Latest news with #HouseBill1210
Yahoo
18-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
This Seattle Democrat doesn't know all that's best for our side of WA
Washington Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, blocked a bill that would have helped the Tri-Cities secure billions in economic investment and more than 1,000 jobs. A Seattle-based state leader thinks he knows what is best for this side of the Cascade Mountains. House Bill 1210, sponsored by Rep. Stephanie Barnard, R-Pasco, was close to passage. It had already passed the House with bipartisan support and was heading toward a floor vote in the Senate in the waning days of the legislative session. The bill would have modified the rules for Targeted Urban Areas. TUAs are areas that local governments create to lure manufacturing and industrial development with temporary property tax breaks. Businesses commit to investing in improvements and creating living wage jobs. Richland was the first city to create a TUA. It includes the Northwest Advanced Clean Energy Park, the Horn Rapids Industrial Park and the Richland Airport. Richland's Targeted Urban Area attracted several projects, among them proposals by Framatome Inc. and Washington Energy LLC. The two companies operate in the nuclear power industry. Framatome already has facilities in the area and planned to spend $375 million expanding its nuclear fuel plant. Washington Energy, meanwhile, is considering building a $3 billion nuclear fuel plant. These companies are poised to play a significant role in the future of nuclear fuel production, a sector where the Tri-Cities possess expertise and infrastructure thanks to its history with the Hanford site and the presence of the Columbia Generating Station. The hitch is that state law sets a timeline for businesses in a TUA to deliver their projects and the accompanying jobs. The tax breaks last for a decade, but only on projects completed in five years or less. That's fine for a lot of businesses, but nuclear fuel companies face a lengthy federal approval process from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which can take years. Barnard introduced HB 1210 to address that regulatory reality. It would have granted nuclear projects in Targeted Urban Areas up to an additional four years to receive their certification, build and hire workers. Pedersen wasn't having it. As majority leader, he has the power to reroute a bill from a floor vote, effectively killing it, and he did just that. Pedersen cited budget shortfalls as one reason to block the bill, but HB 1210 would not have affected state revenue. The only taxes involved are local. Richland is gambling on these companies delivering what they promise, not the state. Hopefully local leaders have done their homework and carefully thought it through. Pedersen also expressed concern about the lack of a national nuclear waste storage facility. That view caters to nuclear-phobia among his liberal base in the Puget Sound area. The Tri-Cities is already home to a nuclear power plant that responsibly manages its spent fuel. Moreover, Framatome, a company with a long-standing presence in Richland, demonstrated its commitment to safe operations during a recent dustup with federal regulators over nuclear materials. To suggest that a lack of a permanent federal repository to hold nuclear waste should halt all progress in nuclear energy and manufacturing ignores the current safe storage practices. Adding to the urgency is the need for more energy to power electric cars and digital industries as well as to replace energy generation capacity that could be lost due to dam removals. Nuclear power offers a reliable, carbon-free alternative that can produce energy 24 hours a day, unlike wind and solar. Blocking HB 1210 was not just a setback for the Tri-Cities; it was a missed opportunity for all of Washington to embrace clean energy. It's hard to imagine Pedersen's predecessor, Sen. Andy Billig from Spokane, pulling this same sort of aggressive legislative maneuvering on a bill that would help this side of the state. We urge Pedersen to reconsider his stance and invite him to visit the Tri-Cities. Firsthand engagement with this community might cultivate a deeper understanding of the nuclear expertise here and a clearer view of the economic opportunities at stake. Then, if a similar bill is introduced next year, he might at least let senators vote on it.
Yahoo
27-01-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Carbon pipeline bills set for hearings in North Dakota this week
Signs in protest of a carbon pipeline project sit along Highway 281 south of Ellendale, North Dakota, on Nov. 12, 2024. (Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor) Several bills related to carbon capture pipelines are set for hearings this week in the North Dakota Legislature covering topics including eminent domain, common carrier status and liability in the case of a pipeline rupture. Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions plans to build a pipeline to transport carbon dioxide from ethanol plants in five states to underground storage sites in western North Dakota. It has the needed permits in North Dakota but is still facing some landowner resistance. If a company such as Summit is not able to negotiate an agreement with a landowner for construction on their property, it can resort to a legal proceeding known as eminent domain. With eminent domain, a landowner can be forced to allow construction of a project with a public benefit, such as roads, utility lines and, under current North Dakota law, carbon pipelines. The landowner would be paid if a court allows eminent domain. North Dakota regulators say state rules trump local pipeline ordinances Bills introduced in the Legislature propose to change when eminent domain can be used. House Bill 1414 specifies that the state may not use eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines and revokes common carrier status for carbon pipelines. Being a common carrier, allowing other companies to use the pipeline for a fee, can be a factor in determining if eminent domain can be used. The bill also removes solar, wind and hydrogen energy projects from being able to use eminent domain. House Bill 1292 also removes common carrier status for carbon pipelines but without specific changes to eminent domain. House Bill 1210 specifies that carbon dioxide pipeline companies are liable for damages if a pipeline leaks or ruptures. Carbon dioxide is a hazardous material and a rupture is potentially fatal. All three bills are scheduled for 2:30 p.m. Thursday in the Coteau Room before the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Written testimony can be submitted online until 1:30 p.m. Thursday. Senate Bill 2322 is similar to House Bill 1414, revoking common carrier status for carbon pipelines and limiting use of eminent domain. The hearing is at 9 a.m. Thursday in Room 216, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Senate Bill 2320 removes property tax exemptions for interstate carbon pipelines. Current law exempts carbon pipelines from property taxes for 10 years. The hearing is at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday in the Fort Totten Room, Senate Finance and Taxation Committee. Senate Bill 2333 would encourage carbon capture. It creates a carbon fuels fund for incentives to ethanol plants to produce lower-carbon fuels. Carbon capture and storage would be among the projects eligible for funding. The state would put $3 million into the fund each biennium. A hearing is set for 10:30 a.m. Wednesday in the Fort Totten Room before the Senate Finance and Taxation Committee. Sen. Jeff Magrum, R-Hazelton, tried to limit carbon dioxide pipelines in the 2023 session with several bills that were voted down. He noted that there are more sponsors of anti-carbon pipeline bills in the current session. 'People have become aware of the attack on private property rights,' Magrum told the North Dakota Monitor. The controversial Summit pipeline was also referenced last week during a hearing on a bill related to power lines. House Bill 1258 would give the state of North Dakota authority over setback rules for electric transmission lines, similar to pipelines, where state rules override county and township ordinances. Change is 'eminent': Property-rights fight transforms this year's SD Legislature The North Dakota Public Service Commission approves the route permits for both pipelines and power lines, but currently, pipeline companies follow state rules on setbacks while electric utilities follow local ordinances. The bill changes which rules the utilities must follow from local to state. Rep. Mike Brandenburg, R-Edgeley, is the lead sponsor of the bill and referenced his support of the Summit pipeline that runs through his district when he testified Thursday before the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee. A planned powerline from Jamestown to Ellendale would also run through his district and he fears the project could be hindered by restrictive local ordinances. Power companies also lined up in favor of the bill. The committee gave the bill a do-pass recommendation. The PSC last year interpreted state law to determine that state rules over setbacks for pipelines take precedence over local rules. The determination came during the permitting of the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline. Emmons and Burleigh counties had passed zoning ordinances that Summit felt were overly restrictive. Summit asked the PSC for clarification of what it argued was a law saying that state rules preempt local ordinances for pipeline siting. The PSC ruled in favor of Summit and later granted the company a route permit for its carbon capture pipeline. Emmons and Burleigh counties are challenging the PSC permit for Summit in court. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
