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:
If even only a few of these ideas are enacted, it would be a harbinger of doom for wind energy in America.
Major groups in the anti-offshore wind movement are going big, submitting a lengthy policy wish list to the Trump transition team, according to documents obtained and first reported by Heatmap News.
Key organizations in the movement against offshore wind submitted a draft executive order “on the suspension of offshore wind development” to the transition team. According to the draft, not only are activists asking for a pause on new permits for offshore wind but also for a stop-work order on all projects currently under construction. They’re also asking for the Health and Human Services Department to become a weapon against the growth of renewable energy, requesting studies into the health and environmental effects of wind turbines and transmission cables.
If the Trump team follows through on even some of the ideas in the draft executive order, it would be a huge win for a nascent anti-renewables uprising in America. It would also be a harbinger of pain to come for wind energy in America under Trump. At the very least, it shows activists believe the next president has many powers at his disposal to make offshore wind developers’ lives miserable.
Mandy Davis, president of REACT Alliance, told Heatmap it had submitted the draft executive order to the transition team, and that REACT was the primary group behind the document. Davis is also head of the National Offshore-Wind Opposition Alliance, a new country-wide coalition of local groups opposed to offshore wind.
Davis said the draft order demonstrates the myriad ways she thinks the incoming administration can curtail wind development beyond a pause on new permits. “Our role is going to be determined to a great degree by what our new administration is doing,” she told Heatmap. “We also have to be really, really cognizant of the fact that even though the federal government is going to put major monkey wrenches in the works … it’s going to take a while.”
We’re still watching and waiting to see if Trump follows through with his promise to stop offshore wind in its tracks on Day 1. New Jersey Republican congressman Jeff Van Drew said in a statement Monday that Trump’s team is working with his office to draft an order that “halt[s] offshore wind turbine activities” on the East Coast and the “proposed order” is “expected to be finalized within the first few months of the administration.”
It is worth noting that Van Drew is one of the anti-offshore wind’s favorite allies in Congress. But it is unclear to what extent – if any – that the activists’ draft executive order obtained by Heatmap is winding up in the product Van Drew and his staff are working on with the Trump team. Representatives for Van Drew’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the draft executive order.
It’s hard to fathom the extent of damage even a work stoppage order would have on the American offshore wind industry. Roughly 5.8 gigawatts of electricity capacity are under construction offshore and more than 8 gigawatts of projects have been fully permitted but haven’t begun construction, according to data shared with Heatmap News that was compiled by Christian Roselund, a policy analyst seasoned in the renewables industry. At least 10 gigawatts of additional capacity is currently in the federal review process and would be stymied by a halt at the permitting level. Taken together, the proposals in the draft could take millions of homes’ worth of carbon-free electricity off the table indefinitely.
A source within the offshore wind industry who requested anonymity to speak candidly said, if enacted, the proposals in the draft executive order would “lay off thousands of Americans” and potentially lead to work stoppages in other links in the industry’s supply chain, like shipyards in Louisiana and steel plants in the Midwest.
Jason Ryan, a spokesperson from American Clean Power, provided Heatmap a statement after initial publication of this story: “Executive orders restricting offshore wind energy undermine U.S. national security and job growth. Energy dominance requires a true ‘all of the above energy’ approach that unleashes our nation’s diverse resources to meet surging demand.”
What’s in the draft order?
In addition to pausing permits, the draft executive order calls on the incoming administration to:
According to emails and other documents reviewed by Heatmap, the draft executive order also involved the work of Lisa Quattrocki Knight, president of the Rhode Island anti-offshore wind organization Green Oceans and a board member of the National Offshore-Wind Opposition Alliance.
Along with the draft executive order, Heatmap obtained other documents with Green Oceans’ letterhead addressed to the incoming administration, calling on it to “justify removing all permitted wind farm projects off the eastern coast of the U.S.” under multiple potential legal authorities including the National Emergencies Act, the Defense Production Act, and Federal Power Act.
Knight did not respond to requests for an interview. A spokesperson for Green Oceans contacted by Heatmap confirmed the organization played a role in crafting the draft executive order and provided a statement that the “draft Executive Order was developed as part of our broader efforts to provide science-based, actionable recommendations to decision-makers, regardless of political affiliation.”
“We believe that meaningful environmental progress requires bipartisan cooperation, and we remain committed to working with all leaders who share our vision of a sustainable future,” the statement read.
The documents also show the draft was endorsed by key groups fighting offshore wind in the New Jersey and New York region, including Protect Our Coast Long Island and Save the East Coast, as well as local opposition groups based on the West Coast and in New England. Many of these organizations will be participating in a national day of protest this Saturday.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A conversation with Scott Cockerham of Latham and Watkins.
This week’s conversation is with Scott Cockerham, a partner with the law firm Latham and Watkins whose expertise I sought to help me best understand the Treasury Department’s recent guidance on the federal solar and wind tax credits. We focused on something you’ve probably been thinking about a lot: how to qualify for the “start construction” part of the new tax regime, which is the primary hurdle for anyone still in the thicket of a fight with local opposition.
The following is our chat lightly edited for clarity. Enjoy.
So can you explain what we’re looking at here with the guidance and its approach to what it considers the beginning of construction?
One of the reasons for the guidance was a distinction in the final version of the bill that treated wind and solar differently for purposes of tax credit phase-outs. They landed on those types of assets being placed in service by the end of 2027, or construction having to begin within 12 months of enactment – by July 4th, 2026. But as part of the final package, the Trump administration promised the House Freedom Caucus members they would tighten up what it means to ‘start construction’ for solar and wind assets in particular.
In terms of changes, probably the biggest difference is that for projects over 1.5 megawatts of output, you can no longer use a “5% safe harbor” to qualify projects. The 5% safe harbor was a construct in prior start of construction guidance saying you could begin construction by incurring 5% of your project cost. That will no longer be available for larger projects. Residential projects and other smaller solar projects will still have that available to them. But that is probably the biggest change.
The other avenue to start construction is called the “physical work test,” which requires the commencement of physical work of a significant nature. The work can either be performed on-site or it can be performed off-site by a vendor. The new guidance largely parrotted those rules from prior guidance and in many cases transferred the concepts word-for-word. So on the physical work side, not much changed.
Significantly, there’s another aspect of these rules that say you have to continue work once you start. It’s like asking if you really ran a race if you didn’t keep going to the finish line. Helpfully, the new guidance retains an old rule saying that you’re assumed to have worked continuously if you place in service within four calendar years after the year work began. So if you begin in 2025 you have until the end of 2029 to place in service without having to prove continuous work. There had been rumors about that four-year window being shortened, so the fact that it was retained is very helpful to project pipelines.
The other major point I’d highlight is that the effective date of the new guidance is September 2. There’s still a limited window between now and then to continue to access the old rules. This also provides greater certainty for developers who attempted to start construction under the old rules after July 4, 2025. They can be confident that what they did still works assuming it was consistent with the prior guidance.
On the construction start – what kinds of projects would’ve maybe opted to use the 5% cost metric before?
Generally speaking it has mostly been distributed generation and residential solar projects. On the utility scale side it had recently tended to be projects buying domestic modules where there might have been an angle to access the domestic content tax credit bonus as well.
For larger projects, the 5% test can be quite expensive. If you’re a 200-megawatt project, 5% of your project is not nothing – that actually can be quite high. I would say probably the majority of utility scale projects in recent years had relied on the manufacturing of transformers as the primary strategy.
So now that option is not available to utility scale projects anymore?
The domestic content bonus is still available, but prior to September 2 you can procure modules for a large project and potentially both begin construction and qualify for the domestic content bonus at the same time. Beginning September 2 the module procurement wouldn’t help that same project begin construction.
Okay, so help me understand what kinds of work will developers need to do in order to pass the physical work test here?
A lot of it is market-driven by preferences from tax equity investors and tax credit buyers and their tax counsel. Over the last 8 years or so transformer manufacturing has become quite popular. I expect that to continue to be an avenue people will pursue. Another avenue we see quite often is on-site physical work, so for a wind project for example that can involve digging foundations for your wind turbines, covering them with concrete slabs, and doing work for something called string roads – roads that go between your turbines primarily for operations and maintenance. On the solar side, it would be similar kinds of on-site work: foundation work, road work, driving piles, putting things up at the site.
One of the things that is more difficult about the physical work test as opposed to the 5% test is that it is subjective. I always tell people that more work is always better. In the first instance it’s likely up to whatever your financing party thinks is enough and that’s going to be a project-specific determination, typically.
Okay, and how much will permitting be a factor in passing the physical work test?
It depends. It can certainly affect on-site work if you don’t have access to the site yet. That is obviously problematic.
But it wouldn’t prevent you from doing an off-site physical work strategy. That would involve procuring a non-inventory item like a transformer for the project. So there are still different things you can do depending on the facts.
What’s your ultimate takeaway on the Treasury guidance overall?
It certainly makes beginning construction on wind and solar more difficult, but I think the overall reaction that I and others in the market have mostly had is that the guidance came out much better than people feared. There were a lot of rumors going around about things that could have been really problematic, but for the most part, other than the 5% test option going away, the sense is that not a whole lot changed. This is a positive result on the development side.
And more of the week’s most important news around renewable energy conflicts.
1. Carroll County, Arkansas – The head of an influential national right-wing advocacy group is now targeting a wind project in Arkansas, seeking federal intervention to block something that looked like it would be built.
2. Suffolk County, New York – EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin this week endorsed efforts by activists on Long Island to oppose energy storage in their neighborhoods.
3. Multiple counties, Indiana – This has been a very bad week for renewables in the Sooner state.
4. Brunswick County, North Carolina – Duke Energy is pouring cold water on anyone still interested in developing offshore wind off the coast of North Carolina.
5. Bell County, Texas – We have a solar transmission stand-off brewing in Texas, of all places.
Is there going to be a flight out of Nevada?
Donald Trump’s renewables permitting freeze is prompting solar companies to find an escape hatch from Nevada.
As I previously reported, the Interior Department has all but halted new approvals for solar and wind projects on federal lands. It was entirely unclear how that would affect transmission out west, including in the solar-friendly Nevada desert where major lines were in progress to help power both communities and a growing number of data centers. Shortly after the pause, I took notice of the fact that regulators quietly delayed the timetable by at least two weeks for a key line – the northern portion of NV Energy’s Greenlink project – that had been expected to connect to a litany of solar facilities. Interior told me it still planned to complete the project in September, but it also confirmed that projects specifically necessary for connecting solar onto the grid would face “enhanced” reviews.
Well, we have the latest update in this saga. It turns out NV Energy has actually been beseeching the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to let solar projects previously planned for Greenlink bail from the interconnection queue without penalty. And the solar industry is now backing them up.
In a July 28 filing submitted after Interior began politically reviewing all renewables projects, NV Energy requested FERC provide a short-term penalty waiver to companies who may elect to leave the interconnection queue because their projects are no longer viable. Typically, companies are subject to financial penalties for withdrawals from the queue, a policy intended to keep developers from hogging a place in line with a risky project they might never build. Now, at least in the eyes of this key power company, it seems Trump’s pause has made that the case for far too many projects.
“It is important that non-viable projects be terminated or withdrawn so that the queue and any required restudies be updated as quickly as possible,” stated the filing, which was first reported by Utility Dive earlier this week. NV Energy also believes there is concern customers may seek to have their deals for power expected from these projects terminated under “force majeure" clauses, and so “the purpose of this waiver request is thus to both clear the queue to the extent possible and avoid unneeded disputes.”
On Monday, the Solar Energy Industries Association endorsed the request in a filing to the commission made in partnership with regional renewable trade group Interwest Energy Alliance. The support statement referenced both the recent de facto repeal of IRA credits as well as the permitting freeze, stating it now “appears that federal agency review staff are unsure how to proceed on solar projects.” This even includes projects on private lands, a concern first raised by Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo, a Republican, after the permitting freeze came into effect.
The groups all but stated they anticipate companies will pull the plug on solar projects in Nevada, proclaiming that by granting the waiver, “it will encourage projects facing uncertainty due to recent legislation and federal action to exit the process sooner and without penalty, creating more certainty for the remaining projects.”
How this reads to me: Energy developers are understandably trying to figure out how to skate away from this increasingly risky situation as cleanly as they can. It’s anybody’s guess if FERC is willing to show lenience toward these developers.