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:
For every level of laundry needs.
Americans love laundry. Of the common household chores, it is
by far the most popular — and the most energy-intensive. Washing and drying a load of laundry every two days for a year generates roughly the same emissions as driving from Chicago to New York and back again in a gasoline-powered passenger vehicle. Nearly three-quarters of those emissions come from drying alone; meanwhile, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, the average washing machine generates up to 8% of a home’s total energy use. The whole process can cost up to $150 per year in electricity alone, depending on where you live and the frequency of your washes.
With some regulatory prodding, manufacturers have tried to improve water and energy efficiency in new appliances and have rolled out fancy new features like “smart” water-level sensors, vibration reduction technologies, and microfiber-catching filters. But not every house — or budget — has room for the latest and greatest technologies, and systems that would work well in an airy Los Angeles laundry room might make less sense in a drafty apartment in Minnesota.
Heatmap is here to remove some of the guesswork from upgrading one of your home’s most-used appliances. Here is our expert panel’s insight into when and how to purchase a new washer and dryer for your home.
Joanna Mauer is the deputy director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, a non-profit advocacy group pushing for stricter energy efficiency legislation. In her role at ASAP, Mauer works with the Department of Energy on its efficiency rules for residential appliances. She has previously worked for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Center for Integrative Environmental Research.
Amber McDaniel is the head of content at Sustainable Jungle, a website and podcast that publishes tips, tricks, and product reviews, including for major household appliances, with a focus on environmentally friendly solutions.
Scott Flint is a licensed California appliance tech with 30 years of experience. He is known as the Fix-It Guy on his YouTube channel, where he promotes the upkeep and repair of home appliances to extend their use. He has also written extensively about washers and dryers for publications such as The Family Handyman, Taste Of Home, and Earth911.
Peruse the latest washers and dryers and you’ll see features like sensors that adjust the water level to match the load of laundry, voice-activated start buttons, WiFi-enabled push notifications for when it’s time to move a load to the dryer, and more. And while there are environmentally friendly upsides to some of these features, “the more simple the machine, the less likely that things will fail,” Flint told me. In his experience repairing hundreds of washers and dryers over the years, “People save money on their initial purchase and the machine is going to last longer if you can minimize the features.”
The Energy Star certification is a great starting point in your shopping journey. But it shouldn’t be the be-all, end-all of your research. Energy Star represents a range of efficiency standards from different brands, with only the top models earning a “ Most Efficient” distinction.
You’ll still want to read reviews to get a better understanding of the reliability of the products you’re looking at, too. Though many new features on the market promise water and energy savings, they’re harder to repair yourself, meaning any potential fixes can get expensive. They can also have shorter lifespans than simpler models.
Eco-friendly washers and dryers are great for a whole laundry list (get it?) of reasons: They lower your household energy bill, they reduce emissions, they reduce wasted water, they’re often easier to install, and they can be gentler on your clothes. But they don’t necessarily save you time. Energy-efficient electric dryers can take up to twice as long to dry your clothes than traditional gas dryers. Still, all of our expert panelists agreed the upsides outweigh the drawbacks.
Yes, this is a buying guide for purchasing a new washer and dryer. But before you spend money on new appliances, you should consider working with what you already have.
If you’re dealing with an old or sub-optimally functional machine and wondering whether now is the time to upgrade, repairing your existing washer or dryer can actually be a smarter and thriftier solution; in fact, Consumer Reports only recommends replacing a dryer if it’s over 10 years old, electric, and cost less than $700 when you initially purchased it. Often, whatever’s going on doesn’t even require a professional to fix. “I think only rarely — let’s say about 20% of the time — would most people need to call in a technician,” Flint told me. Most washer and dryer problems are something you can fix using “normal household tools.” (More on that later.)
Keep in mind, even if you have an old washer or dryer that isn’t very energy efficient, “that’s still not even going to come close to touching the amount of energy that was used to produce and ship a new machine,” McDaniel told me. When your washer or dryer “actually fully stops working and it’s not doing what you need it to do — that’s when it’s time to upgrade.”
Typically, 1.5 to 3.4 cubic feet of capacity is suitable for a one- to two-person household, 3.5 to 4.4 cubic feet will do for two to three people, and 4.5 or more cubic feet will serve a household with more than three people. But having a new baby or pets might mean you do more loads of laundry than an average household, in which case sizing up is better.
Flint told me a common mistake he sees people make is overloading their washing machines, which can destroy an appliance’s rear bearing — the part of the machine that helps the drum rotate smoothly — a repair that is often so costly, it can make more sense to junk the whole machine. On the other hand, running small loads in a large-capacity washing machine can mean wasting water cleaning not-as-many clothes. Consider what washing machine would make the most sense for your needs to maximize efficiency.
Energy and water efficiency are two of the most common considerations when buying a washer and dryer, and are the primary focus of this guide. Some consumers may have additional concerns — McDaniel, for example, recommended looking for a Restriction of Hazardous Substances certification, which signals that an appliance complies with limits on heavy metals like lead and cadmium. Ethical considerations — including a manufacturer’s contributions to armed conflicts, labor practices, and sourcing of conflict minerals — are also worth close inspection. Ethical Consumer offers an excellent guide for finding a brand that best aligns with your values.
“The first thing that we always recommend is: If you need something new, try to go refurbished,” McDaniel told me. Still, there’s a right way and a wrong way to make a major second-hand purchase. McDaniel suggested going through a reputable source that offers a warranty, such as Best Buy (when searching online, make sure to filters for “Energy Star” and “open box” and check the product’s condition).
If you prefer the security of a new product, then it’s time to familiarize yourself with the Energy Star website. You can sort by Energy Star Most Efficient, which are the best of the best, as well as by price, brand, volume, front-load vs. top-load, vented, ventless, heat pump, gas, electric, and more. Energy Star also makes it easy to compare the specs of different products (just tick the “compare” box next to the machines you’re looking at, then scroll to the top to hit the orange “compare” button when you’re ready).
Dryers are the biggest energy suck in most homes, using two to four times as much energy as new washers and nearly twice as much as new refrigerators. McDaniel told me they are also responsible for the greatest wear and tear on clothes. Dryers are an especially American phenomenon; while more than 80% of households in the U.S. own a dryer, just 30% of European households do. That is to say, you probably don’t actually need one, and if you need to save money or space in your laundry routine, this would be the best place to look to make a cut.
“Not relying on a dryer is huge. I only use mine in the wintertime, and in the summer, I line dry my clothes — and the only reason I don’t do that in the winter is I literally don’t have the space inside,” McDaniel said.
Traditional vented dryers — the energy guzzlers of the American home — aren’t the only option anymore, though. The next best thing to a clothesline is a heat pump dryer, which Mauer told me is the “most efficient clothes dryer on the market today,” often far exceeding the Energy Star requirements. Heat pump dryers have a lower maximum temperature, though, so you don’t get that hot-out-of-the-dryer feel when the load is finished. It can also take an hour or more to dry a load of laundry fully. The bright side: Because the heat is lower, heat pump dryers are much gentler on your clothes.
“A big red flag for us is brands that don’t warranty their products in any capacity,” McDaniel told me. Buying a washer or dryer that is durable is important — Flint told me you should expect to get at least a decade of use out of a washer and dryer with proper maintenance and minor repairs — and a warranty is evidence that a company is building a product that they trust to last.
The Electrolux ELFW7637AT has one of the highest energy- and water-efficiency ratings of any washing machine on the market in 2024, with an IMEF of 3.2 and an integrated water factor of 2.6 — both of which are exceptional even by Energy Star’s standards. It also works. Reviewers have lauded its SmartBoost stain removal technology, its internal water heater, and its straightforward controls, although its 85-minute cycle time is a little longer than many other washers on the market.
Both Flint and McDaniel spoke highly of the German brand Miele, which makes this compact washing machine. Though its capacity is about half that of the Electrolux and it didn’t earn Energy Star’s highest level of certification (it has an IMEF of 2.9 and a IWF of 3.2), it is one of the more reliable and best-reviewed washers on the market.
Admittedly, you have to pay for that kind of dependability — Miele is a high-end brand with a sticker price that reflects it. The WXI860 gets high marks for its cleaning ability, including fill-and-forget auto-dispensing features, and boasts 72% lower energy consumption than conventional washers. Additionally, Miele has “a honeycomb-drum technology, so that when it puts the clothes in the spin cycle, it creates a thin film of water between the drum wall and the laundry,” McDaniel told me, which helps prevent clothing fibers from getting caught. “Little features like that that help keep our clothes in circulation for longer are also more sustainable.”
Mauer swears by heat pump dryers, and there are a number of good choices on the market right now. Beko is a favorite of the Sustainable Jungle team, in part because it has a filtration system to stop microplastics from synthetic fabrics from entering the waterways, as well as the company’s ambitious commitments to low-waste and recycled materials. This ventless Beko heat pump dryer is tiny but mighty, making it a great fit for small spaces (it can even fit under the kitchen counter), and it boasts a 2023 “Most Efficient” rating from Energy Star.
Being a heat pump dryer, though, it can take a while to dry clothes — one tester found it took 227 minutes to dry a large, bulky load to 100% — but plan ahead and Beko can give you major savings in the long run. Or, if the Beko isn’t quite what you’re looking for, check out Miele, which makes its own well-reviewed heat pump dryer (although it is small and pricy).
If a heat-pump dryer isn’t right for your lifestyle, the Electrolux ELFE7637AT is one of the more impressive electric dryers on the market right now, earning the Energy Star seal of approval. While it still isn’t super fast (fast takes a lot of heat, which takes a lot of energy, which makes a machine less efficient), reviewers say it can get a large load to 100% dry in 60 minutes if need be. It’s also the best-rated electric dryer on Consumer Reports’ list that isn’t one of the Samsung, LG, or GE models that Flint frequently gets called out to fix.
This combo washer-dryer uses heat pump technology in its dryer, making it one of the more energy-efficient single-unit models on the market. Unlike some of the other options on this list, however, its larger 4.8 cubic foot drum size is big enough for a two- or three-person household. While combo washer/dryers still have some downsides over their two-piece counterparts, including decreased efficiency in cleaning and especially drying, this is one of the better-reviewed units on the market.
Flint told me that you can often find older Kenmore Whirlpool series 80 machines on Craigslist that are “ really good, and tend to sell for about $250 when refurbished, and often come with a one-year warranty.” The only detriment, he said, is that they’re top-loaders — which waste a lot of water — but “if somebody just really needs a tough machine that is going to last, that was a really good design.”
Congratulations! You’re now the proud owner of a new washer and dryer. What happens now?
New washers and dryers are unfortunately not designed with longevity in mind — but that doesn’t mean you need to replace them if something goes wrong after four or five years.
“I can go up to a washing machine that is sitting in the dump, and I can open up the door, and I can spin the spin basket, and I can tell that it’s a perfectly good machine,” Flint told me.
Flint estimates that only about 20% of the time do people actually need to call in a technician to repair their appliances, pointing to fixes like replacing a blown fuse, unsticking a front-load washer that won’t spin, and swapping out a moldy washer door gasket as deceptively simple tasks. Get acquainted with DIY YouTube channels like Flint’s or repair blogs that explain solutions to common problems.
Still, sometimes you need to call in the big guns. In that case, Flint recommends doing your due diligence on a review service like Yelp beforehand.
Once you find someone you like, reach out with the model number of your machine and the symptom you’re experiencing and the technician “should be able to provide you a quote without coming out if they know what they’re doing,” Flint said. If someone does have to come out to figure out what’s going on, then that visit should be free. “Don’t go with someone who’s going to charge you to come out and diagnose the problem and then charge you to fix it.” Repairs to a front-loading washer will probably run around $170, according to Consumer Reports.
You can extend the life of your washer or dryer by following a few more rules of thumb.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Why killing a government climate database could essentially gut a tax credit
The Trump administration’s bid to end an Environmental Protection Agency program may essentially block any company — even an oil firm — from accessing federal subsidies for capturing carbon or producing hydrogen fuel.
On Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed that it would stop collecting and publishing greenhouse gas emissions data from thousands of refineries, power plants, and factories across the country.
The Trump administration argues that the scheme, known as the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, costs more than $2 billion and isn’t legally required under the Clean Air Act. Lee Zeldin, the EPA administrator, described the program as “nothing more than bureaucratic red tape that does nothing to improve air quality.”
But the program is more important than the Trump administration lets on. It’s true that the policy, which required more than 8,000 different facilities around the country to report their emissions, helped the EPA and outside analysts estimate the country’s annual greenhouse gas emissions.
But it did more than that. Over the past decade, the program had essentially become the master database of carbon pollution and emissions policy across the American economy. “Essentially everything the federal government does related to emissions reductions is dependent on the [Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program],” Jack Andreasen Cavanaugh, a fellow at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, told me.
That means other federal programs — including those that Republicans in Congress have championed — have come to rely on the EPA database.
Among those programs: the federal tax credit for capturing and using carbon dioxide. Republicans recently increased the size of that subsidy, nicknamed 45Q after a section of the tax code, for companies that turn captured carbon into another product or use it to make oil wells more productive. Those changes were passed in President Trump’s big tax and spending law over the summer.
But Zeldin’s scheme to end the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program would place that subsidy off limits for the foreseeable future. Under federal law, companies can only claim the 45Q tax credit if they file technical details to the EPA’s emissions reporting program.
Another federal tax credit, for companies that use carbon capture to produce hydrogen fuel, also depends on the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. That subsidy hasn’t received the same friendly treatment from Republicans, and it will now phase out in 2028.
The EPA program is “the primary mechanism by which companies investing in and deploying carbon capture and hydrogen projects quantify the CO2 that they’re sequestering, such that they qualify for tax incentives,” Jane Flegal, a former Biden administration appointee who worked on industrial emissions policy, told me. She is now the executive director of the Blue Horizons Foundation.
“The only way for private capital to be put to work to deploy American carbon capture and hydrogen projects is to quantify the carbon dioxide that they’re sequestering, in some way,” she added. That’s what the EPA program does: It confirms that companies are storing or using as much carbon as they claim they are to the IRS.
The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is “how the IRS communicates with the EPA” when companies claim the 45Q credit, Cavanaugh said. “The IRS obviously has taxpayer-sensitive information, so they’re not able to give information to the EPA about who or what is claiming the credit.” The existence of the database lets the EPA then automatically provide information to the IRS, so that no confidential tax information is disclosed.
Zeldin’s announcement that the EPA would phase out the program has alarmed companies planning on using the tax credit. In a statement, the Carbon Capture Coalition — an alliance of oil companies, manufacturers, startups, and NGOs — called the reporting program the “regulatory backbone” of the carbon capture tax credit.
“It is not an understatement that the long-term success of the carbon management industry rests on the robust reporting mechanisms” in the EPA’s program, the group said.
Killing the EPA program could hurt American companies in other ways. Right now, companies that trade with European firms depend on the EPA data to pass muster with the EU’s carbon border adjustment tax. It’s unclear how they would fare in a world with no EPA data.
It could also sideline GOP proposals. Senator Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, has suggested that imports to the United States should pay a foreign pollution fee — essentially, a way of accounting for the implicit subsidy of China’s dirty energy system. But the data to comply with that law would likely come from the EPA’s greenhouse gas database, too.
Ending the EPA database wouldn’t necessarily spell permanent doom for the carbon capture tax credit, but it would make it much harder to use in the years to come. In order to re-open the tax credit for applications, the Treasury Department, the Energy Department, the Interior Department, and the EPA would have to write new rules for companies that claim the 45Q credit. These rules would go to the end of the long list of regulations that the Treasury Department must write after Trump’s spending law transformed the tax code.
That could take years — and it could sideline projects now under construction. “There are now billions of dollars being invested by the private sector and the government in these technologies, where the U.S. is positioned to lead globally,” Flegal said. Changing the rules would “undermine any way for the companies to succeed.”
Ditching the EPA database, however, very well could doom carbon capture-based hydrogen projects. Under the terms of Trump’s tax law, companies that want to claim the hydrogen credit must begin construction on their projects by 2028.
The Trump administration seems to believe, too, that gutting the EPA database may require new rules for the carbon capture tax credit. When asked for comment, an EPA spokesperson pointed me to a line in the agency’s proposal: “We anticipate that the Treasury Department and the IRS may need to revise the regulation,” the legal proposal says. “The EPA expects that such amendments could allow for different options for stakeholders to potentially qualify for tax credits.”
The EPA spokesperson then encouraged me to ask the Treasury Department for anything more about “specific implications.”
Paradise, California, is snatching up high-risk properties to create a defensive perimeter and prevent the town from burning again.
The 2018 Camp Fire was the deadliest wildfire in California’s history, wiping out 90% of the structures in the mountain town of Paradise and killing at least 85 people in a matter of hours. Investigations afterward found that Paradise’s town planners had ignored warnings of the fire risk to its residents and forgone common-sense preparations that would have saved lives. In the years since, the Camp Fire has consequently become a cautionary tale for similar communities in high-risk wildfire areas — places like Chinese Camp, a small historic landmark in the Sierra Nevada foothills that dramatically burned to the ground last week as part of the nearly 14,000-acre TCU September Lightning Complex.
More recently, Paradise has also become a model for how a town can rebuild wisely after a wildfire. At least some of that is due to the work of Dan Efseaff, the director of the Paradise Recreation and Park District, who has launched a program to identify and acquire some of the highest-risk, hardest-to-access properties in the Camp Fire burn scar. Though he has a limited total operating budget of around $5.5 million and relies heavily on the charity of local property owners (he’s currently in the process of applying for a $15 million grant with a $5 million match for the program) Efseaff has nevertheless managed to build the beginning of a defensible buffer of managed parkland around Paradise that could potentially buy the town time in the case of a future wildfire.
In order to better understand how communities can build back smarter after — or, ideally, before — a catastrophic fire, I spoke with Efseaff about his work in Paradise and how other communities might be able to replicate it. Our conversation has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.
Do you live in Paradise? Were you there during the Camp Fire?
I actually live in Chico. We’ve lived here since the mid-‘90s, but I have a long connection to Paradise; I’ve worked for the district since 2017. I’m also a sea kayak instructor and during the Camp Fire, I was in South Carolina for a training. I was away from the phone until I got back at the end of the day and saw it blowing up with everything.
I have triplet daughters who were attending Butte College at the time, and they needed to be evacuated. There was a lot of uncertainty that day. But it gave me some perspective, because I couldn’t get back for two days. It gave me a chance to think, “Okay, what’s our response going to be?” Looking two days out, it was like: That would have been payroll, let’s get people together, and then let’s figure out what we’re going to do two weeks and two months from now.
It also got my mind thinking about what we would have done going backwards. If you’d had two weeks to prepare, you would have gotten your go-bag together, you’d have come up with your evacuation route — that type of thing. But when you run the movie backwards on what you would have done differently if you had two years or two decades, it would include prepping the landscape, making some safer community defensible space. That’s what got me started.
Was it your idea to buy up the high-risk properties in the burn scar?
I would say I adapted it. Everyone wants to say it was their idea, but I’ll tell you where it came from: Pre-fire, the thinking was that it would make sense for the town to have a perimeter trail from a recreation standpoint. But I was also trying to pitch it as a good idea from a fuel standpoint, so that if there was a wildfire, you could respond to it. Certainly, the idea took on a whole other dimension after the Camp Fire.
I’m a restoration ecologist, so I’ve done a lot of river floodplain work. There are a lot of analogies there. The trend has been to give nature a little bit more room: You’re not going to stop a flood, but you can minimize damage to human infrastructure. Putting levees too close to the river makes them more prone to failing and puts people at risk — but if you can set the levee back a little bit, it gives the flood waters room to go through. That’s why I thought we need a little bit of a buffer in Paradise and some protection around the community. We need a transition between an area that is going to burn, and that we can let burn, but not in a way that is catastrophic.
How hard has it been to find willing sellers? Do most people in the area want to rebuild — or need to because of their mortgages?
Ironically, the biggest challenge for us is finding adequate funding. A lot of the property we have so far has been donated to us. It’s probably upwards of — oh, let’s see, at least half a dozen properties have been donated, probably close to 200 acres at this point.
We are applying for some federal grants right now, and we’ll see how that goes. What’s evolved quite a bit on this in recent years, though, is that — because we’ve done some modeling — instead of thinking of the buffer as areas that are managed uniformly around the community, we’re much more strategic. These fire events are wind-driven, and there are only a couple of directions where the wind blows sufficiently long enough and powerful enough for the other conditions to fall into play. That’s not to say other events couldn’t happen, but we’re going after the most likely events that would cause catastrophic fires, and that would be from the Diablo winds, or north winds, that come through our area. That was what happened in the Camp Fire scenario, and another one our models caught what sure looked a lot like the [2024] Park Fire.
One thing that I want to make clear is that some people think, “Oh, this is a fire break. It’s devoid of vegetation.” No, what we’re talking about is a well-managed habitat. These are shaded fuel breaks. You maintain the big trees, you get rid of the ladder fuels, and you get rid of the dead wood that’s on the ground. We have good examples with our partners, like the Butte Fire Safe Council, on how this works, and it looks like it helped protect the community of Cohasset during the Park Fire. They did some work on some strips there, and the fire essentially dropped to the ground before it came to Paradise Lake. You didn’t have an aerial tanker dropping retardant, you didn’t have a $2-million-per-day fire crew out there doing work. It was modest work done early and in the right place that actually changed the behavior of the fire.
Tell me a little more about the modeling you’ve been doing.
We looked at fire pathways with a group called XyloPlan out of the Bay Area. The concept is that you simulate a series of ignitions with certain wind conditions, terrain, and vegetation. The model looked very much like a Camp Fire scenario; it followed the same pathway, going towards the community in a little gulch that channeled high winds. You need to interrupt that pathway — and that doesn’t necessarily mean creating an area devoid of vegetation, but if you have these areas where the fire behavior changes and drops down to the ground, then it slows the travel. I found this hard to believe, but in the modeling results, in a scenario like the Camp Fire, it could buy you up to eight hours. With modern California firefighting, you could empty out the community in a systematic way in that time. You could have a vigorous fire response. You could have aircraft potentially ready. It’s a game-changing situation, rather than the 30 minutes Paradise had when the Camp Fire started.
How does this work when you’re dealing with private property owners, though? How do you convince them to move or donate their land?
We’re a Park and Recreation District so we don’t have regulatory authority. We are just trying to run with a good idea with the properties that we have so far — those from willing donors mostly, but there have been a couple of sales. If we’re unable to get federal funding or state support, though, I ultimately think this idea will still have to be here — whether it’s five, 10, 15, or 50 years from now. We have to manage this area in a comprehensive way.
Private property rights are very important, and we don’t want to impinge on that. And yet, what a person does on their property has a huge impact on the 30,000 people who may be downwind of them. It’s an unusual situation: In a hurricane, if you have a hurricane-rated roof and your neighbor doesn’t, and theirs blows off, you feel sorry for your neighbor but it’s probably not going to harm your property much. In a wildfire, what your neighbor has done with the wood, or how they treat vegetation, has a significant impact on your home and whether your family is going to survive. It’s a fundamentally different kind of event than some of the other disasters we look at.
Do you have any advice for community leaders who might want to consider creating buffer zones or something similar to what you’re doing in Paradise?
Start today. You have to think about these things with some urgency, but they’re not something people think about until it happens. Paradise, for many decades, did not have a single escaped wildfire make it into the community. Then, overnight, the community is essentially wiped out. But in so many places, these events are foreseeable; we’re just not wired to think about them or prepare for them.
Buffers around communities make a lot of sense, even from a road network standpoint. Even from a trash pickup standpoint. You don’t think about this, but if your community is really strung out, making it a little more thoughtfully laid out also makes it more economically viable to provide services to people. Some things we look for now are long roads that don’t have any connections — that were one-way in and no way out. I don’t think [the traffic jams and deaths in] Paradise would have happened with what we know now, but I kind of think [authorities] did know better beforehand. It just wasn’t economically viable at the time; they didn’t think it was a big deal, but they built the roads anyway. We can be doing a lot of things smarter.
A war of attrition is now turning in opponents’ favor.
A solar developer’s defeat in Massachusetts last week reveals just how much stronger project opponents are on the battlefield after the de facto repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act.
Last week, solar developer PureSky pulled five projects under development around the western Massachusetts town of Shutesbury. PureSky’s facilities had been in the works for years and would together represent what the developer has claimed would be one of the state’s largest solar projects thus far. In a statement, the company laid blame on “broader policy and regulatory headwinds,” including the state’s existing renewables incentives not keeping pace with rising costs and “federal policy updates,” which PureSky said were “making it harder to finance projects like those proposed near Shutesbury.”
But tucked in its press release was an admission from the company’s vice president of development Derek Moretz: this was also about the town, which had enacted a bylaw significantly restricting solar development that the company was until recently fighting vigorously in court.
“There are very few areas in the Commonwealth that are feasible to reach its clean energy goals,” Moretz stated. “We respect the Town’s conservation go als, but it is clear that systemic reforms are needed for Massachusetts to source its own energy.”
This stems from a story that probably sounds familiar: after proposing the projects, PureSky began reckoning with a burgeoning opposition campaign centered around nature conservation. Led by a fresh opposition group, Smart Solar Shutesbury, activists successfully pushed the town to drastically curtail development in 2023, pointing to the amount of forest acreage that would potentially be cleared in order to construct the projects. The town had previously not permitted facilities larger than 15 acres, but the fresh change went further, essentially banning battery storage and solar projects in most areas.
When this first happened, the state Attorney General’s office actually had PureSky’s back, challenging the legality of the bylaw that would block construction. And PureSky filed a lawsuit that was, until recently, ongoing with no signs of stopping. But last week, shortly after the Treasury Department unveiled its rules for implementing Trump’s new tax and spending law, which basically repealed the Inflation Reduction Act, PureSky settled with the town and dropped the lawsuit – and the projects went away along with the court fight.
What does this tell us? Well, things out in the country must be getting quite bleak for solar developers in areas with strident and locked-in opposition that could be costly to fight. Where before project developers might have been able to stomach the struggle, money talks – and the dollars are starting to tell executives to lay down their arms.
The picture gets worse on the macro level: On Monday, the Solar Energy Industries Association released a report declaring that federal policy changes brought about by phasing out federal tax incentives would put the U.S. at risk of losing upwards of 55 gigawatts of solar project development by 2030, representing a loss of more than 20 percent of the project pipeline.
But the trade group said most of that total – 44 gigawatts – was linked specifically to the Trump administration’s decision to halt federal permitting for renewable energy facilities, a decision that may impact generation out west but has little-to-know bearing on most large solar projects because those are almost always on private land.
Heatmap Pro can tell us how much is at stake here. To give you a sense of perspective, across the U.S., over 81 gigawatts worth of renewable energy projects are being contested right now, with non-Western states – the Northeast, South and Midwest – making up almost 60% of that potential capacity.
If historical trends hold, you’d expect a staggering 49% of those projects to be canceled. That would be on top of the totals SEIA suggests could be at risk from new Trump permitting policies.
I suspect the rate of cancellations in the face of project opposition will increase. And if this policy landscape is helping activists kill projects in blue states in desperate need of power, like Massachusetts, then the future may be more difficult to swallow than we can imagine at the moment.