The Fight

Sign In or Create an Account.

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

Q&A

Do Trump’s Attacks on Renewables Make a Permitting Deal Pointless?

A conversation with Jared Huffman, ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources.

Jared Huffman
Heatmap Illustration

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.

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

Trump Asked to Kill Wyoming Wind Projects for Eagles

Conservationists in Wyoming zero in on a vulnerability anti-wind activists are targeting elsewhere: the administration’s species protection efforts.

Eagles and wind turbines in Wyoming.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

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.

Keep reading...Show less
Hotspots

A Hail Mary Kansas Lawsuit Against the IRA

And more of the week’s top conflicts around renewable energy.

A Hail Mary Kansas Lawsuit Against the IRA
  1. Jackson County, Kansas — We’ve been covering anti-renewable lawsuits in the Trump 2.0 era closely at The Fight. But we now have a champion for the most aggressive lawsuit yet: a case filed against a single solar project intended to somehow kill … the entire Inflation Reduction Act?
    1. Three Kansas residents have gotten the support of five seasoned attorneys — including two Federalist Society alums — to sue the federal government claiming that projects benefiting from IRA tax credits should have to be reviewed under the National Environmental Policy Act, and that implementation of the IRA violated the Administrative Procedures Act.
    2. Their lawsuit, which was filed days before Trump took office, cites a single NextEra project in Kansas to make its claims of tangible damages.
    3. We asked the attorneys to comment on the lawsuit, as we’re wondering if this is an opening salvo before a broader legal effort to challenge IRA implementation.
    4. It’s worth saying this is obviously a huge ask of the administration, even in the Trump era. Not to mention it’s unclear how this legal complaint will fare with Trump’s decision to knock down NEPA implementing regulations (more on that in our Policy Watch section). But at a minimum, this is a noteworthy and novel attempt at what some may argue is a nuisance lawsuit — and indicates how conservative legal experts are finding common cause with disgruntled neighbors of renewables projects.
  2. St. James Parish, Louisiana — A state judge ruled this week that St. James Parish lawfully rejected what is believed to be one of the state’s largest solar projects.
    1. The Parish Council last year denied D.E. Shaw Renewables’ St. James Solar Energy Center which was supposed to connect to an Entergy substation as part of that utility’s solar and wind project pipeline.
    2. The rejection however came after years of local resistance to the project. D.E. Shaw took them to court after the most recent denial. But now they’ve lost, with a state judge ruling this week that they’ve failed to prove the council had good reason to say no.
    3. It’s a potential bad omen for Entergy’s efforts to complete the largest renewables expansion in state history.
  3. Alaska — We’ve never talked about Alaska here at The Fight but it’s time to do so, because renewables projects are having trouble up North.
    1. Renewable IPP is pulling the plug on a large solar project in Nikiski, a village southwest of Anchorage, citing uncertainty around federal funding and tax credits.
    2. The remote city of Kotzebue is trying to develop wind turbines to move its grid off of fossil fuels. But its money is tied up in the Trump funding freeze.
    3. Why am I watching this so closely? Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy is quietly pro renewables. Its broader effort to use “all of the above” to market his state’s relevance in energy markets and its minerals tied to the energy transition.

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.

Keep reading...Show less
Policy Watch

What Trump’s NEPA Wrecking Ball Means for Renewables

And more of the week’s top policy news.

Environmental review, mapped.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

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.

  • What does this mean for renewables developers? Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles told me today that even though fewer regulations sounds nice, Trump’s implementation strategy is unlikely to ease minds on renewables permits.
  • A big reason is confusion. Litigation that anti-renewables advocates filed against Biden’s permits will be considered under the previous NEPA regulations, while Boyles expects regulators to use a new attempt at NEPA implementation in an uneven way that privileges fossil fuels projects.
  • An example is “cumulative impacts,” a term historically used by agencies to look at comprehensive environmental impacts under NEPA. Previous challenges to the cumulative impacts of renewables projects will continue; meanwhile, the new Trump memo scrapped the definition of the term and dissuaded agencies from using it. What Boyles told me is this will simply put more discretion at the hands of political officials in permitting agencies.
  • “When you get rid of the definition, you’re going to still have a fight,” she said. “You now no longer have that common basis of understanding of what is a definition.”
  • When I first asked Boyles to tell me what comes next, she started hysterically laughing: “I’m not laughing because it’s a bad question. I think it’s a question that everybody’s asking.”
  • Heatmap’s Katie Brigham has a deeper dive on the Trump rule withdrawal here.

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.

Keep reading...Show less