Latest news with #BidenAdministration
Forbes
4 hours ago
- Business
- Forbes
How Private Investors Can Fill In The $27 Billion Climate Gap
The Thomas family, new Georgia Bright clients stand in front of their yard grow beds and residential ... More solar installation. The Trump administration's economic policies have been summarized by most major financial institutions under the industry's greatest pejorative: uncertainty. It's bad enough when applied to yo-yo-ing tariffs that can send the economy teetering toward recession. And perhaps even worse when playing with the future of the planet: $27 billion in funding for companies and funds addressing the climate crisis that, if unabated, the World Economic Forum has estimated costing society as much as $75 trillion by 2050. Why was this funding frozen, and what can private investors do about it? GGRF Funds in Limbo Over the past 100+ days, there has been a bitter battle over the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), a $27 billion vehicle approved during the Biden administration designed to 'finance clean technology deployment nationally, finance clean technology deployment in low-income and disadvantaged communities while simultaneously building the capacity of community lenders that serve those communities, and spur adoption of clean distributed solar energy that lowers energy bills for millions of Americans in low-income and disadvantaged communities.' One of the goals of this fund was to more effectively de-politicize what has too often been a hot potato industry in Washington: renewable energy, by focusing on the concrete, economic benefits that climate change mitigation and technological development can bring to communities. As noted in Forbes, clean energy jobs have historically grown at twice the national rate, and are more accessible to the average American: 'Clean energy jobs create economic mobility, with 21% higher wages than average, increasing access to unions, and expanding accessibility – 75% of expected jobs from IRA [Inflation Reduction Act]And yet, despite this strong economic data, on March 11, The EPA ordered Citibank to freeze the fund, in a move Senator Schumer, Markey, Warren, Whitehouse, Van Hollen and Merkley referred to as ' jeopardiz[ing] private investment, job creation, and economic opportunity in communities across the country' in a subsequent letter to Citibank. Citibank, very much stuck in the middle, first received a judge's order saying they should proceed with funding, with presiding Judge Tanya Chutkan ruling that the EPA 'acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it failed to explain its reasoning and acted contrary to its regulations in suspending and terminating Plaintiffs' grants.' The very next day, however, an appellate court granted a stay to the EPA that refroze the funds until the courts can arrive at a long-term solution. An EPA spokesperson responded to a request for comment via email, stating: 'Unlike the Biden-Har[r]is administration, this EPA is committed to being an exceptional steward of taxpayer dollars. In March, Administrator Zeldin notified National Clean Investment Fund and Clean Communities Investment Accelerator recipients of the termination of their grant agreements under the Biden-Harris Administration's $20 billion 'gold bar' scheme. This termination is based on substantial concerns regarding the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) program integrity, the award process, and programmatic waste and abuse, which collectively undermine the fundamental goals and statutory objectives of the award.' Private Investment Steps Up Caught in the middle are companies across the country in the business of getting clean energy into communities, or in the case of many Native Americans who live off-grid, like 30% of the Navajo Nation, any source of energy at all. Many entrepreneurs who were either approved or in the process to receive GGRF funds refuse to sit on their hands waiting to see what the courts decide and are forging a path with the support of private investors—a process I know well, given my firm Candide Group launched Afterglow, a climate justice debt fund, in 2024. The stories of these organizations not only exemplify the value potentially being destroyed by the delay of the GGRF, but also, represent opportunities for private capital to step Holler (West Virginia) Boyd County High School sports part of its new solar array in a partnership with Solar Holler. Solar Holler is a West Virginia-based solar developer and installer serving Appalachia, including Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio. Working with households, churches, schools and other non-profit organizations, Solar Holler has sought to build on the region's history as an energy producer, without the staggering long-term threats to public health generated by coal. This month, it completed five of seventeen intended solar projects installed on the roofs of West Virginia public schools. Their CEO, Dan Conant, commented on LinkedIn, 'It's these sorts of projects that get me out of bed in the morning—the kind that cram as much good into one place as possible. The kind that provide educational opportunities for West Virginian kids to stay home. The kind that support American manufacturing and union labor. The kind that lower bills for organizations doing God's work.' He added, 'every panel we put up means more money for teachers and supplies, and…actual education. The electricity generated by the solar is 20% cheaper than what the out-of-state monopoly utility is charging.' Allume (National) Curtis, an apartment resident consuming solar energy through SolShare said, "Since I'm saving money ... More on my utility bills, that allows me to invest back into my small business or put it in my savings account." Allume Energy unlocks rooftop solar potential for multifamily buildings with its SolShare technology, expanding access to clean and affordable energy for apartment residents. 'Allume's mission is to bring rooftop solar to the more than 110 million people living in multifamily housing, many of whom are low-income,' Aliya Bagewadi, Alume's Director of US Strategic Partnerships, said in an email. 'Our SolShare technology allows solar energy to be shared across multiple units in the same building, enabling apartment tenants to directly consume solar and reduce their electricity bills by an average of 40 percent. Without the federal Investment Tax Credit, affordable housing providers won't be able to reduce financial strain or strengthen housing resilience in the communities they serve. The rollback would halt projects that deliver immediate and lasting savings to the families who need it most.' Georgia Bright (Georgia) Photo of lawn with sign promoting Georgia Bright with solar installers working in the background. Georgia BRIGHT is a program of the Capital Good Fund (CGF), a Rhode Island-based nonprofit social finance organization grappling with poverty and environmental injustice in America. Capital Good Fund offers solar leases, low-interest loans, and one-on-one financial coaching for lower-income residents of Georgia, Rhode Island, Texas, Illinois, Florida, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Colorado. This federally funded solar power program makes solar leasing more accessible for homeowners and nonprofits. In addition to helping low- and moderate-income communities save money, this work also enhances grid stability — increasingly essential as climate change strains grids.'$156 million in Solar for All funding is an amazing start, but if we are going to serve 16,000+ Georgia families over the next four years, we can't rely on public investment alone,' Alicia Brown, Georgia BRIGHT Director said. 'To unlock the full potential of rooftop and community solar, we need private capital at the table. The Georgia BRIGHT initiative isn't just about clean energy—it's about saving families money as utility bills rise, boosting Georgia's economy, and strengthening our grid that is straining under the weight of rapid load growth.' Dollaride (New York) Dollaride team in front of one of the orgs new EV vans. Photos Taken by Eli Jules Dollaride is a New York-based company electrifying fleet vehicles in transit deserts, starting with New York City's locally essential 'dollar vans.' Roughly 1.4 million people in NYC live with limited access to public transit, which hinders economic mobility. Dollar vans provide an informal transit network that serves more than 100,000 riders daily in the outer boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn. 'As federal support for crucial climate projects becomes uncertain, the leadership of local governments, paired with private capital, is essential to fill the gap,' Dollaride CEO Su Sanni said. 'Ultimately, this ensures that disadvantaged communities retain access to essential transportation and breathe cleaner air. This is the kind of high-impact, scalable model that private capital can and should be amplifying nationwide.' Companies like these who are developing climate projects in low-income communities — which are already feeling the substantial strain of climate change —may struggle if GGRF funds ultimately can't reach their intended recipients. This may lead to political ramifications in red and blue states alike. The good news is that renewable energy not only has the potential to save money for consumers, according to the Department of Energy, but also make money for investors, with an International Energy Agency report finding clean energy outperformed fossil fuels for both 5 and 10 year periods. Private markets may rush in where the EPA fears to tread. Full disclosures related to my work available here. This post does not constitute investment, tax, or legal advice, and the author is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided herein. Solar Holler, DollaRide and Georgia BRIGHT are investees of the Afterglow Climate Justice Fund at Candide Group. Certain information referenced in this article is provided via third-party sources and while such information is believed to be reliable, the author and Candide Group assume no responsibility for such information.
Al Jazeera
6 hours ago
- Automotive
- Al Jazeera
US Supreme Court lets fuel producers challenge California emissions rules
The dispute centred on an exception granted to California on national vehicle emission standards, allowing it to set stricter rules than federal standards. The United States Supreme Court has sided with fuel producers that had opposed California's standards for vehicle emissions and electric cars under a federal air pollution law, agreeing that their legal challenge to the mandates should not have been dismissed. The justices in a 7-2 ruling on Friday overturned a lower court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit by a Valero Energy subsidiary and fuel industry groups. The lower court had concluded that the plaintiffs lacked the required legal standing to challenge a 2022 US Environmental Protection Agency decision to let California set its own regulations. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,' conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the decision. The dispute centred on an exception granted to California during Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration to national vehicle emission standards set by the agency under the landmark Clean Air Act anti-pollution law. Though states and municipalities are generally preempted from enacting their own limits, Congress let the EPA waive the preemption rule to let California set certain regulations that are stricter than federal standards. The EPA's 2022 action reinstated a waiver for California to set its own tailpipe emissions limits and zero-emission vehicle mandate through 2025, reversing a 2019 decision made during Republican President Donald Trump's first administration rescinding the waiver. Advertisement Valero's Diamond Alternative Energy and related groups challenged the reinstatement of California's waiver, arguing that the decision exceeded the EPA's power under the Clean Air Act and inflicted harm on their bottom line by lowering demand for liquid fuels. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out the lawsuit in 2024, finding that the challengers lacked the necessary standing to bring their claims because there was no evidence that a ruling in their favour might affect the decisions of auto manufacturers in a way that would result in fewer electric and more combustion vehicles to be sold. Sceptical court California, the most populous US state, has received more than 100 waivers under the Clean Air Act. Sign up for Al Jazeera Americas Coverage Newsletter US politics, Canada's multiculturalism, South America's geopolitical rise—we bring you the stories that matter. Subscribe Your subscription failed. Please try again. Please check your email to confirm your subscription By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy protected by reCAPTCHA The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has taken a sceptical view towards broad authority for federal regulatory agencies and has restricted the powers of the EPA in some important rulings in recent years. In 2024, the court blocked the EPA's 'Good Neighbor' rule aimed at reducing ozone emissions that may worsen air pollution in neighbouring states. In 2023, the court hobbled the EPA's power to protect wetlands and fight water pollution. In 2022, it imposed limits on the agency's authority under the Clean Air Act to reduce coal and gas-fired power plant carbon emissions.
Reuters
8 hours ago
- Automotive
- Reuters
US Supreme Court lets fuel producers challenge California emissions standards
WASHINGTON, June 20 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court sided on Friday with fuel producers that had opposed California's standards for vehicle emissions and electric cars under a federal air pollution law, agreeing that their legal challenge to the mandates should not have been dismissed. The justices in a 7-2 ruling overturned a lower court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit by a Valero Energy (VLO.N), opens new tab subsidiary and fuel industry groups. The lower court had concluded that the plaintiffs lacked the required legal standing to challenge a 2022 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decision to let California set its own regulations. "The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders," conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the decision. The dispute centered on an exception granted to California during Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration to national vehicle emission standards set by the agency under the landmark Clean Air Act anti-pollution law. Though states and municipalities are generally preempted from enacting their own limits, Congress let the EPA waive the preemption rule to let California set certain regulations that are stricter than federal standards. The EPA's 2022 action reinstated a waiver for California to set its own tailpipe emissions limits and zero-emission vehicle mandate through 2025, reversing a 2019 decision made during Republican President Donald Trump's first administration rescinding the waiver. Valero's Diamond Alternative Energy and related groups challenged the reinstatement of California's waiver, arguing that the decision exceeded the EPA's power under the Clean Air Act and inflicted harm on their bottom line by lowering demand for liquid fuels. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out the lawsuit in 2024, finding that the challengers lacked the necessary standing to bring their claims because there was no evidence that a ruling in their favor might affect the decisions of auto manufacturers in a way that would result in fewer electric and more combustion vehicles to be sold. California, the most-populous U.S. state, has received more than 100 waivers under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has taken a skeptical view toward broad authority for federal regulatory agencies and has restricted the powers of the EPA in some important rulings in recent years. In 2024, the court blocked the EPA's "Good Neighbor" rule aimed at reducing ozone emissions that may worsen air pollution in neighboring states. In 2023, the court hobbled the EPA's power to protect wetlands and fight water pollution. In 2022, it imposed limits on the agency's authority under the Clean Air Act to reduce coal- and gas-fired power plant carbon emissions.
Wall Street Journal
10 hours ago
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
The U.S. Gave Up Its Lead in Clean Energy Sectors Before. It Might Be Doing It Again.
The U.S. is the world leader in clean hydrogen and carbon-capture production, but President Trump's move to roll back green-energy subsidies could mean giving up that position to rivals. It wouldn't be the first time the country has fallen from the top spot in the clean-energy sector. Right now, the U.S. is the unambiguous leader in just a few energy-transition technologies, said Julio Friedmann, chief scientist at Carbon Direct, a consulting firm focusing on decarbonization. 'We have surrendered leadership on EVs, on batteries, on wind and on nuclear,' Friedmann said, adding the U.S. was also once a key player in solar energy. 'In all these cases we had led significantly, and we abdicated that leadership.' The Manhattan Project played a crucial role in the advancement of nuclear energy. The first practical solar cell was developed by Bell Labs in the 50s. The first large-scale wind farm was built in California in the 80s. In the 90s, the U.S. led the world on electric-vehicle battery development—in 2008, Tesla made the first EV able to travel more than 200 miles. More recently, under the Biden administration, a combination of tax credits, subsidies and grants have helped the U.S. to take the lead in clean hydrogen and carbon capture, even as China remains the largest producer of clean energy overall. According to a study published last year by consulting firm group McKinsey & Co., North America is set to produce 52% of the world's clean hydrogen by 2030, while China is on course for 30%. When it comes to carbon capture and storage technology, nearly half of all projects are set to be based in North America by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency, with Europe next highest with 31% of projects. Most of the North American projects are in the U.S., largely in Republican States and counties. But over the past month, the Trump administration has set about rolling back Biden's incentives, canceling grants and removing tax credits that helped to spur production across the country. 'On their current course, the administration will again abdicate leadership,' Friedmann said. Last month, Energy Secretary Chris Wright moved to cut $3.7 billion of grants and subsidies authorized under the previous administration that were designed to get clean-energy projects off the ground. Those included a carbon capture and storage project in Indiana, plastics recycling projects in Texas and a green cement project in California. Under the 'Big Beautiful Bill' proposal, hydrogen tax credits are set to end by the end of the year and clean-energy tax credits face a de facto repeal for projects coming online next year and in 2027. The Trump administration said the technologies were costly, burdening ratepayers and consumers, calling the sector a scam. Gregory Nemet, author of the book 'How Solar Energy Became Cheap,' likened the current rollback to policies that were put in place by President Richard Nixon but rolled back in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan, when subsidies for solar were axed. The U.S. had been the leader in solar technologies, thanks to research from NASA. But withdrawal in government-led support meant the industry moved abroad, he said. 'That was the end of the line for the U.S. solar industry for quite a while. Japan picked it up, then Germany, then China,' Nemet said. Currently, China dominates production of solar equipment, making up nearly 75% of modules, 85% of cells and 97% of wafer production, according to data from the International Energy Agency. It is a similar situation in batteries, with 70% of all electric vehicle batteries ever produced coming from China. 'The main loss is the reset in market expectations,' Nemet added. 'There was a market for clean technologies that was huge and growing. If you were going to make a long-term investment based on long-term incentives, the last four years was meant to build that and this is a pretty big setback to those incentives.' For carbon capture and storage in particular, a number of startups like Climeworks, Heirloom and Air Products had looked to base their first-of-a-kind plants in the U.S. That was in part because of its favorable geography, including plentiful underground storage, but also because of the funding and research on offer at America's universities. 'The U.S. federal government began investing in technologies like direct air capture back in 2015, 2016, way before anyone else was thinking about this, and it really led in public investment and innovation,' said Giana Amador, executive director at the Carbon Removal Alliance, a non profit promoting carbon removals. She said this led to companies wanting 'to build their first-of-a-kind projects here, and doing so in partnership with the federal government and in particular the Department of Energy.' Amador pointed to programs like the 45Q tax credit, the carbon negative shot pilots program, and other policies that support carbon removal. But climate startups in the clean energy sector have already started to feel the effects of Trump's push against clean tech. Battery recycler Li-Cycle has filed for bankruptcy, while job cuts have been seen at direct air capture startups Climeworks and Heirloom. Meanwhile, Group14, a Seattle-based silicon-battery maker said it was delaying opening its battery factory in Moses Lake, Washington, due to uncertainty over Trump's tariffs. Share prices have fallen sharply too, with hydrogen startup Plug Power down about 50% this year. Industrial-gases supplier Air Products & Chemicals had planned to build a $4.5 billion hydrogen facility in Louisiana, but that project price tag has now ballooned to $8 billion, the construction timeline has slipped and the company is still seeking customers. Similarly, Nel Hydrogen has hit the brakes on a $400 million factory in suburban Detroit, due to policy uncertainty. 'This is an investment in the U.S. going forward and that's got to be in the mind of those who are making final decisions,' said Frank Wolak, president of the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association. 'If we don't make this investment now, we will be looking at more and more Chinese and even European activities, and you won't be able to recover that ground. This is an investment in the U.S. future.' For local policymakers, the move to push back against green energy production has also resulted in thousands of job cuts. So far 45 announced projects have been canceled, closed or downsized resulting in 20,000 jobs being lost and $16.7 billion in investments abandoned according to environmental policy advocacy group E2. Of those, 72% of all jobs and 82% of investments were located in Republican congressional districts, E2 added. One of the other notable parts of the previous policy program was that it also had strong backing from fossil fuel, chemicals and other heavy polluting industries. The axed projects by Energy Secretary Wright included carbon capture and hydrogen proposals from Exxon Mobil, Eastman and Heidelberg Cement. 'With the current situation, the whole of this is in jeopardy,' said Sunita Satyapal, former Director of the U.S. DOE's hydrogen and fuel cell office. She said that in particular the 45V tax credit had made U.S. hydrogen production some of the cheapest in the world — an important driver in jump-starting the industry and encouraging industries to use the fuel source. 'Regardless of the technology, industry always needs a runway before take off and that is what subsidies provide.' Satyapal added that in the wake of the U.S.'s possible move away from the sector, regions like Canada and China could stand to benefit. China already makes up 65% of global electrolyser capacity, a key component in hydrogen production. Meanwhile, Canada's new Prime Minister Mark Carney has indicated supporting carbon capture projects tied with oil production. 'Companies are going to go where business is most favorable and I think that that in itself is a policy choice,' Carbon Removal Alliance's Amador said. 'The U.S. is at this critical window where we either continue to create a market and a policy environment that helps companies scale solutions here, or we give up that leadership and let other countries take the helm.' Write to Yusuf Khan at
Telegraph
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Democrats will not side with Israel against Iran, poll shows
Democrats cannot bring themselves to side with Israel against Iran's authoritarian regime and pursuit of nuclear weapons, according to a new poll shared with The Telegraph. The polling found that a little more than a third sided with Israel in the Middle East, with only eight per cent saying Iran. But some 52 per cent of Democrats in the survey of 1039 registered voters said they could not pick sides between a Jewish democracy or an Islamic theocracy. The issue illustrates how the party is struggling for clear leadership in the wake of their presidential election defeat, with their base shifting far to the left, said James Johnson, co-founder of JL Partners, which conducted the poll. 'It doesn't take much to shock me any more but I was genuinely gobsmacked by this finding,' he said. 'We know that Democrats have tended to oppose arming Israel, and have expressed concern about Israel's foreign policy. But this poll steps into a totally different order of magnitude: Democrat voters are so coloured by their view of Israel, that they cannot bring themselves to wholly condemn Iran. Instead they opt to sit on the fence.' Kamala Harris, the party's 2024 presidential candidate, lost support among Arab-Americans last year because of the Biden administration's support for Israel's war in Gaza. And the poll results could explain why so many potential 2028 candidates have steered clear of the Israel-Iran conflict and avoided offering their thoughts as they try to work out where Democratic voters stand. The poll was conducted at the start of this week after Israel launched strikes on Iran, prompting a barrage of missiles fired in return. The escalation has taken the Middle East to the brink of a regional war and Donald Trump, US president, is w eighing whether to send heavy bombers to obliterate Tehran's nuclear ambitions. A majority of Americans (59 per cent) said they backed Israel. That figure rose to 80 per cent among Trump voters and to 80 per cent among Republicans more broadly. Democrats said they were unsure. Only 36 per cent said they backed Israel. At the same time, Mr Trump is under intense pressure from many of his allies not to intervene in the conflict. Populists such as Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News anchor, have accused him of allowing 'warmongers' to get in his ear, after campaigning last year to avoid any future foreign entanglements. The result is the threat of a fracture within the Maga coalition, between its 'America First' wing and more traditionally hawkish Republicans. The new poll suggests there is a reckoning on the other side of the political spectrum as Democrats weigh whether to back Israel in its quest to end Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. The party has already struggled with splits over the US role in Gaza, where almost 50,000 have been killed since Israel launched its response to the October 7 Hamas attacks. While Joe Biden's administration backed the Israeli government, progressives including Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, the only Palestinian-American congresswoman, described it as a genocide. And the Israeli strikes on Iran triggered opposing responses from senior figures. Jackie Rosen, a Democratic senator from Nevada who sits on the armed services committee, said: 'Israel acted in self-defence against an attack from Iran, and the US must continue to stand with Israel, as it has for decades, at this dangerous moment.' But others condemned the strikes for disrupting negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme. Pramila Jayapal, a congresswoman from the progressive wing of the party, said: 'Netanyahu must not be allowed to pull America into another forever war. Instead, we must immediately push for negotiated de-escalation.' It could prove a particularly tricky needle to thread for some of the party's 'big beasts' who have an eye on the 2028 presidential race. Ms Harris, the former vice-president, Pete Buttigieg, who was Joe Biden's US transportation secretary, and Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, have all stayed silent. Mr Johnson added: 'This, coupled with other findings in the poll, suggest that put simply, Democrat voters have a serious problem with the Jewish state of Israel. 'Such a position is so wildly out of step with the American people as a whole that it could cripple Democrat candidates in their campaigns next year - and should be a central concern as Democratic primary seasons get under way.'
