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:
“Do you ever think about electric cars?”

Between solar roofs, home batteries, and electric vehicles, Tesla could potentially “do more to fight climate change than any other company — perhaps any other entity — in the world,” Walter Isaacson muses in his much-anticipated biography of Elon Musk, out Tuesday.
But while the central character is at times painted as a heroic visionary (Isaacson’s previous subjects have included Steve Jobs, Einstein, and Leonardo da Vinci), the biography also makes it clear that Tesla’s mercurial CEO isn’t always the easiest to work with — or, in the blunter words of Bill Gates, he can be “super mean.” Here are some of the most surprising moments about climate and energy shared in Isaacson’s Elon Musk:
On Musk’s EV passion:
When Elon went with [Peter] Nicholson’s daughter, Christie, to a party one evening, his first question was “Do you ever think about electric cars?” As he later admitted, it was not the world’s best come-on line.
On education:
Musk also focused on electric cars. He and [his friend Robin] Ren would grab lunch from one of the food trucks and sit on the campus lawn, where Musk would read academic papers on batteries. California had just passed a requirement mandating that 10 percent of vehicles by 2003 had to be electric. “I want to go make that happen,” Musk said.
Musk also became convinced that solar power, which in 1994 was just taking off, was the best path toward sustainable energy. His senior paper was titled “The Importance of Being Solar.” He was motivated not just by the dangers of climate change but also by the fact that fossil fuel reserves would start to dwindle. “Society will soon have no option but to focus on renewable power sources,” he wrote. His final page showed a “power station of the future,” involving a satellite with mirrors that would concentrate sunlight onto solar panels and send the resulting electricity back to Earth via a microwave beam. The professor gave him a grade of 98, saying it was a “very interesting and well written paper, except the last figure that comes out of the blue.”
On investing in batteries:
Eager to keep the conversation going, [Tesla co-founder JB] Straubel changed the topic to his idea for building an electric vehicle using lithium-ion batteries. “I was looking for funding and being rather shameless,” he says. Musk expressed surprise when Straubel explained how good the batteries had become. “I was going to work on high-density energy storage at Stanford,” Musk told him. “I was trying to think of what would have the most effect on the world, and energy storage along with electric vehicles were high on my list.” His eyes lit up as he processed Straubel’s calculations. “Count me in,” he said, committing to provide $10,000 in funding.
On building the Gigafactory:
The idea that Musk proposed in 2013 was audacious: build a gigantic battery factory in the U.S. […] There was one problem, Straubel recalls. “We had no clue how to build a battery factory.”
So Musk and Straubel decided to pursue a partnership with their battery supplier, Panasonic […] Musk and Straubel were invited to Japan by Panasonic’s new young president Kazuhiro Tsuga. “It was a come-to-Jesus session where we had to make him truly commit that we were going to build the insane Gigafactory together,” Straubel says.
The dinner was a formal, multicourse affair at a traditional low-table Japanese restaurant. Straubel was fearful about how Musk would behave. “Elon can be so much hell and brimstone in meetings and just unpredictable as all get out,” he says. “But I’ve also seen him flip a switch and suddenly be this incredibly effective, charismatic, high-emotional-intelligence business person, when he has to do it.” At the Panasonic dinner, the charming Musk appeared. He sketched out his vision for moving the world to electric vehicles and why the two companies should do it together. “I was mildly shocked and impressed, because, whoa, this is not like how Elon usually was on other days,” says Straubel. “He’s a person who’s all over the map, and you don’t know what he’s going to say or do. And then, all of a sudden, he pulls it all together.”
On the origins of SolarCity:
“I want to start a new business,” Musk’s cousin Lyndon Rive said as they were driving in an RV to Burning Man, the annual art-and-tech rave in the Nevada desert, at the end of the summer of 2004. “One that can help humanity and address climate change.” “Get into the solar industry,” Musk replied. Lyndon recalls that the answer felt like “my marching orders.” With his brother Peter, he started work on creating a company that would become SolarCity. “Elon provided most of the initial funding,” Peter recalls. “He gave us one clear piece of guidance: get to a scale that would have an impact as fast as possible.”
On buying SolarCity:
When Musk announced the deal in June 2016, he called it a “no-brainer” that was “legally and morally correct.” The acquisition fit with his original “master plan” for Tesla, which he had written in 2006: “The overarching purpose of Tesla Motors is to help expedite the move from a mine-and-burn hydrocarbon economy towards a solar electric economy.”
On hating SolarCity:
The solar roof project caused enormous friction between Musk and his cousins. In August 2016, around the time he was teasing the new product, Peter Rive invited Musk to inspect a version that the company had installed on a customer’s roof. It was a standing-seam metal roof, meaning the solar cells were embedded in sheets of metal rather than tiles. When Musk drove up, Peter and fifteen people were standing in front of the house. “But as often happened,” Peter recalled, “Elon showed up late and then sat in the car looking at his phone while we all just waited very nervously for him to get out.” When he did, it was clear that he was furious. “This is shit,” Musk explained. “Total fucking shit. Horrible. What were you thinking?”
On really, really hating SolarCity:
There were four versions [of solar roofs], including those that looked like French slate and Tuscan barrel tiles, along with a house that featured the metal roof that Musk hated. When Musk visited two days before the scheduled event and saw the metal version, he erupted. “What part of ‘I fucking hate this product’ don’t you understand?” One of the engineers pushed back, saying it looked okay to him and that it was the easiest to install. Musk pulled Peter aside and told him, “I don’t think this guy should be on the team.” Peter fired the engineer and had the metal roof removed before the public event.
On cutting solar roof installation time:
[…] Musk clambered up a ladder to the peak of the roof, where he stood precariously. He was not happy. There were too many fasteners, he said. Each had to be nailed down, adding time to the installation process. “Instead of two nails for each foot, try it with only one,” he ordered. “If the house has a hurricane, the whole neighborhood is fucked up, so who cares? One nail is going to be fine.” Someone protested that could lead to leaks. “Don’t worry about making it as waterproof as a submarine,” he said. “My house in California used to leak. Somewhere between sieve and submarine should be okay.” For a moment he laughed before returning to his dark intensity.
On talking climate with Bill Gates:
“Hey, I’d love to come see you and talk about philanthropy and climate,” Bill Gates said to Musk when they happened to be at the same meeting in early 2022. Musk’s stock sales had led him, for tax reasons, to put $5.7 billion into a charitable fund he had established. Gates, who was then spending most of his time on philanthropy, had many suggestions he wanted to make. They’d had friendly interactions a few times in the past, including when Gates brought his son Rory to SpaceX. [...] Gates argued that batteries would never be able to power large semitrucks and that solar energy would not be a major part of solving the climate problem. “I showed him the numbers,” Gates says. “It’s an area where I clearly knew something that he didn’t.” He also gave Musk a hard time on Mars. “I’m not a Mars person,” Gates later told me. “He’s overboard on Mars. I let him explain his Mars thinking to me, which is kind of bizarre thinking. It’s this crazy thing where maybe there’s a nuclear war on Earth and so the people on Mars are there and they’ll come back down and, you know, be alive after we all kill each other.”
On dismissing climate philanthropy:
At the end of the tour, [Gates and Musk’s] conversation turned to philanthropy. Musk expressed his view that most of it was “bullshit.” There was only a twenty-cent impact for every dollar put in, he estimated. He could do more good for climate change by investing in Tesla.
On Bill Gates’ betrayal:
There was one contentious issue that [Bill Gates and Elon Musk] had to address. Gates had shorted Tesla stock, placing a big bet that it would go down in value […] Short-sellers occupied [Musk’s] innermost circle of hell. Gates said he was sorry, but that did not placate Musk. “I apologized to him,” Gates says. “Once he heard I’d shorted the stock, he was super mean to me, but he’s super mean to so many people, so you can’t take it too personally.”
[...] When I asked Gates why he had shorted Tesla, he explained that he had calculated that the supply of electric cars would get ahead of demand, causing prices to fall. I nodded but still had the same question: Why had he shorted the stock? Gates looked at me as if I had not understood what he just explained and then replied as if the answer was obvious: he thought that by shorting Tesla he could make money. That way of thinking was alien to Musk. He believed in the mission of moving the world to electric vehicles, and he put all of his available money toward that goal, even when it did not seem like a safe investment. “How can someone say they are passionate about fighting climate change and then do something that reduced the overall investment in the company doing the most?” he asked me a few days after Gates’s visit. “It’s pure hypocrisy. Why make money on the failure of a sustainable energy car company?”
On rejection:
Gates followed up in mid-April, sending Musk the promised paper on philanthropy options that he had personally written [...] “Sorry,” Musk shot back instantly. “I cannot take your philanthropy on climate seriously when you have a massive short position against Tesla, the company doing the most to solve climate change.” When angry, Musk can get mean, especially on Twitter. He tweeted a picture of Gates in a golf shirt with a bulging belly that made him look almost pregnant. “In case u need to lose a boner fast,” Musk’s comment read.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Current conditions: The Gulf Coast states are bracing for a series of midweek thunderstorms • Temperatures are rocketing up near 100 degrees Fahrenheit in Lahore, Pakistan • San Juan, Puerto Rico, is facing days of severe thunderstorms.
Compass Datacenters is quitting a yearslong bid to build a key part of a 2,100-acre data center corridor in northern Virginia amid mounting pushback from neighbors, marking one of the highest profile examples yet of political opposition killing off a major server farm. The company, backed by the private equity giant Brookfield Asset Management, has gunned for Prince William County’s approval to turn more than 800 acres into a portion of the data center buildout. But after spending tens of millions of dollars on the effort, the firm decided that political resistance to providing tax breaks had created what Bloomberg described Wednesday as “too many roadblocks,” prompting a withdrawal.
The data center backlash, as Heatmap’s Jael Holzman wrote in the fall, is “swallowing American politics.” Polling from Heatmap Pro has shown that public resentment toward server farms they perceive as driving up electricity bills, sucking up too much water, or supporting software that threatens human jobs is rapidly growing. Data centers, as Jael wrote last week, are now more controversial than wind farms.
Nuclear startups taking part in the Department of Energy’s reactor pilot program are approaching the agency’s July 4 deadline to split their first atoms, and companies are making deals left and right for new projects. But just four firms have so far secured commercial offtakers, announced project-specific financing, and locked down contracts with suppliers and construction partners. That’s according to new data from a report by the policy advocate Third Way, shared exclusively with me for this newsletter. TerraPower’s nuclear project in Kemmerer, Wyoming, which broke ground this month, is in the lead, with the most advanced application before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Amazon-backed X-energy has two projects that have achieved all three preliminary milestones. Holtec International’s small modular reactor project in Michigan and GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s debut unit at the Tennessee Valley Authority — each of which recently received $400 million in federal funding, as I previously reported — are close behind.
Among the report’s other takeaways: Federal policy is “too often rewarding hype instead of commercialization readiness,” and the U.S. needs to winnow down the technologies on offer.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has officially entered what CBS News called “a financial danger zone” that threatens to limit spending to only the most urgent life-saving needs. The status, called Imminent Needs Funding, is triggered when FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund drops below $3 billion. The depletion is a symptom of the partial government shutdown of FEMA’s parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, whose funding has become hotly political over the hardline actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But the timing couldn’t be worse: Hurricane season is about a month away. “Disasters are unpredictable. They’re very costly. We don’t know what could happen between now and June 1,” FEMA Associate Administrator Victoria Barton told the network.
This was all predictable. Back in February, Heatmap’s Jeva Lange warned that the DHS shutdown would “starve local disaster response.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The U.S. is racing to get new nuclear projects off the ground. But it’s not yet clear where all the new reactor fuel is going to come from, especially once federal law fully bans all imports of Russian uranium in 2028. A new uranium mining project has started up operations this week in Wyoming’s Shirley Basin. The reactivated mine was previously considered the birthplace of in-situ recovery mining, a more eco-friendly method of extraction that involves injecting a solution into rock that dissolves minerals, then pumping that fluid to the surface for collection. The developer, Ur-Energy, said it’s returning to operations to power at least the next nine years of uranium demand in the U.S.
The milestone at the uranium mine comes as global mining deals reached a new high in the first three months of this year. Global law firm White & Case LLP recorded 121 mergers and acquisitions in the sector in the first quarter, up from 117 a year earlier and 102 in 2024, according to Mining.com. It’s the strongest first quarter since 2023. “The math is unforgiving,” the Breakthrough Institute’s Seaver Wang and Peter Cook wrote in an Ideas essay for Heatmap this week. “We need more minerals, and we need them soon.”

Another week, another new full-scale nuclear reactor has come online in China. On Wednesday, World Nuclear News reported that Unit 1 of the San’ao nuclear station in eastern Zhejiang province has entered commercial operation. The reactor is the first of six Hualong One reactors planned for the site. The Hualong One is China’s leading indigenous reactor design, borrowing heavily from the Chinese version of the Westinghouse AP1000, America’s leading reactor.
South Africa, meanwhile, is making a bid to lure engineers working abroad to come home to help the country build up its own nuclear sector once again. The plan, detailed by Semafor, “aims to attract skilled migrants and South African expatriates, especially those working in the United Arab Emirates,” which hired large numbers of local engineers during the buildout of the Gulf nation’s debut Barakah nuclear plant over the past decade.
Even before China made a big gamble in recent months on green hydrogen to ease the effects of the Iran War’s hydrocarbon shock, the country’s electrolyzer manufacturers were already starting to dominate the industry. Now the first Chinese electrolyzer manufactured in Europe is due to be assembled in the coming weeks. RCT GH Hydrogen, a joint venture between the Jiangsu-based electrolyzer maker Guofu and the German technology company RCT Group, is on track to roll out its first unit in June, Hydrogen Insight reported Wednesday.
Representatives Jared Huffman and Jamie Raskin announced an investigation into the $1 billion offshore wind deal with the Trump administration.
Two House Democrats are going after TotalEnergies after the company ignored an earlier request to defend its $1 billion settlement with the Trump administration to walk away from offshore wind.
Jared Huffman, the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee from California, and Jamie Raskin, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee from Maryland, sent a letter on Wednesday informing Total’s CEO Patrick Pouyanné that they have opened a formal investigation into the company.
“We’re going to get every document, every email, every last receipt on this deal, and every person who had a hand in this is going to answer for it,” Huffman said in a press release. “What I have to say to TotalEnergies is this: Consider yourself on notice, we’re coming for you.”
The move comes just a day after the Trump administration announced two additional identical settlements resulting in the cancellation of two more offshore wind leases.
The letter states that Total’s March 23 settlement with the Interior Department was unlawful in “at least four separate ways.” It demands that Total preserve all records related to the deal and requests that it put the $928 million it was granted by the settlement into escrow until the investigation concludes.
Huffman and Raskin first reached out to the Interior Department and Total on April 6 requesting documents and communications between the two parties related to the deal by April 20. Neither party obliged. Shortly before the deadline, however, the Interior Department published the settlement agreements it signed with Total. The settlements “confirm and surpass our worst fears of what has taken place,” the two representatives wrote on Wednesday.
The settlements state that the agency would have ordered Total to suspend operations on the leases due to national security issues. This “appears to have been a fabricated justification for canceling the leases,” the letter says, citing a discrepancy between when the settlements suggest that the company had reached an agreement with the Trump administration — November 18 — and when the earliest reports of anyone reviewing the national security concerns occurred — November 26.
“That timeline raises the troubling possibility that the national security assessment was not merely pretextual, but also that TotalEnergies may have negotiated the final settlement agreement with full knowledge that the rationale for canceling the leases was false,” Huffman and Raskin write. The fact that Pouyanné has stated publicly multiple times that the company came to the Interior Department with the idea for the settlement supports that conclusion, they add.
Putting the timeline of national security concerns aside, the settlement disregards the law governing offshore wind leases, Huffman and Raskin argue. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act says that when the government cancels a lease that does not yet have an operating project on it, the company is entitled to the “fair value” of the lease at the date of cancellation. The nearly $1 billion figure — which is the amount the company paid for the two leases in 2022 — is “almost certainly a significant overpayment even under the most favorable reading of the statute,” the lawmakers write.
The letter also questions the use of the Department of Justice’s Judgment Fund, a reserve of public money set aside to pay for agency settlements. On one hand, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum recently characterized the payment as a “refund” in testimony before Congress — a type of payment that the Judgment Fund is not authorized to make. On the other hand, even if it was technically a settlement, it doesn’t meet the Judgement Fund’s standard of “a genuine contested dispute over liability or amount,” Huffman and Raskin write. The Interior Department never issued a stop work order to Total. Neither of the company’s projects had even started construction yet.
If the settlement is allowed to go through, the lawmakers warn, any future U.S. administration could repeat the formula to enact their own agenda. “The only requirements would be a hypothetical threat, a side agreement, and a check drawn from a permanent, uncapped federal account that Congress never authorized for this purpose,” they write.
Lastly, Huffman and Raskin accuse the Trump administration and Total of sticking an unlawful clause in the settlements that declare the agreements “not judicially reviewable.” They assert that only Congress has the power to restrict judicial review. Their letter declares that the provision “accomplishes nothing legally,” and characterizes it as evidence that the parties knew the deal would not survive scrutiny.
In addition to preserving records and putting the funds in escrow, the letter to Total again demands a list of documents related to the deal, providing a new deadline of May 13. We’ll see if the company feels compelled to comply. Huffman and Raskin would need the support of the full House to find Total in contempt of Congress, and it’s not clear they would have the numbers.
Emails between the Pennsylvania governor’s office and Amazon illustrate the difficulty of courting big business as anti-AI fervor explodes.
On March 6, Pennsylvania real estate mogul Brian O’Neill shot a panicked email to Benjamin Kirshner, a top state official, with a plea to the governor.
Amazon, wrote the property developer, had just told him “in writing, and I have sent you the e-mail, that they will not be doing any projects in Pennsylvania until they get certainty that the projects they have invested in can move forward. In conversations, they have pointed out to us that they have been appealed in EVERY project at EVERY turn,” O’Neill told Kirshner, Governor Josh Shapiro’s chief transformation and opportunity officer, referring to local governments rejecting the company’s permit applications. His own project in the Philadelphia suburb of Conshohocken had been blocked in November.
O’Neill then pleaded for the governor to “make sure we are not going to get appealed frivolously by people who just want to slow us down for sport like Amazon,” asking the governor to force those who challenge zoning decisions to post a bond double the value of the project. “If a $2 billion development is postponed due to an appeal, they should have to post a bond for $4 billion,” he wrote.
Kirshner forwarded the request to top officials in the Shapiro administration with a “FYI.”
What if anything came out of this correspondence we don’t know. The Shapiro administration told me it did not respond to O’Neill’s email. When asked if it supported his idea, the governor’s office declined to say, simply stating that the idea would require legislation, which has not been introduced. A representative for O’Neill told me they would supply a response but did not follow up. When asked about the email, Amazon gave me a statement from an unnamed spokesperson stating the company “has a deep and ongoing commitment to Pennsylvania.”
The whole exchange exemplifies the mess Shapiro — or any governor and future presidential hopeful — finds themselves in as an AI data center boom they welcomed runs headlong into a bitter backlash.
Shapiro is not the only state executive being forced to respond to the loud and opposing interests of real estate developers and voters concerned about the rapid pace and lack of transparency of the AI buildout. In Maine, Governor Janet Mills last week vetoed a statewide data center ban, much to the chagrin of the Democratic voter base she’ll need to win a U.S. Senate primary against insurgent progressive upstart Graham Platner.
On the one hand, there’s a lot for a governor to love in the explosion of data center development. The AI revolution has helped Pennsylvania’s economy grow during an overall difficult moment for the U.S. economy. Having announced last June that he was going “all in on AI,” Shapiro has coaxed billions of dollars in Big Tech investment to his state. Reports pin the planned data center investment in Pennsylvania at $100 billion total. Roughly a fifth of that total is from Amazon, which in 2025 announced that it would build more than $20 billion in AI infrastructure in the Commonwealth.
On the other hand, Pennsylvania — a key battleground for anyone seeking the White House — has become a bellwether for the country’s fears about data centers. Many in the state are worried the developments could disrupt the energy grid and raise electricity bills. Depending on how they’re designed, these projects can either be boring box-shaped structures running computers and generating tax revenue or noisy polluters draining local aquifers.
Since late 2024, 26 data center projects have attracted at least some degree of public opposition in Pennsylvania, according to the Heatmap Pro database, which shows the frustrations are widespread across regions, political affiliations, and socioeconomic classes. Most local complaints have focused water consumption, noise, energy consumption, and pollution. My own reporting has also found secrecy to be a major complaint; real estate developers are in many cases getting approval to build data center campuses without telling the public who may inherit these facilities after they’re completed.
Emails obtained by Heatmap News from a grassroots organizer in rural Pennsylvania provide a glimpse into how Shapiro has navigated the intensifying drumbeat against data centers. These records — more than 150 pages of correspondence between Shapiro’s office, Amazon, and others in the tech and real estate industries — paint a vivid picture of how the rumored 2028 Democratic presidential contender initially sought to woo Amazon, then sought to balance that pro-business approach with rising angst against AI and data centers.
For example, in April 2025, months before Amazon announced its $20 billion investment, Shapiro’s office offered the tech giant “exclusive early access” to a permitting fast track program not yet available to the public. Kirshner described the provision to Amazon as an “enhanced permit coordination framework established specifically for Amazon Web Services (AWS) development projects within Pennsylvania.” According to a memo included in the emails bearing the governor’s insignia, the state would help AWS “be among the first companies” to utilize a new program that lets third-party contractors complete parts of the permit application review process.
This program — known as SPEED, or Streamlining Permits for Economic Expansion and Development — was created through state law in July 2024. Under the program, companies seeking specific environmental permits are granted permission to use approved outside hires to review applications and then give those recommendations to the state for use in decisions on permits. The goal of this is to expedite permit reviews overall.
Even though the program was created in 2024, it takes time to stand up a new government program like this. Members of the public were given formal access to apply for the SPEED program at the end of June 2025. This was months after the “exclusive” offer was sent to Amazon.
Notably, the memo is labeled “subject to a non-disclosure agreement dated effective as of Feb. 15, 2024.” The use of NDAs between governments and data center developers is controversial because the agreements swear public officials to secrecy, making them answerable not to the public but rather to private entities within the scope of the contract. In Minnesota, lawmakers have explicitly tried to shed light on data center development by banning local political leaders from entering into NDAs. So controversial is this practice that Microsoft issued a public pledge to stop using NDAs with local governments.
Rosie Lapowsky, Shapiro’s press secretary, confirmed in a statement to me that the administration had given Amazon advance notice of the SPEED program and offered to help it navigate the permitting process, but said that AWS has not so far used the program for any projects.
As for the NDA, it’s not clear what the terms of the agreement referenced in the offer were, who in the office signed it, and whether Shapiro himself was bound by it. This is not the first time NDAs have come up within the Shapiro administration, however. Spotlight PA, an investigative news outlet, reported in 2023 that members of his transition team signed NDAs.
Amazon declined to say whether it had asked anyone in the Shapiro administration to sign a NDA. Shapiro’s office would not provide additional information on whether the governor, any top state officials — including Kirshner, the main signatory of the memo — or any of the governor’s staff are under a NDA with Amazon.
I obtained this window into the Shapiro administration from Colby Wesner, vice president of the grassroots organization Concerned Citizens of Montour County in Pennsylvania. By day, Wesner works in pediatric medicine, but he’s become a well-known figure in tech-anxious corners of Facebook for posting simple videos in which he details the findings of public records requests he submits to attempt to understand Amazon’s data center development practices in the Keystone State.
He first became involved in the fight against data centers, he told me, when developer Talen Energy asked Montour County to rezone hundreds of acres for industrial use. As I chronicled in February, Wesner and others suspected it was for an Amazon data center, but local officials wouldn’t say. Activists grew especially frustrated with this silence after discovering that county staff and at least one county commissioner had signed NDAs against discussing data center development. Wesner wound up discovering that one project was indeed for Amazon, and his video unveiling his findings sparked a local outcry.
“The more you learn, the more you crave to get more information to figure out how secretive these projects generally are, and how non-transparent the state government is,” Wesner told me. “Me personally, I feel obligated to keep doing this because it started from our small county, but Pennsylvania counties across the state are reeling from this.”
To be clear, there are some data center projects in Pennsylvania that Amazon has gotten behind publicly as it sought to develop them, such as this one in Salem Township and this one in Falls Township. Shapiro mentioned both projects in his June 2025 speech announcing Amazon’s $20 billion data center investment in the state, which he said was the single largest capital investment in the Commonwealth’s history.
“Our administration is actively engaged with Amazon on additional sites in our Commonwealth, helping them to secure local support, developing the infrastructure needed to support more data centers and ensure our permitting process works quickly,” Shapiro said at the time, crediting these investments to faster permits that “give confidence to companies like Amazon that their projects will get built on time.”
The emails from Wesner show that Amazon was involved in another project in the state it has not yet confirmed to date: Project Hazelnut in Hazle Township, which is currently under development by real estate firm NorthPoint.
According to tech trade publication Data Center Dynamics, the first public reference to Project Hazelnut was actually from Shapiro, who embraced the project site as a preferred location for tech development and faster permitting. In November 2024, he hosted an event there to publicize a new executive order establishing a statewide “permit fast track” program and identified Project Hazelnut as one of the first to benefit. In a press release, his office said the project was a “transformative technology campus” that “exemplifies Governor Shapiro’s commitment to growing Pennsylvania’s economy all across the Commonwealth by improving permitting processes, reducing delays, and increasing our competitiveness by ensuring government operates at the speed of business.”
It was apparently only afterward, in January 2025, that residents in the surrounding Hazle township learned what Project Hazelnut was: a roughly 1,300-acre campus that would purportedly include 15 data center buildings.
Over the months that followed, getting Hazelnut built was clearly on the Shapiro administration’s minds, as its permitting status was listed alongside the Salem and Falls township projects in the “exclusive” permitting benefit the governor’s office offered the tech giant in April 2025. The memo states that NorthPoint, not Amazon, is “the developer,” but also says Amazon would work on submitting air and storage tank permitting information. Elsewhere in the memo it states that Amazon’s public association as developer of the Salem project led to “multiple challenges” in the permitting process.
Over the summer, Ethan Dodd, a reporter for Real Clear Politics’ Pennsylvania blog, reached out to Amazon asking questions about Project Hazelnut and other data centers in Pennsylvania. “Governor Shapiro’s office thought you would be best to answer these.”
This email immediately led to worries at Amazon. “It appears from the inquiry and the fact that the Gov’s office has directed the reporter to Amazon for more details they may have outed us on a project,” wrote Preston Grisham, who was then a D.C.-based policy lead at Amazon, to Becky Ford, an executive on Amazon’s economic development team.
Ford then forwarded these concerns to Shapiro’s office. “Please see the inquiry below,” Ford wrote to Kirshner and Rick Siger, head of Pennsylvania’s Department of Community and Economic Development. She asked to know who told the reporter to contact Amazon and said Hazelnut was not a site they had “disclosed.”
“In talking to the team we absolutely did not confirm or discuss anything about AWS and Hazelnut,” Siger replied, accusing local residents of “speculating about AWS at Hazelnut — though we did not comment/confirm.”
Kirshner followed up, accusing the reporter of “attempting to create a narrative” and adding: “We did absolutely not tell this reporter that Northpoint was AWS.”
Months later, locals succeeded in pressuring Hazle to reject Project Hazelnut. NorthPoint has appealed the denial in court, as state environmental regulators under Shapiro have continued to advance the project’s environmental permit applications. NorthPoint did not respond to requests for comment. Amazon did not comment on whether it is involved with Project Hazelnut.
Hazelnut’s continued progress is happening as at least one data center project benefiting from the state’s fast-track permitting programs has stalled out. Earlier this week, The Washington Post reported that the permitting application for Project Gravity, another large would-be tech hub, had been put on hold pending additional information from the developer. As in the case of Hazelnut, locals in the tiny township of Archbald learned that Gravity would be a sprawling data center campus, one of a multitude of data center proposals in the area causing chaos between residents and local leadership.
Lapowsky stressed in the statement to me that state agencies in charge of permitting handle applications based on existing law, which includes opportunities for public input and appeal.
Amidst this anger, Shapiro has started to work rhetoric into his public comments saying he feels the pain of places like Hazle. In his February State of the State address, he laid out what he called “the Governor’s Responsible Infrastructure Development” principles, or GRID. He said that these standards, developed by his administration “in consultation with the community,” would “hold data centers accountable to strict standards if they want our full support.”
Three of the four standards struck me as standard fare. Developers would need to bring their own power or pay for new generation; companies would need to hire and train local workers; and they would need to commit to high environmental protection standards. One, though, stood out to me: Shapiro would make developers “commit to strict transparency standards.”
“Too many of these projects have been shrouded in secrecy, with local communities left in the dark about who is coming in and what they’re building,” he said. “That needs to change.”
The same day Shapiro gave that speech, Siger wrote Amazon to assure them the principles “are intended to be voluntary and Shapiro is “not proposing to ban or even discourage data centers or other large loads that don’t agree to implement them from siting here.”
Shapiro’s team also wanted to make sure Amazon got an advance look at the official “principles” before they were made formal and effective. On March 18, Shapiro’s deputy chief of staff Samuel Robinson wrote Ford and Merle Madrid, an Amazon lobbyist, with a “feedback draft of the principles” ahead of plans to “finalize and make the Principles public shortly.”
Amazon may have seen these principles, but I haven’t, and neither have most Pennsylvanians. More than two months since the State of the State address, Shapiro’s office has yet to release a formal outline of the governor’s data center development principles. The “feedback draft” itself wasn’t included in the cache of emails, nor was Amazon’s response, nor is it clear whether any other large tech companies may have received an advance consultation copy.
In the statement provided by the governor’s office, Lapowsky told me that the Shapiro administration is working to finalize and implement these standards and will release more details in the coming weeks, pointing to the GRID principles as outlined in the governor’s speech.
“These standards make clear that if companies want the Commonwealth’s full support — including access to tax credits and faster permitting — they must meet strict expectations around transparency, environmental protection, and community impact,” Lapowsky said. “This is about setting a higher bar for projects, not lowering it, and ensuring development happens responsibly and in a way that benefits Pennsylvanians.”
What we do know is that Shapiro last year was generally sympathetic to hearing Amazon’s needs, too. In the only message from the governor himself that appears in the emails — an August 2025 note sent to Matt Garman, CEO of Amazon Web Services, after the two saw each other in Pittsburgh — Shapiro writes, “We are thankful and excited about AWS’ historic investment and I agree that our teams continue to work very well together and we continue to be committed to your success in PA. We also look forward to the Fall announcement of the additional sites in PA, and would love to collaborate and maximize the impact of those announcements and share the story of positive economic and community outcomes together.”
He concluded the email: “My door is always open should you have issues or ideas you wish to discuss. Please keep in touch.”