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:
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.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
What would happen to Project Jupiter if the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act is passed?
One of the nation’s largest data centers is struggling under permitting woes. So let’s play a game: would the bipartisan permitting bill in Congress make the path easier, or might the federal legislation be irrelevant to large hyperscalers under development today?
Meet Project Jupiter, a mega project in southern New Mexico in Dona Ana County under development by Oracle and OpenAI, with financial backing from SoftBank and political support from the Trump administration for being a part of Stargate, a major Trump administration public-private initiative boosting AI development. Project Jupiter would be one of the largest data centers in the country if completed and currently is expected to run on a microgrid powered by fuel cells converting gas to electricity, which the developers claim will burn much cleaner than a typical off-grid gas turbine power plant.
Solving the energy side of the equation is a major hurdle for Jupiter, largely because of permitting delays and legal challenges.
In mid-September, the New Mexico Supreme Court lifted a stay it placed on consideration of the project’s state air permitting application. But on Wednesday, the Santa Fe New Mexican published emails between the New Mexico Environment Department and Project Jupiter staff detailing that independent emissions modeling showed pollution would be greater than predicted by the developers, after they had already requested permission to emit more CO2 than the state’s three largest cities combined. A final decision on the air permit was expected in November; the emails suggest the deadline may slip further. After the emails were reported, Oracle declared it would try to reduce emissions from the site by more than 30%.
At the same time, the New Mexico Justice Department is opposing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act for a gas pipeline key to powering the project. The state’s attorneys assert the agency improperly failed to examine how the data center’s use of the pipeline would affect the environment. This week, a dozen GOP attorneys general representing states with large gas industries wrote FERC insisting they ignore the state’s protests, arguing that a recent Supreme Court ruling – known colloquially as Seven County – meant the federal government doesn’t need to look at the data centers gas pipelines are feeding when the lines are reviewed. Oracle has declared a “force majeure” over the pipeline delay. Rumors have circulated that trucks may just bring gas in for operations; company representatives told the Dona Ana County Commission this week those claims were “misinformation.”
Amidst these delays and potential legal conflicts, I’ve sought to understand whether projects like these – large data centers racing to operate within the next year or two – would be affected by enactment of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026, a major permitting reform deal negotiated in part by New Mexico’s senior senator, Energy and Natural Resources chairman Martin Heinrich.
In Washington D.C., this legislation is exciting many constituencies, including energy industry types, policy wonks, business-friendly climate advocates. At the same time, more conservation-minded environmental groups opposed to provisions benefiting the fossil fuel industry are leaning into an argument that the legislation would accelerate a new era of gas-dominant data center construction.
Last week, I wrote about the environmentalists’ argument. I also examined the parts of the bill unlocking a new transmission build-out and requiring data center ratepayer protection. If enacted, FERC would have to require utilities to charge data centers not only for the costs of new grid upgrades but the charges incurred for using the grid, too. As my colleague Robinson Meyer has written, by forcing AI infrastructure operators to pay for both embedded and incremental energy costs, the legislation would essentially mean data centers paying both to reduce rates and build new energy generation. We’re seeing in real time what happens when you don’t deal with the transmission connection system while building new grid upgrades: companies will often opt to just build their own private off-grid fossil fuel islands. In Texas, for example, we’re seeing transmission hook-up delays lead to companies just building their own gas plants instead. This is not to say companies won’t still go off the grid if this bill passes, but it’s a serious consequence of our dilapidated energy system worth considering.
So I decided to evaluate Project Jupiter as a test case. How might the permitting bill affect this project and other big data centers at a stage like it?
For starters, let's say what the permitting bill does not do. It wouldn’t change the Clean Air Act. Project Jupiter would be one of the largest data centers in the country if completed, as well as potentially one of the nation’s biggest CO2 emitters if permitted as proposed. Nothing in the bill would affect requirements that the project adhere to national air emissions standards, so it wouldn’t affect the New Mexico Environment Department’s pending decision around the project’s air permits.
Enacting BAAJA could potentially affect this sprawling data center project in extremely hypothetical ways. It would reduce legal risks associated with future interstate gas pipelines under development expected to potentially branch out to Project Jupiter, including the Desert Southwest Expansion pipeline. It’s easy to understand in the words of Robert Pattinson in Primetime how this looks: like an easier path to expanding gas generation in this area.
On renewables, the bipartisan permitting deal would codify new permitting certainty and timeline provisions that claim to make it easier for companies to pursue solar development on federal acreage managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Project Jupiter just concluded a request for proposals to procure two gigawatts of renewable energy including solar power to meet the developers’ pledge to achieve 100% carbon matching by 2031 and Thiagarajan previously told the commission they’ve examined potentially getting energy from solar projects nearby on BLM lands.
But all of this is too theoretical and the case for any individual early-stage energy project too. Not to mention that we have no idea how the Trump administration would implement this certainty language, even for Project Jupiter.
To me, if people want to earnestly understand how the bipartisan permitting bill might actually affect data centers, they need to fully consider how making it easier and more transparent to hook up to the existing electric grid could reduce how much on-site gas generation is used at AI data center operations.
Delays in state permitting for the off-grid fuel cell plant have led Project Jupiter’s developers to consider what turning to the power grid would look like. In early September during a Dona Ana County commission meeting, Oracle executive vice president Mahest Thiagarajan told the panel, “If we end up in a situation where the air permit is not actually approved, I do have to work with a grid provider. Whether it is actually part of the grid or they built the grid for me could be TBD.”
“It doesn’t need to be on the grid, but I need [a] source of power to help power the data center,” Thiagarajan said.
Commission chair Manuel Sanchez replied that the microgrid plans were established in their community benefit agreement but he supported proposals requiring data center developers paying for upgrades and directly paying to reduce electricity rates for nearby residents. “It’s actually provided a downward pressure on rates,” Sanchez said, referring directly to such a policy created by the Georgia Public Service Commission.
Thiagarajan agreed. “My current plan is to continue to work with NMED [the New Mexico Environment Division] and get the off-grid site. If for any reason we have to, because I don’t have the air permit and I have to build the site, I strongly believe it has to come with me bringing down pressure to the rates. Period. I don’t think that’s a question of, I’m not increasing the rates. I actually have to come in and say, I am lowering the rates here.”
If Congress enacted this permitting bill in the lame duck, would Project Jupiter ditch plans to be off grid? It’s challenging to prove or disprove such a hypothetical. Representatives for the project did not respond to requests for comment. But we know any attempts at grid hookups without greater ratepayer protections are only leading to more conflict locally; this week, when Project Jupiter tried proposing a hook up to the grid for emergency power, the county commission fumed. Right now, the plan is still to power Project Jupiter with the gas fuel cell generation on site.
As I concluded this research, I noticed Heinrich’s office has actually promoted news coverage about what his efforts to enact data center ratepayer protections would do to Project Jupiter.
In early August, as the Senate was leaving for a summer recess, his office republished a Santa Fe New Mexican article about legislation the senator authored – the GRID Savings Act – and its potential impact on Project Jupiter. The article claimed that if Project Jupiter was unable to get its air permit, they’d be able to get power a different way under his proposal. The local news outlet also quoted an email from Sanchez, the county commission chair, stating that Heinrich’s bill “could be an avenue for Project Jupiter to fulfill their requirements if the air permit is denied.” Sanchez did not respond to requests for comment.
So I asked Senator Heinrich’s office for comment about this republished article, as well as if his permitting deal would indeed help ensure Project Jupiter was completed and came online. To conclude this story, here is their full statement:
The Senator has been clear that building big things responsibly means putting communities first. As he stated in his interview with the Albuquerque Journal, Project Jupiter botched community engagement from the start.
BAAJA is about making sure we build the energy infrastructure we need while keeping costs down for families and small businesses in New Mexico and across the country. The legislation would help get new energy generation, primarily clean energy, on the grid. By getting the energy onto the grid, states like New Mexico, which has enacted the Energy Transition Act, can continue working to ensure the energy powering our grid is increasingly clean.
The Senator has fought to ensure that growing energy demand doesn’t come at the expense of New Mexicans’ electricity bills by requiring data centers to pay for all of their associated transmission costs, rather than those costs shifting onto ratepayers. Ultimately, the Senator strongly believes that any major development, including data centers, should come as a benefit to the communities that host them, not a burden — and that starts with meaningful community engagement and real benefits for New Mexicans.
To be clear, BAAJA is federal legislation focused on energy infrastructure and grid connectivity. It does not ‘permit’ data centers. State and local government approval is still required. The Senator's legislation addresses the federal energy infrastructure challenges associated with a grid that cannot keep up with demand; it does not circumvent the state and local processes that determine whether Project Jupiter moves forward.
Media representatives for Project Jupiter did not respond to requests for comment.
And more of the week’s top news around project fights.
1. New England (and Maryland) – The Trump administration is still messing with offshore wind farms, even while trying to pass a permitting reform deal. Examining the court filings reveals why they may feel empowered to do it — and I’m not sure how this ends.
2. Columbia County, N.Y. – New York’s renewable energy permitting office has rejected an upstate solar farm on farmland as a House Democrat representing the area joined hands with the Trump administration in publicly railing against the project.
3. Cumberland County, N.J. – The Vineland data center project is impacting the sector’s reputation in the Garden State.
4. Hood County, Texas – It looks like this corner of Hill Country is going back to court over a data center.
A conversation with Harmol Samra of Host Digital
This week’s conversation is with Harmol Samra, CEO of data center developer Host Digital. I asked Samra for a conversation because his team expressed a willingness to offer candid views on the industry’s problems with social license to operate — namely, why is the industry botching this so badly? From his point of view, many could learn a lot from industrial revolutions of the past, and they should be careful not to let mega-project expansions get in the way of broader acceptance of the data center sector.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Can you start with your experience right now trying to get permission to build and operate data centers in the U.S.?
What we do is we focus on data centers between 20 megawatts and 100 megawatts — we call them “right-sized” — that are currently energized and delivering in the next 10 to 14 months. So really focusing on the front end of that curve. To your question of social license, we’re focused on building the right-sized data centers that communities are used to seeing and have been seeing for the last 20 years. Very similar to any other industrial warehouse you would see in your community in a business park or things like that. We’re not building multi-gigawatt campuses in a community that has 20,000 people and has an overarching, overbearing impact.
On the social license piece of it, we understand that this is the base layer of infrastructure we’re building. We’re providing the base layer as long as we agree that we all want to store our data for cloud usage, we do need to train our models, we all want to interact with AI and have some imprint — that’s what we support.
On the community benefits piece, we don’t ask for any tax breaks or incentives anywhere we go. In fact, we do the opposite — in most cases we set up community benefits programs. Our data center might become operational in a year, and that’ll pay real estate taxes, but what about in between now and then? In instances, it’s been a new AI training program in high school. In other instances, it has been [people saying], “AI’s great, but using it is expensive, so what if we could provide tokens so students can learn?”
Can you give us an example of a time you were challenged in developing data center infrastructure? Help us get a better understanding of how you’ve faced this backlash yourself.
Our first site in northeast Oklahoma, in Tulsa, enacted a moratorium on data centers after we purchased a site and were going through our leasing and financing process for it. It was a bitcoin mining site we were converting to a data center, in this case. We went to engage with the community, with the city planning office, and with the city council members. Unanimously, by 9-0, we got an exemption [from their moratorium] for us to be able to go build their data center.
When we went and made our case, what we are doing in our strategy was retrofitting this site. Not really adding new load to the system. They said, “The moratorium was not put in place to capture developments like you.” It was put in place for the mega campuses. It was about walking them through our strategy with a site that has been drawing power for the past few years.
Do you feel retrofitting sites changes the perspectives of local officials?
Yes it does, because there are a couple of things you can address up front. We’re not asking for new load; 55 megawatts has been drawn to the site for the past few years. The building we’re converting has been there for years. It calms people’s fears about a new data center coming. It’s just a building that has its computers.
It becomes easier and more bite-sized to digest. Now, obviously there are no gigawatt-scale things you can retrofit.
What do you think other energy sectors can teach the data center sector from their experiences dealing with backlash?
Overarching, as an industry, we have to be net positive to a community.
Other energy sectors and players have worked with their actual impacts to the climate and to the community, and that’s what we have to learn. If you build a data center, what is the social benefit? Through jobs? Through revenue? Through infrastructure they need? It’s the point we need to hammer home.
What do you think of some of the strategies raised thus far to improve community benefits? I’ve heard some new ideas like data center dividends, and I wonder what you make of all the proposals floating out there.
One idea is tax offsets.
Let’s say you’re going to build a data center in a town with 10,000 people. They’re all paying on average real estate taxes of $3,000. That’s a total impact of $3 million that people are paying out of their pocket. Now, if that can be supplemented by having a new data center there, offsetting that entire dollar amount, that is a direct benefit to people living there. It’s a net benefit to local residents.
There’s a reason some of the impact plans we are seeing today are direct and dollar-denominated, right? We can offset taxes, pay for our own infrastructure upgrades, add new generation to the grid — wherever we build a data center, we can build a new renewable asset and bring energy back to the grid. Frankly, some of these ideas have resonated with communities.
Why do you think the data center unrest and backlash is happening, then?
I think the biggest reason we’re seeing that is that data centers are a physical embodiment of what artificial intelligence is. It’s the base asset for AI to work. There’s a lot of unease about how we perceive AI will impact our society and our lives and livelihoods, and its harder for communities to tell an Anthropic how to change their models. But they do think if they stop the buildout of a data center, they can stop the expansion of AI until we all figure out where it goes.
Some of the factual opposition in the beginning was high electricity usage that might impact people’s bills. That’s been addressed. Excess water? That’s been addressed. Noise impacts? You can put cooling equipment outside and wrap it in a way with sound barriers where it doesn’t impact.
The factual impacts, Jael, I think have been addressed. It’s more a corollary function of how people feel about AI — that with the data centers, people see a physical asset and they wonder how to stop that.