Legal victories have dampened the Trump admin’s efforts to halt wind and solar power.

The Trump administration has abandoned its effort to halt wind energy projects across the United States and dropped its challenge to the court ruling that tossed Donald Trump’s order freezing federal permitting and leasing for wind projects. States that challenged the order hailed the development as one of the most significant legal victories against the Trump White House’s campaign against the energy transition.

On Monday, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dismissed the appeal after the Justice Department filed a motion for its voluntary dismissal on June 10.

The case against Trump’s executive order was filed in May 2025 by a coalition of attorneys general from 17 states and Washington, DC, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Monday’s decision affirms the December 8 ruling by US District Court Judge Patti Saris, which concluded that Trump’s January 2025 executive order was unlawful, finding the sweeping ban on wind projects was “arbitrary and capricious” and exceeded the president’s authority.

all 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 16 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Renewables won, electric vehicles won, it's irreversible. There is only one question left, will it be fast enough to preserve a somewhat liveable world? We will see....

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago

    Okay, industry insider here, they've stopped shutting them down in court, which is a good thing. On the other hand, they've stopped giving new projects in planning DOD clearances. So, thats effectively denying the projects without pulling permits or issuing shut downs via court orders.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago

    What kind of moron actively fights against the future like this?

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    Yeah, if Trump's sycophants filed for voluntary dismissal, it's because they wanted to preserve the opportunity to try some other bullshit tactic later.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    Fuckin dumbfucks

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Another war he lost.

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    And back here in Germany our Minister of Economic Affairs and a not ignorable part of the rural population treat renewables, especially wind turbines, like the end of the world. They are behind the fucking Trump administration....

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

    What are their supposed reasons?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    For our Minister, she always talks about reliability but this is also archivable with renewables through a smarter and more integrated grid (which has also other benefits) and more storage capacity.
    For the rural idiots you have anything. From infrasound bullshit to bad faith arguments about birds and other endangered species up to the classic of "they look ugly".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 67 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 122 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Well that’s good news, at least.

    And honestly, that was such a stupid fucking hill for him to want to die on - and he wants to die on a whole fucking lot of stupid hills.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 94 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    That's this universe we live in, the powers that be actively fighting progress, yet progress still is made. I'm grateful to those who progress technology and apply it to benefit humanity. The Drump administration just keeps losing.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    As long as the progress is profitable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago*

    They're not really fighting progress, they're fighting whatever they don't own that's competing with what they do own. Whether that's progress or convention doesn't matter to them. At some point if the other thing wins they switch tactics and start buying it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 39 points 4 months ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 51 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    And then Orange will claim they support wind energy when the energy cost drop.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    The fuckin pedophile will claim to have helped invent wind energy and his entire base will cheer on in triumph. He'd go go on further to exclaim that democrats were secretly trying to pressure him into stopping it, that's why the push back at first but he prevailed and now the Earth is saved from evil Obama who tried to destroy it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago*

    By then they technically will support wind energy because they'll have bought a big share of it. That's what this is always about - support what you own, fight what you don't own. If the other thing wins, buy the other thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago

    It truly was quixotic.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Nah, just shifting gears. The old fight was to stop it, the new fight will be to own it.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    No amount of weak old man outrage can put that genie back in the bottle.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago* (40 children)

    My question is, why does it matter who in government supports what?

    Let the people decide what to use or not themselves.

    Personally, I love solar. If I could afford to buy a bunch of panels and batteries, I'd be generating my own electricity, and happily tell my power company to suck my dick.

    Decentralization should not be so controversial!

  • source
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 4 months ago (25 children)

    My question is, why does it matter who in government supports what?

    Because they were actively holding back required approvals for the wind farms to begin operations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 4 months ago* (24 children)

    And that's another thing, why do we need approval to build whatever the fuck we want on land we own?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago (18 children)

    In this case, height restrictions. It's normally just a pro forma notification to the military that you're building something above a certain height so they know not to crash into it. It got weaponised by the trump admin.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 4 months ago (17 children)

    The military can go around, they're not supposed to be on my property anyway. It's my property, I should be able to do what I want on it.

    Just more government overreach.

    You think that sort of thing is new, or limited to just half of the Uniparty?

    Or do you actually realize it's not and are simply simping for your chosen side of the same stupid bird?

    Fuck em both, and fuck anyone who wants "their side" to win. I am so sick and tired of having to deal with these kinds of power hungry assholes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (16 children)

    Or do you actually realize it's not and are simply simping for your chosen side of the same stupid bird?

    Me: Answers questions with facts

    You: Simp!

    Dude, I've never even been to the States.

    The military can go around, they're not supposed to be on my property anyway.

    Also in case you didn't realise, we're talking airspace. Those turbines are way high.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 4 months ago (15 children)

    Again, what gives anyone the right to determine what someone else puts on land they own?

    You seem to actively want people to have to obey someone else, and if that's not sucking authoritarian cock I don't know what is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    You keep ascribing desires to me when I've done nothing more than explain the current situation... I have not stated a single opinion of mine in this thread thus far.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    It all goes back to the fact that you tried to blame it all on Trump and his ilk, while I agree that he shares the blame, you are actually refusing to acknowledge the rest of the situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    In case your attempt to start arguments is sparked from actual ignorance ….

    federal permitting and leasing for wind projects

    • many wind farms are not on owned property. In particular for offshore wind farms there is no land that can be owned. Many projects are in locations leased from the government
    • if turbines are above above a certain height, it affects airspace used for flying, you don’t own
    • even renewables can be bad for the environment. The trope about killing birds has some truth to it, and environmental review keeps it from happening
    • yes, renewables can affect your neighbors and they deserve some consideration
    • yes, it’s conceivable that a wind farm offshore or near a base or a border can have national security implications

    In a nation of laws, things like this are worth considering. However that is different than using them as cover for personal beliefs

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    There are far too many laws already on the books now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (4 children)

    True, but that doesn't change the fact that laws are what "gives them the right".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Immoral laws should not exist, and when they do they should not be followed.

    Any laws without an actual victim are immoral laws.

    Therefore any law that says I can't build something out in the middle of nowhere, on land I own, with no neighbors within a mile of me where no other land owners could conceivably be affected is itself also an immoral law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    Also true but it doesnt change anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I hope you don't mind when I build a 50 meter tall sun blocker to block your land from getting any sunlight since I should be allowed to build what I want.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    Go for it, a nice shaded area would help me immensely. I do, however hope you've done a ground analysis, because if it falls on my house you're building me another. That's how it works. If it's no longer on just your property, it becomes my problem too.

    Edit to add: Besides, in cases where there's clearly been damage to another person and/or their property, that in itself is at the minimum a civil case.

    One could even argue that environmental concerns could also be a civil problem, as one person's poisonous fumes could easily cross into another person's property and damage their person or effects.

    All these so called environmental laws do is make it legal for any amount under a set limit. Regardless of any damage to people or property it causes. It's a legal amount after all!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Because we live in a society with laws.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Easy to say, but look what happens when some oversized oompa loompa ignores them all And just acts for personal gain

    Unfortunately we’re likely to get stuck with more laws, more red tape, more paperwork, trying to prevent the current disaster from happening again

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago

    That's part of the problem with having so many laws written in lawyer speak. They are intentionally difficult to understand, so when someone the current leaders like is breaking them, they're interpreted to be weaker, and when someone they don't is, they get the book thrown at them.

    That's the problem with reinterpreting the laws we have instead of trying to actually change them.

    Consider the US Constitution. It has been considering a "living document" in spite of the fact that there is a well documented path to adding new laws and changing or removing existing laws.

    However, we have allowed the bureaucracy to j trude and decide that. No, this particular law actually means this now, when historically it meant the total opposite.

    Again, speaking from the point of view of an American, because I know my own government best, why do we have so many new federal departments, despite not one of them being listed in the Constitution? Because some judge decided that the clause "Provide for the general welfare" could be reinterpreted to mean "provide for every single citizen inside the nation's borders." rather than for the nation as a whole.

    Those same people would have had absolutely no power to add those departments the correct way, using the Amendment process.

    Look at how we handled Prohibition in the early 1900s, we required a Constitutional amendment to ban it and then again to undo said ban.

    Now, however, some random bureaucracy can decide what people can or can't put inside their own bodies...

    Why? Because some idiot decided to just reinterpret the Constitution.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (10 children)

    Because if you dont have some kind of regulation it ends up being about market forces, which has even less to do with the will of the people and more to do with what makes a very few people rich.

    The main issue with government intervention isnt that "government bad", it's that those same few rich people have more influence on it than the will of the people. In a large part because those people would rather cede that power to them rather than make any kind of rational decision.

    Its good that green energy is benefiting from market forces right now... but it's a fair weather friend, and as soon as something else is more likely to make some rich asshole more money, it will be tossed back in the junk heap to rot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    Without the people buying things, those rich don't exist. All regulations really do is line the pockets of the already existing companies and make it harder for the small guy working out of his garage.

    People have forgotten that the wallet is the most powerful way to vote. Don't buy their product and they won't make any money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    And without those rich people making them, they have nothing to buy. They dont just magically appear for people to buy. That is a misconception (or misdirection, rather) with how consumer action works. You cant take action if the rich dont let you in those situations.

    The wallet is only as powerful as the people who run your economy, and generally less so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    The economy doesn't need to be "run" is my entire point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    It doesn't need to be, no, but it will be, because we're too busy pretending we can do something about it without organized action that is aided by an actually effective government producing actually effective regulation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    All regulations really do is line the pockets of the already existing companies and make it harder for the small guy working out of his garage.

    And protect the environment from wanton pollution and destruction, and provide workers with guarantees against their employer, and keep needlessly dangerous products from hurting customers, and...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Personally, I find regulations to be a bandaid over a legitimate problem: shareholder misalignment. Really, companies should only ever be consumer and worker coöps since those are the direct stakeholders and the reason businesses exist in the first place. Shareholders aren't needed and only serve as a form of parasitic wealth extraction that feeds capital accural, cartel formation, and monopolization.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Even a perfect utopian co-op needs regulations beacuse most people don't know anything about environmental impact or proper safety precautions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    Any work I do on my house I do to code (and I do look it up when starting a new project). The previous owner... not so much - I found newspaper wrapped around electrical junction boxes, because wires never get hot enough to light old, super dry newspaper on fire....

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago*

    But you’re missing externalities. A huge reason we need better regulation is the tendency of corporations to externalize their costs to all of our detriment.

    Climate and pollutions issues are a prime example. In a free market A corporations saves money by evading cleanup costs, polluting, and the rest of us pay. A justly regulated market minimizes those externalities so the corporations covers all its costs

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    The government paid like $1B for wind farm developers to abandon projects.

    Most of the time government slows things down, but the current administration actively fights against progress or shatter people want. wtf does he care about wind farms in New England enough to shut them down

    I mean the alternatives are not all wine and roses. We pay among the highest electricity prices in the country and a big part of that is depending on wind farms that are already like a decade behind. Previous governments slowed them down, letting everyone be heard, but they didn’t actively oppose

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Oh, I agree with you on that. We should not be picking winners and losers based on politics. That way leads to ruin.

    When the right complains about wind farm and solar subsidies, I agree with them. They need to prosper or not on their own, not with tax money.

    When the left complains about oil and gas exploration subsidies, I agree with them, too. For the same reason as above.

    I get why people want to nationalize all these industries, and it's because those industries were created in large part by using our money.

    I also know that when a government constantly shields its citizens, including their businesses, from their own mistakes, it tends to create an attitude of dismissal towards improvement.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago*

    Nor is decentralization controversial. And there can be a conversation about making sure it is not actively discouraged.

    But economies of scale are real. Does that mean a single power plant for the entire US, continent, world is a good idea? Of course not. Nor is 8.3 billion* individual installations.

    * current world population

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago*

    Something…something…oil prices

  • source
  • 11 comments in c/energy@slrpnk.net view that post
    [–] 39 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    The dumbass probably never realized that reducing fossil fuel consumption hurts Iran.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    It was never about hurting Iran. It was about fucking children on an island.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 4 months ago

    So we're okay with this massive national security risk now? I was told this was all about protecting national security, and they would never lie about something like that. /s

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 4 months ago

    Don Quixote finally let the windmills have their day, eh?

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    They can finally see which way the wind is blowing

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    A bit of a shame really, because now they will focus their incompetent gaze on something else.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    Right? If it's not wind, what are they turning their idiot gazes on next? They're not the kinds of assholes who just let things drop when they aren't working, they always reach for something else to avoid the appearance of flip flopping, or, as the woke left would call it, "learning."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    chomo Caligula tacos again

  • source