Area Development's Andrew Greiner sits down with two leading experts in economic development incentives, Amy Gerber of Cushman & Wakefield and Kathy Mussio of Atlas Insight, to discuss the evolving landscape of tax incentives and workforce development. With decades of experience between them, Amy and Kathy dive into key trends, challenges, and how businesses can better leverage incentives for long-term success. This transcript has been lightly edited for grammar and style.

Andrew Greiner: Thanks for gathering with us today for this important conversation on incentives. To start, how have tax incentives evolved to address the unique needs of different industries, especially in advanced manufacturing?

Kathy Mussio: Well, it's not a new thing for governments to decide which industries they want to incentivize. This has been going on for decades, from coal to clean tech. Today, the focus is heavily on renewables—solar, EVs, and now clean tech. States are creating specific legislation and programs to cater to these emerging industries. For example, Illinois created the REV program for EVs, and shortly after, they expanded it to include energy supply chain companies. So, there’s definite customization happening for advanced manufacturing.

Amy Gerber: Absolutely. Tennessee, for example, has created a nuclear fund to attract projects related to nuclear energy. It’s the same story across various states—wind, solar, EVs—these incentives are designed to shape behavior, and states are putting their best foot forward to capture these industries. Recently, some big tech companies have even announced partnerships for small modular reactors (SMRs), as they seek sustainable energy sources to power high-demand operations like data centers.

Andrew Greiner: Nuclear energy is gaining traction again. You mentioned decarbonization—how are states adapting their incentives to attract businesses focused on sustainability?

Kathy Mussio: That’s an important distinction. Are we talking about tax incentives or incentives overall? Because when it comes to sustainability, the big federal push right now is the 48C tax credits. But companies themselves are increasingly focused on sustainability, whether it’s driven by investor demands, customer expectations, or internal culture. For example, we’ve seen manufacturers asking utilities for their generation mix—what portion of their electricity comes from renewable sources—so they can meet their sustainability goals by 2030 or 2040.

Amy Gerber: I agree. It’s the companies pushing sustainability, not so much the states offering new incentives for it. Companies vet utilities to ensure they can meet sustainability requirements. Federal incentives are driving a lot of the action here, and we’re seeing companies taking advantage of opportunities from the Inflation Reduction Act.

Andrew Greiner: So, it’s less about states offering decarbonization incentives and more about federal support and company-driven initiatives?

Amy Gerber: Exactly. While we see workforce programs and utilities supporting renewable energy projects, the main driver for decarbonization is federal.

Andrew Greiner: Speaking of workforce programs, how are we seeing incentives tied more closely to workforce development, especially for industries requiring specialized skills?

Amy Gerber: That’s a huge focus. States like Georgia and Virginia have become leaders in developing strong training programs. Georgia’s Quick Start and Virginia’s Talent Accelerator Program are great examples of how states are supporting companies by training workers with the skills needed for advanced manufacturing and tech. What’s exciting is that this isn't just a state effort anymore. Cities and utilities are getting involved, offering programs to help upskill the workforce. The goal is to ensure companies can stay competitive as skill demands evolve.

Kathy Mussio: Absolutely. There’s also a strong focus on retraining workers, which brings real value. When you talk about workforce development, who can argue with investing in people? It’s not just about tax breaks anymore. For example, Iowa’s 260E program is funded through employer withholding taxes, which are used to secure bonds for training programs. There are innovative ways states are tying workforce development into broader incentive packages.

Andrew Greiner: That’s interesting. I’ve spoken with folks in Georgia and Virginia about how companies sometimes need to choose between cash incentives and workforce programs. Are companies leaning more towards training?

Kathy Mussio: In Virginia, you can pick between the Virginia Jobs Investment Program (VJIP) or Talent Accelerator. VJIP offers $1,000 per job, and it's simple—no complex compliance. But when it comes to training, states often offer multiple funding streams that companies can piggyback on. You might have grants for new jobs, retraining funds, or on-the-job training. These different buckets of money can be used to maximize the impact.

Amy Gerber: And let’s not forget partnerships with higher education. In Indiana, for instance, Ivy Tech works with companies to create custom training programs. These partnerships can last beyond the initial ramp-up period, offering ongoing workforce development support as needs change.

Andrew Greiner: Are we seeing a shift toward creating “good jobs,” those with living wages and benefits, as opposed to just hitting numbers for job creation?

Amy Gerber: Absolutely. Most states have wage thresholds companies must meet to qualify for incentives. Texas, for example, looks closely at wages in its Skills Development Fund program. It’s not just about the number of jobs anymore, but the quality of jobs created.

Kathy Mussio: Right, and some states are flexible. Illinois' REV program allows you to use either Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data or state-specific occupational wage data to meet wage requirements. Flexibility is key here because what qualifies as a “good job” can vary from region to region.

Andrew Greiner: That flexibility seems critical. Are you seeing more states tightening purse strings or placing more scrutiny on incentives?

Amy Gerber: Not so much tightening, but definitely a shift toward performance-based incentives. Companies are only rewarded once they’ve met their goals—whether it’s job creation or investment milestones. This helps mitigate risk for both the company and the state.

Kathy Mussio: And states have been doing more due diligence for a while now. After some high-profile failures, they’ve increased scrutiny upfront to ensure they’re backing solid projects. But it’s hard to measure the true long-term impact of incentives. You can track jobs and investments, but it’s difficult to quantify how much of that growth was driven by the incentives themselves.

Andrew Greiner: It’s definitely tricky. Let’s close with this: If you could change one thing about the current economic development incentive landscape, what would it be?

Amy Gerber: I’d say the approval process. It can be frustratingly slow, especially when companies are moving quickly to secure real estate. Some states require multiple meetings before they can approve incentives, which doesn’t always match up with the speed of business today.

Kathy Mussio: Agreed. Another challenge is the timing of public announcements. Companies don’t always want their names out there before they’ve secured the deal, but sometimes final approval requires the company to disclose. There’s a disconnect between when companies are ready to announce and when incentives are formally approved.

Andrew Greiner: That’s a great point. Thanks so much for your time, Kathy and Amy. This was a fantastic discussion, and I’m sure our readers will find it valuable.