North Carolina bill would make it harder to build solar in the name of protecting farmland
A new bill was introduced in the North Carolina state house that would make it more difficult and more expensive to build big, utility-scale solar projects on agricultural land.
The bill, titled the Farmland Protection Act or HB 729, would reduce the tax abatement for certain solar projects to 40% of the appraised value, half of the current 80% tax abatement. It was introduced by Republican Rep. Jimmy Dixon of Duplin.
The bill would also prioritize solar development on clear-cut timberland or former industrial property (EPA-designated brownfields) rather than farmland. It would require the North Carolina Utilities Commission to refrain from submitting a certificate of public convenience and necessity for utility-scale solar for land currently being used for agricultural or horticultural production.
SPECIAL SECTION >> Channel 9 Climate Stories
The bill comes as solar projects across the state face some backlash and counties consider moratoriums on the industry to protect their farmland. Davidson County passed a two-year moratorium late last year.
A 2020 report from the American Farmland Trust ranks North Carolina second in states with the most-threatened agricultural land. The report claims the biggest threats are from urbanization and sprawl from low-density residential land use, the report does not mention solar development.
According to a report from the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association from 2022, solar occupies 0.28% of agricultural land in North Carolina.
As of Wednesday, the bill has not been referred to committee, but already has several sponsors including Rep. Kelly Hastings (R-Cleveland) and Rep. Ben Moss (R-Richmond).
(VIDEO: First solar-powered Domino's opens in Clover)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US imposes sanctions on Los Chapitos, a faction of the Sinaloa Cartel
By Daphne Psaledakis WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The United States on Monday imposed sanctions on Los Chapitos, a faction of the Sinaloa Cartel, labeling it a Specially Designated Global Terrorist as President Donald Trump's administration seeks to tackle cross-border drug trafficking. The U.S. Treasury Department in a statement said it designated Los Chapitos under illicit drug and terrorism authorities, accusing it of facilitating trafficking and production of fentanyl, the lethally potent opioid. Two of its fugitive leaders, both sons of convicted Mexican drug kingpin Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, were also hit with sanctions, according to the Treasury Department. "Los Chapitos is a powerful, hyperviolent faction of the Sinaloa Cartel at the forefront of fentanyl trafficking into the United States," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in the statement. "At the Department of the Treasury, we are executing on President Trump's mandate to completely eliminate drug cartels and take on violent leaders like 'El Chapo's' children. Treasury is maximizing all available tools to stop the fentanyl crisis and help save lives." The Treasury on Monday also imposed sanctions on what it said was a regional network of Los Chapitos associates and businesses based in Mexico. Monday's action freezes any of their U.S. assets and generally bars Americans from dealing with them. Those that engage in certain transactions with the sanctioned parties also risk being hit with sanctions. The move comes after the Trump administration in February designated Tren de Aragua, the Sinaloa Cartel and other drug cartels as global terrorist organizations. Trump, a Republican, issued an executive order after taking office on January 20 that called on officials to evaluate whether any criminal cartels or transnational gangs should be designated as terrorism groups. The U.S. terrorism designations have come alongside a government crackdown on migration, with thousands of foreigners being deported to third countries in Latin America.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NJ governor election: Who is running for NJ governor 2025? Check out the list.
The 2025 primary is June 10 in New Jersey. Here are the ballot choices for governor that await Democratic and Republican voters who enter polling stations Tuesday. Hot topics: New Jersey farmers want to see these concerns tackled by a new governor Steve Sweeney, a former state Senate president. Sean Spiller, president of the New Jersey Education Association and former Montclair mayor. Newark Mayor Ras J. Baraka. Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop. U.S. Rep. Mikie Sherrill, D-NJ. U.S. Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-NJ. Issues: How GCL rail, other South Jersey public transit initiatives may hinge on governor's race Jack Ciattarelli, the GOP's 2021 gubernatorial nominee and a former state assemblyman. State Sen. Jon Bramnick, R-Union. Bill Spadea, a former conservative talk radio host. Justin Barbera, a contractor from Vincentown. Mario M. Kranjac, an attorney and former Englewood Cliffs mayor. Joe Smith is a N.E. Philly native transplanted to South Jersey 36 years ago, keeping an eye now on government in South Jersey. He is a former editor and current senior staff writer for The Daily Journal in Vineland, Courier-Post in Cherry Hill, and the Burlington County Times. Have a tip? Support local journalism with a subscription. This article originally appeared on Cherry Hill Courier-Post: On Tuesday, Democrats Republicans pick their 2025 governor nominees
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Noem praised Trump for sending National Guard. She opposed it when Biden considered it.
WASHINGTON – As South Dakota governor in February 2024, Kristi Noem threatened then-President Joe Biden when Democrats said he should federalize the National Guard in Texas to disrupt that state governor's anti-immigration efforts. If he did, Noem warned, Biden would be mounting a 'direct attack on states' rights,' and sparking a 'war' between Washington and Republican-led state governments, she said in a Feb. 6, 2024 interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity. On June 8, Noem − now President Donald Trump's Homeland Security secretary − cheered Trump for doing the same thing to the Democratic governor of the state of California. Over the weekend, Trump deployed riot gear-clad National Guard troops to Los Angeles to shut down anti-immigration protests over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. If Newsom 'was doing his job," Noem said, "our ICE agents would not be injured and attacked while doing their jobs and carrying out immigration enforcement." 'Under the leadership of @POTUS," Noem added in a post on X, "Trump we will put the safety of American citizens FIRST not these criminal illegal aliens that sanctuary city politicians are defending.' Trump said late Sunday that he sent the National Guard to California to restore order amid mounting violent clashes between police and rock-throwing protesters angry at his aggressive efforts to detain and deport undocumented immigrants in the U.S. illegally. 'We're not going to let this happen to our country." Traditionally, it is up to the governor of a particular state to deploy the National Guard. Trump's National Guard deployment of 2,000 troops in Los Angeles is expected to last 60 days, according to a directive from California's adjutant general. Trump's memo June 7 invoked a section of federal code authorizing the president to call the guard into service to 'repel an invasion of the United States by a foreign nation' or to 'suppress a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States' or to 'execute the laws of the United States when the President is unable to do so with regular forces.' Newsom has vocally opposed Trump's intervention, and on Sunday formally asked the President to rescind the 'unlawful' deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles. 'This is a serious breach of state sovereignty," he said, 'Rescind the order. Return control to California.' Former acting vice chief of the National Guard bureau (Ret) Maj Gen Randy Manner criticized Trump for sending the National Guard to Los Angeles against Newsom's wishes. 'The President's federal deployment of the National Guard over the official wishes of a governor is bad for all Americans concerned about freedom of speech and states rights," Manner said in a statement to Fox News. Manner said that while Trump's order was technically legal, Newsom has "the authority and ability to respond to the civil disturbances with law enforcement capabilities within his state," augmented as needed by requesting law enforcement assistance from other governors. Trump's order, he said, "tramples the governor's rights and obligations to protect his people. This is an inappropriate use of the National Guard and is not warranted.' On CBS News' Face the Nation Sunday, Noem explained her reversal by saying, "Governor Newsom has proven that he makes bad decisions." "The president knows that he makes bad decisions, and that's why the President chose the safety of this community over waiting for Governor Newsom to get some sanity," Noem said. "And that's one of the reasons why these National Guard soldiers are being federalized so they can use their special skill set to keep peace." Last year, Noem's tune was much different. At the time, Democratic lawmakers and immigration-rights activists were lobbying heavily for Biden to federalize the National Guard in Texas to defuse a brewing crisis there over the state's aggressive crackdown on illegal immigration. More: National Guard on the ground in LA as immigration tensions escalate: Live updates Biden's Department of Homeland Security was complaining that razor wire that Texas had installed at the border with Mexico was preventing DHS agents from Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement from doing their jobs. Activists said the wire was endangering the lives of those trying to cross into the United States, especially via rivers at the border where the wire was installed. The Supreme Court had ruled that the federal government could cut through the razor wire. But the Republican governor in Texas, Greg Abbott, was refusing to take it down. The dispute led to a prolonged standoff between Abbott and the Biden administration, with the Texas National Guard at times blocking Border Patrol agents from accessing certain areas of the border. To resolve the standoff, Democrats and others demanded that Biden federalize National Guard soldiers in Texas and order them to stand down and get out of the way of federal immigration agents. In response, Noem not only sent National Guard soldiers from South Dakota to the border to support Abbott's efforts. She also went there personally, she said at the time, to stand with him in case Biden decided to intervene against Abbott's wishes. For his part, Biden never said he was even considering the move, which would have been unprecedented in recent history. The last time a President deployed the National Guard over the home state governor's objections was during the Civil Rights protests of the 1950s and 1960s, when Southern governors refused to comply with orders to desegregate schools and other public institutions. 'That would be a boneheaded move on his part, total disaster,' Abbott told conservative host Tucker Carlson on his show 'Uncensored." In her interview with Hannity, the Fox News host told Noem that she and other Republican governors who "stood by Gov. Abbott's side' and opposed federal intervention likely caused Biden to back down from doing something that likely would "have precipitated a real, real crisis down there.' That's why she personally went down to Texas, Noem said, because she recognized 'the real threat that was to states' rights.' 'We will defend our Constitution. We will defend our rights because the last several years, we've seen Democrats take away our freedom of religion, our freedom of assembly, our freedom of speech,' Noem told Hannity. 'We can't let them take away our state's rights too, especially our rights protect ourselves.' This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: DHS Sec. Noem opposed Biden, but praises Trump, on National Guard
