The Fight

Sign In or Create an Account.

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

Spotlight

Trump Targets Solar on Farmland

Anti-solar activists in agricultural areas get a powerful new ally.

Sheep and solar panels.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The Trump administration is joining the war against solar projects on farmland, offering anti-solar activists on the ground a powerful ally against developers across the country.

In a report released last week, President Trump’s Agriculture Department took aim at solar and stated competition with “solar development on productive farmland” was creating a “considerable barrier” for farmers trying to acquire land. The USDA also stated it would disincentivize “the use of federal funding” for solar “through prioritization points and regulatory action,” which a spokesperson – Emily Cannon – later clarified in an email to me this week will include reconfiguring the agency’s Rural Energy for America loan and grant program. Cannon declined to give a time-table for the new regulation, stating that the agency “will have more information when the updates are ready to be published.”

“Farmland should be for agricultural production, not solar production,” Cannon wrote – a statement also made in the USDA report.

REAP is a program created in 2008 that exists to help fund renewable energy and sustainability projects at the level of individual farms and has been seen as a potential tool for not only building more solar but also more trust in agriculturally-focused communities. It’s without question that retooling REAP to actively disincentivize awardees from building solar on farmland could have a chilling effect, at least amongst those who receive money from the program or wish to in the future. This comes after Trump officials temporarily froze money promised to farmers, too.

As we’ve previously written in The Fight, agricultural interests can at times present as much a threat to the future of solar energy as any oil-funded dark money group, if not more so. Conflicts over solar production on farmland make up a large portion of the total projects I cover in The Fight every week, and it is one of the most frequently cited reasons for opposition against individual renewables projects. (Agricultural workforces are one of the most important signals for renewable energy opposition in Heatmap Pro’s modeling data as well.) I wrote shortly after Trump’s inauguration that I wondered when – not if – he would adopt this position.

It’s unclear what exactly led USDA to dive headlong into the “No Solar on Farmland” campaign, aside from its growing popularity in conservative political circles, but there is reason to believe farming interests may have played a role. USDA has stated the report was the product of discussions with farming groups and an industry roundtable. In addition, per lobbying disclosures, at least one agricultural group – the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau – advocated earlier this year for “congressional action and/or executive orders” to “balance renewable and conventional sources of energy” through “limit[ing] solar on productive farmland.” (The Pennsylvania Farm Bureau denied this in an email to me earlier this week.)

There’s also reason to believe some key stakeholders were caught off-guard or weren’t looped in on the matter.

American Farmland Trust has been trying to cultivate common ground between farmers, solar companies, and various agencies at all levels of government over the future of development. But when asked about this report, the nonprofit told me it couldn’t speak on the matter because it was still trying to suss out what was going on.

“AFT is meeting with the Trump administration to learn more about what they are planning in terms of policy and programs to implement this concept,” AFT media relations associate Michael Shulman told me.

Yellow

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