You’ve reached your free article limit
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 what the American Conservation Coalition hopes to hear at the first Republican debate.

After the first Republican presidential debate wraps up in Milwaukee on Wednesday night, the candidates will be invited to an unusual reception. The official afterparty has been sponsored by the American Conservation Coalition, a young conservative advocacy group that has made a name for itself advocating for Republican Party leaders to act on climate change.
The group was founded in 2017 by Benji Backer, a student at the University of Washington who wanted to see the party return to its Rooseveltian environmental roots, and was convinced that his peers felt the same. While polls consistently show that climate change is not a priority for Republican voters — many don’t even consider it a threat — the picture changes when broken down by age, with younger generations wanting the government to do more on the issue.
The ACC has since grown into a network of about 20,000 members and helped pass a handful of bipartisan bills under both the Trump and Biden administrations, including the Great Outdoors Act, which directed billions to the National Parks Service for deferred maintenance, and the Growing Climate Solutions Act, designed to help farmers engage in carbon markets. In general, the ACC wants to see the government invest more in innovation, conservation, and domestic energy production, and mostly get out of the market’s way. Most recently, it has been pushing for Congress to streamline environmental reviews to speed up energy development, an issue often summarized as “permitting reform.”
But the ACC has faced an uphill battle. Climate change is still polarizing in Congress, and solutions are increasingly framed by conservative officials and pundits in culture war terms. Now, gearing up for the first presidential election since the group’s founding, the ACC hopes to convince Republican candidates, who have been mostly reticent about the warming planet, to start talking about it. “Fewer than half of Americans believe that Biden's climate policies are taking the country in the right direction,” the ACC’s new president, Christopher Barnard, told me, citing a recent Pew survey. “That offers an incredible opportunity for Republicans to offer a more compelling alternative, and right now, we're not really doing that.”
I spoke to Barnard just after he landed in Milwaukee on Tuesday about the "electoral ticking time bomb" Republicans face, what questions he wants candidates to speak to at the debate, and the group's hopes for sponsoring the afterparty. Our conversation has been lightly edited for concision and clarity.
Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:
What has the American Conservation Coalition been up to in 2023 so far?
The 118th Congress marks the first time in quite a while that we've had Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives. We've looked at that as an opportunity for Republicans to take a seat at the table when it comes to pushing for policy that can help tackle climate change, strengthen energy security, and reduce emissions. And so we've done a lot of engagement on Capitol Hill on things like permitting reform, nuclear energy, the farm bill, nature-based solutions, critical minerals.
We feel like we're in a really interesting moment right now, where, from our perspective, all of the top solutions to climate and energy problems are things that conservatives can not only get behind, but can actually lead on.
When you say the top solutions are things that Republicans can lead on, are you seeing that leadership in this Congress?
Yeah. Especially on the policy side of things, we saw how much McCarthy and Congressman Graves and Chairman Westerman have been pushing for permitting reform. We obviously got a taste of that in the debt ceiling negotiation. We would like to see much more and that's something that Republicans are still pushing for, which I think is the number one thing right now we can do to tackle climate change.
There is still a little bit of a disconnect between that and their rhetoric on the issue. When it comes to nuclear or critical minerals or permitting reform, there's really a huge opportunity for Republicans to retake the climate and environmental conversation and say, Look, these are conservative, limited-government, small market-based solutions, that would actually really help climate change more than say, the Green New Deal. And they're not really putting it that way. So while I've been pleased with some of the policy progress, we want to see Republicans be bolder and more ambitious and really start saying the things that are going to win them back the youth vote that they've lost.
What kinds of questions do you hope to see the presidential candidates asked about climate change tomorrow?
If I were to ask them a question, I would ask, what do you tell a young conservative, who loves America, who is also concerned about environmental and climate issues? What is your positive vision of the future to tackle this problem?
I think there's a tendency for questions around climate change to be loaded with words that are quite partisan. For example, the term climate crisis is incredibly unpopular with Americans in general and obviously Republicans don't respond very well to that. But asking about things like how do you tackle pollution? How do you make sure that we have a thriving planet for future generations? How do you ensure clean energy, all-of-the-above energy? Those are all things that Republicans are actually very on board with.
Also, what their plan is for American strength on the international stage. Battery technologies, EVs, wind and solar, critical minerals, all these crucial components of the clean energy future are being taken over by China because they see what's going to happen. They want to be the Saudi Arabia of clean energy, and we cannot allow that to happen. So any Republican answer on foreign policy should include, what are we going to do to be the most innovative country in the world? To have secure supply chains? To work with our allies? I think those are interconnected with other issues that Americans and Republicans care about, which is national security, energy security, etc.
What other climate-related messages or policies does the ACC want to hear the candidates talk about?
ACC has a platform called the Climate Commitment with six big ideas to tackle climate change rooted in limited government, market-based, conservative ideals. Some of those that I think would make perfect sense for a Republican candidate to bring up would be the importance of unleashing all American energy. So it's not just fossil fuels, but it’s unleashing nuclear energy, unleashing wind and solar, getting the government-imposed barriers out of the way of these energy sources and allowing them all to thrive and compete in the marketplace.
I think another one is how America's rural communities, farmers, ranchers, hunters, can be part of tackling climate change and protecting the environment. Those are super conservative, red parts of the country that actually have a huge role to play, whether it's farmers implementing sustainable practices on their land that reduces emissions, or rural communities hosting clean energy sites. There's so much that rural communities can do to be part of the solution.
What does it mean for ACC to be sponsoring the afterparty for the debate? What are you hoping to get out of it?
It’s to show that Republicans take this issue seriously now. They understand that they have a huge electoral ticking time bomb if they don't talk about it. We've seen already in the last few months how some of the impacts of climate change, whether it's heat waves, or whatever else it might be— people are realizing the importance of this.
ACC hosting this shows that it's entirely possible to be both an environmentalist and a conservative. They are, in many ways, two sides of the same coin. That's really the message that we want to bring to this, and to push Republicans, especially those standing up on the stage, to come up with a compelling vision of how they're going to tackle this issue that young conservatives can get excited about.
What did you mean when you said they have an electoral ticking time bomb?
If you look at demographic numbers, by 2028, millennials and Gen Z will be a majority of potential voters. By next decade, they will be over 60% of potential voters. Polling routinely shows that climate and environment are the top three, top five issues for them.
And young people are increasingly swinging elections. We saw in the midterms that in all the key Senate races that Republicans lost, young people showed out in historic numbers and overwhelmingly voted for Democrats. If Republicans don't regain the trust of young people on this issue, they face losing an entire generation of voters that are increasingly prioritizing this.
At this after-party, if you're coming face to face with the candidates, and you're trying to convince them why they should make climate change a bigger part of their campaign, what’s your argument? When right now, the majority of the Republican Party does not see it as a priority?
We know that this is an issue that matters enormously in general elections, whether it's trying to peel off independent voters, whether it's suburban moms, whether it's young voters. In some districts, it's just a few thousand votes that can make the difference. So I would tell them you need to, at the very least, have a bit of a platform to go off if you were to get to a general. I think DeSantis is really well-positioned for this, because he can point to his strong conservation track record in Florida in his time as governor — a lot of work on clean air, clean water, healthy communities. Base voters won't be upset about that, but that also allows him a jumping off point for a general election.
There's plenty of examples around the country of red states where governors have embraced things like EVs or wind and solar because they're creating jobs in their state. Wind and solar are much more popular with Republicans than people might think. And so I think there's ways that you can talk about this issue that don't evoke a negative reaction.
Which candidates are you most looking forward to hearing from tomorrow night?
I'm interested in seeing what DeSantis has to say after his campaign faltering, and seeing if he can stage a comeback and what that might look like. And in the past, ACC has been impressed by things that Tim Scott has said and done. I'll be interested to see what his “happy warrior” approach will look like in the debate. We did a video with Nikki Haley about what the conservative alternative to the green New Deal looks like, and so I’m interested to see what she's going to bring to the table.
What does it say to you that Donald Trump has decided not to participate in the debate tomorrow?
I was honestly very disappointed by it. Because my general sense is that if you want to have the American people vote for you, you should be willing to stand on stage and make that case why they should vote for you.
Read more about the Republican primary:
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Endurance Energy hoped its generator would run for a full year, but the team isn’t afraid of the “error” in “trial and error.”
About 300 miles off the Oregon coast, a mile beneath the ocean’s surface, a startup just drilled the world’s first subsea geothermal well. And for a grand total of exactly 8.7 seconds, its prototype power plant generated about 2 kilowatts of net power. It wasn’t quite the result the Seattle-based Endurance Energy was hoping for — the company’s goal was to run its 100-kilowatt generator for a full year. But it’s not nothing.
“We really proved with this mission that a geothermal well could be drilled and completed on the seafloor, and doing that within 21 months of the company existing I think is really a testament to our pace of progress,” Endurance CEO Andrew Redd told me.
A former SpaceX engineer — as so many climate tech founders seem to be — Redd appears quite comfortable with the rapid trial-and-error cycles that hard tech startups often demand. Or as he stated in the company’s press release, which provides a refreshingly frank account of what this first test did and didn’t accomplish, “We follow the adage ‘make it exist, then make it good.’”
Investors seem to be buying it. In June, the startup raised a $54 million Series A, led by Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund — Endurance’s second funding round in less than two years of existence. Still, the team certainly has their work cut out for them. The ocean is a notoriously difficult operating environment: Saltwater is corrosive and offshore infrastructure is difficult and expensive to build, maintain, and repair.
Indeed, Endurance spent the first 11 days of its three-week stint at sea debugging its drill, which the team had never operated underwater before. But with a vessel chartered and a locked-in deployment date, the company couldn’t afford to wait for everything to work out perfectly. “We were still working on that generator hours before it got on the seafloor,” Redd told me. He’s used to that sort of thing, though, comparing it to making final tweaks to rockets already sitting on the launchpad. “That’s kind of the name of the game,” he said.
The trial took place at Axial Seamount, an active underwater volcano and the only place in the world with a cluster of hydrothermal vents connected to shore by fiber optic cable, which allows the Endurance team to monitor and control its system in real time from Seattle. While this was the company’s fifth deep-sea mission, it was the team’s first attempt to actually drill their own well.
After lowering their drill about a mile below the surface, the team bored two holes and turned the second into a well about 2 inches wide, lining it with pipe and sealing it with cement. But after losing so much time to debugging, the team only managed to drill about 52 feet deep — far short of its original 200-foot target.
Water then flowed up the well at about 260 degrees Celsius (around 500 degrees Fahrenheit), but the narrow borehole proved too restrictive to deliver enough heat for the generator to operate. So the team pivoted, connecting the generator directly to a naturally flowing, hotter hydrothermal vent instead. The generator then ran for a total of 29 seconds, producing about 2 kilowatts of net power for 8.7 seconds. That represents the total electricity the turbine generated, minus the 7 to 8 kilowatts needed to run its supporting components, such as the refrigerant pump and other onboard equipment.
Then a software glitch triggered the onboard battery safety system, which shut down the plant. When the team tried to restart the system, the power cable feeding the refrigerant pump failed, leaving the pump unable to restart. That was the end of the road. The mission wrapped up after three weeks at sea, a far shorter run than the team had hoped.
“The success criteria would be if we had left with the generator still on the seafloor; that would have been an example of sustained net power, and we didn’t get there,” Redd told me. Instead, the team brought the system back to Endurance’s Seattle headquarters, where it’s fixing the software as well as refurbishing and upgrading the hardware — which includes changing how it builds and tests subsea cables — to prepare for another mission sometime this winter. This time, the goal will be to generate sustained power from a much deeper well.
The team will need to demonstrate progress soon to keep its next major milestone on track: a planned 2-megawatt deployment off the coast of Tonga by the end of 2027. The project aims to supply electricity directly to the Tongan grid, which today is heavily dependent on expensive, imported diesel. Redd expects subsea geothermal to be cost-competitive with that fuel in this first pilot.
Getting there, however, is a formidable engineering challenge. While it’s long been a subject of academic curiosity, no one prior to Endurance had ever drilled an offshore geothermal well before, meaning the team can’t simply transplant existing land-based technology to the seafloor. “Every component that you would use terrestrially now needs to be either modified or built completely from scratch,” Redd explained. “And so you multiply that across every component required to make these kinds of infrastructure projects happen, and it’s a lot of work.”
No kidding. But if Endurance can pull it off, Redd sees this resource as “the perfect energy source for the future.” A conference paper presented by the geoscience company Viridien last year estimates that offshore geothermal resources worldwide could yield about 6 terawatts of recoverable electric power — nearly twice the world’s current continuous electricity output.
“We can access terawatts of power. There’s no fuel. We can site next to extremely large cities around the Pacific. We have no surface presence,” Redd said, ticking off the advantages. Plus, the three necessary ingredients for a high-quality geothermal well — permeable rock, high heat, and water — are widely accessible offshore, he added. Eventually, he expects subsea geothermal to undercut natural gas in Endurance’s target markets: electricity grids, industrial facilities, and data centers across the Pacific Islands, the U.S. West Coast, and Northeast Asia, all of which sit along the undersea volcanic zone known as the “Ring of Fire.”
The way Redd sees it, advances in subsea technology pioneered by the offshore wind, oil, and gas industries have cleared much of the technological path to making underwater geothermal a viable clean energy resource. In his view, what’s been missing is simply the ambition to chase the opportunity in the private market. SpaceX, he said, really proved what’s possible for a scrappy startup to achieve.
“It is quite new at industrial scale for a small company with a bunch of fairly young people to go after something like this,” he told me. “Before SpaceX went to launch a rocket as a private company, no one thought you could get to orbit as a private company. And so that has really seeded this ambition.”
On Greenland’s deepsea mining ban, Indonesia floating nuclear, and a solar boom
Current conditions: Hurricane Trudy has weakened from its peak as a Category 2 storm but still threatens up to 8 inches of rain as it swirls off Baja California • A nor’easter is howling through the Mid-Atlantic this week, hammering the coast with winds of up to 70 miles per hour • A humid overcast has settled over Paris this week as French authorities struggle to regain control after protests over living costs gave way to anarchic riots.
At least 47 major data center projects have been delayed, withdrawn, or blocked so far this year, according to data the regulatory intelligence service RegLayer shared with the Financial Times — and that may be a “conservative estimate.” Just 35% of planned data centers are “credible,” analysts told the newspaper, as more than 1,000 communities across the United States now have restrictions on artificial intelligence infrastructure. The data comes as investors look increasingly jittery about AI following ChatGPT-maker OpenAI’s missing a key revenue metric this year.
Those findings stand in contrast with the numbers from our data service, Heatmap Pro. Based on our research, at least 107 projects faced cancellation so far this year, putting 2026 on track to beat last year, which saw 108 proposals nixed.
Unless you’re living off the grid and away from any social media (if so, I’m jealous), then you can probably surmise that not-in-my-backyard opposition prevails in many such cases against proposed data centers. That makes selling would-be neighbors on the projects critical. New polling by the advocacy group GoodPower found that a binding promise to protect local electricity rates boosts support for the projects upward by as much as 14 points. Such a pledge worked primarily on the 78% of voters who distrust data centers. Another potential winner: Pair a data center with renewables. At least 46% of respondents to the poll said their support would increase if a project were powered by renewables. The survey spoke to 2,610 registered voters last month and oversampled in states with at least 200 data centers completed: Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia.
Greenland wants to find ways to exploit its mineral riches in hopes of generating enough income from industries other than fishing and tourism to eventually wean off subsidies from the governments of Denmark and the European Union. Earlier this month, as you may recall, the self-governing Danish island gave a project the green light. But the government in Nuuk doesn’t want miners harvesting metals from the seabed surrounding the Arctic island, which are fertile fishing grounds and could, in theory, lead to mineral production without meaningful infrastructure to create jobs for Greenlandic people. Last week, the Greenlandic Parliament adopted a resolution requiring the government to draft legislation banning deep-sea mining. All members present voted to approve the proposal, according to Sermitsiaq, a leading newspaper in Nuuk. The ban would, if adopted, last until the end of 2029, with the possibility of an extension for two years at a time.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Long before the race for small modular reactors kicked off, Russia launched a floating nuclear power station and sailed the vessel up to the Arctic to power a small town. Now, as you may recall, the state-owned Russian nuclear company Rosatom is making plans to build more floating nuclear plants, and it has a major nuclear newcomer nation as an offtaker. Last week, NucNet reported, Rosatom announced a deal with Indonesia’s state-owned PT Pembangkit Listrik Nuklir to supply electricity to northern Indonesia from at least two floating nuclear plants with a capacity of 200 megawatts each.

Over the past decade, small-scale and rooftop solar systems increased from 18,812 gigawatt-hours to 92,979 gigawatt-hours, an increase of over 394%. That’s according to a new analysis from the Energy Information Administration, which found that California, Arizona, Texas, Florida are the regions with the most abundant solar resources. Even though the state has worse solar resources in general, New York ranked fifth as a result of growing capacity. Still, the rate of growth in generation has slowed over the past three years. l
The Trump administration is pulling out all the stops for Alaskans who want to drill and transport fossil fuels, mine minerals, and log trees. Now he’s easing rules on hunters. A new final rule from the National Park Service has revived a hunting method the Biden administration banned in 2024: Baiting bears with doughnuts soaked in bacon grease. Hunters use the baits to lure bears to close range before shooting them. “Some hunters prefer to use strong-smelling, high-calorie foods like pastries, doughnuts, meat scraps or fish remains to lure bears from miles away,” The New York Times reported. “But some conservationists say the practice is unethical and risks making the bears accustomed to human food, which could endanger people.”
What would happen to Project Jupiter if the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act is passed?
One of the nation’s largest data centers is struggling under permitting woes. So let’s play a game: would the bipartisan permitting bill in Congress make the path easier, or might the federal legislation be irrelevant to large hyperscalers under development today?
Meet Project Jupiter, a mega project in southern New Mexico in Dona Ana County under development by Oracle and OpenAI, with financial backing from SoftBank and political support from the Trump administration for being a part of Stargate, a major Trump administration public-private initiative boosting AI development. Project Jupiter would be one of the largest data centers in the country if completed and currently is expected to run on a microgrid powered by fuel cells converting gas to electricity, which the developers claim will burn much cleaner than a typical off-grid gas turbine power plant.
Solving the energy side of the equation is a major hurdle for Jupiter, largely because of permitting delays and legal challenges.
In mid-September, the New Mexico Supreme Court lifted a stay it placed on consideration of the project’s state air permitting application. But on Wednesday, the Santa Fe New Mexican published emails between the New Mexico Environment Department and Project Jupiter staff detailing that independent emissions modeling showed pollution would be greater than predicted by the developers, after they had already requested permission to emit more CO2 than the state’s three largest cities combined. A final decision on the air permit was expected in November; the emails suggest the deadline may slip further. After the emails were reported, Oracle declared it would try to reduce emissions from the site by more than 30%.
At the same time, the New Mexico Justice Department is opposing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act for a gas pipeline key to powering the project. The state’s attorneys assert the agency improperly failed to examine how the data center’s use of the pipeline would affect the environment. This week, a dozen GOP attorneys general representing states with large gas industries wrote FERC insisting they ignore the state’s protests, arguing that a recent Supreme Court ruling – known colloquially as Seven County – meant the federal government doesn’t need to look at the data centers gas pipelines are feeding when the lines are reviewed. Oracle has declared a “force majeure” over the pipeline delay. Rumors have circulated that trucks may just bring gas in for operations; company representatives told the Dona Ana County Commission this week those claims were “misinformation.”
Amidst these delays and potential legal conflicts, I’ve sought to understand whether projects like these – large data centers racing to operate within the next year or two – would be affected by enactment of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026, a major permitting reform deal negotiated in part by New Mexico’s senior senator, Energy and Natural Resources chairman Martin Heinrich.
In Washington D.C., this legislation is exciting many constituencies, including energy industry types, policy wonks, business-friendly climate advocates. At the same time, more conservation-minded environmental groups opposed to provisions benefiting the fossil fuel industry are leaning into an argument that the legislation would accelerate a new era of gas-dominant data center construction.
Last week, I wrote about the environmentalists’ argument. I also examined the parts of the bill unlocking a new transmission build-out and requiring data center ratepayer protection. If enacted, FERC would have to require utilities to charge data centers not only for the costs of new grid upgrades but the charges incurred for using the grid, too. As my colleague Robinson Meyer has written, by forcing AI infrastructure operators to pay for both embedded and incremental energy costs, the legislation would essentially mean data centers paying both to reduce rates and build new energy generation. We’re seeing in real time what happens when you don’t deal with the transmission connection system while building new grid upgrades: companies will often opt to just build their own private off-grid fossil fuel islands. In Texas, for example, we’re seeing transmission hook-up delays lead to companies just building their own gas plants instead. This is not to say companies won’t still go off the grid if this bill passes, but it’s a serious consequence of our dilapidated energy system worth considering.
So I decided to evaluate Project Jupiter as a test case. How might the permitting bill affect this project and other big data centers at a stage like it?
For starters, let's say what the permitting bill does not do. It wouldn’t change the Clean Air Act. Project Jupiter would be one of the largest data centers in the country if completed, as well as potentially one of the nation’s biggest CO2 emitters if permitted as proposed. Nothing in the bill would affect requirements that the project adhere to national air emissions standards, so it wouldn’t affect the New Mexico Environment Department’s pending decision around the project’s air permits.
Enacting BAAJA could potentially affect this sprawling data center project in extremely hypothetical ways. It would reduce legal risks associated with future interstate gas pipelines under development expected to potentially branch out to Project Jupiter, including the Desert Southwest Expansion pipeline. It’s easy to understand in the words of Robert Pattinson in Primetime how this looks: like an easier path to expanding gas generation in this area.
On renewables, the bipartisan permitting deal would codify new permitting certainty and timeline provisions that claim to make it easier for companies to pursue solar development on federal acreage managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Project Jupiter just concluded a request for proposals to procure two gigawatts of renewable energy including solar power to meet the developers’ pledge to achieve 100% carbon matching by 2031 and Thiagarajan previously told the commission they’ve examined potentially getting energy from solar projects nearby on BLM lands.
But all of this is too theoretical and the case for any individual early-stage energy project too. Not to mention that we have no idea how the Trump administration would implement this certainty language, even for Project Jupiter.
To me, if people want to earnestly understand how the bipartisan permitting bill might actually affect data centers, they need to fully consider how making it easier and more transparent to hook up to the existing electric grid could reduce how much on-site gas generation is used at AI data center operations.
Delays in state permitting for the off-grid fuel cell plant have led Project Jupiter’s developers to consider what turning to the power grid would look like. In early September during a Dona Ana County commission meeting, Oracle executive vice president Mahest Thiagarajan told the panel, “If we end up in a situation where the air permit is not actually approved, I do have to work with a grid provider. Whether it is actually part of the grid or they built the grid for me could be TBD.”
“It doesn’t need to be on the grid, but I need [a] source of power to help power the data center,” Thiagarajan said.
Commission chair Manuel Sanchez replied that the microgrid plans were established in their community benefit agreement but he supported proposals requiring data center developers paying for upgrades and directly paying to reduce electricity rates for nearby residents. “It’s actually provided a downward pressure on rates,” Sanchez said, referring directly to such a policy created by the Georgia Public Service Commission.
Thiagarajan agreed. “My current plan is to continue to work with NMED [the New Mexico Environment Division] and get the off-grid site. If for any reason we have to, because I don’t have the air permit and I have to build the site, I strongly believe it has to come with me bringing down pressure to the rates. Period. I don’t think that’s a question of, I’m not increasing the rates. I actually have to come in and say, I am lowering the rates here.”
If Congress enacted this permitting bill in the lame duck, would Project Jupiter ditch plans to be off grid? It’s challenging to prove or disprove such a hypothetical. Representatives for the project did not respond to requests for comment. But we know any attempts at grid hookups without greater ratepayer protections are only leading to more conflict locally; this week, when Project Jupiter tried proposing a hook up to the grid for emergency power, the county commission fumed. Right now, the plan is still to power Project Jupiter with the gas fuel cell generation on site.
As I concluded this research, I noticed Heinrich’s office has actually promoted news coverage about what his efforts to enact data center ratepayer protections would do to Project Jupiter.
In early August, as the Senate was leaving for a summer recess, his office republished a Santa Fe New Mexican article about legislation the senator authored – the GRID Savings Act – and its potential impact on Project Jupiter. The article claimed that if Project Jupiter was unable to get its air permit, they’d be able to get power a different way under his proposal. The local news outlet also quoted an email from Sanchez, the county commission chair, stating that Heinrich’s bill “could be an avenue for Project Jupiter to fulfill their requirements if the air permit is denied.” Sanchez did not respond to requests for comment.
So I asked Senator Heinrich’s office for comment about this republished article, as well as if his permitting deal would indeed help ensure Project Jupiter was completed and came online. To conclude this story, here is their full statement:
The Senator has been clear that building big things responsibly means putting communities first. As he stated in his interview with the Albuquerque Journal, Project Jupiter botched community engagement from the start.
BAAJA is about making sure we build the energy infrastructure we need while keeping costs down for families and small businesses in New Mexico and across the country. The legislation would help get new energy generation, primarily clean energy, on the grid. By getting the energy onto the grid, states like New Mexico, which has enacted the Energy Transition Act, can continue working to ensure the energy powering our grid is increasingly clean.
The Senator has fought to ensure that growing energy demand doesn’t come at the expense of New Mexicans’ electricity bills by requiring data centers to pay for all of their associated transmission costs, rather than those costs shifting onto ratepayers. Ultimately, the Senator strongly believes that any major development, including data centers, should come as a benefit to the communities that host them, not a burden — and that starts with meaningful community engagement and real benefits for New Mexicans.
To be clear, BAAJA is federal legislation focused on energy infrastructure and grid connectivity. It does not ‘permit’ data centers. State and local government approval is still required. The Senator's legislation addresses the federal energy infrastructure challenges associated with a grid that cannot keep up with demand; it does not circumvent the state and local processes that determine whether Project Jupiter moves forward.
Media representatives for Project Jupiter did not respond to requests for comment.