energy
GOP lawmakers seek climate funds they opposed
Republican lawmakers who criticized Biden-era climate spending are now seeking funds from the same programs to benefit their states and districts.
In short:
- More than a dozen Republican lawmakers requested U.S. EPA funding for climate projects, despite previously opposing the Inflation Reduction Act that funds them.
- Requests included grants for air quality monitors, tree planting, clean transportation and water treatment improvements.
- The Trump administration has put a 90-day review on the funds, leaving some projects in limbo.
Key quote:
“It is happening in both Republican and Democratic areas. We need to be focused on those communities making sure they have the resources necessary to heal.”
— Mustafa Santiago Ali, National Wildlife Federation
Why this matters:
Climate change and pollution affect communities regardless of political affiliation. While lawmakers debate policy, local projects to improve air quality, water infrastructure and climate resilience remain urgent. The delay in funding could stall critical environmental justice initiatives, particularly in underserved areas. While many Republicans oppose large-scale federal climate initiatives on ideological grounds, some have quietly sought funding for projects in their own districts. This dynamic highlights the tension between national political rhetoric and local realities, where constituents — regardless of party — demand solutions to worsening environmental challenges.
Related: Trump's freeze on clean energy funds hits Republican districts hardest
Drilling expert shifts from oil and gas to geothermal energy
Ground source heat pumps, which use stable underground temperatures for efficient heating and cooling, could expand to 80 million homes by 2050, but the industry faces a shortage of skilled drillers.
In short:
- Brock Yordy, a former oil and gas drilling expert, co-founded the Geothermal Drillers Association to address the growing need for trained workers in geothermal heating and cooling.
- The U.S. Department of Energy projects that ground source heat pumps could serve tens of millions of homes, but scaling up requires significantly increasing the drilling workforce.
- Yordy advocates for localized hiring, training new workers and transitioning drillers from fossil fuels while ensuring jobs remain family-sustaining.
Why this matters:
Geothermal energy offers a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuel-based heating and cooling, reducing greenhouse gas emissions while improving energy efficiency. Unlike air-source heat pumps, which lose effectiveness in extreme temperatures, ground source heat pumps rely on stable underground temperatures, making them more reliable year-round.
However, widespread adoption depends on workforce development, as drilling requires specialized skills. Transitioning workers from the oil and gas industry to geothermal could create new jobs while shifting energy infrastructure toward sustainability.
Read more: New geothermal systems may be key to sustainable buildings
Maryland lawmakers push gas and nuclear power, sparking backlash
Maryland environmental groups are fighting a legislative push for gas-fired power plants while still split over nuclear energy’s role in the state’s clean energy future.
In short:
- A legislative package backed by Maryland’s top lawmakers includes gas-fired and nuclear energy as solutions to projected electricity shortages, sparking opposition from environmental advocates.
- The regional grid operator, PJM, is blamed for years of poor planning, with critics arguing it prioritizes fossil fuels over renewable energy projects that remain stalled.
- Some environmental groups support maintaining Maryland’s existing nuclear power, but others argue new nuclear projects are too costly and slow to be a viable climate solution.
Key quote:
“Ratepayers in Georgia saw their bills increase nearly 25 percent to pay for nuclear reactors that took 18 years and $37 billion to complete.”
— Tim Judson, Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Why this matters:
Maryland’s energy debate reflects broader national tensions over balancing grid reliability with climate commitments. Gas-fired plants emit greenhouse gases, and while nuclear energy is carbon-free, it carries high costs and long development timelines. Meanwhile, renewable projects face bureaucratic delays. The outcome of Maryland’s energy decisions could set a precedent for other states grappling with similar challenges.
Read more: Maryland lawmakers push for new energy projects to curb rising costs
Freeze on offshore wind projects puts states' climate goals at risk
Donald Trump’s executive order halting offshore wind approvals has stalled key projects on the East Coast, threatening state climate targets and billions in clean energy investments.
In short:
- Trump’s executive order has frozen offshore wind projects, delaying developments in states like New York and New Jersey, which rely on them to meet renewable energy goals.
- The freeze has already caused major companies, including Shell and Equinor, to pull back on U.S. wind investments, while financial uncertainty deters further development.
- Without offshore wind, states will burn more natural gas, making it harder for the U.S. to cut greenhouse gas emissions 50% by 2030 as planned.
Key quote:
“There are states that won’t be able to meet those goals or even reach their short-term demand without offshore wind.”
— Stephanie Francoeur, spokeswoman for the Oceantic Network
Why this matters:
Offshore wind is a critical part of the U.S. plan to cut emissions, especially in states with ambitious climate goals. The stalled projects could force states to rely more on fossil fuels, driving up carbon emissions at a time when scientists warn urgent action is needed. The uncertainty also puts billions in clean energy investments and thousands of jobs at risk, affecting not just coastal states but manufacturing hubs in places like Louisiana and Texas.
Related: Clean energy growth shattered records in 2024, but political uncertainty looms
Uncertainty looms for rural clean energy initiatives
A halt on federal grants and loans has left small business owners and farmers unsure if they’ll be reimbursed for solar panels, irrigation pumps and other energy upgrades they installed under the promise of government support.
In short:
- The Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) provides grants for clean energy projects in rural areas but is stalled due to a federal funding freeze ordered by President Trump.
- Some farmers and small business owners had already invested in solar panels and other energy-efficient upgrades, expecting reimbursement, but now face financial strain.
- The freeze aligns with Trump’s push to reduce government support for renewable energy in favor of oil and gas, leaving U.S. Department of Agriculture officials uncertain about the program’s future.
Key quote:
“It’s really counterproductive to go after a program that does so much to help farmers bring down their costs.”
— Andy Olsen, senior policy advocate at the Environmental Law and Policy Center
Why this matters:
Renewable energy projects in rural areas reduce reliance on fossil fuels, cut costs for farmers and help stabilize local economies. Without federal support, many small businesses and farms may struggle to afford clean energy improvements, slowing the transition to sustainable energy. The funding freeze reflects a broader shift in federal priorities, favoring traditional energy sources over renewables, which could have long-term impacts on rural development and climate resilience.
Read more: Trump’s climate funding freeze leaves rural businesses in limbo
Pennsylvania sues federal government over Trump administration's climate funding freeze
Gov. Josh Shapiro is suing the federal government, alleging that the Trump administration’s freeze on billions in congressionally approved climate funds is illegal and jeopardizing Pennsylvania’s environmental programs and jobs.
In short:
- Pennsylvania’s lawsuit claims that Trump administration officials froze over $1.2 billion in federal funds meant for climate and infrastructure projects, despite lacking legal authority to do so.
- The freeze has blocked grants for clean-water systems, mine remediation and energy-efficiency programs, stalling projects and putting thousands of jobs at risk.
- Gov. Shapiro is asking a federal court to lift the freeze and restore funds authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
Key quote:
“By blocking these funds, the Trump administration is putting policies before people, compromising real progress to improve the lives of hardworking families.”
— Joanne Kilgour, executive director, Ohio River Valley Institute
Why this matters:
Shapiro says this freeze isn’t just a bureaucratic headache — it’s a threat to critical environmental programs and thousands of jobs across the state. Without the promised cash, vital projects are stalled, leaving vulnerable communities hanging and threatening Pennsylvania’s ability to tackle climate threats head-on.
Ford government ramps up energy spending ahead of Ontario election
Premier Doug Ford's government has pledged more than $17 billion for energy projects as it seeks a third term in the province's general election next week, reversing past decisions and betting heavily on nuclear power and natural gas.
In short:
- Ontario's government has committed $10.9 billion to energy savings programs, $2 billion to hydroelectric upgrades, and $285 million to a controversial pumped storage project.
- Nuclear energy is a central focus, with plans to build a new plant in Port Hope and refurbish the Pickering facility, despite concerns over long-term waste storage.
- The province continues to support fossil fuel infrastructure, overriding regulatory decisions and ignoring expert recommendations to move away from natural gas.
Key quote:
“We need more long-term vision to build our energy security and we need governments to think beyond two to three-year cycles to think about our kids and grandkids.”
— Stephen Lecce, Ontario energy minister
Why this matters:
Ontario's energy policy will shape the province’s environmental and economic future. The government’s push for nuclear and natural gas risks increasing emissions and long-term waste challenges, while its shifting stance on renewables raises concerns about stability. With electricity demand expected to grow 75% by 2050, decisions made now will have lasting consequences for energy affordability, sustainability and public health.