Editor’s note: This is the first report in an ongoing series.

The patient came in with a belly full of blood, Dr. Leilah Zahedi-Spung recalled. Her pregnancy was ectopic, no longer viable, and could have killed her if left untreated. But when she went to a mobile pregnancy help center offering free care in an RV in St. Louis, she was told the pregnancy could be saved.

By the time she saw Zahedi-Spung days later, her fallopian tube had ruptured.

In North Lauderdale, Florida, Ieshia Scott was pregnant and in the throes of postpartum depression. She thought she’d arrived at an abortion clinic. She told the staff she might hurt herself if she had another baby. They told her God would give her strength.

A woman and her partner in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, went to a pregnancy help center by mistake. When they made it to a Planned Parenthood clinic across the street, the pregnant patient handed Dr. Kristin Lyerly a copy of the sonogram. But the scan was not of her uterus. It was her bladder.

All three patients had gone to crisis pregnancy centers, organizations that advertise free pregnancy tests and ultrasounds but dissuade women from pursuing abortions and contraceptive options. Since the U.S. Supreme Court ended national abortion access in June 2022, the centers have seen an infusion of taxpayer dollars in many Republican-led states. But medical experts have urged lawmakers to reconsider the state support, as the centers can endanger public health by “causing delays in accessing legitimate health care,” according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 

States Newsroom conducted a 50-state investigation examining state and federal budgets, as well as the tax records of these organizations, finding that while the magnitude of public funding for them is growing, oversight is not. 

Twenty-one states funneled nearly a half-billion dollars, or $491 million, of taxpayer money to crisis pregnancy center organizations between fiscal years 2022 and 2025. That figure does not include millions some states diverted from federal programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and it does not include multimillion-dollar tax credit programs launched after federal protections for abortion rights were overturned. 

Nearly $1.3 billion in local, state or federal government grants were awarded to 1,259 crisis pregnancy centers in total between 2019 and 2024, according to States Newsroom’s analysis of tax records. The actual figure may be higher, as digital records are not comprehensive or entirely up to date.

Yet that largesse hasn’t been matched by corresponding regulation. Oversight of taxpayer funding remains weak, either blocked by legislators or ignored by state agencies. 

The centers are most often faith-based nonprofits that say they provide much-needed support for pregnant clients at no cost. An estimated 2,633 crisis pregnancy centers were operating in the United States as of March 31, 2024, according to research from the University of Georgia. 

John Mize, CEO of Americans United for Life, argues that pregnancy centers are important for people who really don’t want an abortion, and for anyone who regrets their abortion to find support. 

“I am strongly of the opinion that most women that have abortions do it because they don’t feel like they have any other option,” Mize said.

But critics and researchers say the pregnancy centers mislead potential clients about their services or pose as medical clinics despite lacking proper licensure. They sometimes promote treatments like abortion pill reversal, which is unproven and potentially dangerous. 

“Often, patients are lured in by this idea of getting free care,” said Dr. Rachel Jensen, Darney-Landy complex family planning fellow at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “It’s free, because it’s often subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Free health care sounds amazing. It should be available to all people. But the problem is, then, that the CPCs are unregulated — and they operate outside of ethical principles and best care practices.”

Firsthand accounts: ‘What’s your plan for this pregnancy?’ Comfort, shame and a missed diagnosis

Indiana state Sen. Shelli Yoder, a Democrat, said access to maternal health care in her state continues to decrease while support for crisis pregnancy centers increases. Indiana boosted its budget for the centers from $250,000 in 2021 to $2 million, then doubled it to $4 million by 2024. The state’s maternal mortality rate is among the worst in the country. 

“It’s not that these centers don’t serve a purpose. But they certainly are not a replacement for maternal health care, and they are not health care centers, and yet our state is using taxpayer money to fund them as if they are,” Yoder said. “And we are sending a message to moms, or to women, that they are health care centers, and they are not.”  

Zahedi-Spung was working an emergency room shift in 2019 at a St. Louis hospital, not too far from the pregnancy center housed in an RV and frequently parked in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic. She said she was horrified to learn the patient with the ruptured ectopic pregnancy had been told at the mobile crisis pregnancy center a few days before that it could be saved. A tubal ectopic pregnancy is never viable.

Today, Zahedi-Spung works in Colorado as a high-risk OB-GYN. But that experience in the ER still haunts her.

“They’re a private organization providing medical care without a medical license, so they are not liable for anything they tell anyone,” she said.

Andrea Trudden, spokesperson for Heartbeat International, one of the largest pregnancy center networks in the U.S., said that as of 2025, more than 75% of Heartbeat affiliates offer medical services and are different from pregnancy resource centers, which offer parenting classes and material aid but not medical services.

“Medical affiliates that provide limited obstetrical ultrasound or other services follow applicable state laws, professional standards, and clinical protocols,” Trudden said in a written statement.

According to a report from the Charlotte Lozier Institute, 37% of 2,775 crisis pregnancy centers provided testing for sexually transmitted infections, and 29% provided STI treatment in 2024. The institute, which is the research arm of one of the largest anti-abortion policy groups, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, found that 81% of surveyed centers provided ultrasound services in 2024. The report notes that 28% of paid center staff have medical licenses, along with 12% of volunteers.

The only option for miles

In North Florida’s largely rural Wakulla County, there are no full-time practicing OB-GYNs. Wakulla Pregnancy Center is in Crawfordville, the county seat of about 4,800 people. Many women in the area lack transportation, said the center’s director, Pam Pilkinton. They have to travel about 20 miles north to Tallahassee for prenatal care.

Run by a local ministry, the center has a blue-and-white sign that advertises “Free Pregnancy Tests.” Inside, a cozy living room furnished with sofas leads to a counseling room and donation space, where moms peruse a range of free baby clothes and supplies. Most of the center’s clients have low incomes, and are on Medicaid or uninsured.

When Florida passed a six-week abortion ban in 2023, legislators simultaneously increased state funding for crisis pregnancy centers by 455% — from $4.5 million to $25 million. The following legislative session, they added another $4.5 million. 

The funds go to the Florida Pregnancy Care Network, which manages contracts with more than 100 crisis pregnancy centers across the state. The organization is required to report the amount and types of services provided and the expenditures to the governor and state legislature once a year. But it is not required to make any noncompliance findings public. 

The public money for centers in Florida doesn’t end there. Wakulla Pregnancy Center received a separate allocation in the 2025 budget of $136,000. According to the funding request, $60,000 is allocated for a building asbestos issue, and $58,000 pays for the salary and benefits of the executive director and client coordinator. The rest is for pregnancy tests, educational materials, ultrasound referrals and other supplies. 

But Pilkinton is clear about one point: The center does not provide medical care in this maternal health care desert. 

“We’re not a medical facility, and that is something that we let everyone know up front,” Pilkinton said. “We provide material support, education, information and peer counseling.”

That doesn’t include practices like referring a patient to an OB-GYN for prenatal care after a positive test, for example, “because we’re not a medical facility,” she said.

Wakulla County’s severe maternal hospitalization rates ranked among the worst in the state in 2023 and 2024.

Like in other states, maternal health care has continued to flounder in Florida — and shortages are likely to worsen. Nearly half of 1,500 OB-GYNs who responded to a state survey say they plan to stop delivering babies within the next two years. 

The money Florida allocated for pregnancy centers might have covered more maternity care across the state, said Democratic state Rep. Anna V. Eskamani.

“We do need to strengthen our safety nets when it comes to supporting new moms,” Eskamani said. “Instead of addressing those gaps and investing in those areas, we continue to dole out millions of dollars to these unregulated and often religiously affiliated anti-abortion centers that are not addressing any of these disparities.”

In previous legislative sessions, Eskamani filed bills to repeal state funding and introduce regulation of existing centers. The bills have yet to receive a hearing, but she and her colleagues have filed them again.

“These not-for-profit organizations run with very little federal or state oversight, and sometimes they don’t even have licensed medical staff on site,” she said. “At this point, it’s a blank check.”

Big checks, little oversight

Much of the state funding for pregnancy centers did not exist before the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision ended federal protections for abortion rights in June 2022. 

Conservative-led states — such as Texas — that already allocated tens of millions to pregnancy centers have doubled or tripled their budgets for pregnancy resource groups since 2022. In Missouri, lawmakers have budgeted nearly $50 million since fiscal year 2022 from the general fund and federal block grant dollars. Texas’ allocation ballooned from $140 million in fiscal years 2024 and 2025 to $180 million in 2026 and 2027. 

In southwest Missouri, Republican state Rep. Christopher Warwick’s support of the centers is a focus of his reelection campaign.

“I think it’s important that we fund organizations that are willing to save life,” he said.

Read more: Federal funding for people in poverty heading to anti-abortion centers instead

Louisiana lawmakers directed $4 million from the state’s general fund to pregnancy centers for 2025, as part of its Pregnancy and Baby Care Initiative. But an audit found the state doled out the maximum amount per center allowed by state law — $100,800 — to most of the groups without requiring them to fully document how they spent it.

Auditors were concerned Louisiana paid the centers more than the cost of the actual services provided.

In Oklahoma, state auditors discovered in 2022 that an anti-abortion nonprofit called Oklahoma Pregnancy Care Network disbursed less than 7% of the $1.6 million it promised to nonprofits under the state’s Choosing Childbirth program. A month and a half before its contract was scheduled to end, the group had served 524 women, less than 6% of the 9,300 Oklahoma women it initially projected it would serve. An administrator with the nonprofit told The Oklahoman she was unaware there were problems.

Despite those findings, state lawmakers later directed nearly $18 million — a quarter of the state health department’s entire budget — toward Choosing Childbirth through November 2027. More than $4 million of it went to the Oklahoma Pregnancy Care Network. The network did not respond to States Newsroom’s requests for comment.

Inner workings

Lyerly, the OB-GYN in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, said the couple with the mislabeled sonogram came into her Planned Parenthood clinic in the early months of 2022. It wasn’t uncommon for patients with appointments at Planned Parenthood to accidentally go to the crisis pregnancy center across the street. This couple sought an abortion, she said, but came in with the ultrasound image of the woman’s bladder rather than her uterus. On top of the mislabeled ultrasound, they felt misled, because they were told the pregnancy was just a few weeks along when it was much more advanced.

“This was a challenging situation for them, was emotional and frustrating and upsetting to them, and it was so unnecessary,” said Lyerly. She stopped providing abortions in Wisconsin later that year when a state law banning the procedure went back into effect after the Dobbs decision.

Many centers are affiliated with umbrella organizations, including Care Net, Heartbeat International (formerly Alternatives to Abortion International) and National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, but often do not disclose that connection on their website. The parent companies provide guidance for operations, including yearly conferences, along with training for limited ultrasounds and other services. Training and funding for many of these centers’ ultrasound programs also come from national religious groups like Focus on the Family and the Knights of Columbus.

Heartbeat International is the largest of the three, with more than 4,000 affiliated service providers across the U.S. and in more than 100 countries, according to Trudden.

Trudden said Heartbeat International offers professional training and practical resources for affiliates, who determine their own governance, leadership and location and must agree to a set of standards also shared by Care Net and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. Those standards include practicing honesty and confidentiality with clients and complying with all legal and regulatory requirements. 

Some pregnancy centers are staffed with licensed professionals trained in sonography. The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates says it has trained more than 6,000 health care professionals “in the medical and legal ‘how to’s’ of limited obstetrical ultrasound.” But at its national conference last year, leaders discouraged centers from performing ultrasounds on women who they suspect have ectopic pregnancies to avoid liability. The guidance came in the wake of a lawsuit against a Massachusetts center, in which the plaintiffs alleged that center staff failed to diagnose an ectopic pregnancy that ruptured, prompting emergency surgery. The clinic reached a settlement with the patient. 

Some centers offer more medical services, like prenatal support and testing and treatment for STIs, such as Idaho’s Stanton Healthcare, which is accredited by the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care and does not receive any public funding. 

“We have caught ectopic pregnancies. … I can think of three in the last eight months off the top of my head,” said Angela Dwyer, Stanton’s director of client services. 

But advocacy groups such as Campaign for Accountability have raised alarms about how many clinics do not have to follow federal health privacy laws, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, known as HIPAA.

Clinics that offer free services and do not bill insurance face no penalty for disclosing a client’s information. 

In contrast, Jessica Scharfenberg, CEO of Healthfirst Network in central Wisconsin, said if any of her 10 reproductive health clinics violated HIPAA, they would face steep federal fines and possible jail time for staffers. 

“If my entity broke HIPAA, we would have federal consequences, even though we also have an internal policy for it,” Scharfenberg said. “They have their internal policies. They break HIPAA, there’s no consequences for it.”

The websites of some centers give the appearance of being HIPAA compliant even though they aren’t, States Newsroom has reported. 

The other two main umbrella organizations did not respond to multiple requests for comment by email and phone. 

‘So much help’

In North Lauderdale, Ieshia Scott would stare at her 6-month-old, unable to hold the baby when she cried. Scott, who also had a 10-year-old, felt overwhelmed by a constant cloud of stress and sadness, all while trying to keep up with college classes.

When she found out she was pregnant again, Scott searched for an abortion clinic in the city, and a pregnancy resource center came up in the search results. That 2018 visit would last nearly three hours, during which she fielded dozens of questions about why she wanted an abortion. Scott had suicidal thoughts and was depressed but felt totally unheard. 

“I really was disregarded,” said Scott, now 36. “I was actually saying to her, like — ‘I don’t know, I might hurt myself, I might hurt the baby.’”

The center didn’t refer her to a psychiatrist, therapist or OB-GYN. The staff member instead reminded her of the Ten Commandments.

“I’m literally telling her, I can’t — I can’t do it. And she was like, ‘You can, you can. And there’s so much help.’”

Mental health is a contributing factor in about 23% of the nation’s maternal deaths, reports from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

Scott eventually went to a clinic to get the care she needed. But she worries for women who can’t. 

More than a dozen states passed abortion bans after Dobbs, and efforts continue nationwide to dismantle what access remains. Several states with abortion bans — including Missouri, South Carolina and Texas — have moved to cut Planned Parenthood out of state Medicaid programs as well, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that excluding the organization did not violate Medicaid’s provision requiring freedom of choice in providers. Florida legislators are also discussing cutting Planned Parenthood out of the state Medicaid program.

In 2025, at least 51 Planned Parenthood locations closed or limited medical services after losing state and federal support. Those communities lost access not only to abortion services but also to other reproductive and primary medical care. Independent clinics such as Maine Family Planning stopped offering primary care services for about 600 patients because of a funding loss of about $1.9 million, even though none of the Medicaid dollars were used for abortion.

‘Government handouts’

Lawmakers are not only opening public coffers to provide direct financial support to pregnancy centers, but they’re also creating tax breaks, drawing on federal sources and shifting funds meant to help low-income families to aid the anti-abortion organizations — with few regulations.

Some legislators have resisted stronger oversight. 

In Missouri, state Rep. Warwick opposed a colleague’s suggestion to require the centers to report how they spend their donations in a tax credit program, saying he wanted to limit bureaucracy. He said in a February 2025 legislative hearing that the tax credit keeps the state from having to “verify what programs work.” 

“I don’t think they’re funded enough to be able to mishandle their money,” he told States Newsroom in December. “At least not the ones I’m familiar with.”

Warwick proposed raising the tax credit for pregnancy center donations from 70% to 100% in 2025, meaning someone donating to a pregnancy center could reduce their state tax bill by the exact amount donated. 

The credits that Missourians redeemed shot up from about $2 million to an average of more than $7 million per year after lawmakers removed a cap on credits in 2021, according to a fiscal note attached to Warwick’s bill. State officials estimated a 100% tax credit just for pregnancy center donations would cost the state more than $10.7 million in the first year.

Missouri also funnels more than $2 million per year in state and federal dollars to pregnancy resource centers and similar organizations through its Alternatives to Abortion program. That’s in addition to what the centers receive from Missouri’s federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families fund — $10.3 million in this fiscal year.

Although Warwick’s 100% pregnancy center tax credit failed, he plans to try again in this year’s session. “I don’t think it (a 100% tax credit) would significantly hurt the state, especially when we’re talking about protecting life, protecting the birth of children,” he said.

Nebraska Sen. Joni Albrecht, a Republican who also sponsored a six-week abortion ban, said the centers were a valuable investment when she sought to create a $10 million tax credit program that was revised down to $1 million in 2024. 

Of the 13 pregnancy centers approved for tax credits in Nebraska, four provided less than $150,000 in services, according to tax returns, and one had three consecutive state audit reports with findings of deficiencies in controlling and complying with federal grant funding requirements.

In Montana, a state without an abortion ban, Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte found another way to give taxpayer money to pregnancy centers by donating a portion of his annual salary. In 2020, he pledged to give his salary to nonprofit organizations and charities, and has for the past three years included pregnancy centers in that list for a total of more than $60,000.

Idaho state Sen. Ben Adams, a Republican who sponsored a bill to establish a grant fund of $1 million for crisis pregnancy centers in 2025, told States Newsroom he felt it was important to put resources into helping people choose to have a baby. 

“We have, for a very long time, primarily through the federal government, essentially funded abortion through funding for Planned Parenthood and all these different organizations,” Adams said. “We say we’re going to restrict a woman’s access to abortion and that we’re pro-life. Well then, we actually have to be investing in those folks who are choosing life and show them that we mean it when we say we want them to choose life.”

For decades, the Hyde Amendment, a provision Congress has renewed annually, has prohibited the use of federal funding for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother’s life.

Idaho is one of a few states with an abortion ban that isn’t providing government support for crisis pregnancy centers. Adams’ bill failed by one vote in committee and faced opposition from many constituents, including a former board chairman of a crisis pregnancy center in Idaho who said subsidizing nonprofit entities with taxpayer dollars is not the proper role of government.

“Providing taxpayer funds on either side of this moral question is inappropriate,” said John Crowder in his testimony to the legislative committee, prefacing his comments by saying he is a Christian who believes life begins at conception. “Such decisions to lend financial support should be left to churches and individuals, not the government.”

Based on his knowledge of the finances of that center, Crowder said, it was clear they could meet the goals of their mission with the donations they received and “without government handouts.” 

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford contributed to this report. 

This story is part of a reporting fellowship sponsored by the Association of Health Care Journalists and supported by the Commonwealth Fund.

States Newsroom’s investigation is ongoing. If you have had an experience with a crisis pregnancy center, please get in touch at cpcproject@statesnewsroom.com.

METHODOLOGY: To identify government grant funding received by nonprofit crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), a team of States Newsroom reporters used multiple data sources. Reporters reviewed state and federal budgets and legislation to identify public funding allocated to CPCs between 2019 and 2025, with a particular focus on the period following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in June 2022, as well as in prior years, as applicable. The team did not include federal funding from sources such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families in the nationwide analysis, and state tax credit programs were also excluded.

Data reporter Amanda Watford cleaned and analyzed a publicly available dataset of CPCs originally collected by the nonprofit advocacy group Reproductive Health and Freedom Watch. Organizations that appeared to be permanently closed or did not report enough revenue to file a full IRS Form 990 were removed from the States Newsroom analysis. Watford extracted filings from ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer for about 2,000 organizations, covering 2019 to 2025. Government grant totals were only available for 217 organizations for 2023 and 2024 due to data infrastructure limitations. A separate analysis using the GivingTuesday 990 database captured basic financial and government grant data for 1,243 organizations between 2019 and 2023. Watford combined the 2019-2023 GivingTuesday data and 2023-2024 ProPublica data. The total amount of government funding provided to CPCs was calculated for each year, yielding a grand total of nearly $1.3 billion across 1,259 CPCs between 2019 and 2024.

This analysis is not comprehensive. Some IRS Form 990 filings were unavailable digitally, and some organizations did not report any government grant funding, so grant funding reported outside the available electronic filings was not fully captured. Financial information available through IRS Form 990 filings is self-reported by organizations to the IRS and is not independently audited. Additionally, there is a lag between when organizations are expected to file returns and when filings are publicly available. Due to these factors, the States Newsroom  findings likely undercount the total amount of public, government funding directed to CPCs. An estimated 2,633 CPCs were operating in the United States in 2024, according to research from the University of Georgia.

ORLANDO, Fla.,- International Motors, LLC* (“International”) announced the International and IC Bus Dealer of the Year award winners at its annual dealer meeting this week in Orlando. This event is an opportunity for International to celebrate the successes of the dealer network from the previous year. More importantly, it is a moment to align our strategy to ensure we deliver quality solutions for our customers every day.

The 2025 Dealer of the Year award winners were selected based on their performance in several criteria, such as vehicle sales, parts sales, International S13 Integrated Powertrain sales, and service dwell time. Growth in key areas like market share, customer experience survey results, and leveraging solutions through International Financial are additional data points used to make Dealer of the Year selections.

“The annual International dealer meeting is always an exciting event because it brings our network together,” said Dan Kayser, executive vice president, Commercial Operations, International. “Our truck and bus dealers are our closest partners, and they work hard every day to give customers a dependable, consistent experience. This event celebrates that partnership and the strength we have when we’re aligned as one International.”

2025 International U.S. and Canada Dealer of the Year: Wieland Truck and Trailer

Michigan-based Wieland Truck and Trailer had an impressive year, exceeding their targets across the board — from parts growth and truck sales to significant gains in customer experience and market share. They achieved nearly seven times their goal for conquest customer count.

“Customers count on dealers who act as true partners, and Wieland Truck and Trailer delivered above and beyond that promise,” said Justina Morosin, senior vice president, Sales and Field Operations, International. “Their accomplishments are a direct result of their focus and customer first approach, and we’re proud of the consistency and care their team brings to every interaction.”

“Being named Dealer of the Year is an incredible honor, and I’m proud of what our team accomplished this past year,” said Rob Cleary, dealer principal, Wieland Truck and Trailer. “Customers expect a partner who can support them across their entire operation, and our team takes that responsibility seriously. I’m looking forward to celebrating with them at the dealership and seeing what we achieve in the year ahead.”

Wieland Truck and Trailer, founded in the 1930s, has three locations in Michigan.

2025 International Latin America Dealer of the Year: Capasa

Capasa was selected as the Dealer of the Year winner because of their commitment to achieving a unique customer experience through comprehensive solutions and support.

“Capasa puts customers at the center of what they do,” said Rafael Alvarenga, vice president, Latin America Commercial Operations, International. “Their commitment to providing effective solutions and strong support makes a meaningful impact across Latin America and sets a strong example for our entire dealer network.”

“It’s an honor to be named Dealer of the Year. We take great pride in offering transportation solutions that support our customers at every stage of their operations,” said Luis Gerardo Amarante Alvarado, dealer principal, Capasa. “This award is a celebration of our team’s effort and commitment, and I look forward to what we’ll accomplish in the year ahead.”

Capasa was founded in 1962 to meet the needs of the state of Sinaloa, Mexico. They have a presence in the cities of Culiacán, Los Mochis, Mazatlán and Guamúchil and in the state of Baja California Sur in the cities of Los Cabos and La Paz.

2025 IC Bus Dealer of the Year: Midwest Transit Equipment

Midwest Transit Equipment’s strong commitment to excellence, commercial execution and customer support made them a perfect fit for IC Bus Dealer of the Year. They exceeded their target in orders, advanced battery-electric vehicle readiness and adoption, and completed training with extensive customer-facing engagement.

“Our dealers play an essential role in providing safe, dependable transportation for students,” said Charles Chilton, vice president and general manager, IC Bus. “Midwest Transit Equipment embodies what it means to be part of IC Bus through their teamwork, customer focus and dedication to building a stronger future for our industry. We’re proud of their team for the example they set for our network.”

“Celebrating our 50th year and being named IC Bus Dealer of the Year is an incredible honor for us,” said John McKinney, chairman, Midwest Transit Equipment. “Our team is committed to trust, collaboration and setting a high standard for the customers and communities we serve. I’m grateful for their effort and excited to celebrate this achievement together.”

Midwest Transit Equipment is the largest volume school bus dealership in the United States. They have nine locations and a team of 300 employees.

To find your nearest International or IC Bus dealer in the U.S. and Canada visit the dealer locators on International.com or ICBus.com. For distributors in Mexico and Latin America, search Mexico.International.com and Latin-America.InternationalCamiones.com.

About International:
Based in Lisle, Illinois, International Motors, LLC* creates solutions that deliver greater uptime and productivity to our customers throughout the full operation of our commercial vehicles. We build International trucks and engines and IC Bus school and commercial buses that are as tough and as smart as the people who drive them. We also develop Fleetrite aftermarket parts. In everything we do, our vision is to accelerate the impact of sustainable mobility to create the cleaner, safer world we all deserve. As of 2021, we joined Scania, MAN and Volkswagen Truck & Bus in TRATON GROUP, a global champion of the truck and transport services industry. To learn more, visit www.International.com.

The post International Motors Honors 2025 Dealers of the Year appeared first on School Transportation News.

Traveling the world and studying how children get to school has given me a deep appreciation for the difference in how nations approach something as simple—and as complicated—as pupil transportation.

Last month, I compared systems in the U.S. and India. This month, my attention is on Colombia, a country whose breathtaking geography, social dynamics and history shape the school commute in ways that most Americans would never experience in their daily lives. Despite all the differences, the underlying mission remains the same everywhere I go. Communities getting children safely to school so they can learn, grow and reach their potential.

When I think about school transportation in the U.S., the image that immediately comes to mind is that familiar yellow school bus. It’s amazing how recognizable it is—even internationally. No matter where I travel, people know what that yellow bus symbolizes. It represents regulation, structure, stability and the idea that education begins the moment a child steps into a professionally operated transportation system. Nearly 25 million children ride these buses every school day, making it the largest mass transportation system in the U.S. And it operates with a level of uniformity that, in many places around the world, is simply unheard of.

This system isn’t accidental. American school buses are purpose-built from the ground up with safety in mind: Compartmentalized seating, high visibility, reinforced frames, stop arms, flashing lights, emergency exits, and strict federal standards. As someone who has spent years in the fields of safety and security, I’m constantly impressed by the investment our country places in the transportation of its students. And it’s not just the equipment—it’s the people. In the U.S., drivers undergo specialized training not only in vehicle operation but also in behavior management, first aid, emergency evacuation, situational awareness, and increasingly, how to identify potential security threats. Whether you’re in a rural district in Missouri, a suburb in Ohio, or a dense metropolitan area like Chicago or Phoenix, you can expect the same level of commitment and consistency.

Of course, our system has challenges. Anyone who works in pupil transportation knows the constant struggle with driver shortages, bus replacements, new technology integration, and motorists who still don’t understand—or choose to ignore—stop arms. But even with those obstacles, the foundation is solid. There are predictable structures and regulated safety nets that American families have come to trust.

Colombia presents a very different picture—one shaped by dramatic landscapes, economic diversity and a transportation network that must continuously adapt. When I’ve spent time in Colombia’s major cities—Bogotá and Medellín—I’ve seen buses that closely resemble those in the U.S., often operated by private schools or contracted services. These buses usually include attendants responsible for helping younger children board and exit the vehicle safely. The presence of attendants is especially important in cities where the traffic congestion is unlike anything most Americans experience on a regular basis. A 30-minute ride in an American suburb might easily become an hour or more in Bogotá, simply because clogged streets and gridlock are daily realities.

Yet even these city operations are only part of Colombia’s story. Once you leave the urban centers, the transportation landscape changes dramatically. The country’s geography is breathtaking but unforgiving—towering Andean mountains, deep valleys, dense rainforests and winding rural roads carved into hillsides. In small towns and rural villages, I’ve watched children board brightly painted chivas—rugged, colorful buses that are as much a symbol of rural Colombia as the yellow bus is in America. I’ve ridden in colectivos, the shared vans that serve as the backbone of transportation for many families. I’ve seen children climb onto the backs of motorcycles driven by parents or hired riders. In river communities, I’ve watched entire groups of students load into wooden boats at daybreak, drifting along waterways to reach schools that are otherwise inaccessible.

One of the most striking sights I’ve encountered in isolated Andean regions is students traveling to school on horseback or mule-back. For them, it is entirely normal—simply the most reliable way to traverse rugged mountain trails that no motorized vehicle could safely navigate. To an American child, that might sound like something out of a storybook. But in these communities, it is simply life.

These different methods bring different safety challenges. In the U.S., we worry about motorists illegally passing stopped school buses, maintaining aging fleets, rolling out electric buses, securing qualified drivers, and ensuring that our transportation teams are supported and properly trained. The hazards we face largely come from human behavior and modern roadway issues.

In Colombia, the risks can be far more varied and unpredictable. I’ve seen narrow mountain roads so tight that one wrong turn would send a vehicle over a steep drop-off. I’ve seen roads washed out by landslides during the rainy season—forcing communities to carve temporary alternative routes or walk long distances. Some rural roads never see maintenance at all. In certain areas, the presence of criminal or terrorist groups adds an entirely different dimension of risk that American school transportation rarely encounters. Despite these challenges, Colombian communities continue to show remarkable resilience and ingenuity. Many rural drivers have an almost intuitive understanding of the landscape, knowing which curves are the most dangerous, which areas flood quickly, and where rocks tend to fall after a storm.

What stands out the most to me in Colombia is the power of community. I’ve seen neighbors without children pitch in money to keep an old community van running so other people’s children don’t have to trek miles through dangerous terrain. I’ve watched drivers show immense pride in their role because they know they are providing children with opportunities that could shape their futures. I’ve seen parents walk hand-in-hand with their kids along muddy roads, ensuring they reach the main path where they can catch a ride. In indigenous communities, I’ve witnessed elders accompany groups of children through forest paths—viewing education as a shared responsibility rather than an individual task.

Back in the U.S., that same commitment exists, but it takes a different form. Our strength lies in structure—transportation departments with budgets, routing software, regulations, and formalized training programs. Drivers form long-term bonds with students. Administrators work behind the scenes to ensure compliance and safety. School boards debate funding for improvements because they recognize that transportation is not just a logistical service—it’s a vital part of education.

---

Related: What Differs Between Pupil Transportation in the U.S. and the U.K.?
Related: Report: Inequities in Canadian Electric School Bus Transition Threaten At-risk Populations
Related: Routes Around the World: Quarterly Quotes From Anson Stewart

---

As I compare school buses in the U.S. and Columbia, I keep coming back to the fact that the vehicles may look different, the roads may be different, and the challenges may come in different forms, but the heart behind the work is the same. Whether a child is riding a chiva in the mountains, a wooden boat in the Amazon basin, a motorcycle through a rural town, or a yellow school bus in Texas, the journey to school symbolizes hope, opportunity, and the shared belief that education matters.

Next month, I’ll continue exploring pupil transportation across the globe as we examine Germany. Every country I visit teaches me something new—not just about transportation, but about culture, community, and the universal commitment to keeping children safe as they pursue their futures.

---

Bret E. Brooks is the chief operating officer for Gray Ram Tactical, LLC, a Missouri-based international consulting and training firm specializing in transportation safety and security. He is a keynote speaker, author of multiple books and articles, and has trained audiences around the world. Reach him directly at BretBrooks@GrayRamTacticalTraining.com.

The post Pupil Transportation Around the World: A Comparative Look at the U.S. and Colombia appeared first on School Transportation News.

A coalition of U.S. power companies is demanding ​“immediate action” from the Trump administration to roll back federal regulation of toxic coal ash and rescind recent enforcement actions.

A Jan. 15 letter to Lee Zeldin, President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, outlines specific steps the federal government should take to relieve power companies of their obligations to prevent coal ash from contaminating groundwater. The letter, which was obtained by Canary Media and has not previously been reported on, is signed by executives representing a dozen power-plant operators that collectively hold over half a billion cubic yards of the dangerous material, a byproduct of burning coal in power plants.

“These are powerful corporations asking for the administration to do their bidding even if those actions put health and the environment at risk, which they certainly will,” said Lisa Evans, senior attorney for Earthjustice, which compiled groundwater monitoring data in 2022 revealing the scope of coal-ash pollution that will remain in the U.S. even after a transition to clean electricity.

The companies represented in the letter are Duke Energy; Vistra; Southern Illinois Power Cooperative; Ohio Valley/Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corp.; Talen Energy; Louisville Gas & Electric/​Kentucky Utilities; Gavin Power LLC; City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri; Basin Electric Power Cooperative in North Dakota; and the Lower Colorado River Authority.

The federal government lacked specific coal-ash regulations until 2015, when the Obama administration adopted rules following a long, contentious process. The standards omitted ​“legacy” coal ash stored in landfills and repositories that had closed before the rules took effect, and they were barely enforced until 2022, when the Biden administration made them a priority.

After years of litigation by environmental advocates, EPA last spring expanded cleanup requirements to include legacy impoundments, closing a major loophole that helped power-plant operators skirt responsibility for toxic pollution at scores of sites nationwide. Those rules are currently in effect but are being challenged in federal court by Republican attorneys general and power-industry groups.

The industry letter calls on the EPA to drop its legal defense of the legacy impoundment rules. It also asks the agency to rescind its prohibition on scattering coal ash to build up land, a practice companies call ​“beneficial reuse” that experts say can be extremely dangerous. In Town of Pines, Indiana, for example, this practice led to a massive Superfund cleanup.

The letter demands EPA revoke its closure order and guidance on coal ash at the Gavin Power Plant in Ohio, noting that the case could provide precedent for lawsuits concerning other sites. The EPA’s decision on the Gavin plant affirms that the 2015 rules prohibit leaving coal ash in contact with groundwater; industry groups filed a lawsuit arguing the rules actually do not mean that.

The letter also calls for the Trump administration to review other previous EPA enforcement at specific sites, ​“in light of new priorities.” And it calls for review of contracts awarded for coal-ash enforcement.

A Duke Energy spokesperson declined to comment. Vistra and Southern Illinois Power Cooperative did not respond to messages and emails sent Monday evening. 

Evans disputed the letter’s contention that federal coal-ash regulations are not ​“practical and based on demonstrated risk.” 

“Their claims are nonsense and unfounded,” Evans said. ​“For the Trump administration, it doesn’t matter whether these arguments have any merit; it matters who is asking.”

The vast majority of coal-ash sites nationwide are contaminating groundwater, companies’ own data shows. Duke Energy has excavated ash from a number of sites in North Carolina, following criminal charges related to the 2014 Dan River spill. Talen’s coal ash in Montana is putting the Northern Cheyenne Tribe at risk. American Electric Power, former owner of the Gavin plant, bought out the entire town of Cheshire, Ohio, because of pollution from the plant.

The industry letter also calls on Zeldin to ​“quickly rescind” a new EPA rule that would force fossil-fuel plants to install technology to drastically scale back their emissions. Dozens of states and companies are challenging that rule in federal court. As a Congress member from New York, Zeldin frequently voted against environmental protections. He also pledged to overturn the state’s ban on fracking during an unsuccessful run for governor.

The letter says the rules ​“threaten the reliability of the power grid, jeopardize national security, are a drag on economic growth, increase inflation, and hinder the expansion of electric power generation” needed for AI and other technologies.

Prior to Trump’s reelection, the EPA was increasingly prioritizing coal ash. In 2023, the agency announced coal ash was among six top enforcement priorities for fiscal years 2024 through 2027, saying failure to comply with the rules can cause significant ​“harm to human health and the environment … through catastrophic releases of contaminants into the air or contamination of groundwater, drinking water, or surface water.”

To change rules enshrined in federal law, the EPA would need to initiate a lengthy rulemaking process that includes public comment. Any new rules would need to meet standards in the Administrative Procedure Act, including having a ​“rational basis,” as the act says. If the agency were to adopt rules that failed to meet these criteria, advocacy groups would likely sue.

“You can’t just revoke a rule and replace it with one that’s friendly to industry,” said Evans. ​“If the reality is coal ash is contaminating groundwater at nearly every site in the country, it’s going to be hard for the Trump administration to write a rule that allows utilities to continue to pollute.”

Power companies pressure Trump EPA to roll back rules on toxic coal ash is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

States took on the mantle of combating climate change during the first Trump administration. Now they need to redouble the work during the second. 

That’s the message that Caroline Spears, executive director of Climate Cabinet, has for state lawmakers following Trump’s victory on Tuesday. 

As an advocacy organization that helps state and local leaders ​“run, win, and legislate on climate change,” Climate Cabinet supported more than 170 candidates in Tuesday’s election. As of midday Wednesday, when Spears spoke to Canary Media, she was feeling cautiously optimistic about the races her group had focused on: ​“About a third of them we won, about a third of them we lost, and about a third of them are still too close to call.” 

Getting climate-committed candidates into state offices can make the difference between a state enacting or preserving climate policies and it blocking or rolling back such policies, she said. For example, the 2022 midterms saw Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Minnesota secure Democratic ​“trifectas” — control of the governor’s office and both houses of the state legislature — leading to significant climate legislation being passed and signed into law in those states. 

States have ​“always been key to climate policy,” Spears said, and now, with a Trump administration expected to attempt to unravel the Biden administration’s climate policies and unleash fossil fuels, it’s ​“up to state leaders to hold the line.”

How states can keep the energy transition moving

State lawmakers and regulators have the ability to order local utilities to shut down or reduce emissions from fossil-fueled power plants and expand the share of electricity they generate from zero-carbon resources like wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear power. 

States can also require large polluters — like fossil-gas utilities — to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas they spew into the air and set emissions and energy-efficiency requirements for buildings. At present, states have the authority to adopt vehicle emissions standards that are more strict than those set by the federal government — although Trump sought to rescind that authority during his first term and may attempt to do so again. 

States also play a key role in distributing funds from the federal Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act — at least while the full laws remain on the books. 

During the first Trump administration, ​“we saw states really taking charge,” said Jeff Deyette, deputy director of clean energy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group. ​“I think that momentum has been maintained over the past eight years. This could be another boost to continue to push those state leaders … to protect what they have.” 

There’s a lot to protect. The roster of states with aggressive decarbonization targets has expanded under the Biden administration: Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington state all adopted strong emissions goals in 2021 or 2022. 

All told, 25 states and Washington, D.C., have now instituted some form of target for achieving either economywide net-zero carbon emissions, 100 percent renewable or carbon-free electricity, or both. This chart, compiled in mid-2024, includes all of these states except Vermont, which in June 2024 passed a law mandating 100 percent renewable energy by 2035 for all utilities and by 2030 for its largest utility, Green Mountain Power. 

How the 2024 election changed the state policy landscape

Clean energy and climate policies aren’t necessarily partisan issues, said Heather O’Neill, CEO of trade group Advanced Energy United. ​“We see the potential for broad agreement in states of all political stripes and persuasions,” as utilities grapple with rising electricity demand from data centers, factories, electric vehicles, and broader economic growth. ​“Advanced energy technologies are a low-cost solution to all of these challenges,” she said.

She cited the example of Texas, a red state that’s deployed more wind and utility-scale solar power than any other state and is set to pass California for having the most grid-connected batteries by year’s end. Those resources are ​“working to keep the grid reliable,” O’Neill said, as shown by the role that solar and batteries played in averting grid emergencies this summer. 

But to date, Democratic control has been a prerequisite for passing aggressive climate or clean-energy legislation in almost every state that has done so. The exception is North Carolina, where the GOP-controlled legislature passed a law in 2021 mandating that Duke Energy, the state’s biggest utility, cut carbon emissions 70 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and reach net-zero emissions by 2050. 

Heading into the election, 17 states had Democratic trifectas and 23 states had Republican trifectas. No state appears to be on a path to form a new Democratic trifecta as a result of the election; rather, Democrats have lost full control in Michigan and might do the same in Minnesota. 

“We were in defense mode in Minnesota and Michigan,” Spears said. 

In Michigan, Republicans gained a majority in the state House of Representatives, while Democrats retained a majority in the state Senate and Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer still has two more years in her term. That means the state is likely to protect a slate of climate bills passed in 2023, including a mandate for the state’s two big utilities to reach 80 percent carbon-free electricity by 2035 and 100 percent by 2040. 

The situation in Minnesota is still up in the air. As of Thursday evening, the state House was evenly split between parties, with two remaining races set for automatic recounts due to razor-thin vote differences. But Democrats retained their majority in the state Senate, and Democratic Gov. Tim Walz remains in office. Even if Republicans end up narrowly controlling the House, they likely won’t be able to overturn the state’s 2023 law requiring power utilities to use 100 percent clean electricity by 2040 or a slate of bills creating incentives for electric vehicles and converting homes and buildings to more efficient electric heating. 

In Pennsylvania, a state where Democrats were thought to have a chance at forming a new trifecta, Republicans appear set to retain their majority in the state Senate. Democrats could maintain their thin majority in the state House, but the outcome depends on three races that have yet to be called. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro has proposed a carbon cap-and-invest program that would collect funds from power plants and use them to lower electric bills and support clean energy projects, but it’s unlikely to pass without Democratic majorities in both houses of the state legislature. 

The clearest victories for candidates backed by Climate Cabinet in this election cycle have been in North Carolina and Wisconsin, Spears said — though their wins did not give Democrats legislative majorities.

In Wisconsin, gains by Democrats eliminated a Republican supermajority in the Senate, giving Democratic Gov. Tony Evers the ability to veto legislation out of line with his climate agenda, she said. 

In North Carolina, Democrat Josh Stein, the state attorney general who won his race to succeed Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, will, ​“unlike his predecessor, have a veto pen that works, because we broke the supermajority” in the state House, she said. Republicans used that supermajority to override Cooper’s veto of a bill that weakened the efficiency requirements in building codes for new homes in the state. 

Voters also chalked up some climate wins with state ballot measures in Tuesday’s election. Californians passed a $10 billion climate bond that included $850 million for clean energy infrastructure — the largest of a number of local and state climate and environmental bonds passed across the country, which together will invest $18 billion. And Washington state voters rejected a ballot initiative that would have rolled back its landmark 2021 climate law. 

Turning pledges into action 

For the states that have already managed to get climate goals on the books, living up to those commitments is now even more urgent. 

State climate mandates must be followed up with continuous action from regulators, utilities, and private-sector actors to translate into actual emissions reductions. Right now, it’s far from clear that the states with decarbonization goals are on track to achieve their targets. 

A 2023 report from the Environmental Defense Fund found that the 24 states with ambitious targets were on track to cut emissions only 27 to 39 percent by 2030, well below the 50 percent reductions they’re aiming for. Since then, more states have found themselves falling behind on their climate targets, including the two most populous — the Democratic strongholds of California and New York.

California is lagging on its goal of reducing carbon emissions 48 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, according to a June report. Meanwhile, New York state has yet to finalize a cap-and-invest strategy to hit its target of 100 percent carbon-free energy by 2040 and is off track to hit its utility-scale solar and wind targets, although it has achieved its goals for distributed and community solar projects. 

For the energy transition to continue despite the headwinds of a second Trump administration, these two leading states — and the others that have enshrined decarbonization goals in law — need to do all they can to deliver on their climate commitments. 

Should Trump gut the Inflation Reduction Act, the task at hand for these states will become more difficult. Some analysts doubt this will happen because the law has funneled billions into red states and thereby earned some Republican defenders.

The law’s litany of clean energy tax credits make solar, wind, and storage projects into no-brainers; they were already cost-competitive with fossil fuels before the subsidies. The EV incentives help bring the cost of electric models in line with gas cars. Its bevy of grant programs — from money for bolstering the grid to funding for home electrification and low-income solar — are helping states transition away from fossil fuels. 

All of this makes it far cheaper and easier for states to achieve their clean energy targets and emissions-reduction goals. 

It’s unclear which of the Biden administration’s climate accomplishments will remain intact — but what is clear is the ever more urgent need for states to push forward on their climate goals, however difficult that may become.

After Trump win, it’s up to states to lead on climate action is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

The Biden administration has enacted the most consequential federal clean energy and climate policy in U.S. history, giving the nation a fighting chance at reducing greenhouse gas emissions fast enough to deal with the climate crisis. Former President Donald Trump, who has won the 2024 presidential election, has pledged to undo that work.

Though Trump’s executive powers will allow him to slow the energy transition in a number of ways, the extent to which he rolls back Biden’s clean energy accomplishments will be dictated in part by whether Republicans retain control of the House of Representatives. The GOP flipped the U.S. Senate, but votes are still being counted in key House races as of Wednesday morning.

Here’s what clean energy and climate experts say is most likely to be lost under a second Trump administration — and what might survive.

What Trump has said about energy

Trump’s rhetoric presages a worst-case future. He has called climate change a hoax and the Biden administration’s climate policies a ​“green new scam.” He has said he wants to repeal the landmark Inflation Reduction Act and halt the law’s hundreds of billions of dollars of tax credits, grants, and other federal incentives for clean energy, electric vehicles, and other low-carbon technologies.

Trump has also made ​“drill, baby, drill” a call-and-response line at his rallies, pledging to undo any restraints on production and use of the fossil fuels driving climate change. U.S. oil and gas production is already at a record high under the Biden administration.

“He has pledged to do the bidding for Big Oil on day one,” Andrew Reagan, executive director of Clean Energy for America, said during a recent webinar.

“Oil and gas lobbyists are drafting executive orders for him to sign on day one,” Reagan added, citing news reports of plans from oil industry groups to roll back key Biden administration regulations and executive orders.

A Trump administration would be all but certain to reverse key Environmental Protection Agency regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, and the oil and gas industry, all of which analysts say are necessary to meet the country’s climate commitments. It’s also almost sure to lift the Biden administration’s pause on federal permitting of fossil-gas export facilities.

Trump has also promised to withdraw the U.S. from international climate agreements (again), including the Paris agreement aimed at limiting global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

“We know that Trump would take us out of the Paris agreement, and that would be the last time his administration uttered the word ​‘climate,’” Catherine Wolfram, an economist at the MIT Sloan School of Management and former deputy assistant secretary for climate and energy economics in the Biden administration’s Treasury Department, told Canary Media. ​“Losing that global leadership would be one of the greatest losses of a Trump presidency.”

What will happen to the Inflation Reduction Act? 

Trump won’t have the power to enact all of his promises on his own. Some of the decisions must be made by Congress, including any effort to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act or to claw back unspent funds from that law or the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law.

Complete repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act would be highly disruptive to a clean energy sector that has seen planned investment grow to roughly $500 billion since the law was passed in mid-2022.

It would also undermine clean energy job growth, which has increased at roughly twice the pace of U.S. employment overall. A recent survey of clean energy companies found that a repeal of the law would be expected to lead to half of them losing business or revenue, roughly one-quarter losing projects or contracts, about one-fifth laying off workers, and about one in 10 going out of business. 

“We found that especially rural areas and smaller rural communities would experience the largest negative impacts of repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act,” Shara Mohtadi, co-founder of S2 Strategies, said in an October webinar presenting the survey data. ​“These are the regions of the country that have seen the biggest uptake in the economic benefits and the manufacturing jobs coming from other countries into the United States.”

Indeed, most of the investment and job growth the IRA has spurred has taken place in states and congressional districts represented by Republicans.

These on-the-ground realities have driven expectations that large swaths of the law’s tax credits would be likely to survive even with Republican control of the White House and both houses of Congress. Trump would face pushback within his own party to undoing the law entirely.

In an August letter to current Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), 18 House Republicans warned against repealing the clean energy and manufacturing tax credits created by the Inflation Reduction Act, which have ​“spurred innovation, incentivized investment, and created good jobs in many parts of the country — including many districts represented by members of our conference.”

“Prematurely repealing energy tax credits, particularly those which were used to justify investments that already broke ground, would undermine private investments and stop development that is already ongoing,” the 18 House Republicans wrote. ​“A full repeal would create a worst-case scenario where we would have spent billions of taxpayer dollars and received next to nothing in return.”

Republicans would need a roughly 20-seat majority to overcome opposition from these party members opposed to a full repeal, said Harry Godfrey, head of the federal investment and manufacturing working group of trade group Advanced Energy United.

“I don’t envision Republicans holding the House with 20-plus seats,” he said.

Godfrey also doubted that a Trump administration would be eager to undermine the domestic manufacturing boom that the law’s tax credits have spurred. He noted that at the October 1 vice-presidential debate, J.D. Vance, the Republican Ohio senator and Trump’s running mate, emphasized the need for the U.S. to ​“consolidate American dominance” in key energy sectors and industries now dominated by China.

While Vance went on to falsely accuse the Biden administration of failing to bolster U.S. industries against China, the goal of emphasizing domestic competitiveness could lead Republicans to avoid undermining progress in that direction, he suggested.

How Trump’s second term could derail the clean energy transition is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

The presidential election may well decide the future of the United States’ ambitious new clean energy agenda, but a handful of smaller, less-discussed races will have a more immediate and direct impact on the energy transition in several different states.

Public utility commissions regulate the monopoly utilities that operate in each state, voting on such matters as what power plants utilities can build and how much money they can charge their captive customers. Each state’s PUC contains three to five commissioners, making the officials some of the most powerful people in the U.S. energy transition. In most states, governors appoint these leaders — but in 10 states, voters elect them.

This November, eight of those states have active races for at least one PUC commissioner: Alabama, Arizona, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. Georgia canceled its 2024 PUC elections because the state’s bizarre hybrid structure for PUC elections has resulted in a lawsuit claiming voter discrimination: PUC commissioners each represent one of five districts, but they are elected statewide, so the members of each district don’t get to decide who represents them.

Utilities recognize the importance of supporting candidates who share their interests, and spend money accordingly. But most regular people often feel little personal connection to the races or the arcane bureaucracy that unfolds at the commissions, and it can be hard to focus on these details against the raucous political backdrop of a general election.

“These PUC commissioners have the power to determine people’s utility bills, the quality of their utility service, and how their utilities are making investments in different forms of energy,” PUC advocate Charles Hua told Canary Media. ​“Yet, few people can name their state’s PUC commissioners or explain what they do.”

After stints at the Department of Energy and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, Hua launched a nonprofit called PowerLines this fall to promote greater public awareness of the pivotal roles PUCs play in the clean energy transition. As a nonpartisan entity, PowerLines can’t endorse candidates, but Hua sees plenty of value in simply increasing participation in PUC elections.

That information gap around PUCs leads to ​“down-ballot dropoff,” in which voters select candidates in the better-known races but leave the PUC section blank, Hua said. That means voters miss out on ​“a democratic vehicle to engage with the public officials that are meant to serve the public interest through effective utility regulation.”

The implications for good utility regulation are especially high this year for anyone interested in the transition to cleaner energy, not to mention equity and affordability.

Commissioners control how much electric and gas utilities can charge customers, at a time of soaring energy bills. They’re also uniquely positioned to help get the U.S. grid on track to meet climate goals, at least on a state-by-state level, by approving more cheap, clean energy instead of letting utilities continue to expand fossil-fueled infrastructure. And PUCs can direct utilities to rebuild their grids in a more resilient way following destructive extreme weather like hurricanes Helene and Milton.

PUC commissioners wade through the technocratic morass of utility regulation and make choices that affect Americans’ pocketbooks. That’s why Hua says it’s so important for those who have the opportunity to vote in PUC races to do so, and to keep an eye on what their commission does the rest of the time.

With that in mind, let’s take a closer look at Arizona and Louisiana, two states where the stakes for the clean energy transition are particularly high this year.

Arizona could return to ambitious clean energy policy

Three of five seats are up for the Grand Canyon State’s PUC, which is called the Arizona Corporation Commission. Anna Tovar, the lone Democrat on the commission, is not running for reelection, nor is Republican James O’Connor. Republican Lea Márquez Peterson is running for another four-year term.

Arizonans get to vote statewide for the slate of PUC commissioners, and the top three vote-getters each win a seat. There are three Democrats and three Republicans running, and Arizona’s closely contested recent election cycles mean anything could happen — the commission could swing in a more pro–clean energy direction, or toward more fossil-friendly regulation.

That’s significant, because the ACC’s recent past illustrates the power of elected PUCs more clearly than perhaps in any other state. In 2018, the all-Republican commission boldly rebuked the planning proposal from the state’s largest utility, Arizona Public Service. Then the commissioners went further, imposing a moratorium on new gas plant construction, based on conservative principles: With the energy sector changing so quickly, they wouldn’t let utilities charge their customers for a bunch of expensive gas plants when other quickly maturing options could prove more cost-effective.

Those commissioners later developed their own clean energy standard, and nearly approved it, which would have been a rare instance of a proactive clean energy target coming from a PUC instead of a legislature. But the commission’s debate dragged on as state politics became increasingly contentious, and the proposal was ultimately voted down 3-2 in January 2022. Early this year, the commission voted to end the meager renewable energy standard that had been on the books for 15 years.

In AZ Central’s survey of PUC candidate views, Democrats Ylenia Aguilar, Jonathon Hill, and Joshua Polacheck each affirmed that they want Arizona to tap into more of its renewable power potential. If elected, they could push to revive the clean electricity standard, although that would be a long shot. They could also push to strengthen policies for energy efficiency and distributed energy.

That’s not to say the Republicans oppose clean energy — they just equate binding clean energy targets with adding costs for customers, which they oppose.

For instance, Márquez Peterson says she ​“supports the voluntary commitments made by our utilities for 100 percent clean and affordable energy by 2050 for Arizona.” She also wants to ​“avoid costly mandates and corporate subsidies.” Republican Rachel Walden told AZ Central that ​“forced energy investments and climate goals put the ratepayer last and thwart free market principles.”

This line of argument leaves it to utilities to pursue their own corporate targets. As it happens, solar power in dry, sunny Arizona is ridiculously cheap, and the utilities have jumped on the trend. But the lack of a long-term roadmap for the state leaves room for more gas construction in the meantime, and complicates the kind of long-term planning needed to achieve a carbon-free grid in the coming decades.

Whoever wins, the commission is sure to face capacious gas-plant proposals from utilities to meet soaring demand for data centers and new chip factories (plus some lithium-ion battery manufacturing) in the Phoenix area.

Louisiana to replace swing vote on energy issues

Louisiana’s PUC just did something the state government never accomplished: pass a modern energy-efficiency program to save households money. Now one of the architects of that program is retiring, and voters can pick his replacement.

Advocates had pushed for such a program for years, but it finally passed thanks to two commissioners with seemingly dissimilar perspectives: progressive Democrat Davante Lewis, who campaigned on climate justice; and Republican Craig Greene, a former LSU football player and orthopedic surgeon who supports market-based reforms. They both found common ground in the desire to push the state’s monopoly utility to invest in measures to reduce wasteful energy consumption and thereby save customers money. The commissioners recently selected a third-party administrator to run this program.

“Commissioner Greene has been an important champion for things like energy efficiency, and has even taken steps to move renewable energy forward in the state,” said Logan Burke, executive director of the Louisiana consumer advocacy nonprofit Alliance for Affordable Energy. ​“The seat he is in has historically been considered a ​‘swing’ vote between the two red and two blue districts.”

But Greene decided not to seek reelection as a commissioner, which in Louisiana is a part-time role. That means his seat in District 2 is up for grabs: If Greene’s successor doesn’t share his support for the efficiency measures, it could jeopardize the fledgling, long-awaited program. And this swing vote could prove decisive in decisions on new power-plant construction to meet an expected surge in electricity demand.

Democrat Nick Laborde is competing with Republicans Jean-Paul Coussan and Julie Quinn for the seat. Some 70 percent of voters in this district picked Donald Trump for president in 2020, according to the local outlet Louisiana Illuminator.

Laborde has business experience running a consulting firm and serving as product manager at NOLA Crawfish Bread, an unusually delicious experience for a prospective utility regulator. He has said he supports more renewables and wants to ​“make utilities pay more instead of raising your bill.”

Coussan’s campaign website doesn’t say much about his views on the energy system, but he does promise to regulate as ​“a true conservative watchdog, and someone who understands the importance of the role that affordable and reliable energy plays in bringing jobs to our state.” That assertion could mean Coussan would stand up to utility attempts to raise rates on customers; then again, utilities in Louisiana and elsewhere have used an emphasis on ​“reliability” to push for expensive gas-plant construction in circumstances of dubious value.

Quinn promises to ​“rein in unnecessary utility company spending that results in rising utility rates,” and to ​“oppose liberal-thinking Green New Deal initiatives that are unrealistic and costly.” But one target of Biden administration clean energy funding has piqued her interest: Quinn would like to ​“explore micro-nuclear facilities to lower utility rates.” No commercial microreactor has been built on the U.S. grid, much less lowered anyone’s rates, despite years of trying.

The Alliance for Affordable Energy does not endorse candidates, per the rules governing 501(c)(3) nonprofits. Instead, the group focuses on get-out-the-vote efforts and education about the commission, Burke told Canary Media. She’s also keeping an eye on what candidates say about transmission planning and expansion, which could open up vast new supplies of clean energy for the state.

“If we don’t get the transmission planning we need, we’ll just get 40 more years of new gas plants,” Burke said. ​“That won’t help anyone but Entergy,” the state’s largest monopoly utility.

Clean energy is on the ballot in these utility regulator races is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.