Fossil fuel and legacy power companies are using regulation and market rules to slow the clean energy transition.
Nikhil Kondabala, VP of Tech at Apex Clean Energy, highlights the economic motivations behind the opposition to renewables.
Complex regulations and market rule changes are being used to give fossil fuels an advantage over clean energy.
Grassroots leadership is seen as crucial for overcoming opposition and advancing the clean energy transition.
The clean energy transition is facing strong headwinds from the industries it threatens to replace. Fossil fuel and legacy power companies are working to slow the shift through regulation, market rules, and financing barriers. It mirrors the resistance seen during rural electrification nearly a century ago, when incumbents fought to preserve their share of the market.
We spoke with Nikhil Kondabala, Vice President of Technology at Apex Clean Energy and a leader on the front lines of the modern energy revolution. With over 13 years of experience in the renewable sector, Kondabala has played a key role in negotiating the procurement of over a gigawatt of wind turbines and delivering multimillion-dollar cost savings on breakthrough projects. He argued that the opposition to clean energy isn't truly about culture or ideology, but something far more pragmatic: a calculated defense of the old guard's market share.
Fear of being left behind: In the 1930s and 40s, investor-owned utilities initially ignored rural America, dismissing electrification as uneconomical. But when federal projects demonstrated both demand and profitability, those utilities suddenly saw a market they had overlooked. "They didn't like that someone else was making money in their own industry and they were being left behind," Kondabala explained.
History repeats: He sees the same pattern repeating today with fossil fuel and legacy power companies. "They see all this investment going into the clean energy space and they're not part of it, so they're trying to guide regulation and preserve their existing business models," he said. "They're using all the tools in their toolbox."
After a period of massive growth in the renewable sector, that toolbox is now being used to full effect. The established energy industry, seeing the ground shift beneath it, has successfully mounted a campaign to slow the transition.
A deliberate slowdown: "We are coming off a really big build-out in the clean energy space, and that scared a lot of people," Kondabala explained. "The coal fleet was already depleted—not mainly by renewables, but by gas. Now those incumbents are focused on preserving what’s left of their business model, and in many ways they’ve succeeded in slowing the transition."
A key tactic in this slowdown isn’t outright opposition, but the use of regulatory complexity. By making federal policies more restrictive and harder to navigate, opponents can create enough uncertainty to discourage investment without directly blocking projects.
Weaponizing uncertainty: "They've made the regulation hard enough and complicated enough that it provides a lot of uncertainty, and that uncertainty slows down project financing for clean energy projects," Kondabala noted. He pointed to the shortening of tax credit windows and the creation of complex supply chain rules around "foreign entity of concern" as prime examples of this strategy in action.
At the grid level, concepts like reliability and resiliency are increasingly being framed in ways that give fossil fuels an advantage in the marketplace. Kondabala cited specific attempts for market rule changes in grid territories like PJM and MISO that would allow fossil fuel plants to "jump the queue" for grid connection. He also pointed to state-level exemptions, like those in Texas that allow legacy power plants to bypass emissions controls during peak demand. "A lot of this is happening under the banner of reliability and resiliency on the grid," he said. "It’s being used to put clean power plants at a disadvantage and give fossil fuels both market and tax advantages."
Faced with such entrenched opposition, the path forward for clean energy mirrors the lesson from the 1930s. The success of rural electrification wasn't guaranteed by a single act of Congress; it was won through relentless, local-level organizing.
The leadership lesson: "The leadership at the ground level is really critical," Kondabala reflected. "It didn't happen because of just one law being passed. It happened because a lot of leaders came out from the grassroots and fought for their individual communities. It still took a lot of grassroots campaigning and leadership to bring those communities out of darkness."
This historical lesson is precisely what gives Kondabala hope for the current transition. The same grassroots momentum is building today, driven not by a top-down mandate, but by thousands of local leaders, entrepreneurs, and workers who see the tangible benefits of clean energy in their own backyards.
"There are a lot of people starting clean energy companies, a strong pipeline of trained workers, and real momentum," he said. "These projects bring tax revenue, create local jobs, and revitalize communities. It’s unfortunate that people outside these areas don’t always see it, because this is truly a revitalization of rural America."
