
Biden's wind energy rules are still killing eagles and must be rescinded
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits 'take' of eagles, defining 'take' as 'pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.' In 2009, the Fish and Wildlife Service finalized a rule that, for the first time, authorized the ' incidental take ' of eagles which grants authorization to kill eagles incidental to otherwise lawful activity.
In 2013, it issued guidance to wind energy developers requiring them to complete Eagle Conservation Plans, demonstrating how they would avoid or minimize their effect upon eagles. The guidance also required running eagle-fatality models to predict the project's potential for 'take' of eagles.
In short, these regulations encouraged avoidance of areas with high eagle concentrations and implementation of conservation measures, including siting considerations, before the Fish and Wildlife Service would issue a permit authorizing take.
But the Biden administration alleged that the complexity of the earlier permitting process was preventing companies from applying for eagle take permits, which were only issued after the implementation of avoidance measures.
The agency alleged that simplifying wind permitting was preferable and would lead to greater eagle conservation. But does the 2024 permitting regulation really increase protections for eagles, or does it just authorize the killing of eagles at wind projects?
The 2024 rule revision provides for two permitting options — a specific permit and a general permit, the latter being easier to obtain, less costly and with fewer mitigation and monitoring conditions. General permits are available in the U.S. for areas where the relative abundance of eagles is considered low.
Unfortunately, the general permits erroneously assume there is little risk to eagles from wind energy projects in a range covering most of the U.S. outside of the Rocky Mountain states. Local areas with high concentrations of eagles are not accounted for in the general permit region.
Under the 2024 regulations, if a wind project in this region requests a general permit, staff lack discretion to refuse to issue it, even where existing wind projects have already killed eagles.
Additionally, under the new regulation, the post-construction monitoring requirement for eagle mortality in wind energy projects appears purposely skewed towards underreporting.
The monitoring survey distance was reduced from more than 100 meters to just 40 meters. Thus, unless an eagle carcass falls on the road or turbine pad, it is unlikely to be detected, and carcasses falling outside the 40-meter survey area will not be recorded.
The 2024 regulation does not give the Fish and Wildlife Service authority to prevent the siting of wind projects in high eagle concentration areas. Nor does the agency have any recourse when siting guidance is ignored.
The 2024 regulation changed its core mission from protecting eagles to handing out permits for wind energy projects with unlimited authorization to kill eagles without consequences.
Before retiring, I served 25 years with the Fish and Wildlife Service enforcing federal wildlife laws. Wind energy projects have always posed a threat to birds and bats, and yet, in the past our personnel were instructed not to enforce existing wildlife protection laws against this industry, even though they would be enforced against other energy producers, such as oil and gas.
In my opinion and experience, the 2024 eagle permitting regulation does not contribute to the conservation of eagles, but rather authorizes, without any consequence, wind energy projects to kill eagles.
The Trump administration's August guidance aimed at forcing wind energy projects to comply with the law is a good start. But it will also be necessary to amend the 2024 Biden permitting regulations to protect our national symbol.
Biden effectively tried to give wind energy projects immunity from our existing laws to protect eagles, and that's not why I went to work there, and probably not why anyone else does either.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
A New Front Opens in the Battle of the Fed
To get John Authers' newsletter delivered directly to your inbox, sign up here. There's no rest in the battle over monetary policy. It's now being fought both on familiar territory — with carefully chosen words in the Federal Open Market Committee's minutes — and in startling new terrain, as the federal housing regulator digs up alleged evidence of mortgage fraud by a Biden-appointed governor and calls for her resignation.


The Hill
7 hours ago
- The Hill
GOP senator: US stake in Intel would be ‘step toward socialism'
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a libertarian-minded Republican, criticized the Trump administration's push to acquire a stake in U.S. chipmaker Intel, suggesting the move would be a 'step toward socialism.' 'If socialism is government owning the means of production, wouldn't the government owning part of Intel be a step toward socialism?' Paul said on Wednesday in a post on the social platform X. 'Terrible idea,' he added, linking to a news story about the latest effort. The Trump administration is in talks to secure a 10 percent stake in the company, which would make the U.S. government one of Intel's largest shareholders. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Tuesday that the money for the stake would come from previously allocated Biden-era funding. Media reports have suggested that the stake would be in exchange for converting grants pledged to Intel under the CHIPS and Science Act. 'The president figures out that we should get, America should get the benefit of the bargain,' Lutnick told CNBC's 'Squawk Box.' 'I mean, that is exactly Donald Trump's perspective, which is, why are we giving a company worth $100 billion this kind of money?' he continued. 'What is in it for the American taxpayer? And the answer Donald Trump has is we should get an equity stake for our money.' Paul has long pushed for the federal government to play a smaller role in the daily lives of Americans and the U.S. economy. He voted against Trump's legacy-defining policy bill, citing concerns about increased spending and the national debt.


The Hill
9 hours ago
- The Hill
Sanders backs Trump plan to take stake in Intel
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) voiced support Wednesday for the Trump administration's plan to potentially take a stake in Intel, suggesting it aligned with an earlier effort to secure returns from CHIPS and Science Act investments. 'I am glad the Trump administration is in agreement with the amendment I offered three years ago to the CHIPS Act,' Sanders said in a statement. 'No. Taxpayers should not be providing billions of dollars in corporate welfare to large, profitable corporations like Intel without getting anything in return.' 'If microchip companies make a profit from the generous grants they receive from the federal government, the taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment,' he added, arguing the government should also ensure firms do not engage in illegal union busting, outsourcing or stock buybacks. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick confirmed Tuesday the administration is considering taking a stake in the struggling U.S. chipmaker, with funding coming from previously allocated Biden-era grants. Reports have suggested the U.S. government is looking at using CHIPS funding for a 10 percent equity stake in Intel. SoftBank also announced late Monday that it is investing $2 billion in the semiconductor firm. It represents a remarkable change of fate for the company, whose chief executive faced President Trump's ire just two weeks ago. Trump called on Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign earlier this month, suggesting he was 'highly conflicted' amid concerns about his ties to China. However, the president struck a more positive tone after meeting with Tan last week, suggesting the CEO and his Cabinet were 'going to spend time together, and bring suggestions to me during the next week.'