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:
For fossil fuels, it’s the Not-So-Golden State.
It was a good 2023 for Big Oil. In most places.
Both Exxon and Chevron reported substantial fourth quarter and full-year 2023 earnings Friday — $36 billion and $21 billion for 2023, respectively, their second highest annual profits ever. Both also called out California, however, once one of the cradles of the U.S. oil industry (see: There Will Be Blood) and now its biggest domestic political headache as a place where they’re enduring billions in losses.
While the two oil majors’ issues in California are specific to how they operate there, they are also perhaps a preview — or a warning — of what a full spectrum climate policy could mean for them.
While the Biden administration has done more legislating on climate than any previous administration, it has not done much of anything to impair the supply of hydrocarbons. Instead, the Inflation Reduction Act is largely devoted to subsidizing the supply of non-carbon-emitting forms of energy (and electric vehicles) and making it easier for people to electrify their homes. The upcoming Environmental Protection Agency power plant regulations, meanwhile, are designed essentially to force power plant operators to capture and store their emissions.
All of this would, if it works, increase demand for green energy and decrease demand for fossil energy. But much to the chagrin of many environmentalists, it would do little directly to limit fossil fuel extraction — nor, to the chagrin of more market-oriented environmentalists, would it set a tax on carbon emissions or establish a cap-and-trade system that would act as a tax. As Biden administration officials sometimes point out, oil and gas production has hit record highs under their watch.
California is different. It has a cap-and-trade system, it’s passed restrictions on where oil and gas drilling can occur (although they’re on hold pending a referendum that could overturn them), and permitting for new oil wells has slowed to near zero. Local governments there are often not particularly keen on hydrocarbon infrastructure or drilling, especially offshore.
In its earnings release, Exxon reported a $2 billion “impairment as a result of regulatory obstacles in California that have prevented production and distribution assets from coming back online.” This was a reference to its oil and gas operation off the Santa Barbara County coast, which started pumping in the early 1980s and stopped in 2015, when a pipeline rupture spilled more than 142,000 gallons of oil into the ocean. Exxon has been trying to get out of this business ever since, even lending money to another company to take the project off its hands. However, the deal has been continually delayed thanks to litigation surrounding pipeline repairs, as well as getting state and local approvals to operate again.
For Chevron, which is headquartered in California and maintains an active extraction and refining operation there, the troubles were “higher U.S. upstream impairment charges mainly in California” — emphasis mine.
In an earlier release this year, Chevron previewed losses from its California operations, saying that they were “due to continuing regulatory challenges in the state that have resulted in lower anticipated future investment levels in its business plans.” Combined with writedowns in the Gulf of Mexico, the company reported $3.7 billion worth of charges on its fourth quarter earnings.
Chevron — which operates refineries in both Northern and Southern California — has been in a public dispute with California policymakers over their energy policy proposals, especially around refining. The state plans to ban sales of internal combustion vehicles by 2035 and is working through a proposal to essentially cap profits on refining gasoline in the state. Chevron officials have said that a refining margin cap would make it “really challenging to want to put our money there,” the company’s refining chief Andy Walz told Bloomberg.
California has consistently higher gas prices than other states thanks to its lack of access to a national market (it’s not served by a pipeline network) and special requirements for its gasoline. Today, gas prices are $4.57 a gallon in California compared to $3.15 nationally, according to AAA. If Chevron is right about how California will treat refiners going forward, that gap could grow.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A judge has lifted the administration’s stop-work order against Revolution Wind.
A federal court has lifted the Trump administration’s order to halt construction on the Revolution Wind farm off the coast of New England. The decision marks the renewables industry’s first major legal victory against a federal war on offshore wind.
The Interior Department ordered Orsted — the Danish company developing Revolution Wind — to halt construction of Revolution Wind on August 22, asserting in a one-page letter that it was “seeking to address concerns related to the protection of national security interests of the United States and prevention of interference with reasonable uses of the exclusive economic zone, the high seas, and the territorial seas.”
In a two-page ruling issued Monday, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth found that Orsted would presumably win its legal challenge against the stop work order, and that the company is “likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction,” which led him to lift the dictate from the Trump administration.
Orsted previously claimed in legal filings that delays from the stop work order could put the entire project in jeopardy by pushing its timeline beyond the terms of existing power purchase agreements, and that the company installing cable for the project only had a few months left to work on Revolution Wind before it had to move onto other client obligations through mid-2028. The company has also argued that the Trump administration is deliberately mischaracterizing discussions between the federal government and the company that took place before the project was fully approved.
It’s still unclear at this moment whether the Trump administration will appeal the decision. We’re still waiting on the outcome of a separate legal challenge brought by Democrat-controlled states against Trump’s anti-wind Day One executive order.
A new letter sent Friday asks for reams of documentation on developers’ compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is sending letters to wind developers across the U.S. asking for volumes of records about eagle deaths, indicating an imminent crackdown on wind farms in the name of bird protection laws.
The Service on Friday sent developers a request for records related to their permits under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which compels companies to obtain permission for “incidental take,” i.e. the documented disturbance of eagle species protected under the statute, whether said disturbance happens by accident or by happenstance due to the migration of the species. Developers who received the letter — a copy of which was reviewed by Heatmap — must provide a laundry list of documents to the Service within 30 days, including “information collected on each dead or injured eagle discovered.” The Service did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
These letters represent the rapid execution of an announcement made just a week ago by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who released a memo directing department staff to increase enforcement of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act “to ensure that our national bird is not sacrificed for unreliable wind facilities.” The memo stated that all permitted wind facilities would receive records requests related to the eagle law by August 11 — so, based on what we’ve now seen and confirmed, they’re definitely doing that.
There’s cause for wind developers, renewables advocates, and climate activists to be alarmed here given the expanding horizon of enforcement of wildlife statutes, which have become a weapon for the administration against zero-carbon energy generation.
The August 4 memo directed the Service to refer “violations” of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act to the agency solicitor’s office, with potential further referral to the Justice Department for criminal or civil charges. Violating this particular law can result in a fine of at least $100,000 per infraction, a year in prison, or both, and penalties increase if a company, organization, or individual breaks the law more than once. It’s worth noting at this point that according to FWS’s data, oil pits historically kill far more birds per year than wind turbines.
In a statement to Heatmap News, the American Clean Power Association defended the existing federal framework around protecting eagles from wind turbines, noted the nation’s bald eagle population has risen significantly overall in the past two decades, and claimed golden eagle populations are “stable, at the same time wind energy has been growing.”
“This is clear evidence that strong protections and reasonable permitting rules work. Wind and eagles are successfully co-existing,” ACP spokesperson Jason Ryan said.
The $7 billion program had been the only part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund not targeted for elimination by the Trump administration.
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to cancel grants awarded from the $7 billion Solar for All program, the final surviving grants from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, by the end of this week, The New York Times is reporting. Two sources also told the same to Heatmap.
Solar for All awarded funds to 60 nonprofits, tribes, state energy offices, and municipalities to deliver the benefits of solar energy — namely, utility bill savings — to low-income communities. Some of the programs are focused on rooftop solar, while others are building community solar, which enable residents that don’t own their homes to access cheaper power.
The EPA is drafting termination letters to all 60 grantees, the Times reported. An EPA spokesperson equivocated in response to emailed questions from Heatmap about the fate of the program. “With the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, EPA is working to ensure Congressional intent is fully implemented in accordance with the law,” the person said.
Although Solar for All was one of the programs affected by the Trump administration’s initial freeze on Inflation Reduction Act funding, EPA had resumed processing payments for recipients after a federal judge placed an injunction on the pause. But in mid-March, the EPA Office of the Inspector General announced its intent to audit Solar for All. The results of that audit have not yet been published.
The Solar for All grants are a subset of the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, most of which had been designated to set up a series of green lending programs. In March, Administrator Lee Zeldin accused the program of fraud, waste, and abuse — the so-called “gold bar” scandal — and attempted to claw back all $20 billion. Recipients of that funding are fighting the termination in an ongoing court case.
State attorneys generals are likely to challenge the Solar for All terminations in court, should they go through, a source familiar with the state programs told me.
All $7 billion under the program has been obligated to grantees, but the money is not yet fully out the door, as recipients must request reimbursements from the EPA as they spend down their grants. Very little has been spent so far, as many grantees opted to use the first year of the five-year program as a planning period.