Latest news with #NaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil
San Francisco Chronicle
6 days ago
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
The Trump administration wants to squash clean energy. How bad will it be for California?
Before President Donald Trump was elected for the second time, catastrophic wildfires sent electricity prices soaring and posed one of the biggest continuing threats to energy affordability in California. Today, there's another major factor. Since taking office, the Trump Administration has thrown up roadblocks for clean energy development at a time when electricity demand is rising. In nearly a dozen policy directives, the administration is ending subsidies and tax credits for wind and solar and adding regulatory hurdles that could slow new development. These actions, some renewable energy advocates say, could drive up electricity prices even more nationwide and especially in California, a state pushing new large-scale wind and solar projects in its race to ensure homes and businesses are powered solely by clean energy sources by 2045. 'It's going to hurt affordability for literally every person in this country," said Merrian Borgeson, California climate and energy policy director with the Natural Resources Defense Council. Trump has repeatedly complained that wind and solar farms are eyesores that take up too much space and are too reliant on government subsidies. His administration has quickly reversed policies promoting renewable energy, while clearing hurdles for gas- and coal-fired power sources. 'We will develop the liquid gold that is right under our feet, including American oil and natural gas,' Trump wrote on social media. 'And we will also embrace nuclear, clean coal, hydropower, which is fantastic, and every other form of affordable energy to get it done.' However, Trump's view of renewables overlooks how much less expensive experts say they are to develop compared to gas and coal. A June report from Lazard asset management firm found that 'utility-scale solar and onshore wind remain the most cost-effective forms of new-build energy generation,' even with no government subsidies, and that the cost of building new gas turbines had reached a 10-year high. 'It costs less to build a new clean energy power plant than to just operate an existing fossil fuel plant,' said Daniel Kammen, a professor of energy at UC Berkeley. The actual impacts of Trump's policies to utility bills, if any, aren't yet known because most have yet to be implemented. One of the most impactful changes may be the abrupt end of tax credits that can save clean energy developers at least 30% on costs. That tax credit was slated to begin phasing out in 2032, but the Trump administration has changed the deadline to Dec. 31, 2025. The American Clean Power-California is urging state agencies to speed up approvals of projects currently under review so that they qualify for the federal tax credits before they sunset. Without the tax credits, developers could be paying between $400 million to $650 million more per gigawatt of large-scale solar or wind resources currently in the pipeline, according to an association memo submitted to the CPUC. That could boost costs by as much as 60% over the lifetime of a project, according to the association. These aren't direct costs to ratepayers but could eventually filter into utility bills. Utilities pass the costs of buying energy directly to customers. For example, roughly 38% of Pacific Gas and Electric Co. residential bills go toward power the company generates and power it buys from power producers. PG&E spokesperson Lynsey Paulo said that the company is currently not aware of any impacts to new power projects related to changes in federal policies. The company 'met our residential and small business customers' electricity use with 98% greenhouse-gas free electricity in 2024,' she said. PG&E will continue adding greenhouse gas-free sources of electricity 'to reduce emissions across our energy system and make progress toward our goal of net-zero emissions by 2040 at the lowest possible cost,' she said. Alex Jackson, executive director of the power association said there is now a race among developers to qualify for the subsidies and tax breaks before they expire. But he said the state has a lot of tools to push projects forward despite federal policies. 'California is a big state. It has a lot of influence,' Jackson said. 'It's not helpless in this fight.' State regulators this summer fast-tracked a massive new solar project in Fresno County slated to include more than 3 million solar panels and the largest solar energy battery storage system in the world. Called the Darden Clean Energy Project, it was the first project approved in a new process designed to reduce regulatory hurdles. The project developer, a subsidiary of San Francisco-based Intersect Power, didn't respond to a request for comment from the Chronicle. But Borgeson said that the project is unlikely to face federal pushback because it is on private land and primarily required state approval. A California Public Utilities Commission spokesperson said there are 'hundreds' of clean energy projects currently in the pipeline. 'We are actively assessing how recent changes in federal tax, tariff, and land use policy may impact the long-term prospect for projects planning to come online to serve California – but so far 2025 has continued to see robust development of new resources,' said Terrie Prosper, CPUC spokesperson. But it's not just heavily Democratic California that relies on clean energy sources. Wind is an important power source in states like Texas and Oklahoma, and solar power is critical in sunny states like Arizona and Nevada. In an Aug. 4 letter to Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo warned that new federal policies toward clean energy had already stalled important solar energy projects for the state and would harm his state's 'business-friendly environment.' 'Solar energy development on federal land fuels Nevada's economy,' he wrote. Many energy experts are hopeful that California will continue using its economic clout to continue fueling the clean energy boom despite federal headwinds. Gov. Gavin Newsom recently reported that the state brought a record amount of clean energy online in 2024 – about 7,000 megawatts – boasting in a news release that the state 'has never added so much capacity to our grid in such a short amount of time.' The state must triple the amount of clean energy to meet its 2045 goal – and solar is a significant part of that. Bernadette Del Chiaro, senior vice president for California at the Environmental Working Group, criticized California for slashing incentives for rooftop solar at a time when energy demand is rising and the federal government is hostile. 'We can't place all the blame on Trump. Newsom has unwisely engaged in a zero sum game of pitting one form of renewable energy against another (rooftop vs utility scale),' Del Chiaro said. With the many hurdles it is creating for large-scale projects, the federal government 'has a great deal of power to slow and delay clean energy projects, which results in higher costs,' Kammen said. Even so, Kammen said he doesn't expect it to impact utility bills in part because electricity prices are influenced by many other factors including natural gas markets. Plus, momentum for new clean energy projects is strong because 'it costs less to build a new clean energy power plant than to just operate an existing fossil fuel plant,' he said. 'The clean energy transition has left the station,' Kammen said.
Scientific American
06-08-2025
- Science
- Scientific American
The Law That Saved the Whales Is Under Attack
A landmark law passed more than 50 years ago to protect whales, dolphins and other marine mammals in U.S. waters could be upended by amendments proposed on July 22 during a legislative hearing of the House Committee on Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries. Republican representative Nicholas Begich of Alaska proposed changes to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) that some scientists say would eviscerate it. For instance, the amendments would roll back current definitions of harm or disturbance to marine mammals while also requiring 'impossibly high hurdles for conservation action,' according to a fact sheet from the Natural Resources Defense Council and other organizations that was issued earlier in July. These hurdles include a much higher burden of proof to justify even simple conservation actions. The Marine Mammal Protection Act was passed in 1972 with bipartisan support and was implemented following 150 years of industrial whaling, where some whale populations had fallen to 5 percent or less of their historical estimates. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Since its passing, not a single marine mammal species in U.S. waters has gone extinct, even as use of the ocean has increased. The act has overseen astonishing recoveries of species such as humpback whales—according to a 2006 study, North Pacific humpback whale abundance was estimated at 21,063 individuals, recovered from what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates could have been only a few thousand individuals in the 1970s. 'Some of the most compelling conservation success stories in recent history' have the MMPA to thank, says Lauren Eckert, a postdoctoral fellow researching conservation science at the University of British Columbia. Some marine mammals have yet to fully recover, and in these cases, the act plays a crucial role as the last line of defense against extinction. Take the North Atlantic right whale; if even one of these critically endangered animals is lost, 'that could be the difference between them being here 100 years from now and them being gone,' says John Hildebrand, a professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who studies sound used by marine mammals. 'Without the MMPA, these groups would have very little chance of going forward,' he says. 'With the MMPA, they've got a fighting chance.' These mammals are vital to not only ocean ecosystems but also economies; according to a 2020 study from NOAA, Alaska's whale watching industry brings in more than $100 million annually. The amendments hamstring scientific processes that have proven successful for decades, experts say. They would require scientists to obtain 'systematic and complete abundance survey data,' or exact accountings of animal numbers, to establish any limit on marine mammal loss. 'It is disturbing because systematic, long-term surveys of these populations are already extremely difficult and are going to become more so,' Eckert says. Further, the draft downgrades requirements to sustain healthy populations of marine mammals to a 'minimum survivability of populations.' Instead of necessitating sustainable, genetically diverse populations, it would require a much lower bar for the number of individuals in the wild. Scientists contacted by Scientific American are also concerned about the proposed changes to how protections are granted; under these amendments, the U.S. would only recognize protections for marine mammals where there has been a direct effect rather than including the indirect effects that are currently in the MMPA. 'The deaths of marine mammals that aren't directly observed and documented are excluded from any takes [animal capture allowances] or regulatory action,' Eckert says. Although military sonar or offshore drilling can have profound consequences for marine mammals, it would become near impossible to regulate these activities in the name of protecting animals, she adds. The amendments would also undermine the process known as 'take reduction planning,' which protects marine mammals that are accidentally caught or entangled in fishing gear, called 'incidental take,' by eliminating a key safeguard that limits marine mammal deaths. This is especially dangerous for the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale, for which entanglements are a primary threat. The draft amendments contradict Republican rhetoric about protecting ocean life. President Donald Trump and other Republicans have actively blocked offshore wind projects that follow environmental regulations, claiming they endanger whales (ship strikes and net entanglements are greater dangers). Additionally, this draft is taking shape in tandem with another extreme proposal that would repeal much of the Endangered Species Act, which has historically worked harmoniously with the MMPA. In the coming months, the stakeholders pushing this draft could decide to drop it, resolve certain aspects or move it forward as is. If the bill is passed, it would move through the standard legislative process, possibly even making it to the Senate floor for a vote. Regardless of what happens, 'this is an extreme bill. This is essentially a rewrite of the entire Marine Mammal Protection Act,' says Jane Davenport, an attorney at the conservation organization Defenders of Wildlife, one of the groups that issued the July fact sheet. 'The overall thrust is going to essentially put a stake through the heart of the statute.' Many of the animals that would lose protection from changes to the MMPA are already vulnerable to climate change, says Jeff Boehm, former executive director of the Marine Mammal Center. 'They're an embodiment of so much about the oceans,' he says, 'and a more serious assault on how this nation manages and conserves marine mammals, I can't imagine.' It's Time to Stand Up for Science Before you close the page, we need to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and we think right now is the most critical moment in that two-century history. We're not asking for charity. If you to Scientific American, you can help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both future and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself often goes unrecognized.
Associated Press
05-08-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Trump EPA says it will defend tough lead pipe rule from Biden, but details to come
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency said Tuesday it will defend the Biden administration's aggressive rule for reducing lead in drinking water against a court challenge, though public health advocates worry officials could still weaken it. The rule gave cities and towns a 10-year deadline to replace all of their lead pipes and was the strongest overhaul of lead-in-water standards in roughly three decades. Litigation against the rule was on pause so the Trump administration could decide whether it supported the policy. On Tuesday, the agency said it would defend the tough standards. 'At the same time, EPA will develop new tools and information to support practical implementation flexibilities and regulatory clarity. The agency will announce next steps in the coming months,' the agency said. Lead, a heavy metal once common in products like pipes and paints, is a neurotoxin that can lower IQ scores in children, stunt their development and increase blood pressure in adults. Lead pipes can corrode and contaminate drinking water. The previous Trump administration's rule had looser standards and did not mandate the replacement of all pipes. Jared Thompson, a senior attorney with the environmental nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council that supports the Biden-era rule, said he doesn't know what the EPA means with terms like 'practical implementation flexibility.' 'The concern is that, are they going to try to use that to create some sort of loopholes that would allow water systems to not fully comply with the rule, or will they actually proceed with full implementation,' he said. 'We just don't know at this point.' He said he's also concerned with the Trump administration's earlier proposal to significantly cut funding for local water infrastructure. The EPA has said there are programs and resources available to ensure lead pipe replacement projects proceed smoothly and cost-effectively. The agency asked a D.C. federal appeals court on Monday to resume the case. It wants to file its arguments with the court in early December. The EPA under President Donald Trump has celebrated deregulation. Officials have sought to slash climate change programs and promote fossil fuel development. On drinking water issues, however, their initial actions have been more nuanced. In March, for example, the EPA announced plans to partially roll back rules to reduce so-called 'forever chemicals' in drinking water — the other major Biden-era tap water protection. That change, however, sought to keep tough limits for some common PFAS. It also proposed scrapping and reconsidering standards for other types and extending deadlines. PFAS and lead pipes are both costly threats to safe water. There are roughly 9 million lead pipes providing water to homes and businesses in the United States. The American Water Works Association, a utility industry association, had challenged the lead rule, saying utilities should not be responsible for the portion of the lead pipe that is on private property. They also described the 10-year deadline as 'not feasible.' The Biden-era regulation required water systems to ensure that lead concentrations do not exceed an 'action level' of 10 parts per billion, down from 15 parts per billion under the previous standard. If high lead levels are found, water systems must inform the public about ways to protect their health, including the use of water filters, and take action to reduce lead exposure while working to replace all lead pipes. Lead pipes are most commonly found in older, industrial parts of the country, including major cities such as Chicago, Cleveland, New York, Detroit and Milwaukee. The rule also revises the way lead amounts are measured, which could significantly expand the number of communities found violating the rules. Water utilities were given three years to prepare before the 10-year timeframe starts. And some cities with a lot of lead will have longer. The EPA estimated at the time officials issued the stricter standards that they would protect up to 900,000 infants from having low birth weight and avoid up to 1,500 premature deaths a year from heart disease. The original lead and copper rule for drinking water was enacted by the EPA more than 30 years ago. The rules have significantly reduced lead in tap water but have included loopholes that allowed cities to move slowly when lead levels rose too high. ___ Associated Press writer Matthew Daly contributed from Washington. ___ The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP's environmental coverage, visit
Express Tribune
30-07-2025
- Automotive
- Express Tribune
US to overturn climate ruling
Listen to article President Donald Trump's administration will on Tuesday move to reverse a foundational scientific determination that underpins the US government's ability to curb climate change, Environmental Protection Agency chief Lee Zeldin announced. Appearing on the right-wing podcast "Fearless," Zeldin said: "Later today, we're going to be making a big announcement in Indiana" about the so-called Endangerment Finding of 2009, which concluded that greenhouse trapping gases from motor vehicles were a threat to public health and welfare. Zeldin accused the Environmental Protection Agency under former president Barack Obama of taking "mental leaps," when developing the finding based on overwhelming scientific consensus and peer-reviewed research. Agreeing with a podcast host who called the finding a "hub to the spoke of the left's environment agenda," Zeldin said: "This has been referred to as basically driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion." "Conservatives love the environment, want to be good stewards of the environment," he continued. But "there are people who then, in the name of climate change, are willing to bankrupt the country in the name of environmental justice." The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. The Endangerment Finding granted the EPA power to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act and served as the legal backbone for a range of climate rules, extending beyond vehicles to power plant standards to methane limits on oil and gas operations. According to a recent analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council, if it were a country, the US transportation sector would rank as the fourth largest emitter of greenhouse gases globally, while the power sector would be fifth. Dan Becker of the Center for Biological Diversity told AFP the Endangerment Finding has survived multiple legal challenges by industry over the years. "But this time, it's the government itself mounting the attack," he said. Environmental groups and states are expected to sue quickly. The legal battle could ultimately reach the Supreme Court, which would have to overturn its own 2007 ruling that paved the way for the Endangerment Finding. "Hopefully they will recognize that this is science and not politics — that there was a good reason for that precedent and no good reason to revoke it," said Becker. "But this is a very political court." Since returning to office, Trump has withdrawn the United States from the Paris Agreement on global warming and launched a sweeping campaign to expand fossil fuel development, including new moves this week to open ecologically sensitive areas of Alaska to drilling. The announcement comes as the planet swelters under historic levels of warming. Tens of millions of Americans are baking under a brutal heat dome gripping the Southeast, while climate-fueled floods killed more than 100 people in Texas earlier this month.
France 24
29-07-2025
- Automotive
- France 24
US to overturn foundational climate ruling on Tuesday
Appearing on the right-wing "Ruthless Podcast," Zeldin said: "Later today, we're going to be making a big announcement in Indiana" about the so-called Endangerment Finding of 2009, which concluded that greenhouse trapping gases from motor vehicles were a threat to public health and welfare. Zeldin accused the Environmental Protection Agency under former president Barack Obama of taking "mental leaps," when developing the finding based on overwhelming scientific consensus and peer-reviewed research. Agreeing with a podcast host who called the finding a "hub to the spoke of the left's environment agenda," Zeldin said: "This has been referred to as basically driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion." "Conservatives love the environment, want to be good stewards of the environment," he continued. But "there are people who then, in the name of climate change, are willing to bankrupt the country in the name of environmental justice." The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. The Endangerment Finding granted the EPA power to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act and served as the legal backbone for a range of climate rules, extending beyond vehicles to power plant standards to methane limits on oil and gas operations. According to a recent analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council, if it were a country, the US transportation sector would rank as the fourth largest emitter of greenhouse gases globally, while the power sector would be fifth. Dan Becker of the Center for Biological Diversity told AFP the Endangerment Finding has survived multiple legal challenges by industry over the years. "But this time, it's the government itself mounting the attack," he said. Environmental groups and states are expected to sue quickly. The legal battle could ultimately reach the Supreme Court, which would have to overturn its own 2007 ruling that paved the way for the Endangerment Finding. "Hopefully they will recognize that this is science and not politics -- that there was a good reason for that precedent and no good reason to revoke it," said Becker. "But this is a very political court." Since returning to office, Trump has withdrawn the United States from the Paris Agreement on global warming and launched a sweeping campaign to expand fossil fuel development, including new moves this week to open ecologically sensitive areas of Alaska to drilling. The announcement comes as the planet swelters under historic levels of warming. Tens of millions of Americans are baking under a brutal heat dome gripping the Southeast, while climate-fueled floods killed more than 100 people in Texas earlier this month.
