Donald Trump has staked a claim as a populist icon. He has sparred with politicians from his own party, insulted members of the conservative press, and dismissed Republican orthodoxy on issues like Social Security, Medicare and free trade. He is, in his view, a man of the people.
And yet, the so-called “blue-collar billionaire” has laid out a policy agenda that overwhelming favors the wealthy elite. That is abundantly clear on climate and energy, where Trump has promised to genuflect to the fossil fuel lobby.
Trump’s energy plan reflects the preferences of the donor class.
Trump has taken so many sides of so many different issues, it’s hard to say how he forms his policy preferences or whom he regards as his core constituency. If he’s like many politicians, the answer is probably rich people.
A 2014 study from Princeton and Northwestern universities found that, in the United States, “policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans.” While this may feel intuitive — even obvious — this study delivered cold, hard numerical proof. Wealthy Americans have a huge influence over policy. Everyone else, not so much.
Recent research from Washington think tank Demos offers further insight. Political donors — at least the ones we can track — tend to be rich, old, white men. Elite donors tend tend to support fiscal austerity and oppose climate policy, even more so than the typical Republican. Authors note that while “43 percent of Republican adults deny the need for action on climate change, 61 percent of elite Republican donors do.”
This, generally speaking, is how you end up with an energy plan untethered from public opinion, even on issues where liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans broadly agree.
According to a memo from Trump energy adviser Tom Pyle obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy, the incoming administration aims pull out of the Paris Agreement, scrap the Clean Power Plan, and curtail energy subsidies. His energy policies defy not only the interests of the large majority of Americans, but also the preferences.
A new report from Yale and George Mason University shows just how much voters want clean energy.
Democrats and Republicans support the Paris Agreement.
Nearly seven in 10 registered voters believe the United States should take part in the Paris Climate Agreement. This includes more than half of registered Republicans.
The Paris climate agreement is popular for good reason. U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement keeps pressure on China, Russia and other large polluters to rein in heat-trapping carbon emissions that are fueling all manner of mayhem in the United States — from drought in California to floods in South Florida.
Democrats and Republicans want to curb emissions from coal-fired power plants.
Seven in 10 registered voters want to limit carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants — a core component of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. This includes more than half of registered Republicans.
According to the EPA, the Clean Power Plan would save thousands of lives by curbing air pollution and climate change, all while shrinking Americans’ monthly electric bills.
Democrats and Republicans support climate-friendly energy policies.
It’s unclear what the Pyle memo means by “reducing energy subsidies.” That could describe federal support for fossil fuels, clean energy or both. It could refer to tax breaks, funding for research or other measures. While Trump is openly hostile to wind and solar and has promised to eliminate federal spending on renewable energy research, a source close to the president-elect believes that tax credits for wind and solar will “remain in place.” We’ll have to wait to know for sure.
What’s clear is that large majorities of Republicans and Democrats believe the government should fund clean energy research, offer tax rebates for electric cars and solar panels, and eliminate subsidies for coal, oil and natural gas. Most support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, including a majority of conservative Republicans.
A majority of conservative Republicans support each of the policies listed here. Source: Yale/George Mason University
These measures are justifiably popular. Government-backed research is helping to drive down the cost of renewables. Tax credits for wind and solar are spurring the growth of an industry that is creating jobs at an astonishing pace. In 2015, the U.S. solar industry added jobs 12 times faster than the economy as a whole.
Donald Trump is not a populist.
Despite his claims to be a populist, Trump has championed policies that reflect the interests of fossil fuel companies and ignore the desires of his Republican base. Republicans in Congress, meanwhile, are siding with the president-elect.
Matt Yglesias writes in Vox that as long as “Trump is enjoying the lockstep support of congressional Republicans, his opponents need to find ways to turn attention away from the Trump Show and focus it on his basic policy agenda and the ways in which it touches millions of people.”
Support for regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant by congressional district. Source: Yale/George Mason University
As it happens, millions of Americans want to take on climate change. Men and women of every political stripe and in every congressional district want less carbon pollution and more clean energy — more jobs, better health, smaller electric bills.
Don’t let Donald Trump forget it.
Jeremy Deaton writes for Nexus Media, a syndicated newswire covering climate, energy, policy, art and culture. You can follow him at @deaton_jeremy.
The Columbus-based electric utility is taking proposals on new projects to generate 100 megawatts of solar power and 250 megawatts of wind-powered electricity, with a site preference for the solar projects in Appalachian Ohio.
The request for proposals for the projects, available through this page, are due Feb. 16.
The 350 total megawatts is part of projects generating 900 megawatts that AEP plans to build in the state. The $16 billion company received permission this year from state regulators to build the projects, whose costs will be passed on to Ohio customers.
Each solar project would produce 10 megawatts or greater. Generally, a megawatt can power about 1,000 homes, though wind and solar are not always powering to full capacity, depending on weather conditions.
AEP a year ago reached an agreement with the Sierra Club environmental group that included its 900-megawatt pledge. It's unknown how much the projects will cost, but the amount would represent a significant step-up in Ohio-based renewable energy if approved by regulators.
"This is a significant and timely step forward for AEP on what represents the single largest clean energy commitment in Ohio history," Dan Sawmiller of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign said in a statement.
The group played a major role when AEP and Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE:FE) sought income guarantees for some coal-fired plants operated in the state. That effort ultimately failed.
American Electric (NYSE:AEP) can own up to half of each project.
Franklin Township (Marion County) residents Joey and Sarah Myles
Hello, my name is Joey Myles and I am a resident of Franklin Township, Indianapolis. In November 2016, my wife, Sarah, and I completed construction of a brand new custom home in a very nice, well-established neighborhood. I am someone who cares deeply about the environment and who also loves to save money. And this new home is going to be the forever home – we plan to live here for 30+ years. Therefore, to me, one investment for the new home was an absolute no-brainer: solar panels.
We found a solar panel contractor and he designed for our roof a 42-panel system that, based off the electricity usage of our previous home, was estimated to generate 112% of our electricity needs! After signing the contract and being approved for financing, on June 17, the contractor did the final step before installation: he sent the design to the neighborhood Homeowners’ Association (HOA) for approval. I considered this to simply be a formality that would easily be approved and we would be on our merry way to saving money. After all, the only guidance in the HOA covenants regarding solar panels states:
“Solar panel installation shall be allowed only when the location, type, and size have been approved by the Committee.”
That’s it. For other items, such as landscaping, setbacks, square footage, and fences, the requirements in the covenants are lengthy and very detailed but for solar panels, no other restrictions apart from that one (1) sentence. So again, I figured this would be easy.
I could not have been more wrong.
On July 14, after taking almost the entire 30-day review period, I received a letter from the HOA, dated July 13, stating:
“After much consideration, the…architectural control committee is confident the solar array, as submitted does not fit the aesthetic expectation of the community. Key items of concern:
Visible from the street on the front/sides of the home
Resulting look of the roof would be significantly different from the other 93 homes in the neighborhood.
NOTE: Zero issue with solar power, per se, although it must be unobtrusive to any other homeowner in the community (i.e. ground-mounted in the backyard, invisible shingle-type cells, etc.”
Naturally, I felt many emotions after receiving the letter. Anger. Frustration. Disappointment. Confusion. Let’s dissect the HOA’s letter:
Aesthetic expectation of the community: The word “aesthetic” means “concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty.” Yes, the neighborhood is high-end but I did not (and do not) see solar panels as something that detracts from the beauty of the neighborhood. And since I’m just one voice, while my proposal was still under HOA review, I proactively asked my surrounding neighbors what they thought if I put solar panels up (since, after all, they would see them on a daily basis) and they all thought it was a great idea. No issues whatsoever. On days when I was observing construction of the home, I also asked the opinion of people walking on the street and same response – no issues.
Visible from the street on the front/sides of the home: Our home is on a corner lot where the south and east sides of our roof face the street. Solar panels are most effective on the south side of a roof, as that area receives the most sunlight. And our front door also was on the south side of the home. So yes, the 42-panel solar panel array would have been on the same side of the home as the front door with plenty of street view. But back to point #1 – the neighbors don’t mind at all and think this is a great idea. So what is the problem with street view?
Resulting look of the roof would be significantly different from the other 93 homes in the neighborhood: Yes, I would be a trend-setter. Of the 94 homes, I would be the first to have solar panels. So I’m being penalized? And this neighborhood is all CUSTOM HOMES, meaning the roofs are all inherently going to look different. In fact, speaking of similarities, there is a clause in the covenants stating that neighboring homes cannot be the same brick color. How can the HOA state that brick colors must be different, yet also deny my solar panels because my roof would look different than everyone else?
Solar power ground-mounted in the backyard or invisible shingle-type cells: As stated earlier, we live on a corner lot. This lot does not have any yard that is not visible from the street. So I was baffled by the HOA’s ground-mounted suggestion for 2 reasons:
The HOA knows where we are building and can clearly see there is no yard without street view.
Given the facts in a) above, ground-mounted panels would be mounted on a pole in the yard so why would the HOA suggest this option when the HOA is so concerned about aesthetics and limiting street view of my panels?
As for the suggestion of invisible shingle-type cells:
At the time of HOA denial on July 14, the builder had already purchased all the shingles for the home and had scheduled the roof layers to install them.
There was only one (1) company who would install the invisible shingle-type cells and, likely due to little/no competition, it would be double the cost of the solar panels. Plus, the company offered no financing.
For these reasons, and with the construction of the home already behind schedule at that point, the invisible shingle-type cells were not a feasible option.
After receiving the original denial on July 14, I gathered all the logic and rational thought I could muster at the time and pitched a 2nd request to the HOA. I submitted the same solar panel design. Key points I made in my 2nd request:
Vague covenants – The covenants do not state what location, size, and type the committee will approve.
Aesthetics – The HOA’s opinion on aesthetics denies me the ability to produce my own energy, save money, and promote a clean environment. Also, my neighbors don’t care and are willing to give me their signature of approval.
Property value – One of the main purposes of an HOA is to help preserve property values. Contrary to popular belief, solar panels increase property values so my solar panels would help everyone in the neighborhood.
Reasonableness and common sense – I mentioned reasonableness and common sense in my 2nd request but I will be blunter here: Need I say more? It’s 2016 and solar panels are not a new concept. Green energy is the future.
Regrettably, but not unexpectedly, on July 28, the HOA sent me a 2nd denial, this time a much lengthier denial:
“With no changes made to the original ACC request indicating any concern for the issues identified by the ACC, the committee’s decision remains as it did on 7/13. Inasmuch as the ACC has to deny homeowner requests from time to time, it’s not something taken lightly, and always done with the best interest of the entire community, including current as well as future homeowners, in mind. The ACC certainly respects your wish to utilize solar power, and has zero concerns about solar power in general, as long as the design of the system does not impact the overall view/expectation of anyone in the community. The ACC is confident that the resulting look of the roof of the home, as submitted, does not fit the aesthetic expectation of the community, as the solar array would be visible from the front and sides of the home. The ACC is responsible for protecting the aesthetics of the community as well maintaining a consistent level of aesthetic perspective throughout the community, sometimes at the expense of a single homeowners wishes.
As noted in the initial ACC response, if you’re genuinely interested in utilizing solar power, there are other ways of accomplishing that goal that don’t include forcing an industrial-looking roofline on the rest of the community. Other high-end communities, even the one that your contractor provided to us as an example of an approval, have concerns with the panels being viewed from the street, limiting installations to the back of the house or backyard. Every ACC review, especially one that has the potential to be precedent setting, has to take into account the expectations of the entire community, and the impact any decision might have on future requests. The ACC must maintain consistency to the guidelines for the sake of all current residents, as well as for any future who may consider purchasing a house in the community.
In this respect, as in the example shown below, roof mounted solar panels, visible from the street (which would be clearly visible to neighbors), do not fit the expectations of the community.
If you intend on pursuing solar power, please make certain the plan you submit make won’t have any impact on any of your neighbors. The installation must be discreet, so that your neighbors (current and future) don’t end up with a view that is inconsistent with the aesthetic of the community.
To summarize:
ACC has no issues with solar power, as long as it does not present an inconsistent aesthetic (after 94 of 96 homes are already complete), or an other-than-expected view to any other homeowner.
There are options on the market for far less obtrusive solutions, and as mentioned in the ACC’s first response, you need to take those into account so your wish/desire to utilize solar power does not have any impact on any other residents in the community.”
Did you catch that? The word “aesthetic” was used 5 times in the second letter. The HOA’s whole basis for denying, as was done in the first letter, was simply aesthetics. A subjective view on how my solar panels will affect the beauty of the neighborhood.
Give me a break. I am not asking for a chain-link fence. I am not putting a chicken coop in my backyard. I am not building a barn or even a moat on my property. One could make an argument that those items may affect the aesthetics of this particular neighborhood. However, I am asking to install a not-so-revolutionary concept called solar panels. They will be flat against my roof, be visually appealing, and hopefully encourage others to follow suit.
Realizing I was not going to win the battle with the HOA to put the panels on the south side of my roof, on August 12, I reluctantly asked my solar panel contractor to draw up plans for the north side of my roof. I figured some efficiency is better than no efficiency. He did and on August 16, I submitted a third proposal to the HOA. The proposal this time was for 29 north-facing panels – 23 on the tallest part of my roof and 6 on a section above a patio. Again, using our previous home as a baseline, these 29 panels were estimated to produce 41% of our electricity needs. (You’ll recall that the 42 south-facing panels were estimated to produce 112%).
And after another wait of 30 days, on September 15, I received a conditional approval from the HOA to install the panels on the north side of my roof. While I was excited to finally get a win, my excitement was tempered due to 1 of the conditions in the approval:
“All panels are mounted on sections of the roof not visible from the street(s) abutting your lot.”
I was confused at this statement because while the 23 panels would not be visible from any street within the boundaries of my lot, the 23 panels would be visible from a street if you stand in front of my neighbor’s home. Later in the day on September 15, I reached out to the HOA for clarification via e-mail and received the following reply:
“The panels shouldn’t be visible to an observer looking at the front of your house from “in front of your house”. While there will be some lines of sight where folks will be able to see the panels, the panels shouldn’t be seen from a front view from [street] or a perpendicular/side view of your house from [street]. As long as you build consistent with the ACC submission, you’re fine.”
Okay. Let’s stop, take a breath, and point out the obvious:
If this is the HOA’s “guidance,” why is this not in the all-mighty covenants??? Is the HOA making up the rules as it goes along? And why is the HOA waiting until someone actually requests to install solar panels to issue useful guidance?
After receiving the e-mail response to the condition, I immediately saved that e-mail and guarded it with my life because it was the only thing I had to show that my request, as submitted, was perfectly acceptable. Finally, I could breathe a sigh of relief knowing I could put my panels up, even though not in the desired location.
With the new “guidance” (I quote that word loosely for effect) from the HOA, I found a spot on the west side of my roof that could fit some more panels and would not have street view from within the boundaries of my lot. My contractor drew a design for 4 west-facing panels and on October 5, I submitted this to the HOA for review, noting in my request that the same conditions received in the September 15 approval would be met. After a 30+ day wait, on November 7, I received a letter from the HOA approving the request. So I now had absolute approval to install 33 solar panels (29 north and 4 west) on my roof. The 33 panels were estimated to produce 48% of our electricity needs, still way less than the original 112%.
On November 16, the solar panel contractor installed all 33 panels and after finishing the electrical connections on November 18, the solar panels started producing power on November 18.
While I am now producing solar power on my home, albeit in a less than ideal spot, the story (and fight with the HOA) does not end and that is why I am writing this letter.
On July 15, the day after receiving the first denial from the HOA, some very nice people on Facebook put me in touch with Laura Arnold, President of the Indiana Distributed Energy Alliance. Laura is trying to get the Indiana state law changed, similar to what was done in Texas, to prevent HOAs from being able to restrict the location of rooftop solar panels on residences. The Texas law states that HOAs cannot force you to move your solar panels to a location that would cause more than a 10% decrease in efficiency. My HOA has clearly done that.
A change in Indiana state law is the only way to fix this problem.
To be clear, this affects many other states as well, not just Indiana. And while HOAs do serve a purpose, dictating where customers put solar panels on their home is not one of them. I urge the Indiana state legislature in the strongest terms possible: do the right thing and remove the HOA restriction on rooftop solar panels. And when you do, I will happily pay the labor cost to my contractor to put my 33 existing panels, plus 9 additional panels, on the south part of my roof so that I may reap years of benefits of 42 south-facing solar panels.
Lawmakers in Michigan's House and Senate yesterday reached a bipartisan compromise to overhaul the state's energy marketplace, raising the renewable energy standard from 10% to 15%, protecting retail net metering and keeping its limited retail choice program alive.
Clean energy advocates praised the final decision, which did not include provisions they believed would have hurt the state's nascent solar market.
The 11th-hour compromise was shepherded by Michigan Gov., Rick Snyder (R), who said the "landmark" legislation will give consumers more control over their energy, save them millions and protect the state's environment.
Dive Insight:
Michigan lawmakers went down to the wire but finally passed the much-anticipated bill at the close of the legislative session — a day after 19 hours of negotiations appeared to leave the plan in a precarious position.
"We now have a statewide energy policy that will save Michigan residents millions of dollars on their electric bills, alleviate concerns about having enough capacity to power the daily activities of 10 million people and find new ways to use our existing energy grid more efficiently," Snyder said in a statement. "This policy also allows for more consumer choice in our growing market."
The final measure protects retail net metering and includes language that directs state regulators to establish a tariff process for distributed generation resources. The state has only about 2,000 solar installations, and advocates say the new market structure will help to grow that number while avoiding utility domination of the market.
Amy Heart, a spokesperson for The Alliance for Solar Choice, said the group was encouraged to see elected officials work together from both parties. "Legislative leaders heard loud and clear that retail net metering must be maintained to ensure a level playing field for self-generation in Michigan," she said in a statement.
But Heart also said the group also has concerns over how the distributed generation tariffs will be calculated, based on the language in the bill. The Michigan Public Service Commission will need to account for the benefits of residential solar.
"It's now up to elected officials to help guarantee a fair, equitable process," she said.
The legislation keeps Michigan's 10% cap on choice customers, but puts in place provisions that could reduce that amount should market conditions change, Crain's Detroit Business reported.
Clean energy business group Advanced Energy Economy said the expansion of the state's renewable portfolio standard would signal it remains accessible to development and creation of clean energy jobs.
“Today, Michigan took a vote that reaffirms to the advanced energy industry and their customers that Michigan is open for business,” said J.R. Tolbert, AEE vice president for state policy. He said that the increase in Michigan’s RPS, from 10% to 15%, "has the potential to attract an additional $2.5 billion to $4.3 billion in renewable energy investment by 2021.”
