Politics
The Crucial Hardhat Union That Has Yet to Endorse the Permitting Bill
Hint: It’s one that tends to align with utilities.
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:
Hint: It’s one that tends to align with utilities.
On Indonesia’s climate win, hacking renewables, and John Cena’s ad
Rob talks with the U.S. auto giant”s VP of batteries and sustainability, Kurt Kelty.
The global vehicle market is splitting into two — with just a few exception.
How the bill would have affected (or not affected) the Keystone XL pipeline, the Lava Ridge wind farm, and other major project proposals.
O ne of the non-negotiables for Senate Democrats in putting together a bipartisan permitting bill was to limit the president’s ability to reverse federal project approvals or otherwise gum up the works for developments they simply dislike. The authors’ goal was to prevent a situation like the one we’re in now, where Trump has revoked permits for wind farms, refused to permit new ones, and tried to stop construction of fully permitted offshore wind projects.
But the language on “project certainty” in the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act is technology neutral — it would protect fossil fuels as much as clean energy. While Trump has perhaps gone the furthest of any president in using the authorities of the executive branch to enact his preferences, his Democratic predecessors have taken similar steps to stop mines, pipelines, and oil and gas drilling — often in the name of stopping climate change.
“This bill is clearly looking backwards at five to 10 years of case studies in how an executive branch can delay or revoke permits, and it is targeted at those case studies,” Travis Annatoyn, an attorney at the law firm Arnold & Porter and the former deputy solicitor for energy and mineral resources at the Interior Department under Biden, told me.
The bill section in question contains two key provisions. The first would make it illegal for a federal agency to rescind, terminate, or alter a federal authorization or permit, or to prevent the construction or operation of a project that has all of its necessary federal approvals — though there are exceptions for cases involving a court ruling, violation of a permit’s terms, fraud, or new environmental harms or threats to national security.
The second big provision would give companies a course of action if they suspect the federal government is discriminating against certain types of projects or unduly dragging out the permitting process. An applicant can sue the government for displaying a “pattern of disparate treatment,” defined as a “substantial increase” in delays or “improper” denials for a given project type compared to the previous five years. Applicants also have the right to sue if the government takes longer than a year to issue a decision on a permit after all of the applicant’s paperwork is deemed complete.
Environmental nonprofits, particularly those that work on public lands issues, are extremely worried about these provisions, as illustrated by a transcript of several groups discussing the bill on a conference call that was leaked to Punchbowl News last week. “A future administration will not be able to challenge anything that is in fact permitted during the presidency of the Trump administration,” Erik Shlenker-Goodrich of the Western Environmental Law Center said on the call, “which is going to create an incentive for all these data centers and fossil fuel companies to rush through a process, hoard leases, permits and authorizations, and then basically tell a future administration to go fly a kite.”
But constraining the power of the executive branch is tricky. Even if the bill passes as written, and its provisions work as intended, there will probably still be some ways by which a president could throttle permits if they are motivated enough to do so, Annatoyn said.
Case in point: The laws as written haven’t stopped Trump from testing their limits. The main advantage to these provisions would be clearer consequences in the courts, giving affected parties more confidence to file a suit, and compensation if they win. On the other hand, those affected parties would still need to have the resources to sue the government.
It’s helpful to apply BAAJA to past examples of executive energy decisions to see how they would fare under the law. I walked through some case studies with Annatoyn and Ben Schifman, the former attorney-adviser at the Interior Department’s Office of the Solicitor under Biden, to get a better understanding of what these provisions would do.
First proposed in 2008, the Keystone XL pipeline would have brought Canadian crude oil from the Alberta tar sands into the U.S. Almost immediately it attracted fierce opposition from environmental advocates, indigenous groups, and even Midwestern farmers, who eventually formed a coalition that staged attention-grabbing protests aimed at convincing the federal government not to approve the plans.
In a presidency-defining move, Barack Obama sided with opponents and rejected the project’s permit in 2015, stating that to prevent the worst of climate change, “we're going to have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground.” Trump later reversed that decision, however, approving Keystone in 2019. Then the project got held up in litigation brought by the Northern Plains Resource Council, a Montana environmental group, over one of its Clean Water Act permits.
When Biden took office in 2021, he signed an executive order reversing Trump’s reversal. Leaving the permit in place, he wrote, “would not be consistent with my Administration’s economic and climate imperatives.” A few months later, Keystone XL’s developer, TC Energy, officially canceled the pipeline.
Keystone is unique, however, because it would have crossed an international border, which requires direct presidential approval. Had BAAJA been in effect, Biden still would have been able to revoke the permit, Schifman told me. “Keystone is a really unusual example,” he said. “The president is not considered an agency under the Administrative Procedure Act, so it’s just not subject to review in the way an action by the Secretary of Interior or other agencies are,” he said.
This bill’s effect is more ambiguous in this example. Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act required the Interior Department to hold two oil and gas lease sales on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s coastal plain. Trump held a sale in January 2021, just before he left the White House, issuing nine leases. When Biden took office later that month, he signed an executive order directing his Interior Secretary, Deb Haaland, to conduct a new environmental analysis of the entire leasing program, citing “alleged legal deficiencies underlying the program.”
That June, Haaland concluded that there had been “insufficient analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act, including failure to adequately analyze a reasonable range of alternatives in the environmental impact statement,” and suspended the previously sold leases. Two years later, after completing a new environmental review, she canceled all the remaining leases in the Refuge. Biden’s Bureau of Land Management also later issued a new Record of Decision significantly downsizing the leasing program from 1.6 million acres to the minimum 400,000 required under the law.
When Trump began his second term, he directed his own Interior Secretary, Doug Burgum, to consider reversing the cancellation of the leases and to reinstate the Record of Decision that his first administration had issued in 2020. Ultimately, Burgum did not have to reverse the cancellations because the lessees had sued the government and a federal court sided with them, vacating the terminations in March 2025. (Alaska Native and environmental groups are currently appealing that decision.) Meanwhile, Trump’s Interior Department has issued a new Record of Decision reinstating the leasing program’s original 1.6 million acres.
There’s nothing in BAAJA that would seem to have prevented the Biden administration from conducting a new environmental analysis and issuing a new Record of Decision on the leasing program. It’s less clear whether it would have prohibited Haaland from terminating the leases. The word “lease” is conspicuously absent from the definition of a “federal authorization or permit” in this section of the bill, which would seem to have supported Haaland’s decision. But it’s an open question, Annatoyn told me, because the bill’s definition of federal authorization contains the catch-all phrase “or any other approval or order that is necessary … for the construction or operation at full capacity of a project.”
“I imagine if something like this gets passed, someone will make the argument that it includes leases,” Annatoyn said. It will be a question for the courts.
In 2011, Barack Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency rescinded a key Clean Water Act permit for Spruce No. 1, which would have been the largest mountaintop-removal coal mine in West Virginia. The type of permit, known as Section 404, was for the discharge of dredged material, and it had initially been approved by George Bush’s Army Corps of Engineers in 2007. Under that section of the Clean Water Act, however, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator has broad authority to reject the Corps’ decisions about discharge sites “whenever” he or she determines, after notice and public hearings, that there would be unacceptable adverse environmental effects. The move was extremely controversial, as the EPA’s reversal came four years after the Corps approved the permit.
BAAJA contains an amendment to Section 404 that would seem to prevent exactly this kind of thing from happening again. It establishes a limited window during which the EPA can review and veto a given site for a discharge permit, beginning when the applicant first submits their complete application for the permit, and ending when the Corps approves it. That means a Section 404 veto post-permit would have been off the table.
BAAJA appears tailor-made to prevent what happened here. In December 2024, Biden’s Interior Department issued a Record of Decision to approve the Lava Ridge wind farm in Idaho, set to be one of the largest such developments in the country. When Trump stepped into office in January, he issued an executive order asking his Interior Department to review that decision. Secretary Burgum canceled the permit last August, again citing unspecified “legal deficiencies in the issuance of the approval.”
Schifman said the Interior Department would not have been able to do this if BAAJA was the law of the land unless it provided evidence that fit one of those exceptions I mentioned earlier, such as a court order, or if Lava Ridge violated its permit.
Annatoyn agreed, but added that this is not a totally foregone conclusion. “The agencies can still inadvertently or deliberately choose to press on the limits of that prohibition — you know, test it or even violate it outright,” he said. At the end of the day, he added, Trump could still do this under BAAJA, and the burden would fall on the project developer to undertake a lengthy, expensive court fight to undo it.
In December 2025, Burgum ordered the five offshore wind farms that were already under construction off the east coast to pause their work. He cited “national security risks identified by the Department of War in recently completed classified reports.”
While the courts quickly rejected those orders, BAAJA may have prevented them in the first place. The bill prohibits agencies from taking any action “to interfere with or prevent the construction or operation” of a project that has all necessary permits. And if the administration had chosen to issue the orders anyway, BAAJA would have at least given the affected companies the right to recover costs attributed to the delay, which in this case was millions of dollars per day. On top of that, the companies would be entitled to payment of 25% to 50% of their project’s total costs up to the time the government intervened.
Another reason BAAJA would have likely prevented Burgum’s December order, Annatoyn said, is that it contains a provision to bar serial attempts of the same action. Burgum had issued stop work orders on two of the five wind farms earlier in the year, both of which were struck down by courts. Under BAAJA, the companies would be entitled to injunctive relief preventing the government from taking the same action again unless it obtained a court order condoning the action from the same judge.
The Trump administration has stopped permitting offshore wind projects altogether, and has kept onshore wind projects in a holding pattern despite a court’s order to resume the permitting process. Under BAAJA, wind companies would have new ammo to challenge this inaction and delay. They might be able to identify a “pattern of disparate treatment” or cite other language in the bill that limits the number of days the government can sit on a permitting decision. At the same time, the discrimination language is a new area of law, Schifman told me, so there’s some uncertainty as to how it would apply. And again, the burden would be on the company to bring a lawsuit.
On Fervo’s milestone, a long-duration storage bonanza, and Solar-for-All
Current conditions: Thick fog in South Carolina caused a 50-car pileup on Interstate-95 in which dozens were injured • Tropical Storm Choi-wan was upgraded to “severe” status as the cyclone tracks north of the Northern Mariana Islands toward Japan’s remote Ogasawara archipelago • In the Atlantic, Tropical Storm Hanna is moving northeast toward the Azores, but may weaken before hitting the Portuguese islands.
Almost exactly two years ago, nuclear energy had its Big Tech glow-up. Amazon took an equity stake in X-energy, a developer of helium-cooled small modular reactors. Google invested in Kairos Power, another fourth-generation SMR designer that uses molten salt as a coolant. Microsoft, meanwhile, agreed to pay $16 billion to restart the functioning reactor at Constellation Energy’s Crane Clean Energy Center, formerly known as Three Mile Island. With electricity demand now surging, however, hyperscalers are increasingly following the more conservative Microsoft playbook. Google, as I previously told you, backed plans to bring Iowa’s lone nuclear plant, NextEra Energy’s Duane Arnold station, online again. Facebook-owner Meta — in addition to investments in two next-generation reactor companies, Oklo and TerraPower — inked a deal to buy nuclear electricity from two of utility Vistra’s plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania for the next 20 years.
Now Amazon is securing itself a chunk of the nation’s existing nuclear fleet. This week, the retail and web-hosting giant signed its own 20-year deal to buy power from Constellation’s Calvert Cliffs Clean Energy Center in Maryland, committing more than $3 billion in investments to upgrade the two-reactor facility that will allow the operators to squeeze out another 190 megawatts of capacity on top of the existing 1.8 gigawatts. “This agreement demonstrates how private investment can strengthen critical energy infrastructure,” Constellation CEO Joe Dominguez said in a statement. “Amazon’s commitment supports the long-term operation of Calvert Cliffs for generations to come.”
Fervo Energy announced Thursday morning that it had started selling power from its flagship debut power plant ahead of schedule this week, marking the completion of the world’s first enhanced geothermal generating station just 23 months after construction began. Six days after synchronizing to the grid, Cape Station brought in its first revenue, fulfilling its power purchase agreement with Shell Energy North America with electricity from its first 33-megawatt unit of what will ultimately be a 500-megawatt facility. The commercial milestone came one day before Fervo’s contract required it to sell its first electrons. “Reaching commercial operations at Cape Station is both a huge milestone for Fervo and a turning point for the entire energy industry,” Fervo CEO Tim Latimer said in a statement. “No team has ever built a project like this anywhere in the world, and we did it ahead of schedule. We are excited to prove that Fervo Energy can bring a new track record of execution to the power sector, an industry where project delays are often the norm.” Fervo’s stock price, a hot commodity when it hit the Nasdaq this spring, closed nearly 7% higher on Thursday.
Other companies want to replicate that stock market success. As I exclusively reported yesterday, Controlled Thermal Resources, a geothermal power and critical mineral startup developing a project on the shores of California’s Salton Sea, converted debt from the automaker Stellantis to equity ahead of a planned IPO via a merger with a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC.

In May, the long-duration storage startup Antora brought one of the world’s largest batteries online at a South Dakota ethanol plant, converting cheap surplus wind power from the grid into heat that stays insulated inside solid carbon blocks at temperatures exceeding 3,632 degrees Fahrenheit, or 2,000 degrees Celsius, and can be released to pump out as much as 5 gigawatt-hours of electricity. Now, with the $550 million I told you in July that it had raised to fund its expansion, the company is going even bigger. On Thursday, Antora announced plans for a nearly 6 gigawatt-hour project at Pratt Energy’s biorefinery in Pratt, Kansas. “Once complete, this project will be one of the largest battery storage systems in the world, delivering 24/7 energy that makes Pratt Energy’s operations more competitive,” Andrew Ponec, Antora’s co-founder and chief executive, wrote in a post on LinkedIn. “And I’m especially proud of the partnerships we’ve built with the Pratt community on local hiring, internships, and scholarships.”
With demand for long-duration storage that doesn’t lose charge like lithium-ion batteries skyrocketing, there are clear signs the market is primed to rip. On Thursday, the iron-sodium battery startup Inlyte Energy announced its first commercial project, supplying power to Berkshire East Mountain Resort’s snow-making machines during ski seasons without enough fresh powder. The 80-megawatt-hour project, one of two long-duration storage projects backed by a state program in Massachusetts, is expected to come online in 2028. “The Berkshire East project shows what becomes possible when Inlyte’s iron-sodium battery does more than one job,” Ben Kaun, Inlyte’s chief commercial officer, said in a press release. “Its efficient, long-duration capability enables clean power during demanding snowmaking peaks, makes better use of renewable electricity, and keeps a critical community resource operating when the grid goes down.” Long-duration storage is one area where the U.S. hopes to gain an edge. With scaled-up versions of electric vehicle batteries now occupying the fastest-growing niche in the global power market, China commands 95% of the sector, the Financial Times reported yesterday.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
As I told you yesterday, President Donald Trump is seesawing over whether to temporarily ban U.S. exports of diesel, holding crisis talks as he weighs the merits of a brief and uncertain price reprieve for Americans at the cost of a catastrophic price shock in Europe. On Thursday, Reuters reported that the White House is pressing the European Union to release 120 million barrels of diesel. The administration told German and French officials to draw down emergency diesel inventories to help ease global fuel prices or face a U.S. export ban.
Exactly a year ago, the Department of Energy canceled hundreds of grants totaling more than $8 billion, a move the agency later admitted in court was “based solely” on whether the project was located in a state that voted for Kamala Harris in 2024. Now over 60% of those projects remain stuck in administrative limbo, nearly 70% of retained awards have received negligible funding in the past six months, and billions in funding to 1,700 newly identified projects remain “quietly ghosted” without any communications, according to an analysis published this morning by the alumni network of former Energy Department staffers and the watchdog group Lawyers for Good Government. “The U.S. Department of Energy has not been acting in good faith when it comes to grantees working on climate-based solutions,” Jillian Blanchard, the senior vice president of climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government, said in a statement.
The Energy Department isn’t the only agency attracting fresh scrutiny for terminating grants for clean energy in the early days of the current Trump administration. Last month, federal district court judges in Rhode Island and the District of Columbia ruled within days of each other that the Environmental Protection Agency had illegally terminated funding promised to low-income Americans to help finance rooftop solar panels from the Biden-era Solar for All program. Now that the $7 billion program is poised to begin flowing again, recipients who were made to wait are suing the Trump administration for damages over the pause. The termination “was devastating on so many levels,” Kerry O’Neill, chief executive of program grantee Inclusive Prosperity Capital, told Utility Dive. Her organization, tasked with using the money to get panels to eligible Americans, had to cut back on staffing. Now it’s “going back and building these teams back up,” she told the trade publication. “We had fully approved work plans, very detailed plans. Our products are designed, sitting, ready to go. It would obviously take time to pull our coalition back together and get on everybody’s work queue. But this is a group that’s super passionate.” The EPA said it was reviewing the suit.
The trillion-dollar question in Washington right now is whether the Senate will actually vote to pass the bipartisan permitting reform bill unveiled yesterday. (Read my colleagues’ super-comprehensive breakdown of the legislation here.) But Wednesday showed that the Senate is perfectly capable of finding consensus when the chamber passed the Wildfire Emissions Prevention Act with unanimous approval. The bill would make it easier for states to deal with wildfire emissions, promote efficient use of air quality resources, and ensure that states won’t face federal penalties for taking action to curb blazes. “Utah has faced a devastating fire season, and we know that preventing catastrophic wildfires starts with giving land managers the tools to reduce hazardous fuels before they burn,” Senator John Curtis, a Republican from Utah, said in a statement. “Prescribed fire works, and states should not be penalized for responsibly using it to protect communities, forests, and air quality.”