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:
Conservationists won the last round, but this time the stakes involve new renewables technology.
The future of floating offshore wind in America rests on a feud between YIMBY state officials and a government whistleblower over a bucolic island off the coast of Maine. I have no clue who will win.
Floating offshore wind is Maine’s best bet for wind power in deeper stretches of ocean, far away from beach views, coastal properties, and valuable fishing grounds. The tech — which other countries have tried to deploy but is still unproven at large commercial scale — offers a hypothetical panacea for the sorts of conflicts that often stymie offshore wind, and other states are looking to it as a solution for these thorny issues, including California.
But Maine has chosen to construct its floating offshore wind turbine assembly site at Sears Island, a naturalist tourist destination in Penobscot Bay. Conservationists in New England have fought for a long time to preserve the island, an incredibly biodiverse ecosystem rich with wetlands, from the Maine Department of Transportation, which over decades has attempted to use a section of the island for various forms of infrastructure, including an industrial port.
Now that this longstanding conflict has become intertwined with the cause of carbon reduction, it is pitting an older generation of eco-warriors against a younger breed of climate activists, as well as local unions eager to get in on energy transition jobs. Unfortunately for Maine regulators, one of the old heads opposing this project is Kyla Bennett, a former wetlands permitting staffer at the Environmental Protection Agency who stopped a previous effort by the Maine Department of Transportation to build a port at Sears Island in the 1990s.
At EPA, Bennett determined that constructing the port would’ve been illegal under the Clean Water Act because of the sheer proliferation of obvious wetlands. When political officials interceded and reassigned her to a different job, she blew the whistle on them — and won, winning back her post. The port permits were also denied.
Bennett is now a key organizer for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, an organization that represents whistleblowers doing environmental protection work in government. And she’s making it a hobby horse to, again, stop Sears Island from becoming a port — even if it’s in the name of developing technology that could stem the tide of climate change.
“It’s déjà vu. It’s really disturbing to me that it’s back and we have to do this all over again,” she told me.
The facility has to go somewhere because, well, the technicians and researchers need a place to build these turbines, and Maine has claimed that no port existing today on the East Coast fits the precise spacing and resource needs. Habib Dagher, a University of Maine professor who leads the consortium plotting a U.S. offshore wind industry, told me constructing a port for assembly is “critical” to near-term success.
Yet there is another option. Moffat and Nichols, the engineering firm that studied port locations for Maine regulators, did conclude Mack Point, an existing import terminal on the coast of the Penobscot owned by Sprague Energy, would also fit the bill. Sprague is proposing to pay for a large expansion of Mack Point to take this floating offshore wind business off of Sears Island. Not only does it already have existing rail infrastructure and a long history of working in energy and construction but crucially, the engineering firm also found that siting the assembly facility there would shave years off the permitting and construction timetable for making floating offshore wind a reality.
Legally, this alternative matters, and federal regulators will decide who wins this fight. Maine regulators are expected to submit paperwork to begin the permitting process under the National Environmental Policy Act for building the assembly site at Sears Island in the coming weeks. As they do so, they will be required to explain how this plan offers the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative” under environmental law. And Bennett is confident their claims will not pass muster in court, if not with career EPA staff.
“It cannot be legally permitted,” she confessed. “We will sue them.”
So I sought out to answer this pesky question: Why is Maine trying to build this crucial infrastructure for the energy transition in a place with activist resistance, and where even its own consultants have said the process would take longer?
State regulators, politicians, and supporters of the Sears Island plan have a few reasons. First off, Maine Governor Janet Mills has bemoaned that to use Mack Point would require leasing the property from Sprague, which would mean a recurring cost to taxpayers. There are also size issues — the Maine Department of Transportation claims there simply wouldn’t be enough space at Mack Point for researchers and, eventually, industry to do their work.
“We know there would be environmental impacts at both the Mack Point and Sears Island sites,” Paul Merrill, director of communications for the Maine Department of Transportation, told me in an email Monday evening. “The bottom line is that the port Maine needs simply doesn’t fit at Mack Point. Sprague has a financial interest in development on Mack Point. Our goal is to develop a port that is in the best interest of the public.”
Merrill did acknowledge the new proposal for Sears Island would be located on “the same part of the island that was discussed for development in the 1990s.”
Sprague denies the logistical issues with building the port at Mack Point and told me issues Maine regulators are easily resolved. The company has begun campaigning to win key stakeholders to its side, publishing op-eds and meeting with environmental advocates. On September 12, Sierra Club’s Maine chapter hosted a virtual event with a Sprague executive, Jim Theriault, about how the port selection “needs to be considered carefully.” When I spoke to Theriault this week, he told me that Sierra Club members were asking the same question I was.
“At the end of the day, we’d be reusing an industrial site, and we’d relocate what we do to other parts of the terminal,” he said. “I’ll make myself available to anybody that wants to talk.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Why an attorney for Dominion Voting Systems is now defending renewables companies.
My biggest takeaway of this year? Bad information is breaking the energy transition – and the fake news is only getting more powerful.
Across the country, we’re seeing solar, wind, and battery storage projects grind to a halt thanks to activism powered by fears of health and safety risks, many of which are unfounded, unproven, exaggerated, or conspiratorial in nature. There are some prominent examples, like worries about offshore wind and whales, but I’ve spent a large chunk of The Fight’s lifespan so far investigating a few crucial case studies, from wildfire fears confronting battery developers in California to cancer concerns curtailing a crucial transmission line in New Jersey. To tell you the honest truth, it is difficult to quantify just how troubling this issue is for the industry.
False information is something Mark Thomson, a D.C.-based attorney with the law firm Meier Watkins Phillips Pusch LLP, thinks about a lot these days. Thomson was one of the lawyers who won a record $787 million settlement for Dominion Voting Systems from Fox News Network after it broadcast incorrect claims about how the company’s ballot machines were used in the 2020 election. Today his attention is elsewhere – conspiracy-powered defamation against renewables developers and their projects. .
“This is a sizable and growing part of what we do here,” Thomson told me. “I think it’s because the developer sector writ large increasingly understands the severity and the pervasiveness of falsehoods in that space, and also just as importantly how quickly groups and communities can latch onto these falsehoods in ways that critically interrupt and even endanger some of these projects.”
Why are we talking about conspiracy theorists as an opposition powerhouse? Well, studies show that like working in agriculture or owning large tracts of land, scientific skepticism can be a big signal that someone will oppose a renewables project. A 2022 study published in the journal Nature Energyfound “moderate-to-large” relationships between indices of conspiracy beliefs and the likelihood that someone would oppose a wind farm, and that the relationship between wind farm opposition and conspiracy beliefs was “many times greater than its relationship with age, gender, education, and political orientation.”
Conspiracies or misinformation can also be weaponized by hostile local, state, or federal regulators if they have other reasons to try and curtail development.
Take St. Clair County, Michigan, where a leading local public health official is leveraging theories about the impact of solar energy to try and limit development. St. Clair County is home to its own fun blend of renewables consternation. The most acerbic fight is in the town of Fort Gratiot, where Ranger Power subsidiary Portside Solar has proposed to construct a 100 MW solar facility. The project is in a rural, largely agricultural region and has faced incredible resentment. (If you want a primer on the conflict, watch this interview segment – in between featured ads for Ivermectin.)
Last Thursday evening, St. Clair County medical director Remington Nevin testified before the county’s board of commission that “very clear health threats” caused by solar energy required “extraordinary actions” under the state public health code. Nevin specifically addressed noise, claiming that the sound produced by hypothetical solar facilities could “presumably be an unreasonable threat to public health” if not kept below certain decibel thresholds.
“This should not be controversial,” Nevin told the audience, which erupted into rapturous applause after his testimony.
This testimony, prompted by public comments from disgruntled residents, came after Nevin issued a report detailing his desires for quick action under the public health code that circulated widely on anti-renewables Facebook groups.
Nevin is definitely a qualified medical professional. “Occupational medicine is the successor to the field of industrial medicine,” Nevin told me when I emailed him about his qualifications, “and is the medical speciality most applicable to the health effects of industrial activities such as these.” He noted that he has a doctoral public health degree in mental health and psychiatric epidemiology, and has done fellowship training in occupation and environmental medicine.
But he is not a specialist in the health effects of solar panels. He’s actually an expert in quinism, a brain and brainstem disease caused by a toxic exposure to anti-malaria drugs. This position made him relevant during the COVID-19 lockdowns, when he spoke out about the risks of taking hydroxychloroquine, an unproven COVID-19 treatment that Trump and other socially conservative figures began recommending at the height of the pandemic lockdowns. Nevin took a more contrarian view of the scientific debate around COVID-19 during those lockdowns, signing a declaration to open society up before a vaccine was widely available. He still feels passionately about this topic today, celebrating Trump’s pick to run the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who coauthored that declaration.
When I asked Nevin about his lack of expertise in the health risks of technology like solar panels, he responded by saying he believes a court would consider him expert enough for his views to hold legal weight.
“In matters such as these, a court ultimately determines the validity of an expert's qualifications,” he said. “I am confident that my background is particularly germane and well-suited to this topic, and that my qualifications and recommendations will withstand judicial review should these matters become subject to litigation in due course.”
For what it is worth, it’s incredibly hard to find evidence that the noise emitted from solar farms creates a risk to public health. Industry says such data is infinitesimal.
There is also at least some apparent temptation of the courts at work in all this, too. Nevin, local leaders, and activists have in public comments about the health risks repeatedly referenced Act 233, a new state law that allows an independent agency to adjudicate conflicts between developers and towns with restrictions on renewable energy projects. As we previously scooped, municipalities and counties are challenging the legality of how that law is being implemented. It is entirely possible that part of Nevin’s crusade against the health impacts of solar on county residents is an attempt to stop the state from usurping the county’s local control.
As opponents of renewable energy look to use the court system in this way, it may be worthwhile for developers to do the same to combat misinformation. Courts can decide when a company is being defamed or unjustly maligned, and the legal system can be an avenue for resolving the vexing issue of conspiracies and misinformation about the health and safety of a renewables project.
Hence why as renewables deployment rises in the U.S., and opposition does too, attorneys like Thomson are going to see a lot more business from developers.
“The law provides some remedies in some circumstances,” Thomson told me. “It’s not a silver bullet. But for specific types of falsehoods, the law can provide an important source of accountability and just as importantly, invoking the law can help people realize that there is a price to be paid for just blatantly and often willfully misleading groups of citizens about this stuff.”
A look at 2024’s most notorious conflicts in the energy transition.
Alright, friends. It’s time for a special edition of The Fight’s Hotspots, where we walk you through what we believe were the five most important project conflicts of the year. We decided this list based on the notoriety of the fight within the renewables sector as well as whether our reporting found it to be significant for the entire industry. And we included the opposition scores for these projects based on our internal Heatmap Pro data to help you better understand whether these fights were flukes or quite predictable.
We hope this helps you all in this, errhmm, trying time for developers right now.
1. Lava Ridge’s bad year – Magic Valley, Idaho (36 opposition score)
2. Oregon opts out of offshore wind – Coos County, Oregon (50 opposition score)
3. Oak Run and angry voltaics – Madison County, Ohio (96 opposition score)
4. bp’s Kentucky heartaches – Elizabethtown, Kentucky (63 opposition score)
5. Battery fire fears beat blackouts – Katy, Texas (54 opposition score)
Today’s special Q&A is with an old source of mine, Devin Hartman, energy and environment policy director for the conservative D.C. think tank R Street.
When I used to cover Congress, Devin was one of the few climate-minded conservatives willing to offer a candid, principled take on what could happen in that always deliberative body. I decided for our year-end edition to ask him a lot of questions, including an important one: will Trump make it easier or more difficult to permit solar and wind projects?
His answer – that it is very much possible – led us once again down the rabbit hole of conspiracy-powered politics.
The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity.
Let’s start with the U.S. climate elephant in the room – what do you think will happen to the Inflation Reduction Act next Congress?
I have not talked to any Republican staff, members of Congress, or strategists that think full IRA repeal is on the table. Just nip that conversation in the bud right now. That said, they will need to find where to cut some tax credits to pay for the tax extensions. There will be strong pressure to modify those subsidies. So I think subsidy reform is very much on the table but full IRA repeal is not. More specifically, Republicans will be eyeing the electric vehicle tax credit and the PTC and ITC that primarily focus on wind and solar.
Most of the expenditures under IRA are subsidies for mature technologies. I think what you’re going to see is something that is a phase down if not a staggered phase out as on the table for mature technologies, especially wind, solar and EVs.
The thing that’s missing in this narrative so much is that in hindsight the Inflation Reduction Act is not nearly as much of a climate savior as its proponents claim. Folks realized we need all this permitting, all this regulatory reform so we can actually build this stuff and a lot of what we were recognizing is that before the IRA passed, the private sector was going to fund a massive amount of new infrastructure, especially mature technologies. But you couldn’t get the stuff built. So the policy discussion a few years ago really should’ve focused on regulatory and permitting reform… and it prioritized subsidies mostly instead.
Okay. Moving on, folks in Trump’s orbit proffer in conspiracies and misinformation, disinformation about renewable energy – are you at all concerned about the next Trump administration turning against individual solar and wind projects in the permitting process based on those views?
Oh yeah. We’ve seen this getting done under the past several administrations — more polarization. A lot of stakeholders have called this the Keystonization of energy permitting. That’s really concerning.
I always think of presidents or any elected official as more followers to their political milieu than leaders in their own right. We started to see this with President Obama where some of his advisors and his team said, why does something like the Keystone XL matter that much? It doesn’t make or break that much… but you saw a lot of this technology and project tribalism really kicking in with different groups and that clearly influenced political decision-making. It started removing the permitting process from an objective criteria-based approach. It’s really concerning to see this trend move forward. And subsequently on both sides of the aisle you’ve seen this temptation, mostly with presidential administrations given their authorities, these [Council of Environmental Quality] processes or other things that might put their thumb on the scale in favor of some resources over others.
I would note the NEPA reforms that Trump got done on his watch. Those NEPA reforms were cheerleaded by the wind and solar industries. That’s when you started to see the environmental groups really oppose those NEPA reforms but the clean energy groups really wanted them.
That may be true, but activists fighting projects tell me they’re really excited for Trump. These activists believe this – as you put it – Keystonization is going to help them and we're going to see the Trump administration become a more difficult environment to get solar and wind permits on a case-by-case basis. Do you see that happening?
I would be worried if we started to see indications of that. It’s always possible.
Senator Jim Risch recently said he expects the Trump administration to issue a project-by-project executive order. Do you imagine anything in that world is possible?
It’s possible.
Where we’ve seen more of the red-blue divide is at the state level. That’s our biggest concern… oof. That’s been trending in the wrong direction really severely in recent years. That might be the single biggest long-term hindrance to energy infrastructure development and by extension decarbonization. That issue set is really tough. And that unfortunately you’ve seen some of the fault lines–
–Sorry to interrupt. Do you mean the blue states trying to overrule local control versus the red states letting localities have the final say, like Ohio?
Yeah. And some of that can be philosophical, irrespective of the technology. Some of it is home rule versus state government. That is a factor in it.
But going back to some of the misinformation and disinformation stuff… that’s been concerning.
When we’ve surveyed a lot of these developers and asked what is motivating some of this right now? So much of it is Facebook campaigns that were promoting false perspectives on the consequences of infrastructure development. Things like the flicker effect from living near wind turbines causing health effects. A lot of stuff on electro-magnetic fields. There was just a lot of bad information out there. That has generated in some cases opposition from communities that is misguided and unfortunate.
One of our big recommendations with this is we learned a lot from the Telecommunications Act in the ‘90s. Whether Congress pursues something similar for energy infrastructure, I don’t know. But maybe at the state level at least we should have this conversation where you need to actually demonstrate harm if you actually have legitimate concerns about health effects. [It’s] that standing and criteria-based determination approach to this, rather than this sentiment based approach that could be based on utter nonsense.
Is there a federal solution to this problem?
In permitting, we’ve had this conversation for a while now about community engagement – which progressives call for – and judicial review, which is something conservatives have been calling for. I think there’s actually some reinforcing and mutually beneficial reforms that can be done in tandem. Things like narrow standing to individuals and entities actually affected by the infrastructure, and that standing has to be tied to demonstrate harm under these statutes – that’s a piece that can be there.
But the other thing you do is come in with good information. You have standardized packets of information to help communities and siting bodies make more informed decisions. Alright, there can be the potential economic development benefits to your community. Oh also, we’re going to be honest about any kind of drawbacks – legitimate local health and ecosystem effects. You create a system that naturally filters out a bunch of nonsense and also drives in good information. Those concepts can be reinforced.