Connect with us

Published

on

Article courtesy of RMI.
By Katie Siegnerm, Mark Dyson, & Gabriella Tosado

Despite serving only 13 percent of US electricity load, electric cooperatives loom large in conversations about the US energy system’s past, present, and future. The initial vision for nonprofit electric co-ops dates back to the New Deal, when the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 authorized the creation of co-ops to serve rural areas bypassed by the larger electricity providers of the time. Today, 832 distribution co-ops and 63 generation and transmission (G&T) co-ops still serve the majority of rural America, including more than 90 percent of persistent poverty counties (counties with at least 20 percent of their population living in poverty).

As the energy transition ramps up, bringing the benefits of low-cost renewable energy to more and more places, electric co-ops the opportunity to replace their aging coal fleets with wind and solar projects. This can lower electric bills and drive rural economic development in areas that need it.

“If You Know One Co-op…”

Through several years of engagements with co-op leadership and stakeholders, we have learned that electric co-ops face unique and varied constraints as well as incentives when it comes to decarbonizing their generation mix. Co-ops have lagged other utilities in retiring their coal plants, although a spate of coal retirement announcements and emissions reduction goals set by several prominent G&Ts in the past year indicates they may be closing that gap. A combination of rapidly falling costs for renewable energy and battery storage technologies, state climate policy, and member demand for carbon-free electricity is driving that shift.

Nonetheless, a number of G&T co-ops are continuing to operate aging and increasingly uneconomic coal plants without plans for their retirement. This can be due to the nature of some co-op financing structures as well as regulatory and governance models that muddy the economic signal for retirement. For example, coal plants may have undepreciated value that the G&Ts are seeking to recover, and in some cases, they act as the collateral on G&T debt obligations, making their retirement a risk to lenders.

What’s more, co-ops’ nonprofit status limits their ability to take advantage of existing tax credits for wind and solar development. And G&Ts with a history of asset ownership may be reluctant to shift toward greater shares of third-party-owned generation (e.g., wind and solar projects contracted for through power purchase agreements).

In short, co-ops’ situations and needs are as varied as the geographies they serve — as the saying goes, “if you know one co-op, then you know one co-op.” As such, there hasn’t yet been a silver bullet approach that can overcome the barriers to full co-op participation in the clean energy transition.

Federal Policy Can Support and Speed the Co-op Energy Transition

Policy intervention can smooth the path forward for the cooperative energy transition by allowing G&Ts to retire uneconomic coal and replace their fossil generation with clean energy alternatives. This could spur rural economic development and clean tech asset ownership opportunities while at the same time lowering member electricity bills.

Today, federal policymakers have the opportunity to facilitate a coal-to-clean transition among electric co-ops through investment that incents co-ops to retire their coal assets and replace them with renewable generation. The White House includes funding for transitioning rural co-ops to clean energy in its American Jobs Plan, and additional proposals outline incentives that would be available to co-ops for each kW of coal that they replace with clean energy. These proposals also provide direct support to impacted coal plant and mine communities.

The replacement of rural cooperative coal with wind and solar would yield economic development benefits stemming from the construction and operation of those projects, largely in rural communities. Our analysis shows that the tax revenues, land lease payments, and wages generated by these projects, in addition to their low-cost electricity, have the potential to more than offset any cost of the policy.

Planting Seeds of Opportunity in Co-op Territory

To quantify the benefits that might accrue to rural communities from a policy that facilitates co-op coal retirement and re-investment in clean energy, we developed estimates for the direct local revenues that new wind and solar projects could produce in the states where the coal was retired based on our Seeds of Opportunity report methodology. The analysis uses the capacity expansion model from UC-Berkeley and GridLab’s 2035 Report to estimate the share of wind and solar projects that would be built in a particular state, as well as the report’s state-level capacity factors for wind and solar.

While we assumed full generation replacement with wind and solar, the economic development benefits could vary based on the actual choices co-ops make upon retiring their coal fleets. For instance, the addition of battery storage, transmission assets, energy efficiency projects, and other clean energy technologies that might be needed could yield additional revenue streams and energy bill savings over and above what is captured here.

The coal plants captured in this analysis are at least partially owned by co-ops and extend across 23 states and 33 co-op territories. Arkansas and North Dakota, the two states with the most coal plants (five each) that might take advantage of federal policy incentives to retire, could see $4.8 billion and $4.2 billion, respectively, from replacing their co-op coal generation with new wind and solar projects.

In Ohio, retiring the 1,265 MW Cardinal coal plant could spur over 4,000 MW of wind and solar project development, contributing nearly $2 billion in revenues to the state’s rural economy. Florida’s even larger Seminole coal plant, should it utilize federal policy incentives to retire, could pave the way for 4,400 MW of solar projects that would generate $2.3 billion in economic development to rural parts of the state.

The map and table below illustrate the location of all coal plants with a share of co-op ownership and the new wind and solar capacity that would be needed to offset each plant’s 2019 annual generation. We then show the economic development that these projects would produce over the course of their lifetimes.

Click image for full table as PDF.

We recognize that coal plant retirements raise questions about maintaining the reliability of the local electric grid. The wind and solar replacement capacity modeled here indicates what would be needed to fully replace the annual generation of the retiring coal, but of course, the grid reliability considerations are more complex.

In some cases, the co-op territory or region may have excess capacity on the system, which is a fairly prevalent characteristic of regional grids, as we document in a recent white paper. This makes replacement capacity unnecessary. In other cases, the co-op may need new capacity as well as other grid resources such as flexible demand or storage to maintain system reliability. These solutions will be developed on a co-op-by-co-op basis — what is shown here is the local economic upside that any new renewables capacity would bring.

Co-ops Can Be Renewable Energy Leaders

Co-ops are poised to play a leading role in enabling rural America to reap the benefits of wind and solar development. Federal policy that unlocks this potential is likely to see a strong return on investment in the form of jobs and revenues flowing to rural residents, landowners, and communities.

A $10 billion investment to support co-ops’ energy transition efforts as contemplated in the Biden Administration’s American Jobs Plan would yield just over $50 billion in wind and solar-induced economic development revenues — benefits five times greater than the cost of the policy. Coupled with the lower operating cost of renewable energy and transition support to impacted communities, a modest federal incentive could provide outsized economic benefits to rural communities and position cooperatives to be renewable energy leaders.


Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.


 



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Continue Reading

Environment

The aluminum sector isn’t moving to the U.S. despite tariffs — due to one key reason

Published

on

By

The aluminum sector isn't moving to the U.S. despite tariffs — due to one key reason

HAWESVILLE, KY – May 10

Plant workers drive along an aluminum potline at Century Aluminum Company’s Hawesville plant in Hawesville, Ky. on Wednesday, May 10, 2017. (Photo by Luke Sharrett /For The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Aluminum

The Washington Post | The Washington Post | Getty Images

Sweeping tariffs on imported aluminum imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump are succeeding in reshaping global trade flows and inflating costs for American consumers, but are falling short of their primary goal: to revive domestic aluminum production.

Instead, rising costs, particularly skyrocketing electricity prices in the U.S. relative to global competitors, are leading to smelter closures rather than restarts.

The impact of aluminum tariffs at 25% is starkly visible in the physical aluminum market. While benchmark aluminum prices on the London Metal Exchange provide a global reference, the actual cost of acquiring the metal involves regional delivery premiums.

This premium now largely reflects the tariff cost itself.

In stark contrast, European premiums were noted by JPMorgan analysts as being over 30% lower year-to-date, creating a significant divergence driven directly by U.S. trade policy.

This cost will ultimately be borne by downstream users, according to Trond Olaf Christophersen, the chief financial officer of Norway-based Hydro, one of the world’s largest aluminum producers. The company was formerly known as Norsk Hydro.

“It’s very likely that this will end up as higher prices for U.S. consumers,” Christophersen told CNBC, noting the tariff cost is a “pass-through.” Shares of Hydro have collapsed by around 17% since tariffs were imposed.

Stock Chart IconStock chart icon

hide content

The downstream impact of the tariffs is already being felt by Thule Group, a Hydro customer that makes cargo boxes fitted atop cars. The company said it’ll raise prices by about 10% even though it manufactures the majority of the goods sold in the U.S locally, as prices of raw materials, such as steel and aluminum, have shot up.

But while tariffs are effectively leading to prices rise in the U.S., they haven’t spurred a revival in domestic smelting, the energy-intensive process of producing primary aluminum.

The primary barrier remains the lack of access to competitively priced, long-term power, according to the industry.

“Energy costs are a significant factor in the overall production cost of a smelter,” said Ami Shivkar, principal analyst of aluminum markets at analytics firm Wood Mackenzie.  “High energy costs plague the US aluminium industry, forcing cutbacks and closures.”

“Canadian, Norwegian, and Middle Eastern aluminium smelters typically secure long-term energy contracts or operate captive power generation facilities. US smelter capacity, however, largely relies on short-term power contracts, placing it at a disadvantage,” Shivkar added, noting that energy costs for U.S. aluminum smelters were about $550 per tonne compared to $290 per tonne for Canadian smelters.

Recent events involving major U.S. producers underscore this power vulnerability.

In March 2023, Alcoa Corp announced the permanent closure of its 279,000 metric ton Intalco smelter, which had been idle since 2020. Alcoa said that the facility “cannot be competitive for the long-term,” partly because it “lacks access to competitively priced power.”

Similarly, in June 2022, Century Aluminum, the largest U.S. primary aluminum producer, was forced to temporarily idle its massive Hawesville, Kentucky smelter – North America’s largest producer of military-grade aluminum – citing a “direct result of skyrocketing energy costs.”

Century stated the power cost required to run the facility had “more than tripled the historical average in a very short period,” necessitating a curtailment expected to last nine to twelve months until prices normalized.

The industry has also not had a respite as demand for electricity from non-industrial sources has risen in recent years.

Hydro’s Christophersen pointed to the artificial intelligence boom and the proliferation of data centers as new competitors for power. He suggested that new energy production capacity in the U.S., from nuclear, wind or solar, is being rapidly consumed by the tech sector.

“The tech sector, they have a much higher ability to pay than the aluminium industry,” he said, noting the high double-digit margins of the tech sector compared to the often low single-digit margins at aluminum producers. Hydro reported an 8.3% profit margin in the first quarter of 2025, an increase from the 3.5% it reported for the previous quarter, according to Factset data.

“Our view, and for us to build a smelter [in the U.S.], we would need cheap power. We don’t see the possibility in the current market to get that,” the CFO added. “The lack of competitive power is the reason why we don’t think that would be interesting for us.”

How the massive power draw of generative AI is overtaxing our grid

While failing to ignite domestic primary production, the tariffs are undeniably causing what Christophersen termed a “reshuffling of trade flows.”

When U.S. market access becomes more costly or restricted, metal flows to other destinations.

Christophersen described a brief period when exceptionally high U.S. tariffs on Canadian aluminum — 25% additional tariffs on top of the aluminum-specific tariffs — made exporting to Europe temporarily more attractive for Canadian producers. Consequently, more European metals would have made their way into the U.S. market to make up for the demand gap vacated by Canadian aluminum.

The price impact has even extended to domestic scrap metal prices, which have adjusted upwards in line with the tariff-inflated Midwest premium.

Hydro, also the world’s largest aluminum extruder, utilizes both domestic scrap and imported Canadian primary metal in its U.S. operations. The company makes products such as window frames and facades in the country through extrusion, which is the process of pushing aluminum through a die to create a specific shape.

“We are buying U.S. scrap [aluminium]. A local raw material. But still, the scrap prices now include, indirectly, the tariff cost,” Christophersen explained. “We pay the tariff cost in reality, because the scrap price adjusts to the Midwest premium.”

“We are paying the tariff cost, but we quickly pass it on, so it’s exactly the same [for us],” he added.

RBC Capital Markets analysts confirmed this pass-through mechanism for Hydro’s extrusions business, saying “typically higher LME prices and premiums will be passed onto the customer.”

This pass-through has occurred amid broader market headwinds, particularly downstream among Hydro’s customers.

RBC highlighted the “weak spot remains the extrusion divisions” in Hydro’s recent results and noted a guidance downgrade, reflecting sluggish demand in sectors like building and construction.

— CNBC’s Greg Kennedy contributed reporting.

Continue Reading

Environment

One of the world’s largest wind farms just got axed – here’s why

Published

on

By

One of the world’s largest wind farms just got axed – here’s why

Danish energy giant Ørsted has canceled plans for the Hornsea 4 offshore wind farm, dealing a major blow to the UK’s renewable energy ambitions.

Hornsea 4, at a massive 2.4 gigawatts (GW), would have become one of the largest offshore wind farms in the world, generating enough clean electricity to power over 1 million UK homes. But Ørsted announced that it’s abandoning the project “in its current form.”

“The adverse macroeconomic developments, continued supply chain challenges, and increased execution, market, and operational risks have eroded the value creation,” said Rasmus Errboe, group president and CEO of Ørsted.

Reuters reported that Ørsted’s cancellation of Hornsea 4 would result in a projected loss of up to 5.5 billion Danish crowns ($837.85 million) in breakaway fees and asset write-downs. The company’s market value has declined by 80% since its peak in 2021.

The cancellation highlights significant challenges currently facing offshore wind development in Europe, particularly in the UK. The combination of higher material costs, inflation, and global financial instability has made large-scale renewable projects increasingly difficult to finance and complete.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Ørsted’s decision is a significant setback to the UK’s energy transition goals. The UK currently has around 15 GW of offshore wind, and Hornsea 4’s size would have provided almost 7% of the additional capacity needed for the UK’s 50 GW by 2030 target, according to The Times. Losing this immense project off the Yorkshire coast could hamper the UK’s pace of reducing dependency on fossil fuels, especially amid volatile global energy markets.

The UK government reiterated its commitment to renewable energy, promising to work closely with industry leaders to overcome financial and logistical hurdles. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband told reporters in Norway that the UK is “still committed to working with Orsted to seek to make Hornsea 4 happen by 2030.”

Ørsted says it remains committed to its other UK-based projects, including the Hornsea 3 wind farm, which is expected to generate around 2.9 GW once completed at the end of 2027. Despite the challenges, the company emphasized its ongoing commitment to the British renewable market, pointing to the critical need for policy support and economic stability to ensure future developments.

Yet, the cancellation of Hornsea 4 demonstrates that even flagship renewable projects are vulnerable in the face of economic pressures and global uncertainties, which have been heightened under the Trump administration in the US.

Read more: The world’s single-largest wind farm gets the green light


If you live in an area that has frequent natural disaster events, and are interested in making your home more resilient to power outages, consider going solar and adding a battery storage system. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Is the Tesla Roadster ever going to be made?

Published

on

By

Is the Tesla Roadster ever going to be made?

The Tesla Roadster appears to be quietly disappearing after years of delay. is it ever going to be made?

I may have jinxed it with Betteridge’s Law of Headlines, which suggests any headline ending in a question mark can be answered with “no.”

The prototype for the next-generation Tesla Roadster was first unveiled in 2017, and it was supposed to come into production in 2020, but it has been delayed every year since then.

It was supposed to get 620 miles (1,000 km) of range and accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in 1.9 seconds.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Site default logo image

It has become a sort of running joke, and there are doubts that it will ever come to market despite Tesla’s promise of dozens of free new Roadsters to Tesla owners who participated in its referral program years ago.

Tesla uses the promise of free Roadsters to help generate billions of dollars worth of sales, which Tesla owners delivered, but the automaker never delivered on its part of the agreement.

Furthermore, many people placed deposits ranging from $50,000 to $250,000 to reserve the vehicle, which was supposed to hit the market 5 years ago.

The official timelines from Tesla are pretty useless at this point since they haven’t stuck to any of them, but the latest official one dates back to July 2024 when CEO Elon Musk said this:

“With respect to Roadster, we’ve completed most of the engineering. And I think there’s still some upgrades we want to make to it, but we expect to be in production with Roadster next year. It will be something special.”

He said that Tesla had completed “most of the engineering”, but he initially said the engineering would be done in 2021 and that was already 3 years after the prototype was unveiled and a year after it was supposed to be in production:

Musk commented on the Roadster again in October 2024, but he didn’t reiterate the 2025 timeline. Instead, he called the new Roadster “the cherry on the icing on the cake.”

Tesla’s leadership has been virtually silent about the new Roadster since. Two Tesla executives even had to be reminded about the Roadster by Jay Leno after they “forgot” about it when listing upcoming new Tesla vehicles with tri-motor powertrain.

There was one small update about the Roadster in Tesla’s financial results last month.

The automaker has a table of all its vehicle production, and the Roadster was updated from “in development” to “design development” in the table:

It’s not clear if that’s progress or Tesla is just rephrasing it. Either way, it is not “construction”, which makes it unlikely that the Roadster is going into production this year.

If ever…

Electrek’s Take

It looks like Tesla owes about 80 Tesla Roadsters for free to Tesla owners who referred purchases, and it owes significant discounts on hundreds of units.

It’s hard for me to believe that Tesla is not delivering the new Roadster because the vehicle program would start about $100 million in the red, but at this point, I have no idea. It very well might be the reason.

However, I think it’s more likely that Tesla is just terrible at bringing multiple vehicle programs to market simultaneously. Case in point: it launched a single new vehicle in the last five years.

At this point, I think it’s more likely that the Roadster will never happen. It will join other Tesla products like the Cybertruck Range Extender.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending