Public Policy & NGOs
Here's a look at documents from public policy and non-governmental organizations
Public Policy & NGOs
Featured Stories
Northwell Markets B2B Online Psychotherapy Program
NEW HYDE PARK, New York, Nov. 14 -- Northwell Health issued the following news release:
* * *
Northwell markets B2B online psychotherapy program
November 12th, 2026
Dianne O'Donnell
A newly published analysis of Northwell's BeHealth program saw a substantial reduction in depression and anxiety symptoms
-
A successful online psychotherapy program developed by Northwell Health for its employees is now available as a business-to-business offering for other employers facing challenges in providing mental health support for their workforce.
In March 2022, Northwell's Behavioral Health service ... Show Full Article NEW HYDE PARK, New York, Nov. 14 -- Northwell Health issued the following news release: * * * Northwell markets B2B online psychotherapy program November 12th, 2026 Dianne O'Donnell A newly published analysis of Northwell's BeHealth program saw a substantial reduction in depression and anxiety symptoms - A successful online psychotherapy program developed by Northwell Health for its employees is now available as a business-to-business offering for other employers facing challenges in providing mental health support for their workforce. In March 2022, Northwell's Behavioral Health serviceline launched BeHealth, a digital platform providing online, evidence-based psychotherapy for health system employees and their families who subscribe to the Northwell health plan. The platform -- the first of its kind for a health system -- was developed by Northwell using proprietary technology and staffed by clinical experts.
"Healthcare workers specifically are a group that has a really high prevalence of depression and anxiety," said Svetlana Levak, PhD, a clinical psychologist who led the development of BeHealth and co-authored a recently published analysis of the program. "We wanted to develop a product in the digital health market that improves on access to high-quality mental health care that is affordable or in-network for employees."
BeHealth provides substantial relief
To evaluate the program's effectiveness, Jon Morgenstern, PhD, and co-authors from Northwell analyzed depression and anxiety outcomes for 496 BeHealth participants from March 2022 through July 2024. Participants received weekly evidence-based psychotherapy -- a type of cognitive behavioral therapy -- delivered via a HIPAA-compliant digital platform.
Remission rates, treatment sessions attended and treatment completion were also assessed. The findings were published on October 21 in the journal BMC Health Services Research.
BeHealth participants saw a substantial reduction in depression and anxiety symptoms. The analysis also found a high level of engagement and treatment completion among participants.
In self-reported questionnaires, participants reported a reduction of 6.4 points in depression and 6.3 points in anxiety symptoms. Among participants with clinically significant symptoms, 48.8% achieved remission for anxiety, and 36.5% achieved remission for depression.
Participants attended a mean of 15 sessions, and 81.9% completed treatment, demonstrating high program adherence. Completing the full course of treatment was strongly and consistently associated with greater symptom improvement and higher odds of remission.
Findings of the analysis demonstrate that a scalable, health system-based digital psychotherapy model is feasible to implement and achieves high engagement and clinically meaningful improvements in mental health in the workforce.
Information on BeHealth for employers who are searching for high-quality mental health support solutions for their workforce is available at BeHealth@northwell.edu.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.northwell.edu/news/the-latest/northwell-markets-b2b-online-psychotherapy-program
[Category: Health Care]
* * *
Northwell markets B2B online psychotherapy program
November 12th, 2026
Dianne O'Donnell
A newly published analysis of Northwell's BeHealth program saw a substantial reduction in depression and anxiety symptoms
-
A successful online psychotherapy program developed by Northwell Health for its employees is now available as a business-to-business offering for other employers facing challenges in providing mental health support for their workforce.
In March 2022, Northwell's Behavioral Health service ... Show Full Article NEW HYDE PARK, New York, Nov. 14 -- Northwell Health issued the following news release: * * * Northwell markets B2B online psychotherapy program November 12th, 2026 Dianne O'Donnell A newly published analysis of Northwell's BeHealth program saw a substantial reduction in depression and anxiety symptoms - A successful online psychotherapy program developed by Northwell Health for its employees is now available as a business-to-business offering for other employers facing challenges in providing mental health support for their workforce. In March 2022, Northwell's Behavioral Health serviceline launched BeHealth, a digital platform providing online, evidence-based psychotherapy for health system employees and their families who subscribe to the Northwell health plan. The platform -- the first of its kind for a health system -- was developed by Northwell using proprietary technology and staffed by clinical experts.
"Healthcare workers specifically are a group that has a really high prevalence of depression and anxiety," said Svetlana Levak, PhD, a clinical psychologist who led the development of BeHealth and co-authored a recently published analysis of the program. "We wanted to develop a product in the digital health market that improves on access to high-quality mental health care that is affordable or in-network for employees."
BeHealth provides substantial relief
To evaluate the program's effectiveness, Jon Morgenstern, PhD, and co-authors from Northwell analyzed depression and anxiety outcomes for 496 BeHealth participants from March 2022 through July 2024. Participants received weekly evidence-based psychotherapy -- a type of cognitive behavioral therapy -- delivered via a HIPAA-compliant digital platform.
Remission rates, treatment sessions attended and treatment completion were also assessed. The findings were published on October 21 in the journal BMC Health Services Research.
BeHealth participants saw a substantial reduction in depression and anxiety symptoms. The analysis also found a high level of engagement and treatment completion among participants.
In self-reported questionnaires, participants reported a reduction of 6.4 points in depression and 6.3 points in anxiety symptoms. Among participants with clinically significant symptoms, 48.8% achieved remission for anxiety, and 36.5% achieved remission for depression.
Participants attended a mean of 15 sessions, and 81.9% completed treatment, demonstrating high program adherence. Completing the full course of treatment was strongly and consistently associated with greater symptom improvement and higher odds of remission.
Findings of the analysis demonstrate that a scalable, health system-based digital psychotherapy model is feasible to implement and achieves high engagement and clinically meaningful improvements in mental health in the workforce.
Information on BeHealth for employers who are searching for high-quality mental health support solutions for their workforce is available at BeHealth@northwell.edu.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.northwell.edu/news/the-latest/northwell-markets-b2b-online-psychotherapy-program
[Category: Health Care]
Northwell Health: Feinstein Institutes' Kevin J. Tracey, MD, Receives Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Double Helix Medal
NEW HYDE PARK, New York, Nov. 14 -- Northwell Health issued the following news release:
* * *
Feinstein Institutes' Kevin J. Tracey, MD, receives Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Double Helix Medal
November 13th, 2026
Matthew Libassi
The pioneer in bioelectronic medicine was honored alongside Michael Milken at the annual ceremony in New York City
-
Recognized as the founding father of bioelectronic medicine, Kevin J. Tracey, MD, president and CEO of Northwell Health's Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, received the prestigious Double Helix Medal from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) ... Show Full Article NEW HYDE PARK, New York, Nov. 14 -- Northwell Health issued the following news release: * * * Feinstein Institutes' Kevin J. Tracey, MD, receives Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Double Helix Medal November 13th, 2026 Matthew Libassi The pioneer in bioelectronic medicine was honored alongside Michael Milken at the annual ceremony in New York City - Recognized as the founding father of bioelectronic medicine, Kevin J. Tracey, MD, president and CEO of Northwell Health's Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, received the prestigious Double Helix Medal from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL)on November 10.
The honor celebrates his decades-long pursuit of unraveling the mysteries of the brain's connection to the body and the role of the nervous system in controlling inflammation, research that has given rise to an entirely new field of medicine. Dr. Tracey was honored alongside philanthropist Michael Milken at the Double Helix Medals Dinner in New York City.
The Double Helix Medal, one of biology's most distinguished honors, recognizes individuals who have made transformative breakthroughs in biomedical research, as well as those who have significantly supported and raised awareness of advances in science and medicine. Past recipients include Muhammad Ali, Michael J. Fox, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Katie Couric, Marlo Thomas, and Nobel laureates Jennifer Doudna, Katalin Kariko and Jim Allison, among other luminaries in science, medicine, philanthropy and public life.
The pivotal discovery behind bioelectronic medicine
"I am honored to receive the Double Helix Medal and to join a group of scientists and leaders I have long admired," said Dr. Tracey, Karches Family Distinguished Chair in Medical Research. "This recognition also belongs to my colleagues in the lab and in industry and to the physicians and patients who took a chance on a new idea. That idea is now a treatment, and it is also a new beginning."
Dr. Tracey is widely recognized as the pioneer of bioelectronic medicine; an innovative field of medicine that combines neuroscience, molecular medicine and bioengineering to explore how devices and other technologies can harness the body's own systems to cure disease. His landmark 2002 discovery, published in Nature, revealed the "inflammatory reflex," the mechanism by which the vagus nerve regulates the body's immune response and controls inflammation. This discovery laid the scientific groundwork for the development of implantable devices that can treat chronic inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease and sepsis without the use of drugs.
Dr. Tracey's research directly inspired the development of the 2025 FDA-approved SetPoint Medical device for rheumatoid arthritis, the first non-pharmacologic bioelectronic therapy for the condition, representing the ultimate realization of bench-to-bedside science. Northwell was the first health system in the nation to implant the SetPoint System.
Under Dr. Tracey's leadership, the Feinstein Institutes has grown into the global scientific home of bioelectronic medicine, encompassing six institutes, with more than 50 research labs and 5,000 researchers and staff dedicated to producing knowledge to cure disease.
"Dr. Tracey's recognition by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory is incredibly well-deserved and a testament to what is possible when an organization invests in research for the long term," said John D'Angelo, MD, Northwell's president and CEO. "His discovery of the inflammatory reflex gave rise to an entirely new field of medicine, one that is delivering life-changing results for patients right now. This is precisely why we invest in science that challenges the boundaries of what medicine can do."
A career marked by scientific honors and influence
Throughout his career, Dr. Tracey has received honors recognizing his scientific contributions, including being named an "Innovator" on TIME's 2026 TIME100 Health list. He was elected as a Fellow of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences - one of the highest honors for engineers and scientists in Sweden and internationally - and inducted as a Fellow of the National Academy of Inventors (NAI) Class of 2025, the highest professional distinction awarded solely to inventors, recognized specifically for his discovery of the inflammatory reflex and his founding of the field of bioelectronic medicine.
Under his leadership, the Feinstein Institutes has also earned significant institutional recognition, with the double neural bypass named to TIME's Hall of Fame and TIME's Best Inventions of 2024, and Northwell Health named to TIME100 Most Influential Companies 2025.
Dr. Tracey is also the author of The Great Nerve: The New Science of the Vagus Nerve and How to Harness Its Healing Reflexes, further cementing his role as a leading voice in translating complex science for the benefit of patients and the public.
Founded in 1890, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory is considered the birthplace of molecular biology and home to eight Nobel Prize winners. Nature has recognized CSHL as the world's leading academic research institution for scientific impact, describing it as a "hub of breakthroughs." The annual Double Helix Medals Dinner brought together more than 450 leaders in science, medicine, and philanthropy to celebrate visionary contributions to human health and biology.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.northwell.edu/news/the-latest/kevin-tracey-double-helix-medal
[Category: Health Care]
* * *
Feinstein Institutes' Kevin J. Tracey, MD, receives Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Double Helix Medal
November 13th, 2026
Matthew Libassi
The pioneer in bioelectronic medicine was honored alongside Michael Milken at the annual ceremony in New York City
-
Recognized as the founding father of bioelectronic medicine, Kevin J. Tracey, MD, president and CEO of Northwell Health's Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, received the prestigious Double Helix Medal from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) ... Show Full Article NEW HYDE PARK, New York, Nov. 14 -- Northwell Health issued the following news release: * * * Feinstein Institutes' Kevin J. Tracey, MD, receives Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Double Helix Medal November 13th, 2026 Matthew Libassi The pioneer in bioelectronic medicine was honored alongside Michael Milken at the annual ceremony in New York City - Recognized as the founding father of bioelectronic medicine, Kevin J. Tracey, MD, president and CEO of Northwell Health's Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, received the prestigious Double Helix Medal from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL)on November 10.
The honor celebrates his decades-long pursuit of unraveling the mysteries of the brain's connection to the body and the role of the nervous system in controlling inflammation, research that has given rise to an entirely new field of medicine. Dr. Tracey was honored alongside philanthropist Michael Milken at the Double Helix Medals Dinner in New York City.
The Double Helix Medal, one of biology's most distinguished honors, recognizes individuals who have made transformative breakthroughs in biomedical research, as well as those who have significantly supported and raised awareness of advances in science and medicine. Past recipients include Muhammad Ali, Michael J. Fox, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Katie Couric, Marlo Thomas, and Nobel laureates Jennifer Doudna, Katalin Kariko and Jim Allison, among other luminaries in science, medicine, philanthropy and public life.
The pivotal discovery behind bioelectronic medicine
"I am honored to receive the Double Helix Medal and to join a group of scientists and leaders I have long admired," said Dr. Tracey, Karches Family Distinguished Chair in Medical Research. "This recognition also belongs to my colleagues in the lab and in industry and to the physicians and patients who took a chance on a new idea. That idea is now a treatment, and it is also a new beginning."
Dr. Tracey is widely recognized as the pioneer of bioelectronic medicine; an innovative field of medicine that combines neuroscience, molecular medicine and bioengineering to explore how devices and other technologies can harness the body's own systems to cure disease. His landmark 2002 discovery, published in Nature, revealed the "inflammatory reflex," the mechanism by which the vagus nerve regulates the body's immune response and controls inflammation. This discovery laid the scientific groundwork for the development of implantable devices that can treat chronic inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease and sepsis without the use of drugs.
Dr. Tracey's research directly inspired the development of the 2025 FDA-approved SetPoint Medical device for rheumatoid arthritis, the first non-pharmacologic bioelectronic therapy for the condition, representing the ultimate realization of bench-to-bedside science. Northwell was the first health system in the nation to implant the SetPoint System.
Under Dr. Tracey's leadership, the Feinstein Institutes has grown into the global scientific home of bioelectronic medicine, encompassing six institutes, with more than 50 research labs and 5,000 researchers and staff dedicated to producing knowledge to cure disease.
"Dr. Tracey's recognition by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory is incredibly well-deserved and a testament to what is possible when an organization invests in research for the long term," said John D'Angelo, MD, Northwell's president and CEO. "His discovery of the inflammatory reflex gave rise to an entirely new field of medicine, one that is delivering life-changing results for patients right now. This is precisely why we invest in science that challenges the boundaries of what medicine can do."
A career marked by scientific honors and influence
Throughout his career, Dr. Tracey has received honors recognizing his scientific contributions, including being named an "Innovator" on TIME's 2026 TIME100 Health list. He was elected as a Fellow of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences - one of the highest honors for engineers and scientists in Sweden and internationally - and inducted as a Fellow of the National Academy of Inventors (NAI) Class of 2025, the highest professional distinction awarded solely to inventors, recognized specifically for his discovery of the inflammatory reflex and his founding of the field of bioelectronic medicine.
Under his leadership, the Feinstein Institutes has also earned significant institutional recognition, with the double neural bypass named to TIME's Hall of Fame and TIME's Best Inventions of 2024, and Northwell Health named to TIME100 Most Influential Companies 2025.
Dr. Tracey is also the author of The Great Nerve: The New Science of the Vagus Nerve and How to Harness Its Healing Reflexes, further cementing his role as a leading voice in translating complex science for the benefit of patients and the public.
Founded in 1890, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory is considered the birthplace of molecular biology and home to eight Nobel Prize winners. Nature has recognized CSHL as the world's leading academic research institution for scientific impact, describing it as a "hub of breakthroughs." The annual Double Helix Medals Dinner brought together more than 450 leaders in science, medicine, and philanthropy to celebrate visionary contributions to human health and biology.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.northwell.edu/news/the-latest/kevin-tracey-double-helix-medal
[Category: Health Care]
NRDC Assessment of BAAJA, the 2026 Permitting and Transmission Bill
NEW YORK, Nov. 14 -- The Natural Resources Defense Council issued the following news release:
* * *
NRDC Assessment of BAAJA, the 2026 Permitting and Transmission Bill
This backgrounder, which was originally published October 26, 2026, was updated November 13, 2026, to reflect the managers' amendment.
November 13, 2026
-
The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (BAAJA) combines critically important transmission and grid reforms with significant and concerning changes to federal environmental laws, permitting standards, and judicial remedies.
While NRDC supports the elements ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Nov. 14 -- The Natural Resources Defense Council issued the following news release: * * * NRDC Assessment of BAAJA, the 2026 Permitting and Transmission Bill This backgrounder, which was originally published October 26, 2026, was updated November 13, 2026, to reflect the managers' amendment. November 13, 2026 - The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (BAAJA) combines critically important transmission and grid reforms with significant and concerning changes to federal environmental laws, permitting standards, and judicial remedies. While NRDC supports the elementsof the bill that would help accelerate needed transmission and grid modernization, the bill goes too far in weakening essential environmental safeguards and opportunities for public participation. We oppose the bill as written.
The transmission provisions in the bill would produce substantial and durable benefits, updating an aging power grid by allowing new investments. These reforms, which NRDC has long supported, are an essential component of accelerating the electrification and decarbonization of the power sector and achieving greenhouse gas reduction targets. On their own, these changes are much needed and overdue; they would also help any future clean energy incentives and standards succeed in cutting emissions. But transmission is an enabling technology rather than a substitute for policies that directly drive clean energy investment and reduce pollution.
The bill contains a number of provisions that both raise substantial concerns for federal agencies' ability to implement environmental protections in the future and reinforces the position of incumbent energy interests. The "project certainty" language was intended to ensure projects cannot be arbitrarily canceled. Even as amended, however, it could still benefit fossil fuel, mining, data center, and other industrial projects more than clean energy. It also threatens to limit agencies' ability to address newly discovered harms, constrain future pollution regulation, and create large taxpayer-funded corporate handouts.
Learn More
From left, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah., Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., hold a news conference on the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act in the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, September 30, 2026.
Hard Questions About the Permitting Bill
Emissions rising from the coal-fired Mill Creek Generating Station in Louisville, Kentucky, in February 1988. Mill Creek remains LG&E's largest coal-fired power plant, with a generating capacity of 1,465 megawatts.
An Affordability Crisis of Trump's Own Making
The bill would also weaken key elements of core environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The bill would narrow environmental review across those statutes, diminish state and Tribal authority, constrain public participation, and restrict the courts' ability to stop projects proceeding under unlawful permits. These changes erode fundamental protections for communities; taken together, these rollbacks would represent the most significant weakening of federal environmental laws since they were established more than a half a century ago.
The backdrop, of course, is the Trump administration's nonstop attacks on clean energy projects, tax incentives for clean energy, and climate standards. NRDC's analysis finds in aggregate that this administration's actions could double carbon emissions from the power sector over the next decade while raising consumers' electric utility bills by $30 billion per year by 2035. Even as the Senate began voting on this permitting reform bill, President Trump--who supports its passage--reiterated that he would never approve new wind projects. Lawmakers should demand tangible evidence that this has changed before voting on the legislation.
NRDC opposes the bill as it currently stands.
Below is an assessment of the most positive and most negative elements of the bill. It reflects the changes to the bill put forward in the managers' amendment released on November 7, 2026. This is not intended to be comprehensive.
Positives
Transmission and grid reform are the bill's principal strengths
An aging power grid desperately needs updating, and with more extreme weather and surging demand from data centers, getting new electricity connected to the grid quickly is essential to keeping energy costs down and maintaining resilience. In one fell swoop, this legislation would address these issues, producing the necessary conditions to deploy more clean energy.
This legislation would provide a dramatic near-term boost to the nation's grid by increasing both the amount of power that existing transmission lines can carry and the supply of electricity available to meet growing demand. It establishes procedures that could cut the time to build a major new transmission line to five to six years from 10 years--or sometimes significantly longer--today.
In the short term, it would require utilities to upgrade existing transmission lines and deploy advanced transmission technologies whenever their benefits exceed their costs. This technology can increase the capacity and efficiency of existing transmission lines, reduce congestion, and improve reliability, often at a cost that is 5 to 10 times cheaper than building new transmission. If deployed aggressively in the short term, this could free up more than 100 gigawatts of transmission capacity--enough to power 75 million homes.
Importantly, the bill goes beyond simply requiring utilities to consider these technologies: It directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to establish timelines for deployment, makes it easier for utilities to recover their costs, and establishes penalties for utilities that fail to deploy cost-effective technologies.
The bill makes major interstate power lines easier to build by strengthening federal authority over large interstate transmission lines. Currently, a state can block or indefinitely delay a project that would provide broad regional or national benefits. If a state rejects an eligible project or fails to act within one year, the bill requires FERC to issue a permit for a covered transmission line when a developer seeks federal review and the project satisfies specific criteria. FERC must then spread the costs fairly among all consumers who benefit from the projects.
The bill also requires neighboring grid regions to plan interregional transmission jointly, assess the benefits of potential projects, and establish methods for allocating costs. Despite a FERC order issued in 2011 that was meant to spur these cross-regional power lines, currently, virtually no major lines have been built between regions because there is no durable process for planning them or determining who should pay. The bill addresses this long-standing problem and codifies important elements of FERC's updated regional planning framework from 2024, known as Order 1920.
The bill will also reduce the long wait times for energy projects to connect to the grid. Approximately 2,000 gigawatts of proposed generation and storage are waiting to connect to the grid, and 85 percent of that capacity is solar, wind, or storage. Projects often wait years for studies and may receive unexpectedly high upgrade costs late in the process. The bill encourages more coordinated planning, provides developers earlier information about costs, and improves data and automation.
Taken together, these transmission and interconnection reforms are a once-in-a-generation opportunity that would produce significant and durable benefits. The reforms would also facilitate the infrastructure needed so that future clean energy incentives and standards could succeed.
Require data centers' to pay for increased costs driven by their grid demands
The data center provisions could provide protection for existing utility customers and support grid investments by requiring data centers to pay for their impact to the grid. It would direct FERC to develop pricing rules designed to prevent transmission costs created by data centers (generally 20 megawatts or more) from being shifted to other ratepayers and ensure data centers provide financial assurance to avoid costs shifting in the future. FERC would also have to revise transmission pricing policies and require standardized analysis of upgrades and cost-reduction options.
These provisions address the transmission portion of the broader effects of rapid data center growth. The bill does not address local air pollution, water consumption, noise, land use, reliance on on-site fossil fuel generation, transparency, or public participation. Moreover, rollbacks to bedrock environmental laws will likely make it easier for data centers to be built as well as for gas infrastructure to be expanded to such facilities.
Provide a boost to geothermal energy
With geothermal energy poised to be a major player in the clean energy future, the bill provides policy reforms that could increase permitting efficiency and lower some of the barriers to geothermal development. But the geothermal provisions also come with their drawbacks, including the expansion of Section 390's oil and gas activity categorical exclusion to geothermal development, which allows for significant drilling and production activities to take place on public lands without environmental review.
Negatives
Project certainty provisions will not protect clean energy from Trump's attacks and could backfire
In an effort to respond to the Trump administration's relentless attacks on wind and solar projects, this legislation includes a "project certainty" title with three provisions that seek to protect developers from unreasonable attacks. The project certainty provisions in the managers' amendment are improved from those in the earlier draft. Unfortunately, these provisions are unlikely to do much to help clean energy fight back against the Trump administration, and they still create significant risks of harmful unintended consequences, including locking in permits for oil, gas, data centers, and mining projects. They could also lead to a slew of industry lawsuits that result in taxpayers paying billions of dollars to private industry.
Section 1401 would largely prevent federal agencies from canceling, suspending, or changing federal permits or authorizations for any non-federally sponsored projects that have received all necessary permits. The provision's reach is extremely broad: It is not limited to energy projects nor to specific agencies or types of permits. The legislation sets out a small handful of circumstances in which agencies can modify an issued permit. The amendment adds newly discovered harm to human health or the environment to these exceptions, although only if an agency can show such harm to be, among other things, "immediate," "urgent," and "proximate."
There is no exception for permits that are unlawfully granted in the first place: If the Trump administration issued a blanket grant of all permits for oil and gas infrastructure without any environmental review, the bill provides no clear mechanism for a future administration to revoke those permits. And although the managers' amendment seeks to clarify that agencies can still act on permits to implement and enforce other statutes and regulations, its broad language is vulnerable to industry arguments that new pollution or wildlife protection requirements can't be applied to existing permits.
Companies that bring successful lawsuits under this section can get permits reinstated--as well as require the government to pay for their litigation expenses and the cost of project delays. If a court finds the government acted in bad faith, it can also force the government to use taxpayer money to make an additional payment of 25-50 percent of total project costs incurred to the company. For a single large energy project, this could easily amount to hundreds of millions, or even billions, of dollars.
Another section (1402) would allow energy project developers to sue agencies for alleged "disparate treatment," which is measured by comparing an agency's denial and delay rates for permits for projects of that energy type against a fixed-term baseline. As amended, it now compares current practice to a 10-year baseline (instead of just five), requires developers to prove denials were made in bad faith, and allows agencies to introduce evidence to explain their decision. But because successful claims could result in payments equal to 50-100 percent of projected construction costs--plus actual damages and legal costs--the serious risk that the provision could be gamed and produce large taxpayer-funded payouts remains.
As written, the project certainty provisions are unlikely to offer durable relief to the clean energy projects currently being targeted by the Trump administration. They protect projects that have received all necessary authorizations, which excludes several of the offshore wind facilities that have been repeatedly attacked by the administration. Section 1401 also contains an exception for actions taken for national security or defense reasons, which have been the most-cited rationales used by the Trump administration to stop clean energy development. And there is little reason to be optimistic that the administration will comply with the new law: Even as the Senate began voting to take up the bill, President Trump once again declared that he would approve no new wind projects. Rather, the administration declared that this provision would be used to counter "bias against fossil fuels."
Environmental reviews and judicial remedies are sharply constrained
The bill makes sweeping changes to our ability to enforce a number of environmental laws. Most notably, it provides that a court can never invalidate a permit based on a violation of NEPA and NHPA, no matter how severe it finds a legal violation to be. Though a deficient review can be returned to an agency, construction is allowed to continue while the agency corrects its mistakes. The result could be that by the time the agency completes its review, the project may already be largely or entirely built--and the damage difficult or impossible to reverse.
Right now, if a court finds that an agency violated NEPA, it can stop the project from moving forward until the agency corrects the environmental review documents. For example, a federal judge put an oil and gas lease in Alaska's ecologically rich Cook Inlet on hold until the responsible agency corrected its defective environmental review.
Former federal judge David Tatel wrote in Bloomberg Insights: "Put more simply, when the federal government is about to authorize something that might have major impacts on the places we live, the water we drink, or the air we breathe, NEPA requires that the government look before it leaps. If the permitting bill becomes law, that requirement will be all but dead letter."
The bill also excludes numerous environmentally harmful activities from NEPA review, expands exemptions for others, narrows the analysis of alternatives, and limits who can bring a case. Collectively, these changes substantially reduce the practical value of NEPA as a means to improve environmental outcomes. Tribes, local organizations, and affected communities may be particularly disadvantaged if they are cut out of the process or cannot stop harmful projects before they cause damage.
Changes to historic preservation law significantly affect Tribal interests
The bill would dramatically curtail the rights and powers of Tribes enshrined in Section 106 of the NHPA, effectively limiting Tribes' ability to protect their lands and culturally significant places from proposed projects with a federal connection. While the managers' amendment struck some of the more problematic definitions concerning the scope of what constitutes as culturally and religiously important, it did not address other shortcomings. Most significantly, it did not satisfactorily address mechanisms that will limit Tribal participation in decisions concerning federally connected projects and what Tribal interests are protected--which, under current law, includes not only artifacts but also sacred places, cultural landscapes, waterways, wildlife, and living ecosystems. The latest changes also do not address the fact that a Tribal Nation in most cases will have few practical avenues to secure a meaningful judicial remedy when an agency's or project's plans are found to be in violation of the NHPA. Tribal Nations and Indigenous partners have made clear that these changes significantly undermine Tribal sovereignty and the federal government's nation-to-nation responsibilities.
The Clean Water Act provisions restrict state, Tribal, and federal authority to improve projects and protect water bodies and wetlands
The bill weakens several CWA programs, which will make it easier for activities that pollute or destroy water resources to move forward without adequate safeguards. It limits the ability of states and Tribes to ensure the health of streams, lakes, wetlands, and groundwater when the federal government authorizes activities that impact them. It takes a fast-tracked permitting process meant for activities that have minimal impacts (like boat ramps) and applies it to major projects such as pipelines and highways that cause substantial harm.
The bill makes significant changes to the CWA program that gives states and Tribes the ability to demand water quality-based improvements to federal permits. For gas pipelines and transmission projects, reviewing authorities are limited to considering direct discharges, (e.g., just the effects of a concrete structure for a pipeline) rather than broader construction-related effects such as erosion, sediment, contaminated runoff, groundwater pollution, and damage to wetlands and streams, or ongoing impacts from the operation of the project.
For all projects, the bill places a substantially higher burden on states seeking to require protections. Currently, a state can identify a water quality concern, request reasonable changes, and allow a project to proceed with stronger safeguards. A state would now be required to demonstrate harm by clear and convincing evidence (versus reasonable evidence) and show that its proposed condition is the least burdensome means of addressing the water quality concern. In practice, these new hurdles will be very difficult to overcome, which will likely result in fewer state conditions on permits needed to protect water quality. In addition, the bill would restrict states and Tribes from taking the actions they can today to protect habitat, groundwater (including drinking water supplies), and many small streams and critical wetlands.
The bill also weakens the CWA's general permitting program (administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) for dredging and filling waters. The bill directs the Corps, when creating general permits, to look only at the harm that results from filling in waters. No other water impacts like pollution or groundwater depletion could be considered. Additionally, right now, most general permits can only be used for impacts to one-half acre of water bodies or less; this bill would quadruple this threshold, which could allow larger data centers or other major projects to qualify. It also extends the duration of general permits, reducing opportunities for public input on requirements for projects to once a decade. Finally, it requires the Corps to maintain--and never strengthen--fast-track permits for large "linear" projects that can have major environmental harms, like roadways and pipelines.
The bill weakens other Clean Water Act programs as well. It would curb the EPA's ability to stop projects that dump dredged or fill material that "have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas," which the agency has invoked rarely, but done so to protect exceptional habitats threatened by highly damaging projects. It would slow the EPA's development of scientific advice to states about the levels of pollutants that can cause harm to aquatic life or people, and it would delay updates to discharge requirements for industrial polluters and sewage plants; together, these two changes would constrain the ability to control "forever chemicals."
Although the managers' amendment included minor improvements and technical clarifications, it leaves the major rollbacks discussed above intact.
Endangered species protections are weakened
Language relating to the "best available science" standard could be interpreted to restrict precautionary action when scientific information is uncertain. This is particularly concerning when an imperiled population of a species is difficult or expensive to study and waiting for definitive proof could result in irreversible loss.
The bill also allows states to assume responsibilities currently carried out by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Many states lack the capacity, expertise, or, in some cases, the commitment necessary to perform this responsibility effectively, and if a state is not executing its responsibility, there is not a requirement for the federal government to reassume it.
The managers' amendment also added a new provision that would direct certain Endangered Species Act challenges to the venue where a project takes place, trapping certain challenges in courts that are notoriously friendly to industry interests.
Oil and gas drillers get access to resources below farmers' and ranchers' lands
The bill would exempt many wells drilled on private lands that tap into federally owned oil and gas reserves from federal permitting. Upon passage, four million acres already under lease would no longer require federal permits or oversight. Over time, the bill opens up to 57 million subsurface acres of federal resources to exploitation without federal permits. If passed into law, this provision strips thousands of private landowners across the West of important protections like required notice of industry's plans to develop on their property; increases the risk that landowners get stuck with orphaned wells and their associated environmental and financial costs; and creates new risks of fraud and abuse as it relates to royalty reporting.
The same policy is also extended to the geothermal industry--opening this same acreage to geothermal exploration and operations without federal permitting.
Public lands are handed to the mining industry
The bill allows mining companies to claim an unlimited number of five-acre mill sites on public lands to be used for things like tailing storage--wastewater and rock often containing heavy metals and other dangerous residues--and waste dumps. And it allows mining companies to occupy public lands for any other use relevant to a mining project, regardless of its proximity to the actual mine, meaning roads, pipelines, powerlines, and any other activity formerly requiring a federal permit and environmental review would be allowed so long as the activity is included in the mine's operation plan. Due to this and other provisions in the bill, communities and Tribes would have little ability to push for operational or environmental improvements for proposed mines.
Policy analysis
The modeling completed to date focuses on greenhouse gas and economic impacts. Available analyses from NRDC and other groups generally project modest greenhouse gas benefits, especially over the long term, but the results vary substantially depending on the provisions modeled, policy baseline, fuel and technology costs, and implementation assumptions.
NRDC's results show modest power sector benefits.
The benefits of additional transmission will generally be greater in a policy environment that drives clean energy deployment. In a baseline with limited support for new clean energy resources, transmission may improve reliability and reduce costs without producing sizable emissions reductions.
The oil-and-gas effects remain uncertain. NRDC has not quantified the bill's effects on oil-and-gas development. Because the existing baseline already assumes high levels of domestic production growth (oil and gas production have both doubled in the last 20 years), faster permitting may not produce a large increase in emissions compared with business as usual. Nevertheless, the bill could accelerate individual projects, improve their economics, and make approved infrastructure more difficult to regulate or modify later. The risk of locking in that trajectory merits consideration, even if near-term emissions changes appear modest.
Data-center growth creates a particularly important unknown. The grid provisions may indeed enable data centers to finance upgrades and connect to an expanded transmission system. But transmission takes years to plan and construct. In the interim, faster permitting and weaker environmental safeguards could encourage additional on-site or nearby gas generation, particularly in regions with access to existing pipelines or gas fields.
Greenhouse gas emissions are only one measure of the bill's effects. The modeling does not quantify potential consequences for drinking water, local air pollution, public health, endangered species and wildlife, or other metrics. It also cannot account for the practical importance of judicial remedies in ensuring that agencies and developers comply with environmental law.
Critical changes needed
NRDC is seeking significant improvements to the bill in five areas:
1. Revise the project certainty provisions: The bill must apply only to publicly disclosed authorizations and must preserve an agency's ability to cancel or modify unlawful permits and follow established processes for applying and enforcing current and future pollution standards. All disparate treatment claims should require credible evidence of agency bad faith. The bill should eliminate disproportionate taxpayer funded payments.
2. Preserve meaningful judicial remedies: Courts must retain the authority to fix unlawful permits and pause construction under the CWA, NEPA, and NHPA. Legal protections are substantially diminished if courts cannot provide an effective remedy when violations occur.
3. Restore clean water protections: Congress should remove heightened burdens on states (evidentiary standards); preserve the ability of states and Tribes to address a full range of water quality effects and improve projects; and avoid further weakening of the general permit program.
4. Retain endangered species protections: The legislation should remove the transfer of important federal consultation responsibilities to states and remove language that could constrain reasonable precautions when scientific information is incomplete.
5. Respect and uphold Tribal sovereignty: Any changes to the historic preservation law should be developed with Tribal Nations, preserve meaningful consultant, and elevate the unique expertise Tribes hold in identifying and protecting their cultural resources and sacred places.
NRDC urges members of Congress to reject the bill and vote no unless significant changes are made.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.nrdc.org/media/nrdc-assessment-baaja-2026-permitting-transmission-bill#positives
[Category: Environment]
* * *
NRDC Assessment of BAAJA, the 2026 Permitting and Transmission Bill
This backgrounder, which was originally published October 26, 2026, was updated November 13, 2026, to reflect the managers' amendment.
November 13, 2026
-
The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (BAAJA) combines critically important transmission and grid reforms with significant and concerning changes to federal environmental laws, permitting standards, and judicial remedies.
While NRDC supports the elements ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Nov. 14 -- The Natural Resources Defense Council issued the following news release: * * * NRDC Assessment of BAAJA, the 2026 Permitting and Transmission Bill This backgrounder, which was originally published October 26, 2026, was updated November 13, 2026, to reflect the managers' amendment. November 13, 2026 - The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (BAAJA) combines critically important transmission and grid reforms with significant and concerning changes to federal environmental laws, permitting standards, and judicial remedies. While NRDC supports the elementsof the bill that would help accelerate needed transmission and grid modernization, the bill goes too far in weakening essential environmental safeguards and opportunities for public participation. We oppose the bill as written.
The transmission provisions in the bill would produce substantial and durable benefits, updating an aging power grid by allowing new investments. These reforms, which NRDC has long supported, are an essential component of accelerating the electrification and decarbonization of the power sector and achieving greenhouse gas reduction targets. On their own, these changes are much needed and overdue; they would also help any future clean energy incentives and standards succeed in cutting emissions. But transmission is an enabling technology rather than a substitute for policies that directly drive clean energy investment and reduce pollution.
The bill contains a number of provisions that both raise substantial concerns for federal agencies' ability to implement environmental protections in the future and reinforces the position of incumbent energy interests. The "project certainty" language was intended to ensure projects cannot be arbitrarily canceled. Even as amended, however, it could still benefit fossil fuel, mining, data center, and other industrial projects more than clean energy. It also threatens to limit agencies' ability to address newly discovered harms, constrain future pollution regulation, and create large taxpayer-funded corporate handouts.
Learn More
From left, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah., Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., hold a news conference on the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act in the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, September 30, 2026.
Hard Questions About the Permitting Bill
Emissions rising from the coal-fired Mill Creek Generating Station in Louisville, Kentucky, in February 1988. Mill Creek remains LG&E's largest coal-fired power plant, with a generating capacity of 1,465 megawatts.
An Affordability Crisis of Trump's Own Making
The bill would also weaken key elements of core environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The bill would narrow environmental review across those statutes, diminish state and Tribal authority, constrain public participation, and restrict the courts' ability to stop projects proceeding under unlawful permits. These changes erode fundamental protections for communities; taken together, these rollbacks would represent the most significant weakening of federal environmental laws since they were established more than a half a century ago.
The backdrop, of course, is the Trump administration's nonstop attacks on clean energy projects, tax incentives for clean energy, and climate standards. NRDC's analysis finds in aggregate that this administration's actions could double carbon emissions from the power sector over the next decade while raising consumers' electric utility bills by $30 billion per year by 2035. Even as the Senate began voting on this permitting reform bill, President Trump--who supports its passage--reiterated that he would never approve new wind projects. Lawmakers should demand tangible evidence that this has changed before voting on the legislation.
NRDC opposes the bill as it currently stands.
Below is an assessment of the most positive and most negative elements of the bill. It reflects the changes to the bill put forward in the managers' amendment released on November 7, 2026. This is not intended to be comprehensive.
Positives
Transmission and grid reform are the bill's principal strengths
An aging power grid desperately needs updating, and with more extreme weather and surging demand from data centers, getting new electricity connected to the grid quickly is essential to keeping energy costs down and maintaining resilience. In one fell swoop, this legislation would address these issues, producing the necessary conditions to deploy more clean energy.
This legislation would provide a dramatic near-term boost to the nation's grid by increasing both the amount of power that existing transmission lines can carry and the supply of electricity available to meet growing demand. It establishes procedures that could cut the time to build a major new transmission line to five to six years from 10 years--or sometimes significantly longer--today.
In the short term, it would require utilities to upgrade existing transmission lines and deploy advanced transmission technologies whenever their benefits exceed their costs. This technology can increase the capacity and efficiency of existing transmission lines, reduce congestion, and improve reliability, often at a cost that is 5 to 10 times cheaper than building new transmission. If deployed aggressively in the short term, this could free up more than 100 gigawatts of transmission capacity--enough to power 75 million homes.
Importantly, the bill goes beyond simply requiring utilities to consider these technologies: It directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to establish timelines for deployment, makes it easier for utilities to recover their costs, and establishes penalties for utilities that fail to deploy cost-effective technologies.
The bill makes major interstate power lines easier to build by strengthening federal authority over large interstate transmission lines. Currently, a state can block or indefinitely delay a project that would provide broad regional or national benefits. If a state rejects an eligible project or fails to act within one year, the bill requires FERC to issue a permit for a covered transmission line when a developer seeks federal review and the project satisfies specific criteria. FERC must then spread the costs fairly among all consumers who benefit from the projects.
The bill also requires neighboring grid regions to plan interregional transmission jointly, assess the benefits of potential projects, and establish methods for allocating costs. Despite a FERC order issued in 2011 that was meant to spur these cross-regional power lines, currently, virtually no major lines have been built between regions because there is no durable process for planning them or determining who should pay. The bill addresses this long-standing problem and codifies important elements of FERC's updated regional planning framework from 2024, known as Order 1920.
The bill will also reduce the long wait times for energy projects to connect to the grid. Approximately 2,000 gigawatts of proposed generation and storage are waiting to connect to the grid, and 85 percent of that capacity is solar, wind, or storage. Projects often wait years for studies and may receive unexpectedly high upgrade costs late in the process. The bill encourages more coordinated planning, provides developers earlier information about costs, and improves data and automation.
Taken together, these transmission and interconnection reforms are a once-in-a-generation opportunity that would produce significant and durable benefits. The reforms would also facilitate the infrastructure needed so that future clean energy incentives and standards could succeed.
Require data centers' to pay for increased costs driven by their grid demands
The data center provisions could provide protection for existing utility customers and support grid investments by requiring data centers to pay for their impact to the grid. It would direct FERC to develop pricing rules designed to prevent transmission costs created by data centers (generally 20 megawatts or more) from being shifted to other ratepayers and ensure data centers provide financial assurance to avoid costs shifting in the future. FERC would also have to revise transmission pricing policies and require standardized analysis of upgrades and cost-reduction options.
These provisions address the transmission portion of the broader effects of rapid data center growth. The bill does not address local air pollution, water consumption, noise, land use, reliance on on-site fossil fuel generation, transparency, or public participation. Moreover, rollbacks to bedrock environmental laws will likely make it easier for data centers to be built as well as for gas infrastructure to be expanded to such facilities.
Provide a boost to geothermal energy
With geothermal energy poised to be a major player in the clean energy future, the bill provides policy reforms that could increase permitting efficiency and lower some of the barriers to geothermal development. But the geothermal provisions also come with their drawbacks, including the expansion of Section 390's oil and gas activity categorical exclusion to geothermal development, which allows for significant drilling and production activities to take place on public lands without environmental review.
Negatives
Project certainty provisions will not protect clean energy from Trump's attacks and could backfire
In an effort to respond to the Trump administration's relentless attacks on wind and solar projects, this legislation includes a "project certainty" title with three provisions that seek to protect developers from unreasonable attacks. The project certainty provisions in the managers' amendment are improved from those in the earlier draft. Unfortunately, these provisions are unlikely to do much to help clean energy fight back against the Trump administration, and they still create significant risks of harmful unintended consequences, including locking in permits for oil, gas, data centers, and mining projects. They could also lead to a slew of industry lawsuits that result in taxpayers paying billions of dollars to private industry.
Section 1401 would largely prevent federal agencies from canceling, suspending, or changing federal permits or authorizations for any non-federally sponsored projects that have received all necessary permits. The provision's reach is extremely broad: It is not limited to energy projects nor to specific agencies or types of permits. The legislation sets out a small handful of circumstances in which agencies can modify an issued permit. The amendment adds newly discovered harm to human health or the environment to these exceptions, although only if an agency can show such harm to be, among other things, "immediate," "urgent," and "proximate."
There is no exception for permits that are unlawfully granted in the first place: If the Trump administration issued a blanket grant of all permits for oil and gas infrastructure without any environmental review, the bill provides no clear mechanism for a future administration to revoke those permits. And although the managers' amendment seeks to clarify that agencies can still act on permits to implement and enforce other statutes and regulations, its broad language is vulnerable to industry arguments that new pollution or wildlife protection requirements can't be applied to existing permits.
Companies that bring successful lawsuits under this section can get permits reinstated--as well as require the government to pay for their litigation expenses and the cost of project delays. If a court finds the government acted in bad faith, it can also force the government to use taxpayer money to make an additional payment of 25-50 percent of total project costs incurred to the company. For a single large energy project, this could easily amount to hundreds of millions, or even billions, of dollars.
Another section (1402) would allow energy project developers to sue agencies for alleged "disparate treatment," which is measured by comparing an agency's denial and delay rates for permits for projects of that energy type against a fixed-term baseline. As amended, it now compares current practice to a 10-year baseline (instead of just five), requires developers to prove denials were made in bad faith, and allows agencies to introduce evidence to explain their decision. But because successful claims could result in payments equal to 50-100 percent of projected construction costs--plus actual damages and legal costs--the serious risk that the provision could be gamed and produce large taxpayer-funded payouts remains.
As written, the project certainty provisions are unlikely to offer durable relief to the clean energy projects currently being targeted by the Trump administration. They protect projects that have received all necessary authorizations, which excludes several of the offshore wind facilities that have been repeatedly attacked by the administration. Section 1401 also contains an exception for actions taken for national security or defense reasons, which have been the most-cited rationales used by the Trump administration to stop clean energy development. And there is little reason to be optimistic that the administration will comply with the new law: Even as the Senate began voting to take up the bill, President Trump once again declared that he would approve no new wind projects. Rather, the administration declared that this provision would be used to counter "bias against fossil fuels."
Environmental reviews and judicial remedies are sharply constrained
The bill makes sweeping changes to our ability to enforce a number of environmental laws. Most notably, it provides that a court can never invalidate a permit based on a violation of NEPA and NHPA, no matter how severe it finds a legal violation to be. Though a deficient review can be returned to an agency, construction is allowed to continue while the agency corrects its mistakes. The result could be that by the time the agency completes its review, the project may already be largely or entirely built--and the damage difficult or impossible to reverse.
Right now, if a court finds that an agency violated NEPA, it can stop the project from moving forward until the agency corrects the environmental review documents. For example, a federal judge put an oil and gas lease in Alaska's ecologically rich Cook Inlet on hold until the responsible agency corrected its defective environmental review.
Former federal judge David Tatel wrote in Bloomberg Insights: "Put more simply, when the federal government is about to authorize something that might have major impacts on the places we live, the water we drink, or the air we breathe, NEPA requires that the government look before it leaps. If the permitting bill becomes law, that requirement will be all but dead letter."
The bill also excludes numerous environmentally harmful activities from NEPA review, expands exemptions for others, narrows the analysis of alternatives, and limits who can bring a case. Collectively, these changes substantially reduce the practical value of NEPA as a means to improve environmental outcomes. Tribes, local organizations, and affected communities may be particularly disadvantaged if they are cut out of the process or cannot stop harmful projects before they cause damage.
Changes to historic preservation law significantly affect Tribal interests
The bill would dramatically curtail the rights and powers of Tribes enshrined in Section 106 of the NHPA, effectively limiting Tribes' ability to protect their lands and culturally significant places from proposed projects with a federal connection. While the managers' amendment struck some of the more problematic definitions concerning the scope of what constitutes as culturally and religiously important, it did not address other shortcomings. Most significantly, it did not satisfactorily address mechanisms that will limit Tribal participation in decisions concerning federally connected projects and what Tribal interests are protected--which, under current law, includes not only artifacts but also sacred places, cultural landscapes, waterways, wildlife, and living ecosystems. The latest changes also do not address the fact that a Tribal Nation in most cases will have few practical avenues to secure a meaningful judicial remedy when an agency's or project's plans are found to be in violation of the NHPA. Tribal Nations and Indigenous partners have made clear that these changes significantly undermine Tribal sovereignty and the federal government's nation-to-nation responsibilities.
The Clean Water Act provisions restrict state, Tribal, and federal authority to improve projects and protect water bodies and wetlands
The bill weakens several CWA programs, which will make it easier for activities that pollute or destroy water resources to move forward without adequate safeguards. It limits the ability of states and Tribes to ensure the health of streams, lakes, wetlands, and groundwater when the federal government authorizes activities that impact them. It takes a fast-tracked permitting process meant for activities that have minimal impacts (like boat ramps) and applies it to major projects such as pipelines and highways that cause substantial harm.
The bill makes significant changes to the CWA program that gives states and Tribes the ability to demand water quality-based improvements to federal permits. For gas pipelines and transmission projects, reviewing authorities are limited to considering direct discharges, (e.g., just the effects of a concrete structure for a pipeline) rather than broader construction-related effects such as erosion, sediment, contaminated runoff, groundwater pollution, and damage to wetlands and streams, or ongoing impacts from the operation of the project.
For all projects, the bill places a substantially higher burden on states seeking to require protections. Currently, a state can identify a water quality concern, request reasonable changes, and allow a project to proceed with stronger safeguards. A state would now be required to demonstrate harm by clear and convincing evidence (versus reasonable evidence) and show that its proposed condition is the least burdensome means of addressing the water quality concern. In practice, these new hurdles will be very difficult to overcome, which will likely result in fewer state conditions on permits needed to protect water quality. In addition, the bill would restrict states and Tribes from taking the actions they can today to protect habitat, groundwater (including drinking water supplies), and many small streams and critical wetlands.
The bill also weakens the CWA's general permitting program (administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) for dredging and filling waters. The bill directs the Corps, when creating general permits, to look only at the harm that results from filling in waters. No other water impacts like pollution or groundwater depletion could be considered. Additionally, right now, most general permits can only be used for impacts to one-half acre of water bodies or less; this bill would quadruple this threshold, which could allow larger data centers or other major projects to qualify. It also extends the duration of general permits, reducing opportunities for public input on requirements for projects to once a decade. Finally, it requires the Corps to maintain--and never strengthen--fast-track permits for large "linear" projects that can have major environmental harms, like roadways and pipelines.
The bill weakens other Clean Water Act programs as well. It would curb the EPA's ability to stop projects that dump dredged or fill material that "have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas," which the agency has invoked rarely, but done so to protect exceptional habitats threatened by highly damaging projects. It would slow the EPA's development of scientific advice to states about the levels of pollutants that can cause harm to aquatic life or people, and it would delay updates to discharge requirements for industrial polluters and sewage plants; together, these two changes would constrain the ability to control "forever chemicals."
Although the managers' amendment included minor improvements and technical clarifications, it leaves the major rollbacks discussed above intact.
Endangered species protections are weakened
Language relating to the "best available science" standard could be interpreted to restrict precautionary action when scientific information is uncertain. This is particularly concerning when an imperiled population of a species is difficult or expensive to study and waiting for definitive proof could result in irreversible loss.
The bill also allows states to assume responsibilities currently carried out by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Many states lack the capacity, expertise, or, in some cases, the commitment necessary to perform this responsibility effectively, and if a state is not executing its responsibility, there is not a requirement for the federal government to reassume it.
The managers' amendment also added a new provision that would direct certain Endangered Species Act challenges to the venue where a project takes place, trapping certain challenges in courts that are notoriously friendly to industry interests.
Oil and gas drillers get access to resources below farmers' and ranchers' lands
The bill would exempt many wells drilled on private lands that tap into federally owned oil and gas reserves from federal permitting. Upon passage, four million acres already under lease would no longer require federal permits or oversight. Over time, the bill opens up to 57 million subsurface acres of federal resources to exploitation without federal permits. If passed into law, this provision strips thousands of private landowners across the West of important protections like required notice of industry's plans to develop on their property; increases the risk that landowners get stuck with orphaned wells and their associated environmental and financial costs; and creates new risks of fraud and abuse as it relates to royalty reporting.
The same policy is also extended to the geothermal industry--opening this same acreage to geothermal exploration and operations without federal permitting.
Public lands are handed to the mining industry
The bill allows mining companies to claim an unlimited number of five-acre mill sites on public lands to be used for things like tailing storage--wastewater and rock often containing heavy metals and other dangerous residues--and waste dumps. And it allows mining companies to occupy public lands for any other use relevant to a mining project, regardless of its proximity to the actual mine, meaning roads, pipelines, powerlines, and any other activity formerly requiring a federal permit and environmental review would be allowed so long as the activity is included in the mine's operation plan. Due to this and other provisions in the bill, communities and Tribes would have little ability to push for operational or environmental improvements for proposed mines.
Policy analysis
The modeling completed to date focuses on greenhouse gas and economic impacts. Available analyses from NRDC and other groups generally project modest greenhouse gas benefits, especially over the long term, but the results vary substantially depending on the provisions modeled, policy baseline, fuel and technology costs, and implementation assumptions.
NRDC's results show modest power sector benefits.
The benefits of additional transmission will generally be greater in a policy environment that drives clean energy deployment. In a baseline with limited support for new clean energy resources, transmission may improve reliability and reduce costs without producing sizable emissions reductions.
The oil-and-gas effects remain uncertain. NRDC has not quantified the bill's effects on oil-and-gas development. Because the existing baseline already assumes high levels of domestic production growth (oil and gas production have both doubled in the last 20 years), faster permitting may not produce a large increase in emissions compared with business as usual. Nevertheless, the bill could accelerate individual projects, improve their economics, and make approved infrastructure more difficult to regulate or modify later. The risk of locking in that trajectory merits consideration, even if near-term emissions changes appear modest.
Data-center growth creates a particularly important unknown. The grid provisions may indeed enable data centers to finance upgrades and connect to an expanded transmission system. But transmission takes years to plan and construct. In the interim, faster permitting and weaker environmental safeguards could encourage additional on-site or nearby gas generation, particularly in regions with access to existing pipelines or gas fields.
Greenhouse gas emissions are only one measure of the bill's effects. The modeling does not quantify potential consequences for drinking water, local air pollution, public health, endangered species and wildlife, or other metrics. It also cannot account for the practical importance of judicial remedies in ensuring that agencies and developers comply with environmental law.
Critical changes needed
NRDC is seeking significant improvements to the bill in five areas:
1. Revise the project certainty provisions: The bill must apply only to publicly disclosed authorizations and must preserve an agency's ability to cancel or modify unlawful permits and follow established processes for applying and enforcing current and future pollution standards. All disparate treatment claims should require credible evidence of agency bad faith. The bill should eliminate disproportionate taxpayer funded payments.
2. Preserve meaningful judicial remedies: Courts must retain the authority to fix unlawful permits and pause construction under the CWA, NEPA, and NHPA. Legal protections are substantially diminished if courts cannot provide an effective remedy when violations occur.
3. Restore clean water protections: Congress should remove heightened burdens on states (evidentiary standards); preserve the ability of states and Tribes to address a full range of water quality effects and improve projects; and avoid further weakening of the general permit program.
4. Retain endangered species protections: The legislation should remove the transfer of important federal consultation responsibilities to states and remove language that could constrain reasonable precautions when scientific information is incomplete.
5. Respect and uphold Tribal sovereignty: Any changes to the historic preservation law should be developed with Tribal Nations, preserve meaningful consultant, and elevate the unique expertise Tribes hold in identifying and protecting their cultural resources and sacred places.
NRDC urges members of Congress to reject the bill and vote no unless significant changes are made.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.nrdc.org/media/nrdc-assessment-baaja-2026-permitting-transmission-bill#positives
[Category: Environment]
Global Crop Diversity Trust: Seeds, Farmers and the Connections That Matter
BONN, Germany, Nov. 14 -- The Global Crop Diversity Trust issued the following news:
* * *
Seeds, Farmers and the Connections That Matter
13 November 2026
Genebanks worldwide safeguard thousands of crop varieties. Breeders develop new ones to help farmers cope with drought, pests and changing growing conditions. Yet getting the right seeds into farmers' hands remains one of agriculture's most persistent challenges.
New research suggests the answer lies not only in which seeds are available, but in the networks, institutions and relationships that determine access.
Farmers may plant seeds ... Show Full Article BONN, Germany, Nov. 14 -- The Global Crop Diversity Trust issued the following news: * * * Seeds, Farmers and the Connections That Matter 13 November 2026 Genebanks worldwide safeguard thousands of crop varieties. Breeders develop new ones to help farmers cope with drought, pests and changing growing conditions. Yet getting the right seeds into farmers' hands remains one of agriculture's most persistent challenges. New research suggests the answer lies not only in which seeds are available, but in the networks, institutions and relationships that determine access. Farmers may plant seedssaved from the previous harvest, exchange them with neighbors, buy them at local markets or obtain them from formal suppliers. Each route has advantages and limitations. Together, they form the seed systems that determine which crops and varieties farmers can grow.
Through the Crop Trust's BOLD project, researchers from the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU) and national partners studied these systems in Bhutan, Ecuador, Tanzania and Uganda. They explored how farmers access seeds, how crop diversity is conserved and used, and where stronger connections could improve farmers' choices.
Despite different agricultural, cultural and policy environments, the research points to a common challenge - conserving crop diversity is essential, but ensuring farmers benefit from it requires more.
Farmers Are the Backbone of Seed Systems
In Tanzania, farmers plant 76% of their farmland with seeds saved from previous harvests. Even with an established formal seed sector, farmer-managed seed remains central to production.
Farmers draw on multiple seed sources, choosing according to availability, cost, familiarity, and suitability to local conditions.
In the Indigenous Kichwa communities of Cotacachi, Ecuador, farmers maintain diverse maize, beans, potatoes and fava beans within the traditional chakra farming system. They save, select and exchange seeds through families, local fairs and community networks. These practices maintain crop diversity and preserve varieties valued for their culinary uses, cultural significance and local adaptation.
In Bhutan, farmers obtain seed from neighbors and relatives through purchases, barter, loans, and exchanges of seed or labor. In Bumdeling, a relative introduced the rice variety Machum from another district in exchange for local rice. Cultural traditions also shape farmers' choices. In Samar, farmers reported expanding cultivation of the local wheat variety Jo to make kaapchi, roasted wheat flour used in rituals.
Across the four countries, farmers identified their own seed and seed obtained through nearby social networks as reliable and well adapted to their needs. The findings underline the importance of understanding and supporting the systems farmers already use.
But Farmers' Choices Are Changing
By growing and exchanging different varieties, farmers help conserve crop diversity. Yet the studies reveal pressures that can gradually reduce it.
In Uganda, researchers found that farmers are abandoning crop and varietal diversity faster than new varieties are introduced, raising concerns about the loss of genetic diversity even in a country with considerable agricultural biodiversity.
Economic pressures shape these choices. Farmers discontinue varieties that yield poorly, require too much labor, or attract few buyers. In Ecuador's Daule canton, farmers grow nine improved rice varieties, but SFL-011 dominates production, largely because it commands a favorable market price. In Bhutan's Orong community, better market value makes Desiree potatoes more popular than the tastier local Jamu joktang.
These choices make economic sense for individual farmers. But when many concentrate on the same varieties, diversity across agricultural landscapes declines.
Maintaining a range of varieties can help farmers cope with drought, diseases and changing growing conditions. It also preserves varieties valued for local cuisine, cultural identity and religious traditions.
Farmer-led variety evaluation, breeding and local seed production could help maintain this diversity while meeting farmers' food and income needs.
Genebanks Hold Valuable Diversity - Stronger Connections Can Unlock It
While farmers maintain diversity in their fields, genebanks provide an essential safety net. They conserve crop varieties and wild relatives that might otherwise disappear, giving researchers and breeders material to develop varieties suited to changing agricultural conditions.
The studies suggest that connections between genebanks and other parts of seed systems could be stronger.
Tanzania's National Plant Genetic Resources Centre in Arusha conserves thousands of crop samples and works with 29 community seedbanks, linking genebank conservation with efforts in farming communities. Yet many breeders obtain plant material through their professional networks rather than directly from genebanks.
Closer collaboration among genebanks, breeders, researchers, seed producers and farmers could make conserved diversity more accessible and useful.
In Ecuador, the national genebank and farmers' organization UNORCAC help identify, multiply and reintroduce varieties being lost. In Cotacachi, "Wanted" posters sought seed donations of Canguil negro, a black-seeded popcorn, from farmers still maintaining it. Breeders helped select seeds for better popping performance. A local university and farmers' organization then multiplied the seeds for distribution to farmers.
Such initiatives show how different actors can work together. However, the research found that seeds distributed through these efforts do not always perform well in farmers' fields, highlighting the need to strengthen seed dissemination strategies.
Stronger connections can help turn conserved diversity into varieties farmers want and can use, increasing its contribution to food security.
Better Connections, Better Choices
The studies also challenge the idea that improving seed systems is simply a matter of distributing more commercial seed.
Farmers rely on a combination of formal and informal channels. Local markets, farmer organizations, community seedbanks, seed businesses and personal networks all contribute to making planting material available.
Yet these actors do not always receive the support or recognition they need. Gaps in coordination, information, seed production and distribution can limit farmers' access to quality seed and a wider choice of varieties.
Strengthening seed systems therefore requires working across these different channels, rather than treating them as competing alternatives.
This could mean improving links between national genebanks and community seedbanks, involving farmers more directly in evaluating varieties, supporting local seed production or strengthening collaboration between researchers and seed suppliers.
The appropriate solutions will differ from country to country. What works in Ecuador's Indigenous farming communities in the Sierra may not address the same challenges faced by rice growers on the Coast or seed producers in Tanzania or Bhutan.
The common principle, however, is clear. Seed systems work best when the people and institutions involved are connected and farmers have meaningful choices.
From Research to Action
The four country studies are more than an assessment of existing challenges. They are helping shape the next phase of the Crop Trust's work under BOLD.
Working with national partners, researchers are using the findings to develop and test practical approaches to strengthen seed systems and improve farmers' access to quality seed and crop diversity.
The research reinforces an important lesson for efforts to strengthen global food security - no single institution or seed supply channel can meet every farmer's needs.
Genebanks safeguard diversity. Breeders develop new varieties. Seed producers multiply planting material. Farmers select, grow and exchange seeds, keeping diversity alive in agricultural landscapes.
Each plays a different role. Their collective impact depends on how effectively they work together.
For the Crop Trust and its partners, the task is therefore not only to conserve the diversity that agriculture may need tomorrow, but also to strengthen the connections that enable farmers to benefit today.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.croptrust.org/news-events/news/article/seeds-farmers-and-the-connections-that-matter/
[Category: Agriculture]
* * *
Seeds, Farmers and the Connections That Matter
13 November 2026
Genebanks worldwide safeguard thousands of crop varieties. Breeders develop new ones to help farmers cope with drought, pests and changing growing conditions. Yet getting the right seeds into farmers' hands remains one of agriculture's most persistent challenges.
New research suggests the answer lies not only in which seeds are available, but in the networks, institutions and relationships that determine access.
Farmers may plant seeds ... Show Full Article BONN, Germany, Nov. 14 -- The Global Crop Diversity Trust issued the following news: * * * Seeds, Farmers and the Connections That Matter 13 November 2026 Genebanks worldwide safeguard thousands of crop varieties. Breeders develop new ones to help farmers cope with drought, pests and changing growing conditions. Yet getting the right seeds into farmers' hands remains one of agriculture's most persistent challenges. New research suggests the answer lies not only in which seeds are available, but in the networks, institutions and relationships that determine access. Farmers may plant seedssaved from the previous harvest, exchange them with neighbors, buy them at local markets or obtain them from formal suppliers. Each route has advantages and limitations. Together, they form the seed systems that determine which crops and varieties farmers can grow.
Through the Crop Trust's BOLD project, researchers from the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU) and national partners studied these systems in Bhutan, Ecuador, Tanzania and Uganda. They explored how farmers access seeds, how crop diversity is conserved and used, and where stronger connections could improve farmers' choices.
Despite different agricultural, cultural and policy environments, the research points to a common challenge - conserving crop diversity is essential, but ensuring farmers benefit from it requires more.
Farmers Are the Backbone of Seed Systems
In Tanzania, farmers plant 76% of their farmland with seeds saved from previous harvests. Even with an established formal seed sector, farmer-managed seed remains central to production.
Farmers draw on multiple seed sources, choosing according to availability, cost, familiarity, and suitability to local conditions.
In the Indigenous Kichwa communities of Cotacachi, Ecuador, farmers maintain diverse maize, beans, potatoes and fava beans within the traditional chakra farming system. They save, select and exchange seeds through families, local fairs and community networks. These practices maintain crop diversity and preserve varieties valued for their culinary uses, cultural significance and local adaptation.
In Bhutan, farmers obtain seed from neighbors and relatives through purchases, barter, loans, and exchanges of seed or labor. In Bumdeling, a relative introduced the rice variety Machum from another district in exchange for local rice. Cultural traditions also shape farmers' choices. In Samar, farmers reported expanding cultivation of the local wheat variety Jo to make kaapchi, roasted wheat flour used in rituals.
Across the four countries, farmers identified their own seed and seed obtained through nearby social networks as reliable and well adapted to their needs. The findings underline the importance of understanding and supporting the systems farmers already use.
But Farmers' Choices Are Changing
By growing and exchanging different varieties, farmers help conserve crop diversity. Yet the studies reveal pressures that can gradually reduce it.
In Uganda, researchers found that farmers are abandoning crop and varietal diversity faster than new varieties are introduced, raising concerns about the loss of genetic diversity even in a country with considerable agricultural biodiversity.
Economic pressures shape these choices. Farmers discontinue varieties that yield poorly, require too much labor, or attract few buyers. In Ecuador's Daule canton, farmers grow nine improved rice varieties, but SFL-011 dominates production, largely because it commands a favorable market price. In Bhutan's Orong community, better market value makes Desiree potatoes more popular than the tastier local Jamu joktang.
These choices make economic sense for individual farmers. But when many concentrate on the same varieties, diversity across agricultural landscapes declines.
Maintaining a range of varieties can help farmers cope with drought, diseases and changing growing conditions. It also preserves varieties valued for local cuisine, cultural identity and religious traditions.
Farmer-led variety evaluation, breeding and local seed production could help maintain this diversity while meeting farmers' food and income needs.
Genebanks Hold Valuable Diversity - Stronger Connections Can Unlock It
While farmers maintain diversity in their fields, genebanks provide an essential safety net. They conserve crop varieties and wild relatives that might otherwise disappear, giving researchers and breeders material to develop varieties suited to changing agricultural conditions.
The studies suggest that connections between genebanks and other parts of seed systems could be stronger.
Tanzania's National Plant Genetic Resources Centre in Arusha conserves thousands of crop samples and works with 29 community seedbanks, linking genebank conservation with efforts in farming communities. Yet many breeders obtain plant material through their professional networks rather than directly from genebanks.
Closer collaboration among genebanks, breeders, researchers, seed producers and farmers could make conserved diversity more accessible and useful.
In Ecuador, the national genebank and farmers' organization UNORCAC help identify, multiply and reintroduce varieties being lost. In Cotacachi, "Wanted" posters sought seed donations of Canguil negro, a black-seeded popcorn, from farmers still maintaining it. Breeders helped select seeds for better popping performance. A local university and farmers' organization then multiplied the seeds for distribution to farmers.
Such initiatives show how different actors can work together. However, the research found that seeds distributed through these efforts do not always perform well in farmers' fields, highlighting the need to strengthen seed dissemination strategies.
Stronger connections can help turn conserved diversity into varieties farmers want and can use, increasing its contribution to food security.
Better Connections, Better Choices
The studies also challenge the idea that improving seed systems is simply a matter of distributing more commercial seed.
Farmers rely on a combination of formal and informal channels. Local markets, farmer organizations, community seedbanks, seed businesses and personal networks all contribute to making planting material available.
Yet these actors do not always receive the support or recognition they need. Gaps in coordination, information, seed production and distribution can limit farmers' access to quality seed and a wider choice of varieties.
Strengthening seed systems therefore requires working across these different channels, rather than treating them as competing alternatives.
This could mean improving links between national genebanks and community seedbanks, involving farmers more directly in evaluating varieties, supporting local seed production or strengthening collaboration between researchers and seed suppliers.
The appropriate solutions will differ from country to country. What works in Ecuador's Indigenous farming communities in the Sierra may not address the same challenges faced by rice growers on the Coast or seed producers in Tanzania or Bhutan.
The common principle, however, is clear. Seed systems work best when the people and institutions involved are connected and farmers have meaningful choices.
From Research to Action
The four country studies are more than an assessment of existing challenges. They are helping shape the next phase of the Crop Trust's work under BOLD.
Working with national partners, researchers are using the findings to develop and test practical approaches to strengthen seed systems and improve farmers' access to quality seed and crop diversity.
The research reinforces an important lesson for efforts to strengthen global food security - no single institution or seed supply channel can meet every farmer's needs.
Genebanks safeguard diversity. Breeders develop new varieties. Seed producers multiply planting material. Farmers select, grow and exchange seeds, keeping diversity alive in agricultural landscapes.
Each plays a different role. Their collective impact depends on how effectively they work together.
For the Crop Trust and its partners, the task is therefore not only to conserve the diversity that agriculture may need tomorrow, but also to strengthen the connections that enable farmers to benefit today.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.croptrust.org/news-events/news/article/seeds-farmers-and-the-connections-that-matter/
[Category: Agriculture]
Consumer Reports: Over 13,000 North Carolina Consumers Urge Regulators to Reject Excessive Duke Energy Rate Hikes
YONKERS, New York, Nov. 14 -- Consumer Reports posted the following news release:
* * *
Over 13,000 North Carolina consumers urge regulators to reject excessive Duke Energy rate hikes
November 13, 2026
Consumer Reports is delivering its last round of petition signatures ahead of a key decision by state utility regulators
-
RALEIGH, N.C. -- With the North Carolina Utilities Commission expected to rule on Duke Energy's proposed electricity rate increases early next week, Consumer Reports (CR) announced today that over 13,000 North Carolina consumers have urged regulators to reject excessive ... Show Full Article YONKERS, New York, Nov. 14 -- Consumer Reports posted the following news release: * * * Over 13,000 North Carolina consumers urge regulators to reject excessive Duke Energy rate hikes November 13, 2026 Consumer Reports is delivering its last round of petition signatures ahead of a key decision by state utility regulators - RALEIGH, N.C. -- With the North Carolina Utilities Commission expected to rule on Duke Energy's proposed electricity rate increases early next week, Consumer Reports (CR) announced today that over 13,000 North Carolina consumers have urged regulators to reject excessiveincreases and put affordability first.
"North Carolinians have sent a clear message: They cannot afford another major increase in their electric bills," said Chris Harto, manager of energy policy at Consumer Reports. "The commission should listen to the over 13,000 individuals who have spoken out and ensure that affordability, not utility profits, is at the center of its decision."
In late July, CR submitted detailed technical comments, more than 3,700 petition signatures, and over 20 personal stories from Duke Energy customers describing how rising electricity costs have strained their household budgets. Thousands more consumers have since joined the campaign, bringing the total number calling on regulators to reject excessive increases to over 13,000.
Duke Energy reduced its original rate requests amid opposition from consumers and other stakeholders. However, the revised proposals would still raise household electric bills and allow the utility to earn substantial profits from residential customers.
Consumer Reports is calling on the commission to approve only costs that are necessary and reasonable, keep Duke's authorized profit rate in check, and ensure that large new electricity users, including data centers, pay their fair share rather than shifting costs onto households.
CR's work in North Carolina is part of the Power Smarter campaign, a new initiative to help millions of households lower their energy costs and build the collective power needed to make the energy system work better for consumers. As part of the launch, CR unveiled Bill Decoder, a tool that collects consumer utility bill data to map national price trends, uncover cost drivers, and gather evidence to fight for fairer rates. The tool also provides consumers with local financial assistance resources, efficiency ratings, and guides to decode utility terms and fees.
* * *
Original text here: https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/press_release/over-13000-north-carolina-consumers-urge-regulators-to-reject-excessive-duke-energy-rate-hikes/
[Category: Business]
* * *
Over 13,000 North Carolina consumers urge regulators to reject excessive Duke Energy rate hikes
November 13, 2026
Consumer Reports is delivering its last round of petition signatures ahead of a key decision by state utility regulators
-
RALEIGH, N.C. -- With the North Carolina Utilities Commission expected to rule on Duke Energy's proposed electricity rate increases early next week, Consumer Reports (CR) announced today that over 13,000 North Carolina consumers have urged regulators to reject excessive ... Show Full Article YONKERS, New York, Nov. 14 -- Consumer Reports posted the following news release: * * * Over 13,000 North Carolina consumers urge regulators to reject excessive Duke Energy rate hikes November 13, 2026 Consumer Reports is delivering its last round of petition signatures ahead of a key decision by state utility regulators - RALEIGH, N.C. -- With the North Carolina Utilities Commission expected to rule on Duke Energy's proposed electricity rate increases early next week, Consumer Reports (CR) announced today that over 13,000 North Carolina consumers have urged regulators to reject excessiveincreases and put affordability first.
"North Carolinians have sent a clear message: They cannot afford another major increase in their electric bills," said Chris Harto, manager of energy policy at Consumer Reports. "The commission should listen to the over 13,000 individuals who have spoken out and ensure that affordability, not utility profits, is at the center of its decision."
In late July, CR submitted detailed technical comments, more than 3,700 petition signatures, and over 20 personal stories from Duke Energy customers describing how rising electricity costs have strained their household budgets. Thousands more consumers have since joined the campaign, bringing the total number calling on regulators to reject excessive increases to over 13,000.
Duke Energy reduced its original rate requests amid opposition from consumers and other stakeholders. However, the revised proposals would still raise household electric bills and allow the utility to earn substantial profits from residential customers.
Consumer Reports is calling on the commission to approve only costs that are necessary and reasonable, keep Duke's authorized profit rate in check, and ensure that large new electricity users, including data centers, pay their fair share rather than shifting costs onto households.
CR's work in North Carolina is part of the Power Smarter campaign, a new initiative to help millions of households lower their energy costs and build the collective power needed to make the energy system work better for consumers. As part of the launch, CR unveiled Bill Decoder, a tool that collects consumer utility bill data to map national price trends, uncover cost drivers, and gather evidence to fight for fairer rates. The tool also provides consumers with local financial assistance resources, efficiency ratings, and guides to decode utility terms and fees.
* * *
Original text here: https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/press_release/over-13000-north-carolina-consumers-urge-regulators-to-reject-excessive-duke-energy-rate-hikes/
[Category: Business]
Children's Health Defense Issues Commentary: Baby Dies 4 Days After Moderna MRNA RSV Vaccine Approved Only for Adults
FRANKLIN LAKES, New Jersey, Nov. 14 [Category: Health Care] -- Children's Health Defense, an organization that says it restores and protects the health of children by eliminating exposures to environmental toxins, issued the following commentary by Brenda Baletti, senior reporter for The Defender:
* * *
Baby Dies 4 Days After Moderna mRNA RSV Vaccine Approved Only for Adults
Moderna's mRESVIA is approved only for some adults, yet according to a VAERS report filed in Texas, a 3-month-old received the vaccine on Dec. 1, 2025, and died days later. Researcher Jessica Rose, Ph.D., who identified ... Show Full Article FRANKLIN LAKES, New Jersey, Nov. 14 [Category: Health Care] -- Children's Health Defense, an organization that says it restores and protects the health of children by eliminating exposures to environmental toxins, issued the following commentary by Brenda Baletti, senior reporter for The Defender: * * * Baby Dies 4 Days After Moderna mRNA RSV Vaccine Approved Only for Adults Moderna's mRESVIA is approved only for some adults, yet according to a VAERS report filed in Texas, a 3-month-old received the vaccine on Dec. 1, 2025, and died days later. Researcher Jessica Rose, Ph.D., who identifiedthe VAERS report, flagged a total of 72 VAERS reports tied to the vaccine -- 20% of them included injuries classified as serious.
November 13, 2026
A 3-month-old baby in Texas died four days after receiving a Moderna mRNA RSV vaccine approved only for adults, according to a report filed with the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), researcher Jessica Rose, Ph.D., reported.
Moderna's mRNA respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine, marketed as mRESVIA, is not authorized for infants or children. It is approved for adults age 60 and older and 18-59 for those at increased risk of severe RSV disease.
According to VAERS ID 2880791, an infant received the vaccine on Dec. 1, 2025. He subsequently developed lethargy, had difficulty staying awake and developed a low-grade fever.
The report states that the baby died around 2 a.m. on Dec. 5, 2025, and that his death was attributed to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
Although the report listed the date of death as four days after vaccination, another database field indicated that the death occurred on the same day as vaccination, leaving uncertainty about the timeline of the infant's death, according to Rose.
Rose also identified a second VAERS report involving a 17-year-old who received mRESVIA despite not meeting the approved age. According to that report, the vaccine was ordered outside Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria. No adverse reactions or treatment were reported.
Overall, Rose identified 72 VAERS reports associated with mRESVIA. Of those, 20% were classified as serious, and 37.5% were filed on the same day as vaccination.
VAERS is a passive surveillance system jointly managed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and CDC that can be used by healthcare providers and others to report adverse health events following vaccination. Reports alone don't establish that a vaccine caused an issue, but they signal possible safety issues that warrant further investigation.
Although reports in VAERS require verification before they can be confirmed as vaccine-related injuries or deaths, the system has historically been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.
Rose also noted that mRESVIA has not yet been widely used. She said that given the number of reports already in VAERS, there are serious concerns with the safety of the drug.
Road to RSV vaccines for infants paved with failures
The FDA shut down a trial of two Moderna mRNA RSV vaccines for babies, including mRESVIA, in 2024 after the shots were linked to severe side effects in infants.
Exclusive reporting by The Defender today also revealed that since the trial was halted, 7% of vaccinated babies in the trial reportedly experienced serious unexplained adverse effects -- and adverse events linked to the drug continued to be reported long after the trial was shut down.
The researchers suggested that Moderna may have misrepresented the safety data from its infant trials when the drugmaker presented the data to regulators.
Efforts to develop RSV vaccines for infants and children have been marked by safety concerns for decades.
In the 1960s, an experimental RSV vaccine made with inactivated virus was linked to the deaths of two toddlers. During the same trial, 80% of vaccinated children required hospitalization for severe RSV illness, a phenomenon known as vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease (VAERD). The trial ended in 1967, setting back RSV vaccine development for decades.
More recently, pharmaceutical companies renewed efforts to develop RSV vaccines for infants and children, but several trials encountered setbacks.
In June 2023, GSK discontinued a clinical trial of its RSV vaccine for pregnant women after researchers identified a 37% higher risk of preterm birth among vaccinated participants.
Pfizer's comparable maternal RSV vaccine received regulatory approval, although a higher incidence of preterm births among vaccinated women was observed in both clinical trial data and post-marketing research.
In October 2024, Sanofi suspended a pediatric RSV vaccine trial, citing insufficient efficacy. However, trial documents revealed that an infant had died during the study. Sanofi maintained that the death was unrelated to its vaccine.
Although RSV vaccines have not been approved for infants, monoclonal antibody injections have been authorized to protect babies against the virus. Unlike vaccines, these products deliver antibodies directly rather than stimulating the body to produce its own.
In December 2025, the FDA said it would examine the safety of two such products -- Sanofi and AstraZeneca's Beyfortus and Merck's Enflonsia -- following reports of infant deaths during clinical trials, but has not reported on those investigations.
Related articles in The Defender
* Exclusive: Moderna RSV Vaccine Trial in Babies Linked to Severe RSV, Other Serious Injuries (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/moderna-mrna-rsv-vaccine-trial-infants-linked-severe-rsv-other-serious-injuries/)
* 'Not Ready for Prime Time'? FDA Approves First mRNA Flu Vaccine Despite Safety Concerns (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fda-approves-first-mrna-flu-vaccine-despite-safety-concerns-moderna/)
* Moderna Shuts Down mRNA RSV Vaccine Trial in Babies After Shots Linked to Severe Side Effects, FDA Document Reveals (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/moderna-stops-mrna-rsv-vaccine-trial-babies-side-effects-fda/)
* Exclusive: Moderna RSV Vaccine Trial in Babies Linked to Severe RSV, Other Serious Injuries (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/moderna-mrna-rsv-vaccine-trial-infants-linked-severe-rsv-other-serious-injuries/)
* Half of SIDS Cases Occurred Within 48 Hours of Vaccination, Former Police Detective Says (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/half-sids-cases-occurred-within-48-hours-vaccination-former-police-detective/)
* * *
Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master's from the University of Texas at Austin.
* * *
Original text here: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/infant-died-4-days-after-moderna-mrna-rsv-vaccine-mresvia-approved-only-for-adults/
* * *
Baby Dies 4 Days After Moderna mRNA RSV Vaccine Approved Only for Adults
Moderna's mRESVIA is approved only for some adults, yet according to a VAERS report filed in Texas, a 3-month-old received the vaccine on Dec. 1, 2025, and died days later. Researcher Jessica Rose, Ph.D., who identified ... Show Full Article FRANKLIN LAKES, New Jersey, Nov. 14 [Category: Health Care] -- Children's Health Defense, an organization that says it restores and protects the health of children by eliminating exposures to environmental toxins, issued the following commentary by Brenda Baletti, senior reporter for The Defender: * * * Baby Dies 4 Days After Moderna mRNA RSV Vaccine Approved Only for Adults Moderna's mRESVIA is approved only for some adults, yet according to a VAERS report filed in Texas, a 3-month-old received the vaccine on Dec. 1, 2025, and died days later. Researcher Jessica Rose, Ph.D., who identifiedthe VAERS report, flagged a total of 72 VAERS reports tied to the vaccine -- 20% of them included injuries classified as serious.
November 13, 2026
A 3-month-old baby in Texas died four days after receiving a Moderna mRNA RSV vaccine approved only for adults, according to a report filed with the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), researcher Jessica Rose, Ph.D., reported.
Moderna's mRNA respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine, marketed as mRESVIA, is not authorized for infants or children. It is approved for adults age 60 and older and 18-59 for those at increased risk of severe RSV disease.
According to VAERS ID 2880791, an infant received the vaccine on Dec. 1, 2025. He subsequently developed lethargy, had difficulty staying awake and developed a low-grade fever.
The report states that the baby died around 2 a.m. on Dec. 5, 2025, and that his death was attributed to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
Although the report listed the date of death as four days after vaccination, another database field indicated that the death occurred on the same day as vaccination, leaving uncertainty about the timeline of the infant's death, according to Rose.
Rose also identified a second VAERS report involving a 17-year-old who received mRESVIA despite not meeting the approved age. According to that report, the vaccine was ordered outside Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria. No adverse reactions or treatment were reported.
Overall, Rose identified 72 VAERS reports associated with mRESVIA. Of those, 20% were classified as serious, and 37.5% were filed on the same day as vaccination.
VAERS is a passive surveillance system jointly managed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and CDC that can be used by healthcare providers and others to report adverse health events following vaccination. Reports alone don't establish that a vaccine caused an issue, but they signal possible safety issues that warrant further investigation.
Although reports in VAERS require verification before they can be confirmed as vaccine-related injuries or deaths, the system has historically been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.
Rose also noted that mRESVIA has not yet been widely used. She said that given the number of reports already in VAERS, there are serious concerns with the safety of the drug.
Road to RSV vaccines for infants paved with failures
The FDA shut down a trial of two Moderna mRNA RSV vaccines for babies, including mRESVIA, in 2024 after the shots were linked to severe side effects in infants.
Exclusive reporting by The Defender today also revealed that since the trial was halted, 7% of vaccinated babies in the trial reportedly experienced serious unexplained adverse effects -- and adverse events linked to the drug continued to be reported long after the trial was shut down.
The researchers suggested that Moderna may have misrepresented the safety data from its infant trials when the drugmaker presented the data to regulators.
Efforts to develop RSV vaccines for infants and children have been marked by safety concerns for decades.
In the 1960s, an experimental RSV vaccine made with inactivated virus was linked to the deaths of two toddlers. During the same trial, 80% of vaccinated children required hospitalization for severe RSV illness, a phenomenon known as vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease (VAERD). The trial ended in 1967, setting back RSV vaccine development for decades.
More recently, pharmaceutical companies renewed efforts to develop RSV vaccines for infants and children, but several trials encountered setbacks.
In June 2023, GSK discontinued a clinical trial of its RSV vaccine for pregnant women after researchers identified a 37% higher risk of preterm birth among vaccinated participants.
Pfizer's comparable maternal RSV vaccine received regulatory approval, although a higher incidence of preterm births among vaccinated women was observed in both clinical trial data and post-marketing research.
In October 2024, Sanofi suspended a pediatric RSV vaccine trial, citing insufficient efficacy. However, trial documents revealed that an infant had died during the study. Sanofi maintained that the death was unrelated to its vaccine.
Although RSV vaccines have not been approved for infants, monoclonal antibody injections have been authorized to protect babies against the virus. Unlike vaccines, these products deliver antibodies directly rather than stimulating the body to produce its own.
In December 2025, the FDA said it would examine the safety of two such products -- Sanofi and AstraZeneca's Beyfortus and Merck's Enflonsia -- following reports of infant deaths during clinical trials, but has not reported on those investigations.
Related articles in The Defender
* Exclusive: Moderna RSV Vaccine Trial in Babies Linked to Severe RSV, Other Serious Injuries (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/moderna-mrna-rsv-vaccine-trial-infants-linked-severe-rsv-other-serious-injuries/)
* 'Not Ready for Prime Time'? FDA Approves First mRNA Flu Vaccine Despite Safety Concerns (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fda-approves-first-mrna-flu-vaccine-despite-safety-concerns-moderna/)
* Moderna Shuts Down mRNA RSV Vaccine Trial in Babies After Shots Linked to Severe Side Effects, FDA Document Reveals (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/moderna-stops-mrna-rsv-vaccine-trial-babies-side-effects-fda/)
* Exclusive: Moderna RSV Vaccine Trial in Babies Linked to Severe RSV, Other Serious Injuries (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/moderna-mrna-rsv-vaccine-trial-infants-linked-severe-rsv-other-serious-injuries/)
* Half of SIDS Cases Occurred Within 48 Hours of Vaccination, Former Police Detective Says (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/half-sids-cases-occurred-within-48-hours-vaccination-former-police-detective/)
* * *
Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master's from the University of Texas at Austin.
* * *
Original text here: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/infant-died-4-days-after-moderna-mrna-rsv-vaccine-mresvia-approved-only-for-adults/
Children's Health Defense Issues Commentary: 'Virtually No Research' on 5G Wireless Impact on Human Health
FRANKLIN LAKES, New Jersey, Nov. 14 [Category: Health Care] -- Children's Health Defense, an organization that says it restores and protects the health of children by eliminating exposures to environmental toxins, issued the following commentary by Suzanne Burdick, senior reporter for The Defender:
* * *
'Virtually No Research' on 5G Wireless Impact on Human Health
A new systematic review of 107 studies concluded there is too little high-quality research on 5G safety to establish whether exposure to the technology harms human health. The authors of the review, published in the peer-reviewed ... Show Full Article FRANKLIN LAKES, New Jersey, Nov. 14 [Category: Health Care] -- Children's Health Defense, an organization that says it restores and protects the health of children by eliminating exposures to environmental toxins, issued the following commentary by Suzanne Burdick, senior reporter for The Defender: * * * 'Virtually No Research' on 5G Wireless Impact on Human Health A new systematic review of 107 studies concluded there is too little high-quality research on 5G safety to establish whether exposure to the technology harms human health. The authors of the review, published in the peer-reviewedjournal PLOS One, found only five studies that explicitly said they examined 5G, but none of them used real-world 5G signals.
November 13, 2026
A new systematic review of more than 100 studies concluded there is too little high-quality research on 5G safety to establish whether exposure to the technology harms human health.
The authors, who published their findings on Nov. 4 in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS One, said "controversial discussions" about 5G's potential health risks led them to conduct the review.
After scouring the published scientific literature for studies on the physiological and health-related effects of 5G-related radiofrequency (RF) radiation and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in humans and mammals, the authors analyzed 107 studies.
The reviewers found only five studies that explicitly said they examined 5G, but none of them used real-world 5G signals.
They concluded that for most health topics, "the current scientific data were inadequate to draw any conclusions about the physiological and health-related effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in the investigated frequency range of 3-30 GHz."
"We have virtually no research on the health effects from exposure to 5G wireless technology," wrote Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., in a Nov. 10 post on his website about the new review.
Moskowitz directs the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, and serves on the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF).
The ICBE-EMF describes itself as a "consortium of scientists, doctors and researchers" who study wireless radiation and recommend wireless radiation exposure guidelines "based on the best peer-reviewed research publications."
When 5G was first deployed in the U.S. in 2019, telecom industry executives admitted during a U.S. Senate Commerce Committee hearing that they were unaware of any industry-funded independent scientific research on the potential health risks of 5G technology, Moskowitz said.
According to Moskowitz, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said during the hearing, "We're kind of flying blind here, as far as health and safety is concerned."
Moskowitz wrote, "Unfortunately, we are still flying blind."
Miriam Eckenfels, director of the Children's Health Defense (CHD) Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless Program, said, "It is bizarre that we still know so little about the health impacts of a technology that is being rolled out to the point where everyone is exposed to it 24/7."
NIH shut down research on 5G safety, declines to explain why
On Sept. 20, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) solicited public input on EMFs and wireless radiation exposure. Within a month, HHS received over 7,000 comments.
"Clearly, the public is concerned about the health risks of wireless technology," Moskowitz said. "What will it take for our federal health agencies to fund the research that addresses whether 5G radiation is safe?"
To date, the federal government has funded no research on 5G safety.
Before 2024, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) studied 2G and 3G cellphone radiation. But in January 2024, the NTP announced it had no plans to further study the effects of cellphone radiation on human health -- even though the program's own $30 million study found "clear evidence" of cancer and DNA damage.
It's unclear why the research was halted. In April 2024, CHD filed Freedom of Information Act requests to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to obtain records related to the government's decision to shut down the research. NIH produced records including 2,500 fully redacted pages.
After CHD asked for all communications among key NTP officials and researchers from Feb. 1, 2023, to Feb. 1, 2024, the NIH produced only 14 pages of emails -- none of them revealed who made the decision to stop the research or provided detailed information about why the research was halted.
FCC wireless radiation limits don't take 5G radiation 'bursts' into account
For the review published in PLOS One, the authors analyzed and evaluated 107 studies for strength of study design and inclination toward bias.
Most of the studies had significant methodological weaknesses that undermined the credibility of the findings, and only 11 studies had a low risk of bias, the authors concluded.
That left the researchers with 50 studies they considered strong enough to provide evidence on 5G's possible health effects.
However, only five of those studies were explicitly about 5G -- "and even those did not use real 5G signals," said Fariha Husain, senior manager of CHD's EMR & Wireless Program.
The five studies involved frequencies used by 5G -- but the frequencies weren't modulated like real-world 5G, the authors said.
Real-world 5G is modulated in complex ways that increase transmission speed and expose people to "brief, but very intense" bursts of RF radiation, Moskowitz said. "Since current exposure limits are based upon exposures averaged over time (6 or 30 minutes), these bursts of radiation are essentially unregulated."
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates RF radiation exposure levels in the U.S., has not updated its wireless radiation limits in 30 years.
The agency is currently under legal pressure to comply with a 2021 court mandate requiring the FCC to explain how its current limits adequately protect people's health and the environment.
In May, CHD asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the FCC to comply with the 2021 mandate within 90 days. The court has yet to rule on the request.
Authors call for more 'high-quality systematic research'
The authors of the PLOS One review called for more "high-quality systematic research" on 5G that especially looks at how it impacts people's skin, eyes and body temperature.
Among the 50 studies they focused on in their analysis, they found "moderate evidence" that exposure to 5G impacted cytokines -- proteins that help regulate the body's immune response -- in mice.
They also found "low evidence" that high levels of 5G changed the structure of the hippocampus of rats.
The review included only studies published in English or German, the authors said, noting that as a limitation.
Authors were from RWTH Aachen University in Germany and Seibersdorf Laboratories in Austria. Several received funding from the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Industry, Climate Action and Energy of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.
The study's corresponding author did not respond to our comment request by the deadline.
Related articles in The Defender
* Children's Health Defense Seeks to Force FCC to Comply With 2021 Ruling (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/childrens-health-defense-seeks-force-fcc-comply-2021-ruling/)
* Jersey Shore Residents Step Up Fight To Keep Verizon 5G Towers Off Beachfront (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/jersey-shore-residents-verizon-5g-cell-towers-fight-keep-off-beachfront/)
* Children's Health Defense, Los Angeles County Settle Lawsuit Over 5G Towers (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/childrens-health-defense-los-angeles-county-settle-lawsuit-5g-towers/)
* '5G -- The Untold Story': New Documentary Spotlights Health Hazards of Wireless Radiation (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/5g-the-untold-story-documentary-health-risks-wireless-radiation/)
* 1 in 8 U.S. Adults Say Wireless Radiation Is Causing Health Issues -- What Does That Mean for Kids' Health? (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/1-in-8-us-adults-say-wireless-radiation-is-causing-health-issues-emr/)
* * *
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender based in Austin, Texas.
* * *
Original text here: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/virtually-no-research-5g-wireless-safety-human-health-systematic-review/
* * *
'Virtually No Research' on 5G Wireless Impact on Human Health
A new systematic review of 107 studies concluded there is too little high-quality research on 5G safety to establish whether exposure to the technology harms human health. The authors of the review, published in the peer-reviewed ... Show Full Article FRANKLIN LAKES, New Jersey, Nov. 14 [Category: Health Care] -- Children's Health Defense, an organization that says it restores and protects the health of children by eliminating exposures to environmental toxins, issued the following commentary by Suzanne Burdick, senior reporter for The Defender: * * * 'Virtually No Research' on 5G Wireless Impact on Human Health A new systematic review of 107 studies concluded there is too little high-quality research on 5G safety to establish whether exposure to the technology harms human health. The authors of the review, published in the peer-reviewedjournal PLOS One, found only five studies that explicitly said they examined 5G, but none of them used real-world 5G signals.
November 13, 2026
A new systematic review of more than 100 studies concluded there is too little high-quality research on 5G safety to establish whether exposure to the technology harms human health.
The authors, who published their findings on Nov. 4 in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS One, said "controversial discussions" about 5G's potential health risks led them to conduct the review.
After scouring the published scientific literature for studies on the physiological and health-related effects of 5G-related radiofrequency (RF) radiation and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in humans and mammals, the authors analyzed 107 studies.
The reviewers found only five studies that explicitly said they examined 5G, but none of them used real-world 5G signals.
They concluded that for most health topics, "the current scientific data were inadequate to draw any conclusions about the physiological and health-related effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in the investigated frequency range of 3-30 GHz."
"We have virtually no research on the health effects from exposure to 5G wireless technology," wrote Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., in a Nov. 10 post on his website about the new review.
Moskowitz directs the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, and serves on the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF).
The ICBE-EMF describes itself as a "consortium of scientists, doctors and researchers" who study wireless radiation and recommend wireless radiation exposure guidelines "based on the best peer-reviewed research publications."
When 5G was first deployed in the U.S. in 2019, telecom industry executives admitted during a U.S. Senate Commerce Committee hearing that they were unaware of any industry-funded independent scientific research on the potential health risks of 5G technology, Moskowitz said.
According to Moskowitz, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said during the hearing, "We're kind of flying blind here, as far as health and safety is concerned."
Moskowitz wrote, "Unfortunately, we are still flying blind."
Miriam Eckenfels, director of the Children's Health Defense (CHD) Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless Program, said, "It is bizarre that we still know so little about the health impacts of a technology that is being rolled out to the point where everyone is exposed to it 24/7."
NIH shut down research on 5G safety, declines to explain why
On Sept. 20, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) solicited public input on EMFs and wireless radiation exposure. Within a month, HHS received over 7,000 comments.
"Clearly, the public is concerned about the health risks of wireless technology," Moskowitz said. "What will it take for our federal health agencies to fund the research that addresses whether 5G radiation is safe?"
To date, the federal government has funded no research on 5G safety.
Before 2024, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) studied 2G and 3G cellphone radiation. But in January 2024, the NTP announced it had no plans to further study the effects of cellphone radiation on human health -- even though the program's own $30 million study found "clear evidence" of cancer and DNA damage.
It's unclear why the research was halted. In April 2024, CHD filed Freedom of Information Act requests to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to obtain records related to the government's decision to shut down the research. NIH produced records including 2,500 fully redacted pages.
After CHD asked for all communications among key NTP officials and researchers from Feb. 1, 2023, to Feb. 1, 2024, the NIH produced only 14 pages of emails -- none of them revealed who made the decision to stop the research or provided detailed information about why the research was halted.
FCC wireless radiation limits don't take 5G radiation 'bursts' into account
For the review published in PLOS One, the authors analyzed and evaluated 107 studies for strength of study design and inclination toward bias.
Most of the studies had significant methodological weaknesses that undermined the credibility of the findings, and only 11 studies had a low risk of bias, the authors concluded.
That left the researchers with 50 studies they considered strong enough to provide evidence on 5G's possible health effects.
However, only five of those studies were explicitly about 5G -- "and even those did not use real 5G signals," said Fariha Husain, senior manager of CHD's EMR & Wireless Program.
The five studies involved frequencies used by 5G -- but the frequencies weren't modulated like real-world 5G, the authors said.
Real-world 5G is modulated in complex ways that increase transmission speed and expose people to "brief, but very intense" bursts of RF radiation, Moskowitz said. "Since current exposure limits are based upon exposures averaged over time (6 or 30 minutes), these bursts of radiation are essentially unregulated."
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates RF radiation exposure levels in the U.S., has not updated its wireless radiation limits in 30 years.
The agency is currently under legal pressure to comply with a 2021 court mandate requiring the FCC to explain how its current limits adequately protect people's health and the environment.
In May, CHD asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the FCC to comply with the 2021 mandate within 90 days. The court has yet to rule on the request.
Authors call for more 'high-quality systematic research'
The authors of the PLOS One review called for more "high-quality systematic research" on 5G that especially looks at how it impacts people's skin, eyes and body temperature.
Among the 50 studies they focused on in their analysis, they found "moderate evidence" that exposure to 5G impacted cytokines -- proteins that help regulate the body's immune response -- in mice.
They also found "low evidence" that high levels of 5G changed the structure of the hippocampus of rats.
The review included only studies published in English or German, the authors said, noting that as a limitation.
Authors were from RWTH Aachen University in Germany and Seibersdorf Laboratories in Austria. Several received funding from the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Industry, Climate Action and Energy of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.
The study's corresponding author did not respond to our comment request by the deadline.
Related articles in The Defender
* Children's Health Defense Seeks to Force FCC to Comply With 2021 Ruling (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/childrens-health-defense-seeks-force-fcc-comply-2021-ruling/)
* Jersey Shore Residents Step Up Fight To Keep Verizon 5G Towers Off Beachfront (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/jersey-shore-residents-verizon-5g-cell-towers-fight-keep-off-beachfront/)
* Children's Health Defense, Los Angeles County Settle Lawsuit Over 5G Towers (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/childrens-health-defense-los-angeles-county-settle-lawsuit-5g-towers/)
* '5G -- The Untold Story': New Documentary Spotlights Health Hazards of Wireless Radiation (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/5g-the-untold-story-documentary-health-risks-wireless-radiation/)
* 1 in 8 U.S. Adults Say Wireless Radiation Is Causing Health Issues -- What Does That Mean for Kids' Health? (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/1-in-8-us-adults-say-wireless-radiation-is-causing-health-issues-emr/)
* * *
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender based in Austin, Texas.
* * *
Original text here: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/virtually-no-research-5g-wireless-safety-human-health-systematic-review/