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:
Senator Martin Heinrich’s bill, which makes it easier to connect new power plants to the grid, is an encouraging sign for bipartisan permitting reform.

An important part of a bipartisan permitting reform deal may be falling into place.
Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico introduced a bill on Thursday that would make it easier for new power plants to hook up to electricity markets across the country.
The legislation, which applies to all types of generation, would allow new power plants to connect to the grid without waiting for the arduous technical studies — and without paying the exorbitant equipment upgrade fees — now required in much of the country.
Instead, the bill would let power plants opt into a much faster safety study and offer what it cheekily dubs “basic access service for energy-only delivery” — that is, BASED service — to the local electricity market.
A similar approach is already used in Texas, which has added more new generation than any other U.S. power market in recent years. In effect, Heinrich hopes to bring that cheaper, faster, and more laissez-faire method to the rest of the country.
“As electricity demand grows, we need to find better, faster ways to add more affordable, reliable power to the grid,” Heinrich said in a statement. “Right now, unnecessary delays are slowing projects that could help lower energy costs and deliver the low-cost energy we need.”
Outside experts have pushed for wider adoption of Texas’s approach, which is dubbed “connect and manage,” for some time. Although Heinrich’s proposal would apply to all kinds of power plants, Texas has been particularly successful at bringing new solar, battery, and natural gas power plants online in recent years — and it has done so while keeping connection costs lower than other markets.
“We’re seeing the success of the free market in Texas,” Sarah Toth Kotwiss, an electricity researcher at the energy and climate think tank RMI, told me, noting the state has added far more generation in recent years than much bigger and more populous U.S. grid zones. “They’re leading the way, and replicating that free market attitude could go a long way in the rest of the U.S.”
More broadly, the proposal is the kind of legislation that would slot into the bipartisan permitting package expected later this year — and as soon as next month. Heinrich’s proposal may be a sign that the senator, the ranking Democratic member of the natural resources committee, takes the prospect of reaching a deal seriously.
Across much of the country, a new power plant can only connect to the power grid after the local grid operator completes what’s called an “interconnection study” — an intensive technical account of how that new plant will affect the overall system.
These studies examine a slew of worst-case scenarios, simulating how the plant would behave at full capacity under extremely congested grid conditions, such as during a heat wave. The new plant’s developer is then required to pay for the grid and transmission line upgrades that would allow their project to run at full blast at those moments of maximum stress.
In theory, that approach maximizes the amount of money a developer can make on a new power plant. But because the grid is a big, interconnected system, that method can cause long delays and rippling costs in practice. In one case, a new 300-megawatt plant in North Dakota near the Canadian border could not start operating until it paid nearly $3 million to upgrade power lines and transformers in Missouri — more than 1,000 miles away.
And because interconnection studies try to model a proposed power plant’s influence on the power grid for years into the future, a single cancellation can have a cascading effect. When a power plant pulls out of the interconnection queue, every project in line behind it sometimes needs to be studied again, causing delays and costs to spiral even further.
In one famous example, a solar and battery plant in Maryland was initially told that it needed to pay for $1.25 million to connect to the local grid. But after a series of cancellations and new rounds of study, that figure was revised — to nearly $72 million. The solar project got shelved.
While interconnection queues used to be relatively quick, the process of hooking up a new power plant to the grid can now regularly take eight years, Kotwiss said.
As I discussed with the electricity researchers Tyler Norris and Claire Waymer on Heatmap’s podcast Shift Key in 2024, these lengthening wait times have changed how power plant developers behave. Many developers now “spam the queue,” filing study requests for any project that they could ever conceivably want to build. That has led delays to spiral even further.
The end result of all this spamming is that the total capacity of power plants asking to connect to the grid now exceeds the size of the U.S. grid itself. At the end of 2025, more than 2,000 gigawatts of new generation or storage projects were waiting in interconnection queues, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. The country’s operating power plant fleet is only about 1,400 gigawatts.
To be clear, most of those proposed projects will never be built — they are hypothetical queries submitted by developers who are trying to claim a place in line. Yet even switching on a small set of plants could transform the power grid.
These long wait times aren’t the norm in Texas. In the Lone Star state, it takes less than four years to bring a new plant online.
That’s because new power plants in Texas can hook up to the grid — and start generating power — as soon as the local grid operator completes a more rudimentary engineering and safety study. Then during moments of peak grid congestion, power plants must curtail their own generation, reducing their electricity production to the level that the overall grid can support. While this means that a given solar farm or natural gas plant might not run at full bore all the time, the overall approach gets that plant up and running much sooner, allowing it to sell energy into the grid during most of the year.
Heinrich’s law would order electricity markets and grid operators to make this faster option available to new power plants across the country. It would let power plants opt into receiving a much simpler and faster study, one that checks only that adding the new power plant will be safe for the immediate grid.
A power plant that opts into the new BASED service would still have the option of entering the traditional interconnection queue. Doing so would let it eventually increase its operation over time, paying for grid upgrades so that it can participate in capacity markets and other auctions.
Expanding Texas’s approach to other states could help cut costs for electricity consumers by bringing more energy onto the market faster, Kotwiss said. Even in complicated power markets that include additional auctions — for capacity, for instance, or reliability — energy still makes up most wholesale costs.
It could also help ease the strains on the grid — especially in congested regions like the Mid-Atlantic — caused by artificial intelligence data centers and new factories.
The Texas-inspired technique could help the solar and battery industries, because it keeps a given project’s upfront expenses low and allows those technologies’ low costs to dominate their economics. Solar has boomed in Texas in recent years, and the state now has more utility-scale solar installed than California does.
But the BASED approach would likely help natural gas plants and other forms of newer, cheaper generation, too, because it strengthens new entrants as compared to incumbents. Jacob Mays, a Cornell engineering professor, has studied how slow and wonky interconnection queues can prevent electricity markets from functioning well. The existing interconnection approach used in most of the country “amounts to a significant barrier on new entry to new generation,” he told me, and it has “some anticompetitive impacts.”
Heinrich has said that he plans on introducing more electricity system reforms soon, including a bill to push utilities to adopt technologies that get more capacity out of their existing equipment.
I think it’s an encouraging sign for permitting reform advocates that ranking Senate Democrats are advancing these kinds of technology-neutral power market bills. An eventual deal will likely ultimately rest on Democrats’ willingness to support policy like this — and whether they can strike a deal with Republicans to rewrite parts of long-standing environmental or permitting laws, including the National Historic Preservation Act and Clean Water Act.
But just as importantly, it will depend on Republicans — and the White House — reining in President Trump’s powers to kill energy projects by fiat. With this bill, Democrats are suggesting they’re willing to be, well, a little BASED. Whether the president will join them remains to be seen.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Greenhouse gas pollution could drop by half a percent this year, according to a new analysis.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
Back in March of last year, I coined the phrase “Degrowth Donald” to describe President Donald Trump’s accidental environmental impact.
Trump might say that climate change was a “hoax” or “scam,” I said. But when you looked at his actions, a different set of beliefs emerged.
He imposed a 10% tax on Canadian oil — a far more effective deterrent on consuming Albertan crude than a decade of protests against Keystone XL. He taxed foreign car imports and levied new tariffs on single-family-home building materials. You could say he had, I don’t know, rhubarb politics — a MAGA red stalk erupting in big green leaves.
Of course, Trump’s actual environmental politics are far more complicated. He has declared war on wind energy and gutted greenhouse gas rules. As you read in Heatmap AM this morning, the Trump administration announced today it would transform the Endangered Species Act to legalize a much broader range of animal killings.
But every so often, Degrowth Donald rides again. And so it is with the Iran war, which has gone on much longer than Trump initially envisioned, changed the global energy economy, and made China’s distinctive approach to energy security — which relies on electrification and large oil and mineral stockpiles — look more popular globally. It has triggered an energy crisis that is, at the moment, getting worse: Even in the United States, gasoline prices are surging again, and diesel is nearing its post-2022 inflation-adjusted record highs, according to Patrick De Haan, the head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy. Energy prices are even higher in much of Europe.
One upshot of these higher prices, though? Emissions now seem to be going down. According to a new analysis from Carbon Brief, a U.K.-based nonprofit, global emissions from fossil fuels will fall by half a percent this year because of higher oil and natural gas prices caused by the Iran war and Strait of Hormuz closure. What’s interesting is that coal burning will actually increase — by more than 1% — but it will be swamped by declines from oil and gas consumption.
That’s a change from what authorities once expected. Last year, the International Energy Agency projected that global coal use would decline this year because of Chinese policies. But fuel switching will drive it up.
Of course, emissions declines caused by higher prices (or economic downturns) are the worst type of reductions. What we want to see, instead, is countries switching to lower-carbon forms of energy. But energy crises have a way of pushing every country’s energy policy in new directions. This year’s events have convinced Thailand, for instance, to reduce its liquified natural gas consumption and switch to renewables instead; they have caused Canada to open its market up to cheap Chinese electric vehicles and pursue an “associate membership” with the European Union. The 1970s oil crisis ultimately created the global energy regime of the 1980s and 1990s. What else countries might learn from this crisis is not too hard to guess.
The administration told a federal court that it has a “new analytical methodology,” hence the continued delays.
A federal judge ruled in early August that the Trump administration’s freeze on vertical height clearances for wind turbines was likely illegal. More than a month later nearly all of the wind energy projects remain on pause, as federal officials add new red tape that industry representatives say runs afoul of the court’s edict.
Let’s catch-up quickly on the American wind sector’s existential dilemma: the federal government has control over airspace higher than 200 feet from the ground and wind farm turbines essentially always enter that sphere of control. For at least a year and a half, the Trump administration through the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration has slowly gummed up what industry and former government officials have said was once a rote, benign bureaucratic process for ensuring turbine rotation didn’t interfere with flight patterns or radar at nearby airports.
So, Trump is delaying key approvals even for wind projects on private land, a worst-case scenario for the industry during his presidency. With support from their respective trade groups, many project developers sued and in August won a preliminary injunction against this de-facto national wind energy freeze. The court ruling said federal law laid out clear deadlines for completing these airspace reviews and the administration was willfully missing them.
“[In] light of DoD’s review freeze that started a year ago and still has no end in sight, the wind developers would naturally look to the same deadlines for relief,” U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut wrote, stating the administration’s pause violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Immergut also said the Trump administration potentially violated the law by reviewing projects under a new national security “methodology” that was defined by Congress.
But on Thursday, in its first update to the court since the ruling, the Justice Department laid out how essentially all projects remain at a standstill because they were adopting a new kind of comprehensive review process.
The administration claimed that “as a matter of policy” it had “resumed processing wind energy project applications,” but it only described a single instance where a company had heard from the military about moving forward. In addition, that company as well as all others affected by the freeze would still face a “new analytical methodology” for federal agencies reviewing height clearances for all projects, which appears to fly in the face of the ruling. The Justice Department did not provide any more detail about the methodology in its status update to the court.
Nicole Hughes, executive director of lead plaintiff Renewable Northwest, asserted in an interview Tuesday that the agency isn’t complying with the court order. “It appears to me they’re still stalling,” Hughes told me, adding the federal government’s reluctance to proceed is creating “a pretty high risk” for developers of any new wind projects in the United States. She said if nothing changes in the short term, they’re going to “have to go back to the judge and ask for further clarification as to what it means to comply with this order.”
“The lack of compliance by the administration does put into question the credibility [of the courts] and what pieces hold their feet to the fire? What remedies do we have? There’s never been a time an administration flaunts a judge’s orders the way the administration is.”
The Justice Department status update described a multitude of wind energy projects impacted by the freeze. At least 30 projects apparently already signed deals proposed by the military to mitigate radar impacts and were awaiting a counter-signature from the Department of Defense (which Trump calls the Department of War or DoW). Those previous legal agreements are now at risk of being thrown out, according to the Justice Department filing. The new pathway forward for them apparently is: “DoW will either (i) provide a notice that the project presents an unacceptable risk to national security, (ii) re-engage in negotiations with the developer to attempt to ameliorate any unacceptable risks, or (iii) circulate to the project proponent [a] new model mitigation agreement.”
At least 110 projects were in the middle of discussions with the federal government about mitigating airspace impacts when the injunction came down, according to the DOJ filing, which says none of them have heard from officials since the injunction. “As of this filing, developer re-engagements have yet to begin because such discussions need to be informed by the analytical results. Given the number of projects in this category, DoW has been assessing how to resume review and engagement with the developers.”
The DOJ said another 50 projects awaiting initial meetings with the federal government about airspace risk will begin once the administration “finishes with those” 110 projects that were in the middle of the process. That waiting list will also include another at least 40 projects the Justice Department said received “presumed risk” airspace notices from the federal government.
We’ve seen the Trump administration use extralegal means to delay wind energy before, but never to this extent or after a judge ruled against them. The Interior Department had been freezing wind and solar projects on federal lands under a policy requiring Secretary Doug Burgum sign off on routine approvals, but those typical government processes seem like they’ve resumed after a different federal court ruling enjoining that policy.
American Clean Power, the largest utility-scale solar and wind energy trade group, declined to comment. The Department of Defense did not respond to a request for comment.
CleanCounts is announcing new hourly matching credits, among other “enhancements.”
Renewable energy certificates, or RECS — the credits that companies buy in order to make claims that their operations “run on renewable energy” — are getting more sophisticated.
CleanCounts, a nonprofit that runs one of the biggest registries for RECs in North America, announced on Wednesday that it now has the capability to issue certificates tied to the exact hour the renewable energy was produced, opening the door to more reality-based clean energy claims. For companies that want to match their renewable energy purchases to the hours when their factories and stores are actually consuming power, “that was a critical piece of infrastructure that was missing,” Benjamin Gerber, the CEO of CleanCounts, told me.
The company also announced “additional enhancements” to its registry that will enable a wider range of new REC products, from certificates tied to “pollinator-friendly solar,” to projects owned by indigenous Tribes, to “low-impact hydropower” projects that mitigate harm to fish. Gerber said he thinks having a system to track and verify these benefits will help companies tell a different story about the infrastructure they are building, and in so doing help turn the tide of public support.
Traditionally, a REC represents a megawatt-hour of electricity that has been generated by a renewable energy source such as wind, solar, geothermal, or moving water. The generator records every megawatt-hour it produces with a registry like CleanCounts, which issues certificates; companies then buy these certificates, either in advance under power purchase agreements or after the fact in the spot market. The registry then “retires” the certificates once the REC buyer chooses to “use” it to make a clean energy claim. Registries ensure that nobody is counting the same megawatt-hour more than once.
Today, a lot of corporations simply match their annual energy consumption with certificates. If they anticipate consuming 100 megawatts, they might buy 100 megawatts of solar RECs — even if their factories operate at night — and then claim they “run on 100% renewable energy.” Critics argue these types of claims mislead the public and tip the scales toward the cheapest renewable sources — i.e. solar and wind — rather than those that can generate energy in the off-hours, such as batteries, geothermal, and nuclear. Many clean energy advocates want to see companies move toward making more specific claims about the number of hours they run on renewable energy.
Google got behind this idea several years ago, pledging to match its consumption with clean energy on a 24/7 basis. CleanCounts piloted a method with Google to issue the company hourly RECs, but to do so it had to basically reverse engineer the certificates, embedding data regarding the time the energy was produced after the fact. That made it complicated to true up a company’s energy consumption data with its REC purchases and say, “we covered X number of hours with clean energy.”
Now, CleanCounts will be able to specifically issue a credit for “1 megawatt-hour produced Wednesday, September 16, at 9:00 a.m.,” for example, making it far easier for companies to adopt an hourly matching strategy.
“Instead of breaking it apart, they're basically issuing it as an already granularized tradable certificate,” Alex Piper, the head of policy at EnergyTag, a nonprofit that advocates for hourly matching, told me. “Which is what is new and exciting, and opens the door for more liquid transactions and a broader and more impactful marketplace.”
Hourly matching is not exactly popular in the corporate sustainability world. A lot of companies and sustainability consultants argue that accounting for their energy on an hourly basis will be too complicated, too expensive, and ultimately crater the corporate clean energy market. Corporations are in a showdown with EnergyTag and other proponents of hourly matching to convince the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, a nonprofit that sets standards for corporate carbon accounting, of their case.
The new CleanCounts product solves at least one of those challenges, making hourly clean energy procurement much simpler.
That might also reap benefits in the form of consumer trust. New polling from EnergyTag and YouGov found that Americans tend to agree that companies shouldn’t claim to use solar at night. When asked, “When should a company count as a clean energy user?” 45% of respondents selected “only when their clean energy supply matches the hours they actually use electricity,” while 22% chose “when their clean energy averages out over the year (i.e. daytime solar covering nighttime usage.)” Just under a third of the 1,292 respondents selected “don’t know.”
Even if companies start buying hourly RECs, however, another challenge will be figuring out how to tell their customers, most of whom have no idea what a REC is. For years, companies have simply advertised that they are 100% renewable. What will it take to convince customers that actually, “We use clean energy about half the time we operate” is a more laudable claim?