A total of $10 million in grant money is available for energy efficiency and renewable energy upgrades in new regulated affordable multifamily housing. The funding comes from the Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund (PCEF) and will be issued by the Portland Housing Bureau (PHB).

Affordable housing developers can apply now for PCEF grants. Applications are due by 3 p.m. Friday, July 31.

The grants can help cover the capital costs of upgrading projects. The purpose of the Request for Applications (RFA) is to ensure buildings are built and operated in a way that reduces carbon emissions, reduces operating costs and improves resilience and health of tenants. To be eligible for these PCEF Funds, projects must have either a current loan or grant award from PHB that does not include PCEF or have received financial eligibility approval from Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS), the RFA states.

The funds are being released as part of PCEF’s Strategic Program 1, a grant program established in 2023 and administered through PHB to provide up to $60 million over five years to regulated affordable housing developments in Portland. This solicitation marks Phase 2 of Strategic Program 1. In Phase 1, PHB committed over $60 million across 26 projects, a PHB press release states.

Strategic Program 1 funds could support investments such as mini-split heating and cooling, photovoltaic arrays, enhanced insulation, heat pump water heating, high efficiency ventilation, electric vehicle charging and trees, the press release states.

Interested affordable housing developers can find more information on the RFA on the city of Portland’s

The post Applications open for $10 million in clean energy money appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Electricity demand will rise much faster than overall energy growth in the coming decades, underscoring the need for diversified energy sources, according to an analysis released Wednesday.

The report by the International Energy Agency ČőČčŸ±»ćÌęrenewable energy, led by solar power, will grow faster than any other major source in the next few years. One scenario the agency anticipates is coal and oil demand peaking globally by the end of this decade — but the group also said global oil and gas demand could continue growing until 2050. The report noted that many natural gas projects were approved in 2025, due to changes in U.S. policy, indicating worldwide supply will rise even as questions remain about how it will be used. Meanwhile, global nuclear power capacity is set to increase by at least a third by 2035 after being stagnant for years.

The release of the annual World Energy Outlook coincided with U.N. negotiations in Brazil, where global leaders this week are calling for ways to curb climate change.

The IEA says building greater resilience in energy systems is especially important as data centers, heating and cooling, electrification and more drive energy demand. Investment in data centers is expected to reach $580 billion this year, exceeding investment in the oil supply, according to the report.

Growing economies including India and nations in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, will “increasingly shape energy market dynamics in the years,” the IEA said, noting their potential for solar power.

China, meanwhile, has accounted for half the global growth in demand for oil and gas, and more than half for electricity, since 2010.

“In a break from the trend of the past decade, the increase in electricity consumption is no longer limited to emerging and developing economies,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol stated in a release. Electricity use is also rising in advanced economies, according to Birol.

Nations are grappling with meeting demand while preparing for the risks brought on by climate change. The IEA says the world is falling short on universal energy access and climate change goals. Around 730 million people still live without electricity, according to the IEA, and despite progress, nearly one-quarter of the global population still relies on inefficient cooking methods that hurt their health or the environment. 2024 was also the hottest year on record.

Nations should diversify their energy sources and cooperate to expand supply chains for critical minerals used to make things like batteries for electric vehicles and components for solar and wind power generation, the IEA said. This also includes making quick improvements to the grid, energy storage and broader infrastructure.

“When we look at the history of the energy world in recent decades, there is no other time when energy security tensions have applied to so many fuels and technologies at once,” Birol said. “With energy security front and (center) for many governments, their responses need to consider the synergies and trade-offs that can arise with other policy goals — on affordability, access, competitiveness and climate change.”

The IEA brought back an approach to this year’s outlook using what it calls current policies. It used this approach in 2019 to weigh different possible global energy outcomes, before better aligning with clean energy transition plans. This year the agency’s outlook includes the possibility of essentially regressing on the phase-out of fossil fuels.

In a conference call Wednesday, Birol said: “We will still use oil. We will still use gas. But the growth of electricity demand is spectacular.”

He noted the role transportation plays in accounting for 45 percent of global oil consumption, for example. “How the electrification of the transportation takes place, especially in countries beyond China and Europe, will determine the shape of the oil demand and growth.”

Wednesday’s edition of the yearly report is the first released since the start of U.S. President Donald Trump’s second term. Trump’s administration has for a second time opted out of the Paris agreement, rolled back dozens of climate regulations, slashed federal support for renewable energies such as wind and solar power and is reversing the “endangerment finding” that sits at the core of U.S. climate policy.

Trump has pledged his support instead to the fossil fuel industry, investing in coal and loosening restrictions on pollution.

But energy analysts said the shift to clean power is happening regardless of climate policy around the world.

“The evidence on the ground is overwhelming,” said Dave Jones, chief analyst at global energy think tank Ember. “EV sales are taking off in many emerging countries, solar is permeating even through the Middle East. Renewables and electrification will dominate the future.”

Maria Pastukhova, energy transition program lead at climate change think tank E3G, said the report makes “the choices for the global energy system and the global economy unambiguous.”

Others, however, were critical of how the outlook addressed oil and gas. Ben Backwell, CEO of the Global Wind Energy Council, said the outlook does not fully capture the momentum in renewables, and that it should have emphasized the trajectory for renewable energy is accelerating, driven by the decreasing cost of the technologies, strong policy support and the move toward electrification.

“We’re accelerating,” he added. “You can see it all around the world and we can see it in our numbers for last year, but also in our numbers for the first half of this year. It looks very, very exciting, both for wind and for solar, in fact, and for next year, even more so.”

The IEA addressed some of the criticism in the call Wednesday. It said that it sees differences economically, politically and regarding clean energy efforts across the globe, and that its analysis tries to account for those differences.

“In a nutshell, the IEA is backsliding,” said Stephan Singer, global energy senior adviser at CAN International, a global network of environmental organizations. “As a global think tank, the IEA has largely failed to represent where most countries in the (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) and the developing world are, as they’re supporting net zero emissions with 98 percent CO2 emissions reductions by mid-century.”

Editor’s note: Associated Press reporters Jennifer McDermott in Providence, Rhode Island, and Sibi Arasu in Bengaluru contributed to this report.

The post IEA: Electricity demand surging faster than energy production appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

BISMARCK, N.D. — A multistate carbon capture pipeline began operating in September, helping reduce emissions from Midwest ethanol plants and carrying that carbon dioxide to be forever buried underground in Wyoming.

Meanwhile, intense opposition has hounded similar projects, including one that has run up $1 billion in spending with no guarantee of success. But Tallgrass’ Trailblazer pipeline is being praised because of community negotiations and financial support.

“I wish all energy companies would treat communities with a lot more respect like Tallgrass did,” said Jane Kleeb, whose group Bold Nebraska has fought other carbon capture and oil pipelines.

The Tallgrass pipeline has started moving emissions from 11 ethanol plants in Nebraska and one in Iowa to a site in southeast Wyoming, where the greenhouse gas will be buried 9,000 feet underground.

The fermentation process to convert corn into fuel releases carbon dioxide. By capturing the gas before it’s released into the air, plants can lower their carbon intensity score, making ethanol more attractive for refinement into so-called sustainable aviation fuel — a market some believe could climb to 50 billion gallons annually. The Midwest-based ethanol industry sees jet fuel as essential to its future, offsetting expected declines in demand for motor vehicle fuel as more drivers switch to electric vehicles.

The federal government encourages carbon capture through lucrative tax credits to pipeline operators. The Biden administration wanted to encourage a practice that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the Trump administration has let the credits continue.

“If an ethanol plant captures the carbon, it lowers their carbon index and they become a low-carbon fuel, and there’s a premium for that,” said Tom Buis, CEO of the American Carbon Alliance, a trade group. “And they can also produce sustainable aviation fuel out of it. Sustainable aviation fuel is a huge, gigantic market just waiting for someone to step forward and take it.”

At least three other companies have proposed carbon capture pipelines in the Midwest, but aside from Tallgrass, only Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions is persisting — and it hasn’t been easy.

Summit has proposed a multibillion-dollar, five-state network encompassing dozens of ethanol plants, thousands of miles of pipe and underground storage in North Dakota.

Despite strong support from agricultural groups and the ethanol industry, Summit has dealt with persistent opponents who don’t want their land taken for the pipeline and fear a hazardous pipe rupture. Landowners sued to block the pipeline and sought help from legislators. The South Dakota Legislature banned the use of eminent domain for such lines.

In response Summit has asked Iowa regulators to amend its permit so the company retains an option for a route that would avoid South Dakota.

“Our focus remains on supporting as many ethanol partners as possible and building a strong foundation that helps farmers, ethanol plants, and rural communities access the markets they’ll depend on for decades to come,” Summit stated.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency oversees a rigorous process for underground carbon dioxide injection, involving permits for construction and injection and regulations to protect underground sources of drinking water, Carbon Capture Coalition Executive Director Jessie Stolark said. Typically, porous rock formations like a sponge will store or trap the carbon dioxide more than a mile underground, she said.

Tallgrass had one big advantage at the starting point — it converted an existing natural gas line. The natural gas was sent to a different pipeline as Trailblazer was retrofitted. The company built branches off the 400-mile mainline to connect to ethanol plants.

But Tallgrass also took pains to engage with communities along its route.

The company worked with people to get its project done “instead of trying to push it down our throat,” said Lee Hogan, chairman of the Adams County commission in Nebraska. His home is half a mile from the pipeline.

Tallgrass benefited from working with Bold Nebraska, a citizens group, to create a community investment fund that will make annual payments to organizations related to early childhood development, Medicaid-eligible senior care and food pantries.

Tallgrass will make an initial $500,000 contribution followed by annual payments based on 10 cents per metric ton of carbon dioxide sent through the pipeline. The Nebraska Community Foundation, which will manage the fund, expects more than $7 million will be given out through 2035 across 31 counties in four states.

It’s a unique arrangement, and a possible template for future projects, Nebraska Community Foundation leader Jeff Yost said.

“I’m just really impressed that folks that could have just approached this purely as opponents have come together to find a really productive middle ground,” Yost said.

Tallgrass spokesman Steven Davidson said the investment fund is just one piece of the company’s agreement with Bold Nebraska, which he said emphasizes being cooperative and transparent, such as when surveying land and valuing easements.

While lauding Tallgrass’ cooperative approach, Jack Andreasen Cavanaugh, who studies energy policy at Columbia University, said it may be hard to replicate the experience since few if any natural gas pipelines will be available for retrofitting, given increases in supply and demand for natural gas domestically and abroad. Tallgrass’ line crosses his family’s land in Nebraska.

Still, companies can do better to engage and negotiate with communities, and that includes spending money, he said.

Kyle Quackenbush, a Tallgrass vice president, said his advice to other pipeline companies is to listen.

“I think the biggest advice we would have for people is to take those concerns seriously,” he said, “and figure out what it takes to be able to help people get comfortable and understand that this infrastructure is a benefit for their community and not something that they need to be afraid of.”

The post Tallgrass carbon capture pipeline sets Midwest standard appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Several groups and nonprofit organizations on Monday filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency over the cancellation of a $7 billion Solar for All program intended to make solar power accessible to more than 900,000 lower-income Americans.

They say the Trump administration‘s termination of the program was illegal and they want a federal judge to direct the EPA to reinstate it. The program is affiliated with $20 billion more in green funding also terminated under President Donald Trump that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin had characterized as a fraudulent scheme fraught with waste.

The EPA does not comment on litigation, the agency stated in an email on Monday.

The lawsuit is the latest legal action taken against the administration amid its assault on clean energy policy and related funding and programs across the country. Trump has moved to boost production of fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal.

The lawsuit filed in Rhode Island by the Rhode Island AFL-CIO labor organization and others — including public interest law center Rhode Island Center for Justice and nonprofit Solar United Neighbors — detailed the program’s importance for local workforces and lower-income communities looking for access to clean-energy project funding.

Patrick Crowley, president of the Rhode Island AFL-CIO, said Monday that the program’s termination kills jobs and will drive up electricity prices.

The Solar for All money was rescinded after Trump’s massive tax and spending law passed in Congress in July. Zeldin stated via social media at the time, “the bottom line is this: EPA no longer has the statutory authority to administer the program or the appropriated funds to keep this boondoggle alive.”

The groups argued in the lawsuit that the law only revoked climate grants not yet awarded by the EPA and that these solar funds were already awarded.

“The Trump administration’s rollback of the Solar for All program is a shameless attempt to prop up fossil fuel companies at the expense of families,” said Kate Sinding Daly, senior vice president for law and policy at the Conservation Law Foundation, one of the nonprofit legal advocacy groups representing the plaintiffs.

“This program would provide families with low incomes access to clean, affordable solar power: energy that lowers bills, improves air quality, and keeps people safer during extreme heat,” she added in a statement.

The lawsuit cites previous EPA estimates that the program would have saved recipients about $400 each year on electricity bills and cumulatively reduced or avoided greenhouse gas emissions by over 30 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

The $7 billion Solar for All program was part of the $27 billion “green bank,” which is formally known as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. It was established in the Democrat-backed climate law passed in 2022 under former President Joe Biden.

The other $20 billion, canceled by the Trump administration in March, was slated for eight community development banks and nonprofit organizations for tens of thousands of projects to combat the effects of climate change, such as residential energy efficiency projects to larger-scale investments such as community cooling.

Groups have also sued over the cancellation of that money — with a federal judge saying they must have access to some of the funds — though recently, an appeals court ruled that federal officials can move forward with its termination.

The Trump administration has targeted a host of programs and policies dedicated to clean energy.

Just last week, the administration canceled $7.6 billion in grants for hundreds of climate-friendly projects across 16 states. It has also interfered with nearly complete offshore wind developments, moved to rescind the crucial ‘endangerment finding’ that allows climate regulation, is looking to end greenhouse gas emissions reporting requirements for large polluters, and taken a slew of other deregulatory measures.

The post Groups sue EPA over cancellation of $7B Solar for All plan appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled Monday that a nearly complete offshore wind project halted by the Trump administration can resume, dealing the president a setback in his ongoing effort to restrict the fledgling industry.

Work on the Revolution Wind project for Rhode Island and Connecticut was paused Aug. 22, when the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management issued a stop-work order for what it said were national security concerns. The Interior Department agency did not specify those concerns at the time. Both the developer and the two states sued in federal courts.

Danish energy company Orsted and its joint venture partner, Skyborn Renewables, sought a preliminary injunction in U.S. District Court that would allow them to move the project forward.

At a hearing Monday, Judge Royce Lamberth said he considered how Revolution Wind has relied on its federal approval, the delays are costing $2.3 million per day and if the project can’t meet deadlines, the entire enterprise could collapse. After December, the specialized ship needed to complete the project won’t be available until at least 2028, he said. More than 1,000 people have been working on the wind farm, which is 80 percent complete.

“There is no question in my mind of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs,” Lamberth said, as he granted the motion for the preliminary injunction. In his written ruling, he said Revolution Wind had “demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits” of its claim, adding that granting the injunction is in the public interest.

Interior Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Peace said the ruling means Revolution Wind “will be able to resume construction” while the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management “continues its investigation into possible impacts by the project to national security and prevention of other uses on the Outer Continental Shelf.”

The administration said in a court filing this month that while BOEM approved the wind farm, it stipulated that the developer continue to work with the Defense Department to mitigate national security concerns. It said the Interior Department, to date, has not received any information that these concerns have been addressed.

Orsted said Monday that construction will resume as soon as possible, and it will continue to seek to work collaboratively with the administration.

Nancy Pyne of the Sierra Club said the court ruling “reaffirms that Donald Trump and his administration’s attacks on clean energy are not only reckless and harmful to our communities, but they are also illegal.” Trump is trying to “kneecap” renewable energy “in favor of dirty and expensive fossil fuels,” she said.

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said Trump was elected with a mandate to “restore our country’s energy dominance — which includes prioritizing the most effective and reliable tools to power our country. This will not be the final say on the matter.”

On the campaign trail, Trump vowed to end the offshore wind industry as soon as he returned to the White House. He has said he wants to boost production of fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal for the U.S. to have the lowest-cost energy and electricity of any nation in the world.

The Trump administration has stopped construction on major offshore wind farms, revoked wind energy permits and paused permitting, canceled plans to use large areas of federal waters for new offshore wind development, and stopped $679 million in federal funding for a dozen offshore wind projects.

Last week, the administration moved to block a separate Massachusetts offshore wind farm. That was just days after the Interior Department asked a federal judge in Baltimore to cancel previous approval for construction of an offshore wind project in Maryland.

Revolution Wind is supposed to be Rhode Island’s and Connecticut’s first large offshore wind farm — capable of supplying power to more than 350,000 homes. The complex is expected to meet about 2.5 percent of the region’s electricity needs.

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong and Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha, both Democrats, called the judge’s ruling a major win for workers and families, who need the project to stay on track so it can start to drive down unaffordable energy bills.

Connecticut Rep. Joe Courtney, a Democrat, said a multibillion-dollar project that is 80 percent complete and was fully permitted with input from the Pentagon is not a national security problem. The Interior Department “should take the hint and let the thousands of construction workers finish the job,” he said.

Orsted began construction in 2024 about 15 miles south of the Rhode Island coast. It says in its complaint that about $5 billion has been spent or committed, and it expects more than $1 billion in costs if the project is canceled. Rhode Island is already home to the five-turbine, offshore Block Island Wind Farm.

Editor’s note: McDermott reported from Providence, Rhode Island. AP writer Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut contributed to this report.

The post Judge allows Revolution Wind construction to resume appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Connecticut, Rhode Island and the developer of an offshore wind farm that would power 350,000 homes in the two states said Thursday that they’re suing the Trump administration for stopping the nearly completed project.

Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha accused President Donald Trump of waging an “all-out assault” on the wind energy industry. The states’ lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island, describes the Revolution Wind project as a “cornerstone” of their clean energy future, abruptly halted by federal officials without “statutory authority, regulatory justification or factual basis.”

Danish energy company Orsted filed a separate suit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., also arguing that the administration lacks the legal authority to block the Revolution Wind project. Orsted said it would seek a preliminary injunction that would allow it to advance the project, which is 80 percent complete, with all underwater foundations and 45 of 65 turbines installed.

Interior Department spokesperson Elizabeth Peace said Thursday that the department doesn’t comment on pending litigation.

Work on the project was paused Aug. 22 when the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management issued a stop work order for what it said were national security concerns. They were not specified.

Trump has demonstrated hostility to renewable energy, particularly offshore wind. He has prioritized fossil fuels for electricity. Revolution Wind is the second major wind project that his administration ordered to stop. Work on the first, an offshore wind project for New York, was later allowed to resume.

In separate federal court filings, the administration said recently it was reconsidering approvals for three other wind farms: the Maryland Offshore Wind Project, SouthCoast Wind and New England Wind. Combined, those projects could power nearly 2.5 million homes in Maryland, Massachusetts and Rhode Island with clean electricity.

Sens. Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren, both Democrats representing Massachusetts, said Trump and his Cabinet “need to end their war on American energy and jobs.”

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told CNN that he’s concerned offshore wind turbines distort radar detection systems, which could give cover to a bad actor to “launch a swarm drone attack through a wind farm.”

Retired U.S. Navy Cmdr. Kirk Lippold called that a “specious and false narrative” pushed by someone with an “overactive imagination in search of a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.”

Lippold was commanding the USS Cole when al-Qaida attacked it in a Yemeni port in 2000.

If drones get so close to U.S. shores to be near a wind farm without being detected by the military, he said, “we have had a massive intelligence — a national security — failure.”

U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat and national security expert, has also disputed the administration’s rationale, pointing to the Defense Department’s involvement in reviewing the project.

When the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management approved Revolution Wind in 2023, the agency said it consulted with the Defense Department at each stage of the regulatory process for the lease area assigned to the wind farm. The DOD concluded that with some site-specific stipulations, any impacts to its training and activities in the wind energy area would be “negligible and avoidable,” according to the record of decision.

The state and federal reviews took about nine years.

Trump and several Cabinet members repeatedly slammed wind power as ugly and expensive during a recent meeting. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. talked about the failure of a massive wind turbine blade at a different offshore wind farm under construction off Nantucket, Massachusetts.

Fiberglass fragments of a blade from the Vineyard Wind project broke apart and began washing ashore last summer during the peak of tourist season. Manufacturer GE Vernova agreed to pay $10.5 million in a settlement to compensate island businesses that suffered losses due to the blade failure.

“We’re not allowing any windmills to go up unless there’s a legal situation where somebody committed to it a long time ago,” Trump said.

Revolution Wind was expected to be Rhode Island and Connecticut’s first large offshore wind farm, capable of providing about 2.5 percent of the region’s electricity needs.

Orsted began construction in 2024 about 15 miles south of the Rhode Island coast. It says in its complaint that about $5 billion has been spent or committed, and it expects more than $1 billion in costs if the project is canceled. Rhode Island already has one offshore facility: the five-turbine Block Island Wind Farm.

Rhode Island and Connecticut have said that halting construction of Revolution Wind would harm the states, their residents, investments and the offshore wind industry. More than 1,000 people have been working on the wind farm, and Connecticut committed over $200 million to redevelop State Pier in New London to support the industry.

The states said they’re counting on Revolution Wind electricity, particularly in the winter, when demand in New England spikes and natural gas is prioritized for heating. The power would cost 9.8 cents per kilowatt-hour, locked in for 20 years. That’s cheaper than the average projected cost of energy in New England.

The head of Connecticut’s top environmental and energy agency, Katie Dykes, predicts it will cost the state’s electricity ratepayers tens of millions of dollars if the wind project doesn’t come online.

Editor’s note: AP writers Matthew Daly in Washington and Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut contributed to this report.

The post Rhode Island, Connecticut sue over wind farm project halt appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Trump administration is canceling plans to use large areas of federal waters for new offshore wind development — the latest step to suppress the industry in the United States.

More than 3.5 million acres had been designated wind energy areas, as offshore locations deemed most suitable for development. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is now rescinding all designated wind energy areas in federal waters, announcing on Wednesday an end to setting aside large areas for “speculative wind development.”

Offshore wind lease sales were anticipated off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Maine, New York, California and Oregon, as well as in the central Atlantic. The Biden administration last year had announced a five-year schedule to lease federal offshore tracts for wind energy production.

Trump began reversing the country’s energy policies after taking office in January. A series of executive orders took aim at increasing oil, gas and coal production. Another early executive order temporarily halted offshore wind lease sales in federal waters and paused the issuance of approvals, permits and loans for all wind projects.

The bureau said it was acting in accordance with Trump’s action and an order by his interior secretary this week to end any preferential treatment toward wind and solar facilities, which were described as unreliable, foreign-controlled energy sources.

Robin Shaffer, president of Protect Our Coast NJ, applauded the administration for its actions and said they were long overdue. Opponents of offshore wind projects are particularly vocal and organized in New Jersey.

“It’s hard to believe these projects ever got this far because of the immensity, scale, scope and expense, compared to relatively cheap and reliable forms of onshore power,” he said Thursday. “We’re nearly there, but we haven’t reached the finish line yet.”

The Sierra Club said the administration’s “relentless obstruction of wind energy” shows it does not care about creating affordable, reliable energy for everyday Americans.

“No matter how much they want to bolster their buddies in the dirty fossil fuel industry, we will continue to push for the cleaner, healthier, and greener future we deserve,” Xavier Boatright, Sierra Club’s deputy legislative director for clean energy and electrification, stated.

Attorneys general from 17 states and the District of Columbia are suing in federal court to challenge Trump’s executive order halting leasing and permitting for wind energy projects. His administration had also halted work on a major offshore wind project for New York but allowed it to resume in May.

The nation’s first commercial-scale offshore wind farm, a 12-turbine facility called South Fork, opened last year east of Montauk Point, New York.

The post Plans for new U.S. offshore wind projects canceled appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The multitrillion-dollar tax breaks package passed by House Republicans early Thursday would gut clean energy tax credits that Democrats approved three years ago while supporting increased mining, drilling and other traditional energy production.

A marathon session that began Wednesday resulted in 1,100-plus page legislation that curbs billions of dollars in spending across food assistance, student loans, Medicaid and action to address climate change.

The bill, which now heads to the Senate, repeals or phases out more quickly clean energy tax credits passed in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act during former President Joe Biden’s term. Biden’s climate law has been considered monumental for the clean energy transition, but the House bill effectively renders moot much of the law’s incentives for renewable energy such as wind and solar power.

Clean energy advocates said the bill walks back the largest government investment in clean energy in history.

“In a bid to cut taxes for billionaires and provide a grab bag of goodies to Big Oil, the majority in the House took a sledgehammer to clean energy tax credits and to the protection of our public lands,” said Christy Goldfuss, executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“These credits are delivering billions of dollars in new investments in homegrown American energy — creating jobs, lowering energy costs and addressing the climate crisis that is fueling floods, fires and heat waves,” Goldfuss said.

President Donald Trump celebrated the bill’s passage, calling it “arguably the most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country.” Trump appealed to the Senate to pass the measure as soon as possible and send it to his desk.

The Senate hopes to wrap up its version by early July. At least four Republican senators, led by Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have urged continuation of energy tax credits, including support for traditional and renewable energy sources. Republican-led states and Congressional districts have benefited from billions of dollars in clean energy manufacturing investments spurred by the Biden-era subsidies.

Full-scale repeal of current credits “could lead to significant disruptions for the American people and weaken our position as a global energy leader,” the senators said in a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D.

“A wholesale repeal, or the termination of certain individual credits, would create uncertainty, jeopardizing … job creation in the energy sector and across our broader economy,” the senators wrote in the April 9 letter. The letter was also signed by GOP Sens. John Curtis of Utah, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Jerry Moran of Kansas.

In a win for House moderates and some Western lawmakers, the House bill strips language that would have allowed the sale of hundreds of thousands acres of public lands in Utah and Nevada. Opponents argued the sales would have opened the door for more oil and gas drilling.

What was gutted in the bill

The House bill takes an axe to tax credits for rooftop solar installments and eliminates electric vehicle tax credits after 2025, with a one-year exception for EVs manufactured by automakers that have sold fewer than 200,000 cars that qualified for the credit.

Credits for solar and electric vehicles, which reduce harmful emissions, help to boost demand for the technologies and drive down their cost.

House Republicans also tightened tax credit restrictions for projects associated with foreign entities, including China — an added blow to domestic clean energy expansion since China dominates much of the supply chain.

The bill slashes a three-year phase-down schedule previously proposed, and instead cuts off projects that don’t start construction within 60 days of the bill’s passage. Those projects would also have to start operating before 2029.

“This bill threatens the clean energy industry at a time when it’s proving to be not only economically beneficial — lowering costs, creating jobs and fueling local economies — but also essential to America’s energy future,” said Andrew Reagan, president of Clean Energy for America, an industry group.

The American Petroleum Institute, which represents the oil and gas industry, applauded the bill as a step to “restore American energy dominance.”

“By preserving competitive tax policies, opening lease sales” for oil and gas drilling and advancing permitting reforms, the legislation “is a win for our nation’s energy future,” API President Mike Sommers said in a statement.

No sale of public lands

At the behest of Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke and some other Republicans, lawmakers stripped a provision that would have sold or transferred about 460,000 acres of federal land in Nevada and Utah to local governments or private entities.

The proposal exposed sharp divisions between Western Republicans who say the federal government controls too much of their states and others such as Zinke, a former Interior secretary in Trump’s first term whose state is protective of access to lands for hunting and recreation.

“At the heart of the matter is that public land that’s in the federal estate belongs to everybody,” Zinke told The Associated Press on Thursday. “To suggest that you’re going to sell land to pay off the debt, I think that’s misguided and, quite frankly, disingenuous.”

The land sales had been inserted in the bill following a late-night committee vote, despite earlier pledges from Republican leaders that the sales were off the table.

Supporters said they would generate revenue and ease growth pressures by creating room for more and cheaper housing in booming Western cities such as Las Vegas, Reno, Nevada, and St. George, Utah. Those communities are hemmed in by federal property, which makes up 80 percent of the land in Nevada and 63 percent in Utah.

A spokesperson for Nevada Republican Rep. Mark Amodei, who sponsored the bid to sell federal lands in his state, said his office was “exploring all options” to make the transfers happen.

Housing advocates had cautioned federal land is not universally suitable for affordable housing, and some of the parcels to be sold were far from developed areas.

Tracy Stone-Manning, president of the Wilderness Society and a former director of the Bureau of Land Management under Biden, said she appreciated Zinke’s work to prevent the public lands sale.

But she said the bill was still a “big giveaway” to the private sector. “By opening hundreds of millions of acres to drilling, mining and logging to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, this bill harms the tens of millions of people who like to hike, recreate or find solace in the outdoors,” she said.

Trump targets Biden’s climate policy

At the same time the bill slashes support for clean energy, it paves the way for oil, gas and coal.

Through the bill, natural gas pipeline developers can pay a $10 million fee for expedited permitting, and applicants for a potential liquefied natural gas export site can pay a $1 million fee to be deemed in the “public interest,” circumventing what is usually a regulatory challenge.

The post House GOP bill slashes clean energy tax credits appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.