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 Jeff Seidman, a professor at Vassar College.

This week’s conversation is with Jeff Seidman, a professor at Vassar College and an avid Heatmap News reader. Last week Seidman claimed a personal victory: he successfully led an effort to overturn a moratorium on battery storage development in the town of Poughkeepsie in Hudson Valley, New York. After reading a thread about the effort he posted to BlueSky, I reached out to chat about what my readers might learn from his endeavors – and how they could replicate them, should they want to.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So how did you decide to fight against a battery storage ban? What was your process here?
First of all, I’m not a professional in this area, but I’ve been learning about climate stuff for a long time. I date my education back to when Vox started and I read my first David Roberts column there. But I just happened to hear from someone I know that in the town of Poughkeepsie where I live that a developer made a proposal and local residents who live nearby were up in arms about it. And I heard the town was about to impose a moratorium – this was back in March 2024.
I actually personally know some of the town board members, and we have a Democratic majority who absolutely care about climate change but didn’t particularly know that battery power was important to the energy transition and decarbonizing the grid. So I organized five or six people to go to the town board meeting, wrote a letter, and in that initial board meeting we characterized the reason we were there as being about climate.
There were a lot more people on the other side. They were very angry. So we said do a short moratorium because every day we’re delaying this, peaker plants nearby are spewing SOx and NOx into the air. The status quo has a cost.
But then the other side, they were clearly triggered by the climate stuff and said renewables make the grid more expensive. We’d clearly pressed a button in the culture wars. And then we realized the mistake, because we lost that one.
When you were approaching getting this overturned, what considerations did you make?
After that initial meeting and seeing how those mentions of climate or even renewables had triggered a portion of the board, and the audience, I really course-corrected. I realized we had to make this all about local benefits. So that’s what I tried to do going forward.
Even for people who were climate concerned, it was really clear that what they perceived as a present risk in their neighborhood was way more salient than an abstract thing like contributing to the fight against climate change globally. So even for people potentially on your side, you have to make it about local benefits.
The other thing we did was we called a two-hour forum for the county supervisors and mayor’s association because we realized talking to them in a polarized environment was not a way to have a conversation. I spoke and so did Paul Rogers, a former New York Fire Department lieutenant who is now in fire safety consulting – he sounds like a firefighter and can speak with a credibility that I could never match in front of, for example, local fire chiefs. Winning them over was important. And we took more than an hour of questions.
Stage one was to convince them of why batteries were important. Stage two was to show that a large number of constituents were angry about the moratorium, but that Republicans were putting on a unified front against this – an issue to win votes. So there was a period where Democrats on the Poughkeepsie board were convinced but it was politically difficult for them.
But stage three became helping them do the right thing, even with the risk of there being a political cost.
What would you say to those in other parts of the country who want to do what you did?
If possible, get a zoning law in place before there is any developer with a specific proposal because all of the opposition to this project came from people directly next to the proposed project. Get in there before there’s a specific project site.
Even if you’re in a very blue city, don’t make it primarily about climate. Abstract climate loses to non-abstract perceived risk every time. Make it about local benefits.
To the extent you can, read and educate yourself about what good batteries provide to the grid. There’s a lot of local economic benefits there.
I am trying to put together some of the resources I used into a packet, a tool kit, so that people elsewhere can learn from it and draw from those resources.
Also, the more you know, the better. All those years of reading David Roberts and Heatmap gave me enough knowledge to actually answer questions here. It works especially when you have board members who may be sympathetic but need to be reassured.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more of the week’s top fights around development.
1. Richland Parish, Louisiana – Gird your loins for the coming fight over the Meta Hyperion data center’s gas pipeline.
2. Spartanburg County, South Carolina – I have one last data center race to tell you to watch on Tuesday: South Carolina’s 4th, on the northern rim of the state.
3. Goodhue County, Minnesota – Google reached a settlement with an environmental group suing to stop its data center in the small southern Minnesota town of Pine Island, resulting in what local press are saying will be the Land of 10,000 Lakes first state-level environmental review of a data center project.
4. Trumbull County, Ohio – Ohio looks like it just got a tad friendlier for data center opponents.
Talking with Kevin Gundersen, the head of public affairs for Digital Realty.
This week’s conversation is with Kevin Gundersen, head of public affairs for data center developer Digital Realty. On Wednesday, Digital Realty released a fascinating poll as part of Infrastructure for America, a pro-data center organization that also includes Compass, Vantage Data Centers, and QTS. The poll pushed back on the idea that we’re currently in the middle of a “data center election”; instead, it found most voters are not expected to choose their national elected officials based on a politician’s stance on data centers.
I reached out to folks involved in the poll's release, and they put me in touch with Gundersen, whom I’ve met before and consider to be a straight shooter. He accepted my invitation to do a candid hot-seat chat about the findings, his thoughts on all the data center attack ads, and whether his industry’s actually recovering any ground with the American people.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So first off: Is this the “data center election”?
No. I think there are communities across this country that are learning about data centers and whose opinions are being formed by all sorts of things. I’ve also sat in communities that want data centers, that understand the benefits they provide, and I think there are loud voices on all ends of the spectrum saying things about data centers that frankly aren’t true. That’s unfortunate.
Now, that doesn’t dismiss people’s real concerns about data centers in communities that have never had them before or states that haven’t had them before. So it’s the industry’s job to have those conversations honestly and openly.
This is a new thing for the industry. If you look at the history of the data center industry, it was really confined to Northern Virginia, Santa Clara [California], and urban areas like New York City or Chicago where there are large customer bases and data needs. For the most part, people didn’t really pay attention to data centers.
This is now a historic build-out, so there’s an education going on. Data centers have become a physical manifestation of people’s fears about AI, and that’s something we need to manage as an industry. How we do that is to create organizations like IFA. Our company has been doing this for 25 years. We have 300 data centers around the world. For us, this is how we’ve always been doing this, but there’s no question our industry needs to be doing a better job as to why data centers benefit communities.
I think there’s a disconnect between what I see on the ground locally and the national narrative around the election. Every issue in America is nationalized. But if you look at some polls, this isn’t in the top five issues people are thinking about day to day.
It makes sense a data center developer would make this case. It’s your right to do so. But can you help me better understand the evidence, when we’re seeing so much television advertising attacking candidates for previous data center support?
The basis for me saying it is, I’ve sat in communities where people want data centers and been in parts of America that haven’t had revenue sources for decades. Now they have an opportunity for a data center in their city, county, state, and I think sometimes where there’s a disconnect is the national narrative around AI.
It’s hard to stop ChatGPT. But someone can use the data center as their target, so to speak. It’s the physical manifestation of their opposition to AI.
The biggest evidence is, there are a lot of communities that [have] welcomed data centers in the last 30 years. Not just the last couple of years. Santa Clara, California, is one of the nicest places in the country, and they have so many data centers. The history of people supporting data centers has been the norm, and the opposition is a relatively new thing in and of itself.
What about the electoral impacts? Have you personally not seen any? Either against your industry or for them?
We haven’t seen any of our developments’ electoral impacts on the local level yet. We could have this conversation next week after the election, but not yet. I honestly think I could answer that question better then.
But do I think data centers in most of America are the number one thing on people’s minds? No. Not when you talk to them outside the chatroom on Facebook when you can present dialogue and facts. There are communities that will decide they don’t want data centers. That’s fine. Some communities have made that decision. There are others who want them.
I’m not looking at next week. These developments are going to go on regardless of the election because there’s a huge demand for digital infrastructure, and a lot of communities do want these developments.
What do you see as the role of your polling when it comes to convincing the American public or the news media that this isn’t an election being decided by data centers?
IFA was created to tell stories about data centers and the benefits we provide to communities. These are real stories from real people and real companies. They’re mom-and-pop food trucks, electricians, real people all around the country. IFA is geared toward telling the story, a very positive story that is getting lost in the national debate.
When I think about the ads I see every day, the negative ads about data centers, these are real jobs. People making money wearing hard hats. I actually think it's unfortunate because I see people’s lives being lifted by data center development, and then they turn on their TV to see attacks on their industry.
The biggest companies in the world right now are taking their money and investing in the United States, creating a blue-collar jobs boom, and for some reason our politics make it something people want to oppose.
I think after the election there’ll be some kind of level set on both sides of the aisle because I think people were caught by surprise about some of the early polls on the AI issue that came out earlier this year. The industry wasn’t quick enough to talk about the benefits. But I think there are a lot of governors who’ve been balanced since they came into office about data center development, where they haven’t pushed moratoriums because they realize there are benefits from data centers.
The AI issue is great on the campaign trail, but separating AI from data centers and the investments they bring to a community is important. Data centers provide digital infrastructure. The demand for that is only going up.
Why should a skeptic of this industry believe this information from a developer?
I mean, have they talked to the IBEW? Have they talked to the unions? There are a lot of constituencies out there that see the benefits of data centers. Don’t take my word for it. Go to a community and talk to people.
There’s going to be people who don’t want a data center in their community, but if we do it openly, transparently, and tell the story of who we are — we’ve been around for 25 years! There’s all sorts of information out there about our company. And we’re going to keep talking to communities.
Why should they believe us? We don’t have anything to hide, and we’ll bring benefits to their community. That might sound like a cliché answer, but it’s the case.
What do you think the outcome will be from so many attack ads about data centers?
I think it's unfortunate, and I think it's bad for the country because elected officials right now are spending tens of millions of dollars in political ads telling people data centers are bad when in fact they bring huge benefits to communities.
We’re going to have to spend lots of time and energy and resources to make up for that. Perhaps we should’ve been doing this sooner. I’m sure we’d all in this industry loved to have gotten our story out before the campaign cycle took hold. We can’t go back and change the past.
I always say, we have the truth and physics on our side. What I mean by that is, we’ve got a great story, these developments have tons of benefits, and the demand is only going up. People have two phones. They have connected devices in their homes. Flat-screen TVs and Oura rings and Ring cameras. When you think about the digital products and services you use every day, it’s massive.
We’re going to have to tell our story. I do think a lot of elected officials at all levels of government want us to go do that. When I sit behind closed doors with folks, they know the benefits. People of both parties.
Only upgrades for pre-existing wind projects have been approved.
In September, the Trump administration told a reporter that the president directed the Pentagon to finally process wind projects through routine airspace approvals as required under a court order. By doing this, it created the appearance of real headway and good faith in talks with Democrats in Congress on energy permitting legislation before the November midterm elections.
But the White House’s assurances are not what they seem.
All of the projects the administration has reportedly advanced over the past week are repowerings, meaning they’re only upgrades of existing projects, and two of the “projects” they’ve advanced were just two individual turbines, the American Clean Power Association on Tuesday told members involved in litigation with the administration.
Over the course of his presidency, the president’s team has turned what was once a sleepy bureaucratic check for radar or flight interference into a weapon against wind energy in the United States. You need Federal Aviation Administration clearance for any structure above 200 feet in the air and that process includes a Pentagon review. By claiming wind projects suddenly needed new scrutiny for national security reasons, the Pentagon held up FAA airspace approvals for apparently hundreds of projects.
This has been a key part of bipartisan energy legislation talks back in D.C., as Democrats in Congress have demanded at least some semblance of regular order be returned to renewable energy in federal permitting. The permitting bill ostensibly has ways to strengthen wind companies’ hand in dealing with a hostile Trump administration but negotiators, including Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, have also previously called attacks on wind projects during negotiations harmful to a final deal becoming law.
In September, Politico reported Trump told his aides he would agree to direct the Defense Department to “start clearing its queue of long-delayed onshore wind projects to strike a deal” citing “two people familiar with the talks and granted anonymity.” Among the commitments Politico reported were made: to approve about 30 projects awaiting a countersignature from the Pentagon on a mitigation agreement related to airspace impacts.
In federal court, the renewable energy trade groups who brought the lawsuit clearly don’t think the Trump administration actually followed through with that promise.
On Oct. 20, after updates from the Justice Department showed little signs of progress (which I wrote about), the trade groups filed a motion to enforce the judge’s stay on their air clearance freeze, saying that very little had advanced since the ruling in early August, and that none of the 30 projects awaiting countersignature on their mitigation agreements actually had advanced from Pentagon review. In addition, they said the government was now asking project developers to sign onto a litany of new requirements in exchange for a sign-off on mitigation agreements. They submitted a joint declaration from subject matter experts, including from former military personnel, who described these requirements as a vast departure from precedent with little basis in security rationale that they said also had terms that could violate state or local laws, like a blanket prohibition on aircraft detection light systems. (You can read the declaration here.)
Two days later, on Oct. 22, it started to look like we were getting somewhere when news outlets reported the Trump administration was "advancing" two “wind projects” in South Dakota and Maine, citing statements from the White House and the Pentagon.
Bob Ditchey, a spokesperson for the Pentagon, told us in an email that the two “wind projects” were Crowned Ridge, which he said consisted of 87 turbines in “Grant, SD,” and “Blue Sky/Hill,” which he said was made up of 19 turbines in “Hancock, ME.” Ditchey described them both as “proposed” wind energy “developments.”
“Following rigorous evaluation of potential impacts on military readiness, radar installations, and airspace operations, the DoW has cleared both projects to proceed to the next phase of federal evaluation,” Ditchey said in an email. “The projects have been formally referred to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for final aeronautical study and determination.”
The South Dakota wind project Trump officials are referencing is likely NextEra’s Crowned Ridge wind farm, which has 87 turbines and has been operational since 2019. On Oct. 5 a NextEra project consultant submitted a litany of height clearance requests for a “repowering project” on behalf of Crowned Ridge Energy Center, LLC, according to the Federal Aviation Administration’s public database. The requests are for turbines in Grant County.
There is no Maine wind project with the name “Blue Sky/Hill,” as far as we can tell, but there is a project in Hancock County that was completed in 2012 called “Bull Hill” that consists of 19 turbines, and which also has pending applications for repowering in the FAA’s database.
Neither NextEra nor Bull Hill’s developer, TerraForm Power, responded to our requests for comment. The Pentagon also did not respond to questions about these projects or the additional ones it said it had advanced.
In addition, as of this story’s publication, all of the air clearance requests for these two projects are all listed as “pending” online.
If you’re wondering why operational wind farms might need air clearances for construction, all of the wind farms’ requests describe the projects as “repowering,” an industry term that applies to upgrading, modifying, altering or restarting pre-existing wind farms. A repowering can mean anything from fixing turbine blades to changing turbine height, or moving a turbine, or commissioning new turbines entirely. Crucially though it’s not really considered a “new wind farm” in the colloquial sense. As my colleague Matthew Zeitlin has explained, repowerings are seen by the energy sector as a simple pathway to the most juice for the squeeze from what has already been permitted and built.
On Tuesday, Punchbowl News reported that the White House was advancing three more wind projects in Illinois and Iowa. After this story ran, American Clean Power told members involved in the airspace litigation clarifying that all of the projects thus far are “repowerings” and that the two Illinois “projects” each were only individual wind turbines. None of the projects were new utility scale projects.
On Wednesday, just before this story went to press, Punchbowl News reported another two wind projects were advancing, calling it “more permitting goodwill from the White House.” We have not yet been able to confirm what these projects are or whether they are also repowering projects.
American Clean Power endorsed the bipartisan Senate permitting bill and called for its passage. The group provided a comment from Frank Macchiarola, their chief advocacy officer: “To date, the administration has moved forward only a handful of the total number of projects they agreed to approve. In order to pass BAAJA and bring down costs for Americans, the Administration needs to get serious about building clean power.”
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.