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:
Don’t look at the number of forecasted storms and panic. But don’t get complacent, either.

When is an announcement less an announcement than a confirmation?
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 2024 hurricane season outlook, issued Thursday morning, might be one such case. For the past several weeks, hurricane agencies around the country have been warning of an extremely active, potentially historic season due to a confluence of factors including the record-warm water in the Atlantic Main Development Region and the likely start of a La Niña, which will make the wind conditions more favorable to Atlantic storm formation. With the Atlantic Hurricane Season set to start a week from Saturday, on June 1, NOAA has at last issued its own warning: There is an 85% chance of an above-average season, with eight to 13 hurricanes and four to seven of those expected to be “major” Category 3 or greater storms.
With an estimate of up to 25 total named storms for the whole season, NOAA’s outlook marks the greatest number of named storms ever predicted by the agency at this point in May. (For those also invested in hurricane nomenclature, the 22nd storm of the season would get its name from a new, supplemental list that starts over with “Adria”). Still, it’s not exactly news at this point that we’re in for a whopper of a season. And hurricane experts will be the first to tell you that a “busy” year doesn’t mean anything in terms of how you should think about preparedness: All it takes is one nearby storm to make it a “busy” year for you. By the same token, it’s theoretically possible (albeit highly unlikely) for there to be 25 named storms this year, none of which make landfall.
More interesting, then, is how the government is talking about these storms with the public. Yes, it is still putting a number on how many “major” storms there could be with sustained winds of 111 miles per hour or more — a headline-making tendency that irritates many of the hurricane experts I spoke with earlier this spring. However, Ken Graham, the director of NOAA’s National Weather Service, also stressed the limited utility of such a claim on Thursday. “The Saffir-Simpson scale measures the wind, but it’s actually the other impacts — it’s the water” that people should be worried about, he said.
While in the popular imagination hurricanes are coastal phenomena that kill people with high winds and waves, 90% of hurricane fatalities result from water, and most of those (57%) are freshwater deaths from heavy rainfall — sometimes hundreds of miles inland. Graham pointed to 2018’s Hurricane Florence as an example, when people drowned in parts of the Carolinas far from the ocean after rivers flooded and jumped their banks. Similarly, it is not always traditional “hurricane areas” like Florida or Texas where these storms have effects: The remnants of Hurricane Ida killed 13 people in New York City in 2021 when the storm broke the city’s record for single-hour rainfall. (Water damage and flooding are also part of what drives the insurance crisis in the Southeast, although NOAA and other agencies’ worrisome predictions for this year aren’t directly linked to 2024 premiums.)
To account for nontraditional ways of thinking about hurricane impacts, NOAA is launching an experimental “forecast cone” this year to warn of effects outside a hurricane’s immediate path. But messaging and graphics can only go so far, and time is of the essence. “Every Category 5 storm that made landfall in the United States in the last 100 years was a tropical storm or less three days prior,” Graham said. “The big ones are fast.” And they certainly don’t care about our timelines, our May outlooks, or how our cones of uncertainty appear on TV.
I’m sympathetic to NOAA’s messaging bind, though. Outlooks like the one issued Thursday make eye-catching headlines, which in turn helps to raise awareness that the time to prepare is now. (No, seriously.) But given the rapid intensification of hurricanes and those warm Atlantic waters that act like Mario mega mushrooms for cyclones, it’s perhaps more useful to think of the season as the main event rather than weigh the odds of whether one of the year’s 20-or-so-named storms will break in your specific direction.
Still. That doesn’t change the fact that 25 is a big number for the upper end of predicted Atlantic storms and that 2024 is tracking to be a historic year. “Everything has to come together to get a forecast like this,” Graham said.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Plus more insights from Heatmap’s latest event Washington, D.C.
At Heatmap’s event, “Supercharging the Grid,” two members of the House of Representatives — a California Democrat and a Colorado Republican — talked about their shared political fight to loosen implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act to accelerate energy deployment.
Representatives Gabe Evans and Scott Peters spoke with Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer at the Washington, D.C., gathering about how permitting reform is faring in Congress.
“The game in the 1970s was to stop things, but if you’re a climate activist now, the game is to build things,” said Peters, who worked as an environmental lawyer for many years. “My proposal is, get out of the way of everything and we win. Renewables win. And NEPA is a big delay.”
NEPA requires that the federal government review the environmental implications of its actions before finalizing them, permitting decisions included. The 50-year-old environmental law has already undergone several rounds of reform, including efforts under both Presidents Biden and Trump to remove redundancies and reduce the size and scope of environmental analyses conducted under the law. But bottlenecks remain — completing the highest level of review under the law still takes four-and-a-half years, on average. Just before Thanksgiving, the House Committee on Natural Resources advanced the SPEED Act, which aims to ease that congestion by creating shortcuts for environmental reviews, limiting judicial review of the final assessments, and preventing current and future presidents from arbitrarily rescinding permits, subject to certain exceptions.
Evans framed the problem in terms of keeping up with countries like China on building energy infrastructure. “I’ve seen how other parts of the world produce energy, produce other things,” said Evans. “We build things cleaner and more responsibly here than really anywhere else on the planet.”
Both representatives agreed that the SPEED Act on its own wouldn’t solve all the United States’ energy issues. Peters hinted at other permitting legislation in the works.
“We want to take that SPEED Act on the NEPA reform and marry it with specific energy reforms, including transmission,” said Peters.
Next, Neil Chatterjee, a former Commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, explained to Rob another regulatory change that could affect the pace of energy infrastructure buildout: a directive from the Department of Energy to FERC to come up with better ways of connecting large new sources of electricity demand — i.e. data centers — to the grid.
“This issue is all about data centers and AI, but it goes beyond data centers and AI,” said Chatterjee. “It deals with all of the pressures that we are seeing in terms of demand from the grid from cloud computing and quantum computing, streaming services, crypto and Bitcoin mining, reshoring of manufacturing, vehicle electrification, building electrification, semiconductor manufacturing.”
Chatterjee argued that navigating load growth to support AI data centers should be a bipartisan issue. He expressed hope that AI could help bridge the partisan divide.
“We have become mired in this politics of, if you’re for fossil fuels, you are of the political right. If you’re for clean energy and climate solutions, you’re the political left,” he said. “I think AI is going to be the thing that busts us out of it.”
Updating and upgrading the grid to accommodate data centers has grown more urgent in the face of drastically rising electricity demand projections.
Marsden Hanna, Google’s head of energy and dust policy, told Heatmap’s Jillian Goodman that the company is eyeing transmission technology to connect its own data centers to the grid faster.
“We looked at advanced transition technologies, high performance conductors,” said Hanna. “We see that really as just an incredibly rapid, no-brainer opportunity.”
Advanced transmission technologies, otherwise known as ATTs, could help expand the existing grid’s capacity, freeing up space for some of the load growth that economy-wide electrification and data centers would require. Building new transmission lines, however, requires permits — the central issue that panelists kept returning to throughout the event.
Devin Hartman, director of energy and environmental policy at the R Street Institute, told Jillian that investors are nervous that already-approved permits could be revoked — something the solar industry has struggled with under the Trump administration.
“Half the battle now is not just getting the permits on time and getting projects to break ground,” said Hartman. “It’s also permitting permanence.”
This event was made possible by the American Council on Renewable Energy’s Macro Grid Initiative.
A letter from the Solar Energy Industries Association describes the administration’s “nearly complete moratorium on permitting.”
A major solar energy trade group now says the Trump administration is refusing to do even routine work to permit solar projects on private lands — and that the situation has become so dire for the industry, lawmakers discussing permitting reform in Congress should intervene.
The Solar Energy Industries Association on Thursday published a letter it sent to top congressional leaders of both parties asserting that a July memo from Interior Secretary Doug Burgum mandating “elevated” review for renewables project decisions instead resulted in “a nearly complete moratorium on permitting for any project in which the Department of Interior may play a role, on both federal and private land, no matter how minor.” The letter was signed by more than 140 solar companies, including large players EDF Power Solutions, RES, and VDE Americas.
The letter reinforces a theme underlying much of Heatmap’s coverage since the memo’s release — that the bureaucratic freeze against solar decision-making has stretched far beyond final permits to processes once considered ancillary. It also confirms that the enhanced review has jammed up offices outside Burgum’s purview, such as the Army Corps of Engineers, which oversees wetlands, water crossings, and tree removals, and requires Interior to sign off on actions through the interagency consultation process.
SEIA’s letter asserts that the impacts of Burgum’s memo stretch even to projects on private lands seeking Interior’s assistance to determine whether federally protected species are even present — meaning that regardless of whether endangered animals or flowers are there, companies are now taking on an outsized legal risk by moving forward with any kind of development.
After listing out these impacts in its letter, SEIA asked Congress to pressure Interior into revoking the July memo in its entirety. The trade group added there may be things Interior could do besides revoking the memo that would amount to “reasonable steps” in the “short-term to prevent unnecessary delays in energy development that is currently poised to help meet the growing energy demands of AI and other industries.” SEIA did not elaborate on what those actions would look like in its letter.
“Businesses need certainty in order to continue making investments in the United States to build out much-needed energy projects,” SEIA’s letter reads. “Certainty must include a review process that does not discriminate by energy source.” It concludes: “We urge Congress to keep fairness and certainty at the center of permitting negotiations.”
Notably, the letter arrived after American Clean Power — another major trade group representing renewable energy companies — backed a major GOP-authored permitting bill called the SPEED Act that is moving through the House. Although the bill has some bipartisan support from the most moderate wing of the House Democratic caucus, it has yet to win support from Democrats involved in bipartisan permitting talks, including Representative Scott Peters, who told me he’d back the bill only if Trump were prevented from stalling federal decision-making for renewable energy projects.
SEIA has deliberately set itself apart from ACP in this regard, telling me last week that it was neutral on the legislation as it stands. In a statement released with the letter to Congress, the trade group’s CEO, Abigail Ross Hopper, said that while “the solar industry values the continued bipartisan engagement on permitting reform, the SPEED Act, as passed out of committee, falls short of addressing this core problem: the ongoing permitting moratorium.”
“To be clear, there is no question we need permitting reform,” Hopper stated. “There is an agreement to be reached, and SEIA and our 1,200 member companies will continue our months-long effort to advocate for a deal that ensures equal treatment of all energy sources, because the current status of this blockade is unsustainable.”
In a statement to Heatmap News, Interior spokesperson Alyse Sharpe confirmed the agency is using its “current review process” on “federal resources, permits or consultations” related to solar projects on “federal, state or private lands.” “This policy strengthens accountability, prevents misuse of taxpayer-funded subsidies and upholds our commitment to restoring balance in energy development.” The agency declined to comment on SEIA’s request to Congress, though. “We don’t provide comment on correspondence to Congress regarding Interior issues via the media,” Sharpe said.
The senator spoke at a Heatmap event in Washington, D.C. last week about the state of U.S. manufacturing.
At Heatmap’s event, “Onshoring the Electric Revolution,” held last week in Washington, D.C. every guest agreed: The U.S. is falling behind in the race to build the technologies of the future.
Senator Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, a Democrat who sits on the Senate’s energy and natural resources committee, expressed frustration with the Trump administration rolling back policies in the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act meant to support critical minerals companies. “If we want to, in this country, lead in 21st century technology, why aren’t we starting with the extraction of the critical minerals that we need for that technology?” she asked.
At the same time, Cortez Masto also seemed hopeful that the Senate would move forward on both permitting and critical minerals legislation. “After we get back from the Thanksgiving holiday, there is going to be a number of bills that we’re looking at marking up and moving through the committee,” Cortez Masto said. That may well include the SPEED Act, a permitting bill with bipartisan support that passed the House Natural Resources Committee late last week.
Friction in the permitting of new energy and transmission projects is one of the key factors slowing down the transition to clean energy — though fossil fuel companies also have an interest in the process.
Thomas Hochman, the Foundation of American Innovation’s director of infrastructure policy, talked about how legislation could protect energy projects of all stripes from executive branch interference.
“The oil and gas industry is really, really interested in seeing tech-neutral language on this front because they’re worried that the same tools that have been uncovered to block wind and solar will then come back and block oil and gas,” Hochman said.
While permitting dominated the conversation, it was not the only topic on panelists’ minds.
“There’s a lot of talk about permitting,” said Michael Tubman, the senior director of federal affairs at Lucid Motors. “It’s not just about permits. There’s a lot more to be done. And one of those important things is those mines have to have the funding available.”
Michael Bruce, a partner at the venture capital firm Emerson Collective, thinks that other government actions, such as supporting domestic demand, would help businesses in the critical minerals space.
“You need to have demand,” he said. “And if you don’t have demand, you don’t have a business.”
Like Cortez Masto, Bruce lamented the decline of U.S. mining in the face of China’s supply chain dominance.
“We do [mining] better than anyone else in the world,” said Bruce. “But we’ve got to give [mining companies] permission to return. We have a few [projects] that have been waiting for permits for upwards of 25 years.”