Back
Californians face steep up-front costs if they want to install solar panels to produce clean power and batteries to back up their homes in outages. A new state program will cover those costs for low-income homeowners, but they still have to pay up to tens of thousands of dollars initially and then wait months for the rebate to come through.
Now a startup called Haven Energy is going to take on the task of filing that paperwork, giving homeowners something that sounds too good to be true: a solar and battery system with no out-of-pocket cost.
It’s the latest riff on the evolving market for virtual power plants, which aggregate thousands of small energy systems into a meaningful tool to meet the energy needs of utilities or competitive electricity markets. The grid needs more energy just about everywhere in the U.S., but large-scale infrastructure construction runs into persistent delays and challenges. Adding generation and storage capacity in homes is relatively quick, and with the right incentives, can add up to a substantial tool to meet the grid’s needs.
If Haven successfully implements those incentives, it thinks it will be able to install 10 megawatts of dispatchable battery capacity across thousands of homes in the next two years. The (non-paying) customers will benefit from bill savings and backup power; to qualify for the state-funded rebate, they just need to make their batteries discharge regularly when the grid is stressed, namely in the evening hours when solar production dips and demand surges.
Haven launched in 2023 to streamline the home battery purchase experience and has overseen installations at hundreds of homes in California. But after a couple of years, cofounder and CEO Vinnie Campo determined the company needed a new strategic approach.
“We thought if you were able to remove all the friction from the process, that you could dramatically increase the adoption,” he explained. “That’s only fractionally true. The reason most people don’t get a battery is that they’re incredibly expensive.”
At the same time, utilities have begun grappling with a sudden uptick in electricity demand to supply AI computing, industry, and electrification. Utilities increasingly recognize the value of fleets of aggregated batteries to help meet peak demand, Campo said, but they’re much more comfortable contracting for large assets than thousands of small ones.
Putting these threads together, Campo decided Haven should own the batteries it installs at customer homes, so it can control them to serve utilities’ grid needs, and pull together different revenue streams to lower the cost for consumers.
“We’re seeing from the utilities and the retail companies, they just want that fixed, firm capacity every day,” Campo said. “That’s part of the gap that we’re trying to play into.”
Now Haven can tap into a new tranche of state funds to make this a reality.
Batteries don’t generate power, but for arcane bureaucratic reasons California has long funded its desired battery expansion with the Self-Generation Incentive Program. This legacy program has shifted with the times, and its newest evolution opened up $280 million to pay for batteries (and optional paired solar panels) for low-income households.
Technically, those homeowners can apply for the funds themselves. But this is a rebate program, so they would have to front the cost — which can easily tally up to $30,000 or $40,000 — then wait to get paid back by SGIP, which can take three or four months, Campo said. That’s an obvious nonstarter for many households.
Haven, though, has raised a debt facility and studied up on the necessary details. It can fund the cost of installation and wait for the rebate without sweating. Then it’s on the hook to make sure the installed battery system meets the program requirements for lowering demand in the evenings over 10 years. (Haven routes the installations to local installers and partnered with an undisclosed software company to handle the distributed energy management system)
The customer, meanwhile, doesn’t have to pay Haven any money, but benefits from the backup power and from lowering their electricity demand during peak pricing hours. Customers who use the SGIP funds to pair solar with their batteries will further lower their energy bills by producing their own clean power. And after a decade, Haven will transfer ownership to the homeowners.
Haven has already signed up a few hundred households for this program; the new rebates for solar-battery systems will open up on May 20, when the state rolls out updates to its online system for processing them.
“The biggest objection we get is, people don’t think it’s real,” Campo said. “They’ve always been sold ‘free solar,’ right? And this is the first time it actually is free solar — it’s not ‘no money down,’ it’s no money ever.”
Customers could be forgiven for not believing this program is real, because up until now, it hasn’t been.
State legislators originally allocated $900 million for a new branch of the long-running SGIP bureaucracy back in the Budget Act of 2022. At that time, the state was revising its policies for rooftop solar compensation to encourage more battery adoption; a flagship, broadly accessible home battery rebate could bolster that market in its time of transition. Originally, 70% of that funding was for low-income households, and the rest was open to the general populace. Rather than raising the money by charging people’s utility bills, as SGIP had previously, the Legislature pulled the new funds from the state’s cap-and-trade revenue.
But instead of quickly establishing the rules and moving the money out the door, the California Public Utilities Commission oversaw a yearslong process of laborious updates to the SGIP handbook and the backend database.
“It’s taken forever to go live,” said Joshua Buswell-Charkow, deputy director at the California Solar and Storage Association, a trade group.
While that cumbersome process was underway, the Legislature pared down most of the allocation, leaving just $280 million for low-income households. Updating the necessary web infrastructure has proven time-consuming. The commission also allowed the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the state’s largest municipal utility, to delay launching the solar-battery rebate program for Angelenos until late December, because the utility wasn’t ready to administer it on time.
The funds still need to be claimed by June 30, 2026. As the money finally starts to flow, Buswell-Charkow is most concerned about the practicality of meeting the new requirement that state-funded batteries enroll in demand response.
SGIP-funded batteries already had cycling requirements, meaning they couldn’t just sit in backup mode and not provide more value to the grid, he noted.
Going forward, the batteries have to be enrolled in a “qualified demand response program.” But, so far, the commission has only qualified two types of programs: critical peak pricing rates, which are only available to Californians who buy power from the three big investor-owned utilities, and the capacity bidding program, which currently only serves commercial customers, according to the California Solar and Storage Association’s survey of the market.
Other demand response programs include home batteries, like the Demand-Side Grid Support and Emergency Load Reduction programs, but the commission hasn’t approved them for the SGIP requirement.
The commission did grant an exemption for customers of municipal utilities who don’t have access to any qualified demand response programs, Buswell-Charkow said. But the regulators denied an exemption to the millions of customers of community choice aggregators, locally organized power-purchasing organizations that similarly lack access to the small number of approved demand response programs. Haven has encouraged utility regulators to approve demand response programs for customers of community choice aggregators, so those millions of Californians can access the SGIP funds, too.
The demand response requirement “makes the program needlessly more complicated than it needs to be,” Buswell-Charkow said.
Given those layers of complexity, it’s hard to imagine homeowners wading into the morass themselves. Even local solar installers struggle with the administrative burden of meeting SGIP’s bureaucratic requirements, Buswell-Charkow noted. This could give companies like Haven an opening: If they get good at filing the necessary paperwork and executing on the dense program requirements, they can make money and give households free clean energy at the same time.
After eight years of planning and amid the Trump administration’s all-out assault on the sector, an offshore wind project outside of New York City quietly began at-sea construction this month.
Developer Equinor issued no press releases, held no ceremonies, and failed to respond to multiple inquiries about the construction milestone for its Empire Wind 1 project. Instead, a Listserv catering to boat captains and local residents posted a March 24 notice that “rock installation” around the turbines’ underwater bases would begin in April. Multiple insiders told Canary Media that work is now underway on those bases, which will minimize erosion around the first-ever wind turbines to connect to New York City’s power grid.
The lack of fanfare around an 810-megawatt wind farm effectively breaking ground less than 20 miles from America’s largest city speaks to the seismic shifts in messaging by renewable energy companies under Trump 2.0. While some firms are testing new lobbying strategies, others are choosing silence.
“There’s a bit of hesitancy to be out in front,” said Hillary Bright, executive director of Turn Forward, a nonprofit that advocates for U.S. offshore-wind businesses and sector growth. “It’s about not wanting to stick their heads up and drawing more attention, potentially, from the administration, which is already giving quite a bit of attention to offshore wind.”
President Donald Trump, more accurately, has put a bullseye on the industry’s back.
The president has called wind power “garbage,” “horrendous,” and “bullshit.” On the campaign trail, he made “windmills” a frequent focus of stump speeches and social media tirades. In the weeks leading up to his inauguration, Trump said “no new windmills” would be built in the U.S. during his presidency. Days later he reposted a video on Truth Social that contained misleading information about the scale of environmental damage from last year’s wind turbine failure at the Vineyard Wind project in Massachusetts.
Trump then issued an executive order on Inauguration Day that effectively froze all offshore wind permitting and leasing pending a federal review. Seemingly safe from the president’s pause at the time were nine projects, including Empire Wind 1, that already had their federal permits in hand. Since then, at least one of those permitted projects — the 2.8-gigawatt Atlantic Shores project off the New Jersey coast — has fallen apart. Others, like Dominion Energy’s 2.6-gigawatt Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project, have pressed on.
With rock installation underway, Empire Wind has taken the first step toward erecting the project’s 54 turbines. On Monday, Equinor sent out another construction “update” email, this time about round-the-clock “[remotely operated vehicle] and dive operations” in the lease area this April, meaning underwater robots and human divers are also at work.
Both at-sea construction notices went out to subscribers of a public Listserv and have since been posted to the project’s “Community Updates” webpage. But Equinor, a Norwegian energy giant, did not update Empire Wind’s homepage to tout the news. Its Facebook page is now deactivated. The project’s X account made its most recent post in November. Equinor has not issued a single press release about Empire Wind 1 since Trump took office.
Empire Wind 1 is slated to finish construction by 2027, and when it does it will power 500,000 New York homes, according to the project’s website. It will also play an integral role in helping the state achieve its legislatively mandated target of 70% renewable energy by 2030.
But Bright said she isn’t surprised that the company is avoiding the spotlight right now.
An army of conservative think tanks are lobbying for a stop-work order on all U.S. offshore wind under construction, citing debunked claims that wind farms harm whales.
Empire Wind’s quiet kickoff this month caught the attention of U.S. Rep. Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican and longtime offshore wind opponent. In late March he penned a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum in response to the “alarming development” of the project’s at-sea work and advised Burgum to “block construction” of Empire Wind using “everything in your power.” Smith cited the president’s anti-wind memorandum alongside other claims, which lacked specifics, that Empire Wind could “blind” military radar or break apart during hurricanes.
Smith also claimed in his letter to Burgum that something similar to last year’s cargo ship collision with the Francis Scott Key Bridge could happen to one of Empire Wind’s turbines, writing “such a situation is more likely than many may think.” The fatal bridge collision occurred inside one of the Port of Baltimore’s designated shipping channels. While Empire Wind’s lease area is sandwiched between two shipping lanes, early concerns about ship collisions in the New York Bight were dismissed after years of independent studies, government research, and computer simulations.
There’s no indication that the Interior Department has intervened in Empire Wind’s scheduled construction — yet.
In fact, agency officials are likely in close contact with Empire Wind’s developers, as is typical with all construction in federal waters. If Empire Wind 1 can avoid weather delays and political interference, the first steel monopile — the subsea part of a wind tower — could be driven into the seafloor as early as May. Undersea cable laying is scheduled for June, according to sources familiar with the project.
Plus, with rising energy demands and some of these multi-billion-dollar wind projects nearly complete, some Republicans see abandonment as a risky move.
While the start of offshore work is a symbolic milestone, Empire Wind’s onshore construction is also ramping up.
Empire Wind’s Monday update email said the roof of the project’s South Brooklyn Marine Terminal facility is nearing completion. According to the notice, excavation is underway at the spot where a future Brooklyn-based substation will connect wind-generated electricity to the city’s grid.
Research to monitor ecosystem impacts from this massive project is also progressing.
In late March, Duke University professor Doug Nowacek told Canary Media that he and his team of researchers were still planning to tag whales in the project’s lease area during the last week of April. The tagging is meant to take place just before pile-driving into the seafloor begins in early May, he explained.
“This is a unique opportunity to gather data on whale movements in the area both before and after a wind project is built,” said Nowacek, whose multi-year research on the effects of wind projects on marine animals is funded by a Department of Energy grant. As of late March, Nowacek said that research was going forward despite headwinds in Washington.
Meanwhile, as the weather warms, marking the start of a new construction season, “things are moving forward” for the four other U.S. offshore wind projects that are underway, said Bright of Turn Forward.
In addition to Empire Wind, the other commercial-scale projects actively under construction are Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, Massachusetts’ Vineyard Wind 1, New York’s Sunrise Wind, and Revolution Wind, which is shared between Rhode Island and Connecticut.
The steady progress of some wind projects under Trump’s anti-wind order is noteworthy but not entirely unexpected.
Presidential executive orders are not “self-executing,” according to Mark Squillace, a law professor at the University of Colorado Law School. Squillace said they are akin to a memo penned to another leader, which in this case is the Secretary of the Interior.
Before entering Trump’s orbit, Secretary Burgum was a friend to wind energy as governor of North Dakota, a state that gets more than one-third of its power from onshore wind. He indicated at his Senate confirmation hearing in January that he would allow fully permitted offshore wind projects “to continue” even under political pressure to halt them.
Since his confirmation, Burgum has made negative comments about offshore wind — calling it “expensive” and “unreliable” on the social media site X — but he’s not yet moved to pull the plug on large-scale energy projects in the middle of construction. Burgum is also operating against the backdrop of an unprecedented surge in power demand, in large part from data centers. Construction of new gas plants can’t keep up; the U.S. needs all the power it can get.
In countries like the U.K., offshore wind is already increasing grid reliability while delivering affordable energy.
In fact, while Equinor keeps its head down in America, the company is celebrating ongoing successes in Britain’s offshore wind sector, which the U.K. government calls “the backbone” of its clean power system. Equinor already runs three of Britain’s operational offshore projects and is one of four developers currently building Dogger Bank, the 277-turbine North Sea project that will soon surpass Orsted’s Hornsea 2 as the world’s largest wind farm.
Base Power, the Texas startup designing and installing very large home batteries for close to free, just pulled in an additional $200 million to fund its growth.
Silicon Valley heavyweight Andreessen Horowitz co-led the Series B with Addition, Lightspeed Venture Partners, and Valor Equity Partners. They were joined by previous investors including Thrive Capital, Altimeter, Terrain, and Trust Ventures.
“It will fuel the next phase of growth,” Base Power co-founder and CEO Zach Dell told Canary Media. Besides ramping up installations in the company’s home market of Texas, that growth will include breaking ground on a domestic factory to manufacture home battery systems and busting out of Texas to sell in other states.
The sizable investment delivers a major vote of confidence in Base Power’s approach to a market that’s been tough for American companies to crack in a scalable way: connected, distributed energy. Base Power equips households with batteries for backup during outages, as long as they agree to buy power from the company and let it dispatch the batteries into Texas’ competitive energy markets managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT. When all the pieces come together, this model gives homeowners cheaper, more reliable power while making the overall electricity system more cost-effective and stable, not to mention cleaner.
It’s a beloved concept in clean energy circles, promising to decarbonize the grid while skipping the delays and expenses associated with upgrading the macro electricity system. But the distributed-energy vision for batteries hasn’t minted many standout successes for venture investors.
Each of the 50 states regulates the power sector differently. In some states, like Texas, companies can aggregate small-scale batteries and earn money by bidding them into power markets; other states require such activities to run through a monopoly utility, which may or may not be interested in disrupting its own business. Base Power will need to adapt its strategy to grow steadily nationwide, but the company is already testing a new structure for working with legacy utilities.
It’s a turbulent time for cleantech investment generally, but Base Power raised its new financing from a group of VCs that aren’t primarily focused on climate or clean energy as a vertical. Dell and co. made that happen by showing rapid customer adoption.
“Often you see projections change, and they’ve been very consistent about doing what they say they’re going to do,” said Willem Van Lancker, partner at early-stage investment firm Terrain. Terrain made its first investment in Base Power’s seed round and is one of several previous investors who doubled down in the latest round. “The people that have been along for the journey since the beginning have witnessed the execution,” he added.
Base Power incorporated in June 2023 and launched its commercial product in May 2024. Since then, Dell said, the staff has grown to 100 people serving thousands of customers and earning millions of dollars in revenue. In-house teams are installing 20 home battery systems per day, which added up to 10 megawatt-hours installed just last month, a number Dell expects to exceed in April.
A typical customer gets either 25 or 50 kilowatt-hours of storage installed for just a few hundred dollars up-front and a minimum three-year commitment to buy retail power from Base. Those are significantly bigger batteries than the norm for residential storage.
Between the large battery design and the rapid pace of customer-driven installations, this decentralized battery fleet is starting to add up. Indeed, Dell expects to hit 100 megawatt-hours installed by mid-summer, equivalent to one of the larger utility-scale batteries operating in ERCOT. (Some go up to a few hundred megawatt-hours.)
But even in regulation-light Texas, grid-scale batteries take several years to develop, permit, and install, whereas efficient home batteries can reach customers in a matter of weeks. By this summer, Dell said Base Power will be installing more megawatt-hours per month in ERCOT than any other developer of large or small batteries, though he did not share a specific target rate.
This is, admittedly, a tricky metric to standardize across scales of battery project. For comparison, utility-scale developer esVolta is bringing 980 megawatt-hours online this year in Texas across three projects. But factoring in time spent on permits, land acquisition, and interconnection queues lowers the effective rate of megawatt-hours added per month of effort on those projects.
Just a few years ago, $200 million would have been a record size for an equity round in the stationary-energy-storage sector. In 2019, for instance, unorthodox Energy Vault, which proposed storing power by stacking blocks with towering six-armed cranes, pulled in $110 million for its Series B, the largest such investment in a grid-storage venture at the time.
Others have surpassed that since then, like Form Energy’s $450 million Series E for a novel iron-based battery. But those investments went to large-scale storage technology plays, not small-scale, aggregated storage models, which typically draw more modest sums from wonky climatetech specialists.
Dell declined to dwell too much on the robust quantity of new cash in hand.
“Fundraising is the ability to keep executing,” Dell said. “The things we should celebrate are customers and revenue and products.”
Base Power will use some of its new funds to accelerate development of its own battery factory in Texas, Dell noted. The company is now searching for a site, with a focus on the Austin area, and could break ground by the end of the year.
Currently, Base Power uses contract manufacturers to turn its residential battery designs into a physical product; some but not all of the system is assembled in China.
That makes Base Power’s supply chain vulnerable to President Donald Trump’s barrage of new tariffs, which raise the cost of imports from longstanding trading partners and geopolitical adversaries alike. The storage industry is still figuring out the damage from these tariffs; even domestic battery-cell production depends on imports for precursor materials, but some critical minerals are exempt from the latest tariffs.
Dell said that the push for domestic manufacturing was always part of the plan, though, given Base Power’s commitment to “compounding cost advantage through vertical integration.”
“Doing it ourselves we can take more cost out of the system,” Dell explained. He envisions the factory producing thousands of units per week.
Then there’s the matter of geographical expansion.
“They can build a very, very large business just inside Texas,” Van Lancker said. “That being said, the plans will allow them to expand outside of Texas.”
Base Power will need to work with utilities to operate in areas that lack the retail choice and open competitive markets that Texas enjoys. Where appropriate, Base will partner with regulated utilities and sell them “capacity as a service.” In other words, Base Power would install its batteries in homes, but instead of playing the markets itself with that capacity, the startup can hand the keys to a utility to help meet growing demand for power at peak hours, or other grid needs.
The startup rolled out this model in March with Bandera Electric Cooperative, a 29,000-member utility in Texas Hill Country. (A fraction of Texans still get their power from vertically integrated cooperative or municipal utilities.) Bandera Electric offers its customer-owners this backup power for a monthly subscription with no up-front cost; the cooperative dispatches the batteries based on its own strategy — and pays Base Power for that ability.
The Environmental Protection Agency revoked an essential Clean Air Act permit last month from Atlantic Shores, an offshore wind development slated to be built off the New Jersey coast. One of the main justifications was President Donald Trump’s January executive order calling for a halt and reexamination of the fledgling offshore wind industry.
The move suggests the agency, which has historically played a relatively small role in wind development, may be joining Trump’s assault on a renewable sector that many blue states are counting on to slash their planet-warming emissions and shore up grid reliability.
Lee Zeldin, one of President Trump’s first allies in Congress, now heads the EPA. Anti-wind groups have speculated in emails with Canary Media that Zeldin is sympathetic to their cause. One group has already submitted a “copycat” petition in hopes of convincing the agency to yank the same type of permit from Vineyard Wind in Massachusetts, a project expected to come online this year.
Permits are now the golden tickets of offshore wind.
Depending on the location and size of the project, an offshore wind farm needs to secure between eight and 10 federal permits before the first turbine can be built.
If you don’t already have them, you’re effectively locked out of building a wind farm over the next several years given Trump’s directive to freeze new permitting. Only nine projects in the U.S. — including Atlantic Shores — had all the necessary permits in hand when Trump took office again in January. But as indicated by the case of Atlantic Shores, even having all the paperwork in order may not be enough to keep projects from being crippled by the Trump administration’s assault on wind.
Most of the necessary federal permits are examined and issued by the Interior Department. But only the EPA or one of its regional delegates can give out the Clean Air Act permits that are required to ensure wind companies minimize air pollution during construction and operation.
The EPA appeals board has a history of pulling these permits from energy or industrial projects when appropriate, according to the letter of the Clean Air Act. Presidential orders are not typically a meaningful factor.
“It’s not unprecedented,” said Stan Meiburg, a former acting deputy administrator of the EPA, referring to the use of a presidential order in this kind of agency decision. “But it still seems unusual that you would cite it that heavily in a case.”
The decision comes as Zeldin moves to dramatically reshape the agency.
He has floated plans to cut 65% of its budget, is reportedly considering slashing 10% of its workforce, and has aggressively attempted to claw back $20 billion of funds Congress had already approved for clean energy projects. In early March, he released an extensive plan that aims to eliminate dozens of bedrock environmental regulations. The goal, he said in the statement, is to reorient the EPA around making it “more affordable to purchase a car, heat homes, and operate a business.”
It’s a remarkable shift not only for the agency but for Zeldin himself, who began his political career as a moderate blue state Republican before morphing into what The New York Times described in a recent profile as the cabinet’s “MAGA warrior.” As a congressman, he supported offshore wind and other renewable projects in his home state of New York.
That transformation was on display in his confirmation hearing held in January.
“When asked about wind power, he spouted fossil fuel–funded talking points about harms to marine life,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, at a meeting of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to vote on Zeldin’s confirmation.
The EPA’s appeals board — which has a decades-long track record of independence — could now theoretically become caught up in Zeldin’s crusade against clean energy, too, argued Meiburg.
In 1992, the Environmental Appeals Board was formed as “an impartial appellate tribunal” to resolve regulatory disputes. The four-judge panel is staffed by long-time EPA attorneys who are senior career officials — not political appointees. In the agency’s early years, disputes were settled by the administrator directly, but the workload became overwhelming. In the three decades that followed its establishment, the board evolved from an extension of the administrator’s office to an independent body untethered from politics. According to a 2017 EPA document, unless a case requires another agency to weigh in, the board’s decisions “cannot be appealed to the EPA Administrator.” In other words, the board has the final say.
“The value of the Environmental Appeals Board as an institution has derived from the fact that they are seen as independent,” said Meiburg, who now serves as executive director of Wake Forest University’s Andrew Sabin Family Center for Environment and Sustainability. “And they want to make sure to preserve that independence and integrity because that’s the basis of some of their credibility.”
Zeldin could reverse course, exerting more political pressure on the board or firing its judges.
“The Environmental Appeals Board is independent of all EPA components outside the immediate office of the Office of the Administrator,” said an EPA spokesperson via email. “It is an impartial appellate tribunal established by regulation to hear administrative appeals under the major environmental statutes that EPA administers.”
On March 14, Environmental Appeals Board Judge Mary Kay Lynch ruled to “remand,” as EPA calls it, a Clean Air Act permit issued last September to Atlantic Shores. Companies can appeal the board’s remand decisions in federal court but, according to Meiburg, most of those appeals fail. Overall, less than 1% of the board’s final decisions have been reversed.
EPA officials working in the Region 2 office in the Northeast had recommended in February a reexamination of the permit, in light of Trump’s anti-wind order and in response to a formal petition, filed in October, from a local anti-wind group called Save Long Beach Island. Along with other concerns, the group had raised questions about the impact on wildlife at a nearby refuge.
Atlantic Shores contested the decision, which moved the dispute to the EAB judges’ desk.
The project’s lawyers argued that Trump’s anti-wind order — the EAB’s main justification for pulling the permit — should not be retroactively applied to a permit that was issued in September, well before his election.
But Judge Lynch wrote in her motion that the board has “broad discretion” in pulling permits, handing a win to the EPA officials and another blow to Atlantic Shores. The judges offered no opinion on the actual merits of the original petition about nearby wildlife, according to Meiburg.
The revoked permit came after the project was already faltering in the face of rising costs from inflation and waning support from the state’s lame-duck governor. Shell, one of the project’s partners, pulled out in January.
“Atlantic Shores is disappointed by the EPA’s decision to pull back its fully executed permit as regulatory certainty is critical to deploying major energy projects,” Atlantic Shores spokesperson Terence Kelly wrote in a statement.
Lawyers working in the environmental field expressed similar concerns.
“My first reaction was disappointment — these are projects that had gone through extensive review by the agency. It seems to be invoking a tangential issue here,” said Kate Sinding Daly of the Conservation Law Foundation, a nonprofit that has brought numerous cases to the agency’s appeals board.
She explained that Atlantic Shores’ air permit application will now be reexamined. Most revoked Clean Air Act permits are eventually reissued, sometimes with modifications, but it’s unclear what will happen with Zeldin at the helm given Trump’s order to halt permitting activity.
Sinding Daly also raised concern about the “copycat” petition submitted last week by Nantucket-based group ACK for Whales to challenge Vineyard Wind’s Clean Air Act permit.
That petition argues that the EPA did not properly anticipate emissions from wind turbine malfunctions, such as the Vineyard Wind blade accident, which left the developer with almost a year of extra at-sea work and thus created extra emissions from the ships working on the project. The wind farm is slated to come online later this year, feeding renewable energy from near Nantucket Sound to the state’s energy grid.
“We’re hopeful that our petition to EPA will be carefully reviewed as we believe our concerns are valid,” said Amy DiSibio, a member of ACK for Whales, in an email.
Sinding Daly said the group’s petition addresses a more narrow provision in the law and pointed out that it’s been submitted years after the original air permit was issued, instead of just weeks, like with Atlantic Shores. She doubts that the Massachusetts petition will be successful. But when asked about potential “copycat” Clean Air Act petitions elsewhere, directed at other U.S. wind projects, she said she still considers them a “threat.”
Historically, she said, the agency has focused on protecting public health and the environment. But the remit is different now under Zeldin — and the EPA has just enough permitting authority over large infrastructure projects to slow down turbine installations in line with the Trump 2.0 mandate.
Want to know why EV chargers can be so hard to connect to crowded urban power grids? Just look to San Francisco’s latest public charging station, opened by startup Revel last week.
At first glance, the station, Revel’s first foray outside of its home city of New York, doesn’t seem like it should be that tricky for Northern California utility Pacific Gas & Electric to connect. It’s a fairly small parking lot in the city’s Mission District, right next to a major freeway, featuring a fairly standard number of high-speed chargers — 12 — that are available 24/7.
But when all those chargers are used at once, the total demand on the grid adds up to 1.3 megawatts, Neema Yazdi, a strategic analyst on PG&E’s clean energy transportation team, said at the ribbon-cutting event last week. That’s equivalent to roughly one-quarter of the power demand of the city’s tallest building, the 1.4-million-square-foot, 61-story Salesforce Tower.
“That’s a big feat for a utility to energize,” he said — “and to do something like that is impossible without the close collaboration of our customers.”
More such challenges and collaborations are on the way. Revel plans to start construction this year on seven more Bay Area sites with a total of 125 fast-charging plugs. It’s an ambitious pace in a state with notoriously long wait times to bring EV charging hubs online.
One way Revel hopes to achieve this plan is by entering two of its upcoming stations into a new PG&E program to fast-track EV charging hubs. On one condition, that is: Station operators have to be willing to reduce the power that chargers can deliver at the times when PG&E’s grid can’t handle the maximum draw. PG&E and Revel will pursue this “flexible service connection” approach at one site in the city of Oakland and another near San Francisco International Airport.
Under standard utility practice, customers can’t connect if their maximum power draw threatens to overtax the grid, even if only during a handful of hours per year when grid demand peaks. That’s despite the fact that many EV charging sites are highly unlikely to have enough vehicles charging at once to reach that limit — and that they can theoretically dial back their power use during those critical hours.
Flexible service turns that theoretical capability into an operational reality. The process is straightforward: PG&E forecasts its grid needs and, a day ahead of time, sends customers instructions for when they need to curtail power use.
Both customers and utility win out, Yazdi said. Customers can “connect quickly and more seamlessly” and charge at full capacity most of the time, as they wait for PG&E to complete grid upgrades that will eventually remove the constraints they face during peak hours.
PG&E, meanwhile, gets to expand EV charging more quickly than it would otherwise be able to. That’s not just good for meeting the state’s carbon-cutting goals but for reducing rates for customers at large. That’s because the program helps reduce immediate pressure on PG&E to make grid upgrades, which are a primary driver of rising electricity rates in its territory, while also quickly expanding its electricity sales.
“Only a few utilities in the United States are doing this nowadays,” Yazdi said. “This is really forward-thinking, and we’re really excited about it.”
So are the authors of a February Environmental Defense Fund report that highlights PG&E’s leading position among U.S. utilities on the flexible connection front. Southern California Edison is pursuing a similar pilot project, the report notes, and utilities and regulators in Illinois and Colorado are exploring approaches to flexible interconnection as well.
Finding ways for EV charging stations to connect more rapidly provides “both economic benefits to the fleet that can put its newly acquired vehicles and chargers to work, and societal benefits where these electric trucks and buses are displacing fossil fuel vehicles earlier than otherwise possible,” the report’s authors wrote.
It took PG&E more than a year to establish, test, and gain confidence in the underlying technology needed to complete its first flexible interconnection at a Tesla charging complex in California’s Central Valley late last year.
With initial projects proving the technology is reliable, PG&E started looking to expand its use of flexible connections, including at several more EV charging sites in the Central Valley — and Revel’s two sites in the Bay Area.
Revel has been working with PG&E for about 18 months to identify sites and plan for its flexible connection projects, said Jake Potent, the company’s vice president of corporate affairs. “There are a lot of times we don’t go forward because we’re grid-constrained.”
In New York City, Revel has already built five locations serving a total of 88 fast chargers and plans to more than triple that number to 267 chargers by the end of the year. But finding spots with enough grid capacity to serve those concentrated power demands hasn’t been easy, Paul Suhey, Revel’s chief operating officer and cofounder, told Canary Media back in 2021.
At last week’s ribbon-cutting, Suhey emphasized that building urban fast-charging stations is “kind of hard — well, it’s really hard. It doesn’t happen overnight.”
But finding ways to fit megawatt-scale charging into cities is important for localities in states like New York and California, which have set aggressive goals to end sales of new gasoline-fueled cars by 2035. EVs now make up about one-third of passenger vehicle sales in San Francisco, Mayor Daniel Lurie said at last week’s event, well above the national share of around 8%.
Those adoption numbers gave Revel confidence its fast chargers would get enough use to earn back its costs, Suhey told Canary Media. In New York City, where EV adoption is lower, Revel also operates an all-EV rideshare fleet rather than relying solely on public customers to make the economics of its charging sites work out. New York City and California have mandates for rideshare companies to switch to EVs over the coming years, which further heightens the need for charging sites.
Cities also struggle to bring public charging stations into neighborhoods where most people rent their homes, said Joe Piasecki, public affairs and policy coordinator for the San Francisco Environment Department.
That’s a big problem: Most people charge their EVs at home, but renters face an uphill battle in convincing landlords to install EV chargers on their behalf. That means renters tend to be disproportionately reliant on public EV charging while also having worse access to it. About 70% of San Francisco residents live in multifamily housing, Piasecki said.
The economics of urban EV charging have been helped along in California and New York by regulator-approved programs that instruct utilities to cover the costs of “make-ready” infrastructure — digging trenches, installing transformers and switchgear, and other work required to connect charging stations to the grid — that the site developer might otherwise bear. Similar programs support EV charger installations in Illinois, Massachusetts, and other states.
But make-ready work is just one of the expenses that EV charging creates. Sometimes, big sites might force utilities to upgrade the substations serving entire neighborhoods. Flexible interconnection can allow utilities to postpone those “upstream” upgrades until they can be conducted as part of a broader strategic grid expansion plan.
Demand for those upgrades will increase as high-speed charging expands — and as the latest generation of chargers requires even more power to charge vehicles faster. Electrify America’s flagship indoor charging station in San Francisco, which houses 20 high-speed chargers, required PG&E to deliver high-voltage power typically reserved for transmission grids and major industrial customers.
Public fast chargers aren’t the only option, of course. Slower Level 2 chargers can be installed in garages, along curbs, or into street lights. Even slower Level 1 chargers could offer overnight charging options for multifamily buildings.
But fast chargers that replicate the experience of fueling up at a gas station are widely seen as a vital amenity to expand the pool of people willing to switch to an EV. “Without widespread, easy to use, convenient, reliable fast charging, dreams of EV adoption are just that — dreams,” Suhey said.
Congressional Republicans are taking aim at the Inflation Reduction Act as they seek to slash federal spending.If they choose to repeal the law’s clean-energy tax credits entirely, it could cause energy bills around the country to rise significantly over the next five years, according to a new report by the Rhodium Group, an independent research organization. A repeal would affect some states more than others, with the deep-red state of Texas projected to get hit the hardest.
Rhodium’s report is not the only one to find that bills would rise with the repeal of key IRA tax credits. Research firm Energy Innovation conducted an analysis of several recent studies on the topic and found that repeal would cost households a total of $6 billion per year by 2030. By 2040, costs would balloon to $25 billion annually.
It’s not just households that would feel the pain. Industrial customers as a whole would spend between $8 billion and $14 billion more for energy each year if Inflation Reduction Act incentives are repealed.
Utility bills are already climbing across much of the country. Service shutoffs are on the rise. The Trump administration just eliminated the entire staff of a program that helps low-income households pay for heating and cooling.
Cutting IRA incentives that encourage the construction of solar, wind, and batteries would exacerbate these problems even as the Trump administration touts its commitment to affordable energy. That’s because clean energy is now the cheapest form of energy, and it’s only getting less expensive. There’s a reason that 93% of the power plants developers plan to build this year are carbon-free.
Congressional Republicans are divided on the issue of IRA tax credits, making it unclear exactly how things will play out. But it’s widely expected that the law will be modified to some extent.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has said the approach will be “somewhere between a scalpel and a sledgehammer.” But attacking the law may be too appealing for GOP lawmakers to pass up; it’s an opportunity to cut federal spending, please Trump, and win culture-war points against clean energy all at once.
Still, there is growing support for the IRA among some of the Republican representatives whose constituents benefit most from the law. We’ll know soon if that’s enough to save key parts of it — and avoid spiking utility bills further.
On Wednesday, President Trump unveiled a suite of new tariffs that target pretty much every country and territory in the world — including some where nobody even lives. The full extent of the tariffs’ reach remains unclear, but wind developers, solar manufacturers, tech companies, automakers, and even fossil-fuel producers are already sweating.
The wind industry, already suffering under the Trump administration, is likely to face further setbacks. Wind turbines rely on components from around the world, even if they’re usually assembled in the U.S. The same is true for solar panels and batteries. Endri Lico, an analyst at Wood Mackenzie, told The New York Times that a 25% tariff on imports could raise the cost of building onshore wind turbines by 10% and renewable energy overall by 7% — and many of Trump’s tariffs exceed that 25% threshold.
Higher clean energy costs will pose a big challenge for tech companies looking to expand energy-hungry data centers to power AI, Semafor reports. Renewables are the cheapest, quickest way to add new power to the grid, especially amid yearslong waits for new gas turbines.
The EV industry is also at risk. Most auto factories being built in the U.S. are focused on EVs and batteries, but they still rely on foreign metals and materials. Manufacturers and dealers fear sticker prices on cars could rise as much as $10,000 under the tariffs, Politico reports, exacerbating one of the biggest deterrents to EV adoption: high up-front costs.
The White House exempted imports of oil, gas, and refined products from the tariffs, alleviating fears for refiners that rely on crude oil imports. But oil prices still plunged Thursday morning, as investors worry the tariffs will slow economic growth and lower fuel demand around the world.
The potential slump in overall economic activity could result in one climate upside: a drop in emissions. “In the short-term, any decline is likely to have a positive impact on emissions reduction,” writes finance professor Rakesh Gupta in The Conversation. “We saw this effect during the COVID-19 pandemic, when global production and trade fell.”
But longer-term progress on U.S. clean energy manufacturing and deployment will likely stall if the announced tariffs hold, with implications that go far beyond decarbonization. Here’s how Vanessa Sciarra, vice president of trade and international competitiveness for American Clean Power, put it in a Thursday statement:
“The policy whiplash from these tariffs will ultimately undermine the ability to realize a domestic supply chain and will constrain efforts to deliver energy security and reliability for Americans.”
Illinois pushes for stronger vehicle emissions rules, despite House threats
Illinois advocates are pushing their state to embrace California’s nation-leading vehicle emissions standards, Canary Media’s Kari Lydersen reports — even as President Trump and House Republicans threaten to eliminate the rules.
Sixteen states and D.C. have adopted California’s zero-emission vehicle rules, and 10 have followed its Advanced Clean Trucks regulations. But to be enforceable, those rules needed a waiver from the U.S. EPA. President Trump has called for “terminating” those waivers. On Thursday, House Republicans introduced legislation that would roll the waivers back, even though the nation’s top legislative auditor ruled that they aren’t subject to congressional review.
Crushing the rules would be a setback not only for efforts to decarbonize transportation but to clean up local air quality, too. Illinois advocates said a key reason they’re pushing these rules is to rid places like Joliet and Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood of the air pollution caused by diesel trucking.
Offshore wind’s future keeps getting murkier
It was another bad week for offshore wind. Contract negotiations for the SouthCoast Wind project, planned for off Massachusetts’ coast, were delayed for a third time. And the developer of Maine’s first offshore wind array paused the floating project, citing industry uncertainty.
More setbacks could be on the way. Last month, the U.S. EPA revoked a permit for the Atlantic Shores development off the New Jersey coast — essentially delaying the project for years given the Trump administration’s pause on new offshore wind permitting. Wind opponents could take advantage of the Republican-run EPA to get more projects canceled, with some anti-wind groups telling Canary Media’s Clare Fieseler that agency head Lee Zeldin may be sympathetic to their cause.
Tesla’s sales slump: Chinese EV giant BYD’s sales grew 60% in the first quarter as it makes inroads beyond its home country, while Tesla’s global deliveries fell 13% over the same period amid consumer backlash against Elon Musk. (CNN, New York Times)
Home energy assistance gutted: The Trump administration fires the entire staff in charge of administering the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which provides roughly $4 billion annually to help families cover home heating and cooling costs. (Latitude Media)
Cleaning up landfills: In the absence of federal action on curbing landfill methane emissions — the U.S.’s third-largest source of methane pollution — Colorado, Michigan, and other states are stepping up with their own plans. (Canary Media)
Grading the grid: The American Society of Civil Engineers grades the U.S. electric grid a D+, down from the C- it got in 2021, amid a shortage of transformers, increase in severe weather, and lack of transmission capacity. (Utility Dive)
Congress’ rare climate win: The U.S. House overwhelmingly passes a bipartisan bill that would juice development and deployment of clean building materials — a rare win for emissions reduction efforts in Republican-held Congress. (Canary Media)
EV factories falter: More EV and battery factories were canceled in the first quarter of 2025 than were in the past two years combined, according to new data from Atlas Public Policy. (Washington Post)
Reduce, reuse … reconsider? Battery recycling company Li-Cycle, which last year received a $475 million federal loan to build a factory in New York, announces it could go out of business and doesn’t have enough money to meet the requirements to access the loan. (E&E News)
DOGE cuts catch on: Republican-led states look to mirror the federal Department of Government Efficiency’s approach to funding cuts, including by slashing regulators that oversee the oil and gas industry. (E&E News)
This story was originally published by Stateline.
WATER VALLEY, Texas — On a recent day when the wind gusted close to 40 miles per hour, 82-year-old George Neill was making repairs on his ranch, oblivious to the nearby cluster of wind turbines churning the sky behind him.
“After about a year, you never know the things are here,” said Neill, who leases part of his West Texas property to an East Coast–based renewable energy company that placed three wind turbines on it four years ago.
Hundreds of other wind turbines stretch across this landscape, instantly visible to motorists traveling to nearby San Angelo and other towns. The turbines aren’t the only renewable energy producers amid the mesas: From a distance, a glistening array of solar panels resembles a small lake.
Texas is famous for producing oil and gas, but renewable energy has become deeply embedded in the state’s culture and economy. Texas led the nation in generating electricity from wind power and utility-scale solar power in 2023, and wind and solar energy projects contribute tax revenue to local governments and struggling school districts. Texas landowners are expected to receive nearly $30 billion in lease payments under current and expected projects, according to an industry study.
But in recent years, Texas has loosened its political embrace of alternative energy. For the second legislative session in a row, many Texas lawmakers are trying to derail or curb future renewable energy projects.
The shift is rooted in a number of factors, including the second Trump administration’s antipathy toward renewables and an aggressive recommitment to fossil fuels in Texas energy policy. There is lingering concern over the reliability of the state’s electrical grid, after all types of power sources failed during a devastating 2021 winter storm. Some people object to the aesthetics of wind and solar farms, or note that turbines and panels can harm some wildlife.
Texas is not alone. Once focused on stopping individual projects at the local level, renewable energy opponents have been making inroads in other state legislatures, too. They have received backing from the oil and gas industry. And they’ve been galvanized by the 2022 passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest-ever attempt to speed the transition to clean energy.
In neighboring Oklahoma, for example, hundreds of people rallied at the state Capitol in January to urge Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt to issue an executive order halting new wind and solar projects. Like Texas, Oklahoma is a major oil and natural gas producer, but it generated 45% of its total in-state electricity from renewable resources in 2023.
Stitt, a strong supporter of renewable energy, is highly unlikely to issue such an order. But he will leave office in two years, and several Republicans discussed as possible successors appeared at the rally. One of them, Attorney General Gentner Drummond, last month on social media criticized what he called “the green energy scam” and urged Stitt and state lawmakers to tighten wind farm rules during the current session.
In Arizona, the House earlier this year approved a bill that would bar wind farm projects within a dozen miles of any property zoned for residential use — a restriction that would apply to about 90% of the land in the state, according to an analysis by the Arizona Republic.
In Ohio, a 2021 law allowing county commissioners to create restricted areas where utility-scale solar and wind projects can’t be built has had a huge impact, as 26 Ohio counties have banned renewable energy projects. This year, GOP lawmakers have introduced legislation that would end all state solar subsidies.
And in Missouri, Republican legislators are pushing a bill that would raise taxes on farmers who lease their land for wind or solar energy projects.
The expanding opposition to renewables isn’t unexpected, said Joshua Rhodes, a research scientist at the University of Texas at Austin who studies the power grid. He noted that wind, solar, and battery storage have rapidly become the “cheapest way to put more energy on the grid.”
“They’re victims of their own success,” he told Stateline. “They are relatively new players to the market, so there’s going to be pushback from incumbents.”
At the center of the current debate in Texas is state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, a Republican committee chair who has resurrected a 2023 bill that would require new utility-scale solar and wind projects to get permits from the state’s Public Utility Commission, regulations that aren’t imposed on projects for natural gas and other energy sources. The bill also calls for set-back requirements and cleanup funds.
Kolkhorst, in a statement to Stateline, called the legislation “a common-sense approach to the encroachment of wind and solar facilities being scattered across our great state with no consideration or safeguards for landowners or the environment.”
At an hourslong Senate committee hearing recently where opponents of Kolkhorst’s bill outnumbered supporters, farmers, ranchers, and small-town Texans sometimes found themselves on opposite sides, either arguing that sprawling wind farms and solar arrays are a lasting source of economic vitality or a threat to a beloved way of life.
“The land isn’t just a piece of property to us,” said Laurie Dihle, who lives on 154 acres in Franklin County with her husband. “It’s our home, our sanctuary, and a big part of who we are. When we look out across the road, we see rolling green pastures and trees. Now we’re facing the possibility of that view and so much more being replaced by a sprawling solar farm.”
Environmentalists and industry representatives view Kolkhorst’s bill as a roadblock in the march toward green energy. Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas, said the bill would open the door to “a really arbitrary discriminatory permitting regime,” requiring wind and solar developers to get permits that other energy producers do not have to have.
Describing herself as a “lifelong wildlife conservationist,” Kolkhorst said she introduced the bipartisan bill with nine other senators in an effort that “looks past the billions in wind and solar subsidies to instead focus on the total impact of these projects on our land, people, and wildlife.”
But oil and gas projects also can harm wildlife, and scientists note that the emissions released by fossil fuels worsen climate change disasters.
Insiders following the legislation, including Metzger, identify one of the bill’s major supporters as Kolkhorst donor Dan Friedkin, a billionaire Houston businessman.
Friedkin, chairman emeritus of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, is owner and CEO of The Friedkin Group, a consortium of businesses and investments that includes Gulf States Toyota. Gulf States is one of the world’s largest distributors of Toyota vehicles and parts, with exclusive rights to sell Toyotas in Texas and four other states. Gulf States Toyota Inc. State PAC made four donations totaling $42,500 to Kolkhorst from October 2020 to October 2024, according to the Texas Ethics Commission.
Friedkin is a stunt pilot and outdoorsman with a ranch in South Texas. Neither he nor his lobbyist, Laird Doran, senior vice president for public and legal affairs at The Friedkin Group, returned phone calls from Stateline.
Texas lawmakers have filed dozens of wind- and solar-related bills this session, including measures aimed at restricting the placement of battery-storage facilities, curbing tax breaks and subsidies for renewable companies, and limiting the amount of electricity solar and wind projects contribute to the state’s power grid.
Republican state Sen. Phil King, for example, is pushing a bill that would mandate that 50% of all new electricity must come from natural gas, nuclear, or battery storage. King said solar and wind power should be part of the state’s energy mix, but he claims they aren’t reliable enough to serve as the foundation.
State Rep. Don McLaughlin, a Republican, has introduced legislation mandating a study of the economic impact of wind and solar projects on local communities, as well as noise and health effects, threats to wildlife, and the challenges of disassembling worn-out systems. Sweetwater, Texas, has thousands of composite blades piled up in “a windmill graveyard.”
But many rural GOP lawmakers whose districts long ago sprouted oil rigs and pumpjacks are now strong supporters of wind and solar power.
“It’s nonstop windmills on both side of the road for 70 miles,” said state Rep. John Smithee of Amarillo, describing a typical drive from his hometown in the Texas Panhandle to the Capitol in Austin. “Almost all of those [constituents] have benefited.”
State Rep. Drew Darby, whose northwest Texas district includes San Angelo and Water Valley, an unincorporated community of around 300, said revenue from wind power has resulted in countywide improvements and lease payments to property owners.
“It’s been a positive impact on rural effectiveness,” said Darby. “Landowners … are receiving nice payments for leasing the property.”
In Water Valley, taxes from the increased revenue paved the way for a tax-free bond election that enabled the town’s K-12 school to add an upscale weight room, a technical educational facility, and a “cafetorium” that serves as a dining room and performance hall. The school building had previously been so small that students had to eat in shifts.
The wind farm is expected to generate $123 million in local taxes over the 30-year life of the project, as well as more than $100 million in payments to landowners.
Neill, the West Texas rancher, said he takes the wind turbines in stride as he roams across his 1,700-acre spread.
He’s not at liberty to reveal the amount of his payments. He’s not getting rich, he said, but the money “makes a difference when you’re trying run a ranch.”
Another proposed energy-saving program is on the chopping block in Ohio.
Duke Energy Ohio quietly dropped plans late last year to roll out a broad portfolio of programs that would have boosted energy efficiency and encouraged customers to use less electricity during times of peak demand. The plans, which would have saved ratepayers nearly $126 million over three years after deductions for costs, were part of a regulatory filing last April that sought to increase charges on customers’ electric bills.
The move came after settlement talks with other stakeholders, including the state’s consumer advocate, which opposes collecting ratepayer money to provide the programs to people who aren’t in low-income groups.
State regulators are now weighing whether to approve the settlement with a much smaller efficiency program focused on low-income neighborhoods.
The case is the latest chapter in a struggle to restore utility-run programs for energy efficiency after House Bill 6, the 2019 nuclear and coal bailout law that also gutted the state’s renewable energy standards and eliminated requirements for utilities to help customers save energy.
Studies show that utility-run energy-efficiency programs are among the cheapest ways to meet growing electricity needs and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Lower demand means fossil-fuel power plants can run less often. Less wasted energy translates into lower bills for customers who take advantage of efficiency programs. Even customers who don’t directly participate benefit because the programs lower peak demand when power costs the most.
Energy efficiency can also put downward pressure on capacity prices — amounts paid by grid operators to electricity producers to make sure enough generation will be available for future needs. Due to high projected demand compared to available generation, capacity prices for most of the PJM region, including Ohio, will jump ninefold in June to about $270 per megawatt-day.
“At a time when PJM is saying we’re facing capacity shortages, we should be doing everything we can to reduce demand,” said Rob Kelter, a senior attorney for the Environmental Law & Policy Center.
Since 2019, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio has generally rejected utility efforts to offer widely available, ratepayer-funded programs for energy efficiency. Legislative efforts to clarify that such programs are allowed under Ohio law have been introduced but failed to pass.
In the current case, Duke Energy Ohio, which serves about 750,000 customers in southwestern Ohio, proposed a portfolio of efficiency offerings that would have cost ratepayers about $75 million over the course of three years but created net savings of nearly $126 million over the same period.
The package included energy-efficient appliance rebates, incentives for off-peak energy use, education programs for schools, and home energy assessments. The company also proposed incentives for customers who let it curtail air conditioning on hot days through smart thermostats.
In November, Duke Energy Ohio filed a proposed settlement with the PUCO staff, the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, industry groups, and others. The terms drop all the programs for energy efficiency, except for one geared toward low-income consumers at a cost of up to $2.4 million per year. The Environmental Law & Policy Center and Ohio Environmental Council objected, as did a consumer group, the Citizens Utility Board of Ohio.
The PUCO will decide whether to approve the settlement plan by evaluating whether it benefits ratepayers and the public interest, whether it is the result of “serious bargaining” among knowledgable parties, and whether it violates any important regulatory principles or practices. Witnesses testified for and against the settlement at a hearing in January. Parties filed briefs in February and March.
Duke Energy Ohio argued in its brief that the settlement will still benefit customers and serve the public interest, even without the energy-efficiency programs for consumers who aren’t low-income. It also suggested that cutting out most of the energy-efficiency measures was needed to reach a deal with other stakeholders and the PUCO.
Staff at the PUCO said the settlement would benefit customers by cutting some projects and limiting how high other charges could go. They dismissed objections about dropping broadly available programs for energy efficiency. “[T]he standard is whether ratepayers benefit, not whether they could have benefitted more,” state lawyers wrote in their brief.
The Environmental Law & Policy Center, Ohio Environmental Council, and Citizens Utility Board of Ohio all argued there is no evidence to support dropping the energy-efficiency programs. They questioned the approach by a Consumers’ Counsel witness of counting only avoided rider costs as benefits, without considering the projected savings from energy efficiency.
The Consumers’ Counsel defended its perspective in an email to Canary Media. “We oppose subsidizing energy efficiency programs through utility rates when those products and services are already available in the competitive marketplace,” the office’s statement said. “And when the programs are run by the utility, there are added charges to consumers, such as shared savings and lost distribution revenue.” The statement also noted that other PUCO decisions have refused to allow energy-efficiency programs that would serve groups other than low-income households.
Last year, for example, the PUCO allowed FirstEnergy to run a low-income energy-efficiency program but turned down its proposal to include generally available rebates in a rider package. Those are “better suited for the competitive market, where both residential and non-residential customers will be able to obtain products and services to meet their individual needs,” the commission’s opinion said. The commission did, however, say the company should develop a rebate program for smart thermostats to help customers manage their energy use. FirstEnergy included that in its latest rider plan filed on Jan. 31.
Ohio has been particularly devoid of programs like those dropped in Duke’s settlement since HB 6 took effect, said Trent Dougherty, a lawyer for the Citizens Utility Board of Ohio. Calculations as of 2019 estimated the law’s gutting of the state’s energy-efficiency standard costs each consumer savings of nearly $10 per month.
“Continuing a pattern of wish-casting, that the market will provide the savings that HB 6 took away, is not a solution,” Dougherty said.
The world needs to move away from fossil fuels to low-carbon power if we’re to reduce our carbon emissions and tackle climate change.
There are two key sources of low-carbon power: renewables (which include solar, wind, hydropower and others) and nuclear.
While rapid growth in solar and wind has increased the amount of power coming from renewables, a lack of enthusiasm for nuclear means it’s playing a shrinking role in the global electricity mix.
In the chart, you can see the share of global electricity coming from fossil fuels, renewables, and nuclear since 1985. Since 2000, nuclear and renewables have followed very different trajectories. Back then, both categories made up a similar share of global electricity, but today, renewables make up more than three times as much: 30% compared to 9%.
The total amount of electricity produced by nuclear plants is almost exactly the same as it was two decades ago. But because the world produces much more electricity overall, its share of the electricity mix has declined.
Explore the electricity mix of different countries in our Energy Data Explorer →
.svg)
