The fallout continues from last week's decision by North Dakota regulators to deny a permit for a controversial regional pipeline project. Opponents in Minnesota want officials here to take notice, and pump the brakes on their consideration of the plan.
The project in question is from Summit Carbon Solutions, a private company hoping to build a multistate pipeline. It would carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants to be stored underground in North Dakota.
Maggie Schuppert, campaigns director for the group Clean Up the River Environment, said since Summit's permit application was declined by North Dakota, it makes no sense for Minnesota to be putting time and effort into a review right now.
"If there is no project there on the other side of the border, it seems rather absurd to move this process forward and use government resources to do so," Schuppert asserted.
She pointed out the resources include an environmental review as part of Summit's application in Minnesota. The company said it plans to reapply for a North Dakota permit, but given the lengthy timeline and the possibility of another denial there, Schuppert feels the overall project is not viable. Minnesota's Public Utilities Commission could not be reached for comment.
Schuppert acknowledged Summit is not the only company behind the approach. Another is proposing a similar project for the upper Midwest. As federal incentives spur carbon-capture ventures, she said policymakers need to determine the best way to incorporate the technology as part of broader climate-change solutions.
"If there is a way for us to change entirely the way that we approach carbon capture, or clean energy infrastructure generally, that is done in a way that prioritizes communities, then we can start to maybe have a different conversation in this country," Schuppert contended.
Opponents worry the private projects are driven by profits and not the environmental benefits touted by developers. Critics also worry about public safety and damage to farmland. But the companies contend they are maximizing safety, and the pipelines would put a dent in carbon footprints.
Meanwhile, Clean Up the River Environment said Minnesota should also pause its review because federal officials are updating safety regulations for these specific pipelines.
get more stories like this via email
This week, the Trump administration announced what it terms "emergency permitting" for energy projects, streamlining a sometimes yearslong process down to 28 days. Opponents said it will mean time in court.
The U.S. Interior Department plans to alter the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act so projects around oil, gas, coal, minerals and more can proceed without the agency approvals the laws require. The department said it's part of President Donald Trump's January "National Energy Emergency" declaration.
Erik Molvar, executive director of the Western Watersheds Project, said there is no such emergency.
"The idea that there's some kind of 'national energy emergency' is a lie that the Trump administration is making up to justify an extralegal approach to approving energy projects and skipping past the environmental safeguards that Congress put in place," Molvar contended.
He argued the move risks historic sites, wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities on Montana's 30 million acres of public land. Molvar added he expects energy projects brought under the new, streamlined permitting will be overturned in court.
The announcement comes just one day after the Interior Department's draft strategic plan for the next four years was leaked. A "big idea" cited in the draft is to, quote, "release federal holdings to allow state and local communities to reduce costs," and in parentheses, "housing." Molvar stressed it would essentially put federal responsibilities in the hands of smaller entities.
"These state and local governments have a distinct tendency -- particularly in conservative parts of the rural West -- to want to maximize industrial development, maximize local communities' abilities to line their own pockets, with really little consideration to the long-term health of the land," Molvar emphasized.
Strategic goals listed in the plan include to "restore American prosperity" and "ensure national security through infrastructure and innovation."
get more stories like this via email
The owner of Michigan's Palisades Nuclear Plant is getting another $47 million to restart the facility.
It is the third installment of a $1.5 billion federal loan package. Palisades was decommissioned in 2022 after more than 50 years of operation.
Now owned by Holtec International, the plant in Van Buren County is expected to supply enough power to serve about 800,000 homes but environmental and Indigenous groups are voicing frustration after a federal panel recently denied a full hearing on petitions challenging the restart.
Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist for the advocacy group Beyond Nuclear, is among those in opposition.
"A recent analysis by Dave Lochbaum, who is retired from the Nuclear Safety Program at Union of Concerned Scientists, placed Palisades at something like 84th out of 105 reactors in the country," Kamps pointed out. "His analysis was they're more like in the bottom rung of the industry, actually."
Holtec countered before its 2022 shutdown, Palisades was ranked in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's highest safety category and was a top-performing plant in the industry. Palisades is set to reopen in October, becoming the first U.S. nuclear plant to restart after being decommissioned.
Punkin Shananaquet, a member of Michigan's Indigenous community, emphasized for many Native people, the issue is not just about public safety, it is about honoring the sacredness of the land and water and educating the next generation about protecting the earth.
"We just can't be pushed through the corporate world because they have no spirit," Shananaquet contended. "We have spirit. We are the ones with the feelings for this place."
Holtec International maintains the Palisades restart is being made possible by broad local support, citing not only the energy it will produce but the jobs, economic growth and tax revenue for the area.
get more stories like this via email
Next week, Congress is expected to vote on whether to roll back states' authority to set their own clean car and truck standards.
Research shows some Arizona residents could save more than $1,300 a year on fuel by switching to an electric vehicle.
Rob Sargent, program director for the nonprofit Coltura, which advocates for a transition from gas-powered cars to EVs, said the vote in Congress could potentially undermine EV availability, consumer savings and subsequent job creation. He pointed out middle-class workers benefit the most from driving EVs and using the federal tax credits to buy them.
"They're contractors driving 150 miles daily between job sites, rural drivers, tradespeople and working families," Sargent explained. "Who live where housing is more affordable and you know, jobs are further away."
Coltura has found people in southeast Arizona who drive more than 25,000 miles a year spend on average about $7,000 dollars a year on gas. Republicans want to revise or weaken the clean car standards and tax credits of the Biden administration, which they say have limited the sales of gas-powered vehicles.
There are also concerns about having enough EV charging infrastructure. Sargent pointed out the U.S. has already made significant investments in charging stations and will keep expanding them. If Congress decides states cannot require cleaner cars, changes will be felt across the board.
The upcoming vote in Congress would reverse last year's Environmental Protection Agency decision to grant neighboring California a waiver to ban the sale of gasoline-powered cars by 2035. The decision allowed other states to join in, although Arizona was not one of them.
"There have been 10 or so states that have consistently followed California's lead," Sargent observed. "That has played a major role in ensuring that manufacturers make vehicles available so that they can meet those requirements."
President Donald Trump has vowed to roll back the rule. California was issued the special authority because of its unique air pollution issues. While other states can't create their own rules, they can adopt California's. The current plan only affects new car sales.
get more stories like this via email