Minnesota is sorting out details ahead of trying to meet its 100% carbon-free electricity goal by 2040.

Some environmental advocates feel energy sources being floated to regulators would defeat the purpose of the new law. The state's Public Utilities Commission is accepting public comment until July 10 on which technologies should make the list of energy options defined under the law. Utilities, advocacy organizations and others are lining up with their input.

Hudson Kingston, legal director for the group Clean Up the River Environment, worried certain recommendations he feels are dubious will make the final cut.

"Comments suggesting that burning wood, burning biomass, burning trash are all -- in some people's way of thinking -- carbon free, even though when you burn things like trash or wood, you are emitting quite a lot of carbon," Kingston pointed out.

The Minnesota Forest Resources Partnership contended burning limbs from harvested trees, or wood left over from fires or disease restoration projects, is a viable substitute for fossil-fuel production. The group said there would also be reductions in harmful sulfur and mercury going into the air. Initial public comments will be accepted by June 28. The deadline for reply comments is July 10.

Kingston noted bringing the definition into focus has a lot to do with what is considered a renewable energy source versus green technology emitting no carbon at all.

"It was a political decision a while ago that burning certain things could be considered a renewable," Kingston explained. "But under the carbon-free standard, there is no such list from the Legislature that gives burning things an out."

Even with regulators seeking clarity through public comment, Kingston feels the new law is clear in only leaning on proven carbon-free sources. In adopting the landmark policy last year, Minnesota leaders allowed for other exceptions, namely "offramps" for utilities struggling to meet the standard if clean-energy technologies are too costly or hinder grid reliability.

By Dan Gearino for Inside Climate News.
Broadcast version by Joe Ulery for Indiana News Service reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

Duke Energy is proposing a three-year extension for the Gibson power plant in southwest Indiana, the second-largest coal-fired power plant in the country.

Gibson, originally scheduled to close in 2035, would remain open until 2038 and would get a retrofit to be able to run on natural gas or coal, according to a plan the utility released this week.

Duke said the proposal, if adopted by state regulators, will give it the resources and flexibility needed to handle a projected increase in electricity demand. At the same time, environmental advocates said the plan reflects an overreliance on fossil fuels and is a retreat from what they already saw as a weak approach to reducing emissions.

The dynamics in Indiana are similar to other states as the growth of data centers and regulatory backlogs in building renewable energy are making utilities more cautious about closing fossil fuel power plants.

But Indiana is a special case for a few reasons, including its history of coal mining and its heavy use of coal for producing electricity. The state ranks fourth in the country in electricity generation from coal, behind Texas, West Virginia and Kentucky, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Just a few years ago, Indiana was notable for taking steps away from coal. One of its utilities, NIPSCO, got national attention for its plan to close all its coal plants by 2028. Three years ago, the utility AEP said it would close the Rockport coal plant, the second-largest in Indiana and among the 10 largest in the country, by 2028.

The new Duke plan, which covers its Indiana power plants through 2044, is likely to add to concerns that Indiana utilities are backsliding on the progress they seemed to be making.

“These utility commitments are not really commitments,” said Ben Inskeep, program director for Citizens Action Coalition, a consumer and environmental advocacy group based in Indianapolis. “When the utility says they’re doing X by Y year, you know, if there’s no law forcing them to do so, they can change those plans on a dime.”

Indiana law requires electricity utilities to issue long-term plans for power plants every three years. Regulators will review the filing, take testimony from interested parties and then issue comments.

Nathan Gagnon, Duke’s managing director for Midwest resource planning, explained the proposal during an hours-long video meeting with interested parties. He spoke about a summary of the plan, with a more detailed filing to come in November.

“Coal drops off pretty steeply,” he said about the later years under the proposal. “There’s not much coal in the mix after ‘31 when you get down to it.”

He fielded questions from viewers, including members of the public, who had concerns about climate change and also wanted the company to explore developing new nuclear plants.

His answers highlighted that it takes years to implement big changes to electricity resources and that the company is looking for scenarios that have low costs while still meeting customers’ needs and following federal emissions rules.

Duke, based in North Carolina, is one of the country’s largest utilities, with customers in the Carolinas, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio.

It is proposing various changes to the five generating units at Gibson, which together have a summer generating capacity of 3,132 megawatts. Southern Co.’s Plant Bowen in Georgia, with capacity of 3,200 megawatts, is the only coal-fired plant that’s larger.

Under Duke’s preferred planning scenario, Gibson units 1 and 2 would be retrofitted by 2030 to be able to burn both coal and natural gas. Units 3 and 4 would be replaced by natural gas generating units by that same year and have no timetable for closing. Unit 5 would close by 2030.

Duke also is proposing to convert the Cayuga and Edwardsport coal plants to run on natural gas. (Edwardsport is unlike the other coal plants in that it uses a “coal gasification” technology that Duke once promoted as highly efficient, and now would be replaced by a less expensive process.)

Duke’s plan includes several gigawatts of new wind and solar, but most of this is in the last few years of the timeline.

The slow rollout of renewables is a detail that jumped out to Brendan Pierpont, director of electricity modeling for the think tank Energy Innovation. He said Duke’s modeling of future costs of renewables look high to him, and creates a distorted picture.

“That’s a clear place where they have put their thumb on the scales,” he said.

He said Duke’s lack of near-term progress on renewables detracts from the company’s credibility when it talks about reducing emissions.

Duke issued this statement along with the plan:

“Duke Energy’s carbon emissions reduction goals remain unchanged, but our progress will not be linear as we retire coal and bring new generation resources online. Over time our diverse energy mix will enable us to reach our 2050 net-zero carbon emission ambitions.”


Dan Gearino wrote this article for Inside Climate News.


get more stories like this via email

Though New York is slated to miss its climate goals, several county projects are bolstering renewable energy development.

Several large wind farm projects have been approved, including the Prattsburgh Wind Farm, which will create 147 megawatts of electricity and will power 62,000 homes regionwide. It is one of several wind farm projects keeping the state committed to clean energy.

James Johnson, executive director of the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency, said the county will benefit greatly from the projects.

"We've seen those projects generate significant revenue for the taxing entities that they are located in," Johnson, explained. "Both for the local municipality as well as county government and school districts saw benefits to the tune of millions of dollars of new tax revenue being pumped into the community."

Getting the wind farms to this point has not been easy since the pandemic disrupted renewable energy development in New York and nationwide. Another challenge has been local opposition mostly aimed at the proximity and impact these wind farms could have on residents' property. However, Johnson pointed out it is not a strong opposition, as more people understand the impact of the projects.

The projects could take 18-24 months before they are online, although Johnson noted it could be as long as 36 months. Steuben County is also seeing solar development, albeit at a smaller scale and slower pace. He emphasized future renewable energy projects will not just be solar and wind but will embrace a host of other renewable energies.

"We just had our first biodigester project, which is generating just over one megawatt of energy developed at one of our largest dairy farms," Johnson outlined. "Which is not only taking the waste from the dairy farm and utilizing it to generate energy, but it's also taking a substantial amount of food waste out of our landfills."

Other future projects involve partnering with economic development organizations across New York's Southern Tier, including working with Binghamton University to advance research in energy storage with lithium batteries.


get more stories like this via email

North Dakota lags behind other states in advancing large-scale solar projects. If additional development does gain steam as it has elsewhere in the Midwest, new data could provide clarity to a key point of debate.

Gilbert Michaud, assistant professor of environmental policy at Loyola University and the report's co-author, said he has been around the region and attended local government meetings considering solar farms. He noted his team has combed through public comment records and the effect on property values tops the list of concerns brought up by attendees.

With renewable energy sources gaining a stronger foothold, he suggested it is not surprising people want to be engaged in what's happening.

"As more people learn about utility-scale solar and large-scale renewable energy development, they inherently have a lot more questions," Michaud observed.

As for the property value debate, Michaud's research of 70 utility-scale solar projects in the Midwest shows they did not hurt surrounding values but rather had a minor positive effect. He acknowledged solar farms are not a major property value force compared with traditional factors, such as renovations. But he pointed out as more of them surface, they are going to have broader ripple effects on local economies.

With wind and solar development now dotting more rural landscapes, analysts said misinformation often finds its way into local ordinance meetings and public comment sessions. Michaud hopes his findings and other emerging research provide stakeholders with accurate data to help them make an informed decision, as opposed to leaning on anecdotal arguments.

"'I think this' or 'I saw this' or 'I heard this from my neighbor at the gas station,'" Michaud outlined. "We're sort of taking that to the next level and saying, 'OK, let's look at all these big solar projects across the entire region and actually look at what the data is suggesting to us.'"

In 2019, North Dakota approved its first commercial solar farm and lawmakers tinkered with changes to regulations dealing with prime farmland and restrictions for such projects. However, the state is still among the top crude oil producers in the nation. And when it comes to renewables, it has prioritized wind energy over solar.


get more stories like this via email