This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.
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:
A conversation with Matilda Krieder of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory

This week I spoke with Matilda Krieder, a researcher at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, about a database she and her colleagues released this week showing how onshore and offshore wind developers use community benefit agreements – a form of compact aimed at improving local benefits from projects. We talked about whether communities really see the agreements as helpful or if there’s a better way.
The following is an abridged version of our conversation edited for clarity and space:
How much have you heard from people concerned that community benefit agreements are a form of financial influence or a false promise where they don’t receive real benefits?
I haven’t heard very much about the not-receiving end of things — and the reason I’ll say that is at least on the land-based wind side, an actual community benefit agreement is pretty uncommon. The vast majority of the time it’s just donations. And that, I think, is less likely to have the false promise thing because developers are handing over a one-time check, so there’s not really a perception that it won’t come to fruition.
So walk me through what your research shows with respect to how effective community benefit agreements are in assuaging local opposition to a project?
Unfortunately my research is not super helpful there. Because we didn’t look at failed projects, I don’t think I can say anything about whether [community benefit agreements] help or not.
But the existing literature that other people have done is not really positive on the connection between community benefits and improving community perception of projects, which is really interesting to me because I think people in the U.S. are really buying into it. Especially for offshore wind. So much pressure is being put on community benefits agreements as the thing that’ll change everything. And I support developers giving them, even if it doesn’t change anything, because it’s a net good. But I do wonder if developers or anybody setting regulations are reading what’s been studied. If so, I don’t know if they’d be putting all their eggs in this basket.
Okay then what if you walked me through the benefits you’ve found, at least in wind?
So it’s very different from offshore wind to land-based wind. In offshore wind, we’re seeing huge amounts of money, especially in the communities that host cable landings for the projects, because that’s the only point in offshore wind where the local government has any way to stop or change the way the project is developed. The cable landing is where you’re seeing $150 million [contributions]. And that hasn’t been happening long enough to measure the impacts of school funding or taxes over time.
The agreements that are more likely to be impactful are the ones that are more specific. I point to the Salem offshore wind terminal as a positive example because it’s such specific funding. You can tell they did the work to understand what the community’s priorities were and they directed funding to those areas.
In terms of land-based wind, it would be up to who you talk to. I’ve talked to county commissioners who’ve spoken really positively about the things that would be considered small potatoes. Not millions of dollars but directed funding in a specific way that met the community’s priorities and that changed people’s perception of the project. That’s a very small sample size, so you can’t identify a trend there, but I think it has potential.
I’m starting to view the donation side more positively than a lot of people too because a community benefit agreement most of the time is going to the local government, [and] a lot of people distrust their local government.
So instead, donations directly to services instead of county or local governments?
Yeah. That’s just a function of how in agreements, 95% of the funding goes to a local government. And people may not ever know what happens to it after that. It’s less visible.
What are you hearing from communities about community benefit agreements then?
I hear, how do we get one? The problem is, it’s still entirely in the developers’ hands so sometimes I feel a bit limited in the advice I can give to get one. It kind of comes down to what leverage you have with a developer.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
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.
A conversation with Josh Freed of Third Way
This week’s conversation is about the big energy policy story of the week – month? year? – which is the new bipartisan permitting deal in the U.S. Senate. As my colleagues and I were feverishly working on our mega-explainer about the bill, I rang up Josh Freed, founder of Third Way’s energy and climate program, who graciously picked up the phone despite traveling in London. Freed, a fellow energy wonk-slash-musician, was gracious to jam out with me on all the things I felt you needed to know about this bill – including whether there really is only one shot to get what he believes would be landmark legislation into law.
The following chat was lightly abridged for clarity. Let’s dive in.
Let’s start with descriptions. Thomas Hochman, a friend of Heatmap News, published a lengthy blog about the new bipartisan Senate permitting bill in which he describes it as a “grand bargain.”
Do you agree with that description?
No. See, it’s so funny, I saw that description as well and I think over the years I’ve soured on the concept of ‘grand bargains.’ But it’s hugely significant.
Okay. If it’s not a ‘grand bargain,’ how would you describe it?
Well the problem with a ‘grand bargain’ is it assumes there’s all these trade-offs and everyone gets a little bit of something. But the reason I think it’s just significant, and not that, is it took the transmission architecture that Manchin-Barrasso had that was close to passing and built it out for current load growth. That’s a big deal given how much the transmission side has been a blockage in the system. And how much they dealt with the permitting of infrastructure, generally.
When we did our survey of over 200 project developers a little over a year ago, we were surprised at how much that was what they were concerned about – transmission and permitting of utility-scale solar. They’ve added those two things into the bill. So we’ve got consequential transmission permitting provisions and steps to add a lot of certainty, while shortening the window where objections based on those laws can pop up. This means a lot more is likely to be built and it’s very likely that’ll be clean.
There’s infrastructure with fossil fuels that’ll be built. We get that. But when costs are so high, that’s also sort of inevitable. The overall proposal is more of a win to build than a bargain.
Does the language in this bill adequately address Trump’s freeze on federal permits for renewable energy projects?
I think it is a really important step in the right direction with permitting certainty for solar and wind but this question with national security, and making sure this gives the certainty that these projects will ultimately be delivered… I just genuinely don’t know. But we need to make sure it's sufficiently airtight. Is this the best, most reasonable attempt to do this? That’s the question that needs to be answered.
The combination of permitting certainty and anti-discrimination language barring the executive branch from category wide attacks on offshore wind or solar are steps that need to be taken. At some point we’re all going to have to take the step off the cliff together and see what happens next because we’re getting as good as we’re going to get, presuming the administration will follow the law. If they don’t follow the law, there’ll be actions to be taken to get them back on track.
But this is what you have to do, because otherwise, everything’s still broken. At least it gives us additional mechanisms to keep them in line.
Do you think this has to happen before the next Congress convenes?
The most likely time for action is the lame duck period in Congress. I think there’s a slim chance you could see something happen next year but it’s impossible to predict how likely that chance is or what it would look like until we see the election results. I wouldn’t want to gamble on everything lining up to get another bite at the apple next year. And lame duck’s always been the most likely time for this to happen.
Okay. So let’s say this bill becomes law. What do folks like you do next on energy in D.C.?
I think we get this done and then we’ve got to make sure the law works. Assuming this passes, we’ve got to make sure the obstacles we thought were obstacles really were the obstacles, and this still doesn’t address additional issues data centers have raised. We need an enforceable framework so as data centers come onto the system, the additional generation and transmission is built in a way that’s in the best interest of communities and paid for by the data centers.
There are questions of whether the market structures created more than a hundred years ago are still the correct structures for 2026. If they’re not, then what’s the path to getting stuff built and maintained effectively? That alone is enough. And I think the next biggest thing: what parts of the supply chain should be developed and where? Transformers, batteries, the future of the auto industry… all those fun things are up in the air.