This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.
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:
A conversation with Bob Moczulewski, tax director for Baker Tilly’s federal credits and incentives practice
Given the Trump administration’s new pause on grants under the Inflation Reduction Act, this week’s conversation is with Bob Moczulewski, tax director for Baker Tilly’s federal credits and incentives practice. We asked him to explain this 90-day pause via executive order, because if anyone’s going to cut the nonsense and tell you what actually matters here, it’ll be a tax expert.
The following chat was lightly edited for clarity.
Does Trump’s executive order actually impact the IRA’s tax credits?
The IRA had several components to it, most of which – the biggest things – are tax credits. Those are written into tax law. They are a legally binding ability for developers and users, creators of renewable energy that are allowed within the law – wind, solar, geothermal, battery storage, biogas – those are laws.
[The order] has a stop on those items that were more discretionary that had the control of the administration to delegate out: its grants, loans, and contracts. That has no impact on the tax credits, where the bulk of the IRA sits right now. A lot of that stuff was in anticipation of being heavily pushed through and sent out before January 20. There’s actual impact there. But tax credits are not appropriated funds.
This is not holding back the tax credits that are there.
You’ve said it is unclear if this covers all prospective funding, like direct pay?
If you’re a municipality and you put up a solar project that is eligible for tax credits and direct pay, that is the part with this potential slow play that could be done here. We really don’t know what the executive branch can do to hold back the payment of those direct payments. If you’re a business, you put up a solar, it’s a $10,000 tax credit, you can use it to reduce your taxable income. None of these orders impact that.
Now if you’re a municipality and you’re requesting a direct payment for those tax credits that are legally binding in tax law, I could see the possibility that an executive branch could have pressure on the Treasury Department, which has pressure on the IRS, to slow play those payments. But that’s only speculation. The law is stated, this is supposed to be paid out. This is in a realm of, y’know, almost a conspiracy theory-type of thing that could be done.
With respect to how a pause like this can impact the bankability of IRA, are you seeing it affect executives’ views on the durability of the law?
I would say there’s just a lot of caution as to [the] next steps around it. These are laws. Until the laws are repealed, if they are repealed, that would be the only way you’d know for certain.
As I’ve explained many times over, the history of tax credit laws is once they’re repealed or altered, those changes are prospective as to the time the law is changed. If I have a half a billion dollar solar project underway, I’ve met or begun a construction criteria. There has been no prior passing of tax laws that would revoke the ability to claim credits on that.
What are you watching for next for clarity?
There’s two things I’m looking for in the future. Where pundits around this really feel this is truly going. And the other part is to see if there’s any actual traction to repeal the tax credits that exist right now.
There’s a whole new realm of credits that begin in 2025 and continue through 2032. Will there be incentive to repeal those credits?
I have clients that are engaging in multi billions of dollars of projects that are in the heart of the southern tier of the United States of America, that would impact thousands of jobs. Those groups have strong ties to a lot of senators and congresspeople along the way. Just enough of a push and turn on this and all it takes is a few senators to not go along with it.
Editor’s note: A previous version of this article misidentified Moczulewski’s profession. He is a CPA, not an attorney. The article has been corrected. We regret the error.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The Trump administration is now being lobbied to nix offshore wind projects already under construction.
Anti-wind activists have joined with well-connected figures in conservative legal and energy circles to privately lobby the Trump administration to undo permitting decisions by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, according to documents obtained by Heatmap.
Representatives of conservative think tanks and legal nonprofits — including the Caesar Rodney Institute, the Heartland Institute and Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, or CFACT — sent a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum dated February 11 requesting that the Trump administration “immediately revoke” letters from NOAA to 11 offshore wind projects authorizing “incidental takes,” a term of regulatory art referencing accidental and permissible harassment, injury, or potential deaths under federal endangered species and mammal protection laws. The letter lays out a number of perceived issues with how those approvals have historically been issued for offshore wind companies and claims the government has improperly analyzed the cumulative effects of adding offshore wind to the ocean’s existing industrialization. NOAA oversees marine species protection.
The letter also requested “an immediate cession of construction” at four offshore wind projects with federal approvals that have begun construction: Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia offshore wind project, Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners’ Vineyard Wind 1, and Ørsted’s Revolution Wind and Sunrise Wind projects.
“It is with a sense of real urgency we write you today,” the letter states, referencing Trump’s executive order targeting the offshore wind industry to ask that he go further. “[E]leven projects have already received approvals with four of those under construction. Leasing and permitting will be reviewed for these approved projects but may take time.”
I obtained the letter from Paul Kamenar, a longtime attorney in conservative legal circles currently with the D.C.-based National Legal and Policy Center, who told me the letter had been sent to the department this week. Kamenar is one of multiple attorneys involved in a lawsuit filed last year by Heartland and CFACT challenging permits for Dominion’s Coastal Virginia project over alleged potential impacts to the endangered North Atlantic right whale. We reported earlier this week that the government signaled in proceedings for that case it will review approvals for Coastal Virginia, the first indication that previous permits issued for offshore wind could be vulnerable to the Trump effect.
Kamenar described the request to Burgum as “a coalition letter,” and told me that “the new secretary there is sympathetic” to their complaints about offshore wind permits. “We’re hoping that this letter will basically reverse the letter[s] of authorizations, or have the agency go back,” Kamenar said, adding a message for Dominion and other developers implicated by the letter: “Just because the company has the approval doesn’t mean it’s all systems go.”
The Interior Department does not directly oversee NOAA – that’s the Commerce Department. But it does control the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which ultimately regulates all offshore wind development and issues final approvals.
Interior did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter.
Some signees of the document are part of a constellation of influential figures in the anti-renewables movement whose voices have been magnified in the new administration.
One of the letter’s two lead signatories is David Stevenson, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the Caesar Rodney Institute, an organization involved in legal battles against offshore wind projects under development in the Mid-Atlantic. The Institute says on its website it is a member of the State Policy Network, a broad constellation of think tanks, legal advocacy groups, and nonprofits.
Multiple activists who signed onto the letter work with the Save Right Whales Coalition, a network of local organizations and activists. Coalition members have appeared with Republican lawmakers at field hearings and rallies over the past few years attacking offshore wind. They became especially influential in GOP politics after being featured in a film by outspoken renewables critic and famous liberal-turned-conservative Michael Shellenberger, who is himself involved in the Coalition. His film, Thrown to the Wind, blew up in right-wing media circles because it claimed to correlate whale deaths with offshore wind development.
When asked if the Coalition was formally involved in this request of the administration, Lisa Linowes, a co-founder of the Coalition, replied in an email: “The Coalition was not a signer of the request.”
One cosigner sure to turn heads: John Droz, a pioneer in the anti-wind activist movement who for years has given talks and offered roadmaps on how best to stop renewables projects.
The letter also includes an endorsement from Mandy Davis, who was involved with the draft anti-wind executive order we told you was sent to the Trump transition team before inauguration. CFACT also co-signed that draft order when it was transmitted to the transition team, according to correspondence reviewed by Heatmap.
Most of the signatories to the letter list their locations. Many of the individuals unrelated to bigger organizations list their locations as in Delaware or Maryland. Only a few signatories on the letter have locations in other states dealing with offshore wind projects.
On its face, this letter represents a new stage of Trump’s war on offshore wind.
Yes, he has frozen leasing, along with most permitting activity and even public meetings related to pending projects. But the president’s executive order targeting offshore wind opened the door to rescinding leases and previous permits. Doing so would produce new, costly legal battles for developers and for publicly-regulated utilities, ratepayers. Over the past few weeks, offshore wind developers with projects that got their permits under Biden have sought to reassure investors that at least they’ll be fine.
If this new request is heeded, that calm will subside.
Beyond that, reversing these authorizations could represent a scandal for scientific integrity at NOAA – or at least NOAA’s Fisheries division, the National Marine Fisheries Service. Heeding the letter’s requests would mean revisiting the findings of career scientists for what developers may argue are purely political reasons, or at minimum arbitrary ones.
This wouldn’t be the first time something like this has happened under Trump. In 2020, I used public records to prove that plans by career NOAA Fisheries employees to protect endangered whales from oil and gas exploration in the Atlantic were watered down after a political review. At the time, Democratic Representative Jared Huffman — now the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee — told me that my reporting was evidence of potential scientific integrity issues at NOAA and represented “blatant scientific and environmental malpractice at the highest order.”
It’s worth emphasizing how much this mattered, not just for science but literally in court, as the decision to allow more seismic testing for oil under Trump was challenged at the time on the grounds that it was made arbitrarily.
Peter Corkeron, a former NOAA scientist with expertise researching the North Atlantic right whale, reviewed the letter to Burgum and told me in an email that essentially, the anti-offshore wind movement is exploiting similar arguments made by conservationists about issues with the federal government’s protection of the species to target this sector. The federal regulator has for many years faced the ire of conservation activists, who’ve said it does not go far enough to protect endangered species from more longstanding threats like fishing and vessel strikes.
If NOAA were to bow to this request, Corkeron wrote, he would interpret that as the agency’s failure to fully protect the species in good faith instead becoming “suborned by the hydrocarbon exploitation industry as a way of eliminating a competing form of energy production that should, in time, prove more beneficial for whales than what we’re currently doing.”
“The point on cumulative impacts is, on face value, fair,” he said. “The problem is its lack of context. Cumulative impacts on North Atlantic right whales from offshore wind are possible. However, in the context of the cumulative impacts of the shipping (vessel strike kills, noise pollution), and fishing (death, maiming, failure to breed) industries, they’ll be insignificant. Because NOAA has never clearly set out to address ways to offset other impacts while developing the offshore wind industry, these additive impacts place a burden on this new industry in ways that existing, and more damaging, industries don’t have to address.”
CFACT responded to a request for comment by sending me a press release with the letter attached that was not publicly available, and did not respond to the climate criticisms by press time. David Stevenson of the Caesar Rodney Institute sent me a statement criticizing offshore wind energy and questioning its ability to “lower global emissions.”
“The goal is to pause construction until everything is reviewed,” Stevenson said. When asked if there was an outcome where a review led to projects being built, he said no, calling offshore wind an “environmental wrecking ball.”
Well, we’ll soon find out what the real wrecking ball is.
And more of the week’s biggest conflicts around renewable energy.
1. Monterey County, California – The Moss Landing battery fire is now the big renewables PR crisis we should all be watching, even with Trump 2.0 going on.
2. Portage County, Wisconsin – Doral Renewables’ Vista Sands solar project is facing a prolonged legal fight with the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, a state outdoor recreation and wildlife advocacy group. At the center of the conflict is a bird that’s long bedeviled developers of all stripes: the greater prairie chicken.
3. Santa Fe County, New Mexico – Energy developer AES got a green light for its Rancho Viejo solar-plus-battery project, prevailing for now over an organized opposition campaign.
Here’s what else I’m watching…
In New York, a NineDot BESS project is the latest scene of the Staten Island battery backlash, while Yonkers extended its battery moratorium.
In Indiana, one county — Pulaski — has moved forward with plans to ban BESS, even though, according to media reports, no projects are proposed there.
In Ohio, tempers remain hot over Open Road Renewables’ Grange Solar project, which will face an Ohio Power Siting Board public comment meeting next month.
In North Carolina, a NextEra utility-scale solar project was approved by county regulators, but …
In Oklahoma, a different NextEra utility-scale solar project was rejected by county regulators.
In Wyoming, one county board of commissioners apparently gave EG Haystack Solar, the developer behind a proposed large-scale solar farm, an absolute grilling over a project it wound up rejecting. Read the full account here.
.
A look at the biggest news around renewable energy policy this week.
1. The anti-renewable locavore – Republican lawmakers are aiming to empower localities to block renewables projects, a similar scene to what’s played out in Ohio, where state legislators gave towns the power to have a final word on development instead of state-led entities.
2. Sgamma thoughts – Trump selected Kathleen Sgamma, head of the pro-oil Western Energy Alliance, to head the Bureau of Land Management. What does this mean for renewables developers? It’s hard to tell because so much of her time was spent on a single mission: liberating as much oil from the ground as possible.
3. Contract law challenge – The Trump administration’s funding freezes are challenging the foundations of the compact between private industry and contracted government services. If you haven’t read it yet, I implore you to scroll through my colleague Robinson Meyer’s new article on the issue.
Here’s what else I’m watching…
In California, Democratic legislators have introduced a bill that would ensure the state keeps studying offshore wind port infrastructure despite Trump’s permitting freeze.
In Maryland, lawmakers are trying to move permitting legislation under the banner of lowering utility bills.