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 Dustin Mulvaney, professor of environmental studies at San Jose State University

Today’s conversation is with Dustin Mulvaney, an environmental studies professor at San Jose State University. Mulvaney is a social scientist who spent much of his time before January 2025 advocating for more considerate and humane renewable energy development. Then Moss Landing happened. Mulvaney – who was there at Moss Landing the first day – is now obsessed with the myriad safety concerns laden in large-scale utility battery storage and what plans were in place to deal with the fire. His reasoning? A failure to grapple with safety concerns could undermine public trust in battery storage and make a transition away from fossil fuels more difficult.
The following is an abridged version of our conversation, which was the interview that first prompted me to investigate the mystery of the health concerns surrounding the fire.
Why are you so concerned about what safety plan was in place before the Moss Landing battery fire?
Three o’clock was when the battery started smoking. The giant fire doesn’t happen until six o’clock and there were reporters on scene saying, the smoke’s gone. Then all of the sudden: boom. Just blows up, big time.
They didn’t evacuate the neighborhood until six. The neighborhood should’ve been evacuated at three when the smoke started.
Wait – they didn’t evacuate the neighborhood until three hours after the fire?
It depends what you mean by fire. There weren’t flames the first few hours. From the planning side, they should’ve at least been notified they would be evacuated if the fire got worse.
That’s part of the problem. You’ve got all these people looking around at this gigantic fire and that’s scary. And on the monitoring part, there should be a plan for how to monitor the fire. How come no one flew a drone into the cloud of smoke to look for whatever’s in there to just get a sense? And they were checking for hydrofluoric acid all around but they were all at ground level. It just feels like they weren’t prepared.
Why does it concern you that they were only checking for that chemical at ground level?
We had an inversion that night and when we get a little inversion off the bay, the air is really clean and clear. I got pretty close to the fire that night. I got as close as the police would let me go. And I was breathing clean air at ground level. I want to say I was a mile away.
So what do you think was most missing from a regulatory standpoint here? What should’ve been done that wasn’t done at a state level?
If you think about it, the pipeline explosion killed all those people in San Bruno before the California Public Utilities Commission said maybe we should regulate pipelines a little better, and then burned down cities with hooks that were 100 years old from power lines and [said] maybe we should do something better on power lines. To me it feels like the CPUC is the one who has been dragging their feet on all of this.
Because they’re behind on planning?
The CPUC is in charge of safety. It’s part of CPUC’s job to make sure that pipelines don’t explode and transmission lines don’t catch fire.
I agree that we need to be safer, but there’s some pretty serious urgency to build a lot more of these batteries, fast, no?
So, the analogy that I was trying to go with was that when CPUC doesn’t do its job, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has threatened to come in. When pipeline explosions happen and if CPUC doesn’t do its job–
So do you want a Trump administration FERC to step in?
Absolutely not, that is not what I am saying. I’m not advocating for that. No way.
It’s the question of where is everybody? The CPUC should’ve stepped in and implemented regulations immediately. Maybe we’d see something different here. Maybe someone goes in and inspects that battery facility and sees we need corrugated metal from Home Depot.
This is going to get worse. I’m sure if there’s anybody with battery storage in a building like Moss Landing they are now being asked, I’m sure their insurers are asking, where’s your thermal runaway certification for that facility?
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 administration told a federal court that it has a “new analytical methodology,” hence the continued delays.
A federal judge ruled in early August that the Trump administration’s freeze on vertical height clearances for wind turbines was likely illegal. More than a month later nearly all of the wind energy projects remain on pause, as federal officials add new red tape that industry representatives say runs afoul of the court’s edict.
Let’s catch-up quickly on the American wind sector’s existential dilemma: the federal government has control over airspace higher than 200 feet from the ground and wind farm turbines essentially always enter that sphere of control. For at least a year and a half, the Trump administration through the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration has slowly gummed up what industry and former government officials have said was once a rote, benign bureaucratic process for ensuring turbine rotation didn’t interfere with flight patterns or radar at nearby airports.
So, Trump is delaying key approvals even for wind projects on private land, a worst-case scenario for the industry during his presidency. With support from their respective trade groups, many project developers sued and in August won a preliminary injunction against this de-facto national wind energy freeze. The court ruling said federal law laid out clear deadlines for completing these airspace reviews and the administration was willfully missing them.
“[In] light of DoD’s review freeze that started a year ago and still has no end in sight, the wind developers would naturally look to the same deadlines for relief,” U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut wrote, stating the administration’s pause violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Immergut also said the Trump administration potentially violated the law by reviewing projects under a new national security “methodology” that was defined by Congress.
But on Thursday, in its first update to the court since the ruling, the Justice Department laid out how essentially all projects remain at a standstill because they were adopting a new kind of comprehensive review process.
The administration claimed that “as a matter of policy” it had “resumed processing wind energy project applications,” but it only described a single instance where a company had heard from the military about moving forward. In addition, that company as well as all others affected by the freeze would still face a “new analytical methodology” for federal agencies reviewing height clearances for all projects, which appears to fly in the face of the ruling. The Justice Department did not provide any more detail about the methodology in its status update to the court.
Nicole Hughes, executive director of lead plaintiff Renewable Northwest, asserted in an interview Tuesday that the agency isn’t complying with the court order. “It appears to me they’re still stalling,” Hughes told me, adding the federal government’s reluctance to proceed is creating “a pretty high risk” for developers of any new wind projects in the United States. She said if nothing changes in the short term, they’re going to “have to go back to the judge and ask for further clarification as to what it means to comply with this order.”
“The lack of compliance by the administration does put into question the credibility [of the courts] and what pieces hold their feet to the fire? What remedies do we have? There’s never been a time an administration flaunts a judge’s orders the way the administration is.”
The Justice Department status update described a multitude of wind energy projects impacted by the freeze. At least 30 projects apparently already signed deals proposed by the military to mitigate radar impacts and were awaiting a counter-signature from the Department of Defense (which Trump calls the Department of War or DoW). Those previous legal agreements are now at risk of being thrown out, according to the Justice Department filing. The new pathway forward for them apparently is: “DoW will either (i) provide a notice that the project presents an unacceptable risk to national security, (ii) re-engage in negotiations with the developer to attempt to ameliorate any unacceptable risks, or (iii) circulate to the project proponent [a] new model mitigation agreement.”
At least 110 projects were in the middle of discussions with the federal government about mitigating airspace impacts when the injunction came down, according to the DOJ filing, which says none of them have heard from officials since the injunction. “As of this filing, developer re-engagements have yet to begin because such discussions need to be informed by the analytical results. Given the number of projects in this category, DoW has been assessing how to resume review and engagement with the developers.”
The DOJ said another 50 projects awaiting initial meetings with the federal government about airspace risk will begin once the administration “finishes with those” 110 projects that were in the middle of the process. That waiting list will also include another at least 40 projects the Justice Department said received “presumed risk” airspace notices from the federal government.
We’ve seen the Trump administration use extralegal means to delay wind energy before, but never to this extent or after a judge ruled against them. The Interior Department had been freezing wind and solar projects on federal lands under a policy requiring Secretary Doug Burgum sign off on routine approvals, but those typical government processes seem like they’ve resumed after a different federal court ruling enjoining that policy.
American Clean Power, the largest utility-scale solar and wind energy trade group, declined to comment. The Department of Defense did not respond to a request for comment.
Talking about the data center backlash, the midterm elections, and the future of renewables with Columbia Law School’s Romany Webb.
This week’s conversation is a quick catch-up with our friends at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. I hopped on the phone with the center’s deputy director Romany Webb to chat about recent updates they published to anti-renewables opposition analysis. I wanted to dig into their research beyond the toplines — what should people care about in the coming election? How have data centers come up in their research? Or the repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act?
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Let’s start with the updates. Walk me through what’s new in your research.
So, we published two-year reports that detail renewable energy opposition across the United States; one is our report we’ve published since 2021 and it’s a new edition, and the other is an update of a report we published a few years ago on false claims about renewable energy where we highlight the misinformed used against projects.
This year’s local opposition report found local opposition continues to be widespread and really endemic. There’s been opposition to renewable energy development in every state across the country and we’re seeing it still have a real impact on whether projects get built. But there are small glimmers of hope. We identified 70 new state and local restrictions, which was a decline from previous years — that’s notable.
In select states where there have been a lot of these local restrictions, we’ve seen a drop off, like in Michigan after they enacted their state siting law. These are encouraging signs, and obviously it’s still early days, but it shows some of these state reforms are having a positive impact.
How is data center opposition coming up in your research?
Our reports do not track opposition to data center development. But we do certainly hear anecdotally that debates over data center development are spilling over into debates over renewable energy and battery storage. Often, local communities express concern that these new projects are just being built to power data centers — in some cases when there’s no connection at all, really. But I don’t have data on that link.
You said the law Michigan enacted might be working. Do you know if these laws limiting local opposition actually help with fighting renewable energy opponents, or are they engendering their own backlashes that undermine their effectiveness?
I think it’s too early to say the impacts they’ll have over the medium to long term. In the near term, many of the laws have been successful in accelerating the permitting of renewable energy projects or making it easier for them to be approved. Recent data out of New York shows that many of the projects that have gone through the new siting process are being approved — they’re still fairly long but they’re consistent which is good for development. In other places we’ve seen efforts to limit local government’s ability to adopt restrictions on renewable energy development, like Illinois and Michigan.
Those laws are relatively new, but the data we have shows that drop-off. It suggests the intended effect. But we need more time to know how effective they are and some of those laws have been getting quite a bit of pushback. There’s been a myriad of bills enacted in state legislatures across the country that would roll back those recent reforms or impose new restrictions on renewable development.
How much does the coming midterm election matter for the future of opposition to renewable energy?
I do think the next election will have important implications on whether we continue to see the ever-growing number of state level restrictions adopted or if we see a shift there.
Even if we see a shift in the composition of legislatures, I do think we’ll continue to see community opposition in many places to these projects. We shouldn’t ignore that developing a solar or wind project does have impacts on the local community and so developers really need to take steps to mitigate and manage those impacts.
If they don’t they’ll face the opposition, and even if they are they may face it because of misinformation around these projects.
My last question is, to what extent did the repeal of the IRA impact the ability for local opposition to kill projects in the crib?
I can’t say that definitively. I certainly don’t have the data that would support that sort of claim. And we don’t track that, specifically.
But often, groups that are opposed to renewable energy development will express concerns about the costs of projects or emphasize projects may not be viable without government subsidies. So the rollback of tax credits under the IRA plays into that argument. Of course when you look at the data, renewable energy projects are cheaper and the argument doesn’t hold muster.
But it’s an argument we regularly see pushed by opposition groups. That is how we have seen the IRA repeal affect this.
A developer sues an Arkansas paper, plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.
1. Pulaski County, Arkansas – A major utility sued the biggest newspaper in Arkansas over reporting on a data center energy deal. It’s a crucial case to follow.
2. Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania – Speaking of hardcore legal strategies, have you ever heard of a data center developer asking every local official to recuse themselves?
3. Loudon County, Virginia – Data Center Alley is giving us our first real glimpse of what data center legislating could look like if Democrats control at least one chamber of Congress.
4. Lane County, Oregon – The second largest city in Oregon is now turning down data centers, just as the governor starts saying no to anything on state land.