Back
The wind turbines arrived in Gloucester at the same time I did. My husband and I moved into a cheap third-floor apartment in the small coastal city in northern Massachusetts in November 2012, just as cranes were assembling the imposing white towers right next to the highway that ushered us into town.
I loved them immediately. Like me, they were newcomers in an old town, looking to the future. Gloucester celebrated its 400th birthday a few years ago, and many families, including my husband’s, have lived here for well over a century. Our daughter, born in 2016, is at least a fifth-generation Gloucesterite. As a toddler playing in our yard, she would glimpse the blades turning in the distance and announce excitedly, “The fans are spinning!”
There were originally three turbines, standing sentinel over the town at the ocean’s edge. Two of these provided electricity to the city through a 25-year power purchase agreement, offsetting 50% to 70% of Gloucester’s municipal energy use. The city also received 20% of the money the spinning blades generated each year, a number that ranged from around $100,000 in the first year of operation to as much as $478,000 in later years.
The first turbine to go up was also the first to come down, removed in 2023 after a series of mechanical failures and a blade unexpectedly falling off. The two that remained continued generating power for years, though supply chain problems delayed needed maintenance and caused unexpected downtime, the owners said. In recent months, residents noticed the turbines appeared to be dripping oil. When the blades stopped turning this fall, people started asking questions about their future.
In January, our local paper broke the news that the turbines’ owner had decided to decommission them. The explanation: The company, a major semiconductor engineering firm, wants to expand its footprint here and needs the land. In compensation for the early termination, Gloucester will receive a payment of $587,000.
Some staunch opponents of wind power have taken the announcement as vindication. Community Facebook groups immediately lit up with I-told-you-sos, declaring the turbines’ 13 years of operation a clear failure. Some even used the early end of Gloucester’s three land-based turbines as proof that large-scale offshore wind could never be successful.
“They are painting the reason why they are being taken down as a failure of wind power,” said City Councilor Jason Grow, a vocal supporter of the turbines.
A second, somewhat quieter group, though, is lamenting their imminent loss.
“I have a feeling of not despair, certainly, but I feel stalled,” said Janet Ruth Young, a local writer and musician. “I feel that there’s a stagnancy where there used to be hope and movement and change.”
When new solar farms or wind turbines are proposed, news stories usually follow detailing opponents’ objections, which are largely rooted in a connection to place and respect for the character of a community. The opponents chose to live in this place — the small mountain town, the historic waterfront city — for the trees and the air and the character, not the lines of turbines on a hilltop or the sun glinting off expanses of solar panels. These positions are, at their heart, emotional and, it seems to me, sincerely felt. I am not here to judge motivations or to parse how much weight such arguments should be given.
However, stories about the debate depict support for clean energy as all about the money to be saved and the greenhouse gas emissions to be lowered. The proponents of solar panels and wind turbines are rendered as a collection of financial and environmental abstractions rather than real people.
In Gloucester, it is clear that framing doesn’t fully capture the reality. Though our community is deeply — sometimes stubbornly — dedicated to history and tradition, the turbines worked themselves into the fabric of the city. They were symbols of progress, an indelible part of our skyline, friendly ambassadors welcoming visitors and residents driving into town.
Linda Brayton was involved in the turbine project from the very beginning, when she volunteered in 2005, she thinks, to serve on a task force investigating the possibility of bringing wind energy to the city. Renewable power was still on the margins of the energy conversation then — Massachusetts had less than a gigawatt of installed capacity, a number that more than quintupled from 2013 to 2024.
For years, Brayton sat in meetings and listened to opponents hurl insults and misinformation. She stuck with it through the evaluation of several potential sites, timelines, and ownership structures.
In October 2012, when the first components finally arrived by boat in Gloucester Harbor, she sat by the water with her niece and watched as a crane lifted the long white tower from a ship onto a flatbed truck, to be driven through the winding downtown streets to its destination in an industrial park.
“It was really the most amazing day,” Brayton said. “I broke into tears. It was so beautiful, and it had been such a long time coming.”
As the turbines were going up, the city held an event during which more than 2,000 residents inked their names on a blade, quite literally signing on to the progressive vision the project represented for many residents. At the event, then-Mayor Carolyn Kirk (who now heads up the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, a public agency supporting innovation) read the poem “Sea-Fever” by John Masefield, placing the turbines squarely within the fishing town’s legacy of depending on the wind: “And all I ask is a windy day with the white clouds flying.”
The following year, Kirk remembers, she had a chance to climb to the top of one of the turbines, gripping the ladder rungs tightly as it shook and swayed. The experience of standing, exhausted, at the top, some 400 feet in the air, was “incredible,” she said.
The turbines punctuating the horizon quickly became part of the city. They even earned nicknames. Young wrote and performed a song for the city council praising the “Three Sisters.” Brayton recalls people referring to them as the “Three Magi.” In a letter in the Gloucester Daily Times, one supporter likened them to kinetic sculptures and shared the names he gave them: Remus, Romulus, and Big Earl.
One local resident said on Facebook that when she saw the turbines on her first job interview in Gloucester, she knew the community would be a great place to live. A neighbor told me that spotting them — they are highly visible from many spots in the city — often helped relieve some of his stress as a renewable energy supporter enduring the Trump administration’s relentless hostility. They were a sign of something going right.
As the two remaining turbines get ready to come down, though, must we feel that something has gone wrong? It is, perhaps, a hard conclusion to avoid when a once-promising project comes to an end 12 years early. If the turbines had been more profitable or productive or required less maintenance, maybe the owners would have chosen to keep them and expand elsewhere. And the decommissioning plan has fueled the fire of those who are anti-wind, onshore or off.
The world is a different place now than back when Gloucester first started discussing the possibility of turbines, and coal and oil were still significant contributors to energy production in New England. Vitriol against offshore wind may be at an all-time high, yet projects off Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island are churning out power, with more expected in coming years. While the Trump administration has done its best to pull back funding for solar, the grid operator ISO New England projects that by 2040 the region will add another 28 GW of solar capacity to the roughly 6.5 GW it had in 2024.
What those next 14 years will bring for Gloucester is an open question. The removal of the wind turbines, however, can not reverse the trends that have gained momentum throughout the region. Nor can it undo the excitement and joy the spinning blades brought to many residents. It can’t stop us from looking forward, and it can’t stop us from hoping.
Sunny Arizona closed out 2025 as the second-biggest state for battery and solar construction. Now, a policy that helped kick-start this success could be going away.
The Arizona Corporation Commission, the elected body that regulates utilities, unanimously voted in early March to eliminate the state’s renewable portfolio standard. The policy, which the commission set in 2006, called for 15% renewable electricity by 2025. The state hit that target; thus, in the words of Commissioner Kevin Thompson, it was time to move beyond “mandates that have outlived their useful life.”
The commissioners — all of whom are Republicans — critiqued the mandate for costs it imposed: It pushed utilities to sign long-term contracts for renewable energy years ago, when it was more expensive than it is now, and added surcharges on customers’ bills to pay for those contracts and for incentives for households to adopt clean energy.
State leaders around the country are searching for tools to bring down soaring electricity costs for their constituents. Arizona’s decision has parallels in many Democratic-led states that are currently targeting surcharges from their own climate policies in the name of improving affordability.
Crucially, it’s not clear whether the end of Arizona’s renewables standard will noticeably lower customers’ bills, given that utilities are still beholden to those long-term contracts they signed a while ago with renewable energy developers.
These concerns took on new pertinence Monday, when State Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, filed for a rehearing of the decision, charging that the commission failed to complete “the legally required economic analysis.” That gives the regulators 20 calendar days to grant or deny a rehearing. The repeal needs a sign-off from the attorney general to officially take effect, so this opposition could complicate that typically uneventful procedure.
Mayes, who is running for reelection this fall, sat on the commission back when it created the renewables mandate. Back then, it pursued the mandate in the interest of affordability: “An increased reliance on local free energy resources will avoid the negative impacts of energy cost run-ups as were experienced in 2005” after Hurricane Katrina and other storms destroyed swaths of U.S. fossil fuel infrastructure, the commission noted at the time. In the last decade, the same regulatory body chastised utilities for investing too heavily in gas power, and it developed a 100% clean energy standard for the state (though the commissioners ultimately voted down their own proposal).
Today, Arizona’s renewables market is booming, and the operating plants aren’t going to disappear just because the mandate might. But with utilities embracing big gas investments to keep pace with soaring demand, the mix could slip back below 15% renewables.
As Arizona’s power demand rises faster than nearly anywhere else in the country, electricity consumers there need effective, rather than symbolic, tools to contain costs.
One thing that is undeniable: Clean energy has been crushing it in Arizona lately. The state holds the third-highest grid battery capacity (after California and Texas) and the fourth-highest solar capacity (after California, Texas, and Florida). Indeed, Arizona more than doubled its battery fleet from 2024 to 2025, hitting 4.7 gigawatts and growing at a much faster rate than the two leading battery states.
Overall, Arizona gets about 44% of its electricity from natural gas, a fuel that is not harvested within the state and must be imported from elsewhere in the country. Coal used to rule the roost but has declined to marginality over the last decade. The Palo Verde nuclear plant outside Phoenix has cranked out steady carbon-free power since the 1970s and now accounts for 26% of the state’s production. There’s a little bit of hydropower and wind, but solar — which generates roughly 16% of Arizona’s electricity — drives all the clean growth, with help from the lithium-ion batteries storing it for post-sunset hours.
Arizona has plenty to offer a solar or battery developer. Its desert environment furnishes ample sunshine, and there’s a lot of space to build. The state doesn’t have an open energy market like Texas does, but its utilities have proactively solicited competitive bids for new electricity supplies and handed out contracts to developers who bring winning solar and storage proposals. Indeed, Arizona Public Service, the biggest power company in the state, set an internal corporate goal back in 2020 to get 100% clean electricity by 2050 — and gained ample experience in contracting for clean energy. But it abandoned that ambitious target in August, choosing to extend the life of a major coal plant and invest more in gas infrastructure amid soaring demand.
For decades, Phoenix has attracted a steady influx of residents who like the affordable real estate and dry desert air, and aren’t deterred by the occasional bout of triple-digit heat. More recently, the region has also drawn a spate of data centers: Arizona hosts 2 gigawatts of active data centers, according to independent analyst Michael Thomas.
That’s just a taste of what might be coming. Thomas noted in a January post that Arizona Public Service has 30 GW of proposed data centers in its queue for grid connection, several times more than the utility’s peak demand record of 8.5 GW. That gargantuan mismatch is reason enough to doubt that much of the proposed buildout will ever materialize. Still, the utility has already mobilized to construct a 2-GW gas plant to keep pace with this new demand.
The propulsive growth in consumption creates new urgency for clean energy in terms of both planet-warming emissions and affordability. The state’s progress on cleaning up its electricity supply could slow or reverse if renewables stall out just as utilities fast-track constructing fossil fuel plants. And an assertive clean-energy expansion could help keep prices lower in a period of tight supply. That’s especially true as the turbines used in gas plants get more expensive amid yearslong supply chain backlogs. Furthermore, since Arizona lacks its own gas supplies, consuming more of the fuel requires building more pipelines and shipping more dollars out of state.
At this pivotal moment for Arizona’s energy outlook, details included in the Arizona Corporation Commission’s decision cast doubt on whether customers will save much money from the end of the mandate.
The regulators focused their criticism on costs imposed on customers over the years by the surcharges utilities levied to fulfill the renewables mandate. The implication was that eliminating the mandate would therefore lower people’s bills going forward.
But that rhetoric doesn’t match the facts in the official proceeding, said Autumn Johnson, who argued against the repeal as the leader of the state affiliate of the Solar Energy Industries Association.
The commission’s economic impact statement does say that utilities “may see some marginal savings” from forgoing the administrative work involved in complying with the requirements. However, it notes, one utility indicated that “most renewable-related costs will continue due to long-term contractual and programmatic obligations, which may limit overall savings.”
The rule changes don’t eliminate American contract law. Utilities will still have to pay for contracts they signed years ago, and those costs will continue to be recovered as surcharges, a commission spokesperson confirmed. Utilities had already fulfilled the requirement, so it wasn’t likely to force their hand in signing new deals. Even if it did, solar and battery proposals today compete extremely well on the cost of power; an extra nudge to pick the cheapest source of new kilowatt-hours should not unduly raise costs on consumers.
“What does it say to the country, what does it say to the industry, if even this tiny, anemic RPS [renewables portfolio standard] that’s honestly embarrassing, even that we have a problem with?” Johnson said. “This is just to signal that you don’t like renewables, which I think is really not smart from an economic development standpoint.”
As for why sitting regulators might want to signal such a thing, two of the regulators quoted in the press release are running for reelection in November, with a primary on July 21. Kevin Thompson and Nick Myers are facing primary challenges from state legislators Ralph Heap and David Marshall, who are campaigning to “stop the Green New Deal” and “oppose harmful rate hikes.” This vote gives the incumbents something to talk about to show they are working on affordability while pruning what they see as government overreach.
It’s also possible that the repeal, if enacted, won’t materially damage the pace of the clean energy buildout, since the mandate wasn’t driving that buildout anymore. Excising the old policy enables renewables developers to make a clearer case that they’re winning on the merits, not because of state favoritism.
Still, Arizona’s retreat on its renewables policy coincides with other forces acting against the clean energy industry. Local jurisdictions in the state are passing ordinances that could stymie solar and battery development through restrictive permitting, Johnson said. The Trump administration is phasing out tax incentives for wind and solar installations and holding up permitting for projects on public lands. Arizona’s rooftop solar market has contracted since the state lowered the rate of compensation for customers who send power from their panels back to the grid, and imposed what Johnson called “punitive fees” on those households.
In sum, Johnson hopes the recent clean-energy success story continues in Arizona, but stressed that this outcome is not guaranteed.
“You can’t maintain a third ranking for storage and fourth or fifth ranking for solar if you continue to do things that are antagonistic to those industries,” Johnson said.
Now, the fate of the renewables policy hangs on the wrangling between the attorney general and the commissioners, as election-year politics spices up the usually mild world of utility regulation.
See more from Canary Media’s “Chart of the Week” column.
The European Union is once again facing an energy crisis due to its reliance on imported fossil fuels — and is once again poised to lean into renewables to blunt the effects.
As the war in the Middle East upends global oil and gas markets, European Union energy chief Dan Jørgensen urged member states on Tuesday to build even more renewable energy, faster.
It’s an uncomfortable but familiar position for the EU. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the bloc rapidly reduced its reliance on Russian gas imports and swiftly built out new wind and solar power to cushion the blow to the region’s electricity sector.
The results speak for themselves. The European Union more than doubled its solar generation between 2021 and 2025. Wind grew at a more modest 24% over that time period, but it was already providing a higher share of the bloc’s electricity generation. Meanwhile, fossil fuel–generated electricity declined. For the first time ever, in 2025 the EU produced more electricity from wind and solar than it did from fossil fuels.
But the region has not ditched gas entirely. The EU got about 17% of its electricity from gas last year, and it imports almost all the natural gas it burns — 86% in 2024.
That means its energy system is still exposed to the historic disruption caused by the Iran war. The war has shut down liquefied natural gas production in Qatar, the world’s second-largest exporter of the fuel, for the past month. Gas prices globally and in the EU have surged as a result.
This energy shock will be messy and play out in different stages. For Europe, the most immediate and acute effects are being felt in the availability of jet fuel and diesel. But electricity costs will rise too, as nations are forced to buy much-more-expensive natural gas. In certain countries, it will also get dirtier, at least for a time — some EU nations are relying more heavily on coal-fired electricity to get them through the immediate fallout.
But over the longer term, this energy shock is likely to produce the same outcome as the previous one: an even faster transition away from imported fossil fuels and to domestic wind and solar.
This analysis and news roundup come from the Canary Media Weekly newsletter. Sign up to get it every Friday.
Renewable energy’s favorite season has arrived.
Spring is when everything comes together for clean power sources. Days get longer, boosting solar generation. Winter’s blustery winds keep blowing, propelling turbines to their max. And melting snow and heavy rains combine to drive hydropower generation.
Previous springs have shown us just what this wild weather is capable of. In the first week of March 2025, Texas’ power grid, known as ERCOT, set all-time records for wind and solar power production as well as battery storage discharge.
Now, just a few weeks into spring, and with plenty more renewable power generation added in the past year, Texas is once again reaching new heights. On March 14, ERCOT reached an all-time high of 28.7 gigawatts of wind power, according to GridStatus.io. Even more impressive is the state’s solar generation, which has already set multiple records so far this year.
And while Texas is the country’s clean power leader, it’s not the only region with renewable power victories to show. Solar records have been achieved across the Southwest Power Pool, PJM Interconnection, the Independent System Operator New England, and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator this spring. ISO-NE also hit a record level for wind power generation, while MISO reached its pinnacle for overall renewables generation.
And in California, batteries stored a ton of that clean energy, and then set record after record for dispatching it throughout March.
A lot of those records were only made possible thanks to the U.S. adding 26.5 GW of utility-scale solar power generation in 2025, and another 5.7 GW of wind generation. A massive 13 GW of grid battery installations last year helped make full use of those renewables.
There’s an added bonus to all these records happening as the weather starts to warm. Most of us are starting to turn down our furnaces and heat pumps, but haven’t yet turned on our air conditioners. That means overall power demand tends to be at its lowest in the spring, and with renewables at their peak, we need far less fossil-fueled power to pick up the difference.
That confluence resulted in something monumental in March 2025: For the first time ever, fossil fuels accounted for less than half of U.S. power production across a whole month, while clean sources generated the rest. Let’s see if the U.S. can repeat that feat this year.
A global energy crisis is in full swing
Continued conflict in the Middle East is highlighting the risks of relying on fossil fuels.
It’s been five weeks since the U.S. and Israel first attacked Iran, sparking a conflict that has largely shut down oil and gas production and transportation in the region. Domestic natural gas supplies have blunted the blow in the U.S., but much of the world is facing a major energy crisis. Thailand has encouraged workers to ditch business suits to curb the use of air conditioning, while Sri Lanka has implemented a four-day workweek to limit fuel use.
The EU’s energy chief this week similarly urged residents to drive and fly less, and pushed countries to speed their transition to clean energy, saying fossil fuels’ price volatility won’t end even with a resolution in the Middle East. That’s been especially clear in the years since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, which spurred the EU to cut off Russian gas supplies and turn its attention toward a solar and wind buildout instead.
Residential electricity price hikes aren’t slowing down, report finds
A new report offers a few explanations for why residential electricity prices are on the rise.
Across the U.S., average prices rose by 33% from 2019 through 2025, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Brattle Group found. That’s a big jump, but it tracks with the rising cost of groceries, housing, and other everyday expenses.
Still, that average hides the fact that some parts of the U.S. are experiencing far more dramatic hikes than others. While 29 states actually saw inflation-adjusted retail electricity prices fall from 2019 to 2025, costs spiked in California, Illinois, New England, and some mid-Atlantic states.
The report credits rising fuel costs, growing power distribution expenses, and storm recovery as some of the biggest drivers behind the power price swell. And with utilities requesting rate increases at record levels, researchers anticipate customers won’t see much price relief anytime soon.
Electrify easier: A new study finds many households can adopt energy-efficient, bill-lowering electric appliances and heating without the need for expensive electric panel upgrades. (Canary Media)
Prepare for extinction: The rarely convened Endangered Species Committee rules that federal endangered species protections will no longer apply to oil and gas drilling projects off the Gulf Coast, exposing the Rice’s whale and other creatures to potential harms. (Houston Chronicle, E&E News)
Fossil fuels’ human toll: A Texas refinery explosion last week damaged homes in a neighboring, largely Black town, revealing the human impact of the Trump administration’s push to ramp up fossil fuel production. (Capital B)
Geothermal heats up: Next-generation geothermal projects have the potential to deliver tons of clean power around the clock, but a need for permitting and safety reforms could slow the industry’s progress. (Canary Media)
No resolution: The Ohio trial of two former FirstEnergy executives accused of bribing a former consultant, who went on to become the state’s top energy regulator, ends in a hung jury, with the state vowing to retry the case. (Signal Ohio)
Stuck in limbo: The fate of more than 300 clean energy projects remains unclear after the U.S. Energy Department announced their grants were canceled without officially de-obligating their funding. (Latitude Media)
Harris Ranch Resort isn’t close to much. Residents of California’s major cities know it mainly as a rest stop about halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco on Interstate 5’s long run through the San Joaquin Valley. The sprawling stucco building has a Western-themed gift shop and a couple of good restaurants where travelers can enjoy regional specialties like tri-tip tacos and almond-smoked prime rib — perhaps while they charge their EV at one of the Tesla stations outside.
But in the vast expanse of California’s Westlands Water District, the ranch is about the most central spot for a meeting. On a sunny afternoon in late January, Jeff Fortune, Ross Franson, and Jeremy Hughes, three of the nine directors of the country’s largest agricultural water agency, gathered there for lunch to discuss an ambitious plan to rescue some of the most productive farmland in the U.S. from a decades-long water crisis.
The Valley Clean Infrastructure Plan (VCIP) envisions converting 136,000 acres of land into 21 gigawatts of battery-backed solar power — nearly as much utility-scale solar capacity as has been installed in California to date.
“This will be not only the largest project in California, or the largest project in the United States,” said Fortune, a third-generation farmer and the district’s board president since 2022. “This will be the largest project in the world.”
The scale of the plan matches that of the land. Westlands Water District was formed more than 60 years ago to collectively manage water resources and irrigation infrastructure for the farmers within its 1,000-square-mile territory. The district’s 614,000 acres grow billions of dollars’ worth of crops per year — grapes, lettuce, tomatoes, onions, garlic, citrus fruits, almonds, pistachios, and many others. Those crops make up a major share of the bounty in a region that produces a quarter of the country’s food, including 40% of its fruits and nuts.
Fortune, Franson, and Hughes run family farming operations that collectively own or manage thousands of acres of a landscape transformed by industrial-scale irrigated agriculture. The water flows from reservoirs hundreds of miles north and is pumped from the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta via the Central Valley Project, one of the biggest water projects in the state. The water supply is augmented by wells that have delved ever deeper into the region’s aquifers.
But that water supply is drying up. Since the 1990s, surface-water cutbacks from the environmentally stressed delta have led to the fallowing of hundreds of thousands of acres. And under state law, Westlands farmers face increasingly strict limits on the groundwater they use.
Now, after decades of fighting state and federal agencies and lobbying Congress to increase the flow of water, Westlands farmers are shifting to a new approach. “Our hand is forced,” Fortune said. “Everyone’s in the same sinking ship together.”
VCIP could keep the ship afloat by financing a wholesale conversion of fallowed land into solar farms and battery storage systems capable of powering the equivalent of 9 million homes. To carry those clean electrons to market, the district will finance and build a transmission network that will speed interconnection to California’s congested grid and expand power flows between the state’s two biggest utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison.
None of this has happened yet, and completing it will take 10 years or more. But after years of work with developer Golden State Clean Energy, VCIP is now poised to move from concept to reality.
In December, Westlands Water District’s board approved the programmatic environmental impact report that lays out a master plan for the project. Hughes, a fifth-generation farmer who has been operating in Westlands for a quarter century, said that about 150 contracts so far have been signed by growers to make land available — including about 800 acres of his family’s land.
“The way we look at it is as a new crop,” he said. “We’re harvesting the sun and producing electricity.”
Critically, farmers will retain land ownership under VCIP’s lease and easement deals, and thus, access to the water allocations. And under Westlands’ agricultural-land repurposing plan and its VCIP master plan, water allocations for acres put into solar can be redirected to remaining farmland.
“You’re making the district more sustainable,” Fortune said, summing up the plan. “And that just helps the grower, it helps the communities, it helps the farmworkers — everybody.”
That help is desperately needed. The farms that make up Westlands Water District — many of them sprawling, multigenerational family-run organizations with substantial landholdings — have struggled for years with drainage challenges, salination, and other effects of heavy irrigation, which have polluted watersheds. The communities in and around the district have high rates of poverty and unemployment, a lack of economic opportunities, tainted groundwater, and inadequate investment in roads, schools, and public safety. State law requires VCIP to include a community benefits plan that delivers economic value to not just its growers but also the local governments and residents.
While it will be a massive and complicated undertaking, California needs four to five times as much new clean energy and storage as this project is slated to provide in the next 20 years, said Franson, president of farming at Woolf Farming & Processing, which cultivates 30,000 acres across the San Joaquin Valley, most of it in Westlands.
The master plan could provide a model for what the state must accomplish to meet that need for power on a grand scale, he said. “There’s so much talk in the state about the demand they’re seeing, about energy transition, about water issues … This hits all those boxes.”
Highway 33 runs south from the Mendota pool, a key water-exchange point for the San Joaquin Valley’s interlocking irrigation systems, and into Westlands Water District’s northeastern zone.
On a cold winter morning, Jose Gutierrez, the district’s assistant general manager, and I drove along the two-lane road through a thick blanket of Tule fog. Despite the limited visibility, Gutierrez had no trouble pointing out the solar farms on both sides of us. Farther down the road, pile drivers rattled away, busy planting anchor posts for yet more solar projects.
The installations there now are a fraction of what’s envisioned under VCIP. If that plan is fully realized, the trucks roaring up and down Highway 33 will pass solar fields stretching uninterrupted for roughly 30 miles, Gutierrez said. The surrounding area is slated for solar for a simple reason: It’s no longer irrigable.
Much of the land designated for solar development under the master plan is drainage-impaired — undergirded by a shallow layer of clay soil that prevents water from percolating deeper. As water accumulates above the clay layer, it becomes increasingly salty, but cannot be flushed out — and there’s no easy fix, thanks to a decades-old impasse between the federal government and the water district.
Under a 2015 settlement agreement with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Westlands was required to retire at least 100,000 acres from irrigated agriculture. In 2022, the district launched a land purchasing program to take on managing the retirement and eventual remediation of those drainage-impaired acres.
That land can still be planted with wheat or other cereal crops that tolerate being irrigated by rainfall alone, or leased to sheepherders. “But its value from a commodity perspective is pretty low,” Gutierrez said. As a result, it has mostly been left unused.
In fact, it’s a financial drag on the district. Idle land must still be managed to prevent pests and invasive weeds from setting in and endangering neighboring farms. Several times while on the highway, I spotted signs on utility poles advertising barn-owl boxes for rent — the birds help control gopher populations. And the debt the district took on to buy the fallowed acres must be paid off.
All this makes the land ideal for solar in a region whose clean energy potential is well understood. State agencies have designated large swaths here as the Westlands Competitive Renewable Energy Zone, meaning they are primed for solar development. Studies from universities and nonprofit groups indicate that the San Joaquin Valley can build solar while retaining sustainable levels of agriculture.
In the 13 years Gutierrez has worked for the district, eight solar projects have been launched on non-irrigable lands that the district has purchased and sold to developers. The biggest ones include the Darden Clean Energy Project, a 1.15-gigawatt solar-battery system being constructed on about 9,500 acres in the district’s central area; and Westlands Solar Park, a 2.27-gigawatt multistage development on roughly 20,000 acres in the district’s southern reaches.
Private landowners, like Fortune, Franson, and Hughes, have also been making deals with developers, and many other farmers could follow suit, Gutierrez said. In fact, VCIP expects that roughly half the 136,000 acres of solar and batteries it plans to develop will be on privately owned land.
Water shortages are the primary reason that Westlands growers are seeking alternatives to farming. But growers are facing other pressures, too, Gutierrez said. Volatile commodity prices have driven a boom and bust in certain crops, such as almonds. Rising energy and labor costs have taken their toll.
Landowners are eager to move more acres into solar to defray these costs, hedge against market risks, and bolster their bottom lines, he said. But there are roadblocks. Solar developers face long and onerous environmental reviews for each project under the California Environmental Quality Act, as well as drawn-out county permitting processes. And in California, as in many other parts of the country, limited grid capacity is forcing projects to wait for years in clogged-up interconnection queues.
Patrick Mealoy, partner and chief operating officer of Golden State Clean Energy, the VCIP developer, summarized the situation as a convergence of factors. “The land use planning, the water restrictions in the valley, the congestion on the transmission grid,” he said, “screamed for a master plan.”
Mealoy was part of the development team that put together a similar, if much smaller, master plan for Westlands Solar Park, the biggest solar-battery project in the district to date. That plan set key terms for individual developers on issues ranging from environmental mitigation and land management practices, to standard lease and contract requirements, to agreements regarding the arrays’ eventual decommissioning.
VCIP takes essentially the same approach, Mealoy said. Golden State Clean Energy itself will likely develop less than a fifth of the 21 gigawatts and will be working with independent developers for the rest, he said. But it’s far more efficient to create a master plan than to have each developer go it alone.
“When you look at the sheer magnitude of the tens of thousands of megawatts we need to build in California, the targets are getting higher. We’re doing a remarkable job, but we’re actually falling behind,” he said. “VCIP is enormous, but it’s a fraction of what we have to add.”
The programmatic environmental impact review approved by the district in December is the culmination of that master planning effort, Gutierrez said. It took two years, but now that it’s done, “it sets a standard for all VCIP solar developments of what they’re going to have to follow.”
That includes requirements for limiting construction impacts like air pollution, noise pollution, traffic safety, fire prevention, and the like, he said — an important consideration for nearby communities.
It also sets out how solar farms will be maintained once they’re built, said Allison Febbo, Westland’s general manager. That’s good not just for the neighbors but also for the developers.
Individual projects will still need conditional land use permits and construction permits from Fresno County, which encompasses the VCIP project boundaries. But with the approved guidelines in place, “we believe that we’ve knocked off two years in the planning process,” Gutierrez said, as opposed to “if a solar developer was to come in and do a one-off.”
Golden State Clean Energy has also laid out common financial terms and conditions for landowners and solar developers, Mealoy said. “If you’re farming near Kerman or if you’re farming near Huron, you have the exact same deal.”
The district hopes that all this planning ahead will help bring enough privately held land on board to roughly match the amount of district-owned land on the table, Gutierrez explained. That is vital to achieve the scale needed to enable the most unusual aspect of the plan, he said: building out the transmission.
“The district had enough land to make it interesting,” Gutierrez said. “But we knew we needed more land on the private side to justify the investments in infrastructure.”
To be reminded of how important new power lines and substations are to achieving the VCIP vision, Ross Franson need only look out his office window.
I met up with Franson at the white-painted, single-story field operations offices of Woolf Farming & Processing, which sits just east of Interstate 5, near Huron, the district’s sole incorporated city. To the south, past a field now under solar development, a spiderweb of power lines and transmission towers march southward. They converge just over the horizon, at PG&E’s Gates Substation — a critical juncture for solar power to interconnect to the larger state grid.
Of the 20,000 or so acres the company farms, roughly 1,200 have been built out in solar, Franson told me. Woolf plans to develop up to 3,000 acres in total. “We’re a little bit unique, in the sense that our farm is right next to the Gates Substation,” he said.
That’s not the case for much of the district’s acreage, he explained: “It’s far away from transmission lines and substations. And so the cost of doing that isn’t ideal.”
Enter Assembly Bill 2661, a state law passed in 2024. It allows Westlands to finance and build its own grid infrastructure. It also allows the district to use the clean energy it generates for its own purposes, and to sell the rest to utilities and other power buyers via the transmission system run by the California Independent System Operator.
In that sense, as Hughes said over lunch at Harris Ranch, VCIP is a “transmission play, not a solar play. The solar is doable because of the transmission.”
VCIP’s 500-kilovolt system will entail five new electrical substations and roughly 70 miles of high-voltage transmission connecting to the CAISO grid to the north, south, and west, Hughes said. In essence, it will provide an eastern parallel to the two 500-kilovolt transmission pathways already running along I-5 on the district’s western border.
Transmission is notoriously hard to build. But Westlands hopes that its master plan can forestall landowner and environmental opposition that has stymied many other projects. Much of the 70-mile line has been sited to cross district-owned lands. Where transmission will be situated on privately owned land, Westlands has crafted standard easement agreements to give landowners confidence they’re getting the same deals as their neighbors, Gutierrez said.
Westlands is taking on a significant financial commitment to unblock the grid bottleneck. Gutierrez estimated the price tag of building the project’s grid infrastructure is more than $1 billion.
The district will need to negotiate agreements with CAISO to earn back that money through transmission access charges. That’s the same way the state’s major new grid expansions are repaid over time via increases to utility customers’ bills.
But Mealoy believes those costs will be more than counterbalanced by benefits to the state at large. A study commissioned by Golden State Clean Energy found that VCIP could yield more than $9 billion in net energy cost savings over the next 25 years, both by adding more clean power and by reducing grid congestion that drives up rates and reliance on fossil gas–fired power plants in Northern California.
State agencies are loath to approve massive transmission investments to accommodate future clean energy projects. But as that buildout lags, CAISO’s grid remains congested — and clean energy developers face potentially project-killing costs for upgrades to connect to it.
That’s why VCIP relies on doing solar, batteries, and transmission together, Mealoy said. “To get transmission built, you needed size and scale,” he said.
Owning the power lines also gives Westlands control over some of its energy-related expenses. Several California irrigation districts operate their own utility services, including Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District in the Central Valley and Imperial Irrigation District in the southeast corner of the state.
Westlands, which is served by PG&E, isn’t becoming its own utility, Fortune stressed during lunch at Harris Ranch. “PG&E is not fighting us, and we’re not fighting PG&E.”
But running the district’s massive pumping stations requires a lot of power, as does operating well pumps and drip irrigation motors, he said. “The district is going to get lower power costs to supply the water, and [growers] are going to get the option of lower-cost power on their end — so the water cost is going to come down.”
The central role of water in Westlands is evident to anyone driving along I-5. Scattered among the fields and orchards are signs — posted on fences and on wheeled trailers once used to haul cotton — broadcasting slogans like “No Water = Lost Jobs,” “Stop the Politicians Created Water Crisis,” and “Congress-Created Dust Bowl.”
The angry sentiments stem from the decades-long conflict over California’s massive state and federally managed water distribution. Westlands secured its water allotments from the Central Valley Project in the 1960s. But since the 1990s, joint federal and state efforts to restore endangered fish species and protect the delta’s environment have increasingly restricted flows from the massive pumping stations that move water southward. And as the most recent water district to be created and served by the federal water system, Westlands is a junior holder of water rights, which makes it first in line for cuts.
Historically, San Joaquin Valley farmers and politicians have held a hard line on keeping the water flowing, with Westlands-bankrolled lobbyists often taking the lead. But as those political efforts faltered and drew public pushback during the state’s historic drought of 2011 to 2017, Westlands growers shifted their stance.
In 2022, Franson, Hughes, and two other growers won seats on the district’s board on a “change coalition” platform, aimed at putting an end to the adversarial water policies of Tom Birmingham. The district’s general manager for more than 20 years, Birmingham announced his retirement after the election.
To be clear, Westlands hasn’t surrendered the fight for water, said Febbo, who replaced Birmingham in 2023. “Our growers have shifted, from saying we don’t want to repurpose any of our agricultural lands, to a position where we have to fallow a significant portion of our area,” she said, “and that we should do that in a planned and thoughtful way until we determine a way to restore our water supply.”
If decades of on-again, off-again surface water allocations were the instigating incident, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act was the hard closer. Passed in 2014, SGMA created the first statewide regulations to manage groundwater resources that provide roughly 40% of California’s water and that have sustained San Joaquin Valley agriculture for more than a century.
But overpumping has reached a crisis point in the San Joaquin Valley. Thousands of public and private wells have run dry. The land itself is sinking, as water from underground aquifers gets depleted by as much as 2 feet per year in some parts of the valley. That subsidence is threatening to undermine critical infrastructure, including the San Luis Canal, the section of the California Aqueduct serving Westlands Water District.
SGMA requires overdrafted water basins to achieve sustainability by the early 2040s, which will entail both significant cutbacks on pumping and replenishing depleted aquifers. Complying with the law will likely necessitate fallowing about 500,000 acres across the San Joaquin Valley, according to the nonprofit Public Policy Institute of California.
Under the Westlands groundwater management plan approved by the state in 2022, the district must roughly halve the amount of water it normally pulls from the ground during dry years by 2030, Gutierrez said. That reduction, along with the uncertainty around future surface water deliveries from the Central Valley Project, forces growers to face the prospect of reducing by half the amount of land they’re able to irrigate every year.
This prospect has helped convince a critical mass of Westlands growers to support VCIP, Franson, Hughes, and Fortune said over lunch.
“I really do think SGMA forced the issue,” Franson said. “When push comes to shove, we needed to come up with an alternative plan.”
Allowing farmers to put land into solar without losing its water allocations is essential to making that plan work, Fortune said. Typically, allocations for land repurposed or sold for nonagricultural uses revert to the district, he explained. But under VCIP, landowners with long-term leases or cash-up-front easement deals with solar developers keep both surface water and groundwater allocations, which they can apply to remaining farmland.
That’s important for Westlands growers like Rebecca Kaser, owner of Avellar-Moore Farms. Her family has been farming in Westlands for four generations. She hasn’t put land into VCIP yet, but her father has.
“We have fallowed over half our acreage,” she said. “We still have property taxes, we still have horticultural expenses … and they don’t return any income. And we do this just for the water allocation, so we can continue to grow, to help out our neighboring communities providing jobs and paying property taxes.”
VCIP offers “financial relief from the incurred expenses year over year on this fallowed acreage — and the way it was designed, we could still keep our water,” she said. “What I really want to emphasize is that if we can keep on farming all of it, we would. The VCIP is a tool in the tool box to at least stay farming with the little that we can.”
If VCIP develops as intended, it’s not just the growers who will benefit but all residents in Westlands Water District.
Danny Garcia, 41, has lived his entire life in Three Rocks, an unincorporated community in the middle of the district. He hopes that building the world’s biggest solar and battery project will bring prosperity to Three Rocks, which is also known as El Porvenir, which means “the future.” But he and his family have their doubts.
“People are struggling right now,” he told me when I stopped by his home. “There’s many ways that people could work on solar.” Garcia makes a living as a trucker, hauling produce and delivering fruit and nut tree seedlings from nurseries for planting in the fields. He can envision participating in the construction boom when VCIP gets underway.
Almost everyone who lives in Three Rocks is employed in agriculture in one way or another, he said — including longtime farmworkers like his mother, Rosa Ramirez. She’s worked in the fields since she moved here from Mexico about 50 years ago, she told me in Spanish as Garcia translated. She can earn up to $600 per week when jobs are steady, but less than $200 a week when it’s slow.
And work has been slower and slower, Ramirez said, sitting at her son’s dining room table. “Back in the ’90s, they used to have tomato fields, lettuce, onions.” But as water has become scarcer, “a lot of almond trees are knocked out because of water — less and less.”
With solar panels eating up more and more farmland, “how is she going to pay her bills?” Garcia asked. “Is she going to work there with the solar system? She has no experience.”
The San Joaquin Valley includes some of the poorest counties in the state. The confluence of water stresses, environmental degradation, and rising heat and weather disruptions from climate change are only set to intensify the area’s challenges, according to a report issued as part of California’s 2021 climate change assessment.
Agriculture provides 17 percent of the San Joaquin Valley’s employment and 19 percent of its revenues. Those economic ties are even tighter in the sparsely populated Westlands, where agriculture generated $3.6 billion in economic activity and more than 27,500 jobs as of 2022, according to a 2025 study commissioned by the district.
But those figures were down from an estimated $4.7 billion in economic activity and about 35,000 jobs in 2019, driven largely by increases in fallowed land due to water restrictions. Those declines led to roughly 30% less in public tax revenues for counties, cities, and special districts, meaning millions of dollars no longer available for roads, water systems, schools, and other public services.
VCIP could help buck those trends, Mealoy of Golden State Clean Energy said. Building the solar and battery farms and grid infrastructure will require employing about 6,000 people for at least 10 years — in what he described as “good-paying, labor union jobs” — as well as about 1,000 full-time operations jobs once the project is complete. Some of those positions could be filled locally through apprenticeship and training programs with community colleges and workforce development agencies.
Businesses in the region could provide equipment and services to developers, and secondary spending will boost local economies, he added. The cost of building solar and battery projects ranges from $1 million to $1.5 million per megawatt, he noted.
And the towns, school districts, and county services will benefit from “billions of dollars that could be injected” into the tax base, once the state’s current property tax exemption for solar projects expires at the end of 2026, he said. It’s hard to predict future property tax revenues for Fresno County, but they’re certain to be significantly higher than those collected on fallowed fields, he said.
How those economic benefits will flow to communities suffering from generations of underinvestment and facing the loss of agricultural jobs has yet to be defined, however. In January, Westlands’ board voted in favor of a draft approach to meet the requirements in AB 2661, the law making VCIP possible, to “ensure that local communities have meaningful opportunities to participate and access benefits” from its clean energy transformation.
That plan for the community benefits agreement commits the district to work with Fresno County and seven incorporated cities to “commit a portion of project revenues” to workforce, energy-affordability, environmental, and quality-of-life benefits.
But Westlands doesn’t plan to start making that money available for “at least 60 months out, coinciding with the commercial operation of the facilities,” Russ Freeman, the district’s deputy general counsel, said at the January meeting before the vote took place.
That’s worrisome to community groups that feel they’ve been neglected by Westlands’ power players and the region’s political leaders. Rural Communities Rising, representing 36 communities across western Fresno County, was formed last year so that residents “are heard, respected, and prioritized,” as the clean-energy developments envisioned by VCIP move ahead.
“We believe in a big-tent concept. Everybody should participate,” Espi Sandoval, a Rural Communities Rising board member and educator, said at that January meeting. His group is advocating for a formal organization, including local governments, school and water districts, labor associations, workforce agencies, nonprofits, and local representatives, to “work collectively with developers to address … priorities.”
Community groups are focused first on mitigating impacts from construction, like limiting vehicle traffic that can clog narrow roads, worsen already poor air quality, and kick up dust carrying fungi that cause a pulmonary ailment known as valley fever. They’re also demanding more emergency services, including fire stations located closer to solar and battery sites that could pose fire risks.
And they’re asking for remediation of longtime problems like high energy costs and polluted water supplies. Ramirez’s electric bill from PG&E was $331.74 for the month of November — far more than she thinks she ought to be paying for a small single-story home. California has the highest electric bills in the mainland U.S. That’s a particular burden for low-income San Joaquin Valley residents during days or weeks of triple-digit summer temperatures.
Ramirez’s water bills have also risen, even as the water remains undrinkable, she said — a problem plaguing hundreds of thousands of California residents, many of them in the San Joaquin Valley. In Three Rocks and nearby Cantua Creek, the cause is disinfectant by-products from chemicals, such as chlorine, used to treat surface water delivered from Westlands to a Fresno County–managed treatment facility.
“That’s why we have the water jugs,” Garcia said, pointing to the five-gallon containers arrayed under the trampoline in his front yard. “Every two weeks, the water man comes in and leaves them.”
Clean energy could provide an economic lifeline for the region — but that’s not guaranteed. A 2024 report from the Sierra San Joaquin Jobs Initiative, a joint project of the Fresno-based Central Valley Community Foundation and the state-funded California Jobs First Council, found that the four counties of Fresno, Kings, Madera, and San Joaquin could host 29 gigawatts of solar and energy storage through 2045, adding up to about $10 billion in investment and an estimated 73,000 new jobs paying an average of $32 per hour.
But it also found that workers “feel inadequately prepared for this transition” in terms of education, training, and opportunity to break into the industries involved.
Elizabeth Cabrera, city manager of San Joaquin, a town of about 3,700 people in western Fresno County, has attended meetings held by nonprofit groups working with solar developers to offer jobs and training to locals. But less than a third of San Joaquin residents have a high school degree or equivalent, she said. Many speak only Spanish, and “a high percentage are undocumented. That’s already three major barriers to entry.”
Leticia Fernández, the 63-year-old owner of the Half-Way Store in Cantua Creek, is also doubtful that solar development can make up for the loss of agriculture in the area. She started working at the store when she was 16, and bought it from the previous owner in 1997. But business has declined as more land has been fallowed, and the solar projects being built haven’t reversed that, she said. “They’re not spending the money like they tell us at the meetings.”
That’s not to say that solar projects aren’t doing some good, Fernández said. She pointed to the new fire station being built in Cantua Creek, financed in part through a $15 million commitment from Intersect Power, the initial developer of the Darden Clean Energy Project (the project is now owned by IPX Power).
Intersect also committed to community benefits plans that will make $2 million in direct investments in the next 10 years and $5 million over the project’s lifetime. The initial $2 million has gone to support affordable housing, provide grants to small businesses, bolster school programs, plant trees, and give away about 250 window air-conditioning units, among other benefits.
“We want to build strong partnerships, and we want to bring the community into the project, whether that’s supplying concrete or getting a union job and working on-site,” said Elizabeth Knowles, head of community engagement at Intersect Power. The Darden project is expected to create more than 1,600 all-union construction jobs, generate more than $70 million in state and local sales tax revenues during its construction, and provide more than $200 million in property taxes in the first 10 years, she said.
Still, some people say the Darden project’s original community benefits agreement didn’t direct money to the most pressing needs. They want to make sure the process for VCIP, which will be more than 15 times larger than Darden, doesn’t leave them out of the loop.
“We understand the project will take at least 10 years to build out. But we want residents to be part of conversations before decisions are made,” said Mariana Alvarenga, a senior policy advocate with the nonprofit Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability.
The challenge is that most of the economic impacts of clean energy projects are tied to “jobs and spillover work for local businesses” during construction, said David Adelman, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law who studies local opposition to clean energy developments. Beyond that, “virtually all of the benefit is in increased local property taxes,” he said. “Most of that impact gets buried in county and school district budgets” that are “not very visible to the local community.”
These facts could bolster arguments for larger up-front community benefits payments, he said. But that might be hard for clean energy developers already struggling with the looming loss of federal tax credits, rising equipment and labor costs, and other economic headwinds. Nor do solar project developers want to be held responsible for repairing past harms to communities and to the environment that were caused by others.
County tax revenues from clean energy projects could be directed to helping the communities near those projects. But that requires commitments from county politicians and administrators to ensure those revenues aren’t redirected elsewhere — and like many other rural counties, Fresno County is facing major budget pressures.
Justin Diener, controller of Red Rock Ranch, understands these concerns. He grew up on his family farm in Five Points, which has won recognition for its sustainable water and soil management. After graduating from Stanford University, he was employed in agriculture finance for 12 years, then returned to work with his father in 2016. He won his seat on the Westlands board of directors in 2022 as part of the change coalition — and unlike most Westlands farmers, he lives on the land that his family farms.
“I love to be out here,” Diener said on a stroll outside the modest one-story building that houses his family’s farm operations. “I grew up out here, across the street. But you know, it’s not a walk in the park, either.” It’s a half-hour drive for him or his wife to take their daughter to and from school. Last fall, crops left rotting in nearby fields because they were unsuitable for market caused a fly infestation that plagued the area for months.
Diener has also seen the decline in Fresno County services over the decades. “When I was younger, the roads got paved more frequently,” he said. “The potholes were taken care of.” He’d like to see VCIP money coming into the district prioritized for critical needs. “Do you have shelter? Do you have food? Do you have water? Is where you live safe?”
He thinks that long-term funding from Fresno County and municipal governments, rather than one-time community-benefits dollars, is the logical source for supporting those kinds of fundamental services. “I’d look to ongoing community benefits dollars to be an enhancement to government dollars, rather than a replacement,” he said. It’s also important that community benefits be ongoing, rather than one-off donations.
Still, Diener says VCIP could be “transformational” for Westlands. “The district’s not going to see the benefits today or tomorrow,” he said. “But five to 10 years down the road, I think things are going to be very different.”
A correction was made on March 25, 2026: This story originally misstated the expiration date of California’s property tax exemption for solar projects. It expires at the end of 2026, not the end of 2027.
Ohio regulators have blocked yet another major solar project because of local pushback, even though a significant number of public comments opposing the array appear to be fabricated. It’s the latest blow to solar in a state that defers to local governments on renewable energy, but not on fossil fuels.
The Ohio Power Siting Board decided last Thursday to deny a permit for the 94-megawatt Crossroads Solar Grazing Center, which would combine solar panels with sheep grazing in central Ohio. Although the project otherwise met all legal requirements, the board concluded that it “fails to serve the public interest.”
Regulators acknowledged that Crossroads Solar would have statewide benefits, create jobs, and increase local tax revenue. But they said the project’s merits are outweighed by the existence of “consistent and substantial opposition” from local governments and nearby residents.
Critics of the decision are troubled that the regulators basically shrugged off the fact that a substantial number of public comments filed in opposition to Crossroads Solar were duplicative, anonymous, or seemingly faked. A recent Canary Media review found that dozens of comments contained apparent lies about people’s names or residence in Morrow County, where the project site is located. The board acknowledged those concerns in its ruling but asserted that substantial public opposition existed regardless of the potentially fabricated comments.
The controversy about those false comments, along with anonymous or multiple submissions, feeds into broader criticism that the board has reduced renewable energy siting to a local popularity contest.
“When the volume of public input is prioritized over its substance, it weakens trust in the process and makes it harder to build the energy system Ohio needs,” said Nathan Rutschilling, managing director of energy policy for the Ohio Environmental Council.
Like many states, Ohio faces soaring electricity demand and rising power bills. Clean energy could help address those challenges — provided it can get built.
“If we’re going to deny solar the ability to compete in Ohio’s marketplace, I think that’s going to result in an artificially high price for Ohio consumers,” said Democratic state Sen. Kent Smith, who is a nonvoting member of the siting board. He described the board’s Crossroads Solar denial as “a dangerous thing for the state in terms of both affordability and reliability.”
State and local restrictions on renewable energy have proliferated across the country in recent years, and Ohio is no exception. The state’s wind and solar developers face hurdles that fossil fuel companies do not, thanks to a 2021 law that lets counties ban renewable energy developments — an authority they do not have over oil, gas, and coal projects.
Morrow County instituted such a ban across half its townships last year. But because Crossroads Solar was in the regional grid operator’s queue before the 2021 state law took effect, it is exempt from the blanket prohibition.
However, for the past few years, the Ohio Power Siting Board and its staff have denied or recommended against permits for solar farms when all nearby local governments have been against a project. The Ohio Supreme Court has not yet ruled on a legal challenge to that practice, even though oral argument was held more than a year ago.
Initially, it seemed as if Crossroads Solar might escape this fate. Although Morrow County commissioners and the boards of trustees in two townships where parts of the project would be built were against it, the board in a third township — Cardington — remained neutral. Since opposition wasn’t unanimous, the siting board’s staff recommended in early December that regulators deem the project in the public interest.
But shortly after that recommendation, meeting minutes show that one Cardington township trustee changed his position because the staff report “did not set well with him.” That led the Cardington trustees to pass a 2–1 resolution opposing Crossroads Solar. The switch-up ultimately resulted in the siting board staff reversing its stance, filing testimony in January that encouraged regulators to rule against the project.
The Power Siting Board relied on that reversal to declare that Crossroads Solar was not in the public interest. It also asserted that there was “strong, united opposition to the project” by people in the area. It’s worth noting, however, that many locals supported Crossroads Solar. Its developer, Open Road Renewables, found that nearly half the public comments from people in nearby towns approved of the project, once the duplicate, anonymous, and unverifiable submissions were removed.
The Crossroads Solar case exposes deeper flaws in Ohio’s renewable energy siting process, some say.
It’s problematic that a single person’s vote on a town council “essentially derailed the whole project,” said Heidi Gorovitz Robertson, a professor at Cleveland State University’s College of Law. She argued that instead of reciting objections, regulators should evaluate whether those concerns have a factual basis and whether a developer’s plans already address them — and then decide whether any remaining issues actually justify denying a permit.
In the case of Crossroads Solar, Open Road Renewables agreed to address specific concerns about the project. In a late December settlement with the Ohio Environmental Council, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, and various landowners, the company promised to follow best practices to keep roads clear and clean, use panels with an antireflective coating, minimize impacts to agriculture during construction, file a sheep-grazing plan to manage vegetation, work with a landscaping company to screen the panels from public view, and more.
But the Power Siting Board wasn’t swayed by the compromise, noting that the local governments and individual opponents who intervened in the case didn’t take part in the settlement negotiations, despite being invited to do so.
The board also appeared to buy into several obviously unfounded objections to Crossroads Solar, said Craig Adair, vice president of development at Open Road Renewables. For example, its ruling cited community skepticism about the company’s intention to graze sheep around the panels, since no contracts for such an arrangement had yet been signed. The board also noted opponents’ fears that the permit would later be transferred to another firm that wouldn’t make good on Open Road Renewables’ promises.
But the application’s commitment to use sheep would become part of the permit conditions, Adair noted. And, as a matter of basic contract law, any company that acquired the project would be subject to the same conditions as Open Road Renewables regarding permits, leases, easements, and other agreements.
The board also didn’t examine whether local governments’ objections to Crossroads Solar were based on misinformation, such as a laundry list of concerns about fires, contaminated drinking water, heat islands, and stray voltage.
“It’s taking fact and truth out of the equation, and it’s truly about concerns and politics,” said Doug Herling, a vice president at Open Road Renewables.
Instead, the board “denied a project that has no fuel requirements while we’re in the middle of an oil and gas crisis,” Herling continued, referencing the current supply disruptions caused by war in the Middle East. He also pointed out that solar can be built faster than gas plants, which face yearslong supply chain backlogs, and it doesn’t emit planet-warming and health-harming pollution.
Herling and Adair said the company plans to ask the board to reconsider its ruling.
Meanwhile, the permit denial “sends a dangerous signal to investors,” Adair said.
“I wish the state of Ohio luck in meeting its power needs and keeping power prices from going through the roof,” he said. For renewable energy developers, “it’s now a game of Russian roulette as to whether you would get a permit and what those criteria are.”
After years of false starts and amid an acute regional energy crunch, large-scale onshore wind power could finally take off in Maine in 2026. Utility regulators in five New England states are considering developers’ proposals to build up to 1.2 gigawatts of onshore wind capacity in Maine’s far north, following a deadline for bids earlier this month.
The coordination between Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont — all of which have ambitious clean energy goals — means this procurement is more likely to succeed than those that have fizzled out in years past, said Francis Pullaro, president of clean-energy industry association RENEW Northeast.
“The states have come together, and that’s a pretty impressive accomplishment on their part,” he said. “We’re in a much better position now that we have the states going into the process having conferred.”
Maine’s Public Utilities Commission confirmed that at least one bid was submitted, but declined to share any further details at this time.
New England leaders have for nearly two decades discussed harnessing northern Maine’s robust winds to boost the region’s supply of renewable energy, but the idea has gained more urgency in recent years. Financial challenges and hostility from the Trump administration have dampened the prospects for the offshore wind developments that much of the region was counting on to meet their clean energy goals. At the same time, soaring utility bills and volatile oil and gas prices driven by conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East have strengthened the case for turning to power generation with no fuel costs.
“It’s becoming more apparent that there is a need for solutions to confront the cost of energy,” said Eliza Donoghue, executive director of the Maine Renewable Energy Association. “Certainly, this is not a silver bullet, but it is a way we can have more renewables injected into the system.”
Maine’s attempts to lean in to wind power began in 2008, with the adoption of a law that set a target of having 3 GW of wind power — some of it offshore — by 2020. Reality fell short of that goal: As of October 2025, the state had about 1.2 GW of land-based wind capacity and no offshore wind, according to the federal Energy Information Administration.
Clean energy boosters have long considered Aroostook County on the Canadian border a promising location for onshore wind development. However, the county is part of a small, local electrical network that is not connected to the New England grid. Any wind projects in the area would require new transmission lines to carry the power produced to the rest of the region.
Attempts to develop projects in remote Aroostook County floundered in 2016 and again in 2023. In both cases, the complications and cost of building transmission infrastructure were major obstacles.
Wind supporters are hoping this time will be different as the multistate collaboration supports much-needed power lines and streamlines bid assessment. All five states have set aggressive emissions-reduction targets: Maine is aiming for 100% clean energy by 2040, for example, and Massachusetts and Rhode Island both want to be carbon-neutral by 2050.
In recent years, they’ve worked together to achieve these goals across the region.
Last March, at the recommendation of the New England States Committee on Electricity, an organization representing the area’s governors on energy matters, grid operator ISO New England issued a request for proposals for transmission infrastructure connecting central Maine to the rest of the grid, shortening the distance power lines would have to travel from wind turbines in Aroostook County. ISO New England received six proposals, which it narrowed down to two after preliminary analysis. The organization will continue its assessments and may announce a preferred proposal in September, after which it will be up to the states to decide whether to proceed.
Also, the Maine Legislature passed a measure in 2023 allowing Maine to partner with other New England states on wind procurements. This move means Maine is sharing bids received in response to the most recent request for proposals with the other participating states, which will then coordinate on selecting a recommended wind farm. A winning bid is slated to be announced by the end of May.
“The fact that we’ve got five of the states signed on and committed to this is pretty important,” Pullaro said.
As power-hungry data centers and rising fuel prices put the squeeze on anxious voters last fall, Virginia Democrats secured a governing trifecta in Richmond partly on a promise to rein in energy costs.
Now, with a 60-day legislative session in the rearview mirror as of March 14, newly elected Gov. Abigail Spanberger and lawmakers in her party look primed to deliver on that pledge in spades.
Democrats, who grew their majority in the House of Delegates last November and have controlled the Senate since 2020, still remain divided on whether and how to continue the tax breaks that have helped make Virginia the data center capital of the world; a special session is scheduled next month to resolve the standoff.
But legislators already have plenty of bragging rights. A slew of bills that would maximize use of the state’s grid, pave the way for more batteries and solar arrays of all sizes, and take other steps to lower energy bills are poised to become law with Spanberger’s signature in the coming weeks.
“I think it was a good session for affordability,” said Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg, a Democrat who represents a suburban Richmond district. “I think it was a good session for supply.”
In many ways, Virginia is the poster child for the energy upheaval underway across the country. It’s ground zero for the AI boom and the massive computer warehouses needed to support it, which threaten to spike demand at rates not seen in decades. PJM Interconnection, the regional grid manager, is plagued by backlogs and barely capable of bringing new generation sources online. The cost of fossil fuels, together with the ongoing addition and upkeep of poles and wires, is contributing to skyrocketing utility bills.
Amid these pressures, the state hasn’t wavered from a law mandating 100% carbon-free electricity by midcentury — even as the Trump administration has repeatedly threatened to derail Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, the largest offshore wind farm in the country, and as congressional Republicans have slashed incentives and other inducements for solar and energy efficiency.
All that context was top of mind as lawmakers began their session this year, said Del. Phil Hernandez, a Democrat from Norfolk. “The assignment was crystal clear,” he said. “It really doesn’t matter where you are in Virginia: Electricity prices are salient. People are concerned, rightly, about the upward trajectory.”
Democrats’ strategy for tackling those worries was twofold, said VanValkenburg: to boost solar and storage, and to better utilize existing transmission and distribution infrastructure. “These are the two things we can do that are the cheapest, the fastest to get online, and the fastest way to save ratepayers money,” he said.
VanValkenburg has been on a long quest to speed the deployment of large-scale solar, promoting bills in 2024 and 2025 to ease local solar restrictions; they failed to become law. But the third time might be the charm. His latest attempt, Senate Bill 347, prohibits outright bans on large-scale solar while still leaving ultimate siting decisions up to local governments. It cleared both chambers last month and awaits Spanberger’s signature — though it’s among the few energy measures she hasn’t taken an explicit position on.
“I hope she signs it,” VanValkenburg said. “At the end of the day, this bill doesn’t mandate a single piece of solar. It just creates a better conversation, which I think will get us more solar.”
While that measure would pave the way for adding immense solar farms capable of powering thousands of homes, lawmakers also legalized a much smaller variant: balcony solar. Come January, Virginians should be able to buy and plug in the devices on their balcony or yard in the span of a few hours — avoiding permitting and utility red tape and shaving as much as 15% off their energy bills.
Lawmakers also sought to boost rooftop solar arrays this session, chiefly by increasing targets for these types of installations. The 2020 Virginia Clean Economy Act called on Dominion to get at least 1% of its electricity from renewable energy projects less than 1 megawatt in capacity. A bill sponsored by VanValkenburg, which now sits on the governor’s desk, would increase that number to 5%.
The Virginia Clean Economy Act could also get a refresh when it comes to batteries. The law was first written to require utilities Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power Co. to deploy a little over 3 gigawatts of short-duration batteries, a mature technology that is widely available. A measure sponsored by Democrat Del. Rip Sullivan of Fairfax would raise the target to nearly 17 gigawatts by 2045, with most coming in data center–heavy Dominion territory. By that same year, the bill requires the utilities to deploy a total of 4.5 gigawatts of long-duration storage; such batteries can discharge energy for 10 hours or more but are still nascent in the commercial sector.
“Storage is really a critical affordability component, especially over the long term,” said Nate Benforado, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center. “If we can build storage, that is going to obviate the need for a lot of this gas, which is expensive and risky for customers.” Noting the war in the Middle East as the latest global conflict to impact fossil fuel prices, Benforado added, “If we continue to invest in gas infrastructure, expect your bills to go up and up.”
Lawmakers also passed bills to better utilize the state’s existing network of poles, wires, and other electricity delivery infrastructure. Because the grid is built to accommodate the maximum amount of electrons that might ever flow through it — such as on a particularly cold winter morning when people crank up heating systems — about half of it goes unused 99% of the time.
One measure would require Dominion and Appalachian Power to quantify grid utilization across their systems, a first step toward the deployment of batteries, line sensors, and other grid-enhancing technologies to increase energy generation on the system.
Another bill, dubbed the Fast Access to Surplus Transmission, or FAST, Act, would spur the same companies to identify sites where batteries or other technologies could be added to existing solar projects, taking advantage of extra room on the grid at the point of interconnection. Under a first-of-its-kind trial program, the utilities could add a total of 600 megawatts of generation using the surplus capacity.
“We’ve started to see a drastic reduction in costs around energy storage,” said Jim Purekal, a director at Advanced Energy United who heads the group’s legislative work in Virginia. “The more we install these, especially if we use existing grid capacity, the more we’re saving everybody money. And if we’re able to install these projects in tandem with solar and wind, which are your cheapest forms of energy generation, now we’re off to the races.”
Hernandez was a sponsor of the FAST Act, and he is especially proud of its novelty. “Sometimes Virginia is not great at being first to move on a concept,” he said, “but in this case, it worked out.”
He also championed legislation requiring Dominion and Appalachian Power to invest millions in energy-efficiency upgrades for low-income, elderly, and disabled households. Another of his bills would streamline the permitting process for home rooftop solar.
“There were a whole lot more from other members,” Hernandez said. “This moment that we’re in is all about having 1,000 great ideas, because there’s no one thing you can do to fix every problem.”
To wit, over 50 energy and climate bills tracked and supported by the Virginia Conservation Network passed during the two-month session — including those setting the state up to rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, adopt more community solar farms, study ratemaking reforms, and many others.
Spanberger has yet to sign any of the measures, and many passed with little help from Republicans. But the vast majority of these bills are almost certain to become law, and VanValkenburg is hopeful that they’ll endure with bipartisan support. That’s because the economics of clean energy — especially solar and storage — just keep improving.
“I think these laws are going to be durable from a free-market capitalism perspective,” VanValkenburg said. “But I also just think that those are also the only ways that you’re gonna keep energy bills down.”
See more from Canary Media’s “Chart of the Week” column.
Solar and wind developers around the world just keep getting defeated — by themselves.
Yet again, a record amount of new solar and wind capacity came online globally last year, according to the latest numbers by think tank Ember. The jump was sizable: Additions exceeded the prior year’s by 17%.
Not to pit friends against each other, but solar is the clear front-runner when it comes to renewables deployment. The world installed nearly four times more solar than wind in 2025. But wind can take solace in the fact that it grew faster last year, with installations up by 47% from 2024 — dwarfing solar’s 11% increase.
It’s also worth noting that nearly two-thirds of the added capacity came online in China, of course.
This renewables boom sounds like good news for fending off climate change, but things are more complicated than that. Lots of fossil-fueled power plants are getting built around the world, too, as energy demand skyrockets thanks to the AI boom and the electrification of cars and buildings. Still, the steady growth of renewables is chipping away at polluting fuels’ grip on the globe: Wind and solar generate an increasing share of the world’s power, hitting 15% in 2024, the most recent year Ember has data on.
Meanwhile, the argument for renewables is only getting stronger as the war in the Middle East spikes oil and gas prices worldwide, leaving countries that rely on imported fuels to pay through the nose.
Despite policy headwinds in the U.S. and elsewhere, there’s good reason to believe that wind and solar will keep notching personal bests. Photovoltaic panels and turbines, plus the batteries that store their energy for later, are fast and cheap to build, making them tough for electricity-hungry countries to say no to.
This analysis and news roundup come from the Canary Media Weekly newsletter. Sign up to get it every Friday.
It’s been a month since the U.S. and Israel first attacked Iran, sparking a conflict that has all but shut down the critical shipping lane of the Strait of Hormuz and sent oil prices on a roller coaster. The effects have been obvious in the U.S.: Average gasoline prices are hovering at just under $4 a gallon, a threshold they haven’t hit since 2022.
Elsewhere, it’s not just petroleum products that are causing price shocks. While the U.S. produces much of its own natural gas, many countries rely on imports from the Middle East to cook, heat homes, and run power plants. Governments, especially in Asia, have had to enact retail fuel price caps and other mechanisms to stop costs from becoming unbearable.
But some countries have another shield against the price hikes: wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, and other fossil fuel–free technologies that provide power unbothered by global upheaval.
Spain’s prime minister boasted that on a recent Saturday, electricity in his country cost about seven times less than in France and Germany, thanks to its investments in clean energy. That margin typically isn’t so high, The New York Times notes: A rainy spring season has unlocked more hydropower than usual in Spain, which will have to turn back to gas in the summer. Still, the United Kingdom, too, hit a record for renewable power output this week, reducing the country’s gas usage and its exposure to the fuel’s rocky prices.
China, meanwhile, is the world’s largest importer of oil and natural gas. Much of that gas comes from Qatar, which has curbed its production amid the attacks. But China is also a renewable energy powerhouse, installing tons of wind and solar over the past decade. That clean power supply, along with some fossil fuel stockpiles, is now helping insulate China from the price spikes and supply disruptions wracking other countries.
While China still relies heavily on fossil fuels, experts say the conflict in Iran could speed its energy transition — and boost business for its cleantech manufacturers, which churn out most of the world’s wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, and electric vehicles. Over the last month, investors have already ramped up spending on these firms.
At the same time, used EVs are seeing surging interest in both Europe and the U.S. — and rising costs are already giving some consumers the final push they need to install solar panels, heat pumps, and other appliances that get them off fossil fuels and their volatile prices for good.
Trump’s latest offshore wind attack is — surprise — legally dubious
The Trump administration is trying a new route on its journey to upend offshore wind, but some critics say the scheme may not pass legal muster.
On Monday, the Interior Department said it had worked out a deal with TotalEnergies, in which it would reimburse the company nearly $1 billion to forfeit its leases, signed in 2022, for offshore wind development near the coasts of New York and North Carolina. In exchange, TotalEnergies agreed not to work on further offshore wind projects in the U.S. and to put the refund toward gas investments, Canary Media’s Maria Gallucci reports.
The deal raises a ton of questions. For starters, as is often a concern: Is the Trump administration allowed to do this, and can anyone sue to stop it? Former U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management head Elizabeth Klein told Maria that it’s legally dubious, though it’s unclear who could challenge the deal in court.
And another question: Where will that money come from? Federal officials haven’t clarified, but because TotalEnergies’ lease payment hasn’t been sitting untouched in a vault for years, taxpayer funding is its likely source.
But there’s a bit of good offshore wind news this week, too: The Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project has started sending power to the grid.
States change their tune on nuclear power
Nuclear power’s reputation is in the middle of a remarkable shift.
Just a decade ago, at least 16 states curtailed nuclear power development in some way, whether through an outright ban or other conditions. But over the past few years, five states looking to meet rising energy demand have repealed those moratoriums, and another five are considering legislation that would do the same, Alexander C. Kaufman reports for Canary Media.
All these rollbacks come as the Trump administration pushes to reopen shuttered nuclear plants and build both conventional and next-generation nuclear — though it’s not just Republican-led states that are riding the nuclear wave. Just this week, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) announced that a $1.76 billion nuclear fuel enrichment project is coming to his state.
Harvesting the sun: A plan to build the world’s largest solar and battery project on fallowed land in California’s Central Valley could provide a lifeline for farmers and supply a significant portion of the state’s clean energy needs. (Canary Media)
Critical climate impacts: A new study finds U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have led to $10 trillion in global damages by driving up temperatures and exacerbating extreme weather, with a quarter of those damages happening in the U.S. (The Guardian)
Batteries surge: Grid batteries are expected to make up nearly a third of U.S. power plant capacity built this year — and new data shows that for the first time, the country will be able to produce enough batteries to meet that growing demand on its own. (Canary Media)
Renewables acquitted: A report from European grid operators blames the massive blackout in Spain and Portugal last April on a sudden increase in voltage combined with other factors, dispelling speculation that the region’s dependence on renewables caused the outage. (BBC)
Funding finds a way: U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has reportedly overstated the extent to which the Trump administration dismantled a Biden-era clean energy loan program, which is still supporting the buildout of infrastructure across the nation. (Grist)
Wind’s Maine event: Maine tried and failed for years to build out tons of wind power production, but its latest attempt, which has backing from neighboring New England states, may have a better chance at success. (Canary Media)
New England plugs in: All six New England states are considering bills that could legalize plug-in balcony solar panels, with Maine on track to get its legislation to the governor as soon as next week. (Canary Media)
.svg)
