The Fight

Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Spotlight

A Solar Developer Strikes Back at ‘Corrupt’ Officials in Pennsylvania

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

An alleged bribe.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

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!

This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.

Go deeper inside the politics, projects, and personalities
shaping the energy transition.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Spotlight

Meta’s Bacterial Mystery Could Poison the Data Center Well

Water pollution in Wyoming has big implications for the future of data center development.

A data center and water pollution.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Did a Meta data center introduce a rare, dangerous bacteria into the sewers system of Wyoming’s capitol city? It’s an environmental pollution mystery with an answer that could decide the future of American AI infrastructure development.

Our drama begins in Cheyenne, Wyoming, where the city’s board of public utilities just wrapped up a lengthy investigation into the presence of Cupriavidus gilardii, a potentially lethal bacteria resistant to heavy metals, in the city’s wastewater treatment systems. Apparently, in February, board staff detected the contamination and shut off public access to the city’s water reuse system, a supply of treated non-potable water fed with treated wastewater and used for lawns, athletic fields, and other green spaces. Officials were worried that spraying this water could release into the environment a bacteria found to cause fatal health outcomes in immunocompromised or elderly people who are infected by it.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

How Big of a Problem Is Data Center Noise?

A conversation with Ross Marchard of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance

The Q&A subject.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Ross Marchard, executive director for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, a center-right advocacy group that focuses on what it sees are onerous policies potentially hindering responsible collection and use of tax dollars. TPA’s position on AI clearly skews pro-free market, as they’ve recently defended Anthropic from Trump administration attacks. TPA also recently took on the mantle of defending data centers from noise complaints, publishing a paper on Tuesday “debunking myths about data centers being excessively noisy.” The paper references various analyses of data centers by state legislators and local regulators to argue that claims the sector is generally noisy are false.

I asked TPA’s executive director to chat with me about why and how the organization will try to quell these fears. The conversation was really interesting so I decided to share it with you in full, sans light editing for clarity and consistency.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

The Electro-Magnetic Freakout on the Cape

And more of the week’s news around project development.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Barnstable County, Massachusetts – I have a whopper of an update on the Vineyard Wind project, which might be in operation but risks becoming fodder in the fight against offshore wind.

  • Like all offshore wind projects, Vineyard Wind has to send power to the coastline via cable. One of the three sites where these giant power lines land is Barnstable, a small shore community, where longtime residents for years have voiced concerns about electromagnetic fields or EMF.
  • Concerns about EMF are comparable to those about infrasound from data centers. We do not know whether these concerns are really rooted in legitimate health impacts, as I have written, but regardless this remains a common concern raised around large high-voltage power lines, including those for offshore wind projects.
  • On June 30, the town’s board of health heard from a group of Barnstable residents who claim to have measured EMF from the town’s wind cable. The same group, Save Greater Downes Beach, had unsuccessfully sought to stop the cables through litigation and public pressure.
  • This board of health meeting was controversial: Ahead of the meeting, the director of Sierra Club’s Massachusetts chapter wrote the board of health requesting their testimony be limited and no action be taken on the findings. “Concerns being raised about electromagnetic field exposure associated with Vineyard Wind 1’s underground export cables are not only invalid but outside of the Board of Health’s jurisdiction,” wrote chapter director Vick Mohanka, according to a copy of the letter posted to Facebook by anti-wind activist Susanne Conley.
  • This Sierra Club chapter was right to be concerned about how this meeting would affect Vineyard Wind. I watched the lengthy testimony before the board of health. Activists presented a case that the town should implore regulators with authority to deeply study the wind farm cables. They asked the board of health to back a state study on EMF and put the question before the Massachusetts permitting regulator, the Energy Facility Siting Board.
  • “We’re not asking the board to place any restrictions or limitations on the project at this time,” Gary Peters, a local medical professional and member of Save Greater Dowses Beach, told the board. “We’re asking you to put that ball in the court of EFSB.”
  • The board was receptive to this request. Board chair F.P. Lee told the group he would “take this under advisement” and said he’d talk to their legal department about it. Daniel Luczkow, the board’s vice chair, said he agreed with activists’ feelings that Barnstable residents were “guinea pigs.”
  • “It sounds like the contention is that these levels we’re measuring are much, much higher than the information given when the project was started,” Luczkow said. “We’re the only place on the planet, maybe, that actually runs these [cables] through a populated area and we have no idea what type of damage they’re causing?”
  • Should Barnstable strenuously take this issue up, I would predict it only be a matter of time before it’s also raised by organs of the federal government. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last year asked the Centers for Disease Control to study negative health impacts from precisely this infrastructure. This kind of hyperlocal squabble is often what manifests as conversation in anti-wind opposition circles, and Vineyard Wind was already causing PR headaches for the energy transition.

2. Prince William County, Virginia – Northern Virginia is officially hostile territory for data center developers, and I learned about it through a call from my mom.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow