What Would Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Mean for New York’s Green Transition?

posted in: All news | 0

The legislation would get rid of Biden-era federal tax incentives that made solar and wind projects more affordable, and kills residential tax incentives for homeowners making energy efficiency upgrades.

Trump at a press briefing last week. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

President Donald Trump’s long awaited “Big Beautiful Bill,” which passed the U.S. Senate on a narrow 51-to-50 margin on Tuesday and now seeks the House’s approval, could have ugly repercussions for New York’s clean energy transition, experts say. 

Starting in 2027, the legislation would get rid of Biden-era federal tax incentives that made it more affordable for companies to generate clean energy out of solar and wind projects in New York.

The bill also nixes a consumer tax credit that makes it cheaper to buy electric vehicles, and kills residential tax incentives that drive down electricity bills for homeowners by subsidizing energy efficiency upgrades.

Environmental advocates see the bill as yet another roadblock imposed by the Trump administration to stall the state’s attempts to build out its green economy. Trump already tried to derail the construction of a New York-based offshore wind project and suspended new leasing and permitting for wind projects altogether

“This bill could blow a hole through the heart of [New York’s] clean energy economy,” said Robert Freudenberg, vice president of the Regional Plan Association’s energy and environmental programs.

Solar power panels on the roof of a co-op building in the Bronx. (Photo by Adi Talwar)

What’s in the bill?

Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” which slashes taxes and social safety net programs, mainly targets Medicaid and food stamps

But it also includes provisions to get rid of environmental tax incentives specifically targeted at the wind and solar industry, which the president has repeatedly expressed a personal disdain for. 

He has complained over the years that wind turbines ruined the view from his golf course in Scotland and told a room full of oil and gas executives on the campaign trail that he “hates” wind. Trump made similar comments about solar, claiming the panels are “ugly as hell.”

Trump’s bill gets rid of the $500 billion package known as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that the Biden administration put in place to, among other things, bolster the green economy and tackle global warming. The IRA’s environmental fund, most of which has already been spent, was referred to by former vice president Kamala Harris as “largest investment ever to take on the climate crisis.”  

The residential tax credits baked into the IRA helped reduce the carbon footprint of individual buildings by giving homeowners funds for weatherization, or a wide variety of environmentally friendly upgades to their homes. That includes putting up solar panels, buying heat pumps, electric stoves or insulating properties to retain energy instead of wasting it. 

“By encouraging people to do these upgrades they lowered their energy usage, which put more energy on the grid and drove down the costs of their utility bills,” said Matt Salton, federal policy manager at the New York League of Conservation Voters (NYLCV).

In 2022, over 150,000 New Yorkers took advantage of the residential tax credits and a year later nearly 200,000 used the incentive, according to the environmental group. 

If Trump’s bill makes it through, these credits will end starting in 2026. 

The “Big Beautiful Bill” also makes it harder for companies to build out clean energy capacity, axing a federal tax incentive that made constructing solar and wind projects more affordable.

“These tax credits going away will make those projects exponentially more expensive,” said Rob Rains, an energy and environmental policy analyst at the D.C-based firm Washington Analysis.

If it becomes too costly and uncertain to invest in solar and wind in New York, developers could pull out of ongoing projects and new investors could shy away from building out renewables in the state, Rains explains. 

While the bill removes the federal tax credits for wind and solar projects starting in 2027, it does include some caveats, experts who analyzed the bill told City Limits. 

Wind and solar projects that start construction within one year of the bill becoming law can still claim the tax cuts, but have up to four years to complete construction. For companies that begin construction after that, their projects must be placed in service by the end of 2027 to use the credits.

Gov. Kathy Hochul at a 2022 press conference, marking start of construction of New York’s first offshore wind project. (NYS Governor’s Office)

Another obstacle

Regardless of the caveats, environmental advocates agree the bill would be another setback for New York’s shift to cleaner energy. Trump already enacted a series of measures this year that stall the transition away from fossil fuels. 

The administration suspended new leasing and permitting for wind projects across the United States. Trump has also pushed to revive fossil fuel projects that New York previously rejected, like the Constitution Pipeline, a major venture by the Williams company to transport planet-warming fracked gas from Pennsylvania to New York City.

But even before Trump took office, New York was failing to keep up with the ambitious goals set by the state’s landmark climate law. 

Benchmarks laid out in the Climate Leadership and Protection Act (CLCPA)—which requires the state to mostly phase out the use of fossil fuels by 2030—have already been pushed back by three years. 

“Despite New York enacting among the most aggressive decarbonization policies in the nation, clean energy buildout in the Empire State has historically been slow,” said Timothy Fox, managing director at the consulting firm Clear View Energy.

Although the clock is ticking to reach the CLCPA’s targets, only about 29 percent of the Empire State’s electricity currently comes from renewable sources. 

The “Big Beautiful Bill” does include carve outs for developers that want to generate zero-emission electricity like nuclear, geothermal or hydropower. But energy experts say leaving out other sources of renewable energy will knee cap progress already underway for over a decade. 

“Billions of dollars have been spent to build out wind and solar. So this [bill] is basically tilting the scales against building out more clean energy,” Freudenberg pointed out. 

“It threatens the multiple benefits of the clean energy industry including cleaner air, more good paying jobs and reducing the impacts of climate change,” he added.

To reach the reporter behind this story, contact Mariana@citylimits.org. To reach the editor, contact Jeanmarie@citylimits.org

Want to republish this story? Find City Limits’ reprint policy here.

The post What Would Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Mean for New York’s Green Transition? appeared first on City Limits.

‘¿Qué están ocultando?’: Congresistas piden acceso a zona de detención de ICE en edificio federal de Manhattan 

posted in: All news | 0

A los congresistas se les negó la entrada al décimo piso del edificio, donde, según dicen, se estarían reteniendo a los inmigrantes detenidos después de sus audiencias judiciales —una de las recientes tácticas del gobierno federal para deportar a personas— a veces durante varias noches seguidas.

Los congresistas Goldman y Nadler frente al edificio 26 Federal Plaza el miércoles. (Foto de la oficina de Goldman)

Este artículo se publicó originalmente en inglés el 20 de junio. Traducido por Victoria Moran Garcia. Read the English version here.

El miércoles, tras la detención del candidato a la alcaldía y contralor municipal Brad Lander en 26 de Federal Plaza mientras intentaba escoltar a inmigrantes sin abogado fuera del tribunal, los congresistas Dan Goldman y Jerry Nadler observaron los procedimientos judiciales e intentaron entrar a la oficina de Nueva York de Operaciones de Ejecución y Expulsión (ERO por sus siglas en inglés) del Servicio de Inmigración y Aduanas de EE.UU (ICE por sus siglas en inglés), en el mismo edificio. 

A pesar de avisar a ICE con antelación de que estarían presentes, a los congresistas se les negó la entrada al décimo piso del edificio, según dicen, se estarían reteniendo a los inmigrantes detenidos después de sus audiencias judiciales —una de las recientes tácticas del gobierno federal para deportar a personas— a veces durante varias noches seguidas.

Los legisladores reiteraron que una ley de 2024 (Appropriations Act of 2024) otorga a los miembros del Congreso la facultad de conducir visitas de supervisión a las instalaciones “operadas por o para el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional utilizadas para detener o alojar extranjeros”. 

Nadler dijo que los funcionarios de ICE afirmaron que el décimo piso del edificio federal no es técnicamente un centro de detención y, por lo tanto, no está sujeto a la misma supervisión. En un video que compartieron los legisladores, el subdirector de campo de ICE, Bill Joyce, les dice que el lugar se está utilizando para personas detenidas que están “en tránsito” y listas para trasladarse a otro lugar.

Pero Nadler rebatió que la gente es retenida allí “durante una, dos o tres noches”, y obligada a dormir en el suelo o en bancos.

“¿Por qué no podemos entrar? ¿Qué ocultan? Si van a tratar al contralor Lander, si van a tratar al senador Padilla, si van a tratar a la congresista McIver de la forma en que estos agentes les han estado tratando, como si fuera un estado policial, a la intemperie, en público, ¿cómo están tratando a los inmigrantes a puerta cerrada, que tienen que dormir en el suelo durante varias noches?”, dijo el congresista Goldman, refiriéndose a los políticos tanto de aquí como de otros estados a quienes se les ha prohibido entrar en las instalaciones de control de inmigración.

Video: Vídeo compartido por la oficina del congresista Dan Goldman de los dos legisladores enfrentándose al director adjunto de campo del ICE, Bill Joyce, por el acceso al décimo piso de 26 Federal Plaza, donde se retiene a los inmigrantes detenidos.

Ni ICE ni la oficina de prensa del DHS respondieron a la solicitud de City Limits de comentar sobre las críticas de los legisladores.

“Es inaceptable que nos negaran el acceso, y seguiremos presionando a los ejecutivos del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional para que nos den acceso porque están violando la ley, y no pararemos hasta que podamos entrar y observar lo que ocurre en estos centros de detención con estos inmigrantes no criminales y no violentos que siguen el proceso de la forma correcta”, añadió Goldman.

Los congresistas también asistieron a dos audiencias judiciales. Goldman dice que el gobierno está desestimando casos para poder acelerar la deportación de personas.

“Tenemos que agilizar el sistema de asilo para que las personas que tengan solicitudes legítimas puedan conseguir que se les adjudiquen”, dijo, tras observar que se fijó una audiencia de asilo para el 2029.

Goldman, que forma parte de la Comisión de Seguridad Nacional de la Cámara de Representantes, dijo que tiene previsto pedir a sus colegas republicanos que hagan una petición conjunta para inspeccionar las instalaciones.

El viernes, los legisladores enviaron una carta al DHS, firmada también por varios otros representantes federales electos de Nueva York, exigiendo que la agencia conceda a los congresistas acceso de supervisión a “cualquier instalación en la que haya personas detenidas por o para el DHS, incluidas las oficinas en las que los inmigrantes pasan la noche”.

“Su cooperación, o la falta de ella, determinará si el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional está comprometido con la transparencia y el cumplimiento de la ley con integridad o con el secreto y la obstrucción de la supervisión del Congreso”, dice la carta.

Con reportería de Jeanmarie Evelly.

Para ponerse en contacto con la reportera de esta noticia, escriba a VictoriaM@citylimits.org. Para ponerse en contacto con la editora, escriba a Jeanmarie@citylimits.org

The post ‘¿Qué están ocultando?’: Congresistas piden acceso a zona de detención de ICE en edificio federal de Manhattan  appeared first on City Limits.

Paramount to pay $16 million in settlement with Trump over ’60 Minutes’ interview

posted in: All news | 0

By DAVID BAUDER, Associated Press Media Writer

NEW YORK (AP) — In a case seen as a challenge to American free-speech principles, Paramount has agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit by President Donald Trump over the editing of CBS’ “ 60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris in October.

Paramount, which owns CBS, said the money will go to Trump’s future presidential library, not to the Republican president himself. It said the settlement did not involve an apology.

FILE – The CBS logo at the entrance to its headquarters, in New York Dec. 6, 2018. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File)

Trump’s lawyer said Trump had suffered “mental anguish” over the editing of the interview by CBS News, while Paramount and CBS rejected his contention that it was edited to enhance how Harris, the Democratic nominee for president in 2024, sounded. They had called Trump’s case “completely without merit” and tried to have it dismissed, even while involved in settlement negotiations.

The case was widely discussed and was being seen as a referendum on how far organizations would go to curry favor with Trump. Paramount is simultaneously seeking approval from his administration for its proposed merger with Skydance Media.

In a meeting with shareholders on Wednesday, Paramount co-CEO George Cheeks said companies often settle litigation to avoid high legal costs and the unpredictability of a trial. Settlement allows a company to focus on its objectives “rather than being mired in uncertainty and distraction,” Cheeks said.

A spokesman for Trump’s legal team said that with the settlement, Trump “delivers another win for the American people.”

Paramount agreed that ‘60 Minutes’ transcripts will be released

In early February, “60 Minutes” released a full, unedited transcript of the Harris interview.

Under the settlement reached with help of a mediator, Paramount agreed that “60 Minutes” will release transcripts of future interviews of presidential candidates, “subject to redactions as required for legal and national security concerns,” CBS News cited the statement as saying.

Related Articles


Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal majority strikes down 176-year-old abortion ban


Analysis shows Trump’s tariffs would cost US employers $82.3 billion


Hamas says it’s open to a Gaza truce but stops short of accepting a Trump-backed proposal


House Republicans race toward a final vote on Trump’s tax bill, daring critics to oppose


Mexican banks face cascading consequences following US sanctions

Trump, who did not agree to be interviewed by “60 Minutes” during the campaign, protested editing where Harris is seen giving two different answers to a question by the show’s Bill Whitaker in separate clips aired on “60 Minutes” and “Face the Nation” earlier in the day. CBS said each reply came within Harris’ long-winded answer to Whitaker, but was edited to be more succinct.

“This settlement is a cowardly capitulation by the corporate leaders of Paramount, and a fundamental betrayal of ‘60 Minutes’ and CBS News,” said Rome Hartman, a producer of the Harris interview for the show. “The story that was the subject of this lawsuit was edited by the book and in accordance with CBS News standards.”

Correspondents had worried of a settlement with ‘wrongdoing’ implications

In a letter to Paramount’s leadership in early May, “60 Minutes” correspondents said they were troubled by reports that Paramount might settle the case “in a way that acknowledges some sort of wrongdoing on our part.”

The correspondents, in the letter obtained by The Associated Press, said that “if our parent company caves in to his pressure and lies, it will leave a shameful stain and undermine the First Amendment.” It was signed by Whitaker, Lesley Stahl, Scott Pelley, Anderson Cooper, Sharyn Alfonsi, Jon Wertheim and Cecilia Vega.

Trump’s lawyer, Edward Andrew Paltzik, said the interview caused confusion and “mental anguish,” misleading voters and causing them to pay less attention to Trump and his Truth Social online platform.

Paramount and controlling shareholder Shari Redstone were seeking the settlement with Trump. CBS News President and CEO Wendy McMahon and “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens, who both opposed a settlement, resigned in recent weeks.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation, a media advocacy group that says it is a Paramount shareholder, has said that it would file a lawsuit in protest if a settlement was reached.

In December, ABC News settled a defamation lawsuit by Trump over statements made by anchor George Stephanopoulos, agreeing to pay $15 million toward Trump’s presidential library rather than engage in a public fight. Meta reportedly paid $25 million to settle Trump’s lawsuit against the company over its decision to suspend his social media accounts following the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.