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:
Rockland Solar accuses East Fairfield, Pennsylvania, of “municipal extortion.”

A solar developer is accusing a Pennsylvania town of requesting a $150 million bribe to get its permits, calling it “municipal extortion.”
Rockland Solar – a subsidiary of utility-scale solar developer Birch Creek – filed a federal lawsuit last week accusing officials in the northern Pennsylvania township of East Fairfield of intentionally moving the goalposts for getting permits to build over the span of multiple years. Rockland’s attorneys in the litigation describe the four officials controlling the township’s board of supervisors as engaging in “corrupt” behavior to deny the project, “ultimately culminating in the solicitation of a bride of more than $150,000,000” in exchange for approval of its application to develop land in the township.
The federal complaint scans as a horror story in solar development. Applications for Rockland Solar’s project were first filed in 2021 and granted approval from the township’s zoning officials in 2022, per the company’s legal complaint. But things seem to have gone south when Rockland Solar sought approval of its first land use application from the town, as replies to emails from town officials became scattershot and sporadic.
In August 2024, per the lawsuit, East Fairfield officials scheduled a crucial public meeting to decide whether to approve the application without notifying Rockland Solar itself, which the company claims was an intentional move “in corrupt and underhanded bad faith” meant “to consider, and then deny” the application “without providing due process.” According to the lawsuit, one of the reasons for the denial was that the project was located within the township – despite it already being approved by zoning officials.
Rockland Solar then took the town to Pennsylvania claims court over the decision because it was reached after a statutory deadline, according to the lawsuit. Amidst this legal fight, the company submitted a second application to build the project – making what the company says were many size and setback changes intended to address the reasons for the apparent denial. East Fairfield ultimately denied the project again. But the developer kept trying, negotiating in apparent good faith with the town’s lawyers to try and reach an agreement.
Then came the alleged request for a bribe. Per a letter cited in the legal complaint, officials asked the developer to pay the town annual payments every year the project was operating – starting at $5,000 and then increasing 25% “every year for the life of the facility,” and that land owners bordering the property would also need to be “compensated 10% of their current property value.” Rockland Solar’s attorneys calculated the annual payments alone to total at least $3 million in the thirtieth year of the project and $30 million a decade later.
Altogether, Rockland Solar’s attorneys landed on the whopping $150 million figure, stipulating that this figure doesn’t include the payments to neighboring property owners. The company argues that this “solicitation of money by a township commissioner to a developer” in exchange for “favorable treatment of a land use application” violated the state bribery statute.
I’ve seen a lot of conflict writing The Fight – including lots of lawsuits filed by developers and residents alike – but I’d never seen an escalation this profound. Normally, suing the town you’re building a project in is a bad idea because it can spoil the well of public trust. I can’t help but think this maneuver was a last resort for Rockland Solar.
It’s also quite rare to get an inside look at the negotiations between a developer and a town. We’re used to seeing community benefit agreements and compacts come and go and I’ve told you how those deals have mixed results. Rockland Solar is now a case study in perhaps one of the worst ways those talks can end up.
I reached out to Rockland Solar’s attorneys, as well as Birch Creek, but failed to hear back. I also tried to reach officials in East Fairfield to hear their take on these extraordinary claims, but no dice. Here’s hoping that writing this leads to them reaching out as well, because this is fascinating and I want to learn more for all of you!
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 chat with Colette Lamontagne, senior director for electric power at Ceres.
This week’s conversation is with Colette Lamontagne, senior director for electric power at the sustainability finance advocacy group Ceres. Her team just released a shareholder engagement guide for the utility space around data center development. I’ve been wondering when the ESG crowd would enter into the AI infrastructure fray, so I asked if I could chat with Colette about what the guide could teach my lovely readers and whether the data center backlash portends a new wave of boardroom fights between electric companies and institutional investors.
Our conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
What is the big message of this guide? If you were to talk about this over a coffee, what would be the topline takeaway?
These data centers are coming, but they can be done right. They don’t have to be done in a way that negatively impacts energy, water, and communities, and we need to slow down just enough to be able to do it right.
It’s not a guide about what data centers should do — it's a guide on the risks to the electric power sector. The biggest risk is the magnitude of power needed and the timing — how quickly it’s needed. Because of that, the traditional process for electric utilities can’t keep pace. It’s all regulated. There’s a lot of steps they have to go through to build new transmission infrastructure and new generation. If the grid connected companies can’t keep up the pace, data centers will just build their own generation. And the biggest problem with that? You have all these resources not shared by the users.
Do you think data centers are going to create a new wave of ESG-based investor advocacy?
I haven’t thought about it as a new age for ESG, but that’s a good point. We are moving beyond asking companies about targets and to create transition plans. Now we’re looking at how to accelerate solutions for climate impacts. I do think there’s a new age related to that.
When it comes to data centers, the questions aren't about utilities and their targets, but instead how they’ll meet this need so they don’t go back to old coal plants or [build] new [behind the meter] plants not used by the grid.
Should we anticipate some kind of new shareholder advocacy wave around how integrated utilities and power companies address or mitigate the impacts of the data center boom on meeting their resource plans, especially decisions made as a result of shareholder advocacy on climate?
If a data center comes to a utility and says they need 100 megawatts of power and the utility chooses to serve that with coal or gas instead of new renewables, it will impact their clean energy goals. If they say they signed a power purchase agreement and give all these renewable resources to a data center, that’s not new — you’re still impacting your clean energy goals because then you’re taking the renewables away from other customers. You have to build something else for those other customers. What are you building instead?
How they think about their long-term resource plans is really important. These generation sources will be around for a very long time. In most cases, renewable energy is cheaper to build. Gas plants require a four- or five-year wait for turbines. So not only is it better for the environment but better for business to get these renewables built.
I’ve written a lot about data center water use. The guide goes into the energy sector’s water use impacts from this increased power demand from data centers; specifically, it says investors should consider asking utilities to conduct new comprehensive water risk assessments around it. Can you help my readers and I better understand what this kind of assessment is and why companies should consider doing this?
Different types of electric generation facilities use different amounts of water. Some of it is withdrawn and put back. Some of it is withdrawn and consumed. Those matter. In cases when water is drawn and put back, the temperature goes up — that’s impacting the environment.
It’s an interesting dichotomy. The new technologies that use air cooling use less water, but they use more energy. Then you have to think about what electricity you’re using and how much water that electricity is using. It’s the life-cycle impacts.
Is there any kind of risk for investors or energy companies associated with the data center sector, given its political challenges?
Well, utilities usually get the short end of the straw. They always get blamed for everything. I say that with a laugh because I used to work for a utility.
Some of these companies have an obligation to serve. If someone comes to them and says they need power, they are required to provide it. However, they can protect themselves and other ratepayers. If the utility builds a whole generation plant and all this transmission infrastructure to serve one data center, and then the data center gets canceled, yeah that’s a risk — not to the bottom line of the utility but to their reputation.
Plus more on this week’s biggest development fights.
1. Washtenaw County, Michigan — The Mitten State made itself the center of the data center backlash this week, as multiple AI skeptics won key Democratic congressional primaries. Yet the most significant election result wasn’t a primary vote, but rather a quiet referendum in a small town outside Ann Arbor.
2. Travis County, Texas — I’ve been getting a lot of texts from sources about Texas Governor Greg Abbott issuing a stop to data center permitting. Let’s get into what really is happening here.
3. Jefferson County, Missouri — Data center opposition can win a Republican political primary, too, as demonstrated this week in this rural pocket of the Show-Me State.
4. Santa Clara County, California — We conclude this week’s Hotspots with a warning about the dire political straits of battery storage technology.
The agency is reportedly considering a land swap that would allow AI infrastructure in one of northern Virginia’s largest green spaces.
A national park site and Civil War conflict area in Virginia is now a battleground in the fight over data center development on federal real estate — and Congress is starting to get involved.
On July 23, the Prince William Times reported that Trump’s National Park Service is “considering a land swap” to allow “at least four data centers” on land within the boundaries of Prince William Forest Park in northern Virginia, one of the largest green spaces in the Washington D.C. metro area and a flashpoint during the Civil War. Since then, my colleagues and I have confirmed based on interviews with sources familiar with the plan, public lobbying disclosures, and previously unreported correspondence from Congress to the Park Service that, indeed, there has been a concerted behind-the-scenes effort to make this swap happen, going back more than a year. Many of those concerned about the idea of this exchange told me they’ve been unable to get clear answers from the Park Service on the likelihood of the swap.
Here’s what we do know: A data center development company, Highland Digital, under an LLC registered by their legal counsel, has sought permission from Prince William County to build a large tech infrastructure complex next to the park, at a site other companies have sought to rezone for that purpose since at least 2022. Though the land is within the park’s boundaries, it is not actually owned by the park; it was held by a private entity before the site was established, enabling it to be used for development through a quirk in public land use law colloquially known as “inholding.”
Meanwhile, the data center backlash has made siting new projects in Northern Virginia increasingly difficult. In Prince William County specifically, supervisors rejected a large data center project near Dulles Airport last month. The sort of land Highland Digital has access to would be challenging to develop in this political environment, given that county planning office staff said it also included wetlands and streams that made permitting difficult.
So as Highland Digital struggled to get permission, it came up with a Plan B, according to two local park conservation advocates familiar with the project’s progress: It could swap some of the land in the park with other parcels close by owned by the Park Service without as much ecological sensitivity. The company retained a lobbyist, Jeff Small, who was a senior adviser to the Interior Department under the first Trump administration and last year publicly boasted of close ties to the White House (which distanced itself from him in response). Small lobbied the National Park Service and Interior Department for a land exchange on Highland Digital’s behalf starting in May 2025 through the first quarter of this year, according to federal lobbying disclosures.
Around this time, Ashley Studholme, executive director of the Prince William Conservation Alliance, first learned about the land swap proposal. Studholme told me Highland Digital CEO Peter Batten proposed the idea to the park’s superintendent George Liffert in a meeting the three had that month with Small in attendance. Highland Digital provided Studholme and Liffert with a map she shared with me outlining different parcels that would be involved. Studholme said that afterwards, nearly identical parcel delineations were then added to an official National Park Service GIS map online. This meeting and map change assertion were first reported by the Prince William Times.
Kyle Hart, a senior program manager for the National Parks Conservation Association, told me his organization has had “loose discussions” with Park Service staff about the land swap, which he described as “a newer thing” that “we know has been proposed.”
In response to my request for comment, NPS sent the following statement attributed to an unnamed spokesperson: “The National Park Service preserves the historic, cultural and natural integrity of national parks, including Prince William Forest Park. The NPS does not regulate private land use outside park boundaries or comment on speculative uses.”
On paper, Hart told me, the swap has some upsides for NPS. The Park Service would get more land in the deal than Highland Digital would acquire. It could also permanently protect sensitive resources. But the cumulative impact of the exchange, he said, is unambiguously in Highland Digital’s favor.
“The developer comes out ahead,” he told me. “You combine that with another 100 or so acres [they hold] that is direct road frontage, and you have land primed for development without any of the hiccups of pesky streams and so forth. And they’d be doing this to expedite a data center within their borders directly adjacent to the land they’re protecting.”
In mid-July, before the Prince William Times story published, staff for Representative Eugene Vindman — the Democratic congressman whose district includes the park — contacted the Park Service requesting “reports of a potential exchange or transfer of land within Prince William Forest Park. The inquiry asked for information on deed ownership as well as any legal authority for the Park Service to exchange land with a private corporation for development without congressional approval.
Vindman’s staff provided their request to me this week, informing me they never heard back.
“I’m very concerned about the proposed data center development in and near Prince William Forest Park,” Vindman said in a statement his office provided. “I have been clear that data centers should not be built near parks, schools, or residential communities, and I’ll continue to fight for our community on this issue.”
Very little about Highland Digital or its data center plans is available online, while Data Center Dynamics, a trade publication, has reported that details about the data center are “sparse.” A public meeting to discuss the project planned for the parcel the company currently owns was scheduled for May, but was then canceled after the developer rescinded a permitting application with Prince William County without a stated reason.
Highland Digital did not respond to requests for comment. Neither did representatives from Jeff Small’s firm, 76 Group, who was registered to lobby for the developer on behalf of EIS Solutions, the firm’s name before it rebranded in 2021. Small’s contact information is not public and I was unable to reach him for this story.
With reporting by Matthew Zeitlin.