Back
A number of Connecticut cities and towns want to secure more clean electricity for residents using a program that has already saved millions of dollars for consumers in other states.
Community choice aggregation allows cities and towns — or, in some cases, multiple municipalities working together — to negotiate with electricity suppliers on behalf of their residents. The goal is to achieve lower rates than those offered by utilities, often with a higher percentage of renewable energy in the mix.
“Municipalities can play a bigger role in using less electricity, using it more efficiently, and reducing the cost,” said Peter Millman, vice president of People’s Action for Clean Energy, a Connecticut nonprofit that supports community choice aggregation. “I hate to see an opportunity wasted.”
Nationally, community choice aggregation, also known as municipal aggregation, is authorized by ten states, including Northeast neighbors Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island. Connecticut could become the eleventh: The state legislature is now considering a bill, HB 6928, that would allow municipalities to create these programs. The measure has wide support from environmental groups and municipal leaders.
Data suggest there are opportunities for meaningful savings. In Massachusetts, 225 of the state’s 351 cities and towns had approved municipal aggregation programs as of July 2024, and many include a higher percentage of renewable energy than required by law. In one group of communities, households realized an average of $200 to $237 in annual savings while receiving electricity with 5% to 11% more renewable power content than state requirements, according to an analysis from the Green Energy Consumers Alliance, a nonprofit that helps municipalities create aggregation programs.
“History shows that when a community aggregates consumers for the supplier side, good things happen,” said Larry Chretien, executive director of the organization. “It’s a fallacy that you can’t have greener power without paying more.”
Connecticut’s version of aggregation could be particularly ambitious, following a model used in California and New Hampshire. This approach allows cities and towns to choose between a basic aggregation program, in which a hired energy broker negotiates for electricity on behalf of residents, and a system in which multiple municipalities band together to form a larger aggregator that could handle the process of procuring power itself.
The multi-community approach allows these aggregation groups to retain the revenues that would have gone to an outside broker and use these reserve funds to develop and manage their own programs aimed at producing renewable energy, supporting energy efficiency, or reducing demand. In its first year, New Hampshire’s aggregation program saved ratepayers in participating communities about $14 million and created revenue of $10 million for reinvestment.
In California, this strategy has helped fund dozens of programs including battery rebates, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and discounts on solar power for low-income households.
Some skeptics of community choice aggregation have raised concerns about Connecticut’s proposed model, which would make a city or town’s negotiated rate the default for residents but allow them to opt out if they’d rather stick with utility service or an alternate supplier. Consumers, they say, should not be placed in a new program without choosing to make the move.
Supporters, however, argue that the successes in states where municipal aggregation has already been deployed demonstrate the model works with little risk to consumers.
“The opt-in model simply doesn’t work,” Millman said at a legislative committee hearing last week. “If these aggregations were not meeting or beating utility rates most of the time, there would be lots and lots of defections — and there are not.”
The numbers are in, and clean energy is set to sweep U.S. power plant construction yet again this year.
The U.S. is expected to build 63 gigawatts of power plant capacity this year, more than it has in decades, as new AI computing and domestic manufacturing projects cause a surge in energy demand. At this crucial juncture, plants that don’t burn fossil fuels are set to deliver 93% of all the new capacity joining the U.S. grid in 2025, per new estimates from the federal Energy Information Administration.
The new prediction is no fluke — carbon-free sources delivered nearly all the new capacity last year, too. And the trend was building for years before that.
This year, utility-scale solar is expected to continue its winning streak as the largest source of new electricity generation. More than half of new power plant capacity built this year will be solar, followed by batteries, with 29% of total capacity. That’s a step up for batteries from last year. Meanwhile, solar’s share is forecast to fall, but EIA expects more construction in absolute terms — 32.5 gigawatts compared to 30 last year.
Wind will add 12% of the new capacity, burnished by two major offshore wind projects the EIA still expects to come online despite political headwinds: Massachusetts’ 800-megawatt Vineyard Wind 1 and Rhode Island’s 715-megawatt Revolution Wind. The Trump administration unilaterally halted federal permitting for new offshore wind projects, but these are among the five that were already under construction, with necessary permits in hand.
This dominant showing from clean energy developers leaves natural gas with just 7% of new power capacity. That fossil fuel still leads in total U.S. electricity generation with about 42% of the mix but has entered a multi-year slump in terms of new construction.
The EIA predicts total gas-fired generation — the actual electricity produced — will fall 3% this year while solar generation rises by more than one-third.
This dataset offers a snapshot of where the U.S. power industry is heading — and the direction is toward cleaner, cheaper energy that mainly comes from solar and batteries.
But beyond the climate metrics, these clean power plants are proving vital in meeting the needs of an increasingly power-hungry economy. Data centers, AI hubs, and the domestic manufacturing that grew during the Biden administration all need more electricity. Renewables and batteries are the source of energy that can meet this demand most quickly and cost-effectively, though they still need to work alongside other resources to ensure 24/7 service.
A 67-person Finnish startup called Hycamite has just completed a facility it hopes will revolutionize production of low-carbon hydrogen.
The plant, in the industrial port city of Kokkola, on Finland’s west coast, will soon receive gas shipments from a nearby liquefied natural gas import terminal and turn the fossil fuel into hydrogen. That in itself is not novel — pretty much all of the world’s commercially produced hydrogen comes from methane, the main ingredient in natural gas. But all those legacy hydrogen producers end up with carbon dioxide as a byproduct, and they vent it into the atmosphere, exacerbating climate change. Hycamite will make hydrogen without releasing CO2, using a little-known process called methane pyrolysis.
“We split the methane with the help of catalysts and heat — there’s no oxygen present in the reactor, so that there’s no CO2 emissions at all,” founder and Chairman Matti Malkamäki told Canary Media in a December interview. “We are now entering industrial-scale production.”
Hycamite’s Customer Sample Facility in Kokkola can produce 5.5 tons of clean hydrogen per day, or 2,000 tons per year, Malkamäki said. Instead of creating carbon dioxide as an inconvenient gaseous byproduct, pyrolysis yields solid carbon. Hycamite uses catalysts developed over 20 years by professor Ulla Lassi at the University of Oulu, which transform the methane into “carbon nanofibers with graphitic areas.” This solid carbon can be processed further to produce graphite that Malkamäki plans to sell to battery manufacturers and other high-tech industries.
Hycamite closed a $45 million Series A investment in January to fund operations at the hydrogen plant. But it’s just one of a growing cluster of climatetech startups betting that the dual revenue stream of hydrogen and useful carbon products gives them an edge in the nascent marketplace for clean hydrogen, a much-hyped, little-produced wonder fuel for solving tricky climate problems.
Low-carbon hydrogen theoretically could clean up emissions-heavy activities like long-distance trucking, shipping, steel making, and refining — if anyone can manage to make it, at volume, at prices that compete with the dirty stuff that’s already available. In the U.S., some hydrogen producers and fossil fuel majors have talked about retrofitting carbon-capture machinery onto existing hydrogen plants, but nobody’s built a full-scale “blue hydrogen” operation so far. Renewables developers have evangelized “green hydrogen,” which is made by running clean electricity through water to isolate hydrogen, but they need electrolyzers and the production of clean electrons to get considerably cheaper. Until then, they’ll depend heavily on government policy support.
Now President Donald Trump is treating Joe Biden’s suite of clean energy policies like a piñata, and it’s hard to tell if incentives for producing green hydrogen will even survive. That’s already scaring off investors from large, capital-intensive green hydrogen projects. But the up-and-coming pyrolysis crew could find a niche: Their projects are smaller and nimbler, and they consume natural gas, one sector that Trump has ordered his government to encourage.
Methane pyrolysis entrepreneurs like Malkamäki are heeding the call of fundamental chemistry.
“Thermodynamically, it’s far more energy-favorable to split methane than to split water,” said Raivat Singhania, a materials scientist who scrutinizes hydrogen startups at Third Derivative, a clean energy deep-tech accelerator. Water’s chemical bonds hold together more fiercely than methane. That means companies trying to make clean hydrogen by splitting water need huge amounts of electricity to overcome the strength of its bonds; sourcing that electricity creates a daunting cost and a logistical hurdle.
Not only does methane-splitting require less energy, it can be done with a simpler plant design than water electrolysis, using fewer moving parts or fragile pieces of equipment, Singhania noted. This analysis informed Third Derivative’s investment in Aurora Hydrogen, which breaks methane using microwaves.
Those thermodynamic advantages come with tradeoffs. Namely, would-be methane pyrolyzers need a ready source of methane, which in practical terms means a pipe delivering fossil gas. That inevitably entails some level of upstream emissions.
Methane pyrolyzers also need to be located where gas is abundant. It’d be hard to scale up in places like Europe, post Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, or Massachusetts when winter rolls around. But supply is ample across much of the U.S., which is producing more fossil gas than any country ever. Hycamite is building its commercial test facility in its home base of Finland, but the company is looking to the U.S. to deploy its technology, Malkamäki said.
Right after taking office in January, Trump responded to world records in U.S. fossil fuel production by declaring an “energy emergency” and ordering his administration to clear the way for even more fossil fuel extraction.
It’s not clear whether the fossil fuel industry can or wishes to increase production dramatically; in market-based systems, excess supply tends to deflate prices. Whether production stays at current record highs or pushes further skyward, the U.S. will have plenty of gas to go around, and methane pyrolysis companies could generate the kind of new demand that the industry desperately needs. Moreover, they would be using American fossil fuel abundance to create materials useful for the transition to clean energy.
For that to happen, though, pyrolysis startups need to break through early technical demonstrations and start producing at scale.
Hycamite is not the only company chasing the pyrolysis dream.
The American startup Monolith is arguably furthest along in the quest to turn laboratory science into industrial-scale production. It uses high-heat pyrolysis to produce hydrogen and a dark powdery substance called carbon black, an additive used in tire and rubber manufacturing.
Monolith received a conditional $1 billion loan from the Department of Energy in late 2021 to build out its facility in Nebraska, which would deliver clean hydrogen to decarbonize fertilizer production. Monolith had to run a gauntlet to prove to DOE’s Loan Programs Office that it deserved such a loan. It has the rare distinction among pyrolysis startups of having actually sold its carbon products: Goodyear makes a tire for electric vehicles using Monolith’s carbon black.
However, Monolith did not finalize the loan before the Trump administration came to office and froze new disbursements for clean energy. The company was running short on cash while struggling to get its high-heat process to work reliably around the clock, per a Wall Street Journal article published in September. Monolith secured additional financing from its investors just before that story published.
Several other startups want to boost their revenues by turning methane into higher-value forms of carbon than carbon black, a relatively inexpensive commodity — if they can achieve the quality and consistency necessary to sell into those specialized and demanding markets.
A group of Cambridge University scientists founded Levidian in 2012 to create reliable, large-scale production of graphene, a carbon-based supermaterial discovered in Manchester, England, in 2004. After another eight years of research and development under the moniker Cambridge Nanosystems, the company was acquired and brought to market by a British entrepreneur.
Levidian eschews the catalysts, heat, and pressure that other startups use to split methane. Instead, the team ended up building a nozzle that sucks in methane gas, then uses electricity to generate microwave energy, which in turn creates a cold plasma torch that shaves carbon atoms from hydrogen atoms.
This yields hydrogen and graphene, which can be used in semiconductors, electronics, and batteries. Levidian can sell graphene for hundreds of dollars per kilogram, far more than carbon black, CEO John Hartley told Canary Media in January. Indeed, the company will host its first graphene auction on March 24. To install its technology, though, Levidian has focused on customers who want to clean up their fossil gas emissions.
“It’s really an onsite carbon-capture unit at its core: It catches carbon, makes hydrogen, and decarbonizes methane gas,” Hartley said. The first customers include Worthy Farm, which hosts the Glastonbury music festival; a wastewater treatment plant in Manchester; and the Habshan gas processing facility in Abu Dhabi.
U.S.-based Etch builds on research by founder Jonah Erlebacher, a materials science professor at Johns Hopkins University. The startup splits methane with what it describes as a recyclable catalyst that contains no rare minerals; it produces graphite and other forms of carbon.
The Etch team is wrapping up commissioning for its first “commercial-scale pilot” in Baltimore, a spokesperson told Canary Media. Last fall, the startup brought in a new CEO with commercial chops: Katie Ellet previously served as president of hydrogen energy and mobility for North America at Air Liquide, one of the few companies actually producing low-carbon hydrogen at scale, and a key player in six of the seven hydrogen hubs funded by the Department of Energy.
All these companies need to hit their stride just as the clean hydrogen market has entered a period of tumult.
The Biden administration hoped to jump-start a clean hydrogen economy with two major policies: A suite of billion-dollar grants to seven “hydrogen hubs” strategically chosen around the country, which are intended to link up production with entities that could use the fuel to clean up transportation and heavy industry, and a production tax credit to effectively lower the market price of hydrogen produced using low-carbon methods.
Now, the Trump administration has frozen payments on clean energy grants and loans. Prospective hydrogen producers had been waiting breathlessly for the final IRS guidance on the 45V tax credit; now that the lawyers have finally produced that guidance, the nascent hydrogen industry has to plead with the new administration to preserve those credits as it overhauls federal spending this year.
Given this swirling uncertainty, pyrolysis startups can take some solace in the fact that their business is not entirely dependent on the vagaries of hydrogen policy. At least they can sell carbon materials, which have clear value and established buyers who use the stuff in a non-theoretical way.
I asked Malkamäki if Hycamite identifies as a carbon company that also makes hydrogen or a hydrogen company that also makes carbon. He pointed out that the company name itself is a mashup of “Hy-” for hydrogen and “ca-” for carbon (and the -mite is a reference to a fanciful super-fuel that Donald Duck invented in a vintage comic strip). The revenues from the carbon products are “elementary for us to be profitable,” he said. “A couple of investors have said to us that hydrogen makes you sexy, carbon makes you money.”
That’s not to suggest breaking into the battery supply chain will be easy. It requires passing rigorous, multi-year testing by the battery makers that might buy Hycamite’s carbon products. But this kind of revenue can bolster a young business as it rides out the storm in Washington.
When solar developers look to build big projects on farmland, the same arguments tend to come up: The array will waste useful agricultural tracts, ruin views, and sully the pastoral character of the rural community, public commenters say.
In Ohio, a state where these debates have long played out, comments like that have even led the state’s power siting board to block projects. These sentiments, in Ohio and beyond, are sometimes motivated by misinformation from anti-solar groups, including organizations with fossil fuel industry ties.
But as one solar developer recently found, hundreds of negative comments don’t necessarily mean hundreds of people oppose a project, Kathiann Kowalski reported this week for Canary Media.
The Ohio Power Siting Board received more than 2,500 comments about the Grange Solar Grazing Center, which aims to bring solar and sheep together on a 2,570-acre plot in the state’s Logan County. When the project’s developer took a closer look at the feedback, it found 16 individuals had collectively submitted more than 140 of those comments, most of them opposing the project. When accounting for repeats, the company found that 80% of individual commenters actually back the solar array.
Supportive commenters said they expect the Grange project to bring jobs and public funding to the county. A 2023 report from the Purdue Center for Regional Development verified that solar projects typically create short-term construction jobs, bring in tax revenue, and help raise farmers’ land values.
Taking a step back, it’s worth noting that more than three-quarters of Americans support expanding solar, per a May 2024 survey from Pew Research Center. That includes 64% of Republicans — though the group has soured on the energy source in recent years.
Mass layoffs hit the Energy Department
The Trump administration closed last week with a big — but not totally unexpected — blow to the U.S. Energy Department workforce. As many as 2,000 probationary DOE employees were laid off, ending what one staffer described to Latitude Media as a “weird, quiet limbo” following President Donald Trump’s inauguration.
But the layoff didn’t last long for a group of employees at the Bonneville Power Administration. About 30 workers who maintain power lines and other infrastructure at the Pacific Northwest grid operator were asked back just days later, a union leader told Politico.
Clean energy smashed a record last year
The U.S. added a whopping 48.2 GW of new utility-scale solar, wind, and battery storage capacity in 2024, an increase of 47% from the year before, according to new research by energy data firm Cleanview. Texas led the way on solar and wind and was the runner-up on battery installations after California. Still, fossil fuels remain responsible for more than half of the country’s electricity generation — and the Trump presidency is likely to slow clean energy development this year. Akielly Hu breaks down the whole report for Canary Media here.
Green bank clawback: The new head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wants to claw back $20 billion in federal green bank funding that was meant to help low-income communities build solar arrays, deploy electric school buses, and otherwise implement clean energy. (Canary Media)
Electric truck breakdown: Electric and fuel-cell truck startup Nikola, once valued more than Ford at $30 billion, files for bankruptcy protection after failing to raise money or find a buyer. (CNBC)
Rural clean energy freeze: Farmers across the country are taking a hit from the federal funding freeze as money stops flowing to a program supporting clean energy installations and energy-efficiency upgrades for agricultural and rural businesses. (Associated Press)
Sustainable jet fuel resumes takeoff: The Trump administration finalized a $1.44 billion loan for a sustainable aviation fuel refinery in Montana, a first since it paused all deals made by the Energy Department’s Loan Programs Office under Biden. (Canary Media)
Derailing environmental justice: Advocates call out the Trump administration for shutting down the federal government’s environmental justice departments, saying the decision will“create challenges and impacts that will last well beyond the current administration.” (Inside Climate News)
Cutting carbon in construction: As the federal government drops its commitment to buying lower-carbon building materials, several states are forming coalitions and ramping up their efforts. (Canary Media)
Offshore wind blowback: President Trump’s executive order halting offshore wind permitting could make it difficult or impossible for several Northeastern states to reach their ambitious climate goals. (Washington Post)
Dive deeper: A conservative group that once opposed Dominion Energy’s major Virginia offshore wind farm is now encouraging the project to go ahead, saying that halting it could put ratepayers on the hook for $6 billion already spent. (Canary Media)
Can tariffs clean up steel? A U.S. steel industry advocate cheers Trump’s 25% tariff on imports, saying those imposed during the last Trump administration spurred $20 billion in investment to modernize, decarbonize, and electrify the industry. (E&E News)
The city of Minneapolis is retooling a decade-old partnership with its gas and electric utilities in response to criticism that it hasn’t done enough to help the city reach its climate goals.
The Clean Energy Partnership was established in 2014 as part of the city’s last round of utility franchise agreements with Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy. The agreements authorize utilities’ use of public right-of-way, often in exchange for fees or meeting other terms or conditions from the city.
A little over a decade ago, Minneapolis was among the first U.S. cities to view utility franchise agreements as a potential tool to leverage for climate action. Some advocates at the time had been pressuring the city to study creating a municipal utility to accelerate clean energy, and the partnership emerged as a compromise to give the city more say in the utilities’ operations.
Former City Council member Cam Gordon, who represented southeast Minneapolis in 2014 when the council approved the partnership, is one of the critics who say the initiative “never realized its potential.” Instead, it mainly served as “a government relations and promotional PR tool to allow [elected officials] and the utilities to feel like we’re doing something,” he said.
The City Council is set to approve new franchise agreements this week, and they include an updated memorandum of understanding for the Clean Energy Partnership that will require regular reporting on key performance indicators, new utility-specific emission goals, energy conservation, and service reliability in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
Spokespeople for both companies said they welcome the planned changes and that the agreement reflects their interest in working with city leaders on shared clean energy goals.
Since the partnership went into effect in 2015, it has brought together representatives of the utilities, the City Council, and the mayor’s office once per quarter to talk about efforts to reduce emissions in the city. Clean energy advocates and other stakeholders sit on an advisory committee but do not have a formal seat on the partnership’s governing board.
Minneapolis City Council Vice President Aisha Chughtai, who represents the council on the partnership board, expressed frustration about the lack of follow-through from utilities. “Sitting in a meeting and nodding along is one thing. Changing your actions is another,” she said.
By the partnership’s own measures, it has failed to make significant progress on five out of the city’s seven major climate goals. The city is on track with its target to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from municipal operations but behind pace with its goals related to citywide, residential, commercial, or industrial emissions.
Going forward, the partnership board will continue to meet quarterly, but instead of revolving around city climate goals, each utility will be expected to hit specific targets within Minneapolis’s borders. CenterPoint will commit to reducing emissions from natural gas use by at least 20% by 2035 compared with 2021.
“I think it’s progress,” said council member Katie Cashman, who represents an area west of downtown. The gas utility’s target is “a very meager, insufficient goal, but it is a goal nonetheless, and they haven’t done this in any other city.”
CenterPoint agreed to send a more senior executive to attend the quarterly partnership meetings, though Xcel did not. The utilities also rejected the city’s proposal to hire an outside administrator to manage the partnership.
City leaders believe the new agreement does a better job of setting expectations, but Minneapolis will still lack formal leverage over the utilities if they fail to make progress. The agreement does not contain any penalties for failure to follow through, and the next window to renegotiate isn’t until 2035 when the franchise agreement comes back up for renewal.
Luke Hollenkamp, the city’s sustainability program coordinator, said data reported through the partnership allows the city to make course corrections in its climate work.
“We can see what’s working, what’s not working, and also see where we need to invest more time,” he said.
Xcel Energy’s spokesperson said the partnership has led to successes, noting that citywide emissions from electricity have declined and that Minneapolis met its goal of powering city operations with 100% renewable electricity in 2023 by participating in Xcel’s Renewable*Connect program.
CenterPoint said it has invested nearly $61 million in energy efficiency programs in Minneapolis since 2017, saving residents $25 million in energy costs while reducing 245,000 metric tons of emissions. The utility also developed an on-bill financing program advocated by clean energy activists and others.
Despite the partnership’s imperfections, current and former city officials said it’s better to keep it in place as part of the new franchise agreements than to let it dissolve.
“We’re ramping up our trajectory [to cut emissions],” Cashman said. “We’re setting an example of how other cities can lead on climate action.”
The City Council’s climate and infrastructure committee approved the new agreements on Feb. 6; the full council is set to vote on them Feb. 13.
Clean energy installations in the U.S. reached a record high last year, with the country adding 47% more capacity than in 2023, according to new research by energy data firm Cleanview.
Boosted by tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act and the plummeting costs of renewable technologies, developers added 48.2 gigawatts of utility-scale solar, wind, and battery storage capacity in 2024. In total, carbon-free sources including nuclear accounted for 95% of new power capacity built in the U.S. last year; solar and batteries alone made up 83%.
The report finds that developers are not only building more projects but bigger ones, too. In 2024, companies built 135 solar, wind, and storage facilities with 100 megawatts or more of capacity, continuing a trend of clean energy megaprojects around the country.
Despite the growth of renewables, fossil fuels — mostly gas — still generated more than half of the U.S.’s electricity last year. Carbon-free sources including nuclear produced just over 40% of power.
This year, renewables will continue growing but at a slower pace, the report says. Based on developer projections, the U.S. could add 60 GW of large-scale clean power capacity in 2025. That would be a 26% jump from the previous year, but it’s only possible if the industry can maintain momentum despite headwinds from the Trump administration.
Solar led the way last year and is expected to do the same this year.
In 2024, the U.S. added a new record of 32.1 GW worth of utility-scale solar capacity. That’s a 65% increase from 2023, when the country added 19.5 GW of utility-scale solar. Most new solar was built in Texas, which added 8.9 GW worth of the clean energy source, followed by Florida, which built 3 GW and outpaced California for the first time. Arkansas, Missouri, and Louisiana each saw rapid growth in solar, adding hundreds of MW of capacity where relatively little existed before.
Developers expect to add 33 GW of utility-scale solar to the grid in 2025, which would represent a 3% year-on-year growth, the report finds. The U.S. Energy Information Administration, meanwhile, said in late January that it expects solar installations to decline to 26 GW this year.
Continued progress for solar — and for any clean energy deployments — will depend heavily on the Trump administration.
President Donald Trump has already stalled clean energy and infrastructure projects nationwide by attempting to halt hundreds of billions of dollars in congressionally authorized funding — a move that experts say is illegal and has been struck down by federal courts. Some Republican members of Congress have also threatened to roll back clean energy tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act that are key to enduring growth in the renewables sector.
For utility-scale solar, “uncertainty around the Trump administration’s energy agenda and the future of the IRA will cause the segment to stagnate, despite extremely high demand from data centers,” analysts at Wood Mackenzie wrote in January.
The political picture is even more grim for the U.S. wind sector, which has already seen years of declining installations and now faces relentless attacks from Trump.
For several years now, the wind industry has faced challenges including a lack of long-distance transmission lines to transport electricity from far-flung areas in the middle of the country to urban centers. Supply chain woes and inflation have also led to a spate of canceled offshore wind projects in the Northeast.
In 2024, the U.S. added 5.1 GW of utility-scale wind, including its first commercial offshore wind farm, marking a 23% drop from 2023 and the fourth year in a row of falling annual installations. Texas alone accounted for 42% of the country’s new wind capacity in 2024, bringing 2.1 GW online.
Developers expect to add 9.2 GW of wind capacity this year, and 6.1 GW are already under construction or waiting to come online, according to the Cleanview report. If that happens, wind capacity additions would increase by 79% this year.
But that’s a big if. Trump has vowed that “no new windmills” will be built during his presidency and has taken aim at offshore wind in particular — a sector that on paper is set to give wind installations a big boost this year. It remains to be seen whether these under-construction projects will be able to forge ahead as planned despite political headwinds.
Battery storage could be more of a bright spot. Its growth, already fast, is set to accelerate this year.
Last year, the U.S. added 10.9 GW of battery storage capacity, a 65% year-on-year increase that surpassed the previous 56% leap in 2023. California and Texas brought the most grid storage online, building 3,152 MW and 2,832 MW of capacity respectively.
In 2025, storage developers expect to add 18.1 GW of capacity, which would equal a 68% jump from 2024. Based on projections, Texas will overtake California as the nation’s leading energy storage market by adding 7 GW of capacity this year, Cleanview found.
The battery buildout has been propelled in part by declining prices, but even energy storage hasn’t escaped Trump’s assault on renewables. The administration’s tariffs on Chinese imports are expected to negatively impact the industry, which relies on batteries manufactured in China.
The Department of Energy made an unprecedented number of loans to ambitious clean energy projects throughout the Biden administration. Now the fate of that financing is uncertain amid President Trump’s ongoing attacks on federal climate and clean energy spending.
Under Biden, the DOE’s Loan Programs Office issued a total of 53 loans and loan guarantees worth over $107 billion. They went to large-scale projects including electric-vehicle factories from Ford and Rivian, the restart of the Palisades nuclear power plant in Michigan, and facilities that produce sustainable aviation fuel. The map below, based on public DOE data compiled on January 17 and shared with Canary Media, shows LPO loans by status for projects where geographic data is available. See the data table at the end of this article for more information on all projects that received LPO loans.
It’s unclear how the Trump administration will treat these loans.
LPO’s new director, John Sneed, is exploring whether it’s legally viable to cancel existing loans made by the office, per reporting from Bloomberg.
About 44% of the LPO financing announced under Biden — nearly $47 billion — is currently in the conditional phase, meaning it’s unfinalized and still subject to negotiations with the federal government. A big question mark hangs over these conditional loan commitments, though even finalized loans could be targeted for clawbacks, experts say.
The LPO, which awarded key financing to Elon Musk’s Tesla in 2010, saw its lending authority soar to nearly $400 billion thanks to the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. As of January 17, the office reported that over 160 applicants were currently seeking more than $200 billion in loans for various energy projects.
Sneed intends to focus the office’s remaining loan authority on technologies like nuclear power and liquefied natural gas, Bloomberg reported, technologies favored by Trump’s newly confirmed Energy Secretary Chris Wright. Wright is the founder and former CEO of fracking firm Liberty Energy and sat on the board of small modular nuclear startup Oklo. Liberty also invested $10 million in next-gen geothermal startup Fervo Energy under Wright’s tenure.
The LPO’s stated mission is to provide low-cost financing to clean energy and transportation projects that struggle to attract investment from traditional lenders who are wary of unique or first-of-a-kind investments. In seeking to make good on that promise, the LPO has actually earned — not lost — money over its 20-year history.
See the table below for the full list of Biden-era LPO loans.
The U.S. solar energy industry has succeeded in doing something that would have been hard to imagine a few years ago: It has officially built more than enough factories to meet the country’s demand for solar panels.
The nation can now produce nearly 52 gigawatts of solar panels each year, per a new tally from the Solar Energy Industries Association. That’s up from the 40 GW of capacity reported in late 2024. These numbers don’t count actual production, which is subject to factors like staffing and market demand, but rather what the industry is capable of. Current capacity exceeds the module component of SEIA’s goal from 2020, which was for the whole solar supply chain to hit 50 GW by 2030.
The factory buildout employs workers across the U.S. in high-tech manufacturing roles and diminishes reliance on China, the long-time leader in solar manufacturing. But solar panels, which industry insiders refer to as modules, are just the last step of the solar supply chain: Currently, U.S. factories assemble modules from solar cells that are almost exclusively produced overseas. Those cells, which convert sunlight into electricity, incorporate wafers that are meticulously sliced from silicon ingots; factories that make ingots, wafers, or cells are more complex and capital-intensive than module assembly plants.
Those precursor steps have lagged behind the U.S. module buildout, but companies have pledged to build factories for 56 GW of solar-cell capacity in the next few years, SEIA said. Those proposed projects, if they get built, would meet the needs of the newly revitalized U.S. solar-panel industry. But erecting solar-cell factories requires a step change in capital investment compared with module assembly.
In November, legacy solar manufacturer Suniva kicked off the first new domestic cell production since U.S. producers (Suniva included) succumbed to competition from China in the 2010s. ES Foundry launched pilot cell production at its South Carolina plant in January. The company plans to employ around 500 workers by this summer and ramp up to 3 GW of annual production capacity by the end of September.
Five more cell factories are under construction, per SEIA. They include QCells’ complex in north Georgia, which should bring 3.3 GW of cell production online later this year, and Silfab Solar’s 1 GW plant in South Carolina.
But President Donald Trump swiftly attacked his predecessor’s investments in clean energy, signing an order on his first day in office to “immediately pause the disbursement of funds” from the Biden administration’s landmark climate and infrastructure laws. That order targets grants, loans, and other appropriated funds and therefore does not seem to affect tax credits, Canary Media previously reported. But the move has sown confusion in clean-energy markets and could presage attempts to undo the legislation that created the tax credits.
Some companies are thus holding back on solar-cell factory investments until they see what the Trump administration does with a key manufacturing tax credit, which has proven vital to secure construction loans.
The rebirth of U.S. solar manufacturing had to start somewhere, and assembling panels made sense as that first step. Now, all those panel makers could become anchor customers for the next link in the chain — the proposed cell manufacturers. But making that jump isn’t so easy.
Take the case of Heliene, a company based in Ontario, Canada, that nonetheless has established its bona fides as a committed U.S. solar manufacturer.
Heliene opened a solar-module factory in Mountain Iron, Minnesota, back in 2017, during the first Trump administration. The company later expanded that facility to assemble 800 megawatts of panels per year with a staff of 320 workers. Another expansion is already underway to grow that workforce to 520 and capacity to 1.3 GW by April.
In November, when previously bankrupt Suniva began the first U.S. cell production in years, Heliene swooped in to purchase every cell Suniva’s new factory could make. Heliene could, for the time being, tout its products as the only U.S.-built modules filled with U.S.-built cells.
Now Heliene is working on its boldest move yet: a $200 million solar-cell factory to be built somewhere in the U.S. in partnership with India’s Premier Energies. But Heliene founder and CEO Martin Pochtaruk told Canary Media in January that he couldn’t make the final call on that plant given the uncertainty around what will happen to Biden-era tax credits under Trump.
Building a cell factory requires a significant step up in dollars and complexity compared with a module-assembly plant, Pochtaruk explained. Putting panels together is a largely mechanical task that costs around $30 million of capital investment for every GW of production, he said.
Solar-cell production costs more than four times that, at about $130 million per GW, Pochtaruk noted. “It’s a chemical process that is much more complex. You need to build a clean room that is similar to an operating room, but industrial-sized.”
Cell production exposes silicon wafers to chemicals in liquid and gaseous forms, which must unfold in precisely calibrated environments, Pachtaruk added. Water used in the process requires treatment before it can be reused or sent to the sewer. The equipment to do all these things drives up costs relative to module assembly and makes permitting more complicated.
That raises the stakes for anyone looking to put their chips on the table for American solar-cell production — even if they’ve already found success in their panel-assembly bets. The prospects of financing these bigger bets are intimately tied to the future of federal manufacturing tax credits, part of the Biden policies that Trump has vowed to dismantle.
Even successful solar manufacturers typically don’t want to fork over their own cash for the hefty expense of a new cell factory. They turn to lenders to finance construction costs. But lenders have a hard time loaning money to a type of business without much of a track record to evaluate, and the current U.S. cell-manufacturing landscape is mostly nonexistent.
Cell manufacturers have something else going for them, though: the 45X tax credit. As enacted in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, 45X awards a set amount of money for each key solar component that a company makes in the country in a given year. If the manufacturer doesn’t have enough tax liability to absorb all that credit, it can sell the credits to another entity, generating cash to pay down debt or invest in further expansion.
Heliene pulled that off last fall with 45X credits from module production and netted about $50 million from the transaction.
Financial institutions mulling a $100 million–plus loan to a solar-cell manufacturer want to use the future 45X credit as collateral, Pochtaruk said. Future cell sales may be hard to predict, but a guaranteed payout based on the number of cells produced is easy to model (at least in a world where the U.S. government honors legally binding contracts and pays its obligations).
“Lenders will not agree to come forward until there’s clarity” on the long-term status of the tax credits, Pochtaruk said. So Heliene is still finalizing a location in the U.S., tabulating construction costs, and then will need to make a final call on the investment by late April. A Premier Energies executive told investors Monday that the plan is on pause pending clarity on the fate of the tax credits.
The potential loss of tax credits may be less consequential to companies like Qcells, which can draw construction funds from its corporate parent, Korea’s Hanwha. A smaller solar-focused company like Heliene doesn’t have other corporate coffers to rely on in lieu of tax-credit–based financing.
It’s still entirely possible that the credits will survive. Under normal circumstances, it would take a new act of Congress to undo them. A cadre of Republicans in Congress has publicly urged leadership to preserve them, based on the economic benefits they bring to their districts. Meanwhile, SEIA coordinated a lobbying push on Capitol Hill Wednesday to meet with more than 100 members of Congress or staff to urge them to protect the credits.
The current uncertainty, though, is at the very least delaying the commitment of more private funds to build solar-cell factories. Those projects — and the high-tech, well-paying manufacturing jobs they come with — could collapse altogether if the situation persists or Congress undoes the recently created tax credits.
Canary Media’s chart of the week translates crucial data about the clean energy transition into a visual format.
Nearly $2.1 trillion was invested in the global energy transition in 2024 — the highest-ever annual amount.
Last year’s total energy-transition investment was 11% higher than in 2023 and more than double what was spent in 2020, per BloombergNEF.
Most of this money is flowing to two energy-transition sectors: electrified transportation and clean energy.
More than $757 billion was invested in passenger and commercial EVs, electric two- and three-wheelers, and public EV-charging stations. That’s a 20% increase from 2023. Another $728 billion was spent on renewable energy projects ranging from wind to solar to hydropower, a record high but only about 8% more than in 2023. Energy-storage spending, meanwhile, surged 36% last year to nearly $54 billion.
The third-biggest category was power grids, which need to grow in every country to accommodate the rapid expansion of clean energy. Just over $390 billion was invested in 2024 on expanding and retooling grids across the world, up about 15% compared with the year prior.
While funding for these mature energy-transition technologies reached new heights in 2024, earlier-stage climate technologies had a rougher year. Spending on carbon capture and storage was less than half of what it was in 2023. Investment in hydrogen and clean-industry projects was also cut almost in half.
China alone accounted for nearly 40% of last year’s energy-transition investment, outpacing the U.S., EU, and U.K. combined. China also grew its spending faster than any other major country or region last year, while in the EU and the U.K., the sector attracted less money than in the prior year.
By a different measure, from the International Energy Agency, energy-transition investment is now far exceeding funding for fossil-fuel projects. That’s a good thing for the global bid to eliminate use of planet-warming fossil fuels. But even last year’s record-setting pace is not enough to decarbonize the planet. More is needed, the IEA says, especially in developing nations.
Canary Media’s chart of the week translates crucial data about the clean energy transition into a visual format.
The amount of carbon-free energy built in the U.S. last year far eclipsed the growth of new fossil-fueled power plants.
The U.S. grid added a total of just over 56 gigawatts of power capacity last year. A whopping 96 percent of that came from solar, battery, wind, nuclear, and other carbon-free installations, per new Cleanview analysis of U.S. Energy Information Administration data.
Solar installations dominated power plant additions — 34 gigawatts of utility-scale solar were constructed across the U.S., a 74 percent jump from 2023’s record-high year. Texas and California drove most of this surge.
Grid batteries were the next-biggest new source of power capacity — and saw the fastest growth. The U.S. built 13 GW of energy storage last year, almost double 2023’s record-shattering 6.6 GW. Texas and California led the way here as well.
Wind was the third-biggest source of new capacity, but installations dropped for the fourth year in a row as the industry continued to struggle through lingering supply-chain issues, a plodding interconnection process, and local opposition to projects. Just 2.4 GW of new gas and 1 GW of nuclear went online in 2024.
The U.S. has rolled out more clean energy than fossil-fueled power plants for years now, helping the grid get cleaner and less carbon-intensive. Power emissions have fallen steadily since peaking in 2007 as fossil gas and renewables have replaced coal.
Still, fossil fuels generate the majority of the country’s power and the U.S. faces an uphill battle to decarbonize its grid by 2035, a goal set by outgoing President Joe Biden.
Fossil gas is currently the top source of electricity generation in the U.S., and last year emissions from its use in the rose nearly 4 percent. As big tech firms look to build more energy-intensive data centers to support their AI goals, the sector could become even more reliant on fossil fuels. That surging power demand is already extending the life of coal plants and causing utilities to propose building more gas-fired power plants.
In order to eliminate carbon emissions from the grid, the U.S. is going to need to figure out how to build enough clean energy to dethrone fossil fuels. That was a hard task even when Biden was president and before the AI-driven electricity boom took hold. It will be an even taller task under incoming President Donald Trump, who has vowed to double down on fossil fuels.
.svg)
