G2. Local Greens

Residents from NSW’s major coal-producing regions have called on NSW Minister for Natural Resources Courtney Houssos for stronger support, ahead of parliamentary debate on the government’s Future Jobs and Investment Bill 2025.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: February 2, 2026
Contact: Anja Semanco | 724-967-2777 | anja@alaskawild.org 

As Trump Administration Opens Arctic Refuge to Oil Industry Nominations, Alaska Wilderness League Warns: “Smart Companies Won’t Bid on a Losing Bet” 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the Trump administration announced it is opening the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas nominations, the next step toward another lease sale in one of the most iconic and ecologically important landscapes in the United States. 

Alaska Wilderness League is urging energy companies and their investors to sit this one out. 

“Serious companies don’t gamble their future on the most remote, expensive, and controversial oil on Earth from one of the most unparalleled ecosystems left on this planet,” said Kristen Miller, executive director at Alaska Wilderness League. “If companies are still looking to drill the Arctic Refuge in 2026, it’s a sign that they can’t read the writing on the wall: smart money has already walked away.” 

The Refuge lease program has already proven to be a market failure. Previous Arctic Refuge lease sales attracted virtually no industry interest, generating minimal bids and leaving taxpayers holding the bill. Meanwhile, major oil companies and financial institutions have publicly backed away from Arctic drilling, citing high costs, legal risks, and growing investor concerns about stranded assets. 

A Bad Bet in a Changing Market 

Arctic drilling faces steep financial and logistical hurdles: 

• Some of the highest production costs in North America 
• Extreme weather and infrastructure challenges 
• Ongoing legal and regulatory uncertainty 
• Growing global competition from cheaper renewables 
• Escalating reputational and climate risks from rapid warming for companies and investors 

Energy analysts increasingly warn that long-term, high-cost oil projects like those in the Arctic risk becoming stranded assets as markets shift toward cleaner, cheaper energy sources. 

Wildlife Refuge, Not Oil Field 

The Arctic Refuge is home to the Porcupine caribou herd, polar bears, migratory birds, and the coastal plain that the Gwich’in people call “the sacred place where life begins.” The coastal plain serves as the primary calving grounds for the Porcupine caribou herd, which sustains Indigenous communities and supports one of the longest land migrations on Earth. It also provides denning habitat for threatened polar bears and nesting and breeding grounds for millions of birds that migrate to every U.S. state and six continents each year. 

For decades, Americans across the political spectrum have supported protecting the Refuge from industrial development, recognizing it as one of the last intact ecosystems of its kind left on the planet. 

### Photo Credit: Courtesy of Florian Schulz / protectthearctic.org

By Hailey Smalley, Daily Inter Lake The proposed expansion of an open pit coal mine in British Columbia is raising concerns about downstream water pollution in the Columbia River Basin. Elk Valley Resources Operations Limited, which operates five coal mines in the Elk Valley, argues that the proposed expansion of its Fording River Mine is necessary …

The post Proposed mine expansion revives selenium pollution concerns appeared first on Montana Environmental Information Center - MEIC.

Press release from Save the Redwoods League

[excerpt:]

San Francisco, Calif. (January 27, 2026) — Save the Redwoods League announced today that it has secured an agreement with the Richardson family to acquire 200 acres in Sonoma County, including a nearly 35-acre old-growth coast redwood grove, directly adjacent to the Harold Richardson Redwoods Reserve property Save the Redwoods acquired from the family in 2018.

Save the Redwoods League seeks to raise $4 million for the acquisition and permanent protection of two properties totaling 200 acres. Within the additional old-growth grove on this land, more than 200 trees stand taller than 200 feet, with some reaching 250 feet. This acquisition will expand the Reserve to 930 acres—a more than 20% increase in size—and serve as a protective buffer to the Reserve’s hundreds of old-growth coast redwood trees in an era of climate change. Securing these properties also opens the way for Save the Redwoods to realize its long-standing vision of establishing recreational access and programs at the Reserve.

“By expanding Harold Richardson Redwoods Reserve, we are protecting more of this important redwood ecosystem and securing more of its irreplaceable old-growth trees,” says Steve Mietz, president and CEO of Save the Redwoods League. “Coast redwood forests quietly store substantial amounts of carbon, shelter over 1,000 plant and animal species, and stand as living proof that California’s climate resilience is tied to conserving natural landscapes like this.”

. . .

To read the entire article, visit Save the Redwoods League:
Save the Redwoods League Secures Opportunity to Expand Harold Richardson Redwoods Reserve and Protect Sonoma County’s Ancient Redwoods

By Mike Tidwell, Executive Director, Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN)

“We are moving in the right direction but at the wrong speed.”

That was the key message from Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva as the United Nations climate talks in Belem, Brazil wrapped up in November. The world is currently projected to warm between 2.5-2.9 degrees Celsius by 2100, according to U.N. estimates released during the conference. That warming would bring incalculable harm to the planet. Still, it’s down from the 3.5 degrees of warming projected just a decade ago.

Progress in recent years has come in part from China, whose leaders created the most buzz at the Belem climate talks with their powerhouse exports of nearly $1 trillion worth of solar panels, batteries and EV since 2018. But China, while revolutionizing the tools the world needs to decarbonize, is still building NEW coal plants inside its borders. Those coal plants – combined with the reckless boom in fracked gas and oil in the US (a nation that didn’t even bother to send a delegation to Belem) – contribute to a world already approaching 1.5 degrees C of warming above preindustrial levels.

This real-time warming is already creating hurricane monsters like Helene in the U.S. and crop-killing heat waves in India and sea-level rise everywhere. A near doubling of the current heat to up to 2.9 degrees C will almost certainly be catastrophic, according to our best science.

So thank god a growing number of scientists, philanthropists, government agencies, and nonprofit leaders worldwide are committed to exploring a possible “Plan B” for the planet. Their goal is to find potentially safe ways to artificially cool the Earth until the inevitable full transition to clean energy is achieved globally later this century.

Until recently, this concept of “geoengineering” was considered too controversial to even discuss in many quarters. But today, as the heat mounts, full-blown programs at Harvard University and the University of Chicago are exploring ways to effectively reflect sunlight away from the planet while international conferences on the topic draw thousands of people.

Last year, the biggest step to date on this topic occurred when the United Kingdom committed to spending $75 million on geoengineering research projects scattered across the globe. The goal of the UK’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency is to transparently invest in computer modeling, atmospheric observations, and limited outdoor testing of technologies that could one day cool the planet. Ideas include everything from artificially brightening marine clouds with saltwater spray to mimicking the cooling properties of volcanic eruptions by placing sulfur aerosols in the stratosphere.

To be clear, no one – not the UK, not researchers at Harvard, not the growing number of climate-fighting nonprofits like mine around the world – is calling for actual deployment of ANY system to engineer the climate. The goal is simply to research and test plausible ideas so that future world leaders at least have a few carefully vetted options to consider if climate collapse becomes eminent.

Transparency is a key feature embraced by nearly all the actors in this growing geoengineering conversation and research push. The ARIA program, for example, is governed by a set of published principles that emphasizes a public versus private involvement in research and testing. The agency’s commitment to open dialogue with communities where research occurs is meant to avoid mistrust and confusion wherever possible.

Unfortunately, in the conspiracy-rich world of our current media landscape, preposterous theories abound about governments secretly creating storms to punish political opponents or using airplane “chemtrails” to brainwash citizens. US Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin last July was compelled to publicly confirm the obvious: The US government is not engaged in any activities to change the weather or pollute the sky with mind-altering substances.

The opposite is actually true. An $11 million annual program at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration protects the world from any rogue attempts to alter the climate. NOAA flies special B-57 planes regularly into the stratosphere to measure the concentration of various light-reflecting aerosols there. If these levels suddenly change in the future, NOAA could alert world leaders that a rogue nation or a private actor was tampering with the climate without international agreement.

This is good to know given that at least two private companies – one called Make Sunsets and the other Stardust – have raised millions in private capital and signaled an interest in commercializing geoengineering efforts. They have not been transparent in their activities and average people have every right to feel nervous about such companies.

The better approach – the only sensible approach given the health of the entire planet is at stake – is to increase publicly funded research with guidance from governments, universities and nonprofits. Thankfully, even as the Belem climate talks wrap up with underwhelming results, the growing support for responsible geoengineering research continues to grow.

About the author: Mike Tidwell is founder and director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, a grassroots nonprofit dedicated to raising awareness about the impacts and solutions associated with global warming in Maryland, Virginia, DC, and West Virginia.

Under Tidwell’s leadership, CCAN has helped pass landmark clean-energy legislation in Maryland and the District of Columbia; blocked coal and oil development plans in Virginia; and worked with groups nationwide to push for a fair and effective carbon cap policy on Capitol Hill. A long-time resident of Maryland, he lives in Takoma Park with his wife Beth and son Sasha. Read more about Mike here.

The post After Brazil Climate Talks, Thank God There’s Research Into a Plan B appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

Coal mining giant Yancoal has disrupted a community consultation process with a last-minute attempt to greenwash its proposal for the koala-crunching Moolarben coal mine expansion near Mudgee. 

by Mandela Linder, The Mendocino Voice, January 24, 2026

[excerpt:]

MENDOCINO CO., 1/24/26 — After decades of decline, endangered coho salmon have returned to the coast in numbers that more than double the targets set by habitat restoration projects. In 2008, just 5,000 coho were estimated across the entire state, one percent of their historic numbers; over the winter of 2024-25, more than 30,000 were counted in Mendocino County alone, showing that recovery is possible. Conservationists say that while it’s still too early to tell what this season’s numbers might be, it’s looking promising for another good year.

Over the past decade, the Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, the Mendocino County Resource Conservation District, NOAA Fisheries, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, local landowners, tribes and other partners have restored habitat across the Ten Mile, Navarro, Big River, and Noyo River watersheds. Their work has included building side channels, off-channel ponds, large wood structures, and wetlands to support juvenile coho salmon. These structures give young coho salmon safe places to hide from predators, slow-moving water to rest in during storms and abundant food, creating the kind of habitat they need to survive winter storms and grow before heading to the ocean.

The main restoration site on northern Mendocino County’s Ten Mile River watershed at the Parker Ten Mile Ranch in Calif., on Jan. 21, 2026. Steep inclines to the water made it difficult for juvenile coho to survive storms. At this site alone, 8,000 dump truck loads of dirt were removed to create floodplains for the fish (Mandela Linder via Bay City News)

Coho salmon were listed as threatened in 1996, and by 2005 were officially endangered due to decades of habitat loss from logging, erosion and sediment from road construction and upgrading, and environmental changes that left rivers and streams inhospitable for spawning. By the early 2000s, populations had plummeted statewide, and restoring the rivers and floodplains became a priority for both conservationists and local landowners, who wanted to give the species a chance to recover.

. . .

“Timber, agriculture and land clearing have affected the habitat that they need to survive their fresh water life cycles. That includes clearing hillsides, and all the sedimentation that occurs, rerouting of a lot of streams, watersheds; they’ve basically been converted into timber conveyance systems,” Van De Burgt said.

. . .

To read the entire article, visit The Mendocino Voice:
Restoration efforts spark remarkable comeback for coho salmon on Mendocino Coast

As disastrous floods hit central Queensland, 23 coal mines dumped an estimated 82 billion litres of wastewater – equivalent to 32,812 Olympic swimming pools – into the Fitzroy Basin in just 10 days.

Community groups are stunned and outraged, vowing to ramp up pressure on the Cook Government after Western Australia’s EPA recommended the first fracking project in the state since Labor lifted the moratorium in 2019 be approved.

Much of central Queensland may be under floodwater but cattle farmer Patricia Goodwin feels like she has been left high and dry by Bowen Coking Coal.

The central claim of the Heritage Foundation’s special report that, because of New York’s ban on fracking, counties in the Marcellus region “lost out on around $11,000 per resident or $27,000 per household” is simply wrong. Why? Because . . . 

 

Very little of the money invested in or earned by fracking ever lands in local economies, leaving them as poor or nearly as poor as they were before fracking.

The report claims that growth in gross domestic product (GDP) is the most accurate indicator of economic prosperity. But the report doesn’t explain that little of the GDP growth that results from fracking lands in local economies. In fact, the bulk of the income generated by fracking goes instead to investors, bankers, service providers, and shareholders from outside the region. That’s why, as fracking increased from 1% of GDP in the Pennsylvania counties featured in the report to over 30%, the share of GDP that landed as income for residents plummeted from just over 100% of GDP to less than 70%, effectively wiping out any net increase.

This result is illustrated in the following chart in which you can see how, in 2002, before the fracking boom, the Mining sector (the blue line), which consists primarily of natural gas, contributed just over 1% of GDP in the relevant Pennsylvania counties [1]. At the same time, incomes in the region were actually greater than total GDP at nearly 103% [2]. But, as fracking grew, the share of GDP that landed as income for local residents plummeted to less than 68%.

Economists call this phenomenon “the resource curse” and the curse’s result is that nearly all of the incremental income generated by fracking gets exported to people in other places. That’s why residents in New York would have received almost none of the $27,000 per household the report says they “lost out on”.

 

The issue isn’t whether one side of the state line did slightly better or worse than the other, It’s how badly both sides are doing and how little difference fracking makes.

The report dismisses jobs as a measure of prosperity. That should be jarring to policymakers and the public, which has become accustomed to hearing job creation cited as the principal benefit of all economic development efforts. But the report’s dismissal of jobs as a measure of prosperity makes sense when it is revealed that communities on both sides of the state line were suffering from job loss before the fracking boom and the trend has only worsened since. With declines in jobs of 10% and 13% respectively, both the Pennsylvania and New York Counties are on long-term downward trajectories, which was only briefly interrupted between 2008 and 2012.

To put these losses in context, it’s helpful to consider that, during the period 2002 – 2023, the number of jobs in the US economy grew from 128 million to more than 153 million, an increase of nearly 20%. Jobs in Pennsylvania grew by 8%, which means that Pennsylvania’s natural gas counties, far from being contributors to job growth, actually dragged it down.

It’s also not clear that natural gas will help going forward. The number of natural gas jobs has fallen by 40% in the last five years. And statewide, Pennsylvania’s fracking industry provides fewer than 20,000 jobs out of more than 5 million in Pennsylvania’s economy.

 

The report purports to be an apples-to-apples comparison. It’s not.

Any differences found in the Heritage Foundation report between New York’s Marcellus counties and Pennsylvania’s northeast Marcellus counties are as likely to be explained by pre-existing differences in their economies as they are by the natural gas industry.

While the regions on either side of the state line are of similar size geographically, the New York counties are more than two and a half times as heavily populated as the Pennsylvania counties. They include cities, such as Binghamton and Elmira. Also the supposedly more prosperous Pennsylvania counties are depopulating faster than the New York Counties.

As a consequence, even if New York were to allow fracking, the industry’s already negligible economic impact would be diluted further in the much larger economies of the New York counties.  

As pointed out above, the small differences in economic outcomes between the two regions are far less important than the fact that both regions are suffering mightily. And, although natural gas has grown from 1% of the Pennsylvania counties’ economy to 30%, it has done little or nothing to change their economic trajectory. There is no reason to imagine that the results of embracing fracking in New York would be different.

 

Look out for the upcoming “Frackalachia Update.”

The Ohio River Valley Institute’s upcoming “Frackalachia Update” will explore in greater detail the economic impacts of natural gas development for all 30 major gas-producing counties in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. The update will show that the job and population losses described in this report for Pennsylvania’s northeastern gas-producing counties are typical of the impact natural gas production has in the northeast United States. And, looking ahead, it will discuss the possible implications for the industry, the region, and the region’s economic development strategies of growing demand for energy.

[1] As defined by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Mining sector includes “Mining, Quarrying, and Oil & Gas Extraction.”

[2] The total income of an area can exceed total GDP as a result of government transfer payments, such as Social Security and AFDC benefits which add to the income generated by economic output.

The post Misleading and Just Plain Wrong appeared first on Ohio River Valley Institute.

Decision on all BIL/IRA Funds

U.S. Dist. Judge Mary McElroy, Federal Dist. Court of RI’s Order – applies nationwide to EPA, DOE, Interior, USDA, HHS & HUD (and OMB). The same theory could apply to Green Bank Funds (see third bullet below). A Green Bank litigation summary starts on page three.

Federal judge orders immediate thaw of climate, infrastructure funds – by Alex Guillén; April 15, 2025 – Politico – President Donald Trump does not have “unfettered power to hamstring in perpetuity” duly passed funding laws, the judge ruled. A federal judge ruled Tuesday that EPA, the Interior and Energy Departments and other agencies unlawfully froze funds under Democrats’ climate and infrastructure spending laws, ordering the agencies to immediately resume disbursing the money.

• The ruling from Judge Mary McElroy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, who was named to the bench by President Donald Trump in 2019, comes on the eve of an expected decision from another judge in Washington on whether EPA lawfully terminated $20 billion in climate grants. That case and other litigation are part of a complex web of lawsuits over frozen funds and terminated grants playing out in multiple courts.
• Notably, McElroy also dismissed the Trump administration’s arguments that she lacks jurisdiction to issue this order because these are contract disputes that by law would have to be heard by another court. Similar arguments have been raised by EPA in litigation over its canceled climate grants.
• But McElroy wrote that the nonprofits’ rights don’t stem from any contract with the government – they come from the laws passed by Congress. The groups are seeking to halt the government’s funding freeze, not get “money damages” for past harm done, she said.

US judge blocks Trump’s freeze on climate, infrastructure grants – By Nate Raymond – April 15, 2025 8:40 PM EDT – Reuters – A U.S. judge blocked President Donald Trump‘s administration on Tuesday from freezing billions of dollars in grants Congress authorized under climate investment and infrastructure laws of his Democratic predecessor, former President Joe Biden. U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy in Providence, Rhode Island, issued an injunction at the behest of environmental groups who argued the Trump administration was unlawfully freezing already-awarded funding for projects to combat climate change, reduce pollution and modernize U.S. infrastructure.

Judge orders federal agencies to release billions of dollars from two Biden-era initiatives by MICHAEL CASEY – April 15, 2025 at 5:36 PM EDT – Associated Press – BOSTON –  A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Trump administration to release billions of dollars meant to finance climate and infrastructure projects across the country.

• S. District Judge Mary McElroy, who was appointed by Donald Trump during his first term, sided with conservation and nonprofit groups and issued a preliminary injunction until she rules on the merits of the lawsuit. The injunction is nationwide.
• McElroy concluded that the seven nonprofits demonstrated that the freeze was “arbitrary and capricious” and that the powers asserted by the federal agencies, including the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, in halting the payouts were not found in federal law.

‘The government failed’: Trump-appointed judge rips his spending cuts in late-night ruling – On Tuesday night, President Donald Trump’s administration suffered a loss in court — this time, at the hands of one of his own appointed judges. Politico legal correspondent Kyle Cheney tweeted Tuesday that U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy, who Trump appointed to the District of Rhode Island in 2019, authored a ruling that overruled his funding freeze for multiple federal agencies. In her 63-page ruling, McElroy granted a preliminary injunction in favor of a coalition of nonprofit organizations suing the Trump administration allowing them to have their funding turned back on while litigation plays out.

Federal judge orders immediate thaw of climate, infrastructure funds By Alex Guillén – 04/15/2025 06:34 PM EDT – Politico – President Donald Trump does not have “unfettered power to hamstring in perpetuity” duly passed funding laws, the judge ruled. A federal judge ruled Tuesday that EPA, the Interior and Energy Departments and other agencies unlawfully froze funds under Democrats’ climate and infrastructure spending laws, ordering the agencies to immediately resume disbursing the money.

 U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy’s Opinion and Order is HERE.

Agencies do not have unlimited authority to further the President’s agenda, nor do they have unfettered power to hamstring in perpetuity two statutes passed by Congress during the previous administration. Chief Justice Roberts put it best:

Justice Holmes famously wrote that “men must turn square corners when they deal with the Government.” But it is also true, particularly when so much is at stake, that the Government should turn square corners in dealing with the people. Id. at 24.

Here, the Government failed to do so.

 

Green Bank Litigation Order

U.S. Dist. Judge Tanya Chutkan (Federal Dist. Court of DC) ordered EPA & Citibank to unfreeze funds – “Citibank must disburse any funds properly incurred before the mid-February suspension of Plaintiffs’ funds.” However, this Order has already been “stayed.”  Judge Chutkan’s Order follows (Opinion not yet released). The “stay” is described below.

CLIMATE UNITED FUND, Plaintiff, v. CITIBANK, N.A., et al., Order – April 15, 2025 — “EPA Defendants, and others in active concert or participation therewith, including officials at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, are ENJOINED from directly or indirectly impeding Defendant Citibank or from causing Defendant Citibank to deny, obstruct, delay, or otherwise limit access to funds in accounts established in connection with Plaintiffs’ grants, including funds in accounts established by Plaintiffs’ subgrantees.” 

Release of E.P.A. Climate Grants Is Paused by New Court Ruling – By Claire Brown; April 17, 2025 – New York Times – Hours after a federal judge ordered Citibank to pay out as much as $625 million in federal climate grant money that had been frozen at the Trump administration’s request, an appeals court stayed the decision. The grant money was frozen again before any was sent to recipients.

• It amounted to at least a temporary setback for nonprofit recipients of $20 billion in funds that were appropriated by Congress through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.
• The grants, which were part of the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and are sometimes called “Green Bank” funds, were finalized before the November election, then frozen in mid-February at the request of the Trump administration.
• Brooke Durham, a spokeswoman for Climate United, a nonprofit that had been awarded almost $7 billion and has sued the administration for access to the funds, said the organization plans to oppose the stay, in hopes of avoiding laying off employees because they can’t pay them.

Judge blocks Trump EPA from clawing back billions in Biden-era climate grants – by Ella Lee and Rachel Frazin – The Hill – April 16, 2025 – A federal judge on Wednesday indefinitely blocked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from clawing back billions of dollars in Biden-era climate grants. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said the EPA may not suspend or terminate the green grant awards nor limit access to those funds while a lawsuit challenging the effort to recoup the money moves forward.

• Judge Chutkan also ordered Citibank, which received the funds but refused to disburse them at the government’s request, to unfreeze the climate groups’ funds. However, Chutkan directed Citibank to refrain from releasing any funds until Thursday afternoon. After that, the groups will be able to use that money to finance climate-friendly projects. The administration has already appealed her decision, which she said would be explained in a forthcoming memorandum.  

The EPA can’t end grants from $20 billion Biden-era fund for climate-friendly projects, a judge says – by  MICHAEL PHILLIS – Associated Press – April 16, 2025 – A federal judge says some nonprofits awarded billions for a so-called green bank to finance clean energy and climate-friendly projects cannot have their contracts scrapped and must have access to some of the frozen money. The ruling is a defeat for President Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency, which argues the program is rife with financial mismanagement.

Judge blocks Trump EPA from clawing back $14 billion in climate grants – by Maxine Joselow – Washington Post – April 16, 2025 – The judge’s decision is the latest twist in a high-stakes battle over Joe Biden’s signature climate law. A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency from terminating at least $14 billion in climate grants approved under President Joe Biden. U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of D.C. issued a preliminary injunction late Tuesday that prohibits the EPA from “unlawfully suspending or terminating” the grant awards. She also ordered Citibank, which was tasked with disbursing the funds, to release the money to the grant recipients.

2 Judges Order Federal Agencies to Unfreeze Climate Money – by Claire Brown and Karen Zraick – New York Times – April 16, 2025 – Two court rulings on Tuesday unfroze hundreds of millions of dollars in federal climate funds, a win for nonprofit groups that have been denied access to money they were promised under the Biden administration. Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the federal court for the District of Columbia on Tuesday ordered the immediate release of up to $625 million in climate grants that have been frozen since mid-February under the $20 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The fund is also known as the “green bank” program and has been a major target of Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

 

PA DEP Brings Back Clean Energy Opportunity Spotlight (CEOS) Series

PA DEP is renewing its Spotlight Series – with need-to-know information funding and technical assistance programs designed to help PA’s homes, municipalities, and non-profits thrive in a diversified, affordable clean energy future. Upcoming Spotlights:

• April 24, 2025 @ 2:00PM — Greening Your Community with the Local Climate Action Plan (LCAP) and Shared Energy Manager (SEM) Programs – Register Here

• May 2025: TBD – Energy Audits and Upgrades with the Municipal Opportunities for Retrofits and Energy Efficiency (MORE) Program and Partners
• June 2025: TBD – Getting the Most Out of Your Home with a Residential Energy Assessment

 

PJM Report – Describes Pathway to Avoid Consumer Cost Increases

Tackling the PJM Electricity Cost Crisis An Analysis of the Benefits of PJM Interconnection Reform – Press Event with Evergreen Collaborative & Keystone Energy Efficiency Alliance – April 15, 2025. Highlights:

• Electricity customers in the PJM region (which spans all or parts of 13 Mid-Atlantic states and Washington, D.C.) are facing a looming cost crisis stemming from two major issues: (a) worsening barriers to building and connecting new generation resources needed to supply the electric grid, and (b) unprecedented increases in projected electricity demand.
• Accelerating new resource deployment will be necessary to reliably serve new and existing load without greatly increasing energy costs to electricity customers. Bringing online more clean energy resources will also be critical to reducing carbon dioxide emissions and meeting state climate goals.
• Power companies in the region are grappling with several barriers that impede their ability to connect new resources to the grid, including PJM’s interconnection queue delays, local permitting and siting processes, and global supply chain challenges.
• Synapse conducted power sector analysis, bill impact analysis, and job impact analysis to understand the benefits of resolving these queue constraints to customers and residents in the PJM states.
• The analysis shows that if PJM continues down its current path, residential electricity bills in the region are expected to increase by nearly 60 percent by the 2036–2040 period compared to historical levels.
• However, if PJM adequately implements interconnection reforms to enable the deployment of more cost-effective energy generation, largely comprised of clean energy sources, electricity bills are projected to decrease 7 percent by the same time period.

 

Impacts From Potential Repeals of Tax Credits & BIL/IRA Funding Freezes

E2: $8 Billion and 16 New Clean Energy Projects Abandoned in First 3 Months of 2025, Triple 2022-2024 Cancelled Investments Combined– April 17, 2025 — Investors cancelled, closed, or downsized nearly $8 billion in investments and 16 new large-scale factories in the first three months of 2025 amid escalating market uncertainty, and as Congress begins debate on repealing the tax credits. The $8 billion in cancelled investments since January are more than three times the total investments cancelled over the previous 30 months, according to E2’s latest Clean Economy Works monthly update. A full map and list of announcements is available at e2.org/announcements/. 

Solar advocates lobby on strong fundamentals amid political uncertainty – By Diana DiGangi – Utility Dive – April 16, 2025 – As Congress weighs tax incentive cuts, and tariffs drive up materials prices, the solar industry is emphasizing the technology’s low cost and fast deployment speed.

• One of the things that’s resonating with lawmakers now is that you don’t want to strand investments that have been made by American businesses in local economies,” said Sean Gallagher, senior vice president of policy at the Solar Energy Industries Association. “You don’t want these factories that have opened up in the last couple years to go dark.”
• “Around 80% of the projects that are most advanced in interconnection queues across the country are solar and storage,” Gallagher said. He pointed to recent comments from NextEra Energy president and CEO John Ketchum, who said that “renewables are ready to go right now” while gas generation is facing deployment delays due to factors like high demand and labor shortages.

 

The Other Shoes Drop on EPA’s “Exemption By Email” Rule

Trump exempts nearly 70 coal plants from Biden-era rule on mercury and other toxic air pollution – By  MATTHEW DALY – Associated Press – April 15, 2025

• The Trump administration has granted nearly 70 coal-fired power plants a two-year exemption from federal requirements to reduce emissions of toxic chemicals such as mercury, arsenic and benzene.
• A list quietly posted as of Tuesday on the Environmental Protection Agency’s website lists 47 power providers which operate at least 66 coal-fired plants that are receiving exemptions from the Biden-era rules under the Clean Air Act, including a regulation limiting air pollution from mercury and other toxins.
• The actions follow an executive order last week by President Donald Trump aimed at boosting the struggling coal industry, a reliable but polluting energy source that’s long been in decline.
• The exempted plants are owned by some of the nation’s largest power companies, including Talen Energy, Dominion Energy, NRG Energy and Southern Co.

The post BIL/IRA Implementation Digest — April 18, 2025 appeared first on Ohio River Valley Institute.

Feeling the urge to get involved this week? You are in luck. Here is all the Backbone Campaign related bannering happenings and more:

In order to match the absurdity and audacity of the news headlines, it calls for the need to turn up some of the messaging for the weekly bannering. 

Legislators in Ohio seek to establish a regulatory framework for the long-term, geologic storage of carbon dioxide in order to provide the clarity needed to attract developers to the state.  But, HB170 and SB136 go far beyond this simple goal. If passed, these two bills would significantly erode landowner rights in Ohio and expose Ohio taxpayers and the communities that would be host to these storage projects to significant risk.

 

Background

CO2 storage involves injecting and storing CO2 deep underground for hundreds or thousands of years. This CO2 is stored below impermeable caprock in empty pockets known as pore space. Proponents claim that this process will help reduce emissions in a variety of industrial processes, including power generation and the production of hydrogen from natural gas. Regional proposals like the Appalachian hydrogen hub and the Tri-State CCS Hub both require massive amounts of CO2 storage capacity.

Many states have established regulatory frameworks to help court carbon storage developers. These frameworks typically address:

• the relationship between rights to pore space, surface rights, and mineral interests, i.e. oil, gas, and coal
• ownership of pore space (the underground voids and cavities targeted for CO2 injection) and whether the rights to pore space can be leased, or sold
• the state permitting process for injection wells
• and the creation of storage funds to support regulatory activities, including permitting  and long-term maintenance.

However, the legislative proposals in Ohio go much further than establishing these basic frameworks.

 

Statutory Consolidation

HB170 and SB136 would allow companies to dump CO2 underneath homes and private property without the owner’s approval. This practice, referred to in the bills as “statutory consolidation,” is intended to help companies aggregate different areas of pore space into a single project to streamline development. Concerningly, the Ohio proposal allows these storage projects to proceed without support from all pore space owners impacted by the proposal, meaning that some people will be forced into these projects and will have CO2 dumped under their property and homes without their permission.

To put this in practical terms, let’s say that a developer is developing a storage project involving 1,000 acres and they secure leases from two owners (A and B, depicted in yellow) whose pore space amounts to 700 acres. The developer can then petition the state to grant them access to the pore space owned by the remaining 300 acres (owners C through L, depicted in red) without their approval, even though they represent a numerical majority — in other words, the rights of ten owners that collectively own 300 acres are trumped by two owners who collectively own 700 acres of pore space.

The bill does require developers to attempt to notify all pore space owners included in a proposal but the fact that these storage projects can proceed under people’s homes and property without their consent or awareness is very worrying. This provision is a serious threat to the rights of surface owners and it would be made worse if Ohio allows CO2 storage under large tracts of state-owned land, as has been happening in West Virginia. Because the threshold for project development is determined by acreage, not the actual number of consenting owners, small landowners would be especially at risk if these measures are approved.

In 2020, the rupture of a CO2 pipeline hospitalized 45 residents in Satartia, MS and forced 200 others to evacuate from their homes. Ohio communities forced to live near CO2 storage projects could be at risk of similar incidents, including pipeline ruptures and well-head blowouts. Allowing companies to trample on local rights in this way eliminates the most important protection for communities concerned about these projects: the ability to opt out.

 

Long-term liability

This legislation would also allow operators of CO2 storage projects to push almost all of their post-site closure liability onto the state, leaving the public on the hook for the ongoing maintenance and monitoring of these projects. Ohio is already facing nearly a billion dollars in abandoned mine land reclamation costs and tens of thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells. Assuming responsibility for large CO2 storage projects only adds to these immense legacy issues from the state’s industrial past. The long-term responsibility for projects as complex and dynamic as CO2 storage projects should stay with the companies that built and operated them.

Letting companies off the hook for these obligations invites them to cut corners in construction, record-keeping, and operations. If someone else is responsible for any problems that arise in the future, companies have less of an incentive to ensure the integrity of their projects.

Not all states with carbon storage regulations allow for the transfer of liability or forced unitization. By including these two provisions, state legislators are going out of their way to reward private companies at the expense of everyday Ohioans. The priorities of the legislators advancing these bills are made even clearer when considering the protections the bills provide to the oil and gas industry.

 

Protections for industry, not communities

While HB170 and SB136 are similar in many respects to legislation passed in neighboring West Virginia and Pennsylvania, these bills differ in one very important way: the degree to which the Ohio proposals protect fossil fuel development from CO2 storage projects, protections not provided to any other stakeholder group.

One example of this is a provision allowing subsurface owners concerned about impacts to mineral rights to object to the statutory consolidation of pore space. In contrast, pore space owners are unable to opt out of these storage projects if enough owners grant their approval, even if those consenting landowners represent a numerical minority. Additionally, a surface landowner that no longer owns or controls the rights to the pore space underneath their property would have no say in whether CO2 stored beneath their home or land.

The bill also requires pore space projects to be isolated from any existing or future oil and gas production and calls for setbacks establishing buffer areas to protect oil and gas interests from CO2 storage projects. No such protection is afforded to environmental justice communities, schools, churches, parks, or other sensitive areas.

Worse, the bills also grant the state “sole and exclusive authority” over CO2 storage projects, preempting any protective steps local communities may choose to take to ensure their safety as these projects move forward in the state.

In other words, this legislation disenfranchises other stakeholders, including people who object to CO2 storage under their properties and homes, and exposes the public to novel safety risks — all while protecting and empowering the oil and gas industry. 

The backers of these two legislative proposals may present these bills as mere clarifications of the regulatory environment but, if passed, these bills could place local communities in harm’s way and impact property owners, especially small ones.

The post Ohio House Bill 170 and Senate Bill 136: What You Should Know appeared first on Ohio River Valley Institute.

Let’s talk about coal. Yes—coal, the black rock that powered much of America’s past. Lately, some leaders have been trying to bring it back in a big way. But here’s the truth: no matter what policies are put in place, the coal industry is on its way out—and trying to prop it up is only making things harder for regular folks like you and me.

Coal Can’t Compete Anymore

Even though the Trump administration recently rolled out a handful of orders to boost coal—including loosening environmental rules, offering loans for new coal plants, and opening up public lands for mining—the market is saying loud and clear: coal just doesn’t make sense anymore.

Why? It’s simple. Coal is expensive to use compared to other energy sources. Clean energy like wind and solar has gotten way cheaper, and natural gas is still pretty cheap too. Most coal plants can’t keep up. A recent report found that 99% of coal plants in the U.S. are more expensive to run than replacing them with local renewable energy like solar, wind, and battery storage.

So even if the government wants to save coal, the math just doesn’t work out. Energy companies are choosing cheaper, cleaner options—and for good reason.

We’re Paying the Price

Unfortunately, regular people are getting stuck with the bill. Because coal is becoming more expensive, utility companies are passing those higher costs on to customers.

Take West Virginia, for example. It still gets most of its electricity from coal. Between 2008 and 2019, the average electric bill there went up by more than $40 a month—almost four times more than the national average. That’s a lot of money for families who are already stretching every dollar.

Figure 1: West Virginia, which gets most of its electricity from coal, has the highest-rising electric bills in the nation. 

Share of coal in fuel mix vs. change in average monthly electricity bill, 2008-2019

Source: Ohio River Valley Institute, 2021

 

New Technologies Won’t Save It

Some people think new tech—like carbon capture, which is supposed to trap carbon pollution before it goes into the air—could make coal cleaner. But here’s the catch: these technologies are super expensive and don’t work all that well in practice.

Adding carbon capture would make coal-fired electricity cost three times more than it already does. So instead of making coal cheaper or cleaner, it could actually make your electric bill even higher. And that’s just not a smart investment when we have better, cheaper options on the table.

Coal Workers Deserve Better

It’s not just about the cost—it’s about the people, too. Coal miners have always done hard, dangerous work. And now, even their safety is being put at risk. Cuts to federal safety agencies under the Trump administration mean fewer inspections and less support for worker health.

Black lung disease, caused by breathing in coal dust, is back on the rise—especially in Central Appalachia. Nearly 1 in 5 miners there now has it. These workers deserve protection and a future beyond the mines.

A Better Path Forward

But here’s the good news: there is a way forward—one that doesn’t involve clinging to a dying industry.

Some communities are already leading the way. Centralia, Washington was once a coal town, but when its coal plant was set to close, leaders got smart. They invested in clean energy, energy efficiency programs, and education. The result? More jobs, higher incomes, and a growing population—faster than the national average.

We could see something similar in places like West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Ohio. Cleaning up polluted land and water left behind by coal could create over 13,000 good jobs in those states alone. And investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency could lower electricity costs and help coal communities thrive again.

The Bottom Line

Trying to save coal isn’t just a losing battle—it’s costing us big time. Higher electric bills, unsafe working conditions, and missed opportunities for job growth are just a few of the consequences.

But if we stop looking backward and start investing in the future—clean energy, safer jobs, and healthy communities—we all stand to win.

The post Why Trying to Save Coal Is Costing Us More Than We Think appeared first on Ohio River Valley Institute.

Liberty is a muscle that must be exercised!

Since January 20, 2025, Backbone Campaign and our volunteers and allies have:    

• Deployed 45 freeway banners in 5 locations over 13 consecutive weeks, 
• Shipped banner toolkits to 31 cities in 10 states, 
• Trained more than 200 people in bannering and light projection in our virtual workshops, and 
• Projected images focused on workers' rights, immigration, and illegal detention in Seattle, Portland, Kansas City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Minneapolis and Boston. 
  

For more than 20 years, Backbone has been preparing for this moment. Our high visibility activism tools speak to the moment and amplify our collective voices. Today, our work is more important than ever before. But, we cannot do this at the scale and scope that is necessary without growing support from people like you. 

Pitch in with a donation to keep growing Backbone's capacity to tool up and skill up people around the country.