HELENA, Mont. - There have been calls recently to lift the crude-oil export ban, but a new report makes the case that, before the ban is eliminated, the onshore royalty rate should be updated. It hasn't changed since 1920.

According to Ross Lane, director of the Western Values Project, their report outlines how much Montana would have shared in those royalties if the rate matched what's charged for offshore drilling, and it amounted to nearly $9 million in 2012. Lane said that if crude-oil exports are allowed, production on the Bakken oil field in Montana and North Dakota will grow, and the state could put the money to good use.

"Folks in Eastern Montana are seeing those impacts every day," he said. "I'm sure there are folks who have high-paying jobs, but there's also projects like building new roads, or building new water treatment facilities, or building new schools."

The federal royalty charge is split with states about 50-50. The longstanding federal rate is 12.5 percent, while Montana's state rate for state lands is nearly 17 percent, and the federal offshore rate is closer to 19 percent.

Raising the rate is unpopular with oil companies, which warn that it would mean lost jobs and higher prices at the gas pump. Lane pointed out that the U.S. royalty rates are among the lowest in the world: Canada charges up to 45 percent and there are still plenty of jobs and plenty of oil business for that country.

"We're talking about American energy, American jobs," he declared. "We should be talking about a fair return for the American taxpayer."

Texas charges 25 percent on state-owned lands.

The full report, "The Oil Export Ban and the Taxpayer: Low royalty rate ensures Americans lose," is at WesternValuesProject.org.




get more stories like this via email

Minnesota is becoming less reliant on energy imports to power up homes and businesses. That's a key finding in the latest summary of contributions from renewable sources.

The 2025 fact sheet from Clean Energy Economy Minnesota shows the state imported just 11% of the total electricity it used last year.

At the same time, carbon-free sources like wind and solar accounted for a majority of electricity generated in the state for a fifth straight year.

The group's Senior Manager of Marketing and Communications Peter Ingraham said that indicates renewables are proving their reliability - and they're not just complementary pieces of the energy puzzle.

"The people that have been operating these power grids, there's a reason that they allow these to keep going online," said Ingraham. "It's a great way for us to power our cities, to power our economies."

He said it's especially timely given the escalating trade war.

Industry experts note uncertainty about federal policy does still complicate Minnesota's clean energy sector in other ways.

That includes a desire among congressional Republicans and the Trump administration to repeal tax credits for adopting renewable energy that were approved in 2022.

Some other speedbumps have surfaced, including a slowdown in wind energy expansion. However, solar growth in Minnesota continues to take off.

Derrick Flakoll, senior policy associate at the research firm Bloomberg NEF, said both sources are becoming inexpensive to produce - but solar is in the driver's seat right now, as wind energy shakes off recent market forces.

"Wind projects are huge, and that means that it's a lot of money up front - meaning it's particularly sensitive to inflation and to interest rates," said Flakoll. "And we saw a sort of slowdown in wind build in a lot of parts of the United States as a ripple effect of some of that 2022 and 2023 era."

As for solar, new capacity grew by 35% in Minnesota last year.

In measuring electric vehicle adoption, Minnesota now has more than 65,000 EVs on the road - however, new registrations fell last year after a record high the previous year.

A new report outlines some of the barriers Illinois residents face that can make adopting solar energy more difficult and expensive than necessary.

The findings are based on feedback from residential solar installers across the state about their experiences with permitting offices and the challenges they face.

Study coauthor Theo Rosen, a campaign associate with the Environment Illinois Research & Education Center, said requirements like in-person application drop-offs and long and tedious review processes can prolong the approval time and add unnecessary costs.

"All that extra work that installers have to do, the cost of that gets passed on to consumers," said Rosen. "And the result is that it is harder and more expensive to 'go solar' in Illinois than it needs to be."

Rosen added that about 20% of Illinois residents cancel their applications for permits, because of delays in the permitting process. The report suggests standardizing permitting across the state.

The report also highlights inconsistencies in the permitting requirements across towns and cities.

It says some installers avoid certain areas altogether or charge a premium to do business there because they find the process so cumbersome.

Rosen said this lack of consistency also means it can be hard for new installers to work in the state.

"A lot of installers," said Rosen, "something that they spoke about was having to have someone's full time job be dedicated to maintaining these sort of databases of the varying code requirements, and the varying permitting processes in every municipality that they work in."

Rosen added that the report recommends the state use "instant permitting" software to streamline the process and eliminate barriers, both for installers and residents.

"Essentially, it is able to perform hundreds of code compliance checks and flag errors immediately," said Rosen, "and if a permit application is complete and it meets the requirements, approval is immediate."

The Residential Automated Solar Permitting Act is currently in the Illinois Legislature. It would require the state to implement automated solar permits, similar to what the report recommends.





get more stories like this via email

Minnesota is cited in a new research brief outlining the obstacles America would face in trying to reopen coal plants, an idea prioritized by the Trump administration.

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order aiming to boost coal production, despite coal's shrinking presence in the energy sector.

The administration said the move can help meet growing electricity demand with the emergence of data centers but the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis predicts giving coal-fired power plants new life would be costly.

Dennis Wamsted, energy analyst at the institute, said it does not make sense.

"It's not an 'evil conspiracy' to push coal out of the market," Wamsted pointed out. "The reality is that coal is the most expensive resource, and so it is rightfully used the least, or used last."

He points to Xcel Energy's Sherco facility near the Twin Cities, a coal plant being phased out and replaced with a massive solar operation. Wamsted noted utilities are planning for other sources because they have proved to be reliable and less costly. The analysis found 24 of the 102 recently closed U.S. coal plants are already torn down and restarting others would require big investments due to their age.

Wamsted added time is another problem because of the maintenance backlog in getting coal plants back online or in some cases rebuilt. He argued investors would not be interested in waiting to get an older plant reopened only to shut it down again because of the declining appetite for coal.

"In 20 years or 30 years, that plant, which would still be relatively new, would probably be what we call a stranded asset," Wamsted stressed.

Like clean energy infrastructure, Wamsted said ratepayers would be asked by utilities to cover the construction costs for increasing coal production. The difference, he explained, is sources like wind and solar are poised to stick around much longer and they do not have the price volatility linked with fossil fuels.