The Fight

Sign In or Create an Account.

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

Q&A

Trump and the Keystonization of Renewable Energy

A conversation with Devin Hartman of R Street

Devin Hartman.
Heatmap Illustration/Courtesy Devin Hartman

Today’s special Q&A is with an old source of mine, Devin Hartman, energy and environment policy director for the conservative D.C. think tank R Street.

When I used to cover Congress, Devin was one of the few climate-minded conservatives willing to offer a candid, principled take on what could happen in that always deliberative body. I decided for our year-end edition to ask him a lot of questions, including an important one: will Trump make it easier or more difficult to permit solar and wind projects?

His answer – that it is very much possible – led us once again down the rabbit hole of conspiracy-powered politics.

The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

Let’s start with the U.S. climate elephant in the room – what do you think will happen to the Inflation Reduction Act next Congress?

I have not talked to any Republican staff, members of Congress, or strategists that think full IRA repeal is on the table. Just nip that conversation in the bud right now. That said, they will need to find where to cut some tax credits to pay for the tax extensions. There will be strong pressure to modify those subsidies. So I think subsidy reform is very much on the table but full IRA repeal is not. More specifically, Republicans will be eyeing the electric vehicle tax credit and the PTC and ITC that primarily focus on wind and solar.

Most of the expenditures under IRA are subsidies for mature technologies. I think what you’re going to see is something that is a phase down if not a staggered phase out as on the table for mature technologies, especially wind, solar and EVs.

The thing that’s missing in this narrative so much is that in hindsight the Inflation Reduction Act is not nearly as much of a climate savior as its proponents claim. Folks realized we need all this permitting, all this regulatory reform so we can actually build this stuff and a lot of what we were recognizing is that before the IRA passed, the private sector was going to fund a massive amount of new infrastructure, especially mature technologies. But you couldn’t get the stuff built. So the policy discussion a few years ago really should’ve focused on regulatory and permitting reform… and it prioritized subsidies mostly instead.

Okay. Moving on, folks in Trump’s orbit proffer in conspiracies and misinformation, disinformation about renewable energy – are you at all concerned about the next Trump administration turning against individual solar and wind projects in the permitting process based on those views?

Oh yeah. We’ve seen this getting done under the past several administrations — more polarization. A lot of stakeholders have called this the Keystonization of energy permitting. That’s really concerning.

I always think of presidents or any elected official as more followers to their political milieu than leaders in their own right. We started to see this with President Obama where some of his advisors and his team said, why does something like the Keystone XL matter that much? It doesn’t make or break that much… but you saw a lot of this technology and project tribalism really kicking in with different groups and that clearly influenced political decision-making. It started removing the permitting process from an objective criteria-based approach. It’s really concerning to see this trend move forward. And subsequently on both sides of the aisle you’ve seen this temptation, mostly with presidential administrations given their authorities, these [Council of Environmental Quality] processes or other things that might put their thumb on the scale in favor of some resources over others.

I would note the NEPA reforms that Trump got done on his watch. Those NEPA reforms were cheerleaded by the wind and solar industries. That’s when you started to see the environmental groups really oppose those NEPA reforms but the clean energy groups really wanted them.

That may be true, but activists fighting projects tell me they’re really excited for Trump. These activists believe this – as you put it – Keystonization is going to help them and we're going to see the Trump administration become a more difficult environment to get solar and wind permits on a case-by-case basis. Do you see that happening?

I would be worried if we started to see indications of that. It’s always possible.

Senator Jim Risch recently said he expects the Trump administration to issue a project-by-project executive order. Do you imagine anything in that world is possible?

It’s possible.

Where we’ve seen more of the red-blue divide is at the state level. That’s our biggest concern… oof. That’s been trending in the wrong direction really severely in recent years. That might be the single biggest long-term hindrance to energy infrastructure development and by extension decarbonization. That issue set is really tough. And that unfortunately you’ve seen some of the fault lines–

–Sorry to interrupt. Do you mean the blue states trying to overrule local control versus the red states letting localities have the final say, like Ohio?

Yeah. And some of that can be philosophical, irrespective of the technology. Some of it is home rule versus state government. That is a factor in it.

But going back to some of the misinformation and disinformation stuff… that’s been concerning.

When we’ve surveyed a lot of these developers and asked what is motivating some of this right now? So much of it is Facebook campaigns that were promoting false perspectives on the consequences of infrastructure development. Things like the flicker effect from living near wind turbines causing health effects. A lot of stuff on electro-magnetic fields. There was just a lot of bad information out there. That has generated in some cases opposition from communities that is misguided and unfortunate.

One of our big recommendations with this is we learned a lot from the Telecommunications Act in the ‘90s. Whether Congress pursues something similar for energy infrastructure, I don’t know. But maybe at the state level at least we should have this conversation where you need to actually demonstrate harm if you actually have legitimate concerns about health effects. [It’s] that standing and criteria-based determination approach to this, rather than this sentiment based approach that could be based on utter nonsense.

Is there a federal solution to this problem?

In permitting, we’ve had this conversation for a while now about community engagement – which progressives call for – and judicial review, which is something conservatives have been calling for. I think there’s actually some reinforcing and mutually beneficial reforms that can be done in tandem. Things like narrow standing to individuals and entities actually affected by the infrastructure, and that standing has to be tied to demonstrate harm under these statutes – that’s a piece that can be there.

But the other thing you do is come in with good information. You have standardized packets of information to help communities and siting bodies make more informed decisions. Alright, there can be the potential economic development benefits to your community. Oh also, we’re going to be honest about any kind of drawbacks – legitimate local health and ecosystem effects. You create a system that naturally filters out a bunch of nonsense and also drives in good information. Those concepts can be reinforced.

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

The Loud Fight Over Inaudible Data Center Noise

Why local governments are getting an earful about “infrasound”

Data center noise.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

As the data center boom pressures counties, cities, and towns into fights over noise, the trickiest tone local officials are starting to hear complaints about is one they can’t even hear – a low-frequency rumble known as infrasound.

Infrasound is a phenomenon best described as sounds so low, they’re inaudible. These are the sorts of vibrations and pressure at the heart of earthquakes and volcanic activity. Infrasound can be anything from the waves shot out from a sonic boom or an explosion to very minute changes in air pressure around HVAC systems or refrigerators.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

An Anti-Battery Avalanche Outside Seattle

And more on the week’s top fights around project development.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. King County, Washington – The Moss Landing battery backlash is alive and well more than a year after the fiery disaster, fomenting an opposition stampede that threatens to delay a massive energy storage project two dozen miles east of Seattle.

  • Moss Landing looms large in Snoqualmie, a city in the Cascade Mountains where Jupiter Power is trying to build Cascade Ridge Resiliency Energy Storage, a 130-megawatt facility conveniently located on unincorporated county land right by a substation and transmission infrastructure.
  • To say residents nearby are upset would be an understatement. A giant number of protestors – reportedly 650 people, which is large for this community of about 14,000 – showed up to rally against the project this weekend, just as Jupiter Power submitted its application for the project to county regulators.
  • The opposition is led by Snoqualmie Valley for Responsible Energy, a grassroots organization that primarily has focused on the risk of thermal runaway from battery storage events and rhetoric about the Moss Landing fire. “The battery chemistry proposed for Cascadia Ridge has not been verified in any public filing. Recent incidents illustrate what is at stake,” state SVRE strategy materials posted to their website.
  • Jupiter Power has tried to combat this campaign with its own organizing coalition – dubbed “Keep the Lights On!” – that includes local union labor and some environmentalists, including volunteers for Sierra Club. This campaign has emphasized how modern engineering around battery storage is nothing like the set-up was at Moss Landing.
  • However, the concerned voices are winning out over those who want the storage project. On Wednesday night, this outcry led the Snoqualmie city council at a special meeting to vote to request via letter for the storage project to be relocated and communicate that dissent to both the local utility, Puget Sound Energy, and King County.
  • “We encourage consideration of alternate locations within the Puget Sound Energy transmission and distribution system to better address the concerns that have been raised,” read a draft version of the letter presented by councilors at the meeting.
  • Jupiter Power told me it “welcome[s] any feedback from the community” and King County said in a statement, “We understand the concerns.” PSE told me they had not “received official notification about the formal action by the City Council and we can't comment on something we have not received.”
  • This degree of on-the-ground frustration will be challenging for any higher-level decision maker in Washington State to ignore. I’d argue the entire storage sector should be watching closely.

2. Prince Williams County, Virginia – It was a big week for data center troubles. Let’s start with Data Center Alley, which started to show cracks this week as data center developer Compass announced it was pulling out of the controversial Digital Gateway mega-project.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

Is the Left Making a ‘Massive Strategic Blunder’ on Data Centers?

A conversation with Holly Jean Buck, author of a buzzy story about Bernie Sanders’ proposal for a national data center moratorium.

Holly Jean Buck.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Holly Jean Buck, an associate professor at the University of Buffalo and former official in the Energy Department’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. Buck got into the thicket of the data center siting debate this past week after authoring a polemic epistemology of sorts in Jacobin arguing against a national data center ban. In the piece, she called a moratorium on AI data centers “a massive strategic blunder for the left, and we should think through the global justice implications and follow-on effects.” It argued that environmental and climate activists would be better suited not courting a left-right coalition that doesn’t seem to have shared goals in the long term.

Her article was praised by more Abundance-leaning thinkers like Matthew Yglesias and pilloried by some of the more influential people in the anti-data center organizing space, such as Ben Inskeep of Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana. So I wanted to chat with her about the discourse around her piece. She humbly obliged.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow