Latest news with #then-Democratic
a day ago
- Politics
North Carolina lawmakers finalize bill that would scrap 2030 carbon reduction goal
RALEIGH, N.C. -- North Carolina legislators finalized a bill Thursday that would eliminate an interim greenhouse gas reduction mandate set in a landmark 2021 law, while still directing regulators to aim to cancel out power plant carbon emissions in the state within the next 25 years. With some bipartisan support, the state Senate voted to accept the House version that would repeal the 2021 law's requirement that electric regulators take 'all reasonable steps to achieve' reducing carbon dioxide output 70% from 2005 levels by 2030. The law's directive to take similar steps to meet a carbon neutrality standard by 2050 would remain in place. The bill's Republican supporters pushing the new measure say getting rid of the interim goal benefits ratepayers asked to pay for future electric-production construction and is more efficient for Duke Energy, the state's dominant electric utility. The bill now goes to Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, who can veto the measure, sign it or let it become law without his signature. Stein previously expressed concerns about the Senate version of the measure, worried that it could hurt electricity users and threaten the state's clean-energy economy. His office didn't immediately provide comment after Thursday's vote. With over a dozen House and Senate Democrats voting for the final version, the chances that any Stein veto could be overridden are higher. Republicans in charge of the General Assembly are only one House seat shy of a veto-proof majority. The bill also contains language that would help Duke Energy seek higher electric rates to cover financing costs to build nuclear or gas-powered plants incrementally, rather than wait until the project's end. The 2021 greenhouse gas law marked a rare agreement on environmental issues by then-Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper and Republican lawmakers. At least 17 other states — most controlled by Democrats — have laws setting similar net-zero power plant emissions or 100% renewable energy targets, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. North Carolina and Virginia are the only ones from the Southeast. The legislation came about as President Donald Trump's administration has proposed rolling back federal environmental and climate change policies, which critics say could boost pollution and threaten human health. Republicans are promoting them as ways to reduce the cost of living and boost the economy. The state Utilities Commission, which regulates rates and services for public utilities, already has pushed back the 2030 deadline — as the 2021 law allows — by at least four years. The panel acknowledged last year it was 'no longer reasonable or executable' for Duke Energy to meet the reduction standard by 2030. Bill supporters say to meet the goal would require expensive types of alternate energy immediately. If the interim standard can be bypassed, GOP bill authors say, Duke Energy can assemble less expensive power sources now and moderate electricity rate increases necessary to reach the 2050 standard. 'Our residents shouldn't be saddled with higher power bills to satisfy arbitrary targets,' Republican Senate leader Phil Berger said in a news release after the vote. Citing an analysis performed by a state agency that represents consumers before the commission, GOP lawmakers say removing the interim goal would reduce by at least $13 billion what Duke Energy would have to spend — and pass on to customers — in the next 25 years. Bill opponents question the savings figure given uncertainty in plant fuel prices, energy demand and construction costs. They say the interim goal still holds an aspirational purpose and was something that Duke Energy had agreed in 2021 to meet. Provisions in the measure related to recouping plant construction expenses over time would reduce accumulated borrowing interest. Environmental groups argue the financing option would benefit Duke Energy's bottom line on expensive projects even if they're never completed, and the bill broadly would prevent cleaner energy sources from coming online sooner. They also contend another bill section would shift costs to residential customers. 'This bill is bad for all North Carolinians, whether they're Duke Energy customers or simply people who want to breathe clean air,' North Carolina Sierra Club director Chris Herndon said after the vote while urging Stein to veto the measure. Bill support came from the North Carolina Chamber and a manufacturers' group, in addition to Duke Energy. 'We appreciate bipartisan efforts by policymakers to keep costs as low as possible for customers and enable the always-on energy resources our communities need,' the company said this week.
San Francisco Chronicle
a day ago
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
North Carolina lawmakers finalize bill that would scrap 2030 carbon reduction goal
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina legislators finalized a bill Thursday that would eliminate an interim greenhouse gas reduction mandate set in a landmark 2021 law, while still directing regulators to aim to cancel out power plant carbon emissions in the state within the next 25 years. With some bipartisan support, the state Senate voted to accept the House version that would repeal the 2021 law's requirement that electric regulators take 'all reasonable steps to achieve' reducing carbon dioxide output 70% from 2005 levels by 2030. The law's directive to take similar steps to meet a carbon neutrality standard by 2050 would remain in place. The bill's Republican supporters pushing the new measure say getting rid of the interim goal benefits ratepayers asked to pay for future electric-production construction and is more efficient for Duke Energy, the state's dominant electric utility. The bill now goes to Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, who can veto the measure, sign it or let it become law without his signature. Stein previously expressed concerns about the Senate version of the measure, worried that it could hurt electricity users and threaten the state's clean-energy economy. His office didn't immediately provide comment after Thursday's vote. With over a dozen House and Senate Democrats voting for the final version, the chances that any Stein veto could be overridden are higher. Republicans in charge of the General Assembly are only one House seat shy of a veto-proof majority. The bill also contains language that would help Duke Energy seek higher electric rates to cover financing costs to build nuclear or gas-powered plants incrementally, rather than wait until the project's end. The 2021 greenhouse gas law marked a rare agreement on environmental issues by then-Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper and Republican lawmakers. At least 17 other states — most controlled by Democrats — have laws setting similar net-zero power plant emissions or 100% renewable energy targets, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. North Carolina and Virginia are the only ones from the Southeast. The legislation came about as President Donald Trump's administration has proposed rolling back federal environmental and climate change policies, which critics say could boost pollution and threaten human health. Republicans are promoting them as ways to reduce the cost of living and boost the economy. The state Utilities Commission, which regulates rates and services for public utilities, already has pushed back the 2030 deadline — as the 2021 law allows — by at least four years. The panel acknowledged last year it was 'no longer reasonable or executable' for Duke Energy to meet the reduction standard by 2030. Bill supporters say to meet the goal would require expensive types of alternate energy immediately. If the interim standard can be bypassed, GOP bill authors say, Duke Energy can assemble less expensive power sources now and moderate electricity rate increases necessary to reach the 2050 standard. Citing an analysis performed by a state agency that represents consumers before the commission, GOP lawmakers say removing the interim goal would reduce by at least $13 billion what Duke Energy would have to spend — and pass on to customers — in the next 25 years. Bill opponents question the savings figure given uncertainty in plant fuel prices, energy demand and construction costs, and say the interim goal still holds an aspirational purpose to while Duke Energy agreed in 2021 to meet. Provisions in the measure related to recouping plant construction expenses over time would reduce accumulated borrowing interest. Environmental groups argue the financing option would benefit Duke Energy financially on expensive projects even if they're never completed, and the bill broadly would prevent cleaner energy sources from coming online sooner. 'This bill is bad for all North Carolinians, whether they're Duke Energy customers or simply people who want to breathe clean air,' North Carolina Sierra Club director Chris Herndon said after the vote while urging Stein to veto the measure. Bill support came from the North Carolina Chamber and a manufacturers' group, in addition to Duke Energy.
Winnipeg Free Press
a day ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
North Carolina lawmakers finalize bill that would scrap 2030 carbon reduction goal
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina legislators finalized a bill Thursday that would eliminate an interim greenhouse gas reduction mandate set in a landmark 2021 law, while still directing regulators to aim to cancel out power plant carbon emissions in the state within the next 25 years. With some bipartisan support, the state Senate voted to accept the House version that would repeal the 2021 law's requirement that electric regulators take 'all reasonable steps to achieve' reducing carbon dioxide output 70% from 2005 levels by 2030. The law's directive to take similar steps to meet a carbon neutrality standard by 2050 would remain in place. The bill's Republican supporters pushing the new measure say getting rid of the interim goal benefits ratepayers asked to pay for future electric-production construction and is more efficient for Duke Energy, the state's dominant electric utility. The bill now goes to Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, who can veto the measure, sign it or let it become law without his signature. Stein previously expressed concerns about the Senate version of the measure, worried that it could hurt electricity users and threaten the state's clean-energy economy. His office didn't immediately provide comment after Thursday's vote. With over a dozen House and Senate Democrats voting for the final version, the chances that any Stein veto could be overridden are higher. Republicans in charge of the General Assembly are only one House seat shy of a veto-proof majority. The bill also contains language that would help Duke Energy seek higher electric rates to cover financing costs to build nuclear or gas-powered plants incrementally, rather than wait until the project's end. The 2021 greenhouse gas law marked a rare agreement on environmental issues by then-Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper and Republican lawmakers. At least 17 other states — most controlled by Democrats — have laws setting similar net-zero power plant emissions or 100% renewable energy targets, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. North Carolina and Virginia are the only ones from the Southeast. The legislation came about as President Donald Trump's administration has proposed rolling back federal environmental and climate change policies, which critics say could boost pollution and threaten human health. Republicans are promoting them as ways to reduce the cost of living and boost the economy. The state Utilities Commission, which regulates rates and services for public utilities, already has pushed back the 2030 deadline — as the 2021 law allows — by at least four years. The panel acknowledged last year it was 'no longer reasonable or executable' for Duke Energy to meet the reduction standard by 2030. Bill supporters say to meet the goal would require expensive types of alternate energy immediately. If the interim standard can be bypassed, GOP bill authors say, Duke Energy can assemble less expensive power sources now and moderate electricity rate increases necessary to reach the 2050 standard. Citing an analysis performed by a state agency that represents consumers before the commission, GOP lawmakers say removing the interim goal would reduce by at least $13 billion what Duke Energy would have to spend — and pass on to customers — in the next 25 years. Bill opponents question the savings figure given uncertainty in plant fuel prices, energy demand and construction costs, and say the interim goal still holds an aspirational purpose to while Duke Energy agreed in 2021 to meet. Wednesdays Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture. Provisions in the measure related to recouping plant construction expenses over time would reduce accumulated borrowing interest. Environmental groups argue the financing option would benefit Duke Energy financially on expensive projects even if they're never completed, and the bill broadly would prevent cleaner energy sources from coming online sooner. 'This bill is bad for all North Carolinians, whether they're Duke Energy customers or simply people who want to breathe clean air,' North Carolina Sierra Club director Chris Herndon said after the vote while urging Stein to veto the measure. Bill support came from the North Carolina Chamber and a manufacturers' group, in addition to Duke Energy. 'We appreciate bipartisan efforts by policymakers to keep costs as low as possible for customers and enable the always-on energy resources our communities need,' the company said this week.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
US Senate confirms Republican congressional aide to serve on FCC
By David Shepardson WASHINGTON: The U.S. Senate voted on Tuesday to confirm Republican Senate aide Olivia Trusty to serve on the Federal Communications Commission , days after two members of the telecommunications regulator resigned. Democratic FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks and Republican Nathan Simington stepped down on June 6. Trusty was confirmed to serve a term that lasts through June 30. A second vote is planned Wednesday for Trusty to serve a five-year term starting on July 1. The vote comes as President Donald Trump has pressured Republican FCC Chair Brendan Carr to strip CBS, which is owned by Paramount Global, of its broadcast licenses. Trump sued CBS News seeking $20 billion over its editing of a "60 Minutes" interview in October 2024 with then-Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. CBS has denied that there was anything unusual in its editing of the Harris interview. Carr rejected a bid from CBS to dismiss the complaint, alleging the Harris interview violated the FCC's "news distortion" rules. CBS is seeking FCC approval for an $8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media. Carr has given no time frame for when the FCC might act on the merger. Trump has fired Democratic commissioners on other independent agencies including the Federal Trade Commission. Senator Maria Cantwell, the top Democrat on the committee overseeing the FCC, opposed Trusty's nomination. "Given President Trump's alarming record of seeking to illegally fire Democrats on independent commissions like the FCC, I remain seriously concerned that this administration will try to illegally terminate Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez," Cantwell said. In January, Carr reinstated complaints about the "60 Minutes" interview with Harris, as well as complaints about how Walt Disney's ABC News moderated the pre-election TV debate between then-President Joe Biden and Trump. The FCC also reinstated complaints against Comcast's NBC for allowing Harris to appear on "Saturday Night Live" shortly before the election. Carr also pressured Verizon to roll back its diversity, equity and inclusion program before the FCC agreed to approve its $20 billion deal to acquire fiber-optic internet provider Frontier Communications.
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Democrats ignore Nevada's upside down, regressive, and unfair tax structure. Again.
The Nevada Legislature Building underwent a face lift prior to this year's session, but the Democratic legislative leadership's economic agenda, inasmuch as there is one, remained the same as it ever was. (Photo: Richard Bednarski/Nevada Current) Democrats nationwide are awash in conflicting opinions about how to stanch the loss of young and working class voters before the U.S. backslide into autocracy is irreversible, if it's not already. Some Democrats blame 'wokeness.' Some Democrats say the party needs to lean in on kitchen-table issues. Some think they should do nothing and just wait for Trump and Trumpism to collapse under the weight of its self-generated slagheap of corruption, lawlessness, malice, and counterproductive policies. Some Democrats, including at least half of those in Nevada's congressional delegation, seem to think the best way to inspire the electorate is to make sure every sentence they mutter includes a noun, a verb, and the word 'bipartisan.' And on and on. And then there are Nevada's Democratic state legislative leaders. They chose to meet this inflection point by yet again allowing generous public subsidies for deep-pocketed Californians to serve as the featured attraction of this year's recently concluded Nevada legislative session. Yes, ding dong, the film tax credit bill is dead. Praise be, etc. But Democratic legislative leadership — Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro and Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager — whether by design or neglect, allowed a government giveaway scheme to film corporations to become the one and only thing about the 2025 Legislature working class voters, especially young ones, most likely ever heard about. Assuming they heard about anything legislative at all. Ever since it was plopped onto the Nevada policy landscape more than a decade ago by then-Democratic state senator, now Democratic state Attorney General Aaron Ford, the film tax credit has always been a predominantly Democratic production. One of the chief legislative sponsors of this year's version was state Sen. Daniele Monroe-Mareno, who also currently serves as chair of the state Democratic Party. To reiterate, a critical mass of voters nationwide, including voters on which Democrats once relied, are marinading in nihilism and cynicism, and evidently don't grasp the goals, agenda, priorities — the point — of the Democratic Party, or just cold stopped caring. Against that backdrop, Democrats in Nevada put on a big show about a scheme to use nearly $2 billion of public money to enrich two of California's largest film corporations and one of the nation's most prominent corporate developers of master-planned communities. Weird. In Nevada, Democrats over the last ten years have been very successful at doing what(ever) it takes to win and maintain majorities in both houses of the state Legislature, an endeavor which, luckily for them, had more to do with voter registration numbers and redistricting power than policy positions. As a result, mean-spirited reactionary policies that are racist, poverty-shaming, misogynistic, anti-LGBTQ, anti-democracy, anti-immigrant, and anti-rights — policies designed first and foremost to feed the MAGAfolk — are (mostly) not enacted here. Keeping such pernicious policies (mostly) at bay in Nevada is no small consideration. Winning enough elections to block Republicans from enacting that stuff is arguably the crowning state-level achievement of contemporary Nevada Democrats. But when it comes to pro-active progress, specifically on economic policy, the Nevada Democratic legislative agenda, inasmuch as there is one, is tired (they're 'for' education), and worse than useless (inveterate footsie-playing with industries, mischaracterizing public giveaways to private corporations as 'economic development'). In the meantime, with only the occasional exception, they can rarely be bothered to acknowledge, let alone confront, the fact that the state has one of the country's most upside-down tax structures, in which the smaller your income, the higher the percentage of it you pay in taxes. Giving working families a break by lowering the state's aggressively high sales tax rate would leave a budget hole that would have to be filled by generating revenue elsewhere (evergreen suggestion: raising Nevada's lowest-in-the-nation gaming tax). Under Nevada's constitution, raising or creating taxes requires a two-thirds vote of both legislative houses, majorities Democrats have not had and would probably be afraid to use if they did. In Washington state, which is bluer than Nevada but whose residents have also suffered under a regressive tax structure, it took 15 years of advocacy from organizations and politicians to finally enact a tax on the ultra-wealthy (another good suggestion). Reforming Nevada's tax structure would likewise be a long process. That's assuming Democrats and, for that matter, their most powerful progressive organizational allies, would do something they so far haven't: get started on a public education campaign advocating tax fairness that would also enable the state to be a little less cheap and a little more responsible when it comes to funding public services, programs, and projects. If only the state's Democratic legislative brain trust had spent as much time advocating for an equitable tax system as they've spent advocating and/or rubber-stamping government handouts to corporations and billionaires. The first quarter of the 21st century has been economically harder on Nevada than any other state. It's perhaps a testament to the state Democratic Party's long-hailed organizational oomph that Nevada didn't go for Trump in 2016 and 2020, and only finally fell to Trump last year. It remains to be seen if and how Democrats nationally can generate enough trust and optimism to pull the country out of its degenerative spiral. If they do, there might be some Nevadans, including some state legislators, who will make a meaningful contribution to the effort. But if prior performance is any indication of future results, it's hard to imagine Nevada legislative and party leadership having much of a role in that. At least not in a good way. A version of this column originally appeared in the Daily Current newsletter, which is free and which you can subscribe to here.
