Climate's Compounding Financial Toll Is Becoming Harder to Ignore

By Justin Worland, Time magazine, July 18, 2026

It’s felt all but impossible to escape the reality of our changing climate this past month, from extreme heat at London Climate Action Week to wildfire smoke across the U.S. northeast and midwest. While each individual event is dramatic in its own right, I’ve been struck by the breadth. Everywhere seems to be undergoing its own unique climate event at the same time. 

In many conversations, climate change gets boiled down to individual events, or even just the simple sum of multiple events. But the impacts this summer offer a useful reminder that it’s not so simple. While economies may be able to absorb one climate shock, the risks grow when they accumulate and occur across geographies and assets simultaneously. You might call it “death by a thousand cuts.”

Already, this bludgeoning has become visible in insurance markets. Insurance is an obvious place for these challenges to show up first. Insurers price based on short-term risk and can’t defer a loss the way an equity investor can, so they either raise prices or exit the market. We’ve already seen those in the most at-risk markets, including both Florida and California. 

But insurance is not alone. We’re starting to see indicators of other, similar slow-moving financial disasters. Earlier this month, the Bank of England quietly said that climate change was creating a spending pressure on governments, contributing to growing sovereign debt loads. Last month, the International Monetary Fund warned that climate disasters were creating an “impossible trilemma” for countries. Disasters drive countries to take on more debt, making it harder to fund the adaptation necessary to prepare, and then face higher default risk.  

This is a dangerous cycle with implications for investors and businesses across the economy. Sovereign debt flows through to the rest of the economy. Too much of it leads to higher interest rates for businesses, lower private investment, and lower growth. One disaster, even a record one, can be absorbed. The danger is when they all happen at once, and then continue to happen. A never-ending string of extreme events threatens economic havoc in a way one event doesn’t.

Thus far, capital markets more broadly have been slow to respond to this threat for a variety of reasons. Climate risk is difficult to model and plays out over long time-periods. Meanwhile, investors discount future risks and prioritize quick returns. And, importantly, they generally expect that events will be non-correlated and therefore easier to absorb.   

This view may change. The Bank of England warned last December of the possibility of a climate Minsky moment, where assets reprice rapidly due to climate shock. It’s also possible that repricing happens gradually over time. In any event, the cumulative effect of concurrent disasters should not be taken lightly. Markets often ignore risks when they feel isolated, or idiosyncratic, but once they are understood as systemic they are priced. 

For many who work in climate, this season of extremes has revived the longstanding prediction that the effects of rising global temperatures will help drive a resurgence in concern among policymakers and the general public. I hope so, but I’m not so sure. While some studies have suggested extreme weather events can drive support for climate action, many others have shown minimal effect. And we’ve also seen the opposite effect: climate events that triggered populist backlash led by anti-climate politicians.

While it’s hard to predict how exactly these events will shape public engagement on climate, markets have a simpler logic to them. Climate related events are exacting a growing cost. And it’s now clear both that those costs will grow and that economies aren’t fully prepared. If and when investors look at the same information and determine that those costs aren’t fully accounted for, asset prices will take a hit.

https://time.com/article/2026/07/17/climate-impacts-economic-risk/

A renewables playbook for the rest of Trump 2.0

By Ben Geman, Axios, July 8, 2026

A top renewables and storage group sees openings for progress on Capitol Hill as it looks to build more nationwide power on the political right.

Why it matters: Trump officials are targeting wind power, which the president overtly despises, and last year's GOP budget law phased out tax credits for wind and solar generation projects.

Driving the news: American Clean Power Association CEO Jason Grumet on Tuesday briefed reporters on the group's strategy — on and off Capitol Hill — in the near and longer term.

A few highlights of its quest for "policy durability"...

📃 Permitting: A big bipartisan deal is a top priority in this Congress — and one Grumet acknowledges is looking dicey.

  • "We think the window of opportunity there is starting to close," he said, noting that a bipartisan Senate proposal from leaders of the environment and energy committees has yet to surface.

  • Grumet's not especially hopeful about a lame duck deal.

💵 Tax policy: In the next Congress — assuming Democrats win control of at least one chamber — the group sees openings for new credits that support transmission projects, and improving incentives for domestic manufacturing.

  • "We look forward to the opportunity, as we move into what we anticipate is divided government, to restore some of the bipartisan support for this industry," Grumet said.

  • Boosting transmission would help ensure the grid is adequate for all energy technologies, he said.

🚢 Tariffs and trade: "We think there is growing discomfort in the Congress about the way tariffs are being used," Grumet said.

  • There may be opportunities for Congress to make tariff policy less volatile, he said.

💪 Building power among conservatives: The group has been expanding its communications and messaging.

One channel is the pro-solar "American Energy First" coalition of companies created in late 2025 that's affiliated with the group. It includes "clean energy companies that have worked together to activate a network of conservative thought leaders and digital influencers," Grumet said.

  • Work to date included a poll conducted by former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway's firm.

  • American Clean Power created a separate new grassroots effort last year called PowerVotes that aims to mobilize conservative support for permitting reform and state-level project siting work.

  • And it's expanding efforts to build support across the political spectrum via platforms like TikTok, Substack and Instagram.

What's next: American Clean Power will help a group of member companies launch a major new consumer outreach campaign this fall about the benefits of clean energy.

  • "It's really the first time that the industry is putting significant resources behind that kind of consumer engagement, consumer awareness," Grumet said.

https://www.axios.com/2026/07/08/american-clean-power-renewables-strategy-trump

Trump Administration Pays Duke Energy $129 Million to Halt Offshore Wind Farm

It was the fourth such deal struck by the administration to get companies to forfeit their offshore wind leases.

By Maxine Joselow, The New York Times, June 29, 2026

The Trump administration on Monday said it would pay Duke Energy $129 million to abandon its plans to build an offshore wind farm off North Carolina.

It was the fourth such deal struck by the administration to throttle the development of offshore wind power, a source of renewable energy that President Trump has disparaged for decades.

Under the agreement, Duke Energy would surrender its lease in federal waters for a wind farm that was planned in the Carolina Long Bay area, roughly 15 to 22 miles off southeastern North Carolina. The project was in the early stages of development and construction had not yet begun.

The government plans to reimburse Duke Energy $129 million, slightly less than the amount that the utility paid for the lease under the Biden administration. Duke Energy would then reinvest that money in other sources of energy favored by the Trump administration, which could include new nuclear and natural gas projects, according to the utility.

Scientists and environmentalists say that offshore wind farms could play a crucial role in the fight against climate change. Unlike burning fossil fuels, wind turbines do not generate any of the greenhouse gases that are dangerously warming the planet. And unlike large-scale solar farms, they do not take up vast amounts of valuable land.

The Trump administration, however, has criticized offshore wind projects as ugly and inefficient.

“President Trump’s vision of unleashing affordable, reliable American energy for our country’s communities and using common sense to put the American people first is being implemented,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement on Monday.

Mr. Burgum also repeated his earlier claims that offshore wind farms threaten national security. Last year, the Interior Department cited those concerns when ordering a halt to the construction of five other wind farms off the East Coast, saying their spinning turbines could interfere with military radar. But several federal judges struck down the stop-work orders, saying they were unpersuaded by the administration’s arguments.

After its losses in court, the administration pivoted to a new strategy: paying developers to walk away from offshore wind projects. It struck the first such deal in March with the French energy company TotalEnergies.

That deal saw the government pay TotalEnergies nearly $1 billion to abandon plans to build two wind farms, one off New York and the other in the same area off North Carolina. Seven Democratic-controlled states have sued the administration over that agreement, calling it an illegal use of taxpayer dollars.

The latest deal with Duke Energy means the government has so far committed to spend more than $2.5 billion to get companies to terminate their offshore wind leases.

Duke Energy, based in Charlotte, N.C., is one of the nation’s largest utilities. It provides electricity to roughly 8.7 million customers in six states and natural gas to roughly 1.6 million customers in four states.

“This settlement allows Duke Energy to refocus $129 million in ways that directly benefit our customers and communities in the Carolinas,” Kodwo Ghartey-Tagoe, the executive vice president and chief executive of Duke Energy Carolinas, said in a statement.

Riley Cook, a spokesman for Duke Energy, said in an email that the $129 million would be reinvested in “reliable, diverse energy sources that can help meet growing demand” for electricity. He said the investments could flow to nuclear reactors and “grid infrastructure projects” in the Carolinas, though he did not provide specific details.

But Pasha Feinberg, an offshore wind strategist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said the scuttled wind project could have helped meet soaring power demand, too.

“We need more electricity, not less,” Ms. Feinberg said in a statement. “Canceling clean energy projects is self-defeating. Paying off companies so they will abandon them is just ludicrous.”

Gov. Josh Stein, Democrat of North Carolina, also sharply criticized the agreement.

“The Trump administration is strong-arming companies into abandoning clean energy, and the industry is folding like a beach chair,” Mr. Stein said in a statement, adding that his state needed the power and jobs that the wind project would have generated.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/29/climate/trump-offshore-wind-duke-energy.html

America’s Thirst for Gasoline May Not Recover After Iran War

People drove less and bought more-efficient cars when fuel prices surged, habits that could stick over the long term.

By Lydia DePillis, The New York Times, June 23, 2026

Judy Vassallo, an 89-year-old retired art teacher who lives on her own in a leafy neighborhood just north of Center City in Philadelphia, used to take her 2002 Honda CRV to the suburbs for a visit with friends, or downtown for doctor appointments and Pilates classes.

But since gasoline prices shot up after the United States and Israel attacked Iran in late February, she couldn’t stomach paying nearly twice as much to fill her tank. Instead, Ms. Vassallo started taking the city bus, which is free for seniors. She found that she liked it — saving on gas and parking tickets.

“Once it becomes a habit, it’s not an onerous thing, it’s built into the pattern of my behavior,” Ms. Vassallo said. “You’re going into the city, you’re going to take the bus. And I’m finding that it’s so much easier.”

Americans are powerfully attached to their cars, and their spending at gasoline stations jumped 21 percent from February to May. But that ability to spend has limits. According to Dow Jones Energy, consumption was 6.1 percent lower in May from a year earlier. Some of that is a long-running trend owing to the increasing efficiency of passenger vehicles, said Denton Cinquegrana, the company’s chief oil analyst, and about half is probably a consumer response to higher prices.

Much of that response comes from people forgoing discretionary driving, like road trips and grandchildren’s traveling sports games, particularly those with lower incomes. But in recent years, Americans have also gained greater ability to adapt, as more employers have allowed for telecommuting and more electric vehicles have arrived on the market.

“There’s more flexibility within working situations,” Mr. Cinquegrana said.

Despite the car-dependent nature of most American cities, sticker shock does make a difference: After the 1970s oil embargo, oil consumption per person in the United States fell, and didn’t return to the same level for another 20 years.

Some of those changes can last. The energy crisis gave rise to federal fuel-economy standards that spurred gas-saving innovations in vehicle design, keeping consumption lower than it might have otherwise been even as driving recovered.

Over the past decade, studies have shown that gasoline prices affect consumption both when they are going up and when they are going down. According to one 2021 paper, drivers have become more responsive to high prices over time, potentially because of energy price shocks that have prompted them to try different forms of transportation.

One option that has become more available lately is battery power. Some popular models, like Toyota’s RAV4 and Camry, are now available only with hybrid engines.

According to Cox Automotive, hybrids have been flying off dealer lots since the war started. And even though Congress truncated Biden-era incentives for fully electric vehicles, enough of them are coming off subsidized leases to supply a healthy used market.

“We’ve seen a change in consideration,” said Stephanie Valdez Streaty, director of industry insights at Cox. “People who need to buy a car, they’re looking online at these options that are more fuel efficient.”

One of those motivated buyers was Karin Ranta-Curran, a university administrator in Denver, who had decided to buy a third car because her youngest son started needing to drive himself around more. The family had considered getting an electric vehicle, but held off because of the expense of installing a home charger.

The war in the Middle East changed that.

“We woke up that morning and Israel started bombing Iran, and we thought, ‘OK, this might be the time,’” said Ms. Ranta Curran, who found a good deal on a used electric Lexus and now drives it to work.

She’s happy with the car and not having to pay for gas, even if geopolitical circumstances made it necessary. “We’re certainly not early adopters, so this was a bit of a forced decision in some ways.”

That is not an option for most people. Vehicle prices have climbed steeply since the pandemic, interest rates remain high, and low-income workers are under pressure as wage growth slows. That’s leading consumers to hold off on big-ticket purchases, counteracting what might otherwise be a faster replacement cycle toward cleaner cars.

Even bicycle sales have declined substantially from last year, according to the National Bicycle Dealers Association. It attributes the slowdown to an unsteady economy and tariffs that drove prices higher, although e-bike sales continue to grow.

Baylii Adams-Yates is among those who feel stuck. She attends college in Morgantown, W.Va., and works as a dental assistant. She owns a 2016 Jeep that gets about 13 miles to the gallon, and doesn’t think she could sell it for enough to buy a more efficient car. But having a car that’s so expensive to drive also means she can’t take jobs that are a little farther out of town, or make extra income by doing deliveries.

“I tried doing DoorDash for the week, and I drained my gas tank within a day, every day,” said Ms. Adams-Yates, 25. “I would love to be able to do that, but it’s not realistic.”

Other countries, particularly in Europe and Asia, are more affected by petroleum shortages than the United States has been. They also have access to affordable electric vehicles imported from China, and have taken more policy measures to reduce energy demand. The U.S. Energy Information Administration forecast last week that global oil consumption would decrease this year, rather than increase, as it originally had expected.

For many U.S. consumers, there’s no way to cut back on gas, and they just have to reduce spending in other ways.

Take Kjersten Oudman, who runs a farm with her husband outside Sioux Falls, S.D. They have no choice but to fill their tractors with diesel to plant in the spring, and no choice but to deliver boxes of vegetables to 130 farm share members once they’ve started harvesting, filling the pickup truck with gas about three times a week. Unlike big logistics companies, they can’t tack on a fuel surcharge; the subscriptions are paid at a fixed price.

“We’re going to have to eat it for the foreseeable future,” Ms. Oudman said. Shelling out an extra few hundred dollars a month means tightly budgeting on groceries, which she tries to keep to $80 a week for her family of five, and postponing investments in the business. They were hoping to insulate their wash-and-pack building to store vegetables for longer, but the extra fuel costs pushed the project off.

“We got about halfway done and were like, ‘Well, I guess we’ll have to wait now,’” Ms. Oudman said.

It’s not just gasoline. Oil heating is still common in some parts of the United States, and the cost has jumped far more than natural gas or electricity since the war started.

Jennifer Kewley moved in 2020 into the house her great-grandfather built in Milwaukee, and replaced the roof and the siding. But it still has an oil heater, and filling it up costs about double what it did before the war.

In March and April, she set the heat at 55 degrees and bundled up while working from home doing medical billing for a hospital system. She filled up the tank only halfway, for $600, and is hoping the price will drop by the time she needs the heat again in October. Over the long term, she’s thinking about how she might cobble together the money to replace the old boiler.

“I think that this is a situation that could happen again,” Ms. Kewley said. “I don’t think this is a one-off, where I could just go another 20 years like this.”

Whether oil and gas demand recovers also depends on the price of everything else, since consumers have to balance rising costs for food, utilities, insurance and other necessities.

Judith Awkerman already made one compromise, giving up the dream of moving into a nicer house once her children were through college because home prices have jumped around where she lives near Newport, R.I. She has also given up frequent visits to her two sisters, who live in other parts of the state. She’s not sure she’ll return to those longer drives, even if gas prices recede.

“I don’t think it’ll be like, ‘Yay, we can do whatever we want,’ because it’s cumulative with everything,” she said. “Car repairs, medical expenses, medications — it would take a whole system downgrade, where inflation is way down, which of course we won’t have for a while, I don’t think.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/23/business/economy/gasoline-demand-destruction.html

The Tiny Solar Panel That Could Change America

Op-ed by Robinson Meyer, The New York Times, June 14, 2026

Meyer is a contributing Opinion writer and the founding executive editor of Heatmap, a media company focused on climate change.

It’s not so easy to harvest the sunshine if you live in America. Homeowners can hire someone to install solar on their rooftops, but it can take many years for it to pay for itself. You might be able to buy a share in a nearby solar farm, but only if you’re lucky enough to live in a place where community solar is available. If you live in an apartment or condo, forget it — in many states, you have no options at all.

But that might be changing soon in more than half the country. A technology — known as plug-in, balcony or garden solar — is already enormously popular in Germany, in part because you can buy a kit for less than $600 at IKEA. It’s a small solar panel system, often producing up to 1,200 watts of electricity, or generally more than a refrigerator consumes, that you can affix to a wall, hang on a railing or prop up in a garden — and then plug directly into a wall socket. With the help of a small device called a micro inverter, it pumps electricity into your household circuits to offset your power demand.

At least 30 states have passed legislation to legalize these plug-in solar kits or are considering similar bills. The idea has wide appeal: Last year, Republican-led Utah became the first state in the country to allow plug-in solar sales.

Although these kits are modest in scale, they have the potential to change how Americans understand and consume energy. More states should get on board with them as part of a broader campaign to transform how our country harnesses renewable and zero-carbon power.

There are a few good reasons America should embrace balcony solar. For one, it will expand access to a clean power source that’s playing an increasingly important role in the global energy system. After a decade of staggering cost declines, solar has become a powerhouse: Last month, the United States — despite the Trump administration’s meddling with renewable energy projects — generated more electricity from solar than from coal power for the first time ever.

A balcony or backyard solar kit could also recruit a much larger group of people to cut their greenhouse gas pollution — in particular, renters. Climate advocates often coach homeowners to replace the big machines in their homes with cleaner alternatives: Buy a heat pump, not a furnace; an induction stove, not a gas range; an electric vehicle, not an internal-combustion car. But renters like me can rarely make permanent changes to the buildings where we live, and we may not own a car. In most cases, that’s fine, of course: Taking public transit, walking instead of driving and living in an apartment or condo give us a low-carbon lifestyle, gratis. Balcony solar is a small way that apartment- and condo-dwelling Americans can take ownership of their energy choices and cut down their pollution on the margins.

At the same time, most Americans live in single-family homes, and one of the biggest reasons only about 9 percent of them have solar panels is the price tag. The United States has eye-watering rooftop solar costs compared with those in the rest of the world. A standard 7-kilowatt rooftop solar system that costs $28,000 to install in the United States would cost roughly $4,000 in Australia or $10,000 in Germany, according to the research and advocacy group Permit Power. What experts call our “soft costs” — marketing and sales, as well as our mishmash of local permitting rules and practices — can add thousands of dollars to the cost of a project.

Many of the countries that have brought down the cost of rooftop solar to low levels rewrote local rules. Here in the United States, the truly transformative reforms for cutting rooftop solar costs would have to happen in the states. Going forward, balcony solar should be able to avoid some of rooftop solar’s creeping costs: It will be bought off-the-shelf like a consumer product, not sold by a team, like a swimming pool; it can be installed by just about anyone, with no special training; and it requires minimal approval.

There are still some technical questions to resolve about how balcony solar will work in the United States, in part because our electricity networks work differently than Europe’s. A plug-and-play balcony solar system has yet to be certified in the United States; testing began only recently. Utah’s law legalizing plug-in solar requires any system to be certified as safe by outside authorities; other states should follow its lead.

There is one concern I have about balcony solar, which is that users could exaggerate its contribution in the future. The little panels have a certain romance to them, suggesting we all might generate our own homespun electricity, the way our frontier forebears baked their own bread or sewed their own clothes. But they are too small to ever replace the power grid. On the year’s coldest mornings and hottest evenings, and on many more days besides, the vast and powerful electricity generation and distribution system will still be needed. And that is OK: We won’t be able to take on climate change, or achieve our greatest economic ambitions, until we work together to build a new power grid.

But if I can dream for a second, I hope balcony solar’s charisma and low cost help us imagine the energy-abundant future we are so close to achieving. Americans and our government have a tendency to treat the current energy system, and the current set of technologies that enliven it, as finished and fixed. In reality, they are always changing. The electricity system of the 2000s relied far more on coal than ours does now. We will not always pump a carcinogenic cocktail of fossil fuels into our vehicles just to run errands or go to work, just as we no longer illuminate our homes with kerosene.

Plug-in solar demonstrates one version of the coming changes: With its small size, it makes balcony and backyard power production possible. But it’s only one messenger of many from that new world. As batteries continue to develop, larger and larger amounts of energy will be stored at ever-smaller sizes and scales, and that will enable innovations and technologies we cannot yet imagine — technologies that will change our world as much as the sextant, the bicycle or the jet engine. Some new zero-carbon energy technologies are already at the cusp of widespread deployment or at least technological feasibility: enhanced geothermal, space-based solar, mined hydrogen, new forms of nuclear fission and even nuclear fusion.

Balcony solar will play one small role in that drama. It is cheap and modular and an affable addition to the energy system. And it may yet teach Americans the importance of adding new energy generation, recruiting ever more Americans to the head-spinning potential of the new technologies that stretches out before us — should we only wish to change.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/14/opinion/solar-panels-balcony-backyard-plugin.html?searchResultPosition=1

Trump Administration Abandons Fight Against Wind Energy as Clean Energy Output Surges

The clean energy sector is showing resilience despite challenges thrown at it by a hostile White House, a recent report found. A string of legal victories has further dampened the Trump administration’s efforts to halt wind and solar power.

By Aman Azhar, Inside Climate News, June 15, 2026

The Trump administration has abandoned its effort to halt wind energy projects across the United States and dropped its challenge to the court ruling that tossed President Donald Trump’s order freezing federal permitting and leasing for wind projects. States that challenged the order hailed the development as one of the most significant legal victories against the Trump White House’s campaign against the energy transition.

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dismissed the appeal after the Justice Department filed a motion for its voluntary dismissal on June 10. 

The case against Trump’s executive order was filed in May, 2025 by a coalition of attorneys general from 17 states and Washington, D.C., led by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Monday’s decision affirms the Dec. 8 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Patti Saris, which concluded that Trump’s January 2025 executive order was unlawful, finding the sweeping ban on wind projects was “arbitrary and capricious” and exceeded the president’s authority. 

Environmental and wildlife advocacy groups applauded the move. Nancy Pyne, a senior advisor to the Sierra Club, said renewable energy continues to prevail and grow in spite of Trump’s relentless attacks.

“While everyday Americans face soaring bills and unstable prices,” she said, “renewable energy offers an affordable, common sense solution to lower costs and protect our health and our environment.”

This latest victory in a string of legal setbacks for the administration comes at a time when clean energy production continues to surge despite a slew of policy, permitting and procedural hurdles imposed by the White House. 

According to a recent report from the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund and Atlas Public Policy, a record 79.7 GW of clean power are projected to come online in the U.S. in 2026, even as roughly 8 GW of clean energy projects were canceled in the first quarter of the year.

The project pipeline remains strong, the report found, with 222 GW of clean energy capacity planned or under construction nationwide as part of 693 GW of power announced through the first quarter. Developers have announced plans to invest an estimated $377 billion in new projects through 2031, the report said in its key findings. 

The country already has 471 GW of clean power online, with a record 51.6 GW newly added in 2025, “the equivalent of about 25 Hoover Dams,” the report notes. Solar and battery storage now account for 85 percent of the planned pipeline.

The Monday court ruling arrives roughly a week after a different federal court restored a key tax-credit pathway for wind and solar developers. 

On June 6, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia tossed an August 2025 treasury rule that made it difficult for wind and solar projects to qualify for federal tax credits. The change eliminated the longstanding practice whereby developers locked in tax credits by showing that 5 percent or more of a project’s total cost had been spent. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that the administration had not given a sound reason for the change, and sent the rule back to the IRS to reconsider.

“We see a strong correlation between the high rate of cancellation and the anti-renewable policies from the Trump Administration—from aggressive executive orders through attempts to repeal pollution protections,” said David Villagrana, lead counsel for clean energy tax solutions at EDF. In an emailed response, Villagrana said the Trump administration has significantly delayed projects through administrative measures. “Development within any industry likes consistency; for clean energy, the Trump administration has ensured a lack thereof.”  

He cautiously welcomed the court’s overturning of the revised 5 percent rule, saying the administration could decide to appeal the district court’s decision but “it would have to overcome the district court’s careful and thorough analysis of the many legal deficiencies in the IRS’ notice.”

The EDF report also tracked a sharp uptick in gas projects. “[T]otal planned and under construction natural gas capacity rose from 44.8 GW in Q4 2025 to 65.5 GW by the end of Q1 2026, an increase of 20.7 GW,” its authors wrote, more than four times the combined growth of solar, storage and onshore wind over the same period. Fossil fuels’ share of planned capacity has climbed from 9 percent at the end of 2022 to 27 percent, “a threefold increase that points to an uptick in fossil fuel generation investment,” according to the report.

In an interview with Inside Climate News, Jon Gordon, senior policy director at Advanced Energy United, a clean energy advocacy group, said the gas buildout was “very concerning… particularly from an environmental standpoint,” warning that new plants are “likely going to be in service for 30 years plus, once they’re constructed.” 

He said “the big reason we’re seeing this surge of natural gas is this administration that’s been throwing roadblocks in the way of renewables and providing incentives for fossil fuel.” 

For a clean-energy state like Maryland, he said, the challenge was real because “a lot of our problems are very short term. We need new supply right away,” and yet gas plants “are the longest to build.” Gordon argued that economics increasingly favors the clean energy pathway because the cost of building gas plants “has almost doubled in just a couple of years,” while solar and battery costs keep falling.

The EDF-Atlas report also found that 80 percent of the nation’s existing, planned and under-construction clean power capacity is located in congressional districts represented by Republicans. Of the 30 districts with the most clean power capacity, just five are Democratic. Texas leads every state with 164 GW, nearly double California, in second place with 83 GW.

Abe Silverman, an assistant research scholar at Johns Hopkins University’s Ralph O’Connor Sustainable Energy Institute, cautioned against reading the map in partisan terms. Talking to Inside Climate News, he said the first thing he looks to is “where is land cheap.”

“Is it really the red and blueness of the state, or is it the underlying cost of land and the density,” he asked. Much of the growth is in areas with low-cost land, he said, and it is further shaped by interconnection policies.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15062026/trump-administration-abandons-fight-against-wind-energy/