Maine union workers call on Congress to protect federal clean energy tax credit
When IBEW Local 567 member Kilton Webb started his career as an electrician in 2018, his first job was on a solar field in Kennebunk.
The two years that Webb, who now represents Durham in the House of Representatives, spent traveling from town to town building dozens of solar farms as renewable energy projects proliferated allowed him to pay off debt, purchase a home and advance to a journeyman electrician.
That's why the Democrat joined other union workers at the State House Wednesday morning to call on Congress to protect the federal tax credits for energy development that have kept him and others living and working in Maine. Congressional Republicans are currently negotiating a federal spending plan that is expected to include significant cuts to pay for an extension of the 2017 tax cuts as well as bolstering funding for border security and defense.
'These clean energy tax credits — which have been in force now for more than two years — they are working,' said Francis Eanes, executive director of the Maine Labor Climate Council.
'They are doing exactly what they are intended to do: lowering Mainers' energy bills, investing in good-paying jobs right here at home and powering Maine with independent, homegrown energy. Win. Win. Win.'
Part of the Inflation Reduction Act, the Investment and Production tax credits allow business and tax-exempt entities to deduct part of the cost of developing renewable energy systems from their federal taxes. They include labor requirements for the projects such as paying workers prevailing wages and hiring apprentices for a certain number of hours.
Among Maine's congressional delegation, Democratic Reps. Jared Golden and Chellie Pingree, as well as independent Sen. Angus King, voted in favor of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. However, Republican Sen. Susan Collins voted against it.
The tax credits are a 'huge lever for driving clean energy and growing the pipeline of skilled tradespeople we so badly need,' Eanes said.
Hayley Lawrence, who lives in Augusta, said it would be a 'mistake' to take away the tax credits that have helped create jobs for people like her. Prior to graduating from an apprenticeship program, Lawrence was living in her car. Just days after completing her program, she was able to get work on solar projects that allowed her to rent an apartment.
While some energy development projects are only eligible for one of the credits, multiple solar and wind technologies, as well as municipal solid waste, geothermal, and tidal projects are eligible for both.
The tax credits can offset development costs by up to 30%, which provides a 'meaningful savings' that can be passed on to the utility and ultimately, ratepayers, Eanes explained. If those credits disappear for projects that are counting on them, developers may have to renegotiate contracts or pass cost increases onto ratepayers.
Eanes and other labor leaders feared that Maine could be disproportionately hurt if the tax credits end because the rural state has significant untapped capacity for new projects that could utilize the benefit to develop homegrown energy and good jobs.
There are 145 utility-scale projects either operating or in development across Maine that could be eligible for federal energy tax credits, according to information provided by the Maine Labor Climate Council. This includes the Lincoln Battery Storage Project, Northern Maine Renewables Program, County Line Wind Farm and more.
Together, those projects support more than 9,100 jobs, $8.8 billion in investment and nearly 5,000 megawatts of power generation or storage, the council said.
But, Eanes said, 'they are depending on the certainty from Washington D.C. to keep these clean energy tax credits going.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump unfroze education funding, but the damage is already done
Summer is when superintendents and principals finalize staffing and allocate resources for the year ahead. Instead, they've spent the past month scrambling to revise budgets and delay decisions after the Trump administration recklessly froze more than $6.8 billion in federal education funds approved by Congress four months ago — a move that unnecessarily threw school planning into chaos with the school year starting in just a few weeks. On June 30, the Education Department abruptly informed states it would not release key fiscal year 2025 education funds as scheduled, affecting programs like teacher training, English learner support and after-school services. After bipartisan backlash — including lawsuits from 24 states and pressure from Republican senators — the administration reversed course on July 25, announcing it would release the remaining funds. But the damage had already been done. The administration claimed the freeze was part of a 'programmatic review' to ensure spending aligned with White House priorities. Yet, the review was conducted without transparency while the funds were only released after intense political pressure. The Education Department stated 'guardrails' would be in place to prevent funds from being used in ways that violate executive orders, which is a vague statement that should raise concerns about future interference. Districts had built their budgets assuming these funds would arrive by July 1, as they do each year. Instead of preparing for the new school year, states and districts were forced to scramble to minimize the damage. In my home state of Texas, nearly 1,200 districts faced a freeze of $660 million, which represented about 16 percent of the state's total K-12 funding. I have spoken to superintendents, chief academic officers and chief financial officers who described how these unanticipated funding deficits undermined strategic investments into high-quality instruction and mental health services. In Tennessee, $106 million was frozen, representing 13.4 percent of the state's K-12 funding. Knox County Schools eliminated 28 central office positions, including staff supporting instruction for English learners. Florida had $400 million frozen. Pinellas County School District alone stood to lose $9 million. The superintendent reported that they would have to make cuts that directly affect student achievement while the school board chair said the freeze 'feels kind of like the straw that broke the camel's back.' Kansas saw $50 million frozen. Kansas City, Kan. Public Schools warned families that $4.9 million in lost funding would affect 'programs that directly support some of our most vulnerable students — including those from low-income families, English language learners and students with disabilities.' Even with the funds now being released, the uncertainty and disruption caused by the freeze will have lasting impacts. In some cases, district leaders were forced to make staffing and programming decisions without knowing whether critical federal support would be unfrozen. All who care about public education must make clear that this kind of reckless disruption is unacceptable and will carry political consequences. Governors from both parties should press their congressional delegations to pass legislation preventing future executive overreach. And Congress must require the Education Department to provide advance notice and justification for any future funding delays. The funding freeze was a reckless policy choice that disrespected educators, destabilized schools and put children at risk. Public education cannot function on the Trump administration's political whims and such unwarranted actions cannot go unchecked without the risk of normalizing executive overreach at the expense of students. Now is the time for all policymakers and educators to stand up for our schools and ensure that no child's education is ever again held hostage to such problematic politics.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Social Security Trustees Say the Program Can Pay All Benefits Until 2034. It Might Be Too Optimistic
Key Points The latest Social Security Trustees Report estimates that the program could face benefit cuts in 2034 unless the government institutes reforms. Recent legislative changes could cause it to run out of money sooner. Reforms would likely include increasing taxes, reducing benefits, or both. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Earlier this summer, we got worrying news that Social Security's trust funds are expected to be depleted in 2034 -- a year earlier than what 2024 estimates projected. The latest Trustees Report suggests that everything will be business as usual, at least for the next eight years. But that estimate is based on assumptions about everything from life expectancy to income, and there's no way to know whether they're right. It might seem like all you can do right now is wait and watch to see what Congress will do to your benefits in the future. But that's not true. By understanding why the program is running short of money, you can anticipate the types of Social Security changes the government might have to make in the near future, so you can start preparing yourself now. The state of Social Security Social Security depends on three sources of income to operate smoothly: payroll taxes from workers, benefit taxes from some seniors, and interest income from money in the trust funds. Take away one of those sources -- like the trust fund income -- and the other two need to pick up the slack somehow. The only other option is benefit cuts, which the latest Trustees Report estimates would be around 23% if the government does nothing to resolve this funding issue. By far the largest of Social Security's income sources is payroll tax income. This amounted to nearly $1.3 trillion in 2024. In comparison, interest income only totaled about $69 billion, and benefit taxation was about $55 billion. So anything that could disrupt the flow of taxes coming in is a serious concern. That's a big part of why Social Security is in its current predicament. When the baby boomers retired, the number of beneficiaries ballooned quickly. The generations that followed them were smaller, so there were fewer workers to pay taxes in their stead. This upset the ratio between the number of workers and the number of beneficiaries. Legislative changes can also disrupt Social Security income and expenses. President Joe Biden's Social Security Fairness Act increased benefits for select seniors, which will also increase the program's expenses. President Donald Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which passed after the 2025 Trustees Report was released, is expected to reduce the benefit taxes the program takes in. Then there's the issue of the assumptions the Trustees Report uses to predict when the program's trust funds will be depleted. These include assumptions about life expectancy, income, and fertility rates, to name a few. If any of these are off, the insolvency date could be off too. These examples highlight that Social Security's insolvency date is always a bit of a moving target. It's not out of the question that the program could run out of money before 2034. What happens if Social Security runs out of money early? We have approximately 10 months to wait until the next Social Security Trustees Report, so it'll be a while before we get an updated estimate of how the trust funds are doing. But even if the news is bad, it's important to put it in perspective. The government is unlikely to allow Social Security to drop by nearly a quarter. It will likely intervene. We don't know what Social Security reforms Washington will decide upon, but we know that there are really only three ways to solve this: Increase revenue by raising taxes. Reduce expenses by cutting benefits. Increase revenue and reduce expenses. There are different ways to tackle each option. For example, increasing the ceiling on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes ($176,100 in 2025) would primarily affect high earners. Raising payroll taxes on everyone would affect people of all economic backgrounds. Similarly, you could cut benefits for all retirees, or raise the full retirement age (FRA), which would act as a cut only for younger adults. The only thing we know for sure is that the government will have to make some sort of a decision in the next few years. Once it does, it'll be time for retirees and workers alike to sit down and review their retirement budget to decide how they plan to cover their expenses moving forward. For some, it might require significant changes, like working longer or moving to a more affordable area in retirement. Others may not have to make too many adjustments. But it's still important to do the math so you know what you can afford. Otherwise, you run the risk of draining your savings prematurely. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Social Security Trustees Say the Program Can Pay All Benefits Until 2034. It Might Be Too Optimistic was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Do Cuomo and Adams secretly want Mamdani to win?
I have worked with a number of very successful candidates and politicians. The one really invaluable skill they all had in common was that they understood basic math. They knew that two plus two often leads to victory, and that two minus one — or three — usually leads to defeat. Addition, subtraction, division. Simple. Unless, to paraphrase a line from 'Top Gun,' 'Your ego is writing checks your body can't cash.' There is no doubt that many New York City residents — as well as countless people around the country and world who now fear for that iconic city's future — have been shaken by a recent Siena College poll showing that far-left socialist Zohran Mamdani leads the race to become the next mayor by 19 points over his next-closest opponent, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Behind them are Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa with 12 percent and incumbent Mayor Eric Adams with 7 percent. Mamdani has the gift of basic math working massively in his favor. In this particular case, division. Without doing a thing, the cliché 'divide and conquer' has been the most important campaign strategy in his quiver. Other than offering the socialist panacea of 'a chicken in every pot' — free stuff to constituents who really know nothing about him — it is the one factor that may make him the next mayor of New York. Mamdani doesn't have to pay for it, focus-group it or expend any political capital. He simply has to sit back and prepare as the respective egos of Cuomo and Adams hand him the keys to Gracie Mansion — and the four years he will need to bring New York City to its knees. Why? Because Cuomo and Adams are now engaged in an ego-fueled blinking contest to see who might exit the race first. That, or they secretly want Mamdani to win. Either way, it's Mamdani with the Cheshire Cat-like smile. This is proving to be an interesting election in that the winning candidate will be the one least despised by the voters. Each of the four major candidates have high negatives and elicit harsh criticism from various blocks of voters. Sadly, forgotten in this high-profile contest between dueling egos are the millions of people in the city who are either barely getting by or suffering in the throes of dysfunction and despair — ironically enough, often caused by the failed policies of previous ego-driven mayors. Many of the residents of New York City who are struggling daily with poverty, crime and lack of education for their children are Black or minority. Ah, but we are seemingly not allowed to talk about that. Many on the left — with a huge assist from Democratic leadership, the media, academia and teachers unions — have gamed it so if you even try to point out the failings of a major American city such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington or Baltimore and who is running it, you risk being labeled a racist, bigot or a misogynist. I don't care what a mayor looks like or how they identify sexually. The only thing I care about is the suffering of millions of constituents. Life for those people is beyond brutal in many cases — an irrefutable fact you almost never hear about, because that would run counter to the various narratives of the left's noise machine. For example, let's look at another major American city that is a poster child for failure, massive dysfunction and turning its back on those most in need: Chicago. A city in which, as I have pointed out in the past, more than 40,000 men, women and children — almost all minority and from the inner city — have been murdered over the last six decades. Extrapolate that number across multiple American inner cities and you have our nation's greatest failing … ever. Except, 'shhhh,' once again, you are not supposed to talk about it. New York City is Chicago on steroids. It has multiple — fixable — problems and life-crushing emergencies across the five boroughs. Unfortunately for those most at-risk inhabitants, many of the people who can help them are entitled elites who exist in bubbles of luxury and safety floating far above the 'unwashed masses' of the city. Two of those elites are Cuomo and Adams. To them, it seems as if the title of 'mayor' is yet one more trophy they can amass, serving either as a potential stepping stone to higher office or to private sector appointments and riches once the last term is complete. In the meantime, those millions of desperately hurting New Yorkers ignored by the elites had better prepare themselves. If (when) Mamdani wins, things will get much worse. 'Free stuff' is the false promise to grab the vote of those New Yorkers. Once Mamdani secures that vote, it will only be about what is best for him and his socialist movement going forward. Those at-risk residents won't even be a fleeting memory.
