Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Are Indonesia and Vietnam's Multibillion-Dollar Clean Energy Deals Stuck? Experts Say Not Yet

News Feed
Friday, September 13, 2024

JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) — Indonesia and Vietnam signed multibillion-dollar energy transition deals in 2022 that were heralded as drastic shifts in financing that would enable the coal-dependent countries to pivot to cleaner energy.The deals, known as Just Energy Transition Partnerships, were funded by developed nations to help the two countries phase out and retire their heavily polluting coal-fired power plants and replace them with clean energy alternatives such as solar or geothermal.But nearly two years later, critics say little progress has been made under the deals. Supporters say that’s not a fair assessment, arguing that stakeholders are now collectively making policies for the first time, which could attract more funding, and that the projects simply need more time.Here’s a look at Indonesia and Vietnam’s JETP deals, issues they face and progress that’s been made. What do Indonesia and Vietnam's deals entail? Indonesia's deal provides over $20 billion for the early phase-out and retirement of coal-fired power plants and the development of clean energy sources like solar or geothermal. It also moves to bolster the country's renewable energy supply chains over the next three to five years.Nearly all of Indonesia's energy needs are currently met by fossil fuels, with 60% coming from highly polluting coal. In 2021, Indonesia’s energy sector emissions included around 600 million tons of carbon dioxide, the world’s ninth highest, according to the International Energy Agency. Population and economic growth are expected to triple energy consumption by 2050.Vietnam signed its $15.5 billion deal in December 2022, aiming to get nearly half of the country's electricity from clean sources by 2030. A substantial part of that requires Vietnam to develop energy infrastructure to keep up with the country's rapidly growing renewable energy production. Lack of a blueprint slowed down progress The large financial packages focused on clean energy transitions, but there were no guidelines for implementing the deals, said Grant Hauber, an adviser to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a U.S. nonprofit.“It turns out that’s really hard because there are so many social, political and economic elements ... to figure out,” he said.Vietnam has prioritized its electrical grid and energy-storage facilities while laying the groundwork to build offshore wind. But neither these plans nor its earlier national electricity plan answered the big question of how the operators of Vietnam's relatively new coal-fired power plants would be convinced to retire them — or how they would be compensated for doing so.The Vietnamese government and Rachmat Kaimuddin, who heads Indonesia's National Energy Transition Task Force, did not respond to requests for comment by The Associated Press. Mismatch in money and expectations The pledged funding for JETP is a fraction of what countries need. Indonesia says it needs over $97 billion and Vietnam around $134 billion to meet their 2030 goals.The source of funding has also raised concerns. At least 96% is expected to be taken on as debt, with the remainder as grants, according to the ASEAN Centre for Energy, an intergovernmental organization that reviews Southeast Asian energy interests.“Indonesia and Vietnam face similar risks regarding their ability to repay these debts and the subsequent effects on their debt-to-income ratios and national fiscal health," wrote researchers at the ASEAN Climate Change and Energy Project.The deals were designed to entice future investors, said Fabby Tumiwa of the Institute for Essential Services Reform, an Indonesian think tank focused on energy policies and regulations. That is why projects are taking their time to determine how much money they need and how best to get it, he said.Experts say national governments and financial institutions have faced delays in matching available funding with projects that are ready to start. Foreign investors expected “shovel-ready projects” and Indonesia hoped for financing with clearer terms, said Tiza Mafira, director at the Climate Policy Initiative in Indonesia. “It simply wasn't the case." More focus on clean energy and new policies Vietnam's policy reform faces challenges ranging from a cautious bureaucracy unwilling to make decisions and spend money amid an ongoing anti-graft campaign to internal tension within its Communist Party, according to Western diplomats. Vietnam’s Communist Party also insists that electricity prices remain low despite the state utility incurring losses.Recent policy changes have addressed some of those challenges, including the completion of an $884 million, 500-kilometer-long (310-mile) transmission line from central Vietnam to the northern provinces in about six months, a decree that allows factories to buy electricity directly from wind and solar power producers, and a new law that's being drafted for rooftop solar.The deals could be a model for other countries, said Sandeep Pai, the director of the multinational energy think tank Swaniti Global. But the limited funding offered mostly through loans could dissuade other major fossil fuel-dependent countries from signing similar deals.“Until there is actual money on the table and other countries see real success in initial JETP countries, it will be difficult for others ... to sign on,” he said.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - July 2024

Indonesia and Vietnam signed multibillion-dollar energy transition deals in 2022 that were heralded as drastic shifts in financing that would enable the coal-dependent countries to pivot to cleaner energy

JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) — Indonesia and Vietnam signed multibillion-dollar energy transition deals in 2022 that were heralded as drastic shifts in financing that would enable the coal-dependent countries to pivot to cleaner energy.

The deals, known as Just Energy Transition Partnerships, were funded by developed nations to help the two countries phase out and retire their heavily polluting coal-fired power plants and replace them with clean energy alternatives such as solar or geothermal.

But nearly two years later, critics say little progress has been made under the deals. Supporters say that’s not a fair assessment, arguing that stakeholders are now collectively making policies for the first time, which could attract more funding, and that the projects simply need more time.

Here’s a look at Indonesia and Vietnam’s JETP deals, issues they face and progress that’s been made.

What do Indonesia and Vietnam's deals entail?

Indonesia's deal provides over $20 billion for the early phase-out and retirement of coal-fired power plants and the development of clean energy sources like solar or geothermal. It also moves to bolster the country's renewable energy supply chains over the next three to five years.

Nearly all of Indonesia's energy needs are currently met by fossil fuels, with 60% coming from highly polluting coal. In 2021, Indonesia’s energy sector emissions included around 600 million tons of carbon dioxide, the world’s ninth highest, according to the International Energy Agency. Population and economic growth are expected to triple energy consumption by 2050.

Vietnam signed its $15.5 billion deal in December 2022, aiming to get nearly half of the country's electricity from clean sources by 2030. A substantial part of that requires Vietnam to develop energy infrastructure to keep up with the country's rapidly growing renewable energy production.

Lack of a blueprint slowed down progress

The large financial packages focused on clean energy transitions, but there were no guidelines for implementing the deals, said Grant Hauber, an adviser to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a U.S. nonprofit.

“It turns out that’s really hard because there are so many social, political and economic elements ... to figure out,” he said.

Vietnam has prioritized its electrical grid and energy-storage facilities while laying the groundwork to build offshore wind. But neither these plans nor its earlier national electricity plan answered the big question of how the operators of Vietnam's relatively new coal-fired power plants would be convinced to retire them — or how they would be compensated for doing so.

The Vietnamese government and Rachmat Kaimuddin, who heads Indonesia's National Energy Transition Task Force, did not respond to requests for comment by The Associated Press.

Mismatch in money and expectations

The pledged funding for JETP is a fraction of what countries need. Indonesia says it needs over $97 billion and Vietnam around $134 billion to meet their 2030 goals.

The source of funding has also raised concerns. At least 96% is expected to be taken on as debt, with the remainder as grants, according to the ASEAN Centre for Energy, an intergovernmental organization that reviews Southeast Asian energy interests.

“Indonesia and Vietnam face similar risks regarding their ability to repay these debts and the subsequent effects on their debt-to-income ratios and national fiscal health," wrote researchers at the ASEAN Climate Change and Energy Project.

The deals were designed to entice future investors, said Fabby Tumiwa of the Institute for Essential Services Reform, an Indonesian think tank focused on energy policies and regulations. That is why projects are taking their time to determine how much money they need and how best to get it, he said.

Experts say national governments and financial institutions have faced delays in matching available funding with projects that are ready to start.

Foreign investors expected “shovel-ready projects” and Indonesia hoped for financing with clearer terms, said Tiza Mafira, director at the Climate Policy Initiative in Indonesia. “It simply wasn't the case."

More focus on clean energy and new policies

Vietnam's policy reform faces challenges ranging from a cautious bureaucracy unwilling to make decisions and spend money amid an ongoing anti-graft campaign to internal tension within its Communist Party, according to Western diplomats. Vietnam’s Communist Party also insists that electricity prices remain low despite the state utility incurring losses.

Recent policy changes have addressed some of those challenges, including the completion of an $884 million, 500-kilometer-long (310-mile) transmission line from central Vietnam to the northern provinces in about six months, a decree that allows factories to buy electricity directly from wind and solar power producers, and a new law that's being drafted for rooftop solar.

The deals could be a model for other countries, said Sandeep Pai, the director of the multinational energy think tank Swaniti Global. But the limited funding offered mostly through loans could dissuade other major fossil fuel-dependent countries from signing similar deals.

“Until there is actual money on the table and other countries see real success in initial JETP countries, it will be difficult for others ... to sign on,” he said.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Photos You Should See - July 2024

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Portland General Electric selects new renewable energy projects to fulfill rising demand

Portland General Electric released a list of solar, battery storage and other renewable energy projects that it aims to acquire to cover rising electricity demand, but the projects won't make much progress toward the utility's emissions reduction targets.

Portland General Electric released a list of solar, battery storage and other renewable energy projects that it aims to acquire to cover rising electricity demand and make “significant progress toward Oregon’s emissions reduction targets.”But in its filing with the Oregon Public Utility Commission this week, the utility acknowledged the projects won’t be enough to fulfill its state-mandated 2030 emission reduction target.Oregon’s signature climate mandate requires the state’s two major electric companies — PGE and Pacific Power — to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with electricity sold in Oregon by 80% by 2030 and to reach 100% emission-free electricity sources by 2040.In addition to the climate mandates, PGE faces a growing load from data centers proliferating across Oregon as well as from customers switching to electric cars, electric home heating and cooking, among other changes. The utility is also facing pressure from customers over several rate increases in recent years, including its proposal for a bigger electric rate hike for 2025.The newly recommended energy projects were selected as part of a competitive bidding process – the company’s largest to date. The final shortlist comprises two ranked groups of projects. The first priority group includes one solar project, two solar and battery projects and one Lithium-Ion battery storage project. If negotiations to acquire those fall through, the utility would then choose from the second group, which includes five Lithium-Ion battery storage projects.PGE said it prioritized projects that would keep customer prices as low as possible and would be the least risky for the utility. If PGE is successful in acquiring all of the recommended projects from the first group, the estimated average net price impact to customers would be an increase of approximately 1.5%, spokesperson Allison Dobscha said.PGE said it declined to proceed with projects that were not mature enough in development to be cost-effective. It also rejected projects that did not have reliable transmission and interconnection access in the works.An independent evaluator who oversaw the bidding process said the utility selected projects targeted towards meeting power reliability but not towards meeting its climate obligations. The recommended projects would lead to just a slight reduction in emissions as compared to a scenario under which the utility did not acquire those projects.“This leaves the utility with large needs for renewable supply if it is to meet its emissions glidepath targets,” the evaluator, Bates White LLC, wrote. “PGE will need a large amount of renewables in the future in order to meet the emissions requirements of current legislation.”PGE said it plans to hold at least one more procurement round to acquire supply to come online by 2030.“We intend to initiate our next procurement process on an accelerated timeline to secure additional resources that help us fulfill our projected 2030 energy need and emissions reduction target,” Dobscha said.She added that PGE is also working on upgrading transmission lines and adding new transmission infrastructure, encouraging customers to install rooftop solar, home batteries and energy efficient appliances as well as to use electricity in a way that lends flexibility to the operation of the grid.Some developers have raised concerns about how competitive or fair PGE’s bidding and procurement process is and have accused PGE of favoring its own projects so that it can earn more money. The independent evaluator’s report said the current round was “reasonably competitive.” In total, PGE received bids from 19 developers offering a total of 30 projects. Among the selected projects in the priority group, two of the four would be owned by the utility and two by private developers. In the alternative group, two projects would have shared ownership, one would be developer-owned and one would be wholly owned by PGE.— Gosia Wozniacka covers environmental justice, climate change, the clean energy transition and other environmental issues. Reach her at gwozniacka@oregonian.com or 971-421-3154.Our journalism needs your support. Subscribe today to OregonLive.com.

US Nuclear Repository Is Among the Federally Owned Spots Identified for Renewable Energy Projects

Federal officials have identified more than 50 square miles of government-owned property across the U.S. as having great potential for renewable energy projects

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — The U.S. Department of Energy announced Tuesday that it is teaming up with yet another energy company as part of a mission to transform portions of government-owned property once used for the nation's nuclear weapons program into prime real estate for renewable energy endeavors.The federal agency will be negotiating a lease agreement with Florida-based NextEra Energy Resources Development for nearly 3 square miles (7.77 square kilometers) of land surrounding the nation's only underground repository for nuclear waste.The project at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in southern New Mexico is the latest to be announced by the Energy Department, which has identified more than 50 square miles (129.50 square kilometers) of government land that can be used for constructing solar arrays and battery storage systems that can supply utilities with emissions-free electricity.Other lease agreements already are being negotiated for projects stretching from the Hanford Site in Washington state, where the U.S. produced plutonium, to national laboratories and other sites in Idaho, Nevada and South Carolina.Andrew Mayock with the White House Council on Environmental Quality on Tuesday echoed a statement made earlier this year when the first negotiations were announced. He said federal agencies are using their scale and purchasing power to support the growth of the clean energy industry."We will spur new clean electricity production, which is good for our climate, our economy, and our national security,” he said. At the nuclear repository in New Mexico, federal officials say there is potential to install at least 150 megawatts of solar and another 100 megawatts of storage.While the amount of energy generated by NextEra at the WIPP site would be more than enough to meet the needs of the repository, none would feed directly into government operations there. Officials said the energy from the solar array would be sold to Xcel Energy by NextEra and put into the utility's distribution system.Xcel serves customers in parts of New Mexico and Texas, as well as other states.Officials said there is no estimate of when ground could be broken, saying engineering and planning work would be needed once a lease is signed and regulatory approvals would be required.The largest of the so called cleanup-to-clean-energy projects is slated for the Hanford Site, where Hecate Energy LLC has plans to deliver a gigawatt-scale system that would span thousands of acres on the southeastern edge of the property. It could be several years before that project comes online.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - July 2024

Read Portland mayor and City Council candidates’ answers on clean energy

Read the candidate’s responses to questions about clean energy.

All candidates for mayor and Portland City Council were asked questions related to clean energy.Candidates for mayor were asked the following question: Do you support the decision to use millions from the Portland Clean Energy Fund to backfill budget holes in various city bureaus? Would you seek to continue, expand or halt that practice?Here are their responses:MayorSaadiq Ali: This fund should be dedicated to its original purpose: supporting clean energy projects and climate resilience. I would seek to halt this practice and ensure the fund’s resources are used as intended while exploring alternative funding solutions for budget shortfalls.Shei’Meka (BeUtee) As-Salaam: No. Halt.James Atkinson IV: Did not respondDurrell Kinsey Bey: The Portland Clean Energy Fund is poised to be a national top-tier program. In my opinion, its funds should be dedicated exclusively to program operations and community leadership development.Rene Gonzalez: The corporate surcharge that funds PCEF is producing seven times its original projections. We must evaluate on an ongoing basis how to most strategically deploy this source of revenue. Stabilizing funding for city bureaus is a legitimate use of those funds and should be done openly and transparently.Michael Hayes: Did not respondYao Jun He: Did not respondJosh Leake: I don’t support using Clean Energy Fund money for unintended purposes. These funds were designated for specific environmental and community initiatives, and we must honor voter intent and legal obligations. I’ll work to find alternative solutions for budget shortfalls while ensuring the fund fulfills its purpose of advancing sustainability goals.James Macdonald: This is a good project with good goals but if we borrow from it that should be only temporary.Mingus Mapps: I believe the Portland Clean Energy Fund should be used for its intended purpose — investing in climate solutions. I would halt its use for backfilling budget holes, as it compromises the fund’s mission.Sharon Nasset: No. Maybe a few emergency services.Michael Necula: Did not respondAlexander Landry Neely: I do not have enough information to make an educated judgment call on this. I would consult advisors as well as other leaders, and then make a decision that works best for the people and the environment.Michael O’Callaghan: I would not disturb a one-time backfill to bring us closer to meeting needs. Beyond that, we need to use the money as voters intended. Halt the practice by the next fiscal year.Liv Østhus: I do not support this. Portlanders overwhelmingly voted for these measures to prepare for and combat climate emergencies. We could throw ten times the amount at the problem and still need more. Use the funds to hatch an actionable plan to move and improve the (Critical Energy Infrastructure) hub.Carmen Rubio: I support funding city climate programs that meet PCEF criteria. The Mayor and the PCEF committee agreed this year for a one-time redirect of interest earned on the funds – I am committed to holding the line moving forward. I made sure the fund itself and Climate Investment Plan were protected.Martin Ward: I plan on cutting the Portland Clean Energy Fund completely. I have an initiative filed with the state to move Oregon to 100% renewable energy that uses a better tax system and more efficiently uses the funds. I have plenty of budget cuts to solve the city’s revenue issues.Keith Wilson: City leadership has siphoned away millions from the Portland Clean Energy Fund without a clearly articulated goal or financial accountability. I strongly oppose diverting PCEF funds to any purpose other than originally intended by Portland voters. We must return this critical program to effective renewable energy projects and jobs.Dustin Witherspoon: No. I would pull any and all funding for anything involving wind or solar. I would seek to buy back PGE. The rate increases are outrageous. I would then demand at least one 1000-megawatt nuclear reactor be built along the Oregon, Washington border around Pendleton. Safe from any earthquakes, floods.Candidates for City Council were asked the following question: Do you support putting the Clean Energy Fund measure back on the ballot? What, if any changes, would you support?Here are their responses:District 1Joe Allen: Yes, I support the Clean Energy Fund measure, but I would not vote for its renewal without a thorough review and rebuild of its oversight, accountability and transparency processes to ensure funds are used effectively and to achieve the program’s intended climate justice goals.Candace Avalos: No. Voters spoke decisively when they approved PCEF in 2018. Portland voters overwhelmingly agreed on the need and the approach, and we’ve seen successful outcomes since. We need to safeguard these funds and ensure their efficiency.Doug Clove: I’m all for putting issues on the ballot. That’s the essence of democracy, right? My opinion doesn’t really matter; it’s all about what my constituents think.Jamie Dunphy: No, I don’t support putting it back on the ballot, I believe that it should be protected. We should use PCEF to reframe how we spend general fund dollars to maximize the benefits of this program. It cannot be treated as a slush fund or a general purpose sales tax.Timur Ender: The Portland Clean Energy Fund is an important program for meeting goals around shared prosperity, electrification and a just transition to a clean energy future. The projects it has funded have been consistent with promises made to voters. I don’t see a need to put it back on the ballot.Noah Ernst: Because the Clean Energy fund tax has raised more money than anticipated, I would not object referring a measure to the ballot that would ask taxpayers to decide how to spend that money or weather to reduce the tax burden on business.Joe Furi: Did not respondTerrence Hayes: The main problem with PCEF is that the funding has taken too long to get out the door, and black and brown communities have suffered because of this. I support fixing the program so that money is not sitting unused when there are so many things it is needed for.David Linn: I do not believe in overturning the will of the voters without an emergency, and the program doing better than expected is not an emergency. I would support working with PCEF to identify alignment with community visioning and putting funding together for those projects.Peggy Sue Owens: Did not respondSteph Routh: I do not support putting the Clean Energy Fund back on the ballot.Deian Salazar: I support transparency, audits, and potential reforms but support it being rolled into a Green New Deal and net-zero investments by 2030. A ballot measure should only be considered if absolutely necessary for these purposes.Michael (Mike) Sands: I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the Clean Energy Fund to answer this question.Thomas Shervey: Climate Change is real, and nowhere feels that change more than the east side. The Clean Energy Fund is well intentioned, but got off to a rocky start. I would argue to continue it and for more oversight to stop waste and corruption.Loretta Smith: No, I do not support putting the Clean Energy Fund measure back on the ballot because we already have a dedicated amount of money and we can change the existing language by putting it to a vote on the City Council.Cayle Tern: Portland has a reputation of pivoting away from policies prematurely. My preference is not to revisit finished business. We need to utilize our auditors and oversight authority to ensure that we are using the funds appropriately and timely. I would not put it on the ballot at this time.District 2James Armstrong: I support investments in reducing the effects of climate change and restorative justice for communities disproportionately affected. I agree with Commissioner Rubio’s approach of using PCEF funds towards certain city initiatives that meet those criteria. If that remains an option, I do not support placing PCEF back on the ballot.Reuben Berlin: I’m open to revisiting the measure, but only after recent reforms have time to take effect. Any revisions should maintain the fund’s core mission of equitable climate action while addressing deep concerns about accountability. Potential changes could include clearer performance metrics and limits on using interest for non-climate purposes.Michelle DePass: No, I don’t support putting the initiative back on the ballot. Voters approved the Clean Energy Fund in 2018 to fund infrastructure investments in our clean energy future, which is desperately needed if we care about the future of Portland, and want to meet our city’s climate goals.Marnie Glickman: No. We are fortunate to have PCEF because climate resilience costs are rising. Most of our public schools lack air conditioning and just closed during record September heat, and I support PCEF funding to add AC. PCEF is working better and better and shouldn’t be raided to fund other needs.Mariah Hudson: No. I support maintaining the current tax level on large corporations. The current council has made many of the administrative changes needed and the PCEF advisory structure ensures funds directed to projects that meet program goals.Sameer Kanal: No. Climate change is an existential threat we must face with the focus and urgency that it deserves. PCEF is a vital and successful revenue stream that must be protected, which includes using PCEF only as the voters authorized, on climate-related projects.Debbie Kitchin: I would not support putting the Clean Energy Fund back on the ballot. There are always opportunities to improve access and outcomes. The climate crisis will continue to impact our community, especially the most vulnerable residents. We need a program that intentionally addresses these disparities in innovative ways.Michael (Mike) Marshall: Yes. Given the threat of climate change it is critical the city maintains a fund to mitigate its rapidly increasing effects. However, I believe the allocation of tax revenue should be decided by elected officials who are accountable for their decisions, not by appointed volunteers.Will Mespelt: Yes, voters should have a say if we are going to renew this program. I think we should require more concrete and measurable results from grant projects and tie them to our goals as a city more clearly.Chris Olson: Yes, I support putting the Clean Energy Fund measure back on the ballot with an increase in the PCEF tax to 2% for large corporations. This change ensures greater investment in renewable energy, green jobs, and economic justice, funded by those most able to contribute.Jennifer Park: Yes, I support putting the Clean Energy Fund measure back on the ballot with an increase in the PCEF tax to 2% for large corporations. This change ensures greater investment in renewable energy, green jobs, and economic justice, funded by those most able to contribute.Tiffani Penson: No. The Clean Energy Fund should be reviewed together with other measures to ensure it is having impact. The fund has invested millions into Portland communities and critical climate programs. We must continue to combat climate change by ensuring the funds are spent responsibly toward the identified priority areas.Antonio Jamal PettyJohnBlue: I support putting the Clean Energy Fund measure back on the ballot, with a few changes. I’d advocate for more rigorous accountability measures to ensure funds are used effectively. Additionally, I’d support incorporating community input to ensure the fund addresses local needs and promotes job creation in the green sector.Elana Pirtle-Guiney: No. Let’s use this fund to put Portland on the map as a sustainable, equitable, city that’s investing in the economy of the future. There is a real opportunity to use PCEF, within the parameters voters overwhelmingly supported, to rebuild our economy and remake our reputation.Dan Ryan: Align (the Portland Clean Energy Fund’s) budget with transparent, measurable goals to ensure accountability. This budget cycle showed we can invest in both community initiatives and greener infrastructure. I’ll keep asking, “How do we measure success?” Let’s get it done for the people, not for the pockets of special interests.Sam Sachs: Did not respondBob Simril: I support maintaining the Clean Energy Fund. We can use these funds creatively for air filters, CO2 sensors in underserved communities, and add trees, sunscreens, water features and fresh water stations in parks and public spaces citywide.Laura Streib: No, I think it is too soon to make more sweeping changes. I want to ensure that money generated from this fund actually is used how it was intended to be. It needs to fund environmental projects in historically underinvested spaces in the city. So, let’s do that.Jonathan Tasini: I fully support PCEF as it currently is structured, both in its financing and authority.Liz Taylor: Did not respondNat West: The fund is still too new to overhaul it. $250 million in projects is going out the door next week. That represents a big step forward in getting money into the community. The auditor’s report was insightful and I will encourage the auditor to revisit the program in the future.Nabil Zaghloul: I completely support the Clean Energy Fund and would agree to putting it on the ballot for renewal. Climate change is a real existential crisis that we need to address yesterday. We have to do everything we can to mitigate the damages done and reduce our carbon footprint moving forward.District 3Matthew (Matt) Anderson: Did not respondSandeep Bali: I do not support putting the Clean Energy Fund measure back on the ballot if it means more taxation on Portlanders. PCEF has collected $587 million with limited results. Instead, I propose using funds to enhance city parks with more trees and fountains, and improve cleanliness and maintenance.Melodie Beirwagen: Not at this time. I believe this type of tax can negatively affect businesses, including those deciding whether to locate in Portland. I’d very much like to first see how the city uses this revenue influx and, especially, see how it affects struggling smaller businesses who must pay.Christopher Brummer: Did not respondRex Burkholder: No. The one change I would see helpful is to have the selection process brought directly under the council’s purview.Brian Conley: No. Commissioner Rene Gonzalez wants to cut Portland’s Clean Energy Fund, but we need to increase funding for clean energy. This 1% tax only affects billion dollar corporations and they aren’t hurting from this fund. Portlanders know that the climate crisis is real. We need a city council that listens.Jesse Cornett: While I do not support placing the Clean Energy Fund measure back on the ballot, I am open to discussions on refining its implementation to ensure it better meets Portland’s needs and goals without sacrificing its intent to create a community-led climate action initiative aimed at reducing carbon emissions.Daniel DeMelo: I’m open to asking voters if they still support this program last approved by voters six years ago.Chris Flanary: No. The voters were clear about the Clean Energy Fund and what it is for.Dan Gilk: Yes. I mentioned this earlier but change the revenue stream from a tax on gross receipts to a tax on net profit.Theo Hathaway Saner: I support the Clean Energy Fund but believe it needs greater oversight and efficiency. I’d consider changes to ensure funds are used effectively, targeting projects that offer the most environmental and community impact.Clifford Higgins: Did not respondPatrick Hilton: Did not respondKelly Janes (KJ): PCEF has generated seven times the projected revenue. There is work to do to ensure environmental safety, like creating a risk mitigation plan for potential hazards at the Critical Energy Infrastructure hub. I support expanding financial allocation to include environmental work provided by other city bureaus.Harrison Kass: Yes. PCEF has generated vastly more than expected. We are a City with a budget shortfall and inadequate critical services. PCEF corporate surcharge could and should be used to bolster our critical services, starting with, but not limited to, public safety support.Philippe Knab: I would want to understand the specific reason for putting the Clean Energy Fund measure back on the ballot—if it’s only because the tax generated more than expected, that alone isn’t enough. However, I’m open to reexamining prior assumptions and ensuring the fund is being used effectively and equitably.Tiffany Koyama Lane: I am troubled by the tendency to instantly try to repeal or reform things that were voted upon before they have had a sufficient chance to succeed. And PCEF has already been enormously successful and should be considered a point of pride for our city.Kenneth (Kent) R Landgraver III: Did not respondAngelita Morillo: No. We need to implement the will of the voters as they originally intended. I will only support changes to the fund where the money will continue to be used to address the effects of climate change that primarily affect communities of color.Steve Novick: No – I would not support that. But PCEF needs to start rigorously evaluating which projects most effectively reduce emissions and help low-income people. Transportation is the biggest source of emissions and a big expense for low-income people, so projects like 82d Avenue Bus Rapid Transit should be a priority.David O’Connor: Did not respondAhlam K Osman: Did not respondCristal Azul Otero: I do not support putting the Clean Energy Fund measure back on the ballot at this time. We risk the public growing tired of additional taxes, jeopardizing critical projects. Instead, the city can better use funds for climate resilience. With improved accountability and metrics, I will support revisiting it.Terry Parker: Not at this time. What I would like to see is how any excessive dollars in the clean energy fund can support existing shortages in bureau budgets while still adhering to the basic purpose of the fund itself.Heart Free Pham: Yes, the PCEF is the only reason the city budget is liquid. The only changes I would make are allocations towards solar energy - solar doesn’t make practical sense in a state like Oregon.Jaclyn Smith-Moore: Did not respond.John Sweeney: I am not up on the details of the Clean Energy Fund. But I would push to put all of our diesel equipment on renewable diesel fuel and our Flex-Fuel vehicles on E-85 Gas and move our gasohol to E-20. This would give us cleaner air as a result.Jonathan (Jon) Walker: I don’t see the need to put it back on the ballot, but I think one change that is necessary is to put control of the fund in the hands of the city council -- squarely with the people elected to decide what is best for Portland and how to spend the public’s money.Kezia Wanner: I support putting the PCEF on the ballot with changes that look at how to expand the allowable uses so that there is greater benefit with a focus on funding public infrastructure, innovations to the transportation system, and to incentivize and offset the costs of building affordable housing more sustainably.Luke Zak: I do not believe that the Clean Energy Fund should go back on the ballot. There are plenty of strategic ways to allocate the money that align with the purpose of the program and will continue to improve equity and climate resilience in the city.District 4Joseph (Joe) Alfone: I worked on two national campaigns for Ralph Nader for President. Clean air and clean water should be safe and clean for all. I lived in Beijing during the airpocalypse of 2012. Steps have been taken to improve conditions in China, we should do the same.Eli Arnold: Yes. I believe there are exciting opportunities to use these funds for programs which are climate related, but we need budget stability and flexibility in the short run. I want to preserve the original projected size of the program and move the excess to the general fund.Bob Callahan: Human caused global warming is real. We must reach our carbon reduction goals by 2050. If the funds are diverted, I would support a return to the ballot to stop any future diversion of funds or interest away from the original goals of renewable energy, energy efficiency and decarbonization projects.Patrick Cashman: Did not respondOlivia Clark: I would broaden its use as far as possible to support essential services before going back to the ballot.Raquel Coyote: Did not respondMike DiNapoli: Did not respondKelly Doyle: Did not respondBrandon Farley: Did not respondLisa Freeman: Portlanders were clear when we passed PCEF with a strong majority. We gave ourselves a gift because there is no shortage of bold action we must take to address our climate emergency. We need PCEF in its current form to build the green future our kids need to survive.John J Goldsmith: Did not respondKevin Goldsmith: Did not respondMitch Green: No. We are now having 1 in 100 year weather events on a frequent basis. That is happening due to climate change. We have a huge climate resiliency investment deficit, and so it’s imprudent to undermine PCEF which makes those investments possible.Chris Henry: With or without a new ballot measure, I support strengthening the Clean Energy Fund’s mandate to encompass key objectives like investing in climate-friendly earthquake readiness, establishing a green public bank, and decommissioning Zenith Energy’s CEI hub before its seismic vulnerability creates a massive oil spill in the Willamette River.Ben Hufford: No. The Clean Energy Fund allows Portland to “act locally,” and needs will only grow. Use of the funds should be more closely examined for efficiency, but projects competing to do the most good is a more successful model than attempting to complete the projects by city staff.Chad Lykins: No, and in general it should not be used to fund bureaus. The only exception is in cases in which a program is only realistically funded by the government and not a community organization (for instance, certain transportation projects).Chloe Mason: The Portland Clean Energy Fund is a community-driven solution that not only promotes clean energy but also prioritizes those who have historically been underserved. By investing in renewable energy projects and energy efficiency upgrades, we can reduce our carbon footprint while creating a more just and sustainable future for all.Tony Morse: Before we talk about the ballot, we need to have a serious conversation about PCEF and the results it’s showing. After multiple rounds of investment, we need to talk about outcomes and potential needs for program modifications. Portland has revenue challenges and a discussion about PCEF revenue allocation is appropriate.Lee Odell: Did not respondStanley Penkin: Voters overwhelmingly approved the fund. After a rocky start there has been pragmatic pivoting to fund city needs. It’s now successfully funding climate related projects, and I believe should continue. It should be periodically evaluated to ensure effective use of the funds and make adjustments if it’s not fulfilling impactful results.L Christopher Regis: Did not respondMoses Ross: No, I do not. I do feel we can apply the project funding requirements of the measure to a broader variety of projects, under the auspices of climate change mitigation and still stay in integrity with the intent of voters.Tony Schwartz: No. I will oppose any new tax or new bond.Sarah Silkie: No, but I would want to examine the evidence of past grants and pass policy to assure every PCEF dollar is being expended strategically.Ciatta R Thompson: I do not support putting the measure back on the ballot, however, if it were back on the ballot, I would add that any small business with 1-50 employees could apply for the PCEF and those funds could be used to revitalize buildings and their HVAC systems.John Toran: Yes. We have the highest inflation I’ve seen in my lifetime; things have changed dramatically since 2018, so I don’t see anything wrong with checking in with voters. Too many people are struggling and paying higher prices for absolutely everything so the effort might not be as appealing in 2025.Michael Trimble: I do not, as it is funding many programs combating climate change.Andra Vltavín: No. It would be a waste of time, effort, and money to put PCEF back on the ballot. The citizens have already approved it. The fund allows underserved zones of the city to make livability and sustainability improvements that positively affect many people.Bob Weinstein: I support PCEF’s goals but believe we need more flexibility with surplus funds. While I don’t advocate putting it back on the ballot, I support allowing council discretion to allocate excess funds to other pressing city needs, while maintaining PCEF’s core mission and funding.Eric Zimmerman: Yes, voters should have another say on the fund. The fund reputation had to be saved by Commissioner Rubio and she laid out a strong plan to broaden the use of it. I think making the case with voters is smart and would help rinse off distrust surrounding the program.Read answers from other Portland City Council and mayoral candidates

Data center emissions likely 662% higher than big tech claims. Can it keep up the ruse?

Emissions from in-house data centers of Google, Microsoft, Meta and Apple may be 7.62 times higher than official tallyBig tech has made some big claims about greenhouse gas emissions in recent years. But as the rise of artificial intelligence creates ever bigger energy demands, it’s getting hard for the industry to hide the true costs of the data centers powering the tech revolution.According to a Guardian analysis, from 2020 to 2022 the real emissions from the “in-house” or company-owned data centers of Google, Microsoft, Meta and Apple are likely about 662% – or 7.62 times – higher than officially reported. Continue reading...

Big tech has made some big claims about greenhouse gas emissions in recent years. But as the rise of artificial intelligence creates ever bigger energy demands, it’s getting hard for the industry to hide the true costs of the data centers powering the tech revolution.According to a Guardian analysis, from 2020 to 2022 the real emissions from the “in-house” or company-owned data centers of Google, Microsoft, Meta and Apple are likely about 662% – or 7.62 times – higher than officially reported.Amazon is the largest emitter of the big five tech companies by a mile – the emissions of the second-largest emitter, Apple, were less than half of Amazon’s in 2022. However, Amazon has been kept out of the calculation above because its differing business model makes it difficult to isolate data center-specific emissions figures for the company.As energy demands for these data centers grow, many are worried that carbon emissions will, too. The International Energy Agency stated that data centers already accounted for 1% to 1.5% of global electricity consumption in 2022 – and that was before the AI boom began with ChatGPT’s launch at the end of that year.AI is far more energy-intensive on data centers than typical cloud-based applications. According to Goldman Sachs, a ChatGPT query needs nearly 10 times as much electricity to process as a Google search, and data center power demand will grow 160% by 2030. Goldman competitor Morgan Stanley’s research has made similar findings, projecting data center emissions globally to accumulate to 2.5bn metric tons of CO2 equivalent by 2030.In the meantime, all five tech companies have claimed carbon neutrality, though Google dropped the label last year as it stepped up its carbon accounting standards. Amazon is the most recent company to do so, claiming in July that it met its goal seven years early, and that it had implemented a gross emissions cut of 3%.“It’s down to creative accounting,” explained a representative from Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, an advocacy group composed of current Amazon employees who are dissatisfied with their employer’s action on climate. “Amazon – despite all the PR and propaganda that you’re seeing about their solar farms, about their electric vans – is expanding its fossil fuel use, whether it’s in data centers or whether it’s in diesel trucks.”A misguided metricThe most important tools in this “creative accounting” when it comes to data centers are renewable energy certificates, or Recs. These are certificates that a company purchases to show it is buying renewable energy-generated electricity to match a portion of its electricity consumption – the catch, though, is that the renewable energy in question doesn’t need to be consumed by a company’s facilities. Rather, the site of production can be anywhere from one town over to an ocean away.Recs are used to calculate “market-based” emissions, or the official emissions figures used by the firms. When Recs and offsets are left out of the equation, we get “location-based emissions” – the actual emissions generated from the area where the data is being processed.The trend in those emissions is worrying. If these five companies were one country, the sum of their “location-based” emissions in 2022 would rank them as the 33rd highest-emitting country, behind the Philippines and above Algeria.Many data center industry experts also recognize that location-based metrics are more honest than the official, market-based numbers reported.“Location-based [accounting] gives an accurate picture of the emissions associated with the energy that’s actually being consumed to run the data center. And Uptime’s view is that it’s the right metric,” said Jay Dietrich, the research director of sustainability at Uptime Institute, a leading data center advisory and research organization.Nevertheless, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol, a carbon accounting oversight body, allows Recs to be used in official reporting, though the extent to which they should be allowed remains controversial between tech companies and has led to a lobbying battle over GHG Protocol’s rule-making process between two factions.On one side there is the Emissions First Partnership, spearheaded by Amazon and Meta. It aims to keep Recs in the accounting process regardless of their geographic origins. In practice, this is only a slightly looser interpretation of what GHG Protocol already permits.The opposing faction, headed by Google and Microsoft, argues that there needs to be time-based and location-based matching of renewable production and energy consumption for data centers. Google calls this its 24/7 goal, or its goal to have all of its facilities run on renewable energy 24 hours a day, seven days a week by 2030. Microsoft calls it its 100/100/0 goal, or its goal to have all its facilities running on 100% carbon-free energy 100% of the time, making zero carbon-based energy purchases by 2030.Google has already phased out its Rec use and Microsoft aims to do the same with low-quality “unbundled” (non location-specific) Recs by 2030.Academics and carbon management industry leaders alike are also against the GHG Protocol’s permissiveness on Recs. In an open letter from 2015, more than 50 such individuals argued that “it should be a bedrock principle of GHG accounting that no company be allowed to report a reduction in its GHG footprint for an action that results in no change in overall GHG emissions. Yet this is precisely what can happen under the guidance given the contractual/Rec-based reporting method.”To GHG Protocol’s credit, the organization does ask companies to report location-based figures alongside their Rec-based figures. Despite that, no company includes both location-based and market-based metrics for all three subcategories of emissions in the bodies of their annual environmental reports.In fact, location-based numbers are only directly reported (that is, not hidden in third-party assurance statements or in footnotes) by two companies – Google and Meta. And those two firms only include those figures for one subtype of emissions: scope 2, or the indirect emissions companies cause by purchasing energy from utilities and large-scale generators.In-house data centersScope 2 is the category that includes the majority of the emissions that come from in-house data center operations, as it concerns the emissions associated with purchased energy – mainly, electricity.Data centers should also make up a majority of overall scope 2 emissions for each company except Amazon, given that the other sources of scope 2 emissions for these companies stem from the electricity consumed by firms’ offices and retail spaces – operations that are relatively small and not carbon-intensive. Amazon has one other carbon-intensive business vertical to account for in its scope 2 emissions: its warehouses and e-commerce logistics.For the firms that give data center-specific data – Meta and Microsoft – this holds true: data centers made up 100% of Meta’s market-based (official) scope 2 emissions and 97.4% of its location-based emissions. For Microsoft, those numbers were 97.4% and 95.6%, respectively.The massive differences in location-based and official scope 2 emissions numbers showcase just how carbon intensive data centers really are, and how deceptive firms’ official emissions numbers can be. Meta, for example, reports its official scope 2 emissions for 2022 as 273 metric tons CO2 equivalent – all of that attributable to data centers. Under the location-based accounting system, that number jumps to more than 3.8m metric tons of CO2 equivalent for data centers alone – a more than 19,000 times increase.A similar result can be seen with Microsoft. The firm reported its official data center-related emissions for 2022 as 280,782 metric tons CO2 equivalent. Under a location-based accounting method, that number jumps to 6.1m metric tons CO2 equivalent. That’s a nearly 22 times increase.While Meta’s reporting gap is more egregious, both firms’ location-based emissions are higher because they undercount their data center emissions specifically, with 97.4% of the gap between Meta’s location-based and official scope 2 number in 2022 being unreported data center-related emissions, and 95.55% of Microsoft’s.Specific data center-related emissions numbers aren’t available for the rest of the firms. However, given that Google and Apple have similar scope 2 business models to Meta and Microsoft, it is likely that the multiple on how much higher their location-based data center emissions are would be similar to the multiple on how much higher their overall location-based scope 2 emissions are.In total, the sum of location-based emissions in this category between 2020 and 2022 was at least 275% higher (or 3.75 times) than the sum of their official figures. Amazon did not provide the Guardian with location-based scope 2 figures for 2020 and 2021, so its official (and likely much lower) numbers were used for this calculation for those years.Third-party data centersBig tech companies also rent a large portion of their data center capacity from third-party data center operators (or “colocation” data centers). According to the Synergy Research Group, large tech companies (or “hyperscalers”) represented 37% of worldwide data center capacity in 2022, with half of that capacity coming through third-party contracts. While this group includes companies other than Google, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft and Apple, it gives an idea of the extent of these firms’ activities with third-party data centers.Those emissions should theoretically fall under scope 3, all emissions a firm is responsible for that can’t be attributed to the fuel or electricity it consumes.When it comes to a big tech firm’s operations, this would encapsulate everything from the manufacturing processes of the hardware it sells (like the iPhone or Kindle) to the emissions from employees’ cars during their commutes to the office.When it comes to data centers, scope 3 emissions include the carbon emitted from the construction of in-house data centers, as well as the carbon emitted during the manufacturing process of the equipment used inside those in-house data centers. It may also include those emissions as well as the electricity-related emissions of third-party data centers that are partnered with.However, whether or not these emissions are fully included in reports is almost impossible to prove. “Scope 3 emissions are hugely uncertain,” said Dietrich. “This area is a mess just in terms of accounting.”According to Dietrich, some third-party data center operators put their energy-related emissions in their own scope 2 reporting, so those who rent from them can put those emissions into their scope 3. Other third-party data center operators put energy-related emissions into their scope 3 emissions, expecting their tenants to report those emissions in their own scope 2 reporting.Additionally, all firms use market-based metrics for these scope 3 numbers, which means third-party data center emissions are also undercounted in official figures.Of the firms that report their location-based scope 3 emissions in the footnotes, only Apple has a large gap between its official scope 3 figure and its location-based scope 3 figure, starting in 2022.This gap can largely be attributed to data center emissions accounting. The only change to Apple’s scope 3 methodology in 2022 was to include “work from home, third-party cloud services, electricity transmission and distribution losses, and upstream impacts from scope 1 fuels”. Since the firm listed third-party cloud services as having zero emissions under its official scope 3 reporting, that means all emissions associated with those third-party services would only show up in location-based scope 3 emissions from 2022 onwards.2025 and beyondEven though big tech hides these emissions, they are due to keep rising. Data centers’ electricity demand is projected to double by 2030 due to the additional load that artificial intelligence poses, according to the Electric Power Research Institute.Google and Microsoft both blamed AI for their recent upticks in market-based emissions.“The relative contribution of AI computing loads to Google’s data centers, as I understood it when I left [in 2022], was relatively modest,” said Chris Taylor, current CEO of utility storage firm Gridstor and former site lead for Google’s data center energy strategy unit. “Two years ago, [AI] was not the main thing that we were worried about, at least on the energy team.”Taylor explained that most of the growth that he saw in data centers while at Google was attributable to growth in Google Cloud, as most enterprises were moving their IT tasks to the firm’s cloud servers.Whether today’s power grids can withstand the growing energy demands of AI is uncertain. One industry leader – Marc Ganzi, the CEO of DigitalBridge, a private equity firm that owns two of the world’s largest third-party data center operators – has gone as far as to say that the data center sector may run out of power within the next two years.And as grid interconnection backlogs continue to pile up worldwide, it may be nearly impossible for even the most well intentioned of companies to get new renewable energy production capacity online in time to meet that demand.

In coal-rich Kentucky, a new green aluminum plant could bring jobs and clean energy

Labor and state leaders wants to land the first new U.S. smelter in 45 years. But the deal won’t happen unless Kentucky can furnish lots of clean energy.

When John Holbrook first started working as a pipefitter in the early 1990s, jobs were easy to come by in his corner of northeastern Kentucky. A giant iron and steel mill routinely needed maintenance and repair work, as did the coal “coking” ovens next to it. There was also a hulking coal-fired power plant and a bustling petroleum refinery nearby. Fossil fuels extracted from beneath the region’s rugged Appalachian terrain supplied these industrial sites, which sprung up during the 19th and 20th centuries along the yawning Ohio River and its tributary, Big Sandy. “Work was so plentiful,” Holbrook recalled on a scorching August morning in Ashland, a quiet riverfront city of some 21,000 people. Ashland retains its motto as the place ​“Where Coal Meets Iron,” and railcars still rumble by. But after years of downsizing production, the steel mill’s owner demolished the complex in 2022. A decade ago, the coal plant switched to burning natural gas to generate electricity, which requires less hands-on maintenance. Meanwhile, thousands of jobs vanished from surrounding coalfields as mining became more mechanized, market forces shifted, and clean air policies took hold. Many families have since moved away. The tradespeople who’ve stayed often drive for hours to work on the new construction projects sprouting up in other places, like the massive factories for making and recycling electric-car batteries in western Kentucky and the electricity-powered steel furnace in neighboring West Virginia. If America is undergoing a manufacturing boom, it hasn’t yet reached this hard-hit stretch of the Bluegrass State. But that could soon change. In March, Century Aluminum, the nation’s biggest producer of primary, or virgin, aluminum, announced that it plans to build an enormous plant in the United States — the nation’s first new smelter in 45 years. Jesse Gary, the company’s president and CEO, has pointed to northeastern Kentucky as the project’s preferred location, though he said there were still a ​“myriad of steps” before the company reaches a final decision. The Chicago-based manufacturer is slated to receive up to $500 million in funding from the U.S. Department of Energy to build the facility, which could emit 75 percent less carbon dioxide than traditional smelters, thanks to its use of carbon-free energy and energy-efficient designs. The award is part of a $6.3 billion federal program — funded by the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law — that aims to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions from heavy-industry sectors. The Ohio River seen from Ashland, Kentucky, right. John Holbrook at his office in Ashland. Aluminum demand is set to soar globally by up to 80 percent by 2050 as the world produces more solar panels and other clean energy technologies. The makers of the essential material are now under mounting pressure from policymakers and consumers to clean up their operations. In North America alone, aluminum producers will need to cut carbon emissions by 92 percent from 2021 levels to meet net-zero climate goals. Century already owns two aging smelters in western Kentucky. The new ​“green smelter” is expected to create over 5,500 construction jobs and more than 1,000 full-time union jobs. If built in eastern Kentucky, the $5 billion project would mark the region’s largest investment on record. “We just need a crumb or two, just a little giant smelter,” Holbrook said with a laugh when we met at his office near Ashland’s historic main street. A short walk away, stones used in the city’s original iron-making furnaces stand as monuments overlooking the Ohio River. Today, Holbrook heads the Tri-State Building and Construction Trades Council, which represents unions in a cluster of adjoining counties in Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia. He’s part of a broad coalition of labor organizers, local officials, environmentalists, and clean energy advocates who are urging Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, a Democrat, to work with Century to secure the smelter and hammer out a long-term deal to provide clean energy for it. “It’d be a godsend for that area,” said Chad Mills, a pipefitter and the director of the Kentucky State Building and Construction Trades Council. The region ​“needs it more than you can imagine.” The impact of Century’s new smelter would ripple far beyond this rural stretch of verdant peaks and meandering creeks. The planned facility is set to nearly double the amount of primary aluminum that the United States produces — helping to revitalize a domestic industry that has been steadily shrinking for decades owing to spiking power prices and increased competition from China. In 2000, U.S. companies operated 23 aluminum smelters. Today, only four plants are operating, while another two have been indefinitely curtailed. That includes Century’s 55-year-old plant in Hawesville, Kentucky, which has been idle since June 2022. The decline in U.S. production has complicated the country’s efforts to both make and procure lower-carbon aluminum for its supply chains, experts say. Globally, the aluminum sector contributes around 2 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions every year. Nearly 70 percent of those emissions come from generating high volumes of electricity — often derived from fossil fuels — to power smelters almost around the clock. As U.S. primary production dwindles, the country is importing more aluminum made in overseas smelters that are powered by dirtier, less efficient electrical grids. Ironically, an increasing share of that aluminum is being used to make solar panels, electric cars, heat pumps, power cables, and many other clean energy components. The metal is lightweight and inexpensive, and it’s a key ingredient in global efforts to electrify and decarbonize the wider economy. But aluminum is also mind-bogglingly ubiquitous outside the energy sector. The versatile material is found in everything from pots and pans, deodorant, and smartphones to car doors, bridges, and skyscrapers. It’s the second-most-used metal in the world after steel.  Last year, the U.S. produced around 750,000 metric tons of primary aluminum while importing 4.8 million metric tons of it, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.  Meanwhile, the country produced 3.3 million metric tons of ​“secondary” aluminum in 2023. Boosting recycling rates is seen as a necessary step for addressing aluminum’s emissions problem, because the recycling process requires about 95 percent less energy than making aluminum from scratch. But even secondary producers need primary aluminum to ​“sweeten” their batches and achieve the right strength and durability, said Annie Sartor, the aluminum campaign director for Industrious Labs, an advocacy organization. “Primary aluminum is essential, and we have a primary industry that’s been in decline, is very polluting, and is very high-emitting,” Sartor said. Century’s proposed new smelter ​“could be a turning point for this industry,” she added. ​“We all would like to see it get built and thrive.” An employee walks by Century Aluminum’s smelter in Hawesville, Kentucky, in a 2017 photo. The smelter has been idle since 2022. Luke Sharrett for The Washington Post via Getty Images A new green smelter wouldn’t just boost supplies of primary aluminum for making clean energy technologies. The facility, with its voracious electricity appetite, is also expected to accelerate the region’s buildout of clean energy capacity, which has lagged behind that of many other states.  Century expects its planned smelter to produce about 600,000 metric tons of aluminum a year. That means it could need at least a gigawatt’s worth of power to operate annually at full tilt, equal to the yearly demand of roughly 750,000 U.S. homes. By way of comparison, Louisville, Kentucky’s largest city, is home to some 625,000 people. But Kentucky has very little carbon-free capacity available today.  About 0.2 percent of the state’s electricity generation came from solar in 2022, while 6 percent was supplied by hydroelectric dams, mainly in the western part of the state. Coal and gas plants produced most of the rest. Still, after decades of clinging tightly to its coal-rich history, Kentucky is seeing a raft of new utility-scale solar installations under development, including atop former coal mines.  And manufacturers in Kentucky can access the renewable energy being generated in neighboring states as well as regional grid networks like PJM. Swaths of eastern Kentucky are covered by a robust array of high-voltage, long-distance transmission lines operated by Kentucky Power, a subsidiary of the utility giant American Electric Power. Lane Boldman, executive director of the Kentucky Conservation Committee, said that investing in clean energy and upgrading grid infrastructure would offer a chance to employ more of Kentucky’s skilled workers. “It’s exciting, because it actually modernizes our industry and leverages a local workforce that has a great expertise with energy already,” she said when we met in Lexington, near the rolling green hills and long white fences of the area’s horse farms. ​“There are ways you can create economic development that are not so extractive, that just leave the community bare.” Lane Boldman says she became an environmental advocate years ago after seeing how coal strip mining was harming Appalachian communities. Maria Gallucci/Canary Media Northeastern Kentucky isn’t the only location that Century is considering for the smelter. The company is also evaluating sites in the Ohio and Mississippi river basins. The final decision will depend on where there’s a steady supply of affordable power, a Century executive told The Wall Street Journal in early July. (A spokesperson didn’t respond to Canary’s repeated requests for comment.) Century is aiming to secure a power-supply deal to meet a decade’s worth of electricity demand from the new smelter, according to the Journal. The goal is to finalize plans in the next two years and then begin construction, which could take around three years. In the meantime, the U.S. will continue to see a rapid buildout of solar, wind, and other carbon-free power supplies connecting to the grid. Governor Beshear has participated in discussions about the smelter’s power supply, in the hopes of landing Century’s megaproject and all of its ​“good-paying jobs.” His administration ​“continues to work with multiple experts to determine a location in northeastern Kentucky that includes a river port and can support workforce training as well as provide the cleanest, most reliable electric service capacity needed,” Crystal Staley, a spokesperson for the governor’s office, said by email.  Environmental advocates say the aluminum plant represents a chance to reimagine what a major industrial facility can look like: powered by clean energy, equipped with modern pollution controls, and built with local community input from the beginning. Starting sometime this fall, the Sierra Club is planning to host public meetings and distribute flyers in northeastern Kentucky to let residents know about the giant smelter that could potentially be built in their backyards. “It’s an opportunity for us to engage people who might shy away from other aspects of being an environmental activist and say, ​‘Hey, this is something that we can embrace, because it’s going to help us create jobs so that people can stay in their region,’” said Julia Finch, the director of Sierra Club’s Kentucky chapter. ​“This is a chance for us to lead on what a green transition looks like for industry.” Aluminum is the most abundant metal in Earth’s crust. But turning it into a sturdy, usable material is a laborious and dirty process — one that begins with scraping topsoil to extract bauxite, a reddish clay rock that is rich in alumina (also called aluminum oxide). The trickiest part comes next: removing oxygen and other molecules to transform that alumina into aluminum. Until the late 19th century, the methods for accomplishing this were so costly that the tinfoil we now buy at the grocery store was considered a precious metal, like gold, silver, and platinum. Then in 1886, Charles Martin Hall figured out an inexpensive way to smelt aluminum through electrolysis, a technique that uses electrical energy to drive a chemical reaction. Not long after, he helped launch the Pittsburgh Reduction Company, which went on to become the U.S. aluminum behemoth presently known as Alcoa. Around the same time that Hall was tinkering in his woodshed in Oberlin, Ohio, a French inventor named Paul Louis Touissant Héroult was making a similar discovery in Paris. Modern aluminum smelters now use what’s called the Hall-Héroult process — an effective but also energy-intensive and carbon-intensive way of making primary aluminum metal.  Smelting involves dissolving alumina in a molten salt called cryolite, which is heated to over 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit. Large carbon blocks, or ​“anodes,” are lowered down into the highly corrosive bath, and electrical currents run through the entire structure. Aluminum then deposits at the bottom as oxygen combines with carbon in the blocks, creating carbon dioxide as a byproduct.  Today, this electrochemical process contributes about 17 percent of the total CO2 emissions from global aluminum production. It also causes the release of perfluorochemicals (PFCs) — potent and long-lasting greenhouse gases — as well as sulfur dioxide pollution, which can harm people’s respiratory systems and damage trees and crops. In 2021, PFCs accounted for more than half the emissions from Century’s Hawesville smelter and a third of the emissions from its Sebree smelter in Robards, Kentucky, according to the Sierra Club. Newer smelters can dramatically reduce their PFC emissions by using automated control systems, which Century deploys at its smelter in Grundartangi, Iceland. Researchers are also working to slash CO2 by developing carbon-free blocks. The technology involves using chemically inactive, or ​“inert,” metallic alloys in the anodes through which the electrical currents flow. Elysis, a joint venture of Alcoa and the mining giant Rio Tinto, says it is making progress toward the large-scale implementation of its inert anodes and has plans for a demonstration plant in Quebec. The alternative anodes may not be ready in time for a project like Century’s planned green U.S. smelter. Previously, large-scale buyers of aluminum, such as automakers and construction companies, had anticipated that inert anodes would help slash CO2 emissions in the aluminum supply chain in time for companies to meet their 2030 climate goals. But now that’s looking less likely. “There’s a feeling now that it’s just taking longer to develop that technology,” said Lachlan Wright, a manager of the climate intelligence program at RMI, a clean energy think tank. One challenge might simply be the limited production capacity for the new anodes, which can’t yet meet the demands of a large aluminum user. Beyond that, ​“It’s not exactly clear what some of the barriers are there,” Wright added. Still, when it comes to tackling aluminum’s biggest CO2 culprit — all the electricity it takes to run a smelter — the solutions already exist, in the form of renewable energy and other carbon-free sources. “We don’t need a new or emerging technology,” Sartor said. ​“We need huge amounts of existing technology, and it needs to be available in places that work for the industry.” Deep in the heart of Kentucky’s coal country, the scarred and treeless lands of former surface mines are increasingly being repurposed to supply that clean energy.  On another sun-blasted day in early August, I met with Mike Smith in Hazard, a city of some 5,300 people that’s enveloped by the Appalachian Mountains and built along the winding curves of the North Fork Kentucky River. We hopped in his white pickup truck and headed toward his family’s 800-acre property. For years, they leased the land to Pine Branch Mining, which dynamited the mountaintop to reach coal seams buried beneath the surface. ​“I can’t say that I was for it,” Smith told me as we drove past modest homes tucked into creekside hollers and up a bumpy gravel road. Today, he said, ​“the only coal that’s left here is under the river.” After the mine closed a decade ago, the land was reclaimed: smoothed out, packed down, and covered with vegetation to prevent erosion. Now, the property is about to undergo its latest transformation, as the home of the 80-megawatt Bright Mountain Solar facility. Landowner Mike Smith and Louise Sizemore of Edelen Renewables surveyed the former mining site that will soon become the Bright Mountain Solar farm during a visit on August 7. Maria Gallucci/Canary Media Avangrid, the lead developer, plans to begin installing solar panels here next year, according to Edelen Renewables, the project’s local development partner. Edelen is also helping to advance other ​“coal-to-solar” projects in the region, including the 200 MW Martin County Solar Project under construction as well as BrightNight​’s 800 MW Starfire installation. Rivian, the electric-truck maker, has signed on as the anchor customer for the $1 billion Starfire project, which is in the early stages of development.  Building on old mining sites can be more expensive and logistically trickier than, say, putting panels on flat, solid farmland. For one, hauling equipment to the former mines requires driving big, heavy vehicles up narrow mountain roads. Smith’s site is divided into uneven tiers of unpaved land. On our visit, he expertly accelerated his truck up a steep dirt path. When we reached the top, I audibly exhaled with relief. Smith gently laughed. Despite the challenges, there’s an obvious poetry to building clean energy in a place that once yielded fossil fuels. Ideally, it can also bring justice to communities that are still hurting economically and spiritually from the coal industry’s inexorable decline. Bright Mountain and other coal-to-solar developments are projected to generate millions of dollars in local tax revenue over their lifetimes, using land that was left unsuitable for anything other than cattle grazing. “You’ve got to reinvent yourself,” Smith told me as we gazed at the empty expanse of land where the solar project will eventually stand. Dragonflies darted by, and a quail called from somewhere on the property. ​“That’s the only way we can survive.” The next day, I met Adam Edelen, the founder and CEO of Edelen Renewables, at his office in downtown Lexington. Sitting in a wicker rocking chair and sipping a pint glass of sweet tea, Edelen lamented the years of ​“outright hostility” to renewable energy development in the state. However, some Kentucky policymakers are starting to recognize the need to clean up the state’s electricity sector — if not explicitly to tackle climate change, then at least to attract manufacturers like Century Aluminum that want to power their operations with carbon-free energy sources. The Martin County Solar Project spans 900 acres on the old Martiki mine site in Pilgrim, Kentucky. Edelen Renewables “Now, we’re in this headlong rush to make sure we’ve got a diversified energy portfolio to meet the needs of the private sector,” Edelen said. For Century in particular, he added, ​“The issue is that they need cheap power and they need green energy, neither of which Kentucky has a lot of.”  Electricity accounts for about 40 percent of a smelter’s total operating expenses. To remain cost competitive, aluminum producers need to hit a ​“magic benchmark” of around $40 per megawatt-hour, said Wright of RMI. Currently, power-purchase agreements for U.S. renewable energy projects are in the range of $50 to $60 per megawatt-hour — a significant difference for facilities that can consume 1 megawatt-hour of electricity just to produce a single metric ton of aluminum. Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act could help to narrow that price gap for Century and other primary aluminum makers. The 45X production tax credit is a keystone of the IRA, which President Joe Biden signed into law two years ago. The incentive allows producers of critical materials, solar panels, batteries, and other types of ​“advanced manufacturing” products to receive a federal tax credit for up to 10 percent of their production costs, including electricity. The IRA also set aside another $10 billion for the 48C investment tax credit, an Obama-era program that’s now available to help manufacturers install equipment that reduces emissions by 20 percent. Aluminum producers could use the tax credit to cover the cost of technology that improves their operating efficiency while also slashing CO2 pollution. Edelen Renewables says the 48C tax credit will apply to all the coal-to-solar projects, which the company hopes can supply some of the electricity needed for Century’s green smelter. Under the expanded program, renewable energy projects built in ​“energy communities,” including former coal mine sites, can receive tax credits worth up to 40 percent of project costs, significantly lowering the final cost of electricity associated with the installations. Eastern Kentucky ​“has played such a vital role in powering the country’s economy for the last 100 years,” Edelen said. Coal communities ​“deserve a place in the newer economy, and they’re hungry for that.” Construction on the Martin County Solar Project began in 2023 and is slated to be completed later this year. Edelen Renewables Over in Ashland, John Holbrook said he’s anxiously watching to see if northeastern Kentucky will find its place in the nation’s green industrial transition. If Century selects the region to host its new aluminum smelter, the area’s trade councils and union apprenticeship programs will be more than ready to start training and recruiting workers, he said. But Holbrook and other local labor leaders aren’t holding their breath. Several people I spoke to recalled the elation they felt in 2018 when the company Braidy Industries broke ground near Ashland on a $1.5 billion aluminum rolling mill — and the heartbreak that followed years later when Braidy backtracked on the plant and its promise of hundreds of jobs. Braidy’s former CEO was later accused of misleading the company’s board members, state officials, and journalists about the project’s true financial status. While the Braidy scandal was a unique affair, the fallout still lingers in discussions about Century’s green smelter. ​“I think they’d have to start moving trailers in before we’d feel confident to start saying, ​‘Yeah, this is really happening,’” Holbrook said from behind his wide wooden desk.  Still, he remains ​“cautiously optimistic” about the prospect of Century building its aluminum plant here. ​“It would be region-changing,” he said. ​“And life-changing.”  This story was originally published by Grist with the headline In coal-rich Kentucky, a new green aluminum plant could bring jobs and clean energy on Sep 15, 2024.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.