Right-wing media are celebrating after the utility Pacific Gas & Electric announced the end of its contract with Ivanpah, a controversial concentrated solar thermal project in California’s Mojave Desert. 

Ivanpah is losing its contract because it could not compete with other types of solar projects, like photovoltaic solar, that have become much cheaper and more efficient over the years. For example, between 2014, when Ivanpah started operating, and 2021, the cost of utility-scale PV solar decreased by over 50%. And California’s recent deadly wildfires underscore the need for the state to promote cleaner technologies.

Right-wing coverage of the announcement largely lacks this important context. As the project appears to be heading toward a shutdown, right-wing media figures are using the situation to claim government loans for renewable energy projects are irresponsible and a waste of taxpayer money. In reality, the loan program that helped get Ivanpah off the ground has brought in more money than it has spent. 

• The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System utilizes concentrated solar energy, which held promise in the eyes of investors 15 years ago and earned its owners $1.6 billion in government loan guarantees. “In the 2000s and 2010s, various private companies invested in large-scale concentrating solar power in the United States,” PG&E wrote in a statement announcing the end of the contract with Ivanpah’s owners, Google, Kelvin Energy, and NRG Energy. In 2011, the Obama administration’s Department of Energy issued three loan guarantees to finance the project, which began operating in 2014. [PG&E, 1/17/25; Los Angeles Times, 1/27/25; Energy.gov, accessed 2/10/25]
   
• Concentrated solar has faced challenges that ultimately made the technology uncompetitive. The technology uses mirrors to concentrate the sun’s rays onto a receiver that heats up fluid. The fluid then generates steam, which powers turbines to get electricity to the grid. According to MIT Technology Review, “a core promise of the technology is that heat can be stored more efficiently than electricity, potentially offering an alternative to very expensive large-scale battery plants.” Investors thought CSP would follow in the footsteps of other solar technologies and become cheaper over time. But CSP projects have often proved unable to run at full capacity because of the weather and have experienced fluid leaks. [Energy.gov, accessed 2/7/25; MIT Technology Review, 7/25/24; GreenTech Media, 1/20/20, 12/9/14; Recharge, 3/25/24]  
   
• Ivanpah faced opposition from environmental groups that expressed concerns about the project’s impact despite their commitments to renewable energy development. The Sierra Club’s Julia Dowell told AP News that the project was “a financial boondoggle and environmental disaster” and said that it “destroyed irreplaceable pristine desert habitat.” In a 2014 post about Ivanpah, another Sierra Club representative wrote, “Rapidly increasing our clean energy capacity is essential to stopping the worst of climate disruption, and as new technology is tested, unforeseen impacts will occur. But we must prioritize protecting vulnerable wildlife and habitats while we build renewable energy. We don't have to trade one for the other.” In a 2024 analysis of recent studies on “how different species might respond to different levels of climate change,” University of Connecticut biologist Mark Urban found that in some scenarios, climate change could threaten up to 30% of species on the planet. [AP News, 1/30/25;  Sierra Club, 9/23/14; NPR, 12/7/24]
   
• Photovoltaic solar panels and lithium-ion battery storage rapidly became cheaper. Former CEO of BrightSource Energy, the company that built the Ivanpah, said in a 2024 interview, “It’s just the economics of photovoltaic power have gotten, they’ve gone down from $3 a watt in 2009 to $.30 a watt for a module today. Now it’s nudged up to $.35 or something. … And the price decline of lithium ion storage has been so notable that even with the attributes of molten salt storage, it’s hard to see how solar thermal can be competitive today.” From 2010 to 2021, there was an 82% decrease in the price of utility-scale PV systems, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. And according to the International Energy Agency, by 2030, “utility-scale and distributed solar PV growth” is expected to more than triple, “accounting for almost 80% of renewable electricity expansion worldwide.” [Latitude Media, 11/14/24; National Renewable Energy Laboratories, 2/10/21; International Energy Agency, 10/9/24] 

• Fossil fuel advocate Danier Turner wrote on X that “Obama's $570 million Solyndra scandal” was “nothing compared to the $2.2 billion California solar plant heading towards closure,” adding: “‘Green energy’ projects continue to scam the American taxpayer.” Turner was comparing Ivanpah to Solyndra, a now-defunct solar energy firm that was a target of conservative ire during the Obama administration. [Twitter/X, 2/5/25; Media Matters, 8/16/23; DeSmog, accessed 2/7/25]
   
• Fox host Steve Doocy said that Ivanpah cost “California residents significantly more than other solar energy and as much as five times the price of natural gas, which, of course, is plentiful.” He said, “A massive Mojave Desert solar plant may shut down … after energy companies admitted how inefficient and expensive it costs to make the electricity.” Frequent Fox guest and tech journalist Kurt Knutsson said, “The only problem with this is it apparently now costs more money to generate power from those plants than it does to just get it the old-fashioned way.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/4/25]
   
• The Washington Free Beacon quoted Benjamin Zycher, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, who said the loan program that funded Ivanpah was an example of the “government funding projects that cannot compete in the market and do little to help the climate.” The American Enterprise Institute is a conservative think tank that has received funding from the Koch Foundation and other Koch-connected donors along with the fossil fuel industry. On AEI’s website, Zycher wrote that the project was “a monument to green fantasies financed with Other People’s Money, inflicted upon electricity ratepayers in California denied options to escape the madness engendered by ‘climate’ hysteria supported by no actual evidence." [The Washington Free Beacon, 2/4/25; American Enterprise Institute, 1/30/25; Media Matters, accessed 2/10/25]
   
• The Daily Caller also relied on Zycher’s analysis in its coverage of the story, pulling quotes from the same AEI analysis where he claimed that “climate hysteria” is “supported by no actual evidence.” [The Daily Caller, 2/3/25; American Enterprise Institute, 1/30/25]
   
• Several Fox News and Fox Business programs ran a news package from correspondent William La Jeunesse that did not mention how other types of solar, such as PV, have become more cost-competitive. La Jeunesse said, “In addition to taxpayer losses, California's ratepayers were forced to buy Ivanpah power at five times the market rate to help meet the state's renewable energy mandate.” The figure seems to be from a nearly decade-old analysis by The Wall Street Journal. [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 2/3/25; Fox News, America Reports, 2/3/25; Fox News, Special Report, 2/3/25; Fox Business, Varney & Co, 2/3/25; The Wall Street Journal, 3/6/16]
   
• The La Jeunesse news package also featured Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX) comparing Ivanpah to Solyndra. “The fact of the matter is American taxpayers end up holding the bill, whether it’s Solyndra, whether it’s this project here,” he said. [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 2/3/25; Fox News, America Reports, 2/3/25; Fox News, Special Report, 2/3/25; Fox Business, Varney & Co, 2/3/25]
   
• On Fox Business, host Stuart Varney called the project a “new Solyndra,” and La Jueunesse replied, “It was also a corporate giveaway to the politically connected, but this time this failure is going to cost us more than the handout.” [Fox Business, Varney & Co, 2/3/25]
   
• Fox News contributor Steve Hilton posted online: “$$$ billions in taxpayer subsidies. Californians charged FIVE TIMES normal electricity rates. All to pay for this solar farm monstrosity that destroyed the environment but now doesn't work. NO MORE giant industrialized solar or wind farms!!” [Twitter/X, 2/3/25]
   
• Climate denier Steve Milloy posted: “Green disaster: Google's infamous, bird-frying (6,000 killed in its first year), $1.6 billion-taxpayer-subsidized Ivanpah solar plant to mostly shut down in 2026 to save money for Californians.” [Twitter/X, 1/28/25; E&E News, 12/12/23]
  
   

• While renewable energy opponents often bemoan government subsidies, policies and incentives have long favored fossil fuels. According to independent think tank the International Institute for Sustainable Development, in 2023, the world’s largest economies spent over three times as much on fossil fuel subsidies as they spent on public support for renewable energy. There are many different estimates for how much countries subsidize fossil fuels, but according to the International Energy Agency, that number reached $620 billion in 2023, globally. Taking in social and environmental costs, the estimate is much higher. In 2021, the Infrastructure and Jobs Act created a $6 billion relief fund to prevent nuclear reactors across the country from shutting down. The Inflation Reduction Act created tax credits for existing plants, as well as funding for research and development. [International Institute for Sustainable Development, 10/30/24; Reuters, 11/15/24; Forbes, 11/8/23; Energy.gov, 10/25/22]
   
• Loans by the Department of Energy have a largely successful track record. L.A. Times reporter Sammy Roth wrote, “Not every government investment will be a winner. Renewable energy critics still raise the specter of Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturer that filed for bankruptcy in 2011 after receiving a $535-million federal loan. But on the whole, clean power investments have worked out. The U.S. Department of Energy reported that as of Dec. 31, it had disbursed $40.5 billion in loans. Of that amount, $15.2 billion had already been repaid. The federal government was on the hook for $1.03 billion in estimated losses but had reaped $5.6 billion in interest.” [Los Angeles Times, 1/27/25]

• The state’s recent destructive wildfires underscore the risks of remaining a carbon-based economy. In January, wildfires in the Los Angeles area killed 29 people and destroyed approximately 17,000 structures. The two largest fires, Palisades and Eaton, burned more than 37,000 acres. Scientists from World Weather Attribution have since estimated that “human-caused global warming made the conditions that drove the Los Angeles-area wildfires about 35% more likely.” [NBC News, 1/17/25, 2/6/25; World Weather Attribution, 1/28/25]
   
• Extreme weather has created an insurance crisis for California homeowners. According to First Street, which does financial climate risk modeling, insurance rates in Sacramento, California, could double over the next 30 years. After the fires in Los Angeles, State Farm General wants to increase its rates for home insurance by an average of 22% across the state. The company warned, “Insurance will cost more for customers in California going forward because the risk is greater in California.” [ProPublica, 2/3/25; CBS News, 2/4/25]