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:

Ask any climate wonk what’s holding back clean energy in the U.S. and you’re likely to get the same answer — not enough power lines. But what if the problem isn’t the number of power lines, but rather the outdated metal wires they’re made of?
Restringing transmission lines with more advanced wires, a process known as “reconductoring,” has the potential to double the amount of electricity our existing transmission system can handle, for less than half the price of building new lines. That’s the main finding of a recently published working paper from researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, and Gridlab, an energy consulting firm.
There are a few reasons that something as boring and seemingly ubiquitous as power lines are so crucial to the energy transition. Electrifying our cars and homes will increase demand for electricity, and much of the system is already too congested to integrate new wind and solar power plants. Plus, there just aren’t enough lines that run from the sunniest, windiest places to the places where most people actually live.
To realize the emission reduction potential of the clean energy subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act, we have to more than double the rate of transmission expansion, according to research from Princeton University’s Repeat Project. Clean energy projects already face major delays and are often hit with exorbitant bills to connect to the grid. A study from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory called “Queued Up” found that at the end of 2022, there were more than 10,000 power plant and energy storage projects waiting for permission to connect to the grid — enough to double electricity production in the country. Some 95% of them were zero-carbon resources.
The main problem is permitting. Establishing rights-of-way for new power lines requires extensive environmental review and invites vicious local opposition. People don’t want to look at more wires strung across the landscape. They worry the eyesore will decrease their property value, or that the construction will hurt local ecosystems. New power lines often take upwards of 10 years to plan, permit, and build.
But it’s possible to avoid this time-consuming process, at least in many cases, by simply reconductoring lines along existing rights-of-way. Most of our existing power lines have a steel core surrounded by strands of aluminum. Advanced conductors replace the steel with a lighter but stronger core made of a composite material, such as carbon fiber. This subtle shift in materials and design enables the line to operate at higher temperatures, with less sag, significantly increasing the amount of power it can carry.
Advanced conductors cost two to four times more than conventional power lines — but upgrading an existing line to use advanced conductors can be less than half what a new power line would cost because it eliminates much of the construction spending and fees from permitting for new rights-of-way, the Berkeley study found.
“The most compelling, exciting thing is that it only requires a maintenance permit,” Duncan Callaway, an associate professor of energy and resources at Berkeley and one of the authors said while presenting the research over Zoom last week.
The paper highlights a 2016 project in southeastern Texas. Due to rapid population growth in the area, the local utility, American Electric Power, was seeing higher demand for electricity at peak times than it was prepared for, leading to blackouts. It needed to come up with a solution, fast, and decided that reconductoring 240 miles of its transmission lines would take less time than permitting new ones. The project ended up finishing ahead of schedule and under budget, at a cost of $900,000 per mile. By comparison, the 3,600 miles of new lines built under Texas’ Competitive Renewable Energy Zone program, which were built to connect wind-rich areas to population centers, cost more than double, at an average of $1.9 million per mile.
Callaway and his co-authors also plugged their findings into a power system expansion model — basically a computer program that maps out the most cost-effective mix of technologies to meet regional electric power demand. They fed the model a scenario where the only option for transmission was to build new lines at their slow, historical rate, as well as a scenario where there was also an option to reconductor along existing rights-of-way. The second scenario resulted in nearly four times as much transmission capacity by 2035, enabling the country to achieve a more than 90% clean electric grid by that date.
There are cases where new power lines are needed — for example, to establish a new route to access a high-quality renewable resource, Emilia Chojkiewicz, another author of the study, told me in an email. But she said it nearly always makes sense to consider reconductoring given the potential to double capacity and do so much more quickly. “Unfortunately,” she added, “current transmission planning practices do not tend to incentivize or even consider reconductoring.”
This all seems so ridiculously easy that it begs the question: Why aren’t utilities already rushing to do it? During the webinar last week, Chojkiewicz and her co-authors said part of the problem is just a lack of awareness and comfort with the technology. But the bigger issue is that utilities are not incentivized to look for cheaper, more efficient solutions like reconductoring because they profit off capital spending.
To change this, they suggested that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees interstate transmission, and state public service commissions, which regulate utilities at the state level, mandate the consideration of reconductoring in transmission and resource planning processes, and to properly value the benefits that advanced conductors provide. The Department of Energy could also consider instituting a national conductor efficiency standard, so that all new wires installed, whether along existing rights-of-way or new routes, achieve a minimum level of performance.
Reconductoring isn’t the only no-brainer alternative to building new power lines. Another study from the clean energy think tank RMI published last week illustrates the opportunity with even cheaper tweaks called “grid enhancing technologies.” One option is to install sensors that collect data on wind speed, temperature, and other factors that affect power lines in real time, called dynamic line ratings. These sensors allow utilities to safely increase the amount of power transmitted when weather conditions permit it. There are also power flow controls that can redirect power away from congested lines so that it can be transmitted elsewhere rather than wasted.
RMI found that in the PJM interconnection — a section of the grid in the eastern U.S. that is so congested the grid operator has frozen new applications to connect to it — these grid enhancing technologies could open up more than 6 gigawatts of new capacity to wind, solar, and storage projects in just three years. For reference, in 2022, nearly 300 gigawatts-worth of energy projects were waiting for permission to connect in PJM at the end 2022.
The cost savings are not just theoretical. In 2018, the PJM grid operator determined that a wind farm expansion in Illinois was going to require $100 million of grid upgrades — including building new lines and reconductoring existing ones — over a timeline of about three years before it would be able to connect. The developer countered that the needed upgrades could be achieved through power flow controls, which could be installed for a cost of just $12 million in less than half the time. PJM approved the idea, and the project is currently underway.
Congress is still debating how to reform permitting processes. But while that’s still a necessary step, it’s becoming increasingly clear that there’s a host of other outside-the-box solutions that can be deployed more quickly, in the near term. The IRA may have convinced the environmental movement that building new stuff was worth it, but there are still a lot of cases where the smarter choice is to renovate.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the cost of adding power flow controls to the PJM interconnection.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A new report from Global Energy Monitor shows how the scale of planned projects is driving the fossil fuel boom.
The race to build data centers is driving a natural gas boom in the U.S. power sector unlike any seen before. According to Global Energy Monitor, a group that tracks energy infrastructure around the world, the amount of natural gas generation proposed to power data centers in the U.S. doubled in just six months, from January to July.
In a report released Tuesday, the nonprofit said it counted 189 gigawatts of gas-fired capacity that has either been announced, entered the pre-construction phase, or come under construction, up from 97 gigawatts at the end of last year. That count includes plants proposed by utilities to meet demand from data centers, as well as off-grid projects that companies are building to power data centers directly.
And that’s not even the full scale of what’s in the pipeline. In total, taking into account additional planned natural gas-fired power plants that are not necessarily tied to data center projects, the U.S. has 378 gigawatts of generation capacity under development, the report found. For reference, the country had 512 gigawatts of natural gas generation capacity operating as of the end of last year.
While many of the projects included in the report are in early stages and may not materialize, the authors count 52 gigawatts that are already under construction. That’s a 76% increase compared to last year, according to the report, and double the amount under construction in China, making the U.S. the top builder of natural gas plants in the world.
The closest historical precedent to this was in the early 2000s, when the U.S. added more than 150 gigawatts of natural gas power plants in just four years. The key differences this time are the momentous size of the proposed plants and the fact that so many of them are foregoing electric grid connections. Most of the plants built during that earlier period also used a more efficient design known as combined cycle, which uses the waste heat from gas combustion to power additional steam turbines. Due to supply chain constraints, however, about a quarter of the planned natural gas plants related to data center development are installing simple cycle and combustion engines, which are dirtier and less fuel efficient but easier to come by.
“From a climate perspective, there is definitely a risk that it locks in emissions from these resources and creates long term demand for gas as a fuel,” Brendan Pierpont, the director of electricity at the nonprofit research firm Energy Innovation, told me. The projects also raise affordability concerns, he said, whether they are on the grid or not, as the increased demand for gas could raise gas prices for all users of the fuel.
Because so many of these projects are speculative, it’s difficult to get more specific about what it all means for U.S. electricity consumers, let alone emissions and climate change. Last week, Bloomberg News estimated that 126 gigawatts of planned natural gas projects tied to data centers would increase power sector emissions by at least 20% compared to 2025 levels were it all to be built. That estimate did not take into account the fact that the projects will be built amid other changes in the U.S. grid mix, however. More than 200 gigawatts of solar projects and nearly 30 gigawatts of onshore and offshore wind capacity spurred by the expiring clean energy tax credits are working their way through the development pipeline and could come online by around 2030. Battery energy storage is also surging.
Here’s another data point to consider: A recent report by the Rhodium Group modeled changes in U.S. emissions through 2040 and found that power sector emissions could decrease by 24% to 48% given current policy, energy, and technology trends. This is a significantly worse outcome than what the group found two years ago, when the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy tax credits were in effect; then, emissions from the power sector were set to decline by at least 42% by 2035, according to Rhodium modeling.
Both the new Rhodium report and the 2024 version take into account surging electricity demand driven by AI data centers, although the amount of anticipated demand increased in the update. But neither considers the buildout of off-grid natural gas plants. Those would make the outlook “demonstrably worse” emissions-wise, Ben King, one of the authors, told me. The grid routes power when and where it’s needed, King explained, whereas these off-grid plants will serve just one customer, whether it needs their full capacity or not.
It’s also important to take the Global Energy Monitor numbers with a grain of salt. Many of the projects haven’t even applied for permits, named a start year, or found an offtaker for the energy. Off-grid projects will need air and water permits from state governments, while on-grid projects will need additional approvals from utility regulators. Many will also need pipelines to deliver the gas, requiring additional approvals.
When I went through the group’s data to try to identify the 10 biggest gas projects under development that are tied to data centers, it became clear how slippery the whole picture really is. As I looked up each project to verify the details, I found several that had upgraded or downgraded their advertised size multiple times since they were announced. Some were officially permitted for a smaller amount of generation but claimed they would eventually double or even triple that amount when the project is complete. Some were speculative to the point of not even having an advertised location.
Many of the projects on the list below do not yet have customers for their energy, while a number of megaprojects that didn’t make the cut do. For example, Chevron is building the Kilby power plant, a nearly 2.7-gigawatt off-grid natural gas plant in Texas, to serve a Microsoft data center. Then there’s data center projects that are driving more geographically distributed gas plants. Meta, for example, is working with the utility Entergy to get more than 5-gigawatts of natural gas capacity scattered across different sites in Louisiana to power its massive Hyperion project.
Still, viewed together, these projects provide a picture of what kind of progress the developers with the biggest natural gas plans are making so far.
Potential size: 11 gigawatts
Location: Amarillo, Texas
Developer: Fermi America
Grid connection: No
Customer: TensorWave, a cloud company, has agreed to buy 222 megawatts from the site.
Fermi has obtained state air permits for 6 gigawatts and submitted an application for five more. Fermi also recently enlisted a partner, Hillcore Energy, to build and operate 2.6 gigawatts of the total.
Potential size: 9.2 gigawatts
Location: Piketon, Ohio
Developer: SB Energy, backed by the U.S. government
Grid connection: According to the Department of Energy, it will “connect to the local grid,” i.e. PJM Interconnection
Customer: OpenAI
No air permits have been filed. Because the project is partially on federal land, it will have to undergo federal environmental review. The Trump administration has already decided to fast track permitting for the project, however, and expects to complete it by Christmas.
Potential size: 9 gigawatts
Location: Box Elder County, Utah
Developer: Utah’s Military Installation Development Authority and investor Kevin O’Leary
Grid connection: No
Customer: Unknown
Box County approved two resolutions in support of the project in May. It faces intense local opposition. The developers reached an agreement with Utah Governor Spencer Cox in May to cap Phase I of the project at 1.5 gigawatts.
Potential size: “8+” gigawatts, though the initial phase is much smaller
Location: Point Pleasant, West Virginia
Developer: Nscale
Grid connection: No
Customer: Microsoft agreed to offtake just over 1.3 gigawatts of compute
Nscale’s air permit application for a roughly 2.2-gigawatt natural gas power station is pending. The company says it has “a clear expansion path to 8GW+ as workload demand grows.”
Potential size: about 7.7 gigawatts
Location: Fort Stockton, Texas
Developer: Pacifico Energy
Grid connection: No
Customer: Amazon
The state approved Pacifico’s air permit for 7.65 gigawatts in January. The site is under construction.
Potential size: More than 7 gigawatts
Location: Hubbard, Texas
Developer: Nexus Data Centers
Grid connection: No
Customer: Anthropic
Nexus’ air permit application is pending. The permit’s list of natural gas turbines and engines amount to more than 7 gigawatts of generation, however a July Wall Street Journal article about a potential financing deal for the project noted that the site would be capable of generating just 1.6 gigawatts. The deal has not yet been confirmed.
Potential size: 5.2 gigawatts
Location: Bethel, Texas
Developer: NextEra
Grid connection: Unknown
Customer: Unknown
The planned facility is part of a trade deal between the Trump administration and Japan. On August 12, NextEra executed agreements with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the government of Japan to fund the development and operation of the project.
Potential size: 5 gigawatts
Location: Midland County, Texas
Developer: FO Permian Partners/HiVolt Energy
Grid connection: No
Customer: Unknown
Highly speculative. The developers haven’t made any permit filings that I was able to find. FO Permian’s website says that Phase I will be just 150 megawatts, but that the site has “5GW+ of dedicated gas supply.”
Potential size: 4.4 gigawatts
Location: Homer City, Pennsylvania
Developer: Knighthead Capital Management
Grid connection: Developer says it “will have capacity to serve multiple large data center customers and supply power to thousands of homes on the local grid.”
Customer: Amazon is in talks
Air permits were approved in November. Construction is underway.
Potential size: 4.3 gigawatts
Location: Southwest Pennsylvania (precise location undisclosed)
Developer: NextEra
Grid connection: According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, it will connect to PJM
Customer: Unknown
The project is part of the same trade deal with Japan as the NextEra project in Bethel, Texas.
We have run out of time for half measures, argues the Natural Resources Defense Council’s head of climate science and policy.
In just its first three years, the Inflation Reduction Act had historic impacts on the U.S. energy mix, spurring 115 gigawatts of new, clean generation — enough to power more than 20 million American homes.
The law was also living up to its promise to be the largest climate action in U.S. history, with projections that it would lead to up to 500 million metric tons of greenhouse gas reductions from the power sector alone a year by 2035. Then Trump returned to power and backed Republicans in Congress as they used their One Big Beautiful Bill Act to repeal many of the IRA’s most potent climate policies.
An analysis published last month by MIT’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research argues that in spite of these losses, “the glass is half full.” Clean power is still thriving, the report argues, regardless of the attacks on solar and wind and on efforts to address climate change.
When I look at the data, however, I see a glass much more than half empty.
The repeal of the key IRA tax credits and other Trump administration policies will result in 637 fewer gigawatts in added clean energy over the next 15 years and cost the average American household $4,500, according to modeling by Energy Innovation.
Axing the tax credits also results in the U.S. losing up to 85% of the projected emissions reductions from the IRA by 2035. This is the case even though many wind and solar projects will continue to claim tax credits through 2030, meaning that as time goes on, the losses will get steeper.
My own analysis, released Tuesday, finds that the Trump administration’s policies would result in the loss of up to 540 gigawatts of clean energy over the next decade — 40% of all the new power expected to be built before Trump took office. In total, the U.S. stands to lose more than $700 billion in net power sector investment. Over the next decade that will mean a half-million fewer clean energy jobs, $230 more on the average utility bill, and 600 million metric tons of additional carbon emissions a year, essentially doubling the power sector's climate footprint in 2035.
This debate is crucially important as we think about how to set durable policies once a president who dismisses climate change as the “greatest con job ever perpetuated” finally leaves office for good. Given the crisis before us, we cannot accept progress in half-measures. Whether you see the glass as half full or half empty, it’s simply not enough. The next administration will need to build on the success of the IRA to make sure we make up for the time and scale we have lost under Trump.
For longtime advocates of clean energy like me, we are in the best of times and the worst of times.
Buoyed by a stunning reduction in the cost of utility-scale solar (81% since 2009) and onshore wind (50%), and by the boost from tax credits, clean energy development in the U.S. is surging. The country added more wind, solar, and battery storage in the last five years than it had in the previous century, delivering record-breaking amounts of clean energy each year after the IRA passed. The power sector plans to add more new power capacity in 2026 than it has ever built in the nation’s history, with 93% of it coming from solar, wind, and battery storage.
And yet, with the One Big Beautiful Bill, less than half of the wind, solar, and battery projects predicted under the IRA will likely be built over the next decade — up to 59 gigawatts per year instead of up to 131 gigawatts, according to a peer-reviewed study published in Nature Reviews Clean Energy. That means the loss of enough electricity to power tens of millions of homes a year by the 2030s.
Add the administration’s other harmful actions to cancel offshore wind leases, enact tariffs that have made development prohibitively expensive, and delay approvals of even routine permits, and the impacts skyrocket. Altogether, Trump’s energy agenda is set to cost the average American household $4,500 more on their energy bills over the next 15 years, according to Energy Innovation’s analysis. Because gas turbines are in short supply, ending the solar and wind tax credits “directly increases system costs by making the only thing available more expensive,” it concluded.
It’s worth taking a moment to explain why this outlook is so much worse than “more than half full.”
The MIT paper compares expected power sector emissions in 2035 to a baseline of 2021. In one scenario it looks at the outlook under pre-Trump policies, including both the IRA and new emissions standards enacted by the Environmental Protection Agency that Trump is moving to undo versus what is expected now.
This approach is a departure from how policy impacts are best measured. In standard practice, modelers compare policies against a “business-as-usual” scenario, i.e. the current policy landscape, not an arbitrarily chosen past year.
The Nature Reviews Clean Energy meta-analysis did exactly this, comparing the Big Beautiful Bill not only to the IRA but also to a “No IRA” baseline to isolate the impact from these policies. The conclusion: Economy-wide, the GOP tax law eliminates between 67% and 85% of the emissions reductions projected under the IRA, bringing us back nearly to the No IRA world.
Even with the static comparison used by MIT, the year chosen can change the picture substantially. While MIT’s analysis chose 2021, the latest Energy Innovation analysis started from 2025, the most recent full-year data. Using 2025 as a baseline, the researchers found that federal policies enacted since January 2025 will result in 56% fewer emission reductions over the next 15 years.
To be clear, that is not 56% of the emission reductions due to the IRA, but rather 56% of all emission reductions expected due to policy and baseline trends. Losing more than half of our nation’s progress is a heavy blow.
To some degree, the MIT paper is not contesting this conclusion. The “Glass Half Full” paper’s author, Lily Bermel, says the underlying economic trends are a reason that restoring the tax credits wouldn’t be the most effective use of political capital. She argues that solar and wind are now “mature” technologies, and that “the energy transition’s direction is set by technology costs and demand growth, while policy shapes its pace and scale.”
However while wind, solar and batteries are now a low-cost resource and the dominant source of new power, we still aren’t building as much or as fast as we need to.
Renewables come with a wide array of public benefits: They reduce energy prices, volatility risk, and dependence on foreign fuels; they cut emissions and local pollution; and they promote American jobs and manufacturing. Peer-reviewed research has concluded that the U.S. needs to build twice as much wind and solar per year over the next decade as currently projected given the risks of climate change. That’s a wide gap between what the market is delivering and what the public needs. Government incentives and standards remain key to filling this gap.
We also can’t ignore the affordability crisis facing many American households today. While wind and solar are low-cost, mature technologies that lower electricity prices and rates due to minimal operating costs, building these facilities at scale involves large upfront costs that tax credits can help mitigate. Tax credits make clean energy technologies more competitive and reduce utility bills by moving these costs from households to the federal government.
In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Bermel built on her analysis to make four concrete policy recommendations. Instead of reestablishing tax credits for solar and wind, Congress should push through permitting and transmission reforms and support for “clean firm” technologies such as nuclear (a technology that has been available at commercial scale since the 1950s) and geothermal power, she argued.
The answer to our predicament is to “build,” she writes, echoing a refrain that the Natural Resources Defense Council has been highlighting recently as well. But Bermel says these measures should be done instead of reinstating the tax incentives for solar and wind.
That’s the wrong place to start.
Given the surging demand for electricity, growing costs of climate change, and skyrocketing electricity bills across the U.S., a new Congress will need to address many issues at once. We will need measures to speed approvals for new transmission lines and get grid operators like PJM to connect more power to their grids. We will also need emissions standards and tax incentives, expanding on the incredibly successful tax credits for solar and wind to make sure enough low-cost, affordable clean energy gets built. And we will need other tax and trade policies to ensure all of this is driving American-made manufacturing.
That’s a lot to tackle, but given the climate destruction we’ve seen this summer from Oregon to Ontario and far, far beyond, we cannot settle for just a few sips of progress when we need a full pint. And, importantly, voters support these actions and reward lawmakers who take them. Leaders in Washington shouldn’t shrink from the challenge just because the failing Trump administration wants to pretend it is all a hoax.
A small but growing share of counties are targeting data centers, solar farms, and battery storage systems at the same time.
I’ve got an update for you on the data center backlash — and what it could mean for the governor’s race in Wisconsin, one of the country’s most important state-level battles in the upcoming midterms.
Last week, I wrote about how the Republican congressman and Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Tom Tiffany was trying to turn the data center issue into a kind of trojan horse for slowing down renewables. Tiffany claimed to be anti-data-center, but he was really looking to apply new and stricter rules to clean energy development, as well.
Over the weekend, Tiffany said the quiet part loud. “David Crowley wants to cover our farmland with industrial-scale wind, solar, and data centers,” he posted on X. (He also started calling his opponent “Data Center David Crowley.”) Tiffany vowed to “protect Wisconsin farmland,” picking up on the idea — already used by the Trump administration to stymie solar development — that renewables threaten the integrity of agricultural land.
Now Crowley isn’t nearly as pro-data-center as Tiffany claims, although he has said the computing facilities should run on 100% clean energy. Yet Tiffany's accusation made me curious: How many local governments now see data centers and renewables as a package deal — and a farmland-threatening incursion that should be blocked? Back in March, my colleague Jael Holzman has covered how data centers are turning Americans against renewables. Are we seeing that on the ground?
Our market intelligence service Heatmap Pro tracks local laws affecting clean energy, batteries, and data centers. I asked the Pro team to look at how many local governments have now banned all three types of infrastructure — communities with what you might call a “none of the above” policy.
There’s mostly good news in the results for renewables advocates. The number of towns and counties that have blocked data centers, solar, and batteries remains small. As of late last week, 21 counties across the country have an active restriction or moratorium on solar, batteries, and data centers combined.
Another 10 counties have banned either data centers and solar, or data centers and batteries, but not all three. Six cities or municipalities have placed combined restrictions on the technologies nationwide.
The bad news: The number is growing fast. Most of these “none-of-the-above” restrictions were passed in 2026, and the overwhelming majority are in the rural Midwest and Great Plains. Kansas, Iowa, and Indiana account for most of the moratoriums or restrictive laws.
Not all of the restrictions are new. Although most of these multi-technology restrictions get passed at the same time, a handful of counties blocked solar and batteries first, then tacked on data centers later. Dickinson County, Kansas, for instance, has long blocked solar and batteries. But this spring, as the data center boom came along, the county’s leaders extended that moratorium to apply to data centers and all forms of energy development — including natural gas.
Overall, the scale of the trend remains small. Less than 10% of data center restrictions nationwide also target clean energy. That’s good news for renewable developers because the number of data center ordinances is surging. More than 530 data center restrictions are now on the books nationwide, and most restrictions have come in the past 12 months.
And what about the Wisconsin election? As of right now, only one county in America’s Dairyland has restricted data centers and batteries together. None have restricted solar, wind, and batteries. But Tiffany does seem to be tapping into a much larger zeitgeist. When you look at the stated reasons why communities nationwide are adopting these policies, farmland protection ranks high on the list. When it comes to permitting politics, in other words, farmland looks like the next frontier.