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:
Let’s talk more about Denali ... that is, Mt. McKinley.
President Donald Trump signed 46 presidential actions during his first 12 hours in office, including overturning 78 of former President Joe Biden’s executive orders. Between Trump’s moves with major ramifications (like ending all wind permits) and those that seem to represent more personal grievances (like free-flowing showerheads), there has been much confusion over what they all mean.
Some would argue that is the entire point: “The more bizarreness Trump generates,” the journalist Edward Luce wrote last year for The Financial Times, “the less people notice.” Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist during his rise to power in 2015 and 2016, memorably described this as a deliberate technique of “flood[ing] the zone with shit.”
Whatever way you frame it, though, where there’s Trump, there’s noises, which means news can fall through the cracks. Here’s our list of what you might have missed during Trump’s first hours as president and what might happen next.
In one of his first actions in office, Trump repealed almost seven-dozen Biden-era executive orders, including Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.”
Signed on Biden’s Inauguration Day, the policy called for the government to take a “comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality.” That meant that the Environmental Protection Agency considered things like race and socioeconomic status — given the historic burdens put on frontline communities — during its permitting processes. Trump also signed a new executive order, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” which limits government agencies from considering the impacts on disadvantaged communities. The administration has reportedly gone as far as to warn government employees that they could face consequences for failing to report on colleagues whose diversity and inclusion efforts might slip past its notice.
As Dan Farber writes for Legal Planet, however, to carry out this anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion executive order, “agencies will have to eliminate their own environmental justice regulations. At that point, the door will be open to judicial review. I think agencies will have a hard time justifying the repeals.”
Trump further overturned Executive Order 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” another first-week Biden policy. In addition to declaring climate change a national security risk, the order also created the Justice40 initiative, directing 40% of federal climate spending to disadvantaged communities.
Jillian Blanchard, the Climate Change and Environmental Justice Program director at Lawyers for Good Government, told me this was also legally dubious. “There’s already existing infrastructure and policies in place that can’t be undone by an executive order,” she said — for example, grants for ongoing efforts to install EV chargers in disadvantaged communities, or clean-up projects in coal mining communities in Appalachia. “I think it’s important to take a minute and say, okay, what does this mean in practice?”
Blanchard added that, in particular, Trump’s moves on environmental justice “make me question what this administration plans to do with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act,” which prohibits race-based discrimination in programs that receive federal funding. “There’s really important questions here that are being raised that everyone should be paying attention to.”
Trump also repealed Executive Order 14030, “Climate-Related Financial Risk,” signed by Biden in May 2021. The executive order called for government-wide assessment and disclosure of climate-related financial risks to U.S. programs, and ordered the Secretary of Labor to submit a report on actions to protect U.S. workers’ savings and pensions from those same threats. Executive Order 14030 also established the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard, which called for government agencies to be more conservative when siting projects that could face sea-level rise or flood threats.
In addition to government agencies no longer being required to consider how extreme weather and climate risks might threaten their operations, Trump’s executive order “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” also takes aim at diversity, equity, and inclusion hiring practices, or the “social” aspect of ESG.
Though you’ve probably already heard about Trump’s attempt to spangle the Gulf of Mexico with a new name, the “ Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness” executive order also calls for reverting the name of North America’s highest peak, Denali, back to Mt. McKinley.
The political effort to change the mountain’s name to Denali, backed by the state’s Republican politicians, dates back to the 1970s. (It took until 2015 for the name to be changed to the Alaskan Athabaskan word meaning “the high one” because of the Ohio delegation’s insistence on honoring its native president.) Trump’s decision to restore the mountain’s colonial name is a pointed brush-off of Alaskan Natives and represents a troubling precedent by his administration of undermining promises made to Indigenous partners by the federal government.
Tribal partners have historically assisted the U.S. government on issues of land use, resource management, and climate resiliency, and can prove formidable opponents to projects that lack their support. By disregarding Alaskan Natives’ support of the name Denali, Trump risks alienating the greater Indigenous community and starting off on a contentious footing with one of the government’s most valuable allies.
When the Los Angeles County fires began earlier this month, Trump launched a renewed crusade against the “essentially worthless” Delta smelt, a nearly extinct two-inch-long fish. Per the then-president-elect, California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom had supposedly refused to sign a “water restoration declaration” that would have “allowed millions of gallons of water … from the North to flow daily into many parts of California,” where it allegedly could have helped to fight the devastating fires.
Only, there was no “water restoration declaration.” The vast majority of Los Angeles’ water doesn’t come from northern California, and the smelt have nothing to do with the water shortages some fire crews faced. That didn’t prevent Trump from issuing a memorandum to “stop radical environmentalism” and put “people over fish.” Still, it is so vague that it appears to be more of a nod to the Trump-supporting farmers in California’s Central Valley, who occasionally face water restrictions during droughts to protect the smelt.
“It’s all political posturing — it’s all an attempt to shock and awe,” Blanchard told me of the executive orders taken in sum. She added that “it’s going to be really important for people to take a deep breath and recognize that many of these things are not legal and challenges will be put in place.”
“Don’t become too distracted by fear and uncertainty,” she went on, “because that is one of their main goals.”
With plenty more to come.
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.