March, 28 2017, 11:45am EDT
While Trump Attempts to Cut Clean Power Plan, Western States and Cities Expected to Move Forward on Clean Energy Growth
Over 820,000 people in the West work in clean energy, more than coal and gas combined
LOS ANGELES
Today, the Trump Administration issued an executive order gutting President Obama's Clean Power Plan (background below), which cuts climate altering pollution by asking states to set clean energy generation goals.
Western states are already running homes and businesses with clean, renewable energy and many are on track to surpass what the Clean Power Plan outlines while keeping energy bills low. Most states have clean energy goals in place as a way to create jobs, reduce energy bills and cut damaging pollution. According to a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report on renewable portfolio standards (RPS), states have collectively met 95% of clean energy targets in the past few years. The same report states that the West leads and will continue to lead the nation in clean energy growth because of these goals. The West is also home to more cities and towns committed to 100 percent renewable energy than any other region in the United States.
The clean energy growth is impressive, and some states in the West-- California and Nevada-- are considering stronger clean energy standards this year. However, without a Clean Power Plan, some states may not set clean energy goals and therefore miss out on job creation, pollution reduction, greater grid security and revenue opportunities. The Clean Power Plan also promises investment in environmental justice by setting a baseline of support for frontline communities that might not be guaranteed on a state-by-state level.
"The Trump Administration promised to support the American worker, and yet he and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt have set a course to cut a plan that would grow the clean energy industry, which already employs hundreds of thousands of people in the West. Western states see the value of supporting this booming industry and the health, environmental and economic benefits it brings to communities. Families are saving money as energy efficiency is prioritized and clean energy comes online. Homeowners have greater energy freedom with rooftop solar. And battery storage is driving innovation and supporting a more reliable energy grid. Many states and cities in the West will continue to lead on clean energy because it makes economic sense and those states that tie their fate to Scott Pruitt's doomed strategy of delay and deny face an increasingly risky future," said Bill Corcoran, Western Campaign Director for the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign.
Below is an outline of how states in the west are doing on their clean energy goals and the clean energy jobs in each state. According to the Department of Energy, 825,305 people work in wind, solar, energy efficiency, storage and smart grid technology in the West. 75,086 work in gas and 29,513 in coal:
- Alaska:
- Renewable Portfolio Standard: In the 2009-2010, the Alaska legislature enacted House Bill 306 with the goal that "the state receive 50 percent of its electrical generation from renewable energy sources by 2025." However, this bill never became law. Meanwhile, Wind supplied nearly three-fourths of Alaska's electricity in 2015
- Cities committed to 100% renewable energy: Kodiak Island
- Clean energy jobs: 4,848
- Arizona:
- Renewable Portfolio Standard: 15% by 2025.
- Clean energy jobs: 51,282
- California:
- Renewable Portfolio Standard: 50% by 2030
- Legislation on the table: 50% clean energy by 2025 and 100% clean energy by 2045.
- Cities committed to 100% renewable energy: San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Palo Alto, Del Mar. Los Angeles is mapping out a 100% clean energy future.
- Clean energy jobs: 486,041
- Colorado:
- Renewable Portfolio Standard: 30% by 2020.
- Cities committed to 100% renewable energy: Aspen,Boulder, Pueblo
- Clean energy jobs: 45,921
- Hawaii:
- Renewable Portfolio Standard: 100% by 2045
- Clean energy jobs: 10,743
- Idaho:
- In the absence of a Renewable Portfolio Standard, Idaho is building out clean energy generation. According to the Energy Information Administration, In 2015, 75% of Idaho's generation came from renewable energy resources, and Idaho was tied with West Virginia for the sixth lowest average electricity prices in the United States.
- Clean energy jobs: 10,525
- Montana:
- Renewable Portfolio Standard: surpassed its 15% by 2025 goal in 2015
- Clean energy jobs: 8,649
- Nevada:
- Renewable Portfolio Standard: 25% by 2025.
- Legislation on the table: Bill introduced by Assemblyman Chris Brooks to increase RPS to 80% by 2040
- Clean energy jobs: 20.752
- New Mexico:
- Renewable Portfolio Standard: 20% by 2020.
- Cities committed to 100% renewable energy: Taos
- Clean energy jobs: 9,441
- Oregon:
- Renewable Portfolio Standard: 50% by 2040
- Clean energy jobs: 52,140
- Utah:
- Renewable Portfolio Standard: 20% by 2025, optional goal
- Cities committed to 100% renewable energy: Salt Lake City, Park City, Moab
- Clean energy jobs: 37,987
- Washington:
- Renewable Portfolio Standard: Initiative 937, passed in 2006, set a goal of 15% renewable energy by 2020. That goal was met in 2014.
- Clean energy jobs: 74,387
- Wyoming:
- In the absence of a Renewable Portfolio Standard, Wyoming is building out clean energy generation. In 2015, clean energy represented 11% of its energy production.
- Clean energy jobs: 7,864
Background on Clean Power Plan
The Clean Power Plan would speed this transition and protect public health by curbing dangerous carbon pollution and reducing other toxic pollutants like mercury, nitrous oxide, and sulfur dioxide. The EPA has estimated that, by 2030, the Clean Power Plan would prevent 150,000 asthma attacks and up to 6,600 premature deaths annually, providing between $55 billion to $93 billion of benefits per year. These climate and health benefits far outweigh the estimated annual costs of the plan, which are only $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion in 2030.
EPA also projects that in 2030 when the plan is fully implemented, electricity bills would be roughly 8 percent lower than they would been without the actions in state plans. That would save Americans about $8 on an average monthly residential electricity bill.
The Sierra Club is the most enduring and influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States. We amplify the power of our 3.8 million members and supporters to defend everyone's right to a healthy world.
(415) 977-5500LATEST NEWS
Supreme Court That 'Let Trump Off the Hook' Allows Insurrection Ban on State Official
"Crucially, this decision reinforces that every decision-making body that has substantively considered the issue has found that January 6th was an insurrection," said the head of one watchdog group.
Mar 18, 2024
Just two weeks after handing former U.S. President Donald Trump a crucial win, the country's Supreme Court on Monday turned down an appeal from the only public official removed from office for participating in the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
The high court—which has a right-wing supermajority that includes three Trump appointees and Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife backed the Republican's efforts to overturn his 2020 loss—declined to take the case of Couy Griffin, who was booted off the Otero County Commission by a New Mexico court in 2022, after he was convicted of breaching and occupying Capitol grounds.
In response to a lawsuit brought by the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) on behalf of New Mexico residents, the state's 1st Judicial District Court removed Griffin from his local post under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars anyone who has taken an oath to the U.S. Constitution and then engaged in insurrection from holding office.
"By refusing to take up this appeal, the Supreme Court keeps in place the finding that January 6th was an insurrection."
CREW also represented Colorado Republican and Independent voters who recently sought to get Trump—facing off against Democratic President Joe Biden in this year's presidential election—off their state's primary ballot, one of several 14th Amendment battles that emerged before the ongoing primaries. In Trump's case, the court determined that states can't ban federal candidates from ballots.
"We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office," reads the majority opinion in Trump v. Anderson. "But states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency."
Because of that first line, legal experts stressed, the Griffin denial is actually consistent with the justices' ruling in the Trump case, despite the apparent discrepancy. CREW said Monday that the high court "let Trump off the hook" but the group also welcomed the Griffin decision.
"By refusing to take up this appeal, the Supreme Court keeps in place the finding that January 6th was an insurrection, and ensures that states can still apply the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause to state officials," said CREW president Noah Bookbinder.
"Crucially, this decision reinforces that every decision-making body that has substantively considered the issue has found that January 6th was an insurrection, and Donald Trump engaged in that insurrection," he added. "Now it is up to the states to fulfill their duty under Section 3 to remove from office anyone who broke their oath by participating in the January 6th insurrection."
Griffin said on social media Monday that "I just found out (through the media) that my appeal to the SCOTUS has been denied. Very disappointed. I don't even know what to say. But I thank you for your prayers and for standing with me through this."
Less than an hour later, the Cowboys for Trump co-founder publicly pitched himself as a potential running mate for the presumptive GOP nominee, saying: "Has Donald Trump picked a vice president yet? Would be such an honor to only be considered."
The twice-impeached former president has not yet announced a VP. While Trump has defeated the 14th Amendment effort for now—though a November win could spark another court fight—he faces four ongoing criminal cases, two of which stem from his attempt to overturn the 2020 results. It's not clear if any of those cases will go to trial before the next presidential election.
In a bid to get his federal election interference case—and possibly others—dismissed, Trump is trying to claim presidential immunity. After declining to weigh in early on, the Supreme Court agreed to hear immunity arguments on April 25.
Trump's other election interference case in Fulton County, Georgia has been plagued by controversy involving the district attorney's love life. He also faces a federal case involving classified documents and a New York state case related to hush money.
Also in New York state, Trump, his real estate company, his adult sons, and a former executive were hit with major fines in a civil fraud case last month. His attorneys said in a Monday filing that obtaining a bond for the $464 million judgment—which includes what is owed by Don Jr. and Eric Trump—while he appeals is a "practical impossibility," meaning asset seizure is possible.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Major Asset Seizure Likely as Trump Can't Afford Bond for NY Fraud Case
"Trump owes this money because he fraudulently misrepresented the value of his assets—and now (oops) apparently no one will accept those assets as collateral."
Mar 18, 2024
Less than a month after New York Attorney General Letitia James said she would be willing to seize former Republican President Donald Trump's assets if he is unable to pay the $464 million required by last month's judgment in his civil fraud case, Trump's lawyers disclosed in court filings Monday that he had failed to secure a bond for the amount.
In the nearly 5,000-page filing, lawyers for Trump said it has proven a "practical impossibility" for Trump to secure a bond from any financial institutions in the state, as "about 30 surety companies" have refused to accept assets including real estate as collateral and have demanded cash and other liquid assets instead.
To get the institutions to agree to cover that $464 million judgment if Trump loses his appeal and fails to pay the state, he would have to pledge more than $550 million as collateral—"a sum he simply does not have," reportedThe New York Times, despite his frequent boasting of his wealth and business prowess.
Trump himself was ordered to pay $454 million; the remainder was demanded from his sons, Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump.
A Times analysis found earlier this month that Trump has only about $350 million in cash.
James has given Trump until March 25 to pay the judgment, which was announced last month as New York State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron found the former president and his real estate empire, the Trump Organization, had committed "repeated and persistent fraud," including by falsifying financial statements by as much as $2.2 billion.
"It wouldn't surprise me if lenders are refusing real estate as collateral due to his lying about their value," said attorney Blake Allen.
The attorney general said last month that regardless of Trump's difficulty in securing the bond, her office is "prepared to make sure that the judgment is paid to New Yorkers" and suggested she would pursue asset seizure.
"I look at 40 Wall Street each and every day," James toldABC News, referring to one of Trump's buildings in New York's Financial District.
James hasn't publicly stated what other Trump assets she would potentially seize from the presumptive Republican presidential candidate.
On Monday, Trump asked an appeals court to issue a stay on the judgment, pausing enforcement while his appeal proceeds, or to accept just $100 million.
In addition to potentially levying and selling Trump's assets, Syracuse University law professor Gregory Germain toldThe Associated Press last month, James' office could "lien his real property, and garnish anyone who owes him money."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bernie Sanders Says US Must 'Fundamentally Rethink' Its Foreign Policy
"In this pivotal moment in human history, the United States must lead a new global movement based on human solidarity and the needs of struggling people."
Mar 18, 2024
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday called for a "revolution in American foreign policy" that replaces "greed, militarism, and hypocrisy" with "solidarity, diplomacy, and human rights."
In a lengthy piece published in Foreign Affairs, Sanders (I-Vt.) asserted that "it is long past time to fundamentally reorient American foreign policy," a shift that starts with "acknowledging the failures of the post–World War II bipartisan consensus and charting a new vision that centers human rights, multilateralism, and global solidarity."
"If the goal of foreign policy is to help create a peaceful and prosperous world, the foreign policy establishment needs to fundamentally rethink its assumptions," the democratic socialist senator wrote. "Spending trillions of dollars on endless wars and defense contracts is not going to address the existential threat of climate change or the likelihood of future pandemics. It is not going to feed hungry children, reduce hatred, educate the illiterate, or cure diseases. It is not going to help create a shared global community and diminish the likelihood of war."
"In this pivotal moment in human history, the United States must lead a new global movement based on human solidarity and the needs of struggling people," Sanders argued. "This movement must have the courage to take on the greed of the international oligarchy, in which a few thousand billionaires exercise enormous economic and political power."
Sanders' article examines U.S. foreign policy since World War II, underscoring commonalities between the many wars and acts of aggression perpetrated by Washington over the decades.
"Dating back to the Cold War, politicians in both major parties have used fear and outright lies to entangle the United States in disastrous and unwinnable foreign military conflicts," the senator wrote, noting the U.S.-led war in Southeast Asia in which as many as 3 million Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians and more than 58,000 American troops were killed.
Sanders also highlighted the U.S. record of perpetrating or backing coups in Iran, Guatemala, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Chile, and other countries, "often in support of authoritarian regimes that brutally repressed their own people and exacerbated corruption, violence, and poverty."
"Washington is still dealing with the fallout from such meddling today, confronting deep suspicion and hostility in many of these countries, which complicates U.S. foreign policy and undermines American interests," he wrote.
Sanders then moved on to the 21st century, when the George W. Bush administration responded to the 9/11 attacks by committing "nearly 2 million U.S. troops and over $8 trillion to a 'Global War on Terror' and catastrophic wars in Afghanistan and Iraq"—the latter "built on an outright lie."
The senator continued:
The Iraq War was not an aberration. In the name of the Global War on Terror, the United States carried out torture, illegal detention, and "extraordinary renditions," snatching suspects around the world and holding them for long periods at the Guantánamo Bay prison in Cuba and CIA "black sites" around the world. The U.S. government implemented the Patriot Act, which resulted in mass surveillance domestically and internationally. The two decades of fighting in Afghanistan left thousands of U.S. troops dead or wounded and caused many hundreds of thousands of Afghan civilian casualties. Today, despite all that suffering and expenditure, the Taliban is back in power.
"I wish I could say that the foreign policy establishment in Washington learned its lesson after the failures of the Cold War and the Global War on Terror," Sanders wrote. "But, with a few notable exceptions, it has not."
"In the past decade alone, the United States has been involved in military operations in Afghanistan, Cameroon, Egypt, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen," he noted. "The U.S. military maintains around 750 military bases in 80 countries and is increasing its presence abroad as Washington ramps up tensions with Beijing. Meanwhile, the United States is supplying [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's Israel with billions of dollars in military funding while he annihilates Gaza."
"U.S. policy on China is another illustration of failed foreign policy groupthink, which frames the U.S.-Chinese relationship as a zero-sum struggle," Sanders said. "For many in Washington, China is the new foreign policy bogeyman—an existential threat that justifies higher and higher Pentagon budgets."
Revisiting a major theme from his two Democratic presidential runs, Sanders contended that "economic policy is foreign policy."
"As long as wealthy corporations and billionaires have a stranglehold on our economic and political systems, foreign policy decisions will be guided by their material interests, not those of the vast majority of the world’s population," he said. "That is why the United States must address the moral and economic outrage of unprecedented income and wealth inequality, in which the richest 1% of the planet owns more wealth than the bottom 99%—an inequality that allows some people to own dozens of homes, private airplanes, and even entire islands, while millions of children go hungry or die of easily prevented diseases."
"The benefits of making this shift in foreign policy would far outweigh the costs," Sanders wrote. "The United States must recognize that our greatest strength as a nation comes not from our wealth or our military might but from our values of freedom and democracy."
"The biggest challenges of our times, from climate change to global pandemics, will require cooperation, solidarity, and collective action," he added, "not militarism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular