

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Peter Hart, phart@fwwatch.org, 732-839-0871
As the country makes little progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, new research calls into question the supposed climate benefits of the switch from coal to fracked gas-fired power generation. That finding comes in Fracking's Bridge to Climate Chaos: Exposing the Fossil Fuel Industry's Deadly Spin, a new report from the national advocacy group Food & Water Watch.
Over recent years, reductions in emissions from the power sector have been touted as one of the few bright spots in the drive to decarbonize society. But a more comprehensive accounting of the carbon dioxide and methane emissions linked to the production, distribution and combustion of coal and gas shows that little if any reduction in emissions has been achieved.
"This new research makes one thing absolutely clear: Unless we ban fracking, these terrifying climate trends will intensify," said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. "This report underscores the toll that fracking has taken on clean air, clean water and a safe climate. And the industry is looking to expand its footprint by exporting gas across the world, which only deepens the risks here and abroad. Fracked gas is not a bridge to a cleaner future--it is a foolish perpetuation of the very dangerous fossil fuel status quo."
Meanwhile, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Darren Soto (D-FL) announced late last week the introduction of the Fracking Ban Act, legislation that would ban fracking and the infrastructure enabling it everywhere in America.
In response to the report, Senator Bernie Sanders said: "Fracking is a danger to our water supply. It's a danger to the air we breathe, it has resulted in more earthquakes, and it's highly explosive. To top it all off, it's contributing to climate change. This should be a no-brainer. If we are serious about clean air and drinking water, if we are serious about combating climate change, the only safe and sane way to move forward is to ban fracking nationwide."
The new research shows that over the past decade, the combined emissions from coal and gas power plants declined only 10.4 percent--far less than the reductions claimed by other researchers and the gas industry. Moreover, if emissions continued to decline at this pace, greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector would not reach zero until 2100.
The new Food & Water Watch research is based on data from the Energy Information Administration, an academic emissions inventory and a recent Cornell University study. This model evaluates the lifecycle emissions of electricity generation, including methane emissions from coal and natural gas production, processing, transportation and end use. Largely as a result of the fracking boom, the research finds that methane emissions from gas produced for power plants have an even greater climate impact than the CO2 emitted at power plants.
Even if every coal plant was decommissioned by 2030 and replaced by gas-powered electricity, greenhouse gas emissions would still continue to rise. And if natural gas remains the dominant energy source through 2050, annual greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector will be higher in the coming decades than they are today.
The report also makes clear that focusing on the supposed benefits of relying on gas for power generation obscures other problems. While the industry touts the replacement of coal-fired power with gas, only about one-third of the gas consumption goes to generating electricity. Narrowing the focus to the power sector ignores the substantial climate consequences of the remaining 65 percent of natural gas consumption, which includes plastics production and providing heat in buildings.
The growing role of gas in the climate crisis remains a front-and-center concern. Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide in the short term. Methane is considered responsible for about one-third of the total warming since the industrial revolution, and atmospheric methane levels have been rising since 2007.
The report also documents the many ways that methane can leak at every stage of the gas system, a serious emissions problem that is likely grossly undercounted and cannot be regulated. And it points out that the growing plans to export fracked gas by building massive new LNG terminals--a move that is vital to rescuing the financially flailing fracking industry--will also drive up methane emissions.
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500"Maryland customers have neither caused the need for these billions in new transmission projects, nor will they meaningfully benefit from them," said Maryland People’s Counsel David S. Lapp.
A top state utilities regulator is calling foul on an effort to shift the power cost of out-of-state artificial intelligence data centers onto Maryland residents.
Maryland's Office of People's Counsel on Thursday filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) against electric grid operator PJM Interconnection objecting to plans that it said would force residents in the state to pay $1.6 billion in data center-driven transmission costs over the next decade.
The complaint states that the transmission cost allocation methodology PJM is using "broadly socializes" the cost of increased power demands that is being driven by AI data centers.
"That result is unjust and unreasonable and violates the cost causation principles that have long governed transmission cost allocation and that this commission has repeatedly affirmed," the complaint says. "PJM’s tariff imposes these costs on Maryland electric customers even though Maryland customers do not meaningfully cause nor benefit from those investments."
The Office of People's Counsel pointed to the massive number of data centers built in neighboring Virginia as a primary culprit for added strain on the electric grid.
"Amidst national data center growth, Virginia stands as the epicenter," the complaint says. "Virginia is the largest data center market in the world... As of December 2024, data centers represented 3.6 GW of demand... reflecting, since 2013, a 660% increase in megawatt-hour consumption."
This explosive growth in energy demand is only expected to intensify over the next several years, the complaint continues, noting that "PJM projects 32 GW of peak load growth across its territory by 2030, of which approximately 30 GW is attributable to data centers."
As a remedy, the complaint asks FERC to "require PJM to take immediate action to assign data center-driven transmission costs to the PJM zones where the data center customers are located" instead of shifting the cost to Marylanders.
Commenting on his office's complaint, Maryland People’s Counsel David S. Lapp said that the attempt to saddle Maryland consumers with a $1.6 billion bill for facilities outside the state's borders shows "PJM’s cost allocation rules are broken."
"Maryland customers have neither caused the need for these billions in new transmission projects," Lapp added, "nor will they meaningfully benefit from them."
Data centers have become political lightning rods in recent months, as residents from across the country object to their mass resource consumption, which is leading to a major spike in utilities bills, as well as the noise pollution they generate.
As CNBC reported earlier this year, PJM currently projects that it will be a 6 GW short of its reliability requirements in 2027 thanks to the added demand from data centers.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) earlier this year introduced a bill that would impose a nationwide moratorium on AI data center construction “until strong national safeguards are in place to protect workers, consumers, and communities, defend privacy and civil rights, and ensure these technologies do not harm our environment.”
"Electricity costs are slamming Americans as a result of a not-so-covert Trump plan to stall or block inexpensive clean energy," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.
As oil prices soar, driving up gas and electric bills and straining Americans' wallets, the Trump administration is "extrajudicially blocking" all new wind energy projects in the United States through the US Department of Defense, according to recent reports.
The Financial Times reported over the weekend that as part of the president's "crusade against renewable energy," the department had stalled approvals for about 165 onshore wind projects on private lands—including ones awaiting final sign-off, others in the midst of negotiations, and some that would not typically need oversight from the department at all, according to the American Clean Power Association (ACP).
The Associated Press then reported on Thursday that the number of blocked projects was as high as 250 and that they spanned more than 30 states.
In total, the projects could produce about 30 gigawatts of energy, enough to power 15 million American homes, according to FT.
Trump, who has called wind power the "worst form of energy" and said his "goal is to not let any windmill be built” in the US, has tried many methods to kill the industry, all of which have been struck down in court.
"His Day 1 executive order against the wind industry was found unconstitutional. Each of his stop-work orders trying to shut down wind farms was overruled. Numerous moves by his Interior Department were ruled illegal," explained Heatmap senior reporter Jael Holzman.
But she said that even amid these failures, "renewable energy industry insiders have been quietly skittish about a potential secret weapon: the Federal Aviation Administration" (FAA).
Structures over 200 feet must be approved by the FAA before construction, which involves an assessment by the Defense Department.
Holzman wrote that according to industry insiders, including those at the ACP, "the issues started last summer but were limited in scale, primarily impacting projects that may have required some sort of deal to mitigate potential impacts on radar or other military functions."
But over the past few weeks, Holzman said ACP told her that "this once-routine process has fully deteriorated, and companies are operating with the understanding FAA approvals are on pause because the Department of Defense... refuses to sign off on anything."
The group said the refusals have been indiscriminate and that they have affected projects where there are "no obvious impacts to military operations."
Tony Irish, a former career attorney for the Department of the Interior who served during Trump's first term, told Heatmap that amid continued legal failures, the administration is trying to "find ways to avoid courts altogether" and acting upon "a unilateral desire to achieve an end regardless of the legality of it, just using brute force.”
The administration's attempt to strangle the wind industry comes amid ongoing but fragile negotiations between Democrats and Republicans in Congress over permitting reforms that the GOP hopes will speed up approval of fossil fuel projects.
Democrats previously shut down talks in response to the Trump administration halting construction of several wind projects, but said they'd be open to a compromise if the administration agreed to treat renewables fairly.
Last month, Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), a leader of the negotiations on the Democratic side, told Interior Secretary Doug Burgum that if any deal is to be reached, the Trump administration must create confidence that it will not "slow walk" wind and solar permits.
Heinrich told Heatmap on Thursday that the administration's apparent action to halt wind approvals entirely "undercuts their credibility and bipartisan permitting reform.”
Heatmap correspondent Matthew Zeitlin remarked: "At no point did Congress say, 'We want to make new wind power illegal.' If someone presented such a bill, it would lose overwhelmingly. But the president is pulling every possible administrative lever he has to functionally ban it."
The Pentagon acknowledged to Heatmap that it is "actively" reviewing land-based wind projects. However, the FAA declined to comment on whether it was effectively banning new wind projects. White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said the Pentagon's statement "does not confirm" that a de facto ban is in place.
Efforts to crush clean energy loom especially large amid the ongoing fuel crisis caused by Trump's war in Iran. In addition to causing gas prices to spike to about $4.50/gallon on average, wholesale electricity prices surged by 8.5% in March after the war was launched, according to The Associated Press.
Countries with large amounts of renewable energy production have proven more capable of avoiding massive spikes in energy costs, while the US has seen some of the worst in the world despite Trump's claims that "energy independence" is saving the day.
Wind energy already accounts for about 10% of America's electricity use and is often cheaper to produce in the long run than fossil fuels, not to mention better for the climate.
As high energy prices and inflation have driven the president's approval rating to its lowest level ever, Jordan Weissmann, the editorial director at the Progressive Policy Project, marveled that "Trump is actively raising voters' electric bills because he hates wind turbines."
"This isn’t energy dominance," agreed Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.). "This is sacrificing American jobs, weakening the American grid, and forcing American families to pay even higher prices."
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said that "electricity costs are slamming Americans, as a result of a not-so-covert Trump plan to stall or block inexpensive clean energy. Every blocked kilowatt of clean energy comes instead from fossil fuel. Customers' rates go way up, and all that extra cost families pay goes to (cue drumroll) Trump's corrupt fossil fuel donors. It's on purpose."
The Sunrise Movement argued that Trump's war on wind energy is quite consistent with his method of governing, which has often explicitly involved taking actions meant to maximize the profits of the fossil fuel interests that have backed him and his political movement.
"Trump's energy policy has one priority: help his Big Oil donors make a final cash grab before their industry goes extinct," the group said. "If energy prices spike and the climate crisis worsens... well, that's working people's price to pay."
One advocate said the Texas Republican laid bare the "two-pronged strategy to push Social Security privatization: Creating the Trump accounts with one hand and gutting the Social Security Administration with the other."
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz said during a public conference this week that the so-called Trump Accounts established under the GOP's 2025 budget law represent a viable path toward Social Security privatization—something the Texas lawmaker described as a "dirty little secret."
During a panel discussion at the Milken Institute Global Conference in California, Cruz said that "conservatives in America, for 50 years... have been trying to do Social Security personal accounts." Cruz, who lamented the failure of Bush-era efforts to privatize Social Security, described such personal accounts as vehicles into which the payroll taxes that finance current Social Security benefits could be diverted.
In the not-too-distant future, Cruz envisioned, "we're going to be able to go to parents and say, 'Hey, you know that Trump Account your kid has? ... Wouldn't you like to be able to keep a portion of your tax payments that you're paying already and, instead of sending it to Uncle Sam, wouldn't you like to have a Trump Account just like your kid does?'''
"My prediction is, within five years, that is going to have a really compelling constituency," the Texas Republican added.
🚨🚨🚨
Ted Cruz says the quiet part out loud…
Trump Accounts are a scheme to privatize Social Security.
HANDS OFF OUR EARNED BENEFITS! pic.twitter.com/Oo3owRF7bM
— Social Security Works ❌👑 (@SSWorks) May 8, 2026
Linda Benesch, vice president of communications at the progressive advocacy group Social Security Works, told Common Dreams that Cruz's comments laid bare the "two-pronged strategy to push Social Security privatization: Creating the Trump Accounts with one hand and gutting the Social Security Administration with the other."
Benesch pointed to the remarks of an anonymous Social Security Administration (SSA) worker, who warned in comments to The New Yorker earlier this week that privatization advocates plan to point to the decimated agency and declare, "Look how Social Security sucks."
"They’ve been trying to privatize it for decades," said the SSA worker. "Now this will give them the excuse.”
Benesch said Friday that Cruz is "giving away the other half" of the Republican scheme by promoting the eventual expansion of Trump Accounts, investment vehicles under which children born between January 1, 2025 and December 31, 2028 are eligible for $1,000 in "seed money" from the federal government. Parents of eligible children can contribute up to $5,000 per year to the accounts.
Cruz's comments are not the first time a Republican official has openly characterized Trump Accounts as a potential avenue for Social Security privatization.
"In a way, it is a backdoor for privatizing Social Security," US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said last summer. "Social Security is a defined benefit plan paid out that—to the extent that if all of a sudden these accounts grow, and you have in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for your retirement—then that's a game changer, too."
It’s been twenty years since Bush tried to do Social Security private accounts and they still haven’t realized workers’ Social Security taxes pay for *current retiree* benefits and not future benefits so you can’t do this without cutting current retiree benefits. https://t.co/eq9OnuhXVr pic.twitter.com/vguJN6pfuO
— Brendan Duke (@Brendan_Duke) May 8, 2026
Axios reported Friday that "the idea that Trump Accounts could replace or augment Social Security is something that has been talked about behind closed doors with lawmakers."
"But no one has wanted to touch that third rail, at least publicly," the outlet added, citing a person familiar with the private conversations.
Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, noted in a Friday statement that polling has found little support for privatizing Social Security, with a 2022 survey finding that just 15% of American voters back the idea.
"Turning over Americans’ hard-earned benefits to Wall Street would expose future retirees to unnecessary risk while lining the pockets of the financial elites who donate to Republicans," said Richtman. "Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and their Republican allies should realize that the people will not stand for privatization of their hard-earned benefits, and we in the advocacy community will continue to ensure that it never happens."