Paramount could pull nearly 58,000 jobs and $21 billion in annual economic activity out of California if the company follows through on a threat to relocate its headquarters and operations amid an antitrust fight over its acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, according to a preliminary economic analysis from the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.'s (LAEDC) Institute for Applied Economics, which was obtained by Politico.
If no resolution is achieved, Paramount has threatened to begin moving its headquarters and thousands of jobs out of the state starting Oct. 1, 2026, with Georgia, Tennessee and Texas floated as possible destinations.
The threat traces back to a lawsuit that California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) and eleven other Democratic state attorneys general filed on July 13 to permanently block the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger under the Clayton Act. Their complaint argued the combined company would reduce competition in wide-release theatrical films, in the market for anticipated top-grossing pictures, and in the licensing of basic cable channels.
The lawsuit came after the Justice Department had reached the opposite conclusion in June, closing its own investigation without filing suit and finding the deal unlikely to harm competition in streaming, linear television, or theatrical film production and distribution.
The LAEDC report makes it clear that California's economy would suffer huge losses if Paramount decided to move out of state. Apart from the 28,990 and 57,980 potential full-time jobs that would disappear, California would also see annual economic output decline somewhere between $10.6 billion and $21.2 billion. Annual state and local tax revenue would also drop by about $585 million.
This is, however, a worst-case scenario based on LAEDC assumptions, not a definite forecast, since Paramount does not publicly break down its operating expenses or employment by state.
Even the more conservative scenario still involves a heavy loss. Even a slower, partial retreat tied to merger-related ticking fees and financing costs totaling roughly $1.88 billion, spread over five years, could still result in the state losing 550 to 1,110 job-years each year and between $202.7 million and $405.4 million in annual economic output.
The merger agreement requires Paramount to pay additional amounts to Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders, called ticking fees, if the transaction is not completed by September 30. From October 1 onwards, the LAEDC sets the fees at about $7 million per day, so each week of legal proceedings becomes a separate charge. As a partial gesture to resolve the issue, Paramount has promised to make 30 theatrical releases each year from the combined company. This pledge the LAEDC believes could result in between 1,020 and 2,760 job-years and between $377.7 million and $1.01 billion in economic output throughout the state over a five-year period.
It's unclear whether this proposal will persuade Bonta's office.
For now, Bonta isn't backing down on his public messaging. "California is the fourth largest economy in the world and the best place to do business," his office said, adding, "Strong antitrust enforcement is essential so everyone can benefit from a vibrant economy."
"When companies create a monopoly and illegally use that power to get out of negotiating, that hurts our economy, it hurts Californians, it makes things more expensive, and it makes things worse," Bonta's office said.
Steve Hilton, the Republican candidate for governor, has made this dispute a campaign talking point, calling the lawsuit "totally politically motivated" last month and saying he would "use whatever power I have to discourage any litigation that would be destructive to California, including this one."
Hilton has also framed Paramount as one data point in a broader exodus. "There's always something, because the people in charge of California are just running this state into the ground," he said on Real America's News last month, adding that business owners tell him on the trail they're "hanging on till November" and will leave if the state's political direction doesn't change. "I think that we are heading for economic collapse in California," he said. He also predicted the recent trickle of departures "is going to turn into a stampede" without a course correction.
Tyler Durden Mon, 09/14/2026 - 18:00By Ethan Howland of UtilityDive
A federal appeals court on Friday vacated the Department of Energy’s emergency order requiring the owners of a coal-fired power plant in Michigan to delay its planned retirement, saying the move usurped state authority over generating resources.
“The federal government has, until now, issued stopgap generation orders in response only to transitory emergencies caused by war, extreme weather events, market manipulation, or unplanned, short-term unavailability of specific generation units,” the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit said in its ruling.
Consumers Energy’s 1,420-MW, coal-fired J.H. Campbell power plant in West Olive, Mich. The U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on Sept, 11, 2026, that the U.S. Department of Energy overstepped its authority when it ordered Consumers to delay retiring the power plant“It is the states — informed by federal, regional, and load-serving entities’ assessments of available supply and reliability needs — that bear the responsibility to plan for and avert reliability risks on an ongoing basis,” the court added, noting that the Michigan Public Service Commission and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator had approved the plant’s retirement after extensive reviews.
The suit was brought by Earthjustice, which represented the Sierra Club and Urban Core Collective. Also, the Michigan attorney general argued the case for Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota. Other petitioners included the Natural Resources Defense Council, Michigan Environmental Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Vote Solar, the Ecology Center and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The court found that the DOE lacked the authority under the Federal Power Act’s section 202(c) to order Consumers Energy to run its majority-owned, 1,420-MW J.H. Campbell power plant past its May 31, 2025, retirement date.
Under section 202(c), an “emergency” means a grid reliability risk that calls for immediate action by DOE — a condition that wasn’t met in the case of the Campbell power plant, the court said.
The court said it was unpersuaded by DOE’s “sweeping conception” of its emergency authority under the FPA’s section 202(c).
“The Department’s position would empower it to pick its preferred power sources in Michigan — or, presumably, any other state — and order them to operate without regard to the multiple procedural and substantive constraints built into state reliability planning processes,” the court said.
Section 202(c) gives the DOE a “limited backstop mechanism” to address certain electricity supply emergencies, the court said.
“Contrary to DOE’s position, ... the complexity and advance planning that go into states’ assurances of resource adequacy do not imply that DOE must have vast, top-down emergency power to pick its favorite generators to run at all costs,” the court said. “The Department’s reading of ‘emergency’ invites frequent federal interventions that are unsupported by the statute and threaten the stability of the energy market.”
The DOE justified its order keeping the Campbell plant online by citing “fragments” of two documents and a MISO presentation it said showed that the region faced an emergency, the court noted.
The decision is among the first amid various legal challenges to DOE orders keeping fossil-fueled power plants from retiring to reach a court decision. Generally, the department has argued the plants needed to keep running due to the medium- to long-term potential for electric supply shortfalls.
Since the DOE issued its first 90-day order keeping the Campbell power plant from retiring, it has issued similar orders affecting six other power plants — all but one of which is coal-fired. DOE has reissued all the orders before they were set to expire.
Through June 30, the net cost of complying with the DOE emergency orders was $259 million, after applying MISO revenues of $239 million, Consumers said in a July 28 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
“The court rebuked the Trump administration’s abuse of emergency powers,” Michael Lenoff, an Earthjustice attorney, said in a press release.
“The DOE needs to stay in its lane and use its emergency powers only in actual emergencies. Preventing the market-driven retirements of coal plants to advance a coal-friendly agenda is not a proper use of emergency powers.”
The DOE could appeal the court’s ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The Energy Department’s emergency orders, including at Campbell, prevented blackouts and likely saved hundreds of lives during peak capacity events this past year,” a DOE spokesperson said in an email.
The DOE’s emergency orders were “essential” for keeping the lights on during Winter Storm Fern in January, according to the spokesperson. At the peak of the bitter cold, coal-fired generation in affected regions increased 25% compared to the same time last year, and the Campbell plant operated at over 650 MW every day between Jan. 21 and Feb. 1, they said.
“The Department of Energy will continue to protect and defend energy security for all Americans,” the spokesperson said.
Tyler Durden Mon, 09/14/2026 - 17:40Bitcoin is sharply higher, ignoring the meltdown in gold and other dollar-sensitive assets, on a surge in prediction market optimism that Washington may finally pass a crypto market structure bill, with odds rising to multi-week highs on Monday and Polymarket.
Polymarket bettors put the chance that the Clarity Act will be signed into law this year at nearly 30% Monday morning, up from just 12% earlier in September. That’s the highest level since early August, according to the event contract’s dashboard.
As a reminder the Senate is scheduled to hold a crucial procedural cloture vote on the crypto-focused Clarity Act on Tuesday, September 15, 2026, at approximately 2:15 p.m. ET. The bill requires 60 votes to advance.
Overnight, Senate Republicans released the "final" draft of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which they said incorporates "substantive changes" requested by Democrats, the Block reported. President Trump was also reported to have agreed to ethics restrictions in the bill that would limit crypto-related dealings by officials and their spouses.
Stablecoin rewards, previously a key sticking point in negotiations, also appear to have been addressed.
Under the latest draft, the Treasury secretary would have authority to impose a circuit-breaker on stablecoin rewards for up to 18 months after enactment, if stablecoins were deemed to be driving substantial deposit outflows from community banks.
Following the draft's release, market-implied odds of the bill passing this year rose from 22% to 30% on Polymarket.
Additionally, traders put the odds of passage before July 1 at 53%, versus 30% Thursday, after the contract briefly surged to 69%. The chance of legislation becoming law before April most recently stood at at 45%, roughly double Thursday's 23%.
Bessent helped with a post on X:
"I’ve said many times that the CLARITY Act is essential to ensuring America wins the global race for new technology.
That’s the reason Congress passed the GENIUS Act: to ensure that stablecoin infrastructure, a revolutionary financial technology, will be built in America..."
While markets clearly show traders see a clearer path for crypto legislation ahead of Tuesday's key procedural vote in the Senate, there's still plenty of road between a favorable vote and a presidential signature.
According to CoinDesk, Tuesday's Senate cloture vote requires 60 senators, forcing the measure to draw bipartisan support. Clearing that threshold would be an important political milestone, but it would not amount to final Senate passage.
Lawmakers could still face a lengthy amendment process of the bill. Any changes would also have to be reconciled with the House before legislation could head to the president, while the congressional calendar adds another source of uncertainty.
The next move belongs to the Democrats, because this wasn't a negotiated package, one analyst said.
Jaret Sieberg, a financial policy analyst for TD Cowen, said the Democratic lawmakers may not see enough here to justify getting on board, so he maintained a 25% chance of Clarity Act passage on Monday.
"We are not convinced the updated ethics language Senate Republicans released last night is substantive enough for moderate Democrats," he wrote in a note to clients.
The problems for Democrats: President Trump would still be able to maintain his crypto investments, even if they're structured in a blind trust, so it doesn't sever him from the industry he has such an influence on. And the powers for state attorneys general to sue remain very narrow, with no direct actions possible against the president. Also, Trump would tout a yes vote as a major personal victory, Sieberg said, potentially carrying a political cost for the November elections.
On the positive side, Sieberg noted, the changes could give Democrats a little more political cover if they wanted to support the bill, and bankers may feel more comfortable with it because of the extra protections it gives their deposit accounts from customers running to stablecoins.
He said that because the administration hasn't yet offered Democrat nominations to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, those could be offered up to sweeten the deal in a final negotiation.
And while the odds of Clarity act passage have failed to rise above 50%, even the modest move observed was enough to push bitcoin up nearly $2000 to just shy of $80K, the highest since Friday's post-CPI "band aid" response.
Tyler Durden Mon, 09/14/2026 - 17:20By Robin Lawrence, of UtilityDive
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin is expected to formally rescind carbon pollution standards for fossil fuel power plants today, according to multiple media reports.
The repeal would complete the Trump administration’s elimination of climate policies enacted under the Obama and Biden administrations and could prevent future administrations from regulating greenhouse gases emissions from power plants, according to The New York Times.
Climate Mayors and C40 Cities are among the municipal and environmental groups that have opposed the repeal, which the EPA first proposed in June 2025. “GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants contribute significantly to costly and detrimental fiscal and public health impacts for cities across the United States,” the groups, along with the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, stated in an Aug. 7, 2025, letter to the EPA.
The Mount Storm Power Station, a coal-fired power plant in West Virginia, on July 13, 2026The EPA has initiated rollbacks of greenhouse gas emissions standards since President Donald Trump took office. Environmental groups and local governments have filed multiple lawsuits attempting to halt the actions.
In September 2025, EPA proposed a rule to end the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which requires over 8,000 facilities and suppliers in the U.S. to report their greenhouse gas emissions annually.
Twelve cities and counties joined a coalition of 24 states in a March lawsuit challenging the EPA’s repeal of its 2009 endangerment finding, the underpinning for greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act.
Also in March, a coalition of 21 states and local governments filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s repeal of the 2024 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule. That lawsuit also challenges EPA’s rollback of real-time continuous emissions monitoring at power plants, alleging it violates the Clean Air Act.
In their August 2025 comments opposing the EPA’s repeal of power plant greenhouse gas emissions standards, Climate Mayors, C40 and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School said that cities nationwide “rely on the 2024 Carbon Pollution Standards to help protect them from costly and dangerous impacts to infrastructure and public health, and to augment their work to mitigate and adapt to climate change.”
The most acute effects of greenhouse gas emissions are often felt in cities, the letter states. “Moreover, federal regulation of power sector GHG emissions not only reduces emissions from regulated power plants, but also has the indirect effect of reducing emissions from other sectors that use electricity, including the building and transportation sectors, which are the top two sources of GHG emissions in U.S. cities,” the groups state.
EPA estimated last year that repealing emission guidelines and carbon capture requirements would save the power sector about $1.2 billion a year, and repealing 2024 amendments to mercury emissions standards would save power plants about $120 million a year.
When it issued the standards in May 2024, EPA found that the regulations would deliver $370 billion in net benefits over two decades, the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law said.
“The Supreme Court has made clear that EPA has an obligation to control greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act,” Dena Adler, senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity, said in an emailed statement Monday. “The power sector is the second-largest U.S. greenhouse gas emitter. Leaving this pollution unchecked ignores the Supreme Court, puts the public at risk, and flagrantly violates EPA’s legal responsibilities.”
The EPA has not responded to a request for comment.
Tyler Durden Mon, 09/14/2026 - 17:10