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:
The conservationist group thinks it has the goods on the Bureau of Land Management’s new Western solar plan.

The Biden administration is trying to open a lot more Western territory to utility-scale solar. But they are facing a conservationist backlash that may be aided by the views of scientists within the federal government.
Yesterday, activists pushed back against the environmental review of the Bureau of Land Management’s new Western solar plan that would make more than 31 million acres available for utility-scale solar applications across 11 states. The BLM is trying to meet the next two decades of demand for renewable electricity while avoiding the kinds of environmental and social conflicts that stymie individual projects. But it appears key stakeholders filed protests against the environmental review, including counties that would host new solar farms and Republican politicians, as well as the whistleblower advocacy group PEER we wrote about last week.
Today, however, we’re going to focus on the protest filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, which submitted to BLM what amounted to the contours of a lawsuit.
The protest argued the environmental review of the plan not only failed to adequately protect the Mojave desert tortoise – a species protected as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act – but appeared to make “arbitrary” decisions to open potential tortoise habitat and travel areas. Per the protest, the review did so without clearly explaining how it took into account guidance from the Fish and Wildlife Service, the primary species protection agency.
Zooming in, scientists at the Service said in a power-point presentation dated April of this year (that CBD happily pointed out is available online) they supported excluding occupied tortoise habitat and translocation sites from the solar plan. Employees at the Service also gave CBD guidance documents they submitted over the past year to the Bureau that outlined “extensive criteria for exclusion” that activists say were not followed and weren’t reflected in the review documents previously released by the government.
Why does this matter? Well, it could determine whether the decisions relevant can hold up in court. CBD is using the word “arbitrary” because it’s a standard followed under the Administrative Procedures Act, which forces government officials to show their work and demonstrate they considered all available information submitted to them.
CBD’s Patrick Donnelly – who we spoke with at length in our first edition of The Fight – authored the protest filing. Donnelly told me the acreage relevant to the tortoises totals only about 200,000 acres of the almost 12 million that would be available for solar under the plan, so the grievance shouldn’t be a herculean endeavor to address.
“We’re trying to go into the protest process with an open mind, not cynically,” he told me, “and make this plan a lot less harmful.”
Still, if CBD escalates, the Bureau will have to show how it went from getting these recommendations to landing on the acreage it opened to solar. It could also shake the certainty of developers with applications within the solar plan area already dealing with tortoise protection advocates on the individual project level, like EDF Renewables’ Bonanza Solar project north of Las Vegas which has a draft environmental review in public comment.
Proving a government decision is arbitrary requires demonstrating the move was not “reasonable and justifiable,” Ankur Tohan, an attorney at K&L Gates, told me. Usually the bar for the government to prove itself is “relatively low,” and courts are “very deferential to an agency” as long as “the agency’s action took into account the relevant factors.” The problems arise for the government if “the internal analysis is contradictory,” Tohan said.
Personally I’m having trouble figuring out how the Service’s initial recommendations were internalized at BLM – though I am assuming they were handled in some way, as otherwise the Service would presumably stand in the way. BLM does acknowledge that “design features and project guidelines” were modified to “better avoid impacts to species where not excluded” and said developers “shall configure solar development projects to maintain existing desert tortoise habitat.”
I asked BLM to explain this, but they declined to answer questions on the matter. “The BLM has no comment at this time,” BLM press secretary Brian Hires said, citing the need to “review all protests.” So I guess we’ll have to wait and see!
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
American offshore wind’s existential crisis was laid bare at this year’s Climate Week.
California and New York officials gathered on Tuesday at the New York Bar Association in Manhattan to tell attendees of the annual climate action mega-event about their efforts to hold the Trump administration to account. After Trump regulators upended wind projects off the East Coast and struck buyout trades with energy developers to ditch ocean wind leases, both states filed fresh legal action against the administration, targeting what they said were egregious abuses of taxpayer dollars that canceled once-promising projects that would’ve given gigawatts of power to grids expecting energy demand to spike.
“Every megawatt in offshore wind power is not a megawatt of fossil fuel generated power. That’s really important. That means fewer emissions that contribute to respiratory and cardiac disease,” Lem Srolovic, bureau chief of the New York attorney general’s environmental protection bureau, said at the event, as he and California attorney general Rob Bonta laid out the view that Trump’s actions against offshore wind were illegal.
The federal courts have concurred thus far, and it’s possible more judges will agree. But later in the event, Doreen Harris – CEO and President of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority – said the quiet part out loud.
“Ultimately, the challenge we have in litigation is that even if successful, we deal with realities of what a commercial entity would do in response to these risks. That remains unresolved,” Harris confessed. “How do we move to an investable future for energy infrastructure if this is the way energy infrastructure has to be advanced?”
Indeed, more litigation clearly isn’t going to help the offshore wind sector’s prospects. As we’ve reported on time and again, the Trump administration has not only used every regulatory lever imaginable – and some once unimaginable – to delay wind farms, both on and offshore. But it has gone beyond the legal, now stalling onshore wind in ways industry says stretches the boundaries of court remedy. If that’s the case on solid ground, what future could possibly exist in the U.S. for an industry that must build entirely in federal waters? And even if Trump leaves office providing for a more industry-friendly president, couldn’t a future successor undo whatever they do as well?
“There may be some hesitancy to reinvest in offshore wind in the U.S. given what has happened in the Trump administration,” Kevin Beicke, vice president of project finance at Morningstar DBRS, told me in a phone interview. This week Morningstar, a leading market analysis firm, agreed with Harris’ assessment and reaffirmed a negative outlook for the entire American offshore wind industry through at least 2028 – adding the future beyond that horizon is essentially unknown.
“It’s my view these companies would need to see some kind of substantial support for their industry if they were to try and get back into it under a future administration. And public support would be needed to support a future administration providing regulatory and financial support to the U.S. offshore wind industry.”
So this begs the question: why are states bothering with litigation they probably know won’t improve the offshore wind sector’s fortunes in the near term?
Harris told me after the event that part of the litigation is to provide a signal to the business community that they shouldn’t abandon the U.S. offshore wind industry in the future.
“Very much so. It’s a move intended not only to preserve the processes and systems that are supposed to apply but also to say, ‘We are here because we are committed to the resource, and we’re committed to the companies developing it, and they can consider a state a partner to realize those outcomes.’ That’s what we want them to understand,” she told me.
Harris’ indignation didn’t surprise me, but it was especially prescient, as New York City’s annual Climate Week chaos became embroiled in a “will they or won’t they” news cycle around Trump’s freeze on wind energy permits. During the offshore wind event, news broke in Politico that President Trump told Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Energy Secretary Chris Wright that he agreed to “green-light wind energy projects to strike [a] permitting deal” and that they’d “lift” the “blockade of renewable energy projects to get Senate Democrats moving on permitting.” The next day, at Heatmap House, Wright himself declined to speak declaratively on that report, instead signalling the issue was still a live ball. But he said a permitting deal would address concerns about “easier to build everything in America.”
Wright also suggested the administration had actively debated the de facto freeze on height clearances for wind turbines, which has essentially snagged the entire sector. “Wind has been very controversial and there have been spirited dialogues in the administration about this,” Wright told my colleague Robinson Meyer. “I do believe a successful permitting reform thing changes the playing field for anything you want to build in this country, including wind.”
When I asked Harris about the Politico report, she told me she’d rather focus on the courts. The same goes for California Energy Commission chair David Hochschild, who told me he doesn’t believe anonymous reports about a president “who also promised no new endless wars.”
“We want to make it crystal clear we’re going to fight for this and our support [for offshore wind] is going to continue,” Hochschild said. “The legal fight we’re engaged in now is necessary but not sufficient. We have a lot more work to do to build the ecosystem that’s necessary for this to come to fruition. For research and development. For permitting. For infrastructure. It’s a lot of work but we’ve done this before. All these barriers existed when we started with solar in the early days when there was skepticism.”
And more of the week’s top news around project development.
1. Ada County, Idaho – Trump’s push for more data centers on federal lands is causing a lot more ruckus and catching another solar company in the cross-fire.
2. Carbon County, Wyoming – Tell me if you’ve heard this one before: The Trump administration just delayed a large fossil-free power project after criticism from a powerful Republican senator. But this time, it’s hydropower.
3. Crawford County, Wisconsin – Fighting transmission lines in Wisconsin is bipartisan now.
4. Highland County, Ohio – If you want good news, here’s a slightly positive story in Ohio.
A conversation with Tom Matzzie of the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition
This week’s Q&A is with Tom Matzzie, chair of the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition – a pro-renewables Super PAC fighting lawmakers of both sides of the aisle who spurn the sector. The Super PAC won quite a few victories during the primary season, successfully boosting challengers to hardline conservatives in the U.S. that fought for cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act and are no longer going to serve in the Lower Chamber. Matzzie, also CEO of solar firm CleanChoice Energy, is intent the sector must go on offense to win more public bipartisan support and survive the Trump 2.0 era.
I chatted with Matzzie to hear how he’s looking at the general election season. The conversation revealed to me they want the renewables industry to be seen as politically lethal. And they’re paying close attention to the Wisconsin gubernatorial race.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So first of all, how is your role going to change as we go into the general elections?
We’re focused on accountability for elected officials who decide they want to attack the clean energy industry, making it harder for us to exist. We have elected officials who say they want to kill projects. Our industry employs hundreds of thousands of people, and we also deploy hundreds of millions in capital, so we look at the attacks on the industry as something that needs accountability.
It’s not about people we just disagree with. It’s about the worst of the worst. And that will continue to be the focus.
We’re not announcing the new races as of yet. But if you look at what we did during the primary season we focused on members of the House Freedom Caucus who had a history of attacking the industry for their own political gain. We also supported a Republican during a primary who was being attacked by the chief NIMBY in her district.
Our M.O. will continue to focus on the House Freedom Caucus and people like them. These ideological trophy hunters on the far right are extremists.
By the end of the month, we’ll announce for sure. It’ll be a five-or-six week campaign towards Election Day.
How many candidates will be targeted?
No more than ten. I feel confident saying that.
Walk me through how you decide the message against these candidates?
The important thing is, we’re crafting a message about the industry. We’re telling a story about us. Whether we’re stronger or to be feared or to be ignored. So to that regard, the effectiveness and lethality of our political apparatus matters a lot.
While many voters care about our issues, in most elections, we’re not the top issues. There’s other things that would be more effective attacks on the incumbent or a way to build up a challenger. We go in, we do message research, we figure out the most efficacious way to move the voters we want to move, and this is the best practice in modern politics is to use data-driven approaches to targeting both voters and the message. What media they consume, how you reach them.
We’re telling a story about us, not just our issues.
As you determine what races to get into, how are you taking into account the whole “data center trojan horse” situation, like what’s happening in Wiscons–
So absolutely, we’re paying close attention to [GOP gubernatorial candidate] Tom Tiffany in Wisconsin, and his smear that every data center means 100,000 acres lost [for solar]. Which by the way, 100,000 acres of solar could probably power most of the upper Midwest. So yeah, we’re paying attention to what Tom Tiffany is saying in his race.
That’s the short way of saying it.
How is the data center backlash and the role it's playing in the midterms affecting your decision-making?
It’s not. We use a data driven approach on what to say, and you follow that approach without much concern because the data is better than rumors on the internet, for lack of a better term.
What we do know is that data centers that embrace solar and wind have received more popular support in those communities. Data centers that have community benefit agreements and more responsible purchase development have received better receptiveness.
If they’re concerned about a data center, they’re going to be even more concerned about natural gas on site. But we don’t see it showing up in the research at this point.
There’s a lot of research [showing] voters care about data centers but affordability is the primary thing showing up in the research as what voters are concerned about.