G2. Local Greens

September has arrived at a full sprint. Are you able to choose a few ways to take action this month? Maybe send an email, write a comment, invite a friend, show up in person, or all of the above! Here are some ways to get involved:

Sept 8 – It was powerful to see so many of us join together in Salem for the Data Center Moratorium Lobby Day & Rally! Over 170 of you showed up! Together, we’re making it clear that bold action against data centers is a political necessity – Governor Kotek even (finally) escalated her position on this at the rally yesterday by saying she supports a moratorium. Did you know that 75% of Americans oppose data center development? It’s time for the Oregon legislature to listen up!

Photo Credit: Eli Imadali, OPB 

Sept 12 – 13: Forest over Profits AND 350PDX Art Build

We are hosting a 2-day forest defense conference this weekend, including an Art Build Sunday (9/13) afternoon from 1–4 PM.  

Join forest defense advocates from across the PNW to build community, power, and momentum against the exploitation of forests and public lands for extractive logging, data center development, and mining. This event precedes the World Forestry Center’s annual forest commodity conference. We know that investing in the care of living forest ecosystems is an actual climate solution. So, join us! See website for details. Lunch will be provided. Space is limited, RSVP today!

Sept 13: Sunday Parkways in Downtown  

Join us downtown at Sunday Parkways from 11 AM – 4 PM. It’s the last Sunday Parkways of the summer and a fun event to get to talk to lots of Portlanders. 350PDX’s booth is in Pioneer Courthouse Square on the SW corner of 6th and Morrison – come find us!

Sept 13: Chasing Chimeras Film Screening

The Tomorrow Theater (3530 SE Division St.) is screening local filmmaker Barbara Bernstein’s film Chasing Chimeras: The Lure of Deceptive Climate Solutions. Learn why “renewable” fuels are not the answer. A panel discussion will follow the film. Get your tickets here. 7 PM.

Sept 16: No Secret Deals for Data Centers Resolution  

Final vote on this resolution will happen at Council, with another opportunity for public testimony. Submit written comments here, and come and help fill the room to show your support for this resolution from 6–9 PM.

Sept 17: CEI Hub Work Session

This is a long-awaited moment in our year-long policy process on this issue, where members of our coalition will be presenting to City Council about how to make the Critical Energy Infrastructure Hub safer. Submit written comments now (we have talking points here) and come show up in red at City Hall to show your support. 2 – 5 PM

Sept 19: Peak bird migration begins

Learn about healthy nighttime urban ecosystems from our friends at the Bird Alliance of Oregon.

Sept 21: Comment deadline – Stop Repeal of the Roadless Rule.

One of the most successful forest safeguards of all time needs our voices! Comment through OregonWild.  Learn more at MoreThanJustParks. Since 2001, the Roadless Rule has protected nearly 2 million acres of Oregon’s forests and 45 million acres nationwide from destructive logging and development.

Sept 22: No Immunity for Big Oil Resolution

The City Life Committee of Portland City Council will hear a resolution saying we don’t want to let big oil companies off the hook for the damage they have caused to our climate and public health! Send a message to city council in support.

Sept 30: Rumble on the River: Protecting Our Region From Its Most Perilous Threats

Come and learn more about the CEI Hub, data centers, nuclear power, and the proposed refinery at Port Westward’s Columbia River Estuary. St. Luke Lutheran Church (4595 SW California St.) Doors & Info Tables 5:30 PM, Panel 6:30 PM.

All of September is STEPtember!

 It’s like Pedalpalooza for walking! Oregon Walks dedicates the month of September to promote walking as a fun, healthy, ubiquitous activity. Grab a friend, pick some events to attend, and let’s get to walking!

Voter Guide and Scorecard:

350PDX’s 2026 Voter Guide and Scorecard is now available online and as a downloadable PDF! 32 candidates from Portland City Council Districts 3 and 4, the Portland City Auditor, and candidates for Multnomah County Chair and District 2 submitted statements.

Candidate Forums:

Save the dates for our big Climate Justice Candidate Forums this October:

• District 4: Monday, October 5, 6 PM at First Unitarian
• District 3: Thursday, October 8, 6 PMat The Porch

Multnomah County has a new Climate Justice Plan!

August 27 the Board of Commissioners adopted the strategy to guide long-term community and local government action. Thanks to everyone who supported this epic project!

Forest Defense Team

Priority Tree Planting Areas Announced
If you have friends in the following low-canopy neighborhoods, let them know it’s time to sign up for PCEF-funded street trees: Argay, Centennial, Creston-Kenilworth, Cully, East Columbia, Foster Powell, Glenfair, Hayden Island, Hazelwood, Lents, Mill Park, Montavilla, Mt. Scott-Arleta, Parkrose, Parkrose Heights, Powellhurst-Gilbert, Russell, South Tabor, Sumner, Sunderland, and Wilkes.

Model public land tree opportunity map released: Thrive East PDX used a PCEF mini-grant to hire a GIS student to create a StoryMap prioritizing 10 publicly-owned parcels ready for immediate street tree planting to shade popular pedestrian routes. Check it out!

The 350PDX Forest Defense Team meets every first and third Monday of the month. Join us.

Energy Justice Team

Next in person meeting, Sept 22nd, 6 – 8 PM at the 350PDX office. Get plugged in with the 350PDX campaign team that works on everything from fighting data centers, Zenith, and the CEI Hub to advocating for PCEF and transportation justice! RSVP to dineen@350pdx.org and cherice@350pdx.org.

Art Team  Last month the Arts Team led an enthusiastic workshop at Oregon Wild’s Rabble Rouser on the powerful political activism of art and puppets. Our next Art Build is Sunday, September 13, 1-4, at N 3639 Mississippi. We plan on beginning a few more puppets and going back to our roots making posters for demonstrations. Can you help us? It’s vital, fun, and sociable. RSVP to info@350PDX.org.  Book Club

The 350PDX Book Club meets every month on the first Wednesday of the month at 6:30PM. Every other month is in person and the others are virtual.

Reach out to books@350PDX.org with any questions or to join our list, and please RSVP so we can inform you of any meeting changes.

Join us on Wednesday, October 7 at 6:30PM for our next nonfiction in-person meeting. We’ll discuss Soil: The Story of a Black Mother’s Gardenby Camile D. Dungy, in which the poet and scholar recounts her seven-year odyssey to diversify her garden to reflect her heritage, expanding how we talk about the natural world and the environment.  RSVP at books@350PDX.org.

Save the date for our other upcoming discussions:

Wednesday, November 4 at 6:30PM (Google Meet) — Book to be selected in October

Milwaukie Advocates for Climate Justice

Do you live in Milwaukie and want to take action for climate justice with your neighbors? The Milwaukie Advocates for Climate is hosting their kick-off movie event on October 10th from 3:30-4:30, at the Ledding Library Community Room.

We will be watching the 350’s How to Reduce Fossil Fuels movie and having a facilitated conversation with the SW Neighborhood Team lead, Pat Kaczmarek.

Washington County Team

The 350PDX Washington County Team  always welcome newcomers to our events and to our (mostly) monthly online meetings (6:30 PM on the second Tuesday of the month). For the link, join us here or contact us at 350washco@gmail.com.

Southwest Team

The 350PDX Southwest Neighborhood Team includes neighborhoods on the south and west sides of Portland. We work together to raise awareness of the climate emergency. Our monthly meetings happen on the third Monday of the month. To get involved, please contact Pat Kaczmarek at patk5@msn.com.

Before closing our newsletter, a few reminders:

• Check out our Take Action page, which we update regularly. It includes actions that may not be in our newsletter.
• Join the 350PDX community Slack channel! This is a great way to stay connected on an ongoing basis. Contact to info@350pdx.org and we can add you.
•  350PDX is still searching for a wonderful, new home. Please reach out to info@350PDX.org if you have ideas for a space where we can have meetings, our arts team can create show-stopping puppets, and more!

Thank you for reading our monthly newsletter. We hope to see you soon!

With gratitude,

Cherice, Dineen, Jessica, Maeve, and Noelle

 

The post 2026 September Newsletter! appeared first on 350PDX: Climate Justice.

Following the Trump administration’s move to exempt oil projects from environmental review in the Western Arctic, Alaska Wilderness League Arctic Campaign Manager, Katie Umphlett, released the following statement: 

“The Trump administration has made it clear from day one that their priority is catering to industry and not the American public. With this latest move in the Western Arctic, they are essentially letting the oil industry write its own rules. At a time when oil companies and executives are already making record profits, the last thing we should be doing is bending the rules to make it easier to pad their bottom lines at the expense of our public lands, wildlife, and communities.” 

The fracking company Cuadrilla has secured the very time extension to restore its Lancashire shale gas site that councillors refused nine months ago.

Dismantled acoustic fencing at Preston New Road, August 2026. Photo: Maple Independent Media

Unknown to residents and campaigners, Lancashire County Council agreed to extend the deadline to return the Preston New Road site to farmland by six months to 30 June 2027.

In December 2025, this date has been unanimously refused by the council’s planning committee.

It has also emerged that Cuadrilla appealed over other dates enforcing the clean up of the site, near Blackpool.

The developments began three months ago, when Cuadrilla failed to meet an approved timetable for the Preston New Road restoration.

The county council took enforcement action. The enforcement notice required the site to be returned to farmland by January 2027.

But Cuadrilla worked behind the scenes with officials to get agreement on the very extension it had previously applied for and been refused.

The extension has taken residents and campaigners by surprise. The first some local people knew about it was a social media post by a councillor last week.

At the time of writing, there has been no media release from the county council.

Reaction

Nick Danby, of the campaign group, Frack Free Lancashire, said:

“We have just learned that the timetable for the restoration of the Preston New Road fracking site has been extended – yet again. The site was to have been fully restored by next January but now it seems that we might not see this matter resolved until June.

“Cuadrilla have turned dragging their feet into an art form and they have received no sanction whatsoever. Frankly, they have run rings around the regulators and Lancashire County Council and we have absolutely no confidence that they will meet the new timetable nor that they have any intention of doing so. We will be keeping a close eye on developments, if there are any.

“The community has been completely failed. Just as we always predicted. This should have been properly resolved a long time ago and the fact that we are still waiting is completely unacceptable.”

Another opponent of Cuadrilla’s operation, Preston New Road Action Group, said:

“In June we were encouraged by the fact that Lancashire County Council (LCC) had finally taken action to enforce Cuadrilla’s blatant failure to restore the site at Preston New Road. We were looking forward to this blot on the landscape being removed by December 2026.

“It is now very disappointing to find out that, following an appeal by Cuadrilla, LCC have rolled over and given them until June 2027 to restore the site – exactly the extension Cuadrilla applied for in 2025 which was refused by the LCC Development Committee.

“This is another fine example of Cuadrilla playing the LCC planners and getting the upper hand. We can only hope that this really is the final deadline for Cuadrilla.”

DrillOrDrop has been trying to make sense of what happened over the restoration plans, enforcement action, Cuadrilla appeal and the agreement with officials.

Lancashire County Council told us repeatedly that there had been no extension of the final deadline. But this is contradicted by several documents.

Timeline 4 December 2025: Cuadrilla refused more time

Councillors voted by nine to nil, with no abstentions, to refuse Cuadrilla’s request for an extension until 30 June 2027 for the return of Preston New Road to farmland. At the time, officials said:

“The proposed extension of time for the retention of the site in its current form would result in unnecessary and unacceptable harm to the rural character of the area.” Details

Campaigners called for immediate restoration of the site. Details

3 June 2026: original enforcement notice served

Lancashire County Council served an enforcement notice on Cuadrilla over the restoration of Preston New Road. The notice was due to come into force on 8 July 2026 unless there was an appeal against it.

The enforcement notice set three deadlines for the work.

1. “All plant, buildings, security and acoustic fencing, pollution control membranes, aggregates and concrete hard standings forming part of the drilling compound for hydrocarbons shall be removed from the land” This was to be by 8 November 2026, within four months from the date the notice became effective.
2. The upper layers of the subsoil material shall be subsoiled to a depth of 600mm using a heavy duty winged subsoiler prior to the replacement of topsoils to relieve compaction and remove materials injurious to plant life and ay rock, stone or other materials capable of preventing or impeding normal agricultural use or land drainage operations. This was to by 8 December 2026 – within five months
3. Following treatment of the subsoil the topsoil from the soil storage mounds on the Land shall be distributed evenly across the Land to a minimum depth of 150mm and shall then be ripped, cultivated and left in a state that will enable the Land to be brought to a standard fit for agricultural use. This was to be by 8 January 2026 – within six months.

1.0 Enforcement Notice LCC 3.06.26_Redacted(1)Download

8 June 2026: media announcement

Lancashire County Council issued a media release on the enforcement notice. Details

Councillor Joshua Roberts, cabinet member for Rural Affairs, Environment and Communities, said:

“This situation has gone on for far too long.

“Local residents have had to live with this site for longer than they should have, and it is right that we have now taken firm action to bring this to a conclusion.

“It is positive that work is beginning to remove infrastructure from the site, but it is essential that the full restoration is completed within the required timeframe.

“We will not hesitate to take further steps if necessary.”

The media statement repeated the three deadlines in the original enforcement notice.

24 June 2026: Cuadrilla asks for an extension

On 24 June 2026, Cuadrilla confirmed the final deadline of 8 January 2027 in the enforcement notice. But it asked Lancashire County Council to “exercise its discretion” under planning legislation to change the final date to 30 June 2027.

The company also confirmed that 30 June 2027 was the date it had asked for in its planning application, refused in December 2025.

Cuadrilla cited the following reasons for its requested delay:

• The restoration work was “extensive in scope and require careful sequencing”
• The work would be best carried out in April-September, not the winter
• The company could procure contractors on “appropriate terms and enable them to mobilise effectively”
• Working in the winter could cause further harm to the soil structure and agricultural quality of the land
• The company had not appealed against the refusal of planning permission

Cuadrilla proposed to remove the acoustic fencing by 30 September 2026. It also said it would remove concrete structures, drainage materials, the stone platform, fencing, bulk earthworks and the access track by May 2027, subject to weather conditions and availability of contractors.

The company added that it would complete the return of subsoil to a depth of 600mm by May or June 2027 and prepare the site for agricultural use by 30 June 2027.

Cuadrilla described this as a “pragmatic and cooperative approach”.

It would, the company said, “avoid poorer environmental/agricultural outcomes from winter works and allow the Land to be restored properly and in a manner consistent with the Council’s own planning policies and the objectives of the original planning permission”.

2.0 Cuadrilla Letter 2405261_RedactedDownload 30 June 2026: council extends one deadline

Lancashire County Council agreed to extend the deadline to 30 June 2027 for work on the subsoil, topsoil and preparation for farming. But it said plant, buildings, aggregates, pollution control and hard standings must still be removed by 8 November 2026.

3.0 LCC Response on enforcement notice PNR 30.06.26_RedactedDownload 2 July 2026: Cuadrilla threatens appeal

Cuadrilla agreed to the extensions to 30 June 2027 for subsoil, topsoil and agricultural preparation. But it said the 8 November 2026 deadline for buildings, aggregates, pollution control and hard standings was “not achievable once allowance is made for procurement, mobilisation and the practical sequencing of works”.

The company asked for an extension for all site work to 30 June 2027.

It added:

“Unless the Council is able to confirm that amendment, the Company intends to submit an appeal on 3rd July 2026 seeking variation of the compliance period for requirement (i) accordingly.”

4.0 Cuadrilla Letter 0207261_RedactedDownload 3 July 2026: Council replies

Lancashire County Council replied a day later.

It said it had “carefully considered” Cuadrilla’s request for an extension to 30 June 2027 for all works. But it said it could not agree to any further extension or the requested amendment.

It concluded:

“The Enforcement notice will take effect on 8th July 2026 unless an appeal is made against it beforehand”.

6 July 2026: appeal confirmed

The Planning Inspectorate informed the council it had received an enforcement appeal from Cuadrilla.

Cuadrilla issued a statement of its appeal case against the council’s 8 November 2026 deadline to remove all plant, buildings, fencing, pollution control membranes, aggregates and concrete hard standings.

It said the company

“considers that compliance should be structured around a single milestone for completion of restoration (30 June 2027), allowing works to be sequenced appropriately within that period. Interim requirements for removal of hard-standing risk forcing work to be undertaken in sub-optimal conditions, contrary to best practice.”

Cuadrilla said the “sequencing of individual work elements should be retained within the control of the restoration programme rather than prescribed through interim compliance milestones.”

Confirmation of the appeal meant the enforcement process was put on hold.

27 August 2026: Withdrawal of appeal

There is no published correspondence between Cuadrilla and Lancashire County Council until a letter dated 27 August 2026. On that date, Cuadrilla said it was withdrawing the appeal with immediate effect.

28 August 2026: Withdrawal confirmed

The Planning Inspectorate confirmed the appeal had been withdrawn.

Why did the council agree to changes?

We asked the council about the reason for the changes to the enforcement notice.

A spokesperson said:

“To be clear, the deadline for the full restoration has not changed, it is still June 2027, as it always was. The only changes are that the acoustic fencing must now be removed by the end of September, and some earthworks can take place outside the winter period as long as everything is completed by June 2027.”

We have shown, confirmed by Cuadrilla and the first enforcement notice, that the final date for site restoration, was originally 8 January 2027.

The council spokesperson said:

“The reason these changes have been agreed is to avoid a situation where Cuadrilla’s appeal continued and all enforcement action is suspended while that appeal is considered.

“If that happened, the Council would be unable to force any restoration work during the appeal, which could potentially delay the restoration beyond June 2027. By agreeing these changes, the Council can continue to enforce the original June 2027 deadline and take further action if the restoration is not completed in full.”

The spokesperson confirmed that there had been no consultation or correspondence with residents.

We asked where we could see the enforcement notice. The spokesperson said:

“The letters have been sent to Cuadrilla and landowners”.

The correspondence is online and has been tracked down, using advanced searches, by a resident. The link is here: https://planningregister.lancashire.gov.uk/Planning/Display/LCC/2026/0025#

DrillOrDrop asked Cuadrilla to comment on the extension. This article will be updated with any response.

Puget Sound Energy is fighting to increase your energy rates and invest in more fossil fuels. Megan Larkin Mon, 09/14/2026 - 12:44 pm

The Trump administration continues its attacks on public lands in its latest push to rescind the Roadless Rule, one of the country’s most important legal safeguards for undeveloped national forests. In August, the U.S. Forest Service moved to the next phase of its rulemaking process, releasing a dangerous proposal to put nearly 45 million acres of roadless public lands nationwide at greater risk of logging, roadbuilding, mining, and other industrial development.

In Utah, the Roadless Rule protects roughly 4 million acres of forest—from the Wasatch Front to the West Desert to southern Utah’s redrock forests—including wildlife habitat, quiet recreation, the headwaters for entire watersheds, and the large, unfragmented landscapes that make the West wild.

Please tell the Forest Service to protect our nation’s wild forests by keeping the Roadless Rule intact © Tim Peterson

Utah does not need more roads. National forests already contain hundreds of thousands of miles of roads nationwide, and there’s a multibillion-dollar maintenance backlog for these existing roads. The Roadless Rule does not close these roads, prevent people from reaching trailheads, or end outdoor recreation. Roadless areas remain open for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, and other recreation while striking a balance that protects the wildlife and cultural resources many visitors are there to experience and enjoy.

This proposal is really about opening public lands to more industrial development, extraction, and privatization. New roads make commercial logging, mining, drilling, and other damaging development easier while fragmenting habitat, eroding soils, degrading streams, spreading invasive species, and increasing human disturbance in places that have remained largely whole. Opening these areas to new roads doesn’t address wildfire safety and may even increase ignition risk. The Roadless Rule already permits fire suppression, fuels work, and emergency roads when necessary in wildland firefighting.

In Utah, roadless national forest lands help connect Bureau of Land Management landscapes proposed for protection in America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act. Together, these public lands support wildlife migration and climate resilience across Utah’s mountains, plateaus, and redrock country. Fragmenting one part of that system severely weakens the whole.

The deadline for public comments on the Roadless Rule rescission is Tuesday, October 6. Click here to tell the Forest Service why roadless areas matter to you and to the redrock.

Thank you for standing up for Utah’s forests!

The post Speak Up for Wild Forests: Tell the Forest Service to Preserve the Roadless Rule appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

The Interior department has disapproved $25 million in funding for projects at national parks, according to internal documents reviewed by the Washington Post.

The cuts will affect over 130 partnership agreements for projects like Native American burial mound protection, an endangered garter snake project, and sled dog care at Denali. The entire batch of projects had already secured funding through congressional appropriations.

Joshua Tree National Park was the most affected. The blocked partnership agreements would have supported at least 16 new jobs, helped recover areas in the park burned in wildfires, and prevented rodents from spreading hantavirus.

According to the documents, “If this work is not completed, the park will be unable to fight wildfire. Fires will be larger and fire suppression will be more expensive.”

Interior spokesperson Aubrie Spady said the move reflects the “administration’s objectives to make life more affordable for Americans, unleash domestic energy production and expand access to our public lands,” but she did not respond to questions about the money being redirected.

“The real question is where did this $25 million go to?” said Elaine Leslie, a former Park Service acting superintendent and wildlife biologist who reviewed the disapprovals list. “$25 million worth of funding was set aside for these projects. Where is it?”

Reflecting Pool contractor blames its flawed repair, not vandals, for failure

Atlantic Industrial Coatings—the contractor that renovated the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool—has told the Trump administration that its own flaws in the repair caused the blue liner to peel. Up until this point, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has continued to claim that vandals were to blame for the liner’s failure.

According to documents obtained by the New York Times, Atlantic Industrial Coatings admitted it did not spray enough primer for the layers of the coating to stick together, and that it used two chemicals that turned out to be incompatible.

Quick hits Contractor blames its own repairs, not vandals, for Reflecting Pool failure

New York Times | Forbes | The Guardian | Axios | New Republic

Inside Trump’s aggressive push to build data centers on public lands

Washington Sun

Trump administration blocks $25 million in funding for national parks

Washington Post | The Hill | Mediaite

Meet the young political appointee boosting Trump’s ‘vanity projects’

Public Domain

Yellowstone National Park superintendent leaving after 8-year run

Cowboy State Daily

Trump reduced Bears Ears by 91%. What does the law really say?

Deseret News

Mesa Verde National Park to return thousands of Native American artifacts and Indigenous remains to Tribes

Denver Post

Park officials pushed for a Grand Canyon trail to remain closed. Then the floods came

Washington Post

Quote of the day

So, with the Antiquities Act, Congress delegated a one-way authority to the president to protect lands as national monuments. Congress did not delegate the authority to erase national monuments … that were proclaimed or protected by previous presidents. Congress reserved that power for itself.”

—Steve Bloch, legal director and attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Deseret News

Picture This @usinterior

Oh, to be a coyote napping on a warm rock at @saguaronationalpark.

Coyotes are built for desert life. These adaptable canines are most active around dawn and dusk, when Arizona temperatures are a little more forgiving.

They’re also opportunistic eaters, dining on everything from rodents and rabbits to insects, fruit and whatever else the Sonoran Desert puts on the menu.

Photo by Paige Wilton

 

(Featured image: Joshua Tree National Park in California. Tuxyso, Wikimedia Commons)

The post Trump admin blocks $25 million in funding for national parks appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

Production at the UK’s newest onshore oil site has dropped 15%, accounts from one of the partners have revealed.

Wressle oil site. Photo: Egdon Resources

Interim six monthly figures from Europa Oil & Gas show gross production at Wressle in North Lincolnshire averaged 255 bopd [barrels of oil per day] in the six months to the end of June 2026. This compared with 300 bopd in the same period a year before.

The accounts said:

“Production at Wressle continued its natural decline during the period, consistent with the Ashover Grit reservoir’s maturity.”

Wressle began formal oil production in July 2022. It is currently the fifth biggest UK onshore oil producer.

But its total production so far in 2026 represented 2.2% of UK onshore oil. The largest producer remains Wytch Farm, in Dorset, which accounted for just under 80% of UK total onshore oil this year.

The Wressle site has three partners: the operator Egdon Resources (30%), Europa (30%) and Union Jack Oil (40%).

According to today’s accounts, Europa’s share of Wressle production was 77 bopd in the first half of 2026. This represented 85% of Europa’s total UK onshore oil production. The company said its onshore fields produced a total of 90 bopd in the first half of the year, compared with 113 bopd in the same period in 2025.

Europa’s non-executive chairman, Bo Kroll, said of the company’s UK onshore portfolio it “continues to generate cash while offering meaningful development optionality.”

Europa said the Wressle partners “continued to progress the development plan targeting the deeper, untested Penistone Flags reservoir, together with an associated gas monetisation solution and pipeline tie-in to the local gas network that would eliminate routine flaring.”

The company said an environmental statement, in support of a planning application to develop the Wressle Penistone Flags, “was in preparation during the period for submission to North Lincolnshire Council”.

Burniston/Cloughton

Europa is the operator and has a 40% stake in the onshore licence PEDL343, which includes the Cloughton gas field, near Scarborough in North Yorkshire.

Europa’s application to drill and frack a well in the village of Burniston was opposed by North Yorkshire Council’s planning committee on 24 Aptil 2026.

The company’s chief executive, William Holland, said today:

“We are now considering the best approach to progress the project, which may involve an appeal”.

The company has until 15 November 2026 in which to lodge an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate.

Mr Holland said Europa was still looking for a farm-in partner to fund the Burniston project. It said “the prospective introduction of the Oil & Gas Price Mechanism from 2030 expected to further enhance the asset’s attractiveness to partners”.

Other UK onshore sites

The accounts said a five-year extension to the DL003 licence at West Firsby, in Lincolnshire, secured in November 2025, “continued to provide operational continuity for the field”. The company said it was considering a workover of WF-7 well to improve productivity.

At Crosby Warren, also in Lincolnshire, Europa said a workover was underway on the CW-1 well to optimise production. The company expected the operation would be “concluded imminently”, after which the well would come back online.

Key figures

For the half-year to 30 June 2026 for all Europa operations

Revenue: £1.5 million (6 months to 30 June 2025: £1.5 million)

Gross profit: £0.3 million (6 months to 30 June 2025: £0.2 million)

Pre-tax loss: £0.8 million (6 months to 30 June 2025: pre-tax loss £0.9 million)

Net cash used in operating activities: £0.9 million (6 months to 30 June 2025: net cash generated £0.02 million)

Cash balance at 30 June 2026: £2.8 million (31 December 2025: £0.3 million)

Administrative expenses: £0.85 million (6 months to 30 June 2025 £0.71 million)

The NSW Department of Planning and Environment has approved a two-year extension to the Ulan coal mine near Mudgee, despite the project being previously invalidated in the NSW Land and Environment Court after the local climate change impacts were found to not be properly assessed. 

The North Coast Water Board has changed the date of the adoption hearing for the Gualala Roads Assessment Order. Previous announcements indicated that Order adoption would be proposed at the December 2026 meeting of the North Coast Water Board.

To provide North Coast Water Board ‌‌staff sufficient time to meaningfully consider the significant volume of public comments received from landowners and other interested parties, the adoption hearing is being moved to February 2027.

Additional information about the February 2027 proposed adoption hearing will be provided when available through this email subscription service, on the North Coast Water Board’s Board Meeting page (https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/
northcoast/board_info/board_meetings/2027/index.html), and on the Gualala Roads Program web page (https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/
water_issues/programs/gualala_roads/).

New directors of Union Jack Oil have unanimously rejected the takeover offer by Reabold Resources.

Wressle well site in North Lincolnshire, where Union Jack has a majority stake.
Photo: Egdon Resources planning statement 2026

In a circular to investors, released on 11 September 2026, the board also recommended Union Jack shareholders reject the offer.

The board, appointed after a requisitioned general meeting last month, said it had carried out a detailed review of Union Jack’s assets, liabilities and its strategic and financial positions.

It said:

“The New Board strongly and unanimously believes that the Offer is opportunistic and significantly undervalues Union Jack’s current project portfolio and the Company as a whole. Accordingly, the New Board unanimously and unequivocally rejects the Offer and recommends that Union Jack Shareholders should also reject the Offer.”

Reabold Resources announced the takeover offer for Union Jack on 15 June 2026. Reabold said it had reached agreement on the offer with the former Union Jack board in July.

The Union Jack circular said Reabold’s market share price had fallen about 27% since the start of the offer period, making the value of the offer now 3.2895 pence per Union Jack share.

It said the new board and another significant Union Jack shareholder, had undertaken not to accept the offer, including any “new, revised, improved or increased offer”

Other individual Union Jack shareholders had provided letters of intent not to accept the offer, the circular added.

It also said the parties refusing to accept the offer represented 23.02% of Union Jack’s existing issued ordinary share capital.

The takeover panel executive has reset day 60 , the latest day by which conditions must be satisfied or waived. This will now be 2 October 2026, the 21st day after publication of the circular. Day 46, the latest day on which Reabold may publish a revised offer, would also be reset to 18 September 2026.

On 3 September 2026, Reabold had secured support for its offer from 5.7% of Union Jack share capital.

A majority of Utahns support restoring protections for Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments, according to a new poll commissioned by the Grand Canyon Trust. The poll was conducted by New Bridge Strategy and surveyed 500 registered voters.

President Donald Trump slashed the size of both monuments by roughly 90 percent in July and eliminated the Bears Ears Commission, which guided the management of Bears Ears and consisted of representatives from the Hopi, Navajo Nation, Ute Mountain Ute, Zuni, and the Ute Indian Tribes. Roughly 3 million acres of public lands that now fall outside the monument boundaries are open for new mining claims starting today.

The poll results also show that a majority of Utah voters think Native American Tribes should have a strong role in public land management and support a president’s ability to designate national monuments. “These findings demonstrate broad public recognition that Tribal nations must remain meaningfully involved in stewardship and co-management of their ancestral lands,” Davina Smith-Idjesa, co-chair of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition and a member of the Navajo Nation, said in a press conference Wednesday.

Autumn Gillard, a member of the Southern Paiute Tribe and coordinator of the Grand Staircase-Escalante Inter-Tribal Coalition, agreed, saying, “When Tribal voices are excluded, land management decisions lose generations of understanding that cannot be replaced by a short study or an administrative review.”

Maroon Bells fees to increase as county prepares to take over management

The Pitkin Board of County Commissioners on Wednesday approved a special use permit to take over management of the Maroon Bells Scenic Area from the U.S. Forest Service in 2027. Forest Service officials justified the decision by stating that the funding available to manage the Maroon Bells Scenic Area has “not kept pace with the rising costs of sustainably operating and maintaining the area.” The special use permit would allow Pitkin County to run everything from day-to-day operations like staffing and maintenance but would still require raising visitor fees to help “support operational expenses.” The county wants to increase the day-use fee at the Maroon Bells from $10 to $30, while campground fees and wilderness permit trailhead parking would more than double. Will Roush, the executive director of Wilderness Workshop, said of the decision, “Transferring essential public lands management functions to counties and private contractors without any Forest Service public process is a dangerous precedent, and everyone who cares about our public lands should be concerned about what this means for their future stewardship and accessibility.” To learn more, read our Westwise blog post about this issue.

Quick hits Why the federal government is losing its war on fire

RE:PUBLIC

Maroon Bells visitation fees to increase as county prepares to take over management

Denver7 News

Poll: Majority of Utah voters want protections for Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante to be restored

Salt Lake Tribune | Utah News Dispatch | Inside Climate News | Native News Online | Fox13 Now | Grand Canyon Trust [poll results]

If Colorado River compact heads to the Supreme Court, ‘everybody loses,’ experts say

KUNC

Moab-Arches shuttle officially launches as agencies begin measuring impact

Salt Lake Tribune

New Mexico sues federal government for refusing to reimburse state for $61 million in wildfire costs

SourceNM

Opinion: Trump’s attacks on the environment are out of touch with America

TIME

Lawsuit says BLM Colorado oil and gas lease sales ignored critical wildlife corridors

Colorado Newsline | Colorado Sun

Quote of the day

This president labels his policies ‘America first,’ but on public lands and national parks he’s simply put America last. As someone who was in those rooms making the case, I could not be more disappointed. And it doesn’t need to be this way.”

—Benji Backer, founder and CEO of United By Nature, TIME

Picture This

@nationalparkservice

The National Park Service is honored to formally recognize the National 9/11 Pentagon Memorial as an Affiliated Area of the National Park System.

This week, as the nation marks 25 years since September 11, 2001, this designation recognizes the enduring national significance of this place of remembrance and honors the 184 people who lost their lives at the Pentagon and aboard American Airlines Flight 77.

The two-acre outdoor memorial, which opened in 2008, is a solemn place of reflection and remembrance. The memorial features 184 illuminated units, each dedicated to an individual who was killed on September 11, 2001. Together, they create a lasting tribute to the lives lost and the families, friends, and communities forever changed that day.

NPS Photos

Featured image: Bears Ears National Monument – Moon House. Photo by Bob Wick, BLM.

The post As mining threat looms, poll confirms Utah voters want monuments protected appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

“The Hub” is a weekly round-up of transportation related news in the Philadelphia area and beyond. Check back weekly to keep up-to-date on the issues Clean Air Council’s transportation staff finds important.

Join the Clean Air Council in participating in the Pretzel Pedal Challenge! Log your bike rides from September 1-30 to automatically earn points that qualify you for discounts and prizes! Create a Share-A-Ride profile to join!

Image Source: NBC Philadelphia

NBC Philadelphia: Speeding, double parking fuel safety concerns on East Girard Avenue – East Girard Avenue in Fishtown is an extremely busy corridor, and advocates held a walkthrough this week to push for safety improvements for pedestrians, drivers, cyclists, and transit riders. Issues facing this corridor include speeding drivers, double-parked cars, illegal turns, and pedestrians crossing outside of crosswalks. Improvements could include dedicated turning zones, pedestrian infrastructure, curb extensions, and more traffic signs.

Image Source: PA Trolley Museum

Mass Transit: Off the Beaten Path: Pittsburgh’s streetcar past keeps rolling at Pennsylvania Trolley Museum – Children can enter the Pennsylvania Trolley Museum for free throughout September. The museum, located in Washington County, has more than 50 trolleys and streetcars on display. Visitors can ride working trolleys along 4 miles of track. Pittsburgh’s trolley system dates back to the late 1800s, and visitors can learn all about that history and more.

Image Source: Metro Philadelphia

Metro Philadelphia: Gusset Plate Project brings art under the El in Kensington – Murals painted by residents over the past few years were installed onto triangular gusset plates that connect columns and beams holding up the Market-Frankford Line along Kensington Avenue. The Kensington and Harrowgate neighborhoods have received a little more color due to the mural plates, which can be found between Huntington and Tioga stations.

Other Stories

PARK(ing) DAY PHL: PARK(ing) Day is September 18, 2026

Pennsylvania Capital-Star: The Pennsylvania Turnpike is added to Oklahoma’s PikePass system

New Jersey State Democrats: SINGLETON, CCSNJ, SJTA TO ANNOUNCE NEW MICROTRANSIT SHUTTLE IN BURLCO

Virgina Mercury: Amtrak to suspend Virginia-to-D.C. service for critical track upgrades Oct. 16–26

Review of public comments finds oil, mining, grazing, and off-roading groups are asking the Trump administration to gut protections for every tier of the Wilderness system

 

DENVER—A review of public comments finds that drilling and mining associations, ranching groups, and off-road vehicle advocates are asking the Trump administration to weaken protections for congressionally-designated Wilderness, eliminate Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), and cut off the wilderness designation pipeline on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

BLM solicited input earlier this summer on revisions to three manuals that together govern nearly every acre of land in the agency’s wilderness system and pipeline—those classified as Wilderness, WSAs, and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWCs)—effectively inviting industry and motorized-recreation groups to rewrite the agency’s instructions for managing these areas. The comment period for all three closed August 14.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum deceptively framed the review as an effort to “expand access to outdoor recreation while ensuring public lands remain well managed, accessible and preserved for future generations.” According to this review by the Center for Western Priorities, industry and motorized-recreation groups used the comment period to ask for far more than expanded recreational access—many asked BLM to eliminate protections outright, in some cases permanently. If followed, these recommendations would lead to weakened protections for over 10.5 million acres of congressionally-designated Wilderness, the outright elimination of protections for over 11.2 million acres currently designated as WSAs, and the elimination of the LWC category entirely, according to numbers from the Wilderness Society. In total, this could affect over 90 million acres of public land.

The groups:

Western Energy Alliance submitted the most sweeping demands of any commenter. The oil and gas trade group asked BLM to “rescind and replace Manual 6320 [Considering Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the BLM Land Use Planning Process] in its entirety” and make clear “that BLM cannot and will not move forward with designating LWCs in the future.” On the WSA front, the group argued BLM “should make clear that it has no authority to designate new WSAs,” citing a 2003 out of court settlement with the state of Utah, and said BLM should remove protections from all WSAs “that Congress has chosen not to designate as Wilderness.”

The American Exploration and Mining Association asked BLM to treat LWCs and WSAs as “temporary administrative classifications, not permanent designations” and to eliminate any land with mining potential from future WSA or LWC designations. The Public Lands Council, representing ranchers who graze livestock on public land, recommended “all existing WSAs be immediately evaluated for release.” Colorado Offroad Trail Defenders and a joint filing from the American Motorcyclist Association and One Voice argued BLM’s legal authority to inventory and protect wilderness-quality land lapsed when a one-time, congressionally mandated inventory period ended in 1991, and that the agency has no statutory basis to keep designating new protected areas.

The Utah Public Lands Alliance, an off-highway vehicle industry group, called for “resolving and releasing the remaining WSA estate” and a mandatory, recurring process to review and release LWCs. On the designated Wilderness front, the group submitted a comment letter asking BLM to loosen restrictions on fire management and motorized access in Wilderness areas, while separately accusing the agency of “administrative expansion” of Wilderness areas beyond what Congress authorized, warning against what it called “Wilderness by Adjacency.”

The Arizona Farm Bureau Federation and The American Farm Bureau Federation, asked BLM to release any WSA that has remained in that status for five years or more and to loosen motorized-access restrictions for grazing infrastructure inside areas designated as Wilderness. The Nevada Farm Bureau Federation submitted a proposed rewrite of the Wilderness manual’s grazing section that would authorize expanded motorized equipment use inside Wilderness boundaries.

Statements: 

“This isn’t a bunch of one-off comments. It’s a coordinated push by oil and gas, mining, grazing, and off-road groups to strip protections from the small share of public land where drilling, mining, and motorized recreation aren’t already allowed and to ensure no land gets protected as Wilderness in the future,” said Center for Western Priorities Communications Director Kate Groetzinger. “These comments are asking the BLM to actively ignore the law, which says that only Congress can release Wilderness Study Areas or designated them as Wilderness. They also seek to write their own laws into existence, creating arbitrary time limits and other litmus tests for the release of WSAs. If the administration follows this advice, it will end up in court for years to come.”

“Americans cherish wild public lands for wildlife habitat, clean air and water and the freedom these places provide us to explore,” the Wilderness Society’s Director of BLM Campaigns, Michael Carroll. “But, as expected, the oil, gas and mining industry has treated the administration’s review of these special places as a policy blank check to ask that the BLM open more wilderness-quality lands for development. They are insisting on backdoor changes to agency guidance that would subvert the law and effectively rob future generations of some of the last remaining wild places.”

“Some of the nation’s wildest places are at risk from the Interior Department’s latest ploy,” said Legal Director for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Steve Bloch. “Southern Utah’s redrock country—a wild landscape beloved by Americans for generations—is especially at risk and in the crosshairs of this effort. This analysis confirms that the Trump administration has not only invited the fox into the henhouse but it’s helping to line up the chickens for slaughter.”

Background: 

The three manuals under review, Manual 6320, covering Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWCs); Manual 6330, covering Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs); and Manual 6340, covering land Congress has formally designated as Wilderness, correspond with different levels of legal protection and status for public lands managed by BLM. LWCs are the least protective: BLM can designate or release them entirely through its own land-use planning process, with no say from Congress. According to the Wilderness Society, BLM has identified roughly 69.6 million acres of LWCs that don’t overlap with existing WSAs.

The overwhelming majority of WSAs were created pursuant to a one-time, congressionally mandated wilderness review. Congress ordered the Interior Department, via the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), to inventory roadless BLM areas over 5,000 acres for wilderness character, with recommendations due by 1993. Only Congress can “release” them, either by designating them as Wilderness or explicitly withdrawing that status through legislation. According to the Wilderness Society, there are 11.2 million acres of WSAs currently administered by BLM.

Under Section 603 of FLPMA, BLM cannot unilaterally eliminate Wilderness Study Area status. FLPMA requires the agency to manage WSAs “in a manner so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness” until Congress decides otherwise. That non-impairment mandate stays in force until and unless Congress directs otherwise. The only way a WSA has ever formally lost its protected status is through legislation. BLM has no independent authority to do this through the rulemaking process, a manual revision, or a policy memo.

Designated Wilderness carries the highest protection of these categories and can only be revised or undone by an act of Congress. No group asked BLM to undo a Wilderness designation outright. Instead, industry and recreation groups focused on loosening the management of Wilderness areas, arguing BLM has managed those areas, and in some cases the land around them, more restrictively than federal law requires. According to the Wilderness Society, BLM currently manages 10.5 million acres of Wilderness.

For a map of potentially affected areas, please visit the Wilderness Society’s website.

Context:

Top Interior officials have publicly encouraged ideologically-aligned industries to submit comments on agency proposals, while admitting they largely ignore comments, feedback and petitions from supporters of conservation groups. Last month, Associate Deputy Secretary Karen Budd-Falen told oil and gas, mining, and logging industry leaders that “Public comment matters. Not the postcards that whatever environmental group sends. We always get a million postcards. That counts as one comment.”

Please note the Interior Department also opened comment periods on manuals used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS-HQ-NWRS-2026-2575) and the National Park Service (NPS-2026-0100) to propose, designate, and manage Wilderness and WSAs. Comments submitted on these dockets were not included in this analysis.

The post Industry and off-roading groups call for elimination of WSAs and weakened Wilderness protections appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

Protecting Utah’s redrock wilderness has never been about a single moment or a single victory. It’s a long, unfolding effort—one that depends on people willing to stand alongside these landscapes for the long haul. That’s why monthly giving matters so much: it’s an ongoing commitment that helps us carry the work forward month after month, year after year. 

Our monthly donors have been part of SUWA’s story for years. This circle of members, whose dependable contributions support our work year-round, is now called “Canyon Keepers.” 

Why Become a Canyon Keeper? 

• Reliable year-round support: Monthly gifts provide consistent funding that allows us to respond immediately to urgent threats and stay engaged in long-term campaigns. 

• It helps us plan ahead: Knowing what we can count on each month helps us budget more effectively, allocate resources wisely, and plan campaigns with confidence. 

• Simple and flexible: Set it up once, adjust it anytime. No hassle—just a continuous, meaningful way to sustain the work you care about. 

Becoming a Canyon Keeper is easy. It only takes a few minutes to set up, and once you do, your gift renews automatically each month. You can increase, decrease, or pause your support at any time. To welcome you to the Canyon Keepers circle, we’ll send you a limited-edition Canyon Wren canvas bag (design by Riley Lubich) to show our gratitude.

Click here to join Canyon Keepers today!

The post Meet Canyon Keepers: A New Name for SUWA’s Monthly Giving Program  appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

Dear friends,

In an email shared earlier today, we highlighted a few legislative wins shared by California’s Legislative Delta Caucus and Senator Jerry McNerney.

Those wins include:

• $90.2 million to protect the Delta and fortify its aging levees
• Along with up to $68 million to safeguard the State Water Project’s (SWP) California Aqueduct and canals, which are being undermined by the over-drafting of groundwater
• SB 872 receiving unanimous approval from the Legislature

This news highlights what we can accomplish for the Delta together. 

Join us in continuing to advocate for California’s water future by urging Governor Newsom to sign SB 872 into law!

Help Support SB 872: The Delta Levees and Canal Subsidence Fund

SB 872, a bill designed to safeguard California’s water supply for decades to come, has been unanimously approved by the Legislature.

The bill brings together Northern and Southern California legislators, environmental groups including Restore the Delta, and water interests to protect the state’s primary water source.

If signed into law by Governor Newsom, SB 872 would address two major threats to California’s water supply: aging levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and sinking canals in the State Water Project (SWP). Many Delta levees are at risk of failure, raising the threat of catastrophic flooding and ecosystem damage, while sinking land is jeopardizing SWP canals and reliable water deliveries.

Now that SB 872 has moved to the Governor’s desk for signature, we need your help to sign this bill into law!

Two Easy Ways You Can Take Action:

1. Call the Governor at (916) 445-2841 urging his signature on SB 872.

When calling the Governor’s Office please tell them: 

• As a constituent, I urge you to sign SB 872 into law
• You support advancing legislation that prioritizes safeguarding California’s water supplies, protecting critical infrastructure, and preparing the state’s water system for future challenges.

2. Alternatively, you can also write to the Governor’s Office, asking for their support on SB 872. 

• Click this link to send a comment urging the Governor’s Signature on SB 872.

Of the many housing laws on the books in California, few are more effective at producing new affordable homes than the state Density Bonus Law. Originally adopted in 1979, the law has a simple premise: the more affordable housing a project provides, the more flexibility the state gives it in return regarding zoning standards.

Earlier in 2026, Greenbelt Alliance was proud to join as a co-sponsor on Assembly Bill 2433, a measure by Assemblymember David Alvarez of San Diego that would make it easier to build more infill housing in California by strengthening the Bonus Law in several different ways.

We’re joining Assemblymember Alvarez alongside co-sponsors Circulate Planning & Policy, Inner City Law Center, SPUR, and the San Diego Chamber of Commerce. AB 2433 has now passed the state legislature and is headed to Governor Newsom’s desk for signature. Join us in supporting this important piece of legislation by sending a support letter to the Governor’s office, urging him to sign the bill. Take action here!

What Does the Bill Do?

AB 2433 provides important clarifications and revisions to bonus law, with a focus on two key areas:

1. Making it more predictable for builders to use, and
2. Ensuring its application is consistent across jurisdictions.

These new provisions do the following (click the titles to expand):

1. Make waivers and concessions ministerial for purposes of CEQA

This is a big deal for many areas across the state, particularly Los Angeles. Under AB 2433, all Bonus Law waivers must be processed ministerially. That’s already supposed to be the law today, but LA and many other cities have long treated them as discretionary requests that trigger CEQA review. Now, the law is clear, and projects will have to be processed much more quickly, without triggering review, appeals, etc.

2. Requires jurisdictions to proactively notify project sponsors of density bonus eligibility

Oftentimes, communities that do not want to see more multifamily housing built will imply to project applicants that bonus law does not apply, that its provisions are more limited than they are, or that attempts to utilize the law will result in negative consequences for the applicant.  To solve for this, AB 2433 requires local governments to proactively and forthrightly notify project applicants of their eligibility for bonus law usage up front.

3. Allows 100% affordable housing developers to qualify for the full Double Density Bonus allowed under AB 1287

That law grants a 100% density bonus if a project includes 15% moderate income units on top of the deeply affordable units it’s already providing. AB 2433 ensures that 100% affordable developers providing deeper levels of affordability can access that full benefit as well, leading directly to more deeply affordable homes.

4. Grants additional waivers and concessions to projects that provide a portion of the project as homeownership units

Recognizing that it’s particularly difficult to produce ownership units in California, the law gives projects that provide them some additional flexibility to ensure that more for-sale homes are financially viable to build.

Why It Matters

Even though Bonus Law is one of the most widely used and effective housing production tools in the state, gaps and inconsistent local implementation have made it harder to use than it should be, including for ownership housing and 100% affordable projects. By closing those gaps, clarifying that waivers are ministerial, and requiring local governments to be upfront about eligibility, AB 2433 helps unlock more affordable and mixed-income housing in the communities that need it most.

As California continues to face a persistent housing affordability crisis, strengthening the tools that are already working is one of the most effective paths we have of producing the new housing we need at scale. AB 2433 builds on more than a decade of Density Bonus Law reforms, including AB 2345 in 2020 and AB 1287 in 2023, to help approve even more affordable homes throughout the state while keeping growth focused where it belongs: in our existing communities, not on our natural and working lands.

The post Greenbelt-Sponsored Bill to Strengthen State Housing Law Heads To Governor’s Desk appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.

Blog by Plugin Solar US, published as part of their Behind the Bill series exploring how U.S. states are shaping plug-in solar policy.

Del. Paul Krizek and Virginia climate advocate Jamie Bacon show how one constituent email about Utah’s balcony-solar law helped spark a coalition, companion bills, and a new pathway for renters and homeowners.

It started with an article about Utah

Virginia’s plug-in solar story did not begin with a utility filing, an industry lobbying campaign, or even a bill draft.

It began with a constituent reading an article.

On August 17, 2025, Alexandria resident Jamie Bacon saw a Boston Globe story in the Climate Action Now app about Utah’s new plug-in solar law. Utah had created a legal pathway for small solar systems designed to connect through an electrical outlet, reducing some of the interconnection and installation barriers associated with traditional rooftop solar.

Bacon immediately saw the appeal.

A retired biologist who had spent 33 years working in Bermuda, including years studying the effects of pollution on wildlife, Bacon had become increasingly involved in climate advocacy after moving to Virginia. She serves as a volunteer climate lobby captain in her Northern Virginia district, teaches about climate change, and lives in a large condominium community where traditional rooftop solar is not an easy individual option.

She also had a personal reference point: her daughter lives in Germany, where balcony solar had already become commonplace.

The next day, Bacon emailed her delegate, Paul Krizek. She sent information about the Utah legislation and plug-in solar products and asked him to help Virginia pass something similar.

That email would ultimately become the first step in Virginia’s plug-in solar law.

From one email to a statewide conversation

The idea did not become legislation overnight.

About a month later, Bacon saw Krizek at a community ice cream social and asked him about balcony solar again. He asked her to resend the information. She did.

Then Bacon widened the circle.

After reading an article by Virginia clean-energy advocate Ivy Main about solar policy, Bacon contacted Main and shared the same material. Main circulated the idea among Sierra Club advocates. Bacon brought representatives from the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, or CCAN, into the conversation. Other clean-energy advocates began discussing the concept.

By early October, the idea had reached Virginia’s Commission on Electric Utility Regulation and several legislators. Main told the group that Del. Rip Sullivan was interested. Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell was interested as well.

Bacon then emailed Krizek’s office to let him know that other lawmakers were considering legislation. The response surprised her: Krizek’s chief of staff told Bacon that his office had already submitted a bill-drafting request based on the idea she had sent them and would coordinate with the other legislators.

For Bacon, October 9 became the moment when a constituent suggestion suddenly looked like a real legislative campaign. CCAN agreed to help lead advocacy. Sierra Club representatives offered to work alongside them. The idea had moved from Bacon’s inbox into Virginia’s clean-energy coalition.

One fellow advocate texted Bacon afterward asking, in effect, whether she had just helped move the entire state forward on balcony solar.

“I think I did.” — Jamie Bacon

The more complete answer is that Virginia’s law emerged from a network: Bacon brought the idea forward; Krizek’s office acted on it; Surovell and other lawmakers became legislative champions; Sierra Club and CCAN advocates helped build support; and stakeholders worked through the technical and political details.

But Bacon had unquestionably gotten the ball rolling.

A rare first-year legislative win

That grassroots origin is especially notable because the proposal moved unusually quickly.

Virginia ultimately advanced two companion measures: H.B. 395, with Del. Paul Krizek as chief patron, and S.B. 250, with Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell as chief patron. Both addressed what Virginia law calls a “small portable solar generation device.”

The legislation moved through committees, underwent revisions and stakeholder negotiations, passed the General Assembly, received recommendations from the Governor, and was ultimately approved on April 22, 2026.

For Bacon, the speed was surprising. She later learned that many new proposals spend their first legislative session simply being “socialized”—introduced so lawmakers and stakeholders can understand the concept before another attempt in a later year.

Virginia’s plug-in solar proposal did not need that second attempt.

“The fact that it did pass in its first year was pretty amazing.” — Jamie Bacon

Part of the reason may be the intuitive nature of the idea. Plug-in solar is easier to visualize than many energy policies. Instead of asking a resident to understand utility rate structures, transmission planning, interconnection queues, or wholesale electricity markets, the proposition is straightforward: put a small solar panel somewhere sunny, connect a properly certified system to your home, and use some of the electricity yourself.

That simplicity helped turn a relatively unfamiliar technology into a policy lawmakers and residents could quickly understand.

Krizek: solar that belongs to the person, not the property

Krizek did not sit for a full interview for this article, but he provided a written explanation of why he believes Virginia’s law matters.

His framing gets to the heart of the policy.

“The plug-in solar isn’t tied to the house but to the people.” — Del. Paul Krizek

Traditional rooftop solar is fundamentally tied to real estate. A homeowner invests in a system attached to a particular roof. If the homeowner moves, the solar typically stays behind.

Plug-in solar changes that relationship.

“You move to a new unit and you bring your energy maker with you.” — Del. Paul Krizek

For him, that portability is particularly important for renters. People who do not own their homes typically cannot decide to put a conventional solar array on the roof. They may support clean energy and want lower electricity bills, but the property decision belongs to someone else.

A portable solar device starts to separate access to distributed energy from ownership of real estate. Krizek described that as part of a broader evolution in consumer technology—from desktop computers to smartphones, and now, potentially, from fixed power generation toward personal energy equipment.

“Isn’t the best kilowatt of energy the one you actually make?” — Del. Paul Krizek

That philosophy gives Virginia’s law a distinctive consumer-access framing. Plug-in solar is not supposed to replace utility-scale renewable energy or rooftop solar. It creates another option for people who previously had few options at all.

What Virginia’s law actually does

Virginia’s enacted framework defines a small portable solar generation device as a movable photovoltaic system with a maximum output of 1,200 watts per customer, or per residential building unit in multifamily housing.

The device must:

• Connect to a building’s electrical system through an electrical outlet.
• Be located on the customer’s side of the electric meter.
• Primarily offset the customer’s own electricity consumption.
• Meet applicable National Electrical Code requirements.
• Be certified by a nationally recognized testing laboratory.
• Include a feature preventing the device from exporting power to the grid or affecting the building’s electrical system during a power outage.

Virginia also created an important distinction at 391 watts. A qualifying device with no more than 391 watts of maximum output to the receptacle is exempt from product-listing provisions that would otherwise require alterations to the building’s premises, wiring, or electrical panels.

In practical terms, Virginia has a broader pathway reaching up to 1,200 watts, while creating a simpler path for smaller systems that can operate without triggering certain building electrical alterations. The statutory framework becomes effective January 1, 2027.

Notification—but not utility permission

One of the most important parts of Virginia’s law is what utilities cannot require.

A qualifying customer does not have to go through traditional interconnection requirements or participate in net metering simply to operate a small portable solar device. Utilities may not require prior utility approval, an interconnection fee or other device-related charge, or additional controls or equipment beyond what is integrated into the qualifying device, subject to limited statutory circumstances.

Virginia did, however, preserve a notification process. Before installation, a customer must submit a simple form developed by the State Corporation Commission. The utility then has 15 days to review that form for accuracy and completeness. If the utility does not respond within that period, the customer is deemed to have satisfied the notification requirement and may proceed.

That distinction matters.

Notification is not permission.

A traditional rooftop solar project can involve an interconnection application, engineering review, utility approval, inspections, permitting, and significant soft costs. Virginia is trying to keep a small consumer device from automatically becoming that kind of project, while still giving utilities basic information needed for system awareness and safety.

Chapter 1052 directed the SCC to develop and publish a standardized online and printable notification form on or before September 1, 2026. Consumers should confirm the current form and utility process before installation.

Renters were not an afterthought

Virginia went further than simply changing utility rules. The legislation also amended landlord-tenant law.

For landlords above a specified ownership threshold, the law generally prevents them from simply prohibiting a tenant from installing a qualifying plug-in solar device on the exterior of the tenant’s premises. A landlord may still impose reasonable restrictions regarding the size, location, and manner of placement.

Tenants must also provide at least seven days’ notice and documentation showing that the proposed device meets the statutory requirements.

That renter language goes directly to the problem Bacon saw from the beginning. Renters may pay electricity bills every month, but they generally cannot order their building owner to install rooftop solar. Plug-in solar provides a potential piece of energy agency that moves with the resident.

“I think this is one way that renters…have some agency.” — Jamie Bacon

That word—agency—comes up repeatedly in Virginia’s story. It is not simply a question of how many kilowatt-hours one panel produces. It is about whether a consumer can make an individual energy decision at all.

The irony of the multifamily gap

Yet the law’s strongest access feature also contains one of its most important unresolved limitations.

Virginia excludes rental dwelling units operating under a ratio utility billing system, commonly known as RUBS. In those arrangements, the landlord or property may receive a master electricity bill and then allocate costs among tenants rather than each tenant having a direct utility account. Those tenants may not install a qualifying plug-in solar device under the new framework.

For Bacon, this issue is personal. She lives at River Towers, a large condominium community in Alexandria with pooled electricity. She is a condo owner rather than a renter, which creates a different legal question, but the building’s metering structure has left her seeking clarification about exactly how the law will apply to residents like her.

There is a certain irony in that. The person who helped introduce Virginia lawmakers to balcony solar may live in one of the housing configurations where implementation is most complicated.

Bacon said several residents in her community would like to install balcony solar even if the savings do not accrue directly to their individual bills.

“We don’t care that we’re not going to get the benefit. We want the whole building to benefit.” — Jamie Bacon

She is now pushing for greater clarity—and potentially future changes—to make sure multifamily residents are not unnecessarily excluded.

“Make sure you address multifamily units.” — Jamie Bacon

That may be one of Virginia’s most valuable lessons nationally. It is easy to say plug-in solar expands access for renters and apartment residents. It is harder to write legislation that accounts for every combination of renter, condo owner, landlord, HOA, common element, master meter, submeter, and ratio billing system.

Virginia made significant progress on renter access. Its implementation will now help reveal where the next round of policy refinement is needed.

Safety became part of the compromise

The bill was popular, but it was not frictionless.

Bacon said she learned from Krizek that utilities raised concerns during the legislative process and that fire-safety questions also entered the discussion. She was not directly involved in those negotiations and does not claim to know every detail of how they were resolved.

What the final law shows, however, is a substantial safety framework. Devices must comply with the applicable National Electrical Code and receive certification from a nationally recognized testing laboratory. They must include anti-islanding functionality so they do not energize the building or grid during an outage.

Virginia also created a formal stakeholder workgroup to examine the remaining safety questions. The Secretary of Commerce and Trade was directed to convene representatives from state agencies, utilities, electric cooperatives, clean-energy businesses, environmental advocates, the Department of Fire Programs, real-estate interests, and other stakeholders.

Among the issues the group must evaluate are national electrical standards, nationally recognized testing-laboratory certifications, the National Electrical Safety Code, and whether additional disconnect equipment provides safety benefits beyond existing standards.

The group’s recommendations are due November 15, 2026. That timing helps explain the implementation runway before the statutory framework takes effect January 1, 2027.

For deeper technical context, read our guides to anti-islanding and the UL 3700 testing framework.

The 391-watt pathway could matter most at first

Virginia’s 1,200-watt ceiling gets attention because it establishes the outer boundary of the new category. But the 391-watt provision may be equally important for early consumer adoption.

The distinction recognizes that a smaller device capable of operating without changes to the building’s premises, wiring, or electrical panel is fundamentally different from a larger system that may require additional electrical work.

Bacon sees that lower threshold as a potential way to get relatively simple systems into consumers’ hands. But she also emphasized that product availability remains a major unknown.

Consumers will need systems that clearly meet Virginia’s requirements. Retailers will need to know which products qualify. Manufacturers will need clarity on certification. Electricians, utilities, building managers, landlords, and consumers all need understandable guidance.

“The ones that are meeting the requirements for Virginia need to be available.” — Jamie Bacon

For plug-in solar to become an appliance-like category, consumers eventually need to be able to recognize a compliant product without becoming experts in electrical code. That market does not fully exist yet.

A small amount of electricity—and a larger sense of agency

Bacon is realistic about what balcony solar can accomplish. A few hundred watts on one apartment balcony will not solve Virginia’s electricity-supply challenges. It will not replace utility-scale solar, grid storage, transmission, energy efficiency, or conventional rooftop solar. And it will not, by itself, offset the growth in power demand associated with Virginia’s rapidly expanding data-center sector.

But Bacon argues that this misses part of the point.

“At least it may give people a sense of agency over their electrical bill.” — Jamie Bacon

That can matter politically as well as economically. Distributed solar is visible. A resident can see the panel, understand when the sun is producing power, and know that at least a portion of the electricity being consumed is being generated locally.

Bacon believes that visibility can be contagious. One rooftop solar installation can lead neighbors to consider solar. Balcony solar could have a similar effect in apartments and condominiums, particularly if future systems increasingly combine solar with small batteries.

“Is it going to solve everything? No. Can it help? Yes.” — Jamie Bacon

That may be the most realistic way to understand Virginia’s law. The kilowatt-hours matter. But so does participation.

A changing electricity landscape gives the idea urgency

Virginia’s plug-in solar law is arriving while the state faces a much larger debate about electricity demand. Data-center growth, new generation, transmission construction, utility costs, renewable-energy siting, and energy affordability have all become major political issues.

Bacon is deeply concerned about that trajectory. She does not present balcony solar as the solution to those structural problems. Instead, she sees it as one piece of a broader strategy that should include large-scale solar, storage, energy efficiency, agrivoltaics, and other clean-energy resources.

Plug-in solar does something those larger policies cannot do as directly: it lets an ordinary resident participate.

For a renter who cannot control a roof, that distinction is significant. For a condo resident who wants to contribute to clean-energy generation, it can be psychologically important even when the financial impact is modest. And for policymakers trying to build public support for a changing electricity system, millions of small consumer decisions may matter alongside gigawatts of utility-scale infrastructure.

What still needs to happen before January 1

Passing the law was one phase. Implementation is the next.

Several pieces still need to come together.

1. Clear safety guidance. The stakeholder workgroup is evaluating relevant standards and must report by November 15, 2026.
2. A simple notification process. The SCC was directed to publish a standardized form, and utilities need processes that preserve the law’s basic principle: notification, not discretionary approval.
3. Compliant products. Consumers need an easy way to determine whether a system satisfies Virginia’s certification, anti-islanding, output, and code requirements.
4. Consumer education. Residents need to understand placement, outlets and circuits, property rules, realistic savings, and when electrical work is required.
5. Multifamily clarity. The RUBS exclusion is explicit for tenants, while condo and common-meter situations may require additional interpretation depending on who the utility customer is and what private condominium documents allow.

For Bacon, these are not arguments against the law. They are what comes after success.

Lessons for other states 1. A constituent can start the process

Bacon was not a solar manufacturer or professional lobbyist. She encountered an idea, thought it made sense for her state, contacted a legislator, followed up, contacted advocates, and kept connecting people.

Virginia’s law is a reminder that policy diffusion does not always happen institution to institution. Sometimes it happens person to person.

2. Use another state as a starting point, not necessarily an endpoint

Utah gave Virginia a model. But Virginia added substantial provisions around renters, notification, multifamily housing, utilities, safety, and implementation. The states are building on one another.

3. Solve the utility question without recreating rooftop-solar interconnection

Virginia preserved utility notification while explicitly removing utility approval, interconnection fees, and conventional interconnection requirements for qualifying systems. That is an important distinction if the product category is supposed to remain consumer-accessible.

4. Address renters explicitly

Virginia recognized that simply legalizing a device does not guarantee renters can use it. Its landlord provisions create meaningful protections. At the same time, the pooled-billing exclusion shows why multifamily policy requires even more careful attention.

5. Make safety rules understandable at the point of purchase

If ordinary consumers need to interpret competing electrical standards themselves, plug-in solar will struggle to become mainstream. The long-term goal should be straightforward: compliant products should be clearly identifiable, properly certified, and installed according to clear rules.

6. Do not measure the category only by megawatts

A small system will not transform a state grid by itself. But it can broaden clean-energy ownership, create consumer familiarity with distributed resources, and bring renters and multifamily residents into a market that has historically centered homeowners.

That participation has value of its own.

A message to Virginia residents

When asked what she would tell a Virginia resident who becomes interested in plug-in solar once the law takes effect, Bacon did not hesitate.

“Get it!” — Jamie Bacon

Her enthusiasm comes with an important qualifier: wait for Virginia’s implementation process to be completed and use products that actually meet the state’s safety and certification requirements.

But the underlying message is clear. Bacon believes residents should be able to produce some of their own clean electricity—even if they do not own a detached house, even if they cannot afford a rooftop installation, and even if the amount of electricity produced is relatively small.

Krizek reaches the same conclusion from a policymaker’s perspective. For him, the significance is that the energy resource can belong to the resident rather than the building.

A renter can move. The solar can move too.

That is a subtle but important shift in how Americans have traditionally thought about distributed energy.

Why Virginia matters nationally

Virginia became one of the first states in the country to enact an explicit plug-in solar framework. But its larger contribution may be the way it combined several ideas in one law:

• A 1,200-watt portable-solar category.
• A simpler pathway at 391 watts.
• Exemption from traditional interconnection and net-metering requirements.
• Notification instead of utility permission.
• Explicit renter protections.
• Limits on local prohibitions.
• Nationally recognized product certification and anti-islanding protections.
• A formal state process to continue resolving safety and implementation questions.

Just as importantly, Virginia shows how quickly plug-in solar has moved from a European curiosity into American statehouses.

In August 2025, Jamie Bacon read about what Utah had done. The next day, she emailed her delegate. Eight months later, Virginia had a law.

That timeline captures what is happening with plug-in solar nationally. States are watching one another. Constituents are asking questions. Advocates are sharing language. Legislators are adapting earlier bills. Manufacturers and standards organizations are responding.

And a category that barely existed in U.S. energy policy a few years ago is beginning to develop its own legal architecture.

Virginia’s story suggests that the most consequential part of that architecture may not be the wattage limit. It may be the idea behind it:

You should not necessarily have to own a roof to make some of your own electricity.

Blog by Plugin Solar US, published as part of their Behind the Bill series exploring how U.S. states are shaping plug-in solar policy.

The post Behind the Bill: How Virginia Turned a Constituent Idea Into a Plug-In Solar Law appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

Several critical water priorities have been approved by the state Legislature. Here are some key updates.

SB 872, a bill designed to safeguard California’s water supply for decades to come, has been unanimously approved by the Legislature. 

The bill brings together Northern and Southern California legislators, environmental groups including Restore the Delta, and water interests to protect the state’s primary water source.

If signed into law by Governor Newsom, SB 872 would address two major threats to California’s water supply: aging levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and sinking canals in the State Water Project (SWP). Many Delta levees are at risk of failure, raising the threat of catastrophic flooding and ecosystem damage, while sinking land is jeopardizing SWP canals and reliable water deliveries. 

Read more about SB 872 here.

Additionally, the Delta Caucus secured $90.2 million to protect the Delta and fortify its aging levees, along with up to $68 million to safeguard the State Water Project’s California Aqueduct and canals. 

“Restore the Delta is grateful to Sen. McNerney and the Delta Caucus for advocating for funding for the Delta levees, which protect 4 million Delta area residents, a $7 billion Delta economy, drinking water supplies for the state, and critical ecosystems,” said Morgen Snyder, Director of Policy and Programs. “We hope this is the starting point of a long-term commitment to fully fund the much-needed upgrades to this crucial infrastructure.”

Read more about the funding here.