Mr Port: Mr Burgum is right to support the removal of preferential treatment for renewable energy.

MINOT — It was grotesque to watch as Doug Burgum degraded himself, sacrificing his ideals and legacy on the altar of ambition, running a bizarre campaign for president and positioning himself among the yes-men surrounding President Donald Trump.

But the former governor and current Secretary of the Interior isn’t wrong about federal energy policy.

Mr. Burgum’s current accusations of “knee-jerk” development of wind and solar energy projects on federal land take some perspective. Wind and solar power have benefited from generous “most favored” status under federal policy for decades. This was especially true during the administrations of Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Mr. Burgum ended his special treatment in line with President Trump’s policies.

Frankly, baseload power sources like coal, nuclear, and natural gas are things that our friends on the left don’t like and have been knee-capping. What Burgum has done is to stop the patella.

In July 2025, he signed a directive (along with Executive Order 14315) that eliminates the right-of-way and capacity fee discounts previously enjoyed by wind and solar projects. By eliminating these discounts, Burgum claims they are “leveling the playing field.” He argues that if a project is not “economically viable” without federal subsidies or fee waivers, it should not be prioritized over “dispatchable” resources like natural gas or “clean coal.”

In the same order, Burgum ordered his office to review 68 previously issued regulatory actions related to renewable energy projects, ranging from NEPA assessments to endangered species permits. Critics say this is evidence of regulatory bottlenecks. Burgum argues that previous streamlining of renewable energy has allowed it to avoid important environmental and wildlife reviews that other industries must adhere to, such as permitting eagles. This, he claims, will ensure that all energy projects are held to the same “rigorous and considered” standards.

How does one “knee-jerk” bring renewable energy to the same regulatory standards as more traditional forms of energy?

Burgum also has a point about what his office calls “capacity density.” The Department of the Interior currently uses this as the primary criterion for project approval on federal lands, and if our goal is to leave as many acres of land as possible untouched, this makes a lot of sense. Essentially, “capacity density” is how much energy a project can produce per unit of land it occupies.

The DOI cites Energy Information Administration data that shows there is a significant difference in footprint between traditional baseload power sources and renewable energy. As an example, nuclear power plants generate approximately 33.17 megawatts per acre, while offshore wind farms generate approximately 0.006 megawatts per acre.

Burgum argues that allowing things like solar and wind power, which require thousands of acres, when gas or nuclear plants can provide the same power on a portion of the land is an “unjustified degradation” of federal land.

Critics of this approach say that Mr. Burgum is biased against fossil fuels, and I agree that this is true. He is. His belief in baseload power carries over into his federal service, although he certainly did so as governor of North Dakota, abandoning many of his principles to serve in the Trump administration.

But I don’t know if these examples demonstrate that bias. Instead of giving preferential treatment to coal, gas and nuclear, he wants to end preferential treatment for renewable energy and ensure that these energy sources are treated fairly. In another sense, although it may seem somewhat paradoxical, Mr. Burgum’s policy recognizes that renewable energy is fundamentally different from baseload energy in several important ways.

It has long been a belief in some circles that wind and solar power can replace coal and nuclear power plants, but that is not true. The behavior is not the same. Renewable electricity is intermittent electricity. Coal-fired power plants and nuclear power plants are not. It generates power even when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining. This is important in a country where energy demand is increasing through the roof, and not just because of data centers.

In an interview with Bloomberg earlier this year, Burgum pointed out that it was baseload electricity, not renewable energy, that kept the lights on during the severe winter storm in the country’s northeast. “If coal supplies had not been strengthened, millions of people in this country would be without power,” he said. “Coal was the hero that kept America lit and heated.”

Sure, critics of coal and gas can talk about emissions, but the fact is that baseload power generation facilities take up much less land area, are less dependent on government subsidies and incentives to survive, and are much more reliable at meeting our nation’s energy needs, especially during times of disaster.