Renewable energy firm EDPR sticking to US plans despite tax credit cuts
EDPR plans to install up to 1.75 GW in new capacity in U.S.
Republican lawmakers want to repeal renewables incentives
CEO says company not changing its installation targets
LISBON, - EDP Renovaveis, the world's fourth-largest wind energy producer, will stick to its goal of installing up to 1.75 gigawatts of new capacity in the U.S. by the end of 2026 even if tax credits for renewables are phased out, its CEO said.
The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives approved a budget reconciliation bill last month, which weakens clean-energy tax credits included in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.
Though the Senate could still amend the bill, in its current form it would abruptly terminate several credits 60 days after its enactment for projects that have not yet begun construction, making most of them unfeasible.
"For 2025 and 2026, I think we will maintain our forecasts in terms of results and installation of new capacity," the Portuguese firm's CEO Miguel Stilwell d'Andrade told reporters on the sidelines of a conference late on Monday.
EDPR is currently preparing a new business plan to be disclosed on November 6 that will go beyond 2027.
"The renewables bet in the U.S. is here to stay. In 2024, we installed 2 GW there and this year we will install 1 GW and up to 750 megawatts in 2026 as planned," he said.
The exact level of investment from 2027 onwards would depend on what is approved in the final version of the reconciliation bill, he added.
"Let's see what comes out of the Senate," he said.
Senator John Curtis, one of a handful of Senate Republicans who have said they want to preserve some of the tax credits, said last week that changes to the bill were necessary to protect investors and jobs from major disruption.
EDPR, which operates in 28 countries across Europe, Asia and the Americas, had installed capacity of 19.3 GW in December 2024, 51% of which was in the United States.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
California, world's 4th-largest economy, in Trump's crosshairs as he plans to sell off land in mountain towns
California public lands at risk: Could mountain towns really survive this proposed land sell-off?- On the surface, it's just another hot summer day at Lake Tahoe, where families lounge along the 200-yard sandy stretch of Kiva Beach, swimmers float on Fallen Leaf Lake, and hikers make their way through alpine trails near Echo Lake. But beneath that peaceful scenery, a major storm is brewing — one that could put California's most iconic public lands and the mountain towns they support in serious jeopardy. A controversial proposal moving through the U.S. Senate threatens to sell up to 3 million acres of public land across 11 western states. California is directly in the crosshairs, with many fearing devastating impacts on outdoor recreation, local economies, and the natural beauty that draws millions each year. What does the Senate bill mean for California's public lands? The legislation in question, part of the Senate's so-called "One Big, Beautiful Bill," includes language pushed by Utah Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, that would allow the sale or transfer of up to 3 million acres of public land managed by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). What's alarming? The bill does not specify exactly which lands would be sold — and even worse, it doesn't allow for public input. That means local leaders, residents, and conservationists would have no say in which lands are put on the auction block. 'This bypasses existing protections and opens the door for massive sell-offs without local voices being heard,' said Katie Hawkins, California Program Director at Outdoor Alliance. Live Events How could this bill affect tourism-based mountain towns like Mammoth Lakes? Places like Mammoth Lakes, where 70% of the town's general fund relies on outdoor tourism, could be hit the hardest. Mayor Chris Bubser warned, 'It threatens everything for us.' Surrounded by public lands, Mammoth is a summer hotspot for camping, hiking, and fishing, drawing millions of visitors annually. If those lands were sold to private owners — potentially for logging, development, or other resource extraction — it could mean restricted public access, lost jobs, and a collapsed economy. 'It would destroy our economy,' Bubser added. 'Our town could die.' Are Lake Tahoe and the Lost Sierra in danger too? Yes — and that's what's got locals and environmental groups so alarmed. Lake Tahoe, protected for decades by Congressional acts like the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, still has large areas managed by the Forest Service. According to maps from The Wilderness Society and Outdoor Alliance, several beloved spots in the Tahoe Basin could be eligible for sale under this bill. 'This bill could reverse 50 years of standing land policy at Tahoe,' said Julie Regan, Executive Director of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. In the Lost Sierra, a growing mountain biking community is currently building the Connected Communities trail system, aimed at linking 15 rural towns through a network of public land trails. If public land is sold, that entire project — and the small towns depending on it — could be at risk. 'This land is what makes our trail network even possible,' said Michelle Abramson of Sierra Buttes Trail Stewardship. Who are the key political figures that can stop this land sell-off? Public lands advocates are urging people to contact their representatives — especially in California's Sierra Nevada, where three Republicans could play a key role: Kevin Kiley, Doug LaMalfa, and Tom McClintock. Representative Kevin Kiley, whose district includes Lake Tahoe, has already spoken against the bill. In a speech on the House floor, he said, 'The communities most affected by our decisions must be willing partners in any plans made by the federal government.' Last month, a public outcry successfully removed a similar proposal from the House version of the bill, which aimed to sell over 500,000 acres in Nevada and Utah. Now, groups like Outdoor Alliance are pushing for the same to happen in the Senate. 'We need to keep the pressure up,' Hawkins said. Constituents are encouraged to email and call both senators and House members to demand the land stays public. Why does this bill matter for the future of public lands and wildlife? Beyond the outdoor fun and economic benefits, public lands are essential habitats for wildlife. Mono County Supervisor Paul McFarland, who lives in Lee Vining, worries not just for the people, but for the ecosystems that depend on this open land. 'It's the places that don't have someone to fight for them that I worry about,' McFarland said, citing species like pronghorn antelope and cutthroat trout, which need vast stretches of land to survive. And while McFarland remains hopeful that Mono County will defend its lands, 94% of the county is federally managed public land — meaning nearly the entire area could be affected. What can Californians do to protect public lands right now? Right now, the most powerful tool is public pressure. Groups like Friends of the Inyo and Outdoor Alliance are urging everyone who values public access to nature — whether for hiking, skiing, biking, or simply breathing fresh air — to contact their elected officials immediately. 'Public lands are what make Tahoe Tahoe,' said Noa Banayan from the League to Save Lake Tahoe. 'Without them, everything changes.' Whether it's a snowy day on the slopes of Palisades Tahoe, a quiet moment at Mono Lake, or a rugged ride down Mount Hough, these lands belong to the public — and losing them could change California forever. FAQs: Q1. What is the California public lands sell-off proposal about? It's a Senate bill that allows selling up to 3 million acres of California's public land without public input. Q2. How could the California land sale affect towns like Mammoth Lakes and Tahoe? It could harm tourism, limit public access, and damage local economies that depend on public lands.
The Print
4 hours ago
- The Print
Hope Israel, Iran stop attacking each other soon: Omar
Wondering on what basis Israel attacked Iran, he said, 'A few days ago, the US intelligence in-charge said before the Senate and Congress that Iran is not closer to getting a nuclear weapon. So, if America felt that a few days ago, then why did Israel attack Iran?' 'It is obvious that there is some politics behind it but we hope that this cycle stops sooner and the issues are resolved through dialogue,' he added. 'We can only hope and pray that the war stops. The situation is bad. This should not have happened,' Abdullah told reporters in central Kashmir's Ganderbal, his assembly constituency. Srinagar, Jun 21 (PTI) Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah on Saturday expressed hope that Israel and Iran will soon stop attacking each other and resolve their issues through dialogue. Abdullah visited many areas in his assembly constituency and said it was his duty as the local MLA. 'The people of Ganderbal have sent me to represent them and serve them and I will try my best to meet their expectations. So, since I became the MLA, we have hastened the development progress here. 'Today, I inaugurated one project, a marriage hall and laid the foundation stone of a bridge, which was an old demand,' he said. Abdullah said when he sought votes from the people of Ganderbal, he had told them that he would serve them as an MLA and address their issues. 'I had told them I will not remain away for five years after taking their votes. Despite having the responsibility of the whole J-K, I have never forgotten that the people of Ganderbal did me a huge favour by electing me from here and that is why I did not leave this seat,' he said. Abdullah won the assembly polls from two seats - Ganderbal and Budgam. He vacated Budgam after being sworn-in as the chief minister. Asked about the upcoming annual Amarnath yatra, Abdullah said he was hopeful that yatris will come in large numbers to visit the Amarnath cave shrine. 'We hope they return safely as well. The responsibility of their security lies with the LG and Raj Bhavan, and I hope all the measure will be taken for their safety and security. Rest of the responsibilities - be it medical or infrastructure - we have fulfilled those,' he added. PTI SSB ZMN This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
Trump's Tulsi problem: Wanted a minion, picked a maverick
After Elon Musk, Tulsi Gabbard has found that US President Donald Trump may pick a maverick when he actually wants a minion. When Gabbard was named Director of National Intelligence by Trump in November 2024, it symbolized one of the most dramatic ideological journeys in recent American politics. A former Democrat who once vocally opposed Trump's foreign policy, Gabbard's trajectory from progressive dissident to a Republican-aligned intelligence chief highlighted not only her political adaptability but also Trump's penchant for tapping unconventional allies. Yet less than a year into her tenure, the alliance appears to be fraying. Trump's public rebuke of Gabbard on Friday, accusing her of being "wrong" about Iran's nuclear ambitions, has cast doubt on her future in the administration and underscored the volatile dynamics within Trump's camp as he navigates his comeback bid. What first riled Trump was a video Gabbard posted on X on June 10 in which she warned that "political elite and warmongers" are "carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers," putting the world "on the brink of nuclear annihilation." A person close to the president told Politico that he viewed the video as Gabbard warning him not to greenlight Israel attacking Iran. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 발톱무좀 고민이신분! 제발 이 글 필독하세요! 홈시네라이프 더 알아보기 Undo Also Read: Nuclear war! US intel chief warns world is on the edge of annihilation From DNC pariah to MAGA ally Live Events You Might Also Like: Trump vs Tulsi Gabbard: Is US President planning to fire US spy chief over provocative anti-war video? Gabbard's departure from the Democratic Party in October 2022 did not come as a shock. Her criticism of the party's 'warmongering elite' and her staunch opposition to interventionist foreign policy had long made her an outsider. Yet few anticipated how quickly she would pivot toward Trump's orbit. By mid-2023, Gabbard was appearing frequently on conservative media, praising Trump-era foreign policy and criticizing President Biden's approach to Ukraine and Iran. Her endorsement of Trump in August 2024 was a significant political moment—particularly as it came while Trump was consolidating his position in the Republican primary. Gabbard's appeal to Trump was multi-dimensional: her military service lent credibility to Trump's America First messaging; her defection from the Democrats reinforced his narrative of a party in disarray; and her rising profile in conservative circles offered a fresh face to appeal to independent voters. Trump's decision to nominate her as DNI in November 2024 surprised many but aligned with his history of installing loyalists in key positions, often outside traditional establishment picks. Trump values loyalty but is also attracted to figures who carry an aura of independence, so long as it doesn't directly challenge his authority. Gabbard was useful to Trump because she legitimized his anti-establishment credentials while also appealing to veterans and libertarian-leaning conservatives. Her appointment as DNI was also tactical: Trump sought to shake up the intelligence community, which he has long viewed with suspicion. She, as an outsider with military gravitas and a maverick reputation, fit the bill. Her initial cooperation and alignment with Trump's broad foreign policy themes -- anti-interventionism, skepticism of the intelligence "deep state," and a focus on China -- made her a valuable asset. But Trump's pattern of burning bridges with appointees who assert independence has a long precedent, and Gabbard may now be next in line. You Might Also Like: Trump says Tulsi Gabbard was 'wrong' about Iran, Israeli strikes could be 'very hard to stop' Is Trump preparing to fire Gabbard? Earlier, a Politico report had said that Trump had increasingly mused about nixing Gabbard's office completely. Trump thought Gabbard did not add anything to "any conversation", the report said citing insiders. A few days ago, reports claimed that he is relying on a high-profile group of Cabinet picks and not those who are supposed to be advising him by the virtue of their posts: Gabbard and Defense secretary Pete Hegseth. The rupture had begun with Gabbard's testimony to Congress in March 2025. She stated that the U.S. intelligence community 'continued to assess that Tehran is not currently pursuing a nuclear weapon,' echoing long-standing assessments from both the Biden and previous Trump-era intelligence reports. Trump, however, has taken a harder line in recent months, arguing that Iran is 'weeks away' from acquiring a nuclear bomb -- statements likely influenced by his desire to project strength in the lead-up to the 2026 midterms and potentially 2028. When Gabbard's testimony was raised in a press gaggle on Monday evening, Trump dismissed her comments, saying, 'I don't care what she says.' By Friday, the rebuke was more explicit. Trump's public rebuke of Gabbard suggests a brewing frustration with her unwillingness to bend the intelligence narrative to align with his political messaging, a pattern seen in past Trump appointments, from James Comey to John Bolton. The public criticism, particularly over an issue as significant as Iran's nuclear program, is a red flag. For Trump, public disagreements with his appointees often precede dismissal. Gabbard's claim that her March testimony was 'taken out of context' suggests she is attempting damage control, but it may not be enough. Behind the scenes, Trump loyalists have reportedly grown uneasy with Gabbard's growing media presence and her continued framing of intelligence assessments in ways that don't always align with Trump's messaging. If Trump believes Gabbard is undermining his narrative, especially on a high-profile national security issue, her tenure may be on borrowed time. A dismissal, however, could come with risks. Firing Gabbard could alienate independent voters and veterans who see her as a voice of reason within the Trump movement. It may also reignite debates over Trump's handling of intelligence during his prior presidency. If removed, Gabbard has a number of options. Her reputation as a principled non-interventionist still holds sway with a segment of the right—and even some independents. She could pivot to a media career, possibly on platforms like Fox News, Newsmax, or a new independent outlet. Politically, she could mount a Senate run or become a prominent surrogate for another faction within the GOP, possibly even challenging Trumpism from within if his grip on the party begins to loosen. Alternatively, she may bide her time, reemerging post-Trump with renewed relevance in a reshaped Republican landscape. The Trump-Gabbard saga encapsulates the volatility of MAGA politics. Their alliance was one of strategic convenience more than ideological cohesion. Trump elevated Gabbard because she was useful; now, as she asserts independence on sensitive intelligence matters, she risks becoming expendable.
