
Republicans in Pennsylvania are holding $156 million in solar grants hostage—despite massive demand
Charles Suppon has big plans for the Tunkhannock Area School District.
At any given time, the northeastern Pennsylvania district's chief operating officer can rattle off statistics about fields in which its schools excel: arts, AP classes and softball, as well as on-the-job training programs for future farmers, welders and more. Goats and chickens roam the high school's courtyards, where students also tend to koi fish; in the hallways just beyond, high schoolers tinker with tractors, build furniture to sell and offer free tax services for the broader community.
But Suppon speaks with vigor when he talks about the five-megawatt system he hopes to install across five solar arrays on the district's buildings and surrounding property. The solar panels will heat the district's pool and serve as the basis for new curricula and jobs training classes on the solar industry. For a rural district of around 2,000, Tunkhannock is punching above its weight class, he believes.
'We're a smaller school district doing big things.'
Suppon's district is in a bright red portion of Pennsylvania northwest of Scranton, narrowly outside one of the state's more prolific natural gas regions. For him, solar is simply a pathway toward cost savings—just as natural gas, from which the district earns royalties off several leases, has been. Tunkhannock believes it could save upwards of $1 million a year by switching to solar, money that could be used for student initiatives.
'It was always a financial decision,' Suppon said. 'We wanted to be able to offset our energy costs, produce our own energy, and only pay distribution [fees] back to the grid.'
There's one catch: Tunkhannock's plan to go solar is contingent upon winning more than $1 million in funding from the state's Solar for Schools program. Currently in its inaugural year, Solar for Schools was born from a bill that faced an uphill battle in a legislature where environmental bills often die by attrition—a battle that required its creator, progressive Rep. Elizabeth Fiedler (D-Philadelphia) to reach across the aisle and help marry what are often competing interests in the state—labor, education, and climate.
But that money for Tunkhannock might not come through because of the stiff competition for the limited funds. While last year's state budget gave the Solar for Schools program $25 million to disperse to school districts, the program received applications that add up to nearly four times that amount from schools and districts large and small, rural and urban, and conservative and liberal.
'I was pleased, but hardly surprised,' Fiedler said in an email to Capital & Main of the demand.
The disparity between the grant program's budget and the size of its application pool mirrors a broader reality within the state Legislature: Despite clear and growing demand for solar energy, the political will to meet it has yet to catch up.
A 2022 poll of more than 1,300 Pennsylvanians conducted by Vote Solar Action, an advocacy group urging pro-solar legislation at the state level, found that 65% of Pennsylvanians support large-scale solar farm development in the state. More than 80% said they support rooftop solar, while 73% support natural gas and 52% support coal.
'I [have] visited nearly every corner of the state, from Waynesburg to Bethlehem, and in every place I met folks who wanted to save money on electricity, create good local jobs, and preserve the beauty of their communities,' Fiedler said.
Yet the state lags far behind most others in solar development: Pennsylvania currently ranks 49th in the nation for its growth in solar, wind, and geothermal generation over the last decade, according to the nonprofit advocacy group PennEnvironment.
It has fallen behind other major fossil-fuel producing states, like Texas, the country's second-largest solar generator in 2023; California, where solar and wind together comprise close to half the state's energy generation; and New Mexico, which Environment America, the national organization behind PennEnvironment, ranked 4th in the U.S. for renewable energy production in 2024.
Just 3% of Pennsylvanians now have solar panels on their roofs, Vote Solar Action's poll found—though 31% said they'd be interested in installing them.
The lag could be attributed, in part, to interconnection delays by the regional grid operator PJM—though many of its neighbors in the same system, like Washington D.C., New Jersey, and North Carolina, have eclipsed Pennsylvania's solar production.
Because of increased demands predicted by PJM, utility bills in Pennsylvania are slated to increase this summer. Fiedler sees solar production as an antidote to what could be an oncoming energy crisis in the state.
'We must generate more electricity,' she said. 'Nuclear, wind, geothermal, and gas power plants can all be part of the solution, but the fact is we need energy now, and solar is the fastest.'
But solar initiatives continue to hit gridlock in the halls of state power.
After making its way through the state House last summer, a bill that would have enabled community solar —a program that allows multiple residents to enroll in a shared solar array separate from their homes—died in the Republican-controlled Senate. The bill's author, Rep. Peter Schweyer (D-Lehigh), who introduced it as a way to make solar accessible for renters, apartment dwellers and those who can't afford solar panels by themselves, has had to reintroduce the bill and start over again this session.
Gov. Josh Shapiro's attempt to pass an updated renewables target also failed to gain traction in the Legislature last session. Where a 2004 target required 0.5% of the state's energy generation to come from solar, the new plan would have required the state to reach a 35% target by 2035 that included solar, wind, and nuclear energy generation. He has reintroduced it as part of a broader energy package dubbed the ' Lightning Plan.'
In a divided legislature, the fate of both initiatives is tenuous.
As renewable energy faces sweeping attacks at the federal level under the direction of President Donald Trump, states are stepping up to hold the line. Whether Pennsylvania will prove itself to be a meaningful player in this fight remains an open question.
'Climate change has become politicized,' said David Masur, executive director of nonprofit advocacy group PennEnvironment. 'Which then potentially can create more powerful special interests who are opposed to common sense policies and have a vested self-interest in the status quo, and politicians having sort of a knee jerk reaction to oppose things [that] are probably good even for their very own constituents.'
Case in point: Solar for All, a federal grant program initiated by the Biden administration that awarded Pennsylvania $156 million for residential solar installations on low-income households, was designed to save residents $192 million over the next 20 years in energy costs while averting 43 million tons of planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions from entering the atmosphere, the equivalent of removing more than 9 million cars from the road for a year.
These funds quickly became a negotiating chip. During deliberations over the 2024 state budget, a line was inserted into an omnibus fiscal code bill that prevented the state from accessing the funds. Though the Solar for All program was just one of several dozen federal environmental grants Pennsylvania won under Biden-era initiatives, the budget bill specifically calls out that one program. It requires legislative approval for the program's funds to be disbursed.
So, Fiedler sought out exactly that when she authored HB 362, a bill that would force the Legislature to vote on allowing the Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority, the state's independent financing authority, to distribute funds it has already been awarded. Fiedler said the funds are already under contract with the federal government.
HB 362 passed the House Energy Committee, which Fiedler chairs, in March. It now sits in the state House, home to a slim one-vote Democratic majority, as a battle to free the money falters after being confronted with a last-minute hurdle.
Two days after the bill passed, Rep. Craig Williams (R-Chester County), introduced an amendment that would require the state's utility regulator to promulgate regulations on net metering—a system that allows residential solar users to sell surplus energy back to the grid to incentivize the buildout of rooftop solar. Environmentalists fear the amendment could open the door to doing away with net metering—a major financial incentive for many residential solar owners.
Reforming net metering has long been a priority of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative lobbying firm that disburses model bills to states, including those fighting renewable energy and attacking environmentalists.
The group argues that paying solar owners for the energy they produce is costly for utilities—they pay them retail rates, rather than wholesale rates, and residential solar producers may end up generating enough energy to offset distribution fees they'd pay for the wires that move energy around the grid. Utilities then pass those costs onto consumers, and nonsolar users end up subsidizing their neighbors with solar panels, they argue. Williams has used similar language in opposing solar legislation; environmentalists generally disagree with this premise.
Critics were quick to point out that, prior to joining the Pennsylvania House in 2020, Williams spent more than 10 years as general counsel for PECO, a Philadelphia-based utility that has come under fire from environmentalists for neglecting to increase its share of renewable energy.
State lobbying and campaign finance records show the company spent more than $600,000 on lobbying in 2024, and donated $6,000 to Williams in 2024 between a failed run for attorney general and a successful campaign to keep his seat in the state House. The trade group that represents PECO and other utilities, the Edison Electric Institute, has long challenged net metering as states have grown their share of solar production.
'The more people who generate energy from their homes, the less [utilities] get to build out their larger operations,' said Elowyn Corby, Mid-Atlantic regional director for Vote Solar Action.
Williams' amendment passed with support on both sides of the aisle. Environmentalists, however, consider it a poison pill—one that could weaken the state's fledgling solar industry.
'In Pennsylvania, probably the best thing we have going for solar is net metering,' said Masur, the PennEnvironment director.
Minus Williams' amendment, Fiedler's Solar for All bill makes common sense, Corby said.
'At its heart, the goal of this legislation is to make sure Pennsylvania doesn't send federal money that belongs to our neighbors back to DC,' Fiedler said.
The Solar for All program focuses specifically on serving homeowners who might otherwise be unable to afford solar panels of their own. In Pennsylvania, funds are specifically earmarked for low-income households, who are guaranteed at least 20% savings on their electricity bills.
It's unclear whether Fiedler will push forward to advance HB 362 now that it includes a threat to net metering.
In the coming months, the state Legislature may also vote on initiatives that would put solar panels on municipal and emergency response buildings; warehouses and distribution centers; and townhouses governed by homeowners associations.
Shapiro has proposed reupping the Solar for Schools program's $25 million appropriation in the 2025-2026 budget, set to be finalized by June 30. Though Fiedler said she's pleased to see the program reinstated, she said 'that number is the minimum we should budget.'
Jim Gregory, a former state representative and now executive director of the Conservative Energy Network-Pennsylvania, has committed himself to convincing his former colleagues of the importance of renewables in a diverse state energy portfolio.
'If that money is going to be made available, we want to see it made available to low- and moderate-income families in rural Pennsylvania,' he said.
Gregory said he's watched as attitudes toward solar among conservatives in state government have shifted.
'I don't oppose anyone who wants to put solar on their rooftop or anything like that to help with utility bills,' said Rep. Kathy Rapp (R-Warren) at a recent meeting of the House Energy committee on Fiedler's bill. Rapp has, for several sessions, introduced legislation requiring solar operators to create end-of-life plans for their arrays, which has yet to pass.
Though far from an all-out embrace of solar, Rapp's language offers a window into a softening stance on renewables. In 2019, Rapp wrote on her Facebook profile that solar and wind energy pose 'serious environmental risks,' and called its supporters 'radical Green New Deal proponents.'
Despite past roadblocks, Fiedler remains optimistic about the fate of solar initiatives in the state. She sees the Solar for Schools program as evidence of broadening support for clean energy.
'I believe there is political will for solar and all types of energy development in the state,' she said. 'A lot of that success comes from the broad stakeholder coalition we built and from the support of colleagues on the other side of the aisle.'
For school districts like Tunkhannock, the state's ability to reach consensus has very real consequences. With the fate of federal solar tax credits unclear, district leaders say they are currently on the edge of their seats. The Solar for Schools grant could end up being a lifeline.
'To say not getting potentially a million dollars in grant money wouldn't affect us at all I think would be a lie,' said Suppon, the school district's chief operating officer.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
4 hours ago
- CBS News
Pennsylvania sues U.S. Department of Agriculture over cutting funding to $1 billion food aid program for states
Pennsylvania sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Wednesday, saying the agency, under President Donald Trump, had illegally cut off funding to it through a program designed to distribute more than $1 billion in aid to states to purchase food from farms for schools, child care centers, and food banks. The lawsuit in federal court, announced by Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, comes three months after the USDA advised states that it was ending the pandemic-era assistance program because it no longer reflected agency priorities. "I don't get what the hell their priorities are if not feeding people and taking care of our farmers," Shapiro said at a news conference at a food bank warehouse in Philadelphia. The USDA declined to comment Wednesday. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Harrisburg, asks the court to reverse the USDA's decision to end the reimbursement program. Shapiro's administration, in the lawsuit, said the USDA's termination of the contract was illegal, saying the USDA didn't explain why it no longer reflected agency priorities and that the contract didn't expressly allow the USDA to terminate it for those reasons. Shapiro said he was confident that Pennsylvania would win the lawsuit. "A deal is a deal," Shapiro told the news conference. "They made a deal with our farmers ... they made a deal with Pennsylvania and they illegally broke it." The loss to Pennsylvania is $13 million under a three-year contract, money that the state planned to use to buy food from farms to stock food banks. States also use the money to buy food from farms for school nutrition programs and child care centers. Purchases include commodities such as cheese, eggs, meat, fruits and vegetables. The department, under then-President Joe Biden, announced a second round of funding through the program last year.

Associated Press
4 hours ago
- Associated Press
Cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania would see funding cut under bill passed by the state House
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A Democratic-sponsored proposal to limit per-student payments to Pennsylvania's cyber charter schools and make other changes to how they operate narrowly passed the state House on Wednesday over Republican objections that it would imperil the online learning programs. The 104-98 vote, with only two Republicans in favor, sets down a marker on the perennially contentious issue of school funding as state lawmakers work to complete the coming year's state budget for the fiscal year that starts in July. The bill's $8,000 limit on how much public school districts would have to reimburse the cyber charters was the central piece of the sprawling legislation and would be a boost to the districts and the property tax payers who bear much of the cost of public education in Pennsylvania. There currently is no cap for the districts' payments to cyber charters, an amount now linked to how much districts spent on their own students in the prior year. Supporters said changes to the cyber charter rules are widely backed among the state's 500 school boards and that cyber school spending has been the subject of critical reviews, including recently by Republican Auditor General Tim DeFoor. But opponents defended the existing system as a critical lifeline to the students and families that for various reasons have sought alternatives to traditional schools. The bill's main provisionsThe bill would set annual tuition payments from school districts to cyber charters at $8,000 per student, with potential yearly increases. Special education funding would also see changes. Cyber charters would not be able to maintain cash balances above 12% of their spending and would not be able to provide payments or gifts to parents as incentives to enroll their children. The bill would bolster disclosure requirements regarding cyber charters' policies, instructional materials and budgets. It would bar the state Education Department from approving any additional cyber charter schools through the 2029-30 school year. A new Cyber Charter School Funding and Policy Council would be set up to make recommendations concerning enrollment, governance and funding. What did lawmakers say about it? During floor debate Wednesday, Rep. Martina White, a Philadelphia Republican, said the measure will 'close real schools, displace real students, strip families of the very choices that they depend on to give their children a chance at success.' The moratorium would be highly damaging to cyber charters, said Rep. Craig Williams, a Delaware County Republican. 'You limit the number of cyber charters now in existence, you choke off its funding, and eventually you can kill cyber charter. Sixty-plus thousand students in our school system, finding another way to learn, and we're going to choke it off with this bill,' Williams said. The chair of the House Education Committee, Lehigh County Democratic Rep. Peter Schweyer, enumerated cyber charter spending issues raised in the auditor general's report, including staff bonuses, gift cards, vehicle payments and fuel stipends. 'Gift cards?' Schweyer asked his colleagues. 'We would all get in trouble if we were taking gift cards as part of our compensation.' The money at stakeLeaders of existing public cyber charter schools say the measure would cut their funding by about $450 million or more across the state, with a third of the total reductions targeting special education student reimbursements. A Democratic analysis put the figure at more than $600 million. What are public cyber charter schools? About 65,000 Pennsylvania students currently attend the state's 14 public cyber charter schools, which are public, nonprofit corporations. They do not have to follow all of the requirements mandated of public schools under state law. Cyber charter school are considered independent public schools, approved to operate with a 'charter' issued by the Education Department. They use technology to provide much of the teaching. Students usually do not need to attend a physical location beyond certain events, such as standardized testing. What happens now? The proposal was sent over to the Republican majority state Senate for its consideration. The bill becomes part of a wider negotiations to determine the budget before lawmakers recess for the summer.


New York Times
4 hours ago
- New York Times
The Penguins didn't just hire Dan Muse as head coach — they made a statement
PITTSBURGH — Dan Muse wasn't the name you were expecting to be the Pittsburgh Penguins' next coach. He wasn't the name anyone was expecting. That doesn't mean he's the wrong name. It just means the Penguins have entered a different era. It means the future is now. It means the Penguins are going young. It means that if aging stars such as Evgeni Malkin, Kris Letang and Erik Karlsson aren't big on playing for a guy who's never been an NHL head coach, too bad. Advertisement It means Sidney Crosby has a new coach who is only five years older than him. Crosby said last month that he didn't care who the new coach was and wanted no influence in the decision-making. 'I just want to win,' he said. Now, Crosby, who isn't known to fib, has a chance to back up his words. I can't imagine he expected Muse to be his new coach. Muse wasn't hired for Crosby. He certainly wasn't hired for Malkin, Letang or Karlsson. No, he was hired for Rutger McGroarty and Ville Koivunen. He was brought to Pittsburgh to navigate the career paths of Harrison Brunicke, Sergei Murashov and the rest of a Penguins prospect pool that is growing more impressive by the day. Penguins president and general manager Kyle Dubas is the most powerful man in the organization. All roads lead back to him. Consider: • Dubas was the only person who made this decision. Fenway Sports Group hands over the money, but ownership had nothing to do with this. The hire was Dubas' baby. • Though I don't think Dubas was against hiring a retread coach, he's not afraid to make a splash hire, or an unknown hire, or an outside-the-box hire. • Dubas knew the Penguins needed a drastic makeover when he was hired two years ago. It took him a while to fully commit to it, but after a few months of the 2023-24 season, he knew it was time. So, he traded Jake Guentzel to the Carolina Hurricanes. Since then, it's been about the future first and foremost. • Dubas didn't shove previous coach Mike Sullivan out of the organization, but, in the end, I believe he nudged him. • Dubas is so intent on building something special and long-lasting in Pittsburgh, he hired someone who will help young players lead the way. And here we are. I can't claim to know Muse just yet, but I've spoken with people who do know him. Here's what I learned: • He's a very enthusiastic teacher of the game. Advertisement • Young players love him, as was made clear in this terrific profile by The Athletic's Arthur Staple. • He's a borderline hockey dork. I mean that in a good way. It will no doubt endear Crosby to him. • No one outworks this guy. Everyone says it. He seems to have an unusual drive about him. Crosby will love that, too. Does any of this mean he's the right man to lead the Penguins? Of course not. We don't typically hear bad things about NHL coaches on the day they're hired. The best qualities are always mentioned, while the weaknesses get temporarily shoved to the background. But Muse does have plenty of impressive qualities, starting with his ability to coach young players. He's been a mainstay for many years in the United States National Team Development Program. He's twice been a head coach in the USHL (U.S. NTDP and Chicago Steel). He was a highly regarded NCAA assistant coach at Yale for six years. It's also worth emphasizing that Muse has plenty of NHL experience. Sure, he hasn't been an NHL head coach before. But he served under Peter Laviolette as an assistant coach for three seasons with the Nashville Predators and two with the New York Rangers. That's not nothing. When I spoke with Dubas in Sweden last month, he told me that Sullivan was no longer the man for the Penguins because he was the 'coach of contending teams.' That wasn't intended to be a knock on Sullivan, but there was an implication that Sullivan doesn't have the patience to deal with a rebuilding team because he has had so much success. When you've consumed beverages out of the Stanley Cup, you don't want to talk penalty-killing nuance with a bunch of 20-year-olds every day. You just want to win the Stanley Cup again. To that point, though, the Penguins now need someone who will enthusiastically talk penalty-killing nuance with a bunch of 20-year-olds. Advertisement Sullivan was the guy for Crosby, Malkin, Letang and Phil Kessel. He's a legend in Penguins history because of it. Crosby's enduring brilliance notwithstanding, this is a new time. McGroarty, Koivunen, Brunicke, Murashov and Owen Pickering — plus three first-round picks coming in the next 12 months — need their guy. His name is Dan Muse. And if you didn't think Dubas had this much power, now you know. Sullivan was Crosby's guy, and Dubas opted to go in a different direction. He went against the grain. There were bigger names — safer names, at least in the realm of public perception — but Dubas trusted himself, trusted that a teacher of young players was best for his team. I have zero doubt that Dubas wanted to rebuild the Penguins immediately when he arrived in Pittsburgh. He knew it was time. He probably knew it was time before he took the job. But ownership wanted to keep winning. Sullivan wanted to keep winning. Crosby wanted to keep winning. The fan base wanted to keep winning. Dubas responded by trying to keep everyone happy in the summer of 2023, and it set the team back. Fast forward two years, and the Penguins' rebuild is well underway. Maybe Muse will lead them to greatness. Maybe he'll at least prepare them for greatness. Maybe he'll fail. Time will tell. And maybe it will take time. But for the Penguins, a new era couldn't wait. It's here.