introduced the Next Generation Energy Act, to build new natural gas plants. Rehr argued it would impede progress the state has made in the clean energy transition.

"If this bill moves forward as it was introduced, it not only seeks to build new gas in Maryland," Rehr pointed out. "It seeks to fast-track new gas in Maryland, which could have consequences and again sort of flies in the face of any environmental justice provisions in state law."

The state also has goals to produce 8.5 gigawatts of wind power by 2031.

Texas would be one of five states to suffer the most if the Trump administration repeals the Inflation Reduction Act, according to a report from the think tank Energy Innovation.

Since the legislation was enacted in 2022, more than $17 billion in clean energy and transportation projects have been announced statewide.

Robbie Orvis, senior director for modeling and analysis at Energy Innovation, said ending the tax credits and reducing clean energy projects would negatively affect the Texas economy and environment.

"What the IRA does is, it creates an incentive for developers to build even more clean electricity," Orvis explained. "When those clean electricity plants come online, they help to lower the cost of electricity and bring down rates. That means that Americans pay less for their electricity every year."

The report showed ending the programs would increase the average annual household energy costs in Texas by more than $90 a year in 2030, and more than $370 a year by 2035. Some Republican lawmakers support keeping the IRA tax credits in place but the Trump administration said renewables make energy more expensive.

Orvis noted the nationwide study showed what would happen to energy projects and jobs between 2025 and 2035 if cuts are made.

"When we compared the top 10 states for each of those, there were five states that were in the top 10 in both of those categories: Texas, Florida, California, Pennsylvania and Georgia," Orvis reported.

The results mirror analysis from financial services company Moody's, which analyzed President Donald Trump's campaign policy platform in August 2024 and found it would increase inflation and weaken economic growth, causing a recession as soon as mid-2025.