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.
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.