Minnesota is sorting out details ahead of trying to meet its 100% carbon-free electricity goal by 2040.

Some environmental advocates feel energy sources being floated to regulators would defeat the purpose of the new law. The state's Public Utilities Commission is accepting public comment until July 10 on which technologies should make the list of energy options defined under the law. Utilities, advocacy organizations and others are lining up with their input.

Hudson Kingston, legal director for the group Clean Up the River Environment, worried certain recommendations he feels are dubious will make the final cut.

"Comments suggesting that burning wood, burning biomass, burning trash are all -- in some people's way of thinking -- carbon free, even though when you burn things like trash or wood, you are emitting quite a lot of carbon," Kingston pointed out.

The Minnesota Forest Resources Partnership contended burning limbs from harvested trees, or wood left over from fires or disease restoration projects, is a viable substitute for fossil-fuel production. The group said there would also be reductions in harmful sulfur and mercury going into the air. Initial public comments will be accepted by June 28. The deadline for reply comments is July 10.

Kingston noted bringing the definition into focus has a lot to do with what is considered a renewable energy source versus green technology emitting no carbon at all.

"It was a political decision a while ago that burning certain things could be considered a renewable," Kingston explained. "But under the carbon-free standard, there is no such list from the Legislature that gives burning things an out."

Even with regulators seeking clarity through public comment, Kingston feels the new law is clear in only leaning on proven carbon-free sources. In adopting the landmark policy last year, Minnesota leaders allowed for other exceptions, namely "offramps" for utilities struggling to meet the standard if clean-energy technologies are too costly or hinder grid reliability.

By Kathiann M. Kowalski for Canary Media.
Broadcast version by Farah Siddiqi for Ohio News Connection reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

A regulatory board’s rejection of a permit for a large solar farm in southwestern Ohio has “essentially rewritten” state law to give local governments veto power over clean energy projects, an attorney for the project’s developer argued last week before the Ohio Supreme Court.

The Ohio Power Siting Board’s 2022 decision denying Vesper Energy the right to build a 175-megawatt solar facility in Greene County is the subject of a high-stakes legal challenge with potentially “devastating” consequences for the state’s ability to grow its electricity generation capacity, the developer’s attorney said.

“All of Ohio’s energy infrastructure will be affected by this decision,” said Michael Settineri, who represents Vesper’s Kingwood Solar project, in an oral argument before the court on March 13.

The company claims the siting board failed to follow state law in its analysis of whether its project is in the public interest — one of eight criteria that power generation projects must meet to receive a site permit. Instead of evaluating the merits of opponents’ arguments, the board used the mere existence of local government opposition as reason to deny the permit, Kingwood Solar’s attorney said.

A lawyer for the Ohio Power Siting Board argued that it has wide discretion to make policy judgments and that members used “a broad lens” to make their decision.

Local criticism has killed multiple Ohio solar projects 

Renewable energy permitting has become especially difficult in Ohio over the last four years. A 2021 law lets counties block most new utility-scale wind and solar energy projects before they even get to the Ohio Power Siting Board. Others, like Kingwood Solar, have been denied based on local opposition, even though they are exempt from that part of the law because they filed permit applications or got in the grid operator’s queue prior to the legislation’s passage.

In 2022, the board found that the proposed Kingwood Solar facility met all the other legal requirements for a permit, yet it concluded “that the unanimous opposition of every local government entity” bordering the project was “controlling” on the public interest question. The board denied the permit.

Settineri urged the court to reverse the Ohio Power Siting Board’s decision, arguing that it was clearly not supported by evidence. And, as a legal matter, the board essentially rewrote the law for granting or denying a permit in a way that gives local governments control that they shouldn’t have, he said.

Justice Jennifer Brunner noted another part of Ohio law that says local governments can’t require their own consent for the construction of power facilities. When the board’s Kingwood Solar decision said “that unanimous opposition is controlling, that actually infers that consent is required by the locality. Isn’t the board violating the statute?” she asked Settineri.

He answered,“The way I read the board’s decision, it is giving the local governments veto power … contrary to the concept of a state siting regimen.”

Renewable developer says Ohio regulators failed to consider evidence 

The board’s ruling was also “internally inconsistent,” Settineri said. The board claimed it gave weight to the “vigor and rationale” of local governments’ objections, which included worries about visual impacts, preservation of agricultural land, and construction.

But the solar developer presented experts and other evidence addressing those topics during a 2022 hearing in the case. It was also willing to accept permit conditions to minimize any impacts. As a result, the board sided with the developer on those issues in its findings on statutory criteria other than public interest, including considerations related to agriculture and the environment, Settineri said.

“There has to be evidence, and the board has to consider the evidence,” Settineri said, arguing that the fact some people say they don’t want the project shouldn’t be enough to decide the case.

Judge Marilyn Zayas, a court of appeals judge sitting in for Justice Patrick DeWine, who recused himself, asked Stephen Funk, the lawyer representing the Ohio Power Siting Board, whether the board is “able to weigh the factors any way they wish.”

Funk told Zayas that the board has broad discretion, and it “made a policy judgment that this would not serve the public interest” after considering the vigor and rationale of arguments by the local opposition.

Brunner appeared skeptical of Funk’s efforts to make it seem as if the board members did more than cede to local governments’ opposition. The board didn’t say it was giving those governmental entities veto power, “but in effect they did,” she countered.

Responding to questions from Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy, Funk said each permitting case is considered individually. He also said public comments weren’t used as evidence by the board and didn’t determine the outcome.

On rebuttal, Settineri stressed that, in light of the rest of the board’s decision on Kingwood Solar, there is no evidence backing up the claim that the vigor and rationale of local governments’ opposition meant that the project would not serve the public interest. “If I yell loud enough, does that give me a win?” he asked.

The board appeared to accept local objections at face value, said Chris Tavenor, general counsel at the Ohio Environmental Council, which is not a party to this case. “The evidence on the record needs to be interrogated closely to see whether what the government is bringing forward is factually accurate and correct.”

“The board needs to actually weigh reasons for opposition,” Tavenor added. “The mere existence of opposition or support shouldn’t be enough.”

A looming decision

The Ohio Supreme Court will debate the case and is expected to come out with a decision in the coming months.

A decision against Kingwood Solar would establish a legal precedent that makes it much harder for companies to overcome local pushback, which has often been fueled by misinformation. An adverse ruling for the solar developer also would continue the uncertain regulatory standards and framework from the past several years.

Layne Ashton, a senior project development advisor focused on utility-scale solar at Engie North America, said his company would be very cautious about moving ahead with new facilities in Ohio.

“We’d do some significant due diligence up front” for any potential projects in the state, he said. That would include testing whether local officials would welcome them. The court’s judgment will also impact the broader legal question of whether Ohio Power Siting Board decisions must be based on evidence, versus politics or opinions.


Kathiann M. Kowalski wrote this article for Canary Media.


get more stories like this via email

Tennessee is emerging as a key hub for global nuclear energy innovation, with recent investments in the state and a commitment to expand nuclear from the governor.

Backed by the Tennessee Nuclear Energy Fund, East Tennessee is attracting global industry leaders such as Kairos, X Energy and Orano.

Curtis Roberts, vice president of communications for Orano USA, said the state's largest ever investment in Oak Ridge will play a critical role in meeting the nation's growing energy demands, provide energy security and economic opportunities.

"More than 300 folks are going to be hired by this facility," Roberts noted. "We're going to become a very strong employer for the area, and we always watch out for employees. It's always safety first."

Gov. Bill Lee requested nearly $100 million for energy innovation in his proposed spending plan.

The U.S. strives to triple its nuclear energy output by 2050, with the bipartisan ADVANCE Act signed into law last year, which will help build new nuclear reactors. The state has backed the nuclear supply chain, and a new advisory council has issued recommendations. Critics warned uranium projects heighten radiation risks.

The Tennessee Valley Authority said rising energy demands from economic growth and manufacturing require renewed investment in nuclear power, and contended energy security is really national security. Roberts points out the uranium enrichment process is one of the steps in producing fuel for nuclear reactors. He added a lot of the enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel was mostly provided by Russia.

"Orano is one of the other significant providers but ours was about 12%," Roberts reported. "Russia was much, much larger, and so to create a uranium fuel supply free from Russian influence, a lot of activity has to occur."

Roberts emphasized the need for support at all levels and the governor said U.S. enrichment will require substantial resources and broad federal support.


get more stories like this via email

A Senate committee will decide whether to advance House Bill 1007, which, if passed, would allow Indiana utilities to recover costs for small modular nuclear reactors before obtaining permits.

The bill also includes a 20% tax credit for reactor manufacturers. Supporters said it will lower long-term energy costs and improve reliability, while opponents warned it could raise consumer bills.

Robyn Skyua-Boss, Hoosier Chapter director for the Sierra Club, said the bill shifts financial risk to utility customers.

"Hoosier customers could see their bills going up to subsidize and cover the costs of building out these extremely expensive small modular nuclear reactors," Skyua-Boss pointed out. "As well as we could see costs going up because of the provisions in the bill that could delay coal plant retirements."

No small modular nuclear reactors currently operate in the U.S., and past projects have faced cost overruns and cancellations. Opponents cited Indiana's abandoned Marble Hill nuclear plant, which left consumers paying for an incomplete facility.

Skyua-Boss argued the bill could slow Indiana's transition to renewable energy.

"We really want to see more engagement from our state leaders," Skyua-Boss urged. "We want to see community solar legislation advance. Unfortunately, the bills around community solar did not advance this session; instead, we're here talking about House Bill 1007."

Rep. Ed Soliday, R-Valparaiso, the bill's author, said it positions Indiana as an energy leader while balancing cost and sustainability. The bill now moves to a Senate committee.