Renewable Energy

San Francisco, United States – Just weeks ago, Brandon Praileau, a pastor from Norfolk, Virginia, was speaking to families in his community about a federally funded programme that would help them install rooftop solar units in their homes. The government funds would take care of their installation costs, and once installed, lower the burden of rising electricity costs, a pressing concern.

Then, Praileau heard the federal government had scrapped the $7bn Solar For All programme through which his project and other solar projects across the country were to be funded, leaving them stranded.

It is one of several federally funded renewable energy projects that have been scrapped or will end early, veering off the country’s planned shift to renewable energy, also making it harder to meet climate goals.

Praileau, Virginia programme director for Solar United Neighbors, had been helping roll out the project that received $156m in federal funds to support 7,500 low- and middle-income families with solar installation. Praileau say he was “mind blown” by the sudden withdrawal.

The federal government will also end the 30 percent tax credit for solar rooftop installation in homes this December. For businesses, these tax credits will only be available if they start construction of factories, malls or other businesses, for which the solar installations are meant, by June 2026.

The Department of Energy also withdrew $13bn in funding from a range of other renewable energy projects, including upgrading power grids, carbon-neutral cement production, and battery energy storage. The administration also ended several funding initiatives for wind energy.

President Trump has said, “We’re not going to be approving windmills unless something happens that’s an emergency.”

This could lead to a $114bn loss in delays or cancellation of wind energy projects, according to an April 2025 report by BloombergNEF.

In Florida, intake forms for 10,000 low- and middle-income households to enrol for federal subsidies to get solar units installed on their rooftops were ready when the $156m project was scrapped in August.

A resident of Miami-Dade County had told volunteers who were helping her fill in the forms to enrol for the grant that she was “scared to use power. I am scared to put on air conditioning”, because the steep rise in power costs in the state had put it out of reach for her.

Power costs in the state are up 60 percent for some residents since 2019, Heaven Campbell, Florida programme director of Solar United Neighbors, which was working on implementing the project, told Al Jazeera.

Other states have also seen varying power cost hikes due to hurricanes and the war in Ukraine, which made Russian natural gas more expensive.

Florida Power and Light, the utilities provider, has also currently made a case to increase rates further to raise nearly $10bn over the next four years, according to Florida’s Office of Public Counsel.

Solar United’s staff has tried to educate residents that not using power could get them disconnected, and reconnecting comes with a fee.

Early ending of the tax credit will mean “consumers are stuck at the mercy of utilities”, and their rising rates, says Bernadette Del Chiaro, senior vice president for California at the Environmental Working Group.

‘Rain shadow impact’

With the solar rooftop tax credits set to expire in December, there has been a scramble to install, and some solar installers say they are having to turn away customers.

“We will see the rain shadow impact of this in 2026,” Del Chiaro says, referring to a sharp drop in business and jobs that the industry is steeling itself for next year.

“This is a big plunge on the solar coaster,” says Barry Cinnamon, chief executive of Cinnamon Energy Systems, a San Francisco-based solar installation company.

Ed Murray, president of the California Solar and Storage Association, told Al Jazeera he expects the elimination of tax credits to double the payback time for installation and other costs associated with the solar units to up to 12 years.

It would also lead to job losses for thousands of skilled workers in the sector, Murray said, even as the air quality is likely to worsen and the state is expected to fail to meet its climate goals.

In its announcement withdrawing from these projects, the Department of Energy notification said the projects “advance the previous Administration’s wasteful Green New Scam agenda”.

In the statement, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said that, “By returning these funds to the American taxpayer, the Trump administration is affirming its commitment to advancing more affordable, reliable and secure American energy and being more responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.”

Critics of solar projects have said they drive up costs for households still on the power grid because solar customers pay less to utilities but still use that power when needed.

The Trump administration has, instead, supported oil and gas production through several measures, including plans to open up the entire Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil and gas leasing recently. It has also eased permitting for drilling on federal lands.

Rising costs

The Biden administration had funded renewable energy projects under what it called the Green New Deal, a programme to accelerate economic growth and job creation while having a positive climate impact.

But even as these projects began rolling out, power costs have risen sharply in many states, including Virginia.

A recent study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that the rise in power costs had outpaced inflation in 26 states and listed a range of factors for it, including the Ukraine war and extreme weather factors such as wildfires and hurricanes that have damaged an already ageing electric poles and grid.

For instance, prices in California have risen more than 34 percent since 2019, the study says, in part because the record-breaking wildfires forced utilities to replace and strengthen their power lines. Federal funding of $630m to strengthen grids in California was among the projects scrapped by the Department of Energy.

“A majority of the projects that were scrapped were mid-implementation,” says Ryan Schleeter, communications director of The Climate Center, a California-based think tank.

Federal incentives also meant that more than 20 percent of the cars sold in the state over the last two years had been electric vehicles (EVs). These allowed middle-income families to buy EVs, Schleeter says. With incentives having ended on September 30, “the central challenge will be how to be equitable,” he says.

Susan Stephenson, executive director of California Power and Light, which supports places of worship to have renewable energy, says several places of worship that had planned to move to solar energy or install EV charging stations are now struggling to find installers and have seen costs going up beyond their initial budget due to federal cuts.

In Virginia, Praileau says power costs came up as one of the greatest concerns in his interactions with his congregants. The state has among the most data centres in the country, and Praileau believes that could be a reason for rising costs.

Voter dissatisfaction over rising power costs has been among the top issues in the governor’s elections in the state that went to the polls on November 4. One of the promises that Abigail Spanberger, the Democrat candidate who won, had made was to reduce power costs by increasing energy production and getting data centres to pay a higher share of power costs.

Praileau hopes the solar project, the cuts to which are already being litigated, can also be revived by the new governor. In Florida, too, there is ongoing litigation on the federal funding cuts.

Several states, including California, have announced their own rollbacks on renewable energy incentives.

But with funding withdrawals hurting residents, Steve Larson, a former executive director of the California Public Utilities Commission, expects more litigation to restore programmes and mastering “techniques of delay”, for federal cuts in grants and to allow renewable energy projects to keep going.

The 30th annual United Nations climate change conference (COP30) begins on Monday in the Brazilian city of Belem. About 50,000 people from more than 190 countries, including diplomats and climate experts, are expected to attend the 11-day meeting in the Amazon.

Delegates are expected to discuss the climate crisis and its devastating impacts, including the rising frequency of extreme weather.

The hosts have a packed agenda with 145 meetings planned to discuss the green fuel transition and global warming as well as the failure to implement past promises.

Andre Correa do Lago, president of this year’s conference, emphasised that negotiators engage in “mutirao”, a Brazilian word derived from an Indigenous word that refers to a group uniting to work on a shared task.

“Either we decide to change by choice, together, or we will be imposed change by tragedy,” do Lago wrote in his letter to negotiators on Sunday. “We can change. But we must do it together.”

What is COP?

COP is the abbreviation for the Conference of the Parties to the Convention, which refers to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a treaty adopted in 1992 that formally acknowledged climate change as a global threat.

The treaty also enshrined the principle of “common but differentiated responsibility”, meaning that rich countries responsible for the bulk of carbon dioxide emissions should bear the greatest responsibility for solving the problem.

The UNFCCC formally went into force in 1994 and has become the basis for international deals, such as the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, designed to limit global temperature increases to about 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2100 to avoid the most catastrophic effects of global warming.

The first COP summit was held in the German capital, Berlin, in 1995. The rotating presidency, now held by Brazil, sets the agenda and hosts the two-week summit, drawing global attention to climate change while trying to corral member states to agree to new climate measures.

What’s on the agenda this year?

Brazil wants to gather pledges of $25bn and attract a further $100bn from the global financial markets for a Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF), which would provide financing for biodiversity conservation, including reducing deforestation.

Brazil has also asked countries to work on realising past promises, such as COP28’s pledge to phase out fossil fuel use. Indeed, the Brazilian government’s overarching goal for this COP is “implementation” rather than setting new goals.

“Our role at COP30 is to create a roadmap for the next decade to accelerate implementation,” Ana Tonix, the chief executive of COP30, was quoted as saying in The Guardian newspaper.

At a summit last week before COP30, Brazilian President Lula Inacio Lula da Silva said: “I am convinced that despite our difficulties and contradictions, we need roadmaps to reverse deforestation, overcome dependence on fossil fuels and mobilise the resources necessary for these objectives.”

In a letter to negotiators released late on Sunday, Simon Stiell, the UN climate chief, said the 10-year-old Paris Agreement is working to a degree “but we must accelerate in the Amazon. Devastating climate damages are happening already – from Hurricane Melissa hitting the Caribbean, super typhoons smashing Vietnam and the Philippines to a tornado ripping through southern Brazil.”

Not only must nations do more faster but they “must connect climate action to people’s real lives”, Stiell wrote.

COP30 is also the first to acknowledge the failure to so far prevent global warming.

Who will participate?

More than 50,000 people have registered to attend this year’s COP in Belem, including journalists, climate scientists, Indigenous leaders and representatives from 195 countries.

Some of the more prominent official group voices will include the Alliance of Small Island States, the G77 bloc of developing countries and the BASIC Group, consisting of Brazil, South Africa, India and China.

In September, United States President Donald Trump told the UN General Assembly that climate change was “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world”, based on “predictions … made by stupid people”.

Trump’s aggressive approach to deny the climate crisis has further complicated the agenda at the conference, which will have no representation from Washington. Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement twice – once during his first term, which was overturned by former President Joe Biden, and a second time on January 20, 2025, the day his second term began. He cited the economic burden of climate initiatives on the US. Trump has called climate change a “hoax”.

The US historically has put more heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the air from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas than any other country. On an annual basis, however, the biggest carbon polluter now is China.

COP30 organisers have been criticised for the exorbitant prices of hotel rooms in Belem, which has just 18,000 hotel beds. Brazil’s government has stepped in, offering free cabins on cruise ships to poorer nations in a last-minute bid to ensure they can attend.

As of November 1, only 149 countries had confirmed lodging. The Brazilian government said 37 were still negotiating. Meanwhile, business leaders have decamped to host their own events in the cities of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.

Brazil has also been slammed for clearing forest to build a new road to reach the conference venue.

What progress has been made since last year’s summit?

Renewables, led by solar and wind, accounted for more than 90 percent of new power capacity added worldwide last year, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency. Solar energy has now become the cheapest form of electricity in history.

Meanwhile, one in five of new cars sold around the world last year was electric, and there are now more jobs in clean energy than in fossil fuels, according to the UN.

Elsewhere, the International Energy Agency has estimated that global clean-energy investment will reach $2.2 trillion this year, which would be about twice as much as on fossil fuel spending.

At the same time, global temperatures are not just rising, they are climbing faster than ever with new records logged for 2023 and 2024. That finding was part of a study done every few years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The new research shows the average global temperature rising at a rate of 0.27C (0.49F) each decade, almost 50 percent faster than in the 1990s and 2000s when the warming rate was around 0.2C (0.36F) per decade.

The world is now on track to cross the 1.5C threshold by 2030, after which scientists warn that humanity will trigger irreversible climate impacts. Already, the planet has warmed by 1.3C (2.34F) since the pre-industrial era, according to the World Meteorological Organization.

At the same time, governments around the world spend about $1 trillion each year subsidising fossil fuels.

At a preparatory summit with dozens of heads of state and government, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said: “The hard truth is that we have failed to ensure we remain below 1.5 degrees.”

“Science now tells us that a temporary overshoot beyond the 1.5 limit – starting at the latest in the early 2030s – is inevitable. We need a paradigm shift to limit this overshoot’s magnitude and duration and quickly drive it down,” he said on Thursday.

“Even a temporary overshoot will have dramatic consequences. It could push ecosystems past irreversible tipping points, expose billions to unliveable conditions and amplify threats to peace and security.”

How did climate change affect the world in 2025?

The India-Pakistan heatwave began unusually early, in April this year. By June, temperatures had reached a peak of about 48C (118.4F) in the Indian state of Rajasthan. Hundreds of lives were lost, and crops were decimated.

Europe also faced extreme heat this year. Over the summer, the region endured a heatwave that pushed cities like Lisbon past 46C  (114.8F). In London, a prolonged period of elevated temperatures in late June caused an estimated excess 260 deaths.

At the same time, Mediterranean wildfires ravaged large tracts of Southern Europe with more than 100,000 people evacuated and dozens of deaths.

Turkiye suffered one of its worst droughts in decades, hitting agricultural areas. Rainfall dropped by up to 71 percent in some areas compared with the previous year, stressing ecosystems and energy and food production.

In July, one of Brazil’s last coal plants in Candiota resumed operations after significant investment from Ambar, owned by billionaires Wesley and Joesley Batista. They believe that Brazil will continue to use coal despite having over 80% of its electricity from renewable sources. As Brazil prepares to host the UN climate summit COP30, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva expressed concern that the war in Ukraine has revived coal mining.

Coal plants, including Candiota, still supply 3% of Brazil’s electricity, highlighting the influence of special interest groups and the absence of a proper transition plan away from coal. Experts like Christine Shearer from Global Energy Monitor argue that Brazil has the resources to phase out coal, but the strong coal lobby in mining regions keeps these plants running.

The Candiota plant lost its government contract last year, leading to local economic downturns and outmigration. It now sells energy on the spot market during peak hours when solar and wind energy are less available. Nevertheless, Brazil’s Congress recently passed a bill allowing coal plants to operate until 2040, which Lula could potentially veto. The government also made coal eligible for a capacity auction aimed at improving energy security by using thermal plants during low renewable output.

Critics note that including coal in these plans contradicts the goal of energy flexibility, as coal plants cannot start quickly. They argue that poor long-term planning allows coal to persist, despite a surplus of clean energy that goes underutilized due to inadequate demand and transmission infrastructure. This situation makes the government susceptible to coal and natural gas lobbying, leading to higher financial and environmental costs.

Ambar asserts that coal from the Candiota plant is reliable and necessary for power supply, denying claims of relying on political influence. They also argue that critics prioritize the interests of large energy consumers over those of smaller entities and the broader public. Keeping coal operational aligns Brazil with countries like India and South Africa, where strong lobby groups impede efforts to transition away from coal, which is crucial to local economies.

Shutting down Candiota could result in around 10,000 job losses in the region. Local coal miner Jose Adolfo de Carvalho asserts that eliminating the plant won’t significantly impact global carbon issues. The future of the plant causes anxiety among residents, with former employee Graca dos Santos emphasizing the need for a just energy transition to avoid leaving the community jobless.

Lula’s administration lacks a transition plan for Candiota, and little progress has been made in strategizing for other coal facilities. Some suggest diversifying into sectors like beef, wine, and olive oil, which could provide new jobs for former coal workers. Local union leader Hermelindo Ferreira highlights the potential job losses from shutting down Candiota while recognizing that faith in the coal industry is wavering. Ferreira encourages workers to gain new skills, such as maintenance for wind energy, as a way to adapt to future opportunities.

With information from Reuters