An Iowa company is trying to gain support for a multi-state project involving capturing carbon from ethanol plants and moving it underground for storage. In the public debate, advocates for tribal communities say their voices should not be ignored.

Summit Carbon Solutions wants to construct a pipeline through five states, including Iowa, before the carbon dioxide is stored underground in North Dakota.

Supporters of carbon-capture technology say it benefits the environment.

Brian Jorde, managing lawyer at the Domina Law Firm, who is involved in legal strategies to fight such projects, said there are too many unknowns.

"How can these companies guarantee that there won't be a catastrophic disaster in the future when they really have no idea what the formations will look like?" Jorde questioned.

He suggested there is no way of knowing yet if the carbon will move beyond storage boundaries. He spoke at a recent forum hosted by the Great Plains Action Society, along with regional tribal leaders.

They say the projects not only threaten landowners, but could also affect water and other resources for Indigenous communities, even if the pipes run near their lands and not through them. Summit insists it will ensure meaningful consultation with tribes.

Donielle Wanatee, a member of the Meskwaki Nation, said they have seen companies aggressively try to secure land in past projects, including the Dakota Access oil pipeline. She sees it happening again with Summit, even before permits are approved.

"This is just a scary thing, not just for Iowans, but for everybody who isn't aware of this," Wanatee contended.

Environmental and tribal groups said residents along the proposed route must be informed, and urged them to speak up.

They argued Summit is moving fast to convince landowners to agree to land easements. The company describes the pipeline as the largest carbon capture and storage project in the world and would safely store up to 12 million tons of CO2 annually.

Frustrated environmental and clean-energy advocates say after four long years of debate and compromise, regulators sent Arizona back to the starting line with their rejection of a clean-energy plan.

The Arizona Corporation Commission voted down a proposal this week which would have, through interim steps, required energy producers to be 100% carbon-free by 2050. The measure had drawn widespread support from community and environmental groups, local governments, power companies and faith leaders.

Amanda Ormond, director of the Western Grid Group, said the vote leaves critical clean-energy advancements on the table.

"By not passing this comprehensive rule, there now is no direction to utilities on what to do for energy efficiency and low-income customers, what to do related to clean energy and many other aspects," Ormond pointed out.

The five-member panel voted 3-to-2 in favor of the plan last fall, but this week, Republican member Jim O'Connor backed away from an earlier compromise and voted against the final measure. He said the plan would cost the state's utilities too much to implement.

Proponents of the plan countered the setback puts Arizona years behind other states in implementing a clean-energy plan.

Ormond contended the move further delays economic and environmental justice for Arizona's marginalized groups, including communities of color and native tribes.

"The comprehensive package included energy efficiency and would have extended and made sure that the utilities were thinking about people who couldn't pay their electric bills well," Ormond noted. "Now, the state has no policy on that."

Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon Chapter, said failure to implement the plan tosses years of work out the window and shifts power back to the utilities and away from Arizona ratepayers.

"The Commission did nothing to protect our houses, not to conserve water, give us cleaner air, nothing to help provide additional jobs and reduce carbon emissions, nothing to put our state on track for a clean-energy future," Bahr outlined.

A recent study showed in addition to the environmental and climate benefits, Arizona energy users would have saved more than $2 billion under the new regulations.

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.