This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.
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:
The week’s most important conflicts around the energy transition.
1. Madison County, Ohio – All eyes are now on the Ohio Supreme Court, after opponents of the nation’s largest agri-voltaics project – Savion’s Oak Run solar farm – yesterday formally appealed a key approval from the state Power Siting Board.
2. Nassau County, New York – RWE and National Grid submitted the nation’s biggest offshore wind proposal to date to be built in the New York Bight with interconnection points in Brooklyn and Long Island …
3. Swift County, Minnesota – Rarely do we talk pro-renewables decisions here in The Fight’s Hotspots… but that changes today thanks to a rural Minnesota county rejecting a moratorium.
4. Fayette County, Pennsylvania – Another spot to watch for an anti-solar and wind ordinance is this county where developers are vying to stop restrictive property setback requirements.
5. Carroll County, Maryland – Developers have released the route for the Piedmont Reliability Project, a transmission proposal that will connect to a nuclear plant in Pennsylvania and will criss-cross Maryland. Some of the power will feed to data centers in Northern Virginia.
Here’s what else we’ve been watching…
In Idaho, regulators approved a solar project on state endowment land – and of course, some Republican politicians are grousing about it.
In Kentucky, only three people showed up to oppose NextEra’s Weirs Creek solar project.
In Maine, state regulators were rejected by federal officials after a request for money to fund a proposed offshore wind construction site on Sears Island.
In Michigan, towns are sounding like they’re going to sue over a local control law intended to speed up renewables deployment.
In Virginia, county regulators are battling one another over a 2,200 acre solar farm proposed by AES Corporation in Isle of Wight county.
In New York, the upstate village of Wilson has enacted a battery storage moratorium.
Also in New York, Attentive Energy pulled out of the fifth offshore wind solicitation.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
An hour northwest of San Antonio, Texas, the small town of Bandera is home to fewer than 1,000 people. Complete with old-timey heritage buildings from the Old West, the town markets itself as a ranching tourism destination and the “cowboy capital of the world.”
And some residents really don’t want the solar farm coming to town: Pine Gate Renewables’ Rio Lago solar project, which would produce 132 megawatts of power. That’s enough renewable electricity to fuel almost 23,000 homes.
When the project first appeared on homeowners’ doorsteps, citizens concerned about building anything at industrial scale in their bucolic community rejected a local tax abatement and began speaking to local media. Eventually, roughly a dozen people living near the proposed Rio Lago site filed a lawsuit in state court seeking damages for alleged sediment runoff, along with a laundry list of other complaints. The state court judge was sympathetic to the individuals in Bandera, ordered construction to stop and sanctioned Pine Gate when residents said the company appeared to continue work on the project. The case is now pending in federal court.
Taken together this outcry, lawsuit, and all of the resulting local news coverage coverage add up to a crucial test: Can a handful of people block carbon-free power to so many homes?
In this circumstance, probably not. Last week, the federal judge now overseeing the case – Richard Farrer, who was appointed under Trump in 2017 – told the aggrieved homeowners and their lawyer that while the allegations of damages may still proceed to trial, there was “not sufficient evidence of imminent irreparable harm to support” an order to stop construction, according to a transcript of the hearing.
But still, this case still fascinates. That’s because despite Texas’ conservative political leaning the Lone Star state is a panacea for renewables development. It produces 16% of the nation’s total renewable energy but accounts for only 2.5% of the contested projects, restrictive ordinances, and moratoriums in Heatmap Pro’s database. Part of the reason Texas is so receptive is that energy production overall is pretty welcome – when you’re so used to oil rigs, a solar farm isn’t that big of a deal. For its part, Pine Gate clearly thinks it’s a great place to build as the company claims to have forty projects at various stages in the state.
The case of Bandera and the Rio Lago solar project ultimately illustrates NIMBYism – historically understood as more of an issue amongst liberals – can occur in even the most staunchly conservative parts of the country: the town is represented in Congress by Rep. Chip Roy, who has a 96% lifetime score from the Heritage Foundation’s political arm and a month ago called to fully defund the Energy Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Ultimately, while renewable energy and decarbonization capital is pouring into culturally red areas across the U.S., this conflict demonstrates how a backlash can really rear its ugly head.
Jennifer Rosenblatt, a lawyer representing the homeowners opposed to the solar farm, told me her litigation isn’t “anti-solar” and “simply a construction issue.” But she acknowledged the residents are motivated by a simple and familiar adage: “Nobody wants it in their backyard.”
“All things being equal, they don’t want it there,” Rosenblatt said. “Everybody wants to say it’s a lawsuit about ‘not in my backyard,’ but in Texas you can’t control what somebody does on their property next door. There’s no lawsuit about that.”
We’ll keep you updated on the status of this lawsuit in future editions of The Fight.
And more of the week’s most important news around renewable energy policy and politics.
1. Offshore wind completion – The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management finished its environmental review for more offshore wind off the coast of New York and New Jersey – an area relevant to the recently-submitted Community Offshore Wind joint venture between RWE and National Grid.
2. Offshore wind polling – On the heels of that decision comes a noteworthy poll of New Jersey residents finding many voters opposed to offshore wind don’t really care if politicians feel the same way.
3. Geothermal permitting – The Bureau of Land Management has dropped a new proposal to streamline permitting for geothermal energy projects.
Here’s what else we’re watching…
A conversation with Jason Clark, former chief strategy officer for American Clean Power
With the election approaching, I wanted to talk to the smartest person I could find to explain how the election could affect the Inflation Reduction Act and ultimately renewable energy development. So I hit up Jason Clark, who was until recently chief strategy officer for American Clean Power during passage of the Inflation Reduction Act and the first years of IRS guidance.
Clark, who has started energy policy consulting firm Power Brief, put together a risk profile for every major IRA program in the event of unified Republican control in Washington. I talked to him about the risk analysis, what programs are most at risk, and whether we should care about oil companies supporting some parts of the law.
Why did you do this?
I spent the last six months traveling the world and during that time, I was blissfully tuned out on politics. Now that I’m back in D.C., and given how consequential this election is going to be – suffice it to say, I’m tuned back in.
I was close to the IRA drafting process – I’m familiar with the underlying bill and also how the government thinks about the programs. I recently started a company, Power Brief, that marries my love for clean energy policy and my old consulting habits: pretty visuals and PowerPoints. And looking at what might happen to the IRA felt like THE big thing happening in the space right now, so I wanted to dive deeper.
A lot of the content has been “will they/won’t they” analysis. How much do Republicans feel strongly about this bill overall? How much passion would Trump have for pushing for a full repeal? It’s been out there. But this is so complicated and has so many moving parts. I wanted to try and capture both the political reality for some of these programs and also the very practical reality of how the government thinks about the cost of these programs. The fact it can all be contained in one visual is to help people who care about climate policy and want to really understand what may happen depending on how the election turns out.
We know Congress is going to take a stab at a new tax bill next year. I’ve written about how the IRA would be targeted in that situation. Can you help our readers understand why these programs would be vulnerable in tax talks?
Classic partisan politics in D.C. By the nature of using reconciliation, the IRA was ultimately purely Democratic-led and that automatically paints it with a certain color. I think that [former] President Trump has been very unshy about criticizing the IRA, and when he doesn’t use the IRA moniker, he uses different monikers thereof. And people are going to be looking for the easiest path [to money to extend the Trump-era tax cuts].
What I don’t think is that it’ll be thrown out entirely. We’ve seen members of the House and Senate express support for parts of it–
Republicans?
Correct. There was a letter from 18 House Republicans to the [House] Speaker [Mike Johnson] saying we shouldn’t just throw this out, we should really look at it. And I think that there’s a lot of people who look at where the investment from the IRA is flowing – a lot of the dollars are going to Republican-controlled states and districts. Yes, that may insulate the whole bill from repeal outright but a lot of that is announced investment but hasn’t turned into steel on the ground and jobs yet.
So your chart singles out EV tax credits as most vulnerable to repeal. Why?
The universe of electric vehicle tax credits is fully at risk. We’ve seen it from Republican voters – constituents! – who feel that EVs are just some type of government mandated, this is some car you have to buy. But it also happens to be very, very expensive. When the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT} crunches the numbers about what this is going to cost between now and 10 years from now, it’s one of the most expensive portions of the legislation. So when you look at it and ask how much is it going to cost to ax this and give us the most savings in the tax code? You get this.
The IRA didn’t create these credits though. It simply expanded them. You think the entire credit could go away in a Republican trifecta?
I think the entire EV tax credit.
Okay. So next up on the chopping block per your chart is the renewable energy investment tax credit, or ITC. Why?
“Both the ITC and the PTC [production tax credit] when they shift into this new tech neutral paradigm have the same risk profile. For these, I don’t think it’s necessarily going to be a full repeal. I think the data about how much money is going into Republican districts is legitimate, and I think it will materialize. But there’s many spectrums of levers that someone can pull.
The tech neutral credit doesn’t end on a certain calendar year date. It ends when the U.S. sector hits a certain emissions target. The credit continues until that moment in time. One way to make the credit look less expensive on paper is to say, no, we are going to end it at a certain point. Take 2030 or 2032. You could codify a timeline on it, so the JCT won’t score the out-years on how expensive the credit is going to be. That is one version of it.
Another version of it is that there’s a base credit and then there’s added layers, like wage requirements or low-income area benefits. And that’s another thing you could pull to say, look, we’re not going to do that anymore.
What would be the impact on developers?
I don’t think a lot of folks appreciate just how long range some of this planning is, how long it takes to permit something, how long it takes to figure out the interconnection queue.
Companies aren’t thinking what are we going to build this year – they’re thinking what will be put online in 2035. So if the government changes the stability of that, companies start to pull back and say hey, let’s not go too crazy in the outyears. Baseline? It means fewer clean energy projects come online. The industry has been banking on a certain level of certainty to plan against. Any shockwave against that and some companies are going to look and ask if they have the assurance to move forward with this or not.
Okay well, candidly, to that I say: woof. So okay, your chart labels the PTC and energy efficiency credits as vulnerable. Why are they at risk if they cost less than other programs?
There are going to be certain things where the dollars and cents lose out to the political policy realities. On energy efficiency, it would be easy to make that whole category a continuation over the fight on gas stoves or heat pumps and frame them as tax credits for wealthy people to do expensive stuff on their homes, costing the rest of the country. I don’t think it’s as much of a kitchen table conversation per se but it’s up there. Even if it doesn’t save them that much money, it does face the risk of being that low-hanging fruit.
Well, alrighty then. What about 45X? That’s pretty crucial to many manufacturers out there today.
I think both Democrats and Republicans can stand behind more domestic manufacturing coming to the United States. That’s something that is a bipartisan consensus and reducing that, harming that, will pose a liability for politicians. Now similarly, you could shorten the window and amounts, but at the end of the day, it’s a lot more politically resilient despite being seen as the most expensive part of what was included in the IRA.
You ranked about half of the IRA’s programs – hydrogen, carbon capture, sustainable aviation fuels, and more – as being both low cost and at low risk for repeal. Why?
What they benefit from is a greater resonance with Republican policymakers. Carbon capture and sequestration, sustainable aviation fuels and biofuels, hydrogen – all of these things get more of a shrug with Republicans when you talk to them. And that is why you see major oil and gas groups come out and say, hey, let’s not repeal the whole IRA.
But repealing the programs at risk while keeping these other programs… how would that outcome impact the pace of decarbonization?
Drastically. It would effectively remove the economic premise for all future renewable energy generation. It gets rid of a key driver of the shift toward electric vehicles. I think if you repealed everything in the red, then I think what you’ve done is you’ve gotten rid of all the reasons capital is pouring money into renewable energy projects and storage right now. In that scenario you’d see a drastic slowdown in climate ambitions in the electric power sector and also the EV transition that’s been happening.
So… the oil companies telling Trump to keep some of the IRA is a cold comfort, then?
Knowing it doesn’t go away fully is a cold comfort looking at this risk analysis.
What did this exercise teach you about the IRA?
I think that a lot of the net benefit of the decarbonization that translates to jobs and economic development is really, really close, and a lot of what is in the IRA would be lower risk if more of that had been pushed through faster. I think implementation and the natural barriers of the lack of transmission, siting and permitting challenges… There's a confluence of things that make it hard to quickly double the size of the sector but a lot of stuff is coming. But there’s capital behind it, plans behind it, and I think they’re going to build a lot more. As they do that, the sentiment is going to change behind it, but we have to get to that promised land first.