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 Tim Brightbill of Wiley Rein LLP

Today we’re talking with Tim Brightbill, a trade attorney at Wiley Rein LLP and lead counsel for a coalition of U.S. solar cell and module manufacturers – the American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee. Last week, his client won a massive victory – fresh tariffs on south Asian solar panel parts – on the premise that Chinese firms are dumping cheap products in the region to drive down prices and hurt American companies. It’s the latest in a long series of decadal trade actions against solar parts with Chinese origin.
We wanted to talk to Tim about how this move could affect developers, if an America-first strategy could help insulate solar from political opposition, and how this could play out in next year’s talks over the future of the IRA. The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
If you were talking to a developer, what would you tell them should be their takeaway?
I think the takeaway is that these determinations appear to go a long way toward addressing the unfair trade that’s been present in solar panels, solar cells, for more than a decade. And I think these duties do send a signal that will help build up domestic manufacturing. We’ve seen historic investment next to the Inflation Reduction Act in U.S. solar manufacturing facilities – in places like Georgia with QCells, in Ohio for First Solar – and we’re at a critically important point here.
Those investments were being undercut by this unfair trade by these Chinese-owned companies. We think now hopefully that will be addressed and that should lead to a bright future for solar deployment, the growth of solar power in the United States.
How does the pursuit of a fairer trade landscape globally in the broader sense impact support for solar energy in the U.S.? I hear often that a “made without China” approach can shore up support for renewables. Do you find that to be the case?
Definitely, I find that to be the case.
The U.S. industry invented solar technology and perfected it. And then unfortunately, it was virtually wiped out due to the unfair trade practices of China and these Chinese-owned companies. If we want to have solar and not be dependent on other countries for renewable energy needs, the best way to do that is to have a strong manufacturing base and a strong supply chain.
What do you think the direction of this is going to be under the next administration? Even more ratcheting up of trade measures?
Well the trade laws are a calculation, right? They’re based on rules, they’re not political. I don’t expect this administration to necessarily change individual trade cases. But I do think trade policy will change in a way that tries to address these Chinese-owned companies that undercut the rest of the world.
For example, the IRA provides right now potential benefits for any company that sets up shop here, even if they are owned by a foreign entity of concern. That seems like something this administration is going to address. If you’re going to receive IRA money, you should not be affiliated with a foreign entity of concern.
Given the potential for an impact on pricing, combined with the impacts on limiting the tax credits in that way – wouldn’t that make it harder to build projects in the U.S. short term?
I don’t think so. The solar panels themselves are not anywhere close to the majority of the cost of a project. There are so many other things that impact project cost, from permitting to the land. I don’t think this will impact the costs of deployment of solar. It will just give us a more secure supply chain that is either here in the United States or at least more regional in nature, which is going to be better for the industry.
With foreign entities of concern – are you referring to 45X? You’re anticipating that tax credit will change with respect to the IRA?
I expect the Trump administration will focus on that. There are already other related products under IRA where “foreign entity of concern” participation is not allowed for those tax credits. So it seems like a ready fix to ensure that is the same for solar technologies.
Is that bad news, or is that saving the credit?
I don’t think it’s bad news. I think it’s good news. It means more of the credit will be available to U.S. companies and our allies who might want to set up here as well.
If Chinese companies want to come here and set up in the United States, that’s great, but they shouldn’t also receive subsidies because those are the same companies that have harmed our industry with unfair trade for more than a decade.
Okay enough serious talk. Can I ask you a fun question: what was the last band you listened to?
It’s sort of dad rock-ish right now: Spoon. When I get my Spotify Wrapped, it’s going to be Spoon. That’s my favorite rock band right now.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Things in Sulphur Springs are getting weird.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is trying to pressure a company into breaking a legal agreement for land conservation so a giant data center can be built on the property.
The Lone Star town of Sulphur Springs really wants to welcome data center developer MSB Global, striking a deal this year to bring several data centers with on-site power to the community. The influx of money to the community would be massive: the town would get at least $100 million in annual tax revenue, nearly three times its annual budget. Except there’s a big problem: The project site is on land gifted by a former coal mining company to Sulphur Springs expressly on the condition that it not be used for future energy generation. Part of the reason for this was that the lands were contaminated as a former mine site, and it was expected this property would turn into something like a housing development or public works project.
The mining company, Luminant, went bankrupt, resurfaced as a diversified energy company, and was acquired by power giant Vistra, which is refusing to budge on the terms of the land agreement. After sitting on Luminant’s land for years expecting it to be used for its intended purposes, the data center project’s sudden arrival appears to have really bothered Vistra, and with construction already underway, the company has gone as far as to send the town and the company a cease and desist.
This led Sulphur Springs to sue Vistra. According to a bevy of legal documents posted online by Jamie Mitchell, an activist fighting the data center, Sulphur Springs alleges that the terms of the agreement are void “for public policy,” claiming that land restrictions interfering with a municipality’s ability to provide “essential services” are invalid under prior court precedent in Texas. The lawsuit also claims that by holding the land for its own use, Vistra is violating state antitrust law by creating an “energy monopoly.” The energy company filed its own counterclaims, explicitly saying in a filing that Sulphur Springs was part of crafting this agreement and that “a deal is a deal.”
That’s where things get weird, because now Texas is investigating Luminant over the “energy monopoly” claim raised by the town. It’s hard not to see this as a pressure tactic to get the data center constructed.
In an amicus brief filed to the state court and posted online, Paxton’s office backs up the town’s claim that the land agreement against energy development violates the state’s antitrust law, the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act, contesting that the “at-issue restriction appears to be perpetual” and therefore illegally anti-competitive. The brief also urges the court not to dismiss the case before the state completes its investigation, which will undoubtedly lead to the release of numerous internal corporate documents.
“Sulphur Springs has alleged a pattern of restricting land with the potential for energy generation, with the effect of harming competition for energy generation generally, which would necessarily have the impact of increasing costs for both Sulphur Springs and Texas consumers generally,” the filing states. “Evaluating the competitive effects of Luminant’s deed restrictions as well as the harm to Texans generally is a fact-intensive matter that will require extensive discovery.”
The Texas attorney general’s office did not respond to multiple requests for comment on the matter. It’s worth noting that Paxton has officially entered the Republican Senate primary, challenging sitting U.S. Senator John Cornyn. Contrary to his position in this case, Paxton has positioned himself as a Big Tech antagonist and fought the state public utilities commission in pursuit of releasing data on the crypto mining industry’s energy use.
A solar developer gets into a forest fight in California, and more of the week’s top conflicts around renewables.
1. Sacramento County, California – A solar project has become a national symbol of the conflicts over large-scale renewables development in forested areas.
2. Sedgwick County, Kansas – I am eyeing this county to see whether a fight over a solar farm turns into a full-blown ban on future projects.
3. Montezuma County, Colorado – One southwest Colorado county is loosening restrictions on solar farms.
4. Putnam County, Indiana – An uproar over solar projects is now leading this county to say no to everything, indefinitely.
5. Kalamazoo County, Michigan – I’m eyeing yet another potential legal challenge against Michigan’s permitting reform efforts.
A conversation with Renee Grabe of Nature Forward
This week’s conversation is with Renee Grabe, a conservation advocate for the environmental group Nature Forward who is focused intently on data center development in Northern Virginia. I reached out to her for a fresh perspective on where data centers and renewable energy development fits in the Commonwealth amidst heightened frustration over land use and agricultural impacts, especially after this past election cycle. I thought her views on policy-making here were refreshingly nuanced.
This transcript was lightly edited for clarity.
Tell me more about how you started focusing on data centers.
So, in Fairfax County, in 2020 or 2021, people were pursuing the construction of an indoor ski facility on a landfill. From a climate perspective, to build something that would need to be cooled 24/7 for indoor skiing seemed like a very bad proposal in terms of energy usage. And for what kind of gain?
Then our friends at the Sierra Club were saying, indoor ski slopes? Bad, yes. But data centers? Way, way worse. Those aren’t cooling to support snow but are cooling much larger areas on a much larger scale, dwarfing the area of that one ski slope. This was around the time the Prince William Digital Gateway was showing up – they were saying all these acres of agricultural lands and single-family housing zones were about to be rezoned. This was a big deal, and Sierra Club led the way in opening our eyes to this. The rezoning ultimately passed. The data centers were sued and the people who filed the lawsuit won, but pre-planning for the centers is still allowed to take place.
The way we think about the impacts of data centers, besides the loss of natural lands and the amount of energy that’s going to be needed to power these things, has been diesel generators. These are the things that are backup generation and the camel’s nose under the tent is trying to get them to be primary power.
Now I want to ask you a provocative question: is there any middle ground between letting these projects be built unfettered and outright bans on their development?
We have no regulation today. From our standpoint, these things are coming, they’re here. We know a lot more now than we did in 2022. As we make decisions about how and where to build these facilities we all need – I mean we’re using one right now. I use a data center all day at work. Teams conferencing. ChatGPT to answer a question. We need these. So if we’re going to build them, let’s not give a pass to some of the world’s largest and richest companies. Let’s ask them to put the guardrails on to protect our residences and our infrastructure to make sure they’re as sustainable as possible.
Okay, so what are the guardrails then?
The costs of what was going to go into a data center need to be more transparent. We need to bring accountability to the forefront right away as they’re being built.
In Ohio, they passed a law requiring data center companies to pay for a high percentage of the power they’re using. That cut a significant number of the projects in Ohio. This industry is so speculative and a land grab and a rush to be first to get the most.
You have this dichotomy of land values for residences being inundated, while land values for developers are skyrocketing. We have an affordability crisis going on and we are all on the hook for paying for the infrastructure to power these things.
So when you think about what regulation might make data center development more reasonable, it’s asking for the costs happening to be borne by the industry making them. Let’s get rid of some of the incentives for power users. We don’t need to be encouraging the loss of state revenue, either – we’re leaving money on the table to bring these facilities here.
Lastly, our readers love to get hyperlocal. I know you’re intently focused on Fairfax County right now which has been a big part of the data center boom in Virginia – what’s happening there?
There are a couple things that have happened over the course of this past year. Fairfax County passed a data center zoning ordinance amendment – minimum requirements a data center will have to adhere to. The big thing with that one is, you have to have a special exception if you build within a mile of a Metro station. When you think about good land use and building a data center within a walkable distance of a Metro, that’s eye-openingly poor land use policy and a missed opportunity for transit-oriented development. It doesn’t mean they can’t be built near one but you have to get a special exception.
Some things can’t be regulated at the local level. Like generators. That’s in the hands of the state.
Last night, we had a public hearing at the Fairfax County board level for our policy plan – our comprehensive plan providing guidance for developers who want to get a special exception or rezoning. It is not law. It is not required. It is a visionary document that helps us get to better. They’ve added a section for data centers in that. In May, staff put forward something pretty good, making sure data centers met a minimum level of efficiency. But our chairman of the county board said it went above and beyond our zoning ordinance and said he didn’t think it was appropriate, so staff rewrote that section and stripped out a lot of the specificity and higher standards that were in that document.
At the hearing, they deferred a decision, listening to the public but not having a discussion at the board level. They’ve left the record open through December 9th.