Tag: green energy

Report: Trump Punishes Newsom by Canceling $427M Wind Project

President Donald Trump may have chosen to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to a California wind project to punish Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) for signing a separate climate change deal with Denmark.

Last week, as Breitbart News reported, the Trump administration had canceled $679 million that was to have been spent on supposedly “doomed” offshore wind projects — $427 million of which was to have gone to a single wind project in Humboldt County, California.

The New York Times reported Friday:

The Transportation Department on Friday said it was terminating or withdrawing $679 million in federal funding for 12 projects around the country intended to support the development of offshore wind power, the latest of the Trump administration’s escalating attacks against the wind industry.

The funds, approved by the Biden administration, include $427 million awarded last year to upgrade a marine terminal in Humboldt County, Calif. The new terminal would be used to assemble and launch wind turbines capable of floating in the ocean, which the state of California had been planning to deploy to meet its renewable energy goals.

The list of targeted projects also includes $48 million for an offshore wind port on Staten Island, $39 million to upgrade a port near Norfolk, Va. and $20 million for a marine terminal in Paulsboro, N.J. Most of the projects were intended to be staging areas for the construction of giant wind turbines that would eventually be placed at sea.

“Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg bent over backwards to use transportation dollars for their Green New Scam agenda while ignoring the dire needs of our shipbuilding industry,” Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said at the time. “Thanks to President Trump, we are prioritizing real infrastructure improvements over fantasy wind projects that cost much and offer little.”

One project, however, off the coast of Connecticut and Rhode Island, was reportedly 80% complete and due to begin operations next year.

It is being developed by Danish wind farm developer Orsted.

Keep reading

Connecticut AG Tong Told District Court That Trump’s Stop Work Order For Revolution Wind Is “Unlawful” And “Irrational”

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong on Thursday night formally notified the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts of the “unlawful wind executive order” halting the Revolution Wind project and the “severe harm to Connecticut ratepayers, grid reliability and jobs” allegedly caused by stopping the project.

On September 4th, the court will hear a motion for summary judgment where Tong and 18 other attorneys general have sought to block Trump’s effort to stop one of the biggest “scams of the century.”

“We’ve got billions of dollars in investment and a project on the finish line to deliver affordable, American-made, renewable energy right off the coast of Connecticut. There are more than 1,000 jobs on the line. We’re notifying the court now that Trump’s irrational stop to Revolution Wind will jack up energy bills, hurt workers, and weaken our grid,” said Tong.

“At a time when we’re working to lower utility costs in our state and strengthen our economy, this decision by the federal government will increase electricity costs and risk countless jobs. Connecticut has made critical investments in renewable energy in an effort to diversify our energy supply and lower prices for families and businesses. Even more frustrating, this project was 80% compete and set to be finished next year. We will do everything we can to save this project because it represents exactly the kind of investment that reduces energy costs, strengthens regional production, and builds a more secure energy future,” complained Governor Ned Lamont.

President Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum on his first day in office that, among other things, indefinitely halted all federal approvals necessary for the development of offshore and onshore wind energy projects pending federal review. Pursuant to this directive, federal agencies stopped all permitting and approval activities, and issued a Stop Work Order to the fully permitted Empire Wind project that was already under construction in New York. That project has since resumed.

Keep reading

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Yanks Almost $700 Million in Funding for Twelve Offshore Wind Projects

President Trump has made it clear on multiple occasions that he is not a fan of wind as a power source. It’s not reliable and it is an affront to the natural beauty of the country.

Trump recently cancelled a major wind project in Idaho that was approved by Biden. Now, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has pulled almost $700 million in funding for twelve planned offshore wind projects.

Green energy activists on the left are sure to lose their minds over this.

The New York Post reports:

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy withdraws $679M in funding for ‘doomed’ offshore wind projects – including three in NY, NJ and CT

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced Friday that $679 million in federal funding has been withdrawn for 12 “doomed” offshore wind projects – including three in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

The scrapped funding includes $10.5 million for Connecticut’s Bridgeport Port Authority Operations and Maintenance Wind Port project, $20.5 million for New Jersey’s Wind Port at Paulsboro and $48 million for Staten Island’s Arthur Kill Terminal.

The Trump administration plans to spend the withdrawn funds on “real infrastructure” and “restoring American maritime dominance.”

“Wasteful, wind projects are using resources that could otherwise go towards revitalizing America’s maritime industry,” Duffy said in a statement…

“Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg bent over backwards to use transportation dollars for their Green New Scam agenda while ignoring the dire needs of our shipbuilding industry,” Duffy said. “Thanks to President Trump, we are prioritizing real infrastructure improvements over fantasy wind projects.”

Keep reading

The Developing World’s Alleged Solar Boom: Survival Amid Government Dysfunction, Not a Model for the Rest of Us

Mainstream media and green agenda advocates celebrate the spread of solar in developing countries as proof that fossil fuels can and should be abandoned, presenting it as both an environmental necessity and a path to prosperity. British officials urge investment in a “solar revolution across Africa,” citing projects that combine solar with mobile technology, while the World Economic Forum praises Pakistan’s “solar boom” as a lesson for others.

The reality is less glamorous. Roughly 1.3 billion people worldwide lack access to grid electricity. In countries where corrupt or dysfunctional governments cannot deliver reliable power, people turn to solar out of necessity, not climate concern. Off-grid solar is a survival tool, not a lifestyle choice.

What most households can afford is minimal: a small panel that, after charging all day, might power a single light bulb for a few hours at night or charge a phone. These systems cannot handle laptops, refrigerators, washing machines, or other appliances that define modern life in the West. They also fail with larger energy demands such as machinery, agricultural equipment, or water pumps, necessary machines for survival in these regions. As a result, people still rely on generators and fossil fuels to operate this type of machinery.

At night, a house may have only one bulb lit, giving off very limited light. As a result, families still rely on flashlights, candles, or kerosene lanterns to move around, forcing them to buy flashlights and batteries, lanterns and fuel, or else purchase additional solar panels just to recharge their flashlights during the day.

The so-called solar boom is not a green revolution. It is a desperate response to government failure, a stopgap solution that provides the bare minimum rather than a path to prosperity.

On paper, the solar numbers in the developing world look impressive. Developing countries now account for more than half of global solar capacity, compared with less than 10 percent a decade ago. In 2017, they even surpassed industrialized nations in renewable energy production, largely due to solar.

Across Africa, more than 1.5 million households now rely on solar home systems, a nearly 300 percent increase since 2015, supported by mobile-money financing. Kenya leads in installations per capita, with some 30,000 small panels sold annually. Bangladesh has rolled out over 5.2 million systems, bringing electricity to nearly 12 percent of its 160 million people. India added a record 9,255 megawatts of solar capacity in 2017, with another 9,600 megawatts under development.

While these numbers may look impressive, scaling solar to sustain modern living standards would be unimaginably expensive, requiring vast resources, land, and infrastructure. Worse, such a build-out could cause more environmental damage than the continued, use of fossil fuels.

The power requirements of modern appliances far exceed what small off-grid systems can deliver: hair dryers need 1,200–1,800 watts, central air conditioners 3,000–3,500 watts per hour, and one ton of cooling capacity requires about 1,200 watts of solar panels. To run a central AC unit efficiently would take around 3 kilowatts of output, roughly thirty 100-watt panels. Meanwhile, the average American home consumed 10,791 kWh of electricity in 2022, demanding about 25–30 panels per house.

In dense suburban neighborhoods, there simply isn’t enough roof space, while ground installations would consume vast tracts of land. Building solar farms on this scale would devastate the environment, casting shadows that kill crops and vegetation, requiring tree removal, and converting natural habitats into industrial solar sites.

Cities in northern latitudes or regions with heavy cloud cover would still face major energy shortfalls. On top of this, manufacturing, installing, maintaining, and replacing billions of panels would create more pollution than fossil-fuel generation ever did.

As an example of scalability, consider the land and infrastructure required. To power New York City with solar would take a system of about 40 gigawatts, covering roughly 200,000 acres, or 312 square miles, an area equal to five Districts of Columbia or 50,000 Walmart stores.

Other estimates put the requirement at 420 square kilometers (103,800 acres) just to meet the city’s 10.5 gigawatt demand. At the national level, powering the entire United States would require between 13.6 million and 22,000 square miles of solar farms, about half the size of Pennsylvania, or the size of Lake Michigan.

But solar panels alone are not enough. A zero-carbon grid with 94 percent renewables by 2050 would require 930 gigawatts of energy storage and 6 terawatt-hours of battery capacity. For context, the average U.S. household uses about 30 kWh per day, while a Tesla Powerwall stores only 14 kWh. Scaling battery storage to national demand would exceed current global production by orders of magnitude.

Keep reading

USDA Ends Solar Subsidies On American Farmland

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced Monday that the Department of Agriculture will no longer use taxpayer dollars to fund large-scale solar or wind projects on productive farmland, nor allow solar panels made by foreign adversaries in USDA programs.

The department cited farmland loss as a driving concern. Tennessee has lost more than 1.2 million acres in the past 30 years and could lose 2 million by 2027. Nationally, solar installations on farmland have risen nearly 50% since 2012.

“Our prime farmland should not be wasted and replaced with green new deal subsidized solar panels,” Rollins said. “One of the largest barriers of entry for new and young farmers is access to land. Subsidized solar farms have made it more difficult for farmers to access farmland by making it more expensive and less available.”

On X, she added: “This destruction of our farms and prime soil is taking away the futures of the next generation of farmers and the future of our country. Starting today, [USDA] will no longer deploy programs to fund solar or wind projects on productive farmland, ending massive taxpayer handouts. Also ENDING the use of panels made by foreign adversaries like China.”

Keep reading

US National Security Probe Targets Wind Industry

The Commerce Department just opened a Section 232 “national security” probe into imported wind turbines and parts—quietly on Aug. 13, publicly today. That matters because 232 isn’t a press release; it’s a legal on-ramp to more tariffs on top of the new 50% duty already applied to the steel and aluminum content in turbines and components.

Here’s the operational read: the U.S. wind build is heavily import-dependent for blades, drivetrains, and electrical systems. In 2023, the U.S. brought in about $1.7B of wind equipment, with roughly 41% from Mexico, Canada, and China. If you tax the metal inside the machine—and potentially layer more 232 duties later—you squeeze project profit margins, renegotiate Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs—long-term contracts to sell the power), or delay FIDs. None of those outcomes lowers your Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE—think of it as the average lifetime price per unit of electricity once you add up all the costs).

Wood Mackenzie pegs the tariff bite at +7% for turbine costs (+5% total project costs) under the earlier tariff proposals; in a universal 25% tariff scenario, turbine costs could rise ~10% and LCOE up ~7%. And that was before Commerce slapped a 50% surcharge on the steel/aluminum content—so the floor just moved higher. Expect original equipment manufacturers to reroute supply chains, localize sub-assemblies, and raise prices anyway. Vestas has already said the quiet part out loud: these costs flow straight through to electricity prices.

Don’t confuse this with an offshore-only story. Onshore wind is where the bulk of U.S. volume lives, and it’s far more sensitive to every $/kW swing, gearbox delivery delay, and tower steel price jump. Section 232 is also being deployed against other “critical” imports (planes, chips, pharma), so wind isn’t a one-off carve-out—it’s part of a broader, durable trade posture that project finance now has to underwrite.

Keep reading

Maryland’s energy price explosion

In July, my electric bill crossed a number I never thought I’d see: over $500. Yes, it was a brutally hot month, but we’ve had very hot summers before in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C. We’ve run the air conditioning nonstop before and never reached even $400.

What’s going on?

A few things. Let’s start with this week’s announcement by Maryland Gov. Wes Moore of a $2 million “Residential and Commercial Energy Storage Program.” The idea is to offer rebates to homeowners and businesses that install battery systems, which can store energy and reduce strain on the grid. Moore says, “When we invest in clean energy, we help expand supply.”

That all sounds nice. But here’s the problem: Every “investment” like this costs money, our money, and it hasn’t lowered a single bill so far. In fact, it’s done the opposite. Almost laughable is another planned “solution” to the energy crisis: Maryland utility customers will receive a rebate on their bills next month, estimated at about $40 per household, depending on electricity usage. A second rebate is planned for January. 

On June 1, utility rates across Maryland jumped. Baltimore Gas & Electric, Pepco, Delmarva Power — pick your provider, the story’s the same. We were told it’s because of supply problems and the need for infrastructure upgrades. The reality? The state continues to remove reliable, always-on energy sources and replace them with more expensive alternatives that can’t carry the load on their own. We’re importing more energy from other states at higher rates and paying for that gap via higher bills.

The jump we saw in our bills this summer isn’t a one-time bump. Maryland is part of a regional power grid called PJM. Recently, the price PJM charges to ensure there’s enough power cleared at the maximum allowed rate. Translation: In 2026, we’ll see another increase, 1.5% to 5% higher on top of what we’re already paying now. And that’s just the short term. With the growing demand from massive data centers sucking up power, Reuters reports bills in our region could climb 30% to 60% by 2030.

Keep reading

Power-Bill Crisis Spreads From Maryland To New Jersey, May Doom Democrats As ‘Green’ Implodes

A power bill crisis is gripping parts of the U.S. Mid-Atlantic and is set to worsen, threatening to financially crush households as long-range forecasts point to a brutally cold winter. What began in Baltimore, Maryland – as first covered in our reporting one year ago– has now spread to New Jersey, where residents are furious over skyrocketing electricity costs. 

The common denominator in both states? A disastrous green energy agenda, pushed by radical leftist lawmakers, is dismantling reliable and cheap fossil fuel power generation in favor of unstable solar and wind. This has unleashed a power bill armageddon on working-class and middle-class households, as well as mom-and-pop businesses, all while baseload power demand surges in the era of AI data centers.

Fox News is beginning to latch onto the power bill crisis theme, starting with coverage of New Jersey residents who are absolutely furious over exploding power bills. This new development could severely damage the state’s Democratic leaders in the upcoming elections.

This all started when New Jersey’s Board of Public Utilities approved a 17 to 20% rate hike for power bills in June. Many residents were shocked when they opened their bills at the end of last month. 

“$200 more, I know my electrical bill,” one Jersey woman told Fox News reporter CB Cotton, adding, “I was shocked. So to say the least, I’m very disappointed. This is killing us, and every time you turn around it’s something more. You only get little pleasures in life that you enjoy, and my air conditioner is one of them.”

Perhaps Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy’s decision to shutter the state’s nuclear and coal plants, without a one-to-one replacement for lost capacity on the grid, was a catastrophic error that is only now coming home to roost. He also prioritized offshore wind farms and other green energy projects, which have left the grid more fragile than ever.

Keep reading

Yet Another Misleading Report on “Low-Cost” Wind and Solar

In a just-released report, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) claims that renewable energy is the most cost-competitive source of new electricity generation worldwide. The report further claims that “91% of new renewable power projects commissioned last year were more cost-effective than any new fossil fuel alternative” based on levelized costs, which can be thought of as the energy equivalent of a fixed mortgage.

If those claims sound too good to be true, it’s because they are. IRENA’s boasts ignore a fundamental reality: the intermittent electricity generated from wind and solar is fundamentally different than electricity generated by traditional generating resources that are not subject to the whims of the weather.

In the U.S., the Energy Information Administration (EIA) makes the same mistake. The EIA claims that wind and solar will account for the lion’s share of new generating capacity for the next decade and will provide electricity at a lower levelized cost than any traditional resource, including new natural gas generators.

But the episodic nature of wind and solar power has critical impacts on both supply adequacy and cost, which, while recognized by some, are nonetheless not incorporated into bottom-line data. Traditional coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric generating plants can be scheduled to run when needed. Some of them, especially nuclear and most coal plants, are designed to operate continuously and are referred to as “baseload” facilities. Others, especially natural gas plants, can quickly be turned on or off (“dispatched”) to match changes in demand. Collectively, traditional generation can be both scheduled and dynamically managed, enabling the operators of electric grids to reliably meet demand at the lowest cost.

The inherent intermittency of wind and solar reduces the physical and economic value of their capacity relative to traditional generating resources, as sufficient reserves or storage must be maintained to meet demand when they are unavailable. Merely reporting total wind and solar capacity misleads because it does not account for the adequacy of the electrical energy generated to meet demand and the actual costs to do so.

Here’s an analogy. Imagine that a city and its citizens are offered two types of buses for commuting. One is with new buses and free fares. However, these run only one-third of the time, are often unpredictable, and are less likely to show up on bad-weather days. If you wait for one of these new free buses but it fails to show up, you must suffer the inconvenience of having to take a relatively expensive Uber ride, which can cost even more on busy or bad-weather days. Meanwhile, the other option is to pay a modest fare (say, one-tenth of an Uber ride) on a conventional bus—but one that’s reliable, regardless of weather. Over a year of commuting, the total costs for the “free” bus service are likely to be much higher and the value much lower than commuting on the conventional bus service.

Keep reading

EPA cancelling $7B in community solar grants, Dems call it ‘illegal’

The Environmental Protection Agency has announced it will claw back $7 billion in already earmarked funds from the Solar for All community grants and then eliminate the program, a move that Democrats claim is against the law.

“This money was intended for our constituents and communities to help lower energy bills,” Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., stated Friday. “Clawing these funds back isn’t just brazenly illegal – it’s a betrayal by this Administration of working families who will now pay higher energy bills just so Republicans can grind their axe against clean energy.”

The repeal of the program, however, directly implements orders from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law a month ago. Among multiple other green energy policies, the OBBBA repeals the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which the Solar for All program falls under.

The program, funded by taxpayer dollars via the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, has already promised funds to 60 grant recipients across the U.S. The money was meant for the creation or expansion of solar programs meant to lower electricity bills for approximately 900,000 low-income households and increase their access to solar-produced energy.

The abrupt rescinding of the funds, though allowed for by law, will disrupt plans in 49 states. However, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said that “very little money” has actually been spent and that recipients are still “very much in the early planning phase, not the building and construction process.”

“But the bottom line again is this: EPA no longer has the authority to administer the program or the appropriated funds to keep this boondoggle alive,” Zeldin added.

Republicans targeted dozens of similar federal green energy programs and grants in the OBBBA, arguing that such subsidies create a false demand for unreliable sources of electricity that have minimal positive impact on the environment.

The Solar for All program in particular wasted taxpayer dollars, Zeldin said, by diluting the billions of dollars through pass-through entities, with middlemen taking a 15% cut of total funds “by conservative estimates.”

Additionally, the program received an exemption from the Build America, Buy America law, which requires federal agencies to use American workers, products and infrastructure for projects funded by American taxpayers.

States including Ohio, Illinois, Arizona, Missouri, Virginia and Michigan had each been awarded more than $100 million from the Solar for All program and have already planned on how to disperse the promised funds.

Democratic governors were quick to condemn the EPA’s decision, with Gov. Tony Evers of Wisconsin – which received over $62 million worth of grants – deeming it “unnecessary,” as The Center Square reported.

Keep reading