Category: Energy


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • It has been suggested that to reduce landfill greenhouse gas emissions, food wastes should be ground up and sent to the sewer. This is the worst possible attempt to reduce greenhouse gases, and will, in fact, increase the amount of greenhouse gases released to process those food wastes.

    I have worked at a wastewater treatment plant for the last five years. These facilities are located in every small, medium and large city, with public sewer systems, across the world. They are designed to process human fecal waste, capture organic matter and metals, and release treated water back into the environment. They primarily process those wastes using a biological system of bacteria and microorganisms.

    Heavy particles or debris that come in with the wastewater will be filtered or collected at the front of the plant and taken to a landfill. That filtration or collection requires energy. That energy is provided with electricity, often created by burning fossil fuels.

    Any lighter particles that stay suspended in water or float on the surface will also be collected. Any carbon will be converted into methane by bacteria in an anaerobic digester or processed by bacteria into carbon dioxide in an aeration basin. Either solution also requires additional energy, either to heat the anaerobic digesters or to pump air into the water to add oxygen to it.

    The amount of carbon coming into the treatment plant will exactly equal the amount going out as carbon dioxide, methane or as sewage sludge. Sewage sludge is the leftover solids, bacteria and organic matter that will need to be removed from the treatment plant. The sludge will either be land applied on farms as fertilizer, or sent to a landfill. As regulations tighten on land application across the world, landfills will be the ultimate destination of all sewage sludge in the near future.

    The food waste you send down the drain, instead of throwing it into the garbage, will ultimately still end up at the landfill. The carbon in that food will still be released as methane or carbon dioxide. Except, instead of the two steps of collection and delivery to the landfill, it will compound the effects of that food waste by sending it through a wastewater treatment plant, increasing the energy costs of the treatment plant and increasing the amount of greenhouse gases released to process that food waste.

    If you want to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases from your food waste, compost it or turn it into biochar by burning it in a low heat environment with a lack of oxygen. That is the only way to lock in the carbon for long term storage. Don’t send excess food wastes to a treatment plant, we have enough carbon to deal with, just with the feces.

    The post Wasting Food first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Some of the votes Americans cast on Tuesday that may have mattered most for the climate were quite a bit downballot from the presidential ticket: A handful of states held elections for the commissions that regulate utilities, and thereby exercise direct control over what sort of energy mix will fuel the coming years’ expected growth in electricity demand. In three closely watched races around the country — the utility commissions in Arizona, Montana, and Louisiana — Republican candidates either won or are in the lead. While they generally pitched themselves to voters as market-friendly, favoring an all-of-the-above approach to energy, clean energy advocates interviewed by Grist cast these candidates as deferential to the power companies they aspired to regulate.

    Arizona is, in a word, sunny. Its geography makes it “the famously obvious place to build solar,” said Caroline Spears, executive director of Climate Cabinet, a nonprofit that works to get clean energy advocates elected. But its utilities have built just a sliver of the potential solar energy that there is room for in the state — and the Arizona Corporation Commission, which regulates the state’s investor-owned utilities, is partly to blame for that. That commission’s most recent goal for renewable energy, set in 2007, was an unambitious 15 percent to be reached by 2025. “Their goals are worse than where Texas currently is and where Iowa currently is on clean energy,” Spears said. What’s more, the current slate of commissioners is in the process of considering whether to ditch that goal altogether.

    Those commissioners have held a 4-1 Republican majority on the commission since 2022, and in that time they’ve approved the construction of new gas plants, imposed new fees on rooftop solar, and raised electricity rates. Tuesday’s election, in which three of the commission’s five seats were on the ballot, gave voters a chance to reverse course. The race hasn’t yet been officially called, but three Republican candidates are in the lead, ahead of three Democratic candidates, two Green candidates, and a write-in independent. (The election is structured such that candidates don’t run for individual seats or in districts; rather, the seats go to the three top vote-getters.)

    So far, the Republican candidate who’s gotten the most votes is Rachel Walden, a member of the Mesa school board who’s made a name for herself in Arizona politics with transphobic comments and a failed lawsuit against the Mesa school district over its policies on student bathroom usage. “She’s a candidate who doesn’t have a lot of specific energy experience but seems to be very diehard to the kind of MAGA movement more broadly,” said Stephanie Chase, a researcher at the Energy and Policy Institute, a utility watchdog nonprofit.

    In Montana, three seats were open on the Public Service Commission, but one in particular — District 4 — captured the attention of clean energy advocates, because it was the only one in which a non-Republican candidate was running. Elena Evans, an independent, began her campaign after learning that the incumbent commissioner in her district, Jennifer Fielder, was running unopposed. The race focused less on clean energy than affordability: Evans said in interviews she decided to run because of the 28 percent rate hike that the all-Republican commission had approved. In the closest of the commission’s three elections, Fielder beat Evans with 55 percent of the vote.

    Like in Arizona, the Montana PSC has neglected to take advantage of its state’s untapped potential for renewable energy — wind. A Montana commissioner was captured on a hot mic in 2019 candidly acknowledging that the purpose of a rate cut for renewable energy providers was to kill solar development in the state.

    While one independent on the commission wouldn’t have likely swayed the course of its decisions, Evans would have had the opportunity “to be a consumer voice,” in Chase’s words, as the commission deliberated not only over future decisions on renewable energy, but also the looming question of the future of a coal plant in eastern Montana. The Colstrip power plant has been co-owned by utilities in nearby states, which, in anticipation of those states’ renewable energy targets kicking in, are selling their shares of its energy to the Montana utility NorthWestern Energy. These deals could saddle ratepayers in Montana with new costs, both for the purchase and for compliance with environmental regulations.

    In Louisiana, the largest utility regulated by the Public Service Commission is Entergy, which Daniel Tait, a researcher at the Energy and Policy Institute, described as “one of the most reviled utilities in the country by its customers.” Louisiana’s utilities are legally permitted to donate directly to the campaign funds for commissioners who regulate them — and they do so in great volume.

    The race to replace Louisiana Public Service Commissioner Craig Greene, who is retiring at the end of his term, commanded attention because, though a Republican representing a deep-red part of the state, Greene is considered the swing vote among the five commissioners, two of whom are Democrats. In his eight years in office, he’s become known for “his willingness to hold Entergy accountable,” according to Tait — voting with the progressive commissioner Davante Lewis on issues like energy efficiency programs and limiting utilities’ political spending.

    On Tuesday, Greene’s seat was won by Jean-Paul Coussan, a state senator from Lafayette who accepted utility donations, supports an expansion of gas infrastructure, and has criticized renewables for “driv[ing] out oil and gas jobs.” Tait described Coussan as less hostile to clean energy than his Republican opponent in the race, Julie Quinn, but further right than the Democrat he defeated, Nick Laborde.

    In an interview with the Louisiana Illuminator, Coussan cast his energy policies as based on free markets. “It’s critical that we look at the most affordable options. I think renewables are currently part of the matrix and will be in the future,” he said. “We also need to address the reality that we’ve got an abundant supply of natural gas.”

    Coussan has also spoken of the needs of Louisianans who are suffering from repeated hurricanes and rising rates. “The things that he has said since being elected are contradictory in nature,” Tait said of Coussan. “He says he wants affordable and reliable energy, and that he cares about storm protection, because there are so many issues in Louisiana, but the very thing that’s creating these storms is climate change — which is being caused by carbon emissions.”

    “You can’t make the problem worse and say you want to work hard to solve the problem,” Tait added.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline These downballot elections may slow the shift to clean energy on Nov 8, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Donald J. Trump will once again be president of the United States. 

    The Associated Press called the race for Trump early Wednesday morning, ending one of the costliest and most turbulent campaign cycles in the nation’s history. The results promise to upend U.S. climate policy: In addition to returning a climate denier to the White House, voters also gave Republicans control of the Senate, laying the groundwork for attacks on everything from electric vehicles to clean energy funding and bolstering support for the fossil fuel industry.

    “We have more liquid gold than any country in the world,” Trump said during his victory speech, referring to domestic oil and gas potential. The CEO of the American Petroleum Institute issued a statement saying that “energy was on the ballot, and voters sent a clear signal that they want choices, not mandates.”

    The election results rattled climate policy experts and environmental advocates. The president-elect has called climate change “a hoax” and during his most recent campaign vowed to expand fossil fuel production, roll back environmental regulations, and eliminate federal support for clean energy. He has also said he would scuttle the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, which is the largest investment in climate action in U.S. history and a landmark legislative win for the Biden administration. Such steps would add billions of tons of additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and hasten the looming impacts of climate change.

    “This is a dark day,” Ben Jealous, the executive director of the Sierra Club, said in a statement. “Donald Trump was a disaster for climate progress during his first term, and everything he’s said and done since suggests he’s eager to do even more damage this time.”

    During his first stint in office, Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement, the 2016 international climate accord that guides the actions of more than 195 countries, rolled back 100-plus environmental rules, and opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. While President Joe Biden reversed many of those actions and made fighting climate change a centerpiece of his presidency, Trump has pledged to undo those efforts during his second term with potentially enormous implications — climate analysts at Carbon Brief predicted that another four years of Trump would lead to the nation emitting an additional 4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide than it would under his opponent. That’s on par with the combined annual emissions of the European Union and Japan. 

    One of president-elect Trump’s primary targets will be rolling back the IRA, which is poised to direct more than a trillion dollars into climate-friendly initiatives. Two years into that decade-long effort, money is flowing into myriad initiatives, ranging from building out the nation’s electric vehicle charging network to helping people go solar and weatherize their homes. In 2023 alone, some 3.4 million Americans claimed more $8 billion in tax credits the law provides for home energy improvements. But Trump could stymie, freeze, or even eliminate much of the law. 

    “We will rescind all unspent funds,” Trump assured the audience in a September speech at the Economic Club of New York. Last month, he said it would be “an honor” to “immediately terminate” a law he called the “Green New Scam.” 

    Such a move would, however, require congressional support. While many House races remain too close to call, Republicans have taken control of the Senate. That said, any attempt to roll back the IRA may prove unpopular, however, because as much as $165 billion in the funding it provides is flowing to Republican districts

    Still, Trump can take unilateral steps to slow spending, and use federal regulatory powers to further hamper the rollout process. As Axios noted, “If Trump wants to shut off the IRA spigot, he’ll likely find ways to do it.” Looking beyond that seminal climate law, Trump has plenty of other levers he can also pull that will adversely affect the environment  — efforts that will be easier with a conservative Supreme Court that has already undermined federal climate action. 

    Trump has also thrown his support behind expanded fossil fuel production. He has long pushed for the country to “drill, baby, drill” and, in April, offered industry executives tax and regulatory favors in exchange for $1 billion in campaign support. Though that astronomical sum never materialized, The New York Times found that oil and gas interests donated an estimated $75 million to Trump’s campaign, the Republican National Committee, and affiliated committees. Fossil fuels were already booming under Biden, with domestic oil production higher than ever before, and Vice President Kamala Harris said she would continue producing them if she won. But Trump could give the industry a considerable boost by, for instance, re-opening more of the Arctic to drilling

    Any climate chaos that Trump sows is sure to extend beyond the United States. The president-elect could attempt to once again abandon the Paris Agreement, undermining global efforts to address the crisis. His threat to use tariffs to protect U.S. companies and restore American manufacturing could upend energy markets. The vast majority of solar panels and electric vehicle batteries, for example, are made overseas and the prices of those imports, as well as other clean-energy technology, could soar. U.S. liquified natural gas producers worry that retaliatory tariffs could hamper their business

    The Trump administration could also take quieter steps to shape climate policy, from further divorcing federal research functions from their rulemaking capacities to guiding how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studies and responds to health concerns. 

    Trump is all but sure to wreak havoc on federal agencies central to understanding, and combatting, climate change. During his first term, his administration gutted funding for research, appointed climate skeptics and industry insiders, and eliminated several scientific advisory committees. It also censored scientific data on government websites and tried to undermine the findings of the National Climate Assessment, the government’s scientific report on the risks and impacts of climate change to the country. Project 2025, the sweeping blueprint developed by conservative groups and former Trump administration officials, advances a similar strategy, deprioritizing climate science and perhaps restructuring or eliminating federal agencies that advance it.

    “The nation and world can expect the incoming Trump administration to take a wrecking ball to global climate diplomacy,” Rachel Cleetus, the policy director and lead economist for the Climate and Energy Program at the Union for Concerned Scientists, said in a statement. “The science on climate change is unforgiving, with every year of delay locking in more costs and more irreversible changes, and everyday people paying the steepest price.”

    The president-elect’s supporters seem eager to begin their work. 

    Mandy Gunasekara, a former chief of staff of the Environmental Protection Agency during Trump’s first term, told CNN before the election that this second administration would be far more prepared to enact its agenda, and would act quickly. One likely early target will be Biden-era tailpipe emissions rules that Trump has derided as an electric vehicle “mandate.”  

    During his first term, Trump similarly tried to weaken Obama-era emissions regulations. But the auto industry made the point moot when it sidestepped the federal government and made a deal with states directly, a move that’s indicative of the approach that environmentalists might take during his second term. Even before the election, climate advocates had begun preparing for the possibility of a second Trump presidency and the nation’s abandoning the global diplomatic stage on this issue. Bloomberg reported that officials and former diplomats have been convening secret conversations, crisis simulations, and “political wargaming” aimed at maximizing climate progress under Trump — an effort that will surely start when COP29 kicks off next week in Baku, Azerbaijan.

    “The result from this election will be seen as a major blow to global climate action,” Christiana Figueres, the United Nations climate chief from 2010 to 2016, in a statement. “[But] there is an antidote to doom and despair. It’s action on the ground, and it’s happening in all corners of the Earth“

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The massive consequences Trump’s re-election could have on climate change on Nov 6, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Cuba is in the midst of an ongoing humanitarian crisis, and October’s widespread power outages are only adding to the Cuban people’s troubles. For the last six decades, Cuba has been on the receiving end of myriad sanctions by the United States government. This blockade has proved devastating to human life.

    Reporting on Cuba’s blackouts have either omitted or paid brief lip-service to the effects of US sanctions on the Cuban economy, and how those sanctions have created the conditions for the crisis. Instead, media have focused on the inefficient and authoritarian Communist government as the cause of the island’s troubles.

    Pulping the economy

    The Hill: Cuba’s placement on the State Sponsor of Terrorism list has led to damaging consequences

    Michael Galant (The Hill, 1/5/24): “Businesses and financial institutions, including many from outside the United States, often elect to sever all connections to Cuba rather than risk being sanctioned themselves for association with ‘a sponsor of terror.’”

    One of President Donald Trump’s final acts in office was to re-designate Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, after President Barack Obama had removed them from the list in 2015 as a part of his Cuban thaw. Inclusion on the list subjects a country to restrictions on US foreign aid and financing, but, more importantly, the SSoT list encourages third-party over-compliance with sanctions. “Businesses and financial institutions, including many from outside the United States, often elect to sever all connections to Cuba rather than risk being sanctioned themselves,” The Hill (1/5/24) reported.

    Trump reportedly added Cuba to the list for harboring members of FARC and ELN, two left-wing Colombian armed movements. However, Colombian President Gustavo Petro later “noted that Colombia itself, in cooperation with the Obama administration, had asked Cuba to host the FARC and ELN members as part of peace talks,” the Intercept (12/14/23) wrote. Indeed, if Cuba deported the dissidents, they would have been in violation of the protocols of the peace talks, which they were bound to by international law (The Nation, 2/24/23).

    President Joe Biden has not begun the process of reviewing Cuba’s inclusion on the list, despite his campaign promises to the contrary.

    The terror designation, plus the many other sanctions imposed by Trump and continued by Biden, are no small potatoes. Ed Augustin wrote at Drop Site (10/1/24) that

    the terror designation, together with more than 200 sanctions enacted against the island since Obama left office, has pulped the Cuban economy by cutting revenue to the struggling Cuban state…. The combined annual cost of the Trump/Biden sanctions, [economists] say, amounts to billions of dollars a year.

    Augustin argued that the economic warfare regime is a root cause of the rolling blackouts, water shortages and mass emigration that have plagued Cuba in recent years. Even imports that are ostensibly exempt from sanctions, like medication, are caught in the dragnet as multinational companies scramble to cut ties with the island. Banks are so reluctant to run afoul of US sanctions, Augustin wrote, “that often, even when the state can find the money to buy, and a provider willing to sell, there’s simply no way of making the payment.”

    Cuba’s pariah status as a SSoT has put a stranglehold on its economy, and its government’s ability to administer public services. However, US restrictions on Cuba are almost never mentioned in US coverage, and reporting on the recent blackouts is no exception.

    Cash-strapped Communists

    Reuters: Tougher U.S. sanctions make Cuba ever more difficult for Western firms

    Reuters (10/10/19): “Tougher US sanctions against Cuba have led international banks to avoid transactions involving the island, while prospective overseas investors put plans on hold.”

    Coverage has emphasized the inability of Cuba’s government to pay for necessary fuel imports. The New York Times (10/19/24) reported “the strapped Communist government could barely afford” to pay for fuel. Elsewhere, the Times (10/18/24) claimed “a severe economic crisis and the cash crunch it produced made it harder for Cuba to pay for those fuel imports.”

    The Washington Post (10/18/24) made broadly similar arguments, chalking the blackouts up to “a shortage of imported oil and the cash-strapped government’s insufficient maintenance of the creaky grid.”

    The “cash crunch” referenced by the Times is not just the result of an abstract economic crisis, as is implied. Instead, it is a direct effect of US sanctions on financial institutions. During the Obama administration, European banks, including ING and BNP Paribas, were fined to the tune of over $10 billion for transacting with Cuba (Jacobin, 3/27/22). Even before Cuba was choked further as a result of their SSoT designation, reporting by Reuters (10/10/19) showed the extent to which banks were terminating operations with Cuba and Cuban entities:

    Many Western banks have long refused Cuba-related business for fear of running afoul of US sanctions and facing hefty fines.… Panama’s Multibank shut down numerous Cuba-related accounts this year and European banks are restricting clients associated with Cuba to their own nationals, if that.…

    Businessmen and diplomats said large French banks, including Societe Generale, no longer want anything to do with Cuba, and some are stopping payments to pensioners living on the Caribbean island.… For the first time in years, the island has had problems financing the upcoming sugar harvest. Various joint venture projects, from golf resorts to alternative energy, are finding it nearly impossible to obtain private credit.

    This de-risking by financial institutions manufactures a cash-scarce economy. Cuba’s inability to procure cash for imports is not a function of financial mismanagement, or a lack of credit-worthiness. Instead, it is a deliberate effect of American foreign policy. By omitting the actions of the most powerful government on earth, mainstream coverage allows only that only Cuban failures could be the cause of a shortage of cash.

    ‘Terrorism’ cuts off tourism

    Telegraph: Europeans have abandoned Cuba, and it's all America's fault

    Britain’s ambassador to Cuba told the Telegraph (11/6/23), “Those who come are profoundly shocked at what the SSOT designation is doing to the people here.”

    Cuba has historically used tourism as a way of bringing money into the economy, but lately the Cuban tourism industry has been severely depressed. The explanation employed by corporate media for the decline of this industry is to blame the extended effects of the pandemic recession (New York Times, 10/19/24; Washington Post, 10/18/24).

    This explanation, however, is incomplete. Cuba has indeed had a lackluster rebound in their tourism industry, but the Times and the Post fail to explain why Cuba has faltered while other Caribbean islands have more than re-achieved their pre-pandemic tourist numbers.

    Travelers from Britain, Australia, Japan and 37 other countries do not need to procure a visa for travel to the United States. Instead, they can use ESTA, an electronic visa waiver. This greatly reduces the cost and the annoyance of obtaining permission to visit the US. However, since Cuba’s 2021 listing as a SSoT, any visit to the country by an ESTA passport-holder revokes the visa waiver, for life (Telegraph, 11/6/23). In other words, any Brit (or Kiwi, or Korean, and so on) who visits Cuba must, for the rest of their lives, visit a US embassy and pay $180 before being able to enter the United States. US policy, not a Covid hangover, is hamstringing any possibility of a resurgence in tourism to Cuba.

    Blame game

    During Cuba’s most recent energy crisis, the New York Times published three stories describing the blackouts. Two of these stories mention the US blockade only as something that the Cuban government blames for the crisis.

    NYT: A Nationwide Blackout, Now a Hurricane. How Much Can Cuba Endure?

    The New York Times (10/21/24) presented the idea that the US is punishing Cuba’s economy as a Communist allegation: “The Cuban government blames the power crisis on the US trade embargo, and sanctions that were ramped up by the Trump administration.”

    The headline on the Times website (10/21/24) read: “A Nationwide Blackout, Now a Hurricane. How Much Can Cuba Endure?” The paper was right to report on the humanitarian crisis ongoing in Cuba, but it chose to downplay the most important root cause: the decades-long US blockade on Cuba’s economy and its people.

    That same story described Cuba as “a Communist country long accustomed to shortages of all kinds and spotty electrical service.” Why is the country so used to shortages? Eleven paragraphs later, the Times gave an explanation, or at least, Cuba’s explanation:

    The Cuban government blames the power crisis on the US trade embargo, and sanctions that were ramped up by the Trump administration, which severely restricts the Cuban government’s cash flow. The US Department of the Treasury blocks tankers that have delivered oil to Cuba, which drives up the island’s fuel costs, because Cuba has a limited pool of suppliers available to it.

    Earlier coverage by the Times (10/18/24) similarly couched the effects of the blockade as merely a claim by Cuba. The Washington Post (10/22/24) also situated the blockade as something that “the Cuban government and its allies blame” for the ongoing crisis.

    To report that Cuban officials blame the US sanctions for the energy crisis is a bit like reporting that fishermen blame the moon for the rising tide. It is of course factual that US trade restrictions–which affect not just US businesses, but also multinational businesses based in other countries–are a blunt weapon, with impact against not just a government, but an entire people.

    At the very least, it is incumbent upon journalists to do at least minimal investigation and explanation of the facts concerning the subject of their reporting. None of the coverage in either major paper bothered to investigate whether this was a fair explanation, or even to report generally the effects a 60-year blockade might have on an economy.

    Brief—and buried

    NYT: Cuba Suffers Second Power Outage in 24 Hours, Realizing Years of Warnings

    “Cuban economists and foreign analysts blamed the crisis on several factors,” the New York Times (10/19/24) reported; 18 paragraphs later, the story gets around to mentioning US sanctions.

    On October 19, the Times gave its most complete explanation of the relationship between the US sanctions regime and the Cuban blackouts:

    Cuba’s economy enjoyed a brief honeymoon with the United States during the Obama administration, which sought to normalize relations after decades of hostility, while keeping a longstanding economic embargo in place. President Donald J. Trump reversed course, leading to renewed restrictions on tourism, visas, remittances, investments and commerce.

    This explanation can be found in the 31st paragraph of the 37-paragraph story. Only once the Times has painted a picture of all the ways the Communist government has gone wrong can there be a brief mention of the role of US sanctions. And how brief it is; the Times chose not to detail the extent of blockade against Cuba, nor how Cuba was wrongfully placed on the SSoT list, nor the failure of Biden to reevaluate Cuba’s status as he promised on the campaign trail.

    Describing the US starvation of Cuba’s economy in abstract terms like “economic crisis” provides cover for deliberate policy decisions by the US government. By reporting on the embargo only as something that the Cuban government claims, it is easy for readers to dismiss that explanation as simply a Communist excuse. Instead of asking why the United States is choosing to enforce a crippling sanctions regime on another country, outlets like the New York Times find it easier to repeat the line that Cuba’s government has only itself to blame for its problems.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • The U.S. power grid is at a critical crossroads. Electricity generation, like every other industry, needs to rid itself of fossil fuels if the country is to play its role in combating the climate crisis — a transition that will have to happen even as energy providers scramble to meet what they claim is an unprecedented spike in electricity demand, attributed to the rise of AI.

    Considered as a physical object, the North American grid is the world’s largest machine; in its political form in the United States, however, it’s a mess of overlapping jurisdictions. So whether the country meets this newly rising demand for electricity in a climate-friendly way or by prolonging the fossil fuel industry’s dominance will largely be up to the 200 or so regulators who sit on state utility commissions. No single person or body of government is in the driver’s seat — the humble, arcane, and largely out-of-sight utility commissions are in control of the grid and its future. Their mandate is to approve or deny the utility companies’ expenditures and the rates they collect from their customers to pay for them. This means federal policymakers can implement all the incentives they want for clean energy, but these efforts will amount to nothing if state-level regulators don’t require utilities to build it. 

    Every state has a regulatory panel known variously as a public utilities commission, public service commission, corporation commission, or even railroad commission. Most are appointed, typically by the governor. In 10 states, utility regulators are directly elected by voters. Eight of those states are holding elections for at least one seat on November 5. 

    States voting for utility commissioners in 2024

    Alabama: Republican incumbent Twinkle Cavanaugh is running unopposed for reelection to her seat as president of the three-member Public Service Commission. Cavanaugh says in her online biography that she’s “committed to applying the principles of conservative governance” and on X, that she’s “fighting the woke agenda.”

    Arizona: Nine people are running for three seats on Arizona’s five-member Corporation Commission: Republicans Rene Lopez, Rachel Walden, and incumbent Lea Marquez Peterson; Democrats Ylenia Aguilar, Jonathon Hill, and Joshua Polacheck; Green Party candidates Mike Cease and Nina Luxenberg; and write-in candidate Frank Bertone. The top three vote-getters will win the seats, in an election that has the potential to shift control of the commission. The current Republican supermajority has approved new gas power plants, fees for rooftop solar, an 8 percent rate hike, and other moves that have drawn sharp criticism from environmental and consumer advocates.

    Louisiana: Three candidates are vying to replace a moderate Republican who opted not to seek reelection to the District 2 seat on Louisiana’s five-person Public Service Commission. Democrat Nick Laborde expressed the strongest support for renewable energy in interviews with the Louisiana Illuminator, while Republicans Jean-Paul Coussan and Julie Quinn both told the nonprofit news outlet that they oppose the Green New Deal — a loose term for federal policy promoting a renewable energy transition.

    Montana: Three of five seats on Montana’s Public Service Commission are on the ballot Tuesday, with just one incumbent seeking reelection: Republican Jennifer Fielder faces independent candidate Elena Evans in district four; Republican Brad Molnar and Democrat Susan Bilo are squaring off in District 2; and Republican Jeff Welborn and Democrat Leonard “Lenny” Williams are vying for the District 3 seat. Republicans have dominated the commission for over a decade. In addition to their usual ratemaking, the new commissioners will likely decide the fate of a petition calling for the commission to consider the climate impacts of its decisions.

    Nebraska: Two commissioners on the all-Republican Nebraska Public Service Commission — Dan Watermeier and Tim Schram — are up for reelection. They are both running unopposed.

    North Dakota: One of the three seats on the entirely Republican North Dakota Public Service Commission is on the ballot. The commission’s chair, Randel Christmann, is being challenged by Tracey Wilkie, a Democrat and a member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa. The election comes as the commission is deliberating over a controversial proposed Summit Carbon Solutions carbon-capture pipeline through the Dakotas, which Wilkie opposes. Christmann voted against an earlier permit for the pipeline but says he remains undecided on its current iteration.

    Oklahoma: One of three seats on the Oklahoma Corporation Commission is open, with Democrat Harold Spradling, Republican Brian Bingman, and Libertarian Chad Williams vying to replace Bob Anthony, an outgoing commissioner who has served since 1989 but must retire due to term limits passed in 2010. Bingman, a former employee of the petroleum company Conoco and the former Oklahoma Secretary of State, has massively outraised his rivals, neither of whose campaign has an online presence.

    South Dakota: One of three seats on the all-Republican South Dakota Public Utilities Commission is on the ballot. Incumbent commissioner Kristie Fiegen is being challenged by Democrat Forrest Wilson and Libertarian Gideon Oakes. As in North Dakota, the highest-profile issue before the commission is the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline, on which the three candidates have all avoided taking a public position. Feigen has outraised her opponents.

    Three seats on Arizona’s utility commission (known as the Arizona Corporation Commission) are up for grabs. In the short time that body has had a 4-1 Republican majority, it’s gone on a spree of approving the construction of new gas plants, alongside rate hikes and new fees for rooftop solar installations. In Louisiana, a Republican commissioner is retiring, and the choice of his replacement is pivotal because he has been the commission’s lone swing vote. And on the Montana Public Service Commission, which is currently entirely Republican, Tuesday’s election will prove a test of voters’ dissatisfaction with the 28 percent rate hike approved for customers of the state’s largest energy company last year. The results of these elections — and the makeup of commissions across the country, elected and appointed — will quite literally determine whether states add more fossil fuel capacity or transition to clean fuel sources over the next several years, driving how quickly the U.S. cuts emissions nationwide.

    How did state utility commissions get so much power? And what can they do with it in this pivotal moment? 

    Grist / Getty Images

    For decades after General Electric — the company at the leading edge of electrifying society — was founded in 1892, electricity remained a high-cost luxury. Most people who could afford electricity service, in urban centers like New York City and Boston, were customers of utilities owned by their local municipality. Samuel Insull, an enterprising Brit who started his career as Thomas Edison’s secretary, sought to change that by distributing electricity more widely and selling it more cheaply. In 1912, Insull founded the Middle West Utilities Company, a holding company based in Chicago; because Middle West owned and controlled smaller and more local subsidiaries throughout the region, it gave Insull the reach, and capital, to pioneer centralized power plants that operated nonstop. 

    In order to advance his own dominance, Insull was a forceful advocate for an agreement between the privately owned utility companies and state regulators that recognized the utilities’ “natural monopoly” over electricity. It doesn’t make sense, the argument went, for power companies to compete over who serves a given customer; it would be “wasteful duplication” for multiple transmission lines to power the same cities and try to outbid one another on rates. In exchange for legal protection of their monopoly, the companies would submit to the oversight of public utility commissions, or PUCs. It was a transference of the regulatory structure that had already been instituted in response to the construction of the railroad industry that accelerated the settlement of the West in the second half of the 19th century. (The public utilities commission in Texas is still called the Texas Railroad Commission, even though it’s been decades since it had anything to do with trains.) Insull’s vision came to dominate the regulatory landscape for electricity in the first two decades of the 20th century, and a handful of large holding companies took control over power generation and distribution nationwide.

    In practice, the model was imperfect. The commissions were susceptible to corruption (the concept of “regulatory capture,” a phenomenon in which agencies become influenced by the industries they regulate, was first applied to utility regulation). In a series of Federal Trade Commission investigations beginning in the late 1920s, the electricity industry was revealed to be rife with financial fraud. In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Public Utility Holding Company Act, a law restricting utility holding companies from exercising monopolies across multiple states and authorizing the Securities and Exchange Commission to break up utility monopolies as it saw fit. Middle West collapsed in the wake of greater government scrutiny and the Great Depression, and the political fortunes of the monopoly model waned. 

    Still, the structure of vertically integrated monopoly utilities generally persisted until liberalizing reforms in the 1990s prohibited one company from controlling the generation, transmission, and distribution of power, and created wholesale electricity markets where power is auctioned from power plants to customers. In areas with wholesale markets — called regional transmission organizations, known as RTOs, or independent system operators — economic forces and real-time price auctions combine with the priorities of utility commissions to influence both what types of power generation get built and how much energy costs for customers. The specifics of each market vary: Some areas allow consumers to choose their electricity operator from an array of options, for instance, while others allow utilities to maintain their territorial monopolies and participate in regional marketplaces with the energy they make. But utility commissions still play a critical role in approving those utilities’ rates, construction of power plants and transmission lines, and long-term plans. The commissions can also require the utilities in their jurisdiction to take critical steps toward improving equity or expanding renewable energy.

    Such markets exist in almost all of the country, save the Southeast, where the makers and sellers of electricity operate with legally protected monopolies in their service territories. If you live in Georgia, Alabama, or Mississippi, for instance, your location within the state determines which power company is available to you, and the utility commission is the primary check on its rates and operations. Because of these utilities’ unique financial structure, with a fixed return on any capital investment guaranteed to their shareholders by the local utility commission, they are better incentivized to build large, capital-intensive energy infrastructure like nuclear plants and offshore wind turbines. That’s put these protected monopolies in the spotlight as they figure out how to respond to the demands of the moment: “The decisions that Southeastern PUC commissioners make over the next three years will make or break whether the U.S. meets the energy transition objectives and, by extension, the world,” said Charles Hua, founder of the organization PowerLines, which is seeking to modernize utility regulation in the U.S. But utility commissions are not only consequential in that region. 

    While people in those three states deal directly with their respective power company, some of the largest utilities in those states — Georgia Power, Alabama Power, and Mississippi Power — are actually owned by the same company, the Southern Company. In 2005, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act, which repealed Roosevelt’s Public Utility Holding Company Act and, as the journalist Kate Aronoff has written, “helped to clear the way for the reemergence of the type of holding companies that inspired it in the first place, with entities like Southern Company having spawned new arms that exist in something of a regulatory gray area.”


    Electricity generation is responsible for a quarter of America’s greenhouse gas emissions, and undergirds much of the rest; decarbonizing energy is an essential component of any serious climate plan. If the country’s grid is ever weaned off of fossil fuels, federal policy will no doubt play a crucial role. But the federal government’s ability to make that happen with the tools it is using — primarily, under the Biden administration, subsidies intended to make low-carbon electricity profitable — is limited. The decision to actually build renewable energy generation occurs at the state level.

    “We need to make sure that we do this right,” said Hua, of the current moment in energy transition. “And by that, what we mean is to center the public interest so that the public and consumers come out of this transition better off.”

    While utilities are typically the ones who put forward plans for their regulators to approve, deny, or amend, the commissioners often have substantial latitude to make changes — or even outright order utilities to pursue certain types of energy. In Georgia, for instance, individual commissioners have directed the state’s largest utility, Georgia Power, to add solar and biomass to its portfolio; the former has helped the state climb to seventh in the country for utility-scale solar, while the latter led to the controversial approval of a new biomass plant expected to increase customers’ bills. Minnesota’s commission issued an order directing utilities to maximize their use of benefits from the Inflation Reduction Act, the landmark climate law that contains subsidies for utilities who add renewable energy. 

    Utility commissions have a substantial influence even on renewable energy that’s owned by individuals — that is, rooftop solar. It’s impossible for most homeowners or businesses to go fully off the grid, because those systems typically generate more power than the owner needs when it’s sunny, and the user still needs energy at night. Batteries can help, but rooftop solar users typically need to both buy and sell electricity — a contract with their utility that the state’s commission oversees. The terms of these deals have far-reaching implications for how much rooftop solar costs and, by extension, how many people use it. When California’s utility commission cut the rate utilities pay customers for their solar energy, rooftop installations plummeted.

    An alternate model is in place in the areas served by the Tennessee Valley Authority, a federal agency created during the New Deal. The TVA provides power to customers in seven Southern states, including most of Tennessee, and is overseen by a board nominated by the U.S. president. Its lack of a profit motive has enabled it to respond somewhat differently to the recent growth in projected electricity demand spikes caused by new data centers. 

    Like its neighbors in the Southeast, the TVA is “building an insane amount of gas — but they’re spending more money on energy efficiency and demand response than any other utility” in the region, said Daniel Tait, a researcher at the Energy and Policy Institute, a nonprofit utility watchdog. For the TVA, unlike utilities that primarily profit off of the construction of new infrastructure, “a kilowatt-hour from a gas plant versus from energy efficiency should be no different to them, because they make no money,” Tait said. Clean energy advocates have long been pushing for utility commissions to consider energy efficiency in the same way, with mixed results.

    Aerial view of the Fontana dam on the Little Tennessee River, surrounded by lush green foliage and hills
    The Fontana Dam, on the Little Tennessee River, produces hydroelectric power for the Tennessee Valley Authority. Ron Buskirk / UCG / Universal Images Group via Getty Images

    One point analysts agree on is that no regulatory structure is completely winning the energy transition — the grass, it seems, is often greener in someone else’s service territory. Advocates working with vertically integrated monopolies, for instance, argue the lack of a competitive market keeps newer technologies, especially renewables, from thriving because growth is limited to what the individual utility agrees to build. 

    Energy analysts working on RTOs worry that the more liberalized markets don’t do enough centralized, concerted planning, which can create reliability issues. Critics also contend that RTOs often face less public accountability than monopoly utilities, which are more fully subject to elected or appointed utility commissions that hold public meetings — provided, of course, that ratepayers and stakeholders hold their utilities and commissions accountable.  

    “If we could wave a magic wand and tomorrow everybody knew that three or five or seven people determine their energy bills, we think that would be a good thing,” Hua said.

    How exactly to get people engaged with their utility commission in the absence of a magic wand is a persistent challenge for clean energy and consumer advocates. Mostly, they try to educate their supporters with blog posts and newsletters highlighting a commission’s actions or votes, or the group’s own advocacy work. Some states have even established advisory councils and launched public engagement initiatives. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, created an Office of Public Participation in 2021 to help educate the public and encourage engagement; while it’s focused on FERC proceedings, the office’s materials also provide basic information and terminology to understand the complicated world of energy regulation.

    Beyond getting involved in the process, individuals can also influence the makeup of the commissions themselves. While that opportunity is most obvious in the states that directly elect their commissioners, elections and public pressure can drive change in states with appointed commissions too. In Massachusetts, Democratic Governor Maura Healy replaced commissioners on her state’s utility commission soon after she took office. The new commission has since opened a docket on low-income energy burdens, taken steps to improve equitable access to solar energy, and overseen utilities’ clean energy roadmaps required by a 2022 state law. And last year, in Maryland, a gas industry executive nominated by the governor withdrew his candidacy for the state’s public service commission after outcry from environmental groups.

    Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey takes a boat ride with Mayor Jon Mitchell of New Bedford to view the staging site for an offshore wind project in 2021.
    Stuart Cahill / MediaNews Group / Boston Herald via Getty Images

    Commissioners themselves also have some ability to reimagine their roles. 

    “In this time and moment we should be asking ourselves, ‘How can we be innovative?’ instead of doubling down and doing what we’ve done the last hundred years every time there’s load growth,” said Davante Lewis, a progressive utility commissioner in Louisiana who was elected in 2022.

    Primarily, Lewis suggests that regulators take “environmental concerns and the ecosystem” into consideration. “Typically the regulatory compact has been solely decided based on whether or not a utility is justified in building something,” Lewis said. “We need a more comprehensive, holistic view: Not only was this the most prudent decision financially; is it the most prudent decision environmentally?” 

    Utility commissions often have enough latitude under state law to examine factors beyond price and reliability, according to a University of Michigan Law School analysis, but many are hesitant to do so. That’s where a state legislature can step in to expand the commission’s scope. Colorado, for instance, has broadened its utility commission’s authority to explicitly include equity, including minimizing the negative impacts of its decisions and addressing historic inequalities — a change the commission’s staff called a “new decision-making paradigm.” The staff’s report on how to implement the new rule recommends requiring utilities to develop equity plans and creating a new type of proceeding to consider the equity impact of electric and gas issues. Since a major critique of gas and coal plants is the negative effects of their pollution on the often-marginalized communities nearby, the process, if implemented, could significantly influence decisions about such power plants.

    Other states have tried to even the playing field between electric utilities and the other stakeholders who weigh in on their plans before utility commissions. Large, investor-owned utilities employ large staffs of lawyers and experts who can testify on their behalf. Environmental and consumer advocates, meanwhile, are typically nonprofits with much smaller budgets, which can make it difficult for them to hire or contract with experts to make their case for renewable energy, lower rates, and other policies against a mountain of testimony and data from the utility. 

    “There can be an extreme imbalance between the different parties who might be participating in these proceedings,” said Oliver Tully, the director of utility innovation and reform for the Acadia Center, a nonprofit advocating for clean energy across New England.

    So some states, including California, Idaho, and Michigan, have implemented programs to compensate individuals and nonprofits who take part in regulatory proceedings by cross-examining the utilities and bringing in experts to testify.

    Grist / Getty Images

    In Connecticut, one of the states where Tully works, it took a natural disaster to usher in change. Hurricane Isaias left some 750,000 people without power in August 2020, some for more than a week. The state’s utility commission, the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, or PURA, ultimately issued millions of dollars in fines over utilities’ slow response or lack of preparation. The storm, Tully said, got state leaders thinking seriously about how those utilities are governed.

    “That was the catalyst that got a lot of legislators talking about the need for change within the world of utility regulation,” he said.

    Connecticut had already established an advisory council to help bring the needs of low-income residents before energy regulators. But in the wake of the storm, officials took reforms further. The governor, who appoints the three members to PURA, established an additional advisory board focused on equity and energy justice, which advocates said is helping their efforts to get more people and groups interested in clean energy and environmental justice involved with the complicated and difficult process of energy regulation. The Regulatory Authority has subsequently opened a proceeding focused on equity and stakeholder engagement.

    The state legislature, meanwhile, passed laws directing PURA to implement two key changes: stakeholder compensation and performance-based regulation. The state’s stakeholder compensation program covers attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, and other costs for intervening groups. Performance-based regulation lets the commission tie utilities’ profits to how they perform in certain areas, like keeping rates affordable or cutting emissions. Because investor-owned utilities receive a profit range set by their regulators and are allowed to pass costs like construction and fuel on to their customers, critics argue they don’t have much incentive to keep those costs low or pursue programs like rooftop solar and energy efficiency that might lower emissions but also cut into profits. This approach aims to flip those incentives around, pushing electric companies to change their practices.

    It’s not a shift utilities are often fond of, and their powerful lobbying efforts can be a major obstacle. The resistance in Connecticut was so vehement, Tully said, that lawmakers in Maine abandoned a similar bill.

    “This is a perennial risk of these kinds of proceedings,” he said. “It represents a threat to the status quo of how utilities have been operating for many, many years.”

    Some utilities argue that changing their profit structure in this way could hurt their ability to finance major, necessary energy projects — one of the primary strengths of large utility companies. But that doesn’t seem to be the case in the long run. Although the increased uncertainty while regulators are hashing out the details can make creditors wary, in Hawaiʻi, the performance-based regulation framework actually improved utilities’ credit rating. Some consumer groups, meanwhile, have raised concerns about performance-based regulation because they argue that utilities could easily misrepresent their performance to regulators.

    The Connecticut commission is still working on how it will implement performance-based regulation, and the other changes are relatively new as well, so their impact is still “to be determined,” Tully said. But he and his colleagues were encouraged that the advisory councils have pushed PURA to consider equity.

    Getting utility commissions to run differently, advocates said, can be a steep uphill battle, especially in the face of strong resistance from utilities. But it can work. Other states have implemented policies like Connecticut’s, and taken other steps, sometimes at the behest of state legislatures and sometimes because commissioners decided to take action.

    While a hurricane kickstarted change for Connecticut, it also took a lot of advocacy — both “up and out,” said Jayson Velazquez, one of Tully’s colleagues based in Hartford. The group and its allies lobby “up,” working to get lawmakers and commissioners on board with passing reforms. And they also work “out,” communicating their findings and the issues before the commission to the public and engaging environmental justice groups and community members.

    “A lot of the work that we’re doing is bridging that gap between environmental justice groups and our regulators,” Velazquez said. “You kind of have to raise the collective consciousness of the groups before you can really get into effecting change.” 

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The race for clean energy is local on Nov 4, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • It was 2:30 in the morning on November 6, 2014, when flames engulfed the New Orleans home of political consultant Mario Zervigon. Someone had lit his cars on fire, and the flames spread to his house. Zervigon and his family barely made it out of the three-unit building alive. Multiple cats didn’t. 

    Law enforcement deemed it arson and investigated whether the fire was related to Zerivigon’s campaign work. (The case would ultimately be closed without naming a suspect.) The night before the fire, Zervigon had celebrated the primary election victory of one of his clients for a seat on Louisiana’s Public Service Commission (PSC), a down-ballot position with vast power over the state’s oil, gas, and utility companies.

    The candidate, Forest Bradley-Wright, was running as a Republican on a reform platform. He had rejected donations from companies the PSC oversees — a rarity in Louisiana. But the firebombing rattled his campaign. Zervigon took a leave of absence, Bradley-Wright’s fundraising flagged, and another candidate, who had received generous support from the companies in question, eked out a 1.6 percentage point win in the general election. 

    Bradley-Wright now says he believes the firebombing was an act of “political terrorism” meant “to intimidate or at least cripple my campaign.” He argues the incident is worth revisiting because it shows just how high the stakes can get in the election of regulators charged with making, in some cases, billion-dollar decisions and shaping a state’s energy policies. 

    The charred remains of a house and car stand stark against a white sky
    The November 2014 fire at this New Orleans home was ruled an arson. U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives / Courtesy of Forest Bradley-Wright

    “Public utility commissions — especially in the context of climate change — are really important institutions that most people aren’t even aware exist,” said Jared Heern, a Brown University researcher who studies the relationship between the commissions and the industries they regulate. 

    But fossil fuel companies and electric utilities, their lawyers and consultants, are well aware of their importance. 

    A new Floodlight analysis of campaign finance data in nine of the 10 states that elect their commissioners found that more than a third of their contributions of $250 and up are from fossil fuel and electric utility interests — more than $13.5 million in all.

    The analysis covered contributions to the 54 commissioners elected in the 10 years ending on December 31, 2023. On Tuesday, voters will choose among 33 candidates vying for utility commission seats in eight of those states. 

    The states examined were Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. Nebraska, which elects its commissioners but has no private electric utilities, was excluded. In the remaining 40 states, utility regulators are appointed by governors and/or legislative leaders.

    Topping the influence list is Alabama, where commissioners get almost 55 percent of their support from fossil fuel and utility interests. Louisiana is second, with nearly 43 percent. Overall, those interests contribute more than twice as much as the renewables industry does to elect commissioners they believe will be friendly to their interests. 

    The renewables donations accounted for only $5.1 million, or 13 percent, of the roughly $39 million analyzed.

    The findings suggest that the electoral influence of fossil fuel and utility contributors may be interfering with some states’ ability to decarbonize, with consequences for consumers and the environment alike.

    Indeed, a number of the states are located in the Sun Belt, making them ideal for solar energy development, yet their commissioners’ decisions have ensured that only a tiny fraction of their power mix comes from the sun. In some cases, commissioners appear openly hostile to the adoption of renewables, far more of which will be needed to limit the catastrophic effects of climate change.

    This failure to adapt is a bad deal for homeowners and businesses. Residential energy bills in Alabama, for example, exceed the national average by $32 a month, and bills in Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi have increased faster than the national average over the past five years, according to data from Findenergy.com. This year in Arizona, power bills spiked amid the state’s hottest summer on record. In Oklahoma, commissioners approved so many fracking applications that the state briefly led the country in earthquakes. 

    A gas pipeline sign behind a chain link fence
    An Oklahoma Natural Gas pipeline sign is shown in Oklahoma City in March 2024. Paul Monies / Oklahoma Watch

    “It's kind of ludicrous on its face,” said journalist David Roberts, who hosts an energy policy podcast called Volts, “that commercial entities directly regulated by these people are allowed to give these people money.”

    In fact, Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi prohibit regulated utilities from making direct campaign contributions to commissioners. But in all of those states, Floodlight’s analysis found, contractors, attorneys, and political action committees closely aligned with the utilities keep the money flowing.

    “(When) the people regulating the utility are essentially propped up by the utility itself, it's problematic,” said Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law initiative at Harvard University. “I think everybody can recognize that as a conflict of interest.” 

    Money buys more time — for commissioners

    It also turns out that the commissioners who get a large share of their campaign cash from sources linked to fossil fuel firms and utilities tend to stay in office longer than their colleagues. 

    Nationwide, utility commissioners serve 5.9 years on average. In states where they are elected, these officials became more entrenched, serving 7.4 years — and a whopping 9.2 years in states where fossil fuel and utility interests account for at least 30 percent of their campaign contributions, according to Floodlight’s analysis of data provided by Heern. 

    Consider Alabama PSC member Jeremy Oden. During his 12 years in office, Oden, a Republican, received about $1.3 million, roughly 80 percent of his campaign funds, from sources with links to fossil fuel companies and utilities. 

    While Alabama commissioners cannot take money directly from the companies they oversee, our analysis and leaked records revealed that Oden’s top donors were political action committees operated by accountants with long-standing ties to consultants for Alabama Power, the state's largest utility. 

    A man in an orange vest takes aim with a shotgun in a green field in front of a covered bridge
    From his seat on the Alabama Public Service Commission, Republican Jeremy Oden has taken aim at clean energy, approving steep fees on homeowners who install solar panels.

    Oden did not respond to requests for comment. Tim Whitt, a principal of the campaign committee to elect Oden, provided a written statement. “All of his campaign contributions have been received and reported in accordance with Alabama law,” it stated, adding: “Commissioner Oden has not received any campaign contributions from regulated utilities.”

    The cash flowing into Oden’s campaign coffer has come in handy for tight races, like the first round of the Republican primary in May 2022. If he won the primary, Oden, already in office for a decade at the time, would be certain to win the general election in deep red Alabama.

    The three Republicans running against him were calling for more renewable energy and cheaper bills. Alabama, a state with strong solar potential, generates less power from solar arrays than even low-potential states such as Maine and Michigan. It saddles utility ratepayers with some of the nation’s highest electric bills. 

    An elderly couple is dressed up as solar panels and as the sun
    John and Lella Lowe of Mobile, Alabama wore Halloween costumes to an Alabama Public Service Commission hearing in 2019 in protest of Alabama Power Company’s fee on residents who use solar power.
    Solomon Crenshaw Jr. / BirminghamWatch

    So what did Oden do? He took to the airwaves, appearing in TV ads dressed in hunting gear and wielding a shotgun. Calling himself “a Christian conservative pro-Trump Republican,” who “would always fight and defend our God-given Second Amendment rights,” the bald, bespectacled commissioner took aim, but not at his opponents.

    “With your help, I’ll shoot down Biden’s Green New Deal and keep the left from jacking up our energy prices,” Oden narrated over footage of him downing clay pigeons. 

    Bolstered by his advertising budget, he won 34 percent of the vote in the four-candidate field, before going on to clinch the primary runoff, and later, the general election. 

    As a commissioner, Oden has taken aim at clean energy, imposing steep fees on families who install home solar panels, making it a bad investment choice even though those households would be using far less utility-generated power than before. And he voted for a series of rate increases that have led to Alabama having the Deep South’s second highest energy prices

    Smoke billows from the James H. Miller Jr. Electrical Generating Plant in Jefferson County, Alabama, owned by Alabama Power.
    Lee Hedgepeth / Inside Climate News

    Oden and his fellow commissioners have also blocked utility-scale solar and battery storage projects, even some requested by Alabama Power. Such moves — raising the cost of electricity while preventing customers from generating their own — benefit the shareholders and top officials of the utilities Oden is charged with regulating. 

    “The influence of money in (utility commission) elections is very high because in a vacuum of information, whoever has the most money gets their message out the best,” said Joshua Basseches, an assistant professor at Tulane University who studies energy and climate policy. “In theory, the elected commissioners would be less susceptible to regulatory capture, because they would have to face the voters,” but "in practice, what happens is that these are very low-visibility elections.” 

    Voters, in other words, have little to go on.

    The high cost of ‘regulatory capture’ 

    Utility commissions are charged with overseeing the complex activities and fielding the demands of the massive energy conglomerates that the state has granted regional monopoly powers. Commissioners vet new projects, monitor utility financials, and evaluate rate hike requests. The companies, meanwhile, are ensured a guaranteed return on investment, which averages about 10 percent nationally. 

    Though each commission is different, their basic mission is the same: to ensure a safe and reliable grid and affordable energy for consumers. But sometimes the relationship between regulator and regulated gets a little too cozy, a phenomenon economists call “regulatory capture.”

    “Investments in political candidates — and particularly for economic regulators like a utility commissioner — there's no better market return,” said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization. “The amount of benefit that a utility can get, that a fossil fuel interest can get, from a friendly regulator, is better than anything that the stock market can provide.”

    Regulatory capture can be costly to consumers. Since 2017, electricity bills in Georgia have increased by about $45 a month, more than double the national average, according to data from FindEnergy.com. Electricity rates, which constitute just a portion of the bill, have kept pace with the national average. Most of the increase is due to surcharges to pay for the $35 billion buildout of a nuclear generating station originally forecast to cost $14 billion.

    A slate of solar panels on a roof
    A rooftop solar installation in Hiram, Georgia, in 2017.
    Deidra Hodges / U.S. Department of Energy via Wikimedia Commons

    Back in 2012, when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave Georgia Power permission to build two new reactors at Plant Vogtle, the state’s utility commissioners were receiving 70 percent of their campaign support from companies or people that stood to benefit financially, or not, from their decisions, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.

    Over the next decade, the five commissioners approved $3.2 billion in cost overruns. ”This nuclear expansion does not make sense. It’s way over budget, way behind schedule,” said Jennette Gayer, director of the nonprofit Environment Georgia. 

    Although Georgia law bars utilities themselves from donating in PSC elections, nearly one-third of those campaign contributions since 2014 have come from fossil fuel and utility-related interests. Among the donors are Georgia Power executives, regulatory attorneys who regularly have business before the commission, and construction companies that specialize in utility work.

    Thanks to a series of legal battles, Georgia hasn’t held elections for its PSC since 2020, and sitting commissioners have not had to disclose their campaign contributions since 2021. “The commissioners follow all campaign finance laws,” said PSC spokesman Tom Krause. “This includes disclosure of all donors and donated amounts as required by state and federal law.”

    Regulator: Deal ‘fleeced’ ratepayers

    Critics have similarly pointed to Oklahoma as another place where commissioners’ close relationships to the power companies they oversee might be harming residents. Members of the state’s Corporation Commission (commissions can go by various names) have taken in more than $1 million — nearly 35 percent of donations of $250 or more over the last decade — from sources linked to fossil fuel firms and utilities.

    In 2022, the commission rapidly approved a plan for ratepayers to shoulder historic increases on their gas bills. The decision followed the 2021 Winter Storm Uri, which depleted the state’s gas reserves, forcing utilities to purchase gas at exorbitant prices. The $3 average cost for 1,000 cubic feet of gas skyrocketed to $1,200 for a brief time, saddling the utilities with $3 billion in extra costs.

    The utilities wanted to pass that loss along to their ratepayers. After the Legislature passed a bill allowing utilities to issue bonds to finance the debt, the corporation commissioners gave the utilities exactly what they wanted. “We paid more for natural gas in three days than we do in a year,” said Nick Singer, a leader with VOICE Oklahoma, a civic engagement coalition. “And they just created a debt instrument to put it on the backs of ratepayers for the next 25 years. And they did it in a couple months.”

    This spring, Oklahoma’s attorney general filed a pair of lawsuits against gas pipeline firms, alleging they helped bid up prices to historic highs during the storm. 

    A powerline stands in front of blue and purple and orange sky
    A Floodlight analysis finds that a significant portion of campaign donations to energy regulators who are elected in 10 U.S. states comes from the fossil-fuel-related interests they regulate. Pok Rie via Pexels

    Commissioner Bob Anthony was the only one of the three commissioners to vote against securitization. In a July op-ed in The Oklahoman, he called the commission’s vote “the largest fleecing of the Oklahoma ratepayer in the history of the state.” 

    Asked why his fellow commissioners voted the other way , Anthony, who is serving his final term, told Floodlight: “Follow the money, that’s the heart of it.”

    “Correlation does not necessarily determine causation,” Trey Davis, a spokesman for the commission told Floodlight in an email. “And, while you might want to argue a majority decision is analogous to some form of quid-pro-quo, you do not appear to have provided any substance in support of what is tantamount to a spurious and seemingly subliminal allegation.”

    Missing: Solar in the Deep South 

    Almost all of the states that elect their commissioners are led by Republicans — only Arizona has a Democratic governor. The Deep South states in particular stand out for their dearth of renewable energy.

    The Great Plains states of Oklahoma and the Dakotas generate more than 40 percent of their electricity from wind, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Montana and Nebraska get almost one-fifth and one-third of their power from wind, respectively. 

    But the situation is markedly different in three Deep South states where commissioners are elected. Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi all derive less than 1 percent of their electricity from solar, despite ample solar potential in those states. (Utility-scale solar is the cheapest form of energy currently available.) That’s less than one-quarter of the national average.

    A chart showing PSC states and use of renewable energy

    In Mississippi, where PSC members got 12 percent of their campaign cash from fossil fuel interests, commissioners are openly dismissive of calls to improve the state’s 37th-place solar energy ranking. During an August “solar summit,” two commissioners abruptly cut off public discussion and ended the session early after pro-solar representatives stood up to speak. 

    “What’s the result of all this fossil fuel industry money in commission elections?” said Daniel Tait, research and communications director for the Energy and Policy Institute, a utility watchdog. “Very little renewable energy, and in some cases like Alabama and Mississippi, overt hostility.”

    Appointed vs elected

    One state recently switched how it picks energy regulators. New Mexico, a Democratically controlled state with a powerful oil and gas industry, transitioned from electing commissioners to appointing them in 2023. The state law governing the transition also required commissioners to have degrees in fields related to energy. 

    A group of people in green tee shirts hold signs saying Say No to Big Solar
    Protesters who oppose building a solar farm in their area gather outside the Chancery Court building in Jackson, Mississippi in June 2024.
    Vickie D. King / Mississippi Today

    Its fresh slate of appointed commissioners has since approved a rate increase for the state’s primary utility, the Public Service Company of New Mexico — but the amount was only about a quarter of what the utility requested. The commissioners also ordered PNM to return some $115 million in excess profits to its ratepayers. The utility has appealed the clawback to the state Supreme Court.

    One energy activist now says she preferred the elected commissioners, because campaign finance data made utility influence easier to trace — and counteract.

    “I think that the elected commission was more democratic, even though PNM spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to elect the commissioners they wanted,” said Mariel Nanasi, executive director of New Energy Economy, a renewable energy nonprofit. “That backfired for them, and their preferred candidates, at least in more recent times, lost because (the spending) was exposed.”

    Dark money hard to see

    The patchwork nature of campaign finance record-keeping and disclosure laws in the United States makes it difficult to track all of the industry money flowing into state utility commission elections. 

    In Mississippi and South Dakota, for example, Floodlight journalists had to manually enter into a database thousands of campaign contributions from records that were handwritten or kept in unsearchable formats. 

    The money also can also come through supposedly independent groups — including political committees and so-called “dark money” 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations — making it harder to trace. These groups are allowed to work to support (or oppose) particular candidates but are not legally allowed to coordinate with any candidate’s campaign.

    An array of solar panels on a field in front of a large white mansion
    Earlier this year, Mississippi State University installed a 3,420-panel solar installation on its campus in Starkville. Ivy Rose Ball / The Reflector

    Arizona is the only one of the nine states analyzed that makes tracking independent campaign spending easy. For example, the dominant utility, Arizona Public Service, donated nearly $4.2 million in 2016 to the Arizona Coalition for Reliable Electricity, a political action committee that then spent nearly that exact amount to support the company’s preferred commissioners. (Arizona also provides commission candidates with public financing, which was not included in our analysis.)

    Over the past decade, several utilities in Arizona and Alabama have also been caught making large, unreported, and difficult-to-trace dark money contributions to support PSC candidates.

    Clearly, utilities and fossil fuel interests are not donating to lawmakers and energy regulators out of the goodness of their hearts, but campaign donations, to be fair, don’t always predict how a legislator or regulator will act. Anthony, the Oklahoma commissioner, received 65 percent of his donations from utilities or fossil fuel-aligned sources. He has often been a lone dissenting voice on the commission against policies that he says put consumers on the hook for the utilities’ mistakes. 

    Bob Burns, an Arizona Corporation Commission member, got 41 percent of his donations from industry sources. But in 2016, he used his position to crusade for campaign finance transparency from the holding company that owns Arizona Public Service, which stood accused of using millions of dollars of dark money to support its preferred commissioner candidates. (Under pressure from the commission, the company eventually acknowledged its tactics.)

    And at least one energy regulator told Floodlight he struggled over whether to take donations from the companies he oversees. “I went through the process of trying to figure out from whom do I accept a donation?” said Gary Hanson, who sits on the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission. His conclusion: “I’m either going to accept donations from everyone or from no one — you either accept from everyone or you don’t accept from anyone.”

    He took the money. 

    Floodlight reporter Kristi E. Swartz contributed to this story. Floodlight is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powerful interests stalling climate action.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Utility regulators take millions from industries they oversee. What could go wrong? on Nov 3, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • In June, U.S. solar manufacturer Qcells became the second company in the world to register its solar panels with EPEAT, a labeling system that sets sustainability standards for electronics makers. By doing so, the company triggered an obscure regulation that requires federal agencies to purchase EPEAT-certified solar panels. If, say, NASA wants to build a solar farm to power a research facility, it must now purchase panels that meet EPEAT’s strict sustainability requirements — including a first-of-its-kind limit on the carbon emissions tied to solar manufacturing.

    There’s just one problem: Although EPEAT launched its solar standards in 2019, as of today, there are only six EPEAT-registered solar panels on the global market. And there are currently no EPEAT-registered solar inverters, devices that convert the direct current electricity a solar panel produces to alternating current electricity, which the grid uses. That doesn’t leave a lot of choices for the federal government, or anyone else who wants to purchase sustainably-produced solar equipment.

    That’s why, in October, the Department of Energy, or DOE, launched a new prize that offers up to $450,000 to U.S.-based solar panel and inverter manufacturers that achieve EPEAT certification for their products. As a new wave of domestic solar manufacturing kicks into high gear, the DOE hopes the prize will ensure that companies use efficient processes, sustainable materials, fair labor practices, and low-carbon energy.

    “The fact of the matter is, not all solar [products] in their production are created equal,” said Patty Dillon, a vice president at the Global Electronics Council, the sustainable technology nonprofit that manages the EPEAT ecolabel.

    Solar panels convert the sun’s rays into electricity in a process that emits no greenhouse gases, which makes them essential for fighting climate change. To achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, the International Energy Agency estimates that the world must add 630 gigawatts of new solar power annually by 2030 — up from the 135 gigawatts installed in 2020. 

    But some solar panels are more climate-friendly than others. Polysilicon, which is used to make the sunlight-harvesting cells inside silicon panels, is made using an energy-intensive process often powered by fossil fuels. The frames that hold solar panels together are made of aluminum, which is typically smelted in China using coal-powered electricity. The manufacturing processes that turn these materials into a solar panel also require energy, which can lead to more emissions. On a global level, the difference between solar panels manufactured using clean energy and those made with fossil fuels could amount to tens of billions of metric tons of carbon pollution by the middle of the 21st century.

    Overhead view of several silver metal strips sitting atop equipment, with a person wearing a green shirt and a yellow hard hat in the background
    Workers process aluminum alloy frames for solar panels in Hai’an, China. CFOTO / Future Publishing via Getty Images

    To minimize those emissions, along with other environmental challenges like the use of toxic chemicals and the disposal of solar e-waste, companies must take a hard look at their supply chains and, in some cases, engage in difficult clean-up work. The DOE’s new prize, “Promoting Registration of Inverters and Modules with Ecolabel,” or PRIME, encourages companies to do so by going through the EPEAT registration process.

    “EPEAT certification enables companies to show how they have been taking the steps to have more environmentally friendly supply chains and manufacturing processes,” Becca Jones-Albertus, who directs the DOE’s solar energy technologies office, told Grist. 

    Solar companies seeking EPEAT registration must meet a list of criteria that span four broad themes: climate change, sustainable resource use, hazardous chemicals, and responsible supply chains. Depending on how many standards a manufacturer meets, it can receive an EPEAT Bronze, Silver, or Gold designation. 

    In addition, as of June, solar manufacturers registered with EPEAT are required to meet the industry’s first-ever criteria for embodied carbon, the emissions generated when a product is produced. For each kilowatt of power produced, no more than 630 kilograms of CO2 can be emitted during the production of an EPEAT-registered solar panel. The limit, Dillon says, represents about 25 percent fewer carbon emissions than the global average. Solar panels that fall below the “ultra low carbon” threshold of 400 kilograms of CO2 per kilowatt of power earn a special EPEAT Climate+ designation. 

    “That basically represents the best in class,” Dillon said.

    It’s difficult to make a direct comparison to fossil fuel plants, since most of their emissions come from operations rather than building infrastructure. But other research has found that over their lifespan, solar plants are considerably more climate friendly, emitting roughly 50 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour of energy produced compared with about 1,000 grams per kilowatt-hour for coal. 

    Meeting EPEAT’s requirements isn’t easy, which might explain why there are only two companies — QCells and the Arizona-based First Solar — currently listed on the registry. And only two solar panels manufactured by First Solar have earned the ecolabel’s Climate+ badge. QCells, which manufactures two EPEAT-registered panels at a factory in Dalton, Georgia, spent about two years going through a “very extensive” certification process that involved collecting data across its supply chain and submitting to a third-party audit, corporate communications lead Debra DeShong told Grist.

    Overhead view of an array of approximately 36 blue solar panels, each with silver detailing
    Arrays of solar cells on conveyor belt at Qcells’ facility in Dalton, Georgia. Dustin Chambers for The Washington Post via Getty Images

    “It’s not an easy task,” DeShong said. “It requires resources and it requires a will.”

    Other companies may now be motivated to try. QCells’ additions to the EPEAT registry in June activated the Federal Acquisition Regulation, which requires the federal government to purchase goods that meet standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, except in limited circumstances where it’s impractical to do so. In the case of solar panels, that means EPEAT-registered products. The DOE’s PRIME Prize, which provides U.S. solar manufacturers $50,000 for starting the registration process and up to $100,000 per product for up to four products that complete it, offers additional incentive. Jones-Albertus told Grist that the prize was designed to “roughly offset the cost of collecting all the data and moving through the registration process.”

    Solar companies “told us that they’re interested in EPEAT certification, but they haven’t gotten there yet,” Jones-Albertus said. “We’re hoping to provide incentives so that companies go through the EPEAT registration process sooner.”

    Companies peering deep into their supply chains for the first time might discover they have to make some changes to meet EPEAT registration requirements. To slim down the carbon footprint of its panels, a solar manufacturer might have to switch to a low-carbon polysilicon supplier. (QCells, for instance, is purchasing polysilicon from a facility in Washington state that produces the stuff using hydropower.) Or it might decide to swap out virgin aluminum frames manufactured overseas for recycled steel ones built domestically by Origami Solar, a change that can reduce carbon emissions tied to the frame by upwards of 90 percent. To meet EPEAT’s optional recycled content criteria, a manufacturer could decide to start purchasing recycled panel glass from a company like SolarCycle

    Making these sorts of manufacturing supply chain alterations takes time and money beyond what the new DOE prize will provide. But Dillon, of the Global Electronics Council, is optimistic that more companies will start registering their products with EPEAT now that federal purchasers require it.

    Erik Petersen, the chief strategy officer at Origami Solar, believes the Biden administration’s push for clean domestic manufacturing, combined with growing consumer interest in supply chain transparency, will spur more U.S. solar companies to ensure their products meet high sustainability standards.  

    “What’s exciting is all of these forces are coming together at the same time,” Petersen told Grist. “That really gives the industry an incentive to do the right things.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The Department of Energy wants to pay companies to make greener solar panels on Nov 1, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Seventeen days after Hurricane Helene devastated western North Carolina, tearing down power lines, destroying water mains, and disabling cell phone towers, the signs of relief were hard to miss. 

    Trucks formed a caravan along Interstate 40, filled with camouflaged soldiers, large square tanks of water, and essentials from pet food to diapers. In towns, roadside signs — official versions emblazoned with nonprofit relief logos and wooden makeshift ones scrawled with paint — advertised free food and water. 

    And then there were the generators. 

    The noisy machines powered the trailers where Asheville residents sought showers, weeks after the city’s water system failed. They fueled the food trucks delivering hot meals to the thousands without working stoves. They filtered water for communities to drink and flush toilets. 

    Western North Carolina is far from unique. In the wake of disaster, generators are a staple of relief efforts around the globe. But across the region, a New Orleans-based nonprofit is working to displace as many of these fossil fuel burners as it can, swapping in batteries charged with solar panels instead. 

    It’s the largest response effort the Footprint Project has ever deployed in its short life, and organizers hope the impact will extend far into the future. 

    “If we can get this sustainable tech in fast, then when the real rebuild happens, there’s a whole new conversation that wouldn’t have happened if we were just doing the same thing that we did every time,” said Will Heegaard, operations director for the organization.  

    “Responders use what they know works, and our job is to get them stuff that works better than single-use fossil fuels do,” he said. “And then, they can start asking for that. It trickles up to a systems change.” 

    A ‘no-brainer’ solution to the problem of gas generators 

    The rationale for diesel and gas generators is simple: They’re widely available. They’re relatively easy to operate. Assuming fuel is available, they can run 24/7, keeping people warm, fed, and connected to their loved ones even when the electric grid is down. Indubitably, they save lives.  

    But they’re not without downsides. The burning of fossil fuels emits not just more carbon that exacerbates the climate crisis, but smog and soot-forming air pollutants that can trigger asthma attacks and other respiratory problems.  

    In Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria, generators were so prevalent after the electric grid failed that harmful air pollution in San Juan soared above the safe legal limit. The risk is especially acute for sensitive populations who turn to generators for powering vital equipment like oxygenators. 

    There are also practical challenges. Generators aren’t cheap, retailing at big box stores for more than $1,000. Once initial fuel supplies run out — as happened in parts of western North Carolina in the immediate aftermath of Helene — it can be difficult and costly to find more. And the machines are noisy, potentially harming health and creating more stress for aid workers and the people they serve. 

    Nick Boyd, left, and Blake Davis unload solar panels in Asheville, North Carolina. Elizabeth Ouzts

    Heegaard witnessed these challenges firsthand in Guinea in 2016 when he was responding to an Ebola outbreak. As a paramedic, his job was to train locals to collect blood samples and store them in generator-powered refrigerators that would be motorcycled to the city of Conakry for testing. He had a grant to give cash reimbursements to the lab techs for the fuel. 

    “This is so hard already, and the idea of doing a cash reimbursement in a super poor rural country for gas generators seems really hard,” Heegaard recalled thinking. “I had heard of solar refrigerators. I asked the local logistician in Conakry, ‘Are these things even possible?’”  

    The next day, the logistician said they were. They could be installed within a month. “It was just a no-brainer,” said Heegaard. “The only reason we hadn’t done it is the grant wasn’t written that way.” 

    ‘Game changing for a response’

    Two years later, the Footprint Project was born of that experience. With just seven full-time staff, the group cycles in workers in the wake of disaster, partnering up with local solar companies, nonprofits, and others, to gather supplies and distribute as many as they can. 

    They deploy solar-powered charging stations, water filtration systems, and other so-called climate tech to communities who need it most — starting with those without power, water, or a generator at all, and extending to those looking to offset their fossil fuel combustion.

    The group has now built nearly 50 such solar-powered microgrids in the region, from Lake Junaluska to Linville Falls, more than it has ever supplied in the wake of disaster. The recipients range from volunteer fire stations to trailer parks to an art collective in West Asheville.

    Mike Talyad, a photographer who launched the collective last year to support artists of color, teamed up with the Grassroots Aid Partnership, a national nonprofit, to fill in relief gaps in the wake of Helene. “The whole city was trying to figure it out,” he said. 

    A small blue truck is decked out with solar panels on its roof
    A solar-powered water filter station in Asheville. Elizabeth Ouzts

    Solar panels from Footprint that initially powered a water filter have now largely displaced the generators for the team’s food trucks, which last week were providing 1,000 meals a day. “When we did the switchover,” Talyad said, “it was a time when gas was still questionable.”

    Last week, the team at Footprint also provided six solar panels, a Tesla battery, and a charging station to displace a noisy generator at a retirement community in South Asheville.

    The device was powering a system that sucked water from a pond, filtered it, and rendered it potable. Picking up their jugs of drinking water, a steady flow of residents oohed and aahed as the solar panels were installed, and sighed in relief when the din of the generator abated. 

    “Most responders are not playing with solar microgrids because they’re better for the environment,” said Heegaard. “They’re playing with it because if they can turn their generator off for 12 hours a day, that means literally half the fuel savings. Some of them are spending tens of thousands of dollars a month on diesel or gas. That is game changing for a response.” 

    ‘Showing up for their neighbors’

    Footprint’s robust relief effort and the variety of its beneficiaries is owed in part to the scale of Helene’s destruction, with more than 1 million in North Carolina alone who initially lost power.  

    “It’s really hard to put into words what’s happening out there right now,” said Matt Abele, the executive director of the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association, who visited in the early days after the storm. “It is just the most heartbreaking thing I’ve ever seen — whole mobile home parks that are just completely gone.” 

    But the breadth of the response is also owed to Footprint’s approach to aid, which is rooted in connections to grassroots groups, government organizations, and the local solar industry. All have partnered together for the relief effort. 

    “We’ve been incredibly overwhelmed by the positive response that we’ve seen from the clean energy community,” Abele said, “both from an equipment donation standpoint and a financial resources standpoint.” 

    Some four hours east of the devastation in western North Carolina, Greentech Renewables Raleigh has been soliciting and storing solar panels and other goods. It’s also raising money for products that are harder to get for free — like PV wire and batteries. Then it trucks the supplies west.

    “We’ve got bodies, we’ve got trucks, we’ve got relationships,” said Shasten Jolley, the manager at the company, which warehouses and sells supplies to a variety of installers. “So, we try to utilize all those things to help out.”

    The cargo is delivered to Mars Hill, a tiny college town about 20 miles north of Asheville that was virtually untouched by Helene. Through a local regional government organization, Frank Johnson, the owner of a robotics company, volunteered his 110,000-square-foot facility for storage.

    Johnson is just one example of how people in the region have leapt to help each other, said Abele, who’s based in Raleigh.

    “You can tell when you’re out there,” he said, “that so many people in the community are coping by showing up for their neighbors.”

    ‘Available for the next response’

    To be sure, Footprint’s operations aren’t seamless at every turn. For instance, most of the donated solar panels designated for the South Asheville retirement community didn’t work, a fact the installers learned once they’d made the 40-minute drive in the morning and tried to connect them to the system. They returned later that afternoon with functioning units, but then faced the challenge of what to do with the broken ones.

    “This is solar aid waste,” Heegaard said. “The last site we did yesterday had the same problem. Now we have to figure out how to recycle them.”

    It’s also not uncommon for the microgrids to stop working, Heegaard said, because of understandable operator errors, like running them all night to provide heat.  

    But above all, the problem for Footprint is scale. A tiny organization among behemoth relief groups, it simply doesn’t have the bandwidth for a larger response. When Milton followed immediately on the heels of Helene, Heegaard’s group made the difficult choice to hunker down in North Carolina. 

    With climate-fueled weather disasters poised to increase, the organization hopes to entice the biggest, most well-resourced players in disaster relief to start regularly using solar microgrids in their efforts. 

    As power is slowly restored across the region, with just over 5,000 remaining without electricity, there’s also the question of what comes next.

    While there’s a parallel conversation underway among advocates and policymakers about making microgrids and distributed solar a more permanent feature of the grid, Footprint also hopes to inspire some of that change from the ground up. Maybe the volunteer fire station decides to put solar panels on its roof when it rebuilds, for instance. 

    “We can change the conversation around resilience and recovery by directly pointing to something that worked when the lights were out and debris was in the street,” Heegaard said.

    As for the actual Footprint equipment, the dream is to create “lending libraries” in places like Asheville, to be cycled in and out of community events and disaster relief.

    “The solar trailer or the microgrid or the water maker that went to the Burnsville elementary school right after the storm — that can be recycled and used to power the music stage or the movie in the park,” Heegaard said. “Then that equipment is here, it’s being utilized, and it’s available for the next response, whether it’s in Knoxville or Atlanta or South Carolina.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline This disaster relief nonprofit is pioneering a clean energy alternative to noisy, polluting generators on Oct 30, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • The city of Magna, Utah, was once the home of a major coal-fired power plant that provided electricity for Rio Tinto’s enormous copper mine next door. But in 2019, the company shuttered the last of the four coal units, opting instead to power its mining operations with wind and solar energy.

    Now plans are underway to open a different kind of industrial facility in the former coal community, one that will use waste rocks from the Kennecott copper mine to help make low-carbon concrete.

    On Tuesday, Terra CO2 Technology was picked to receive a $52.6 million federal grant to build a new manufacturing plant just west of Salt Lake City. The company has devised a method that turns common minerals into additives that can help replace Portland cement — a key component in concrete, and one of the most carbon-intensive materials in the world.

    “Most of what we’re focused on is reducing the carbon footprint of cement and concrete,” Bill Yearsley, CEO of Terra CO2, told Canary Media. ​“But this is a unique situation at the Kennecott mine, because it’s also an opportunity to repurpose some mine tailings … and provide some real environmental benefits.”

    The Utah facility is one of 14 projects provisionally selected this week to receive $428 million in total awards from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains. The initiative, which is funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, aims to accelerate clean energy manufacturing in U.S. communities with decommissioned coal facilities. Officials said the projects are expected to create over 1,900 high-quality jobs across a dozen states.

    Workers test concrete made with Terra CO2’s materials during a demonstration pour at a Porsche dealership in Sugar Land, Texas, in August 2023. G. Lyon Photography Inc

    “The transition to America’s clean energy future is being shaped by communities filled with the valuable talent and experience that comes from powering our country for decades,” U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in a Tuesday news release.

    The selected projects involve small and medium-sized businesses that are focused on five key supply chains: low-carbon materials, grid components, batteries, clean power generation, and energy-efficiency products.

    Along with Terra CO2, two other concrete-related initiatives are up for the federal cost-sharing awards. Urban Mining Industries could get $37 million to develop plants in Baltimore and Indiantown, Florida, that convert recycled glass into cement additives. Furno Materials may receive $20 million to build a Chicago facility that turns industrial waste materials into low-carbon cement.

    The announcement arrives as the world’s construction industry wrestles with how to replace cheap, abundant Portland cement — which, as it happens, was developed 200 years ago this week, when British bricklayer Joseph Aspdin cooked up the first batches of the clay-and-limestone fusion in his kitchen.

    Cement production is responsible for around 8 percent of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions every year. That’s partly because cement is made in scorching gas-fired kilns, but also because the limestone used to make it releases CO2 when burned.

    Terra CO2 is working to curb those emissions by developing supplementary cementitious materials, or SCMs, that can partly displace Portland cement used in concrete.

    The industry already uses millions of tons of SCMs every year, both to reduce its products’ carbon footprint and to cost-effectively strengthen the material. But most SCMs today are made from fly ash and slag, byproducts from coal-fired power plants and steel mills. As more of those facilities shut down in the United States, driven by global competition and local climate policies, these materials are becoming harder and more expensive to get.

    Based in Golden, Colorado, Terra CO2 makes its SCM from a variety of silicate rocks, including granite, basalt, alluvial sand and gravel, and clay-sand mixtures. The company puts these rocks in a reactor that heats them to their melting point, yielding glassy powders that can replace 25 to 40 percent of the Portland cement needed for different mixes of concrete.

    Yearsley estimated that every ton of cement replaced by his company’s SCM results in 70 percent lower CO2 emissions, compared to pure Portland cement.

    To date, Terra CO2 has lined up about $160 million in commitments from project finance partners to fund commercial-scale projects, and it’s raised about $61 million in venture capital, including from the mining giant Rio Tinto and Bill Gates–founded Breakthrough Energy Ventures.

    The startup is about to begin work on its first commercial facility in the Dallas-Fort Worth area in Texas. The project is expected to break ground in January 2025 and begin shipping out materials by late summer 2026, Yearsley said. The facility will be capable of producing up to 240,000 metric tons of SCM per year when completed, or enough to serve roughly half of the local metropolitan market.

    Yearsley said that Terra CO2 was already considering building a second plant near Salt Lake City when the federal funding opportunity came along. The company was working with Rio Tinto to figure out how to use the Kennecott copper-mine tailings as a raw material feedstock for SCMs. Then they saw that the Department of Energy identified Magna as a coal community, making it eligible for a cost-sharing grant.

    “The stars aligned, which doesn’t always happen for early-stage companies,” Yearsley said. ​“The grant is critical because it’ll help us deploy faster on a larger scale, and it’ll improve the economics,” though he noted that Terra CO2’s products are already cost-competitive ​“before green incentives.”

    Yearsley wouldn’t disclose the expected total cost of the Utah facility, which will also be capable of producing up to 240,000 metric tons of SCM per year. But Terra CO2 has already lined up financial commitments that should cover most of the project’s remaining capital costs, he noted.

    “If we can have climate solutions that are cost-competitive for these bigger-ticket items like concrete, that’s critical,” he said.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A former Utah coal town could soon become a hub for low-carbon cement on Oct 26, 2024.


    This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Maria Gallucci.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Exclusive: Those with ‘interest in keeping world hooked on fossil fuels’ should not oversee climate talks, say report authors

    Azerbaijan, the host of the Cop29 global climate summit, will see a large expansion of fossil gas production in the next decade, a new report has revealed. The authors said that the crucial negotiations should not be overseen by “those with a vested interest in keeping the world hooked on fossil fuels”.

    Azerbaijan’s state-owned oil and gas company, Socar, and its partners are set to raise the country’s annual gas production from 37bn cubic metres (bcm) today to 49bcm by 2033. Socar also recently agreed to increase gas exports to the European Union by 17% by 2026.

    Continue reading...

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Campaigners have delivered a petition to parliament from over half a million people. It calls for the Labour Party government to scrap its cruel winter fuel payment cut to millions of pensioners.

    This was on the same day new charity polling revealed that the policy will put nearly half of those pensioners now losing out on the benefit’s health at risk.

    Winter fuel payment: putting pensioners health at risk

    As the Canary has previously detailed, the government’s means-testing of the winter fuel payment will mean it will now deny the benefit to:

    • 1.6 million -84% of pensioners in poverty
    • 1.6 million – 71% of disabled pensioners

    These statistics came from the government’s own data and Equality Analysis.

    Therefore, the loss of the benefit will likely have far-reaching ramifications for pensioners’ health this winter. Now, non-profit Independent Age has surveyed older people to find out just how pensioners expect it to impact them. And the results are damning. It found:

    • 44% of older people (65+) in England think losing the winter fuel payment will negatively impact their physical health.
    • 49% of older people in England who will lose their winter fuel payment said they were planning to only heat and spend time in one room. 20% were already planning to do this but now an additional 29% said they will resort to this measure because of the change.
    • 43% of older people in England who will lose their winter fuel payment said they were planning to wear outdoor clothes indoors, for example hats and coats. 15% were already planning to do this and now an additional 28% said they will make this change, which they hadn’t expected to do before losing the winter fuel payment.

    In short then, Labour slashing the winter fuel payment is going to force people into these unconscionable situations this winter. Of course, it’s little wonder nearly half of people its denying the payment to think it will harm their physical health. That’s because, the rest of the responses highlighted that many of these will struggle to afford to heat their homes.

    Given all this, more than 500,000 people signed a petition demanding the government reverse its policy. A coalition of groups headed to Westminster to deliver these to the government’s front door.

    Winter fuel payment petition goes to Westminster

    On Wednesday 16 October, campaigners took the signatures to Downing Street and the Treasury:

    These were from a series of combined petitions and open letters by charities and campaign groups including Independent Age, 38 Degrees, Silver Voices, and Organise:

    Chief executive of Independent Age Joanna Elson said that:

    Tying the Winter Fuel Payment to Pension Credit now will see far too many older people fall through the cracks. Pension Credit still has a stubbornly low take up and in addition there is a large group of older people living just above the entitlement’s threshold, sometimes by just a few pounds. People in this situation will now have this vital money taken away from them. That’s why we are heading to Downing Street to urge the UK Government to protect the payment for those in later life living on low incomes.

    With winter around the corner, now is the time to bring older people on a low income back in from the cold.

    Matthew Mcgregor, CEO of 38 Degrees echoed this, stating that:

    The message to the Government today is clear: don’t let vulnerable people fall through the cracks of our economy this winter

    That’s why so many hundreds of thousands of us have come together to demand that Chancellor Rachel Reeves doesn’t scrap winter fuel payments for struggling pensioners, just as energy bills have risen again.

    This petition hand-in should be a wake up call for the Prime Minister and Chancellor. Use this Autumn Budget to prove whose side you’re on.

    Campaign groups come together to call Labour out

    Other organisations also supported the hand-in. This included the Warm This Winter campaign:

    Fuel Poverty Action’s Jonathan Bean recorded a message to politician outside of Parliament:

    Age UK showed its support for the campaign on X:

    The End Fuel Poverty Coalition, and Uplift were also among the groups backing the petition hand-in.

    Half a million voices the government cannot ignore

    Cornwall resident 68-year old Robert Trewhella was there to hand in the box of signatures to Downing Street. He said that:

    It’s not right that so many older people will have money taken away from them this winter. My State Pension puts me just £2 above the Pension Credit threshold, meaning I will lose the Winter Fuel Payment. I only have a small income and in the past the extra money has helped keep my flat warm.

    Hopefully the UK Government listens and decides to protect the Winter Fuel Payment for older people that can’t afford to lose it. I am worried about the winter ahead, I hope it doesn’t get too cold as I don’t think I will be able to turn the heating on often

    Fuel Poverty Action’s Jonathan Bean summed up the callousness of the government’s move over the winter fuel payment:

    Over half a million people have joined the call to axe this cruel policy – and no wonder. The health and lives of low-income pensioners will be put at risk. As a direct impact of this policy, people will resort to switching off the heating and trying to survive in cold, damp homes.

    He expressed how he’d seen the devastating impacts of rising prices and unaffordable energy bills first-hand within his own family:

    I know only too well the dangers of cutting vital energy support: my own uncle switched off his heating when prices first rose without telling his family. He ended up in an ambulance with hypothermia and then spent a month in hospital and two months in respite care.

    So, Bean lambasted Labour’s decision which will push more pensioners into fuel poverty this winter:

    In an attempt to justify their plans, Labour are pointing to the £22bn ‘black hole’ in the country’s finances. But pushing vulnerable pensioners into it isn’t the solution. Tory economics got us into this mess, and Labour should be moving towards a new kind of economics that puts people before profit.

    Instead, he articulated that the government should guarantee the right to free energy for all:

    If this government wants to show that it listens to the concerns of ordinary people, they need to scrap this cruel policy and focus instead on fixing our broken energy pricing system and protecting everyone with an essential energy guarantee that keeps us all warm and safe this winter.

    Needless to say, no one should be risking their health or freezing to death in their homes this winter. However, the government slashing the winter fuel payment is set to do just that for hundreds of thousands of pensioners.

    Now though, more than half a million people have raised their voices to demand it stop its ruthless policy – and on Wednesday, the coalition of campaigners made sure that’s 500,000 plus voices it cannot ignore.

    Feature image via X – Fuel Poverty Action

    By Hannah Sharland

  • Not too long ago, Bryan and Summer Stubblefield wanted to outfit their California home with solar panels. They were considering an electric vehicle, and powering it with the sun seemed like the right choice for both their pocketbook and the planet. 

    They contacted a few contractors, who provided quotes in the $28,000 range for the solar system. But each bid came with a caveat: photovoltaic panels can last 25 years or more, but the roof on their 2,000-square-foot home had about 10 years left in it. This made for a difficult decision: Pay for a replacement now, which would nearly double the cost of the project, or install all that hardware knowing they’d need to remove and reinstall it when it came time to reroof — a job that can cost hundreds of dollars per panel.

    “At that point we froze,” said Bryan Stubblefield. “The fact that we had one more decision to make caused pause.”

    The Stubblefields are far from alone in this dilemma, said Amy Atchley, one of the contractors the couple contacted. Among the first questions her company,Amy’s Roofing and Solar, asks a customer is the age and condition of their roof. About half need work done to accommodate solar and, she says, the path forward can be particularly vexing for those who still have five, 10, or even 15 years to go before needing a reroof.

    “It’s really hard to counsel people,” she said. “Most people just decide to wait.”

    Residential solar systems usually provide 5 to 11 kilowatts of power, which, with some 5 millions homes tapping the sun, adds up to over 38 gigawatts nationally. That’s the equivalent of more than 11,000 wind turbines. Aside from helping mitigate climate change, photovoltaic panels can also help provide resiliency against outages. But when homeowners have to align their desire to go green with the age of their roof, those benefits can be delayed — or frightfully expensive. 

    One reason the question can be so vexing is because unlike solar panels, tax incentives don’t help offset underlying roof issues — even when addressing them is done while going solar. The Internal Revenue Service makes clear that the federal tax credit that can cover as much as 30 percent of a photovoltaic system does not include “traditional building components that primarily serve a roofing or structural function.” 

    The Stubblefields said the lack of assistance “absolutely” influenced their decision to wait. But Bryan Stubblefield said he understands that it would be quite expensive for the government to subsidize such a major expense.

    The potentially good news is that — regardless of roofing incentives — the residential solar market is nascent enough that it may not yet need to worry much about losing customers like the Stubblefields. The half a million or so residential solar systems that come online each year is far short of the 5 million or so homes that need a new roof each year. That means that there are still plenty of potential solar customers who need a new roof anyway — and it’s a demographic that many companies are targeting.

    “The best time to go solar is when you’re getting a new roof,” said Kealy Dewitt, vice president of marketing and public policy at the roofing company GAF. The organization recently designed a product it calls Timberline Solar, which incorporates a photovoltaic panel into a shingle that is installed much like a conventional shingle. If GAF can get more people who need new roofs to convert to solar shingles, Dewitt said it would be “a massive deployment opportunity for clean energy.”

    Atchley agrees. Although there may be some situations where it makes financial sense to install panels and dismantle them later to reroof, waiting to do it all at once makes the most sense. Many of her customers find her while seeking bids for a roof and end up installing solar, too. It rarely happens the other way around, she said.

    Like Dewitt, she thinks the government could do more to incentivize integrated roofing and photovoltaic technologies. Her company, for example, sells a metal roof designed to easily accept solar and have a lifespan almost twice that of the average panel. It doesn’t currently qualify for clean energy incentives. 

    “You’re getting the roof and solar,” she said. “It should count.”

    Lawmakers have tried to address this issue. In 2021, democratic members of Congress introduced the “RAISE the Roof Act” that would have expanded the solar tax credit to include these integrated solutions. Such efforts have gone nowhere, however, leaving many would-be solar adopters with difficult calculations to make about their roof. That includes the Stubblefields, who have since moved.

    “It looks like we have about 5 to 10 years left on the roof,” said Bryan. “We’re faced with the same question again.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Thinking of going solar? Wait until you need a new roof. on Oct 17, 2024.


    This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Tik Root.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Gravitational energy storage technology startup Green Gravity has raised $9 million from local and international institutional investors through a Series A funding round. The Wollongong-based company plans to store energy by suspending weights at the top of decommissioned mineshafts and uses gravitational energy to spin turbines when the weights are lowered. Funding from BlueScope’s investment...

    The post Gravitational energy startup banks $9m in Series A round appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • By the time that Hurricane Helene made its way hundreds of miles inland on September 27, it had been downgraded to a tropical storm. But Helene remained unusually expansive and strong, fueled by the warm waters in the Gulf of Mexico. The storm brought high winds and catastrophic flooding, knocking out power for more than 2 million Duke Energy customers in the Carolinas, and tearing through a region of the country that wasn’t widely seen as vulnerable to hurricane damage: the Mountain South. Asheville, North Carolina, the city hardest hit, had even appeared on lists of “climate havens” considered comparatively safe from the natural disasters whose impacts are intensified by global warming.

    Over the course of the following week, more than 50,000 utility workers, with crews from 41 U.S. states and Canada, set about the heroic work to restore power. In some areas, they even transported power poles by helicopter where roads remained impassable. By Saturday, service had been restored to more than 90 percent of the customers who lost power. But some of the remaining outages may prove harder to repair, because they require the complete replacement of technically complex power infrastructure equipment. These repairs “will take potentially many weeks,” said Jeff Brooks, a Duke Energy spokesperson.

    The unprecedented devastation has brought renewed attention to the problem of ensuring the resilience of America’s power grids in the face of climate change, and to the massive transformation that decarbonization, electrification, and a projected growth in electricity demand bring. Global shortages of crucial electrical equipment like transformers and circuit breakers don’t make that question any easier to figure out.

    Electrical equipment and water don’t mix, so heavy flooding presents a serious threat to power grids that aren’t prepared for it. “There has been a dramatic miscalculation of risk factors here,” said Tyler Norris, a Duke University doctoral fellow and former special advisor at the Department of Energy. “So this event is going to have to prompt a wide range of new analysis on the vulnerability of various parts of the power system.”

    Among the challenges that western North Carolina will face in rebuilding its grid are its geographic differences from the regions where various solutions have been tested. Norris described the region as “a mountainous area that still has a relatively decent population density.” In low-lying coastal areas that are more accustomed to hurricanes, for instance, some utility companies have begun moving power lines underground to avoid the problems that hurricane-force winds pose. But in Duke Energy’s service area, “you have this really far-flung set of distribution lines going up into the hills and serving different communities,” Norris continued.

    Last week, an early report from North Carolina congressman Chuck Edwards claiming that 360 substations in North Carolina were “out” because of flooding caused a minor panic among grid experts, who worried that there simply weren’t enough transformers in reserve in the U.S. to rebuild that many substations.

    Transformers are the pieces of electrical equipment required to shift an electric current from one voltage to another. They are needed at either end of a transmission line — the massive power lines that transmit electricity at a high voltage between power plants and the lower-voltage distribution lines that power homes and businesses. They are housed in substations, the junctions between the transmission and distribution systems.

    It turns out that the crisis wasn’t so dire. Of the 360 substations that were reported down, most “were out because of damage to the transmission system that supplies them with power, not necessarily damage to all those substations,” said Brooks, the Duke Energy spokesperson. But even a handful of destroyed substations is no small matter. At least two sites, the utility has trucked in temporary “mobile substations” that will power nearby communities until the equipment can be repaired.

    In normal times, said John Wilson, a vice president at the consulting firm Grid Strategies, it takes over a year to build a new substation from scratch, including drawing up a site-specific design and procuring the equipment. Rebuilding can be a significantly shorter process when the designs are already complete, and utilities keep some amount of equipment in reserve. But the depletion of those reserves would only add to the potential supply chain bottleneck for future crises.

    Global demand for transformers is growing, in part because the transition to renewable energy will require many more sites of power generation than the old fossil fuel-powered system — and each new power plant requires its own equipment. With few manufacturers of transformers operating in the U.S., utilities must wait an average of 150 weeks for an order to arrive.

    While it’s unclear whether the storm recovery will be directly impeded by the transformer shortage, it may breathe life into solutions that have been recently proposed. In September, the president’s National Infrastructure Advisory Council recommended that the federal government create a strategic reserve of transformers to bypass the industry’s long lead times. And in a report published in August, Grid Strategies recommended that utilities band together in a collective procurement organization — ideally with federal loan backing — to make large orders and share the costs. “That would help deal with the construction backlog; right now, manufacturers are hesitant to build new factories to build this equipment in the U.S. or North America because they aren’t confident that the market will be there,” said Wilson.

    The reconstruction of the power grid in the areas of Appalachia where it was wrecked by Helene will ultimately offer a chance for the utility industry to rethink how the electricity system should be structured. “​​In areas where there could be more extreme weather events like this, it’s going to be more and more difficult to maintain far-flung distribution systems,” Norris said. “And the cost of service is going to rise, and you either have to muddle through that or think about other measures, like undergrounding lines, or trying to bring load into higher degrees of concentration so it isn’t so far-flung, or, obviously, to think more about distributed energy systems and backup power.”

    There are ways to build grid resilience that could be implemented on a more local level — although they’re costly. One is the concept of microgrids — local electric grids that are disconnected from the wider power system. Norris said this concept could be extended further by allowing individual homes and businesses to power themselves with rooftop solar when the grid is down. Most solar arrays aren’t configured to produce power when there isn’t a wider grid to feed them into, in order to protect the line workers repairing power lines from a live current. But this can be prevented by a technique called solar islanding, which effectively disconnects the solar array from the grid.

    Last week, Duke Energy used one such microgrid, in the flooded resort town of Hot Springs, North Carolina, to keep the lights on downtown for days using only batteries and solar power. For towns like Hot Springs, microgrids could be much more than temporary patches. 

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Hurricane Helene brought devastation — and an opportunity — to Appalachia’s power grids on Oct 8, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Due to a quirk of geology, the purest quartz in all the world comes from the picturesque town of Spruce Pine, North Carolina. The mineral, created deep within the earth when silicon-rich magmas cooled and crystallized some 370 million years ago, is essential to the production of computer chips and solar panels.

    China, India, and Russia provide high purity quartz as well, but what’s mined there does not match the quality or quantity of what lies beneath the Blue Ridge Mountains. With Spruce Pine among the scores of Appalachian communities reeling from Hurricane Helene, the sudden closure of quartz mines that have supplied chip manufacturers for decades has rattled the global tech industry. But this quartz is vital to the solar industry too. And while industry experts expect companies to withstand the temporary closure of the town’s two mines, it highlights the precarity of a clean energy economy that relies on materials produced at a single location — especially in a world of increasingly ferocious natural disasters.

    Helene’s impact on Spruce Pine “absolutely lays bare the danger of having a monopoly in any part of the supply chain,” said Debra DeShong, head of corporate communications at solar manufacturer QCells North America. QCells, which manufactures photovoltaic panels in Georgia and is building an additional facility that will manufacture the components needed to assemble them, is evaluating whether the Spruce Pine mine closures will impact it.

    The industry relies on quartz primarily to make polysilicon, a highly refined type of silicon that forms the sunlight-harvesting cells in most photovoltaic panels. But the quartz from Spruce Pine serves another purpose: It is used to make the crucibles in which molten polysilicon crystallizes into cylindrical or rectangular ingots. Those rods are cut into the solar wafers that are further processed to produce the cells within panels.

    Forming solar ingots requires heating polysilicon to over 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit. Only the highest purity quartz sand provides the thermal stability needed to create the crucibles capable of enduring such heat, and the best of it is found in western North Carolina.

    “Spruce Pine is a very unusual quartz deposit and it is incredibly pure,” said Jenny Chase, the lead solar analyst at energy consultancy BloombergNEF. 

    BloombergNEF estimates that Spruce Pine supplies more than 80 percent of the ultra-pure quartz sand used to manufacture crucibles for both the solar and the semiconductor industry, as well as for optical and lighting applications. (There isn’t any public data on how much of the town’s quartz is used by each sector, but BloombergNEF estimates that in China, the world’s leading producer of photovoltaic panels, 80 percent of the high purity quartz it uses goes into solar applications.) Spruce Pine dominates this market, and supplies nearly all of the material that lines the inside of solar crucibles, which come in direct contact with molten silicon. There, purity is particularly important for ensuring high ingot yields and long crucible lifespans.

    The amount of quartz required to support solar crucible production is fairly small. Chase says that Spruce Pine produced about 20,000 tons of high purity quartz sand last year — more than enough to satisfy the demands of the solar industry. That same year, global polysilicon production stood at 1.52 million metric tons. Producing that much polysilicon likely required about 3 million metric tons of quartz, according to Chase. All of which is to say, Spruce Pine is, she said, “quite a small cog” in the solar supply chain.

    Still, a small cog can become a big problem if there are no contingencies when it breaks down. But Chase suspects that most crucible manufacturers — an industry based largely in East Asia — have stockpiles of high purity quartz. May Haugen, who leads communications at The Quartz Corp, a Norwegian company that produces high purity quartz sand at Spruce Pine, confirmed this in an email to Grist.

    “The Quartz Corp operates in long value chains where everybody has learnt through Covid the importance of sizable safety stocks,” Haugen wrote. “Between our own safety stocks which are built in different locations and the ones down in the value chain, we are not concerned about shortages in the short or medium term.”

    In preparation for Hurricane Helene, The Quartz Corp halted all mining operations in Spruce Pine on September 26th. So did the Belgian firm Sibelco, the town’s other producer.

    It is unclear when either company will resume mining: In an October 2 statement, The Quartz Corp wrote that while its plants do not seem to have been seriously damaged by the storm it is still “too early to tell” when they will reopen, “as this will also depend on the rebuilding of local infrastructure.” In an October 4 statement shared with Grist, Sibelco wrote that its facilities appear to have sustained “minor damage” and that the company hopes to “restart operations as soon as we can.”

    “Our dedicated teams are on-site, conducting cleanup,” the statement noted. “Our final product stock has not been impacted.” The company declined to say how the hurricane could impact its plan to double production capacity in Spruce Pine by 2025.

    Even if both mines remain shuttered for months, the solar industry could adapt, Chase said. The Japanese firm Mitsubishi Chemical Group manufactures high-purity synthetic silica for the semiconductor industry, and the material meets the standards required for solar crucibles, according to Chase. 

    However, production would need to ramp up. Mitsubishi Chemical Group representative Kana Nuruki told Grist in an email that the company currently does not have enough synthetic quartz to support the solar industry, and what it does produce is “considerably more expensive” than the real thing.

    Paying a premium for synthetic quartz would be a challenge for the price-sensitive solar industry, Chase said. “But if it had no choice, it would do it.” 

    Developing alternative supplies of high purity quartz, even ones that cost more, could help fortify the solar supply chain against the next climate-fueled disaster. “As solar becomes a larger piece of our electrification, it’s going to be increasingly important that we ensure we have a stable supply chain,” DeShong of QCells said.

    Still, manufacturing both semiconductors and solar panels in America is a key priority of the Biden Administration, and it seems unlikely that Washington will want to see a critical cog in both supply chains move overseas. A spokesperson for the US Department of Energy told Grist that the agency “is closely monitoring Hurricane Helene’s effects [on] the supply chain” while “advancing efforts to maintain the stability of America’s energy systems.”

    Spencer Bost, executive director of the community development organization Downtown Spruce Pine, said that quartz mining is the largest private employer in the county and restarting it quickly is “very important from a local economy perspective.” If the federal government cares about building clean energy in America, Bost said, “we have all the stuff here.” 

    “We have the people who need the jobs here,” he added. 

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The solar supply chain runs through this flooded North Carolina town on Oct 8, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • At an August rally in Glendale, Arizona, the rowdiness of the crowd suggested a rockstar was about to take the stage. Instead, a booming voice welcomed the spectators with a full-throated endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris: “She is the right person at the right time to be our country’s 47th president!” The voice belonged to Governor of the Gila River Indian Community Stephen Roe Lewis, a tribal leader who helped resolve long overdue water rights in the state for the tribe last year. “Skoden!” 

    Later on, after a warm-up speech from running mate Tim Walz, Vice President Harris took the stage, saying she would “always honor tribal sovereignty and respect tribal self-determination,” (The 22 federally recognized tribes in Arizona make an Indigenous voting block that proved essential to President Joe Biden’s win in the swing state in 2020.) On her campaign website, she maintains that she will work to secure America’s industrial future by investing in clean energy — but clean-energy development often negatively impacts sites on federal lands that are sacred to Indigenous peoples. 

    The Biden-Harris administration has been one of the most supportive of Native peoples, investing millions of dollars of federal funding for climate resilience and green energy initiatives. Still, the Indigenous vote for Harris in 2024 is far from assured. While the U.S. has big goals on its path to a clean-energy future, those plans have to compete against the preservation of tribal lands — an issue Harris has stumbled over in her political career, dating back to her time as California’s attorney general. 

    Almost 80 miles east of the Arizona rally, a sacred site is in danger. Oak Flat, a swath of national forest land in the high desert, has been an important spiritual site for tribes like the San Carlos Apache for centuries, and is used for ceremonies and gathering medicines like sage, bear root, and greasewood. Yet the area is under threat — Rio Tinto, an international mining company, has been fighting to put a copper mine there for more than a decade. Oak Flat is home to one of the planet’s largest undeveloped copper reserves, and the metal is critical to making the electric batteries necessary for the shift to cleaner energy sources. 

    Oak Flat and other sacred sites have not been given enough federal protections, activists say, despite intense advocacy from the tribal nations affected. Much of the U.S. has already been built and powered at the expense of tribal lands and peoples. To reach its goal of 80 percent renewable energy generation by 2030, and carbon-free electricity five years after that, the U.S. needs big investments and robust policy support. While Harris says she is the candidate in the best position to achieve those goals, there is a concern among Indigenous communities that doing so will continue to exploit tribal homelands — most of the minerals needed for the energy transition are located within 35 miles of away from tribal communities, on lands originally stolen from them. 

    “They definitely are hard to do at the same time. That’s the conflict,” said Dov Kroff-Korn, an attorney at Lakota People’s Law and Sacred Defense Fund, of the balance between extracting the minerals critical to the energy transition and protecting tribal lands where many such minerals are located. He mentioned that Harris has few environmental policies of her own to critique, and that, policy-wise, the broader Biden-Harris administration has been a mixed bag. “There’s been a lot of positive signs that should be recognized and applauded. But it’s also been a continuation of a lot of the same old extractive policies that have powered America for pretty much its entire history.”

    In a bid to protect some places from industry, President Biden flexed his ability to make national monuments out of sacred sites, such as the Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument — or Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni — as well as to fully restore the boundaries of the Bears Ears monument in Utah from a Trump-era rollback. Biden also appointed the first-ever Native American to his Cabinet — Deb Haaland, Pueblo of Laguna — as the head of the Department of Interior. In her role, Haaland has instructed federal agencies to incorporate traditional knowledge in order to better protect Indigenous sacred sites on public land.

    During her tenure as vice president, Harris has been party to the administration’s push to produce more oil and gas than ever, despite promises to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Last year, the Biden administration also gave the green light to the Willow project, an $8 billion dollar drilling operation on Alaska’s North Slope that some, but not all, tribes were against. Throughout her presidential campaign, and in a reversal of her previous stance, Harris has showed support for fracking, a controversial drilling method that extracts oil and natural gas from deep within the ground. 

    Crystal Cavalier-Keck, a member of the Occoneechee Band of the Saponi Nation in South Carolina, is the cofounder of 7 Directions of Service, an Indigenous-led environmental justice organization. She’s concerned that the Mountain Valley Pipeline, currently a 303-mile system that runs through West Virginia and Virginia, will permanently damage the sacred Haw River where she has many memories with her family. Over the years, the beleaguered river has been polluted by chemicals and is now threatened by the pipeline, which began operations in June. 

    In 2020, Cavalier-Keck campaigned for Biden in South Carolina but didn’t see movement on the environmental protections she wanted after he got elected. She said she will still vote for Harris in November but feels like her concerns are not being talked about. “There’s not much at all on her environmental policies,” she said. “They’re saying the right buzzwords, like ‘clean, renewable, forward.’ But where’s the meat of it?” 

    She lives about a two-hour drive from where Hurricane Helene has claimed more than 100 lives in North Carolina, and she worries that the next big climate disaster will reach her community. Cavalier-Keck said that her tribe has had issues accessing the roughly $120 million in federal funding to help tribes build climate resilience. 

    During Harris’ time as attorney general of California, she argued against tribes putting land into trust, a process that can protect land as well as allow economic development like casinos where gambling might be banned, claiming the situation only applies if a tribe was “under federal jurisdiction” when the Indian Reorganization Act was passed in the 1930s. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Harris and the state, but had she won the case, about 100 tribes in California would not have been allowed to benefit from trust lands. 

    Still, Lael Echo Hawk, who is Pawnee and an expert in tribal law, says Harris’ decisions as attorney general aren’t reflective of what she might be capable of as president. She pointed out that as attorney general, Harris helped pass a red flag law in California to take away firearms from people deemed dangerous. Plus, she called on the U.S. Congress to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act — an issue important in Native communities, where women go missing and are the survivors of violence at a rate higher than the national average. Echo Hawk also knows of tribes concerned with border issues and immigration that are endorsing Harris. “These are important issues that I think better demonstrate her commitment to advancing and protecting tribal sovereignty,” Echo Hawk said. 

    But for Nick Estes, a member of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and a professor at the University of Minnesota, Harris might just be a continuation of the Biden administration, which he maintains has taken advantage of tribal lands. As it stands today, 1.6 million surface and subsurface acres of land within 83 reservations have non-Natives benefiting from oil, gas, and mining operations, among other extractive industries.

    “You can’t just have a vibes-based environmental policy. It actually needs to be concrete,” said Estes. “What we’ve seen is just service to industry at the expense of Native lands and livelihoods.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Indigenous voters worry a Harris presidency means endangering sacred lands on Oct 7, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • This year, the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission held a hearing in Santa Fe to seek public input on regulating wastewater discharge from the oil and gas industry. It ended up dealing a blow to Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s ambitious proposal to reuse the water for alternative energy development.

    Under the proposal, which was announced a few months earlier at the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference and dubbed the “Strategic Water Supply,” the state would buy both natural brackish and oilfield-produced water, contract with private companies for treatment or cleaning, and then provide the cleaned water to so-called green industries like solar and wind energy and electric vehicle manufacturing. The $500 million investment, Lujan Grisham said at the U.N. conference, would help “strengthen our climate resiliency and protect our precious freshwater resources.”

    But the majority of the public who attended the hearing or submitted written comments opposed any discharge of either treated or untreated produced water, with some calling the water toxic and contaminated. New Mexico Water Quality Control Commissioner Katie Zemlick summarized the concerns of many citizens: Given the lack of reliable data on the chemicals found in the industrially produced water, “Why would we want to move forward with applications that could potentially interact with ground or surface water?”

    Some environmental and Indigenous activists also panned the proposal, with activists calling it a “false solution” that funnels money to the oil and gas industry. And during the 2024 legislative session, a bill to fund the project received little support from lawmakers, and died in committee.

    A wood paneled meeting room with blue chairs contains people in front speaking to members of the audience
    Members of the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission listen to testimony during one day of the hearing in August. Adam Ferguson/Santa Fe Reporter

    All the while, the state hasn’t give up: The New Mexico Environment Department (under which the Water Quality Control Commission falls) collected information from the private and public sectors on treatment and industrial reuse of produced water, a preliminary step before requesting and accepting proposals under the plan. And at the hearing they pursued new rules for the use of produced water in pilot projects.

    Mike Hightower, program director of the New Mexico Produced Water Research Consortium, a partnership between academia, government agencies, national laboratories, the private sector, and the state, testified that “the data available on produced water overwhelmingly shows that it can be treated and used safely.”

    Other oil-producing Western states are also grappling with how to manage increasing volumes of produced water, given intensifying drought and dwindling storage options.

    New Mexico is at the center of the debate because of the lucrative Permian Basin, which extends from West Texas into southeastern New Mexico. The Permian is the nation’s most productive oilfield, accounting for over 40 percent of total U.S. oil production. It also generates the most wastewater — more than 15 million barrels per day in 2022, over 10 times more than the next-highest producing basin.

    James Kenney, the New Mexico Environment Department secretary, emphasized in an interview that the state is not proposing reuse for drinking water or agriculture. But using produced water for hydrogen fuel development or solar projects, he said, “seems like a great way to offset freshwater use.”

    Currently, he added, most produced water is injected back underground, and it’s “a real missed opportunity” not to reuse it.

    But public health advocates are concerned. Ted Schettler, science director at the Science and Environmental Health Network, a nonprofit group, said that “produced water is highly toxic.” In addition to known carcinogens like formaldehyde, he said, produced water presents “reproductive hazards, developmental hazards, neurotoxic hazards” to humans.

    The Permian wastewater surge is the result of a boom in fracking — an extractive technique in which fluid is pumped into wells at high pressure to break open tight rock formations and release oil and gas deposits. As of 2022, around 95 percent of the Permian’s oil and gas wells were horizontal wells, which extend horizontally below the surface, and typically fracked, up from around 20 percent in 2011. Along with hydrocarbons, large quantities of water are brought to the surface with a host of naturally occurring substances, like salts, metals, and oil and grease, as well as chemicals added by fuel companies.

    The region’s enormous volume of wastewater and “high current and projected levels of water scarcity makes the Permian a key location” of regulation and research, according to a 2023 report from the Ground Water Protection Council, a nonprofit composed of state groundwater regulatory agencies.

    For now, regulation is left to Western states under the federal Clean Water Act, which authorizes beneficial reuse of water “of good enough quality” in states west of the 98th meridian, which roughly demarcates the arid West.

    A map of New Mexico showing oil and gas basins
    Navajo lands include the Navajo Nation as well as off-reservation lands held in trust for the tribe. Sources: New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, U.S. Census Bureau Anson Stevens-Bollen/Santa Fe Reporter

    Some states have already approved some reuse of produced water outside oilfields, though not for green energy and without the significant investment proposed by New Mexico. In California, produced water is used for irrigation in the Central Valley; in Wyoming, it is used for livestock watering and irrigation; and in Pennsylvania, it has been approved for discharge into the Susquehanna River. 

    In Texas, meanwhile, pilot projects are being conducted with cotton irrigation, and the state has permitted discharge to streams and rivers if it meets water quality standards. Texas and Colorado have also created produced water consortiums to study treatment and reuse outside oilfields.

    Some scientists are calling for more federal oversight of such projects. “It’s almost guaranteed that if the particular state does not require much more rigorous testing, there are going to be hazardous chemicals that are going to be spread on the land, or make their way into waterways,” said Schettler.

    “I think it’s pretty clear that the current regulatory landscape is not adequate to truly protect public health or the environment because of all these unknowns,” he added.

    Taimur Shaikh, a senior policy adviser for the Environmental Protection Agency in the New Mexico region, and an adviser to the state’s produced water research consortium, emphasized that the EPA’s involvement in state consortiums working on regulations is minimal: “We’re trying to be engaged in an advisory capacity,” he told Undark. “But we are definitely not trying to steer any of them.”

    An older man with white hair and glasses in a pink collared tee shirt
    Mike Hightower, pictured here at the hearing in August, is the program director of the New Mexico Produced Water Research Consortium. Adam Ferguson/Santa Fe Reporter

    Meanwhile, produced water is “a very valuable water resource,” said Pei Xu, associate director for research and technology at the New Mexico Produced Water Research Consortium. But, she added, it’s necessary to ensure that the treated water “will not cause any risks to human beings and to the environment.”

    Permian produced water has been found to contain the naturally occurring radioactive metals radium and uranium; other metals like lithium and iron; ammonia; and volatile organic compounds including benzene and toluene. Oil and gas companies also add chemicals to their drilling fluids, including acids to dissolve minerals, biocides to kill bacteria that cause corrosion, surfactants to make the fluid thicker, and polymers to minimize friction during drilling operations.

    Hightower, the consortium’s program director, said the results of their treatment projects have found “that there is no toxicity of the treated produced waters.”

    Yet Shaikh of the EPA said that estimating the risk of exposure is challenging, because the chemical makeup depends on the geologic formation the water is drawn from. It’s a “complex mixture” composed of many different materials, he said, and “some have good toxicological data and some don’t.”

    According to one literature review encompassing 129 studies, out of nearly 1,200 chemicals found in U.S. produced water, only 14 percent had “existing toxicity values” needed for risk assessment. In addition, some of the chemicals are considered proprietary, and aren’t disclosed by oil and gas companies.

    “If you’re not cleaning up the water with these chemicals in mind, and you’re putting these unknown chemicals onto the landscape in the water,” Schettler said, “it’s very difficult to conclude that you know that it’s safe.”

    Given produced water’s myriad components, it takes numerous processes to remove them. First, oil and grease must be separated and filtered. Then targeted chemicals are removed with adsorbents — solids that contaminants adhere to, including sawdust and activated carbon. Other substances are removed with ultraviolet disinfection or oxidation. Salts are removed through processes like reverse osmosis or thermal distillation. Finally, if the water is to be used for groundwater recharge to aquifers or potable use, it may also need disinfection or pH adjustment.

    Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as “forever chemicals,” have also been found in Permian produced water, including samples tested by Xu. She speculates it was a result of contamination, but according to a 2023 Physicians for Social Responsibility report, Permian oil and gas operators have injected wells with these chemicals, which are notoriously difficult to remove.

    “I think it’d be very hard to find one treatment that truly addresses all the components that you might find within produced water,” Shaikh said.

    Another safety issue, Xu said, is that exposure to the combined chemicals “may have a synergistic effect” that isn’t revealed with analysis of individual chemicals. As a result, Xu and her colleagues have begun toxicity studies to look at the effects of what she calls “the whole effluent” on plants and animals. Hightower said he hoped this toxicity testing “will become the standard for all the states to use.”

    At the moment, though, Schettler said treatment technologies “are very energy intensive, and so they’re going to be expensive.” And Seth Shonkoff, an environmental health scientist and executive director of California-based research institute PSE Healthy Energy, said, “There’s not off-the-shelf, affordable ways to monitor” all the chemicals in produced water.

    But Hightower said that with disposal costs rising due to increasing volumes of water and stricter regulations, “We’re at a point where this is going to be cost effective for us.” In a 2023 presentation, the cost to treat Permian produced water was $0.75 to $1.20 per barrel, while disposal costs are on track to come close to $1.20 per barrel next year, according to Hightower.

    The treatment process produces another challenge: “You may have cleaned up the water to a level that you’re happy with,” Schettler said, “but you have this hazardous waste left to get rid of.” That could be reinjected into disposal wells, the current protocol for produced water. But if it exceeds regulations for radioactivity, it would be considered hazardous and require more expensive disposal.

    Some proponents, meanwhile, say the lithium-rich waste could prove valuable. “We can use it as a source for mineral recovery,” Xu said, and the waste also contains ammonia, magnesium, and calcium, all used in agriculture and manufacturing.

    Kenney, the Environment Department secretary, noted that water itself is a valuable commodity, and produced water is just a “commodity in waiting.”

    Meanwhile, he added, evolving regulations in other states could create competition for produced water. If Texas moves to allow treated produced water reuse in agriculture or other applications, Kenney said, “New Mexico’s unusable produced water will be sold, I predict, to Texas companies.”

    Already, an estimated one-third of the state’s produced water is transported to Texas via trucks or pipelines for disposal because of New Mexico’s stricter permitting requirements, according to the Ground Water Protection Council. After New Mexico (along with Texas and Oklahoma) experienced an increase in earthquakes due to the injection of produced water underground, the state enacted stricter disposal regulations.

    A diagram of an oil well water treatment process
    Source: Jiag et al, Water 2021 Anson Stevens-Bollen/Santa Fe Reporter

    Yet environmental advocates are concerned about the risk of produced water transport. According to state records of spills reported by operators, there were 938 incidents of produced water spills in 2023, with reported amounts lost in one spill reaching 4,200 barrels, or approximately 176,400 gallons.

    New Mexico’s second-largest petroleum-producing region, the San Juan basin, produces far less oil, but contains significant cultural resources. The basin overlaps with parts of the Navajo Nation and off-reservation Navajo trust lands. And other Indigenous groups have ancestral roots in the region, which includes Chaco Culture National Historical Park, a center of ancestral Pueblo sites.

    Julia Bernal, an enrolled member of Sandia Pueblo and executive director of the Pueblo Action Alliance, said the greater Chaco area is “very important to our cultural lifeways and existence.”

    The region is already impacted by oil and gas production, Bernal said, and produced water is being trucked to disposal sites in the area. If a new market for produced water emerges, she said, “it’s going to increase the risk of more produced water spills.”

    Mario Atencio, a Navajo organizer, said: “The impacts to the groundwater are just too dangerous to think about. The whole area has all these springs. In the desert, those are incredibly sacred cultural resources to Indigenous people, especially Navajo people.”

    Governor Lujan Grisham has vowed to return to the legislature in 2025 to seek funding for the Strategic Water Supply, and the Water Quality Control Commission will deliberate on proposed rules for produced water discharge later this year.

    Yet consortium scientist Xu said she and her colleagues “still have a lot of ongoing research” and need more time and funding before they determine that treated produced water is safe for reuse.

    For some critics, the governor’s proposal is a distraction from other conservation efforts: Bernal said it’s disingenuous for the state to claim its plan advances water conservation, when there have been “many, many years of advocacy” by local groups for “water resiliency projects that would really be about conserving water, fixing aging infrastructure,” and addressing tribal needs.

    Shonkoff, the environmental health scientist, frames the debate in terms of balancing risk: “One risk is being able to be resilient in the face of drought,” he said, while another is “using emerging sources of water that may present risks to humans and the environment.”

    And public health advocates like Schettler say the competing demands on finite water resources from the agricultural sector, growing cities, and the oil and gas industry, amplified by climate change, are only going to get worse.

    “There’s a tremendous need to figure out what to do,” he said.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline In arid New Mexico, a debate over reusing oil-industry wastewater on Oct 6, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Britain’s only remaining coal power plant at Ratcliffe-on-Soar in Nottinghamshire generated electricity for the last time on Monday after powering the United Kingdom for 57 years.

    The power plant came to the end of its life in line with the government’s world-leading policy to phase out coal power which was first signaled almost a decade ago.

    The closure marks the end of Britain’s 142-year history of coal power use which began when the world’s first coal-fired power station, the Holborn Viaduct power station, began generating electricity in 1882.

    The shutdown has been hailed by green campaigners as a major achievement for the government in reducing the U.K.’s carbon emissions, providing international climate leadership, and ensuring a “just transition” for staff in Britain’s coal industry.

    On Monday, Michael Shanks, the minister for energy, said: “Today’s closure at Ratcliffe marks the end of an era and coal workers can be rightly proud of their work powering our country for over 140 years. We owe generations a debt of gratitude as a country.”

    The U.K. became the first country to set an end date for coal power from 2025 after putting in place increasingly stringent green regulations to reduce the running hours of its coal plants.

    Ministers strengthened the U.K.’s leadership on phasing out coal by calling for the deadline to come forward by a year, shortly before the U.K. hosted the U.N.’s COP26 climate talks in Glasgow in late 2021.

    Ratcliffe’s 170 remaining staff were invited to gather in the canteen on Monday where a livestream from the power plant’s control room showed the moment that its generating units were turned off for the last time.

    Peter O’Grady, Ratcliffe’s plant manager, said: “This whole year has been a series of poignant moments. I’m sure there will be a few tears as the whole thing stops and as people leave.”

    The coal plant once employed 3,000 engineers but its workforce has declined in line with its power output over recent years. Coal power made up 80 percent of the U.K.’s electricity in the early 1980s, and 40 percent in 2012, before petering out in the last decade due to costly carbon taxes and the rise of cheaper renewables.

    “This is the final chapter of a remarkably swift transition from the country that started the industrial revolution,” said Phil MacDonald, managing director of global energy think tank Ember.

    A report by Ember found that coal power has halved among member countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, since reaching a peak in 2007. Coal power made up 17 percent of electricity generated by OECD countries last year, according to Ember, but 27 of the 38 member states have pledged to be coal-free by the end of the decade.

    Ed Matthew, a director at climate crisis think tank E3G, said: “The U.K. was the first country to build a coal-fired power station. It is right that it is the first major economy to exit coal power. This is true global leadership, lighting the path for other countries to follow.”

    Tony Bosworth, a campaigner with Friends of the Earth, said: “The priority now is to move away from gas as well, by developing as fast as possible the U.K.’s huge homegrown renewable energy potential and delivering the economic boost that will bring. But this vital green transition must be fair, by protecting workers and benefiting communities.”

    Staff were first told in 2021 that the plant would close in late 2022, but Ratcliffe’s owner, the German energy company Uniper, later said it would keep the plant running during the Europe-wide gas crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine under an agreement with the government.

    Uniper has worked with unions to help many engineers into new jobs at the company’s other power plants or into training which could lead to work in other areas of the energy industry. More than 100 are expected to remain at the plant to carry out decommissioning work over the next two years.

    Michael Lewis, Uniper’s chief executive, said: “For me, Ratcliffe has always been more than just a power station — it has been a pillar of the U.K.’s energy security for decades. Built during a time when coal was the backbone of industrial progress, Ratcliffe powered over 2 million homes and businesses — equivalent to the entire East Midlands region. It played a crucial role in boosting economic growth and supporting the livelihoods of thousands of people.

    “This will be the first time since 1882 that coal has not powered Great Britain. As we close this chapter, we honor Ratcliffe’s legacy and the people working here, while embracing the future of cleaner and flexible energy,” he said.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The end of an era: Britain’s last coal-fired power plant shuts down on Oct 5, 2024.

    This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Jillian Ambrose, The Guardian.

  • Campaign group Fuel Poverty Action took to parliament on 1 October. It was to hand in its #EnergyForAll petition signed by over half a million people. This calls for the guaranteed right to free energy to cover universal basic needs. Notably, the group coincided the hand-in with the day so-called energy regulator Ofgem was increasing the energy price cap, sending bills spiralling ahead of winter.

    It marks the start of a winter of rising and unaffordable bills for millions of UK households.

    ‘Energy For All’: bills rising with the energy price cap

    Ofgem has now implemented a higher energy price cap of:

    £1,717 per year for a typical household who use electricity and gas and pay by Direct Debit. This is an increase of 10% compared to the cap set between 1 July to 30 September 2024 (£1,568).

    This is lower than the same period last year – but means energy bills will rise on average by 10% – or £149 a year.

    It also means energy bills will still be well above pre-pandemic prices. The 10% increase makes them them 65% higher than in 2020.

    Campaigners are therefore warning that rising prices will cause many to switch off their heating and risk serious health problems this winter.

    Jonathan Bean of Fuel Poverty Action said that:

    this is extra money people can ill afford – especially the millions of low-income pensioners who will be plunged into fuel poverty as a result of Rachel Reeves axing winter fuel payments for two million pensioners who are already struggling.

    A huge number of people will resort to turning off the heating and trying to survive in cold, damp homes. Many will end up in hospital, and thousands will die.

    Of course, as the Canary has already highlighted, the energy price cap increase will hit marginalised households the hardest. In particular, the bill hike will hurt people who need a lot of energy, because the 10% rise only applies to the average household.

    What really matters is how much the unit price – the amount per kilowatt hour of energy – the cost is going up by. In reality then, for some, bills will shoot up a lot more than this.

    For instance, this will include chronically ill and disabled people who typically have greater energy needs for aids and equipment to help manage their conditions. Alongside this, people in less energy efficient housing will invariably pay more for their fuel costs as well. Naturally, many pensioners will also be among those with larger energy demands too.

    Fuel Poverty Action take the petition to Parliament

    It’s why Fuel Poverty Action launched its #EnergyForAll campaign. This demands that the government introduce a universal basic energy allowance called Energy For All. Specifically, as the petition itself stated:

    #EnergyForAll means guaranteeing everyone enough energy, free – to cover the basics like heating, cooking, and lighting – to give us all the security we need, taking account of people’s actual needs related to their age, health, and housing.

    To pay for this new pricing system, Energy for All, we’re urging the Government to introduce proper taxation on the profits of oil and gas producers, traders and suppliers, and to STOP subsidising fossil fuels with millions of pounds every day.

    The group delivered these calls from over 662,000 people to parliament on Tuesday 1 October, with banners and placards:

    Group of campaigners with banners that read: 662,000 demand Energy For All. And: Fuel Poverty Action.

    They took their message right to the prime minister’s front door:

    Group of campaigners preparing to knock the front door at Number 10 Downing Street.

    A campaigner preparing to knock the front door at Number 10 Downing Street, with a box carrying the petition reading: 662,506 demand Energy For All - the right to energy for heating, cooking, and light. Energy price cap

    Campaigners gather together with their petition outside Number 10 Downing Street.

    They also handed out information postcards to passers-by to keep building the momentum for these demands:

    Campaigner hands out and information postcard to a member of the public.

    Meanwhile, over by parliament Unite Community and Unite London and East were also taking action. The group did banner drops to highlight rising energy costs:

    Tax the rich companies profiteering off the energy price cap

    Several groups campaigning for protections for pensioners this winter are also supporting the campaign.

    General Secretary of the National Pensioners Convention Jan Shortt said:

    Energy For All would mean that older people would have a level of energy for warmth, light, hot water and cooking without worrying about falling into debt.

    Alongside this, Shortt highlighted that it could pay for this by properly taxing the profiteering fossil fuel companies and suppliers:

    The petition calls for “proper taxation on the profits of oil and gas producers, traders and suppliers” and an end to “fossil fuel subsidies” of “millions of pounds every day.

    Because, as the Canary’s James Wright has pointed out:

    At the same time as the price hike, energy companies Iberdrola (owners of Scottish Power), Equinor, Centrica (British Gas), EDF and Drax alone have made £240bn in profit since 2020.

    Despite this, as Wright also highlighted, Ofgem’s CEO has made out that the energy price cap hike is enabling these greedy companies to make a “small profit”. Instead, campaigners have argued the reality is that they are make eye-watering sums from the privatised energy racket.

    Tommy Vickerstaff at 350.org therefore argued that:

    Our energy system is broken and the government is dithering on fixing it. It’s currently focussed on lining the pockets of fossil fuel CEOs, but the solutions are clear.

    We need an immediate extreme wealth tax to unlock millions of pounds for a renewable energy system to ensure everyone in the UK is guaranteed clean, reliable energy in our homes. In doing so we can both provide security and safety for UK households as well as advancing our international climate goals by minimising the impact the UK energy system has on communities around the world and on our planet.

    An energy guarantee to keep people warm and safe this winter

    As Green New Deal Rising’s head of campaigns Mel Kee expressed, their rampant profiteering off the back of the energy price cap will be at the public’s expense:

    Our energy system must be run for the good of our communities, rather than to line the pockets of shareholders. Being able to heat our homes, or cook our meals should not be a luxury – these are basic needs.

    This Government must show us they are serious about ‘change’ by improving ordinary people’s lives, not protecting energy giants’ profits.

    In particular, campaigners honed in on the staggering profits of British Gas, which made over £750m in 2023 alone. They argued that Ofgem has “no excuse” for inaction to protect billpayers.

    Fuel Poverty Action’s Jonathan Bean said of this:

    Ofgem gave British Gas an extra £500 million in profits last year. So where is the action from the regulator to protect the most vulnerable?” asks Jonathan Bean of Fuel Poverty Action.

    Given this, he also argued for the abolishment of cruel standing charges. These are the flat-rate daily charge suppliers levy on energy bills – regardless of energy usage. He said that:

    One thing they can do right now is to abolish cruel standing charges, which see people up and down the country pay a charge just for the privilege of purchasing energy.

    Imagine being asked for £6 each time just to enter the supermarket to do your weekly shop. Standing charges are inhumane.

    The winter fuel payment was used by many pensioners to offset the high standing charges they face. With this protection gone, standing charges may force many more to turn off their heating, and millions on prepayment meters risk being cut off completely.

    Fuel Poverty Action has also highlighted that Ofgem electricity prices are four times higher than gas prices. This exposes the 8% of households with only electric heating to higher bills, including older people with only storage heating and families in low-quality private rented homes.

    Given this, the group is calling for removal of unfair government levies, and market reform so households benefit from cheap renewables. Therefore, Bean said:

    The terrible human suffering and devastating impact on our NHS we will see this winter results from misguided government policy and energy firm profiteering”, says Bean.

    We should instead be protecting everyone with an essential energy guarantee that keeps us all warm and safe this winter.

    Featured and in-text images via Angela Christofilou

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Winter energy bills are about to bite for households across the country. This is because on 1 October so-called energy regulator Ofgem will be raising the energy price cap. Obviously, this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to households struggling to survive this winter. It comes alongside the Labour Party’s cut to winter fuel payments, as well as the cruel standing charges the regulator has so far refused to scrap despite clear public appetite for this.

    Tomorrow, Ofgem’s price cap change is kicking off a winter of fuel poverty for millions of UK households.

    Energy price cap about to rise for winter

    As the Canary has previously reported, Ofgem will be increasing the energy price cap.

    Specifically, it will implement a higher price cap of:

    £1,717 per year for a typical household who use electricity and gas and pay by Direct Debit. This is an increase of 10% compared to the cap set between 1 July to 30 September 2024 (£1,568).

    This is lower than the same period last year – but means energy bills will rise on average by 10% – or £149 a year.

    As the End Fuel Poverty Coalition has pointed out, it also means energy bills will still be well above pre-pandemic prices.

    Unsurprisingly, this will hit the most vulnerable households hardest. Notably, the £1,717 energy price cap is just the amount an average household’s bills will rise. It means in reality, bills will actually increase by a lot more than this. In particular, this applies to those whose typical energy bill sits above this average. Because what really matters is how much the unit price – the price per kilowatt hour of energy – the cost is going up by.

    Of course, this includes chronically ill and disabled people who typically have greater energy needs for aids and equipment to help manage their conditions. Alongside this, people in less energy efficient housing will invariably pay more for their fuel costs as well. Naturally, many pensioners will also be among those with larger energy demands too.

    Unsurprisingly then, the energy price cap rise alone will plunge hundreds of thousands more households into fuel poverty this winter. Specifically, nonprofit National Energy Action (NEA) has calculated that this will be 400,000 more UK households. It estimated that this means that at least six million households will be trapped in fuel poverty this winter.

    Winter fuel payment cut and standing charges

    Naturally, NEA put this out as the new Labour government also announced its plan to strip the majority of pensioners of winter fuel payments – on top of the increasing energy price cap.

    As a result, fuel poor pensioners are losing out twice. First, the government has stripped them of up to £600 in winter fuel allowance. Now, their energy bills will shoot up again from 1 October – all while they now have less income for it.

    In addition to this, the government’s own figures have shown how it’s disproportionately marginalised households that are set to lose the winter fuel payment. In particular, this will be:

    Moreover, if all this weren’t enough, cruel standing charges will make winter inordinately worse for pensioners and people Ofgem’s energy price cap is forcing into fuel poverty this winter. This is the flat-rate daily cost energy suppliers charge people – even when they’re not using any energy.

    The energy price cap rise means this is also going up too – and means it will be over £330 a year on average. Again, the standing charge can also be much higher for some households. This is because it can vary based on supplier, the area you live, and the type of tariff you’re on.

    Ofgem failing households in poverty

    Obviously, this means the energy price cap could in fact hit some households twice. Firstly, for the unit price. Then, the increased inflated standing charge adds an extra layer to this. This is particularly the case for those in certain areas, or on prepayment meters for instance.

    Most significantly though, the point is that the standing charge makes up a disproportionate amount of low energy users’ bills.

    Naturally, these typically tend to be poorer households who can’t afford to use as much in the first place. In other words, it’s likely to be many among the 1.6 million pensioners living in poverty – as well as the 6 million households in fuel poverty as well.

    Yet, despite this, Ofgem has so far refused to put forward scrapping the standing charge as a solution.

    Energy price cap: rationing power to get by

    Now, a new survey has revealed the devastating impacts of all this even further. As the Guardian reported:

    Almost half of British adults will ration their energy use this winter, a survey has found, as energy bills will rise again by 10% this week.

    In particular, it highlighted that:

    According to the YouGov survey on behalf of the fuel poverty charity National Energy Action, 46% of adults are likely to use less energy than they need to maintain comfort and wellbeing.

    Forty-five per cent of those on low incomes said they had already found it difficult to pay for their energy in the last year, while more than a third of those on prepayment meters said they had gone without power or heating when they needed it.

    So, what energy bill rises, the winter fuel payment cut, and cruel standing charges mean, is that vast numbers of households will go without energy when they need it this winter.

    As ever, it’s poor and disabled people that the government and supposed regulators’ decisions will hurt most. However, it’s little wonder when the career politicians at Westminster are as far removed from these realities as their hedge fund donor, MP heating expenses, and freebie-gilded lives can get.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Department of Energy gave the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation what seemed like very good news earlier this year: It had won a $32 million grant for a novel solar energy project in Washington state. Built over a series of old irrigation canals, the proposed solar panels would generate electricity for tribal members without removing farm acreage from cultivation. The location would preserve the kinds of culturally sensitive land that have prompted concerns about other renewables projects.

    Months after announcing the grant, the same department is making it nearly impossible for the tribal nation to access the money.

    “It is because literally the feds cannot get out of their own way,” said Ray Wiseman, general manager of Yakama Power, the tribally owned utility.

    The bureaucratic whiplash stems from the fact that while one part of the Energy Department hands out money for clean energy projects, another part decides which projects get access to the Northwest electrical grid. The Bonneville Power Administration’s process for approving connections comes with such exorbitant costs and is mired in such long delays that the federal grant could well expire before the tribe can touch a dime.

    It’s a dilemma that persists despite the Biden administration’s explicit promise last year to help tribes create new sources of renewable power affordably and quickly.

    Bonneville and the Energy Department blame the holdup on a glut of renewable energy proposals that are creating a need for massive transmission upgrades across the country. In a joint statement on behalf of Bonneville and its parent agency, Energy Department spokesperson Chris Ford said the government is required to put all energy proposals through the same process with the same costs.

    But Ford added that federal agencies are “exploring different options within the law to both speed the process and reduce the costs the Yakama Nation would have to pay.”

    The White House Council on Environmental Quality, which brokered the agreement pledging to help tribes build renewables, said in a statement the administration is coordinating with tribes and others in “taking action to deliver a clean, reliable electric grid and make federal permitting of new transmission lines more efficient.”

    But council spokesperson Justin Weiss didn’t answer questions from Oregon Public Broadcasting and ProPublica about why the Yakama project was stalled and what specific steps the White House has taken to help speed tribal energy connections.

    Renewable energy supporters say the Yakama solar case shows that if the White House can’t keep the federal bureaucracy from undermining its own goals, then it’s making promises it can’t keep.

    Nancy Hirsh, who’s worked since the 1990s for a coalition that advocates for clean power in the Northwest, said the situation is exactly what she feared would happen after the tribal agreement was signed.

    “This is just the thing that we need to fix,” Hirsh said, “the left hand not connected with the right hand.”

    An unprecedented promise

    The Yakama reservation in Central Washington bears the scars of the federal government’s energy policies.

    Transmission lines stretching across tribal properties were built a century ago without permission. The country’s largest nuclear waste cleanup site, Hanford, has poisoned parts of the tribe’s ancestral land under the Department of Energy’s watch.

    Families on the reservation were displaced from their homes along the river to make way for massive reservoirs and hydroelectric dams. Those dams nearly wiped out runs of wild salmon that are vital to Indigenous cultures and that the U.S. government swore in treaties it would preserve.

    Even today, the development of renewable energy often risks encroaching on land held sacred by tribes, who have argued they are cut out of the decision-making process.

    President Joe Biden seemed to offer a fresh approach to tribal sovereignty, declaring it a priority for his administration shortly after taking office in 2021.

    Soon, the White House began negotiations to end a decades-old lawsuit by tribes and environmental groups who want some of the Northwest’s federal dams torn down to keep local salmon populations from going extinct.

    The result of the talks was what the administration called a “historic” deal. The tribes would put their lawsuit on hold. In return, the White House promised to help tribes develop up to 3 gigawatts of renewable energy. That could power all the homes in a city roughly the size of Portland, Oregon. More significantly to the tribes, it’s enough to replace the output of the four dams on the lower Snake River deemed most detrimental to salmon.

    “It will take all of us committing to this partnership now and for years to come to lift the words off the page and bring this agreement to life,” White House senior adviser John Podesta said at the signing of the agreement with Northwest tribes in February. “I want you to know that President Biden and Vice President Harris and the whole administration are committed to making that happen.”

    Yakama Nation Chair Gerald Lewis also voiced hope when he signed the agreement with the Biden administration. “The last time energy was developed in the Columbia Basin, it was done on the backs of tribal communities and tribal resources,” Lewis said at the time. “Now we have an opportunity to do better.”

    The Yakama Nation’s proposal would seem to exactly fit the bill.

    Its initial plan was to cover 10 miles of irrigation canals with solar panels and to outfit the canals themselves with small-scale hydroelectric turbines. That would generate enough electricity to power a few thousand homes on the reservation, which has a population of about 30,000.

    In addition to avoiding the tribe’s culturally sensitive lands, the project wouldn’t encroach on any wildlife habitats. And covering the irrigation canals would shade the water so that less of it evaporates in the sun.

    The Department of Energy awarded its $32 million grant for the project at the end of February. Soon after, the agency posted an interview about the plan with Lewis and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm on its Facebook page bearing the caption, “Sometimes, the great ideas are the ones right in front of us.”

    Washington’s U.S. senators, Democrats Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, each issued news releases announcing the grant and praising the project, saying the canals could boost water conservation by 20% and cut the reservation’s power bills by 15%.

    But those ambitions quickly ran up against stark realities, according to the people directly involved in bringing the project to life.

    “Everybody thinks that the federal government gave us 32 million bucks,” Wiseman, the general manager for Yakama Power, said. “They did not.”

    Stuck in bureaucracy

    In its landmark accord with tribes, and in documents supporting the accord’s implementation, the White House promised more than money. It vowed to muster the full clout of the federal government to achieve the plan’s goals. Specifically, the agreement said the energy department, working with Indigenous leaders, would find “legal and regulatory options” for getting projects connected to the grid faster and for making them affordable for tribes.

    That didn’t prevent the first tribal project to come along — the Yakama Nation’s — from getting caught in a snare of bureaucracy.

    In addition to the grant from the Energy Department’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, Yakama Power was promised a nearly $100 million rural clean energy loan from the Department of Agriculture. But it cannot access any of the federal money without first obtaining a “power purchase agreement,” which essentially offers proof that the electricity the tribal utility plans to generate has a destination.

    That’s hard for the tribe to do because it can’t get a purchase agreement until its project connects to the grid, which is owned by Bonneville, itself an arm of the Energy Department. Bonneville’s earliest estimate of when it will finish studying connection requests such as the Yakama Nation’s is 2027, but the federal agency says it could be longer.

    That’s just one of many steps. The tribe can’t distribute electricity from the new solar project until Bonneville completes upgrades to the section of its transmission system that serves the reservation, including the installation of a new electrical substation.

    The federal agency’s estimate for what it would charge for the substation alone: $144 million. Building transmission lines to and from the new solar array would drive the cost higher still, but Bonneville hasn’t done those estimates yet. The Yakama would have to bear those costs.

    The tribe had counted on some rate increases to pay for the solar array, but covering the unexpectedly high cost of the upgrade would add hundreds of dollars more to a household’s monthly utility bill, Wiseman said. That’s on a reservation where nearly 20% of residents have incomes below the poverty line.

    Another financial hurdle: Inflation has driven up construction costs for the solar array itself in the two years since the project was proposed.

    Even if the tribe can come up with all the extra money needed, time is working against the project. Bonneville says it will take five to seven years to build the substation after it’s paid for.

    All the delays will push the tribe up against a 2031 deadline to use or lose its $32 million grant and $100 million loan. They were funded under the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the Inflation Reduction Act, which both expire that year.

    Wiseman is no longer confident of how many miles of canal, if any, the utility can cover with solar panels. He’s unsure whether Yakama Power will need to opt for a much smaller solar array that lacks the specialized hardware needed to suspend the panels above the irrigation canals.

    “I have serious questions about whether or not these things will survive to go forward,” Wiseman said.

    The green energy traffic jam

    The Yakama Nation in many ways faces the same pressures that are holding back new wind and solar farms across the country.

    The surge in such projects over the past decade has jammed up the system that grid operators like Bonneville Power Administration use when evaluating requests to connect to the grid. The onslaught of green power has also taxed a grid designed to carry much less energy. And yet the new supply is badly needed to meet soaring demand, driven in part by thearrival of energy-guzzling data centers in the past decade.

    Bonneville is changing the way it studies energy proposals to streamline the process. But renewable developers, advocates and industry analysts have published a white paper with a list of more than 20 recommendations that they say can create the grid the Northwest needs and that, for the most part, they say Bonneville has not addressed.

    In the meantime, despite the Biden administration’s agreement last year to help tribes, their projects have not moved to the head of the line.

    Hirsh’s group, the clean and affordable energy coalition, was party to the lawsuit that the tribal deal was meant to settle. She said the government’s failure to deliver on its clean energy promises “could jeopardize the agreement.”

    Yakama Nation leaders say because of the long history of energy development violating tribal rights, and because reservations were set up with marginal infrastructure, the federal government should not treat tribes the way it does any other energy developer.

    The Department of Energy, however, says its lawyers have yet to find a way through federal energy regulations or treaty law to let the agency deal with tribal projects differently.

    Wiseman continues to incur costs on behalf of Yakama Power, planning for the solar project while doubts linger over whether all the pieces will come together in time.

    “If I can’t get the transmission access that we need — whether intentional, unintentional, whatever you want to call it — Bonneville will have single-handedly killed these projects,” Wiseman said. “And that’s why at this point, I feel incredibly frustrated, because beating them up doesn’t do me any good.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The Department of Energy promised this tribal nation a $32 million solar grant. It’s nearly impossible to access. on Sep 29, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • The Thriamvos company truck pulls up at noon outside the four-storey building in the heart of Nicosia.

    It’s the third rooftop installation of a solar-powered water heating system that Petros Mihali and his assistant, Soteris, have made in the Cypriot capital since their working day began at 7am.

    The process is perfectly choreographed and almost always the same: in the searing midday sun, the crane bolted on to the truck hoists the boiler up first, then the black-paned solar panels, then the galvanized steel mount on which the entire system will stand. Within two hours of the thermal technology being set up, the household, say the Thriamvos company employees, will have “gone solar.”

    “We do around four installations a day across Cyprus,” says Mihali. “And each takes little more than two hours at most because, like the system itself, it’s all so easy.”

    Cyprus has outstripped all other EU member states in embracing hot-water solar systems, with an estimated 93.5 percent of households exploiting the alternative energy form for domestic needs.

    EU figures show the eastern Mediterranean island exceeding renewable energy targets set in the heating and cooling of buildings thanks to the widespread use of the solar thermal technology.

    “There are many areas where Cyprus has not achieved greenhouse gas emission goals,” says Charalampos Theopemptou, the island’s first environment commissioner. “But in terms of renewable energy resources being used for the sustainable heating and cooling of buildings, we’ve met the target easily, precisely because of such extensive utilization of solar water heaters for so many years.”

    Theopemptou, a Green Party MP who heads the Cypriot parliament’s environment committee, can still vividly recall seeing the first solar water heating system installed on the rooftop of his wife’s family home almost 60 years ago.

    “It was in the late 1960s that the water heaters were introduced to Cyprus, and I can still remember the very first system here because it happened to be erected on the roof of that building in Nicosia,” he recalls. “The Israelis were the ones to introduce the technology to us and it quickly took off because it’s so simple. All you need are solar panels, a tank and copper pipes. Ever since, it’s been a wonderful solution to the hot water needs of households here.”

    The solar thermal systems not only collected solar energy as heat – usually generated through electricity and the burning of fossil fuels – they were extremely cost-effective and had helped spawn an entire industry, he explains.

    “It’s been great for low-income families and then there’s the jobs: so many have been generated,” the MP says. “There are the local manufacturers who produce the parts and then all the people who are trained to install them. It’s big business.”

    In his role as environment commissioner, Theopemptou pushed hard to make the solar systems obligatory on all newly constructed residential and commercial buildings – a move instituted by Israel back in the 1970s.

    “In my role as commissioner it was a priority,” he says. “Architects now have to make sure that rooftops not only have enough space for the installations but that they can also carry the weight.”

    The popularity of the water heaters is such that a union of local solar thermal industrialists was established in 1977. Since then, more than 962,564 square cubic meters of “solar [panel] collectors” have been installed, the union says.

    Increasingly, the country’s vibrant tourist industry has also resorted to the green solution with solar-powered hot water systems deployed in, they say, close to 100 percent of hotels.

    Electricity was slow to reach households across Cyprus. It wasn’t until 1903 that electricity was introduced by the British colonial government to the island. In 1952, eight years before the country won independence, its Electricity Authority was eventually established. In fact, in remote areas the solar systems were often put on to village rooftops before the arrival of the power grid.

    With most of the network still running on mazut fuel oil or diesel, Cyprus is among the cohort of EU countries forced to buy emission quotas from other member states to meet legal objectives – an obligation that accounts for up to a third of the monthly cost of electricity bills, much to the ire of Cypriot households. That has also played a role in homeowners installing solar water heating systems.

    For Demetra Asprou, a retired engineer, it’s obvious that a region blessed with more than 300 days of sunshine a year should embrace solar energy. “It reduces electricity costs, increases the efficiency with which hot water is provided and is kind to the environment,” she says. “Why would anyone use other, more traditional means to heat up water when only a few hours of sunlight, between 11am and 2pm, is enough for a 200-liter [44-gallon] tank to be filled with warm water that will last 48 hours? On days when there is no sunlight, which is rare, you always have electricity as a backup if necessary.”

    Now in her 70s, Asprou, who lives in a Finnish-style log house in the foothills of the Troodos Mountains, a 30-minute drive from Nicosia, was a convert to the thermal system nearly 40 years ago.

    “Installation costs may be three times higher today, but there are EU-funded grants that the government hands out and within a year it’s all paid off,” she says. “After that, you basically have free hot water and see your electricity bills greatly reduced. In a country like Cyprus, it’s a no-brainer.”

    Theopemptou accepts that the solar systems have one drawback: they’re not good for the skyline. “There’s no way about it, they’re ugly on a rooftop,” he laments. “If I have one regret its that we didn’t manage to introduce regulations to improve the aesthetics of the installations. That said, I still believe they should be mandated on all buildings across the region, given the great number of days we have sunshine in the Mediterranean.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘You basically have free hot water’: how Cyprus became a world leader in solar heating on Sep 28, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Matthias Weyland loves having people ask about his balcony. A pair of solar panels hang from the railing, casting a sheen of dark blue against the red brick of his apartment building. They’re connected to a microinverter plugged into a wall outlet and feed electricity directly into his home. On a sunny day, he’ll produce enough power to supply up to half of his family’s daily needs.

    Weyland is one of hundreds of thousands of people across Germany who have embraced balkonkraftwerk, or balcony solar. Unlike rooftop photovoltaics, the technology doesn’t require users to own their home, and anyone capable of plugging in an appliance can set it up. Most people buy the simple hardware online or at the supermarket for about $550 (500 euros.)

    The ease of installation and a potent mix of government policies to encourage adoption has made the wee arrays hugely popular. More than 550,000 of them dot cities and towns nationwide, half of which were installed in 2023. During the first half of this year, Germany added 200 megawatts of balcony solar. Regulations limit each system to just 800 watts, enough to power a small fridge or charge a laptop, but the cumulative effect is nudging the country toward its clean energy goals while giving apartment dwellers, who make up more than half of the population, an easy way to save money and address the climate crisis.

    “I love the feeling of charging the bike when the sun is shining, or having the washing machine run when the sun is shining, and to know that it comes directly from the sun,” Weyland said. “It’s a small step you can take as a tenant” and an act of “self-efficacy, to not just sit and wait until the climate crisis gets worse.”

    Balcony solar emerged around a decade ago, but didn’t catch on until four or five years ago, thanks in part to years of lobbying by solar and clean energy advocates for policies to foster its adoption. The German government enacted the first technical regulations for plug-in solar devices in 2019, allowing balcony solar systems to use standard electrical plugs and feed into the grid. That prompted an influx of plug-in devices and advocates to promote the technology.

    The pandemic helped fuel the surge in popularity as people spent time at home, working on DIY projects. More recently, the escalating energy prices that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine led more Germans to consider balcony solar. “People just did anything they could to reduce their energy bills,” said Wolfgang Gründinger, who works with the clean energy company Enpal.

    Federal and local policymakers have redoubled their efforts to make the technology more accessible. In April, the government simplified permitting and registration requirements, and in July, federal lawmakers passed renter protections that prevent landlords from arbitrarily blocking installations. Cities throughout Germany, including Berlin and Weyland’s home city of Kiel, have offered millions of euros in subsidies to install balcony solar.

    Gründinger and experts at the German Solar Industry Association noted that the devices don’t generate enough power to strain the grid, and their standardized design and safety features allow them to integrate smoothly and easily.

    The back side of a pair of solar panels is seen from the balcony of an apartment that is using the technology to provide power.
    Solar panels are connected to a microinverter that is plugged into a wall outlet and feeds electricity directly into the home. German regulations limit balcony solar systems to 800 watts, enough to power a small fridge or charge a laptop. Photo courtesy Matthias Weyland

    Despite the hype, most users concede that balcony solar provides modest cost and energy savings. Weyland spent around $530 for his 600-watt-capacity system. While he’s happy with how his south-facing panels perform during balmy weather, such days are rare in northern Germany. He estimates that he’ll save around $100 in annual electricity costs and recoup his investment in about five years. 

    That’s fairly typical, although advocates of the technology say a system’s efficacy — and, therefore, payback timeline — varies widely depending upon the number of panels, their location and direction, and how much shade surrounds them. A household with a “comparatively large well-positioned balcony system in a sunny spot facing south” can produce 15 percent of its electricity with balcony solar, according to Peter Stratmann, head of renewables at German Federal Network Agency, the country’s utility regulator. 

    While that can put a dent in a household’s utility bill, its impact on Germany’s consumption is far smaller. “Even if we attached panels to all suitable balconies across the country, we’d still only manage to meet 1 percent or less of our overall energy needs,” Stratmann told Deutsche Welle

    So if balcony solar doesn’t generate a lot of power or save a lot of money, why are so many people flocking to it? Many of them like the idea of producing energy at home and gaining a bit of independence from the grid. It also provides a tangible way to take climate action. “It makes the energy transition feel a little more concrete and not so abstract,” said Helena Holenweger of the nonprofit Deutsche Umwelthilfe, or Environmental Action Germany. She installed a balcony solar system on top of her garage about a year ago. “You can literally do something about it.”

    Holenweger and others who have tapped the sun said balcony solar led them to reevaluate their understanding of electricity consumption and take steps to reduce it. “For lots of people, energy is just something that comes out of your socket,” Holenweger said. “You never think about how it gets there or how it works.” The systems don’t include battery storage, so the juice they generate must be used immediately, leading people to plan the best time to, say, run the washing machine to ensure they’re using renewable energy. In that way, it becomes something of a game. Many balcony solar kits feature an app to track daily energy generation, providing what has, for many people, become a scorecard. “They screenshot that, they send it around to their Facebook groups, family WhatsApp groups. They’re super proud,” Gründinger said.

    Germany is unique in its rabid embrace of the tech. Although increasingly popular in Austria, the Netherlands, France, and elsewhere in Europe, plug-in solar devices aren’t viable in the United States due to costly permitting requirements and other local regulations. Beyond that, most systems are designed to European electrical standards, making them incompatible with U.S. power systems

    But even in Germany, balcony solar still faces hurdles, including fierce resistance from landlords worried about electrical fires or put off by the aesthetics of the panels. Last year, Weyland sued his building’s property management company for imposing what he deemed unreasonable requirements to install a system, including a formal inspection of the building’s electrical system. A court sided with him in October, 2023, but similar cases pop up regularly. 

    Weyland hopes that as more people adopt balcony solar, that will soon change. Already, people in his life regularly ask him about his panels, and two friends are buying systems of their own. 

    “So many people talk to me in our neighborhood and ask about the system when they see it,” Weyland said. “It’s kind of like a snowball that gets bigger and bigger.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How Germany outfitted half a million balconies with solar panels on Sep 26, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • This story was supported by the Fund for Environmental Journalism of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

    In the dusty light of a decades-old lunch counter in Lewisville, Arkansas, Chantell Dunbar-Jones expressed optimism at what the lithium boom coming to this stretch of the state will mean for her hometown. She sees jobs, economic development, and a measure of prosperity returning to a region that needs them. After waving to a gaggle of children crossing the street in honey-colored afternoon sunshine, the city council member assessed the future as best she could. “Not to say that everything’s perfect, but I feel like the positives way outweigh the negative,” she said.

    Lewisville sits in the southwest corner of the state, squarely atop the Smackover Formation, a limestone aquifer that stretches from northeast Texas to the Gulf Coast of Florida and has for 100 years spurted oil and natural gas. The petroleum industry boomed here in the 1920s and peaked again in the 1960s before declining to a steady trickle over the decades that followed. But the Smackover has more to give. The brine and bromine pooled 10,000 feet below the surface contains lithium, a critical component in the batteries needed to move beyond fossil fuels.

    Exxon Mobil is among at least four companies lining up to draw it from the earth. It opened a test site not far from Lewisville late last year and plans to extract enough of the metal to produce 100,000 electric vehicle batteries by 2026 and 1 million by 2030. Another company, Standard Lithium, believes its leases may hold 1.8 million metric tons of the material and will spend $1.3 billion building a processing facility to handle it all. All of this has Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders predicting that her state will become the nation’s leading lithium producer. 

    With so much money to be made, Dunbar-Jones and other public officials find themselves being courted by extraction company executives eager to tell them what all of this could mean for the people and places they lead. They have been hosting town meetings, promising to build lasting, mutually beneficial relationships with the communities and residents of the area. So far, Dunbar-Jones and many others are optimistic. They see a looming renaissance, even as other community members acknowledge the mixed legacies of those who earn their money pulling resources from the ground. Such companies provide livelihoods, but only as long as there is something to extract, and they often leave pollution in their wake

    The companies eyeing the riches buried beneath the pine forests and bayous promise plenty of jobs and opportunities, and paint themselves as responsible stewards of the environment. But drawing brine to the surface is a water-intensive process, and similar operations in Nevada aren’t expected to create more than a few hundred permanent jobs. It’s high-paying work, but often requires advanced degrees many in this region don’t possess. Looking beyond the employment question, some local residents are wary of the companies looking to lease their land for lithium. It brings to mind memories of the unscrupulous and shady dealings common during the oil boom of a century ago.

    For residents of Lewisville, which is majority-Black, such concerns are set against a broader history of bigotry and the fact that even as other towns prospered, they have long been the last to benefit from promises of the sort being made these days. Folks throughout the area are quick to note that the wealth that flowed from the oil fields their parents and grandparents worked benefited some more than others, even as they lived with the ecological devastation that industry left behind.

    Dunbar-Jones is confident that, if nothing else, concern about their reputation and a need to ensure cordial relations with community leaders will sway lithium companies into supporting local needs. “All I can say is right now it’s up in the air as to what they will do,” she said, “but it seems promising.” 


    Lewisville sits just west of Magnolia, El Dorado, and Camden, three cities that outline the “golden triangle” region that prospered after the discovery of oil in 1920. In an area long dependent upon timber, the plantation economy transformed almost instantly as tenant farmers, itinerant prospectors, and small landholders became rich. Within five years, 3,483 wells dotted the land, and Arkansas was producing 73 million barrels annually. 

    Although the boom created great wealth, Lewisville remained largely rural, and its residents labored in the fields that made others rich. Still, the oil economy, coupled with the timber industry, brought a rush of saloons, itinerant workers, and hotels to many towns. Restaurants, supermarkets, and other trappings of a middle-class community soon followed, though Lewisville always lagged a bit behind.

    That prosperity lasted a bit longer than the oil did. The first wells ran dry by the end of the 1920s, but the Smackover continued producing 20 to 30 million barrels annually until 1967, when it began a steady decline. These days, it offers about 4.4 million a year.

    A fading map of Arkansas on a building in Lafayette County. Grist/Lou Murrey

    The shops that once served Lewisville and the furniture and feed factories that employed those who didn’t work the fields have long since gone. Jana Crank, who has lived here for 58 years, came of age in the 1960s and remembers prosperous times. She runs a community gallery in what’s left of downtown, where most buildings sport faded paint and cracked windows. “It used to be a TV fix-it shop,” Crank, a retired high school art teacher, said of the space.

    As she spoke, a group of friends painted quietly. Canvases showing sunsets, crosses, and landscapes lined the walls. The scenes, bright and cheerful, stood in contrast to Lewisville, where retailers have moved on, the hospital has closed, and the schools have been consolidated to save money. Fewer than 900 people live here, about half as many as during the town’s peak in the 1970s. They tend to be older, with a median household income of around $30,000. “People are just dying out, their children don’t even live in town,” Crank said. “They have nothing to come back for.” 

    That could change. Jobs associated with mining rare-earth minerals are highly compensated and highly sought-after, many of them netting as much as $92,000 per year. State Commerce Secretary Hugh McDonald believes the state could provide 15 percent of the world’s lithium needs, and Sanders has said Arkansas is “moving at breakneck speed to become the lithium capital of America.”

    A few steps in that direction already have been taken around Lewisville, the county seat of Lafayette County. It is home to 13 lithium test wells, the most in the region. They’re tucked away behind pine trees, fields of cattle, and, occasionally, homes. The dirt and gravel roads leading to them have been churned to slurry by heavy equipment.

    A dirt road in Lafayette County leads to a lithium test well.
    Grist/Lou Murrey

    Those who own and work the wells arrived quietly last year, their presence indicated by the increasing number of trucks with plates from nearby Texas and Louisiana, sparking rumors throughout the region. They officially announced themselves to Mayor Ethan Dunbar last fall, in visits to local officials, mostly county leaders, to initiate friendly relations and establish the basis for economic partnerships. Mayor Dunbar and the Lewisville City Council were invited to a public meeting where lithium company executives discussed their plans and took questions.  

    The town’s motto is “Building Community Pride,” something Dunbar-Jones, who is the mayor’s sister, takes seriously. She and others have hosted movie nights, community dinners, and, in a particular point of pride, clinics to help people convicted of crimes get their records expunged. Meanwhile, the city council, joined by a number of residents, has come together to nail down just what the lithium boom will mean for the town and to ensure everyone knows what’s in store. 

    That’s particularly important, Dunbar-Jones said, because 60 percent of the town’s residents are Black. “Typically in minority neighborhoods, people are not as aware of what’s going on, because the information just doesn’t trickle down to them the way it does to other people,” she said. “At the meetings with the actual lithium companies, there may be a handful of people of color there versus others. So that lets you know who’s getting that information.”

    Chantell Dunbar-Jones talks her town’s future in the Burge’s restaurant, Lewisville’s only thriving business. Grist/Lou Murrey

    A representative of Exxon, the only company that responded to a request for comment, said it has strived to build ties with communities throughout the region. “We connect early and often with elected officials, community members and local leaders to have meaningful conversations, provide transparency, and find ways to give back,” the representative said. It has opened a community liaison office in Magnolia and has worked with the city’s Chamber of Commerce to sponsor community events. It also established a $100,000 endowment for Columbia and Lafayette counties to provide grants for “education, public safety, and quality-of-life initiatives.”

    Folks in Lewisville would like to see more of that kind of attention. In March, the city, working with the University of Arkansas Hope-Texarkana, hosted a town hall meeting so residents could speak to lithium executives and express concerns. The mayor recalls it drawing a standing room-only crowd that expressed hope that the industry would bring jobs and revenue to town, but also worried about the environmental impact. Folks called on Exxon and other companies to support new housing and establish pathways for young people to work in the industry. 

    Venesha Sasser, who at 29 is the chief development officer of the local telephone company, sees the coming boom providing an opportunity to build generational wealth for families and resources, like broadband internet access, for communities. Any company that can invest $4 billion in a lithium operation can surely afford to toss a little back, Sasser said. “We want to make sure that whoever is investing in our community, and who we are investing in, actually means our people good.”

    Sasser followed a trajectory common among young Black professionals from the area: She left to pursue an education, then returned to care for loved ones. As she got more involved in the community, she often found herself being treated a little differently, an experience Mayor Dunbar delicately described as bumping up against “old systems.” Lewisville is a majority-Black town in a majority-white county, and as of 2022, had a poverty rate of 23 percent. Although community leaders say they work well with colleagues in other towns and with county leaders, they also feel that they’ve had to elbow their way into conversations with lithium companies. They worry that the dynamics of the oil days, when Black men worked alongside whites but often in lower-paying, less desirable jobs and most of the money stayed in wealthier cities like El Dorado, will repeat themselves.

    “You had people from Magnolia and El Dorado and Spring Hill and other places coming in and doing the work and reaping the benefits, and then when it was gone, they were gone,” said Virginia Perry, a retired school teacher who grew up in Lewisville and lives in Little Rock. Her ex-husband drilled for oil years ago, and the experience left her with a sour taste in her mouth. “I’m thinking it’s going to be pretty much the same,” she said. “They’re going to ease in, they want to do all this work and create all these jobs for somebody and then ease out when it’s done in a few years. Then here we’ll be with soil that can’t grow anything, contaminated water, and a whole bunch of kids with asthma.”

    Mayor Dunbar, who is midway through his second term, is trying to balance reservations with optimism. “‘Imagine the possibilities.’ That’s my tagline,” he said, settling into a chair at City Hall. A blackboard behind him outlined his priorities: housing, recreation, education. He hopes support from companies like Tetra Technologies, which is developing a 6,138-acre project not far away, will finance those goals and give people a future that’s more stable than the past, one in which Lewisville’s children can pursue the same opportunities that kids in nearby, better-resourced communities can. 

    “Think about Albemarle in Magnolia,” he said, referring to the bromine plant about 30 miles up the road. “Get a job at Albemarle, you stay there 25 years, you earn a decent salary, you’d have a decent retirement. You can live well. Quality of life is good. We are hoping to see the same thing here.” 

    Ethan Dunbar, mayor of Lewisville, sits in front of a blackboard filled with notes on his priorities as mayor. Grist/Lou Murrey

    Many of the people poised to benefit from the lithium beneath their feet seem ambivalent about climate change. In El Dorado, in a bar called The Mink Eye, an oil refinery worker grimaced at the mention of electric vehicles. The next morning, retired oil workers gathered at Johnny B’s Grill scoffed at the idea of a boom. A waitress admitted that she’d bought stock in lithium companies, but said any faith that the industry will bring renewed prosperity does not necessarily mean folks are on board with the green transition. “These men drive diesels,” she said, pointing toward her customers. Still, she said, any jobs are good jobs.

    That attitude pervades the state capitol in Little Rock, where politicians who don’t give much thought to why the energy transition is necessary cheer the state’s emerging role in it. The governor, who has cast doubt on human-caused climate change, has appeared at industry events like the Arkansas Lithium Innovation Summit to proclaim the state “bullish” on its reserves of the element. “We all knew that towns like El Dorado and Smackover were built by oil and gas,” Sanders told the audience. “But who knew that our quiet brine and bromine industry had the potential to change the world.”

    Much of the world’s lithium is blasted out of rocks or drawn from brine left to evaporate in vast pools, leaving behind toxic residue. The companies descending on Arkansas plan to use a more sustainable method called direct lithium extraction, or DLE. It seems to be a bit more ecologically friendly and much less water-intensive than the massive pit mines or vast evaporation ponds often found in South America. It essentially pumps water into the aquifer, filters the lithium from the extracted brine, then returns it to the aquifer in what advocates call a largely closed system. Researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles, in a report prepared for the Nature Conservancy, said that “DLE appears to offer the lowest impacts of available extraction technologies.”

    Still, the technology is relatively new. According to Yale Environment 360, Arkansas provides a suitable proving ground for the approach because it has abundant water, a large concentration of lithium, and an established network of wells, pipelines, and refineries. But there are concerns about the amount of water required and the waste material left behind, despite repeated assurances from lithium companies that the process is safe and sustainable.

    Although DLE doesn’t require as much water as brine evaporation, in which that water is lost, “it is a freshwater consumption source,” Patrick Donnelly, of the Center for Biological Diversity, said in an interview with KUAF radio in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The waste generated by the process is another concern, he said, “in particular, a solid waste stream. It’s impossible for them to extract only the lithium.”  

    Locals are well aware of the impact brine can have on the land. Before anyone realized its value, oil and gas producers didn’t worry much about it leaking or spilling onto the ground, literally salting the earth. Some are concerned that the pipelines that will carry brine to refineries might leak, as they did in the oil days. Such fears are compounded by the fact the state Department of Environmental Quality relies on individuals to report problems and doesn’t appear to do much outreach to residents.

    A churned-up entrance to a lithium test site in Lafayette County. Grist/Lou Murrey

    There’s also a lot of skepticism about how many jobs the boom may create. So far, Standard Lithium’s plant in El Dorado employs 91 people, said Douglas Zollner, who works with the Arkansas branch of the Nature Conservancy and has toured the facility. No one’s offered any projections on how many people might find work in the budding industry, but a lithium boom in Nevada suggests it may not be all that many. Construction of the Thacker Pass mine, which could produce 80,000 metric tons of lithium annually, is expected to generate 1,500 temporary construction and other jobs — but it will only employ 300 once operational.

    Those jobs pay well, but typically require advanced training. Public universities like Arkansas Tech University are revising science and engineering curricula to meet the lithium industry’s needs, hoping to connect students with internships in the field. However, locals worry that disinvestment in schools in rural and largely Black communities will leave those who most need these jobs unable to attain the training necessary to land them.

    Just how much money might flow into local communities remains another open question. Fossil fuel companies lease the land they drill and pay landowners royalties of 16.67 percent of their profit. Any oil pumped from the land also is taxed at 4 to 5 percent of its market value. This fee, called severance tax, is paid to the counties or towns from which the resource was extracted. 

    None of these things apply to lithium. So far, there is no severance tax on the metal, though the state levies a tax of $2.75 for every 1,000 barrels of the brine from which it is extracted. The state Oil and Gas Commission continues haggling over a royalty rate, though it seems unlikely the fee will be as high as those paid on oil and gas leases. When the state sought a double-digit royalty, the industry balked, arguing that extracting and processing lithium is expensive and officials ought to wait until production begins in earnest before deciding what’s fair. 

    Companies cannot extract and sell the metal for commercial use until the commission sets a royalty rate, a process expected to drag on for some time. On July 26, the major players in the Arkansas lithium industry filed a joint application seeking a rate of 1.82 percent. The South Arkansas Mineral Association — which represents the majority of landowners, which is to say, timber companies, oil companies, and other corporate interests — demanded a higher share

    Small landowners still hope to benefit, and the lack of clarity around royalties hasn’t done much to engender trust among locals wary of the companies looking to lease their land. Some folks, already offered terms, are using online forums to determine if they’re being stiffed. Others fear efforts to wrest land from the few Black families who own property, often passed between generations informally without a deed or title. Such land, called heirs’ property, accounts for more than one-third of Black-owned property in the South, and without the documentation required to prove ownership, land can be subject to court-ordered sales. 

    Many in Lewisville, say they regularly receive calls and texts from people interested in buying land, and Perry has seen people checking out properties and attending auctions. During a visit to the Lafayette County courthouse archives, I noticed a woman thumbing through mineral rights records. Although she wouldn’t identify herself, she politely explained that she was checking such documents throughout Arkansas, Texas, and Louisiana, bringing to mind the speculators who, during the oil boom, did the same before approaching naive residents who may not know about the riches under their land. 

    Beyond the timber companies with holdings in the region, most of the major landowners are white and wealthy, and any spoils, Perry suspects, will simply pass from one affluent family or powerful company to another, with no benefit to people like her. “What land, honey?” she said with a small, sardonic laugh. “That’s a pie in the sky type dream to me.”


    Despite the concerns, the hype and fanfare surrounding the possibility of an economic revival remains high. City officials in Lewisville, and the people they lead, are trying to remain open-minded and easygoing even if unanswered questions linger about how many jobs might be coming, how the boom will benefit their town, and what it will mean for the environment.

    “You know, it’s kind of frustrating because the questions get asked at these meetings,” Dunbar, the mayor, said. But he feels the lithium companies often meet questions with the same pleasant, if unhelpful, answer of “We can’t talk about it.” They’re always so careful in their responses. ”They deliberately did not say anything until they knew what they wanted to do and say, that’s the same with what they want to provide communities,” Dunbar said. 

    Mayor Ethan Dunbar stands outside Lewisville city hall. Grist/Lou Murrey

    As for the $100,000 commitment from Exxon, no one’s sure exactly who will receive that money or how allocations will be made. The mayor, discussing that point, showed some frustration. He said he has tried, and will continue to try, to get the companies to put their promises of jobs and support for local infrastructure in writing.

    The balance of goodwill that he is trying to maintain between everyone involved is delicate: the lithium companies, whose jobs and support his community desperately needs; the county officials he must work with; the residents of Lewisville; and the mayors he collaborates with on grant applications. These towns are small, and word spreads quickly; relationships are as precious as the riches deep below the ground.

    As Dunbar-Jones, the city council member, finished her turkey sandwich in the late afternoon light of the diner, she spoke of her faith in the ties between the people of Lewisville. “It’s hard to get a group of people to work together, period, especially when they don’t know each other,” she said. “But we all know each other.”

    Despite her confidence, she knows she’s dealing with relationships in which companies take what they can and leave, where the question of what they owe the communities that enrich them is naive. Her father benefited from his job at Phillips 66, but it couldn’t last forever. When the oil was gone, those who profited from it were, too. From their perspective, she said, it’s a question of “How long am I going to support a community I’m no longer in? It would be unrealistic to think that there will be some long-term benefits from it.” The same is true of lithium, and the companies that will mine it. At some point, they will leave, and take their jobs and their money with them. Dunbar-Jones only hopes they leave Lewisville a little better off once they’ve left.

    Editor’s note: Climeworks is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Deja vu comes to Arkansas as lithium follows oil on Sep 25, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Most of the passengers emerging from the station in Bellvitge, a working-class neighborhood outside Barcelona, have no idea just how innovative the city’s subway system is. Using technology not unlike the regenerative braking found in hybrids and electric vehicles, the trains they rode generated some of the power flowing to the EV chargers in the nearby parking lot, the lights illuminating the station, and the escalators taking them to the platforms.

    Every time a train rumbles to a stop, the energy generated by all that friction is converted to electricity, which is fed through inverters and distributed throughout the subway system. One-third of that powers the trains; the rest provides juice to station amenities and a growing network of EV chargers.

    The ultra-fast charger outside the Bellvitge station is among four electrolineras — Spanish for “electric gas stations” — that went up in July. The city’s main transit operator, Transports Metropolitans de Barcelona, or TMB, plans to add three more as the project, called MetroCHARGE, expands. “We’re trying to take advantage of the power that’s already in the metro system and use that spare energy to feed EV chargers on the street,” said Marc Iglesias, head of sustainable mobility at Àrea Metropolitana de Barcelona, a regional agency working with TMB on the project.

    Each year, residents and tourists take 440 million trips on Barcelona’s subway system, which includes 165 stations linked by 78 miles of track. The transit agency has installed three inverters so far; 13 more are in progress. Once they’re all in place by the end of September, it expects regenerative braking to provide 41 percent of the energy needed to power the trains, a renewable source of energy it says will save about 3.9 metric tons of CO2 emissions annually. 

    Although many cities, including Vienna, Philadelphia, and São Paulo, use regenerative braking to some degree, Barcelona is among the few to use it so extensively and the first to tap it for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Utilizing energy that is otherwise lost as heat when a train slows can significantly reduce a transit system’s energy consumption. (Other efforts, such as optimizing the settings for Barcelona’s semi-autonomous trains and using AI to optimize the ventilation in each car, have further reduced energy needs by double-digit margins.)

    With the adoption of MetroCHARGE, 33 percent of the energy used by the trains comes from regenerative braking, or enough to power 25 subway stations, said Jordi Picas, who leads the project and is director of metro systems at TMB. In subway systems that don’t deploy regenerative braking, “there’s so much energy that’s not being used, and not only is it lost, it also generates heat that spreads inside the tunnels and increases the temperature,” he said. Since implementing regenerative braking, the temperature in Barcelona’s subway system has decreased by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit.

    Last year, transportation electrification surpassed renewable energy as the world’s largest category of energy transition investment, receiving about $634 billion globally. Although implementing MetroCHARGE has cost about $8.6 million (7.8 million euros), TMB expects to recoup that in 4 to 5 years through energy savings and revenue from the charging stations, where drivers pay about 33 cents per kilowatt-hour that flows into their cars.

    Metro systems worldwide already have the electric infrastructure needed to adopt this approach, but not all of them use trains outfitted with regenerative braking — and retrofitting it is expensive, Picas said. All of Barcelona’s trains have featured the technology since the 1980s. Given that a single train costs about $6.6 million and has an average lifespan of 35 to 45 years, it’s essential that transit operators include them in medium- and long-term planning, he said.

    There are other challenges beyond cost, like finding optimal spots for the inverters and charging stations in a dense metropolitan area. “The hardest challenge was reaching an agreement with the various city halls to get access to the public space to set up the chargers,” said Picas. 

    Other cities have expressed an interest in replicating MetroCHARGE, and TMB recently met a delegation from New Delhi. It has also shared information with officials from Vienna and an international consortium of 45 transit systems called The Community of Metros Benchmarking Group. Cities like New York — which has the world’s fifth-largest metro system, with 472 stations and 665 miles of track — could see significant energy savings from regenerative braking due to the sheer scale of its subway network, said Ahmed Mohamed, director of graduate studies at the Department of Electrical Engineering at the City College of New York.

    In a 2018 study, Mohamed and his team found that the Metropolitan Transit Authority, or MTA, which runs New York’s subways, could cut its energy consumption by 35 percent if it adopted regenerative braking system wide and used the electricity it generates to power trains and station amenities. As of 2022, just half of the city’s trains use the technology, according to the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, although any new trains are required to have it. However, “there’s not necessarily a strategic plan for how they can be used for energy saving,” Mohamed said, adding that the MTA, which would not make anyone available to comment, favors regenerative braking because it requires less maintenance than conventional friction brakes.

    One of the main barriers to implementing regenerative braking is the lack of data outlining just how much energy, and money, might be saved with its adoption, Mohamed said. “When you’re not quite sure about the savings, it’s hard to run a cost-benefit analysis, so decision-making is not very easy,” he said. “It’s important to fund pilot projects to get the real numbers.”

    Learning from projects like MetroCHARGE could help other cities understand the benefits of regenerative braking, Mohamed said. Improved modeling and encouraging transit systems to share the details of their systems so others may learn from them would help, too. 

    Another challenge is the number of stakeholders involved — including technology and electricity companies — makes determining things like who should pay for the project difficult. “Who’s running it? Who’s controlling it? And what’s the role of different stakeholders?” Mohamed said. He’d like to see the MTA take the lead in adopting this energy-saving technology so the trains rumbling into its stations might one day power cars on the busy New York city streets above.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Barcelona is turning subway trains into power stations on Sep 24, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • This spring in Michigan, the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Potawatomi, or Gun Lake Tribe, received 4 million dollars from the Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal Climate Resilience program, an initiative that aims to help tribes prepare for climate change. The money will be used to buy a fleet of electric vehicles, help the nation manage a gray water system, and install a solar array that will cut the tribe’s electricity bills by around 80 percent and make the nation more self-sufficient. Underneath the two-acre solar array will be gardens of native flowers like butterfly weed, purple prairie clover, and primrose to help with the tribe’s prairie restoration efforts.

    “We need to be innovative and find ways to leave less of a carbon footprint,” said Gun Lake tribal council member Virginia Vanderband. “If we can generate enough energy for our infrastructure, great.” The tribe has other investments – real estate, a construction company, a grocery store – and while the green energy project is doing well, becoming part of the energy market is “not a focus”, Vanderband said. 

    That seeming-lack of interest in joining the growing green energy market is the focus of a recent economic study coming out of the University of Wisconsin-Madison details barriers – like federal red tape – that tribes face when starting green energy projects. If these prohibitive barriers are not addressed, researchers tribes across the United States will lose out on 19 billion dollars of revenue by 2050.

    During the early 1800s tribes were forcibly relocated to reservations. Tribes were coerced into signing treaties that ceded land for settlers in exchange for lands and rights, a process that built the United States and its wealth. Many of the reservations that tribal nations were moved to were lands that settlers deemed less economically rich, however, today much of that land is perfect for solar and wind development.

    Altogether, tribal lands represent an area the size of New Mexico, but not all nations have access to land for development, leaving out hundreds of tribes from the green energy market. Out of the 574 federally recognized tribes nearly 250 do not have reservations. 

    In 2022, approximately 100 solar farms on reservations generated about 2 percent of all solar energy in the U.S., while around 3,000 reservation wind turbines produced about 5 percent of the nation’s wind energy. However, the University of Wisconsin-Madison study found that of 169 utility-sized wind and solar projects on reservation land, only around 5 percent are tribally owned. 

    In many tribal communities, poverty rates remain high–the result of federal policies that have undermined Indigenous economies–and according to the study, “the top 25 percent of reservations in terms of renewable endowments are also currently the group with the lowest incomes.” But while these tribal communities have the most to gain in terms of energy independence and new income streams, the study found that the lands in question aren’t any more likely to be developed than national parks, forests, or wildlife refuges where development is not allowed. 

    “That’s striking,” said Dominic Parker, the author of the study. “You have reservation areas where there’s populations living. [Wind and solar] development is not expressly prohibited. And yet, you’re not seeing any more development than these nearby areas where it is expressly prohibited.” 

    One reason, according to Parker, is the long process of getting permissions from tribal and federal entities, a process he calls ‘white tape’, instead of ‘red’, to describe the patronizing relationship between federal entities and tribes. Tribes are not legally allowed to fully manage land, water, and other resources that are theirs that could contribute to growing their economies. As well, Parker’s research shows that green energy development companies often go to private land near reservations where “paternalistic” federal regulatory rules don’t apply. 

    “Historically, when resources have been harnessed for mainstream public or private economic benefit, the consequences have often been disastrous for Indigenous peoples,” the study said. In the 1950s, federal initiatives incentivized nuclear power that eventually poisoned communities like the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe, while the push for dams as an energy resource decimated and flooded tribal lands in the pacific northwest.

    But a big part of the green energy conversation, at least for Virginia Vanderband at Gun Lake, is keeping tribal sovereignty a priority. Just because energy initiatives are going green doesn’t mean that it’s the responsibility of tribes to go along with what the federal government wants.

    “We have a social responsibility to the land to keep it clean, to only take what we need,” Vanderband said. “We must maintain our sovereignty first. We have the right to govern ourselves. This allows us to honor and preserve our culture and our way of life.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Why aren’t tribal nations installing more green energy? Blame ‘white tape.’ on Sep 23, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • A hulking steel plant in Middletown, Ohio, is the city’s economic heartbeat as well as a keystone origin story of JD Vance, the hometown senator now running to be Donald Trump’s vice president.

    Its future, however, may hinge upon $500 million in funding from landmark climate legislation that Vance has called a “scam” and is a Trump target for demolition.

    In March, President Joe Biden’s administration announced the US’s largest-ever grant to produce greener steel, enabling the Cleveland-Cliffs facility in Middletown to build one of the largest hydrogen fuel furnaces in the world, cutting emissions by a million tons a year by ditching the coal that accelerates the climate crisis and befouls the air for nearby locals.

    In a blue-collar urban area north of Cincinnati that has long pinned its fortunes upon the vicissitudes of the U.S. steel industry, the investment’s promise of a revitalized plant with 170 new jobs and 1,200 temporary construction positions was met with jubilation among residents and unions.

    “It felt like a miracle, an answered prayer that we weren’t going to be left to die on the vine,” said Michael Bailey, who is now a pastor in Middletown but worked at the plant, then owned by Armco, for 30 years.

    “It hit the news and you could almost hear everybody screaming, ‘Yay yay yay!’,” said Heather Gibson, owner of the Triple Moon cafe in central Middletown. “It showed commitment for the long term. It was just so exciting.”

    This funding from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the $370 billion bill to turbocharge clean energy signed by Biden after narrowly passing Congress via Democratic votes in 2022, has been far less thrilling to Vance, however, despite his deep personal ties to the Cleveland-Cliffs plant.

    The steel mill, dating back to 1899 and now employing about 2,500 people, is foundational to Middletown, helping churn out the first generations of cars and then wartime tanks. Vance’s late grandfather, who he called Papaw, was a union worker at the plant, making it the family’s “economic savior — the engine that brought them from the hills of Kentucky into America’s middle class,” Vance wrote in his memoir, Hillbilly Elegy.

    But although it grew into a prosperous all-American city built on steel and paper production, Middletown became a place “hemorrhaging jobs and hope” as industries decamped offshore in the 1980s, Vance wrote. He sees little salvation in the IRA even as, by one estimate, it has already spurred $10 billion in investment and nearly 14,000 new jobs in Ohio.

    When campaigning for the Senate in 2022, Vance said Biden’s sweeping climate bill is “dumb, does nothing for the environment, and will make us all poorer,” and more recently as vice presidential candidate called the IRA a “green energy scam that’s actually shipped a lot more manufacturing jobs to China.”

    A mural of an old timey man in a hat stands on a brick building on a small town street
    A mural covers the side of a downtown building in Middletown. Scott Olson/Getty Images

    America needs “a leader who rejects Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’ green new scam and fights to bring back our great American factories,” Vance said at the Republican convention in July. “We need President Donald J. Trump.”

    Republicans in Congress have repeatedly attempted to gut the IRA, with Project 2025, a conservative blueprint authored by many former Trump officials, demanding its repeal should Republicans regain the White House.

    Such plans have major implications for Vance’s hometown. The Middletown plant’s $500 million grant from the Department of Energy, still not formally handed over, could be halted if Trump prevails in November. The former president recently vowed to “terminate Kamala Harris’ green new scam and rescind all of the unspent funds.”

    Some longtime Middletown residents are bemused by such opposition. “How can you think that saving the lives of people is the wrong thing to do?” said Adrienne Shearer, a small business adviser who spent several decades helping the reinvigoration of Middletown’s downtown area, which was hollowed out by economic malaise, offshore jobs, and out-of-town malls.

    “People thought the plant was in danger of leaving or closing, which would totally destroy the town,” she said. “And now people think it’s not going anywhere.”

    Shearer, a political independent, said she didn’t like Vance’s book because it “trashed our community” and that he had shown no alternative vision for his hometown. “Maybe people who serve with him in Washington know him, but we don’t here in Middletown,” she said.

    Climate campaigners are even more scathing of Vance. “It’s no surprise that he’s now threatening to gut a $500 million investment in U.S. manufacturing in his own hometown,” said Pete Jones, rapid response director at Climate Power. “Vance wrote a book about economic hardship in his home town, and now he has 900 new pages from Trump’s dangerous Project 2025 agenda to make the problem worse so that Big Oil can profit.”

    Local Republicans are more complimentary, even if they differ somewhat on the IRA. Mark Messer, Republican mayor of the neighboring town of Lebanon, used the vast bill’s clean energy tax credits to offset the cost of an upcoming solar array that will help slash energy costs for residents. Still, Vance is a strong running mate for Trump and has “done good for Ohio,” according to Messer.

    “My focus is my constituents and doing what’s best for them – how else will this empty floodplain produce $1 million for people in our town?” Messer said. “Nothing is going do that but solar. I’m happy to use the IRA, but if I had a national role my view might be different. I mean printing money and giving it away to people won’t solve inflation, it will make it worse.”

    Some Middletown voters are proud of Vance’s ascension, too. “You have to give him credit, he went to [Yale] Law School, he built his own business up in the financial industry — he’s self-made, he did it all on his own,” said Doug Pergram, a local business owner who blames Democrats for high inflation and is planning to vote for Trump and Vance, even though he thinks the steel plant investment is welcome.

    Ted Farmer, left, and Floyd Croucher, volunteers with the Butler county Republican party, hang campaign signs in the window at the party’s office.
    Scott Olson/Getty Images

    This illustrates a problem for Democrats, who have struggled to translate a surge of new clean energy projects and a glut of resulting jobs into voting strength, with polls showing most Americans don’t know much about the IRA or don’t credit Biden or Harris for its benefits.

    Ohio was once a swing state but voted for Trump — with his promises of Rust belt renewal that’s only now materializing under Biden — in the last two elections and is set to do the same again in November. Harris, meanwhile, has only fleetingly mentioned climate change and barely attempted to sell the IRA, a groundbreaking but deeply unsexy volume of rebates and tax credits, on the campaign trail.

    “Democrats have not done well in patting themselves on the back, they need to be out there screaming from the rooftops, ‘This is what we’ve done,’” said Gibson, a political independent who suffers directly from the status quo by living next to the Middletown facility that converts coal into coke, a particularly dirty process, that will become obsolete in the mill’s new era.

    “The air pollution is horrendous, so the idea of eliminating the need for coke, well, I can’t tell you how happy that makes me,” said Gibson. The site, called SunCoke, heats half a million short tons of coal a year to make coke that’s funneled to the steel plant, a process that causes a strong odor and spews debris across the neighborhood. Gibson rarely opens her windows because of this pollution.

    “Last year it snowed in July, all this white stuff was falling from the sky,” Gibson said. “The soot covers everything, covers the car, I have to Clorox my windows. The smell is so bad I’ve had to end get-togethers early from my house because people get so sick. It gives you an instant headache. It burns your throat, it burns your nose. It’s just awful.”

    The prospect of a cleaner, more secure future for Middletown is something the Biden administration tried to stress in March, when Jennifer Granholm, the U.S. energy secretary, appeared at the steel mill with the Cleveland-Cliffs chief executive, union leaders, and workers to extol the new hydrogen furnace. The grant helps solve a knotty problem where industry is reluctant to invest in cleaner-burning hydrogen because there aren’t enough extant examples of such technology.

    “Mills like this aren’t just employers, they are anchors embedded deeply in the community. We want your kids and grandkids to produce steel here in America too,” Granholm said. “Consumers are demanding cleaner, greener products all over the world. We don’t want to just make the best products in the world, we want to make sure we make the best and cleanest products in the world.”

    Lourenco Goncalves, chief executive of Cleveland-Cliffs, the largest flat-rolled steel producer in North America, followed Granholm to boast that a low-emissions furnace of this size was a world first, with the technology set to be expanded to 15 other company plants in the U.S.

    Republicans elsewhere in the U.S. have jumped onboard similar ribbon-cutting events, despite voting against the funding that enables them, but notably absent among the dignitaries seated in front of two enormous American flags hanging in the Middletown warehouse that day was Vance, the Ohio senator who went to high school just 4 miles from this place. His office did not respond to questions about the plant or his plans for the future of the IRA.

    Bailey, a 71-year-old who retired from the steel plant in 2002, said that as a pastor he did speak several times to Vance about ways to aid Middletown but then became alarmed by the senator’s rightward shift in comments about women, as well as his lack of support for the new steel mill funding.

    “JD Vance has never mentioned anything about helping Middletown rebound,” said Bailey, who witnessed a “brutal” 2006 management lockout of workers during a union dispute after which drug addiction and homelessness soared in Middletown. “He’s used Middletown for, in my view, his own personal gain.

    “Somewhere in there, JD changed,” he added. “He’s allowed outsiders to pimp him. This guy is embarrassing us. That’s not who we are.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How JD Vance’s hometown has won millions in climate investment that he calls a ‘green scam’ on Sep 22, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • The new Labour Party government is stripping winter fuel payments from 1.6 million pensioners living in poverty this winter. This is according to a Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) minister – showing that Labour knew this – but are ploughing ahead anyway.

    Winter fuel payments cut: hitting the poorest households

    Previously, charity Age UK revealed that Labour’s callous winter fuel payments cut would deny 1.6 million pensioners in poverty the vital benefit this winter.

    As the Canary has already pointed out, this will be right as energy bills increase. This is because regulator Ofgem is raising the energy price cap from 1 October.

    Now, the DWP’s own figures corroborate this estimate exactly – showing that the Labour government knew this all along.

    Specifically, the DWP detailed that:

    • 1.6 million pensioners living in relative poverty after housing costs – 84% – were not claiming Pension Credits.
    • 1.2 million pensioners living in absolute poverty after housing costs – 85% – were not claiming them.

    DWP minister Emma Reynolds disclosed the information in response to two written questions from MPs. The first was from Labour MP for Lowestoft Jess Asato. She tabled the question on 30 August. Of course, this was a little under two weeks before she voted with the government to strip pensioners of it.

    The second was from former DWP boss Mel Stride. Obviously, this was ironic, given that during his time overseeing the department, he’d also put forward a sweep of similarly regressive reform proposals. Nonetheless, Stride submitted his question a few days after Asato, at the start of September.

    As Reynolds explained in her response to the winter fuel payments cut question:

    A household is in relative poverty if its income is less than 60 per cent of the median household income in a given financial year. ​A household is in absolute poverty if its income is less than 60% of median household income in 2010/11, uprated by inflation.​

    However, Age UK’s estimates already showed it’s worse than this. Its calculations went further than the DWP’s. Crucially, it identified a further 900,000 older people living no more than £55 a week above the relative poverty line who would also lose the benefit.

    Pension Credit uptake falling far short

    Of course, despite the fact that by the DWP’s own reckoning, this group of 2.8 million pensioners are living in poverty, many still won’t be eligible for Pension Credits. By its own estimates again, it calculated that 880,000 households with pensioners could claim this, but currently aren’t.

    Largely, this is because either they are unaware they’re eligible, or due to the complexity of applying for it – given the application form has over 240 questions.

    And so far, the government’s drive to increase uptake in Pension Credits has barely made a dent on this. Reynolds boasted in another response that its Pension Credit campaign had caused a 115% surge in applications. Specifically, this was in the five weeks after it launched this, compared to the five weeks prior to it.

    However, this equated to just 38,500 new claims. This is around 4% of the 880,000 it said are eligible in the wake of the winter fuel payments cut, but not yet claiming it. In other words, well over 800,000 households who should get Pension Credits – and by extension, the winter fuel payments – won’t now receive it this winter.

    That’s also before taking into account the process times for new claims. Notably, the DWP has been telling people it could take up to nine weeks to even process these new applications.

    Yet, the DWP newly confirmed figures now show the winter fuel payments cut will actually hit many more pensioners not able to claim Pension Credits, but also living in poverty.

    1.6 million: a reoccurring figure

    Naturally, this is just the tip of the iceberg. The DWP’s Friday night publication of the department’s winter fuel payments cut Equality Analysis also exposed the disproportionate impact of the cut on other marginalised groups.

    Not only is Labour slashing the payment to 1.6 million pensioners in poverty, but the same number of disabled people will also lose out. This was 71% of disabled pensioners entitled to the benefit. As well as this, the analysis revealed that the cut would hit women more than men. Approximately 5.2 million women will lose the winter fuel payments, to 4.8 million men this winter.

    Of course, multiple pensioner and disability rights charities have been highlighting the devastating toll since chancellor Rachel Reeves announced this. Now however, this is more proof that the Labour government will have been aware of all this beforehand.

    In other words, the new government has readily thrown poor and disabled pensioners under the bus. DWP minister Reynolds’ revelations about winter fuel payments should be damning. However, it’s unlikely to stop Starmer and co in their tracks. After all, it’s nothing they didn’t already know, and choose to deliberately ignore anyway.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Over 20,000 people have flooded energy regulator Ofgem’s inbox calling for it to scrap cruel standing charges on energy bills. As part of Energy For All’s letter-writing campaign, thousands have sent emails to demand it ditch the flat-rate daily charge that disproportionately impacts poorer households – on top of the cut to the winter fuel payments.

    20,000 call for Ofgem to ditch cruel standing charges

    With energy bills set to rise 10% on 1 October, Fuel Poverty Action, Green New Deal Rising, and the Peace and Justice Project have been urging the public to take action.

    The campaign is in response to Ofgem’s current consultation on standing charges, which closes on 20 September. As the regulator explained in this, standing charges are:

    set by your energy supplier and are also included in the energy price cap. Your supplier will charge you this cost each day, even if you do not use any energy on that day. The charge covers the cost to maintain the energy supply network, take meter readings, and support government social and environmental schemes.

    In January, Ofgem closed its first consultation on the standing charge. Over 30,000 members of the public responded to this, which the regulator itself acknowledged:

    demonstrated the strength of feeling among the public for change

    Crucially, prominent among these changes was for Ofgem to abolish the standing charge altogether. Instead, respondents said it should shift:

    these costs to energy suppliers to absorb using profits

    However, this is not what Ofgem has put forward in the new consultation. So, the Energy For All campaign is getting members of the public to call it out.

    Notably, 30,000 individuals engaged with the previous two-month consultation. This time, more than 20,000 people have directly added their name to the call to abolish the standing charges altogether- with many thousands joining the campaign in just the last week alone.

    Fuel Poverty Action’s Jonathan Bean said that:

    Ofgem proposing only minor tweaks in this latest consultation flies in the face of the clear verdict of the last consultation

    They’ve chosen to quietly consult again while winter fuel payments dominate the news. That’s why Fuel Poverty Action have teamed up with Green New Deal Rising and the Peace & Justice Project to make sure that this time Ofgem gets the message.

    The ‘cruelty of our current system’

    Due to Ofgem raising the energy price cap, these standing charges – set by suppliers – will also rise this winter. Crucially, it means the standing charge will be over £330 a year. Energy suppliers will charge this, even when people are not using any energy.

    Bean warned that this could push many into fuel poverty this winter. He argued that:

    the cruelty of our current system is that even those living in small flats using no energy at all are paying the same standing charge as high users living in mansions.

    The standing charge alone is enough to push many into fuel poverty, before they are allowed to buy any energy at all,’ says Bean.

    Energy is essential. We aren’t charged £7 at the supermarket door to be allowed in to do our weekly shop. This outrageous poll tax on energy hits the poorest hardest.

    Of course, this is also coming on top of Labour Party’s callous decision to cut the winter fuel payment to millions of pensioners.

    Given that many low-income pensioners are now set to lose out on the winter fuel payment, campaigners say standing charges will push many into ‘energy starvation’.

    Moreover, as the Canary previously highlighted, the winter fuel payment cut, alongside rising standing charges are a double-whammy for pensioners this winter. We wrote how the standing charges already make up a disproportionate amount of low energy users’ bills.

    General Secretary of the National Pensioner’s Convention Jan Shortt emphasised the impact this will have on elderly people:

    Standing charges have reached such a level that they now make up the bulk of household bills. For those older people who have cut down on their consumption due to the cost of energy, there is very little difference in savings.

    Therefore, Shortt argued that:

    The Regulator should get rid of them and work on a strategy to apply energy for all which is the fairest way to support those most in need.

    Echoing this, Bean also said that:

    Due to the energy price crisis, many older people resort to turning off their heating altogether, putting their health at risk.

    It’s especially brutal for single pensioners hit hard by both the £330 standing charge and losing their £300 winter fuel payment.

    Compounding the energy crisis for chronically ill and disabled people

    The Canary also underscored how the winter fuel payment, alongside soaring standing charges with rising energy bills will also disproportionately hit chronically ill and disabled people.

    Firstly, with the unit price going up, higher energy users will be hit. Obviously this includes:

    chronically ill and disabled people who typically have greater energy needs for aids and equipment to help manage their conditions.

    Then, the staggering standing charges will eat into disabled people’s – many of whom are on low-incomes to begin with – vital finances needed to look after their health.

    To make matters worse, the government’s equality analysis has intimated that 1.6 million disabled pensioners will now lose the winter fuel payment this winter.

    Naturally, each of these compound the impacts of the energy crisis for chronically ill and disabled people.

    It’s why members of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) are also lending their support to the campaign. Rick Burgess from Manchester DPAC said:

    everyone paying a standing charge is subsidising failed companies in our failed privatised utility sector.

    Even before using a single unit of energy disabled people pay tens of pounds a month to cover over Ofgem’s shame. Money we actually need to avoid worsening health. Instead it is taken from us under threat by a failed utility system.

    Corbyn backs the standing charges campaign – and you can too

    However, Ofgem is only tinkering around at the edges of the problem – much like Labour has on the winter fuel payments.

    It’s consulting on ‘reform’ options to the standing charge.

    The regulator’s latest proposals include shifting some of the standing charge onto unit prices. However, campaigners say Ofgem is asking ‘all the wrong questions’.

    They have pointed to Ofgem’s decision last year to hand British Gas an extra £500m in profits. As a result, they argue that reducing standing charges should not mean higher bills.

    The campaign letter blasts Ofgem on this point, saying:

    it is plain wrong that your latest consultation suggests that savings on standing prices must mean increases in unit prices. You need to do your job to cut costs and profits, and work with Government to get rid of the levies and taxes that are a big chunk of the standing charges.

    Bean also summed this up, saying:

    We are paying for the bloated overheads and obscene profits of energy firms.

    But it doesn’t have to be this way. Ending standing charges is the first step towards implementing Energy For All, which has the backing of over 660,000 people.

    Ofgem and the government need to overhaul our broken energy system, so no one suffers energy starvation over winter.

    Politicians from multiple political parties have taken aim at standing charges. Labour has promised to reduce them, and both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have manifesto commitments to reform them.

    By contrast however, Independent Alliance MP Jeremy Corbyn has come out in support of the Energy For All’s demand to scrap them altogether. He said that:

    standing charges are intrinsically unfair as they charge everyone the same regardless of income or wealth.

    I first opposed standing charges when I entered Parliament in the 1980’s and still do now. It’s time for them to go and I’m proud that our Peace & Justice Project is supporting this campaign.

    There’s still time to join him and tens of thousands of others who’ve already spoken up against these cruel standing charges. Energy For All are sending the letters to Ofgem CEO Jonathan Brearley, Director General Tim Jarvis, and Energy Minister Miatta Fahnbulleh MP. Fuel Poverty Action will also highlight these in its official consultation response.  You can add your name and send an email as part of the campaign here.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.