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:
Will Sunrise Wind and Revolution Wind get the Trump treatment?
For the first time, his administration targets an offshore wind project already under construction.
The Trump administration is now being lobbied to nix offshore wind projects already under construction.
Chris Wright and Doug Burgum started their reign this week by amplifying the president and beating back Biden-era policies.
And more of the week’s top policy news around renewable energy.
The president’s early executive orders give the once-and-future head of the Office of Management and Budget far-reaching powers.
From “baseload” to “bears”
Doug Burgum is, by all accounts, a normie. Compared to some of the other picks for incoming President Trump’s cabinet, the former North Dakota governor is well respected by his political colleagues; even many of the Democrats on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee seemed chummy with the former software executive during his hearing on Thursday, praising his support of the outdoor recreation economy and his conservation efforts in his state. As if to confirm the low stakes of the hearing, Burgum used his closing remarks not as a final pitch of his qualifications — but to invite his interrogators to a Fourth of July party at the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library.
That isn’t to say that the hearing doesn’t have consequences — or revelations about what can be expected from the all-but-certain-to-be-confirmed Interior secretary and future head of Trump’s National Energy Council. For many in the renewables space — particularly those in the wind industry — there was little in the way of reassurances that Burgum would temper his boss’ opposition to “windmills.” Additionally, the future Interior secretary dodged questions seeking reassurance about his commitment to protecting federal lands.
Below are some of the biggest takeaways from Thursday’s confirmation hearing.
Burgum referenced concerns about the “baseload” of the grid more than 15 times during the hearing, primarily as a way to oppose the buildout of renewable energy. “We’re short of electricity in this country, and we have to make sure that we have a balance,” he told Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, a Nevada Democrat, citing a standard Republican talking point about how the grid needs safeguards because “the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow.” When pressured about how intermittent energy sources are used in combination with storage, he added that we’re still “a few years out” from such technologies and warned that in the meantime, there would be “more and more brownouts and blackouts because we aren’t going to have the balance in the grid.”
“I don’t want the word ‘baseload’ to be code for no renewables,” Angus King, the Independent Senator from Maine, later followed up. Burgum protested against that characterization — “It’s not for any political reasons that I distinguish [between intermittent and baseload], it’s just because of the physics of the grid” — but King wasn’t satisfied. “In your case, in North Dakota, 35% of your electricity comes from wind power,” King said. “I presume that your grid works well?”
Burgum stumbled in his answer: “It’s super stressed, as it is around the country,” he said. (In fact, transmission bottlenecks seem to be the bigger issue in the state.) He went on to say that renewables plus storage equals a baseload at a “much higher cost” than traditional energy sources like oil and gas.
“It sounds like no more renewables,” King rejoined. “I don’t think that’s a sustainable path for this country, and it’s certainly not a way of meeting the challenge of climate change.”
One carbon-free source of electricity emerged as a winner of the baseload fight, however: nuclear power. “I’m glad to hear you talk about baseload,” Republican Senator James Risch of Idaho told Burgum, “because when you’re talking about nuclear, you’re talking about baseload.” Burgum also called solar and geothermal “big opportunities” in Utah.
Ahead of Thursday’s confirmation hearing, Danielle Murray, the founder of the Public Lands Center, issued a statement arguing that if Burgum did not “[reject] any and all attempts to sell-off or give away our nation’s public lands,” it would be “disqualifying.”
She and other public land advocates are not likely to be satisfied with the answers they heard, however. Burgum responded positively to an opening question from Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah about restricting the size of National Monuments, noting that “a state like yours … already has over 60% of its land in public lands.” The Energy and Natural Resources Committee’s ranking member, Democratic Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, followed up on that point, asking Burgum how he plans to “stay true to our conservation history” given the mounting attempts by Lee and his colleagues to “somehow, in a wholesale way, divest of our public lands.”
Burgum remained noncommittal: “I think there is certainly the opportunity for us to find that balance going forward,” he said again.
Burgum promised senators from Montana and Wyoming that he opposed a “blanket approach of trying to block” new coal development. “We have an opportunity to decarbonize, to produce clean coal, and with that produce reliable baseload for this country,” he said.
Why is that so important? “Without baseload, we’re going to lose the AI arms race to China,” Burgum said.
Wind was another hot topic during Burgum’s confirmation hearing. King pointed out that North Dakota is a major wind-producing state, and asked if the Interior nominee would talk to President Trump about “the fact that wind has its virtues and can contribute significantly” to America’s energy supply.
Burgum was resistant. If wind projects “make sense, and they’re already in law, then they’ll continue,” he allowed. “I think President Trump has been very clear in his statements that he’s concerned about the significant amount of tax incentives that have gone towards some forms of energy that have helped exacerbate this imbalance that we’re seeing right now.”
Risch celebrated Burgum’s skepticism of wind, rooting for the end of the Lava Ridge wind farm, which Heatmap’s Jael Holzman has reported Trump may kill on day one. “My good friend Senator King and I have different views on windmills — and bless you for taking the windmills, you can have them all,” Risch offered during his allotted time. “We don’t want them in Idaho. We hate windmills in Idaho.” (In 2023, wind accounted for about 15% of Idaho’s electricity generation.)
But if there was something Republicans on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee hated even more than wind, it was bears. Senator Daines of Montana specifically requested Burgum’s commitment to delisting grizzlies from the Endangered Species List, and he got what he was looking for. “I’m with you,” Burgum said. “We should be celebrating when species come off the endangered species list, as opposed to fighting every way we can to try to keep them on that list.”
Risch was also excited about this promise. “We don’t want grizzly bears [in Idaho],” he said. “They kill people. You know, the federal government already gave us wolves.”
Grizzlies weren’t the only bears on the chopping block. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska slammed the Biden administration’s Interior for not finishing its revised incidental take regulations for North Slope oil and gas activities — that is, the gas industry’s exemption to the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 which otherwise prohibits the harassing, hunting, capturing, or killing of protected animals, including polar bears. “I need your commitment that you’ll work with Alaskans, particularly the Inupiat people up there, in the North Slope Borough, on basically all things polar bear,” Murkowski said.
“We’ll be happy to do that,” Burgum confirmed.
His intellectual influences include longtime climate action skeptics — and Bill Gates’ favorite author.
Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, is a nerd — and he’ll tell you about it. “I’m Chris Wright, and my short bio is, I started out as a science geek, I transitioned to a tech nerd, and then I’ve been an energy entrepreneur my whole life,” he told energy journalist Robert Bryce on the Power Hungry podcast in 2020. “In addition to an energy nerd, I’ve been a climate nerd for quite some time,” he said in a talk hosted by Veriten, the energy consulting firm in 2023.
This is a far cry from Trump’s first Energy Secretary, the former Texas Governor Rick Perry, who famously failed to remember on the Republican primary debate stage the third of the three agencies he sought to eliminate (it was the Department of Energy) and who reportedly didn’t know that the Energy Department’s responsibilities — and budget — then lay heavily with maintaining the country’s nuclear stockpile.
But Wright’s extensive energy experience — studying nuclear fusion at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and working early in his career on solar and geothermal engineering (his company, Liberty Energy, the fracking powerhouse he founded in 2011, has invested in the next-generation geothermal company Fervo, and Wright sits on the board of the nuclear company Oklo) — has not won him any plaudits from environmental groups or Democrats who focus on climate change. After Trump announced his nomination, the Sierra Club called Wright a “climate denier who has profited off of polluting our communities and endangering our health and future.” Illinois Rep. Sean Casten, one of the House’s most vocal proponents of climate action, also called Wright a “climate denier who prioritizes the wants of energy producers over the needs of American consumers.”
Few Republicans — and certainly few high-level Trump appointees — are as conversant in climate and energy data as Wright. That may make him an even more effective advocate for Trump’s “energy dominance” strategy, built around increased production of fossil fuels and, almost certainly, fewer subsidies for clean energy and electrification.
Typically when a person gains some notoriety by coming out against immediate, large-scale climate action and restrictions on fossil fuel extraction, climate advocates try to link that person to the fossil fuel industry and its long history of deliberate and knowing climate denial. Wright’s associations, however, are perfectly straightforward: Liberty Energy fracks oil and gas in the United States and Canada on behalf of large oil companies. He thinks the company’s contribution to the good of the world consists of its producing more hydrocarbons — full stop.
Get the best of Heatmap in your inbox daily.
Wright calls this philosophy “energy sobriety,” fully conceding that climate change is real while also diminishing the urgency of mounting a response. In seemingly countless speeches, interviews, and legislative testimonies, as well as in Liberty Energy’s annual “Bettering Human Lives” report — its version of an environmental, social, and governance review — Wright is perfectly comfortable acknowledging climate change while also patiently assaulting many key pillars of climate policy as it’s practiced in the United States, Europe, and other countries in the developed world seeking to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
While Wright’s written and spoken record adds up to tens of thousands of words and hours of talks, it can be distilled into a few core ideas: Energy consumption makes people better off; energy access, especially in the developing world, is a greater global challenge than climate change; and existing alternatives to hydrocarbons are not capable of replacing the status quo energy system, which still overwhelmingly relies on fossil fuels, with little prospect of a rapid transition.
He cites a wide range of thinkers, including members of a group of scholars — including the Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg (whose book, False Alarm, is “fantastic,” Wright said in a Liberty talk), University of Colorado science policy scholar Roger Pielke, Jr. (“a real intellectual”), and the Canadian energy scholar and historian Vaclav Smil (“the greatest energy scholar of my lifetime by far”) — who share elements of this deflationary view of climate change.
Lomborg and Pielke have long been bêtes noires of the climate movement, mostly as the subjects of years of furious back and forth in every form of media for the past two-plus decades. (Though in Pielke’s case, there was also an investigation in 2015 over alleged conflicts of interest led by House Democrat Raul Grijalva, who is retiring from Congress this year.) Lomborg has for decades argued that climate change ranks relatively low on global challenges compared to, say, global public health, while Pielke contends that many climate change policy advocates overstate what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change actually says about the connection between climate change and extreme weather, a point that has made him the object of intense criticism for going on 15 years.
Smil, meanwhile, is deeply skeptical of any effort to wean the world from fossil fuels considering their role in the production of steel, cement, plastics, and fertilizers — the materials that he describes as essential to the modern world. Smil also counts among his fans Bill Gates (“Vaclav Smil is my favorite author”), who is also one of the biggest funders and promoters of climate action through his research and investment group Breakthrough Energy and funding for companies like TerraPower, which is currently building the country’s first next-generation nuclear facility in Wyoming.
Pielke called both Wright and Doug Burgum, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of the Interior and the designated head of a planned National Energy Council “super competent. They know energy, and that’s a fantastic starting point,” he told me.
“There is polarization of the climate debate, and the idea that fossil fuels are evil and the fossil industry are arch-villains — that’s part of the framing from the progressive left about how climate wars are to be fought,” Pielke said. “I’m not particularly wedded to that sort of Manichean evil vs. good framing of the debate.”
But the differences are real. Wright strongly contests much of what is the mainstream of climate policy. While he acknowledges that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide cause higher temperature, he says it’s “actually sort of slow-moving in our lifetimes” and a “relatively modest phenomenon that’s just been wildly abused for political reasons,” he said in a talk to the conservative policy group American Legislative Exchange Council.
While the Department of Energy has only limited authority over energy policy, per se, especially the permitting and public lands issues that typically concern fossil fuel companies, Wright does have some levers he can pull. He will likely act quickly to approve more export facilities for liquified natural gas, though the Energy Department’s recently released study of LNG’s long-term effects — particularly on domestic energy prices — may complicate that somewhat. Beyond that, he will inherit a massive energy research portfolio through the national labs, putting him in charge of developing the energy technology that he says are currently insufficient to replace oil and gas.
“I’ve worked on alternatives. I’d love it if fusion energy arrives,” Wright said in an interview with the conservative website Power Line. “I love energy technology, and I think there’s good things going on, but it’s now become political.”
He believes that reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 is “neither achievable nor humane,” he wrote in the foreword to the 2024 edition of “Bettering Human Lives.” He also disagrees with the idea of subsidizing the world’s predominant forms of alternative energy, solar and wind.
“Wind and solar are never going to be dominant sources of energy in the world,” Wright told Bryce on the 2020 podcast. The “main impact” of subsidies for wind and solar, Wright said in another 2023 podcast episode with Bryce, “is just to make our electricity grids less reliable and electricity prices more expensive, and to do nothing for the demand for oil and very little for the demand for natural gas.”
“Oil and gas make the world go round,” he added. “[People] want higher quality of lives. That’s what drives the demand for oil and gas.”
Bryce, a persistent critic of green energy policies, told me in an email that he thinks Wright is “the right person for the DOE. He’s not apologetic about being an energy humanist. Regardless of what anyone thinks about climate change, it is obvious that we are going to need a lot more energy in the future, and the majority of that new supply will come from hydrocarbons.”
While Wright’s arguments certainly have wide purchase among his peers in the energy industry executive corps, he nevertheless stands out from the rest for his willingness to express them. In contrast to the stance taken by large, multinational energy companies, which are willing at least to pay lip service to carbon reduction goals and have, at times, embraced branding and marketing strategies to make them seem like something other than oil and gas companies (e.g. ExxonMobil’s algae-based fuel initiative and BP’s notorious “Beyond Petroleum” campaign), Wright and his company see their contribution to a better world as their work extracting oil and gas.
Other executives “don’t want to deal with the criticism that will come with taking a higher-profile stance,” Bryce told me. “They don’t have time or the inclination. It takes a lot of time, courage, and conviction to engage with the media, get on the speaking circuit, and do so in a thoughtful way.”
Wright’s emphasis on the energy poverty faced by poor countries could potentially serve as a diplomatic bridge to the developing world, especially in Africa, where some observers think there’s space for the United States to start funding natural gas development through the International Development Finance Corporation. For Wright, expanding energy production — and specifically fossil fuel development — is crucial to providing cheap energy to the developing world. He mentions in almost every talk the billions of people who use wood, dung, or other biofuels on open fires to cook indoors, causing 3 million premature deaths per year.
“The biggest problem today is a third of humanity doesn’t have hydrocarbons,” Wright told Bryce in 2023. In a 2023 speech to the American Conservation Coalition, a conservative environmental group, he described strictures against financing fossil fuel development as “not just ignorant or bad policy” but “immoral.” His solution: distributing propane stoves as widely as possible, in part through his Bettering Human Lives Foundation.
Here might be the greatest challenge for advocates of climate action: Even if most of the world’s leaders have accepted the reality of anthropogenic climate change, much of the world, especially outside North America and Europe, is still eagerly increasing its use of fossil fuels. In the United States, coal plant shutdowns are being pushed out further and natural gas investment may soon pick up again to power new demand for electricity. Globally, coal use is set to grow over the next few years. That’s thanks in large part to demand from China, the world’s largest emitter and second-largest cumulative emitter behind the United States, defying predictions that demand there was near peaking. The biggest new source of oil demand is India, a country with a per-capita gross domestic product less than 1/30th of the United States.
And so the greatest danger to aggressive action to lower global emissions may not be Chris Wright and his “sober” ideas at the helm of the Department of Energy. It may be that much of the world agrees with him.
