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.
Noise ordinances won’t necessarily stop a multi-resonant whine from permeating the area.
What did you do for Earth Day this year? I spent mine visiting a notoriously loud artificial intelligence campus in Virginia’s Data Center Alley. The experience brought home to me just how big a problem noise can be for the communities adjacent to these tech campuses – and how much further local officials have to go in learning how to deal with them.
The morning of April 22, I jumped into a Toyota Highlander and drove it out to the Vantage VA2 data center campus in Sterling, Virginia, smack dab in the middle of a large residential community. The sensation when I got out of the car was unignorable – imagine an all-encompassing, monotonous whoosh accompanied by a low rumble you can feel in your body. It sounds like a jet engine that never stops running or a household vacuum amplified to 11 running at all hours. It was rainy the day I visited and planes from nearby Dulles International Airport were soaring overhead, but neither sound could remotely eclipse the thudding, multi-resonant hum.
If you want to hear the sound for yourself, this video accurately sums it up.
After parking nearby I walked to one of the residential enclaves adjacent to VA2. One resident of a home across the street, who declined to give me her name, said she moved there before the project was completed. When asked how she felt about the noise, she told me, “It’s not as bad as it could be on the other side [of the data center], where all the equipment is.” (While the sound does get louder on the other side, I could clearly hear VA2 from her driveway.)
VA2’s noise has been causing problems for months, as documented by numerous social media posts, local news clips, and a feature published in Politico. It’s doubtful many of those living near the data center wanted it there. The project was built quite quickly – so quickly that Google Earth still shows undeveloped woodlands on the site. Per public filings, Vantage first proposed the facility in 2022 under the county’s fast-track commercial incentive program, an expedited permitting process for specific preferred industries. It was under construction as recently as October 2024, according to images captured by Google Street View.
Noise is one of the most common issues associated with data centers. At least a third of all conflicts over data centers are over noise complaints, and noise is the number one reason for opposition in cases where projects were ultimately canceled, according to Heatmap Pro data.
This issue goes back almost a decade. In 2019, residents of the Phoenix ex-urb Chandler, Arizona, became irate after a loud monotonous hmmmm began emanating from a CyrusOne data center. In that case, CyrusOne traced the noise back to chilling fans, and the company reduced the sound with muffling devices.
Chandler wound up adopting a new ordinance in 2023 requiring sound mitigation measures to prevent companies from exceeding certain ambient noise levels in the surrounding areas. That did nothing to improve the mood of the people who live there, however. Now Chandler, once known as a potential data center development hub, is now firmly in the anti- camp. The city council unanimously rejected a proposed $2.5 billion data center campus in December over noise concerns, despite an expensive lobbying push backed by former Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema.
As data centers spread across the U.S., noise is becoming an ever-more-common complaint. You can hear the familiar hum at a DataOne data center project in Vineland, New Jersey. DataOne told us they “understand concerns about ambient noise in the area” and are operating within the limits of local noise ordinances.
The hum is also in Dowegiac, Michigan, where people living nearby are calling their new Hyperscale Data facility a “noise trap,” with little explanation to date for the issue. Hyperscale Data did not respond to a request for comment.
And the hum is in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, where the sound from a new Microsoft data center campus rises above any din from rain. The hyperscaling giant is doing more to mitigate the issue than I’m used to seeing from data center developers, however.
On April 15, the company published an update on its own internal investigations into noise complaints. “Although the facility noise levels meet the requirements set by local ordinance, we take this feedback seriously and understand the impact this has had on our neighbors,” the update read. “We anticipated that our systems would need adjustments and create some noise as part of the datacenter startup, but we did not expect the tonal quality of the sound to travel as far as it has.”
To address the noise, Microsoft said it was “manually adjusting the cooling fans” to reduce noise, and that “we expect this change to address community concerns about the tonal humming.” On top of that, the company said it will install “additional sound reduction components” to “provide even further reductions in measured sound levels.” A Microsoft spokesperson told me in an email: “We’ve identified the source of the noise concerns and have implemented changes to significantly reduce sound from our facility.”
It isn’t cooling fans causing the noise at Vantage’s VA2 in Virginia, however. The sound, according to media reports, is coming from gas turbines powering the data center.
VA2 is one of the first in Virginia to function entirely off-grid, a design companies are adopting in order to avoid lengthy grid connection processes. Company spokesman Mark Freeman told me the facility is “fully compliant with all local noise ordinances, and this has been verified by third-party sound studies.”
“Additionally, in line with our commitment, we are actively working with third-party engineers to explore additional sound mitigation options,” Freeman continued. Freeman said “Our goal is to further reduce noise levels where possible and continue to foster a positive environment for everyone.”
Here’s the thing, though: I visited the Vantage campus after initially hearing from the company, and it was loud. Very loud.
I did not bring a decibel meter with me, so I cannot know whether they were operating within legal limits that day. What I do know is that noise ordinances struggle to properly capture sounds in multiple frequency ranges, making high and low frequencies challenging to regulate, according to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, a bipartisan non-profit think tank. Officials representing Loudon County, where VA2 is located, have acknowledged that the local ordinance may need to change in order to address the most distressing frequencies from the data center campus.
“We can change the zoning ordinance and noise ordinance,” Loudon County supervisor Mike Turner told local TV station WUSA9 last week. “Noise can be mitigated. I just don’t believe that the noise problem cannot be solved.”
I wrote Freeman, the Vantage spokesman, to tell him I had visited the VA2 campus and found the noise to be “quite foul.” He replied soon after, telling me that Vantage is going “above and beyond what is required in order to address concerns from nearby residents.” The company is using “targeted enhancements to turbine-related equipment such as dampening equipment, enclosure inlets and enclosure exhausts.” These measures “represent meaningful progress and will help us better evaluate the effectiveness of the broader solutions under consideration.” Freeman also said the company is “actively assessing additional options” focused on “targeted frequency ranges.”
As we continue to track local regulation of data centers, I’m we’ll see many more cases like VA2, in which obtrusive sound prompts forms of regulation we may have never seen before.
Or, people will just hear these noises and say no to more data centers.
Plus more of the week’s biggest project development fights.
New Jersey – Crucial transmission for future offshore wind energy in New Jersey is scrapped for now.
Montgomery County, Alabama – A statewide solar farm ban is dead for now after being blocked by lawmakers who had already reduced its scope.
Doña Ana County, New Mexico – The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission wants to move faster on data center power infrastructure, but at least one energy project for a major hyperscaler is trapped in internal conflicts.
Hawkins County, Tennessee – A local free-market nonprofit is suing this county in federal court to argue data center bans are unconstitutional.
Mingo County, West Virginia – Speaking of federal data center cases, West Virginia regulators will now be forced to testify in the legal challenge against a large hyperscaler in the heart of coal country.
Will County, Illinois – This county reversed several solar project rejections, but it didn’t do so happily.
King County, Washington – Seattle might be the next major city to ban data centers.
Chatting with the Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition’s Evan Vaughan.
This week’s conversation is with Evan Vaughan, executive director of the Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition. The trade group is at the center of things right now, representing many of the 13 states in the PJM Interconnection region, including power-hungry Virginia. MAREC reached out to me so we could talk about how it sees various energy trends, from the rise of a new transmission build-out to the resilience of renewable energy in the Trump 2.0 era.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So where does your membership stand as the Inflation Reduction Act starts to fade into the distance?
The momentum we’ve seen coming out of the Inflation Reduction Act has largely kept pace up until this point. We’re entering into a little bit of unknown territory going forward given that tax credits are phasing out their primary eligibility by July, and we have some significant PJM milestones coming up, including the first post-transition cluster study happening with allocations due in April. In some ways, that first post-transition cluster is going to be really indicative of what direction we see the future energy mix shaping up like in PJM going forward. It’s an interesting time to have this conversation because we’re at such an inflection point.
How much is local siting conflict holding up development?
Local siting challenges are a big problem for getting new generation onto the grid, and it’s not just a wind and solar issue. It’s any generation source. It often gets couched as a wind and solar issue because that’s been the vast majority of the megawatts coming out of the PJM queue over the last five years or so. Even with that being said, there’s been local opposition with the Chesterfield gas plant in Virginia, too.
If you watch what PJM says about the state of their queue, they rightly point out that they’ve processed a number of queue applications, almost cleared out the backlog from their queue transition, and point out supply chain and siting issues for projects once they’ve exited the queue.
The PJM queue is a conveyor belt heading into a volcano. Projects, when they get to the end, they either encounter issues like local denials of their permits, or supply chain issues, or increasingly, interconnection cost challenges, in which case they fall into the volcano. Of those three issues, local siting is the one most readily apparent today.
I still think it’s a sleeper issue for politicians and the general public because there’s confusion over who holds the authority over our electricity generation future. Obviously PJM holds a lot of levers, and the states have a lot of power, and federal policy matters. But in the end, whether there’s enough generation to meet that demand comes down to thousands of local officials across PJM’s 13 states making enough “yes” decisions to make sure we have enough megawatts in place to keep the lights on.
Last week I wrote a feature on transmission development in the PJM region, the need for more wires on the grid, and conflicts over those projects. From your vantage point, how are these conflicts going to be resolved? Is it with local decision-making? Or does some of this interstate tension need to be fixed in other ways?
It’s not the local governments that are the bad guys here. It’s that they have a decision-making framework mismatch from what they care about – valid local issues – and the electricity supply-demand balance. If the lights go off or bills continue to rise and someone in the political realm loses their job, the average voter isn’t going to blame the local government. They’ll blame the state and broader government for these issues.
There’s a real problem with the storytelling aspect of transmission. I’m really optimistic as states come together around FERC’s order 1920, which is finally getting to the implementation stage, as the PJM region will be the first to file a complete planning and cost-allocation filing with the commission. The vision of 1920 is to create more state input with how lines are planned. That’ll hopefully provide some relief to the transmission controversies.
Do you think that whack-a-mole approach is why we’re seeing the level of tension we are on the ground over transmission?
Yes.
Well, that’s a simple answer.
I can elaborate. Essentially, the way transmission is planned is that reliability faults pop up on the system, PJM’s engineers identify faults, and then they identify the kinds of upgrades needed to address faults. It’s a backwards-looking process. It’s not tangible to an everyday person.
Starting from where we want to go in terms of state needs for energy generation and then asking people for input is a much better way to get public buy-in and reduce opposition.
What is the biggest issue that’s top of mind for MAREC?
I worry that for all the activity happening at the state level, the PJM level, and the federal level to try and address the supply-demand imbalance on the grid, it is mostly not adding up to a picture resulting in more generation coming online at the scale we need.
Many of the solutions proposed tend to miss some of the fundamental needs of businesses to draw them to invest in a new generation resource. Many of the solutions being worked on at the states and PJM level are trying to address an urgent near-term need, but what we see is all the changes are actually being disruptive in and of themselves.
What in this moment gives you hope? What makes you optimistic about the future?
I think we are still seeing a huge amount of enthusiasm from our member companies to invest in the PJM region, even with all the headwinds we have. It speaks to a fundamental value that our resources – wind, solar and storage – provide to the grid.