Archives for May 2025

As the Senate takes up its version of the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” one can only hope it corrects the shortcomings of Congress’s earlier draft. In its current form, the bill falls woefully short—failing to meaningfully address the energy crisis, strengthen the U.S. economy, or help America remain competitive in the global AI arms race.

Critics of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and of free-fuel technologies like solar and wind, argue that repealing these clean energy incentives could generate $500 billion in tax revenue over the next decade. But let’s put that in perspective: the U.S. government is projected to spend nearly $90 trillion in the same period. That’s a mere 0.5%—a drop in the bucket, not a fiscal game-changer.

Energy policy in America needs to be driven by facts, not factions.

Proponents of free-fuel technologies often frame their arguments around climate change and sustainability. Yet, in many of the regions where solar or wind is actively being developed, voter data reveals deep skepticism toward both climate science and the value of renewable energy, for decades. Perhaps if economic benefits were only communicated, solar and wind would be in a different situation.

This communication breakdown is a symptom of a larger problem: American tribalism. If our energy future continues to be dictated by political identity rather than national interest, the current energy crisis will not only persist—it will escalate.

Unfortunately, the American public remains unconvinced that an energy crisis is even looming. It’s not hard to see why. Past institutional failures—from Enron’s staged “rolling blackouts” to the Bush administration’s false “weapons of mass destruction” —have eroded public trust and encouraged tribalism.

One area where tribalism cannot be allowed to take hold: long-haul transmission. Expanding and modernizing our transmission infrastructure is among the most critical investments we can make today. For now, transmission remains a rare bipartisan priority—and we all know bipartisanship is fragile.

Moderate Senators resisting the repeal of the IRA understand the stakes. They know that rural communities stand to gain from energy and grid investment, and that dismantling our progress would make America less competitive in the global economy—particularly in the race to lead in artificial intelligence and emerging technologies.

If we fail to act with urgency and unity, we risk falling behind. But if we seize this moment to build a resilient, modern grid—one that delivers abundant energy across the country—we can secure not just energy independence, but economic strength for decades to come.

***

Joe Amara Executive Search represents companies in power generation, transmission, and digital infrastructure, with a focus on C-suite, leadership, and critical hires.

To learn more, please visit us at joeamara.com

The issue of adjusting compensation based on employee location has long been a topic of debate, particularly among multinationals entering the U.S. market for the first time. A common misconception is that employees living in secondary markets should earn less than those in primary markets, such as New York. The lower cost of living, in their calculations, justifies lower compensation.

While this logic may hold in most industries, it does not reflect the realities within the power and emerging infrastructure sectors. In these sectors, location-based salary scaling often fails to account for the high demand and limited supply of uniquely qualified executives. Compensation benchmarks from global consulting firms—though widely used—often rely on generalist data sets that lack nuance and relevance to novel infrastructure such has power, transmission and data centers.

These compensation models resemble real estate appraisals, using “comparables” that are anything but equivalent. For example, comparing a Chief Development Officer in power generation to a Head of Project Management in highway or bridge construction ignores the fundamental differences between the roles and intricacies of the industries they assist. Power plants, no matter the technology, require highly specialized knowledge and are significantly more complex. To make complicate matters further, these firms make strong suggestions regarding hiring, thwarting the success of these businesses they aim to serve.

Demand is at the core of monetary rewards and title allocation. The demand for executives with expertise in greenfield development, power markets, high voltage electrical engineering and asset management is exceptionally high. These skills are not only rare but take years to develop.

To illustrate the vast talent gap between companies: we asked a seasoned Vice President of Talent Acquisition whether their team handled transmission internally or used consultants. Her response: “What do you mean by transmission?”

Such examples highlight how critical and scarce deep sector knowledge is—and why compensation should be driven by expertise and demand, not zip codes.

Joe Amara Executive Search represents companies in power generation, transmission, and digital infrastructure, with a focus on C-suite, leadership, and critical hires.

To learn more, please visit us at joeamara.com