You’ve reached your free article limit
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:
What even is “energy independence”?

For being so cozy with (not to mention bankrolled by) the oil and gas industry, Donald Trump still manages to get a lot wrong about the world’s dominant petroleum industry. Here’s everything he’s gotten wrong, and occasionally right, about the oil and gas industry while on the 2024 campaign trail.
“On January 6, we were energy independent.” [June 27, 2024]
Fact check: What does “energy independence” actually mean? Experts frequently dismiss the term as a political buzzword that isn’t helpful for understanding the United States’ position in the global energy market.
According to one definition, “energy independence” means that the United States produces more energy than it consumes. By this metric, the U.S. became energy independent in 2019, during the Trump administration, for the first time in 40 years, though it was the cumulative result of the shale boom that started in 2005 and stretched across three presidential administrations. By this same metric, U.S. “energy independence” actually reached its highest level in 70 years in 2022 under President Biden, not Trump.
Another way to define “energy independence” would be that the U.S. doesn’t import any energy. This definition would also make Trump’s statement inaccurate: In 2020 under Trump, the U.S. imported 7.9 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products per day. In 2023, under Biden, that number rose to 8.51 million barrels per day. Under both Trump and Biden, the U.S. has been a net exporter of oil products due in large part to its processing of crude oil. Check out this visualization from the U.S. from the Energy Information Administration for more granular detail on U.S. petroleum flows.
“We’re refining the oil. We have our refinery for that oil. It’s really, I call it tar. It’s not oil. It’s terrible. We have real stuff, but we’re refining it in Houston. So for all of the environmentalists, you ought to look at that because all of that tar is going right up into the atmosphere. You just ought to take a look. It’s the only plant that can do it. We have the only plants that can take tar and make it into oil.” [ March 6, 2024]
Fact check: Just because Trump decides to call something “tar” doesn’t mean it actually is tar. What he seems to be talking about here are the Canadian oil sands, sometimes called tar sands, which contain bitumen. The heavy, dirty, and diluted crude oil is transported via rail and pipeline from Canada to Texas, which is where most (but contrary to Trump’s claim, not all) of the world’s specialized heavy oil refineries are located.
Extracting, transporting, and refining bitumen is a pollution-heavy process. “All of that tar” doesn’t literally go “right up into the atmosphere,” but the refining process does emit benzene, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide, which are known to increase instances of cancer, asthma, and other health conditions in the people who live or work nearby.
“Just yesterday, Biden blocked the export of American natural gas to other countries … Now, why he stopped it, I guess it was the environmentalists. I guess. But it’s good for the environment, not bad. And it’s good for our country. I will approve the export terminals on my very first day back.” [Jan. 27, 2024]
Fact check: This is wrong in a number of ways. Let’s take it from the top: First, Biden did not block the export of liquified natural gas to other countries; he temporarily paused the approval of new licenses to export LNG, including 17 that had been in the, er, pipeline. The United States is already the top exporter of LNG in the world, with output expected to double by the end of the decade from projects that are already licensed and under construction. The LNG licensing pause “will not impact our ability to continue supplying LNG to our allies in the near-term,” the Biden administration has said; current exports have been more than enough to meet Europe’s needs so far, even accounting for the war in Ukraine.
The permitting process will resume once the Department of Energy has updated its criteria for determining whether new LNG export terminals are in the “public interest” once their climate impacts are considered.
Now, about those climate impacts: It’s true that natural gas burns “cleaner” than coal, producing about 40% less carbon dioxide (and about 30% less than oil). But natural gas is also largely composed of methane, “a climate-altering super pollutant,” Jeremy Symons, an environmental and political analyst and strategist, told Heatmap.
While methane breaks down more quickly in the atmosphere than CO2, it also traps more heat — about 80 times more heat over the course of 20 years. The process of liquifying natural gas not only requires additional energy, it also introduces new opportunities for methane to leak, adding to the fuel’s climate impacts. Once all those leaks have been quantified, argues Cornell University researcher Robert Howarth, LNG is not only not beneficial to the environment, it’s actually worse than other fossil fuels. Howarth’s paper has not yet been peer-reviewed, and some have questioned his conclusions in the past. But there’s no question that building new LNG facilities will lock the U.S. into producing planet-warming fuel for years to come.
LNG certainly isn’t “good for the environment” of the people who live near fracking sites and export terminals, either, where health issues are rampant. In addition to methane, LNG plants release volatile organic compounds, which have been linked to higher instances of cancer, asthma, and birth defects.
“You have the highest energy costs in the entire country. In the first year, they’re going to be reduced by 50% because we’re going to drill, baby, drill.” [Jan. 23, 2024]
Fact check: Trump made these remarks after winning the New Hampshire primary — and they’re wrong. For one thing, while energy is expensive in the Granite State, New Hampshire’s Department of Energy says its energy costs are the fifth-highest in the lower 48.
There’s an even bigger fallacy in Trump’s statement, though: that drilling can quickly lower energy prices. For one thing, oil from new leases doesn’t hit the market for at least four years, according to the Government Accountability Office. (Offshore drilling takes even longer since building the rigs alone can take two to three years.) As NPR explains, there are also operational limits; drilling new wells is “not as simple as turning a spigot and watching oil gush out.”
Much to the dismay of environmentalists, the Biden administration has also been keeping pace with Trump’s historic drilling. In fact, as of 2024, the U.S. is producing more domestic crude than at any point during Trump’s presidency.
But even with all this new domestic crude, the U.S. is still susceptible to fluctuations in the global price of oil. That’s partially because the U.S. imports a different kind of oil than it exports — what those in the trade call light, sweet crude, compared to the gunkier, heavy crude most U.S. refineries are set up for. Reconfiguring refineries to handle the light crude oil “could underserve some product markets and idle (or even strand) the hundreds of billions of dollars invested in refinery conversion capacity,” the American Petroleum Institute warns. Plus, it would also take even more time.
All that means that the U.S. is stuck relying on importing and exporting oil even if domestic production ramps up even more than it already has. And that, in turn, means we’re at the mercy of fluctuations in global energy costs, which remain out of the White House’s singular control.
One more thing to note: “The oil industry can decide to produce more oil whenever it wants,” the Center for American Progress, a liberal public policy think tank, explains, noting that the oil industry is sitting on “more than 9,000 approved — but unused — drilling permits on federal lands.” This is the base of the criticism that the oil industry is raking in “unprecedented profits” and burdening Americans with an artificially high cost of energy.
“Energy caused inflation, and energy has destroyed many families. Energy is considered very strongly. Energy is considered a country killer.” [Dec. 17, 2023]
Fact check: Economists mostly agree that “energy caused” the spike in inflation that we’ve seen since 2020, so in that sense, Trump is correct. But in making this argument, he inadvertently endorses the case for clean energy — since renewables aren’t subject to the same kinds of supply volatility as fossil fuels, they are therefore considered intrinsically deflationary.
“We are a nation that is begging Venezuela and others for oil. ‘Please, please, please help us,’ Joe Biden says, and yet we have more liquid gold under our feet than any other country anywhere in the world. We are a nation that just recently heard that Saudi Arabia and Russia will be reducing their oil production while at the same time substantially increasing the price. And we met that threat by announcing that we will no longer be drilling for oil in large areas in Alaska or elsewhere, anywhere in our states. We are a nation that is consumed by the radical left’s Green New Deal, yet everyone knows that the Green New Deal is fake. It is really the green new scam.” [Dec. 17, 2023]
Fact check: First, the United States is the top oil-producing country globally, followed by Russia and Saudi Arabia. It is true that the U.S. eased oil sanctions on Venezuela late last year, though that reprieve was explicitly temporary and contingent on the country holding free and fair elections.
Trump also appears to be referencing the Biden administration’s recent decision to cancel oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and block 13 million acres in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska from new drilling. While that does qualify as a large area in Alaska, the moves notably do not stop ConocoPhillips’ controversial Willow drilling project from going forward.
Trump further seems to be alluding to Biden’s campaign promise to not approve any new drilling (“ ...anywhere in our states!”), but that hasn’t exactly gone to plan; although Biden issued a pause on new oil and gas leases on federal lands one week after taking office, the administration then lifted that pause a little over a year later in the face of numerous legal and political challenges. Over the summer, however, the Interior Department did raise the cost of drilling on federal lands.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Endurance Energy hoped its generator would run for a full year, but the team isn’t afraid of the “error” in “trial and error.”
About 300 miles off the Oregon coast, a mile beneath the ocean’s surface, a startup just drilled the world’s first subsea geothermal well. And for a grand total of exactly 8.7 seconds, its prototype power plant generated about 2 kilowatts of net power. It wasn’t quite the result the Seattle-based Endurance Energy was hoping for — the company’s goal was to run its 100-kilowatt generator for a full year. But it’s not nothing.
“We really proved with this mission that a geothermal well could be drilled and completed on the seafloor, and doing that within 21 months of the company existing I think is really a testament to our pace of progress,” Endurance CEO Andrew Redd told me.
A former SpaceX engineer — as so many climate tech founders seem to be — Redd appears quite comfortable with the rapid trial-and-error cycles that hard tech startups often demand. Or as he stated in the company’s press release, which provides a refreshingly frank account of what this first test did and didn’t accomplish, “We follow the adage ‘make it exist, then make it good.’”
Investors seem to be buying it. In June, the startup raised a $54 million Series A, led by Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund — Endurance’s second funding round in less than two years of existence. Still, the team certainly has their work cut out for them. The ocean is a notoriously difficult operating environment: Saltwater is corrosive and offshore infrastructure is difficult and expensive to build, maintain, and repair.
Indeed, Endurance spent the first 11 days of its three-week stint at sea debugging its drill, which the team had never operated underwater before. But with a vessel chartered and a locked-in deployment date, the company couldn’t afford to wait for everything to work out perfectly. “We were still working on that generator hours before it got on the seafloor,” Redd told me. He’s used to that sort of thing, though, comparing it to making final tweaks to rockets already sitting on the launchpad. “That’s kind of the name of the game,” he said.
The trial took place at Axial Seamount, an active underwater volcano and the only place in the world with a cluster of hydrothermal vents connected to shore by fiber optic cable, which allows the Endurance team to monitor and control its system in real time from Seattle. While this was the company’s fifth deep-sea mission, it was the team’s first attempt to actually drill their own well.
After lowering their drill about a mile below the surface, the team bored two holes and turned the second into a well about 2 inches wide, lining it with pipe and sealing it with cement. But after losing so much time to debugging, the team only managed to drill about 52 feet deep — far short of its original 200-foot target.
Water then flowed up the well at about 260 degrees Celsius (around 500 degrees Fahrenheit), but the narrow borehole proved too restrictive to deliver enough heat for the generator to operate. So the team pivoted, connecting the generator directly to a naturally flowing, hotter hydrothermal vent instead. The generator then ran for a total of 29 seconds, producing about 2 kilowatts of net power for 8.7 seconds. That represents the total electricity the turbine generated, minus the 7 to 8 kilowatts needed to run its supporting components, such as the refrigerant pump and other onboard equipment.
Then a software glitch triggered the onboard battery safety system, which shut down the plant. When the team tried to restart the system, the power cable feeding the refrigerant pump failed, leaving the pump unable to restart. That was the end of the road. The mission wrapped up after three weeks at sea, a far shorter run than the team had hoped.
“The success criteria would be if we had left with the generator still on the seafloor; that would have been an example of sustained net power, and we didn’t get there,” Redd told me. Instead, the team brought the system back to Endurance’s Seattle headquarters, where it’s fixing the software as well as refurbishing and upgrading the hardware — which includes changing how it builds and tests subsea cables — to prepare for another mission sometime this winter. This time, the goal will be to generate sustained power from a much deeper well.
The team will need to demonstrate progress soon to keep its next major milestone on track: a planned 2-megawatt deployment off the coast of Tonga by the end of 2027. The project aims to supply electricity directly to the Tongan grid, which today is heavily dependent on expensive, imported diesel. Redd expects subsea geothermal to be cost-competitive with that fuel in this first pilot.
Getting there, however, is a formidable engineering challenge. While it’s long been a subject of academic curiosity, no one prior to Endurance had ever drilled an offshore geothermal well before, meaning the team can’t simply transplant existing land-based technology to the seafloor. “Every component that you would use terrestrially now needs to be either modified or built completely from scratch,” Redd explained. “And so you multiply that across every component required to make these kinds of infrastructure projects happen, and it’s a lot of work.”
No kidding. But if Endurance can pull it off, Redd sees this resource as “the perfect energy source for the future.” A conference paper presented by the geoscience company Viridien last year estimates that offshore geothermal resources worldwide could yield about 6 terawatts of recoverable electric power — nearly twice the world’s current continuous electricity output.
“We can access terawatts of power. There’s no fuel. We can site next to extremely large cities around the Pacific. We have no surface presence,” Redd said, ticking off the advantages. Plus, the three necessary ingredients for a high-quality geothermal well — permeable rock, high heat, and water — are widely accessible offshore, he added. Eventually, he expects subsea geothermal to undercut natural gas in Endurance’s target markets: electricity grids, industrial facilities, and data centers across the Pacific Islands, the U.S. West Coast, and Northeast Asia, all of which sit along the undersea volcanic zone known as the “Ring of Fire.”
The way Redd sees it, advances in subsea technology pioneered by the offshore wind, oil, and gas industries have cleared much of the technological path to making underwater geothermal a viable clean energy resource. In his view, what’s been missing is simply the ambition to chase the opportunity in the private market. SpaceX, he said, really proved what’s possible for a scrappy startup to achieve.
“It is quite new at industrial scale for a small company with a bunch of fairly young people to go after something like this,” he told me. “Before SpaceX went to launch a rocket as a private company, no one thought you could get to orbit as a private company. And so that has really seeded this ambition.”
On Greenland’s deepsea mining ban, Indonesia floating nuclear, and a solar boom
Current conditions: Hurricane Trudy has weakened from its peak as a Category 2 storm but still threatens up to 8 inches of rain as it swirls off Baja California • A nor’easter is howling through the Mid-Atlantic this week, hammering the coast with winds of up to 70 miles per hour • A humid overcast has settled over Paris this week as French authorities struggle to regain control after protests over living costs gave way to anarchic riots.
At least 47 major data center projects have been delayed, withdrawn, or blocked so far this year, according to data the regulatory intelligence service RegLayer shared with the Financial Times — and that may be a “conservative estimate.” Just 35% of planned data centers are “credible,” analysts told the newspaper, as more than 1,000 communities across the United States now have restrictions on artificial intelligence infrastructure. The data comes as investors look increasingly jittery about AI following ChatGPT-maker OpenAI’s missing a key revenue metric this year.
Those findings stand in contrast with the numbers from our data service, Heatmap Pro. Based on our research, at least 107 projects faced cancellation so far this year, putting 2026 on track to beat last year, which saw 108 proposals nixed.
Unless you’re living off the grid and away from any social media (if so, I’m jealous), then you can probably surmise that not-in-my-backyard opposition prevails in many such cases against proposed data centers. That makes selling would-be neighbors on the projects critical. New polling by the advocacy group GoodPower found that a binding promise to protect local electricity rates boosts support for the projects upward by as much as 14 points. Such a pledge worked primarily on the 78% of voters who distrust data centers. Another potential winner: Pair a data center with renewables. At least 46% of respondents to the poll said their support would increase if a project were powered by renewables. The survey spoke to 2,610 registered voters last month and oversampled in states with at least 200 data centers completed: Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia.
Greenland wants to find ways to exploit its mineral riches in hopes of generating enough income from industries other than fishing and tourism to eventually wean off subsidies from the governments of Denmark and the European Union. Earlier this month, as you may recall, the self-governing Danish island gave a project the green light. But the government in Nuuk doesn’t want miners harvesting metals from the seabed surrounding the Arctic island, which are fertile fishing grounds and could, in theory, lead to mineral production without meaningful infrastructure to create jobs for Greenlandic people. Last week, the Greenlandic Parliament adopted a resolution requiring the government to draft legislation banning deep-sea mining. All members present voted to approve the proposal, according to Sermitsiaq, a leading newspaper in Nuuk. The ban would, if adopted, last until the end of 2029, with the possibility of an extension for two years at a time.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Long before the race for small modular reactors kicked off, Russia launched a floating nuclear power station and sailed the vessel up to the Arctic to power a small town. Now, as you may recall, the state-owned Russian nuclear company Rosatom is making plans to build more floating nuclear plants, and it has a major nuclear newcomer nation as an offtaker. Last week, NucNet reported, Rosatom announced a deal with Indonesia’s state-owned PT Pembangkit Listrik Nuklir to supply electricity to northern Indonesia from at least two floating nuclear plants with a capacity of 200 megawatts each.

Over the past decade, small-scale and rooftop solar systems increased from 18,812 gigawatt-hours to 92,979 gigawatt-hours, an increase of over 394%. That’s according to a new analysis from the Energy Information Administration, which found that California, Arizona, Texas, Florida are the regions with the most abundant solar resources. Even though the state has worse solar resources in general, New York ranked fifth as a result of growing capacity. Still, the rate of growth in generation has slowed over the past three years. l
The Trump administration is pulling out all the stops for Alaskans who want to drill and transport fossil fuels, mine minerals, and log trees. Now he’s easing rules on hunters. A new final rule from the National Park Service has revived a hunting method the Biden administration banned in 2024: Baiting bears with doughnuts soaked in bacon grease. Hunters use the baits to lure bears to close range before shooting them. “Some hunters prefer to use strong-smelling, high-calorie foods like pastries, doughnuts, meat scraps or fish remains to lure bears from miles away,” The New York Times reported. “But some conservationists say the practice is unethical and risks making the bears accustomed to human food, which could endanger people.”
What would happen to Project Jupiter if the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act is passed?
One of the nation’s largest data centers is struggling under permitting woes. So let’s play a game: would the bipartisan permitting bill in Congress make the path easier, or might the federal legislation be irrelevant to large hyperscalers under development today?
Meet Project Jupiter, a mega project in southern New Mexico in Dona Ana County under development by Oracle and OpenAI, with financial backing from SoftBank and political support from the Trump administration for being a part of Stargate, a major Trump administration public-private initiative boosting AI development. Project Jupiter would be one of the largest data centers in the country if completed and currently is expected to run on a microgrid powered by fuel cells converting gas to electricity, which the developers claim will burn much cleaner than a typical off-grid gas turbine power plant.
Solving the energy side of the equation is a major hurdle for Jupiter, largely because of permitting delays and legal challenges.
In mid-September, the New Mexico Supreme Court lifted a stay it placed on consideration of the project’s state air permitting application. But on Wednesday, the Santa Fe New Mexican published emails between the New Mexico Environment Department and Project Jupiter staff detailing that independent emissions modeling showed pollution would be greater than predicted by the developers, after they had already requested permission to emit more CO2 than the state’s three largest cities combined. A final decision on the air permit was expected in November; the emails suggest the deadline may slip further. After the emails were reported, Oracle declared it would try to reduce emissions from the site by more than 30%.
At the same time, the New Mexico Justice Department is opposing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act for a gas pipeline key to powering the project. The state’s attorneys assert the agency improperly failed to examine how the data center’s use of the pipeline would affect the environment. This week, a dozen GOP attorneys general representing states with large gas industries wrote FERC insisting they ignore the state’s protests, arguing that a recent Supreme Court ruling – known colloquially as Seven County – meant the federal government doesn’t need to look at the data centers gas pipelines are feeding when the lines are reviewed. Oracle has declared a “force majeure” over the pipeline delay. Rumors have circulated that trucks may just bring gas in for operations; company representatives told the Dona Ana County Commission this week those claims were “misinformation.”
Amidst these delays and potential legal conflicts, I’ve sought to understand whether projects like these – large data centers racing to operate within the next year or two – would be affected by enactment of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026, a major permitting reform deal negotiated in part by New Mexico’s senior senator, Energy and Natural Resources chairman Martin Heinrich.
In Washington D.C., this legislation is exciting many constituencies, including energy industry types, policy wonks, business-friendly climate advocates. At the same time, more conservation-minded environmental groups opposed to provisions benefiting the fossil fuel industry are leaning into an argument that the legislation would accelerate a new era of gas-dominant data center construction.
Last week, I wrote about the environmentalists’ argument. I also examined the parts of the bill unlocking a new transmission build-out and requiring data center ratepayer protection. If enacted, FERC would have to require utilities to charge data centers not only for the costs of new grid upgrades but the charges incurred for using the grid, too. As my colleague Robinson Meyer has written, by forcing AI infrastructure operators to pay for both embedded and incremental energy costs, the legislation would essentially mean data centers paying both to reduce rates and build new energy generation. We’re seeing in real time what happens when you don’t deal with the transmission connection system while building new grid upgrades: companies will often opt to just build their own private off-grid fossil fuel islands. In Texas, for example, we’re seeing transmission hook-up delays lead to companies just building their own gas plants instead. This is not to say companies won’t still go off the grid if this bill passes, but it’s a serious consequence of our dilapidated energy system worth considering.
So I decided to evaluate Project Jupiter as a test case. How might the permitting bill affect this project and other big data centers at a stage like it?
For starters, let's say what the permitting bill does not do. It wouldn’t change the Clean Air Act. Project Jupiter would be one of the largest data centers in the country if completed, as well as potentially one of the nation’s biggest CO2 emitters if permitted as proposed. Nothing in the bill would affect requirements that the project adhere to national air emissions standards, so it wouldn’t affect the New Mexico Environment Department’s pending decision around the project’s air permits.
Enacting BAAJA could potentially affect this sprawling data center project in extremely hypothetical ways. It would reduce legal risks associated with future interstate gas pipelines under development expected to potentially branch out to Project Jupiter, including the Desert Southwest Expansion pipeline. It’s easy to understand in the words of Robert Pattinson in Primetime how this looks: like an easier path to expanding gas generation in this area.
On renewables, the bipartisan permitting deal would codify new permitting certainty and timeline provisions that claim to make it easier for companies to pursue solar development on federal acreage managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Project Jupiter just concluded a request for proposals to procure two gigawatts of renewable energy including solar power to meet the developers’ pledge to achieve 100% carbon matching by 2031 and Thiagarajan previously told the commission they’ve examined potentially getting energy from solar projects nearby on BLM lands.
But all of this is too theoretical and the case for any individual early-stage energy project too. Not to mention that we have no idea how the Trump administration would implement this certainty language, even for Project Jupiter.
To me, if people want to earnestly understand how the bipartisan permitting bill might actually affect data centers, they need to fully consider how making it easier and more transparent to hook up to the existing electric grid could reduce how much on-site gas generation is used at AI data center operations.
Delays in state permitting for the off-grid fuel cell plant have led Project Jupiter’s developers to consider what turning to the power grid would look like. In early September during a Dona Ana County commission meeting, Oracle executive vice president Mahest Thiagarajan told the panel, “If we end up in a situation where the air permit is not actually approved, I do have to work with a grid provider. Whether it is actually part of the grid or they built the grid for me could be TBD.”
“It doesn’t need to be on the grid, but I need [a] source of power to help power the data center,” Thiagarajan said.
Commission chair Manuel Sanchez replied that the microgrid plans were established in their community benefit agreement but he supported proposals requiring data center developers paying for upgrades and directly paying to reduce electricity rates for nearby residents. “It’s actually provided a downward pressure on rates,” Sanchez said, referring directly to such a policy created by the Georgia Public Service Commission.
Thiagarajan agreed. “My current plan is to continue to work with NMED [the New Mexico Environment Division] and get the off-grid site. If for any reason we have to, because I don’t have the air permit and I have to build the site, I strongly believe it has to come with me bringing down pressure to the rates. Period. I don’t think that’s a question of, I’m not increasing the rates. I actually have to come in and say, I am lowering the rates here.”
If Congress enacted this permitting bill in the lame duck, would Project Jupiter ditch plans to be off grid? It’s challenging to prove or disprove such a hypothetical. Representatives for the project did not respond to requests for comment. But we know any attempts at grid hookups without greater ratepayer protections are only leading to more conflict locally; this week, when Project Jupiter tried proposing a hook up to the grid for emergency power, the county commission fumed. Right now, the plan is still to power Project Jupiter with the gas fuel cell generation on site.
As I concluded this research, I noticed Heinrich’s office has actually promoted news coverage about what his efforts to enact data center ratepayer protections would do to Project Jupiter.
In early August, as the Senate was leaving for a summer recess, his office republished a Santa Fe New Mexican article about legislation the senator authored – the GRID Savings Act – and its potential impact on Project Jupiter. The article claimed that if Project Jupiter was unable to get its air permit, they’d be able to get power a different way under his proposal. The local news outlet also quoted an email from Sanchez, the county commission chair, stating that Heinrich’s bill “could be an avenue for Project Jupiter to fulfill their requirements if the air permit is denied.” Sanchez did not respond to requests for comment.
So I asked Senator Heinrich’s office for comment about this republished article, as well as if his permitting deal would indeed help ensure Project Jupiter was completed and came online. To conclude this story, here is their full statement:
The Senator has been clear that building big things responsibly means putting communities first. As he stated in his interview with the Albuquerque Journal, Project Jupiter botched community engagement from the start.
BAAJA is about making sure we build the energy infrastructure we need while keeping costs down for families and small businesses in New Mexico and across the country. The legislation would help get new energy generation, primarily clean energy, on the grid. By getting the energy onto the grid, states like New Mexico, which has enacted the Energy Transition Act, can continue working to ensure the energy powering our grid is increasingly clean.
The Senator has fought to ensure that growing energy demand doesn’t come at the expense of New Mexicans’ electricity bills by requiring data centers to pay for all of their associated transmission costs, rather than those costs shifting onto ratepayers. Ultimately, the Senator strongly believes that any major development, including data centers, should come as a benefit to the communities that host them, not a burden — and that starts with meaningful community engagement and real benefits for New Mexicans.
To be clear, BAAJA is federal legislation focused on energy infrastructure and grid connectivity. It does not ‘permit’ data centers. State and local government approval is still required. The Senator's legislation addresses the federal energy infrastructure challenges associated with a grid that cannot keep up with demand; it does not circumvent the state and local processes that determine whether Project Jupiter moves forward.
Media representatives for Project Jupiter did not respond to requests for comment.