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:
Plus a note on batteries.

Rooftop solar is not like other types of consumer technology. Even though the end result is having a bunch of electrical equipment installed on the roof of your home, the process of getting solar is more like doing a bathroom renovation than buying a flat screen TV. To get the results you’re looking for, the most important decisions you’ll make are not the brand or model of the panels, but rather who you hire for the job, the size of your system, and how you finance it.
There’s a bunch more choices you’ll have to navigate along the way, and it’s easy to get overwhelmed. One expert I spoke with told me that sometimes the customers who are the most excited about getting solar end up bailing, the victims of decision fatigue.
We created this guide to save you from that fate. So take a deep breath, take my hand, and let’s walk down the metaphorical hardware store aisle and get you the rooftop solar solution you’re dreaming of.
Roger Horowitz is the director of Go Solar programs at Solar United Neighbors, a national nonprofit that serves as an unbiased resource for homeowners interested in solar. Horowitz manages and provides technical support to the company’s Solar Help Desk team.
Tony Vernetti is a senior trainer at Enphase Energy, a company that produces inverters, batteries, and EV chargers, where he trains solar sales and installation teams. Before joining Enphase in 2020, Vernetti spent 12 years working for rooftop solar companies in California.
Nate Bowie is the vice president of residential sales at ReVision Energy, an employee-owned solar company operating throughout northern New England. Bowie has been selling solar for ReVision for 15 years.
While the actual installation of the system should only take one to two days, the entire process from initial outreach to grid connection takes two to four months on average, according to Solar United Neighbors.
Example: The highest rated solar panels for 2024 according to EnergySage.com are SunPower's M-Series 440 watt model. If you install 20 of these, the system will be capable of generating 8,800 watts, or 8.8 kilowatts in direct sun.
When you start searching for information about solar on the internet, you might come across advertisements or commercials promoting free solar panels. There is no such thing. These ads are typically schemes to collect your personal data and sell it to solar companies looking for leads, and the federal government is starting to
crack down on them.
It is possible to install solar with zero up-front costs if you lease the system or take out a loan to finance it, but in both cases you will still owe monthly payments. It is also rare that anyone is able to offset 100% of their utility bill. You can get close, but you will likely still owe at least a connection fee to your utility company.
Most homeowners in the U.S. can benefit from installing solar as long as local energy policies are favorable. Placing the panels on a south-facing roof is optimal, but not necessary. If your panels face due west, you’ll only lose about 10% of potential generation, according to Vernetti. “They still produce a ton of energy. They’re still very effective. It's just a little bit less than if they're facing south,” he said. An east-facing roof is also viable in most cases.
You don’t have to worry about shoveling snow off the roof or anything like that. But like any other electronic devices, solar panels, inverters, and batteries can break or malfunction, and your system may require servicing at some point. Pay close attention to your warranties (more on that later). If you lease the system, you do not have to worry about this as much because the third-party owner will be responsible for maintenance.
In order to design a system that meets your needs and budget, solar companies will ask for a copy of your most recent electricity bill or, ideally, your annual energy consumption history. Make sure you have this information handy before you reach out for quotes.
Some utilities include your annual energy consumption, broken out by month, at the bottom of your electric bill. If you don’t see it, you should be able to log into your utility account online and download either your statements from the past year or a spreadsheet of your monthly electric meter readings.
In most of the U.S., you will find you have the option either to lease your solar panels or buy them outright. You don’t have to decide which way you want to go before you get started, but it’s helpful to think through the pros and cons of each.
Heatmap Recommends leasing if: You’re fairly certain you’ll keep your house for the next 15 to 20 years; you can’t afford the system outright, but you don’t want to take out a loan; your priority is to generate clean energy and reduce emissions, but you don’t want to spend too much time figuring out what you want or worrying about the system’s maintenance.
Heatmap Recommends buying if: You have the cash in hand; you might sell your house in the next 20 years; you know you want to have control over the details of your project.
The federal government offers a 30% tax credit for solar installations (and batteries) that covers parts and labor. It can significantly reduce the cost of getting solar, even if you don’t have a lot of tax liability in the year that you install the system. The credit will roll over to subsequent tax years.
Example: If you spend $25,000 installing solar in 2024, you’ll be eligible to take $7,500 off your federal income tax bill. If you only owe $3,000 in federal taxes in 2024, you’ll get $3,000 back and will be eligible to claim the remaining $4,500 for the 2025 tax year. If in 2025 you only owe $3,000 again, you can claim the remaining $1,500 in 2026.
Additional tax credits and rebates may also be offered by your state energy office, city, or utility. Contractors should be able to help you figure out what you’re eligible for, and you can wait to talk to them to learn more. However, incentives change frequently, and contractors don’t always keep up, so you might want to review the options in your area independently.
It will also be helpful to understand your state’s net metering policy, as that will determine how quickly your investment in solar will pay off and may also dictate how big your system can be. Some states, like New Jersey, also allow homeowners to generate additional income through the sale of solar renewable energy credits, or SRECS.
Where to look for more information:
One of the worst things that could happen is you install rooftop solar panels, and then later find out you have a leak or some other problem with your roof. “Removal and replacement of an array for a reroof is expensive and could significantly impact the owner’s return on investment,” Bowie told me. While metal roofs last a very long time and are unlikely to need a replacement, asphalt shingle roofs generally have a useful life of 25 to 30 years, Bowie said. You should be fine if your roof is less than 10 years old, but if not, you may need some roofing work done before your solar panels are installed.
If you don’t know how old your roof is, Vernetti recommended having a roofing contractor inspect it. He added that there’s varying opinions on this, with some solar experts recommending replacement if the roof is only 5 years old. “In my opinion, scrapping a 5 year old roof is wasteful and goes against the goal of sustainability,” he said.
“A good solar contractor will help evaluate the roof conditions and should recommend replacement when necessary, even if it is just to replace the roof on the roof plane where the solar panels will go,” said Bowie.
Solar contractors range from local mom and pop shops, to regional providers like ReVision Energy, which operates in multiple states in the Northeast, to national companies that install across the country like Sunrun and Sunnova.
“The advantage of going with a large company is that they have the ability to offer financing the smaller companies might not be able to. With a regional company, you can actually walk to their office and knock on the door and talk to somebody if you want to,” said Vernetti.
Heatmap Recommends: Contact at least one local company and one national company to get a good sense of your options. Always get at least three quotes!
If you are calling installers directly, here are some tips for what you should ask for or look for in a quote. (If you are using an online resource like EnergySage that finds quotes for you, use the following to help you ask follow-up questions or refine the proposals.)
A few questions you should ask:
One of the first questions an installer might ask you is how big you want the system to be. You may want to see quotes for multiple options in order to compare them. Options include:
Heatmap Recommends: Oversize your system if you can afford it.
Why?
Exceptions:
Most installers will include a financing option in their quote. Horowitz noted that some installers advertise very low interest rates that are below market rate. They are typically able to do this by paying a “dealer fee” to the bank, which they incorporate into the price of your installation — in other words, if your interest rate seems too good to be true, the total cost of your installation will likely be higher than it otherwise would be. To get a better sense of the true cost, ask for quotes both with and without financing options.
Adding energy storage, a.k.a. a battery, to your solar array can add another 10 grand or more to the project cost. But there are a few reasons it might be worth it:
In conclusion, if you just want back-up power, any battery that’s large enough to power your essential systems should do. If you want to pay off the investment, look into time-of-use rates. If you want your investment to go further for decarbonization, ask your contractor if there are local grid services programs available, and if any of their products are compatible.
After you get a few quotes, you’re going to want to spend some time comparing them, asking questions, and potentially soliciting additional quotes with variations on the system. If you’re feeling overwhelmed or you don’t have the time or patience to sort through the details on your own, you can also call the Solar United Neighbors Help Desk, which offers a free quote review service.
The most important number on the quote is the price per watt, not the total system cost. That is the number you should be comparing between different installers, as the quotes may be for differently sized systems.
You should also compare the annual bill savings. If two different companies quote you significantly different savings for systems that are roughly the same size, one of them has likely done a more detailed analysis of your roof than the other.
“It doesn't matter what module you have, from which manufacturer, or what inverter you have. There really is no difference in what your system can produce if it's the same size,” said Bowie.
Lastly, if the quote is for a solar lease, or includes a financing option, look at the monthly payments.
Every installer has certain brands and types of equipment they work with. Our expert panel agreed that it’s important to look at the brand names the installer is offering for the solar panels, inverters, and batteries, and to make sure they are from reputable companies that have been around for at least five years — even if it means paying more. A quick internet search of the top 10 residential solar panel brands should give you a taste of what those companies are.
“It is definitely worth paying a little bit extra to have really good equipment,” Vernetti said.
You may also see installers advertise that they offer “Tier 1” solar panels. That means the manufacturer has been designated “bankable” by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The designation is more related to finance than product quality, but many solar companies use it as a rough proxy for reliability.
That being said, don’t get too bogged down in comparing solar brands.
“There's not a huge difference, typically, between one solar panel and the next of the Tier 1 manufacturers,” said Bowie. “A lot of solar companies will maybe offer one or two different manufacturers, and then maybe beyond that one or two different sizes.”
When it comes to inverters, you do want to pay attention to whether your quote includes string inverters, microinverters, or power optimizers. In a system with a string inverter, your panels will all be wired to one central inverter. This is generally the cheapest option, but it is less durable and may need to be replaced, said Vernetti, whose employer, Enphase, is the leading producer of microinverters. String inverters can also limit the output of your system if part of the roof gets more shade.
The other two options are more expensive but get around the issue with shade. A system with power optimizers is similar to one with a string inverter, but each panel will also have a small device attached to it that regulates the output and maximizes your system’s performance. By contrast, microinverters are small inverters attached to each individual panel. Both of these options also allow you to monitor each panel’s performance.
Bowie said the two were comparable in terms of performance and price. A key consideration, he said, is that your choice of inverter can begin to lock you into using the same brand of equipment on other home upgrades you might do down the line. “If you're an EnPhase customer, you're likely going to be going down the track of an EnPhase battery storage system,” he said. “Whether the customers know it or not, they're kind of being pushed down a path towards this manufacturer for more things in their home, like batteries, whole home controls, electric vehicle charging."
Your quote should provide information about warranties offered by the manufacturers of the panels, inverters, and batteries, as well as by the installation company. 25-year warranties are standard, but the details vary by installation company and by manufacturer. For example, your inverters may have a 25-year warranty, meaning you can get replacement inverters for free if any of them fails within that time period — but if you don’t have a warranty on labor, it could cost you several hundred dollars to get them installed.
“It's really important for customers to read the fine print and to talk with their local solar company who is quoting the system for them to uncover what the warranties mean,” said Bowie.
This is especially important if you are installing batteries. Ask your installer about both the equipment warranty and their policy is for servicing the equipment.
Most solar installers offer financing options. Your quote should include the name of the lender the installer works with, the down payment, monthly payment, financing term, and interest rate. However, you may find a better deal elsewhere. Horowitz noted that installers like using their own financing companies because it speeds up the sales process — they can approve you for a loan just by putting in your social security number, and sell it to you at the same time as the contract. But you may find a better deal elsewhere.
“Talk to your bank, talk to your credit union, look at home equity lines of credit, see what other options you have out there, and if those have lower interest rates or better payment terms,” said Horowitz. “You are not required to use their finance.”
After you’ve found an installer, settled on a system design, and secured financing, all that’s left to do is sign your contract. Then, you wait. Your installer will have to obtain permits from your city, county, or state, as well as an interconnection agreement with your utility.
One way to try to minimize the wait time is by working with an installer with lots of local experience. They’ll be better equipped to navigate the permitting process. For example, if you want Tesla solar panels but Tesla hasn’t done many installations in your community, it may take longer for the company to get through this stage.
After these two steps are complete, the solar company will reach out to you to schedule the installation, which should only take a few days.
After the system is installed, you may have to wait for a final inspection from your utility or a verified third party for permission to operate the system.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On nuclear tax credits, BLM controversy, and a fusion maverick’s fundraise
Current conditions: A third storm could dust New York City and the surrounding area with more snow • Floods and landslides have killed at least 25 people in Brazil’s southeastern state of Minas Gerais • A heat dome in Western Europe is pushing up temperatures in parts of Portugal, Spain, and France as high as 15 degrees Celsius above average.

The Department of Energy’s in-house lender, the Loan Programs Office — dubbed the Office of Energy Dominance Financing by the Trump administration — just gave out the largest loan in its history to Southern Company. The nearly $27 billion loan will “build or upgrade over 16 gigawatts of firm reliable power,” including 5 gigawatts of new gas generation, 6 gigawatts of uprates and license renewals for six different reactors, and more than 1,300 miles of transmission and grid enhancement projects. In total, the package will “deliver $7 billion in electricity cost savings” to millions of ratepayers in Georgia and Alabama by reducing the utility giant’s interest expenses by over $300 million per year. “These loans will not only lower energy costs but also create thousands of jobs and increase grid reliability for the people of Georgia and Alabama,” Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said in a statement.
Over in Utah, meanwhile, the state government is seeking the authority to speed up its own deployment of nuclear reactors as electricity demand surges in the desert state. In a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated November 10 — but which E&E News published this week — Tim Davis, the executive director of Utah’s Department of Environmental Quality, requested that the federal agency consider granting the state the power to oversee uranium enrichment, microreactor licensing, fuel storage, and reprocessing on its own. All of those sectors fall under the NRC’s exclusive purview. At least one program at the NRC grants states limited regulatory primacy for some low-level radiological material. While there’s no precedent for a transfer of power as significant as what Utah is requesting, the current administration is upending norms at the NRC more than any other government since the agency’s founding in 1975.
Building a new nuclear plant on a previously undeveloped site is already a steep challenge in electricity markets such as New York, California, or the Midwest, which broke up monopoly utilities in the 1990s and created competitive auctions that make decade-long, multibillion-dollar reactors all but impossible to finance. A growing chorus argues, as Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote, that these markets “are no longer working.” Even in markets with vertically-integrated power companies, the federal tax credits meant to spur construction of new reactors would make financing a greenfield plant is just as impossible, despite federal tax credits meant to spur construction of new reactors. That’s the conclusion of a new analysis by a trio of government finance researchers at the Center for Public Enterprise. The investment tax credit, “large as it is, cannot easily provide them with upfront construction-period support,” the report found. “The ITC is essential to nuclear project economics, but monetizing it during construction poses distinct challenges for nuclear developers that do not arise for renewable energy projects. Absent a public agency’s ability to leverage access to the elective payment of tax credits, it is challenging to see a path forward for attracting sufficient risk capital for a new nuclear project under the current circumstances.”
Steve Pearce, Trump’s pick to lead the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, wavered when asked about his record of pushing to sell off federal lands during his nomination hearing Wednesday. A former Republican lawmaker from New Mexico, Pearce has faced what the public lands news site Public Domain called “broad backlash from environmental, conservation, and hunting groups for his record of working to undermine public land protections and push land sales as a way to reduce the federal deficit.” Faced with questions from Democratic senators, Pearce said, “I’m not so sure that I’ve changed,” but insisted he didn’t “believe that we’re going to go out and wholesale land from the federal government.” That has, however, been the plan since the start of the administration. As Heatmap’s Jeva Lange wrote last year, Republicans looked poised to use their trifecta to sell off some of the approximately 640 million acres of land the federal government owns.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
At Tuesday’s State of the Union address, as I told you yesterday, Trump vowed to force major data center companies to build, bring, or buy their own power plants to keep the artificial intelligence boom from driving up electricity prices. On Wednesday, Fox News reported that Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, xAI, Oracle, and OpenAI planned to come to the White House to sign onto the deal. The meeting is set to take place sometime next month. Data centers are facing mounting backlash. Developers abandoned at least 25 data centers last year amid mounting pushback from local opponents, Heatmap's Robinson Meyer recently reported.
Shine Technologies is a rare fusion company that’s actually making money today. That’s because the Wisconsin-based firm uses its plasma beam fusion technology to produce isotopes for testing and medical therapies. Next, the company plans to start recycling nuclear waste for fresh reactor fuel. To get there, Shine Technologies has raised $240 million to fund its efforts for the next few years, as I reported this morning in an exclusive for Heatmap. Nearly 63% of the funding came from biotech billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong, who will join the board. The capital will carry the company through the launch of the world’s largest medical isotope producer and lay the foundations of a new business recycling nuclear waste in the early 2030s that essentially just reorders its existing assembly line.
Vineyard Wind is nearly complete. As of Wednesday, 60 of the project’s 62 turbines have been installed off the coast of Massachusetts. Of those, E&E News reported, 52 have been cleared to start producing power. The developer Iberdrola said the final two turbines may be installed in the next few days. “For me, as an engineer, the farm is already completed,” Iberdrola’s executive chair, Ignacio Sánchez Galán, told analysts on an earnings call. “I think these numbers mean the level of availability is similar for other offshore wind farms we have in operation. So for me, that is completed.”
That doesn’t mean it plans to produce electricity anytime soon.
Greg Piefer thinks nearly all his rivals in the race to commercialize fusion are doing it backward.
Of the 59 companies tracked in the Fusion Industry Association’s latest annual survey, 48 are primarily focused on generating electricity, off-grid energy, or industrial heat by harnessing the power produced when two atoms fuse together in the same type of reaction that fuels the sun. Just four are following the path of Shine Technologies and using plasma beam energy to manufacture rare and extremely valuable radioisotopes for breakthrough cancer treatments — 10 if you count the startups with a secondary medical business.
“We’re a bit different from fusion companies trying to sell the single product of electricity,” Piefer, the chief executive of Wisconsin-based Shine Technologies, told me. “The basic premise of our business is fusion is expensive today, so we’re starting by selling it to the highest-paying customers first.”
Shine Technologies’ contrarian strategy is winning over investors. On Thursday, the company plans to announce a $240 million Series E round, Heatmap can report exclusively. The funding, nearly 63% of which came from biotech billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong, will provide enough capital to carry the company to the launch of the world’s largest medical isotope producer and lay the foundations of a new business recycling nuclear waste.
For now, Piefer said, Shine’s business is blasting uranium with enough extremely hot plasma beam energy to generate medical isotopes such as molybdenum-99 for diagnostic imaging or lutetium-177 for targeted cancer therapies. In the next few years, however, Shine Technologies is looking to apply its methods to recycling and reducing radioactive waste from commercial fission reactors’ spent fuel. Only then, sometime a decade from now, will the company start working on power plants.
“I would essentially define electricity as the lowest-paying customer of significance for fusion today,” Piefer said.
Soon-Shiong contributed $150 million to the funding pool via NantWorks, the biotech company he founded. Other investors include the financial services giant Fidelity Investments, the American division of the Japanese industrial conglomerate Sumitomo Corporation, the Texas investment bank Pelican Energy Partners, the healthcare-focused investor Deerfield Management, and the global asset manager Oaktree Capital. As part of the deal, Soon-Shiong — known outside the medical industry as the owner of the Los Angeles Times — will join Shine Technologies’ board of directors.
Since its founding in 2005, Shine has brought down the cost per fusion reaction by a thousandsfold. Over a Zoom call, Piefer pointed out the window behind him in his office in Janesville, Wisconsin, nearly two hours southwest of Milwaukee. In the afternoon sun was a gray, nondescript-looking warehouse. Inside, construction was underway on the world’s largest facility for producing medical isotopes. Dubbed Chrysalis, the flagship plant is set to come online in 2028.
“We’ll make 20 million doses of medicine per year with it,” he said. “It’ll be the biggest beneficial use of fusion for humans ever, and we expect it to be the dominant technology for decades. This will be the way the United States produces neutron-based radioisotopes probably for the next 50 years.”
To make medicine, the company follows four steps. First, it dissolves uranium. Next, it irradiates the material with the plasma beam. Then comes the separation process to remove valuable isotopes from the other radioactive material. Finally leftover uranium gets recycled back into the process. Rinse and repeat.
“It’s the first closed loop ever used for producing medicine this way,” Piefer said.
To recycle spent nuclear fuel, the company just remixes those steps, he said.
“You dissolve uranium from the nuclear waste. You separate out valuable materials. You recycle the uranium and plutonium in a reactor,” Piefer said. Then fusion comes in with the plasma beam technology to transform highly radioactive material that stays dangerous for longer than Homo sapiens is known to have existed into something that decays in half-lives that take years, decades, or centuries rather than millennia, decamillennia, and centimillennia.
“There’s about half a percent of long-lived nuclear waste from fission that we don’t know what to do with. It lives basically forever. We don’t have a use for it. But if you hit it with fusion neutrons, it becomes short-lived,” Piefer said. “So it’s the same four steps. For medicine, it goes one, two, three, four. For recycling it goes one, three, four, two.”
Not only is the market for testing and medical isotopes already worth billions of dollars, it’s on track to more than double in the next decade. Currently, it’s largely served by what Piefer called “60-year-old fission reactors.”
“These are specialized research reactors that are very cold and very constrained from a capacity standpoint,” he said. “You can buy new ones, but it takes billions of dollars and probably two decades to bring a new reactor online.”
By contrast, Shine Technologies broke ground on Chrysalis in 2019, and is set to complete the project at what Piefer said would be an eighth the cost of building a new research reactor.
The U.S. government, meanwhile, is helping to fund the next phase of Shine Technologies’ business. Just a few weeks ago, the Department of Energy gave the company a share of $19 million split between five companies looking to commercialize reprocessing technology. Last year, the company inked a deal with the reactor fuel startup Standard Nuclear to sell the fuel-grade material it recovers from recycling.
In both the fusion and next-generation fission industries, companies often lure investors by promising to pull off several very challenging things at once, said Chris Gadomski, the lead nuclear analyst at the consultancy BloombergNEF.
Oklo, a stock market darling for its planned microreactor and power plant business, was also among the recipients of the federal funding for waste reprocessing. Amazon-backed microreactor developer X-energy just won approval to start manufacturing the rare and expensive form of reactor fuel known as TRISO. TAE Technologies, the fusion startup that merged in December with the parent company of President Donald Trump’s social media network TruthSocial in a bid to build the world’s first fusion power plant, also has a subsidiary producing medical isotopes.
“I usually look at it as a distressing sign when you have an energy company tackling four or five different things,” Gadomski said. “But Shine is really a medical device company that is focused on isotopes but whose technology can also reprocess spent fuel — and, by the way, it can be applied down the road to energy.”
So far, Shine’s technology has followed a similar Moore’s Law trajectory to semiconductors.
From roughly 1990 to 2000, microchips used in workstations increased their computation rate per dollar. Then came the gaming era from 2000 to 2015, when videogames drove demand for more and more efficient semiconductors, with upgrades on average every other year. From 2015 until roughly the debut of ChatGPT in 2022, the high-speed computing applications spurred on chip upgrades at a similar rate. Now the artificial intelligence era is upon us, transforming chipmakers such as Nvidia into goliaths seemingly overnight.
Piefer sees Shine Technologies on its own 35-year timeline. From 2010 to roughly 2023, testing dominated the business. From then until about 2028, medical isotopes are the new play. The recycling pilot plant set to come online after 2030 will kick off the reprocessing period. And finally, sometime in the 2040s, Piefer wants to get into energy production.
“It’s a different approach than most,” he said.
“Don’t get me wrong, moonshots have their place, too,” he added. “But I feel very confident in this path.”
After a disappointing referendum in Maine, campaigners in New York are taking their arguments straight to lawmakers.
As electricity affordability has become the issue on every politician’s lips, a coalition of New York state lawmakers and organizations in the Hudson Valley have proposed a solution: Buy the utility and operate it publicly.
Assemblymember Sarahana Shrestha, whose district covers the mid-Hudson Valley, introduced a bill early last year to buy out the Hudson Valley’s investor-owned utility, Central Hudson Gas and Electric, and run it as a state entity. That bill hung around for a while before Shrestha reintroduced it to committee in January. It now has more than a dozen co-sponsors, a sign that the idea is gaining traction in Albany.
With politicians across the country in a frenzy to quell voters’ growing anxieties over their power bills, public power advocates are seizing the moment to make a renewed case that investor-owned utilities are to blame for rising prices. A victory for public power in the Hudson Valley would be the movement’s biggest win in decades — and could serve as a blueprint for other locales.
Shrestha’s proposal, while ambitious, draws on a long history of public power campaigns in the United States, stretching from the late 1800s to the New Deal 1930s to the present. Most recently, a 2023 referendum in Maine would have seen the state take over its two largest utilities; organizers argued the move would improve service and lower rates. But as Emily Pontecorvo covered for Heatmap, Maine voters rejected the referendum by a nearly 40-point margin. Public power advocates chalked up the loss to Maine’s investor-owned utilities outspending the proposition’s supporters by more than 30 to 1.
The current Hudson Valley campaign has a lot in common with Maine’s. In both, utilities rolled out faulty billing systems that overcharged customers, fueling resentment. Both targeted utilities owned by foreign corporations (Central Hudson is owned by Fortis, a Canadian company; Central Maine Power is owned by a subsidiary of Iberdrola, a Spanish company, while Versant, another utility in the state, is a subsidiary of Enmax, a Canadian corporation). And both took place amid rate hikes.
Shrestha has spent the past year working her district, holding town halls to sell the bill to her constituents. At each one she presents the same schpiel: “I gave people a little brief story of each of the different notable fights, from Long Island Power Authority to Massena to Maine to Rochester,” she told me, “because I also want people to understand that our fight is not happening in isolation.”
Public power advocates in the Hudson Valley are certainly applying lessons from the Maine defeat to their own campaign. For one, the venue is paramount. This time, public power campaigners are gearing up for a fight in the statehouse rather than the ballot box.
Unlike a ballot proposition, state legislation typically doesn’t attract millions of dollars in television and radio advertising from deep-pocketed utilities. Sandeep Vaheesan, a legal scholar and public power expert, told me that passing a law may be a more feasible route to victory for public power.
“Legislative fights are more winnable because referenda end up being messaging wars,” Vaheesan told Heatmap. “And more often than not, the side that has money can win that war.”
The message itself is also key. One lesson Maine organizers walked away with is that affordability is a winning strategy — an insight that has only gotten more robust over the past several months.
The Climate & Community Institute, a progressive climate think tank, released a report in November reflecting on the Maine referendum that put numbers to the campaigners’ intuition. “While climate change was an issue for many in our polling,” the report states, “it often took a backseat to problems Mainers continue to experience, like rising costs and power shutoff risks.” The group also pointed me to a survey it did in the fall of 2023 — years before data centers and energy demand became top-tier political issues — in which 69% of voters said they were worried about climate change, but 85% said they were worried about energy costs.
So how could public power lower costs for ratepayers?
“If you take shareholders out of the picture — if you replace private debt with cheaper public debt — you can lower rates pretty quickly and bring energy bills down,” Vaheesan argued.
The proposed Hudson Valley Power Authority wouldn’t have a profit motive; its return on equity, currently 9.5% for Central Hudson, would be reduced to zero. As a public entity, HVPA could also access capital at much lower interest rates than a private company and would be exempt from state and federal taxes.
Investor-owned utilities also inflate customers’ bills with unnecessary capital spending, Shrestha told me.
“The only way they can drive up their profits is by expanding their capital infrastructure, which is a very rare and unique characteristic of this industry,” she said, noting that a company like Walmart can’t make a profit by overspending. “So we’re stuck with a grid that is unnecessarily bloated and cumbersome and not at all efficient.”
A feasibility report commissioned by HVPA supporters and released in December estimates that ratepayers would see their bills go down by 2% in the first year after the public takeover — and result in 14% lower bills by 2055. A competing report, issued by opponents of the legislation, claimed the delivery portion of charges could increase by 36% under HVPA due to the cost of buying out Central Hudson, though advocates criticized the report for failing to publish any data.
Hudson Valley public power supporters can take another lesson from Maine to counter a combative utility. The two Maine utilities estimated the cost for the state to acquire them would be billions of dollars more than what public power advocates estimated — though in a televised debate, an anti-referendum representative refused to defend the stated numbers until the moderator instructed her to do so.
Lucy Hochschartner, the deputy campaign manager for Pine Tree Power (Maine’s proposed state-run utility), said she often assuaged voters’ concerns over the acquisition price by comparing it to buying a house.
“Right now we pay a really high rent to [Central Maine Power],” Hochschartner told us. “We pay them more than a billion dollars in revenue a year through our electric grid. And instead we could have moved to a low-cost mortgage.”
With a public acquisition, the cost of buying the electrical and gas systems would be funded through revenue bonds, paid off through customers’ bills over time. However a spokesperson for Central Hudson, Joe Jenkins, said the company would launch a legal battle rather than agree to sell its assets to New York State.
“Fortis has made no inclination that the company is for sale,” Jenkins told me. “So to take over a company by means of eminent domain, I believe that our parents would want to see this through a court.”
While a legal battle could be costly, public power advocates say the cost of inaction is also high. Winston Yau, an energy and industrial policy manager at the Climate & Community Institute, told me that publicly run utilities are better equipped to lead the transition to carbon-free power and adapt to a warming and more turbulent climate.
“Climate disasters and extreme weather events and heat waves are a major and increasing cause of rising utility bills,” Yau said. “In the coming decades, a significant amount of new investment will be needed.”