You’re out of free articles.
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:
How Biden can enlist the armed forces to build power lines and fix America’s electric grid
After a summer of extreme heat, deadly wildfires, flash floods, and other foreboding harbingers of a warming planet, President Biden is once again facing pressure to (officially) declare a climate emergency. Activists have pressed him to unlock emergency powers to reinstate a ban on crude oil exports and suspend offshore drilling leases, among other measures.
But there’s another, less remarked emergency lever Biden could pull that may prove even more consequential for our clean energy transition: empowering the military to help expedite the construction of electrical grid infrastructure we need to rapidly decarbonize.
The grid is the foundation of our strategy to take on climate change. The plan is to “electrify everything” — from cars, to homes, to factories — and to run everything on electricity generated from clean energy sources like wind and solar instead of fossil fuels. But that means we’ll need to upgrade the grid to meet increased demand for electricity, and build more transmission lines to carry clean energy from the windiest and sunniest parts of the country to major population centers.
Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:
We’re in trouble on both fronts. Our antiquated grid has too little capacity to accommodate all of the wind and solar energy facilities we need. That has left many proposed renewable projects in a lurch waiting years to come online, while those that can connect contend with “congestion” from an overloaded system. Plus, a gauntlet of permits and multistate regulatory approvals means that building new large transmission lines can take a decade or more. A new transmission line to carry primarily renewable energy from New Mexico to California and Arizona just got the okay to start building from the Bureau of Land Management this spring, seventeen years after it was first proposed.
We need to build out the grid — and do so quickly — if we have any hope of meeting our climate goals. The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law invested billions to modernize the grid, but Congress has done little to address the regulatory roadblocks that make building so arduous. Meanwhile, the Biden administration is pursuing regulatory action to help.
However, a surprising source of emergency power could bolster the administration’s tools to ready the electrical grid for the new green energy era. A 1982 law called the Military Construction Codification Act states that when the president declares a national emergency “that requires use of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects … not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.”
This authority could be used to improve and expand the electrical grid, according to a law review article by Professor (and former Navy commander) Mark Nevitt at Emory University School of Law. Climate-related natural disasters have increasingly required the use of the military for rescue and relief operations: in 2022 alone, half of all National Guard members were involved in lifesaving responses in the wake of wildfires, storms, and floods. And extreme weather and grid instability are a threat to military operations: military bases don’t have their own power plants, and draw energy from the grid like everyone else. Bases have gone dark and been damaged by floods and wildfires in recent years, and many have been running drills to prepare for extended power outages from climate disasters. A stronger, climate-resilient grid is necessary for a military summoned to respond to the ravages of climate change.
This gives the administration “credible but untested authority,” Nevitt told me, to invoke a military need to enhance our electrical grid under a climate emergency. That authority could be used, for example, to upgrade sections of the grid directly adjacent to the country’s 450 domestic military installations.
Because each state has at least one military installation, the Biden administration would have ample flexibility in picking strategic locations to make grid upgrades. While building far-flung power lines with little connection to a military site may stretch the bounds of the law, the interconnected nature of the grid should give the administration some leeway — for instance, to help build a transmission line that feeds into a military-adjacent portion of the grid to provide that base with more secure and abundant access to power. By way of example, the Continental Connector — a proposed 500-mile transmission line that aims to unite two grid systems by linking Kansas with New Mexico by the 2030s — could help shore up energy reliability for nearby military sites like Kirtland Air Force Base, and thereby could warrant emergency military construction assistance.
While the primary purpose would be to improve grid reliability for the military, those upgrades would of course also benefit the surrounding communities. That in turn would help strengthen our overall capacity for clean energy deployment.
This emergency construction authority was most notoriously invoked by President Trump in an attempt to build his border wall. In 2019, Trump declared a national emergency on the southern border, and instructed the Defense Department to use emergency military construction authority to begin building several sections of a border wall. This order was ultimately rejected in court on the grounds that the border wall — which was to be located hundreds of miles away from the closest military base — was not necessary to support the use of the armed forces, and was not truly a military-related project.
It’s possible that Biden’s green grid may too run into a buzzsaw in the federal courts. But building energy infrastructure that will be used by the military seems much more tethered to the spirit of the law than constructing a distant anti-immigrant barricade. Moreover, military prerogatives to address a legitimate need for a reliable energy supply ought to get deference from the courts. Biden could also opt for a narrower emergency declaration less sweeping than climate change but more likely to survive in the courts, like grid resilience — an emergency that is particularly salient in the wake of the devastating Maui fires.
Biden also could turbocharge emergency grid construction by bypassing normal regulatory requirements. The Military Construction Codification Act empowers the Defense Department to act “without regard to any other provision of law,” giving it authority to overcome other impediments in federal, state, and local law (much like similar preemptive language in the Defense Production Act that I’ve written about). After Trump’s border wall order, the Defense Department issued a memorandum initiating construction “without regard to any other provision of law that could impede such expeditious construction in response to the national emergency,” including “the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, ... [and] the Clean Water Act.” Taking the same tack could expedite grid construction, but Biden would face major pressure from political allies to forgo this power. Yet at minimum, an emergency declaration would streamline the NEPA process and trigger waivers and exemptions under other environmental laws.
We can’t electrify our way to net-zero emissions without a grid up to the task. So building that grid is one of the most pressing tasks we face. If Biden does take the step of formally declaring a climate emergency, putting the might of the U.S. military toward that critical mission would be an awfully good response.
Read more about the electric grid:
An Eye-Opening Projection About America’s Clean Energy Future
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Packed hearings. Facebook organizing. Complaints about prime farmland and a disappearing way of life. Sound familiar?
Solar and wind companies cite the rise of artificial intelligence to make their business cases after the United States government slashed massive tax incentives for their projects.
But the data centers supposed to power the AI boom are now facing the sort of swift wave of rejections from local governments across the country eerily similar to what renewables developers have been dealing with on the ground over the last decade. The only difference is, this land use techlash feels even more sudden, intense, and culturally diffuse.
What’s happening is simple: Data centers are now routinely being denied by local governments in zoning and permitting decisions after local residents turn against them. These aggrieved denizens organize grassroots campaigns, many with associated Facebook groups, and then flood city council and county commission hearings.
Just take this past week. Last Thursday, Prince George’s County, Maryland, paused all data center permitting after a campaign against converting an abandoned mall into a data center gained traction online, with a petition garnering more than 20,000 signatures. On Monday, faced with a ferocious public outcry, Google rescinded a proposal to build what would’ve been its second data center in Indiana in Franklin Township, a community in southeastern Indianapolis – a withdrawal requested mere minutes before the township council was reportedly going to reject it.
That same day, the rural Illinois town of DeKalb denied a solar company’s request to build a “boutique data center” on the same site as a previously-permitted solar farm. And on Tuesday, the small city of Howell – located smack between Lansing and Detroit, Michigan – denied a data center proposed by an anonymous Fortune 100 company. Apparently, so many people showed up to voice their opposition to the project that the hearing was held in a high school gymnasium.
Opponents cite many things in their arguments against development, some unique to the sector like energy and water use, and others familiar to the solar and wind industry, like preserving prime farmland or maintaining a way of life.
These arguments are incredibly salient, as polling conducted by Heatmap News has revealed: less than half of Americans would ever support a data center coming near them, and this technology infrastructure is less popular than any form of renewable energy. Digging into the cross-tabs of that poll, data centers are unpopular with essentially all age demographics, and arguments against the facilities – like “they use too much water” or “they consume too much electricity” – get relatively similar agreement from registered Democrats and Republicans alike.
Ben Inskeep, a clean energy advocate in Indianapolis, told me he started fighting data centers last year after he became aware of the total power needed to fuel the rising number of projects in the state. His advocacy organization, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, previously weighed in on rate hikes and electricity generation decisions. Now, they’re tracking more than 40 data center projects they say are proposed in the state and getting involved in the fight on the ground against them.
Inskeep told me that, from his point of view, the primary support for data centers comes from local governments and municipally-funded works like schools and health facilities that are facing slashed budgets. In some cases the projects are being rejected despite representing millions – even billions – in capital investments and potential tax revenues so large that municipal governments are put between a rock and a hard place as they’re pressured by a weakening economy and state funding cuts.
That’s what happened in Indianapolis. Earlier this month the school district that would’ve been funded by the now-rejected Google data center came out in support of the project, declaring it would welcome new tax revenue, and said it would also lead to new educational partnerships with the tech giant. But none of that mattered. Some local officials even lambasted their colleagues' support as unwarranted, a lashing out that reminds me of what happens to pro-solar officials in Ohio.
Heatmap News has been tracking contested data center projects since the spring of this year and has found almost 100 projects under development across the country that are being actively fought by local organizers, citizens advocacy groups, and environmental organizations. The data is preliminary and likely an undercount.
Still, there’s lots to glean from it. Crucially, as we’ve seen with renewable energy development, data center opposition crops up most often in tandem with the number of projects proposed and constructed. This is only logical: the more of something that is built in a place, the more likely people are to say, “We’ve built enough of that.” This is why Virginia is the top state when it comes to data centers being opposed – it’s a hub that’s seen development spike for far longer than elsewhere in the United States.
I believe that as data center project proposals continue to rise across the country, we’ll see in parallel rising hostility to their development – potentially much larger than anything renewable energy has ever faced. It will undoubtedly also be a problem for anyone in solar or wind who is riding on an AI boom to add demand for their projects.
And more of the week’s most important news around renewable energy conflicts.
1. Pulaski County, Arkansas – The attorney general of Arkansas is reassuring residents that yes, they can still ban wind farms if they want to.
2. Des Moines County, Iowa – This county facing intense pressure to lock out renewables is trying to find a sweet spot that doesn’t involve capitulation. Whether that’s possible remains to be seen.
3. Fayette County, Tennessee – This county just extended its solar energy moratorium for at least the next 18 months after pressure from residents.
4. McCracken County, Kentucky – It’s not all bad news this week, as a large solar project in Kentucky appears to be moving forward without fomenting difficulties on the ground.
A conversation with Wil Gehl at the Solar Energy Industries Association
This week I chatted with Wil Gehl, the InterMountain West senior manager at the Solar Energy Industries Association. I reached out in the hopes we could chat candidly about the impacts of the current national policy regime on solar development in the American West, where a pause on federal permits risks jeopardizing immense development in Nevada. To my delight, Wil was (pun intended) willing to get into the hot seat with me and get into the mix.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So for starters, walk me through how solar development out west has changed since the start of this year.
Certainly been a lot of changes. I think there’s sort of a confluence of lots of uncertainty and change in the industry. The impending tax credit deadlines and safe harbor and commence construction deadlines, all of that combined with the sort of things that have been ongoing in the West for a while — public lands, siting issues — I think those have made a relatively difficult development environment for folks.
But that said, we’re also seeing unprecedented load growth across the West, and Nevada’s a really good example of that. So the demand for solar and storage remains super high. But I think now we’re navigating even more difficulty in getting projects both sited and also over the finish line.
How has the pause on federal permitting impacted projects in this area of the country?
Nevada is 80% public land, give or take, so those changes at the federal level, particularly, the Department of Interior … it’s pretty difficult if you’re looking at utility-scale solar in the state to avoid a sort of federal lands nexus. Those policy changes are really being felt on the ground in Nevada.
We don’t do a ton of engagement at the county level but I’ve been tracking those developments across the state, in Nevada, and others around the West. Whether they’re moratoriums or consideration on moratoriums, or new siting restrictions… in most states in the West, the land use decisions rest at the local level, either the county or the municipal jurisdiction. The patchwork of changing ordinances, that [has a] pace that has intensified a little bit this year as well.
How is SEIA trying to get those projects unstuck? I think about Esmeralda 7 for example, which hasn’t seen its permitting timeline updated online in half a year. What’s the process for trying to get these projects to move forward at this juncture?
I guess I don’t have project by project specific information but in general, I think the example with Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo’s letter is how we’ve been approaching this issue. Trying to make the case for states like Nevada with really high load growth that projects like this are critical to meeting energy demand and serving customers reliably. Trying to tie the really near-term challenge of serving load together with these issues of federal land so that people on the ground at the state level are aware of it and can use the influence they have with federal officials and other folks to make this situation known, that this has real practical effects with states and their economic development.
When it comes to transmission for these solar projects, what’s the status? Is the scope of the pause just limited to the scope of solar generation or also transmission lines connected to them?
I think the kind of more recent challenges have been more focused on the generation side. The pace of the transmission and associated queue bottlenecks, I feel like that situation has not improved by any means but I don’t get the sense there’s any near-term changes that have impacted that. I’d be curious if other folks who work more closely on the transmission side have a different perspective, but that’s kind of what I’m seeing.
Is there from your vantage point a clip or an end here? If these projects are unable to be unstuck, do you expect developers to try and wait out this limbo with public lands? Or do you expect developers to rethink how they site their projects?
I think in general for projects already under the development process, folks have already invested a lot of time, energy, and capital to get those projects to this point. Particularly those in the West really necessary to serve as growing load, I would expect folks to really be pursuing every angle they can to get those projects over the finish line.
That said, I’m sure there is some point. I just don’t have a good sense of when this becomes totally unpalatable or you’re not able to move forward.
NV Energy recently had a filing at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that allowed projects previously in their queue an escape route out if they were not able to maintain their queue position. I do think that’s a sign of the siting difficulties, the people re-evaluating their project portfolio. I’m not a developer but if you’re looking on private land or federal land, signs are pointing to a smoother path forward on private land but in states like Nevada where 80% plus is public land, even for a project fully sited on private land, it’s really difficult to avoid interconnection or transmission. There are pretty much always going to be federal impacts. That’s just going to be a challenge that industry’s facing at this point.
What’s your message to developers who are anxious in this moment?
That’s a good question. I share the anxiety.
I also think there’s a lot of effort being undertaken by developers to explain the situation on the ground to their elected officials and I really think that’s the kind of message that needs to get out there. These real tangible impacts of projects that were already invested in, in some cases already under construction, that are being hindered by these policy decisions that I don’t think are serving the public interests and are going to limit economic development if they don’t come online in time. Ultimately energy is needed to meet the growing demand. There’s not a great alternative to these projects not getting done.