As concerns over global climate change and limited resources rise, the race to provide renewable energy has come to Illinois. In the Stateline, companies pitch their plans to make local fields the source of that energy. The Boone County Board is among many other local counties to be inundated with solar farm applications. County leaders tell us if green energy comes to the Stateline -- it could mean more money for local governments. Wednesday, a third solar farm was approved by the Boone County Board. The project is one of thirteen applications. Some board members say it's been surprising to see the amount of interest they're receiving."However they have to come get approval here [first]," said Boone County Board Denny Ellingson. "[That's] before they can get on the state list to even be in the lottery drawing to determine who will put up solar farms next summer."Ellingson says the applications are in land all over Boone County."One in the northern end of the county," said Ellingson. "The one that got approved a month ago is out near the fairgrounds."County Board Member Marshall Newhouse says with every vote, they learn something about the relatively unknown energy concept. Because of the uncertainty, he says the board is being very careful as they review each proposal.Newhouse says according to the developers, solar farms could mean a huge jump in property tax revenue."The taxes could be anywhere in the area of 7-10 times per acre what the county and the taxing bodies have been used to getting."Newhouse says the county wouldn't be the only one's reaping economic benefit from solar farms."To the farmer, it is a different and additional source of income," said Newhouse. "For those acres, that are going to be devoted to the project, it's probably going to be quite lucrative for them."County board members say they're listening to any resident concerns through the process as well. One controversial 200-acre proposal is up for a full county board vote on October 3rd.
Small refinery exemptions (SREs) represent the latest controversy to engulf the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). When the U.S. Congress first created the RFS in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) it included a temporary exemption for small refineries from the mandate through 2011. Under the Obama Administration, SREs were rarely granted after 2011. This changed radically under the Trump Administration, which granted a total of 48 SREs retroactively for 2016 and 2017. SREs effectively reduced the conventional ethanol mandate for 2017 from 15 billion gallons to 13.9 billion gallons. This was not only a large reduction in absolute terms, but it also resulted in the conventional mandate being set below the E10 blend wall. If similar numbers of SREs are granted for 2018 and 2019, comparable reductions in the effective conventional ethanol mandate should be expected (assuming the SRE volumes are not reallocated to non-exempt obligated parties)
Iowa landowners’ constitutional rights were violated when a Texas company used state-approved authority to seize their property to build an underground oil pipeline that had no public use because the interstate project did not service Iowans directly, a lawyer argued. Bill Hanigan, a Des Moines lawyer representing landowners in six counties, asked the Iowa Supreme Court to reverse a district court decision by ruling the state abused its eminent domain “police power” in allowing invalid land takings. Because of that, he asked the seven justices to view the pipeline and oil passing through it as a continual trespass necessitating a remedy for the aggrieved landowners.However, attorneys for the state and Dakota Access said the project was properly granted a permit and use of eminent domain condemnation proceedings because it met the statutory provisions and regulatory authority delegated to the Iowa Utilities Board to build the 1,172-mile pipeline through 18 Iowa counties.
When Alamance County passed a resolution last week against a proposal to expand the Mountain Valley Pipeline into north central North Carolina, it became the first county in the state to formally voice opposition to an interstate gas pipeline. “We’re plowing new ground,” said Commissioner Bob Byrd after the unanimous vote. “I’m generally considered the more progressive person on this board, but I was pleased that we all came together on this particular one.” The declaration by the board of four Republicans and one Democrat was submitted to federal regulators before September 10th, the first public comment deadline for a pipeline that’s still in the early stages of development.
The state of Minnesota and nearly a dozen other government entities will use a collaborative buying approach to build 4 megawatts of on-site solar. Called “Solar Possible,” the initiative used a master contract and a joint request for proposals to select vendors and gather pricing data. The Minnesota Department of Administration’s Office of Enterprise Sustainability and two partner organizations developed the program.Participating school districts, government agencies and city governments are getting better prices than they would have on their own, said Office of Enterprise Sustainability director Larry Herke.
All of California’s electricity will come from clean power sources by 2045 under legislation signed by Gov. Jerry Brown on Monday, the latest in a series of ambitious goals set by the state to combat the effects of climate change.Brown hailed the move as another example of the state’s global leadership on environmental initiatives as the Trump administration backs away from such policies. The bill’s signing comes just days before Brown is set to host a global conference on climate change in San Francisco, a final effort to showcase California’s actions on the environment before he ends his fourth and final term as governor in January.
1,023 megawatts of community solar have been installed in the U.S. as of Q1 2018, according to a recent report, enough to power roughly 150,000–200,000 homes. Massachusetts, New York, Minnesota and Colorado are leading the way in providing community solar resources for their communities. The details: Community solar refers to both community-owned solar installations and third-party-owned installations that allow anyone in the area to access the energy and , in some cases, obtain energy credits toward their electric bills. People who cannot afford solar installations or do not own the necessary real estate (renters, homeowners with shady rooftops, etc.) can participate and request clean energy through local utilities if community projects are available nearby. Several subscription models exist, from buying a share of panels in a solar farm to simply tapping into the power generated.Colorado installed the first community solar program in 2011 and has expanded to include and involve low-income communities. The Coyote Ridge Community Solar Farm, located in Fort Collins, will have 1.95 megawatts of solar capacity when finished and will be the largest low-income installation in the U.S. Minnesota leads the way with 401 megawatts of community solar capacity, the most of any state, however most participants are commercial clients.In the northeast, Massachusetts and New York both have strong community solar for residential customers.
A renewable-energy company wants to invest more than $100 million in a biofuel plant in Kansas that it estimates would create 225 jobs and generate $3.5 million a year for area farmers. But some Sumner County farmers and others in the area are concerned about what the plant could mean for their water supply. The VNA Corp.’s proposed plant would turn water and baled crop residue — such as wheat straw and corn leaves, stalks and cobs— into natural gas. The plant would need 50 million gallons a year of water and more than 75,000 metric tons of straw and stover — a common name for corn leaves, stalks and cobs — for its first phase of operation. The plant would not produce ethanol, cellulosic ethanol or bio-diesel. It would create bio-methane — or renewable natural gas — through anaerobic digestion.
Scientists say these renewable forms of energy can change the climate more directly — and do it in ways that might surprise you.If wind turbines and solar panels were deployed across the Sahara, more rain would fall and more plants would grow in the massive African desert, according to researchpublished in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.In the case of wind farms, the giant turbines would cause warmer air from above to mix with cooler air below, bringing more heat close to the surface. Air temperatures near the ground would increase by nearly 4 degrees Fahrenheit.In addition, the turbines would interrupt the smoothness of the desert surface. Winds blowing through the area would move more slowly.That, combined with the added heat, would change the atmospheric conditions over the Sahara and bring more moisture to the area. Average rainfall would increase by up to 0.25 of a millimeter per day — about double what it would have been otherwise, according to the study.The additional water would fuel plant growth, and those extra plants would reduce the amount of sunlight that’s reflected off the desert surface.From there, it’s a positive feedback loop, the researchers explained: The reduced reflectivity enhances precipitation, which fuels plant growth, which reduces albedo, and so on.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has re-opened the door to mineral exploration in the Rainy River Watershed, allowing companies to lease minerals in the Superior National Forest. USDA’s decision received a warm welcome from mining supporters, who have worried the obstacle would stifle Iron Range economic growth. Environmentalists said it will harm the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.“Today’s announcement from the U.S. Department of Agriculture is the right decision for Minnesota’s future and validates the existing environmental review process – which states the proper time to evaluate potential impacts of mining projects is after they have been proposed,” Jobs for Minnesotans said in a news release. “This mineral withdrawal would have protected the Rainy River watershed and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness from the threat of sulfide mining. Along with impacting the hundreds of thousands of individuals who visit the Boundary Waters each year, this decision will hurt the thousands of people whose livelihoods and economic wellbeing has been built on a thriving outdoor recreation economy in the region,” countered Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness.