PORTLAND, Ore. -- Communities throughout the Northwest are rejecting fossil-fuel infrastructures, and on Wednesday, Portland went a step further by approving a new zoning rule banning large, fossil-fuel terminals from coming to the city.

Dan Serres, conservation director for Columbia Riverkeeper, said Northwest cities stand at the gate of Asian markets, but many have rejected large natural-gas and oil terminals typically used for exporting fossil fuels across the Pacific.

"What Portland is doing fits into a broader context throughout the region and it's really impressive to see City Council taking this step that really pushes the ball forward and sets an example that these other places can follow,” Serres said.

Portland City Council unanimously approved the measure. Critics are concerned the proposal could hurt fuel supplies for the state because Portland is Oregon's largest hub for fossil fuel. But supporters said the measure will help reduce the likelihood of potential disasters, such as the derailment of an oil train in Mosier in the summer of 2016.

Serres said cities in Oregon have begun to put in place innovative ways to reduce their reliability on fossil fuels. He said it’s likely that cities will play a larger role in fighting climate change in the wake of the presidential election. Many of President-elect Donald Trump's Cabinet nominations question whether climate change is a man-made phenomenon.

"The clearer sense that people had from that election is that the federal government will likely not be taking meaningful action to curb the worst impacts of climate change,” Serres said.

The ban only affects storage tanks with a capacity of 2 million gallons or more. Facilities can grow by 10 percent if they choose to replace storage tanks with seismically upgraded ones.




get more stories like this via email

Connecticut groups are rallying today against a natural gas pipeline expansion.

Project Maple would extend Enbridge's natural-gas pipeline stretching from New Jersey to Rhode Island with sections running under Connecticut. Residents' feedback is negative since it would increase statewide energy costs. Gov. Ned Lamont supported natural-gas expansion in his State of the State Address.

Sena Wazer, intern for the Connecticut Chapter of the Sierra Club, said now is not the time for an expansion.

"Right now, we're seeing massive federal rollbacks on climate action and climate progress," Wazer pointed out. "It is really important for our states to step up and to do better. Especially here in New England, many of our states including Connecticut pride themselves on being climate leaders and this is really a step in the wrong direction."

A 2024 Sierra Club report found building up offshore wind energy would save Connecticut residents around $3 a month on their energy bills. While renewable energy projects have higher up-front costs, they lower costs for people in the long run.

If Project Maple does go forward, it will be operational by November 2029. The Sierra Club and other groups are hosting a rally outside Eversource's Hartford headquarters at 3 p.m.

While Connecticut has long been a renewable energy and climate change policy leader, progress on the goals has stagnated in recent years. Wazer feels Lamont's recent recommendation of certain climate bills shows he wants to keep the state's climate goals alive. But she argued he must do more.

"It is not enough to recognize that climate change is impacting us," Wazer contended. "It's also really critical to take action to mitigate the impacts that we are having on climate change."

Reports show Connecticut is behind on achieving its 2030 and 2050 climate goals. The state's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection said accelerating emission reduction projects would help the state make its goals.

Natural gas is Connecticut's largest energy source, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

On the heels of a regulatory victory, utilities and various energy groups in Minnesota are expressing more optimism about the region's power grid - and its ability to accommodate a diverse set of electricity sources. In late January, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission approved a permit request for the Northland Reliability Project, a new 140-mile transmission line stretching from the Iron Range to the St. Cloud area. Utilities behind the effort say this creates more grid space and ensures reliability as they focus on renewables such as wind and solar.

Rachel Stuckey, executive director of the Minnesota Conservative Energy Forum, says that peace of mind isn't just tied to meeting higher electricity demands.

"If a weather event happens or, God forbid, some kind of cyberattack, that we can either withstand or bounce back from that," she explained.

Her organization favors an "all of the above" approach when it comes to energy sources. Stuckey added that as these grid modernization projects come on board, it's important all voices are heard, including property owners worried about new power lines going up. The Northland project also calls for replacing two 20-mile stretches of existing lines and is scheduled to be ready by 2030.

Amelia Vohs, climate director is with the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, which prioritizes non-fossil fuel sources, says the region can't slow down in trying to modernize the power grid because demand keeps accelerating.

"Some of it [comes] from increasingly electrified appliances, or electric vehicles, but especially from the growth of data centers," she said.

Vohs added that creating more room on the grid eases the backlog of clean-energy development waiting to advance, and that while Minnesota has been a leader in trying to meet these challenges, it remains an open question of whether the state has enough transmission proposals coming together to keep pace. At least three other projects are being looked at by Minnesota regulators.


get more stories like this via email

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."