Audrey Streb
DCNF Energy Reporter
The Department of the Interior (DOI) moved to deal another blow to the green energy industry Friday, announcing that it will consider energy projects’ capacity density and the environmental impacts before permitting them, singling out wind and solar.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum signed an order Friday directing the agency to prioritize energy projects it deems efficient and low in environmental impact, zeroing in on wind and solar as “holding America back” from achieving energy dominance. The decision comes just days after the agency ended what it called “preferential treatment” for unreliable, foreign-controlled energy sources previously favored under the Biden administration.
“Gargantuan, unreliable, intermittent energy projects hold America back from achieving U.S. Energy Dominance while weighing heavily on the American taxpayer and environment,” Burgum said. “By considering energy generation optimization, the Department will be able to better manage our federal lands, minimize environmental impact, and maximize energy development to further President Donald Trump’s energy goals. This commonsense order ensures our nation is stronger, our land use is optimized, and the American people are properly informed.” (RELATED: Trump Halts Preferential Treatment For ‘Unreliable, Foreign-Controlled’ Wind Energy)
By considering energy generation optimization, @Interior will be able to better manage our federal lands, minimize environmental impact, and maximize energy development to further @POTUS’ energy goals. https://t.co/TLBT3KiNKT
— Secretary Doug Burgum (@SecretaryBurgum) August 1, 2025
The order, titled “Managing Federal Energy Resources and Protecting the Environment,” states that wind and solar projects count as a “highly inefficient” use of federal lands, arguing that the energy technologies do not produce as much energy when compared to other sources like coal, gas or nuclear.
Former President Joe Biden enacted a major push for green energy projects including wind and solar and cracked down on conventional power sources like coal with stringent regulations. President Donald Trump campaigned against what he dubbed the “green new scam” and his administration has moved to end several Biden-era green energy initiatives and policies in the name of strengthening America’s electricity grid.
The DOI did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Awesomesauce.
I’m not bored with winning yet.
Only on federal land but a big deal out West. Keep it coming.
In a lot of Western cases the wind and solar are on private land but they require new transmission lines over federal land. This order should apply to those cases.
Went and read the order. Is well done. Capacity density is specifically defined as (nameplate*capacity factor)/total acres. Low capacity density prohibited on all federal lands (specifically including offshore) “when reasonable project alternatives with higher capacity densities are technically and economically feasible.”
Goodby wind and solar on all federal lands.
Once you see the Federal subsidies go away you won’t see any on private land, as well.
Unfortunately that is not true. Roughly 40 States have mandates requiring ever increasing use of renewables without regard to cost. That will happen without subsidies until these laws are changed. Nor do the renewables have to be in State. The utilities buy the generation certificates. The scam is immense and cast in State law.
Those laws in most of those 40 states will change fast, IMHO. Some will take longer than others of course.
I must respectfully disagree. Case in point, Virginia. With the House and Senate in Dem hands and the possibility of a Dem governor in the fall, I see it as unlikely that we will see any change.
Not to mention that VA’s election cycle doesn’t coincide with the national election cycle and that many employees of the Federal bureaucracy reside in northern VA – it could be a disaster.
When electricity skyrockets in cost, as President Obama promised, and as outages increase, and corporations demand reliable power, even Dems will change their mind. No state is more to the far left than Wokeachusetts, so I think it’ll be the last to give up the cult. But, this state isn’t seeking industries so there’s no expectation for a big increase in power potential. Also, in Virginia, people will get tired of seeing wind machines and solar farms everywhere.
In NY, the Climate Act requires that by 2030, 70% of electricity has to be generated by renewables. Another provision is that buildings over 25,000 square feet have to stop using nat. gas and switch to electricity for energy.
If the Endangerment Finding is rescinded, what ever will Gov. Kathy H. do? She will have to eat crow and repeal the Climate Act.
In CA, Gov. Gavin N. must be getting really nervous. His plan to phase out ICE cars and light tucks by 2035 is now on the chopping block.
Interesting times are ahead.
‘The utilities buy the generation certificates. The scam is immense and cast in State law.’
David, I’m glad you’re bringing this up – the whole idea of RECs (renewable energy credits) is a huge scam and probably worth further exposure in WUWT.
Here in CT, energy providers, whether utilities or third-party providers, are required to purchase RECs, certifying that renewable energy has been ‘injected’ somewhere into the grid, for at least 38% of the electricity provided to customers. (The 38% mandate escalates annually). How this is achieved is something of a mystery (to me) given that data from NE-ISO rarely shows ‘renewables’ in the region exceeding 10% of load. I’m certain that this is why we suffer from some of the highest electricity prices in the US, but what I’d really like to know is how much this is actually costing rate payers, and who is benefitting from these payments.
I did not know that about New England power. Given that many other states have renewable mandates, and nobody except California and Texas have high rates of renewable generation, I wonder how many renewable energy credits are really available, and how many are double or triple sold, and how much of this is a scam. I am betting a lot are a scam.
What effect on those state laws will the canceling of things like loans for the grain belt express have? Trump appears to be taking a multi-pronged approach to dismantling the green scam.
Capacity density feels like an unnatural consideration. Probably needed for lawyers.
Capacity density is implicit in efficient use of Federal Lands and minimizing environmental impacts cause by repurposing land for energy production.
As “wasteful and inefficient” describes all wind and solar projects, . ..
THIS is what I voted for. Now, time for prosecutions.
I wonder if Mikey Mann will throw another manntrum?
wouldn’t that be Manntastic!
More good news.
“achieving energy dominance”
Now that’s what I call a great goal- not net zero.
The trump administration continues to increase costs and pollution. Terrible policy by idiots
What pollution?
Link or list, please, Eric.
You don’t think the burning of fossil energy pollutes?
🤦♂️
Ever look into how much fossil fuel is burned to produce wind turbines and solar panels starting with the massive amount if mining required to extract the minerals needed using a lot of very heavy FF powered machinery?
Studying the amount of coal and acid required to convert raw silica into the ultra-pure polysilicon required for solar panels should be mandatory for high school students. Quantifying the fumes and dusts from the entire process would also be helpful in understanding how green solar isn’t would be another good exercise, but I don’t know where the data would come from. I can’t find it.
My guess is that you would be far more capable of finding this info than me. If you have not already read any of Mark Mills’ articles, here are two that shed some light on the topic.
https://manhattan.institute/article/mines-minerals-and-green-energy-a-reality-check
https://manhattan.institute/article/the-energy-transition-delusion
Any clue how efficient the pollution control equipment on a modern coal fired power plant is?
I have seen no evidence that modern plant pollutes, unless you mean producing CO2 pollutes.
The question is the degree of severity.
Based on the bogus linear no threshold standard, everything, everywhere pollutes.
The question is, burring of coal and hydrocarbon fuels, how much emitted is both toxic and immediately hazardous to human health if ingested.
WRONG.. by far the most polluting forms of electricity come from wind and solar.
Huge amounts of toxic chemical waste is produced in their manufacture.
They destroy the landscape and natural environment during installation.
They decimate avian, land and ocean wildlife in operation
And at the end of their short erratic unreliable life, a large amount will end up in massive landfill dumps, leaching fibres and chemicals forever.
It is great policy to get rid of both wind and solar, they are a total blight on the environment.
Good to see you preface your post by letting us know it is nonsense and WRONG.
Interestingly, you believe the rubbish you sprout but have no evidence to refute Bnice.
Eric is entitled to his opinion, no links or lists needed.
Yes.
But as Mark Twain wisely advised –
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
Don’t argue with an idiot; after five minutes it would be two idiots arguing.
That was not an opinion. It was a direct assertion stated as a fact without evidence. Oldseadog asked for evidence to support his assertion. Not sure why you felt the need to defend Eric.
The trump administration says it’s increasing energy prices
Here in Ohio, I was upset that my kWh price went up to a bit over 8 cents (about 3 months ago), where it was previously about 6 and a half.
Looks like that graph is biased by the ever-increasing prices in renewables-heavy states.
Compare that number with pretty much anywhere that uses significant ‘renewables’.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU000072610
(Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis – based on the logo on the chart)
Shows how wrong you are with your cherry picking.
No where does it say anything about Trump based on a comprehensive search of the website.
But he’s not entitled to his own facts and there is no evidence that “The trump administration continues to increase costs and pollution.“
Never engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed. He never knows when he has lost.
Put the bottle down and go sleep it off.
The alarmists’ great triumph was their success in repositioning a trace gas, without which 99.99% of all life on Earth would perish, as a pollutant.
A “climate pollutant” no less.
Every time you breathe, you exhale 20,000 ppm. You should be arrested for “climate pollution.”
The trump administration says its energy policies are going to cost US consumers hundreds of billions of dollars over the next few years
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-07/420d25003.pdf
As opposed to the trillions of dollars needed for ‘green’ energy?
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-07/420d25003.pdf
Page 37 for those who care to confirm.
You did not read the report.
7 scenarios defined. Each stated assumptions.
Scenarios 1 & define a cost increase. $260 billion to $360 billion over 2027 through 2055.
Scenarios 3-7 define a cost reduction of $160 billion to $4.66 trillion over 2027 through 2055.
Pages 19 through 22 for those wishing to confirm.