Talking Clean Tech to Republicans
November -> December 2024
Have a federal cleantech deal you want to see highlighted? A NPRM of note, a FOA to flag? Hit me up with your alphabet soup, comments, and recommendations for the site!
November’s election and President Trump’s dramatic return to the White House will have major repercussions on U.S. climate and energy policy. But what does that mean for specific Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) tax credits, projects funded under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), tariffs, and clean tech R&D funding? And when, exactly, will those decisions be made and how do they align within the broader set of Republican legislative priorities? Most importantly, how can clean tech companies and investors message effectively to Republican stakeholders to help steer the policy process towards beneficial outcomes for their businesses?
DC CleanTech has you covered. This month we’re helping you understand what’s to come at the intersection of clean tech and policy. Taking questions and helping us make sense of it all is Shane Skelton, Co-Founder and Partner at Mission Strategies, and climate and energy whisperer to influential Congressional Republicans, including former House Speaker Paul Ryan and Congressman Bob Latta (R-OH), who is poised for a leadership position on the House Energy and Commerce committee in the next Congress.
We’re also bringing you all the latest lame duck clean tech policy updates from Capitol Hill and the Administration, and of course, a comprehensive rundown of government clean tech funding awards and opportunities.
Without further ado, let’s turn it over to Shane!
Q: Shane, thanks for taking the time to help us think about communicating clean tech priorities to Republicans. Let’s start with what you see as the priorities for the Trump Administration in its first 100 days and in its first year, and where clean tech fits into that?
There are a few different dynamics at play here. And one of the most important is what Republicans and Democrats currently in Congress decide to do about government funding.
And while that sounds a little bit unrelated to clean tech and some of the larger tax bills, including the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and any IRA reforms, appropriations are a must. Will there be an omnibus bill that funds the government through the rest of the fiscal year, or will there be a shorter continuing resolution? If the latter, there’s a good chance that it would expire sometime into the first 100 days of the new Administration, and if so, that will heavily impact Republicans’ ability to do everything else they want to do during that time.
That’s because a funding showdown raises the risk of a government shut down, and when that happens, you can't do a whole lot of anything. We've seen this movie before. This is what happened when Trump was sworn-in in 2017. I had long speculated that they would prioritize an omnibus at the end of 2024 so that the new President could come in and focus on his priorities from day one. But the reality of it is they’re probably going to wind up negotiating a continuing resolution early next year that dictates government funding for the remainder of fiscal year 2025. Not long after that, they will have to put forward a budget for fiscal year 2026. And it’s becoming increasingly likely that they will have to negotiate a one-year Farm Bill extension, which is a pretty comprehensive piece of legislation, all within the first nine months of the year.
So the priorities are stacking up, the calendar is filling up, and we haven’t even talked about reconciliation yet, which is the process the Republicans would use to extend the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and restrict or revamp the IRA, among other things.
Remember, the passage of the budget is actually what unlocks the tool that is reconciliation. So you cannot write a tax bill or a spending bill or anything else that's permitted under the rules of reconciliation until both chambers have passed a joint budget resolution, identical in nature. And because the rules of reconciliation need to be well fleshed out in that budget, they will at the very least need to have a sense of where they want to go on IRA reforms and Tax Cuts and Jobs Act expansion to provide the requisite level of detail in those budget resolutions. And that will take a lot of negotiation.
Of course there will also be a flurry of executive orders in the first day, first week, first month, much of which will be focused on deregulation.
So to answer your question, what are they going to do in the first 100 days? A lot!
Q: Drilling down on what, exactly, that could mean for the clean tech sector - could a reconciliation bill with major changes to the IRA come together in the first 100 days or is that something we would anticipate later in the year?
Reconciliation will be the number one priority by a long shot, but will they execute on a budget resolution, and write a reconciliation bill and then pass it within 100 days? Probably not.
Reconciliation is the top Republican priority because it’s the only realistic vehicle for delivering on their campaign promises, whether it's extending TCJA, finding “pay-fors” via cuts to IRA programs, or other priorities the President-elect proposed on the campaign trail, like no tax on tips.
But even though reconciliation is at the top of the list and is key to unlocking everything they want to accomplish, it doesn’t mean it will be quick and easy.
You're already seeing fissures across the House and Senate. Senator Crapo, who will chair the Senate Finance Committee has essentially said he isn’t concerned with deficits from extending the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, because it's a continuation of existing law. So that could be interpreted as a lower risk outcome to the IRA.
On the flip side, you're getting a totally different message from some of the more conservative House members, who are saying deficits are real and are important. And if we're going to extend or expand the TCJA, we're going to find ways to pay for that, whether that's through other revenue increase measures, or reductions in spending, which is where IRA cuts would come into play. The bottom line is there’s tension between the two chambers and between different factions of the Republican caucus in both the House and Senate.
Another thing to keep in mind, is that Republicans could have three opportunities in the next two years to pass a reconciliation bill if they act quickly enough, because Congress never passed a fiscal year 2025 budget that was adopted by both chambers. That means that up until the end of the fiscal year, they could pass a fiscal 2025 budget with reconciliation instructions, and then pass another fiscal 2026 budget with another set of reconciliation instructions, and then a fiscal year 2027 bill with reconciliation instructions. I don't think they're going to do that. But that's just my way of saying they have a lot of opportunities for reconciliation within the next two years.
So to recap, reconciliation will be the top priority, but I do not envision a reconciliation bill getting passed until later in 2025.
Q: So given that the Republicans control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, is it just a matter of time before they pass a reconciliation bill that includes everything the President-elect promised, from revoking Inflation Reduction Act tax credits to expanding TCJA? Is this a foregone conclusion?
I think it's a foregone conclusion that something will get done. I think the contents of that legislation are not even remotely close to a foregone conclusion.
There's no way that Republicans can face the voters in two years without having executed on some of their priorities. But these priorities are not shared by everyone. For some Republican lawmakers, getting rid of every single clean energy tax credit probably makes a lot of sense. For most, that doesn't make any sense.
For some Republicans, continuing the TCJA as is, is the most obvious move forward. But do they wanna add no tax on tips, no tax on overtime for first responders, some of those other proposals President Trump committed to?
It's always more difficult when you actually get into the weeds of writing the legislation. Look at Build Back Better. That was the bill and then it was dead, and the Democrats had nothing to show for their reconciliation effort. And then they ultimately got the IRA. So I do think you'll see some fits and starts. I don't think it'll necessarily go through the same process that Build Back Better and the IRA went through, but there's gonna be a lot of horse trading and it's gonna take some time. What that ultimately means for the IRA is that there are more likely modifications and cuts to certain provisions rather than a wholesale repeal.
Q: Let's get into some of the details - what are the tax credits that might be the most vulnerable, and which may be more popular with Republicans?
Let’s start with what Republicans have traditionally voted for in the past. When we think about what was included in the IRA, there were some traditional credits that have had bipartisan support in the past. Things like 45Q for carbon capture and storage, the section 48 investment tax credit, the section 45 electricity production tax credit. It is not uncommon for popular programs like these to get extended at the end of their statutory life.
Some of the ways that the IRA modified these tax credits, 45 and 48 in particular, by making them tech neutral to allow nuclear, geothermal, and hydro to qualify, are quite popular with Republicans. But other changes like the long sunset clause on 45Y and 48E tied to grid decarbonization, or some of the bonus tax credits that allow projects to claim upwards of 50% to even 70% of a tax credit will be less popular. So as I start to look at that math, it's very difficult to pay for some of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act extensions and limit the tax obligations of tipped workers and first responders while still offering up 50% tax credits that may not sunset until 2040. I expect that to be whittled down, perhaps to electricity investment and production tax credits that look more like what they did pre-IRA.
As for some of the newer credits, and here I’m thinking of the 45V clean hydrogen production tax credit and 45Z clean fuel production credit, there are a lot of different ways to make clean hydrogen and clean fuels. Perhaps Republicans amend the rules around those or change the credit itself so that it’s more attractive to traditional energy companies. 45X, the Advanced Manufacturing Production tax credit, is another popular credit among some Republicans because it generates domestic manufacturing jobs and reduces our dependence on China for a lot of these technologies. That’s a credit that I don’t see being eliminated wholesale.
A lot of these credits are going to continue to live on, even if they aren't extended for, you know, the entire 10, 12 year run that they have now. There's a lot of nuance and I don't think the answer is, they're going to roll back the tax code back to July of 2022.
Q: What do you make of conversations around Foreign Entity of Concern (FEOC) provisions being added to various parts of the IRA? Currently the IRA only has FEOC restrictions on the 30D Clean Vehicle tax credit, but do you envision Republicans adding FEOC to other IRA credits as a way to get pay-fors while also resolving some of the perceived loopholes that allow tax credit funding to go towards procuring clean tech components from China?
Yeah, 100%. If there's one thing that elected Republicans and Democrats have agreed upon for the last four or five years, it's been wrestling industrial domination away from China, especially in clean energy supply chains.
I don't think the incoming administration will be as passionate about deployment of clean energy technologies as the previous administration, but if deployment is aligned with domestic investment and domestic manufacturing, it really can be a win-win for everyone.
So adding FEOC provisions is certainly a way to bring down the cost of the credits, because the Joint Committee on Taxation that provides a nonpartisan analysis of what the cost of these tax provisions look like, should understand that credit uptake is going to be significantly limited by FEOC provisions.
And if there are far more restrictions put on who can claim the credit, and policymakers are going to inherently understand that if you can only reward domestic investment, you're probably going to see some more domestic investment in those supply chains that would otherwise be dominated by China. So I think that's very likely.
Q: That’s a good segway to the next topic of tariffs, which to a certain extent has also brought Republicans and Democrats together in recent years. Where do tariffs fit into all of this? Do you see tariffs coming from the executive branch, or could they be included in reconciliation as a pay for, as some have suggested?
President-elect Trump has been running on tariffs for the better part of a decade. And he's been successful in two of those campaigns. There is no scenario, I think, where he moves away from that posture and that position. How aggressive and on which goods remains to be seen and probably no one knows but him.
On Capitol Hill, as you allude to, there are conversations around if you could explicitly include tariffs in a reconciliation bill as a pay for. That's a question that's going around Republican circles right now.
Another version of this could be a carbon border tax, where you tariff goods from countries like China who have embedded carbon emissions far beyond what we have in the United States. That doesn’t exist now so it would require new statutory authority. This is an idea that already has some backers from Republicans in the Senate, including from Senator Cassidy, who sits on both the Finance and Energy and Natural Resources Committees.
But I do think it would be very, very difficult for Congress to go line by line and embed tariffs into a tax bill as some have proposed.
Q: Is that just because it would be next to impossible to get 218 Representatives to vote on a party line for tariffs that may have near-term and detrimental effects to jobs or pocket book issues in their districts? The politics of it are just unattractive?
That’s part of it, but beyond that there’s just the practical inflexibility of it all. Macroeconomic conditions can change for a number of reasons, due to policy, or geopolitics, or things that are wildly out of our control, like a pandemic, for example. And in those cases, it’s helpful to be able to adjust tariffs, via enforcement exemptions, or tariff rate quotas.
It’s all very nuanced, but once you write something into the code, it sort of is what it is. And if macroeconomic conditions change dramatically, you don't have the authority to do anything about it without another act from Congress, which is difficult and time consuming.
Q: Put yourself in the shoes of a clean energy company or investor. Do you see opportunities for engaging with and winning over Republicans in the Congress to support clean energy, or at least to not vote to repeal whole sections of the IRA?
Definitely. First, it is difficult to overstate how narrow the margins are going to be, especially in the House come next year. And I raise that because it does change the way that you think about engagement. There's only a two or three vote margin in the House, or even less until all of the special elections are settled for the seats held by Trump Cabinet nominees. So you're talking about very narrow margins. That means I don't necessarily need 250 people to agree with me. I may only need 3 or 4.
So I’m going to start by identifying the members in districts and states where I'm investing. I'm going to identify the areas where our company is creating good paying jobs. And I'm going to advocate to staff and to the committees writing these bills. I’ll explain what our company is doing in their district, how much money we’ve deployed, and how many people we employ. The key is to connect the policy and tax credit certainty you need to the jobs and that investment, and clarify what the consequences would be for your company and your employees if the tax credit was removed, or the policy changed. It’s basic stakeholder identification, mapping, and education on an individual level - not talking about the macro wellbeing of clean energy, but about the very real and specific well being of a project in a particular state or community and all that it entails.
Q: What other messages resonate with Republicans?
I think there’s an opportunity to leverage the idea that many parts of the IRA are geared towards helping American companies compete with China and reduce our dependence on China for these clean energy supply chains. Even if the Biden Administration steered some of the tax credit guidance to make it easier to source from China than what Congress intended, in the case of the 30D EV tax credits for example, there’s still the possibility to change those rules and use the IRA to build up domestic supply chains and take market share from China.
This is a President and a Republican Party that campaigned on energy dominance. So let’s take the opportunity to say, yes we've taken oil and gas market share away from the Middle East and Russia. And now, with these policies and tax credits, maybe with the addition of FEOC provisions in some cases, we're taking solar, wind, batteries, critical minerals, and other cutting edge clean technologies away from China, too. Let’s be dominant across the entire energy sector.
Q: Considering that Congress will look for pay-fors in reconciliation, should companies be thinking about prioritizing what they can and can’t live without when it comes to IRA tax credits and communicate that openly in their meetings with the Hill and the incoming Administration?
I absolutely think so. I totally understand and appreciate why no business would want to advocate against policies that help them. I see that and I understand how my logic sounds broken in saying that you should be willing to do that.
But the reality is there is no way that the IRA and IIJA go entirely and completely untouched and that those programs live on forever. So you need to be able to differentiate between the programs that are really meaningful to your company's bottom line or your industry's ability to grow a domestic supply chain with those that you’d like to have but aren’t essential.
You have to do that for two reasons. One, as you mentioned, is that these are pay-fors. They are looking for cuts to pay for their campaign promises and priorities. The other, and I saw this when I was working on the Hill, is you just lack credibility if you say that every single thing is important. If everything matters, nothing matters.
So be clear about what's really driving investment and what is nice, but ultimately not essential. And be willing to be honest about that with policymakers. They'll respect you more if you're able to have that nuanced conversation.
Q: When should companies be having these conversations?
Conversations around reconciliation and the IRA have already started in Republican circles on the Hill. You’ll recall that the House Ways and Means Committee created several tax teams to prepare for a potential opportunity at reconciliation. And while there are differences of opinion and competing positions within the House and Senate Republican caucus and between the chambers, members are thinking about these issues. It’s top of mind, notwithstanding when they can actually write a bill and get the votes to pass it.
So engagement early, engagement often, yes. But also targeted engagement. Thoughtful and specific engagement. Understand who you're talking to, what you're talking to them about, and why. Just walking around and telling Republicans that they should be super excited about some of the investments that have come out of the IRA isn’t necessarily useful. Understand what their state looks like. Understand what industries are creating jobs in that state. Be aware of what projects have been deployed since the IIJA or how a major investment took advantage of funding from that bill or tax advantages from the IRA.
What doesn’t work is the idea that this is good and if you don't agree with me, you hate the Earth. Some people think that kind of hyperbole makes your point stronger. And actually with Republicans, it makes people think that you're not credible.
Q: There’s been a lot of news around President-elect Trump’s Cabinet. Obviously the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, Treasury, and the Department of the Interior are central to energy and climate policy. What other Cabinet appointments should we be paying attention to?
One of the most important to clean energy is the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and whether or not the OMB nominee, Russ Vought is able to move forward with his strategy of not executing on programs using appropriated funds as directed by Congress.
He’s put forward the argument that the Impoundment Control Act itself is unconstitutional. Now, why does that matter to clean tech? Well, the Impoundment Control Act essentially says that when Congress authorizes programs and appropriates funds to execute on those programs, the executive branch does not have discretion to choose not to carry those out. So the executive branch can't just say, we understand that the IRA, or the IIJA allocated all these funds to DOE or Department of Transportation, or wherever, but we don't think they're necessary. So we're not going to spend those. Under current law, that's not permissible. So even if the Trump Administration doesn’t like a lot of the programs that have been enacted over the past couple of years, their hands are tied because of the Impoundment Control Act.
But Vought is saying the Impoundment Control Act itself is unconstitutional. In that case, the Administration may not actually move forward to spend some or any of those appropriated funds. If so, that would ultimately end up in the courts, but in any case it would certainly lead to a lot of uncertainty for companies and complicate the first three, six, nine months of the new administration.
Thanks Shane. This is obviously a really dynamic time and there is a lot to consider - thanks for helping us make sense of it and get a better understanding of the Republican perspective!
Clean Tech Action in the Lame Duck
Both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue have been busy during the first few weeks of the lame duck, including taking several actions on clean tech issues. We’ve got you covered with a rundown of some of the most important updates:
🪨The House, returning to Washington just after the 2024 election, passed bills regarding critical minerals and geothermal policies. H.R. 7409, the Harnessing Energy at Thermal Sources (HEATS) Act, passed the House 225-181. The bill would streamline permitting and environmental reviews for geothermal activities, such as drilling, on state and private lands. H.R. 8446, the Critical Mineral Consistency Act, passed the House 245-155, this bill would combine the U.S. Department of Energy’s list of critical minerals with that of the U.S. Geological Survey.
💰The Treasury Department released final rules for IRA Direct Pay provisions that enable tax-exempt organizations, state and local governments, Tribes and territories, and rural electric cooperatives to access the full value of clean energy incentives.
🇨🇳The Department of Homeland Security added 29 new companies to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List, including several that produce nonferrous metals, critical minerals, and polysilicon used in lithium ion batteries and solar and EV supply chains. In a recent press release, Rep John Moolenaar (R-MI) tied two of the companies, Xinjiang Nonferrous and Xinjiang Joinworld, to Chinese battery maker Gotion. Sheffield Hallam University’s “Driving Force” report detailing automotive supply chains and forced Labor in China’s Uyghur region has also linked these companies to Xinjiang Asia-Europe Rare Metal Co., which supplies China Energy Lithium Co., which in turn “partners” with battery and auto manufacturers such as CATL, Daimler, BMW, and Honda.
🇨🇳Rep. Moolenaar also introduced a measure to suspend recently published IRS guidance on the 45X Advanced Manufacturing Production tax credit. Rep. Moolenaar was joined by Democratic colleague Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) to propose that current tax credit guidance “shall have no force or effect.” This would make the Biden Administration’s guidance on 45X null and void and would require a rewrite of the guidance by the incoming Trump Administration.
🇨🇳Rep. Moolenaar, as the Chair of the House CCP Committee, has taken aim at China through legislation that would restrict access to many clean energy tax credits, the No Official Giveaways Of Taxpayers’ Income to Oppressive Nations Act, or NO GOTION Act, would deny clean energy tax credit benefits to companies connected to countries of concern, such as China. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) introduced a similar measure in the Senate. Rep. Moolenaar unveiled legislation to revoke permanent normal trade relations with China as Republicans eye a major overhaul of United States trade policy with China. The Restoring Trade Fairness Act would create a new tariff column for China and apply a 35 percent tariff on non-strategic goods and a 100 percent tariff on deemed “strategic goods.”
🇨🇳As mentioned in our September edition, Congress has been busy in this space. Bipartisan and bicameral bills have been introduced to restrict access to the 45X tax credit from foreign entities of concern (FEOCs). In the Senate, Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Jon Ossoff (D-GA) came together on legislation that would restrict 45X benefits from FEOCs. Sen. Rubo (R-FL) and Rep. Carol Miller (R-WV) introduced bicameral legislation to prohibit companies associated with FEOCs from receiving the 45X tax credit.
💨On November 12, the EPA finalized a rule to reduce methane emissions and drive innovation in the oil and gas sector as part of the Biden Administration’s Methane Emissions Reduction Program (MERP). This comes as Republicans consider rolling back Biden Administration initiatives that they believe to be harmful to energy production, specifically in the oil and gas sector, as they prepare to control Congress and the White House come January. Even so, industry has been staunch, vocal supporters of measures to assist and incentivize the reduction of methane emissions.
☀️The Department of Commerce announced its preliminary determinations in the antidumping duty (AD) investigations of Crystalline Photovoltaic Cells Whether or Not Assembled into Modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. Likely putting upward pressure on U.S. solar prices, the preliminary AD rates came in much higher than anticipated at ~117% for Cambodia, ~18% for Malaysia, ~58% for Thailand, and ~271% for Vietnam. Commerce is conducting a concurrent countervailing duty investigation.
Government Financing: November’s Awards
The U.S. Government announced more than $19.5 billion 🤑in new grants, loans, and loan conditional commitments in November. Here’s the comprehensive rundown of the sectors and recipients that were funded.
🚗DOE LPO: $6.57 billion loan conditional commitment to Rivian to finance the construction of an EV manufacturing facility in Georgia.
⚡️DOE LPO: $4.9 billion loan conditional commitment to the Grain Belt Express, an affiliate of Invenergy, to finance a high-voltage direct current transmission project from Ford County, Kansas to Callaway County, Missouri.
🔋DOE LPO: $1.3 billion closed loan to Entek to finance the construction of a manufacturing facility for lithium ion battery separator.
Ⓗ DOE OCED: $1.2 billion for the Gulf Coast Hydrogen Hub, led by HyVelocity
🏭DOT FHWA: $1.2 billion in grants to 39 State Departments of Transportation under the Low Carbon Transportation Materials Discretionary Grant Program to purchase American-made low carbon construction materials and products, including asphalt, glass, steel, and concrete for use in transportation projects.
Ⓗ DOE OCED: $1 billion for the Midwest Hydrogen Hub - led by the Midwest Alliance for Clean Hydrogen (MachH2).
⛴️DOT MARAD: $580 million to fund 31 port improvement projects across 15 states and one U.S. territory. Upgrades include the procurement of electric vehicles, cranes, top loaders, forklifts, and associated charging infrastructure.
🚗DOE LPO: $544 million closed loan to SK Siltron to expand American manufacturing of high-quality silicon carbide wafers for electric vehicle (EV) power electronics.
🔋DOE LPO: $475 million closed loan to Li-Cycle to finance the construction of a first-of-its-kind lithium-ion battery resource recovery facility in Rochester, New York.
☀️DOE LPO: $289.7 million loan conditional commitment to Sunwealth to finance the deployment of up to 1,000 solar PV systems and battery energy storage systems, creating a wide-scale virtual power plant.
🏭DOE OCED: $95 million in total federal cost share, $4 million in Phase 1, to Delek US Holdings to deploy a carbon capture system on their Big Spring Refinery in Texas.
☀️🔋DOE OCED: $95 million in total federal cost share, $14.6 million in Phase 1 to Barrick Gold Corporation and Newmont Corporation to build 100 MW of solar PV and 248 MWh or BESS at their operations in Nevada.
🏭DOE OCED: $86.9 million in total federal cost share, $12.7 million in Phase 1, to Sublime Systems to build a new ultra-low carbon cement manufacturing facility in Massachusetts.
🚗DOE MESC: $70.8 million to support federal partnerships with state and local governments to support small and medium sized manufacturers across the automotive, battery recycling and smart manufacturing sectors.
🏭DOE OCED: $67.3 million in total federal cost share, $3 million in Phase 1, to Real Alloy Recycling to construct a Zero Waste Advanced Aluminum Recycling project in Indiana.
☀️🔋DOE OCED: $54.8 million in total federal cost share, $9 million in Phase 1, to Northwest Arctic Borough to install more than 2.7 MW of solar PV, more than 7.5 MWh of battery energy storage systems, and 850 heat pumps across 11 villages in the Northwest Arctic Region.
🔋EXIM: $51 million to Electrovaya USA, a leading lithium-ion battery technology and manufacturing company, to support the interior construction of and procure equipment for a manufacturing facility in New York.
🔋DOE OCED: $29.7 million in total federal cost share, $3 million in Phase 1 to the Dairyland Power Cooperative to develop and build three BESS using a vanadium flow battery system to provide up to 700 kW of power for up to 10 hours to improve grid resiliency and reliability in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin.
🏭DOE OCED: $22.3 million to Golden Aluminum to upgrade its Colorado facility using the Nexcast process.
🌽DOE EERE and FECM: $20.2 million in funding for 10 university and industry projects to advance mixed algae development for low-carbon biofuels and bioproducts.
⚡️DOE SCEP: $17.7 million to 61 local and territorial governments to improve energy efficiency and lower overall energy use.
💦DOE EERE: $15 million to nine R&D projects to increase hydropower’s ability to respond to changing demand on the electric grid.
ⒽEXIM: $10 million to FuelCell Energy Inc to support the financing of fuel cell modules that will be exported to the Hwaseong Baran Industrial Complex in South Korea.
⚡️DOE OCED: $5 million to Dallas County Schools in Alabama to support energy-efficient retrofits at up to 9 schools.
☢️DOE NE: $5 million to Radiant Industries and Westinghouse to progress their microreactor designs for testing in the new Demonstration of Microreactor Experiments (DOME) test bed at Idaho National Laboratory.
💻DOE EERE: $4 million for 10 projects across 8 states that will apply advanced modeling, simulation, and data analysis to projects that improve manufacturing efficiency, reduce industrial emissions, and explore new materials and manufacturing processes for clean energy applications.
Government Financing: November’s Opportunities
The U.S. Government announced more than $170 million in new clean tech funding opportunities in November. Here’s the comprehensive rundown of the funding opportunities.
⚡️DOE ARPA-E: $38 million to develop next-generation transmission infrastructure. Concept papers are due December 10, 2024.
🪨DOE ARPA-E: $36 million to unlock critical mineral resources from wastewater. Concept Papers are due December 31, 2024.
💻DOE ARPA-E: $35 million to combine AI and Autonomous labs to accelerate industrial decarbonization. Concept papers are due December 17, 2024.
⚡️DOE GDO: $30 million to accelerate the interconnection process for new energy generation through the introduction of artificial intelligence techniques. The new Artificial Intelligence for Interconnection (AI4IX) program will develop partnerships between software developers, grid operators, and energy project developers to modernize the interconnection application process. Applications for the first round of AI4IX funding are due by January 10, 2025.
☢️DOE NE: $16 million to support research development, and licensing of HALEU transportation packages. Applications are due January 21, 2025.
🪨DOE AMMTO: $10 million to accelerate the early-stage technology research and development necessary to reduce material criticality for energy innovations requiring critical materials. Concept papers are due by 6:00 p.m. ET on Dec. 20, 2024.
💻DOE EERE: $3.4 million for High Performance Computing for Energy Innovation. Applications are due December 11, 2024.
☀️DOE EERE: Up to $300,000 for four to eight organizations with expertise on key renewable energy and energy storage planning, siting, and permitting topics to provide technical assistance (TA) to previously selected State-Based Collaboratives awarded under the Renewable Energy Siting through Technical Engagement and Planning (R-STEP™) program. Applications are due by Jan. 9, 2025
🔋DOE OE: $300,000 for Energy Storage Innovation Prize awards for individuals, academia, non-federal government entities, small businesses, start-ups, entrepreneurs, and other inventors in the U.S. working on nascent or emerging energy storage innovations that address less conventional use cases to submit their energy storage solutions. Applications due April 20, 2025.
⚡️DOE SBIR Release 2 Topics have been announced for CESAR, FECM, OE, EERE, EM, NNSA, and NE topics. FOAs will be issued on December 16, 2024. Webinars will be held December 19 and 20. Letters of intent due on January 7, 2025
⚡️DOD DARPA: DARPA's Strategic Technology Office is seeking innovative ideas and disruptive technologies that provide the U.S. military and national security leaders with trusted, disruptive capabilities. Specific areas of interest include high voltage electric power systems and architecture. The deadline is December 14, 2024.
🤓 What We’re Reading 🤓
Republican Introduces Bill to Revoke Normal Trade Relations with China
Uranium Prices jump after Russia Restricts Exports to USA
Australian Miner Sayona acquires U.S. Piedmont Lithium
U.S. Utilities want Republicans to save IRA EV Tax Credits
Commerce Revises CVD Rates for Jinko Solar Malaysia
EPA announces proposal for West Virginia state primacy for Class VI Well Permitting
The EPA’s 50th Anniversary Automotive Trends Report
White House Releases Roadmap to Triple Nuclear Capacity by 2050
The U.S. Climate Alliance released a video from leading Democratic governors recommitting to action on climate change at the state level
