2024 energy and environment ballot measures: What to know

Voters in several states are being will weigh in on ballot measures addressing energy or environmental issues. Some ask voters to examine different funding avenues to mitigate the effects of extreme weather or create new clean energy projects. Others will address controversial efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  

South Dakota weighs carbon pipeline

South Dakota residents will vote on whether to uphold Senate Bill 201, which allows counties to impose a surcharge on carbon dioxide pipelines and other transmission facilities.

The measure on the ballot, the Regulation of Carbon Dioxide Pipelines Referendum, is essentially a vote on the Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed 2,500-mile pipeline project, sending carbon dioxide emissions from 50 ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota to be buried underground in North Dakota. 

A “no” vote would undo regulations set up by the state to facilitate the construction of the pipeline, which is supported by the ethanol industry. The pipeline would help limit the environmental effects of the greenhouse gases emitted in making ethanol, and it is thought that it would help pave the way for ethanol to be used as sustainable aviation fuel. Critics, though, argue that it would strip localities of control over what is built in their backyards. Environmentalists also oppose the pipeline.

Specifically, the underlying bill, Senate Bill 201, limits the ability of counties and towns to set requirements on pipeline construction and instead give more power to the state Public Utilities Commissions. It would also allow counties to charge $1 per linear foot on related pipeline companies during any tax year, with half of the revenue going toward property tax reduction.

Protect South Dakota AG Future is running a campaign for residents to vote “yes.”

Danita Murray, the executive director of the South Dakota Corn Growers Association, told AgWeek that agriculture needs the pipeline and that the law can protect landowners when working with pipeline companies. 

“Right now, things aren’t great in agriculture. We’ve got high input prices and not great commodity prices,” Murray said. “This is something that we think is important, it’s timely. And yes, our board has supported and has policies that went through our annual meeting last year that supports the pipeline.”

The bill has been referred to as the landowners’ “Bill of Rights,” but opponents reject that framing.

For example, Jim Eschenbaum, chairman of the South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance and a Hand County commissioner, told SDPB Radio that the bill “passed for the benefit of Summit Carbon Solutions, not for the landowners.”

“They called it a landowner’s Bill of Rights, but we believe that can’t be any further from the truth. A landowner’s Bill of Rights — it’s a Summit’s Bill of Rights if anything,” he added.

Washington to decide on gas stoves

Voters in Washington will vote on Initiative 2066, the Natural Gas Policies Measure, to prevent state and local governments from restricting access to natural gas. The initiative would also prohibit the state building code council from prohibiting, discouraging, or penalizing the use of natural gas in any building. 

In recent years, academics have raised concerns about gas stoves’ unhealthy emissions and human health effects. Some Democratic-run cities and states have moved to regulate gas stoves. New York, for example, passed a law in 2021 banning natural gas and other fossil fuels in most new buildings. Berkeley, California, in 2019, set regulations banning natural gas in new buildings. And federal officials have also raised the prospect of new rules on gas appliances. Their efforts prompted fierce pushback from Republicans and even some Democratic lawmakers.

The initiative on the ballot in Washington is in response to a state law passed earlier this year, House Bill 1589, that would create programs and requirements to incentivize utility companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and customers to reduce their home or building emissions. It set a 2027 deadline for utilities to submit plans.

Protect Energy Choice is leading the campaign in support of Initiative 2066. The Building Industry Association of Washington also sponsored the campaign, arguing that Washingtonians should maintain the choice to use natural gas. 

“Do you like cooking with natural gas? Do you have a gas water heater or furnace? Do you enjoy eating out at restaurants?” the Building Industry Association of Washington said. “If so, then vote Yes on 2066 to keep the gas on in your homes and at countless restaurants and businesses.”

Meanwhile, the Washington Conservation Action is the opposition campaign, arguing that passing the initiative would increase energy bills and decrease energy efficiency. The organization claims the fossil fuel industry funds it and would prevent local towns from deciding on energy choices. 

Washington initiative would undo cap-and-invest program

Washington Initiative 2117 will be on the ballot this November. It would repeal the Washington Climate Commitment Act (CCA), a state law that provided for a cap-and-invest program designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 95% by 2050.

CCA sets a cap on emissions in the state. Businesses are required to obtain allowances for their emissions. Revenue from purchases allowances is reinvested into clean energy. Gov. Jay Inslee (D), a longtime outspoken climate hawk, signed the measure into law in May 2021, and it went into effect in 2023. 

Let’s Go Washington, an organization campaigning for “yes” votes for the initiative, argues it would save residents billions of dollars on energy. The group says the CCA has led to the state’s high gas and utility prices and has not curbed carbon emissions.

Meanwhile, opponents of the initiative, such as No 2117, said, “It will strip billions in investment from community priorities in every county — like air quality, transportation and transit service, fish habitat, and preventing wildfires. And it will shift the burden of paying for the impacts of pollution onto local communities and families.” 

Permanent Defense, Statewide Poverty Action Network, Tacoma Indivisible, The Nature Conservancy, Washington Conservation Action, Washington Prescribed Fire Council, Washington State Council of Firefighters, and many others also oppose the initiative. 

“If we are concerned about the cost of transportation for Washington businesses and residents, we have to keep our focus away from the arm-waving of the variations of gas prices that we’ve suffered through for decades and really look to true solutions,” said Michael Mann, the executive director for Clean & Prosperous Washington. “And the true solution to lower our transportation costs is to get off of fossil fuels.”

California’s $10 billion bond measure

California residents will vote on Prop 4, requiring the state to issue $10 billion in bonds for various environmental, energy, and water projects. The bonds would fund projects such as river and lake restorations, heatwave and disaster shelters, wind turbine development, and many others. 

The measure would require 40% of the money to go to lower-income towns affected by environmental disasters. The Natural Resources Agency would also be required to list its programs and projects publicly on its website. 

Prop 4 has received endorsements from the California Fire Chiefs Association, American Lung Association, California Council of Land Trusts, Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, and many more. 

Only a few have publicly opposed the measure, but California Sen. Brian Jones (R) said the measure would impose long-term financial burdens, and the state does not need additional debt. 

“Imagine using your credit card to buy something, knowing that by the time you finish paying off the debt, you’ll have spent nearly double the original price due to interest. It’s a poor financial decision most of us would avoid,” Jones wrote in CalMatters. 

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Republican Party, and Assemblymember Jim Patterson (R) have opposed the measure. 

Louisiana coastal restoration

Voters in Louisiana will decide whether to allocate funds from renewable energy production toward coastal restoration and protection. The amendment would allocate state funds from wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources to the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund, which currently receives state revenue from oil and gas production.  

The fund was initially created in 1989 as the Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Fund, according to the Public Affairs Research Council. In 2006, the fund’s name was changed to the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund, the state’s primary finance source to pay for barrier island restoration, diversion projects, flood risk reduction efforts, etc. 

State Representative Joseph Orgeron (R) sponsored the bill. Earlier this year, it passed the House in April by a vote of 105-0 with five members absent and in the Senate by 33-3 with three members absent.

Minnesota environment and natural resources fund

Minnesotans will decide in November whether to continue using the state’s lottery revenue to fund its Environment and Natural Resources Fund (ENRF). The measure would extend the dedicated 40% of funding from the Minnesota State Lottery revenue to the trust fund through 2050. 

The Environment and Natural Resources Fund was established in 1988. The trust fund has provided nearly $1,027 billion to over 1,601 projects that protect and preserve the state’s environment and natural resources. The Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources manages the funding, comprising 17 members: 5 Senators, 5 Representatives, 5 citizens appointed by the governor, one citizen appointed by the Senate, and one citizen appointed by the House, the ENRF said. 

Several organizations, such as the Environment Initiative, Minnesota Conservation Federation, Minnesota Environmental Partnership, Minnesota Land Trust, and Conservation Minnesota support the measure.

“Without renewal, thousands of future programs and projects throughout the state could be in jeopardy,” Conservation Minnesota stated. “For years the environment has been underfunded. Support from the state’s General Fund for conservation has been dwindling from over 2% to below 1% in the last two decades. State agency budgets have not been able to keep up with other needs, putting more pressure on dedicated sources like lottery funding to make up for their shortfalls.” 

North Dakota’s legacy fund

This year, North Dakota residents will vote on decreasing spending on the state’s legacy fund from 15% to 5% for two years to increase investment earnings. The amendment would distribute the funding to a Legacy Earnings Fund rather than the state’s general fund.

North Dakota’s Legacy Fund was established in 2010. It receives 30% of tax revenue from oil and gas production monthly. The funds are later transferred to the state’s general fund for daily and long-term state operations.

State Rep. Corey Mock (D) was the primary sponsor of the amendment. He told a local news channel that it would “Give generations well into the future a chance to reap some benefit off of North Dakota’s mineral resources.” 

“The wealth under our feet is something our legislators here 20, 30, 40 years ago never dreamed of,” he added. 

Rhode Island’s $53 million bond measure

Rhode Island voters will decide whether to issue $53 million in bonds for environmental-related infrastructure, local recreation projects, and land preservation. 

The RI Port Coalition is a significant supporter of the amendment. It would provide $15 million to expand Quonset Business Park’s Port of Davisville and its ability to support offshore wind. 

“With more offshore wind support and service vessels calling on Davisville than ever before, expanding the port’s infrastructure is essential to meeting Rhode Island’s climate and clean energy goals,” the coalition stated.

It added that the port has increased its annual imports by 745% in the last 20 years, and the funding from the amendment would ensure the port can meet its growing demand.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Last month, Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee (D) endorsed the measure, stating, “At the heart of the $53 million bond is our commitment to protecting our environment, growing our green economy, and enhancing the quality of life for us Rhode Islanders.” 

He added, “These three pillars will help revolutionize our state’s fight against climate change and bolster our efforts to become a healthier community for all.”