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 Craig Lawrence of Energy Transition Ventures

This week’s conversation is one of my favorites so far – Craig Lawrence of Energy Transition Ventures. Lawrence has been around the block and back again when it comes to the cleantech investment landscape. So I took note when he got into a brief back-and-forth with an activist fighting data centers in Indiana who claimed there were “so many clean energy people who no longer care about climate change” because they “now support fossil fuel data centers if some nominal amount is met with clean energy.”
Lawrence replied, “Some of us are simply realists.”
It was a provocative answer. I reached out to Lawrence and asked if he’d explain what realism on cleantech and climate change looks like in the age of the data center boom. The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So okay, what does “realism” in the clean energy space look like in the era of the data center boom?
In general, it looks like progress. Whether that’s technological or social, which often includes increased energy consumption. This is an extreme example of demand appearing at once. And what’s been incredible for me over 25 years of being involved in this stuff is, we’re finally at a point where clean energy can meet most of this demand – the cost of renewables and the cost of energy storage are now at a point where they directly compete with or without subsidies against fossil fuels.
However we’re not at a point where it's reasonable to expect 100% of this demand can be renewables. I don’t think that’s practical. Natural gas is still a very affordable, very flexible energy source. The data centers are going to use them.
I think the game should be figuring out how to support the most clean energy. That includes nuclear and other low-carbon sources to meet this demand.
I’d like to represent the other side of this really quickly. The pro-moratoria side here would be, why? Why do we actually have to build all of this? Why not just halt these data centers so the gas isn’t built, then invest in renewable energy to green our grid?
I made that comment about being a realist. We have an administration in this country that isn’t going to do that. Who will halt that? Who is in a position to actually do that? The answer is nobody.
We have another problem to worry about – the administration halting renewable energy projects. We have to prevent that from happening. I’ve been following the school of thought that there’s a grand bargain on permitting reform applying to renewables and other sources of energy.
I honestly truly believe that head to head, renewables and energy storage beat natural gas. In the free market of power, as much as it is a free market, renewables are winning and so you are painting a target on your back trying to stop all development unless it’s 100% renewables. You’re going to face a backlash from that.
In the U.S., 93% of new electricity generation is solar, wind, and storage. Do you really need 100%? You’d like it to be but man, take the W.
We’re winning. Not only are we winning but we are destroying the competition. To create a battle that has the potential to create significant backlash against renewables is the wrong move right now.
Okay, but on the opposing side someone would say that argument is what landed us in this place to begin with. Some would say a frame of realism is why we can’t seem to shake a reliance on fossil fuels.
I don’t think that’s the reason why.
Once renewables and storage became cost competitive they’ve dominated since. Prior to that, they weren’t cost competitive and it was a policy fight to say people should be forced to buy more expensive electricity that was cleaner for the climate. That battle was difficult and had some wins and some losses. We’re past that battle now.
Renewables are winning in the global market. Would I love a scenario where we could meet all the demand with solar, wind, and batteries? Yes. And I think we can get there, but there are real practical limitations to those resources too. They’re not 24/7 resources, even though they’re getting close to that.
Let’s just say I agreed with them and that side of the argument. What can you do about it with this administration? You can certainly try to elect candidates that’ll be supportive of it. You can’t force a moratorium.
Luckily, for that side of the argument, there’s plenty of people upset about data centers that aren’t just thinking about climate change.
How do you feel about the data center backlash as an investor in cleantech, and does it impact the decisions you make around who you potentially finance?
Not yet. The data center boom for us is indicative of a broader boom for increased electricity demand, which is generally good for what we invest in.
I think this feels very deja vu. Whether it's nuclear or renewables or pipelines, someone is going to be against it and make a lot of noise. That’s part of the reason we struggle to build things in this country.
But no, if anything, the whole AI and data center buildout is a tailwind for the energy transition and climate technologies. It’s helping gas too, no doubt, because people are trying to procure any power they can, and so they’ll do it by whatever means necessary, but I continue to think we’re oversupplied globally on solar panels and batteries. That’s thanks to China, primarily. And you can build those facilities in one or two years. Gas has five-plus lead times for turbines. We’re in a position to win that battle without having to make it a political battle over halting the buildout of these things.
Do you think the upset over data centers will impact the energy projects to power them?
Yes, I do. I’m seeing subsections of X, farmers and people purporting to support them, that are really upset about solar on farmland and engaged in interesting discussions around it. The same happens with data centers and farmland. It’s interesting to try and figure out their motivations. Is it preserving the farming or an angle to attack development they don’t like?
I am seeing a mobilization of people against buying up land and buying up electricity and water and using it for… xyz. Right now the flavor is data centers. It’ll be something else down the road. We’ve even heard the same things around the EV charging buildout.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Talking about the data center backlash, the midterm elections, and the future of renewables with Columbia Law School’s Romany Webb.
This week’s conversation is a quick catch-up with our friends at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. I hopped on the phone with the center’s deputy director Romany Webb to chat about recent updates they published to anti-renewables opposition analysis. I wanted to dig into their research beyond the toplines — what should people care about in the coming election? How have data centers come up in their research? Or the repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act?
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Let’s start with the updates. Walk me through what’s new in your research.
So, we published two-year reports that detail renewable energy opposition across the United States; one is our report we’ve published since 2021 and it’s a new edition, and the other is an update of a report we published a few years ago on false claims about renewable energy where we highlight the misinformed used against projects.
This year’s local opposition report found local opposition continues to be widespread and really endemic. There’s been opposition to renewable energy development in every state across the country and we’re seeing it still have a real impact on whether projects get built. But there are small glimmers of hope. We identified 70 new state and local restrictions, which was a decline from previous years — that’s notable.
In select states where there have been a lot of these local restrictions, we’ve seen a drop off, like in Michigan after they enacted their state siting law. These are encouraging signs, and obviously it’s still early days, but it shows some of these state reforms are having a positive impact.
How is data center opposition coming up in your research?
Our reports do not track opposition to data center development. But we do certainly hear anecdotally that debates over data center development are spilling over into debates over renewable energy and battery storage. Often, local communities express concern that these new projects are just being built to power data centers — in some cases when there’s no connection at all, really. But I don’t have data on that link.
You said the law Michigan enacted might be working. Do you know if these laws limiting local opposition actually help with fighting renewable energy opponents, or are they engendering their own backlashes that undermine their effectiveness?
I think it’s too early to say the impacts they’ll have over the medium to long term. In the near term, many of the laws have been successful in accelerating the permitting of renewable energy projects or making it easier for them to be approved. Recent data out of New York shows that many of the projects that have gone through the new siting process are being approved — they’re still fairly long but they’re consistent which is good for development. In other places we’ve seen efforts to limit local government’s ability to adopt restrictions on renewable energy development, like Illinois and Michigan.
Those laws are relatively new, but the data we have shows that drop-off. It suggests the intended effect. But we need more time to know how effective they are and some of those laws have been getting quite a bit of pushback. There’s been a myriad of bills enacted in state legislatures across the country that would roll back those recent reforms or impose new restrictions on renewable development.
How much does the coming midterm election matter for the future of opposition to renewable energy?
I do think the next election will have important implications on whether we continue to see the ever-growing number of state level restrictions adopted or if we see a shift there.
Even if we see a shift in the composition of legislatures, I do think we’ll continue to see community opposition in many places to these projects. We shouldn’t ignore that developing a solar or wind project does have impacts on the local community and so developers really need to take steps to mitigate and manage those impacts.
If they don’t they’ll face the opposition, and even if they are they may face it because of misinformation around these projects.
My last question is, to what extent did the repeal of the IRA impact the ability for local opposition to kill projects in the crib?
I can’t say that definitively. I certainly don’t have the data that would support that sort of claim. And we don’t track that, specifically.
But often, groups that are opposed to renewable energy development will express concerns about the costs of projects or emphasize projects may not be viable without government subsidies. So the rollback of tax credits under the IRA plays into that argument. Of course when you look at the data, renewable energy projects are cheaper and the argument doesn’t hold muster.
But it’s an argument we regularly see pushed by opposition groups. That is how we have seen the IRA repeal affect this.
A developer sues an Arkansas paper, plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.
1. Pulaski County, Arkansas – A major utility sued the biggest newspaper in Arkansas over reporting on a data center energy deal. It’s a crucial case to follow.
2. Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania – Speaking of hardcore legal strategies, have you ever heard of a data center developer asking every local official to recuse themselves?
3. Loudon County, Virginia – Data Center Alley is giving us our first real glimpse of what data center legislating could look like if Democrats control at least one chamber of Congress.
4. Lane County, Oregon – The second largest city in Oregon is now turning down data centers, just as the governor starts saying no to anything on state land.
What we’ll be watching for on election night.
It’s almost fall 2026 and you know what means: It’s time to figure out the must-watch midterm races amidst the data center backlash.
I’ve spent the past week pulling together a list of the top five congressional races worth watching as bellwethers for the impacts of the data center backlash in the American electorate. This list has three U.S. House races where Republicans are defending seats, one where a House Democrat is defending their seat, and the Senate race many of you are probably most thinking about anyway. Think of it as a tipsheet.
Before we begin, a crucial theme I picked up reviewing the data: The AI infrastructure backlash will almost assuredly be most painful for sitting House Republicans crucial to deciding the future of the lower chamber of Congress.
Very few House Democrats are defending seats in challenging contests. As I’ll explain, at least one of the elected Democrats that would otherwise be most vulnerable in this year’s election cycle — Rep. Marcy Kaptur in Ohio — has already positioned themselves way out ahead on this issue. This means what we’re left with is simply a long list of incumbent GOP lawmakers with votes supporting data centers that newcomer challengers can call out. My best anecdotal comparison in recent history is anger over Covid-19 school closures helping oust incumbent Democrats in Virginia way back in 2021, but expanded to a national scale.
House races strike a balance between nationalized issues (gas prices, federal AI support) and local fights over land use and nearby resource draws like water or power, so this shouldn’t be a surprise. But it is a pivotal trend to remember as we approach Election Day.
The most important data center-centric race for Congress is a rare case where it’s also the one receiving the most media attention: Will Lawrence, a Democrat, versus Republican CongressmanTom Barrett.
To quickly set the scene, this race is happening in Michigan’s 7th District — an agriculture-heavy area of central Michigan I personally know quite well because of its proximity to the college town of Lansing. The district includes what Heatmap Pro clearly shows are multiple challenging areas for any sort of large-scale AI or energy infrastructure, including both Ingham and Clinton County.
Enter Will Lawrence, a cofounder of the Sunrise Movement, who made data center opposition core to his campaign by backing a federal moratorium in early 2026. It was the first issue he highlighted in primary campaign ads and many credit the stance for his surprise upset victory over establishment favorite and former Navy SEAL Matt Maasdam. This week, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jocelyn Benson backed a statewide moratorium on new projects if she won. It’s hard to think that would ever happen without Lawrence’s victory.
Lawrence’s incumbent opponent is Rep. Tom Barrett, who over this summer introduced two bills signaling a more aggressive stance on the issue — one that would block federal agencies from overriding local zoning decisions and another banning members of Congress from signing NDAs related to data centers. I do not think these bills will do much on the campaign trail to help him; neither one would actually stop any data centers in Michigan or elsewhere, as both policies address hypothetical cases we’ve not seen before.
Cook Political Report scores this race as a Toss-Up.
In Pennsylvania, you’ll find a race pivotal for control of Congress — and future Republican responses to the data center backlash writ large.
When it comes to the GOP members responding earnestly to the backlash against data centers, you can’t find a better example than Rep. Rob Bresnahan Jr., who represents the Keystone State’s 8th congressional district. This area in Pennsylvania’s northeast corner is filled with traditionally moderate suburbs as well as current and former fossil fuel industry communities. Bresnahan won his seat in the last election cycle, defeating former Democratic Rep. Matt Cartwright, an elected official I best knew as one of the biggest champions in Congress for cleaning up former gas and mine developments areas.
Bresnahan Jr. is running against Paige Cognetti, the Democratic mayor of Scranton, who is running ads comparing data centers to the legacy of unremediated fossil fuel projects. It’s a clear ploy to use data centers as a signal to voters this newly elected Republican could be straying away from what used to be the norm for the area’s representative in the U.S. House.
“Big companies have come before, taken what they wanted, and left us with their mess to clean up. Now its data centers,” states one Cognetti ad released last month.
Unlike other Republicans in Congress facing data center scrutiny, this GOP freshman acted quickly to introduce legislation supporting communities fighting data centers. In June, Bresnahan put forward a bill that would block federal agencies from permitting new data centers if they were rejected by their host local governments and enjoin federal legal action against towns or counties that deny data centers if they met certain standards for the rejection. It’s a far more aggressive stance than Trump’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge and marks one of the most significant anti-data center bills ever introduced into Congress.
Cook Political Report scores this race as a Toss-Up.
Can an incumbent Democrat protect herself in one of the reddest congressional districts in the country by railing against data centers?
Rep. Marcy Kaptur is someone whose profile I know quite well because she was the first member of Congress I ever interviewed back in 2017. For many years, she’s represented a district on the rim of Lake Erie, and she’s long been the top Democrat on the House Energy-Water Appropriations Subcommittee. In her district, she’s best known for portraying herself as a tooth-and-nail fighter for union labor in a blue collar Ohio congressional district often redrawn by the state’s GOP leadership to be harder each and every cycle. Thanks to her policy chops and moderate positions on other issues, she keeps beating the odds every election, kind of like a Democratic answer to Susan Collins.
This year, Kaptur’s seat is one of the most important for Democrats to defend in the midterms to regain control of the lower chamber. She clearly believes her opponent, State Rep. Derrick Merrin, has a potential political liability in a 2017 vote for data center tax breaks in Ohio. So she’s been making great hay of this issue for a while.
“Will our building trades be true partners in economic growth or temporary labor while facing higher utility bills at home?” Kaptur said on the House floor last December, long before the backlash to AI hyperscalers was a national conversation.
Should Kaptur win with this strategy, and if Democrats retake the House, I expect she will suddenly become one of the most important members in Congress on data center policy thanks to her subcommittee slot.
Cook Political Report scores this race as a Toss-Up.
On Election Night this November, I’ll be watching this race most closely to know if it’ll be an early night — and whether the entire data center sector’s in for a world of hurt.
This Richmond-area congressional brawl is between a historically overperforming incumbent in Rob Wittman, a five term Republican elected in the Bush era, and Henrico County prosecutor Shannon Taylor, a Democrat who won her primary earlier this year over a candidate that supported a federal data center moratorium. Taylor is still critical of the data center sector though, focusing on fighting any increased water and energy cost from facility operations.
Wittman has said voters have “legitimate concerns” about data centers and cosponsored the House version of the Ratepayer Protection Act, which would codify Trump’s pledge into law. Asked this week whether he’d support a data center moratorium, Wittman pivoted to the bill he backed instead. “I support putting guardrails on these data centers. Ultimately, these are local decisions and decisions of states,” he told a local ABC affiliate, adding he also wants to see facilities reduce water use. Wittman concluded, “Ultimately, it’ll be a local decision, but yes there is a federal role for that.”
Between their shared skepticism of a national data center moratorium and wanting companies to pay for what they build, there doesn’t seem to be much difference between the two candidates’ positions.. So where’s the contrast?
The difference is in the attack ads. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is making data centers a key part of this contest among many others, calling on allied political action committees to specifically make negative ads in Richmond and Norfolk media markets calling out past support for data center tax breaks. Unlike Wittman, Taylor has no tangible record of past support for these projects like explicit statutory support. So on Election Night, because Virginia closes voting early, this race will be my must-watch contest to know how dire not only Republicans’ chances are but more importantly, the data center sector.
Cook Political Report rates it Lean R, noting Wittman has a history of “overperforming politically.” Abigail Spanberger won the district last year.
I only picked one Senate race for this list, because like Virginia’s 1st, the fortunes of the data center sector in this election cycle clearly ride on the Texas Senate race.
Sure, the Lone Star gubernatorial is just as important. Yes, other Senate races are positioned around data centers, like Sherrod Brown vs. Sen. Jon Husted in Ohio and Abdul El-Sayed vs. Mike Rogers in Michigan. But no other contest is as clear of a bellwether for the entire midterm election because Texas is the data center destination in the nation.
On policy, Talarico is running on the mean average anti-data center stance: requiring companies to pay for what they need. It’s fairly boilerplate. Meanwhile, Paxton’s plan is a hodgepodge: it leans heavily on support for Gov. Greg Abbott’s clampdown-in-progress on the industry. He also calls for banning Chinese technology from being used in American data centers or to power them and says he’d support legislation speeding up permits for power to AI hyperscalers.
At the Republican Party convention in Texas this week, Paxton voiced support in an interview with Bloomberg TV for Abbott slowing down development in the state. He also said the country needed data centers because “if we don’t have data centers, we’re going to have trouble with China.” Asked whether he’d support legislation in the Senate that would put “restrictions” on data center development, Paxton offered a confusing answer that refused to say yes or no.
“There’s no bill, obviously, so it’s a hypothe– that’s so — I don’t know what the bill’s going to look like. You could have a data center [bill] drafted one thousand different ways. I would have to look at the bill and then I’d go back to my constituents and say hey, does this address what you’re worried about?” he said.
There’s a good reason reporters are asking. Earlier this year, a Washington Star report highlighted that Hood County requested Ken Paxton as attorney general intervene against a data center development and he did not respond. The issue became a serious campaign spat this past week, too, with Talarico telling CBS News he “just ghosted” the county.
Unlike Virginia, we haven’t seen the data center attack ads pop up… yet. If what’s happening elsewhere in the country is a prologue, I expect them to. Cook Political Report rates this race a Toss-Up and recently polling from their outfit found collapsing GOP support amongst Hispanic voters in the state.