This food bank saved big with solar. GOP cuts could crush similar efforts.
'Food banking at its core has always been about sustainability,' said Beth Bealle, Second Harvest's director of philanthropy, stewardship, and engagement. The organization rescues food that would have ended up in landfills to feed those in need, and Bealle and her colleagues wanted to push the sustainability concept 'in other aspects of our work — like our facility.'
But at the time, they were advised that a rooftop array would be too expensive. Second Harvest shelved the idea and moved into its gleaming new 140,000-square-foot building in a former R.J. Reynolds Tobacco industrial park.
'Fast forward to the Piedmont Environmental Alliance Earth Day Fair of April 2023,' Bealle said. That's where she met the alliance's new green jobs program manager, Will Eley, who asked, 'Did y'all know about the Inflation Reduction Act?'
Eley and Bealle 'hit it off fabulously,' she said. Together, they took the food bank's solar plan off the shelf and worked through the details of complying with the federal law's clean energy incentives. Two years later, on Earth Day 2025, Second Harvest and the alliance flipped the switch on a 1-megawatt array, one of the largest rooftop solar projects in the state.
Assuming promised refunds from the federal government materialize, the project is expected to save Second Harvest $143,000 each year, funds the group says will be reinvested directly into programs that provide food, nutrition education, and workforce development across 18 counties of Northwest North Carolina.
But with the tax rebates now on the chopping block in Congress, other organizations considering new facilities may not have the chance to follow Second Harvest's footsteps.
'We've already talked to several food banks who are in that process about our project, because they're interested in putting solar on the rooftops of their new buildings,' Bealle said. 'And that's not going to be within reach for some people if these tax credits aren't available.'
The federal government has long offered tax credits to incentivize renewable energy projects, from solar farms to rooftop arrays. But before the Inflation Reduction Act, those enticements were of little use to food banks and other entities that don't pay an income tax.
The 2022 landmark climate law allowed organizations like Second Harvest to access the 30% tax credit on their solar investment by essentially transforming it to a rebate.
'The process by which they were able to fully monetize the tax credits was quite the game changer,' Eley said.
In North Carolina, the provision known as 'direct pay' serves as a vital sequel to an expired rebate program from utility Duke Energy, which helped dozens of houses of worship and other nonprofits go solar during its five years of existence.
'Duke Energy had the nonprofit solar rebate, and that was a tremendous tool that was very helpful,' said Laura Combs, a one-time solar salesperson who worked with tax-exempt groups around the state to access the cash back from the utility. 'When the direct payment came into play,' she said, 'that took up that slack.'
The federal climate law also offers other inducements. It provides a 10% bonus to tax credits for projects deployed in government-defined 'energy communities,' including those on former industrial sites or brownfields. At least another 10% is available for clean-electricity projects that are located in or benefit low-income communities.
As an organization that serves food-insecure households and that is headquartered in a poor census tract on a brownfield, Second Harvest qualified for both of these extra incentives.
'We really maximized the clean-energy layer cake,' Eley said.
Altogether, the tax credits cut the $1.5 million price tag for the solar rooftop installation in half, Eley said. While the food bank had to pay the full amount up front and won't recoup those savings until it files its tax return for the year, the extra incentives mean the 1,702 solar panels will pay for themselves more quickly in the form of lower energy bills.
Second Harvest and Piedmont Environmental Alliance hoped the project would serve as a beacon to other nonprofits looking to go solar. And in and around Winston-Salem, that's starting to come true, Eley says.
'It's opened up several doors there,' he said, mentioning that a local credit union and groups like Goodwill have expressed interest in installing panels. 'We're presently working with six faith communities that are navigating [direct pay] and going through their feasibility and contracting processes for solar specifically.'
That tracks with a nationwide trend of houses of worship going solar thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act.
There's also been an uptick in nonprofit installations statewide, according to data compiled by the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association.
The association doesn't monitor whether institutions access the direct-pay feature, and some recent arrays may be holdovers from the Duke rebate program, which ended in 2022. But the numbers are striking nonetheless: Since 2011, almost 150 houses of worship, local governments, and other entities that don't pay taxes have erected solar arrays, nearly all on rooftops. Sixty-three, or 42%, did so in 2023 and 2024.
Now, Eley said, the groups he's working with are especially motivated to act quickly.
'The idea of going solar has been something they have tossed around for a number of years,' he said. 'We're certainly reiterating to them if you're going to make that investment, do so now.'
That's because the massive budget bill passed last month by the House — dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in an homage to President Donald Trump — would make tax credits for solar and other renewable energy projects nearly unusable. The Senate is now considering whether to pass the measure as is or to make changes.
As the legislation stands now, projects would have to begin construction within 60 days of the bill's passage to access the 30% tax credit. That's an easier feat for a rooftop installation than a larger, ground-mounted affair, but still incredibly difficult for nonprofits, religious institutions, or local governments that tend to have lengthy decision-making processes and aren't already planning to go solar.
Even more unworkable is a provision that requires documentation that no component of a project, no matter how small, is linked to a 'foreign entity of concern' such as China.
While House lawmakers voted to make the underlying 30% tax credit virtually useless, they didn't explicitly target the three related adjustments that helped enable the Second Harvest project: direct pay, the low-income community benefit, and the brownfield benefit.
'These cross-cutting provisions are part of the tax credit structure, but they are their own mechanisms,' said Rachel McCleery, the former senior adviser at the U.S. Department of the Treasury who led stakeholder engagement for the climate law's implementation.
The survival of direct pay in the House measure stands in contrast to the elimination of its twin in the private sector, transferability, which allows smaller energy companies better access to incentives.
But direct pay means little if the baseline 30% tax credit is still hamstrung by the 60-day start-work requirement and the foreign-entity provision.
'This is backdoor repeal of the IRA,' said McCleery, who now advises clients on defending clean energy tax credits, 'and it's backdoor repeal of direct pay — because you can't use direct pay if you don't have an underlying tax credit.'
The same applies to the bonus incentives for low-income and brownfield communities. 'These cross-cutting mechanisms can still be used,' McCleery said, 'but if the underlying credit is moot, that essentially repeals the mechanisms.'
On the flipside, if the Senate restores the viability of the underlying 30% tax credit in its version of the bill, the mechanisms that aid nonprofits like food banks and houses of worship will also be accessible.
But advocates say that remains a big 'if.' And there are other challenges: Slashes to the Internal Revenue Service workforce could delay payments to Second Harvest and others. And the group is bracing for the impact of the other budget cuts in the House bill as written, such as to food assistance and Medicaid.
'It's just going to put pressure on people who are already under-resourced,' Bealle said. 'And that has a ripple effect to every organization that supports under-resourced people, including us.'
Combs, the former solar sales professional who also volunteers with climate advocacy group North Carolina Interfaith Power and Light, called it a 'tragic snowball.' She then brought up U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis, the North Carolina Republican who has consistently voiced disapproval of a full-scale repeal of the tax credits.
'Thank goodness Sen. Tillis has spoken out and been a leader on the importance of the Inflation Reduction Act incentives,' Combs said. 'I am anxious to see how this plays out in the Senate.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Charlotte Democrats who voted to weaken carbon goals have history of Duke Energy donations
Two Charlotte Democrats who voted Tuesday to roll back Duke Energy's carbon emissions reduction mandate have accepted thousands in campaign contributions from the utility's political action committee. Why it matters: The override of Gov. Josh Stein's veto of Senate Bill 266 has raised concerns about the influence of corporate and dark money in the legislature. What's inside: " The Power Bill Reduction Act" eliminates an interim goal that requires Charlotte-based Duke Energy to reduce carbon emissions by 70% by 2030, while maintaining a longer-term goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. It would also change how Duke Energy can set its rates and recover costs from its under-construction plants. Zoom in: Supporters say this will give Duke flexibility to meet rising energy demand and save a projected $15 billion over the next two decades. The other side: Critics and some researchers, on the other hand, say it will cost consumers more, while slowing down Duke's transition to clean energy sources at a time of record extreme heat. Catch up quick: Former Sen. Paul Newton, a former Duke Energy executive, helped introduce the bill. Republicans then convinced 11 Democrats in the House and three in the Senate to support it. Earlier this month, Gov. Stein vetoed the bill, citing an independent analysis that showed the changes could cost ratepayers up to $23 billion through 2050 "due to higher fuel costs." Follow the money: Duke Energy's PAC is among the top donors for Mecklenburg County Reps. Nasif Majeed and Carla Cunningham, who both joined Republicans in passing the measure. Neither responded to a request for comment on Tuesday. From Duke Energy's PAC, Majeed received $2,000 in the 2024 race, $500 in 2022 and $1,000 in 2020, according to Follow The Money. The PAC is his sixth biggest contributor. Cunningham has received $19,400 since 2016, including $6,000 for the 2024 campaign, $5,000 for 2022 and $5,400 for 2020. Duke Energy is her fourth-largest donor, per the campaign finance data website. What they're saying: Sustain Charlotte, an environmental advocacy group, called out Majeed and Cunningham in a press release, saying the officials should be held accountable for prioritizing "utility profits over the people they represent." "This vote releases Duke from any legal obligation to reduce climate pollution until 2050, despite overwhelming scientific consensus that we must act much sooner," says Shannon Binns, the group's executive director, who called the vote an "out-of-touch decision," especially during a heat wave in North Carolina, and months after Helene. Between the lines: Majeed and Cunningham are known swing voters, siding with the GOP majority 72% and 79% of the time, respectively. In May, Cunningham was the only Democrat to vote in favor of a bill for tougher immigration rules. Another swing voter, Rep. Shelly Willingham of Edgecombe County, joined in the override. Duke Energy's PAC has contributed $23,000 to his campaigns since the 2018 election, according to Follow The Money. The committee is his second-largest donor. Willingham did not respond to Axios' request for comment. What they're saying: "Policies which build on our state's strong customer protections while helping meet growing energy demands from population growth, business expansion and a resurgence of manufacturing can play a critical role in supporting North Carolina's thriving economy," a Duke Energy spokesperson previously told Axios. Duke Energy has ties to a newly registered nonprofit, "Citizens for NC Jobs," which paid for mailers to constituents in the districts of Democrats who supported the bill, NC Newsline reported. The messages ask the recipients to thank their legislators for their vote "to lower our power costs." The entity launched on Facebook just three days after Senate Bill 266 was presented in March.


Forbes
7 hours ago
- Forbes
Trump Hostility To Wind And Solar Has Utilities Treading Softly
AT SEA - JULY 07: A wind turbine generates electricity at the Block Island Wind Farm on July 07, ... More 2022 near Block Island, Rhode Island. The first commercial offshore wind farm in the United States, five power generating structures are located 3.8 miles from Block Island, Rhode Island in the Atlantic Ocean. The five-turbine, 30 MW project was developed by Deepwater Wind and began operations in December, 2016 at a cost of nearly $300 million. (Photo by) President Donald Trump reiterated his hostility to wind generation when he arrived in Scotland for what was ostensibly a private visit. 'Stop the windmills,' he said. But the world isn't stopping its windmill development and neither is the United States, although it has become more difficult and has put U.S. electric utilities in an awkward position: It is a love that dare not speak its name, one might say. Utilities love that wind and solar can provide inexpensive electricity, offsetting the high expense of battery storage. It is believed that Trump's well-documented animus to wind turbines is rooted in his golf resort in Balmedie, near Aberdeen, Scotland. In 2013, Trump attempted to prevent the construction of a small offshore wind farm — just 11 turbines — located roughly 2.2 miles from his Trump International Golf Links, but was ultimately unsuccessful. He argued that the wind farm would spoil views from his golf course and negatively impact tourism in the area. Trump seemingly didn't just take against the local authorities, but against wind in general and offshore wind in particular. Yet fair winds are blowing in the world for renewables. Francesco La Camera, director general of the International Renewable Energy Agency, an official United Nations observer, told me that in 2024, an astounding 92 percent of new global generation was from wind and solar, with solar leading wind in new generation. We spoke recently when La Camera was in New York. My informal survey of U.S. utilities reveals they are pleased with the Trump administration's efforts to simplify licensing and its push to natural gas, but they are also keen advocates of wind and solar. Batteries Improve Usefulness Of Wind, Solar Simply, wind is cheap and as battery storage improves, so does its usefulness. Likewise, solar. However without the tax advantages that were in President Joe Biden's signature climate bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, the numbers will change, but not enough to rule out renewables, the utilities tell me. China leads the world in installed wind capacity of 561 gigawatts, followed by the United States with less than half that at 154 GW. The same goes for solar installations: China had 887 GW of solar capacity in 2024 and the United States had 239 GW. China is also the largest manufacturer of electric vehicles. This gives it market advantage globally and environmental bragging rights, even though it is still building coal-fired plants. While utilities applaud Trump's easing of restrictions, which might speed the use of fossil fuels, they aren't enthusiastic about installing new coal plants or encouraging new coal mines to open. Both, they believe, would become stranded assets. Utilities and their trade associations have been slow to criticize the administration's hostility to wind and solar, but they have been publicly cheering gas turbines. However, gas isn't an immediate solution to the urgent need for more power: There is a global shortage of gas turbines with waiting lists of five years and longer. So no matter how favorably utilities look on gas, new turbines, unless they are already on hand or have set delivery dates, may not arrive for many years. Another problem for utilities is those states that have scheduled phasing out fossil fuels in a given number of years. That issue – a clash between federal policy and state law — hasn't been settled. In this environment, utilities are either biding their time or cautiously seeking alternatives. For example, facing a virtual ban on new offshore wind farms, veteran journalist Robert Whitcomb wrote in his New England Diary that New England utilities are looking to wind power from Canada, delivered by undersea cable. Whitcomb wrote a book about offshore wind energy, 'Cape Wind: Money, Celebrity, Energy, Class, Politics and the Battle for Our Energy Future,' published in 2007. New England Frustrated By Pipeline Shortage New England is starved of gas as there isn't enough pipeline capacity to bring in more, so even if gas turbines were readily available, they wouldn't be an option. New pipelines take financing, licensing in many jurisdictions, and face public hostility. Emily Fisher, a former general counsel for the Edison Electric Institute, told me, 'Five years is just a blink of an eye in utility planning.' On July 7, Trump signed an executive order which states: 'For too long the Federal Government has forced American taxpayers to subsidize expensive and unreliable sources like wind and solar. 'The proliferation of these projects displaces affordable, reliable, dispatchable domestic energy resources, compromises our electric grid, and denigrates the beauty of our Nation's natural landscape.' The U.S. Energy Information Administration puts electricity consumption growth at 2 percent nationwide. In parts of the nation, as in some Texas cities, it is 3 percent.


New York Post
12 hours ago
- New York Post
Axing EPA's ‘endangerment' BS will unleash a new era of US prosperity
Hooray for President Donald Trump and EPA chief Lee Zeldin for moving to roll back trillions of dollars in federal mandates by undoing the Obama-era greenhouse-gas 'endangerment' finding. Back in 2009, Environmental Protection Agency functionaries listed carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as posing a public-health threat — not for any actual toxicity, but because of their role in speeding global warming. That in turn allowed for unprecedented EPA regulation of factories, power plants and auto emissions — including the hated stop-start feature. None of it ever made sense: Congress created the EPA in 1970 to fight actual poisons in our water and air, not to manage complex bank-shot contingencies as the 'endangerment' finding envisioned. After long teasing the repeal, Zeldin finally made the 'largest deregulatory action in the history of America' official Tuesday; it'll be a huge win for energy sanity. After all, anti-carbon mandates do major immediate harm to public health, by making electricity and other goods far more expensive: This green madness is a major reason why Western Europe has seen next to zero economic growth over the last two decades. And much of it makes little sense even as anti-climate-change policy: The EPA itself admits that the vehicle stop-start feature — which kills internal-combustion engines at red lights — hasn't shown clear reductions in emissions. Yes, cutting carbon emissions is an important long-term goal — but trying to make them zero immediately is nuts, especially when China is still building new coal plants at a record pace. The nation (and the world!) is far better served by Trump's drive to boost US energy production and ensure a plentiful and reliable supply of cheaper electricity to meet the growing demands of manufacturers and AI companies. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters For all progressives' current talk of 'affordability,' energy costs remain by far the single most important issue when it comes to improving public health and quality of life. But the anti-carbon cult has a death grip on the elites who set the Democratic agenda; expect a vast wave of propaganda posing as news and invective pretending to be science in response to Zeldin's move. Lawsuits, as well — since Democrats snuck language declaring greenhouse gases to be 'pollutants' into the utterly mislabeled 'Inflation Reduction Act' three years ago. Republicans in Congress need to put rolling back that absurdity high on their agenda when Congress reconvenes in the fall.