You’ve reached your free article limit
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:
PJM is back open for business, but the new generation applying to interconnect is primarily natural gas.

America’s largest electricity market is looking at hooking up new power generation again, and a lot of it is natural gas.
PJM stopped evaluating new generation in 2022, when the backlog of projects awaiting interconnection studies stood at 2,664, of which 1,972 — representing 107 gigawatts, about two-thirds of the total — were renewables.
“They’ve been spending these past four years working through the backlog, studying everything that’s in there, and that process is up,” Jon Gordon, senior director at Advanced Energy United, told me.
The electricity market announced last August that applications for the first cycle of interconnection studies under a new, reformed process would be due this week. Some 811 projects with a combined capacity of 220 gigawatts made the Monday deadline, PJM said Wednesday. This time around, the mix looks a little different.
While solar, storage, and solar-and-storage projects make up more than half the queue by number (536 in total), by capacity, nearly half is natural gas, with 106 gigawatts out of around 220 gigawatts total.
For years, some of the strongest advocates of interconnection queue reform at PJM have been advocates for renewables. With the wait for interconnection stretching up to eight years, solar and wind projects in particular found themselves in trouble. Even as the cost of solar had been dropping dramatically, higher inflation and higher interest rates following the COVID pandemic and Russian invasion of Ukraine made developing renewables more expensive — and that was before Donald Trump regained the White House and declared war on clean energy.
Since 2020, PJM said in a March blog post, 103 gigawatts of interconnection agreements resulted in just 23 gigawatts of new generation being added to the grid. Three-quarters of projects that PJM studied withdrew from the process at some point before sending power to the grid.
PJM spent the past four years reviewing old projects and developing a process designed to get interconnection service agreements done in two years at most. The round of projects submitted up through this week will not be evaluated on the “first-come, first-served” model that had bedeviled the previous system. Instead, PJM has adopted a “first-ready, first-served approach,” which the organization says will mean “prioritizing projects that are more advanced and better positioned to move forward.”
The reformed queue couldn’t come soon enough. Over the past four years, PJM has become desperate for more power to serve exploding data center demand and help alleviate high prices.
Since 2020, electricity prices in PJM have risen almost 50%, from 12.6 cents per kilowatt-hour to 18.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, according to data from Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub. Typical electricity bills have risen from around $128 a month to about $161.
“Current projections show a potential capacity shortfall of 50 GW to 60 GW in the next decade, primarily driven by large load growth,” PJM said last month. For reference, a gigawatt is enough to power a city of around 800,000 homes. PJM’s existing installed capacity is around 180 gigawatts.
When I asked Gordon about the large presence of natural gas in the new queue, he pointed to data centers, which “have become a massive sea change to the whole landscape of energy.” That goes especially for the scale of planned facilities, such as a planned 1.4-gigawatt data center campus on a 700-acre footprint in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
“Now they're talking gigawatt-size data centers that would require, potentially, an enormous natural gas plant — maybe more than one,” Gordon said. Getting the requisite financing and permitting for renewable and storage resources to power such a large-scale project would be “enormously challenging,” he added. Meanwhile, “natural gas has risen to the fore here, and it’s getting a lot of tailwind from the Trump administration.”
(Something else eagle-eyed readers may have spotted in the numbers on new planned projects: their average size is much bigger than those in the queue as of 2022. The new batch comes in at an average size of nearly 272 megawatts each, compared to around 60 megawatts for the old one. That holds especially for solar, storage, and solar-plus-storage projects, which clock in at nearly 198 megawatts on average, compared to just 54 in 2022.)
Earlier this year, governors of states in the PJM region, led by Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro, and the White House agreed on a $15 billion special auction for procuring new generation in PJM. That came after PJM’s most recent capacity auction — in which generators bid to be compensated for their ability to stay on the grid in times of need — failed to meet even PJM’s preferred reliability margin.
Pressure continued to mount on the electricity market following the capacity auction, as federal regulators took it to task for its failure to get more generation online. Two weeks ago, PJM put some meat on the bones of the White House agreement by proposing a two-stage process, whereby power customers would directly contract for new generation with power supplies starting in September and PJM would facilitate an auction for whatever was still necessary to meet its capacity increase goals by March of next year.
The plan met a cool reception in Washington, where Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chair Laura Swett said she was “a bit perplexed” by the PJM proposal, adding it didn’t meet the timeline set out by the White House and the PJM governors to hold an auction this year
While PJM may be able to reform its own processes or come up with special procurements, there’s still the same old issues that have bedeviled energy buildouts everywhere.
Projects that have already been approved are facing “hurdles such as state permitting and supply chain backlogs,” PJM said Wednesday.
That being said, renewables and storage can still benefit from an improved interconnection process, Gordon told me. “Renewables would have always benefited, and still will benefit from improved interconnection,” Gordon told me. That’s largely because renewable projects tend to be smaller on a per-project basis than gas, let alone nuclear, and are more plentiful in number, and therefore stand to benefit disproportionately from faster reviews.
The real tragedy, Gordon said, is that more renewables couldn’t come online when the political and economic winds were blowing in their favor. Projects that were submitted to the queue before its closure in 2022 were “probably very economic back then,” he told me. “They died on the vine as they waited in the queue.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The proposal resolves an issue that has bedeviled the industry since 2022.
Is Rosemont about to be BAAJA blasted away?
In a 2022 decision formally titled Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Rosemont Copper Company its claim under the General Mining Act of 1872 did not give the company license to dump literally millions of tons of waste rock on adjacent Forest Service land. Though Rosemont argued that the use fell under the law’s provisions for “mill sites” on public lands used for mining, the court found that because the parcel in question lacked valid mining claims of its own, the Mining Act did not justify its use under its own permissive regime.
The conservative energy group ClearPath Action described the decision as “a significant departure from long-held mining practices.” Industry groups said that the decision would vastly extend and complicate the process of mining on public lands by putting areas with mineral claims into a separate legal and permitting category from adjacent land that had customarily been considered part of the mining development.
Almost immediately after the court decision, the mining industry and its allies in Congress got to work trying to “fix” the Rosemont decision in order to restore the pre-2022 status quo.
One proposed fix — the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act — has been introduced several times in both houses of Congress, including as far back as 2023 in a Senate bill co-sponsored by Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Jim Risch of Idaho.
Another version of the bill, sponsored by Nevada Republican Mark Amodei, Nevada Democrat Steven Horsford, and Alaska Republican Mark Begich, passed the House of Representatives late last year with a handful of Democratic votes. Both bills would have explicitly established that miners could claim public land for waste rock disposal as long as it was “reasonably necessary” and “reasonably incident” to mineral development.
Now they may all be getting their wish. The comprehensive permitting bill introduced by Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate known as the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, includes the full text of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act
Both parties have been trying to jumpstart the domestic mining and critical minerals industry, especially for materials key to energy sectors, such as copper and lithium. The long lead time it takes to permit and open a mine is one of the major barriers to developing the domestic mining industry (along with nasty price competition from overseas miners and refiners, especially those controlled by Chinese firms).
This is not the first time a bipartisan permitting bill has included what’s known a “Rosemont fix.” There was also one in the 2024 Energy Permitting Reform Act, and in the Senate FREEDOM Act introduced by Cortez Masto and Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton this past summer.
You may have noticed lots of Nevadans associated with these bills. That’s because “Nevada is to mining as Texas is to oil and gas,” Aaron Mintzes, deputy policy director of Earthworks, a frequent and vigorous adversary of the mining industry, told me
While environmental groups generally supported the Rosemont decision, some groups supporting the clean energy industry backed the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, including Bipartisan Policy Center’s lobbying arm, the clean energy trade group Advanced Energy United, and the Zero Emission Transportation Association, which includes several copper and lithium companies among its members. (Mintzes described ZETA as “the lithium mining lobby” and an “outlier” among clean energy groups in supporting the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act.)
Instead of a technical fix that would comply with the spirit of existing law, Mintzes described the changes to mining regulation in BAAJA as giving mining companies “a nearly unlimited amount of public lands for their waste dumps, for their roads, for their pipelines, for their transmission lines, and for any other purpose that would be reasonably incident to mining.” That goes beyond the mill sites envisioned by the 1872 law, he said.
The National Mining Association, on the other hand, praised the bill Wednesday, with its president Rich Nolan saying in a statement that the existing permitting process is “mired in duplication, endless litigation and uncertainty,” and that “elected officials on both sides of the aisle have long acknowledged that the status quo cannot continue.”
Albert Gore, the executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, told me that there was a “broad recognition” among miners, refiners, and operators that the Rosemont decision required a statutory fix.
“It needed to be clarified in order to remove uncertainty. It's hard enough to invest in mineral production in the United States,” Gore said.
BAAJA’s mining provisions also include the Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund, which would be funded by maintenance fees collected by the Department of the Interior under the same 19th century mining law. This fund would support a program established by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to clean up abandoned mining sites.
In a transcript of a strategy call between environmental organizations on the BAAJA published by Punchbowl, Mintzes described the fund as “the one good thing I spotted in this bill so far.”
Exploratory projects are making a splash in Maine and Alaska.
A legal brawl is brewing over what could be the nation’s first underwater data centers.
Two subsidiaries of a new LLC named DeepGreen have applied for “preliminary” permits from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that would give four years of permission for studies and analysis towards constructing underwater data centers off remote coastlines in Maine and Alaska. The data centers as proposed would be powered entirely by tidal energy, as in, the power of waves themselves – a technological innovation from hydropower still being piloted around the world. Project descriptions submitted to FERC lay out what these data centers would look like in broad strokes: hundreds of hydrokinetic turbines, dozens of underwater “data center pods,” and miles of subsea cable. The permits would not authorize construction, which would need its own lengthy review process. But these early green lights would tee both areas up for years of potential conflict over hypotheticals that feel real to those on the ground.
There are upsides from purely a carbon emissions perspective. Relying on tidal energy suggests they’d be greenhouse gas-free, powered by the energy of the ocean. It would also eliminate the land use problem that upends so many AI data center projects. There are also clear environmental risks, as they’re also being suggested in ocean areas often coveted for protection, off coastlines where it’s unclear if the neighboring communities will accept them.
DeepGreen’s Alaska project is proposed within a more than 1,000-acre channel of the Cook Inlet, an estuary coveted by fishermen and wildlife conservation advocates, where fights over resource development already occur often. The upstart company’s Maine project is planned for the northernmost tip of the state, in the Bay of Fundy, which shares a transnational border with Canada. Canadian tidal power generation for the general populace marginally exists today in the Bay of Fundy – with major stipulations for marine life protection because it affects the general nature of water currents.
It’s crucial to note neither project has much information available online, sans brief text file project descriptions available through FERC’s online filing database. There is no public-facing website to date for the project, or for DeepGreen itself. When I contacted Louis Wolfson, a vice president at the company who is listed on company filings, he declined to talk about the developments over the phone and suggested I contact him at an email address listed in FERC application documents. That email address uses a website – “DeepGreenCoastal.com” – that does not seem to exist.
Still, we already know enough to say both development areas are likely to require substantial federal review. Not only does their presence in these waters almost necessitate it but both development areas receive considerable whale traffic. DeepGreen has already acknowledged a need to coordinate passive acoustic monitoring and “non-invasive study methodologies” with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the federal marine protection agency run out of NOAA. The Bay of Fundy is a prominent summer home for the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale and the National Marine Fisheries Service has already intervened in the FERC case for the Maine project, signalling in its filing that Endangered Species Act and fish habitat consultations “may be necessary for the project.”
The Center for Biological Diversity has also filed motions to intervene in both FERC cases, which they tell me is a prelude to potential litigation. “Putting one of these in the ocean just seems like a dystopian nightmare but it was especially alarming because of the areas they want to put these in,” Kristen Monsell, CBD Oceans Program Litigation Director, told me in an interview. “[The motions] are a step required in order for us to participate in the permitting process at FERC and then preserve our ability to challenge the decision in court if we think that’s necessary.”
In Maine, the coastline neighbors are the city of Eastport, which is vociferously opposed to this data center being built. The city passed a moratorium on data center development in response to the project and filed a request to intervene in its FERC case this week. “The City's concerns include potential effects on fisheries, marine habitat, water quality, currents, sediment, underwater noise, electromagnetic fields, equipment heat, existing uses of the waterway, and access to marine resources,” the city stated. “Questions also remain about equipment failure, storm damage, emergency response, equipment recovery, site restoration, and eventual decommissioning. These concerns are specific to the proposed placement and extended operation of computing and energy infrastructure on and beneath the seabed.”
In Alaska, DeepGreen doesn’t face a situation like Eastport with a bustling tourist destination-turned-nemesis, but there’s still quite a bit of local confusion and consternation.
The Kenai Peninsula Borough, which is the equivalent of a county-level government, is currently neutral on the development. But the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Conservation Alliance, a newly-formed nonprofit that includes fishing permit holders in the Cook Inlet, submitted a filing to FERC claiming the project site doesn’t properly take into account existing fishing permit holders and that “a preliminary permit proceeding that advances a project of this scale without any commercial fishing impact assessment” would fail the agency’s public interest obligations.
I asked DeepGreen if it had any comment on the litigation risk around their projects. This is what Louis Wolfson provided: “Preliminary permits under the Federal Power Act do not authorize construction or physical disturbance. Their sole purpose is to establish priority while environmental, bathymetric, and technical feasibility studies are conducted. Stakeholder participation is an expected and healthy part of the FERC regulatory process. DeepGreen welcomes the engagement of conservation organizations, local communities, and regulatory resource agencies as we evaluate whether these sites can deliver low impact, zero carbon infrastructure in full compliance with federal environmental laws."
And more of the week’s biggest fights around project development
1. Ottawa County, Michigan – A congressional district House Democrats are targeting for control of the Lower Chamber is now a battleground over solar development on farmland, and I’m waiting to see if President Trump gets involved.
2. Texas – The Lone Star State sure is action-packed right now, huh? Let’s break down a few of the most important fights.
3. Lincoln County, Oklahoma – A massive wind project in rural Oklahoma is now on hold amidst continued local opposition, according to a Republican member of the state legislature.
4. Clinton County, Indiana – Well hey, at least some places are still approving some things. Like in rural Indiana, where a community actually voted for considering a data center.