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 Real Clear Politics’ Pennsylvania blog, 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.
Current conditions: More than 200 damaging wind reports from Missouri to Indiana came in so far this week as a series of storms wraps up over the Central United States • South Sudan’s capital of Juba is roasting in temperatures nearing 100 degrees Fahrenheit as heavy storms threaten to add to existing floods • Gale warnings are in effect in the Philippine Sea and the South China Sea as a northeasterly monsoon churns up winds of up to 40 knots.
And then there were three. Last month, Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind started generating electricity for the mid-Atlantic grid just days after Orsted’s Revolution Wind entered into service off the coast of Rhode Island. Now a third U.S. offshore wind project is fully up and running. On Monday, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey announced that Vineyard Wind had activated its electricity contracts with utilities, setting fixed prices for the 800-megawatt project 15 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket over the next 20 years. In a press release, Healey said the power purchase agreements will save Massachusetts ratepayers roughly $1.4 billion in electricity costs throughout these next two decades. “Throughout one of the coldest winters in recent history, Vineyard Wind turbines powered our homes and businesses at a low price and now that price goes even lower with the activation of these contracts,” Healey said in a statement. “Especially as President Trump is taking energy sources off the table and increasing prices with his war in Iran, we should be leaning into more American-made wind power.” Vineyard Wind first began selling power to the market in 2024, but at what The New Bedford Light called “fluctuating and at times higher prices.” As of this week and for the next year, the price will be set at $69.50 per megawatt-hour.
That hasn’t stopped the Trump administration from finding new ways to terminate other offshore wind projects. As I wrote yesterday, the Department of the Interior announced that two more projects — Bluepoint Wind off the coast of New Jersey and Golden State Wind off California — had taken the administration up on its offer to pay back the leasing costs up to a combined nearly $900 million in exchange for the developers abandoning the bids and agreeing not to pursue other offshore wind deals in the U.S. “We did not take this decision lightly,” Michael Brown, the CEO of Ocean Winds North America, told Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo in an emailed statement. “But when the underlying conditions in a market change, we must adapt. In this case, receiving a refund for the lease payments we had invested and exiting on agreed terms was the right outcome for our shareholders and partners.”
The United Arab Emirates said Tuesday it would withdraw from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, shrinking the world’s biggest oil-producing cartel to just 11 nations. The decision takes effect on May 1. The announcement came ahead of Wednesday’s latest OPEC meeting in Vienna. Abu Dhabi said it will also quit the broader OPEC+ supergroup that includes non-members led by Russia. In a post on X, Sultan Al Jaber — who serves as the UAE’s minister of industry and advanced technology, the chief executive of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, and the chairman the country’s leading clean energy firm Masdar — said his nation had “taken a sovereign decision in line with its long-term energy strategy, its true production capability, and its national interest.” The National, Abu Dhabi’s state-owned English-language newspaper, wrote that “independence from OPEC will give the UAE, which accounts for roughly 4% of global oil production, more flexibility and responsiveness in managing the oil market.”
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
The Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management has issued a new categorical exclusion for geothermal, freeing developers from the requirement to carry out environmental reviews at yet another key step in the drilling process. The regulatory change marks the third new categorical exclusion for geothermal issued in the past two years. That comes after what Joel Edwards, the co-founder of the geothermal startup Zanskar, said in a post on X was a period of about 20 years “without any new” exclusions. In April 2024, pre-leasing and surveying got a categorical exclusion. In January 2025, a new categorical exclusion covered postleasing, drilling, and flow-testing on areas of up to 20 acres. Now this latest step will allow for an exemption on pre-leasing activities such as drilling up to 10 acres. “Very nice to see the agency continuing to streamline permitting,” Edwards wrote. “Still more bottlenecks to work out, but we’re moving in the right direction.”
On Tuesday, meanwhile, Senators Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat from Nevada, and Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, introduced legislation to boost federal funding for next-generation geothermal research, development, and commercialization. “The U.S. is at the forefront of geothermal energy innovation, and this bill has the potential to strengthen global leadership, boost competitiveness, and accelerate the next generation of clean firm technologies,” Terra Rogers, director for superhot rock energy at Clean Air Task Force, said in a statement. “This nation has vast, underutilized next-generation geothermal and superhot rock potential.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
CATL, the world’s largest battery market, has signed the world’s largest-ever order for sodium-ion batteries, the technology widely discussed as a potentially cheaper and more abundant alternative to the lithium power packs that propel electric vehicles and increasingly back up the grid. The Chinese giant inked a deal for 60 gigawatt-hours of batteries with the energy storage integrator HyperStrong. The deal marks what CATL calls proof that it has “overcome the challenges of the entire sodium-ion battery mass production chains,” prompting some experts to describe the agreement to Electrek as a potential “DeepSeek moment,” a reference to the Chinese artificial intelligence model that shook up the global industry with its affordability and nimbleness.
Sodium-ion batteries have seemed like the “next big thing” for years now, but as Heatmap’s Katie Brigham has reported, the industry has faced something of a curse when it comes to manufacturing, though new startups are attempting to overcome that problem.

Fuel loading has begun at Bangladesh’s first nuclear power station. The uranium rods could be in place in the Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant, made up of two VVER-1200 reactors designed and built by Russia’s state-owned Rosatom, in as little as 45 days. The plant will vault Bangladesh into the group of 31 nations that harness the power of splitting atoms for electricity production. “Today, Bangladesh joined the club of countries using peaceful nuclear energy as a reliable source of sustainable development,” Rosatom Director General Alexei Likhachev said in a statement to World Nuclear News. “The Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant will undoubtedly become a vital element of the country's energy system. For Rosatom, this project is another important step in the development of global nuclear energy and in strengthening friendly relations with our international partners.” When the plant generates its first power for the grid later this year, it will complete a project first planned when the country was known as East Pakistan.
When my high school girlfriend made my first Facebook account, I never imagined that, about 20 years later, the social network’s parent company would be trying to harvest electricity for its servers from outer space. But this week, Meta announced a deal with the startup Overview Energy, which aims to beam light from thousands of satellites to solar farms that power data centers at night, effectively making solar a 24-hour power source. Overview CEO Marc Berte said the goal is to launch the satellites by 2030, with what TechCrunch called “a goal of flying 1,000 spacecraft in geosynchronous orbit, a high orbit in which each satellite remains fixed above the same point on Earth.”
There are at least two more developers in a position to trade offshore leases for fossil fuel investment.
The Trump administration inked two more agreements to cancel offshore wind leases and reimburse the former leaseholders nearly $1 billion on Monday, demonstrating that its previous deals with TotalEnergies was not a one-off legal settlement but rather a new, repeatable strategy to throttle the industry.
Just like the deal with Total, the Interior Department is painting the agreement as a quid pro quo, where the companies will be reimbursed only after they invest an equivalent amount of money into U.S. oil and gas projects. There are a handful of remaining companies sitting on undeveloped offshore wind leases that could conceivably make similar deals. If they do, the cost to taxpayers could exceed $4 billion.
This latest deal will cancel leases for two projects, known as Bluepoint Wind and Golden State Wind. Bluepoint, a project off the coast of New York and New Jersey, was a joint venture between Global Infrastructure Partners, an investment firm owned by asset manager BlackRock, and Ocean Winds, which itself is a joint venture between the French energy company Engie and the developer EDP Renewables. The companies initially paid $765 million to acquire the lease.
The Interior Department announcement states that Global Infrastructure Partners has committed to investing that amount into an unspecified U.S. liquified natural gas facility. The firm is already a major investor in several U.S. LNG projects; alongside TotalEnergies, it reached a final investment decision last September for the expansion of the Rio Grande export terminal. If the lease cancellation agreement resembles the one struck with Total, as the Interior Department’s announcement suggests, Global Infrastructure Partners will be able to count this existing investment toward its total.
Golden State, one of the first leases sold off the Pacific coast, was a joint venture between Ocean Winds and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, an investment firm. The companies purchased it for $120 million. The government’s announcement is less specific about who will invest that money into what, noting only that it will be paid back after “an investment has been made of an equal amount in the development of U.S. oil and gas assets, energy infrastructure, and/or LNG projects along the Gulf Coast.” The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board has multiple investments in oil and natural gas pipelines and productions throughout the U.S. While Engie buys LNG from the U.S., the company has generally not been involved in U.S. oil and gas projects. EDP Renewables focuses solely on renewable energy and its parent company, EDP Group, is a Portuguese utility.
The government’s leasing laws generally do not allow companies to walk away from their lease and receive a refund. The government can cancel leases if it determines development would harm the environment or threaten national security — two claims the Trump administration has made — but only after holding a hearing on the matter.
The Trump administration has engineered a different route. In the same vein as the TotalEnergies deal, it has reached legal settlements with the companies and intends to pay them out of the Judgment Fund, a reserve overseen by the Department of Justice that agencies can draw from to pay for settlements arising from litigation or imminent litigation.
“We did not take this decision lightly,” Michael Brown, the CEO of Ocean Winds North America, told me in an emailed statement. “But when the underlying conditions in a market change, we must adapt. In this case, receiving a refund for the lease payments we had invested and exiting on agreed terms was the right outcome for our shareholders and partners.”
As I’ve reported previously, some legal experts are dubious that the circumstances constitute a legitimate use of the Judgment Fund. The agreement with Total was predicated on a series of “what if” scenarios — the Trump administration says it would have paused the company’s projects, which would have led Total to sue for breach of contract. Neither party actually did those things, instead negotiating these tit-for-tat trades with Trump.
Legal experts told me the only parties with the legal standing and the financial means to challenge the agreements are the states. I contacted the attorneys general offices in New York and New Jersey, which declined to comment, and California, which did not reply to my inquiry.
There are at least two remaining offshore wind developers who would be in a position to angle for a similar payout. RWE, a German energy company, paid $1.1 billion in 2022 to purchase a lease off the coast of New York and New Jersey for a project called Community Offshore — the most any company has paid to date for U.S. offshore wind development rights.
RWE, which previously focused its U.S. business on renewable energy, announced in March that it was developing 15 natural gas peaker plants in the U.S. In addition to Community Offshore, the company also bought rights to a lease in the Pacific for $121 million, and another in the Gulf of Mexico for about $4 million. The company did not respond to a request for comment, but its CEO has publicly suggested that it would be interested in getting its money back.
Another potential seller is Invenergy, which purchased a lease off the coast of New York and New Jersey in 2022 for $645 million for its Leading Light project. It also holds the rights to a Pacific lease bought for $112 million, and two in the Gulf of Maine, for which it paid about $9 million. The company is actively expanding its natural gas power plant fleet in the U.S. Invenergy declined to comment for this story.
The remaining companies that might be eligible for such deals paid much less for their offshore wind leases — BP, for example, paid just $135 million to obtain the lease for its Beacon Wind project in the Northeast. Duke Energy paid $130 million for a lease near North Carolina. BP’s offshore wind arm, JERA Nex bp, declined to comment on whether it would be amenable to a deal. Duke did not respond to my inquiry.
A company called EDF, a U.S. subsidiary of the French state-owned utility EDF Group, is sitting on a hefty $780 million lease, but the company is a renewables developer. There are no indications that its parent company is interested in expanding its natural gas pipeline in the U.S.
While Equinor and Dominion both have fossil fuel projects in the U.S., it seems unlikely they would reach similar deals for their remaining leases, given that they have already sued the Trump administration for halting work on offshore wind projects that were already under construction — Equinor’s Empire Wind and Dominion’s Coastal Virginia Offshore project.
Notably, Ocean Winds still has one remaining lease after this week’s deal, which it purchased on its own — not as a joint venture — in 2018, under the first Trump administration. Its SouthCoast Wind project off the coast of Massachusetts has nearly all of its approvals, though Trump’s Day One moratorium on offshore wind permits delayed construction. A subsequent lawsuit in March of last year from the city and county of Nantucket challenged the project’s Construction and Operations permit, typically the final federal approval for offshore wind farms. A federal judge ordered the permit to be sent back to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for reconsideration last fall; according to court filings, that process is ongoing.
If RWE, Invenergy, Duke, and BP each reached similar deals with the Trump administration, that would mean a total of just over $4 billion paid out of the Judgment Fund to cancel offshore wind leases, including the four existing deals. For context, the total amount the government paid to parties out of the Judgment Fund across all federal agencies in 2025 was about $4.4 billion, according to Treasury data. Annual totals over the last decade range between $1.7 billion in 2017 and $8.4 billion in 2020.
Party orthodoxy is no longer serving the energy transition, the Breakthrough Institute’s Seaver Wang and Peter Cook write.
President Trump has announced a dizzying array of executive branch led critical mineral policies since taking office again last year. While bombastically branded as new achievements, many elements from critical mineral tariffs to strategic stockpiling to Defense Production Act financing trace back to bipartisan recommendations and programs spanning the past several administrations.
Many Democrats in Congress, however, are stuck on the defensive. During a recent House Natural Resources hearing, for instance, Washington Representative Yassamin Ansari singled out the SECURE Minerals Act, a bipartisan proposal for a strategic minerals reserve, as “a framework ripe for fraud, corruption, and abuse.” Yet the draft bill actually contains strong safeguards: Senate confirmation of board members, annual independent audits, public tracking and annual reporting to Congress, conflict-of-interest prohibitions, and more.
In another House oversight hearing considering the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, California’s Maxine Waters expressed concern over President Trump’s mere contact with mineral producing countries in Africa, asking simply, “What is he doing?” The President of EXIM responded by reminding Waters of the bank’s charter to engage in sub-Saharan Africa.
In both cases, distrust of the administration and Republican lawmakers seems to have blinded Democrats to a larger strategic goal: building a secure critical mineral supply chain. Democrats who want to strengthen U.S. economic competitiveness and cultivate domestic clean technology sectors cannot afford to engage in partisan posturing at the expense of real policymaking. Nor can they afford to waste time — America’s vulnerabilities loom too large to wait until Trump leaves the White House.
Doing so will require Democrats to embrace certain positions that are at odds with recent party orthodoxy. First, they must accept the basic math that both the U.S. and the world will need new mine production and support incentives and regulatory reform for new critical minerals projects, not just recycling, re-mining, and substitution. And second, they must admit that mining projects in the U.S. and in democratically-governed partner countries offer a far better foundation for achieving high environmental and social standards than the currently dominant production routes for many raw materials today.
A recent hearing question from Texas Representative Christian Menefee hints at the risks of overly narrow minerals policy: “Should byproduct recovery be the first priority before we open up a single new mine?" While advocacy organizations and academic researchers have lately argued that operating mines dig up enough minerals to meet U.S. needs yet are currently neglecting to recover them, such analyses only consider the theoretical potential of extracting every element present in mined rock, not technical feasibility. Feasible recovery will be the exception, not the rule. Efforts to produce lithium as a byproduct from a copper-gold deposit might confront concentrations of under 20 parts per million, relative to concentrations at U.S. lithium mines currently under development that range from around 850 to 2,000 parts per million. Compared to cobalt concentrations of 2,400 parts per million at the Jervois Idaho Cobalt mine, Alaska’s large Red Dog zinc mine might boast 39 to 149 parts per million. For many elements, recovery would require new, first-of-a-kind extraction equipment consuming added water, energy, and chemical reagents — akin to burning a barn to fry an egg.
Recycling, too, is a meaningful category of solutions but ultimately limited. For instance, improved batteries and solar panels with longer service lives delay the point at which significant flows of materials become available for recycling. An increasing number of batteries and solar modules may also be redirected towards second-life use markets — electric vehicle batteries repurposed as electric grid storage assets, for example — diverting even more materials from recycling facilities.
To put such constraints into numbers, growing grid storage battery cell manufacturing capacity in the U.S. may surpass 96 gigawatt-hours by the end of this year, requiring over 17,000 tons of lithium content — alone equivalent to half of all worldwide lithium consumption in 2015. China’s tightening of rare earth export restrictions last year forced one of Ford’s auto plants to pause operations, and the shift to electric vehicles will only drive U.S. rare earths demand higher. The U.S. alone produced around 1 million EVs last year, relative to total auto manufacturing of 12 million to 14 million vehicles per year.
Even modest domestic manufacturing goals of 10 gigawatts of wind turbines and 2 million electric vehicles per year would require at least 100 tons of dysprosium and praseodymium, heavy rare earth elements that the U.S. is only just beginning to produce from recycling efforts and its sole operating mine. Globally, the International Energy Agency estimates that successful recycling expansion could avert around 5% to 30% of new mining activity, depending on the commodity.
The math is unforgiving. We need more minerals, and we need them soon.
For years, progressives have critiqued current U.S. mining regulations as antiquated and inadequate, insisting that standards governing existing mines expose marginalized communities to unacceptable impacts. While understandably reflecting past harms inflicted by mining prior to the enactment of stronger laws and regulations in the 1970s and 1980s, such a position exposes lawmakers to an uncomfortable contradiction: If modern mining and refining are structurally problematic industries, then not only must U.S. lawmakers advocate for improved industry standards domestically, logic dictates that they also use trade policies and international frameworks to penalize the unjust economic advantages benefiting irresponsible producers globally. The sum total of such actions might well slow the country’s transition to clean energy as opposed to speeding it.
Activist narratives that U.S. mining regulations offer the mining industry a smash-and-grab free-for-all obviously conflict with the reality that domestic mining has long been viewed as borderline uninvestible, with the U.S. seeing a 70% decrease in the number of active metal mines over the last 40 years. Insisting that more public engagement, extracting higher royalties to fund community projects, and quartering off certain areas with mineral potential for conservation will speed U.S. mining projects by neutralizing community opposition must consider how such high-cost projects can survive in a global market. China produces 10 times more graphite, rare earths, and polysilicon than the next largest producing country — and not by excelling at public engagement and community benefits-sharing. Continuing to indulge such domestic-only remonstrations will solve none of the nation’s supply challenges.
Meanwhile, efforts by both the Trump and Biden administrations are already driving progress towards improved recycling and utilization of unconventional wastes and resources. Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funded numerous programs to produce new critical minerals without new mining, including Department of Energy grants to equip operating facilities with byproduct recovery systems, new mapping programs from the United States Geological Survey to locate historic mines with viable levels of critical minerals in abandoned wastes, and a Rare Earth Elements Demonstration Facility program at the Department of Energy to prioritize the use of waste as a feedstock. The Trump administration has continued to issue notices for IIJA-funded, waste resource, and recycling-focused opportunities into 2026. In short, maximization of byproduct potential, recycling, and remining is already established bipartisan policy.
Above all, Democrats must capitalize on the chance to start alleviating national critical mineral constraints now, in the middle of a Trump presidency, to position the U.S. industrial base to produce impressive economic and technological results in 2028 and beyond. Trump will depart the Oval Office in less than three years, whereas U.S. critical minerals strategy must play out over the next five to 10. Passing up promising opportunities today in the name of scoring short-term political points serves neither the nation’s best interests nor those of the Democratic Party.
Over the next two years, critical minerals policy offers rare bipartisan opportunities to supercharge innovation and build projects that will not only produce strategic materials but also solutions for cleaner industrial processes. In most cases, new U.S. production will already be less carbon-intensive than the global average. Meanwhile, federal policy support will foster U.S. process engineering know-how that might ultimately drive long-term breakthroughs in transformative cleaner solutions.
All of that said, policymakers must also balance environmental and innovation ambitions against realistic expectations and resist the temptation to chase only fully clean projects. For now, truly zero-carbon metals produced using green hydrogen or other novel techniques remain dramatically more expensive than metals produced with the most cost-efficient mix of energy inputs and feedstocks. Depending on the sector, domestic industries that have first achieved scale and rebuilt domestic expertise may position America better for catalyzing such shifts.
Cost competitive industries, after all, are also key for advancing Democratic priorities. More favorable costs for U.S.-produced critical materials and increasingly secure upstream secure supply chains will help make U.S.-manufactured technologies such as electric vehicles, solar modules, and electrolyzers more competitive. Responsible production capacity that is operating at scale will increase bargaining power for pressuring irresponsible producers overseas to reform, while creating new markets for American raw materials among principled partners and corporate offtakers.
Miners and metallurgists deserve an equal place of honor in the energy transition economy alongside rooftop solar installers and electricians, and such heavy industry workers can help rebuild a stronger U.S. labor movement.
But the risk of squandering such long-term opportunities is real. During the Biden administration, progressives reflexively fielded proposals that would add regulatory burdens and make mining more difficult — proposals which largely went nowhere. Meanwhile, the bipartisan Mining Regulatory Clarity Act — one of the few specific regulatory reforms proposed for the mining sector to date — still has not passed since its introduction in 2023. The current version is stalled over the inclusion of provisions that would redirect mining administrative fees to cleaning up abandoned mines. Remediating legacy sites is an important federal government obligation, but the quid pro quo calculus of extracting concessions for simple regulatory reforms both complicates their passage while also procrastinating standalone measures to address abandoned mines.
Certainly, the current political moment could not be more charged. Another recent House Natural Resources hearing on oversight ended abruptly after Oregon Representative Maxine Dexter moved to subpoena Donald Trump, Jr. over concerns that administration financial support favored mineral companies in which he was invested. This episode highlights the challenge for Democrats — holding the federal government accountable to the U.S. public while simultaneously working to address the country’s critical mineral priorities.
This is less complicated than it sounds. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle can agree on strong oversight provisions to ensure that programs prioritize the nation’s interests and achieve political longevity. Democrats should therefore lean in to their desired guardrails, be they mandatory public transparency, reviews of company history and project feasibility, or conflict-of-interest restrictions. Stronger congressional oversight and robust environmental and human rights safeguards are worthy Democratic goals, but advancing them requires that Congress do its job and legislate.