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 becoming less reliant on energy imports to power up homes and businesses. That's a key finding in the latest summary of contributions from renewable sources.

The 2025 fact sheet from Clean Energy Economy Minnesota shows the state imported just 11% of the total electricity it used last year.

At the same time, carbon-free sources like wind and solar accounted for a majority of electricity generated in the state for a fifth straight year.

The group's Senior Manager of Marketing and Communications Peter Ingraham said that indicates renewables are proving their reliability - and they're not just complementary pieces of the energy puzzle.

"The people that have been operating these power grids, there's a reason that they allow these to keep going online," said Ingraham. "It's a great way for us to power our cities, to power our economies."

He said it's especially timely given the escalating trade war.

Industry experts note uncertainty about federal policy does still complicate Minnesota's clean energy sector in other ways.

That includes a desire among congressional Republicans and the Trump administration to repeal tax credits for adopting renewable energy that were approved in 2022.

Some other speedbumps have surfaced, including a slowdown in wind energy expansion. However, solar growth in Minnesota continues to take off.

Derrick Flakoll, senior policy associate at the research firm Bloomberg NEF, said both sources are becoming inexpensive to produce - but solar is in the driver's seat right now, as wind energy shakes off recent market forces.

"Wind projects are huge, and that means that it's a lot of money up front - meaning it's particularly sensitive to inflation and to interest rates," said Flakoll. "And we saw a sort of slowdown in wind build in a lot of parts of the United States as a ripple effect of some of that 2022 and 2023 era."

As for solar, new capacity grew by 35% in Minnesota last year.

In measuring electric vehicle adoption, Minnesota now has more than 65,000 EVs on the road - however, new registrations fell last year after a record high the previous year.

A new report outlines some of the barriers Illinois residents face that can make adopting solar energy more difficult and expensive than necessary.

The findings are based on feedback from residential solar installers across the state about their experiences with permitting offices and the challenges they face.

Study coauthor Theo Rosen, a campaign associate with the Environment Illinois Research & Education Center, said requirements like in-person application drop-offs and long and tedious review processes can prolong the approval time and add unnecessary costs.

"All that extra work that installers have to do, the cost of that gets passed on to consumers," said Rosen. "And the result is that it is harder and more expensive to 'go solar' in Illinois than it needs to be."

Rosen added that about 20% of Illinois residents cancel their applications for permits, because of delays in the permitting process. The report suggests standardizing permitting across the state.

The report also highlights inconsistencies in the permitting requirements across towns and cities.

It says some installers avoid certain areas altogether or charge a premium to do business there because they find the process so cumbersome.

Rosen said this lack of consistency also means it can be hard for new installers to work in the state.

"A lot of installers," said Rosen, "something that they spoke about was having to have someone's full time job be dedicated to maintaining these sort of databases of the varying code requirements, and the varying permitting processes in every municipality that they work in."

Rosen added that the report recommends the state use "instant permitting" software to streamline the process and eliminate barriers, both for installers and residents.

"Essentially, it is able to perform hundreds of code compliance checks and flag errors immediately," said Rosen, "and if a permit application is complete and it meets the requirements, approval is immediate."

The Residential Automated Solar Permitting Act is currently in the Illinois Legislature. It would require the state to implement automated solar permits, similar to what the report recommends.





get more stories like this via email

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.