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:
Much of California’s biggest county is now off limits to energy storage.

Residents of a tiny unincorporated community outside of Los Angeles have trounced a giant battery project in court — and in the process seem to have blocked energy storage projects in more than half of L.A. County, the biggest county in California.
A band of frustrated homeowners and businesses have for years aggressively fought a Hecate battery storage project proposed in Acton, California, a rural unincorporated community of about 7,000 residents, miles east of the L.A. metro area. As I wrote in my first feature for The Fight over a year ago, this effort was largely motivated by concerns about Acton as a high wildfire risk area. Residents worried that in the event of a large fire, a major battery installation would make an already difficult emergency response situation more dangerous. Acton leaders expressly opposed the project in deliberations before L.A. County planning officials, arguing that BESS facilities in general were not allowed under the existing zoning code in unincorporated areas.
On the other side, county officials maintained that the code was silent on battery storage as such, but said that in their view, these projects were comparable to distribution infrastructure from a land use perspective, and therefore would be allowable under the code.
Last week, the residents of Acton won, getting the courts to toss out the county’s 2021 memorandum allowing battery storage facilities in unincorporated areas – which make up more than 65% of L.A. County.
Judge Curtis Kin wrote in his October 14 ruling that “such expansive use of the interpretation runs contrary to the Zoning Code itself,” and that the “exclusion” of permission for battery storage in the code means it isn’t allowed, plain and simple.
“Consequently, respondents and real parties’ reliance on the existence of other interpretive memos and guidance by the [Planning] Director is beside the point,” Kin stated. “There is no dispute the Director has the authority to issue memos and interpretations for Zoning code provisions subject to interpretation, but, as discussed above, such authority cannot be used in such a way as to violate the provisions of the Zoning Code.”
The court also declared the Hecate project approval void and ordered the company to seek permits under the California Environmental Quality Act if it still wants to build. This will halt the project’s development for the foreseeable future. Alene Taber, the attorney representing Acton residents, told me she has received no indication from Hecate’s legal team about whether they will appeal the ruling.
Hecate declined to comment on the outcome.
Taber’s perspective is unique as a self-described “rural rights” attorney who largely represents unincorporated communities with various legal disputes. She told me this ruling demonstrates a serious risk regulators face in moving too fast for a host community, especially given rising opposition to battery storage in California. Since the Moss Landing fire, opposition to storage projects has escalated rapidly across the state – despite profound tech differences between more modern designs proposed today and the antiquated system that burned up in that incident.
I asked Taber if she thought California enacting a new law last week to beef up battery fire safety oversight could stem the tide of concerns about battery storage. In response, she railed against a separate statute giving energy companies – including battery developers – the ability to work around town ordinances and moratoria targeting their industry.
“Even though the county didn’t consider the community input — which it should’ve — the county process at least still allowed for communities to appeal the project. And they’re also at least supposed to consider what the local zoning code said,” Taber told me. “Local communities are now sidelined all together. They’re saying they don’t care what the concerns are. Where’s the consideration for how these projects are now being sited in high fire zones?”
I was unable to reach Los Angeles County officials before press time for The Fight, but it’s worth noting that, amid the battle over Hecate’s approval, L.A. County planning officials began preparing to update their renewable energy ordinance to include battery storage development regulation – an indication they may need new methods to site and build more battery storage. There’s no timeline for when those changes will take place.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Will moving fast and breaking air permits exacerbate tensions with locals?
The Trump administration is trying to ease data centers’ power permitting burden. It’s likely to speed things up. Whether it’ll kick up more dust for the industry is literally up in the air.
On Tuesday, the EPA proposed a rule change that would let developers of all stripes start certain kinds of construction before getting a historically necessary permit under the Clean Air Act. Right now this document known as a New Source Review has long been required before you can start building anything that will release significant levels of air pollutants – from factories to natural gas plants. If EPA finalizes this rule, it will mean companies can do lots of work before the actual emitting object (say, a gas turbine) is installed, down to pouring concrete for cement pads.
The EPA’s rule change itself doesn’t mention AI data centers. However, the impetus was apparent in press materials as the agency cited President Trump’s executive order to cut red tape around the sector. Industry attorneys and environmental litigants alike told me this change will do just that, cutting months to years from project construction timelines, and put pressure on state regulators to issue air permits by allowing serious construction to start that officials are usually reluctant to disrupt.
“I think the intended result is also what will happen. Developers will be able to move more quickly, without additional delay,” said Jeff Holmstead, a D.C.-based attorney with Bracewell who served as EPA assistant administrator for air and radiation under George H.W. Bush. “It will almost certainly save some time for permitting and construction of new infrastructure.”
Air permitting is often a snag that will hold up a major construction project. Doubly so for gas-powered generation. Before this proposal, the EPA historically was wary to let companies invest in what any layperson would consider actual construction work. The race for more AI infrastructure has changed the game, supercharging what was already an active debate over energy needs and our nation’s decades-old environmental laws.
Many environmental groups condemned the proposal upon its release, stating it would make gas-powered AI data centers more popular and diminish risks currently in place for using dirtier forms of electricity. Normally, they argue, this permitting process would give state and federal officials an early opportunity to gauge whether pollution control measures make sense and if a developer’s preferred design would unduly harm the surrounding community. This could include encouraging developers to consider alternate energy sources.
“Inevitably agencies have flexibility as to how much they ask, and what this allows them to do is pre-commit in ways that’ll force agencies to take stuff off the table. What’s taken off the table, it’s hard to know, but you’re constraining options to respond to public concerns or recognize air quality impacts,” said Sanjay Narayan, Sierra Club’s chief appellate counsel.
Herein lies the dilemma: will regulatory speed for power sacrifice opportunities for input that could quell local concerns?
We’re seeing this dilemma play out in real time with Project Matador, a large data center proposal being developed in Amarillo, Texas, by the Rick Perry-backed startup Fermi Americas. Project Matador is purportedly going to be massive and Fermi claims its supposed to one day reach 11 GW, which would make it one of the biggest data centers in the world.
Fermi’s plans have focused on relying on nuclear power in the future. But the only place they’ve made real progress so far in getting permits is gas generation. In February, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality gave Fermi its air permit for building and operating up to 6 gigawatts of gas power at Project Matador. At that time, Fermi was also rooting for relaxed New Source Review standards, applauding EPA in comments to media for signaling it would take this step. The company’s former CEO Toby Neugebauer also told investors on their first earnings call that Trump officials personally intervened to help get them gas turbines from overseas. (There’s scant public evidence to date of this claim and Neugebauer was fired by Fermi’s board last month.)
But now Fermi’s permit is also being threatened in court. In April, a citizens group Panhandle Taxpayers for Transparency filed a lawsuit against TCEQ challenging the validity of the permit. The case centers around whether the commission was right to deny a request for a contested case hearing brought by members of the group who lived and worked close to Project Matador. “Once these decisions are made, they don’t get reversed,” Michael Ford, Panhandle Taxpayers for Transparency’s founder, said in a fundraising video.
This is also a financial David vs. Goliath, as Ford admits in the fundraising video they have less than $2,000 to spend on the case – a paltry sum they admit barely covers legal bills. We’re also talking about a state that culturally and legally sides often with developers and fossil fuel firms.
At the same time, this lawsuit couldn’t come at a more difficult time as Fermi is struggling with other larger problems (see: Neugebauer’s ouster). Eric Allman, one of the attorneys representing Panhandle Taxpayers for Transparency, told me they’re still waiting on a judge assignment and estimated it’ll take about one year to get a ruling. Allman told me legally Fermi can continue construction during the legal challenge but there are real risks. “Applicants on many occasions will pause activity while there is an appeal pending,” he told me, “because if the suit is successful, they won’t have an authorization.”
Aerial photos reported by independent journalist Michael Thomas purportedly show Fermi hasn’t done significant construction since obtaining its air permit. Fermi did not respond to multiple requests for comment on the lawsuit.
Industry attorneys I spoke to who wished to remain anonymous told me it was too early to say whether EPA’s rulemaking would exacerbate local conflicts by making things move faster. “A lot of times the environmental community likes to litigate things in the hope delays will kill a project, so in that regard, this strategy may be harder for them to implement now,” one lawyer told me. “But just because a plant gets a permit doesn’t mean they can build.”
Environmental lawyers, meanwhile, clearly see more potential for social friction in a faster process. Keri Powell of the Southern Environmental Law Center compared this EPA action to xAI’s rapid buildout in Tennessee and Mississippi where the Al company’s construction of gas turbines before it received its permits has only added to local controversy. This new rule would not make what xAI did permissible; this is a different matter. Yet there are thematic similarities between what the company is doing and the new permitting regime, with natural gas generation expanding faster when companies are allowed to start forms of site work before an air permit is issued.
“By the time a permit is issued, the company will be very, very far along in constructing a facility. All they’ll need to do is bring in the emitting unit, and oftentimes that doesn’t entail very much,” she said. “Imagine you’re a state or local permitting agency – your ability to choose something different than what the company already decided to do is going to be limited.”
And more of the week’s top fights around development.
1. Berkeley County, South Carolina – Forget about Richland County, Ohio. All eyes in Solar World should be on this county where officials are trying to lift a solar moratorium.
2. Hill County, Texas – We have our first Texas county trying to ban new data centers and it’s in one of the more conservative pockets of the state.
3. Sussex County, New Jersey – A town in north Jersey rapidly changed course from backing a new data center to outright banning all projects.
4. Porter County, Indiana – The Chicago ex-urb of Valparaiso is significantly restricting data centers too, after pulling the plug on a large project under development.
5. King County, Washington – It’s Snoqualmie vs. the energy sector right now, as the new poster child for battery backlash bans BESS in its borders.
A conversation with Utah state senator Nate Blouin.
This week’s conversation is with Utah state senator Nate Blouin – a candidate for the Democratic nomination to represent the state’s 1st Congressional District, which includes Salt Lake City. I reached out to Blouin amidst the outpouring of public attention on the Box Elder County data center project backed by celebrity investor Kevin O’Leary. His positions on data centers and energy development, including support for a national AI data center moratorium, make him a must-watch candidate for anyone in this year’s Democratic congressional primaries. (It’s worth noting this seat was recently redrawn in ways that made it further left.)
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
I guess to start, how’s the fight going?
On the [O’Leary] data center front? It’s good. People have really been activated by this. It’s always exciting for me to see when people get interested in politics because it hits close to their lives. I think that’s why you’re seeing people so passionate here. We had thousands file protests on their water rights change application. We had thousands show up to a county commission meeting in Box Elder County, Utah. The people have taken notice and understand the ramifications of such a gigantic project in our backyard. Officials are listening and I don’t know if that’s going to translate into concrete action to stop this thing but it’s good to have people involved, taking an interest in what I see as an environmental issue and an energy issue.
You’re running for office in the Salt Lake City area right?
Correct. I’m currently in the state senate representing central Salt Lake County running for a congressional district that is entirely located within northern Salt Lake County.
I assume your next question is: why is this a concern to you if this isn’t in Salt Lake County?
Yeah.
I was anticipating that.
This is a gigantic project. Several gigawatts of energy, an enormous amount to put on or off the grid depending on how it plays out. It’s a huge project, likely the largest natural gas generating facility in the country and on par with some of the largest generating facilities in the world. As the crow flies, my district right now and the one I’m running to represent are 50 to 70 miles across the Great Salt Lake just south of this proposed location. And we already have really massive air quality issues in our area. We have a Great Salt Lake that is struggling in incredible fashion, at one of its lowest ever levels and no hope of returning to normal in the near future. Any of those issues are going to come up, create climate damage, increase our ozone levels.
When you approach the data center issue as a candidate, how do you see it impacting your race and how do you approach the issue in general?
This ties together so many threads. The climate issues I’ve worked on in the past. Certainly looking at who is going to benefit here and who is going to lose out. We’ve seen the state give out massive tax incentives, to the tune of probably hundreds of millions of dollars. People are so angry about all these things. It’s these threads about billionaires who profit while we struggle with the air pollution that’s choking many in our community. That’s what put it at the center of this race. I think you’re going to see that more often across the country where other large proposals are.
On the larger picture, my perspective is that we need a moratorium on data centers as we envision what the future is. A national moratorium. I’m aligned with Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on that front. Sanders endorsed my campaign because I see eye to eye with him on many issues including this one.
I don’t want these dumped in our backyard. This one in particular because of how enormous it is, but we’ve seen other proposals and I fought these in the legislature.
We need to ask, what is the future of this industry? While average people are struggling with high energy costs, why are we incentivizing all this infrastructure to benefit the select few who own this stuff?
We have to get public buy-in both on how the infrastructure works and how if we move forward with any of these, how they benefit our communities. The environmental aspect as well, all these communities that have been dumping grounds in the past aren’t going to want these either. We have to look at what the future of AI also looks like.
If I may, when I spoke with Senate candidate Graham Platner about this idea over the past weekend, he told me that he doesn’t want a moratorium for the sake of a moratorium.
Right.
I mean look, there are great things AI can do. Great medicines to be discovered. Weather forecasts. We can better utilize clean energy.
I want a moratorium because it gives time to actually envision what policies are needed to get buy-in. What role the government plays in managing these technologies, too. Make sure they’re being used in the public interest and not against us.
A mish-mash of policies across the states or just saying we’ll do the work isn’t the right approach. I think we need to take a pause and develop those strategies. Then we’ll see what happens and move forward.
I spoke with Holly Jean Buck about that Jacobin piece where she argued against a data center moratorium after previously being for it. She mentioned being concerned about this unique allegiance between the folks fighting data centers on the left and on the right. It’s unclear those folks have the same end goals.
What’s your take on that allegiance and if it’ll lead to positive development in the long term?
I think there are shared end goals.
Protecting land? There’s different reasons. On the right, they’re concerned about farmland and agricultural land being developed into things they don’t want, where on the left it's about public land and the general environmental picture. But on surveillance, for example, there’s more commonality in what we want to see. Most people don’t want to see more government intrusion.
I think there are commonalities and differences. It’ll be interesting to see how those pan out in the long run.
I agree with Platner’s statement. This is to figure out the path forward before we spend trillions of dollars on infrastructure that’ll be paid for by ratepayers.
My last question: do you think we’ll still be having the same conversation about all of this 10 years from now?
No. I don’t think so – if we take the time that’s needed to get public buy-in.
That’s why we have to see the government play an active role here. So far, they’ve let everyone do whatever they want. We can’t keep letting the billionaire class get whatever they want so they can make a bunch of money off of us.
To return to Utah, the process here was horrible. It was a data center that would encompass 40,000 acres. It’s a gigantic area and amount of emissions. And it was done through an opaque government agency that pushed it forward.
What I know from my work in the clean energy space, like with transmission, if you do the process right and forums and tell people you’re interested in doing something nearby and in X way, you can see people rally around those projects.
Here you saw Kevin O’Leary, a Canadian guy, come in and work behind the scenes to make himself a bunch of money.
We need to figure out how to do this in a way that envisions how the public can be involved.