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:
From the source to the registers.

The term “heat pump” refers to any system that can extract heat from a colder space and transfer it to a warmer one. For example, refrigerators use heat pumps to remove heat from inside the fridge and expel it into your kitchen. Air conditioners use heat pumps to remove heat from inside the house and dump it outside. In this guide, the phrase “heat pump” refers specifically to HVAC equipment that is capable of both heating
and cooling the air inside a home. In other words, we’re talking about air conditioners that can also run in reverse, pulling heat from outside on a winter day and pumping it inside.
We’ve created this guide because when it comes to getting off fossil fuels, it does matter what you replace them with. Climate advocates tout electric heat pumps because they can create two to three times more heat per unit of energy than other heating equipment. Electric resistance heating, by contrast, is extremely wasteful, and if people start installing those systems en masse, that could actually increase emissions in the near term and make it more difficult to decarbonize the economy in the long term. By getting a heat pump, you won’t just be cutting emissions, you’ll be reducing the cost of cleaning up the electric grid because we’ll need less electricity overall.
That said, a poorly designed or installed system can negate many of the benefits that heat pumps have to offer. Whether you’re reading because you want to cut emissions, or save money on energy, or take advantage of the steady, quiet comfort heat pumps provide, it’s essential to do your homework and find a good contractor to work with. In this guide, we’ll cover how to know when it’s the right time to get heat pumps, the basics of understanding what your options are, common misconceptions about heat pumps, how to find and vet contractors, and more.
Larry Waters is the founder and president of Electrify My Home, a heating and air conditioning contractor in Northern California that specializes in heat pumps. Waters has worked in the HVAC industry for more than 40 years.
D.R. Richardson is the co-founder of Elephant Energy, a Boulder, Colorado-based startup that helps homeowners in Colorado and Massachusetts electrify by using building science and proprietary software to ensure good system design, and by managing all aspects of the project.
Jake Marin is the senior emerging opportunities manager for VEIC, a clean energy nonprofit that administers Vermont and D.C.’s energy efficiency programs among other decarbonization work across the country. Marin ran VEIC’s HVAC program for nearly 8 years and was recently given a “Champion of Energy Efficiency” award for his pioneering work bringing heat pumps to Vermont.
There are many, many kinds of electric heat pumps used for space heating and cooling. At a high level, there are two main categories that homeowners can typically choose from:
Within each of these are a handful of installation options:
The above designs aren’t mutually exclusive. You can install a system that’s fully ducted, fully ductless, or a combination of both. You can also combine a heat pump system with a fuel-burning furnace or boiler, known as a dual-fuel system. If aesthetics are important to you, there are also companies like Quilt that offer versions that can better integrate into the look of your home.
“Ductwork in unfinished space is easy. Ductwork in finished space is so expensive and hard that we typically don't recommend it,” said Richardson.Heat pumps also come in models with different “speeds” or “stages”:
There are also some technical specifications to be aware of, such as seasonal efficiency ratings:
The highest rated SEER2 device may have a lower HSPF2 rating, while the highest rated HSPF2 device may have a lower SEER2 rating.
Finally, heat pumps also come in many different sizes. Having a properly sized system is one of the most important factors for ensuring your heat pumps run efficiently and last a long time.
A good contractor will be able to walk you through different system designs and equipment options to find the answer that’s best suited to your house, your goals, and your budget.
“There’s a lot of companies out there that offer just what they have in the catalog and their salespeople can’t sell anything outside of that,” Waters told me. “That means the customer is going to get matched with that cookie cutter option if they go with that company. So how to choose a contractor is one of the most important things.”
Many people are used to setting their HVAC systems to different temperatures at different times of day — one temp for the morning and evening, another for when they leave for work, and another for bedtime. This makes sense with many furnaces and air conditioners because they’re usually designed to cycle on, blast hot or cold air at full capacity until they achieve the temperature you want, and then turn off, so turning down the system when you’re not home can save a lot of energy. But the most efficient “variable speed” heat pumps work differently — they use a lot of energy to reach a certain temperature, but once they hit it, they sip small amounts of energy to maintain it. Experts say a “set it and forget it” approach will give you the most efficient performance and the most consistent energy bills.
“Don’t worry about the number,” says Marin. “Just find your comfortable temperature, and then leave it alone, forget it’s even there.”
This topic can be divisive among HVAC experts, but in most of the continental U.S., you should be able to find a heat pump solution that will heat your home efficiently on the coldest winter days. The key is that the system has to be sized correctly. Richardson’s company, Elephant Energy, works in Colorado, where he says they’ve had two years in a row with days that got down to -13 degrees Fahrenheit, “and our fleet of hundreds of heat pumps have cranked out heat to keep homes nice and warm on those coldest days.”
There still may be scenarios where you
want to keep your furnace as a back-up, even if it’s not strictly necessary.
If you’re switching from fuel oil, propane, or electric resistance heating, you’re pretty much guaranteed to save money on your bills with heat pumps. But if you’re switching from natural gas, it really depends on where you live.
Richardson says that for a lot of his customers in Colorado, making the switch from gas to inverter heat pumps is cost neutral — they end up paying a bit more for heating in the winter but less for cooling in the summer, since the heat pump is often more efficient than whatever air conditioning they were replacing. At the same time, those who don't have air conditioning to start with could end up paying a bit more year-round.
Do you…
Short answer: Hold off on a heat pump, invest in weatherization.
Long answer: You may have arrived at this guide because you’re interested in decarbonizing your home, but if you have a relatively new heating and/or cooling system, it could actually be worse, emissions-wise, to replace it, due to the embedded carbon that went into manufacturing that equipment. Unless you’re really desperate to replace your existing system for comfort or financial reasons (if you have electric resistance heaters, for example, switching to heat pumps could save you a lot of money, since they use about a third of the electricity), we recommend getting a bit more life out of it first.
In the meantime, put your enthusiasm for decarbonization into making your home more efficient. Insulating and air sealing your home before you get heat pumps will help you save money in the near term and get you the best results from heat pumps later on.
Short answer: Consider a dual fuel system
Long answer: If you really need a new air conditioning system but your heater still has a lot of life left in it, consider installing a heat pump to work alongside your existing furnace or boiler. That way, you’ll get efficient cooling capacity that will save you money in the summer, and you’ll also be able to cut down on your fossil fuel consumption in the winter. You can set the heat pump to warm your home until it gets down to a certain temperature outside, at which point your furnace or boiler will kick in. (Many heat pump models can operate in very cold temperatures, so having a backup heating system like this is not necessary, but it may be a good intermediate step in certain cases.)
Short answer: It’s the perfect time to think about heat pumps!
Long answer: HVAC equipment typically lasts for 15 to 20 years, so 10 years is probably the earliest you would want to start thinking about a replacement. It’s probably safe to wait a few years longer, but you definitely don’t want to wait until your existing system breaks to start your heat pump journey. A heat pump retrofit can be a months-long process, from finding contractors, to evaluating quotes, to refining your plan, to getting permits and scheduling the work. If you’re in an emergency situation where your boiler broke and you really need heat, you could be forced to settle for a less-than-ideal solution. At the very least, start your research now and consider weatherization upgrades.
Short answer: Get a mini-split!
Long answer: Ductless mini-split heat pumps are a no-brainer to provide heating and cooling to a single room or zone. They can be very affordable — and in some cases free — with rebates and tax credits. If you want to retrofit the rest of your home to use heat pumps down the line, this will help you get familiar with the technology and will not preclude you from adding more later — though it is helpful to tell your contractor that now so they can take it into account.
Heat pumps can be a major investment. If you just want to add heating or cooling capacity to one or two rooms, it can cost $5,000 to $7,000 per room, on average, before incentives, Richardson told me. A whole-home solution averages $20,000 to $30,000 before incentives, but depending on the home and the system design can go much higher.
Do you have some rooms that are hotter in the summer or colder in the winter than others and you want to make your home more comfortable overall? Or is your goal to get better air filtration and ventilation? Or do you simply want to get off fossil fuels? It will be helpful to think through what you want to achieve and communicate that to your contractor so they can take that into account when they design your system.
The federal government offers a 30% tax credit for heat pumps, up to $2,000, not including labor, for certain energy efficient models. (Note that you can only get the full tax credit if you have $2,000 or more in tax liability the year you install the heat pumps.) The credit can’t be rolled over to the next tax year, but you can claim it in multiple years. Your state energy office, city, or utility may offer additional tax credits or rebates.
It’s important to learn about what’s available in your area before reaching out to contractors because some rebate programs require you to work only with approved partners. Also, the contractors you reach out to might not always be up to date on the latest incentive programs, so it’s a good idea to do some independent research and make sure you find someone who knows how to help you take advantage. There is, unfortunately, not yet any single directory where you can enter your zip code and find out about every possible rebate opportunity everywhere in the country, so it’s best to check multiple sources of information:
As with all home renovation projects, we strongly recommend getting at least three quotes from different contractors.
Heat pumps are common in some parts of the country, but in others it might be difficult to find a contractor who really knows their stuff. Dip your toes in a heat pump Reddit forum and you’ll find scores of homeowners asking what to do after a contractor told them that heat pumps don’t work and they should just stick with gas. Here are a few strategies for finding high quality heat pump contractors, in order of what we recommend:
Finding the right contractor is probably the most important decision you’ll make in this entire process, and it’s not uncommon to get quotes with wildly different recommendations. Here are some questions you can ask to help you get a sense of who really knows what they are talking about and is willing to go the whole nine yards to make sure you get a properly designed system:
Manual J is a formula that helps a contractor identify the right size HVAC system for your home. It requires taking detailed measurements throughout the building, inspecting your home’s insulation and other elements that will affect airflow and heat retention, and performing tests such as the “blower door” to assess how leaky your building’s envelope is. If you’re interested in using your ductwork or installing new ductwork, they should also perform a “Manual D” calculation. Waters told me that despite these calculations being industry standards, very few contractors actually go through the trouble of doing them. “What this does, it tells us exactly what size system I need for heating and cooling, and exactly how much air goes into each room,” he said.
Richards agreed, adding that you may want to ask what technology they use to size the system. “You need somebody who has a technology-driven tool that can actually measure the heating and cooling requirements of your home,” he says. “Are you doing a true Manual J, or are you sort of sticking your finger up in the air?”
If your contractor only works with one brand of equipment, you’re more likely to get a solution that’s convenient for them rather than one that’s custom designed for you.
Waters told me the registers — the vents that release air into a given room — are critical for occupant comfort. If your existing ductwork is designed to distribute air from a furnace, your registers may be designed to push air into the middle of the room. But with heat pumps, you want the air either pushed up toward the ceiling if the vents are down low or across the ceiling if they are up high, so that the house doesn’t feel drafty and you get proper circulation.
If you’re starting with heat pumps but you eventually want to electrify your stove, your clothes dryer, or your car, your home may need an electric panel upgrade or an electric service upgrade from the utility. What you don’t want is to put in heat pumps that eat up the rest of your home’s capacity and then have to deal with pricey upgrades down the line.
The Building Performance Institute and North American Technician Excellence are two organizations that train and certify contractors, auditors, and technicians in the latest building science and best practices. A certification doesn’t guarantee you’ve found the right contractor — it could mean they know a lot about installing heat pumps but still don’t know much about the models that work in the coldest climates, for instance. But it’s a helpful data point that shows they are investing in training.
After you’ve found a contractor or company to work with, settled on a system design, and secured financing, your installer is going to need to secure permits for the work. Then you’ll need to schedule the installation, which, depending on how busy your contractor is, can take several weeks to several months. The actual work should take one to three days, depending on how complicated it is.
Also — talk to your contractor about maintenance. Be sure to clean the filters regularly and do anything else they recommend to get the best performance and longest life out of your equipment.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Current conditions: A bomb cyclone dumped as much as 16 inches of snow on North Carolina, and more snow could come by midweek • Tampa, Florida, is seeing rare flurries, putting embattled citrus crops at risk • Sri Lanka is being inundated by intense thunderstorms as temperatures surge near 90 degrees Fahrenheit.
As the bomb cyclone bore down on the Southeastern United States with Arctic chills, Duke Energy sent out messages to its millions of customers in Florida and the Carolinas last night asking households to voluntarily turn down the power between certain hours on Monday to avoid blackouts on the grid. “Frigid temperatures are driving extremely high energy demand,” the utility said in a statement to its ratepayers in Florida. “As Florida continues to experience the coldest air in the state since 2018, Duke Energy is asking all customers to voluntarily reduce their energy use” from 5 a.m. to 9 a.m. EST on Monday. The company issued an identical message to customers in the Carolinas, except the window stretched from 4 a.m. to 10 a.m.
“Put simply, cold temperatures stress the grid,” my colleague Jeva Lange and Matthew Zeitlin wrote last week. “That’s because cold can affect the performance of electricity generators as well as the distribution and production of natural gas, the most commonly used grid fuel. And the longer the grid has to operate under these difficult conditions, the more fragile it gets.”
The Department of Energy just proposed exempting advanced nuclear reactors from carrying out reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act, marking yet another step the Trump administration is taking to speed up deployment of new atomic power technologies. Past environmental assessments have demonstrated “that any hazardous waste, radioactive waste, or spent nuclear fuel generated by the project can be managed” and “do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.” The new categorical exclusion takes effect today, but the agency is taking public comments for the next 30 days and said it may revise the policy depending on the testimony it receives.
When Matthew wrote “everyone wants nuclear now” back in 2024, he was referring to the suddenly ubiquitous popularity of a once taboo energy source. But if you read those four words to instead convey a sense of urgency, you’d be accurately describing the state of affairs in 2026 as electricity demand rapidly eclipses incoming supply, as I wrote last week.
A Canadian company developing what it claims is one of the continent’s first major new sources of alumina, the processed version of bauxite needed to make aluminum, is set to move ahead with the project. The privately-owned Canadian Energy Metals said late last week that the $6.3 billion project contains an estimated 6.8 billion metric tons of alumina within a 230-square-mile stretch of the Prairie province of Saskatchewan. Canada ranks among the top global producers of primary aluminum, but its refineries and smelters rely on imports. The discovery the startup confirmed appears to be large enough to represent more than a third of known alumina globally. “We believe it’s very significant,” Christopher Hopkins, the chief executive at CEM, told The Wall Street Journal.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, is taking stock of the value of friends in the fight to find critical minerals outside of China’s control. Trump officials are trying to rally consensus with allies on a pricing mechanism to boost long-term investments in mineral refining and mining. The effort is set to take place this week during meetings with dozens of foreign ministers in Washington. Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Jacob Helberg told Bloomberg he expects a lot of “momentum and excitement” toward “agreeing on a price mechanism that we can all coordinate together on in order to ensure price stability for people in the mineral refining and extraction business.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
More than 200 people were killed last week when the Rubaya coltan mine in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo collapsed. Rubaya produces roughly 15% of the world’s coltan, a processed metal needed for electric vehicle batteries, pipelines, and gas turbines. The site, which Reuters said is staffed with locals who dig manually for a few dollars per day, has been under the control of the M23 rebel group since 2024. The actual death toll, which hasn’t been updated since its initial count last week, is likely even higher. The disaster offers a grim reminder of the brutal conditions in the mineral supply chains needed for the energy transition.

Things were already looking bad for Drax as the wood pellet energy giant faced mounting scrutiny over its pollution. Last week, I told you that Japan, one of the world’s largest markets burning wood pellets for electricity and heat, was souring on the energy source. Now a senior policy specialist at the company’s flagship biomass power station has spoken out about the accuracy of public statements the company made about where it was sourcing its wood. In theory, biomass energy could be low carbon if it uses wood that would otherwise rot and release the carbon trapped inside. But investigations into Drax previously found that the company was felling old-growth forests in the U.S. and Canada, the types of mature trees that absorb the most carbon through photosynthesis, calling its claims of carbon neutrality into question. Drax insisted that didn’t have even licenses to extract trees from such woodlands at all, meaning the company wasn't harvesting them, but the senior employee said that wasn’t true.
Past studies of polar bear of Svalbard found that the population declined when sea ice disappeared. But new research in the journal Scientific Reports based on hundreds of specimens of Ursus maritimus, discovered that the physical conditions of the bear population on the Norwegian Arctic island improved despite sea ice losses. Without sea ice, the bears were previously thought to struggle to hunt and grow thinner. But the authors suggested that the Svalbard bears may be recovering as populations of land-based prey that were previously over-hunted by humans, such as reindeer and walrus, returns.
What to watch for when the agency releases its final decision on the greenhouse gas endangerment finding.
Any day now, Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency is expected to officially rescind what climate advocates refer to as “the endangerment finding,” its 2009 determination that greenhouse gas emissions threaten Americans’ public health and welfare and therefore require regulation.
Whether the decision holds up to the inevitable legal challenges and what it all means for climate policy, however, will hinge on the justification the EPA provides for reversing course.
The EPA deployed a battery of arguments when it initially proposed revoking the finding last July. It reinterpreted Supreme Court readings of the Clean Air Act and claimed it did not have the authority to regulate carbon pollution. It questioned climate science and posited that curbing U.S. climate pollution would do little to affect global warming.
The 2009 endangerment finding is not unique — all U.S. pollution regulations under the Clean Air Act start with an endangerment finding. The EPA must review the scientific literature, hold hearings, and take public comments on whether emissions of a given pollutant threaten public health and welfare before it can regulate that substance.
The endangerment finding on greenhouse gases paved the way for the EPA to regulate vehicle emissions, specifically, but it was later used to support rules for power plants and oil and gas drilling. By reversing it, the agency will not only clear the way to repealing these standards, it will deny future administrations the legal authority to replace them. That’s a significant escalation from what Trump managed during his first term, when he rolled back greenhouse gas regulations established by the Obama administration, replacing them with weaker provisions.
Here’s what I’ll be looking out for when the decision comes out.
The agency’s primary argument for revoking the endangerment finding was based on its reinterpretation of the Clean Air Act. The agency asserted that the law applies to pollutants that directly threaten public health and welfare through local or regional exposure, and that indirect harms from global climate change do not fit this bill.
Moreover, it argued, the statute required that it make an endangerment finding for each individual greenhouse gas from each specific class of new vehicle to justify regulations, rather than assess the dangers of greenhouse gases from cars generally. The latter approach artificially inflated the case for regulation, the agency implied.
There are many legal experts, such as this trio of lawyers at Harvard’s Environmental and Energy Law Program, who say that the Supreme Court decisively rejected these exact arguments in the 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA. The main outcome of that case was confirmation that greenhouse gases do, in fact, qualify as pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act, requiring the EPA to regulate them if it determines that they present a threat to public health and welfare. Following that ruling, the agency conducted an extensive review of climate science, held multiple public hearings, and sifted through thousands of public comments, before ultimately publishing the endangerment finding.
Now, however, the agency claims that its previous read of Massachusetts v. EPA was wrong, especially in light of subsequent Supreme Court decisions, such as West Virginia v. EPA and Loper Bright v. Raimondo. The former limited the EPA's toolbox for regulating power plants, and the latter required courts to defer to agency expertise in cases where the law is vague.
If the EPA clings to this argument, it may seek to get the Court to revisit that case. As the Harvard lawyers point out, none of the five justices who were in the majority on that case remain on the Supreme Court, which ups the odds of the administration getting a more favorable ruling.
If the EPA does repeal the endangerment finding on the grounds that climate risks from greenhouse gases are not covered by the Clean Air Act, that could empower state and local governments to issue their own emissions regulations, since greenhouse gas regulation would no longer be the purview of the federal government. California, for example, could argue that it no longer needs a waiver from the EPA to enact its own emissions standards for vehicles, an issue that became a political football last spring.
Revoking the endangerment finding this way may also make fossil fuel companies more vulnerable to lawsuits brought by cities and states — and undercut the Trump administration’s own efforts to sue the cities and states that are trying to sue fossil fuel companies. Some 20 to 30 state and local governments have attempted to sue oil and gas companies for damages related to climate change. The industry has responded by arguing that these cases are roundabout attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which is the job of the federal government, per the Clean Air Act. But if the federal government abdicates that responsibility, this reasoning falls apart.
In the EPA’s proposal to rescind the endangerment finding — which also included a proposal to revoke vehicle emissions standards — the agency tried to get ahead of these issues. It argued that even though it wasn’t required to issue greenhouse gas emission standards for new vehicles, states would still be preempted from doing so because the Clean Air Act still delegates that authority to the EPA.
It’s difficult to see how the agency can have it both ways. As Amanda Lineberry, a senior associate at Georgetown University’s Climate Center put it, the EPA is attempting to deem the Clean Air Act “insufficient to enable federal regulation of GHG emissions to address climate change but sufficient enough to prevent state efforts to address those emissions.”
Nonetheless, in comments responding to the proposal, industry groups such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association explicitly support this reading, and some asked EPA to strengthen it. “EPA’s rationale would be strengthened by recognizing the long history establishing federal law as the exclusive source of authority over interstate pollution,” the AGA wrote.
Even if, hypothetically, the Clean Air Act does apply to greenhouse gas emissions, the agency would still propose revoking the endangerment finding on scientific grounds, its proposal last summer said. According to a new review of climate science, it said, the EPA could no longer conclude that greenhouse gases from vehicles endanger Americans’ public health and welfare.
The proposal cited a Department of Energy report, published on the very same day as the EPA’s proposal, which provided “a critical assessment of the conventional narrative on climate change.” The report was written by a working group consisting of five scientists who have a track record of pushing back on mainstream climate science. They concluded that the warming caused by greenhouse gases is not as dangerous or bad for the economy as previously thought, and that regulating such emissions will have “undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate.”
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists have since sued the administration for assembling this group in secret, a violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Records released as a result of that lawsuit suggest that the group was explicitly formed to support the administration’s goal of repealing the endangerment finding. (A judge sided with the environmental groups on Friday, declaring that the working group was subject to FACA.)
Separately, a group of 85 scientists, some of whose research the working group cited, conducted an independent review and deemed the report biased and riddled with errors, including misinterpretations of the reviewers’ own findings. The National Academies, an independent institution that provides expert advice to the U.S. government on scientific and technical issues, also followed up with its own report concluding that “the evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute.”
Given this response, I’ll be looking to see if EPA maintains its position on climate science in the final decision, and if it does, how it responds to the mountain of criticism it has received. It’s possible the courts would defer to the agency’s assessment, but they could also side with the substantially larger volume of evidence disagreeing with it, bruising the agency’s credibility.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect Friday’s ruling on the working group.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has lifted its ban on issuing permits for incidental harm to protected eagles while also pursuing enforcement actions — including against operators that reported bird deaths voluntarily.
When Trump first entered office, he banned wind projects from receiving permits that would allow operators to unintentionally hurt or kill a certain number of federally protected eagles, transforming one of his favorite attacks on the industry into a dangerous weapon against clean energy.
One year later, his administration is publicly distancing itself from the ban while quietly issuing some permits to wind companies and removing references to the policy from government websites. At the same time, however, the federal government is going after wind farm operators for eagle deaths, going so far as to use the permitting backlog it manufactured to intimidate companies trying in good faith to follow the law, with companies murmuring about the risk of potential criminal charges.
Two days before Christmas, a coalition of renewable energy trade groups whose members include some of the world’s largest clean energy companies sued the Trump administration, arguing that several of its policies delaying permits for their projects violated the Administrative Procedures Act. One of those policies was the ban on granting new bald and golden eagle “incidental take permits.” These serve as the government’s way of acknowledging that hurting or killing protected bird species in small numbers is unavoidable no matter how many design protections are put in place.
After that lawsuit was filed, the Trump administration began wiping references to the ban from government websites discussing the permitting program. Some of these changes were recent: Wind companies discovered references to the ban were deleted from these webpages sometime between the case being filed and mid-January, according to screenshots and sworn statements submitted as exhibits in the case. The now-deleted language describing the ban said it was premised on Trump’s Day 1 anti-wind executive order, which a federal judge ruled in December violated the Administrative Procedures Act.
I am also starting to hear that the Fish and Wildlife Service is sending wind farm operators eagle permits again, though I do not know how many have gone out or to whom.
When it comes to bald eagles, at least, the Fish and Wildlife Service is supposed to “automatically” issue general permits for incidental take through an electronic self-certification system. A spokesperson for the advocacy groups behind the lawsuit confirmed in a statement to me that the Fish and Wildlife Service is “now processing” these general permits “because they cannot halt them given their self-certification structure.”
The spokespoerson added that to their knowledge, the agency still isn’t issuing permits requiring more thorough levels of government analysis because of other Trump administration policies. Complex permits are likely still impeded by an order requiring sign-off from Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on environmental permits for solar and wind projects.
Garrett Peterson, acting chief of public affairs for the Fish and Wildlife Service, confirmed in a statement Friday afternoon that the office is currently allowing general permits for wind farms “that meet eligibility and issuance criteria.”
This change in practice also comes after a string of losses — many, many losses — in court over Trump’s stop work orders blocking offshore wind construction. The Trump administration may be trying to avoid yet another embarrassing defeat.
Still, the wind industry isn’t out of the woods entirely. Team Trump seems to be pivoting to enforcing the law protecting bald and golden eagles — the aptly titled Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
On January 12, the trade groups filed a motion asking the judge in the case for a preliminary injunction lifting all of the anti-renewable permitting policies addressed in the case, including the eagle permit ban, until the court could make a final ruling. Attached to the motion was a voluminous, candid, and fearful statement from executive directors for the trade groups, making a lot of information about Trump’s war on renewable energy public for the first time. One of those confessions was the existence of a memo banning water permits for projects that defied the Trump administration’s preferred “aesthetics,” news of which I scooped on Thursday in my newsletter The Fight.
Another disclosure by the trade groups made my jaw drop. The eagle permit ban appeared to have become a cudgel for the administration to use against companies reporting bird deaths in good faith, departing from what the coalition said was a “longstanding policy” of “enforcement discretion so long as wind farm operators can demonstrate that they are implementing best practices.” This situation was significant and dire, according to the statement — so much so the trade groups were “unwilling to disclose specific projects” that were harmed by the eagle permit ban “due to ongoing concerns about potential persecution or retaliation in direct response to their participation in this lawsuit.”
These enforcement actions do happen, but are not usually a public affair unless the charges are particularly serious. Those instances have been rare, reserved for companies demonstrating what the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act describes as a “wanton disregard” for the lives of the birds.
The Trump administration first indicated it would pursue some sort of crackdown on eagle deaths from wind farms in early August, when it sent letters to project operators across the country asking for any and all information on the subject. The letters teased the risk of not only civil but criminal liability, stating that certain violators would be forwarded to the Justice Department.
Since then, I’ve heard of just one enforcement action under Trump 2.0 for an eagle death: In early November, Fox News reported that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service told the Danish energy company Orsted during the government shutdown that it would issue $32,340 in fines over two dead eagles found near wind farms in Nebraska and Illinois. The Fox News story stated that Orsted had come to the Fish and Wildlife Service voluntarily with the dead eagles and would be fined because they died without proper permits; it’s unclear whether the company was pursuing them at the times the birds died. Current rules under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act call for up to $16,590 for every dead bird, so the fine represented nearly the strictest civil penalty FWS could level against Orsted.
The trade group executives’ statement indicates that the enforcement action described in the Fox News article wasn’t a one-off, and that there is a wider wind industry crackdown over dead eagles playing out in the shadows, at least for now. It’s unclear whether this will take the form of a mess of fines, or whether, as the FWS data call suggested, some of this work might lead to allegations of criminality involving the Justice Department.
When I asked for comment on the enforcement efforts, the Fish and Wildlife Service told me to file a public records request under the Freedom of Information Act.
American Clean Power, the largest trade group representing wind companies, did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to remove the name of the spokesperson for the litigants.