Save LBI Encouraged by Collapse of Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind Projects, Presses on with Litigation to Ensure Permanent Victory
The controversial Atlantic Shores South plan to erect 200 wind turbines as close as 8.7 miles off the coast of southern Long Beach Island (LBI), Brigantine, and Atlantic City, began unraveling on January 30 when Shell New Energies, which owns 50 percent of Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind, announced that it would write off a billion-dollar loss and step away from the projects. The announcement came just 17 days after Save LBI filed a comprehensive federal lawsuit against the projects alleging noncompliance with five laws. Four days later, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU) refused to award significant additional rate subsidies that Atlantic Shores had requested to fund the projects.
'This is a major victory for shore values, communities, and common sense,' said Bob Stern, president and co-founder of Save LBI in a letter thanking supporters. 'But there is also unfinished business here to ensure that these projects, or similar ones, never reappear, and that the flawed Federal and State processes and impact-assessment methods that carried such a costly and damaging project this far are fundamentally changed.'
Stern identified several areas in which Save LBI will continue its fight to permanently end Atlantic Shores South and Atlantic Shores North, including the passage of federal legislation to remove investment tax credits and other incentives for offshore wind under the Inflation Reduction Act and the cancellation of the two wind lease areas. 'We have written to U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary [Douglas] Burgum suggesting that, and will be filing a formal petition asking for cancellation,' Stern said. 'Our recent federal lawsuit provides ample justification for such cancellation.'
Save LBI will also seek to overturn prior project approvals through its ongoing litigation — which if granted, would set a precedent for other cases — and continue its longstanding campaign to protect the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale by filing a petition with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to establish a safe migration corridor along the East Coast. That petition, which asks NOAA to designate the corridor as critical habitat, will demonstrate that the Atlantic Shores projects and other offshore wind projects in these sensitive areas would seriously impede or block whale migration.' We will ask that all wind projects be excluded from that critical habitat corridor,' Stern said.
Finally, Stern welcomed the new Administration's review of the leasing and permitting practices for all offshore wind projects and urged everyone involved with Atlantic Shores South to 'reflect on how a project with virtually no benefit, high cost, and significant environmental damage proceeded so far. Our work on this over the last few years showed that the entire process of site selection and project review was fundamentally flawed.
'We will continue our efforts to inform the public, the media, and our elected representatives as to the true costs and impacts of these projects, suggest improvements for the leasing, environmental review, and financing practices used, and offer constructive energy supply options to keep the lights on,' Stern concluded.
About Save LBI:
Save Long Beach Island (Save LBI) is an organization of citizens and businesses on and off the Island working together to protect the ocean and Long Beach Island and neighboring communities from the destructive impact of the Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind projects and potentially other offshore wind projects. As a not-for-profit, non-partisan entity, we do not endorse any political candidates but vigorously pursue policies and actions that protect the Island and New Jersey communities.
The organization is led by Beach Haven resident Bob Stern, a Ph.D. engineer with experience in environmental law who previously managed the U.S. Department of Energy's office overseeing environment protection related to energy programs and projects. Visit SaveLBI.org for more information.
Save LBI Letter to Supporters
MULTIMEDIA:
PHOTO CAPTION: Visual simulation of Atlantic Shores South project from Holgate, New Jersey. Source: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM).
NEWS SOURCE: Save Long Beach Island (Save LBI)
Keywords: Legal and Law, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Save LBI, Save Long Beach Island, offshore wind, offshore wind projects, LONG BEACH ISLAND, N.J.
This press release was issued on behalf of the news source (Save Long Beach Island (Save LBI)) who is solely responsibile for its accuracy, by Send2Press® Newswire. Information is believed accurate but not guaranteed. Story ID: S2P123962 AP-R15TBLLI
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
8 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's EPA puts California in its crosshairs with its proposed car rules
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's recent proposal to repeal its own 2009 finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health marks a major U-turn for the nation's climate progress. While it's impact will be felt nationwide, the plan takes direct aim at California. In supporting documents released in the wake of Tuesday's proposal, the nation's top environmental agency outlined the justifications for its plan to rescind the so-called endangerment finding and roll back its longstanding regulations for planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from all motor vehicles, including cars and trucks. 'As a result of these proposed changes, engine and vehicle manufacturers would no longer have any future obligations for the measurement, control, and reporting of [greenhouse gas] emissions for any highway engine and vehicle,' the agency wrote in its rule summary. But the documents, including an 80-page notice of proposed rulemaking and 60-page draft regulatory impact analysis, also contain several nods to California policies, referencing the state by name 27 times — by far more than any other state. That's largely because for more than 50 years, California has been granted unique authority from the EPA to set stricter tailpipe emissions than those mandated by the federal government. This authority, obtained through waivers issued by the EPA, has been critical to the state's efforts to address its notorious smog and air quality issues, which are driven partly by transportation emissions and by California's unique topography that traps pollutants in its interior basins. The waivers were also the basis for California's nation-leading plan to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035 and transition to electric vehicles. The EPA's documents repeatedly state that California's waivers have officially been repealed. As of publication, however, the Trump administration's unprecedented effort to do so in June is still winding its way through the court system following a lawsuit from the state. Notably, the EPA's own analysis of the possible outcomes of its proposal indicate that without California's leadership — and without the tax credits created under President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act — national adoption of electric vehicles will decline. At the same time, gasoline prices will increase because of the higher demand from more gas-powered vehicles on the road. 'They don't seem to have put together that strong of a case,' said Chris Busch, director of transportation and a senior economist with Energy Innovation Policy & Technology, a nonpartisan think tank, who reviewed the analysis. 'What this shows is that the net impact is less favorable when you reduce the California [Advanced Clean Trucks rule], when you take away the California waivers and remove the IRA credits.' In a statement this week, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said repealing the endangerment finding would have economic benefits for the American people. 'If finalized, rescinding the Endangerment Finding and resulting regulations would end $1 trillion or more in hidden taxes on American businesses and families,' Zeldin said. According to the EPA, that $1-trillion savings would come from rescinding vehicle regulations built upon the endangerment finding. That includes the Biden administration's electric vehicles sales target, which the agency refers to as an 'EV mandate.' The EPA also said removing the endangerment finding would save Americans $54 billion in costs annually through the repeal of greenhouse gas standards. Busch said he could not readily see how the agency arrived at that figure based on the analysis provided. With California's rules repealed, 'you end up with fewer EVs, more gasoline cars, more demand for gas and higher gas prices,' he said. The EPA also argues that electric vehicles are sucking up energy that could be better used elsewhere — 'from factories to data-center servers to air-conditioning.' It uses California as an example of this perceived misappropriation of electricity, pointing to a 2022 memo from the California Independent System operator that urged people to reduce energy use, including EV charging, during a record-breaking heat wave. The EPA's announcement stunned many members of the environmental community who condemned it as a dangerous abdication of the agency's mission to protect human health and the environment. Among the agency's many claims are that no technology currently exists to reduce greenhouse gases enough to measurably affect global climate change concerns without risking greater harm to public health and welfare, such as increased vehicle prices. But major U.S. automakers such as GM and Ford have already committed to an electric future — as have international competitors such as China, which is investing heavily in electric vehicles. According to the California Energy Commission, about 22% of new vehicles sales in the state in the second quarter of this year were zero-emission vehicles. 'Despite Trump's full-on attack, Californians are choosing the clean simplicity of ZEVs,' read a statement from CEC Commissioner Nancy Skinner. 'Make no mistake: California is not backing down from its ZEV goals. We will continue to heavily invest in accessible and reliable ZEV infrastructure, making the ZEV driving experience better each day.' Busch said California has several tools at its disposal to defend itself and preserve its clean vehicle progress. In the heavy-duty space, the California Air Resources Board already has the Clean Truck Partnership — an agreement with nearly all truck manufacturers in the state to meet advanced emissions reduction targets. The state's heavy vehicle incentive program also provides funding opportunities for fleet owners to replace older heavy-duty diesel vehicles with zero-emission ones. There are also legislative possibilities, such as Assembly Bill 914, which would give CARB more authority to regulate indirect sources of pollution such as warehouses. One way those warehouses could meet those rules would be by increasing their electric truck fleets, Busch said. CARB also employs a clean-mile standard for transportation companies such as Uber and Lyft, which will see them gradually increase their zero-emission miles, and a similar tactic could be employed for the freight sector, he said. 'States have a lot of options still,' Busch said. 'There is a lot of momentum.' In a statement this week, CARB chair Liane Randolph described the EPA's proposals as 'the latest moves from this feckless federal government that choose polluter fantasyland over proven science.' 'Meanwhile, back on Earth, the planet continues to suffer from the consequences of unchecked carbon pollution as heatwaves, floods and wildfires threaten increasingly uninsurable communities everywhere,' Randolph said. 'Unlike this negligent administration, California won't turn our backs on what is happening right before our eyes. We choose reality, science and innovation — and we know we are not the only ones.'
Time Magazine
10 hours ago
- Time Magazine
The EPA's Anti-Climate Move Leaves Industry Confused
It's hard to think of a policy move that could more directly target the core of climate science than the Trump Administration's decision to undo the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Engagement Finding this week. The Engagement Finding, reached by the EPA in 2009, outlines how greenhouse gas emissions threaten public health and welfare—thereby laying out the legal basis for the agency to regulate those pollutants. As wonky as it may be, the finding is the linchpin of EPA climate regulation affecting everything from automobiles to power plants. Successfully undoing it would help the administration swiftly undo a whole slew of climate rules. To underpin the decision undoing the endangerment finding, the Department of Energy released an accompanying report the same day launching a full frontal assault on the scientific consensus on climate change. To do so, it relied on the analysis of a handful of scientists widely known for views that question the proven role humans play causing climate change. Undoing the endangerment finding was a move so bold that in the first Trump term the administration had flirted with the idea before abandoning it as too extreme. In the hours that followed the July 29 announcement, my inbox was filled with statements decrying it as 'devastating' and 'reckless'—and for understandable reasons. But the precise effects of the attempted roll back are difficult to predict. For one, it isn't immediately obvious that the rollback will survive the inevitable litigation that will challenge it—even with an increasingly conservative judiciary. The faulty scientific basis for the decision is one reason. Another is the legal precedent established in the 2007 Massachusetts vs. EPA decision that gave the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases if they endanger public health. And, finally, Congress included language in the Inflation Reduction Act that clarified that greenhouse gas emissions count as pollutants. That language remains on the books even after President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill gutted the law. In the years that it will take for that litigation to play out, companies will be left in a state of confusion. Will they ultimately have to comply with some version of existing regulations if courts don't side with the Trump Administration? Will a future administration impose even more stringent regulations, thereby harming firms that decided to ditch their climate work? And will states try to make up for the loss with regulations of their own? In the short term at least, large companies will tread carefully in response to the new uncertainty. In the longer term, we can expect a whole constellation of factors—from tighter regulation in foreign markets to technology developments—to provide an incentive for lower emissions technologies. At some point, perhaps, Congress might even craft legislation that gives more direct guidance on how the EPA should regulate greenhouse gases. I don't say any of this to diminish the decision's weight. It is certainly significant that, as the costs of climate change become more evident, the U.S. federal government would offer such an egregious attack on climate science. Nonetheless, EPA regulations aren't the primary driver pushing companies to decarbonize. And they aren't the only determining factor shaping the trajectory of U.S. emissions as it was assumed 16 years ago when the endangerment finding was adopted. Large companies are subject to regulations globally. Moreover, technological advances mean that energy systems are, in general, getting cleaner and greener because of economics. Nixing the endangerment finding is a roadblock, but it's not the end of the story. To get this story in your inbox, subscribe to the TIME CO2 Leadership Report newsletter here.
Miami Herald
12 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Millions of Medicare beneficiaries are facing a rude awakening
Millions of Medicare beneficiaries are on the brink of an unwelcome surprise regarding their prescription drug costs. After the Medicare Trustees' 2025 report declared Part D prescription drug coverage to be in "satisfactory financial condition," the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is now taking emergency action to contain skyrocketing premiums for 2026. Don't miss the move: SIGN UP for TheStreet's FREE daily newsletter The crisis underscores how fragile the program has become - and why beneficiaries will need to be more proactive than ever this fall. Image source: bernard buyse on Unsplash Despite the Trustees' rosy projections, insurers submitted 2026 Part D bids with dramatic premium increases. The National Average Monthly Bid Amount (NAMBA) soared from $179.45 in 2025 to $239.27, threatening base premiums well beyond what beneficiaries might tolerate. If 2025 is any guide, however, the 2026 base beneficiary premium will be far less than the eye-popping $239.27 NAMBA. In 2025, the NAMBA was $179.45 - yet the base premium was just $36.78. Understanding the national average monthly bid amount NAMBA is a figure used by the CMS to help determine the costs and subsidies for Medicare Part D prescription drug plans. In simple terms, it's the average cost that all participating insurance plans estimate it will take to provide basic prescription drug coverage for one person for one month. The "average" is weighted by the number of people enrolled in each plan. Related: Millions of Medicare beneficiaries could see major price shock For the first time in the program's history, CMS rejected some standalone Part D plan bids, citing "unacceptable, significant increases in cost sharing or reductions in benefits." The agency also extended its emergency Premium Stabilization Demonstration, which caps how much monthly premiums can rise, though the cap will increase to $50 in 2026 from $35 in 2025. The Inflation Reduction Act's unintended consequences: How policy shifts are driving up your costs So, what went wrong? Much of the turbulence stems from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which was designed to help seniors by capping out-of-pocket drug spending. The law's 2025 benefit redesign introduced: A $2,000 annual out-of-pocket cap (rising to $2,100 in 2026).Increased government liability for catastrophic pricing pressures on insurers. While the cap benefits the roughly 5% of beneficiaries with the highest annual drug costs, the vast majority - about 95% - now face higher deductibles, increased coinsurance, and volatile premiums. According to KFF, 85% of PDP enrollees face deductibles in 2025, up from 67% a year earlier. Coinsurance: The hidden cost that could skyrocket your drug bills The result is a market under stress. Some Medicare Part D enrollees face coinsurance instead of flat copays, meaning they pay a percentage of a drug's retail price – often 25% to 33% – rather than a fixed dollar amount. Coinsurance is most common for non-preferred and specialty drugs, not for standard preferred brands. Take Eliquis as an illustration of the math: Its retail cost can exceed $700 a month. If a plan required 25% coinsurance, that would be about $178 per month, and 33% would run $235 - far higher than the typical $47 flat copay charged when Eliquis is classified as a preferred brand. While most plans currently use copays for this drug, retirees need to understand that coinsurance on higher-cost medications can create significant out-of-pocket exposure. As costs shift to consumers, federal interventions are doing the heavy lifting to prevent widespread premium shock. "Automatic financing" - the Trustees' faith that Treasury transfers would always smooth things out - isn't enough to stabilize the market under the IRA's redesign. The average 2025 standalone Part D premium actually fell to $39 a month, but that stability is artificial - propped up by temporary subsidies and bid caps. Behind the scenes, plan choices are shrinking, and market concentration is increasing. The top five firms now control nearly three-quarters of enrollment. Low-income subsidy decline: A shrinking safety net for vulnerable seniors Low-income beneficiaries are also feeling the squeeze. Enrollment in the Low-Income Subsidy (LIS) program dropped from 13.7 million to 13.1 million in 2025, partly due to Medicaid "unwinding." Fewer people are shielded from the volatility. Related: Retired workers to see frustrating change to Medicare in 2026 This is the new Part D reality - volatile premiums, higher deductibles, and a market reliant on emergency federal action. With open enrollment for 2026 coverage beginning Oct. 15, inaction could cost you thousands. Historically, most beneficiaries stick with the same drug plan year after year, but that complacency is now dangerous. The reshop imperative: Why annual review is non-negotiable "It will be more important than ever for Medicare beneficiaries to 'reshop' their Part D drug plans during open enrollment this fall," said Mary Beth Franklin, a certified financial planner and Medicare expert. "Base your decision on your specific drugs and dosages - not last year's premium." Practical steps for beneficiaries 1. Review your Annual Notice of Change (ANOC): Plans will mail these in September. They spell out changes to premiums, deductibles, formularies, and pharmacy networks. Even small shifts can have big financial impacts. 2. Use the Medicare Plan Finder tool: Available at starting Oct. 1, the tool lets you enter your prescriptions, dosage, ZIP code, and preferred pharmacy to compare total annual costs across plans. Focus on total out-of-pocket cost, not just the monthly premium. Navigating fewer choices: The impact of market consolidation Fewer plan options mean less room for error. According to Melinda Caughill, co-founder of 65 Incorporated, "We had an average of 22 plan options at the end of 2024. In 2025, there are just 14." Real savings: What you could save by comparing plans Caughill reports some clients have saved an average of $8,000 by switching plans - with extreme cases topping $100,000 over time. "Assuming that, because the coverage worked for you this year, it will work next year is utter nonsense," she said. Seeking professional guidance: When to get help Professional guidance may be harder to find. Several major carriers have cut agent commissions for Part D plans, reducing the availability of free expert assistance. If you need help, schedule it early or consider paying a professional for an independent review. Consider buying your prescriptions off-plan While you are generally better off having a Part D plan, and you'll avoid future penalties, you do not have to use it to pay for your drugs, said Marcia Mantell, president of Mantell Retirement Consulting. "If you see there's a big increase in a prescription you must take, check out any of the off-plan options available to you at no cost: GoodRx, Singlecare, AARP's discount drug card, Amazon, Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drug Company, and many more. It takes more time, but there could be big savings." Don't forget Part B premiums: Another cost to consider In addition to Part D changes, standard Part B premiums are projected to rise sharply in 2026. Make sure to factor the combined cost of Medicare into your budget. Medicare Part D is entering a period of unprecedented volatility. Federal interventions are temporarily softening the blow, but the underlying market is fragile. For most beneficiaries, the best defense is active shopping during open enrollment - comparing plans, understanding coinsurance exposure, and making sure your plan still works for your prescriptions and your budget. Failure to act could turn 2026 into the most expensive year yet for your prescription drugs. The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
