The Fight

Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Hotspots

Feds Preparing Rule Likely Restricting Offshore Wind, Court Filing Says

And more on the week’s most important fights around renewable energy projects.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

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.
Yellow

This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.

Go deeper inside the politics, projects, and personalities
shaping the energy transition.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Spotlight

Meta’s Bacterial Mystery Could Poison the Data Center Well

Water pollution in Wyoming has big implications for the future of data center development.

A data center and water pollution.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Did a Meta data center introduce a rare, dangerous bacteria into the sewers system of Wyoming’s capitol city? It’s an environmental pollution mystery with an answer that could decide the future of American AI infrastructure development.

Our drama begins in Cheyenne, Wyoming, where the city’s board of public utilities just wrapped up a lengthy investigation into the presence of Cupriavidus gilardii, a potentially lethal bacteria resistant to heavy metals, in the city’s wastewater treatment systems. Apparently, in February, board staff detected the contamination and shut off public access to the city’s water reuse system, a supply of treated non-potable water fed with treated wastewater and used for lawns, athletic fields, and other green spaces. Officials were worried that spraying this water could release into the environment a bacteria found to cause fatal health outcomes in immunocompromised or elderly people who are infected by it.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

How Big of a Problem Is Data Center Noise?

A conversation with Ross Marchard of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance

The Q&A subject.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Ross Marchard, executive director for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, a center-right advocacy group that focuses on what it sees are onerous policies potentially hindering responsible collection and use of tax dollars. TPA’s position on AI clearly skews pro-free market, as they’ve recently defended Anthropic from Trump administration attacks. TPA also recently took on the mantle of defending data centers from noise complaints, publishing a paper on Tuesday “debunking myths about data centers being excessively noisy.” The paper references various analyses of data centers by state legislators and local regulators to argue that claims the sector is generally noisy are false.

I asked TPA’s executive director to chat with me about why and how the organization will try to quell these fears. The conversation was really interesting so I decided to share it with you in full, sans light editing for clarity and consistency.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

The Electro-Magnetic Freakout on the Cape

And more of the week’s news around project development.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Barnstable County, Massachusetts – I have a whopper of an update on the Vineyard Wind project, which might be in operation but risks becoming fodder in the fight against offshore wind.

  • Like all offshore wind projects, Vineyard Wind has to send power to the coastline via cable. One of the three sites where these giant power lines land is Barnstable, a small shore community, where longtime residents for years have voiced concerns about electromagnetic fields or EMF.
  • Concerns about EMF are comparable to those about infrasound from data centers. We do not know whether these concerns are really rooted in legitimate health impacts, as I have written, but regardless this remains a common concern raised around large high-voltage power lines, including those for offshore wind projects.
  • On June 30, the town’s board of health heard from a group of Barnstable residents who claim to have measured EMF from the town’s wind cable. The same group, Save Greater Downes Beach, had unsuccessfully sought to stop the cables through litigation and public pressure.
  • This board of health meeting was controversial: Ahead of the meeting, the director of Sierra Club’s Massachusetts chapter wrote the board of health requesting their testimony be limited and no action be taken on the findings. “Concerns being raised about electromagnetic field exposure associated with Vineyard Wind 1’s underground export cables are not only invalid but outside of the Board of Health’s jurisdiction,” wrote chapter director Vick Mohanka, according to a copy of the letter posted to Facebook by anti-wind activist Susanne Conley.
  • This Sierra Club chapter was right to be concerned about how this meeting would affect Vineyard Wind. I watched the lengthy testimony before the board of health. Activists presented a case that the town should implore regulators with authority to deeply study the wind farm cables. They asked the board of health to back a state study on EMF and put the question before the Massachusetts permitting regulator, the Energy Facility Siting Board.
  • “We’re not asking the board to place any restrictions or limitations on the project at this time,” Gary Peters, a local medical professional and member of Save Greater Dowses Beach, told the board. “We’re asking you to put that ball in the court of EFSB.”
  • The board was receptive to this request. Board chair F.P. Lee told the group he would “take this under advisement” and said he’d talk to their legal department about it. Daniel Luczkow, the board’s vice chair, said he agreed with activists’ feelings that Barnstable residents were “guinea pigs.”
  • “It sounds like the contention is that these levels we’re measuring are much, much higher than the information given when the project was started,” Luczkow said. “We’re the only place on the planet, maybe, that actually runs these [cables] through a populated area and we have no idea what type of damage they’re causing?”
  • Should Barnstable strenuously take this issue up, I would predict it only be a matter of time before it’s also raised by organs of the federal government. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last year asked the Centers for Disease Control to study negative health impacts from precisely this infrastructure. This kind of hyperlocal squabble is often what manifests as conversation in anti-wind opposition circles, and Vineyard Wind was already causing PR headaches for the energy transition.

2. Prince William County, Virginia – Northern Virginia is officially hostile territory for data center developers, and I learned about it through a call from my mom.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow