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:
The Trump administration is now being lobbied to nix offshore wind projects already under construction.

Anti-wind activists have joined with well-connected figures in conservative legal and energy circles to privately lobby the Trump administration to undo permitting decisions by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, according to documents obtained by Heatmap.
Representatives of conservative think tanks and legal nonprofits — including the Caesar Rodney Institute, the Heartland Institute and Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, or CFACT — sent a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum dated February 11 requesting that the Trump administration “immediately revoke” letters from NOAA to 11 offshore wind projects authorizing “incidental takes,” a term of regulatory art referencing accidental and permissible harassment, injury, or potential deaths under federal endangered species and mammal protection laws. The letter lays out a number of perceived issues with how those approvals have historically been issued for offshore wind companies and claims the government has improperly analyzed the cumulative effects of adding offshore wind to the ocean’s existing industrialization. NOAA oversees marine species protection.
The letter also requested “an immediate cession of construction” at four offshore wind projects with federal approvals that have begun construction: Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia offshore wind project, Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners’ Vineyard Wind 1, and Ørsted’s Revolution Wind and Sunrise Wind projects.
“It is with a sense of real urgency we write you today,” the letter states, referencing Trump’s executive order targeting the offshore wind industry to ask that he go further. “[E]leven projects have already received approvals with four of those under construction. Leasing and permitting will be reviewed for these approved projects but may take time.”
I obtained the letter from Paul Kamenar, a longtime attorney in conservative legal circles currently with the D.C.-based National Legal and Policy Center, who told me the letter had been sent to the department this week. Kamenar is one of multiple attorneys involved in a lawsuit filed last year by Heartland and CFACT challenging permits for Dominion’s Coastal Virginia project over alleged potential impacts to the endangered North Atlantic right whale. We reported earlier this week that the government signaled in proceedings for that case it will review approvals for Coastal Virginia, the first indication that previous permits issued for offshore wind could be vulnerable to the Trump effect.
Kamenar described the request to Burgum as “a coalition letter,” and told me that “the new secretary there is sympathetic” to their complaints about offshore wind permits. “We’re hoping that this letter will basically reverse the letter[s] of authorizations, or have the agency go back,” Kamenar said, adding a message for Dominion and other developers implicated by the letter: “Just because the company has the approval doesn’t mean it’s all systems go.”
The Interior Department does not directly oversee NOAA – that’s the Commerce Department. But it does control the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which ultimately regulates all offshore wind development and issues final approvals.
Interior did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter.
Some signees of the document are part of a constellation of influential figures in the anti-renewables movement whose voices have been magnified in the new administration.
One of the letter’s two lead signatories is David Stevenson, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the Caesar Rodney Institute, an organization involved in legal battles against offshore wind projects under development in the Mid-Atlantic. The Institute says on its website it is a member of the State Policy Network, a broad constellation of think tanks, legal advocacy groups, and nonprofits.
Multiple activists who signed onto the letter work with the Save Right Whales Coalition, a network of local organizations and activists. Coalition members have appeared with Republican lawmakers at field hearings and rallies over the past few years attacking offshore wind. They became especially influential in GOP politics after being featured in a film by outspoken renewables critic and famous liberal-turned-conservative Michael Shellenberger, who is himself involved in the Coalition. His film, Thrown to the Wind, blew up in right-wing media circles because it claimed to correlate whale deaths with offshore wind development.
When asked if the Coalition was formally involved in this request of the administration, Lisa Linowes, a co-founder of the Coalition, replied in an email: “The Coalition was not a signer of the request.”
One cosigner sure to turn heads: John Droz, a pioneer in the anti-wind activist movement who for years has given talks and offered roadmaps on how best to stop renewables projects.
The letter also includes an endorsement from Mandy Davis, who was involved with the draft anti-wind executive order we told you was sent to the Trump transition team before inauguration. CFACT also co-signed that draft order when it was transmitted to the transition team, according to correspondence reviewed by Heatmap.
Most of the signatories to the letter list their locations. Many of the individuals unrelated to bigger organizations list their locations as in Delaware or Maryland. Only a few signatories on the letter have locations in other states dealing with offshore wind projects.
On its face, this letter represents a new stage of Trump’s war on offshore wind.
Yes, he has frozen leasing, along with most permitting activity and even public meetings related to pending projects. But the president’s executive order targeting offshore wind opened the door to rescinding leases and previous permits. Doing so would produce new, costly legal battles for developers and for publicly-regulated utilities, ratepayers. Over the past few weeks, offshore wind developers with projects that got their permits under Biden have sought to reassure investors that at least they’ll be fine.
If this new request is heeded, that calm will subside.
Beyond that, reversing these authorizations could represent a scandal for scientific integrity at NOAA – or at least NOAA’s Fisheries division, the National Marine Fisheries Service. Heeding the letter’s requests would mean revisiting the findings of career scientists for what developers may argue are purely political reasons, or at minimum arbitrary ones.
This wouldn’t be the first time something like this has happened under Trump. In 2020, I used public records to prove that plans by career NOAA Fisheries employees to protect endangered whales from oil and gas exploration in the Atlantic were watered down after a political review. At the time, Democratic Representative Jared Huffman — now the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee — told me that my reporting was evidence of potential scientific integrity issues at NOAA and represented “blatant scientific and environmental malpractice at the highest order.”
It’s worth emphasizing how much this mattered, not just for science but literally in court, as the decision to allow more seismic testing for oil under Trump was challenged at the time on the grounds that it was made arbitrarily.
Peter Corkeron, a former NOAA scientist with expertise researching the North Atlantic right whale, reviewed the letter to Burgum and told me in an email that essentially, the anti-offshore wind movement is exploiting similar arguments made by conservationists about issues with the federal government’s protection of the species to target this sector. The federal regulator has for many years faced the ire of conservation activists, who’ve said it does not go far enough to protect endangered species from more longstanding threats like fishing and vessel strikes.
If NOAA were to bow to this request, Corkeron wrote, he would interpret that as the agency’s failure to fully protect the species in good faith instead becoming “suborned by the hydrocarbon exploitation industry as a way of eliminating a competing form of energy production that should, in time, prove more beneficial for whales than what we’re currently doing.”
“The point on cumulative impacts is, on face value, fair,” he said. “The problem is its lack of context. Cumulative impacts on North Atlantic right whales from offshore wind are possible. However, in the context of the cumulative impacts of the shipping (vessel strike kills, noise pollution), and fishing (death, maiming, failure to breed) industries, they’ll be insignificant. Because NOAA has never clearly set out to address ways to offset other impacts while developing the offshore wind industry, these additive impacts place a burden on this new industry in ways that existing, and more damaging, industries don’t have to address.”
CFACT responded to a request for comment by sending me a press release with the letter attached that was not publicly available, and did not respond to the climate criticisms by press time. David Stevenson of the Caesar Rodney Institute sent me a statement criticizing offshore wind energy and questioning its ability to “lower global emissions.”
“The goal is to pause construction until everything is reviewed,” Stevenson said. When asked if there was an outcome where a review led to projects being built, he said no, calling offshore wind an “environmental wrecking ball.”
Well, we’ll soon find out what the real wrecking ball is.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The data center water issues are real – but they aren’t what you think.
Too often, I hear people say the number one reason they’re against data center development is water use. Heatmap’s data shows water consumption is historically the reason cited most often by activists when opposing projects. This complaint, they often say, is rooted in the fear that this nascent buildout of AI infrastructure will simply draw so much H2O it will leave little liquid left for the rest of us.
I spent weeks trying to understand how real the water use problem is when it comes to data centers, reading research and speaking to some of the world’s leading academics, large tech firms, and environmental advocates to make my best attempt at answering some of the most important questions being asked about data centers.
Before I jump into this thicket, a few caveats. I’m not going to address the host of water pollution concerns many have raised about data centers because that is for a future article. If you want me to dissect how Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez got a jar of dirty water near a Meta data center, that was poor construction practices – not a data center’s water demand. By that same token, if you're itching for me to find out how much PFAS is in data center water, I’m not delving into that here, though I’ll just say PFAS is everywhere and isn’t a data center-specific issue.
So are there problems with AI data centers’ water use? Yes. Are data centers using too much water for society to handle? It depends on what “too much” means to you. Is the AI data center boom going to usher in a new era of drought across the United States? Probably not, but there’s a few places we should be mindful of.

Researchers told me data center water use is a painfully understudied topic rendered more obscure by a lack of public information about individual H2O consumption at the project level. Those I spoke to were split on how seriously to take the topic.
Some analyses insist the sector’s water use should be regulated and tackled head-on by the sector. I spoke with Yi Ding, an assistant professor at Purdue University, who co-authored a paper laying out a framework for evaluating the water impact of computing weighted specifically for water stress. Ding told me there is currently no set of industry-led best practices for sustainable water-conscious data center operation and her work aims to fill that gap.
When I asked Ding if data centers are actually threatening individual towns’ water supplies, she didn’t hesitate: “Yes, it’s significant.”
Others in this field have the opposite view.
“Water is often brought up as the primary concern when it’s less important,” David Mytton, a sustainable computing researcher at Oxford University, told me. “The more important thing is going to be how you bring more clean energy onto the grid, and nuclear power, so that we can generate sufficient energy to build these centers.”
Large tech companies are starting to spend less time debating the extent of the problem and more bandwidth addressing the PR crisis surrounding data center and AI water use.
Ben Townsend, Google’s head of infrastructure and sustainability, told me he believes that “from a comms and PR perspective” he has “no doubt” it would be easier to build data centers without the debate over water. “Data centers operators are not explaining why they’re using water or how much water they use. There’s a complete lack of transparency or discussion.”
Google has been getting splashy around this topic, a public relations strategy that reminds me of Meta’s recent workforce training investments. Last week, Google announced five fresh “commitments” towards its “climate-conscious approach” to water use, including a pledge to “replenish more water than we consume at our sites” by 2030.
This week, Amazon made a similar declaration and claimed its operations are 75% of the way to accomplishing this goal, which it’s calling “water positive.” Brandon Oyer, director of energy and water at Amazon Web Services, told me he thinks the industry “could’ve done better” and “come out earlier” to address its water use.
“There’s just been a lot of misinformation that has led people to [be] a little bit alarmist. And rightfully so. I would get alarmed if I thought that water was going to be impacted in my community,” Oyer said.
The basics of data center water use
Data centers need water to cool large server racks whizzing away to power AI and most other internet practices, from streaming to online banking. Normally, you don’t want computers to get too hot because then they can crash causing potentially catastrophic harm to the machine.
This water use presents a number of environmental challenges. Often, server farms rely on clean, fresh water, or filtered drinking water, a need largely for functionality reasons. They’re competing for this resource at a time when supply is dwindling amidst the crisis of global warming.
Making matters worse, much of the U.S. has faced drought conditions over the past year, including states that are typically water abundant, like Virginia and Georgia, that are at the center of the data center boom. On Monday, The Guardian reported that more than half of all planned data centers in the U.S. are in “locations that have been in drought conditions throughout the past year,” citing data center site information from federal agencies and the energy data firm Cleanview.
In the top data center destination of Texas, where peak electricity demand could more than quadruple in the near future, analysis from state university researchers released in May found data centers could wind up between 3% to 9% of water demand by 2040. Projects are being developed near cities like Corpus Christi and El Paso that were already fearful their drinking water supplies would dry up before the AI infrastructure boom came to town.
“The impact of building a data center in Arizona versus Wyoming is very different,” said Ding, the Purdue University researcher. “[Companies] will say different things because of their position. The problem is substantial and sometimes it’s not that they don’t want to use water – it means they don’t have water to use.”
The most water intensive version of data center cooling is called “evaporative cooling,” which mixes water evaporation and ventilation air flow to cool rooms in ways industry compares to human sweat. Evaporative cooling uses a lot of water and regular fresh supply because, well, the water goes away once it evaporates.
One Google data center using evaporative cooling in Council Bluffs, Iowa used more than 1 billion gallons of water in 2024, a stat that made the project a poster child for perceived excesses in water use. Somewhat ironically, we know this because Google is one of the few large tech companies to voluntarily disclose direct water consumption from individual data centers on an annual basis.
But cooling tech is becoming much more water efficient. You may have heard of “closed loop cooling” – that’s when a chilling system is supposedly self-contained. These systems as designed typically rely on loops of pipes filled with coolant flowing through them. This means they should not expel much liquid. If the modern trend in data center development skewed towards closed-loop systems, it would theoretically mean very little new water supply drawn on the average day.
“If you’re using a closed loop system, the water goes into the data center and then it doesn’t really require a refill every so often. It’s a one-time thing,” Mytton said. “If you’re using evaporative cooling, the water is continuously evaporating into the atmosphere. That’s when it’s being drawn from water sources.”
Closed-loop systems aren’t perfect because of ordinary issues like leaks. These flaws have meant this innovation has done little to assuage the loudest local concerns about water use. Critics of the sector have pointed to estimates pegging a closed-loop failure rate up to 25%. But Mytton said this criticism against closed-loop cooling systems is a little misguided. “They’re just wrong. They just don’t understand how data centers work.”
Closed loop systems and water-free cooling processes (like simple air vent-based cooling) also have trade-offs, particularly the extra energy and chemicals required to make these loops work to spec. Given data center developers are often choosing gas-fired power, which also requires water and produces greenhouse gas emissions, more power for less water is hardly a comfortable trade-off from an environmental perspective.
“‘Closed-loop cooling’ is a marketing gimmick,” proclaimed anti-data center group Food and Water Watch in an April blog post, calling the practice “greenwashing” and “just clever advertising.”
We do not know right now how much water most data centers are actually using, sans a handful of companies reporting individual facility use like Google. The data center development space – Big Tech, their subsidiaries, start ups, real estate firms – is mostly keeping their individual facility water usage private, and there isn’t really any regulation at any level of government to compel this information to be released in the United States, despite it being the number one destination for data center development. Corporations often consider these figures proprietary and municipal governments often consider this confidential business information, making it likely to be redacted or withheld from public records requests.
For example, in Wisconsin, an environmental group sued the city of Racine when officials refused to give water use projections for Microsoft’s data center campus in the nearby village of Mount Pleasant, about five miles from the shores of Lake Michigan. The projections were ultimately released under court order, showing Microsoft’s data center campus was projected to use up to 234,000 gallons of water on peak days or up to 2.8 million per year; eventually those numbers could almost triple to 702,000 gallons on peak days, or almost 8.5 million gallons a year.
These projections, according to Microsoft, are for a facility where more than 90% of the facility will rely on closed-loop cooling. The rest of the data center campus “will use outside air for cooling, switching to water only on the hottest days.” The company has called this design a “technological milestone” that’ll use “roughly the amount of water a typical restaurant uses annually.”
Microsoft is accurate here: the average eatery uses roughly 250,000-to-300,000 gallons of water a year according to restaurant sustainability advocates, a level of consumption that’s led restaurants to be roughly 15 percent of total water use in commercial facilities in the United States.
Personally I think it is easier and more useful to compare a data center to a farm, especially given how many are fighting to stop these projects to preserve prime farmland. Agriculture doesn’t measure water consumption by the gallon; farms use far too much water for those stats to work here. Instead farms use acre-feet, which is calculated using the volume of water necessary to entirely cover an acre of land with one foot of water. For posterity, one acre-foot is almost 326,000 gallons of water, which is about the maximum daily water consumption of that Microsoft data center in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin. In 2023, the average amount of water applied to a single acre of farmland for irrigation was 1.5 acre-feet, rendering this figure comparable to a large Microsoft data center. This is still a lot of water and not a 1:1 comparison, since different crops require water at different times. But even if a data center consumed that much water every day for a full year, that’s 365 days. An average large farm is a little more than 1,400 acres and many farms span far more acreage. That’s the sort of relative scale we’re working with. So, for instance, a large family farm in Stafford County, Kansas, might use something like 420 million gallons of water over roughly 1,000 irrigated acres of corn in an average year.
I’m no farming expert – there might be things about farmland irrigation I don’t necessarily understand. But it's hard for me to look at these numbers and not long for some sort of rethinking about how we’re doing water math with data centers, especially given the environmental trade-offs around using less water.
Honestly I don’t think trying to explain this math helps anymore because secrecy may have spoiled the well in Racine, pun intended. In September, a peer-reviewed study by University of Wisconsin researchers found the Mount Pleasant datacenter had become “a microcosm of a macro problem with secrecy.” The paper stated that while closed-loop systems at the Mount Pleasant facility “may significantly reduce water use during some of the year, there is still a question of transparency and why it has been so difficult to obtain clear answers about water use.” Full transparency around water use, as well as the energy required for water-lite cooling practices, would be “essential” for any future research into industry practices “to have credibility,” the study stated.
Asked for comment on the study, a Microsoft spokesperson said via email: “Our datacenter campus in Mount Pleasant leverages the latest and most innovative cooling technology available. In past datacenter designs, water has played a key role in datacenter cooling and humidification, but our new designs aim to eliminate this continuous need for municipal water for cooling. The bottom line is that this data center, and others we build in the future, will not require massive amounts of water.”
When you zoom out further, water use by sector shows that U.S. data centers are not the leading driver of water use and its scarcity to date. Thermal power (fossil energy) and agriculture are by far the largest users of water in the U.S. economy, and it would be challenging for the data center industry to ever catch up. Industry figures collected in 2015 found thermo-electric power used roughly 132.4 billion gallons of water per day. Irrigation was a close second at 118 billion gallons of water daily. By comparison, researchers have noted International Energy Agency estimates that the entire global data center sector consumed a comparable amount of water during all of 2023. These are pre-AI boom numbers, but they tell us a lot about relative scale.
However, once again, researchers, tech companies, and advocates alike all told me they believe this macro picture elides individual communities and transparency issues are rendering these comparisons unhelpful for calming concerns down. The data center conflicts are local matters felt acutely, especially in places where drinking water is either hard to come by or expensive. Your average rural desert town or midwestern farming district cares little about the world; they want to know if their own wells will run dry. As Amazon’s Oyer told me, “The hyperlocal influence you can have on a water supply is why it becomes top of mind for people.”
One way to measure data center water impacts in aggregate may be to quantify the potential infrastructure upgrades necessary to meet the industry’s demand. A new study by researchers at University of California-Riverside and CalTech found that new water infrastructure spending for data centers alone could total as much as $58 billion in only four years time. These upgrades will be necessary in order for municipal water supplies to withstand peak demand on the hottest days of the year, a need akin to grid resilience upgrades. Not to mention our nation’s sewer systems are in desperate need of upgrades.
“If a data center was able to show they weren’t stripping our water resources and convinced a community they have mitigation strategies at the local level, that’s a theoretical path,” said Kathryn Hoffman, executive director of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. Her organization has successfully stalled data center projects in the state with lawsuits arguing city and county environmental reviews are failing to account for the full extent of local resource usage, including water.
“Unfortunately, we’re a long way from that,” Hoffman added.
And more of this week’s biggest news around project fights.
1. Matagorda County, Texas – The bipartisan data center backlash is now so powerful that a top Republican Texas state official is doing an event with the Democrat vying to replace him.
2. Albany County, New York – As we await Gov. Kathy Hochul’s decision on whether to enact the nation’s first statewide moratorium on data centers, I wanted to bring up some pretty crucial facts about the situation in the Empire State.
3. Davidson County, Tennessee – Anyone who’s anyone should be talking about Nashville.
4. Lehigh County, Pennsylvania – I’m used to eagles halting wind turbines, but now people are trying to use the birds to stop data centers.
5. Laramie County, Wyoming – We had another anti-wind rally backed by national conservatives, this time in Wyoming.
6. Ellis County, Kansas – Let’s end on a sweet note: a giant solar farm getting its permits.
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.