SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
October, 30 2017, 03:30pm EDT
Contact:
Jim Walsh, [email protected], 732-839-0871
Groups Denounce Energy Department's Sneak Attack on Solar
DOE Study Designed to Undermine Net Metering
WASHINGTON
Dozens of groups from around the country signed onto a letter that warns a research project launched by the Department of Energy (DOE) might be the first step in curtailing highly successful solar energy policies.
The letter from Food & Water Watch warns that the parameters of the study could be used to undercut net metering. The group has already generated over 20,000 comments to the DOE.
Last month, the Energy Department posted a request for information for a proposed study of solar net metering policies. Clean energy advocates point to net metering as one of the most successful tools for promoting the growth of the solar power industry, since it enables owners to sell excess power to utility companies.
But the DOE makes clear in its request that it intends to exclude analysis of the "costs and benefits of distributed solar generation" overall. The study will not include "indirect cost/benefits" of solar power--which could mean that broad societal benefits, such as reductions in greenhouse gas emissions or improved air quality, would be considered outside the scope of the Energy Department's analysis.
"The Trump administration will keep finding new ways to serve the interests of fossil fuel corporations, and we must summon the power to stop them," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "Crafting a bogus study in order to undercut net metering is simply a stealth attack on solar power. If the White House gets away with it, this will harm people's ability to choose renewable energy sources, and slow the growth of an industry where job creation is far outpacing the fossil fuel business."
Net metering policies have been targeting at the state level by fossil fuel companies and the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-backed advocacy group linked to the Koch Brothers. In several of the states where they have been successful, the expansion of solar power has stalled, costing local jobs and economic growth in the process.
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) 683-2500LATEST NEWS
Trump Tells Walmart to 'Eat' the Cost of His Tariffs
"If you think Walmart is going to eat the costs of tariffs, then you don't understand Walmart's greed and how it exploits its customers and workers to make its billions," said one observer.
May 17, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump verbally thrashed Walmart on Saturday following the retailer's announcement this week that it expects to raise prices on some goods as a result of tariffs imposed by the White House.
On his social media platform Truth Social, Trump wrote that Walmart should "STOP trying to blame Tariffs as the reason for raising prices throughout the chain."
"Between Walmart and China they should, as is said, 'EAT THE TARIFFS,' and not charge valued customers ANYTHING. I'll be watching, and so will your customers!!!" he wrote.
On Thursday, leaders at Walmart said that they will have to raise prices in response to tariffs imposed by the Trump administration even after lowered duties on Chinese imports were announced.
The Trump administration has placed 10% universal tariff on goods entering the United States and imposed higher tariffs on goods coming from China—though on Monday the two countries said they reached a deal to temporarily lower the tariffs they had imposed on one another while they try to hash out a trade deal. Imports from China will now be subject to a 30% tariff, whereas before many goods coming to the U.S. from China previously had at least a 145% tariff.
CEO Doug McMillon said that Walmart, which is known for its low prices, will do its best to keep prices low, but that "given the magnitude of the tariffs, even at the reduced levels announced this week, we aren't able to absorb all the pressure given the reality of narrow retail margins."
One observer expressed skepticism that Walmart would heed Trump's demand.
"If you think Walmart is going to eat the costs of tariffs, then you don't understand Walmart's greed and how it exploits its customers and workers to make its billions," saidMelanie D'Arrigo, the executive director of a group fighting for universal healthcare in New York State.
Economists expect the cost of tariffs, which are a form of tax applied on imports that can be used to support homegrown industries that employ American workers, to be largely passed on from businesses to American consumers.
In an analysis of the Trump administration's tariff regime as of late April, with the higher duties on Chinese goods in place, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that in 2026 the poorest Americans would see the biggest tariff-induced tax hikes compared to other income groups.
Some observers also used Trump's social media post to highlight that in the past he has claimed that other countries would bear the brunt of tariffs.
The social media posts echoes a recent episode when, last month, after a news report that Amazon would display tariff-based price increases next to the price of products online, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called such a move "a hostile and political act." After a call between Trump and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, a company spokesperson said displays had been considered for only a section of the site but wouldn't be happening.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Insanity': Observers Blast Reported Trump Administration Plan to Move Palestinians to Libya
"American-led ethnic cleansing should be flatly unacceptable," said one professor.
May 17, 2025
A plan reportedly under consideration by the Trump administration to send up to one million Gazans to the divided country of Libya was met with criticism on Friday and Saturday, with several observers calling it part of a plan to carry out ethnic cleansing.
On Friday, NBC Newsreported that the Trump administration has broached the plan with Libya's leadership, though no final agreement has been reached. NBC News' reporting relied on several unnamed sources "with knowledge of the effort."
"This is absolutely categorically an ethnic cleansing and sending people to Libya of all places is unconscionable," wrote investigative journalist James Stout on Bluesky on Friday, in response to the reporting.
An unnamed spokesperson for the Trump administration told NBC News after publication that "these reports are untrue."
As part of the plan, the Trump administration may unfreeze billions of dollars of funds originally meant for Libya that the U.S. froze over ten years ago, the outlet reported.
"A decade and change after U.S. military intervention in Libya under Obama, a direct appeal from the Trump administration to make it a destination for a 21st century Trail of Tears," remarked Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò, the Georgetown University assistant professor and philosopher, referencing the forced displacement of indigenous people in the United States in the 19th Century.
Gregg Carlstrom, a Middle East correspondent for the The Economist, called the NBC News' reporting "insanity."
"Skeptical that there's a serious 'plan' here (rather than just spitballing). But the underlying premise is correct: the Trump administration has spent months approaching various countries to see if it could bribe them into helping out with the ethnic cleansing of Gaza," Carlstrom wrote in a post on X on Saturday.
NBC News also reported that the Trump administration has discussed multiple locations for resettling Palestinians in Gaza, and that the administration is considering Syria as a potential location.
In February, Trump floated a plan to "take over" Gaza and mused about permanently displacing Palestinians in Gaza. International law prohibits the forced deportation and transfer of civilians.
Israel has carried out a brutal military campaign on the Gaza Strip following a Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
Observers pointed out that Libya is itself experiencing instability.
"This would be an expensive nightmare to practically implement, Libya is an active war zone with a current [population] of only 7 million and in no shape to absorb refugees, and American-led ethnic cleansing should be flatly unacceptable," wrote David Burbach, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College on Bluesky on Friday
In 2011, a U.S.-backed intervention toppled Libya's then leader, Muammar Gaddafi, which was followed by a six-year civil war between rival political factions. Currently, eastern Libya is controlled by Khalifa Hifter and a United Nations-recognized government lead by Abdul Hamid Dbeibah is in control in the west. While the humanitarian situation in the country has eased in recent years, largely due to a cease-fire implemented in 2020, the country still experiences outbreaks of violence.
The spokesperson for the Trump administration also highlighted instability in Libya in their response to NBC News. "The situation on the ground is untenable for such a plan. Such a plan was not discussed and makes no sense."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Extends Block on Trump's Alien Enemies Act Deportations
One attorney in the case called the ruling "a powerful rebuke to the government's attempt to hurry people away to a gulag-type prison in El Salvador."
May 16, 2025
For the second time in less than a month, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled against the Trump administration's dubious use of an 18th century law to deport immigrants including at least one person with protected status without due process.
In a 7-2 ruling—with far-right Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito dissenting—the high court found that President Donald Trump violated Venezuelan migrants' right to due process as a class by trying to fast-track their deportation to the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) prison in El Salvador by invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act during peacetime.
The ruling is not a repudiation of Alien Enemies Act deportations and focuses solely on migrants' due process rights.
"Notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster."
"The detainees' interests at stake are accordingly particularly weighty," the court's opinion states. "Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster."
"But it is not optimal for this court, far removed from the circumstances on the ground, to determine in the first instance the precise process necessary to satisfy the Constitution in this case," the court continued and, referring to the federal appellate court that "erred in dismissing the detainees' appeal for lack of jurisdiction," said that "we remand the case to the 5th Circuit for that purpose."
Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead counsel in the case, said Friday that "the court's decision to stay removals is a powerful rebuke to the government's attempt to hurry people away to a gulag-type prison in El Salvador."
"The use of a wartime authority during peacetime, without even affording due process, raises issues of profound importance," Gelernt added.
The Supreme Court opinion noted the case of Kilmar Abrego García, a Maryland man with protected status who was wrongfully deported to CECOT in March. Last month, the high court unanimously ruled that Trump must facilitate Abrego García's return to the United States. The Trump administration has resisted the order, despite the president proclaiming that "if the Supreme Court said, 'Bring somebody back,' I would do that."
Steve Vadeck, a professor at Georgetown Law Center, toldCNN Friday that "because lower courts have blocked use of the [Alien Enemies Act] in every other district in which the president has sought to invoke it, that means it's effectively pausing all removals under the act until the 5th Circuit—and, presumably, the Supreme Court itself—conclusively resolves whether they're legal and how much process is due if so."
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines—who was appointed by Trump—issued the first court ruling supporting Alien Enemies Act deportations.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular