Bill filed in Arkansas legislature to protect power plants from closure
Senate Bill 463 mandates that the Arkansas Public Service Commission approve any power plant targeted for shutdown. In the bill's language, the plant could not be shut down without PSC approval, even if ordered by 'the United States Government, an agency of the United States, or any other third party if the purpose of all or part of the settlement agreement is the closure, deactivation, or decommissioning of an electric generation unit or a transmission asset located in this state.'
Arkansas electric utility bill passes Senate, heads for House
The legislature has discussed plant shutdowns as Senate Bill 307 moves through the legislature to change how utilities can construct new power plants. In presenting the bill, Sen. Jonathan Dismang (R-Searcy) has pointed out that Arkansas will lose two of its five coal-fired power plants in 2030, forcing either new construction or purchasing power from out-of-state sources.
The two plants in Redfield and Newark were slated for shutdown as part of a 2021 settlement between Entergy Arkansas and the Sierra Club after a 2018 suit for violating provisions of the federal Clean Air Act. Entergy maintained that it had complied with the act.
Arkansas bill tightening requirements for gas well operators passes House committee
Sen. Matt McKee (R-Pearcy) is the lead sponsor of SB463. He is also a cosponsor of SB307.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
17 minutes ago
- USA Today
California redistricting vote begins with overwhelming support, Newsom pollster says
Newsom has called for a Nov. 4 special election on the new maps. The California state legislature, where Democrats have a supermajority, would first need to vote to put the measure before the voters. WASHINGTON ― California Gov. Gavin Newsom's redistricting proposal aimed at creating five new Democratic congressional seats begins with overwhelming support ahead of a planned November referendum when voters would decide its fate, according to a survey conducted by his longtime pollster. The proposal is backed by 57% of California voters and opposed by 35%, the poll taken by Democratic pollster David Binder found, according to a report by Axios. Another 8% of voters in the heavily Democratic state said they were undecided. Newsom has portrayed his mid-term redistricting push as necessary to offset Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's pursuit to create five new Republican congressional districts in Texas. President Donald Trump has publicly lobbied for the gerrymandering in Texas to boost Republican chances in the 2026 midterm elections. Newsom last week called for a Nov. 4 special election on the new maps. The California state legislature, where Democrats have a supermajority, would first need to vote to put the measure before the voters. The poll found 84% of California's Democratic voters support the redistricting plan while 79% of the state's Republicans oppose it. The 57% in overall support for the redistricting plan is a jump from the 51% who said they backed redrawing California's congressional maps in a July poll. California currently has 43 congressional seats held by Democrats and nine by Republicans. The creation of five new Democratic-friendly districts could sway California's delegation to a 48-5 advantage for Democrats. Yet the move comes with risk for Democrats because it might create several competitive seats that Republicans could target. "I know they say, 'Don't mess with Texas,'" Newsom, widely considered a potential presidential candidate in 2028, quipped at a Democratic rally kicking off the redistricting campaign last week. "Well, don't mess with the great Golden State." California has an independent redistricting commission that is designed to limit partisan influence on the map-drawing process, but Newsom said the measure would allow a new process to draw maps that would go into effect for House elections in 2026, 2028, and 2030, before ceding power back to the commission to draw maps ahead of 2032. Redistricting in all states is required by federal law every 10 years following the release of new U.S. Census Bureau figures; however, Trump pushed Texas Republicans to jumpstart the process in the middle of the decade, setting off a cross-country redistricting fight. Redistricting efforts are also ongoing in Florida and Ohio that could benefit Republicans, while Republican-controlled Indiana and Missouri are also discussing redrawing their maps. Control of the U.S. House of Representatives at stake, with Republicans currently holding a 219-212 majority. Contributing: Erin Mansfield of USA TODAY Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison.
The Hill
17 minutes ago
- The Hill
Repealing EPA's endangerment finding will cause a public health nightmare
As America faces increasing health threats from wildfire smoke, summer heat waves and rising cases of asthma and other respiratory illnesses, the last thing we need is to reverse laws that protect U.S. air quality. Yet, that's precisely what the Trump administration intends to do by proposing a repeal of a central scientific finding that serves as the basis for the Clean Air Act — legislation that has saved millions of American lives and been responsible for monumental advancements both to our environment and public health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced last month the agency plans to end a long-held 'endangerment finding' that asserts carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases present a risk to human health. If that happens, it will neutralize the federal government's ability to combat climate change and enforce laws intended to protect America's wellbeing. One of those laws is the Clean Air Act. Enacted in 1970, it has been one of the most successful public health policies in U.S. history. It's credited with reducing six of the most common air pollutants in the U.S. by nearly 80 percent while saving over 230,000 early deaths and avoiding over 120,000 emergency room visits every year. It has reduced chronic bronchitis, infant mortality and prevented millions of cases of asthma exacerbation as well. These statistics aren't conjecture: They're sourced directly from the EPA's own website, the same agency now leading the charge to turn the clock back on these remarkable achievements. Zeldin's announcement claims that the reversal of the endangerment finding will 'undo the underpinning of $1 trillion in costly regulations.' But the positive U.S. economic impact from the Clean Air Act alone far exceeds this figure. By reducing hospital visits, sick days and treatment of costly respiratory-related disease, the EPA estimates the Clean Air Act has created $2 trillion in U.S. economic benefit as of 2020 — twice the amount Zeldin asserts the endangerment finding's repeal would create. Further, clean energy has proven itself to be a source of strong job creation. The Department of Energy found that jobs in renewable energy grew more than twice as fast as the vibrant 2023 U.S labor market. And the science couldn't be clearer: Clean air is critical to public health. 'Decades of research have shown that air pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter increase the amount and seriousness of lung and heart disease and other health problems,' the EPA states. Worse, those pollutants are disproportionately burdened by communities of color. A 2024 Milken Institute of Public Health study found that marginalized communities have eight times the number of pediatric asthma cases and a 30 percent higher chance of dying early from pollution exposure. That same study attributed this inequality to the close proximity many minority communities share with industrial manufacturing facilities. Imagine what those numbers would be if the endangerment finding is reversed and the U.S. can no longer enforce Clean Air Act provisions. Zeldin referred to the EPA action as 'driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion,' and that it would be 'the largest deregulatory action in the history of America.' But doing so will only cause greater sickness in America and inundate an already stressed U.S. health care system. Increased exposure to air pollution will result in higher numbers of emergency room visits, increased rates of chronic illness and heightened health care costs. The medical and environmental advocacy community agree greater exposure to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas is a bad idea. Groups such as the American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society, World Wildlife Fund, along with nursing organizations and medical societies all stand in strong opposition to the EPA's proposed action. Zeldin's proposal follows another questionable deregulatory move by the EPA in recent weeks to reintroduce dicamba, a weed killer used on soybeans and cotton. Use of the pesticide was halted by a federal court last year. A 2020 study in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that exposure to dicamba was reportedly 'linked to some cancers, including liver cancer and a type of leukemia affecting the blood and bone marrow.' But the EPA has argued it 'has not identified any human health or dietary risks of concern.' The U.S. government's job is to protect America's citizens. The Clean Air Act has saved millions of lives, safeguarded our skies and proven that environmental laws and economic progress can peacefully coexist. Repealing the endangerment finding will set America on a dangerous path and put the health and welfare of every American at risk.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Hoosier elections must remain free and fair
Will Indiana follow Texas' lead in redistricting mid-decade? (Getty Images) Vice President J.D. Vance recently visited Indiana to meet with Gov. Mike Braun and Republican leaders. They discussed a plan to redraw the state's congressional districts this year, mid-decade, in order to gain one or both of the seats currently held by Indiana Democrats and rig the 2026 mid-terms so Republicans can preserve their very slim House majority. We are scholars and teachers of U.S. law and politics. And we are deeply troubled by the Trump administration's attempt to rewrite the electoral rules mid-stream to maximize its power, and by Indiana Republicans' failure to immediately reject such a transparently partisan move, which would corrupt the fairness of our elections. Whatever our party affiliation, all Hoosiers should care about fairness. We would never support changing the rules in the middle of a basketball game so that our team would gain unfair advantage. We want winners to win fair and square. In sports, and in politics. Such corruption is possible because the process whereby Congressional districts are created is localized and susceptible to being rigged by those bent on gaining an unfair partisan advantage. According to the U.S. Constitution, Congress allocates seats in the House of Representatives to states based on population. A census must be taken within every ten years to determine how population shifts may change the number of Congressional districts allocated to each state — a process called reapportionment. The actual shape of Congressional districts in each state is determined by state legislation. Indiana's House GOP congressional contingent lines up behind redistricting effort In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that Congressional districts must be of roughly equal population and honor the principle of 'one person, one vote.' Since then, Congressional redistricting has almost always been done on the ten-year cycle, except when federal courts have required certain states to redraw their maps to bring them into compliance with federal election law. But now Texas Republicans are trying to redraw their Congressional map mid-decade. The reason why: because President Trump has very publicly called upon them to do this, telling CNBC's Squawk Box: 'We have an opportunity in Texas to pick up five seats. We have a really good governor, and we have good people in Texas. And I won Texas . . . and we are entitled to five more seats.' It should be obvious that Trump's vote total in the 2024 presidential election confers no GOP entitlement to extra House seats, which are not allocated based on presidential popularity (indeed, while Trump only received 56% of the 2024 Presidential vote, the Texas GOP controls 66% of the state's House seats). If the party wants five more seats in Texas or two more in Indiana, then the correct way to obtain them is to run strong candidates in districts currently held by Democrats, and win the elections in those districts, fair and square. The administration's push for Texas, Indiana, and other 'red' states to redistrict now has one very clear purpose: to change the electoral map, midstream, so that Trump and his party can retain control of the entire federal government by giving more power to voters they like while taking electoral power away from voters they don't like. And that is simply not fair. Hoosier citizens, and not statehouse Republicans, should choose who they want to represent them in their congressional districts in 2026 and 2028 and 2030. And they can freely choose only if the elections are fair. Any party that tries to try to change district boundaries in advance of an election just so they have a better chance of winning the election is doing something that has a simple name: cheating. Basketball coach John Wooden, a legendary Hoosier, famously taught his players to 'never lie, never cheat, never steal.' Indiana Republicans should heed coach Wooden's famous words, politely refuse to do the bidding of the Trump administration, and stand tall, with their Democratic counterparts, and all patriotic Hoosiers, in defense of the fairness of our elections.
