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:
Here’s where the real risks lie for the solar industry.

Solar energy so far is avoiding the Trump-era challenge posed to wind energy. But it’s unclear the good times will continue, as chaos reigns in Washington and threats loom on the horizon.
Last week, Trump issued a 60-day pause on all permits for solar projects on federal lands. Many solar projects are not sited on federal lands, so there’s little Trump could do in the short term to stop those projects. But some utility scale projects definitely are on federal lands in the Southwest, most often in Nevada, where considerable opposition exists in rural, untouched pockets of the state. Several sit in various stages of the permitting process. In fact, there are over 12 gigawatts worth of challenged projects currently planned for the state, according to Heatmap Pro’s database.
Developers and industry representatives I spoke with believe Trump will lift this pause on permits and let the solar projects flow through the pipeline. EDF Renewables, whose Bonanza solar farm was approaching the end of the permitting process when Trump came into office, told me they “have no reason to believe that the project should not be approved.” Balanced Rock Power, the developer of the Samantha solar project in Nevada which is in the early stages of permitting, told me the company is “continuing to work closely with” agencies “to complete all the major milestones on schedule.”
“President Trump has specifically said that he loves solar – and as energy demand soars, we know that solar is the most efficient and affordable way to add a lot of energy to the grid, fast,” Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association, told me in a statement.
But there’s a quiet unease amongst some in the sector about whether recent actions around permits and federal funding mean the next shoe to drop is going to hit them.
Trump’s got complaints about solar and land use, including those he made in that presidential debate immediately after the “big fan” comment. There was also an interview with Fox News last week where he came out against utility-scale solar projects. “You know what else people don’t like,” Trump told host Sean Hannity. “Those massive solar fields built over land that covers 10 miles by 10 miles. I mean, they’re ridiculous, the whole thing.”
Brendan Bell, a top executive at asset manager Aligned Capital and a former senior official in DOE’s loan programs office, told me the biggest question in solar right now is “whether they can do anything to stop it.”
“If you’re developing a project on BLM land, you’re probably putting that on the backburner,” said Brendan Bell, a top executive at asset manager Aligned Capital. Bell served as director of strategic initiatives for the Energy Department’s Loan Programs Office under the Obama administration. “But that’s not the only place we build solar projects.”
Indeed, from a permitting perspective, it may prove quite tricky to undermine solar projects. Even on BLM land. That’s because permitting decisions and even indecision can be litigated. Rarely does the Bureau of Land Management actually deny projects – of any fuel type – so a step change against solar would require a wholescale change to how permitting staff ordinarily operate.
The most serious threat, in my view, is actually whether the Trump administration will take on the “protect farmland” mantle that activists in some states have used to derail large-scale solar projects. Under the Farmlands Protection Policy Act, the Agriculture Department is tasked with minimizing how federal programs impact the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses, attorney Bob Greenslade told me in an email. Farmland impacts “may be relevant” now to renewable energy development in any area with a federal nexus, including land use.
And there’s a nascent effort to strip tax credits from renewables projects sited on farmland. On Tuesday, Republican congressman Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin announced he would reintroduce legislation to disqualify renewables projects from receiving tax benefits under the Inflation Reduction Act if their project is on “prime farmland,” a term of art defined by the Agriculture Department.
Mark Fowler, director of government affairs for Ameresco, told me that he believes tax credits and access to federal funds will be a bigger issue for solar than permitting in the immediate term, especially in light of the (now lifted) Trump freeze on discretionary funds. Ameresco is an integrator and developer of renewable energy projects. “The biggest thing right now is uncertainty around the tax credits. The discussion right now is they’re going to change in some form the IRA tax credits. We don’t know what the changes are going to look like.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Activists are suing for records on three projects in Wyoming.
Three wind projects in Wyoming are stuck in the middle of a widening legal battle between local wildlife conservation activists and the Trump administration over eagle death records.
The rural Wyoming bird advocacy group Albany County Conservancy filed a federal lawsuit last week against the Trump administration seeking to compel the government to release reams of information about how it records deaths from three facilities owned and operated by the utility PacifiCorp: Dunlap Wind, Ekola Flats, and Seven Mile Hill. The group filed its lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act, the national public records disclosure law, and accused the Fish and Wildlife Service of unlawfully withholding evidence related to whether the three wind farms were fully compliant with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
I’m eyeing this case closely because it suggests these wind farms may fall under future scrutiny from the Fish and Wildlife Service, either for prospective fines or far worse, as the agency continues a sweeping review of wind projects’ compliance with BGEPA, a statute anti-wind advocates have made clear they seek to use as a cudgel against operating facilities. It’s especially noteworthy that a year into Trump’s term, his promises to go after wind projects have not really touched onshore, primarily offshore. (The exception, of course, being Lava Ridge.)
Violating the eagle protection statute has significant penalties. For each eagle death beyond what FWS has permitted, a company is subject to at least $100,000 in fines or a year in prison. These penalties go up if a company is knowingly violating the law repeatedly. In August, the Service sent letters to wind developers and utilities across the country requesting records demonstrating compliance with BGEPA as part of a crackdown on wind energy writ large.
This brings us back to the lawsuit. Crucial to this case is the work of a former Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Mike Lockhart, whom intrepid readers of The Fight may remember for telling me that he’s been submitting evidence of excessive golden eagle deaths to Fish and Wildlife for years. Along with its legal complaint, the Conservancy filed a detailed breakdown of its back-and-forth with Fish and Wildlife over an initial public records request. Per those records, the agency has failed to produce any evidence that it received Lockhart’s proof of bird deaths – ones that he asserts occurred because of these wind farms.
“By refusing to even identify, let alone disclose, obviously responsive but nonexempt records the Conservancy knows to be in the Department’s possession and/or control, the Department leaves open serious questions about the integrity of its administration of BGEPA,” the lawsuit alleges.
The Fish and Wildlife Service did not respond to a request for comment on the case, though it’s worth noting that agencies rarely comment on pending litigation. PacifiCorp did not immediately respond to a request either. I will keep you posted as this progresses.
Plus more of the week’s biggest fights in renewable energy.
1. York County, Nebraska – A county commissioner in this rural corner of Nebraska appears to have lost his job after greenlighting a solar project.
2. St. Joseph County, Indiana – Down goes another data center!
3. Maricopa County, Arizona – I’m looking at the city of Mesa to see whether it’ll establish new rules that make battery storage development incredibly challenging.
4. Imperial County, California – Solar is going to have a much harder time in this agricultural area now that there’s a cap on utility-scale projects.
5. Converse County, Wyoming – The Pronghorn 2 hydrogen project is losing its best shot at operating: the wind.
6. Grundy County, Illinois – Another noteworthy court ruling came this week as a state circuit court ruled against the small city of Morris, which had sued the county seeking to block permits for an ECA Solar utility-scale project.
A conversation with Public Citizen’s Deanna Noel.
This week’s conversation is with Deanna Noel, climate campaigns director for the advocacy group Public Citizen. I reached out to Deanna because last week Public Citizen became one of the first major environmental groups I’ve seen call for localities and states to institute full-on moratoria against any future data center development. The exhortation was part of a broader guide for more progressive policymakers on data centers, but I found this proposal to be an especially radical one as some communities institute data center moratoria that also restrict renewable energy. I wanted to know, how do progressive political organizations talk about data center bans without inadvertently helping opponents of solar and wind projects?
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Why are you recommending we ban data centers until we have regulations?
The point of us putting this out was to give policymakers a roadmap and a starting point at all levels of government, putting in guardrails to start reeling in Big Tech. Because the reality is they’re writing their own rules with how they’d like to roll out these massive data centers.
A big reason for a moratorium at the state and local level is to put in place requirements to ensure any more development that is happening is not just stepping on local communities, undermining our climate goals, impacting water resources or having adverse societal impacts like incessant noise. Big Tech is often hiding behind non-disclosure agreements and tying the hands of local officials behind NDAs while they’re negotiating deals for their data centers, which then becomes a gag order blocking officials and the public from understanding what is happening. And so our guide set out to provide a policy roadmap and a starting point is to say, let’s put a pause on this.
Do you see any cities or states doing this now? I’m trying to get a better understanding of where this came from.
It’s happening at the local level. There was a moratorium in Prince George’s County [in Maryland], where I live, until a task force can be developed and make sure local residents’ concerns are addressed. In Georgia, localities have done this, too.
The idea on its own is simple: States and localities have the authority and should be the ones to implement these moratoriums that no data centers should go forward until baseline protections are in place. There are many protections we go through in our guide, but No. 1, Big Tech should be forced to pay their way. These are some of the most wealthy corporations on the planet, and yet they’re bending backwards to negotiate deals with local utilities and governments to ensure they’re paying as little as possible for the cost of their power infrastructure. Those costs are being put on ratepayers.
The idea of a moratorium is there’s a tension in a data center buildout without any regulations.
Do you have any concerns about pushing for blanket moratoria on new technological infrastructure? We’re seeing this policy thrown at solar and wind and batteries now. Is there any concern it’ll go from data centers to renewables next in some places?
First off, you’re right, and the Trump administration wants to fast-track an expansion that’ll rely on fossil fuels: coal, oil and gas. We’re in a climate crisis, and we’d be better off if these data centers relied entirely on renewable energy.
It’s incredibly important for policymakers to be clear when they’re setting moratoria that they’re not inadvertently halting clean, cheap energy like wind and solar. This is about the unfettered expansion of the data center industry to feed the AI machine. That’s what the focus needs to be on.
Yes, but there’s also this land use techlash going on, and I’m a little concerned advocacy for a moratorium on data centers will help those fighting to institute moratoria on solar and wind. I’m talking about Ohio and Wisconsin and Iowa. Are you at all concerned about a horseshoe phenomenon here, where people are opposing data centers for the same reasons they’re fighting renewable energy projects? What should folks in the advocacy space do to make sure those things aren’t tethered to one another?
That’s a great question. I think it comes down to clear messaging for the public.
People are opportunistic — they want to get their passion projects no matter what. We as advocates need to consistently message that renewable energy is not only the energy of tomorrow, but of today. It’s where the rest of the world is headed and the U.S. is going backwards under the Trump administration.
The data center issue is separate. Data centers are using way more land – these massive hyperscaler data center campuses – are using more land than solar and wind. We can be creative with those energies in a way we can’t with the data center expansion.
We need to make it absolutely clear: This is about corporate expansion at the expense of everyone else in a way that solar and wind aren’t. Those bring costs down and don’t have anywhere near as much of an environmental impact.