Joseph Krist

Publisher

CONGESTION PRICING

The Trump administration appears to be using its Canadian playbook to manage its opposition to congestion pricing. March 21 was supposed to be the date by which the MTA stopped collecting congestion fees. Given pending litigation, MTA has continued to collect the fees and plans to keep doing so until it is legally stopped. Like it did with tariffs, the administration has now delayed taking action against the MTA for 30 days. MTA now has until Easter to collect fees.

Whether this indicates a clear softening in the administration’s position remains to be seen. The extension of congestion fees was accompanied by threats to withhold federal operating aid to the MTA. Ostensibly, this is supposed to lead somehow to reduced crime on the City’s subway system. While it was presented as a move against more than one transit agency regarding the issue of crime, its pretty obvious that the threat was designed to accompany the fee delay.

AFTER THE FIRE

The credit impact of the wildfires in January in California has begun to take shape. The placement of a negative outlook for the City of Los Angeles and other impacted municipalities was not unexpected. Now, the ratings impact is expanding to the utilities. This week, S&P placed seven municipal power agencies on negative outlook.

They are Lassen Municipal Utility District (‘BBB’); Modesto Irrigation District (‘A+’); Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC; ‘A+’); Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD; ‘AA’ senior lien and ‘AA-‘ and ‘AA-/A-1’ subordinate liens); San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC; Hetch Hetchy Power Enterprise; ‘AA’); Truckee Donner Public Utility District (‘A+’); and Turlock Irrigation District (TID; ‘AA-‘, including bonds issued by the Walnut Energy Center Authority [WECA] and the Tuolumne Wind Project Authority [TWPA] that are payable as an operating expense of TID).

S&P noted “The negative outlooks reflect our assessment of the heightened longer-term credit pressure from the rising potential for future liabilities and operating and infrastructure costs associated with wildfires, which have grown more frequent and intense in California in recent years given the region’s increasing susceptibility to these events.

“The negative outlook also reflects our view that there is a one-in-three chance that we could lower the ratings on these various utilities within the next one-to-two years by one or more notches should we determine that wildfire mitigation measures combined with liquidity and wildfire liability insurance coverage are no longer commensurate with current ratings in light of the changing environmental conditions increasing wildfire vulnerabilities, particularly given California’s interpretation of inverse condemnation, or if infrastructure hardening costs materially pressure rate affordability,”.

As for the City of Los Angeles, the budget news gets bleaker. The city’s administrative officer testified before the City Council. He compared the city’s financial straits to the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and said the budget gap estimated for the fiscal year that starts in July represented an eighth of the $8 billion general fund. Los Angeles is facing a projected shortfall of nearly $1 billion next fiscal year, and significant cuts and “thousands” of layoffs are “nearly inevitable,”.

Preliminary estimates of the city’s costs from the January wildfires are more than $282 million just for expenses such as firefighter and police officer overtime and infrastructure replacement. The city controller estimated that city revenues would remain flat or decline next year, partly because of fire losses and the soaring costs of disaster insurance and partly because of “uncertainty generated by the new presidential administration’s radical policies on tariffs, federal spending cuts and immigration.” 

At the same time, the Controller reported that salaries and benefits this year had added more than $343 million to the city’s obligations as a result of new labor agreements, police and fire overtime and retirement and sick payouts. The city had spent more than $246 million on liability payouts for legal claims this fiscal year, roughly three times the $82 million the city had budgeted for such obligations. 

NUCLEAR

The U.S. Department of Energy on Monday announced a second loan disbursement to Holtec toward restarting its decommissioned Palisades nuclear power plant in Michigan. The action released nearly $57 million of an up to $1.52 billion federal loan guarantee for Holtec. The Palisades plant, if restarted, would generate 800 megawatts of electricity. Holtec officials last month announced plans to install the first U.S.-built small modular reactors on the Palisades property in Covert by 2030, in co-location with the restarted plant. The proposed two new modular nuclear reactors, dubbed SMR-300s, would each generate approximately 300 megawatts of energy.

WIND

The 1.5-GW Atlantic Shores 1 wind energy project in progress offshore New Jersey had its Clean Air Act permit from the Environmental Protection Agency remanded by the agency’s Environmental Appeals Board. The decision reflects the freeze on funding underway from the Trump administration. The permit remand comes a month after EDF Renewables, one of Atlantic Shores’ developers, booked a $980 million impairment associated with the project. Shell, EDF’s partner in the joint venture, booked a $1 billion impairment associated with the project in January, which EDF referred to as a “withdrawal” in its annual financial report.

REGULATION LITIGATION

Hearings were held this week before the Ohio Supreme Court on whether The Ohio Power Siting Board was within its rights to reject a permit application for a solar power facility merely on the basis of local governmental opposition. In , the Board rendered a decision denying Vesper Energy the right to build a 175-megawatt solar facility in Greene County, OH. The company claims the siting board failed to follow state law in its analysis of whether its project (Kingswood Solar) is in the public interest — one of eight criteria that power generation projects must meet to receive a site permit.

A 2021 law lets counties block most new utility-scale wind and solar energy projects before they even get to the Ohio Power Siting Board. Others, like Kingwood Solar, have been denied based on local opposition, even though they are exempt from that part of the law because they filed permit applications or got in the grid operator’s queue prior to the legislation’s passage.

In 2022, the board found that the proposed Kingwood Solar facility met all the other legal requirements for a permit, yet it concluded ​“that the unanimous opposition of every local government entity” bordering the project was ​“controlling” on the public interest question. The board denied the permit. Another part of Ohio law that says local governments can’t require their own consent for the construction of power facilities. 

A decision will come later this year. In the meantime, large scale solar will slow down in the Buckeye State.

EV POLICY REALITIES

A Princeton University study has evaluated the potential impact of Trump administration energy policies on the emerging electric vehicle industry. The report notes that the plans to eliminate tax credits and other federal support will have significant negative impacts especially in states considered to be Trump states. Through executive orders, President Trump has indicated intentions to eliminate federal regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, repeal subsidies supporting electric vehicle (EV) purchases, and halt or redirect federal grant programs designed to expand EV charging infrastructure.

Their findings: If EPA tailpipe emissions regulations and federal clean vehicle tax credits are repealed: Sales of battery electric vehicles could drop about 30% in 2027 and 40% in 2030 relative to a scenario where current policies are continued. The share of battery electric vehicles in new light vehicle sales could drop from about 18% to 13% in 2026 and 40% to 24% in 2030. Cumulatively, 8.3 million less EVs and plug-in hybrids could be on U.S. roads in 2030.

As much as 100% of planned construction and expansion of U.S. electric vehicle assembly and half of existing assembly capacity could be at risk of cancellation or closure. Between 29% and 72% of battery cell manufacturing capacity currently operating or online by the end of 2025 would also be unnecessary to meet automotive demand and could be at risk of closure, in addition to 100% of other planned facilities. There would be further (unquantified) impacts on U.S. materials, parts, and component suppliers upstream of EV and battery assembly. 

POLICY REALITIES – NEW YORK

A report from State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli reviewed the impact of the withholding of funds under current federal policies. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 contained significant provisions related to taxes, health care, energy and the environment. Specifically, the IRA provided roughly $400 billion in clean energy investments to mitigate the causes and effects of climate change and air pollution in the form of rebates, tax credits, grants and loans. New York State agencies and authorities, municipalities, businesses and non-profit organizations have been awarded nearly $2 billion in grants to date.

Two projects will clearly be impacted by the withholding of grant monies under current Trump administration policies “pausing” these programs. The first is $451.6 million for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to reduce air pollution from port activities. Federal spending information indicates that there have been no outlays of funding from this grant. The second is $180.0 million for the New York State Department of Transportation’s I-81 Connecting Syracuse Project. It is not clear if there have been any outlays from this grant.

The latest congestion pricing twist and turn was the announcement that the secretary of transportation had extended the deadline for the State to end its collection of the fees by 30 days.

MISSISSIPPI

The Mississippi legislature is trying to reach agreement over competing plans to reduce if not eliminate the state income tax. The effort comes as the nation’s most federally dependent state – for every dollar paid to the federal government the state receives three – faces the risks of significant cutbacks in federal spending. The state Constitution requires a three-fifths majority of lawmakers to approve tax bills. There are significant gaps between the plans passed in the respective houses of the legislature.

The House would fully eliminate the state income tax by 2037. It would cut about $2.2 billion from the state’s current $7 billion general fund while it would increase the state’s net sales tax from 7% to 8%. It would also include an additional 15-cents-a-gallon excise tax on gasoline. The tax increase would be phased in at 5 cents a year over three years. This would be added to the current 18.4-cents-a-gallon. The plan would also transfer $100 million per year from the state lottery system into the public employee retirement system. 

The Senate would decrease the 4% income tax rate by .25% each year from 2027 to 2030 and leave it at 3% in 2030. The plan would reduce the sales tax on groceries from 7% to 5%. It would also increase the 18.4-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax by 9 cents over three years, for a total of 27.4 cents. Going forward, the tax would increase automatically based on the cost of road construction. To address pension funding, the Seante would change benefits for government employees hired after March 2026 to a “hybrid” retirement that includes part-defined benefit and part-defined contribution.

The likely result is that the state’s tax structure will be more regressive. That in a state with some of the highest poverty levels.

BABY BONDS IN NEW MEXICO

Legislation in New Mexico is being considered which would provide that each child born in New Mexico would receive a state-funded trust fund at birth. The bill estimates that a $6,000 award at birth could result in $20,000 at age 18. At that point, the funds could be accessed for higher education, homeownership, business ventures, or investments.

The recipient must maintain residency in New Mexico until they turn 18. To access the funds, they must graduate from high school or earn an equivalent diploma. The money can only be used for specific purposes, including: Higher education (tuition, books, or related expenses); Purchasing a home; Starting or investing in a business; Other approved investment opportunities.

ALASKA PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND

For 2025, the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend was set at $1,702 per person.  The Alaska Department of Revenue announced that the dividend will begin to be distributed on Oct. 3. The $1,702 includes a special energy relief bonus to help with high fuel costs. The Alaska Legislature allocated about $914 million for the 2024 PFD distribution, with more than 600,000 people eligible for the payment. This means roughly two-thirds of the state’s population will receive a cash infusion, collectively injecting nearly $1 billion into the economy. The 2024 dividend is $390 higher than 2023.

It can be argued that the Permanent Fund Dividend is essentially a basic guaranteed income plan. There are obvious differences. As opposed to a monthly check, the payment is one time a year. This tends to encourage spending on less essential things versus a monthly payment. The University of Alaska Anchorage’s Institute of Social and Economic Research found that spending was concentrated over approximately one quarter.

The research found that after receiving their PFD, “Alaskans spend significantly more on non-durables (such as cosmetics, cleaning products, food, fuel, and other consumables) and services in the month when they receive the dividend payment. Other studies by the University have documented that “the PFD has resulted in substantial poverty reductions for rural Alaska Natives,” with particularly pronounced benefits for elderly residents​. 

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.