Three hours power cut in Nepal every day

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

UK Net Zero Policy Delay shifts EV sales ban to 2035, eases boiler phase-outs, keeps ZEV mandate, backs North Sea oil and gas, accelerates onshore wind and grid upgrades while targeting 2050 emissions goals.

Key Points

Delay moves EV and heating targets to 2035, tweaks mandates, and shifts energy policy, keeping the 2050 net zero goal.

✅ EV sales ban shifts to 2035; ZEV mandate trajectory unchanged

✅ Heat pump grants rise to £7,500; boiler phase-out eased

✅ North Sea oil, onshore wind, grid and nuclear plans advance

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said he would delay targets for changing cars and domestic heating to maintain the consent of the British people in the switch to net zero as part of the global energy transition under way.

Sunak said Britain was still committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050, similar to Canada's race to net zero goals, and denied watering down its climate targets.

Here are some of the current emissions targets for Britain's top polluting sectors and how the announcement impacts them.

TRANSPORTATION
Transport accounts for more than a third (34%) of Britain's total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the most of any sector.

Sunak announced a delay to introducing a ban on new petrol and diesel cars and vans. It will now come into force in 2035 rather than in 2030.

There were more than 1.1 million electric cars in use on UK roads as of April - up by more than half from the previous year to account for roughly one in every 32 cars, according to the country's auto industry trade body.

The current 2030 target was introduced in November 2020 as a central part of then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson's plans for a "green revolution". As recently as Monday, transport minister Mark Harper restated government support for the policy.

Britain’s independent climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee, estimated a 2030 phase out of petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles could save up to 110 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions compared with a 2035 phase out.

ohnson's policy already allowed for the continued sale of hybrid cars and vans that can drive long stretches without emitting carbon until 2035.

The transition is governed by a zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate, a shift echoed by New Zealand's electricity transition debates, which means manufacturers must ensure an increasing proportion of the vehicles they sell in the UK are electric.

The current proposal is for 22% of a car manufacturer's sales to be electric in 2024, rising incrementally each year to 100% in 2035.

The government said on Wednesday that all sales of new cars from 2035 would still be zero emission.

Sunak said that proposals that would govern how many passengers people should have in a car, or proposals for new taxes to discourage flying, would be scrapped.

RESIDENTIAL
Residential emissions, the bulk of which come from heating, make up around 17% of the country's CO2 emissions.

The government has a target to reduce Britain's energy consumption from buildings and industry by 15% by 2030, and had set a target to phase out installing new and replacement gas boilers from 2035, as the UK moves towards heat pumps, amid an IEA report on Canada's power needs noting more electricity will be required.

Sunak said people would have more time to transition, and the government said that off-gas-grid homes could continue to install oil and liquefied petroleum gas boilers until 2035, rather than being phased out from 2026.

However, his announcements that the government would not force anyone to rip out an existing boiler and that people would only have to make the switch when replacing one from 2035 restated existing policy.

He also said there would be an exemption so some households would never have to switch, but the government would increase an upgrade scheme that gives people cash to replace their boilers by 50% to 7,500 pounds ($9,296.25).

Currently almost 80% of British homes are heated by gas boilers. In 2022, 72,000 heat pumps were installed. The government had set a target of 600,000 heat pump installations per year by 2028.

A study for Scottish Power and WWF UK in June found that 6 million homes would need to be better insulated by 2030 to meet the government's target to reduce household energy consumption, but current policies are only expected to deliver 1.1 million.

The study, conducted by Frontier Economics, added that 1.5 million new homes would still need heat pumps installed by 2030.

Sunak said that the government would subsidise people who wanted to make their homes energy efficient but never force a household to do it.

The government also said it was scrapping policies that would force landlords to upgrade the energy efficiency of their properties.

ENERGY
The energy sector itself is a big emitter of greenhouse gases, contributing around a quarter of Britain's emissions, though the UK carbon tax on coal has driven substantial cuts in coal-fired electricity in recent years.

In July, Britain committed to granting hundreds of licences for North Sea oil and gas extraction as part of efforts to become more energy independent.

Sunak said he would not ban new oil and gas in the North Sea, and that future carbon budgets for governments would have to be considered alongside the plans to meet them.

He said the government would shortly bring forward new plans for energy infrastructure to improve Britain's grid, including the UK energy plan, while speeding up planning.

Offshore wind power developers warned earlier this month that Britain's climate goals could be at risk, even as efforts like cleaning up Canada's electricity highlight the importance of power-sector decarbonization, after a subsidy auction for new renewable energy projects did not attract any investment in those planned off British coasts.

Britain is aiming to develop 50 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind capacity by 2030, up from around 14 GW now.

Sunak highlighted that Britain is lifting a ban on onshore wind, investing in carbon capture and building new nuclear power stations.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Houston Power Outage Heatwave intensifies a prolonged blackout, straining the grid and infrastructure resilience; emergency response, cooling centers, and power restoration efforts race to protect vulnerable residents amid extreme temperatures and climate risks.

Key Points

A multi-day blackout and heatwave straining Houston's grid, limiting cooling, and prompting emergency response.

✅ Fourth day without power amid dangerous heat

✅ Grid failures expose infrastructure vulnerabilities

✅ Cooling centers, aid groups support vulnerable residents

Houston is enduring significant frustration and hardship as a power outage stretches into its fourth day amid a sweltering heatwave. The extended blackout has exacerbated the challenges faced by residents in one of the nation’s largest and most dynamic cities, underscoring the critical need for reliable infrastructure and effective emergency response systems.

The power outage began early in the week, coinciding with a severe heatwave that has driven temperatures to dangerous levels. With the city experiencing some of the highest temperatures of the year, the lack of electricity has left residents without essential cooling, contributing to widespread discomfort and health risks. The heatwave has placed an added strain on Houston's already overburdened power grid, which has struggled to cope with the soaring demand for air conditioning and cooling.

The prolonged outage has led to escalating frustration among residents. Many households are grappling with sweltering indoor temperatures, leading to uncomfortable living conditions and concerns about the impact on vulnerable populations, including the elderly, young children, and individuals with pre-existing health conditions. The lack of power has also disrupted daily routines, as morning routine disruptions in London demonstrate, including access to refrigeration for food, which has led to spoilage and further complications.

Emergency services and utility companies have been working around the clock to restore power, but progress has been slow, echoing how Texas utilities struggled to restore power during Hurricane Harvey, as crews contended with access constraints. The complexity of the situation, combined with the high demand for repairs and the challenging weather conditions, has made it difficult to address the widespread outages efficiently. As the days pass, the situation has become increasingly dire, with residents growing more impatient and anxious about when they might see a resolution.

Local officials and utility providers have been actively communicating with the public, providing updates on the status of repairs and efforts to restore power. However, the communication has not always been timely or clear, leading to further frustration among those affected. The sense of uncertainty and lack of reliable information has compounded the difficulties faced by residents, who are left to manage the impacts of the outage with limited guidance.

The situation has also raised questions about the resilience of Houston’s power infrastructure. The outage has highlighted vulnerabilities in the city's energy grid, similar to how a recent windstorm caused significant outages elsewhere, which has faced previous challenges but has not experienced an extended failure of this magnitude in recent years. The inability of the grid to withstand the extreme heat and maintain service during a critical time underscores the need for infrastructure improvements and upgrades to better handle similar situations in the future.

In response to the crisis, community organizations and local businesses have stepped up to provide support to those in need, much like Toronto's cleanup after severe flooding mobilized volunteers and services, in order to aid affected residents. Cooling centers have been established to offer relief from the heat, providing a respite for individuals who are struggling to stay cool at home. Additionally, local food banks and charitable organizations are distributing essential supplies to those affected by food spoilage and other challenges caused by the power outage.

The power outage and heatwave have also sparked broader discussions about climate resilience and preparedness. Extreme weather events and prolonged heatwaves are becoming increasingly common due to climate change, as strong winds knocked out power across the Miami Valley recently, raising concerns about how cities and infrastructure systems can adapt to these new realities. The current situation in Houston serves as a stark reminder of the importance of investing in resilient infrastructure and developing comprehensive emergency response plans to mitigate the impacts of such events.

As the outage continues, there is a growing call for improved strategies to manage power grid failures, with examples like the North Seattle outage affecting 13,000 underscoring the need, and better support for residents during crises. Advocates are urging for a reevaluation of emergency response protocols, increased investment in infrastructure upgrades, and enhanced communication systems to ensure that the public receives timely and accurate information during emergencies.

In summary, Houston's power outage, now extending into its fourth day amid extreme heat, has caused significant frustration and hardship for residents. The prolonged disruption has underscored the need for more resilient energy infrastructure, as seen when power outages persisted for hundreds in Toronto, and effective emergency response measures. With temperatures soaring and the situation continuing to unfold, the city faces a critical challenge in restoring power, managing the impacts on its residents, and preparing for future emergencies. The crisis highlights broader issues related to infrastructure resilience and climate adaptation, emphasizing the need for comprehensive strategies to address and mitigate the effects of extreme weather events.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Nova Scotia Integrated Resource Plan evaluates NSPI supply options, UARB oversight, Muskrat Falls imports, coal retirements, wind and biomass expansion, transmission upgrades, storage, and least-cost pathways to decarbonize the grid for ratepayers.

Key Points

A 25-year roadmap assessing supply, imports, costs, and emissions to guide least-cost decarbonization for Nova Scotia.

✅ Compares wind, biomass, gas, imports, and storage costs

✅ Addresses coal retirements, emissions caps, and reliability

✅ Recommends transmission upgrades and Muskrat Falls utilization

Maintaining a viable electricity network requires good long-term planning and, as a recent grid operations report notes, ongoing operational improvements. The existing stock of generating assets can become obsolete through aging, changes in fuel prices or environmental considerations. Future changes in demand must be anticipated.

Periodically, an integrated resource plan is created to predict how all this will add up during the ensuing 25 years. That process is currently underway and is led by Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) and will be submitted for approval to the Utilities and Review Board (UARB).

Coal-fired plants are still the largest single source of electricity in Nova Scotia. They need to be replaced with more environmentally friendly sources when they reach the end of their useful lives. Other sources include wind, hydroelectricity from rivers, biomass, as seen in increased biomass use by NS Power, natural gas and imports from other jurisdictions.

Imports are used sparingly today but will be an important source when the electricity from Muskrat Falls comes on stream. That project has big capacity. It can produce all the power needed in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), where Quebec's power ambitions influence regional flows, plus the amount already committed to Nova Scotia, and still have a lot left over.

Some sources of electricity are more valuable than others. The daily amount of power from wind and solar cannot be controlled. Fuel-based sources and hydro can.

Utilities make their profits by providing the capital necessary to build infrastructure. Most of the money is borrowed but a portion, typically 30 per cent, usually comes from NSPI or a sister company. On that they receive a rate of return of nine per cent. Nova Scotia can borrow money today at less than two per cent.

The largest single investment of that type is the $1.577-billion Maritime Link connecting power from Newfoundland to Nova Scotia. It continues through to the New Brunswick border to facilitate exports to the United States. NSPI’s sister company, NSP Maritime Link Inc. (NSPML), is making nine per cent on $473 million of the cost.

There is little unexploited hydro capacity in Nova Scotia and there will not be any new coal-fired plants. Large-scale solar is not competitive in Nova Scotia’s climate. Nova Scotia’s needs would not accommodate the amount of nuclear capacity needed to be cost-effective, even as New Brunswick explores small reactors in its strategy.

So the candidates for future generating resources are wind, natural gas, biomass (though biomass criticism remains) and imports from other jurisdictions. Tidal is a promising opportunity but is still searching for a commercially viable technology. 

NSPI is commendably transparent about its process (irp.nspower.ca). At this stage there is little indication of the conclusions they are reaching but that will presumably appear in due course.

The mountains of detail might obscure the fact that NSPI is not an unbiased arbiter of choices for the future.

It is reported that they want to prematurely close the Trenton 5 coal plant in 2023-25. It is valued at $88.5 million. If it is closed early, ratepayers will still have to pay off the remaining value even though the plant will be idle. NSPI wants to plan a decommissioning of five of its other seven plants. There is a federal emissions constraint but retiring coal plants earlier than needed will cost ratepayers a lot.

Whenever those plants are closed, there will be a need for new sources of power. NSPI is proposing to plan for new investments in new transmission infrastructure to facilitate imports. Other possibilities would be additional wind farms, consistent with the shift to more wind and solar projects, thermal plants that burn natural gas or biomass, or storage for excess wind power that arrives before it can be used. The investment in storage could be anywhere from $20 million to $200 million.

These will add to the asset burden funded by ratepayers, even as industrial customers seek discounts while still paying for shuttered coal infrastructure.

External sources of new power will not provide NSPI the same opportunity: wind power by independent producers might be less expensive because they are willing to settle for less than nine per cent or because they are more efficient. Buying more power from Muskrat Falls will use transmission infrastructure we are already paying for. If a successful tidal technology is found, it will not be owned by NSPI or a sister company, which are no longer trying to perfect the technology.

This is not to suggest that NSPI would misrepresent the alternatives. But they can tilt the discussion in their favour. How tough will they be negotiating for additional Muskrat Falls power when it hurts their profits? Arguing for premature coal retirement on environmental grounds is fair game but whether the cost should be accepted is a political choice. 

NSPI is in a conflict of interest. We need a different process. An independent body should author the integrated resource plan. They should be fully informed about NSPI’s views.

They should communicate directly with Newfoundland and Labrador for Muskrat power, with independent wind producers, and with tidal power companies. The UARB cannot do any of these things.

The resulting plan should undergo the same UARB review that NSPI’s version would. This enhances the likelihood that Nova Scotians will get the least-cost alternative.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Sustainable Cannabis Cultivation leverages greenhouse design, renewable energy, automation, and water recapture to cut electricity use, emissions, and pesticides, delivering premium yields with natural light, smart sensors, and efficient HVAC and irrigation control.

Key Points

A data-driven, low-impact method that cuts energy, water, and chemicals while preserving premium yields.

✅ 70-90% less electricity vs. conventional indoor grows

✅ Natural light, solar, and rainwater recapture reduce footprint

✅ Automation, sensors, and HVAC stabilize microclimates

In the seven months since the Trudeau government legalized recreational marijuana use, licensed producers across the country have been locked in a frenetic race to grow mass quantities of cannabis for the new market.

But amid the rush for scale, questions of sustainability have often taken a back seat, and in Canada, solar adoption has lagged in key sectors.

According to EQ Research LLC, a U.S.-based clean-energy consulting firm, cannabis facilities can need up to 150 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year per square foot. Such input is on par with data centres, which are themselves 50 to 200 times more energy-intensive than a typical office building, and achieving zero-emission electricity by 2035 would help mitigate the associated footprint.

At the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory in California, a senior scientist estimated that one per cent of U.S. electricity use came from grow ops. The same research — published in 2012 — also found that the procedures for refining a kilogram of weed emit around 4,600 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, equivalent to operating three million cars for a year, though a shift to zero-emissions electricity by 2035 could substantially cut those emissions.

“All factors considered, a very large expenditure of energy and consequent ‘environmental imprint’ is associated with the indoor cultivation of marijuana,” wrote Ernie Small, a principal research scientist for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, in the 2018 edition of the Biodiversity Journal.

Those issues have left some turning to technology to try to reduce the industry’s footprint — and the economic costs that come with it — even as more energy sources make better projects for forward-looking developers.

“The core drawback of most greenhouse environments is that you’re just getting large rooms, which are harder to control,” says Dan Sutton, the chief executive officer of Tantalus Labs., a B.C.-based cannabis producer. “What we did was build a system specifically for cannabis.”

Sutton is referring to SunLab, the culmination of four years of construction, and at present the main site where his company nurtures rows of the flowering plant. The 120,000-square foot structure was engineered for one purpose: to prove the merits of a sustainable approach.

“We’re actually taking time-series data on 30 different environmental parameters — really simple ones like temperature and humidity — all the way down to pH of the soil and water flow,” says Sutton. “So if the temperature gets a little too cold, the system recognizes that and kicks on heaters, and if the system senses that the environment is too hot in the summertime, then it automatically vents.”

A lot is achieved without requiring much human intervention, he adds. Unlike conventional indoor operations, SunLab demands up to 90 per cent less electricity, avoids using pesticides, and draws from natural light and recaptured rainwater to feed its crops.

The liquid passes through a triple-filtration process before it is pumped into drip irrigation tubing. “That allows us to deliver a purity of water input that is cleaner than bottled water,” says Sutton.

As transpiration occurs, a state-of-the-art, high-capacity airflow suspended below the ceiling cycles air at seven-minute intervals, repeatedly cooling the air and preventing outbreaks of mould, while genetically modified “guardian” insects swoop in to eliminate predatory pests.

“When we first started, people never believed we would cultivate premium quality cannabis or cannabis that belongs on the top shelf, shoulder to shoulder with the best in the world and the best of indoor,” says Sutton.

Challenges still exist, but they pale in comparison to the obstacles that American companies with an interest in adopting greener solutions persistently face, and in provinces like Alberta, an Alberta renewable energy surge is reshaping the opportunity set.

Although cannabis is legal in a number of states, it remains illegal federally, which means access to capital and regulatory clarity south of the border can be difficult to come by.

“Right now getting a new project built is expensive to do because you can’t get traditional bank loans,” says Canndescent CEO Adrian Sedlin, speaking by phone from California.

In retrofitting the company’s farm to accommodate a sizeable solar field, he struggled to secure investors, even as a solar-powered cannabis facility in Edmonton showcased similar potential.

“We spent over a year and a half trying to get it financed,” says Sedlin. “Finding someone was the hard part.”

Decriminalizing the drug would ultimately increase the supply of capital and lower the costs for innovative designs, something Sedlin says would help incentivize producers to switch to more effective and ecologically sound techniques.

Some analysts argue that selling renewable energy in Alberta could become a major growth avenue that benefits energy-intensive industries like cannabis cultivation.

Canndescent, however, is already there.

“We’re now harnessing the sun to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and going to sustainable, or replenishable, energy sources, while leveraging the best and most efficient water practices,” says Sedlin. “It’s the right thing to do.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Clean Energy Industry Support includes tax credits, refundability, safe harbor extensions, EV incentives, and stimulus measures to stabilize renewable energy projects, protect the workforce, and ensure financing continuity during economic recovery.

Key Points

Policies and funding to stabilize renewables, protect jobs, and extend tax incentives for workforce continuity.

✅ Extend PTC/ITC and remove phase-outs to sustain projects

✅ Enable direct pay or refundability to unlock financing

✅ Preserve safe harbor timelines disrupted by supply chains

U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) led 17 Senate colleagues, as the Senate moves to modernize public-land renewables, in sending a letter calling on Congress to include support for the United States' clean energy industry and workforce in any economic aid packages.

"As Congress takes steps to ensure that our nation's workforce is prepared to emerge stronger from the coronavirus health and economic crisis, we must act to shore up clean energy businesses and workers who are uniquely impacted by the crisis, echoing a power-sector call for action from industry groups," said the senators. "This action, which has precedent in prior financial recovery efforts, could take several forms, including tax credit extensions or removal of the current phase-out schedule, direct payment or refundability, or extensions of safe harbor continuity."

"We need to make sure that any package protects workers and helps families stay afloat in these challenging times. Providing support to the clean energy industry will give much-needed certainty and confidence, as the sector targets a market majority, for those workers that they will be able to keep their paychecks and their jobs in this critical industry," the senators also said.

In addition to Senator Cortez Masto, the letter was also signed by Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.).

Dear Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Wyden:

As Congress takes steps to ensure that our nation's workforce is prepared to emerge stronger from the coronavirus health and economic crisis, we must act to shore up clean energy businesses and workers who are uniquely impacted by the crisis, with wind investments at risk amid the pandemic. This action, which has precedent in prior financial recovery efforts, could take several forms, including tax credit extensions or removal of the current phase-out schedule, direct payment or refundability, or extensions of safe harbor continuity.

First and foremost, we need to take care of workers' health and immediate needs to stay in their homes and provide for their families, and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act is a critical down payment. Now, we must make sure the workforce has jobs to return to and that employers remain able to pay for critical benefits like paid sick and family leave, healthcare, and Unemployment Insurance.

The renewable energy industry employs over 800,000 people across every state in the United States. This industry and its workers could suffer significant harms as a result of the coronavirus emergency and resulting financial impact. Renewable energy businesses are already seeing project cancellations or delays, as the Covid-19 crisis hits solar and wind across the sector, with the solar industry reporting delays of 30 percent. Likewise, the energy efficiency sector is susceptible to similar impacts. As the coronavirus pandemic intensifies in the United States, that rate of delay or cancellations will only continue to skyrocket. Global and domestic supply chains are already facing chaotic changes, with equipment delays of three to four months for parts of the industry. A major collapse in financing is all but certain as investment firms' profits turn to losses and capital is suddenly unavailable for large labor-intensive investments.

To ensure that we do not lose years of progress on clean energy and the source of employment for tens of thousands of renewable energy workers, Congress should look to previous relief packages as an example for how to support this sector and the broader American economy. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (also known as the Recovery Act or ARRA) provided over $90 billion in funding for clean energy and grid modernization, along with emergency relief programs. Specifically, ARRA provided immediate funding streams like the 1603 Cash Grant program for renewables and the 30 percent clean energy manufacturing tax credit to give immediate relief for the clean energy industry. As Congress develops this new package, it should consider these immediate relief programs for the renewable and clean energy industry, especially as analyses suggest green energy could drive Covid-19 recovery at scale. This could include direct payment or refundability, extensions of safe harbor continuity, tax credit extensions, electric vehicle credit expansion, or removal of the current phase-out schedules for the clean energy industry.

We need to make sure that any package protects workers and helps families stay afloat in these challenging times. Providing support to the clean energy industry will give much-needed certainty and confidence for those workers that they will be able to keep their paychecks and their jobs in this critical industry.

These strategies to provide assistance to the clean energy industry must be included in any financial recovery discussions, particularly if the Trump Administration continues its push to aid the oil industry, even as some advocate a total fossil fuel lockdown to accelerate climate action. We appreciate your consideration and collaboration as we do everything in our power to quickly recover from this health and economic emergency.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News