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.
A new front opens in the data center wars.
A series of lawsuits filed in federal court asks a big question – are data center moratoria constitutional?
In early August, data center developer DC Blox sued the city of Nashville in federal court to overturn a zoning moratorium stopping them from building a hyperscale facility adjacent to the city zoo. “The Data Center Moratorium, moreover, is a targeted attack against DC BLOX, in violation of federal constitutional protections,” the suit argued, claiming that it defied the corporation’s due process and equal protection rights.
Around the same time, another developer – Wixom Industrial One – filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Wixom, Michigan, to try and “invalidate the city’s illegal police power moratorium” blocking their data center.
These two cases were far from novel or the first of their kind, and they’re now a fresh front in the battle over hyperscale data centers. At least that’s what some who work on these cases say: In April, attorneys with the law firm Vorys published a “client alert” asserting “many moratoria may be vulnerable to statutory, procedural, and constitutional challenges.” The attorneys advised that constitutional arguments against moratoria “may be stronger where a government singles out data centers without a sound factual basis, treats similar land uses differently without a reasonable basis, or adopts a restriction driven more by political pressure than by defensible planning or regulatory objectives.”
Months later, according to court documents, the Vorys attorneys who authored the alert now represent real estate firm Thor Equities in a federal case against the Ohio city of Urbana, arguing the city’s decision to reject their data center project broke “fundamental protections” under the U.S. Constitution. (Vorys and Thor Equities did not respond to requests for comment.)
It’s unclear how many of these kinds of cases have been filed to date. Data on federal court cases is quite opaque. But legal experts and industry attorneys tell me we should expect them to be on the rise as developers seek whatever tools they can find to get projects built.
“Bringing a lawsuit like this is fairly cheap, something they can do at a relatively low cost, and imposes a real cost on local governments to defend themselves,” said Daniel Metzger, director of the Cities Climate Law Initiative at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center. “The cases out there will be bellwethers. And if successful, there’ll be a lot more of them.”
What developers probably want looks a lot like Hill County, Texas, where an LLC proposing an $80 million data center project was stymied in May by the state’s first countywide moratorium. (It predated Governor Greg Abbott’s temporary freeze of data center development in Texas by three months.) Within a period of only a few weeks, the LLC sued and the county rescinded the pause on approvals. The case was dropped a month later. Local reports state the county had to afterwards pay the corporation $100,000 in legal fees – a drop in the bucket compared to what a drawn-out court battle would have cost the rural county.
Metzger said whether the companies will win these cases is ultimately not the point – their goal is to win a finished data center, not a judicial ruling. By filing expansive litigation in the national court system, a hypothetical developer can exhaust the coffers of a city or county with legal expenses that are chump change compared to would-be billions in private financing for compute infrastructure.
“These lawsuits may deter some local governments from taking steps to oppose data center development, just because of the cost it would impose on them to defend a lawsuit, even if they know they have a strong legal basis for the action they want to take.”
Those I spoke to in private practice about data center developers’ constitutional arguments agreed with Metzger’s assessment that it’s too early to tell whether the companies will win. Generally, they said, a city or county will win this kind of case if it demonstrates a rational basis for its decision-making and courts typically want to defer to governmental autonomy. The onus will be on the developers to prove a moratorium was meritless – that’s the due process challenge – or unfairly targeted their industry in a way other sectors don’t face, which is the basis of the equal protection claim.
“What they’re saying is in essence that these actions the municipality is taking are arbitrary and capricious, which is one of the sort of catch-all standards,” Thomas Allen, a partner at K&L Gates, told me. “They say the laws lack a rational basis. And then they make equal protection claims, saying data centers are being singled out because of political concerns as opposed to actual things relevant to the legislature’s directive. They’re not basing their decisions on the underlying merits of the project but reacting to political pressure.”
“It’s a reliance question and it’s about the treatment of their projects,” added Laura Morton, an attorney with Ashurst Perkins Coie. “It’s always been important to talk about and engage with communities where your infrastructure is planned. Here, I think this is the developers going in, maybe having conversations, and then suddenly they’re getting a reversal after already receiving these approvals and making investments based off of what the conversations and rules were.”
The likelihood of these constitutional challenges reaching higher courts anytime soon is quite low. It’ll be a long time before we see one of these cases reach a verdict, let alone some kind of appeals process come to fruition. Nevertheless, the new legal ambiguity around these local restrictions is an important new facet of the data center wars, including for developers.
“Companies want to act within the law to get [things] done, so whatever tactics they can do to help get the project over the line that are legal and ethical, they may try those,” Allen told me. “And if that includes the pressure of a lawsuit, that’s a judgment they’ll have to make.”
And more on this week’s conflicts around project development.
1. Montgomery County, Pennsylvania – We reached a new normal in the data center backlash, and it all seems to have started in King of Prussia.
2. Columbia County, Wisconsin – The gubernatorial race in this state is transforming local fights over wind projects into must-watch popcorn fodder for anyone obsessed with the state of the energy transition, or national politics for that matter.
3. Shelby County, Alabama – One quick update on the intervention of John Rich, the country star turned Trump’s “special envoy for American landowners,” in an Alabama Power transmission project: it’s getting a lot more elected officials involved.
4. New Jersey – We try to conclude every Hotspots on a positive note. So this week’s silver lining comes to you from the Garden State, where state regulators have approved more than a dozen agrivoltaics projects.
A conversation with Ella Nilsen — formerly of CNN, now with Echo Communications — about where we stand in the fight over the energy transition.
This week’s conversation is with Ella Nilsen, who recently left CNN as a climate reporter and is now a new vice president at energy and cleantech PR firm Echo Communications. Having worked on Capitol Hill alongside Nilsen, I knew her to be an exceptional reporter who asked hard questions of those in power on all sides. So when I found out she was taking her journalism hat off and putting the comms cap on, I wanted to do something you rarely get to do with one of your reporting peers: ask for her own opinion about where we stand in the fight over the energy transition.
Our chat was lightly edited for clarity.
What’s it like going from CNN and climate journalism to advising on communications in the energy sector, especially when it comes to clean tech in this fraught moment?
So before I covered climate and clean energy, I was a political reporter who covered campaign cycles and Capitol Hill for a while, and I was always interested in the nexus of politics and politics. I tried to make as much of my coverage about that. Politics is policy, and the other way around.
Being on the other side of it is, well, I know from my experience as a reporter what interests them. I’m trying to figure out ways to make sure when I’m bugging you all that the pitch lands, because hopefully it’ll be something people are interested in. Things are changing so fast. It’s a really fascinating time to be a reporter and be in the clean energy comms space.
Okay, but now that you’re in clean energy comms, how do you handicap the fight over developing these technologies? Who is winning, who is losing, and why?
I think it’s tough to call exact winners and losers right now because over the last few months, there have been so many new and interesting developments.
Look at the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition, which has been getting involved in Republican primaries for Freedom Caucus members. There’s been this perception for a long time that the clean energy industry didn’t fare well in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act fight. They had important wins while losing pretty key stuff. But there’s been this interesting reckoning within the industry, and even this last summer, where people are moving the ball forward in interesting ways. They’re trying to get involved in political fights with direct results.
What messages do these primaries send? On the one hand I can see there being political consequences but also, now, more solar energy money going into Republican politics has the anti-renewable folks saying they need to go harder at them. I’m curious how you see the energy fight landscape changing in light of these election results.
I think it shows the industry has some fight in it. What the Coalition would probably say is, they want to be lethal and this is political warfare. They’re trying to be taken seriously.
There is sort of this two-pronged strategy happening right now. Obviously Invest in Tomorrow has gotten a lot of press attention for their track record. There’s also within the industry an attempt to shape a public narrative around wind, solar, battery storage to combat misinformation, both through conventional media and social media. They’re happening in tandem and it's a reflection of the results.
How is the backlash over data center development affecting the work you’re now doing?
Well, I’m still early, but I think the data center question is a fascinating one. Conversations around policy and where we go from here really seem to me to be happening in the state realm. Not a lot of policy happening at the federal level. There’s New York State’s data center pause, which is leading to lawmakers trying to get more leverage.
It’s in the backdrop, where projects are being announced with massive power plants to supply new data center demand, and at the same time there’s a conversation around virtual power plants, DERs. Another phrase emerging for it is “community power.”
It’s starting to be a fascinating conversation around community benefits. There are tax benefits when a data center comes to town but when it comes to energy use, what can communities actually leverage out of this? I know former Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has been arguing for strong community benefit agreements, getting big tech companies to pay for solar and EVs and then using all of that to create a virtual power plant. Getting that to be flexible for data centers. That’s only one part of the pie but it’s fascinating to have this conversation about what forms of energy we need for all this demand happening.
What do you foresee about the impact of the backlash, given that land use, visuals, air, and water – its all being swept up in the same conversation?
I don’t have a crystal ball and have the same questions.
It’s all happening so quickly and it’s all playing out in so many different states. There are really important questions here and there are people smarter than I am on this, talking about how we meet this demand in the short term and long term or whether this is an opportunity for getting clean energy onto the grid. But it’s a delicate dance.