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 Geoff Cooper, head of the Renewable Fuels Association

Today’s conversation is with Geoff Cooper, head of the Renewable Fuels Association, the most powerful biofuels trade organization in D.C. And he’s not happy.
In Cooper’s view, the Biden administration left the IRA’s tax credit supporting lower-carbon jet fuel unfinished despite releasing guidance days before Trump entered office (here’s an explainer on that problem). Not to mention the chaos of Trump’s early days has, as Cooper put it, thrown the brakes on the American biofuels sector’s foray into aviation. Cooper and I have a history going back years, and almost a month into Trump 2.0, I thought it was time we had a chat about how solar and wind aren’t the only sectors left out in the cold right now.
The following conversation was lightly edited and abridged for clarity.
We’ve been telling our readers what’s happening in the renewable energy space under Trump. But what’s happening in the renewable fuels space?
I think what we’re seeing right now is lots of businesses hitting the pause button and waiting for more certainty, waiting for more clarity on where everything is headed. There is, of course, always uncertainty and unpredictability at the beginning of any new administration. But this one in particular there has been more than usual because we were sort of in the middle of getting rules finalized on some of those key tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act. We had good clarity, and I’d say understanding of where some of those programs were going, like 45Q, but on others like 45Z, literally, it was the last week of the Biden administration that we began to see the necessary pieces of that program we’d been waiting on, and what the administration put out was incomplete and unfinished, so now it falls to the Trump administration to decide whether and how to move forward with that. So all of that uncertainty and confusion and the timing of all of that has resulted in many companies in the renewable fuels space just calling a time out on any investment plans and strategies that they have been considering to lower carbon intensity. I think there’s a real hesitancy to dive head first into some of those investments right now when it just isn’t clear where the bottom is.
What do you mean by a pause on investment? Can you give some examples?
Under 45Z and under the initial modeling the Biden administration put out in early January, I’d say probably three-quarters of the ethanol industry is just barely on the outside of generating 45Z credit, so the carbon intensity of their ethanol is just above that threshold that would be required to generate that credit on the low end of that scale.
There are a number of technologies that producers could adopt to get them on the other side of that threshold into the position where they can begin claiming some value from 45Z — combined heat and power, installing wind or solar behind the meter at these facilities so they can enjoy the benefit of renewable electricity, using biogas in lieu of natural gas. These are all things most producers were considering, and had in some cases had deals ready to go and projects ready to go. But they’re on hold now because again, nobody’s quite sure what the future looks like for 45Z.
Are any companies saying this out loud, or is this mostly private board room chatter?
This is mostly internal conversations during board meetings and other meetings we’ve had as an association. But there have been public statements.
Is the uncertainty surrounding government funding also a factor here?
It has been. If you look at USDA — for example, the [Rural Energy for America Program] REAP program — funding was paused for that program. And it isn’t just for on-farm renewable projects. There’s some ethanol plants that had successfully applied and received commitments for REAP funding for projects they were doing and that’s been put on hold. More broadly, things have slowed down in terms of making investments and commitments to efficiency and lower carbon intensity in the industry as a result of just the broader freeze and slowdown on all of these programs at the federal level.
And again, you expect some of that is going to occur any time there’s a new administration and you go through a transition like this. But this one has been, I would say, particularly acute so far.
Do you believe that given his history supporting biofuel infrastructure in North Dakota as governor, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum will be more deferential to your members when it comes to permitting?
I should say the industry is confident that everything that’s paused right now — or, not everything, but a lot of the important programs that have been frozen or paused right now — will eventually be unstuck and the door will open back up. Certainly we see carbon capture and sequestration projects in that way, permitting for those projects. Obviously there’s a couple of carbon pipeline projects that we do expect will move forward, and the 45Q tax credit seems to be on firmer ground than 45Z at this moment. So we do expect that those things will move forward.
It’s just a matter of how long things are delayed and how long things are frozen as the new administration is reviewing things and formulating their own strategy and plans for how they want to move forward.
Do you have any idea how that’ll shake out?
I don’t think there is any indication of how it’ll shake out at this point.
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 conversation with Dustin Mulvaney of San Jose State University
This week’s conversation is a follow up with Dustin Mulvaney, a professor of environmental studies at San Jose State University. As you may recall we spoke with Mulvaney in the immediate aftermath of the Moss Landing battery fire disaster, which occurred near his university’s campus. Mulvaney told us the blaze created a true-blue PR crisis for the energy storage industry in California and predicted it would cause a wave of local moratoria on development. Eight months after our conversation, it’s clear as day how right he was. So I wanted to check back in with him to see how the state’s development landscape looks now and what the future may hold with the Moss Landing dust settled.
Help my readers get a state of play – where are we now in terms of the post-Moss Landing resistance landscape?
A couple things are going on. Monterey Bay is surrounded by Monterey County and Santa Cruz County and both are considering ordinances around battery storage. That’s different than a ban – important. You can have an ordinance that helps facilitate storage. Some people here are very focused on climate change issues and the grid, because here in Santa Cruz County we’re at a terminal point where there really is no renewable energy, so we have to have battery storage. And like, in Santa Cruz County the ordinance would be for unincorporated areas – I’m not sure how materially that would impact things. There’s one storage project in Watsonville near Moss Landing, and the ordinance wouldn’t even impact that. Even in Monterey County, the idea is to issue a moratorium and again, that’s in unincorporated areas, too.
It’s important to say how important battery storage is going to be for the coastal areas. That’s where you see the opposition, but all of our renewables are trapped in southern California and we have a bottleneck that moves power up and down the state. If California doesn’t get offshore wind or wind from Wyoming into the northern part of the state, we’re relying on batteries to get that part of the grid decarbonized.
In the areas of California where batteries are being opposed, who is supporting them and fighting against the protests? I mean, aside from the developers and an occasional climate activist.
The state has been strongly supporting the industry. Lawmakers in the state have been really behind energy storage and keeping things headed in that direction of more deployment. Other than that, I think you’re right to point out there’s not local advocates saying, “We need more battery storage.” It tends to come from Sacramento. I’m not sure you’d see local folks in energy siting usually, but I think it’s also because we are still actually deploying battery storage in some areas of the state. If we were having even more trouble, maybe we’d have more advocacy for development in response.
Has the Moss Landing incident impacted renewable energy development in California? I’ve seen some references to fears about that incident crop up in fights over solar in Imperial County, for example, which I know has been coveted for development.
Everywhere there’s batteries, people are pointing at Moss Landing and asking how people will deal with fires. I don’t know how powerful the arguments are in California, but I see it in almost every single renewable project that has a battery.
Okay, then what do you think the next phase of this is? Are we just going to be trapped in a battery fire fear cycle, or do you think this backlash will evolve?
We’re starting to see it play out here with the state opt-in process where developers can seek state approval to build without local approval. As this situation after Moss Landing has played out, more battery developers have wound up in the opt-in process. So what we’ll see is more battery developers try to get permission from the state as opposed to local officials.
There are some trade-offs with that. But there are benefits in having more resources to help make the decisions. The state will have more expertise in emergency response, for example, whereas every local jurisdiction has to educate themselves. But no matter what I think they’ll be pursuing the opt-in process – there’s nothing local governments can really do to stop them with that.
Part of what we’re seeing though is, you have to have a community benefit agreement in place for the project to advance under the California Environmental Quality Act. The state has been pretty strict about that, and that’s the one thing local folks could still do – influence whether a developer can get a community benefits agreement with representatives on the ground. That’s the one strategy local folks who want to push back on a battery could use, block those agreements. Other than that, I think some counties here in California may not have much resistance. They need the revenue and see these as economic opportunities.
I can’t help but hear optimism in your tone of voice here. It seems like in spite of the disaster, development is still moving forward. Do you think California is doing a better or worse job than other states at deploying battery storage and handling the trade offs?
Oh, better. I think the opt-in process looks like a nice balance between taking local authority away over things and the better decision-making that can be brought in. The state creating that program is one way to help encourage renewables and avoid a backlash, honestly, while staying on track with its decarbonization goals.
The week’s most important fights around renewable energy.
1. Nantucket, Massachusetts – A federal court for the first time has granted the Trump administration legal permission to rescind permits given to renewable energy projects.
2. Harvey County, Kansas – The sleeper election result of 2025 happened in the town of Halstead, Kansas, where voters backed a moratorium on battery storage.
3. Cheboygan County, Michigan – A group of landowners is waging a new legal challenge against Michigan’s permitting primacy law, which gives renewables developers a shot at circumventing local restrictions.
4. Klamath County, Oregon – It’s not all bad news today, as this rural Oregon county blessed a very large solar project with permits.
5. Muscatine County, Iowa – To quote DJ Khaled, another one: This county is also advancing a solar farm, eliding a handful of upset neighbors.
John McAuliff ran his campaign almost entirely on data centers — and won.
A former Biden White House climate adviser just won a successful political campaign based on opposing data centers, laying out a blueprint for future candidates to ride frustrations over the projects into seats of power.
On Tuesday John McAuliff, a progressive Democrat, ousted Delegate Geary Higgins, a Republican representing the slightly rural 30th District of Virginia in Loudoun and Fauquier Counties. The district is a mix of rural agricultural communities and suburbs outside of the D.C. metro area – and has been represented by Republicans in the state House of Delegates going back decades. McAuliff reversed that trend, winning a close election with a campaign almost entirely focused on data centers and “protecting” farmland from industrial development.
“I realized that the biggest energy crisis in the country was right here in my backyard,” McAuliff told me in an interview. “We are simply the tip of the iceberg of the enormous land rush AI has created.”
Virginia is the top data center destination in the U.S., with the bulk of operations in tech-centric Northern Virginia. As tech companies have found a home in the Commonwealth, communities have been pushing back against what they see as a drain on electricity and water supplies. As I’ve previously chronicled in The Fight, this pushback is also turning into opposition to renewable energy as part of a broader backlash to land use for advanced technological infrastructure.
Enter McAuliff who, until recently, was serving in key climate policy leadership roles during the Biden administration. He joined the Agriculture Department in 2022 after enactment of the Inflation Reduction Act and helped shepherd the expansion of the Rural Energy for America Program. He began advising the White House on climate policy in 2023 and served in the administration until the start of the current Trump administration.
Other factors contributed to McAuliff’s victory, which was certainly slim – the race was decided by less than a single percentage point. McAuliff undoubtedly benefited from a Democratic wave election in an off year during an unpopular GOP presidency that has slashed federal government employment, shattering the job market in northern Virginia. There’s also the convenient fact that McAuliff's last name is nearly identical to a recent former governor of Virginia.
But it’s impossible to ignore how much McAuliff’s campaign focused on data centers. His website had an entire page dedicated to his positions on the subject. His attack ads against Higgins focused on previous support and campaign contributions from data center developers – so much so that the Republican candidate began countering McAuliff by claiming that a Democratic victory would only lead to new solar projects.
Turns out, in this close race, the data center attacks worked and the solar rebuttal did not. McAuliff told me the day after his victory that the data center attacks resonate because yes, there’s an environmental impact from these projects, but also a “cultural” effect from the fact data centers are large, hulking complexes.
“There’s something folks are more willing to take a look at, and there’s something folks are less likely to look at, electorally speaking,” he said.
Chris Miller, president of the conservationist group Piedmont Environmental Council, told me you can see flickers of evidence that data centers shaped the results of other races in Virginia, too. One example he pointed to was in Prince William County, where Republican Delegate Ian Lovejoy lost his seat to a Democrat who campaigned on stricter scrutiny of the data center sector. Lovejoy also told voters he wanted to address the projects and authored legislation to put some minimum regulation in place on data center siting but it died in subcommittee, and when the House of Delegates passed legislation mirroring his proposal, it was vetoed by outgoing Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin. This, to Miller, meant Lovejoy had nothing to show voters: “That may have been a factor, because he couldn’t deliver to his constituents.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if these races in Virginia are also turning heads in nearby Washington, D.C. — particularly those of the lawmakers in Congress debating whether to change our country’s permitting processes to meet growing power demand for artificial intelligence. Back home, permitting reform that makes it easier to build data centers could be a tough sell.