Texas is the surprising ground zero for an increasingly critical area — here's what you need to know
Texas has quickly become the largest clean energy market in the U.S. today.
Yes, you read that right — the state synonymous with the oil and gas industry is now the leader in renewable energy. In 2025, 33% of all new renewable and storage projects will be built in the Lone Star State, according to data from Cleanview, the platform I founded that tracks clean energy growth.
After hundreds of hours of building data pipelines, cleaning data, and reading through thousands of public documents tied to energy growth in Texas, we have a good sense of what is likely to be built.
Here's the headline: Virtually all new power projects trying to connect to the state's grid are solar, wind, and battery storage.
That'd be great in any market, but it's especially important in Texas. The state is ground zero for America's electricity demand growth story.
Data centers, electrification, and population growth are all fueling huge growth in Texas. The country hasn't seen anything like it since the post-World War II era.
Without all that new clean energy, Texas would be burning coal, natural gas, and oil to meet that new electricity demand.
Instead, the state has been decarbonizing its grid through this period of huge growth.
Clean energy has been good for everyone in Texas. Solar and wind have helped meet growing electricity demands. Batteries have helped prevent blackouts and brownouts. And everyone is paying cheaper electricity prices as a result.
And new developments mean clean energy growth will be even faster in Texas, thanks to a new bill passed by the Texas legislature that will make it easier and faster to install solar and storage.
Should the government be paying people to hunt invasive species?
Definitely
Depends on the animal
No way
Just let people do it for free
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Today, solar permitting is absurdly slow. That's one reason why it costs three times more to install solar on your roof in the U.S. than it does in a country like Australia.
In many cities, homeowners have to wait weeks for local officials to review paperwork, schedule inspections, and issue approvals. These delays increase costs and slow adoption.
This new law changes that. It lets homeowners use licensed third-party reviewers to handle inspections and paperwork. Once the review is submitted, construction can begin immediately — and cities have just two business days to finalize the permit.
This is a big deal for energy independence and resilience. It cuts red tape, reduces costs, and empowers more Texans to take control of their energy — all the more important in a state where millions lost power during Winter Storm Uri.
The bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. And it shows what's possible when lawmakers focus on practical solutions instead of political posturing.
There's a lot that we shouldn't learn from Texas. But when it comes to building clean energy, the state is doing something right. And anyone who wants to build clean energy faster should take note.
Editor's note: If you want to use your voice to make a difference, you can look up how to contact your own state senators here — whether or not (and perhaps especially if not) they appear on this list.
Michael Thomas is the founder of Cleanview, a platform that helps clean energy leaders track the energy transition in real-time, and the author of a newsletter about climate change, Distilled, that has been read by more than 50 million people. Follow Michael on LinkedIn here, where this post appeared in its original form, or subscribe to his newsletter here.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Women and men diverge more than ever on support for abortion rights, poll shows
Three years after the fall of Roe v Wade and months after an election that heavily focused on the fight over abortion rights, men and women have never diverged more on their support for access to the procedure, according to new polling from Gallup released Monday. Sixty-one percent of women now identify as 'pro-choice', but only 41% of men say the same, Gallup found. The same percentage of women identified as 'pro-choice' in 2022, just after the decision to overturn Roe was leaked, but at the time, 48% of men also did so. Prior to Roe's collapse, men and women were never more than 10 points apart from one another on the issue, according to decades of Gallup polling. Men and women are also in record disagreement over whether abortion is moral, as 57% of women and 40% men say that it is. Just 41% of men say that abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances, while 56% of women say the same. These gender gaps are likely less due to post-Roe changes in men's attitudes towards abortion than in changes in women's attitudes, said Lydia Saad, Gallup's director of US social research. Specifically: women have become a lot more supportive of abortion since Roe fell. In 2021, 52% of women and 45% of men identified as 'pro-choice'. 'In general, we see that with abortion, that the party that wants to change the status quo is the one that has more energy on the issue,' Saad said. 'For years, it was more the pro-life respondents who said that they will only support a candidate who shares their views on that issue. Whereas, since 2022, we've seen it flip.' Sudden political upsets do have the power to dramatically change people's beliefs, Saad said. Typically, however, those changes don't last and people revert to their norm views within a few years. Men's declining support for abortion may thus be a sign that they are reverting to their norm – but Saad was surprised women are still so energized by the issue. 'A line had been crossed for women,' Saad said. 'If you were generally supportive of abortion rights before, you became much more so.' Similarly, men who identify as Democrats have, like women, become much more likely to back abortion rights. Between 2020 and 2021, 63% of Democratic men said that they believed abortion should be legal in most circumstances; as of 2025, 78% of Democratic men say the same. Saad is not exactly sure why support for abortion rights is dwindling among men. Although this is the lowest level of support among men for the 'pro-choice' label in a decade, she is not convinced that this decline will continue. 'It's more just a out of sight, out of mind issue for men,' Saad said of abortion's legality. 'Whereas for women – it's just been more salient.' At this point, it's difficult to tell whether men are becoming more actively opposed to abortion or whether they are simply becoming more conservative overall, Saad said. Men are already more likely to be Republicans, and Republicans typically oppose abortion rights. A mere 19% of Republican men think abortion should be legal in most circumstances. Saad suspects Gallup's findings may be tied to shifts in the political views of young men, who proved to be surprisingly conservative in the 2024 election. Fifty-six percent of men between the ages of 18 and 29 voted for Donald Trump. 'We have to see where this goes,' Saad cautioned. 'If it's sustained, then we would really have to take a close look at why.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Presidents' ordering military action without Congress' approval has become routine. Here's why.
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's decision to order strikes in Iran — among the most consequential he has made as commander in chief — is the latest example of a U.S. president's taking military action without first seeking congressional approval. And experts say that, while his power over American armed forces isn't absolute, there's most likely little lawmakers will do. Trump is supposed to submit to Congress a legal justification for having bombed Iran's nuclear facilities within 48 hours after the operation began. Unlike tangible consequences Trump has faced for other moves in which he tested the bounds of executive power — such as court rulings against him — any price he might pay for this decision would largely play out in the American political arena and on the world stage, where the U.S. reputation is on the line. 'Presidents over the last 25 years have certainly been stretching the envelope of presidential authority to use force,' John Bellinger, adjunct senior fellow for international and national security law at the Council on Foreign Relations, told NBC News. 'Using force more and more, deploying the military more and more, without congressional authority — and Congress, with a few persistent objectors, has simply acquiesced in that.' The limits on presidential power to use military force are set out in sections of the U.S. Constitution, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and the United Nations Charter. Article 1 of the Constitution makes it clear: Congress — and no other part of the federal government — has the power to declare war. But that's something Congress hasn't formally done in more than 80 years, since World War II. While Congress has approved what are called Authorizations of Military Force and appropriated funds to assist in ongoing conflicts, its ability to control when the nation is at war has been diminished, in part by its own actions, while the power of the office of the president has expanded. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a law designed to provide a check on the president's power to involve the United States in military action without the consent of Congress. It was passed over President Richard Nixon's veto in the wake of the Vietnam War, which Congress never actually declared as a war, though it did authorize force in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. According to the War Powers Resolution, 'in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced' when war hasn't been declared, the president has 48 hours to notify, in writing, the speaker of the House and the Senate president pro tempore. The act requires that the notification include why the president took the action, the authority under which it was taken and 'the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.' And the resolution also says any time a president uses the armed forces without notifying Congress beforehand, that use must be terminated within 60 days. Bellinger said any notification to Congress that Trump sends, which Bellinger told NBC News the Justice Department is likely to prepare, will probably rely on the authority granted to the president in Article II of the Constitution, which makes the president the commander in chief. President Joe Biden cited Article II in 2021 after he ordered strikes in Iraq and Syria that he said were targeting an 'Iranian-backed militia group responsible for recent attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq.' Though Congress acted after the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam to restrain presidents in their use of military force, recent decades have seen presidents push against those restraints. On March 23, 1999, the Senate approved NATO airstrikes against what was then Yugoslavia to force a Serbian withdrawal from the province of Kosovo. But when the strikes began 24 hours later, the House had yet to approve the resolution, and a month later, in a tie vote, it rejected the Senate resolution amid increased concerns of greater U.S. military involvement in the area. In March 2011, a coalition of NATO forces, which included the United States, began a military campaign to intervene in the Libyan civil war to protect civilians. While President Barack Obama ordered it, he didn't seek advance approval from Congress. By June, the House had passed a resolution calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region and demanded that the Obama administration explain why it didn't ask Congress for permission first. In April 2017, during Trump's first term, he didn't seek congressional authorization before he ordered a missile strike in Syria in response to the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons. 'It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons,' he said in televised remarks after the strikes. Bellinger, who helped draft Authorizations for Military Force under President George W. Bush, said it isn't always that way. On Jan. 12, 1991, the Senate voted in favor of a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, after President George H.W. Bush asked it to do so. In September 2001 and again in October 2002, President George W. Bush asked Congress to authorize the use of armed force, first in response to the Sept. 11 attacks and then to target Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi government. 'To strike a country like Iran, I think this does go far beyond what other presidents have done,' Bellinger said. Congress, however, may not have the appetite to fight Trump over it. 'Given that a lot of people in Congress tend not to want to buck the president or obviously some of them agree with his actions anyway,' Curtis Bradley, a professor at University of Chicago Law School, said in an interview, 'it seems unlikely at the moment that Congress would, you know, use its statutory powers to try to end or restrict the conflict.' U.S. courts are also unlikely to get involved. The judicial branch has limited authority over a president when it comes to his decisions about military action and the use of force. 'The lower courts, when they get these cases, tend to say, sorry, this is very complicated,' Bradley said. 'They say it's really to be resolved by the political institutions and not the courts.' 'Even if it is unconstitutional, I don't see it's likely that courts will be the ones to police that,' he added. International law, including the U.N. Charter, lays out very clearly what is and isn't justified when a country decides to use force. Article II of the U.N. Charter orders 'all members' to settle their international disputes 'by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.' While a separate section of the U.N. Charter allows for military action to be taken in self-defense, experts say, that argument will be harder for the Trump administration to make in this scenario. 'The idea that you could just ... attack because, in the long run, you think your strategic interests will be harmed does not fit with the charter under anybody's reasonable definition of self-defense,' Bradley said. But what does a violation of the U.N. Charter mean? Not much, experts say. 'It wouldn't be the first time, unfortunately, where the U.S. is doing something that probably violates the charter,' Bradley said. 'That ends up being more about diplomacy, rather than something that would directly stop a president from acting.' Bellinger believes that even without any direct domestic or international legal consequences, the implications of Trump's decisions are wide-ranging. 'It's going to be more of a political cost at home, and it's going to be more of a reputational cost for the United States around the world.' This article was originally published on
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
ERCOT CEO on summer preps, artificial intelligence stressing grid
The Brief The head of ERCOT, Pablo Vegas, expressed confidence that the Texas power grid will have enough supply to meet demand this summer, despite a gloomy forecast in February. Vegas stated that over 3,000 power plant and transmission substation inspections have been conducted since issues during the 2021 winter storm, showing facilities are prepared for peak summer heat. While acknowledging a focus on natural gas by lawmakers, Vegas noted the significant growth of solar, wind, and battery storage, and highlighted new legislation (SB 6) requiring data centers to use on-site backup generation during grid emergencies as a "game-changer" for future reliability. AUSTIN - The head of ERCOT says the grid will have enough power supply to meet demand this summer. The outlook comes after a gloomy report in February that warned of a fast-approaching power shortage. What they're saying ERCOT CEO Pablo Vegas spoke with FOX 7's Rudy Koski about the positive outlook and why his optimism goes beyond the summer months. Vegas: "We do have enough power. The grid is ready for that. We've been doing our inspections for the summer season. Some people may not know, but we actually inspect the power plants and the transmission substations in the winter and the summer both. So we want to make sure that they're ready to run in the peak heat and the peak cold and so we've done over 3,000 inspections since this program started. That was something that came out of Winter Storm Uri, a new formal program that ERCOT administers and the inspections are showing that the operators are taking this very seriously, that they're readying their power facilities in order to be able to operate during the peak summer heat." Koski: "We heard all about how the Texas power plants are really built for the hot Texas summer, but with that said, and with those inspections, any problems? Any issues that you saw that you say, I have to address this?" Vegas: "I can tell you there's been nothing significant or concerning that makes me think this is going to be a problem, [or that] we're not going to be able to deal with this summer." Koski: "We just wrapped up the legislative session and state lawmakers really put an emphasis on natural gas plants. But we do know that solar and wind have played a big role in getting us through some peak periods and times. Are you happy in how this new triplet-type situation is merging together and then throwing in batteries?" Vegas: "What we're finding is that each of the different supply resources, whether it's wind or solar, whether it's the traditional gas, nuclear, coal, or the brand new batteries that we're starting to see quite a lot of growth on in our system, all of them are bringing something unique to the game." Koski: "Are you worried that lawmakers are a little bit too focused on natural gas? Are you worried about that kind of rhetoric?" Vegas: "No, because I think what's really underlying it is a desire for balance. We've seen predominantly, almost limited to, wind and solar and batteries growing on the ERCOT grid over the last five years, and very little natural gas. I think legislators and policymakers are concerned about this imbalance for the long term." Koski: "You mentioned the growth of back in February, ERCOT caused a little bit of a stir by saying power demand could nearly double by 2030, supply could fall short by 6% by the summer of 2026 and then there would be an even wider gap in 2029. Does that report still hold?" Vegas: "The core growth story is still the same. So we still expect tremendous economic growth. A lot of it is driven by data centers. You've heard the discussions about artificial intelligence and the amount of energy demand that that uses. That continues to be at the center of the focus and the center of the story. However, the legislature made some really important changes during this last session. They passed a bill called Senate Bill 6. And what Senate Bill 6 did is it kind of defined the rules of the road for how data centers would perform and operate in the ERCOT grid. And one of the key requirements is that data centers, which happen to be built, they all are built with backup generation on site. Those backup generation facilities, if the grid were to get into an emergency condition and be very scarce, those data centers would come off of the grid and use their backup generation. That's now put into law. And that's something that is a game-changer when it comes to reliability. And so that provision, once implemented, is going to, I think, pave the pathway for safe growth on the data center side. And that going to really change the picture of that forecast. I think it's going to change the reliability and improve the numbers when we do our next update." Koski: "Are you confident that the [local power providers] are ready for the summer?" Vegas: "I think there were a lot of lessons learned, Rudy. A lot of lesson learned as to how to do better, how to communicate better, how to prepare better, how to manage vegetation better, how to stage people when there is an issue and respond more quickly. I saw a lot of lessons learned and come out of the experiences from last summer and I do believe that our utility partners are ready for the summer weather ahead of us." The Source Information in this article comes from FOX 7's Rudy Koski's interview with ERCOT CEO Pablo Vegas.
