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:
Plus answers to other pressing questions about the offshore wind project.
The blade that snapped off an offshore turbine at the Vineyard Wind project in Massachusetts on July 13 broke due to a manufacturing defect, according to GE Vernova, the turbine maker and installer.
During GE’s second quarter earnings call on Wednesday, CEO Scott Strazik and Vice President of Investor Relations Michael Lapides said there was no indication of a design flaw in the blade. Rather, the company has identified a “material deviation” at one of its factories in Gaspé, Canada.
“Because of that, we're going to use our existing data and re-inspect all of the blades that we have made for offshore wind,” Strazik told investors, adding that the factory has produced about 150 blades total.
Company executives shared more details about their findings at a public meeting in Nantucket on Wednesday night. Roger Martella, GE Vernova’s chief sustainability officer, said there were two issues at play. The first was the manufacturing issue — basically, the adhesives applied to the blade to hold it together did not do their job. The second was quality control. “The inspection that should have caught this did not,” he said. “So it’s a combination of the two factors.”
Two dozen turbines have been installed as part of the Vineyard Wind project so far, with 72 blades total. GE Vernova has not responded to requests for clarification about how many of them originated at the Gaspé facility.
The re-inspection process does not involve physically inspecting each blade, Martella explained. The company takes “incredibly detailed ultrasound pictures” of every blade it produces, he said, and will be reviewing the images as “a desktop exercise.” He likened the process to getting a second, more detailed opinion from a doctor on an MRI. When asked why the company did not catch the defect the first time these scans were inspected, Martella said answering that is part of the ongoing investigation. In the meantime, blade production at the factory is on pause.
GE also stressed that the incident at Vineyard Wind was unrelated to a blade failure at the Dogger Bank wind farm in the U.K. earlier this year, which was due to an installation error. Installation has resumed at Dogger Bank.
Tensions were high at Wednesday night’s meeting, where Nantucket residents again lined up to lambast Vineyard Wind. Select Board chair Brooke Mohr opened the meeting by saying that the incident has shown the inadequacy of the Good Neighbor Agreement, a settlement between the town and Vineyard Wind reached in 2020. Under the agreement, the company would contribute $4 million to a community fund and take steps to minimize visual impacts of the wind farm. In return, the town would “convey support” for the project to the community and to state and federal officials. Mohr said the town now intends to renegotiate these terms. “The Select Board is committed to holding vineyard wind and GE, the manufacturer of the turbine blades, accountable,” she said.
Town representatives are going to meet with Vineyard Wind next week to negotiate compensation for the costs it has incurred as a result of the accident.
Meanwhile, on the ground and in the water around Nantucket, crews from Vineyard Wind and GE continued to collect blade debris on Wednesday morning, for the ninth day straight. An initial environmental assessment of the blade debris published late Tuesday night began to answer key questions about the risks all that debris poses to people and marine life.
The report was commissioned by GE and conducted by Arcadis US, an engineering and environmental consultancy. It asserts that the primary risk to people is injury from the sharp edges of fiberglass fragments and that the debris “are considered inert, non-soluble, stable, and nontoxic.”
It also cautions, however, that further evaluation will be required to understand the risks posed by any blade materials that remain in the environment, such as assessing the potential for degradation. At the meeting in Nantucket on Wednesday night, one resident asked whether they should be worried about eating fish or shellfish that may have ingested pieces of the blade. Jim Nuss, one of the authors of the Arcadis report, said the firm had “not considered that yet,” and that it would be “one of the future looking activities.”
One particularly concerning question has been whether the debris could discharge dangerous per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS or “forever chemicals,” into the environment. Though there are no PFAS used in the blade construction itself, the firm did identify the chemicals in “aerodynamic add-ons,” small 6 inch by 8 inch pieces of plastic that are installed on the outside of the blade to improve its efficiency that are also commonly used on airplanes, it said.
According to the report, the total amount of PFAS on one blade equals 28.2 grams, or about 0.06 pounds. To put that in perspective, the chemical company Daikin once estimated it would release roughly 200 pounds of PFAS per day into the wastewater at one of its paper mills, according to federal filings obtained by the Environmental Defense Fund in 2018. It’s not yet clear how many of those plastic “add-ons” made it into the ocean.
A comprehensive list of all materials that make up the blades shows that more than half, by weight, is fiberglass. The other key ingredients include carbon fiber and PET foam, a common construction material. “There are 33 different materials involved in the production of a turbine blade, from the most basic common household adhesives to the more complex industrial materials used to build the blade,” the report says.
An introduction to the report notes that GE is creating an inventory of the debris collected to assess how much of the blade has been recovered. The company has also hired Resolve Marine, a marine salvage firm, to aid in dismantling the remainder of the blade that’s still attached to the turbine, though it didn’t offer a timeline for this work.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect the events of the July 24 Nantucket Select Board meeting.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Featuring China, fossil fuels, and data centers.
As Republicans in Congress go hunting for ways to slash spending to carry out President Trump’s agenda, more than 100 energy businesses, trade groups, and advocacy organizations sent a letter to key House and Senate leaders on Tuesday requesting that one particular line item be spared: the hydrogen tax credit.
The tax credit “will serve as a catalyst to propel the United States to global energy dominance,” the letter argues, “while advancing American competitiveness in energy technologies that our adversaries are actively pursuing.” The Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association organized the letter, which features signatures from the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Clean Energy Buyers Association, and numerous hydrogen, industrial gas, and chemical companies, among many others. Three out of the seven regional clean hydrogen hubs — the Mid-Atlantic, Heartland, and Pacific Northwest hubs — are also listed.
Out of all of the tax credits for low-carbon energy, the hydrogen subsidy, which was created by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, is among the most generous. It pays up to $3 per kilogram of hydrogen produced, depending on how emissions-intensive the process is. For context, a 15 ton-per-day plant in Georgia owned by hydrogen producer Plug Power has the potential to earn up to $45,000 per day in tax credits.
But the total price of the tax credit depends on how much clean hydrogen production takes off, and the industry is still in its infancy. When the Penn Wharton Budget Model, a research group at the University of Pennsylvania, estimated the fiscal impact of the Inflation Reduction Act, it placed the total cost for the hydrogen credit at $49 billion over 10 years, compared to more than $260 billion for renewable energy and nearly $400 billion for electric vehicles.
Tactically, Tuesday’s letter draws on all of the Trump administration’s favorite talking points. It warns that nixing the tax credit will mean ceding the hydrogen technology war to China, noting that the country now produces more than 60% of the global supply of electrolyzers — equipment that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity. It also says that hydrogen fuel cells are already being used by tech companies to power data centers.
And even though the tax credit was designed specifically to subsidize “clean” hydrogen, the letter mostly ignores this distinction, painting hydrogen production as an extension of the U.S. fossil fuel industry. Oil and gas companies have the infrastructure, workforce, and supply chains to lead the global hydrogen economy, it says. It points out that hydrogen can be produced from “natural gas, biogas, biomethane, as well as any electricity source (i.e. nuclear energy),” but does not mention wind, solar, or geothermal.
Investment in the nascent hydrogen industry was essentially on hold for more than two years while companies eager to take advantage of the tax credit waited for the Biden administration to finalize eligibility rules. But even after Biden’s Treasury Department published those rules in early January, how the Trump administration will view the program remained uncertain. “Our industry is now poised to invest billions of dollars in deployments and manufacturing facilities across the country,” the letter says. “However, that private sector investment is at risk due to the uncertainty around this crucial incentive … We need to ensure that we do not miss this hydrogen moment and respectfully request that you maintain the Section 45V tax credit.”
Intense debate and controversy surrounded the development of the rules for claiming the tax credit, and while the Biden administration tried to strike a compromise, some in the industry still found the rules too strict. I asked the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association whether it wanted Congress to make any changes to the tax credit or to simply preserve it but hadn’t heard back as of publication time.
But some of the signatories have already expressed their intent to request changes. In December, the American Petroleum Institute sent a memo to the incoming Treasury Department outlining its key priorities and “asks.” It says the Biden administration’s hydrogen tax credit rules were “overly restrictive and raised concerns about qualifying pathways for natural gas.”
Core inflation is up, meaning that interest rates are unlikely to go down anytime soon.
The Fed on Wednesday issued a report showing substantial increases in the price of eggs, used cars, and auto insurance — data that could spell bad news for the renewables economy.
Though some of those factors had already been widely reported on, the overall rise in prices exceeded analysts’ expectations. With overall inflation still elevated — reaching an annual rate of 3%, while “core” inflation, stripping out food and energy, rose to 3.3%, after an unexpectedly sharp 0.4% jump in January alone — any prospect of substantial interest rate cuts from the Federal Reserve has dwindled even further.
Renewable energy development is especially sensitive to higher interest rates. That’s because renewables projects, like wind turbines and solar panels, have to incur the overwhelming majority of their lifetime costs before they start operating and generating revenue. Developers then often fund much of the project through borrowed money that’s secured against an agreement to buy the resulting power. When the cost of borrowing money goes up, projects become less viable, with lower prospective returns sometimes causing investors not to go forward .
High interest rates have plagued the renewables economy for years. “As interest rates rise, all of a sudden, solar assets that are effectively bonds become less valuable,” Quinn Pasloske, a managing director at Greenbacker, a renewable investor and operating company, told me on Tuesday, describing how the stream of payments from a solar project becomes less valuable as rates rise because investors can get more from risk-free government bonds.
The new inflation data is “consistent with our call of an extended Fed pause, with only one rate cut in 2025, happening in June,” Morgan Stanley economists wrote in a note to clients. Bond traders are also projecting just a single cut for the rest of the year — but not until December.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell told the Senate Banking committee Tuesday, “We think our policy rate is in a good place, and we don’t see any reason to be in a hurry to reduce it further.”
The yield for the 10-year Treasury bond, often used as a benchmark for the cost of credit, is up 0.09% today, to 4.63%. While this is below where yields peaked in mid-January, it’s a level still well above where yields have been for almost all of the last year. When Treasury yields rise, the cost of credit throughout the economy goes up.
Clean energy stocks were down this morning — but so is the overall market. Because while high interest rates are especially bad for renewables, they’re not exactly great for anyone else.
The Army Corps of Engineers, which oversees U.S. wetlands, halted processing on 168 pending wind and solar actions, a spokesperson confirmed to Heatmap.
UPDATE: On February 6, the Army Corp of Engineers announced in a one-sentence statement that it lifted its permitting hold on renewable energy projects. It did not say why it lifted the hold, nor did it explain why the holds were enacted in the first place. It’s unclear whether the hold has been actually lifted, as I heard from at least one developer who was told otherwise from the agency shortly after we received the statement.
The Army Corps of Engineers confirmed that it has paused all permitting for well over 100 actions related to renewable energy projects across the country — information that raises more questions than it answers about how government permitting offices are behaving right now.
On Tuesday, I reported that the Trump administration had all but paralyzed environmental permitting decisions on solar and wind projects, even for facilities constructed away from federal lands. According to an internal American Clean Power Association memo sent to the trade association’s members and dated the previous day, the Army Corps of Engineers apparatus for approving projects on federally shielded wetlands had come to a standstill. Officials in some parts of the agency have refused even to let staff make a formal determination as to whether proposed projects touch protected wetlands, I reported.
In a statement to me, the Army Corps has confirmed it has “temporarily paused evaluation on” 168 pending permit actions “focused on regulated activities associated with renewable energy projects.” According to the statement, the Army Corps froze work on those permitting actions “pending feedback from the Administration on the applicability” of an executive order Trump issued on his first day in office, “Unleashing American Energy,” and that the agency “anticipates feedback on or about” February 7 from administration officials.
While the statement demonstrates how vast the potential impacts to the renewables sector may be, it also leaves several important questions unanswered. It’s unclear whether each pending permit action that has been frozen applies to its own individual project, or whether some projects have more than one permit pending before the Army Corps, so it is still fuzzy precisely how many projects may be impacted. The Army Corps did not say whether that feedback would lead to the lifting of holds on permitting activity, nor did it explain why the holds were enacted in the first place.
Finally, there’s one big question that still needs answering: The executive order in question focuses on fossil fuel projects and says nothing about renewable energy — no mentions of “renewable,” no “solar,” no “wind.” Why did this order trigger a permitting freeze in the first place? This level of confusion and ambiguity is part and parcel with other statements in the ACP memo, including that guidance and agency perspectives have varied widely in recent weeks depending on who in the government is being asked.
Climate advocates are already pressing the panic button. “This is a 5 alarm fire alert. This could decimate all the clean energy we worked to pass under Biden,” Nick Abraham, state communications director for League of Conservation Voters, wrote on Bluesky in response to my reporting.
I asked the Army Corps for clarity on how the executive order led to a pause on their permitting activity, and we’ll update this story if we hear back.