Mark Fleming has a prediction for those terrified about the impact of a second Trump administration on the clean energy transition: “It’s going to work out better than folks think.”
Fleming is head of Conservatives for Clean Energy, a Raleigh-based nonprofit that brings together lobbyists, consultants, and politicians on the right who support clean energy. The group formed a decade ago, not long before Trump’s first term began, and is now active in six Southeast states. On Tuesday, together with the Chambers for Innovation and Clean Energy, it held its biennial luncheon in downtown Raleigh.
Coming just two weeks after an election most advocates see as a major setback for federal clean energy policy, the Raleigh event was not unlike past affairs, with congenial vibes, a half dozen awards to politicians and businesses, and presentation from leading Republican consultants assessing the political salience of clean energy.
“It was an election about the economy and immigration,” explained Paul Shumaker, one such pollster and a fixture at these gatherings. “Clean energy is never going to be the issue.”
Trump and his hostile, mostly fact-free rants on the campaign trail about wind energy and the climate crisis got little mention during the formal presentations. Side conversations showed conservatives seemed relatively unconcerned about the future president’s tirades and threats.
“Governing is different than campaigning,” Fleming said.
He and others believe much of Trump’s rhetoric was tossed as red meat to his base of supporters and won’t get meaningful follow-through. On technologies such as offshore wind — which the incoming president frequently lambasts — perhaps the administration and even the man himself can be convinced of its economic benefits, attendees suggested.
Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican who supports offshore wind in the commonwealth, “will be at the top of the list of conservative policy makers in terms of encouraging the Trump administration to look at the positives on offshore wind,” Fleming said. “It makes long term economic sense, but there’s going to be some education there.”
Nine new projects announced in North Carolina the year after the measure’s passage, from lithium processing to vehicle-charging equipment plants, will spur tens of thousands of jobs and add $10 billion to the state’s GDP, the clean economy group E2 found.
Such data should be fodder for members of Congress like Sen. Thom Tillis, North Carolina’s senior U.S. senator and a Republican, to fight to keep most of the Inflation Reduction Act’s provisions.
“He has been such a thoughtful leader on energy issues,” Fleming said of Tillis. “He’s going to be a key decision maker in the U.S. Senate on these clean energy issues moving forward.”
‘We won’t agree on everything’
Jason Saine, a Lincoln County Republican who served more than a dozen years in the North Carolina House and now works as a lobbyist, was among the luncheon’s awardees. He says Trump’s rhetoric is just part of politics.
“Good science and good facts will rule the day, but in the meantime, we’ll suffer through a lot of rhetoric,” he said.
Like some of his conservative colleagues who focus on federal policy, Fleming hopes the closely divided Congress will have new reason to enact reforms to the permitting process that will speed approval of clean energy as well as fossil fuel projects.
And though he’s confident that much of the Inflation Reduction Act will survive, Fleming believes Congress will trim it — a “scalpel rather than a sledgehammer” approach.
Saine agrees. “It can always be recreated in a different format and voted on again,” he said. “What’s dead today is never dead tomorrow.”
One item in the climate law that’s ripe for repeal is the $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles, Fleming said. That incentive is spurring plenty of economic development in rural areas in the form of EV and battery factories, but it’s perceived as benefiting only urban folk.
“The administration will want wins,” Fleming insisted. “We won’t agree on everything. But I think we’ll have opportunities to work together to move the economy forward and move the clean energy cause forward in D.C.”
No matter what, most of the luncheon attendees remained focused on incremental reforms in North Carolina — where the power dynamics are largely unchanged after Nov. 5. Trump won the state, but Democrat Josh Stein trounced a scandal-plagued Republican to win the governor’s race. The GOP continues to control a heavily gerrymandered legislature and is just one vote shy of a veto-proof majority in the House.
Still, as “Trump II” approaches, Fleming acknowledged Conservatives for Clean Energy has an important role to play.
“It’s going to be better than folks think,” he repeated. “But the onus will be on all of us to make it happen. Now, groups like ours are more needed than ever. That thought leadership on these issues will be on the right. It’s not going to be from our friends on the left.”
A fracking site in Greeley, Colorado. (Andy Bosselman for Colorado Newsline)
Republican President-elect Donald Trump announced Saturday he wants Chris Wright, a Colorado oil and gas executive who denies that the world faces a “climate crisis,” to serve the new administration as Department of Energy secretary.
Wright will also be a member of the Council of National Energy, the formation of which was announced Friday. Details on the council are scarce, but it’s widely viewed as a further indication that the Trump administration intends to boost domestic fossil fuel and other energy production.
“Chris will be a key leader, driving innovation, cutting red tape, and ushering in a new ‘Golden Age of American Prosperity and Global Peace,’” a statement from the Trump transition team said.
The Energy Department oversees the nation’s nuclear infrastructure and energy policy. Wright, who grew up and still lives in Colorado, is the founder, CEO, and board chair of Liberty Energy, based in Denver.
Last year in a video he posted to LinkedIn, Wright dismissed phrases such as “climate crisis,” “energy transition” and “clean energy” as “alarmist, deceptive marketing terms.” He acknowledged that global warming has occurred, but he chafed at its characterization as a crisis.
“The only thing resembling a crisis with respect to climate change is the regressive, opportunity-squelching policies justified in the name of climate change,” he said in the video.
He suggested that any warming attributable to the burning of fossil fuels is worth the benefits, such as “wealth, health and opportunity,” that fossil fuel energy brings.
He spread misinformation in the video.
“We have seen no increase in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts or floods despite endless fearmongering of the media, politicians and activists. This is not my opinion. This is the facts as contained in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports,” he said.
“Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has further strengthened since (the previous report cycle),” the IPCC’s 2023 “synthesis” report says. “Human influence has likely increased the chance of compound extreme events since the 1950s, including increases in the frequency of concurrent heatwaves and droughts.”
Wright’s views directly contradict the Energy Department’s climate change mission under Democratic President Joe Biden.
“There is no greater challenge facing our nation and our planet than the climate crisis,” the department’s website says.
Wright’s nomination is one of several made by Trump — such as that of former Republican U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida to be attorney general and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead Health and Human Services — that appear intentionally disruptive.
“Picking someone like Chris Wright is a clear sign that Trump wants to turn the U.S. into a pariah petrostate,” Jean Su, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s energy justice program, said in a statement. “He’s damning frontline communities and our planet to climate hell just to pad the already bloated pockets of fossil fuel tycoons.”
Biden’s Department of Energy secretary is Jennifer Granholm, former Democratic Michigan governor.
Colorado Newsline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Colorado Newsline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Quentin Young for questions: info@coloradonewsline.com. Follow Colorado Newsline on Facebook and X.
A successful regional collaboration to secure federal Inflation Reduction Act money in northeast Ohio has inspired a new, ongoing effort to help cities, counties, utilities and community groups coordinate on clean energy.
Three Cleveland-area foundations last month announced the launch of Power Up Local, which aims to play both a matchmaker and wedding planner role on large-scale, regional clean energy developments. The initiative plans to help connect potential partners, maximize projects’ community benefits, and facilitate joint funding opportunities such as federal grants, tax incentives, or green bank loans.
“This is really looking for the larger, more ambitious stakeholder projects that have direct stakeholder benefits,” said Daniel Gray, Power Up Local’s executive director. A big emphasis will be on assembling groups who “might not have worked with each other originally or understood where there’s an overlap” between clean energy and other goals.
The initiative could offer a new path for local leaders to advance in a place where state government remains hostile to clean energy. The continued availability of federal funding is in question following former President Donald Trump’s reelection, but Gray and others said they are confident some form of federal support for clean energy will remain during his second term.
The idea for Power Up Local grew out of collaboration among Cuyahoga County, the cities of Cleveland and Painesville, and other organizations on a $129 million grant application under the federal Climate Pollution Reduction Grant program. The application was among those awarded funding in July. It includes money for closing a coal plant and building multiple solar arrays, including on four closed landfills.
Beyond reducing pollution, the project will help lower electricity costs and generate revenue. Some of that will in turn aid in conservation efforts for the West Creek Conservancy, including lakeside access for residents in Lake County. Gray did some work on the project as director of local strategies for the Citizens Utility Board of Ohio, and local philanthropic support also helped in assembling the grant application.
The Cleveland Foundation, George Gund Foundation and the Fund for Our Economic Future are providing initial funding for Power Up Local. Initially, the program’s three full-time employees are being housed under Fund for Our Economic Future, with a goal of spinning it out as an independent nonprofit by 2027.
Gray said Power Up Local will help stakeholders think bigger and more broadly about projects. For example, a project to redevelop a former industrial site may be able to help bring in other properties from a land bank or other group, potentially expanding into an economic redevelopment district that might support a microgrid, he suggested.
“We can add efficiency to projects, both financially and timewise,” Gray said.
Power Up Local will be a resource for organizations that want to add clean energy to a project but may not have the time or bandwidth to figure out how to do it. “They don’t necessarily know how to engage the marketplace,” Gray said.
And when it comes to funding, competitive grants will just be part of the story. A range of other credits or incentives can also help bring more clean energy. That raised a question, said Stephen Love, program director for environmental initiatives at the Cleveland Foundation: “What would it look like at scale beyond just the competitive grants to really unlock the whole scale of federal resources?”
While Power Up Local will work on clean energy projects, those projects must still be “net-neutral or revenue-positive” in order to promote economic development, Gray said. “We’re looking to develop as much community benefit as possible.”
Those benefits can come from lower electricity rates for people with high energy burdens, health benefits from lower pollution, job opportunities, conservation, access to parks, redevelopment of properties to attract businesses, and so on.
“This is about economic development. This is about creating economic opportunity in our communities,” said Love. As he sees it, clean energy can help drive that development.
Uncertainties ahead
No one knows what Trump’s presidential victory will mean for federal clean energy funding, but advocates are confident some funding will still be available.
“There are still grants to go after, and will likely still be grants to go after in the future,” Gray said. A repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law would take time, and much of the grant funding has flowed to districts that supported Trump in 2020.
Even if agencies under Trump stopped carrying out the law, “I don’t think the bulk of the IRA direct credits are going to go away,” Gray said. He noted that Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Bainbridge Township) is among 18 members of Congress who wrote to House Speaker Mike Johnson this summer to support continuation of the energy tax credits.
Atlas Public Policy’s Climate Portal Program estimates those tax credits could exceed a quarter of a trillion dollars, with nearly another $250 billion of potential credits under the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Those credits can serve as refunds for nonprofits and local governments, which is how sewage treatment authorities in Columbus and Cincinnati plan to offset big chunks of the costs for biogas plants at two of their wastewater treatment facilities.
Financing opportunities will also be available from green banks, Gray said. Commercial banks also are looking to expand their portfolios for financing clean energy projects as part of corporate sustainability goals, he noted.
Power A Clean Future Ohio has already been working for several years to help its 50 local government members find ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions, based on their individual interests and priorities. Executive Director Joe Flarida said Power Up Local’s work will be a welcome complement to its ongoing work.
“It just underscores the huge needs we have in the state of Ohio to invest locally and ensure that our local leaders and local governments have all the resources they need to do this work efficiently,” he said.
In Flarida’s view, an anti-climate approach by the incoming Trump administration “is also an anti-jobs approach.” And even if the federal government no longer treats climate change as a key priority, “that doesn’t change the reality that this is an issue we have to address head on,” he said.
Gray encourages local governments and other organizations with ideas for projects to reach out in the coming weeks and months.
“Now is the time to start thinking about what might be possible,” he said.
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.”
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.
The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. (Jennifer Shutt | States Newsroom)
In Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District, a Democratic political veteran is trying to accomplish what a string of newcomers have failed at for three decades: to unseat the Republican incumbent.
Republican U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, a former corporate lawyer from Janesville, has held the seat in the U.S. House of Representatives for three terms, following in the footsteps of his one-time boss, former Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan.
Democrat Peter Barca (Photo courtesy of Barca campaign)
Steil’s challenger, Peter Barca, a former Democratic Assembly leader from Kenosha, is seeking to return to the House in the seat he held for one term. With two stints in the Wisconsin Assembly under his belt — first in the 1980s and early ‘90s, then again from 2008 to 2019 — Barca also served as secretary for the Wisconsin Department of Revenue from 2019 until earlier this year.
In the Assembly, Barca led the Democratic caucus, but he’s also billed himself as a pragmatist open to bipartisan cooperation, both as a lawmaker and as Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ revenue secretary.
“In my career, I’ve always worked across the aisle, even when I didn’t need to,” Barca said in an interview. “Even when I left the governor’s cabinet, there was an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that quoted prominent Republicans saying, ‘Barca gets it. He knows how to work across the aisle.’”
Barca said that in conversations, voters across the district have told him “they’re very disappointed with their government. They feel like [lawmakers are] not accomplishing anything.”
The Wisconsin Examiner reached out to Steil’s campaign seeking an interview with the GOP incumbent and was referred to the communications director. Three requests via email received no response.
U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Janesville)
In a newspaper column published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Steil emphasized higher prices for groceries, gas and housing. He also called for cuts in federal spending, in federal regulation and in “wasteful government programs.”
In addition, Steil in his column called the U.S. southern border “unsecure” and that an increased flow of migrants has “allowed dangerous individuals to enter our country illegally.”
“Right now, our country is headed in the wrong direction,” the three-term congressman wrote. “I’m committed to getting us back on track.”
Republicans have had a lock on the 1st District for 30 years — ever since Barca, after serving in the House for one term, narrowly lost to a Republican in 1994. In 1998, Republican Paul Ryan of Janesville won the seat and easily held it after the district lines were redrawn twice in the GOP’s favor following the census in 2000 and 2010.
Ryan, who rose to become U.S. House Speaker, chose not to run again after 20 years. Steil, a corporate attorney who had worked for Ryan from 2003 to 2004 before law school, won the 2018 Republican nomination to succeed his former employer and was elected to the seat that November. He has been reelected twice since then.
Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District (U.S. Congress map)
The 1st District, meanwhile, was redrawn again before the 2022 election to include the industrial city of Beloit, making it more competitive,according to political analysts. Nevertheless, Steil won by 11 points after spending $2.4 million while Democratic challenger Ann Roe raised and spent about one-third of that amount.
At the start of 2024, two political newcomers were in the running for the Democratic nomination to challenge Steil. Then the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee put the 1st District on its target list and recruited Barca to run. After Barca entered the race in April with an immediate list of high-profile endorsements, the other hopefuls dropped out.
Even with more money to spend than the previous Democratic candidate, Barca heads into Election Day out-funded. As of Oct. 16, according to Federal Election Commission records, Steil has raised $5.3 million and spent $4.5 million. In the same period, Barca raised just under $2 million, spending $1.85 million.
High prices and the economy
Both campaigns center economic issues, but from contrasting vantage points.
In the first two years of the Biden administration Democrats enacted four major pieces of legislation. Two passed with only Democratic votes: the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), enacted in Biden’s first 100 days, and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. The other two, the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law and the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act, passed with some Republican support.
Steil voted against all four measures. In his Journal Sentinel column he didn’t name any of the bills but alluded generally to them, blaming the Biden administration for the inflation spike that started in 2021 and continued into 2022.
“Costs are too high,” Steil wrote. “When I’m out talking to workers, families, and seniors across Wisconsin they are struggling with higher costs due to inflation. Whether it’s prices at the grocery store, the gas station, or the cost of housing.”
Accusing the Biden administration of “reckless spending and a regulatory agenda that dramatically increased costs,” Steil asserted, “By cutting red tape, restoring energy independence, and ending wasteful government programs, we can make prices affordable for everyone.”
Mainstream economists have disputed the argument that places all the blame for the inflation spike on federal spending.
Menzie Chinn
Menzie Chinn, an economist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said in an interview that COVID-19 pandemic relief checks — issued in the last year of the Trump administration as well as after the passage of ARPA under Biden — could be responsible for about a third of the 2021 price spike.
Chinn said worldwide supply chain clogs are as much to blame for driving up prices as the federal spending infusion, however.
In late 2021 and early 2022, he said, ships were backed up at ports, businesses such as restaurants were “having a hard time getting people to come back” because of fears of catching COVID-19, and oil prices were pushed up as a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine.
“Inflation jumped way up to 9% by mid-2022,” Chinn said. “But then you look at it after that, it came down very quickly without lots of unemployment and without lots of cuts in government spending, even before the Fed started raising interest rates.”
Inflation is now back down below 3%. And while the pandemic relief funds may have contributed to the short-term inflation spike, the money they brought to households “were necessary to support the economy,” Chinn said. “And the fact that they were more generous is probably the reason that we’re [now] growing faster than Western Europe on the average.”
Attacking ‘no’ votes
Barca and Democrats are highlighting Steil’s votes against the four bills.
The infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act both included provisions aimed at boosting clean energy to help curb climate change.
At a September news conference in Racine, Mayor Cory Mason praised both bills for funding investments that enabled the city to increase its clean energy and address climate change at the local level. A reporter asked Mason, who has endorsed Barca, about Steil’s votes against the legislation.
“Having federal partners that believe investing in communities like Racine is really critically important,” said Mason. “I think it’s unfortunate that he didn’t take the opportunity to make those investments.”
The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act includes provisions to limit out-of-pocket expenses on prescriptions for Medicar recipients. (Photo by Getty Images)
Barca said that while campaigning, he has heard “a lot about middle class [people not] being able to afford things.” He criticized Steil’s vote against the Inflation Reduction Act in that light, particularly because of provisions in the law that lower Medicare drug costs.
The Inflation Reduction Act instituted a $35-a-month cap on the cost of insulin for Medicare patients. It also capped their out-of-pocket drug costs at $2,000 a year starting in 2025. And for the first time it empowered Medicare to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies on the prices of prescription drugs.
Pointing out Steil’s vote against the bill, Barca said, “If I’m in the Congress, I’ll help work to negotiate prescription drug costs for everybody, not just for Medicare.”
In his Journal Sentinel column Steil didn’t address the law directly, but wrote that he favors “more price transparency” by drug companies, including proposed legislation that would require TV drug ads to list the prices of the drugs they’re advertising.
Steil also mentioned his support of a bill nicknamed the SPIKE Act that would require drug companies “to publicly disclose why they jacked up prices.”
That legislation was introduced by Democrats in 2019 and again in 2021, but did not pass, and has not advanced in the current Congressional term.
Federal taxes
Steil was elected after the passage of a signature piece of legislation during Donald Trump’s presidential term: the 2017 tax cut.
The bill permanently cut the corporate income tax rate to 21% from 35%. It also included temporary measures — marginal tax rate cuts across the board, doubling the federal child tax credit and nearly doubling the standard deduction — which will expire Dec. 31, 2025.
Whether to extend or rewrite the 2017 law is expected to be a top issue for Congressin the coming year.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the legislation’scorporate tax rate cut only benefited the highest-paid 10% of employees. The nonprofit centeralso found that the overall law “was skewed to the rich,” giving the top 1% of households by income an average tax cut of more than $60,000 in 2025 and the bottom 60% of households an average tax cut of less than $500.
Steil has said he would support an extension and has cosponsored U.S. Houselegislation to make its cuts permanent.
“He’s voted to go along with the old system of giving all the tax breaks to the top 1%,” Barca said. “I would work to give middle-class tax relief.”
As an example, he cited a provision included in the ARPA pandemic relief bill that temporarily expandedthe federal child tax credit. Attempts to revive the expanded credit after it expired at the end of 2021foundered.
Barca has also cited his experience in the Small Business Administration, where he was a regional administrator in the 1990s after leaving Congress, as an additional qualification, along with his success in passing economic development legislation in Wisconsin. “Small businesses need help. They need technical help. They need access to capital,” he said. “Those are things I know a lot about.”
Reproductive rights and immigration
As in many state and national races this year, Barca and the Democrats are also leaning into reproductive rights.
When the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 overturned the 49-year-old Roe v. Wade decision that established a federal right to abortion, Steil praised the ruling on social media, declaring himself “proudly pro-life” on Twitter (now renamed X).
Supporters of restrictions on abortion rally July 11, 2023, in the Iowa Capitol rotunda alongside supporters of abortion rights. (Kathie Obradovich | Iowa Capital Dispatch)
Steil was among a group of Republican members of Congress who signed an amicus brief urging the Court to overturn Roe.
“Today’s decision will bring this important issue back to the states. This is a great victory for life,” Steil tweeted.
Steil has said he favors permitting abortion in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, according toWisconsin Public Radio.
Interviewed on WISN-TV, Steil dismissed the prospect of a national abortion ban. “Speaker [Michael] Johnson has made clear that a national abortion ban is not going to move forward in the House,” he told the television station. “And I would not support such a move in the House, either.”
Nevertheless, Democrats and reproductive rights advocacy groups have charged that, if Republicans win the White House and both houses of Congress, a national abortion ban would be on the agenda. They’ve also pointed to anti-abortion advocates who oppose making exceptions for rape or incest.
Barca has also cited Steil’s endorsement of Houselegislation declaring that a fetus is a “person” under the U.S. Constitution. Advocates for in-vitro fertilization (IVF) have said the law, if enacted, would threaten the technology that many couples have used to enable them to conceive children.
Steil has said he does not oppose IVF. Barca, however, said that the congressman has not signed on to legislation that would explicitly guarantee the legality of the procedure.
Steil’s campaign, and his priorities in the House in the last year, have also highlighted immigration. He has spearheaded legislation banning noncitizens from voting in all elections — they’re already excluded from voting in federal elections — and joined other Republican candidates in decrying the surge in migrants at the Southern border.
In November 2023, Steil and Republican Sen. Ron Johnson held a news conference in Whitewater to call attention to an influx of migrants that had led to strained resources in the community and blame the Biden administration’s management of the border.
Local officials and residents, however, said that event as well as publicity in right-wing mediafalsely connected the community’s immigrant population, which had been growing for years, to the short-term surge at the border. The city’s police chief also debunked claims of an immigrant-driven crime wave.
Barca has criticized Steil for joining other Republicans in Congress who disavowed a border security bill that the White House negotiated with a group of conservative GOP senators.
Congressional Republicans abandoned the deal at the urging of former President Donald Trump, who has built most of his campaign to return to office around attacking immigration.
The following commentary was written by Mel Mackinm, director of state policy at Ceres, a nonprofit that works with investors and companies to advance clean energy policy.See our commentary guidelines for more information.
Look out across Michigan and you’ll see groundbreakings for major solar panel manufacturing sites, huge investments to build battery cells, and sparkling new facilities to ensure the state stays in the driver’s seat as the auto industry moves into the future.
It seems Michigan manufacturing is having a moment.
It’s little wonder why. Michigan has always had the legacy, the workforce, the supply chains, and the know-how to serve as the epicenter of an American manufacturing renaissance. That’s exactly what’s happened since Congress finalized the nation’s largest-ever clean energy investment in the summer of 2022.
Powered by incentives for companies to manufacture and deploy clean energy infrastructure and technology here in the U.S., the Inflation Reduction Act has unlocked more than $360 billion in private-sector investment in less than two years, according to research from Climate Power. Its impact has been felt in every corner of the country with hundreds of new projects taking shape to build innovative technologies, employ hundreds of thousands of workers, and power the economy – all while cutting costs and pollution. But no other state has seen as much activity as Michigan, the site of 58 new clean energy projects.
Michigan policymakers deserve some credit for moving quickly to take full advantage of this opportunity. In 2022, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer made clear in her MI Healthy Climate Plan that she wanted to make Michigan one of the best places in the world to build and deploy clean energy. Lawmakers since followed her lead with legislation that will move the state to 100% clean electricity by 2040 and ensure clean power infrastructure can be built both quickly and responsibly – a pair of laws that boasted ample support from Michigan companies that recognize confronting climate change is also an economic opportunity.
These policies were designed to fully harness the Inflation Reduction Act, making clear that the state is ready to support the growing number of businesses that supply or rely on innovative clean technology. In response, businesses that include classic Michigan manufacturers like GM, global brands like Corning, and upstarts like Lucid Motors have flooded the state with more than $21.5 billion in new clean energy innovation and manufacturing investment, creating some 20,100 new jobs.
With projects located from Detroit to Holland to Traverse City, so much of the state is already benefitting. That includes communities that have so far been left behind in the 21st century economy. About half of the state’s recent clean energy investment is located in rural or low-income areas, such as Norm Fasteners’ $77 million facility that will create 200 electric vehicle supply chain jobs in Bath Charter Township.
Now is not the time to slow down. We are now in the throes of the 2024 election, and we all know Michigan has been getting a lot of attention. No matter what happens in November, Michigan and the U.S. must continue investing in this revamped manufacturing base. Policymakers on both sides of the aisle have prioritized rebuilding American industry to provide good jobs and bolster U.S. leadership
Michigan’s clean energy manufacturing boom provides clear evidence that this shared goal is coming to fruition. Policymakers at both the federal and state levels, along with leaders in the private sector, must maintain this momentum and the strong policy environment that will allow the U.S. and its workforce to lead the global economy in the emerging industries of the future – with Michigan, as it so often has, standing strong as the foundation.
The proposed site of the Nemadji Trail Energy Center (NTEC), (Photo courtesy of Jenny Van Sickle)
A proposed $700 million methane gas plant in Superior hit a new road bump, with the plant’s owners now moving to withdraw requests for an air permit for the facility. If the withdrawal is approved and finalized by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), then the proposed Nemadji Trail Energy Center (NTEC) would be required to go through an entirely new permitting and review process.
The development has forced companies with a stake in NTEC’s construction to re-evaluate the project. “Due to the extended timeline of the federal permit process, the Nemadji Trail Energy Center partners have requested that the [Wisconsin DNR] revoke the facility’s air permit,” said Dairyland Power Cooperative spokesperson Katie Thomson. “This is a timing issue. The window of time to construct and commission the facility allowed in the air permit is no longer achievable. Therefore, NTEC has requested the [Wisconsin DNR] revoke the project’s air permit; the project partners will determine when to re-apply based on project planning and permitting.”
Thomson added that NTEC’s owners will continue to work to ensure the project is in compliance with environmental regulations. “Recently, NTEC received its 15th regulatory agency approval, with a positive Federal Consistency Certification from the [Wisconsin Department of Administration]. We look forward to continuing to work in good faith as the approval process continues.”
Since NTEC’s owners are withdrawing their air permit application, a hearing with public testimony scheduled for Dec. 2 will likely be canceled. Ron Binzley, a permitting manager in the DNR’s Bureau of Air Management, said that processing such a request “would not take long, a matter of days at most.” Binzley said in an email to Wisconsin Examiner that if NTEC’s construction permit were also revoked, then the gas plant would not be able to break ground without first submitting a new construction permit application, and receiving that permit from the DNR.
In a correspondence to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) shared with Wisconsin Examiner, City of Superior Councilwoman Jenny Van Sickle criticized how NTEC’s owners pursued for the gas plant. Van Sickle wrote that NTEC’s developers “have repeatedly failed to disclose accurate timelines, expirations, and ignored regulators warnings; the Applicants cannot claim their filings are entered in good faith; the scope of their issues are vast and vary across local, state, and Tribal governments and are at odds with federal compliance.” She went on to write, “NTEC’s developers have failed to act where matters were easily within their control, and their overwhelming regulatory problems cannot be addressed by a single or concrete remedy. For example, the developers have not secured site control, an acid rain permit, nor federal approvals, funding, or permits.”
While NTEC’s supporters point to the plant as a way to generate energy-industry jobs, its opponents point to a diverse array of problems with the proposed facility. The plant would be constructed along a bend of the Nemadji River, 300 feet from the shoreline. That portion of the river is host to wetlands and floodplain forests, with the river itself flowing from Lake Superior. The potentially affected habitats are degraded and the Nemadji River has been listed as impaired. The DNR and city of Superior have worked to restore shoreline dunes, nesting habitats, waterways, and wild rice fields.
The rice fields particularly are important to Indigenous culture in the region, and sacred ancestral sites are located near where NTEC would operate. Tribal communities, including the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, known in their own language as the Gaa-Miskwaabikaang, said some U.S. government entities which reviewed NTEC local impact “failed to meaningfully engage” with the tribe. Additionally, as a methane gas plant, NTEC’s operation is viewed by environmentalists as out of touch with climate policies laid out by Gov. Tony Evers.
The plant’s fate will be in limbo until its owners decide whether to pursue new permits. NTEC’s spokesperson said that the project partners “will determine next steps based on project planning and permitting.”
Project 2025, a policy blueprint created by allies of former President Donald Trump, would increase Ohio households’ annual energy spending and cost the state tens of thousands of jobs by 2030 compared to a continuation of current federal law and policies, a new analysis finds.
Ending federal spending on climate mitigation, as Trump has pledged to do, would cost jobs along with savings from energy efficiency and reduced dependence on fossil fuels, explained Robbie Orvis, senior director for modeling and analysis at Energy Innovation, which released the analysis last week.
And those losses would not be offset by expanded development of oil and natural gas, the report finds.
Analyses for Ohio and 47 other states follow up on a nationwide forecast Energy Innovation prepared this summer, which projected a loss of 1.7 million jobs and billions in added energy spending for U.S. households under Project 2025 compared to current law and policies. Early deaths and greenhouse gas emissions that drive human-caused climate change would also increase, Energy Innovation reported.
Project 2025 bills itself as a “playbook of actions to be taken in the first 180 days of the new Administration.” Although Trump’s campaign has tried to distance itself from the work by the Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups, many of the authors played a role in his administration. The plan is also promoted by prominent backers of his campaign.
Among other things, Project 2025 refers to climate change as merely a “perceived threat.” The playbook calls for increased oil and gas drilling, repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, reduced regulatory oversight on environmental matters, an end to various equity programs and more.
Approximately $10.5 billion in new investments and nearly 13,900 jobs have been announced for Ohio under the Inflation Reduction Act through the end of July, according to a Climate Power report released this summer, placing Ohio among the top 10 states for job gains.
“We think it’s important to be able to bring some numbers to this conversation,” Orvis said.
Projected impacts
Energy Innovation’s forecast for Ohio projects that by 2030, Project 2025 would add $150 per year to households’ spending for energy, including electricity, heating and transportation. By 2035, that number would climb to more than $260 per year.
Among other things, slashing energy efficiency programs for buildings and other sources of greenhouse gases would result in higher energy usage — and bills. Gutting programs to incentivize electric vehicles and relaxing fuel efficiency requirements would also result in more fossil fuel use than would otherwise be the case, Orvis explained. Extra expenses from increased energy usage would “more than offset” lower prices per unit for fuel that might result from expanded oil and gas development, the analysis said.
Ohio would also have roughly 21,200 fewer jobs by 2030 and that figure could double by 2035 if Project 2025 goes ahead, Energy Innovation calculated. That includes offsets from sectors that might grow under the conservative blueprint, including the oil and gas industry, Orvis said.
Those offsetting job gains wouldn’t necessarily be filled by local workers. A large share of the direct jobs in oil and gas development for Ohio’s top-producing counties for natural gas have been held by crews that came in from elsewhere and left afterward. The Ohio River Valley Institute noted that and other factors in its work showing that Appalachian petroleum-producing counties have lagged economically.
In contrast, 70% of a solar project’s workforce must be Ohio residents if a developer and communities want to use a property-tax alternative that can give companies a break in a project’s early years but provide more revenue for counties on a steady basis over the life of a project. Local skilled workers also especially benefit from energy efficiency work.
With roughly $4.9 billion less in clean energy investments, Ohio’s greenhouse gas emissions would climb, the Energy Innovations analysis found. Sources in the state would emit roughly 9 million more metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2030, compared to what they would under current federal policies. That figure would exceed 32 million metric tons in 2035. That’s comparable to the 2023 emissions from Ohio’s four largest coal plants, according to EPA data.
Ohio is actually in the lower half of states for projected job losses and increased energy costs under the Project 2025 scenario, although it is among the top half for increased greenhouse gas emissions, Orvis said. What stood out most for him was the uniformity among all of the lower 48 states for which his team ran the numbers on Project 2025.
“Every state we looked at — every single one — there are net job losses and net GDP losses,” Orvis said.
Picking ‘winners and losers’
“It didn’t surprise me that you’re going to see costs increase” under Project 2025, along with job losses and impacts on gross domestic product, said Neil Waggoner, Midwest manager for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign. “The IRA and the infrastructure bill were not just to deal with climate and this immense crisis we all face, but also to do it in a way that supports American innovation, growth and the economy.”
In contrast, Project 2025 would “push forward an agenda that chooses winners and losers,” Waggoner said. “That’s fundamentally against innovation and growth and capitalism.” He also criticized Project 2025’s failure to consider the nuances of energy policy and forecast its impacts into the future.
“The end result is we’re going to pay more, and it’s going to have really bad impacts on the economy,” Waggoner said.
Uncertainty about federal rules on cross-state pollution made it difficult to calculate state-specific health impacts of Project 2025, Orvis said. The nationwide analysis projected we would see nearly 6,000 early deaths per year through 2030, compared to current policies. By 2050, that difference would be about 25,000 more early deaths each year under Project 2025 policies.
The work also didn’t drill down into which groups would be most affected by job losses, higher energy costs and so forth. But health impacts from pollution, higher energy burdens and higher poverty rates are already disproportionately high for historically underinvested communities.
“The impacts won’t be felt evenly across the board” if Project 2025 goes into effect, said Bishop Marcia Dinkins, founder of the Black Appalachian Coalition. “The tradeoff is always at the expense of marginalized people and people who are on fixed incomes.”
For people who are already struggling with high energy burdens and other issues, Project 2025 would be “a double economic blow,” Dinkins said. Prospects for health and the environment would also suffer, particularly given Ohio’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels and petrochemicals, she added.
“Without solutions around clean energy, it’s just going to make matters worse,” Dinkins said.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced in September it will distribute $7.3 billion in grants and loans for rural clean energy projects serving 23 states. (Photo courtesy of the National Center for Appropriate Technology and the Agrisolar Clearinghouse | USDA)
Pennsylvania wants to remain a manufacturing powerhouse. But state leaders also want to reduce climate change-causing emissions from steel mills and other industrial facilities, while cutting back the toxic pollutants that cause health problems in nearby neighborhoods.
Thanks to a nearly $400 million investment from the federal government, the state is preparing a massive plan to help industrial operators upgrade to new technologies and switch to cleaner fuel sources.
“Pennsylvania was one of the birthplaces of the industrial revolution, and now we’ve been given the opportunity to lead the nation in the industrial decarbonization movement,” said Louie Krak, who is coordinating the plan for the state Department of Environmental Protection.
Leaders in every state in the country have their own big plans. North Carolina and neighboring states are preparing to restore wetlands and conserve natural areas along the Atlantic coast. Iowa leaders intend to plant trees in neighborhoods that lack shade. Local governments in Texas plan to help residents install solar panels on their rooftops. And Utah is readying to purchase electric buses and reduce methane emissions at oil and gas operations.
All of these plans are backed by federal money from the Inflation Reduction Act, the climate law passed by Congress in 2022. But former President Donald Trump, who has called climate change measures a “scam” and vowed to rescind “unspent” funds under the law, could throw much of that work into chaos if he retakes the White House.
Legal experts say Trump couldn’t outright cancel the law without an act of Congress. But climate leaders say a Trump administration could create extra barriers for grant awards, slow the approval of tax credits and delay loan requests. If the federal support becomes unreliable, projects could lose financing from the private sector and cease to be viable.
“Even if the money is technically safe, we would definitely expect to see agencies [in a Trump administration] dragging their feet,” said Rachel Jacobson, lead researcher of state climate policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive think tank.
Federal agencies have already announced plans to award $63 billion — mostly in the form of grants — to states, nonprofits and other entities for a host of projects to fight climate change, according to Atlas Public Policy, a climate-focused research group. Many Republican-led states have, for the first time, drafted plans to fight climate change in order to compete for the money.
In addition, the feds are rolling out billions more in loans and tax credits aimed at similar projects. States say the mix of funding sources and financial incentives that will soon be available could supercharge efforts to fight climate change and create green jobs.
Many states whose projects have been approved say they’re urging the feds to issue their funding before the election.
“There’s a risk that an incoming administration could cancel our agreement,” said Krak, adding that Pennsylvania is hoping to finalize its funding award this fall.
Another $30 billion from the law is still up for grabs, much of it aimed at reducing emissions in the agricultural sector. And agencies have just begun offering loans and tax credits to provide hundreds of billions more in financing.
“So many states have climate plans for the first time [because of the federal law],” said Ava Gallo, climate and energy program manager with the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, a collaborative forum for state lawmakers. “Even states that weren’t supportive of the Inflation Reduction Act are certainly touting these projects.”
State plans
In July, Utah learned that it would be receiving nearly $75 million to carry out its climate plan. The program will pay for electric school and transit buses, help residents purchase electric vehicles and install equipment to reduce methane emissions at oil and gas operations, among many other components.
By 2050, the investments are expected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1.4 million metric tons, said Glade Sowards, who is coordinating the plan for the Utah Department of Environmental Quality. Sowards said the plan was also designed to reduce pollution that harms public health.
Even states that weren’t supportive of the Inflation Reduction Act are certainly touting these projects.
– Ava Gallo, climate and energy program manager with the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators
North Carolina is focused on protecting natural areas. The state filed a joint plan with Maryland, South Carolina and Virginia that is set to receive $421 million in federal funding. The coalition plans to conserve and restore more than 200,000 acres in coastal areas in the four states. While the natural lands are valuable for pulling carbon from the air, the funding will also help to expand state parks and protect residents from flooding.
Like many of the state projects supported through the climate law, the four-state plan has been announced as a recipient but the funding agreement is still being finalized. State leaders are urging the feds to complete that this fall.
“We want to get this done quickly for two reasons: one, so we can get the work underway, but two, to make sure that the money will be there [before a new administration could threaten it],” said Reid Wilson, secretary of the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources.
The federal law also will pay for trees in urban areas, where they can reduce the dangerous “heat island” effect and limit stormwater runoff and air pollution. Iowa earned a pair of grants totaling more than $5 million to increase tree canopy in its cities.
“We’ve never had this level of funding before,” said Emma Hanigan, urban forestry coordinator with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. “We have a really low canopy cover, one of the lowest in the nation.”
Another nationwide program is set to offer funding in all 50 states to help residents put solar panels on their rooftops or buy into community solar operations. In Texas, a coalition of municipalities and nonprofits, led by Harris County (which includes Houston), earned a nearly $250 million award to carry out that work.
The program will largely focus on disadvantaged communities, with a requirement that solar projects reduce participants’ energy bills by at least 20%. Leaders in Texas expect the investment to reach about 28,000 households.
States are also tasked with distributing rebates to help residents with their home energy needs. Wisconsin was the first state to bring its rebate program online, with $149 million in funding. Residents can receive up to $10,000 to improve insulation, upgrade appliances or install electric heat pumps. Over time, they will see greater savings in the form of lower energy bills.
“It’s nice [for a contractor] to be able to sit at the kitchen table and say, ‘You’re getting $3,000 of work here, but the state is paying $2,800,’” said Joe Pater, director of the Office of Energy Innovation with the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.
Three other states (Arizona, New Mexico and New York) have rebate programs up and running, and others are finalizing applications. Indiana is among the many states awaiting federal approval to launch its program. The state expects to offer $182 million in rebates starting in early 2025. Greg Cook, communications manager with the Indiana Office of Energy Development, said the state is hoping to execute its plan regardless of the election outcome.
The climate law also has boosted “green banks,” which are state or nonprofit-run institutions that finance climate-friendly projects. The nonprofit Coalition for Green Capital received $5 billion of the federal money, which it will use to build a network that includes a green bank in each state, said Reed Hundt, the group’s CEO.
Michigan Saves, a nonprofit bank, expects to receive $95 million as a sub-award from the coalition. Chanell Scott Contreras, the president and CEO of Michigan Saves, said the “unprecedented” funding will enable the bank to expand its work, which includes helping low-income residents weatherize their homes and financing electric vehicle chargers and solar installations.
Loans and tax credits
The grants given out to states and other entities are just the start. The climate law supersized a federal loan program for clean energy projects, bringing its lending authority to $400 billion. And a new mechanism known as elective pay will now allow states, cities and nonprofits to receive the clean energy tax credits that have long been available to the private sector.
Climate advocates say many of the plans that states are setting in motion rely on the financing and tax rebates — components of the law that are most vulnerable to political interference.
“If an administration wanted to completely thwart the ability of [the Department of Energy] to make those loans, they could do so,” said Annabelle Rosser, a policy analyst with Atlas Public Policy, which has been tracking the rollout of the climate law. “That could be cut off at the knees.”
Meanwhile, many states are relying on the new tax credit to support plans such as electrifying state vehicle fleets and installing solar panels on public schools. In Washington state, for instance, the Office of Financial Management is coordinating a governmentwide effort to ensure state agencies use elective pay to bolster their climate work.
But climate advocates fear that an Internal Revenue Service led by Trump appointees could stall that work.
“There’s a lot of concern about what [Trump] would do with IRS staffing to limit the ability for them to get the refund checks out,” said Jillian Blanchard, director of the climate change and environmental justice program with Lawyers for Good Government, a nonprofit focused on human rights. Such delays could “chill hundreds of thousands of projects,” she said.
“I’m not sure he knows that red states are counting on this money too.”
Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org. Follow Stateline on Facebook and X.
Stay up-to-date with free briefings on topics that matter to all Californians. Subscribe to CalMatters today for nonprofit news in your inbox.
California has given America a glimpse at what running one of the world’s largest economies on renewable energy might look like.
The state recently hit a milestone: 100 days this year with 100% carbon-free, renewable electricity for at least a part of each day, as tracked by Stanford University engineering Professor Mark Z. Jacobson.
The state notched the milestone while — so far — avoiding blackouts and emergency power reductions this year, even with the hottest July on record.
That progress is largely due to the substantial public and private investments in renewable energy — particularly batteries storing solar power to use when the sun isn’t shining, according to energy experts.
“California has made unprecedented investments in our power grid in recent years — and we’re seeing them pay off in real time,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement to CalMatters. “Not only is our grid more reliable and resilient, it’s also increasingly running on 100% clean electricity.”
The state faces a huge challenge in coming years: A series of mandates will require carbon-free energy while also putting more electric cars on roads and electric appliances in homes. California, under state law, must run on 60% renewable energy by 2030, ramping up to 100% by 2045.
Signs of progress are emerging. From January to mid-July of this year, zero-carbon, renewable energy exceeded demand in California for 945 hours during 146 days — equivalent to a month-and-a-half of 100% fossil-fuel-free electricity, according to the California Energy Commission, the state agency tasked with carrying out the clean energy mandates.
But California still has a long way to go to stop burning fossil fuels for electricity. Natural gas, which emits greenhouse gases and air pollutants, remains its single largest source of electricity.
Reliability of the power grid is a top concern as the state switches to solar and wind energy. Unpredictable events like wildfires and winter storms also cause outages, while hot summer months, with air conditioners whirring, strain the supply.
In August of 2020 California experienced its first non-wildfire blackouts in nearly 20 years, and in late August and September of 2022, a severe heatwave forced regulators to ask consumers to voluntarily reduce power for 10 days.
Since September 2022 — when California teetered on the edge of those blackouts and the governor pleaded for conservation — nearly 11,600 new megawatts of clean energy have been added to the state’s grid, said Elliot Mainzer, chief executive of the California Independent System Operator, which manages the grid. (That’s enough to power around 9 to 12 million homes although it’s not available all at one time.)
California also now has more than 10,000 megawatts of battery capacity, making it the largest supply outside of China. Battery power from large commercial facilities proved its worth during last month’s heat wave, Mainzer said.
Batteries “were a major difference-maker,” Mainzer said. “The batteries charged during the day, when solar energy is abundant, and then they put that energy back onto the grid in the afternoon and evening, when solar production is rolling off the system.”
California relies heavily on four-hour duration lithium-ion batteries, which come in large, centralized facilities and hybrid facilities paired with solar energy projects. More homes also are installing batteries with their rooftop solar installations, but they supply a small amount of power.
Planning and practicing various emergency scenarios has also helped immensely, Mainzer said.
“Our grid operators are now increasingly experienced at managing these extreme heat events,” Mainzer said. “Our forecasters also did an excellent job of reviewing the next day’s conditions so that the market could respond effectively.”
‘The table is set’ for clean energy
California may need to more than double its energy generation capacity by 2045 to meet the 100% clean energy target while adding electric cars, appliances and other technologies, said Siva Gunda, who sits on the California Energy Commission.
To do that, California aims to build about 6,000 to 8,000 megawatts of new energy resources each year. The state hit a record last year, adding more than 6,000 megawatts, Gunda said. Each megawatt is enough to serve between 750 and 1,000 homes.
“The table is set,” Gunda said. “The pieces are there for success, and it’s about executing it, together with a common vision and collaboration.”
The commission is closely monitoring a new concern: Artificial intelligence technology, which uses large data centers that consume power. “We’re carefully watching where the loads are going to grow,” Gunda said.
Stanford’s Jacobson said running on 100% renewable energy is becoming more common.
Over the July 28 weekend, California marked the 100th nonconsecutive day within a 144-day stretch in which 100% of electricity came from renewable sources for periods ranging from five minutes to more than 10 hours, he said.
On April 8, a solar eclipse reduced solar power generation and increased demand on the grid, which was met by batteries. On May 5, wind, hydroelectric and solar energy reached more than 160% of demand for a significant portion of the day.
California continues to waffle about ending its reliance on natural gas and nuclear power.
Fearing emergency rolling blackouts like the one in 2020, Newsom and the Legislature in 2022 allowed some natural gas plants that were supposed to go offline to keep operating.
And the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant will continue operating while Pacific Gas & Electric pursues federal permission to stay open past 2025. Nuclear power is considered renewable and carbon-free but it creates radioactive waste.
State officials and private investors aim to create an entirely new industry — giant floating ocean wind platforms — to produce 13% of California’s power, enough to power 25 million homes, by 2045. The massive projects will cost billions of dollars.
Some Democratic legislators are hoping to make it easier to build wind and solar projects, since sometimes local obstacles and permitting take years. They are negotiating an end-of-session package of proposed laws that could streamline construction, CalMatters reported earlier this month. California’s legislative session ends Aug. 31.
Jacobson said the cost of large-scale solar power projects has “dropped substantially” in recent decades largely because of “economies of scale — just the huge growth of solar on a worldwide scale.”
“There’s no miracle technology that was developed,” he said. “It’s just subtle improvements in existing technologies and deployment, deployment, deployment.”
A recently signed New Hampshire law makes significant changes to the operations of the state’s Renewable Energy Fund, directing money to help towns and cities develop municipal solar projects and ending a residential solar rebate program that was generally viewed as deeply flawed.
“The previously existing program had sort of run its course,” said Joshua Elliott, director of policy and programs in the state energy department.
The Renewable Energy Fund, created in 2007, is a pool of money the state uses to support renewable and thermal energy initiatives through grants and rebates. It is funded by annual compliance payments made by electric service providers that failed to buy the legally mandated proportion of their power from renewable sources in the previous year.
The sum the fund collects can vary widely from year to year, ranging from as low as $1.3 million in 2009 to $19.1 million in 2011. More recently, revenue has hovered around $7 million.
This money is then allocated across several programs including those supporting solar hot water heating, low-and-moderate income community solar, and wood pellet boilers and furnaces for residential, commercial, and industrial customers.
Advancing municipal solar
The new funding for municipal solar projects represents the next step for an approach just getting underway in the state.
Installing solar power can allow a municipality to both cut carbon emissions and realize significant savings on their energy bills. These savings can be used to cut property taxes or to provide additional support or services for residents. Until recently, however, there was little state or federal support for municipal solar. At the same time, getting a municipality to agree to the upfront costs has always been challenging.
“There’s a variety of competing factors for property tax revenue,” Elliott said. “It can be hard to get a warrant article passed to invest the money to purchase a solar array for town buildings.”
The state began tackling the problem this year with the Municipal Solar Grant Program, which is using a $1.6 million federal grant, part of the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, to help cities and towns install solar arrays on municipal property. Lower-income communities that intend to retain complete ownership of their solar system will be eligible for grants up to $200,000; municipalities that don’t meet these criteria can request grants up to $120,000.
Though the program is just getting started — the application period is open until August 1 — the opportunity has already sparked wide interest from municipal governments. Community liaisons for the nonprofit Clean Energy New Hampshire have identified roughly 50 cities and towns likely to apply for a share of the limited funding.
“There’s been a huge response,” said Sam Evans-Brown, executive director of Clean Energy New Hampshire. “That shows this is a good space to be spending the money in.”
The new legislation calls for funding to be allocated to a new municipal solar program this year, with the sum likely to be announced in late August or early September. Then, before the money can be offered to cities and towns, the state will have to design a new system. The new incentive will be inspired and informed by the program now launching, Elliott said.
“We’re certainly going to take feedback, have stakeholder sessions,” he said. “And that will help refine what this program looks like.”
Replacing residential incentives
The bill also terminates the state’s rebate program for residential solar and wind installations, an incentive that was widely thought to be ineffective.
The program offered rebates of up to $1,000 to a limited number of households each year. In fiscal 2023, rebates totalling about $424,000 were issued.
The program used a lottery system to determine what order rebate applications would be processed in each year; applicants closer to the end of the list might not end up receiving any rebate if the funds ran out before they made it to the top of the list. That uncertainty meant the program was doing little to spur additional solar development, Evans-Brown said.
“It’s almost by definition not getting projects done: If you can’t know for sure if you’re getting rebate, it’s not factoring it into the purchasing decision,” he said. “When we asked residential solar installers if the rebate was helpful they said no.”
The program also accepted applications from any household with a solar array installed after 2012 that has not yet received a rebate, diminishing its impact on new solar development even further.
“You’re not actually helping to develop the solar market at that point,” Elliott said.
Though the recent law eliminates this rebate, lawmakers were clear during hearings on the bill that they want to see a replacement residential incentive developed. No plans are yet in the works for such a program, and it is unclear what the timeline would be for designing a new incentive from scratch, Elliott said. Furthermore, the law does not require a new program be enacted.
Elliott, however, has every intention of making sure a replacement program comes to be, he said.
“I made a commitment in public saying, ‘Yes, we are going to do this,’” he said, “and I certainly feel beholden to that.”
The beginning of construction activities on the NatriumTM demonstration project site marks the first advanced nuclear reactor project under construction in the Western Hemisphere. BELLEVUE, Washington – June 10, 2024 – TerraPower, a leading nuclear innovation company, today celebrated the start of construction on the Natrium reactor1 demonstration project. This marks the first advanced reactor …
Login
