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:
All of the administration’s anti-wind actions in one place.

The Trump administration’s war on the nascent U.S. offshore wind industry has kicked into high gear over the past week, with a stop work order issued on a nearly fully-built project, grant terminations, and court filings indicating that permits for several additional projects will soon be revoked.
These actions are just the latest moves in what has been a steady stream of attacks beginning on the first day Trump stepped into the White House. He appears to be following a policy wishlist that anti-offshore wind activists submitted to his transition team almost to a T. As my colleague Jael Holzman reported back in January, those recommendations included stop work orders, reviews related to national security, tax credit changes, and a series of agency studies, such as asking the Health and Human Services to review wind turbines’ effects on electromagnetic fields — all of which we’ve seen done.
It’s still somewhat baffling as to why Trump would go so far as to try and shut down a nearly complete, 704-megawatt energy project, especially when his administration claims to be advancing “energy addition, NOT subtraction.” But it’s helpful to see the trajectory all in one place to understand what the administration has accomplished — and how much is still up in the air.
January 20: Trump issues a presidential memorandum temporarily halting all new onshore and offshore wind permitting and leasing activities “in light of various alleged legal deficiencies underlying the Federal Government’s leasing and permitting of onshore and offshore wind projects,” while his administration conducts an assessment of federal review practices. The memo also temporarily withdraws all areas on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf from offshore wind leasing.
March 14: The Environmental Protection Agency pulls a Clean Air Act permit for Atlantic Shores, which was set to deliver power into New Jersey.
April 16: The Department of the Interior issues a stop work order to Empire Wind, a New York offshore wind farm that began construction in 2024. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum accuses the Biden administration of giving the project a “rushed approval” that was “built on bad and flawed science,” citing feedback from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
May 1: The Interior Department withdraws a Biden-era legal opinion for how to conduct permitting in line with the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act that advised the Secretary to “strike a rational balance” between wind energy and fishing. The Department reinstated the opinion issued under Trump’s first term, which was more favorable to the fishing industry.
May 2: Anti-offshore wind group Green Oceans sends a 68-page report titled “Cancelling Offshore Wind Leases” to Secretary Burgum and acting Assistant Secretary for Lands and Minerals Management Adam Suess, according to emails uncovered by E&E News. The report “evaluates potential violations of Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and related Federal laws in addition to those generally associated with environmental protection.”
May 5: Seventeen states plus the District of Columbia file a lawsuit challenging Trump’s January 20 memo halting federal approvals of wind projects.
May 19: The Interior Department lifts the stop work order on Empire Wind after closed-door meetings between New York governor Kathy Hochul and President Trump, during which the White House later says that Hochul “caved” to allowing “two natural gas pipelines to advance” through New York. Hochul denies reaching any deal on pipelines during the meetings.
June 4: Atlantic Shores files a request with New Jersey regulators to cancel its contract to sell energy into the state.
July 4: Trump signs the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which imposes new expiration dates on tax credits for wind and solar projects, including offshore wind, as well as on the manufacture of wind turbine components.
July 7: The Environmental Protection Agency notifies the Maryland Department of the Environment that the state office erred when issuing an air permit to the Maryland Offshore Wind Project, also known as MarWin, because the state specified that petitions to review the permit would go to state court rather than the federal agency. The state later disagrees.
July 17: New York regulators cancel plans to develop additional transmission capacity for future offshore wind development, citing “significant federal uncertainty.”
July 29: The Interior Department issues an order requesting reports that describe and provide recommendations for “trends in environmental impacts from onshore and offshore wind projects on wildlife” and the impacts that approved offshore wind projects might have on “military readiness.” The order also asserts that the Biden administration misapplied federal law when it approved the construction and operation plans of offshore wind projects.
July 30: The Interior Department rescinds all designated “wind energy areas” on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, which had been deemed suitable for offshore wind development.
August 5: The Interior Department eliminates a requirement to publish a five-year schedule of offshore wind energy lease sales and to update the lease sale schedule every two years.
August 7: The Interior Department initiates a review of offshore wind energy regulations “to ensure alignment with the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and America’s energy priorities under President Donald J. Trump.”
August 13: The Department of Commerce initiates an investigation into whether imports of onshore and offshore wind turbine components threaten national security, a precursor to imposing tariffs.
New Jersey regulators also decide to delay offshore wind transmission upgrades by two years. They officially cancel their contract with Atlantic Shores.
August 22: The Interior Department issues a stop work order on Revolution Wind, an offshore wind project set to deliver power to Rhode Island and Connecticut, citing national security concerns. The 65-turbine project is already 80% complete.
Interior also says in a court filing that it intends to “vacate its approval” of the Construction and Operations Plan for the Maryland Offshore Wind Project.
August 29: The Interior Department says in a court filing that it “intends to reconsider” its approval of the construction and operations plan for the SouthCoast wind project, which was set to deliver power to Massachusetts.
The Department of Transportation also withdraws or terminates $679 million for 12 offshore wind port infrastructure projects to “ensure federal dollars are prioritized towards restoring America’s maritime dominance” by “rebuilding America’s shipbuilding capacity, unleashing more reliable, traditional forms of energy, and utilizing the nation’s bountiful natural resources to unleash American energy.” The grants include:
September 3: The Interior Department says in a court filing that it intends to vacate its approval of the construction and operations plan for Avangrid’s New England Wind 1 and 2, which were set to deliver power to Massachusetts.
The New York Times also reports that the White House has instructed “a half-dozen agencies to draft plans to thwart the country’s offshore wind industry,” including asking the Department of Health and Human Services to study “whether wind turbines are emitting electromagnetic fields that could harm human health,” and asking the Defense Department to probe “whether the projects could pose risks to national security.”
September 4: The states of Rhode Island and Connecticut, as well as Orsted, file lawsuits challenging the stop work order on Revolution Wind.
At the start of all this, the U.S. had three offshore wind projects that were fully operational and five that were under construction. As of today, the Trump administration has halted just one of those five, but it has threatened to rescind approvals for each and every remaining fully permitted project that hasn’t yet broken ground.
The tumult has rippled out into the states, where regulators in Massachusetts and Rhode Island are delaying plans to sign contracts to procure additional energy from offshore wind projects.
Looking ahead, we can expect a few things to happen over the next few weeks. We’ll see the Interior Department formally begin to rescind permits, as it indicated it would do in numerous court filings. We’ll also likely get an opinion from a federal court in Massachusetts in the case that states filed fighting Trump’s Day One memo. Orsted also said it intends to ask for a temporary injunction, so it’s possible that Revolution Wind could resume construction soon.
It’s been barely a month since Jael dubbed the Trump administration’s tactics a “total war on wind.” While the result hasn’t been a complete shutdown of the industry, it seems he might still be in the early stages of his plan.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Here’s what stood out to former agency staffers.
The Department of Energy unveiled a long-awaited internal reorganization of the agency on Thursday, implementing sweeping changes that Secretary of Energy Chris Wright pitched as “aligning its operations to restore commonsense to energy policy, lower costs for American families and businesses.”
The two-paragraph press release, which linked to a PDF of the new organizational chart, offered little insight into what the changes mean. Indeed, two sources familiar with the rollout told me the agency hadn’t even held a town hall to explain the overhaul to staffers until sometime Friday. (Both sources spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisals.)
After conversations with multiple former agency staffers, including a senior political appointee who helped lead the Biden-era reorganization in 2022, here’s what stood out to me:
The spring 2022 overhaul Jennifer Granholm, former President Joe Biden’s secretary of energy, oversaw came with a detailed legal memo and extensive explanations about what the changes would mean.
“Overall, this seems sloppy,” the former senior staffer who led that process told me this morning. “If you’re trying to carry out a very coherent energy dominance strategy, you’d at least explain which boxes are moving where and what’s sitting under those boxes.”
Announcing the changes with so little detail, the former official said, “seems like a fundamental lack of leadership.”
“This, to me, just seems reckless,” the appointee continued. “People who are sitting within these offices don’t know where they’re going to work virtually on Monday.”
That, of course, may change by the end of today once the Energy Department holds its town hall meeting.
It’s unusual for an office at the agency to report directly to the secretary. Those that do typically straddle multiple types of responsibilities within the agency. For example, the Office of Technology Transitions reported directly to Granholm under the Biden administration because its purview fell under both research and deployment. The Office of Policy functions similarly. But the newly-created Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation absorbed not only various mining-related sections of the agency, but also the now-defunct Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. That puts a lot of money and grant-making powers under the new office.
Leading the Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation will be Audrey Robertson, who was confirmed last month as the assistant secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. A former investment banker and oil executive, Robertson served on the board of directors of Wright’s former company, the fracking giant Liberty Energy, until earlier this year. Another agency source familiar with the organization said “it makes no sense for this office not to answer to an undersecretary of energy.”
“Audrey is Wright’s person,” the source told me.
That, the other former agency official told me, creates some political liabilities for Wright.
“For departmental oversight reasons, that’s a lot of grant-making money and authorities that typically you’d want to layer under additional oversight before it goes to the secretary,” the ex-official said. “This is the thing that sticks out like a sore thumb.”
All that said about the new Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation, no one can blame Wright for wanting to consolidate some of the bureaucracy. One way to read the decision to eliminate certain offices, such as the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains or the Office of State and Community Energy Programs, is that the new administration wanted to undo the changes made under its predecessor in 2022. While manufacturing work included a lot of what the U.S. is doing with batteries, funding for that work fell under the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
“A lot of the moves that they’re doing to re-consolidate offices aligns with what was technically under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which directed battery work to go through EERE,” one of the sources told me. “So some of this is realignment back to the original congressional direction.”
The stop-gap funding bill that reopened the government after the longest shutdown in history included a measure to prevent any dismissals until January 30.
But it’s unclear whether the agency plans to terminate workers as part of the reorganization starting in February.
In a sign that the Trump administration is taking efforts to commercialize fusion energy technology more seriously, the reorganization gives fusion its own office, moving the work out of the Office of Science.
“Overall this is a win for the private-fusion sector, and further cements a move from a discovery-based research model to milestone-driven, commercialization-focused policy,” Stuart Allen, the chief executive of the investment company FusionX Group, wrote in a post on LinkedIn. “All signs point to a federal strategy increasingly aligned and enmeshed with the rapid advancement of fusion energy.”
Under the new structure, geothermal and fossil fuels will live together under the new Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy Office.
There are some obvious synergies. The new generation of geothermal startups racing toward commercialization rely on drilling techniques such as fracking to tap into hot rocks in places that conventional companies couldn’t. Oil and gas companies are excited about the industry; Sage Geosystems, one of the big players, is led by the former head of Shell’s fracking division. And notably, most of the big companies, including Sage, Fervo Energy, and XGS Energy (whom I have written about twice recently in these pages) are all headquartered in Big Oil’s capital of Houston, Texas.
Nuclear power has long had its own office at the Energy Department, and that won’t change. But you’d think that the other source of clean baseload power that the Trump administration has anointed as one of its preferred generating sources might get slotted in with geothermal. Instead, however, hydropower is in Robertson’s mega-office.
Unsurprisingly, the bulk of the Energy Department’s work that deals with the nation’s nuclear arsenal was largely left untouched by the changes. Perhaps the agency had enough drama from the Department of Government Efficiency’s dismissals of critical workers in the early days of the administration, which led to an embarrassing effort to reverse the firings.
As was widely expected, the reorg killed the Biden-era Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, which the new administration had already gutted. What becomes of key programs that office managed is still a mystery. Chief among them: the hydrogen hubs.
The Energy Department yanked funding for the two regional hubs on the West Coast last month, as Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorovo reported at the time. A leaked list that the administration has yet to confirm as real proposed defunding all seven of the hubs. It’s unclear whether that may happen. If it doesn’t, it’s unclear where those billions of dollars may go. The most obvious place is under Robertson’s portfolio, ballooning the budget under her control by billions.
When Wright announced the first totally new loan issued under the agency’s in-house lender earlier this week, he trumpeted his new approach the Loan Programs Office. He wanted to refashion the entity with its lending authority of nearly $400 billion as a source of funding primarily for the nuclear industry. The first big loan issued Tuesday afternoon went to utility giant Constellation to finance the restart of the functional reactor at the Three Mile Island nuclear station. But at a press conference last month, Wright hinted at the new branding, as Emily called in this piece. It’s now the Office of Energy Dominance Financing.
The new office isn’t just the LPO, however. The $2.5 billion Transmission Facility Financing Program will also fall under the new so-called EDF — an acronym it will aptly share with France’s biggest utility, which came under state control recently as part of Paris’ efforts to refurbish and expand the country’s vast nuclear fleet.
I’ll leave it to my source to level a critique at my colleagues in this industry:
“Even in The New York Times today there’s an article that says all these offices are eliminated,” one of the sources told me. “Their names were eliminated, but a lot of the projects for whatever remains that they haven’t terminated are just being reassigned.” The Wall Street Journal had a similar angle.
The actual thing to watch for, the source said, was how job descriptions change.
“What’s going to be more telling is when they have a new, updated mission of the Office of Electricity or a new, updated mission of the Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation.”
The United Nations climate conference wants you to think it’s getting real. It’s not total B.S.
How to transition away from fossil fuels. How to measure adaptation. How to confront the gap between national climate plans and the Paris Agreement goals. How to mine critical minerals sustainably and fairly.
How to get things done — not just whether they should get done — was front and center at this year’s United Nations climate conference, a marked shift from the annual event’s proclivity for making broad promises to wrestling with some of the tougher realities of keeping global warming in check.
Friday is the last official day of the two-week gathering known as COP30, taking place on the edge of the Amazon rainforest in Belém, Brazil, although probably not the actual end of it. Despite early assurances from the Brazilian government that this year’s conference would finish on time, delegates are still hashing out a final decision text and are likely to keep at it until at least Saturday.
The Brazilian leadership and other COP veterans have framed this as an “implementation COP,” where parties to the Paris Agreement “move from pledges to action” and similar clichès. It’s certainly not the first time these words have been used at COP. The Paris Agreement itself was billed as “enhancing the implementation” of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the foundational treaty underlying these annual negotiations.
“Action” may be a stretch to describe what ultimately happened this year. As is the case at every COP, the provision of finance, or lack thereof, from developed to developing countries dominated the discussion, preventing progress on other agenda items. “Climate finance just remains this ongoing obstacle,” Rachel Cleetus, a senior policy director for the Union of Concerned Scientists, told me. Global south countries and small island states argue they simply cannot increase their ambition, or work on adaptation, without finance. The conference’s repeated failure to come to terms with that is probably the biggest counterpoint to the idea that these meetings have become more grounded in reality.
It remains to be seen which, if any, of the efforts to work out the details of the transition will make it into the final agreement, but the success of these annual gatherings should not only be measured by what’s in the text.
Here are three key ways Belém has already pushed the conversation forward.
During a speech at the start of the conference, Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva proclaimed that it is “impossible to discuss the energy transition without talking about critical minerals, essential to make batteries, solar panels, and energy systems.”
Never before had the negotiations broached the subject of all of the industrial earth-moving implicit in the fight against climate change. By the end of the first week, however, one of the working groups had released a draft text that acknowledged “the social and environmental risks associated with” extracting and processing critical minerals.
A later revision of the document added a note about “enabling fair access to opportunities and fair distribution of benefits of value addition,” a reference to breaking the pattern of rich countries extracting minerals cheaply from the Global South while keeping the more profitable processing and manufacturing of those minerals at home. (As of Friday morning, however, references to “critical minerals” were erased from the text.)
The text was released by the Just Transition Work Program, a newer workstream at the conference that was established at COP27 in Egypt. Outside of the critical minerals note, there was a larger push to get Just Transition program as a whole more grounded in reality. This area of the negotiations focuses on ensuring the goals of the Paris Agreement are achieved fairly and equitably, with recognition that the transition will happen at a different pace in different countries, with different implications for each one’s economy. It was primarily established as a forum for countries to exchange ideas and information, with biannual meetings.
At COP30, however, the G77, China, and many global south countries began pushing to turn it into more of an action-oriented group that guides the global transition and tracks progress using agreed-upon metrics.
The Just Transition mechanism is not to be confused with the much-talked-about roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels, although the two are closely tied.
Two years ago, the final agreement at COP28 in Dubai made history with the first-ever call for “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner.” Last year, however, that edict was dropped, as negotiations over a new climate finance target took precedence. Now it’s been revived, with robust support from countries to build on the statement with a more fleshed-out plan. Phasing out fossil fuels has vastly different implications for different countries, some of whose economies are deeply dependent on revenue from their fossil resources. The roadmap would start to work through what it would really mean to coordinate the effort.
Once again, the message came from the top. “We need roadmaps that will enable humankind, in a fair and planned manner, to overcome its dependence on fossil fuels, halt and reverse deforestation, and mobilize resources to achieve these goals,” Brazil’s Silva said in a speech at the opening of the conference.
This past Tuesday, a coalition of a whopping 82 countries came out in support of this planning effort, pressing for it to be included in the final decision text. “This is a global coalition, with global north and global south countries coming together and saying with one voice: this is an issue which cannot be swept under the carpet,” Ed Miliband, the UK’s energy secretary, said during a press conference that day.
Several more countries have joined since, bringing the count to 88 — nearly half of the 195 parties to the Paris Agreement. The biggest fossil fuel emitters, such as China, India, and Saudi Arabia, are not on board, however. As of Friday morning, all mentions of fossil fuels, let alone a roadmap, have been scrubbed from the draft decision text. Still, the huge coalition backing the roadmap is a sign of a growing and potentially powerful consensus.
One of the big questions looming over this year’s conference was whether and how countries would address their utter failure to live up to the Paris Agreement’s goal to keep warming “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels,” let alone the more ambitious target of 1.5 degrees.
A report issued by the United Nations Environment Program just before the talks began concluded that countries’ latest climate pledges, known as their “nationally determined contributions,” or NDCs, would put the planet on a path to warm at least 2.3 degrees by the end of the century. It also stated definitively that global average temperatures would exceed 1.5 degrees of warming.
This wasn’t news — scientists have previously concluded that exceeding 1.5 degrees is basically guaranteed. “But this is the first time we saw it so bluntly in the UN report,” Cleetus told me. “So that was a pretty sobering backdrop coming into this COP.”
All countries were supposed to submit updated NDCs this year that contained targets for 2035, but more than 70 have failed to do so, including India, one of the world’s biggest emitters.
Island states, backed by Latin American nations and the EU, wanted the conference to make some kind of declaration that countries’ current pledges are not sufficient and should be revised. The draft text issued this morning, while acknowledging the insufficiencies of NDCs, does not spell out the implications or required response as bluntly as many want to see.
It does, however, introduce an important new concept that could become a key part of the negotiations in the future. For the first time, the text references a resolve to “limit both the magnitude and duration of any temperature overshoot.” This not only acknowledges that it’s possible to bring temperatures back down after warming surpasses 1.5 degrees, but that the level at which temperatures peak, and the length of time we remain at that peak before the world begins to cool, are just as important. The statement implies the need for a much larger conversation about carbon removal that has been nearly absent from the annual COPs, but which scientists say that countries must have if they are serious about the Paris Agreement goals.
"If countries (or the UNFCCC) want to keep talking about reaching 1.5C, they need to embrace net-negative emissions, moving even beyond net-zero,” Oliver Geden, a senior fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, and an IPCC report author, told me. “If they don't want to do this, then talking about reaching 1.5°C is not credible anymore.”
Things in Sulphur Springs are getting weird.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is trying to pressure a company into breaking a legal agreement for land conservation so a giant data center can be built on the property.
The Lone Star town of Sulphur Springs really wants to welcome data center developer MSB Global, striking a deal this year to bring several data centers with on-site power to the community. The influx of money to the community would be massive: the town would get at least $100 million in annual tax revenue, nearly three times its annual budget. Except there’s a big problem: The project site is on land gifted by a former coal mining company to Sulphur Springs expressly on the condition that it not be used for future energy generation. Part of the reason for this was that the lands were contaminated as a former mine site, and it was expected this property would turn into something like a housing development or public works project.
The mining company, Luminant, went bankrupt, resurfaced as a diversified energy company, and was acquired by power giant Vistra, which is refusing to budge on the terms of the land agreement. After sitting on Luminant’s land for years expecting it to be used for its intended purposes, the data center project’s sudden arrival appears to have really bothered Vistra, and with construction already underway, the company has gone as far as to send the town and the company a cease and desist.
This led Sulphur Springs to sue Vistra. According to a bevy of legal documents posted online by Jamie Mitchell, an activist fighting the data center, Sulphur Springs alleges that the terms of the agreement are void “for public policy,” claiming that land restrictions interfering with a municipality’s ability to provide “essential services” are invalid under prior court precedent in Texas. The lawsuit also claims that by holding the land for its own use, Vistra is violating state antitrust law by creating an “energy monopoly.” The energy company filed its own counterclaims, explicitly saying in a filing that Sulphur Springs was part of crafting this agreement and that “a deal is a deal.”
That’s where things get weird, because now Texas is investigating Luminant over the “energy monopoly” claim raised by the town. It’s hard not to see this as a pressure tactic to get the data center constructed.
In an amicus brief filed to the state court and posted online, Paxton’s office backs up the town’s claim that the land agreement against energy development violates the state’s antitrust law, the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act, contesting that the “at-issue restriction appears to be perpetual” and therefore illegally anti-competitive. The brief also urges the court not to dismiss the case before the state completes its investigation, which will undoubtedly lead to the release of numerous internal corporate documents.
“Sulphur Springs has alleged a pattern of restricting land with the potential for energy generation, with the effect of harming competition for energy generation generally, which would necessarily have the impact of increasing costs for both Sulphur Springs and Texas consumers generally,” the filing states. “Evaluating the competitive effects of Luminant’s deed restrictions as well as the harm to Texans generally is a fact-intensive matter that will require extensive discovery.”
The Texas attorney general’s office did not respond to multiple requests for comment on the matter. It’s worth noting that Paxton has officially entered the Republican Senate primary, challenging sitting U.S. Senator John Cornyn. Contrary to his position in this case, Paxton has positioned himself as a Big Tech antagonist and fought the state public utilities commission in pursuit of releasing data on the crypto mining industry’s energy use.