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 Katharine Kollins of the Southeastern Wind Coalition
This week’s conversation is with Katharine Kollins of the Southeastern Wind Coalition, an advocacy group that supports offshore wind development in the American Southeast. I wanted to talk with Katherine about whether there are any silver linings in the offshore wind space, and to my surprise she actually had one! Here’s to hope springing eternal – and Trump leaving Coastal Virginia intact.
The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.
Tell me about the Southeast. What does offshore wind look like there?
The Southeast is interesting. In Virginia, we have a project that is more in the first mover status – the very large Coastal Virginia wind project – which is already under construction.
As you move further south, I would say all of those projects are later stage than what we see in the Northeast. We get a taste of both of those project stages and how the current administration is affecting them. I believe that the Coastal Virginia wind project will continue construction. They’re already a year and a half into a three year phase of construction. That project is expected to be generating electricity next year.
What about the rest?
The rest – no other project has an offtake agreement in the Southeast. North Carolina is getting closer to defining an offtake agreement through the state’s carbon plan process. That’s a back and forth between Duke Energy and the North Carolina Utilities Commission to produce a least-cost electricity portfolio that also gradually reduces the state’s carbon emissions, and offshore wind is as far in that process as we have ever seen in the state. Right now, the utility is responsible for issuing an acquisition RFI (request for information) – it does put the request out there for the developers in the lease areas off of North Carolina and ask them to submit rough estimates for what their projects might cost to be included in Duke’s portfolio. They’re in the process of that and it needs to wrap up by July 1st.
Before we move on to Coastal Virginia, is it your hope this state level effort further south is able to progress through Trump?
Yes. Even in a best case scenario, we’re still looking at a 2032 or 2033 [completion date]. I still think that’s possible.
Have you seen similar conflicts in the Southeast over stuff like wildlife that we see in the Northeast?
We certainly hear those arguments but they don’t come out as strongly. That could be because projects just aren’t as far along as they are in the Northeast – we don’t have any cable landing sites yet. Our projects are all further offshore than many of those in the Northeast, so they don’t come with the same visual impact concerns which is helpful.
I think as we get further in the development process, certainly there will be more conversations around those things but part of what our organization does as well is come in early and try to talk to folks so there’s more information out there for citizens to understand what offshore wind might really mean, what it might feel like, what it might mean for the economy and the environment – before we start choosing a cable landing site. We’ve got a good runway here.
On Coastal Virginia, my concern is that there seems to be enough time for some shenanigans to go on. Is it just your hope here that the project is able to continue without impediment?
I would say hope but it’s also reasonable-ness. This project has already invested $6 billion of ratepayer funds to generate 2,600 megawatts of electricity. To pull the plug on that would mean the federal government was telling Virginians that even though they spent $6 billion dollars to build clean energy development off their coast, the federal government could step in and take that away.
I don’t think that is a reasonable thing to do. So my hope is that the project is able to continue construction and generate that clean electricity for Virginians.
You’ve seen too, a lot of support – bipartisan support – for CVOW. Jen Kiggans, the congresswoman from the Hampton Roads area, has been more outspoken than many in Congress about the importance of the economic value of the CVOW project as well as the need for new electricity and the demand this project is going to help meet.
Have you found in light of the recent election that organizations like yourself are helpful for offshore wind development, and do you feel like more voices are needed to speak out on what the Trump administration has done? We haven’t seen any litigation or blue states in the Northeast stridently or forcefully go to bat yet.
I think there’s many issues folks are grappling with right now and deciding where to put their political capital. Those processes are still under way. There are so many places to focus our attention right now and just a lot on Congress’ plate right now, so they’ve got to figure out which issues they are going to spend the most time on. And what’s winnable for them.
There are a lot of things folks are focused on right now. And maybe that’s part of the plan – spread our people’s ability to speak, or dilute the ability to speak. If you look at the trade associations and NGOs working on offshore wind, we’re working harder than ever. We are consistently looking at, who do we get the message out to about the benefits of offshore wind?
When you think beyond the organizations like ours that speak explicitly to the benefits of offshore wind – could we use more? Always. You can always use more voices speaking out about an energy technology that is very much part of our future, part of our economic and environmental future, and I don’t think you could have too many people speaking out in favor of offshore wind.
If we’re thinking about politicians, right now there’s a lot on people’s plate. The dust has yet to settle.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
How the Migratory Bird Treaty Act could become the administration’s ultimate weapon against wind farms.
The Trump administration has quietly opened the door to strictly enforcing a migratory bird protection law in a way that could cast a legal cloud over wind farms across the country.
As I’ve chronicled for Heatmap, the Interior Department over the past month expanded its ongoing investigation of the wind industry’s wildlife impacts to go after turbines for killing imperiled bald and golden eagles, sending voluminous records requests to developers. We’ve discussed here how avian conservation activists and even some former government wildlife staff are reporting spikes in golden eagle mortality in areas with operating wind projects. Whether these eagle deaths were allowable under the law – the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act – is going to wind up being a question for regulators and courts if Interior progresses further against specific facilities. Irrespective of what one thinks about the merits of wind energy, it’s extremely likely that a federal government already hostile to wind power will use the law to apply even more pressure on developers.
What’s received less attention than the eagles is that Trump’s team signaled it could go even further by using the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, a separate statute intended to support bird species flying south through the U.S. from Canada during typical seasonal migration periods. At the bottom of an Interior press release published in late July, the department admitted it was beginning a “careful review of avian mortality rates associated with the development of wind energy projects located in migratory flight paths,” and would determine whether migratory birds dying because of wind farms qualified as “‘incidental’ takings” – harm or death – under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
While not stated explicitly, what this means is that the department appears to be considering whether to redefine these deaths as intentional under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, according to Ben Cowan, a lawyer with the law firm Troutman Pepper Locke.
I reached out to Cowan after the eagle investigation began because his law firm posted a bulletin warning that developers “holding active eagle permits” might want to prepare for “subpoenas that may be forthcoming.” During our chat earlier this month, he told me that the eagle probe is likely going to strain financing for projects even on private lands that wouldn’t require any other forms of federal sign-off: “Folks don’t want to operate if they feel there’s a significant risk they might take an eagle without authorization.”
Cowan then voiced increasing concern about the migratory bird effort, however, because the law on this matter could be a quite powerful – if legally questionable – weapon against wind development.
Unlike the Endangered Species Act or the eagle protection law, there is currently no program on the books for a wind project developer to even obtain a permit for incidental impacts to a migratory bird. Part of the reason for the absence of such a program is the usual federal bureaucratic struggle that comes with implementing a complex statute, with the added effect of the ping-pong of federal control; the Biden administration started a process for permitting “incidental” impacts, but it was scrapped in April by the Trump team. Most protection of migratory birds under the law today comes from voluntary measures conducted by private companies and nonprofits in consultation with the federal government.
Hypothetically, hurting a migratory bird should be legally permissible to the federal government. That’s because the administration loosened implementation of the law earlier this year with an Interior Department legal opinion that stated the agency would only go after harm that was “intentional” – a term of art under the statute.
This is precisely why Cowan is fretting about migratory birds, however. Asked why the wind industry hasn’t publicly voiced more anxiety about this potential move, he said industry insiders genuinely hope this is “bluster” because such a selective use of this law “would be so beyond the pale.”
“It’s basically saying the purpose of a wind farm is to kill migratory birds, which is very clearly not the case – it’s to generate renewable electricity,” Cowan told me, adding that any effort by the Interior Department would inevitably result in lawsuits. “I mean, look at what this interpretation would mean: To classify it as intentional take would say the purpose of operating a wind farm would be to kill a bird. It’s obviously not. But this seems to be a way this administration is contemplating using the MBTA to block the operation of wind farms.”
It’s worth acknowledging just how bonkers this notion is on first blush. Is the federal government actually going to decide that any operating wind farm could be illegal? That would put entire states’ power supplies – including GOP-heavy states like Iowa – in total jeopardy. Not to mention it would be harmful overall to take operating capacity offline in any fashion at a moment when energy demand is spiking because of data centers and artificial intelligence. Even I, someone who has broken quite a few eye-popping stories about Trump’s war on renewables, struggle to process the idea of the government truly going there on the MBTA.
And yet, a door to this activity is now open, like a cleaver hanging over the industry’s head.
I asked the Interior Department to clarify its timeline for the MBTA review. It declined to comment on the matter. I would note that in mid-August, the Trump administration began maintenance on a federal dashboard for tracking regulations such as these and hasn’t updated it since. So we’ll have to wait for nothing less than their word to know what direction this is going in.
And more on the week’s most important conflicts around renewable energy projects.
1. Santa Fe County, New Mexico – County commissioners approved the controversial AES Rancho Viejo solar project after months of local debate, which was rendered more intense by battery fire concerns.
2. Nantucket, Massachusetts – The latest episode of the Vineyard Wind debacle has dropped, and it appears the offshore wind project’s team is now playing ball with the vacation town.
3. Klickitat County, Washington – Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson is pausing permitting on Cypress Creek Renewables’ Carriger solar project despite a recommendation from his own permitting council, citing concerns from tribes that have dogged other renewables projects in the state.
4. Tippecanoe County, Indiana – The county rejected what is believed to have been its first utility-scale solar project, flying in the face of its zoning staff.
5. Morrow County, Oregon – This county is opting into a new state program that purports to allow counties more input in how they review utility-scale solar projects.
6. Ocean County, New Jersey – The Jersey shoreline might not get a wind farm any time soon, but now that angst is spreading to battery storage.
7. Fairfield County, Ohio – Hey, at least another solar farm is getting permitted in Ohio.
Talking NEPA implementation and permitting reform with Pamela Goodwin, an environmental lawyer at Saul Ewing LLP.
This week’s conversation is with Pamela Goodwin, an environmental lawyer with Saul Ewing LLP. I reached out to her to chat about permitting because, well, when is that not on all of our minds these days. I was curious, though, whether Trump’s reforms to National Environmental Policy Act regulations and recent court rulings on the law’s implementation would help renewables in any way, given how much attention has been paid to “permitting reform” over the years. To my surprise, there are some silver linings here – though you’ll have to squint to see them.
The following chat was lightly edited for clarity.
So walk me through how you see the Trump administration handling renewable energy projects right now under NEPA.
In general, the federal government has been much more reluctant to the timely issue of permits in contrast to what we might be seeing on the more traditional side of things.
But that’s separate from NEPA — it relates to public notice and comments and the opportunity for third parties to get involved, ensuring any decision-making on the government side is done in a way that’s evocative of a fair system. On the NEPA side, I don’t know if they’re going to treat renewables any differently than they’re going to treat other sorts of projects. That’s different, from a policy perspective, [from] how they’re handling the permits.
If, from a policy perspective, the federal government is less inclined to make a determination about a particular project — or if it decides that it doesn’t like wind, for example, and isn’t going to issue a permit — that’s different than the procedural elements associated with a NEPA review.
The Supreme Court recently ruled in the Seven County case that agencies can be granted a lot of deference in their reviews under NEPA, seeing it more as a procedural statute than a substantive roadblock. What will this lead to?
I think that what we’re seeing – and every agency’s different – but what the court said is that lower courts should defer to the agency to establish their own protocols under NEPA. They’ve begun to streamline the process by which they issue permits, issue notices of those permits, and give people the opportunity to comment on them.
What we’re anticipating will happen if the court gets its wishes – and candidly, I think this is a good thing for developers, on both the renewables and non-renewables side – is that we’ll see more expeditious permitting from the federal government.
You may not like the determinations. There’s a possibility that certain permits are denied if the nature of the permit is in conflict with the federal government’s policy and intention. But you’ll get a quicker decision than you used to get. And if there’s a will to issue a permit, you’ll get it faster.
We’ve heard the concept of permitting reform or NEPA reform as a leveling of the playing field, but in this environment, it is not entirely clear that’ll be the case. Where does the battleground turn then for those who get, as you put it, rejections faster?
That’s a great question. Regrettably, the immediate battleground is the courts. There is certainly a right and an opportunity for anybody who feels a determination was incorrect to challenge that, and to challenge the particular agency’s implementation of NEPA.
Okay, but what’s the remedy here if renewables companies are just getting rejections faster from the Trump team?
Without a real-world example, it’s hard to give you legal theories, but they will always exist. It’ll be circumstantial, and good lawyers always come up with good arguments. I don’t think this issue is fully resolved, either. The Supreme Court has done a favor to everybody by at least defining the issue, but now we’ll have to see what happens as agencies make these kinds of determinations.