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:
More than $760 million from the Inflation Reduction Act’s Green and Resilient Retrofit Program is still caught in legal limbo — but no one seems to have noticed.

When a federal judge put an injunction on the Trump administration’s efforts to freeze Inflation Reduction Act funding back in April, many grantees were able to pick up their clean energy projects where they left off. But not everyone.
Some 100 low-income housing providers that won more than $760 million in grants and loans from the IRA’s Green and Resilient Retrofit Program to make critical safety and energy upgrades to their buildings are still in limbo. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development will not respond to their questions about if or when projects can move forward, and also fired all of the third-party contractors that had been hired to implement the program.
While these developers are certainly not the only ones locked in a bureaucratic standstill — a lawsuit aiming to unlock money from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund is still wending through the courts, and many states are waiting to hear whether they’ll ever get funding for their home energy retrofit rebate programs — their plight has so far been overlooked, raising the risk that the money could quietly disappear.
The Green and Resilient Retrofit Program addressed a known funding gap for affordable housing preservation. Low-income housing providers operate on tight margins and often struggle to pay for regular maintenance, let alone to make upgrades to their buildings. On top of that, many of the buildings that receive other subsidies from HUD are barred from taking on debt for improvements.
“So what do you do if your building is now 40 years old and it needs upgrades?” Juliana Bilowich, the senior director of housing operations and policy for Leading Age, a nonprofit focused on affordable senior housing, said to me. “There are some housing communities that haven’t had air conditioning for years because the HUD budget won’t support it, or it’s broken and it needs to be upgraded, but there’s no funding they can get to do that.”
That was the case for The Towers, a 20-story senior living center in New Haven, Connecticut, except the building was nearly 60 years old. While its individual apartments have air conditioning, there’s no HVAC system serving the hallways where residents have to wait for the elevator. “The summertime is horrible,” Gus Keach-Longo, the president and CEO of The Towers, told me.
While the building has made cosmetic improvements over the years, it hasn’t done major efficiency or structural work outside of installing LED lightbulbs, Keach-Longo told me. A recent assessment of the building scored it at a 7 out of 100 for energy efficiency. In addition to an HVAC solution, the building needed a new roof and windows.
The Green and Resilient Retrofit Program looked like it could be a lifeline for Towers residents. For one, it was uniquely flexible. The funds could be used for a wide range of projects, as long as they reduced the building’s emissions, improved its energy or water efficiency, or made it more resilient to flooding, extreme heat, or other weather-related hazards.
Billowich called the program a “linchpin” for buildings that didn’t have the ability to go to the bank and get a loan. “This was the way that housing communities were going to be able to continue operating.” Applicants planned to insulate their pipes so they didn’t burst during a cold front, or replace their windows to save money on energy and protect residents from wildfire smoke. The funds could also be leveraged to raise additional money for other kinds of repairs. The resulting energy savings could then be put toward expanding services for residents.
The $1 billion program was divided into three streams of funding. A building owner could get up to $750,000 per property under the “Elements” stream to supplement existing retrofit plans with green upgrades like solar panels. The “Leading Edge” stream supplied up to $10 million for more involved projects and required the building to ultimately meet a green certification, such as Passive House or LEED. The “Comprehensive” stream was designed to facilitate more complicated, full-building retrofits that required significant technical assistance to plan. Grantees could get up to $80,000 per unit, or $20 million total, but they would have to work with HUD-employed contractors that would scope out and oversee the project.

The Towers applied for a Comprehensive grant and was one of just a few properties to win the full $20 million. But since signing a contract for the award last July, Keach-Longo said his team has “heard almost nothing.” They were supposed to be assigned a Multifamily Assessment Contractor, or MAC, the term for the HUD-employed contractor that would oversee the project, but the Biden administration never got to it. When the Trump administration came in, it halted the program as part of the larger IRA funding freeze. On February 12, HUD terminated its contracts with all five of the companies it had selected to serve as MACs, including big consulting firms like Deloitte and Ernst and Young. HUD did not respond to emailed questions for this story.
Margaret Salazar, the CEO of REACH Community Development in Oregon, has also been “stuck in a holding pattern” regarding her organization’s two Comprehensive awards. “We want to do right by what we’ve communicated with residents that we are making these repairs. We want to involve them in the process. And now we’re hanging out there without any path forward,” she told me.
When the funding freeze first went into effect in March, an affordable housing operator in the Boston area called the Codman Square Neighborhood Development Corporation, which had won an Elements grant, joined a lawsuit filed by five other nonprofits that challenged Trump’s pause. In April, the district court judge overseeing the case issued a preliminary injunction barring HUD and other agencies from maintaining any program-wide freezes.
The agency complied, in part. HUD sent a letter to awardees notifying them of the injunction and resumed processing reimbursements for Elements and Leading Edge grants. Ron Budynas, the chief operating officer for an affordable senior housing provider called Wesley Living, which won 10 separate awards from the program, told me he’s been able to proceed with his three Elements projects. He’s already completed one, upgrading an apartment complex in Lexington, Tennessee, with high efficiency heat pumps, and is now working on the others, installing solar and battery backup systems at two other properties in Tennessee.
His remaining seven are Comprehensive projects, however, and are “a whole different story,” he said. “Every time I’ve written to the [Green and Resilient Retrofit Program] staff, the only answer I get back from them on the Comprehensive grants is ’we’re still waiting for direction from headquarters.’”
Budynas was much further along than Keach-Longo at The Towers by the time Trump came into office. He said he was already working with a MAC and had completed a capital needs assessment on five of the properties; the next step was to scope out the work. He told me he contacted HUD after the court’s injunction and asked whether his team could put together the scope for one project to move it forward, but the agency told him no, since the program rules say that the MAC has to do it — even though it had fired all of the MACs.
Then the reconciliation bill that Congress passed earlier this month rescinded $138 million from the program — money set aside for administrative costs and technical assistance, i.e. to pay for the MACs. “How do we go forward if the MAC has to do the scope and they don’t have any money to pay the MAC?” Budynas said. Six of the seven Wesley Living properties that won Comprehensive awards receive HUD subsidies that preclude them from using other types of financing, “so there’s no way for us to update those properties if the Comprehensive doesn’t go forward,” he said.
It’s unclear whether any of this will be addressed in the lawsuit, since the only plaintiff in the case that challenged HUD — Codman Square — has been able to progress with its Elements award. I reached out to Democracy Forward, the nonprofit legal organization that is representing the plaintiffs, but it declined to comment.
Beth Neitzel, a partner at the law firm Foley Hoag, which is not involved in the case, told me this might be an unfortunate gray area for the Comprehensive award winners. She said the lawyers could argue that HUD is violating the terms of the injunction, but the government could respond that no one in the case is being injured by its actions.
“I don’t know if that will carry the day. It seems pretty clear they are violating the terms of the preliminary injunction by not unfreezing that fund,” Neitzel said. “But there is that potential wrinkle that they will argue that’s not an issue here because nobody here has standing to challenge that.” As a matter of law, she added, it’s irrelevant that HUD fired the contractors overseeing the program since the program itself was congressionally mandated.
Meanwhile the grantees wait, and the consequences of the delay stack up. Salazar, of REACH in Oregon, told me the organization missed out on an opportunity to get additional funding from the Portland Housing Bureau because it hadn’t been able to scope out the project with its MAC.
“This isn’t just money on the line. This is the future of these affordable housing communities,” Bilowich said. “That is a blue issue, that’s a red issue, that’s everybody’s issue. And so we need a solution, and this was the most efficient and cost-effective solution that everybody had come up with.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more of the week’s top news around development conflicts.
1. Benton County, Washington – The bellwether for Trump’s apparent freeze on new wind might just be a single project in Washington State: the Horse Heaven wind farm.
2. Box Elder County, Utah – The big data center fight of the week was the Kevin O’Leary-backed project in the middle of the Utah desert. But what actually happened?
3. Durham County, North Carolina – While the Shark Tank data center sucked up media oxygen, a more consequential fight for digital infrastructure is roiling in one of the largest cities in the Tar Heel State.
4. Richland County, Ohio – We close Hotspots on the longshot bid to overturn a renewable energy ban in this deeply MAGA county, which predictably failed.
A conversation with Nick Loris of C3 Solutions
This week’s conversation is with Nick Loris, head of the conservative policy organization C3 Solutions. I wanted to chat with Loris about how he and others in the so-called “eco right” are approaching the data center boom. For years, groups like C3 have occupied a mercurial, influential space in energy policy – their ideas and proposals can filter out into Congress and state legislation while shaping the perspectives of Republican politicians who want to seem on the cutting edge of energy and the environment. That’s why I took note when in late April, Loris and other right-wing energy wonks dropped a set of “consumer-first” proposals on transmission permitting reform geared toward addressing energy demand rising from data center development. So I’m glad Loris was available to lay out his thoughts with me for the newsletter this week.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
How is the eco right approaching permitting reform in the data center boom?
I would say the eco-right broadly speaking is thinking of the data center and load growth broadly as a tremendous and very real opportunity to advance permitting and regulatory reforms at the federal and state level that would enable the generation and linear infrastructure – transmission lines or pipelines – to meet the demand we’re going to see. Not just for hyperscalers and data centers but the needs of the economy. It also sees this as an opportunity to advance tech-neutral reforms where if it makes sense for data centers to get power from virtual power plants, solar, and storage, natural gas, or co-locate and invest in an advanced reactor, all options should be on the table. Fundamentally speaking, if data centers are going to pay for that infrastructure, it brings even greater opportunity to reduce the cost of these technologies. Data centers being a first mover and needing the power as fast as possible could be really helpful for taking that step to get technologies that have a price premium, too.
When it comes to permitting, how important is permitting with respect to “speed-to-power”? What ideas do you support given the rush to build, keeping in mind the environmental protection aspect?
You don’t build without sufficient protections to air quality, water quality, public health, and safety in that regard.
Where I see the fundamental need for permitting reform is, take a look at all the environmental statutes at the federal level and analyze where they’re needing an update and modernization to maintain rigorous environmental standards but build at a more efficient pace. I know the National Environmental Policy Act and the House bill, the SPEED Act, have gotten lots of attention and deservedly so. But also it’s taking a look at things like the Clean Water Act, when states can abuse authority to block pipelines or transmission lines, or the Endangered Species Act, where litigation can drag on for a lot of these projects.
Are there any examples out there of your ideal permitting preferences, prioritizing speed-to-power while protecting the environment? Or is this all so new we’re still in the idea phase?
It’s a little bit of both. For example, there are some states with what’s called a permit-by-rule system. That means you get the permit as long as you meet the environmental standards in place. You have to be in compliance with all the environmental laws on the books but they’ll let them do this as long as they’re monitored, making sure the compliance is legitimate.
One of the structural challenges with some state laws and federal laws is they’re more procedural statutes and a mother may I? approach to permitting. Other statutes just say they’ll enforce rules and regulations on the books but just let companies build projects. Then look at a state like Texas, where they allow more permits rather quickly for all kinds of energy projects. They’ve been pretty efficient at building everything from solar and storage to oil and gas operations.
I think there’s just many different models. Are we early in the stages? There’s a tremendous amount of ideas and opportunities out there. Everything from speeding up interconnection queues to consumer regulated electricity, which is kind of a bring-your-own-power type of solution where companies don’t have to answer or respond to utilities.
It sounds like from your perspective you want to see a permitting pace that allows speed-to-power while protecting the environment.
Yeah, that’s correct. I mean, in the case of a natural gas turbine, if they’re in compliance with the regulations at the state and federal level I don’t have an issue with that. I more so have an issue if they’re disregarding rules at the federal or state level.
We know data centers can be built quickly and we know energy infrastructure cannot. I don’t know if they’ll ever get on par with one another but I do think there are tremendous opportunities to make those processes more efficient. Not just for data centers but to address the cost concerns Americans are seeing across the board.
Do you think the data center boom is going to lead to lots more permitting reform being enacted? Or will the backlash to new projects stop all that?
I think the fundamental driver of permitting reform will be higher energy prices and we’ll need more supply to have more reliability. You just saw NERC put out a level 3 warning about the stability of the grid, driven by data centers. People really pay attention to this when prices are rising.
Will data centers help or hurt the cause? I think that remains to be seen. If there’s opportunities for data centers to pay for infrastructure, including what they’re using, there are areas where projects have been good partners in communities. If they’re the ones taking the opportunity to invest, and they can ensure ratepayers won’t be footing the bill for the power infrastructure, I think they’ll be more of an asset for permitting reform than a harm.
The general public angst against data centers is – trying to think of the right word here – a visceral reaction. It snowballed on itself. Hopefully there’s a bit of an opportunity for a reset and broader understanding of what legitimate concerns are and where we can have better education.
And I’m certainly not shilling for the data centers. I’m here to say they can be good partners and allies in meeting our energy needs.
I’m wondering from your vantage point, what are you hearing from the companies themselves? Is it about a need to build faster? What are they telling you about the backlash to their projects?
When I talk to industry, speed-to-power has been their number one two and three concern. That is slightly shifting because of the growing angst about data centers. Even a few years ago, when developers were engaging with state legislatures, they were hearing more questions than answers. But it’s mostly about how companies can connect to the grid as fast as possible, or whether they can co-locate energy.
Okay, but going back to what you just said about the backlash here. As this becomes more salient, including in Republican circles, is the trendline for the eco-right getting things built faster or tackling these concerns head on?
To me it's a yes, and.
I would broaden this out to be not just the eco right but also Abundance progressives, Abundance conservatives, and libertarians. We need to address these issues head on – with better education, better community engagement. Make sure people know what is getting built. I mean, the Abundance movement as a whole is trying to address those systemic problems.
It’s also an opportunity for the necessary policy reform that has plagued energy development in the U.S. for decades. I see this from an eco right perspective and an abundance progressive perspective that it's an opportunity to say why energy development matters. For families, for the entire U.S. energy economy, and for these hyperscalers.
But if you don’t win in the court of public opinion, none of this is going to matter. We do need to listen to the communities. It’s not an either or here.
And future administrations will learn from his extrajudicial success.
President Donald Trump is now effectively blocking any new wind projects in the United States, according to the main renewables trade group, using the federal government’s power over all things air and sky to grind a routine approval process to a screeching halt.
So far, almost everything Trump has done to target the wind energy sector has been defeated in court. His Day 1 executive order against the wind industry was found unconstitutional. Each of his stop work orders trying to shut down wind farms were overruled. Numerous moves by his Interior Department were ruled illegal.
However, since the early days of Trump 2.0, renewable energy industry insiders have been quietly skittish about a potential secret weapon: the Federal Aviation Administration. Any structure taller than 200 feet must be approved to not endanger commercial planes – that’s an FAA job. If the FAA decided to indefinitely seize up the so-called “no hazard” determinations process, legal and policy experts have told me it would potentially pose an existential risk to all future wind development.
Well, this is now the strategy Trump is apparently taking. Over the weekend, news broke that the Defense Department is refusing to sign off on things required to complete the FAA clearance process. From what I’ve heard from industry insiders, including at the American Clean Power Association, the issues started last summer but were limited in scale, primarily impacting projects that may have required some sort of deal to mitigate potential impacts on radar or other military functions.
Over the past few weeks, according to ACP, this once-routine process has fully deteriorated and companies are operating with the understanding FAA approvals are on pause because the Department of Defense (or War, if you ask the administration) refuses to sign off on anything. The military is given the authority to weigh in and veto these decisions through a siting clearinghouse process established under federal statute. But the trade group told me this standstill includes projects where there are no obvious impacts to military operations, meaning there aren’t even any bases or defense-related structures nearby.
One energy industry lawyer who requested anonymity to speak candidly on the FAA problems told me, “This is the strategy for how you kill an industry while losing every case: just keep coming at the industry. Create an uninvestable climate and let the chips fall where they may.”
I heard the same from Tony Irish, a former career attorney for the Interior Department, including under Trump 1.0, who told me he essentially agreed with that attorney’s assessment.
“One of the major shames of the last 15 months is this loss of the presumption of regularity,” Irish told me. “This underscores a challenge with our legal system. They can find ways to avoid courts altogether – and it demonstrates a unilateral desire to achieve an end regardless of the legality of it, just using brute force.”
In a statement to me, the Pentagon confirmed its siting clearinghouse “is actively evaluating land-based wind projects to ensure they do not impair national security or military operations, in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements.” The FAA declined to comment on whether the country is now essentially banning any new wind projects and directed me to the White House. Then in an email, White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly told me the Pentagon statement “does not ‘confirm’” the country instituted a de facto ban on new wind projects. Kelly did not respond to a follow up question asking for clarification on the administration’s position.
Faced with a cataclysmic scenario, the renewable energy industry decided to step up to the bully pulpit. The American Clean Power Association sent statements to the Financial Times, The New York Times and me confirming that at least 165 wind projects are now being stalled by the FAA determination process, representing about 30 gigawatts of potential electricity generation. This also apparently includes projects that negotiated agreements with the government to mitigate any impacts to military activities. The trade group also provided me with a statement from its CEO Jason Grumet accusing the Trump administration of “actively driving the debate” over federal permitting “into the ditch by abusing the current permitting system” – a potential signal for Democrats in Congress to raise hell over this.
Indeed, on permitting reform, the Trump team may have kicked a hornet’s nest. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Ranking Member Martin Heinrich – a key player in congressional permitting reform talks – told me in a statement that by effectively blocking all new wind projects, the Trump administration “undercuts their credibility and bipartisan permitting reform.” California Democratic Rep. Mike Levin said in an interview Tuesday that this incident means Heinrich and others negotiating any federal permitting deal “should be cautious in how we trust but verify.”
But at this point, permitting reform drama will do little to restore faith that the U.S. legal and regulatory regime can withstand such profound politicization of one type of energy. There is no easy legal remedy to these aerospace problems; none of the previous litigation against Trump’s attacks on wind addressed the FAA, and as far as we know the military has not in its correspondence with energy developers cited any of the regulatory or policy documents that were challenged in court.
Actions like these have consequences for future foreign investment in U.S. energy development. Last August, after the Transportation Department directed the FAA to review wind farms to make sure they weren’t “a danger to aviation,” government affairs staff for a major global renewables developer advised the company to move away from wind in the U.S. market because until the potential FAA issues were litigated it would be “likely impossible to move forward with construction of any new wind projects.” I am aware this company has since moved away from actively developing wind projects in the U.S. where they had previously made major investments as recently as 2024.
Where does this leave us? I believe the wind industry offers a lesson for any developers of large, politically controversial infrastructure – including data centers. Should the federal government wish to make your business uninvestable, it absolutely will do so and the courts cannot stop them.