You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Today’s lease auction actually went kinda well.
Just days before what is sure to be a close presidential election in which one of the candidates has promised to shut down the offshore wind industry “on day one,” an auction for the rights to develop wind energy projects in the Gulf of Maine on Tuesday was a surprise success.
Two developers, Avangrid and Invenergy, purchased four of the eight leases that were up for sale. If turned into wind farms, they have the potential to generate about 6.8 gigawatts, or enough electricity to power about 2.3 million homes, according to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
Compared with the optimism on display just two years ago, when more than a dozen companies competed in a three-day bidding war for the right to develop six areas off the coast of New York and New Jersey, Tuesday’s sale was a flop. Just two companies participated. The bidding closed after one round. The leases sold for a flat $50 per acre, compared to an average of nearly $9,000 per acre in the New York sale.
But put in context of how things are going in 2024, it’s a miracle anyone showed up at all. The offshore wind industry has been struggling with supply chain issues and inflation, not to mention increasing opposition from coastal communities. Just a month ago, an offshore wind lease sale off the coast of Oregon was canceled after the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management learned that there was only one interested party. The agency also canceled an auction for the Gulf of Mexico earlier this year citing a lack of interest.
“It’ll be a win if anything gets leased,” Francis Eanes, executive director of the Maine Labor Climate Council, told me Tuesday morning before the results came in. “And honestly, it won’t be surprising if it doesn’t.”
Outside of the existential threat of a Trump presidency, developing wind projects in the Gulf of Maine was already a challenging prospect. The water is upwards of 200 meters deep — too deep to affix the foundation of a wind turbine to the seafloor. Instead, developers will need to build floating structures that are moored to the seabed with giant cables. Floating offshore wind is a proven technology — there are a handful of projects already operating around the world. But it is more expensive to build, and there are none yet operating in the U.S. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that floating offshore wind farms will have a levelized cost of energy that’s at least 40% higher than fixed-bottom projects.
On top of that, just days ago, the U.S. Department of Energy rejected Maine’s application for a $456 million grant to build a floating offshore wind assembly port on Sears Island, a protected area in Penobscot Bay about the size of New York City’s Central Park. A new port is a necessary prerequisite for developing projects in the Gulf of Maine, as floating offshore wind assembly requires different infrastructure than fixed-bottom projects.
Nonetheless, Tyler Hansen, a research associate studying offshore wind at Dartmouth College, told me he thought the results of the auction “make sense” when weighing the prospects for the technology against the political risks. He expects the cost of floating offshore wind to come down as governments around the world invest in research and development. The Department of Energy has a “Floating Offshore Wind Shot,” a program aimed at reducing the cost of floating technology 70% by 2030.
The winds that blow over the Gulf of Maine are especially strong and steady, making them one of the best potential renewable energy resources in the United States. The northeast is also “particularly blessed” with available substations where projects could connect to the grid, Eric Hines, a civil and environmental engineering professor at Tufts University told me. Several recent coal plant closures on the Massachusetts coast have created “an enormous amount of coastal transmission capacity that are prime locations for plugging in offshore wind,” he said.
The area also boasts favorable policy paired with relatively strong grassroots support. States in the Northeast are counting on floating offshore wind to hit their climate goals. Maine has set a goal of achieving 100% clean electricity by 2040, with at least 3 gigawatts of power prescribed to come from the Gulf. Massachusetts, too, anticipates needing some 23 gigawatts from offshore wind by 2050, with at least 10 coming from the Gulf of Maine.
Environmental groups in Maine have spent the past two years building political coalitions with fishermen, tribes, and labor unions in support of developing an offshore wind industry. Those efforts culminated in a major victory last summer when the state passed a bill that set strong labor standards for offshore wind development, created a requirement for tribal engagement in project development, and enshrined a policy of avoiding development in a key fishery known as Lobster Management Area One. Later, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management amended its map of lease areas in the Gulf of Maine to exclude that management area.
“That was a huge win,” Eanes said, and never would have happened without the environmental and labor movement’s proactive efforts to build consensus around where offshore wind should happen, if it were going to happen. As a result, they’ve been able to cultivate a different attitude toward offshore wind in Maine than you will find right now in New Jersey, for example.
“To be clear, if you go to a coastal community in Maine, especially one that lands a lot of lobsters, you’re not going to find support for offshore wind,” he said. “But the level of organized opposition has not been as pitched as it would have been had we seen lease areas in Lobster Management Area One.”
In a press release, Avangrid touted the Gulf of Maine’s strong wind speeds and access to interconnection, as well as the fact that it was “largely deconflicted from other ocean users following a rigorous federal public engagement process.” The company is already developing more than 5 gigawatts of offshore wind along the East Coast, including Vineyard Wind, which is currently under construction. This will be its first project to utilize floating technologies, however it is also owned by Iberdrola, a Spanish company with a pipeline of floating offshore wind projects in Europe.
Maine officials celebrated the results of the auction on Tuesday.
“The federal lease sale represents a significant milestone for Maine and the region as we advance offshore wind in a responsible manner to help us reduce our reliance on expensive, harmful fossil fuels, diversify our sources of energy, grow our economy, and fight climate change,”said Dan Burgess, Director of the Maine Governor’s Energy Office, in an emailed statement.
The Maine Department of Transportation, the agency leading the development of the would-be port, emphasized that it's undeterred despite losing out on the federal grant. “Maine has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to develop a port facility to create good-paying jobs while serving the entire region as we harness abundant clean wind energy in the Gulf of Maine,” Bruce Van Note, the transportation commissioner, said in a statement last week. “Our work will continue as we examine other opportunities to secure funding to advance this critical port infrastructure.”
The agency anticipates filing federal permit applications for the project in the next few months, kicking off a process anticipated to take two years, and securing additional funding for it by the end of 2025. But that timeline may depend on the results of the presidential election next week.
While it’s not always the best advice to take Donald Trump at his word, the former president promised supporters at a rally in New Jersey in May that he would “end” offshore wind development. “You won’t have to worry about Governor Murphy’s 157 windmills,” he said. “I’m going to write it out in an executive order. It’s going to end on day one.”
In its most recent quarterly market report, the industry association Oceantic Network noted that private investment and activity in the offshore wind sector “are decelerating … due largely to the uncertainty around the presidential election.”
At the same time, developers are used to long time horizons. Offshore wind projects can take a decade to permit and build, and as long as state support doesn’t slide, a slowdown of four years isn’t make-or-break. Even with a supportive administration, it will likely be impossible for Avangrid or Invenergy to begin construction in the Gulf of Maine before 2030, as that’s the absolute soonest Maine expects to get its port built.
The fact that two developers took the leap now rather than waiting for 2028 — which is when the next lease sale in the Gulf of Maine is scheduled — shows some level of confidence in the long-term prospects for the industry.
“These leases don’t come up for auction very often,” Hines told me. “And if you don’t have a lease, you can’t build a project.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Chatting with RE Tech Advisors’ Deb Cloutier about data centers, lifecycle costs, and the value of federal data.
Last fall, my colleagues and I at Heatmap put together a comprehensive (and award-winning!) guide on how to Decarbonize Your Life. Though it contained information on everything from shopping for an EV to which fake meats are actually good, as my colleague Katie Brigham noted, “an energy-efficient home needs energy-efficient … gadgets to fill it up.” So we also curated lists of climate-conscious stoves, heaters, and washer-dryers — recommendations we made by talking to experts, but also by looking closely at appliances’ Energy Star certifications.
You’ve probably relied on these certifications, too. Overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency, Energy Star labels are recognized by 90% of Americans as indicating that an appliance is top of its class when it comes to saving electricity and money. According to the government’s estimates, the voluntary program has saved Americans $500 billion since it began in 1992.
But now all that appears to be reaching its end: Last week, EPA leadership told staff that the division that oversees the Energy Star efficiency certification program for home appliances will be eliminated as part of the Trump administration’s ongoing cuts and reorganization (although the president has also long pursued a vendetta against low-flow showerheads and dishwashers that “don’t work”). To better understand the ramifications of such a decision, I spoke this week with Deb Cloutier, the president and founder of the sustainability firm RE Tech Advisors and one of the original architects of Energy Star. She provided technical guidance and tools as a consultant during the program’s development stages of the program, and later worked as a strategic advisor for the Department of Energy’s Better Buildings Initiative. Our conversation has been lightly edited and for length and clarity.
You’ve been involved in the Energy Star program since the beginning. Can you tell me a little about what the atmosphere was like when it was established back in 1992? Was there resistance to it from appliance manufacturers or Republicans at that time?
Energy Star represented a voluntary public-private partnership, meaning a nonregulatory approach to engaging the business community and catalyzing the adoption of strategic energy management. So at the time, it was the first of its kind. I wouldn’t say folks were just like, “Yes, let’s do this.” It was really new and different.
The other thing is that at that time, we had come out of the oil crisis of the 1970s, and people were starting to recognize the importance of where and how our energy was being produced. But we weren’t focused on thinking about it as an opportunity. For office buildings, the single largest controllable operating expense is your energy or utilities expenses; if the Environmental Protection Agency or the government could build awareness, develop tools, and help businesses understand how they could invest in energy efficiency and how that would translate to financial performance results for them — it was a great experiment. And it turns out that it’s the single most successful voluntary program we’ve had to date, saving over $5 billion annually.
It’s clear how losing Energy Star would harm consumers, but I’m curious to hear from you about how this is also bad for building owners and residents. What is the cost of losing this program, especially from a climate perspective?
The most important contribution of the EPA’s Energy Star program is that it has created a national standard to benchmark and measure efficiency and energy performance. You can’t manage what you don’t measure, and consistency across building types, ages, and sizes — it’s pretty complicated to make an apples-to-apples comparison.
One of the tools and resources that Energy Star has created, which I see as being embedded in the fabric of American businesses, is their benchmarking tool called Portfolio Manager. It is tied to dozens of state and local jurisdiction policies and legislation that range from building energy disclosure to mandatory best practices to maintaining and operating buildings and emissions thresholds. So the Energy Star rating system is tied not only to how organizations assess their whole building performance, but also to how it tracks and measures progress towards efficiency improvements and then gives a certification or recognition for the most highly efficient ones.
Another thing folks tend not to consider is the relationship between energy efficiency and grid stability. Energy Star-certified appliances, homes, buildings, and industrial facilities help to reduce peak demand, which improves grid stability and resilience. It also lowers the risk of brownouts and blackouts. Think about the growing demands of data center computing and AI models — we need to bring more energy onto the grid and make more space for it. People sometimes don’t realize that it is really dependent on a consistent, impartial standard as a level setting.
If you look at some of the statistics, they’re projecting that investments in new data centers will grow at more than a 20% compound annual growth rate, and that’s equal to $59 billion. It’s just astronomical how much more energy demand there will be. If you try to put that on top of a grid that is fairly antiquated and very inefficient in the way it generates, transmits, and distributes energy, then you are intensifying the potential problem.
I’ve heard about manufacturers or an outside energy or appliance group possibly setting up a replacement program if Energy Star is eliminated. What is the advantage of having the government specifically oversee Energy Star?
Three or four things make the federal government the most unique entity and the most well-equipped to oversee the Energy Star program. First, they have access to large data sets using CBECS, the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey, and RECS, the Residential Energy Consumption Survey. The government inherently is an impartial, unbiased group, and entities are willing to share their data with it, and that would not be the same if it were a third party or a privatized group. That data set is instrumental in creating the standards that allow you, for products, to evaluate the most energy efficient, or for buildings, to develop a one-to-100 score. Energy Star allows the top 25% to be recognized as exemplary energy performance.
The government also has access to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory resources; they have the data, and I believe they have the impartiality and the trust. Today, the Energy Star brand has over 90% consumer recognition. I would be concerned if manufacturers or others would produce confusion in the marketplace related to a single little blue label.
Is there anything consumers should know about making decisions or navigating their choices if we return to a pre-1992 landscape?
In the absence of an Energy Star label, one thing we can do is help consumers understand that it is not just about the first cost of a dishwasher or a washing machine or renting an apartment. It’s about total lifecycle costs. What the Energy Star label does is it helps you have confidence that [an appliance] will use the least amount of energy necessary to run over its lifetime. But if your product or apartment is full of less efficient appliances, you have to think about how much more energy you will pay for over that life cycle. That’s sometimes a difficult concept for folks to understand: They think of their first cost, not the cost to operate or maintain something over time, which is higher if it’s not energy efficient.
Is there anything else people often overlook when considering the ramifications of losing Energy Star?
Energy efficiency is important for all constituencies and all sectors of the U.S. economy. Some folks will be harder hit by this, and by that, I mean low-income housing, schools, hospitals, and public sector buildings. Those facilities often have very limited budgets, so energy efficiency is one of the lowest-cost, most effective investments with good returns. But if you’re a low-income family, think about it: If you make less than $33,000 a year for a family of four, your utility bills have an outsized impact on the total cost of living. If the total utility bill is $300 or $400 a month, then utilities represent 10% to 15% of your total income, so efficiency can have an outsized impact.
The other side of that is mission-critical facilities. Having the ability to run lights, air conditioning, and cooling is important for comfort, but in some facilities — like precision manufacturing or biopharmaceuticals, data centers, things of that nature — it becomes a mission-critical area, not a nice-to-have. We can help reduce the amount of energy used by those facilities, extend their useful life, help them maintain their systems longer, and allow those businesses to be more competitive.
What’s your read on how the proposed Energy Star elimination is being discussed right now?
There’s a lot of hyperbole about Energy Star being eliminated — it’s a fait accompli. It is important to note that Energy Star is a line item identified in the statute by Congress for approval for funding. It seems pretty unrealistic, from a judicial standpoint, that it would be able to be eliminated before the end of this fiscal year.
I know that there are many, many representatives, both Republican and Democrats, who support Energy Star. We’ve had 35 years of bipartisan support, and it has been earmarked in congressional law many times, through multiple George H.W. and George W. Bush administrations. And there are a lot of lobbying efforts that I’m personally aware of within the commercial real estate industry and the manufacturing industry, where folks are reaching out and doing calls to action for the House and Senate Appropriations majority members — similar activities to what we did eight years ago when Energy Star was directly under fire.
It seems like such a strange thing for the administration to go after. It’s not like appliance manufacturers were clamoring for this, right?
It’s very vexing to me. I don’t get it. If the Trump administration wants to focus on affordability in American households, energy efficiency isn’t the thing to cut. I’m not sure if it’s getting caught up in the fact that it is in the Office of Atmospheric Pollution Prevention, or because at the Department of Energy’s Better Buildings Program, Biden launched the Better Climate Challenge. I don’t know if it’s because it had some ties to climate, but what’s ironic is that it didn’t start as a climate program. It began as an energy efficiency program, and it’s always been focused on businesses and the financial returns on investment — it helps us attract capital and debt for investment in real estate. It’s really disconnected.
On drinking water, a ‘rogue’ discovery, and Northwest data centers
Current conditions: Today marks the start of the Eastern Pacific Hurricane Season, and meteorologists are monitoring two potential areas of tropical development• Millions in the Great Plains and Eastern U.S. face risks of thunderstorms, large hail, and tornadoes • Steady rain continues Thursday in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, where at least 100 people have died in flash floods.
1. Trump administration backtracks on promise to protect drinking water from forever chemicals
The Environmental Protection Agency announced Wednesday that it plans to rescind four Biden-era limitations on pollutants in drinking water. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, also called PFAS or “forever chemicals,” are linked to many serious health issues, including certain cancers; as I’ve covered, they are common in products advertised as stain-proof, nonstick, and water repellent. The EPA’s decision follows Administrator Lee Zeldin’s claim less than two weeks ago that “I have long been concerned about PFAS” and “we are tackling PFAS from all of EPA’s program offices,”E&E News reports.
In the Wednesday announcement, Zeldin backpedaled from his initial call for action, claiming the agency is looking into “common-sense flexibility in the form of additional time for compliance.” He also pushed back on claims that the agency is weakening PFAS standards, per The Washington Post, saying the EPA is looking into revising the limits and that “the number might end up going lower, not higher.” Water utilities, which have balked against the high cost and difficulty of filtering PFAS out of an estimated 158 million Americans’ drinking water, praised the EPA’s delay as “the right thing.”
2. Security experts discovered ‘unexplained’ pieces of communication equipment in Chinese-made solar power inverters
U.S. energy officials have discovered “unexplained communication equipment” in some Chinese-made solar inverters, Reuters reports. Inverters help connect solar panel systems to the electric grid and allow utilities to conduct remote updates and maintenance; because China makes most inverters, power companies typically use firewalls to prevent foreign communication with the devices.
Security experts reportedly found the rogue devices during inspections. Though the sources who spoke with Reuters did not share the manufacturers of the inverters, similar communication devices were reportedly also found in some batteries from “multiple Chinese suppliers” over the past nine months. A spokesperson at the Chinese embassy in Washington pushed back on Reuters’ report, saying, “We oppose the generalization of the concept of national security, distorting and smearing China's infrastructure achievements.”
3. Northwest data centers could ‘cannibalize’ clean power in states with lower environmental protections: report
Sightline Institute
The Northwest has one of the country’s highest concentrations of data centers due to the region’s tax breaks — including low or no property taxes for many in Oregon and sales and use exemptions on equipment purchases and installations in Washington — as well as its below-average renewable power prices. But utilities “working across state lines could shift renewable resources to serve Northwest data centers, making up the difference by burning more coal and gas in places that lack strong environmental protections,” Emily Moore, the director of climate and energy at the sustainability think tank Sightline, writes in a new report.
One such example is what’s being done by Avista, an electricity service in eastern Washington and western Idaho. To meet the needs of a new 200 megawatt data center in Washington, as well as to comply with the state’s Clean Energy Transformation Act, “the company indicated it would add 95 megawatts of gas capacity in Idaho and then shift wind resources that would have served Idaho customers to Washington,” Moore writes. In essence, Washington is “cannibalizing” clean power currently serving Idahoans, and Avista is polluting “more in Idaho to make up the difference.” The report goes on to propose policy paths for Northwest leaders, including accelerating the buildout of the region’s congested electric transmission system, since “a right-sized modern grid could let data centers tap wind from Montana or sun from California instead of encouraging them to locate in states with no commitment to clean power.” You can read Sightline’s full report here.
4. BP chief economist warns China is winning the ‘new energy’ race
Michael Cohen, BP’s chief U.S. economist and head of oil and refining, warned this week that China is winning the “new energy” race with its clean technology supply chains and electric vehicles, Fortune reports. At the Enverus Evolve oil and gas conference in Houston, Cohen said the U.S. is at risk of failing “Econ 101” if it slow-walks on renewables due to resistance from the Trump administration, supply chain issues, and interest rates. He projected that global oil demand will peak in the next decade, with renewables rising from 15% to 30% of the global energy market between now and 2050.
A new report by Carbon Brief appears to back up Cohen’s analysis. The report says that renewable energy sources in China produced enough electricity in the first quarter of the year to “cut coal-power output even as demand surged,” with CO2 emissions down 1.6% year-on-year despite power demand growth. Carbon Brief adds that, if sustained, the findings would “herald a peak and sustained decline in China’s power-sector emissions.”
5. Trump family Bitcoin business adds personal stakes to energy policy
The Trump family is poised to have a fresh personal stake in U.S. electricity and energy policy as Eric Trump and Donald Trump, Jr. plan to take their Bitcoin mining firm public, E&E News reports. According to the announcement earlier this week, American Bitcoin — co-founded by Eric Trump — will merge with Gryphon Digital Mining Inc., which is already publicly traded.
Initially a subsidiary of Hut 8, an energy infrastructure partner with more than 1,000 megawatts of energy capacity, American Bitcoin boasted that with the merger, it will achieve “mining leadership” by leveraging Hut 8’s “energy advantage, rapid execution, and proven team.” Cryptocurrency mining is highly energy-intensive, accounting for an estimated 2.3% of the nation’s electricity use last year, and President Trump’s aspirations to have it “mined, minted, and made in the USA” are part of what his administration has used to justify its energy emergency. With American Bitcoin, the Trump family is also “delving deeper into the energy space where federal policies under Trump intersect directly with access to electricity and fuels,” E&E News writes, noting that Eric Trump stated at the launch of the company last April that “We’ve got the best energy policy in this country. That policy is only getting better.”
Penguin Random House
Nigerian author Abi Daré has won the inaugural Climate Fiction Prize for her novel And So I Roar. The book “follows fourteen-year-old Adunni from her life in Lagos, where she is excited to finally enroll in school, to her home village where she is summoned to face charges for events that are in fact caused by climate change.”
Tax credit transferability is a wonky concept, but it’s been a superpower for clean energy developers.
One of the most powerful innovations in the Inflation Reduction Act was a new vehicle to finance clean energy projects. In addition to expanding the nation’s tax credits for climate-friendly projects, Congress gave developers freedom to sell these credits for cash. If a battery factory couldn’t take full advantage of the tax credits itself, it could transfer them to someone else who could.
Now, Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee have proposed getting rid of this “transferability” provision as part of a larger overhaul of the tax credits. A draft bill published on Monday would end the practice starting in 2028.
Nixing transferability isn’t the bill’s most damaging blow to clean energy — new sourcing requirements for the tax credits and deadlines that block early-stage projects pose a bigger threat. But the ripple effects from the change would permeate all aspects of the clean energy economy. At a minimum, it would make energy more expensive by making the tax credits harder to monetize. It would also all but shut nuclear plants out of the subsidies altogether.
Prior to the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, if renewable energy developers with low tax liability wanted to monetize existing tax credits, they had to seek partnerships with tax equity investors. The investor, usually a major bank, would provide upfront capital for a project in exchange for partial ownership and a claim to its tax benefits. These were complicated deals that involved extensive legal review and the formation of new limited liability corporations, and therefore weren’t a viable option for smaller projects like community solar farms.
When the 2022 climate law introduced transferability across all the clean energy tax credits, it simplified project finance and channeled new capital into the clean energy economy. Suddenly, developers for all kinds of clean energy projects could simply sell their tax credits for cash on the open market to anyone that wanted to buy them, without ceding any ownership. The tax credit marketplace Crux estimated that a total of $30 billion in transfers took place last year, only about 30% of which were traditional tax equity deals. In the past, tax equity transfers have topped out at around $20 billion per year.
Schneider Electric, which has long helped corporate clients make power purchase agreements, now facilitates tax credit transfers, as well. The company recently announced that it had closed 18 deals worth $1.7 billion in tax credit transfers since late 2023. The buyers were all new to the market — none had directly financed clean energy before the IRA, Erin Decker, the senior director of renewable energy and carbon advisory services, told me.
It turns out, buying clean energy tax credits is a win-win for brands with sustainability commitments, which can reduce their tax liability while also helping to reduce emissions. Some companies have even used the savings they got through the tax credits to fund decarbonization efforts within their own operations, Decker said.
By simplifying project finance, and creating more competition for tax credit sales, transferability also made developing renewable energy projects cheaper. Developers of wind and solar farms have been able to secure upwards of 95 cents on the dollar for transferred tax credits, compared to just 85 to 90 cents for tax equity transactions. The savings go directly to utility customers.
“State regulators require electric companies to pass the benefits of tax credits through to customers in the form of lower rates,” the Edison Electric Institute wrote in a policy brief on the provision. “If transferability were repealed, electric companies once again would rely on big banks to invest in tax equity transactions, ultimately reducing the value of the credit that flows directly through to customers.”
Many of the companies that can’t count on tax equity deals will still have other options under the GOP proposal. Tax-exempt entities, like rural electric cooperatives and community solar nonprofits, can use “elective pay,” another IRA innovation that allows them to claim the credits as a direct cash payment from the IRS. For-profit companies developing carbon capture and advanced manufacturing projects also have the option to use elective pay for the first five years they operate. All of this raises questions about whether axing transferability would furnish the government with meaningful savings to offset Trump’s tax cuts.
But the bigger danger for Trump would be his nuclear agenda. Prior to the IRA, low power prices meant that many nuclear operators couldn’t afford to extend the licenses on their existing plants, even ones that had many years of useful life left in them. The IRA created a new tax credit for existing nuclear plants that made it economical for operators to invest in keeping these online, and even helped bring some, like the Palisades plant in Michigan, back from the dead.
This wouldn’t have worked without transferability, Benton Arnett, the senior director of markets and policy at the Nuclear Energy Institute, told me. Going forward, finding a tax equity partner would be nearly impossible because of the unique rules governing nuclear plants. Federal regulations require that the owners of a nuclear power plant be listed on its license, so bringing on a new owner means doing a license amendment — a headache-inducing process that banks simply don’t want to take on. “We’ve had members reach out to tax equity groups in the past and there was very little interest,” Arnett said
While a few plant owners might have enough tax appetite to benefit from credits directly, most have depreciating assets on their books that greatly reduce their liability. “Without transferability, for many of our members, it’s very difficult for them to actually monetize those credits,” said Arnett. “In a way, nuclear is disproportionately impacted by removing that ability to transfer.”
In February, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright declared that “the long-awaited American nuclear renaissance must launch during President Trump’s administration.” But so far on Trump’s watch, between the proposed loss of transferability and early phase-out of nuclear tax credits, plus cuts to loan programs at the Department of Energy, we’ve only seen policies that would kill the nuclear renaissance.