By David Wojick
A federal judge has made a deeply waffling judgement in the suit by 17 states to end the January 20th executive order (EO) stopping all federal approvals of wind power permits. Some aspects appear to have been clarified by verbal statements at a hearing, but the judge has reserved the right to change his mind when he issues his written opinion. So in a sense, nothing has been decided.
Verbally the judge has said several important things that would move the suit along. The states do have standing to sue. Moreover, this EO is a “final action” under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The federal attorney had argued that it was not final, just an investigatory pause, but that argument failed (so far).
As of now, the next judicial event will not be until September, which is near the end of the construction season for a lot of offshore wind. So there is apparently no emergency involved, which gives other wind-stopping actions time to build. A number are in progress by CFACT and others, including several lawsuits.
One puzzling verbal ruling is that the numerous agency defendants listed in the suit have been excluded, leaving just the Interior Department. While Interior plays a key role in wind power permitting, many other agencies also make essential approvals.
For example, the Commerce Department’s NOAA issues the critter-taking permits under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. A single offshore wind project can “take,” or adversely impact, protected mammals tens of thousands of times. No project can proceed without these permits.
Perhaps Interior’s leading role in the investigation mandated by the EO is the reason. The reported focus of the hearing was on this investigation.
I first discussed this lawsuit in “Seventeen states misguidedly sue to block Trump from stopping wind power” here. https://www.cfact.org/2025/05/13/seventeen-states-misguidedly-sue-to-block-trump-from-stopping-wind-power/.
As the title indicates, I think the states may be taking the wrong approach to stopping the EO. They argue that the EO falls under the APA, which normally requires publication of a proposal with notice and public comment together with reasons for the action. Since these steps were not taken, they argue the action is illegal.
Given the verbal ruling that the EO falls under the APA, the states seem to be well on their way. But if they win, the judge is likely to simply rule that the Trump administration must follow the APA. What the states seem oblivious to is that this can be done without lifting the ban on agency approvals.
In fact, the APA allows for what are called “interim final rules.” Here is a textbook explanation: “Interim final rules (IFRs) are rules issued by federal agencies that become effective upon publication without first seeking public comment on the rules’ substance. Instead, federal agencies solicit public comment at the time of publication and may make changes to the rules depending upon that feedback. Often used during emergencies and other times of need, IFRs can help expedite the regulatory process to put in place binding regulatory requirements in short order.”
https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/interim-final-rules-a-primer
So each of the numerous wind power permitting agencies can simply issue interim final rules implementing the stopping of approvals that the EO presently does. Of course the states can then sue on each of these rule-makings, but that could tie things up for a very long time.
In fact, the agencies might even win, arguing, as the EO does, that past deficiencies make the entire wind power permitting process questionable. Even worse (or better), these rule-makings might make the stoppage permanent while the EO only says it is temporary.
In any case, we must await the judge’s written opinion to find out what has actually been decided. He seems to have asked the Feds to explain the EO, the actions taken under it, or something along these lines, by July 2. His written opinion may come later.
The whole show is confused at this point. Stay tuned to CFACT to catch the next act.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Overall impression after reading the article is that US government has gotten used to operating with nobody in charge. Made me miss Truman.
“The buck stops here” means that the speaker or person in charge accepts ultimate responsibility for a situation and will not try to pass the blame or responsibility to someone else. It implies a commitment to accountability and decisive action.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
Origin:
The phrase is famously associated with President Harry S. Truman, who had a sign with that inscription on his desk according to the National Park Service (.gov). It’s believed to be derived from the older idiom “pass the buck,” meaning to shift responsibility to someone else.
Meaning:
In essence, “the buck stops here” signifies a willingness to own the consequences of decisions and actions, rather than deflecting blame or shirking responsibility.
Context:
The phrase is often used in leadership and management contexts, where the person in charge takes ultimate accountability for the performance and outcomes of their team or organization, even if they didn’t personally carry out all the tasks.
No need to “Stop” wind construction other than Animal Harm. Just eliminate all Subsidies and Wind blows away as uneconomical.
It shows it’s True Cost per MW!
If there were a true competitive retail market in electricity, that would be true. But regulatory policies which give large utilities the right to charge a percentage markup over their costs create an incentive for them to shift from low cost electricity sources to high cost sources.
For example, here in NC, in 2021 the NC General Assembly enacted (and Dem. Gov. Cooper signed), H951, “Energy Solutions for North Carolina,” to increase the cost and reduce the reliability of electricity in North Carolina. It had strong bipartisan support.
Of course that’s now how it was promoted, but that’s what it does. The damage is still being phased in, and it is the main reason that North Carolina’s electricity prices keep rising. Here’s an article (which unfortunately never mentions the legislation):
“Duke Energy explains reason behind ‘soaring’ bills” By Caroline Hicks, Feb. 13, 2024
EXCERPT: “Duke Energy Carolinas implemented new rates for North Carolina customers on Jan. 15, as approved by the North Carolina Utilities Commission. On top of that, the company implemented a fuel increase that went into effect in September 2023. Electric rates will increase by about 8.5% in 2024, 3.8% in 2025 and 3.5% in 2026.”
I testified against H951. I told legislators:
I was ignored. In the NC House the bill passed 90-to-20, and in the Senate the it was 42-to-7. Large majorities of both Democrats and Republicans voted for it.
Duke Energy lobbied hard for H951. Can you guess why?
Duke has a financial incentive to make electricity expensive. Because of cost-plus pricing, the higher their costs go, the higher their profits are. So as North Carolinians struggle to pay their escalating energy bills, Duke laughs all the way to the bank.
When H951 was under consideration the “environmentalist” Democrats in the NCGA listened to the climate industry lobbyists, the “pro-business” Republicans listened to Duke Energy’s lobbyists, and the result was a bipartisan train wreck.
It reminded me of this classic definition of bipartisanship:
– variously attributed to M. Stanton Evans, Sen. Alan Simpson, or Sen. Everett Dirksen
Eliminate all mandates that give it “priority” over dispatchable sources as well.
Then it won’t sell at any price because no utility would be stupid enough to buy it.
The Greens and subsidy miners may be hoist on their own petard by invoking the Administrative Procedures Act. If anything, that system is anything but fast and decisive,
and allows for multiple appeals.
Usually, the APA is a tool of the Green Blob to block pipelines, mining, power plants, and anything else not approved of by their faith. It is as suitable to block Green Prayer Wheels.
I hope that this lawsuit by those 17 states ultimately fails.
The bigger picture here however is that, according to AI website Grok, some 20-odd states and DC are still requiring 100% of electricity be generated by wind and solar by a certain date. The deadline dates are generally in the 2030s and 2040s.
Given the technological problems and infeasibility of these requirements (as we saw in Europe earlier this year with the blackout on the Iberian Peninsula), the much greater need is for the Trump administration to make these states and the voters realize that these requirements are a dead end road and are unlikely to be seen through to the end successfully. EO’s alone won’t do that.
How hard and costly will it be for the Trump administration to produce and issue a detailed engineering and scientific analysis of the unfeasibility of this venture by the 20-odd states? Somehow, analyses issued in the private sector are ignored. The Trump admin needs to generously promote such a report and make it’s conclusions widely known.
There was a blackout near me recently because of the heat wave. If we are simply going to wait until blackouts start occurring more widely, we’ve waited too long. Why do Democrats (and probably some Republicans as well) wait until the damage is done before the might start privately admitting to themselves the stupidity of what they’ve done?
It is not Trump’s or the fed’s job to do a detailed analysis of the (lack of) feasibility of individual states going all renewable electric by 2030 or 2040 or anytime. That responsibility lies with the states, and many here on this website have helped them along with the analyses. One might have thought that the states would have done such a study before embarking on this fool’s errand, but apparently not. In any event, as a taxpayer, I prefer not to pay for a federal study.
I would note in this heatwave across two thirds of the country, the big grids are operating with 60-70% fossil generation. Anybody who has paid any attention at all understands that you can’t build enough wind and solar to meet the current demand, and if demand doubles in the next few years, the goal is even less attainable.
Starzmom,
Thanks for your reply.
Normally, I would agree with you that the analyses of the feasibility of wind and solar should be left to the states since they are the ones dictating the mandates.
However, in my opinion here, the problem here is that the states mandating renewables lack incentives or reasons to produce the analysis because of the climate alarmist narrative. The narrative provides a convenient confirmation bias for their ideological opposition to fossil fuels and the use of them to generate electricity. Coupled with an opposition to nuclear power among many on the Left, they are pretty much left with only wind and solar. It is my understanding that hydroelectric dams are slowly being phased out so that rivers can flow freely again.
Thus, the last thing they want is a report that is critical of renewables. A report supporting them would of course be welcomed. That is why I suggest that the Trump admin needs to do what these states won’t.
My bottom line here is that the battle over whether renewables should be a part of the electricity generation portfolio in the states should be fought in the science and engineering realm, not in the courts. And that includes the fight over the climate alarmist narrative. Ignorance in the science and engineering fields is not bliss.
I agree with what you are saying to some extent. I have read several good analyses of the science and engineering of renewable energy as part of the power grid. Some were done by state and quasi-state agencies. The authors must feel compelled to minimize the problems to satisfy the political mandates.
It is not that the analyses are not there–it is that they are not forceful enough to get through to the people who are making the hard decisions. The power companies at this point do as they are told by the state agencies, and the state agencies answer to the public. Every heat wave and the way it is publicized reinforces the public view that climate change is an existential threat and the only answer is renewable power. Before that the problem was acid rain, and before that it was ambient air quality.
I used to work as a regulatory analyst in the utility industry, and I can tell you that what the engineering staff thinks is irrelevant to the management. The management answers to the states and regions that they supply power to. The general attitude is that if this is what the public wants, then we will give it to them. So what if it costs money or is unreliable? People don’t care–or maybe they don’t know enough to care.
Sorry if I am super cynical at this point.
To reinforce this: I am sitting here watching the news and just saw an ad asking me to thank my senator for supporting subsidies for “clean renewable energy that will strengthen our manufacturing and supply needed reliable power to our grid”. My senator is a Republican, and most of the state votes that way too.
Thanks again Starzmom.
I will hazard a guess that the utility companies believe it is bad publicity to push back against the states who issue them these mandates. PR is always a big deal in the private sector (utilities included) and damn the science and engineering.
Thus, with the climate alarmist narrative largely unchallenged in government, the eco- and climate activists have the leftist politicians (and some Republicans as well no doubt) at all levels of govt wrapped around their little pinkies, leaving precious little room for scientific debate.
As I said previously, it is only after the damage is done that all relevant parties start to wake up and realize that they’ve been taken on a trip down the wrong road. Fortunately, we are starting to see this happen here in the U.S. and abroad. The only question remaining is how much damage will be done before we start turning around and go back.
One can only hope the reckoning will happen sooner rather than later.
Appears to be legally very muddled.
Indeed. Judicial review of an EO is problematic to begin with and this one is vague to begin with. I suspect the Judge is struggling which could be fun to watch.
Agree. Will be ‘fun’ to watch.
Kind of like the Massachusetts Biden appointed judge who just ruled yesterday that his anti-deportation ruling was still valid based on a minority dissent from a just released 6-3 SCOTUS opinion specifically over-ruling him.
Keep us posted.
WOW!
SCOTUS, the supreme court in the land ruled against it but a lower court judge says it’s still valid!
(See my comment below.)
Can SCOTUS remove this “judge” that ignored them?
I don’t have the skills to do it myself.
But I think an AI image of “Blind Justice” lifting her hand to uncover her left eye with the sword tip on the left side of the scale would be appropriate for a story that involves an activist judge. 😎