By Colleen O’Dea, Senior Writer and Projects Editor, NJ Spotlight News

It’s still unclear who will be New Jersey’s next chief federal prosecutor. As interim U.S. Attorney Alina Habba’s term draws to a close, the Trump administration rejected her replacement chosen by the state’s federal judges, continuing to bring politics into an office supposed to oversee the impartial administration of justice.

The appointment of Habba, President Trump’s former personal attorney, as the third U.S. attorney for the state this year was controversial from the start because of her lack of experience in both criminal and civil matters and because of numerous political statements she had made. Trump has nominated her to the position, which must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, where both New Jersey senators Cory Booker and Andy Kim oppose her nomination.

By law, when an interim U.S. attorney appointment expires, the district court appoints someone until the vacancy is filled. New Jersey’s court did that on Tuesday when it issued an order naming Habba’s first assistant attorney, Desiree Leigh Grace, as her successor. Grace has been with the U.S. attorney’s office for almost nine years, according to her profile on LinkedIn, and was named Habba’s first assistant on April 25. She is highly respected by other attorneys and staff, according to a number of sources.

Within hours, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on social media that Grace “has just been removed” from her position as first assistant attorney. Bondi said she supports Habba and criticized “politically minded” and “rogue” judges.

Read the full story here

Related:
Newark mayor sues feds over arrest outside ICE facility

---

If you like this post, you’ll love our daily environmental newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed daily with the latest news, commentary, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Please do not take our word for it, try it free for a full month

By Thomas G. Allen, Nathaniel B. Bolin, Nathan H. Carrier, William H. Holmes, KL Gates

Auxin Solar (Auxin) is asking the US Court of International Trade (CIT) to overturn a moratorium that allowed certain solar panels and modules from Southeast Asia to enter the US duty-free between June 2022 and June 2024 (the Moratorium Period). Auxin is asking the CIT to reliquidate all entries during the Moratorium Period—a result that has the potential to impose steep antidumping (AD) and countervailing duties (CV), retroactively, on some panels and modules.

Alternatively, Auxin is asking the CIT to assess AD/CV duties and reliquidate all entries that benefited from duty-free treatment that were imported prior to the Moratorium Period. Under either scenario, the economic impact of retroactive duties could be substantial. Between 2022 and 2023 alone, an estimated US$21 billion in applicable solar cells and modules were imported into the United States from Southeast Asia. In the first half of 2024, the value of the impacted products exceeded US$7 billion. 

As the firm wrote about here, there are several contract clauses that might address the risk associated with changes to project economics arising from shifts in US trade policy or changes in law. In addition, some parties may have specifically allocated for the scenario of increased duties associated with the Auxin litigation and a related Department of Commerce (Commerce) investigation into alleged circumvention of antidumping orders. Parties that imported any of the products at issue should consult their contracts to determine whether they address the potentially significant economic impact of a reliquidation order by the CIT. 

Read the full story here

---

If you like this post, you’ll love our daily environmental newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed daily with the latest news, commentary, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Please do not take our word for it, try it free for a full month

By Frank Brill, EnviroPolitics Editor

Two years. Two auctions. One undeniable trend: PJM Interconnection’s latest Base Residual Auction confirms that energy costs are rising fast—and New Jersey ratepayers are shouldering the burden. The clearing price jumped again this year, from $269.92/MW-day to $329.17/MW-day, despite the introduction of a price cap meant to soften the blow.

But behind the numbers is a tangled crisis of policy, infrastructure, politics, and market inertia.

According to energy developers and clean power advocates, the price spike should serve as a strong “build signal,” indicating a growing need for new electricity supply. Yet PJM’s three-year closure of its interconnection queue is paralyzing response. Projects stuck in queue for more than six years face mounting costs and uncertainty—and with the queue unlikely to reopen before 2026, market participants say the region can’t build the needed clean resources in time to avoid further price hikes or reliability concerns.

“This is the market screaming for new supply—but PJM’s interconnection process is holding up a big red STOP sign,” said Jon Gordon of Advanced Energy United.

At the same time, Republican lawmakers are pointing to deeper systemic concerns. Senate Republican Leader Anthony M. Bucco (R-25) sharply criticized New Jersey’s energy strategy, saying the auction results reflect failures by state policymakers to balance affordability, reliability, and environmental goals.

“Trenton Democrats catered to the far-left wing of their party with unrealistic mandates and politically driven policies that ignore basic energy economics,” Bucco stated. “Now, ratepayers will see no relief for the 2026–2027 delivery year.”

Bucco emphasized that delays in retiring older fuel-based power plants are the only reason PJM avoided even worse auction outcomes. The continued reliance on these legacy plants, he said, reflects the grid’s vulnerability and the pitfalls of deprioritizing natural gas and embracing forced electrification

What’s the solution? Help us all out

New Jersey’s energy supply and pricing are a significant mess. If you have experience in the arcane arena of energy planning and regulation, we’d love to review your suggestions on fixing the problem(s). Send them to: editor@enviropolitics.com. We’ll publish what we see as the most helpful. Thanks for your insights.

By Miriam Waldvogel, The Hill

Congressional Republicans voted to strip more than $1 billion in funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) this week, a move that could force local radio and television stations to consolidate, cut services, or shutter altogether, particularly in rural areas.

The CPB is a publicly funded nonprofit that subsidizes more than 1,500 NPR, PBS, and local radio and television stations across the country. Congress has typically earmarked $535 million annually for the corporation. 

The rescissions bill headed to President Trump’s desk would claw back funding for the next two fiscal years. 

Walt Gregg manages KUHB in St. Paul, Alaska, located on a small island in the Bering Sea, and KCUK in Chevak, Alaska. He said the stations will be forced to close by next summer if the CPB is shut down.

“Without them, that community doesn’t have anything,” he said. “There’s no local TV, there’s no local newspapers. Some of them barely even have internet, still to this day.”

Stations in major cities would also stand to lose millions, although federal funding accounts for a far smaller share of their budgets.

Here’s how the public media stations across the country stand to be impacted.

Rural stations hit hardest

In 2023, CPB funding accounted for nearly 97 percent of KUHB’s revenue, making it one of the most vulnerable in the country, according to analysis by Alex Curley, a former product manager for NPR who has been collecting data on public media stations on his Substack.

Other vulnerable stations include KCUW in Pendleton, Ore.; KSHI in Zuni Pueblo, N.M.; KNSA in Unalakleet, Alaska; KSDP in Sand Point, Alaska; and KGVA in Harlem, Mont. All these stations serve predominantly Native American communities and rely on CPB funds for at least 80 percent of their annual revenue.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who expressed concerns about how tribal stations would fare under the cuts, said he reached a deal with Trump’s budget office to redirect some unrelated funding to the outlets.

The average radio station in the African-American Public Radio Consortium, meanwhile, relies on the federal government for 28 percent of its budget, Curley estimated. 

“The more revenue that you generate, the safer you are. That doesn’t mean that you’re necessarily completely safe, but most of the stations that are at risk, they’re not making a lot of money,” Curley said.

Read the full story here

Related:
Here’s how WHYY and other Pa. stations will be impacted

---

If you like this post, you’ll love our daily environmental newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed daily with the latest news, commentary, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Please do not take our word for it, try it free for a full month