You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Current conditions: There’s a high risk of avalanches in the Cascade Mountains after a storm dumped up to 14 inches of snow • The AQI in Dubai is back down to 80 after spiking to 155 this weekend • The high is in the low 50s in Central Park, which has been without snow for a record-breaking 659 days.
COP28 continued for its third and fourth days in Dubai this weekend. Here’s a quick primer on what you might have missed:
Monday’s agenda is focused on finance, trade, gender equality, and accountability.
Get Heatmap AM in your inbox every weekday morning:
Speaking of methane, on Saturday the Biden administration announced the finalization of long-in-the-making regulations that will rein in methane leaks from existing and future oil and gas wells. The EPA says the rules will prevent the equivalent of 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide from being emitted between 2024 and 2038, almost as much as was emitted by all power plants in the country in 2021. The total benefits created by the new limits, the administration estimates, will reach $98 billion by 2038.
“The U.S. now has the most protective methane pollution limits on the books,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, which has played a major role in exposing the dangers of methane.
During an online event in late November, COP28 president Sultan Al Jaber claimed there is “no science out there” to support phasing out fossil fuels to mitigate global warming, The Guardian and the Center for Climate Reporting jointly reported on Sunday. Al Jabar, who is also the chief executive of the UAE’s state oil company Adnoc, further claimed in the conversation that such a phase-out was “alarmist” and would “take the world back into caves.”
The leaked comments have caused a stir on the ground in Dubai, where Al Jaber was already under fire following a BBC report that he planned to use the climate summit to promote oil interests. (A spokesperson denied this). U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the president’s newly revealed comments were “verging on climate denial,” while Oil Change International’s Romain Ioualalen said that Al Jaber’s “science-denying statements are alarming and raise deep concerns about the presidency’s capacity to lead the U.N. climate talks.”
A 28-year-old Florida man was arrested last week after he allegedly threatened to carry out a “mass casualty event” at Thursday’s Cybertruck promotional event in Austin, the Austin-American Statesman reported this weekend.
Tesla was notified of the threat after a man, identified as Paul Ryan Overeem of Orlando, said in an Instagram group chat that he was “planning” an attack at the event “so up to you guys to stop me.” In another message, Overeem allegedly said “I plan on killing people” and “I would like you to do something about it so I don’t have to.” He was arrested in Austin’s Travis County after driving there from Florida, and has been charged with terroristic threat.
Though the event was attended by Elon Musk, NBC News writes the CEO did not appear to be a specific target and the suspect, rather, “appeared to object to technology in modern life.”
Airplane contrails — those white, vaporous ribbons that follow jets across the sky — have long drawn scrutiny from environmental activists, who’ve pointed to them as a major source of warming, saying the creation of high clouds could trap heat in the atmosphere à la the greenhouse gas effect. Boeing and NASA have been conducting test flights to explore if sustainable aviation fuel could help limit contrails, while Google and Bill Gates-funded Breakthrough Energy climate action group have experimented with rerouting planes through regions of the atmosphere that are less likely to induce contrails.
But a new report by David Lee, an influential researcher of aviation and climate who previously looked at the issue in a 2021 paper, has found that “the fundamental premise” that contrails are concerning enough to warrant mitigation investment “is not yet established,” The Seattle Times reports. The science around contrails and the climate is extremely complicated — that much is clear — but Lee writes that it is so uncertain that efforts to limit contrails could actually be “of limited effect” or even “have unintended consequences,” like burning longer-lasting CO2 to reroute planes.
Marc Shapiro of Breakthrough Energy, who is working to reduce contrails, told the Times, “to be totally frank, our numbers are coming up on the low end of David Lee’s [2021] estimates as well.”
Johannes Simon/Getty Images
Life on pause in Munich, where Bavarian broadcaster Bayerischer Rundfunk reports the 17.3 inches of snowfall on Saturday were the most since recordkeeping began in 1933.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more on the week’s most important conflicts around renewable energy projects.
1. Lawrence County, Alabama – We now have a rare case of a large solar farm getting federal approval.
2. Virginia Beach, Virginia – It’s time to follow up on the Coastal Virginia offshore wind project.
3. Fairfield County, Ohio – The red shirts are beating the greens out in Ohio, and it isn’t looking pretty.
4. Allen County, Indiana – Sometimes a setback can really set someone back.
5. Adams County, Illinois – Hope you like boomerangs because this county has approved a solar project it previously denied.
6. Solano County, California – Yet another battery storage fight is breaking out in California. This time, it’s north of San Francisco.
A conversation with Elizabeth McCarthy of the Breakthrough Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Elizabeth McCarthy of the Breakthrough Institute. Elizabeth was one of several researchers involved in a comprehensive review of a decade of energy project litigation – between 2013 and 2022 – under the National Environment Policy Act. Notably, the review – which Breakthrough released a few weeks ago – found that a lot of energy projects get tied up in NEPA litigation. While she and her colleagues ultimately found fossil fuels are more vulnerable to this problem than renewables, the entire sector has a common enemy: difficulty of developing on federal lands because of NEPA. So I called her up this week to chat about what this research found.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So why are you so fixated on NEPA?
Personally and institutionally, [Breakthrough is] curious about all regulatory policy – land use, environmental regulatory policy – and we see NEPA as the thing that connects them all. If we understand how that’s functioning at a high level, we can start to pull at the strings of other players. So, we wanted to understand the barrier that touches the most projects.
What aspects of zero-carbon energy generation are most affected by NEPA?
Anything with a federal nexus that doesn’t include tax credits. Solar and wind that is on federal land is subject to a NEPA review, and anything that is linear infrastructure – transmission often has to go through multiple NEPA reviews. We don’t see a ton of transmission being litigated over on our end, but we think that is a sign NEPA is such a known obstacle that no one even wants to touch a transmission line that’ll go through 14 years of review, so there’s this unknown graveyard of transmission that wasn’t even planned.
In your report, you noted there was a relatively small number of zero-carbon energy projects in your database of NEPA cases. Is solar and wind just being developed more frequently on private land, so there’s less of these sorts of conflicts?
Precisely. The states that are the most powered by wind or create the most wind energy are Texas and Iowa, and those are bypassing the national federal environmental review process [with private land], in addition to not having their own state requirements, so it’s easier to build projects.
What would you tell a solar or wind developer about your research?
This is confirming a lot of things they may have already instinctually known or believed to be true, which is that NEPA and filling out an environmental impact statement takes a really long time and is likely to be litigated over. If you’re a developer who can’t avoid putting your energy project on federal land, you may just want to avoid moving forward with it – the cost may outweigh whatever revenue you could get from that project because you can’t know how much money you’ll have to pour into it.
Huh. Sounds like everything is working well. I do think your work identifies a clear risk in developing on federal lands, which is baked into the marketplace now given the pause on permits for renewables on federal lands.
Yeah. And if you think about where the best places would be to put these technologies? It is on federal lands. The West is way more federal land than anywhere else in the county. Nevada is a great place to put solar — there’s a lot of sun. But we’re not going to put anything there if we can’t put anything there.
What’s the remedy?
We propose a set of policy suggestions. We think the judicial review process could be sped along or not be as burdensome. Our research most obviously points to shortening the statute of limitations under the Administrative Procedures Act from six years to six months, because a great deal of the projects we reviewed made it in that time, so you’d see more cases in good faith as opposed to someone waiting six years waiting to challenge it.
We also think engaging stakeholders much earlier in the process would help.
The Bureau of Land Management says it will be heavily scrutinizing transmission lines if they are expressly necessary to bring solar or wind energy to the power grid.
Since the beginning of July, I’ve been reporting out how the Trump administration has all but halted progress for solar and wind projects on federal lands through a series of orders issued by the Interior Department. But last week, I explained it was unclear whether transmission lines that connect to renewable energy projects would be subject to the permitting freeze. I also identified a major transmission line in Nevada – the north branch of NV Energy’s Greenlink project – as a crucial test case for the future of transmission siting in federal rights-of-way under Trump. Greenlink would cross a litany of federal solar leases and has been promoted as “essential to helping Nevada achieve its de-carbonization goals and increased renewable portfolio standard.”
Well, BLM has now told me Greenlink North will still proceed despite a delay made public shortly after permitting was frozen for renewables, and that the agency still expects to publish the record of decision for the line in September.
This is possible because, as BLM told me, transmission projects that bring solar and wind power to the grid will be subject to heightened scrutiny. In an exclusive statement, BLM press secretary Brian Hires told me via e-mail that a secretarial order choking out solar and wind permitting on federal lands will require “enhanced environmental review for transmission lines only when they are a part of, and necessary for, a wind or solar energy project.”
However, if a transmission project is not expressly tied to wind or solar or is not required for those projects to be constructed… apparently, then it can still get a federal green light. For instance in the case of Greenlink, the project itself is not explicitly tied to any single project, but is kind of like a transmission highway alongside many potential future solar projects. So a power line can get approved if it could one day connect to wind or solar, but the line’s purpose cannot solely be for a wind or solar project.
This is different than, say, lines tied explicitly to connecting a wind or solar project to an existing transmission network. Known as gen-tie lines, these will definitely face hardships with this federal government. This explains why, for example, BLM has yet to approve a gen-tie line for a wind project in Wyoming that would connect the Lucky Star wind project to the grid.
At the same time, it appears projects may be given a wider berth if a line has other reasons for existing, like improving resilience on the existing grid, or can be flexibly used by not just renewables but also fossil energy.
So, the lesson to me is that if you’re trying to build transmission infrastructure across federal property under this administration, you might want to be a little more … vague.