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:
Wind and solar are out. Clean, firm power is in.

The Senate Finance committee published its highly anticipated tax proposal for Trump’s One Big, Beautiful Bill on Monday night, including a new plan to revise the nation’s clean energy tax credits.
Senate Republicans widened the aperture slightly compared to the House version of the bill, extending tax credits for geothermal energy, batteries, and hydropower, and preserving “transferability” — a crucial rule that allows companies to sell their tax credits for cash — for years to come.
But the text would still slash many of the signature programs of the Inflation Reduction Act. It would be particularly damaging for Republicans’ goals of creating a domestic mining industry, because it kills incentives for refining critical minerals while yanking away subsidies for the electric cars and wind turbines that might use those minerals.
Consumer tax credits for energy efficiency upgrades, including heat pumps, would still be terminated, as would credits for homeowners to lease or purchase rooftop solar. The Senate bill also cuts a tax deduction for energy efficiency upgrades in commercial buildings one year after the bill’s passage, which was not in the House version.
There was no mercy for the IRA’s tax credit to produce clean hydrogen, despite a last-minute appeal from more than 250 organizations in early June. That policy would still be terminated this year.
Here’s a rundown of the rest of the major changes.
Like the House bill, the Senate’s proposal would terminate tax credits for new, used, and leased electric vehicles. But while the House had extended the program by one year for automakers that had yet to sell 200,000 eligible vehicles, the Senate version would simply end the program in 180 days — or roughly six months — after the bill’s passage.
Depending on when the bill is passed, the Senate version could work out better for some experienced EV automakers, such as Tesla and General Motors. These automakers are set to lose their eligibility for tax credits on December 31 under the House text. But the Senate bill’s 180-day period could allow them to eke out another month or so of eligibility — especially if congressional negotiations over the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act go late into the summer.
Newer EV automakers, such as Rivian or Lucid, come out worse under the Senate text as compared to the House bill since they haven’t sold as many vehicles.
Homeowners interested in electric vehicle chargers would get a longer runway than the House had proposed — but a much shorter one than is on the books right now. Under current law, homeowners can claim the charger tax credit through 2032. The Senate version would terminate the 30% tax credit for installing a home charger one year after the bill is enacted.
The Inflation Reduction Act achieved massive greenhouse gas reductions by including a set of new “technology-neutral” tax credits that subsidized any new power plant as long as it didn’t emit carbon dioxide. Under current law, these new tax credits will remain effective and on the books for decades to come — expiring only when emissions from the country’s power sector fall about 95% below their all-time high.
The Republican reconciliation bills have dismantled these provisions. The House text proposed immediately winding down tax credits for all clean energy sources — except nuclear — and allowed just a 60-day “grace period” for new projects to start construction to claim the credits. Even then, new power plants would have to enter service by 2028 to qualify.
Senate Republicans have countered with a plan that is designed to maintain support for every electricity source that isn’t wind and solar. The GOP Senate caucus favors technologies that can provide power on demand around the clock — such as geothermal, nuclear, hydropower, and batteries — but technically the Senate text allows any zero-carbon, non-solar, non-wind source to qualify for the clean electricity tax credits for the next decade.
The Senate draft erases the provision in the Inflation Reduction Act that would have kept these tax credits in place until the entire United States power sector reduces its emissions. Instead, it adopts the IRA’s alternate phase-out period, with the tax credits beginning to wind down for projects that start construction in 2034.
Tax credits for wind and solar, however, would begin to phase down for projects that start construction next year, and terminate after 2027, with one big exception.
An odd addendum to the wind and solar phase-out would exempt projects that are at least 1 gigawatt, are at least partially on federal land, and have already received a “right-of-way grant or lease” from the Bureau of Land Management as of June 16. It’s unclear which, if any, projects would be helped by this provision. According to the BLM website, it has not granted a right-of-way to any projects that are 1 gigawatt or larger except for the Lava Ridge wind farm, which has been canceled. If the Senate changes the date, however, the Esmeralda 7 solar farm in Nevada may benefit, as the project is more than 6 gigawatts, and is in the final stages of its environmental review.
The Senate text would not do anything to change the eligibility timeline for existing nuclear plants to claim a tax credit, called 45U, designed to keep them solvent. It would keep the schedule written into the Inflation Reduction Act, which has the credit terminating at the end of 2031. It would, however, impose new foreign sourcing restrictions on nuclear fuel, forbidding existing power plants from claiming the tax credit if their fuel comes from Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea. (It makes an exception for power companies that signed a long-term contract to buy foreign fuel before 2023.) The United States formally banned the import of nuclear fuel from Russia last year.
The Inflation Reduction Act subsidized the production of certain clean energy equipment — including solar panels, wind turbines, inverters, and batteries — as well as some of their subcomponents. Under current law, those tax credits will begin to phase out by 25% increments in 2030, so companies can claim 75% of the credit in 2030, 50% in 2031, and zero in 2033.
The IRA also created a new permanent tax credit that covered 10% of the cost of refining or recycling critical minerals.
The new Senate text changes these phase-out deadlines, often for the worse. First, as in the House bill, wind turbines and their subcomponents would no longer qualify for the tax credit starting in 2028. Second, the tax credit for critical minerals would start phasing out in 2031. Under the new calendar, companies would be able to claim 75% of this credit in 2031, 50% in 2032, and zero in 2034.
In practice, this means that the Senate GOP text would end the IRA’s permanent tax credit for producing many critical minerals, which would damage the financial projects of many mineral processing and refining projects. Other types of equipment remain on the Inflation Reduction Act’s original phase-out schedule.
The new Senate text also slightly expands the type of battery components that qualify for the credit. And — in a potentially significant change for some companies — it forbids companies from stacking tax credits for their vertically integrated production process starting in 2027.
While the House did not touch the tax credit for carbon sequestration, the Senate has put forward a key change favored by many proponents of the technology. Under current law, project operators get the highest-value credit if they simply inject captured carbon underground for no other purpose than to keep it out of the atmosphere. Smaller amounts are available for projects that use captured CO2 to nudge more oil out of the ground, also known as “enhanced oil recovery,” or if they use the CO2 in products like cement.
Under the Senate proposal, all carbon sequestration projects, no matter the nature of the carbon storage, would qualify for the same amount.
The biggest clean energy killer in the House-passed bill was a strict sourcing rule for the tax credits that would disqualify projects that use any component, subcomponent or mineral from China. As Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote last week, the rules appeared “unworkable” to many companies because they seemingly disqualified projects even if they used a relatively small amount of an otherwise irrelevant Chinese-sourced material — such as a spare bolt or a gram of steel.
Under the House bill, manufacturers would also not be allowed to license a Chinese company’s technology. This measure appeared to directly target Ford, which has proposed manufacturing electric vehicle batteries using technology licensed from the Chinese firm CATL, one of the world’s best producers of EV batteries.
The Senate proposal changes the House provision by adding a complicated new set of definitions about what might qualify as a federal entity of concern. It also introduces a new “safe harbor” formula describing the amount of Chinese-sourced material that can keep a project from receiving a tax credit. We’re still figuring out how these new rules work together, and we’ll update this article as we understand them better.
The House bill also would have severely curtailed a crucial component of the tax credit program called transferability, which allowed developers that couldn’t take full advantage of the subsidies to sell their credits for cash to other companies. The text stripped this option from the tax credits for clean manufacturing (45X), carbon sequestration (45Q), and clean fuels (45Z) beginning in 2028. Without transferability, most carbon sequestration projects will struggle to pencil out, my colleague Katie Brigham reported.
The Senate proposal would restore transferability for the duration of all remaining tax credits.
But it throws another wrench in plans to scale up nuclear, geothermal, and other large capital-intensive projects, because it restricts zero-carbon power plants’ ability to use modified accelerated cost recovery to fund their projects.
The Inflation Reduction Act created a technology-neutral tax credit for low-carbon transportation fuels, like sustainable aviation fuel and biodiesel (45Z). This was the only tax credit that the House GOP had proposed extending, giving projects four more years to qualify. The House bill also said that producers did not have to account for indirect land-use changes as a result of turning crops into fuel — a provision that would enable the corn ethanol industry to claim the credit.
The Senate proposal retains both of those provisions, but reduces the credit amount by 20% for fuels produced from feedstocks sourced from outside the United States. It also introduces a new rule that would prohibit companies from claiming their fuel has a “negative emissions” rate — which some environmental groups warn would subsidize established technologies and distort the market. Proponents of several forms of biomethane have tried to claim they are net-negative because they prevent methane emissions that would have otherwise happened — like when methane is captured from landfills or manure pools.
Confusingly, though, the text makes an exception, allowing negative emissions rates for fuels made from manure — which is the feedstock environmental groups are most concerned about.
This article was updated on June 17 to include the breakdown of 45Z.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On Beijing’s coal dip, Iran’s environmental ‘catastrophe,’ and Thanksgiving carbon footprint
Current conditions: Winds of up to 30 miles per hour will threaten the balloons at Macy’s iconic Thanksgiving Day parade in New York • Lake-effect snow could cause whiteouts across the Great Lake region • Temperatures are set to soar to nearly 90 degrees Fahrenheit in Queensland and New South Wales, Australia.
China has formed a fusion energy alliance with more than 10 countries to promote open science and encourage collaboration among international researchers to hasten the commercialization of electricity generated from what is effectively an artificial sun. At a launch event on Monday, Beijing unveiled the so-called Hefei Fusion Declaration, whose signatories include France, the United Kingdom, and Germany. “We are about to enter a new stage of burning plasma, which is critical for future fusion engineering,” Song Yuntao, vice president of the Hefei Institutes of Physical Science, said in a government press release.
The first fusion reaction to produce more energy than it took to spark occurred at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in December 2022. Since then, billions of dollars have flowed into fusion energy research and a number of prominent companies have proposed building power plants harnessing the technology. As Heatmap’s Katie Brigham put it, it’s “finally, possibly, almost time for fusion.” But the U.S. risks losing its edge, according to a new report by the Congress-backed Commission on the Scaling of Fusion Energy. “While the United States has long been at the forefront of fusion research, the international competition is intensifying,” the report published last month concluded. “China, in particular, is rapidly advancing its fusion energy capabilities through massive state investments and aggressive technological development, narrowing the window for American leadership.”

China’s emissions remained flat for another quarter in a row, continuing a downward trend that started last year, as I wrote here earlier this month. Backing up that data is new research from Greenpeace East Asia, which found that China approved just under 42 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity nationwide in the first nine months of 2025. That may sound like a lot, but if the current pace continues, 2025 is on track to be the second-lowest year for approvals since the COVID-19 shock in 2021. It would also be the second consecutive year of decline. “China’s power-sector emissions peak is within reach as early as 2025. Yet maintaining momentum to curb coal approvals remains critical,” Gao Yuhe, Greenpeace East Asia’s Beijing-based project manager, said in a statement. “Clear policy signals to cap coal and boost renewables are essential to accelerate both the power sector and societal emissions peaks.”
In the U.S., meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency filed a motion late Monday evening asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to eliminate a Biden-era rule tightening limits on soot. The regulation, E&E News reported, was “predicted to save thousands of lives by tightening the exposure limit to a pollutant tied to a higher risk of strokes, lung cancer and other cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Since 1980, the Department of the Interior has run National Environmental Policy analyses on every five-year offshore drilling plan. But, as E&E News reported Tuesday, the agency’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management called that step “discretionary” in its latest proposal. To justify the change, the Trump administration cited two past rulings from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that rejected challenges to NEPA assessments of five-year plans.
It’s a striking dichotomy with how the administration has dealt with offshore wind, most easily communicated via the meme of Shaquille O’Neal sleeping in one frame and awake with eyes ablaze in the next. Environmental damage from offshore oil and gas drilling? “I sleep,” as the meme goes. Environmental damage from offshore wind turbines? Now that, as I have written in this newsletter, has the Trump administration’s attention.
Iran “no longer has a choice” but to move its capital city as ecological strain on Tehran’s water and land make the metropolis impossible to sustain. In remarks carried on state media Thursday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said the government had “no option” but to consider an alternative city for the capital. “When we said we must move the capital, we did not even have enough budget,” he said, according to the London-based news service Iran International, which broadcasts in English and Farsi. “If we had, maybe it would have been done. The reality is that we no longer have a choice; it is an obligation.” As the capital sinks by near one foot per year and water supplies shrink, Tehran faces “catastrophe” and “a dark future,” he said. “Protecting the environment is not a joke. Ignoring it means signing our own destruction.”
Tehran wouldn’t be the only major city on the move. Indonesia is designing a new capital in Borneo called Nusantara to replace Jakarta, which is also slowly sinking.
Redwood Materials, the battery recycling startup led by Tesla co-founder JB Straubel, has cut dozens of workers as the company scales back some of its projects to focus on tapping into demand for grid-scale batteries, Bloomberg reported Tuesday. The layoffs took place this month and were spread across the company, amounting to up to 6% of the total workforce. Redwood is now focusing on repurposing old batteries for the grid and extracting critical minerals from scrapped power packs.
Here’s a statistic for the vegetarians to whip out on Thanksgiving: A 16-pound turkey has a carbon footprint as big as the gravy, cranberry sauce, mashed potatoes, rolled biscuits, and apple pie combined, research from Carnegie Mellon University found. Before you go off starting a fight with your truck-driving, meat-loving uncle, the scientists noted that, “compared to all the environmental lifestyle decisions that an American family could make, these are very, very small potatoes.” I wish you all a happy and peaceful Thanksgiving holiday.
Rob preps for Giving Tuesday with Giving Green’s Dan Stein.
It’s been a tumultuous year for climate politics — and for climate nonprofits. The longtime activist group 350.org suspended its operations in the U.S. (at least temporarily), and Bill Gates, the world’s No. 1 climate funder, declared that the decarbonization movement should make a “strategic pivot” to poverty reduction. How should someone who wants to help the global climate navigate this moment?
Our guest has recommendations. On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob talks to Dan Stein, the founder and executive director of Giving Green. Giving Green is a nonprofit that researches the most high-impact climate groups and helps people and companies donate to them. Stein talked about the top five climate groups Giving Green recommends this year, effective altruism and the future of climate philanthropy, and whether Bill Gates is right that climate activism has focused too much on emissions targets.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap, and Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University. Jesse is off this week.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Dan Stein: You can think of this set of solutions that’s very easily measurable, and to a first order approximation call that the carbon offset market. And so if you’re very obsessed about measurements and accountability, you’re playing in the offset market — which is okay, but I just think people can do better, right? Like, we need to change systems. We need to change laws. And you can’t do that with a carbon offset. So we sometimes advise companies, as well, and that’s what I tell them. I’m like, if you put yourself in this box of having to measure the amount of tons that you are reducing to solve your net zero goal, well then you’re extremely restrained in terms of the upside impact you can have.
Robinson Meyer: It seems like you’ve followed an arc that is not unrecognizable from other parts of life. Like, I think of what’s happened with effective altruism, which is kind of where GiveWell initially came out of — this idea that everyone could be saving more lives if they were way more thoughtful and exact and precise, and scrutinized their methods much better in picking which groups to give to. And that obviously has had some big successes, among them GiveWell, which is quite impressive, I think, in some ways, and has saved a lot of lives and changed how people think about development. But ultimately you do run into politics, at the end of it.
I even think in economics more broadly, there’s incredible attention given to small policy changes that can produce more or less growth and more or less equality or inequality. But then when you talk about these big picture questions like why do certain countries become rich, or why does development happen in some places and not others? Once you move past the basic geographic constraints, then as far as I can tell, the current economic answer is like, well, some places had histories that developed good institutions and some places didn’t. And if you have good institutions, you have economic growth.
And it feels like we’re hitting the institution question of climate tech, or of decarbonization. Like, yeah, your dollars could go a little farther on some sorts of carbon offsets than others. But if you really care about decarbonization, you’re actually back at this big set of very mushy questions at the intersection of society and technology and policy and politics.
Stein: Definitely. And I mean, not to get us too derailed — you know, I’m an economist, Rob. But anyway —
Meyer: That’s why I’ve intentionally driven this car into a ditch.
Stein: Development economics has also gone through waves of this. If you think of the 70s and 80s, like, early versions of the World Bank were all about institutions and getting the rules of the game, right? And then free markets will solve everything. And then you kind of get a reaction to that in the 90s and 2000s of more microdevelopment.
And now I actually think maybe the pendulum is swinging the other way, going more towards growth. Now you even see it for someone like GiveWell. They’re now making a ton of grants not just to these super measurable direct intervention orgs, but to more meta orgs that are trying to increase the total amount of aid or the quality of aid or health systems or whatever. It’s really hard to avoid these questions of policy and technology and markets if you’re trying to solve big problems.
Mentioned:
Giving Green’s top climate nonprofits for 2025:
The Giving Green regranting fund
Bill Gates’ memo on “three tough truths about climate”
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Hydrostor is building the future of energy with Advanced Compressed Air Energy Storage. Delivering clean, reliable power with 500-megawatt facilities sited on 100 acres, Hydrostor’s energy storage projects are transforming the grid and creating thousands of American jobs. Learn more at hydrostor.ca.
Uplight is a clean energy technology company that helps energy providers unlock grid capacity by activating energy customers and their connected devices to generate, shift, and save energy. The Uplight Demand Stack — which integrates energy efficiency, electrification, rates, and flexibility programs — improves grid resilience, reduces costs, and accelerates decarbonization for energy providers and their customers. Learn more at uplight.com/heatmap.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
Congress is motivated to pass a bipartisan deal, but Democrats are demanding limits on executive power.
A big bipartisan permitting reform deal may be in the offing in Washington. But getting it done will require taking away one of Donald Trump’s favorite toys: The power to mess with solar and wind permits.
Last week the House Natural Resources Committee advanced the SPEED Act, a bill introduced by Republican committee chair Bruce Westerman, that would put the full weight of Congress behind the federal permitting process. There’s a lot in this bill for energy developers of all stripes to like — and a lot for environmental activists to loathe, including a 150-day statute of limitations on litigation, language enforcing shorter deadlines for reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (also known as NEPA), and a requirement that final approvals be released within 30 days of said review’s completion.
But this bill will mean nothing for the renewables industry if the Trump administration continues to dawdle on the kinds of routine governmental actions necessary to move any infrastructure project forward.
Since the start of Trump’s latest turn in office, officials have woven a paralytic web of bureaucratic hold-ups that make it next to impossible for a solar or wind energy project to get federal permits for construction activities. Meanwhile the SPEED Act, like NEPA, is essentially a process statute at this point — it deals with the boundaries within which environmental reviews are conducted. Without requiring the government to process any project regardless of whether it’s a renewable energy project or a new coal plant, Trump officials could easily produce endless delays and remain inside the letter of the law.
This is why Representative Jared Golden, a retiring moderate Democrat from Maine, pushed to add language to the SPEED Act that blocks any president from rescinding a permit after its approval. In theory, this would insulate offshore wind projects from losing even more permits (see: SouthCoast Wind, Atlantic Shores).
The bill — including the restriction on executive power — passed the House Natural Resources Committee on a bipartisan 25 to 18 vote, though only two Democrats voted in favor.
For lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, energy bill inflation and data center drama have created serious momentum for getting bipartisan permitting legislation done ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The SPEED Act would more easily serve that need with stronger language addressing executive permitting powers, according to numerous interviews with Democratic lawmakers, D.C. policy wonks, and energy lobbyists.
“Any deal hinges on the Trump administration providing assurances they’re not going to kill every single clean energy project in existence,” Representative Mike Levin told me on Tuesday.
Levin, a California Democrat who is involved in permitting talks, said that an ideal fix for Democrats would be a proposal he co-authored with Democratic Representative Sean Casten that would require “parity” in the permitting process between fossil and non-fossil projects of all kinds. This language would explicitly require the Interior Secretary to ensure that project applications, authorizations, and approvals needed for wind, solar, battery storage, and transmission projects are “not subject to more restrictive or burdensome procedural requirements than those applied to oil, gas or coal projects.” It would also mandate that the department rescind any existing policies that violate this “parity” requirement.
“We’re going to need language in any bill that would provide certainty that all these projects permitted would be allowed to proceed, that permits will be honored, that in the future more permits will be granted. And I do not trust this administration to honor that without concrete language in the bill,” Levin told me.
Levin’s colleagues in the House echoed those sentiments. House Natural Resources Committee ranking member Jared Huffman told me that he’s hearing from representatives of the clean power sector who are “actually aligned” with environmentalists that “all of this is completely academic if you don’t release the hostage.” Representative Paul Tonko, ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce environment subcommittee, told me in a statement that “for any permitting reform negotiations to move forward, the least we need are guarantees that whatever comes of an agreement will have the force of law and will be followed by this Administration.”
Public reactions to the SPEED Act from the renewable industry have ranged from warily cheerful to notably silent, in a way that has discernible political undertones. American Clean Power, a major energy sector trade association, and the American Council on Renewable Energy, otherwise known as ACORE, have carefully applauded the bill’s advancement while also emphasizing the need for bipartisan compromise. The Solar Energy Industries Association has yet to endorse the bill, and Rachel Skaar, a spokesperson for the group, told me it is “currently reviewing the language that passed out of committee.”
These complaints won’t mean much in the full House — Republicans can pass this bill without any votes from the opposing party. But this degree of party-wide consternation almost always translates to a filibuster in the Senate. It’s hard to imagine Senators Martin Heinrich and Sheldon Whitehouse, the top Democrats on the two main Senate committees overseeing permits, trying to roll this solid bloc of colleagues. And while enough Senate Democrats broke with the party leadership to break the filibuster and reopen the government earlier this month, two of those were Senators Catherine Cortez-Masto and Jacky Rosen of Nevada, where Big Solar wields a lot of sway.
“Its going to be a big factor in these talks,” said a senior Democratic congressional aide familiar with the bill, referring to the bureaucratic holdups facing renewables permits. The aide, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations, said that lawmakers are racking their brains to find the “perfect language” to keep Trump in check. “Everything now has to be explicitly and clearly defined by Congress because there’s a track record of the federal government using any daylight where they can navigate the system to their advantage,” the aide told me.
Based on all my conversations, the House will likely vote to pass the SPEED Act, along with probably a slate of other permitting bills, maybe as soon as December. This will probably kickstart momentum in the Senate to produce something more bipartisan, which would in turn produce more pressure to address Trump’s permitting freeze head on.
There will be challenges with crafting language that makes all sides happy without creating unforeseen policy issues around executive powers in the future. “This issue of project certainty, as this subset of permitting talks has been called, is really tricky,” said Xan Fishman of the Bipartisan Policy Center. “How you actualize that into law is tough.” But if the Schoolhouse Rock of it all can be overcome, House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune would be able to present a ready-made deal to the president.
Whether Trump would actually sign such a deal, however, is another ball of wax.
“The $64,000 question is, as this becomes even more real, will the White House start to intervene?” asked Josh Freed, senior vice president at Third Way’s climate and energy program.
There’s definitely outside momentum toward dealing with Trump’s permitting freeze under the valence of tech neutrality — whatever is good for the renewables goose would be good for the energy sector gander, so to speak. Mike Sommers, CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, said in a recent interview with Politico that addressing this freeze would help stop a future Democratic president from using the same trick on pipelines and drill sites. And Congressional Republicans appear to be negotiating in good faith with Democrats on the SPEED Act.
One D.C. energy lobbyist involved in the talks, however, confessed to me that the appearance of movement is “a lot of kabuki” unless Congress addresses the underlying issues around renewables permitting.
“It’s going to have to have teeth,” said the lobbyist, who requested anonymity because they did not have clearance to speak publicly. “The administration’s going to do whatever it wants.” And even with the language on executive power, the bill can only protect processes that fall under the federal government’s purview — that is, it won’t do anything with the litany of municipal and county restrictions that more frequently undermine renewable energy development.
When asked whether the White House was providing input on the SPEED Act, a spokesperson for Natural Resources Republicans told me that staff had “received technical assistance” from “relevant agencies.” The White House did not respond to requests for comment.