Plans to spray for spongy moths in five Minnesota counties have been scrapped after the federal funding for the aerial treatments didn’t come through.

The Minnesota Department of Agriculture said it planned to spray more than 2,700 acres throughout St. Louis, Carlton, Itasca, Anoka and Winona counties this spring, striking in the short period in the invasive insect’s lifespan when the bacterial insecticide is effective against it.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service’s Slow the Spread program funded such work for decades, reducing the moth’s spread by 60% and treating more than 1 million acres. But the state agency said it has not received the money it needs in time to carry out this spring’s aerial assault.

The agency planned to spray Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki, or Btk, a naturally occurring soil bacteria that kills spongy moth caterpillars feeding on canopy foliage. Btk is nontoxic to people, bees, pets and other animals.

“Having to cancel Btk aerial management operations in these areas jeopardizes the future success of this program,” Minnesota Department of Agriculture Commissioner Thom Petersen said in a news release. “Spongy moth populations in these areas will likely increase and advance quicker into neighboring areas, making future years of management more complicated and costly.”

The USDA and Forest Service did not immediately respond to the Duluth News Tribune’s request for comment Tuesday evening.

The state agency said it still plans to aerially apply a mating disruption pheromone to stop the moths from reproducing on 112,000 acres across Minnesota and conduct its annual spongy moth population survey, but both those rely on federal funding, too.

“Overall, federal funding for these strategies is still uncertain; however, the MDA has been assured to receive initial funding for the spongy moth survey,” the agency said in a news release. “It is still unknown if federal funds to perform aerial mating disruption operations will be distributed in 2025.”

The agency said it may need to put temporary quarantines in place to prevent spongy moths hitchhiking on woody tree material from leaving the area.

Formerly called gypsy moths, the spongy moths are native to Europe and are considered a major problem for North American trees because they have few natural enemies here and can overwhelm patches of forest, defoliating trees quickly. They will munch on more than 300 species of trees and bushes, including aspen, birch and oak.

Spongy moths first came to the eastern U.S. from Europe in the 1860s, arriving by ship, and have been expanding ever since. They travel slowly on their own but have ridden west as egg clusters on cars, trucks, trains, trailers and campers. They have been in eastern Wisconsin since the 1970s and have now spread across the entire state and into eastern Minnesota.

The moth does its damage when it’s in its caterpillar stage. Forest health experts say the moths can’t be stopped. But their westward movement can be slowed, and outbreaks can be kept smaller, with annual aerial spraying efforts where the largest concentrations of moths are located.

Related Articles

Minnesota man with white nationalist ties convicted of gun charges, feds say

Minnesota won’t comply with Trump on DEI in schools, state officials say

Have a REAL ID? If not, prepare for travel delays, MAC says.

Letters: We won’t take attacks on Social Security lying down

Mega Millions tickets rise to $5, but the lottery promises more giant jackpots

The state House Children and Families Finance and Policy Committee recently heard a bill that aims to reduce the cost of child care for Minnesotans.

The bill calls for a scholarship program for families needing child care for young children and aims to prevent Minnesotans from spending more than 7% of their annual income on child care. The scholarship applies to care for children from birth to kindergarten entry.

Bill author Rep. Carlie Kotyza-Witthuhn, DFL-Eden Prairie, said the goal of 7% is an affordability benchmark set by the Department of Health and Human Services in 2016.

The benchmark doesn’t accurately reflect current costs, according to Alaina Skoglund, a mother of two children and a child care teacher at Minnesota State University Moorhead.

“We pay $1,200 every month for child care for Dean, and we also pay $1,200 every month for child care for Harvey,” Skoglund testified to the committee last week, referring to her two children. “That’s almost $30,000 a year. It’s my entire paycheck, plus some of my husband’s paycheck to pay for our child care.”

Family income spent on child care

The average percentage of family income spent on child care in Minnesota is 18.8%, according to the Economic Policy Institute . EPI data as of February 2025 identified Minnesota child care — reportedly averaging $22,569 per year — as the third most expensive in the United States. Massachusetts child care averages $26,709 a year, and Washington D.C., child care is estimated at $28,356 annually, according to EPI.

Scholarship money is allocated to day care providers, under the bill, and eligible families then receive discounts on their monthly payments. The bill states that children who receive the scholarship must continue to receive the scholarship each year until they are eligible for kindergarten.

To be eligible for the scholarship, families need to make “less than 150% of the state median income.” Eligible families will receive a minimum of $100 per month, according to the bill.

‘A very expansive bill’

Kotyza-Witthuhn said that based on how many Minnesotans it would apply to, the bill will cost around $500 million per year.

“This is a very expansive bill, in that we would be attempting to provide somewhat of a subsidy to 85% of the children and families in the state of Minnesota,” she said.

Kotyza-Witthuhn said she sees the bill as an investment in Minnesota’s child care system.

“This program is not about throwing money at a problem, but it is a series of precise policy changes and fiscal investments to reform early care and learning in Minnesota,” she said.

Scholarships would be awarded over a 12-month period and require annual renewal.

If passed, scholarship payments start no later than July 1, 2026.

Related Articles

Push to release Sen. Nicole Mitchell arrest video gets new chance on appeal

St. Paul nonprofit pays $7.3M to turn Bandana Square hotel into emergency shelter

Minnesota health department cuts 170 jobs after federal COVID grant freeze

With shortfalls on horizon, Minnesota budget targets feature big cuts

Will Minnesota lawmakers raise taxes this session?

By MELISSA GOLDIN and JENNIFER McDERMOTT

President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed four executive orders designed to boost the U.S. coal industry, outlining steps to protect coal-fired power plants and expedite leases for coal mining on U.S. land. But in touting the benefits of coal, he misrepresented several aspects of its safety and use.

Here’s a look at the facts.

CLAIM: “I call it beautiful, clean coal. I told my people, never use the word coal unless you put beautiful, clean before it.”

THE FACTS: The production of coal is cleaner now than it has been historically, but that doesn’t mean it’s clean.

Planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions from the coal industry have decreased over the past 30 years, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Energy lobbyist Scott Segal said that “the relative statement that coal-fired electricity is cleaner than ever before is true, particularly when emissions are measured per unit of electricity produced.”

And yet, coal production worldwide still needs to be reduced sharply to address climate change, according to United Nations-backed research.

Along with carbon dioxide, burning coal emits sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that contribute to acid rain, smog and respiratory illnesses, according to the EIA.

Over the past 15 years, the U.S. has seen a major shift from coal to natural gas for electricity use, a key reason U.S. carbon emissions have declined over that period.

Coal once provided more than half of U.S. electricity production, but its share dropped to about 16% in 2023, down from about 45% as recently as 2010. Natural gas provides about 43% of U.S. electricity, with the remainder from nuclear energy and renewables such as wind, solar and hydropower.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright acknowledged during his confirmation hearing in January that the burning of fossil fuels — coal, oil and natural gas — causes climate change. That’s because the combustion of fossil fuels is drastically increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, warming the planet.

TRUMP: “It’s cheap, incredibly efficient, high density and it’s almost indestructible.”

THE FACTS: Coal is one of the most expensive sources of new power generation. New coal plants would produce electricity at nearly $90 per megawatt hour on average, though no one in the U.S. is currently building or planning to build a new coal plant, according to estimates from the EIA.

Related Articles

Keystone oil pipeline shutdown could quickly lead to higher gasoline prices

Despite lawsuit, St. Paul removes 10 of 20 mature trees from Parkview Avenue

Storms tore up two of America’s most iconic trails. Federal cuts have disrupted repairs

Here’s what to know about nations considering the 1st global tax on emissions for shipping

Renowned Minnesota wildlife photographer Jim Brandenburg dies at 79

Standalone solar without battery storage is the cheapest source of new power generation at about $23 per megawatt hour on average for new projects connecting to the grid in 2028, the EIA estimates. That includes tax credits and other subsidies under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which help reduce the cost of renewable energy.

New natural gas plants are expected to produce electricity at nearly $43 per megawatt hour, according to the estimates.

A nonpartisan climate policy think tank, Energy Innovation, found that 99% of existing U.S. coal plants are more expensive to keep running than if they’re replaced with local solar, wind, and battery storage. Americans immediately begin saving money when coal plants retire and communities transition to clean energy, according to Energy Innovation’s 2023 report.

“Trump has promised to cut American energy bills in half – this is yet another way he’s forcing Americans to pay more,” Greg Alvarez, a spokesperson with Energy Innovations, wrote in an email Tuesday.

Coal plants operated at full power about 42.4% of the time in 2023, according to EIA’s most recent data. In comparison, nuclear and geothermal plants ranked highest, at about 93% and 69.4%, respectively.

CLAIM: “The value of untapped coal in our country is 100 times greater than the value of all the gold at Fort Knox.”

THE FACTS: Although the U.S. does have an abundance of coal, its estimated value is not nearly as high as Trump claims.

There are currently about 147.3 million troy ounces of gold stored at Fort Knox with a book value of approximately $6.2 billion, according to the U.S. Treasury. Gold closed on the open market Tuesday, trading at $2,990.20 per troy ounce, making its market value much higher, at about $440.6 billion. A troy ounce, a weight measurement for precious metals, is approximately 31.1 grams.

There were about 469.1 billion short tons of coal in U.S. reserves as of Jan. 1, 2024, according to the EIA, though only about 53% of that was available for mining. EIA estimates its value at approximately $598.3 billion. That’s more than all of the gold at Fort Knox, but far short of 100 times that amount. A short ton, also known as a U.S. ton, is equivalent to 2,000 pounds.

TRUMP: “They’re opening up coal, coal plants all over Germany.”

THE FACTS: That’s not accurate. According to Germany’s economy ministry, 18 coal-fired power plants were shut down in 2024. “No new coal-fired power plants will be built,” a spokesman for the ministry said Wednesday in response to a question about Trump’s claims. The spokesperson noted the country plans to phase out coal-fired power generation by 2038 at the latest.

Germany did bring some coal-fired plants back online in 2022 and 2023 to deal with natural gas shortages after Russia invaded Ukraine. The government allowed up to six gigawatts of coal-fired power plants to return from the reserve to the market for a limited period of time. They were taken offline by the end of March 2024, according to Agora Energiewende, a Berlin-based climate policy think thank.

Associated Press climate, environment and energy writer Matthew Daly contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Postal Service is seeking a rate increase this summer that includes hiking the cost of a first-class stamp from 73 cents to 78 cents.

The request was made Wednesday to the Postal Regulatory Commission, which must OK the proposal. If approved, the 5-cent increase for a “forever” stamp and similar increases for postcards, metered letters and international mail would take effect July 13.

The proposed changes would raise mailing services product prices approximately 7.4%.

The Postal Service contends, as it did last year when it enacted a similar increase, that it’s needed to achieve financial stability.

Former U.S. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy previously warned postal customers to get used to “uncomfortable” rate hikes as the Postal Service seeks to become self-sufficient. He said price increases were overdue after “at least 10 years of a defective pricing model.”

DeJoy resigned in March after nearly five years in the position, leaving as President Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency had floated the idea of privatizing mail service.

Deputy Postmaster General Doug Tulino has taken on the role of postmaster general until the Postal Service Board of Governors names a permanent replacement for DeJoy.

Trump has said he is considering putting USPS under the control of the Commerce Department in an effort to stop losses at the $78 billion-a-year agency, which has struggled at times to balance the books with the decline of first-class mail.