Latest news with #SenateBill136
Yahoo
11-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Ohio bills aim to sideline local critics of carbon capture projects
Ohio legislators are considering bills that would bar local governments from having a say in permitting projects that capture carbon dioxide emissions and inject them underground. The legislation could even force some landowners to let their property be used for carbon dioxide storage. The framework proposed in the twin bills being considered by the state House and Senate starkly contrasts with Ohio's approach to wind and solar farms, most of which can be blocked by counties. Instead, carbon capture and storage projects would follow a process similar to what's used for oil and gas drilling, in which property owners must allow development on or below their land if enough neighbors support it. At least one large energy company, Tenaska, is already talking to Ohio landowners about obtaining rights to drill wells and store carbon dioxide from industrial and energy operations deep underground. An executive with the firm said the legislation would provide 'clarity' for its planned carbon storage hub serving Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. 'This project will provide manufacturers, industrial facilities, and other businesses in this region with a solution to address growing environmental regulations and climate goals,' said Ali Kairys, senior director of project development for Tenaska. The company is in discussions with various carbon-emitting businesses, including steel refineries, ethanol plants, and power plants. The Appalachian Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub could also be a potential customer, Kairys said. In Ohio, Tenaska is eyeing Harrison, Jefferson, and Carroll counties as prime places to store CO2 underground. The three counties are among the state's top oil and gas producers and have a history of coal mining. Tenaska initially hopes to store captured carbon dioxide in the Knox formation, which ranges from 8,500 feet to 12,000 feet below the Earth's surface, Kairys said. Second-stage storage would use another formation roughly 5,500 to 8,000 feet underground. Other carbon sequestration projects could be on the horizon. The Great Plains Institute has identified roughly three dozen industrial facilities across the state as candidates for carbon capture projects. And even though the Trump administration is relaxing the environmental regulations that may motivate such efforts, 45Q tax credits expanded by the Inflation Reduction Act incentivize companies nationwide to develop storage projects. Ohio's House Bill 170 and Senate Bill 136 would give the state Department of Natural Resources 'sole and exclusive authority to regulate carbon sequestration,' a power the agency also has over oil and gas production via existing law. The Ohio Supreme Court has interpreted the oil and gas law's language to block local government regulation of drilling, even through general zoning rules that apply to other businesses. If passed, the bills would similarly deprive counties and townships of any say over sequestration, said Bev Reed, an organizer for the Buckeye Environmental Network. 'It's … another really tragic thing that the Legislature is forcing on us.' The bills would also authorize a 'consolidation' process that operators can undertake to force landowners to allow carbon dioxide storage in their property's subsurface 'pore space' if owners of 70% of the remaining area for an injection project have signed on. The process is similar to that for unitization, which lets oil and gas companies drill through dissenting landowners' properties. The chief of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources' oil and gas management division would be required to grant consolidation if it was 'reasonably necessary to facilitate the underground storage of carbon dioxide.' A landowner could only object on the grounds that the facility's design threatens 'a commercially valuable mineral,' such as oil, gas, or coal. 'You don't get to object and say this is dangerous, this is ill-conceived or for any other reason,' said Heidi Gorovitz Robertson, a professor at Cleveland State University College of Law. 'Reasonably necessary is a very low standard' for forcing property owners to give up the use of their pore space, she added. Asked to respond to advocacy groups' complaints that the process is unfair, Tenaska's Kairys focused instead on landowners' potential for income. 'A [carbon capture and storage] project allows landowners to benefit from an untapped revenue stream — leasing pore space deep below the surface. This is a passive income stream that has little to no impact on the surface use of the land,' Kairys said. The bills' structure for compensating landowners 'mirrors existing state law for individuals being paid for their mineral rights,' she added. The bills call for compensation, but it's subject to adjustments for the developer's expenses. Companies in oil and gas unitization cases often get to recoup twice their costs before they have to pay landowners more than the law's minimum 12.5% royalty. Neither HB 170 nor SB 136 requires any minimum payment to landowners. Yet once carbon dioxide is stored underground, landowners presumably couldn't use or drill through the storage formation. The bills are currently in the House Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Energy Committee. Primary sponsors are all Republicans: Sen. Tim Schaffer, Sen. Brian Chavez, Rep. Bob Peterson, and Rep. Monica Robb Blasdel. 'Make no mistake, carbon capture storage technology is here,' Robb Blasdel testified before the House Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday. 'This General Assembly must act to ensure Ohioans' rights are protected and their voices are heard.' More hearings are expected in coming weeks. Critics have dozens of questions, including whether sequestration projects make economic sense and whether they will significantly reduce planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. 'It's very expensive to retrofit [industrial] facilities to be able to capture the carbon — and very energy-intensive,' Reed said. The process may even cumulatively add carbon pollution to the atmosphere, after accounting for the emissions produced when capturing the CO2 and injecting it underground, she noted. Other questions deal with feared drops in property values, chemicals used in the carbon sequestration process, and the huge amounts of water that carbon capture technologies require. People also worry about the potential for carbon dioxide to escape from underground storage or related pipelines, said Randi Pokladnik, an environmental scientist and volunteer for Save Ohio Parks. Tenaska's project will include a detailed emergency response plan, Kairys said, adding that carbon dioxide is not flammable. 'At extremely high concentrations, carbon dioxide temporarily displaces oxygen. However, carbon dioxide dissipates very, very quickly.' Dozens of people were hospitalized in Satartia, Mississippi, in 2020 when a carbon dioxide pipeline ruptured. Another carbon dioxide pipeline leaked last year near Sulphur, Louisiana. Companies have injected carbon dioxide underground for years to stimulate extra production from oil and gas wells, but it has never been done at the large scale proposed now, Pokladnik said. She worries that gas could migrate upward through fractures in overlying rock layers or other wells, including many old, abandoned oil wells whose locations may be unknown. 'We're in a world where we don't have any expertise,' Pokladnik said. Love Canary Media and find our reporting valuable? Please consider financially supporting our work with a donation. Thank you!
Yahoo
28-03-2025
- General
- Yahoo
How politicians protect the profits of poultry companies, not public health
In the 1990s and 2000s, as industrial poultry production grew in eastern Oklahoma, chicken litter became increasingly used as fertilizer on area crop farms, leading to complaints that key water systems were being polluted by poultry litter. The waste leached into nearby waterways, elevating phosphorus levels that then depleted oxygen, caused algae growth, damaged the fish population and strained the nearly 20 utility systems that rely on the Illinois River Watershed for drinking water, according to news outlet Investigate Midwest. To remediate this now chronic problem, then-Attorney General Drew Edmondson sued several large agricultural producers in 2005, including Tyson, Cargill, and Simmons Foods, that commonly contract with Oklahoma's poultry farms. A trial was held in 2009, but it took 14 more years before U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell ruled for the state, agreeing that the poultry companies and more specifically, the litter on poultry farms or litter removed and used for fertilizer on nearby crop farms, were to blame for the high contaminate levels. He also criticized Oklahoma lawmakers for not doing enough to protect rivers and lakes from poultry litter pollution. Subsequently, a court-ordered mediation failed. Opinion: Influential factory farm industry presents safety challenge to Oklahomans, animals A hearing was held in December to assess whether the environmental conditions in the watershed have changed since the original trial and whether the companies' practices continue to contribute to pollution. At that hearing multiple witnesses testified that water pollution from chicken litter remains a problem. 'To help reverse the phosphorus pollution in the waters of the (Illinois River Watershed), we have to stop making the problem worse. That means we need to stop the land application of poultry waste,' wrote Gregory Scott, a scientist with the Oklahoma Conservation Commission, in testimony presented to Frizzell. A final order from the judge is still pending. But instead of taking steps to reign in the clout of the growing poultry industry and protect the public, Oklahoma lawmakers have chosen to further deregulate and shield it from legal attacks. The state now allows large poultry farms to avoid a more restrictive registration process and construct buildings that house thousands of chickens closer to homes and neighborhoods. In 2023, Oklahoma's Republican-majority Legislature and governor passed House Bill 2053, which would dismiss a protest against a water-use permit for a farm if the protest is 'based solely on the industry or entity applying to use the water.' The legislation's clear intent, to which even the bill's author, Republican state Sen. Brent Howard admitted, was to make it harder for people to oppose large poultry operations. Senate Bill 136, which was introduced in the 2025 session and called for a moratorium on these mega factory farms, was killed in committee. Senate Bill 1424, which was signed into law in 2024, has been the most significant step toward protecting poultry corporations. That legislation now forbids property owners in the Illinois River Watershed, whose lands and surface waterways have been polluted by runoff from poultry litter, from pursuing legal action against contracted poultry growers unless an enforcement action has been taken by the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry. The law also provides legal immunity to poultry corporations – the same ones targeted in the 2005 suit – from future lawsuits over pollution caused by chicken waste. The measure gives Big Ag and its corporate lobbyists license to despoil our natural resources and wreak havoc on our region's air and waterways. This has the potential to threaten the public health of our communities and the safety of their drinking water. Where water has been contaminated it will require cities and towns that use it to spend more on treatments or seek other water sources. Critics of this legislation have noted that it only benefits out-of-state companies who profit at the expense of Oklahoma's rivers and lakes and does not protect Oklahoma farmers. Nearly all chickens raised in the United States are under production contracts between poultry processors and farmers. Big Ag contracts with farmers can be problematic, potentially leading to unfair terms, reduced farmer autonomy, and increased financial risk for farmers. Over the length of a contract, the buying power of a contract farmer's wages may shrink by more than 20%. Lax regulations against industrial poultry farms are a gift to big agribusiness. Since our state lawmakers seem unwilling to serve as a bulwark for our environment and the economic and public health of our rural communities, we may have to depend on the courts. Judge Frizzell has said he is weighing pollution-control requirements. Since our legislators seem loath to hold Big Ag to account, let's hope the judge comes through. Mike Altshuler is a retired educator and environmental activist who lives in Edmond. This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Profits before people's health, say Oklahoma legislators | Opinion
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Oklahoma continues to feel the impact from Big Ag's toxic legacy
The Illinois River is seen from an overlook at Sparrow Hawk Wildlife Management Area in Northeast Oklahoma. (Photo) In the 1990s and 2000s, as industrial poultry production grew in eastern Oklahoma, chicken litter became increasingly used as fertilizer on area crop farms, leading to complaints that key water systems were being polluted by poultry litter. The waste leached into nearby waterways, elevating phosphorus levels that then depleted oxygen, caused algae growth, damaged the fish population and strained the nearly 20 utility systems that rely on the Illinois River Watershed for drinking water, according to news outlet Investigate Midwest. To remediate this now chronic problem, then-Attorney General Drew Edmondson sued in 2005 several large agricultural producers, including Tyson, Cargill, and Simmons Foods, that commonly contract with Oklahoma's poultry farms. A trial was held in 2009, but it took 14 more years before U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell ruled for the state, agreeing that the poultry companies and more specifically, the litter on poultry farms or litter removed and used for fertilizer on nearby crop farms, were to blame for the high contaminate levels. He also criticized Oklahoma lawmakers for not doing enough to protect rivers and lakes from poultry litter pollution. Subsequently, a court-ordered mediation failed. A hearing was held in December to assess whether the environmental conditions in the watershed have changed since the original trial and whether the companies' practices continue to contribute to pollution. At that hearing multiple witnesses testified that water pollution from chicken litter remains a problem. 'To help reverse the phosphorus pollution in the waters of the (Illinois River Watershed), we have to stop making the problem worse. That means we need to stop the land application of poultry waste,' wrote Gregory Scott, a scientist with the Oklahoma Conservation Commission, in testimony presented to Frizzell. A final order from the judge is still pending. Rather than taking steps to reign in the clout of the growing poultry industry and protect the public, Oklahoma lawmakers have chosen to further deregulate and shield it from legal attacks. The state now allows large poultry farms to avoid a more restrictive registration process and construct buildings that house thousands of chickens closer to homes and neighborhoods. In 2023, Oklahoma's Republican-majority Legislature and governor passed House Bill 2053, which would dismiss a protest against a water-use permit for a farm if the protest is 'based solely on the industry or entity applying to use the water.' The legislation's clear intent, to which even the bill's author, Republican state Sen. Brent Howard admitted, was to make it harder for people to oppose large poultry operations. Senate Bill 136, which was introduced in the 2025 session and called for a moratorium on these mega factory farms, was killed in committee. Senate Bill 1424, which was signed into law in 2024, has been the most significant step toward protecting poultry corporations. That legislation now forbids property owners in the Illinois River Watershed, whose lands and surface waterways have been polluted by runoff from poultry litter, from pursuing legal action against contracted poultry growers unless an enforcement action has been taken by the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry. The law also provides legal immunity to poultry corporations – the same ones targeted in the 2005 suit – from future lawsuits over pollution caused by chicken waste. The measure gives Big Ag and its corporate lobbyists license to despoil our natural resources and wreak havoc on our region's air and waterways. This has the potential to threaten the public health of our communities and the safety of their drinking water. Where water has been contaminated it will require cities and towns that use it to spend more on treatments or seek other water sources. Critics of this legislation have noted that it only benefits out-of-state companies who profit at the expense of Oklahoma's rivers and lakes and does not protect Oklahoma farmers. Nearly all chickens raised in the United States are under production contracts between poultry processors and farmers. Big Ag contracts with farmers can be problematic, potentially leading to unfair terms, reduced farmer autonomy, and increased financial risk for farmers. Over the length of a contract, the buying power of a contract farmer's wages may shrink by more than 20%. Lax regulations against industrial poultry farms are a gift to big agribusiness. Since our state lawmakers seem unwilling to serve as a bulwark for our environment and the economic and public health of our rural communities, we may have to depend on the courts. Judge Frizzell has said he is weighing pollution-control requirements. Since our legislators seem loath to hold Big Ag to account, let's hope the judge comes through. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
08-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Montana Senate eliminates protections for physician-assisted aid in dying
The Montana state capitol pictured after a late-night Senate vote on Jan. 9, 2025. (Micah Drew/Daily Montanan) Currently, physician-assisted aid in dying in Montana occupies a legal gray area. A 2009 Montana Supreme Court ruling said a physician can raise a defense in a homicide case, saying that a patient consented and sought out the drugs, but the high court said it was ultimately up to the Legislature to make the final decision on the legality of physician assistance in suicide. On Friday, the Montana Senate passed Senate Bill 136, which would disallow patient consent as a defense to physician-assisted aid in dying, effectively giving physicians no legal protection if they participated in administering drugs that would end a terminally ill patient's life. The measure passed 29-20, with all Democrats voting against the measure. Three Republicans joined the Democrats, Sens. Kenneth Bogner, R-Miles City; Gregg Hunter, R-Glasgow; and Russ Tempel, R-Chester. During debate on Thursday, the full Senate contemplated the measure, with both supporters and opponents offering tearful testimony, appeals to religion and worries that the power could be abused. Sen. Carl Glimm, R-Kila, has carried a similar bill in previous sessions, and pointed to physician assisted aid in dying, often referred to by opponents as 'physician suicide,' in other countries, such as Canada and European, calling them 'slippery slopes.' 'It will just keep growing and growing,' Glimm said, citing cases where a veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder 'was talked into suicide.' Glimm said he worried that others with physical or intellectual disabilities would be targeted, a concerned shared by other members of his caucus. 'That this is a peaceful way to go out is a fallacy. The drug cocktails they give them contain paralytics and these, without other drugs, will make them suffocate and die,' said Sen. Daniel Emrich, R-Great Falls. 'The reason they give them paralytics is to cover up these people would be flailing in place.' He said the message the Legislature is sending is even more dangerous: 'We're telling them they're not worthy to be on this earth. That they should just go away because they're inconvenient. That they have some disability or ailment or we just don't want them any more because they're wasting away.' The Senate also debated a mixed message about the problem of suicide, a problem that has doggedly plagued Montana, or whether physician-aided death was really similar. Sen. Emma Kerr-Carpenter, D-Billings, said that the bill wasn't just for the patients who would utilize a doctor, but also their families, who have a 'peaceful' and 'structured' way to say goodbye during the process of death. 'They can be surrounded by loved ones or we can leave them suffering in pain without a way out,' Kerr-Carpenter said. 'Allow people to use physicians to aid the way they chose to leave this world.' However, Sen. Sue Vinton, R-Billings, said the image of a peaceful, supportive suicide was a fallacy. 'Many of us have experienced the suicide of a family member or loved one, and there is nothing peaceful or joyful about that,' she said. 'What there is is guilt, grief, and it never ends. Don't believe that every person who chooses suicide is surrounded by loving, joyful people.' Sen. Bob Phalen, R-Lindsay, questioned how the Montana Legislature could halt lethal injections for death row inmates out of a fear that the drugs would cause suffering or prolong death, but support physician assisted death. 'It is inhumane then, but now it's OK?' Phalen asked. 'We're hearing a lot about suicide,' said Sen. Cora Neumann, R-Bozeman, 'But this is only for those in the end of life and terminally ill patients, not for people with disabilities. They're not covered under that.' Sen. Barry Usher, R-Billings, told of a neighbor who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer 25 years ago and given a terminal diagnosis. Usher credited the power of prayer to helping overcome the disease, but said he was concerned that doctors are often wrong in terminal diagnosis. 'Let God's will be God's will,' Usher said. 'He doesn't give us more than we can handle.' Another Senator worried about God in a different way during the debate. Sen. Theresa Manzella, R-Hamilton, said she had concerns about the different variables that come into play during death, including doctors who could make a mistake in the diagnosis, thereby 'playing God.' She said she's also raised horses and had to euthanize many, but said that when a drug cocktail goes wrong, it makes a horrible and lasting impression. 'At this point in my life, a well placed bullet is more humane than risking something going wrong,' she said. She said that her religious beliefs and those of others prohibit her support from meddling in the process of dying. 'There is suffering in dying, and there's a lot going on as they're preparing to leave this life and go into the next, and we don't want to interfere with that,' Manzella said. Sen. Daniel Zolnikov, R-Billings, said that he was not opposing either side during the emotional testimony, but urged Senators to look toward developing technology. 'There are new technologies,' he said. 'Neurology is helping paraplegics regain function. Technology is learning how to restructure the brain, and that's going to be a huge leap with Alzheimer's. There is so much hope in what is coming.' Throughout the debate on physician aid in dying, there were familiar themes that have been consistent in many legislative debates recently, for example personal freedom, the government's role in private medical decisions, and talk of slippery slopes. 'In committee, we heard from a lot of people about their travels to the end of life. It is a sacred path and it's deeply, deeply personal,' said Sen. Andrea Olsen, D-Missoula. 'Everyone has different factors when it's their turn to go and we, as legislators, must allow the system to work without our interference without saying to them, we can let you do it that way. You have to do it the hard way. We want you to do it my way. 'We need to respect the freedom of the people to work out the best plans they can and please don't put me in the position of people's private, very personal and decisions that only affect them.' The bill will now head to the House.
