You’re out of free articles.
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:
Meet Liberty Energy CEO Chris Wright.
Donald Trump has selected another stalwart of the fossil fuel industry to lead the Department of Energy. On Saturday, the president-elect put forward Chris Wright, CEO of the oilfield services firm Liberty Energy and a major Republican donor, for the job.
Wright “has worked in Nuclear, Solar, Geothermal and Oil and Gas. Most significantly, Chris was one of the pioneers who helped launch the American Shale Revolution that fueled American Energy Independence, and transformed the Global Energy Market and Geopolitics,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Saturday. In a post on X, Wright said that he was “honored and grateful” for the opportunity.
Wright had been endorsed by several figures from the fossil fuel industry in the days leading up to Trump’s official announcement,including Oklahoma oil and gas billionaire Harold Hamm, a major Trump donor and informal advisor.
Trump’s first Secretary of Energy, former Texas Governor Rick Perry, reportedly thought the Department dealt more with, well, energy than it does in reality. While under current Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm it has become a locus of climate change and green energy policy, the sprawling department oversees the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile, its national laboratories, and its energy efficiency standards, in addition to a variety of energy programs. The Biden administration has super-sized the Department’s Loan Program Office, which has gone on to offer billions in funding to renewable and non-emitting energy infrastructure projects across the country.
Granholm and the Biden White House put a distinctive stamp on the Department of Energy, letting the charter for a coal advisory group expire expire and renaming the Office of Fossil Energy to the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, reflecting the administration’s major investments in carbon capture technology and infrastructure over the past four years.
Wright, on the other hand, is a deep skeptic of the idea that there’s a climate crisis or energy transition happening at all. To wit: “There is no climate crisis, and we’re not in the midst of an energy transition,” Wright said in a video posted to LinkedIn last year. He also wrote that “climate crisis, energy transition, carbon pollution, clean energy, and dirty energy,” were “Five commonly used words around Energy and Climate that are both deceptive and destructive.”
“Carbon dioxide does indeed absorb infrared radiation, contributing to warming,” Wright said. “But calling carbon dioxide ‘pollution’ is like calling out water and oxygen, the other two irreplaceable molecules for life on earth.”
For Republican administrations, the Department of the Interior is considered to be the plum job for energy policy, as the office controls leasing of public lands for energy exploration and extraction. Last week, Trump nominated North Dakota governor Doug Burgum to lead that department, as well as head the new White House Council of National Energy, which “will consist of all Departments and Agencies involved in the permitting, production, generation, distribution, regulation, transportation, of ALL forms of American Energy,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Wright will also be a member of the Council, Trump said.
“This team will drive U.S. Energy Dominance, which will drive down Inflation, win the A.I. arms race with China (and others), and expand American Diplomatic Power to end Wars all across the World,” Trump wrote.
To the extent an energy policy can be inferred from Trump’s post, it’s likely to be a version of “all of the above,” with barriers lifted for fossil fuel production, along with (perhaps) some support for certain forms of renewable or non-carbon-emitting energy, or at least regulatory relief.
Geothermal, for instance, has long had bipartisan support in Congress, and could be a relative winner among non-carbon-emitting power sources under a Republican trifecta. The industry draws on technology and people from the oil and gas sector, and the location of high-quality geothermal resources in western states controlled by Republicans gives lawmakers reason to support the growing industry. Liberty Energy is also an investor in Fervo Energy, one of the leading enhanced geothermal startups.
“I cannot imagine a nominee with more technical and commercial understanding of EGS and the need to deploy geothermal for clean, firm power. Congrats, @ChrisAWright, looking forward to working with your team,” Ben Serrurier, the head of government affairs and policy at Fervo, wrote on X.
But fossils will no doubt come first. One of Wright’s first priorities will likely be to unblock the federal permitting process for new liquefied natural gas export terminals. The Biden administration formally paused approvals of new LNG export facilities earlier this year to study the effect of such exports on global greenhouse gas emissions. The move set off a cascade of recriminations and opprobrium that culminated in the pause being overturned in court.
Granholm told reporters at the annual United Nations climate conference on Friday that the department’s research on the impacts of LNG exports should be released by the end of the year, which “could set the stage for the fossil fuel-friendly Trump administration’s LNG policy being hamstrung by a Biden-era report,” Bloomberg reported. A group of Republican members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce released a letter to Granholm on Friday saying that they were “particularly troubled” by this notion.
Wright may also end up tangling with environmental activists over energy efficiency, as did Perry’s successor and Granholm’s predecessor Dan Brouillette. Climate groups sued Brouillette for not updating standards as set out by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Trump has long mocked such efficiency standards, especially those for water efficiency.
Wright quickly won plaudits from conservative environmental and energy groups, however. “From nuclear to solar to geothermal to oil & gas, Chris Wright has been a pioneer of American energy,” Christopher Barnard, the president of the American Conservation Coalition, wrote on X. “Chris Wright + Doug Burgum is literally the dream team.”
Notably, there’s no specific mention of coal in the Wright announcement, other than a reference to “ALL forms of American Energy.” During his tenure as Secretary of Energy, Perry proposed to help reverse the mass shutdown of coal plants that had begun during the Obama administration and continued throughout the Trump years, but his plan was in turn shut down by the Republican-majority Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Also notably absent from the announcement was any mention of Trump’s least favorite form of renewable energy: wind.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more of the week’s top news about renewable energy conflicts.
1. Nassau County, New York – Opponents of Equinor’s offshore Empire Wind project are now suing to stop construction after the Trump administration quietly lifted its stop-work order.
2. Somerset County, Maryland – A referendum campaign in rural Maryland seeks to restrict solar development on farmland.
3. Tazewell County, Virginia – An Energix solar project is still in the works in this rural county bordering West Virginia, despite a restrictive ordinance.
4. Allan County, Indiana – This county, which includes portions of Fort Wayne, will be holding a hearing next week on changing its current solar zoning rules.
5. Madison County, Indiana – Elsewhere in Indiana, Invenergy has abandoned the Lone Oak solar project amidst fervent opposition and mounting legal hurdles.
6. Adair County, Missouri – This county may soon be home to the largest solar farm in Missouri and is in talks for another project, despite having a high opposition intensity index in the Heatmap Pro database.
7. Newtown County, Arkansas – A fifth county in Arkansas has now banned wind projects.
8. Oklahoma County, Oklahoma – A data center fight is gaining steam as activists on the ground push to block the center on grounds it would result in new renewable energy projects.
9. Bell County, Texas – Fox News is back in our newsletter, this time for platforming the campaign against solar on land suitable for agriculture.
10. Monterey County, California – The Moss Landing battery fire story continues to develop, as PG&E struggles to restart the remaining battery storage facility remaining on site.
A conversation with Biao Gong of Morningstar
This week’s conversation is with Biao Gong, an analyst with Morningstar who this week published an analysis looking at the credit risks associated with offshore wind projects. Obviously I wanted to talk to him about the situation in the U.S., whether it’s still a place investors consider open for business, and if our country’s actions impact the behavior of others.
The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.
What led you to write this analysis?
What prompted me was our experience in assigning [private] ratings to offshore wind projects in Europe and wanted to figure out what was different [for rating] with onshore and offshore wind. It was the result of our recent work, which is private, but we’ve seen the trend – a lot of the big players in the offshore wind space are kind of trying to partner up with private equity firms to sell their interests, their operating offshore wind assets. But to raise that they’ll need credit ratings and we’ve seen those transactions. This is a growing area in Europe, because Europe has to rely on offshore wind to achieve its climate goals and secure their energy independence.
The report goes through risks in many ways, including challenging conditions for construction. Tell me about the challenges that offshore wind faces specifically as an investment risk.
The principle behind offshore wind is so different than onshore wind. You’re converting wind energy to electricity but obviously there are a bunch of areas where we believe it is riskier. That doesn’t mean you can’t fund those projects but you need additional mitigants.
This includes construction risk. It can take three to five years to complete an offshore wind project. The marine condition, the climate condition, you can’t do that [work] throughout the year and you need specialized vehicles, helicopters, crews that are so labor intensive. That’s versus onshore, which is pre-fabricated where you have a foundation and assemble it. Once you have an idea of the geotechnical conditions, the risk is just less.
There’s also the permitting process, which can be very challenging. How do you not interrupt the marine ecosystem? That’s something the regulators pay attention to. It’s definitely more than an onshore project, which means you need other mitigants for the lender to feel comfortable.
With respect to the permitting risk, how much of that is the risk of opposition from vacation towns, environmentalists, fisheries?
To be honest, we usually come in after all the critical permitting is in place, before money is given by a lender, but I also think that on the government’s side, in Europe at least, they probably have to encourage the development. And to put out an auction for an area you can build an offshore wind project, they must’ve gone through their own assessment, right? They can’t put out something that they also think may hurt an ecosystem, but that’s my speculation.
A country that did examine the impacts and offer lots of ocean floor for offshore is the U.S. What’s your take on offshore wind development in our country?
Once again, because we’re a rating agency, we don’t have much insight into early stage projects. But with that, our view is pretty gloomy. It’s like, if you haven’t started a project in the U.S., no one is going to buy it. There’s a bunch of projects already under construction, and there was the Empire Wind stop order that was lifted. I think that’s positive, but only to a degree, right? It just means this project under construction can probably go ahead. Those things will go ahead and have really strong developers with strong balance sheets. But they’re going to face additional headwinds, too, because of tariffs – that’s a different story.
We don’t see anything else going ahead.
Does the U.S. behaving this way impact the view you have for offshore wind in other countries, or is this an isolated thing?
It’s very isolated. Europe is just going full-steam ahead because the advantage here is you can build a wind farm that provides 2 or 3 gigawatts – that’s just massive. China, too. The U.S. is very different – and not just offshore. The entire renewables sector. We could revisit the U.S. four or five years from today, but [the U.S.] is going to be pretty difficult for the renewables sector.
What I’m hearing from developers and CEOs about the renewable energy industry after the Inflation Reduction Act
As the Senate deliberates gutting the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean electricity tax credits, renewable energy developers and industry insiders are split about how bad things might get for the sector. But the consensus is that things will undoubtedly get worse.
Almost everyone I talked to insisted that solar and wind projects further along in construction would be insulated from an IRA repeal. Some even argued that spiking energy demand and other macro tailwinds might buffer the wind and solar industries from the demolition of the law.
But between the lines, and beneath the talking points and hopium, executives are fretting that lots of future investments are in jeopardy. And the most pessimistic take: almost all projects will have their balance sheets and time-tables impacted in some way that’ll at minimum increase their budget costs.
“It’s hard to imagine, if the legislation passes in its current form, that it wouldn’t impact all projects,” said Rob Collier, CEO of renewable energy transaction platform LevelTen.
Even industry analysts with the gloomiest views of the repeal say there’s plenty of projects that will keep chugging along and might even become more valuable to investors if they’re close enough to construction or operation. This aligns with recent analysis from BloombergNEF, which found the House bill would diminish our nation’s renewables build-out – but not entirely end its pace.
“The more useful way to break down which project may be hit the hardest is where the projects are going to fall in their development life-cycle,” Collier said. “Projects that have either started construction or have the ability to start construction … are going to very likely rise in terms of their appeal and attractiveness and those projects will be at a premium, if they’re able to skate through the legislative risk and qualify for tax credits.”
There is a more optimistic industry view that believes increased project costs will just be passed along to consumers via higher electricity prices. The American people will in essence have to pick up the tab where the federal tax code left it. Optimists also cite the increased use of power purchase agreements, or PPAs, between renewables developers and entities who need a lot of electricity, like big tech companies. By signing these PPAs, buyers are subsidizing the construction of projects but also insulating themselves from the risk of rising electricity prices.
The most bullish perspective I heard was from Nick Cohen, the CEO of Doral Renewables, who told me deals like these combined with rising premiums for quick energy on the grid may obviate lost credits in a “zero-incentive environment.”
“It’s not the end of the world,” Cohen told me. “If you’re in construction or you’re going to be in construction very soon, you’re fine.”
But Collier called Cohen’s prediction an “experiment” in customers’ willingness to pay for new energy: “If we’re talking about 40%, 50%, 60% of a project’s capital stack now being at risk because of tax credits, those are pretty large price increases.”
I spoke to multiple companies that have been inking massive deals as this legislation has progressed — although many were not nearly as sanguine about the industry’s future prospects as Doral. Like rPlus Energies, which disclosed last week that it closed a commitment for more than $500 million in tax equity investments for a solar and storage project in Utah. rPlus CEO Luigi Resta told me that the legislation “certainly has posed concern from our investors and from the organization” but the project was so far along that the tax equity investment market wasn’t phased by the bill.
“Many people in my company, myself included, have been doing this for more than 20 years. We’ve seen the starts and stops related to ITC and PTC in solar and wind, in multiple cycles, and this feels like another cycle,” Resta told me. “When the IRA passed, everybody was exuberant. And now the runway looks like it may have a cliff. But for us, our mantra since the beginning of the year has been ‘proceed with caution, preserve and protect.’”
However, crucially, it is important to focus on how that caution looks: Resta told me the company has completely paused new contracting while the company is completing the projects it is currently developing.
One government affairs representative for a large and prominent U.S. renewables developer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to preserve relationships, told me that “whatever rollback occurs will just result in higher electricity prices over time.” In the near term, the only language that would truly gut projects in progress today would be “foreign entity of concern” restrictions that would broadly impact any component even remotely connected to Chinese industries. Similar language all but kneecapped the entire IRA electric vehicle consumer credit.
“It included definitions of what it means to be a foreign company that were really vague,” the government affairs representative said. “Anyone who does any business with China essentially can’t benefit from the credit. That was a really challenging outcome from the House that hopefully the Senate is going to fix.” If this definition became law, this source said, it would be the final straw that “freezes investment” in renewable energy projects.
Ultimately, after speaking to CEO after CEO this week, I’ve been left with an impression that business activity in renewables hasn’t really subsided after the House bill passed, and that it’ll be the Senate bill that undoubtedly defines the future of renewable energy for years to come.
Whether that chamber remains the “cooling saucer” it once was will be the decider.