Searchable News & Info From Reliable Online Sources.
- An Idaho County Banned Wind and Solar Projects. Some Locals Regret It.
This story was originally co-published by Canary Media and the Daily Yonder, and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Jeff Hough did not pull any punches. What his fellow Republican county commissioners were about to do, he said to the packed courthouse, would violate America’s founding ideals. He quoted the Declaration of Independence to make his case. The three-person commission was about to vote on an ordinance that would ban utility-scale solar and wind development in Bannock County, Idaho. “We cannot deny the entire county the opportunity to exercise their property rights,” Hough said. “That goes against the principles this country was founded on.” A few minutes after Hough’s emphatic speech, the ordinance passed by a 2–1 vote. Hough was the lone dissenter. Since that consequential vote in March 2024, Hough has become the chair of the county commission and has dedicated himself to overturning that ordinance. He will soon have a chance to make that happen. This fall, Hough and the other two commissioners are set to vote on an ordinance with new language that would allow the development of solar and wind, along with nuclear energy, in the county. The Bannock County vote is a test case of whether—and how—a community can revisit its assumptions about the costs and benefits of clean energy and decide to welcome development it once swore off. In 2025, nearly one in four US counties had some kind of ban, moratorium, or impediment to clean energy development, up from 15 percent of counties in 2023. More than 60 percent of counties with bans are rural, according to a Daily Yonder and Canary Media analysis of data from USA Today and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. Bucking this national trend and reversing the ban would put Bannock County back in play at a moment when Idaho needs all the energy it can get. Idaho Power, the state’s largest utility, expects electricity demand to grow by 1 gigawatt by 2030, a roughly 26 percent leap from current levels. “The need to build stuff now is critical to Idaho’s economic future,” said Aaron Menenberg, the Idaho policy manager for Renewable Northwest, a nonprofit working to decarbonize the region’s grid. “We can’t afford to say no to anything.” Bannock County, nestled in a valley a few hours north of Salt Lake City and 100 miles west of Wyoming’s Teton Range, is a prime location for new power plants. It’s home to the Populus substation, a critical juncture for getting electrons onto the grid and into Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and the Pacific Northwest. Building new power plants near a substation is cheaper,… [TheTopNews] Read More.20 hours ago - Billionaire Man United owner loses moral high ground after tax exile, Labour cha...
The billionaire businessman told the BBC he has lost confidence in the UK due to a combination of high taxes and high immigration. [TheTopNews] Read More.21 hours ago - Lib Dems vow to end ‘computer says no’ economy to boost growthDeputy leader Daisy Cooper also proposes a Growth and Defence Partnership with the EU in a speech to her party conference. [TheTopNews] Read More.21 hours ago
- Miley Cyrus: “The turtle’s cold and Hannah Montana is here in her Do...
Speaking to Apple Music’s Zane Lowe, Miley Cyrus discussed the chaotic duality of her life while filming the music video for her new title track "Bass Persuades". [TheTopNews] Read More.21 hours ago - Today in Supreme Court History: September 20, 1968
9/20/1968: The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission denied a certificate of no exterior effect to the Penn Central Transportation Co. The Supreme Court found that the City of New York did not violate the Takings Clause in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York (1978). The post Today in Supreme Court History: September 20, 1968 appeared first on Reason Magazine. [TheTopNews] Read More.21 hours ago - Why Did a California County Fine Them Over $1 Million for Someone Else’s C...
Thanks to a settlement with several property owners, a wrecking ball is about to hit one California county's cannabis code-enforcement scheme—a system that piled ruinous fines on people for violations they say they did not actually commit. Corrine and Doug Thomas, two of the plaintiffs, were staring down more than $1 million in civil penalties. That came with a twist. Humboldt County, California, said their property's previous owner, Summerville Creek LLC, had been in "violation of the commercial cannabis land use ordinance," had constructed "a building or structure in violation of building, plumbing, and electrical codes," and had "facilities or activities in violation of the commercial cannabis land use ordinance." The Thomases did not understand why that was their problem, having purchased the property once their home in Los Angeles County was destroyed by a wildfire. Nevertheless, they were greeted with the news six days after moving in. Per county policy, fines accrued at $12,000 per day, for up to 90 days—and that included while people waited for the opportunity to have a hearing, which could take years. In the couple's case, they had the option to demolish the structure the government had deemed problematic, though that also would have cost them about $180,000, plus fines and fees. How was the government getting this information? "Code-enforcement officers scour [satellite] images for what looks like unpermitted development on a property (e.g., a greenhouse, a building, a graded flat of land, or trees removed without a permit on record)," attorneys for the Institute for Justice (I.J.) wrote in a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. "The County then presumes, without any evidence or further investigation, that the landowner must have developed their property without a permit because they were growing cannabis. In Humboldt's view, there's just no other reason that someone might not buy a permit before building a shed, a barn, or a greenhouse in the rural countryside." I.J. represented several other plaintiffs in the case. One is Blu Graham, who waited four and a half years for a hearing to show he was growing vegetables (as opposed to cannabis) in his greenhouse. Another is Rhonda Olson, who faced $7.4 million in fines that were addressed to the previous owner on a property she purchased for $60,000. The Court declined to hear the petition, which argued the plaintiffs had a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in… [TheTopNews] Read More.21 hours ago
The Searchable USWebDaily.com and TheTopNews NewsBank Helps You Be Better Informed, Faster! Spread The Word.
