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.
Rockland Solar accuses East Fairfield, Pennsylvania, of “municipal extortion.”
A solar developer is accusing a Pennsylvania town of requesting a $150 million bribe to get its permits, calling it “municipal extortion.”
Rockland Solar – a subsidiary of utility-scale solar developer Birch Creek – filed a federal lawsuit last week accusing officials in the northern Pennsylvania township of East Fairfield of intentionally moving the goalposts for getting permits to build over the span of multiple years. Rockland’s attorneys in the litigation describe the four officials controlling the township’s board of supervisors as engaging in “corrupt” behavior to deny the project, “ultimately culminating in the solicitation of a bride of more than $150,000,000” in exchange for approval of its application to develop land in the township.
The federal complaint scans as a horror story in solar development. Applications for Rockland Solar’s project were first filed in 2021 and granted approval from the township’s zoning officials in 2022, per the company’s legal complaint. But things seem to have gone south when Rockland Solar sought approval of its first land use application from the town, as replies to emails from town officials became scattershot and sporadic.
In August 2024, per the lawsuit, East Fairfield officials scheduled a crucial public meeting to decide whether to approve the application without notifying Rockland Solar itself, which the company claims was an intentional move “in corrupt and underhanded bad faith” meant “to consider, and then deny” the application “without providing due process.” According to the lawsuit, one of the reasons for the denial was that the project was located within the township – despite it already being approved by zoning officials.
Rockland Solar then took the town to Pennsylvania claims court over the decision because it was reached after a statutory deadline, according to the lawsuit. Amidst this legal fight, the company submitted a second application to build the project – making what the company says were many size and setback changes intended to address the reasons for the apparent denial. East Fairfield ultimately denied the project again. But the developer kept trying, negotiating in apparent good faith with the town’s lawyers to try and reach an agreement.
Then came the alleged request for a bribe. Per a letter cited in the legal complaint, officials asked the developer to pay the town annual payments every year the project was operating – starting at $5,000 and then increasing 25% “every year for the life of the facility,” and that land owners bordering the property would also need to be “compensated 10% of their current property value.” Rockland Solar’s attorneys calculated the annual payments alone to total at least $3 million in the thirtieth year of the project and $30 million a decade later.
Altogether, Rockland Solar’s attorneys landed on the whopping $150 million figure, stipulating that this figure doesn’t include the payments to neighboring property owners. The company argues that this “solicitation of money by a township commissioner to a developer” in exchange for “favorable treatment of a land use application” violated the state bribery statute.
I’ve seen a lot of conflict writing The Fight – including lots of lawsuits filed by developers and residents alike – but I’d never seen an escalation this profound. Normally, suing the town you’re building a project in is a bad idea because it can spoil the well of public trust. I can’t help but think this maneuver was a last resort for Rockland Solar.
It’s also quite rare to get an inside look at the negotiations between a developer and a town. We’re used to seeing community benefit agreements and compacts come and go and I’ve told you how those deals have mixed results. Rockland Solar is now a case study in perhaps one of the worst ways those talks can end up.
I reached out to Rockland Solar’s attorneys, as well as Birch Creek, but failed to hear back. I also tried to reach officials in East Fairfield to hear their take on these extraordinary claims, but no dice. Here’s hoping that writing this leads to them reaching out as well, because this is fascinating and I want to learn more for all of you!
And more of the week’s top news in renewable energy fights.
1. Waldo County, Maine – The Republican-led bid to stop an offshore wind industrial site on Sears Island has failed.
2. Atlantic County, N.J. – We’re expecting a decision any minute now in the fight over EPA’s decision to rescind a crucial air permit for the Atlantic Shores’ offshore wind project.
3. Worcester County, Maryland – This may surprise you but the Trump administration’s Justice Department argued against opponents of offshore wind.
4. Wake County, North Carolina – Legislators in Tar Heel County are considering a bill to remove solar tax credits for projects on farmland.
5. Lawrence County, Alabama – It looks like at least one solar project in Alabama could get the Trump administration’s blessing.
6. Jay County, Indiana – We have a new place to watch for a renewable energy moratorium, folks.
7. Renville County, Minnesota – A 200-megawatt Ranger Solar project is nearing final permits from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.
8. Whitman County, Washington – Steelhead Americas is giving up on getting permission from county leaders and going straight to the state for its Harvest Hills wind project.
9. Apache County, Arizona – Officials in this county are working on a draft renewable energy ordinance with “preferred area[s] that’ll be reviewed as soon as next month, according to one local report.
A conversation with Rebecca Barel and Dan Cassata of Columbia
This week’s Q&A is a change of pace. I was contacted by two student researchers – Rebecca Barel and Dan Cassata – requesting to interview me for some policy and social science research they’ve been up to at Columbia University sponsored by the policy organization Clean Tomorrow.
Then it hit me like a ton of bricks: Wouldn’t it be neat if I interviewed academics engaging in this research about their experience doing this work in such a hostile political environment?
So I asked Rebecca and Dan if our conversation could wind up being a bit of a dialogue, instead of something one-sided. Much to my satisfaction, they agreed – and I wound up getting a lot more hopeful by the end of our talk than I was when it started.
Anywho, the following chat has been edited for clarity. Let’s take it away?
Tell me about your research project, first and foremost.
Dan: The project writ large, the central idea of it is there’s this suite of either policy or non-policy mechanisms we can use to take benefits that accrue from a renewables project and deliver them to a local community, as opposed to let’s say an extractive model. The project is trying to understand what that suite of tools look like and to what extent any of those tools have an influence on public opinion. You’ve done a lot of reporting on community backlash, community opposition. We’re trying to understand how much of this opposition is coming from this view: benefits aren’t coming to us, so why should we support this?
It feels like we can actually add value here. Sometimes when you do grad school research, you’re just putting stuff on paper to get a degree and not doing anything meaningful.
I wanted to talk about this with you because I love conversations with those who, like myself, are obsessed with this niche issue. Can you tell me more about the experience of researching conflicts in renewable energy development right now, amid the war on climate action and renewable energy generally? How does it feel to be doing this research at this time?
Rebecca: I can take that – I mean, in California specifically, one of the mechanisms was that the offshore wind leases are required to have community benefit agreements and a labor agreement. I had an interview with someone who’d written about this topic yesterday who said, quick question – where do you see this going? What’s happening now that Trump is so anti-offshore wind? And I said, That’s what I was going to ask you. Most of my research is at this point coming from Heatmap, because most of the mainstream news outlets aren’t concerned with these issues. They’re bogged down with the visa situations, and being at Columbia is an interesting experience right now.
Dan: Rebecca touched on this but to be more explicit – it is entirely up to the state governments. We’re not looking at the federal policies. That’s not to say there aren’t uncertainties that come with that, and federal incentives obviously matter. Whether or not a project is going to pencil depends on federal incentives. But focusing on the state level has created more of a lane where our work can still feel relevant and be completely overturned and what not.
I’d ask you, Jael – are they more or less confident about opposing projects now that Trump’s in office?
Maybe. There’s certainly some degree of emboldened opposition. I see that as a journalist and I wonder what place there is for the research you’re doing – I wonder how it will be used.
Dan: The dimensions on which some of this is happening is separate from the politics, and that’s a note of optimism from me I guess. You can structure things and it might not be as uniform and widespread as you would like but there are places where you can work and be effective.
Rebecca: I’d add the renewable energy debate, there’s a broader question of what will win out in America over the next few years. Money in pocket or charismatic propaganda that motivates how people vote and what people choose to back. I think we’re at a crux in that right now because of the tariffs but in Texas, generally, if you were to put the people in that area into a box – they might have MAGA hats but at the end of the day, they’re about the money in their pocket. That’s how we ordinarily think of American voters.
I feel like money in my pocket might win, but it’s going to take a while.
How much interest in your work have you seen from the private sector or public officials?
Dan: We’ve spoken to public commissioners at the county level. I had a call right before this conversation with someone from a state-level public service commission. Everyone gets back to us. I do think the private sector has been less engaged. I don’t know if that’s less of an interest though – I read it as the private sector not tending to talk about their work with folks like us very often. There’s not that much in it for them.
Dan: I’d like to ask you this Jael – does it feel like community engagement is a meaningful thing?
This edition of the newsletter will begin with a company accusing a township of soliciting a bribe after years of moving goalposts and redlines. I’m not that optimistic.
Where do you see policy being a solution in this circumstance?
Dan: Let’s take as a given that community benefit agreements work. The research – and what we’ve found – is that that’s not really a given. But they can work. And there are states like New York and California that have legislation that heavily incentivizes developers to go through this process of community engagement to qualify for tax credits or get permits. The reason that we are doing this research is because if you were able to have a case that this is really effective at improving projects and the speed of getting buy-in – we’d argue in our [eventual] report that this type of legislation should become more widespread.
If the conclusion is these things don’t seem to be impactful, then that’s where it justifies the case to look at this other suite of mechanisms that might be more helpful. For projects of a certain size, in New York for example, you can circumvent local zoning regulations and go through a state approval process.
The last thing I’ll ask: what gives you hope at this moment?
Dan: There’s obviously a lot of things that are going poorly right now when it comes to policy at the federal level on the energy transition. But I just think the ship has sailed – the boat might take longer to get there but the ship has left the port, and renewables are cost competitive if not cheaper than fossil energy.
Rebecca: There are people trying to do bad things and bad faith actors in power, but there are a lot of people trying really hard to make things better, and as long as there are people trying – there is a chance. It might take longer, and we might be slowed down, but for me what brings me hope is that every conversation I have with someone smart and capable and actively doing something to improve the environment, we’re not done yet.