Hope is contagious and science is king: 10 big lessons on ending the fossil fuel era

At world-first Santa Marta climate meeting, delegates say it was ‘euphoric’ to finally be focusing on concrete solutions

By Jonathan Watts and Fiona Harvey, The Guardian, May 1, 2026

After a landmark climate meeting in Santa Marta, Colombia, where nearly 60 countries gathered to work out how to end the production and use of planet-heating fossil fuels, what have we learned?

1. Liberation lifts the spirits

The single most important thing to come from the first Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels conference, in Santa Marta, has been a change of mood. Whereas the UN’s annual climate summits, or Cops, can often feel stuck and frustrating, with countries circling the same topics without resolution, nearly every delegate in Colombia felt liberated.

“The mood here in Santa Marta is euphoric,” said Tzeporah Berman, the founder and chair of the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty initiative. “After years stuck in endless debates about whether to phase out fossil fuels, finally we are focusing on the how. We are no longer fighting for recognition of the problem, but creating solutions. It’s like watching a dam break – all that pent-up experience, knowledge and passion suddenly flowing into concrete ways to phase out dirty fuels. The hope is contagious.”

2. Science has to come first

1. In a world of climate denial and misinformation, Santa Marta was a shining example of science-led decision making. Hundreds of experts, academics and scientists inspired and informed the launch of three major initiatives on the energy transition.It reminded many participants of an earlier, more enlightened age of global climate negotiations, which would always start with an update of the latest science. Over the years, however, oil-producing countries such as Saudi Arabia have vetoed or watered down UN science warnings, while introducing controversial solutions, including offsets and carbon capture and storage, that have been promoted by the petroleum industry as an excuse to continue expanding production. At Santa Marta, delegates called these “false solutions” and focused on the core of the problem: eliminating fossil fuels.

   3. Producers must be in the spotlight

   Climate activists have long argued the Cop process has been crippled by a focus almost solely on the demand side of the problem. The responsibility of emission cuts was dumped on to consumers, while oil, gas and coal companies were given free rein to ramp up production and profits. At Santa Marta, the balance was shifted back to the supply side. Some speakers said the majority of the world’s emissions, which continue to break records almost every year, were released by the drilling, processing and transportation of fossil fuels.

   Rather than condemning petrostates, this was treated as an unhealthy dependency and ways were examined to break the pattern of addiction.

   4. Global south debt must be tackled

   The urgent need to address the debt crisis was one of the clearest messages to emerge from Santa Marta. Many countries in the global south that want to invest in renewables are unable to do so because they spend a huge proportion of their foreign exchange earnings on high interest repayments and imports of fossil fuels.

   Banks and bond markets provide low-interest loans to fossil fuel industries – most of which are based in wealthy nations – without accounting for the associated risks of climate instability and stranded assets. Many participants at Santa Marta said this showed an energy transition had to come with changes to the global financial architecture, as well as the redirection of government subsidies away from the petroleum industry and towards renewables and debt reduction.

   5. Not everyone agrees on everything

   There were few open disagreements among the “coalition of the willing” assembled at Santa Marta, but there are differences of opinion on how to achieve the desired end of a fossil-fuel-free society. The Colombian hosts set no guidelines on what, if any, legal framework should be adopted.

   One longstanding proposal is for a new fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, which would be modelled along the lines of human rights treaties and the international land mine treaty. But this is anathema to some countries, who argue that the world already has global climate agreements and just needs to put them into action.

   There are also a confusing number of existing pacts and pledges, reflecting the complexity of shifting the global economy to a low-carbon footing and the desire of some countries to stamp their identity on projects they are funding. The danger is that, instead of working harmoniously together, nations could splinter into smaller groups.

   6. Roadmaps need a destination and a deadline

   One word that came up time and again was roadmap, or in other words, a clear plan for transitioning away from fossil fuels. One global roadmap will not be enough. Every country will need its own, and there are two key requirements: the destination, which should be a full phase-out of fossil fuels; and a timetable, because with global temperatures continuing to break records, time is fast running out.

   7. Governments must be free to govern

   Investor-state dispute settlement is a legal mechanism contained in many trade agreements, which allows companies and financiers to sue governments in secret tribunals for their policies. It has been used by fossil fuel companies to sue governments that resolved to reduce dependency on coal, oil or gas, or enacted measures boosting renewables: companies have demanded and, in at least $100bn worth of cases, received compensation for loss of earnings.

   Climate activists, experts, and many developing countries want an end to ISDS, which they say is a serious legal and financial obstacle to a cleaner world.

   8. Critical minerals will be critical

   If the world is to transition away from fossil fuels, there must be a new renewable energy economy to transition to. That will require the construction of billions of wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles and batteries. All of this requires components made of critical minerals – metals such as copper, cobalt, nickel and harder-to-get materials such as gallium, germanium and niobium.

   Mining for some of these has resulted in horrific human rights abuses and despoliation of natural landscapes. Activists in Santa Marta raised concerns over the plight of workers and Indigenous people, and the need for proper regulations and a clean, fair transition for local communities.

   9. Indigenous rights must be respected

   Indigenous peoples protect the vast majority of the world’s remaining terrestrial carbon sinks and areas of biodiversity, but have long struggled to secure a seat on the top table of UN climate negotiations. At Santa Marta, for the first time, Indigenous representatives drew up their proposals in an autonomous debating space and participated in the high-level segments.

   It did not satisfy everyone, but it gave leaders an opportunity to tell ministers directly that they needed to pay more heed to Indigenous knowledge, the protection of Indigenous rights and the importance of nature in the transition. “Our territories are fundamental to maintaining life on this planet. Where our rights are respected, nature is protected,” said Oswaldo Muca Castizo, the general coordinator of the Organization of Indigenous Peoples of the Colombian Amazon.

   10. Tuvalu is the next step

   Translating the feel-good vibe of Santa Marta into concrete proposals will be the task of the next conference, which is expected to take place in Tuvalu, co-hosted by Ireland, in early 2027.

   https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/may/01/santa-marta-colombia-climate-conference-ending-fossil-fuel-era

Largest US renewable project begins generating electricity

SunZia has quietly begun sending enormous amounts of wind power to California, as President Donald Trump works to thwart the wind industry.

By Benjamin Storrow, ClimateWire/Politico, April 16, 2026

The largest renewable energy project ever built in the United States has begun generating electricity, putting a two-decade push to deliver wind power generated in New Mexico to consumers in California on the cusp of completion.

SunZia Wind has begun testing its 916 turbines as it nears the start of commercial operations later this quarter, according to a person familiar with the project. The impact is already evident: California broke its record for wind generation eight times in the last four weeks, according to Grid Status, a website that tracks power flows.

The 3.5-gigawatt wind development, which will deliver power over a 550-mile transmission line to California, is nearing the finish line at a time when the wind industry is under attack in Washington.

President Donald Trump eliminated tax credits for the industry and has erected new permitting barriers for wind projects nationwide. Wind developers have sought to keep a low profile against that backdrop in attempt to avoid provoking the president. In a sign of the times, neither the project nor the California grid operator announced SunZia had begun generating electricity. The news was first reported by Grid Status.

“It’s been a long time coming,” said Abby Lestina, an analyst at Grid Status. “It’s somewhat a cautionary tale in a way. It depicts some of the challenges with power infrastructure in this country.”

Initially proposed in 2006, SunZia will be able to generate enough electricity to supply 3 million people in California and Arizona. It is particularly important to California’s clean energy and climate goals because it is likely to generate most at night, when the state tends to burn the most natural gas and its significant solar resource is offline.

But the project has faced repeated permitting delays over the years, as its plans to string a transmission cable across New Mexico and Arizona ran into opposition from birders, Native American tribes and the military. The U.S. Army initially objected to the line’s proximity to the White Sands Missile Range. A new route around the range was selected in 2020. The move also helped placate concerns of birding organizations like the Audubon Society.

The line is subject to ongoing litigation with Native American tribes, who argue federal regulators failed to properly consult them over its impact on tribal cultural sites.

It wasn’t immediately clear how much of SunZia is currently online. Pattern Energy, the project’s developer, declined to comment. The California Independent System Operator, which operates the power grid serving 80 percent of the state, did not respond to requests for comment.

But clean energy advocates celebrated the news, saying it would deliver a massive jolt of new electricity supplies at a time when utilities are racing to keep up with demand associated with the development of artificial intelligence and data centers.

“It is exactly what we need to have happen,” said Leah Stokes, a climate activist and professor of environmental politics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The project will not only cut carbon dioxide pollution, but make it easier for the state to retire polluting natural gas plants in environmental justice communities, she said.

SunZia is more than three times larger than Great Prairie Wind, a 1-GW wind development in Texas that is currently the largest U.S. renewable energy project in operation. The New Mexico project will be bigger than all five offshore wind projects under construction along the East Coast of the United States.

The only renewable project planned in the U.S. of comparable size is Chokecherry and Sierra Madre, a 3.5-GW Wyoming wind project that also is seeking to export power to California. It is projected to start delivering power in 2029, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration data.

Signs that SunZia was nearing completion have been building. GE Vernova announced in February that all of the 674 turbines it made for the project had been delivered. Vestas Wind Systems said last month that all 242 of the turbines it built for SunZia had been installed. On Monday, CAISO notified the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that it had recently taken operational control of the project.

By that time, SunZia’s electricity was already starting to show up on the grid. California’s wind generation record of 6,429 megawatts had stood for almost four years until March 25, when wind generation hit a new high of 6,654 MW. That figure rose to 7,193 MW on Monday.

“We need more power in the West. The demand is huge and everyone is scrambling to find new resources,” said Ric O’Connell, executive director of the consultancy GridLab. “This is a really good story that SunZia is coming online and providing this power.”

https://www.eenews.net/articles/largest-us-renewable-project-begins-generating-electricity/

Vermont Hits Back at Trump’s Effort to Block ‘Climate Superfund’ Law

The law would make fuel companies help pay for damages caused by climate change. The administration argues it’s unconstitutional.

By Karen Zraick, The New York Times, March 30, 2026

The Justice Department and the state of Vermont faced off in a federal courtroom on Monday over the state’s landmark 2024 “climate superfund” law, which will require fossil fuel companies to pay for the mounting costs of climate change.

The Trump administration sued last year to block the law, arguing it was unconstitutional. That position is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute, which have filed their own lawsuit against Vermont.

Vermont’s law takes its name from the federal Superfund program, created in the 1980s by requiring polluters to help pay to clean up land, such as old industrial sites, that has been contaminated with hazardous materials.

The Justice Department contends that the climate superfund laws and lawsuits are unlawful attempts to regulate emissions that cross state lines, which it maintains is the job of the federal government, not individual states.

Jonathan Rose, who represented Vermont at the hearing, began by striking at the heart of that argument. “We don’t need to convince the court that climate change presents serious challenges to the state of Vermont,” Mr. Rose said. “The act is intended to recover some of the costs it’s going to need to adapt to climate change,” he said. “What it doesn’t do is, it doesn’t try to mitigate climate change, stop climate change or otherwise impact global emissions or anything like that.”

Riley Walters, representing the Justice Department, disputed that point.

“This case is not about Vermont’s ability to raise revenue or protect the health and welfare of its residents,” he said. “It’s about Vermont’s attempt to subject global energy production and activity to Vermont law, which brazenly disregards the constitutional division of power in the federal government and the states.”

An array of allies have lined up on either side of the case. Two dozen states have joined on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, led by Attorney General John B. McCuskey of West Virginia. Two environmental groups, the Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont and the Conservation Law Foundation, are siding with the state.

Over the daylong hearing before Judge Mary Kay Lanthier, two key themes emerged: first, how to differentiate the Vermont law from the proliferation of unrelated climate lawsuits that have been filed by many state and local governments; and second, whether the Vermont law amounts to an effort to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The climate lawsuits and the climate superfund laws both rest on the same premise: that the polluter should pay for past contributions to the greenhouse gas emissions. But they differ in strategy.

Three dozen lawsuits have been filed by state and local governments against oil companies over the past decade, seeking monetary damages for costs that municipalities are incurring because of climate change. Many argue that the companies covered up what they knew about the dangers of climate change, committing consumer fraud.

The Supreme Court is poised to take up the issue of whether federal law bars such claims. That case was brought by Boulder, Colo., against Exxon Mobil and Suncor, a Canadian energy giant. Oral arguments are expected in the fall. (On Monday, the judge in the Vermont case asked the parties for input on how the Supreme Court case might affect them.)

The climate superfund laws are a relatively recent phenomenon.

Vermont was the first state to pass such a law, in 2024. New York is the only other state to have done so since then, and is also facing a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration. But the idea is gaining momentum across the country, with a number of other state legislatures advancing similar measures.

The Vermont law directs the state treasurer to develop an estimate of what costs from climate change the state has borne over the past 30 years. That estimate is due next year. Then a state agency would identify responsible parties with some connection to Vermont and issue “cost recovery demands.”

New York’s law works a little differently. It is designed to recover $75 billion over 25 years from the world’s largest fossil fuel companies.

Much of the discussion before Judge Lanthier centered on an earlier climate lawsuit filed by New York City against Chevron. That suit was ultimately thrown out, a decision upheld by an appeals court in 2021, on the basis that federal law precluded the city’s lawsuit.

The Justice Department and its allies said that decision demonstrated why Judge Lanthier should block the Vermont law. Countering that argument, lawyers for Vermont and the environmental groups said the Justice Department was adopting an overly broad reading of the decision.

Those were just some of many thorny legal questions the judge was wrestling with. Another was whether the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent move to revoke the “endangerment finding,” which gave it the power to regulate greenhouse gases, would affect the case. The Justice Department contends it will not, while Vermont disagrees.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/30/climate/vermont-hits-back-at-trumps-effort-to-block-climate-superfund-law.html?campaign_id=54&emc=edit_clim_20260405&instance_id=173626&nl=climate-forward&regi_id=66704053&segment_id=217781&user_id=97eb24ff9121d1a70f01fac05f86ea1b

What to Know About Electric Cars When Gas Prices Are Surging

War in Iran has disrupted global oil supplies, which is prompting some car shoppers to look for ways to climb off “the gas-price roller coaster.”

By Jack Ewing, The New York Times, March 21, 2026

Electric car owners may be feeling smug because they don’t need to worry about soaring gasoline prices. And people with combustion engine cars may be wondering whether it’s time to buy an electric vehicle.

It’s anyone’s guess how long war with Iran will last and how high oil prices will climb. But the argument for electric vehicles has clearly become stronger.

Whether electric vehicles are a good option for any individual or family depends on many factors, including where you live, whether you have access to a charger and how much you drive.

In the United States, prices for new electric vehicles have fallen but still average $6,500 more than vehicles that run on fossil fuels, according to Cox Automotive. From a purely financial point of view, an electric vehicle makes sense for people who will save that much on fuel and maintenance during the time they own it.

The New York Times offers a tool to help people make that calculation based on local electricity prices and driving habits. But there is more to the decision than dollars and cents. Some benefits of electric vehicles are hard to put a price on, like the peace of mind that comes from not being at the mercy of geopolitics.

There are tentative signs that “people want to be taken off the gas-price roller coaster,” said Jessica Caldwell, head of insights at Edmunds. The share of people researching electric vehicles on Edmunds’s online car shopping site rose to 24 percent at the beginning of March from 21 percent in early February.

Here are some things to consider if you’re thinking about electric vehicles.

E.V.s are getting more affordable.

Last year, Congress eliminated a federal tax credit that could close the price gap between new electric vehicles and cars that run on gasoline. But some states and utilities still offer credits, rebates or other financial support for electric car buyers, and there are exceptionally good deals to be had on used electric vehicles.

Illinois and New Jersey offer residents up to $4,000 in incentives depending on their income. New Yorkers are eligible for incentives of up to $2,000.

While new electric vehicles are more expensive than comparable gasoline-powered cars, used electric vehicles are often cheaper.

A used Tesla Model 3, Ford Mustang Mach-E or Hyundai Ioniq 5 sells for about the same price as a used Toyota RAV4, Nissan Rogue or Honda CR-V, according to Recurrent, a firm that tracks the market for used electric vehicles. But used electric vehicles are likely to have been driven for fewer miles than the gasoline cars and trucks and to be newer.

“And it’s probably loaded with a lot more cool technology inside,” said Scott Case, the chief executive of Recurrent. “It boggles the mind that that free lunch hasn’t been taken.”

Car buyers are noticing. Sales of used electric vehicles in February rose 29 percent from a year earlier, according to Cox.

Automakers are introducing new electric models.

Some automakers delayed or scrapped electric models after federal tax incentives disappeared last year. This month, Honda canceled production of three new electric vehicles in the United States. Ford Motor has stopped making the F-150 Lightning pickup.

The cancellations may create the impression that electric vehicles are hard to find. That is not the case. There is a growing selection of moderately priced cars that charge faster and travel farther between charges than vehicles available a few years ago.

Toyota and its luxury brand Lexus, which had been slow to sell electric vehicles, will sell four new models this year. Rivian and Lucid, whose vehicles sell for more than $70,000, are preparing to sell models for around $50,000.

General Motors has reintroduced the Bolt compact with a starting price below $30,000. The Nissan Leaf, one of the first mass-produced E.V.s, has gotten cheaper and better, with a starting price under $30,000 and 300 miles of range.

Tesla began selling entry-level versions of its Model 3 sedan and Model Y sport utility vehicle last year for $37,000 and $40,000 before destination charges.

The supply of used electric vehicles is expected to increase in coming months as hundreds of thousands of leases expire. That should help keep prices low.

Charging electric cars can be cheap.

Electricity is not immune to price increases, but it generally doesn’t swing as much as gasoline. The cost per kilowatt at a public fast charger has barely budged since the war in Iran began on Feb. 28, according to Paren, which tracks data on electric vehicles.

Meanwhile, gasoline prices have risen about 30 percent nationwide. In many states, gasoline has risen more than $1 per gallon.

The fuel cost savings from electric vehicles are greatest for homeowners who can install chargers in their garage or driveway. Home chargers can replenish a car’s battery overnight, easily taking care of daily driving needs for most people.

A home charger eliminates most refueling stops, except on long trips. The cost of installing one varies widely but is usually at least $1,000. Some utilities and state governments offer incentives that cover part of the cost. Electric vehicles can also charge at standard outlets, but it can take several days to refill a typical battery.

Some utilities, including Con Edison in New York, Georgia Power and Pacific Gas & Electric in California, offer lower electricity rates to people who charge their vehicles when demand for power is lower, usually at night. Charging a vehicle at home costs a few dollars per session.

“Anyone who can charge at home is a really good candidate,” said Stephanie Valdez Streaty, director of industry insights at Cox Automotive.

People who can’t install home chargers may be able to use what are known as Level 2 chargers, which are increasingly found at apartment complexes, shopping centers or office parking lots. These chargers are generally inexpensive or even free but take several hours to refill a battery.

Many electric car drivers use fast chargers as their main fuel source, charging companies say, much the way owners of conventional vehicles use gas stations. The time to refuel at fast chargers is dropping to less than half an hour because of technical advancements.

A road trip with an electric vehicle takes some planning. But it’s getting easier. There are more than 72,000 fast-charging ports in the United States, according to Paren, about 2,000 more than at the start of the year.

Fast chargers can be expensive, however, in some cases more costly per mile than filling up with gasoline.

Electric cars also require less maintenance.

Electric vehicles don’t need oil changes and don’t have fuel pumps, mufflers and other parts that wear out and need to be replaced. Brakes tend to wear more gradually because of systems that recover energy when the car slows down.

But these vehicles tend to be heavier and can wear out tires more quickly. Many owners, however, report getting 40,000 miles or more before needing new tires as long as they don’t drive aggressively.

Contrary to widespread perception, batteries do not quickly lose their ability to hold a charge. On average, they still have 95 percent of their original capacity after five years, according to Recurrent.

Electric vehicles tend to be less reliable than hybrids or cars that run solely on gasoline or diesel, largely because the technology is new. But as the industry has gotten better at making them, the cars have become more reliable.They are likely to keep getting better and someday become more reliable than cars that run on fossil fuels.

“It isn’t necessarily an issue with the cars themselves, something that’s fundamentally less reliable about an E.V.,” said Keith Barry, senior autos reporter at Consumer Reports. “If you think about it, an E.V. should be more reliable because it has fewer moving parts and less to worry about.”

Francesca Paris contributed reporting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/21/business/energy-environment/gas-prices-electric-vehicles-iran.html

Next-generation electric aircraft cleared for takeoff in FAA test program

By Joann Muller, Axios, March 9, 2026

The U.S. aims to accelerate the next era of aviation with eight pilot projects to test innovative electric aircraft across 26 states, the Trump administration announced Monday.

Why it matters: Together, the projects will create one of the largest real-world testing environments for next-generation aircraft in existence, the Federal Aviation Administration said in a statement.

• "Working together, we will ensure America leads the way in safely leveraging next-gen aircraft to radically redefine personal travel, regional transportation, cargo logistics, emergency medicine, and so much more," Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said.

The big picture: The U.S. is competing against China to lead in advanced air mobility.

• Just last week, China declared that the "low-altitude economy" — drones and electric air taxis — will be an engine of growth, alongside critical industries like artificial intelligence and quantum computing.

• China has rapidly scaled industries it prioritizes, such as electric vehicles, raising the stakes for U.S. companies racing to commercialize next-gen aircraft.

How it works: The approved projects announced Monday are part of the Trump administration's Advanced Air Mobility and Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL) Integration Pilot Program, or the eIPP.

• The idea is to give U.S. companies an opportunity to test their operations in the real world, ahead of achieving final FAA certification of their aircraft.

• In essence, it's a flying start for companies like Joby, Archer, Beta and five other U.S. aviation startups.

The projects include air taxi passenger flights in Manhattan, regional flights across Texas and cargo delivery and medical response in Florida.

• Most of the projects involve the use of eVTOLs — imagine giant, low-flying electric drones carrying passengers or cargo — that take off like helicopters and fly horizontally like traditional planes.

• Some will also include electric or hybrid planes that take off and land conventionally, or require only a short runway.

• The projects are structured as public-private partnerships between government entities and multiple companies.

Zoom in: Here are a few of the eight projects selected from more than 30 proposals submitted.

• Port Authority of New York and New Jersey: 12 test concepts across New England — including eVTOL passenger service at the Manhattan heliport. (Partners: Archer, BETA, Electra, Joby)

• Texas DOT: Regional flights linking Dallas, Austin and San Antonio — with Houston planned next — plus air taxi networks in each city. (Partners: Archer, BETA, Joby, Wisk)

• Louisiana: Testing cargo and personnel transport in the Gulf for the energy industry. (Partners: BETA, Elroy Air, other)

• Florida DOT: Statewide projects spanning cargo delivery, passenger service, automation and medical response. (Partners: Archer, BETA, Electra, Joby, other)

1. What's next: Operations will begin under the test program by this summer.

• Data gathered from these pilot projects will be used by the FAA to develop new regulations to safely enable eVTOL technology nationwide.

2. The intrigue: Los Angeles, which hopes to have electric air taxis flying in time for the 2028 Olympics, was not selected as a test site — potentially hurting Archer's ambitions as the "official air taxi partner" of the LA Games.

• California Gov. Gavin Newsom has stepped up public criticism of Trump as he gears up for a likely Democratic run for president.

• But Melissa McCaffrey, Archer's head of government affairs, said she doesn't think politics played a role in LA's exclusion, adding that Archer is still laying the groundwork to "demonstrate this technology to the world during the Olympics."

3. What we're watching: Archer sued its archrival Joby Monday in federal court in California, claiming Joby has ties to China and should be disqualified from the FAA program.

• Alex Spiro, an attorney for Joby, said the company "doesn't respond to nonsense."

https://www.axios.com/2026/03/09/faa-program-china?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosgenerate&stream=top

Solar power’s newest friends: MAGA influencers

The nation’s leading clean energy lobby aims to bolster solar power’s standing via conservative media partnerships, polling and Stephen Miller’s wife.

By Kelsey Brugger, Zack Colman and Pavan Acharya, Politico, Feb. 27, 2026

Environmentalists and solar power proponents have found a pair of surprise allies: Katie Miller and Kellyanne Conway.

Miller, the wife of White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, and Conway, the polling guru who led President Donald Trump’s first campaign, raised eyebrows this month when they publicly touted the clean energy source that has come under fire from the Trump administration.

According to a confidential strategy memo obtained by POLITICO, their advocacy is aligned with a campaign by members of the nation’s largest renewable energy lobby group to MAGA-fy solar power — technology that Trump once derided as “a blight on our country.”

The memo distributed earlier this month shows the American Clean Power Association launched the “American Energy First” campaign to engage Conway and conservative influencers like Miller “to amplify the benefits of solar energy” and “note the harm that could result from reckless trade policy.”

The memo lays out a strategy to leverage recent Conway-driven polling data — commissioned by American Energy First and conducted in December — showing solar power was popular with Trump’s base.

“As part of the campaign, ACP is working with a series of conservative influencers to secure opinion media placements authored by conservative columnists, former Republican lawmakers, and other credible Republican voices in conservative outlets,” the memo says.

The campaign will expand in the coming weeks, it states, “with the release of polling data from a Trump aligned firm, paid media partnerships with podcasts like the Katie Miller Pod (Steven Miller’s wife), as well as advertorials and sponsorships with right-of-center publications like the Washington Reporter, The Dispatch and The Federalist.”

Trump has regularly assailed renewable energy as he has promoted fossil fuels and nuclear power, but has focused most of his derision on wind power. He and Republicans in Congress used their budget bill last year to roll back hundreds of billions of dollars in clean energy incentives passed during the Biden administration.

Miller, a former aide to Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, has been relentlessly touting solar power on social media this month, posting “Solar energy is the energy of the future” and noting “Solar is now the dominant source of new U.S. power capacity and is on track to surpass coal in total installed capacity before the end of 2026.”

However, Miller said she was not being paid by AEF or ACP for her posts or her podcast.

“I do not have a paid partnership with them,” she said in a statement. ACP declined to comment on whether it paid or partnered with Miller.

In addition to vehicle manufacturing, Musk’s Tesla also produces solar panels, but the business that formerly operated under the SolarCity brand has seen its share of the market drop sharply since it was brought inside the larger company in 2016.

The MAGA-focused solar re-brand comes as surging utility bills and construction of new power-hungry data centers serving the artificial intelligence boom at the center of Trump’s economic vision will squeeze voters’ finances — and threaten the narrow GOP hold on Congress.

Many of the president’s backers believe the fresh data points about Republicans’ support for solar energy will create space for Trump to ditch policies that have stalled the growth of solar, helping him accomplish goals to buoy U.S. manufacturing, tame prices and bolster data center operations.

Heather Reams, CEO of conservative energy group Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, said consumers are focused on their rising power bills — and pressing policy makers for answers now.

“Not, ‘What nuclear reactor are you going to build for me 15 years from now?’ What are you going to do for me today?,” she said. “That’s where solar has its hand up, saying, ‘We’re ready to go right now.’”

Deployment of solar power has accelerated rapidly over the past two decades as its costs have plummeted, and it is expected to supply 10 percent of U.S. electricity by 2027 — even with the sunset of federal subsidies and tariffs on imports that have raised equipment costs.

It’s no secret that ACP has gone to great lengths to appeal to Republicans in GOP-controlled Washington, but the memo reveals an intensification of its effort to lean on Trump allies at a time when the administration has tried to block renewable energy projects throughout the country.

The memo says the campaign is “not directly associated with ACP’s multi-technology brand,” and in a statement, the trade group’s spokesperson, Artealia Gilliard, said “American Energy First is supported and led by a small number of ACP member companies that deploy utility scale solar across the U.S.”

Conway’s polling firm did not provide comment on the memo.

GOP strategists are worried voters’ concerns about affordability will determine the outcome of the midterm elections this year — putting Republicans’ four-seat majority in the House and six-seat advantage in the Senate at risk. While gasoline prices have broken modestly in Trump’s favor in his first year, residential electricity prices were 6 percent higher nationally in December compared to the previous year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, though several states have shown double-digit jumps.

Solar backers in recent weeks have upped their push to bolster the growing industry’s reputation among Trump and GOP voters. Much of the messaging has coupled the political urgency of tempering power prices with a focus on the growing made-in-America character of the industry that has long been dominated by China.

“It is, to some extent, creating a permission structure to not be perceived as getting in the way of this,” said Mike Carr, executive director of the Solar Energy Manufacturers of America Coalition. “That this is actually market forces that are pushing solar, and to make sure that he’s not perceived as getting in the way of that and therefore driving up electricity prices.”

Last week, polling from Conway’s consulting firm found that three-quarters of Trump voters agreed “that solar energy should be used in the US to strengthen and increase” the domestic energy supply, with 62 percent of Trump voters holding a favorable view of solar energy. It surveyed voters from five states that voted for Trump in 2024: Indiana, Texas, Florida, Ohio and Arizona.

“The results are less polarized politically than they are pragmatically,” Conway said at an American Council of Renewable Energy policy forum on Thursday when asked about the poll. “I think people are a little bit more pragmatic when it comes to energy.”

The poll came just a few weeks after another survey similarly found that GOP voters largely back solar energy, especially when domestic materials are used to build them. The survey, commissioned by Arizona-based solar manufacturer company First Solar, was conducted by polling firm Fabrizio, Lee and Associates, which is led by Tony Fabrizio and David Lee, prominent Trump campaign pollsters.

The publicity push comes amid early signs of a potential Trump administration thaw on solar power. Interior Department officials have begun reviewing 20 commercial scale solar projects, POLITICO’s E&E News reported Thursday, a potential relaxation of a policy issued in July that required Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s OK for all solar and wind permits.

That activity follows the Bureau of Land Management’s December decision to smooth a path for the massive 700-megawatt Libra Project on federal land in Nevada. Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo had privately urged the Trump administration to clear logjams for solar in his state, which POLITICO first reported in August.

“Companies that I’m talking to are getting their final permits,” Reams said. “I’m not hearing the same from some wind projects.”

Democrats and environmentalists have blasted Republicans for scrapping solar and wind incentives, arguing those moves were contributing to higher prices.

Conservatives have gone to lengths to distinguish what kind of solar they support. In remarks to reporters on Thursday, Conway defended the administration’s efforts to end subsidies for solar technologies included in 2022’s Inflation Reduction Act.

“They don’t like mandates,” Conway said of the Trump administration. “Solar is a piece of that. I think Secretary [Chris] Wright particularly speaks about this often, but it’s non-subsidized solar.”

Ray Long, president and CEO of the ACORE, said earlier this week he couldn’t predict whether the administration will change its attitude toward solar and wind power, but he said those energy sources would help the White House meet its goal of ensuring reliability, especially as electricity prices are rising.

“If they’re solutions-oriented and looking to get there, these things should all be a part of the toolkit to get there,” Long said.

Solar, especially when combined with battery storage, presents the fastest way to solve the growing chasm between power supply and demand, said Mark Menezes, who served as deputy Energy Secretary in Trump’s first administration and now heads the U.S. Energy Association.

That’s true even for AI data centers, he said, given they have prioritized linking up with whatever electricity they can install quickly to beat competitors to market.

“What we know is that if you need speed to power, the fastest new generation that you can build is solar,” Menezes said in an interview. “If we were redesigning our entire system now — today, based on our technologies — we obviously would have a lot more solar deployed.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/27/solar-powers-newest-friends-maga-influencers-00802954