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:

It was always a fantasy to think that the Senate Committee on the Budget’s hearing on oil disinformation would actually be about oil disinformation. It was still shocking, though, how far off the rails things ran.
The hearing concerned a report released Tuesday by the committee along with Democrats in the House documenting “the extensive efforts undertaken by fossil fuel companies to deceive the public and investors about their knowledge of the effects of their products on climate change and to undermine efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.” This builds on the already extensive literature documenting the fossil fuel industry’s deliberate dissemination of lies about climate change and its role in causing it, including the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt and a 2015 Pulitzer Prize-nominated series from Inside Climate News on Exxon’s climate denial PR machine. But more, of course, is more.
The new stuff in the joint congressional report includes evidence that fossil fuel companies accepted the validity of climate research internally while publicly attacking it, and that they hailed technologies like carbon capture and algae-based fuels while privately doubting they would ever achieve meaningful scale. The report also details how all six entities it investigated — fossil fuel companies Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and BP, plus the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — slow-walked the investigation, providing redacted documents in response to subpoenas and withholding others altogether.
“If the companies had fully complied in good faith,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, the House committee’s ranking Democrat, in his prepared remarks, “who knows what else we might have uncovered?”
The thing about these kinds of political exercises is that, well, they’re political. While there is indisputable value in investigating and recording the industry’s misdeeds, a congressional hearing is no venue for the earnest pursuit of truth.
The various members of the Senate Budget Committee took turns yanking Raskin off-message — and that included the Democrats. Sen. Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, went into full denial mode, speaking of “climate change alarmism” and concluding that “there’s literally nothing we can do about this other than adapt.” When Sen. Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, had his turn, however, he subjected Raskin to volleys of questions about forest fires and plastics, neither of which were a subject of the (to be clear, extensive) committee report.
My personal favorite moment in the hearing came after the break, when Raskin gave way to a panel of energy policy and disinformation experts including Sharon Eubanks, who led the Department of Justice case against Big Tobacco. In her opening statement, Eubanks stated plainly and clearly an idea she and others (both outside and inside the federal government) have been propounding for years.
“The similarities between the conduct of the tobacco industry and the petroleum industry form a solid and appropriate basis for investigating the petroleum industry,” she read into the congressional record. “Furthermore, we should not waste any more time wringing our hands about what can be done. There exists solid evidentiary basis to move forward with a request to the Department of Justice to investigate the actions of the fossil fuel industry.”
But that’s not even the good part.
Sen. Bernie Sanders was midway through a line of questioning about how such a prosecution might go down when he stumbled a bit asking about the damages paid in the tobacco case. “I don’t remember exactly what the settlement for tobacco was — it was huge,” he said, when Eubanks cut in.
"It wasn’t a settlement. I won,” she told Sanders. “The companies were forced to change the way they do business." And that, she went on to say, is the point of all this — not extracting money, although that’s nice too, but rather to force companies to operate in a more open and honest fashion.
The companies, for their part, are unsurprisingly unruffled by this latest demonstration of their deceitful behavior. “These are tired allegations that have already been publicly addressed through previous Congressional hearings on the same topic and litigation in the courts,” an Exxon spokesperson told Bloomberg yesterday. “As we have said time and time again, climate change is real.”
In one thing, at least, Exxon isn’t wrong: These allegations are tired. I myself am not a lawyer, of course, but it might be time to listen to Eubanks. She seems to know what she’s talking about.
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 third judge rejected a stop work order, allowing the Coastal Virginia offshore wind project to proceed.
Offshore wind developers are now three for three in legal battles against Trump’s stop work orders now that Dominion Energy has defeated the administration in federal court.
District Judge Jamar Walker issued a preliminary injunction Friday blocking the stop work order on Dominion’s Coastal Virginia offshore wind project after the energy company argued it was issued arbitrarily and without proper basis. Dominion received amicus briefs supporting its case from unlikely allies, including from representatives of PJM Interconnection and David Belote, a former top Pentagon official who oversaw a military clearinghouse for offshore wind approval. This comes after Trump’s Department of Justice lost similar cases challenging the stop work orders against Orsted’s Revolution Wind off the coast of New England and Equinor’s Empire Wind off New York’s shoreline.
As for what comes next in the offshore wind legal saga, I see three potential flashpoints:
It’s important to remember the stakes of these cases. Orsted and Equinor have both said that even a week or two more of delays on one of these projects could jeopardize their projects and lead to cancellation due to narrow timelines for specialized ships, and Dominion stated in the challenge to its stop work order that halting construction may cost the company billions.
The decision marks the Trump administration’s second offshore wind defeat this week.
A federal court has lifted Trump’s stop work order on the Empire Wind offshore wind project, the second defeat in court this week for the president as he struggles to stall turbines off the East Coast.
In a brief order read in court Thursday morning, District Judge Carl Nichols — a Trump appointee — sided with Equinor, the Norwegian energy developer building Empire Wind off the coast of New York, granting its request to lift a stop work order issued by the Interior Department just before Christmas.
Interior had cited classified national security concerns to justify a work stoppage. Now, for the second time this week, a court has ruled the risks alleged by the Trump administration are insufficient to halt an already-permitted project midway through construction.
Anti-offshore wind activists are imploring the Trump administration to appeal this week’s injunctions on the stop work orders. “We are urging Secretary Burgum and the Department of Interior to immediately appeal this week’s adverse federal district court rulings and seek an order halting all work pending appellate review,” Robin Shaffer, president of Protect Our Coast New Jersey, said in a statement texted to me after the ruling came down.
Any additional delays may be fatal for some of the offshore wind projects affected by Trump’s stop work orders, irrespective of the rulings in an appeal. Both Equinor and Orsted, developer of the Revolution Wind project, argued for their preliminary injunctions because even days of delay would potentially jeopardize access to vessels necessary for construction. Equinor even told the court that if the stop work order wasn’t lifted by Friday — that is, January 16 — it would cancel Empire Wind. Though Equinor won today, it is nowhere near out of the woods.
More court action is coming: Dominion will present arguments on Friday in federal court against the stop work order halting construction of its Coastal Virginia offshore wind project.
A federal court has once again allowed Orsted to resume construction on its offshore wind project.
A federal court struck down the Trump administration’s three-month stop work order on Orsted’s Revolution offshore wind farm, once again allowing construction to resume (for the second time).
Explaining his ruling from the bench Monday, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said that project developer Orsted — and the states of Rhode Island and Connecticut, which filed their own suit in support of the company — were “likely” to win on the merits of their lawsuit that the stop work order violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Lamberth said that the Trump administration’s stop work order, issued just before Christmas, amounted to a change in administration position without adequate justification. The justice said he was not sure the emergency being described by the government exists, and that the “stated national security reason may have been pretextual.”
This case was life or death for Revolution Wind. If the stop work order had not been enjoined, Orsted told the court it may not have been able to secure proper vessels for at-sea construction for long enough to complete the project on schedule. This would have a domino effect, threatening Orsted’s ability to meet deadlines in signed power agreements with Rhode Island and Connecticut and therefore threatening wholesale cancellation of the project.
Undergirding this ruling was a quandary Orsted pointed out to the justice: The government issued the stop work order claiming it was intended to mitigate national security concerns but refused to share specifics of the basis for the stop work order with the developer. At the Monday hearing on the injunction in Washington, D.C., Revolution Wind’s legal team pointed to a key quote in a filing submitted by the Justice Department from Interior Deputy Assistant Secretary Jacob Tyner, saying that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the federal offshore energy regulator, was “not aware” of whether the national security risks could ever be mitigated, “and, if they can, whether the developers would find the proposed mitigation measures acceptable.”
This was the first positive outcome in what are multiple legal battles against the Christmas stop work orders against offshore wind projects. As I reported last week, two other developers filed individual suits alongside Orsted against their respective pauses: Dominion Energy in support of the Coastal Virginia offshore project, and Equinor over Empire Wind.
I expect what happened in the Revolution Wind case to be the beginning of a trend, as a cursory examination of the filings in those cases indicate similar contradictions to those that led to Revolution winning out. We’ll find out soon: The hearing on Empire’s stop work order is scheduled for Wednesday and Coastal Virginia on Friday.