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:
On British nuclear, Puerto Rican water, and the U.S. solar supply chain
Current conditions: Dolly is no longer a tropical storm, but the remnants of the system are set to drench the northern Caribbean, especially the Leeward Islands, the British and U.S. Virgin Islands, and eastern Puerto Rico • One person died and at least 14 hikers are missing in flash floods in the Grand Canyon that forced airlifts on Sunday • In the Pacific, Tropical Storm Karina is rapidly strengthening into a hurricane, but it’s unlikely to make landfall anywhere.
The United States has brokered what President Donald Trump called “the biggest oil deal in world history” with Venezuela, securing majority control over more than 65 million barrels of the South American nation’s proven supply of crude. In a post on his Truth Social network Friday evening, Trump said the agreement would “more than double American oil reserves” and “substantially lower gas prices for all Americans, long into the future, while helping to continue to set Venezuela on a course toward tremendous success and great prosperity.” Appearing on national television for a six-minute address, Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodríguez, who took power after the U.S. captured former leader Nicolás Maduro in a night-time raid nearly nine months ago, said the pact would allow Caracas to earn more than $209 billion in revenue and become “an energy powerhouse.” While “everyone knows our country has the biggest oil reserves in the world,” she said, “having resources underground isn’t enough.” She added, according to The Guardian’s translation: “It’s no use having our oil resources underground, only to appear in statistics or bookkeeping.” The deal is good news for the string of U.S. oil refineries on the Gulf coast that were designed for the heavy crude that comes out of Venezuela. As it stands, my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote last week, “America’s oil refineries are going all out.”
For all the fears stirred up by Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe’s recent surprise visit to Moscow — remember, the last two times an American spy chief went to Russia, it was to try to dissuade the Kremlin from invading Ukraine or commit the first war-time nuclear bombing since World War II — the country doesn’t seem particularly ready to, as The Wall Street Journal reported, risk war with Washington by attacking a North Atlantic Treaty Organization country. Russia’s gasoline production fell to about 70% of domestic consumption levels in August following a series of Ukrainian drone attacks that forced major refineries offline, two industry sources told Reuters.
In June, New York led Northeast states in filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging the deals the Department of the Interior struck with offshore wind developers to pay out billions in taxpayer-funded “settlements” in exchange for abandoning the already-stalled turbine projects. Now California has filed its own lawsuit over what Attorney General Rob Bonta called the administration’s “blatantly unlawful” buyout of wind leases off the state’s coast. “The Trump administration’s backroom buyout with Golden State Wind to stop offshore wind development in favor of gas and oil drilling is, unfortunately, a classic playbook for them to line the pockets of their Big Oil donors,” Bonta said in a statement. “Let’s be clear: California will continue to aggressively fight back against the Trump administration’s outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars to abandon offshore wind investments that could have delivered union-paying jobs and reliable clean energy to Californians.” The California Energy Commission, which joined the lawsuit, called the Interior Department’s efforts to curb offshore wind development “reckless” in the face of rising electricity demand. Adding to the malcontent over President Donald Trump’s most fruitful effort yet to kill off a specific clean energy sector that has drawn his ire since before he entered politics, my colleague Robinson Meyer noted earlier this month that the deals — more of which have come since the California settlement — are all for projects that were unlikely to move forward anyway.

Until 1991, the United States produced the majority of the uranium its reactors (and atomic war machine) needed. Then came “megatons to megawatts.” Under the pithily named program, the U.S. took a victory lap after winning the Cold War by agreeing to import virtually any reactor fuel Russia made from disassembled weapons. American power plants received cheap fuel, a chaotically marketizing Russia found a market for some of its most coveted materials, and the world averted nuclear apocalypse. The only problem is that, contrary to the rhetoric of the time, history didn’t end. What nearly did end was domestic production of uranium and reactor fuel as Russian imports put American suppliers out of business. Nearly four decades later, the U.S. has banned Russian imports, and the exemptions to the prohibition end in 2028. The good news is that the U.S. is stepping up. In 2025, uranium concentrate production totaled 2.1 million pounds of triuranium octoxide — the base component for reactor fuel, known as yellowcake. That, according to the latest U.S. Energy Information Administration analysis, is the most since 2017 and more than triple the volume produced in 2024. But it’s still far from enough for energy independence. U.S. power plants used nearly 47 million pounds of yellowcake in 2025, down from just under 56 million pounds in 2024. Regardless of whether all the reactors currently underway move forward, that number is going up. New supply is coming. On Friday, developer Anfield Energy told The Northern Miner that it’s seeking to raise at least $50 million in financing in the coming months to refurbish and reopen Utah’s Shootaring Canyon mill, one of only three licensed, permitted, and constructed uranium mills in the U.S.

The U.S. supply boost could also benefit the United Kingdom, which is working with Washington on spurring along its own nuclear renaissance. A new YouGov poll released Friday found nuclear power to be Britain’s preferred future electricity source, with 21% of Britons saying it should be prioritized, compared to 19% for solar and 18% for offshore wind. Just over half of the voters surveyed doubted renewables alone could provide enough electricity to meet the nation’s power demand and lower costs. That’s despite nearly 50 gigawatts of onshore wind in the development pipeline across Great Britain, according to Renewables Now.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Britons’ doubts over renewables come as England’s water network heaves under the stress of a severe “flash drought” that Bloomberg said “is showing no signs of easing,” forcing water companies to truck supplies in and call for emergency restrictions. At least 30 million now face a temporary ban on using hoses and outdoor pipes.
Nearly 200,000 households and businesses are still without steady access to running water in Puerto Rico, where drought has collided with an aging aquifer system that leaks, by some estimates, more than half its supply of freshwater. Climate change reduced rainfall in America’s most populous non-state territory by 9% between May and July of this year, according to a new study by more than 20 scientists worldwide. The conclusion, the San Juan-based Centro de Periodismo Investigativo reported, is that drought “will persist and worsen.”
Earlier this month, as my colleague Emily Pontecorvo and I reported, the Trump administration tossed solar manufacturers a lifeline, raising tariffs on imported panel components in a bid to help factories compete with imports after Republicans’ sweeping tax law eliminated the federal incentives for developers to buy American-made photovoltaics. Since then, analysts have debated whether the minimum prices set in the Department of Commerce’s policy are sufficient to spur new investments in the production of solar cells. At least one company is announcing a project. In a post on LinkedIn last week, Oklahoma City-based Nextnova Solar unveiled plans for a 2-gigawatt solar cell factory in its home state. The company expects to bring the facility online in November and begin mass production in March 2027, according to PV Tech, which noted the possibility to expand to 5 gigawatts of annual production sometime in the future.
Meanwhile, the Minnesota-based manufacturer Heliene is preparing for a trial run of panels using American-made glass. The company has 1.3 gigawatts of crystalline silicon module capacity production, and recently formed a partnership to secure more locally sourced wafers and cells. But U.S.-made glass “has so far been a key missing element,” PV Tech reported in a separate story. Heliene’s pilot run will use glass from Ohio-based Stewart Glass. “As U.S. module manufacturing has been growing, there has been no supply of non-iron content glass,” Heliene CEO Martin Pochtaruk told the trade publication. “Being able to use glass versus importing glass is also part of de-risking the geopolitics of imports from Asia, and that’s why it’s so important.”
In the U.S., we are still working our heads around building out a charging network that can comfortably keep electric cars fueled up from coast to coast with the same ease as a vehicle that can just fill up at a gas station. In China, auto giant BYD is now rolling out its ultra-fast chargers, which can restore a vehicle’s battery as quickly as you can fill up a gas tank. Just a few months ago, BYD marked its 5,000th Flash Charger deployment. Now it’s up to 10,000 across 300 different centers, InsideEVs reported last week, cribbing from the Chinese news site IT Home.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more thoughts on the week’s most notable fights around project development.
1. Pinal County, Arizona – If you can’t build a solar or a wind farm somewhere, it’s really hard to get a data center built there too.
2. St. Joseph County, Indiana – Thousands of miles away from Arizona, a similar division is dominating the fight over whether to enact a 2-year moratorium on data centers in the county home of South Bend.
3. Ingham County, Michigan – The first solar farm fight has been resolved under Michigan’s new renewables siting law.
A conversation with Nevada attorney general Aaron Ford
This week’s conversation is with Nevada attorney general Aaron Ford, the Democratic candidate for governor in the state. His campaign reached out recently asking if I wanted to chat about what he’d want to do on data center and energy policy, which is essentially catnip for a reporter like me. So we hopped on the phone and chatted about his approach to regulation as he seeks to oust the sitting GOP governor Joe Lombardo.
The following conversation was lightly edited and abridged for clarity.
As someone running for statewide office, how do you take into consideration the growing backlash to industrial development? Not just data center development but solar and wind?
I think it's the responsible thing to do and it’s the responsive thing to do to engage in conversation around this issue, understand what people think about it, and try to come up with policies to demonstrate your willingness to accommodate those issues. I’ve been on two statewide tours in the last nine, 10 months all over the state talking to folks. The first time I recall having a conversation about this was at the end of my first statewide tour at the end of last year in a rural county, complaining about a data center coming to a different part of that rural county.
It’s across demographics. Democrats, Republicans, Independents – they’re having concerns about these data centers. They’re swarming into Nevada communities, draining our water, jacking up our energy prices, and using Nevada taxpayer money to do it. So folks have asked for thoughtful consideration on how to do this.
How do you distinguish between the concerns about data centers and the concerns about renewable energy, transmission, maybe even conventional energy sources? Do you separate those conversations or are they all just one big conversation to have?
They’re not mutually exclusive. There are sure to be distinct conversations to be had.
What I have said in my plan is that we’re going to stop the [tax] abatement for future data centers coming here until I can audit the efficacy of these other data centers who’ve received abatements. Joe Lombardo has given out $200 million in abatements and he hasn’t checked to see that they’ve fulfilled their end of the bargain in terms of local hires, their impacts on the environment, and so forth.
What I’m going to do is ensure that [if] they're going to operate here, they’ll have to bring not just their own energy but renewable energy to power their facilities.
If elected, you’d be representing a state that has principal interest in front of the federal government. I’ve been writing about data center development on federal lands including the situation in Boulder City. How do you view engaging with the Trump administration on data center development?
At the outset, what we see happening right now outside of Boulder City is an affront to local control. It’s an affront to a local government and its residents voicing their opposition to a data center and the federal government shouldn’t be able to do an end run around zoning and environmental protections. I’m going to stand up for our sovereignty in that regard. I’ve said time and again that anyone who is serious about improving the lives of Nevadans, this is contrary to that. They are ignoring the will of Nevadans.
When it comes to the situation in Boulder City, what do you think should happen there?
I think the federal government shouldn’t be able to come in and authorize the approval of a data center when the initial authorization was for a solar project. There are two different environmental protection measures that need to be implemented in that regard.
An end run around protections with no notice and opportunity to be heard is tantamount to a coup in this arena. It’s not something that I countenance. I know what I stand for. Certainly I wouldn’t stand by quietly and not do anything.
Walk me through what you want to get done on this topic should you win? What do you want to see the state legislature do?
We’re going to stop the tax abatements, these giveaways to these companies. We need to ensure they’ve lived up to their obligations.
When I’m governor they’re going to have to bring their own clean energy and bring their own water. We live in the desert. We’re going to end evaporative cooling throughout the state.
I’m not new at this. My tenure in public service has been defined by holding public companies accountable. I’ve held them all accountable and I’m going to do the same for data centers should I be elected governor.
My last question for you is about the future. Most conversations happening about data center development are focused on the short term. But five, ten years down the road, where do you think we’re going to end up on this issue?
That’s the real question. Eleven years ago, we had no idea we’d be here. ChatGPT didn’t exist when data centers were first discussed. They were places where the cloud was being held.
So look, we need to have conversations with companies. We need to stay at the forefront of development.We need to stay in conversation with companies to understand where it's going and make sure we’re passing governmental policies that will accommodate the needs of Nevadans. While we can’t predict where we’ll be in five years, we know it won’t look like this today.
We need to be nimble. We need to be responsive. We need to be reactive. Proactive, when we can. All of it at the exact same time.
The most important states to watch for the future of renewable energy policy sit at the nexus of the data center backlash.
Over the last week, I’ve pored over what I believe to be the top five most important spaces to watch for all things utility-scale solar, battery storage and transmission development: Texas, California, Arizona, Alabama and Wisconsin. I selected these five states because they either have some of the largest generation capacity (Texas, California, Arizona) or crucial statewide elections that could decide not only the future of renewable energy in the state but elsewhere across the country (Alabama, Wisconsin).
In four out of the five states I found remarkable harbingers of troubles and tension in the foreground, as the nation careens toward a midterm election fast being defined by rising electricity bills and the AI infrastructure many Americans believe to be to blame.
In Texas an influential conservative think tank, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, is urging the state utilities commission to pause transmission permitting so legislators can help “the market to direct less revenue to wind, solar, and storage.” In Arizona, Democrats and Republicans are clashing over a four mile “nuisance” setback for solar and wind projects which industry backers have claimed would be a de facto ban on new projects. In Wisconsin, GOP gubernatorial hopeful Tom Tiffany is campaigning with renewables dissidents while railing against data centers too on a platform of empowering local control over infrastructure siting.
My only exception is California where, for a multitude of reasons, our Heatmap Pro data actually finds renewable energy conflicts and cancellations are actually down from their all-time average.
So here’s my breakdown of the top five states to watch for the future of policy governing renewable energy development. I hope this list is helpful. Oh, and for the sake of saving you time, I’m not going to delve deep into wind energy policy specifically, because there’s no reason to – you and I both know that industry’s fate is being decided by Donald Trump alone.
On Wednesday, after briefing Fight subscribers about this list in advance, I didn’t think I’d be breaking huge news. Then I spotted a grassroots anti-transmission organizer in the Lone Star State exclaiming on Facebook about a letter submitted that day to a Texas Public Utilities Commission docket from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, one of the most influential conservative think tanks in the United States.
The TPPF letter, which has not yet been reported, called for a statewide pause on transmission permitting pending new legislation that would deprioritize solar, wind, and battery storage on the state grid. It endorsed a motion to abate proceedings for approving new 765-kV high voltage power lines, a buildout in progress responding to various constraints on the grid as well as data center growth. And there were consignatories, including a litany of oil company executives as well as ranchers. “The need for so many long-distance lines is fundamentally driven by the failure of the wholesale market to properly incentivize the development of dispatchable generation close to load,” wrote Greg Sinclar, the think tank’s CEO. “The PUC and ERCOT need to implement a complete solution instead of partial fixes. Fundamentally, Texas needs the market to direct less revenue to wind, solar, and storage and more to reliable generation to properly account for the differences in reliability, variability, and duration of those different resources.”
Towards the end of the message, the think tank recommended what I now consider to be one of the most important pieces of state-level legislation considered anywhere in the country and which nearly became law last year. I wrote about the bill last year, as it would require energy generation projects to produce electricity whenever called upon or else they’d pay a fine, a concept opponents effusively say would target solar and wind projects lacking the energy storage to be on call for grid operators 24/7. (Nevermind the fact that solar plus storage has been the hero of the Texas grid this summer.)
“We think that the market will respond to those changes by building the amount and types of reliable generation needed in Texas and eliminate the need for more transmission and out-of-market subsidies,” Sinclair concluded.
The conservatives’ request was subsequently endorsed by Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, but wasn’t heeded. The Public Services Commission on Friday approved two large 765-kV lines out to West Texas, and it’s unclear whether the commission will heed future requests to pause green lines for these power lines given ongoing reliability concerns. But suddenly, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s support for a permitting pause looks a little different, especially since Texas attorney general and GOP senate candidate Ken Paxton filed comments supporting the abatement request earlier in the day.
“The Commission should pause to allow the Legislature time to evaluate the benefits and risks of these massive transmission lines. While the potential benefit of such lines may be significant, so is the risk of damage to privately owned lands and natural resources and the Legislature has not yet had the ability to balance those interests,” Paxton wrote in a legal brief to the commission, per the Texas Tribune.
For months now, myself and others at Heatmap have warned that the data center backlash could provide room for an anti-renewables Trojan Horse, as demand constraints and energy price politics change the calculus around the generation mix for elected officials and candidates for public office. Suddenly there’s a flashy new reason to argue for “firm” generation like gas and coal that can run all the time, especially in a state like Texas already dealing with blackout risk. And now it’s more evident than ever how at least one influential corner of conservative orthodoxy wants to respond: halting new electricity infrastructure so investors downgrade the value of building renewables.
When reached for comment, TPPF confirmed its desire to see this legislation passed before any major transmission buildout in the Lone Star State. “Texas ratepayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize billions in transmission infrastructure built primarily to move intermittent wind and solar generation that can't reliably deliver when Texans need it most,” read a statement provided by the think tank’s vice president of communications Eric Oldfather, which posited that “much of the pressure for these lines is coming from companies trying to meet their ESG goals, not by what Texas actually needs for a reliable grid.”
“The Legislature needs to weigh in before the PUC locks in costs that families and businesses will be paying for decades,” the statement concluded.
When Trump was first elected, the “Abundance” movement said California needed to be more like Texas when it came to permitting renewables. I’m not so sure that’s true anymore.
New renewable energy fights have consistently declined since early 2025, according to Heatmap Pro data, from a high of 18 fresh fights in the first quarter of that year to eight in the last three months. Every quarter, the number of new conflicts has gone down.

This could be for any number of reasons, like enactment of a siting law giving developers alternatives to local regulators more likely to represent the state’s historical NIMBYist tendencies. But it’s also possible that the state benefits from lacking the data center boom and backlash snaring other areas of the country. While California currently has one of the largest sets of operating data center facilities, it’s far from the primary destination for the new builds we’re seeing for artificial intelligence. There’s a teeny backlash happening, but it's been comparatively tiny.
Unlike New York State, there isn’t even a legislative push gaining steam for a statewide moratorium yet. That could be because rumored 2028 presidential contender Gov. Gavin Newsom last year vetoed a bill mandating new water use disclosures, suggesting he may not have purchase for that sort of law. But this also demonstrates regulating data centers is not as important a priority to him as, let’s say, strengthening the grid from fire risk and lowering gas prices.
In other words, California has more favorable waters than anyone could’ve expected last year.
Some lawmakers in the sunniest state really want solar energy to be far, far away from people.
This year the Arizona state house passed a bill that would label utility-scale renewable energy projects a "nuisance" and compel them to be located at least four miles away from residential homes. Per the legislative text, project operators would suddenly be subject to a misdemeanor, unless they got certificates from the Arizona Corporation Commission and its committee on power plant and transmission siting. And it would require the state attorney general to immediately bring legal action to “abate, enjoin, and prevent” projects from being built or operating out of compliance with the new restriction. Pro-renewables organization Advanced Energy United called the proposal a “practical siting ban plus an automatic litigation trigger.” (At least the bill authors exempted rooftop solar from being a nuisance, because how would that work?)
It’s unlikely that in an election year favorable for Democrats this bill stands any chance of becoming law. Yet it’s important to recognize Arizona is now for the second time in two years home to a bitter divide over indefinitely halting at least some forms of renewable energy, after legislators last year rejected a flat out wind project ban. Should there be a Red Wave election cycle, we can only surmise the potential for choppy waters and relative instability in this otherwise blossoming state for solar development.
Renewable energy developers better hope the future of Republican public utility regulators doesn’t look like Jim Zeigler.
In June, Zeigler won the GOP primary for a Public Service Commissioner against an incumbent, Chris Beeker. At the time, the former state auditor campaigned primarily on fighting the growth of data centers and solar farms in the state, lumping them together in the same breath. “They can ruin your community, consume water, and drive your electric bills up,” Zeigler said of both industries in an ad featured on the homepage of his campaign website. Zeigler is responding to local concerns like those in Stockton, a town south of the city Montgomery where residents are opposing a large Silicon Ranch project. People in the area routinely link the solar farm to a Meta data center campus being built north of them, in the city.
When Zeigler won the nomination, I predicted his candidacy, if successful, could set a blueprint for other Republicans elsewhere in the United States hoping to harness an industrial techlash against the development of renewable energy projects. In another era, I’d think a man who defended Roy Moore would have more trouble in Alabama. But it’s entirely plausible Zeigler’s previous work on the commission decades ago, combined with an enthusiastic base of support in the state’s Republican base, will catapult his remarkable candidacy to the PSC.
Nothing has irritated me more lately than the online discourse over the Wisconsin gubernatorial campaign and data center development.
Right after winning the Democratic primary for governor, former Milwaukee County executive David Crowley told NBC News he opposed a moratorium on new data center projects because some communities might still want them. Then his GOP opponent Tom Tiffany went on a posting spree littered with deceptively cut clips and trotted out a Trumpian nickname for his opponent: Data Center David. Since then, for weeks, I’ve watched my X feed routinely return to this spat to debate whether Democrats let Republicans win on this issue as a whole, not only in Wisconsin but nationally.
Except… Tiffany doesn’t support a moratorium either. Where the two candidates differ most is that Crowley would require new data centers to not only bring their own energy but prioritize using 100% clean carbon-free energy. Tiffany, meanwhile, has been trotting around the Badger State campaigning in rural communities fighting renewable energy projects and also data centers, criticizing Crowley’s “BYONCE” approach. “David Crowley has called for 100% wind, solar, and battery storage to power data centers. That means not only paving over land for the data centers themselves, but destroying tens of thousands of additional acres of Wisconsin land for solar panels, wind turbines, battery facilities, and transmission infrastructure,” states Tiffany’s website.
Like Zeigler, a Tiffany victory would have ripple effects for renewable energy politics across the country. Both candidates combine this angst over data centers with an overlapping Venn Diagram of potential policy pain for solar, wind, battery storage, and transmission.
In Wisconsin, the most likely practical impact of a Tiffany victory would be changes to state siting. Wisconsin is like California in that state regulators can have a final say over utility-scale solar and wind permitting, instead of localities. And like in Michigan, I expect any new governing GOP majority in the state legislature to ready, aim, fire at that permitting structure, opting instead for emboldening local control over energy development.