Social Scientist Dustin Mulvaney Discusses Solar Power, Trump and the Need to Prioritize Environmental Justice

In 2019, the idea of a social scientist who focused on renewable energy and public lands felt like the most thinly sliced of specialties.

That was the year the University of California Press published “Solar Power: Innovation, Sustainability, and Environmental Justice” by Dustin Mulvaney.

Today, the book is especially relevant. Governments and clean energy advocates are struggling to balance the need to develop zero-emissions power plants with the need to preserve ecosystems and respect the wishes of people who live near proposed construction.

I spoke this week with Mulvaney, a professor of environmental studies at San Jose State University, about the book and what he makes of the current moment in politics and renewable energy.

Three huge changes have happened since he worked on the book, he says. First, development of utility-scale solar has soared: Electricity generation in 2023 was double the amount generated in 2019 and triple the amount generated in 2017, according to the Energy Information Administration. Second, battery energy storage has gone from near-zero to a major contributor to the grid, often functioning in tandem with solar to make electricity available in hours when the sun is down. Third, the conflict over solar on public lands has entered a new phase that prioritizes development over just about anything else.

“We’ve gone from a low-conflict siting approach on Western public lands to one where it’s developer-oriented, and it’s oriented around transmission corridors, and that seems to have abandoned the initial goal of trying to find low-conflict sites,” Mulvaney said.

He has long argued that there is plenty of room to build solar and transmission lines while minimizing disruption in the most sensitive ecosystems. He often blames developers and regulators for being unwilling to modify proposals in ways that would sidestep much of the tension.

One example is the federal government’s Western Solar Plan, which spans parts of 11 states. It would put solar and transmission lines in some locations that stoked backlash from environmental advocates, residents and tribal leaders. Mulvaney and others have noted that there are alternative locations for some of the projects that would face much less opposition. (ICN and Type Investigations published a story this week from reporter Jimmy Tobias that takes a closer look at the Western Solar Plan and includes comments from Mulvaney.)

Because he is critical of some approaches to solar development, Mulvaney has been cited by some people who use his words to make a larger argument that solar itself is harmful. I’m not going to list examples because I don’t want to spread misleading information, but if you Google “Mulvaney” along with names of the usual suspects in opposing renewable energy, you’ll see what I mean.

The idea that his research would give fuel to people who want to stifle renewable energy development in favor of fossil fuels makes him uncomfortable.

I asked him how he distinguishes between good-faith and bad-faith arguments.

“You have to contextualize when understanding what people’s claims are,” he said. “It’s all about understanding the people making the claims, the venue where the claims are being made, and understanding whether there’s legitimacy there. And I think that’s hard to do. It requires nuance and interpretation. It requires being guarded about, like, is someone here spreading misinformation? How could my assertion about the legitimacy of the issue be misinterpreted?”

Sometimes, the answers are clear. Mulvaney is sympathetic to tribal communities that are wary of development on or near their lands. He is not sympathetic to groups that get talking points from fossil-fuel aligned think tanks and whose goal is to make people afraid of renewable energy.

It gets complicated when the two categories of interests are making the same argument. For example, a common concern is about what happens when it’s time to decommission a solar array. This touches on questions about solar recycling and whether there are materials in solar panels that could be harmful to the environment.

Mulvaney’s approach has often been to acknowledge that there are legitimate fears about solar decommissioning and recycling, and then to explain why some of the most hyperbolic concerns are not based in reality.

For example, most of the mass in a solar panel is glass that can be recycled. There are only trace amounts of materials that could be harmful, and no evidence that these materials—such as lead and cadmium—have caused harm to people or animals near solar projects.

One of the recurring themes in Mulvaney’s work is the need to center policies around the idea of environmental justice. By that, he means that the government and advocacy groups need to focus on helping the vulnerable communities located near polluting facilities. These people and places are often the most exposed to rising heat and other effects of climate change.

“There is no trickle-down climate justice,” he said. “It doesn’t just happen on its own.”

This framing is closer to the mainstream now than it was in 2019 thanks to initiatives such as the Biden administration’s Justice40 program, which sets a goal of directing 40 percent of the benefits of federal climate, energy, housing and other investments to disadvantaged communities.

President-elect Donald Trump has been an ally of fossil fuel companies and has said he will revise or repeal rules that favor renewable energy and electric vehicles. He has not commented on what he may do to environmental justice initiatives. Republican members of Congress have said they would look to reduce or scrap some of the policies, which has raised fears that some grant funding may be rescinded before it’s been awarded.

Unlike many close observers of renewable energy and environmental justice policies, Mulvaney doesn’t expect the Trump administration to make significant changes to the things he follows most closely.

“A lot of the topics I look at don’t see big shifts when the administration shifts,” he said. “And what I mean by that is public lands and renewables development, and battery deployments, and geothermal exploration or mining for critical minerals. Those topics tend to be kind of bipartisan.”

I’m going to file away this comment and ask him in 2028 whether his lack of worry turned out to be correct.

Other stories about the energy transition to take note of this week:

Midwest Grid Operator Approves Major Transmission Line Expansion: Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), the grid operator for much of the Midwest and parts of the South and Mountain West, is moving forward with a $22 billion plan to expand its network of high-voltage transmission lines, as Ethan Howland reports for Utility Dive. The MISO board approved the plan last week, with a timetable of completing the projects by 2034. Leaders of the grid operator are describing the new lines as a “backbone” that allows for the addition of new power plants and helps to improve reliability. MISO has said it expects wind and solar power to be a majority of its electricity by 2030; this increases the need for a robust transmission network because wind and solar projects are often located far from the metro areas with the highest demand.

Permitting Reform Appears to Be Dead in Congress: U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) has declared defeat in his push to pass a bipartisan measure to make it easier to obtain permits for energy infrastructure projects. He had been working to balance the priorities of Democrats and Republicans on the bill, and found that there was not enough common ground to pass something in the waning days of his Senate career. Many Republicans objected to the idea of making it easier to get approval for transmission projects that could increase electricity rates, while many Democrats were wary of reducing the barriers to developing fossil fuel projects, as Josh Siegel reports for Politico.

IEA Says Geothermal Could Meet a Sizable Chunk of Global Power Demand: Geothermal power could meet 15 percent of global demand by 2050 if governments provide enough support to help develop the resource, according to a new report from the International Energy Agency. Geothermal power plants, which harness the earth’s heat to make electricity, are now less than 1 percent of global generation. The power source has appeal because it can operate around the clock, which makes it a valuable part of a portfolio of resources that also includes other renewables, as Jason Plautz reports for E&E News.

Honda and Nissan Move to Deepen Ties, Including a Possible Merger: Two global automotive giants are considering a team-up. Honda and Nissan are in discussions about ways they can work together more closely, including the potential of combining the companies, according to two unnamed sources, as Maki Shiraki and Norihiko Shirouzu report for Reuters. The talks are a deepening of the ties that the Japan-based companies announced in March, when they said they were entering into a strategic partnership. Honda and Nissan have good reasons to want to work together as they manage a global auto market that is shifting to EVs and is increasingly being led by Chinese automakers.

Hyundai Is Becoming the New Tesla: The future of EVs in the United States may be tied much more to Hyundai than Tesla, as Patrick George reports for The Atlantic. Hyundai, based in South Korea, has become a leading innovator in developing its EV lineup, and it is making large investments in U.S. manufacturing.

Inside Clean Energy is ICN’s weekly bulletin of news and analysis about the energy transition. Send news tips and questions to [email protected].