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:
The outdoorsy retailer’s new facility in Lebanon, Tennessee features skylights, solar panels, and some quirky design choices.

Almost by definition, warehouses are boring — spaces of pure industry and function with no aesthetic value.
Boring, though, is not very efficient. The Department of Energy keeps national statistics on warehouses (instead of the more obvious Department of Commerce), largely because it’s the purview of the U.S. Energy Information Administration to keep track of the energy consumption of buildings, and warehouses consume a lot. The transportation sector makes up about 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions, a number that jumps to 11% when you factor in warehousing-related activities. There is an estimated 4.7 billion square feet of warehouse space in the country already — enough to cover Maine’s Acadia National Park more than twice over — and it’s growing rapidly.
Almost all the $1.1 trillion of U.S. e-commerce sales filters through warehouses at some point in the journey from clicking “purchase” on your screen to a package arriving at your front door. The trucks coming and going with goods from distribution centers spew nitrogen dioxide, which is linked to asthma and is 20% more prevalent on average in the air near industrial parks. Concrete monstrosities that they are, warehouses can even mess with local stormwater drainage due to the acres of ground cover, roads, and loading docks they require. And about a third of the ones in the United States are more than half a century old, meaning they’re not exactly at the state of the art of energy efficiency.
Until very recently, this was mostly an accepted fact. Customers never see the inside of warehouses, meaning there isn’t a lot of external pressure for companies to make them nicer. (Being out of sight and out of mind has also historically allowed them to become sites of rampant exploitation and safety violations.) As Andrew Dempsey, director of climate at outdoor recreation retailer REI Co-op, put it to me, “Folks are not thinking about their warehouses and distribution centers as opportunities for leadership.”
Late last year, REI opened the 10th warehouse in the country to earn a LEED v4 Platinum certification, a designation the nonprofit U.S. Green Building Council reserves for projects that go above and beyond sustainability considerations. (Levi Strauss & Co. has one in Nevada, and the National Institute of Health has another in North Carolina, among others.) Located in Lebanon, Tennessee, near important transportation corridors for the business, the new REI warehouse still looks, at least from the outside, a little like the boring designs of the past: At some 400,000 square feet, it’s certainly blocky and large.
“With most of these types of projects, there is always going to be a tension between some of the impact goals you’re looking to achieve and some of the business objectives,” Dempsey added — that is to say, a warehouse still needs to house wares. But, he added, “Under certain constraints, you can get very creative.”
According to the DOE, lighting is one of the biggest energy-sucks in a warehouse. For the Lebanon project, REI partnered with Al. Neyer, a commercial real estate developer with experience designing and constructing LEED-certified buildings, and zeroed in on “design decisions that aren’t overly complex or necessarily bleeding edge,” Dempsey explained. For example, to light the space, the team simply installed 90 skylights, which not only allows in more sun (and thus, reduces the need for lightbulbs), it also helps workers keep an “understanding of the rhythms of the day.” Sensors that turn off lights and conveyor belts when not in use allow the warehouse to run on 30% less energy than code requires.
Solar panels are another common way for warehouses to go greener, and the Lebanon facility has them, too. However, REI also wanted to bring more zero-emission energy to the surrounding community, so it teamed up with Clearloop, a local start-up, to build a supplementary solar project nearby. In addition to keeping the warehouse at its 100% renewable energy goal, the solar facility will also help power several hundred surrounding homes.
Perhaps the biggest challenge REI took on is making the construction process — another traditionally high-emissions part of a building’s lifecycle — zero-waste, which occasionally led to some delightfully woo-woo material decisions. Trees cut down in preparation for construction at the site were recycled for interior design accents like stair barristers. An old barn on the property was likewise deconstructed and its wood repurposed for the warehouse’s atrium space. (The lobby and lounge have the same Restoration Hardware-chic style as many REI retail spaces.)
Many other materials came from “right outside the windows of the building,” Dempsey told me, “which I think is really important to give the folks working there a connection to the history of that land.” Even interior wayfinding elements were made more whimsical: Though there is no way to avoid pouring vast emissions-intensive concrete floors in a warehouse, a polished path on their surface mimics the nearby Cumberland River, and is meant to further blend the indoors with the outdoors.
Stefanie Young, the vice president of technical solutions at the U.S. Green Building Council, who has worked on a number of warehouse projects, told me environmental sustainability is not necessarily the only motivator for companies pursuing LEED certificates. “It’s also about the health and wellness for the occupants: ventilation, access to amenities, the ability to travel to and from the site,” she said, adding, “It might be minimal, but every person that comes into that building is important.”
And while the REI facility is still an oddball in the warehouse space, the advantages of a climate-friendly design are attracting interest from more and more developers. The attention is not necessarily all altruistic: “Clearly, the more efficient the facility is, the less their utility bills will be,” Young pointed out. Owners and developers are also looking for places to meet their ESG or carbon reduction goals, and warehouse upgrades help boost those bona fides. (REI, for example, aims to halve its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.)
Warehouses will probably never actually be sexy. But it also doesn’t take groundbreaking innovations to make them a little more pleasant — at the end of the day, we’re still just talking about adding some skylights, drought-resistant landscaping, and a few electric forklifts to make them better for both the planet and workers. But these little things matter: “Customers won’t come into this space, but several hundred of our employees will,” Dempsey said. “And that alone merits us to create the best space possible.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Things in Sulphur Springs are getting weird.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is trying to pressure a company into breaking a legal agreement for land conservation so a giant data center can be built on the property.
The Lone Star town of Sulphur Springs really wants to welcome data center developer MSB Global, striking a deal this year to bring several data centers with on-site power to the community. The influx of money to the community would be massive: the town would get at least $100 million in annual tax revenue, nearly three times its annual budget. Except there’s a big problem: The project site is on land gifted by a former coal mining company to Sulphur Springs expressly on the condition that it not be used for future energy generation. Part of the reason for this was that the lands were contaminated as a former mine site, and it was expected this property would turn into something like a housing development or public works project.
The mining company, Luminant, went bankrupt, resurfaced as a diversified energy company, and was acquired by power giant Vistra, which is refusing to budge on the terms of the land agreement. After sitting on Luminant’s land for years expecting it to be used for its intended purposes, the data center project’s sudden arrival appears to have really bothered Vistra, and with construction already underway, the company has gone as far as to send the town and the company a cease and desist.
This led Sulphur Springs to sue Vistra. According to a bevy of legal documents posted online by Jamie Mitchell, an activist fighting the data center, Sulphur Springs alleges that the terms of the agreement are void “for public policy,” claiming that land restrictions interfering with a municipality’s ability to provide “essential services” are invalid under prior court precedent in Texas. The lawsuit also claims that by holding the land for its own use, Vistra is violating state antitrust law by creating an “energy monopoly.” The energy company filed its own counterclaims, explicitly saying in a filing that Sulphur Springs was part of crafting this agreement and that “a deal is a deal.”
That’s where things get weird, because now Texas is investigating Luminant over the “energy monopoly” claim raised by the town. It’s hard not to see this as a pressure tactic to get the data center constructed.
In an amicus brief filed to the state court and posted online, Paxton’s office backs up the town’s claim that the land agreement against energy development violates the state’s antitrust law, the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act, contesting that the “at-issue restriction appears to be perpetual” and therefore illegally anti-competitive. The brief also urges the court not to dismiss the case before the state completes its investigation, which will undoubtedly lead to the release of numerous internal corporate documents.
“Sulphur Springs has alleged a pattern of restricting land with the potential for energy generation, with the effect of harming competition for energy generation generally, which would necessarily have the impact of increasing costs for both Sulphur Springs and Texas consumers generally,” the filing states. “Evaluating the competitive effects of Luminant’s deed restrictions as well as the harm to Texans generally is a fact-intensive matter that will require extensive discovery.”
The Texas attorney general’s office did not respond to multiple requests for comment on the matter. It’s worth noting that Paxton has officially entered the Republican Senate primary, challenging sitting U.S. Senator John Cornyn. Contrary to his position in this case, Paxton has positioned himself as a Big Tech antagonist and fought the state public utilities commission in pursuit of releasing data on the crypto mining industry’s energy use.
A solar developer gets into a forest fight in California, and more of the week’s top conflicts around renewables.
1. Sacramento County, California – A solar project has become a national symbol of the conflicts over large-scale renewables development in forested areas.
2. Sedgwick County, Kansas – I am eyeing this county to see whether a fight over a solar farm turns into a full-blown ban on future projects.
3. Montezuma County, Colorado – One southwest Colorado county is loosening restrictions on solar farms.
4. Putnam County, Indiana – An uproar over solar projects is now leading this county to say no to everything, indefinitely.
5. Kalamazoo County, Michigan – I’m eyeing yet another potential legal challenge against Michigan’s permitting reform efforts.
A conversation with Renee Grabe of Nature Forward
This week’s conversation is with Renee Grabe, a conservation advocate for the environmental group Nature Forward who is focused intently on data center development in Northern Virginia. I reached out to her for a fresh perspective on where data centers and renewable energy development fits in the Commonwealth amidst heightened frustration over land use and agricultural impacts, especially after this past election cycle. I thought her views on policy-making here were refreshingly nuanced.
This transcript was lightly edited for clarity.
Tell me more about how you started focusing on data centers.
So, in Fairfax County, in 2020 or 2021, people were pursuing the construction of an indoor ski facility on a landfill. From a climate perspective, to build something that would need to be cooled 24/7 for indoor skiing seemed like a very bad proposal in terms of energy usage. And for what kind of gain?
Then our friends at the Sierra Club were saying, indoor ski slopes? Bad, yes. But data centers? Way, way worse. Those aren’t cooling to support snow but are cooling much larger areas on a much larger scale, dwarfing the area of that one ski slope. This was around the time the Prince William Digital Gateway was showing up – they were saying all these acres of agricultural lands and single-family housing zones were about to be rezoned. This was a big deal, and Sierra Club led the way in opening our eyes to this. The rezoning ultimately passed. The data centers were sued and the people who filed the lawsuit won, but pre-planning for the centers is still allowed to take place.
The way we think about the impacts of data centers, besides the loss of natural lands and the amount of energy that’s going to be needed to power these things, has been diesel generators. These are the things that are backup generation and the camel’s nose under the tent is trying to get them to be primary power.
Now I want to ask you a provocative question: is there any middle ground between letting these projects be built unfettered and outright bans on their development?
We have no regulation today. From our standpoint, these things are coming, they’re here. We know a lot more now than we did in 2022. As we make decisions about how and where to build these facilities we all need – I mean we’re using one right now. I use a data center all day at work. Teams conferencing. ChatGPT to answer a question. We need these. So if we’re going to build them, let’s not give a pass to some of the world’s largest and richest companies. Let’s ask them to put the guardrails on to protect our residences and our infrastructure to make sure they’re as sustainable as possible.
Okay, so what are the guardrails then?
The costs of what was going to go into a data center need to be more transparent. We need to bring accountability to the forefront right away as they’re being built.
In Ohio, they passed a law requiring data center companies to pay for a high percentage of the power they’re using. That cut a significant number of the projects in Ohio. This industry is so speculative and a land grab and a rush to be first to get the most.
You have this dichotomy of land values for residences being inundated, while land values for developers are skyrocketing. We have an affordability crisis going on and we are all on the hook for paying for the infrastructure to power these things.
So when you think about what regulation might make data center development more reasonable, it’s asking for the costs happening to be borne by the industry making them. Let’s get rid of some of the incentives for power users. We don’t need to be encouraging the loss of state revenue, either – we’re leaving money on the table to bring these facilities here.
Lastly, our readers love to get hyperlocal. I know you’re intently focused on Fairfax County right now which has been a big part of the data center boom in Virginia – what’s happening there?
There are a couple things that have happened over the course of this past year. Fairfax County passed a data center zoning ordinance amendment – minimum requirements a data center will have to adhere to. The big thing with that one is, you have to have a special exception if you build within a mile of a Metro station. When you think about good land use and building a data center within a walkable distance of a Metro, that’s eye-openingly poor land use policy and a missed opportunity for transit-oriented development. It doesn’t mean they can’t be built near one but you have to get a special exception.
Some things can’t be regulated at the local level. Like generators. That’s in the hands of the state.
Last night, we had a public hearing at the Fairfax County board level for our policy plan – our comprehensive plan providing guidance for developers who want to get a special exception or rezoning. It is not law. It is not required. It is a visionary document that helps us get to better. They’ve added a section for data centers in that. In May, staff put forward something pretty good, making sure data centers met a minimum level of efficiency. But our chairman of the county board said it went above and beyond our zoning ordinance and said he didn’t think it was appropriate, so staff rewrote that section and stripped out a lot of the specificity and higher standards that were in that document.
At the hearing, they deferred a decision, listening to the public but not having a discussion at the board level. They’ve left the record open through December 9th.