How Will the Solar Industry be Impacted?

The IRA is chock full of measures to advance the country’s decarbonization goals, including incentives to spur innovation and further growth in the clean energy sector. The solar industry stands to potentially be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the bill’s passage. Here’s a high-level overview of the primary solar incentives in the bill that will give the industry a major jolt in the arm:

• The bill restores the 30% federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC), extending it for another 10 years. This policy certainty has long evaded the solar industry as Congress has made a habit of fiddling with the ITC and driving boom-bust cycles with their last-minute decision making. Energy storage technologies are now also eligible for the ITC.
• For the first time, solar projects will now also be eligible for the Production Tax Credit (PTC). Unlike the ITC which offers a one-time tax credit for project investors, the PTC is tied to the power that a renewable project generates over 10 years.
• Additional add-on tax credits can be applied to the ITC and PTC. There are an array of additional “bonus” add-ons that can be stacked together to create an especially lucrative financial incentive. These add-ons seek to encourage more solar projects to locate in low-income communities and in formerly coal-dependent communities, in addition to encouraging sourcing materials from domestic suppliers and paying prevailing wages for project workers. The graphics below show the myriad of add-on components of the ITC and PTC and their significant cumulative value.

Photo Source: Edison Energy

The various pro-solar initiatives baked into the IRA have already led to a boon in domestic manufacturing, as leading solar companies make renewed commitments to bring solar manufacturing jobs to the United States.

First Solar, the largest solar panel manufacturer in the U.S., announced in late August that they will invest up to $1.2B to expand solar panel manufacturing capacity in the country. About $1B will go towards a new facility to be located in the Southeast, which will employ hundreds and begin operations by 2025. An additional $185M will go towards expanding production capacity at the company’s existing factory in Ohio.

Photo Source: Toledo Blade

SPI Energy, a PV project developer and EPC firm, announced just days after the passage of the IRA that they intend to secure 1.5GW of solar wafer manufacturing equipment for a new U.S. production facility. The company is targeting delivery and production of 1.5GW of solar wafers production capacity by 2023, with plans to double that capacity by 2024. This will be the first silicon wafer facility based in the U.S. in nearly a decade’s time.

European PV Hardware, one of the largest solar tracker providers in the world, also announced recently plans to bring a 6 GW factory to Texas that will be operational by next year. Q Cells is also poking around states as it scouts a location for a nearly $2B 9 MW module manufacturing facility.

Photo Source: PV Hardware

These recent investments are just the tip of the iceberg, according to the Solar Industry Energy Association (SEIA). SEIA foresees an avalanche of additional solar manufacturing investments coming to the U.S. in coming years:

“As a direct result of the IRA, we expect to see significant new investments in domestic solar module, tracker, inverter and racking capacity within the next 2-3 years, followed by new investments in solar ingot, wafer and cell capacity within 3-5 years. By the end of the decade, the IRA will be instrumental in ensuring the U.S. solar industry meets its goal of 50 gigawatts (GW) of domestic solar manufacturing capacity across all key industry segments by 2030.”

Burden for Success Shifts to States

The passage of the IRA has brought renewed enthusiasm to climate activists and renewable energy enthusiasts who now see a much more feasible path forward to meeting climate goals. Lost in the euphoria, however, is the fact that while the federal action is indeed historic and desperately needed, it is not an instantaneous cure-all. States, municipalities, and utilities will play an outsized role in maximizing the true potential of the IRA.

The shear scale of new renewables capacity required to be developed in the U.S. in order to meet climate targets is significant. This presents an opportunity that is both exciting and daunting. In a recent guest article for Forbes, Senior Policy Expert for Energy Innovation’s Power Sector Transformation team, Daniel Esposito, points out in stark terms just how much the status quo will need to be upended in order to maximize the full potential of the IRA:

“The U.S. must build roughly 100 gigawatts (GW) of wind and solar capacity annually through 2030 to hit its climate targets, but it developed just 28 GW in 2021. More than 920 GW have applied for grid interconnection, but most projects drop out when faced with insurmountable transmission upgrade costs that have many “free-rider” beneficiaries. Successful ones languish for years waiting for approval.”

The traditional process of getting solar projects approved is overly bureaucratic, time-consuming, and far from streamlined. As noted by Esposito, there are a number of prominent challenges that the industry has historically faced that will need to be addressed so as to not impede the IRA’s plans to drastically increase renewables capacity.

• Patchwork permitting process: solar projects have long been plagued by a disjointed permitting process that differs – often significantly – from county to county. The lack of uniformity adds time and uncertainty to projects, both of which can be debilitating. The worrisome trend of solar farm moratoriums that are sprouting up across the country is not helping matters either.
• Interconnection issues: The time that solar projects spend in interconnection queues is increasing. These queues are a byproduct of the various impact studies that utilities and transmission system operators require before a project can be greenlighted. According to a report from the Lawrence Berkely National Laboratory of all energy projects, “the typical duration from connection request to commercial operation increased from ~2.1 years for projects built in 2000-2010 to ~3.7 years for those built in 2011-2021.”
• Transmission access: Solar companies can build out as much solar capacity as they want, but all will be for naught without improvements and extension of the electric grid, all of which has a long-time horizon.

The common denominator to all of the above is time. These time-consuming hurdles to solar project development and grid connection threaten so much of the ambitious plans set forth in the IRA.

There is another omnipresent threat to the success of the IRA in ramping up renewables deployment – politics. A lot of the models predicting that the IRA will help to rapidly expand renewable capacity in the country are based on economic models that fail to account for political differences among the states. In many states, state utility commissions play an outsized role in determining how much renewable energy capacity to incorporate into the grid. While solar capacity is growing off the charts in this country, there are still many states where the fossil fuels industry has commanding influence over the state legislators and utility commissions that will dictate how much of the pro-renewable initiatives in the IRA will actually happen in their respective states.

Lest we forgot the recently decided Supreme Court case West Virginia vs. EPA where a bevy of Republican-led states and fossil fuel companies successfully sued to block the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions related to climate change.

It is worth pointing out that the IRA was signed into law strictly along party lines with no Republican support for the bill. As such, ambitious Republican state elected officials will see little political incentive to go to the mat to take advantage of the pro-renewables initiatives in the IRA given the political exposure they would open themselves up to during a primary campaign.

Even so, there is reason for optimism. The economics of solar and wind energy continue to improve by leaps and bounds with each passing decade. The IRA is loaded with incentives that will continue to bend the cost curve down, and most importantly, that establish a degree of certainty that has long eluded the renewable energy industry. Bi-partisan advocacy organizations like the U.S. Climate Alliance, led by Red-state and Blue-state governors alike, have only hardened their resolve to make sure that the benefits of renewable energy flow to every corner of this country in the wake of the IRA’s passage. There are clear challenges to implementation for sure, but the solar industry has proven itself to be resilient time and time again, and we are confident that key industry players will rise to meet the moment.

Cover Photo Source: ADT Solar

The post IRA Passage Ushers in New Era of Stability for Solar Industry appeared first on Solar Tribune.

Oil & Gas Key to Putin’s War Politics

It can hardly be a coincidence that every military excursion that Russia has launched on Putin’s watch has happened during stretches of all-time high oil prices. During the August 2008 war in Georgia, crude oil prices were just coming off an historic high of almost $140/barrel (global benchmark crude Brent) set two months prior. Oil prices were similarly high in February 2014 when Russia seized Crimea ($108.21/barrel). Putin’s invasion of Ukraine came as the price for crude oil was over $90/barrel – a seven-year high.

Source: Business Insider

Clearly, Putin uses record high oil prices to fill Russia’s coffers, fund the country’s war machine, and blunt the blow of international sanctions. Putin’s third attempt at such a strategy, however, is likely to be his most fatal.

Russia’s status as one of the most fossil fuels-rich countries in the world has allowed the country to maintain geo-political influence even as growing authoritarian tendencies in the country turned off many global democracies.

Many of the world’s global powers, like the U.S. and much of Western Europe, have performed an awkward dance with Putin’s Russia for years. On the one hand, these countries assume a confrontational posture on the global stage, criticizing Putin’s anti-democratic instincts, all while they maintain reliance on Russia’s oil and gas products behind the scenes. Those days are likely to change significantly, and Russia is poised to be the biggest loser as the latest upheaval to global energy politics reshuffles the world order. The Biden Administration took the unprecedented step recently to ban all Russian oil imports in what is perhaps the most severe sanction the United States has placed on Russia to-date. The NY Times’ ominous yet fitting headline about the move, The Future Turns Dark for Russia’s Oil Industry, accurately describes the bleak future that Russia now faces.

Europe Pledges an Even Greener Future

The fallout from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been unprecedented. European, American, and other democratic voices across the world have coalesced around a global strategy to send military support to Ukraine and isolate Russia through severe economic sanctions.

In the early days of the assault on Ukraine, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced the suspension of the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline tied to Russian energy company Gazprom. President Biden also slapped sanctions specifically on the Nord Stream 2 AG company that is in charge of building the pipeline. This comes as countries like the United Kingdom, Canada, and others cascade sanctions on Russian energy giants Gazprom and Rosneft.

Source: Getty Images

These moves, while good for the overall global push to adopt more renewables, leave Germany and other European countries in a tough spot. Germany in particular closed the door on nuclear power after the 2011 Fukushima disaster and pledged in 2019 to shutter coal-fired power plants by 2038. Reversing course on either at this juncture would be politically difficult, but reporting indicates that Germany is at least considering extending their coal phase-out plans.

To say that Germany has a complicated relationship with Russian gas would be quite the understatement. The country relies on Russia for two-thirds of its natural gas supply and one-third of its oil. Germany has almost no short-term leverage over Russia when it comes to severing these long-standing ties. That’s perhaps why Germany and other EU countries are all but slamming the door on any outright ban on Russian oil imports in the near future.

The short-term reality aside, the energy politics in Germany and across Europe have changed dramatically in favor of a greener future. German officials in particular are now more motivated than ever to fully embrace renewables back home. Germany recently announced plans to meet all of the country’s energy needs from renewable sources by 2035, an accelerated timeline from the previously set date of 2040.

Source: Bloomberg Energy

Climate Change as National Security Threat

The predicament that Germany finds itself in is a perfect example of the growing ties between climate change and national security. This reality was underscored recently by a Ukrainian climate scientist, Dr. Svitlana Krakovska, at a UN climate meeting where she called out the common denominator for the worrisome near-term and long-term future her people face. Said Krakovska:

“Human-induced climate change and the war on Ukraine have the same roots—fossil fuels—and our dependence on them.”

It is no coincidence that recent wars and hostile military actions have been concentrated in and around major fossil fuel-producing countries. Iraq, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Russia all come to mind. The more that the developed world can wean itself off of tainted global oil produced from hostile countries the better.

Just like Germany, the United States is reassessing its own predicament over global oil reliance. Amid sky rocketing gas prices, the Biden Administration is doing the once unthinkable; considering reaching out to  Saudi Arabia to tap more of its oil reserves and considering the relaxing of oil sanctions previously placed on Venezuela. To put it mildly, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela aren’t exactly saints on the global peacekeeping front. The fact that the United States is so reliant on fossil fuels from such bellicose countries to meet its energy needs is highly problematic to say the least.

Combating climate change has long been positioned in moral terms, and increasingly, in economic terms as the costs of renewables have dramatically fallen in recent decades. The ongoing crisis in Ukraine is now forcing everyone to view the problem through the lens of sovereignty. It is not only the climate that is at stake, but the very nature of sovereignty for much of Europe is at stake as well. The best way to diminish the geo-political influence of petro-aggressor states like Russia is to commit to an energy policy that puts renewables at the center of a plan for energy sovereignty.

Cover Photo Source: World Economic Forum

The post Putin’s War Accelerates Clean Energy Push appeared first on Solar Tribune.

Of possible policy options, shifting subsidies from fossil fuels to clean energy sources was deemed to be the most important policy mechanism we can use to combat climate change.

Methodology & In-Depth Findings

Over the past year, Solar Tribune has invested extensive time and resources interviewing experts across every sector and field that touches upon climate change and the need for action: advocacy groups, scientists and academics, politicians and government leaders, writers, influencers, and more. In connecting with these over 100 experts, our goal has been to ask them for input on the type of action that we need to be seeing, both on a collective and an individual level, to fight climate change.

A key resource built out thanks to these invaluable conversations has been a compendium of proposals, supporting quotes, and links and documents where Solar Tribune readers can find out more information when they want to dig deeper. You can wade through the bevy of policy priorities, individual recommendations, and other outcomes from this project at the following links:

• Advocating for the Right Public Policies
• Individual Action to Combat Climate Change

This extensive interviewing process is still an ongoing and ever-evolving effort, meaning we’re continuing to build out the above resources (so, please continue to check in on them and see these ‘virtual conversations’ grow!). But in answering those questions, the experts with whom we were connecting started sharing insights into some additional questions outside of the original prompts. Where we were asking for policy proposals that were important, these thought leaders were debating which were the most effective compared with which got the most bang for the buck (whether literal dollars and cents or in terms of political capital). They also highlighted actions that maybe weren’t as directly impactful on a CO2 level but were still intangibly vital. And a common theme of questions that kept coming up: how much should we really be discussing the importance of individual action compared with demanding accountability from politicians? Similarly, how much should we care about our household carbon footprints when the real impact is no doubt coming from the corporate carbon footprint?

Recognizing that these questions were just as critical, if not more so, than the original ones we had been asking, as well as reflecting on the fact that we had inherently built an extensive rolodex of climate experts (both those who participated with shareable quotes and those we’ve connected with on other levels behind the scenes), we realized it was important to take the next step. We want our contribution to the climate conversation to not just be listing out possible routes to take, but using these expert voices to quantitatively evaluate priorities.

With that, we rolled out our Solar Tribune Climate Expert Survey. Thanks to our over 100 participants who were generous enough to share their time and insights with us via private survey, we’re happy to now be publishing version 1.0 of those results. This iteration is just version 1.0, not a final product, because we do recognize some limitations inherent in our results thus far, and we want to engage with more experts, people with more diverse backgrounds and perspectives, and build a consortium of climate experts who can help us minimize those limitations while maximizing the applicability of our results.

The goal is to really gauge where the climate action winds are blowing, where they may be blowing in coming years, and (most importantly) where they should be going. So, let’s dive in..

Questions Asked

To start with, we collected 13 of the top climate policy priorities that came from our one-on-one expert interviews. These 13 items represent themes, policy mechanisms, and actions that authoritative thought leaders have advocated for in our discussions, and (in no particular order) they are:

• Carbon pricing
• Shifting subsidies from fossil fuels to clean energy sources
• Clean energy financing policies
• Renewable portfolio standards
• Feed-in tariffs
• Transportation policies that encourage EV adoption
• Transportation policies that require elevated efficiency from vehicles
• Building energy codes
• Appliance energy standards
• Policies for industrial efficiency / emissions
• Public funding for technological solutions and R&D
• Land use policies
• Focus on a just transition and environmental justice

Presenting these 13 policies, we asked each survey responded to rank all of these options against each other in three different categories:

1. Importance
2. Cost-effectiveness
3. Effectiveness in reducing CO2

Another topic that came up frequently in expert interviews was the debate about how much emphasis should be placed on different potential groups and influencers for climate action. Some activists express anger and frustration about the trend of focusing on how individuals can reduce their carbon emissions because it is theoretically letting the most polluting entities—corporations—off the hook. Along that same train of thought, many argue that it simply should not matter what any particular individual or corporation can do because, in the end, they’re always going to act in their self-interest. As such, this argument goes, regulators and policymakers must be the ones instilling certain requirements towards sustainability, or at the very least putting a thumb on the scale to make sure the dangerous externalities of climate change are priced into the decisions made by people and companies. To address these points, we asked our respondents to rank on a scale of 0-5 how important it was to:

• Encourage individual citizens to take action on climate
• Encourage policymakers to take action on climate
• Encourage individual corporations to take action on climate

And, lastly, to ensure we knew who we were talking to, we asked from demographic information from any respondents who were comfortable sharing the following:

• Their political affiliation
• Their state or country
• Their gender
• The industry/sector in which they work
• Whether they consider themselves a climate activist

Initial Results

The results from this Version 1.0 of the survey are thought-provoking, and they can best be expressed through graphical representation:

Limitations of the Survey

Before diving into the implications from these results and the conclusions we can begin to make, we must walk through some of the previously suggested limitations. These limitations are important to analyze because they should give us some pause in declaring the results authoritative quite yet.

The biggest limitation established was in who we were able to get to complete the survey. Though we spent extensive effort in reaching a broad set of leaders—people of different political persuasions, lines of work, and more—the people who did end up participating are still a self-selecting group. As such, for full transparency, we do want to present a breakdown of who these 120 people are whose answers comprise version 1.0:

Note: Dark blue has most respondents, lighter blue is moderate respondents, yellow is very few submissions. 

Note: Dark blue has most respondents, lighter blue is moderate respondents, yellow is very few submissions. 

Obviously, we’d love to fill this out more completely and fully representatively. We want respondents in equal amounts from both sides of the aisle; we want as many women as men to participate, we want to target influencers and stakeholders who don’t purely consider themselves as climate advocates but are actually just operating in their industry while considering the realities of carbon emissions. If you fit the bill of any of these groups currently underrepresented in our survey, or you know anyone who would fit the bill and is indeed a thought leader, please let us know!

Outside of those who participated, the structure of our survey also has inherent shortcomings that should be acknowledged. Our list of climate policy proposals is, of course, incomplete, and it’s also ignoring that the ideal direction is a suite of complementary policies rather than just one ‘best’ option. No single proposal will be a silver bullet, but by tapping into all of the best tools available that’s how you can build great success. That theme came up time and again in our interviews, and we’ve acknowledged the need for this discussion of ‘System Changes, No Silver Bullet’ on this page, but by artificially requiring respondents to pick one policy over another some of that nuance can certainly be lost.

Another limitation came from the fact that we lumped together policies that stretch expanded beyond single sectors: transportation to power generation to the built environment to land use and more. Each of these sectors has specific goals and unique considerations, so pitting them head to head is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, in theory. That said, we’re approaching this as a theoretical government leader or political candidate must approach it in practice. When these leaders commit to climate action, various sectors are all essential to address, though some may be more urgent, have lower-hanging fruit, or require different levels of political capital. In that way, pitting these policies against each other is often what leaders must do.

But those limitations should not mean the results of this survey are moot. In fact, in conducting this survey we accomplished an important feat in getting responses from curated experts, not the general public or not decision-makers who aren’t as well-versed in the climate reality as they are in general politics. The people who have provided answers in this version 1.0 are the people who live, work, and breathe these important topics. So, let’s see what insights we can glean from the previously listed results.

Implications of the Results

Recognizing that we have to hedge how much we read into these results given the above limitations, we can still start to recognize some important and valuable trends.  First and foremost, the relative ranking of policy options prove to be telling. Shifting subsidies from fossil fuels to clean energy was definitely the most recommended by our experts, as it was rated as the most important, the most effective, and the most cost effective policy across the board.

Trailing behind, carbon pricing and clean energy financing were both in the top 3 of each of these categories as well, showing that these are also critical to any sort of massive package of policies to push forth.

On the other side of the equation, the bottom 5 of each of the categories included public funding of R&D, appliance energy standards, feed-in tariffs, and land use policies. Note that these low relative rankings doesn’t necessarily mean these policy options aren’t worthwhile. In fact, our one-on-one interviews with experts have provided us with key insider quotes endorsing them specifically (see these quotes endorsing R&D, appliance energy standards, feed-in tariffs, and land use). That said, the inherent ‘game’ of this survey was prioritizing and figuring out which policies were atop the priority list and which were less imperative and/or time sensitive. Given that reality, if there was compromise needed to get a wide-scale package implemented, for example, perhaps these types of policies would need to be at the top of the chopping block

While these notes are the most obvious standout points from the survey results, one of the most compelling discussion points come where there’s disparity between the questions. Environmental justice, in particular, ranked as the fourth most important policy consideration but in the bottom three in terms of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. That result demonstrates that building in the social equity factor will surely add costs to a policy package without as much direct impact to CO2 results, but our experts still ranked it highly for all the obvious reasons why it’s the right thing to do.

Another important conclusion comes in the ranking of individual vs. corporate vs. policy focus. Our expert respondents overwhelming found that policymakers are the ones that should be held most accountable, followed by corporations, and with individuals coming in last. This relative ranking tracks with the scale of potential impact (i.e., government action can have impact many individual corporations, and the typical corporate impact encompasses the carbon footprint equivalent of hundreds to thousands to even millions of individuals). Similarly, these results fall in line with the role each actor plays: a government’s job is to protect its people and ensure they prosper, while a corporation’s sole goal in a capitalist environment is to maximize shareholder return, and an individual is most likely to work altruistically after their basic needs are met—but again the impact of what individuals can do is limited without them trying to tap into that corporate or government level (in fact, that’s the individual action many of our experts recommended—trying to influence change at your workplace or with your wallet as a vote in the economy, or by mobilizing voters and putting pressure on elected officials).

Refining and Building Out Moving Forward

As stated, these results simply represent version 1.0. The Solar Tribune goal is to multiply the number of respondents to our survey and make them more representative and then check back in with a version 2.0.

If you would like to participate, please get in touch with us at matt@solartribune.com. If you specifically have recommendations about experts who should get involved that are women, Republicans, or not climate advocates, per se, then we’d love for you to make those connections for us as well!

And even if you aren’t in those groups who are less represented in our results, we still want more volume of respondents so we have the granularity in version 2.0 we can break out the results even further:

• What policies are favored for Republicans vs. Democrats?
• How does the sector in which you work in influence who you think should be pushed most between individuals, corporations, and government officials?
• Do men and women differ in the priority they place on different sectors of action?

These are the nuanced and important questions we’re eager to answer—but we need your help to do so!

The post 2021 Climate Policy & Industry Priorities: Survey of Industry, Academic, and Political Leaders appeared first on Solar Tribune.

A Just Transition is Good Politics

In just the first several days of his presidency, President Biden has made it clear that addressing climate change will be a prominent feature of his administration. The President has assembled the largest team ever inside the White House that is dedicated to climate change policy. This so-called Climate Cabinet is a recognition by Biden that climate change is no longer a niche public policy challenge that can be pursued within the confines of the Environmental Policy Agency, but rather, an expansive challenge affecting ever corner of the federal government.

The brute politics of climate change on Capitol Hill, however, have not changed much since Biden was last in the White House. Political intransigence from U.S. Senators from fossil fuels-dependent states remains an omnipresent challenge to achieving any big legislative victory on the climate change front. This is especially true in an evenly divided Senate where Joe Manchin – from heavily coal-dependent West Virginia – is arguably the body’s most influential Senator.

The COVID-19 pandemic presents an opportunity to fundamentally change the politics of climate change by highlighting the importance of a “just transition.” Put simply, a “just transition” is a term used to emphasize that the people and communities that powered America since the days of the Industrial Revolution deserve to be supported – not left behind – as we pivot to a more sustainable approach to producing energy. While the fossil fuels industry is rightfully criticized for its role in exacerbating the effects of climate change, workers within the industry are just trying to earn a respectable living and support their families, often in communities with few other job prospects.

Photo Source: Movement Generation

On the campaign trail, Biden leaned into this conversation. His Climate Plan calls for the formation of a taskforce to help coal and power plant-dependent communities diversify their economies. The taskforce would:

“…help these communities access federal investments and leverage private sector investments to help create high-paying union jobs based upon the unique assets of each community, partner with unions and community colleges to create training opportunities for these new jobs…”

The Climate Plan also encourages the passing of federal legislation that would protect the retirement benefits of miners, their widows, and their dependents.

Not only are the above policies morally just, but they are also good politics that can hopefully loosen the logjam on Capitol Hill. It is imperative to not shun fossil fuels workers or make them feel guilty for the climate predicament our world is confronting. Federal policies that provide for the retraining of fossil fuels workers, in addition to other financial incentives, need to be a pivotal component to any broader climate change policy. This mindset is critical to winning support from members of Congress who represent districts and states that are heavily dependent on the fossil fuels industry.

COVID-19 Adds Urgency to the Moment

People who work in the fossil fuels industry and/or who live in communities whose economies rely on the industry have long been presented with a false choice – either you can have a job or have a healthy environment, but not both. In reality, robust climate action will have a stimulating effect on the economy and clean energy job prospects are overwhelmingly brighter than those in the fossil fuels industry.

This is precisely the message that John Kerry, U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, made just days ago during his first appearance in the White House Press Briefing Room.

John Kerry: “Unfortunately, workers have been fed a false narrative … that somehow dealing with climate is coming at their expense. No, it’s not.” pic.twitter.com/yMy9bWKqOc

— The Recount (@therecount) January 27, 2021

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the fragility of the fossil fuels industry. In many respects, the pandemic has just greatly accelerated the employment trends seen in the clean energy sector visa vie the fossil fuels sector for years. The 2020 Clean Jobs Report released by E2 noted that in 2019, total clean energy jobs outnumbered total fossil fuels industry jobs by a 3-to-1 margin.

Photo Source: E2 Clean Jobs Report, 2020

Clean energy jobs also grew at a greater clip than all jobs nationally in the immediate 5-year period before the 2020 economic downturn that so disproportionately affected the fossil fuels industry.

Photo Source: E2 Clean Jobs Report, 2020

Clean energy job growth outpaced job growth in the fossil fuels industry, especially in fossil fuel-dependent states like Pennsylvania before COVID and that trend is only likely to accelerate once we are on the other side of the pandemic.

It should come as little surprise that many fossil fuels workers dealing with job losses related to the COVID-19 downturn are finding re-employment opportunities in the solar industry. A recent article in the Houston Chronicle highlighted this dynamic in Texas. The Lone Star state has seen a flood of large-scale solar investments in recent years, with companies like Lighthouse BP, a San Francisco-based solar company, investing more than $1 billion in solar projects in the state. Their CEO, Kevin Smith, noted that their growth is being supported by an influx of former oil and gas workers.

“No question, we are getting workers moving over from oil and gas. A lot of the oil and gas skills are applicable to solar.”

Raj Prabhu, CEO of Mercom Capital Group, an Austin-based clean-energy research firm, thinks that this dynamic is just beginning.

“Oil and gas is boom and bust, while solar has seen nothing but gradual growth over the last 10 years. This is where the jobs are going to be and where the economy is heading. If you’re not going to make the shift, you’re going to be left behind.”

We as a country can’t afford to allow today’s fossil fuels workers to be left behind. The social, economic, and political consequences are too great. While clean energy job prospects are appealing, old habits die hard. There is a great deal of familial pride and personal dignity that today’s coal miners find in their line of work. The collapse of the coal industry under COVID-19 only adds urgency to the just transition movement.

Germany Offers a Blueprint

While the United States largely shirked its climate change responsibilities in recent years, other developed countries pursued bold action. Germany is one such nation that passed historic legislation to wean the country off coal, while still supporting the economic needs of coal workers.

Last summer, Germany passed groundbreaking legislation to phase-out all of the country’s coal power plants by 2038. The legislation was born out of the multi-year efforts of a commission that consisted of industry, academia, environmental groups, and labor unions. Not only did this historic legislation establish a timetable for shuttering the country’s coal-fired power plants, it ensured that coal-dependent regions would receive critical government support to deal with the economic shock from such a move.

The legislation earmarked 40 billion euros in government aid to coal-dependent regions and ensured that coal plant operators would be compensated for shutting down capacity.

Germany has combined federal financial support for transitioning coal workers with local-led efforts focused on coal plant adaptive reuse and community revitalization strategies for an effective holistic approach that ensures a just transition for coal workers. In an example of the latter, a massive former coal  mining complex in Essen, Germany was preserved and transformed into a UNESCO World Heritage site that now pumps tourism dollars into the community and serves as a prominent cultural amenity. Other examples can be found in the video below.

A holistic approach that phases out coal-fired power plants, invites key stakeholder groups to the policymaking table, and commits federal dollars to worker retraining programs and other support programs may serve as integral elements to a Biden Administration-led effort to aggressively combat climate change in way that is fair and just for America’s fossil fuels workers.

There are growing signs that the typical political alignment on climate change is being reshuffled. Just recently, some of the biggest names in corporate America like Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Ford Motor Co. CEO, Bill Ford, penned a letter to President Biden pledging their support to the fight against climate change and committing to creating more American jobs in the process. They understand that the stakes couldn’t be higher. A recent poll commissioned by the United Nations dubbed as the “biggest survey ever” of global sentiment on climate change found that almost 2/3’s of the 1.2 million people surveyed agree that the world is currently in a state of climate emergency.

The politics as usual approach to climate change can’t persist forever in the United States. Legislation that places a premium on a just transition for fossil fuel workers may be the key to unlocking the support needed on Capitol Hill to go big.

Cover Photo Source: World Oil

The post Economic Downturn Highlights Need for a ‘Just Transition’ appeared first on Solar Tribune.

Planet Earth Enjoys a Respite

The “stay at home” orders and restrictions in travel implemented by countries across the world earlier this year to slow the spread of the COVID-19 virus represented a first-of-its kind social experiment that sought to collectively change human behavior on a massive scale. An unexpected benefit of this unprecedented disruption to modern life was the ensuing sharp reduction in carbon emissions, which gave Mother Earth a much-needed break in its ongoing battle against global warming.

In China alone, carbon emissions fell by 100 million metric tons according to one analysis that focused on a 2-week period after the Chinese New Year on January 25.

A scientific study released by environmental researchers in May noted that daily carbon emission levels in early April – when restrictions on movement were most widespread – fell by 17% from 2019’s average levels. The scientists focused their research on 69 countries that are collectively responsible for 97% of global carbon emissions. The researchers anticipate that emissions for the year will fall by 7% compared to 2019, which would be the biggest year-over-year drop since World War II.

Although welcome news, the decline in carbon emissions also shows the limitations of reducing emissions by altering human behavior alone. Afterall, 83% of carbon emissions remained in place even with almost all of the top polluting countries in the world curtailing their emissions in an unprecedented way. This reality underscores why more widespread adoption of solar energy and other forms of renewables need to play a central role in the fight against climate change, since behavioral modifications by humans can only achieve so much.

Solar Panel Output Ticks Up

The clearer skies brought on by worldwide “stay at home” orders have also led to another surprising outcome that environmentalists and clean energy enthusiasts are hailing – a noticeable jump in solar energy output.

A study released earlier this month in the scientific journal Joule studied the impact that less polluted skies in Delhi, India had on the solar energy capturing abilities of solar panels in the city. Researchers focused on Delhi in part because it is one of the most polluted cities in the world. India also enacted a quick and dramatic lockdown starting on March 24, making before and after comparisons easier to capture.

Photo Source: The Guardian; Pictured: New Delhi’s India Gate war memorial on 17 October 2019 and on 8 April 2020

The researchers found that the amount of sunlight reaching solar panels in Delhi during the lockdown increased by 8% in late March and 6% in April compared to the same time periods in 2017, 2018, and 2019. The researchers make the unmistakable tie between air quality and the effectiveness of solar energy systems, an often-overlooked component of the solar efficiency equation. This study confirms similar work conducted in 2018 on the deleterious effect of air pollution on solar panel efficiency in Delhi.

A reduction in carbon emissions and the continued adoption of solar energy go hand-in-glove when it comes to any meaningful climate action plan. As one of the study’s contributing authors, Ian Marius Peters, put it:

“We’ve gotten a glimpse of what a world with better air looks like and see that there may be an opportunity to ‘flatten the climate curve.’ I believe solar panels can play an important role, and that going forward having more PV installations could help drive a positive feedback loop that will result in clearer and cleaner skies.”

Wholesale changes in emissions standards the world over would instantly make existing solar energy infrastructure more productive. This fact underscores the great compounding effect that carbon reduction policies and expanded solar energy adoption can have in reversing the effects of climate change.

Shutdowns Hit Fossil Fuels the Hardest

The disruption that COVID-19 brought to the energy sector may have been dramatic, but at the same time, it didn’t dramatically alter the long-term trends that have been apparent for some time now. In fact, the virus-induced lockdowns that roiled the energy sector are likely to only hasten the decline of the fossil fuels industry.

As we’ve noted before at Solar Tribune, the oil and gas industry was upended by the lockdowns imposed earlier this year. The sharp decline in demand resulted in the once unthinkable – the price of crude oil was driven into negative territory.

Meanwhile, the current state and outlook for the coal industry is even worse. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects coal production in the United States to fall by 25% in 2020 due in large part to the sharp months-long decline in industrial production resulting from virus-induced lockdowns. Coal is also the only major source of electricity generation that the EIA projects will decline as a share of total U.S. utility-scale electricity generation. EIA projections show a fall from 24% in 2019 to 17% in 2020 before a small rebound to 20% in 2021.

Photo Source: Graph created by Solar Tribune; data from the EIA

Just as COVID-19 did little to disrupt the decline of the fossil fuels industry, so too will the renewables energy continue its upward trajectory. The U.S. solar market installed a record breaking 3.6 GW of solar PV in Q1, according to a recent report from the SEIA and Wood Mackenzie. This largely represents the pre-COVID landscape, and Q2 is surely to be worse. However, Wood Mackenzie still projects 33% annual growth with nearly 18 GW of solar PV installations brought online in 2020, thanks in large part to the utility-scale solar sector that will buoy the industry as residential and commercial installs take a COVID-related hit. EIA also remains bullish on the broader renewables sector, noting the following in their latest market outlook released in June:

“EIA forecasts that renewable energy will be the fastest-growing source of electricity generation in 2020. EIA expects the electric power sector will add 23.2 gigawatts of new wind capacity and 12.6 gigawatts of utility-scale solar capacity in 2020.”

The post-pandemic world will be much different than the pre-pandemic world. That much is for certain. There’s a renewed opportunity for solar energy specifically and the renewable sector generally to play a bigger role in fueling the energy needs of the world and in combating climate change. Let’s hope that the political will is there to make this post-pandemic world a reality.

Cover Photo Source: Bloomberg

The post Silver Linings Emerge for Solar Industry Amid COVID-19 Pandemic appeared first on Solar Tribune.

Climate Change by the Numbers

The topic of climate change and the role that humans have played in the warming of the planet remains heavily debated within American political circles. The science and facts behind climate change, however, are unmistakable. According to NASA, 97% or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that “climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.” The world’s five warmest years have all occurred since 2015, according to NOAA, with 2019 being the second-warmest year in NOAA’s 140-year climate record (behind only 2016).

The scientific case for urgently addressing climate change is well established, but historically speaking, less than overwhelming consensus among the general public has somewhat dampened the willingness of U.S. politicians to be moved to action when it comes to supporting a widespread pro-renewables policy agenda. That is all beginning to change.

The Pew Research Center is arguably the gold standard when it comes to public polling in the United States. For decades, Pew has conducted polling on political, social, cultural, and economic topics that are of interest to the American public. Their time-series data tracking public opinions about climate change gives reason to be optimistic that a shared consensus around climate action is forming.

Polling from July of last year revealed that 57% of Americans agree that “global climate change is a major threat to the well-being of the United States.” This marks a 17-point increase in the share of Americans who agreed with that statement in 2013.

Source: Pew Research Center

While the greatest gains among those agreeing that climate change threatens the well-being of the country are concentrated among self-identifying Democrats, it is notable that over time, people of all political persuasions have become more likely to agree on the topic. The share of Liberal Democrats and Moderate/Conservative Democrats agreeing with the statement increased by 30 points and 21 points respectively. The gains experienced among Moderate/Liberal Republicans (+9 points) and Conservative Republicans (+5 points) were less dramatic, but still noteworthy. The sooner that climate change stops being a partisan issue, the sooner that bipartisan progress can be achieved on the most pressing issue of our time.

Not only are a majority of Americans in agreement that climate change threatens the nation’s well-being, but clear majorities also agree that the federal government should be doing more to combat the effects of climate change. Over two-thirds of Americans believe that the “federal government is doing too little to reduce effects of global climate change,” according to polling conducted last October. Findings are similar for those saying that the government should ramp up efforts to protect air (67%) and water quality (68%).

Source: Pew Research Center

Global Warming Effects Getting Harder for Public to Ignore

One of the powers of social media is its ability to connect people who are worlds apart. This helps to build a shared sense of global awareness around topics and current events that would otherwise be impossible to achieve during the era of traditional media.

The historic and devastating brushfire crisis that ushered in the new year in Australia is one such example. Heartbreaking images and videos of the debilitating impact of the brushfires on the people, wildlife, and habitat of Australia captured the attention of a global audience. Damage assessments continue, but the accumulated loss of property and natural habitat from the brushfires is staggering. The fires have burned through over 46 million acres of land, destroyed over 5,900 buildings, killed at least 34 people, and have killed an estimated one billion animals.

Source: NY Times

The effects of climate change don’t manifest themselves in isolated weather events, but weather-related catastrophes – like the Australian brushfires – create a heightened sense of urgency among even casual observers in the general public. This reality is likely a key contributing factor to the growing shift in public opinion on climate change as well-publicized and high impact natural disasters have become more commonplace in recent years.

Americans Agree That Solar is the Future

Solar capacity in the United States has increased exponentially in this century alone. The fact that the widespread growth in solar energy adoption across residential, commercial, and utility sectors has coincided roughly with an uptick in the share of Americans who feel that climate change threatens the well-being of the country is no accident. Americans know that the solutions to reversing the ill effects of climate change are right in front of us, and support for more solar energy and renewable energy adoption has never been higher.

An October 2019 survey by Pew revealed that 77% of adults in the U.S. say that developing alternative energy is the “more important priority for U.S. energy supply,” compared with just 22% who said the same about expanding fossil fuels. In the same survey, a whopping 92% of respondents were in favor of there being “more solar panel farms” in the United States, including clear majorities of self-identifying Republicans (86% in favor) and Democrats (96% in favor).

This sky-high support for “solar panel farms” implies that Americans want government, utilities, and corporations to make the large-scale solar infrastructure investments needed to wean the country off of fossil fuels. However, the share of Americans willing to assume the burden themselves and embrace solar investments on their own residences also continues to rise. In 2019, 46% of homeowners stated that they gave serious thought to installing solar panels on their home, an increase from the 40% who said so just 3 years prior.

The fact that almost nine-in-ten Republicans and nine-in-ten Democrats support more investments in solar farms in the United States is no small feat. It is also an important reminder of the overwhelming popularity that solar energy enjoys in the country. Meanwhile, public consensus continues to steadily build for a more urgent approach to tackling the world’s climate crisis. Although the current political climate can make pro-renewables enthusiasts feel helpless and pessimistic about the future of our planet, the abundance of public polling provides reason to be optimistic. Quite simply, Americans know the urgency with which we must act to reverse the effects of climate change and they know what can get us there. It’s high time for Americans politicians to reflect this clear will of the people.

Cover Photo Source: NY Times

The post Public Polling Favors Climate Action, More Solar Adoption appeared first on Solar Tribune.

Vote Climate U.S. PAC’s 2020 Presidential Voter’s Guide empowers Americans to make climate change a top priority. Our voter’s guide gives Democrats and Republicans running for president, a climate calculation, clearly distinguishing candidates on the issue. It allows voters to choose climate-action in 2020, perhaps one of our last chances to prioritize the climate emergency.

Our guide sharply differentiates Democratic frontrunners for president on climate change. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders top all candidates, with overall climate calculations of 93.75. By contrast, Joe Biden’s overall climate calculation is 68.75. Compare that to Republican incumbent Donald Trump who is a climate zero. Voting according to our voter’s guide, climate calculations may make the difference between life and death on our planet.

Photo Source: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication

Climate Policy and Our Voter’s Guide

 At Vote Climate U.S. PAC, we built our organizational mission around three, indispensable, policy pillars: putting a fee on carbon pollution; transitioning to 100% clean, renewable energy by 2030; and keeping fossil fuels in the ground. Taken together, these policies, which ground our 2020 presidential voter’s guide, will put the U.S. solidly on the path to slowing climate change and the existential threat it represents.

Fee on Carbon Pollution

A fee on carbon polluters is a fee imposed on fossil fuels, ultimately intended to eliminate the emission of carbon dioxide. Vote Climate U.S. PAC believes that a fee on carbon polluters is an essential piece of the Green New Deal or any comprehensive legislation to slow climate change. A carbon fee would compel energy producers to switch from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy or lose their competitive edge.

Polluters, like fossil fuel companies who pump excessive carbon dioxide into our atmosphere, driving climate change and related weather extremes, should pay the price. That is what a fee on carbon polluters would accomplish, especially in a fee and dividend policy, where Americans would receive a regular check, to offset any increase in energy costs that may result.

A fee on carbon pollution must: set an ambitious, concrete goal for emission reductions that is adequate to slow climate change; and place an adequate price per ton of carbon to reflect the societal cost of emissions. It must be paid by the polluters and set a deadline for achieving emission reduction goals, that slows climate change on a timeline for human survival.

Message matters in politics. Polls show that voters want to tax carbon, as long as you don’t call it a “carbon tax.” Call it “a fee on carbon pollution,” or a “fee on carbon polluters,” because that’s what it is.

No presidential candidate merited an overall climate calculation of 100 because nearly all Democratic candidates need to improve their climate calculations in the “carbon fee” category. Warren, Sanders and Biden all support a fee on carbon pollution, but all three score only 75 on carbon fee. They all need to become more powerful advocates and stronger voices on that issue.

100% Renewable Energy by 2030

The world may only have until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change, according to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The difference between using 100% clean energy by 2030 or 2050, could be the difference between meeting the limit of 1.5 degrees of global warming, set in the Paris Agreement, or not.

The difference between climate calculations for Democratic frontrunners Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden comes partially from Biden’s failure to match Warren’s and Sander’s advocacy for 100% renewable energy by 2030.  Biden’s call for a 100% clean energy economy and net-zero emissions by no later than 2050 is too little, too late.

Keeping Fossil Fuels in the Ground

 The transition to clean, renewable energy can happen quickly, but only by keeping fossil fuels in the ground. We need to end fossil fuel subsidies and fossil fuel extraction on public lands, both of which are necessary in order to receive full credit in our voter’s guide.

Vice President Biden supports ending fossil fuel subsidies and ending fossil fuel extraction on public lands, as does Sanders and Warren. But Biden signed the “No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge” and then violated that pledge by attending a fundraising event co-hosted by Western LNG’s co-founder Andrew Goldman. Senators Warren and Sanders have signed and stayed true to the pledge.

Photo Source: Green Peace

Other Candidates

 Among other Democratic candidates, Senator Cory Booker, who tied Warren, Sanders, and Tom Steyer with a climate calculation of 93.75, received a 100 for his position on a carbon fee. An achievement not shared by Warren or Sanders. Booker faltered only in not committing to 100% renewable energy by 2030.

Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s refusal to commit to 100% renewable energy also hurt his climate calculation, but he received an 87.50. He got a 100 for his support and public advocacy on a carbon fee, which he endorsed on Jimmy Fallon’s The Tonight Show.

Candidates Tulsi Gabbard and Beto O’Rourke’s climate calculations are 62.50 and 68.75 respectively. Neither candidate has backed a carbon fee or the achievement of 100% renewable energy by 2030.

The staggering partisan divide on climate change, between Democratic and Republican candidates for president, is glaring in our guide. Unlike Democratic scores, Republican incumbent Donald Trump is a climate zero and his GOP challengers score little better. No other leadership, anywhere else in the world, denies climate change like President Trump and the Republican party in the U.S. Voters who care about climate change, should shun Republicans presidential candidates from consideration based on their dismal climate calculations, especially the incumbent.

As climate striker Isabel, 15 says, “We’re here to make a difference and make people hear us. We’re not the same, we’re a new generation who will vote them out.” Our Vote Climate U.S. PAC 2020 POTUS voter’s guide provides information on these issues and more to make a personal, profound difference on climate change.

Karyn Strickler is president of Vote Climate U.S. PAC. Jake Assael, lead researcher, contributed to this article.

The post You Can Profoundly Impact Climate Change appeared first on Solar Tribune.