PA works to counter Trump clean energy rollbacks / Public News Service

The Trump administration’s rollback of clean energy progress and climate science is eliciting a strong response from Pennsylvania.

Gov. Josh Shapiro has already sued the Trump administration, leading to the release of $2 billion in federal aid. Now, Shapiro is pushing ahead with a six-part proposal to expand clean energy projects.

Molly Parzen – the executive director of Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania – said despite Trump’s efforts to stall progress on clean energy and fighting climate change, the Shapiro plan should boost Pennsylvania’s economy.

“Gov. Shapiro has been really leading on this,” said Parzen. “He’s proposed an ambitious, what he’s calling, ‘Lightning Plan.’ This plan has a bunch of component parts, many of which would boost clean energy production, cutting through permitting obstacles, enabling rural communities to share clean energy resources.”

Parzen pointed out the plan would also set a target that Pennsylvania generate 35% of its energy from clean sources by 2035.

But critics of the Lighting Plan say it could sustain, or even increase, fossil fuel production in the state.

Parzen said her group supports several bills in the General Assembly, including one to reform the Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority – which manages energy project funding.

The legislation aims to improve the agency, ensure federal funds keep coming and support more clean energy projects.

Parzen said it will take a continuous funding stream to make the governor’s proposal work, which includes what Shapiro calls a “community energy initiative.”

“We want to give families who are struggling with high electricity bills the option to opt into clean energy and access cheaper clean energy,” said Parzen, “through things like community solar, community geothermal and other types of projects that can generate for multiple households.”

Parzen added that Pennsylvania is already using funds from the Inflation Reduction Act for some clean energy initiatives, including the bipartisan Solar for Schools legislation.

The program leverages federal climate dollars to expand clean energy, create jobs and help school districts save on electricity costs.

get more stories like this via email

A Monday court hearing features a case pitting two North Dakota counties against a large carbon capture project. The legal challenge stands in the shadows of heavier opposition across the border, and opponents here hope for similar momentum.

Burleigh and Emmons counties are appealing permit approval by North Dakota regulators for a multistate pipeline. A company wants to capture emissions from ethanol plants for underground storage. Safety concerns, local restrictions and property owners’ rights are part of the backlash.

Steve Bakken, vice chair of the Burleigh County Commission, said there is a disconnect between what state leaders who back the project promote, versus what they do.

“We seem to have a track record building of our legislature liking to speak about local control, except for when it’s not convenient for what they want to get through,” Bakken observed.

This session, North Dakota lawmakers voted down oversight bills for the emerging carbon capture industry. But in South Dakota, concerned property owners have had success and a new law there has stalled the state’s section of the project. Project supporters said it could help the region’s economy by keeping ethanol producers thriving.

Today’s hearing is for the company’s request to dismiss the case.

The firm behind the project, Summit Carbon Solutions, has come under scrutiny over its encounters with property owners as it seeks land agreements.

Dustin Gawrylow, managing director of the North Dakota Watchdog Network, said organizers don’t like how the big project is being forced through. Regardless of whether the permits stand, he said lawmakers should not look past the groundswell of opposition.

“This time, it may not have impacted North Dakota policy or the project here in North Dakota,” Gawrylow acknowledged. “But ultimately, I do believe that down the road, there will be a project that turns the tide in North Dakota on these issues as well.”

A key difference in the policy approach of the two states may be North Dakota’s stronger connections to the oil and gas industry. The Summit pipeline is also touted as a way to convert the emissions to fuel sources, which is a main point of contention for environmentalists.

Summit has rejected concerns about many aspects of the project, and said despite recent obstacles, it will move forward.

get more stories like this via email

Federal rules meant to better control harmful methane emissions will not take effect since Congress and President Donald Trump have intervened but their action is unlikely to affect New Mexico because of stricter laws already in place.

The U.S. Senate voted to overturn the Biden administration’s proposed fee on oil and gas companies over methane emissions and Trump signed a resolution in support.

Jon Goldstein, associate vice president of the energy transition for the Environmental Defense Fund, said New Mexico is somewhat insulated from broad federal rollbacks because of state laws passed since 2021. There is anecdotal evidence they are working.

“Emissions have come down, waste has come down and obviously, the oil and gas industry is not suffering any ill effects of these rules,” Goldstein outlined. “It is producing at record levels in New Mexico.”

Methane emissions are a significant driver of global warming and can affect people by damaging airways, aggravating lung disease and asthma. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated repealing the methane fee will cost American taxpayers more than 7 billion in lost revenue over the next decade.

Biden’s previous methane fee program also provided funds to help companies install emission-reducing technology. Goldstein pointed out some companies, including ExxonMobil, supported the effort to reduce emissions while other trade groups, including some in New Mexico, pushed for the rollbacks.

“That should’ve made, you would think, producers in New Mexico want to see efforts like this federal rule remain in place, so that others are being brought up to the levels that they’re meeting,” Goldstein observed. “But unfortunately, we’ve got this sort-of broad brush effort to try and undo progress at the federal level.”

Following his election, Trump declared a national energy emergency, calling for more oil and gas production and fewer environmental reviews.

get more stories like this via email

By Kathiann M. Kowalski for Canary Media.
Broadcast version by Farah Siddiqi for Ohio News Connection reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

A regulatory board’s rejection of a permit for a large solar farm in southwestern Ohio has “essentially rewritten” state law to give local governments veto power over clean energy projects, an attorney for the project’s developer argued last week before the Ohio Supreme Court.

The Ohio Power Siting Board’s 2022 decision denying Vesper Energy the right to build a 175-megawatt solar facility in Greene County is the subject of a high-stakes legal challenge with potentially “devastating” consequences for the state’s ability to grow its electricity generation capacity, the developer’s attorney said.

“All of Ohio’s energy infrastructure will be affected by this decision,” said Michael Settineri, who represents Vesper’s Kingwood Solar project, in an oral argument before the court on March 13.

The company claims the siting board failed to follow state law in its analysis of whether its project is in the public interest — one of eight criteria that power generation projects must meet to receive a site permit. Instead of evaluating the merits of opponents’ arguments, the board used the mere existence of local government opposition as reason to deny the permit, Kingwood Solar’s attorney said.

A lawyer for the Ohio Power Siting Board argued that it has wide discretion to make policy judgments and that members used “a broad lens” to make their decision.

Local criticism has killed multiple Ohio solar projects 

Renewable energy permitting has become especially difficult in Ohio over the last four years. A 2021 law lets counties block most new utility-scale wind and solar energy projects before they even get to the Ohio Power Siting Board. Others, like Kingwood Solar, have been denied based on local opposition, even though they are exempt from that part of the law because they filed permit applications or got in the grid operator’s queue prior to the legislation’s passage.

In 2022, the board found that the proposed Kingwood Solar facility met all the other legal requirements for a permit, yet it concluded “that the unanimous opposition of every local government entity” bordering the project was “controlling” on the public interest question. The board denied the permit.

Settineri urged the court to reverse the Ohio Power Siting Board’s decision, arguing that it was clearly not supported by evidence. And, as a legal matter, the board essentially rewrote the law for granting or denying a permit in a way that gives local governments control that they shouldn’t have, he said.

Justice Jennifer Brunner noted another part of Ohio law that says local governments can’t require their own consent for the construction of power facilities. When the board’s Kingwood Solar decision said “that unanimous opposition is controlling, that actually infers that consent is required by the locality. Isn’t the board violating the statute?” she asked Settineri.

He answered,“The way I read the board’s decision, it is giving the local governments veto power … contrary to the concept of a state siting regimen.”

Renewable developer says Ohio regulators failed to consider evidence 

The board’s ruling was also “internally inconsistent,” Settineri said. The board claimed it gave weight to the “vigor and rationale” of local governments’ objections, which included worries about visual impacts, preservation of agricultural land, and construction.

But the solar developer presented experts and other evidence addressing those topics during a 2022 hearing in the case. It was also willing to accept permit conditions to minimize any impacts. As a result, the board sided with the developer on those issues in its findings on statutory criteria other than public interest, including considerations related to agriculture and the environment, Settineri said.

“There has to be evidence, and the board has to consider the evidence,” Settineri said, arguing that the fact some people say they don’t want the project shouldn’t be enough to decide the case.

Judge Marilyn Zayas, a court of appeals judge sitting in for Justice Patrick DeWine, who recused himself, asked Stephen Funk, the lawyer representing the Ohio Power Siting Board, whether the board is “able to weigh the factors any way they wish.”

Funk told Zayas that the board has broad discretion, and it “made a policy judgment that this would not serve the public interest” after considering the vigor and rationale of arguments by the local opposition.

Brunner appeared skeptical of Funk’s efforts to make it seem as if the board members did more than cede to local governments’ opposition. The board didn’t say it was giving those governmental entities veto power, “but in effect they did,” she countered.

Responding to questions from Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy, Funk said each permitting case is considered individually. He also said public comments weren’t used as evidence by the board and didn’t determine the outcome.

On rebuttal, Settineri stressed that, in light of the rest of the board’s decision on Kingwood Solar, there is no evidence backing up the claim that the vigor and rationale of local governments’ opposition meant that the project would not serve the public interest. “If I yell loud enough, does that give me a win?” he asked.

The board appeared to accept local objections at face value, said Chris Tavenor, general counsel at the Ohio Environmental Council, which is not a party to this case. “The evidence on the record needs to be interrogated closely to see whether what the government is bringing forward is factually accurate and correct.”

“The board needs to actually weigh reasons for opposition,” Tavenor added. “The mere existence of opposition or support shouldn’t be enough.”

A looming decision

The Ohio Supreme Court will debate the case and is expected to come out with a decision in the coming months.

A decision against Kingwood Solar would establish a legal precedent that makes it much harder for companies to overcome local pushback, which has often been fueled by misinformation. An adverse ruling for the solar developer also would continue the uncertain regulatory standards and framework from the past several years.

Layne Ashton, a senior project development advisor focused on utility-scale solar at Engie North America, said his company would be very cautious about moving ahead with new facilities in Ohio.

“We’d do some significant due diligence up front” for any potential projects in the state, he said. That would include testing whether local officials would welcome them. The court’s judgment will also impact the broader legal question of whether Ohio Power Siting Board decisions must be based on evidence, versus politics or opinions.

Kathiann M. Kowalski wrote this article for Canary Media.

get more stories like this via email