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:
Inside episode six of Shift Key.
Few people have shaped Bidenomics more than Brian Deese.
From 2021 to 2023, Deese led the National Economic Council at the White House, serving as President Joe Biden’s top economic aide during such events as the post-pandemic recovery, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act.
Before that, Deese was global head of sustainable investing for Blackrock and a senior political advisor to President Barack Obama. He’s now the Institute Innovation Fellow at MIT, where he helps lead the Clean Investment Monitor, a project that tracks investment in climate technology and infrastructure across the U.S. economy.
On this episode, Deese joins Shift Key for a two-part conversation. Part 1 focuses on the future of Bidenomics, Biden’s State of the Union speech, what the 2024 campaign might mean for the politics and policy of climate change.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Robinson Meyer: I want to start by talking about the State of the Union. Jesse, I feel like you had a stronger response to the State of the Union than I did. Where I saw it and I was like, yes, the president is talking about the IRA, he's talking about big climate legislation, primarily in a jobs context. I feel like you were maybe more surprised.
Jesse Jenkins: What I was kind of expecting was Biden to lean in a bit more on the manufacturing Renaissance story. And he referenced it a couple times as sort of the high level numbers, which we can come back to, which probably came from your Clean Investment Monitor project, if I'm not mistaken. And he told the story of the Belvedere plant that was saved from bankruptcy through the UAW negotiations and is now being rebuilt as a EV manufacturing facility. But I was expecting him to say something more broadly about how we have been talking about bringing manufacturing jobs back to America for my entire lifetime, right, for decades.
And the previous president, of course, also made lots of promises about trying to support US manufacturing. And then of course, did basically nothing to do that. And Biden has an incredible track record on that front, an enormous amount of investment happening across multiple sectors, and in particular in the clean energy domain.
And maybe this is just the limits of a State of the Union address where you got to touch a lot of different issues. But I kind of expected him to lean into that a little bit more and to make it clear that it wasn't just this one plant, that there are dozens of stories like Belvedere out there across the economy that are being fueled specifically by the Inflation Reduction Act, which by the way, he did never really mention by name.
So I was curious how you saw it and if you thought he had the right balance or maybe could have leaned in more or could do so in the future.
Brian Deese: Well, I think one of the things about State of the Unions is that its quality and moments are often more important than quantity. And so I think that may be a little bit of what's going on.
But let me step back. Look, I think it was an excellent speech and I think it was delivered in an even more excellent way. And at the top line, the speech was designed to drive pace and clear contrast.
It's interesting that some of the reaction has been partisan. But if you actually go through the speech, it's really clear-eyed contrast. And a lot of the things where the contrast exists are between, as the president said multiple times, his predecessor and the vast majority of the American people. And that's smart.
And the pace was evident from the get-go and positioned President Biden to do exactly what he wanted to do, was to get in the chamber at the podium and go at this thing and demonstrate his capability, but also his enthusiasm. I think for people who actually watched it on TV, you saw not only a president who was in command, but who was having a lot of fun. And a lot of fun because I think he believed in what he was doing.
So that's the most important. And when you're structuring a speech like this, you want to say, if that's your goal is to try to have clear contrast and pace, how do you keep that going? I think in some ways the most important line which goes, Jesse, to the point you are making is he said something to the effect of, it doesn't make the news, it doesn't make the headlines, but in thousands of cities across America, people are writing the greatest comeback story never told.
And I would anticipate that in that idea, in thousands of cities and towns across America, greatest comeback story never told will be a consistent refrain and a throughline to try to get at exactly your point, which is there's an element of that, which reflects a little bit of immediate criticism, right? The greatest comeback story never told, which is why do we never hear about these things going on again?
But it also reflects the kind of great American story that these comeback stories are in fact happening. And for the people and the communities themselves, it matters.
And look, I think that that's where Belvedere fit in, which is oftentimes the best way to try to bring to life that idea is not by trying to describe or animate all of the ways in which it's happening across the country and people like the three of us get very gripped by the overarching statistics.
But the story and the story of Belvedere was one that if you look across the speech, there aren't that many moments where you can actually tell a story like that. And so there was a clear decision to say, this is a story and we are going to tell the story about clean energy manufacturing through the lens of a place and a community, which is really about jobs and grit and resilience. And for those who weren't paying line by line attention to the story of Belvedere, is Belvedere, Illinois, home of a storied Chrysler plant that was initiated in 1965 I'll continue to refer to Stellantis as Chrysler because I still can't get over the idea that we're not still referring it to as that name, but was basically for a whole bunch of reasons an auto plant that was on its back and then was closed and for a variety of reasons, including the strength of UAW's negotiating posture, but also the prospect of bringing battery manufacturing here to the U.S., Belvedere has gone from, you know, is really a Phoenix rising story in a pretty concrete way.
So my takeaway from Jesse, your surprise, is that in fact, what the president did was provide a frame for going out and telling that great comeback story and going and telling it. And in fact, the way to tell it will actually be in individual stories in most cases.
Jenkins: Yeah, I think that makes sense. I guess what I was thinking was there'd be an opportunity to draw a sharper contrast, which would be pretty consistent with the rest of the speech between President Biden and his quote unquote predecessor. In the sense that really, I mean, we, we've been literally politicians have been promising to bring manufacturing back since the 70s and 80s, right.
And now we are seeing that investment really thanks to a whole suite of policies, some of them bipartisan, like CHIPS and Science, and some of them, you know, I think with broad support in the American public, like you're saying, Brian, even if the partisan nature of the congressional debate right now, you know, makes it seem more partisan than it is, it's, you know, these are broadly popular policies. So it was kind of expecting a little bit more contrast there.
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by…
Advanced Energy United educates, engages, and advocates for policies that allow our member companies to compete to power our economy with 100% clean energy, working with decision makers and energy market regulators to achieve this goal. Together, we are united in our mission to accelerate the transition to 100% clean energy in America. Learn more at advancedenergyunited.org/heatmap
KORE Power provides the commercial, industrial, and utility markets with functional solutions that advance the clean energy transition worldwide. KORE Power's technology and manufacturing capabilities provide direct access to next generation battery cells, energy storage systems that scale to grid+, EV power & infrastructure, and intuitive asset management to unlock energy strategies across a myriad of applications. Explore more at korepower.com.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
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 tax credit deadlines, America’s nuclear export hopes, and data center flexibility
Current conditions: Hurricane Erin’s riptides continue lashing the Atlantic Coast, bringing 15-foot waves to the eastern end of New York’s Long Island • In Colorado, the Derby fire tripled in size to more than 2,600 acres, prompting evacuations in the county north of the ski enclave of Aspen • Heavy rain in Sydney set a new 18-year record.
Trump is preparing to onshore turbines, likely shrinking their numbers. Scott Olson/Getty Images
The Trump administration launched an investigation into imported wind turbines and parts, teeing up what Bloomberg called a “potential precursor to adding more tariffs on the clean-energy components.” The Department of Commerce started a national security probe on August 13 to query whether the imports undermine domestic production and put the country at risk from foreign opponents, according to a notice posted Thursday on the agency’s website. The agency already said this week that it would include wind turbines and related parts on the list of products facing 50% steel and aluminum tariffs. As of 2023, at least 41% of wind-related equipment to the U.S. came from Mexico, Canada, and China, according to figures Bloomberg cited from the consultancy Wood Mackenzie.
Also on Thursday, the Treasury Department published an FAQ document outlining the phaseout dates for eight key energy efficiency tax credits repealed under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The rules all deal with zero-carbon vehicles or energy efficiency rebates for home improvements.
As Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo and Robinson Meyer wrote when the first tranche of data on the programs came out around this time last year, millions of Americans had already taken advantage of at least one of the credits. But the uptake was largely concentrated among households earning $100,000 per year or more.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
For years, Westinghouse has been locked in an intellectual property dispute with South Korea’s two state-owned nuclear companies, as the American atomic energy giant accused the Korea Electric Power Corporation and its subsidiary, Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power, of ripping off its reactor technology. This week, the companies brokered a settlement that would keep the Korean giants from bidding on projects in North America, Europe, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine, effectively eliminating what is arguably the United States’ most capable rival outside of Russia and China from the key markets Washington wants to dominate. That could spur a lot more bids for Westinghouse’s flagship gigawatt-sized AP1000 reactor, projects for which are already underway in Poland, Slovakia, and Ukraine. But KoreaPro reported on Thursday that South Korea is pushing back on a deal Seoul fears infringes on its sovereignty.
In Sweden, meanwhile, the U.S.-Japanese joint venture GE Vernova-Hitachi Nuclear Energy secured a new deal to build its 300-megawatt small modular reactor that the government in Stockholm explicitly pitched as a bid to strengthen its trans-Atlantic security ties. “This is the beginning of something bigger, in many ways,” Ebba Busch, Sweden’s deputy prime minister, wrote in a post on LinkedIn. “As in the NATO process, Sweden is part of a larger movement.”
The Department of Energy extended its emergency order directing the J.H. Campbell Generating Plant in Michigan to remain open past its planned retirement. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright initially ordered the 1,420-megawatt coal station to stay online three months past its May 31 shutdown date, citing risks of electricity shortages in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, the electrical grid that runs from the Upper Midwest down to Louisiana. Starting Thursday, the latest order directs the plant’s owners to keep the station running November 19. The consultancy Grid Strategies estimated last week that if the Trump administration expands the effort to cover all 54 aging fossil fuel plants slated for closure between now and 2028, the program will cost upward of $6 billion. Last week, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved a framework for the utilities that own the affected plants to recoup the costs of operating the power stations past the closure dates from ratepayers, despite surging electricity prices.
The Data Center Coalition, a leading trade association representing the burgeoning server farm industry, has endorsed adopting programs to curb electricity demand when the grid is under stress. In a filing Thursday with the North Carolina Utility Commission, the industry group said it “supports exploring well-structured, voluntary demand-response and load flexibility programs for large load customers that allocates risk appropriately, provides clear incentives and compensation, and allows customers to meet their sustainability commitments.”
Researchers at Duke University put out an influential paper in February that found the U.S. could add gigawatts of additional demand from new data centers without building out an equivalent amount of generating plants if those facilities could curtail power usage when demand was particularly high. Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin described the strategy as “one weird trick for getting more data centers on the grid,” boiling down the approach simply as: “Just turn them off sometimes.” When I interviewed Tyler Norris, the study’s lead author, he pitched the idea as a way “to buy us some time” to figure out exactly how much electricity the artificial intelligence boom requires before we build out a bunch of gas plants that are even more expensive than usual due to the years-long backorder of turbines.
Researchers at the University of Houston claim to have made two major breakthroughs in carbon capture technology. The first breakthrough, published in the journal Nature Communications, introduces a new electrochemical process for filtering out carbon dioxide that avoids using a membrane like traditional carbon capture technology. The second, featured on the cover of the journal ES&T Engineering, demonstrates a new vanadium-based flow battery that could be used both to capture carbon and to store renewable energy. “We need solutions, and we wanted to be part of the solution. The biggest suspect out there is CO2 emissions, so the low-hanging fruit would be to eliminate those emissions,” Mim Rahimi, a professor at the University of Houston’s Cullen College of Engineering, said in a statement. “From membraneless systems to scalable flow systems, we’re charting pathways to decarbonize hard-to-abate sectors and support the transition to a low-carbon economy.”
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.