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:
Much may depend on the Senate’s tolerance for fuzzy math.

House Republicans passed a budget blueprint Thursday morning that lays the groundwork for the party to begin drafting legislation to enact President Trump’s agenda. Now the fight over the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy tax credits begins in earnest.
The blueprint is merely a set of instructions for writing the eventual budget bill, laying out topline numbers for tax cuts and spending reductions — it doesn’t contain any actual policies. Trump’s biggest priorities are to extend the tax cuts he enacted in 2017, pass new tax cuts on tips and overtime pay, and to boost spending on immigration control and defense.
The resolution that Republicans passed allows for all of the above. In total, it enables Congress to craft a bill that would increase the national debt over the next decade by more than $5 trillion.
The good news for the IRA tax credits is that the framework only requires lawmakers to craft legislation that would produce $4 billion in savings — a relatively small amount that doesn't exert much pressure on cutting the tax credits. The bad news is that Senate Republicans have given their word to budget hawks in the House that they will aim to cut much more than that — at least $1.5 trillion in spending. House Republicans, for their part, are eager to do at least $2 trillion in deficit reductions.
According to a “menu” of budget proposals that made its way around the Hill earlier this year, Republicans estimate they could save anywhere from $3 billion to $800 billion by repealing IRA tax credits, depending on how many and which ones are cut.
Lawmakers could also go after other climate-related policies, like cutting grant programs from the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency. “Most of the funds have been obligated,” meaning they’re legally committed to grantees, “so there’s not much left to rescind,” Alex McDonough, a lobbyist with Pioneer Public Affairs, told me in an email. “We’ll see what they do with a possible rescission package, but even that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions they want for offsetting tax cuts.”
Lobbyists on Capitol Hill and other experts I’ve spoken with over the past two weeks disagree about how much the numbers matter when it comes to whether and how much of the IRA will be repealed. Some felt the budget math would take priority, while others told me that if any of the tax credits were killed or saved, it would be for political reasons over anything else.
Though the biggest political target seems to be the electric vehicle tax credits, “anything with a price tag is at least somewhat vulnerable,” McDonough said. Lawmakers could also opt to make certain credits more difficult to access or phase them out earlier rather than fully repeal them.
McDonough also said the lobbying that companies and trade groups have been doing around the manufacturing and clean electricity tax credits appeared to be working, and will ratchet up even more in May. “Appealing to ‘all of the above’ and ‘energy dominance’ is working because everyone knows how badly we need new generation to meet rapidly rising demand and a lot of the clean energy resources happen to be the quickest to deploy,” he said. “Utilities want it too, which is also very important.”
On Thursday, Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John Curtis of Utah sent a letter to their party’s leadership asking them to preserve tax credits that spur manufacturing, reduce energy costs for consumers, and give certainty to businesses that have already made investments in the U.S. based on the credits. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Jerry Moran of Kansas also signed the letter. It was the first major show of support for the tax credits in the Senate, following a similar letter signed by 21 Republicans in the House.
Republicans are trying to enact Trump’s agenda using a special process called budget reconciliation, which will enable them to pass it with a simple 51-vote majority rather than the 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster. The party currently has 53 seats, so four Republicans coming out in favor of preserving IRA tax credits is a good sign for the law. Similarly, the Republicans have a seven-seat majority in the House, and so those 21 who like the IRA could have quite a bit of influence.
But the other big open question for the future of the IRA — and frankly, for the future of the Senate — is whether Republicans will proceed with the fuzzy math they are using to calculate the cost of the bill. When the Congressional Budget Office scores the extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts, it will use what's called a "current law baseline," and estimate that they will cost the government more than $3 trillion dollars over the next ten years. Senate Republicans, however, have asserted that extending the 2017 tax cuts is free and will have no impact on the deficit, using a different scoring method called a “current policy baseline.”
The reason this matters for the IRA is that the budget reconciliation process has strict rules. If lawmakers were forced to recognize the true cost of the tax cut extensions in drafting the budget bill, they would have to make several trillion dollars’ worth of additional spending cuts in order to align with the blueprint they passed this week. In that scenario, it’s hard to see how any of the IRA could survive.
But if Republicans unify around this fuzzy math and carry it all the way to the final vote on the bill, which would be unprecedented, they could face a showdown with Democrats, who will say the bill doesn’t comply with the reconciliation rules. In that scenario, they’ll be faced with a choice either to go back to the drawing board or take the nuclear option — essentially changing how the Senate operates.
“There will be a majority vote on whether the Senate wants to change its precedents going forward, forever, and basically open up reconciliation to whatever policies the majority wants to enact going forward,” Charlie Ellsworth, another lobbyist for Pioneer Public Affairs, told me.
Expect to hear a lot more about this debate over the cost of the tax cuts once lawmakers return to Washington on April 28 after a two-week recess. Republicans have said they want to get the budget bill to Trump’s desk by Memorial Day. McDonough doesn’t think that’s in the cards, and expects it to happen by the August recess at best. But he expects the House Ways and Means committee to push out a first version of the bill in May, so we’ll see what the first proposal is for the fate of the IRA tax credits then.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The cloak-and-dagger approach is turning the business into a bogeyman.
It’s time to call it like it is: Many data center developers seem to be moving too fast to build trust in the communities where they’re siting projects.
One of the chief complaints raised by data center opponents across the country is that companies aren’t transparent about their plans, which often becomes the original sin that makes winning debates over energy or water use near-impossible. In too many cases, towns and cities neighboring a proposed data center won’t know who will wind up using the project, either because a tech giant is behind it and keeping plans secret or a real estate firm refuses to disclose to them which company it’ll be sold to.
Making matters worse, developers large and small are requiring city and county officials to be tight-lipped through non-disclosure agreements. It’s safe to say these secrecy contracts betray a basic sense of public transparency Americans expect from their elected representatives and they become a core problem that lets activists critical of the data center boom fill in gaps for the public. I mean, why trust facts and figures about energy and water if the corporations won’t be up front about their plans?
“When a developer comes in and there’s going to be a project that has a huge impact on a community and the environment – a place they call home – and you’re not getting any kind of answers, you can tell they’re not being transparent with you,” Ginny Marcille-Kerslake, an organizer for Food and Water Watch in Pennsylvania, told me in an interview this week. “There’s an automatic lack of trust there. And then that extends to their own government.”
Let’s break down an example Marcille-Kerslake pointed me to, where the utility Talen Energy is seeking to rezone hundreds of acres of agricultural land in Montour County, Pennsylvania, for industrial facilities. Montour County is already a high risk area for any kind of energy or data center development, ranking in the 86th percentile nationally for withdrawn renewable energy projects (more than 10 solar facilities have been canceled here for various reasons). So it didn’t help when individuals living in the area began questioning if this was for Amazon Web Services, similar to other nearby Talen-powered data center projects in the area?
Officials wouldn’t – or couldn’t – say if the project was for Amazon, in part because one of the county commissioners signed a non-disclosure agreement binding them to silence. Subsequently, a Facebook video from an activist fighting the rezoning went viral, using emails he claimed were obtained through public records requests to declare Amazon “is likely behind the scenes” of the zoning request.
Amazon did not respond to my requests for comment. But this is a very familiar pattern to us now. Heatmap Pro data shows that a lack of transparency consistently ranks in the top five concerns people raise when they oppose data center projects, regardless of whether they are approved or canceled. Heatmap researcher Charlie Clynes explained to me that the issue routinely crops up in the myriad projects he’s tracked, down to the first data center ever logged into the platform – a $100 million proposal by a startup in Hood County, Oregon, that was pulled after a community uproar.
“At a high level, I have seen a lack of transparency become more of an issue.t makes people angry in a very unique way that other issues don’t. Not only will they think a project is going to be bad for a community, but you’re not even telling them, the key stakeholder, what is going on,” Clynes said. “It’s not a matter of, are data centers good or bad necessarily, but whether people feel like they’re being heard and considered. And transparency issues make that much more difficult..”
My interview with Marcille-Kerslake exemplified this situation. Her organization is opposed to the current rapid pace of data center build-out and is supporting opposition in various localities. When we spoke, her arguments felt archetypal and representative of how easily those who fight projects can turn secrecy into a cudgel. After addressing the trust issues with me, she immediately pivoted to saying that those exist because “at the root of it, this lack of transparency to the community” comes from “the fact that what they have planned, people don’t want.”
“The answer isn’t for these developers to come in and be fully transparent in what they want to do, which is what you’d see with other kinds of developments in your community. That doesn’t help them because what they’re building is not wanted.”
I’m not entirely convinced by her point, that the only reason data center developers are staying quiet is because of a likelihood of community opposition. In fairness, the tech sector has long operated with a “move fast, break things” approach, and Silicon Valley companies long worked in privacy in order to closely guard trade secrets in a competitive marketplace. I also know from my previous reporting that before AI, data center developers were simply focused on building projects with easy access to cheap energy.
However, in fairness to opponents, I’m also not convinced the industry is adequately addressing its trust deficit with the public. Last week, I asked Data Center Coalition vice president of state policy Dan Diorio if there was a set of “best practices” that his large data center trade organization is pointing to for community relations and transparency. His answer? People are certainly trying their best as they move quickly to build out infrastructure for AI, but no, there is no standard for such a thing.
“Each developer is different. Each company is different. There’s different sizes, different structures,” he said. “There’s common themes of open and public meetings, sharing information about water use in particular, helping put it in the proper context as well.”
He added: “I wouldn’t categorize that as industry best practice, [but] I think you’re seeing common themes emerge in developments around the country.”
Plus more of the week’s biggest renewable energy fights.
Cole County, Missouri – The Show Me State may be on the precipice of enacting the first state-wide solar moratorium.
Clark County, Ohio – This county has now voted to oppose Invenergy’s Sloopy Solar facility, passing a resolution of disapproval that usually has at least some influence over state regulator decision-making.
Millard County, Utah – Here we have a case of folks upset about solar projects specifically tied to large data centers.
Orange County, California – Compass Energy’s large battery project in San Juan Capistrano has finally died after a yearslong bout with local opposition.
Hillsdale County, Michigan – Here’s a new one: Two county commissioners here are stepping back from any decision on a solar project because they have signed agreements with the developer.
A conversation with Save Our Susquehanna’s Sandy Field.
This week’s conversation is with Sandy Field, leader of the rural Pennsylvania conservation organization Save Our Susquehanna. Field is a climate activist and anti-fossil fuel advocate who has been honored by former vice president Al Gore. Until recently, her primary focus was opposing fracking and plastics manufacturing in her community, which abuts the Susquehanna River. Her focus has shifted lately, however, to the boom in data center development.
I reached out to Field because I’ve been quite interested in better understanding how data centers may be seen by climate-conscious conservation advocates. Our conversation led me to a crucial conclusion: Areas with historic energy development are rife with opposition to new tech infrastructure. It will require legwork for data centers – or renewable energy projects, for that matter – to ever win support in places still reeling from legacies of petroleum pollution.
The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.
Given your background, tell me about how you wound up focusing on data centers?
We won a fight against a gas plant in fall of 2023. We started saying, Instead of focusing on what we don’t want, we’re going to start focusing on what we do want. We were focusing on supporting recreational projects in our area, because this is an area where people come to hike and camp and fish. It’s a great place to ride your bike.
Then, all of the sudden, people were saying, What about these data centers?
At first, it seemed benign. It’s like a warehouse, who cares? But we started to learn about the water use concerns, the energy use concerns. We learned about the Amazon one that’s connected to Three Mile Island, which is responsible for turning it back on. We learned about one in Homer, Pennsylvania, where they’re taking a former coal plant and converting it into the largest gas plant in the country in order to power a data center. The people in that area are going to get the pollution from the enormous power plant but none of the power. It started to be clear to us that, again, behind these projects is a push to build out more fracking and gas in Pennsylvania.
From a climate change point of view, this is exactly the wrong perspective. We’re running in the wrong direction. Between water usage, and this energy usage, people are becoming alarmed that the burden will be on us and data centers will be just another boondoggle.
The last thing I’ll say is that there is nothing right now in American politics that is reaching across the aisle. Our communities are coming together. Everybody – Democrats, Republicans – to fight these things.
This is also the only thing I’ve ever worked on that people hate more than plastics.
It sounds like how you learned about these projects was, it began as an anodyne issue but you began to hear about impacts on water and energy use. When I talk to people in the development space, some will call anybody who opposes development NIMBYs. But I’m feeling like this is an oversimplification of the problem here. If you had to identify a principle reason so many people are opposing data centers, what would be the big overarching motive?
I think it seems rushed. People are concerned because it's like a gold rush.
A gas-fired power plant takes five years to build. They’re talking about data centers right now. Where is that power coming from? The whole thing feels like a bubble, and we’re concerned that people are going to invest into communities, and communities will be accepting them only to be left with stranded assets.
When I hear you bring up the principle reason being speed, I hear you. Power plants take years. Mines take years. So do renewable energy projects. Help me get a better understanding though, how much of this is purely the speed –
They’re taking people by surprise.
Take into account where we are. We live by the Susquehanna River, the longest non-navigable river in the world. It doesn’t have a lot of industry on it because it’s too shallow, but we drink from the river and we’ve just gotten it clean. The river was so low this past year that historic structures were beginning to be visible that I’ve never seen, the entire time I have lived here. That was because of a drought.
Now, add to that a couple of data centers pulling millions of gallons of water a day and only putting a portion back in, with who knows what in there. People here are saying that back in the day this river was filled with coal dust, and then we had fracking, so its… enough is enough. Let’s put something into rural communities that will actually benefit us.
The small townships [deciding] don’t know enough about data centers to plan for them. So we’re trying to make sure they’re prepared for managing them. We go to these townships being approached and encourage them to have a protective ordinance that allows them to define parameters for these things. Setbacks, water use rules, things like that.
To your point about NIMBYs – there are a few around here who really are. But there are others who really do just have concerns about how this is a bad idea and we’re rushing in a direction we don’t want to go for our state. They felt this way about fracking, about advanced plastics recycling too, for example. It wasn’t that people didn’t want the projects in their backyards – it’s that they didn’t want them anywhere. Labeling us as NIMBYs or whiners or gripers is unfair.
On that note, I can’t help but notice that these efforts to get protective ordinances on data centers are happening as opponents of renewable energy are doing the same thing. Are you at all concerned that this increased scrutiny towards land use will lead to greater restrictions on renewables alongside data centers?
You’re right that a lot of this is about land use and there are similar arguments about renewable energy. Some of these arguments are being fed by the fossil fuel industry and its allies, and a lot of it is baseless. They’re feeding in concerns about glare and noise and whatever else that don’t even really exist about solar panels.
But it is, yes, often the same people talking about protecting their land. It does have similar elements, especially because of the agricultural land use being proposed in many cases.
We need to meet the concerns about renewable energy head-on. If you talk to people and show them a picture of solar panels with sheep grazing underneath and the land can be conserved for many years, this starts to be a different argument than building a data center for Amazon or someone else that people don’t even like, using the water and all that.