SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Save the bees! That's the battle cry in two ongoing court cases in California where beekeepers and environmental groups are fighting regulators over the use of pesticides they contend harm bees and crops.

On Tuesday, on behalf of the groups, the law firm Earthjustice asked a federal judge in San Francisco to make the Environmental Protection Agency take a second look at a pesticide called sulfoxaflor. Lead attorney Greg Loarie says this is the first case beekeepers have brought against the agency for failing to protect honeybees from toxic pesticides.

"It's gotten to the point where beekeepers are losing so many bees each year that they simply can't stay in business," says Loarie. "At the rate we're going, we're really on a short path to agricultural disaster."

Last week, Earthjustice asked a state court in Alameda to force the California Department of Pesticide Regulation to stop approving the use of a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids, until the department finishes a multi-year review of the impacts on honeybees.

Groups opposed to and in favor of pesticide use both cite studies they say prove their respective points. Pesticide manufacturers blame the bee deaths on a combination of causes, including disease and predators. But no matter what the cause, Paul Towers, organizing and media director of the Pesticide Action Network, says the stakes are high.

"We know bees are responsible for one in three bites of food we eat," he says. "We need to take every step we can to ensure their continued safety and protection."

California's state review of neonicotinoids began in 2009, and Towers says that's long enough to take some "meaningful action" to protect bees. The bees play a beneficial role in many farm crops, but at greatest risk in California is the $3 billion almond crop, which is entirely dependent on bees for pollination.


get more stories like this via email

New Mexico conservation advocates say the state's budget awaiting the governor's signature would make great strides in addressing climate change and protecting public health.

Justin Garoutte, advocate, climate and energy with the group Conservation Voters New Mexico, highlighted 21 bills awaiting the governor's signature that will protect air, land, water and wildlife resources. He said Senate Bill 48, known as the Community Benefit Fund, would be a groundbreaking investment in adapting to climate change through locally driven projects that strengthen communities and create jobs, including jobs for those employed in the extraction industry.

"So, helping workers in the oil and gas industry or other industries transition to more clean jobs - there's 17-million that's going to the workforce solutions department for clean-energy worker training," he explained.

SB 48, which passed by a vote of 39 to 26, would provide grants for infrastructure and clean energy projects that reduce pollution, improve resiliency against extreme weather, and enhance grid reliability in cities and towns across the state. The governor has until April 11th to approve spending for fiscal year 2026, which begins on July 1st and ends on June 30th next year.

Garoutte said with state guidance, individual communities could implement projects unique to their region, prioritizing rural and underserved communities.

"The end goal is ensuring that we as a state continue advancing to protect our communities from the impacts of climate change that we're feeling now, right? We have to adapt, we have to do mitigation efforts, and we just want to keep moving forward as a state when we don't see that at the federal level," he continued.

Legislation included in the next budget includes two transportation provisions. $60 million for electric vehicle charging infrastructure for school districts and improved pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure are part of the spending plan.


get more stories like this via email

Large, energy-intense buildings used in Bitcoin mining, cloud computing and artificial intelligence data processing industries could become more common in West Virginia under legislation being considered by lawmakers.

Advocacy groups said high-impact data centers pose environmental and public health risks for communities.

Morgan King, climate and energy program manager for the West Virginia Citizen Action Group, pointed out Mingo, Mason and Tucker counties have already seen data center growth, along with an increased strain on natural resources. She added under House Bill 2014, such facilities would not be required to follow local zoning, land use or noise ordinances.

"These centers can take up anywhere from three to four square miles of land that will be repurposed for construction of these buildings for data centers," King explained. "Even more, they require an intense water use and energy use."

The bill would allow companies to develop independent energy grids using coal and gas. Supporters of the legislation, including West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey, argued the bill would bring significant investment to the state.

The bill places no limits on how much of the water supply these facilities can draw upon. King noted in neighboring Virginia, some data centers are using nearly a million gallons of water a day.

"It doesn't put any restrictions on the facility, which could have an impact on local water resources," King emphasized. "It also requires that the power generation of coal throughout the state be remaining at a 69% base load."

She added there is increased exposure to light and sound pollution for residents and disruption of wildlife habitats.

"One of these centers is posed for Tucker County, right outside of Davis, that's in one of the most beautiful natural areas of the state," King observed. "If we put a data center in there, it's going to create a lot of noise and light pollution that will impact local ecosystems."

Energy experts are concerned data centers could lead to higher electricity bills for Mountain State households, and worsen communities' climate change resilience.


get more stories like this via email

As Congress debates cuts to offset tax-cut extensions, the future of the Clean Fuels Production Tax Credit remains uncertain, with potential impacts on Michigan's growing clean-fuel industry. The Clean Fuels Production Tax credit was established under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. It offers 20 cents per gallon for nonaviation fuels and 35 cents for aviation fuels which cut emissions by 50% compared with petroleum. Michigan has six key clean-fuel and alternative-energy initiatives, including Sustainable Aviation Fuel.

Alex Muresianu, senior policy analyst for Tax Foundation, estimates that repealing the credit could net about $12.8 billion over a decade based on Treasury projections, although he questions the math.

"That was based on some estimates from Treasury. It doesn't make sense to take a revenue cost estimate from Treasury and assume it will one-for-one translate into revenue raised from reversing a policy," she said.

Critics call credit initiative costly, favoring big companies while possibly raising fuel prices and distorting the market. It started on January 1st and is slated to run through 2027 unless extended.

Congress is divided on the future of these tax credits. While some want to eliminate them altogether to offset tax cuts, others warn that doing so could harm energy investments and job growth.

Nan Swift, a resident fellow of the Governance Program at R Street Institute, believes that right now, Congress is likely far from debating the finer details, and the tax credit is just one of those specifics.

"Certainly, it's on a a wish list for a lot of members, but we don't even know yet if the House and Senate can find agreement between their two-bill or one-bill plans," she explained.

Shortly after the Clean Fuels Production Tax Credit was enacted, debates arose about its cost, effectiveness and fairness over the broader economy.


get more stories like this via email