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 Carl Fleming of McDermott Will & Emery
This week we’re talking to Carl Fleming, a renewables attorney with McDermott Will & Emery who was an advisor to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo under the Biden administration. We chatted the morning after the Trump administration attempted to freeze large swathes of federal spending. My goal? To understand whether this chaos and uncertainty was trickling down into the transition as we spoke. But Fleming had a sober perspective and an important piece of wisdom: stay calm and remain on course.
The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.
How are you seeing the private sector respond to all of this news?
My view is, you can read a lot into what people publish in the EOs and what’s written and what’s issued and you can sometimes read a good deal into what hasn’t been issued and what hasn’t been said. In the executive orders that got first issued in a flurry we saw a few that got pointed directly at onshore wind, some on offshore wind, but solar and standalone storage – as predicted – remained pretty much intact.
We were under the impression and we stood by it that we had the guidance in hand, bankable guidance, from the IRS prior to the change in administration and prior to any look-back window that people had been transacting on over the past year at kind of a record pace. Standalone storage has just had a breakout year. Solar continues to go, to continue to be put on the grid. And we also have manufacturing of solar panels, the domestic supply chain. This year we stood up is nowhere near what we need to fulfill our requirements to get everything we need to do domestically to fill our generation requirements [but] its a pretty great step in the right direction. And those credits have been pretty good to the economy and Republican states.
The way I’ve seen people react is, I’ve probably been busier than ever the past two weeks, not only fielding questions like that but also for tax credit transfers, all of the corporates we work with. We work in both the buy and the sell side of all these credit transfers. We’re working with a lot of solar module manufacturers to sell the credits under the IRA. We’re working with a lot of buyers to purchase those credits. And we’re working with the buyers and sellers under the generation of these projects.
All of the buyers have come out and continued with their 2025 strategy to buy more of these credits, if not more so. And all of the developers we represent continue to produce more of these credits. So I haven’t seen a hiccup or slowdown in actual transactions. If anything, I’ve seen stuff pick up in the solar space and in the manufacturing space. I continue to be very optimistic about those two fundamental parts of the energy transition, because if you need to go be an energy superpower, you wouldn’t want to turn off solar, turn off storage –
Is that argument that if you were trying to deal with “energy security,” you wouldn’t turn off solar and storage – is that enough to assuage uncertainty in the investor space?
I think it’s helpful. If you’re a private equity investor or you’re any sort of lender or a developer, you’re probably not going to base your whole model on the hopes that our energy security strategy syncs up with what most people think it should look like. But when you layer it on top of some of the fundamentals… I want to say that solar did not go away eight years ago. When Trump first came in, we saw more renewables deployed in his administration. At times, we saw more beneficial guidance, issuance of tax guidance under that administration, than we would hope for from some more favorable administrations.
The fact that the IRA has disproportionately benefited red states is just a fact that can’t be overlooked. I met with a group of about two dozen lawmakers a few weeks ago to talk about the IRA and there’s quite a few of those folks in the room that say, “Whatever we do, we can’t dismantle the IRA.”
But how has the chaos in the last week and a half impacted investment in renewable energy, though?
I think the renewable energy industry is used to a lack of predictability. It’s kind of a lawyer’s job, our team’s job, to help folks mitigate risk [and] to see what potential pitfalls there may be and to structure and draft around those.
You might see as things get more unpredictable, as folks go out to investors to raise capital, you might see a little bit of tightening around different portfolios or different types of companies based on their pipelines or how they’re put together. But I think one investor’s look on a project or pipeline may vary widely from another investor who’s got a different project or pipeline. There’s a lot of capital out there to be deployed. I think people are looking to invest.
I think you just need to partner the right developers with the right investors.
Are you seeing any slowdown in solar investment though?
I don’t see folks taking a hardline approach or stopping any time soon.
This is not an existential crisis while the ITC [investment tax credit] and PTC [production tax credit] exist. It’s not even, could you go back in time to unwind these credits. It’s moreso, going forward, what will the IRA look like? Will there be additional technologies added to the IRA? That’s possible to help stand up other technologies. Will the runway for the credit, instead of it being unlimited for at least 10 years, will [it] be pared back a bit? There’s potential, but it’s unlikely.
Okay last question and it’s a fun one: what was the last song you listened to?
I’m not going to lie, I’m an Eagles fan. And I’m from Philly and a huge Meek Mill fan. So “Uptown Vibes” by Meek Mill is in the car.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A war of attrition is now turning in opponents’ favor.
A solar developer’s defeat in Massachusetts last week reveals just how much stronger project opponents are on the battlefield after the de facto repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act.
Last week, solar developer PureSky pulled five projects under development around the western Massachusetts town of Shutesbury. PureSky’s facilities had been in the works for years and would together represent what the developer has claimed would be one of the state’s largest solar projects thus far. In a statement, the company laid blame on “broader policy and regulatory headwinds,” including the state’s existing renewables incentives not keeping pace with rising costs and “federal policy updates,” which PureSky said were “making it harder to finance projects like those proposed near Shutesbury.”
But tucked in its press release was an admission from the company’s vice president of development Derek Moretz: this was also about the town, which had enacted a bylaw significantly restricting solar development that the company was until recently fighting vigorously in court.
“There are very few areas in the Commonwealth that are feasible to reach its clean energy goals,” Moretz stated. “We respect the Town’s conservation go als, but it is clear that systemic reforms are needed for Massachusetts to source its own energy.”
This stems from a story that probably sounds familiar: after proposing the projects, PureSky began reckoning with a burgeoning opposition campaign centered around nature conservation. Led by a fresh opposition group, Smart Solar Shutesbury, activists successfully pushed the town to drastically curtail development in 2023, pointing to the amount of forest acreage that would potentially be cleared in order to construct the projects. The town had previously not permitted facilities larger than 15 acres, but the fresh change went further, essentially banning battery storage and solar projects in most areas.
When this first happened, the state Attorney General’s office actually had PureSky’s back, challenging the legality of the bylaw that would block construction. And PureSky filed a lawsuit that was, until recently, ongoing with no signs of stopping. But last week, shortly after the Treasury Department unveiled its rules for implementing Trump’s new tax and spending law, which basically repealed the Inflation Reduction Act, PureSky settled with the town and dropped the lawsuit – and the projects went away along with the court fight.
What does this tell us? Well, things out in the country must be getting quite bleak for solar developers in areas with strident and locked-in opposition that could be costly to fight. Where before project developers might have been able to stomach the struggle, money talks – and the dollars are starting to tell executives to lay down their arms.
The picture gets worse on the macro level: On Monday, the Solar Energy Industries Association released a report declaring that federal policy changes brought about by phasing out federal tax incentives would put the U.S. at risk of losing upwards of 55 gigawatts of solar project development by 2030, representing a loss of more than 20 percent of the project pipeline.
But the trade group said most of that total – 44 gigawatts – was linked specifically to the Trump administration’s decision to halt federal permitting for renewable energy facilities, a decision that may impact generation out west but has little-to-know bearing on most large solar projects because those are almost always on private land.
Heatmap Pro can tell us how much is at stake here. To give you a sense of perspective, across the U.S., over 81 gigawatts worth of renewable energy projects are being contested right now, with non-Western states – the Northeast, South and Midwest – making up almost 60% of that potential capacity.
If historical trends hold, you’d expect a staggering 49% of those projects to be canceled. That would be on top of the totals SEIA suggests could be at risk from new Trump permitting policies.
I suspect the rate of cancellations in the face of project opposition will increase. And if this policy landscape is helping activists kill projects in blue states in desperate need of power, like Massachusetts, then the future may be more difficult to swallow than we can imagine at the moment.
And more on the week’s most important conflicts around renewables.
1. Wells County, Indiana – One of the nation’s most at-risk solar projects may now be prompting a full on moratorium.
2. Clark County, Ohio – Another Ohio county has significantly restricted renewable energy development, this time with big political implications.
3. Daviess County, Kentucky – NextEra’s having some problems getting past this county’s setbacks.
4. Columbia County, Georgia – Sometimes the wealthy will just say no to a solar farm.
5. Ottawa County, Michigan – A proposed battery storage facility in the Mitten State looks like it is about to test the state’s new permitting primacy law.
A conversation with Jeff Seidman, a professor at Vassar College.
This week’s conversation is with Jeff Seidman, a professor at Vassar College and an avid Heatmap News reader. Last week Seidman claimed a personal victory: he successfully led an effort to overturn a moratorium on battery storage development in the town of Poughkeepsie in Hudson Valley, New York. After reading a thread about the effort he posted to BlueSky, I reached out to chat about what my readers might learn from his endeavors – and how they could replicate them, should they want to.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So how did you decide to fight against a battery storage ban? What was your process here?
First of all, I’m not a professional in this area, but I’ve been learning about climate stuff for a long time. I date my education back to when Vox started and I read my first David Roberts column there. But I just happened to hear from someone I know that in the town of Poughkeepsie where I live that a developer made a proposal and local residents who live nearby were up in arms about it. And I heard the town was about to impose a moratorium – this was back in March 2024.
I actually personally know some of the town board members, and we have a Democratic majority who absolutely care about climate change but didn’t particularly know that battery power was important to the energy transition and decarbonizing the grid. So I organized five or six people to go to the town board meeting, wrote a letter, and in that initial board meeting we characterized the reason we were there as being about climate.
There were a lot more people on the other side. They were very angry. So we said do a short moratorium because every day we’re delaying this, peaker plants nearby are spewing SOx and NOx into the air. The status quo has a cost.
But then the other side, they were clearly triggered by the climate stuff and said renewables make the grid more expensive. We’d clearly pressed a button in the culture wars. And then we realized the mistake, because we lost that one.
When you were approaching getting this overturned, what considerations did you make?
After that initial meeting and seeing how those mentions of climate or even renewables had triggered a portion of the board, and the audience, I really course-corrected. I realized we had to make this all about local benefits. So that’s what I tried to do going forward.
Even for people who were climate concerned, it was really clear that what they perceived as a present risk in their neighborhood was way more salient than an abstract thing like contributing to the fight against climate change globally. So even for people potentially on your side, you have to make it about local benefits.
The other thing we did was we called a two-hour forum for the county supervisors and mayor’s association because we realized talking to them in a polarized environment was not a way to have a conversation. I spoke and so did Paul Rogers, a former New York Fire Department lieutenant who is now in fire safety consulting – he sounds like a firefighter and can speak with a credibility that I could never match in front of, for example, local fire chiefs. Winning them over was important. And we took more than an hour of questions.
Stage one was to convince them of why batteries were important. Stage two was to show that a large number of constituents were angry about the moratorium, but that Republicans were putting on a unified front against this – an issue to win votes. So there was a period where Democrats on the Poughkeepsie board were convinced but it was politically difficult for them.
But stage three became helping them do the right thing, even with the risk of there being a political cost.
What would you say to those in other parts of the country who want to do what you did?
If possible, get a zoning law in place before there is any developer with a specific proposal because all of the opposition to this project came from people directly next to the proposed project. Get in there before there’s a specific project site.
Even if you’re in a very blue city, don’t make it primarily about climate. Abstract climate loses to non-abstract perceived risk every time. Make it about local benefits.
To the extent you can, read and educate yourself about what good batteries provide to the grid. There’s a lot of local economic benefits there.
I am trying to put together some of the resources I used into a packet, a tool kit, so that people elsewhere can learn from it and draw from those resources.
Also, the more you know, the better. All those years of reading David Roberts and Heatmap gave me enough knowledge to actually answer questions here. It works especially when you have board members who may be sympathetic but need to be reassured.