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 conservationist group thinks it has the goods on the Bureau of Land Management’s new Western solar plan.

The Biden administration is trying to open a lot more Western territory to utility-scale solar. But they are facing a conservationist backlash that may be aided by the views of scientists within the federal government.
Yesterday, activists pushed back against the environmental review of the Bureau of Land Management’s new Western solar plan that would make more than 31 million acres available for utility-scale solar applications across 11 states. The BLM is trying to meet the next two decades of demand for renewable electricity while avoiding the kinds of environmental and social conflicts that stymie individual projects. But it appears key stakeholders filed protests against the environmental review, including counties that would host new solar farms and Republican politicians, as well as the whistleblower advocacy group PEER we wrote about last week.
Today, however, we’re going to focus on the protest filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, which submitted to BLM what amounted to the contours of a lawsuit.
The protest argued the environmental review of the plan not only failed to adequately protect the Mojave desert tortoise – a species protected as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act – but appeared to make “arbitrary” decisions to open potential tortoise habitat and travel areas. Per the protest, the review did so without clearly explaining how it took into account guidance from the Fish and Wildlife Service, the primary species protection agency.
Zooming in, scientists at the Service said in a power-point presentation dated April of this year (that CBD happily pointed out is available online) they supported excluding occupied tortoise habitat and translocation sites from the solar plan. Employees at the Service also gave CBD guidance documents they submitted over the past year to the Bureau that outlined “extensive criteria for exclusion” that activists say were not followed and weren’t reflected in the review documents previously released by the government.
Why does this matter? Well, it could determine whether the decisions relevant can hold up in court. CBD is using the word “arbitrary” because it’s a standard followed under the Administrative Procedures Act, which forces government officials to show their work and demonstrate they considered all available information submitted to them.
CBD’s Patrick Donnelly – who we spoke with at length in our first edition of The Fight – authored the protest filing. Donnelly told me the acreage relevant to the tortoises totals only about 200,000 acres of the almost 12 million that would be available for solar under the plan, so the grievance shouldn’t be a herculean endeavor to address.
“We’re trying to go into the protest process with an open mind, not cynically,” he told me, “and make this plan a lot less harmful.”
Still, if CBD escalates, the Bureau will have to show how it went from getting these recommendations to landing on the acreage it opened to solar. It could also shake the certainty of developers with applications within the solar plan area already dealing with tortoise protection advocates on the individual project level, like EDF Renewables’ Bonanza Solar project north of Las Vegas which has a draft environmental review in public comment.
Proving a government decision is arbitrary requires demonstrating the move was not “reasonable and justifiable,” Ankur Tohan, an attorney at K&L Gates, told me. Usually the bar for the government to prove itself is “relatively low,” and courts are “very deferential to an agency” as long as “the agency’s action took into account the relevant factors.” The problems arise for the government if “the internal analysis is contradictory,” Tohan said.
Personally I’m having trouble figuring out how the Service’s initial recommendations were internalized at BLM – though I am assuming they were handled in some way, as otherwise the Service would presumably stand in the way. BLM does acknowledge that “design features and project guidelines” were modified to “better avoid impacts to species where not excluded” and said developers “shall configure solar development projects to maintain existing desert tortoise habitat.”
I asked BLM to explain this, but they declined to answer questions on the matter. “The BLM has no comment at this time,” BLM press secretary Brian Hires said, citing the need to “review all protests.” So I guess we’ll have to wait and see!
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
NineDot Energy’s nine-fiigure bet on New York City is a huge sign from the marketplace.
Battery storage is moving full steam ahead in the Big Apple under new Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
NineDot Energy, the city’s largest battery storage developer, just raised more than $430 million in debt financing for 28 projects across the metro area, bringing the company’s overall project pipeline to more than 60 battery storage facilities across every borough except Manhattan. It’s a huge sign from the marketplace that investors remain confident the flashpoints in recent years over individual battery projects in New York City may fail to halt development overall. In an interview with me on Tuesday, NineDot CEO David Arfin said as much. “The last administration, the Adams administration, was very supportive of the transition to clean energy. We expect the Mamdani administration to be similar.”
It’s a big deal given that a year ago, the Moss Landing battery fire in California sparked a wave of fresh battery restrictions at the local level. We’ve been able to track at least seven battery storage fights in the boroughs so far, but we wouldn’t be surprised if the number was even higher. In other words, risk remains evident all over the place.
Asked where the fears over battery storage are heading, Arfin said it's “really hard to tell.”
“As we create more facts on the ground and have more operating batteries in New York, people will gain confidence or have less fear over how these systems operate and the positive nature of them,” he told me. “Infrastructure projects will introduce concern and reasonably so – people should know what’s going on there, what has been done to protect public safety. We share that concern. So I think the future is very bright for being able to build the cleaner infrastructure of the future, but it's not a straightforward path.”
In terms of new policy threats for development, local lawmakers are trying to create new setback requirements and bond rules. Sam Pirozzolo, a Staten Island area assemblyman, has been one of the local politicians most vocally opposed to battery storage without new regulations in place, citing how close projects can be to residences, because it's all happening in a city.
“If I was the CEO of NineDot I would probably be doing the same thing they’re doing now, and that is making sure my company is profitable,” Pirozzolo told me, explaining that in private conversations with the company, he’s made it clear his stance is that Staten Islanders “take the liability and no profit – you’re going to give money to the city of New York but not Staten Island.”
But onlookers also view the NineDot debt financing as a vote of confidence and believe the Mamdani administration may be better able to tackle the various little bouts of hysterics happening today over battery storage. Former mayor Eric Adams did have the City of Yes policy, which allowed for streamlined permitting. However, he didn’t use his pulpit to assuage battery fears. The hope is that the new mayor will use his ample charisma to deftly dispatch these flares.
“I’d be shocked if the administration wasn’t supportive,” said Jonathan Cohen, policy director for NY SEIA, stating Mamdani “has proven to be one of the most effective messengers in New York City politics in a long time and I think his success shows that for at least the majority of folks who turned out in the election, he is a trusted voice. It is an exercise that he has the tools to make this argument.”
City Hall couldn’t be reached for comment on this story. But it’s worth noting the likeliest pathway to any fresh action will come from the city council, then upwards. Hearings on potential legislation around battery storage siting only began late last year. In those hearings, it appears policymakers are erring on the side of safety instead of blanket restrictions.
The week’s most notable updates on conflicts around renewable energy and data centers.
1. Wasco County, Oregon – They used to fight the Rajneeshees, and now they’re fighting a solar farm.
2. Worcester County, Maryland – The legal fight over the primary Maryland offshore wind project just turned in an incredibly ugly direction for offshore projects generally.
3. Manitowoc County, Wisconsin – Towns are starting to pressure counties to ban data centers, galvanizing support for wider moratoria in a fashion similar to what we’ve seen with solar and wind power.
4. Pinal County, Arizona – This county’s commission rejected a 8,122-acre solar farm unanimously this week, only months after the same officials approved multiple data centers.
.
A conversation with Adib Nasle, CEO of Xendee Corporation
Today’s Q&A is with Adib Nasle, CEO of Xendee Corporation. Xendee is a microgrid software company that advises large power users on how best to distribute energy over small-scale localized power projects. It’s been working with a lot with data centers as of late, trying to provide algorithmic solutions to alleviate some of the electricity pressures involved with such projects.
I wanted to speak with Nasle because I’ve wondered whether there are other ways to reduce data center impacts on local communities besides BYO power. Specifically, I wanted to know whether a more flexible and dynamic approach to balancing large loads on the grid could help reckon with the cost concerns driving opposition to data centers.
Our conversation is abridged and edited slightly for clarity.
So first of all, tell me about your company.
We’re a software company focused on addressing the end-to-end needs of power systems – microgrids. It’s focused on building the economic case for bringing your own power while operating these systems to make sure they’re delivering the benefits that were promised. It’s to make sure the power gap is filled as quickly as possible for the data center, while at the same time bringing the flexibility any business case needs to be able to expand, understand, and adopt technologies while taking advantage of grid opportunities, as well. It speaks to multiple stakeholders: technical stakeholders, financial stakeholders, policy stakeholders, and the owner and operator of a data center.
At what point do you enter the project planning process?
From the very beginning. There’s a site. It needs power. Maybe there is no power available, or the power available from the grid is very limited. How do we fill that gap in a way that has a business case tied to it? Whatever objective the customer has is what we serve, whether it’s cost savings or supply chain issues around lead times, and then the resiliency or emissions goals an organization has as well.
It’s about dealing with the gap between what you need to run your chips and what the utility can give you today. These data center things almost always have back-up systems and are familiar with putting power on site. It must now be continuous. We helped them design that.
With our algorithm, you tell it what the site is, what the load requirements are, and what the technologies you’re interested in are. It designs the optimal power system. What do we need? How much money is it going to take and how long?
The algorithm helps deliver on those cost savings, deliverables, and so forth. It’s a decision support system to get to a solution very, very quickly and with a high level of confidence.
How does a microgrid reduce impacts to the surrounding community?
The data center obviously wants to power as quickly and cheaply as possible. That’s the objective of that facility. At the same time, when you start bringing generation assets in, there are a few things that’ll impact the local community. Usually we have carbon monoxide systems in our homes and it warns us, right? Emissions from these assets become important and there’s a need to introduce technologies in a way that introduces that power gap and the air quality need. Our software helps address the emissions component and the cost component. And there are technologies that are silent. Batteries, technology components that are noise compliant.
From a policy perspective and a fairness perspective, a microgrid – on-site power plant you can put right next to the data center – helps unburden the local grid at a cost of upgrades that has no value to ratepayers other than just meeting the needs of one big customer. That one big customer can produce and store their own power and ratepayers don’t see a massive increase in their costs. It solves a few problems.
What are data centers most focused on right now when it comes to energy use, and how do you help?
I think they’re very focused on the timeframe and how quickly they can get that power gap filled, those permits in.
At the end of the day the conversation is about the utility’s relationship with the community as opposed to the data center’s relationship with the utility. Everything’s being driven by timelines and those timelines are inherently leaning towards on-site power solutions and microgrids.
More and more of these data center operators and owners are going off-grid. They’ll plug into the grid with what’s available but they’re not going to wait.
Do you feel like using a microgrid makes people more supportive of a data center?
Whether the microgrid is serving a hospital or a campus or a data center, it’s an energy system. From a community perspective, if it’s designed carefully and they’re addressing the environmental impact, the microgrid can actually provide shock absorbers to the system. It can be a localized generation source that can bring strength and stability to that local, regional grid when it needs help. This ability to take yourself out of the equation as a big load and run autonomously to heal itself or stabilize from whatever shock it's dealing with, that’s a big benefit to the local community.