Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Farmers and small business owners were promised financial help for energy upgrades. They’re still waiting for the money.

News Feed
Friday, March 21, 2025

This coverage is made possible through a partnership between Grist, BPR, a public radio station serving western North Carolina, WABE, Atlanta’s NPR station, WBEZ, a public radio station serving the Chicago metropolitan region, and Interlochen Public Radio in Northern Michigan. The Trump administration’s freeze on funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, the landmark climate law from the Biden era, has left farmers and rural businesses across the country on the hook for costly energy efficiency upgrades and renewable energy installations. The grants are part of the Rural Energy for America Program, or REAP, originally created in the 2008 farm bill and supercharged by funding from the IRA. It provides farmers and other businesses in rural areas with relatively small grants and loans to help lower their energy bills by investing, say,  in more energy-efficient farming equipment or installing small solar arrays.  By November 2024, the IRA had awarded more than $1 billion for nearly 7,000 REAP projects, which help rural businesses in low-income communities reduce the up-front costs of clean energy and save thousands on utility costs each year.  But now, that funding is in limbo. Under the current freeze, some farmers have already spent tens of thousands of dollars on projects and are waiting for the promised reimbursement. Others have had to delay work they were counting on to support their businesses, unsure when their funding will come through — or if it will. REAP is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Secretary Brooke Rollins said the agency is “coming to the tail end of the review process” of evaluating grants awarded under the Biden administration. “If our farmers and ranchers especially have already spent money under a commitment that was made, the goal is to make sure they are made whole,” Rollins told reporters in Atlanta last week. But it’s not clear when the funds might be released, or whether all the farmers and business owners awaiting their money will receive it.  For Joshua Snedden, a REAP grant was the key to making his 10-acre farm in Monee, Illinois, more affordable and environmentally sustainable. But months after installing a pricey solar array, he’s still waiting on a reimbursement from the federal government — and the delay is threatening his bottom line.  “I’m holding out hope,” said Snedden, a first-generation farmer in northeast Illinois. “I’m trying to do everything within my power to make sure the funding is released.” In December, his five-year old operation, Fox at the Fork, began sourcing its power from a new 18.48 kilowatt solar array which cost Snedden $86,364. The system currently offsets all the farm’s electricity use and then some. REAP offers grants for up to half of a project like this, and loan guarantees for up to 75 percent of the cost. For Snedden, a $19,784 REAP reimbursement grant made this solar array possible. But the reimbursement, critical to Snedden’s cash flow, was frozen by Trump as part of a broader review of the USDA’s Biden-era commitments. Joshua Snedden is a first-generation farmer who said he will continue whether or not he gets the federal funding for solar. Courtesy of Joshua Snedden Snedden grows the produce he takes to market — everything from tomatoes to garlic to potatoes — on about an acre of his farm. He also plans to transform the rest of his land into a perennial crop system, which would include fruit trees like pears, plums, and apples planted alongside native flowers and grasses to support wildlife.  A solar array was always part of his plans, “but seemed like a pie in the sky” kind of project, he said, adding he thought it might take him a decade to afford such an investment. The REAP program has been a lifeline for Illinois communities struggling with aging infrastructure and growing energy costs, according to Amanda Pankau with the Prairie Rivers Network, an organization advocating for environmental protection and climate change mitigation across Illinois.  “By lowering their electricity costs, rural small businesses and agricultural producers can put that money back into their business,” said Pankau.  That’s exactly what Snedden envisioned from his investment in the solar power system. The new solar array wouldn’t just make his farm more resilient to climate change, but also more financially viable, “because we could shift expenses from paying for energy to paying for more impactful inputs for the farm,” he said.  He anticipates that by switching to solar, Fox at the Fork will save close to $3,200 dollars a year on electric bills.  Now, Snedden is waiting for the USDA to hold up their end of the deal.  “The financial strain hurts,” said Snedden. “But I’m still planning to move forward growing crops and fighting for these funds.” Jon and Brittany Klimstra are both scientists who are originally from western North Carolina. They returned to the area to start a farm and an orchard and are waiting for solar funds they were promised. Courtesy of Jon Klimstra At the start of the year, Jon and Brittany Klimstra were nearly ready to install a solar array on their Polk County, North Carolina farm after being awarded a REAP grant in 2024. As two former scientists who had moved back to western North Carolina 10 years ago to grow apples and be close to their families, it felt like a chance to both save money and live their values. “We’ve certainly been interested in wanting to do something like this, whether it be for our personal home or for our farm buildings for a while,” said Jon. “It just was cost prohibitive up to this point without some type of funding.” That funding came when they were awarded $12,590 from REAP for the installation. But, after the Trump administration’s funding freeze, the money never came.  “We were several site visits in, several engineering conversations. We’ve had electricians, the solar company,” said Brittany . “It’s been a very involved process.” Since the grant is reimbursement-based, the Klimstras have already paid out-of-pocket for some costs related to the project. Plus, the farm had been banking on saving $1,300 in utilities expenses per year. In a given month, their electricity bill is $300-$400. Apples from the orchard run by Jon and Brittany Klimstra. They were ready to install a solar array when the federal funding was frozen. Courtesy of Jon Klimstra Across Appalachia, historically high energy costs have made the difference between survival and failure for many local businesses, said Heather Ransom, who works with Solar Holler, a solar company that serves parts of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio. “We have seen incredible rate increases across the region in electricity over the past 10, even 20 years,” she said. Through Solar Holler, REAP grants also passed into the hands of rural library systems and schools; the company installed 10,000 solar panels throughout the Wayne County, West Virginia school system. About $6 million worth of projects supported by Solar Holler are currently on hold. In other parts of the region, community development financial institutions like the Mountain Association in eastern Kentucky combatted food deserts through helping local grocery stores apply for REAP. Solar Holler also works in coal-producing parts of the region, where climate change discussions have been fraught with the realities of declining jobs and revenue from the coal industry. The program helped make the case for communities to veer away from coal and gas-fired energy.  “What REAP has helped us do is show people that it’s not just a decision that’s driven by environmental motives or whatever, it actually makes good business sense to go solar,” Ransom said. In her experience, saving money appeals to people of all political persuasions. “At the end of the day, we’ve installed just as much solar on red roofs as we do blue roofs, as we do rainbow roofs or whatever.” Jim Lively has a local food market just minutes from the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in northern Michigan. He’s waiting for the federal money he was promised so he can put solar on the roof and offset the costs of opening up a campsite for RVs in this field. Izzy Ross / Grist The Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in northern Michigan draws over 1.5 million visitors every year. Jim Lively hopes some of those people will camp RVs at a nearby site he’s planning to open next to his family’s local food market. He wants to use solar panels to help power the campsite and offset electric bills for the market, where local farmers bring produce directly to the store.  Lively helped promote REAP during his time at an environmental nonprofit, where he’d worked for over two decades. So the program was on his mind when it came time to replace the market’s big, south-facing roof. “We put on a metal roof, and worked with a contractor who was also familiar with the REAP program, and we said, ‘Let’s make sure we’re setting this up for solar,’” he said. “So it was kind of a no-brainer for us.” They were told they had been approved for a REAP grant of $39,696 last summer — half of the project’s total cost — but didn’t feel the need to rush the solar installation. Then, at the end of January, Lively was notified that the funding had been paused.  The interior of the Lively NeighborFood Market, where owner Jim Lively likes to feature local produce. He was hoping to install a solar roof this year, but the funding has been stalled. Izzy Ross / Grist The property runs on electricity, rather than natural gas, and Lively wants to keep it that way. But those electric bills have been expensive — about $2,000 a month last summer, he said. When they get the RV site up and running, he expects those bills to approach $3,000. Selling local food means operating within tight margins. Lively said saving on energy would help, but they won’t be able to move ahead with the rooftop solar unless the REAP funding is guaranteed. Continuing to power the property with electricity rather than fossil fuels is a kind of personal commitment for Lively. “Boy, solar is also the right thing to do,” he said. “And it’s going to be difficult to do that without that funding.”  The grants aren’t only for solar arrays and other renewable energy systems. Many are for energy efficiency improvements to help farmers save on utility bills, and in some cases cut emissions. In Georgia, for instance, one farm was awarded just under $233,000 for a more efficient grain dryer, an upgrade projected to save the farm more than $16,000 per year. Several farms were awarded funding to convert diesel-powered irrigation pumps to electric. The USDA did not directly answer Grist’s emailed questions about the specific timeline for REAP funds, the amount of money under review, or the future of the program. Instead, an emailed statement criticized the Biden administration’s “misuse of hundreds of billions” of IRA and bipartisan infrastructure law (BIL) funds  “all at the expense of the American taxpayer.”  “USDA has a solemn responsibility to be good stewards of the American people’s hard-earned taxpayer dollars and to ensure that every dollar spent goes to serve the people, not the bureaucracy. As part of this effort, Secretary Rollins is carefully reviewing this funding and will provide updates as soon as they are made available,” the email said. Read Next Trump is freezing climate funds. Can he do that? Jake Bittle Two federal judges have already ordered the Trump administration to release the impounded IRA and BIL funds. Earthjustice, a national environmental law organization, filed a lawsuit last week challenging the freeze of USDA funds on behalf of farmers and nonprofits.  “The administration is causing harm that can’t be fixed, and fairness requires that the funds continue to flow,” said Jill Tauber, vice president of litigation for climate and energy at Earthjustice. Rollins released the first tranche of funding February 20 and announced the release of additional program funds earlier this month. That did not include the REAP funding. The USDA announced Wednesday it would expedite funding for farmers under a different program in honor of National Agriculture Day, but as of March 20 had not made an announcement about REAP. Rahul Bali of WABE contributed reporting to this story. ​​ Editor’s note: Earthjustice is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Farmers and small business owners were promised financial help for energy upgrades. They’re still waiting for the money. on Mar 21, 2025.

Rural residents are left holding the bills for everything from solar panels to grain dryers.

This coverage is made possible through a partnership between Grist, BPR, a public radio station serving western North Carolina, WABE, Atlanta’s NPR station, WBEZ, a public radio station serving the Chicago metropolitan region, and Interlochen Public Radio in Northern Michigan.

The Trump administration’s freeze on funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, the landmark climate law from the Biden era, has left farmers and rural businesses across the country on the hook for costly energy efficiency upgrades and renewable energy installations.

The grants are part of the Rural Energy for America Program, or REAP, originally created in the 2008 farm bill and supercharged by funding from the IRA. It provides farmers and other businesses in rural areas with relatively small grants and loans to help lower their energy bills by investing, say,  in more energy-efficient farming equipment or installing small solar arrays. 

By November 2024, the IRA had awarded more than $1 billion for nearly 7,000 REAP projects, which help rural businesses in low-income communities reduce the up-front costs of clean energy and save thousands on utility costs each year. 

But now, that funding is in limbo. Under the current freeze, some farmers have already spent tens of thousands of dollars on projects and are waiting for the promised reimbursement. Others have had to delay work they were counting on to support their businesses, unsure when their funding will come through — or if it will.

REAP is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Secretary Brooke Rollins said the agency is “coming to the tail end of the review process” of evaluating grants awarded under the Biden administration.

“If our farmers and ranchers especially have already spent money under a commitment that was made, the goal is to make sure they are made whole,” Rollins told reporters in Atlanta last week.

But it’s not clear when the funds might be released, or whether all the farmers and business owners awaiting their money will receive it. 

For Joshua Snedden, a REAP grant was the key to making his 10-acre farm in Monee, Illinois, more affordable and environmentally sustainable. But months after installing a pricey solar array, he’s still waiting on a reimbursement from the federal government — and the delay is threatening his bottom line. 

“I’m holding out hope,” said Snedden, a first-generation farmer in northeast Illinois. “I’m trying to do everything within my power to make sure the funding is released.”

In December, his five-year old operation, Fox at the Fork, began sourcing its power from a new 18.48 kilowatt solar array which cost Snedden $86,364. The system currently offsets all the farm’s electricity use and then some.

REAP offers grants for up to half of a project like this, and loan guarantees for up to 75 percent of the cost. For Snedden, a $19,784 REAP reimbursement grant made this solar array possible. But the reimbursement, critical to Snedden’s cash flow, was frozen by Trump as part of a broader review of the USDA’s Biden-era commitments.

A man rakes leaves in a field.
Joshua Snedden is a first-generation farmer who said he will continue whether or not he gets the federal funding for solar. Courtesy of Joshua Snedden

Snedden grows the produce he takes to market — everything from tomatoes to garlic to potatoes — on about an acre of his farm. He also plans to transform the rest of his land into a perennial crop system, which would include fruit trees like pears, plums, and apples planted alongside native flowers and grasses to support wildlife. 

A solar array was always part of his plans, “but seemed like a pie in the sky” kind of project, he said, adding he thought it might take him a decade to afford such an investment.

The REAP program has been a lifeline for Illinois communities struggling with aging infrastructure and growing energy costs, according to Amanda Pankau with the Prairie Rivers Network, an organization advocating for environmental protection and climate change mitigation across Illinois. 

“By lowering their electricity costs, rural small businesses and agricultural producers can put that money back into their business,” said Pankau. 

That’s exactly what Snedden envisioned from his investment in the solar power system. The new solar array wouldn’t just make his farm more resilient to climate change, but also more financially viable, “because we could shift expenses from paying for energy to paying for more impactful inputs for the farm,” he said. 

He anticipates that by switching to solar, Fox at the Fork will save close to $3,200 dollars a year on electric bills. 

Now, Snedden is waiting for the USDA to hold up their end of the deal. 

“The financial strain hurts,” said Snedden. “But I’m still planning to move forward growing crops and fighting for these funds.”

Man and woman stand closely to each other.
Jon and Brittany Klimstra are both scientists who are originally from western North Carolina. They returned to the area to start a farm and an orchard and are waiting for solar funds they were promised. Courtesy of Jon Klimstra

At the start of the year, Jon and Brittany Klimstra were nearly ready to install a solar array on their Polk County, North Carolina farm after being awarded a REAP grant in 2024.

As two former scientists who had moved back to western North Carolina 10 years ago to grow apples and be close to their families, it felt like a chance to both save money and live their values.

“We’ve certainly been interested in wanting to do something like this, whether it be for our personal home or for our farm buildings for a while,” said Jon. “It just was cost prohibitive up to this point without some type of funding.”

That funding came when they were awarded $12,590 from REAP for the installation. But, after the Trump administration’s funding freeze, the money never came. 

“We were several site visits in, several engineering conversations. We’ve had electricians, the solar company,” said Brittany . “It’s been a very involved process.”

Since the grant is reimbursement-based, the Klimstras have already paid out-of-pocket for some costs related to the project. Plus, the farm had been banking on saving $1,300 in utilities expenses per year. In a given month, their electricity bill is $300-$400.

red apples in a gray wooden box
Apples from the orchard run by Jon and Brittany Klimstra. They were ready to install a solar array when the federal funding was frozen. Courtesy of Jon Klimstra

Across Appalachia, historically high energy costs have made the difference between survival and failure for many local businesses, said Heather Ransom, who works with Solar Holler, a solar company that serves parts of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio.

“We have seen incredible rate increases across the region in electricity over the past 10, even 20 years,” she said.

Through Solar Holler, REAP grants also passed into the hands of rural library systems and schools; the company installed 10,000 solar panels throughout the Wayne County, West Virginia school system. About $6 million worth of projects supported by Solar Holler are currently on hold.

In other parts of the region, community development financial institutions like the Mountain Association in eastern Kentucky combatted food deserts through helping local grocery stores apply for REAP.

Solar Holler also works in coal-producing parts of the region, where climate change discussions have been fraught with the realities of declining jobs and revenue from the coal industry. The program helped make the case for communities to veer away from coal and gas-fired energy. 

“What REAP has helped us do is show people that it’s not just a decision that’s driven by environmental motives or whatever, it actually makes good business sense to go solar,” Ransom said. In her experience, saving money appeals to people of all political persuasions. “At the end of the day, we’ve installed just as much solar on red roofs as we do blue roofs, as we do rainbow roofs or whatever.”

A man with gray hair and a blue ball cap walks along a field wearing a brown vest and holding a cup of coffee.
Jim Lively has a local food market just minutes from the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in northern Michigan. He’s waiting for the federal money he was promised so he can put solar on the roof and offset the costs of opening up a campsite for RVs in this field. Izzy Ross / Grist

The Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in northern Michigan draws over 1.5 million visitors every year. Jim Lively hopes some of those people will camp RVs at a nearby site he’s planning to open next to his family’s local food market. He wants to use solar panels to help power the campsite and offset electric bills for the market, where local farmers bring produce directly to the store. 

Lively helped promote REAP during his time at an environmental nonprofit, where he’d worked for over two decades. So the program was on his mind when it came time to replace the market’s big, south-facing roof.

“We put on a metal roof, and worked with a contractor who was also familiar with the REAP program, and we said, ‘Let’s make sure we’re setting this up for solar,’” he said. “So it was kind of a no-brainer for us.”

They were told they had been approved for a REAP grant of $39,696 last summer — half of the project’s total cost — but didn’t feel the need to rush the solar installation. Then, at the end of January, Lively was notified that the funding had been paused. 

The interior of a grocerys tore with shelves of food and the back of a woman stocking the shelves.
The interior of the Lively NeighborFood Market, where owner Jim Lively likes to feature local produce. He was hoping to install a solar roof this year, but the funding has been stalled. Izzy Ross / Grist

The property runs on electricity, rather than natural gas, and Lively wants to keep it that way. But those electric bills have been expensive — about $2,000 a month last summer, he said. When they get the RV site up and running, he expects those bills to approach $3,000.

Selling local food means operating within tight margins. Lively said saving on energy would help, but they won’t be able to move ahead with the rooftop solar unless the REAP funding is guaranteed.

Continuing to power the property with electricity rather than fossil fuels is a kind of personal commitment for Lively. “Boy, solar is also the right thing to do,” he said. “And it’s going to be difficult to do that without that funding.” 

The grants aren’t only for solar arrays and other renewable energy systems. Many are for energy efficiency improvements to help farmers save on utility bills, and in some cases cut emissions. In Georgia, for instance, one farm was awarded just under $233,000 for a more efficient grain dryer, an upgrade projected to save the farm more than $16,000 per year. Several farms were awarded funding to convert diesel-powered irrigation pumps to electric.

The USDA did not directly answer Grist’s emailed questions about the specific timeline for REAP funds, the amount of money under review, or the future of the program. Instead, an emailed statement criticized the Biden administration’s “misuse of hundreds of billions” of IRA and bipartisan infrastructure law (BIL) funds  “all at the expense of the American taxpayer.” 

“USDA has a solemn responsibility to be good stewards of the American people’s hard-earned taxpayer dollars and to ensure that every dollar spent goes to serve the people, not the bureaucracy. As part of this effort, Secretary Rollins is carefully reviewing this funding and will provide updates as soon as they are made available,” the email said.

Two federal judges have already ordered the Trump administration to release the impounded IRA and BIL funds. Earthjustice, a national environmental law organization, filed a lawsuit last week challenging the freeze of USDA funds on behalf of farmers and nonprofits. 

“The administration is causing harm that can’t be fixed, and fairness requires that the funds continue to flow,” said Jill Tauber, vice president of litigation for climate and energy at Earthjustice.

Rollins released the first tranche of funding February 20 and announced the release of additional program funds earlier this month. That did not include the REAP funding.

The USDA announced Wednesday it would expedite funding for farmers under a different program in honor of National Agriculture Day, but as of March 20 had not made an announcement about REAP.

Rahul Bali of WABE contributed reporting to this story. ​​

Editor’s note: Earthjustice is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Farmers and small business owners were promised financial help for energy upgrades. They’re still waiting for the money. on Mar 21, 2025.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Secondhand Stores Are Poised to Benefit if US Tariffs Drive up New Clothing Costs

Stores selling secondhand clothing, shoes and accessories are poised to benefit from the Trump administration’s trade war even as global businesses race to avoid potential damage

American styles carry international influence, but nearly all of the clothing sold domestically is made elsewhere. The Yale University Budget Lab last week estimated short-term consumer price increases of 65% for clothes and 87% for leather goods, noting U.S. tariffs "disproportionately affect” those goods.Such price hikes may drive cost-conscious shoppers to online resale sites, consignment boutiques and thrift stores in search of bargains or a way to turn their wardrobes into cash. Used items cost less than their new equivalents and only would be subject to tariffs if they come from outside the country. “I think resale is going to grow in a market that is declining,” said Kristen Classi-Zummo, an apparel industry analyst at market research firm Circana. “What I think is going to continue to win in this chaotic environment are channels that bring value.”The outlook for preowned fashion nevertheless comes with unknowns, including whether the president's tariffs will stay long enough to pinch consumers and change their behavior. It's also unclear whether secondhand purveyors will increase their own prices, either to mirror the overall market or in response to shopper demand. A new audience courtesy of sticker shock Jan Genovese, a retired fashion executive, sells her unwanted designer clothes through customer-to-customer marketplaces like Mercari. If tariffs cause retail prices to rise, she would consider high-end secondhand sites. “Until I see it and really have that sticker shock, I can’t say exclusively that I’ll be pushed into another direction,” Genovese, 75, said. “I think that the tariff part of it is that you definitely rethink things. And maybe I will start looking at alternative venues.”The secondhand clothing market already was flourishing before the specter of tariffs bedeviled the U.S. fashion industry. Management consulting firm McKinsey and Co. predicted after the COVID-19 pandemic that global revenue from preowned fashion would grow 11 times faster than retail apparel sales by this year as shoppers looked to save money or spend it in a more environmentally conscious way. While millennials and members of Generation Z were known as the primary buyers of used clothing, data from market research firm Sensor Tower shows the audience may be expanding. The number of mobile app downloads for nine resale marketplaces the firm tracks — eBay, OfferUp, Poshmark, Mercari, Craigslist, Depop, ThredUp, TheRealReal and Vinted — increased by 3% between January and the end of March, the first quarterly gain in three years, Sensor Tower said. The firm estimates downloads of the apps for eBay, Depop, ThredUp and The RealReal also surged compared to a year earlier for the week of March 31, which was when Trump unveiled since-paused punitive tariffs on dozens of countries. Circana’s Classi-Zummo said that while customers used to seek out collectible or unusual vintage pieces to supplement their wardrobes, she has noticed more shoppers turning to secondhand sites to replace regular fashion items."It's still a cheaper option” than buying new, even though retailers offer discounts, she said. A tariff-free gold mine lurking in closets and warehouses Poshmark, a digital platform where users buy and sell preowned clothing, has yet to see sales pick up under the tariff schedule Trump unveiled but is prepared to capitalize on the moment, CEO Manish Chandra said. Companies operating e-commerce marketplaces upgrade their technology to make it easier to find items. A visual search tool and other improvements to the Poshmark experience will “pay long dividends in terms of disruption that happens in the market” from the tariffs, Chandra said. Archive, a San Francisco-based technology company that builds and manages online and in-store resale programs for brands including Dr. Martens, The North Face and Lululemon, has noticed clothing labels expressing more urgency to team up, CEO Emily Gittins said. "Tapping into all of the inventory that is already sitting in the U.S., either in people’s closets or in warehouses not being used,” offers a revenue source while brands limit or suspend orders from foreign manufacturers, she said. “There’s a huge amount of uncertainty,” Gittins said. “Everyone believes that this is going to be hugely damaging to consumer goods brands that sell in the U.S. So resale is basically where everyone’s head is going." Stock analysts have predicted off-price retailers like TJ Maxx and Burlington Stores will weather tariffs more easily than regular apparel chains and department stores because they carry leftover merchandise in the U.S. Priced out of the previously owned market Still, resale vendors aren't immune from tariff-induced upheavals, said Rachel Kibbe, founder and CEO of Circular Services Group, a firm that advises brands and retailers on reducing the fashion industry's environmental impact. U.S. sellers that import secondhand inventory from European Union countries would have to pay a 20% duty if Trump moves forward with instituting “reciprocal” tariffs on most trading partners and eliminates an import tax exception for parcels worth less than $800, Kibbe said. A circular fashion coalition she leads is seeking a tariff exemption for used and recycled goods that will be offered for resale, Kibbe said. Trump already ended the duty-free provision for low-value parcels from China, a move that may benefit sellers of secondhand clothing by making low-priced Chinese fashions pricier, she said. James Reinhart, co-founder and CEO of the online consignment marketplace ThredUp, said the removal of the “de minimis” provision and the 145% tariff Trump put on products made in China would benefit businesses like his. He doubts creating resale channels would make a big difference for individual brands.“Brands will explore this and they may do more, but I don’t see them massively changing their operations,” Reinhart said. “I think they’re going to be figuring out how to survive. And I don’t think resale helps you survive.”Rebag, an online marketplace and retail chain that sells used designer handbags priced from $500 to tens of thousands of dollars, expects tariffs to help drive new customers and plans to open more physical stores, CEO Charles Gorra said. Gorra said the company would analyze prices for new luxury goods and adjust what Rebag charges accordingly. The two historically rose in tandem, but Rebag could not match Chanel's 10% price increase last year because of lower resale demand, Gorra said. “That has nothing to do with the tariffs,” he said. “Consumers are feeling priced out.”Norah Brotman, 22, a senior at the University of Minnesota, buys most of her own clothes on eBay. She also thrifts fashions from the 1990s and early 2000s at Goodwill stores and resells them on Depop. “I would love if this would steer people in a different direction,” she said.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

As heavy as 100 Eiffel Towers: Monumental L.A. County fire debris removal could finish by June

Almost 8,800 property owners have asked the Army Corps of Engineers to direct the cleanup of burned homes. With more than 100 parcels a day being cleared, the job is almost halfway done, with June a likely date for completion, officials say.

A small army of laborers, heavy-equipment operators, hazmat technicians and truck drivers have cleared more than one-third of the home lots left in charred ruin by January’s firestorms — a frenetic pace that suggests the bulk of the vast government-run cleanup in Los Angeles County could be completed as early as June, officials say.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers officers overseeing the effort said the crews of mostly private contractors are working at a record clip for a wildfire recovery, clearing nearly 120 lots a day and operating at close to the capacity that roads — and residents close to the fire zones — can tolerate.The scope of the unfinished work came into clearer focus last week, with the passing of the April 15 deadline for residents of Altadena, Pacific Palisades and Malibu to opt in or out of the cleanup. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times) Some 10,373 property owners completed “right-of-entry” forms, authorizing the Army Corps and government contractors to work on their properties, while 1,698 others opted out of the program, many because they wanted their own crews to perform the work.Army Corps of Engineers commanders reported that 4,153 properties across the Eaton and Palisades burn zones had been cleared by Thursday, though the total declared as “complete” is lower because many of the lots still need finishing touches — including the removal of hazardous trees, installation of fencing around pools and application of “hydro-mulch” sealant to prevent erosion.Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass held a news conference Thursday to mark 100 days since the fires and to tout the speed of the recovery. “The Army Corps of Engineers are heroes in Los Angeles, are heroes in the Palisades,” said Bass, standing alongside Army commanders and Westside Councilmember Traci Park. “It is amazing to come here day after day. … Every time I come, I see more and more properties cleared.”The Army officers commanding the cleanup say it is the biggest their agency has ever conducted in a wildfire zone. With more than 1 million tons of concrete, steel, earth and plants already removed from the burn areas, two colonels overseeing the operation reached for superlatives to describe the scope of the work. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times) The weight of the debris removed equals the weight of 100 Eiffel towers, said Col. Sonny Avichal, the West Point graduate overseeing the Altadena fire cleanup. The weight taken out of the Palisades, alone, is equal to a row of Ford F-150 pickups, lined up end-to-end and stretching from Los Angeles past Salt Lake City, said Col. Brian Sawser, another West Point grad, who has overseen the Palisades fire cleanup.“This has been very similar to a war-fighting approach,” said Sawser, referring to the military’s strategy of bringing together diverse personnel, organizations and processes and unifying them in a common purpose. He later pledged: “Renewal is coming, it’s coming. And we’re bringing it to you as fast as we possibly can.”Avichal said the mission requires brute force but also a soft touch, as when an elderly woman in Altadena recently asked a cleanup crew for a personal treasure buried in her home’s rubble. The workers soon recovered a small safe and the gold coins inside it, delivering the bounty to the beaming homeowner, a moment captured in a Facebook video.“At the end of the day, it’s about the human touch,” Avichal said, recognizing the workers who returned the coins to the owner. “It’s about the compassion we have for the individuals who lost their homes.”The cleanup has ramped up considerably in recent weeks.When Avichal arrived in February from his base in Virginia, there were only 20 crews clearing lots in Altadena. (Each crew consists of, at minimum, a quality assurance official from the Army Corps; a task force leader from the principal contractor, Burlingame-based ECC; a heavy-equipment operator; a crew leader; and several laborers.) Now 129 crews are clearing properties in the San Gabriel Valley community.It takes a little less than two days for workers to finish clearing a property, slightly less than the time needed in the Palisades, where lots tend to be larger, and in Malibu, where some of the work has been complicated because of the precarious perch of more than 300 burned homes along the beach.The fire zones now teem with lines of trucks, earthmovers and workers in yellow-and- orange safety vests. The air thrums with the din of destruction — giant excavators clanking against steel beams, trucks bleating out warning signals as they back into position, green organic material whooshing out of hoses onto finished sites.While the images can appear chaotic, they are the result of hours of planning and preparation.Homeowners typically receive a call two or three days before crews arrive. A staffer from lead contractor ECC asks for important property details: Are there septic tank lids or propane tanks that need to be avoided? Are there pet graves that must be left undisturbed? Do workers need to be on the lookout for squatters?An initial inspection crew, commissioned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, then screens each property in search of paints and other toxic substances. Analysts also probe for asbestos — a job that expanded as the carcinogenic material turned up in many more locations than expected.Workers have found asbestos in more than 60% of homes in Altadena and more than 40% in the extended Palisades fire zone. Cleanup crews in white hazmat suits and respirators typically needed up to three days to scrape away the material and remove it in sealed containers.“At one point we had 95 crews doing nothing but asbestos abatement,” Avichal said. On the Westside, the debris removal has been complicated by the constricted roads in and out of the burn zone. Traffic flow along Pacific Coast Highway has been reduced to one lane in each direction and Temescal Canyon Road remains closed to create what the Army leaders call a TDRS — Temporary Debris Reduction Site.Heavy excavation machines bash giant concrete blocks into more manageable chunks, before grinders pulverize the material into 1- to 3-inch rocks, which can be recycled. Steel and other metals also get compacted in the recycling zone before being trucked away.By doing the reduction work close to the disaster site, debris that initially filled three or four dump trucks can be consolidated into one large semi tractor-trailer load. That means that the total truck traffic leaving the burn areas is reduced substantially. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times) Anthony Marguleas, a real estate agent active in rebuilding efforts in the Palisades, called the debris recycling effort “a clear win for the community,” in that it reduced outbound truck traffic and also appeared to be “efficient and environmentally responsible.”State insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said in January that homeowners have typically spent more than $100,000 when they paid to have private contractors remove debris after recent wildfires.Those who opt in to the government program have no direct out-of-pocket costs, though the Army Corps of Engineers will ask insurance companies that cover debris removal to reimburse the government up to the limits of that specific coverage.The pressure for progress abounds throughout the fire communities, as homeowners plead for access that will allow them to start rebuilding. But the drive to complete the work is particularly high along PCH in Malibu, where 327 homes burned.The extra anxiety has multiple causes: The charred remains of homes continue to wash away, spilling contaminants into Santa Monica Bay. Caltrans crews need access to ensure the ground under PCH does not erode. And the the sooner the work is done, the sooner access might improve along the highway, a lifeline for residents and for businesses that depend on customers coming from Santa Monica and points beyond.Sawser said last week that the Army Corps-led crews would be “tripling their effort” along the coast, with as many as a dozen crews clearing home sites, compared to the three or four that had operated there before.“That highway is the linchpin to everything that we do,” Sawser said, “because we not only have to clear that debris for many reasons, we also need to have the highway to move material out of a lot of other locations.”Though the cleanup crews have drawn wide praise, the work has not been flawless. A homeowner complained at a recent hearing in Malibu that an excavator has mistakenly began to plow up the concrete slab under her ADU. She caught the mistake before the destruction was complete and the contractor later told her by phone that the company would pay to repair the damage.And some health officials and residents have questioned whether the lot clearances have gone far enough. The Federal Emergency Management Agency decided to not follow past practice of testing the soil after disasters for contaminants. Those tests typically had been used to determine whether cleanup crews should remove more than the first 6 inches of topsoil.After the twin L.A. fires, FEMA announced it would not conduct the soil testing on cleared lots, drawing criticism that the cleanups would not be truly complete. Those reservations gained some traction earlier this month when soil testing by Los Angeles County in and around the burn areas found concerning levels of lead.The potential adverse impact of the work has also generated pushback in neighboring Southern California communities, given the more than 2,000 truckloads of earth, concrete, metal and other debris being shipped each day to 16 landfills and recycling centers around the region. The Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center has taken by far the biggest share of the fire detritus, receiving an average of 1,228 truckloads a day last week and a total of 636,000 tons of debris since the cleanup started. The Sunshine Canyon Landfill in Sylmar, the second biggest fire debris repository, has received 126,000 tons. From Malibu to Calabasas, Altadena and Irwindale, residents around the burn zones and the communities where the debris is being deposited have expressed fears that toxic materials could be released into the air and soil. (Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times) Contractors have responded that they are taking considerable care — including frequent watering of home lots and waste consolidation sites — to keep pollutants out of the air. Into mid-April, the protests and a lawsuit by the city of Calabasas had not succeeded in redirecting the debris.On a recent weekday afternoon, debris trucks lined up for several hundred yards outside the weigh station at Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center. Once inside, trucks lumbered up a long, curving road into the hills. Then came another wait to dump their loads — an untold number of incinerated living room sets, teddy bears, running shoes and other detritus, spilling into a final resting place.An enormous cloud of gulls billowed and swooped around the charred waste.“Everything we owned and gathered over 35 years was hauled away in like three trucks,” said Eitan, a Palisades man who declined to give his last name. “It’s almost a biblical kind of conclusion, from ashes to ashes. That’s for humans but, in this case, it’s for all of those objects as well.”

In Colorado, gas for cars could soon come with a warning label

Like labels on cigarettes, opponents say fossil fuel warnings could change attitudes. Others call it gasoline “shaming.”

The Centennial State may become first in the nation to require retailers to warn consumers that burning fossil fuels “releases air pollutants and greenhouse gases, known by the state of Colorado to be linked to significant health impacts and global heating.” The warning is the linchpin of a bill — HB25-1277 — that narrowly passed the state House on April 2 and is scheduled to be heard in the Senate’s Transportation & Energy Committee this week. Its Democratic sponsors say the bill will raise awareness among consumers that combusting gas in their vehicles creates pollutants that harm their health and trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to more intense and extreme weather, wildfires and drought. The groundbreaking measure would require retailers to place warning labels printed in black ink on a white background in English and Spanish in no smaller than 16-point type on fuel pumps and “in a conspicuous location” near displays offering petroleum-based goods for sale.  Proponents compare the stickers to warnings labels on cigarettes that scientific evidence found motivated consumers to reconsider the health impacts of smoking. The labeling bill is backed by environmental groups, including 350 Colorado and the Sierra Club, and opposed by gas stations, chambers of commerce and energy trade associations. About 136 lobbyist registrations were filed with the secretary of state in the position of support, opposition, or monitoring — a benchmark of the measure’s divisiveness. “The bill, as you’ve heard, seeks to drive systemic change and to help us meet our greenhouse gas emission goals,” state Rep. Junie Joseph (D-Boulder), a sponsor, testified at a House Energy & Environment Committee hearing on March 6. “Colorado is actively working to reduce emissions to comply with the Clean Air Act and state climate targets.” Read Next Renewables surged in 2024 — but so did fossil fuels Matt Simon Colorado is on track to meet greenhouse gas emissions reductions of 26 percent by 2025 and 50 percent by 2030, over 2005 levels — albeit a year late for each period mandated under state law, according to a November report compiled by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Colorado Energy Office. Yet the state is woefully behind in its compliance with federal air quality standards. Emissions from energy industry operations and gas-powered vehicles are the main drivers of the nine-county metropolitan Denver region’s failure to clean up its air over the last two decades. The state’s largest cities rank among the 25 worst in the nation for lung-damaging ozone pollution. Several days before the labeling bill passed the House, the state’s health department said it planned to ask the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to downgrade its air quality for the second time in a year. The request is intended to give regulators more time to draw up a plan to reduce pollutants that cause a toxic haze that blurs the Rocky Mountains from May to September. Colorado repeatedly touts its “nation-leading” greenhouse gas emissions reduction laws targeting oil and gas production, as well as requirements that utilities transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Yet to make long-term progress toward a state mandate to cut emissions 100 percent by 2050, officials need residents to drive less and carpool and take public transit more. The bill’s sponsors cited a first-in-the-nation labeling law in the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, as proof such initiatives work. The Cambridge City Council enacted its greenhouse gas label law in 2020. City inspectors affix about 116 bright yellow stickers that read: “Warning. Burning Gasoline, Diesel and Ethanol has major consequences on human health and on the environment including contributing to climate change” in pump bays at 19 gas stations annually, along with inspection stickers, Jeremy Warnick, a city spokesman, wrote in an email. Read Next Efforts were underway to prevent CO2 pipeline leaks. The Trump administration quietly derailed them. Tristan Baurick Early research into the impacts of Cambridge’s labeling law suggest that peer pressure that results from one person seeing a label on a gas pump and telling friends about it at a party can indeed motivate people to reconsider their transportation choices. A measure instituted in Sweden in 2021 that requires labels depicting each fuel grade’s impact on the climate to be installed on gas pumps produced similar results. The warning stickers communicate to people as they’re pumping gas that others in their community acknowledge petroleum products create emissions that are warming the planet, said Gregg Sparkman, an assistant professor of psychology and neuroscience at Boston College. Sparkman’s research found Americans function in a state of “pluralistic ignorance,” essentially “walking around thinking others don’t care about climate change.”  A study he co-authored in Nature in 2022 found that most Americans “underestimate the prevalence of support for climate change mitigation policies.” While 66 percent to 80 percent of people approve of such measures, Americans estimate the prevalence to be between 37 percent and 43 percent, on average, data showed. Warning labels can cut through this apathy, he said.   “These signs chip away at the mirage — they become one of hopefully many signals that an increasing number of Americans regard this as an emergency that requires urgent action out of government, citizens and everybody,” he said.        In Colorado, gas station owners, as well as representatives of retail trade organizations and the American Petroleum Institute, among others, testified against the labeling bill at the three-hour March 6 House energy committee hearing, calling the legislation an “unfunded mandate” that would “shame consumers” and target retailers with “exorbitant fines.” Some warned it would make gas prices rise. Read Next The Hidden Cost of Gasoline Kate Yoder The law would require convenience stores to design, buy and affix the labels and to keep them in good condition. If a consumer reported a defaced decal to the state Attorney General’s Office, a store owner could face a $20,000 penalty per violation — standard for violations under the Consumer Protection Act. An amendment added on the House floor would provide retailers with 45 days to fix a problem with a label.   “The gas pump itself is already cluttered with words, numbers, prices, colors, buttons and payment mechanisms,” Angie Howes, a lobbyist representing Kum & Go, which owns Maverik convenience stores, testified at the committee hearing. “The message will likely be lost in the noise and we question the impact of such a label toward the proponents’ goals.” Republican and Democratic committee members alike expressed concern about the fines, asking bill sponsors to consider reducing them. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, or CDPHE, also opposed the measure, citing the state’s efforts to make it easier and cheaper for Coloradoans to reduce their energy use by taking advantage of electric vehicle and heat pump subsidies, among other voluntary measures. Colorado is already first in the nation in market share of new EVs, Lindsay Ellis, the agency’s director of legislative affairs, testified. “This bill presupposes that awareness alone is an effective strategy for changing behavior and does so at the liability and expense of small businesses like gas stations,” she said. “We should continue to focus on solutions with measurable emissions reductions to improve air quality.” Gov. Jared Polis also appears dubious of the measure’s ability to effect long-term change. When contacted by Capital & Main for comment, spokesperson Eric Maruyama cited legislative and administrative strategies that have “cut hundreds of millions of metric tons of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions since 2010.” “Like CDPHE, Governor Polis is committed to protecting Colorado’s clean air and reducing pollution through proven strategies that are good for the environment, good for consumers, and that empower Colorado businesses and individuals to take meaningful action that improves public health,” Maruyama wrote in an email. “Governor Polis is skeptical of labeling requirements and will review any legislation that reaches his desk.” Doctors and scientists who testified at the House energy committee hearing on March 6 disagreed. “I take care of children living in some of the most polluted zip codes in the country, and I can tell you firsthand that burning fossil fuels is making them sick,” Dr. Clare Burchenal, a Denver pediatrician, told the committee.  “Warning labels can connect the abstract threat of a climate emergency with fossil fuel use in the here and now — my patients and their families have a right to know how the products they’re using are impacting their health.” Copyright 2025 Capital & Main This story was originally published by Grist with the headline In Colorado, gas for cars could soon come with a warning label on Apr 19, 2025.

In Colorado, Gas for Cars Could Soon Come With a Warning Label

Like labels on cigarettes, opponents say fossil fuel warnings could change attitudes. Others call it gasoline “shaming.” The post In Colorado, Gas for Cars Could Soon Come With a Warning Label appeared first on .

The Centennial State may become first in the nation to require retailers to warn consumers that burning fossil fuels “releases air pollutants and greenhouse gases, known by the state of Colorado to be linked to significant health impacts and global heating.” The warning is the linchpin of a bill — HB25-1277 — that narrowly passed the state House on April 2 and is scheduled to be heard in the Senate’s Transportation & Energy Committee this week. Its Democratic sponsors say the bill will raise awareness among consumers that combusting gas in their vehicles creates pollutants that harm their health and trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to more intense and extreme weather, wildfires and drought. The groundbreaking measure would require retailers to place warning labels printed in black ink on a white background in English and Spanish in no smaller than 16-point type on fuel pumps and “in a conspicuous location” near displays offering petroleum-based goods for sale.  Proponents compare the stickers to warnings labels on cigarettes that scientific evidence found motivated consumers to reconsider the health impacts of smoking.   The labeling bill is backed by environmental groups, including 350 Colorado and the Sierra Club, and opposed by gas stations, chambers of commerce and energy trade associations. About 136 lobbyist registrations were filed with the secretary of state in the position of support, opposition, or monitoring — a benchmark of the measure’s divisiveness. “The bill, as you’ve heard, seeks to drive systemic change and to help us meet our greenhouse gas emission goals,” state Rep. Junie Joseph (D-Boulder), a sponsor, testified at a House Energy & Environment Committee hearing on March 6. “Colorado is actively working to reduce emissions to comply with the Clean Air Act and state climate targets.” Colorado is on track to meet greenhouse gas emissions reductions of 26% by 2025 and 50% by 2030, over 2005 levels — albeit a year late for each period mandated under state law, according to a November report compiled by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Colorado Energy Office. Yet the state is woefully behind in its compliance with federal air quality standards. Emissions from energy industry operations and gas-powered vehicles are the main drivers of the nine-county metropolitan Denver region’s failure to clean up its air over the last two decades. The state’s largest cities rank among the 25 worst in the nation for lung-damaging ozone pollution. Several days before the labeling bill passed the House, the state’s health department said it planned to ask the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to downgrade its air quality for the second time in a year. The request is intended to give regulators more time to draw up a plan to reduce pollutants that cause a toxic haze that blurs the Rocky Mountains from May to September. Colorado repeatedly touts its “nation-leading” greenhouse gas emissions reduction laws targeting oil and gas production, as well as requirements that utilities transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Yet to make long-term progress toward a state mandate to cut emissions 100% by 2050, officials need residents to drive less and carpool and take public transit more. The bill’s sponsors cited a first-in-the-nation labeling law in the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, as proof such initiatives work. The Cambridge City Council enacted its greenhouse gas label law in 2020. City inspectors affix about 116 bright yellow stickers that read: “Warning. Burning Gasoline, Diesel and Ethanol has major consequences on human health and on the environment including contributing to climate change” in pump bays at 19 gas stations annually, along with inspection stickers, Jeremy Warnick, a city spokesman, wrote in an email. A bright yellow warning label on a gas pump in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Photo courtesy the city of Cambridge. Early research into the impacts of Cambridge’s labeling law suggest that peer pressure that results from one person seeing a label on a gas pump and telling friends about it at a party can indeed motivate people to reconsider their transportation choices. A measure instituted in Sweden in 2021 that requires labels depicting each fuel grade’s impact on the climate to be installed on gas pumps produced similar results. The warning stickers communicate to people as they’re pumping gas that others in their community acknowledge petroleum products create emissions that are warming the planet, said Gregg Sparkman, an assistant professor of psychology and neuroscience at Boston College. Sparkman’s research found Americans function in a state of “pluralistic ignorance,” essentially “walking around thinking others don’t care about climate change.”  A study he co-authored in Nature in 2022 found that most Americans “underestimate the prevalence of support for climate change mitigation policies.” While 66% to 80% of people approve of such measures, Americans estimate the prevalence to be between 37% and 43%, on average, data showed. Warning labels can cut through this apathy, he said.   “These signs chip away at the mirage — they become one of hopefully many signals that an increasing number of Americans regard this as an emergency that requires urgent action out of government, citizens and everybody,” he said.        In Colorado, gas station owners, as well as representatives of retail trade organizations and the American Petroleum Institute, among others, testified against the labeling bill at the three-hour March 6 House energy committee hearing, calling the legislation an “unfunded mandate” that would “shame consumers” and target retailers with “exorbitant fines.” Some warned it would make gas prices rise. The law would require convenience stores to design, buy and affix the labels and to keep them in good condition. If a consumer reported a defaced decal to the state Attorney General’s Office, a store owner could face a $20,000 penalty per violation — standard for violations under the Consumer Protection Act. An amendment added on the House floor would provide retailers with 45 days to fix a problem with a label.   “The gas pump itself is already cluttered with words, numbers, prices, colors, buttons and payment mechanisms,” Angie Howes, a lobbyist representing Kum & Go, which owns Maverik convenience stores, testified at the committee hearing. “The message will likely be lost in the noise and we question the impact of such a label toward the proponents’ goals.” Republican and Democratic committee members alike expressed concern about the fines, asking bill sponsors to consider reducing them. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, or CDPHE, also opposed the measure, citing the state’s efforts to make it easier and cheaper for Coloradoans to reduce their energy use by taking advantage of electric vehicle and heat pump subsidies, among other voluntary measures. Colorado is already first in the nation in market share of new EVs, Lindsay Ellis, the agency’s director of legislative affairs, testified. “This bill presupposes that awareness alone is an effective strategy for changing behavior and does so at the liability and expense of small businesses like gas stations,” she said. “We should continue to focus on solutions with measurable emissions reductions to improve air quality.” Gov. Jared Polis also appears dubious of the measure’s ability to effect long-term change. When contacted by Capital & Main for comment, spokesperson Eric Maruyama cited legislative and administrative strategies that have “cut hundreds of millions of metric tons of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions since 2010.” “Like CDPHE, Governor Polis is committed to protecting Colorado’s clean air and reducing pollution through proven strategies that are good for the environment, good for consumers, and that empower Colorado businesses and individuals to take meaningful action that improves public health,” Maruyama wrote in an email. “Governor Polis is skeptical of labeling requirements and will review any legislation that reaches his desk.” Doctors and scientists who testified at the House energy committee hearing on March 6 disagreed. “I take care of children living in some of the most polluted zip codes in the country, and I can tell you firsthand that burning fossil fuels is making them sick,” Dr. Clare Burchenal, a Denver pediatrician, told the committee.  “Warning labels can connect the abstract threat of a climate emergency with fossil fuel use in the here and now — my patients and their families have a right to know how the products they’re using are impacting their health.”   Copyright 2025 Capital & Main

Oil company fined record $18 million for defying state orders to stop work on pipeline

The pipeline caused a major oil spill a decade ago, fouling the ocean off Santa Barbara County. The new owners say they don’t need new permits for repairs. The fine is the Coastal Commission's largest.

In summary The pipeline caused a major oil spill a decade ago, fouling the ocean off Santa Barbara County. The new owners say they don’t need new permits for repairs. The fine is the Coastal Commission’s largest. The California Coastal Commission today fined an oil company a record $18 million for repeatedly defying orders to stop work on a corroded pipeline in Santa Barbara County that caused a major oil spill nearly a decade ago. The vote sets the stage for a potentially high-stakes test of the state’s power to police oil development along the coast. The onshore pipeline in Gaviota gushed more than 100,000 gallons of crude oil onto coastal land and ocean waters, shutting down fisheries, closing beaches and harming marine life and coastal habitats in 2015. Sable Offshore Corp., a Houston-based company, purchased the pipeline from the previous owners, Exxon Mobil, last year, and is seeking to restart the Santa Ynez offshore oil operation. The Coastal Commission said Sable has done something no alleged violator has ever done before: ignoring the agency’s multiple cease-and-desist orders and continuing its work. “Our orders were valid and legally issued, and Sable’s refusal to comply is a refusal to follow the law,” said Commissioner Meagan Harmon, who also is a member of the Santa Barbara City Council. “Their refusal, in a very real sense, is a subversion of the will of the people of the state of California.” “I’ve never taken how special this area is for granted. As a kid, I was traumatized by the ’69 oil spill, and in 2015, I had to watch my own kids go through the same trauma.”Carol Millar, Santa Barbara County resident The company argued it can proceed using the pipeline’s original county permit issued in the 1980s. In February, Sable sued the Coastal Commission saying the state is unlawfully halting the company’s repair and maintenance work. At a 5-hour public hearing in Santa Barbara today, more than 100 speakers lined up, many of them urging the commission to penalize Sable and stop its work. Some invoked memories of the 2015 Refugio OIl Spill as well as the massive 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill caused by a blowout on a Union Oil drilling rig. Public outrage over that spill helped shape the environmental movement, led to the first Earth Day and contributed to the enactment of many national environmental laws. “I’ve never taken how special this area is for granted,” said Santa Barbara County resident Carol Millar. “As a kid, I was traumatized by the ‘69 oil spill, and in 2015, I had to watch my own kids go through the same trauma.” Steve Rusch, Sable’s vice president of environmental and governmental affairs, said the commission was overreaching because of the spill caused by the previous owners. “We are proud of our good-paying, skilled jobs that our project has brought to the region,” he told commissioners. “It’s not about the 2015 Refugio oil spill. It’s not about the restart of the pipeline …it’s not about the future of oil production or fossil fuel in California.” “We are proud of our good-paying, skilled jobs that our project has brought to the region. It’s not about the 2015 Refugio oil spill.”Steve Rusch, Sable Offshore corp. In repairing the former, corroded pipelines, the company is seeking to restart production of the Santa Ynez oil operation, which includes three offshore rigs, according to an investor presentation by the company. Operations stopped after the 2015 spill.   Sable had been excavating around the former pipelines and placing cement bags on the seafloor below its oil and water pipelines. The Coastal Commission’s fine levied against Sable is the highest ever levied against a company, according to a commission spokesperson. The commission voted to lower the $18 million fine to potentially just under $15 million if Sable complies with the state’s orders and applies for a coastal development permit. Beginning last year, commission staff charged the company with multiple violations of coastal laws, including unpermitted construction and excavation along a 14-mile oil pipeline on the Gaviota Coast, including areas offshore. The enforcement division of the commission said Sable undertook major work at multiple locations without securing the required coastal development permits. The company dug large pits, cleared vegetation, graded roads, placed concrete offshore among other work, according to a presentation by the staff today. In its presentation, commission staff said these actions went beyond routine maintenance and amounted to a full rebuild of the pipeline. Coastal Commission officials emphasized that the work posed serious risks to the environment, including wetlands and other sensitive habitats, potentially harming protected species, including western pond turtles and steelhead.  “The timing of the implemented development is particularly problematic, as much of this development has been during bird nesting season, as well as red-legged frog breeding season and Southern Steelhead migratory spawning season,” said Stephanie Cook, an attorney with the commission. “This work has a high potential to adversely impact these habitat areas.” The staff said it spent months trying to get Sable to cooperate but the company provided incomplete or misleading information. “The timing…is particularly problematic, as much of this development has been during bird nesting season, as well as red-legged frog breeding season and Southern Steelhead migratory spawning season.”Stephanie Cook, Coastal Commission Attorney Rusch, in a statement issued after the hearing, said the company is conducting routine pipeline repair and maintenance, and said the actions were allowed under old permits issued by Santa Barbara County. The work is taking place in areas already affected by previous construction and use, and the company says the state cannot override the county’s interpretation of its permits.  “Sable is dedicated to restarting project operations in a safe and efficient manner,” Rusch said in the statement. “No California business should be forced to go through a protracted and arbitrary permitting process when it already has valid permits for the work it performed.” However, the validity of the county permit for the pipeline is in dispute. The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in a February vote did not approve transferring the county permit to Sable, the new owner. The vote was 2-2, with one member abstaining because the pipeline runs through her property. County officials are still trying to decide their next step. One concern of county officials is whether Sable has the financial ability and adequate insurance to handle a major oil spill.  The pipeline dispute comes as the Trump administration moves to boost domestic oil and gas production while sidelining efforts to develop wind and solar.  Several workers who said they were affiliated with the company spoke out in support along with others who said the company would boost the local economy.  Evelyn Lynn, director of operations at Aspen Helicopters in Oxnard, said she supported Sable’s efforts because it would give her company a boost.“If they’re not allowed to start their efforts again, this will have huge collateral damage to all of our local businesses, and also to our company in particular, and all of our local people who live here,” Lynn said. “All of our employees are required to live in California. They are all local, and they are all affected.” The Coastal Commission’s permits are not the only step the company has to take to operate the pipeline. Multiple state agencies regulate pipelines, including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Office of Oil Spill and Prevention Response and the Office of the State Fire Marshal. Environmental groups have called for a full environmental review of the pipeline under the California Environmental Quality Act.  National environmental organizations such as the Center for Biological Diversity have weighed in, along with local advocates, to support the Coastal Commission. A group born out of the original Santa Barbara oil spill — the Environmental Defense Center — opposes the project and efforts to restart drilling. The Surfrider Foundation also launched a “Don’t Enable Sable” campaign, and several beachgoers spoke out against the project. Who should pay billions for climate disasters? California and others target Big Oil — will that work? March 3, 2025March 3, 2025 Legislature delays oil well monitoring by more than 3 years, restores funding August 31, 2024August 31, 2024

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.