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:
Things could’ve been different in South Carolina.

As a climate-concerned citizen, one of the most discouraging things about Donald Trump’s all-but-inevitable confirmation as the 2024 Republican presidential nominee has been thinking about parallel universes.
I don’t just mean the ones where the conservative Supreme Court has a shocking change of heart and disqualifies him from the presidential ballot, or where Nikki Haley, against all odds, manages to win her home state primary on Saturday and carry the momentum forward to clinch the Republican nomination. I’m talking about an even greater fantasy: A world in which Trump doesn’t dominate the news cycle, in which South Carolina conservatives have a real debate about the energy transition, and in which the climate conversation hasn’t been set back years by culture war-mongering and MAGAism.
Laugh, sure, but squint and you can almost see it. South Carolina, where the 2024 campaign heads this weekend, is unique among early primary states for having a conservative base that is potentially more open to climate-related issues than people in Iowa or even Nevada. Though the state tracks closely with the opinions of the average American Republican on things like risk perception of global warming and policy support for green issues like regulating CO2 and renewable energy, South Carolina voters have also elected several conservative politicians unusual in their openness toward climate issues. Senator Lindsey Graham, who’s held his office since 2003, has been described as “too green for the GOP,” once even working with then-Senator John Kerry on a climate bill that would have capped greenhouse gas emissions. Even Haley, the state’s former governor, broke with most of the 2024 Republican primary field by saying she believes human activity is causing climate change and worsening extreme weather.
Graham and Haley’s environmental records are far, far from ideal. Still, their unlikely receptiveness to at least some climate science seems to suggest a constituency with a certain level of open-mindedness about green policies. The polls appear to back this up, too: In a summer 2023 study by Conservatives for Clean Energy-South Carolina, more than seven in 10 general election voters in the Palmetto State said they support the continued development of renewable clean energy; the same number said they believe in climate change.
Again, this is only natural when you look at what’s happening in the state. The Inflation Reduction Act is expected to bring an estimated $15 billion in investment in clean energy and storage to South Carolina by 2030, in the form of things like EV battery plants, 73 solar companies, and a lithium processing facility that claims it will produce enough material to support the manufacturing of an estimated 2.4 million EVs per year — that is, 200,000 more than were sold in the U.S. in all of 2023.
South Carolina also stands out in the southeast as being particularly forward-thinking about climate resilience; it’s hard to live in the state and not have extreme weather at the top of your mind. Some 210,000 South Carolinians live in flood-prone areas, the Southern Environmental Law Center reports, and homeowners insurance is increasingly difficult to come by or afford. The state also sits squarely in the path of intensifying Atlantic hurricanes. All of this might seem incongruous with local Republican voters’ middling levels of climate concern, but as writer and professor Susan Crawford told Heatmap last year, “At the state level, certainly, you’re better off not talking about the human causes of climate change” — even as you’re quietly addressing them.
The absence of climate from the primary conversation isn’t just because of the damage that being called an environmentalist does to a Republican’s reputation in the year 2024, though. An early-season primary debate even acknowledged that the climate issue has become so big that Republicans ought to be discussing it. But because Trump is the party’s frontrunner, any conversation about climate, clean-energy jobs, or resilience was over before it could start. While Trump has hardly been shy about attacking EVs and “the green new scam,” his rants are reductive, making climate a negative buzzword rather than a policy issue that can be debated. Haley has spent her time and energy focusing on Trump’s scandals and deflecting his attacks rather than talking about what South Carolinians have to lose if Trump guts the IRA as he intends.
That’s not to say Haley is some great defender of the climate agenda; she isn’t, and needless to say, it’s never good when Rex Tillerson is the one on the right side of an issue from you, as he was when he defended the Paris Agreement against the then-U.N. ambassador’s calls to extract the U.S. from it. But the shame is that Trump has snuffed out any sort of conservative debate about the climate in South Carolina before it could even begin.
Dwelling on the would’ve- and could’ve-beens, of course, is a fool’s errand of which I’m now wholly guilty. This is the reality: Trump is queued up for another win on Saturday, one that will effectively be the nail in the coffin of the Haley campaign even if she’s vowed not to drop out of the race. Voters won’t decide the next four years of the climate agenda in the U.S. tomorrow — that happens 255 days from now, in November. That means the timeline still isn’t fixed, but boy, it sure feels that way.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Activists are suing for records on three projects in Wyoming.
Three wind projects in Wyoming are stuck in the middle of a widening legal battle between local wildlife conservation activists and the Trump administration over eagle death records.
The rural Wyoming bird advocacy group Albany County Conservancy filed a federal lawsuit last week against the Trump administration seeking to compel the government to release reams of information about how it records deaths from three facilities owned and operated by the utility PacifiCorp: Dunlap Wind, Ekola Flats, and Seven Mile Hill. The group filed its lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act, the national public records disclosure law, and accused the Fish and Wildlife Service of unlawfully withholding evidence related to whether the three wind farms were fully compliant with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
I’m eyeing this case closely because it suggests these wind farms may fall under future scrutiny from the Fish and Wildlife Service, either for prospective fines or far worse, as the agency continues a sweeping review of wind projects’ compliance with BGEPA, a statute anti-wind advocates have made clear they seek to use as a cudgel against operating facilities. It’s especially noteworthy that a year into Trump’s term, his promises to go after wind projects have not really touched onshore, primarily offshore. (The exception, of course, being Lava Ridge.)
Violating the eagle protection statute has significant penalties. For each eagle death beyond what FWS has permitted, a company is subject to at least $100,000 in fines or a year in prison. These penalties go up if a company is knowingly violating the law repeatedly. In August, the Service sent letters to wind developers and utilities across the country requesting records demonstrating compliance with BGEPA as part of a crackdown on wind energy writ large.
This brings us back to the lawsuit. Crucial to this case is the work of a former Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Mike Lockhart, whom intrepid readers of The Fight may remember for telling me that he’s been submitting evidence of excessive golden eagle deaths to Fish and Wildlife for years. Along with its legal complaint, the Conservancy filed a detailed breakdown of its back-and-forth with Fish and Wildlife over an initial public records request. Per those records, the agency has failed to produce any evidence that it received Lockhart’s proof of bird deaths – ones that he asserts occurred because of these wind farms.
“By refusing to even identify, let alone disclose, obviously responsive but nonexempt records the Conservancy knows to be in the Department’s possession and/or control, the Department leaves open serious questions about the integrity of its administration of BGEPA,” the lawsuit alleges.
The Fish and Wildlife Service did not respond to a request for comment on the case, though it’s worth noting that agencies rarely comment on pending litigation. PacifiCorp did not immediately respond to a request either. I will keep you posted as this progresses.
Plus more of the week’s biggest fights in renewable energy.
1. York County, Nebraska – A county commissioner in this rural corner of Nebraska appears to have lost his job after greenlighting a solar project.
2. St. Joseph County, Indiana – Down goes another data center!
3. Maricopa County, Arizona – I’m looking at the city of Mesa to see whether it’ll establish new rules that make battery storage development incredibly challenging.
4. Imperial County, California – Solar is going to have a much harder time in this agricultural area now that there’s a cap on utility-scale projects.
5. Converse County, Wyoming – The Pronghorn 2 hydrogen project is losing its best shot at operating: the wind.
6. Grundy County, Illinois – Another noteworthy court ruling came this week as a state circuit court ruled against the small city of Morris, which had sued the county seeking to block permits for an ECA Solar utility-scale project.
A conversation with Public Citizen’s Deanna Noel.
This week’s conversation is with Deanna Noel, climate campaigns director for the advocacy group Public Citizen. I reached out to Deanna because last week Public Citizen became one of the first major environmental groups I’ve seen call for localities and states to institute full-on moratoria against any future data center development. The exhortation was part of a broader guide for more progressive policymakers on data centers, but I found this proposal to be an especially radical one as some communities institute data center moratoria that also restrict renewable energy. I wanted to know, how do progressive political organizations talk about data center bans without inadvertently helping opponents of solar and wind projects?
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Why are you recommending we ban data centers until we have regulations?
The point of us putting this out was to give policymakers a roadmap and a starting point at all levels of government, putting in guardrails to start reeling in Big Tech. Because the reality is they’re writing their own rules with how they’d like to roll out these massive data centers.
A big reason for a moratorium at the state and local level is to put in place requirements to ensure any more development that is happening is not just stepping on local communities, undermining our climate goals, impacting water resources or having adverse societal impacts like incessant noise. Big Tech is often hiding behind non-disclosure agreements and tying the hands of local officials behind NDAs while they’re negotiating deals for their data centers, which then becomes a gag order blocking officials and the public from understanding what is happening. And so our guide set out to provide a policy roadmap and a starting point is to say, let’s put a pause on this.
Do you see any cities or states doing this now? I’m trying to get a better understanding of where this came from.
It’s happening at the local level. There was a moratorium in Prince George’s County [in Maryland], where I live, until a task force can be developed and make sure local residents’ concerns are addressed. In Georgia, localities have done this, too.
The idea on its own is simple: States and localities have the authority and should be the ones to implement these moratoriums that no data centers should go forward until baseline protections are in place. There are many protections we go through in our guide, but No. 1, Big Tech should be forced to pay their way. These are some of the most wealthy corporations on the planet, and yet they’re bending backwards to negotiate deals with local utilities and governments to ensure they’re paying as little as possible for the cost of their power infrastructure. Those costs are being put on ratepayers.
The idea of a moratorium is there’s a tension in a data center buildout without any regulations.
Do you have any concerns about pushing for blanket moratoria on new technological infrastructure? We’re seeing this policy thrown at solar and wind and batteries now. Is there any concern it’ll go from data centers to renewables next in some places?
First off, you’re right, and the Trump administration wants to fast-track an expansion that’ll rely on fossil fuels: coal, oil and gas. We’re in a climate crisis, and we’d be better off if these data centers relied entirely on renewable energy.
It’s incredibly important for policymakers to be clear when they’re setting moratoria that they’re not inadvertently halting clean, cheap energy like wind and solar. This is about the unfettered expansion of the data center industry to feed the AI machine. That’s what the focus needs to be on.
Yes, but there’s also this land use techlash going on, and I’m a little concerned advocacy for a moratorium on data centers will help those fighting to institute moratoria on solar and wind. I’m talking about Ohio and Wisconsin and Iowa. Are you at all concerned about a horseshoe phenomenon here, where people are opposing data centers for the same reasons they’re fighting renewable energy projects? What should folks in the advocacy space do to make sure those things aren’t tethered to one another?
That’s a great question. I think it comes down to clear messaging for the public.
People are opportunistic — they want to get their passion projects no matter what. We as advocates need to consistently message that renewable energy is not only the energy of tomorrow, but of today. It’s where the rest of the world is headed and the U.S. is going backwards under the Trump administration.
The data center issue is separate. Data centers are using way more land – these massive hyperscaler data center campuses – are using more land than solar and wind. We can be creative with those energies in a way we can’t with the data center expansion.
We need to make it absolutely clear: This is about corporate expansion at the expense of everyone else in a way that solar and wind aren’t. Those bring costs down and don’t have anywhere near as much of an environmental impact.