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:
Through at least 2034, if the state’s largest utility gets approval.
Georgia is arguably the heart of the Inflation Reduction Act economy. The state has been a magnet for manufacturing companies seeking to supply batteries, electric cars, and solar cells in order to capture the law’s generous tax credits for domestically built green technology.
While some of the power that supplies these facilities (not to mention data centers also flocking to the state) is clean — the only new U.S. nuclear reactors built this decade are in Georgia, and 38% of electricity generation for the state’s largest utility, Georgia Power, came from non-carbon-emitting sources in 2024 — the state is now planning to bolster its natural gas and coal fleets to support its enormous projected load growth.
Georgia Power released its 2025 Integrated Resource Plan on Friday, laying out to state regulators its forecasts for electricity demand and how it intends to bolster and adjust its fleet to meet the new usage. These exercises almost always feature eye-popping demand estimates and corrections and addendums to older plans to account for even more electricity growth than had been previously projected.
This time around, Georgia Power says it expects 8,200 megawatts of load growth through the end of 2030, which is already about 2,000 megawatts more than what it expected during its last planning exercise, when it updated its 2022 plan in 2023. To get a sense of the scale of this growth, the new Vogtle nuclear reactors have a little over 1,000 megawatts of capacity each. Together, they took 11 years and over $30 billion to build.
Georgia Power also expects 7% annual growth through the end of 2030, more than double the 3% annual growth through the end of the decade that utility planners expect nationwide.
That new power won’t just be powering data centers. It will also run much of the green economy that the Biden administration tried to build up.
“New and expanding economic development projects in Georgia have progressed more rapidly and on a larger scale than in previous years,” Georgia Power said in its filing. “Growth in emerging industries such as electric transportation (‘ET’), data centers, and solar manufacturing have accelerated since 2021.”
The report also said that by the middle of last year, “the manufacturing sector led in both investment and job creation in Georgia, representing 53% of job growth and 54% of capital investment in the state.”
Hyundai opened a plant making electric SUVs outside of Savannah in 2024, while Kia makes electric SUVs near the Alabama border after making a $200 million investment in the plant. Also last year, the Korean solar company Qcells started making solar panels in Dalton, Georgia and other components in Cartersville; another Korean company, SK Group, has plants in Commerce that make batteries for Volkswagen and Ford. And in the final days of the Biden administration, Rivian got a $6.6 billion Energy Department loan for its planned plant between Atlanta and Athens.
One reason manufacturers come to Georgia is for the power, Tim Echols, the vice-chairman of the Georgia Public Service Commission, argued in an Atlanta Journal Constitution op-ed Thursday: “Southern Co. and Georgia Power have a reputation for reliability,” he wrote.
And for the foreseeable future that Georgia Power plans for, that means some of its most polluting and carbon-emitting power plants will stay open.
The utility said it would continue operating its four-generator Plant Bowen coal facility, two units of which were previously scheduled to retire by 2028, as well as maintaining over 1,000 megawatts of coal-fired capacity at two other plants that had previously been scheduled to shut down at the end of 2028. Georgia Power is asking state regulators to approve operation of the coal plants through at least 2034.
In the update to its previous IRP, Georgia Power extended the life of a coal plant operated by its sister utility Mississippi Power and proposed adding 1.4 gigawatts of generators that could run on natural gas or oil.
Compared to 2022, “the Company now projects capacity needs that necessitate both the extension of existing coal and gas-steam units along with the procurement of new capacity resources,” Georgia Power said in its IRP Friday.
Georgia Power’s parent company, Southern Company, still has a goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, but said in the filling that “the feasibility of continued progress toward a low-carbon future, including a net-zero future, is highly dependent on the continued use of natural gas and continued technological advancements that will facilitate a reliable and economic low-carbon electricity supply.”
The utility also wants to upgrade existing gas-fueled and hydroelectric plants, as well as acquire an additional 1,100 megawatts of new renewables, adding up to 4,000 megawatts of procurements. Georgia Power’s previous update to its 2022 IRP called for the construction of new oil and gas plants, which were approved by regulators last year.
"Georgia Power's 2025 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) includes adding up to 4,000 megawatts of new renewable energy resources by 2035, including 1,000 MW by 2032, and more than 1,000 miles of new transmission lines. Clean energy resources and transmission solutions are vital to reducing customer costs and maintaining the high level of reliability Georgians have grown accustomed to,” Simon Mahan, executive director of the Southern Renewable Energy Association, said in a statement.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A conversation with Scott Cockerham of Latham and Watkins.
This week’s conversation is with Scott Cockerham, a partner with the law firm Latham and Watkins whose expertise I sought to help me best understand the Treasury Department’s recent guidance on the federal solar and wind tax credits. We focused on something you’ve probably been thinking about a lot: how to qualify for the “start construction” part of the new tax regime, which is the primary hurdle for anyone still in the thicket of a fight with local opposition.
The following is our chat lightly edited for clarity. Enjoy.
So can you explain what we’re looking at here with the guidance and its approach to what it considers the beginning of construction?
One of the reasons for the guidance was a distinction in the final version of the bill that treated wind and solar differently for purposes of tax credit phase-outs. They landed on those types of assets being placed in service by the end of 2027, or construction having to begin within 12 months of enactment – by July 4th, 2026. But as part of the final package, the Trump administration promised the House Freedom Caucus members they would tighten up what it means to ‘start construction’ for solar and wind assets in particular.
In terms of changes, probably the biggest difference is that for projects over 1.5 megawatts of output, you can no longer use a “5% safe harbor” to qualify projects. The 5% safe harbor was a construct in prior start of construction guidance saying you could begin construction by incurring 5% of your project cost. That will no longer be available for larger projects. Residential projects and other smaller solar projects will still have that available to them. But that is probably the biggest change.
The other avenue to start construction is called the “physical work test,” which requires the commencement of physical work of a significant nature. The work can either be performed on-site or it can be performed off-site by a vendor. The new guidance largely parrotted those rules from prior guidance and in many cases transferred the concepts word-for-word. So on the physical work side, not much changed.
Significantly, there’s another aspect of these rules that say you have to continue work once you start. It’s like asking if you really ran a race if you didn’t keep going to the finish line. Helpfully, the new guidance retains an old rule saying that you’re assumed to have worked continuously if you place in service within four calendar years after the year work began. So if you begin in 2025 you have until the end of 2029 to place in service without having to prove continuous work. There had been rumors about that four-year window being shortened, so the fact that it was retained is very helpful to project pipelines.
The other major point I’d highlight is that the effective date of the new guidance is September 2. There’s still a limited window between now and then to continue to access the old rules. This also provides greater certainty for developers who attempted to start construction under the old rules after July 4, 2025. They can be confident that what they did still works assuming it was consistent with the prior guidance.
On the construction start – what kinds of projects would’ve maybe opted to use the 5% cost metric before?
Generally speaking it has mostly been distributed generation and residential solar projects. On the utility scale side it had recently tended to be projects buying domestic modules where there might have been an angle to access the domestic content tax credit bonus as well.
For larger projects, the 5% test can be quite expensive. If you’re a 200-megawatt project, 5% of your project is not nothing – that actually can be quite high. I would say probably the majority of utility scale projects in recent years had relied on the manufacturing of transformers as the primary strategy.
So now that option is not available to utility scale projects anymore?
The domestic content bonus is still available, but prior to September 2 you can procure modules for a large project and potentially both begin construction and qualify for the domestic content bonus at the same time. Beginning September 2 the module procurement wouldn’t help that same project begin construction.
Okay, so help me understand what kinds of work will developers need to do in order to pass the physical work test here?
A lot of it is market-driven by preferences from tax equity investors and tax credit buyers and their tax counsel. Over the last 8 years or so transformer manufacturing has become quite popular. I expect that to continue to be an avenue people will pursue. Another avenue we see quite often is on-site physical work, so for a wind project for example that can involve digging foundations for your wind turbines, covering them with concrete slabs, and doing work for something called string roads – roads that go between your turbines primarily for operations and maintenance. On the solar side, it would be similar kinds of on-site work: foundation work, road work, driving piles, putting things up at the site.
One of the things that is more difficult about the physical work test as opposed to the 5% test is that it is subjective. I always tell people that more work is always better. In the first instance it’s likely up to whatever your financing party thinks is enough and that’s going to be a project-specific determination, typically.
Okay, and how much will permitting be a factor in passing the physical work test?
It depends. It can certainly affect on-site work if you don’t have access to the site yet. That is obviously problematic.
But it wouldn’t prevent you from doing an off-site physical work strategy. That would involve procuring a non-inventory item like a transformer for the project. So there are still different things you can do depending on the facts.
What’s your ultimate takeaway on the Treasury guidance overall?
It certainly makes beginning construction on wind and solar more difficult, but I think the overall reaction that I and others in the market have mostly had is that the guidance came out much better than people feared. There were a lot of rumors going around about things that could have been really problematic, but for the most part, other than the 5% test option going away, the sense is that not a whole lot changed. This is a positive result on the development side.
And more of the week’s most important news around renewable energy conflicts.
1. Carroll County, Arkansas – The head of an influential national right-wing advocacy group is now targeting a wind project in Arkansas, seeking federal intervention to block something that looked like it would be built.
2. Suffolk County, New York – EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin this week endorsed efforts by activists on Long Island to oppose energy storage in their neighborhoods.
3. Multiple counties, Indiana – This has been a very bad week for renewables in the Sooner state.
4. Brunswick County, North Carolina – Duke Energy is pouring cold water on anyone still interested in developing offshore wind off the coast of North Carolina.
5. Bell County, Texas – We have a solar transmission stand-off brewing in Texas, of all places.
Is there going to be a flight out of Nevada?
Donald Trump’s renewables permitting freeze is prompting solar companies to find an escape hatch from Nevada.
As I previously reported, the Interior Department has all but halted new approvals for solar and wind projects on federal lands. It was entirely unclear how that would affect transmission out west, including in the solar-friendly Nevada desert where major lines were in progress to help power both communities and a growing number of data centers. Shortly after the pause, I took notice of the fact that regulators quietly delayed the timetable by at least two weeks for a key line – the northern portion of NV Energy’s Greenlink project – that had been expected to connect to a litany of solar facilities. Interior told me it still planned to complete the project in September, but it also confirmed that projects specifically necessary for connecting solar onto the grid would face “enhanced” reviews.
Well, we have the latest update in this saga. It turns out NV Energy has actually been beseeching the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to let solar projects previously planned for Greenlink bail from the interconnection queue without penalty. And the solar industry is now backing them up.
In a July 28 filing submitted after Interior began politically reviewing all renewables projects, NV Energy requested FERC provide a short-term penalty waiver to companies who may elect to leave the interconnection queue because their projects are no longer viable. Typically, companies are subject to financial penalties for withdrawals from the queue, a policy intended to keep developers from hogging a place in line with a risky project they might never build. Now, at least in the eyes of this key power company, it seems Trump’s pause has made that the case for far too many projects.
“It is important that non-viable projects be terminated or withdrawn so that the queue and any required restudies be updated as quickly as possible,” stated the filing, which was first reported by Utility Dive earlier this week. NV Energy also believes there is concern customers may seek to have their deals for power expected from these projects terminated under “force majeure" clauses, and so “the purpose of this waiver request is thus to both clear the queue to the extent possible and avoid unneeded disputes.”
On Monday, the Solar Energy Industries Association endorsed the request in a filing to the commission made in partnership with regional renewable trade group Interwest Energy Alliance. The support statement referenced both the recent de facto repeal of IRA credits as well as the permitting freeze, stating it now “appears that federal agency review staff are unsure how to proceed on solar projects.” This even includes projects on private lands, a concern first raised by Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo, a Republican, after the permitting freeze came into effect.
The groups all but stated they anticipate companies will pull the plug on solar projects in Nevada, proclaiming that by granting the waiver, “it will encourage projects facing uncertainty due to recent legislation and federal action to exit the process sooner and without penalty, creating more certainty for the remaining projects.”
How this reads to me: Energy developers are understandably trying to figure out how to skate away from this increasingly risky situation as cleanly as they can. It’s anybody’s guess if FERC is willing to show lenience toward these developers.