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.

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.