Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Illegal Idling is Poisoning Massachusetts Communities
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Jan. 14 -- The Conservation Law Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Illegal Idling is Poisoning Massachusetts Communities
*
Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) delivered opening arguments January 12 in federal court in its case against Academy Express to stop the bus company from unlawfully idling and spewing toxic tailpipe pollution into surrounding communities.
"Academy's idling in these locations is a dangerous practice as buses emit pollutants that are harmful to human health and the environment," Heather Govern, Vice President for Clean Air and Water
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Jan. 14 -- The Conservation Law Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Illegal Idling is Poisoning Massachusetts Communities
*
Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) delivered opening arguments January 12 in federal court in its case against Academy Express to stop the bus company from unlawfully idling and spewing toxic tailpipe pollution into surrounding communities.
"Academy's idling in these locations is a dangerous practice as buses emit pollutants that are harmful to human health and the environment," Heather Govern, Vice President for Clean Air and Waterat CLF, told Judge William G. Young during her opening statement. "And aside from the health impacts, no one likes to breathe the exhaust coming out of tailpipes."
Documentation shows that Academy Express vehicles idled beyond the five-minute legal limit and in violation of the Clean Air Act repeatedly over the past 11 years, sending toxic tailpipe pollution into nearby parks, schools, and homes. Vehicle pollution has been linked to asthma, cancer, heart disease, and thousands of deaths annually in the Northeast. Children are particularly vulnerable. Our lawsuit seeks to stop this dangerous practice, protect residents' right to clean air, and make Academy Express pay a penalty for the damage they've caused.
Academy Express operates long-distance and shuttle bus service throughout New England, with stops in Boston, Newton, and Cambridge. CLF has been fighting since 2020 to stop Academy Express' illegal idling.
CLF has pursued this case for five years through major setbacks. After initially being told CLF's members didn't have grounds to bring this lawsuit, CLF won a 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that agreed pollution harms any person who is nearby, which gives a plaintiff the right to enforce air pollution laws. This decision set a strong precedent for future efforts to shut down illegal air pollution. In July, a judge allowed CLF's case to move forward after denying Academy's attempt to throw out the lawsuit.
The trial in Conservation Law Foundation v. Academy Express is expected to last two to three weeks.
CLF experts are available for further comment.
***
Original text here: https://www.clf.org/newsroom/illegal-idling-is-poisoning-massachusetts-communities/
Conservation Law Foundation: Offshore Wind, Again, Prevails Against Trump Administration
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Jan. 14 -- The Conservation Law Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Offshore Wind, Again, Prevails Against Trump Administration
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has rejected a stop work order issued by the Trump administration that sought to halt a nearly complete offshore wind development off the coast of Rhode Island. Orsted, the developer of Revolution Wind, sued the Trump administration after the Department of the Interior announced it was pausing leases for offshore wind projects along the East Coast citing national security concerns. Conservation
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Jan. 14 -- The Conservation Law Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Offshore Wind, Again, Prevails Against Trump Administration
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has rejected a stop work order issued by the Trump administration that sought to halt a nearly complete offshore wind development off the coast of Rhode Island. Orsted, the developer of Revolution Wind, sued the Trump administration after the Department of the Interior announced it was pausing leases for offshore wind projects along the East Coast citing national security concerns. ConservationLaw Foundation (CLF) issued the following statement in response.
"How many times does this administration have to lose in court before it stops trying to block affordable clean energy," said Kate Sinding Daly, senior vice president for law and policy CLF. "Our courts have already made clear that permits grounded in law cannot be undone on political whims. Rigorously reviewed clean energy projects should be allowed to move forward, deliver people affordable power, and battle one of the greatest threats to national security - climate change."
Judge Royce Lamberth issued the injunction and concluded that Orsted would suffer irreparable harm if the stop work order was allowed to continue. Revolution Wind will provide power for up to 350,000 homes in Connecticut and Rhode Island using affordable clean energy.
Developers of other offshore wind projects included in the stop work order have separately sued the administration.
In December, a federal judge in Boston rejected the implementation of the Trump administration's government-wide ban on new wind energy projects. CLF and other environmental groups filed a legal brief in State of New York v. Trump in support of state and industry efforts to overturn the moratorium.
CLF experts are available for further comment.
***
Original text here: https://www.clf.org/newsroom/offshore-wind-again-prevails-against-trump-administration/
Wellcome Annual Report and Financial Statements 2024/25
LONDON, England, Jan. 13 -- Wellcome, a charitable foundation, posted the following news release:
* * *
Wellcome Annual Report and Financial Statements 2024/25
*
Wellcome Trust and Wellcome Trust Finance plc (a wholly owned subsidiary of The Wellcome Trust Limited as trustee of the Wellcome Trust) announce that they have each published their Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year to 30 September 2025 today. A copy of each document is available on the Wellcome Trust website.
Wellcome has today issued the following press release in connection with the publication of its Annual
... Show Full Article
LONDON, England, Jan. 13 -- Wellcome, a charitable foundation, posted the following news release:
* * *
Wellcome Annual Report and Financial Statements 2024/25
*
Wellcome Trust and Wellcome Trust Finance plc (a wholly owned subsidiary of The Wellcome Trust Limited as trustee of the Wellcome Trust) announce that they have each published their Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year to 30 September 2025 today. A copy of each document is available on the Wellcome Trust website.
Wellcome has today issued the following press release in connection with the publication of its AnnualReport and Financial Statements:
Wellcome's charitable expenditure on our mission supporting science to solve the urgent health challenges facing everyone rose to PS1.9 billion in 2024/25, compared to PS1.6 billion in 2023/24. Wellcome's sole source of funds is our investment portfolio, which delivered a total return of 10.2 per cent in GBP (6.4 per cent after inflation) for the year to 30 September 2025. The investment portfolio value increased to PS39.9 billion 1 and total funds (the value of the investment portfolio less all liabilities) rose to PS35.7 billion, compared to PS33.9bn in 2023/24.
We remain confident Wellcome will be able to meet our ambition to spend PS16 billion on our charitable activities over the ten years to 2032, given our long-term investment performance. This funding will support discovery research into life, health, and wellbeing. It will also enable us to continue our work on the three key worldwide health challenges of mental health, infectious disease and climate and health. Spending since 2022 now totals PS5.2 billion, this compares to around PS10 billion over the ten years to 2022.
Returns were underpinned by strong public equity markets, which overcame significant intra-year volatility. Currency effects were minimal for the year, with sterling virtually unchanged against the US dollar from September 2024 to September 2025. The investment portfolio has returned 203 per cent cumulative (11.7 per cent annualised) in the decade since September 2015, recording positive returns in each of these years. Returns have been 588 per cent cumulative (10.1 per cent annualised) over 20 years. Since the inception of the investment portfolio in 1985, it has provided a total return of 13.2 per cent per annum.
The endowment has been resilient in a mixed economic and market backdrop, and continues to maintain a strong liquidity position and AAA/Aaa (stable) credit rating. Leverage was 6.7 per cent 1 on 30 th September 2025. We issued no new bonds during the year and have no impending bond expiries until 2027.
We saw varied returns across the asset classes in which we invest (public equity, private equity, venture capital, hedge funds, property, bonds and cash). Public equities, private equity, hedge funds and bonds and cash delivered positive returns. Property delivered a slightly negative return in aggregate against a difficult market backdrop. We extended several currency hedges that matured over the year, realising cash gains in the process. At the end of the financial year, sterling exposure stood at 18.2 per cent. Cash levels remain higher than our longer-term history in the absence of sizeable, compelling new investment opportunities and in preparation for future charitable spending. On 30 September 2025, our cash level was 8.9 per cent of gross investment portfolio assets.
Our plan to achieve a net zero portfolio by 2050 at the latest was published in July 2021. Our annual report includes the fourth update on our net zero tracking data. This is, and will continue to be, an integral factor in our investment decision-making and engagement.
Julia Gillard, Chair of the Wellcome Trust, said:
"This year, I have seen first-hand the work Wellcome's teams and partners are leading in pursuit of our mission to build a healthier future for everyone, all while navigating a rapidly changing world. We saw promising trials in Madagascar of a new oral antibiotic for plague which discovered that it was as effective as an injection, led innovative work on digital interventions for mental health in the UK, and have invested millions to advance climate and health science in areas such as extreme heat, super pollutants and infectious disease to support global action and policies on climate change. My thanks go to all of Wellcome's staff and our partners around the world for their diligent work. "
"I thank the Investment Team for steering the endowment through a highly uncertain environment. Our investment portfolio allows us to be truly independent and operate at an increasingly large scale, funding ambitious projects at a global level. Our long-term horizon is a powerful advantage, both in our mission-related activities and as an investor. The investment portfolio has performed very strongly over the last decade, and while we recognise the challenge of current elevated market valuations for prospective returns, the quality of our assets and strength of our team underpin the Board's confidence in our charitable mission spend ambition."
Lisha Patel, co-Chief Investment Officer at Wellcome, said:
"It was reassuring to see the investment portfolio value reach a new high, despite significant market volatility over the course of the year. We remain focused on the long term and laying the foundations for Wellcome's investment portfolio for the decades ahead, even if the near-term outlook appears increasingly challenged, and are confident in our team's sound stewardship of Wellcome's assets."
Fabian Thehos, co-Chief Investment Officer, added:
"The investment portfolio has performed well in a turbulent environment, with positive contributions from many different parts. We are grateful for our high-quality roster of investment partners, many of whom have been active relationships for decades. Our flexible, unconstrained investment mandate and our strong governance structure that allows efficient decision making mean we can pursue opportunities that many others cannot access. We maintain a strong liquidity position that allows us to take advantage of any future market dislocations that may arise."
***
Original text here: https://wellcome.org/insights/articles/wellcome-annual-report-and-financial-statements-202425
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Blaming short-term rentals won't solve the housing crisis
LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 12 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary:
* * *
Blaming short-term rentals won't solve the housing crisis
By Eliza Terziev, Housing Policy Analyst
As many cities grapple with the high costs of housing, blame has been cast in many directions. The expansion of short-term rentals, which are units that lease to tenants for periods shorter than 30 days, through platforms like Airbnb and VRBO, is frequently accused of worsening housing shortages and contributing to rising home prices. In response, some local governments have limited short-term rentals
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 12 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary:
* * *
Blaming short-term rentals won't solve the housing crisis
By Eliza Terziev, Housing Policy Analyst
As many cities grapple with the high costs of housing, blame has been cast in many directions. The expansion of short-term rentals, which are units that lease to tenants for periods shorter than 30 days, through platforms like Airbnb and VRBO, is frequently accused of worsening housing shortages and contributing to rising home prices. In response, some local governments have limited short-term rentalsthrough bans or stringent restrictions.
Critics of short-term rentals are correct that they place some upward pressure on home prices. However, this effect is downstream of the more fundamental problem: land use policy that restricts the supply of housing. Blaming and banning short-term rental platforms for high housing costs ignores the history of laws that have contributed to the current problem.
Healthy housing markets should accommodate the needs of property owners, visitors, and prospective residents. The markets can and will adjust if they are allowed to. Banning short-term rentals (STRs) or creating undue burdens collides directly with the property rights of owners and the affordability of travel. On the other hand, reducing barriers to development creates avenues for market adjustment.
The repercussions of constraints on short-term rentals warrant closer examination. Housing policy ought to address the underlying constraints that limit the number of available units rather than treating STRs as the cause of the housing crisis.
How did we get here?
Short-term rentals, also often called "vacation rentals," have been around for a long time, and have recently surged in popularity. For many people, online platforms like Airbnb reduce the transaction costs associated with listing and advertising an STR, prompting a massive expansion of the market, which is projected to continue growing.
Those seeking to limit the availability of short-term rentals argue that they reduce the supply of homes that would otherwise be sold to permanent residents in the area. They say the prominence of STRs increases the profitability of housing as an investment, attracting speculators instead of families who would live in the homes.
An additional source of concern stems from other homeowners who oppose short-term rentals in their neighborhoods, believing they bring noisy guests and erode community cohesion. Under this belief, restricting these units is necessary because it will lead to lower housing prices and a more pleasant living atmosphere.
Reviewing the available data shows the extent to which STRs contribute to price increases compared to other factors.
Short-term rentals and housing prices
While still in its early stages, some academic research has examined the relationship between short-term rentals and home prices, typically finding that the entry of these units is associated with a slight price increase.
In 2021, research published Marketing Science analyzing U.S. data found that, on average, a 1% increase in Airbnb listings in a zip code is associated with a 0.018% increase in rent prices and a 0.026% increase in home prices. This small price increase makes sense when considering STR listings make up a small portion of the housing market on aggregate.
As of July 2025, there were 1.77 million short-term rental listings in the U.S., with an estimated 89% being whole-home listings according to AirDNA, a data analytics platform focused on STRs. With 148.3 million housing units in the U.S. as of the third quarter of 2025, whole-home listings make up about 1.2% of the country's housing stock.
Further, housing markets adjust locally, so impacts can look very different due to location, neighborhood characteristics (such as owner-occupancy), and market conditions at the time of analysis.
For example, evidence, published in Housing Policy Debate, in 2019 from Washington, D.C., found that the presence of Airbnb could be responsible for between a 0.66% and 2.24% increase in single-family home prices following an influx of STR listings between 2016 and 2017. The impact was most concentrated in areas that are tourist hot spots.
It is no surprise that these modest price increases manifest following the demand shock caused by the increased presence of short-term rentals in a community. The problem is that this is where the analysis stops, with bans or restrictions deemed the appropriate response by some policymakers. Economic theory not only predicts the price increase following the entry of short-term rental units but also tells us that suppliers should respond to the resulting price signals by expanding supply. However, strict local land use laws have hindered the adjustment process, limiting supply. Consequently, cities are feeling the aftermath of increased demand, such as in the short-term rental market, without the adaptation and increase in housing supply that should follow.
The main cause accompanying its price hikes: excessive land use regulation
While short-term rentals have contributed to noticeable housing price pressures, especially in tourist destinations, cumulative land-use restrictions are responsible for far more of the overall housing cost increases seen in recent decades.
Worse, these land-use policies hinder an effective response to rising local demand. Widespread use of short-term rentals is relatively new, but restrictive land-use laws have been significantly increasing housing prices for decades. An abundance of academic literature has linked these regulations with higher home prices.
Restrictive land-use laws include provisions such as minimum lot sizes, stringent building codes, zoning and density regulations, parking minimums, and more. These laws are pervasive in almost every locality across the country.
A 2002 working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research stated plainly, "our evidence suggests that zoning and other land use controls play the dominant role in making housing expensive." A 2021 estimate from the National Association of Home Builders, the main trade organization for home builders and developers, found that cumulative government regulations on housing development account for 23.8% of the final selling price of a single-family home. As always, the exact magnitude depends on location and local laws.
Because these restrictions are so intertwined, some research has estimated the effect of these regulations by bundling them into "restrictiveness indexes" and then gauging impacts based on a community's index placement. A Florida State University paper found that being in a slightly more restrictive area is associated with a 5% higher average home price.
Importantly, places without these excessive regulations are better equipped to respond to housing challenges without massive price accumulation. Houston, Texas, for example, is known for having among the most liberal land use regulations in the country, with no formal zoning, and among the lowest home price appreciation.
Restricting short-term rental offers, at best, a temporary and limited housing response because the number of rented units is finite. A robust housing market should be able to accommodate sustained population growth and an evolving market. Easing land use restrictions would have a far greater impact on affordability without eliminating a potential income source for property owners. Even in areas where STRs have a significant effect, communities would be better served by addressing restrictive land use policies before limiting what homeowners can do with their properties.
On neighborhood quality
Beyond worries about rising housing costs, some homeowners oppose STRs due to noise or perceived declines in neighborhood quality. However, these problems are already largely covered by existing laws and do not provide sufficient justification for restricting what property owners can do with their homes.
Many STR opponents cite the potential for disruption when campaigning for restrictions. Clark County, Nevada, even codifies this fear into its county code, citing potential use of STRs for "large, disruptive parties" and saying they "harm the quality of life for the residents."
Existing legal frameworks for dealing with disruptive neighbors include nuisance laws, which would also apply to guests and/or hosts. Further, STR platforms have built-in accountability measures, with many hosts explicitly banning parties or unlisted guests. Guest noncompliance jeopardizes their ability to continue using the platform. Airbnb has even gone so far as to institute a "party ban" and has taken measures to enforce it, recently using artificial intelligence to identify likely party-throwers. The fear of guest disruption is insufficient grounds for bans when both property owners and neighbors already have avenues to hold violators accountable.
Research from George Mason in 2021 found that these concerns may be less of a problem than previously expected. Analyzing noise complaints in New York City, this study finds that the entry of Airbnb into neighborhoods is associated with as much as a 5.1% decrease in noise complaints monthly. This reduction is due to lower occupancy in these units compared to permanently occupied homes.
Further concerns stem from the fear of erosion of community character if too many homes are used as STRs. While some residents dislike the increased turnover, others welcome the activity and diversity it brings. Community preferences are important, but they alone do not justify overriding the property rights inherent in homeownership.
Case studies: Anti-short-term rental legislation
Over the past several years, cities across the country have passed anti-STR legislation in an attempt to address their housing challenges. The most common deterrent tools include imposing fees and taxes, requiring unit registration, and limiting the areas where STRs can operate. During the regulatory process, tensions have risen between STR platforms and regulatory bodies over data sharing and enforcement of bans. Table 1 includes some examples.
Table 1: Examples of Anti-Short-Term Rental Legislation
Year Location Legislation Provisions Relating to Short-Term Rentals
2022 New York City Local Law 18 New York City's Local Law 18 requires STRs to register with the city and verify registration through STR platforms. This law also limits the number of guests in a unit at any given time to two. Further, it bans the leasing of a full unit and requires that the host be present during the stay. Hotels are exempt from these requirements.
2021 Clark County, NV County Code Chapter 7.100 In 2021, Nevada passed Assembly Bill 363, and Clark County could no longer maintain its blanket ban on short-term rentals. In response, the Clark County Code now discourages the use of short-term rentals as much as possible by allowing select areas to maintain their bans, limiting application windows for a license to operate, and limiting the proximity of short-term rental units to each other and to hotels, among other requirements.
2018 Irvine, CA County Code Chapter 3-25 One of the nation's strongest Airbnb restrictions is in Irvine, California, where a complete ban on STRs has been in place since 2018.
2018 Washington, D.C. D.C. Law 22-307 This law requires hosts to register their STR within different categories depending on whether the host will be present during the stay. Listings must be the host's primary residence.
2015 Santa Monica, CA Home Sharing Ordinance (HSO) Santa Monica's HSO establishes a licensing requirement, imposes penalties for noncompliance, and bans the leasing of entire properties.
1981 Palm Beach, FL Town of Palm Beach Code of Ordinances While Florida's statewide law preempts localities from completely banning short-term rentals, the town of Palm Beach has longstanding rules against short-term rentals that override statewide laws. Palm Beach has banned short-term rentals and time shares in residential districts since 1981 and maintains this ban in all residential districts.
Anti-STR policy efficacy and future legislation
Have these laws been effective? Let's consider the two California cases.
Proponents of these policies have heralded Irvine's 2018 ban on short-term rentals as a major success. A 2024 report in Real Estate Economics linked the 2018 short-term rentals ban in Irvine to a 3% decrease in rents. This minor market adjustment is to be expected. However, regardless of short-term rentals, Irvine, in California's Orange County, isn't a model of affordability. Median rent for all properties in Irvine is $4,800 per month, and the median home price is over $1.5 million. Irvine had among the largest home price appreciation during the pandemic among major U.S. cities. These high housing prices suggest that home and rent prices in Irvine are attributable to regulatory costs, and supply and demand factors beyond short-term rentals.
In Santa Monica, another high-cost city in Southern California, research finds no significant reduction in home prices and rents following the home sharing ordinace. While many factors contribute to high prices in beachfront Santa Monica, the policy's inefficacy points to problems with its assumptions. Despite massive reductions in whole-home short-term listings following the ban, not all units transitioned into the permanent housing market. Short- and long-term leases are not necessarily substitutes for each other, and not all STRs detract from the permanent market.
Blanket short-term rental bans hinder economic gains for travelers and hosts, even if they have no relation to the long-term housing supply. These lingering problems again point to a need for more tailored housing policy.
Looking forward, some areas are positioning themselves to enact anti-STR legislation in the coming months and years. For example, despite an Arizona state law that prevents localities from banning STRs, several cities have enacted and proposed measures that make it more difficult to operate them. In 2023, Phoenix started requiring both permits and a minimum $500,000 liability insurance to operate. In 2025, Flagstaff passed a resolution urging the state government to allow cities to regulate the location and quantity of STRs.
For the 2026 legislative session, an Arizona legislator has pre-filed a bill that would allow cities with fewer than 70,000 residents to regulate the number of short-term rentals and impose minimum distance requirements between them. While most state-level anti-STR measures have not made it past the legislature, a narrative is emerging in Arizona that frames short-term rentals as the problem, guiding housing policy toward restriction. Instead, legislators should seize the current attention on housing policy to advance development rather than targeting STRs.
The role of hotels and political economy
While many short-term rental skeptics are concerned homeowners and affordable housing advocates, hotels play a substantial role in funding prohibitive regulatory efforts. Developing coherent housing policy requires disentangling these interests and prioritizing homeowners' property rights rather than allowing law to be shaped by anti-competitive corporate lobbying.
Threatened by competition from short-term rental listings, hotels have strong incentives to finance anti-STR efforts. In New York City, for example, a study finding increased competition from STR platforms cut into hotel revenues may have prompted campaign contributions from the hotel lobby to city politicians. The winning combination of a policy message that sounds good and the financing of hotel giants culminated in the passing of Local Law 18. The result has been not only higher hotel prices for New York City's visitors, but also lost revenue for New Yorkers hoping to utilize STR platforms.
New York City is not alone. Analogous cases can be found in Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, and Honolulu, among others.
The incentive structures within regulatory processes and the desires of vested interests-both corporate and community-have culminated in regulatory outrage toward STRs, while years of local land use restrictions with a much larger impact on home prices go untouched. Policymakers concerned with market competition should level the landscape by reducing regulations on hotels as well.
Conclusion
States and cities looking to address their housing affordability challenges holistically, fairly, and successfully should look elsewhere. Short-term rentals are the trendy scapegoat for housing challenges, but problems in most communities run much deeper.
Banning short-term rentals means cutting off revenue for property owners, expending resources on enforcement, and making travel more expensive for guests-all without a substantial or sustainable home price adjustment. Healthy housing markets should absorb demand shocks by expanding supply to meet residents' needs. Instead of restricting what homeowners can do with their own property, lawmakers should remove unnecessary laws that limit the supply of housing and drive up costs for families.
***
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/blaming-short-term-rentals-wont-solve-the-housing-crisis/
New Report: Texas Transmission Costs Expected to More Than Double, Adding $100+ Annually to Average Electric Bills
AUSTIN, Texas, Jan. 12 (TNSrpt) -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
New Report: Texas Transmission Costs Expected to More Than Double, Adding $100+ Annually to Average Electric Bills
*
Life:Powered analysis finds ratepayers have paid nearly $15 billion since 2010 to support wind and solar transmission investments-and new projects will repeat the same mistakes.
AUSTIN, Texas - January 12, 2026 - Transmission costs in ERCOT have exploded from $1.5 billion in 2010 to over $5 billion in 2024 and could surpass $12 billion per year by 2033, according to
... Show Full Article
AUSTIN, Texas, Jan. 12 (TNSrpt) -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
New Report: Texas Transmission Costs Expected to More Than Double, Adding $100+ Annually to Average Electric Bills
*
Life:Powered analysis finds ratepayers have paid nearly $15 billion since 2010 to support wind and solar transmission investments-and new projects will repeat the same mistakes.
AUSTIN, Texas - January 12, 2026 - Transmission costs in ERCOT have exploded from $1.5 billion in 2010 to over $5 billion in 2024 and could surpass $12 billion per year by 2033, according toa new report released today by Life:Powered, an initiative of the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
The report, "The Explosion of Transmission Costs in ERCOT: Causes, Forecasts, and Policy Solutions," authored by Dr. Brent Bennett and Jamila Piracci, reveals that after adjusting for inflation and rising electricity demand, the average ERCOT ratepayer paid approximately 57% more in transmission charges in 2024 than in 2010.
The primary driver of this increase over the past decade was the Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) project, a $6.9 billion investment to connect wind and solar resources in West Texas to cities in Central and East Texas. Texas ratepayers are currently paying about $1 billion per year to support transmission investments for wind and solar and have paid a total of nearly $15 billion since 2010 for these investments.
"The average Texas household has seen transmission and distribution grow from 30% of their electric bill to 40% over the past decade plus, in part due to poor policy decisions that prioritize distantly located wind and solar instead of affordability and reliability," said Carson Clayton, Campaign Director for Life:Powered. "Policymakers are now poised to repeat this error by using transmission to connect more wind and solar to meet growing demand instead of fixing the ERCOT market to prioritize reliable generation cited close to demand centers."
Despite the lessons of CREZ, the Public Utility Commission of Texas and ERCOT have recently authorized $33 billion in new long-distance transmission lines. If these plans are fully executed, the annual cost of transmission will more than double, adding at least $100 per year to the average residential ratepayer's electric bill, with some estimates placing the increase at over $200 per year.
"Having ratepayers subsidize transmission to bring distant wind and solar to demand centers-as the Texas Legislature chose to do with CREZ in 2005-was a policy error that should not be repeated," said Dr. Brent Bennett, Policy Director for Life:Powered and lead author of the report. "Policymakers must ask critical questions before authorizing these new investments: Are there lower-cost alternatives? Can market reforms ensure the right generation is built in the right places to minimize transmission needs? Should the data centers and wind and solar generators that are benefitting the most from this new transmission pay for a larger share of it?"
The report recommends that the PUC and ERCOT delay moving forward on these major transmission projects until completing its load forecasting rule, its review of transmission cost allocation, and an assessment of whether market reforms to promote more dispatchable generation could reduce transmission needs.
* * *
REPORT: https://www.texaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/2026-01-LP-Transmission-Costs-BennettPiracci.pdf
***
Original text here: https://www.texaspolicy.com/press/new-report-texas-transmission-costs-expected-to-more-than-double-adding-100-annually-to-average-electric-bills
How do I protect myself against skin cancer--even in the winter?
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, Jan. 12 -- The Prevent Cancer Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
How do I protect myself against skin cancer--even in the winter?
*
When temperatures drop, many people forget that protecting your skin from the sun is still essential. The UV index may be trending lower, but some winter activities or conditions-like high-altitude sports or reflective snow-can increase your UV exposure without you realizing it. And harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays can lead to skin cancer-one of the most common cancers in the U.S, but also one of the most preventable. Here are a few
... Show Full Article
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, Jan. 12 -- The Prevent Cancer Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
How do I protect myself against skin cancer--even in the winter?
*
When temperatures drop, many people forget that protecting your skin from the sun is still essential. The UV index may be trending lower, but some winter activities or conditions-like high-altitude sports or reflective snow-can increase your UV exposure without you realizing it. And harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays can lead to skin cancer-one of the most common cancers in the U.S, but also one of the most preventable. Here are a fewthings to remember when it comes to keeping your skin safe and healthy this season:
Sunscreen is not just for summer.
UV rays penetrate clouds and reflect off snow, increasing your UV exposure during winter activities like skiing or snowboarding. They also increase at higher altitudes, making you more susceptible to sun exposure. Make sure to:
* Choose broad-spectrum sunscreen with SPF 30 or higher to protect against both UVA and UVB rays.
* Apply generously to all exposed skin, including your face, neck, and hands, at least 15 minutes before going outside. Consider a travel-sized sunscreen that can fit in your jacket on the slopes for easy access!
* Reapply sunscreen every two hours, or immediately after sweating or wiping your face.
Shield against wind damage.
Cold winds can strip your skin's natural barrier, leaving it dry and more vulnerable to UV damage. That's according to our friends at the Skin Cancer Foundation, who recommend following these precautions to prevent damage from windburn:
* Wear windproof jackets or windbreakers during outdoor sports.
* Limit time spent in windy conditions. Take breaks from the slopes every so often or wear a ski mask to protect your face during time spent outdoors.
* Consider sunscreens with emollient-rich ingredients (such as oils, creams or butters) as opposed to light lotions or spray sunscreens. Rich emollient sunscreen adds more moisture to your skin, preventing further damage and keeping your skin moisturized in colder temperatures.
Cover up with hats and goggles.
Your ears, scalp and eyes are often overlooked when it comes to sun protection. But they are highly susceptible to sun damage, and it's important to cover them properly when you're outside on a sunny winter day.
* Opt for a snug beanie that covers both your head and ears.
* Wear UV-protective sunglasses or ski goggles to shield your eyes and the delicate skin around them.
Don't forget your lips!
Lips lack melanin-a natural pigment that gives color to skin-making them especially prone to sunburn and skin cancer.
* Use a lip balm with SPF 30 or higher and reapply frequently.
Stay vigilant year-round.
Skin cancer prevention never stops-and keeping an eye on your body to know what "normal" looks like for you is important to staying healthy and ahead of cancer.
* Perform monthly self-checks using the ABCDE rule.
* Schedule an annual skin check with your health care provider.
READ ALSO | What's it like to get a skin check for the first time
Protecting your skin in winter is just as important as in summer. By making these habits part of your routine, you can reduce your risk of skin cancer and keep your skin healthy all year long.
***
Original text here: https://preventcancer.org/article/you-can-still-get-skin-cancer-in-the-winter-heres-how-to-protect-yourself/
Breakthrough T1D Celebrates Tezeild Approval in the EU
NEW YORK, Jan. 12 -- Breakthrough T1D (formerly JDRF) a non-profit dedicated to funding type 1 diabetes research, posted the following news release:
* * *
Breakthrough T1D Celebrates Tezeild Approval in the EU
*
Breakthrough T1D is pleased that the European Commission has approved Tezeild (Tzield in the U.S.) to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes (T1D) in individuals with stage 2 T1D who are eight years of age and older. The approval represents an important step forward for the global T1D community.
Tezeild is the first disease-modifying therapy that addresses the root cause of T1D,
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Jan. 12 -- Breakthrough T1D (formerly JDRF) a non-profit dedicated to funding type 1 diabetes research, posted the following news release:
* * *
Breakthrough T1D Celebrates Tezeild Approval in the EU
*
Breakthrough T1D is pleased that the European Commission has approved Tezeild (Tzield in the U.S.) to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes (T1D) in individuals with stage 2 T1D who are eight years of age and older. The approval represents an important step forward for the global T1D community.
Tezeild is the first disease-modifying therapy that addresses the root cause of T1D,not the symptoms. It has been shown to delay the onset of stage 3 T1D by an average of three years and has been approved for use in the UK, China, Canada, Israel, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait.
Read more in Sanofi's press release.
***
Original text here: https://www.breakthrought1d.org/for-the-media/press-releases/breakthrough-t1d-celebrates-tezeild-approval-in-the-eu/
