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:
Conservationists won the last round, but this time the stakes involve new renewables technology.

The future of floating offshore wind in America rests on a feud between YIMBY state officials and a government whistleblower over a bucolic island off the coast of Maine. I have no clue who will win.
Floating offshore wind is Maine’s best bet for wind power in deeper stretches of ocean, far away from beach views, coastal properties, and valuable fishing grounds. The tech — which other countries have tried to deploy but is still unproven at large commercial scale — offers a hypothetical panacea for the sorts of conflicts that often stymie offshore wind, and other states are looking to it as a solution for these thorny issues, including California.
But Maine has chosen to construct its floating offshore wind turbine assembly site at Sears Island, a naturalist tourist destination in Penobscot Bay. Conservationists in New England have fought for a long time to preserve the island, an incredibly biodiverse ecosystem rich with wetlands, from the Maine Department of Transportation, which over decades has attempted to use a section of the island for various forms of infrastructure, including an industrial port.
Now that this longstanding conflict has become intertwined with the cause of carbon reduction, it is pitting an older generation of eco-warriors against a younger breed of climate activists, as well as local unions eager to get in on energy transition jobs. Unfortunately for Maine regulators, one of the old heads opposing this project is Kyla Bennett, a former wetlands permitting staffer at the Environmental Protection Agency who stopped a previous effort by the Maine Department of Transportation to build a port at Sears Island in the 1990s.
At EPA, Bennett determined that constructing the port would’ve been illegal under the Clean Water Act because of the sheer proliferation of obvious wetlands. When political officials interceded and reassigned her to a different job, she blew the whistle on them — and won, winning back her post. The port permits were also denied.
Bennett is now a key organizer for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, an organization that represents whistleblowers doing environmental protection work in government. And she’s making it a hobby horse to, again, stop Sears Island from becoming a port — even if it’s in the name of developing technology that could stem the tide of climate change.
“It’s déjà vu. It’s really disturbing to me that it’s back and we have to do this all over again,” she told me.
The facility has to go somewhere because, well, the technicians and researchers need a place to build these turbines, and Maine has claimed that no port existing today on the East Coast fits the precise spacing and resource needs. Habib Dagher, a University of Maine professor who leads the consortium plotting a U.S. offshore wind industry, told me constructing a port for assembly is “critical” to near-term success.
Yet there is another option. Moffat and Nichols, the engineering firm that studied port locations for Maine regulators, did conclude Mack Point, an existing import terminal on the coast of the Penobscot owned by Sprague Energy, would also fit the bill. Sprague is proposing to pay for a large expansion of Mack Point to take this floating offshore wind business off of Sears Island. Not only does it already have existing rail infrastructure and a long history of working in energy and construction but crucially, the engineering firm also found that siting the assembly facility there would shave years off the permitting and construction timetable for making floating offshore wind a reality.
Legally, this alternative matters, and federal regulators will decide who wins this fight. Maine regulators are expected to submit paperwork to begin the permitting process under the National Environmental Policy Act for building the assembly site at Sears Island in the coming weeks. As they do so, they will be required to explain how this plan offers the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative” under environmental law. And Bennett is confident their claims will not pass muster in court, if not with career EPA staff.
“It cannot be legally permitted,” she confessed. “We will sue them.”
So I sought out to answer this pesky question: Why is Maine trying to build this crucial infrastructure for the energy transition in a place with activist resistance, and where even its own consultants have said the process would take longer?
State regulators, politicians, and supporters of the Sears Island plan have a few reasons. First off, Maine Governor Janet Mills has bemoaned that to use Mack Point would require leasing the property from Sprague, which would mean a recurring cost to taxpayers. There are also size issues — the Maine Department of Transportation claims there simply wouldn’t be enough space at Mack Point for researchers and, eventually, industry to do their work.
“We know there would be environmental impacts at both the Mack Point and Sears Island sites,” Paul Merrill, director of communications for the Maine Department of Transportation, told me in an email Monday evening. “The bottom line is that the port Maine needs simply doesn’t fit at Mack Point. Sprague has a financial interest in development on Mack Point. Our goal is to develop a port that is in the best interest of the public.”
Merrill did acknowledge the new proposal for Sears Island would be located on “the same part of the island that was discussed for development in the 1990s.”
Sprague denies the logistical issues with building the port at Mack Point and told me issues Maine regulators are easily resolved. The company has begun campaigning to win key stakeholders to its side, publishing op-eds and meeting with environmental advocates. On September 12, Sierra Club’s Maine chapter hosted a virtual event with a Sprague executive, Jim Theriault, about how the port selection “needs to be considered carefully.” When I spoke to Theriault this week, he told me that Sierra Club members were asking the same question I was.
“At the end of the day, we’d be reusing an industrial site, and we’d relocate what we do to other parts of the terminal,” he said. “I’ll make myself available to anybody that wants to talk.”
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.