ESP Related Blogs

Without Congressional action focused on reducing fossil fuel consumption, we will soon be facing even more intense hurricanes and wildfires, sea level rise, mass extinction of species, the death of our oceans, resource wars, and millions of climate refugees.

Congressional Action Needed

I am hopeful that you see the urgency to act now to help mitigate climate change.

• Work across the aisle to enhance the strength of the voting block of legislators concerned about climate change and push forward bipartisan efforts like the improvement of our national electric grid that will both enhance overall delivery efficiency but also open the possibilities of renewable energy resources captured in one part of the country being utilized in another.
• Use your voice to let your constituents know what Trump has done through his executive orders to make your state, our country, and the world less protected from the impacts of climate change. Invite international world leaders supportive of addressing climate change to the U.S. for media events. When climate change deniers speak out, closely follow, reminding your state’s voters of the IRA and Infrastructure Law funding that is already going to your state as well as what is still possible.
• Protect the Congressionally approved renewable energy tax credit incentives within the Inflation Reduction Act. It is at the heart of what can make a significant impact in reducing climate change impacts in the US.
• Trump has ordered a “pause” on spending from the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and a review of all grants, loans, and other payments associated with the IRA. Given that it is illegal for his (or any) administration to kill funding previously approved by Congress, ensure that his pause is not extended.
• While generic budget cuts are certain, work to protect R&D funding for renewable energy within our national labs and universities.
• Vote against any of Trump’s nominees who are climate change deniers or support the expansion of fossil fuels.
• Currently, there remains $8.8 billion from passed Congressional legislation that is geared to fund energy-efficient appliances, $3 billion for reducing air pollution at ports, and $9 billion for rural electricity providers to switch to cleaner energy. Work with the appliance industry, local ports in your state, and your state’s rural electricity co-ops to ensure that these funds are forthcoming.
• Work to ensure that, if the “External Revenue Service” does become a reality, the monies don’t go to tax breaks for the wealthy but to the U.S. industries that it is meant to protect – like solar.

Trump’s agenda will destroy our last shot at offsetting the worst-predicted outcomes from climate change.

Energy independence is in many ways a contradiction in terms. The American Way of Life depends conspicuously upon energy, not just for heat and light, but transportation, information, and fabrication. What we call “work” today consists mostly of operating machines. Our world is embodied energy. “Energy” is a state of dependency: the dependency of a society that necessarily eschews physical labor and is addicted to the “ghost in the machine.”

Energy independence policy therefore has an incoherent quality. President Trump called for “drill baby drill”1 as an energy independence strategy. President Biden called for new transmission lines and grid investments to “bring about” centralized renewable generation-based energy independence.2

Americans with solar net metering systems believe they are energy independent, yet eligibility for their systems is capped at a small fraction of system load and depends on ratepayer subsidies. This means net metering customers, a small minority, remain dependent on payments forced on the majority of people who will never be included. This has brought political backlash: energy independence needs a coherent strategy.

So How Can We be Energy Independent, Actually?

Our relationship to energy is central to energy dependency, not merely the technologies that create energy. Focusing on technology creates a false two-dimensional economic theology: a belief system that worships technological idols: a faith that this or that kind of machine will make us energy-independent. This makes us morally dependent on technologies alleged to be independent. No technology will free us, because it does nothing to alter our unconscious relationship to energy. The pageant of false idols continues: one political party’s idol is the green grid, the other’s idol is domestic gas, oil, and coal, and another’s is nuclear.

Our policy discussions are stuck in mental quicksand, with no direction but down. That is why climate change continues, ultimately reaching the point of no return as energy demand continues to grow.

Climate change is a metric of our society’s overdependence on energy, just as the proliferation of slavery was a metric of Liberal English hypocrisy in the 18th century. What is different from slavery is that everyone today, rich and poor alike in differing degrees is part of the cause of climate change. The energy industry is the most guilty for lobbying against climate action, but all people use electricity, methane, gasoline, and diesel. Our clothes are made of petroleum, and our books and newspapers are being replaced by electronic devices. Acknowledging the consequences of energy dependency is hypocritical until we can find a way out: a path to economically achievable physical energy independence.

To solve an addiction, you have to face the nature of the problem. Historically, energy replaced slavery. Political support for abolition in the 18th and 19th centuries came from morally outraged people who owned no slaves. But today, all people depend upon energy. And energy is an automatic, invisible slave that does what you want the moment you demand it. You neither see nor are responsible for your slaves and beasts of burden: park them, turn them off, put them in the garage.

Energy is morally laundered. You don’t smell the smoke. Miles away, machines churn, and millions of tons of copper cable ripped from dead mountains deliver silent obedience across a poisoned, dying landscape. CEOs promise carbon-free this and that so you don’t have to feel guilty flying in their airplanes or buying their products, falsely mitigated and sold at a premium to virtue-signaling elites.

States sanction certificate trading systems – Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) and Carbon Credits, – so that climate-destroying products may be sold as legally “mitigated” in profoundly dishonest marketing messages to an increasingly confused consumer, undermining public consciousness of real problems and real solutions.3

Academic carbon models from the best universities treat all carbon as equal, and reduce all carbon sources to the consumer.4 A false equivalency of all carbon sources wags the finger at farmers as somehow equal to tourists, and small local farmers more “carbon intensive” than export-oriented megafarms.5 This kind of analysis is one-dimensional and unholistic to the point of being absurd – and is promoted by the biggest polluters on earth, eager as they naturally are to shift the blame. It has also alienated voters, divided society, and tainted climate action and climate-friendly technologies as “elitist.”

Real sinners are comforted by these sanctioned lies. Markets present a fiction of independence and sustainability that has poisoned the American mind and made actual energy independence remoter still, seemingly unattainable to minds so long deceived that they have lost the power to believe anything. Energy marketers are notorious fraudsters. “Renewable Energy” providers pollute the land with deceptive products that promise “community” this and “sustainability” that, undermining the language itself.

To find our feet and solid ground, we need to follow principles and resist temptations to cut corners.

Energy independence is not just a renewable energy supply. It is a different system of energy that depends less upon supply. We need to meaningfully reduce the use of non-local sources of energy: Local Power.

Energy independence is locally sited renewables. Careful! Even “local” has been abused in many places to mean “in-state” or “in-country.” But local is local: meaning municipal.

Energy independence is economic. To the extent you are paying a monthly energy bill, you are a renter of energy. This is economic dependency. Energy independence indicates user-owned renewables. It does not suffice to call it “locally owned” when any corporation or subsidiary can legally exist locally anywhere. Third-party ownership is dependency and servitude by users: feudal tithes paid to a distant master.

Virtually all U.S. renewable energy is financed and owned by tax avoidance capital. Every word that might distinguish centralized, fuel-based, Wall Street-owned energy has been bastardized by marketing lies that are legal property and allowed by state regulators who have failed their promise to protect consumers and the environment. Depending on regulators is also dependency upon long-failed regulatory commissions all around the U.S.

Energy independence is self-consumed renewables. Depending upon utility payments through net metering for your solar is dependency, upon other ratepayers, most of whom don’t own solar. And selling your power onto the grid is a dangerous fiction to sell you the drink. Policymakers throughout the world are suffering under the contradiction that 30 years of renewable energy development has not delivered significant energy transitions.

Net metering, which was established a quarter century ago, has been discontinued by California and other states. Late last year the New York Independent System Operator reported that they need four times the grid to meet green power targets for centralized renewable resources. This is four times the dependency, not independence, and transmission projects have caused public opposition.5 And it will never be built because it would require huge rate increases. Over 30 years after Kyoto, climate change is in full swing as voters revolt in a mass “greenlash” against all things renewable.

A Paradigm Shift is Needed. And it is Already Here.

Part of the paradigm shift concerns who is the driving force of the change: who will own it. Utilities have historically prevented anyone from building energy transitions for fear of revenue losses and thereby have failed to do it themselves. Incentive systems designed to stimulate centralized and onsite renewables markets have reached their limits. Interconnect delays, net metering caps, and rising resentment against the inequity of ratepayer subsidy-based solar created barriers to high renewables penetration that energy independence requires. We need to find our feet in the 30 year swirl of state-sanctioned corporate fraud that is “green power” by studying a little history.

Many have forgotten that electricity industry restructuring was the foundational act that made a renewable energy industry possible, and how important market structure is to the economic feasibility of energy transition. Market structure, more than incentives and goals, defines the possible. Who is really in charge here? Market structure decides. The answer differs by state. To find the answer to energy independence you have to seek specific examples in specific places, rather than norms or even trends. Forget consensus. Stop following the herd. Look for leadership.

Major leaps have been achieved by municipalities in California, where cities, towns, and counties have taken the lead in building renewable energy facilities and buying physical renewable power rather than RECs. The entire coast of California – 250 municipalities – have aggregated into 25 groups and leveraged $35B of investment in the last half-decade, building local renewables dedicated to serving their customers for decades into the future.7

This was possible due not only to political will but a specific market structure that empowered it to have impact, called Community Choice Aggregation (CCA). CCA is the key to energy independence because it uses community buying power, local democracy, and municipal bonds to leverage meaningful community-wide energy localization. CCA was approved by the legislature in 2002 (AB117), a year after San Francisco voters approved the first Green Bond Authority in 2001 (Proposition H – Charter Section 9.107.8), combining the Green Bond authority with the aggregation authority in 2004 (Ordinance 86-04) and adopting a plan combining CCA with Green Bonds in 2007. The build vs. buy model was adopted by Sonoma Clean Power and other CCAs in ensuing years, and has come to be known as the California CCA model: CCA 2.0. This has enabled CCA to achieve scale of development formerly limited to huge utilities, empowering huge change. Today, California CCAs are the bigger players in terms of scale of climate impact than the largest players in the utility industry: even of major countries!

CCA provides the leverage to unify a community to take a great leap to real energy independence. No longer must we act in isolation, or incrementally, as consumers. We can act more decisively as communities. CCAs set rates and negotiate terms with suppliers. In California, they control the guts of supply, developing independent intellectual capacity to understand and manage transitions from the old approach to the new. This is known as “CCA 2.0.”

Aggregation is the most important part, but another key element is municipal finance. A CCA 2.0 program first created “Green Bonds” to finance local renewables and energy efficiency measures. Last year, California CCA 2.0 programs were the largest issuer of “Green Bonds” in America, building $15B of the $35B in new renewables they have committed.

By lowering the cost of financing under local authority, CCAs have achieved significant transitions in their energy supplies while maintaining competitive rates for consumers. Neither a premium service for the few, nor a sacrifice of economic prosperity, these green power programs are popular. California CCAs took nine of the top 10 spots of all U.S. utilities for energy customers purchasing renewable energy above regulatory minimums, including mega utilities like PG&E, National Grid, and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

CCA 2.0 is not just the record breaker for building and buying renewable energy. It blew past every U.S. utility out there, all of which have had many decades to get there but have never done so. CCAs have done this in remarkably little time! It is the tortoise, not the hare, who is the fastest.

California CCAs have more than 10 times the number of customers of the next 10 on the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s list of those utilities switching to renewables above state minimums.

I repeat: 10 times the next 10 on the list. This is a lesson to the wise. To be energy independent, you need to have local control – and local labor capacity. That is where democracy comes in. Communities organized democratically, not corporations serving isolated consumers, have taken the gold medal in transforming energy. Didn’t hear about successful energy transitions without economic pain? Hard to believe, right? CCA 2.0, which combines the aggregation of energy demand with Green Bonds, is already out-investing China and Canada! As reported by Bloomberg this past November, “The California Community Choice Financing Authority has issued $6 billion in 2024, with a significant uptick in the past 12 weeks, cementing its place as the 10th biggest green bond issuer in the world—larger than either the governments of China or Canada.”8

Those are just the results coming in from the CCA 2.0 model with Green Bonds, which provide the basic macroeconomic elements of energy independence, but they are not enough. A new model has already arrived, this time in New York State. Aggregation has to encompass not just electricity (only 1/4 to 1/3 of energy demand) but also include all of energy as measured by the UN’s “addressable carbon” sources subject to governmental authority: (1) power, (2) heat, (3) vehicles, and (4) waste. These four kinds of energy, heretofore separate, will be integrated into interoperable onsite energy systems in “CCA 3.0.”

This past December, the New York State Public Service Commission approved Local Power LLC’s program for CCA 3.0: a community aggregation for independence that will combine all four major categories of energy in onsite energy systems serving contiguous properties, by enrolling neighbors as users and owners. Incorporating heating systems and EVs as energy storage systems powered by new onsite renewables, and working with municipalities to turn local landfill and sewer waste into local white hydrogen for onsite fuel cells, CCA 3.0 represents the final frontier of energy independence: local, renewable, user-owned, democratically governed, shared, integrated, and interoperable.7

Technology convergence between plug power in buildings, cheap solar panels, EV chargers that can power buildings, high-performing heating systems like geothermal heat loops, and local green and white hydrogen-based fuel cell systems, promises energy independence through customer ownership, locational integration, and interoperability.

Local Power developed CCA 3.0 based on over 30 years of developing CCA and Green Bonds and anticipates 3.0’s rapid replication across the U.S. and the world just like 2.0 rapidly spread across California because it is real. Stay tuned as our pilot CCA 3.0 program soon launches in the City and Town of Ithaca, New York: The Green Energy Network or “T-GEN.”9

About the Author
Paul Fenn, Founder/President of Local Power LLC (localpower.com), coauthored the nation’s original Municipal Aggregation law in the mid-1990s, then authored the nation’s first Green Bond authority in 2001, the Community Choice Aggregation (CCA 2.0) law in California, the original CCA 2.0 program designs for San Francisco and other Bay Area CCAs through 2013, since replicated by most CCAs in California. In 2018, Bloomberg News said Fenn “may be the utility industry’s public enemy number one.” For the past ten years, Fenn has worked in the state of New York to implement a CCA 3.0 business model to enable any customer to co-invest in local Distributed Energy Resources across power, heat, transportation and waste technologies, to achieve community-wide decarbonization. His CCA 3.0 program, approved by the New York Public Service Commission in 2024, will first launch in the City and Town of Ithaca, New York later in 2025.

Sources
1. Inauguration speech, January 21, 2025.
2. For example the DOE’s “Transmission Facilitation Program,” October 2024.
3. For example, “The Next Big Climate Target: Ending Carbon Offset Scams,” The Washington Post, August 26, 2024; and, “Companies’ Climate Goals in Jeopardy from Flawed Energy Credits,” Bloomberg, June 9, 2022.
4. Naomi, Oreskes, “The Gas Industry Is Gaslighting the Public about Climate Change: A fossil-fuel executive blames consumers for the climate crisis,” Scientific American, June 25, 2024.
5. Christopher L. Weber and H. Scott Matthews, “Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2008, Volume 42, Issue 10, pp.3508.
6. “In a Warning to National Infrastructure Plans, Maine Voters Reject Transmission Line,” Institute for Energy Research, November 11, 2021.
7. https://bit.ly/4b4oIZj
8. New York Public Service Commission, “Order Approving Local Power’s Community Choice Aggregation Program,” Case Number 14-M-0224, Issued December 24, 2024.
9. “IGND: Ithaca explores way to purchase renewable energy,” Ithaca Voice, May 23, 2022.

As we celebrate the life and legacy of Jimmy Carter, his achievements in advancing environmental policies and specifically renewable energy must be considered among his most significant. As the Biden administration ends and the Trump presidency begins, we are reminded of a very similar time 44 years ago when the country transitioned from the Carter administration to that of Reagan. Spurred on by President Carter’s personal beliefs in the necessity to address our country’s reliance on foreign oil and the negative environmental and health impacts of fossil fuels, his time in office was highlighted by aggressive actions that moved our country to a more sustainable energy path. His policies and actions created a vibrant solar energy industry. But within a short four years, Reagan would eliminate, overturn, delay, or de-fund much of what Carter was able to achieve.

President Carter’s Advances Solar Energy

In the late 70’s to early 80’s the energy crisis caused by OPEC’s embargo and the Iranian conflict dominated politics. While average Americans were concerned about how this affected them financially, many others were more worried about the negative societal ramifications of fossil fuel consumption. Pollutants from coal, oil, and natural gas were increasing lung-related diseases, acid rain, and water quality. Our country’s heavy reliance on imported oil from unstable countries was a key factor in our trade imbalance. And the military-related costs associated with protecting the flow of oil to the U.S. from the Middle East was now over $54 billion per year. However, it was significant that Carter’s administration, even at that time, additionally recognized the potential ramifications of global warming and the need to reduce fossil fuel consumption.1

Like today where 72% of Americans believe the federal government should be encouraging solar and wind power production over other forms of energy, in 1980 Americans supported solar energy and energy conservation over all other energy options. Emboldened by this public support and a strong belief that the U.S. needed to move toward a more sustainable energy path, President Carter implemented a series of pro-renewable strategies that significantly advanced the development and utilization of solar energy. His overriding objective was to derive 20% of the country’s energy from renewable sources of energy by 2000. Carter saw his solar strategy as “a challenge as important as exploring our first frontiers or building the greatest industrial society on Earth.” In a televised speech to the country, he proclaimed the battle to address the energy crisis as the “moral equivalent of war.”

President Carter spearheaded numerous legislative efforts that quickly resulted in substantial changes in energy policy, the most important being the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 which essentially created the U.S. Department of Energy.

In 1977 the Carter Administration founded our country’s primary national research institute, Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI). Years later, reflecting a broader focus on renewable energy sources, SERI’s name was changed to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). In July of 1979, Denis Hayes, the founder of Earth Day and a pro-renewable advocate, was selected by DOE Secretary James Schlesinger to head the Solar Energy Research Institute. SERI’s mission was to accelerate the development and stimulate the widespread use of solar energy technologies.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) was established in October of 1977 as an independent agency to regulate interstate transmission and wholesale sale of electricity and natural gas. Carter additionally signed the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURPA), which created a market for independent power producers including smaller renewable energy companies.

To help raise awareness of the important contributions solar energy could make in improving our environment and addressing the energy crisis, he traveled to the Solar Energy Research Institute on May 3, 1978. In declaring May 3rd to be Sun Day he stated “The question is no longer whether solar energy works. We know it works. The only question is how to cut costs so that solar power can be used more widely and so that it will set a cap on rising oil prices.” He continued, “Nobody can embargo sunlight. No cartel controls the sun. Its energy will not run out. It will not pollute the air. It will not poison our waters. It’s free from stench and smog. The sun’s power needs only to be collected, stored, and used.”And in a strong symbolic move, in 1979 President Carter had a 32-panel solar water heating system installed on the White House roof.

In 1978 Carter transformed the Tennessee Valley Authority by selecting David Freeman as Chair and then directing TVA to substantially increase their efforts to promote and finance solar energy initiatives. With an incredibly supportive Chair, TVA’s first of many significant initiatives was “The Memphis 1000” project which, at the time, was the largest utility-assisted solar effort in the U.S. Numerous subsequent efforts would follow including providing passive solar design assistance to homebuilders throughout the Valley and implementing daylighting into their own new headquarters building in Chattanooga.

With the passing of the Energy Tax Act of 1978, the Investment Tax Credit provided residential homeowners a 30% federal tax credit for implementing solar, wind or geothermal systems and a 15% credit for energy conservation measures.

In 1980, with the passage of the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980, the residential incentives increased to 40% and businesses were then eligible for 10% credits. A report prepared at that time for the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee stated that of the $19.6 billion in profits made by the Fortune 500 companies between 1978 and 1980, 98% was made by 56 oil, gas, and service/supply companies. The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax of 1980 was enacted to penalize oil companies that were routinely gouging customers by charging excessive prices for gasoline. From 1980 to 1990 the tax generated gross revenue of about $80 billion, with $200 million in the Oil Overcharge funds being distributed to state energy offices for conservation and solar energy initiatives.

Carter implemented a Solar Bank initiative which was structured to help subsidize single-family and commercial solar installations. $100 million was allocated for 1981, $200 million for 1982, and $225 million for 1983. The Solar Bank was funded annually out of the Energy Security Trust Fund from revenues generated by the windfall profits tax.

In 1980, four Regional Solar Energy Centers were created to provide information to the public as well as builders, contractors, and architects who played key roles in the acceleration of solar technologies.

To support his commitment to advance renewable energy, Carter’s Administration diverted hundreds of millions of dollars from conventional energy within USDOE’s budget to renewable energy options. In 1980, he earmarked $1.1 billion dollars in tax credit incentives for those wanting to install solar, wind, or geothermal systems on their homes. Carter’s last proposed solar DOE budget (FY 82), while later cut, was over $600 million. The result was that renewable energy equipment installations increased 700% from 1978 ($125.0 million) to 1982 ($867.2 million). From 1978 to 1981, the number of passive solar homes built grew 80-fold and by 1981 there were 3,500 manufacturers and installers of solar hot water systems. Most significantly, funding for research and development at our national labs and universities across the country was magnitudes greater. Carter’s plans were working. And, with the R&D dollars going specifically to solar, the country’s energy future could not have looked better.

“In developing and implementing a national solar strategy we are taking yet another critical step toward a future which will not be plagued by the kinds of energy problems we are now experiencing, and which will increase the prospects of avoiding worse difficulties. We have set a challenge for ourselves. I have set a challenge for my Presidency. It will require the best that American ingenuity can offer, and all the determination which our society can muster. Although government will lead, inspire, and encourage, our goal can be achieved only if each American citizen, each business, and each community takes our solar goal to heart. Whether our energy future will be bright—with the power of the sun—or whether it will be dim, as our fossil resources decline, is the choice that is now before us. We must take the path I have outlined today.” Jimmy Carter, June 20, 1979.

President Reagan’s Efforts to Kill Renewable Energy and Appease the Oil and Coal Industries

From the very start of Reagan’s administration, it was clear that his promises to protect the fossil fuel industries and defund or reverse environmental protections would be a centerpiece of his presidency. Indicative of Reagan’s desire to choose loyalty over experience in selecting his key administrative heads, he chose an ex-governor-dentist from South Carolina to lead the US Department of Energy. And demonstrating Reagan’s desire to protect business interests, he appointed Anne Gorsuch to head EPA, who immediately focused on downsizing the agency and eliminating environmental regulations on business. In Reagon’s first year in office there was a 79% decline in enforcement cases filed from regional offices to EPA headquarters and a 69% decline in the number of cases filed from the EPA to the Department of Justice. Gorsuch tried to gut the Clean Air Act, weaken the Clean Water Act, and defund the Superfund. The appointment of James Watt to lead the Department of Interior was considered by environmentalists as an equally bad choice. Greg Wetstone, director of advocacy at the Natural Resources Defense Council said at the time, “Never has America seen two more intensely controversial and blatantly anti-environmental political appointees than Watt and Gorsuch.” To reward the fossil companies that supported his election, Reagan rolled back the EPA vehicle fuel-economy standards (that subsequently led to car manufacturers continuing to crank out gas-guzzlers) and eliminated many coal mining standards to assist the coal industry.

In Reagan’s attempt to slow the advances in solar energy made under Carter’s administration, he put forward a budget to cut DOE’s solar line items by 60% to 70%. In Reagan’s proposed economic package entitled “America’s New Beginning: A Program for Economic Recovery” the Administration proposed rescinding already authorized FY81 solar funding by $99 million including the Solar Energy and Conservation Bank. He also cut Carter’s renewable budget plans for the next five years, reducing FY82 by $363 million to $200; FY83 by $428 to $236; cut FY84 by $372 to $251; FY85 down $330 million to $265; and FY86 down $275 to $278 million – a total 6 year cut of $1.729 billion. The package eliminated the Wind Energy Systems Act (which would have developed statistics on site wind characteristics throughout the county), OTEC demonstration funding, methane research and development funding, and the Energy Extension Service. Meanwhile, the Reagan Administration proposed increasing nuclear power funding by $388 million. Additionally, President Reagan, who notably claimed that “trees cause more pollution than automobiles do” proposed a 25% cut in the Environmental Protection Agency.

In 1981, the year after Reagan took office, national funding for energy conservation was $800 million, of which $452 million was for state programs. In 1987, the state funding level for conservation dropped to $213 million and requests by the Administration for 1988 were for only $6 million. For renewables, the 1981 funding level had been $575 million; in 1987 the support dropped to $124 million; and the Administration’s request for 1988 was $71 million.

To attempt to further cripple the solar advances, in June of 1981, Denis Hayes was fired as head of SERI. Then, in 1982, Reagan released his preliminary draft plan to dismantle the USDOE and called for the privatization of TVA. While both efforts ultimately were unsuccessful, it clearly indicated where his presidency was headed.

On June 21, 1984, despite approval in the Senate, the House dealt the solar industry a significant blow by deciding to put off until 1985 (the year the solar credits expired) any action on extension. The solar tax credits established in 1977 by Carter ended on December 31, 1985. The move created the uncertainty desired by Reagan and effectively placed the entire solar industry into a dilemma. Many solar water heating companies would soon be out of business. Most companies that remained were reporting decreases in business of 80% to 90%. The result of Reagan’s actions was devastating to the solar industry. By mid-1984 the value of the 30 stocks listed on the Solar Age Stock Index had plummeted.

And in 1986, Reagan symbolically had the solar system on the White House removed. To further appease the oil industry, in August of 1988 Reagan, through The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, repealed the Cruel Oil Windfall Tax.

As the Reagan Presidency ended in 1988, much of the renewable energy industry found itself decimated. Without many of the tax incentives and research funding, many solar technologies simply died. Research and development efforts at our national laboratories and universities had been cut so severely that many programs were discontinued. In 1989 the budget for solar R&D was one-tenth what it was a decade before. Many of the world’s leading researchers, who for years had focused on moving the country toward a new energy paradigm based on solar energy, were lost. And, worse yet, with no or little funding going to the research community for solar, the young, upcoming students to our universities and community colleges were no longer looking at solar as their future.

Will History Repeat Itself?

In evaluating the ultimate impacts that the Reagan presidency had on the advancement of renewable energy and the protection of our environment, it is now clear that his policies set back the advancement of renewables by at least one if not two decades. If Carter’s initiatives to aggressively fund research and development efforts had continued, the cost of renewable energy technologies would certainly have dropped far faster than what happened. The manufacturing cost of photovoltaic cells in 1977 was $77.00/watt. Today, that cost has dropped to less than $.20/watt and the cost of producing electricity with PV is less than $.03/kwh. Both photovoltaics and wind systems are now producing electricity at values less than that of coal or natural gas generation and magnitudes less than nuclear power. Think of where our country and the world would be today if we continued down President Carter’s path to achieve 20% of our country’s energy from renewable energy sources by 2000. In 2000 the US derived 8% of electricity from renewable energy. Today renewable energy’s contribution has risen to over 21%. Imagine where we would be battling the consequences of climate change if today’s cost of solar and wind had been achieved in 2000.

As we enter the transition period between the Biden and Trump presidencies, we see the policy changes that have been threatened by the incoming administration and wonder if history will repeat itself. The most significant difference today is that Trump’s energy plans, if enacted, will not only greatly impact the citizens of the United States but every country across the globe. Due to climate change denial by Trump and too many past world leaders and insufficient action by others, the world has now come to that long-feared tipping point. Already we are seeing unprecedented hurricanes, coral reefs dying, and drought-induced forest fires and food shortages in some regions while extreme rainfall is occurring in other areas.

President Biden was able to accomplish several monumental steps that, if allowed to continue by the incoming administration and Congress, will help mitigate the most severe ramifications of climate change. Not since the Carter administration have measures of this significance been enacted. The passage of the Infrastructure Law funded over $72 billion for clean energy, grid improvements and EV charging stations while the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 provided more than $370 billion over 10 years for wind, solar, batteries, and electric vehicles.

But, if the incoming administration and Congress continue to block these initiatives from having their full effect, and if additional actions are not taken by the US to reduce fossil fuel consumption, we will soon be facing significant sea level rise, mass extinction of species, the death of our oceans, resource wars, and millions of climate refugees. Until we greatly reduce the amount of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions being dumped into our atmosphere, the climate impacts that we are seeing today will continue to worsen.

Reagan’s actions in reversing many of the gains made by Carter slowed down the advancement of renewable energy sources by two decades. The question today is whether Trump will erase Biden’s gains and destroy our last shot at offsetting the worst-predicted outcomes from climate change.

About the Author
From 1977 through his retirement in 2021, Mike Nicklas served as president of Innovative Design, an architectural firm that during his presidency was responsible for over 4,800 energy-efficient, environmentally sound solar facilities that have cumulatively cut CO2 emissions by over 1.5 million tons. He was a founder of the North Carolina Solar Energy Association, twice Chair of the American Solar Energy Society and President of the International Solar Energy Society. To promote solar energy, Nicklas has met with the Heads-of-State of eight countries. He has had appointments and positions with the United Nations Development Programme Advisory Committee, AIA Committee on the Environment Steering Committee, the NC Governor’s Task Force on Solar Law, and others. He is a fellow of the American Institute of Architects and the American Solar Energy Society.

Source
1. Böer, K. W. (2005). The Fifty-year History of the International Solar Energy Society and its National Sections. American Solar Energy Society.

As the world becomes more unpredictable, many countries, including the United States, are prioritizing energy independence. Achieving net-zero carbon emissions in addition means getting the most out of every available resource and this will be difficult for any country that relies solely on others to meet their energy demands.

To fulfill our growing energy needs, governments and industry need to work together to support versatile, self-sustaining energy systems. We should be exploring solutions that combine abundant renewable energy resources with intelligent system design and creative engineering. Enter solar panels.

An attractive quality of solar panels is that they are manufactured on a production line and are modular in design. In other words, you can build the solar array you want by piecing together individual cells, making them uniquely versatile. Solar modules can be made in many sizes and used in various energy systems, ranging from small off-grid setups to large-scale grid installations.

However, to keep costs as low as possible, solar panels currently are produced on large scales in highly specialized production lines. This scale of production limits how and where solar panels can be produced. To get the most out of solar technology, we need to increase manufacturing capacity in as many locations as possible.

This includes exploring new solar designs and materials, such as perovskite solar cells (PSCs). These innovative solar cells can be made using solution processing techniques (like spray coating or printing) at much lower costs than current solar technology. This lowers the barrier to production.

The Rise of Photovoltaics

Over the past few years, the manufactured and installed capacity of solar panels, or photovoltaics (PV), has skyrocketed worldwide. Solar PV made up more than 60% of new renewable energy capacity installed between 2010-2023.1 This is set to increase to up to 80% by 2030, as PV production and distribution is estimated to triple.

Most of this increase has so far been driven by increased manufacturing and installation of PV throughout China. Since the 1990s, China has heavily invested in increasing PV manufacturing, and today, 80% of the world’s solar panels are produced there.2 Furthermore, in 2023 China installed as much solar PV as the entire world installed in 2022. This makes a great argument that the more PV a country can create, the more PV can be installed.

As a world leader in solar technology, there is growing demand in the U.S. to increase domestic production of solar panels. Going into 2025, the manufacturing capacity of the U.S. was approaching 40 GW – 5.7x the manufacturing capacity available at the end of 2022.3

U.S. investment in solar technology is also happening on a local scale, particularly in rural areas. These smaller communities can incorporate renewable energy in innovative ways. In March 2024, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced $139 million worth of short-term loans available for rural electric co-operatives, local governments, tribal nations, and other groups to install solar systems in rural areas.4

This progression needs to continue if domestically produced solar is to be a significant supplier of U.S. electricity.

Challenges with Silicon PV: Energy Independence vs. Economy of Scale

Over 95% of solar panels are made from crystalline silicon, a highly purified material that requires complex and expensive manufacturing processes. The set-up and running costs of c-Si solar panel factories are very high. Governments can help by providing grants and tax breaks, such as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), but set-up costs will always be very expensive.

Record perovskite solar cells efficiencies compared to the best-performing silicon single junction solar panels over time.8 © Ossila Ltd., data from National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Therefore, it makes sense that it is more financially viable to produce massive quantities of c-Si solar panels. A fundamental reason PV costs have reduced so drastically is the rapid scaling of manufacturing capacity in China.

However, we need to consider energy independence. Global dependence on one location for PV manufacturing could lead to vulnerabilities in the future of solar technology. Increasing the amount of independently produced PV in different countries worldwide would have several benefits:5

• Reducing dependence on supply from specific countries means that PV will not be affected by international relations, as fossil fuels have been, making PV scaling more geopolitically stable.
• Reducing environmental impact by limiting solar panel transportation
• Avoiding import taxes and high tariffs

This last point is especially true today, as import taxes for goods from China may rise to 60% in the U.S.,6 which will certainly impact PV prices. Independent of current government consideration, the White House has previously stated that “the tariff rate on solar cells (whether or not assembled into modules) will increase from 25% to 50%“ throughout 2024.7

One issue with c-Si PV is that the costs are always going to favor larger scale production. It will require significant investment, significant government cooperation, and private sector interest to competitively manufacture c-Si PV.

Are Perovskites Solar Cells the Answer?

Since their introduction in 2009, perovskite solar cells (PSCs) have improved rapidly, achieving efficiencies that rival c-Si (26.7% vs 27.3%).8 PSCs are solar cells which use a novel material known as a perovskite crystal as the absorber layer, instead of c-Si.9

Unlike silicon, PSCs can be manufactured using simple, cost-effective techniques like inkjet printing and spray coating. In other words, these can be made at much lower cost and more easily than traditional c-Si solar panels. One study suggests that domestic production of PSCs could have a 60% cost reduction compared to importing c-Si solar panels.1

Especially with lower initial set-up costs and no import taxes, domestically produced PSCs become economically competitive – even when produced on a smaller scale. Thus it will be more economically feasible to set up solar panel factories for specific applications.Additionally, existing know-how and equipment from the printing industry can be repurposed to make printed solar panels, lowering production barriers. There are already multiple companies in the U.S. working on mass production of printed perovskite solar cells.

Perovskite Solar Cells for Specialist Uses

Perovskite solar cells also offer unique opportunities for innovative applications, such as for agrivoltaics where land is used for agriculture and solar power generation simultaneously. In some situations, integration of agrivoltaics could improve land efficiency by up to 60%.10

In fact, a case study in Germany found that in summer the electricity load of a farm, including charging the electric vehicles for harvesting, was almost completely met by the agrivoltaics system.10 However, there can be issues with reduced crop yield as opaque cells block sunlight.

One answer to this is to use semi-transparent solar cells. Unlike with c-Si, you can easily adapt the fundamental properties of PSCs. This creates semi-transparent solar cells which allow portions of sunlight through while absorbing some light to generate electricity, essentially using sunlight twice. This could help solve the yield issue seen with current agrivoltaics systems.

Other specific applications of perovskite solar cells include, but are not limited to:

• Flexible or Lightweight Solar Panels: PSCs require a much thinner layer than c-Si so they can be used in applications where c-Si solar is too heavy, rigid, or bulky. This feature also facilitates flexible perovskite solar cells.
• Off-Grid Solutions: Flexible and lightweight PSCs are ideal for portable power systems in remote areas.
• Indoor Solar Panels: PSCs perform well under low-light conditions, making them suitable for indoor energy harvesting.

These niche uses will require different compositions, device designs, and materials. Therefore, the ability to produce smaller amounts of PV in smaller, more cost-effective facilities allows us to get the most out of cutting-edge photovoltaic technology.

Challenges to Overcome

Perovskite solar cells are currently in the R&D stage of development. However, many research institutions and private companies are working to facilitate PSC’s journey to market.

The main issue with PSCs is their stability. Key materials used in PSC devices are sensitive to moisture and oxygen, causing performance to deteriorate rapidly. These effects can be partially mitigated by depositing these layers in a glove box11 and encapsulating devices properly.12 However, to compete with silicon, more research is needed to improve the stability of these devices.

Another challenge is that lead is a core component of the perovskite crystal structure. This could create issues of toxicity, environmental impact, and supply chain. While lead is commonly used in industry, the implications of using lead in PSCs must be fully considered. Proper encapsulation and comprehensive life cycle assessments are essential for safe PSC deployment.

Other challenges include standardizing manufacturing processes, ensuring product safety, and lowering the cost of modules as much as possible. We must find production methods and use materials that are compatible with large-scale production to ensure feasibility and scalability.

Producing Perovskite Solar Cells Domestically

Flexible design and easy production make solar energy an obvious front-runner for achieving our energy targets. While traditional solar panels have led to record adoption of PV worldwide, emerging technologies like perovskite solar cells provide new opportunities to adapt and grow solar technology. Perovskite solar cells could help significantly increase domestic production of solar panels and get the most out of solar technology.

About the Author
Mary O’Kane has a PhD in perovskite solar cells, with a specialization in device engineering and precursor chemistry. As an Application Scientist
at Ossila, she is responsible for developing, sourcing, and reviewing resources that help customers unlock the full potential of the company’s tools and materials.

Sources
1. https://tinyurl.com/nheh9k3h
2. https://tinyurl.com/mry2wsuj
3. https://tinyurl.com/48946cen
4. https://tinyurl.com/2dnzh6uk
5. https://tinyurl.com/5e4jm27j
6. https://tinyurl.com/4pnm75rz
7. https://tinyurl.com/nh7z546x
8. https://tinyurl.com/mss3fp73
9. https://tinyurl.com/33cbc77n
10. https://tinyurl.com/4c8e8kb5
11. https://tinyurl.com/3juy9dfm
12. https://tinyurl.com/yr678k37

Renters are interested in solar PV installations, for their community if not for themselves. Meanwhile, most house-rich but cash-poor participants have not spent time investigating something they lack the capital to deploy.

Since 2018, my team at Indicia Consulting has been researching solar adoption around heat resilience and disadvantaged communities in collaboration with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories (LBNL). Specifically, there are three major projects running from 2018 to the present day. As a partner to LBNL, Indicia Consulting conducted community outreach and stakeholder engagement activities, holding multiple focus groups and in-depth interviews in the homes of residents in West Atlanta, North Boston, West Fresno, and East Oakland. Researchers for a National Lab asked low-income residents about solar PV as one of several potential measures for energy efficiency investment. While the sample of participants was evenly divided between homeowners and renters, the percentage of participants interested in solar did not align along these lines.

We found that participants interested in solar are often discouraged by many things. Factors include resistance by their utility, a lack of solid, area-specific information regarding savings, return on investment or payback, maintenance costs, and the effect solar might have on future roof replacements. Further, municipal policies around tree cover and historic preservation structurally affect household decision-making.

Drawing on the data collected in these conversations, we discussed the attitudes of various demographics towards solar installation, including seniors and Spanish monolingual speakers, which are both difficult-to-access populations. Engaging with these demographics has produced insights into the challenges and opportunities that need to be addressed to successfully market solar installation on a mass scale. These include concerns with how aging intersects with home maintenance, as well as cultural and linguistic aspects of solar energy that may not traditionally have been incorporated into solar energy promotion efforts.

Indicia Consulting has been conducting qualitative research since 2006. In 2009, we began the partnership with LBNL that continues today. In 2018 we began collaborating on the first of three projects discussed in this article, known as Cal Thrives, funded by the State of California’s Strategic Growth Council (SGC). This project was followed by the Annex 80 project in 2021, and currently Renewables Advancing Community Energy Resilience (RACER) (started in 2023). Both Annex 80 and RACER were funded by the United States Department of Energy (DOE). These three projects are linked by their interest in helping Disadvantaged Communities (DACs)1 develop resilience in the face of extreme heat levels increasing in frequency, intensity, and duration,
due to climate change.

Each of these projects followed a similar protocol with respect to the structure of the qualitative research, the recruitment of participants, and the methods of data collection and analysis. All three projects included questions concerning interest in and willingness to consider installing residential solar energy as part of a suite of measures that can help build resilience to climate change and extreme heat.

The goal of conducting qualitative research in DACs was to incorporate their needs and inputs throughout the project, gather their feedback, and communicate research findings to the community via the community based organizations (CBOs), local governments, and utilities.

Residents of DACs often reside in older homes with poor insulation, single-pane windows, leaky envelopes, inefficient lighting, and inefficient appliances. Such homes may also have antiquated (if any) air conditioning equipment with limited cooling capacity, low efficiency, and high operating costs. As a result, residents are especially vulnerable to extreme heat events, because such homes suffer from high solar heat gains (through roof, walls, and windows) and/or high internal heat gains (from lighting, occupants, and appliances).

In total, during the running of these projects, we held ten focus groups with between eight and twelve participants, totaling around 100 participants. Each focus group lasted 90 minutes. The venue for the focus groups was centrally located and/or transit-accessible for participants. We provided a $100 gift card to each participant after each focus group.

In addition, we interviewed approximately 25 households in the privacy of their homes. Each in-depth interview (IDI) lasted a maximum of two hours and included a house tour with participants. In the IDIs, home visits included photos of exteriors as well as equipment and detailed assessments of building types and neighborhood conditions. The research team provided a $150 Visa gift card to each participant at the conclusion of each interview.

Boston home lacking tree cover. © Susan Mazur-Stommen

We do not have demographic quotas, in terms of gender, race, or income, for participation during the recruitment and selection process. However we do request information on demographics and household characteristics and seek to get a reasonably representative mix when feasible. Our primary recruitment goal was that they live in the neighborhoods/community of interest to our Community-Based Organization (CBO) partner, be of legal age, and hold some form of responsibility for managing the household/undertaking decision-making.

Two focus groups were held in Spanish, and one focus group recruited seniors explicitly, to get access to these hard-to-reach populations. Participants self-identified as low-income, and the sessions were evenly divided between owners and renters. The total number of renters vs. owners across the focus groups was roughly even but the distribution within particular focus groups varied. For example, the seniors were primarily owners. Meanwhile, several IDI participants lived in public housing, but others owned homes.

There were no striking differences in behavior when it came to heat mitigation practices within the home, however, interest in measures (e.g. installing solar PV) varied depending on the level of investment someone can bring to bear. Many low-income households own their own homes but may lack liquid capital for pursuing energy efficiency investments, which we refer to as “house rich, cash poor”. While solar panels were viewed as a potential solution for reducing long-term energy costs, most participants–especially renters — felt they were too expensive to install or manage.

Spanish speakers in Fresno in 2019 were the most negative on solar panels, with zero participants expressing any interest in installing solar PV. Flash forward to 2024, and Spanish speakers in Oakland are more positive towards solar, with one participant (out of ten) reporting: “I have friends who have solar panels because they have electric cars and want to save on electricity. They rent the solar panels, and it ends up being cheaper than the regular electric bill. They pay a monthly fee for the panels, and it works well for them.”

A separate participant offers:
“Two years ago, I installed solar panels, but it was a bit complicated because there are so many companies out there, and they all claim to save you money. You have to do a lot of reading and comparison. I researched 3 or 4 companies to find out the cost and choose the best quote. I went with a smaller company that was also a non-profit, so it was cheaper, but I had to wait about 6 months. In the end, it worked out, and it was cheaper than the other options I looked at, but it was designed for people who don’t use too much electricity. They offered me a loan, and it cost about $14,000. The loan payments are about the same as my old electric bill, but they gave me a 30% discount.”

Meanwhile, the seniors in Fresno in 2019 were split evenly, with half being theoretically in favor of installing solar PV. Seniors had the most articulated concerns, including:

• Do not want to be a site for trainees/unqualified labor
• Want to know, “Who is responsible for warranty/damages to the roof?”
• They wonder, “What is the after-market cost of maintaining solar PV?”

A few members of the other Fresno focus groups had investigated solar, but found it did not pencil out for them in terms of return on investment (ROI):

Bernardo: “We’ve been talking but when I show how much I pay every month to PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric), they say no, you’re fine.”
Florentino: “That’s what they tell me.”
Interviewer: “You’re fine?”
Florentino: “My PG&E bill is low so if I put solar panels in, it would cost more than I pay right now.”

Finding out that your usage is so low as not to make installing solar panels worthwhile also cropped up in the 2024 focus groups:
“I looked into it and they said something like about how the sun hits the house and also my electric bill is so low that they said it wouldn’t make sense. I only spend like $50 on PG&E. My PG&E bill has never been over $50. I’ve lived in Oakland my whole life. I get a special low-income rate though.”

There was confusion about how solar panels affected electricity bills, with some participants unsure if they eliminated or simply reduced costs, which is highly dependent on who the local energy provider is.

I: “Would you guys like to see more solar energy generated in your neighborhoods?”
All: “Yes.”
Participant A: “I heard a lot of it gets wasted. It’s only during the day when
no one’s using energy so all that solar energy gets wasted.”
Participant B: “I don’t think it gets wasted. It all goes back to the network so PG&E is profiting from it.”
I: “Have you ever considered adding solar panels?”
B: “Yeah. I heard electricity has been going up a lot. Only in recent times. Not like seriously where we are going to actually do it.”
I: “You haven’t investigated or researched or anything?”
B: “No.”
I: “Anything that’s preventing you from doing that?”
B: “I think it’s probably pretty pricey. I don’t think it’s that cheap. And if you ever need to change your roof or something, how do you do that with solar panels there?”
I: “Have you considered solar energy panels?”
B: “I have them.”
I: “Did you put them there or did they come with the house?”
A: “They came with the house.”
I: “What’s your electric bill right now?”
A: “$120 because I charge my car”.
I: “Do the solar panels help with that?”
A: “Oh yeah.”
I: “Do you know how much it helps with that in terms of how much it cuts the bill?”
A: “I don’t know. Maybe about $40”.
I: “That’s almost a third of your bill?”
A: “Yeah.”

When exploring potential investment in measures with residents it is important to keep in mind structural constraints. For this research, we considered such things as historic preservation policies, and the presence or absence of tree planting policies to be structural constraints. Often covenants/restrictions on making changes to home exteriors are imposed by the presence of ‘Historical Neighborhood Associations’.

Beyond price and maintenance, residents also brought up such factors as extant tree cover when considering whether to add more trees to their landscaping or to invest in rooftop solar. This is a structural constraint, as opposed to simply an environmental condition, because the amount of tree cover is the result of deliberate policy decisions undertaken by the city government. In Atlanta, the organization ‘Tree People Atlanta’ was referenced by residents in both the focus groups and IDIs. Depending on local policies, which impact things like tree planting, residents may decide to invest in increasing shade or installing solar roof panels, but no residents were considering both.

In Atlanta, the amount of tree cover appears to limit the ability of residents to invest in solar power, due to the shade cast. However there still seemed to be greater interest in solar investment in Atlanta, as opposed to Boston, for reasons that are unclear but possibly related to Atlantans being more accustomed to taking measures against extreme heat. We asked the focus group participants in Atlanta if they had considered additions or adaptations to their roof, and approximately 30% reported having considered solar.

There was noticeably less tree cover in the cities we visited in Massachusetts, making them more likely to be places where solar investment makes sense from a structural standpoint, yet people showed less interest overall. We asked focus group participants in Boston if they had considered additions or adaptations to their roof, and only 10% had considered solar PV.

In conclusion, our study highlights the need for tailored interventions that address structural constraints and community-specific needs. Cities and utilities need to collaborate better on informational campaigns around solar PV and tailor that messaging to dovetail more precisely with the pre-established policies such as tree planting into broader conversations around climate change, resilience, and comfort.

About the Author
ASES member Susan Mazur-Stommen is a practicing anthropologist who has researched culture, behavior, and sustainability for over twenty years. She received both a Master of Arts and a Doctorate in Cultural Anthropology from the University of California, Riverside. She worked for the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, and was the co-chair for the Behavior, Energy, and Climate Change conference from 2011-2014.

When you survey the wind turbines and oil rigs that cover vast swaths of the tallgrass prairie of the Osage Nation in northeast Oklahoma, you could be forgiven for assuming that this development matched a robust energy infrastructure across the entire Nation. Like many tribal and rural communities, however, the development of these assets has not delivered widespread expansion of transmission infrastructure, even as regional electricity demand has skyrocketed.

As I was writing this article, my cousin living in the Nation’s Senior Housing in the capital of Pawhuska informed me that his power goes out 3-7 times a week for up to several hours at a time, and also that additional scheduled outages were common. A local professional told me that back-to-back outages had burned out the compressor on their deep freezer and wasted hundreds of dollars in food, while another mentioned a lack of reliable electricity as a key challenge preventing them from expanding local manufacturing.

While certainly an inconvenient problem for anyone, these outages pose larger risks for tribal elders, who are more likely to be reliant on consistent electricity for CPAP machines and other medical equipment, and are more at risk when air conditioning and heating go out. This also creates a challenge for indigenous professionals and leaders trying to make the case for native youth to stay or come back to their tribal lands because they can’t rely on the infrastructure necessary to engage with increasingly online and electrified educational and employment opportunities. Further, backup generators can cause carbon monoxide poisoning, are prone to high costs tied to local fuel prices, and are sometimes poor solutions due to zoning or excessive noise issues.

The Osage experience is not uncommon. Energy resilience and reliability are pressing challenges for rural and tribal communities across the country, where aging infrastructure often leads to frequent power outages and rising energy costs. Rural and tribal communities in the United States face unique energy challenges. Outdated infrastructure, geographic isolation, and limited access to affordable power leave many of these regions vulnerable to frequent outages and volatile
energy costs.

For communities like the Osage Nation, the pursuit of energy independence has become an urgent priority—not just for resilience but as a path toward economic empowerment and sustainability, as well as tribal sovereignty. Localized renewable energy solutions, particularly microgrids and community solar projects, offer a transformative opportunity that would address a number of these issues. By tailoring renewable energy systems to local needs, these initiatives provide a sustainable and equitable framework for addressing energy insecurity.

Energy insecurity affects not only economic stability but also the quality of life in these areas. Frequent power outages disrupt essential services, including healthcare and education, while unreliable energy systems deter investments and stifle economic growth. The high cost of energy in remote regions further compounds these challenges, disproportionately impacting low-income households. These systemic issues underscore the importance of adopting renewable energy technologies that can provide consistent and affordable power while promoting environmental sustainability.

Aging grid infrastructure presents significant barriers to reliable energy access, so opportunities to utilize solar and storage technologies decentralized across tribal lands and matched closely to electrical demand can allow for improved local infrastructure with minimal transmission upgrades. Microgrids, self-contained energy systems with storage and energy production that can operate independently from the main grid, have emerged as a cornerstone of resilience.

Through partnerships with local organizations, tribal governments can establish solar farms that serve community members directly or across individual buildings and infrastructure projects, enabling energy savings and fostering shared ownership models. These projects not only mitigate infrastructure challenges but also empower residents to take control of their energy futures.

In California, tribal microgrids have demonstrated the significant benefits of localized renewable energy systems. The Blue Lake Rancheria, for example, installed a microgrid combining solar photovoltaic systems and battery energy storage, which has provided critical backup power during regional grid outages and natural disasters. This system, funded through the California Energy Commission’s Electric Program Investment Charge, exemplifies how state and tribal collaborations can foster resilience and sustainability (California Energy Commission, 2024).

Similarly, the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians implemented a 15-megawatt solar project with advanced battery storage to achieve energy resilience and cost savings, supported by funding from the Department of Energy’s Tribal Energy Financing Program and the Inflation Reduction Act (Microgrid Knowledge, 2024).

Renewable energy projects in tribal communities present transformative opportunities for economic and social empowerment. By fostering collaboration between tribal leaders, community members, and renewable energy developers, these projects facilitate meaningful engagement that goes beyond surface-level involvement.

Initiatives such as participatory energy planning workshops and culturally informed consultation processes allow Indigenous voices to shape project design and implementation. This ensures that renewable energy solutions respect tribal sovereignty, integrate traditional ecological knowledge, and align with cultural priorities.

In addition, programs emphasizing workforce training and the development of Indigenous-owned businesses not only create local jobs but also strengthen economic self-determination. Such approaches exemplify how renewable energy initiatives can bridge historical inequities while fostering trust and long-term community resilience (U.S. Department of Energy, 2023).

Despite the promise of renewable energy, tribal and rural communities often encounter policy and financial obstacles. Limited funding mechanisms, regulatory hurdles, and inconsistent federal support can delay project implementation. To address these challenges, tribal communities have engaged in strategic partnerships with nonprofits, universities, and federal agencies. These collaborations have unlocked funding opportunities and provide access to technical expertise, demonstrating the importance of cooperative approaches to overcoming systemic barriers.

Regulatory compliance and meaningful engagement with tribal nations are critical to the success of renewable energy projects on or near tribal lands. Federal energy regulators, such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), have increasingly emphasized the importance of obtaining tribal consent before initiating projects. This shift, described as a move toward “actual empowerment of tribal communities,” reflects broader policy goals of respecting sovereignty and ensuring equitable development (Heatmap News, 2024).

Projects can face significant delays, like the SunZia transmission line, or even cancellations when faced with legal challenges for failing to adequately consult tribal governments or delivering appropriately balanced benefits across stakeholder groups, highlighting the consequences of insufficient engagement. By incorporating robust consultation processes and adhering to federal guidelines, renewable energy developers can foster collaborative partnerships that advance both tribal sovereignty and sustainable energy goals.

The work that we’re doing in the Osage Nation and other tribal communities to support the planning and feasibility of solar and storage projects is just beginning. The vision of energy independence illustrates the transformative potential of renewable energy in rural and tribal communities to bring real sovereignty to native communities over their energy infrastructure. By leveraging microgrids and collaborative planning, these efforts deliver not only resilience and reliability but also economic empowerment and energy equity.

As other communities consider similar paths, we look to previous examples and hope to utilize the Osage experience as an inspiring model of innovation, resilience, and determination. Renewable energy is not just a solution for today’s challenges but a cornerstone for a sustainable and equitable energy future.

About the Author
As the President of Eighth Generation Consulting, Metzger specializes in full-lifecycle solar and storage installations. Eighth Generation delivers project and construction management, stakeholder engagement and community benefit planning, grant writing, and administration focusing on sustainability and renewable energy projects. A member of ASES, Metzger also works as a sustainable business and economics instructor at Wilmington University.

References

• U.S. Department of Energy. (2023). Energy Storage Equity: A Roadmap for Disadvantaged Communities.
• California Energy Commission. (2024). Tribal Microgrids. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/5cj3asvy
• Microgrid Knowledge. (2024). Tribal Communities Want Energy Resilience with Microgrids: Is the U.S. Stepping Up? Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/3ca7xecv
• Heatmap News. (2024). SunZia Lawsuit Highlights Need for Tribal Consultation in Renewable Energy Projects. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/mvh6kv79