Connect with us

Business

Federal judge strikes down Trump’s order blocking development of wind energy

Published

on

Federal judge strikes down Trump’s order blocking development of wind energy

A federal judge on Monday struck down the Trump administration’s ban on federal permits for wind energy projects in what supporters said was an important victory for the embattled industry.

President Trump issued the ban on his first day back in office through an executive order that called for the temporary withdrawal of nearly all federal land and waters from new or renewed wind-energy leasing. The president said such leases “may lead to grave harm” including negative effects on national security, transportation and commercial interests, among other justifications.

U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, for the District of Massachusetts, ruled that the ban is “arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law,” and said the concern about “grave harm” was insufficient to justify the immense scope of a moratorium on all wind energy.

The challenge was brought by attorneys general in 17 states, including California, and Washington.

In it, they argued that halting federal wind permits created an “existential threat” to the wind industry that could erase billions of dollars in investments and tens of thousands of jobs.

Advertisement

“A court has agreed with California and our sister states nationwide: The Trump Administration’s attempt to thwart states’ efforts to make energy more clean, reliable, and affordable for our residents is unlawful and cannot stand,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “The Trump Administration seems intent on raising costs on American families at every juncture — and California is equally committed to challenging every one of its illegal attempts to make life more expensive for Californians.”

At least seven major offshore wind projects were paused as a result of the federal permitting ban, according to the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council, plus several more that were in early phases of development.

“This ban on wind projects was illegal, as this court has now declared. The administration should use this as a wake-up call, stop its illegal actions and get out of the way of the expansion of renewable energy,” said Kit Kennedy, the council’s managing director for power, in a statement.

The lawsuit noted the president’s executive order was issued the same day as his National Energy Emergency Declaration, which encouraged domestic energy development not tied to wind and other renewables. The president has heavily supported fossil fuel production including oil, gas and coal.

In a statement to The Times, White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said offshore wind projects were given “unfair, preferential treatment” under the Biden administration while the rest of the energy industry was “hindered by burdensome regulations.”

Advertisement

“President Trump’s day one executive order instructed agencies to review leases and permitting practices for wind projects with consideration for our country’s growing demands for reliable energy, effects on energy costs for American families, the importance of marine life and fishing industry, and the impacts on ocean currents and wind patterns,” Rogers said. “President Trump has ended Joe Biden’s war on American energy and unleashed America’s energy dominance to protect our economic and national security.”

California has vowed to stay the course on offshore wind despite the federal challenges.

The state has an ambitious goal of 25 gigawatts of floating offshore wind energy by 2045, by which point California officials say offshore wind could represent 10% to 15% of the Golden State’s energy portfolio. Five ocean leases have already been granted to energy companies off Humboldt County and Morro Bay.

In August, the Trump administration said it was cutting $679 million for “doomed” offshore wind projects, including $427 million that had been earmarked for California.

Ted Kelly, director and lead counsel of U.S. clean energy at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, said obstructing the build-out of clean power is the wrong move as the country’s need for electricity is surging from data centers, industry and other demands.

Advertisement

Wind, solar and battery storage offer the most affordable ways to get more reliable power on the grid, Kelly said.

“We should not be kneecapping America’s largest source of renewable power,” he said, “especially when we need more cheap, homegrown electricity.”

Business

Why is L.A.’s salad titan, Sweetgreen, wilting?

Published

on

Why is L.A.’s salad titan, Sweetgreen, wilting?

Sweetgreen’s salad business isn’t as fresh as it used to be.

Not long ago, the Los-Angeles-based company’s fresh bowls of fancy salads were all the rage, and its shares soared on hopes that salad-slinging robots could make it more profitable.

Last year was tough, though, as enthusiasm for the brand waned and cash-strapped diners abandoned fast-casual options for cheaper fast food and homemade meals.

Sweetgreen’s same-store sales slid 9.5% last quarter, even as it increased portion sizes and tried new menu items — including French fries, which flopped. It laid off 10% of its support center workforce in Los Angeles, and one of its founders stepped down.

Over the last 12 months, Sweetgreen shares have tumbled more than 75%. The stock closed Thursday at $8.

Advertisement

“Sweetgreen is more of a premium health product, and it’s going to cost more than a Big Mac,” said retail expert Dominick Miserandino, who runs the company Retail Tech Media Nexus.

“The average consumer, when they’re hit with survival-type questions about basic necessities, wellness is not going to be No. 1 for them,” he said.

Younger consumers are showing less interest in Sweetgreen salads at the same time as tariffs and other factors are driving inflation. The company fell short of Wall Street’s expectations last quarter with a net loss of $36.1 million on revenue of $172.4 million.

“Performance was impacted by softer sales,” Sweetgreen co-founder and Chief Executive Jonathon Neman said in November. “This was coupled with lighter spending among younger guests.”

As it braces for the future, Sweetgreen decided to sell the food automation company it bought only a few years ago. Sweetgreen closed the sale of its automated kitchen technology, dubbed Infinite Kitchen, to the takeout and food delivery company Wonder Group last month.

Advertisement

Spyce, the business unit behind Infinite Kitchen, was sold for close to $200 milion in cash and shares of Wonder’s Series C preferred stock. Sweetgreen bought Spyce in 2021 for about $70 million. Sweetgreen will continue to use the technology in some restaurants. The tech uses automatic conveyor belts to assemble salads and other meals.

“The sale marks a strategic milestone for Sweetgreen, enabling the company to reinvest in key priorities and focus on growth and operational efficiency,” the company said in a news release.

Sweetgreen did not respond to a request for comment.

Sweetgreen was founded in 2007 in Washington by Georgetown students looking to make healthy food as convenient as fast food. It moved its headquarters to Los Angeles in 2016.

The chain has grown to more than 280 stores in the U.S.

Advertisement

California — with 56 Sweetgreens — is the state with the most locations.

The company made its initial public offering in 2021, and a day later was valued at nearly $6 billion. Sweetgreen is now worth around $900 million.

Fast-casual eateries — considered a step above fast food but more affordable than a full-service restaurant — once boomed in popularity. But value-seeking consumers are now turning to other options, said Evert Gruyaert, head of U.S. restaurants and food service at Deloitte.

“There is extremely strong competition and pressure coming from quick-service brands, and casual dining now has very compelling value offers too,” he said. “Fast casual is really squeezed in the middle.”

Fast-casual chains such as Cava and Newport Beach-based Chipotle popularized the customizable lunch bowl, usually including a protein, grain, and veggies.

Advertisement

The idea took off after Chipotle founder Steve Ells noticed that customers were opening up their burritos and asking for a fork. The Mexican chain launched bowls in 2003, paving the way for the Mediterranean bowl destination Cava to open in 2006.

Sweetgreen’s menu includes a range of salads as well as warm bowls featuring rice, salmon and chicken. A caramelized garlic steak bowl sells for $17.95, and a garden cobb salad is $15.75.

With tax, tip and a drink, customers could easily spend more than $20 on lunch.

The trend of lunching on big bowls of healthy ingredients has lost some momentum in recent years.

On social media, some diners are complaining about “slop bowls,” saying that lunch shouldn’t be just a collection of ingredients thrown in a bowl.

Advertisement

Chipotle shares have slid about 30% over the last year and Cava shares have fallen close to 40% over the same time frame. Ells, who left Chipotle in 2020, returned to sandwiches and handheld foods in his new venture Counter Service.

On an earnings call in November, Sweetgreen’s Neman said the chain’s new handheld product will begin market testing early this year.

Whether in a bowl or on bread, much of Sweetgreen’s appeal comes from the perception that it’s a healthy choice. But even in Southern California, where wellness is often top of mind, its offerings are failing to attract as many customers as they once did.

“If you’re financially pushed to the limit, you need fast food to get you through the day at the cheapest possible price,” Miserandino said.

Millennials and Gen. Z, who according to Neman make up about a third of Sweetgreen’s customer base, are facing a difficult job market and cutting back on spending more than their older peers.

Advertisement

Sweetgreen is trying to find a way back into the sweet spot of salad consumers. It debuted a new nutrient-dense menu, created in collaboration with the wellness company Function.

The menu, which follows a recent surge in demand for protein and other macronutrients, includes options with extra iron, omega-3 fatty acids and antioxidants.

“Amid a challenging macro backdrop, our priorities remain clear,” Neman said in November. “I am extremely confident that our leadership team and focused strategy will lead Sweetgreen back to sustained, profitable growth.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy to step down

Published

on

Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy to step down

After nearly 14 years at the helm, Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy will step down this week, marking a major — though expected — changing of the guard at the Walt Disney Co.-owned “Star Wars” studio.

In her place, current Lucasfilm Chief Creative Officer Dave Filoni has been named president and will retain his creative title and Lucasfilm Business President and General Manager Lynwen Brennan has been named co-president, Disney said Thursday. The pair will co-lead the San Francisco-based studio and will report to Disney Entertainment Co-Chairman Alan Bergman.

“When George Lucas asked me to take over Lucasfilm upon his retirement, I couldn’t have imagined what lay ahead,” said Kennedy, 72, in a statement Thursday. “It has been a true privilege to spend more than a decade working alongside the extraordinary talent at Lucasfilm. Their creativity and dedication have been an inspiration, and I’m deeply proud of what we’ve accomplished together. I’m excited to continue developing films and television with both longtime collaborators and fresh voices who represent the future of storytelling.”

The move comes amid widespread speculation about Kennedy’s future. Handpicked in 2012 by “Star Wars” and “Indiana Jones” creator George Lucas to helm the company he founded, Kennedy oversaw the expansion of the “Star Wars” franchise into a new trilogy, two spin-off movies, as well as several TV shows, including “The Mandalorian” and “Andor.” Under her leadership, the studio also grew its presence in Disney’s theme parks with “Star Wars”-themed lands in both Anaheim’s Disneyland Resort and Walt Disney World in Florida.

But the expansion, and her tenure, were not without setbacks.

Advertisement

2018’s “Solo: A Star Wars Story” grossed a disappointing $392.9 million at the box office, after a fraught production in which the studio replaced the directors during shooting. Several “Star Wars” projects have been announced over the years with big names attached, only to be delayed or dropped, including a planned trilogy with “Game of Thrones” showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss.

Kennedy told The Times in 2019 that perceptions of director churn at Lucasfilm were overblown.

“Nobody in our business develops something with one person, that’s it, and everything goes perfectly,” she said at the time. “That’s a fairly common part of the process. We fall under incredible scrutiny because it’s ‘Star Wars.’ Because of the quality I’m striving for, I’m reaching out to top talent, and vice versa.”

Kennedy also had to weather scrutiny from die-hard fans about the new direction of the franchise. Nevertheless, the newest “Star Wars” trilogy grossed a collective $4.3 billion in worldwide box office revenue, with spinoff “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” hauling in more than $1 billion globally and leading to the popular series “Andor.”

She will continue as producer of Lucasfilm’s next two theatrical films — May’s “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu” and “Star Wars: Starfighter,” which is being helmed by “Deadpool & Wolverine” director Shawn Levy and set for release in 2027.

Advertisement

“The Mandalorian and Grogu” will mark the first “Star Wars” theatrical film since 2019’s “Star Wars: Episode IX — The Rise of Skywalker.” During production for that movie, Kennedy asked Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger if the company could take a pause on “Star Wars” films to give them more time develop new storylines. At that point, the company had released at least one “Star Wars” movie a year since 2015, while Lucas himself had previously waited at least three years between films. (Since 2019, the studio did release “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny,” as well as several “Star Wars”-adjacent series and and streaming films, including some Lego movies and an ILM documentary.)

“When we acquired Lucasfilm more than a decade ago, we knew we were bringing into the Disney family not only one of the most beloved and enduring storytelling universes ever created, but also a team of extraordinary talent led by a visionary filmmaker — someone who had been handpicked by George Lucas himself, no less,” Iger said in a statement Thursday. “We’re deeply grateful for Kathleen Kennedy’s leadership, her vision, and her stewardship of such an iconic studio and brand.”

Both Filoni and Brennan step into their new roles as Lucasfilm veterans.

Filoni, who frequently wears a cowboy hat in public and is thus widely recognizable to fans, was chosen by Lucas in 2005 to build the studio’s animation business. He created Lucasfilm’s first series, “Star Wars: The Clone Wars” as well as “Star Wars Rebels,” was the executive producer on shows including “The Mandalorian” and “Ahsoka” and is producer and writer of the “The Mandalorian and Grogu” film.

Brennan joined Lucasfilm visual effects studio Industrial Light & Magic in 1999 and currently leads business strategy, franchise and production operations, as well as ILM’s expansion worldwide.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Judge rejects Paramount’s request to expedite case against Warner Bros.

Published

on

Judge rejects Paramount’s request to expedite case against Warner Bros.

Paramount suffered a blow in a Delaware courtroom Thursday as a judge refused to expedite its lawsuit against Warner Bros. Discovery seeking information about internal deliberations and a financial analysis.

Reuters reported that Vice Chancellor Morgan T. Zurn of the Delaware Chancery Court said during a hearing that Paramount had failed to show it would suffer “cognizable irreparable harm” without the financial details it sought.

Now the pressure is on Paramount to win over Warner shareholders before next week’s tender offer deadline. Investors have until Wednesday to sell their stock to Paramount for $30 a share. Paramount could extend that deadline.

Paramount sued on Monday, claiming investors needed information that Warner has yet to provide about how board members valued various assets in determining that its sale to Netflix was more lucrative.

Advertisement

Paramount wanted the judge to fast-track the proceedings to help boost its outreach to Warner shareholders.

The David Ellison-led company has insisted its $108-billion deal, including absorption of Warner debt, represents a higher value for Warner shareholders than Netflix’s Dec. 4 cash-and-stock deal. Warner board members closed the auction that night, awarding Netflix the prize.

Netflix, which has seen its stock slide about 17% since early December, is reportedly weighing whether to bolster its bid by offering all cash for Warner Bros. movie and television studio, HBO and HBO Max. Netflix declined to comment.

Paramount wants to buy all of Warner Bros. Discovery, including CNN and the other basic cable channels.

In a statement Thursday, Warner Bros. Discovery said Paramount Skydance’s legal challenge “was yet another unserious attempt to distract and the Judge saw right through it.”

Advertisement

“We are pleased a Delaware Court agreed with our belief and rejected the notion that this lawsuit needed special treatment and may have other serious flaws,” Warner Bros. Discovery said. “Despite its multiple opportunities, Paramount Skydance continues to propose a transaction that our board unanimously concluded is not superior to the merger agreement with Netflix.”

Paramount downplayed its latest setback, saying Zurn’s ruling “does not pertain to the merits of Paramount’s claim.”

Paramount, in its statement, said that Warner shareholders deserved information about how Warner board’s evaluated the value for Warner’s cable channels to better compare the two proposals.

Netflix doesn’t want the cable channels allowing Warner to move forward with plans to spin off those channels this summer. Warner shareholders would get stock in that new company, called Discovery Global.

“WBD shareholders should ask why their Board is working so hard to hide this information,” Paramount said, adding it “continues to urge WBD to make these disclosures so that WBD shareholders can make an informed decision.”

Advertisement

Times staff writer Samantha Masunaga contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending