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:
A year ago, America broke with a history of failure.
Today is the one-year anniversary of the Inflation Reduction Act, President Joe Biden’s climate, health care, and tax law. The president is having a celebration at the White House, and seemingly every major newspaper and TV network is marking the occasion by looking back and forward.
I have spent the past year — and, frankly, the past years — covering the IRA. I covered the IRA long before it had its final, silly name. I stayed up all night in the Capitol to watch the Senate pass the law, and I went back a week later to see the House of Representatives pass it. I will be thinking about this law for a long time.
And a year on, what remains most astonishing to me is that the law exists at all.
Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:
Scientists have known about the risk of climate change for more than a century — Svante Arrhenius, the great Swedish chemist, first warned that carbon pollution could raise global temperatures in 1896 — but for much of that time, the threat remained intellectual and far-off. That changed in the 1960s and 1970s, as researchers built the first computer models of the global climate, and it became clear that human-induced warming would happen on politically meaningful time scales.
Yet uncertainty remained. And the Reagan administration, dominated by anti-environmentalist ideologues, did not address climate change when it might have.
But climate change did not really make itself felt as a major political issue in the United States until 1988, when the NASA scientist Jim Hansen warned a Senate committee that the planet had now begun to warm. Arguably it did not emerge as an international issue until 1992, when representatives from around the world gathered in Rio de Janeiro for the Earth Summit.
For the next 30 years, the United States did not have a climate policy. The world’s hegemon and the flagbearer of democracy did not have an answer to the chemical crisis brewing in its atmosphere.
It was even worse than this, actually. Because not only did we lack an answer to solving it, but the United States was, in fact, the closest thing to a principal antagonist.
In the 1990s, the United States — its manufacturers, its railroads, its oil companies, its utilities, even its public-relations firms — originated the lie that climate change was somehow uncertain or made-up.
In 1997, the Senate voted 95-0 to block the United States from joining any climate treaty that mandated international emissions cuts.
In 2001, President George W. Bush — after promising to address climate change during his campaign — pulled out of negotiations over the Kyoto Protocol and announced a massive buildout of coal power plants. He began spouting denialism from the White House, telling reporters: “We do not know how much our climate could or will change in the future.”
Meanwhile, Germany was rolling out its generous solar subsidies, which would ultimately trigger massive cost declines in the price of solar power.
In 2005, the Bush administration fought a lawsuit that would have forced them to acknowledge that greenhouse gases are a form of pollution.
The European Union, meanwhile, was launching its massive carbon-pollution market.
A year later, the Supreme Court finally forced the issue and told the Environmental Protection Agency to study carbon dioxide. (It quickly found that greenhouse gases were, of course, a form of pollution, essentially forcing it to regulate them.) But Bush’s staff blocked the EPA by refusing to open its emails.
In 2009, the new administration only brought some relief. Barack Obama and John McCain had each promised to address climate change during the campaign, but Obama’s sweeping climate bill failed in the Senate. McCain did not help him revive it.
Through the 2010s, Obama implemented a piecemeal climate policy through regulation, encouraging tighter fuel standards for cars and trucks. He also helped secure the first truly global climate treaty, the Paris Agreement.
But he did not succeed in passing a comprehensive climate policy through Congress. Nor did he restrict carbon pollution from power plants before he left office.
And then President Donald Trump was elected. He pulled out of the Paris Agreement and renounced climate change as a “hoax.” He rolled back Obama’s climate rules. Trump seemed to revel in global warming and even framed carbon pollution as a positive good — because, after all, it was just one more way to own the libs.
Thirty years went by like this. For 30 years, this was the highest-profile failure of American politics. We were poisoning the world and doing almost nothing about it. And in fact our leaders often recklessly — joyfully! — made climate change worse.
Which is not to say that every rejected policy was perfect or that America was entirely feckless. Federal tax credits began encouraging wind and solar power in the 1990s and 2000s; American cities and states became some of the world’s most aggressive carbon regulators. But America as a whole remained negligent and idle.
That ignominy changed a year ago today. The Inflation Reduction Act is not perfect, and while it generously supports the technologies and tools needed for decarbonization, it contains no mechanism to mandate carbon cuts. It could still be undone by corporate greed or future maladministration. But it is a climate law and it could decarbonize much of the economy.
Fighting climate change will require countless difficult decisions and trade-offs. It will make us do hard things — technically, politically, even ecologically. But for 30 years, America refused even to do the easy things. That changed a year ago today. I am grateful for this climate law. It is not enough, it must not be enough, but it is far more than I once thought I might see.
Read more about the Inflation Reduction Act:
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 Mary King, a vice president handling venture strategy at Aligned Capital
Today’s conversation is with Mary King, a vice president handling venture strategy at Aligned Capital, which has invested in developers like Summit Ridge and Brightnight. I reached out to Mary as a part of the broader range of conversations I’ve had with industry professionals since it has become clear Republicans in Congress will be taking a chainsaw to the Inflation Reduction Act. I wanted to ask her about investment philosophies in this trying time and how the landscape for putting capital into renewable energy has shifted. But Mary’s quite open with her view: these technologies aren’t going anywhere.
The following conversation has been lightly edited and abridged for clarity.
How do you approach working in this field given all the macro uncertainties?
It’s a really fair question. One, macro uncertainties aside, when you look at the levelized cost of energy report Lazard releases it is clear that there are forms of clean energy that are by far the cheapest to deploy. There are all kinds of reasons to do decarbonizing projects that aren’t clean energy generation: storage, resiliency, energy efficiency – this is massively cost saving. Like, a lot of the methane industry [exists] because there’s value in not leaking methane. There’s all sorts of stuff you can do that you don’t need policy incentives for.
That said, the policy questions are unavoidable. You can’t really ignore them and I don’t want to say they don’t matter to the industry – they do. It’s just, my belief in this being an investable asset class and incredibly important from a humanity perspective is unwavering. That’s the perspective I’ve been taking. This maybe isn’t going to be the most fun market, investing in decarbonizing things, but the sense of purpose and the belief in the underlying drivers of the industry outweigh that.
With respect to clean energy development, and the investment class working in development, how have things changed since January and the introduction of these bills that would pare back the IRA?
Both investors and companies are worried. There’s a lot more political and policy engagement. We’re seeing a lot of firms and organizations getting involved. I think companies are really trying to find ways to structure around the incentives. Companies and developers, I think everybody is trying to – for lack of a better term – future-proof themselves against the worst eventuality.
One of the things I’ve been personally thinking about is that the way developers generally make money is, you have a financier that’s going to buy a project from them, and the financier is going to have a certain investment rate of return, or IRR. So ITC [investment tax credit] or no ITC, that IRR is going to be the same. And the developer captures the difference.
My guess – and I’m not incredibly confident yet – but I think the industry just focuses on being less ITC dependent. Finding the projects that are juicier regardless of the ITC.
The other thing is that as drafts come out for what we’re expecting to see, it’s gone from bad to terrible to a little bit better. We’ll see what else happens as we see other iterations.
How are you evaluating companies and projects differently today, compared to how you were maybe before it was clear the IRA would be targeted?
Let’s say that we’re looking at a project developer and they have a series of projects. Right now we’re thinking about a few things. First, what assets are these? It’s not all ITC and PTC. A lot of it is other credits. Going through and asking, how at risk are these credits? And then, once we know how at risk those credits are we apply it at a project level.
This also raises a question of whether you’re going to be able to find as many projects. Is there going to be as much demand if you’re not able to get to an IRR? Is the industry going to pay that?
What gives you optimism in this moment?
I’ll just look at the levelized cost of energy and looking at the unsubsidized tables say these are the projects that make sense and will still get built. Utility-scale solar? Really attractive. Some of these next-gen geothermal projects, I think those are going to be cost effective.
The other thing is that the cost of battery storage is just declining so rapidly and it’s continuing to decline. We are as a country expected to compare the current price of these technologies in perpetuity to the current price of oil and gas, which is challenging and where the technologies have not changed materially. So we’re not going to see the cost decline we’re going to see in renewables.
And more news around renewable energy conflicts.
1. Nantucket County, Massachusetts – The SouthCoast offshore wind project will be forced to abandon its existing power purchase agreements with Massachusetts and Rhode Island if the Trump administration’s wind permitting freeze continues, according to court filings submitted last week.
2. Tippacanoe County, Indiana – This county has now passed a full solar moratorium but is looking at grandfathering one large utility-scale project: RWE and Geenex’s Rainbow Trout solar farm.
3. Columbia County, Wisconsin – An Alliant wind farm named after this county is facing its own pushback as the developer begins the state permitting process and is seeking community buy-in through public info hearings.
4. Washington County, Arkansas – It turns out even mere exploration for a wind project out in this stretch of northwest Arkansas can get you in trouble with locals.
5. Wagoner County, Oklahoma – A large NextEra solar project has been blocked by county officials despite support from some Republican politicians in the Sooner state.
6. Skagit County, Washington – If you’re looking for a ray of developer sunshine on a cloudy day, look no further than this Washington State county that’s bucking opposition to a BESS facility.
7. Orange County, California – A progressive Democratic congressman is now opposing a large battery storage project in his district and talking about battery fire risks, the latest sign of a populist revolt in California against BESS facilities.
Permitting delays and missed deadlines are bedeviling solar developers and activist groups alike. What’s going on?
It’s no longer possible to say the Trump administration is moving solar projects along as one of the nation’s largest solar farms is being quietly delayed and even observers fighting the project aren’t sure why.
Months ago, it looked like Trump was going to start greenlighting large-scale solar with an emphasis out West. Agency spokespeople told me Trump’s 60-day pause on permitting solar projects had been lifted and then the Bureau of Land Management formally approved its first utility-scale project under this administration, Leeward Renewable Energy’s Elisabeth solar project in Arizona, and BLM also unveiled other solar projects it “reasonably” expected would be developed in the area surrounding Elisabeth.
But the biggest indicator of Trump’s thinking on solar out west was Esmeralda 7, a compilation of solar project proposals in western Nevada from NextEra, Invenergy, Arevia, ConnectGen, and other developers that would, if constructed, produce at least 6 gigawatts of power. My colleague Matthew Zeitlin was first to report that BLM officials updated the timetable for fully permitting the expansive project to say it would complete its environmental review by late April and be completely finished with the federal bureaucratic process by mid-July. BLM told Matthew that the final environmental impact statement – the official study completing the environmental review – would be published “in the coming days or week or so.”
More than two months later, it’s crickets from BLM on Esmeralda 7. BLM never released the study that its website as of today still says should’ve come out in late April. I asked BLM for comment on this and a spokesperson simply told me the agency “does not have any updates to share on this project at this time.”
This state of quiet stasis is not unique to Esmeralda; for example, Leeward has yet to receive a final environmental impact statement for its 700 mega-watt Copper Rays solar project in Nevada’s Pahrump Valley that BLM records state was to be published in early May. Earlier this month, BLM updated the project timeline for another Nevada solar project – EDF’s Bonanza – to say it would come out imminently, too, but nothing’s been released.
Delays happen in the federal government and timelines aren’t always met. But on its face, it is hard for stakeholders I speak with out in Nevada to take these months-long stutters as simply good faith bureaucratic hold-ups. And it’s even making work fighting solar for activists out in the desert much more confusing.
For Shaaron Netherton, executive director of the conservation group Friends of the Nevada Wilderness, these solar project permitting delays mean an uncertain future. Friends of the Nevada Wilderness is a volunteer group of ecology protection activists that is opposing Esmeralda 7 and filed its first lawsuit against Greenlink West, a transmission project that will connect the massive solar constellation to the energy grid. Netherton told me her group may sue against the approval of Esmeralda 7… but that the next phase of their battle against the project is a hazy unknown.
“It’s just kind of a black hole,” she told me of the Esmeralda 7 permitting process. “We will litigate Esmeralda 7 if we have to, and we were hoping that with this administration there would be a little bit of a pause. There may be. That’s still up in the air.”
I’d like to note that Netherton’s organization has different reasons for opposition than I normally write about in The Fight. Instead of concerns about property values or conspiracies about battery fires, her organization and a multitude of other desert ecosystem advocates are trying to avoid a future where large industries of any type harm or damage one of the nation’s most biodiverse and undeveloped areas.
This concern for nature has historically motivated environmental activism. But it’s also precisely the sort of advocacy that Trump officials have opposed tooth-and-nail, dating back to the president’s previous term, when advocates successfully opposed his rewrite of Endangered Species Act regulations. This reason – a motivation to hippie-punch, so to speak – is a reason why I hardly expect species protection to be enough of a concern to stop solar projects in their tracks under Trump, at least for now. There’s also the whole “energy dominance” thing, though Trump has been wishy-washy on adhering to that goal.
Patrick Donnelly, great basin director at the Center for Biological Diversity, agrees that this is a period of confusion but not necessarily an end to solar permitting on BLM land.
“[Solar] is moving a lot slower than it was six months ago, when it was coming at a breakneck pace,” said Patrick Donnelly of the Center for Biological Diversity. “How much of that is ideological versus 15-20% of the agencies taking early retirement and utter chaos inside the agencies? I’m not sure. But my feeling is it’s less ideological. I really don’t think Trump’s going to just start saying no to these energy projects.”