Feds Preparing Rule Likely Restricting Offshore Wind, Court Filing Says

1. Ocean County, New Jersey – A Trump administration official said in a legal filing that the government is preparing to conduct a rulemaking that could restrict future offshore wind development and codify a view that could tie the hands of future presidential administrations.

• In a court filing last Friday, Matthew Giacona – Trump’s principal deputy director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management – laid out the federal government’s thoughts about re-doing the entire review process that went into approving the Atlantic Shores project. The filing was related to the agency’s effort to stay a lawsuit brought by anti-wind advocates that officials say is unnecessary because, well … Atlantic Shores is already kind of dead.
  
• But the Giacona declaration went beyond this specific project. He laid out how in the Trump administration’s view, the Biden administration improperly weighed the impacts of the offshore wind industry when considering the government’s responsibilities for governing use of the Outer Continental Shelf, which is the range of oceanfront off the coastline that qualifies as U.S. waters. Giacona cited an Interior Department legal memo issued earlier this year that revoked Biden officials’ understanding of those legal responsibilities and, instead, put forward an interpretation of the agency’s role that results in a higher bar for approving offshore wind projects.
  
• Per Giacona, not only will BOEM be reviewing past approvals under this new legal opinion, but it will also try and take some sort of action changing its responsibilities under federal regulation for approving projects in the Outer Continental Shelf. Enshrining this sort of legal interpretation into BOEM’s regulations would in theory have lasting implications for the agency even after the Trump 2.0 comes to a close.
• “BOEM is currently beginning preparations for a rulemaking that will amend that provision of the regulations, consistent with M-37086 [the legal opinion],” Giacona stated. He did not elaborate on the timetable for this regulatory effort in the filing.

2. Prince William County, Virginia – The large liberal city of Manassas rejected a battery project over fire fears, indicating that post-Moss Landing, anxieties continue to pervade in communities across the country.

• The city was exploring whether to install five Tesla megapacks at an empty lot as a cost-saving and grid resilience maneuver. But the unanimous vote against battery storage came after testimony from fire officials about the risk a battery project could hypothetically pose to nearby residential areas.
  
• Per media reports, city leaders are treating this as a true “not in my backyard” maneuver, hoping that denying this project leads it to be built somewhere else: Harrisonburg, a city in nearby Rockingham County, which is in an electrical co-op along with Manassas. Officials hope this still allows them to benefit from the system even if it isn’t built within city limits.
• There’s no guarantees in sending the batteries to Harrisonburg, however. While Harrisonburg has welcomed battery storage and approved city land for a project in July, it is in Rockingham County, which in April rejected a battery storage project for similar fire anxieties, and is a region extremely likely to have opposition risk according to Heatmap Pro data.

3. Oklahoma County, Oklahoma – The Sooner state legislature on Monday held a joint committee meeting on solar and wind setbacks featuring prominent anti-wind advocates.

• The meeting featured testimony from Saundra Traywick, one of the leading voices in the state calling for a total statewide ban on future large-scale wind and solar development. It also featured Lisa Linowes, head of Industrial Wind Action Group and director of the energy wing of the Michael Shellenberger-led organization Civilization Works. She also founded the Save Right Whales Coalition.
  
• At the hearing, former Oklahoma attorney general John O’Connor urged the legislature to reject blanket restrictions on renewables development. Instead, he said to let municipalities and counties decide whether to host solar or wind power. A renewables industry attorney also testified at the meeting against Oklahoma doing “what Arkansas does,” a reference to that state’s new law creating siting requirements for the wind industry.
  
• Predictably, other voices at the hearing – including Traywick and Linowes – encouraged a totally different approach. Anti-renewables advocates in the state at minimum do want broad setbacks required in every county and town. I believe this hearing means the start of a fresh fight, not the end.

4. Tippacanoe County, Indiana – The developers of a large-scale solar project are suing the county over being rejected.

• The RWE-Geenex collaboration Rainbow Trout Solar was rejected by the Tippacanoe County Board of Zoning Appeals despite being recommended by permitting staff. This past week Rainbow Trout sued the board, arguing that the board’s split decision made by a single vote margin was made without a “rational basis.”
  
• Historically litigation is seen by developers as a last resort because it is lengthy and aggravates tensions in potential host communities. As a result, it is unclear if this lawsuit will help Rainbow Trout meet its construction timelines, which anticipate operation in 2027.

5. Dane County, Wisconsin – The Wisconsin Public Service Commission approved Invenergy’s Badger Hollow wind project – the state’s first new fully-permitted wind energy project in more than a decade.

• Badger Hollow, which was opposed by some residents in Iowa and Grant counties where it will be built, is set to consist of 19 turbines – a relatively small number, and fewer than what was initially proposed.
  
• The PSC also approved Whitewater Solar, a large utility-scale project in southern Wisconsin I had predicted earlier this year would likely win out over a middling grassroots opposition on the ground.
  
• Given that primacy laws where energy regulators have the power to supersede local opposition is a priority for pro-renewables advocates, it’s safe to call this intervention a small victory for permitting reform.