Edward Lotterman

“As Trump Tariffs Nuke Markets: Will The Central Bank Step In?”

That headline, on Wednesday, April 9, couldn’t be more misguided. It should terrify everyone because it indicates the degree to which financial market participants, business media and many in the general population have become divorced from reality. The Federal Reserve cannot “step in” and accomplish “rescues” as many assume. It cannot support stock prices. Moreover, it should not try.

Nor should the U.S. Treasury or any other federal agency.

If only people had learned the wisdom the Minneapolis Federal Reserve preached some 30 years ago, our nation would be in a much safer position.

Yes, the rising panic evident early last week in New York, London and Tokyo may well abate into wary unease. Market indexes eventually will find their bottom and people will begin to buy again.

The March consumer inflation numbers out Thursday suggest the threat of inflation, pre-Trump tariffs, may be lessening, and may give us some breathing room. A closer look is more somber. Overall, there are far more rocks and shoals on the economic horizon than fair seas. We still have over-inflated and jittery capital markets, probable high inflation and a significant chance of recession.

All this centers on an erratic, insecure U.S. president who makes the adjective “mercurial” seem woefully inadequate, and arrayed against the backdrop of a dysfunctional and enabling Congress. Our economy is on very thin ice indeed.

So what wisdom did the Minneapolis Fed impart and how does it apply today?

Economists associated with the Minneapolis district were leaders 30 years ago in an intellectual revolution that refuted the Keynesian theories that dominated federal policymaking from the 1940s into the 1990s.

Early economic thinking from the late 1700s until the 1920s taught that free markets were always self-correcting, and that any government interference with the actions and transactions of private individuals and businesses would only cause harm.

Then, as the global economy convulsed after the trauma of World War I, British economist John Maynard Keynes set this belief on its head. He argued that governments not only could, but should, manage economies to avoid both recessions and inflation. Governments and central banks should vary taxes and public spending along with the money supply and interest rates to moderate harmful economic swings and avoid extremes. When inflation threatened, governments should raise taxes and decrease spending and the central bank should reduce the money supply so as to raise interest rates. For a recession, Keynes prescribed the opposite: Cut taxes and increase spending and the money supply to lower interest rates to charge the economy toward growth in hiring and production.

New Zealand economist Bill Phillips supported Keynes’ prescription by tabulating data on inflation and unemployment rates. When graphed, this data showed an apparent trade-off between inflation and unemployment. When one rose, the other seemed to fall.

Spread by influential textbook writers after 1950, Keynesian management of economic cycles became the norm in both econ theory and government policy. In the U.S., it reached its height when University of Minnesota professor Walter Heller headed John F. Kennedy’s Council of Economic Advisors that included two future Nobel winners.

No administration since has gotten close to the average annual 5.6% growth in inflation-adjusted output as in the eight Kennedy-Johnson years. So far in this millennium, average annual real growth barely touches 2%.

Unfortunately, the longer governments and the Fed alternated stepping on the economic gas and brake pedals, in this Keynesian way, the worse the tradeoff between inflation and unemployment apparently got. By the time of the Ford and Carter administrations in the United States, we had high levels of both — “stagflation,” the counter-intuitive simultaneous combination of falling output and employment with price inflation. It hit the United Kingdom, France, Germany and other industrialized economies as well as the U.S.

Younger economists at universities including Minnesota, Chicago and Carnegie Mellon argued Keynesian theory had a fatal contradiction: Reacting to Keynesian micro-management, rational people take self-protective actions as individuals and business managers. These reactions, summed across entire economies, didn’t just stymie the hoped-for effects of activist fiscal and monetary policies. They make things worse.

In the face of apparently intractable economic problems globally, this “Rational Expectations revolution” in economic theory spread quickly. In 1978, the Minneapolis Fed chose the youngest Fed president anywhere, 35-year-old Mark Willes, a believer in the new approach.

A Columbia Ph.D., Willes quickly centered Minneapolis in this movement. It offered key thinkers joint positions at the Fed to complement university roles. For 25 years, the Universities of Chicago and Minnesota together with the Minneapolis Fed were where rational economics was done.

Theory aside, the core policy prescription saw that attempts at economic micromanagement were self-destructive. Central banks could, and should, maintain stable purchasing power of a currency. They could not, however, cure all ills of any economy and should not try.

Gary Stern, Willes’ successor at the Minneapolis Fed, supported his researchers, but had more pragmatic concerns. He recognized that the emerging doctrine that some banks were “too big to fail” posed great dangers. This came to the fore in 1984 when the FDIC “rescued” an insolvent Continental Illinois Bank, then the seventh largest in the country. It absorbed some of its losses and sold good accounts to Bank of America.

The “too big to fail” rationale here was that full liquidation, forcing depositors above the level guaranteed by the FDIC to eat large losses, would so shake confidence in the financial system that  a generalized financial crisis might spark, nationwide if not worldwide.

Stern vigorously argued that once investors learn big institutions would be bailed out, that is where they would place their money. This is called “moral hazard,” the creation of incentives for societally harmful actions. If the rule is “heads I win and tails the FDIC, Treasury and Federal Reserve lose,” risk taking runs wild.

In speeches, bank publications, op-eds and interviews, Stern and colleagues voiced this warning with Paul Revere-like energy. In 2004, with Ron Feldman, now the No. 2 Minneapolis Fed officer, Stern wrote “Too Big to Fail: The Hazards of Bank Bailouts,” an influential book with a ringing forward by former Fed Chair Paul Volcker.

So, at the dawn of this millennium, the Minneapolis Fed vigorously preached a two-part sermon: Activist monetary policy to manage all ups and downs in the business cycle led to harm, perhaps great harm. So did promising financial firms, the markets in which they operated, and the general public that the Fed and U.S. Treasury would rescue them all from any possible financial train wreck.

Of course, if we refuse to rescue large financial firms from bad decisions, we either must keep any from becoming too large or regulate large ones very closely. That never happened. After 9/11, the Fed swooped in with an increased money supply and low interest rates. The created a new moral hazard, and then the Fed and other regulators stood by while new derivative financial instruments — collateralized mortgages and other debts — created a price bubble. When it popped by 2008, the Fed and President George W. Bush’s treasury secretary organized the largest bailout in human history, one that prevented economic collapse but punished the innocent and rewarded the guilty.

In 2020, facing the worst pandemic in a century, the Fed increased the U.S. money supply by a third in 20 months, a jump unprecedented in U.S. history. Done in good faith, it helped keep the U.S. economy afloat. But that monetary surge also contributed to severe inflation and a bubble in capital markets that, together with untested innovations like cryptocurrencies, now threaten the world economy.

All of which bring us back to Wednesday’s misguided headline, and the expectation — contrary to the correct principles of the Minneapolis Fed — that our government and central bank can and should regulate our financial bad behavior in all its aspects and make it all better.

Now the danger is extreme. The bad behavior now is that of an erratic and volatile president, sycophantic and inexperienced Cabinet secretaries, an absentee Congress and financial market players beset with delusional expectations of bailouts. Hold on tight!

Related Articles

Real World Economics: The flaws in Trump’s ‘liberation’ reasoning on tariffs

Real World Economics: Unkept promises are bad economics

Ed Lotterman: Attacking Denmark about Greenland is wrong, dumb and damaging

Real World Economics: Tariffs raise questions, here are some answers

Real World Economics: Stagflation bullets are already in the air

St. Paul economist and writer Edward Lotterman can be reached at stpaul@edlotterman.com.

Jessica Haggard

Americans spent an estimated $7.3 billion on Easter food last year, and as egg prices continue to rise, expect that amount also to increase. That creates a lot of stress in the kitchen; why not relieve some of that pressure? With a little creativity and smart planning, you can enjoy the holiday stress free while still impressing your guests.

Hosting an Easter feast doesn’t have to mean spending hours in the kitchen. Whether you’re short on time or just want to relax, there are plenty of ways to serve a delicious spread without cooking a thing.

Order a gourmet Easter dinner

Many grocery stores and restaurants offer fully prepared Easter meals, allowing you to enjoy traditional dishes without the hassle of cooking. The National Retail Federation says that in 2024, consumer spending for Easter was expected to reach $22.4 billion. Retailers like Walmart responded by offering curated Easter meals at lower prices than in previous years, making it convenient and affordable to host a feast without lifting a finger.

Mains

Thankfully, you can now buy pre-made classic Easter dishes. Choose a centerpiece that’s flavorful and easy to serve. A glazed spiral ham, roasted turkey or slow-cooked brisket are great options that require zero prep. Many stores also offer seafood options like lemon-garlic salmon or crab-stuffed flounder for a unique Easter twist.

Sides

Round out your meal with ready-made sides like scalloped potatoes, roasted Brussels sprouts or creamed spinach. Mac and cheese, cornbread stuffing and honey-glazed carrots are comforting classics that pair well with any main dish. For a fresh element, pick up a premade garden or Caesar salad.

Desserts

No Easter feast is complete without something sweet. Pick up a classic carrot cake, lemon meringue pie or a fruit tart for a festive touch. Many bakeries also sell Easter-themed cupcakes, cookies or chocolate mousse that make for easy, crowd-pleasing treats. You can also pick up complete meals from your favorite establishments that are open on Easter Sunday, like Applebee’s, The Cheesecake Factory and Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse.

Once you’ve picked up your Easter spread, arrange the food on elegant serving platters, add fresh herbs for garnish and light a few candles to set the mood. A beautifully presented meal will feel just as special as a home-cooked one – without the stress.

Create a DIY salad bar

Host an Easter feast with a build-your-own salad bar for a fresh, vibrant and effortless way to feed a crowd. Offer a mix of crisp greens, colorful veggies, proteins like a pre-cooked ham or chicken and different dressings to let guests customize their plates. Add festive touches with spring-inspired toppings like candied pecans or edible flowers.

As Bella Bucchiotti of xoxoBella shares, “A salad bar is an easy, crowd-pleasing way to keep everyone happy while giving them the flexibility to choose what they like best.” Not only does this setup encourage guests to personalize their plates and cater to various dietary preferences, but it’s also an ideal way to make the meal feel light, healthy and effortless, without sacrificing the festive spirit.

Build a stunning charcuterie board

A charcuterie board is an elegant, no-cook option with variety and visual appeal. Include a mix of cheeses, cured meats, crackers, fruits and nuts. Adding Easter-themed treats like pastel-colored candies or chocolate eggs can give it a festive touch.

“We love to bring out the charcuterie boards when hosting Easter and not wanting to spend hours in the kitchen,” says Leah Ingram of Bagels and Lasagna. “In the past, we’ve made Easter dessert boards, using all store-bought treats, as well as savory Easter brunch boards with prosciutto, cheese and bread – again, everything store bought.”

This approach not only saves time but also caters to diverse tastes, ensuring there’s something for everyone. Whether you go for a traditional cheese and meat spread or a playful dessert board, a charcuterie setup makes hosting effortless while still feeling special.

Opt for a brunch spread

Easter brunch is a delightful alternative to a traditional dinner. It’s also easier to pull off if you’re aiming to host an Easter feast without cooking since many classic brunch foods require little to no preparation. Fresh pastries, bagels, smoked salmon and fruit can be picked up from your local bakery, while ready-made quiches and yogurt parfaits add heartiness without extra effort.

Complement the spread with a selection of juices or mimosas for a festive touch. Brunch also encourages a relaxed, come-and-go atmosphere, making it ideal for hosting without the stress of timing a big sit-down meal.

Bring the bakery to your table

Desserts are the crowning touch of any Easter feast, but baking can take up precious time. Instead of spending hours in the kitchen, visit a local bakery to pick up Easter-themed treats like hot cross buns, cinnamon rolls or cakes. These ready-made delights not only save you time but also offer a professional touch that will impress your guests. With the popularity of artisanal bakeries rising, you can find an array of beautifully crafted desserts that rival homemade versions.

According to Finance Buzz, Easter is the second biggest candy holiday, after Halloween, with $2.6 billion worth of Easter candy sold annually in the U.S. alone. Don’t hesitate to go big on buying decorated sugar cookies, chocolate eggs and other Easter treats. Both kids and adults will appreciate these seasonal desserts, whether on their Easter baskets or on the table spread.

Host a potluck party

Hosting a potluck-style Easter dinner lightens your workload and brings a sense of community to the celebration. Assign dishes to guests or invite them to bring their favorite recipes. This way, you can have a diverse spread, allowing everyone to share the joy of contributing to the meal. Make sure to coordinate with guests beforehand to avoid duplicate dishes.

For added fun, try the approach that @ilyxvans shared on their TikTok video – where each guest will bring a dish from their country of origin. It would be amazing to taste different Easter dishes from around the world.

Easter made easy with a no-cook celebration

Hosting an Easter feast without cooking can be a game changer, allowing you to enjoy more time with your loved ones. You can easily create a memorable celebration by incorporating store-bought favorites, simple DIY options and a potluck-style dinner. This Easter, focus on making lasting memories and savoring the moments, not just the food.

Jessica Haggard is dedicated to helping people cook easy everyday recipes focusing on bioavailable and nutrient-dense foods. She helps people overcome food allergies and discover healthy recipes that make a difference in their health with gluten-free, low-carb and keto cooking at Primal Edge Health.

By Daniel Chang, KFF Health News

It’s a holy grail of health care: forcing the industry to reveal prices negotiated between health plans and hospitals — information that had long been treated as a trade secret. And among the flurry of executive orders President Donald Trump signed during his first five weeks back in office was a promise to “Make America Healthy Again” by giving patients accurate health care prices.

Related Articles

Rural hospitals question whether they can afford Medicare Advantage contracts

US measles cases surpass 700 with outbreaks in six states. Here’s what to know

Doctors remove pig kidney from an Alabama woman after a record 130 days

The House speaker’s eyeing big cuts to Medicaid. In his Louisiana district, it’s a lifeline

Kennedy says Health and Human Services will determine the cause of autism by September

The goal is to force hospitals and health insurance companies to make it easier for consumers to compare the actual prices of medical procedures and prescription drugs. Trump gave his administration until the end of May to come up with a standard and a mechanism to make sure the health care industry complies.

But Trump’s 2025 order is also a symbol of how little progress the country has made since he issued a similar directive nearly six years ago. Consumers find it only partially useful, and the quality of the information is spotty.

A ‘Bold’ First Step That Fizzled

The 2019 order was “pretty bold,” said Gary Claxton, a senior vice president at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. “They basically went at the providers and the plans and said, ‘All this data you think is confidential we’re not going to make confidential anymore.’”

What followed was, to consumer advocacy groups, a disappointment. Hospitals and insurers posted on websites voluminous, complex, and confusing data about their prices. The information has been a challenge for even experts in health care pricing to navigate, let alone consumers. Some members of Congress filed legislation to put the force of law behind price transparency requirements; those bills died. And President Joe Biden’s administration was criticized for not more stringently enforcing the regulations, with one consumer advocacy group even buying a Super Bowl ad featuring the rapper Fat Joe alleging that “hospitals and insurers hide their prices.”

Trump’s new order, signed in February, said that hospitals and health plans “were not adequately held to account when their price transparency data was incomplete or not even posted at all.”

The Government Accountability Office reported in October that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services didn’t know whether prices reported by the health care industry were correct or complete. But CMS, which regulates hospitals, now plans to “systematically monitor compliance” and help institutions understand the requirements, said Catherine Howden, an agency spokesperson.

Howden did not answer questions about whether CMS staffers overseeing price transparency compliance have been fired as part of the Trump administration’s wide-ranging effort to cut the federal workforce.

‘Zombie’ Rates and Other Inconsistencies

Meanwhile, independent researchers have found numerous problems with the quality of price data both hospitals and health insurers do share with consumers.

A recent report from the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker found that data reported by four health insurers in New York City often included prices that they say they pay hospitals for services that those health providers don’t — or can’t — provide. These are called “ghost” or “zombie” rates. For example, the health plans reported dentists, optometrists, and audiologists receiving payments for knee replacements, gastrointestinal exams, and other procedures unrelated to their specialties.

In other cases, the data included different prices for the same service paid for by the same insurer at the same hospital. UnitedHealthcare, for example, reported paying New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center three rates — $47,000, $64,000, and $70,000 — to treat a heart attack.

Or, the insurers reported paying the same price for vastly different services. Aetna, for example, said it paid exactly $6,292 to Mount Sinai Beth Israel hospital for the treatment of respiratory infections, heart attacks, cancers of the digestive tract, kidney and urinary tract infections, and psychosis.

Neither UnitedHealthcare nor Aetna addressed the discrepancies in the data. Cole Manbeck, a spokesperson for UnitedHealthcare, said the insurer has met price transparency requirements and urged members “to use our cost-estimator tools for exact costs based on their specific health plan.” Aetna spokesperson Shelly Bendit referred questions to AHIP, a lobbying and trade association for insurers.

Health insurers have “strongly supported” price transparency, said Chris Bond, a spokesperson for AHIP. The group will work with the Trump administration to provide transparency “in a way that is meaningful for the end user, while also promoting a competitive private market,” Bond said.

What’s a Consumer To Do?

Estimates and total prices aren’t very useful for consumers, who are mainly interested in what they’ll ultimately have to pay out-of-pocket, said David Cutler, a professor of applied economics at Harvard University. That can vary by health plan, depending on deductibles, copayments, and other fees.

“Most of the price transparency information doesn’t have that,” he said.

It also doesn’t give consumers information about the quality of care, Cutler added, which can lead to an old bias. “It’s kind of like wine when you go to the restaurant,” he said. “People assume that the more expensive wine is better.”

Cutler said he’s skeptical that price transparency will lower costs for patients. But he said it may offer insight to hospitals and health plans about what their competitors are charging and paying for services — knowledge that could inadvertently lead to price increases if hospitals that receive a lower rate than a competitor demand higher reimbursement from health plans.

Trump’s recent executive order notes that the top quarter of the most expensive health service prices have dropped by 6.3% a year since his 2019 order.

However, the same research referenced in the executive order showed that the bottom quarter of services got more expensive, at a rate of about 3.4% per year, according to the analysis by Turquoise Health, a health care price data firm that examined rates at more than 200 hospitals in the 10 largest U.S. markets.

Some patients say that with research and persistence, they’ve been able to make price transparency work for them.

Theresa Schmotzer, 50, of Goodyear, Arizona, said she used hospital price data to save nearly $3,000 on outpatient surgery to have a fibroid removed last year.

Schmotzer, who has health insurance, said the hospital first told her she would owe $3,700 for the procedure and wanted the payment upfront. But she was skeptical.

She said her health insurer was unable to quote a price for the procedure or specify how much she would owe. The morning of the surgery, Schmotzer said, she found a spreadsheet online at PatientRightsAdvocate.org that included different prices paid by insurers, including hers. The reported price for the procedure was closer to $700, she said.

Schmotzer said she took a printout of the spreadsheet to the hospital and presented it during preadmission. She paid her $300 deductible and told the hospital to bill her for the rest.

A few months later, she said, the bill arrived in the mail for the remaining $400, which she paid.

When people go for surgery and aren’t clear upfront what the cost will be, it stokes fear, she said. “Because they’re going in blind.”

Next Steps

Hospitals say they want to work with federal regulators and comply with reporting requirements, said Ariel Levin, director of coverage policy for the American Hospital Association, which represents about 5,000 institutions. Levin said consumers should be given the price of services and “a more comprehensive estimate” that represents an entire episode of care and the amount they’ll owe out-of-pocket, based on their health plan.

CMS has developed rules since Trump’s 2019 order to make price information reported by hospitals and health plans easier to understand, and the agency has fined more than a dozen hospitals for failing to comply.

Federal rules allow hospitals to report an estimate, a price range, or a historical rate for their services, while health plans can adjust prices based on factors like the severity of the case, the length of treatment, and a patient’s age.

KFF’s Claxton said that such flexibility doesn’t allow for “apples-to-apples comparisons” and that the data must be reliable before researchers can use it to better understand health care costs. “It doesn’t seem to be that yet,” he said.

Much remains to be done before price transparency lives up to expectations that it will increase competition and lower costs, said Katie Martin, chief executive of the Health Care Cost Institute, a nonprofit research group.

Price transparency alone is not a silver bullet, Martin said. It’s “a critical first step” for employers, lawmakers, regulators, and others to better understand how money flows through the health care system and how to make it more efficient, she said. “It’s not the whole thing.”

©2025 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By David Montgomery, Stateline.org

WATER VALLEY, Texas — On a recent day when the wind gusted close to 40 miles per hour, 82-year-old George Neill was making repairs on his ranch, oblivious to the nearby cluster of wind turbines churning the sky behind him.

“After about a year, you never know the things are here,” said Neill, who leases part of his West Texas property to an East Coast-based renewable energy company that placed three wind turbines on it four years ago.

Hundreds of other wind turbines stretch across this landscape, instantly visible to motorists traveling to nearby San Angelo and other towns. The turbines aren’t the only renewable energy producers amid the mesas: From a distance, a glistening array of solar panels resembles a small lake.

Texas is famous for producing oil and gas, but renewable energy has become deeply embedded in the state’s culture and economy. Texas led the nation in generating electricity from wind power and utility-scale solar power in 2023, and wind and solar energy projects contribute tax revenue to local governments and struggling school districts. Texas landowners are expected to receive nearly $30 billion in lease payments under current and expected projects, according to an industry study.

But in recent years, Texas has loosened its political embrace of alternative energy. For the second legislative session in a row, many Texas lawmakers are trying to derail or curb future renewable energy projects.

The shift is rooted in a number of a factors, including the second Trump administration’s antipathy toward renewables and an aggressive recommitment to fossil fuels in Texas energy policy. There is lingering concern over the reliability of the state’s electrical grid, after all types of power sources failed during a devastating 2021 winter storm. Some people object to the aesthetics of wind and solar farms, or note that turbines and panels can harm some wildlife.

Texas is not alone. Once focused on stopping individual projects at the local level, renewable energy opponents have been making inroads in other state legislatures, too. They have received backing from the oil and gas industry. And they’ve been galvanized by the 2022 passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest-ever attempt to speed the transition to clean energy.

In neighboring Oklahoma, for example, hundreds of people rallied at the state Capitol in January to urge Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt to issue an executive order halting new wind and solar projects. Like Texas, Oklahoma is a major oil and natural gas producer, but it generated 45% of its total in-state electricity from renewable resources in 2023.

Stitt, a strong supporter of renewable energy, is highly unlikely to issue such an order. But he will leave office in two years, and several Republicans discussed as possible successors appeared at the rally. One of them, Attorney General Gentner Drummond, recently on social media criticized what he called “the green energy scam” and urged Stitt and state lawmakers to tighten wind farm rules during the current session.

In Arizona, the House earlier this year approved a bill that would bar wind farm projects within a dozen miles of any property zoned for residential use — a restriction that would apply to about 90% of the land in the state, according to an analysis by the Arizona Republic.

In Ohio, a 2021 law allowing county commissioners to create restricted areas where utility-scale solar and wind projects can’t be built has had a huge impact, as 26 Ohio counties have banned renewable energy projects. This year, GOP lawmakers have introduced legislation that would end all state solar subsidies.

And in Missouri, Republican legislators are pushing a bill that would raise taxes on farmers who lease their land for wind or solar energy projects.

The expanding opposition to renewables isn’t unexpected, said Joshua Rhodes, a research scientist at the University of Texas at Austin who studies the power grid. He noted that wind, solar and battery storage have rapidly become the “cheapest way to put more energy on the grid.”

“They’re victims of their own success,” he told Stateline. “They are relatively new players to the market, so there’s going to be pushback from incumbents.”

Opposing sides

At the center of the current debate in Texas is state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, a Republican committee chair who has resurrected a 2023 bill that would require new utility-scale solar and wind projects to get permits from the state’s Public Utility Commission, regulations that aren’t imposed on projects for natural gas and other energy sources. The bill also calls for set-back requirements and cleanup funds.

Kolkhorst, in a statement to Stateline, called the legislation “a common-sense approach to the encroachment of wind and solar facilities being scattered across our great state with no consideration or safeguards for landowners or the environment.”

At an hourslong Senate committee hearing recently where opponents of Kolkhorst’s bill outnumbered supporters, farmers, ranchers and small-town Texans sometimes found themselves on opposite sides, either arguing that sprawling wind farms and solar arrays are a lasting source of economic vitality or a threat to a beloved way of life.

“The land isn’t just a piece of property to us,” said Laurie Dihle, who lives on 154 acres in Franklin County with her husband. “It’s our home, our sanctuary and a big part of who we are. When we look out across the road, we see rolling green pastures and trees. Now we’re facing the possibility of that view and so much more being replaced by a sprawling solar farm.”

Related Articles

Schools lined up for help getting cleaner school buses. Then came the EPA freeze

Work underway on Woodbury’s new water treatment plant; traffic impacts expected

Major nations agree on first-ever global fee on greenhouse gases with plan that targets shipping

This federal rule helped clear air over America’s most beloved parks. Trump’s EPA wants to kill it

Trump’s new energy order puts states’ climate laws in the crosshairs of the Department of Justice

Environmentalists and industry representatives view Kolkhorst’s bill as a roadblock in the march toward green energy. Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas, said the bill would open the door to “a really arbitrary discriminatory permitting regime,” requiring wind and solar developers to get permits that other energy producers do not have to have.

Describing herself as a “lifelong wildlife conservationist,” Kolkhorst said she introduced the bipartisan bill with nine other senators in an effort that “looks past the billions in wind and solar subsidies to instead focus on the total impact of these projects on our land, people and wildlife.”

But oil and gas projects also can harm wildlife, and scientists note that the emissions released by fossil fuels worsen climate change disasters.

Insiders following the legislation, including Metzger, identify one of the bill’s major supporters as Kolkhorst donor Dan Friedkin, a billionaire Houston businessman.

Friedkin, chairman emeritus of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, is owner and CEO of The Friedkin Group, a consortium of businesses and investments that includes Gulf States Toyota. Gulf States is one of the world’s largest distributors of Toyota vehicles and parts, with exclusive rights to sell Toyotas in Texas and four other states. Gulf States Toyota Inc. State PAC made four donations totaling $42,500 to Kolkhorst from October of 2020 to October of 2024, according to the Texas Ethics Commission.

Friedkin is a stunt pilot and outdoorsman with a ranch in South Texas. Neither he nor his lobbyist, Laird Doran, senior vice president for public and legal affairs at The Friedkin Group, returned phone calls from Stateline.

Texas lawmakers have filed dozens of wind- and solar-related bills this session, including measures aimed at restricting the placement of battery storage facilities, curbing tax breaks and subsidies for renewable companies and limiting the amount of electricity solar and wind projects contribute to the state’s power grid.

Republican state Sen. Phil King, for example, is pushing a bill that would mandate that 50% of all new electricity must come from natural gas, nuclear or battery storage. King said solar and wind power should be part of the state’s energy mix, but he claims they aren’t reliable enough to serve as the foundation.

State Rep. Don McLaughlin, a Republican, has introduced legislation mandating a study of the economic impact of wind and solar projects on local communities, as well as noise and health effects, threats to wildlife and the challenges of disassembling worn-out systems. Sweetwater, Texas, has thousands of composite blades piled up in “a windmill graveyard.”

Rural support

But many rural GOP lawmakers whose districts long ago sprouted oil rigs and pump jacks are now strong supporters of wind and solar power.

“It’s nonstop windmills on both side of the road for 70 miles,” said state Rep. John Smithee of Amarillo, describing a typical drive from his hometown in the Texas Panhandle to the Capitol in Austin. “Almost all of those [constituents] have benefited.”

State Rep. Drew Darby, whose northwest Texas district includes San Angelo and Water Valley, an unincorporated community of around 300, said revenue from wind power has resulted in countywide improvements and lease payments to property owners.

“It’s been a positive impact on rural effectiveness,” said Darby. “Landowners … are receiving nice payments for leasing the property.”

In Water Valley, taxes from the increased revenue paved the way for a tax-free bond election that enabled the town’s K-12 school to add an upscale weight room, a technical educational facility and a “cafetorium” that serves as a dining room and performance hall. The school building had previously been so small that students had to eat in shifts.

The wind farm is expected to generate $123 million in local taxes over the 30-year life of the project, as well as more than $100 million in payments to landowners.

George Neill, the West Texas rancher, said he takes the wind turbines in stride as he roams across his 1,700-acre spread.

He’s not at liberty to reveal the amount of his payments. He’s not getting rich, he said, but the money “makes a difference when you’re trying run a ranch.”

Freelance reporter David Montgomery can be reached at djmont1962@gmail.com.

©2025 States Newsroom. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.