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:
Will this renewable energy powerhouse become the first state to ban renewable energy?

There’s a nascent, concerted effort to make Oklahoma the first state to ban new renewable energy projects. And it’s picking up steam.
Across the U.S., activism against wind and solar energy has only grown in intensity, power, and scope in tandem with the recent renewables boom. This is in direct contrast to hopes many in the climate movement had that these technologies would become more popular as they entered communities historically hostile to the idea of switching away from fossil fuels. If anything, grassroots angst toward the energy transition has only surged in many pockets of the country since passage of the nation’s first climate law – Inflation Reduction Act – in 2022.
Nowhere is this more true than Oklahoma, which on paper resembles a breadbasket of possibilities for the “green” economy. Oklahoma is the nation’s third largest generator of wind energy, home to a burgeoning solar energy sector, a potential hydrogen hub, and maybe even the nation’s first refinery for cobalt, a rare metal used in electric vehicles. Yet yesterday, hundreds of people flocked to Oklahoma City, filled a giant hall in the state’s capitol building to the brim, and rallied for the state’s governor Kevin Stitt to issue an executive order to stop new wind and solar energy facilities from being built.
“Welcome Oklahoma, for braving the cold out there into this very warm and receiving Capitol. And y’know what? Our warmth today was not brought to us by green energy,” Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond told the rally audience.
It’s exceedingly likely these folks won’t get an executive order any time soon. Oklahoma Republican governor, Kevin Stitt, has embraced these technologies as job creators. “Oklahoma is an oil and gas state through and through, but we also generate about 47% of our electricity from renewable sources,” he wrote on X in August. “I just don’t think the government should pick winners and losers or force us to choose between one or the other.” Weeks ago, he signed a memorandum of understanding between the state and the nation of Denmark to collaborate more on wind energy.
But the political gusts are blowing in the direction of a ban. Exhibit A: Drummond, who it’s rumored may run to replace Stitt and who at the rally pledged to work with legislators to pass a bill ending the deal with “quasi-socialist” Denmark. The rally also featured Oklahoma’s Education Secretary Ryan Walters, whose name has also been included in gubernatorial chatter.
This uprising in Oklahoma has been happening for quite some time, without much fanfare due to a persistent and pernicious news desert problem in the state (and many others). Like other states, it is becoming more commonplace for towns and counties there to face pressure to support moratoriums against developing new projects, and GOP lawmakers are also increasingly facing primaries over offering any support to wind or solar energy, or even just remaining neutral on whether projects get built. One such casualty in the last election cycle was Kevin Wallace, the GOP chair of the Appropriations and Budget Committee in the statehouse, who was dethroned by a political newcomer – Jim Shaw, who ran heavily on anti-renewables policies, including a statewide moratorium.
“It’s a groundswell,” said Pam Kingfisher, an environmental activist in northeast Oklahoma. Kingfisher is a Democrat but she has her own concerns with the environmental impacts that wind turbines could have in her community, the town of Kansas. So she’s grateful for this uprising.
“They’re attacking their own people and being very effective and I’m standing back going, ‘hey yes, take them on.’”
Suffice it to say, these activists feel emboldened by the primary wins and Trump’s election. Charity Linch, chair of the Oklahoma chapter of the Republican National Committee, told me she doesn’t believe the “pro-renewable Republican” will exist much longer in the state.
“I don’t believe that’s going to continue in Oklahoma,” Linch told me. “If they haven’t figured it out yet, they will very soon.”
Linch is the proud founder of Freedom Brigades, a grassroots network of activists with members in several states. The Freedom Brigade chapters for two counties conflicted over wind – McIntosh and Pittsburg – were instrumental in organizing the rally. Linch said Freedom Brigades also helped support some of the successful primary challengers in this past election cycle, and that her members were partially responsible for the Oklahoma GOP censuring Sen. James Lankford last year over a bipartisan border deal in Congress – causing the bill to die.
From talking to Linch, it’s clear to me that renewable developers should pay close attention to the Oklahoma uprising. So should Washington, because as talk in Congress proceeds toward changing the Inflation Reduction Act, rest assured some of these people will contact their members of Congress when the time comes. And you should expect the same from the myriad of anti-renewables activists in other states fighting solar and wind projects in their own backyards.
Getting Red In The Face
Why is this rebellion happening in Oklahoma? Well, if you ask Oklahomans, they’ll count the reasons.
Activists involved in planning the rally told me the biggest reason for the uproar was that solar and wind projects aren’t bringing the ample jobs developers and policymakers promise, making their presence in communities more difficult to stomach. Others point to environmental concerns, from the impacts these projects can have on species to the chemicals used to make them. Like Saundra Traywick, a donkey farmer who attended the rally and author of a Change.org petition supporting a state renewables ban that has more than 3,000 signatures. The petition claims wind turbines present “hazards to the health, safety, and welfare of the people.”
“They resort to calling us names instead of listening to us,” Traywick told me. “None of us wanted to get involved in any of this. We didn’t want to be involved in politics. These are farmers that are dealing with freezing temperatures,” referencing the temperature outside the rally.
There’s a serious issue of tribal opposition, given a 2020 Supreme Court ruling that found nearly half of all lands in Oklahoma fall under some form of tribal sovereignty. As Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin explained last year, this means developers may also need to get mineral rights approvals from tribal government bodies. Two weeks ago, a federal judge ordered the removal of 84 wind turbines on those grounds, stating the developer Enel Green Power failed to get adequate permission from the Osage Nation.
Some involved in this push for a renewables ban are also open about another rationale: They want to help oil and gas production, a key source of employment in the state.
“Why are we as a state being forced to fund our own demise essentially, with our federal taxpayer dollars, to prop up an industry that’s literally killing the backbone industry of our state, which is oil and gas?” Shaw said on Breitbart’s Conservative Review podcast in December.
To anyone who believes, as the vast majority of scientists say, that climate change is real and to avert catastrophe we must quickly build an energy grid that produces far fewer carbon emissions, these may all look like terrible reasons.
But if you don’t believe that climate change is real, or you believe it’s an overrated problem… renewables are just a much harder sell.
“Most of us do not believe we need to reduce our CO2 to begin with,” NeAnne Clinton, an activist fighting a large NextEra solar-plus-battery project in Garfield County, Oklahoma, told me. “We know that it’s a scam and we don’t support it. And we don’t support using our taxpayer money for something that we didn’t have a voice in.”
Cheyenne Branscum, chair of Sierra Club’s Oklahoma chapter, told me it is difficult for supporters of renewable energy to counter this insurgent populist movement against the sector. Part of the dilemma is that environmental activism itself is seen by many of the state’s most red-blooded Republicans as a “radical” act, so if climate advocates were to organize counter protests it would likely backfire. When asked how her organization and others could best deal with the anti-renewables sentiment rising in her state, she talked about education programs – not confrontation.
“We’re not going to change anything at the state capital,” Branscum told me. “All a counter rally is going to do is make them have more opportunities to make us into a meme. They’re going to have some angry picture out there with a sign and be labeled some crazy radical that doesn’t care about their community. And it is unfortunately a hurdle.”
The Sooners’ Warning Shot
The Oklahoma rebellion should be cold comfort for anyone who buys into one of the implicit political principles behind the country’s first climate law – the Inflation Reduction Act.
Whether folks in D.C. want to admit it or not, the American anti-renewables revolution is rising up as Donald Trump retakes the White House and it is going to try and make its own impact on the Inflation Reduction Act. While much ado has been made about how the overwhelming majority of monetary benefits from the IRA are supporting investments in Republican-controlled states, as veteran lobbyist Frank Maisano put it to me last year, “Businesses will support many things that they have their tentacles into and Republicans will support many things that are going on in their districts that constituents like.”
“The reality is, if you’re going to try to repeal it,” Maisano said, “you’re going to have to do it through Congress and a lot of the action in the energy transition is in Republican districts. It becomes a constituent issue.”
What if many Republican constituents simply don’t like these new investments, in spite of the promises of jobs or tax benefits? What happens if Republicans in Congress are primaried simply for allowing solar and wind to keep getting federal tax breaks?
None of this surprises Nathan Jensen, a Texas University professor specializing in resource politics, who believes Oklahoma will only be the first to face a movement for a state-wide ban on new renewables. Just look at Texas where, like Oklahoma, the energy sector has become a panacea for wind and solar energy but many GOP policymakers have turned on economic development packages for new renewables. A state-wide ban hasn’t been discussed yet, but Jensen can imagine the idea gaining traction.
Jensen said he believes the organizing on platforms like Facebook only tells part of the story. Clearly, he says, a lot of people are joining that cause because the industry’s grown large enough that people are hearing from the farm or town next to theirs about solar and wind projects. And whether climate advocates want to hear it or not, these people are not loving what they’re hearing. Solar and wind projects don’t create that many jobs after they’re built. They do create a flurry of construction, but that’s a form of labor that leaves when it’s done and is often resented by neighbors, leading to disputes over dust, noise, or water. Then there’s the tax abatements for developers, which aggrieved residents see as taxpayer dollars going to large companies without their say – precisely the message gaining traction in Oklahoma.
This means places that seem safe for renewable developers are no longer safe and companies need to be really careful about how they approach community benefits. It’s not something you can just say – you really need to deliver what you promise.
“I know there’s a lot of news about organized anti-solar, which clearly happens, but also there’s this organic opposition that happens where it’s like, ‘You’re asking for how much from our school district?’” Jensen said. “Some of it is organized Facebook groups against solar but I think there is a lot of frustration.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A conversation with the Guardrails Alliance’s Shaunna Thomas.
This week’s Q&A is with Shaunna Thomas of the Democrat-allied super PAC Guardrails Alliance, which describes itself as “not anti-technology” but supportive of AI “rules, accountability, and a government that actually represents the public.” Part of that AI accountability they’re calling for is on data centers.
After the midterms, Guardrails Alliance sent a memorandum to all House and Senate Democratic offices arguing for AI and data center accountability to be a key part of their message and plans heading into the new Congress. Described as a “playbook for how to understand and channel anxieties about AI and data centers,” the document laid out “key narratives” that they said voters who care about these issues want to see reflected and echoed by their politics. They said the push against data centers could help Democrats build more lasting political power.
I reached out and asked if Thomas could explain further what all of this means to my readers. She kindly obliged.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Let’s start with the elections. What were your takeaways when it came to what voters want to see on data centers?
I think the elections were a rebuke of the status quo on a number of fronts. We saw across the board that people are frustrated with what amounts to legalized corruption and the forcing without consent of new technology, and new infrastructure to support a technology that they didn’t ask for in ways that are harmful to their lives and the country.
What we saw in polling is that the data center backlash is one of the most bipartisan political issues of our time, driven by everything from noise pollution to rate hikes to Big Tech trying to steamroll state and local governments. Americans are sick and tired of the AI industry trying to control our lives by building data centers in our communities, which goes along with trying to control our data and who represents us in government. The AI industry was also trying to spend a lot on elections trying to control the outcome.
When we dig deeper on all that, it’s not just about elections. They’re seeing this unholy alliance between Big Tech and the Trump administration.
In the post-election analysis laid out in that memo, you explain these key narratives that you think Democrats should pick up against the tech sector. Can you explain how you developed these?
What we dug into during the primaries and the lead-up to the general election was questions in focus groups and polling with Republicans and Democrats about what was behind the frustration. Is this just about buildings they don’t want in their backyard or is this connected to AI and bigger picture concerns over who makes choices? About control? The data centers people were most opposed to were data centers specifically for AI, which was a really important indicator it was both/and.
We then started to talk to voters in Ohio and Iowa and Michigan about what they’d want to see in terms of changes, in terms of new leadership, how they would want to see this framed. What was appealing? We tested a number of frames and these key narratives are a compilation of that data. So for example, a key narrative says, The AI oligarchs and their political allies are wildly out of step with a supermajority of the public. There’s also sample messaging under it in the memo. And it’s a reflection of the sentiment and the tone and the language a lot of people used when they got into robust conversations about what they’re really concerned about or what they want to see their leaders doing differently.
Can you say more about these focus groups? And can you say more about what you saw in terms of bipartisan shared concern around not just data centers but these messages you’re bringing up?
I can tell you about some of the key findings of the focus groups we did in Michigan and Ohio and Iowa in August and September. People are generally open to the idea AI can have some benefit to their lives, and they’re open to using it personally. But everyone we talked to expressed some concern about the pace it was being developed. You can see technology having value but also see there’s no regulation in place or guardrails around the technology itself.
Most people we spoke to expressed concerns about how the technology has been affecting society and the environment — that came up a lot in data center conversations. People are also concerned about the role chatbots could have in their children’s lives, and that AI could replace teachers.
It’s also a lot of concern about and a lack of confidence in either government regulators or AI companies to properly regulate the technology. You saw more support for regulators at the state level and people deeply opposed to federal pre-emption, because they see more evidence of democracy working at the state level as opposed to the federal level.
People express mixed reviews about the specific policy solutions. What we’re seeing is people see AI as a vehicle for a small handful to amass more wealth and power. I don’t think we have had enough of a robust debate about how you deal with that problem.
So, on that point in particular, I want to drill down. What do we know about what voters want to see? What does accountability or guardrails look like to them?
First of all, there’s blanket support for federal regulations in general to deal with the way the technology is developed and deployed. We see a lot of clarity from voters about the fact they may not have a lot of confidence the federal government will step in. They want to see it.
When it comes to the economy, where there’s still broad public support is taxing billionaires and CEOs of these companies and raising the minimum wage and raising the social safety net. People’s interest in seeing that move forward has been growing in intensity.
On AI specifically, people don’t want to have a conversation about distribution of wealth without a conversation about distribution of power. They don’t want to be bribed to accept the acceleration of AI in their lives. They want to know that the power of those companies to do what they’re doing is going to be significantly limited and safety guardrails are put in place to keep us all safe from what the new technology is capable of.
I think once the safety conversation is step one. Step two is the conversation about how you distribute wealth from a technology built on other people’s labor and intellectual property.
On the concern about bribes, we’ve been reporting on Trump’s call for cash payments to communities to accept data centers. Are you telling me proposals like that might not be a good political strategy?
It was precisely because Trump was talking about it that we heard it brought up in focus groups, and how it was described was that voters may get some short term incentive to accept a technology they don’t trust is designed to help them fundamentally. They believe it is being deployed to more deeply consolidate power and wealth. And they don’t want that. When the president or a big AI company says they agree with it, it’ll have an impact on how the idea is perceived.
It has to also be coupled with a set of policies that are putting democratic governance over the technology itself before its deployment. People want to see technology isn’t going to continue to advance without guardrails.
Distinct from Trump’s data center dividend, some policymakers have suggested a “data dividend” — a distribution of wealth from the usage of AI products because they’re using people’s data. That’s more of what we’re talking about.
What do we know about what the public wants to see regarding data centers?
It’s important we recognize local leaders have had demands driven by their local communities. But as a structural matter, the public sees slowing down data centers as a mechanism for slowing down the project of AI generally. It remains an open question about how you do that.
There are federal policymakers working on a set of solutions that could create more space for people at the local level to be in the driver’s seat on when, how, or if data centers get built. I think we’ll see more proposals on that front.
So where do you think this conversation goes next?
I would expect the public to continue to make demands from policymakers and I would expect the Big Tech sector to continue down the path they’re going, which is, we were always Democrats and pro-regulation all the time. This will look like policies resembling always being okay with regulation but actually avoid putting checks on their power. And that’ll mean the public has even more at stake and the government has an even bigger obligation to make sure AI is deployed for public benefit as opposed to for the profits of a few companies and CEOs.
Plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.
1. New York City — We have a new must-watch offshore wind lawsuit with potential implications for the entire sector — and this time, it’s from lobstermen seeking damages.
2. Hinds County, Mississippi — The largest proposed solar farm in Mississippi is moving forward after an appeals court rejected arguments from aggrieved local residents that it had been improperly approved.
3. Dakota County, Minnesota — I’m scrutinizing a lawsuit against a data center developer centering on allegedly improper permitting of its cooling technology.
4. Polk County, Florida — Will the Sunshine State remain a challenging place for data centers after Ron DeSantis? A test case could reveal the future quite quickly.
Trump’s “data center dividend” appears to have backfired. Our latest poll results help explain why.
This year’s midterm elections called into question the efficacy of a push to pay local residents directly in exchange for building data centers.
Before the elections, I profiled the campaign for politicians to embrace the data center “dividend,” a policy idea modeled off Alaska’s Permanent Fund, which doles out checks to residents from profits off state oil, gas and mineral royalties. The Bitcoin Policy Institute, a tech policy think tank, was one of the first to trumpet the concept, but it was quickly taken up by President Donald Trump, who started raising it in speeches and on social media. “If companies want to make their Data Centers popular, pay the community, and/or individuals within the community, a ‘dividend,’” Trump posted to Truth Social on October 21.
Clearly the idea didn’t stop the bleeding. Democrats trounced Trump’s party in the midterms on a message that was heavy on attacks against data centers. But that still doesn’t explain why direct payments did so little to move the American public.
A Heatmap Pro poll conducted in early-to-mid October, right before the midterm elections, gives us an answer. As part of a broader survey of 2,500 registered voters, we asked about the idea — what we believe to be the first independent poll on direct payments for data centers by a news organization. We asked respondents whether there was a specific dollar amount they’d accept as a one-time cash payment in exchange for a data center being built near them. We also gave them the option to say no amount of money was sufficient.
Shockingly, a majority of people surveyed said they’d reject the data center cash payment in any amount. Among those who said they’d actually take the money, the median figure was around $10,000. The average was a whopping $146,000, skewed by the number of people who wrote $999,999, the maximum allowed by the survey.
This tracks what we’re seeing play out in communities where developers have tried this idea. In Hazle Township, Pennsylvania, NorthPoint — developer of an Amazon-linked data center project — proposed $10,000 cash payments to residents, no catch. Residents compared it to a bribe. In De Soto, Kansas, data center developer Digital Realty is offering annual $1,000 tax credits for a decade to neighbors of its proposed data center project. That proposal has been reportedly met with mixed reviews, too.
Clearly one of the problems here is that data centers not only face public perception issues around their local impacts, but are also more broadly associated with systemic inequality in the U.S. economy. The same Heatmap Pro survey found that a majority of voters believed AI companies have more control over the government than the oil and gas industry, pharmaceutical companies, banks, or other large industries.
Shaunna Thomas, executive director of Democratic-allied super PAC Guardrails Alliance, told me that during the campaign season they found that residents often associated the dividends with bribes, and that the president’s support for direct payments ultimately fed into voter sentiments about the tech sector controlling the government and society.
“People don’t want to have a conversation about distribution of wealth disconnected from a conversation about distribution of power,” Thomas said. “Specifically because Trump was saying that, we started hearing from voters in focus groups that it didn’t work for them. They’re hearing it as a bribe. They’re hearing they may get some sort of short-term economic or financial incentive to accept a technology they don’t trust is designed to help them.”
The Heatmap Pro survey results about cash payments ultimately reveal how emotionally driven the data center debate has become, said Sam Lyman of the Bitcoin Policy Institute. I asked Lyman to respond to the results because I thought they called into question the political effectiveness of the proposal we’d discussed months earlier. Lyman stipulated that he thinks the one-time payment nature of the question may have undermined the results, saying he prefers the dividends be paid out “in perpetuity.” But he acknowledged they also show “there’s still a lot of education to be done on data centers, what they do, and the impacts they have on the places where they’re built.”
“I think there’s a lot of Americans out there who have legitimate concerns that the future economy doesn’t include them. That’s something that needs to be addressed,” said Lyman, who said he laid part of the blame on what he called “irresponsible rhetoric” from AI industry executives about their technology’s impacts on society. “With data center dividends, the idea behind this policy is to help Americans understand the AI economy includes them. To give them a very material stake in that economy as it gets built out, especially in the rural communities that make data centers possible in the first place.”