A recent study from the Sierra Club found people in Brookfield, Connecticut, could face severe effects from a proposed compressor station expansion.

The pipeline's owners conducted their own health study but the Sierra Club said it was flawed and did not account for several factors. The new study showed people nearby will face higher fine particulate matter emissions and many other noxious gases, like carbon monoxide.

Kerry Swift, a longtime Brookfield resident, said it began with one compressor station back in 2006.

"The next year they put in for two and now they want four," Swift explained. "There's these three huge interstate pipelines that are aging and they're putting more and more compressor stations on them; putting more and more gas through them, which they weren't built for."

A major issue Swift and other residents have with the expansion is the emissions will vent 1,900 feet from Whisconier Middle School. The town's elected officials and residents want the state's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to deny the project's air permits. Along with Brookfield, the village of Athens, New York recently passed a resolution urging Gov. Kathy Hochul to similarly deny air permits for the expansion.

Another concern about the expansion is Connecticut is supposed to cut greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030.

Nick Katkevich, campaign organizing strategist for the Sierra Club, noted an electric compressor station could be better for the environment but said blowdowns would still be a problem.

"Basically what's happening is the company needs to release pressure on the pipeline so they'll do it at the compressor facility and basically just shooting huge amounts of fracked gas into the air," Katkevich explained.

The companies have said it would be too expensive to convert the compressor station to electricity. Katkevich added along with committing to air monitoring in Brookfield, the state's energy department should meet with people in town before approving expansion permits. However, the department has declined the invitation for two years.

Minnesota is cited in a new research brief outlining the obstacles America would face in trying to reopen coal plants, an idea prioritized by the Trump administration.

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order aiming to boost coal production, despite coal's shrinking presence in the energy sector.

The administration said the move can help meet growing electricity demand with the emergence of data centers but the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis predicts giving coal-fired power plants new life would be costly.

Dennis Wamsted, energy analyst at the institute, said it does not make sense.

"It's not an 'evil conspiracy' to push coal out of the market," Wamsted pointed out. "The reality is that coal is the most expensive resource, and so it is rightfully used the least, or used last."

He points to Xcel Energy's Sherco facility near the Twin Cities, a coal plant being phased out and replaced with a massive solar operation. Wamsted noted utilities are planning for other sources because they have proved to be reliable and less costly. The analysis found 24 of the 102 recently closed U.S. coal plants are already torn down and restarting others would require big investments due to their age.

Wamsted added time is another problem because of the maintenance backlog in getting coal plants back online or in some cases rebuilt. He argued investors would not be interested in waiting to get an older plant reopened only to shut it down again because of the declining appetite for coal.

"In 20 years or 30 years, that plant, which would still be relatively new, would probably be what we call a stranded asset," Wamsted stressed.

Like clean energy infrastructure, Wamsted said ratepayers would be asked by utilities to cover the construction costs for increasing coal production. The difference, he explained, is sources like wind and solar are poised to stick around much longer and they do not have the price volatility linked with fossil fuels.

A bill to promote virtual power plants goes before the California State Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee next week. Virtual power plants are networks of home energy devices like smart thermostats, stationary home batteries, and electric vehicles that can be used as power sources during peak hours, which lowers the amount of power that electric utilities have to provide.

Assemblymember John Harabedian, D-Pasadena, said virtual power plants would reduce the need to build costly transmission lines and polluting natural gas plants.

"This bill, really in utilizing virtual power plants, is about affordability and reliability and sustainability. It's a cost-saving measure, and it's also an easier way to meet demand throughout the state during peak hours," he explained.

At least 300,000 Californians are already getting paid as part of the Demand Side Grid Support program, agreement that allows the utilities to pull power stored in their smart devices' batteries to power their home.

Harabedian said Assembly Bill 740 would direct the California Energy Commission to make plans to expand the use of virtual power plants, following the success of a pilot program.

"It has prevented blackouts. It has delivered over 500 megawatts of capacity, about the same as three gas peaker plants, and has saved millions of dollars already," he continued. "So, the pilot program has been undeniably successful. We just need to scale it."

A recent study found that virtual power plants could save California residents $750 million per year in traditional power system costs. Some are concerned that utilities may earn less money if the programs expand. So far, there is no registered opposition to the bill.


get more stories like this via email

While Nevada ranks among the top states for electric vehicle sales, one local business says it is seeing less demand for charging stations, and has to make some tough decisions as the Trump administration cuts climate and infrastructure investments. Allegiant Electric LLC in Las Vegas installs residential and commercial EV charging stations.

Andrea Vigil, chief operating officer of Allegiant Electric, said they were ramping up for a project for the U.S. Postal Service - but were notified it had been shelved. It's just one of the setbacks they've faced as Trump rescinds unspent Inflation Reduction Act funds. Vigil said not only will the clean energy economy take a hit, so will businesses like hers.

"We've already had to reduce some of our employees just because of, you know, the fact that there has been a decline in the installation requests on the EV chargers," she explained. "That is actually a big part of our business."

EVs accounted for about 8% of new car sales in the U.S. last year, partly thanks to Biden-era tax incentives and policies that sparked buyers' interest. Automakers had also prioritized EV production. But with Trump in the White House, Vigil says she and her husband will have to pivot on their business strategies.

Vigil added that Trump's tariffs have also been difficult to adapt to, and they've already noticed their material costs skyrocket.

"A lot of the material on the electrical side comes from Mexico and it needs to cross over, back and forth, eight times just before it's able to get into the United States," she continued. "We just bought a roll of wire, it was just a fourth of what we normally get - and the price has nearly tripled."

Paul Bordenkircher, president of Nevada EV Association, said due to the president's relationship with Elon Musk, many folks in the market for an EV are steering away from Tesla. He says other brands, like Hyundai and Kia, are profiting.

"I see other brands picking up some of the uptake with, unfortunately, Tesla's decline in sales. Because people are discovering that yes, there are other options, that EVs don't just exist from the Tesla brand," he contended.