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:
That’s according to a new Heatmap poll — but it is still possible to win their support.

Attending a public hearing is the most important civic duty that nobody actually does. (Well, not nobody — we’ll get into that.) But despite attendance at public hearings being one of the most effective ways to directly shape one’s community, the average American probably isn’t going. And heaven forbid you ask them to speak.
Heatmap’s latest poll looked into, among other things, the actions someone would take if they had concerns about a hypothetical clean energy project in their area. What we learned is that Americans are more willing to join a lawsuit (41%) than they are to talk at a public hearing (30%). But there is a demographic that is bolder than the rest of us glossophobes — people who owned 50 or more acres of land were nearly one-and-a-half times as likely (43%) to speak up in such a scenario. Overall, these large landowners were also more likely to say they’d attend a public hearing about a clean energy project (71%) than the general population (60%).
Community opposition is one of the leading causes of delays and cancellations of renewable projects, with about one-third of wind and solar siting applications in the last five years killed by local pushback. It’s also true that Republicans are more likely to live in rural areas with renewable energy development, meaning “conservatives’ opposition could prove more decisive to the future of wind and solar than liberals’ support,” The Washington Post wrote last year. (Heatmap’s polling backs that up: 70% of the large landowners we surveyed said they plan to vote for Donald Trump, compared to 17% who said they intend to vote for Kamala Harris.)
Clean-energy advocates who work with rural partners, including large landowners, told me they weren’t surprised to hear of the group’s high levels of in-person engagement. “Obviously, it takes land to build wind and solar, and a lot of that land is in rural America,” Jane Kleeb, the founder and director of Bold Alliance, an environmental advocacy organization based out of Nebraska that helps landowners navigate new infrastructure projects, told me.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the biggest concern Heatmap encountered among large landowners was that potential clean-energy projects could “take up farmland” (70%), followed by worries that they’d “harm wildlife or local nature/environmental sites” (58%; this is also the highest concern among the general population, cited by 54% of all respondents).
Kleeb said she often encounters these anxieties when working with partners in rural states. “When we’re talking with a community that for decades has supported land being used to grow ethanol, which is also an energy source — solar will take much less land and not use water, which is a depleting resource in the Midwest and all across the country,” she pointed out. (To be clear, Bold Alliance does support ethanol.) As for environmental concerns, “wind and solar have way less impact than fossil fuels on wildlife, period,” Kleeb said. “There’s no comparison. It’s not even a close call.”
Another worry large landowners had that stood out from the general population was that nearby land might be developed “by non-local companies” (57% of large landowners vs. 37% of the general population). “What’s not been happening well is that some clean-energy companies will come into a community, and they won’t disclose where the projects are going,” Kleeb said, adding that “community after community that we’re engaging with wants to know that from the beginning, and they want to be engaged in the discussions about where a project may or may not be better suited to be placed.”
While Heatmap specifically looked at who would be the most likely to speak out at a public hearing if they had concerns about a clean-energy project in their area, Kyle Unruh, the Idaho and Montana policy manager for Renewable Northwest, which works with regional partners to create a cleaner grid, said he’s seen that landowners will also “advocate for development on either their own land — as a means of making feasible the continued ownership of a small farm — or on behalf of a fellow landowner who should be entitled to their own property rights and decisions about what happens on their private land.”
At the same time, Unruh has seen landowners testify that they believe development on a nearby property could hurt their property values — a concern raised by 45% of the large landowners who responded to Heatmap’s survey — though he stressed that the claim that renewable energy development decreases nearby property values “is not borne out by the research.” He cited this worry as another reason large landowners evidently show up and speak out at public hearings more than their suburban and urban neighbors. “Landowners tend to have an elevated personal interest in whether energy development takes place, given this development has the real potential to increase the value of their land or the perceived effect of reducing the value or desirability of their land,” he told me.
On the flip side, when Heatmap presented landowners with reasons why they might allow renewable projects to be developed on their land, people living on six or more acres were more likely to pick “none of the above” (44%) in Heatmap’s polling than tax benefits (29%), diversifying their income (28%), or starting an agrivoltaics venture with solar generation and agriculture co-located on the same property (20%), among other options. Of potential upsides“having a long-term source of income” (35%) had the plurality, and “environmental benefits” (31%) also held high appeal.
Clean-energy developers should be making a concerted effort to reach out to large landowners from the start, but not just because they’re one of the more vocal contingents at the local town hall. More often than not, the energy transition will take place in literal backyards, and many opportunities for collaboration or partnership are lost when misinformation, conspiracies, or sneaky development tactics lead instead.
“The climate movement, in general over the past decade, has missed the boat here,” Kleeb of Bold Alliance told me. “There’s a major opportunity to engage with the rural folks who will be shouldering the responsibility of making sure that wind and solar are being built.”
The Heatmap poll of 5,202 American adults was conducted by Embold Research via online responses from August 3 to 16, 2024. The survey included interviews with Americans in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 1.4 percentage points.
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 of the week’s top news around project fights.
1. Kansas City, Missouri – Data centers are so toxic that politicians are using them as boogeymen in totally unrelated policy discussions.
2. Ingham County, Michigan – We have our first major anti-data center candidate in a Democratic congressional primary.
3. Nueces County, Texas - The Longhorn State is on a bull run towards data center hostility.
4. Pulaski County, Arkansas - We have yet another municipal employee losing their job over helping a data center.
5. Marathon County, Wisconsin - Yet again rural residents are poised to lose against state permitting primacy laws benefiting renewable energy.
This week’s conversation is with Grant Gutierrez, head of community impacts at carbon management company Carbon Direct. This week Carbon Direct published a white paper Gutierrez authored on opposition around data centers he’s studied. His research reinforces much of what Heatmap Pro has uncovered, but I was particularly intrigued by a topline finding – that transparency is the most common thread in the 46 data center fights he looked into. Was he seeing what I’ve been seeing? So I asked him to hop onto a Zoom call and let me know his thoughts.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
If you were to explain the findings in your white paper to someone at a bar… how would you put it?
What I would say is that we were really interested in the kinds of concerns communities were articulating as they were opposing or resisting data center development in the U.S. To answer and explore those questions, we developed our own data center cancellation tracker where we looked for cases where we could find a strong correlation between cancelation or withdrawal status and opposition. Then we did high-level analyses of the demographics surrounding those data centers, using standard best practices from environmental justice methodologies and pulling sociodemographic and environmental burden characters from EPA’s EJScreen tool. We were mostly looking at public records. Press materials. City council meeting minutes. Things you wouldn’t have to dig too hard to find.
The kinds of communities we saw successfully resisting data centers tracked across the demographic middle of the United States – slightly more middle income, slightly more white than a majority of the American community, but mostly what you’d consider the average American community.
What is the intended audience of this paper and what are you hoping to communicate?
I think it’s important for data center developers and the capital behind them is that they need to move their engagement to early stage, responsible design. A second audience is regulators, city councils, and local zoning commissions about how to engage with developers and advocate for the right disclosure requirements from industry.
The key topline message is that developers who treat community engagement as a permitting formality instead of a critical early stage input are burdening communities, breaking trust. This is resulting in reputational risk for developers, stranded assets, losing capital – and the loss of future opportunities as developers want to build 21st century infrastructure.
Walk me through what you saw evaluating these projects. What’s the development pattern that leads to such opposition?
We saw five key themes. Some of them you might expect – concerns around natural resources, water impacts, electricity rates, land. The rural character came up quite consistently. And then there was a lack of transparency through the use of NDAs.
The NDA example I was surprised to see was the most consistent in all of our case studies. Communities are largely concerned with the process that unfolds as much as the impacts. That’s a very important signal that transcends political lines. Communities want to be heard, involved in the process. They want large infrastructural development with impacts to listen to their concerns. When those decisions are made behind NDAs or with no transparency or equitable engagement, communities quickly mobilize and organize at a hyperlocal level and are successful in opposing these data centers.
I know there are a number of companies out there – without naming names – that are putting responsible development principles forward. The ones we advocate for across our business, whether we’re working in carbon removal or other things. I see companies leading and saying, if we’re involved in this infrastructure, we are not going to sign an NDA. Those who are pushing forward renewable energy commitments, community benefit agreements, and local public-private partnerships are leading with transparency and equity in their engagements.
How any of this carries in the broader industry is yet to be seen.
In your report you point to various ways opposition can crop up to a project. One of those ways was due to the presence of co-located gas – you note that gas power at a data center engendered environmental opponents, which then strengthened those fighting a data center. Can you elaborate on whether you think a new gas power presence is making it harder to get a data center built?
The case you’re pointing to, that’s the Ballico case where on top of the data center there was a 3,500 megawatt co-located gas plant. That quickly led to major community concerns and a partnership with the Southern Environmental Law Center, which became the legal anchor for thinking through the opposition here and commissioned the technical evidence, and provided the legal [support] there.
You see a broad coalition coalesce around not only the data center concern but the climate concerns that arise. I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw a repeated concern around the expansion of fossil energy and combustion sources going hand in hand with community opposition and organizing on data centers. But that remains to be seen.
What in your research have you seen when you compare opposition to data centers and campaigns against, let’s say, fossil fuels? Or mining? Or renewables?
What I think about with data centers is they’re the highways of the 21st century. As we know through the highway projects in the U.S., there were major disproportionate impacts on communities of color. I think there’s potential for data centers if they follow that playbook to have that same impact.
When it comes to comparing these, that’s something I have not done yet. But I think there’s a few things happening. I think the scale and scope of the buildout is taking the American public by surprise. Articulation around impacts to natural resources and electricity prices in a heightened political climate and a difficult economy. It’s also the existential problem AI introduces, which is the role AI plays in society. This is unique compared to other kinds of extraction, which feed technologies already at play.
How do you feel about the fact that so many of us in energy, environment and climate are now talking about data centers all the time?
Never in my career, working in carbon removal and nature based solutions, I never thought data centers would be a major focus in my career as an environmental justice advocate and social scientist.
Data centers are probably emerging to be one of the biggest environmental justice problems of our time so while it’s not something I planned to work on, I am emboldened to see the response from the nonprofit community and others trying to wrap their heads around this. What is the right kind of information? What does the public need to know? How do we advocate for our communities and build the world we would like to build?
While data centers are moving fast, I’m encouraged to see communities organizing and advocating for their own needs as well. Over the next few years, the story will tell itself.
Last question – what was the last song you listened to?
DtMF by Bad Bunny.
Plus, a look into the future of solar and wind tax credits.
Heatmap AM and Daily will be off tomorrow for the July 4 holiday, but we’ll see you back here on Monday.
We’re staring down the barrel of a holiday weekend here in the United States, so I’ll keep it quick. Two things:
July 4 will mark the formal end of the solar and wind tax credits in the United States. These incentives — which date back in some form to 1978 — were repealed by President Trump’s tax cuts and spending law last year. In order to qualify for the last of these subsidies, solar and wind projects must “commence construction” by Saturday and be ready to generate power by the end of 2027.
Although the policies haven’t yet expired, there’s already chatter about bringing them back. Some Democrats want to revive the incentives should they win back Congress and the White House in two or six years. But 2029 or 2032 will likely look different than the earlier years of this decade, when the Inflation Reduction Act was written and passed: Power prices are higher now, the grid more congested, and the federal budget more constrained. So today, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo previews one of the next big questions in climate policy: Should Democrats try to bring back the solar and wind tax credits?
Her story is great, and one disconnect in particular stuck out to me. Among the climate and clean energy wonks Emily interviewed, “everyone” agreed that “in the near term, the most important thing Congress could do to help clean energy is break down some of the non-cost barriers to development through permitting reform.” Permitting reform, after all, has no fiscal cost and could be achieved during this Congress.
But Democratic lawmakers themselves sound far less sure about its importance. “I don’t think Democrats can engage in a serious way with Republicans on permitting reform,” Representative Jared Huffman, the ranking member on the House Natural Resources Committee, tells her. Read the rest of Emily’s story for more on how lawmakers are thinking about this question, which will only get more important as we get closer to ‘28.
Get Heatmap in your inbox daily.
We’ve begun to get Q2 sales data for global automakers — and there’s actually decent news for electric vehicles. Some highlights:
Enjoy your holiday weekend, and remember: We’re now in Q3. Thanks, as always, for reading.