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:

As soon as Friday, the Biden administration could announce who will advance to the next phase of its “clean hydrogen hubs” program, a $7 billion experiment to find out whether and to what extent hydrogen can become a competitive replacement for fossil fuels.
The eventual hubs could touch every corner of the country, but the Department of Energy, which is administering the program, and the applicants themselves, have kept the proposed plans mostly confidential. Each one could include a dozen or more individual projects, but little has been disclosed about what the proposed projects are, where they will be, or what the public process will look like around their development. The awards could help clarify the direction of a massive government program that, right now, contains more questions than answers.
Earlier this week, sources familiar with the Department of Energy’s plans told Bloomberg that Biden is expected to announce the initial winners on Friday when he visits Pennsylvania. On Thursday morning, Reuters reported on a tip that one of the grants would go to the Mid-Atlantic Clean Hydrogen Hub, a partnership between Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey, while another would go to the Appalachian Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub, led by West Virginia, but involving partners in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky as well.
Per the bipartisan infrastructure law, which created the program, the DOE must support the development of at least four hydrogen hubs. Collectively, they have to contain projects that test the use of hydrogen in transportation, power generation, residential and commercial heating, and industry. There also have to be projects that demonstrate different ways to make hydrogen, including using renewable electricity, nuclear energy, and natural gas with carbon capture.
Biden’s announcement will just be the start of a process that will play out over the next five to 10 years. The funding will be rolled out over the course of four phases, and the initial batch of winning proposals will not necessarily all continue to receive support beyond the first phase. Each hub will receive a relatively small grant to conduct planning and analysis over the course of the next 12 to 18 months to ensure their “concept is technologically and financially viable, with input from relevant local stakeholders.” (The DOE’s funding announcement estimated initial grants of $20 million, although Reuters reported the Pennsylvania hub will receive $750 million.) After that point, each will be subjected to a “go/no-go review” to determine whether it can advance to the next phase.
“I think it's important to emphasize that what DOE is announcing is an invitation to negotiate potential funding awards,” Jill Tauber, the vice president of climate and energy at Earthjustice, told me. “So this is not an announcement of final decisions and awards. There are still approvals to be secured.”
Hydrogen is incredibly divisive. Most experts who study decarbonization agree that it holds a lot of promise as a climate solution. It can be burned to provide heat or power to any number of processes, similar to natural gas, without releasing any carbon emissions. But it requires a lot of energy to make hydrogen in the first place, and no one knows yet exactly which applications will make sense.
Climate advocates are wary of two big risks. One is that the process of making hydrogen, whether from electricity or natural gas, could emit so much carbon that it ultimately will be worse for the climate. The other is that even if the production is clean, the hydrogen could be wasted on something like residential heating, which already has more efficient solutions available, rather than reserved for processes that are truly hard to decarbonize.
That’s why the biggest questions for the hydrogen hubs are not just where they will be, but which energy sources they will use and which end-uses they will focus on.
“Hydrogen certainly has the potential to be a clean energy solution that delivers benefits, including economic benefits,” said Tauber. “But it can also drag us deeper into the climate crisis and hurt communities. So both things are on the table right now.” These concerns have already made national news in relation to a high-stakes battle over the rules for the clean hydrogen tax credit, a subsidy that was created by the Inflation Reduction Act.
The term “hubs” might bring to mind a few city blocks of bustling activity, but the hydrogen hubs are shaping up to be far more expansive. Many of the applicants are unlikely alliances between multiple state governments, companies, and universities across wide swathes of the country. For example, a potential hub in the Northeast could involve more than a dozen projects stretched across seven states.
Nearly 80 such groups submitted initial concept papers for hubs to the Department of Energy when it first opened up the application process. Of those, the DOE encouraged 33 groups to file full applications, which were due in April, and the agency will be selecting six to 10 for the first phase of the awards.
Just one of the applicants, a partnership between Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming called the Western Interstate Hydrogen Hub, released its initial concept paper to the public, though with a number of redactions. While the hubs will all be different and designed to the specific circumstances of their region, the document is still helpful for demonstrating what kinds of projects are under consideration.
The document lists eight specific projects. Several are hydrogen production facilities — some would use electricity to make the fuel, others would use gas. A company called Libertad Power would buy hydrogen for a network of hydrogen fueling stations for long-haul trucks that it is planning to build between Texas and California. Xcel Energy, the dominant utility in Colorado, wants to blend hydrogen into the natural gas that it burns in its power plants and delivers to residential and commercial customers. There’s also a 275,000-acre farm on Navajo Nation that would run its tractors and other equipment on hydrogen fuel. Companies would construct pipelines and design trucking routes to transport hydrogen around the region.
In addition to getting more detailed information about the different components of the proposals, advocates like Tauber want DOE to more clearly spell out how it will engage with affected communities as the program progresses. “None of that is clear right now, and hopefully we'll see some of that clarity in the announcement,” she said.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more thoughts on the week’s most notable fights around project development.
1. Pinal County, Arizona – If you can’t build a solar or a wind farm somewhere, it’s really hard to get a data center built there too.
2. St. Joseph County, Indiana – Thousands of miles away from Arizona, a similar division is dominating the fight over whether to enact a 2-year moratorium on data centers in the county home of South Bend.
3. Ingham County, Michigan – The first solar farm fight has been resolved under Michigan’s new renewables siting law.
A conversation with Nevada attorney general Aaron Ford
This week’s conversation is with Nevada attorney general Aaron Ford, the Democratic candidate for governor in the state. His campaign reached out recently asking if I wanted to chat about what he’d want to do on data center and energy policy, which is essentially catnip for a reporter like me. So we hopped on the phone and chatted about his approach to regulation as he seeks to oust the sitting GOP governor Joe Lombardo.
The following conversation was lightly edited and abridged for clarity.
As someone running for statewide office, how do you take into consideration the growing backlash to industrial development? Not just data center development but solar and wind?
I think it's the responsible thing to do and it’s the responsive thing to do to engage in conversation around this issue, understand what people think about it, and try to come up with policies to demonstrate your willingness to accommodate those issues. I’ve been on two statewide tours in the last nine, 10 months all over the state talking to folks. The first time I recall having a conversation about this was at the end of my first statewide tour at the end of last year in a rural county, complaining about a data center coming to a different part of that rural county.
It’s across demographics. Democrats, Republicans, Independents – they’re having concerns about these data centers. They’re swarming into Nevada communities, draining our water, jacking up our energy prices, and using Nevada taxpayer money to do it. So folks have asked for thoughtful consideration on how to do this.
How do you distinguish between the concerns about data centers and the concerns about renewable energy, transmission, maybe even conventional energy sources? Do you separate those conversations or are they all just one big conversation to have?
They’re not mutually exclusive. There are sure to be distinct conversations to be had.
What I have said in my plan is that we’re going to stop the [tax] abatement for future data centers coming here until I can audit the efficacy of these other data centers who’ve received abatements. Joe Lombardo has given out $200 million in abatements and he hasn’t checked to see that they’ve fulfilled their end of the bargain in terms of local hires, their impacts on the environment, and so forth.
What I’m going to do is ensure that [if] they're going to operate here, they’ll have to bring not just their own energy but renewable energy to power their facilities.
If elected, you’d be representing a state that has principal interest in front of the federal government. I’ve been writing about data center development on federal lands including the situation in Boulder City. How do you view engaging with the Trump administration on data center development?
At the outset, what we see happening right now outside of Boulder City is an affront to local control. It’s an affront to a local government and its residents voicing their opposition to a data center and the federal government shouldn’t be able to do an end run around zoning and environmental protections. I’m going to stand up for our sovereignty in that regard. I’ve said time and again that anyone who is serious about improving the lives of Nevadans, this is contrary to that. They are ignoring the will of Nevadans.
When it comes to the situation in Boulder City, what do you think should happen there?
I think the federal government shouldn’t be able to come in and authorize the approval of a data center when the initial authorization was for a solar project. There are two different environmental protection measures that need to be implemented in that regard.
An end run around protections with no notice and opportunity to be heard is tantamount to a coup in this arena. It’s not something that I countenance. I know what I stand for. Certainly I wouldn’t stand by quietly and not do anything.
Walk me through what you want to get done on this topic should you win? What do you want to see the state legislature do?
We’re going to stop the tax abatements, these giveaways to these companies. We need to ensure they’ve lived up to their obligations.
When I’m governor they’re going to have to bring their own clean energy and bring their own water. We live in the desert. We’re going to end evaporative cooling throughout the state.
I’m not new at this. My tenure in public service has been defined by holding public companies accountable. I’ve held them all accountable and I’m going to do the same for data centers should I be elected governor.
My last question for you is about the future. Most conversations happening about data center development are focused on the short term. But five, ten years down the road, where do you think we’re going to end up on this issue?
That’s the real question. Eleven years ago, we had no idea we’d be here. ChatGPT didn’t exist when data centers were first discussed. They were places where the cloud was being held.
So look, we need to have conversations with companies. We need to stay at the forefront of development.We need to stay in conversation with companies to understand where it's going and make sure we’re passing governmental policies that will accommodate the needs of Nevadans. While we can’t predict where we’ll be in five years, we know it won’t look like this today.
We need to be nimble. We need to be responsive. We need to be reactive. Proactive, when we can. All of it at the exact same time.
The most important states to watch for the future of renewable energy policy sit at the nexus of the data center backlash.
Over the last week, I’ve pored over what I believe to be the top five most important spaces to watch for all things utility-scale solar, battery storage and transmission development: Texas, California, Arizona, Alabama and Wisconsin. I selected these five states because they either have some of the largest generation capacity (Texas, California, Arizona) or crucial statewide elections that could decide not only the future of renewable energy in the state but elsewhere across the country (Alabama, Wisconsin).
In four out of the five states I found remarkable harbingers of troubles and tension in the foreground, as the nation careens toward a midterm election fast being defined by rising electricity bills and the AI infrastructure many Americans believe to be to blame.
In Texas an influential conservative think tank, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, is urging the state utilities commission to pause transmission permitting so legislators can help “the market to direct less revenue to wind, solar, and storage.” In Arizona, Democrats and Republicans are clashing over a four mile “nuisance” setback for solar and wind projects which industry backers have claimed would be a de facto ban on new projects. In Wisconsin, GOP gubernatorial hopeful Tom Tiffany is campaigning with renewables dissidents while railing against data centers too on a platform of empowering local control over infrastructure siting.
My only exception is California where, for a multitude of reasons, our Heatmap Pro data actually finds renewable energy conflicts and cancellations are actually down from their all-time average.
So here’s my breakdown of the top five states to watch for the future of policy governing renewable energy development. I hope this list is helpful. Oh, and for the sake of saving you time, I’m not going to delve deep into wind energy policy specifically, because there’s no reason to – you and I both know that industry’s fate is being decided by Donald Trump alone.
On Wednesday, after briefing Fight subscribers about this list in advance, I didn’t think I’d be breaking huge news. Then I spotted a grassroots anti-transmission organizer in the Lone Star State exclaiming on Facebook about a letter submitted that day to a Texas Public Utilities Commission docket from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, one of the most influential conservative think tanks in the United States.
The TPPF letter, which has not yet been reported, called for a statewide pause on transmission permitting pending new legislation that would deprioritize solar, wind, and battery storage on the state grid. It endorsed a motion to abate proceedings for approving new 765-kV high voltage power lines, a buildout in progress responding to various constraints on the grid as well as data center growth. And there were consignatories, including a litany of oil company executives as well as ranchers. “The need for so many long-distance lines is fundamentally driven by the failure of the wholesale market to properly incentivize the development of dispatchable generation close to load,” wrote Greg Sinclar, the think tank’s CEO. “The PUC and ERCOT need to implement a complete solution instead of partial fixes. Fundamentally, Texas needs the market to direct less revenue to wind, solar, and storage and more to reliable generation to properly account for the differences in reliability, variability, and duration of those different resources.”
Towards the end of the message, the think tank recommended what I now consider to be one of the most important pieces of state-level legislation considered anywhere in the country and which nearly became law last year. I wrote about the bill last year, as it would require energy generation projects to produce electricity whenever called upon or else they’d pay a fine, a concept opponents effusively say would target solar and wind projects lacking the energy storage to be on call for grid operators 24/7. (Nevermind the fact that solar plus storage has been the hero of the Texas grid this summer.)
“We think that the market will respond to those changes by building the amount and types of reliable generation needed in Texas and eliminate the need for more transmission and out-of-market subsidies,” Sinclair concluded.
The conservatives’ request was subsequently endorsed by Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, but wasn’t heeded. The Public Services Commission on Friday approved two large 765-kV lines out to West Texas, and it’s unclear whether the commission will heed future requests to pause green lines for these power lines given ongoing reliability concerns. But suddenly, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s support for a permitting pause looks a little different, especially since Texas attorney general and GOP senate candidate Ken Paxton filed comments supporting the abatement request earlier in the day.
“The Commission should pause to allow the Legislature time to evaluate the benefits and risks of these massive transmission lines. While the potential benefit of such lines may be significant, so is the risk of damage to privately owned lands and natural resources and the Legislature has not yet had the ability to balance those interests,” Paxton wrote in a legal brief to the commission, per the Texas Tribune.
For months now, myself and others at Heatmap have warned that the data center backlash could provide room for an anti-renewables Trojan Horse, as demand constraints and energy price politics change the calculus around the generation mix for elected officials and candidates for public office. Suddenly there’s a flashy new reason to argue for “firm” generation like gas and coal that can run all the time, especially in a state like Texas already dealing with blackout risk. And now it’s more evident than ever how at least one influential corner of conservative orthodoxy wants to respond: halting new electricity infrastructure so investors downgrade the value of building renewables.
When reached for comment, TPPF confirmed its desire to see this legislation passed before any major transmission buildout in the Lone Star State. “Texas ratepayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize billions in transmission infrastructure built primarily to move intermittent wind and solar generation that can't reliably deliver when Texans need it most,” read a statement provided by the think tank’s vice president of communications Eric Oldfather, which posited that “much of the pressure for these lines is coming from companies trying to meet their ESG goals, not by what Texas actually needs for a reliable grid.”
“The Legislature needs to weigh in before the PUC locks in costs that families and businesses will be paying for decades,” the statement concluded.
When Trump was first elected, the “Abundance” movement said California needed to be more like Texas when it came to permitting renewables. I’m not so sure that’s true anymore.
New renewable energy fights have consistently declined since early 2025, according to Heatmap Pro data, from a high of 18 fresh fights in the first quarter of that year to eight in the last three months. Every quarter, the number of new conflicts has gone down.

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