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:
It all happened today at Heatmap House, part of New York Climate Week.
If you’ll allow us to toot our own horn for a moment, Heatmap House — our first-ever daylong series of panels with the most influential voices in climate, clean energy, and sustainability, part of New York Climate Week — had everything. Senator Chuck Schumer kicked things off with an emphatic call to action for climate advocates at the top of the day. Then a series of industry leaders in clean energy manufacturing gave us a forecast for the future of American decarbonization, followed by investors and technologists including Tom Steyer and Dawn Lippert telling us how exactly we might find the funding for that future.
Here’s a quick recap, in case you weren’t able to make it out to New York City for the event. Our first session of the day, “The Big (Green) Apple,” centered on New York’s efforts to future-proof the state. Schumer began the day with what my colleague Katie Brigham described as a “rousing condemnation of the Trump administration’s climate policies and a call to action for climate advocates everywhere.”
“New York remains the climate leader, but Donald Trump is doing everything in his power to kill solar, wind, batteries, EVs and all climate friendly technologies while propping up fossil fuels, Big Oil, and polluting technologies that hurt our communities and our growth,” Schumer said.
Among the various sessions that followed, Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo spoke with Uchenna Bright, a commissioner on the New York State Public Service Commission, about New York’s evolving energy system and how to keep it affordable for New Yorkers. Later, Emily spoke with Elijah Hutchinson of the NYC Mayor’s Office of Climate and Environmental Justice about the city’s specific climate goals, and how those are inextricably tied with advancing equality for all the city’s residents.
Justin E. Driscoll, the president and CEO of the New York Power Authority, which sponsored the session, highlighted how the public power utility is modernizing through grid enhancing technologies, a.k.a. GETs. He also touched on the utility's newest mission, courtesy of Governor Kathy Hochul, to launch at least 1 gigawatt of new nuclear capacity upstate.
Other speakers from the morning session included Andrew Bowman, CEO of Jupiter Power, and Jon Powers, co-founder of CleanCapital, who spoke with Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin about the nuts and bolts of power generation. Meanwhile Ben Furnas, executive director at Transportation Alternatives, emphasized the importance of clean, efficient ways of getting around the city in conversation with executive editor Robinson Meyer.
Our midday session, “Built to Scale,” was a lesson in pragmatism. Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii, along with other clean energy voices including Ricardo Falu, chief operating officer at AES, argued that the global fight to decarbonize is going on with or without the United States. “It is best for people to operate under the assumption that the United States, at least for the next three years, will be a destructive force on collective climate action,” Schatz said to Rob.
Falu, whose company has succeeded in getting clean energy projects off the ground abroad, concurred. “In Chile, we pay 12 cents for a solar panel. Here in the U.S., it’s 36 to 37 [cents]. Why is that?” he said in conversation with Emily. “In many other countries, you don’t need incentives for renewables. They are competitive.”
But many of the panelists remained cautiously optimistic about the future of decarbonization in the U.S. These included Jake Oster of Amazon, who told Katie that energy efficiency is at the forefront of Amazon’s data center growth efforts. Carla Peterman, chief sustainability officer of PG&E, told my colleague Matthew Zeitlin that she was confident data center demand will eventually bring down electricity rates for consumers. Other speakers highlighted the need for clarity from lawmakers in order for clean energy projects to advance, including Julien Dumoulin-Smith of Jefferies, who talked to Matthew about the clean energy financing equation.
Jeff Tolnar, president of Shoals Technology Group, which sponsored the midday session, shared a similar sentiment. “Tariffs — I’m not the best speller in the world, but it has become a four-letter word,” he said. “In April, our supply chain team did a fantastic job, and then a month later there’s a change and then a month later, another change, and then there’s a tweet. It causes chaos in the supply chain.”
Our final session of the night, “Up Next in Climate Tech,” focused on the future of climate tech investment. Climate investor and philanthropist Tom Steyer sat down with Rob to discuss what needs to happen for climate innovation to finally achieve deployment. Steyer is confident that a “huge, powerful wave” is still driving renewable energy.
“For the people who never look at the numbers, for the people who don’t pay attention to actual investment decisions, costs, profit margins, you can say whatever you want. But I’ll tell you this: The rig count is down 10% to 20% in 2025 in America,” Steyer said.
Dawn Lippert, CEO of Elemental Impact and founding partner of Earthshot Ventures, then talked with Rob about the biggest potential challenge facing renewables deployment, even in the face of such unstoppability — that is, “bankability,” otherwise known as the “missing middle” in climate tech investment.
“It takes quite a lot of capital, and there’s no one to hand it out on the financial infrastructure side. They’re not ready for infrastructure investors. They’re definitely not ready for banks,” Lippert said.
Moreover, in the midst of rapid load growth, “there’s massive gaps in capacity,” added Jon Norman, president of Hydrostor, the sponsor of our last session of the day. “That’s really tricky. That requires investment.”
Rounding out our last session were Christian Anderson, co-founder of the carbon accounting platform Watershed, and Rick Needham, chief commercial officer of Commonwealth Fusion, who discussed what makes a climate tech unicorn with Katie. Sublime Systems CEO Leah Ellis, whose company makes low-carbon cement, and Microsoft’s Katie Ross, talked with Emily about how their companies are partnering up to produce low-carbon cement.
The bottom line? Circumstances for clean energy deployment may be particularly tough at the moment, but there are thousands of creative people finding innovative ways to reach our decarbonized future.
The current policy environment “doesn’t mean that collective climate action can’t continue,” said Schatz. “It doesn’t mean that American companies, American governors, American nonprofits, American journalists, can’t be part of this whole movement to solve this generational challenge.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Packed hearings. Facebook organizing. Complaints about prime farmland and a disappearing way of life. Sound familiar?
Solar and wind companies cite the rise of artificial intelligence to make their business cases after the United States government slashed massive tax incentives for their projects.
But the data centers supposed to power the AI boom are now facing the sort of swift wave of rejections from local governments across the country eerily similar to what renewables developers have been dealing with on the ground over the last decade. The only difference is, this land use techlash feels even more sudden, intense, and culturally diffuse.
What’s happening is simple: Data centers are now routinely being denied by local governments in zoning and permitting decisions after local residents turn against them. These aggrieved denizens organize grassroots campaigns, many with associated Facebook groups, and then flood city council and county commission hearings.
Just take this past week. Last Thursday, Prince George’s County, Maryland, paused all data center permitting after a campaign against converting an abandoned mall into a data center gained traction online, with a petition garnering more than 20,000 signatures. On Monday, faced with a ferocious public outcry, Google rescinded a proposal to build what would’ve been its second data center in Indiana in Franklin Township, a community in southeastern Indianapolis – a withdrawal requested mere minutes before the township council was reportedly going to reject it.
That same day, the rural Illinois town of DeKalb denied a solar company’s request to build a “boutique data center” on the same site as a previously-permitted solar farm. And on Tuesday, the small city of Howell – located smack between Lansing and Detroit, Michigan – denied a data center proposed by an anonymous Fortune 100 company. Apparently, so many people showed up to voice their opposition to the project that the hearing was held in a high school gymnasium.
Opponents cite many things in their arguments against development, some unique to the sector like energy and water use, and others familiar to the solar and wind industry, like preserving prime farmland or maintaining a way of life.
These arguments are incredibly salient, as polling conducted by Heatmap News has revealed: less than half of Americans would ever support a data center coming near them, and this technology infrastructure is less popular than any form of renewable energy. Digging into the cross-tabs of that poll, data centers are unpopular with essentially all age demographics, and arguments against the facilities – like “they use too much water” or “they consume too much electricity” – get relatively similar agreement from registered Democrats and Republicans alike.
Ben Inskeep, a clean energy advocate in Indianapolis, told me he started fighting data centers last year after he became aware of the total power needed to fuel the rising number of projects in the state. His advocacy organization, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, previously weighed in on rate hikes and electricity generation decisions. Now, they’re tracking more than 40 data center projects they say are proposed in the state and getting involved in the fight on the ground against them.
Inskeep told me that, from his point of view, the primary support for data centers comes from local governments and municipally-funded works like schools and health facilities that are facing slashed budgets. In some cases the projects are being rejected despite representing millions – even billions – in capital investments and potential tax revenues so large that municipal governments are put between a rock and a hard place as they’re pressured by a weakening economy and state funding cuts.
That’s what happened in Indianapolis. Earlier this month the school district that would’ve been funded by the now-rejected Google data center came out in support of the project, declaring it would welcome new tax revenue, and said it would also lead to new educational partnerships with the tech giant. But none of that mattered. Some local officials even lambasted their colleagues' support as unwarranted, a lashing out that reminds me of what happens to pro-solar officials in Ohio.
Heatmap News has been tracking contested data center projects since the spring of this year and has found almost 100 projects under development across the country that are being actively fought by local organizers, citizens advocacy groups, and environmental organizations. The data is preliminary and likely an undercount.
Still, there’s lots to glean from it. Crucially, as we’ve seen with renewable energy development, data center opposition crops up most often in tandem with the number of projects proposed and constructed. This is only logical: the more of something that is built in a place, the more likely people are to say, “We’ve built enough of that.” This is why Virginia is the top state when it comes to data centers being opposed – it’s a hub that’s seen development spike for far longer than elsewhere in the United States.
I believe that as data center project proposals continue to rise across the country, we’ll see in parallel rising hostility to their development – potentially much larger than anything renewable energy has ever faced. It will undoubtedly also be a problem for anyone in solar or wind who is riding on an AI boom to add demand for their projects.
And more of the week’s most important news around renewable energy conflicts.
1. Pulaski County, Arkansas – The attorney general of Arkansas is reassuring residents that yes, they can still ban wind farms if they want to.
2. Des Moines County, Iowa – This county facing intense pressure to lock out renewables is trying to find a sweet spot that doesn’t involve capitulation. Whether that’s possible remains to be seen.
3. Fayette County, Tennessee – This county just extended its solar energy moratorium for at least the next 18 months after pressure from residents.
4. McCracken County, Kentucky – It’s not all bad news this week, as a large solar project in Kentucky appears to be moving forward without fomenting difficulties on the ground.
A conversation with Wil Gehl at the Solar Energy Industries Association
This week I chatted with Wil Gehl, the InterMountain West senior manager at the Solar Energy Industries Association. I reached out in the hopes we could chat candidly about the impacts of the current national policy regime on solar development in the American West, where a pause on federal permits risks jeopardizing immense development in Nevada. To my delight, Wil was (pun intended) willing to get into the hot seat with me and get into the mix.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So for starters, walk me through how solar development out west has changed since the start of this year.
Certainly been a lot of changes. I think there’s sort of a confluence of lots of uncertainty and change in the industry. The impending tax credit deadlines and safe harbor and commence construction deadlines, all of that combined with the sort of things that have been ongoing in the West for a while — public lands, siting issues — I think those have made a relatively difficult development environment for folks.
But that said, we’re also seeing unprecedented load growth across the West, and Nevada’s a really good example of that. So the demand for solar and storage remains super high. But I think now we’re navigating even more difficulty in getting projects both sited and also over the finish line.
How has the pause on federal permitting impacted projects in this area of the country?
Nevada is 80% public land, give or take, so those changes at the federal level, particularly, the Department of Interior … it’s pretty difficult if you’re looking at utility-scale solar in the state to avoid a sort of federal lands nexus. Those policy changes are really being felt on the ground in Nevada.
We don’t do a ton of engagement at the county level but I’ve been tracking those developments across the state, in Nevada, and others around the West. Whether they’re moratoriums or consideration on moratoriums, or new siting restrictions… in most states in the West, the land use decisions rest at the local level, either the county or the municipal jurisdiction. The patchwork of changing ordinances, that [has a] pace that has intensified a little bit this year as well.
How is SEIA trying to get those projects unstuck? I think about Esmeralda 7 for example, which hasn’t seen its permitting timeline updated online in half a year. What’s the process for trying to get these projects to move forward at this juncture?
I guess I don’t have project by project specific information but in general, I think the example with Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo’s letter is how we’ve been approaching this issue. Trying to make the case for states like Nevada with really high load growth that projects like this are critical to meeting energy demand and serving customers reliably. Trying to tie the really near-term challenge of serving load together with these issues of federal land so that people on the ground at the state level are aware of it and can use the influence they have with federal officials and other folks to make this situation known, that this has real practical effects with states and their economic development.
When it comes to transmission for these solar projects, what’s the status? Is the scope of the pause just limited to the scope of solar generation or also transmission lines connected to them?
I think the kind of more recent challenges have been more focused on the generation side. The pace of the transmission and associated queue bottlenecks, I feel like that situation has not improved by any means but I don’t get the sense there’s any near-term changes that have impacted that. I’d be curious if other folks who work more closely on the transmission side have a different perspective, but that’s kind of what I’m seeing.
Is there from your vantage point a clip or an end here? If these projects are unable to be unstuck, do you expect developers to try and wait out this limbo with public lands? Or do you expect developers to rethink how they site their projects?
I think in general for projects already under the development process, folks have already invested a lot of time, energy, and capital to get those projects to this point. Particularly those in the West really necessary to serve as growing load, I would expect folks to really be pursuing every angle they can to get those projects over the finish line.
That said, I’m sure there is some point. I just don’t have a good sense of when this becomes totally unpalatable or you’re not able to move forward.
NV Energy recently had a filing at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that allowed projects previously in their queue an escape route out if they were not able to maintain their queue position. I do think that’s a sign of the siting difficulties, the people re-evaluating their project portfolio. I’m not a developer but if you’re looking on private land or federal land, signs are pointing to a smoother path forward on private land but in states like Nevada where 80% plus is public land, even for a project fully sited on private land, it’s really difficult to avoid interconnection or transmission. There are pretty much always going to be federal impacts. That’s just going to be a challenge that industry’s facing at this point.
What’s your message to developers who are anxious in this moment?
That’s a good question. I share the anxiety.
I also think there’s a lot of effort being undertaken by developers to explain the situation on the ground to their elected officials and I really think that’s the kind of message that needs to get out there. These real tangible impacts of projects that were already invested in, in some cases already under construction, that are being hindered by these policy decisions that I don’t think are serving the public interests and are going to limit economic development if they don’t come online in time. Ultimately energy is needed to meet the growing demand. There’s not a great alternative to these projects not getting done.