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:
And other takeaways from the confirmation hearing for Trump’s nominee for EPA administrator.
Confirmation hearings for Donald Trump’s energy and environment appointees continued Thursday, with Lee Zeldin and Doug Burgum appearing before the Senate for their nominations as Environmental Protection Agency administrator and secretary of the Interior. While Burgum was long tipped to get a major energy-related position in the Trump administration, Zeldin’s nomination was more of a surprise. While he worked on some local water and environmental issues during his time as a congressman from eastern Long Island, he was mostly known for his work on foreign and defense policy issues.
While Zeldin is likely to be confirmed thanks to the Republicans’ 53-47 Senate majority, he did not receive the same bipartisan lovefest as Chris Wright did in his hearing Wednesday for his nomination as secretary of Energy. Zeldin was formally introduced only by a Republican, Wyoming Senator John Barrasso, whereas Wright received introductions from a Democrat and Republican on the panel examining him.
Here are three takeaways from today’s proceedings:
When asked by Senator Bernie Sanders “Do you agree with President-elect Trump that climate change is a hoax?" Zeldin, a former member of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus when in the House, said “I believe that climate change is real,” but then went on to say that Trump’s frequent claims, largely made during the 2016 presidential campaign, that climate change is a hoax was more a criticism of policy than a judgment of climate science.
When asked by Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse about what effect carbon dioxide emissions had on the atmosphere, after some back and forth about listening to scientists and what obligations the EPA had to regulate carbon dioxide, Zeldin said “trapping heat.”
Throughout the hearing, Zeldin returned again and again to the idea that he wanted the EPA to focus on, as Trump often says, “clean air and clean water,” that he wanted to “increase productivity of the EPA,” and that he wanted it to be “accountable and transparent.” While this sounds like so much Washington boilerplate, it is likely a sign that Zeldin will not be advocating for any increase in the EPA’s roles or responsibilities and would try to operate the agency with budgetary and conceptual restraint.
Zeldin did not endorse a proposal to move EPA’s headquarters outside of Washington, D.C., or comments by Department of Government Efficiency co-head Vivek Ramaswamy that the government headcount should be reduced by three-quarters, instead saying “I’m not aware of a single person fired at the EPA during the first Trump administration” (many employees left under the leadership of Scott Pruitt).
Several Republican senators had specific grievances with the current — or past — Democratic EPA leadership and policy, largely around how the agency deals with local industries. Senator Todd Sullivan of Alaska criticized the EPA (in 2013) for sending armed agents to inspect a mine in Alaska; Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas was critical of “one size fits all solutions” that applied to the state’s low-productivity “stripper” oil wells; Senator John Boozman of Arkansas said the EPA agenda under Biden “was shaped by the input from narrow group of stakeholders,” and asked Zeldin “how will you work with industries more collectively to ensure that their concerns are addressed while maintaining a balanced approach to environmental protection?”
“The worst thing that I could possibly do, that the EPA could do is to turn a blind eye to great substantive feedback that will better inform our decisions,” Zeldin said, indicating that industry perspectives on environmental rules and enforcement actions will likely receive a kinder ear under Zeldin than his predecessor.
Exactly what those issues will be was not immediately clear in the hearing. Any discussion of greenhouse gas emissions had to be practically extracted from Zeldin by Democratic senators, while at the same time Zeldin would not commit to scrapping Biden-era rules on power plant and tailpipe emissions (which Trump frequently targeted on the campaign trail), instead saying that he wouldn’t “prejudge” any rule-making.
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 on the week’s most important conflicts around renewable energy projects.
1. Lawrence County, Alabama – We now have a rare case of a large solar farm getting federal approval.
2. Virginia Beach, Virginia – It’s time to follow up on the Coastal Virginia offshore wind project.
3. Fairfield County, Ohio – The red shirts are beating the greens out in Ohio, and it isn’t looking pretty.
4. Allen County, Indiana – Sometimes a setback can really set someone back.
5. Adams County, Illinois – Hope you like boomerangs because this county has approved a solar project it previously denied.
6. Solano County, California – Yet another battery storage fight is breaking out in California. This time, it’s north of San Francisco.
A conversation with Elizabeth McCarthy of the Breakthrough Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Elizabeth McCarthy of the Breakthrough Institute. Elizabeth was one of several researchers involved in a comprehensive review of a decade of energy project litigation – between 2013 and 2022 – under the National Environment Policy Act. Notably, the review – which Breakthrough released a few weeks ago – found that a lot of energy projects get tied up in NEPA litigation. While she and her colleagues ultimately found fossil fuels are more vulnerable to this problem than renewables, the entire sector has a common enemy: difficulty of developing on federal lands because of NEPA. So I called her up this week to chat about what this research found.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So why are you so fixated on NEPA?
Personally and institutionally, [Breakthrough is] curious about all regulatory policy – land use, environmental regulatory policy – and we see NEPA as the thing that connects them all. If we understand how that’s functioning at a high level, we can start to pull at the strings of other players. So, we wanted to understand the barrier that touches the most projects.
What aspects of zero-carbon energy generation are most affected by NEPA?
Anything with a federal nexus that doesn’t include tax credits. Solar and wind that is on federal land is subject to a NEPA review, and anything that is linear infrastructure – transmission often has to go through multiple NEPA reviews. We don’t see a ton of transmission being litigated over on our end, but we think that is a sign NEPA is such a known obstacle that no one even wants to touch a transmission line that’ll go through 14 years of review, so there’s this unknown graveyard of transmission that wasn’t even planned.
In your report, you noted there was a relatively small number of zero-carbon energy projects in your database of NEPA cases. Is solar and wind just being developed more frequently on private land, so there’s less of these sorts of conflicts?
Precisely. The states that are the most powered by wind or create the most wind energy are Texas and Iowa, and those are bypassing the national federal environmental review process [with private land], in addition to not having their own state requirements, so it’s easier to build projects.
What would you tell a solar or wind developer about your research?
This is confirming a lot of things they may have already instinctually known or believed to be true, which is that NEPA and filling out an environmental impact statement takes a really long time and is likely to be litigated over. If you’re a developer who can’t avoid putting your energy project on federal land, you may just want to avoid moving forward with it – the cost may outweigh whatever revenue you could get from that project because you can’t know how much money you’ll have to pour into it.
Huh. Sounds like everything is working well. I do think your work identifies a clear risk in developing on federal lands, which is baked into the marketplace now given the pause on permits for renewables on federal lands.
Yeah. And if you think about where the best places would be to put these technologies? It is on federal lands. The West is way more federal land than anywhere else in the county. Nevada is a great place to put solar — there’s a lot of sun. But we’re not going to put anything there if we can’t put anything there.
What’s the remedy?
We propose a set of policy suggestions. We think the judicial review process could be sped along or not be as burdensome. Our research most obviously points to shortening the statute of limitations under the Administrative Procedures Act from six years to six months, because a great deal of the projects we reviewed made it in that time, so you’d see more cases in good faith as opposed to someone waiting six years waiting to challenge it.
We also think engaging stakeholders much earlier in the process would help.
The Bureau of Land Management says it will be heavily scrutinizing transmission lines if they are expressly necessary to bring solar or wind energy to the power grid.
Since the beginning of July, I’ve been reporting out how the Trump administration has all but halted progress for solar and wind projects on federal lands through a series of orders issued by the Interior Department. But last week, I explained it was unclear whether transmission lines that connect to renewable energy projects would be subject to the permitting freeze. I also identified a major transmission line in Nevada – the north branch of NV Energy’s Greenlink project – as a crucial test case for the future of transmission siting in federal rights-of-way under Trump. Greenlink would cross a litany of federal solar leases and has been promoted as “essential to helping Nevada achieve its de-carbonization goals and increased renewable portfolio standard.”
Well, BLM has now told me Greenlink North will still proceed despite a delay made public shortly after permitting was frozen for renewables, and that the agency still expects to publish the record of decision for the line in September.
This is possible because, as BLM told me, transmission projects that bring solar and wind power to the grid will be subject to heightened scrutiny. In an exclusive statement, BLM press secretary Brian Hires told me via e-mail that a secretarial order choking out solar and wind permitting on federal lands will require “enhanced environmental review for transmission lines only when they are a part of, and necessary for, a wind or solar energy project.”
However, if a transmission project is not expressly tied to wind or solar or is not required for those projects to be constructed… apparently, then it can still get a federal green light. For instance in the case of Greenlink, the project itself is not explicitly tied to any single project, but is kind of like a transmission highway alongside many potential future solar projects. So a power line can get approved if it could one day connect to wind or solar, but the line’s purpose cannot solely be for a wind or solar project.
This is different than, say, lines tied explicitly to connecting a wind or solar project to an existing transmission network. Known as gen-tie lines, these will definitely face hardships with this federal government. This explains why, for example, BLM has yet to approve a gen-tie line for a wind project in Wyoming that would connect the Lucky Star wind project to the grid.
At the same time, it appears projects may be given a wider berth if a line has other reasons for existing, like improving resilience on the existing grid, or can be flexibly used by not just renewables but also fossil energy.
So, the lesson to me is that if you’re trying to build transmission infrastructure across federal property under this administration, you might want to be a little more … vague.