A pending youth climate lawsuit in Maine represents the latest iteration of legal strategies aimed at holding states accountable for emissions-cutting targets. 

The case is one of a growing number responding to lagging progress on state climate laws that, in many cases, have now been on the books for years. What makes the Maine case unique is its targeted approach – focused on electric vehicle policy as a way to push the state forward on climate action. 

The case, filed earlier this year by the nonprofits Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), Sierra Club and Maine Youth Action, argues that the Maine Department and Board of Environmental Protection have fallen short on their legal duty to pass rules that will help achieve Maine’s required emissions reductions.

“There are countless solutions for tackling these various sources of climate-warming pollution,” said CLF senior attorney Emily Green, who is based in Portland, Maine. “But you need something more to make sure that it’s all enough, that it all adds up, and that’s where enforceable standards come in.” 

The Maine Attorney General’s office declined to comment, but has moved to dismiss the case. A ruling on next steps is now pending. 

Advocates focus on EV rulemaking

The case focuses on a 2019 state law that requires Maine to lower its greenhouse gas emissions 45% from 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% by 2050. 

Statutes like this are “where the rubber meets the road,” said Columbia Law School professor Michael Gerrard, faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. “The regulations are the teeth, the specifics on who needs to do what.” 

Such rules translate emissions goals into practical requirements for state executive agencies, processing legislative directive “into what polluters are required to do on a day-to-day basis,” said Jennifer Rushlow, an environmental law professor at Vermont Law and Graduate School.

Maine’s climate law said the state “shall adopt rules to ensure compliance” with the emissions targets, requiring those rules to prioritize reductions “by sectors that are the most significant sources.” 

Transportation contributes more than half of Maine’s emissions, and Maine’s climate plan prioritized electric vehicle adoption as a result. But the state is a long way off from its EV targets. It has about 12,300 EVs on the road now, with climate plan goals of 41,000 by next year and 219,000 by 2030. 

The CLF suit takes regulators to task for repeatedly failing to adopt California’s latest electric car and truck standards, which some states use as a more stringent alternative to federal rules. 

Maine has used California’s Advanced Clean Cars I rule for years, but voted earlier this year against adopting Advanced Clean Cars II, which would have required increasing EV sales in the state over the next several years. It’s also chosen twice not to consider adopting the Advanced Clean Trucks rule.

CLF notes that the state’s climate law requires the adoption of rules that are “consistent with the climate action plan,” first released in 2020. A roadmap for meeting the plan’s transportation goals strongly recommended adopting Clean Cars II, calling it “the most important regulatory driver in the electrification of Maine’s light-duty vehicles in the next two decades.”

State says harms are uncertain

In its motion to dismiss the CLF case, the state argues that Maine’s climate law does not require regulators to adopt all climate plan recommendations, or particular ones, as rules. 

The state has approved a handful of other rules under the climate law. Two focus on tracking emissions, and two others look at what Green called “narrow slices of the building sector,” the state’s second-largest emissions sector. These rules target hydrofluorocarbons and energy efficiency in appliances. 

In their motion, attorneys for the state quote a Maine Supreme Court decision from a separate environmental case earlier this year to argue that it is “simply ‘too uncertain’ … whether future harms will occur that will ‘directly and continuously impact’ any of Plaintiffs’ members.” 

CLF’s response lists a range of climate-linked harms that specific members of the plaintiff groups say they’ve already experienced, from increasing tick-borne illness and other health impacts to crop and flood damage.

“Climate change is here. Mainers are feeling the effects from a warming Gulf, from climate-driven storms,” Green said, adding that state lawmakers have repeatedly made similar statements in recent years. “Each day that passes with further inaction is a day wasted.” 

The state also argues that the “shifting sands” of state and federal climate policies that could affect Maine’s targets create too much uncertainty around harms from a current lack of transportation rules. 

In general, Gerrard said, such factors don’t negate the need for rulemaking. “We are way behind in reducing emissions, and so the fact that other things are happening isn’t going to solve the problem.” 

Green said that while Maine has made strides on expanding EV charging infrastructure, for example, “the actual standards are necessary to give that transition the push it needs.” 

“Binding rules can basically act as a backstop,” she said. “They can ensure the accountability that the investment and the rebates and the education and outreach, on their own, can’t do.” 

Narrower lawsuits get results 

The suit’s transportation focus is notable, experts said. “I would say the energy sector is targeted more frequently, and especially the fossil fuel sector,” Gerrard said. Other climate-adjacent transportation cases have focused on vehicle emissions standards, biofuel mandates or highway projects, he said. 

Rushlow sees the Maine case as a blend of a 2016 suit, also from CLF, which found that Massachusetts wasn’t fulfilling its 2008 emissions-cutting law, and a suit against the Hawaii Department of Transportation, where a recent settlement will require the decarbonization of Hawaii’s transportation sector by 2045. 

Rushlow worked with CLF on the Massachusetts case, but is not involved in the Maine suit and reviewed it after being asked to comment for this story. She said the Maine case lays out why having regulations on transportation emissions is “not just a wish” of the state climate council, but a legal requirement.

“The lawsuits that get really broad can get kind of lost to politics,” said Rushlow. “These lawsuits that are more narrow and focused on the language of particular state laws, I think, can stand a good chance.” 

She said there are also more “hooks” to do this at the state level than federally. Gerrard agreed that it’s easier to bring cases under specific statutes than “a constitutional provision or a common law doctrine.” 

Both the Hawaii case and the landmark Held v. Montana, which is now on appeal before that state’s Supreme Court, successfully took a state constitutional approach, using their legally given rights to a clean and healthful environment to push for climate progress. 

Victories of public opinion

Practical legal results aren’t the only positive impact these cases can have, Rushlow said: “There’s also outcomes in the zeitgeist and public opinion.” Though Juliana v. United States failed in court, she said, it “really drew a lot of attention to the future harm we’re causing our youth — and the current harm.”  

But she sees increasing potential for success among a greater share of climate lawsuits just in the past few years, as plaintiffs learn more about how courts are likely to receive different approaches. 

“It feels to me like progress is being made,” she said. “But the courts are never the first place you want to go when you’re looking for rapid, systemic change. They’re slow, they’re backward-looking, they’re conservative. And so it’s a challenging forum for the kind of change we need, and yet necessary.” 

In Maine, climate groups initially tried a regulatory petition to push for the passage of Clean Cars II. 

“When it became entirely evident that that was not going to happen, our hand was sort of forced,” Green said.

Maine faces lawsuit for failing to adopt EV mandates, the latest state-level climate court case is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

As Maine considers building a new toll highway to improve commutes in and out of Portland, a state climate working group is drafting strategies to reduce driving in the state.

State officials say the two efforts are not inherently at odds, but experts and advocates caution that continued highway expansion could reverse climate progress by encouraging more people to drive.

The parallel discussions in Maine raise a question that few states have yet grappled with: can governments keep expanding car infrastructure without putting climate goals out of reach?

Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Maine and many other states. Electric vehicle adoption is growing, but not fast enough to solve the problem on its own, which is why an updated state climate plan is expected to include a new emphasis on public transit, walking, biking, and other alternatives to passenger vehicles.

Zak Accuardi, the director for mobility choices at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the best way for states to invest in their road systems in the era of climate change is to not build new roads, but maintain and upgrade existing ones to accommodate more climate-friendly uses. 

“The states who are taking transportation decarbonization really seriously are really focused on reducing driving, reducing traffic,” Accuardi said, pointing to Minnesota and Colorado as examples. “Strategies that help support more people in making the choice to walk, bike or take transit — those policies are a really important complement to … accelerating the adoption of zero-emissions vehicles.” 

Slow progress on EV goals

Electric vehicles have been Maine’s primary focus to date in planning to cut back on transportation emissions. Goals in the state’s original 2020 climate plan included getting 41,000 light-duty EVs on the road in Maine by next year and 219,000 by 2030. The state is far behind on these targets. The climate council’s latest status report said there were just over 12,300 EVs or plug-in hybrid vehicles in Maine as of 2023. 

A 2021 state clean transportation roadmap for these goals recommended, among other things, the adoption of California’s Advanced Clean Cars II and Advanced Clean Trucks rules, which would require an increasing proportion of EV sales in the coming years. 

Maine regulators decided not to adopt Clean Cars II earlier this year in a 4-2 vote. A subsequent lawsuit from youth climate activists argued the state is reneging on its responsibility to meet its statutory climate goals by choosing not to adopt such rules. 

The original climate plan also aimed to cut Maine’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which measures how much people are driving overall, by 20% by 2030. The plan said getting there would require more transit funding, denser development to improve transit access, and broadband growth to enable remote work, but included little detail on these issues. It did not include the words “active transportation” at all. 

That appears poised to change in the state’s next four-year climate plan, due out in December. Recommendations from the state climate council’s transportation working group have drawn praise from advocacy groups like the Bicycle Coalition of Maine. 

New detail on non-car strategies

The group’s ideas include creating new state programs to support electric bike adoption, including in disadvantaged communities; paving 15 to 20 miles of shoulders on rural roads per year to improve safe access for cyclists and pedestrians; and, depending on federal funds, building at least 10 miles of off-road trails in priority areas by 2030. 

The group also recommended the state “develop targets related to increased use of transit, active transportation, and shared commuting that are consistent with Maine’s statutory emissions reduction goals.” 

In unveiling the recommendations, working group co-chair and Maine Department of Transportation chief engineer Joyce Taylor noted community benefits from road safety upgrades to accommodate these goals. 

“I think this also gets at housing and land use,” she said. “If you can get people to want to live in that community, that village, I think we could all say that it’s more economically vibrant when people are able to walk and bike in their village and feel like they can get around and it’s safe.” 

The Gorham Connector project would offer a new, tolled bypass around local roads as an alternative to upgrading those existing routes, an option that’s also been studied. State officials say the new road would smooth the flow of local traffic, including public transit. 

Towns aim to marry transit, housing, climate

Towns like Kittery, in southern Maine, have tried to focus on a more inclusive array of transportation strategies in their local work to cut emissions from passenger vehicles. 

Kittery town manager Kendra Amaral is a member of the climate council’s transportation group. She couldn’t comment on the state’s approach to the Gorham Connector, which is outside her region. But she said her town’s climate action plan, adopted this past May, “threads together” public transit, housing growth and emissions reductions. 

Stakeholders who worked on the plan, she said, strongly recommended ensuring that housing is in walkable or transit-accessible places. 

Amaral said the town has invested in new bus routes, commuter shuttles and road improvements to promote traffic calming and create safer bike and pedestrian access, as well as in EV growth. And she said Kittery was a model for parts of a new state law that enables denser housing development. 

“We can’t expect people to reduce (emissions) resulting from transportation without giving them options,” she said. But, she added, “there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution” for every community. “I believe we have to avoid the ‘all or nothing’ trap and work towards (the priorities) that get the best results for each community,” she said. 

‘Devil is in the details’

The Maine Turnpike Authority acknowledges the proposed Gorham Connector project in the Portland area would increase driving. But paired with improvements to transit and land-use patterns, they say the proposed limited-access toll road would decrease emissions overall — though research and other cases cast doubt on this possibility. 

“It’s possible for a project like this to be designed in a way that does produce favorable environmental outcomes,” Accuardi said, but “the devil is really in the details.” 

For example, he said the new road’s tolls should be responsive to traffic patterns in order to effectively reduce demand. If they’re too low, he said, the road will become jammed with the kind of gridlock it aimed to avert. But set the tolls too high, and the road won’t get used enough. 

He said it’s true that this kind of new access road can lead to denser housing development in the surrounding area — but the road will need to be tolled carefully to account for that increased demand. 

And the proceeds from those tolls, he said, should ideally go toward new clean transportation alternatives — such as funding additional transit service or safe walking and biking infrastructure around the new toll road, helping to finance subsidized affordable housing in transit-served areas, or allocating revenues to surrounding towns that make “supportive land-use changes” to lean into transit and decrease driving. 

Maine has indicated that it expects to use tolls from the Gorham Connector primarily, or at least in part, to pay for the road itself and avoid passing costs to other taxpayers.

But Accuardi said alternative strategies should see more investment than road expansions in the coming years if states like Maine want to aggressively cut emissions. 

He said on average, across the country, states spend a quarter of their federal transportation funding on “expanding roads or adding new highway capacity.” 

“That’s more money than states tend to spend on public transit infrastructure, and that really needs to be flipped,” he said. “We need to see states really …  ramping down their investments in new highway capacity. Because, again, we know it doesn’t work.”

Can Maine meet its climate targets and keep expanding highways? is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Oregon’s plan to regulate fossil fuel companies and reduce greenhouse gases is ready for public comment after being derailed seven months ago by a lawsuit brought by natural gas companies. 

Draft regulations for the state’s redo of the 2021 Climate Protection Program were published Tuesday by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. The agency gave the public until Friday, Aug. 30 to comment on them. The state’s Environmental Quality Commission, which oversees rulemaking for DEQ, is expected to vote on final rules by the end of the year, once again putting the state’s landmark climate change laws into action.

Little has changed from the original program standards, which were passed three years ago by the commission. The targets for reducing greenhouse gas pollution would remain the same. Under the proposed rules, Oregon would attempt to reach a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas pollution by 2035 and a 90% reduction by 2050 to confront the growing threat of climate change. 

Fossil fuel companies would have to gradually decarbonize their energy supply, largely by shifting away from petroleum and natural gas and instead incorporating renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and so-called biofuels – made from captured gas and decomposing matter – into their energy offerings. 

Natural gas is almost entirely methane gas, among the most potent climate-warming greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. One-third of global warming is due to human-caused emissions of methane, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Under the newly proposed rules, some heavy energy users in the state would need to meet emissions reduction targets and companies would need to show compliance with the program every two years, as opposed to every three years in the original plan.

“We did build off of the work that we already did in the prior Climate Protection Program,” Nicole Singh, senior climate change policy advisor for DEQ, told the Capital Chronicle on Tuesday. “We didn’t throw that out the window. We’re using that information to help inform this.”

To give companies a little flexibility, they would be able meet some pollution reduction targets by purchasing credits sold by the state. Money from those credits are invested in projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Expanding the program

Besides the three-year compliance schedule, the largest change to the newly proposed rules is who has to follow them. 

The state, for the first time, would regulate the emissions of companies that are heavy natural gas users, not just the suppliers of their gas. These include some cement, fertilizer and gypsum producers. Gypsum is in plaster, drywall and some cement. Companies operating in Oregon, including cement maker Ash Grove and Georgia Pacific, which works with gypsum, would need to meet new emissions standards, Singh said.

The agency included other changes in the investment portion of the Climate Protection Program. This section covers what is ostensibly Oregon’s carbon crediting market, where polluters can offset some of their greenhouse gas emissions by investing in projects that reduce overall emissions. One credit would be equal to one metric ton of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, and companies could buy them for $129 per credit. This market, which would have begun operating this year, was previously projected to bring in $150 million a year for community decarbonization and renewable energy projects, according to the Portland-based nonprofit Seeding Justice, which had previously been tasked with overseeing the investments.

Credit recipients, largely nonprofits working on community-based projects, could use the grants to help people and businesses buy and install solar panels and heat pumps, purchase electric vehicles and chargers and help weatherize homes and buildings.

Under the proposed rules, Oregon’s nine federally recognized tribes would play a bigger role in determining grants and would receive more funding, according to Singh. It’s unclear yet what role Seeding Justice could play in distributing grants in the future, she said, because such details would follow final rulemaking.

The state would also take a fraction of the funding – about 4.5% – to pay for its oversight of the grants and to undertake internal and external auditing to ensure money is being spent appropriately and that projects are, in fact, reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions required. 

Under the new rules, companies could offset 15% of their emissions through the purchase of these credits during the first two years of the Climate Protection Program and 20% during each two-year compliance period thereafter. Previously, companies could only offset 10% of their emissions through the credits in the first two years.

DEQ also proposes to work more closely with the Oregon Public Utilities Commission to understand how the Climate Protection Program will affect natural gas rates for Oregonians and to ensure companies aren’t passing all the costs of decarbonization on to their customers. 

Lawsuit triggers redo

The Climate Protection Program was approved in 2021 by the Environmental Quality Commission after more than a year of meetings, presentations from the environmental quality department and public comment. 

But in December, Oregon Court of Appeals judges agreed with lawyers representing NW Natural, Avista Corporation and Cascade Natural Gas Corporation, who argued that in the process of imposing state regulations to cap and reduce emissions, the commission failed to submit required disclosures to the companies and to other entities that hold federal industrial air pollution permits. The department was required to issue a written statement about why the state was adopting emission limits that exceeded federal rules, disclose a list of alternatives that were considered and explain why they were not adopted. 

The judges ruled the program invalid on those technicalities.

Rather than appealing the decision to the Oregon Supreme Court, which would likely not hear the case until mid-2025, state environmental regulators announced in January that they would start over.

Redo of Oregon program to cap greenhouse gas pollution ready for public review is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Environmental justice advocates are pushing back on proposals to include trash incinerators and wood biomass plants as carbon-free energy sources under a new state law that aims to make Minnesota power 100% carbon-free by 2040.

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC), a governor-appointed board that regulates utility providers, is collecting input on what should count as carbon-free energy and has received comments from utility companies, the forestry industry and state agencies suggesting that greenhouse gas emitting sources like waste-to-energy incinerators and wood biomass burning plants should be included. 

For several environmental groups and lawmakers, those suggestions are alarming and go against the intent of the law. The law defines carbon-free sources as those that generate electricity “without emitting carbon dioxide,” which would include sources like wind, solar, hydroelectric and nuclear power. 

“This should be a very easy question to answer,” said Andrea Lovoll of the Minnesota Environmental Justice Table.  

Some state agencies and utility companies disagree. 

Two top Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) officials submitted a letter arguing that the PUC should allow waste-to-energy trash incinerators and wood biomass to count as carbon-free because they produce energy with waste that could create more greenhouse gas in the form of methane, a potent pollutant, if sent to a landfill. 

Assistant commissioners Frank Kohlasch and Kirk Koudelka said the PUC should take a big-picture view of overall emissions, rather than just looking at the “point of generation” to determine if an energy source is carbon-free. 

And they said the agency has flexibility within the law to determine “partial compliance with the standard for such fuels.”

That is not what DFL lawmakers had in mind when they passed the bill, a group of legislators and environmentalists said Wednesday. 

“Carbon-free means carbon-free,” said Representative Frank Hornstein, DFL-Minneapolis. 

Lawmakers expect the state government to implement laws, Hornstein said, not muddy the waters. The 100% carbon-free energy bill is a good goal, he said, but there are no guarantees the 2040 deadline will be met. He pointed out that the Legislature approved a 2014 mandate that metro counties recycle 75% of their waste by 2030, but recycling rates have stagnated and the goal looks out of reach.

“I see a parallel,” he said. 

Cecilia Calvo, director of advocacy and inclusion at Minnesota Environmental Partnership, said she is disappointed that polluting sources are being considered. It shows that passing legislation is only the first step, and that people need to follow the implementation process closely. 

“Ultimately, I think there will be industry and others that will find a way to push and protect their interests,” Calvo said. 

Controversial sources 

Trash incinerators are considered renewable energy sources in most Minnesota jurisdictions, but that has long been a contentious point with environmental justice advocates who point to the substantial pollution created by those facilities and their locations near diverse, low-income areas. Minnesota lawmakers stripped the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC) in Minneapolis of its renewable energy status when they passed the 100% clean energy bill in 2023. Six of the seven incinerators in Minnesota are still considered renewable energy sources, which is a lesser standard than being “carbon-free.” 

Wood biomass, the burning of wood chips to produce electricity, has controversially been considered carbon-neutral for years. The technology is popular in the European Union, which often sources its wood from the United States and Canada. 

Minnesota Power operates a large wood biomass facility in Duluth, the Hibbard Renewable Energy Center, and submitted comments to the PUC arguing that the technology should be considered carbon-free. But that facility produces a large amount of greenhouse gas pollution, according to a 2021 study examining Minnesota Power’s operations. The study was commissioned by Fresh Energy, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and the Sierra Club. 

A coalition of environmental groups led by rural advocacy organization CURE submitted a comment letter Friday arguing that including trash incineration and wood biomass as renewable energy sources would allow further greenhouse gas pollution near diverse and low-income areas. 

“Our pathway to carbon-free electricity should be grounded in the dual goals of achieving real emissions reductions while also assuring that already overburdened communities don’t bear undue costs,” the group wrote. 

The PUC received dozens of comments on their query and plans to hold a hearing to decide what counts as carbon-free sources in late September, but doesn’t have a set date for the hearing or a decision, according to a commission spokeswoman. 

This story comes to you from Sahan Journal, a nonprofit digital newsroom covering Minnesota’s immigrants and communities of color.

Does carbon-free mean carbon-neutral? Activists, industry fight over details in new Minnesota energy law is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Advocates in Ohio are stepping up their clean energy efforts in response to the Republican party platform and Project 2025, which detail how a second Trump administration would promote fossil fuels while cutting back federal programs for addressing climate change, environmental justice and equity.

Over the past year, Ohio-based governments and groups have won awards for hundreds of millions of dollars under the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. 

Federal policy takes on added significance in a state like Ohio, where lawmakers have already placed extra hurdles in the way of clean energy development. That has left it up to local governments and private organizations to take the lead in cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Some of that work did move ahead during the former Trump administration, said Mike Foley, director of sustainability for Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland. But, “we had to scramble and struggle to get projects done.”

“Having resources from the federal government makes things so much easier,” Foley said.

Just this week, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency announced a grant of roughly $129 million to a partnership among Cuyahoga County and the cities of Cleveland and Painesville to build a 35 megawatt solar power facility and 10 megawatts of battery storage, and to shut down a coal-fired power plant.

Earlier in July, the Federal Transit Authority awarded a $10.6 million grant under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority for ten electric buses and chargers for low-income, high-ridership areas. More than $40 million will go to other projects in Ohio. 

“These dollars are changing communities for the better,” said Chris Tavenor, general counsel for the Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund.

Project 2025 — a policy blueprint for a possible Trump presidency produced by the Heritage Foundation — calls for repealing the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, threatening funding for additional work in Ohio and elsewhere, as well as weakening environmental protections and programs to promote equity. While former President Donald Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025, he has multiple links to authors and editors of the roughly 900-page report, and has repeatedly pledged to end Biden energy policies he has dubbed the “green new scam.”

“This is getting rid of everything that’s moved the needle forward on climate and energy,” said Neil Waggoner, the Midwest manager for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal program. 

While it’s unclear whether who will win in November, advocates are nonetheless preparing for a potential Trump presidency now.

Maximizing gains

The GOP platform and Project 2025 make clear what types of energy policies to expect if there’s a change in administration, said Melinda Pierce, legislative director for the Sierra Club.

“It’s in black and white,” Pierce said. So now, the Sierra Club is focusing on how to “Trump-proof the gains we have made.”

One push is to help local officials identify and apply for funding opportunities that are available now. “We don’t want to leave that money on the table,” Pierce said, adding that once money is in hand it “buys a lot of goodwill and inertia.”

That goodwill might limit the extent to which federal lawmakers would scale back programs bringing money to their states, according to conservative clean energy advocates who met at the Republican National Convention last week. Others are also collaborating with partners to get money for projects in hand as soon as possible.

“We are taking a proactive approach to reach out to funders to secure funding to continue the work and advocacy for energy, climate and environmental justice,” said SeMia Bray, co-leader for Black Environmental Leaders, which collaborates with regional partners to provide resources and support for environmental and economic justice initiatives.

Jonathan Welle, executive director for Cleveland Owns, said his organization plans to apply this summer for a “substantial federal grant that would put money in the hands of longtime northeast Ohio communities, specifically Black and Brown communities, so they can chart their own energy future.” 

Welle said he’s not at liberty to discuss the proposed project’s details, but did say the group expects it would hear about grant awards late this year or in early 2025. 

“But the timing for that and the follow through from the federal government…is highly dependent on the next few political moves, including November’s election,” he added.

Work to secure federal funding didn’t just spring up overnight, though. The Reimagine Appalachia coalition has been working for several years with stakeholders in Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania to build capacity to absorb and direct that funding. Periodic information sessions spotlight funding opportunities and promote networking for local governments or others to develop ideas for projects. There’s even a forthcoming “grant of the month club” event.

“It’s really important to be doing this work and making sure that this current opportunity is taken advantage of,” said Amanda Woodrum, one of Reimagine Appalachia’s co-directors.

At the same time, she warned against speeding up the process too quickly.

“It takes time to put the infrastructure in place to actually direct it and make sure [funding] doesn’t go to the same old political channels,” Woodrum explained.

Going too quickly also increases the risk of backlash if projects aren’t well thought out, don’t provide what people in communities want, or otherwise fail.

“You don’t want it to go sideways,” Woodrum said. “You want to make sure you do it right.”

Getting the word out

Messaging is another top priority for advocates as the fall election draws near.  

“We are continuing our efforts of voter education, making sure the communities we love and support have updated registration and understand the importance of this election, and all elections on the local level,” Bray said.

Volunteers for Save Ohio Parks have been trying to limit drilling and fracking under state-owned parks and wildlife areas since early 2023, and now face the possibility of more drilling and fossil fuel development under a possible Republican administration.

“Yet Save Ohio Parks is determined to stay positive and keep our eyes on the prize,” said Melinda Zemper, a member of the group’s steering committee. The group is expanding its volunteer base and building additional coalitions with other environmental groups in Ohio.

Advocates also want to get out the word about benefits from current federal programs so voters are aware of what’s at stake.

“The Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund will continue its work to emphasize how the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and other important federal programs benefit Ohio communities and help combat the causes of climate change,” Tavenor said. Without continued progress, climate change costs for Ohioans will get worse, he noted.

Messaging by the Sierra Club, Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund and other advocates also highlights the implications of Project 2025 for equity and democracy.

“Project 2025’s extreme proposals are specifically structured to benefit polluting industries at the expense of the health and environment of our communities,” Tavenor said. “Simply put, Project 2025 is a government takeover that threatens our democracy, designed by wealthy billionaires to benefit themselves and their power-hungry allies.”

Ohio advocates seek to ‘Trump-proof’ recent gains made on clean energy and climate is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.