South Dakota regulators could get an updated map proposal this fall from a company behind a multistate pipeline for underground storage of carbon dioxide. As that plays out, a public-policy expert says research for these endeavors doesn't look promising.

Summit Carbon Solutions wants to capture carbon emissions from ethanol plants and move it through states such as South Dakota, to be stored underground in North Dakota. June Sekera, a visiting scholar at The New School for Social Research and a senior research fellow at Boston University's Global Development Policy Center, said there's a body of research about this technology for coal plants that cuts into arguments about its effectiveness.

"The studies have shown that process actually emits 3.4 to 4.7 tonnes of CO2 for each tonne that's captured and stored," she said. "So, it emits more carbon dioxide than it captures and stores underground."

A new report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis noted most large-scale projects have underperformed, with only a couple of successful ones. Another complication is this year's findings that ethanol has a higher carbon intensity than gasoline.

South Dakota's Public Utilities Commission has said Summit is altering its proposed pipeline route for the state ahead of the permit review. Summit has insisted its project will be good for the environment, but Sekera said these often are taxpayer-subsided ventures pushed by private companies. She argued there would need to be an overwhelming investment to yield any actual benefits.

"One study by Princeton shows 66,000 miles of CO2 pipelines would be needed to operate at the one-gigaton level," she said, "and the United States emits five gigatons of CO2 a year."

She added that having a maze of these pipelines around the country could also pose a safety risk.

Republican leaders, mainly in Iowa, have been proponents of the Summit project, but the Biden administration also has dedicated resources for carbon capture. Sekera said she thinks policymakers should stay on the path of proven sources such as wind and solar.

"Our resources and time should be spent elsewhere on non-carbon sources of energy," she said.

Meanwhile, the Summit project also has angered property owners, who have claimed they're being threatened with eminent domain if they don't agree to land easements.

Environmental critics feel New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is not doing enough to meet the state's 2030 climate goals.

The concerns come after Hochul convened an energy summit to see how the state can regroup since reports suggested it will not meet its goals. Renewable energy projects in New York and across the country stumbled after the pandemic increased construction costs.

Peter LaVenia Jr., co-chair of the Green Party of New York, said the state can do a lot with the 6 years it has before 2030.

"We do have the capacity to build out wind, solar and also reduce our energy use," LaVenia contended. "Part of what we have to do is reduce our the amount of energy that we're using so that we can meet these climate goals. And we're not doing that and we're not doing it fast enough. So, we need to be able to site renewables faster. We need to be able to build them."

The state legislature passed the RAPID Act earlier this year to speed up clean energy permitting and interconnection. Other bills have met significant legislative hurdles. LaVenia pointed to the HEAT Act which phases out gas line extension allowances and lets the Public Service Commission align utility companies with the state's climate laws. The bill was not included in recent state budgets by the legislative session's end.

However, there are concerns Hochul and other lawmakers could just throw out the goals in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. Some Republican lawmakers and business groups are uncertain about its provisions and feel the goals should be cast aside.

LaVenia argued now is not the time for that given how climate change is affecting New Yorkers.

"New York State set itself up to fail and now it's saying, 'Well we can't do it so we have to weaken these things, and oh, by the way, our campaign donors want us to do that anyway,'" LaVenia emphasized. "I think that the dark path would be that things get worse. I mean there's real evidence that climate change is hitting us really hard now in the 2020s and it's only going to get worse."

Recent storms have led to widespread flooding across the state. This contributes to sea level rise, worsening erosion, and storm surges. The frequency of billion dollar disasters is rising and depleting state coffers.


get more stories like this via email

Although most Virginians support and prefer solar energy, misinformation is keeping more of it from being built.

Several counties and cities have banned solar energy farms because of misinformation, saying solar requires too much land or energy, which stunts the state's progress on its climate goals.

Jim Purekal, director of the advocacy group Advanced Energy United, said other misconceptions prevent solar from being as widely considered as it should be.

"We're also seeing stories that solar wrecks the land for future development, and that's not true either," Purekal asserted. "Some of us can also go into how to develop or actually develop that land. It should also be possible to be able to reuse that land once the solar project is done."

Virginia lawmakers introduced legislation to remove solar-energy installation bans aggravated by county-level moratoriums. Had the law gone forward, localities would not have been able to ban solar projects until they hit 4% of their landmass. Lifting bans can increase dual-use solar projects and solar grazing, which uses livestock to keep a solar panel field's vegetation contained. Farmers can also keep bees on the land to pollinate flowers.

Solar siting bans could mean communities see more fossil-fuel plant and natural gas pipeline development. Although it aligns with Gov. Glenn Youngkin's All of the Above energy plan, it works against the goals outlined in the 2020 Clean Economy Act.

Purekal pointed out communities can utilize other forms of renewable energy besides solar.

"People should also look at wind, both onshore and offshore; that's another reliable revenue stream that counties should look at," Purekal urged. "We're talking about -- and people will have a question too about -- what happens if the wind's not blowing, which leads to battery storage."

He added battery storage needs to be a part of the growing conversation surrounding renewable energy. It serves as an answer to the age-old question of how renewables work when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing. Battery storage saves up energy so it can be used at different times.

As Fayette County considers approving industrial-scale solar operations on farmland, more communities in the Commonwealth are considering special zoning ordinances for solar field sites aiming to protect landowners, while supporting the shift to renewable energy.

Ashley Wilmes, executive director of the Kentucky Resources Council, said her organization has developed a model planning and zoning ordinance local officials can use as a resource.

"Our model ordinance offers a menu of options in certain areas," Wilmes explained. "To allow local officials, hopefully with the input from county residents, to select the options that best meet the needs and future land use plans of those communities."

Solar projects in the state are increasing. In Eastern Kentucky, there are plans to turn 7,000 acres of former surface-mine land into a large-scale solar operation crossing several counties. Critics of industrial-scale solar operations on agricultural land said they disrupt local wildlife habitat, contribute to soil erosion and topsoil loss, and could pose a risk to future food production.

Wilmes pointed out land sold for subdivisions or commercial development is permanently lost, while solar energy systems may be a good interim use of land, which can be restored at the end of the solar farm's life, typically about 25 years, and provide alternative sources of income to farmers. She added large-scale solar farms are not the only path forward.

"We need solar energy systems of all sizes and types, from roof-mounted to integrated to ground-mounted systems," Wilmes urged. "To make this shift to clean, reliable and renewable energy."

Daniel Bell, a sheep farmer in Garrard County, said a partnership with the Nashville-based solar developer Silicon Ranch has allowed him to graze his flock of around 300 sheep on the company's solar fields and boost income by growing his herd. He explained sheep are natural grass cutters and help protect solar arrays from debris and damage from mowing.

"We provide them the benefits they need and we benefit as well," Bell noted. "It's just a really great mutual situation, but also a fantastic opportunity for farmers."

Kentucky ranks 45th nationwide for total installed solar capacity, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.