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:
Does America actually need the renewable energy source to hit its decarbonization goals by 2030?

The Biden administration wants 30 gigawatts of offshore wind power capacity by the end of the decade and East Coast states have taken it upon themselves to do much of the work to get there. But as wind projects up and down the East Coast face problems — developers threatening to pull the plug unless they get more subsidies, higher costs, supply chain issues, local opposition, and possibly astroturfed concerns about whales — experts have questioned whether this goal can really be hit.
But it may not even be necessary to substantially decarbonize the American economy — or at least not by 2030.
The recent stream of news about offshore wind has been bad. Developers up and down the East Coast have been asking states for more money in order to continue deals they struck years ago, citing higher costs throughout the supply chain. A recent auction for offshore wind rights in the Gulf of Mexico was almost a total flop, with only two companies participating in the bidding.
The Danish wind developer Orsted said a few weeks ago that three of its U.S. offshore wind projects were “adversely impacted by a handful of supplier delays” and that “there is a continuously increasing risk in these suppliers’ ability to deliver on their commitments and contracted schedules,” adding up to a lengthening timeline and increased costs that could lead to billions of dollars of write-offs.
The company’s chief executive Mads Nipper, who is in a standoff with the Biden administration over its eligibility for further subsidies, has said they are willing to “walk away” from wind projects. The company said that its Ocean Wind 1 project, planned for the New Jersey coast, would be delayed from 2025 to 2026.
So what happens if offshore wind doesn’t materialize at the level once expected?
There are any number of reports and projections showing how the United States can transition to 100% carbon-free electricity and even a whole economy that contributes net zero greenhouse gas emissions, and they’re typically less optimistic about offshore wind than the Biden administration. Princeton’s Net-Zero America Project, for instance, forecast offshore wind capacity would be between three and 10 gigawatts by 2030 in five scenarios for reaching zero emissions by midcentury. It largely sees additional onshore wind and solar making up the difference.
In fact, the government’s own forecasts don’t really envision the U.S. hitting the 30 gigawatt figure either. The National Renewable Energy Lab’s analysis of how to reach 100% carbon-free electricity by 2035, which is the Biden administration’s nominal goal, projects that in the “mid-range” case, offshore wind production would hit 24 gigawatts by 2030. Both the Net-Zero Project and the NREL foresee massive offshore wind installation, just on a slower timeline than the administration.
“The 30 GW by 2030 offshore wind goal is definitely still within striking distance, thanks in part to investments like the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law , as well as state-level policies,” Jocelyn Brown-Saracino, the Department of Energy's Wind Energy Lead, said in an emailed statement. “The actual size and speed of U.S. offshore wind build-out will depend on continued regulatory efficiency, the availability of installation vessels and port infrastructure, proactive onshore and offshore grid planning and upgrades, the successful commercialization of 15-MW wind turbine platforms, and sustained market demand. DOE and other federal agencies are working on a number of initiatives to accelerate efforts in these areas.”
And, at least until we build the grid of our dreams, eastern seaboard states need to get carbon-free energy from somewhere. They have collectively set goals for some 50 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity over the coming decades. In the Northeast especially, the desire for large amounts of offshore wind generation reflects a combination of ambition to decarbonize the states’ electricity systems and lack of other politically palatable options. New York, for instance, shut down its Indian Point nuclear power plant in 2021, taking 2,000 megawatts of carbon-free power off the grid, with the promise that offshore wind would soon replace it. It hasn’t yet.
Those states are not in the wind corridor that is the Great Plains or the sunny expanse of the Southwest. While residential and business solar has been more widespread than anticipated in New England, offshore wind has consistently been the energy source that was promised from the New York Bight to the Gulf of Maine.
And it makes sense why. The East Coast’s population centers are, well, near the coast, meaning the Atlantic’s shallow and windy waters an attractive option for energy development. And by building offshore, these states can avoid grueling fights over land use that accompany wind farm developments in rural areas far from where most of the states’ residents actually live. Offshore wind can also complement solar, as winds can pick up in the afternoon and evening as solar power falls off.
This has all added up to an odd situation, where the country’s immediate goals for decarbonization may actually be overserved by ambitious development plans that, as of now, seem to be imperiled.
According to the Department of Energy, over 50 gigawatts of offshore wind is in the so-called pipeline, but there are only a few projects that have been approved or are under construction.
“The Biden-Harris administration is using every legally available tool to advance American offshore wind opportunities and achieve the goal of 30 GW by 2030, including by approving the nation’s first major offshore wind projects and leveraging historic resources from the President’s Investing in America agenda to support offshore wind infrastructure and supply chain buildout,” White House spokesperson Michael Kikuawa said in an email when asked about the 30 gigawatt target.
BloombergNEF recently marked down its own projection for offshore wind capacity by the end of decade to just over 23 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030.
In New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, out of 13 gigawatts of planned offshore wind, developers for 10 gigawatts of it are seeking to get their contracts amended.
“Never say never,” Allegra Dawes, an associate fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, responded when I asked if these state targets — or the national target — were plausible. “I wouldn’t say they’re impossible. They’re highly unlikely at state level and federal level.”
In those four states, which Dawes said were the furthest along in their planning (the Vineyard Wind project in Massachusetts is actually under construction), the current wrangling over contracts could end up delaying everything.
“Even if that means those projects don’t get cancelled, there will be significant delays,” Dawes told me. “Those delays add up. We’re talking about a short amount of time until 2030 and that pushes back the entire timeline.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Talking with National Grid’s Matthew Satterwhite about his new report with S&P Global.
This week’s conversation is with Matthew Satterwhite, head of U.S. policy for National Grid. This week National Grid released a report in collaboration with S&P Global I found noteworthy amidst the data center backlash, asserting that building new transmission lines can potentially reduce consumer costs. I reached out asking if we could chat about how this argument leans into the fight over hyperscale infrastructure. I found our conversation illuminating and educational.
The following Q&A was lightly edited for clarity.
Why did you make this report?
It’s all focused on our customers. We’re always looking to find ways to make sure we can provide our service in the most affordable way possible, the most efficient way possible, and we always think of transmission, but it’s fallen out of favor recently. There’s so much demand with large loads, data centers, advanced manufacturing, reshoring. There’s such a need, and a lot of the debate has been focused on what we need on the generation side. We think transmission is an answer, as well.
We focused on what we have control over — since we’re in deregulated states, the only generation we’re doing is to help states reach their renewable goals. It’s a real page-turner. We really get to the core of everything.
Can we lower customer bills with transmission? This report actually showed us that’s a good investment and helps with the resource adequacy and the constraint problems we have in the Northeast. You can bring cheaper electricity in.
With respect to concerns for everyday consumers, how much do you feel like new transmission might alleviate ordinary Americans’ concerns about rising energy prices?
When you look at the demand that’s coming, the projection is that by 2035, we’ll have to add 45 gigawatts, currently. We’re on that path right now. Transmission alone isn’t going to meet that, but the question is, how do we temper that down? What do we do as National Grid to help alleviate the need for all that demand? Can we get that somewhere else rather than in the region by building generation? It's a different version of all of the above. It’s not a generation single answer or a transmission single answer. We think transmission is a big part of that.
This also allows you to bring in cleaner energy from other places. The more robust the network is, you can have energy in different places and bring that in. It replaces the need for some of the generation to be built and pays for itself by creating a cheaper return for customers adding this.
How much of the data center backlash is affecting your transmission project planning calculus? How is it changing what lines are built in the country?
We’re focused on how we can provide the cheapest service for our customers and physics. It’s science and long-term planning. We don’t have the luxury — we can’t follow, this month we’re thinking something, someone got mad, and so we’re thinking something else. We study a lot of science and physics to figure out how to build the grid.
Do you feel like the average Joe Schmoe American sees transmission as making their life less expensive and making their electricity more reliable?
I think there’s frustration and a lack of understanding about the industry overall. There’s fear of the unknown. Are data centers really driving everything that’s happening? That’s where I think, with reports like this, the benefit of it will be that people will read this and see there’s other things we can do to address the load that we need, something different than building a bunch of generation plants.
How do the question marks around whether data centers get built affect transmission planning? How much harder is the backlash making your job?
It’s a science question. Do we do a bunch of work and then nothing happens? That’s why states put their policies out. There’s multiple studies you go through with a region and with a utility. I think that’s one reason why you see states slowing down, to make sure the policy is in check so people don’t do work they don’t need to do. It’s about having the policy to make sure, if you’re studying something, you’re doing it with a purpose.
Plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.
1. Clark County, Nevada – The first data center approved on federal lands has hit a legal brick wall.
2. Jackson County, Missouri – We have yet another high-profile case of a city councilor losing their job over voting for a data center, and this one’s a doozy.
3. Utah – What’s it take for the Bureau of Land Management to approve a big transmission line for zero-emission energy generation these days? Geothermal, baby.
4. Huntsville, Alabama – You can’t even build a tiny battery storage facility in the middle of Alabama anymore.
Where temporary moratoria could happen next.
Brace yourself for more statewide data center moratoria.
So far there are only two full state-wide blocks on data center permits, in New York and Texas. At least fifteen states have moratorium legislation in the pipeline, but few if any of those bills stand a chance of becoming law in the short term. Here are five states, however, where a broad development pause may gain momentum in the next year or two — and all of them are crucial to watch this November.
If you blinked you may have missed it: New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayotte, a Republican, said she wants to enact a statewide data center moratorium.
Ayotte first came out in support of a pause last month at a Rotary Club meeting, declaring, “It does not make any sense at all to site a data center in New Hampshire.” She also reportedly plans to include a moratorium proposal in her upcoming 2027 fiscal budget. New Hampshire’s legislative sessions occur in the first half of the year, so we won’t see action on a moratorium bill this fall. But Ayotte’s statements suggest the Granite State — which is controlled by the GOP — could pivot to a pause very soon.
New Hampshire has very few data centers. Like, almost none. Only two project fights exist in the Heatmap Pro database, both in Portsmouth, and each has been canceled amidst opposition. Ayotte’s remarks were prompted by the fight against a hyperscale project being studied in the small town of Bow at a former coal plant that closed in late 2025.
None of this should surprise anyone familiar with New England NIMBYs. A New Hampshire moratorium also makes sense given the state’s proximity to Maine, which almost had one of its own. Ayotte, who is up for re-election this year, is likely looking at the political fortunes of Governor Janet Mills and trying to avoid potholes ahead of a likely blue wave hitting her state.
This week, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, came out in support of a statewide data center moratorium.
Mayes told Arizonans in a public statement on Monday that she wants to avoid undue strain on the electric grid and adding to the burden of water cuts led by the Trump administration. Phoenix, where opposition grows by the day, seems to be the primary reason. This shouldn’t in any way be a surprise given the backlash to these projects, which in Arizona’s case is rooted in legitimate water security concerns.
One of the first high-profile data center conflicts I ever learned about was in Arizona: Project Blue, which had to move on from the city of Tucson after officials voted it down last summer. That led Amazon to bail from the facility, though it’s still under development elsewhere on county land. Locals are deeply concerned about the water impacts.
Ordinarily an attorney general wouldn’t have any sway on legislative or executive policy, but the state is already quite receptive to restricting data center development. Governor Katie Hobbs has enacted a three-year pause on tax abatements for data centers, and in response to requests for comment on Mayes’ statement, has told media she’s working on more policies targeting the sector. Hobbs has said she will do more in the following legislative session, but it’s not clear what.
The real decisive action here is probably going to be legislation, and that will depend on the reception any moratorium finds with Republicans in the state legislature, which is typically split in this purple state. The Arizona GOP is quite pro-industry, and Mayes’ opponent in her race for re-election opposes restricting data center construction.
You really should get to know the name Cindy Holscher for the next two months.
Holscher, a state senator, won a surprise upset victory in the Democratic gubernatorial primary this year, and currently sits within a one-point margin of her Republican opponent. How’d she get the nom? By calling for a statewide data center moratorium. “It reminds me of when the automobile manufacturers had to put seatbelts into their cars,“ Holscher told MSNOW after she won the primary. “We as a people and as a state just need to make sure there are guardrails in place.”
Kansas politics are weird. The state is best known as a conservative ideological bastion that’s pro-business. Full Republican control of the Kansas government during the Obama era led to significant social services cuts most closely associated with former Governor Sam Brownback. But after that, Kansans seemed to like moderate Democratic governors, electing Laura Kelly in 2022. Kelly is now term limited out of office.
Kansas already has a colorful patchwork of local data center and renewable energy restrictions. Land use is a big deal in this agricultural behemoth. Should Holscher win in a blue wave year, she would have a mandate to enact a statewide moratorium. Still, Republicans control the legislature, and that’s unlikely to change. My major questions are, should Holscher win, would the GOP in state government listen to Holscher’s request? Or can she do this through the executive branch?
Politics nerds are obsessing over Ohio right now. There, Trump acolyte Vivek Ramaswamy is neck-and-neck in the polls for governor with a Democratic candidate who backs a “conditional” data center moratorium: Amy Acton.
What’s a conditional moratorium? It’s in the eye of the beholder, really. Technically speaking, Governor Josh Shapiro instituted a conditional moratorium in Pennsylvania, where data center projects cannot get permits unless they meet very specific standards set by the governor himself. Shapiro did it through executive action, but in this case, it’s unclear whether the moratorium will be codified through that process or through law.
Should Acton win — or if former Senator Sherrod Brown defeats sitting Senator Jon Husted in the U.S. Senate race — I anticipate major legislative action on data centers in Ohio. Republicans there have essentially permanent control of the state legislature, and they’ve historically been pro-data center. But the freakout over opposition to artificial intelligence and hyperscalers in the senate race specifically has spooked national Republicans, who think it provided the opening Brown needed to potentially win back his seat. Acton and Brown’s political fortunes appear to be wedded to one another, linked to a general angst in the American public.
Every top 5 list needs a wild card, and mine is Oklahoma.
Currently, there’s minimal risk of a data center moratorium. I might’ve had this state higher on my list had Gentner Drummond won the runoff for the GOP gubernatorial primary, given his proclivity to side with anti-renewables activists who also oppose data centers. Instead, likely future governor Mike Mazzei is running on a more moderate, Trump-friendly approach to data centers centered on maintaining industry growth while protecting ratepayers from new infrastructure costs. His opponent, Cyndi Munson, supports a one-year moratorium.
I consider Oklahoma’s odds of having a data center moratorium about equal to the chance of a statewide wind energy ban. Momentum for anti-wind legislation began in the state legislature, and I expect the same to happen with data centers. But unlike the wind industry, which has enormous power in the state, data centers are still a nascent industry. This is a place that may take about two or three years to manifest full cultural upheaval over these projects.