Latest news with #InsideClimateNews
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Governor ignites public backlash after scrapping critical protections with no warning: 'It's really heartbreaking'
The Maryland governor shocked legislators and environmental action groups by vetoing a number of anti-pollution and environmental study bills. On May 16, Wes Moore rejected proposals to gather information about the impact of rising global temperatures on the economy, energy reliability, and more, Inside Climate News reported. Critics said it marked "a sharp departure from his climate promises." He cited "the state's current financial constraints," though one of the bills — the Responding to Emergency Needs from Extreme Weather Act of 2025 — was to cost just $500,000 from the $300 million-plus Strategic Energy Investment Fund, which is backed by utility companies that pay penalties "for failing to meet renewable energy targets," according to ICN. Moore also said the Energy Resource Adequacy and Planning Act, which was to cost between $4.4 million and $5.3 million, would raise consumers' energy rates, per ICN. But the bill was designed to help the state transition to clean energy sources by providing long-term assessment and planning strategies. The Data Center Impact Analysis and Report bill was another that got brushed off. It was to study "the environmental and economic footprint of data center expansion," ICN reported. Maryland lawmakers thought they were headed in the right direction with these legislative efforts, and many people were blindsided by the vetoes. The RENEW Act received particularly strong support, as it could clear the path to make fossil fuel companies pay for the pollution they create. "If the governor vetoes a bill to basically begin to study what the polluters owe us, then the only conclusion you can make is he wants taxpayers to pay billions of dollars for a mess that the oil companies knowingly created," Mike Tidwell, Chesapeake Climate Action Network director, told ICN. Delegate Jheanelle Wilkins called the RENEW legislation "monumental," while Kim Coble, executive director of the Maryland League of Conservation Voters, said: "This veto is extremely frustrating and simply does not support the state's climate goals." Climate action is not just about climate change and would reduce pollution, improve human health and environmental conditions, and rebalance ecosystems, weather, and other things that make the planet inhabitable for people, wildlife, and vegetation. What's more, every $1 spent now on resilience and preparedness saves $13 in future damages, cleanup costs, and economic impact. The Maryland General Assembly can override Moore's actions with a three-fifths vote in each of the House of Delegates and Senate. While the lawmakers are not in session, Moore can convene a special session, or a majority of elected members in the House and Senate can convene one via petition. "I think there's a strong possibility," Wilkins told ICN. "There's a lot of passion on both bills and a lot of interest … and they did both pass with veto-proof majorities." Should the government ban gas stoves? Yes Only in new buildings Only in restaurants No way Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Pa. fracking company surrenders water permits over concerns about stream flow
A view of Big Sewickley Creek downstream from PennEnergy's proposed water withdrawal site shows erosion control (center) and a portion of the project workspace and parking area (gravel and log on right). (Courtesy: Rose Reilly/Big Sewickley Creek Watershed Association) This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here. A natural gas company has surrendered its permits to pump water from a western Pennsylvania creek in a move welcomed by environmentalists fearful of rising industrial demand for surface water and the growing threat of climate change. PennEnergy Resources asked the state's Department of Environmental Protection in April to rescind its permits for 1.5 million gallons a day from the Big Sewickley Creek in Beaver County near Pittsburgh, saying the creek would not likely provide enough water for eight horizontal wells it plans nearby. Years earlier, the company had requested to drain 3 million gallons a day from the main-stem creek and a million gallons from its north fork. DEP denied the application, citing risks to a fish, the southern redbelly dace, that the state classifies as threatened. The company modified its application, and in January 2024, the agency issued permits for a withdrawal of 1.5 million gallons a day. But PennEnergy, a Pittsburgh-based independent oil and gas company, no longer wants the smaller amount, saying that changes in the stream flow would not provide enough water as required in its permits. 'We noted naturally occurring alterations of the stream-bed conditions making it unlikely that our approved withdrawal location would be viable to meet bypass flow conditions as specified in the permit ahead of the need for our well-development operations,' said Amanda Peterson, a PennEnergy spokeswoman. Peterson declined to say if the company had found a new source of water. But she noted that each well uses between 9 and 18 million gallons for hydraulic fracturing operations, about two-thirds of which is recycled. She said the request to rescind the permits was a voluntary action and not a response to public pressure or instruction from regulators. Across the country, the average hydraulically fracked gas or oil well uses about 4 million gallons of water, or about as much as New York City uses every six minutes, according to the American Petroleum Institute, an industry trade group. Opponents of fracking say water from surface sources such as creeks are the wrong use of a common and natural resource by a for-profit company. Critics had urged PennEnergy to withdraw water from the nearby Ohio River or another larger waterway, not the Big Sewickley Creek. But the company first rejected that option, saying the creek fit its policy of using a withdrawal site as close as possible to its gas well pad, cutting truck traffic. Advocates for the creek welcomed the company's decision as a victory for the local environment. 'Big Sewickley Creek does not have sufficient flow, and other water sources should have been more thoroughly considered, especially prior to the clearing of mature forest, and the construction of a gravel pad in the creek's most beloved recreational area,' Katie Stanley, president of the Big Sewickley Creek Watershed Association, said in a statement. There's no evidence that the permit surrender reflected public opposition to the water-withdrawal plan, said the association's treasurer, Rose Reilly. But volunteers had planned to monitor stream flow and told PennEnergy that it would be held accountable to its permit limits. 'This may have weighed into their decision to rescind the permits,' Reilly said. PennEnergy may not have fully grasped the creek's flow and its back channels, she said. A significant portion of the stream bypasses the site in Beaver County where the water would have been withdrawn, Reilly said. After heavy rains early this year, some 70 percent of the stream flow bypassed the intake site, she said. If the withdrawal had gone ahead, Reilly said, it would have reduced the creek's water quality and the area's water table, harming the habitat it offers, including for southern redbelly dace. DEP spokesman Brandon Glass confirmed that PennEnergy voluntarily asked the agency to withdraw the permits. He said oil and gas companies 'occasionally' opt out of permits. PennEnergy's conclusion that Big Sewickley Creek would not be a reliable water source could be followed by companies inside and outside the fracking industry as climate change upends rainfall patterns, predicted Emma Bast, a staff attorney at PennFuture, an environmental nonprofit. Industrial water users, including fast-growing data centers, may feel less confident about water from surface sources after the drought of 2024. Heavy rains in the spring of 2025 have only added to climate unpredictability, Bast said. 'With climate change, and this variability increasing, I would not be surprised to see something like this happening more often,' she said. Heather Hulton VanTassel, executive director of Three Rivers Waterkeeper, a nonprofit that advocates for water quality in the Allegheny, Monongahela and Ohio rivers and their watersheds in the Pittsburgh region, said many fracking companies withdraw water from nearby creeks but the proposed take by PennEnergy from Big Sewickley Creek was unusually large. VanTassel predicted fracking in southwestern Pennsylvania will deplete waterways as companies vie for naturally flowing water and recycle less of it. 'It's a matter of time,' she said.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Michigan Lawmakers Aim to Revisit ‘Polluter Pay' to Enforce Cleanup of Toxic Sites
Stock photo byThis article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here. Michigan lawmakers are again aiming to boost state environmental cleanup standards and force polluting industries to rehabilitate brownfield sites. 'Polluter pay' legislation, facing broad opposition from Republicans, failed last year but Democrats said they are engaging with industry stakeholders to craft laws that will target the worst sites and offenders. Democratic Sen. Jeff Irwin and Rep. Jason Morgan, of Ann Arbor, said they intend to rework bills that ensure companies and utilities pay for cleanups and open their records for public review. The legislation, which they plan to reintroduce in June, would also allow legal recourse for residents who suspect they have been harmed by the pollution. The measure passed the state Senate last year but was lost amid a tumultuous and early end to the Michigan legislature's lame duck session in December. 'We've migrated from 'Let's make this law that holds polluters to account,' to 'How can we focus on the most egregious cases,'' Irwin said. 'How can we work around the edges of the law so as not to fundamentally change its approach, but nonetheless get better results? 'The idea is to require better cleanups of contaminated land and discourage companies from leaving a mess in the first place. I still expect universal opposition from polluters. Industry isn't going to support more stringent standards no matter how reasonable, because it costs them money.' The lawmakers are part of a working group that includes the Michigan Manufacturing Association, the Michigan Chemistry Council and some manufacturers. They said they want industries and state regulators to collaborate in the pollution assessment process, and they envision a negotiation process with some tough compromises. It is likely that some sites will never meet residential standards, Irwin said. 'That gives us more flexibility to address those standards where they make sense,' Irwin said. 'Some properties might continue to be designated for industrial use. Auto plants and other large industrial sites are the ones that may not be fully cleaned up (to residential standards).' First introduced in 2023, Michigan Senate bills 605–611 are far different from laws recently passed in Vermont and New York, which are also often described as 'polluter pays' measures. The Vermont and New York bills are modeled after the federal Superfund law, and would essentially tax big oil companies for their historic greenhouse gas emissions. In Michigan, lawmakers are seeking accountability from businesses and industries that for years have left toxins in the ground or in the water. Michigan has tens of thousands of toxic sites, including many one-time commercial enterprises, that will likely fall within the proposal's reach. The former Gelman Sciences Inc. site in Ann Arbor, which manufactured medical filters and related products for the pharmaceutical and microelectronic industries, is a prime example. The chemical solvent known as 1,4-dioxane, a potential carcinogen, was used in production and has been found in local groundwater and nearby wells. The state and Washtenaw County has been overseeing remediation activities at the site for over 30 years. The federal Environmental Protection Agency has recommended the site to the National Superfund Priorities List. Irwin said troubled sites will be evaluated and tested, with soil and water samples, for a range of toxins. 'Is the site near a residential area, or is it located downtown?' Irwin said. 'The goal is to take this case by case, and allow flexibility for sites that are in different locations.' Progress Michigan, an advocacy organization, said its polls show over 90 percent of the public support laws that could save taxpayers from huge remediation costs. Dave Dempsey, senior advisor at For Love of Water, a nonprofit advocacy group focused on the Great Lakes Basin, said the proposed legislation is an attempt at fairness. The Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy 'estimates it will cost $13 billion for all these cleanups,' Dempsey said. 'It could take two generations to do this, or until the end of the century. Now we just have these old sites discharging pollution into rivers and lakes.' Dempsey's organization also wants to prevent an increase in abandoned toxic sites. Taxpayers are currently footing the bill for so-called 'orphan sites,' locations where owners are unclear or unidentified. Under current law, developers who clean up unclaimed brownfields receive tax increment financing, Irwin said. Sean McBrearty, director of the nonprofit Michigan Clean Water Action, said he wonders if any polluter pay effort can succeed when corporations are often the biggest culprits. McBrearty pointed to DTE Energy, which has faced legal action over its coal-fired power plants and other facilities. 'There are industrial accidents that haven't been cleaned up because it's cheaper to lobby the legislature than clean up contaminated sites,' said McBrearty, whose organization has worked with Irwin's latest version of legislation. Irwin acknowledged that his bill will again face tough political realities. 'We worry about a 'pay-to-play' environment where companies will use payments to stop an investigation,' Irwin said. 'Now that the Michigan House is Republican, that adds more of a challenge.'
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Report highlights community pushback stalling $64 billion in data center development nationwide
A representative for the Data Center Coalition speaks in opposition to a bill on data centers with Virginia Del. Josh Thomas (D-Prince William) and labor union representatives behind her. (Photo by Charles Paullin/Inside Climate News) As Elena Schlossberg of Prince William County, Virginia sees it, the community effort to fight the richest companies in the world seeking to build data centers began about a decade ago when opposition coalesced in the early days of the industry's development. Then, a couple of years ago, when people began to learn much more about the warehouse-like server farms proliferating at double the earlier rate, the fight strengthened with a meeting in Warrenton. 'That was where we all just started saying, 'OK, in order to fight this behemoth, we have to have some organizational process,'' Schlossberg said. 'We have to be able to communicate. We have to be able to support each other. We have to have a clearinghouse for all the information.' Schlossberg's group, the Coalition to Protect Prince William County, about 35 miles southwest of the nation's capital, teamed up with several other groups, including the Piedmont Environmental Council, the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association, and met in one of the areas facing development pressure that could now triple in the state. They formed the Virginia Data Center Reform Coalition. Such community opposition is the focal point of a recent report by Data Center Watch, a research organization tracking data center opposition. A key finding: '$64 billion in U.S. data center projects have been blocked or delayed by a growing wave of local, bipartisan opposition.' 'What was once quiet infrastructure is now a national flashpoint — and communities are pushing back,' the report says. 'This report highlights political risks and local opposition as frequent factors in data center project delays or cancellations, including community resistance, environmental concerns, and zoning issues.' As data center development explodes, the industry has faced particular challenges in Virginia, its global epicenter. Some $900 million in projects in the state have been blocked, and $45.8 billion in projects have been delayed. Yet, environmental advocates say few protections have been put in place. At the state level, dozens of bills were introduced in the Virginia General Assembly this year to enact development safeguards, but only a symbolic one about utility costs was signed into law by Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin. Josh Levi, president of the Data Center Coalition, a trade group representing many of the tech companies developing projects in Virginia, said the group is 'committed to working collaboratively with local officials, policymakers, and regulatory bodies at every level. 'Data center companies site projects where they are permitted under local zoning ordinances, rules, and regulations, which are developed by local leaders representing their communities,' Levi said. 'The industry seeks to work collaboratively with local officials to minimize community impacts, which often includes participating in town halls and other community and public engagement opportunities.' The locations of projects getting blocked or delayed are mostly centered in the Northern Virginia suburbs and exurbs of Washington, where the internet began. The region now serves a vast federal government, defense and intelligence complex. A couple other projects highlighted in the report branch out into the Northern Neck, south of the Potomac River, and outside Richmond. Virginia is home to 13 percent of the world's data center capacity, while 70 percent of the world's internet traffic moves through computers in the state. One case study in the report highlighted the effort by Schlossberg's group, the Manassas Battlefield Trust and others to stop the $24.7 billion Digital Gateway development of a campus with 37 data centers in Prince William County near the Manassas National Battlefield Park. Another is the Bren Pointe residential community in Fairfax County, fighting a $165 million hyperscale project that would need transmission lines and a five-acre substation 60 feet from the boundary of a townhome complex. In another project in Warrenton, proposed by Amazon with an undetermined development cost, hundreds of people, including actor Robert Duvall, attended and spoke in opposition, according to FauquierNow. Legal challenges have stalled the town council's approval of the project, and during that period, council members who supported it have been voted out of office. The report noted that Republican elected officials made up 55 percent of those critical of projects, expressing concerns over the use of tax incentives. Democrats made up 45 percent of those opposing projects, largely over environmental concerns. But many elected officials are approving data centers. 'What will it take for people in positions of power to make different choices?' Schlossberg said. 'As plain as the nose on my face, data centers are impacting the integrity of our water and our air and our communities and our reliable, affordable electricity.' Ann Wheeler, former chair of the Board of Supervisors in Prince William County, declined to comment on why she lost her Democratic primary race for re-election, but stood by her choices to support the industry in today's digitally driven society. The environmental concerns used 'misinformation' as part of a campaign of BANANA, or Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone, she said, and supporting the facilities' construction meant union jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in local revenue to support social services her party has traditionally aligned with. 'They'll go in somewhere,' Wheeler said, adding her county had resources for responsible planning. 'I would rather have that tax revenue in Virginia.' The report did not feature the opposition to a proposed data center in Pittsylvania County. There, community pushback and a report commissioned by the Southern Environmental Law Center, which highlighted the health effects from on-site, fossil fuel-powered generation equipment, led to the Board of Supervisors rejecting a needed rezoning application, effectively killing the project. The report included other case studies of successful data center opposition in Indiana, Texas and Arizona. Virginia's legislative research arm, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission, issued a report in December that comprehensively examined the costs of data center development. It found that data-center energy demand would roughly triple from 2023 to 2040 if development went unconstrained. Even so, the legislative protections proposed this year failed to make it across the finish line. Youngkin vetoed a bill that would have had localities require a description of substation needs and a study on the noise the facilities close to homes and schools generate, which can come from their air conditioning units, and onsite power generators. House Democrats killed a requirement for state regulators to review data center power contractsto ensure that electricity generation and transmission lines could support the need. One change that did pass requires the State Corporation Commission, which regulates utilities, to review cost allocations for data center projects between consumers and the center operators. The commission already had that authority. One Republican lawmaker, Del. Ian Lovejoy of Prince William County, pushed for ways to have the industry pay for the electric grid upgrades it necessitates. But debate on the bills married business and labor union interests, which 'usually are opposed to one another,' Lovejoy said. 'When those two groups agree on something, [there are] very difficult headwinds.' The General Assembly was also leery of interfering with local land use decisions in an election year, Lovejoy said. All 100 delegates are up for election this year, along with the governor. Democrats control the chamber 51-49. The state Senate, also controlled by Democrats, 21-19, has elections in two years. A similar debate driven by community opposition to new solar projects also took place this year in the legislature. Community opposition to data centers, Lovejoy said, 'is going to affect more and more people when they build data centers directly next to houses. That's the cautionary tale. Look at Loudoun [County], look at Prince William. Don't build them next to schools, don't build them next to houses. Make sure they're set back properly, or you're going to have the same issues that we're having.' Schlossberg said members of her group traveled a couple of hours down to Richmond one early morning during the legislative session earlier in the year. They were there to lobby for the swath of data-center bills as part of the group's increasing battle at the local, state and federal level that is costing the industry money and creating a community of opponents. 'I think it's important to really talk about the building of community,' Schlossberg said. 'In a digital world, I think we have seen people who have never felt lonelier. And I think that's been a really important positive outcome, is that people connect.' This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lawmakers accused of 'deeply troubling' tactics in court battle with young activists: 'It's going to take us years to unwind what they're doing here'
Montana lawmakers are pushing a series of legislative changes that critics say will undercut a historic court ruling that favored youth plaintiffs in a climate case, Inside Climate News recently reported. The Held v. Montana ruling was seen as a major win for young climate advocates. However, since the verdict, legislators have introduced bills that would limit the state's obligation to consider climate pollution in decision-making. The Held decision found that Montana residents have a constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, including protection from climate harm. Yet in response, some state legislators are fast-tracking measures that restrict how state agencies evaluate the release of polluting gases. Lawmakers aim to block courts from enforcing certain constitutional provisions through legislation like House Bill (HB) 971 and others that amend the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). HB 971 says state agencies shouldn't factor in planet-warming gas pollution in environmental reviews, while the MEPA requires them to carefully assess the environmental impact of major projects before giving permits. These changes could reshape how Montana evaluates and responds to climate-related risks. Legal experts and environmental advocates argue that these bills could roll back key protections affirmed by the ruling and limit the ability of residents to hold the government accountable for decisions affecting the climate. The urgency and volume of the proposals suggest a deliberate effort to sideline the court's judgment and limit the legal avenues available to implement initiatives for climate protection. As Anne Hedges, executive director of the Montana Environmental Information Center, warned, "It's going to take us years to unwind what they're doing here. And they [Republican lawmakers] know it; to them, that's a win." The youth plaintiffs' legal team is closely watching legislative changes as they unfold while Republican lawmakers defend the measures as necessary to limit judicial overreach. As a Reddit user shared, "It's deeply troubling that Montana Republicans are trying to roll back climate action after a court recognized the state's constitutional duty to protect a clean environment. … They need to be held accountable." Do you think governments should ban gas stoves? Heck yes! Only in new buildings Only in restaurants Heck no! Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. For now, advocates say the best way forward is to stay informed, support pro-climate leaders, and back candidates who prioritize environmental protection. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
