INDIANAPOLIS - Doctors and pastors, economists and environmentalists - people all across Indiana - are applauding the first-ever national protections from carbon pollution - and they're calling on the state's elected leaders to get behind the Clean Power Plan.

Dr. Stephen Jay said that during his career as a pulmonologist, there were some days when the air quality in Indianapolis was so poor that his patients with asthma and other breathing issues were forced to stay indoors. While some critics of the plan to limit pollution from existing power plants have claimed it's too costly, Jay, a professor emeritus at Indiana University School of Medicine, argued that it is a necessary investment that ultimately will help save and enhance the lives of thousands of Hoosiers.

"It really is a small step, but it's a critically important step," he said. "We're all going to have to address this together if we're going to stabilize the increasing temperatures on the planet."

As part of the Clean Power Plan, states are responsible for developing their own plans to reduce carbon pollution. However, in June, Gov. Mike Pence sent a letter to President Obama stating that Indiana would not comply with the Clean Power Plan as it was written. If the state fails to develop a plan, a federal plan will be forced upon it.

Mike Oles, organizing director for Hoosier Interfaith Power and Light, said he finds the governor's response disappointing on many levels. Oles maintained that the plan is good for Indiana from an economic, environmental and moral point of view.

"Faith really asks us to care for God's creation, asks us to care for the next generation, and really to do right for the future," he said, "and so the Clean Power Plan is a major step in doing that."

Experts say climate disruption already has cost Indiana billions of dollars in the form of droughts, floods and crop damage. Surveys have shown that the vast majority of people in the state believe the government should limit dangerous greenhouse-gas emissions.


get more stories like this via email

Advocates for protecting the waters of the Straits of Mackinac are raising safety and financial concerns about a Canadian natural gas company's proposal for an underwater pipeline tunnel.

Enbridge Energy currently operates the Line 5 pipeline, which runs under the Straits of Mackinac, and now they're proposing to replace it with a tunnel to run the pipeline through.

But experts say the current plan has major safety flaws.

Sean McBrearty, Michigan legislative and policy director for Clean Water Action and campaign coordinator for Oil and Water Don't Mix, noted Enbridge filed papers with the federal Energy Regulatory Commission claiming they plan to depreciate all of their pipelines within 20 years. But he said the contract with the state to build and operate the pipeline in the tunnel is for 99 years.

"If Enbridge were able to build this tunnel and have it operable by 2028 or '29, which is about as soon as they'd be able to do something like this, that tunnel would only operate for 11 years before Enbridge would be done using their pipeline system," McBrearty explained.

Enbridge officials have said the report to the Energy Regulatory Commission is for determining the cost-of-service toll for investors, and does not necessarily reflect the lifespan of the tunnel. Oil and Water Don't Mix and other groups are calling on Enbridge to suspend activities on the tunnel project until the contract is reviewed.

Brian O'Mara, an environmental engineer with decades of tunneling experience, said the poor quality of the bedrock will make completing the tunnel challenging. He pointed out it is possible an explosion or fire would put workers at risk and many thousands of gallons of natural-gas liquids could be released into the Great Lakes.

O'Mara argued it could be prevented by filling the tunnel with concrete around the pipeline.

"You need air, you need a spark, and you need a fuel to create an explosion or a fire," O'Mara emphasized. "So if they would have adapted that method -- it's called a sealed annulus -- that essentially will eliminate the risks."

Enbridge has said there is no source of a release that could cause an explosion, but O'Mara contended they have identified dissolved methane in groundwater where the tunnel and pipeline would be constructed. And with flammable and explosive liquids and gas running through the pipeline, there is too much risk with the current design.

Minnesota is seeing a flurry of utility rate hikes either being considered or taking effect.

Those who support renewable energy warn there's some misleading information in the public sphere about what is behind the activity.

Xcel Energy has a pending rate hike before state regulators. If approved, it would boost electricity rates by 21% over three years. Minnesota Power also proposes a substantial increase.

Some policy groups opposed to renewable energy have launched campaigns suggesting the plans are solely caused by wind and solar projects.

Isabel Ricker, senior manager for clean electricity at Fresh Energy, countered it does not tell the whole story, noting there is aging infrastructure to be updated.

"The fundamentals of our electricity system; the poles, the wires, some of the larger equipment at substations," Ricker outlined.

Xcel Energy acknowledged upgrades would help the utility better transition to clean energy. And Fresh Energy contended a more modern system would make it easier for Minnesota to rely on such sources, also arguing they are still a less-expensive investment than traditional power plants.

Both utilities won approval for smaller, interim hikes late last year.

Annie Levenson-Falk, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board (CUB) of Minnesota, pointed out while her group is fighting some rate hikes, utilities do see the need for investments in energy sources more economically viable in the long run.

"The sooner that utilities can move off of that old power generation, the more money that they are actually going to save for their customers," Levenson-Falk asserted.

Investment banking firm Lazard said wind and solar costs have declined by at least 70% over the past decade. As for rate hikes, CUB noted other factors, such as demand changes during COVID affecting utility revenue.

Fresh Energy emphasized there are still false claims being floated about the reliability of wind and solar.

Ricker stated in the Midwest, resources are managed in ways allowing them to function at a high-level in the winter.

"Wind turbines here are outfitted with winterizing equipment to ensure that they don't freeze, and they can operate at cold temperatures," Ricker stressed.

Ricker acknowledged other options, such as geothermal generators, will likely be needed to develop a robust renewable-energy system. Meanwhile, both groups say regulators traditionally try to keep rate hikes on the lower end, so customers are not paying for anything deemed unnecessary.

Iowa's tax credit for installing solar-energy systems is no longer in place, but lawmakers still face pressure to provide payments to those who were on a waiting list.

The credit was allowed to expire at the end of 2021 - and with the money set aside for residential installments already spent, those who applied but hadn't been paid were out of luck.

The Iowa Department of Revenue says more than 1,400 applications were ultimately denied. But Nick Summers - policy organizing assistant with the Center for Rural Affairs - said these property owners each made a substantial investment, hoping it would be offset by the credit.

"The state's failing to uphold its side of the deal," said Summers. "And we know the state has the means to pay this out, because the State of Iowa is sitting on a $1.2 billion surplus."

That surplus estimate was issued in the fall, and larger figures are now being floated as the legislative session gets underway.

The credit for installing a residential solar system averaged $3,200, with the average installation cost at more than $25,000. During debate about extending the credit, Republican lawmakers suggested it didn't align with need to implement broader tax relief.

Slater resident Lee Tesdell had received credits for solar-power installations on his farm, although he had to pursue legal channels to secure the second reimbursement. He called cutting off payments "shortsighted," noting that gains in renewable energy can't come only from large wind and solar farms.

"It seems to me that the state would be wise to encourage the distributed type," said Tesdell, "so that individuals can be manufacturing some of their own electricity at home."

He said combined with federal credits, the Iowa reimbursements covered a significant portion of his investments.

Meanwhile, the state says businesses on the waiting list will still get their credits, but no new projects can be added.