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:
Almost half of developers believe it is “somewhat or significantly harder to do” projects on farmland, despite the clear advantages that kind of property has for harnessing solar power.

The solar energy industry has a big farm problem cropping up. And if it isn’t careful, it’ll be dealing with it for years to come.
Researchers at SI2, an independent research arm of the Solar Energy Industries Association, released a study of farm workers and solar developers this morning that said almost half of all developers believe it is “somewhat or significantly harder to do” projects on farmland, despite the clear advantages that kind of property has for harnessing solar power.
Unveiled in conjunction with RE+, the largest renewable energy conference in the U.S., the federally-funded research includes a warning sign that permitting is far and away the single largest impediment for solar developers trying to build projects on farmland. If this trend continues or metastasizes into a national movement, it could indefinitely lock developers out from some of the nation’s best land for generating carbon-free electricity.
“If a significant minority opposes and perhaps leads to additional moratoria, [developers] will lose a foot in the door for any future projects,” Shawn Rumery, SI2’s senior program director and the survey lead, told me. “They may not have access to that community any more because that moratoria is in place.”
SI2’s research comes on the heels of similar findings from Heatmap Pro. A poll conducted for the platform last month found 70% of respondents who had more than 50 acres of property — i.e. the kinds of large landowners sought after by energy developers — are concerned that renewable energy “takes up farmland,” by far the greatest objection among that cohort.
Good farmland is theoretically perfect for building solar farms. What could be better for powering homes than the same strong sunlight that helps grow fields of yummy corn, beans and vegetables? And there’s a clear financial incentive for farmers to get in on the solar industry, not just because of the potential cash in letting developers use their acres but also the longer-term risks climate change and extreme weather can pose to agriculture writ large.
But not all farmers are warming up to solar power, leading towns and counties across the country to enact moratoria restricting or banning solar and wind development on and near “prime farmland.” Meanwhile at the federal level, Republicans and Democrats alike are voicing concern about taking farmland for crop production to generate renewable energy.
Seeking to best understand this phenomena, SI2 put out a call out for ag industry representatives and solar developers to tell them how they feel about these two industries co-mingling. They received 355 responses of varying detail over roughly three months earlier this year, including 163 responses from agriculture workers, 170 from solar developers as well as almost two dozen individuals in the utility sector.
A key hurdle to development, per the survey, is local opposition in farm communities. SI2’s publicity announcement for the research focuses on a hopeful statistic: up to 70% of farmers surveyed said they were “open to large-scale solar.” But for many, that was only under certain conditions that allow for dual usage of the land or agrivoltaics. In other words, they’d want to be able to keep raising livestock, a practice known as solar grazing, or planting crops unimpeded by the solar panels.
The remaining percentage of farmers surveyed “consistently opposed large-scale solar under any condition,” the survey found.
“Some of the messages we got were over my dead body,” Rumery said.
Meanwhile a “non-trivial” number of solar developers reported being unwilling or disinterested in adopting the solar-ag overlap that farmers want due to the increased cost, Rumery said. While some companies expect large portions of their business to be on farmland in the future, and many who responded to the survey expect to use agrivoltaic designs, Rumery voiced concern at the percentage of companies unwilling to integrate simultaneous agrarian activities into their planning.
In fact, Rumery said some developers’ reticence is part of what drove him and his colleagues to release the survey while at RE+.
As we discussed last week, failing to address the concerns of local communities can lead to unintended consequences with industry-wide ramifications. Rumery said developers trying to build on farmland should consider adopting dual-use strategies and focus on community engagement and education to avoid triggering future moratoria.
“One of the open-ended responses that best encapsulated the problem was a developer who said until the cost of permitting is so high that it forces us to do this, we’re going to continue to develop projects as they are,” he said. “That’s a cold way to look at it.”
Meanwhile, who is driving opposition to solar and other projects on farmland? Are many small farm owners in rural communities really against renewables? Is the fossil fuel lobby colluding with Big Ag? Could building these projects on fertile soil really impede future prospects at crop yields?
These are big questions we’ll be tackling in far more depth in next week’s edition of The Fight. Trust me, the answers will surprise 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.
Talking with Leah Qusba, the CEO of GoodPower.
This week’s conversation is with Leah Qusba, CEO of GoodPower, which recently released a survey experiment you need to read. Conducted with Data for Progress, the project, published Monday, takes a unique approach to asking people why they opposed data centers for artificial intelligence and whether constructing renewable energy instead of gas power moves the needle at all in their support for AI infrastructure near them. Instead of just asking polling questions, they posed various hypothetical project designs to people — and the results were eye-popping. Turning to solar instead of gas? Might not be a panacea for gaining approval at the local level. Protecting electricity rates from going sky-high? Now that’s a way to get buy-in.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Before we jump into the survey, is the data center boom changing the trajectory for renewable energy development in the U.S.?
If you look back over the last decade and a half, the largest global procurer of decarbonized electricity has been the Big Tech industry. I think we’re still seeing the trendlines of that today. The speed and scale of data center development is driving a lot of incremental clean energy growth.
I think we’re really at a crossroads right now because of the speed to meet rising demand and because, as people are scrambling to find electrons, commitments previously around purchasing and procuring decarbonized electricity have slid a little bit. We’ve seen proposals over the last six months or so have roughly doubled for combined cycle gas. We’re at this crossroads: Are we going to leverage this moment to drive incremental clean and protect ratepayers in the process? That’s the only way we’re going to be able to build this infrastructure.
Or are we going to go another path where we’re locking in decades of combined cycle gas?
I think voters across the political spectrum think this is a very important issue, and people are thinking about this as we move closer to November.
Walk my readers through the survey experiment you ran with Data for Progress.
The impetus was that we wanted to demonstrate to any stakeholder in the world — a data center developer, a household concerned with their rising electricity bills, policymakers trying to meet this new energy moment — what Americans want, which is guarantees from data centers that their electric bills won’t increase. They want strong electricity grid upgrades. They want home energy upgrades like rooftop solar, heat pumps, storage systems, or battery walls.
We wanted to make the case. We’ve seen surveys recently that if you say you’ll power them with renewable energy, favorability will increase. We wanted to go a step further and set up an experiment to see the difference between what people say they’ll do and what they’ll actually do. Often there’s a difference when they’re faced with a real-life situation. Even when renewable energy support is high — even Republicans favor large-scale solar — then why do we have NIMBYism? Why do we have public opposition? Why are projects being phased out or canceled entirely because of protests? That’s because of a gap between what people say they’ll do and what they’ll actually do.
The first part of the experiment was a typical poll asking people how they felt and measuring what they said they would do. What people indicated was similar to other polls circulated widely and picked up by the press, that when you say a data center is powered by solar, people say they’ll be more favorable. But then we put them in a setting where we told them a data center in their community was going to be powered by either gas or renewables, and we had other treatment conditions that would be manipulated. We told them, for example, that there would be a rate-binding guarantee, that 100% of their costs would be paid for by the data center and their electricity rates would not go up. We also gave them conditions where they’d get residential solutions.
When we compared what people said they would do with what they actually would do, what we found was pretty definitive. Really, Americans indicated a strong preference that data center developers guarantee stable electricity rates or provide them with meaningful residential or community benefits. Those are really the only two things in a real-life situation that moved support for data centers.
What we didn’t see, actually, is that renewable energy powering the data centers alone was enough. It didn’t have enough statistical significance to improve data centers’ support on its own.
Now, connecting the solar to stable electricity rates or ratepayer protections, that’s helpful. Could we do that? Absolutely, and that’s a strong recommendation to think about centering communities because they want affordability. But the technology alone — solar versus gas — had a null effect.
It’s great to talk about solar, especially because there’s high favorability for solar. Connecting affordability to clean energy is a great strategy, and we hope tech companies take this to heart! The only way we’re going to build social permission for these technologies is to do it in a community-centric way that guarantees rates won’t increase and guarantees community benefits. We want to make sure people ask for all this in negotiations and that policymakers think about all this, especially federally as we think about permitting reform.
What’s the relationship to permitting reform?
I think it’s important that it preserves maximum ratepayer protections and large load tariffs. Thinking about that, as well as bringing-your-own-clean-energy, or BYONCE, is in great parallel with the findings. If we can deliver that through federal legislation, it’s something that would be supported by the data we gathered through this experiment.
Why was there no statistically significant difference between solar and gas?
I don’t think it’s a question of why people were agnostic about technology. I think it all just boils down to pocketbook-kitchen-table issues. We live in a cost of living crisis where upwards of 65% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. The cost of everything from gas prices at the pump to groceries … When we look at the data and inflation and what it takes to build a home, its very clear the message the American electorate is sending is that affordability is the queen issue right now.
Until we meet demand in a community centered way and a ratepayer centered way, with maximum ratepayer protections and large load tariffs for these companies, we’re going to see incredible polarization across America where these data centers are being built.
What’s next, from a research perspective?
I think there were a few surprising things we found in the data we want to dig into.
For example, there’s been talk of spillover opposition — that by associating solar with data centers, we might pollute public opinion around solar. We actually asked questions in the survey experiment about this and so far, solar hasn’t been tarnished by data centers. It showed zero spillover. It does not drag down favorability for solar.
We also found that Americans trust renewable energy developers second only to consumer watchdogs, which we found to be fascinating. By contrast, they trust data center developers the least. In other words, choose to pay for a decarbonized electron if you can because associating yourself with clean, fast-to-power electrons has a true positive association there. It’s in the data.
One last one: Artificial intelligence and public opinion about AI was the top driver of opposition to data centers. It was feelings about AI as a technology superseding personal ideology and backgrounds, even if they cared about climate change. Skepticism about AI and data centers isn’t a partisan issue. Anti-AI sentiment sits evenly across Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike.
And more of the week’s top fights around development.
1. Umatilla County, Oregon – A small town in Oregon this week declared a state of emergency over fears that a statewide pause on data center permits will harm its economy.
2. Saratoga County, New York – Is Trump’s country music superstar-turned-power-project combatant John Rich preparing to debut a new song about solar farms, or something more?
3. Eau Claire County, Wisconsin – There’s now a must-watch race to see who is more anti-transmission in the race for Wisconsin’s 3rd congressional seat.
4. Adams County, Colorado – Here’s the chaser you needed: the largest solar farm approved in the Rocky Mountains.
The race for the top job in McCracken County, Kentucky, might hinge on the importance of a community benefit agreement.
An election-season battle is brewing over what could be the nation’s first massive data center operating on federal land. And you almost certainly have never heard of it.
Come with me to McCracken County, Kentucky, just outside its largest city, Paducah, where the Energy Department is allowing new development at a large brownfield property. First constructed in the 1950s, the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant was once the country’s only uranium enrichment facility, but it closed in 2010. Since then, and after years of cleanup, Paducah city officials and the McCracken County government have sought to revitalize and reindustrialize the site.
In July, the Energy Department announced plans for a data center at the site, one with enough power to provide excess electricity to the surrounding community. Brookfield would develop and operate the data center and NextEra Energy would build the power infrastructure — a roughly 2.5 gigawatt natural gas plant — while local and regional electricity companies and co-ops would help provide wholesale and retail electricity. The project would be built alongside new uranium enrichment projects cropping up at the site, as federal officials and companies involved seek to transform the area into what they call an “American energy hub.”
Government officials at all levels welcomed the new project. An opposition group called Protect McCracken County exists and is active, but opposition has yet to manifest in the kind of dust-up or mass protest we’re seeing elsewhere in the country. Media reports indicate a likely reason for this is the longstanding history of industrial development in this specific area and that the project location was already contaminated as a brownfield site. The worst headlines about the data center news saw residents calling it “bittersweet” and a “necessary evil.”
But something important was missing because the project was on federal land: city officials say they never had a formal opportunity to deliberate it themselves — a step even local governments supportive of development often use to get assurances and benefits from developers.
The investment announcement also caught officials by surprise. Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, a centrist Democrat with presidential ambitions, told Politico he was never briefed on it. Paducah City Councilor Dujuan Thomas told me this week that the first time he met with any individuals involved “was a week before the public announcement, or a few days before it.”
“At the end of the day, it’s already set in stone,” said Thomas, who supports the data center being built. “I don’t think there’s anything that can be done aside from a federal intervention that could ever stop something like this from happening. And I’m trying to be a realist about it.”
“I’m more of a glass-half-full type of person,” Thomas added.
Now, the fight over asking for more is dominating the race for McCracken County judge/executive, which is the county’s top job. Paducah’s mayor, George Bray, a former Republican-turned-independent, is running to oust two-term Republican incumbent Craig Clymer. In recent weeks, Bray has called for negotiating a community benefit agreement with the developers and says Brookfield already expressed willingness to do so. “Data center developers, knowing how sensitive communities are about electrical usage, water usage, and noise … have been open to embracing the community and saying they want to be good citizens,” he told me in an interview.
Specifically, Bray wants a community benefit agreement to potentially include an economic development fund to help jumpstart new housing in the area, knowing there’ll be an influx of labor. The county will also need to support volunteer fire districts, especially if there’s a blaze at the site. Those are only two ideas he offered, acknowledging the subject of data centers is new to him and that he believes the agreement “should be something the community itself comes up with.”
“I would not approach it as, What do I want? I would be talking with others,” he told me. “There are many things that a project of this size is going to drive in our community. I think we just need to be open-minded and practical about it.”
Bray’s push came up at public debates during the campaign for county judge executive and has since spilled over into social media spats between Bray and Clymer. Bray claims the only official who can adequately negotiate this kind of agreement with the developer is the county judge/executive because the project is not within the Paducah city limits. Clymer, meanwhile, denies everything Bray is claiming.
Clymer says a community benefit agreement is unnecessary, would indicate hostility towards the business community, and is only being brought up so Bray can differentiate himself in the election. He also told me the county will receive incredible levels of tax revenue from the project, and this in and of itself will mean lots of benefits.
The developers “have not asked for one thing from the community. They haven’t asked for a property tax abatement — I told them early on we’d send them a tax bill and they said they understood that’s what I intend to do. No payback on anything; they’re going to build their own infrastructure there within the facility. They’re going to provide their own power through NextEra,” Clymer said. “The bottom line is, it’s not going to cost the community a penny to have this $100 billion investment in our community, and the benefit from it is just going to be enormous through the property tax and occupational tax.”
Clymer also claims key protections for the community, including ratepayer guardrails, are written into the lease agreement DOE struck with Brookfield for the data center. I asked Clymer if the lease agreement was public; he said no and that he personally hasn’t seen it.
“I’m telling you what they’re telling me and I don’t think anybody’s lying about it,” he said. “Let’s be satisfied it’s not going to cost us a penny and it’s going to create enormous wealth for us.”
Brookfield declined to comment for this story. The Energy Department and NextEra did not respond to requests for comment by publication time. We’ll update our story with answers from them when we hear back.