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:
Plus, what a Texas energy veteran thinks is behind the surprising turn against solar and wind.

I couldn’t have a single conversation with a developer this week without talking about Texas.
In case you’re unaware, the Texas Senate two days ago passed legislation — SB 819 — that would require all solar and wind projects over 10 megawatts to receive a certification from the state Public Utilities Commission — a process fossil fuel generation doesn’t have to go through. The bill, which one renewables group CEO testified would “kill” the industry in Texas, was approved by the legislature’s GOP majority despite a large number of landowners and ranchers testifying against the bill, an ongoing solar and wind boom in the state, and a need to quickly provide energy to Texas’ growing number of data centers and battery manufacturing facilities.
But that’s not all: On the same day, the Texas Senate Business and Commerce Committee approved a bill — SB 715 — that would target solar and wind by requiring generation facilities to be able to produce power whenever called upon by grid operators or otherwise pay a fine. Critics of the bill, which as written does not differentiate between new and existing facilities, say it could constrain the growth of Texas’ energy grid, not to mention impose penalties on solar and wind facilities that lack sufficient energy storage on site.
Renewable energy trades are in freak-out mode, mobilizing to try and scuttlebutt bills that could stifle what otherwise would be a perfect state for the sector. As we’ve previously explained, a big reason why Texas is so good for development is because, despite its ruby red nature, there is scant regulation letting towns or counties get in the way of energy development generally.
Seeking to best understand why anti-renewables bills are sailing through the Lone Star State, I phoned Doug Lewin, a Texas energy sector veteran, on the morning of the votes in the Texas Senate. Lewin said he believes that unlike other circumstances we’ve written about, like Oklahoma and Arizona, there really isn’t a groundswell of Texans against renewable energy development. This aligns with our data in Heatmap Pro, which shows 76% of counties being more welcoming than average to a utility-scale wind or solar farm. This is seen even in the author of the 24/7 power bill – state Senator Kevin Sparks – who represents the city of Midland, which is in a county that Heatmap Pro modeling indicates has a low risk of opposition. The Midland area is home to several wind and solar projects; German renewables giant RWE last month announced it would expand into the county to power oil and gas extraction with renewables.
But Lewin told me there’s another factor: He believes the legislation is largely motivated by legislators’ conservative voters suffering from a “misinformation” and “algorithm” problem. It’s their information diets, he believes, which are producing fears about the environmental impacts of developing renewable energy.
“He’s actively working against the interests of his district,” Lewin said of Sparks. “It’s algorithms. I don’t know what folks think is going on. People are just getting a lot of bad information.”
One prominent example came from a hailstorm during Hurricane Uri last year. Ice rocks described like golfballs rained down upon south-east Texas, striking, among other things, a utility-scale solar farm called Fighting Jays overseen by Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners. The incident went viral on Facebook and was seized upon by large conservative advocacy organizations including the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
What’s next? Honestly, the only thing standing between these bills and becoming law is a sliver of hope in the renewables world that the millions of dollars flowing into Texas House members’ districts via project investments and tax benefits outweigh the conservative cultural animus against their product. But if the past is prologue, things aren’t looking great.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Noise ordinances won’t necessarily stop a multi-resonant whine from permeating the area.
What did you do for Earth Day this year? I spent mine visiting a notoriously loud artificial intelligence campus in Virginia’s Data Center Alley. The experience brought home to me just how big a problem noise can be for the communities adjacent to these tech campuses – and how much further local officials have to go in learning how to deal with them.
The morning of April 22, I jumped into a Toyota Highlander and drove it out to the Vantage VA2 data center campus in Sterling, Virginia, smack dab in the middle of a large residential community. The sensation when I got out of the car was unignorable – imagine an all-encompassing, monotonous whoosh accompanied by a low rumble you can feel in your body. It sounds like a jet engine that never stops running or a household vacuum amplified to 11 running at all hours. It was rainy the day I visited and planes from nearby Dulles International Airport were soaring overhead, but neither sound could remotely eclipse the thudding, multi-resonant hum.
If you want to hear the sound for yourself, this video accurately sums it up.
After parking nearby I walked to one of the residential enclaves adjacent to VA2. One resident of a home across the street, who declined to give me her name, said she moved there before the project was completed. When asked how she felt about the noise, she told me, “It’s not as bad as it could be on the other side [of the data center], where all the equipment is.” (While the sound does get louder on the other side, I could clearly hear VA2 from her driveway.)
VA2’s noise has been causing problems for months, as documented by numerous social media posts, local news clips, and a feature published in Politico. It’s doubtful many of those living near the data center wanted it there. The project was built quite quickly – so quickly that Google Earth still shows undeveloped woodlands on the site. Per public filings, Vantage first proposed the facility in 2022 under the county’s fast-track commercial incentive program, an expedited permitting process for specific preferred industries. It was under construction as recently as October 2024, according to images captured by Google Street View.
Noise is one of the most common issues associated with data centers. At least a third of all conflicts over data centers are over noise complaints, and noise is the number one reason for opposition in cases where projects were ultimately canceled, according to Heatmap Pro data.
This issue goes back almost a decade. In 2019, residents of the Phoenix ex-urb Chandler, Arizona, became irate after a loud monotonous hmmmm began emanating from a CyrusOne data center. In that case, CyrusOne traced the noise back to chilling fans, and the company reduced the sound with muffling devices.
Chandler wound up adopting a new ordinance in 2023 requiring sound mitigation measures to prevent companies from exceeding certain ambient noise levels in the surrounding areas. That did nothing to improve the mood of the people who live there, however. Now Chandler, once known as a potential data center development hub, is now firmly in the anti- camp. The city council unanimously rejected a proposed $2.5 billion data center campus in December over noise concerns, despite an expensive lobbying push backed by former Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema.
As data centers spread across the U.S., noise is becoming an ever-more-common complaint. You can hear the familiar hum at a DataOne data center project in Vineland, New Jersey. DataOne told us they “understand concerns about ambient noise in the area” and are operating within the limits of local noise ordinances.
The hum is also in Dowegiac, Michigan, where people living nearby are calling their new Hyperscale Data facility a “noise trap,” with little explanation to date for the issue. Hyperscale Data did not respond to a request for comment.
And the hum is in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, where the sound from a new Microsoft data center campus rises above any din from rain. The hyperscaling giant is doing more to mitigate the issue than I’m used to seeing from data center developers, however.
On April 15, the company published an update on its own internal investigations into noise complaints. “Although the facility noise levels meet the requirements set by local ordinance, we take this feedback seriously and understand the impact this has had on our neighbors,” the update read. “We anticipated that our systems would need adjustments and create some noise as part of the datacenter startup, but we did not expect the tonal quality of the sound to travel as far as it has.”
To address the noise, Microsoft said it was “manually adjusting the cooling fans” to reduce noise, and that “we expect this change to address community concerns about the tonal humming.” On top of that, the company said it will install “additional sound reduction components” to “provide even further reductions in measured sound levels.” A Microsoft spokesperson told me in an email: “We’ve identified the source of the noise concerns and have implemented changes to significantly reduce sound from our facility.”
It isn’t cooling fans causing the noise at Vantage’s VA2 in Virginia, however. The sound, according to media reports, is coming from gas turbines powering the data center.
VA2 is one of the first in Virginia to function entirely off-grid, a design companies are adopting in order to avoid lengthy grid connection processes. Company spokesman Mark Freeman told me the facility is “fully compliant with all local noise ordinances, and this has been verified by third-party sound studies.”
“Additionally, in line with our commitment, we are actively working with third-party engineers to explore additional sound mitigation options,” Freeman continued. Freeman said “Our goal is to further reduce noise levels where possible and continue to foster a positive environment for everyone.”
Here’s the thing, though: I visited the Vantage campus after initially hearing from the company, and it was loud. Very loud.
I did not bring a decibel meter with me, so I cannot know whether they were operating within legal limits that day. What I do know is that noise ordinances struggle to properly capture sounds in multiple frequency ranges, making high and low frequencies challenging to regulate, according to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, a bipartisan non-profit think tank. Officials representing Loudon County, where VA2 is located, have acknowledged that the local ordinance may need to change in order to address the most distressing frequencies from the data center campus.
“We can change the zoning ordinance and noise ordinance,” Loudon County supervisor Mike Turner told local TV station WUSA9 last week. “Noise can be mitigated. I just don’t believe that the noise problem cannot be solved.”
I wrote Freeman, the Vantage spokesman, to tell him I had visited the VA2 campus and found the noise to be “quite foul.” He replied soon after, telling me that Vantage is going “above and beyond what is required in order to address concerns from nearby residents.” The company is using “targeted enhancements to turbine-related equipment such as dampening equipment, enclosure inlets and enclosure exhausts.” These measures “represent meaningful progress and will help us better evaluate the effectiveness of the broader solutions under consideration.” Freeman also said the company is “actively assessing additional options” focused on “targeted frequency ranges.”
As we continue to track local regulation of data centers, I’m we’ll see many more cases like VA2, in which obtrusive sound prompts forms of regulation we may have never seen before.
Or, people will just hear these noises and say no to more data centers.
Plus more of the week’s biggest project development fights.
New Jersey – Crucial transmission for future offshore wind energy in New Jersey is scrapped for now.
Montgomery County, Alabama – A statewide solar farm ban is dead for now after being blocked by lawmakers who had already reduced its scope.
Doña Ana County, New Mexico – The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission wants to move faster on data center power infrastructure, but at least one energy project for a major hyperscaler is trapped in internal conflicts.
Hawkins County, Tennessee – A local free-market nonprofit is suing this county in federal court to argue data center bans are unconstitutional.
Mingo County, West Virginia – Speaking of federal data center cases, West Virginia regulators will now be forced to testify in the legal challenge against a large hyperscaler in the heart of coal country.
Will County, Illinois – This county reversed several solar project rejections, but it didn’t do so happily.
King County, Washington – Seattle might be the next major city to ban data centers.
Chatting with the Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition’s Evan Vaughan.
This week’s conversation is with Evan Vaughan, executive director of the Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition. The trade group is at the center of things right now, representing many of the 13 states in the PJM Interconnection region, including power-hungry Virginia. MAREC reached out to me so we could talk about how it sees various energy trends, from the rise of a new transmission build-out to the resilience of renewable energy in the Trump 2.0 era.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So where does your membership stand as the Inflation Reduction Act starts to fade into the distance?
The momentum we’ve seen coming out of the Inflation Reduction Act has largely kept pace up until this point. We’re entering into a little bit of unknown territory going forward given that tax credits are phasing out their primary eligibility by July, and we have some significant PJM milestones coming up, including the first post-transition cluster study happening with allocations due in April. In some ways, that first post-transition cluster is going to be really indicative of what direction we see the future energy mix shaping up like in PJM going forward. It’s an interesting time to have this conversation because we’re at such an inflection point.
How much is local siting conflict holding up development?
Local siting challenges are a big problem for getting new generation onto the grid, and it’s not just a wind and solar issue. It’s any generation source. It often gets couched as a wind and solar issue because that’s been the vast majority of the megawatts coming out of the PJM queue over the last five years or so. Even with that being said, there’s been local opposition with the Chesterfield gas plant in Virginia, too.
If you watch what PJM says about the state of their queue, they rightly point out that they’ve processed a number of queue applications, almost cleared out the backlog from their queue transition, and point out supply chain and siting issues for projects once they’ve exited the queue.
The PJM queue is a conveyor belt heading into a volcano. Projects, when they get to the end, they either encounter issues like local denials of their permits, or supply chain issues, or increasingly, interconnection cost challenges, in which case they fall into the volcano. Of those three issues, local siting is the one most readily apparent today.
I still think it’s a sleeper issue for politicians and the general public because there’s confusion over who holds the authority over our electricity generation future. Obviously PJM holds a lot of levers, and the states have a lot of power, and federal policy matters. But in the end, whether there’s enough generation to meet that demand comes down to thousands of local officials across PJM’s 13 states making enough “yes” decisions to make sure we have enough megawatts in place to keep the lights on.
Last week I wrote a feature on transmission development in the PJM region, the need for more wires on the grid, and conflicts over those projects. From your vantage point, how are these conflicts going to be resolved? Is it with local decision-making? Or does some of this interstate tension need to be fixed in other ways?
It’s not the local governments that are the bad guys here. It’s that they have a decision-making framework mismatch from what they care about – valid local issues – and the electricity supply-demand balance. If the lights go off or bills continue to rise and someone in the political realm loses their job, the average voter isn’t going to blame the local government. They’ll blame the state and broader government for these issues.
There’s a real problem with the storytelling aspect of transmission. I’m really optimistic as states come together around FERC’s order 1920, which is finally getting to the implementation stage, as the PJM region will be the first to file a complete planning and cost-allocation filing with the commission. The vision of 1920 is to create more state input with how lines are planned. That’ll hopefully provide some relief to the transmission controversies.
Do you think that whack-a-mole approach is why we’re seeing the level of tension we are on the ground over transmission?
Yes.
Well, that’s a simple answer.
I can elaborate. Essentially, the way transmission is planned is that reliability faults pop up on the system, PJM’s engineers identify faults, and then they identify the kinds of upgrades needed to address faults. It’s a backwards-looking process. It’s not tangible to an everyday person.
Starting from where we want to go in terms of state needs for energy generation and then asking people for input is a much better way to get public buy-in and reduce opposition.
What is the biggest issue that’s top of mind for MAREC?
I worry that for all the activity happening at the state level, the PJM level, and the federal level to try and address the supply-demand imbalance on the grid, it is mostly not adding up to a picture resulting in more generation coming online at the scale we need.
Many of the solutions proposed tend to miss some of the fundamental needs of businesses to draw them to invest in a new generation resource. Many of the solutions being worked on at the states and PJM level are trying to address an urgent near-term need, but what we see is all the changes are actually being disruptive in and of themselves.
What in this moment gives you hope? What makes you optimistic about the future?
I think we are still seeing a huge amount of enthusiasm from our member companies to invest in the PJM region, even with all the headwinds we have. It speaks to a fundamental value that our resources – wind, solar and storage – provide to the grid.