Back
North Carolina’s predominant utility is backing away from a long-held plan to double the size of its largest pumped storage hydropower plant — just as data centers and other voracious energy users threaten to stretch power supplies to their limit.
The reversal was tucked away in Duke Energy’s latest long-term blueprint, which was filed in October and will be evaluated and finalized by regulators this year. Clean energy advocates had expected to fight that blueprint on familiar fronts — from its inclusion of new gas-fired power plants to its complete lack of near-term wind energy — but they were surprised by the backpedaling on the Bad Creek storage facility, located just over the border in South Carolina.
“Duke put this forward as something they were going to do, and everybody agreed,” said David Neal, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center. “To take out the one thing that everybody agreed on, without any announcement, without any fanfare,” he said, “is just baffling to me.”
Pumped hydro is a uniquely useful form of carbon-free electricity. It’s available on demand and can dispatch power over a much longer period than a lithium-ion battery can. It’s also rare: Construction of new pumped hydro facilities in the U.S. has stagnated for decades.
Duke’s original Bad Creek expansion plan would have catapulted the company to become the nation’s leader in pumped hydro. Now, advocates fear its about-face will undermine the state’s zero-carbon law by opening the door for a fleet of new gas plants instead.
Hydropower is one of the oldest forms of electricity generation — and it’s how Duke Energy, then called the Catawba Power Company, got its start in the early 1900s. A trio of entrepreneurs, led by James B. Duke, built a series of dams and lakes along the Catawba River, fostering the growth of mills and other industries that helped diversify the region’s economy.
Today, traditional hydropower makes up a tiny fraction of Duke-owned power capacity, with nearly 1.3 gigawatts spread across 25 different sites in the Carolinas. There’s no push to change that number, as conservation groups focus on removing the thousands of other dams in North Carolina that provide little to no upside to outweigh the ecological damage they cause.
Pumped storage hydropower — like that at Bad Creek — is a related but different beast. Two bodies of water at different elevations are connected with reversible turbines, producing or storing electricity, depending on what the grid needs.
“Let’s say it’s a spring day, a sunny day, a lot of solar on the grid, but not a lot of demand. You just bring that water uphill,” to store in the upper reservoir, Neal explained. “When you’re in a peak period, you run the water back downhill to generate electricity. It’s a very efficient, clean way of having storage.”
Duke launched its first pumped storage project in 1975 after building a dam between what is now Lake Jocassee and Lake Keowee below it. On the South Carolina side of the Blue Ridge Mountains, the four reversible turbines are slated to operate for at least another two decades.
The Bad Creek complex followed in 1991. The upper reservoir sits at an elevation of 2,310 feet, and Lake Jocassee, more than 1,000 feet below, serves as the lower reservoir. They’re linked by an underground concrete tunnel and a four-turbine powerhouse, capable of supplying enough electricity to power 1 million homes.
Totaling over 2.4 gigawatts, the Jocassee and Bad Creek plants function as massive batteries, and are the largest source of energy storage anywhere on Duke’s six-state electric system. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, only two states, Virginia and California, have more pumped storage capacity.
Duke recently upgraded the existing Bad Creek facility, increasing its capacity to nearly 1.7 gigawatts. But the utility has also long envisioned drilling a new tunnel and adding another four-turbine powerhouse at the site, adding another roughly 1.8 gigawatts. Doing so would help the company zero out its carbon emissions by midcentury, as required by state law.
In 2022, the company offered four pathways to limit its pollution; all included the expansion, dubbed Bad Creek II, by 2034. The additional Bad Creek capacity was also cemented in a compromise Duke struck with stakeholders to help get its last carbon-reduction plan approved. Regulators on the North Carolina Utilities Commission blessed the deal, directing the company to pursue “all reasonable development activities” to put Bad Creek II in place.
But in October, when Duke submitted its 2026 carbon proposal, Bad Creek II was barely mentioned. Among 10 different pathways the company charted toward climate neutrality, only one included the new pumped storage capacity.
Earlier in 2025, Duke had quietly removed Bad Creek II from an engineering study that evaluated the impact of new power plants on the transmission system. The removal means that the soonest Bad Creek II could come online is now 2040 — six years later than previously envisioned — but the company doesn’t recommend even that late date or pinpoint a new one.
“Notwithstanding the delayed development timeline,” Duke said in its plan, the utility remains “committed to exploring the potential for additional [pumped storage hydro] capacity at the Bad Creek II site.”
The backtracking has alarmed clean energy advocates, who point out how well pumped storage complements other sources of renewable energy. Duke’s own modeling shows that adding Bad Creek II would enable more solar, onshore wind, and batteries, while eliminating the need for over 2 gigawatts of new gas plants.
“That all seems like a really good deal, and if we could do that sooner, as Duke had committed to in the last plan, and as the commission ordered it to do,” Neal said, “we’d be on such a clear path to complying with state law and having a much more diverse portfolio.”
Duke acknowledged that Bad Creek II would lead to lower overall costs than its preferred plan through 2050. Viewed in that light, Neal said, “it seems like a really bad deal for customers for Duke to be turning its back on this project.”
In its proposal, Duke offered no specifics on the long-term cost impacts of Bad Creek II, but did say that removing it from the grid impact study showed savings of approximately $358 million in “network upgrade costs.” By punting on the project, the company also put off spending tens of millions of dollars on development activities.
Asked for more justification, beyond those up-front savings, for Duke’s bid to delay the project, spokesperson Bill Norton said via email: “More work is needed to assess whether Bad Creek II will be part of a least-cost plan for customers.”
As to whether the company might shelve the project entirely, Norton said that it “remains a potential resource in the future.” He added that Duke plans to spend enough money to qualify the expansion for time-limited 30% federal tax credits and that the potential for additional turbines is included in Duke’s relicensing application to federal regulators.
“While there is no specific timeline today for a second powerhouse,” Norton said, “our continued licensing work preserves the option for the future, and we will continue to engage our regulators on this decision.”
As the commission evaluates Duke’s long-term plans, advocates will be pushing for a green light on the Bad Creek expansion — especially as an alternative to the other, more speculative sources of firm power that the utility is banking on, like small modular reactors.
In contrast to that form of nuclear power, pumped hydro is “not a nascent technology,” said Justin Somelofske, senior regulatory counsel at the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association. That’s why in past hearings over the utility’s plans, he noted, “it was the one resource that was not in controversy and not contested.”
“One of the biggest things that we consistently hear from the Utilities Commission is the need for more dispatchable, reliable generation,” Somelofske said. “Pumped storage satisfies that need.”
Texas just hit a huge milestone: It got more electricity from solar than it did from coal last year, a first for the second-biggest state in the country.
That’s a big shift from a few years prior. Back in 2020, the Texas grid got just 2% of its electricity from solar power and 18% from coal, according to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which operates the grid for the vast majority of the state. In 2025, nearly 14% of ERCOT’s electricity came from solar — and just under 13% was produced by burning coal.
Texas, long a leader on wind energy, has been building solar at a blistering pace in recent years. It’s now the state with the most utility-scale solar capacity, beating out longtime champion California for the top spot.
It makes sense that solar has taken off in Texas. Two things it has in spades are sunshine and land, and ERCOT’s competitive markets and fast interconnection processes are appealing to solar developers. In recent years, the state’s solar boom helped create one of the nation’s hottest markets for grid batteries, which in turn has strengthened the business case for installing even more solar.
Meanwhile, coal has been declining in Texas for more than a decade, knocked off balance first by a combination of fracked gas and cheap wind power.
Overall, however, fossil fuels still produce the majority of Texas’s electricity. The state got 54% of its power last year from coal and gas, with the latter fuel serving as Texas’ biggest source of electricity by a long shot.
It’s worth noting that solar beat out coal in what was a comeback year for the fossil fuel, in Texas and beyond. After two years of declines, coal generation jumped by 8% in Texas in 2025. But because solar grew so fast — by a staggering 41% last year — the clean-energy source eclipsed coal anyway.
Not everyone in Texas is happy about the rising tide of solar.
Some state Republicans have tried and failed, several times now, to limit the growth of clean energy. Instead, they’d like to see the construction of natural gas plants to meet the state’s surging electricity demand. But Texas faces the same reality as the rest of the country: Solar and storage are simply too cheap and easy to deny.
As the Trump administration wages a high-profile attack on the nation’s offshore wind farms, it has also been quietly fighting a brutal battle with renewable energy projects on land.
Since President Donald Trump took office nearly a year ago, his administration has announced at least two dozen policy and regulatory actions aimed at hindering the build-out of wind and solar projects, including rescinding federal tax credits, withdrawing grants and loans, and freezing permitting approvals. Yet one measure in particular has had an outsize chilling effect — and is facing a new legal challenge from clean energy groups.
Last summer, the U.S. Interior Department announced that all decisions related to wind and solar projects would require an “elevated review” by Secretary Doug Burgum, saying this would end the Biden administration’s “preferential treatment” for renewables. In a July memo, the agency listed nearly 70 types of permits and other actions that now need Burgum’s personal sign-off, adding cost and time and creating significant anxiety for developers, experts say.
Over 22 gigawatts of utility-scale wind and solar projects on public lands have been canceled or are held up as a result of the order, according to Wood Mackenzie data and the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management website. That’s enough capacity to power roughly 16.5 million U.S. homes — a significant amount at any point, but especially when the country is clamoring for more low-cost electricity as energy demand and utility bills soar.
“We’re seeing electricity costs go up all around the country, and the cheapest electrons that we can put into the supply side of that equation are all stuck on Secretary Burgum’s desk,” Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) told Canary Media.
Solar represents the bulk of that figure, with 18 GW of facilities scrapped or considered inactive as of December, by Wood Mackenzie’s count. Nearly 90% of those projects also included energy storage, given that many were slated for desert regions in the Southwest, said Kaitlin Fung, a research analyst for the consultancy.
“It’s created a choke point,” Fung said of Interior’s memo. She noted that the Bureau of Land Management has advanced permits for only one renewable energy project since July: the 700-megawatt Libra Solar facility in Nevada. Meanwhile, federal oil and gas permits have surged in the first year of Trump’s term.
Many other projects remain stuck in permitting limbo as developers await the approvals they need — from quick consultations to complex reviews — in order to secure financing and begin building their large-scale renewable energy installations. That’s true for wind and solar farms on private and state lands as well, since those projects might require federal approval for things like wildlife and waterway impacts.
The holdups are occurring as the United States teeters on the edge of an electricity crisis. Demand is climbing across the nation, causing household utility bills to soar, and more power plants are needed to satisfy the surge in AI data centers, factories, and electrified cars and buildings. Large-scale solar and onshore wind projects are among the fastest and lowest-cost ways to add power to the grid — faster than Trump’s preferred path of building new gas-fired power plants or restarting shuttered nuclear reactors.
Heinrich, the ranking member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, cited the gigawatts of stalled projects in a Senate floor speech earlier this month. He and other Democratic leaders have said that any efforts to pass bipartisan legislation on energy permitting reform are “dead in the water” so long as the Trump administration continues to block development of onshore wind and solar and cancel fully permitted offshore wind farms.
“The concern is that we put a balanced legislative package together that gives certainty to both traditional [oil and gas] energy and renewables — but if this administration is going to say yes to all of the fossil projects and create a de facto moratorium on all of the renewable and storage projects, then we haven’t accomplished anything,” Heinrich said by phone.
In recent weeks, a coalition of clean energy organizations sued to overturn the July memo and other actions from Interior and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which issues permits for energy projects near navigable waters. Both the Army Corps and Interior say they’re prioritizing projects that generate the most energy per acre, a measure that favors coal, oil, and gas and undercuts renewables — and which has its roots in fossil-fuel industry misinformation.
Such actions “arbitrarily and discriminatorily place wind and solar technologies into a second-class status compared to other energy sources,” the groups said in a statement this week. “The Trump administration has choked private developers’ ability to build new and urgently needed energy projects across the nation.”
For solar and storage in particular, nearly 520 proposed projects totaling 117 GW of capacity have yet to receive all the necessary federal, state, and local permits, which puts them at risk of being delayed by the Trump administration, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. The projects represent half of the country’s new planned power capacity.
Many developers are simply receiving radio silence from agencies whose approval or advice they need, said Ben Norris, SEIA’s vice president of regulatory affairs, who likened the agencies’ actions to a “blockade on solar permits.” Fung noted one mundane but significant effect of Interior’s memo: Wind and solar developers are now excluded from using an online government planning tool that helps streamline environmental reviews, a move that creates additional costs and complexity for companies.
The delays come as developers are racing to qualify for federal tax credits under the newly shortened timelines. Wind and solar installations must either start construction this summer or be operating by the end of 2027 to access incentives. “Time is really of the essence for many of these projects,” Norris said. In the absence of Congress passing a permitting-reform bill, he added, the Trump administration could simply remove many of the roadblocks it created by revoking its memos and other actions.
“If they were really serious about affordability and addressing power bills, they could take these steps today,” he said.
This analysis and news roundup come from the Canary Media Weekly newsletter. Sign up to get it every Friday.
The Trump administration had a tough week in court, starting with a Monday ruling that could pave the way for states and cities to unlock billions of dollars in revoked clean-energy grants.
Back in October, the Trump administration terminated a massive $7.6 billion in federal funding for climate and clean energy projects. There was a clear pattern to the clawback: Nearly every grant would’ve benefitted a state that voted for Democratic nominee Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.
And the White House wasn’t exactly hiding its politically driven motivations. In a post on X announcing the rollback, Russ Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, referred to the revoked grants as “Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda.”
St. Paul, Minnesota, was among the cities, states, and organizations that lost funding — $560,844 for expanding EV charging, to be exact. So the city partnered with a handful of environmental groups to fight back in a lawsuit that resulted in a big admission from the Trump administration. In a December filing, Justice Department lawyers said they would not contest the assertion that a state’s votes for Democrats influenced the termination decisions.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta called out that assertion in his ruling, writing that “defendants freely admit that they made grant-termination decisions primarily — if not exclusively — based on whether the awardee resided in a state whose citizens voted for President Trump in 2024.”
While Mehta ordered the Trump administration to release about $28 million to St. Paul and its fellow plaintiffs, billions of dollars’ worth of other grants remain frozen. But one former U.S. Energy Department official told Latitude Media the win lays a clear path for other awardees to sue: “If the administration doesn’t reverse all of the terminations, then they should prepare for hundreds of additional similar lawsuits.”
Three big wins for offshore wind
Offshore wind is beginning to move and groove again after the Trump administration’s December order that the nation’s five in-progress wind farms halt construction.
On Monday, a federal judge allowed Revolution Wind to resume work off the coast of Rhode Island. Equinor won a similar ruling on Thursday to keep building its Empire Wind project near New York. And Friday brought a third victory, with a judge letting Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind forge ahead. There’s no word yet on whether the two other affected installations can restart construction.
The federal stop-work order has put billions of dollars, thousands of jobs, and gigawatts of much-needed power in jeopardy. Grid operator PJM Interconnection intervened in the Virginia project’s lawsuit late last week, saying its delay would threaten power supplies in the region. Equinor had said it may need to cancel Empire Wind altogether if it couldn’t restart work this week.
Meanwhile, Revolution Wind developer Ørsted said it’s not taking the court win for granted, and will hurry to install its final seven turbines before more setbacks arise.
A disappointing rebound in carbon emissions
After two years of declines, U.S. carbon emissions rose in 2025, according to a new Rhodium Group report. The 2.4% year-over-year increase is the third largest the U.S. has seen in the past decade, and shows that while the country is still heading toward decarbonization, major hurdles stand in its way.
Part of the increase can be chalked up to statistical “noise,” including an extra-cold winter that increased buildings’ space-heating needs, Rhodium Group analyst Michael Gaffney told Canary Media’s Julian Spector. But electricity usage also surged, largely thanks to data centers and other large power consumers, and carbon-spewing coal plants ramped up to meet that demand.
“This year is a bit of a warning sign on the power sector,” Gaffney said.“With growing demand, if we continue meeting it with the dirtiest of the fossil generators that currently exist, that’s going to increase emissions.”
Coal plans confirmed: U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright says the Trump administration intends to keep many more coal plants open past their scheduled closing dates, which could saddle utility customers with excessive costs. (New York Times)
Dismissing public health: The U.S. EPA plans to stop calculating how much money the country saves in avoided health care costs and deaths when it curbs fine particulate matter and ozone pollutants. (CNBC)
Make way for clean energy: California’s Westlands Water District approves a plan to build up to 21 GW of solar generation and another 21 GW of battery storage on water-parched land, which would be the largest solar and battery project in the country. (Canary Media)
You can pay your own way: New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) announces a plan to make sure data center power demand doesn’t raise costs for residents — a concept President Donald Trump also voiced support for in a social media post this week. (Axios, Washington Post)
Steel status report: 2025 saw major U.S. steel companies backing away from decarbonization investments and recommitting to coal-fired blast furnaces, but global demand for green steel is still on track to grow in the new year. (Canary Media)
The state of solar: Illinois’ solar industry is thriving despite federal obstacles, creating jobs that workforce training programs are preparing young people to fill. (Canary Media)
The tale of the clean energy transition is long and winding — and unfortunately, we here at Canary Media don’t have a crystal ball to tell you exactly what’s coming next.
But we can let you in on the big storylines our reporters and editors are keeping a close eye on as we head into 2026. Here’s the list, covering everything from companies on the cusp of tech breakthroughs to policy debates that are hitting a boiling point.
Things are getting messy. President Donald Trump has gutted the only significant decarbonization law the U.S. ever managed to pass. Blue-state governors are backsliding on clean energy goals and easing up on fossil fuels under the cover of affordability. Oil and gas companies have dropped the pretense of caring about climate. ESG is dead. The “climate hawk” is dead. The words “pragmatism” and “realism” have become as inescapable in climate policy discourse as reminders of planetary warming are in the weather reports.
Yes, the climate conversation has changed dramatically over the last year, at least in the Western world. But the techno-economic trends that are driving decarbonization forward have not. Clean energy — mostly solar — is still being built at a blistering pace. EVs are beginning to run gas cars off the road. China’s emissions could be starting to decline. The world is on track for far less warming than it was when the Paris Agreement was signed a decade ago, and we’re still in the early innings of clean energy deployment.
In 2026, I’ll be watching this dissonance between decarbonization vibes and reality. Will politicians, companies, and others grow increasingly quiet on climate, all while the clean energy revolution speaks louder and louder? — Dan McCarthy, senior editor
What do you do when you can’t build actual power plants fast enough to keep the lights on and the air conditioners humming? You turn to virtual power plants.
Utilities and regulators have in recent years begun to embrace these networks of rooftop solar panels, backup batteries, plugged-in electric vehicles, smart thermostats, remote-controllable water heaters, and other “distributed energy resources” in homes and businesses. By controlling this equipment to lower electricity demand and provide energy to the grid, utilities can replicate much of the value of a traditional, centralized power plant.
Now, the AI boom is forcing decision-makers to take VPPs even more seriously. Gigawatts of planned data centers are pushing up already high and rising utility bills. Equipment shortages are making it nearly impossible to quickly build gas plants, while interconnection bottlenecks are preventing lots of utility-scale renewables from coming online. And the risks of overbuilding to serve what could end up being an AI bubble are rising.
VPPs could help solve all those problems by enlisting energy tech that people are already buying. What I’m eyeing in 2026 is whether utilities, grid operators, and the state and federal regulators overseeing them put their weight behind the VPP build-out. — Jeff St. John, chief reporter and policy specialist
2026 is a threshold year for the American nuclear industry as it strives to lay the foundation for an unprecedented scale-up of atomic energy in the U.S. — quadrupling nuclear generating capacity by 2050, as per President Trump’s executive order.
The operators of the Palisades and Three Mile Island plants are pledging 2026 and 2027 restart dates for those mothballed reactors. Additional Trump executive orders are aiming for three advanced nuclear startups to achieve criticality in 2026. (One reactor has already staked that claim.)
Over the coming months, I’ll be tracking whether the industry keeps its bold promise of power-plant restarts and advanced reactor development. We’ll be reporting on the crop of nuclear startups and whether they can deliver on their audacious claims. And we’ll be watching whether the U.S. can start building nuclear reactors at scale.
If those plans are backed by sufficient capital and follow-through, they could restore some of the country’s lost atomic luster. If not, the U.S will have ceded its global nuclear leadership to China and Russia. — Eric Wesoff, executive director
Northernmost Maine has strong winds and lots of open space. But renewable energy developers have not yet managed to capitalize on these conditions to build substantial onshore wind farms, even though the idea has been floating around the state since at least 2008. Last year, Maine energy officials and regional grid operator ISO New England kick-started yet another effort to get turbines spinning up north with requests for proposals for both generation and transmission lines to carry the power south to the rest of the region.
I’ll be watching closely for a few reasons: First, the New England grid needs more power supply as the climate-conscious states it serves make moves to electrify buildings and transportation, and 1,200 megawatts of onshore wind would certainly help. Also, if the plan succeeds, it could offer valuable lessons about the economics of developing renewable energy in the face of federal hostility, which, I think we can all agree, is unlikely to abate anytime soon. — Sarah Shemkus, Northeast reporter
As voters worry about the cost-of-living crisis, all-electric new buildings could help keep mortgage payments and energy bills down.
Though exact savings depend on local energy costs, a growing number of analyses have found that all-electric new construction makes financial sense. Building a home with only an electric system is often a simpler feat than building it with both electricity and gas. In some cases, all-electric homes can save people thousands of dollars over the lifetime of super-efficient electric appliances, such as heat pumps and heat-pump water heaters. Even retrofitting an existing structure with these technologies can pay off in the long term, especially in areas with favorable electricity rates.
Yet policymakers who once pushed ambitious electrification standards have been pulling back. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) waived her city’s requirement that new buildings be all-electric after last year’s catastrophic wildfires, then repealed it completely. In June, air-quality regulators in Southern California punted a plan that would have incentivized a gradual phasedown of gas furnaces and water heaters sold in the region. And New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) delayed her state’s first-in-the-nation all-electric building code, which would have taken effect on Dec. 31, 2025.
In 2026, I want to see if politicians and regulators will recognize that electrification can in fact boost affordability, especially in newly built homes. — Alison F. Takemura, staff writer
Geothermal energy startups have raised huge sums of money in recent months and years to develop next-generation technologies for harnessing Earth’s heat. But so far, the companies have delivered relatively little carbon-free electricity to the grid.
That will change this year, when Fervo Energy flips the switch on its Cape Station facility in Utah. The startup is building an “enhanced geothermal system” that uses fracking techniques to create geothermal reservoirs in hard, impermeable rocks. The first 100 megawatts (of an eventual 500 MW) are slated to go online in October, which would make Cape Station the biggest project of its kind to connect to the grid worldwide.
The development will send “a powerful signal that next-generation geothermal is moving from promise to commercial reality,” said Jeremy O’Brien of geoscience software company Seequent. “We expect this milestone to accelerate both investor interest and government support globally.”
Fervo isn’t alone in its ambitions. The company Eavor will start working this spring to expand its first-of-a-kind geothermal project in Germany, and firms like Sage Geosystems, Quaise, XGS, and Zanskar are accelerating efforts to satisfy demand for clean, around-the-clock power. I’ll be watching closely to see whether 2026 proves to be the pivotal year the industry is hoping for. — Maria Gallucci, senior reporter
Ohio, where I report from, has for years been a hotbed for dark money and a testing ground for national efforts to hinder action on climate change. State lawmakers and regulators continue to throw up obstacles to renewable energy development, while giving preference to new fossil-fueled power plants. One pending bill, for example, calls for energy permitting decisions to make sure facilities “employ affordable, reliable, and clean energy sources,” with “reliable” meaning energy that’s available at all times and “clean” defined to include natural gas. I’ll keep investigating those efforts in 2026 to hold the people in power accountable as the public struggles with rising energy costs and worsening climate change impacts.
But it’s not all bad news in the Buckeye State, as some communities rally in support of clean energy. One story I’m particularly excited to cover is a May referendum that will give voters the chance to overturn a local solar and wind ban covering most of their county — an approach that could take off elsewhere in Ohio and in other states that allow local restrictions on renewable power. — Kathiann M. Kowalski, contributing reporter based in Ohio
2026 will be the year we start seeing batteries bridge the gap between data centers’ sky-high power demand and what the U.S. grid can actually deliver.
A well-placed battery system can secure electricity for AI computing hubs in the relatively few hours each year when the grid can’t supply them. That can allow data centers to get built far sooner than if they waited for pricey and time-consuming power network upgrades.
Storage developers are reporting a frenzy of interest in such projects, but these typically are shrouded in secrecy. I recently reported on the first publicly confirmed project of this kind, which entered construction in Oregon for Aligned Data Centers and should start operating in 2026. Utility Portland General Electric will own that one and use it to guarantee power a few years earlier than it could have with conventional grid upgrades.
What I found most intriguing is that the data center developer is paying for this smart grid upgrade. This arrangement lays out a rare positive vision for the nation’s energy future: The companies that stand to make boatloads of money on data centers could fund grid upgrades that benefit everyone, as opposed to the general public subsidizing those upgrades to pad the profits of AI ventures. In the year ahead, I’ll be tracking the proliferation of batteries for data centers, and what they mean for consumers’ energy bills. — Julian Spector, senior reporter
Over the past decade, scores of Midwestern coal plants have closed, as environmental regulations kicked in and coal-fired generation became more expensive than natural gas or renewables.
Now, the tables could be turning again.
Utilities are pushing back retirement dates for coal plants as electricity-demand forecasts increase exponentially due to proposed data centers — many of which may never get built. The Trump administration is ordering plants on the brink of closure to stay open and easing up on rules around pollution from coal power. Indiana’s Republican Gov. Mike Braun issued an executive order last spring calling for coal plant “life extensions,” and Illinois experts are researching controversial “clean coal technologies,” including at a demonstration carbon-capture plant that went online in 2024.
Coal is embedded in the culture in these states, and it’s highly political, as I’ve heard many times from elected officials, grassroots activists, and coal miners. In 2026, I’ll be closely tracking how this campaign to revive coal progresses and what it means on the ground in Midwest communities where it is burned and mined. After all, coal isn’t just an increasingly expensive way to generate electricity; it’s also incredibly polluting. — Kari Lydersen, contributing reporter based in Illinois
The future of America’s offshore wind sector may well be in Canada — a country prepping its first projects and willing to share power generated from its frigid ocean breezes with U.S. states just across the border.
Thanks to President Trump’s ire, it’s likely that no new offshore wind farms will be completed in the U.S. until 2035, save for the five projects already being built, BloombergNEF predicted in early December. Even those projects aren’t guaranteed, a fact underscored by the 90-day pause on wind farm construction issued Dec. 22 by the Interior Department.
But Northeast U.S. states aren’t giving up on the renewable energy source. Massachusetts is exploring sourcing offshore wind power from Canada, with Democratic Gov. Maura Healey meeting with Nova Scotia’s premier last month to discuss partnering on energy needs. Maine also seems interested.
In 2026, I’ll be keeping a close eye on whether these deals materialize — and what they mean for North America’s offshore wind workforce and supply chain, which grew under the Biden administration and could otherwise wither away under Trump 2.0. — Clare Fieseler, reporter
Ohio’s largest utility wants to slash compensation for rooftop solar owners — which would affect not only future investments but also thousands of regulated utility customers who have already installed panels on their homes based on existing rules.
Later this year, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio will decide whether to keep its statewide net-metering rules intact or whether to switch ratepayers to a less lucrative program proposed by American Electric Power’s Ohio utility.
The changes put forth by the utility are drastic and would raise costs and discourage others from going solar, a broad range of critics say.
“In a time that people are struggling to pay their bills, they are trying to gut net metering, which is one of the ways folks who are able to [can] save money by putting solar on their rooftop,” said Nolan Rutschilling, managing director of energy policy for the Ohio Environmental Council.
AEP’s proposal will be considered as part of the PUCO’s ongoing five-year review of the state’s net-metering rules. Parties’ case filings were due last month, although public comments can still be submitted.
The rules apply to the state’s investor-owned utilities: AEP’s Ohio Power Company, Duke Energy Ohio, AES Energy Ohio, and FirstEnergy’s three Ohio utilities. Ohioans have added more than 20,000 residential solar projects statewide since the current net-metering rules took effect about seven years ago, according to data from the sustainability consulting group Unpredictable City.
In effect, AEP wants to include distribution charges for all electricity flowing into a solar-equipped household, even if a big chunk winds up going back to the grid. The company describes the change as a shift from net usage to net billing. And it wants to limit net metering to customers who don’t pick their own electric generation supplier or take part in a community aggregation program.
The reduced compensation could substantially lengthen the payback period for rooftop solar investments.
“Residents that have already invested in solar have taken on the upfront capital cost because of the long-term utility savings supported by net metering requirements,” Casey Shevlin, director of sustainability and resilience for the city of Akron, wrote in a comment. “Their consumer rights need to be protected from net metering changes that could result in them benefiting less from solar investments they have made.”
Battles over net-metering rules have played out recently across the United States, including in the leading rooftop solar market of California.
There and elsewhere, critics of net metering argue that it forces the average customer to overpay for rooftop solar’s extra energy and that net billing is a fairer system. Supporters of net metering say that it provides systemwide cost savings by increasing distributed energy and that it’s a proven tool for deploying and democratizing clean electricity.
Among utilities, only AEP has formally opposed the recommendation by the commission’s staff to keep net-metering rules in place. The company’s proposal is supported by the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, which said it wants to ensure there’s no “cost shifting” to people without rooftop solar.
But the AEP proposal has received massive pushback from environmental advocates, business groups, local governments, and others since its filing on the day before Thanksgiving.
The Citizens Utility Board of Ohio, Interstate Gas Supply, the Retail Energy Supply Association, Solar United Neighbors, the Ohio Environmental Council, and the Environmental Law & Policy Center have all filed formal replies with the PUCO, urging regulators to reject AEP’s arguments and to keep the current net-metering rules in place for all ratepayers.
AEP’s Ohio media relations office wrote via email, “Under net metering, a portion of the distribution-related charges are essentially shifted to other customers when the charges are calculated only for the net portion of the electricity delivered,” because infrastructure costs “are designed to be spread across the customers the system was built to serve.”
The company did not respond to Canary Media’s request for data showing how it or other regulated utilities would be hurt by net metering for customers who pick competitive energy suppliers or take part in community aggregation programs. The company has come after net metering before — and ultimately lost.
More than a decade ago, AEP took its arguments to limit net metering to the Ohio Supreme Court. The court ultimately dismissed that case after the PUCO released new rules that generally favored the company. A year after hearing lawyers’ arguments urging it to reconsider those rules, however, the commission changed course.
The current policy, adopted in December 2018, requires regulated utilities to compensate all rooftop solar customers for excess power, but it does not allow credit for distribution charges or for any avoided capacity charges.
AEP’s gambit to change the rules now surprised advocates for renewable energy, such as Mryia Williams, Ohio program director for Solar United Neighbors. “The PUCO staff had already concluded that net-metering rules are working as intended, and they didn’t think any changes needed to be made,” she said, referring to a Nov. 5 administrative law judge’s order in the rules docket.
The utility has not offered any data or other detailed assessment to justify its proposed changes, Williams said. And many rooftop solar owners relied on the current regulations when calculating whether to make the investment. “Everybody is just wanting to make sure that what’s already been promised is continued,” she said.
Plus, rooftop solar customers already pay for equipment to feed excess power to the utility. Levying distribution costs for electricity that customers wind up feeding back to the grid would, in effect, charge them for supplying the utility with distributed energy. Other energy suppliers don’t have to pay that expense, so it shouldn’t be something utilities can charge residents for either, said Nat Ziegler, manager of community solutions for Power a Clean Future Ohio.
Moreover, reducing net-metering compensation and limiting who can get it would discourage more people from adding rooftop solar, said Joe Flarida, executive director for Power a Clean Future Ohio.
“More generation on the grid will help limit the amount of price increases we’re seeing,” Flarida explained. “Certainly, if we can encourage more distributed energy, that would offset the amount of added power we need on the grid.”
Power a Clean Future Ohio is among the hundreds of groups and individuals who filed public comments with the PUCO, in addition to the formal party filings. That level of response represents a big change from a decade ago, Rutschilling said, noting increased interest in rooftop solar over the past few years.
People’s electricity bills have already jumped dramatically as grid operators like PJM have sounded the alarm about needing more electricity to meet demand from data centers, increased electrification, and other factors. And results of the most recent auction will almost certainly increase costs even more.
A bill introduced last fall would declare it state policy to “ensure affordable, reliable, and clean energy security,” with “clean energy” specified as meaning electricity from nuclear or natural gas, with no reference at all to renewables. But any new nuclear power requires years of review, and even with expedited permitting, Rutschilling noted, orders for new natural gas plant turbines have lag times of several years.
“We need as much generation as possible,” he said. “We need to have things like distributed energy.”
Last year, I made a habit of checking the live feed of a particularly pitiful webcam.
The view showed a muddy gravel lot bisected by a chain-link fence in the coastal marshes of southern New Jersey. No person or vehicle ever entered the frame, though I half expected the site to be bustling with activity as the state transformed it into a billion-dollar port for offshore wind.
Only once when I checked this live feed did I see something different. On a summer evening, I logged on and the camera panned to another angle, which showed an adjacent site where some construction work on the New Jersey Wind Port had started and then stopped. A view of the vast Delaware Bay loomed in the background. I watched the sun set over the half-built, now-abandoned port.
Some metaphors write themselves.
The Garden State megaproject, championed by former Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy, is just one offshore wind project among many that were disrupted by the Trump administration last year. Throughout 2025, the federal government clawed back federal funds, sunsetted wind tax credits, and froze permitting for wind farms. It ended the year with a bang: About two weeks ago, the administration issued a sweeping stop-work order to all five offshore wind farms under construction in the U.S.
The fall of New Jersey’s offshore wind port mirrors the fate of planned wind farms, ports, and manufacturing sites that many states, particularly in the Northeast, had spent decades building up.
Still, multiple experts told Canary Media it was inaccurate to call the industry “dead.” At least one described the state of affairs as a hibernation — and as a key time for “learning” before the next wave of activity.
According to some analysts, it’s not easy to see when — or if — that next wave of offshore-wind activity will come.
When Donald Trump was elected last November, BloombergNEF expected the U.S. to build 39 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2035. BNEF’s latest forecast, released in October, expected just 6 gigawatts to be built by 2035 — an amount equivalent to the capacity of those five wind farms that were under construction and America’s only fully completed project, New York’s South Fork.
Even that may be optimistic if Trump’s late-December stop-work order results in cancellations.
In other words, according to BNEF, it’s possible that no new wind farms will break ground in the U.S. for the next decade. Even with a recent court ruling deeming Trump’s permitting freeze “unlawful,” developers would struggle to finance projects that aren’t already underway, analysts say. It’s also hard to imagine why an offshore wind developer would bother trying to get a new project off the ground while Trump is in office, given the level of turmoil and explicit ire.
“We think the risks are inherent to the Trump administration,” said Harrison Sholler, an offshore wind analyst for BNEF.
The sector also faces cost pressures both related and unrelated to Trump.
Even before 2025, pandemic-related supply chain issues, rising interest rates, and inflation had all made it more expensive to build offshore wind in America, Sholler said. In fact, those pre-Trump macroeconomic conditions caused a few projects to collapse during the Biden administration.
But the cost issue has gotten worse, not better, since Trump was sworn in last January.
Take New Jersey’s wind port, for example: The $637 million state-backed project broke ground in 2021 and was supposed to be a staging area for two wind farms planned for the Garden State’s coastline — Atlantic Shores and Ocean Wind. Days after Trump took office, Atlantic Shores began imploding when co-developer Shell pulled out and the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities declined to grant the projects a power purchase agreement. Both Shell and the utility board cited “uncertainty” over federal actions. And in late 2023, developer Ørsted pulled the plug on Ocean Wind and its port commitments because of rising costs. The port’s fate is uncertain, and its webcam appears frozen.
Overall, “offshore wind has gotten one-third more expensive based on our modeling, and that doesn’t include the effects of tariffs,” said Sholler, who explained that the cost increases in BNEF’s latest calculations were driven by Trump’s July move to phase out federal tax credits much earlier than the date previously set by the Biden administration.
Offshore wind, as a sector, has had bad timing in the United States.
The Biden administration started issuing full project approvals about a year into the Covid-19 pandemic, which had scrambled supply chains and sent interest rates soaring. Amid these economic hurdles, the U.S. charged forward with offshore wind anyway.
Elizabeth Klein, former director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, defended the pace at which the federal government permitted new offshore wind farm projects, even as financial conditions worsened.
“It was incredibly important to get as many projects permitted as possible so we can build some proofs of concept,” Klein said.
But that might have been a mistake, according to Elizabeth Wilson, a wind energy expert and professor of environmental studies at Dartmouth College, who said state and federal leaders should have slowed down wind development during that time instead of leaning in.
“We were building a whole new sector … Building it as rapidly as we had hoped to do was even more ambitious,” Wilson said.
America’s offshore wind industry, Wilson said brightly, is now in a “learning phase.” And considerable learning, she argues, has already happened: State governments are currently more equipped to grow and manage offshore wind power than they were five years ago.
Wilson and three colleagues published a study this month demonstrating that U.S. states, even prior to Trump 2.0, were already “drawing lessons” from the challenges they encountered while trying to launch the nation’s first offshore wind farms.
In New York, for example, state regulators adapted the way they price power purchase agreements to better account for rising costs. In New Jersey, an early oversight in transmission planning led to new requirements for offshore wind developers to show how they would better coordinate transmission across the regional power grid. And throughout the Northeast, state governors — working with federal regulators — identified better processes for compensating fishermen for lost revenue due to wind farm construction.
It’s unclear what learnings will arise from Trump 2.0, but Wilson offered a few preliminary suggestions.
First, regulatory stability is paramount, especially given the industry’s long and cumbersome permitting pipeline. Trump demonstrated how much damage can be caused by a shift in the political winds.
Though it’s impossible to guarantee political stability, Wilson suggested that state and federal regulators could, under a more hospitable future administration, revise the permitting system to at least make it faster and smoother.
After all, European energy developers, who are leaders in offshore wind, were surprised by the fragmented permitting and uncoordinated regulatory landscape they encountered in America, according to Wilson.
This kind of change might address the friction that occurs for projects trying to get approved by multiple governments, which has indeed eroded investor confidence in recent years, according to BNEF’s Sholler.
Klein agreed that coordination between states, counties, and federal agencies could improve, but she also pointed out that the current way of doing things did get results.
“Our permitting process is not broken … We got 11 projects approved,” she said, referencing her time leading the federal branch that regulates offshore wind farms during the Biden administration.
Wilson argues that another “site for learning” would be the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project, which, based on its history of strong bipartisan support, could be a “model of success.”
Klein agreed, calling CVOW, “a little bit of a unicorn.”
The project, located nearly 30 miles off the coast of Virginia Beach, Virginia, has the distinction of being America’s largest offshore wind farm and the only one that is getting built by a regulated utility. The project was slated to feed the grid starting this March — and, prior to last month’s federal pause, was progressing on schedule.
Dominion Energy, the utility building the project, operates under a “vertically integrated model,” said Wilson, giving it a long-term stability that is beneficial to slow-moving offshore wind development.
Virginia is also the world’s data-center capital, with tremendous energy demand that offshore wind is especially good at serving, especially in extreme winter conditions. Thanks to CVOW’s careful site placement and community engagement, opposition from fishermen and local groups has been relatively low, according to Captain Bob Crisher, a Virginia-based commercial fisherman.
Still, the project was ultimately not spared the major political obstacle of a Trump administration stop-work order.
Perhaps the biggest lesson, for Wilson at least, is that hyping the offshore wind industry did little good. The target dates and costs estimated were possibly “overhyped,” she said, leading lawmakers and others who turned a blind eye to the reality of offshore wind farms being, ultimately, megaprojects.
Offshore wind is a megaproject sector, and “megaproject dynamics” are well studied in Europe, said Wilson. These social and political processes are predictable, in that costs always go over, timelines typically run long, and environmental impacts are often not well communicated. Over the years, these inevitable outcomes gave influential offshore wind opponents and GOP lawmakers fodder for pushing back on offshore wind.
“This is a useful framework: Megaprojects are hard,” she said.
2025 was, to put it very mildly, an eventful year for the U.S. power sector. The rise of data centers drove soaring electricity demand, debates about energy affordability hit a fever pitch, and the Trump administration went to unprecedented — and legally dubious — lengths to prop up coal and stymie renewables.
Yet despite the excitement, the broader electricity mix looked about the same as ever. Natural gas provided by far the biggest share of the country’s electricity, followed by nuclear, followed by coal, per U.S. Energy Information Administration data released in December.
The story gets more interesting, however, when you zoom in. Last year, solar panels produced 31.1% more electricity than in 2024, while coal-fired power plants generated 12% more megawatt-hours, according to EIA data crunched by Michael Thomas at Distilled. Natural gas generation, meanwhile, fell by nearly 3%.
Overall, power demand ticked up by 2.6% — a seismic number for a sector that has been stagnant for over a decade.
Solar’s growth is easy enough to explain: We need more power, and no source of electricity is quicker or cheaper to deploy. The rise of cost-effective battery storage has made solar even more attractive. In fact, despite the considerable roadblocks created by the Trump administration last year, solar and batteries together accounted for more than 80% of new energy capacity added to the grid between last January and November.
The dynamics around coal and gas are a bit wonkier.
Yes, as Thomas points out, President Donald Trump made a show of celebrating “beautiful, clean coal” last year. His administration also used emergency powers to order a number of aging, expensive-to-run coal plants to stay open on the eve of their planned closures. But it’s not as if Trump isn’t also supportive of the U.S.’s natural gas industry. So why the rise for one and the fall for the other?
It boils down to market forces. Gas prices spiked last year, and so did electricity demand. That bolstered the financials for some coal plants, resulting in more coal generation — and, as Thomas points out, a dirtier grid. Power-sector emissions jumped by 4.4% from 2024 to 2025, per Thomas, a significant leap and the second year in a row of rising emissions after years of consistent declines. The EIA expects coal-fired power to shrink this year, however, as more renewables come online and once again erode the economic case for burning the dirty fuel.
And despite coal’s brief resurgence, it wasn’t all positive for the fossil fuel in 2025. In fact, a separate metric may be a better indicator of its long-term outlook: For the second year in a row, wind and solar together produced more U.S. electricity than did coal.
Remember the climate crisis? The relentless, escalating threat to human health and safety that was once the main driver of clean energy policy?
You’d be forgiven if it’s all a bit hazy, given how swiftly the term was dropped from the energy-transition lexicon this year.
Starting on Inauguration Day, President Donald Trump not only eviscerated climate policy but completely upended the way Americans talk about energy. Though Trump seemed more concerned with taking down ideological rivals than helping constituents’ bottom lines, his new lexicon got a boost from consumer concerns about soaring energy prices that had people casting around for quick fixes. Climate change was out. Talk of “energy dominance,” “energy abundance,” and “unleashing American energy” rushed in. The shift was like “6-7” taking over a fourth-grade classroom: inexorable and irresistible.
The new terminology made the scene on Trump’s first day back in the White House, when he signed an executive order with a grab bag of fossil-fuel giveaways under the title “Unleashing American Energy.” A few weeks later, he used another executive order to create the National Energy Dominance Council. Both orders touted the country’s “abundant” resources.
Clean energy advocates quickly began invoking similar terminology in an attempt to shoehorn solar power into the new narrative. The Solar Energy Industries Association even passed out stickers with the phrase “energy dominance” on Capitol Hill as part of its lobbying efforts.
Some media outlets followed suit in deemphasizing climate. In November 2024, five major U.S. newspapers published a total of 524 stories about climate change; in the same month this year, those papers ran just 362 climate change articles, according to researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder — a drop of almost a third. (Both numbers are way down from the October 2021 peak of 1,049 climate articles.)
A number of Democratic politicians embraced the vibe shift in their own ways. “All of the above” crept in among leaders — notably New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey — who wanted to signal they are open to the changing conversation, but not ready to give up on renewables entirely. In New Jersey and Virginia, Democrats Mikie Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger ran successful gubernatorial campaigns with hardly any mention of climate change; likewise, New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani spent little time on the topic.
Most notably, Democrats this year prioritized the issue of energy affordability, an increasingly urgent concern among voters — and one that Trump is belligerently dismissing.
Two liberal groups, Fossil Free Media and Data for Progress, put out a memo in November that endorses this affordability focus, suggesting it’s a way for Democrats to reconcile the new discourse with the old. The memo encourages them to promote the benefits of renewable energy as a cheap source of power in 2026. The headline: “Don’t run from climate — translate it.”
Though Republicans are failing to reckon with the issue of soaring energy costs, there’s still something seductive about their energy rhetoric. It suggests an economy teeming with possibility, held back only by those meanie Democrats with their snowflakey concerns about climate and their insufficient will to dominate. The language implies there are easy answers to at least some of our woes. Worried about soaring energy bills? Unleash the beautiful coal. Concerned about grid reliability? Exploit those abundant energy supplies. Never mind that fossil fuels are most definitely not the cheapest sources of electricity.
The vocab shift, particularly around “dominance,” also captures a vibe that has always appealed to Trump supporters: “That language does have this bravado and machismo that is important to his movement,” Cara Daggett, a professor of political science at Virginia Tech, told a reporter for Grist earlier this year.
What vocabulary will seize the collective imagination in 2026? Likely, more of the same (though Trump does have a seemingly inexhaustible ability to surprise us all with word choices). The bigger question for me, though, is which version of this new nomenclature will gain the most traction in the months to come. Will the left’s translations catch on, convincing people that clean energy too can be unleashed, abundant, and affordable? Or will the fossil fuel–loving MAGA crowd continue to corner the enticingly muscular language of supremacy?
This year was a big one for Canary Media. Our merger with the Energy News Network brought new reporters into the mix, expanding our focus on state and local clean energy policy and progress.
We sure needed the extra manpower to cover everything that 2025 brought. President Donald Trump shook up the clean energy landscape as soon as he entered the White House, taking particular aim at offshore wind and EVs. Worries about rising power demand from data centers reached a fever pitch. And startups boasted major breakthroughs in cleaning up manufacturing, decarbonizing home heating, and bringing battery storage to the masses.
That’s just a handful of the many, many topics Canary Media reporters covered this year through more than 600 stories. Here are 11 that you can’t miss, in chronological order.
Data centers are overwhelming the grid. Could they help it instead?
Jeff St. John started 2025 with a deep dive into what became one of the year’s hottest energy topics: data centers. In this first installment of a four-part series, Jeff explored the growing concern over AI data centers’ capacity to drive power demand to new heights, and how utilities may use that rising demand to justify new fossil fuel construction. But with effective regulation and demand management, it doesn’t have to be that way.
The smell of toasted rock could spell victory for geothermal energy
Julian Spector turned his visit to Quaise Energy’s Texas testing grounds into a feast for the senses. Whirring contraptions, hand-warming heat, and the smell of toasted marshmallows: Those are just a few of the ways Julian described the experience of watching the startup blast through rock with an electromagnetic beam. It’s all in hopes of accessing deeper, hotter levels of the Earth for geothermal power generation.
The rural N.C. mayor betting big on clean energy to uplift his hometown
Mayor Mondale Robinson has big clean energy dreams for his small rural town of Enfield, North Carolina, and shared them with Elizabeth Ouzts back in March. Residents of the largely Black, devastatingly poor town face massive winter energy bills, and Robinson envisions tackling them through a solar-plus-storage array that could help stabilize power costs — and a resilience hub that could teach residents about energy savings and keep them safe during emergencies.
From EVs to HVAC, clean energy means jobs in Central Illinois
In May, Canary Media joined fellow nonprofit newsrooms to report a series of stories on the growing clean energy workforce in rural America. That project took Kari Lydersen to Decatur, Illinois, which has been losing factory jobs for years. But a community college program is training a new generation of solar panel installers to change that dynamic, including Shawn Honorable, who’s planning to start a solar-powered hot dog stand called Buns on the Run.
US hydropower is at a make-or-break moment
Since the late 1800s, America’s network of hydroelectric dams has provided a steady, clean source of electricity. But their age is catching up with them, Alexander C. Kaufman reported in this deep dive. Nearly 450 dams across the country will need to be relicensed in the next decade, but many must make significant, costly upgrades to keep operating — and may opt to shut down instead.
How Trump gutted the team meant to build America’s energy future
The end of 2025 may also signal the end of the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations. Created under the Biden administration, the office was meant to be a federally backed launchpad for ambitious but unproven clean technologies. In a thoughtful obituary for OCED, Maria Gallucci recounts the office’s biggest wins, and how that all started crumbling on Day 1 of the Trump administration.
Inside the Colorado factory where AtmosZero is electrifying steam
Cheez Whiz, notepaper, and beer all have one thing in common: They’re made with the help of gas-burning boilers. But if it’s up to AtmosZero, that’ll soon change. Alison F. Takemura took us on a tour of the Colorado factory where AtmosZero will soon start building steam-producing heat pumps, in hopes of decarbonizing all sorts of polluting processes.
Why utility regulators need to do more than call ‘balls and strikes’
Marissa Gillett didn’t make a lot of friends during her time leading Connecticut’s Public Utilities Regulatory Authority. While consumer advocates heralded her assertive oversight, investor-owned utility regulators accused her of inappropriate, and even unlawful, bias. In an interview with Sarah Shemkus after she stepped down from PURA, Gillett didn’t back down from her “sustained, rigorous” approach, and called on other regulators to do the same.
This Ohio county banned wind and solar. Now, residents are pushing back.
Ohio has become a hot spot for anti-clean-energy rules, with more than three dozen counties outlawing utility-scale solar development in at least one of their townships. Richland County is among them, but in the new year, residents may reverse the ban. Kathiann M. Kowalski reports on how a group of local advocates secured a referendum on the decision made by just three county commissioners — and how they could inspire other Ohioans to do the same.
As solar booms and coal fades, Greece’s mining region struggles to adapt
This fall, Dan McCarthy took us on a trip to Greece. Far from Athens and the iconic whitewashed buildings of the Cyclades islands is Western Macedonia, which remains the country’s energy-producing hub even as its coal plants and mines shutter. Solar farms have rapidly taken the fossil fuel’s place, but residents are frustrated that the region’s economy hasn’t kept up.
The man behind the fall of offshore wind
Our list closes with a story Clare Fieseler started following three years ago, at a time when Republican lawmakers didn’t have much to say about offshore wind. Since then, the industry has become a prime target for the Trump administration, and David Stevenson is a big reason why. Stevenson is a 75-year-old grandfather from Delaware who believes in climate change — but not in offshore wind’s ability to fight it. Through numerous conversations with Stevenson, Clare shares the winding tale of how his activism brought the fight against offshore to the highest levels of government.
.svg)
