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:
The Department of Energy is advancing 24 companies in its purchase prize contest. What these companies are getting is more important than $50,000.

The Department of Energy is advancing its first-of-a-kind program to stimulate demand for carbon removal by becoming a major buyer. On Tuesday, the agency awarded $50,000 to each of 24 semifinalist companies competing to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere on behalf of the U.S. government. It will eventually spend $30 million to buy carbon removal credits from up to 10 winners.
The nascent carbon removal industry is desperate for customers. At a conference held in New York City last week called Carbon Unbound, startup CEOs brainstormed how to convince more companies to buy carbon removal as part of their sustainability strategies. On the sidelines, attendees lamented to me that there were hardly even any potential buyers at the conference — what a missed opportunity.
Conference panelists asserted that the industry needed to rebuild trust. Purchasing carbon credits has become a risky strategy for companies. In one investigation after another, journalists and researchers have shown that many of the projects behind these credits fail to produce the climate benefits they advertise. There’s a class action lawsuit against Delta Air Lines for marketing itself as “carbon neutral” after purchasing such questionable carbon offsets.
Carbon removal credits are technically different from the offsets that companies bought in the past, which were based on projects that reduce emissions to the atmosphere rather than remove carbon that’s already heating the planet. But there’s still a risk of sham projects. And because the field is relatively new, there’s not yet a set of widely agreed-upon standards to measure and verify how much carbon is being removed.
The Department of Energy hopes that by selecting 24 companies that have been vetted by government scientists, it’s sending a signal to the private sector that there are at least some projects that are legitimate. “We can’t wait to invest in CDR until those standards have been codified,” Noah Deich, the agency’s deputy assistant secretary of carbon management, told me. “We need to invest now so that we actually get the data that we can use to inform the standards, and then over time codify those standards and strengthen and improve them.”
The semifinalists represent a wide range of carbon removal methods. Nine of the companies are building machines that capture carbon dioxide directly from the air. Seven take advantage of the natural ability of plants and algae to suck up carbon, and have developed systems to sequester that carbon for far longer than would otherwise occur. Five employ rocks that naturally absorb carbon and have figured out how to speed up the process. The last three capture carbon from the ocean, enabling the world’s biggest carbon sink to draw down more from the atmosphere.
To proceed to the final round, all of these companies will have to draw up contracts that say how quickly they will be able to remove the promised tons of carbon, and who they will work with to measure and verify the process.
The Biden administration is spending billions on research, development, and deployment of carbon removal. Some of the semifinalists, like Climeworks, Heirloom Carbon, and 1PointFive, were already selected for grants from the DOE to build the U.S.’s first “direct air capture hubs” — projects capable of removing one million tons of carbon from the air per year. But those hubs will fail if the companies don’t ultimately find buyers for their carbon removal. “Every single CDR project that we’re seeing today requires some sort of voluntary credit sale to be profitable,” said Deich.
The Department of Energy’s $30 million budget to buy carbon removal is relatively small. The semifinalists said they could deliver a wide range of credits with their share of the funds, from 3,000 over a three-year period, to more than 30,000. In any case, DOE is unlikely to afford much more than 100,000 tons of carbon taken out of the atmosphere, equivalent to about 0.002% of the CO2 the United States emitted in 2022. When distributed among 10 companies, it’s certainly not enough to finance a project. But Deich told me he sees this contest as a public-private partnership. The agency is challenging the semifinalists to leverage the DOE’s recognition to try and sell as many credits as they can. It’s one of the criteria they’ll be judged on for the final phase of the contest.
Several semifinalists I spoke with were optimistic the DOE’s backing would help. “One of the things that the private sector is wrestling with is the technical underwriting of various carbon dioxide removal technologies,” Barclay Rogers, the CEO of the carbon removal company Graphyte, told me. Graphyte’s process almost sounds too simple to work. The company takes discarded plant matter from forests and fields, dries it out so that it doesn’t decompose, compresses it into bricks, and then buries them. Graphyte has already built a small processing facility in Arkansas and secured a burial site that could store an estimated 1.5 million tons of CO2. Rogers was excited to have DOE’s backing as “a broad signal to the market of the viability of Graphyte’s carbon casting process.”
Others were grateful that the government was branching out to new technologies. To date, most of the DOE’s carbon removal programs have supported direct air capture. Companies working on other approaches have been shut out of funding opportunities, and some worry that this has contributed to a perception among buyers that direct air capture is the only valid method. “We think this is a huge step forward, since it’s really the first time not only that the U.S. government is going to become a purchaser of carbon removal, but also funding a full range of carbon removal solutions,” Nora Cohen Brown, head of market development and policy at Charm Industrial, told me. (Charm also buries plant waste underground, but in the form of oil.) “We really think that biomass CDR has immense potential,” she said. “It’s a big deal to have DOE’s blessing for that pathway.”
Edward Sanders, the chief operating officer of a startup called Equatic, told me that being a semifinalist meant the company would be able to build a plant in the U.S. much sooner than it initially planned. Equatic has developed technology to remove carbon from seawater, enabling the ocean to take up more carbon. It’s currently building its first large-scale plant in Singapore. “This tells prospective future buyers that there is a role to play in the near term in the U.S. for a marine-based pathway.”
Many of the companies on the list, including the three I just mentioned, have already been relatively successful in selling credits. Graphyte sold 10,000 to American Airlines. Equatic has a 62,000 deal with Boeing. Charm will remove more than 100,000 tons for Frontier Climate, a group of buyers that includes Stripe, Alphabet, Shopify, and Meta. But even though a handful of tech companies and airlines are buying carbon removal, these sweeping gestures are not enough to sustain the industry, let alone grow it to the scale that scientists say will be necessary to halt climate change.
DOE’s purchase may help increase confidence in some of these companies and approaches, but it may not do much to solve another problem: There’s little incentive for anyone to pay for carbon removal today, and it’s much more expensive than other options companies have to reduce their emissions. Credits can cost between several hundred to more than a thousand dollars each.
Deich said the agency was trying to set an example for other buyers. Instead of creating a net-zero target and searching for the cheapest credits to accomplish its goal, it’s prioritizing quality and only buying what it can afford. “We need to pay what it costs,” he said, “and then developers can develop projects and figure out how to do it cheaper so that over time, it starts to come down the cost curve significantly, and we can buy larger and larger quantities.”
But this is only the near term plan to help the industry mature. Ultimately, Deich doesn’t think that the voluntary trade of credits will be enough to support the levels of carbon removal that will make a difference in climate change. He sees this purchase prize program as a way to start building the government’s capacity to play a larger role. “There’s going to need to be some sort of mandate or public procurement that happens for the field to really scale beyond 2030,” he said.
Avnos, Inc. — direct air capture — 3,000 credits
Carbon America — direct Air Capture — 3,400 credits
CarbonCapture, Inc. — direct air capture — 3,333 credits
Climeworks — direct air capture — 3,500 credits
Global Thermostat and Fervo Energy — direct air capture — 3,500 credits
Heirloom — direct air capture — 3,030 credits
1PointFive — direct air capture — 3,861 credits
280 Earth — direct air capture — 3,000 credits
8 Rivers — direct air capture — 7,200 credits
Arbor Energy — biomass with carbon removal and storage — 8,000 credits
Carbon Lockdown — biomass with carbon removal and storage — 17,143 credits
Charm Industrial — biomass with carbon removal and storage — 5,000 credits
Clean Energy Systems — biomass with carbon removal and storage — 11,320 credits
Climate Robotics — biochar — 30,252 credits
Graphyte — biomass with carbon removal and storage — 30,000 credits
Vaulted Deep — biomass with carbon removal and storage — 10,320 credits
Alkali Earth — enhanced rock weathering and mineralization — 8,108 credits
CREW Carbon — enhanced rock weathering and mineralization — 7,500 credits
Eion — enhanced rock weathering and mineralization — 9,900 credits
Lithos Carbon — enhanced rock weathering and mineralization — 8,109 credits
Mati Carbon — enhanced rock weathering and mineralization — 4,561 credits
Ebb Carbon — marine-based carbon removal — 3,000 credits
Equatic — marine-based carbon removal — 6,521 credits
Vycarb Inc. — marine-based carbon removal — 3,000 credits
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Current conditions: A bomb cyclone dumped as much as 16 inches of snow on North Carolina, and more snow could come by midweek • Tampa, Florida, is seeing rare flurries, putting embattled citrus crops at risk • Sri Lanka is being inundated by intense thunderstorms as temperatures surge near 90 degrees Fahrenheit.
As the bomb cyclone bore down on the Southeastern United States with Arctic chills, Duke Energy sent out messages to its millions of customers in Florida and the Carolinas last night asking households to voluntarily turn down the power between certain hours on Monday to avoid blackouts on the grid. “Frigid temperatures are driving extremely high energy demand,” the utility said in a statement to its ratepayers in Florida. “As Florida continues to experience the coldest air in the state since 2018, Duke Energy is asking all customers to voluntarily reduce their energy use” from 5 a.m. to 9 a.m. EST on Monday. The company issued an identical message to customers in the Carolinas, except the window stretched from 4 a.m. to 10 a.m.
“Put simply, cold temperatures stress the grid,” my colleague Jeva Lange and Matthew Zeitlin wrote last week. “That’s because cold can affect the performance of electricity generators as well as the distribution and production of natural gas, the most commonly used grid fuel. And the longer the grid has to operate under these difficult conditions, the more fragile it gets.”
The Department of Energy just proposed exempting advanced nuclear reactors from carrying out reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act, marking yet another step the Trump administration is taking to speed up deployment of new atomic power technologies. Past environmental assessments have demonstrated “that any hazardous waste, radioactive waste, or spent nuclear fuel generated by the project can be managed” and “do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.” The new categorical exclusion takes effect today, but the agency is taking public comments for the next 30 days and said it may revise the policy depending on the testimony it receives.
When Matthew wrote “everyone wants nuclear now” back in 2024, he was referring to the suddenly ubiquitous popularity of a once taboo energy source. But if you read those four words to instead convey a sense of urgency, you’d be accurately describing the state of affairs in 2026 as electricity demand rapidly eclipses incoming supply, as I wrote last week.
A Canadian company developing what it claims is one of the continent’s first major new sources of alumina, the processed version of bauxite needed to make aluminum, is set to move ahead with the project. The privately-owned Canadian Energy Metals said late last week that the $6.3 billion project contains an estimated 6.8 billion metric tons of alumina within a 230-square-mile stretch of the Prairie province of Saskatchewan. Canada ranks among the top global producers of primary aluminum, but its refineries and smelters rely on imports. The discovery the startup confirmed appears to be large enough to represent more than a third of known alumina globally. “We believe it’s very significant,” Christopher Hopkins, the chief executive at CEM, told The Wall Street Journal.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, is taking stock of the value of friends in the fight to find critical minerals outside of China’s control. Trump officials are trying to rally consensus with allies on a pricing mechanism to boost long-term investments in mineral refining and mining. The effort is set to take place this week during meetings with dozens of foreign ministers in Washington. Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Jacob Helberg told Bloomberg he expects a lot of “momentum and excitement” toward “agreeing on a price mechanism that we can all coordinate together on in order to ensure price stability for people in the mineral refining and extraction business.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
More than 200 people were killed last week when the Rubaya coltan mine in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo collapsed. Rubaya produces roughly 15% of the world’s coltan, a processed metal needed for electric vehicle batteries, pipelines, and gas turbines. The site, which Reuters said is staffed with locals who dig manually for a few dollars per day, has been under the control of the M23 rebel group since 2024. The actual death toll, which hasn’t been updated since its initial count last week, is likely even higher. The disaster offers a grim reminder of the brutal conditions in the mineral supply chains needed for the energy transition.

Things were already looking bad for Drax as the wood pellet energy giant faced mounting scrutiny over its pollution. Last week, I told you that Japan, one of the world’s largest markets burning wood pellets for electricity and heat, was souring on the energy source. Now a senior policy specialist at the company’s flagship biomass power station has spoken out about the accuracy of public statements the company made about where it was sourcing its wood. In theory, biomass energy could be low carbon if it uses wood that would otherwise rot and release the carbon trapped inside. But investigations into Drax previously found that the company was felling old-growth forests in the U.S. and Canada, the types of mature trees that absorb the most carbon through photosynthesis, calling its claims of carbon neutrality into question. Drax insisted that didn’t have even licenses to extract trees from such woodlands at all, meaning the company wasn't harvesting them, but the senior employee said that wasn’t true.
Past studies of polar bear of Svalbard found that the population declined when sea ice disappeared. But new research in the journal Scientific Reports based on hundreds of specimens of Ursus maritimus, discovered that the physical conditions of the bear population on the Norwegian Arctic island improved despite sea ice losses. Without sea ice, the bears were previously thought to struggle to hunt and grow thinner. But the authors suggested that the Svalbard bears may be recovering as populations of land-based prey that were previously over-hunted by humans, such as reindeer and walrus, returns.
What to watch for when the agency releases its final decision on the greenhouse gas endangerment finding.
Any day now, Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency is expected to officially rescind what climate advocates refer to as “the endangerment finding,” its 2009 determination that greenhouse gas emissions threaten Americans’ public health and welfare and therefore require regulation.
Whether the decision holds up to the inevitable legal challenges and what it all means for climate policy, however, will hinge on the justification the EPA provides for reversing course.
The EPA deployed a battery of arguments when it initially proposed revoking the finding last July. It reinterpreted Supreme Court readings of the Clean Air Act and claimed it did not have the authority to regulate carbon pollution. It questioned climate science and posited that curbing U.S. climate pollution would do little to affect global warming.
The 2009 endangerment finding is not unique — all U.S. pollution regulations under the Clean Air Act start with an endangerment finding. The EPA must review the scientific literature, hold hearings, and take public comments on whether emissions of a given pollutant threaten public health and welfare before it can regulate that substance.
The endangerment finding on greenhouse gases paved the way for the EPA to regulate vehicle emissions, specifically, but it was later used to support rules for power plants and oil and gas drilling. By reversing it, the agency will not only clear the way to repealing these standards, it will deny future administrations the legal authority to replace them. That’s a significant escalation from what Trump managed during his first term, when he rolled back greenhouse gas regulations established by the Obama administration, replacing them with weaker provisions.
Here’s what I’ll be looking out for when the decision comes out.
The agency’s primary argument for revoking the endangerment finding was based on its reinterpretation of the Clean Air Act. The agency asserted that the law applies to pollutants that directly threaten public health and welfare through local or regional exposure, and that indirect harms from global climate change do not fit this bill.
Moreover, it argued, the statute required that it make an endangerment finding for each individual greenhouse gas from each specific class of new vehicle to justify regulations, rather than assess the dangers of greenhouse gases from cars generally. The latter approach artificially inflated the case for regulation, the agency implied.
There are many legal experts, such as this trio of lawyers at Harvard’s Environmental and Energy Law Program, who say that the Supreme Court decisively rejected these exact arguments in the 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA. The main outcome of that case was confirmation that greenhouse gases do, in fact, qualify as pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act, requiring the EPA to regulate them if it determines that they present a threat to public health and welfare. Following that ruling, the agency conducted an extensive review of climate science, held multiple public hearings, and sifted through thousands of public comments, before ultimately publishing the endangerment finding.
Now, however, the agency claims that its previous read of Massachusetts v. EPA was wrong, especially in light of subsequent Supreme Court decisions, such as West Virginia v. EPA and Loper Bright v. Raimondo. The former limited the EPA's toolbox for regulating power plants, and the latter required courts to defer to agency expertise in cases where the law is vague.
If the EPA clings to this argument, it may seek to get the Court to revisit that case. As the Harvard lawyers point out, none of the five justices who were in the majority on that case remain on the Supreme Court, which ups the odds of the administration getting a more favorable ruling.
If the EPA does repeal the endangerment finding on the grounds that climate risks from greenhouse gases are not covered by the Clean Air Act, that could empower state and local governments to issue their own emissions regulations, since greenhouse gas regulation would no longer be the purview of the federal government. California, for example, could argue that it no longer needs a waiver from the EPA to enact its own emissions standards for vehicles, an issue that became a political football last spring.
Revoking the endangerment finding this way may also make fossil fuel companies more vulnerable to lawsuits brought by cities and states — and undercut the Trump administration’s own efforts to sue the cities and states that are trying to sue fossil fuel companies. Some 20 to 30 state and local governments have attempted to sue oil and gas companies for damages related to climate change. The industry has responded by arguing that these cases are roundabout attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which is the job of the federal government, per the Clean Air Act. But if the federal government abdicates that responsibility, this reasoning falls apart.
In the EPA’s proposal to rescind the endangerment finding — which also included a proposal to revoke vehicle emissions standards — the agency tried to get ahead of these issues. It argued that even though it wasn’t required to issue greenhouse gas emission standards for new vehicles, states would still be preempted from doing so because the Clean Air Act still delegates that authority to the EPA.
It’s difficult to see how the agency can have it both ways. As Amanda Lineberry, a senior associate at Georgetown University’s Climate Center put it, the EPA is attempting to deem the Clean Air Act “insufficient to enable federal regulation of GHG emissions to address climate change but sufficient enough to prevent state efforts to address those emissions.”
Nonetheless, in comments responding to the proposal, industry groups such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Gas Association explicitly support this reading, and some asked EPA to strengthen it. “EPA’s rationale would be strengthened by recognizing the long history establishing federal law as the exclusive source of authority over interstate pollution,” the AGA wrote.
Even if, hypothetically, the Clean Air Act does apply to greenhouse gas emissions, the agency would still propose revoking the endangerment finding on scientific grounds, its proposal last summer said. According to a new review of climate science, it said, the EPA could no longer conclude that greenhouse gases from vehicles endanger Americans’ public health and welfare.
The proposal cited a Department of Energy report, published on the very same day as the EPA’s proposal, which provided “a critical assessment of the conventional narrative on climate change.” The report was written by a working group consisting of five scientists who have a track record of pushing back on mainstream climate science. They concluded that the warming caused by greenhouse gases is not as dangerous or bad for the economy as previously thought, and that regulating such emissions will have “undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate.”
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists have since sued the administration for assembling this group in secret, a violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Records released as a result of that lawsuit suggest that the group was explicitly formed to support the administration’s goal of repealing the endangerment finding.
Separately, a group of 85 scientists, some of whose research the working group cited, conducted an independent review and deemed the report biased and riddled with errors, including misinterpretations of the reviewers’ own findings. The National Academies, an independent institution that provides expert advice to the U.S. government on scientific and technical issues, also followed up with its own report concluding that “the evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute.”
Given this response, I’ll be looking to see if EPA maintains its position on climate science in the final decision, and if it does, how it responds to the mountain of criticism it has received. It’s possible the courts would defer to the agency’s assessment, but they could also side with the substantially larger volume of evidence disagreeing with it, bruising the agency’s credibility.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has lifted its ban on issuing permits for incidental harm to protected eagles while also pursuing enforcement actions — including against operators that reported bird deaths voluntarily.
When Trump first entered office, he banned wind projects from receiving permits that would allow operators to unintentionally hurt or kill a certain number of federally protected eagles, transforming one of his favorite attacks on the industry into a dangerous weapon against clean energy.
One year later, his administration is publicly distancing itself from the ban while quietly issuing some permits to wind companies and removing references to the policy from government websites. At the same time, however, the federal government is going after wind farm operators for eagle deaths, going so far as to use the permitting backlog it manufactured to intimidate companies trying in good faith to follow the law, with companies murmuring about the risk of potential criminal charges.
Two days before Christmas, a coalition of renewable energy trade groups whose members include some of the world’s largest clean energy companies sued the Trump administration, arguing that several of its policies delaying permits for their projects violated the Administrative Procedures Act. One of those policies was the ban on granting new bald and golden eagle “incidental take permits.” These serve as the government’s way of acknowledging that hurting or killing protected bird species in small numbers is unavoidable no matter how many design protections are put in place.
After that lawsuit was filed, the Trump administration began wiping references to the ban from government websites discussing the permitting program. Some of these changes were recent: Wind companies discovered references to the ban were deleted from these webpages sometime between the case being filed and mid-January, according to screenshots and sworn statements submitted as exhibits in the case. The now-deleted language describing the ban said it was premised on Trump’s Day 1 anti-wind executive order, which a federal judge ruled in December violated the Administrative Procedures Act.
I am also starting to hear that the Fish and Wildlife Service is sending wind farm operators eagle permits again, though I do not know how many have gone out or to whom.
When it comes to bald eagles, at least, the Fish and Wildlife Service is supposed to “automatically” issue general permits for incidental take through an electronic self-certification system. A spokesperson for the advocacy groups behind the lawsuit confirmed in a statement to me that the Fish and Wildlife Service is “now processing” these general permits “because they cannot halt them given their self-certification structure.”
The spokespoerson added that to their knowledge, the agency still isn’t issuing permits requiring more thorough levels of government analysis because of other Trump administration policies. Complex permits are likely still impeded by an order requiring sign-off from Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on environmental permits for solar and wind projects.
Garrett Peterson, acting chief of public affairs for the Fish and Wildlife Service, confirmed in a statement Friday afternoon that the office is currently allowing general permits for wind farms “that meet eligibility and issuance criteria.”
This change in practice also comes after a string of losses — many, many losses — in court over Trump’s stop work orders blocking offshore wind construction. The Trump administration may be trying to avoid yet another embarrassing defeat.
Still, the wind industry isn’t out of the woods entirely. Team Trump seems to be pivoting to enforcing the law protecting bald and golden eagles — the aptly titled Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
On January 12, the trade groups filed a motion asking the judge in the case for a preliminary injunction lifting all of the anti-renewable permitting policies addressed in the case, including the eagle permit ban, until the court could make a final ruling. Attached to the motion was a voluminous, candid, and fearful statement from executive directors for the trade groups, making a lot of information about Trump’s war on renewable energy public for the first time. One of those confessions was the existence of a memo banning water permits for projects that defied the Trump administration’s preferred “aesthetics,” news of which I scooped on Thursday in my newsletter The Fight.
Another disclosure by the trade groups made my jaw drop. The eagle permit ban appeared to have become a cudgel for the administration to use against companies reporting bird deaths in good faith, departing from what the coalition said was a “longstanding policy” of “enforcement discretion so long as wind farm operators can demonstrate that they are implementing best practices.” This situation was significant and dire, according to the statement — so much so the trade groups were “unwilling to disclose specific projects” that were harmed by the eagle permit ban “due to ongoing concerns about potential persecution or retaliation in direct response to their participation in this lawsuit.”
These enforcement actions do happen, but are not usually a public affair unless the charges are particularly serious. Those instances have been rare, reserved for companies demonstrating what the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act describes as a “wanton disregard” for the lives of the birds.
The Trump administration first indicated it would pursue some sort of crackdown on eagle deaths from wind farms in early August, when it sent letters to project operators across the country asking for any and all information on the subject. The letters teased the risk of not only civil but criminal liability, stating that certain violators would be forwarded to the Justice Department.
Since then, I’ve heard of just one enforcement action under Trump 2.0 for an eagle death: In early November, Fox News reported that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service told the Danish energy company Orsted during the government shutdown that it would issue $32,340 in fines over two dead eagles found near wind farms in Nebraska and Illinois. The Fox News story stated that Orsted had come to the Fish and Wildlife Service voluntarily with the dead eagles and would be fined because they died without proper permits; it’s unclear whether the company was pursuing them at the times the birds died. Current rules under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act call for up to $16,590 for every dead bird, so the fine represented nearly the strictest civil penalty FWS could level against Orsted.
The trade group executives’ statement indicates that the enforcement action described in the Fox News article wasn’t a one-off, and that there is a wider wind industry crackdown over dead eagles playing out in the shadows, at least for now. It’s unclear whether this will take the form of a mess of fines, or whether, as the FWS data call suggested, some of this work might lead to allegations of criminality involving the Justice Department.
When I asked for comment on the enforcement efforts, the Fish and Wildlife Service told me to file a public records request under the Freedom of Information Act.
American Clean Power, the largest trade group representing wind companies, did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to remove the name of the spokesperson for the litigants.