Joseph Krist

Publisher

WIND BLOWS AGAIN

It appears that five wind turbine projects off the east coast of the US which were halted by President Trump by executive action will be resuming construction.

So far, judges have allowed Revolution Wind near Rhode Island, Empire Wind near New York and the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project to get back to work. The latest case involved Vineyard Wind near Massachusetts. Sunrise Wind, the fifth project affected by the December stop-work order, will argue for a preliminary injunction in court on Feb. 2.

In December, the Trump administration said that it would suspend the authority of five previously approved offshore wind projects to build. The projects had received federal financial support under the Biden administration. Federal judges have been issuing preliminary injunctions against the actions which shut down construction. Federal judges have been issuing preliminary injunctions against the actions which shut down construction.

In issuing the preliminary injunction, the judge found that the government “failed to provide a reasonable explanation for why it had to stop construction,” meaning, he added, the action was “likely arbitrary and capricious.” Under the December stop-work order, Vineyard Wind was given permission to continue producing power from its 44 operational turbines. The government says that operation of wind turbines offshore raises national security issues. That led to judge to conclude that construction is not an issue since the government did not contend that it was.

ARTS AND NEW REALITIES

For many cultural and entertainment entities, the recovery from the economic impacts of the pandemic has been painfully slow. The resulting declines in attendance have reduced revenues at a time when increases in operating expenses continue. This has forced these institutions to face some difficult choices including sales of art by museums, reductions in the number of productions/exhibitions, and draws on endowments. In some cases, layoffs are the only choice.

In 2025, the Guggenheim Museum in NYC laid off 20 people and provided little to no notice. The Brooklyn Museum also announced layoffs due to a shortfall in revenue, but those layoffs were paused. In Los Angeles, the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art, projected to open sometime in 2026, laid off 22 employees. The American Alliance of Museums released a 2025 report that found more than half of museums are seeing fewer visitors than they did in 2019.

Two well-known institutions were in the news as they announced steps to deal with their financial problems. The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston notified employees of upcoming layoffs taking effect immediately. There are 520 employees at the museum, and the institution said it plans to reduce 6.3% of its workforce. More than 30 museum positions will be affected. It still has an Aa2 rating.

The Metropolitan Opera is the largest performing arts organization in the country. This has not insulated it from financial difficulties. The Met announced on Tuesday that it would lay off workers, cut the salaries of its top-paid executives and postpone a new production from its coming season. The immediate catalyst was concern that one of the Met’s latest financial gambit might not be coming to fruition.

Under a deal with Saudi Arabia, the Saudis agreed to subsidize the Met in exchange for the company performing at the Royal Diriyah Opera House near Riyadh three weeks each winter. The deal was one component of the Met’s effort to increase its revenues. It is also considering selling the naming rights to its theater, as well as possible affiliations with corporations that might want their names affixed to the house.

The cuts announced are expected to save $15 million this fiscal year and another $25 million the next. They include 22 administrative posts out of a total of 284 administrative positions. The Met’s payroll includes upward of 3,000 people. The 35 executives who make more than $150,000 a year will see graduated cuts in their pay of 4 percent to 15 percent. employees were told their full pay would be revived by August 2027, or sooner if the Met’s financial situation improved.

The moves follow two downgrades by Moody’s in 2025 which lowered the Met’s rating to B1. It is still on negative outlook. The plans announced touch on many of the issues cited by Moody’s in their downgrade action.

SMALL TOWN LAW ENFORCEMENT RISKS

The U.S. Supreme Court denied a request from Miami Township in Montgomery County, OH for an order telling a lower court to review its previous decision in its effort to get a $45 million judgment reduced or overturned.  An individual won a judgment in 2022 in a federal lawsuit he lodged against the township and a former detective. (It was a wrongful imprisonment case.)

In a 1978 decision (Monell), the Court held that municipalities “can be sued directly under  for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief where, as here, the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers.” By the same token, municipalities “may be sued for constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to governmental ‘custom’ even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body’s official decision making channels.”

Ohio law requires a political subdivision to indemnify an employee for certain qualifying judgments. This includes civil-rights judgments under federal law. The statute places no cap or limit on the indemnification and provides no mechanism for local subdivisions to receive necessary funds from the State. Miami Township, Ohio has been ordered to indemnify a $45 million judgment against a former employee – an amount more than 10 times the Township’s General Fund annual budget.

The township argued there was a constitutional conflict between governing federal civil rights law and Ohio’s state indemnification statute covering political subdivisions. The latter requires a political subdivision, or a local government entity, to defend employees sued for actions taken while doing their job, using public funds or insurance, according to the Ohio revised code.

Plaintiff initially included a claim against Miami Township in his original complaint. But the district court granted summary judgment to the Township on that claim because plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a municipal policy or custom under Monell. Plaintiff then proceeded to trial with the municipal employee as the sole defendant and won a $45 million judgment on his two claims against that employee.

Yet the Township is now on the hook for that entire $45 million judgment, notwithstanding the dismissal of plaintiff’s claim against the Township under Monell. The Township’s liability resulted from the mechanical operation of Ohio’s state-law indemnification framework. That state-law regime renders the Township liable for the entire judgment based purely on the officer’s status as a Township employee, thus altering the scope of Section 1983 liability from what Congress chose to impose.

The township also cannot rely on insurance because its insurer went bankrupt in 2003 for incidents from the early 1990s.

CLIMATE SUPERFUNDS

Two states—New York and Vermont—have already passed climate superfund laws. The New York and Vermont laws are both facing legal challenges from the fossil fuel industry and the U.S. Department of Justice. This month, a climate superfund bill was introduced in Rhode Island. This week, a councilmember in Washington, D.C., announced a bill to study the financial impacts of climate change on the city and potentially require compensation from fossil-fuel companies.

In addition, a superfund bill in Maine was voted out of committee and will proceed to a full vote in the state Senate. Now legislation will be introduced in the Illinois legislature to  establish a superfund structure. The American Petroleum Institute included fighting superfund legislation in its list of 2026 priorities, claiming the laws would “bypass Congress and threaten affordability.”

HOSPITALS AND LABOR

The pressure on the sector continues to build as employees are making significant demands to address staffing cutbacks and inflation. The three hospitals in NY which are the target of strikes saw those disputes continue. The New York State Nurses Association said contract negotiations resumed with officials at the three private hospital systems impacted by the strike: Montefiore, Mount Sinai and New York-Presbyterian.

Now, an estimated 31,000 registered nurses and other front-line Kaiser Permanente health care workers launched an open-ended strike this week in California and Hawaii to demand better wages and staffing. A five-day strike in October ended with negotiations resuming, but talks broke down in December. They are asking for a 25% wage increase over four years to make up for wages they say are at least 7% behind their peers. Adding to the complexity of the situation, negotiations are occurring on both a national and local level.  

Kaiser said it paused national bargaining last month after what it described as a threatening incident involving a union official. The union has agreed to return to local bargaining, even as workers moved forward with the strike. 

NUCLEAR

The Kewaunee Power Station is a partially decommissioned nuclear power plant, located on a 900 acres plot in the town of Carlton, Wisconsin, 27 miles southeast of Green Bay, Wisconsin in Kewaunee County, and south of the city of Kewaunee. It shut its doors back in 2013. It’s currently in the decommissioning process.

Energy Solutions. a provider of nuclear services based in Salt Lake City, Utah, submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) a Notice of Intent (NOI) confirming its plans to submit an application for a major licensing action for new nuclear generation at the Kewaunee Power Station (KPS) site. Studies are being conducted that will support the application to demonstrate the site’s suitability for new nuclear construction. This is a prerequisite to the development and securing of NRC approvals for this project.

Initial public reaction was positive as the locals view the plant as a source of jobs and tax revenues which was lost when the original plant closed. It is a case that is being made in association with other nuclear expansion at other locations.

Disclaimer:  The opinions and statements expressed in this column are solely those of the author, who is solely responsible for the accuracy and completeness of this column.  The opinions and statements expressed on this website are for informational purposes only, and are not intended to provide investment advice or guidance in any way and do not represent a solicitation to buy, sell or hold any of the securities mentioned.  Opinions and statements expressed reflect only the view or judgment of the author(s) at the time of publication, and are subject to change without notice.  Information has been derived from sources deemed to be reliable, but the reliability of which is not guaranteed.  Readers are encouraged to obtain official statements and other disclosure documents on their own and/or to consult with their own investment professional and advisors prior to making any investment decisions.

Joseph Krist

Publisher

CLIMATE LITIGATION

The Supreme Court heard arguments in connection with more than 40 lawsuits filed by Louisiana officials seeking to hold energy companies liable for environmental damage linked to oil and gas production. In April, a jury awarded Plaquemines Parish near New Orleans, the state’s southernmost parish, $745 million in one of those cases. The Trump administration has joined the case in support of the oil companies and will argue alongside them before the court. Only eight of the nine justices will be weighing the matter.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. recused himself, citing his financial interest in ConocoPhillips, the parent corporation of Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company. The justices could also announce whether they will hear a challenge to a Colorado Supreme Court decision allowing a case brought by Boulder to continue in state court. That suit was first filed in 2018. In May, the State Supreme Court ruled 5 to 2, that the plaintiffs’ claims were not pre-empted by federal law, striking down a central argument that the companies have employed in their defense.

The case before the court is a narrow, technical point. The oil companies have claimed that the disputes should be heard in federal court because of a law known as the federal officer removal statute. That law allows federal officers and those acting on their behalf to remove legal disputes that involve their official duties from state court to federal court. The industry has fought to establish its view as to federal jurisdiction as it believes that their issues would be litigated more favorably in federal venues.

Congress has expanded the statute over the years, including with a 2011 amendment that allowed such cases to be transferred to federal court if the dispute involved actions “related to” official duties. A federal trial court judge rejected that argument, finding that the oil companies had failed to show that they extracted the oil under the order of a federal officer. The judge also concluded that the companies hadn’t shown a link between the federal contracts and the oil production at issue in the case.

In separate legal actions, the U.S. government sued California on Wednesday over its law banning fossil fuel development activities within 3,200 feet of homes, schools and other sensitive areas, saying the state law is preempted by federal law since it infringes on the U.S. government’s authority to manage federal lands and mineral resources. It’s an extension of the arguments being advanced by the oil companies in their litigation.

HOSPITAL CONUNDRUMS

The increasingly cloudy funding outlook in the near-term for the overall healthcare sector is having its impact. This week shone a light the nature of different responses to the potential negative impacts of policy changes and funding on hospitals. The first example is the strike by nurses against three of the major hospital systems in the City of New York. The nurses hope to force hospitals to ensure minimum staffing ratios. They are also demanding higher wages and more security at hospitals to reduce violent episodes and shootings.

At the same time, a different path is being taken in California. Alameda Health Care District was formed in 2002 as a local healthcare district and political subdivision of the State of California. The district is coterminous with the boundaries of the City of Alameda, serving an estimated population of 78,000. The district owns, but does not operate, Alameda Hospital, a 101-bed general acute care hospital, and Southshore Convalescent, a 26-bed skilled nursing facility. The district leases Park Ridge Rehabilitation and Wellness Center, a 120-bed skilled nursing facility.

Alameda Health System officials said the estimates it will lose more than $100 million annually by 2030 as a result of the Medicaid cuts. (See California budget above) In a statement, AHS confirmed it will eliminate 247 positions across all departments. 

CALIFORNIA BUDGET

Governor Newsom kicked off the budget process this week. The Governor’s proposal outlines a $348.9 billion balanced budget for the 2026-27 fiscal year. The plan reflects more than $42 billion in additional General Fund revenue over the three-year budget window (2024-25 through 2026-27) compared to last year’s enacted budget. California enters the 2026-27 fiscal year with $23 billion in total reserves, including $14.4 billion in California’s Rainy Day Fund. The budget proposes rebuilding reserves – totaling $23 billion – including a $3 billion deposit into the Rainy Day Fund.

The Budget forecast reflects General Fund revenues that are higher by more than $42 billion over the budget window, from 2024-25 through 2026-27, than projected at the 2025 Budget Act—an increase driven by higher cash receipts, higher stock market levels, and an improved economic outlook. While the Budget is balanced in the 2026-27 fiscal year, with a discretionary reserve of $4.5 billion, it projects a deficit of roughly $22 billion in the 2027-28 fiscal year and shortfalls in the two years following.

The proposal highlights the structural risks inherent in the State’s revenue structure. While the significant revenue increase since the 2025 Budget Act is encouraging, it is important to recognize that much of this surge is attributable to a relatively small number of technology companies that have experienced a substantial increase in their share prices due to investor enthusiasm in artificial intelligence. number of technology companies that have experienced a substantial increase in their share prices due to investor enthusiasm in artificial intelligence. The dominant risk to the Budget is stock market and asset price declines—shocks that disproportionately impact high-income earners.

The impacts of the big, beautiful bill (H.R.1) included significant federal policy changes for Health and Human Services programs that are projected to result in costs of $1.4 billion General Fund in 2026-27. Of this amount, $1.1 billion in additional costs are in Medi-Cal—California’s Medicaid program that provides health care services for more than 14 million low-income Californians. In addition, H.R. 1 will add nearly $300 million in costs to CalFresh—the state’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program providing food purchase assistance for adequate nutrition to more than 3 million California households.

A California initiative was put forward by a state health care union to offset federal budget cuts that threaten California’s health care system. It calls for California residents worth more than $1 billion to be taxed the equivalent of 5 percent of their assets, and would apply retroactively to anyone who lived in the state as of Jan. 1.

First, though, it needs to obtain nearly 900,000 signatures to get on the state ballot in November. The measure is opposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, who has called it bad policy and argued that it would lead billionaires to move out of state.

WATER AND AI

In 2023, U.S. data centers consumed an estimated 17 billion gallons of water, according to federal and industry analyses compiled by the Energy Department and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Hyperscale facilities alone are projected to consume between 16 billion and 33 billion gallons annually by 2028. A single large data center can require roughly 300,000 gallons of water per day depending on cooling technology, climate, and workload intensity.

In many states, data‑center operators are not required to disclose site‑level water consumption or forward‑looking demand projections.  U.S. data centers now make up about 4.4% of electricity consumption nationwide. This is an increase from some 1.9% in 2018. It has been predicted that this could rise to 12% by 2028.

ARIZONA WATER

Arizona’s Attorney General has entered an agreement with Riverview LLP, a Minnesota-based dairy company that moved into one area in SE AZ over the last decade. It quickly accelerated to become a major driver of the Willcox groundwater basin’s decline. Under the agreement, the company is agreeing to reduce its groundwater usage by fallowing 2,000 acres of land and maintaining best practices to conserve water. The company also agreed to deliver $11 million to residents affected by the company’s overpumping that will pay to redrill wells, haul water and ensure the community has access to the critical resource. 

State data shows more than 100,000 acre feet of water is pumped out of the aquifer than is replenished by rain or other sources and that the groundwater has been drawn down so low that it’s beneath the average well depth of the community. It’s just the latest iteration of an all too familiar pattern. A previous agreement was reached with an agriculture company owned by the Saudis that drew down well water to grow alfalfa in the desert.

COLORADO SPRINGS WANTS ITS COAL PLANT

Colorado Springs Utilities is working with local legislators on a bill that would allow the Ray Nixon coal power plant to be exempted from state laws which require it be closed in 2029 and be replaced by cleaner electricity. The Trump administration is challenging the state law under which the plant would close. Colorado officials said they were confident state laws dictating the closure of six remaining coal plants would survive the EPA challenge.

As a municipally owned utility, CSU does not need approval of an extension from the state Public Utilities Commission at least according to CSU. So, it’s not clear why they need an exemption specific to CSU from the state legislature. CSU has been seen as a laggard in efforts to plan for generation with less or no fossil fuels. It doesn’t come as a surprise given the general political environment in Colorado’s most conservative city.

IOWA CARBON CAPTURE

The efforts to regulate carbon capture pipeline development moved along two tracks this week. The U.S. Supreme Court denied a request from Story and Shelby counties requesting a review of a lower court’s ruling that county ordinances pertaining to a carbon sequestration pipeline were preempted by federal pipeline regulations. The adjudication of this case paused similar lawsuits from other counties from progressing. The court did not offer an explanation for the denial. 

The Iowa Legislature has begun another new step in the effort to take up the issue of eminent domain and regulation around carbon sequestration pipelines during the current session. An Iowa House Judiciary subcommittee took up House Study Bill 507, which bans the use of eminent domain for carbon pipelines. It advanced the bill to the full committee. The House passed a similar bill in 2025 to ban the use of eminent domain by carbon capture pipelines, but the Senate did not take up the bill. 

Senate leadership has also indicated it has plans to file a bill that would address the property rights issue by allowing pipeline operators to deviate from their state-approved routes in order to find willing landowners. The Senate has been the continuing barrier to enactment of changes to Iowa’s eminent domain rules. 

Disclaimer:  The opinions and statements expressed in this column are solely those of the author, who is solely responsible for the accuracy and completeness of this column.  The opinions and statements expressed on this website are for informational purposes only, and are not intended to provide investment advice or guidance in any way and do not represent a solicitation to buy, sell or hold any of the securities mentioned.  Opinions and statements expressed reflect only the view or judgment of the author(s) at the time of publication, and are subject to change without notice.  Information has been derived from sources deemed to be reliable, but the reliability of which is not guaranteed.  Readers are encouraged to obtain official statements and other disclosure documents on their own and/or to consult with their own investment professional and advisors prior to making any investment decisions.

Joseph Krist

Publisher

_____________________________________________________

FLORIDA VOUCHER QUESTIONS

The State of Florida has significantly expanded its school voucher programs. These programs are designed to allow less economically well off have the same access to non-traditional schools that others have. In Florida, its voucher program was expanded to greatly increase the amount of income a voucher recipient might have. This has shifted the voucher concept from one of economic empowerment to one where folks already paying private school tuition. In many cases, vouchers merely subsidize people who already were willingly paying tuition.

The Florida program has yielded other problems. Some 500,000 students across Florida, which hosts the nation’s largest school choice effort, have accepted education vouchers toward home or private schooling. It appears that many of the vouchers have sat unused. It’s not clear why. The result is that there are $400 million in vouchers sitting in student accounts. 

In October, it was revealed the state’s 2024-25 education budget had a $47 million shortfall due to its Department of Education paying out funding for 23,000 vouchers to students with unclear enrollment status, either public or private. While there is support for the voucher expansion, legislation will be introduced to make changes in the program to prevent the accumulation of unused vouchers.

COUNTIES AND HEALTH SUBSIDIES

So much of focus, rightly so, has been on the individual stories of beneficiaries of subsidies for the cost of their health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. The potential impact on hospitals also raises concerns. One of the impacts of the diminishment of subsidies that is starting to get more attention is the impact of higher uninsured patients on counties.

A recent paper from the Kaiser Family Foundation highlights the potential impact. County health officials across the country are bracing for an estimated 10 million newly uninsured patients over the next decade in the wake of the

One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The act, which President Donald Trump signed into law this past summer, is also expected to reduce Medicaid spending by an estimated $900 billion over that period.

In California and New Mexico, counties are legally required to help their poorest residents through what are known as indigent care programs. Both states have counties which are largely rural and historically below average in income. In those areas, the expansion of Medicaid under the ACA was key to driving demand and revenues and reduced significantly the number of uninsured patients. Idaho and Colorado abandoned laws that required counties to be providers of last resort for their residents. 

State officials have said California could lose $30 billion a year in federal funding for Medi-Cal under the new law, as much as 15% of the state program’s entire budget. There is no detailed data to document how many people are currently enrolled in California’s county indigent programs, because the state doesn’t track enrollment and utilization. But enrollment in county health safety net programs dropped dramatically in the first full year of ACA implementation, going from about 858,000 people statewide in 2013 to roughly 176,000 by the end of 2014, according to a survey at the time by Health Access California.

New Mexico will use state funds to shield residents from health insurance premium increases after Congress failed to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits that expired Dec. 31. The state’s Health Care Affordability Fund will provide $17.3 million to reduce premiums and cost-sharing through June 30 for New Mexicans enrolled in BeWell, the state’s health insurance marketplace. That funding was enacted in anticipation of a failure to extend in October. Gov. Lujan Grisham’s budget proposal for fiscal years 2026-2027 seeks additional funding to extend the assistance beyond June if Congress does not act.

GAS WARS

The Trump administration sued two California cities on Monday, seeking to block local laws that restrict natural gas infrastructure and appliances in new construction. In the complaint filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, Justice Department attorneys alleged that ordinances passed by the San Francisco-area cities of Morgan Hill and Petaluma since 2019 violated a 1975 law that prevents states and cities from regulating the “energy use” of products subject to federal standards.

It’s obviously political as the courts have already ruled on the legality of gas bans and a federal appeals court in 2023 ruled that the city of Berkeley, California, could not enforce its 2019 natural gas ban. Morgan Hill adopted its natural gas prohibition in late 2019, effective for all new building permit applications starting in March 2020. Petaluma followed suit in May 2021 by adopting an all-electric ordinance that expanded the ban to include “substantial building alterations.”

Both cities left specific exceptions for the use of portable propane appliances in outdoor cooking and heating areas. Despite some carve-outs, U.S. attorneys argued that these local ordinances violate a 1975 law granting the federal government the sole authority to set “energy use” standards for products such as stoves and water heaters.  Morgan Hill has complied with federal standards as interpreted by recent court decisions and has not denied permits based on the 2019 ordinance since the Berkeley ruling.

The federal case relies on the 1975 law, the U.S. Energy Policy and Conservation Act, to argue that a building code prohibiting gas pipes is effectively a ban on the appliances themselves. This builds on the Berkeley ruling, which established that cities cannot indirectly block the use of gas appliances by cutting off the infrastructure needed for them to function.

CONGESTION FEES

Chicago established its first scheme to establish congestion zones where rideshare providers would have to charge an extra fee for fares picked up dropped off in the zone in 2020. The first zone unsurprisingly covered the prime downtown area. Since then, other zones have been established. This week, the city increased its rideshare tax to $1.50. In addition, it expanded its congestion surcharge zone from downtown to cover most of the North Side and Hyde Park.

Riders getting picked up or dropped off in the zone — now spanning generally from Foster Avenue to 31st Street to Western Avenue, as well as a second zone covering Hyde Park — will now pay an added $1.50 per ride, in addition to the city’s flat $1.13 tax on rideshares. For shared rides, the weekday congestion zone fee is 60 cents, covering the same expanded zones. The city did not change its $5 rideshare tax on rides coming or going to McCormick Place, Navy Pier and the city’s airports.

In New York, the one year anniversary of the implementation of congestion fees in Manhattan was this past week. The fees have raised an estimated $550 million in revenue for the MTA through year end. Traffic speeds have increased in the congestion zone as well. The fees seem not to have had the negative economic impact that many had feared as retail sales and foot traffic in the zone have also increased. It has changed the mix of  that activity in terms of the fact that visits from near suburbs to things like Broadway shows and other entertainment venues in the zone are seeing fewer visitors from the suburbs.

The tolls are scheduled to rise up to $12 in 2028, and $15 in 2031.

CALIFORNIA WATER

The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) opened the main spillway at Lake Oroville this week as a flood-control measure following another round of storms that drenched Northern California over the weekend. DWR has been steadily increasing releases from the Oroville-Thermalito Complex into the Feather River to create space in the reservoir for incoming runoff. Inflows into Lake Oroville are projected to reach between 50,000 and 70,000 cubic feet per second this week, prompting the use of the dam’s spillway to manage rising water levels.

Recent atmospheric river storms have rapidly boosted reservoir levels following a dry start to December. Lake Oroville’s surface elevation climbed roughly 58 feet between December 12 and December 31 and now sits at 826 feet, about 70% of its total capacity. As of Monday, total releases to the Feather River are around 15,000 cubic feet per second, with flows potentially increasing to 25,000 cubic feet per second.

LONE STAR SOLAR

For the first time, Texas’ main power system (ERCOT) generated more power from solar farms than coal plants during a calendar year in 2025. Greater installed solar capacity in Texas this year – up 24% compared to 2024’s levels, has allowed solar power output in Texas to surge by 42% so far this year from a year earlier. ERCOT solar production has set new monthly records every month so far in 2025 and averaged 44% growth from the same months in 2024 from January through November.

Texas’ solar outperformance of coal generation has occurred even as ERCOT output from coal-fired power plants posted a 10% rise from the same months in 2024. ERCOT gas-fired power supplies have dropped by around 4% from a year earlier to 7.74 million MWh so far this year. From January to November, solar farms accounted for a record 14% share of the ERCOT generation mix, compared with a 13% share for the state’s coal plants.

NEW YORK NUCLEAR

The New York Power Authority (NYPA) announced that it had received responses to solicitations issued in October 2025 seeking potential host communities and development partners as part of an initiative to develop advanced nuclear power. Through a Request for Information (RFI), NYPA solicited information from Upstate New York communities interested in hosting an advanced nuclear project. NYPA received 23 responses from potential developers or partners, and eight responses from Upstate New York communities. 

In a second RFI, NYPA sought information from potential development partners regarding viable project concepts that included technology recommendations, siting considerations, cost and timeline assumptions, ownership structures and partnership models.

SF TRANSIT FUNDING

The San Francisco Municipal Transit Authority (SFMTA) faces a more than $300 million deficit after the pandemic took a toll on ridership and other funding sources. Now the City faces the reality that additional outside funds are not coming. To address the deficit, a proposal is being made to ask voters to approve tax revenues to fill the gap.  

If voters approve it, this is how the tax charges would work: Owners of a single-family home up to 3,000 square feet would pay $129 per year. Multifamily homes would pay $249 a year up to 5,000 square feet. Non-residential property owners would be charged $799 up to 5,000 square feet. Residents could face higher fees if their homes and buildings are bigger than those listed maximums.

There are also caps on how much some residents will pay. The total cap for a multifamily parcel will be 50,000 square feet. Renters will not necessarily escape this tax. Owners of rent-controlled properties can pass on up to 50% of the parcel tax on a unit. The cap is $65 a year.

The proposal would be on the November ballot.

OREGON TRANSIT FUNDING SWITCHES TRACKS

We have been following the very contentious process which the Oregon legislature has conducted to fund the Oregon Department of Transportation. A threat of serious layoffs and reduced services went only so far to move the legislature to accept any plan with new taxes. Even when legislation was passed, opponents turned to the courts to force the legislation on to the ballot this November. While litigation plays out, the additional funding expected to result from the legislation is on hold.

It is expected that a ballot item would fail. So now, the Governor is proposing a whole new scheme to address the real funding shortfalls plaguing ODOT. The new proposal would require passing a bill to free up money within ODOT’s budget that is currently dedicated to specific projects. That money could instead go toward basic road maintenance. State funding for public transit would not be touched.

That would require asking lawmakers to pass a bill scrapping the entirety of the bill she muscled through in a special session over the summer. That move would render moot a vote, scheduled for November, on whether tax increases in the bill can move forward. But it would also do away with other changes in the bill, like a long-sought shift in how freight haulers are taxed.

Disclaimer:  The opinions and statements expressed in this column are solely those of the author, who is solely responsible for the accuracy and completeness of this column.  The opinions and statements expressed on this website are for informational purposes only, and are not intended to provide investment advice or guidance in any way and do not represent a solicitation to buy, sell or hold any of the securities mentioned.  Opinions and statements expressed reflect only the view or judgment of the author(s) at the time of publication, and are subject to change without notice.  Information has been derived from sources deemed to be reliable, but the reliability of which is not guaranteed.  Readers are encouraged to obtain official statements and other disclosure documents on their own and/or to consult with their own investment professional and advisors prior to making any investment decisions.