Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

The Department of Energy wants to pay companies to make greener solar panels

News Feed
Friday, November 1, 2024

In June, U.S. solar manufacturer Qcells became the second company in the world to register its solar panels with EPEAT, a labeling system that sets sustainability standards for electronics makers. By doing so, the company triggered an obscure regulation that requires federal agencies to purchase EPEAT-certified solar panels. If, say, NASA wants to build a solar farm to power a research facility, it must now purchase panels that meet EPEAT’s strict sustainability requirements — including a first-of-its-kind limit on the carbon emissions tied to solar manufacturing. There’s just one problem: Although EPEAT launched its solar standards in 2019, as of today, there are only six EPEAT-registered solar panels on the global market. And there are currently no EPEAT-registered solar inverters, devices that convert the direct current electricity a solar panel produces to alternating current electricity, which the grid uses. That doesn’t leave a lot of choices for the federal government, or anyone else who wants to purchase sustainably-produced solar equipment. That’s why, in October, the Department of Energy, or DOE, launched a new prize that offers up to $450,000 to U.S.-based solar panel and inverter manufacturers that achieve EPEAT certification for their products. As a new wave of domestic solar manufacturing kicks into high gear, the DOE hopes the prize will ensure that companies use efficient processes, sustainable materials, fair labor practices, and low-carbon energy. “The fact of the matter is, not all solar [products] in their production are created equal,” said Patty Dillon, a vice president at the Global Electronics Council, the sustainable technology nonprofit that manages the EPEAT ecolabel. Solar panels convert the sun’s rays into electricity in a process that emits no greenhouse gases, which makes them essential for fighting climate change. To achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, the International Energy Agency estimates that the world must add 630 gigawatts of new solar power annually by 2030 — up from the 135 gigawatts installed in 2020.  But some solar panels are more climate-friendly than others. Polysilicon, which is used to make the sunlight-harvesting cells inside silicon panels, is made using an energy-intensive process often powered by fossil fuels. The frames that hold solar panels together are made of aluminum, which is typically smelted in China using coal-powered electricity. The manufacturing processes that turn these materials into a solar panel also require energy, which can lead to more emissions. On a global level, the difference between solar panels manufactured using clean energy and those made with fossil fuels could amount to tens of billions of metric tons of carbon pollution by the middle of the 21st century. Workers process aluminum alloy frames for solar panels in Hai’an, China. CFOTO / Future Publishing via Getty Images To minimize those emissions, along with other environmental challenges like the use of toxic chemicals and the disposal of solar e-waste, companies must take a hard look at their supply chains and, in some cases, engage in difficult clean-up work. The DOE’s new prize, “Promoting Registration of Inverters and Modules with Ecolabel,” or PRIME, encourages companies to do so by going through the EPEAT registration process. “EPEAT certification enables companies to show how they have been taking the steps to have more environmentally friendly supply chains and manufacturing processes,” Becca Jones-Albertus, who directs the DOE’s solar energy technologies office, told Grist.  Solar companies seeking EPEAT registration must meet a list of criteria that span four broad themes: climate change, sustainable resource use, hazardous chemicals, and responsible supply chains. Depending on how many standards a manufacturer meets, it can receive an EPEAT Bronze, Silver, or Gold designation.  In addition, as of June, solar manufacturers registered with EPEAT are required to meet the industry’s first-ever criteria for embodied carbon, the emissions generated when a product is produced. For each kilowatt of power produced, no more than 630 kilograms of CO2 can be emitted during the production of an EPEAT-registered solar panel. The limit, Dillon says, represents about 25 percent fewer carbon emissions than the global average. Solar panels that fall below the “ultra low carbon” threshold of 400 kilograms of CO2 per kilowatt of power earn a special EPEAT Climate+ designation.  “That basically represents the best in class,” Dillon said. It’s difficult to make a direct comparison to fossil fuel plants, since most of their emissions come from operations rather than building infrastructure. But other research has found that over their lifespan, solar plants are considerably more climate friendly, emitting roughly 50 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour of energy produced compared with about 1,000 grams per kilowatt-hour for coal.  Meeting EPEAT’s requirements isn’t easy, which might explain why there are only two companies — QCells and the Arizona-based First Solar — currently listed on the registry. And only two solar panels manufactured by First Solar have earned the ecolabel’s Climate+ badge. QCells, which manufactures two EPEAT-registered panels at a factory in Dalton, Georgia, spent about two years going through a “very extensive” certification process that involved collecting data across its supply chain and submitting to a third-party audit, corporate communications lead Debra DeShong told Grist. Arrays of solar cells on conveyor belt at Qcells’ facility in Dalton, Georgia. Dustin Chambers for The Washington Post via Getty Images “It’s not an easy task,” DeShong said. “It requires resources and it requires a will.” Other companies may now be motivated to try. QCells’ additions to the EPEAT registry in June activated the Federal Acquisition Regulation, which requires the federal government to purchase goods that meet standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, except in limited circumstances where it’s impractical to do so. In the case of solar panels, that means EPEAT-registered products. The DOE’s PRIME Prize, which provides U.S. solar manufacturers $50,000 for starting the registration process and up to $100,000 per product for up to four products that complete it, offers additional incentive. Jones-Albertus told Grist that the prize was designed to “roughly offset the cost of collecting all the data and moving through the registration process.” Solar companies “told us that they’re interested in EPEAT certification, but they haven’t gotten there yet,” Jones-Albertus said. “We’re hoping to provide incentives so that companies go through the EPEAT registration process sooner.” Companies peering deep into their supply chains for the first time might discover they have to make some changes to meet EPEAT registration requirements. To slim down the carbon footprint of its panels, a solar manufacturer might have to switch to a low-carbon polysilicon supplier. (QCells, for instance, is purchasing polysilicon from a facility in Washington state that produces the stuff using hydropower.) Or it might decide to swap out virgin aluminum frames manufactured overseas for recycled steel ones built domestically by Origami Solar, a change that can reduce carbon emissions tied to the frame by upwards of 90 percent. To meet EPEAT’s optional recycled content criteria, a manufacturer could decide to start purchasing recycled panel glass from a company like SolarCycle.  Making these sorts of manufacturing supply chain alterations takes time and money beyond what the new DOE prize will provide. But Dillon, of the Global Electronics Council, is optimistic that more companies will start registering their products with EPEAT now that federal purchasers require it. Erik Petersen, the chief strategy officer at Origami Solar, believes the Biden administration’s push for clean domestic manufacturing, combined with growing consumer interest in supply chain transparency, will spur more U.S. solar companies to ensure their products meet high sustainability standards.   “What’s exciting is all of these forces are coming together at the same time,” Petersen told Grist. “That really gives the industry an incentive to do the right things.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The Department of Energy wants to pay companies to make greener solar panels on Nov 1, 2024.

Only six panels on the market meet the government's sustainability standards — but that number could soon grow.

In June, U.S. solar manufacturer Qcells became the second company in the world to register its solar panels with EPEAT, a labeling system that sets sustainability standards for electronics makers. By doing so, the company triggered an obscure regulation that requires federal agencies to purchase EPEAT-certified solar panels. If, say, NASA wants to build a solar farm to power a research facility, it must now purchase panels that meet EPEAT’s strict sustainability requirements — including a first-of-its-kind limit on the carbon emissions tied to solar manufacturing.

There’s just one problem: Although EPEAT launched its solar standards in 2019, as of today, there are only six EPEAT-registered solar panels on the global market. And there are currently no EPEAT-registered solar inverters, devices that convert the direct current electricity a solar panel produces to alternating current electricity, which the grid uses. That doesn’t leave a lot of choices for the federal government, or anyone else who wants to purchase sustainably-produced solar equipment.

That’s why, in October, the Department of Energy, or DOE, launched a new prize that offers up to $450,000 to U.S.-based solar panel and inverter manufacturers that achieve EPEAT certification for their products. As a new wave of domestic solar manufacturing kicks into high gear, the DOE hopes the prize will ensure that companies use efficient processes, sustainable materials, fair labor practices, and low-carbon energy.

“The fact of the matter is, not all solar [products] in their production are created equal,” said Patty Dillon, a vice president at the Global Electronics Council, the sustainable technology nonprofit that manages the EPEAT ecolabel.

Solar panels convert the sun’s rays into electricity in a process that emits no greenhouse gases, which makes them essential for fighting climate change. To achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, the International Energy Agency estimates that the world must add 630 gigawatts of new solar power annually by 2030 — up from the 135 gigawatts installed in 2020. 

But some solar panels are more climate-friendly than others. Polysilicon, which is used to make the sunlight-harvesting cells inside silicon panels, is made using an energy-intensive process often powered by fossil fuels. The frames that hold solar panels together are made of aluminum, which is typically smelted in China using coal-powered electricity. The manufacturing processes that turn these materials into a solar panel also require energy, which can lead to more emissions. On a global level, the difference between solar panels manufactured using clean energy and those made with fossil fuels could amount to tens of billions of metric tons of carbon pollution by the middle of the 21st century.

Overhead view of several silver metal strips sitting atop equipment, with a person wearing a green shirt and a yellow hard hat in the background
Workers process aluminum alloy frames for solar panels in Hai’an, China. CFOTO / Future Publishing via Getty Images

To minimize those emissions, along with other environmental challenges like the use of toxic chemicals and the disposal of solar e-waste, companies must take a hard look at their supply chains and, in some cases, engage in difficult clean-up work. The DOE’s new prize, “Promoting Registration of Inverters and Modules with Ecolabel,” or PRIME, encourages companies to do so by going through the EPEAT registration process.

“EPEAT certification enables companies to show how they have been taking the steps to have more environmentally friendly supply chains and manufacturing processes,” Becca Jones-Albertus, who directs the DOE’s solar energy technologies office, told Grist. 

Solar companies seeking EPEAT registration must meet a list of criteria that span four broad themes: climate change, sustainable resource use, hazardous chemicals, and responsible supply chains. Depending on how many standards a manufacturer meets, it can receive an EPEAT Bronze, Silver, or Gold designation. 

In addition, as of June, solar manufacturers registered with EPEAT are required to meet the industry’s first-ever criteria for embodied carbon, the emissions generated when a product is produced. For each kilowatt of power produced, no more than 630 kilograms of CO2 can be emitted during the production of an EPEAT-registered solar panel. The limit, Dillon says, represents about 25 percent fewer carbon emissions than the global average. Solar panels that fall below the “ultra low carbon” threshold of 400 kilograms of CO2 per kilowatt of power earn a special EPEAT Climate+ designation. 

“That basically represents the best in class,” Dillon said.

It’s difficult to make a direct comparison to fossil fuel plants, since most of their emissions come from operations rather than building infrastructure. But other research has found that over their lifespan, solar plants are considerably more climate friendly, emitting roughly 50 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour of energy produced compared with about 1,000 grams per kilowatt-hour for coal. 

Meeting EPEAT’s requirements isn’t easy, which might explain why there are only two companies — QCells and the Arizona-based First Solar — currently listed on the registry. And only two solar panels manufactured by First Solar have earned the ecolabel’s Climate+ badge. QCells, which manufactures two EPEAT-registered panels at a factory in Dalton, Georgia, spent about two years going through a “very extensive” certification process that involved collecting data across its supply chain and submitting to a third-party audit, corporate communications lead Debra DeShong told Grist.

Overhead view of an array of approximately 36 blue solar panels, each with silver detailing
Arrays of solar cells on conveyor belt at Qcells’ facility in Dalton, Georgia. Dustin Chambers for The Washington Post via Getty Images

“It’s not an easy task,” DeShong said. “It requires resources and it requires a will.”

Other companies may now be motivated to try. QCells’ additions to the EPEAT registry in June activated the Federal Acquisition Regulation, which requires the federal government to purchase goods that meet standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, except in limited circumstances where it’s impractical to do so. In the case of solar panels, that means EPEAT-registered products. The DOE’s PRIME Prize, which provides U.S. solar manufacturers $50,000 for starting the registration process and up to $100,000 per product for up to four products that complete it, offers additional incentive. Jones-Albertus told Grist that the prize was designed to “roughly offset the cost of collecting all the data and moving through the registration process.”

Solar companies “told us that they’re interested in EPEAT certification, but they haven’t gotten there yet,” Jones-Albertus said. “We’re hoping to provide incentives so that companies go through the EPEAT registration process sooner.”

Companies peering deep into their supply chains for the first time might discover they have to make some changes to meet EPEAT registration requirements. To slim down the carbon footprint of its panels, a solar manufacturer might have to switch to a low-carbon polysilicon supplier. (QCells, for instance, is purchasing polysilicon from a facility in Washington state that produces the stuff using hydropower.) Or it might decide to swap out virgin aluminum frames manufactured overseas for recycled steel ones built domestically by Origami Solar, a change that can reduce carbon emissions tied to the frame by upwards of 90 percent. To meet EPEAT’s optional recycled content criteria, a manufacturer could decide to start purchasing recycled panel glass from a company like SolarCycle

Making these sorts of manufacturing supply chain alterations takes time and money beyond what the new DOE prize will provide. But Dillon, of the Global Electronics Council, is optimistic that more companies will start registering their products with EPEAT now that federal purchasers require it.

Erik Petersen, the chief strategy officer at Origami Solar, believes the Biden administration’s push for clean domestic manufacturing, combined with growing consumer interest in supply chain transparency, will spur more U.S. solar companies to ensure their products meet high sustainability standards.  

“What’s exciting is all of these forces are coming together at the same time,” Petersen told Grist. “That really gives the industry an incentive to do the right things.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The Department of Energy wants to pay companies to make greener solar panels on Nov 1, 2024.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

What a Trump administration means for the federal hydrogen energy push

The incoming Trump administration could decrease the viability of the nascent U.S. hydrogen economy with changes in clean energy funding, trade, climate and environmental policies, according to legal and industry experts. The Biden administration made a big bet on hydrogen — with seven proposed, federally funded hydrogen hub networks, an initiative born from the administration’s 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The hubs are all still in early phases of development, however, the Department of Energy (DOE) has allocated $7 billion in federal funding for the hubs, which support the Biden administration's objective of reaching net-zero carbon emissions nationwide by 2050 and achieving a 100% “clean” electrical grid by 2035. The projects, which will use both renewable and fossil fuel energy to create hydrogen, have already faced criticism from community members and advocacy groups who say details of the projects remain hazy, public input is being planned after industry partners have already received millions of dollars in public funding, and communities don’t have agency in the decision-making. While much remains uncertain with the upcoming Trump presidency, experts said it’s unlikely the projects would be abandoned entirely. However, the initiative could be harder to fund, less focused on slowing climate change – which could impact production sales to places with stricter environmental rules, like the EU – and deepen the lack of community engagement many advocates have denounced. “I think there will be a lot of pressure from the oil and gas industry on the Trump administration to basically keep the hydrogen provisions but to make them more lenient and friendly toward fossil fuel interests,” Matt Lifson, an attorney with the Institute for Policy Integrity at the NYU School of Law, told EHN. Policy shifts that could impact the the hydrogen hubsThe DOE has already provided some funding for five of the seven hubs — $131.7 million, with the Gulf Coast and Midwest hubs receiving funds most recently on November 20 — but much of the $7 billion earmarked for the hubs is set to be distributed over the next decade.Any funding that hasn’t been distributed when Trump takes office could be reallocated through federal budget reconciliation, according to legal and policy experts. Reconciliation bills can’t be filibustered and the process has been used to pass at least 22 bills since the process was established in 1974, including the Biden administration's 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). “A lot will depend on the contracts the federal government has already signed with the hydrogen hub developers,” said Lifson. “Even if Congress changes the law, there could potentially still be a contractual claim the hubs could pursue for the money.”Trump’s policies on clean energy tax credits could also impact the hubs. Trump has repeatedly called into question the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which doled out clean energy tax credits over the past four years. Trump’s pick to head the Treasury Department Scott Bessent recently called the IRA a “doomsday machine for the budget.” If Trump cuts tax credits for the industry, that means he would most likely get rid of a 10-year tax credit for hydrogen production established by the IRA but not yet finalized. The tax cut “has been a cornerstone for accelerating clean energy investments and job creation,” Katie Ellet, chief executive officer of ETCH, a decarbonization and hydrogen production company, and previous president of hydrogen energy and mobility for Air Liquide North America, told EHN.“While the hydrogen market’s transition was underway before the IRA … the legislation significantly amplified this momentum,” Ellet added.Before the recent election, the Biden administration promised to finalize the clean hydrogen production tax credit by the end of the year. However, the rule could be overturned under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn final rules issued by federal agencies within 60 days. If that happened, it would also bar “substantially similar legislation” from being passed in the future, so it’s unclear if the Biden administration will finalize the rule. As currently written, the tax credits incentivize lower levels of carbon emissions in hydrogen production. “Whether the Biden administration finalizes the rule and it gets repealed, or whether they don’t finalize it and the Trump administration proposes a new rule, it’s not hard to imagine the Trump administration issuing a final rule that’s extremely lenient toward emissions accounting,” Lifson said. “That would be very bad from a climate perspective.”Trump’s final decision on the hydrogen energy tax credits will also influence markets. The EU is currently finalizing policies that will prevent it from buying hydrogen produced using fossil fuels rather than clean energy sources, and if the tax credit incentivizes the creation of hydrogen using fossil fuels, the U.S. could end up with a surplus.“While the hydrogen market’s transition was underway before the IRA … the legislation significantly amplified this momentum." - Katie Ellet, ETCHIn addition to the $7 billion in federal funds that have been set aside for the hubs, an estimated $40 billion in private investments will also be needed to complete the projects. If Trump rolls back climate policies, as he did during his last presidency and has vowed to do again, it could lessen demand for hydrogen energy in the U.S., which could scare away the necessary private investors.“Federal policy plays a critical role in shaping the pace and scale of clean energy adoption,” said Ellet, who oversaw $1 billion in investments across the U.S. for Air Liquide, a partner in six of the seven hubs. “That said, global market dynamics and established corporate commitments continue to offer a solid foundation for sustained private sector investment in clean energy.”Environmental justice deprioritizedEnvironmental justice frameworks that aren’t part of legal statutes are some of the easiest targets for elimination.A prime example is the Biden Administration’s Justice40 initiative, a federal mandate to allocate 40% of federal investments in climate, clean energy, housing, among others, to “disadvantaged communities that are marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution.”The federal hydrogen hub networks are one of the first major tests of the Justice40 initiative, but even in pre-development phases advocates and communities shared grievances around community engagement and transparency. Most recently, advocates were notified just hours before the DOE announcement of phase one funding for the Midwest Hydrogen Hub, according to the advocacy group Just Transition Northwest Indiana. “We were literally in a meeting with DOE and the [Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations] minutes before the announcement was made, with no mention that the award was being dropped today,” the group said in a press release. “We are justifiably stunned to see it suddenly flash over our news feed. We are fed up with the continuous lack of transparency.”Many worry that these issues will worsen under the Trump administration. Project 2025 — a policy blueprint that Trump distanced himself from on the campaign trail but that now seems central to his Cabinet picks and plans — explicitly calls into question whether the government should be addressing the roles of race and income in pollution exposure, and aims to dismantle the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.“A lot of the alarming practices we were seeing under Biden are likely to continue under Trump, if not worsen,” Batoul Al-Sadi, a senior associate at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), told EHN.Margaret Cook, deputy director of climate equity and resilience at the Houston Advanced Research Center, said the Center’s position as one the hub’s community engagement partners was finalized last week with phase one awards.“The contract signed recently with DOE for the first phase includes community engagement,” Cook said. “I can’t speculate about how a new administration would affect the project. Updates to the Justice40 Assessment and Implementation Strategy will be made at the end of each phase, and relevant information will be shared for community input.”While the future of the hubs' community engagement and emissions reduction rollout remains unclear until Trump begins his term, out of the four hubs EHN was able to reach none stated concerns for the continuation of their projects.Trump has also vowed to fast-track industrial development permitting, which could hamper community engagement but help projects get developed faster.“The incoming administration has clear goals around energy independence, job creation and boosting domestic production … all priorities deeply embedded in the hydrogen hubs,” Ellet said. “I anticipate that there will be continued support for the hubs.”It’s possible that companies and investors might plan for the longer term by taking climate needs and importance of community buy-in into account even if they aren’t required to by law. During the last Trump presidency, for example, large auto manufacturers including Mercedes-Benz, Honda, Ford, Volkswagen and BMW announced they wouldn’t adhere to the Trump administration’s rollback of emission standards and would instead continue to comply with the previous standards enacted by the Obama administration to reduce planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions.“We know there’s bipartisan support and that both blue and red states have benefitted from clean energy investments,” Lauren Piette, a senior associate attorney for EarthJustice’s clean energy program, told EHN. “I worry about what the next administration could do with those investments, but my hope is there’s a groundswell of support from members of the public, legislators and policymakers who understand our future runs on clean energy and we need to get there sooner rather than later.”

The incoming Trump administration could decrease the viability of the nascent U.S. hydrogen economy with changes in clean energy funding, trade, climate and environmental policies, according to legal and industry experts. The Biden administration made a big bet on hydrogen — with seven proposed, federally funded hydrogen hub networks, an initiative born from the administration’s 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The hubs are all still in early phases of development, however, the Department of Energy (DOE) has allocated $7 billion in federal funding for the hubs, which support the Biden administration's objective of reaching net-zero carbon emissions nationwide by 2050 and achieving a 100% “clean” electrical grid by 2035. The projects, which will use both renewable and fossil fuel energy to create hydrogen, have already faced criticism from community members and advocacy groups who say details of the projects remain hazy, public input is being planned after industry partners have already received millions of dollars in public funding, and communities don’t have agency in the decision-making. While much remains uncertain with the upcoming Trump presidency, experts said it’s unlikely the projects would be abandoned entirely. However, the initiative could be harder to fund, less focused on slowing climate change – which could impact production sales to places with stricter environmental rules, like the EU – and deepen the lack of community engagement many advocates have denounced. “I think there will be a lot of pressure from the oil and gas industry on the Trump administration to basically keep the hydrogen provisions but to make them more lenient and friendly toward fossil fuel interests,” Matt Lifson, an attorney with the Institute for Policy Integrity at the NYU School of Law, told EHN. Policy shifts that could impact the the hydrogen hubsThe DOE has already provided some funding for five of the seven hubs — $131.7 million, with the Gulf Coast and Midwest hubs receiving funds most recently on November 20 — but much of the $7 billion earmarked for the hubs is set to be distributed over the next decade.Any funding that hasn’t been distributed when Trump takes office could be reallocated through federal budget reconciliation, according to legal and policy experts. Reconciliation bills can’t be filibustered and the process has been used to pass at least 22 bills since the process was established in 1974, including the Biden administration's 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). “A lot will depend on the contracts the federal government has already signed with the hydrogen hub developers,” said Lifson. “Even if Congress changes the law, there could potentially still be a contractual claim the hubs could pursue for the money.”Trump’s policies on clean energy tax credits could also impact the hubs. Trump has repeatedly called into question the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which doled out clean energy tax credits over the past four years. Trump’s pick to head the Treasury Department Scott Bessent recently called the IRA a “doomsday machine for the budget.” If Trump cuts tax credits for the industry, that means he would most likely get rid of a 10-year tax credit for hydrogen production established by the IRA but not yet finalized. The tax cut “has been a cornerstone for accelerating clean energy investments and job creation,” Katie Ellet, chief executive officer of ETCH, a decarbonization and hydrogen production company, and previous president of hydrogen energy and mobility for Air Liquide North America, told EHN.“While the hydrogen market’s transition was underway before the IRA … the legislation significantly amplified this momentum,” Ellet added.Before the recent election, the Biden administration promised to finalize the clean hydrogen production tax credit by the end of the year. However, the rule could be overturned under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn final rules issued by federal agencies within 60 days. If that happened, it would also bar “substantially similar legislation” from being passed in the future, so it’s unclear if the Biden administration will finalize the rule. As currently written, the tax credits incentivize lower levels of carbon emissions in hydrogen production. “Whether the Biden administration finalizes the rule and it gets repealed, or whether they don’t finalize it and the Trump administration proposes a new rule, it’s not hard to imagine the Trump administration issuing a final rule that’s extremely lenient toward emissions accounting,” Lifson said. “That would be very bad from a climate perspective.”Trump’s final decision on the hydrogen energy tax credits will also influence markets. The EU is currently finalizing policies that will prevent it from buying hydrogen produced using fossil fuels rather than clean energy sources, and if the tax credit incentivizes the creation of hydrogen using fossil fuels, the U.S. could end up with a surplus.“While the hydrogen market’s transition was underway before the IRA … the legislation significantly amplified this momentum." - Katie Ellet, ETCHIn addition to the $7 billion in federal funds that have been set aside for the hubs, an estimated $40 billion in private investments will also be needed to complete the projects. If Trump rolls back climate policies, as he did during his last presidency and has vowed to do again, it could lessen demand for hydrogen energy in the U.S., which could scare away the necessary private investors.“Federal policy plays a critical role in shaping the pace and scale of clean energy adoption,” said Ellet, who oversaw $1 billion in investments across the U.S. for Air Liquide, a partner in six of the seven hubs. “That said, global market dynamics and established corporate commitments continue to offer a solid foundation for sustained private sector investment in clean energy.”Environmental justice deprioritizedEnvironmental justice frameworks that aren’t part of legal statutes are some of the easiest targets for elimination.A prime example is the Biden Administration’s Justice40 initiative, a federal mandate to allocate 40% of federal investments in climate, clean energy, housing, among others, to “disadvantaged communities that are marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution.”The federal hydrogen hub networks are one of the first major tests of the Justice40 initiative, but even in pre-development phases advocates and communities shared grievances around community engagement and transparency. Most recently, advocates were notified just hours before the DOE announcement of phase one funding for the Midwest Hydrogen Hub, according to the advocacy group Just Transition Northwest Indiana. “We were literally in a meeting with DOE and the [Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations] minutes before the announcement was made, with no mention that the award was being dropped today,” the group said in a press release. “We are justifiably stunned to see it suddenly flash over our news feed. We are fed up with the continuous lack of transparency.”Many worry that these issues will worsen under the Trump administration. Project 2025 — a policy blueprint that Trump distanced himself from on the campaign trail but that now seems central to his Cabinet picks and plans — explicitly calls into question whether the government should be addressing the roles of race and income in pollution exposure, and aims to dismantle the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.“A lot of the alarming practices we were seeing under Biden are likely to continue under Trump, if not worsen,” Batoul Al-Sadi, a senior associate at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), told EHN.Margaret Cook, deputy director of climate equity and resilience at the Houston Advanced Research Center, said the Center’s position as one the hub’s community engagement partners was finalized last week with phase one awards.“The contract signed recently with DOE for the first phase includes community engagement,” Cook said. “I can’t speculate about how a new administration would affect the project. Updates to the Justice40 Assessment and Implementation Strategy will be made at the end of each phase, and relevant information will be shared for community input.”While the future of the hubs' community engagement and emissions reduction rollout remains unclear until Trump begins his term, out of the four hubs EHN was able to reach none stated concerns for the continuation of their projects.Trump has also vowed to fast-track industrial development permitting, which could hamper community engagement but help projects get developed faster.“The incoming administration has clear goals around energy independence, job creation and boosting domestic production … all priorities deeply embedded in the hydrogen hubs,” Ellet said. “I anticipate that there will be continued support for the hubs.”It’s possible that companies and investors might plan for the longer term by taking climate needs and importance of community buy-in into account even if they aren’t required to by law. During the last Trump presidency, for example, large auto manufacturers including Mercedes-Benz, Honda, Ford, Volkswagen and BMW announced they wouldn’t adhere to the Trump administration’s rollback of emission standards and would instead continue to comply with the previous standards enacted by the Obama administration to reduce planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions.“We know there’s bipartisan support and that both blue and red states have benefitted from clean energy investments,” Lauren Piette, a senior associate attorney for EarthJustice’s clean energy program, told EHN. “I worry about what the next administration could do with those investments, but my hope is there’s a groundswell of support from members of the public, legislators and policymakers who understand our future runs on clean energy and we need to get there sooner rather than later.”

Lasers could help cut CO2 emissions from Maine’s paper and pulp mills

This story was first published by Energy News Network . A Massachusetts university is developing technology that aims to use lasers to drastically cut emissions and energy use from Maine’s paper and pulp industry. Worcester Polytechnic Institute recently received a $2.75 million U.S. Department of Energy grant…

This story was first published by Energy News Network. A Massachusetts university is developing technology that aims to use lasers to drastically cut emissions and energy use from Maine’s paper and pulp industry. Worcester Polytechnic Institute recently received a $2.75 million U.S. Department of Energy grant to help ready the industrial drying technology for commercial use. “We are all excited about this — this is potentially a groundbreaking technology,” said Jamal Yagoobi, founding director of the institute’s Center for Advanced Research in Drying. In Maine, the paper and pulp business generates about 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year, roughly half of the state’s industrial emissions. Much of these emissions result from the process of drying mashed, pressed, and rolled wood pulp to yield paper products. The emissions come mainly from three major operations across the state; three additional facilities contribute smaller amounts. These plants’ emissions will need to be addressed if Maine is to reach its goal of going carbon neutral by 2045. Furthermore, each of these plants is located in an area with an above-average population of low-income residents, according to data assembled by Industrious Labs, an environmental organization focused on the impact of industry. And two are located in areas with a higher-than-average risk of cancer from air toxins, suggesting a correlation between their operations and the incidence of cancer in the area. At the same, the paper and pulp industry remains economically important to Maine, said Matt Cannon, state conservation and energy director for the Maine chapter of the Sierra Club. “It’s got real union jobs — the paper industry is still very important to our community,” he said. Worcester Polytechnic’s drying research center has been working on ways to dry paper, pulp, and other materials using the concentrated energy found in lasers. The lasers Yagoobi’s team is using are not the lasers of the public imagination, like a red beam zapping at alien enemies. Though the lasers are quite strong — they can melt metal, Yagoobi says — they are dispersed over a larger area, spreading out the energy to evenly and gently dry the target material.

The economic case for green steel production at a Michigan steel mill

Dearborn, Michigan, was at the heart of auto industry innovation during the days of the Model T Ford. Now clean energy and environmental justice advocates are proposing that the city play a lead role in greening the auto industry, through a transformation of the Dearborn Works steel mill to “green steel” — a…

Dearborn, Michigan, was at the heart of auto industry innovation during the days of the Model T Ford. Now clean energy and environmental justice advocates are proposing that the city play a lead role in greening the auto industry, through a transformation of the Dearborn Works steel mill to ​“green steel” — a steelmaking process powered by hydrogen and renewable energy with drastically lower emissions than a traditional blast furnace. The blast furnace at Dearborn Works is due for relining in 2027, at an estimated cost of $470 million. Advocates argue that instead of prolonging the blast furnace’s life, its owner, Cleveland Cliffs, should invest another $2 billion dollars and convert the mill to Direct Reduced Iron (DRI) technology powered by green hydrogen (hydrogen produced with renewable energy). An October report by Dr. Elizabeth Boatman of the firm 5 Lakes Energy examines the economics and logistics of such a conversion, and argues that demand for cleaner steel is likely to grow as auto companies and other global industries seek to lower their greenhouse gas footprints. Starting in 2026, steel importers to the European Union will need to make payments to offset emissions associated with steel production. Worldwide, the auto industry is the second largest consumer of steel after construction, and ​“being able to pass on the price of a ​‘green steel premium’ to its end consumers, the automotive industry is uniquely positioned to create demand for green steel without having to rely on public subsidies,” the European Union think tank CEPS said in a recent publication. “This is a great chance for the state to step in now and ensure this conversion happens, instead of waiting another 20 years,” said Boatman. ​“All the economic indicators suggest clean steel is the steel product of the future, and the best way to future-proof jobs especially in the steel sector and especially for unions.” Cutting pollution, creating jobs  Cleveland Cliffs is planning to convert its Middletown, Ohio, steel mill to DRI, tapping a $500 million federal grant for industrial decarbonization under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act. A DRI furnace does not need to use coke or heat iron ore to 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit to produce pure ​“pig iron”; the same result is achieved with a different chemical process at much lower temperatures. DRI furnaces can be powered by natural gas or clean hydrogen. Initially, Cleveland Cliffs says, its Middletown mill will run on natural gas, releasing about half the carbon emissions of its current blast furnace. Eventually, the company announced, it could switch to hydrogen. Along with slashing greenhouse gas emissions, a similar green steel conversion at Dearborn Works would greatly reduce the local air pollution burden facing residents in the heavily industrial area, which is also home to a Marathon oil refinery, a major rail yard, and other polluters. But it wouldn’t be cheap. Boatman’s report estimated the cost of converting a blast furnace to a DRI furnace and associated electric arc furnaces at $1.57 billion, plus $2.6 billion to build a green hydrogen plant. Utility DTE Energy would need to work with grid operator MISO to add about 2 GW of solar and 2 GW of wind power, plus battery storage, to the grid to power the green hydrogen production. The conversion would mean closure of the EES Coke plant, which turns coal into coke for the steel mill, on heavily polluted Zug Island in the River Rouge just outside Detroit, five miles from Dearborn. In 2022, the EPA sued the coke plant, a subsidiary of DTE Energy, over Clean Air Act violations. A recent study by the nonprofit Industrious Labs found that the EES Coke plant could be responsible for up to 57 premature deaths and more than 15,000 asthma attacks. The report also found that more than half the people living within a three-mile radius of both the steel mill and coke plant are low-income, and three-quarters of those living around the coke plant are people of color, as are half those living around the steel mill. “The total health costs are quite significant,” said Nick Leonard, executive director of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, which is representing local residents as intervenors in the EPA lawsuit against the coke plant. ​“We allow companies to externalize those costs and not account for them. If they were required by some sort of change in policy or regulation to be responsible for those costs, it would certainly make the case they could make this expensive switch” to green steel. The law center also represented residents in legal proceedings around Dearborn Works’ Clean Air Act violations, including a 2015 consent decree and a 2023 mandate to install a new electrostatic precipitator at a cost of $100 million. Leonard said local residents ​“know Cleveland Cliffs poses a risk to their health, and they want solutions. They know there’s a problem — they are frustrated by the lack of will or attention from state and local government.” Cleveland Cliffs did not respond to a request for comment. Why Michigan? The country’s active steel mills are concentrated in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. Advocates and residents are asking Nippon Steel to consider a green steel conversion at the Gary Works mill in Northwest Indiana, if the global corporation succeeds in acquiring Gary Works owner U.S. Steel. Advocates have also proposed green steel conversions for Pennsylvania mills.

Ensuring a durable transition

Progress on the energy transition depends on collective action benefiting all stakeholders, agreed participants in MITEI’s annual research conference.

To fend off the worst impacts of climate change, “we have to decarbonize, and do it even faster,” said William H. Green, director of the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) and Hoyt C. Hottel Professor, MIT Department of Chemical Engineering, at MITEI’s Annual Research Conference.“But how the heck do we actually achieve this goal when the United States is in the middle of a divisive election campaign, and globally, we’re facing all kinds of geopolitical conflicts, trade protectionism, weather disasters, increasing demand from developing countries building a middle class, and data centers in countries like the U.S.?”Researchers, government officials, and business leaders convened in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Sept. 25-26 to wrestle with this vexing question at the conference that was themed, “A durable energy transition: How to stay on track in the face of increasing demand and unpredictable obstacles.”“In this room we have a lot of power,” said Green, “if we work together, convey to all of society what we see as real pathways and policies to solve problems, and take collective action.”The critical role of consensus-building in driving the energy transition arose repeatedly in conference sessions, whether the topic involved developing and adopting new technologies, constructing and siting infrastructure, drafting and passing vital energy policies, or attracting and retaining a skilled workforce.Resolving conflictsThere is “blowback and a social cost” in transitioning away from fossil fuels, said Stephen Ansolabehere, the Frank G. Thompson Professor of Government at Harvard University, in a panel on the social barriers to decarbonization. “Companies need to engage differently and recognize the rights of communities,” he said.Nora DeDontney, director of development at Vineyard Offshore, described her company’s two years of outreach and negotiations to bring large cables from ocean-based wind turbines onshore.“Our motto is, 'community first,'” she said. Her company works to mitigate any impacts towns might feel because of offshore wind infrastructure construction with projects, such as sewer upgrades; provides workforce training to Tribal Nations; and lays out wind turbines in a manner that provides safe and reliable areas for local fisheries.Elsa A. Olivetti, professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT and the lead of the Decarbonization Mission of MIT’s new Climate Project, discussed the urgent need for rapid scale-up of mineral extraction. “Estimates indicate that to electrify the vehicle fleet by 2050, about six new large copper mines need to come on line each year,” she said. To meet the demand for metals in the United States means pushing into Indigenous lands and environmentally sensitive habitats. “The timeline of permitting is not aligned with the temporal acceleration needed,” she said.Larry Susskind, the Ford Professor of Urban and Environmental Planning in the MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning, is trying to resolve such tensions with universities playing the role of mediators. He is creating renewable energy clinics where students train to participate in emerging disputes over siting. “Talk to people before decisions are made, conduct joint fact finding, so that facilities reduce harms and share the benefits,” he said.Clean energy boom and pressureA relatively recent and unforeseen increase in demand for energy comes from data centers, which are being built by large technology companies for new offerings, such as artificial intelligence.“General energy demand was flat for 20 years — and now, boom,” said Sean James, Microsoft’s senior director of data center research. “It caught utilities flatfooted.” With the expansion of AI, the rush to provision data centers with upwards of 35 gigawatts of new (and mainly renewable) power in the near future, intensifies pressure on big companies to balance the concerns of stakeholders across multiple domains. Google is pursuing 24/7 carbon-free energy by 2030, said Devon Swezey, the company’s senior manager for global energy and climate.“We’re pursuing this by purchasing more and different types of clean energy locally, and accelerating technological innovation such as next-generation geothermal projects,” he said. Pedro Gómez Lopez, strategy and development director, Ferrovial Digital, which designs and constructs data centers, incorporates renewable energy into their projects, which contributes to decarbonization goals and benefits to locales where they are sited. “We can create a new supply of power, taking the heat generated by a data center to residences or industries in neighborhoods through District Heating initiatives,” he said.The Inflation Reduction Act and other legislation has ramped up employment opportunities in clean energy nationwide, touching every region, including those most tied to fossil fuels. “At the start of 2024 there were about 3.5 million clean energy jobs, with 'red' states showing the fastest growth in clean energy jobs,” said David S. Miller, managing partner at Clean Energy Ventures. “The majority (58 percent) of new jobs in energy are now in clean energy — that transition has happened. And one-in-16 new jobs nationwide were in clean energy, with clean energy jobs growing more than three times faster than job growth economy-wide”In this rapid expansion, the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) is prioritizing economically marginalized places, according to Zoe Lipman, lead for good jobs and labor standards in the Office of Energy Jobs at the DoE. “The community benefit process is integrated into our funding,” she said. “We are creating the foundation of a virtuous circle,” encouraging benefits to flow to disadvantaged and energy communities, spurring workforce training partnerships, and promoting well-paid union jobs. “These policies incentivize proactive community and labor engagement, and deliver community benefits, both of which are key to building support for technological change.”Hydrogen opportunity and challengeWhile engagement with stakeholders helps clear the path for implementation of technology and the spread of infrastructure, there remain enormous policy, scientific, and engineering challenges to solve, said multiple conference participants. In a “fireside chat,” Prasanna V. Joshi, vice president of low-carbon-solutions technology at ExxonMobil, and Ernest J. Moniz, professor of physics and special advisor to the president at MIT, discussed efforts to replace natural gas and coal with zero-carbon hydrogen in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in such major industries as steel and fertilizer manufacturing.“We have gone into an era of industrial policy,” said Moniz, citing a new DoE program offering incentives to generate demand for hydrogen — more costly than conventional fossil fuels — in end-use applications. “We are going to have to transition from our current approach, which I would call carrots-and-twigs, to ultimately, carrots-and-sticks,” Moniz warned, in order to create “a self-sustaining, major, scalable, affordable hydrogen economy.”To achieve net zero emissions by 2050, ExxonMobil intends to use carbon capture and sequestration in natural gas-based hydrogen and ammonia production. Ammonia can also serve as a zero-carbon fuel. Industry is exploring burning ammonia directly in coal-fired power plants to extend the hydrogen value chain. But there are challenges. “How do you burn 100 percent ammonia?”, asked Joshi. “That's one of the key technology breakthroughs that's needed.” Joshi believes that collaboration with MIT’s “ecosystem of breakthrough innovation” will be essential to breaking logjams around the hydrogen and ammonia-based industries.MIT ingenuity essentialThe energy transition is placing very different demands on different regions around the world. Take India, where today per capita power consumption is one of the lowest. But Indians “are an aspirational people … and with increasing urbanization and industrial activity, the growth in power demand is expected to triple by 2050,” said Praveer Sinha, CEO and managing director of the Tata Power Co. Ltd., in his keynote speech. For that nation, which currently relies on coal, the move to clean energy means bringing another 300 gigawatts of zero-carbon capacity online in the next five years. Sinha sees this power coming from wind, solar, and hydro, supplemented by nuclear energy.“India plans to triple nuclear power generation capacity by 2032, and is focusing on advancing small modular reactors,” said Sinha. “The country also needs the rapid deployment of storage solutions to firm up the intermittent power.” The goal is to provide reliable electricity 24/7 to a population living both in large cities and in geographically remote villages, with the help of long-range transmission lines and local microgrids. “India’s energy transition will require innovative and affordable technology solutions, and there is no better place to go than MIT, where you have the best brains, startups, and technology,” he said.These assets were on full display at the conference. Among them a cluster of young businesses, including:the MIT spinout Form Energy, which has developed a 100-hour iron battery as a backstop to renewable energy sources in case of multi-day interruptions;startup Noya that aims for direct air capture of atmospheric CO2 using carbon-based materials;the firm Active Surfaces, with a lightweight material for putting solar photovoltaics in previously inaccessible places;Copernic Catalysts, with new chemistry for making ammonia and sustainable aviation fuel far more inexpensively than current processes; andSesame Sustainability, a software platform spun out of MITEI that gives industries a full financial analysis of the costs and benefits of decarbonization.The pipeline of research talent extended into the undergraduate ranks, with a conference “slam” competition showcasing students’ summer research projects in areas from carbon capture using enzymes to 3D design for the coils used in fusion energy confinement.“MIT students like me are looking to be the next generation of energy leaders, looking for careers where we can apply our engineering skills to tackle exciting climate problems and make a tangible impact,” said Trent Lee, a junior in mechanical engineering researching improvements in lithium-ion energy storage. “We are stoked by the energy transition, because it’s not just the future, but our chance to build it.”

Massachusetts passes bill to speed clean energy and slow gas expansion

Yesterday, Massachusetts lawmakers made major moves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition the state to clean energy. Legislators approved a long-awaited climate bill that will limit gas pipeline expansion, make it easier to site and build renewables, and allow utilities to use geothermal energy — instead…

Yesterday, Massachusetts lawmakers made major moves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition the state to clean energy. Legislators approved a long-awaited climate bill that will limit gas pipeline expansion, make it easier to site and build renewables, and allow utilities to use geothermal energy — instead of fossil fuels — to heat and cool homes. Governor Maura Healey, a Democrat, is expected to sign it into law in the coming days. The bill first passed the Senate over the summer but stalled in the House, where representatives wanted a more narrow focus that didn’t include gas system reforms. The legislators managed to reach a compromise, and environmental advocates are pleased with the result. “The Legislature and the Healey-Driscoll Administration are taking tangible steps to drive the Commonwealth’s clean energy future forward in the wake of the federal Election outcome,” the Acadia Center said in a press release following the vote. Massachusetts is the first state to take action on climate since Trump’s re-election; the new federal landscape could spur more state lawmakers to try and advance climate legislation. A large portion of the new bill streamlines the steps for clean energy projects to get off the ground. Instead of having to go through multiple agencies for approval, the Energy Facilities Siting Board will oversee the entire process. ​“We’re eliminating a lot of the friction that prevents projects from being built,” said Caitlin Peale Sloan, vice president of the Massachusetts chapter at Conservation Law Foundation. “This will hopefully unlock the clean energy that we need to get built,” Sloan said. Massachusetts has committed to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 and cutting emissions 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. A faster permitting process could leave less room for opposition from impacted communities. On top of that, the bill places a time limit on challenges to renewable energy projects — which can sometimes hold up construction for years — to 15 months. But to protect already burdened communities, the legislature added a requirement that each project proposal must look at cumulative environmental impact, or how a new facility could add to the existing pollution in a given area. The bill also sets state targets for long duration energy storage and allows contracts for offshore wind and battery storage for up to 30 years, instead of the current 20. One provision allows Massachusetts to receive nuclear energy from neighboring Connecticut; in exchange, Connecticut is expected to agree to take wind power from MA’s 1,200 megawatt Vineyard Wind 2 project. In terms of gas reform, the new law takes an important step by changing how gas companies are defined. Until now, gas utilities in Massachusetts have only been allowed to deliver gas to their customers, and no alternative fuels. Going forward, they can provide heating and cooling to homes through networked geothermal energy, which connects water-filled pipes in the street to heat pumps in buildings. Several utilities are already operating small-scale demonstration projects of this technology in the state. In June, Eversource Gas brought the first networked geothermal pilot online, delivering energy to 36 buildings in Framingham, MA.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.