The list of North Dakota counties voicing concerns about a proposed carbon-emissions pipeline is growing longer. Several are now on record opposing the possibility of using eminent domain against property owners.

Summit Carbon Solutions wants to construct a multi-state pipeline to capture carbon emissions from ethanol plants and store it underground in North Dakota. The company is trying to get landowners' permission to build.

But Richland County's Todd McMichael is leading a movement in case eminent domain is used. His county has adopted a resolution opposing such action.

He acknowledged it's non-binding, but said it could influence state regulators.

"What the resolution does, and what we have seen from the past," said McMichael, "is that the Public Service Commission will really study what's going on out there."

McMichael, who owns a farm along the proposed route, said landowners shouldn't be legally forced to surrender property for a project he feels is motivated by corporate profit.

Five counties in the state have approved these resolutions. Summit argues it remains focused on voluntary contracts with residents, and that its project will drastically cut emissions from the ethanol industry.

McMichael said even if the company touts open communication with landowners, he worries that approach won't last unless more residents make their feelings known about the project.

"I do feel that eminent domain could be a plausible action," said McMichael, "if either I don't agree to their dollar amounts, or I just continue to say no."

Eliot Huggins, field organizer with the Dakota Resource Council, said his group isn't opposed to all aspects of carbon sequestration. But he said he thinks the company is rushing an unproven approach in areas not ready to embrace it.

"Climate solutions should be solutions that benefit, you know, all communities," said Huggins. "In rural America, urban America, everywhere. And so, we don't really think a climate solution should be taking landowners' land without them consenting to it."

There's mixed research on the effectiveness of carbon storage.

And while some experts say it does show promise, there are lingering safety concerns. Local opponents point to the rupture of an underground pipeline in Mississippi in 2020.

City and county governments are feeling the pinch of rising operating costs but in Wisconsin, federal incentives are driving a range of local projects, taking off some of the pressure in making communities economically viable.

Dane County is no stranger to embracing clean energy and federal aid from policies like the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law are spurring more activity.

Joe Parisi, Dane County executive, said there have been past government credits for things like solar installations and the latest approach is more expansive, with a robust list of those who can benefit.

"Everybody -- a business, a nonprofit, a church, a temple, even a government, and a local government -- gets 30% back on renewable energy projects," Parisi pointed out.

For example, a local construction company put solar arrays on several of its facilities. Parisi noted the new credits speed up the pace of reimbursements, creating more energy savings in the near future. Federal officials said demand has been strong for the programs but Parisi said one challenge is creating broader awareness so under-resourced areas can apply.

Locally, the website for the Dane County Office of Energy and Climate Change has posted details about project opportunities and investments. Beyond clean energy, Parisi emphasized the federal government's push for more "Made in America" manufacturing creates opportunities for local plants and regional economies.

"There's money to help retooling to manufacture (products)," Parisi stressed. "Then, there's a stronger market for those components now because they are made in America."

National polling shows Americans are greatly concerned about things like inflation but Parisi argued long-term investments stand to help reduce operating expenses for government agencies and businesses, hopefully keeping local taxes in check and providing savings for consumers.


get more stories like this via email

Two pieces of legislation in Connecticut could bolster public transportation if they make it through the General Assembly.

Senate Bill 277 would restore funding to Shore Line East to increase rail service. Ridership plummeted during the pandemic, though it's been growing modestly since then.

But as more people opt to work from home instead of commute, some question whether there's a need for more rail service.

Jay Stange, coordinator with the Transport Hartford Academy, said state investments can help transit lines attract the riders they need.

"Ridership on the Hartford Line, which has been supported by state investment, is up every year," said Stange. "We also are seeing huge increases on the Waterbury Line in Connecticut, where those service investments have been made. The bottom line is that if you don't have the service, you won't have the riders."

The 2023 budget cut funding for Shore Line East to 44% of what was required for pre-pandemic service.

The bill received wide support at a public hearing, but some residents don't agree that funding cuts cause low ridership.

Stange said restoring this funding would provide economic benefits through growing jobs and tourism.

Another bill incentivizes transit-oriented development.

House Bill 5390 would provide water and sewer funding for land-use planning and other developments, making it easier to build housing where transit and rail services exist.

Stange said it's time for the state to build better.

"Connecticut is starting to see," said Stange. "that the development pattern of the last 70 years - where we build new interstate to green-land development that's mostly single-family homes - is a money-losing proposition, in the long term."

Studies show transit-oriented development reduces air pollution and uses large plots of land to accommodate growing populations.

The bill faced opposition from communities concerned about the need for local control for developing these projects. The new version of the bill allows communities to "opt in" for these incentives instead.




get more stories like this via email

Federal and agency officials convened with stakeholders in Southeastern Utah to discuss how federal funds can help grow and strengthen local economies.

Lenise Peterman, mayor of Helper in Carbon County, said money from major legislation like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act and the Inflation Reduction Act often bypasses communities like hers, which are often the most in need.

Peterman was part of the "Coal Country at a Crossroads Listening Session," examining the challenges of smaller, rural communities in addressing needs for clean energy, workforce and economic development, and infrastructure.

"I felt very optimistic, because I felt like I was no longer just this region, somewhere tucked away in the intermountain area, but somebody that they had to look at and see, and hear them say, 'I need to get this funding. How do I do this?'" Peterman recounted.

Like many rural towns, Helper has seen a declining coal industry. In 2022, five operators in Utah produced coal worth $504 million, down 15% from the previous year. Peterman pointed out power plants and coal mines have traditionally been the sources of well-paid jobs, but communities like hers are figuring out how to adapt with the times and ensure people can continue to call rural Utah home.

Peterman said she considers the listening session a success, as it brought together federal officials and local leaders to focus on possible solutions. She noted one message was the government may need to do more to ensure communities like Helper, as she put it, "don't fall through the cracks."

"How do we equate a rural community with these more urban areas that have headcount, and have people on staff who can look into these federal funding opportunities and collect them?" Peterman suggested.

She added she works with a team of 15 other individuals but is the sole grant writer for her town. Legislation in Congress, called the "Rebuild Rural America Act," would have allocated money to help smaller communities compete for federal dollars but got stuck in a Senate committee last year.


get more stories like this via email