Back
Colorado is pushing hard to quickly approve a massive amount of renewable energy while the projects are still eligible for federal incentives.
The Republican tax and spending law that passed this summer drastically shortened the timeline for wind and solar projects to qualify for federal tax credits. Under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, developers had until at least 2033 to start construction; now they must begin before July 4 of 2026, or meet the abrupt deadline of commencing operations by the end of 2027.
This sudden change puts states in a tight spot: If wind or solar projects can’t get started within a year, they’ll be considerably more expensive. And power demand and utility bills are already rising nationwide.
All of these factors are putting pressure on state energy regulators, who typically move at an exceedingly deliberative pace, which is to say, very slowly. The usual months of back and forth and obscure bureaucratic wrangling could force customers to pay billions of dollars more, based on the new deadlines from the Republican majority in Congress.
In recent weeks, Colorado became one of the first states to try getting ahead of that damaging outcome, creating a playbook others could learn from. Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, kicked off the effort with an Aug. 1 letter urging state authorities to “eliminate administrative barriers and bottlenecks for renewable projects.” Polis, who campaigned on a strong clean energy platform, identified the immense financial stakes of the moment.
“Getting this right is of critical importance to Colorado ratepayers; by maximizing the utilization of tax credits while they’re available and reducing future tariff uncertainty, the State can avoid billions of dollars in additional energy costs for decades to come,” he wrote.
Taking up that call, key players in the Colorado energy establishment filed an official request with the state’s Public Utilities Commission on Aug. 22 to speed up decision-making for a “near-term procurement.” This effort would enable final approvals before mid-2026 for 4 gigawatts of renewables (which could include batteries), 200 megawatts of thermal power (like gas), and 300 megawatts that could be gas or energy storage. That’s a considerable amount for the state, which currently has around 5 gigawatts of wind and 4.5 gigawatts of solar installed.
On Aug. 27, the utilities commission approved an expedited timeline to decide on the joint proposal. Prospects seem favorable for its passage in the coming days, as it was put forward by the commission’s own staff, the Colorado Energy Office, the Office of the Utility Consumer Advocate, and the state’s largest utility, Xcel Energy.
Delivering on the faster schedule could save Xcel’s Colorado customers $5 billion over 20 years, said Michelle Aguayo, a spokesperson for the utility.
For several years running, solar, wind, and batteries have accounted for over 90% of new additions to the U.S. power grid. New turbines for gas-fired plants are more or less sold out until 2030. And all around the country, electricity demand is rising faster than it has in decades. For those reasons, experts still expect lots of renewable energy to be built even once subsidies expire.
But expediting projects now is still worthwhile. Federal tax credits can cut project costs by more than 30% — a fact that’s helping forge some unlikely coalitions.
“We are seeing, in states like Colorado, a coming-together of forces to try to execute on taking advantage of these incentives as quickly as possible,” said Sam Ricketts, a longtime climate policy advocate who recently cofounded S2 Strategies, a clean energy advisory firm. “Many of [these projects] are going to get built. It’s a matter of when: Will it be lower cost or higher cost?”
Indeed, it’s rare to find enthusiastic agreement between a monopoly utility and a ratepayer advocate, whose job is to contest utility spending that could raise bills for customers. In this case, the clear threat of higher energy prices from Trump administration policies has created an unusual alignment of interests. Ricketts refers to this catalyst as “the fierce urgency of commence construction,” the technical term for when developers can lock in the favorable tax credit rates.
Speeding up regulatory approvals is valuable on a number of levels. The typical pace of states’ energy infrastructure deliberations has been out of step both with the urgency of the climate crisis and the more recent spike in electricity demand. Faster approvals of cheap clean energy projects could push down prices compared to further reliance on expensive, aging coal and gas plants. But the exigencies of climate change, demand growth, or customer wellbeing haven’t prompted the kind of speed-up that Trump’s reworking of federal energy policy achieved.
That said, the acceleration will be limited in its scope. States will have to allocate time and effort to salvage just some of the energy benefits that had been promised for a decade to come. Aguayo, from Xcel, described this as a “one-time process in response to the current policy environment,” not a long-term change to the state’s “robust competitive resource planning process.”
Other states can learn from Polis’ timely response to the about-face in Washington. And, indeed, some are already taking action of their own. Maine fast-tracked its renewable procurement a few weeks after President Donald Trump signed his signature policy bill. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed an executive order Aug. 29 directing state agencies to do what they can to help clean energy projects meet the new federal deadlines.
As it stands, though, the list of states taking prompt action pales in comparison to those facing cost hikes on their wind and solar projects, which is to say, all 50. Eventually, state leaders across the country will have to grapple with a dire outlook: Trump came to office declaring an energy emergency, and then took one action after another to reduce the supply and raise the cost of American electricity production.
“Clean energy really is the lowest-cost, fastest to deploy resource now,” Ricketts noted. “We need more generation, and everyone knows it. … [But] the federal government is doing all it can to go in the wrong direction.”
Hundreds of business people, policy analysts, and conservative advocates filled a downtown Cleveland conference hall last week for the National Conservative Energy Summit. One major theme: the need for both the federal and local governments to remove increasingly high hurdles to building renewable energy.
“Conservatives can and should lead on energy,” said John Szoka, CEO of the Conservative Energy Network, in his opening remarks.
The group, which cohosted the program with the Ohio Conservative Energy Forum, has a mission “to champion secure, reliable, affordable, clean American energy.” Its goal of achieving American energy independence includes support for a range of technologies, including solar, wind, battery storage, hydrogen, biomass, and small modular nuclear reactors.
The Trump administration has taken a more single-minded approach to energy.
Since January, it has promoted more fossil-fuel use and stalled the retirement of aging power plants. At the same time, it has rescinded grants and loans for clean energy projects; eliminated tax credits for wind, solar, EVs, and home-energy upgrades; and even halted construction on some offshore wind projects.
“While it’s easy to view this as a roadblock, … it’s a signal that we have more work to do,” Szoka said. He encouraged attendees to use what they learned during the conference in their grassroots efforts to build support for clean energy, especially when faced with extremism and misinformation. “If we don’t explain what’s going on clearly, we risk losing the argument before it even starts.”
As President Donald Trump attacks clean energy at the federal level, some states like Colorado and Maine are pushing to speed up deployment. But in general, state and local laws that restrict renewable energy development are gaining steam nationwide. A June report by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University notes 16 states with laws limiting solar or wind, with over 450 counties and municipalities across more than 40 states imposing other restrictions.
Speaking at the conference, Jenifer French, chair of Ohio’s Power Siting Board and its Public Utilities Commission, noted that approximately 30 counties in the state ban solar or wind energy in all or parts of their territories, an authority granted to them by a 2021 law known as Senate Bill 52. The board or its staff have also determined solar and wind projects are not in the public interest in several cases where bans didn’t apply but where local governments unanimously opposed the proposals.
Asked for her advice to developers, French said, “I just think communicating with the local officials around the project is so helpful, and being part of that community and earning their trust is very effective.”
Companies often hear such suggestions, but “frankly, I think that’s used as a cop-out sometimes,” said Drew Christensen, senior director of public engagement at utility-scale developer Apex Clean Energy, during a later panel about how policies shape companies’ decisions.
No matter how many community meetings are held, some people will still fight projects, putting pressure on local officials who may not have expertise in energy issues, he noted.
The deference to local governments creates a slippery slope, said Amanda Stallings, senior policy manager for clean-energy developer Geronimo Power, who also spoke on the panel. In her view, the states that pile on restrictive policies will not only see less investment from solar and wind developers, but will also discourage other industries from moving in.
Constraints on renewables also tread on landowners’ property rights, Stallings said, pointing out that in some cases a local government tells farmers not to use their land for solar but would have no problem with a housing development.
“What country do we live in when our government tells us what we can and can’t do?” Stallings said. The point resonated with various attendees from state chapters of the Land and Liberty Coalition, who made comments during networking breaks that property owners should be free to make their own economic decisions about their land.
Meanwhile, “this idea of behind-the-scenes picking winners and losers, that’s what’s going to create a reliability problem,” Stallings said. That risk is already visible: Late last month, the grid operator ISO New England warned of potential reliability issues from delaying Revolution Wind, a nearly finished offshore project that the Trump administration has halted for now.
This past spring, Ohio managed to pass bipartisan legislation that is expected to help the state build more energy — both renewable and fossil-fueled — in large part because the law doesn’t pick winners, according to state Rep. Tristan Rader, D-Lakewood. House Bill 15 passed with unanimous support in the Ohio Senate and just two dissenting Republican votes in the House.
Speaking on a panel about the new law, Rader called it a big step but emphasized that the state still has barriers to getting additional renewable energy on the grid.
“We don’t need to incentivize it. In Ohio, we just need a level playing field,” he said.
For one thing, the Ohio Senate removed provisions from HB 15 that would have created a community solar pilot program. Two Republicans in the House have introduced a separate bill to revive a version of that measure.
Beyond that, the law left SB 52’s extra hurdles for solar and wind in place, along with property line setbacks for wind that were tripled by a last-minute addition to a 2014 budget law.
“We have put up a lot of barriers to different forms of power over the years,” said state Rep. Tex Fischer, R-Boardman, who noted that added levels of government review compound uncertainty for developers. “I think the solution is removing those barriers.”
The Trump administration’s latest attack on an in-progress offshore wind project is now being challenged in court. Two lawsuits announced Thursday — one brought by the wind farm’s developers, the other by Rhode Island and Connecticut — seek immediate relief from a federal stop-work order that froze construction of Revolution Wind two weeks ago.
The developers, Danish energy giant Ørsted and investment firm Global Infrastructure Partners, filed a complaint Thursday morning in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, requesting a preliminary injunction that would allow Revolution Wind’s offshore construction to resume. The 65-turbine project being built 15 miles from Rhode Island’s coastline is 80% completed.
Hours later, attorneys general from both Rhode Island and Connecticut announced a separate lawsuit against the Trump administration, asking the court to declare the construction halt unlawful — and overturn it.
If allowed to proceed, the project would generate enough carbon-free electricity to power more than 350,000 households across the two states. Should President Donald Trump tank the development, it would be a disaster for New England’s grid.
The project was set to come online next year, and New England’s grid operator had already factored its 704 megawatts into its plans. Delaying delivery of that power on such short notice “will increase risks to reliability,” ISO New England warned in a statement last week, adding that the hold-up could also increase utility bills and discourage future investment. New England governors, labor representatives, and even local fishermen have also demanded Trump overturn his decision.
“Does this sound like a federal government that is prioritizing the American people? This is bizarre, this is unlawful, this is potentially devastating, and we won’t stand by and watch it happen,” said Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Neronha in a statement.
The lawsuit comes as the Trump administration steps up its already hostile campaign against offshore wind. There’s new chaos almost daily.
Since ordering Revolution Wind to stop construction in late August, the administration has filed documents with federal courts signaling it intends to revoke permits for projects near Maryland and Massachusetts. The Transportation Department clawed back $679 million in federal funding for infrastructure supporting offshore wind. And White House officials are reportedly directing a wide range of agencies — including unrelated departments like Health and Human Services — to seek out reasons to cancel projects already underway.
In choosing litigation over negotiation, the moves made on Thursday mark a shift in how the wind industry is responding to the U.S. government’s new war on the energy resource.
When the Interior Department stopped New York’s Empire Wind project in April, developer Equinor opted not to take the Trump administration to court — even as its losses rose to nearly $1 billion. Instead, the firm and diplomats from its home country and majority shareholder Norway lobbied the government to overturn its decision. In May, the Trump administration reversed course, claiming that it had struck a deal with New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) to allow gas pipelines in the state. Hochul’s office denies any such deal was made.
In both instances, the Trump administration used vague and dubious justifications for the stop-work orders. For Revolution Wind, the Interior Department cited “national security” concerns that a retired Navy commander called “specious.” For Empire Wind, it pointed to a mysterious report that officials blacked out entirely on a federal website and still refuse to share with the public.
Ørsted and others are now embarking on a legal battle that could determine not only the fate of Revolution Wind, but whether a more aggressive response is a cheaper and better way to push back on Trump’s always-escalating crusade against “windmills.”
Just over a year ago, the world’s first commercial hydrogen ferry officially set sail in the San Francisco Bay, offering a clean, quiet rebuttal to the noisy, polluting ferries that many coastal cities depend on.
Now, the vessel’s owner is working to build a bigger, faster version in New York.
Switch Maritime was recently awarded $2 million from New York state to develop a 150-passenger ferry powered by hydrogen fuel cells — a technology that doesn’t directly emit carbon dioxide or toxic air pollution, just a little heat and water vapor. The company says it aims to launch the vessel around early 2028 in New York City waterways as part of a 12-month demonstration period, before potentially transitioning to longer-term service.
“Ferry operators have aging fleets that need to be replaced,” said Pace Ralli, CEO and cofounder of Switch. “We’re trying to give these operators a viable alternative to rebuilding and renewing their fleet with diesel.”
More than 600 ferries ply the country’s waterways. The vast majority of them still burn diesel fuel, leaving smoggy trails of planet-warming gases and health-harming pollutants in their wake.
Some of the nation’s biggest ferry operators — including those in New York City, San Francisco, and Washington state — are starting to test and deploy cleaner marine technologies to meet their climate goals and improve air quality in waterfront communities.
Last month, New York City launched a $33 million hybrid-electric ferry that uses batteries and diesel generators. A handful of other hybrid and fully battery-powered vessels are operating or under construction nationwide, and hundreds more have hit the water in China and Europe.
For now, Switch’s San Francisco ferry is the only fully hydrogen-powered vessel in the U.S.
The boat, called Sea Change, launched in July 2024 after more than six years in development. The 75-passenger ferry includes 360 kilowatts of fuel cells, a 600-kW electric propulsion system, lithium-ion batteries, and 10 tanks that can store a total of 246 kilograms of hydrogen. The vessel uses the most readily available type of hydrogen — the kind produced using fossil gas — which is sourced from existing automotive fueling stations in the San Francisco area.
The New York ferry will be twice the size and operate twice as fast as Sea Change, said Seamus Nolan, Switch’s director of commercial and government affairs. He said the $2 million grant from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority will help fund the company’s initial work to develop the larger vessel and cover some operational costs during the yearlong demonstration period.
Just as crucial as launching the ferry will be establishing a hydrogen supply chain for this specific project, given that no such networks exist today in the U.S. maritime industry. Nolan said that Switch has identified three potential suppliers of green hydrogen — made from renewable energy sources — that could initially serve the new vessel’s operations, though future supplies could include hydrogen made from nuclear or methane pyrolysis as those production methods scale.
A lack of cheap, clean hydrogen remains one of the biggest barriers to taking fuel-cell ferries mainstream. It’s also a key reason why ferry operators are primarily turning to battery-powered boats to begin greening their fleets. Hydrogen fuel is substantially more expensive to make and transport than diesel fuel, and producers remain reluctant to ramp up supplies — and thus drive down prices — given the uncertainty around customer demand.
This was already true under the Biden administration. Now the second Trump administration is moving to scrap federal policies meant to accelerate production of clean hydrogen, including by potentially canceling awards for four projects under the $7 billion Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs program. The budget law passed by congressional Republicans in July also hastens the phaseout of the 45V tax credit for clean hydrogen production.
“If done safely, green hydrogen is a viable alternative fuel for maritime … but there’s a lot of concerns around, how do we scale up green hydrogen production so that it’s affordable for maritime use and that there’s enough supply?” said Teresa Bui, senior climate campaign director at the nonprofit group Pacific Environment.
During the Sea Change trial in San Francisco, the vessel experienced “minor disruptions due to fuel sourcing at times,” though routine maintenance work and occasional mechanical issues were bigger causes of interrupted service, said Thomas Hall, director of operations and customer experience for San Francisco Bay Ferry, which ran the hydrogen ferry during the demonstration period.
From July 2024 to January 2025, Sea Change zipped along a short tourist route between the historic Ferry Building and Fisherman’s Wharf. The temporary pilot service was sponsored by a group of private partners, including Chevron New Energies, United Airlines, and the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District.
Hall said the ferry operator is evaluating the demonstration’s results, which will help inform its longer-term plans. The Water Emergency Transportation Authority, which oversees San Francisco Bay Ferry, has secured more than $150 million in local, state, and federal funding to deploy zero-emissions vessels. Plans are well underway to build three small battery-electric ferries and two large battery ferries for the service. Hall said that, down the road, hydrogen ferries could potentially operate on routes that cover longer distances or for extended periods of time.
“Being part of a first-in-the-world, groundbreaking project is something we value a lot here in the Bay Area,” Hall said. “It was a huge achievement that will make future implementations easier.”
Since the pilot ended earlier this year, Switch and its vessel operator partner Blue & Gold Fleet have been running tests to see how Sea Change performs on critical commuter routes in the San Francisco Bay Area. The plan is to bring the vessel back into passenger service in the coming months, either in San Francisco or in a new city that is looking to test the technology.
“Sea Change is one proof-of-concept to show that it can be done, that it can be operated commercially,” Nolan said of the hydrogen fuel-cell ferry. The New York demonstration will be Switch’s chance to prove the technology can operate at twice the scale.
The Trump administration’s latest attack on an offshore wind project could make New England’s electricity less reliable and more expensive.
Late last month, the administration halted work on the nearly complete Revolution Wind project off the coast of Rhode Island and Massachusetts, citing dubious “national security” reasons. State governors, labor leaders, and even New England fishermen who voted for Donald Trump oppose the move, which is part of the president’s monthslong assault on an energy source central to the Northeast’s grid and decarbonization plans.
Should Trump tank the project, it would leave a gaping hole in New England’s energy mix, driving up the region’s already-high electricity prices and leaving its grid more vulnerable to collapse during winter storms. New England’s grid operator has already factored the 704-megawatt wind farm into its plans starting next year. Delaying delivery of that power “will increase risks to reliability,” ISO New England warned in a statement last week.
That’s not to mention the longer-term disruptions that could stem from killing a project that’s followed all the rules and is already about 80% built.
“Unpredictable risks and threats to resources—regardless of technology—that have made significant capital investments, secured necessary permits, and are close to completion will stifle future investments, increase costs to consumers, and undermine the power grid’s reliability and the region’s economy now and in the future,” ISO New England said in the statement.
In the measured world of grid operators, warnings like these are “unprecedented,” said Abe Silverman, an attorney, energy consultant, and research scholar at Johns Hopkins University. But so is the threat of the federal government smashing a cornerstone of a region’s energy mix, he said.
“We’re talking about a really significant hit to consumers, at a time we’re all hyper-concerned about inflation and energy prices generally,” Silverman said. Losing Revolution Wind’s electricity could cost New England consumers about $500 million a year, he estimated, based on the value the project has secured in ISO New England’s forward capacity market and its potential to supplant costlier power plants used during grid emergencies.
And “we don’t need a bunch of fancy studies to tell us that these units are needed for reliability,” he said. New England has long struggled to meet electricity demand during winter cold snaps and summer heat waves. When temperatures surpassed 100 degrees Fahrenheit for several days in June, “they had every single generator on,” he said. “Here we have a unit that should be operating as of next summer that is now in doubt.”
But it’s during the winter months that the loss of Revolution Wind could be most keenly felt, said Susan Muller, a senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists. That’s when the region’s limited supply of fossil gas is stretched even thinner, since the fuel is used both for building heating and power generation. ISO New England is banking on offshore wind — which blows most strongly in the winter — to meet energy needs as temperatures plummet.
But as the move to shut down Revolution Wind shows, the Trump administration’s relentless attacks on the offshore wind industry are making the energy source harder to plan around.
In the winter, “we essentially run out of pipeline gas” for the gas-fired power plants that make up New England’s largest single source of power, Muller said. The region is forced to rely on power plants fueled by oil and costly liquefied natural gas to cover the gap.
That’s an expensive way to keep the lights on. Wholesale power costs from December to February spiked to $4 billion, up from $1.6 billion the previous winter, according to ISO New England data, largely driven by increasing gas costs and a bump in coal- and oil-fired generation. ISO New England reported that total energy costs this spring rose 67% compared to last year, driven primarily by a 112% year-over-year increase in gas prices.
Luckily, strong winter winds make offshore wind farms a great solution to these problems, Muller said — and she has the fancy studies to prove it.
Muller consulted on a new report from Daymark Energy Advisors that found New England could have saved $400 million in energy costs this past winter if 3.5 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity had been online. That’s roughly the total combined capacity of Revolution, the in-progress Vineyard Wind, and two other yet-to-be-built projects, New England Wind 1 and the first phase of the SouthCoast Wind project.
A similar analysis Muller worked on last year found that Revolution Wind and Vineyard Wind would have slashed blackout risk had they been available in recent decades. Vineyard Wind is already sending power to the grid from 17 of its 62 turbines, and the entire project is expected to be complete by year’s end.
The money-saving mechanism is pretty simple, Muller explained. Offshore wind farms are costly to build, and the utilities in Connecticut and Rhode Island that signed long-term contracts with Revolution Wind will be paying prices for that power that are higher than the average prices on ISO New England’s wholesale energy market. But the price is steady and not susceptible to huge swings like that of fossil gas. During wintertime peaks, it costs the same to generate power from offshore wind as it does on a mild day — the same is not true for gas.
Because of this dynamic, the Daymark Energy Advisors analysis found that Revolution Wind’s power would still save consumers money even if the utilities pay twice as much as wholesale prices, Muller said.
Revolution Wind is also meant to supply power to ISO New England’s forward capacity market, which is designed to secure the resources the region needs to ensure its grid can keep running during times of peak demand in future years.
The project would make it less expensive for the region to meet those peaks, Silverman said, putting New England in a better position than other areas of the country. Grid operator PJM Interconnection, which covers 13 states and D.C., has seen capacity prices skyrocket in the past year because it has not built new generation fast enough, he noted.
Perhaps even more valuable is that offshore wind can be a buffer against fuel shortages, Muller said. “In other words, we might have enough power plants, but they might not have enough fuel to get us through,” she said.
This summer, ISO New England unveiled the initial findings of an assessment on the grid’s ability to deliver energy during extreme weather events. That’s an incredibly complicated evaluation with a lot of variables, ranging from the future of large-scale transmission lines that can deliver more power from outside the region to the capacity of the Everett Marine Terminal, a major LNG import and storage facility near Boston.
But out of all those variables, the study’s base case assumes that ISO New England will have about 1.6 gigawatts of offshore wind power in 2027, including 704 megawatts from Revolution Wind. “If you take it out of the model, the risk will go up,” Muller said.
Fossil fuels can’t replace the power that would be lost if Revolution Wind isn’t brought online, Muller and Silverman said — even if the Trump administration is touting more gas pipelines as a solution.
Last month, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin published an op-ed in The Boston Globe claiming that a proposed pipeline originating in Pennsylvania would bring down energy costs in New England by enabling the region to access more gas from the line’s terminus in New York.
The piece came after the Trump administration lifted a stop-work order on New York’s Empire Wind offshore wind project in May, claiming it had struck a deal with Gov. Kathy Hochul to allow two major gas pipelines to be built in the state. Hochul, a Democrat, has denied any quid pro quo but has said the state will “work with the administration and private entities on new energy projects that meet the legal requirements under New York law.”
Energy experts have pointed out many flaws in the administration’s push for more pipelines, including a lack of capacity to move gas from New York to New England and poor long-term economics for expanding that capacity. Every state in New England except New Hampshire has set clean energy and decarbonization mandates that call for using less fossil gas, not more, in the years to come.
“We know that pipelines cost billions of dollars to build,” Muller said. But while Revolution Wind will generate energy throughout the year, “a pipeline would only change things for a handful of days, a few weeks of the year. The rest of the time, it wouldn’t be needed. … There would be cheaper options.”
The Trump administration has insisted that fossil-fueled power plants must stay open to ensure grid reliability, going so far as to use emergency powers to force coal-, gas-, and oil-burning plants to keep running past their planned retirements. Those orders will force customers to bear tens of millions of dollars or more in unnecessary costs while doing nothing to improve reliability, according to energy analysts as well as the state attorneys general and environmental groups challenging the extensions in court.
Fossil-fueled power plants also pose reliability challenges in cold weather. Gas plants made up the majority of generator failures during widespread winter blackouts in Texas in 2021, across the U.S. Southeast in 2022, and during the 2014 “polar vortex” in the U.S. Northeast.
The cold can cause malfunctions at gas plants themselves, or it can limit fuel supply by spurring breakdowns at the wellheads and compression stations that feed pipeline networks. ISO New England’s most recent winter outlook assumed that 3.9 gigawatts to 4.8 gigawatts of gas-fired power “may be at risk due to constrained natural gas pipelines.”
All of these factors were considered in the years-long decision-making processes that New England states went through to decide that offshore wind is their best choice, said Larry Chretien, executive director of the nonprofit Green Energy Consumers Alliance.
“We’re buying 30 years of power at a fixed price, and it’s a good price,” he said. “The states have decided they want to buy this stuff.” By blocking completion of Revolution Wind, the Trump administration is “forcing fossil fuels down our throats.”
Hakim Dermish moved to the small South Texas town of Catarina in 2002 in search of a rural lifestyle on a budget. The property where he lived with his wife didn’t have electricity or sewer lines at first, but that didn’t bother him.
“Even if we lived in a cardboard box, no one could kick us out,” Dermish said.
Back then, Catarina was a sleepy place. A decade later, oil and gas drilling picked up, and he welcomed the financial opportunities it brought. Dermish launched businesses to support the industry, offering everything from guards for drill sites to housing for oil field workers.
The growth also brought flares — flames burning off excess natural gas — that blazed day and night at wells in the surrounding countryside. Initially enamored of the industry’s potential, Dermish now worried that its pollution endangered the health of the town’s 75 residents. He began lodging complaints with the state in 2023, asking it to push companies to control emissions.
Inspectors with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality investigated, finding only a handful of violations, some of which the companies addressed. But that did little to allay the concerns of Dermish and his neighbors, who continued to see flares light up the sky and to smell gas wafting over the community.
“Starting first thing in the morning, talk about the stench. Then you call the state and nothing happens,” Dermish said. “They do absolutely nothing.”
His neighbor Lupe Campos, who worked in the oil fields for more than three decades, lives three blocks from a flare. Toxic hydrogen sulfide escapes from nearby wells, giving the air the smell of “burnt rotten eggs,” Campos said. “It’s hard to bear.”
While working to expand the nation’s oil and gas production, President Donald Trump’s administration has maintained that drilling in the U.S. is cleaner than in other countries due to tighter environmental oversight. To mark Earth Day, for example, the White House boasted in a statement that increased natural gas exports meant the U.S. would be “sharing cleaner energy with allies” and “reducing global emissions.”
But Texas, the heart of America’s oil and gas industry, tells a different story.
Texas regulators tout their efforts to curtail oil field emissions by requiring drillers to obtain permits to release or burn gas from their wells.
Yet a first-of-its-kind analysis of permit applications to the Railroad Commission of Texas, the state’s main oil and gas regulator, reveals a rubber-stamp system that allows drillers to emit vast amounts of natural gas into the atmosphere. Over 40 months — from May 2021 to September 2024 — oil companies applied for more than 12,000 flaring and venting permits, while the Railroad Commission rejected just 53 of them, a 99.6% approval rate, according to the data.
Natural gas is composed mostly of climate-warming methane but also contains other gases such as hydrogen sulfide, which is deadly at high concentrations. Gas escapes as wells are drilled and before infrastructure is in place to capture it. It also can be intentionally released if pressure in the system poses a safety risk or if capturing and transporting it to be sold is not profitable. Typically, drillers burn the gas they don’t capture, converting the methane to carbon dioxide, a less potent greenhouse gas, in a process called flaring. Sometimes, they release the gas without burning it, in a process called venting.
The permit applications showed oil companies requested to flare or vent more than 195 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year, enough to power more than 3 million homes and generate millions of dollars of tax revenue had the gas been captured. Those emissions would have a climate-warming impact roughly equivalent to 27 gas-fired power plants operating year-round, even if the flares burned every molecule of methane released from the wells.
“It’s a gargantuan amount of emissions,” said Jack McDonald, senior analyst of energy policy and science for the environmental group Oilfield Witness. “Because so much of this gas is methane and so much of it is either incompletely combusted or not combusted at all through the venting process, we see a huge climate impact.”
Oilfield Witness gathered and studied the Railroad Commission data on exemptions to the state’s flaring rules and shared it with ProPublica and Inside Climate News. The news organizations verified the data, including by soliciting input from professors at universities in Texas.
Railroad Commission spokesperson R.J. DeSilva said in a statement that Texas has made “significant progress” in addressing methane emissions. Companies must provide evidence that flaring is necessary, and, when approving permits, the agency follows all applicable rules, he said. “If an application lacks sufficient justification, it is returned with comments for clarification.”
“I am proud of the progress that has been made to reduce the waste of our natural resources,” Jim Wright, chair of the Railroad Commission, said in a statement, adding that “there is always room for further improvement.”
The analysis likely overstates emissions, since the near-guarantee that regulators will approve a permit gives companies an incentive to request authorization for amounts larger than they intend to emit to ensure they’re in compliance. For example, operators in four Texas counties flared about 70% of the volume of gas that their permits allowed, according to a recent effort to compare the state’s flaring data to information collected via satellite. And the Railroad Commission sometimes approves flaring smaller volumes than requested, which is not captured in the data.
“The Texas oil and natural gas industry is committed to ongoing progress in reducing flaring and methane emissions while continuing to meet the ever-growing demand for reliable oil and natural gas across the globe,” Todd Staples, president of the Texas Oil and Gas Association, a trade group, told ProPublica and Inside Climate News in a statement.
Residents of communities surrounded by flares and leaking wells, like Catarina, want the state and the industry to do more to control oil field emissions. The Railroad Commission approved eight flares within 5 miles of the town during the study period and 280 across surrounding Dimmit County, according to agency data.
The danger posed by the gas became impossible to ignore on March 27, as a 30-inch steel pipeline a half-mile from Catarina failed. The rupture blasted more than 23 million cubic feet of gas into the air, as much as is used in 365 homes in a year, according to data the company that owns the pipeline, Energy Transfer, reported to the Railroad Commission.
On March 27, a pipeline just outside Catarina failed, spewing a large volume of natural gas into the air. As his house shook, Hakim Dermish captured the aftermath on his cellphone. Credit:Courtesy of Hakim Dermish
Dermish recorded the chaos with his cellphone. “The house is shaking,” he says in the video as the escaping gas roars, its concussions jostling the camera.
Fearing for their safety, he and his wife evacuated, heading to a neighboring town for the day. After they returned home that evening, he called the sheriff to ask what had happened. During the conversation, Dermish could feel the gas causing him to slur his words. The next morning, Dermish noticed new gas flares, presumably lit to release pressure in the pipeline network by burning excess gas. A cellphone video he recorded shows a towering column of flame, taller than a nearby telephone pole, billowing and rippling.
“Have you ever seen ‘Lord of the Rings’? Do you remember the Fire of Mordor?” Dermish said in an interview. “That’s what we have here.”
An incident report submitted to the state by Energy Transfer attributed the pipeline failure to a technician’s errors. Without objection from the Railroad Commission, the pipeline was repaired and back in service three days later. The agency did not assess Energy Transfer with a violation or a fine.
Energy Transfer did not respond to a request for comment.
After more than two decades in Catarina, Dermish and his wife are planning to move away. “It’s just too dangerous,” he said.
While the Trump administration characterizes American oil and gas as cleaner than fossil fuels from other countries, it has rolled back rules regulating methane.
The Environmental Protection Agency has, under Trump, delayed implementing previously finalized rules that would’ve mandated that the industry monitor for methane leaks and address them. He and Republicans in Congress also repealed the country’s first-ever tax on methane. And in June, Trump revoked a Biden administration guidance document laying out how companies should comply with a law aimed at reducing methane leaks from pipelines.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
As the nation’s highest-producing oil and gas state, Texas is a key barometer of the U.S. regulatory environment and whether it has created a cleaner fossil fuel industry.
The Permian Basin — the country’s largest oil field, which straddles the Texas-New Mexico border — was estimated by a 2024 study to emit the second-most methane of any oil field in the world.
The industry disputes that finding, pointing to a June report from S&P Global Commodity Insights that found that the rate of methane emissions in the Permian Basin dropped 29% between 2023 and 2024. “Methane emissions management” is increasingly a part of the industry’s operations, Raoul LeBlanc, a vice president at S&P, said in a statement announcing the findings. However, S&P’s report acknowledged that satellite data showed a much more modest reduction of 4%, contradicting the company’s own data, which was collected by airplane.
“We can say confidently that there is no evidence that methane emissions from the Permian Basin are low,” said Steven Hamburg, who studies methane as the Environmental Defense Fund’s chief scientist.
In Texas, State Rule 32 prohibits flaring and venting gas at wells, except under a few specific conditions: while the well is being drilled, during the first 10 days after the well is completed and when necessary to ensure safety. Otherwise, drillers must seek an exception.
The Railroad Commission changed the application process for these exemptions in 2020 and issued new guidance in 2021. Operators would have to explain why they could not suspend drilling to avoid flaring and indicate that they had investigated all options for using the gas before flaring.
Oilfield Witness gathered all exemption requests since 2021, which showed the agency repeatedly approving permits that failed to comply with its guidelines. In many cases, oil companies asked to flare indefinitely or didn’t justify why they needed to flare, leaving blank the section of the application asking why the exemption was needed.
Capturing the gas requires an expensive system of pipelines, compressors and other infrastructure that can cost more than the gas is worth. In their permit applications, companies cite this reality, often listing financial considerations as the reason for seeking exemptions, Oilfield Witness found. These were nearly always approved, even though the agency wrote that finances were an insufficient explanation in a presentation on the permitting process.
“The Railroad Commission seems very interested in devolving decision-making processes to the companies themselves,” McDonald said.
The data also showed that nearly 90% of the approved permit applications were backdated, retroactively giving permission for flares that were already burning. Oil companies typically asked the Railroad Commission for permission to flare 10 days after they had already burned the gas.
A spokesperson said that when the commission revamped its guidelines in 2020, it allowed a longer period in which companies could file for a permit after they’d already started to flare. Even so, nearly 900 of the permits were applied for after the updated filing window and still accepted by the agency.
The Railroad Commission also approved more than 7,000 flares within areas where the gas reservoir being drilled was known to be high in hydrogen sulfide, increasing the likelihood that the toxic gas could escape into the air. Of those flares, 600 were within a mile of a residence, the agency’s data showed.
Minimizing flaring permits is “not a priority in any sense” for the Railroad Commission, said Gunnar Schade, an associate professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University. “The priority is oil produced, and that means revenue for the state. Oil and gas is a priority, so who cares about the flaring?”
The Railroad Commission and the state’s oil industry trumpet their work to reduce flaring. The agency points to state data showing flaring rates dropping dramatically, specifically since 2019. And the Texas Oil and Gas Association announced in early August that drillers in the Permian Basin “slashed methane emission intensity by more than half in just two years.”
But such claims are misleading, according to experts such as David DiCarlo, an associate professor in the University of Texas at Austin’s petroleum engineering school. Using 2019 as a starting point leaves a false impression that there’s been a sharp decline, he said, as methane emissions that year were staggeringly high due to booming production and inadequate pipeline capacity to gather the gas.
DeSilva, the Railroad Commission’s spokesperson, defended using 2019 as the baseline because “about five years ago we began taking proactive steps to reduce flaring in Texas.”
Taking a longer view shows that a median of 2.2% of gas at Texas oil wells was flared or vented over the past decade, according to a ProPublica and Inside Climate News review of state data. (Flaring at gas wells is rare because those sites have the necessary pipeline infrastructure in place to collect the gas.) That figure hovered just north of 2% in the most recently available data, representing a much smaller drop than the state and industry claim. The industry still hasn’t built sufficient pipeline networks to capture gas at oil wells, so, as production rises, so does flaring and venting.
Not Much Recent Progress on Oil Well Flaring
The Texas oil industry and its regulators have celebrated a reduction in the burning of climate-warming gases at oil wells, a practice known as flaring. However, state data shows that, while the flaring rate is below its 2019 peak, it has stayed relatively constant for the past several years.
“They can’t get it below 2% because they keep drilling,” DiCarlo said. Since emissions are highest when a well is being drilled, overall emissions will remain high as long as the industry is drilling new wells. “That’s just the nature of the beast.”
Among the largest beneficiaries of the state’s lax permitting system was an oil company called Endeavor Energy Resources. More than half the approved permanent flaring exemptions went to Endeavor, which merged with the $40 billion Diamondback Energy in September 2024. Endeavor also applied for the longest flaring permit — 6,300 days, or more than 17 years. The Railroad Commission approved the permit without shortening its duration.
Diamondback Energy did not respond to a request for comment.
The industry has simultaneously claimed that it is addressing methane while bristling at oversight.
Natural gas, as seen through a specialized camera that captures infrared energy, streams out of a Diamondback Energy facility near Midland, Texas, in 2023. Credit:Courtesy of Oilfield Witness
Steven Pruett is the president and CEO of Elevation Resources, a Permian Basin oil company, and the immediate past chair of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, one of the industry’s main trade groups. His company saw a 2,408% increase in flaring immediately following new wells being drilled and a 692% increase in flaring overall in 2023, according to emails unearthed by environmental watchdog organization Fieldnotes and shared with ProPublica and Inside Climate News. In the email exchange with University of Texas faculty who were preparing a grant application for a federal methane-reduction program, Pruett blamed the increases on inadequate infrastructure to capture the gas.
Just weeks later, Pruett participated in a tour of the oil field alongside EPA staff, where he echoed the claim that the American oil and gas industry is cleaner than others and that drilling companies were complying with efforts to reduce emissions.
During his term at the helm of the national trade group, it spearheaded multiple lawsuits against the EPA over the government’s methane rules.
Pruett did not respond to a request for comment.
Those opposed to flaring face long odds in halting the practice, even in rare instances when the Railroad Commission hears objections.
Consider the experience of Tom Pohlman, then sheriff of Fisher County, who had a flare burning next to his home in the Texas Panhandle starting in October 2023. The driller responsible for it, Patton Exploration, solicited companies to extend a pipeline to the oil well to capture the gas and evaluated whether the gas could be used to mine bitcoin. But by July 2024, it still had no deal, so the company sought another permit to continue flaring up to 1 million cubic feet of gas per day for 18 months. “Patton is diligently pursuing every avenue possible to find a solution, but still needs more time,” the company wrote in its application.
When Pohlman learned that Patton Exploration had applied for a new permit, he and his neighbors urged the Railroad Commission to deny it.
“The sound that comes from the flame is a constant roar that we can hear throughout our property both day and night,” the neighbors wrote in their objection. “There is no peace and quiet since the day of its ignition.”
In September 2024, Pohlman became one of the few people to officially challenge a flaring permit in Texas, as he and Patton Exploration representatives went head-to-head in a hearing before a Railroad Commission administrative law judge.
“For approximately 20 of my residents in this area, it completely lights up their yard and everything else,” Pohlman said, telling the judge that the flare was 45 feet high. “I just need liveability for this neighborhood. We’ve had nothing but issues here.”
Patton Exploration’s lawyer, David Gross, acknowledged the neighbors’ frustrations but emphasized the importance of keeping the well pumping.
“You can’t produce the oil without producing the gas,” he told the judge. “It’s the public policy of Texas that the recoverable oil and gas in the state’s reservoirs be recovered because it is in the public interest.”
In January, the three elected members of the Railroad Commission voted unanimously to approve the permit and allow flaring for another 12 months.
Time is running out for Americans to get a federally funded discount on energy upgrades that can lower their utility bills and make their homes healthier and more comfortable.
The GOP tax and spending law passed in July swiftly phases out tax credits that help households afford heat pumps and other energy-saving electric appliances. The credits were supposed to last about a decade; now they sunset Dec. 31.
To meet this use-it-or-lose-it moment, electrification advocacy nonprofit Rewiring America last week launched the Save on Better Appliances campaign. It’s a nationwide effort to help homeowners and renters lock in the incentives — the Energy-Efficient Home Improvement Credit (25C) and the Residential Clean Energy Credit (25D) — before they’re gone.
“Most people don’t think about this stuff every day,” said Ari Matusiak, CEO of Rewiring America. “We’re talking about five or six purchasing decisions that you make only several times over in your whole life. … So making sure people have the resources and information available about [this] technology that is better and can save them money, is really important.”
The tax credits enable households to save thousands of dollars on their federal taxes when they invest in energy-slashing home upgrades, including electrical panel retrofits, weatherization improvements, and installations of solar panels, heat pump heater/air conditioners, home batteries, and heat-pump water heaters.
Such measures are especially salient as households grapple with inflation, tariffs, and rapidly rising electricity costs. President Donald Trump promised to lower power bills, but experts expect his administration’s anti-renewables agenda will keep them climbing.
Efficiency upgrades also help put a dent in planet-warming pollution. More than 40% of U.S. energy-related emissions stem from how people heat, cool, and power their homes and fuel their cars, according to Rewiring America.
With the long lead time often needed to get quotes and book contractors, households realistically need to decide if they’re going to pursue clean energy projects in the next several weeks to get the federal discounts, Matusiak said.
Accordingly, the campaign, which runs until the end of October, is a full-court press of resources and tailored support. Rewiring America is also coordinating with elected officials, manufacturers, utilities, and grassroots groups on the effort. Among those partners is the U.S. Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of 24 governors, which last month committed to helping constituents take advantage of the tax credits.
“It’s really disheartening to see the federal government take away financial assistance from Americans at a time where they need it more than ever,” said Casey Katims, U.S. Climate Alliance executive director.
Rewiring America has set up a central hub where homeowners and renters can launch their electrification journey. The nonprofit’s Personal Electrification Planner allows users to estimate how much an upgrade is likely to cost up front and save them on their energy bills over time. Individuals can also search for independently vetted contractors and look up incentives with the nonprofit’s savings calculator, which lists federal as well as local rebates and tax credits in 29 states.
For people looking for more support, Rewiring America is holding weekly drop-in Zoom sessions with certified, trained “electric coaches.” They’re volunteers who can offer free, impartial guidance to help people troubleshoot the gnarly complexities of making energy-efficient home upgrades. The first session is on Wednesday, Sept. 3.
Rewiring America is also securing deep discounts on heat pumps for homeowners — in Rhode Island and Colorado, to start. The organization has teamed up with manufacturers and contractors to drive costs 20% to 30% below standard market pricing by pooling customers together — an approach national nonprofit Solar United Neighbors has used for years to get better deals on solar panels. A Rewiring America spokesperson declined to specify how many households have enrolled so far.
Rewiring America had longstanding relationships that made these two states particularly fertile testing grounds, Matusiak said. But if it succeeds, the organization plans to expand the group-purchasing initiative. In a few places, others are also leveraging collective market power, including installer Vayu in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles and Laminar Collective in the Boston metro area.
Overall, “the goal here is to create broad awareness for people to take advantage of incentives that are theirs to take,” Matusiak said. For individuals open to going electric, “we hope they access our resources — and do that right away.”
This story was originally published by The Texas Tribune.
When Texas legislators conceived of the Texas Energy Fund in the spring of 2023, its goal of jump-starting the construction of more natural gas power plants to support the state’s strained power grid seemed reasonable.
In the two years since that vote, however, experts say the energy market has turned against the development of gas-fired power plants. Experts and energy companies say the fund’s $7.2 billion worth of low-interest loans and bonus grants may not be appealing enough to overcome those economic headwinds.
“It is a challenging market for natural gas developers right now, and it has been for a good amount of time,” said Walt Baum, CEO of Powering Texans, a trade association representing Calpine, Constellation, NRG, and Vistra, the state’s four largest operators of dispatchable power.
Only two new proposals have been approved so far through the TEF’s In-ERCOT Generation Loan Program, one of four programs included in the fund intended to coax energy companies into building new gas power plants. The two loans, both to be paid back over 20 years at a 3% interest rate, would tap just $321 million of the $7.2 billion total.
Together, the plants would have a capacity to generate 578 megawatts of electricity, a drop in the bucket compared to the roughly 62,500 megawatts of additional electricity that regulators forecast the state will need to generate by 2030.
Another 15 loan applications are currently in the pipeline, totalling 8,392 megawatts, according to the Public Utility Commission, which administers the TEF.
But of the 25 total loan applications that have advanced to the fund’s due diligence review stage, seven have been pulled from consideration by the companies that filed them, citing supply chain issues or forecasts that the projects would not be as profitable as expected. An eighth application was denied funding last fall due to accusations of fraud.
The most recent company to withdraw an application, Hunt Energy Network, cited the cost-effectiveness of constructing a natural gas power plant under the loan program as the reason for its withdrawal, according to a July 25 letter to the PUC.
The fund was created in the wake of Winter Storm Uri, the February 2021 storm that plunged most of the state into blackouts during freezing weather for days, leaving hundreds of people dead.
Gov. Greg Abbott and other Republican leaders were quick to blame trouble with wind and solar power generation for the power outages. While renewables did struggle to generate electricity in the frigid temperatures, so did natural gas power generation after power plant equipment and some pipelines that supply gas to the plants froze.
After that disaster, lawmakers argued that the state needed more on-demand power — specifically natural gas power plants — that doesn’t require wind and sun to generate electricity. They started the Texas Energy Fund with an initial $5 billion, and earlier this year added another $5 billion — but $2.8 billion was set aside for separate programs to support backup power generation for critical infrastructure and modernization incentives for natural gas plants.
But since 2023, the economic factors working against the development of natural gas plants have only worsened.
Energy demand is rising globally due to the construction of new data centers for artificial intelligence, and many regions are turning to natural gas power because of its relative affordability, lower emissions compared to coal, and its ability to operate at all times of the day, unlike wind and solar.
That demand is straining the supply chain for turbines, specialized equipment used in power plants that cost tens of millions of dollars. Wait times on orders for the machinery have doubled just over the past year, and tariffs are now increasing their price further.
A turbine order placed today likely would not arrive before 2029, and only if a company were willing to pay a premium to get it quickly, said Doug Lewin, author of the Texas Energy and Power Newsletter.
At the same time, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the state’s power grid operator, is predicting energy demand in the state will double by 2030. The increase is driven by oil and gas operators in the Permian Basin transitioning operations to run on electricity rather than gas or diesel, as well as Texas’ own AI and data center boom.
The state is on course to meet those electricity demands, but largely through advancements in solar technology and battery storage, which are significantly cheaper than natural gas power plants to install. In Texas’ deregulated energy market, which gives preference to the least-expensive power, this takes away the forecast market share available to companies hoping to profit from a new natural gas power plant, meaning the plants cost more to install and are likely to make less money over time, said Dennis Wamsted, an energy analyst with the nonprofit Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
“Markets speak loud and clear if you listen to what they’re saying,” Wamsted said. “The market in Texas is saying loud and clear that gas is not going to be built any time soon.”
Legislators this spring have responded by extending the deadline for spending the $5 billion they approved in 2023. Under the original legislation creating the fund, the PUC had until the end of this year to distribute the money earmarked for power plant construction loans. Senate Bill 2268 by state Sen. Charles Schwertner, R-Georgetown, gave the PUC authority to extend that deadline if “market factors necessitate.”
“What we didn’t know two years ago is that various market influences would affect the TEF application process, such that supply chain disruptions … would impact the timeline for several otherwise well-qualified projects,” Schwertner said in an April committee hearing about the bill.
The PUC said in a statement that demand for the natural gas plant loan program has been high, citing the 15 applications that have reached the due diligence review stage. The agency said it is focusing on reaching loan agreements for those 15 applicants before deciding if an extension on the disbursement deadline is necessary.
State Rep. Rafael Anchía, D-Dallas, said he believes those who have applied for loans were planning to build a natural gas plant without the state energy fund and are now asking taxpayers to help cover the cost.
“If taxpayers are subsidizing a lower interest rate than what they could get in the market, of course [energy companies] will take a free ride,” Anchía said.
Anchía voted against SB 2268, calling the loan program a “big government” approach to influencing the energy market. He did vote for the additional $5 billion in money for the fund, citing the fund’s two other programs supporting backup power generation for critical infrastructure and modernization incentives for natural gas units.
Members of the Legislature’s Texas Energy Fund Advisory Committee have not met since October but plan to in the coming months as part of a regular review of the effectiveness of the fund’s policies, said Rep. Ana Hernandez, D-Houston, and a member of the committee.
Rep. David Spiller, R-Jacksboro and cochair of the advisory committee, said he believes the fund’s effectiveness is worth studying because the Legislature’s original intention was to bring these gas plants online quickly.
“We know that over a period of time we will get to where we need to be,” Spiller said. “My concern is over the next five or six years, bridging that gap. I think sooner rather than later, we need to look at that and maybe review what we have in place and tweak it some.”
The Texas Tribune is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government, and statewide issues.
It sure looks like the Trump administration is not going to let any coal plants close down during its term — no matter the cost to consumers and to the climate.
About 27 gigawatts’ worth of coal is slated to retire in the U.S. between now and the end of 2028, per U.S. Energy Information Administration data, equal to roughly 15% of the country’s current coal fleet.
Coal plant retirements have been the engine of U.S. progress in cutting emissions. As natural gas became more abundant and renewables plummeted in cost, more than 140 gigawatts’ worth of coal plants have retired since 2011, when the dirty energy source peaked at nearly 318 GW of generation capacity. Carbon emissions from the power sector have fallen steadily over that same period.
Now, the U.S. gets more power from wind and solar alone than it does from coal, an extremely carbon-intensive form of energy that provided around half of the country’s electricity at the start of the millennium.
But President Donald Trump is trying to put a stop to coal’s demise. On his first day in office, Trump declared a national energy emergency that experts have called baseless and which is now being challenged by 15 states in court. The “emergency” is also belied by Trump’s efforts to obstruct clean energy, which for years has accounted for over 90% of new electricity added to the grid.
Trump has since built on that edict by availing himself of emergency powers to force fossil-fuel plants to stay online past their scheduled retirement.
In May, the Trump administration issued 90-day stay-open orders for two facilities set to close days later: the J.H. Campbell coal plant in Michigan and the Eddystone oil- and gas-burning plant in Pennsylvania. Trump just reupped those mandates for another 90 days. Families and businesses will pay the price: The first three months of continuing to operate J.H. Campbell alone could cost consumers as much as $100 million, estimated Michigan’s Public Service Commission chair.
And in July, the Department of Energy released a specious report that overstates the risk of grid blackouts. States are attempting to make the agency fix the report, which they expect will be used to justify additional emergency stay-open orders for other coal plants. Blocking all planned closures of fossil-fuel power plants could result in billions of dollars in additional yearly energy costs for consumers by the end of Trump’s term.
The administration’s desire to revive America’s dirtiest form of power will only exacerbate the nation’s brewing utility bill crisis. The price of electricity has been rising for several years, and despite promises of slashing energy costs, Trump’s pro-coal, anti-renewables agenda is making things even worse.
The Trump administration’s order to stop construction of the nearly completed Revolution Wind project is putting hundreds of offshore workers out of a job — including dozens of local fishermen who voted for President Donald Trump and are asking him to reverse course.
A week ago, the acting director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Matthew Giacona, ordered the Danish wind developer Ørsted to stop all offshore work on the Revolution Wind farm so the federal government can“address concerns related to the protection of national security interests of the United States.” Giacona did not specify the nature of those security concerns.
Construction began on the 704-megawatt project in January 2024 and is now 80% complete, according to Ørsted. The wind farm is being built off the coast of Massachusetts and Rhode Island in a federally designated “wind energy area” that received sign-offs from multiple branches of the military, Canary Media reported Sunday.
Though often seen as opposed to offshore wind, many New England fishermen have made peace with the industry in recent years.
They increasingly rely on part-time salaries from wind companies as fishing revenues dry up. Over the past two years, Ørsted put 80 fishermen to work on the Revolution Wind project, paying out $9.5 million to captains, deckhands, and fishing boat owners, according to Gary Yerman, a Connecticut-based fisherman who founded and leads a fisher cooperative called Sea Services North America, which has an active contract to work on Revolution Wind.
“Most of us are Trump voters, and we still believe in a leader who builds. That’s why we’re asking President Trump to reverse the stop-work order issued to Revolution Wind by Interior,” Yerman told Canary Media.
The stop-work order echoes a similar one the Interior Department gave in April that froze all offshore work on New York’s Empire Wind project — a move that grounded Sea Services’ fishermen for a month, until Trump lifted the ban.
Yerman and other commercial fishermen remained quiet the last time Trump’s assault on a wind farm put them out of work. This time they’re speaking out.
“It’s madness to stop a project that already had permits,” said Jack Morris, a Massachusetts-based scalloper and manager for Sea Services who voted for Trump. “This is not something any of us planned for: the captains, the crew, the shore engineers, the people we buy food from for our trips.”
Ørsted was one of the first firms building turbines in U.S. waters to employ local fishermen, offering Sea Services a contract in 2021 to perform safety and scout tasks. The cooperative helped build Ørsted’s South Fork Wind — America’s first large-scale offshore wind farm, which went online last year.
Today, it’s common for wind developers to rely on local U.S. fishermen. Avangrid and Vineyard Offshore, codevelopers of the embattled Vineyard Wind project off the coast of Massachusetts, have paid out about $8 million over the past two years directly to local fishermen and vessel owners.
“If the infrastructure and pilings are already in, what good is stopping now?” fisherman Tony Alvernaz told Canary Media when asked about the Revolution Wind pause. A Massachusetts fisherman unaffiliated with Sea Services, Alvernaz works part-time for Vineyard Wind, assisting with the ongoing construction of its 62 turbines. Of those, 17 are already sending power to the grid.
Alvernaz is concerned about the Trump administration’s pattern of halting wind projects without warning and with little justification. Trump has already pressed pause on two of the five offshore wind farms currently under construction in America today.
In a statement Monday, an Ørsted spokesperson said Revolution Wind supports more than 2,500 jobs around the U.S., including “hundreds” of local offshore jobs.
Commercial fishermen have spent a total of 1,109 days working at sea for Revolution Wind, according to Yerman. Now, sitting at the docks due to the Trump administration’s stop-work order, the 15 fishermen who planned to be at sea, working 10-day shifts throughout this month, will get paid nothing.
“Our cooperative only invoices when our boats are on active duty. Fishermen are paid for the days they work, not for standby,” Gordon Videll, CEO of Sea Services, told Canary Media. The group is calling on Trump to lift the ban so that its members can resume the job, which would have involved eight more fishermen helping with an offshore substation this fall.
The extra income from Revolution Wind has been a lifeline, particularly for scallop fishermen who, in recent years, have been severely restricted in how much they can fish.
Strict federal quotas have been put in place to allow scallop populations to rebuild after years of being overfished, according to Morris, but that has meant scallopers — who form the majority of Sea Services’ members — are off the water for about 10 months a year.
Before the pause on Revolution Wind, scalloper Kevin Souza expected to make an additional $200,000 working on the project as a part-time boat captain for two years. Souza told Canary Media in February that, had he stuck to scalloping alone, he’d be “lucky” to earn $100,000 in a single year. The deckhands he hires only bring in around $30,000 per year working on scallop boats, but the offshore wind gig makes it possible for them to earn a “middle-class wage,” said Souza.
Souza has recruited both of his sons, his nephew, and other young people from longtime fishing families to work for the wind industry. They might have otherwise left the scallop industry if not for the supplemental income, he said.
As a group, America’s commercial fishermen have long been loyal to Trump. Last week’s order is shaking that confidence.
“I can’t think of one guy who isn’t a Trumper in our co-op. We’re blue-collar guys (and some gals too) who get up before dawn, work with our hands, and we trusted him to look out for us. The truth is, we love President Trump,” Yerman said.
In New Bedford, Massachusetts, home to the country’s most profitable fishing port, “TRUMP 2024” flags fly from dozens of boats docked in the harbor. A few of those crews work for the offshore wind companies, and at least one captain lowers his MAGA flag before setting out to the wind farms, according to Rodney Avila, a Sea Services fisherman.
That kind of faith makes Trump’s pause on Revolution Wind even more gutting.
“It’s like having the rug pulled out from under you. … Nobody understands why Trump did it. I don’t know what Trump’s agenda is,” said Morris.
Trump’s attacks on wind have dried up job prospects for local fishermen up and down the East Coast. His administration’s hostile actions have thrown sand in the gears of a New Jersey wind farm that planned to start construction in the next three years, Maryland’s first offshore wind farm, and another wind project off the coast of Maine.
In addition to targeting individual projects, the Trump administration has initiated policies intended to undermine the entire sector: killing offshore wind leasing, pausing permitting for wind farms, and sunsetting tax credits critical to their economic viability.
Many fishermen, including those who have pocketed thousands by working at offshore wind farms, remain wary of the companies building turbines out at sea.
“No fisherman loves new structures in the water, but we all have grandkids,” Roy Campanale, a Sea Services member based in Rhode Island, told Canary Media. “We’ve lived with the water getting warmer, watched the fish move north, and had to adapt again and again.”
Trump’s pause on Revolution Wind imposes yet another hardship.
Alvernaz voted for Trump and opposes certain wind farms that he believes pose a risk to his favorite fishing grounds. He said that he does not support Revolution Wind due to its placement on Cox Ledge, a swath of seabed identified by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as critical habitat for Atlantic cod.
But if Trump decides to freeze Vineyard Wind, for example, Alvernaz said he “would not be happy.”
Alvernaz has worked on the water for over 40 years. Yerman’s fishing career spans 50 years. With nearly a century of combined experience in New England’s waters, neither of them are buying the Trump administration’s excuse for pausing Revolution Wind.
“Something about national defense? How can it be an issue of national defense if there are other wind farms out there with the same technology?” pondered Alvernaz. “It’s kind of odd.”
.svg)
