18 States Sue Over Trump's Halting of Wind Power Projects
Eighteen states sued the Trump administration Monday over its halting of permits for wind-energy projects, arguing that its actions posed an existential threat to the burgeoning industry.
'This administration is devastating one of our nation's fastest-growing sources of clean, reliable and affordable energy,' said Attorney General Letitia James of New York, which is one of the plaintiffs. She said the halt threatened 'the loss of thousands of good-paying jobs and billions in investments' and was 'delaying our transition away from the fossil fuels that harm our health and our planet.'
The halt on federal permits for wind energy was first laid out in a Jan. 20 executive order, one of a barrage that President Trump signed immediately upon taking office. It directed agencies to stop all permits for wind farms pending federal review.
The lawsuit says that, by complying, federal agencies have put major investments that have already been made at risk. The order also instructed the United States attorney general and the interior secretary to explore 'terminating or amending' existing leases to wind farms, further increasing uncertainty for companies.
The wind industry provides about 10 percent of the nation's electricity, and has many new projects under development, particularly in the Great Plains and the Atlantic Ocean.
Last month, the Trump administration halted a major wind farm under construction off the coast of Long Island, the Empire Wind project. It was designed to provide enough electricity to power a half-million homes. It had already received the permits it needed, but Interior Secretary Doug Burgum suggested the Biden administration's analysis during the approval process was rushed and insufficient.
Ms. James noted that Mr. Trump had also declared an energy emergency. Energy experts have called that declaration overstated. Nevertheless, she said, the moratorium on wind permits is harming the ability to provide a new source of energy.
New York also has a new law on the books requiring it to dramatically increase the amount of electricity that comes from renewable sources. Achieving that goal will become more complicated without wind sources.
The lawsuit names numerous federal officials and agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department. The E.P.A. didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Taylor Rogers, a White House spokeswoman, accused the Democratic attorneys general who sued of using 'lawfare' to thwart the president's energy agenda. 'Americans in blue states should not have to pay the price of the Democrats' radical climate agenda,' she said.
The Interior Department said in a statement that it was committed to 'overseeing public lands and waters for the benefit of all Americans, while prioritizing fiscal responsibility for the American people.'
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, asks a judge to prevent federal agencies from taking any action to block wind-energy development and to declare the executive order unlawful.
'The Trump administration's directive to halt the development of offshore wind energy is illegal,' said Rob Bonta, the attorney general of California.
His office said the federal policy would 'derail the clean energy transition' and lead to higher costs for Americans. In addition to onshore wind sites, the state has five federal offshore wind leases, the office said. Offshore operations are more complicated and expensive to operate.
ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington consulting firm, said that it expected the lawsuit to face an 'uphill climb' in convincing the court to block the executive order. The firm's 'best-case scenario' for the offshore wind industry is that facilities that are already operating, or far along in development, may continue without opposition from the Trump administration, it said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ohio food banks strain as Trump slashes federal aid programs
By P.J. Huffstutter COLUMBUS, Ohio (Reuters) -On a warm spring morning, volunteers at the Mid-Ohio Food Collective plucked cucumbers from a greenhouse where a state psychiatric hospital once stood and the land lay fallow. Now the state's largest food bank is working that ground again, part of an urgent effort to shore up supplies amid shrinking federal support, including deep funding cuts under President Donald Trump. They are planting more. Prepping soil for fruit trees, and installing hives for honey. In the greenhouse, crates of romaine and butterhead lettuce were packed for delivery, bound for a pantry across town. Back at headquarters in Grove City, staff chased leads from grocers, manufacturers, even truckers looking to unload abandoned freight. Every pallet helped. Every pound counted. In a state that handed Trump three straight wins, where Trump flags flap near food aid flyers pinned on bulletin boards, the cost of his austerity push is starting to show. "Food banks will still have food," said Mid-Ohio CEO Matt Habash. "But with these cuts, you'll start to see a heck of a lot less food, or pantries and agencies closing. You're going to have a lot of hungry, and a lot less healthy, America." For decades, food banks like Mid-Ohio have been the backbone of the nation's anti-hunger system, channelling government support and donations from corporations and private donors into meals and logistics to support pantries at churches, non-profits and other organizations. If a food bank is a warehouse, food pantries are the store. Outside one of those – the Eastside Community Ministry pantry in rural Muskingum County, Ohio – Mary Dotson walked slow, cane in hand. The minute she stepped through the doors, her whole body seemed to lift. They call her Mama Mary here, as she's got the kind of voice that settles you down and straightens you out in the same breath. The regulars grin as Dotson, 77, pats shoulders, swaps recipes. She had tried to do everything right: built a career, raised five children, planned for the quiet years with her husband. But after he died and the kids moved away, the life they'd built slipped out of reach. Now her monthly Social Security check is $1,428. She budgets $70 of that for groceries, and she gets $23 in food benefits as well. She started as a volunteer at Eastside. Simple math convinced her to become a customer. 'I figured if I'm going to take these things,' Dotson said, 'I'm going to work here, too.' CAMPAIGN FODDER The Mid-Ohio Food Collective was born out of church basements and borrowed trucks nearly a half-century ago, when factory closures left more families hungry. It's now the state's largest food bank, feeding more than 35,000 Ohio families a week. It supplies more than 600 food pantries, soup kitchens, children and senior feeding sites, after-school programs and other partner agencies. When Trump returned to office in January, Mid-Ohio was already slammed. Pantry visits across its 20 counties hit 1.8 million last year, nearly double pre-COVID levels, and are continuing to grow this year. The biggest surge came from working people whose paychecks no longer stretch far enough due to pandemic-era inflation under Joe Biden's presidency, staff said. Then came the Trump cuts. In March, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) cancelled the pandemic-era Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) program, which funded about $500 million annually for food banks; and froze about $500 million in funding for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), one of the agency's core nutrition programs that supplies food to states to pass on to food banks for free. Much of the food Mid-Ohio distributes is donated, but donations alone can't stock a pantry consistently. Its current $11.1 million purchasing budget, built from federal, state and private dollars, helps fill the gaps. The March cuts wiped out about 22% of Mid-Ohio's buying power for next fiscal year – funds and food that staff are trying to replace. In early December, Mid-Ohio ordered 24 truckloads filled with milk, meat and eggs for delivery this spring and summer. The food came through the TEFAP program, using about $1.5 million in government funding. The first delivery was scheduled to show up April 9. The only thing to arrive was a cancellation notice. USDA said in a statement Secretary Brooke Rollins is working to ensure federal nutrition spending is efficient, effective and aligned with the administration's budget priorities. More cuts could come. Last month, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed Trump's tax and spending bill. It called for $300 billion in cuts to food benefits for low income people under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which fed nearly 1.4 million Ohioans in January, according to the latest state data. If the cuts survive the Senate and are passed into law, it annually would cost Ohio at least $475 million in state funding to maintain current SNAP benefits, plus at least $70 million for administrative program costs, said Cleveland-based The Center for Community Solutions, an independent, nonpartisan policy research group. That would consume nearly every state-controlled dollar in Ohio's Department of Job and Family Services budget, roughly 95% of the general revenue meant to help fund everything from jobless claims to foster care. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and other lawmakers in this GOP supermajority state capitol, facing a constitutional requirement to pass a balanced budget, told Reuters that extra money for food banks isn't there. The proposed fiscal 2025 Ohio budget would set food bank funding back to 2019 levels – or about 23% less than what it spent this year, in a state where nearly one in three people qualify for help. Federal safety-net programs have become campaign fodder, too. At a recent Ohio Republican Party fundraiser in Richland County, Ohio, voters in suits and Bikers for Trump gear alike listened to Vivek Ramaswamy, the tech millionaire turned presidential candidate now running for Ohio governor. He spoke out against "a culture of dependence on the entitlement state that has festered in our country for 60 years." SAVING A PENNY So what happens when the government pulls back and supplies thin? If you're Victoria Brown and her small team of four, it means working the phones, chasing leads, watching markets, and moving fast. At Mid-Ohio's offices in Grove City, the food bank's director of sourcing sipped her coffee and squinted at her screen, eyes tracking the price-per-pound of cucumbers down to the cent. Saving a penny might seem inconsequential, unless you're trying to buy 40,000 pounds. In a supply chain that has relied on steady government support, food donations have become even more important, even as they grow more haphazard in both timing and what's available. Outside Brown's office, one staffer was trying to track down a shipment of pineapples. The rest were on the road, talking crop conditions with farmers, negotiating delivery times with suppliers and checking with grocers to see what might be sitting in the back, waiting for a second life. Brown glanced at her inbox, where new offers stacked up: At 11:10 a.m., one pallet of frozen chicken. I'll find out why it's being donated, a staffer promised. At 11:13 a.m., four pallets of cereal, bulk packed in industrial totes. Brown jotted a note for the volunteer coordinator: Anyone available to scoop a thousand pounds of cereal into small bags? RACING THE CLOCK Some of that food may be headed for Mid-Ohio's Norton Market, a modern food pantry built to feel like a real store in Columbus. The man in charge here is Denver Burkhart. He moves with the kind of precision the military teaches and life reinforces. At 35, he looks every bit the soldier he still is – broad-shouldered and lean, squared off at the edges. Fifteen years in the Army, two tours in Afghanistan, one in Iraq, now he has a mission back home until he serves overseas again with the Ohio Army National Guard. He started the morning as he always does: at a laptop in the back cramped office, racing to secure whatever free or discounted goods Brown's team had found. He leaned over the keyboard, one eye on the clock, the other on the blinking screen. The inventory system had just refreshed. The race was on to fill his mental list. His fingers clicked fast, steady, practiced. He hovered over baby formula. More moms have been showing up lately. Forty cases into the cart. Maybe too many – but if he waited, they'd be gone. "I rely heavily on the free product," he said. "Without it, we'd be hurting really bad." "WATER DAYS" Across town, Shannon Follins checks on her ice supply. It's for what she calls the "water days." Follins, 37, is raising three kids, including 3-year-old twins. One is autistic; he hasn't found his words yet. Until recently, Follins worked third shift at Waffle House for $5.25 an hour, and now she's studying for a degree in social services. Family brings groceries when they can. But it's the pantry at Broad Street Presbyterian Church, stocked by Mid-Ohio, that lets her make meals that feel like more than survival. One recent night, her daughter Essence twirled barefoot across their kitchen floor, dancing to the sounds of boiling pasta and chicken simmering in the pan. When there was nothing else to eat, she filled her kids' bellies with tap water and a mother's promise that tomorrow might be better. "It gives me a sense of security," she said, nodding toward the plastic jugs stacked in her freezer. If the government cuts food aid? She's prepared for more water days.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Granderson: Voters who don't vote? This is one way democracy can die, by 20 million cuts
During China's imperial age, those deemed guilty of the worst offenses were sometimes sentenced to death in a public square by a brutal form of execution known as lingchi. Soldiers — using sharp blades — would slice away pieces of flesh from the accused until they died. Translated, lingchi means 'death by a thousand cuts.' Maybe democracy does die in darkness, as journalist Bob Woodward often suggests. Or maybe democracy's demise comes in the light of day, in a public forum, where everyone can bear witness. Sometimes those holding the knives are the oligarchs or elected officials drenched in corruption. And sometimes there's blood on the hands of the people. On Saturday, voters in San Antonio — the seventh-largest city in the country — are headed to the polls to decide the first open mayoral race since President Obama's first term. Or at least some voters will be. In November 2024, nearly 60% of the 1.3 million registered voters in the county cast a ballot in the general election. However, in the local election held last month, barely 10% showed up to the polls. Before anyone starts throwing shade at San Antonio, in Dallas the turnout was even lower. Lackluster participation in an 'off year' election is not new. However, the mayoral race in San Antonio has increased national interest because the outcome is being viewed as a litmus test for both the strength of the Democrats' resistance and the public's appetite for the White House's policies. Like other big blue cities nestled in legislatively red states, San Antonio's progressive policies have been under constant assault from the governor's mansion. And with neither the progressive candidate, Gina Ortiz Jones, or her MAGA-leaning opponent, Rolando Pablos, eclipsing 50% of the vote in May, the runoff has drawn more than $1 million in campaign spending from outside conservative groups looking to flip the traditionally blue stronghold. The outcome could provide a possible glimpse into the 2026 mayoral race in Los Angeles, should the formerly Republican Rick Caruso decide to run against Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat. When the two faced off in 2022, around 44% of the city's registered voters went to the polls. Caruso lost by less than 90,000 votes in a city with 2.1 million registered voters — most of whom didn't submit a ballot. It is rather astonishing how little we actually participate in democracy, given the amount of tax dollars we have spent trying to convince other nations that our government system is the best on the planet. Capitulating to President Trump's unsubstantiated claims of mass voter fraud, many local conservative elected officials have tried to ram through a litany of 'voter integrity' policies under the guise of protecting democracy. However, democracy is not a delicate flower in need of protection. It's a muscle in need of exercise. 'Some people find voting to be a chore,' Michele Carew, the elections administrator for Bexar County — which includes San Antonio — told me. 'We need to make voting easier and quite frankly, fun. And we need to get those who don't feel like their vote counts to see that it does. That means getting out and talking to people in our neighborhood, in our churches, in our grocery stores … about when elections are coming up and what's at stake locally.' Carew said that the added outside interest in the city's election has driven up early voting a tick and that she expects to see roughly a 15% turnout, which is an increase over previous years. It could be worse. The city once elected a mayor with 7% turnout back in 2013. Carew also expressed concern about outside influence on local governing. 'One of the first times I saw these nonpartisan races become more political was in 2020, and so as time goes by it's gotten even more so. I would like to think once the candidate is elected mayor they remain nonpartisan and do what's best for the city and not their party.' In 2024, a presidential election year when you'd expect the highest turnout, 1 in 3 registered voters across this country — roughly 20 million people — took a look around and said, 'Nah, I'm good.' Or something like that. The highest turnout was in Washington, D.C., where nearly 80% showed up. Too bad it's not a state. Among the lowest turnout rates? Texas — which has the second-greatest number of voters, behind only California. And therein lies the problem with trying to extrapolate national trends from local elections. Maybe Ortiz Jones will win in San Antonio this weekend. Maybe Caruso will win in L.A. next year. None of this tells us how the vast majority of Americans are really feeling. Sure, it's good fodder to debate around the table or on cable news shows, but ultimately the sample size of a mayoral election belies any claims about a result's meaning. Turnout during an off year is just too low. One thing we know for certain is most voters in America exercise their right to vote only once every four years. Oligarchs and corrupt officials are not great, but it's hard for democracy to stay healthy and strong if that's all the exercise it's getting. @LZGranderson If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Politico
12 minutes ago
- Politico
Graham wants to punish Russia with ‘bone-crushing' sanctions. It could backfire.
Sen. Lindsey Graham has pledged that his expansive sanctions bill would be 'bone crushing' for the Russian economy. But if enacted, the South Carolina Republican's proposal to impose 500 percent tariffs on any country that buys Russian energy would effectively cut the U.S. off from some of the world's largest economies — including allies in Europe. 'A 500 percent tariff is essentially a hard decoupling,' said Kevin Book, managing director of Clear View Energy Partners, an energy research firm. Graham appeared to acknowledge as much on Wednesday, when he proposed a broad carve-out for countries that provide aid to Ukraine. This exemption would spare the European Union, which continues to import almost 20 percent of its gas from Russia. But experts remain skeptical that the sky-high tariffs proposed in the Sanctioning Russia Act are in any way feasible. India and China buy roughly 70 percent of Russian energy exports, but several other countries that buy any oil, gas or uranium from Moscow — and aren't included in the carve-out — could also be exposed to tariffs under the bill. The United States, which is still reliant on imports of enriched uranium from Russia to fuel its nuclear reactors, could also run afoul of the bill. Edward Fishman, a senior researcher with the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, said countries in the crosshairs of the bill would struggle to halt their imports of Russian energy overnight. Tariffs of 500 percent on imports of goods made in China would send prices soaring, disrupt supply chains and could drive up U.S. unemployment to recessionary levels. Most likely, it would lead to a screeching halt in U.S. trade with China. 'It would hurt Americans quite a bit,' Fishman said. The legislation's goal, co-sponsored by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), is to starve Russia's war economy, which continues to earn hundreds of billions of dollars from energy exports. There is widespread support for the overall objective, with 82 senators signing on to Graham's bill so far, and growing support for a companion bill in the House. The bill is likely to change significantly as it moves through Congress and in consultations with the Trump administration, said Matt Zweig, senior policy director of FDD Action, a nonprofit advocacy organization affiliated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. It may also take a long time. 'With sanctions legislation, you're also normally dealing with iterative processes where you would want to go through every nook and cranny,' Zweig said. Still, the widespread bipartisan support for the legislation suggests there is a high degree of support among lawmakers for tougher action on Russia. 'What Congress may be doing is pressuring the executive branch to act,' said Adam Smith, a partner at the law firm Gibson Dunn. 'There is a sense in the Senate that more sanctions on Russia need to be imposed, or ought to be imposed,' added Smith, who was a senior adviser to the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control during the Obama administration. Graham, the bill's most vocal Republican advocate, said as much in a meeting with reporters in Paris over the weekend, where he described the bill as 'one of the most draconian sanctions bills ever written.' 'The Senate is pissed that Russia is playing a game at our expense and the world's expense. And we are willing to do something we haven't been willing to do before — and that is go after people that have been helping Putin,' Graham said. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, dismissed concerns that the bill is too harsh. 'We need to make Putin understand he has to stop screwing around and come to the table. But we also need to follow it up and make clear we will be tough,' she said. Not everyone agrees. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has long been skeptical about the effectiveness of sanctions to change the behavior of U.S. adversaries, bashed the bill on Monday as 'literally the most ill-conceived bill I've ever seen in Washington,' he said. 'It would be a worldwide embargo on 36 countries.' Meanwhile, Russia and Ukraine have made little progress on peace talks. Officials from both countries met in Istanbul on Monday and agreed to a further prisoner swap, but failed to achieve any major breakthroughs. Graham and Blumenthal visited Ukraine, France and Germany during last week's congressional recess, where they discussed the sanctions bill, as well as efforts to push Russia to the negotiating table. The proposal has been welcomed by European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen, who met with Graham in Berlin on Monday. 'Pressure works, as the Kremlin understands nothing else,' Von der Leyen said in a statement. 'These steps, taken together with U.S. measures, would sharply increase the joint impact of our sanctions.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune indicated Monday that the chamber could take up the legislation later this month. Republican senators have said they would like to secure the approval of the White House before moving forward. The proposed use of blanket tariffs to target countries that continue to do business with Russia's energy sector is novel and appears to be pitched to Trump's interests. On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump viewed sanctions as 'a tool in his toolbox,' but declined to comment about his position on the bill. Trump appeared to be inching closer toward supporting the bill in a post on Truth Social on Wednesday, which linked to an op-ed in The Washington Post supporting the legislation. Speaking in the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump indicated he wanted lawmakers to secure his approval before moving forward with the bill. 'They're waiting for me to decide on what to do,' he said, describing the legislation as a 'harsh bill.' The president has liberally wielded tariffs to advance his foreign policy agenda, but his implementation has been spotty. Wall Street has even adopted a trading strategy referencing Trump's capriciousness called TACO, which stands for 'Trump Always Chickens Out.' Tariffs of 145 percent on China, imposed in April, lasted a month before being dramatically scaled back to make way for trade talks, which have so far failed to secure a breakthrough. As it stands, the bill includes some levers that Trump could pull to forestall the tariffs, requiring the president to make a formal determination that Russia is refusing to negotiate or has violated any future peace agreement. Nahal Toosi, Joshua Berlinger, Phelim Kine and Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.
