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:
At a conference in New York, solar and wind developers warn of spiking electricity prices if IRA tax credits are cut.
As the renewable energy industry fights for relief from the House reconciliation bill’s harsh tax credit phaseouts, its members have coalesced around a dire and pragmatic message: America needs electricity, we’re the only ones who can provide it quickly, this bill will make that harder — and it’s electricity consumers who will have to pay the price.
“Now we have a different paradigm,” Jim Murphy, the chief executive officer of the energy developer Invenergy said Thursday at a conference hosted by the renewables trade group ACORE. Whereas in previous decades renewables largely replaced retiring fossil plants on the grid, today, “we need it all, and we need it all as fast as we can get.”
Even if customers want gas-fired power plants, the developers that build them likely can’t get them up and running until near the end of the decade. “We’re getting a lot of customer inquiries for gas-fired, as well,” Murphy said. “We can’t deliver that immediately the way we can deliver renewables immediately. 90% of what we have in the queue is renewables. Gas projects won’t be ready until the end of the decade.”
Sitting beside Murphy on the same panel, Sandhya Ganapathy, chief executive of EDP Renewables North America, described renewable deployment in the coming years as “not about ideology,” or even “one technology being better than the other.” Instead, “this is about pragmatism,” she said. “What does it take for the economy to be resilient? What does it take for the economy to be dominant out there?”
The answer, Ganapathy said, was whatever pushed electrons onto the grid fastest.
I heard the same idea repeated over and over on the panels I attended and from the people I spoke to: What makes renewables matter is how they serve the grid’s needs now, not how they help reduce emissions.
“For 25 years, what has happened in this industry is the retirement of coal plants, and to a lesser extent gas plants, and then the replacement of that capacity by renewables. That’s really the industry that we’ve all been part of,” Ted Brandt, the chief executive of Marathon Capital, said on Wednesday. “Right now we’re at an inflection point where we’re running out of retirements.”
The big buyer is a large technology company looking to power its data centers, Brandt said, and it’s willing to pay up.
“What hyperscalers really believe is that the acute constraint to AI and cloud is all about power,” Brandt said.
Though demand is high, there are roadblocks and costs that developers have to deal with even before worrying about the future of the Inflation Reduction Act — tariffs, high demand for scarce components such as transformers, interconnection and permitting delays. With tax credits of at least 30% (and often higher) possibly going away, the only way to solve the equation between high demand and high development costs is prices going up, Debbie Harrison, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery, told me.
One might wonder, then, exactly what the developers are so worried about. After all, if there’s rising demand for your product, why do you need a subsidy?
When I put this question to ACORE Chief Executive Ray Long, he emphasized that such a long pipeline of projects in response to demand from technology companies and utilities has accumulated in less than three full years since the IRA’s enactment.
“We have a two-and-a-half-year-old set of policy that was passed by the House and the Senate, signed by the president, that enabled and said to investors — and developers, and manufacturers, and everybody else — use these tax credits because we want you to come in and build and invest in everything that you’re doing,” Long told me.
“We need to be in a place in the United States where policy actually means something, that the people who are spending the money and doing all this can rely on,” Long went on. “The IRA is going to change. Everybody knows that if it’s going to change. It needs to be done in a responsible and balanced way that does not just discard all the investment.”
In the near term, moving up the deadline to qualify for clean energy tax credits to 60 days after the signing of the bill, as proposed in the House version, could cause a rush of construction starts. But that’s a thin silver lining, industry executives and analysts argued. Many projects simply may not happen at all.
Projects that would be eligible for tax credits “currently make up the vast majority of planned U.S. utility-scale electricity capacity additions,” analysts from Evercore wrote in a separate report released Wednesday. If the credits are “both rapidly terminated and rendered unworkable,” first by early phaseout and then by foreign entity of concern provisions (more on those in a minute), it would mean that many projects no longer pencil out economically, thus endangering “the United States’ ability to affordably meet growing electricity demand from data centers and other end users.”
Citing data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the Evercore analysts estimated that over 80% of the planned capacity additions could be eligible for clean energy tax credits, with 150 gigawatts of solar, battery, and wind projects planned but not yet under construction.
The foreign entity of concern provisions require tax credit recipients to isolate their business relationships and supply chains from a handful of U.S. adversaries, most notably China. This “introduces massive complexity” and is “very likely unworkable,” the Evercore analysts said. The FEOC provisions “would throw ongoing projects into uncertainty around post-2028 credit eligibility.”
The requirement to eliminate not just all Chinese companies, but also all Chinese “influenced” companies from the renewables supply chain would create numerous points of potential noncompliance for denying tax credits. And unlike the foreshortened timelines for starting construction on new projects in the House bill, the FEOC rules could mean “immediate uncertainty” around whether existing generation will remain eligible for credits they’d planned to claim through 2028 and beyond.
Executives at the ACORE conference were properly alarmed.
“FEOC is written so broadly because of components and subcomponents,” Murphy said Thursday. “The supply chain can not support that, and won’t be able to support that for several years. It’s just an unworkable provision.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more on the week’s most important conflicts around renewable energy projects.
1. Lawrence County, Alabama – We now have a rare case of a large solar farm getting federal approval.
2. Virginia Beach, Virginia – It’s time to follow up on the Coastal Virginia offshore wind project.
3. Fairfield County, Ohio – The red shirts are beating the greens out in Ohio, and it isn’t looking pretty.
4. Allen County, Indiana – Sometimes a setback can really set someone back.
5. Adams County, Illinois – Hope you like boomerangs because this county has approved a solar project it previously denied.
6. Solano County, California – Yet another battery storage fight is breaking out in California. This time, it’s north of San Francisco.
A conversation with Elizabeth McCarthy of the Breakthrough Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Elizabeth McCarthy of the Breakthrough Institute. Elizabeth was one of several researchers involved in a comprehensive review of a decade of energy project litigation – between 2013 and 2022 – under the National Environment Policy Act. Notably, the review – which Breakthrough released a few weeks ago – found that a lot of energy projects get tied up in NEPA litigation. While she and her colleagues ultimately found fossil fuels are more vulnerable to this problem than renewables, the entire sector has a common enemy: difficulty of developing on federal lands because of NEPA. So I called her up this week to chat about what this research found.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So why are you so fixated on NEPA?
Personally and institutionally, [Breakthrough is] curious about all regulatory policy – land use, environmental regulatory policy – and we see NEPA as the thing that connects them all. If we understand how that’s functioning at a high level, we can start to pull at the strings of other players. So, we wanted to understand the barrier that touches the most projects.
What aspects of zero-carbon energy generation are most affected by NEPA?
Anything with a federal nexus that doesn’t include tax credits. Solar and wind that is on federal land is subject to a NEPA review, and anything that is linear infrastructure – transmission often has to go through multiple NEPA reviews. We don’t see a ton of transmission being litigated over on our end, but we think that is a sign NEPA is such a known obstacle that no one even wants to touch a transmission line that’ll go through 14 years of review, so there’s this unknown graveyard of transmission that wasn’t even planned.
In your report, you noted there was a relatively small number of zero-carbon energy projects in your database of NEPA cases. Is solar and wind just being developed more frequently on private land, so there’s less of these sorts of conflicts?
Precisely. The states that are the most powered by wind or create the most wind energy are Texas and Iowa, and those are bypassing the national federal environmental review process [with private land], in addition to not having their own state requirements, so it’s easier to build projects.
What would you tell a solar or wind developer about your research?
This is confirming a lot of things they may have already instinctually known or believed to be true, which is that NEPA and filling out an environmental impact statement takes a really long time and is likely to be litigated over. If you’re a developer who can’t avoid putting your energy project on federal land, you may just want to avoid moving forward with it – the cost may outweigh whatever revenue you could get from that project because you can’t know how much money you’ll have to pour into it.
Huh. Sounds like everything is working well. I do think your work identifies a clear risk in developing on federal lands, which is baked into the marketplace now given the pause on permits for renewables on federal lands.
Yeah. And if you think about where the best places would be to put these technologies? It is on federal lands. The West is way more federal land than anywhere else in the county. Nevada is a great place to put solar — there’s a lot of sun. But we’re not going to put anything there if we can’t put anything there.
What’s the remedy?
We propose a set of policy suggestions. We think the judicial review process could be sped along or not be as burdensome. Our research most obviously points to shortening the statute of limitations under the Administrative Procedures Act from six years to six months, because a great deal of the projects we reviewed made it in that time, so you’d see more cases in good faith as opposed to someone waiting six years waiting to challenge it.
We also think engaging stakeholders much earlier in the process would help.
The Bureau of Land Management says it will be heavily scrutinizing transmission lines if they are expressly necessary to bring solar or wind energy to the power grid.
Since the beginning of July, I’ve been reporting out how the Trump administration has all but halted progress for solar and wind projects on federal lands through a series of orders issued by the Interior Department. But last week, I explained it was unclear whether transmission lines that connect to renewable energy projects would be subject to the permitting freeze. I also identified a major transmission line in Nevada – the north branch of NV Energy’s Greenlink project – as a crucial test case for the future of transmission siting in federal rights-of-way under Trump. Greenlink would cross a litany of federal solar leases and has been promoted as “essential to helping Nevada achieve its de-carbonization goals and increased renewable portfolio standard.”
Well, BLM has now told me Greenlink North will still proceed despite a delay made public shortly after permitting was frozen for renewables, and that the agency still expects to publish the record of decision for the line in September.
This is possible because, as BLM told me, transmission projects that bring solar and wind power to the grid will be subject to heightened scrutiny. In an exclusive statement, BLM press secretary Brian Hires told me via e-mail that a secretarial order choking out solar and wind permitting on federal lands will require “enhanced environmental review for transmission lines only when they are a part of, and necessary for, a wind or solar energy project.”
However, if a transmission project is not expressly tied to wind or solar or is not required for those projects to be constructed… apparently, then it can still get a federal green light. For instance in the case of Greenlink, the project itself is not explicitly tied to any single project, but is kind of like a transmission highway alongside many potential future solar projects. So a power line can get approved if it could one day connect to wind or solar, but the line’s purpose cannot solely be for a wind or solar project.
This is different than, say, lines tied explicitly to connecting a wind or solar project to an existing transmission network. Known as gen-tie lines, these will definitely face hardships with this federal government. This explains why, for example, BLM has yet to approve a gen-tie line for a wind project in Wyoming that would connect the Lucky Star wind project to the grid.
At the same time, it appears projects may be given a wider berth if a line has other reasons for existing, like improving resilience on the existing grid, or can be flexibly used by not just renewables but also fossil energy.
So, the lesson to me is that if you’re trying to build transmission infrastructure across federal property under this administration, you might want to be a little more … vague.