Senate Agriculture Committee reviews zoning, excavation, wasterwater bills
The Senate Agriculture, Energy, and Environment Committee approved one bill and discussed two others during its hearing on Tuesday.
Lawmakers voted to pass House Bill 126, titled 'Revise Voluntary Ag. District Laws,' without any discussion or testimony.
This measure would require government agencies considering condemning or rezoning property within a voluntary agricultural district to hold a public hearing. There would be 45 days to set up the hearing and 120 days for the local agricultural advisory board to submit its findings and recommendations to the agency.
'At this point, I've heard no opposition to this bill,' primary sponsor Rep. Jimmy Dixon (R-Duplin, Wayne) said.
The bill now heads to the Senate Rules Committee.
Legislators also reviewed two bills for discussion only: House Bill 247 ('8-1-1 Amendments') and House Bill 694 ('Study Water/Wastewater Regionalization').
Sen. Michael Lazzara (R-Onslow) presented HB 247 to the panel, explaining the language would be replaced with text from Senate Bill 328, which updates the Underground Utility Safety and Damage Prevention Act.
'We just made the corrections to some of the language, but essentially, it's a consensus,' he said.
Sen. Tom McInnis (R-Cumberland, Moore) said he appreciated the bill, seeing as he's had a lot of complaints about 8-1-1. That's the number individuals should call prior to excavating to ensure they don't encounter any buried utilities.
'We can't move forward in our state unless we have a cohesive unit of construction,' McInnis said.
If this bill passes the panel, it will proceed to the Senate Rules Committee.
It's the same case for HB 694, which would direct the Environmental Finance Center at the University of North Carolina to study wastewater and water regionalization efforts.
Sen. David Craven (R-Anson, Montgomery, Randolph, Richmond, Union) presented the legislation.
Sen. Lisa Grafstein (D-Wake) asked about the Department of Environmental Quality's role in the process of transferring water between basins.
'This starts with a notice, then DEQ works with the water applicant to develop a draft environmental statement that looks at environmental impacts, it looks at alternatives to the water withdrawal, as well as several other things of that nature,' legislative analysis Kyle Evans said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Venture Global wins arbitration case against Shell over LNG delivery failures
Venture Global has emerged victorious in an arbitration case against energy giant Shell concerning allegations of non-delivery of liquefied natural gas (LNG) under long-term contracts starting in 2023, reported Reuters. Shell, along with other companies such as bp, Edison and Galp, initiated arbitration claims in 2023, alleging that Venture Global capitalised on higher spot market prices by selling LNG cargoes, rather than fulfilling long-term contract obligations from its Calcasieu Pass export facility in Louisiana, US. By November of the previous year, the collective value of the pending claims had approached $6bn (£4.43bn). The accusations centred on Venture Global's supposed profiteering from commissioning cargoes on the spot market, which typically command higher prices compared to long-term contracts. Venture Global, however, refuted these claims, attributing the delay in commercial operations to an electrical system fault that hindered optimal plant functioning. Shell expressed its disappointment following the tribunal's ruling but acknowledged its respect for the decision: Shell was quoted as stating: 'We are disappointed with the outcome but respect the Tribunal's decision.' The importance of trust in long-term contracts was underscored by Shell, which described it as the cornerstone of the LNG industry, crucial for fostering sustained investment and growth. Venture Global upheld that the tribunal's decision corroborated its stance of always honouring agreements with its customers. 'We are pleased with the tribunal's determination, which reaffirms what Venture Global has maintained from the outset – the plain language in our contracts, mutually agreed upon with all of our customers, is clear. 'We have consistently honoured these agreements without exception. Our industry and the investors and lenders who underpin it, all rely on respect for both the sanctity of negotiated contracts and the experienced, objective regulatory and legal bodies that govern it. These principles will ensure our industry remains dynamic, fair and competitive, enabling the innovation and breakthroughs that benefit all market participants and the customers we serve,' Venture Global stated. Earlier on Tuesday, Venture Global disclosed a potential penalty risk of up to $1.6bn in its second-quarter earnings report with some claimants in the arbitration having sought even higher penalties. The company is also on track to potentially become the largest US LNG company by next year, contingent on the advancement of its CP2 project in Louisiana and sustained overproduction at its existing facilities. "Venture Global wins arbitration case against Shell over LNG delivery failures" was originally created and published by Offshore Technology, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why Is Oklo Stock Still Going Down?
Key Points Oklo won some important Department of Energy contracts on Wednesday. It was far from the only nuclear company picking up DOE contracts, however. Investors are probably extra nervous today, however, over the risk of interest rates remaining high. 10 stocks we like better than Oklo › Shares of Oklo (NYSE: OKLO), one of a handful of start-up nuclear power companies benefiting from President Trump's May 2025 initiative to accelerate development of small modular reactors, fell more than 1% Wednesday, and are down another 6.1% through 11:45 a.m. ET Thursday morning. -- apparently on no particularly bad news. Worse, Oklo actually got good news (but not great news) yesterday that probably should have moved the stock higher. Instead, Oklo keeps falling. So what's up with that? What's up with Oklo going down? Yesterday, Oklo won three Department of Energy (DOE) "Reactor Pilot Program" contracts aiming to start up three small modular reactors by July 4, 2026. At first, this sounded like great news -- except that eight other companies won the same kind of contract. Apparently, Oklo's not in quite as exclusive company as first seemed, and has a smaller chance of winning future work than initially seemed the case. Oklo stock, which started Wednesday up on the DOE news, ended the day down -- and yesterday's pessimism seems to be continuing into today. Adding to the malaise is a Bureau of Labor Statistics report today that suggests inflation is speeding up again, which lessens the likelihood the Federal Reserve will be able to lower interest rates this year. Is it time to sell Oklo stock? Why are higher interest rates bad news for Oklo? Well, they aren't actually -- not immediately. Oklo's burning more than $50 million in cash annually, and may eventually have to take on debt to fund its operations, at which point, interest rates will be an issue. With more than $500 million in the bank, however, and near-zero debt, interest rates aren't really a concern to Oklo... yet. And I see no immediate need to sell the stock on interest rate concerns alone. Should you buy stock in Oklo right now? Before you buy stock in Oklo, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Oklo wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $649,544!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,113,059!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,062% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 185% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 13, 2025 Rich Smith has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Why Is Oklo Stock Still Going Down? was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
A climate report without denial and without excessive alarm bells
A new report from the Department of Energy concludes that, yes, the climate is changing and humans contribute to it — but no, it's not necessarily the impending catastrophe we've been warned about. In another era, an agency charting this kind of middle course would be unremarkable. Today, it feels revolutionary. The debate over climate change and responses has become so polarized that acknowledging the problem of human-driven warming without accepting a narrative that can sound apocalyptic invites attacks from all sides. I understand that the findings are controversial and hope climate scientists debate every detail. Considering the upside of getting this issue right, you would think more people would encourage open debate. That is exactly what led energy analyst Travis Fisher of the Cato Institute to return briefly to the administration to help organize the Climate Working Group, which generated the report. Like many of us who read from outside our ideological circles, Fisher was frustrated that many members of the left treat climate-crisis dissent as a thought crime, while many on the right still dismiss climate change as a joke. Fisher was initially hesitant to return to government service after a bruising prior stint. He was won over by Energy Secretary Chris Wright's stated desire to follow the data and inject more hard evidence into the conversation. Wright's plan was simple: 'Elevate the debate' by gathering a team of credible, often-overlooked, independent experts to critically review the state of climate science — without political filters — and publish the results openly. Five scientists were chosen by the Energy secretary. They are all highly credentialed and have decades of research under their belts. Importantly, they were given complete freedom over their conclusions. One need not agree with the Trump administration's overall climate policy — such as the dismissal of the 400 volunteer scientists preparing the next congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment — to recognize the legitimacy of this new report and its small group of authors. What does the report say? In a nutshell, as Fisher puts it: 'climate science — let alone climate policy — is far more nuanced than the summaries for policymakers (produced by previous government efforts) would have you believe.' The report affirms that greenhouse gases are warming the planet but tempers several claims. For example, the authors found no convincing evidence that U.S. hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have become more frequent or intense in recent decades, despite what you'd gather from headlines. This debate will continue, as it should, with many related dimensions to consider. But at least there is now high-profile evidence on record to give a say to reasonable experts who disagree with other, more alarmed perspectives. The Department of Energy report's authors also find that the planet's warming is unlikely to cause as much economic damage as is commonly claimed, in part because they believe past projections have been too extreme — something the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other mainstream climate scientists have recognized in recent years. Another finding in the report is that drastic policies meant to reduce warming could do more economic harm than good, and that even the most heavy-handed climate policy can't make much of a difference. Even if we eliminated all U.S. emissions, the authors argue, it would have an 'undetectably small' effect on global temperatures. Far from denying climate change, this perspective puts it into context and reminds us that sometimes the strongest medicines can hurt more than the disease. None of this is to say that the report has all the answers or that other, more worried scientists should not be heard. That's exactly the point: There should be an ongoing debate. Insisting that 'the science is settled' implies that only one narrative is allowed and downplays other important conversations about the effects and scale of the challenge. So, while some self-styled science defenders try to silence any dissenting view, one of the authors of the new report, Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, rightly notes that 'any scientist that isn't skeptical isn't doing their job. … The 'mainstream' attempt to enforce a faux consensus to support political objectives is antithetical to science.' A healthy process welcomes scrutiny and disagreement, which should help sharpen the work of any conscientious expert. For better or worse, the study is already having an impact, with the Environmental Protection Agency citing it in a proposal to reconsider the federal government's 2009 finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. That will mean legal fights, lots of criticism — and more debate. This report — the first of many of its kind, I hope — shows that it's still possible to respectfully and professionally confront entrenched dogma. It takes experts and people in power who are willing to be challenged or erroneously smeared as deniers. That's no small thing. I also hope the result is a climate policy crafted from facts, whatever they might be, rather than fear. For that to happen, others must insist that open debate guides the response. And more importantly, we must all tolerate the debate. Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.
