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.
Both are now trapped in the same doom loop.
Renewable energy is getting roped into the data center sector’s publicity woes as a broader industrial techlash sweeps many corners of the nation.
Data center developers often want solar energy because you can stand up a project with it quite quickly. It’s also plainly better for the planet to have solar powering data hubs as opposed to gas or coal. But across the country, counties and towns enacting moratoria on data centers are blocking solar developments, not to mention wind and battery storage, while politicians struggling with resident concerns about data centers are responding by going after renewables and transmission that would add solar or wind to the grid.
Examples keep piling up of data center frustrations boiling over into renewables discussions and vice versa. You can find them in data center hubs like Indiana, as well as in less developed areas of the central and western United States. In Oklahoma, activists fighting data centers are protesting with leaders in the anti-renewables grassroots movement. In Alabama, lawmakers are considering a full-blown ban on solar because of a single project that would offset power demand from a big Meta data center. In Missouri, a similar proposal significantly limiting solar development is being pushed by a top GOP state senator under fire for previously defending data centers.
This phenomenon is spreading beyond solar farms to manufacturing. Take York County, South Carolina, where the upset over Silfab Solar’s module plant is energizing calls to pause a QTS data center proposal.
“Your land is being stripped of value by industrial complexes of all kinds,” Oklahoma State Representative Jim Shaw told attendees of a March 7 “Green New Scam” protest outside the state capitol building in Tulsa. The protest commingled anti-wind figures with communities fighting other tech infrastructure, and video from the event shows people had signs stating “Stop the NDAs” – a popular rallying cry against data center developers. “They do not care. Your voice is silenced. Your calls and emails go unheeded. Your cries for help are ignored and even belittled,” Shaw said to dozens of passionate assembled protesters.
Reagan Farr, CEO of solar developer Silicon Ranch, told me in an interview this week that he is increasingly concerned about the solar industry being swept up in the backlash to data centers. This trend, which Farr said he’s “thought about a lot,” reminds him of Occupy Wall Street, where “they’re against Big Tech, AI [and] big capital,” while maintaining “the same lack of faith in large institutions.”
“If you read the content in all of these ’Stop Solar’ Facebook groups, they really don’t distinguish between AI, data centers, Bitcoin, and renewables. It’s a general complaint against all of the above,” Farr told me. “It’s a fraught environment, and one I think is going to only continue to be more difficult as we move forward.”
Farr said this backlash to solar power in the data center boom reminded him of the Occupy Wall Street movement, in that people are expressing distrust at quickly growing industries and institutions. These conflicts wind up muting necessary discussions about the environmental impacts of fossil fuel development and fossil-powered data centers, he said. “Even when they’re talking to me, a founder and CEO, they’re like, You’re a big, faceless company. And no, we’re actually people who care about the environment and your community.” (Our extended conversation is included at the end of this newsletter).
Now, this isn’t to say fossil fuel infrastructure is any more popular than solar or wind when it’s how data centers get their power. One of the most common complaints about data center projects is about the pollution from diesel backup generators. And in the heart of West Virginia coal country, homeowners are suing the gas company behind a major data center. It would be a mistake to think renewables are singularly vulnerable to this problem.
In more conservative and rural communities of the U.S., however, the industrial techlash really matters. That’s because data centers are facing pushback over some of the same factors bedeviling renewables: fears over declining farmland, cultural misalignment, and a general lack of trust.
Kim Georgeton, a Republican politician in Ohio, told me she thinks farmland impacts make solar a tough sell when it’s attached to a data center in rural areas, where she said the physical footprint of a solar farm or a data center can be what triggers animus. “Once you convert agriculture – whether it be with data centers or solar or wind – you’re interrupting the agricultural land,” she told me.
Georgeton is a former software developer and current candidate for lieutenant governor on a GOP primary ticket this year alongside Casey Putsch, an anti-data center candidate for governor. While their bid is currently polling in longshot territory, the campaign has gained traction in factions of Facebook where anti-renewables and anti-data center opposition likes to organize, and Putsch is doing an event with environmentalists at the University of Cincinnati this weekend on data center opposition.
Heatmap’s polling also backs up Georgeton’s point of view. A Heatmap survey conducted last fall found that both Republican and independent voters said a convincing reason to oppose data centers is that they “might require wind or solar farms to be constructed nearby.” The data also found people were just as convinced to dislike data centers on the prospect it would possibly “require nuclear power plants to be constructed nearby.” Even more convincing, according to our polling? The risk of a data center causing new gas plants to pop up.
It’s now safe to say that the AI and energy sectors are in this fight together.
Plus more of the week’s top development fights.
1. Cumberland County, New Jersey – A Democratic candidate for Congress is vying to oust one of the most powerful anti-renewable voices in Congress with a surprising maneuver: leading the public fight against a data center complex.
2. Hampden County, Massachusetts – This Commonwealth just killed an anti-battery storage ordinance.
3. York County, South Carolina – The Palmetto state area freaking out about a solar plant chemical spill is now going to regulate data centers.
4. Wayne County, Michigan – Detroit looks like it could ban data centers.
5. Orange County, North Carolina – Expect a data center moratorium in this rural county just outside of the Raleigh-Durham area.
6. Washington County, Oregon – Environmentalists are fighting a battery storage project outside Portland because they say it poses a risk to a nearby wildlife refuge.
A conversation with Silicon Ranch CEO Reagan Farr.
This week’s conversation is with Reagan Farr, CEO of solar developer Silicon Ranch. I connected with Farr after my story last week on legislation in the Alabama Senate potentially banning solar in the wake of a fight over a single Silicon Ranch project, which would help offset power demand from a large Meta data center outside the state capitol of Montgomery. To my surprise, Farr was incredibly candid about the solar sector’s increasingly fraught circumstances amidst the AI boom. Yes, demand is going up – but the public’s animosity towards data centers is starting to rub off on clean energy too.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Why do you think the Alabama bill is happening?
It is “silly season” in politics. Primaries are coming up, and one thing about the zeitgeist right now, whether its data centers or renewable power, is you can start a social media group and get a lot of members. Whether they’re bots or real people, a politician sees 4,000 people in a group they can access without paying advertising dollars, they do things that wouldn’t normally happen if it wasn’t election season.
Do you see any similarities between the localized backlash we’ve been seeing with data centers and opposition to solar farms?
I do. I think there’s a conflation of all these issues, including rising power prices, and a general feeling that people don’t understand it so it creates a lot of concern. There’s a lot of conflation: Is this bitcoin? Is this AI? I have found that, and it creates a lot of passion in a lot of questions we’re trying to address.
How do you feel about the way solar goes about community relations in situations where its attached to a data center as opposed to the overall grid, where people aren’t as able to easily tie your construction to lowering energy prices?
First of all, our project in Stockton – we’re selling power to Alabama Power at the point of interconnection. Meta is not a party to our transaction. So it’s not really a data center project, as far as Silicon Ranch is concerned. But I would say not just in Stockton, but other geographies, is that people conflate large renewable energy projects with data center demand whether they’re directly tied to each other or not. Its tough to explain because we’ve tried to explain how this project is helping the grid in Stockton build additional resiliency and is going to be generation that just by physics is going to support the communities in and around Stockton. If there’s an accounting entry on the back end between Alabama Power and Meta, that really is between Alabama Power and Meta and doesn’t really have to do with Silicon Ranch or this project.
You said there’s a conflation between renewable projects and data centers – can you say more about that?
If you read the content in all of these “Stop Solar” Facebook groups, they really don’t distinguish between AI, data centers, Bitcoin and renewables. It’s just a general complaint against all of the above.
A big part of the effort we have to undertake is to segregate. Silicon Ranch shouldn’t be bracketed with other solar owners and operators. Our business model is unique. Its just requiring more and greater effort to tell our story. We’ve always had people bring us questions. It's the preconceptions we’re really having to overcome.
What you’re describing I’ve taken to calling an “industrial techlash.” A turn against advanced energy and tech infrastructure. I hear similar arguments around noise, electromagnetic fields, or farmland. Do you think if a solar farm is tied to a data center, does that make it more or less likely to get permitted today in the U.S.?
I look back to one of our first large projects in the state of Georgia, where we were building in Bancroft Station using modules manufactured by Hanwha Qcells and we were selling to a co-op, but it was also the first time Meta had signed a power supply agreement with a co-op. At that time we had the governor, the head of economic development, and half the state legislature there celebrating this virtuous cycle of investment in Georgia. I don’t think you’d have that in today’s political environment. Today, we would probably focus more on the very distinct benefits of our investment in the community and our approach to agri-voltaics, land use.
I mean, look at the situation in Stockton. Those modules are going to be manufactured in Alabama, and we played a role in helping First Solar site their project in Alabama. So when you hear people, these concerns about how the modules are “toxic” or are “going to poison the ground” – I’m happy to answer that, but man, this is y’alls manufacturer. First Solar invested $1.2 billion into Lawrence County, Alabama. You’ve got to have some trust. Call them.
It’s a fraught environment, and one I think is going to only continue to be more difficult as we move forward.
A while ago you would’ve seen that yay response from politicians across the board to that level of investment. Now, there’s eggshells that need to be walked on. What led to that dynamic shifting?
I’ve thought about it a lot. It actually reminds me of Occupy Wall Street. It’s a different demographic protesting, but they’re against Big Tech, AI, big capital, and their power prices are going up but they don’t know why. It’s the same lack of faith in large institutions, and it’s hard to address.
Even when they’re talking to me, a founder and CEO, they’re like, You’re a big, faceless company. And no, we’re actually people who care about the environment and your community.
We faced a similar situation to this in Georgia – a different solar farm than the Bancroft one – and I wanted to better understand what was going on in the local community here. So I met with the community, answered a lot of questions, took people on tours, met with business leaders who had nothing to do with renewables and politics. That’s what gives me hope. But it’s not scalable. I really enjoyed it, but it’s the CEO and founder of a company spending months in a community. We have a team, but it was interesting – they didn’t believe my team in the same way they believed me.
Do you think the environmental and climate space is wrestling with the data center question in a way that’s sensitive to this?
Let’s use Stockton as an example. I believe solar done well is a huge asset to these communities. When the Stockton social media anti-solar campaign started, someone we’d worked with before from an environmental organization emailed us saying, I know Silicon Ranch. Why are you doing this? You’re better than this. So I called her and we had a really productive conversation. So she said, Reagan, why don’t I offer to convene more environmental groups together so you don’t have to have a dozen of these calls. You can have one. Then on that social media group, someone posted they’d “heard” Silicon Ranch was “paying off this nonprofit.” Totally not true. It put the nonprofit on the backfoot and they instantly had to distance themselves. They asked me, Did you say we were working for you? And I said no, it’s this echo chamber of misinformation where certain gatekeepers have different agendas.
I feel the environmental organizations, the farm bureaus, they need to get in front of these conversations. But they’re all donation-driven. So if they get in a crosshair they’ll just sit on the sidelines, and I understand that because I volunteer and sit on boards of non-profits. You can’t throw yourself into a discussion that’ll lead to you losing funding.