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.
Senior executives at EDP, Apex, Pattern, and other large renewables companies did something remarkable in a recent court filing: They publicly criticized the administration.
Major energy developers are going all in against the Trump administration in court, in what appears to be the first time many are publicly challenging the president in spite of any potential risk of retaliation.
As I chronicled, Trump is now effectively blocking any new wind projects in the U.S., utilizing federal authority over American aerospace to stop what was once a run-of-the-mill approval process for the height of turbines through the Federal Aviation Administration. They’ve done this by using the Defense Department to gum up the interagency review process, with the Pentagon holding up bureaucratic machinations citing vague, alleged national security concerns. Earlier this month, regional renewable energy trade groups filed a lawsuit against the Pentagon and FAA seeking a judicial order akin to what they’ve already won against the Interior Department’s anti-renewables permitting freeze. The case argues Trump can’t hold these routine processes up because, well, they’re mandated by law to ultimately clear things if they meet basic specifications. It arrives as the Trump administration appeals a separate lawsuit against the Interior Department’s de facto permitting freeze, which was formally filed today.
Last week, the renewables trades filed a motion to immediately end this de facto national freeze. Attached to this motion: a murderer’s row of on-the-record statements from senior executives for large U.S. energy developers seeking to build their wind projects. I’ve honestly never seen anything like it – declarations railing against the Pentagon from top personnel for Pattern Energy, Apex Clean Energy, EDP Renewables, Triple Oak Power, Bordas Renewable Energy, Nova Clean Energy and Palmer Capital.
The declarations describe each company’s individual experiences struggling to get these routine height clearances. Adam Clark of Pattern Energy said the Pentagon’s inaction has “jeopardized committed capital, threatened project viability” and “delayed or blocked local and state permitting.” Thomas LoTuro at EDP Renewables said the military’s behavior “effectively halted” a “substantial portion of [EDP] North America’s project portfolio,” stalling some proposals for so long that it risks violating existing local road agreements for construction.
Some of these executives – such as those for Invenergy, Bordas, and Triple Oak – only describe themselves as representatives of the subsidiaries or LLCs developing individual wind projects affected by the freeze. Those filings do not make any reference by name to their parent companies. But quick background checks revealed each of these individuals holds broader development or management roles at the parent companies and I understand from conversations with individuals involved in this litigation that their statements were a significant step not taken likely.
“You are very observant,” one senior renewable energy industry insider told me when I asked about the executives’ statements.
This insider – who has firsthand knowledge about the litigation – told me the companies going on the record are largely doing so because of the extent they’re at risk. Often the height clearance for turbines is one of the final procedural steps before starting construction, and the incoming sunset of tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act has made construction start dates key to projects’ budgets. Wind development has been drastically undermined by Trump’s permitting freezes. American Clean Power has said turbine orders halved in the first half of 2025, reaching their lowest levels since the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns.
There’s also the sheer magnitude of the freeze. Before the Pentagon ruined the lives of wind developers, the Trump renewable permitting freeze was an obstacle companies could design around by avoiding wetlands, species habitat, and federal lands. It should’ve been a relief, for example, that the Trump administration dropped its legal defense of the president’s Day 1 executive order going after wind permitting. But the military’s hold on approvals had nothing to do with that and its scope reaches further than just the federal government, as height clearances are often needed for state, county, and municipal permits too.
Ultimately the Pentagon wind freeze represents an existential threat to renewable energy developers’ businesses and reputations in the investment community. Sean Stocker, head of development for Apex Clean Energy, stated in a declaration submitted in the Pentagon wind litigation that more than $133 million in project costs incurred were at risk of being lost, including over projects that had already been determined “do not pose an unacceptable risk to national security.” This has resulted in “impacts and losses” that are “not fully recoverable” even if the companies win in the litigation because of the damage to wind energy’s reputation.
“If Apex is forced to cancel projects as a result of DoD inaction, the resulting economic, reputational, and business losses could irreparably harm the company,” Stocker stated.
Since the start of Trump 2.0, wind energy developers have been skittish to publicly challenge the president in any way for fear of retribution. Trump could hypothetically make wind energy life hell in fresh new ways. Like for example, targeting energy companies critical of the administration in an ongoing crackdown on bird deaths at operational wind farms. A reasonable fear! “Companies are still risk averse and they’re afraid. The knock-on business impacts could hypothetically be worse than the loss on the wind project itself,” said the industry insider, who requested anonymity because they did not have permission to speak on the record about the litigation.
Based on the statements submitted in court, it appears energy companies are now emboldened after winning myriad legal battles against the administration via trade group campaigns and lawsuits filed by supportive Democratic attorneys general. Time will tell whether putting all their chips onto the table will work out in the end.
A representative for the groups involved in the litigation did not respond to a request for comment.
And more of the week’s top fights around development.
1. Apache County, Arizona – Renewables developers are trying to head off restrictions in a coveted region of the sun-swept Arizona desert.
2. Montgomery County, Alabama – A so-called “AI watchman” has won the GOP nomination for Alabama Public Service Commission, indicating how deeply frustrations run in red states against the nascent infrastructure buildout for artificial intelligence.
3. Goodhue County, Minnesota – The mayor of a small city at the center of a significant data center conflict abruptly resigned, indicating further municipal dominoes will fall because of the AI data center backlash.
4. Reno County, Kansas – We close this week’s Hotspots with a county rejecting a data center moratorium.
A conversation with Mark Muro, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute’s metro policy program
Today’s conversation is with Mark Muro, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute’s metro policy program. Too often I’m asked, what’s the version of a data center boom that people like? I reached out to Muro because he recently coauthored research into the ways communities and data centers can potentially work together to build more mutually beneficial and popular industry growth. The conversation wound up perfect for The Fight, so I had to include it in full.
The following Q&A was lightly edited for clarity.
What do you identify as the primary driver of the backlash we’re seeing to data center development in the United States?
They are potentially disruptive, large scale developments and also take on a talismanic quality where they stand for something. Both dimensions have really agitated people. On the one hand, often in rural communities there’s a lot of concern about energy use, price impacts, noise in some cases and so on, and for many communities these are a quality of life issue. For others, AI stands in for anxiety about jobs not coming. At a time when people are worried about jobs being displaced by AI, data centers are a convenient Other. They agitate and are focal points for a lot of concerns.
The data is pretty clear: a data center brings to a community an initial surge of construction jobs and then a quite modest level of operational jobs. A community might gain in the near-term several thousand jobs but then the long-term employment is welcome but not as large as had been advertised. Some of them can be decent jobs and we should acknowledge that.
What about tax revenue?
It can be significant but the deals are often worked out quietly. It’s hard to get a systematic take on that. A lot of that also depends on the skillfulness and aggressiveness of local public officials because all of it needs to be worked out in a deal. There are certainly tax benefits in some cases, but those are harder to pin down and seem to range.
Okay, so what is the pathway towards these projects being a more meaningful and positive long-term community investment?
That’s the right question because a data center isn’t inherently a negative for a place.
We think the need is first for communities to use the data center in its own aspirational plans. Places need to know what they want. They should be focusing on high-quality jobs, long-term employment, and in some cases even innovation gains for their local economies. Too rarely have communities taken an aspirational view.The deals are worked out on the fly, without a gameplan for the region.
Communities need to ask for more, require more, and come into these deals with their own priorities.
In some cases there have been communities that for a long period of time built up a number of data centers and felt like they gained benefits. Areas near the Columbia River in the Northwest seem to have worked with Microsoft and other companies to facilitate data center construction while also gaining quality employment and funding for schools. It is possible.
In our report we detail a number of places that have begun to put together these kinds of deals that are beneficial, often in places with a university nearby where there’s interplay on the technology front. I think in those cases, we may be beginning to see a rethinking of how these projects should go down and benefit.
Also, this year the backlash has become such a hurdle for the companies that they’re beginning to rethink how they operate. I think the jig is up for the bad old days and we’re going to see more thoughtful arrangements made in the next few years because everybody agrees, what’s been going down the past few years hasn’t been beneficial for any of the actors.
Do you see industry players picking up on a need to be more mindful of what a community needs? I’m thinking about Meta’s recent announcements around workforce training, for example.
Yes. Both for reasons of seeing what’s needed but also the need to make some concessions to really be a better neighbor. It’s forcing some really beneficial outcomes.
Workforce is one of the key aspects of how Microsoft has been far-sighted in Wisconsin, working with the state university and a community college and so on. I think hyperscalers are beginning to move in a more promising direction.
Do you think we’re still going to be having this same conversation a year from now? Things are moving so fast.
Regions are really up in arms about this. It’s become clear that in many cases they’re going to block development. So to the extent hyperscalers want to continue to build, they’re going to have to pursue a more community friendly way to do that.
I think the conversation is going to change. It’ll have to change if the industry wants to continue building capacity.