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.
Current conditions: A bomb cyclone dumped as much as 16 inches of snow on North Carolina, and more snow could come by midweek • Tampa, Florida, is seeing rare flurries, putting embattled citrus crops at risk • Sri Lanka is being inundated by intense thunderstorms as temperatures surge near 90 degrees Fahrenheit.
As the bomb cyclone bore down on the Southeastern United States with Arctic chills, Duke Energy sent out messages to its millions of customers in Florida and the Carolinas last night asking households to voluntarily turn down the power between certain hours on Monday to avoid blackouts on the grid. “Frigid temperatures are driving extremely high energy demand,” the utility said in a statement to its ratepayers in Florida. “As Florida continues to experience the coldest air in the state since 2018, Duke Energy is asking all customers to voluntarily reduce their energy use” from 5 a.m. to 9 a.m. EST on Monday. The company issued an identical message to customers in the Carolinas, except the window stretched from 4 a.m. to 10 a.m.
“Put simply, cold temperatures stress the grid,” my colleague Jeva Lange and Matthew Zeitlin wrote last week. “That’s because cold can affect the performance of electricity generators as well as the distribution and production of natural gas, the most commonly used grid fuel. And the longer the grid has to operate under these difficult conditions, the more fragile it gets.”
The Department of Energy just proposed exempting advanced nuclear reactors from carrying out reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act, marking yet another step the Trump administration is taking to speed up deployment of new atomic power technologies. Past environmental assessments have demonstrated “that any hazardous waste, radioactive waste, or spent nuclear fuel generated by the project can be managed” and “do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.” The new categorical exclusion takes effect today, but the agency is taking public comments for the next 30 days and said it may revise the policy depending on the testimony it receives.
When Matthew wrote “everyone wants nuclear now” back in 2024, he was referring to the suddenly ubiquitous popularity of a once taboo energy source. But if you read those four words to instead convey a sense of urgency, you’d be accurately describing the state of affairs in 2026 as electricity demand rapidly eclipses incoming supply, as I wrote last week.
A Canadian company developing what it claims is one of the continent’s first major new sources of alumina, the processed version of bauxite needed to make aluminum, is set to move ahead with the project. The privately-owned Canadian Energy Metals said late last week that the $6.3 billion project contains an estimated 6.8 billion metric tons of alumina within a 230-square-mile stretch of the Prairie province of Saskatchewan. Canada ranks among the top global producers of primary aluminum, but its refineries and smelters rely on imports. The discovery the startup confirmed appears to be large enough to represent more than a third of known alumina globally. “We believe it’s very significant,” Christopher Hopkins, the chief executive at CEM, told The Wall Street Journal.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, is taking stock of the value of friends in the fight to find critical minerals outside of China’s control. Trump officials are trying to rally consensus with allies on a pricing mechanism to boost long-term investments in mineral refining and mining. The effort is set to take place this week during meetings with dozens of foreign ministers in Washington. Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Jacob Helberg told Bloomberg he expects a lot of “momentum and excitement” toward “agreeing on a price mechanism that we can all coordinate together on in order to ensure price stability for people in the mineral refining and extraction business.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
More than 200 people were killed last week when the Rubaya coltan mine in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo collapsed. Rubaya produces roughly 15% of the world’s coltan, a processed metal needed for electric vehicle batteries, pipelines, and gas turbines. The site, which Reuters said is staffed with locals who dig manually for a few dollars per day, has been under the control of the M23 rebel group since 2024. The actual death toll, which hasn’t been updated since its initial count last week, is likely even higher. The disaster offers a grim reminder of the brutal conditions in the mineral supply chains needed for the energy transition.

Things were already looking bad for Drax as the wood pellet energy giant faced mounting scrutiny over its pollution. Last week, I told you that Japan, one of the world’s largest markets burning wood pellets for electricity and heat, was souring on the energy source. Now a senior policy specialist at the company’s flagship biomass power station has spoken out about the accuracy of public statements the company made about where it was sourcing its wood. In theory, biomass energy could be low carbon if it uses wood that would otherwise rot and release the carbon trapped inside. But investigations into Drax previously found that the company was felling old-growth forests in the U.S. and Canada, the types of mature trees that absorb the most carbon through photosynthesis, calling its claims of carbon neutrality into question. Drax insisted that didn’t have even licenses to extract trees from such woodlands at all, meaning the company wasn't harvesting them, but the senior employee said that wasn’t true.
Past studies of polar bear of Svalbard found that the population declined when sea ice disappeared. But new research in the journal Scientific Reports based on hundreds of specimens of Ursus maritimus, discovered that the physical conditions of the bear population on the Norwegian Arctic island improved despite sea ice losses. Without sea ice, the bears were previously thought to struggle to hunt and grow thinner. But the authors suggested that the Svalbard bears may be recovering as populations of land-based prey that were previously over-hunted by humans, such as reindeer and walrus, returns.
What to watch for when the agency releases its final decision on the greenhouse gas endangerment finding.
Any day now, Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency is expected to officially rescind what climate advocates refer to as “the endangerment finding,” its 2009 determination that greenhouse gas emissions threaten Americans’ public health and welfare and therefore require regulation.
Whether the decision holds up to the inevitable legal challenges and what it all means for climate policy, however, will hinge on the justification the EPA provides for reversing course.
The EPA deployed a battery of arguments when it initially proposed revoking the finding last July. It reinterpreted Supreme Court readings of the Clean Air Act and claimed it did not have the authority to regulate carbon pollution. It questioned climate science and posited that curbing U.S. climate pollution would do little to affect global warming.
The 2009 endangerment finding is not unique — all U.S. pollution regulations under the Clean Air Act start with an endangerment finding. The EPA must review the scientific literature, hold hearings, and take public comments on whether emissions of a given pollutant threaten public health and welfare before it can regulate that substance.
The endangerment finding on greenhouse gases paved the way for the EPA to regulate vehicle emissions, specifically, but it was later used to support rules for power plants and oil and gas drilling. By reversing it, the agency will not only clear the way to repealing these standards, it will deny future administrations the legal authority to replace them. That’s a significant escalation from what Trump managed during his first term, when he rolled back greenhouse gas regulations established by the Obama administration, replacing them with weaker provisions.
Here’s what I’ll be looking out for when the decision comes out.
The agency’s primary argument for revoking the endangerment finding was based on its reinterpretation of the Clean Air Act. The agency asserted that the law applies to pollutants that directly threaten public health and welfare through local or regional exposure, and that indirect harms from global climate change do not fit this bill.
Moreover, it argued, the statute required that it make an endangerment finding for each individual greenhouse gas from each specific class of new vehicle to justify regulations, rather than assess the dangers of greenhouse gases from cars generally. The latter approach artificially inflated the case for regulation, the agency implied.
There are many legal experts, such as this trio of lawyers at Harvard’s Environmental and Energy Law Program, who say that the Supreme Court decisively rejected these exact arguments in the 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA. The main outcome of that case was confirmation that greenhouse gases do, in fact, qualify as pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act, requiring the EPA to regulate them if it determines that they present a threat to public health and welfare. Following that ruling, the agency conducted an extensive review of climate science, held multiple public hearings, and sifted through thousands of public comments, before ultimately publishing the endangerment finding.
Now, however, the agency claims that its previous read of Massachusetts v. EPA was wrong, especially in light of subsequent Supreme Court decisions, such as West Virginia v. EPA and Loper Bright v. Raimondo. The former limited the EPA's toolbox for regulating power plants, and the latter required courts to defer to agency expertise in cases where the law is vague.
If the EPA clings to this argument, it may seek to get the Court to revisit that case. As the Harvard lawyers point out, none of the five justices who were in the majority on that case remain on the Supreme Court, which ups the odds of the administration getting a more favorable ruling.
If the EPA does repeal the endangerment finding on the grounds that climate risks from greenhouse gases are not covered by the Clean Air Act, that could empower state and local governments to issue their own emissions regulations, since greenhouse gas regulation would no longer be the purview of the federal government. California, for example, could argue that it no longer needs a waiver from the EPA to enact its own emissions standards for vehicles, an issue that became a political football last spring.
Revoking the endangerment finding this way may also make fossil fuel companies more vulnerable to lawsuits brought by cities and states — and undercut the Trump administration’s own efforts to sue the cities and states that are trying to sue fossil fuel companies. Some 20 to 30 state and local governments have attempted to sue oil and gas companies for damages related to climate change. The industry has responded by arguing that these cases are roundabout attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which is the job of the federal government, per the Clean Air Act. But if the federal government abdicates that responsibility, this reasoning falls apart.
In the EPA’s proposal to rescind the endangerment finding — which also included a proposal to revoke vehicle emissions standards — the agency tried to get ahead of these issues. It argued that even though it wasn’t required to issue greenhouse gas emission standards for new vehicles, states would still be preempted from doing so because the Clean Air Act still delegates that authority to the EPA.
It’s difficult to see how the agency can have it both ways. As Amanda Lineberry, a senior associate at Georgetown University’s Climate Center put it, the EPA is attempting to deem the Clean Air Act “insufficient to enable federal regulation of GHG emissions to address climate change but sufficient enough to prevent state efforts to address those emissions.”
Nonetheless, in comments responding to the proposal, industry groups such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association explicitly support this reading, and some asked EPA to strengthen it. “EPA’s rationale would be strengthened by recognizing the long history establishing federal law as the exclusive source of authority over interstate pollution,” the AGA wrote.
Even if, hypothetically, the Clean Air Act does apply to greenhouse gas emissions, the agency would still propose revoking the endangerment finding on scientific grounds, its proposal last summer said. According to a new review of climate science, it said, the EPA could no longer conclude that greenhouse gases from vehicles endanger Americans’ public health and welfare.
The proposal cited a Department of Energy report, published on the very same day as the EPA’s proposal, which provided “a critical assessment of the conventional narrative on climate change.” The report was written by a working group consisting of five scientists who have a track record of pushing back on mainstream climate science. They concluded that the warming caused by greenhouse gases is not as dangerous or bad for the economy as previously thought, and that regulating such emissions will have “undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate.”
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists have since sued the administration for assembling this group in secret, a violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Records released as a result of that lawsuit suggest that the group was explicitly formed to support the administration’s goal of repealing the endangerment finding.
Separately, a group of 85 scientists, some of whose research the working group cited, conducted an independent review and deemed the report biased and riddled with errors, including misinterpretations of the reviewers’ own findings. The National Academies, an independent institution that provides expert advice to the U.S. government on scientific and technical issues, also followed up with its own report concluding that “the evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute.”
Given this response, I’ll be looking to see if EPA maintains its position on climate science in the final decision, and if it does, how it responds to the mountain of criticism it has received. It’s possible the courts would defer to the agency’s assessment, but they could also side with the substantially larger volume of evidence disagreeing with it, bruising the agency’s credibility.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has lifted its ban on issuing permits for incidental harm to protected eagles while also pursuing enforcement actions — including against operators that reported bird deaths voluntarily.
When Trump first entered office, he banned wind projects from receiving permits that would allow operators to unintentionally hurt or kill a certain number of federally protected eagles, transforming one of his favorite attacks on the industry into a dangerous weapon against clean energy.
One year later, his administration is publicly distancing itself from the ban while quietly issuing some permits to wind companies and removing references to the policy from government websites. At the same time, however, the federal government is going after wind farm operators for eagle deaths, going so far as to use the permitting backlog it manufactured to intimidate companies trying in good faith to follow the law, with companies murmuring about the risk of potential criminal charges.
Two days before Christmas, a coalition of renewable energy trade groups whose members include some of the world’s largest clean energy companies sued the Trump administration, arguing that several of its policies delaying permits for their projects violated the Administrative Procedures Act. One of those policies was the ban on granting new bald and golden eagle “incidental take permits.” These serve as the government’s way of acknowledging that hurting or killing protected bird species in small numbers is unavoidable no matter how many design protections are put in place.
After that lawsuit was filed, the Trump administration began wiping references to the ban from government websites discussing the permitting program. Some of these changes were recent: Wind companies discovered references to the ban were deleted from these webpages sometime between the case being filed and mid-January, according to screenshots and sworn statements submitted as exhibits in the case. The now-deleted language describing the ban said it was premised on Trump’s Day 1 anti-wind executive order, which a federal judge ruled in December violated the Administrative Procedures Act.
I am also starting to hear that the Fish and Wildlife Service is sending wind farm operators eagle permits again, though I do not know how many have gone out or to whom.
When it comes to bald eagles, at least, the Fish and Wildlife Service is supposed to “automatically” issue general permits for incidental take through an electronic self-certification system. A spokesperson for the advocacy groups behind the lawsuit confirmed in a statement to me that the Fish and Wildlife Service is “now processing” these general permits “because they cannot halt them given their self-certification structure.”
The spokespoerson added that to their knowledge, the agency still isn’t issuing permits requiring more thorough levels of government analysis because of other Trump administration policies. Complex permits are likely still impeded by an order requiring sign-off from Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on environmental permits for solar and wind projects.
Garrett Peterson, acting chief of public affairs for the Fish and Wildlife Service, confirmed in a statement Friday afternoon that the office is currently allowing general permits for wind farms “that meet eligibility and issuance criteria.”
This change in practice also comes after a string of losses — many, many losses — in court over Trump’s stop work orders blocking offshore wind construction. The Trump administration may be trying to avoid yet another embarrassing defeat.
Still, the wind industry isn’t out of the woods entirely. Team Trump seems to be pivoting to enforcing the law protecting bald and golden eagles — the aptly titled Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
On January 12, the trade groups filed a motion asking the judge in the case for a preliminary injunction lifting all of the anti-renewable permitting policies addressed in the case, including the eagle permit ban, until the court could make a final ruling. Attached to the motion was a voluminous, candid, and fearful statement from executive directors for the trade groups, making a lot of information about Trump’s war on renewable energy public for the first time. One of those confessions was the existence of a memo banning water permits for projects that defied the Trump administration’s preferred “aesthetics,” news of which I scooped on Thursday in my newsletter The Fight.
Another disclosure by the trade groups made my jaw drop. The eagle permit ban appeared to have become a cudgel for the administration to use against companies reporting bird deaths in good faith, departing from what the coalition said was a “longstanding policy” of “enforcement discretion so long as wind farm operators can demonstrate that they are implementing best practices.” This situation was significant and dire, according to the statement — so much so the trade groups were “unwilling to disclose specific projects” that were harmed by the eagle permit ban “due to ongoing concerns about potential persecution or retaliation in direct response to their participation in this lawsuit.”
These enforcement actions do happen, but are not usually a public affair unless the charges are particularly serious. Those instances have been rare, reserved for companies demonstrating what the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act describes as a “wanton disregard” for the lives of the birds.
The Trump administration first indicated it would pursue some sort of crackdown on eagle deaths from wind farms in early August, when it sent letters to project operators across the country asking for any and all information on the subject. The letters teased the risk of not only civil but criminal liability, stating that certain violators would be forwarded to the Justice Department.
Since then, I’ve heard of just one enforcement action under Trump 2.0 for an eagle death: In early November, Fox News reported that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service told the Danish energy company Orsted during the government shutdown that it would issue $32,340 in fines over two dead eagles found near wind farms in Nebraska and Illinois. The Fox News story stated that Orsted had come to the Fish and Wildlife Service voluntarily with the dead eagles and would be fined because they died without proper permits; it’s unclear whether the company was pursuing them at the times the birds died. Current rules under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act call for up to $16,590 for every dead bird, so the fine represented nearly the strictest civil penalty FWS could level against Orsted.
The trade group executives’ statement indicates that the enforcement action described in the Fox News article wasn’t a one-off, and that there is a wider wind industry crackdown over dead eagles playing out in the shadows, at least for now. It’s unclear whether this will take the form of a mess of fines, or whether, as the FWS data call suggested, some of this work might lead to allegations of criminality involving the Justice Department.
When I asked for comment on the enforcement efforts, the Fish and Wildlife Service told me to file a public records request under the Freedom of Information Act.
American Clean Power, the largest trade group representing wind companies, did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to remove the name of the spokesperson for the litigants.