radiofree.asia

Category: Energy

  • Alberta continues to depend on dirty money for economic well-being

    Four decades ago, Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed came to power, with the promise to make the province’s economy less dependent on the fluctuating price of oil and gas. Yet decades on, the province’s finances are still heavily reliant on royalties from bitumen sales to the United States, and natural gas sales across Canada and around the world. 

    Progress has been made. While it was a very different era to the one we find ourselves in today, Lougheed’s first few budgets were completely dependent on oil revenue, which at one point made up nearly 80 per cent of the income for Alberta’s provincial coffers. 

    In 2024 that number was closer to 27 per cent. 

    The 2025 budget introduced by Alberta finance minister Nate Horner on February 27th pegs the forecasted revenue from oil and gas at about 28 per cent, though they are cautiously budgeting it to be a few points lower. 

    In the last decade, the revenue share of Alberta’s budget which depends on oil and gas royalties has been as low as eight, and as high as 30 per cent. 

    What this means is that one out of every four dollars spent on health care, education, and critical social services depends on the oil and gas sector having a very good year. The financial well-being of the petroleum industry is so crucial to Alberta’s budget that a special Economic Outlook section focused almost entirely on the price of West Texas Intermediate Crude (pegged at $68/barrel). 

    I expect that by now you see the flaw in this logic. The American market is no longer a reliable purchaser of our crude oil. America is now the largest energy producer in the world and has high hopes for being energy-independent in the coming years. While many of the country’s refineries have been converted to process the heavy crude we sell them, only money is preventing them from re-tooling once again to manage the lighter oil produced throughout much of the US’s portion of the Western Sedimentary Basin. 

     

    A quick scan across the rest of the world doesn’t demonstrate much hope that our heavy, carbon-intensive, and very expensive crude oil is welcome anywhere else. The Trans Mountain Pipeline, heralded as a means of selling our goop to Southeast Asia and China, today sends most of its product to California. Just ten per cent went to China last year. 

    Europe doesn’t want our dirty oil. They are at the forefront of the energy transition. While natural gas might have been on their shopping list at the beginning of the war in the Ukraine, that ship has now sailed. 

    The reality is, within the next five years, it is projected that the world will be consuming 1,000,000 barrels of oil a day less every single year, as the energy transition kicks into high gear nearly everywhere else in the world except Alberta. 

    We’re stuck. We need the revenue that oil and gas bring to keep our schools and hospitals open, but we can no longer count on our number one market for our products, and we haven’t done nearly enough to diversify our energy economy. We have created major barriers to new renewable energy development to meet our domestic needs, but we continue to put nearly all of our eggs in the petroleum energy basket when it comes to our export market. 

    It is said that the first step in solving a problem is recognizing that there is one. Alberta’s 2025-26 budget shows no signs of acknowledging that such a problem exists. A $4 billion contingency fund is in place to offset the impacts of American tariffs, but there is no complementary fund set up to invest in diversification so we’re less dependent on the US in the first place. 

    Why is it so hard for Alberta to have this conversation? 

    There are solutions, and Alberta has dabbled in them: the high-tech sector, health care research, international education, manufacturing, petrochemicals, agriculture, and tourism, to name a few. None of these on their own can supplant the massive impact that petroleum has on Alberta’s economy. It’s almost as if the province needs to have a group chat about what we want our economy to look like in a post-petroleum world. We should do that before it’s too late. 

    The post Alberta continues to depend on dirty money for economic well-being appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Utilities may soon pay you to help support a greener grid

    Every month you pay an electricity bill, because there’s no choice if you want to keep the lights on. The power flows in one direction. But soon, utilities might desperately need something from you: electricity. 

    A system increasingly loaded with wind and solar will require customers to send power back into the system.  If the traditional grid centralized generation at power plants, experts believe the system of tomorrow will be more distributed, with power coming from what they call the “grid edge” — household batteries, electric cars, and other gadgets whose relationship with the grid has been one way.  More people, for example, are installing solar panels on their roofs backed up with home batteries. When electricity demand increases, a utility can draw power from those homes as a vast network of backup energy. 

    The big question is how to choreograph that electrical ballet — millions of different devices at the grid edge, owned by millions of different customers, that all need to talk to the utility’s systems. To address that problem, a team of researchers from several universities and national labs developed an algorithm for running a “local electricity market,” in which ratepayers would be compensated for allowing their devices to provide backup power to a utility. Their paper, recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, described how the algorithm could coordinate so many sources of power — and then put the system to the test. “When you have numbers of that magnitude, then it becomes very difficult for one centralized entity to keep tabs on everything that’s going on,” said Anu Annaswamy, a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the paper’s co-author. “Things need to become more distributed, and that is something the local electricity market can facilitate.”

    At the moment, utilities respond to a surge in demand for electricity by spinning up more generation at power plants running on fossil fuels. But they can’t necessarily do that with renewables, since the sun might not be shining, or the wind blowing. So as grids increasingly depend on clean energy, they’re getting more flexible: Giant banks of lithium-ion batteries, for instance, can store that juice for later use. 

    Yet grids will need even more flexibility in the event of a cyberattack or outage. If a hacker compromises a brand of smart thermostat to increase the load on a bunch of AC units at once, that could crash the grid by driving demand above available supply. With this sort of local electricity market imagined in the paper, a utility would call on other batteries in the network to boost supply,  stabilizing the grid. At the same time, electric water heaters and heat pumps for climate control could wind down, reducing demand. “In that sense, there’s not necessarily a fundamental difference between a battery and a smart device like a water heater, in terms of being able to provide the support to the grid,” said Jan Kleissl, director of the Center for Energy Research at the University of California, San Diego, who wasn’t involved in the new research.

    Along with this demand reduction, drawing power from devices along the grid edge would provide additional support. In testing out cyberattack scenarios and sustained inclement weather that reduces solar energy, the researchers found that the algorithm was able to restabilize the grid every time. The algorithm also provides a way to set the rates paid to households for their participation. That would depend on a number of factors such as time of day, location of the household, and the overall demand. “Consumers who provide flexibility are explicitly being compensated for that, rather than just people doing it voluntarily,” said Vineet J. Nair, a Ph.D. student at MIT and lead author of the paper. “That kind of compensation is a way to incentivize customers.”

    Utilities are already experimenting with these sorts of compensation programs, though on a much smaller scale. Electric buses in Oakland, California, for instance, are sending energy back to the grid when they’re not ferrying kids around. Utilities are also contracting with households to use their large home batteries, like Tesla’s Powerwall, as virtual power plants. 

    Building such systems is relatively easy, because homes with all their heat pumps and batteries are already hooked into the system, said Anna Lafoyiannis, senior team lead for transmission operations and planning at the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit in Washington, D.C. By contrast, connecting a solar and battery farm to the grid takes years of planning, permitting, and construction. “Distributed resources can be deployed really quickly on the grid,” she said. “When I look at flexibility, the time scale matters.”

    All these energy sources at the grid edge, combined with large battery farms operated by the utility, are dismantling the myth that renewables aren’t reliable enough to provide power on their own. One day, you might even get paid to help bury that myth for good.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Utilities may soon pay you to help support a greener grid on Mar 5, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • How Trump’s trade war could impact U.S. electricity prices — and state climate plans

    On Tuesday, President Donald Trump initiated a trade war with Canada and Mexico, America’s two largest trading partners. Following through on weeks of threats, he imposed 25 percent tariffs on imported goods from Mexico and Canada and a lower 10 percent tariff on imports of Canadian energy resources. 

    Canada and Mexico’s leaders quickly struck back. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau unveiled an immediate 25 percent tariff on $20.5 billion worth of goods from the United States and promised to extend the tax to another $85 billion in products in late March. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum announced she also planned to unveil retaliatory tariffs this coming Sunday. 

    Trump’s tariffs, which are widely expected to raise prices for U.S. consumers, are also poised to upend the American electricity market. All U.S. power grids except for Texas’s have some level of interconnection with grids in Canada, the largest energy supplier to the U.S.

    Historically, the U.S. has imported roughly twice as much power from Canada as it exports there, though that ratio has started to shift in recent years as climate change-driven drought has slowed the output of hydroelectricity in provinces like Quebec and Ontario. Some 98 percent of America’s natural gas imports, and 93 percent of its electricity imports — much of that from hydroelectric dams — come from Canada.

    America’s reliance on Canadian power is not evenly distributed. Northern energy grids are generally more reliant on Canada’s energy resources than southern grids due to their geographic proximity to Canada. States like New York and Minnesota have also entered into energy market agreements with Canadian provinces to receive their hydroelectricity in order to meet ambitious and rapidly-approaching climate change goals. 

    From Canada’s perspective, withholding or taxing energy exports to the U.S. is an effective bargaining chip — perhaps one of the country’s most powerful. “I see energy as Canada’s queen in this game of chess,” Andrew Furey, the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, said in January, when Trump had not yet followed through on his threat of Canadian tariffs. Furey’s province is one of five that supplies the U.S. with hydropower. 

    Water spray hangs above giant waterfalls at Niagara Falls on the Canada-US border.
    Niagara Falls on the Canada-U.S. border is a major source of hydroelectric power for the region.
    John Moore/Getty Images

    On the evening before the tariffs took effect, Doug Ford, the premier of Ontario, threatened to cut off energy exports to the United States full stop “with a smile” if Trump continues to target Canada with tariffs. 

    On Tuesday, Ford announced a 25 percent export tax on power Ontario ships via transmission lines to 1.5 million homes in three states — Michigan, Minnesota, and New York — and said a full export ban was still on the table. 

    All three states affected by Ontario’s export tax have climate targets on the books that rely in some measure on hydroelectric power. Minnesota, Michigan, and New York all aim to achieve clean electricity grids by 2040. Michigan is relying in large part on its own hydroelectric facilities, but Minnesota and New York are to varying degrees dependent on Canada to reach their targets. 

    Experts told Grist it’s too soon to say what Trump’s tariffs, and Ford’s retaliatory measures, mean for these states’ climate goals — and their residents. “When you’re adding unnecessary friction into the market, of course you’re going to see price increases,” said Daniel A. Zarrilli, who served as chief climate policy advisor to former New York City mayor Bill de Blasio. “Tariffs are going to flow to the consumer, either directly or indirectly.” Zarrilli noted that it’s unclear what those price hikes might look like, and who — ratepayers, utilities, or some combination of actors — will shoulder them. 

    The trade war may be felt especially acutely in New York, where developers are extending a transmission line from Quebec all the way to Queens in order to pump much-needed hydroelectric power into New York City. Once the Champlain Hudson Power Express is operational in 2026, New York City is guaranteed hydroelectric power during the summer months. It is not, however, guaranteed that reliable power during the winter. 

    As the state has electrified its power grid, energy demand has been increasing during the cold weather months. Now New York power grid operators are preparing for demand during the winter to double over the next 30 years. But whether the state gets the hydropower it needs to provide reliable, renewable power during that peak demand now depends on how the trade war plays out. 
    “The fallout could be actually catastrophic,” said Adrienne Esposito, executive director at the nonprofit Citizens Campaign for the Environment, which has helped push New York City to adopt a climate plan that mirrors the state’s. “It defies logic.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How Trump’s trade war could impact U.S. electricity prices — and state climate plans on Mar 4, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Indonesia’s bullion banks, new mining policies pose threat to West Papuan sovereignty

    ANALYSIS: By Ali Mirin

    Last week, on 26 February 2025, President Prabowo Subianto officially launched Indonesia’s first bullion banks, marking a significant shift in the country’s approach to gold and precious metal management.

    This initiative aims to strengthen Indonesia’s control over its gold reserves, improve financial stability, and reduce reliance on foreign institutions for gold transactions.

    Bullion banks specialise in buying, selling, storing, and trading gold and other precious metals. They allow both the government and private sector to manage gold-related financial transactions, including hedging, lending, and investment in the global gold market.

    Although bullion banks focus on gold, this move signals a broader trend of Indonesia tightening control over its natural resources. This could have a significant impact on West Papua’s coal industry.

    With the government already enforcing benchmark coal prices (HBA) starting this month, the success of bullion banks could pave the way for a similar centralised system for coal and other minerals.

    Indonesia also may apply similar regulations to other strategic resources, including coal, nickel, and copper. This could mean tighter government control over mining in West Papua.

    If Indonesia expands national control over mining, it could lead to increased exploitation in resource-rich regions like West Papua, raising concerns about land rights, deforestation, and indigenous displacement.

    Indonesia joined BRICS earlier this year and is now focusing on strengthening economic ties with other BRICS countries.

    In the mining sector, Indonesia is using its membership to increase exports, particularly to key markets such as China and India. These countries are large consumers of coal and mineral resources, providing an opportunity for Indonesia to expand its export market and attract foreign direct investment in resource extraction.

    India eyes coal in West Papua
    India has shown interest in tapping into the coal reserves of the West Papua region, aiming to diversify its energy sources and secure coal supplies for its growing energy needs.

    This initiative involves potential collaboration between the Indian government and Indonesian authorities to explore and develop previously unexploited coal deposits in West Papuan Indigenous lands.

    However, the details of such projects are still under negotiation, with discussions focusing on the terms of investment and operational control.

    Notably, India has sought special privileges, including no-bid contracts, in exchange for financing geological surveys — a proposition that raises concerns about compliance with Indonesia’s anti-corruption laws.

    The prospect of coal mining in West Papua has drawn mixed reactions. While the Indonesian government is keen to attract foreign investment to boost economic development in its easternmost provinces, local communities and environmental groups express apprehension.

    The primary concerns revolve around potential environmental degradation, disruption of local ecosystems, and the displacement of indigenous populations.

    Moreover, there is scepticism about whether the economic benefits from such projects would trickle down to local communities or primarily serve external interests.

    Navigating ethical, legal issues
    As India seeks to secure energy resources to meet its domestic demands, it must navigate the ethical and legal implications of its investments abroad. Simultaneously, Indonesia faces the challenge of balancing economic development with environmental preservation and the rights of its indigenous populations.

    While foreign investment in Indonesia’s mining sector is welcome, there are strict regulations in place to protect national interests.

    In particular, foreign mining companies must sell at least 51 percent of their shares to Indonesian stakeholders within 10 years of starting production. This policy is designed to ensure that Indonesia retains greater control over its natural resources, while still allowing international investors to participate in the growth of the industry.

    India is reportedly interested in mining coal in West Papua to diversify its fuel sources.

    Indonesia’s energy ministry is hoping for economic benefits and a potential boost to the local steel industry. But environmentalists and social activists are sounding the alarm about the potential negative impacts of new mining operations.

    During project discussions, India has shown an interest in securing special privileges, such as no-bid contracts, which could conflict with Indonesia’s anti-corruption laws.

    Implications for West Papua
    Indonesia, a country with a population of nearly 300 million, aims to industrialise. By joining BRICS (primarily Brasil, Russia, India, and China), it hopes to unlock new growth opportunities.

    However, this path to industrialisation comes at a significant cost. It will continue to profoundly affect people’s lives and lead to environmental degradation, destroying wildlife and natural habitats.

    These challenges echo the changes that began with the Industrial Revolution in England, where coal-powered advances drastically reshaped human life and the natural world.

    West Papua has experienced a significant decline in its indigenous population due to Indonesia’s transmigration policy. This policy involves relocating large numbers of Muslim Indonesians to areas where Christian Papuans are the majority.

    These newcomers settle on vast tracts of indigenous Papuan land. Military operations also continue.

    One of the major problems resulting from these developments is the spread of torture, abuse, disease, and death, which, if not addressed soon, will reduce the Papuans to numbers too small to fight and reclaim their land.

    Mining of any kind in West Papua is closely linked to, and in fact, is the main cause of, the dire situation in West Papua.

    Large-scale exploitation
    Since the late 1900s, the area’s rich coal and mineral resources have attracted both foreign and local investors. Large international companies, particularly from Western countries, have partnered with the Indonesian government in large-scale mining operations.

    While the exploitation of West Papua’s resources has boosted Indonesia’s economy, it has also caused significant environmental damage and disruption to indigenous Papuan communities.

    Mining has damaged local ecosystems, polluted water sources and reduced biodiversity. Indigenous Papuans have been displaced from their ancestral lands, leading to economic hardship and cultural erosion.

    Although the government has tried to promote sustainable mining practices, the benefits have largely bypassed local communities. Most of the revenue from mining goes to Jakarta and large corporations, with minimal reinvestment in local infrastructure, health and education.

    For more than 63 years, West Papua has faced exploitation and abuse similar to that which occurred when British law considered Australia to be terra nullius — “land that belongs to no one.” This legal fiction allowed the British to disregard the existence of indigenous people as the rightful owners and custodians of the land.

    Similarly, West Papua has been treated as if it were empty, with indigenous communities portrayed in degrading ways to justify taking their land and clearing it for settlers.

    Indonesia’s collective view of West Papua as a wild, uninhabited frontier has allowed settlers and colonial authorities to freely exploit the region’s rich resources.

    Plundering with impunity
    This is why almost anyone hungry for West Papua’s riches goes there and plunders with impunity. They cut down millions of trees, mine minerals, hunt rare animals and collect precious resources such as gold.

    These activities are carried out under the control of the military or by bribing and intimidating local landowners.

    The Indonesian government’s decision to grant mining licences to universities and religious groups will add more headaches for Papuans. It simply means that more entities have been given licences to exploit its resources — driving West Papuans toward extinction and destroying their ancestral homeland.

    An example is the PT Megapura Prima Industri, an Indonesian coal mining company operating in Sorong on the western tip of West Papua. According to the local news media Jubi, the company has already violated rules and regulations designed to protect local Papuans and the environment.

    Allowing India to enter West Papua, will have unprecedented and disastrous consequences for West Papua, including environmental degradation, displacement of indigenous communities, and human rights abuses.

    As the BRICS nations continue to expand their economic footprint, Indonesia’s evolving mining landscape is likely to become a focal point of international investment discourse in the coming years.

    Natural resources ultimate target
    This means that West Papua’s vast natural resources will be the ultimate target and will continue to be a geopolitical pawn between superpowers, while indigenous Papuans remain marginalised and excluded from decision-making processes in their own land.

    Regardless of policy changes on resource extraction, human rights, education, health, or any other facet, “Indonesia cannot and will not save West Papua” because “Indonesia’s presence in the sovereign territory of West Papua is the primary cause of the genocide of Papuans and the destruction of their homeland”.

    As long as West Papua remains Indonesia’s frontier settler colony, backed by an intensive military presence, the entire Indonesian enterprise in West Papua effectively condemns both the Papuan people and their fragile ecosystem to a catastrophic fate, one that can only be avoided through a process of decolonisation and self-determination.

    Restoring West Papua’s sovereignty, arbitrarily taken by Indonesia, is the best solution so that indigenous Papuans can engage with their world on their own terms, using the rich resources they have, and determining their own future and development pathway.

    Ali Mirin is a West Papuan academic and writer from the Kimyal tribe of the highlands bordering the Star mountain region of Papua New Guinea. He lives in Australia and contributes articles to Asia Pacific Report.


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Indonesia’s bullion banks, new mining policies pose threat to West Papuan sovereignty

    ANALYSIS: By Ali Mirin

    Last week, on 26 February 2025, President Prabowo Subianto officially launched Indonesia’s first bullion banks, marking a significant shift in the country’s approach to gold and precious metal management.

    This initiative aims to strengthen Indonesia’s control over its gold reserves, improve financial stability, and reduce reliance on foreign institutions for gold transactions.

    Bullion banks specialise in buying, selling, storing, and trading gold and other precious metals. They allow both the government and private sector to manage gold-related financial transactions, including hedging, lending, and investment in the global gold market.

    Although bullion banks focus on gold, this move signals a broader trend of Indonesia tightening control over its natural resources. This could have a significant impact on West Papua’s coal industry.

    With the government already enforcing benchmark coal prices (HBA) starting this month, the success of bullion banks could pave the way for a similar centralised system for coal and other minerals.

    Indonesia also may apply similar regulations to other strategic resources, including coal, nickel, and copper. This could mean tighter government control over mining in West Papua.

    If Indonesia expands national control over mining, it could lead to increased exploitation in resource-rich regions like West Papua, raising concerns about land rights, deforestation, and indigenous displacement.

    Indonesia joined BRICS earlier this year and is now focusing on strengthening economic ties with other BRICS countries.

    In the mining sector, Indonesia is using its membership to increase exports, particularly to key markets such as China and India. These countries are large consumers of coal and mineral resources, providing an opportunity for Indonesia to expand its export market and attract foreign direct investment in resource extraction.

    India eyes coal in West Papua
    India has shown interest in tapping into the coal reserves of the West Papua region, aiming to diversify its energy sources and secure coal supplies for its growing energy needs.

    This initiative involves potential collaboration between the Indian government and Indonesian authorities to explore and develop previously unexploited coal deposits in West Papuan Indigenous lands.

    However, the details of such projects are still under negotiation, with discussions focusing on the terms of investment and operational control.

    Notably, India has sought special privileges, including no-bid contracts, in exchange for financing geological surveys — a proposition that raises concerns about compliance with Indonesia’s anti-corruption laws.

    The prospect of coal mining in West Papua has drawn mixed reactions. While the Indonesian government is keen to attract foreign investment to boost economic development in its easternmost provinces, local communities and environmental groups express apprehension.

    The primary concerns revolve around potential environmental degradation, disruption of local ecosystems, and the displacement of indigenous populations.

    Moreover, there is scepticism about whether the economic benefits from such projects would trickle down to local communities or primarily serve external interests.

    Navigating ethical, legal issues
    As India seeks to secure energy resources to meet its domestic demands, it must navigate the ethical and legal implications of its investments abroad. Simultaneously, Indonesia faces the challenge of balancing economic development with environmental preservation and the rights of its indigenous populations.

    While foreign investment in Indonesia’s mining sector is welcome, there are strict regulations in place to protect national interests.

    In particular, foreign mining companies must sell at least 51 percent of their shares to Indonesian stakeholders within 10 years of starting production. This policy is designed to ensure that Indonesia retains greater control over its natural resources, while still allowing international investors to participate in the growth of the industry.

    India is reportedly interested in mining coal in West Papua to diversify its fuel sources.

    Indonesia’s energy ministry is hoping for economic benefits and a potential boost to the local steel industry. But environmentalists and social activists are sounding the alarm about the potential negative impacts of new mining operations.

    During project discussions, India has shown an interest in securing special privileges, such as no-bid contracts, which could conflict with Indonesia’s anti-corruption laws.

    Implications for West Papua
    Indonesia, a country with a population of nearly 300 million, aims to industrialise. By joining BRICS (primarily Brasil, Russia, India, and China), it hopes to unlock new growth opportunities.

    However, this path to industrialisation comes at a significant cost. It will continue to profoundly affect people’s lives and lead to environmental degradation, destroying wildlife and natural habitats.

    These challenges echo the changes that began with the Industrial Revolution in England, where coal-powered advances drastically reshaped human life and the natural world.

    West Papua has experienced a significant decline in its indigenous population due to Indonesia’s transmigration policy. This policy involves relocating large numbers of Muslim Indonesians to areas where Christian Papuans are the majority.

    These newcomers settle on vast tracts of indigenous Papuan land. Military operations also continue.

    One of the major problems resulting from these developments is the spread of torture, abuse, disease, and death, which, if not addressed soon, will reduce the Papuans to numbers too small to fight and reclaim their land.

    Mining of any kind in West Papua is closely linked to, and in fact, is the main cause of, the dire situation in West Papua.

    Large-scale exploitation
    Since the late 1900s, the area’s rich coal and mineral resources have attracted both foreign and local investors. Large international companies, particularly from Western countries, have partnered with the Indonesian government in large-scale mining operations.

    While the exploitation of West Papua’s resources has boosted Indonesia’s economy, it has also caused significant environmental damage and disruption to indigenous Papuan communities.

    Mining has damaged local ecosystems, polluted water sources and reduced biodiversity. Indigenous Papuans have been displaced from their ancestral lands, leading to economic hardship and cultural erosion.

    Although the government has tried to promote sustainable mining practices, the benefits have largely bypassed local communities. Most of the revenue from mining goes to Jakarta and large corporations, with minimal reinvestment in local infrastructure, health and education.

    For more than 63 years, West Papua has faced exploitation and abuse similar to that which occurred when British law considered Australia to be terra nullius — “land that belongs to no one.” This legal fiction allowed the British to disregard the existence of indigenous people as the rightful owners and custodians of the land.

    Similarly, West Papua has been treated as if it were empty, with indigenous communities portrayed in degrading ways to justify taking their land and clearing it for settlers.

    Indonesia’s collective view of West Papua as a wild, uninhabited frontier has allowed settlers and colonial authorities to freely exploit the region’s rich resources.

    Plundering with impunity
    This is why almost anyone hungry for West Papua’s riches goes there and plunders with impunity. They cut down millions of trees, mine minerals, hunt rare animals and collect precious resources such as gold.

    These activities are carried out under the control of the military or by bribing and intimidating local landowners.

    The Indonesian government’s decision to grant mining licences to universities and religious groups will add more headaches for Papuans. It simply means that more entities have been given licences to exploit its resources — driving West Papuans toward extinction and destroying their ancestral homeland.

    An example is the PT Megapura Prima Industri, an Indonesian coal mining company operating in Sorong on the western tip of West Papua. According to the local news media Jubi, the company has already violated rules and regulations designed to protect local Papuans and the environment.

    Allowing India to enter West Papua, will have unprecedented and disastrous consequences for West Papua, including environmental degradation, displacement of indigenous communities, and human rights abuses.

    As the BRICS nations continue to expand their economic footprint, Indonesia’s evolving mining landscape is likely to become a focal point of international investment discourse in the coming years.

    Natural resources ultimate target
    This means that West Papua’s vast natural resources will be the ultimate target and will continue to be a geopolitical pawn between superpowers, while indigenous Papuans remain marginalised and excluded from decision-making processes in their own land.

    Regardless of policy changes on resource extraction, human rights, education, health, or any other facet, “Indonesia cannot and will not save West Papua” because “Indonesia’s presence in the sovereign territory of West Papua is the primary cause of the genocide of Papuans and the destruction of their homeland”.

    As long as West Papua remains Indonesia’s frontier settler colony, backed by an intensive military presence, the entire Indonesian enterprise in West Papua effectively condemns both the Papuan people and their fragile ecosystem to a catastrophic fate, one that can only be avoided through a process of decolonisation and self-determination.

    Restoring West Papua’s sovereignty, arbitrarily taken by Indonesia, is the best solution so that indigenous Papuans can engage with their world on their own terms, using the rich resources they have, and determining their own future and development pathway.

    Ali Mirin is a West Papuan academic and writer from the Kimyal tribe of the highlands bordering the Star mountain region of Papua New Guinea. He lives in Australia and contributes articles to Asia Pacific Report.


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Fossil Fuel Industry Wants To Keep New Buildings Dependent On Gas

    A new report from InfluenceMap reveals the fossil fuel industry has been waging an international lobbying war to prevent cities and towns from requiring newly built homes and businesses to install climate-friendly heating and other appliances.

    So far, 26 U.S. states have passed laws designed to prevent towns, cities, and other local governments from crafting new “natural gas bans” or enforcing those laws, according to the report. The analysis shows how utilities and their trade associations have pushed to take away local government’s power to phase out fossil fuel appliances or to limit new buildings’ connections to natural gas pipelines.

    The post Fossil Fuel Industry Wants To Keep New Buildings Dependent On Gas appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Exporting natural gas raises your power bills. Trump is doing it anyway.

    When former President Joe Biden paused the Department of Energy’s approval of new natural gas export projects last January — a move received positively by environmental advocates and scorned by fossil fuel companies — the LNG industry was in the midst of a period of unbridled expansion. Sprawling export terminals had been popping up, one after another, all along the Gulf Coast in south Texas and Louisiana, with many more in various stages of planning. The consequences of the build-out on the climate and on consumers was uncertain, Biden said, echoing the concerns of advocates, and the DOE had a responsibility to understand them fully before greenlighting new developments. 

    “During this period, we will take a hard look at the impacts of LNG exports on energy costs, America’s energy security, and our environment,” the former president said in a statement. Though Biden’s pause on new LNG developments was celebrated by climate and environmental advocates, it only applied to DOE, not the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, the other agency responsible for approving gas developments. 

    Midway through the pause, while the DOE was assessing the advisability of new LNG developments, FERC approved the construction of a new plant by gas giant Venture Global. 

    Six months later, in December 2024, when government offices were beginning to empty for the winter holidays, the DOE quietly published the results of its research. Across 58 pages, the report succinctly confirmed what many climate and environmental justice advocates had feared: Exporting huge quantities of natural gas abroad increases domestic fuel and electricity prices. Not only that, but export terminals are massive greenhouse gas emitters, undermining the fossil fuel industry’s contention that LNG is a clean alternative to coal, and dumping hulking export terminals on pristine wetlands has a devastating effect on the multigenerational fishing communities of the Gulf Coast. 

    “Today’s publication reinforces that a business-as-usual approach is neither sustainable nor advisable,” the agency wrote in a press release announcing the report.

    The following month, President Donald Trump began his second term, and rather than sending the mixed messages under the Biden administration, the federal government’s position on LNG exports became uniformly supportive. On his first full day in office, Trump ended Biden’s moratorium on new export projects. Then, in mid-February, FERC issued Venture Global another major greenlight.

    In its supplemental environmental impact assessment, FERC determined that Venture Global’s CP2 LNG project presented “no significant emissions” to the surrounding area — a blatant contradiction of the DOE’s prior report. A week later, under the new leadership of former hydraulic fracking magnate Chris Wright, the DOE authorized Commonwealth LNG’s proposed export terminal. In its decision, the agency did not reference its own December report. The omission calls into question the candidness of Trump’s “America First” agenda, said Tyson Slocum, the director of the energy program at Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization. 

    “Every single Trump action, especially on energy, is designed to raise prices for Americans and maximize profits for the fossil fuel industry,” he said. “When you put the industry in charge of policy, the policy will reflect industry priorities.”

    Both of the LNG export terminals that received approvals this month are slated for southwest Louisiana’s Cameron Parish, a wetland region that just a few decades ago was home to one of the largest seafood producers in the country. Though successive hurricane seasons and industrial development have crippled the industry, artisan fishermen and shrimpers continue to work in the parish, several of whom joined a lawsuit against FERC for approving Venture Global’s CP2 plant. After the lawsuit was filed, the commission set aside its authorization to make it more “legally durable,” explained Megan Gibson, a lawyer at the Southern Environmental Law Center who works on LNG. The supplemental EIS issued earlier this month is supposed to provide that durability, and set the project back in motion. 

    “This EIS reads like [FERC] checking a box so that we can get this project built without assessing the impacts on the local community and quite frankly our national economy,” Gibson told Grist.

    Venture Global’s CP2 facility would be one of the largest liquefied gas export terminals in the world. The plans consist of an 18-block liquefaction plant, a pre-treatment plant, massive aboveground storage tanks, and an 84-mile pipeline connecting the facility to natural gas feedstocks in Jasper and Newton County, Texas. The company already operates an LNG terminal in Louisiana’s Cameron Parish and is in the process of building a separate one in Plaquemines Parish in the state’s southeast. In 2023, Grist visited the property of John Allaire, whose land abuts the facility, and witnessed the hundred-foot flares emitted by the Venture Global’s smoke stacks — evidence of operational problems that advocates say the company has yet to solve. Before Venture Global can break ground on CP2, FERC will have to issue a final draft of the supplemental EIS, and DOE will have to issue an approval of its own.

    Like other experts that Grist spoke to, Gibson said FERC’s actions didn’t surprise her since the commission has a reputation for rubber-stamping new gas projects under both Democratic and Republican administrations. It’s really the DOE, she continued, that has historically been more of a check on the industry. Under the National Gas Act, both FERC and DOE are required to determine whether a new LNG development is in the public interest before approving it. That burden of proof has been the easiest way for advocates to fight agency decisions in court.

    “Transforming this once idyllic coastal community into this industrial hub … That doesn’t seem like it’s in the public interest,” said Gibson. Venture Global did not respond to a request for comment.

    The DOE’s December 2024 report identifying risks to the public from unchecked LNG exports is currently open for public comment. The Trump administration extended the comment period until late March. Slocum, the director of the energy program at Public Citizen, believes that this decision may be a tactical one more than it is a genuine openness for public input — giving fossil fuel companies more time to commission studies that would undermine the DOE’s previous findings. In an email, Grist asked the DOE why they extended the comment period, but did not hear back.

    “Industry is going to basically try to buy a pro-public interest analysis through some very expensive fancy studies that the DOE is going to rely heavily on,” Slocum said. It was his and other advocates’ job to poke holes in those studies. “We don’t have the money, but I think we have the facts on our side.”

    Beyond the impacts to consumers, locals, and the climate, experts pointed out that building new LNG terminals in an already saturated market doesn’t make sense economically. A recent report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis found that Europe, the U.S.’s largest gas export market, experienced a 19 percent decline in LNG imports last year, with gas demand at an 11-year low. Ana Maria Jaller-Makarewicz, IEEFA’s lead energy analyst for Europe, said the trend reflects new renewable projects coming online as well as countries using gas from their own reserves. While she expects demand to increase next year, in particular due to a cold early winter season and the need to replenish reserves, Jaller-Makarewicz said she does not expect it to rise again to levels seen after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    The Trump administration appears undeterred by these figures. Earlier this month, Trump announced a joint venture with Japan for a proposed $44 billion LNG project in Alaska, a move that could make the East Asian country — which has the second-highest LNG demand in the world — more reliant on U.S. gas. 

    “There has to be a need for the project, and what we see with this project is that it’s essentially taking domestic U.S.-grade gas and shipping it overseas,” said Caroline Reiser, a lawyer at the Natural Resources Defense Council working on the case against FERC for approving CP2. 

    According to Reiser, whether or not Trump finds a market for the gas plants coming online, the American public could still be left holding the bag.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Exporting natural gas raises your power bills. Trump is doing it anyway. on Feb 27, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Energy East Pipeline Revival: Why Canada Shouldn’t Waste Billions

    Like zombies rising from the grave, many long-rejected oil pipeline projects like Energy East are suddenly being promoted as national necessities in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s musings about annexing Canada.

    To be clear, most Canadians agree that Canada needs to take Trump’s threats seriously and accelerate long-overdue efforts to make our country less economically dependent on our newly menacing neighbour. Previous political impediments to building interprovincial infrastructure are melting away as Canadians realize protecting our national sovereignty is more important than the priorities of any given region or industry.

    But before the country considers writing another blank cheque for an oil industry mega-project that may take a decade to complete, let’s make sure to “skate to where the puck is going, not where it has been.”

    The post Energy East Pipeline Revival: Why Canada Shouldn’t Waste Billions appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Can solar power avoid Trump’s culture wars?

    Seamus Fitzgerald hears a lot of opinions about solar power. As the associate director of real estate at OneEnergy Renewables, a solar energy developer, he approaches farmers and other landowners across the Midwest with proposals to lease their properties for solar projects. Some landowners are excited about being part of the shift to clean energy. Others are hostile to the idea of putting rows of gleaming panels on their land.

    Fitzgerald manages to convince many farmers by explaining the simple economics of leasing their land for solar power. “At the end of the day, the financial payments from these types of projects are generally higher than what folks can pull off of their ground through other types of crops,” he said. To sell solar power to people who might have hesitations, he often talks about how the technology was invented in America. “When you install a solar project, you’re collecting an American resource here in America,” Fitzgerald said.

    It echoes the way that President Donald Trump talks about energy, though he’s usually heaping praise on American oil and gas, not renewables. Still, the Solar Energy Industries Association, the industry’s primary lobbying group, has found plenty of ways to align its work with the administration’s talking points. Now splayed across its site, next to an image of an American flag hovering over solar panels, is a new slogan: “American Energy DOMINANCE.” Earlier this month, the association participated in a lobbying blitz in Washington, D.C., urging lawmakers to keep tax credits for clean energy projects in place.

    Solar provided almost 6 percent of total U.S. electricity generation last year, but it’s been growing fast, expected to supply “almost all growth” in electricity generation this year, according to the pre-Trump Energy Information Administration. Many are hoping that the technology — which is broadly popular among Americans, with 78 percent supporting developing more solar farms — can manage to stay out of Trump’s culture wars over climate change. More so than wind power with its towering turbines, solar energy has an ability to bridge ideological divides, appealing to environmentalists and “don’t-tread-on-me” libertarians alike. 

    “President Trump has specifically said that he loves solar — and as energy demand soars, we know that solar is the most efficient and affordable way to add a lot of energy to the grid, fast,” said Abigail Ross Hopper, the Solar Energy Industries Association’s president and CEO, in a statement to Grist. 

    In December, her trade group released a policy roadmap that reflects Trump’s agenda, with priorities such as “eliminate dependence on China” and “cut red tape in the energy sector.” It’s a change from the vision the association laid out in 2020 after the election of former President Joe Biden, when Hopper promised to “meet the moment of the climate era with equity and justice at the forefront.”

    The new language reflects a change in the federal government’s priorities, but also a recognition among solar advocates that they don’t need to talk about climate change to advance clean technologies. “Energy independence — I think that they should scream that from the rooftops,” Fitzgerald said. “Every single politician in the world, in America, should be saying, ‘We’re trying to make these things here to collect energy here.’”

    Last year, solar represented more than 80 percent of new electrical generating capacity added to the U.S. grid. But some predict a slowdown. Solar industry stocks plummeted after Trump’s election in November as investors speculated that Republicans might repeal tax credits for solar in the Inflation Reduction Act, the climate law Biden signed in 2022. In January, a report from the data analytics company Wood Mackenzie projected that solar installations would stagnate in many countries because of “post-election uncertainty, waning incentives, power sector reforms, and a shift towards less ambitious climate agendas.” 

    “The bottom line is all that adds up to market uncertainty for one of the fastest growing sectors of our economy, and nothing is more important to businesses and investors than market clarity,” said Bob Keefe, the executive director of E2, a nonpartisan organization promoting policies that are good for the economy and environment. “And right now, what Washington is doing in regard to the future of clean energy in America is about as clear as a snowstorm in D.C. at midnight.”

    Trump has complained about wind power ever since an offshore wind farm threatened the pristine view from his golf course in Scotland soon after he bought it in 2006. On his first day in office this year, he halted new permits for wind projects on federal lands and waters. But his administration’s position on solar is unclear: He has ranted about how solar farms take over deserts while at the same time saying he’s a “big fan” of the technology. “I think they’re more favorable to solar,” Keefe said, “but who knows? And for who knows how long?”

    The Trump administration’s assault on federal bureaucracy has already jeopardized solar projects. The administration has withheld federal grants for climate programs, including Solar for All, a $7 billion program to bring residential solar to low-income neighborhoods, despite court orders to release funding. “We’re seeing real delays in getting that money out the door to the projects that need it,” said Sachu Constantine, executive director of Vote Solar, a nonprofit working to make solar power accessible. 

    Despite the continued uncertainty, most Solar for All projects “are still attempting to move forward,” said Michelle Roos, executive director of the Environmental Protection Network, a group of alumni from the Environmental Protection Agency.

    Photo showing wind turbines in the water from the view between sand dunes
    An offshore wind project is seen from Trump International Golf Links in Scotland.
    Andy Buchanan / AFP via Getty Images

    By some measures, the culture wars are starting to encroach on Americans’ opinions about solar. Republican support for new solar farms slumped from 84 to 64 percent between 2020 and 2024, according to polling last year from the Pew Research Center. Misinformation campaigns have increasingly targeted clean energy, pushing the idea that solar and wind are unreliable — a line taken up by Citizens for Responsible Solar, a group led by a conservative operative who works to stop solar projects on farmland and timberland. 

    There are some valid reasons why people have hesitations about the technology, according to Dustin Mulvaney, an environmental studies professor at San José State University who researches conflicts over solar developments. People might be concerned about projects that take over prime farmland, cut through animal habitat, or affect Indigenous cultural sites. Careful planning can help avoid these conflicts, Mulvaney said. Solar farms can coexist with sheep, for instance. They can be built in a way that leaves space between panels for migrating pronghorn antelope, and in general, avoids prized areas in favor of developing projects on “low-impact sites,” such as degraded lands.

    Mulvaney pushes back against the narrative that these concerns are slowing down solar power, arguing that most projects don’t face any resistance at all. Utilities in the U.S. are on track to meet their goals to shift to 100 percent renewable energy by 2060, he pointed out. “To me, the fastest way to get more solar is to require the utilities to buy more of it sooner.”

    No matter what Trump does, clean energy advocates are hopeful that solar projects can continue to move forward at the state level. “We feel good about the future for clean energy in our states in the Southeast,” said Mark Fleming, president and CEO of Conservatives for Clean Energy, an organization that works in Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana. “You know, we don’t talk about it in terms of the environment — we talk about it in terms of choice and competition in the market and in terms of good economics, because the price of solar is rapidly declining.” Over the last decade, the cost of installing solar has fallen by nearly 40 percent, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

    Constantine says that talking about solar’s benefits — whether that’s through creating jobs, reducing blackouts, or pushing electricity prices down — is the key to overcoming hostility. “It is a way to reduce costs, and in this era of rising energy costs and real pinching in people’s pocketbooks, I think that’s a message that resonates,” Constantine said. “When you talk about affordability, resilience, reliability, people get that.”

    Naveena Sadasivam contributed reporting to this story.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Can solar power avoid Trump’s culture wars? on Feb 25, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • The fossil fuel industry is trying to keep buildings hooked on gas. Here’s how.

    Fossil fuel industries in the United States, European Union, and Australia are leading parallel campaigns to block policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from buildings. That’s according to a new report by the London-based think tank InfluenceMap, which found that in all three regions, laws that restrict natural gas use in buildings have faced significant pushback from oil and gas companies and utilities. 

    Those efforts have largely succeeded in preventing and weakening new laws, resulting in delayed climate action on a global scale. Drawing from an InfluenceMap database that tracks corporate engagement on climate policies, researchers found that fossil fuel companies and their trade associations have used similar lobbying tactics across countries, including setting up ad campaigns and front groups, appealing directly to legislators, and taking legal action. They’ve also developed tailored narratives for each region to mislead consumers and promote gas use, according to the report. 

    Taken together, the campaigns have resulted “in policy wins for the fossil fuel industry,” said report co-author Emilia Piziak. “All these narratives that they’re using to prolong the role of fossil gas are counter to leading climate science and public health studies.” (“Fossil gas” is another term for natural gas, which is composed primarily of the greenhouse gas methane.)

    Between construction, electricity, and heating, buildings account for 21 percent of carbon emissions globally, and about a quarter of those emissions come from burning fossil fuels on site. Replacing fossil fuel-powered heating systems and appliances with heat pumps and other electric alternatives — a strategy known as electrification — is one of the most effective ways to cut emissions and improve air quality. The report focused on the EU, Australia, and U.S. because all three are home to recently introduced electrification policies that have also faced intense industry opposition.

    A closeup of the white thermostat knob of radiator, with a snowflake symbol visible on the knob, and the radiator cloaked in shadow
    The controller of a home heating system.
    Frank Rumpenhorst / picture alliance via Getty Images

    In the U.S., local gas bans and electrification ordinances sprung up in dozens of cities after Berkeley, California, introduced a first-in-the-nation ban on burning gas in new buildings in 2019. Fossil fuel companies and utilities have filed lawsuits and amicus briefs, published statements, and run ad campaigns to oppose these bans. Utilities have also funded community groups that appear to be grassroots, a strategy known as astroturfing, to undermine electrification policies in places like Colorado and Eugene, Oregon. 

    According to the report, trade groups like the American Gas Association, the National Propane Gas Association, and Consumer Energy Alliance have also pushed for new state-level laws to prevent local governments from introducing gas bans. Such preemption laws have now passed in 26 states. Local policies have also ground to a halt: Last year, the city of Berkeley agreed to stop enforcing its gas ban following its defeat in a prolonged court battle launched by the California restaurant industry — a loss that prompted several communities to pull back similar bans.

    The majority of U.S. lobbying efforts have centered around the narrative that “consumer choice must be protected,” the report found. Itai Vardi, a researcher at the utility watchdog Energy and Policy Institute who was not involved with the report, said this messaging is prevalent throughout the U.S. and “nothing less than misleading propaganda.”

    “Industry is trying to harness dominant American cultural values such as ‘freedom,’ ‘choice,’ and ‘individualism’ to serve its own narrow economic interests of keeping gas in the mix,” Vardi told Grist. “Yet the main proponents of this line, gas utilities and their trade associations and front groups, are in fact monopoly entities that by definition have great control over their customers’ energy options.” 

    A black pipe runs toward the horizon through a ditch with brown dirt on each side of it and a blue sky above
    A natural gas pipeline. CFOTO / Future Publishing via Getty Images

    Bryson Hull, a spokesperson for Consumer Energy Alliance, told Grist that the group is “proud of its advocacy work in multiple states to ensure natural gas remains an affordable, reliable, and cleaner energy option for Americans.” The American Gas Association and the National Propane Gas Association did not respond to Grist’s requests for comment in time for publication.

    Industry groups in the EU and Australia are using strikingly similar tactics and arguments. In the EU, oil and gas companies successfully lobbied to add incentives for hybrid heating systems that use fossil fuels to a recent law intended to boost energy efficiency in buildings. The report found that industry arguments have most often centered around the idea that policy should be “technology neutral,” despite findings by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, the United Nations’ top scientific body on climate change, that renewables and “technology-specific” policies have lowered emissions worldwide. 

    In the state of Victoria in Australia, companies ran ads to oppose a recent gas ban in new buildings, arguing that electrification would worsen affordability and energy security. This message contradicts the UN panel’s finding that deploying clean power makes energy cheaper and more reliable, researchers wrote. In September, the state of Victoria announced that stoves would be exempt from plans to phase out gas in existing homes.

    A person's out-of-focus body next to a hand-drawn sign that says 'No New Gas' in red marker on a white poster
    Environmental groups protest a local utility’s membership in the American Gas Association in Denver, Colorado, in 2023. Hyoung Chang / The Denver Post via Getty Images

    The research provides further proof that “fossil fuel and utility industries employ highly coordinated and planned attacks against one of the most important climate and public health measures: getting buildings off of fossil fuels,” said Vardi. He added that in the U.S., utilities often charge customers for such lobbying costs, including for membership dues to trade associations.

    A small number of energy companies, however, have taken science-aligned positions and supported electrification. In the U.S., for example, the trade group Advanced Energy United and the HVAC company Trane Technologies have supported federal climate and building efficiency policies. Companies should reevaluate not only their individual stances but also their membership to trade associations that are blocking building electrification, report co-author Vivek Parekh said. The utility Eversource, for instance, left the American Gas Association in 2023 to “redirect costs to more targeted associations and memberships with a focus on decarbonization.” 

    For now, though, “These voices are being overwhelmed by the fossil fuel industry,” said Parekh. “The overwhelming opportunity here is for those voices to strengthen their advocacy for building electrification and the phaseout of gas.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The fossil fuel industry is trying to keep buildings hooked on gas. Here’s how. on Feb 24, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Rural New England needs EV chargers for tourism. The Trump administration is making it harder to build them. 

    When Charyl Reardon needs to charge her electric vehicle quickly, she has to leave her home in New Hampshire’s White Mountains region and drive 65 miles south on the interstate highway until she reaches the capital city of Concord. 

    For those like Reardon, a resident of the Lincoln Woodstock community in northern New Hampshire, this kind of routine is not uncommon. Public charging stations for electric vehicles, or EVs, are scarce in rural parts of the state. Compared to the rest of New England, which includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, the Granite State has lagged in its rollout of public EV infrastructure. 

    “They’re kind of sprinkled along parts around the White Mountains,” said Reardon. “You don’t often see fast chargers by any means.”

    Some businesses and municipalities in the state are looking to ramp up the construction of public EV charging stations to meet growing demand. But a recent move by President Donald Trump’s administration could make doing so more difficult. On February 6, 2025, the Federal Highway Administration released a memo suspending the $5 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program, a resource supporting the construction of public EV infrastructure in states. The two phases of the program, spread over five years, award competitive grants of up to 80 percent federal funding for EV infrastructure projects along major roadways and in communities across the country. States are required to contribute the other 20 percent of costs, often through private investment. 

    Reardon is the president of the White Mountains Attractions Association, which operates a visitor center at the entrance to the region in North Woodstock, New Hampshire. Travel and tourism make up the second largest sector in the state’s economy, and most visitors arrive by car. But New Hampshire’s slow approach to building public EV infrastructure could cost the state more than $1.4 billion in tourism revenue by 2031, Clean Energy NH and Ski NH found in a January 2025 study. 

    EV charging stations at Loon Mountain Resort in New Hampshire’s White Mountains region. Julia Tilton

    The region that will be hardest hit is the White Mountains, which is projected to lose $353 million by 2031, according to the study, which was supported by the Environmental Defense Fund. 

    With EVs projected to approach 30 percent of the cars on New England roads between now and the early 2030s, the study found that New Hampshire will fall behind neighboring Vermont and Maine—its key competitors in the regional tourism market—should it continue to lag in developing EV infrastructure. For Reardon, the need is already clear. Fast chargers are in the works at the visitor center where Reardon is based, located off Interstate 93, which connects Boston to the White Mountains. 

    The memo from the Federal Highway Administration has caused confusion and concern among states and contractors hired to install projects, said Loren McDonald, chief analyst at Paren, an EV data platform tracking how states use federal funds for EV infrastructure. 

    “There is no legal basis and authority to do this,” said McDonald. “It is all about creating havoc.” 

    The NEVI program was established under the Inflation Reduction Act, a piece of legislation passed by Congress in 2022. To fundamentally change the NEVI program, Congress will need to revise the law. McDonald said he expects state attorneys general to prepare lawsuits against the memo in coordination with their departments of transportation and energy, which funnel NEVI funds to projects at the local level. 

    In the meantime, states are pausing parts of their NEVI programs. While New Hampshire has already been awarded $2.8 million in NEVI funding to build charging stations along major EV corridors as part of the program’s first phase, it is unclear whether it will see any funding for phase two of the program to build EV infrastructure in communities. 

    A spokesman from New Hampshire’s Department of Transportation confirmed to the Daily Yonder that the state will continue with phase one NEVI sites as planned. The spokesman said phase two NEVI development is “on hold” until the state receives further guidance and direction from its federal partners.

    Beyond phase one NEVI funding the Granite State has already invested into projects in the White Mountains and other regions, close to $30 million in federal funding has been greenlit for building public charging infrastructure along major roadways and in communities. That funding comes through the rest of the NEVI program and the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grant Program, which was created by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. 

    While the February 6 memo from the Federal Highway Administration says that reimbursement of “existing obligations” will be allowed, there is uncertainty as to which projects are considered to be “obligated,” given that the memo also suspends approvals for all plans for all years of the program. This comes as all states that have submitted their annual NEVI plans have received approval and obligation for four out of the program’s five years, McDonald said. 

    “It’s a real head scratcher, because on one hand it’s saying, we’re going to reimburse for existing obligations, but it’s also saying we’re throwing out the first four years of the plans,” McDonald said.

    ‘Here in New England, people drive’

    The White Mountain Attraction Association tallies 51 charging stations in the region, most of which are located at restaurants and lodging facilities. Ski areas like Loon Mountain Resort and Cranmore Mountain Resort have also invested in EV infrastructure, which tends to be more open to the public, Reardon said. 

    “The North Country we often refer to as a charging desert, or ‘the donut hole,’” said Jessyca Keeler, president of Ski NH, one of the organizations associated with the tourism impact study. 

    In a region known for its year-round recreational activities such as skiing, biking, and hiking, this poses a challenge for meeting visitors’ needs. 

    “This is important for our industry because here in New England, people drive,” Keeler said.

    In 2022, Massachusetts and Connecticut sent more than 4 million tourists to the Granite State out of 14.3 million total overnight visitors that year. Massachusetts sends the most visitors to the state of any place of origin, and in the winter, roughly half of all skiers come from the Bay State.

    Drivers in Massachusetts and Connecticut are also adopting EVs faster than their New Hampshire counterparts. Compared to New Hampshire’s small but growing population of EV drivers, 77 percent of all EVs in New England were operated by Massachusetts and Connecticut drivers in 2023, according to the study released by Clean Energy NH and Ski NH. By 2033, Massachusetts is expected to have 1.7 million EVs on the road while Connecticut is expected to have 600,000, compared to 200,000 vehicles projected in New Hampshire, the study found.

    Assuming a “baseline scenario” where the Granite State installs 30 percent of the EV chargers needed to support tourism by early next decade, the study found that nearly 4 in 10 EV drivers and would-be tourists might not travel to the state due to “inadequate” charging infrastructure. This shortfall is behind the projected loss of  $1.4 billion in cumulative revenue that the study found could hit the state’s economy by 2031. 

    That number is equivalent to losing an entire season of tourism, said Sam Evans-Brown, the executive director of Clean Energy NH. 

    “Imagine if during one summer, no tourists came to New Hampshire at all,” said Evans-Brown. “That would be the biggest headline you would see.”

    Evans-Brown and Keeler agree that at the state’s current pace, it will not be prepared to meet the demand for chargers from EV drivers coming from both in- and out-of-state. Both said they are prepared to advocate in favor of state-level policy changes to lower barriers for building the necessary public EV infrastructure for the tourism market. 

    “When we’re talking to our legislators in this state, it’s really important to show the business case,” Keeler said. “When you start talking dollars and cents and the economy and tax revenues and those kinds of things, people listen on both sides of the fence.”

    In a state known for its purple politics, ideological differences over EVs have slowed the state from adopting policies that would make charging infrastructure more affordable for businesses and small communities, Evans-Brown said. Meanwhile, neighboring states like Massachusetts have expanded incentives to build public charging stations through “Make-Ready” programs that anticipate a surge in EV drivers over the next decade. 

    Loading alternative fueling station locator…

    Evans-Brown said that Massachusetts justified its program by demonstrating that public EV infrastructure would help the state reach its climate goals. New Hampshire’s 2024 Priority Climate Action Plan references financing to support the development of public EV charging stations, though the state has yet to enact a “Make-Ready” program. 

    If the state were to consider the number of EVs expected to be on the road in the early 2030s—given that adoption rates are projected to continue growing over the next ten years—Evans-Brown said the financial benefit would become clear. While the tourism impact study that Keeler and Evans-Brown worked on demonstrates how the Granite State’s economy could suffer from failing to install public EV infrastructure, a comprehensive look at what the state stands to gain has yet to be done. 

    “You can justify these programs just on a cost basis if you do that kind of analysis,” Evans-Brown said. “But we haven’t gotten there yet.”

    ‘You build it and they will come’ 

    In the state’s southwest corner, four spots in the Monadnock Food Co-op’s parking lot are now reserved for EV drivers looking to charge. Located in Keene, New Hampshire, some twenty minutes from both the Massachusetts and Vermont borders, the cooperatively-owned grocery store installed the chargers with the help of state funding in the spring of 2024.

    “It just seemed like a perfect pairing for an EV driver to be able to use these charging stations while doing some grocery shopping or getting lunch or dinner, for example,” said Michael Faber, the co-op’s general manager.

    The approximately $233,000 project to deploy the store’s chargers was financed by New Hampshire’s $30.9 million share of the Volkswagen Mitigation Trust. That pool of funding was established after Volkswagen settled with the federal government for its violations of the Clean Air Act in the 2010s. 

    Since installing the charging station last year, Faber said the use has continued to grow. Travelers and locals alike have expressed appreciation for them, Faber said, as there are not many fast-charging options in the rural Monadnock region. 

    “You build it, and they will come,” said James Penfold, director of eMobility Solutions at ReVision Energy, the solar and EV charger installation company that the Monadnock Food Co-op partnered with on the charging station. 

    Penfold, who has worked with organizations across northern New England on EV infrastructure, said that projects are often cost-prohibitive to install without government assistance. Level two chargers, which can fill a car to full charge in several hours, cost thousands of dollars. Level three fast chargers, which let drivers plug in for 20-30 minutes before driving away, start in the tens of thousands of dollars. Labor and installation with the utility adds to the total cost of deployment. 

    “Even level twos, they’re relatively expensive to install, so it’s really disappointing for the state right now that there are no incentives to be able to encourage them and help defray some of that cost,” Penfold said.

    In the northern part of the state, Charyl Reardon expressed a similar sentiment. She said the upfront costs to install public EV chargers are unfeasible for many local businesses and municipalities in the White Mountains, even if they recoup the money later. 

    For New Hampshire’s rural communities, uncertainties about the future of federal funding loom over plans to build EV infrastructure. Most of the grants at the state level, like the $2.8 million in NEVI funding or the award from the Volkswagen Mitigation Trust, originate from the federal government. 

    The Trump administration’s attempts to freeze federal spending—which continue to be challenged in courts—has left the future of that funding unclear. 

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Rural New England needs EV chargers for tourism. The Trump administration is making it harder to build them.  on Feb 23, 2025.


    This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Julia Tilton, The Daily Yonder.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • US Energy Secretary Backs Coal And Attacks ‘Sinister’ Climate Targets

    Donald Trump’s new energy secretary has today vowed to “get out of the way” of coal, oil and gas, and called the UK’s 2050 net zero target “a sinister goal” that would “impoverish” people.

    Chris Wright, an oil and gas industry executive appointed by U.S. President Trump, was speaking via video link at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) conference in London, a right-wing forum run by fierce opponents of climate policies.

    He also downplayed the threat from extreme weather, and suggested that climate action is part of a plot to “grow government power” and “shrink human freedom”.

    The post US Energy Secretary Backs Coal And Attacks ‘Sinister’ Climate Targets appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • A government consultation on Ofgem is about to close – and it needs YOUR input quickly

    There’s just ten days left to tell the government that energy regulator Ofgem is not fit for purpose. The deadline approaches just as Ofgem prepares to announce yet another hike to the energy price cap. That is, the regulator will hit household energy bills once again, all while lining the pockets of the profiteering energy companies.

    So, campaign group Fuel Poverty Action is urging people to speak up.

    The consultation: call out the spineless regulator

    In December, the Labour Party government launched a consultation on the operations of energy regulator Ofgem.

    The consultation states that:

    Ofgem was established almost a quarter of a century ago as the independent regulator for gas and electricity markets in Great Britain. At the time, a system of independent regulation was established to drive the move towards competition in gas and electricity supply and replicate the benefits of competition in the monopoly gas and electricity networks. In recent years the energy sector has faced huge challenges. Against this backdrop, it is more important than ever that consumers are protected and that they receive good customer service. Government wants to see an energy market that delivers better outcomes for consumers and a regulator that drives up consumer standards. To address these challenges the government will undertake a review of Ofgem, with the aim of revisiting the role of the regulator and how it delivers to ensure that it can regulate to support an energy market where innovation and high standards help drive better products and services for consumers.

    In short, the government has recognised that the energy regulator is failing in its core remit. Energy prices continue to soar – so Ofgem isn’t protecting consumers.

    Nonetheless, the consultation provides an opportunity for people to show that the regulator isn’t working for them.

    The government is closing the consultation on 28 February – so people need to act fast to get their responses in on time.

    Fuel Poverty Action: Ofgem is failing us, now’s your chance to speak out

    Fuel Poverty Action has launched a letter campaign, with a helpful template letter for people to use as a starting point.

    The letter includes the following demands:

    Make Ofgem a true consumer champion, holding suppliers to account for bad practice, ending the ‘revolving door’ of energy bosses making the decisions, and not making us foot the bill for firms going bust.

    Reduce our bills to fair and affordable levels that meet people’s needs, removing protections that guarantee profits and bonuses for energy companies.

    Make sure everyone automatically gets the best energy deal and customer service they need – and actually protect vulnerable people from profit-hungry suppliers.

    However, to have as much impact as possible, the campaign group urges people to personalise their letters. Crucially, it suggests that respondents should explain how Ofgem’s failures to bring down soaring energy bills is impacting them.

    You can use its letter tool to respond to the consultation here.

    Alongside its letter campaign, the group has also put out a petition to accompany this. Since launching it on 12 February, it has already garnered more than 68,000 signatures. You can also add your name to this here.

    What ‘regulator’? Ofgem in the pockets of profiteering energy companies

    As the Canary has consistently pointed out, the spineless regulator has consistently acted in the interest of energy company shareholders. In August, Ofgem CEO Jonathan Brearley took to BBC Breakfast to defend the price hike as a way energy companies could:

    recover fair costs and a small profit

    This is a so-called ‘regulator’ that just last year allowed energy companies to continue the disgraceful practice of forcing customers onto prepayment meters. That is, it gave them the go-ahead to force their way into people’s homes and install these. Moreover, as the Canary’s Steve Topple pointed out, it’s “wafer-thin” criteria for who counts as vulnerable, leaves many people out too.

    Then there’s the cruel standing charges. Energy companies set and charge this cost to consumers each day. Crucially, energy suppliers will charge this, even when people are not using any energy.

    In 2024, tens of thousands of people called on Ofgem to abolish this. However, the regulator isn’t remotely interested in scrapping it.

    Energy price cap rise incoming…what’s even the point of Ofgem?

    What’s more, the consultation deadline is set to fall just days after Ofgem’s is expected to make the next energy price cap announcement – on 25 February.

    As the Independent reported:

    forecasts show the typical energy bill could soon rise by over £100 a year.

    Whitehall sources have indicated that they expect bills in most UK regions to increase by around £9 a month over next three months

    In particular, it said that:

    Treasury sources have indicated that the new annual cap will be £1,846, up £108 (6.2 per cent) from the current level. This would put it up £156 from the same time last year, and to the highest it has been since January 2024.

    This would be an increase on the same period from last year. Moreover, energy bills would still be way above pre-pandemic prices.

    There couldn’t be more timely evidence that Ofgem continues to so very shamefully let the public down.

    Time to ‘put their feet to the fire’

    Lead Campaigner at Fuel Poverty Action Stuart Bretherton told the Canary why it’s vital as many people as possible take Ofgem to task in the consultation:

    Regulation is supposed to protect us from being ripped off. But Ofgem has long been putting the interests of private energy firms above the needs of ordinary people. No wonder there’s an energy price crisis.

    We’ve seen bumper bonuses for bosses, shareholders making more than a pretty penny, and a revolving door that sees energy bosses having a huge influence on policy.

    Ofgem ignored tens of thousands of people calling for cruel standing charges to be scrapped. They’ve overseen huge payouts for shareholders while our bills have gone up 65% since 2020. It’s high time they worked for us.

    We’ve seen it with water, and we’re seeing it with energy: when profits come first, it means high bills and abysmal service for us.

    Now that Ofgem is under review, we have an opportunity to put their feet to the fire. Add your name to the petition and take a minute to send a letter to demand that they start putting people before private profit.

    So, there’s just over a week to get involved in Fuel Poverty Action’s letter campaign and respond to the consultation.

    However, the Labour government has a prolific track record capitulating to the whims of corporate capitalists. Whether it will actually make the regulator serve the needs of the public, remains to be seen.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Mayors across the US urge Congress not to repeal clean energy tax credits

    A letter signed by mayors and local leaders across 39 states is calling on Congress to protect all clean energy tax credits made available to state and local governments, which had been responsible for creating thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investments before President Donald Trump froze the funds.

    Those tax credits and the bill that enabled them — the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, the Biden administration’s signature climate policy — helped launch 750 clean energy projects credited with creating 400,000 new jobs and over $422 billion in investments. But it drew the ire of the Trump administration. One of Trump’s first acts was signing an executive order pausing funding for programs under the IRA, though the tax credits remain spared, for now, because changing them would require an act of Congress. 

    Republican-led states have benefited the most from the credits, and freezing them will hurt communities across the country, the letter sent to congressional leaders in the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees late Friday warns. 

    “Repeal, rollback, or adjustment of any clean energy incentives will upend countless energy projects and jobs across our country, endangering millions of American jobs, increasing costs for everyday Americans, costing billions in taxpayer dollars, and potentially forcing American jobs overseas,” reads the letter, signed by 133 local leaders representing 25 million Americans across jurisdictions led by both Democrats and Republicans.

    The IRA is the nation’s largest single investment in addressing climate change, allocating billions of dollars via grants, loans, and tax incentives to promote the energy transition away from fossil fuels. The bill passed without a single Republican voting for it and has continued to face partisan attacks, though some Republican members of Congress have come to support it as money began flowing into their communities. According to the letter from local leaders, 85 percent of announced investments and 53 percent of new clean energy jobs stemming from the IRA are in districts represented by Republicans. 

    The 13 tax credits the IRA created for state and local governments have led to the creation of charging stations for electric vehicles, solar installations on government buildings, and more. In just the first year of the tax credits being available, over 500 local governments have taken advantage of them. 

    Kate Gallego, Phoenix’s mayor, said the pause in tax credits has created uncertainty for local governments and businesses regarding the status of funding for various projects. In many cases, the credits come in the form of reimbursements for cities, she said. Phoenix has already placed orders for hybrid-electric buses thanks to the incentives and received a $15 million grant for expanding its EV charging network and addressing the city’s air quality problems. The city is trying to find out if that funding will still be available as city leaders work on the budget for the upcoming fiscal year, she said. 

    Without certainty that the funding will be there, many of the projects can’t move forward. And if the IRA’s tax credits are repealed, it would raise electric bills for Americans across the country by roughly $489 a year as well as cutting jobs, the letter stated. 

    “Whether you care about helping people manage their energy consumption, or American innovation or energy independence for the United States, the clean energy tax credits and direct pay have advanced those agendas,” said Gallego, who is also chair of Climate Mayors, a network of mayors focused on climate action. Many of the letter’s signees are members.

    The tax credits’ uncertain future is one consequence of the Trump administration’s funding freeze across the government, touching off court battles and warnings from experts that the country is in a full-blown constitutional crisis. Federal judges have ruled that the Trump administration cannot pause congressionally approved funds to state and local governments, but agencies are still holding money back. 

    That led a coalition of 22 Democratic state attorneys general to file a motion to enforce the judges’ rulings and a motion for a preliminary injunction in one of the court cases to stop the funding freeze. On Monday, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration must immediately restore all frozen federal funding, a win for the states. 

    “This funding is owed by law to the people of Arizona,” said Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes in a statement announcing the legal filing. “Trump can try every trick he has up his sleeve to evade the constitution, but I will be there to stop him.” 

    Correction: A previous version of this story misstated the effect President Trump’s executive order had on clean energy tax credits made available by the Inflation Reduction Act to state and local governments. The tax credits were not paused because changing them would require an act of Congress.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Mayors across the US urge Congress not to repeal clean energy tax credits on Feb 16, 2025.


    This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Wyatt Myskow, Inside Climate News.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Georgia was about to retire coal plants. Then came the data centers.

    This coverage is made possible through a partnership between Grist and WABE, Atlanta’s NPR station.

    Three years ago, one of the country’s largest electric utilities, Southern Company, made a splash when it announced it would retire most of its coal-fired power plants in the coming years, a major step toward the company’s stated goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. 

    Southern’s subsidiary utilities — the companies that actually run the coal plants to provide electricity to homes and businesses — backed up the announcement by seeking and obtaining approval to close coal plants from the powerful state regulators who oversee them.

    But now the utilities are backtracking. They say they need to meet an extraordinary spike in demand for electricity, mostly from the large facilities packed with computer servers that enable intensive online activity like generative AI and cryptocurrency, known as data centers.

    In its latest integrated resource plan, or IRP, Southern Company subsidiary Georgia Power forecasts that demand will go up by 8,200 megawatts (MW) by the winter of 2030-31, more than three times the output of the new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle, the first new nuclear reactors in the U.S. in decades, which Georgia Power and other utilities just spent more than $30 billion to build. To meet that growth, the company is requesting a range of resources, including upgrades to existing nuclear plants, more renewable energy, and improvements to the overall power grid — but it’s also asking to extend the life of heavily-polluting coal plants that were previously slated for retirement.

    This move is part of a national trend. The data center industry is booming all over, from Virginia to Texas to Oregon, and utilities across the country are responding by building new fossil fuel resources or delaying retirements, all at a time when scientists agree that cutting fossil fuel emissions is more urgent than ever. More than 9,000 MW of fossil fuel generation slated for closure has been delayed or is at risk of delay, and more than 10,800 MW of new fossil fuel generation has been planned, according to the sustainability research and policy center Frontier Group.

    The backslide into fossil fuels is alarming to environmental and consumer advocates, and not only because it stands to slow down climate action and extend the harmful effects of fossil fuel use. Some also question the purported growth in demand — meaning utilities could be doubling down on climate-warming coal and gas to meet energy demand that won’t actually materialize.

    When Georgia Power requested permission to retire most of its coal plants by 2028, the decision wasn’t directly about reducing emissions. Rather, the utility had deemed the plants “uneconomic” — it would no longer make economic sense to keep running them. A key factor in that calculus was the cost of bringing old plants into compliance with new federal emissions restrictions. The future of that rule is now uncertain. The Supreme Court last fall ordered that the emissions rule could go into effect while legal challenges from states and power companies proceed. As a candidate, President Donald Trump promised to repeal the rule. 

    Regardless of the motive, environmental groups and large companies with their own emissions targets to hit applauded the move to close the coal plants.

    So Southern Environmental Law Center senior attorney Jennifer Whitfield called Georgia Power’s request to renege on some coal closures an “odd choice.”

    “It is not only an expensive and dirty fuel that Georgia Power didn’t even want a couple of years ago for some of these plants, but the data centers don’t want it, either,” she said. “They want clean energy.”

    Though controversial, the proposal to delay coal plant closures isn’t exactly surprising or new. Last year, the Georgia Public Service Commission approved a power purchase deal between Georgia Power and its sister company Mississippi Power that will keep a Mississippi coal plant open beyond its planned retirement date. That move, too, was meant to cover rising demand that Georgia Power said came mostly from data centers. Other utilities have proposed delaying coal unit closures in Virginia and West Virginia, according to the Frontier Group analysis.

    Environmental advocates have applauded coal retirements, and are now decrying the reversals, because of the many negative impacts of burning coal to make electricity. Along with airborne pollution that can harm people and contribute to climate change, burning coal creates residual material known as coal ash that poses serious health risks if it seeps into groundwater. Often, the costs of cleaning up and storing coal ash are passed on to customers.

    “Extending the lives of uneconomic coal plants, especially if tied to energy-guzzling data centers, makes no sense when better investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency are clearly available,” said Liz Coyle of consumer advocacy group Georgia Watch. 

    While data centers are certainly not new — computing and the internet require data servers, and our increasingly digital lives demand ever more data processing capacity — the recent explosion has taken utilities and policymakers alike by surprise.

    Georgia Power’s planning is good evidence of that: In 2023, the utility took the unusual step of filing an IRP update in between its regularly-scheduled plans in 2022 and 2025. Georgia Power claimed that demand for energy was increasing so much and so quickly that the company needed to make and buy more power immediately. The purported demand from large data centers popped up so quickly that the utility didn’t foresee it less than two years before and insisted it couldn’t wait another year to address the issue.

    As utilities scramble to meet the data center demand they claim is coming, lawmakers and regulators are also playing rapid catch-up.

    In Georgia, data centers enjoy a sales tax exemption on the high-tech equipment they need to run, which was passed in 2018 and later renewed with little fuss. The state offers many such tax incentives to economic development projects, part of an ongoing effort to remain business-friendly that the governor and other state leaders frequently boast about.

    But in 2024, as Georgia Power’s highly unusual request for more energy shone a spotlight on the enormous energy demands of data centers, the legislature reconsidered. Lawmakers ultimately passed a bill to pause the data center tax break while a study was conducted to evaluate the state’s energy and water resources. Governor Brian Kemp vetoed the bill. This year, the state House of Representatives is forging ahead with the study even as the tax break remains in place and new, large data centers continue to be announced.

    “We want to make sure that we look at how sustainable our energy production is, our energy usage, and certainly our water usage,” House Speaker Jon Burns said when he announced the study committee.

    The Georgia Public Service Commission, meanwhile, has taken steps to address a major concern that came up during the interim IRP. New power generation and transmission infrastructure is expensive, and consumer advocates and the commissioners worried regular customers would end up paying for costs created in the scramble to power data centers. So in January, the commission approved new rules meant to prevent the costs from being passed on to others.  

    These rules, commission chair Jason Shaw said, are just a first step in dealing with a rapidly changing issue.

    “We’ve got to be flexible in terms of keeping an open mind in how we deal with this,” he said. “And we’re also looking at what other states are doing, because Georgia’s growing faster than most but we’re not the only state that’s dealing with this.”

    Policymakers elsewhere are indeed grappling with these same concerns. In Virginia, the state leading the data center boom, lawmakers have introduced a litany of bills on data centers this year, aiming to track their energy and water use, ensure residents and other businesses aren’t subsidizing their energy needs, and assess the impact of new data centers before they’re approved. Legislators in New York and Oregon are working on similar measures.

    Even as lawmakers and regulators reconsider the impacts, data center companies enjoy tax breaks in many states just as they do in Georgia. Data centers receive subsidies of some form in 22 states, according to a recent report by Frontier Group, Environment America, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

    Although the 2025 IRP builds on the trend of skyrocketing demand predictions in other recent filings from Georgia Power and indeed the nationwide trajectory, some consumer advocates are skeptical of the company’s forecasts. Commissioners and advocates questioned the projections closely during hearings last year over Georgia Power’s urgent request for more energy in the 2023 IRP update.

    “It’s not just a math exercise,” Jeffrey Grubb, Georgia Power’s director of resource planning, said of the projections at the time. “It’s based on facts. It’s tangible projects.”

    Still, Public Service Commission staffers tasked with advocating for the public interest sharply criticized how Georgia Power factored those projects into their forecast, arguing the company inflated the probability that the new demand would actually materialize. Experts have also questioned the projections from Georgia Power and other utilities because multiple states are vying to attract the data centers that are driving the demand growth.

    “I think there is a real overestimation of the power requirements throughout the southeast,” Georgia Tech professor and energy expert Marilyn Brown told Grist last year. “[The data center companies are] touring states and they’re asking for the best deal that these states can offer them for clean electricity. So what I’m seeing … it’s like double counting.”

    If a company is considering building a data center in either Georgia or Tennessee, for instance, Brown said utilities in both states may factor in the large energy demands of that potential new customer — even though in reality, only one data center will be built.

    Even within the electric utility industry, demand projections for data centers are uncertain and vary widely, according to the Frontier Group report. One forecast by the Electric Power Research Institute finds data center demand could grow by as little as 29 percent or as much as 166 percent by 2030. The industry forecasts for 2030 cited in the report differ by as much as a staggering 200 terawatt-hours, or 200 million megawatt-hours.

    The same report also points to the risks of inflated projections. In the 1950s and ’60s, it explains, electricity demand grew rapidly amid the postwar economic boom and explosion of new technology. The North American Electric Reliability Council predicted this growth of more than 7 percent a year would continue, and utilities built resources accordingly. But in reality, the boom leveled off. Projects were canceled and utilities defaulted on bonds, according to the report.

    The current moment, the paper argues, could go either way — and depends in large part on a choice as to “whether rapid growth of energy use for technologies such as GenAI and crypto mining are worth the pollution, disruption and costs they impose.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Georgia was about to retire coal plants. Then came the data centers. on Feb 12, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • A Progressive Radio Station Purges 2 Elected Board Members

    Two elected members were suspended from the KPFA Local Station Board (LSB) in a closed door session on November 16, 2024. It was a “show trial” that was not for show, not to be seen or even whispered about — a skeleton for the board’s closet, and an insult to the “free speech radio” spirit of KPFA.

    This was a Zoom session, a meeting in cyberspace; twenty two board members attended; four Pacifica National Board directors were here as observers, and there were several technicians and some others, in all, thirty people.  The accused persons were Elizabeth Milos and Steve Zeltzer.  Both were elected to this Local Station Board (LSB) by the listener-subscribers of KPFA, and this hearing should’ve been open to the public — especially since the “Protector” group had already publicized it as a campaign issue.  This closed hearing cannot rightfully be kept secret, and as a board member present at that session, I’m writing this account.

    It wasn’t funny to us who sat through it, but who knows how others may see it. There was irony, unintended humor, and an interesting cast of characters.

    We see a defendant, the indomitable Elizabeth Milos and others in action.  The session opens with Elizabeth challenging Christina Huggins, first about the audio recording.  Christina said there wasn’t going to be any audio recording; Elizabeth told her we’d then record it ourselves, which we did, or I did anyway, and from it made a transcription.  Christina said we didn’t have her permission, and Elizabeth then challenged Christina’s eligibility to chair the session.

    “The chair of the LSB is not going to be present?” said Elizabeth Milos. “So who is acting chair?”

    “I am the chair for this meeting,” replied Christina Huggins.

    “You’re not a member of the board,” Elizabeth reminded her.  “You can not–”

    And Christina muted her.  This being a Zoom meeting, the person who runs the meeting can press a mute button and silence board members.

    Elizabeth Milos unmuted herself. “You’re not a delegate. To be able to preside over this kind of –”

    Christina Huggins muted her again and said. “The chair does not have to be a delegate, per the bylaws.”

    “The ones who don’t have to be a delegate are the treasurer and the secretary, but the chair does,” Elizabeth explained, referring to Article Seven, Local Station Boards, Section 5.

    “You will be removed from the room if you do not come to order,” Christina warned.

    Steve Zeltzer spoke up “You’re not a delegate, Christina.”

    You will be removed as well. I’m the chair.  The chair does not have to be a delegate.”

    “Show us in writing where it says the chair does not have to be a delegate,” said Cheryl Davila.

    Christina Huggins overruled them and presided as the self-appointed chair.

    Christina Huggins is a leader of the “PROTECTORS” group — the “Huggins Faction” — which, on KPFA’s Local Station Board (LSB), represents the station’s power clique and management. Although Huggins was a former board member, and was again elected for a term beginning in December 2024, she was not a delegate at the time of this session.  Her group has a 2/3rds majority which enables them to set the agenda, and this was what they set for this day in November 2024.  So we see the majority putting two members of the minority on trial, a “disciplinary hearing,” Christina Huggins called it.

    Defendant Elizabeth Milos is a Chilean-American, a Spanish/English medical interpreter in her day job.  She’s also a labor and human rights activist.  Her co-defendant Steve Zeltzer is the host of Work Week Radio.  Both are affiliated with the RESCUE PACIFICA group, which advocates keeping the Pacifica network intact and preserving its seventy-five year antiwar tradition.

    The “trial” was ostensibly about an incident on July 31, 2024, where the defendants, Elizabeth Milos and Steve Zeltzer, held a speak-out in front of the KPFA studio in Berkeley.  KPFA’s Business Manager Maria Negret came out of the building and angrily confronted them.  Steve Zeltzer inadvertently touched Maria Negret’s hand — hence a charge of “assault and battery.”

    “He’s lucky he didn’t do it to me,” growled board member Fred Dodsworth, who played the role of “Prosecutor.”  Fred describes himself as “Loud and Proud,” and he certainly is loud, egotistical, and takes himself very, very seriously. Fred Dodsworth was perfectly cast for a leading role in this sort of thing. His mission was to seek justice for the supposed “victim,” Business Manager Maria Negret — who was not present.

    Steve Zeltzer and Elizabeth Milos had requested that Maria Negret be there as a witness.  And Jim Lafferty, attorney for the defendants, asked why Maria was not present at this hearing?

    “She’s not the accuser,” said Christina Huggins, the self-appointed chair.

    “But she filed a police complaint,” the defense attorney reminded the chair. “She filed a police complaint of assault and battery, which is a charge against one of these people.  And yet, she’s not relevant for today?”

    The chair seemed unable to give a satisfactory  explanation for Maria’s absence.  It appeared that Maria Negret did not wish to accuse Steve Zeltzer in a hearing where she could be cross examined.

    There was a police report, and Dodsworth flashed it on the screen.  But only the seal of the Berkeley Police Department was seen.  The contents could not be shown, because, Dodsworth told the hearing, “The actual police report stipulates that it is not for distribution.”

    Not for distribution?  Strange.  We had obtained a copy of the police report — presumably the same one mentioned by Dodsworth.  It did not even contain the name of the suspect or a description of the “assault.”

    What Dodsworth did have was a video of the July 31st incident.  But it was actually more embarrassing to Maria Negret than to Steve and Elizabeth.  In it we see Maria with her hands on her hips, aggressively yelling and scolding.  And the assault?  The video doesn’t show it, not until you slow it down to frame by frame, and finally there is a frame where for a microsecond Steve touches Maria’s hand.  That was the evidence of the supposed “assault and battery” on which Dodsworth based his case.

    “Yeah, we’ve been told this was an assault and battery,” said board member Anthony Fest.  “If this really was an assault, why didn’t you contact the DA’s office and request that they prosecute Steve Zeltzer?  Most likely because you wouldn’t want to be laughed at — a fraction of a second of inadvertent contact when the business manager was actually the initiator of the confrontation.”

    “If this is assault and battery, then every time I’ve gotten on BART at rush hour, I’ve been assaulted and battered,” said another LSB member, James McFadden. “I was most amused by the prosecutor’s comment that if Zeltzer had done that to him, he would have –, and then didn’t finish his sentence.  He would have what?  Assaulted and battered Zeltzer?”

    Undaunted, “Prosecutor” Dodsworth bravely and resolutely launched into presenting his case.  This was Fred Dodsworth’s hour upon the stage, and all eyes were on him as he spoke:

    “The evidence against Mr. Zeltzer is undeniable.  You saw it with your own eyes. . . . This was no accidental contact. This was no inadvertent brush. This was an attempt to wrest control of her body from herself.”

    And reminding us that Maria Negret is a Latina, Dodsworth added, with righteous indignation, “There’s additional significance when this action is taken against a woman of color.”

    “Excuse me,” Elizabeth Milos interrupted him. “There’s a point of order.”

    And this is where we learned that while presenting his case against Steve Zeltzer, Prosecutor Dodsworth had kicked delegate Cheryl Davila — the only black woman in this Zoom session — out of the meeting.

    “I’m talking. Shut up!” Dodsworth barked.

    The not easily silenced Elizabeth Milos spoke again, “One of our members, Cheryl Davila is not being allowed in.”

    “You’re out of order!” the self-appointed chair upheld the prosecutor.

    Prosecutor Dodsworth continued his speech, explaining that to excuse Steve Zeltzer “would be a betrayal of the values we stand for and erode that trust KPFA has built within staff and community, particularly among women and people of color.”

    Elizabeth Milos and Steve Zeltzer continued to raise their voices. “Cheryl Davila, who is a black, the only black board member of the KPFA Local Station Board, has been excluded!” Steve said.

    “You’re out of order, Mr. Zeltzer,” said the self-appointed chair.

    Eventually Cheryl Davila was readmitted to the meeting. After returning, Cheryl said: “Dodsworth has disrespected me on numerous occasions . . ., and today I was kicked out of the meeting. Wasn’t let back in for some time. I don’t even know why I was kicked out.  . . . It is a kangaroo court.  You guys make the rules, and we have to go by them.”

    Unlike courtroom dramas and other events that take place in a physical room or hall, this was a Zoom session where everyone except the speaker is muted, and laughter, gasps, jeers, boos, and applause were not heard.  But the attending board members were allowed brief comments.

    Since Dodsworth was making such an issue of respect for KPFA employees and staff, particularly those of color, Donna Carter and I reminded him of the time he wrongfully criticized KPFA journalist Frank Sterling who was arrested by the Antioch police.  Frank Sterling is a Native American; he won his case, and a financial settlement from the police.

    Pausing in his prosecution, Fred Dodsworth took time to reiterate his attack on the KPFA journalist.  “Mr. Sterling did not behave as a reporter,” said Dodsworth.  “He behaved as an activist.”

    Frank Sterling had stepped in to prevent a woman from being beaten.  Many journalists have done that in various ways. Amy Goodman, Gary Webb, Norman Solomon, among them. Frank Sterling is a journalist and he is an activist. That is very much in the KPFA tradition.

    Defense Attorney Jim Lafferty said this earlier in this session, but it fits here: “Having been a long time admirer of this radio station, to be present at this, … and to observe it taking place is truly sad to me. It has no resemblance to due process. An Alice in Wonderland trial would be an improvement… This hearing is … a shamefully obvious political move on the part of a majority of this board, to get rid of some people whose opinions annoy them.”

    The opinions of Steve Zeltzer and Elizabeth Milos were indeed annoying to the “Protector” group.  Steve told the hearing;

    “The [July 31st event] was about the monitorship of Pacifica. And this monitorship was brought about actually because members of this KPFA Station Board went to the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] and called on the FCC to take away the license of WBAI. Now I think that’s a betrayal of the interests of Pacifica.

    “They did that. They continue to support that.  And now that monitorship means that a new FCC Chairman appointed by the President Trump could immediately shut down Pacifica because it’s already under monitorship.”

    How the Trump Administration may handle the monitorship (“Consent Decree”) remains to be seen.  But there are also other threats on the horizon. Congress is currently working on bipartisan legislation to crack down on alternative media.

    Co-defendant Elizabeth Milos, the only witness of the July 31 incident present at this hearing, was charged with two offenses.  The first was: “making inaccurate statements in a public meeting about the alleged assault and battery.”

    Elizabeth Milos had publicly refuted the accusation.  And now at this hearing Elizabeth said, “The video proves the fact that it was not [Steve Zeltzer’s] intention to grab anybody.” Thus, by disputing Fred Dodsworth’s dubious version, Elizabeth had, in Dodsworth’s view, obviously committed a truly heinous offense.

    The second charge went to the heart of the matter.  Elizabeth had criticized the station’s Business Manager Maria Negret.  That is, Elizabeth had found documents showing that during a lawsuit by former Pacifica Executive Director John Vernile against the Pacifica Foundation, Maria Negret presented a deposition on behalf of the opposing side.  And Christina Huggins had shared confidential information with the opposing counsel.  That lawsuit cost KPFA $305,000.

    “I have been involved in exposing this fraud.” Elizabeth Milos told the hearing that she’d shown Maria Negret’s publicly available deposition.  “That would most likely be part of the reason why I’m being silenced,” Elizabeth said, and added, “I again object for the record that your Christina Huggins is not [currently] a delegate and also has serious conflict of interest.”

    Prosecutor Dodsworth didn’t actually dispute Elizabeth’s allegations against Maria Negret and Christina Huggins. He and Huggins only stipulated that such matters should be discussed in only closed sessions of the LSB.  Well, they had a point there.  The board should be able to discuss and resolve personnel issues in executive sessions.  Unfortunately, it’s impossible to discuss such issues with this board dominated by the offenders — the “Protector” group.  Only one point of view is allowed.

    And that leads directly to what this “trial” was really about — the role of the Local Station Board. The Rescue Pacifica group, with which Elizabeth and Steve are affiliated, assert that there are times when board members need to ask questions.  The above mentioned issues should concern the LSB.  Another example, one from January 2020: when it was discovered that property taxes hadn’t been paid on the KPFA’s studio for six years, and the Alameda County tax office was about to seize the building and auction it off to collect the unpaid taxes, it was proper for the board to be asking the station’s general manager how that happened.  In fact, according to Pacifica Bylaws, the LSB is required to do a yearly evaluation of the station’s manager, but that hasn’t been done for over seven years now. The “Protector” group, who have a board majority, have prevented those evaluations.

    The “Protector” group sees it as its job to protect the station’s management from the embarrassing questions that the Rescue Pacifica people ask. Protector Sherry Gendelman said at this hearing: “Oversight of employees is not the role of the LSB.”

    “We should not interfere with the operation or the employees at the station at any time,” Gendelman stated specifically. Which is a an interesting comment coming from the person who petitioned the FCC to investigate WBAI, the Pacifica station in New York.  Before that “Protectors” were involved in the month-long takeover of the NY station in 2019.  There certainly are problems at WBAI, but the Protectors’ “solutions” have done more to sabotage than to help the New York station.

    The differences between the two groups do seem irreconcilable.  Rescue Pacifica struggles to preserve the network and its antiwar programming, while the Protectors group supports a management clique that gives nine hours of KPFA’s airtime each week to Ian Masters, a show host who attacked Mumia Abu Jamal, and who promotes a pro-military vision for our country.  This struggle has gone on for years, with people looking to find common ground — which is hard to find.

    In the midst of this day’s turmoil, Defense Attorney Jim Lafferty, who is a former general manager of KPFK in Los Angeles, expressed a plea for unity and warned of the danger:

    “One of the reasons why I’m so utterly appalled by having to be here today is because Pacific has enemies!”  For God’s sakes, not Steve and Elizabeth!  No, our enemies. My enemies, your enemies. . . . They are, of course, those who are about to rule this country — who in Project 2025 spell out that they want to shut down this entire network. And yet, here we sit, doing what we’re doing today,” Jim Lafferty said.  “Have we all lost our minds?”

    “Well, I simply want to then say that I plead with all of us to remember that we’re comrades,” Jim Lafferty continued.  “And that we please can get back to the business that we should be at, because otherwise the bright future of this station is going to be removed from us.  In fact, the whole damn thing is going to be removed!”

    Two of  the “Protectors” broke ranks and voted against the suspension, but we don’t know who they were, because the ballots — like everything else in the meeting — were secret.  And there were two Protectors who did not attend this session.  Nevertheless, Dodsworth, Huggins and their crew still had a simple majority which found Elizabeth Milos and Steve Zeltzer “guilty” of all charges and suspended them from the LSB for eighteen months.  (To fully remove them from the board would’ve required a 2/3rds vote.)

    What we saw that November day was a power grab, rather crude and even clumsy, but nevertheless very effective. Board members elected by the listeners were removed by the majority faction.  Who’s next?  It could be anyone who raises uncomfortable issues.  It’s sad and discouraging to see this happening at KPFA 94.1 FM, which for so many years has been a source of information, music, inspiration, encouragement and sense of community.

    But what does this mean for KPFA listeners who may not take much interest in the details of board politics?

    Just this: the ones who run the show are the ones who determine the programming.  While many excellent shows remain, in recent years we’ve seen a drift towards echoing the corporate media and security state propaganda, promoting or at least soft peddling empire’s talking points.

    While following events in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere, we need to watch and take care of what’s happening under our noses, on the air and in the cyberspace where we live, at our community radio station.

    *****
    The quotations in the above account are from a transcript of the KPFA LSB executive session of Nov 16, 2024.  It’s long, but I strongly recommend reading it.

    The post A Progressive Radio Station Purges 2 Elected Board Members first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • North Carolina launches first-ever statewide electrification incentives

    As temperatures dipped well below freezing last month in Asheville, North Carolina, the heat pumps at Sophie Mullinax’s house hummed along, keeping up just fine.

    The fact she was warm inside without a gas furnace while the outdoor temperature read 9 degrees Fahrenheit reaffirmed a core belief: ​“Electrification is better in almost every way you slice it.”

    Mullinax is chief operating officer for Solar CrowdSource, a platform that connects groups of customers with solar panels and electric appliances. Since last spring, the company has been preparing for North Carolina’s first-ever statewide incentives for switching out gas stoves and heaters for high-efficiency electric versions.

    The Energy Saver North Carolina program, launched in mid-January, includes more than $208 million dollars in federally funded rebates to help low- and moderate-income homeowners make energy-saving improvements, including converting to electric appliances.

    “The electric counterpart to every single fossil-fuel technology out there does the same job better,” Mullinax said, and ​“has a lower impact on the climate, is healthier, and often saves money.”

    Solar CrowdSource, which has partnered with the city of Asheville and Buncombe County to help meet the community’s climate goals through electrification, expects the rebate program to make its task easier.

    Still, questions remain about the federally funded inducements, including — perhaps most urgently — whether they can survive President Donald Trump’s unilateral assault on clean energy.

    ‘The largest and the first’

    The state’s new incentive program stems from the Inflation Reduction Act, the 2022 federal climate law that unleashed nearly $400 billion in federal spending on clean energy and efficiency — and which is now embattled by a flurry of Trump edicts.

    While much of the climate law directs incentives to large, utility-scale wind and solar projects, the $8.8 billion home-rebate program is designed to curb planet-warming emissions house-by-house, where there is vast potential for improving efficiency and shifting to electric appliances.

    Studies estimate that roughly 35 percent of home energy use is wasted — lost to inefficient heating and cooling systems and appliances, air leaks around windows and doors, and poorly insulated walls. That’s especially true in states like North Carolina, where building energy conservation codes are woefully outdated.

    While homes in North Carolina rely less on fossil fuel appliances than in other parts of the country, they still contribute to climate change. About a third are heated with fuels other than electricity, per the U.S. Census Bureau. According to the Energy Information Administration, some 15 percent use gas for cooking. In all, state officials estimate that households that burn gas, propane, and other fuels account for 5 percent of the state’s net greenhouse gas pollution.

    Both energy waste and the rising cost of fossil fuels — whether burned directly in the home or in Duke Energy power plants — contribute to the state’s energy burden. Some 1.4 million North Carolinians pay a disproportionately high fraction of their income on energy bills, according to the state’s latest Clean Energy Plan.

    But though the state has long deployed federal weatherization assistance to its lowest-income households, there’s little precedent here for a widespread nudge to electrification, either through carrots or sticks.

    Unlike dozens of municipalities around the country, no local government in North Carolina has moved to limit residential hookups for gas; most legal analysts say they lack the power to do so. In 2023, the state legislature made doubly sure of that with a law banning local bans on new gas appliances or connections.

    Meanwhile, a decades-old state rule barring ratepayer-funded utility promotions that could influence fuel choice has prevented Duke from offering much in the way of carrots. While shareholders could pay for rebates, they have little motive to do so: Duke acquired Piedmont Natural Gas, the state’s predominant gas utility, in 2016.

    For years, Duke has offered incentives, carefully calibrated not to run afoul of state rules, for builders to construct more efficient homes. The latest iteration of those ratepayer-backed inducements is under $2,000 per home. By contrast, the new statewide rebates for upgrading to electric appliances cap out at $14,000 apiece.

    “This is the largest and the first program in the state that is truly incentivizing fuel switching,” said Ethan Blumenthal, regulatory counsel at the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association.

    A second program within Energy Saver North Carolina offers rebates of up to $16,000 to homeowners who add insulation, plug air leaks, and make other improvements, so long as an audit shows the measures will reduce energy use by at least 20 percent.

    In both cases, North Carolina officials are aiming the incentives at low- and moderate-income households. Those earning less than 80 percent of the area’s median income — about $70,000, depending on the county — get projects for free, and those earning up to 150 percent of the median get a 50 percent rebate.

    “That was a choice. The federal government did not require it to be a specifically low- to moderate-income program,” said Claire Williamson, energy policy advocate at the North Carolina Justice Center. Yet, she added, the administrations of former governor Roy Cooper and current governor Josh Stein have ​“made sure that these funds are going to people who need them the most.”

    ‘Very optimistic about this program’

    Like Solar CrowdSource, the North Carolina League of Conservation Voters has awaited the new rebates for months. Meech Carter, clean energy campaigns director at the group, has been handing out flyers, holding information sessions with legislators and community leaders, and setting up an online clearinghouse for homeowners to explore available incentives.

    “Every time I present on the website and what resources are out there, I get so many questions on the rebate program,” Carter said, ​“especially for replacing gas appliances, propane heaters, and transitioning folks to cleaner sources and more energy-efficient sources.”

    Costs and climate concerns are factors, she said, but so is health. Just like fossil fuel–burning power plants and cars, gas stoves and furnaces emit soot and smog-forming particles. A growing body of evidence shows that these pollutants get trapped indoors and far exceed levels deemed safe.

    Now that the rebate program has launched, Carter has dozens of people statewide to call back and assist, including 25 in Edgecombe County’s Princeville, the oldest town in the country chartered by Black Americans.

    Edgecombe is among the state’s most impoverished counties, making it a prime candidate for the new rebates. ​“Considering North Carolina’s energy landscape,” Carter said, ​“we are very optimistic about this program.”

    ‘Continuous improvement’

    Yet even champions for the program acknowledge they have questions about its deployment. Despite the immense need, it’s hard enough to expend weatherization assistance money due to distrust in government programs, a dearth of qualified contractors, and other hurdles. Those funds, intended for the state’s lowest-income households, total roughly $38 million per year at the moment, after a big infusion from Congress, according to state officials. The new rebates, if evenly distributed over five years, would more than double that with another $41.6 million annually.

    “This is larger than the weatherization assistance program,” said Williamson. ​“There are many contractors out there, but I think there is going to be a big lift to get people trained.”

    Announcing the program last month, Governor Stein stressed that new contractors and other workers would follow.

    “[The Department of Environmental Quality] estimates that the program will support over 2,000 jobs across our state,” Stein said at the launch event. ​“I’m also eager to see the workforce development opportunities that will come.”

    Asked how historically disadvantaged communities could benefit from such opportunities, department spokesperson Sascha Medina said over email, ​“We have planned this program to launch and ramp up for continuous improvement. We will be focusing our marketing to contractors in high energy burden and storm impacted areas first and will expand from there.”

    Still, the counties most devastated by Hurricane Helene, like Buncombe, aren’t first on the program’s outreach list. The department’s analysis of statewide energy burdens led it to choose Halifax County in the eastern part of the state along with Cleveland County, in the foothills.

    “The hurricane-affected areas add a layer of complexity to the program, because the rebate programs cannot duplicate money that has been awarded to households through other recovery funding sources,” Medina said. ​“As we roll out the program, we will continue to work with our partners in the affected areas and receive guidance from the U.S. Department of Energy.”

    That guidance from a Trump-led Department of Energy could imperil the success of the rebates more than any other factor. While the president rescinded his widely panned memo halting virtually all federal government spending, his first-week orders targeting Biden-era clean energy spending appear to remain in force.

    The fact that the federal government signed contracts with the state in accordance with a law passed by Congress should shield North Carolina’s Energy Saver rebate program from harm, Department of Environmental Quality Secretary Reid Wilson said at the launch.

    “This is finalized. This is done,” Wilson said.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline North Carolina launches first-ever statewide electrification incentives on Feb 8, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • 2 obscure clean energy metals are caught in the crosshairs of the US-China trade war

    In the summer of 2023, Vasileios Tsianos, the vice president of corporate development at Neo Performance Materials, started getting calls from government officials on both sides of the Atlantic. Within the world of industrial material manufacturing, Neo is best known for making rare earth magnets, used in everything from home appliances to electric vehicles. But these calls weren’t about rare earths. They were about something considerably rarer: the metal gallium.

    Neo recycles a few dozen tons of high-purity gallium a year, mostly from semiconductor chip manufacturing scrap, at a factory in Ontario, Canada. In North America, it’s the only industrial-scale producer of the metal, which is used in not only chips, but also clean energy technologies and military equipment. 

    China, the world’s leading producer by far, had just announced new export controls on gallium, apparently in response to reports that the United States government was considering restrictions on the sale of advanced semiconductor chips to China. 

    All of a sudden, people wanted to talk to Neo. “We’ve spoken to almost everyone” interested in producing gallium outside of China, Tsianos told Grist.

    Since Tsianos started receiving those calls, tensions over the 31st element on the periodic table — as well as the 32nd, germanium, also used in a bevy of advanced technologies — have escalated. In December, China outright banned exports of both metals to the United States following the Biden administration’s decision to further restrict U.S. chip exports. 

    Now, several companies operating in the U.S. and Canada are considering expanding production of the rare metals to help meet U.S. demand. While Canadian critical minerals producers may get swept up in a new geopolitical tit-for-tat should Trump go through with his threat to impose tariffs, U.S. metal producers could see support from the new administration, which called for prioritizing federal funding for critical minerals projects in a Day 1 executive order. Beyond the U.S. and Canada, industry observers say China’s export ban is fueling global interest in making critical mineral supply chains more diverse so that no single country has a chokehold over materials vital for a high-tech, clean energy future.

    “This latest round of export bans are putting a lot of wind in the sails of critical minerals supply chain efforts, not just in the U.S. but globally,” Seaver Wang of the Breakthrough Institute, a research center focused on technological solutions to environmental problems, told Grist.

    Gallium and germanium aren’t exactly household names. But they are found in products that are indispensable to modern life — and a fossil fuel-free society. With its impressive electrical properties, gallium is used in semiconductor chips that make their way into everything from cell phones to power converters in electric vehicles to LED lighting displays. The metal is also used in the manufacturing of rare earth magnets for electric vehicles and wind turbines, in thin film solar cells, and sometimes, in commercially popular silicon solar photovoltaic cells, where it can help increase performance and extend lifespan. 

    A close-up of two, side-by-side, black solar panel arrays against a cloudy sky
    Gallium is sometimes used in silicon solar photovoltaic cells, where it can help increase performance and extend lifespan. Baris Seckin / Anadolu via Getty Images

    Germanium, meanwhile, is used to refract light inside fiber optic cables. In addition to helping form the backbone of the internet, the metal’s exceptional light-scattering properties make it useful for infrared lenses, semiconductor chips, and high-efficiency solar cells used by satellites.

    There aren’t many substitutes for these two elements.  Some silicon-based semiconductors lack gallium, and specialized glasses can be substituted for germanium in certain infrared technologies. Solar cells are often doped with boron instead of gallium. But these two metals have specific properties that often make them the ideal material. When it comes to clean energy, Tsianos told Grist, there are no substitutes “within the material performance and cost trade-off spectrum” offered by gallium.

    Because a little bit goes a long way, the market for both metals is small — and it’s dominated by China. In 2022, the world produced about 640 tons of low-purity gallium and a little over 200 tons of germanium, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. In recent years, China has accounted for virtually all of the world’s low-purity gallium output and more than half of refined germanium. 

    That’s partly due to the fact that both metals are byproducts of other industries. Gallium is typically extracted from bauxite ores as they are being processed to make aluminum oxide, while zinc miners sometimes squeeze germanium out of waste produced during refining. China is a leading producer of these common metals, too — and its government has made co-extracting gallium and germanium a priority, according to Wang. “It is very strategic,” he said.

    China’s dominance of the two metals’ supply chains gives it a considerable cudgel in its ongoing trade war with the U.S. America produces no virgin gallium and only a small amount of germanium, while consuming approximately fifty tons a year of the two metals combined. A U.S. Geological Survey study published in November found that if China implemented a total moratorium on exports of both metals, it could cost the U.S. economy billions. Weeks after that study was published, China announced its ban.

    The ban is so new that it’s not yet clear how U.S. companies, or the federal government, are responding. But America’s high-tech manufacturing sector isn’t without fallback options. North of the border, Neo’s facility in Ontario stands ready to double its production of gallium, according to Tsianos. “We have the capacity,” he told Grist. “We’re waiting for more feedstock.” 

    Currently, Neo’s only source of gallium is the semiconductor industry. Chip makers in Europe, North America, and Asia send the company their scrap, which it processes to recover high-purity gallium that feeds back into semiconductor manufacturing. But Tsianos says Neo is piloting its technology with bauxite miners around the world to create new sources of virgin gallium. The idea, he says, is that bauxite miners would do some initial processing on-site, then send low-purity gallium to Neo for further refining in Canada. Tsianos declined to name specific bauxite firms Neo is partnering with, but said the company is “making progress” toward making new resources available.

    Meanwhile, in British Columbia, mining giant Teck Resources is already a leading producer of germanium outside of China. The firm’s Trail Operations refinery complex receives zinc ore from the Red Dog mine in northwest Alaska and turns it into various products, including around 20 tons of refined germanium a year, according to a U.S. Geological Survey estimate. (Teck doesn’t disclose production volumes.) 

    That germanium is sold primarily to customers in the U.S., Teck spokesperson Dale Steeves told Grist. In wake of the export ban, Steeves said that the firm is now “examining options and market support for increasing production capacity of germanium.”

    Two metallic cylinders sit on a blue and white table in front of laboratory equipment
    Germanium substrates wafers at a Umicore facility in Olen, Belgium. Umicore

    Kwasi Ampofo, the head of metals and mining at the clean energy research firm BloombergNEF, told Grist that in the near term, he would expect the U.S. to “try to establish new supply chain relationships” with countries that already have significant production, like Canada, to secure the gallium and germanium it needs. That may be true whether or not Trump’s proposed tariffs on Canadian imports become reality. Tsianos was bullish in spite of the tariff threat, noting in an email that Neo “remains the only industrial-scale and commercially-operating Gallium facility in North America.”

    “[W]e are committed to continue serving our European, American, and Japanese customers in the semiconductor and renewable energy industries,’ Tsianos added.

    Steeves told Grist that a trade war between the U.S. and Canada would be “a negative for the economy of both nations, disrupting the flow of essential critical minerals and increasing costs and inefficiencies on both sides of the border.” Teck, he said,  “will continue to actively manage our sales arrangements to minimize the impact to Trail Operations.”

    While Canada may be the U.S.’s best short-term option for these rare metals, farther down the line Ampofo expects to see the U.S. take a  “renewed interest” in recycling — particularly of military equipment. In 2022, the Department of Defense announced it had initiated a program for recovering “optical-grade germanium” from old military equipment. At the time, the initiative was expected to recycle up to 3 tons of the metal each year, or roughly 10 percent of the nation’s annual demand. The Defense sub-agency responsible for the program didn’t respond to Grist’s request for comment on the program’s status.

    There’s another small source of production capacity in the U.S. The global metals company Umicore recycles germanium from manufacturing scrap, fiber optic cables, solar cells, and infrared optical devices at an optical materials facility in Quapaw, Oklahoma, as well as in Belgium. The company has been recycling germanium since the 1950s, a spokesperson told Grist, calling it a “core and historical activity at Umicore.” Umicore declined to disclose how much of the metal it recycles and wouldn’t say whether China’s export ban will impact this part of its business.

    While recycling is able to fill some of the nation’s gallium and germanium needs, there may be a larger source of both metals lurking in sludge ponds in central Tennessee. 

    There, in the city of Clarksville, the Netherlands-headquartered Nyrstar operates a zinc processing facility that produces wastes containing gallium and germanium. A U.S. Department of Energy spokesperson told Grist that the company has previously partnered with Ames National Laboratory’s Critical Materials Innovation Hub to develop processes for extracting gallium, which isn’t typically produced from zinc waste. 

    A silvery industrial facility is seen behind some shrubs and a road, with wispy clouds in a blue sky in the background
    Nyrstar’s zinc processing facility in Clarksville, Tennessee, which produces wastes containing gallium and germanium. Nyrstar

    In 2023, Nyrstar announced plans to build a new, $150-million facility, co-located with its existing zinc smelter in Clarksville, capable of producing 30 tons of germanium and 40 tons of gallium a year. However, the current status of the project is uncertain, with no timetable to begin construction. A spokesperson for Nyrstar told Grist the company is “continu[ing] to work on and evaluate the business case” for the facility, while declining to offer additional details.

    Making a business case to produce gallium or germanium is the central challenge for firms outside of China, experts told Grist. As Tsianos of Neo put it, these metals are a “side hustle” that requires major up-front investment for a relatively small amount of extra revenue. Moreover, a bauxite or zinc miner’s ability to produce gallium or germanium typically hinges on the market conditions for the metal it is primarily focused on. That means “if aluminum prices are low or the zinc prices are low, the mine or the smelter might just not operate, even if the world is sort of screaming out for more gallium or germanium,” Wang said.

    Still, there’s more economic incentive to produce these metals now than there was a few years ago. The recent geopolitical drama, Tsianos says, has caused a “bifurcation” in the price of gallium. Outside of China, the price of the metal is now “almost double” what it is within the nation’s borders. 

    “There’s a structural change in the market that has created a business case for outside of China production,” Tsianos said. “And it started because of the export control.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline 2 obscure clean energy metals are caught in the crosshairs of the US-China trade war on Feb 7, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • The odds are Illinois won’t hit its 2030 climate goals

    This coverage is made possible through a partnership between Grist and WBEZ, a public radio station serving the Chicago metropolitan region.

    Four years ago, Democratic Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed the Climate Equitable Jobs Act, an ambitious suite of overlapping goals and deadlines to put Illinois on track to overhaul its economy by 2030: decarbonizing the power sector, propping up electric vehicles, and fast-tracking a clean energy workforce. 

    Now, with five years left until several deadlines are due — and a presidential administration that doesn’t believe in climate change — the clock is ticking. As climate action shifts more to the local level, states have to figure out both how to fill the void left by the federal government and how to hit targets that now seem likely out of reach. 

    Illinois isn’t the only state to set hard-to-hit goals and come up short. States such as California, New York, and Oregon are playing a similar game of catch-up. That doesn’t come as a surprise to Jackson Morris of the national nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, who added that it shouldn’t be a death knell for climate initiatives either.  

    “[The] momentum at the state level, particularly now with what’s going on in Washington, is really where the action is,” said Morris. “ We want to push as hard as we can to meet as many of those targets as we can, even if they happen a year or two years after — the important thing is that we’re on that long term trajectory.” 

    Illinois came face-to-face with one of its renewable energy targets this year and came up short, according to John Delurey, with the national advocacy organization Vote Solar.

    Before the Climate Equitable Jobs Act, known as CEJA, the state had committed to relying on renewable sources for a quarter of its energy by 2025, Delurey said. But as of 2023, renewable energy only made up about 13.5 percent of electricity generation in Illinois. That figure needs to more than double over five years to catch up with CEJA’s impending deadlines.  

    CEJA increased Illinois’ renewable portfolio standard — a policy that requires that a certain share of the energy sold by electric utilities comes from renewable sources — to 40 percent clean energy by 2030, to 50 percent clean energy by 2040, and to 100 percent by 2050.

    “We have a long journey ahead and a short time to get there,” Delurey said. “But I don’t know that it’s a foregone conclusion that we will miss our 2030 CEJA goals.”

    In Illinois and across the country, the installation of wind projects has slowed substantially compared to solar, which has soared, particularly with the help of tax credits from former president Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. That’s increasingly a problem in Illinois, where over 90 percent of the state’s renewable generation comes from wind. 

    Wind has tapered off locally, according to Delurey, due to issues with increased local opposition around where renewables can be installed. 

    “At the peak, about 15 counties in the windiest part of Illinois had effectively banned wind projects,” he said. That was before Illinois passed a 2023 bill to limit what local governments could do to restrict wind and solar.

    A recent report from the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council found that regional grid operators are moving too slowly to keep pace with massive expansion of renewables. As a result, renewable energy projects have been stuck on a waiting list for years before they come online.

    Still, Brian Granahan, director of the Illinois Power Agency, which brokers electricity between customers and utilities, said the state has made significant progress toward its 2030 target of 40 percent clean energy.

    “In terms of the contracts that have been awarded through our programs and procurements, we’re at 19 percent right now,” Granahan said. That figure, however, includes clean energy projects active today and those that are still under development. 

    Granahan said that Illinois is about halfway to its 2030 deadline. 

    “The question is, Over the remaining five years, can we award enough contracts to make up the remaining 20 percent to ensure that we’re making up the other half,” he said. 

    It’s not just renewable energy targets that are lagging. So are plans for EV and clean energy workforce training.

    The state’s landmark climate legislation set a target of 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2030. To date, only about 100,000 EVs have been added in Illinois since Pritzker signed CEJA. 

    The state isn’t doing enough to close that gap, according to Brian Urbaszewski, director of environmental health programs at Respiratory Health Association, a Chicago-based public health nonprofit.

    “There’s not a lot of detail in terms of year-by-year goals,” he said. “It was just a big goal that we’re going to reach by this date.”

    The centerpiece of the plan was a $4,000 rebate for Illinois customers with the purchase of a new or used EV, which could be stacked on existing federal tax credits. 

    However, funding for the rebate program has been insufficient to meet demand each year since launch. The program’s funding fluctuates, depending on how much Illinois lawmakers set aside for it. Funding for fiscal year 2025 is down to $14 million from a one-time high of $20 million in 2023. This year’s rebate program will only provide payouts for approximately 3,500 EV purchases. That’s not enough, Urbaszewski says

    Today, more than 7 million passenger vehicles run in Illinois, the vast majority gas-powered. That means that even if the state adds a further 900,000 EVs on its roads by 2030, the result would still be relatively “modest,” according to Urbaszewski, as only a sliver of total passenger vehicles would be zero-emission.

    The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency declined a request for an interview and did not return a request for comment.

    Still, there is a glimmer of success.

    After a yearslong wait, the state is finally delivering on its promise to build out workforce training for clean jobs. Illinois has committed to $80 million annually to rapidly expand training and certification programs, with an emphasis on Black and Latino communities most affected by pollution from fossil fuels.

    As part of that effort, the state established 16 community-run workforce hubs across the state. Their purpose is to provide entry-level training relating to green-economy careers. To date,  there’s already been 15 graduates, and more than a hundred students are currently enrolled. 

    It took time to build up the capacity to get these programs operational, according to Francisco Lopez Zavala, a policy expert with The Illinois Environmental Council, an umbrella organization that advances environmental policy statewide. 

    “We’re trying to ensure it is done in a way that’s equitable to our communities across the state, and is done right by our communities,” said Lopez Zavala. “It takes time to do right by them.”

    As the 2030 deadlines approach, it’s becoming clear that states like Illinois may miss the mark. From the NRDC’s Jackson Morris’ perspective, that’s not necessarily a failure. 

    “We always knew that the path to a net zero economy by 2050 was not going to be linear,” said Morris. “There are going to be years where you make more progress and years where you flatline. It’s going to be lumpy.”

    Between President Donald Trump’s recent withdrawal of the United States from the 2015 Paris Agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions and a slew of executive orders to stall renewables, state-led decarbonization efforts — even if they are behind schedule — may soon be the only large-scale greenhouse gas-slashing strategies left in the United States. 

    “I’d rather see states take shots from half-court and try to make them,” he said.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The odds are Illinois won’t hit its 2030 climate goals on Feb 7, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Colorado and Connecticut saved residents hundreds of thousands of dollars on their utility bills

    People across the U.S. receiving rising utility bills aren’t just paying for the costs of gas and electricity: They could also be paying for corporate lobbying and advertising. 

    Electric and gas utilities routinely charge ratepayers for costs related to political advocacy, ads to burnish their brand, and even luxury perks for executives and employees, according to a recent report by the utility watchdog group Energy and Policy Institute, or EPI. Such expenses add up to millions of dollars paid by customers toward utilities’ efforts to raise prices and stall climate progress. While charging customers for lobbying is banned in federal and state laws, consumer advocates say that existing policies are nowhere near rigorous enough to hold utilities accountable.

    In some states, that’s starting to change. In 2023, Colorado, Connecticut, and Maine passed the first comprehensive laws to prevent utilities from charging customers for lobbying, advertising, and other political influence activities. Customers in those states have already saved hundreds of thousands of dollars after regulators began enforcing the laws last year. 

    Consumer advocates say that as the impacts of these policies become clearer — and as utility bills continue to hike up — more laws will be on the way. Last year, eight states introduced bills to rein in utility cost recovery. Last month, five more states followed suit, according to EPI. 

    “The momentum behind utility accountability legislation continues to grow,” said Karlee Weinmann, a researcher at EPI and co-author of the group’s latest report. “As we put numbers on the savings generated by these bills, we’re going to hear more and more ratepayers asking, ‘How do I get this done in my state?’”

    The laws in Colorado, Connecticut, and Maine broadened and clarified the range of political activities utilities are banned from charging to ratepayers compared to existing federal and state rules. Costs that utilities are prohibited from passing on to customers in these states include membership dues to trade associations that engage in lobbying, donations to political advocacy groups, and public relations campaigns. The three states’ laws also introduced limits or bans on invoicing customers for fees for consultants or lawyers hired to argue for rate increases, and required utilities to provide detailed annual reports on political spending to ensure that shareholders — rather than consumers — foot the bill. 

    It’s still too early to assess the full impact of these laws since they apply primarily during rate cases, proceedings where utilities seek approval from regulators to adjust their prices. As part of the process, utilities tally up their investments and expenses, and state officials decide which costs can be reasonably passed on to the utility’s customers. Only a few rate cases have taken place since the laws took effect, and Maine just approved rules this week on how to implement its law. But judging from recent proceedings in Colorado and Connecticut, “We’re seeing very, very positive signs” in terms of what kinds of savings utility customers can expect from these laws, said Itai Vardi, co-author of the EPI report.

    A white-haired man holds signs saying 'Climate Voter!' and 'No New Fossil Fuel Plants' next to other people holding signs that say 'No New Gas' and 'The Climate Crisis Is Here'
    Environmental groups protest Xcel Energy’s plan to build new natural gas plants and its membership in the American Gas Association in Denver, Colorado, in 2023.
    Hyoung Chang / The Denver Post via Getty Images

    In Colorado, state regulators rejected more than $775,000 in lobbying fees, trade association dues, and investor relations costs sought by the utility Xcel Energy in a gas rate case last year, noting that those expenses are forbidden under the state’s utility accountability law. Total savings could end up even higher: Commissioners also ordered Xcel Energy to resubmit lobbying disclosures and remove all investor relations costs from its rates. 

    In Connecticut, state officials nixed $555,000 in industry dues, travel and meal expenses, and investor relations costs that the utility Avangrid attempted to stick customers with during a gas rate case last year, according to EPI’s review of rate case filings. Regulators also cited the new utility accountability law for their reasoning.

    Early enforcement in these states proves how effective these guardrails are. It’s also a troubling sign that utilities repeatedly attempt to recover lobbying and political costs even in states where it’s illegal, said Weinmann. “When we see these savings, we’re also seeing the degree to which expenses that are not associated with the provision of utility service and perhaps not beneficial to customers are included in rates.”

    In every state in the U.S., the regulators who hear rate cases — known as public service commissions or public utility commissions — are supposed to keep inappropriate charges out of prices. Without rigorous legislation, they’re not always successful: The burden falls on commissioners and consumer advocacy groups to comb through thousands of pages submitted by utilities for rate proposals and pick out and dispute charges. But some utility requests are too egregious to make it past public utility commissions, even in the absence of comprehensive ratepayer protection laws.

    In Virginia, state regulators have flagged and removed millions of dollars in lobbying charges by Dominion Energy in rate cases in 2021 and 2023. In California, an investigation by state regulators found that the utility SoCalGas improperly charged customers for lobbying to promote the use of natural gas. And in a particularly flagrant example, subsidiaries of the Ohio-based electric utility FirstEnergy agreed to refund tens of millions of dollars to customers across multiple states after charging them for lobbying costs and expenses related to FirstEnergy’s bribery of Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder between 2017 and 2020.

    People in blue t-shirts walk along a street in front of a tower holding a blue banner that says 'SoCalGas' with palm trees in the background
    Representatives of SoCalGas march at the Long Beach Pride Parade in 2023. Harmony Gerber / Getty Images

    Utilities are also spending vast sums on advertising to boost their company image. According to the EPI report, 15 of the largest electric utilities in the U.S. spent a combined $1.1 billion on brand advertising between 2014 and 2023. It’s unclear if any of those expenses were passed on to customers, but some utilities have made attempts to do so: Last year, Chesapeake Utilities in Maryland asked regulators for permission to charge ratepayers for its “Natural Gas Does More” campaign, which used puppies and other cuddly images to promote the fossil fuel. Maryland state officials deemed the request inappropriate and not in the public interest.

    Utilities have even tried to pass on the costs of lavish corporate perks like private jets. In a rate case last year, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel called a request by Detroit-based utility DTE Energy to charge ratepayers for private jet trips “downright insulting to customers.” Michigan regulators later refused the request. In Indiana, Duke Energy Indiana admitted that it had charged consumers more than $5 million between 2021 and 2023 in private jet costs, according to testimony filed last year by the consumer advocacy group Citizens Action Coalition. Commissioners in Indiana recently denied another request from Duke Energy Indiana to pass on $1.9 million in private aircraft expenses to customers.

    National utility trade associations strongly disputed the EPI report’s findings and emphasized their commitment to reducing emissions and providing affordable energy. “The natural gas industry has long committed to collaboration with policymakers and regulators to help achieve our nation’s ambitious climate and energy goals,” said Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the American Gas Association, which represents gas utilities. 

    A spokesperson for Edison Electric Institute, a trade organization for investor-owned electric utilities, argued there’s no need for more state-level ratepayer protection laws. “Electric companies already are subject to strict federal and state laws that ensure lobbying activities are always funded by shareholders and not customers,” said spokesperson Brian Reil. “In instances of inadvertent expenses being approved, mechanisms already exist for state commissions to ensure that accounting changes are made, and, if needed, customer refunds granted.”

    But in the absence of laws like the ones in Colorado, Connecticut, and Maine, it’s impossible to know exactly how much utilities are improperly charging customers, said Adria Tinnin, director of race equity and legislative policy at The Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocacy group in California. Under existing California rules, utilities can classify spending in even prohibited categories like promotional advertising or lobbying in vague or misleading ways, Tinnin said.

    Meanwhile, during rate cases, utility regulators and advocates are often working with limited information because “utilities do not provide any information that they’re not legally required to,” said Tinnin. “If we don’t have transparency, we can’t know to what extent ratepayers are being ripped off.”

    More and more lawmakers are catching on to the issue. In January, legislators in Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Utah introduced bills to prevent utilities from recovering costs for lobbying and other political activities. In California, Tinnin’s group is partnering with other advocacy organizations to develop language for a similar bill to be introduced later this year. A previous utility accountability bill introduced last year in the state failed to move out of committee.

    Consumer advocates say the laws could help address a growing energy affordability crisis as households struggle with mounting prices. Household utility bill debt has risen 8.4 percent since December 2023, according to one estimate, while power shutoffs for nonpayment have soared across the country. President Donald Trump’s threat to introduce tariffs on fossil fuels from Canada will likely raise energy prices even more while his other tariffs will make all kinds of products more expensive. 

    “It all adds up,” said Weinmann. “At a time when we’re seeing folks across the country struggling with rising cost of living and higher utility bills, the impact of any bill savings is significant.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Colorado and Connecticut saved residents hundreds of thousands of dollars on their utility bills on Feb 6, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Finger-Pointing Over Funding Freeze May Lead Trump To Drop Lawyer Linked To DOGE

    The recent federal funding freeze spurred immediate finger-pointing inside the Trump administration, with anonymous sources telling major news outlets that attorney Mark Paoletta was responsible for drafting the infamous memo that briefly paused trillions in federal funds. Paoletta, newly returned as the White House Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) general counsel, is connected to a wide range of powerful figures on the right, including multiple conservative Supreme Court justices, the organizers of Project 2025, and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

    The post Finger-Pointing Over Funding Freeze May Lead Trump To Drop Lawyer Linked To DOGE appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Trump’s agenda won’t let his energy secretary achieve ‘energy abundance’

    Chris Wright, a Colorado fracking executive, was confirmed on Monday by the U.S. Senate with a vote of 59 to 38 to become the Secretary of Energy.

    Wright’s nomination hearing, held last month before the Senate’s Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, was a relatively amiable affair. Though there were interruptions by Sunrise Movement protesters and a heated exchange with California senator Alex Padilla over Wright’s past comments dismissing the link between climate change and wildfires, Wright was not subjected to the contentious questioning that some of President Trump’s other cabinet nominees have faced. He was introduced by Senator John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, as a personal friend, and four of the committee’s Democrats voted for his confirmation.

    While he acknowledged that “climate change is a real and global phenomenon,” Wright also insisted that “there isn’t dirty energy and clean energy; all energy is different and they all have different tradeoffs.” He pledged “to unleash American energy at home and abroad to restore our energy dominance,” to “lead the world in innovation and technology breakthroughs,” and to “build things in America again and remove barriers to progress.” Pressed on the policy particulars by the committee members, he expressed support for expanding nuclear power, renewables, and liquefied natural gas, and said he believed the nation’s transmission system needs to be expanded, and that this should be prioritized in future permitting reforms.

    Part of the reason for Wright’s friendly reception was that he articulated a coherent, if tendentious, version of the “energy abundance” theory of how increasing the domestic production of energy in all forms — including fossil fuels — could enable the U.S. to adequately address the climate crisis. The vision Wright laid out broadly overlaps with a set of ideas that has gained prominence among energy policy thinkers in both parties — as well as in some sectors of the climate movement who see an opportunity for permitting and transmission reforms and nuclear subsidies as a reasonable tradeoff for increased oil and gas production.

    In the committee hearing, Louisiana senator Bill Cassidy — a Republican and the lead sponsor of a bill to tax imports of carbon-intensive goods — told Wright, “I like your emphasis upon abundance.” And both the committee’s Republican chair, Mike Lee, and Democratic ranking member, Martin Heinrich, asked Wright to describe how he would promote energy abundance.

    “The term ‘energy abundance’ is definitely having a moment,” said Katie Auth, policy director of the Energy for Growth Hub and a former USAID official. “I have heard it used in many different contexts by many different people who are coming at this from different ideological angles.”

    But what, exactly, does it mean?

    Alex Trembath, deputy director of the Breakthrough Institute — the climate think tank perhaps best associated with the term, and a longtime gadfly of the environmental movement — said a core idea of his organization is that “technology and abundant energy can help solve ecological problems, not just cause them.”

    Perhaps the most obvious example is the hope that nuclear energy can help speed our transition away from fossil fuels without sacrificing reliability, but self-described “ecomodernists” like Trembath dream of a wide range of possibilities that would be unlocked by sufficient energy. 

    “If you had really abundant solar or nuclear, then energy-intensive industrial processes like water desalination or indoor agriculture start to look a lot more economical,” Trembath said. “You could imagine desalinating seawater and not having to deplete rivers and aquifers. You could imagine sparing land that could grow produce and other water-intensive crops.”

    To Auth, the term doesn’t just encompass futuristic hopes of unlocking miracle solutions by increasing electricity supply; it has immediate importance for the world’s hundreds of millions who lack access to electricity, and the even greater numbers whose countries’ development is hampered by inadequate power infrastructure.

    “Outside of the U.S. and Europe, across Africa and Southeast Asia, we need a lot more power,” Auth said. “People need not only basic electricity services, but they need to build competitive economies, they need to build modern industry, they need to build manufacturing facilities, and to be climate resilient. They need electricity for air conditioning and all sorts of infrastructure. So I think abundance to me means that we need to be extremely ambitious in the scope and speed at which we try to build out energy infrastructure around the world.”

    In Wright’s confirmation hearing, he spoke eloquently of the tragedy of energy poverty and the need for electrification in developing countries. “I think we’re going to see more abundant energy resources coming out of our country and hopefully out of the world so that everyone else can live lives like we do,” he said.

    “I appreciated Chris Wright drawing attention to the fact that, here in the U.S., we take for granted that the lights will be on and that we have refrigerators and televisions, and that’s just simply not the reality for millions and millions of people,” said Auth, of the Energy for Growth Hub.

    But Wright’s commitment to energy abundance stood in marked contrast to the agenda, augured in Project 2025, that seems to underlie Trump’s executive orders so far, which would make it very difficult for Wright to act on his stated priorities of increased energy supply and funding for research and development.

    Trump started off his second administration by declaring an “energy emergency” — but followed this up by unilaterally freezing all new permitting and leasing for wind energy in federal lands and waters. The president then attempted last week to freeze many federal grants and loans — an order that threw the government into chaos and whose current status is contested. And Trump’s blanket freeze of foreign aid has already gouged the administration’s ability to make good on Wright’s vision of helping the developing world electrify: Programs like Power Africa, which directed USAID funds toward ending energy poverty in Africa, are now in question and, according to Auth, may have already been halted.

    The president’s moves raise the question of how exactly Wright, as energy secretary, can ensure “energy abundance” if his boss isn’t on board.

    “From day one, the incoming Trump administration dispelled any pretense of supporting energy abundance,” said Tyler Norris, a Duke University doctoral fellow and former special adviser at the Department of Energy, in an email. “Instead, it is taking the unprecedented step of leveraging the executive’s emergency powers to block energy resources the president dislikes. To the extent Mr. Wright favors energy abundance, he faces a steep uphill battle against a White House controlled by ideologues who appear more focused on waging tribal energy warfare than solving real-world problems.”

    “You see shades of energy abundance in both parties,” Trembath said. On the Republican side, he pointed to the emergence of the term “‘energy dominance’ — which I think is really a Trumpy spin on the idea of energy abundance.” And among Democrats, energy abundance can practically be described as the guiding vision of the last four years’ American energy policy, which combined massive federal investments in green technology with record levels of oil and gas production. “The Biden administration and Democrats in the Department of Energy and Congress had their own vision of abundance articulated in the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,” Trembath said.

    But both parties also have their corners of resistance to the energy-maximization agenda, for motivations ranging from conservationism on the part of environmental groups to profit on the part of fossil fuel companies who see renewables as an existential threat. And while liberals and the regulations they pass often get cast as the villains in the endlessly proliferating laments about America’s lost industrial age, the new administration is showing its ability to use the same tools to its ends. 

    “A very cogent argument could be made that Trump’s executive orders so far are not in the spirit of energy abundance or energy dominance; they’re draping more red tape over projects they don’t like,” Trembath said. “This is the NIMBY proceduralism that Republicans complain about with drilling for oil and gas, but when the shoe’s on the other foot they’re happy to weaponize the National Environmental Policy Act against projects they don’t like.”

    Wright’s ability to increase energy production will be hobbled by the fact that the Energy Department simply doesn’t directly control the building or permitting of most new energy infrastructure, or write the rules that govern it. The most substantial portion of the department’s budget is spent on the maintenance of the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal. The DOE’s primary levers of influence over the nation’s electricity grids are the purse strings for investments in new technologies and subsidies for project developers — and even in those areas, the money must be approved by Congress and, politically speaking, ultimately subject to the president’s agenda. 

    “EPA actually has more say over regulating energy infrastructure than DOE; the Interior Department has more say over leasing of public lands,” said Trembath. “In terms of building and regulating and permitting infrastructure, it’s largely out of the remit of the DOE. Likewise, Congress is in charge of what gets spent at the DOE.”

    There are some arenas in which Wright will have the power to enact his ambitions, like liquefied natural gas terminals, for which Trump has lifted a Biden administration moratorium and the DOE issues permits. Another is buying and selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to stabilize energy prices, a practice heavily used by Biden’s energy secretary Jennifer Granholm. Finally, the Department of Energy controls a once-obscure energy financing agency called the Loan Programs Office, which came into the public eye as the most prominent vehicle for the Biden administration’s climate investments under the leadership of Jigar Shah, a former solar developer who likes to talk about “energy abundance” (the phrase appears in his Twitter bio).

    One signal of Wright’s intentions arose during his confirmation hearings, when the energy committee’s Republican chair, Mike Lee, asked him to commit to immediately suspending the issuance of new Loan Programs Office loans on the basis of a Trump-appointed inspector general’s report alleging conflicts of interest in the contracts the office had awarded. Wright said he was aware of the report, but did not commit to suspending new loans.

    However, the question — and Wright’s authority to decide how to proceed — was soon preempted by the administration’s funding freeze. For the time being, the office is effectively shut down.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump’s agenda won’t let his energy secretary achieve ‘energy abundance’ on Feb 4, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • A Michigan nuclear plant is slated to restart, but Trump could complicate things

    This coverage is made possible through a partnership with Grist and Interlochen Public Radio in Northern Michigan.

    The owners of a shuttered nuclear plant on the shores of Lake Michigan are still banking on its historic reopening later this year, despite the confusion of President Donald Trump’s first days. 

    The Palisades Nuclear Plant ran for over 50 years in southwest Michigan’s Covert Township before it went offline, seemingly for good, in 2022. Soon after, lawmakers across the political spectrum and owner Holtec International pushed for a reversal. Holtec officials say they’re confident in the restart, partly because Trump’s administration has signaled strong support for nuclear power. 

    However, Trump’s messaging on nuclear hasn’t been uniform in the past, and more confusion has been kicked up by orders to pause Inflation Reduction Act funding and a now-rescinded memo calling to temporarily pause all federal loans and grants. 

    Such an environment could complicate things for projects like Palisades that require stability to plan for, say, large capital investments, according to Josh Freed, senior vice president for climate and energy at the centrist think tank Third Way.

    The nuclear industry needs to know that policies, regulations, and promised funding “are actually delivered on time and in predictable ways,” he said. (Third Way supports the restart.)

    The White House Office of Management and Budget did not respond to requests for comment. 

    There’s been renewed interest in nuclear power — and restarting mothballed plants — amid increased demand for electricity from technologies like data centers and efforts to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

    Last year, the Biden administration pledged about $2.8 billion in Inflation Reduction Act funding toward the restart and other clean energy, including a $1.5 billion loan for Holtec and $1.3 billion in grants to help two rural electric cooperatives purchase that power: Indiana-based Hoosier Energy and Michigan’s Wolverine Power Cooperative.

    Based in northern Michigan, Wolverine plans to buy over half of Palisades’ energy — whether or not it receives the estimated $650 million in IRA funding, which the co-op said would be passed along to customers.

    Michigan law requires 100 percent clean energy by 2040, and it considers nuclear power clean. The state is allocating $300 million for the plant’s restart, which is expected to bring back 800 megawatts of power — enough for some 800,000 homes.

    Wolverine officials said this would allow their members to reach the state’s energy goals a decade ahead of time. Zach Anderson, the chief operating officer, said during an interview with Grist in October that Palisades was a “perfect fit” for the co-op.

    If the restart doesn’t happen, he said Wolverine wouldn’t lose money, but would have to take more time and “a lot more solar to replace something like Palisades.”

    Now the co-op is figuring out what to make of Trump’s orders to pause and review IRA spending, and subsequent guidelines.

    Officials with Holtec maintain that they don’t pose a problem, and that the Department of Energy will stick to the $1.5 billion loan. As for the power purchase agreement with the electric cooperatives, it “was completed well before any grants were factored in,” said spokesperson Patrick O’Brien in an email. 

    Nuclear power is polarizing, and behind the latest deluge of executive actions, the debate continues around whether and how much to rely on, invest in, and develop it. 

    Critics — and even Trump himself — have pointed to the industry’s history of delays and going over budget, like the new Vogtle reactors in Georgia, which came online years behind schedule.

    Kevin Kamps, a radioactive waste specialist with the group Beyond Nuclear, thinks the Palisades restart is ill-advised.

    “This is unprecedented risk taking that they’re talking about now. They’ve never done this before. It’s not needed,” he said. “Renewables are really the way to go, not resurrecting very problematic nuclear power plants.”

    Beyond Nuclear has been an outspoken critic of Holtec, with longstanding concerns including radioactive contamination and nuclear waste storage. It has also intervened in the licensing process for the restart. Kamps said if necessary, they will take the matter to federal court.

    “We’ll fight it as long as we can, till the last opportunity,” he said. “We feel that strongly about it.”

    Environmental groups like Sierra Club Michigan have spoken against the restart as well, urging the state to develop renewables and energy storage instead. 

    While renewable energy has been on the rise — and generated over a fifth of the country’s electricity in 2023 — nuclear power is the third-largest source, something its supporters say can’t be dismissed. A common argument for nuclear is that it provides a baseload of power necessary to supplement less reliable renewable technologies harnessing the sun and wind.

    Of course, developing nuclear power is expensive. Allison Macfarlane, a professor and director of the University of British Columbia’s school of public policy who chaired the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 2012 to 2014, said advancing nuclear technology, including things like smaller reactors, will require federal support.  

    “To bring any of these new technologies to a real commercial level will take an investment of tens to hundreds of billions of dollars. The only place where you can find that amount of money is the government,” she said, pointing out that the Trump administration wants to cut costs. 

    There are also procedural obstacles. Before reopening the Palisades plant, Holtec must get approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which will assess the facility, including its safety and infrastructure. For instance, inspectors are looking at issues with the plant’s steam generators, and regulators have called Holtec’s timeline “very, very demanding.” 

    More broadly, the recent funding back-and-forth may complicate the landscape for nuclear, according to Tyler Norris, who worked in the Department of Energy during the Obama administration and is now a fellow at Duke University. 

    “Based on real-world conversations with regulators, I can say firsthand that the uncertainty the Trump administration has created around the future of these programs is dampening the investment environment for advanced nuclear,” Norris said. 

    Others say Trump’s support for nuclear is clear in signs like his pick for energy secretary, fossil fuel executive Chris Wright, who has talked about expanding it. Quill Robinson, a senior advisor with the right-of-center nonprofit ConservAmerica, thinks that could continue.

    “For many Republicans who have questions about the intermittency issues of wind and solar and the concentration of renewable supply chains in China, they see nuclear as a solution that also happens to be quite environmentally friendly,” he said. “So I would imagine that this administration is going to be pretty bullish on [nuclear] technology.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A Michigan nuclear plant is slated to restart, but Trump could complicate things on Jan 31, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Trump wants more drilling, but the oil market is already saturated

    This coverage is made possible through a partnership between Grist and Verite News, a nonprofit news organization with a mission to produce in-depth journalism in underserved communities in the New Orleans area.

    Despite President Donald Trump’s calls to “drill, baby, drill,” many oil companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico will likely do what they’ve done for years: sit on hundreds of untapped oil leases across millions of acres. 

    Trump has repeatedly said eliminating barriers to drilling will unlock vast untapped reserves of “liquid gold” and ignite a new era of national prosperity. But most of the drilling leases already granted to companies in the oil-rich Gulf are idle and unused, and they’ll stay that way until the United States’ record-breaking production rates wane and the high costs of drilling offshore drop precipitously. 

    Of the 2,206 active leases in the Gulf, only a fifth are producing oil, according to records from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which regulates offshore drilling. Oil industry executives and analysts say the current number of 448 oil-producing leases is unlikely to grow significantly, even if Trump makes good on promises to expand leasing opportunities and expedite drilling permits. 

    The market is saturated with oil, making companies reluctant to spend more money drilling because the added product will likely push prices down, cutting into profits. 

    “It’s not the regulations that are getting in the way, it’s the economics,” said Hugh Daigle, a professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Texas in Austin. “It’s true that there are a bunch of undeveloped leases in the Gulf, and it’ll stay that way if we continue to see low or stagnant oil prices.”

    A bar chart showing the number of acres and count of leases for oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico, broken down by active versus producing leases. Active acreage and lease counts drastically outpace producing leases.
    Clayton Aldern / Grist / Peter Olexa / Unsplash

    Global oil production is expected to grow more than demand over the next two years, likely forcing the price of crude to drop 8 percent in 2025 and another 11 percent next year, according to a January forecast from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, or EIA.

    The Gulf accounts for 97 percent of all offshore oil and gas production in the U.S. Nearly 12 million acres are under active leases in the Gulf, but only about 2.4 million acres are being used to produce oil and gas, according to BOEM data.

    So, what’s the actual benefit of a quicker and easier regulatory process for companies that don’t appear to need more leases?

    “It’s simple,” said Brett Hartl, the Center for Biological Diversity’s government affairs director. “The companies make more money when they have to spend less time and effort on permits and environmental regulations and mitigation.”

    A host of environmental and worker safety rules enacted after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil disaster has made obtaining a lease and drilling permit a multi-year process. Companies must demonstrate their operations are prepared to deal with potential blowouts and worst-case-scenario discharges, and all drilling platform designs and materials must undergo certification by independent engineers. 

    It’s unclear how the Trump administration will change these and other offshore drilling rules. During Trump’s first term, his administration loosened requirements for offshore well designs, materials, and monitoring technology. Former President Joe Biden reinstated most of these rules. 

    Oil companies cheered Trump’s recent calls for a more streamlined process and a series of energy-related executive orders he signed this month. The orders declared an “energy emergency,” expanded drilling in the Arctic and repealed Biden’s ban on drilling off the East and West coasts and parts of Alaska. 

    “Directing regulators to expand access to resources [and] streamline permitting processes … will help deliver a stronger, more prosperous energy future for all Americans,” Mike Sommers, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said in a statement last week. “This is a new day for American energy, and we applaud President Trump for moving swiftly to chart a new path where U.S. oil and natural gas are embraced, not restricted.”

    But industry leaders have also been clear that these and other policy changes floated by Trump won’t lead to more drilling. The U.S. is already producing more crude oil than any country, ever, according to the EIA. Last year’s production rate of 13 million barrels per day was a new record high, surpassing the previous record set in 2023.

    “I don’t think today that production in the U.S. is constrained,” ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods told Semafor in November. “So, I don’t know that there’s an opportunity to unleash a lot of production in the near term, because most operators in the U.S. are [already] optimizing their production today.”

    In essence, oil is just too cheap to justify more drilling. If prices do go up, companies are likely to tap into Permian Basin shale in Texas and New Mexico rather than seek offshore reserves, which cost more to drill, according to industry analysts.  

    But that doesn’t mean companies won’t snap up even more offshore leases if they’re offered, Daigle said. 

    “Some of these (leases) might be drilled in the future, but many are being held just so somebody else doesn’t lease them,” he said. Companies may also stockpile leases to raise funds from investors, or they may simply be playing “mind games” with competitors. Buying up leases in one area of the Gulf can sometimes throw rival drillers off the scent of richer deposits elsewhere, Daigle said. 

    Leases have been sold too quickly and cheaply in recent decades, according to a 2021 report by the U.S. Department of the Interior, which oversees BOEM. This fast and loose approach “shortchanges taxpayers” and encourages “speculators to purchase leases with the intent of waiting for increases in resource prices, adding assets to their balance sheets, or even reselling leases at profit rather than attempting to produce oil or gas,” the report said. 

    “More leases may make the companies look good, on paper, to investors,” said Tom Pelton, communications director for the Environmental Integrity Project, an environmental watchdog group. “But they won’t necessarily even produce more oil and gas. And they certainly will not be good for the climate or clean water.”

    If Trump really wanted to slash energy prices for U.S. consumers, he wouldn’t have banned offshore wind leasing in federal waters or restarted permitting for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals, said Scott Eustis, the community science director for Healthy Gulf, a nonprofit environmental group. 

    Shipping LNG overseas contributes to higher electricity and natural gas prices in the U.S., according to a recent U.S. Department of Energy report.

    “LNG exports make everybody’s energy cost more because we’re giving it to China and not using it domestically,” Eustis said. 

    Beyond the economics, giving companies an easier route to secure leases and permits does little more than put the Gulf at risk of another Deepwater Horizon-scale disaster, Hartl said.

    “The only result we’ll have is more risky drilling,” he said. “And then the question is not ‘if’ but ‘when’ we’ll have the next catastrophic spill in the Gulf.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump wants more drilling, but the oil market is already saturated on Jan 31, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • DeepSeek unearths Australia’s AI opportunity

    The arrival of a Chinese challenger shows Australia isn’t out of the AI arms race and could even carve out a dominant position in powering the technology, according to one of Australia’s leading AI experts. DeepSeek disrupted the AI scene this week by releasing a genuine alternative to US giants like OpenAI that it built…

    The post DeepSeek unearths Australia’s AI opportunity appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Almost half of US states haven’t done the bare minimum to cut utility bills

    During his first week in office, President Trump withdrew from the Paris climate agreement, declared an energy emergency, renewed his vow to “drill, baby, drill,” and began dismantling American climate policy. That has left environmental advocates looking to states to lead the nation’s efforts to burn fewer fossil fuels — and a report released Wednesday shows there is much more they can do.

    One of the most powerful tools at each state’s disposal is the ability to work with utilities to encourage energy efficiency. But, the report from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, or ACEEE, details how only 26 states, along with the District of Columbia, have established a so-called “energy efficiency resource standard,” or EERS. These targets, set by legislators or utility regulators, require utilities to implement programs — such as weatherization or rebates on appliances — that cut energy consumption by a certain amount each year.

    “There is more work that needs to be done,” said Jasmine Mah, a senior research analyst at the Council and an author of the report. Since 2012, just three states have added such a standard, while New Hampshire, Ohio, and Iowa repealed theirs in favor of less ambitious or scaled back programing. Arizona is also pursuing a rollback. Mah says the report is aimed at state policymakers and regulators, who could shift that tide. 

    “We hope that highlighting the positive impacts of having an EERS in place would encourage states to pass a policy,” she said. An earlier ACEE report found that, as of 2017, states with an energy efficiency resource standard saw four times the electricity savings as states without one. In 2023, states with such a plan accounted for about 59 percent of the U.S. population but 82 percent of the savings.

    “States aren’t doing this just because of climate change,” said Barry Rabe, a political scientist at the University of Michigan who studies energy and climate politics. “There is an economic advantage.”

    Fossil-fuel friendly Texas, Rabe noted, was the first to adopt an EERS in 1999. But efficiency can become less of a priority when energy supplies are abundant and costs are stable. “The decline in interest,” Rabe said, “has in some degree coincided with the massive increase in natural gas use in the U.S.” 

    Still, the Council also found that many states have gone beyond baseline policies and implemented what the report dubs “next-generation” initiatives that aim to lower greenhouse gas emissions, spur electrification, serve lower-income populations, and reduce consumers’ financial energy burdens. All but four of the 27 states (including DC) with an energy efficiency resource standard have implemented at least one such effort, but only nine have adopted all of them, leaving plenty of room for growth. 

    “We found that low income targets are the most common complimentary goal related to efficiency standards,” said Mah. “[But] not many states had provisions for energy affordability.”

    The report spotlights five states that have been particularly effective at employing these programs. Illinois has targeted using only clean energy by 2050. Massachusetts aims to install half a million heat pumps by 2030. Michigan mandates that utilities dedicate at least 25 to 35 of their energy efficiency funding to programs serving low-income customers. Utilities in New York and Minnesota have capped the portion of a customer’s income that can go toward utility costs at 6 and 4 percent, respectively.

    President Trump’s push to repeal the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, likely won’t impact state EERSs because they are generally funded through fees added to utility bills. “We see that as probably the best way to bring significant funds,” said Justin Brant, the utility program director at the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project. 

    Critics of Arizona’s EERS, which was adopted in 2010, point to the $3 billion cost to customers. “Utilities should select the most cost-effective energy mix to provide reliable and affordable service, without being constrained by government-imposed mandates that make it more expensive for their customers,” said Arizona Corporation Commissioner Nick Myers, in a statement last year. But the state’s largest electric utility found that, in 2023, EERS investments reaped about twice as much in returns as was spent. 

    “We’re saving money for all customers, even those who aren’t participating,” said Brant. 

    The IRA does provide nearly $9 billion for energy efficiency and electrification programs, almost all of which is distributed via states and could be used on next-generation programs, like those serving low-income households. That money has already been awarded. But the Republican-controlled Congress could roll back federal tax credits for energy efficiency and electrification, which indirectly make it easier for states to achieve their energy efficiency resource standard and next-generation goals. 

    Brant says he would add another policy to the Council’s “next-generation” wishlist for states: programs that encourage customers to spread out the timing of their daily energy use. Lower peak demand means power plants don’t need to be as large and that, he said, will be especially critical as renewable energy becomes an increasing part of the country’s electricity mix. 

    “​​Time shift is not something that this report looked at,” he said. “I think that’s another piece that needs to be prioritized.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Almost half of US states haven’t done the bare minimum to cut utility bills on Jan 29, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Alberta’s ‘Zero Tolerance’ Enforcement Strategy Doesn’t Apply To Polluters

    “Alberta is taking a zero-tolerance approach to crime,” bragged Alberta Premier Danielle Smith in 2023 on social media after her government announced more enforcement, greater emphasis on public safety, and limited discretion of prosecutors to let offenders off the hook. “

    “There is an increasing sense that the system is not holding criminals properly accountable and letting the public suffer the consequences,” chimed in Alberta Minister of Justice Mickey Amery during the announcement. “This is simply unacceptable.”

    If only the governing United Conservative Party applied those laudable principles to oil sands companies that repeatedly flout legal requirements not to pollute waterways, air and land.

    The post Alberta’s ‘Zero Tolerance’ Enforcement Strategy Doesn’t Apply To Polluters appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • What Trump’s executive action could do to offshore wind

    Offshore wind is a fledgling industry in the U.S. — one that, until this week, was poised for renewal after a slew of cancelled projects. The Biden administration had set a goal of deploying 30 gigawatts of projects by 2030 (approximately a 150-fold increase from the current amount of offshore wind generation nationwide), and state-level commitments are even higher. But President Donald Trump has long nursed an apparent vendetta against wind energy.

    On Monday, his first day in office, Trump fulfilled a campaign promise and issued an executive action pausing new permits and lease sales for wind energy on federal lands and waters, pending a review by federal agencies. “We don’t want windmills in this country,” he told Fox News.

    As a result, trade unions and low-income port communities that were depending on construction jobs from those projects will be disappointed; some coastal states’ climate targets will be harder to meet; and the prospects for grid reliability in the face of the expected nationwide growth in energy demand are a little less bright.

    Besides its climate value as a form of carbon-free energy, offshore wind plays a useful role in a power grid alongside solar energy and onshore wind. Like other renewable technologies, its power is intermittent — but because its availability depends on different environmental factors from those resources, offshore wind can be thought of as  “a form of storage,” explained Daniel Kammen, a professor of energy at the University of California, Berkeley and a former U.S. Science Envoy.

    There are three operating wind farms in American waters today, off the coasts of Rhode Island, New York, and Virginia. Of these, only one — New York’s South Fork Wind Farm — is a large-scale project. But many others are in various stages of development — and among the major open questions around the executive action is whether projects that have already received leases and permits will face jeopardy. “I’m worried about not only future projects but also about the current ones,” said Kammen.

    The executive action notes that the offshore leasing pause does not affect “rights under existing leases in the withdrawn areas” — but also mandates that the Secretary of the Interior conduct a review of “the necessity of terminating or amending any existing wind energy leases” and of the “legal bases for such removal.”

    One such legal tool available to Trump is to simply drop the federal government’s defense of permits that are being contested in court.

    The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM, is currently being sued over the permits it awarded to at least four wind projects: Rhode Island’s Revolution Wind, New York’s South Fork Wind, Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, and the Maryland Offshore Wind Project. 

    Timothy Fox, managing director of the research firm ClearView Energy Partners, told Grist in an email that the executive action “strongly suggests … that the Trump Administration is unlikely to vigorously defend offshore wind project permits issued by the Biden Administration,” and moreover will “encourage offshore wind foes to file additional legal challenges” against existing projects.

    But there may be a countervailing incentive for the administration to avoid dropping its defenses of the projects, according to Patrick Crowley, president of the Rhode Island AFL-CIO: the fact that BOEM is also responsible for awarding permits for offshore oil drilling — which Trump hopes to supercharge.

    “I think their legal calculus is going to take into account: ‘If we simply fold the cards, what does that do to this agency’s authority?’ They don’t want to give up that authority,” Crowley said. “In my experience no federal administration wants to give up any authority that it has.”

    “If they want BOEM to approve offshore drilling, and they ceded that authority on offshore wind, that’s going to allow people that don’t want offshore drilling to happen to point to this decision as a precedent,” Crowley added.

    Fox characterized this as a “fair argument,” agreeing that “if the Trump Administration were to firmly side with petitioners, and if the court(s) were to agree, it could set a precedent that sets a high environmental bar for other energy sectors (e.g., offshore oil and gas).” But there may be ways around this dilemma.

    The administration could simply invoke arguments that are particular to the environmental effects of offshore wind and don’t apply to drilling, which largely occurs in different regions and has different ecological impacts. “For example, the Trump Administration could argue that individual offshore wind projects and their cumulative impacts could negatively impact the North Atlantic right whale, a listed endangered species,” Fox wrote — an issue that has little bearing on drilling operations.

    Like many in the flurry of Trump’s first-day executive orders, the ambiguity creates uncertainty — and leaves some room for hope for stakeholders in the wind industry. 

    “One of the ways to interpret what Trump is doing is creating the situation where he can eventually take credit for the offshore wind industry continuing and expanding,” Crowley said. “If we’ve learned anything from Trump, he’ll take credit for good things and deflect blame for the bad things.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What Trump’s executive action could do to offshore wind on Jan 24, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • California just debunked a big myth about renewable energy

    One of the biggest myths about renewable energy is that it isn’t reliable. Sure, the sun sets every night and winds calm down, putting solar panels and turbines to sleep. But when those renewables are humming, they’re providing the grid with electricity and charging banks of batteries, which then supply power at night. 

    A new study in the journal Renewable Energy that looked at California’s deployment of renewable power highlights just how reliable the future of energy might be. It found that last year, from late winter to early summer, renewables fulfilled 100 percent of the state’s electricity demand for up to 10 hours on 98 of 116 days, a record for California. Not only were there no blackouts during that time, thanks in part to backup battery power, but at their peak the renewables provided up to 162 percent of the grid’s needs — adding extra electricity California could export to neighboring states or use to fill batteries. 

    “This study really finds that we can keep the grid stable with more and more renewables,” said Mark Z. Jacobson, a civil and environmental engineer at Stanford University and lead author of the new paper. “Every major renewable — geothermal, hydro, wind, solar in particular, even offshore wind — is lower cost than fossil fuels” on average, globally.

    Yet Californians pay the second highest rates for electricity in the country. That’s not because of renewables, but in part because utilities’ electrical equipment has set off wildfires — like the Camp Fire started by Pacific Gas and Electric’s power lines, which devastated the town of Paradise and killed 85 people — and now they’re passing the costs that come from lawsuits and burying transmission lines to their customers. While investigators don’t know for sure what sparked all of the wildfires that have ravaged Los Angeles this month, they’ll be scrutinizing electrical equipment in the area. Power lines are especially prone to failing in high winds, like the 100-mile-per-hour gusts that turned these Southern California fires into monsters.

    Even with the incessant challenge of wildfires, California utilities are rapidly shifting to clean energy, with about half of the state’s power generated by renewables like hydropower, wind, and solar. The study compared 116 days in 2024 to the same period in 2023 and discovered California’s output from solar was 31 percent higher and wind 8 percent. After increasing more than 30-fold between 2020 and 2023, the state’s battery capacity doubled between 2023 and 2024, and is now equivalent to the juice produced by more than four nuclear power plants. According to the study, all that new clean tech helped California’s power plants burn 40 percent less fossil fuel for electricty last year.

    Those batteries help grid operators be more flexible in meeting demand for electricity, which tends to peak when people return home in the early evening and switch on appliances like air conditioners — just when the grid is losing solar power. “Now we’re seeing the batteries get charged up in the middle of the day, and then meet the portion of the demand in the evening, especially during those hot summer days,” said Mark Rothleder, chief operating officer of the California Independent System Operator, the nonprofit that runs the state’s grid.

    Another pervasive myth about renewables is that they won’t be able to support a lot more electric vehicles, induction stoves, and heat pumps plugging into the grid. But here, too, California busts the myth: Between 2023 and 2024, demand on the state’s grid during the study period actually dropped by about 1 percent.

    Why? In part because some customers installed their own solar panels, using that free solar energy instead of drawing power from the grid. In 2016, almost none of those customers had batteries to store that solar power to use at night. But battery adoption rose each of the following years, reaching 13 percent of buildings installing solar in 2023, then skyrocketing to 38 percent last year. (That is, of the 1,222 megawatts of solar capacity added last year, 464 megawatts included batteries.) That reduces demand on the grid because those customers can now use their solar power at night. 

    Batteries also help utilities get better returns on their investments in solar panels. A solar farm makes all its money selling electricity during the day. But if it has batteries attached to the farm, it can also provide energy in the evening, when electricity prices rise due to increased demand. “That evening battery contribution is very key to the economics working out well,” said Jan Kleissl, director of the Center for Energy Research at the University of California, San Diego, who wasn’t involved in the new paper. 

    So utilities are incentivized to invest in batteries, which also provide reliable backup power to avoid blackouts. But like any technology, batteries can fail. Last week, a battery storage plant caught fire on California’s central coast, the largest of its kind in the world, but it only knocked out 2 percent of the state’s energy storage capacity. A grid fully running on renewables will have a lot of redundancy built in, beyond multiple battery plants: Electric school buses and other EVs, for instance, are beginning to send power back to the grid when a utility needs it — a potentially vast network of backup energy.

    But here’s where the economics get funky. The more renewables on the grid, the lower the electricity prices tend to be for customers, according to the new study. From October 1, 2023 to September 30, 2024, South Dakota, Montana, and Iowa provided 110 percent, 87 percent, and 79 percent, respectively, of their electricity demand with renewables, particularly wind and hydropower. Accordingly, the three have some of the lowest electricity prices in the country. 

    California, on the other hand, got 47 percent of its power from renewables over the same period, yet wildfires and other factors have translated into higher electricity prices. The California Public Utilities Commission, for instance, authorized its three largest utilities to collect $27 billion in wildfire prevention and insurance costs from ratepayers between 2019 and 2023.

    Climate change is making California ever more prone to burn — a growing challenge for utilities. But the state’s banner year for solar and batteries just poked a whole lot of holes in the notion that renewables aren’t reliable.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline California just debunked a big myth about renewable energy on Jan 24, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • ‘Nuclear fantasy’ threatens data centre future, PM warns

    An Australian energy system relying on a the Coalition’s nuclear power plan would shrink the opportunity for emerging technology like AI and the data centres that power it, the Prime Minister warned on Friday while launching his yearly agenda. During a National Press Club address in Canberra, Anthony Albanese said the Opposition’s energy plan left…

    The post ‘Nuclear fantasy’ threatens data centre future, PM warns appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.