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.
And more of the week’s biggest fights around project development
1. Ottawa County, Michigan – A congressional district House Democrats are targeting for control of the Lower Chamber is now a battleground over solar development on farmland, and I’m waiting to see if President Trump gets involved.
2. Texas – The Lone Star State sure is action-packed right now, huh? Let’s break down a few of the most important fights.
3. Lincoln County, Oklahoma – A massive wind project in rural Oklahoma is now on hold amidst continued local opposition, according to a Republican member of the state legislature.
4. Clinton County, Indiana – Well hey, at least some places are still approving some things. Like in rural Indiana, where a community actually voted for considering a data center.
A conversation with Josh Freed of Third Way
This week’s conversation is about the big energy policy story of the week – month? year? – which is the new bipartisan permitting deal in the U.S. Senate. As my colleagues and I were feverishly working on our mega-explainer about the bill, I rang up Josh Freed, founder of Third Way’s energy and climate program, who graciously picked up the phone despite traveling in London. Freed, a fellow energy wonk-slash-musician, was gracious to jam out with me on all the things I felt you needed to know about this bill – including whether there really is only one shot to get what he believes would be landmark legislation into law.
The following chat was lightly abridged for clarity. Let’s dive in.
Let’s start with descriptions. Thomas Hochman, a friend of Heatmap News, published a lengthy blog about the new bipartisan Senate permitting bill in which he describes it as a “grand bargain.”
Do you agree with that description?
No. See, it’s so funny, I saw that description as well and I think over the years I’ve soured on the concept of ‘grand bargains.’ But it’s hugely significant.
Okay. If it’s not a ‘grand bargain,’ how would you describe it?
Well the problem with a ‘grand bargain’ is it assumes there’s all these trade-offs and everyone gets a little bit of something. But the reason I think it’s just significant, and not that, is it took the transmission architecture that Manchin-Barrasso had that was close to passing and built it out for current load growth. That’s a big deal given how much the transmission side has been a blockage in the system. And how much they dealt with the permitting of infrastructure, generally.
When we did our survey of over 200 project developers a little over a year ago, we were surprised at how much that was what they were concerned about – transmission and permitting of utility-scale solar. They’ve added those two things into the bill. So we’ve got consequential transmission permitting provisions and steps to add a lot of certainty, while shortening the window where objections based on those laws can pop up. This means a lot more is likely to be built and it’s very likely that’ll be clean.
There’s infrastructure with fossil fuels that’ll be built. We get that. But when costs are so high, that’s also sort of inevitable. The overall proposal is more of a win to build than a bargain.
Does the language in this bill adequately address Trump’s freeze on federal permits for renewable energy projects?
I think it is a really important step in the right direction with permitting certainty for solar and wind but this question with national security, and making sure this gives the certainty that these projects will ultimately be delivered… I just genuinely don’t know. But we need to make sure it's sufficiently airtight. Is this the best, most reasonable attempt to do this? That’s the question that needs to be answered.
The combination of permitting certainty and anti-discrimination language barring the executive branch from category wide attacks on offshore wind or solar are steps that need to be taken. At some point we’re all going to have to take the step off the cliff together and see what happens next because we’re getting as good as we’re going to get, presuming the administration will follow the law. If they don’t follow the law, there’ll be actions to be taken to get them back on track.
But this is what you have to do, because otherwise, everything’s still broken. At least it gives us additional mechanisms to keep them in line.
Do you think this has to happen before the next Congress convenes?
The most likely time for action is the lame duck period in Congress. I think there’s a slim chance you could see something happen next year but it’s impossible to predict how likely that chance is or what it would look like until we see the election results. I wouldn’t want to gamble on everything lining up to get another bite at the apple next year. And lame duck’s always been the most likely time for this to happen.
Okay. So let’s say this bill becomes law. What do folks like you do next on energy in D.C.?
I think we get this done and then we’ve got to make sure the law works. Assuming this passes, we’ve got to make sure the obstacles we thought were obstacles really were the obstacles, and this still doesn’t address additional issues data centers have raised. We need an enforceable framework so as data centers come onto the system, the additional generation and transmission is built in a way that’s in the best interest of communities and paid for by the data centers.
There are questions of whether the market structures created more than a hundred years ago are still the correct structures for 2026. If they’re not, then what’s the path to getting stuff built and maintained effectively? That alone is enough. And I think the next biggest thing: what parts of the supply chain should be developed and where? Transformers, batteries, the future of the auto industry… all those fun things are up in the air.
American offshore wind’s existential crisis was laid bare at this year’s Climate Week.
California and New York officials gathered on Tuesday at the New York Bar Association in Manhattan to tell attendees of the annual climate action mega-event about their efforts to hold the Trump administration to account. After Trump regulators upended wind projects off the East Coast and struck buyout trades with energy developers to ditch ocean wind leases, both states filed fresh legal action against the administration, targeting what they said were egregious abuses of taxpayer dollars that canceled once-promising projects that would’ve given gigawatts of power to grids expecting energy demand to spike.
“Every megawatt in offshore wind power is not a megawatt of fossil fuel generated power. That’s really important. That means fewer emissions that contribute to respiratory and cardiac disease,” Lem Srolovic, bureau chief of the New York attorney general’s environmental protection bureau, said at the event, as he and California attorney general Rob Bonta laid out the view that Trump’s actions against offshore wind were illegal.
The federal courts have concurred thus far, and it’s possible more judges will agree. But later in the event, Doreen Harris – CEO and President of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority – said the quiet part out loud.
“Ultimately, the challenge we have in litigation is that even if successful, we deal with realities of what a commercial entity would do in response to these risks. That remains unresolved,” Harris confessed. “How do we move to an investable future for energy infrastructure if this is the way energy infrastructure has to be advanced?”
Indeed, more litigation clearly isn’t going to help the offshore wind sector’s prospects. As we’ve reported on time and again, the Trump administration has not only used every regulatory lever imaginable – and some once unimaginable – to delay wind farms, both on and offshore. But it has gone beyond the legal, now stalling onshore wind in ways industry says stretches the boundaries of court remedy. If that’s the case on solid ground, what future could possibly exist in the U.S. for an industry that must build entirely in federal waters? And even if Trump leaves office providing for a more industry-friendly president, couldn’t a future successor undo whatever they do as well?
“There may be some hesitancy to reinvest in offshore wind in the U.S. given what has happened in the Trump administration,” Kevin Beicke, vice president of project finance at Morningstar DBRS, told me in a phone interview. This week Morningstar, a leading market analysis firm, agreed with Harris’ assessment and reaffirmed a negative outlook for the entire American offshore wind industry through at least 2028 – adding the future beyond that horizon is essentially unknown.
“It’s my view these companies would need to see some kind of substantial support for their industry if they were to try and get back into it under a future administration. And public support would be needed to support a future administration providing regulatory and financial support to the U.S. offshore wind industry.”
So this begs the question: why are states bothering with litigation they probably know won’t improve the offshore wind sector’s fortunes in the near term?
Harris told me after the event that part of the litigation is to provide a signal to the business community that they shouldn’t abandon the U.S. offshore wind industry in the future.
“Very much so. It’s a move intended not only to preserve the processes and systems that are supposed to apply but also to say, ‘We are here because we are committed to the resource, and we’re committed to the companies developing it, and they can consider a state a partner to realize those outcomes.’ That’s what we want them to understand,” she told me.
Harris’ indignation didn’t surprise me, but it was especially prescient, as New York City’s annual Climate Week chaos became embroiled in a “will they or won’t they” news cycle around Trump’s freeze on wind energy permits. During the offshore wind event, news broke in Politico that President Trump told Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Energy Secretary Chris Wright that he agreed to “green-light wind energy projects to strike [a] permitting deal” and that they’d “lift” the “blockade of renewable energy projects to get Senate Democrats moving on permitting.” The next day, at Heatmap House, Wright himself declined to speak declaratively on that report, instead signalling the issue was still a live ball. But he said a permitting deal would address concerns about “easier to build everything in America.”
Wright also suggested the administration had actively debated the de facto freeze on height clearances for wind turbines, which has essentially snagged the entire sector. “Wind has been very controversial and there have been spirited dialogues in the administration about this,” Wright told my colleague Robinson Meyer. “I do believe a successful permitting reform thing changes the playing field for anything you want to build in this country, including wind.”
When I asked Harris about the Politico report, she told me she’d rather focus on the courts. The same goes for California Energy Commission chair David Hochschild, who told me he doesn’t believe anonymous reports about a president “who also promised no new endless wars.”
“We want to make it crystal clear we’re going to fight for this and our support [for offshore wind] is going to continue,” Hochschild said. “The legal fight we’re engaged in now is necessary but not sufficient. We have a lot more work to do to build the ecosystem that’s necessary for this to come to fruition. For research and development. For permitting. For infrastructure. It’s a lot of work but we’ve done this before. All these barriers existed when we started with solar in the early days when there was skepticism.”