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 Jared Huffman, ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Today’s chat is with House Natural Resources ranking member Jared Huffman, the top Democrat on the most important committee for land use in the House of Representatives. This week, Huffman and other Democrats spoke out against efforts by the Trump administration to lay off staff at four publicly backed power grid planners and operators known as Power Marketing Administrators, or PMAs. This led me to ask Huffman’s office if I could chat with the congressman about the eroding independence of these historically insulated government bodies, as well as permitting staff.
Our conversation left me feeling mostly hopeless on solutions coming anytime soon, with a dash of gratitude that at least someone in government cares about this.
Here’s an edited transcript of our conversation:
Walk me through how, in the minority, you’re trying to deal with the politicization of and disruption to ordinarily independent agencies and entities that operate our government?
We don’t have the tools I’d like, but we’re not entirely powerless. We have our public platforms and communication opportunities. And our votes are still needed from time to time, even in a Republican Congress. So it’s a combination of that and working with outside litigants where we can and trying our best to drive public opinion. That’s pretty much the toolbox.
Do you envision this issue — given how much trouble there was getting folks to appreciate the IRA — being something that really gets the public’s attention?
PMAs are pretty abstract for most Americans. I don’t know that we are going to get them to understand what all of these entities do or how they’re funded or why they’re important. But this clown car exercise with DOGE doing a ready-set-aim exercise with the PMAs could be a learning moment.
What do you mean by that?
These guys are running roughshod through a whole bunch of federal agencies that they don’t even really understand, and they’re pretending to cut things and lay off people in some cases that don’t even affect the federal treasury or deficit. So the levels of ignorance and recklessness are stunning and could help us explain to the American people what’s wrong with this out of control process.
What are you hearing in terms of how the government is interacting with energy developers, especially those in renewables?
I hear a lot of concern and confusion. I don’t know that this PMA episode is particularly revealing in terms of where we’re going with energy development and the grid. But it’s definitely a cautionary tale about allowing a bunch of bozos in hoodies to have the authority to cut budgets they don’t understand.
But with respect to the PMAs, those are usually independent. Do you or anyone you speak to have concern about this independence eroding and it trickling down to renewables?
Oh, of course I am concerned about that. But I am concerned about that across the spectrum of independent agencies. From the DOJ to the FTC to the SEC to the Postal Service and everything else. This is fundamentally a bad idea to try to bring every entity on the federal org chart under the direct authority of Donald Trump.
Another place we’ve seen staff shakeup is in environmental agencies tasked with permitting projects.
You and other lawmakers gave agencies more money to hire staff to process permits and my reporting has revealed how that money and staff time has been impacted by Trump’s return to the White House. Walk me through how you see the situation with permitting, staff and the layoffs?
What we did was real permitting reform. What they want to do is talk about permitting reform and then actually getting rid of environmental laws. So you’re going to see them do things — they’ve already started — that actually slow down permitting and environmental reviews. And this is something they claim they care about. It’s all in service of a bigger objective: to clear away environmental laws so things like fossil fuel development don’t even have to get permits. They just happen.
Do you think we’re about to be in a world where fossil fuel permits flow from the federal agencies like water but renewables struggle to get their go-aheads?
I think that’s clearly where they want to go.
Does that make it harder to pass legislation to deal with the permitting process?
I think it makes it pointless. To have an intelligent conversation about permitting reform when these guys won’t even follow legislation — they won’t even keep the things we have already done that are achieving permitting reform.
If you were talking to an energy executive, one of these renewables developers who still wants to build projects, what would you say to them?
I’d say, work with state and local governments.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Conservationists in Wyoming zero in on a vulnerability anti-wind activists are targeting elsewhere: the administration’s species protection efforts.
Wildlife conservationists in Wyoming are asking the Trump administration to block wind projects in their state in the name of protecting eagles from turbine blades.
The Albany County Conservancy, a Wyoming wildlife advocacy group, sent letters on February 11 and 18 to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and Attorney General Pam Bondi. In the letters, which I obtained, the group asked the Trump officials to do everything in their power to halt Repsol’s Rail Tie and BluEarth’s Two Rivers wind projects, including suspending Two Rivers’ right-of-way from the Bureau of Land Management and even the interconnection grant for Rail Tie’s transmission line.
These letters show for the first time that onshore wind projects are dealing with the same Trump-centric back-channelling influence campaigns we reported advocates and attorneys are waging in the offshore wind permitting space. The letters make some big requests. But the Conservancy is playing the chess game well, zeroing in on a vulnerability other wind opponents are also targeting: the administration’s species protection efforts.
Wyoming is crucial to the survival of golden eagles, a raptor bird species protected under multiple federal laws, including a 1940 conservation statute for golden as well as bald eagles. The state is home to what conservationists say is one of the largest breeding populations for golden eagles. But the species is struggling, with most recorded golden eagle deaths caused by humans. Some of these deaths have been tied directly to wind turbines.
The Rail Tie and Two Rivers projects concern Mike Lockhart, an ex-biologist for the Fish and Wildlife Service with a specialty in eagle conservation. For years Lockhart, who lives in the area and is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, has studied how the wind industry has impacted golden eagles and believes the government severely undercounts how many birds are being hurt by turbine blades.
In order to build in areas with golden eagles, developers need so-called “incidental take” authorizations, e.g. approvals to disturb or accidentally harm the species throughout the course of construction or operation of a wind project. He told me that data he and the Conservancy submitted to regulators shows that golden eagles will die if these wind farms turn on. “I’m a big renewable energy advocate,” he said. “I’m also horrified by what I’m seeing in Wyoming. We really didn’t understand the full scope of what these three-bladed wind turbines mean.”
It’s worth noting that renewable energy industry groups deny wind energy is playing a role in the size of the golden eagle population.
The Interior Department, which oversees the Bureau of Land Management and the incidental take process, declined to comment on the requests. So did BluEarth. Repsol said it was unable to provide a comment by press time.
On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order that halted new federal approvals for U.S. wind projects, pending a comprehensive review of the government’s past treatment of the wind industry, including its efforts to protect birds from turbines. Trump’s order claimed there were “various alleged legal deficiencies underlying the federal government’s leasing and permitting of onshore and offshore wind projects, the consequences of which may lead to grave harm – including negative impacts on navigational safety interests, transportation interests, national security interests, commercial interests, and marine mammals.” It also claimed there were “potential inadequacies in various environmental reviews” for wind projects. And indeed, a 2023 Associated Press investigation found federal enforcement in eagle protection laws declined under the Trump 1.0 and Biden administrations, even as wind energy blossomed in the species’ habitat.
As we reported last week, opponents of offshore wind have joined hands with well-connected figures in the conservative legal space to lobby Trump’s team to revoke incidental take authorizations previously issued to offshore wind projects. Doing so would rattle all offshore wind development as well as raise concerns about scientific independence at the issuing agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
As with offshore wind and whales, Wyoming and its eagles offer Trump a situation he wants. In this case, it’s an opportunity to look tough on crime while attacking wind. A Trumpian disruption of the state’s wind sector would also create high profile controversy around what has otherwise been a success story for wind energy growth in a GOP stronghold state.
The Conservancy is represented by William Eubanks, a veteran public interest environmental lawyer who sent the letters on the group’s behalf. Prior to sending the letter, they were already in litigation over Rail Tie’s take approvals and the government permits that followed, providing a potential avenue for regulatory and permitting changes through legal settlement. The Conservancy also warned the Trump team that another lawsuit over Two Rivers could soon be in the offing. One letter stated that officials’ time “would be better spent reevaluating” the project to “ensure compliance with federal law (and President Trump’s Executive Order on wind projects), rather than in federal court.”
Eubanks — who has dedicated his life to fighting various potential industrial impacts to the environment, including fossil fuel pollution — told me that cases against renewable projects are a “really small part” of his firm’s “overall docket.” Eubanks told me he believes climate change must be addressed quickly. “It’s a serious issue, it is here, it is looming, and we need to do something about it,” he said. And he thinks that the nation needs to construct more renewable energy.
Yet Eubanks also says these two wind projects are a perfect example of a “rush through these processes” to get “the green light as soon as possible.” In his view, it’s the same way he’s treated oil and gas projects when fossil-friendly presidents put their own thumbs on the scale.
“We’re not just looking at this as, it’s a solar project or a wind project that gets some sort of ‘green pass,’” Eubanks added. “There’s a difference of opinion in the conservation community … a black or white thinking approach of, if something is a renewable energy project — no matter how poorly sited it is, no matter who poorly analyzed if at all it has been under environmental law — there are some conservation groups who, for better or worse, will just say, we’re not going to get involved in commenting on that or going the extra step of challenging it in court because we have to address the issue of our time: climate change.”
Lockhart told me he knows that the Trump administration is undercutting climate action with its anti-wind position. And he doesn’t like that. “I’m a supporter of green energy and want to do everything possible to reverse climate change,” he told me.
But he sees a silver lining in Trump potentially intervening. “I’m hoping it makes agencies go back and focus on what’s really going on, all the cumulative impacts and everything else.”
And more of the week’s top conflicts around renewable energy.
Here’s what else I’m watching …
In Massachusetts, anti-wind activist Mary Chalke is running for a seat on the select board for the town of Nantucket. She’s well known for wearing a whale costume to protests.
In North Carolina, local pro-wind advocates hope Duke Energy’s land-based wind projects will be safe from the Trump administration.
In Washington State, Whitman County has imposed a wind moratorium.
In Virginia, Apex Clean Energy’s Rocky Forge solar project has survived a legal challenge.
And more of the week’s top policy news.
1. New NEPA world – The Trump White House overnight effectively rescinded all implementing rules for the National Environmental Policy Act, a key statute long relied on by regulators for permitting large energy and infrastructure projects.
2. Our hydrogen hero – Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Shelley Moore Capito this week came out against any freeze for a hydrogen hub with projects in her state, indicating that any clampdown on H2 projects from the federal level may get Republican pushback.
.