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:
Emails between the Pennsylvania governor’s office and Amazon illustrate the difficulty of courting big business as anti-AI fervor explodes.

On March 6, Pennsylvania real estate mogul Brian O’Neill shot a panicked email to Benjamin Kirshner, a top state official, with a plea to the governor.
Amazon, wrote the property developer, had just told him “in writing, and I have sent you the e-mail, that they will not be doing any projects in Pennsylvania until they get certainty that the projects they have invested in can move forward. In conversations, they have pointed out to us that they have been appealed in EVERY project at EVERY turn,” O’Neill told Kirshner, Governor Josh Shapiro’s chief transformation and opportunity officer, referring to local governments rejecting the company’s permit applications. His own project in the Philadelphia suburb of Conshohocken had been blocked in November.
O’Neill then pleaded for the governor to “make sure we are not going to get appealed frivolously by people who just want to slow us down for sport like Amazon,” asking the governor to force those who challenge zoning decisions to post a bond double the value of the project. “If a $2 billion development is postponed due to an appeal, they should have to post a bond for $4 billion,” he wrote.
Kirshner forwarded the request to top officials in the Shapiro administration with a “FYI.”
What if anything came out of this correspondence we don’t know. The Shapiro administration told me it did not respond to O’Neill’s email. When asked if it supported his idea, the governor’s office declined to say, simply stating that the idea would require legislation, which has not been introduced. A representative for O’Neill told me they would supply a response but did not follow up. When asked about the email, Amazon gave me a statement from an unnamed spokesperson stating the company “has a deep and ongoing commitment to Pennsylvania.”
The whole exchange exemplifies the mess Shapiro — or any governor and future presidential hopeful — finds themselves in as an AI data center boom they welcomed runs headlong into a bitter backlash.
Shapiro is not the only state executive being forced to respond to the loud and opposing interests of real estate developers and voters concerned about the rapid pace and lack of transparency of the AI buildout. In Maine, Governor Janet Mills last week vetoed a statewide data center ban, much to the chagrin of the Democratic voter base she’ll need to win a U.S. Senate primary against insurgent progressive upstart Graham Platner.
On the one hand, there’s a lot for a governor to love in the explosion of data center development. The AI revolution has helped Pennsylvania’s economy grow during an overall difficult moment for the U.S. economy. Having announced last June that he was going “all in on AI,” Shapiro has coaxed billions of dollars in Big Tech investment to his state. Reports pin the planned data center investment in Pennsylvania at $100 billion total. Roughly a fifth of that total is from Amazon, which in 2025 announced that it would build more than $20 billion in AI infrastructure in the Commonwealth.
On the other hand, Pennsylvania — a key battleground for anyone seeking the White House — has become a bellwether for the country’s fears about data centers. Many in the state are worried the developments could disrupt the energy grid and raise electricity bills. Depending on how they’re designed, these projects can either be boring box-shaped structures running computers and generating tax revenue or noisy polluters draining local aquifers.
Since late 2024, 26 data center projects have attracted at least some degree of public opposition in Pennsylvania, according to the Heatmap Pro database, which shows the frustrations are widespread across regions, political affiliations, and socioeconomic classes. Most local complaints have focused water consumption, noise, energy consumption, and pollution. My own reporting has also found secrecy to be a major complaint; real estate developers are in many cases getting approval to build data center campuses without telling the public who may inherit these facilities after they’re completed.
Emails obtained by Heatmap News from a grassroots organizer in rural Pennsylvania provide a glimpse into how Shapiro has navigated the intensifying drumbeat against data centers. These records — more than 150 pages of correspondence between Shapiro’s office, Amazon, and others in the tech and real estate industries — paint a vivid picture of how the rumored 2028 Democratic presidential contender initially sought to woo Amazon, then sought to balance that pro-business approach with rising angst against AI and data centers.
For example, in April 2025, months before Amazon announced its $20 billion investment, Shapiro’s office offered the tech giant “exclusive early access” to a permitting fast track program not yet available to the public. Kirshner described the provision to Amazon as an “enhanced permit coordination framework established specifically for Amazon Web Services (AWS) development projects within Pennsylvania.” According to a memo included in the emails bearing the governor’s insignia, the state would help AWS “be among the first companies” to utilize a new program that lets third-party contractors complete parts of the permit application review process.
This program — known as SPEED, or Streamlining Permits for Economic Expansion and Development — was created through state law in July 2024. Under the program, companies seeking specific environmental permits are granted permission to use approved outside hires to review applications and then give those recommendations to the state for use in decisions on permits. The goal of this is to expedite permit reviews overall.
Even though the program was created in 2024, it takes time to stand up a new government program like this. Members of the public were given formal access to apply for the SPEED program at the end of June 2025. This was months after the “exclusive” offer was sent to Amazon.
Notably, the memo is labeled “subject to a non-disclosure agreement dated effective as of Feb. 15, 2024.” The use of NDAs between governments and data center developers is controversial because the agreements swear public officials to secrecy, making them answerable not to the public but rather to private entities within the scope of the contract. In Minnesota, lawmakers have explicitly tried to shed light on data center development by banning local political leaders from entering into NDAs. So controversial is this practice that Microsoft issued a public pledge to stop using NDAs with local governments.
Rosie Lapowsky, Shapiro’s press secretary, confirmed in a statement to me that the administration had given Amazon advance notice of the SPEED program and offered to help it navigate the permitting process, but said that AWS has not so far used the program for any projects.
As for the NDA, it’s not clear what the terms of the agreement referenced in the offer were, who in the office signed it, and whether Shapiro himself was bound by it. This is not the first time NDAs have come up within the Shapiro administration, however. Spotlight PA, an investigative news outlet, reported in 2023 that members of his transition team signed NDAs.
Amazon declined to say whether it had asked anyone in the Shapiro administration to sign a NDA. Shapiro’s office would not provide additional information on whether the governor, any top state officials — including Kirshner, the main signatory of the memo — or any of the governor’s staff are under a NDA with Amazon.
I obtained this window into the Shapiro administration from Colby Wesner, vice president of the grassroots organization Concerned Citizens of Montour County in Pennsylvania. By day, Wesner works in pediatric medicine, but he’s become a well-known figure in tech-anxious corners of Facebook for posting simple videos in which he details the findings of public records requests he submits to attempt to understand Amazon’s data center development practices in the Keystone State.
He first became involved in the fight against data centers, he told me, when developer Talen Energy asked Montour County to rezone hundreds of acres for industrial use. As I chronicled in February, Wesner and others suspected it was for an Amazon data center, but local officials wouldn’t say. Activists grew especially frustrated with this silence after discovering that county staff and at least one county commissioner had signed NDAs against discussing data center development. Wesner wound up discovering that one project was indeed for Amazon, and his video unveiling his findings sparked a local outcry.
“The more you learn, the more you crave to get more information to figure out how secretive these projects generally are, and how non-transparent the state government is,” Wesner told me. “Me personally, I feel obligated to keep doing this because it started from our small county, but Pennsylvania counties across the state are reeling from this.”
To be clear, there are some data center projects in Pennsylvania that Amazon has gotten behind publicly as it sought to develop them, such as this one in Salem Township and this one in Falls Township. Shapiro mentioned both projects in his June 2025 speech announcing Amazon’s $20 billion data center investment in the state, which he said was the single largest capital investment in the Commonwealth’s history.
“Our administration is actively engaged with Amazon on additional sites in our Commonwealth, helping them to secure local support, developing the infrastructure needed to support more data centers and ensure our permitting process works quickly,” Shapiro said at the time, crediting these investments to faster permits that “give confidence to companies like Amazon that their projects will get built on time.”
The emails from Wesner show that Amazon was involved in another project in the state it has not yet confirmed to date: Project Hazelnut in Hazle Township, which is currently under development by real estate firm NorthPoint.
According to tech trade publication Data Center Dynamics, the first public reference to Project Hazelnut was actually from Shapiro, who embraced the project site as a preferred location for tech development and faster permitting. In November 2024, he hosted an event there to publicize a new executive order establishing a statewide “permit fast track” program and identified Project Hazelnut as one of the first to benefit. In a press release, his office said the project was a “transformative technology campus” that “exemplifies Governor Shapiro’s commitment to growing Pennsylvania’s economy all across the Commonwealth by improving permitting processes, reducing delays, and increasing our competitiveness by ensuring government operates at the speed of business.”
It was apparently only afterward, in January 2025, that residents in the surrounding Hazle township learned what Project Hazelnut was: a roughly 1,300-acre campus that would purportedly include 15 data center buildings.
Over the months that followed, getting Hazelnut built was clearly on the Shapiro administration’s minds, as its permitting status was listed alongside the Salem and Falls township projects in the “exclusive” permitting benefit the governor’s office offered the tech giant in April 2025. The memo states that NorthPoint, not Amazon, is “the developer,” but also says Amazon would work on submitting air and storage tank permitting information. Elsewhere in the memo it states that Amazon’s public association as developer of the Salem project led to “multiple challenges” in the permitting process.
Over the summer, Ethan Dodd, a reporter for RealClearPennsylvania, reached out to Amazon asking questions about Project Hazelnut and other data centers in Pennsylvania. “Governor Shapiro’s office thought you would be best to answer these.”
This email immediately led to worries at Amazon. “It appears from the inquiry and the fact that the Gov’s office has directed the reporter to Amazon for more details they may have outed us on a project,” wrote Preston Grisham, who was then a D.C.-based policy lead at Amazon, to Becky Ford, an executive on Amazon’s economic development team.
Ford then forwarded these concerns to Shapiro’s office. “Please see the inquiry below,” Ford wrote to Kirshner and Rick Siger, head of Pennsylvania’s Department of Community and Economic Development. She asked to know who told the reporter to contact Amazon and said Hazelnut was not a site they had “disclosed.”
“In talking to the team we absolutely did not confirm or discuss anything about AWS and Hazelnut,” Siger replied, accusing local residents of “speculating about AWS at Hazelnut — though we did not comment/confirm.”
Kirshner followed up, accusing the reporter of “attempting to create a narrative” and adding: “We did absolutely not tell this reporter that Northpoint was AWS.”
Months later, locals succeeded in pressuring Hazle to reject Project Hazelnut. NorthPoint has appealed the denial in court, as state environmental regulators under Shapiro have continued to advance the project’s environmental permit applications. NorthPoint did not respond to requests for comment. Amazon did not comment on whether it is involved with Project Hazelnut.
Hazelnut’s continued progress is happening as at least one data center project benefiting from the state’s fast-track permitting programs has stalled out. Earlier this week, The Washington Post reported that the permitting application for Project Gravity, another large would-be tech hub, had been put on hold pending additional information from the developer. As in the case of Hazelnut, locals in the tiny township of Archbald learned that Gravity would be a sprawling data center campus, one of a multitude of data center proposals in the area causing chaos between residents and local leadership.
Lapowsky stressed in the statement to me that state agencies in charge of permitting handle applications based on existing law, which includes opportunities for public input and appeal.
Amidst this anger, Shapiro has started to work rhetoric into his public comments saying he feels the pain of places like Hazle. In his February State of the State address, he laid out what he called “the Governor’s Responsible Infrastructure Development” principles, or GRID. He said that these standards, developed by his administration “in consultation with the community,” would “hold data centers accountable to strict standards if they want our full support.”
Three of the four standards struck me as standard fare. Developers would need to bring their own power or pay for new generation; companies would need to hire and train local workers; and they would need to commit to high environmental protection standards. One, though, stood out to me: Shapiro would make developers “commit to strict transparency standards.”
“Too many of these projects have been shrouded in secrecy, with local communities left in the dark about who is coming in and what they’re building,” he said. “That needs to change.”
The same day Shapiro gave that speech, Siger wrote Amazon to assure them the principles “are intended to be voluntary and Shapiro is “not proposing to ban or even discourage data centers or other large loads that don’t agree to implement them from siting here.”
Shapiro’s team also wanted to make sure Amazon got an advance look at the official “principles” before they were made formal and effective. On March 18, Shapiro’s deputy chief of staff Samuel Robinson wrote Ford and Merle Madrid, an Amazon lobbyist, with a “feedback draft of the principles” ahead of plans to “finalize and make the Principles public shortly.”
Amazon may have seen these principles, but I haven’t, and neither have most Pennsylvanians. More than two months since the State of the State address, Shapiro’s office has yet to release a formal outline of the governor’s data center development principles. The “feedback draft” itself wasn’t included in the cache of emails, nor was Amazon’s response, nor is it clear whether any other large tech companies may have received an advance consultation copy.
In the statement provided by the governor’s office, Lapowsky told me that the Shapiro administration is working to finalize and implement these standards and will release more details in the coming weeks, pointing to the GRID principles as outlined in the governor’s speech.
“These standards make clear that if companies want the Commonwealth’s full support — including access to tax credits and faster permitting — they must meet strict expectations around transparency, environmental protection, and community impact,” Lapowsky said. “This is about setting a higher bar for projects, not lowering it, and ensuring development happens responsibly and in a way that benefits Pennsylvanians.”
What we do know is that Shapiro last year was generally sympathetic to hearing Amazon’s needs, too. In the only message from the governor himself that appears in the emails — an August 2025 note sent to Matt Garman, CEO of Amazon Web Services, after the two saw each other in Pittsburgh — Shapiro writes, “We are thankful and excited about AWS’ historic investment and I agree that our teams continue to work very well together and we continue to be committed to your success in PA. We also look forward to the Fall announcement of the additional sites in PA, and would love to collaborate and maximize the impact of those announcements and share the story of positive economic and community outcomes together.”
He concluded the email: “My door is always open should you have issues or ideas you wish to discuss. Please keep in touch.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
With construction deadlines approaching, developers still aren’t sure how to comply with the new rules.
Certainty, certainty, certainty — three things that are of paramount importance for anyone making an investment decision. There’s little of it to be found in the renewable energy business these days.
The main vectors of uncertainty are obvious enough — whipsawing trade policy, protean administrative hostility toward wind, a long-awaited summit with China that appears to have done nothing to resolve the war with Iran. But there’s still one big “known unknown” — rules governing how companies are allowed to interact with “prohibited foreign entities,” which remain unwritten nearly a year after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act slapped them on just about every remaining clean energy tax credit.
The list of countries that qualify as “foreign entities of concern” is short, including Russian, Iran, North Korea, and China. Post-OBBBA, a firm may be treated as a “foreign-influenced entity” if at least 15% of its debt is issued by one of these countries — though in reality, China is the only one that matters. This rule also kicks in when there’s foreign entity authority to appoint executive officers, 25% or greater ownership by a single entity or a combined ownership of at least 40%.
Any company that wants to claim a clean energy tax credit must comply with the FEOC rules. How to calculate those percentages, however, the Trump administration has so far failed to say. This is tricky because clean energy projects seeking tax credits must be placed in service by the end of 2027 or start construction by July 4 of this year, which doesn’t leave them much time left to align themselves with the new rules.
While the Treasury Department published preliminary guidance in February, it largely covered “material assistance,” the system for determining how much of the cost of the project comes from inputs that are linked to those four nations (again, this is really about China). That still leaves the issue of foreign influence and “effective control,” i.e. who is allowed to own or invest in a project and what that means.
This has meant a lot of work for tax lawyers, Heather Cooper, a partner at McDermott Will & Schulte, told me on Friday.
“The FEOC ownership rules are an all or nothing proposition,” she said. “You have to satisfy these rules. It’s not optional. It’s not a matter of you lose some of the credits, but you keep others. There’s no remedy or anything. This is all or nothing.”
That uncertainty has had a chilling effect on the market. In February, Bloomberg reported that Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan had frozen some of their renewables financing work because of uncertainty around these rules, though Cooper told me the market has since thawed somewhat.
“More parties are getting comfortable enough that there are reasonable interpretations of these rules that they can move forward,” she said. “The reality is that, for folks in this industry — not just developers, but investors, tax insurers, and others — their business mandate is they need to be doing these projects.”
Some of the most frequent complaints from advisors and trade groups come around just how deep into a project’s investors you have to look to find undue foreign ownership or investment.
This gets complicated when it comes to the structures involved with clean energy projects that claim tax credits. They often combine developers (who have their own investors), outside investment funds, banks, and large companies that buy the tax credits on the transferability market.
These companies — especially the banks, which fund themselves with debt — “don’t know on any particular date how much of their debt is held by Chinese connected lenders, and therefore they’re not sure how the rules apply, and that’s caused a couple of banks to pull out of the tax equity market,” David Burton, a partner at Norton Rose Fulbright, told me. “It seems pretty crazy that a large international bank that has its debt trading is going to be a specified foreign entity because on some date, a Chinese party decided to take a large position in its debt.”
For those still participating in the market, the lack of guidance on debt and equity provisions has meant that lawyers are having to ascend the ladder of entities involved in a project, from private equity firms who aren’t typically used to disclosing their limited partners to developers, banks, and public companies that buy the tax credits.
“We’re having to go to private equity funds and say, hey, how many of your LPs are Chinese?” David Burton, a partner at Norton Rose Fulbright, told me. This is not information these funds are typically particularly eager to share. If a lawyer “had asked a private equity firm please tell us about your LPs, before One Big Beautiful Bill, they probably would have told us to go jump in the lake,” Burton said.
Still, the deals are still happening, but “the legal fees are more expensive. The underwriting and due diligence time is longer, there are more headaches,” he told me.
Typically these deals involve joint ventures that formed for that specific deal, which can then transfer the tax credits to another entity with more tax liability to offset. The joint venture might be majority owned by a public company, with a large minority position held by a private equity fund, Burton said.
For the public company, Burton said, his team has to ask “Are any of your shareholders large enough that they have to be disclosed to the SEC? Are any of those Chinese?” For the private equity fund, they have to ask where its investors are residents and what countries they’re citizens of. While private equity funds can be “relatively cooperative,” the process is still a “headache.”
“It took time to figure out how to write these certifications and get me comfortable with the certification, my client comfortable with it, the private equity firm comfortable with it, the tax credit buyer comfortable with it,” he told me, referring to the written legal explanation for how companies involved are complying with what their lawyers think the tax rules are.
Players such as the American Council on Renewable Energy hope that guidance will cut down on this certification time by limiting the universe of entities that will have to scrub their rolls of Chinese investors or corporate officers.
“It’d be nice if we knew you only have to apply the test at the entity that’s considered the tax owner of the project,” i.e. just the joint venture that’s formed for a specific project, Cooper told me.
“There’s a pretty reasonable and plain reading of the statute that limits the term ’taxpayer’ to the entity that owns the project when it’s placed in service,” Cooper said.
Many in the industry expect more guidance on the rules by the end of year, though as Burton noted, “this Treasury is hard to predict.”
In the meantime, expect even more work for tax lawyers.
“We’re used to December being super busy,” Burton said. “But it now feels like every month since the One Big Beautiful Bill passed is like December, so we’ve had, like, you know, eight Decembers in a row.”
Deep cuts to the department have left each staffer with a huge amount of money to manage.
The Department of Energy has an enviable problem: It has more money than it can spend.
DOE disbursed just 2% of its total budgetary resources in fiscal year 2025, according to a report released earlier this year from the EFI Foundation, a nonprofit that tracks innovations in energy. That figure is far lower than the 38% of funds it distributed the year prior.
While some of that is due to political whiplash in Washington, there is another, far more mundane cause: There simply aren’t that many people left to oversee the money. Thanks to the Department of Government Efficiency’s efforts, one in five DOE staff members left the agency. On top of that, Energy Secretary Chris Wright shuffled around and combined offices in a Kafkaesque restructuring. Short on workers and clear direction, the department appears unable to churn through its sizable budget.

Though Congress provides budgetary authority, agencies are left to allot spending for the programs under their ambit, and then obligate payments through contracts, grants, and loans. While departments are expected to use the money they’re allocated, federal staff have to work through the gritty details of each individual transaction.
As a result of its reduced headcount, DOE’s employees are each responsible for far more budgetary resources than ever before.
“DOE is facing its largest imbalance in its history,” Alex Kizer, executive vice president of EFI Foundation, told me. In fiscal year 2017, DOE budgeted around $4.7 million per full-time employee. In the fiscal year 2026 budget request, that figure reached $35.7 million per worker — about eight times more.
Part of that increase is the result of the unprecedented injection of funding into DOE from the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. The pair of laws, which gave DOE access to $97 billion, comprised the United States’ largest investment to combat climate change in the nation’s history.
The epoch of federally backed renewable energy investment proved to be short-lived, however. Once President Trump retook office last year, his administration froze funds and initiated a purge of federal workers that resulted in 3,000 staffers (about one in five) leaving DOE through the Deferred Resignation Program. The administration canceled hundreds of projects, evaporating $23 billion in federal support.
While the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed last summer depleted some of the IRA’s coffers and sunsetted many tax credits years early, it only rescinded about $1.8 billion from DOE, according to the EFI Foundation. Much of the IRA’s spending had already gone out the door or was left intact.
This leaves DOE in a strange position: Its budget is historically high, but its staffing levels have suffered an unprecedented drop.

Even before the short-lived Elon Musk-run agency took a chainsaw to the federal workforce, DOE struggled to hire enough people to keep up with the pace of funding demanded by the IRA’s funding deadlines. The Loan Programs Office, for example, was criticized for moving too slowly in shelling out its hundreds of billions in loan authority. According to a report from three ex-DOE staffers that Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo covered, the IRA’s implementation suffered from a lack of “highly skilled, highly talented staff” to carry out its many programs.
“The last year’s uncertainty and the staff cuts, the project cancellations, those increase an already tightening bottleneck of difficulty with implementation at the department,” Sarah Frances Smith, EFI Foundation’s deputy director, told me.
One former longtime Department of Energy staffer who asked not to be named because they may want to return one day told me that as soon as Trump’s second term started, funding disbursement slowed to a halt. Employees had to get permission from leadership just to pay invoices for projects that had already been granted funding, the ex-DOE worker said.
While the Trump administration quickly moved to hamstring renewable energy resources, staff were kept busy complying with executive orders such as removing any mention of diversity equity and inclusion from government websites and responding to automated “What did you do last week?” emails.
On top of government funding drying up, Kizer told me that the confusion surrounding DOE has had a “cooling effect on the private sector’s appetite to do business with DOE,” though the size of that effect is “hard to quantify.”
Under President Biden, DOE put a lot of effort into building trust with companies doing work critical to its renewable energy priorities. Now, states and companies alike are suing DOE to restore revoked funds. In a recent report, the Government Accountability Office warned, “Private companies, which are often funding more than 50 percent of these projects, may reconsider future partnerships with the federal government.”
Clean energy firms aren’t the only ones upset by DOE’s about-face. Even the Republican-controlled Congress balked at President Trump’s proposed deep cuts to DOE’s budget in its latest round of budget negotiations. Appropriations for fiscal year 2026 will be just slightly lower than the year before — though without additional headcount to manage it, the same difficulties getting money out the door will remain.
The widespread staff exit also appears to have slowed work supporting the administration’s new priorities, namely coal and critical minerals. LPO, which was rebranded the “Office of Energy Dominance Financing,” has announced only a few new loans since President Biden left office. Southern Company, which received the Office’s largest-ever loan, was previously backed by a loan to its subsidiary Georgia Power under the first Trump administration.
Despite Trump’s frequent invocation of the importance of coal, DOE hasn’t accomplished much for the technology besides some funding to keep open a handful of struggling coal plants and a loan to restart a coal gasification plant for fertilizer production that was already in LPO’s pipeline under Biden.
Even if DOE wanted to become an oil and gas-enabling juggernaut, it may not have the labor force it needs to carry out a carbon-heavy energy mandate.
“When you cut as many people as they did, you have to figure out who’s going to do the stuff that those people were doing,” said the ex-DOE staffer. “And now they’re going to move and going, Oh crap, we fired that guy.”
Will moving fast and breaking air permits exacerbate tensions with locals?
The Trump administration is trying to ease data centers’ power permitting burden. It’s likely to speed things up. Whether it’ll kick up more dust for the industry is literally up in the air.
On Tuesday, the EPA proposed a rule change that would let developers of all stripes start certain kinds of construction before getting a historically necessary permit under the Clean Air Act. Right now this document known as a New Source Review has long been required before you can start building anything that will release significant levels of air pollutants – from factories to natural gas plants. If EPA finalizes this rule, it will mean companies can do lots of work before the actual emitting object (say, a gas turbine) is installed, down to pouring concrete for cement pads.
The EPA’s rule change itself doesn’t mention AI data centers. However, the impetus was apparent in press materials as the agency cited President Trump’s executive order to cut red tape around the sector. Industry attorneys and environmental litigants alike told me this change will do just that, cutting months to years from project construction timelines, and put pressure on state regulators to issue air permits by allowing serious construction to start that officials are usually reluctant to disrupt.
“I think the intended result is also what will happen. Developers will be able to move more quickly, without additional delay,” said Jeff Holmstead, a D.C.-based attorney with Bracewell who served as EPA assistant administrator for air and radiation under George H.W. Bush. “It will almost certainly save some time for permitting and construction of new infrastructure.”
Air permitting is often a snag that will hold up a major construction project. Doubly so for gas-powered generation. Before this proposal, the EPA historically was wary to let companies invest in what any layperson would consider actual construction work. The race for more AI infrastructure has changed the game, supercharging what was already an active debate over energy needs and our nation’s decades-old environmental laws.
Many environmental groups condemned the proposal upon its release, stating it would make gas-powered AI data centers more popular and diminish risks currently in place for using dirtier forms of electricity. Normally, they argue, this permitting process would give state and federal officials an early opportunity to gauge whether pollution control measures make sense and if a developer’s preferred design would unduly harm the surrounding community. This could include encouraging developers to consider alternate energy sources.
“Inevitably agencies have flexibility as to how much they ask, and what this allows them to do is pre-commit in ways that’ll force agencies to take stuff off the table. What’s taken off the table, it’s hard to know, but you’re constraining options to respond to public concerns or recognize air quality impacts,” said Sanjay Narayan, Sierra Club’s chief appellate counsel.
Herein lies the dilemma: will regulatory speed for power sacrifice opportunities for input that could quell local concerns?
We’re seeing this dilemma play out in real time with Project Matador, a large data center proposal being developed in Amarillo, Texas, by the Rick Perry-backed startup Fermi Americas. Project Matador is purportedly going to be massive and Fermi claims its supposed to one day reach 11 GW, which would make it one of the biggest data centers in the world.
Fermi’s plans have focused on relying on nuclear power in the future. But the only place they’ve made real progress so far in getting permits is gas generation. In February, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality gave Fermi its air permit for building and operating up to 6 gigawatts of gas power at Project Matador. At that time, Fermi was also rooting for relaxed New Source Review standards, applauding EPA in comments to media for signaling it would take this step. The company’s former CEO Toby Neugebauer also told investors on their first earnings call that Trump officials personally intervened to help get them gas turbines from overseas. (There’s scant public evidence to date of this claim and Neugebauer was fired by Fermi’s board last month.)
But now Fermi’s permit is also being threatened in court. In April, a citizens group Panhandle Taxpayers for Transparency filed a lawsuit against TCEQ challenging the validity of the permit. The case centers around whether the commission was right to deny a request for a contested case hearing brought by members of the group who lived and worked close to Project Matador. “Once these decisions are made, they don’t get reversed,” Michael Ford, Panhandle Taxpayers for Transparency’s founder, said in a fundraising video.
This is also a financial David vs. Goliath, as Ford admits in the fundraising video they have less than $2,000 to spend on the case – a paltry sum they admit barely covers legal bills. We’re also talking about a state that culturally and legally sides often with developers and fossil fuel firms.
At the same time, this lawsuit couldn’t come at a more difficult time as Fermi is struggling with other larger problems (see: Neugebauer’s ouster). Eric Allman, one of the attorneys representing Panhandle Taxpayers for Transparency, told me they’re still waiting on a judge assignment and estimated it’ll take about one year to get a ruling. Allman told me legally Fermi can continue construction during the legal challenge but there are real risks. “Applicants on many occasions will pause activity while there is an appeal pending,” he told me, “because if the suit is successful, they won’t have an authorization.”
Aerial photos reported by independent journalist Michael Thomas purportedly show Fermi hasn’t done significant construction since obtaining its air permit. Fermi did not respond to multiple requests for comment on the lawsuit.
Industry attorneys I spoke to who wished to remain anonymous told me it was too early to say whether EPA’s rulemaking would exacerbate local conflicts by making things move faster. “A lot of times the environmental community likes to litigate things in the hope delays will kill a project, so in that regard, this strategy may be harder for them to implement now,” one lawyer told me. “But just because a plant gets a permit doesn’t mean they can build.”
Environmental lawyers, meanwhile, clearly see more potential for social friction in a faster process. Keri Powell of the Southern Environmental Law Center compared this EPA action to xAI’s rapid buildout in Tennessee and Mississippi where the Al company’s construction of gas turbines before it received its permits has only added to local controversy. This new rule would not make what xAI did permissible; this is a different matter. Yet there are thematic similarities between what the company is doing and the new permitting regime, with natural gas generation expanding faster when companies are allowed to start forms of site work before an air permit is issued.
“By the time a permit is issued, the company will be very, very far along in constructing a facility. All they’ll need to do is bring in the emitting unit, and oftentimes that doesn’t entail very much,” she said. “Imagine you’re a state or local permitting agency – your ability to choose something different than what the company already decided to do is going to be limited.”