You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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:
Spinning turbines have it, but solar panels don’t.

Spain and Portugal are still recovering from Monday’s region-wide blackout. The cause remains unknown, but already a debate has broken out over whether grids like Spain’s, which has a well-above-average proportion of renewables, are more at risk of large-scale disruptions.
At the time of the blackout, Spain’s grid had little “inertia,” which renewables opponents have seized on as a reason to blame carbon-free electricity for the breakdown. If the electricity system as a whole is a dance of electrons choreographed by the laws of electromagnetism, then inertia is the system’s brute force Newtonian backup. In a fossil fuel-powered grid, inertia comes from spinning metal — think a gas turbine — and it can give the whole system a little extra boost if another generator drops off the grid.
Solar panels, however, don’t spin. Instead, they produce direct current that needs to be converted by an inverter into alternating current at the grid’s frequency.
“If a power plant goes out, that frequency starts to drop a little bit because there’s an imbalance in the power between supply and demand, and inertia provides a little bit of extra power,” Bri-Mathias Hodge, an electrical and energy engineering professor at the University of Colorado and a former chief scientist at the nearby National Renewable Energy Laboratory, explained to me. Inertia, he said, “just gives a little bit more wiggle room in the system, so that if there are big changes, you can sort of ride through them.”
Of course, blackouts happen on grids dominated by fossil fuels — the 2003 Northeast Blackout in the U.S and Canada, for example, which plunged several states and tens of millions of people into darkness. Even on renewable-heavy grids, blackouts can still come down to failures of fossil fuel systems, as with Texas’ Winter Storm Uri in 2021, when the natural gas distribution system froze up. Much of the state had no electricity for several days amidst freezing temperatures, and over 200 people died.
But Bloomberg’s Javier Blas was nevertheless fair to the Iberian blackout when he bestowed on it the sobriquet, “The first big blackout of the green electricity era.”
Spain has been especially aggressive in decarbonizing its power grid and there’s some initial evidence that the first generators to turn off were solar power. “We started to see oscillations between the Iberian Peninsula and the rest of the European power grid, and this generally means that there’s a power imbalance — somebody’s trying to export power that they can’t, or import power that they can’t because of the limits on the lines,” Hodge told me. “The reason why people have gone on to say that this is a solar issue is because where they’ve seen some of those oscillations and where they saw some of the events starting, there are a couple large solar plants in that part of southwestern Spain.”
While Spanish grid and government officials will likely take months to investigate the failure, we already know that Spain and Portugal are relatively isolated from the rest of the European grid and rely heavily on renewables, especially solar and wind. Portugal has in the past gone several days in a row generating 100% of its power from renewables; Spain, meanwhile, was boasting of its 100% renewable generation just weeks before the blackout.
Last week, Spanish solar produced over 20,000 megawatts of power, comprising more than 60% of the country’s resource mix. Spain’s seven remaining nuclear reactors — which still provide about a fifth of its electric power — are scheduled to shut down over the next decade (though officials have indicated they might be open to extending their life), while its minimal coal generation is scheduled to be retired this year.
“Spain and Portugal have been relatively early adopters of wind and solar power. The Iberian Peninsula is actually relatively weakly connected to the rest of Europe through France. And so that’s one of the tricky parts here — it’s not as well integrated just because of the geography,” Hodge said.
The disturbances on the grid started on the Spain-France interconnection, but a European power official told The New York Times that transmission issues typically don’t lead to cascading blackouts unless there’s some major disturbance in supply or demand as well, such as a power plant going offline.
Spain’s grid had issues before Monday’s blackout that can be fairly attributed to its reliance on renewables. It often has to curtail solar power production because the grid gets congested when particularly sunny parts of the country where there’s large amounts of solar generation are churning out power that can’t be transmitted to the rest of the country. Spain has also occasionally experienced negative prices for electricity, and is using European Investment Bank funds to help support the expansion of pumped-hydro storage in order to store power when prices go down.
On Monday afternoon, however, solar power dropped from around 18,000 megawatts to 8,000, Reuters reported. At the time the blackout began, the grid was overwhelmingly powered by renewables. Spanish grid operator Red Electrica said it was able to pinpoint two large-scale losses of solar power in the southwestern part of the country, according to Reuters.
That a renewables-heavy grid might struggle with maintaining reliability thanks to low inertia is no surprise. Researchers have been studying the issue for decades.
In Texas — which, like Spain, has a high level of renewable generation and is isolated from the greater continental grid — the energy market ERCOT has been monitoring inertia since 2013, when wind generation sometimes got to 30% of total generation, and in 2016 started real-time monitoring of inertia in its control room.
That real time monitoring is necessary because traditionally, grid inertia is just thought of as an inherent quality of the system, not something that has to be actively ensured and bolstered, Hodge said.
As renewables build up on grids, Hodge told me, operators should prepare by having their inverters be what’s known as “grid-forming” instead of “grid-following.”
“Right now, in the power system, almost all of the wind, solar, battery plants, all the inverter-based generation, they just look to the grid for a signal. If the grid is producing at 60 Hertz, then they want to produce 60 Hertz. If it’s producing at 59.9, then they try to match that,” Hodge said. This works when you have relatively low amounts of [renewable generation]. But when [renewables] start to become the majority of the generation, you need somebody else to provide that strong signal for everybody else to follow. And that’s sort of what grid-forming inverters do,” he said.
Grid-forming inverters could hold back some power from the grid to provide an inertia-like boost when needed. Right now, the only sizable grid outfitted with this technology, Hodge said, is the Hawaiian island of Kauai, which has a population of around 75,000. Spain, by contrast, is home to nearly 50 million.
The other key technology for grid-forming inverters to provide stability to a power system is batteries. “Batteries are actually the perfect solution for this because if you have a battery system there, you know most of the time it’s not producing or charging and totally full output or input. So the vast majority of time you’re going to have some room to sort of move on in either direction,” Hodge said.
But this requires both technology and market structures that incentivize and allow batteries to always be ready to provide that instantaneous response.
“The entire stability paradigm of the power grid was built around this idea of synchronous machines,” Hodge told me. “And we’re moving toward one that’s more based on the inverters, but we’re not there yet. We have to fix the car while we’re driving it. We can’t turn off the grid for a couple years and figure everything out.”
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A conversation with the Guardrails Alliance’s Shaunna Thomas.
This week’s Q&A is with Shaunna Thomas of the Democrat-allied super PAC Guardrails Alliance, which describes itself as “not anti-technology” but supportive of AI “rules, accountability, and a government that actually represents the public.” Part of that AI accountability they’re calling for is on data centers.
After the midterms, Guardrails Alliance sent a memorandum to all House and Senate Democratic offices arguing for AI and data center accountability to be a key part of their message and plans heading into the new Congress. Described as a “playbook for how to understand and channel anxieties about AI and data centers,” the document laid out “key narratives” that they said voters who care about these issues want to see reflected and echoed by their politics. They said the push against data centers could help Democrats build more lasting political power.
I reached out and asked if Thomas could explain further what all of this means to my readers. She kindly obliged.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Let’s start with the elections. What were your takeaways when it came to what voters want to see on data centers?
I think the elections were a rebuke of the status quo on a number of fronts. We saw across the board that people are frustrated with what amounts to legalized corruption and the forcing without consent of new technology, and new infrastructure to support a technology that they didn’t ask for in ways that are harmful to their lives and the country.
What we saw in polling is that the data center backlash is one of the most bipartisan political issues of our time, driven by everything from noise pollution to rate hikes to Big Tech trying to steamroll state and local governments. Americans are sick and tired of the AI industry trying to control our lives by building data centers in our communities, which goes along with trying to control our data and who represents us in government. The AI industry was also trying to spend a lot on elections trying to control the outcome.
When we dig deeper on all that, it’s not just about elections. They’re seeing this unholy alliance between Big Tech and the Trump administration.
In the post-election analysis laid out in that memo, you explain these key narratives that you think Democrats should pick up against the tech sector. Can you explain how you developed these?
What we dug into during the primaries and the lead-up to the general election was questions in focus groups and polling with Republicans and Democrats about what was behind the frustration. Is this just about buildings they don’t want in their backyard or is this connected to AI and bigger picture concerns over who makes choices? About control? The data centers people were most opposed to were data centers specifically for AI, which was a really important indicator it was both/and.
We then started to talk to voters in Ohio and Iowa and Michigan about what they’d want to see in terms of changes, in terms of new leadership, how they would want to see this framed. What was appealing? We tested a number of frames and these key narratives are a compilation of that data. So for example, a key narrative says, The AI oligarchs and their political allies are wildly out of step with a supermajority of the public. There’s also sample messaging under it in the memo. And it’s a reflection of the sentiment and the tone and the language a lot of people used when they got into robust conversations about what they’re really concerned about or what they want to see their leaders doing differently.
Can you say more about these focus groups? And can you say more about what you saw in terms of bipartisan shared concern around not just data centers but these messages you’re bringing up?
I can tell you about some of the key findings of the focus groups we did in Michigan and Ohio and Iowa in August and September. People are generally open to the idea AI can have some benefit to their lives, and they’re open to using it personally. But everyone we talked to expressed some concern about the pace it was being developed. You can see technology having value but also see there’s no regulation in place or guardrails around the technology itself.
Most people we spoke to expressed concerns about how the technology has been affecting society and the environment — that came up a lot in data center conversations. People are also concerned about the role chatbots could have in their children’s lives, and that AI could replace teachers.
It’s also a lot of concern about and a lack of confidence in either government regulators or AI companies to properly regulate the technology. You saw more support for regulators at the state level and people deeply opposed to federal pre-emption, because they see more evidence of democracy working at the state level as opposed to the federal level.
People express mixed reviews about the specific policy solutions. What we’re seeing is people see AI as a vehicle for a small handful to amass more wealth and power. I don’t think we have had enough of a robust debate about how you deal with that problem.
So, on that point in particular, I want to drill down. What do we know about what voters want to see? What does accountability or guardrails look like to them?
First of all, there’s blanket support for federal regulations in general to deal with the way the technology is developed and deployed. We see a lot of clarity from voters about the fact they may not have a lot of confidence the federal government will step in. They want to see it.
When it comes to the economy, where there’s still broad public support is taxing billionaires and CEOs of these companies and raising the minimum wage and raising the social safety net. People’s interest in seeing that move forward has been growing in intensity.
On AI specifically, people don’t want to have a conversation about distribution of wealth without a conversation about distribution of power. They don’t want to be bribed to accept the acceleration of AI in their lives. They want to know that the power of those companies to do what they’re doing is going to be significantly limited and safety guardrails are put in place to keep us all safe from what the new technology is capable of.
I think once the safety conversation is step one. Step two is the conversation about how you distribute wealth from a technology built on other people’s labor and intellectual property.
On the concern about bribes, we’ve been reporting on Trump’s call for cash payments to communities to accept data centers. Are you telling me proposals like that might not be a good political strategy?
It was precisely because Trump was talking about it that we heard it brought up in focus groups, and how it was described was that voters may get some short term incentive to accept a technology they don’t trust is designed to help them fundamentally. They believe it is being deployed to more deeply consolidate power and wealth. And they don’t want that. When the president or a big AI company says they agree with it, it’ll have an impact on how the idea is perceived.
It has to also be coupled with a set of policies that are putting democratic governance over the technology itself before its deployment. People want to see technology isn’t going to continue to advance without guardrails.
Distinct from Trump’s data center dividend, some policymakers have suggested a “data dividend” — a distribution of wealth from the usage of AI products because they’re using people’s data. That’s more of what we’re talking about.
What do we know about what the public wants to see regarding data centers?
It’s important we recognize local leaders have had demands driven by their local communities. But as a structural matter, the public sees slowing down data centers as a mechanism for slowing down the project of AI generally. It remains an open question about how you do that.
There are federal policymakers working on a set of solutions that could create more space for people at the local level to be in the driver’s seat on when, how, or if data centers get built. I think we’ll see more proposals on that front.
So where do you think this conversation goes next?
I would expect the public to continue to make demands from policymakers and I would expect the Big Tech sector to continue down the path they’re going, which is, we were always Democrats and pro-regulation all the time. This will look like policies resembling always being okay with regulation but actually avoid putting checks on their power. And that’ll mean the public has even more at stake and the government has an even bigger obligation to make sure AI is deployed for public benefit as opposed to for the profits of a few companies and CEOs.
Plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.
1. New York City — We have a new must-watch offshore wind lawsuit with potential implications for the entire sector — and this time, it’s from lobstermen seeking damages.
2. Hinds County, Mississippi — The largest proposed solar farm in Mississippi is moving forward after an appeals court rejected arguments from aggrieved local residents that it had been improperly approved.
3. Dakota County, Minnesota — I’m scrutinizing a lawsuit against a data center developer centering on allegedly improper permitting of its cooling technology.
4. Polk County, Florida — Will the Sunshine State remain a challenging place for data centers after Ron DeSantis? A test case could reveal the future quite quickly.
Trump’s “data center dividend” appears to have backfired. Our latest poll results help explain why.
This year’s midterm elections called into question the efficacy of a push to pay local residents directly in exchange for building data centers.
Before the elections, I profiled the campaign for politicians to embrace the data center “dividend,” a policy idea modeled off Alaska’s Permanent Fund, which doles out checks to residents from profits off state oil, gas and mineral royalties. The Bitcoin Policy Institute, a tech policy think tank, was one of the first to trumpet the concept, but it was quickly taken up by President Donald Trump, who started raising it in speeches and on social media. “If companies want to make their Data Centers popular, pay the community, and/or individuals within the community, a ‘dividend,’” Trump posted to Truth Social on October 21.
Clearly the idea didn’t stop the bleeding. Democrats trounced Trump’s party in the midterms on a message that was heavy on attacks against data centers. But that still doesn’t explain why direct payments did so little to move the American public.
A Heatmap Pro poll conducted in early-to-mid October, right before the midterm elections, gives us an answer. As part of a broader survey of 2,500 registered voters, we asked about the idea — what we believe to be the first independent poll on direct payments for data centers by a news organization. We asked respondents whether there was a specific dollar amount they’d accept as a one-time cash payment in exchange for a data center being built near them. We also gave them the option to say no amount of money was sufficient.
Shockingly, a majority of people surveyed said they’d reject the data center cash payment in any amount. Among those who said they’d actually take the money, the median figure was around $10,000. The average was a whopping $146,000, skewed by the number of people who wrote $999,999, the maximum allowed by the survey.
This tracks what we’re seeing play out in communities where developers have tried this idea. In Hazle Township, Pennsylvania, NorthPoint — developer of an Amazon-linked data center project — proposed $10,000 cash payments to residents, no catch. Residents compared it to a bribe. In De Soto, Kansas, data center developer Digital Realty is offering annual $1,000 tax credits for a decade to neighbors of its proposed data center project. That proposal has been reportedly met with mixed reviews, too.
Clearly one of the problems here is that data centers not only face public perception issues around their local impacts, but are also more broadly associated with systemic inequality in the U.S. economy. The same Heatmap Pro survey found that a majority of voters believed AI companies have more control over the government than the oil and gas industry, pharmaceutical companies, banks, or other large industries.
Shaunna Thomas, executive director of Democratic-allied super PAC Guardrails Alliance, told me that during the campaign season they found that residents often associated the dividends with bribes, and that the president’s support for direct payments ultimately fed into voter sentiments about the tech sector controlling the government and society.
“People don’t want to have a conversation about distribution of wealth disconnected from a conversation about distribution of power,” Thomas said. “Specifically because Trump was saying that, we started hearing from voters in focus groups that it didn’t work for them. They’re hearing it as a bribe. They’re hearing they may get some sort of short-term economic or financial incentive to accept a technology they don’t trust is designed to help them.”
The Heatmap Pro survey results about cash payments ultimately reveal how emotionally driven the data center debate has become, said Sam Lyman of the Bitcoin Policy Institute. I asked Lyman to respond to the results because I thought they called into question the political effectiveness of the proposal we’d discussed months earlier. Lyman stipulated that he thinks the one-time payment nature of the question may have undermined the results, saying he prefers the dividends be paid out “in perpetuity.” But he acknowledged they also show “there’s still a lot of education to be done on data centers, what they do, and the impacts they have on the places where they’re built.”
“I think there’s a lot of Americans out there who have legitimate concerns that the future economy doesn’t include them. That’s something that needs to be addressed,” said Lyman, who said he laid part of the blame on what he called “irresponsible rhetoric” from AI industry executives about their technology’s impacts on society. “With data center dividends, the idea behind this policy is to help Americans understand the AI economy includes them. To give them a very material stake in that economy as it gets built out, especially in the rural communities that make data centers possible in the first place.”