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:
Despite lots of fretting, the evidence for one is incredibly flimsy.

Is the Inflation Reduction Act hurting President Biden’s hopes for re-election?
As Biden celebrates the first anniversary of his historic climate law, there’s handwringing in some Democratic circles about exactly that. According to Axios’ Josh Kraushaar, one of the reasons that Biden is struggling in head-to-head polls with leading Republicans is that “Democrats are pushing the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy too quickly,” something that he identifies as “a consistent theme with working class voters of all backgrounds.”
The evidence for this broad claim is incredibly flimsy. Kraushaar points to one poll which finds that respondents favor a mix of energy sources moving forward over phasing out “the use of oil, coal and natural gas completely,” by a margin of 72-26. And that’s about it. That’s odd, because when voters are asked about the individual provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, including EV subsidies, tax incentives to install solar panels and industry subsidies for wind and solar power generation, they support them by double-digit margins. A recent Washington Post-University of Maryland poll, for example, found that voters approved of the EV tax credit by a margin of 50-22.
It is only when respondents are presented with the stark, all-or-nothing language beloved by the fossil fuel industry that they tend to balk, activating fears that AOC is going to personally repossess your gas-powered truck tomorrow morning or that Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm is going to shut off your natural gas lines and starve you out until you install an electric stove. It’s the thinking pushed by former Democratic strategist Ruy Texeira, now with the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, who attributes to Democrats the position that “We need a rapid green transition to end the use of fossil fuels and replace them with fully renewable energy sources” and then identifies this position as Biden’s chief vulnerability.
Because the overwhelming majority of Americans still drive rides powered by internal combustion engines and rely on fossil fuels every day, it should not be surprising that sudden, dramatic change polls poorly. Americans, after all, have a very well-known status quo bias that must be worked around if meaningful social change is to be successfully pursued. But leading Democrats, including the president, aren’t pushing for that kind of dizzying change anyway. The administration has set a goal of having 50 percent of new vehicle sales by all-electric by 2030 – seven years from now.
Even that timeline means that the infrastructure for gas-powered vehicles will have to remain in place for decades, and that’s assuming future presidents don’t reverse course. But making electric vehicles a growing component of America’s long-term transportation plan requires some up-front investment and subsidies and that is exactly what the Biden administration has done. To paraphrase former President Obama, if you like your gas-guzzling Canyonero, you can keep it.
It’s worth noting that the Biden administration does not anticipate generating all of America’s electricity with “wind and solar,” as the poll that Texeira cites suggests, which would indeed be hard to pull off. That’s because the administration’s lofty goal of phasing out fossil fuels by 2035 relies heavily on massive new investments in next-generation nuclear power plants, not just the $6 billion band-aid that has been placed on propping up the country’s existing atomic generators. And while the administration has not released plans, or publicly pushed for, big new investments in nuclear power, they should consider it. If anything, it is generally liberal Democrats, not working class voters, who oppose nuclear energy, which polls well with Americans, and Biden and his team would be wise to unveil more specific ideas about how they plan to fill the gap between renewable capacity and dead dinosaur juice.
But Kraushaar, Texeira, and other centrist fretters are also missing a huge and consequential aspect of status quo bias in our politics — in another year, the Inflation Reduction Act and its provisions will be the status quo, as Republicans found out the hard way when they tried to overturn what they thought was the hated Affordable Care Act in 2017. It turns out that, while people had and still have mixed feelings about Obama’s signature health care reform, they also didn’t want to return to a world in which you could be denied insurance for “pre-existing conditions.” The law went from consistently unpopular to a third rail virtually overnight when Trump was elected.
Not only that, but the green initiatives in the IRA are already very well-liked, at least when they’re spelled out. As the percentage of Americans with EVs or plug-in hybrids grows, so will the appreciation for the tax credits, the expanding charging infrastructure, and more. Yes, there is still some dissatisfaction with aspects of the economy, but that has much more to do with Biden’s inability to wave a magic wand and conjure 2019 prices back into being than it does with tax discounts at the local Chevy dealership.
There’s also more to holding power than strictly hewing to a public opinion consensus.
Nowhere in the ruminations of people worried about the electoral blowback of green energy initiatives is there much concern about climate change itself, a particularly galling blind spot given this summer’s relentless, record-breaking heat waves, the deadly blazes that consumed the Hawaiian island of Maui, and the wildfire smoke repeatedly blanketing parts of the U.S. in a choking, sun-blotting haze. Democrats aren’t pushing for green energy because they are consumed with woke ideology – they are trying to do their part to arrest the planet-wide catastrophe that fossil fuel burning has set into motion. And they have already done the most important thing they can do with power – using it instead of cowering in fear of the electoral consequences.
Read more about the politics of the energy transition:
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more thoughts on the week’s most notable fights around project development.
1. Pinal County, Arizona – If you can’t build a solar or a wind farm somewhere, it’s really hard to get a data center built there too.
2. St. Joseph County, Indiana – Thousands of miles away from Arizona, a similar division is dominating the fight over whether to enact a 2-year moratorium on data centers in the county home of South Bend.
3. Ingham County, Michigan – The first solar farm fight has been resolved under Michigan’s new renewables siting law.
A conversation with Nevada attorney general Aaron Ford
This week’s conversation is with Nevada attorney general Aaron Ford, the Democratic candidate for governor in the state. His campaign reached out recently asking if I wanted to chat about what he’d want to do on data center and energy policy, which is essentially catnip for a reporter like me. So we hopped on the phone and chatted about his approach to regulation as he seeks to oust the sitting GOP governor Joe Lombardo.
The following conversation was lightly edited and abridged for clarity.
As someone running for statewide office, how do you take into consideration the growing backlash to industrial development? Not just data center development but solar and wind?
I think it's the responsible thing to do and it’s the responsive thing to do to engage in conversation around this issue, understand what people think about it, and try to come up with policies to demonstrate your willingness to accommodate those issues. I’ve been on two statewide tours in the last nine, 10 months all over the state talking to folks. The first time I recall having a conversation about this was at the end of my first statewide tour at the end of last year in a rural county, complaining about a data center coming to a different part of that rural county.
It’s across demographics. Democrats, Republicans, Independents – they’re having concerns about these data centers. They’re swarming into Nevada communities, draining our water, jacking up our energy prices, and using Nevada taxpayer money to do it. So folks have asked for thoughtful consideration on how to do this.
How do you distinguish between the concerns about data centers and the concerns about renewable energy, transmission, maybe even conventional energy sources? Do you separate those conversations or are they all just one big conversation to have?
They’re not mutually exclusive. There are sure to be distinct conversations to be had.
What I have said in my plan is that we’re going to stop the [tax] abatement for future data centers coming here until I can audit the efficacy of these other data centers who’ve received abatements. Joe Lombardo has given out $200 million in abatements and he hasn’t checked to see that they’ve fulfilled their end of the bargain in terms of local hires, their impacts on the environment, and so forth.
What I’m going to do is ensure that [if] they're going to operate here, they’ll have to bring not just their own energy but renewable energy to power their facilities.
If elected, you’d be representing a state that has principal interest in front of the federal government. I’ve been writing about data center development on federal lands including the situation in Boulder City. How do you view engaging with the Trump administration on data center development?
At the outset, what we see happening right now outside of Boulder City is an affront to local control. It’s an affront to a local government and its residents voicing their opposition to a data center and the federal government shouldn’t be able to do an end run around zoning and environmental protections. I’m going to stand up for our sovereignty in that regard. I’ve said time and again that anyone who is serious about improving the lives of Nevadans, this is contrary to that. They are ignoring the will of Nevadans.
When it comes to the situation in Boulder City, what do you think should happen there?
I think the federal government shouldn’t be able to come in and authorize the approval of a data center when the initial authorization was for a solar project. There are two different environmental protection measures that need to be implemented in that regard.
An end run around protections with no notice and opportunity to be heard is tantamount to a coup in this arena. It’s not something that I countenance. I know what I stand for. Certainly I wouldn’t stand by quietly and not do anything.
Walk me through what you want to get done on this topic should you win? What do you want to see the state legislature do?
We’re going to stop the tax abatements, these giveaways to these companies. We need to ensure they’ve lived up to their obligations.
When I’m governor they’re going to have to bring their own clean energy and bring their own water. We live in the desert. We’re going to end evaporative cooling throughout the state.
I’m not new at this. My tenure in public service has been defined by holding public companies accountable. I’ve held them all accountable and I’m going to do the same for data centers should I be elected governor.
My last question for you is about the future. Most conversations happening about data center development are focused on the short term. But five, ten years down the road, where do you think we’re going to end up on this issue?
That’s the real question. Eleven years ago, we had no idea we’d be here. ChatGPT didn’t exist when data centers were first discussed. They were places where the cloud was being held.
So look, we need to have conversations with companies. We need to stay at the forefront of development.We need to stay in conversation with companies to understand where it's going and make sure we’re passing governmental policies that will accommodate the needs of Nevadans. While we can’t predict where we’ll be in five years, we know it won’t look like this today.
We need to be nimble. We need to be responsive. We need to be reactive. Proactive, when we can. All of it at the exact same time.
The most important states to watch for the future of renewable energy policy sit at the nexus of the data center backlash.
Over the last week, I’ve pored over what I believe to be the top five most important spaces to watch for all things utility-scale solar, battery storage and transmission development: Texas, California, Arizona, Alabama and Wisconsin. I selected these five states because they either have some of the largest generation capacity (Texas, California, Arizona) or crucial statewide elections that could decide not only the future of renewable energy in the state but elsewhere across the country (Alabama, Wisconsin).
In four out of the five states I found remarkable harbingers of troubles and tension in the foreground, as the nation careens toward a midterm election fast being defined by rising electricity bills and the AI infrastructure many Americans believe to be to blame.
In Texas an influential conservative think tank, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, is urging the state utilities commission to pause transmission permitting so legislators can help “the market to direct less revenue to wind, solar, and storage.” In Arizona, Democrats and Republicans are clashing over a four mile “nuisance” setback for solar and wind projects which industry backers have claimed would be a de facto ban on new projects. In Wisconsin, GOP gubernatorial hopeful Tom Tiffany is campaigning with renewables dissidents while railing against data centers too on a platform of empowering local control over infrastructure siting.
My only exception is California where, for a multitude of reasons, our Heatmap Pro data actually finds renewable energy conflicts and cancellations are actually down from their all-time average.
So here’s my breakdown of the top five states to watch for the future of policy governing renewable energy development. I hope this list is helpful. Oh, and for the sake of saving you time, I’m not going to delve deep into wind energy policy specifically, because there’s no reason to – you and I both know that industry’s fate is being decided by Donald Trump alone.
On Wednesday, after briefing Fight subscribers about this list in advance, I didn’t think I’d be breaking huge news. Then I spotted a grassroots anti-transmission organizer in the Lone Star State exclaiming on Facebook about a letter submitted that day to a Texas Public Utilities Commission docket from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, one of the most influential conservative think tanks in the United States.
The TPPF letter, which has not yet been reported, called for a statewide pause on transmission permitting pending new legislation that would deprioritize solar, wind, and battery storage on the state grid. It endorsed a motion to abate proceedings for approving new 765-kV high voltage power lines, a buildout in progress responding to various constraints on the grid as well as data center growth. And there were consignatories, including a litany of oil company executives as well as ranchers. “The need for so many long-distance lines is fundamentally driven by the failure of the wholesale market to properly incentivize the development of dispatchable generation close to load,” wrote Greg Sinclar, the think tank’s CEO. “The PUC and ERCOT need to implement a complete solution instead of partial fixes. Fundamentally, Texas needs the market to direct less revenue to wind, solar, and storage and more to reliable generation to properly account for the differences in reliability, variability, and duration of those different resources.”
Towards the end of the message, the think tank recommended what I now consider to be one of the most important pieces of state-level legislation considered anywhere in the country and which nearly became law last year. I wrote about the bill last year, as it would require energy generation projects to produce electricity whenever called upon or else they’d pay a fine, a concept opponents effusively say would target solar and wind projects lacking the energy storage to be on call for grid operators 24/7. (Nevermind the fact that solar plus storage has been the hero of the Texas grid this summer.)
“We think that the market will respond to those changes by building the amount and types of reliable generation needed in Texas and eliminate the need for more transmission and out-of-market subsidies,” Sinclair concluded.
The conservatives’ request was subsequently endorsed by Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, but wasn’t heeded. The Public Services Commission on Friday approved two large 765-kV lines out to West Texas, and it’s unclear whether the commission will heed future requests to pause green lines for these power lines given ongoing reliability concerns. But suddenly, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s support for a permitting pause looks a little different, especially since Texas attorney general and GOP senate candidate Ken Paxton filed comments supporting the abatement request earlier in the day.
“The Commission should pause to allow the Legislature time to evaluate the benefits and risks of these massive transmission lines. While the potential benefit of such lines may be significant, so is the risk of damage to privately owned lands and natural resources and the Legislature has not yet had the ability to balance those interests,” Paxton wrote in a legal brief to the commission, per the Texas Tribune.
For months now, myself and others at Heatmap have warned that the data center backlash could provide room for an anti-renewables Trojan Horse, as demand constraints and energy price politics change the calculus around the generation mix for elected officials and candidates for public office. Suddenly there’s a flashy new reason to argue for “firm” generation like gas and coal that can run all the time, especially in a state like Texas already dealing with blackout risk. And now it’s more evident than ever how at least one influential corner of conservative orthodoxy wants to respond: halting new electricity infrastructure so investors downgrade the value of building renewables.
When reached for comment, TPPF confirmed its desire to see this legislation passed before any major transmission buildout in the Lone Star State. “Texas ratepayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize billions in transmission infrastructure built primarily to move intermittent wind and solar generation that can't reliably deliver when Texans need it most,” read a statement provided by the think tank’s vice president of communications Eric Oldfather, which posited that “much of the pressure for these lines is coming from companies trying to meet their ESG goals, not by what Texas actually needs for a reliable grid.”
“The Legislature needs to weigh in before the PUC locks in costs that families and businesses will be paying for decades,” the statement concluded.
When Trump was first elected, the “Abundance” movement said California needed to be more like Texas when it came to permitting renewables. I’m not so sure that’s true anymore.
New renewable energy fights have consistently declined since early 2025, according to Heatmap Pro data, from a high of 18 fresh fights in the first quarter of that year to eight in the last three months. Every quarter, the number of new conflicts has gone down.

This could be for any number of reasons, like enactment of a siting law giving developers alternatives to local regulators more likely to represent the state’s historical NIMBYist tendencies. But it’s also possible that the state benefits from lacking the data center boom and backlash snaring other areas of the country. While California currently has one of the largest sets of operating data center facilities, it’s far from the primary destination for the new builds we’re seeing for artificial intelligence. There’s a teeny backlash happening, but it's been comparatively tiny.
Unlike New York State, there isn’t even a legislative push gaining steam for a statewide moratorium yet. That could be because rumored 2028 presidential contender Gov. Gavin Newsom last year vetoed a bill mandating new water use disclosures, suggesting he may not have purchase for that sort of law. But this also demonstrates regulating data centers is not as important a priority to him as, let’s say, strengthening the grid from fire risk and lowering gas prices.
In other words, California has more favorable waters than anyone could’ve expected last year.
Some lawmakers in the sunniest state really want solar energy to be far, far away from people.
This year the Arizona state house passed a bill that would label utility-scale renewable energy projects a "nuisance" and compel them to be located at least four miles away from residential homes. Per the legislative text, project operators would suddenly be subject to a misdemeanor, unless they got certificates from the Arizona Corporation Commission and its committee on power plant and transmission siting. And it would require the state attorney general to immediately bring legal action to “abate, enjoin, and prevent” projects from being built or operating out of compliance with the new restriction. Pro-renewables organization Advanced Energy United called the proposal a “practical siting ban plus an automatic litigation trigger.” (At least the bill authors exempted rooftop solar from being a nuisance, because how would that work?)
It’s unlikely that in an election year favorable for Democrats this bill stands any chance of becoming law. Yet it’s important to recognize Arizona is now for the second time in two years home to a bitter divide over indefinitely halting at least some forms of renewable energy, after legislators last year rejected a flat out wind project ban. Should there be a Red Wave election cycle, we can only surmise the potential for choppy waters and relative instability in this otherwise blossoming state for solar development.
Renewable energy developers better hope the future of Republican public utility regulators doesn’t look like Jim Zeigler.
In June, Zeigler won the GOP primary for a Public Service Commissioner against an incumbent, Chris Beeker. At the time, the former state auditor campaigned primarily on fighting the growth of data centers and solar farms in the state, lumping them together in the same breath. “They can ruin your community, consume water, and drive your electric bills up,” Zeigler said of both industries in an ad featured on the homepage of his campaign website. Zeigler is responding to local concerns like those in Stockton, a town south of the city Montgomery where residents are opposing a large Silicon Ranch project. People in the area routinely link the solar farm to a Meta data center campus being built north of them, in the city.
When Zeigler won the nomination, I predicted his candidacy, if successful, could set a blueprint for other Republicans elsewhere in the United States hoping to harness an industrial techlash against the development of renewable energy projects. In another era, I’d think a man who defended Roy Moore would have more trouble in Alabama. But it’s entirely plausible Zeigler’s previous work on the commission decades ago, combined with an enthusiastic base of support in the state’s Republican base, will catapult his remarkable candidacy to the PSC.
Nothing has irritated me more lately than the online discourse over the Wisconsin gubernatorial campaign and data center development.
Right after winning the Democratic primary for governor, former Milwaukee County executive David Crowley told NBC News he opposed a moratorium on new data center projects because some communities might still want them. Then his GOP opponent Tom Tiffany went on a posting spree littered with deceptively cut clips and trotted out a Trumpian nickname for his opponent: Data Center David. Since then, for weeks, I’ve watched my X feed routinely return to this spat to debate whether Democrats let Republicans win on this issue as a whole, not only in Wisconsin but nationally.
Except… Tiffany doesn’t support a moratorium either. Where the two candidates differ most is that Crowley would require new data centers to not only bring their own energy but prioritize using 100% clean carbon-free energy. Tiffany, meanwhile, has been trotting around the Badger State campaigning in rural communities fighting renewable energy projects and also data centers, criticizing Crowley’s “BYONCE” approach. “David Crowley has called for 100% wind, solar, and battery storage to power data centers. That means not only paving over land for the data centers themselves, but destroying tens of thousands of additional acres of Wisconsin land for solar panels, wind turbines, battery facilities, and transmission infrastructure,” states Tiffany’s website.
Like Zeigler, a Tiffany victory would have ripple effects for renewable energy politics across the country. Both candidates combine this angst over data centers with an overlapping Venn Diagram of potential policy pain for solar, wind, battery storage, and transmission.
In Wisconsin, the most likely practical impact of a Tiffany victory would be changes to state siting. Wisconsin is like California in that state regulators can have a final say over utility-scale solar and wind permitting, instead of localities. And like in Michigan, I expect any new governing GOP majority in the state legislature to ready, aim, fire at that permitting structure, opting instead for emboldening local control over energy development.