A power titan calls transmission key to Trump's agenda
Michael Polsky, founder and CEO of independent power giant Invenergy, has plenty on his plate. But one priority stands out.
"If I could only be allowed to give one [piece of] advice to the administration, what to do, what's most important, I would say, 'Support transmission development. Everything else will come,'" he tells Axios.
Why it matters: The breadth of the privately held firm's assets and plans gives Polsky a wide-angle view as the U.S. faces newly rising power demand.
Invenergy is among the country's largest renewable and storage developers.
Its assets and pipeline also include large transmission and gas projects, and solar panel manufacturing.
Driving the news: Polsky called interregional transmission a tech-neutral key to unlocking and moving power needed for supporting AI and other large industries, and re-shoring manufacturing.
That dovetails with the heavy White House emphasis on energy infrastructure — including grid updates — but Polsky has some specifics in mind.
What we're watching: In late November, the Biden-era DOE announced a conditional $4.9 billion loan guarantee for phase 1 of Invenergy's proposed five-gigawatt Grain Belt Express line from Kansas to Indiana.
The first 2.5 gigawatt phase would run nearly 600 miles from Kansas to Missouri, but faces some political opposition, notably from GOP Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.).
Invenergy is in discussions with the administration about the loan financing, a spokesperson said.
"President [Trump] said we want to unleash American energy, we want to have abundance, low cost, independence. This is what Grain Belt is all about," Polsky said.
Asked about other policy goals, he said FERC has historically not been "proactive" on large-scale transmission.
"Perhaps the politicians have to take things in their hands and create some political enablers, legislation to support these initiatives," he said.
The big picture: Permitting help is key, but not enough, Polsky said.
Independent developers need access to cost-recovery mechanisms to make the economics work — and reflect the resilience and reliability benefits the lines provide, he argues.
Catch up quick: The multinational Invenergy's 209 generation and storage projects total 33 gigawatts of capacity to date, mostly in the U.S.
Roughly 20% comes from natural gas, according to a spokesperson.
Its project pipeline has an estimated value of $150 billion, private equity giant Blackstone, a major investor, told the WSJ.
Gas is playing a growing role thanks to customer demand from data centers and other factors, the Invenergy spokesperson said via email.
Threat level: Polsky warned that nixing IRA incentives could raise consumer costs for two reasons.
One is that it makes solar, wind and storage less expensive.
Another is that killing IRA subsidies would lessen competition with fossil fuels at a time of rising demand, which would also be inflationary for energy costs, he said.
"If we remove all IRA support, prices for energy would go up, definitely," Polsky said.
The bottom line: Meeting Trump's energy goals will require a mix of sources, he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge Orders J&J Subsidiary to Pay $442 Million in Antitrust Lawsuit
Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) is one of the best Dow stocks to invest in. Recently, a federal judge ruled that a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary must pay $442 million in damages after a jury concluded last month that the company had broken antitrust laws by withholding support from hospitals that used reprocessed catheters. U.S. District Judge James Selna ordered the company to pay three times the $147 million in damages awarded by the jury, as permitted under antitrust regulations. This sum does not include legal fees or other related costs. Daniel Vukelich, CEO of the Association of Medical Device Reprocessors, described the decision as 'a seismic result.' In response, a Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) spokesperson said the company intends to appeal the verdict but will comply with the court's decision and any required relief for now. The spokesperson added, 'We strongly disagree with the jury's verdict and believe it will not withstand appellate review.' Innovative Health sued Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ)'s Biosense Webster in 2019, claiming the company used its market power to block hospitals from using reprocessed heart-mapping catheters by tying support for its Carto 3 system to purchases of its own products. A jury found Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) violated antitrust laws by withholding support for the reprocessed devices. AMDR's CEO said the ruling signals that anti-competitive tactics against reprocessing won't be tolerated. The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. While we acknowledge the potential of JNJ as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: and Disclosure. None.
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump EPA moves to repeal climate rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from US power plants
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas, an action that Administrator Lee Zeldin said would remove billions of dollars in costs for industry and help 'unleash' American energy. The EPA also proposed weakening a regulation that requires power plants to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants that can harm brain development of young children and contribute to heart attacks and other health problems in adults. The rollbacks are meant to fulfill Republican President Donald Trump's repeated pledge to 'unleash American energy' and make it more affordable for Americans to power their homes and operate businesses. If approved and made final, the plans would reverse efforts by Democratic President Joe Biden's administration to address climate change and improve conditions in areas heavily burdened by industrial pollution, mostly in low-income and majority Black or Hispanic communities. The power plant rules are among about 30 environmental regulations that Zeldin targeted in March when he announced what he called the 'most consequential day of deregulation in American history.' Zeldin said Wednesday the new rules would help end what he called the Biden and Obama administration's 'war on so much of our U.S. domestic energy supply.' 'The American public spoke loudly and clearly last November,' he added in a speech at EPA headquarters. 'They wanted to make sure that … no matter what agency anybody might be confirmed to lead, we are finding opportunities to pursue common-sense, pragmatic solutions that will help reduce the cost of living … create jobs and usher in a golden era of American prosperity.' Environmental and public health groups called the rollbacks dangerous and vowed to challenge the rules in court. Dr. Lisa Patel, a pediatrician and executive director of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health, called the proposals 'yet another in a series of attacks' by the Trump administration on the nation's 'health, our children, our climate and the basic idea of clean air and water.' She called it 'unconscionable to think that our country would move backwards on something as common sense as protecting children from mercury and our planet from worsening hurricanes, wildfires, floods and poor air quality driven by climate change.' 'Ignoring the immense harm to public health from power plant pollution is a clear violation of the law,' added Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'If EPA finalizes a slapdash effort to repeal those rules, we'll see them in court.' The EPA-targeted rules could prevent an estimated 30,000 deaths and save $275 billion each year they are in effect, according to an Associated Press examination that included the agency's own prior assessments and a wide range of other research. It's by no means guaranteed that the rules will be entirely eliminated — they can't be changed without going through a federal rulemaking process that can take years and requires public comment and scientific justification. Even a partial dismantling of the rules would mean more pollutants such as smog, mercury and lead — and especially more tiny airborne particles that can lodge in lungs and cause health problems, the AP analysis found. It would also mean higher emissions of the greenhouse gases driving Earth's warming to deadlier levels. Biden, a Democrat, had made fighting climate change a hallmark of his presidency. Coal-fired power plants would be forced to capture smokestack emissions or shut down under a strict EPA rule issued last year. Then-EPA head Michael Regan said the power plant rules would reduce pollution and improve public health while supporting a reliable, long-term supply of electricity. The power sector is the nation's second-largest contributor to climate change, after transportation. In its proposed regulation, the Trump EPA argues that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from fossil fuel-fired power plants 'do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution' or climate change and therefore do not meet a threshold under the Clean Air Act for regulatory action. Greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas-fired plants 'are a small and decreasing part of global emissions,' the EPA said, adding: 'this Administration's priority is to promote the public health or welfare through energy dominance and independence secured by using fossil fuels to generate power.' The Clean Air Act allows the EPA to limit emissions from power plants and other industrial sources if those emissions significantly contribute to air pollution that endangers public health. If fossil fuel plants no longer meet the EPA's threshold, the Trump administration may later argue that other pollutants from other industrial sectors don't either and therefore shouldn't be regulated, said Meghan Greenfield, a former EPA and Justice Department lawyer now in private practice. The EPA proposal 'has the potential to have much, much broader implications,' she said. Zeldin, a former New York congressman, said the Biden-era rules were designed to 'suffocate our economy in order to protect the environment,' with the intent to regulate the coal industry 'out of existence' and make it 'disappear.' National Mining Association president and CEO Rich Nolan applauded the new rules, saying they remove 'deliberately unattainable standards' for clean air while 'leveling the playing field for reliable power sources, instead of stacking the deck against them.' But Dr. Howard Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health and professor emeritus at the University of Washington School of Public Health, said Zeldin and Trump were trying to deny reality. 'The world is round, the sun rises in the east, coal-and gas-fired power plants contribute significantly to climate change, and climate change increases the risk of heat waves, catastrophic storms and many other health threats,' Frumkin said. 'These are indisputable facts. If you torpedo regulations on power plant greenhouse gas emissions, you torpedo the health and well-being of the American public and contribute to leaving a world of risk and suffering to our children and grandchildren.' A paper published earlier this year in the journal Science found the Biden-era rules could reduce U.S. power sector carbon emissions by 73% to 86% below 2005 levels by 2040, compared with a reduction of 60% to 83% without the rules. 'Carbon emissions in the power sector drop at a faster rate with the (Biden-era) rules in place than without them,' said Aaron Bergman, a fellow at Resources for the Future, a nonprofit research institution and a co-author of the Science paper. The Biden rule also would result in 'significant reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, pollutants that harm human health,' he said.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
OSU falls victim to budget cuts, putting a damper on scientific research
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — The awarding of an OSU microfluidics research fund of $45 million has been called off by the Trump administration, leaving researchers fumbling for options. Microfluidics, the scientific study of the behavior of liquid on a microscopic level, is a recently established field and is hoped to aid in the medical realm as well as the manufacturing of semiconductors, a partially conductive component of many day-to-day electronic devices. The grant's cancellation has been a source of upset for researchers, but OSU is already looking ahead to future opportunities. Anti-ICE protests escalate outside Southwest Portland facility 'While we are disappointed in the notification of the EDA award cancellation for CorMic [Corvallis Microfluidics Tech Hub], we fully intend to participate in the EDA's next Notice of Funding Opportunity and remain well positioned to further national security interests as a global leader in microfluidics for semiconductor manufacturing, ' Tom Weller, Gaulke Professor and Head said. 'Oregon State University will continue to work alongside HP and other partners to further the commercialization of new microfluidics-connected technologies for semiconductor manufacturing, biotechnology, and advanced materials manufacturing.' This is not an isolated incident, with Trump having attempted to cut billions in allocated federal funding to scientific research since the beginning of his current term. White House spokesperson Kush Desai said, 'The Trump administration is spending its first few months reviewing the previous administration's projects, identifying waste, and realigning our research spending to match the American people's priorities and continue our innovative dominance.' Universities are getting hit with the full force of these budget cuts, with biomedical research being classified as 'waste.' Just in February, the National Institutes of Health proposed cutting billions of dollars to OHSU research looking at cancer and heart disease, among other afflictions. These cuts were immediately met with lawsuits from, but not limited to, the Association of American Universities and 22 state attorneys general. These lawsuits are still in progress. The Association of American Universities' lawsuit called the NIH cuts 'flagrantly unlawful' and expressed concern that 'our country will lose its status as the destination for solving the world's biggest health problems.' Scientists of the NIH itself have begun to speak out, publicly disagreeing with the institute's actions, claiming that the cuts 'undermine the NIH mission.' Cuts to scientific research are becoming a recurring source of contention as Trump's second term continues. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
