This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.

Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
A battle ostensibly over endangered shrimp in Kentucky

A national park is fighting a large-scale solar farm over potential impacts to an endangered shrimp – what appears to be the first real instance of a federal entity fighting a solar project under the Trump administration.
At issue is Geenex Solar’s 100-megawatt Wood Duck solar project in Barren County, Kentucky, which would be sited in the watershed of Mammoth Cave National Park. In a letter sent to Kentucky power regulators in April, park superintendent Barclay Trimble claimed the National Park Service is opposing the project because Geenex did not sufficiently answer questions about “irreversible harm” it could potentially pose to an endangered shrimp that lives in “cave streams fed by surface water from this solar project.”
Trimble wrote these frustrations boiled after “multiple attempts to have a dialogue” with Geenex “over the past several months” about whether battery storage would exist at the site, what sorts of batteries would be used, and to what extent leak prevention would be considered in development of the Wood Duck project.
“The NPS is choosing to speak out in opposition of this project and requesting the board to consider environmental protection of these endangered species when debating the merits of this project,” stated the letter. “We look forward to working with the Board to ensure clean water in our national park for the safety of protection of endangered species.”
On first blush, this letter looks like normal government environmental stewardship. It’s true the cave shrimp’s population decline is likely the result of pollution into these streams, according to NPS data. And it was written by career officials at the National Park Service, not political personnel.
But there’s a few things that are odd about this situation and there’s reason to believe this may be the start of a shift in federal policy direction towards a more critical view of solar energy’s environmental impacts.
First off, Geenex has told local media that batteries are not part of the project and that “several voicemails have been exchanged” between the company and representatives of the national park, a sign that the company and the park have not directly spoken on this matter. That’s nothing like the sort of communication breakdown described in the letter. Then there’s a few things about this letter that ring strange, including the fact Fish and Wildlife Service – not the Park Service – ordinarily weighs in on endangered species impacts, and there’s a contradiction in referencing the Endangered Species Act at a time when the Trump administration is trying to significantly pare back application of the statute in the name of a faster permitting process. All of this reminds me of the Trump administration’s attempts to supposedly protect endangered whales by stopping offshore wind projects.
I don’t know whether this solar farm’s construction will indeed impact wildlife in the surrounding area. Perhaps it may. But the letter strikes me as fascinating regardless, given the myriad other ways federal agencies – including the Park Service – are standing down from stringent environmental protection enforcement under Trump 2.0.
Notably, I reviewed the other public comments filed against the project and they cite a litany of other reasons – but also state that because the county itself has no local zoning ordinance, there’s no way for local residents or municipalities opposed to the project to really stop it. Heatmap Pro predicts that local residents would be particularly sensitive to projects taking up farmland and — you guessed it — harming wildlife.
Barren County is in the process of developing a restrictive ordinance in the wake of this project, but it won’t apply to Wood Duck. So opponents’ best shot at stopping this project – which will otherwise be online as soon as next year – might be relying on the Park Service to intervene.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Talking with Leah Qusba, the CEO of GoodPower.
This week’s conversation is with Leah Qusba, CEO of GoodPower, which recently released a survey experiment you need to read. Conducted with Data for Progress, the project, published Monday, takes a unique approach to asking people why they opposed data centers for artificial intelligence and whether constructing renewable energy instead of gas power moves the needle at all in their support for AI infrastructure near them. Instead of just asking polling questions, they posed various hypothetical project designs to people — and the results were eye-popping. Turning to solar instead of gas? Might not be a panacea for gaining approval at the local level. Protecting electricity rates from going sky-high? Now that’s a way to get buy-in.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Before we jump into the survey, is the data center boom changing the trajectory for renewable energy development in the U.S.?
If you look back over the last decade and a half, the largest global procurer of decarbonized electricity has been the Big Tech industry. I think we’re still seeing the trendlines of that today. The speed and scale of data center development is driving a lot of incremental clean energy growth.
I think we’re really at a crossroads right now because of the speed to meet rising demand and because, as people are scrambling to find electrons, commitments previously around purchasing and procuring decarbonized electricity have slid a little bit. We’ve seen proposals over the last six months or so have roughly doubled for combined cycle gas. We’re at this crossroads: Are we going to leverage this moment to drive incremental clean and protect ratepayers in the process? That’s the only way we’re going to be able to build this infrastructure.
Or are we going to go another path where we’re locking in decades of combined cycle gas?
I think voters across the political spectrum think this is a very important issue, and people are thinking about this as we move closer to November.
Walk my readers through the survey experiment you ran with Data for Progress.
The impetus was that we wanted to demonstrate to any stakeholder in the world — a data center developer, a household concerned with their rising electricity bills, policymakers trying to meet this new energy moment — what Americans want, which is guarantees from data centers that their electric bills won’t increase. They want strong electricity grid upgrades. They want home energy upgrades like rooftop solar, heat pumps, storage systems, or battery walls.
We wanted to make the case. We’ve seen surveys recently that if you say you’ll power them with renewable energy, favorability will increase. We wanted to go a step further and set up an experiment to see the difference between what people say they’ll do and what they’ll actually do. Often there’s a difference when they’re faced with a real-life situation. Even when renewable energy support is high — even Republicans favor large-scale solar — then why do we have NIMBYism? Why do we have public opposition? Why are projects being phased out or canceled entirely because of protests? That’s because of a gap between what people say they’ll do and what they’ll actually do.
The first part of the experiment was a typical poll asking people how they felt and measuring what they said they would do. What people indicated was similar to other polls circulated widely and picked up by the press, that when you say a data center is powered by solar, people say they’ll be more favorable. But then we put them in a setting where we told them a data center in their community was going to be powered by either gas or renewables, and we had other treatment conditions that would be manipulated. We told them, for example, that there would be a rate-binding guarantee, that 100% of their costs would be paid for by the data center and their electricity rates would not go up. We also gave them conditions where they’d get residential solutions.
When we compared what people said they would do with what they actually would do, what we found was pretty definitive. Really, Americans indicated a strong preference that data center developers guarantee stable electricity rates or provide them with meaningful residential or community benefits. Those are really the only two things in a real-life situation that moved support for data centers.
What we didn’t see, actually, is that renewable energy powering the data centers alone was enough. It didn’t have enough statistical significance to improve data centers’ support on its own.
Now, connecting the solar to stable electricity rates or ratepayer protections, that’s helpful. Could we do that? Absolutely, and that’s a strong recommendation to think about centering communities because they want affordability. But the technology alone — solar versus gas — had a null effect.
It’s great to talk about solar, especially because there’s high favorability for solar. Connecting affordability to clean energy is a great strategy, and we hope tech companies take this to heart! The only way we’re going to build social permission for these technologies is to do it in a community-centric way that guarantees rates won’t increase and guarantees community benefits. We want to make sure people ask for all this in negotiations and that policymakers think about all this, especially federally as we think about permitting reform.
What’s the relationship to permitting reform?
I think it’s important that it preserves maximum ratepayer protections and large load tariffs. Thinking about that, as well as bringing-your-own-clean-energy, or BYONCE, is in great parallel with the findings. If we can deliver that through federal legislation, it’s something that would be supported by the data we gathered through this experiment.
Why was there no statistically significant difference between solar and gas?
I don’t think it’s a question of why people were agnostic about technology. I think it all just boils down to pocketbook-kitchen-table issues. We live in a cost of living crisis where upwards of 65% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. The cost of everything from gas prices at the pump to groceries … When we look at the data and inflation and what it takes to build a home, its very clear the message the American electorate is sending is that affordability is the queen issue right now.
Until we meet demand in a community centered way and a ratepayer centered way, with maximum ratepayer protections and large load tariffs for these companies, we’re going to see incredible polarization across America where these data centers are being built.
What’s next, from a research perspective?
I think there were a few surprising things we found in the data we want to dig into.
For example, there’s been talk of spillover opposition — that by associating solar with data centers, we might pollute public opinion around solar. We actually asked questions in the survey experiment about this and so far, solar hasn’t been tarnished by data centers. It showed zero spillover. It does not drag down favorability for solar.
We also found that Americans trust renewable energy developers second only to consumer watchdogs, which we found to be fascinating. By contrast, they trust data center developers the least. In other words, choose to pay for a decarbonized electron if you can because associating yourself with clean, fast-to-power electrons has a true positive association there. It’s in the data.
One last one: Artificial intelligence and public opinion about AI was the top driver of opposition to data centers. It was feelings about AI as a technology superseding personal ideology and backgrounds, even if they cared about climate change. Skepticism about AI and data centers isn’t a partisan issue. Anti-AI sentiment sits evenly across Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike.
And more of the week’s top fights around development.
1. Umatilla County, Oregon – A small town in Oregon this week declared a state of emergency over fears that a statewide pause on data center permits will harm its economy.
2. Saratoga County, New York – Is Trump’s country music superstar-turned-power-project combatant John Rich preparing to debut a new song about solar farms, or something more?
3. Eau Claire County, Wisconsin – There’s now a must-watch race to see who is more anti-transmission in the race for Wisconsin’s 3rd congressional seat.
4. Adams County, Colorado – Here’s the chaser you needed: the largest solar farm approved in the Rocky Mountains.
The race for the top job in McCracken County, Kentucky, might hinge on the importance of a community benefit agreement.
An election-season battle is brewing over what could be the nation’s first massive data center operating on federal land. And you almost certainly have never heard of it.
Come with me to McCracken County, Kentucky, just outside its largest city, Paducah, where the Energy Department is allowing new development at a large brownfield property. First constructed in the 1950s, the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant was once the country’s only uranium enrichment facility, but it closed in 2010. Since then, and after years of cleanup, Paducah city officials and the McCracken County government have sought to revitalize and reindustrialize the site.
In July, the Energy Department announced plans for a data center at the site, one with enough power to provide excess electricity to the surrounding community. Brookfield would develop and operate the data center and NextEra Energy would build the power infrastructure — a roughly 2.5 gigawatt natural gas plant — while local and regional electricity companies and co-ops would help provide wholesale and retail electricity. The project would be built alongside new uranium enrichment projects cropping up at the site, as federal officials and companies involved seek to transform the area into what they call an “American energy hub.”
Government officials at all levels welcomed the new project. An opposition group called Protect McCracken County exists and is active, but opposition has yet to manifest in the kind of dust-up or mass protest we’re seeing elsewhere in the country. Media reports indicate a likely reason for this is the longstanding history of industrial development in this specific area and that the project location was already contaminated as a brownfield site. The worst headlines about the data center news saw residents calling it “bittersweet” and a “necessary evil.”
But something important was missing because the project was on federal land: city officials say they never had a formal opportunity to deliberate it themselves — a step even local governments supportive of development often use to get assurances and benefits from developers.
The investment announcement also caught officials by surprise. Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, a centrist Democrat with presidential ambitions, told Politico he was never briefed on it. Paducah City Councilor Dujuan Thomas told me this week that the first time he met with any individuals involved “was a week before the public announcement, or a few days before it.”
“At the end of the day, it’s already set in stone,” said Thomas, who supports the data center being built. “I don’t think there’s anything that can be done aside from a federal intervention that could ever stop something like this from happening. And I’m trying to be a realist about it.”
“I’m more of a glass-half-full type of person,” Thomas added.
Now, the fight over asking for more is dominating the race for McCracken County judge/executive, which is the county’s top job. Paducah’s mayor, George Bray, a former Republican-turned-independent, is running to oust two-term Republican incumbent Craig Clymer. In recent weeks, Bray has called for negotiating a community benefit agreement with the developers and says Brookfield already expressed willingness to do so. “Data center developers, knowing how sensitive communities are about electrical usage, water usage, and noise … have been open to embracing the community and saying they want to be good citizens,” he told me in an interview.
Specifically, Bray wants a community benefit agreement to potentially include an economic development fund to help jumpstart new housing in the area, knowing there’ll be an influx of labor. The county will also need to support volunteer fire districts, especially if there’s a blaze at the site. Those are only two ideas he offered, acknowledging the subject of data centers is new to him and that he believes the agreement “should be something the community itself comes up with.”
“I would not approach it as, What do I want? I would be talking with others,” he told me. “There are many things that a project of this size is going to drive in our community. I think we just need to be open-minded and practical about it.”
Bray’s push came up at public debates during the campaign for county judge executive and has since spilled over into social media spats between Bray and Clymer. Bray claims the only official who can adequately negotiate this kind of agreement with the developer is the county judge/executive because the project is not within the Paducah city limits. Clymer, meanwhile, denies everything Bray is claiming.
Clymer says a community benefit agreement is unnecessary, would indicate hostility towards the business community, and is only being brought up so Bray can differentiate himself in the election. He also told me the county will receive incredible levels of tax revenue from the project, and this in and of itself will mean lots of benefits.
The developers “have not asked for one thing from the community. They haven’t asked for a property tax abatement — I told them early on we’d send them a tax bill and they said they understood that’s what I intend to do. No payback on anything; they’re going to build their own infrastructure there within the facility. They’re going to provide their own power through NextEra,” Clymer said. “The bottom line is, it’s not going to cost the community a penny to have this $100 billion investment in our community, and the benefit from it is just going to be enormous through the property tax and occupational tax.”
Clymer also claims key protections for the community, including ratepayer guardrails, are written into the lease agreement DOE struck with Brookfield for the data center. I asked Clymer if the lease agreement was public; he said no and that he personally hasn’t seen it.
“I’m telling you what they’re telling me and I don’t think anybody’s lying about it,” he said. “Let’s be satisfied it’s not going to cost us a penny and it’s going to create enormous wealth for us.”
Brookfield declined to comment for this story. The Energy Department and NextEra did not respond to requests for comment by publication time. We’ll update our story with answers from them when we hear back.