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:
Dozens of people are reporting problems claiming the subsidy — and it’s not even Trump’s fault.

Eric Walker, of Zanesville, Ohio, bought a Ford F-150 Lightning in March of last year. Ironically, Walker designs and manufactures bearings for internal combustion engines for a living. But he drives 70 miles to and from his job, and he was thrilled not to have to pay for gas anymore. “I love it so much. I honestly don’t think I could ever go back to a non-EV,” he told me. “It’s just more fun, more punchy.”
But although he’s saving on gas, Walker recently learned he’d made a major, expensive mistake at the dealership when he bought the truck. The F-150 Lightning qualified for a federal tax credit of $7,500 in 2024. Walker was income-eligible and planned to claim it when he filed his taxes. But his dealership never reported the sale to the Internal Revenue Service, and at the time, Walker had no idea this was required. When he went to submit his tax return recently, it was rejected. Now, it may be too late.
Walker is not alone. Dozens of users on Reddit have been sharing near-identical stories as tax season has gotten underway — and it’s only early February. It is unclear exactly how many EV buyers are affected. What we do know is that it will be up to the Trump administration’s Treasury Department to decide whether any of them will get the refund they were counting on — the same administration that wants to kill the tax credit altogether.
The problem dates back to a change in the process for claiming the tax credit. For the 2023 tax year, dealers had until January 15, 2024 to report eligible EV sales to the IRS. For 2024, however, the IRS introduced a new, digital reporting system and new deadlines. Starting in January 2024, if a customer bought an eligible vehicle and wanted to claim the tax credit, dealerships were required to file a report within three days of the time of sale to the IRS through a web portal called Energy Credits Online.
This change coincided with another: Buyers now had the option to transfer the credit to their dealership instead of claiming it themselves. The dealer could then take the value of the credit off the price of the car and get reimbursed by the IRS. This was voluntary on the dealerships’ part, and many opted in. By October, more than 300,000 EV sales had used this transfer option, according to the Treasury Department. But apparently there were also many dealers who didn’t want to bother with it. And at least some of them never bothered to learn about the online portal at all.
Get the best of Heatmap in your inbox daily.
Charlie Gerk, an engineer living in the suburbs of Minneapolis, bought a Chrysler Pacifica plug-in electric hybrid in February after his wife had twins. Unlike Walker, Gerk knew all about the workings of the tax credit, and he wanted to get his discount up front. But the dealership he was working with — a smaller, family-run business — had not gotten set up to do it. “He’s like, ‘We sell six EVs a year, we’re not going to take the time to sign up for that program,’” Gerk recalled the salesman saying. Gerk decided to claim the tax credit himself, and the dealership even gave him a few hundred bucks off the car since he’d have to wait a year to see the refund. He then emailed the dealership instructions from the IRS for reporting the sale through the online portal, and the dealership assured him it would submit the information. It sent Gerk a copy of form 15400, an IRS “Clean Vehicle Seller Report,” for him to keep for his records — except that the form was dated 2023. When Gerk inquired about it, the finance manager told him it was just because it was still so early in the year, and that they would make sure it got filed appropriately online.
Fast forward to one year later, and Gerk came across a post in the Pacifica Reddit forum from someone whose claim was rejected by the IRS because their dealer failed to report the sale. “I logged into my online dashboard for the IRS, and sure enough, the vehicle’s not there,” Gerk told me. “If it was filed appropriately, it would have shown on my online dashboard that I had an EV clean vehicle credit for 2024, and it’s not there.”
Gerk spoke to his dealership, which said it would look into the situation. He forwarded me an email exchange between the IRS and his dealership in which a representative from the IRS’ Clean Vehicle Team said it was probably too late to fix. “The open period for any unsubmitted time of sale reports is closed,” the staffer wrote. “We are expecting some Energy Credit Online (ECO) updates so contact us via secure messaging in the Spring for additional information.”
Some users on Reddit who, like Gerk, were aware of the reporting requirements when they bought their EVs, have shared stories about visiting more than a dozen dealerships before finding one that was registered with ECO and willing to file the paperwork. Others who didn't know about the rules have recalled inquiring about the tax credit at their dealership and being told they could simply claim it on their taxes. They only found out when they tried to submit their tax paperwork on TurboTax or another e-filing system and received an error message informing them that their vehicle is not registered in the IRS database.
Some blame the dealerships for misleading them and are wondering if they have grounds to sue. Others blame the IRS for not adequately informing customers or dealers about the rules.
“My frustration lies with the fact the IRS would even allow this to be an option,” Gerk told me. “If you’re going to allow the credit to be taken by me, I have to be dependent on my dealer doing the right thing?” (Gerk asked that we not share the name of his dealership.)
I spoke with a former Treasury staffer who worked on the program, who told me that the agency went to great lengths to educate dealerships about the new online portal and filing requirements, including hosting webinars that reached more than 10,000 dealerships and a presentation at the National Automobile Dealership Association’s annual convention in Las Vegas. The agency put up pages of fact sheets, checklists, and other materials for dealers and consumers on the IRS website, they said. But the IRS doesn’t have a marketing budget, and also relied heavily on NADA, the Dealership Association, for help getting the word out.
NADA did not respond to multiple emails and phone calls asking for comment. I also contacted several of the dealerships who sold EVs to buyers who are now having their tax credit claims rejected, none of which got back to me.
Many of the affected buyers are trying to get their dealerships to contact the IRS and see if they can retroactively report the sales, as Gerk did. Some are having more luck than others. When Walker contacted his dealership in Cleveland, Ohio, to see if there was anything it could do to help him, it still seemed to have no idea what he was talking about. Walker forwarded me a response from his dealership asking him if he had spoken to his accountant. “My sales desk is pretty insistent on that this is something your accountant would handle,” it said. (Walker did not want to disclose the name of his dealership as he is still trying to work with them on a solution.)
I reached out to the Treasury Department with a list of questions, including whether this issue was on its radar and what consumers who find themselves in this situation should do. The agency confirmed receipt of the request, but had not gotten back to me by press time. We will update this story if they do. There are reports on Reddit of EV buyers having a similar issue claiming the tax credit in 2024 for purchases made in 2023. Some filed their taxes without the EV credit and then submitted appeals to the IRS after the fact, with seemingly some success.
Buyers stuck in this situation have few other places to turn. Some Reddit users have posted about reaching out to their representatives, who offered to contact the IRS on their behalf. One challenge, as noted by the former Treasury staffer I spoke with, is that unlike the dealers, who have NADA, there is no consumer advocacy group for electric vehicle buyers who can engage with lawmakers and the Treasury and request a solution.
“I don’t necessarily need the money,” Walker told me. “It was just gonna go towards some more student loans — I’m just trying to pay down all of my debt as soon as possible. So I didn’t need it. But it would have been certainly something nice to have.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
There are at least two more developers in a position to trade offshore leases for fossil fuel investment.
The Trump administration inked two more agreements to cancel offshore wind leases and reimburse the former leaseholders nearly $1 billion on Monday, demonstrating that its previous deals with TotalEnergies was not a one-off legal settlement but rather a new, repeatable strategy to throttle the industry.
Just like the deal with Total, the Interior Department is painting the agreement as a quid pro quo, where the companies will be reimbursed only after they invest an equivalent amount of money into U.S. oil and gas projects. There are a handful of remaining companies sitting on undeveloped offshore wind leases that could conceivably make similar deals. If they do, the cost to taxpayers could exceed $4 billion.
This latest deal will cancel leases for two projects, known as Bluepoint Wind and Golden State Wind. Bluepoint, a project off the coast of New York and New Jersey, was a joint venture between Global Infrastructure Partners, an investment firm owned by asset manager BlackRock, and Ocean Winds, which itself is a joint venture between the French energy company Engie and the developer EDP Renewables. The companies initially paid $765 million to acquire the lease.
The Interior Department announcement states that Global Infrastructure Partners has committed to investing that amount into an unspecified U.S. liquified natural gas facility. The firm is already a major investor in several U.S. LNG projects; alongside TotalEnergies, it reached a final investment decision last September for the expansion of the Rio Grande export terminal. If the lease cancellation agreement resembles the one struck with Total, as the Interior Department’s announcement suggests, Global Infrastructure Partners will be able to count this existing investment toward its total.
Golden State, one of the first leases sold off the Pacific coast, was a joint venture between Ocean Winds and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, an investment firm. The companies purchased it for $120 million. The government’s announcement is less specific about who will invest that money into what, noting only that it will be paid back after “an investment has been made of an equal amount in the development of U.S. oil and gas assets, energy infrastructure, and/or LNG projects along the Gulf Coast.” The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board has multiple investments in oil and natural gas pipelines and productions throughout the U.S. While Engie buys LNG from the U.S., the company has generally not been involved in U.S. oil and gas projects. EDP Renewables focuses solely on renewable energy and its parent company, EDP Group, is a Portuguese utility.
The government’s leasing laws generally do not allow companies to walk away from their lease and receive a refund. The government can cancel leases if it determines development would harm the environment or threaten national security — two claims the Trump administration has made — but only after holding a hearing on the matter.
The Trump administration has engineered a different route. In the same vein as the TotalEnergies deal, it has reached legal settlements with the companies and intends to pay them out of the Judgment Fund, a reserve overseen by the Department of Justice that agencies can draw from to pay for settlements arising from litigation or imminent litigation.
“We did not take this decision lightly,” Michael Brown, the CEO of Ocean Winds North America, told me in an emailed statement. “But when the underlying conditions in a market change, we must adapt. In this case, receiving a refund for the lease payments we had invested and exiting on agreed terms was the right outcome for our shareholders and partners.”
As I’ve reported previously, some legal experts are dubious that the circumstances constitute a legitimate use of the Judgment Fund. The agreement with Total was predicated on a series of “what if” scenarios — the Trump administration says it would have paused the company’s projects, which would have led Total to sue for breach of contract. Neither party actually did those things, instead negotiating these tit-for-tat trades with Trump.
Legal experts told me the only parties with the legal standing and the financial means to challenge the agreements are the states. I contacted the attorneys general offices in New York and New Jersey, which declined to comment, and California, which did not reply to my inquiry.
There are at least two remaining offshore wind developers who would be in a position to angle for a similar payout. RWE, a German energy company, paid $1.1 billion in 2022 to purchase a lease off the coast of New York and New Jersey for a project called Community Offshore — the most any company has paid to date for U.S. offshore wind development rights.
RWE, which previously focused its U.S. business on renewable energy, announced in March that it was developing 15 natural gas peaker plants in the U.S. In addition to Community Offshore, the company also bought rights to a lease in the Pacific for $121 million, and another in the Gulf of Mexico for about $4 million. The company did not respond to a request for comment, but its CEO has publicly suggested that it would be interested in getting its money back.
Another potential seller is Invenergy, which purchased a lease off the coast of New York and New Jersey in 2022 for $645 million for its Leading Light project. It also holds the rights to a Pacific lease bought for $112 million, and two in the Gulf of Maine, for which it paid about $9 million. The company is actively expanding its natural gas power plant fleet in the U.S. Invenergy declined to comment for this story.
The remaining companies that might be eligible for such deals paid much less for their offshore wind leases — BP, for example, paid just $135 million to obtain the lease for its Beacon Wind project in the Northeast. Duke Energy paid $130 million for a lease near North Carolina. BP’s offshore wind arm, JERA Nex bp, declined to comment on whether it would be amenable to a deal. Duke did not respond to my inquiry.
A company called EDF, a U.S. subsidiary of the French state-owned utility EDF Group, is sitting on a hefty $780 million lease, but the company is a renewables developer. There are no indications that its parent company is interested in expanding its natural gas pipeline in the U.S.
While Equinor and Dominion both have fossil fuel projects in the U.S., it seems unlikely they would reach similar deals for their remaining leases, given that they have already sued the Trump administration for halting work on offshore wind projects that were already under construction — Equinor’s Empire Wind and Dominion’s Coastal Virginia Offshore project.
Notably, Ocean Winds still has one remaining lease after this week’s deal, which it purchased on its own — not as a joint venture — in 2018, under the first Trump administration. Its SouthCoast Wind project off the coast of Massachusetts has nearly all of its approvals, though Trump’s Day One moratorium on offshore wind permits delayed construction. A subsequent lawsuit in March of last year from the city and county of Nantucket challenged the project’s Construction and Operations permit, typically the final federal approval for offshore wind farms. A federal judge ordered the permit to be sent back to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for reconsideration last fall; according to court filings, that process is ongoing.
If RWE, Invenergy, Duke, and BP each reached similar deals with the Trump administration, that would mean a total of just over $4 billion paid out of the Judgment Fund to cancel offshore wind leases, including the four existing deals. For context, the total amount the government paid to parties out of the Judgment Fund across all federal agencies in 2025 was about $4.4 billion, according to Treasury data. Annual totals over the last decade range between $1.7 billion in 2017 and $8.4 billion in 2020.
Party orthodoxy is no longer serving the energy transition, the Breakthrough Institute’s Seaver Wang and Peter Cook write.
President Trump has announced a dizzying array of executive branch led critical mineral policies since taking office again last year. While bombastically branded as new achievements, many elements from critical mineral tariffs to strategic stockpiling to Defense Production Act financing trace back to bipartisan recommendations and programs spanning the past several administrations.
Many Democrats in Congress, however, are stuck on the defensive. During a recent House Natural Resources hearing, for instance, Washington Representative Yassamin Ansari singled out the SECURE Minerals Act, a bipartisan proposal for a strategic minerals reserve, as “a framework ripe for fraud, corruption, and abuse.” Yet the draft bill actually contains strong safeguards: Senate confirmation of board members, annual independent audits, public tracking and annual reporting to Congress, conflict-of-interest prohibitions, and more.
In another House oversight hearing considering the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, California’s Maxine Waters expressed concern over President Trump’s mere contact with mineral producing countries in Africa, asking simply, “What is he doing?” The President of EXIM responded by reminding Waters of the bank’s charter to engage in sub-Saharan Africa.
In both cases, distrust of the administration and Republican lawmakers seems to have blinded Democrats to a larger strategic goal: building a secure critical mineral supply chain. Democrats who want to strengthen U.S. economic competitiveness and cultivate domestic clean technology sectors cannot afford to engage in partisan posturing at the expense of real policymaking. Nor can they afford to waste time — America’s vulnerabilities loom too large to wait until Trump leaves the White House.
Doing so will require Democrats to embrace certain positions that are at odds with recent party orthodoxy. First, they must accept the basic math that both the U.S. and the world will need new mine production and support incentives and regulatory reform for new critical minerals projects, not just recycling, re-mining, and substitution. And second, they must admit that mining projects in the U.S. and in democratically-governed partner countries offer a far better foundation for achieving high environmental and social standards than the currently dominant production routes for many raw materials today.
A recent hearing question from Texas Representative Christian Menefee hints at the risks of overly narrow minerals policy: “Should byproduct recovery be the first priority before we open up a single new mine?" While advocacy organizations and academic researchers have lately argued that operating mines dig up enough minerals to meet U.S. needs yet are currently neglecting to recover them, such analyses only consider the theoretical potential of extracting every element present in mined rock, not technical feasibility. Feasible recovery will be the exception, not the rule. Efforts to produce lithium as a byproduct from a copper-gold deposit might confront concentrations of under 20 parts per million, relative to concentrations at U.S. lithium mines currently under development that range from around 850 to 2,000 parts per million. Compared to cobalt concentrations of 2,400 parts per million at the Jervois Idaho Cobalt mine, Alaska’s large Red Dog zinc mine might boast 39 to 149 parts per million. For many elements, recovery would require new, first-of-a-kind extraction equipment consuming added water, energy, and chemical reagents — akin to burning a barn to fry an egg.
Recycling, too, is a meaningful category of solutions but ultimately limited. For instance, improved batteries and solar panels with longer service lives delay the point at which significant flows of materials become available for recycling. An increasing number of batteries and solar modules may also be redirected towards second-life use markets — electric vehicle batteries repurposed as electric grid storage assets, for example — diverting even more materials from recycling facilities.
To put such constraints into numbers, growing grid storage battery cell manufacturing capacity in the U.S. may surpass 96 gigawatt-hours by the end of this year, requiring over 17,000 tons of lithium content — alone equivalent to half of all worldwide lithium consumption in 2015. China’s tightening of rare earth export restrictions last year forced one of Ford’s auto plants to pause operations, and the shift to electric vehicles will only drive U.S. rare earths demand higher. The U.S. alone produced around 1 million EVs last year, relative to total auto manufacturing of 12 million to 14 million vehicles per year.
Even modest domestic manufacturing goals of 10 gigawatts of wind turbines and 2 million electric vehicles per year would require at least 100 tons of dysprosium and praseodymium, heavy rare earth elements that the U.S. is only just beginning to produce from recycling efforts and its sole operating mine. Globally, the International Energy Agency estimates that successful recycling expansion could avert around 5% to 30% of new mining activity, depending on the commodity.
The math is unforgiving. We need more minerals, and we need them soon.
For years, progressives have critiqued current U.S. mining regulations as antiquated and inadequate, insisting that standards governing existing mines expose marginalized communities to unacceptable impacts. While understandably reflecting past harms inflicted by mining prior to the enactment of stronger laws and regulations in the 1970s and 1980s, such a position exposes lawmakers to an uncomfortable contradiction: If modern mining and refining are structurally problematic industries, then not only must U.S. lawmakers advocate for improved industry standards domestically, logic dictates that they also use trade policies and international frameworks to penalize the unjust economic advantages benefiting irresponsible producers globally. The sum total of such actions might well slow the country’s transition to clean energy as opposed to speeding it.
Activist narratives that U.S. mining regulations offer the mining industry a smash-and-grab free-for-all obviously conflict with the reality that domestic mining has long been viewed as borderline uninvestible, with the U.S. seeing a 70% decrease in the number of active metal mines over the last 40 years. Insisting that more public engagement, extracting higher royalties to fund community projects, and quartering off certain areas with mineral potential for conservation will speed U.S. mining projects by neutralizing community opposition must consider how such high-cost projects can survive in a global market. China produces 10 times more graphite, rare earths, and polysilicon than the next largest producing country — and not by excelling at public engagement and community benefits-sharing. Continuing to indulge such domestic-only remonstrations will solve none of the nation’s supply challenges.
Meanwhile, efforts by both the Trump and Biden administrations are already driving progress towards improved recycling and utilization of unconventional wastes and resources. Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funded numerous programs to produce new critical minerals without new mining, including Department of Energy grants to equip operating facilities with byproduct recovery systems, new mapping programs from the United States Geological Survey to locate historic mines with viable levels of critical minerals in abandoned wastes, and a Rare Earth Elements Demonstration Facility program at the Department of Energy to prioritize the use of waste as a feedstock. The Trump administration has continued to issue notices for IIJA-funded, waste resource, and recycling-focused opportunities into 2026. In short, maximization of byproduct potential, recycling, and remining is already established bipartisan policy.
Above all, Democrats must capitalize on the chance to start alleviating national critical mineral constraints now, in the middle of a Trump presidency, to position the U.S. industrial base to produce impressive economic and technological results in 2028 and beyond. Trump will depart the Oval Office in less than three years, whereas U.S. critical minerals strategy must play out over the next five to 10. Passing up promising opportunities today in the name of scoring short-term political points serves neither the nation’s best interests nor those of the Democratic Party.
Over the next two years, critical minerals policy offers rare bipartisan opportunities to supercharge innovation and build projects that will not only produce strategic materials but also solutions for cleaner industrial processes. In most cases, new U.S. production will already be less carbon-intensive than the global average. Meanwhile, federal policy support will foster U.S. process engineering know-how that might ultimately drive long-term breakthroughs in transformative cleaner solutions.
All of that said, policymakers must also balance environmental and innovation ambitions against realistic expectations and resist the temptation to chase only fully clean projects. For now, truly zero-carbon metals produced using green hydrogen or other novel techniques remain dramatically more expensive than metals produced with the most cost-efficient mix of energy inputs and feedstocks. Depending on the sector, domestic industries that have first achieved scale and rebuilt domestic expertise may position America better for catalyzing such shifts.
Cost competitive industries, after all, are also key for advancing Democratic priorities. More favorable costs for U.S.-produced critical materials and increasingly secure upstream secure supply chains will help make U.S.-manufactured technologies such as electric vehicles, solar modules, and electrolyzers more competitive. Responsible production capacity that is operating at scale will increase bargaining power for pressuring irresponsible producers overseas to reform, while creating new markets for American raw materials among principled partners and corporate offtakers.
Miners and metallurgists deserve an equal place of honor in the energy transition economy alongside rooftop solar installers and electricians, and such heavy industry workers can help rebuild a stronger U.S. labor movement.
But the risk of squandering such long-term opportunities is real. During the Biden administration, progressives reflexively fielded proposals that would add regulatory burdens and make mining more difficult — proposals which largely went nowhere. Meanwhile, the bipartisan Mining Regulatory Clarity Act — one of the few specific regulatory reforms proposed for the mining sector to date — still has not passed since its introduction in 2023. The current version is stalled over the inclusion of provisions that would redirect mining administrative fees to cleaning up abandoned mines. Remediating legacy sites is an important federal government obligation, but the quid pro quo calculus of extracting concessions for simple regulatory reforms both complicates their passage while also procrastinating standalone measures to address abandoned mines.
Certainly, the current political moment could not be more charged. Another recent House Natural Resources hearing on oversight ended abruptly after Oregon Representative Maxine Dexter moved to subpoena Donald Trump, Jr. over concerns that administration financial support favored mineral companies in which he was invested. This episode highlights the challenge for Democrats — holding the federal government accountable to the U.S. public while simultaneously working to address the country’s critical mineral priorities.
This is less complicated than it sounds. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle can agree on strong oversight provisions to ensure that programs prioritize the nation’s interests and achieve political longevity. Democrats should therefore lean in to their desired guardrails, be they mandatory public transparency, reviews of company history and project feasibility, or conflict-of-interest restrictions. Stronger congressional oversight and robust environmental and human rights safeguards are worthy Democratic goals, but advancing them requires that Congress do its job and legislate.
Current conditions: After a springy warm up, temperatures in Northeast cities such as Boston and Atlantic City are plunging back into the low 50 degrees Fahrenheit range for the rest of the week • In India, meanwhile, a northern heatwave is sending temperatures in Gujarat as high as 110 degrees today • The Pacific waters off California and Mexico are hitting record temperatures amid an historic marine heatwave.
Last month, following a string of legal defeats over his efforts to halt construction of offshore wind turbines through regulatory fiat, President Donald Trump tried something new: Paying developers to quit. The plan worked: French energy giant TotalEnergies agreed to abandon its two offshore wind farms in exchange for $1 billion from the federal government, with the promise that it would reinvest that money in U.S. oil and gas development. Reporting by Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo later showed that the legal reasoning behind the federal government's cash offer was shaky, and that the actual text of the agreement contained no definite assurances that the company would invest any more than it was already planning to. Last week, I told you that more deals were in the works, including with another French company, the utility Engie. Now the Trump administration has confirmed the rumors.
On Monday, the Department of the Interior announced plans to spend a little under $1 billion — a combined $885 million — to recoup the leasing costs developers already paid from a proposed wind farm off New Jersey and another off California. BlackRock-owned Global Infrastructure Partners “has committed” to reinvest up to $765 million into a U.S.-based liquified natural gas project. In exchange, the Interior Department said it will cancel the firm’s lease for the Bluepoint Wind offshore project in federal waters off New Jersey and New York “and reimburse the company’s bid payment in the amount invested in the LNG project.” As part of the deal, Bluepoint Wind “has decided not to pursue any new offshore wind developments in the United States,” the agency said. Likewise, the floating wind farm developer Golden State Wind agreed to abandon its lease located in the federally designated Morro Bay Wind Energy Area located 20 miles off San Luis Obispo County. The company had hoped to build one of the first offshore wind facilities in California where the continental shelf drops off too steeply for the kinds of wind farms sited on the nation’s Atlantic coast. Under the deal, the developer can recover “approximately $120 million in lease fees after an investment has been made of an equal amount in the development of U.S. oil and gas assets, energy infrastructure, and/or LNG projects along the Gulf Coast.” As part of the agreement, Golden State has opted out of pursuing new offshore wind projects. In a statement, Michael Brown, the chief executive of Ocean Winds North America, credited for “the clarity they have provided with this decision and deal.” The 50% owner of both Bluepoint Wind and Golden State Wind added: “Our priority remains disciplined capital allocation and delivering reliable energy solutions that create long-term value for ratepayers, partners, and shareholders.”
The Department of Energy said Monday it will soon restart talks to pay out nearly $430 million in payments to American hydroelectric projects that were promised under a Biden-era program. The Trump administration paused the negotiations as the agency reorganized its hydro-related programs under the newly named Hydropower and Hydrokinetic Office and Secretary of Energy Chris Wright reassessed droves of investments his predecessors made into clean energy projects. The funding aims to support 293 projects at 212 facilities through a program to maintain and enhance the nation’s fleet of dams. “American hydropower is a key component of this Administration’s vision for an affordable, reliable energy system,” Assistant Secretary of Energy Audrey Robertson said in a statement. “These actions will modernize our hydropower fleet, bolster our domestic workforce, and bring us closer to realizing that vision.”

Hydropower is a renewable power source conservative critics of wind and solar tend to like because it operates 24/7 and provides large-scale, long-duration energy storage through pumped-storage systems. Similarly, commercializing fusion power, the so-called holy grail of clean energy, is another technological goal the Trump administration shares with advocates of a lower-carbon future. On Tuesday morning, Commonwealth Fusion Systems became the first fusion power plant developer to apply to join a major grid operator. By submitting its paperwork to link its generators to PJM Interconnection, the largest U.S. wholesale electricity market, Commonwealth Fusion is showing it’s “on track to connect to the electricity grid in time to deliver power in the early 2030s.” The company also announced that it had named the first 400-megawatt ARC power plant it’s building in Chesterfield County, Virginia, the Fall Line Fusion Power Station. The name is a reference to the geological boundary where Virginia’s elevated Piedmont region drops to the Tidewater coastal plain, creating rapids on the James River that Virginians historically built mills on to harness the power from falling water.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
Xpansiv, the startup that manages a global exchange for trading carbon credits and renewable energy credits, has signed a deal to bring credits with precise data that allows buyers to match clean electricity consumption to generation on an hour-by-hour basis. The partnership with the software platform Granular Energy, which I can exclusively report for this newsletter, will allow buyers and sellers to access “high-integrity, time-stamped energy data with registry-issued energy attribute certificates through a single platform” for the first time. The push comes amid growing calls for tighter rules and more transparency to avoid greenwashing carbon credits as voluntary programs such as the Greenhouse Gas Protocol draw scrutiny and the European Union’s world-first carbon tariff enters its fifth month of operation. “This integrated solution makes granular renewable energy more accessible and easier to manage for independent power producers, utilities, traders, brokers, and corporate buyers,” Russell Karas, Xpansiv’s senior vice president of strategic market solutions, told me in a statement.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Earlier this month, I told you that SunZia, the nation’s largest renewable energy project ever, had come online. The behemoth project, which included 3.5 gigawatts of wind turbines in New Mexico and 550 miles of transmission lines to funnel the electricity to Arizona’s fast-growing population centers, took just three years to build once construction began in 2023. But “the permitting process took nearly 17 years — almost six times as long,” in a sign of how “a broken permitting system has choked the infrastructure growth that underwrites American strength.” You’d be mistaken for thinking these words came from someone like Senator Martin Heinrich, the New Mexico Democrat and climate hawk who long championed SunZia and more transmission lines to bring renewables online, but told Heatmap’s Jael Holzman last December that he wouldn’t vote for anything that failed to boost renewables. But their author is actually Senator Tom Cotton, the right-wing firebrand Republican from Arkansas. In a Monday op-ed in The Washington Post, Cotton argued that the U.S. “needs more electricity to support data centers, modern manufacturing, defense infrastructure, and economic growth,” in addition to more “domestic access to critical minerals” and processing plants and “a stronger industrial base.” To make that happen, “the country first needs straightforward, enforceable permitting standards and fast, efficient construction,” he wrote. He called for overhauling landmark laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act and establishing “a single agency” to “oversee permitting reviews with firm deadlines and a clear, coordinated decision process.”
The push comes as Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives propose restoring tax credits for wind, solar, and other clean energy technologies that were curtailed by One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The American Energy Dominance Act, introduced Thursday, would remove the accelerated deadlines that Trump’s landmark legislation last year placed on the renewable energy production tax credit, known as 45Y, and the 48E investment tax credits. It would, according to Utility Dive, also make similar changes to the 45V clean hydrogen production credit.
Last month, New York utility executives gathered at a luxury hotel in Miami and boasted about banding together to influence a new state policy that would limit when power companies can turn off customers’ electricity during heat waves because of unpaid bills. A day later, Albany unveiled the policy. Ratepayers in New York City in particular “lost meaningful safeguards,” Laurie Wheelock, the head of the watchdog Public Utility Law Project, told The New York Times. Under its previous agreement with the state, ConEdison, the utility that serves the five boroughs and Westchester, was barred from terminating service for non-payment the day before a 90-degree forecast, the day of, and two days after. The new policy prohibits shutoffs only on the day of the forecast.
Meanwhile, in Seattle, residents of King County are bracing for a double-digit rate hike on sewage service. Following years of modest increases, the Seattle Times reported, county officials proposed a 12.75% spike in sewer rates for next year as the municipality looks for ways to pay for $14 billion in infrastructure upgrades over the next decade. The problem? The famously rainy cultural and financial capital of the Pacific Northwest is facing worsening floods from atmospheric rivers.
In Pennsylvania, meanwhile, Governor Josh Shapiro is taking yet another step to deal with ballooning electricity costs in PJM Interconnection. In a Monday afternoon post on X, he said he’s appointing a new special counsel for energy affordability to be “our newest watchdog to hold utility companies accountable when they try to jack up Pennsylvanians’ energy bills.” The Democrat, widely considered a top contender for his party’s presidential nomination in 2028, said the appointment “will support our efforts to lower costs and put money back in your pockets.”