Latest news with #NationalRenewableEnergyLab
The Hill
06-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
More than 100 fired from National Renewable Energy Lab
More than 100 staff members have been fired from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, spokespeople for the lab confirmed on Tuesday. A National Renewable Energy Lab spokesperson cited 'stop work orders from federal agencies, new federal directives, and budgetary shifts' in its reason for the firings. 'As a result, NREL has experienced workforce impacts affecting 114 employees across the laboratory, including staff from both research and operations, who were involuntarily separated today,' the spokesperson said. However, spokespeople for the lab declined to elaborate on what orders it had received. The National Renewable Energy Lab had nearly 3,700 employees as of 2023, and it is the Energy Department's primary energy systems lab. The lab has campuses in Colorado, Alaska and Washington, D.C. The job cuts come as the Trump administration has sought to cut staffing across the board — but has also demonstrated a particular distaste for renewable energy. While even under his last administration, Republicans called for an 'all of the above' energy strategy, this time around the Trump administration has excluded renewables from its energy emergency declaration and sought to stop or even claw back approvals for wind projects.
Forbes
05-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
The Trump Administration's Overreach Into State Energy Markets
Expected adds to national electric transmission portfolio, National Renewable Energy Lab The new Federalism under President Donald Trump promised fewer federal regulations and less interference in state and local governments. The goals of these White House efforts were to spur a massive development of domestic energy production to power our economy into the digital future. After all, surely the Chinese are not burdened by such policies that slow energy development – and therefore we risk ceding the technological future to them. But ironically, in electricity and hydrocarbon markets, the Trump administration's 'pro-competition' policies are actually holding back energy investments across the board and are counteracting the President's policy goals. For electricity, Trump's Department of Justice has attacked pending bills in Iowa that would allow the incumbent electric utilities a right of first refusal on constructing needed transmission facilities. The DOJ states that allowing such a right of refusal would be anticompetitive but can cite no evidence to support the claim, because there is no such evidence. The White House's arguments against ROFR laws do make for good sound bites, but they also lack an understanding of how ROFR laws actually work. Barring outright and illegal collusion among bidder, a right of first refusal (ROFR) does not restrict competition. The state's electric regulator will offer a contract for new facilities. If there is or are lower bids from new market entrants, a right of refusal allows the incumbent utility the opportunity to match the winning bid. What happens when a new entrant bids low to win a project, and the incumbent refuses to exercise their ROFR rights? Is that a sign that the incumbent, facing the same set of facts and bid requirements, does not think that it can make money building out the project? If the new entrant succeeds, the state wins. If the new entrant fails or runs into cost overruns, then the state loses in terms of time and money. Anyone who has bid out a home remodel knows these perils. Proponents of the ROFR provisions argue that the incumbent is already invested in the business and community. They – literally – know the landscape. New entrants, who are transactional at best, have less at stake and lack the local community ties to hire workers and fully understand the political and regional norms. The debate over ROFR laws is a challenge playing out across America as the different state regulators grapple with an aged and deteriorating electricity transmission system that now also needs a rapid buildout to accommodate new loads from data centers and new wires from the rural areas where wind and solar farms are proliferating. A prime directive of President Trump's administration is to lower energy costs across the nation. With steel, aluminum, and copper prices rising, the buildout of transmission is becoming more expensive by the minute. The states need a free hand to decide on their own which laws, regulations, and rules are appropriate for their markets. The federal government should live up to President Trump's pledge to reduce the overreach of federal regulation into state markets. To do so, one step would be federal regulators backing off on their misguided opposition to state ROFR laws.
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Repealing clean energy investments means lost jobs and higher costs for Ohio
Lettuce growing alongside a Solar panel array. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Lab.) At a time when costs are too high and people are concerned about the economy, clean energy is creating jobs and cost savings for Americans across the country. As IBEW business leaders in Ohio, we know firsthand how important clean energy is to making our economy work for all Americans. If we want to build back American manufacturing and maintain our competitive edge, we must continue to invest in energy. Efforts in Washington to repeal clean energy investments would take us in exactly the wrong direction. The latest budget bill passed by House Republicans could undermine these investments. Their Budget Chairman has unfortunately suggested that clean energy incentives should be 'low-hanging fruit' to pay for new tax cuts geared toward the wealthy. This is not just about jobs, it is about affordability. Too many Americans are struggling under the weight of high energy costs, with more than a quarter of U.S. households unable to afford their energy bills. More than three-quarters of households say they're overwhelmed with their energy payments. Clean energy investments are already saving Americans make-or-break money on their electricity bills. By 2030, these investments will save the average American taxpayer an estimated $1,000 a year in energy costs. This is why we are such strong supporters of clean energy investments at both the federal level and in the private sector. This money is fueling a clean energy economic boom in Ohio and across the country, a boom that will be jeopardized if these investments and tax credits get repealed this year. Here in Ohio, over $8.8 billion in federal funds are being invested in our clean energy future. These jobs and investment dollars are split fairly evenly between Republican and Democratic districts so Americans are benefiting everywhere. Since the passage of these clean energy investments, private companies have announced 405 projects totaling $204 billion in investment, and 216,322 new jobs in 152 districts represented by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives. Both Democrats and Republicans acknowledge the importance of these investments. On March 10th, 21 Republican members of Congress wrote a letter to the House tax-writing Chairman in support of the clean energy tax credits that have brought direct benefits to many of their districts. 'We strongly support the Administration's America First national energy dominance initiative. Continued energy expansion and innovation is necessary to bolster national security, create good-paying American jobs, and guarantee energy independence. The United States continues to produce energy from a myriad of sources that are cleaner and more efficient than anywhere else in the world. As our conference has long believed, an all-of-the-above energy approach, combined with a robust advanced manufacturing sector, will help support the United States' position as a global energy leader,' they wrote in their letter. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Outside Washington, many Republican governors have taken the same approach. That's just common sense, and we hope Ohio Congressmen Max Miller and Mike Carey, who are on the tax-writing committee will take the same approach. Repealing or undermining the federal investments that are propelling the United States to the forefront of the clean energy competition would set our country back and threaten the livelihoods of the millions of Americans who work in clean energy. Clean energy incentives will lower energy costs, according to utility CEOs. Tax advantages make it affordable for utilities to directly own and operate solar power facilities, passing savings onto customers. Clean energy tax credits also allow utilities to lower costs for consumers. For example, Duke Energy will cut residential energy rates in Florida because of retroactive tax credits from the national clean energy investments. If the clean energy investments are repealed, consumers could see monthly household energy bills rise by an average of 10%. The 2022 clean energy plan supports unions like mine, making sure that American workers don't get left behind. Under that clean energy plan, projects that pay prevailing wages and hire registered apprentices to work on clean energy projects will receive a fivefold increase in clean energy deployment tax credits. An August 2024 report from the Climate Jobs National Resource Center identified more than 6,000 utility-scale clean energy projects planned, under construction, or already operating that could be eligible for the clean energy plan's labor standards tax credits. Combined, these projects represent a potential 3.9 million jobs, over $2 trillion in investment, and over 1 million megawatts of clean power. Investing in clean energy isn't about getting rid of manufacturing or construction jobs—in fact, it's about creating more of these jobs. Clean energy is a cost of living and economic issue. Repealing clean energy investments would be bad for American businesses and bad for American workers. Preserving America's competitive edge in clean energy is essential for ensuring an economically prosperous future, and Ohio can continue leading the way if we protect our investments. Michael Shingary is the Business Representative of IBEW Local 38. Pat Hook is the Business Manager of IBEW 683. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
24-02-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Dual-use of land for solar panels and farming can propel clean energy forward in Ohio
Lettuce growing alongside a Solar panel array. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Lab.) In a room where many held different views, community members found their voices and stood tall. One by one, they stepped forward to speak their truth about protecting our Earth and preserving the farmland that has sustained their families for generations. – MaryAnn Hubbard, describing the Eastern Cottontail Solar Project hearing in Fairfield County Despite the fact the scientific community is issuing strenuous warnings that humanity is running out of time to prevent a climate tipping point when deterioration begins spinning out of human control, the process of approving solar farms in Ohio has become bogged down in a debate about loss of farmland. 'Opposition has led developers to drop plans for at least four solar projects in Ohio within 15 months. Nationally, hundreds of renewable energy projects have faced significant opposition across 47 states,' according to an article from Columbia. But there is a dramatic shift taking place. When it becomes known that such farmland will NOT be lost but rather transformed into a dual use of solar and agriculture by what has become known as 'agrivoltaics,' the numbers are becoming stunningly reversed. An article just reposted in OCJ documents what can only be described as a 'game-changer.' At its project in Logan County, Open Road Renewables announced from the get-go that it was going to be based on agrivoltaics. Its wording: 'The Grange Solar Grazing Center ….. is a dual-use solar and grazing facility.' The result has been a remarkable change in comments submitted by the public, with supporters outnumbering the opponents by a four to one margin: 'Open Road Renewables reviewed more than 2,500 comments through Feb.11. and found 80% expressed support.' This finding places the following comment to NBC4 TV by opponents of the Frasier project into an entirely new perspective: 'The (global) warming is an issue and we need to work on that, but …. We need to think outside the box, it shouldn't be on prime farmland.' Such 'thinking outside the box' has already happened in a big way and is rapidly spreading around the world. Agrivoltaics has not only rapidly expanded to over 20 countries, but has now come into Ohio in a major way, bringing significant impact. In the U.S. there are already over 500 applications of agrivoltaics, with their success now propelling the concept toward a larger scale. Ohio is at a leading edge of that effort. The OSU agriculture school received a 1.6 million grant to research whether agrivoltaics can be scaled up to utility size projects. They are working with the Madison Fields Solar Project in Madison County. Due to its size, it has become one of the largest testing grounds in the country. Due to its ability to create a win-win with those concerned about loss of farmland, this new direction has been found to increase the chance of a solar project being approved. This became apparent in the Madison Fields project, and amplified even further in the larger Oak Run approval. The Ohio Power Siting Board went out of its way to actually *require* that: 'In its first year of operation, Oak Run must graze at least 1,000 sheep and grow crops on 2,000 acres…. Within eight years of operation, at least 70% of the farmable project area, or at least 4,000 acres, must include agrivoltaics.' There is no longer any rationale for the polarization that has existed. It is not just a 'win-win,' but actually a four way 'win-win-win-win.' The community 'wins' by receiving substantial funding for schools via a tax arrangement. The land owners 'win' by obtaining a major source of income. Those who favor agricultural use of land 'win' by having the land stay in food and grazing production. And the whole world plus future generations 'win' by having a clean and 100% renewable source of electricity. The support has now grown to expand beyond the previous partisan political divide. A bill in Congress to promote agrivoltaics as a win-win solution is now being championed by U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, a conservative Republican of Iowa. With agrivoltaics as an ally, the future has become bright for large scale solar. The strength of this rapidly spreading concept just became more visible in the recent public hearing about the Eastern Cottontail Solar Project in Fairfield County. The developer — EDF Renewables — wisely shifted its plan to incorporate sheep grazing back in October. Proponents of solar — sometimes outnumbered by those decrying 'loss of farmland' at previous hearings — had a very powerful counterpoint. No, the farmland is NOT going to be lost! Let us *together* celebrate and preserve the prime farmland of Ohio! As exemplified in the opening quote of this commentary, they testified with great confidence and vigor. When a moral concern about the future of humanity becomes combined with a very real solution at the practical level, the result is poignant. In Fairfield County, many were able to integrate both together. If this can continue, I have no doubt the tide will turn for solar in Ohio. It is worth noting that sometimes the 'loss of farmland' concern is genuine, but at other times it has been a manipulative ploy. ProPublica operates at the national level to engage in investigative journalism to advance the public interest. Its outstanding work has earned the highest award of journalism — the Pulitzer Prize. The idea of wealthy fossil fuel-connected corporations financing campaigns that distort information about clean energy projects in order to eliminate competition was determined by ProPublica to be of national significance. A video news story details the unfortunate effort by fossil fuel interests in Ohio to not only manipulate public hearings with the 'loss of farmland' claim but also local media outlets in the ongoing case of the Frasier project in Knox County. In order to assist the continuation of such efforts as the one in Fairfield County , this writer — who is also a video producer — has created a program about how the emergence of agrivoltaics has dramatically 'changed the equation' in Ohio. The title of that program: 'With a Changed National Landscape, Can 'Agrivoltaics' — The Co-Existence of Panels and Agriculture on the Same Land — Provide a Path Forward for Solar Energy in Ohio?' Here is the link. May it prove to be a useful resource that will be shared. Gary Houser is a long time clean energy advocate who has successfully achieved placement of solar projects and institutional commitments to clean electricity. In searching for ways to proceed forward despite the major shift at the federal level, he sees dual use 'agrivoltaics' as offering a very promising direction.
Yahoo
27-01-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's orders on climate and environment could hurt Arizona's economy, experts fear
President Donald Trump began his second term with bold actions opposing the transition away from fossil fuels for the preservation of a livable climate. Most of these came as executive orders signed Monday night, hours after he was inaugurated. At the end of his first week back, the precise implications of how and when these orders may be felt across the nation and in Arizona remain largely unclear. Broadly speaking, though, scientists, lawyers and policy experts told The Arizona Republic that Trump's intentions to reverse climate progress and boost oil production are likely to hurt Arizona's and the United State's economy while further destabilizing atmospheric weather patterns that increase the likelihood of expensive storms, fires and infrastructure damage. Trump's declaration of a "National Energy Emergency" Monday night cites a need for a reliable, diversified and affordable supply of energy while seeking to fulfill this primarily by fast-tracking more oil drilling. The order defined "energy" and "energy resources" as "crude oil, natural gas, lease condensates, natural gas liquids, refined petroleum products, uranium, coal, biofuels, geothermal heat, the kinetic movement of flowing water, and critical minerals." While critical minerals are involved in solar panel manufacturing, this definition does not mention solar energy directly and leaves out wind power entirely. Solar and onshore wind are two of the nation's most readily available clean energy options and, due to recent advances, already rival fossil fuel energy costs and reliability when combined with battery storage. In a separate order signed Monday, Trump formalized his long-voiced opposition to wind power by withdrawing leases for offshore wind projects on the outer continental shelf. If the order sticks, it would eliminate a source of energy production that the National Renewable Energy Lab has projected to drop dramatically in price over the next decade. In a third order titled "Unleashing American Energy," he called for "energy exploration and production on Federal lands and waters, including on the Outer Continental Shelf." It outlined a need to facilitate "the generation of reliable and affordable particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, biofuels, critical mineral, and nuclear energy resources." It also rolled back electric vehicle programs in the name of "consumer choice," despite data showing EVs have steadily gained popularity among consumers, including in areas without incentives. Trump's first-day orders are also contradicted by the fact that experts say there is no national energy emergency, and that America's energy resources, including oil, have already been unleashed at record rates under former President Joe Biden. The reality instead is that — in addition to incentivizing a domestic clean energy boom that started with funding from his Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act and ended with billions in private investments for manufacturing initiatives across the U.S. by the end of his term — Biden approved more oil drilling permits than Trump did in his first term. As a result, oil production in the U.S. surged to never-before-seen highs on Biden's watch. Market analysts say this means Trump's orders may not influence oil drilling much at all, since oil companies won't want to produce more oil right now if it won't make them more money. More: What executive orders did Trump sign? What to know about his first actions as president Arizona is also unlikely to benefit directly from more oil drilling. As the state with the second-highest solar energy potential but no meaningful oil and gas reserves, Arizona ranks ninth among state beneficiaries of Biden's clean energy incentives, according to an analysis by the organization Climate Power. In the two and a half years since Congress appropriated nearly $370 billion to expand America's energy dominance in less polluting ways, Arizona has welcomed 30 new solar, battery storage and electric vehicle projects that brought more than 18,000 clean energy jobs and nearly $13 billion in new investments to the state. Those gains for Arizona's economy and humanity's climate are now threatened by Trump's drilling agenda, experts say. What's less certain is whether his new orders will withstand legal challenges or exactly how they might play out. More: 'These are climate change fires': As Arizona lends help to LA, experts assess the blame Monday's orders to suppress fossil fuel alternatives came as no surprise to Arizona State University law professor and clean energy expert Troy Rule. For the same reasons market analysts cited, he views Trump's moves to fulfill "drill, baby, drill" campaign promises as unlikely to shift oil and gas production, prices or the clean energy economy in the short-term, especially in Arizona. "The reality is that U.S. oil supplies are relatively robust today and, due to moderate prices, many U.S. oil companies are already extracting oil and gas at below their maximum capacity," Rule told The Republic. Trump's other actions to slow and constrain the country's transition to renewables — including a 60-day suspension of renewable energy authorizations issued Monday by his nominee for Secretary of the Interior — could, eventually, shore up market demand for oil and gas, Rule said. But Trump's ability to do that will, in large part, depend on the outcome of expected lawsuits challenging his authority to snatch back clean energy funds authorized by Congress under Biden that have had broad bipartisan support. "I don't see a major short-run impact on solar investment within Arizona, which is already constrained a lot by state-level policies, from Trump's day-one orders," Rule said. Hannah Safford, associate director of climate and environment at the Federation of American Scientists, agrees. She recently served as director for transportation and resilience in Biden's White House Climate Policy Office and saw projects at various stages across the country leverage funds from its clean energy investments, which they estimated at $124 billion in Arizona. "It's largely market forces, not White House policy decisions, that are driving expansion of clean energy in Arizona," Safford said. "Solar and wind generation in Arizona grew by nearly 200% over the past decade, a period that includes the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations. That's because when the costs of solar panels and wind turbines keep dropping, building out renewables in a big, sunny state just makes economic sense." More: A solar ban, a gas power plant and the rural retirees firing back at dirty energy Rule sees more near-term risk to progress on building EV charging infrastructure across the state and to EV manufacturing investments if the tax credits approved by Congress are ultimately repealed. Arizona currently has just over 4,000 alternative vehicle fueling stations, according to U.S. Department of Energy data, and the electric vehicle industry has been growing alongside solar in the state as a result of Biden's policies. One of those projects, by EVelution Energy, brought 360 jobs and a free worker training program to Yuma County, which has the highest unemployment rate in the state at 14.2%. That effort to help meet demands in the electric vehicle market by building the United States' first solar-powered, battery-grade cobalt processing facility may now be under threat from a clause in Trump's "Unleashing American Energy" order that eliminates incentives for electric vehicle makers and consumers. That order also attempts to pause the disbursement of federal funds to projects like this. Kirsten Engel, an environmental law professor at the University of Arizona and a former Arizona state senator, says it remains unclear under what circumstances those funds would be most at risk. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which limits presidential efforts to "try to claw back money that has already been appropriated," she said, could keep some projects in Arizona that are not aligned with Trump's objectives afloat. Certain newly announced federal EV funds could be safe, Engel guessed, referring to $205 million awarded to Arizona in October for charging stations along highways and in communities without access. 'It will be case by case, but any step after this to try to stop the transfer of money that's already been obligated will run into legal challenges," Engel said. "Many scholars say this is not a power the president has. The power of the purse is a power that Congress has." Both Engel and Rule expect to see those legal fights over clean energy purse strings start soon. But they will take time. Even if Trump's orders are eventually overturned, delays could still stall out Arizona's growing electric vehicle industry and its ability to meet global demand for EVs if companies hesitate in anticipation of Trump pressing ahead. "Some U.S. auto manufacturers had already put the breaks on some of their EV-focused investments," Rule said. More: U.S. Rep. Greg Stanton blasts Trump executive order he says could cost Arizona billions Still, from her vantage point in Biden's White House, Safford doesn't expect Trump freezing disbursements, even if it's effective, to broadly affect Arizona's clean energy momentum. "The truth is that most of that money is already out the door," she said. "Unobligated funds from these laws are largely unrelated to clean energy." So what, then, was the purpose of Trump's flurry of anti-clean energy executive orders on Monday? 'I think he's catering to his oil and gas industry donors and he is throwing them a bone showing that he is going to help promote their interests," Engel said. (The U.S. Senate in May launched an investigation into Trump's promises to oil companies that donated to his campaign.) "And that is just not the direction that we need to go in. It's not in Arizona's interest. We don't have oil and gas production here in Arizona, but we can be the Persian Gulf of solar." In addition to not recognizing the new American energy boom already unleashed, Engel thinks Trump's actions during his first week in office also seem counterproductive to his stated support for American manufacturing. 'It is very inconsistent," she said. "The ("Unleashing") executive order talks about building manufacturing capacity in the United States, it talks about increasing our energy production, it talks about lowering costs for consumers. All of these objectives are met through the Inflation Reduction Act and its investments in clean energy manufacturing and in promoting and supporting clean energy jobs." Science and policy experts also view Trump's first-week orders as harmful for the American worker. "Efforts to roll back energy progress are only going to hurt American workers," Safford said. "The solar industry alone employs over 22,000 Arizonans, plus tens of thousands more in wind, nuclear, electric vehicle and battery manufacturing, and other cornerstones of the clean economy." And they certainly won't help the U.S. have "the very cleanest air and cleanest water," as Trump has promised, according to environmentalists like Sandy Bahr, who directs the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club. "Arizonans did not vote to have our air dirtier, our water more polluted, or our clean energy economy harmed or destroyed, yet the Trump administration is taking steps to do just that," Bahr told The Republic. "While most of Trump's executive orders will not have immediate impact, they set a tone and raise many questions about whether funding will be there for projects to clean up water or provide clean energy to our communities." Read our climate series: The latest from Joan Meiners at azcentral: climate coverage from Arizona and the Southwest On Monday, Trump signed one more executive order that many view as primarily a symbolic political snubbing of the previous administration, with harmful side effects for the economic and physical well-being, and even international standing, of Americans. "The Executive Order pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement puts the U.S. on a very short list of non-participating countries, including Libya and Iran, and could somewhat erode broader global support for continued action under the Agreement," Rule said. "The US was already struggling to further reduce its greenhouse gas emissions as energy demand has soared over the past couple of years, and this new action will likely only exacerbate those challenges." With solar and wind already the cheapest forms of energy being produced, "it makes all the sense in the world to continue these investments," Engel said. Continuing other efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also makes sense, scientists say, as the best way to preserve the livability of the only home we have. 'We have just been devastated by what we're seeing in L.A. with the fires," she said. "Here in Arizona, we are not immune to the very real cost of climate change." Joan Meiners is the climate news and storytelling reporter at The Arizona Republic and Her work has also appeared in Discover Magazine, National Geographic, ProPublica and the Washington Post Magazine. Before becoming a journalist, she completed a doctorate in ecology. Follow Joan on Twitter at @beecycles or email her at Sign up for AZ Climate, The Republic's weekly climate and environment newsletter. Read more of the team's coverage at by subscribing to This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: How will Trump's climate, environment orders affect Arizona?
