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.
Moss Landing is turning into a growing problem for the energy storage industry.
The Moss Landing battery fire now may be the storage industry’s East Palestine moment – at least in California.
In the weeks since Vistra’s battery plant south of San Francisco caught fire on January 16, at least two lawsuits have been filed against Vistra, PG&E, and battery manufacturer LG Chem by people and business owners claiming damages from the blaze. I have learned at least one more will be filed by individuals who’ve conducted headline-grabbing soil samples that found toxic metals.
Meanwhile, towns and counties up and down the California coastline have banned new battery storage projects and requested more control from the state over permitting and operating them.
At the granular level, circumstances look even more tense. Santa Barbara County this week voted to proactively plan for the potential enactment of legislation before the California state assembly that would let localities be the decider on battery storage, instead of state authorities. The bill is scheduled for its first hearing in the assembly’s utility committee in early April. County officials voted to act essentially like it will become the law of the land, despite testimony from local community services staff noting how unique the Moss Landing event was.
What was especially stark to me: Robert Shaw – CEO of local utility Central Coast Community Energy – spoke before the supervisors and made it clear lots of additional storage would be required for the company to meet its 2030 climate commitments. He explained that storage has to be close to where the energy load is in order to avoid costly transmission lines, telling the board that “in order to operate, they’ve got to add reliability to the grid – but they’ve also got to be affordable.”
Now, today, we’re expecting new regulations arising from California’s battery fire fears: the Public Utilities Commission will vote to adopt proposed recommendations for battery storage siting requirements. This will include requirements for emergency response and action plans after battery fires and new standards for safe operation. A vote to adopt these recommendations is scheduled later this afternoon and advocates in California tell me they anticipate no hiccups.
So why such a profound local revolt? How did California rapidly deploy battery storage only to veer into possibly emboldening local control, which certainly may make residents feel better but would also stall the pace of the energy transition?
I’ve spent the last week looking into it and the simplest explanation is this: Moss Landing still feels like a disaster zone. Residents miles away from where the blaze occurred are suffering mysterious illnesses, like random bloody noses and headaches, and medical issues they suspect is related to the fire, such as a random metallic taste. I’ve seen the pictures of skin that looks burned and heard the voices of people who say they no longer have most of their voice after inhaling airborne substances after the event. Locals are routinely posting online about how they’re extremely disappointed with the government’s response, especially state and federal officials, and at the end of the day, no matter the cause, word of such profound and lasting suffering can spread across the internet like, well, a wildfire.
The industry also clearly believes opposition is growing because of misunderstandings about how Moss Landing was a singular incident – most battery storage sites are outdoors and use battery chemistries that offer less risk of a “thermal runaway” event, which is the term of art used to describe the uncontrolled fire spread that can occur at a battery storage site.
Renewables trade group American Clean Power gathered media last week for a virtual briefing to discuss battery safety, during which the group’s vice president of energy storage Noah Roberts sought to reassure the public and said the organization is “working to ensure that an event like this doesn’t happen in the future and do not anticipate an event like this will happen in the future.”
“This battery storage project was located within a retrofitted power plant from the 1950s and very much represents a global anomaly,” Roberts said, adding that “this incident and its impact is not something we have previously seen.”
None of this is stopping Moss Landing from becoming a galvanizing event. I’ve learned that activists on the ground and their attorneys are receiving a flood of inquiries from individuals fighting battery projects elsewhere in the United States.
“You’re going to feel absolutely like guinea pigs — and, unfortunately, you are because protocols weren’t in place,” environmental activist Erin Brockovich told affected residents at a public virtual town hall I attended late Tuesday night. Brockovich encouraged anyone who believes they were impacted by the battery fire to work publicly and behind the scenes to get the local control legislation in the state assembly passed. “Your input, hundreds and hundreds of you, on this legislation can help change the course for many communities in California in the future, on where [BESS] is built, how far away. Are they not going to be built?”
Knut Johnson, an attorney who is representing victims in one of the lawsuits, told me he believes this story should ultimately go national with seismic ramifications for the storage industry. He also told me he’s “curious to see how the Trump administration responds to this.” Johnson put the webinar on with Brockovich, who, he told me, is acting as a paralegal assisting with the case.
“This was so sudden and unexpected and following several years of magical thinking where they weren’t preparing for this possibility,” he said of the developers and state officials.
And more of the week’s top conflicts around renewable energy.
1. Nantucket County, Massachusetts – Welcome to the Vineyard Wind lawsuit 2.0.
2. Carroll County, Maryland – Carroll County commissioners are intervening in the state permitting fight over two relatively small solar projects, in what has become a wider proxy battle between the county and the state over solar on farmland.
3. Barren County, Kentucky – Somehow this large-scale 100-megawatt solar farm proposed by Geenex is having an easier time in Kentucky than in Maryland. Why?
4. Osage County, Oklahoma – A federal judge paused the removal of the Enel wind farm that was ordered last year to be removed over opposition from Native tribes.
5. Albany County, Wyoming – It seems the conservative anti-renewables advocates working against offshore wind are quietly involved in fighting Repsol’s Rail Tie wind project in Wyoming.
.
Today’s conversation is with Samantha Levy, senior policy manager for conservation and energy at American Farmland Trust, an agriculture and energy advocacy organization I became familiar with through covering the conflict over solar on farmland. I reached out to Levy after the organization released new recommendations for agrivoltaics policy last week – just before a large agrivoltaics project was canceled in Ohio over local opposition. I wanted to ask: are there any bright spots for the future of solar and farms commingling?
Today’s conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So let’s start with the news – what are your recommendations on agrivoltaics?
A few years ago we came up with Smart Solar principles, modeled off of this idea of “smart growth” rather than this idea of sprawled development that makes it harder for farms to operate. It’s “smart solar.”
The four principles are: One, to prioritize siting on the built-in environment, contaminated land, and marginal farmland, because there’s this natural funneling that happens towards really good, flat, open sunny farmland – the best land for growing crops sometimes.
The second principle is to safeguard soils and water. If you are siting solar on your farmland, make sure you’re retaining the ability to farm that land ideally during the life of the project but certainly in the future. That covers stuff like design, installation practices, decommissioning plans. Making sure that if you have water rights they’re not extinguished by not using them.
The third principle is to expand the development of agrivoltaics projects, integrating production into a solar array so you’re not converting the land and are still contributing to the rural farm economy.
Finally, [fourth] is advancing farm viability and equity.
Where are you seeing positive developments? Success stories?
In terms of policy, it’s important to look at the state level. We’re not really sure how this is going to play out at the federal level just yet. But there’s quite a lot of hope: a lot of states have climate laws on the books with renewable energy targets they need to meet. At the same time, this conflict is real. It stops projects. It’s not the only issue that comes up with communities but it is one of them. [We want to] make sure that we don’t stop projects and get good projects built because we know there are benefits that come about because of them.
In Massachusetts, you have a fairly significant energy adder – an increase to the price paid to the developer for the energy they produce – from an agrivoltaics project when they meet state specifications. Or take the state of Colorado, for instance, funding research into agrivoltaics and is now moving forward with property tax credits for agrivoltaics projects. And they’re designing that policy in a very thoughtful way to incentivize innovative designs for agrivoltaics projects.
In New York we’ve worked on a lot of policy to advance this idea. NYSERDA last year put out an RFP to advance research and collect data on different agrivoltaics projects. New York also has a small mitigation fee that they impose on projects of a certain size that convert prime farmland, but there’s fee forgiveness if you’re going to integrate production into that solar array.
I’m thinking about the agrivoltaics project in Ohio, Grange Solar, that was canceled last week. Do we know yet the extent to which agrivoltaics is actually accepted by agricultural communities where solar on farmland is a concern?
No community is a monolith but we do have some data on this. SEIA [Solar Energy Industries Association] and the National Farmers Union teamed up on a survey we helped do outreach on and there were some really promising results from the farmers who responded to the survey. There could’ve been self selection, but it was promising.
Look, this is a newer idea. It takes time for these kinds of innovations to penetrate and for folks to accept them, especially in farm communities. But this survey showed two-thirds of farmers who responded were open to agrivoltaics production and solar developers who used to be quite risk adverse, used to being more cautious when it comes to agrivoltaics, are starting to be more open to the idea. Especially if this is the kind of thing communities are going to like more than a conventional ground-mounted array.
There are a lot of questions still to answer. The policymaking still really does matter.