Dominion Energy is proposing a rate hike, which would push up utility costs for Virginia's homes and businesses. The company has submitted several proposals to the state which they say will help offset the rising cost of fuel.

Walton Shepherd, climate and clean energy program Virginia policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the plans will not address Dominion's underlying problem, which stems from years of investment in gas plants and fossil-fuel infrastructure.

"There are a lot of resources that have zero fuel costs, such as solar, wind, battery storage that we could have been investing in," Shepherd asserted.

Dominion has proposed hiking rates over a one-, two- or three-year period. The company has indicated it would prefer the three-year path, which would carry the lowest monthly increase for ratepayers. Shepherd said if state regulators approve separate rate revisions, the three-year path could increase energy bills by about $11 per month for a home using 1,100 kilowatt-hours per month.

According to Dominion, with rate revisions included, energy costs for an average home would increase by about 7%. But Shepherd countered it would add to some of the highest energy bills in the South, from Virginia all the way over to Texas.

"Federal data released just last fall shows we pay the highest rates of all those southern states except for South Carolina and Alabama," Shepherd pointed out.

Dominion argued it has been steadily diversifying into clean energy, and the Associated Press reports natural gas makes up a little less than half of the company's total energy mix.

Dominion's proposed rate hike would go into effect July 1 if approved by state regulators.

Conservation groups in Texas want the Environmental Protection Agency to continue its push for tighter restrictions on methane emissions at oil and gas well sites, especially in the Permian basin.

The group Environment Texas testified at recent EPA hearings. It cites flaring as a major concern, the process of burning methane into the air at well sites instead of capturing and using it.

Michael Lewis, a clean air and water advocate with Environment Texas, said flaring is not only damaging to the environment, but harmful to humans - especially those who are nearby.

"Methane, especially in Texas, causes health problems," he said. "If you live close to these sites, you have a higher rate of leukemia, higher rate of lymphoma, higher rate of cancer. It's not uncommon to see even radio-nucleotides, so literal radiation."

Lewis said wells are often located in economically disadvantaged areas where people have few options to avoid the pollution they emit. The EPA has also proposed rules to encourage oil companies to pursue recent advancements in methane-mitigation and leak-detection technology.

According to the Environmental Defense Fund, methane is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. But beyond emissions, advocates are also calling for stricter pipeline regulations.

In Texas, Lewis said, there are tens of thousands of miles of gas and oil pipeline, "much of which is still unregulated. And pipeline leaks. We don't have enough inspectors, we don't have people going out and checking them. Now, with some of our new equipment that's out there, such as drone monitoring, we can be checking this stuff."

The Environmental Defense Fund has said the EPA's proposal to tighten rules on emissions is a step in the right direction, the group wants to see stronger action to end pollution and reduce flaring.

Minnesota has surpassed the goals it set more than a decade ago for renewable-energy standards. But as the climate crisis grows larger, there's a push to adopt new goals supporters say will benefit the state in multiple ways.

The start of the legislative session saw Democratic leaders and clean-energy advocates revive calls for Minnesota to approve a plan for 100% carbon-free electricity by 2040. The House version passed out of committee this week, and a Senate panel will soon take it up.

Michael Noble, executive director of the group Fresh Energy, said given the strides the state has already made in transitioning to sources such as wind and solar, meeting the revised goal should be achievable.

"Zero-carbon electricity sources are universally available and low cost," he said, "and our three largest utilities have already committed to get all of the carbon out of the electric supply. "

Companies such as Xcel Energy have carbon-free goals by 2050, but some on the utility side have expressed concern about reaching a higher standard while trying to balance energy demands and costs.

Supporters stress that relying on cleaner power sources will help control energy bills because they're cheaper to produce than coal-fired power. Beyond reducing emissions, backers are convinced this approach would lead to more jobs and innovation in Minnesota.

Gregg Mast, executive director of the group Clean Energy Economy Minnesota, said the plan provides flexibility by offering utilities "offramps" if they convey the need to reassess their contributions. He said that should put customers at ease about trying to achieve the 2040 goal while navigating volatile energy markets.

"Energy consumers should know that this will ensure that we continue to have clean, reliable and affordable energy," he said.

Noble said Minnesota doesn't want to lose ground in the global transition to clean energy.

"All 192 nations have now pledged to be net carbon neutral by the middle of the century," he said, "and this positions Minnesota to attract businesses and attract industries who want low-carbon, zero-carbon energy."

Experts are warning Colorado households utility bills currently making their way to mailboxes are likely to be even higher than the supersized bills people received for November's energy use.

Denise Stepto, chief communications officer for Energy Outreach Colorado, said as energy prices have remained stubbornly high, December brought an arctic blast and subzero temperatures right in time for winter holiday celebrations.

"This next bill, we think, is going to be the higher one, much higher," Stepto explained. "It was a holiday, so more people were gathered in a home, lights on, things cooking, everything going."

It is a problem, Stepto said, because many Coloradans may have already tapped one-time-only assistance through Energy Outreach Colorado and the state's Low-Income Energy Assistance Program.

Calls to Energy Outreach Colorado's Heat Help Line are up 43% compared with the same time period last year. The week ending Dec. 18, they received more than 16,000 calls, up from 9,000 the week before, which is the largest call volume in two years of tracking.

Stepto pointed to one call she fielded this week from a mother trying to get help for her veteran son with a disability who was struggling to afford his high energy bills. She pointed out there has been an increased sense of desperation, especially for fixed and low-income households.

Stepto worries higher-than-average utility bills, while not sustainable, are likely to continue through the winter months.

"People are not abusing their energy use," Stepto argued. "They're keeping their thermostat as low as they can. They're being energy wise, it's just the cost is the cost. So there's only so much that folks can do."

During the week ending Jan. 8, Energy Outreach Colorado released more than $473,000 to help 728 struggling households who applied for assistance to pay utility bills. People can still get help -- to make sure utilities are not disconnected, and connect with other programs for which they qualify -- by calling Energy Outreach Colorado's helpline: 866-432-8435.