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:
The new president is annihilating his predecessor’s energy policy.

Every time the White House changes hands from one party to another, some policies toggle back to what they were before, a reset meant to restore the status quo ante. The best-known example may be the Mexico City policy, which forbids U.S. foreign aid funds from going to any organization that performs or even gives information about abortions; since it was first instituted under Ronald Reagan, every Democratic president has revoked it and every Republican president has reestablished it. The change is as predictable as the sunrise.
But presidents also hope that even if their party loses the next election, they will have created more durable policy change. If the outgoing president has been clever enough at creating smart design, administrative momentum, and political reality, even a hostile new president may find it difficult to roll back everything their predecessor did. That was certainly the Biden administration’s goal when it came to climate policy. Some even hoped that President Trump would just be too preoccupied with the things he cares more about — especially deporting immigrants and imposing tariffs — to devote too much time and effort to undoing the progress that has been made on climate.
In other words, Trump could have taken much the same approach as Biden, except with the favored industries reversed. Biden worked hard to boost renewable energy, but apart from a few high-profile moves like the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline and a temporary suspension of approvals for new liquified natural gas export facilities, he mostly left the fossil fuel industry alone. The result was a boom time for oil and gas, with record production and almost limitless profits. Turn it upside down, and you’d have an administration that gives fossil fuel companies what they want — relaxed regulations, speeded-up permits, the opening of federal lands for more drilling — without a frontal assault on renewables.
Unfortunately, Trump has not chosen that mirror-image course. Instead, he seems determined to undermine, roll back, and impair the transition to clean energy in almost every way his administration can think of. As it has in one area after another, the Trump government is acting with a head-spinning speed and ambition, as though it will count itself as successful only if the entire renewables industry lies in ruins by the end of its term.
This is a strange approach to take if Trump actually believes there is an “energy emergency” that demands a mobilization to produce dramatically more power, as he declared in an executive order he signed on his first day in office. But that order made clear the administration’s belief that wind and solar are literally not energy; it states that “The term ‘energy’ or ‘energy resources’ means crude oil, natural gas, lease condensates, natural gas liquids, refined petroleum products, uranium, coal, biofuels, geothermal heat, the kinetic movement of flowing water, and critical minerals.”
Trump didn’t write the order himself, but it certainly reflects the sweeping policy moves his administration has made against renewable energy and environmental enforcement, including the following:
All that is in addition to the expected policy reversals, such as withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, which Trump abandoned in his first term and Biden rejoined. Even including those, it’s still not a comprehensive list.
For years, Republicans (including Trump) have described their approach to energy as “all of the above,” i.e. that every kind of energy, including fossil fuels, should be developed as much as possible. That phrase is clearly no longer operative, as the administration is showing an unmitigated hostility to solar and wind power. The administration also seems determined to arrest the growth of the electric vehicle industry, which raises the question of how one particular interested party — Elon Musk — may be reacting to these moves.
Whether or not you think this question has already been settled depends on how much you trust Musk as a reliable exponent of his own true beliefs. On the campaign trail, he boasted that killing the $7,500 EV tax credits would only help Tesla by damaging its competition. After the election, when asked about the tax credit during a visit to Capitol Hill, Musk told reporters, “I think we should get rid of all credits.” But there are other EV-related policies Trump has trained his crosshairs on, including California’s ability to set more stringent fuel efficiency standards than the federal government, granted under a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency. The law allows companies to buy and sell credits in order to meet the required mix, and as a maker of entirely zero-emission vehicles, Tesla has plenty of credits to sell. As of last November, selling those credits accounted for more than 40% of Tesla’s net income for the year to date.
So far, Musk hasn’t commented on the subject, but it isn’t hard to imagine that if he tried to convince Trump to reverse some of these decisions and pursue a true “all of the above” strategy, Trump would be highly persuadable. But Musk is no longer an ally of the renewables industry, and his interest in the electrification of the nation’s auto fleet begins and ends with his own company.
Part of the theory underlying Biden’s limited moves against the fossil fuel industry was that the energy transition has so much momentum that it can’t be stopped — that, while every day we continue burning oil and gas makes climate change worse, the eventual arrival of a net-zero-emissions future is inevitable. That reality hasn’t changed, but the Trump administration is determined to delay it as long as possible. And in order to do so, it’s bringing the same commitment to rapid, aggressive, destructive policy change it’s deploying across the entire federal government.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The movement against data centers is raising up a raison d'etre of the anti-renewables movement: protecting would-be farmland.
Farm owners and operators across the U.S. are winning national headlines almost every week for rejecting big dollar offers from data center developers. In Hanover County, Virginia, protestors are chanting “Grow Tomatoes, Not Data Centers.” In Pennsylvania and elsewhere, Republican legislators are mulling proposals to block the sale of so-called “prime farmland” for data center development. In Texas, the fight over data center development has engulfed the race for the state’s ag commissioner seat. In the Midwest, where agriculture reigns supreme, statewide races and congressional campaigns are slowly but surely being defined by the issue. Like in Nebraska where Austin Ahlman, an independent candidate running for Congress in Nebraska’s first district, told me he believes the data center backlash is reflective of a populist politics that broadly criticize elites and top-down control of the economy: “I think sometimes people misunderstand the anxieties of rural Americans when it comes to these data centers because a lot of their fears are about control long term.”
Unlike the farmland backlash around renewable energy development, the loudest critics are on the anti-monopolist left. On Wednesday, the prominent opposition group Food and Water Watch signaled farmland could soon be a watchword in the national data center debate – in a fashion analogous to what we’ve seen with renewable energy. The organization’s blog post entitled “The AI Data Center Boom Is Coming for Farmers” declared data centers verboten because of the threat they posed to “small and midsized family farmers.” Mitch Jones, deputy director of the campaign outfit, said he believes the threat to farmland is “a compelling reason to oppose data center development” but that his organization’s fight is primarily focused on protecting small business owners and an anti-monopoly sentiment.
“If data centers are coming into their areas, this puts even more pressure on them. It drives up the cost of their electricity, just as it does anyone else. It competes with them for water for crops, and it affects the value of their land in a perverse way,” Jones told me.
None of this should be surprising. An agricultural workforce has always been a good barometer for figuring out if a community will accept new infrastructure of any kind. We’ve seen as much time and time again with renewable energy, carbon capture, fossil energy and mining, just to name a few industries.
This same rule is true with data centers. In April, county commissioners in Kosciusko County, Indiana, unanimously rejected a Prologis data center; nearly 90% of acreage in Kosciusko County is being actively farmed, according to the Heatmap Pro database. Linn County, Iowa, in February enacted a rule severely restricting data center development in unincorporated areas; almost three-fourths of the land is used by the ag sector. A potential Amazon facility is causing heartburn in Clinton County, Ohio; nearly all land in the county is used for farming and utility-scale solar development has a recent history of conflict with landowners.
To be candid, I’m struck by the similarity in the backlash over siting data centers on farmland – a resemblance so close that some counties are starting to restrict renewable energy and data center development on farmland at the same time. This week, Eau Claire County, Wisconsin created a new “farmland preservation plan” discouraging utility-scale solar energy and data centers on any potential farmland. (More than 40% of land in this county is currently being used for farmland, according to Heatmap Pro.)
Jones at Food and Water Watch said his organization taking on the “protect farmland” mantle had nothing to do with the success this argument has had against renewable energy. “That thought never entered my head,” he told me, adding that if communities respond to the data center backlash by taking steps that short-circuit solar and wind too, that’s “a coincidence.”
I kept pressing. What if the pivot to farmland protection leads to more communities restricting renewable energy along with the data centers? “If you’re looking for a reason to oppose solar and wind, you can come up with that without having to attach data centers to it,” Jones said. “We’ve seen rural communities oppose solar and wind before data centers blew up across the country. It’s nothing new.”
And more of the week’s top news around project fights.
1. Virginia Beach, Virginia – The right-wing interest group lawsuit against Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia offshore wind is now dead, concluding one of the wackier tales of the Trump 2.0 energy era.
2. Box Elder County, Utah – Call it the Box Elder County massacre.
3. Davidson County, Tennessee – We have the latest updates in the Nashville Zoo data center drama and they’re a doozy and a half.
4. Clark County, Ohio – Yet another utility-scale solar farm is in the Ohio state permitting graveyard.
A conversation with Hanson Wood of RWE
This week’s conversation is with Hanson Wood, chief development officer for solar developer RWE. Wood’s perspective felt crucial at a moment when the data center boom is leading to so much deal volume – even after the repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act. So I reached out to his team to see if we could talk about how he’s evaluating all things Fight-related, including the impacts of the data center backlash on solar itself. The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
How is solar finding opportunities in the data center development space? I know there’s conversations about speed-to-power and some deal volume, but help us get a better sense of the level of capacity being sought versus fossil or other forms of energy.
Great question. To contextualize, I think it just makes sense to talk about energy demand overall. Solar is filling the base of where the majority of load growth and generation is coming from and going to be served.
Over the last decade, the cost of solar has gone down dramatically. It’s become a very modular technology being deployed in a variety of locations. It can be deployed very quickly at low cost. It can ramp to meet short-term demand needs. And within the space of just energy demand, across utilities and large industrial data center companies, the reality is no single technology is going to be able to serve overall demand. Everything from solar to onshore wind and geothermal and other forms of flexible generation are needed.
What this speaks to is how our grid is pretty finite. We have to be able to mix and match a variety of products to be able to meet an ever-growing reliability need. To make it simple, I think solar’s going to serve the largest base of growing demand because it's cheap and it's available. But it’s not going to be the only technology. We need to be able to serve this load growth reliably. And we know this is going to require a diversity of technologies.
From a social license perspective, does solar power for a data center make it more acceptable for a community? Less acceptable? More friendly?
One thing I want to be clear about: I don’t develop data centers. So I’m looking at it through the same view many people in the industry and the public see it.
I think there’s manifold reasons why people have concerns about data centers, overall. I can’t speak for all of them. But what solar does address is, we don’t want to see large price spikes in the short term and solar can really help in that regard. It can provide near-term generation immediately in a lot of instances at one of the lowest costs in the market.
Whether the broader public makes that connection, it’s probably too early to see. There’s probably a lot of anxiety that has to be addressed by that [data center] community.
When it comes to the state of solar development, have the feelings around data center infrastructure we’ve seen in various places impacted solar projects?
Solar is more often in what we consider rural areas where there’s more of a conservative viewpoint generally.
Where I think we stand in the solar industry is that in the 2010s we were looked at as a one-off, and now what we see as the challenge is that as solar scales, communities are looking at the scale and potential of what solar will be bringing. A lot of the conversations we have with [them] are, is this changing the local character? How is this impacting our way of life?
And the way we try to approach that is to highlight a lot of the public benefits. Renewables are generating significant jobs, locally as well as through funding local services. Farmers setting aside land for renewables are also funding their farms and way of life. I’ve heard testimonials from farmers who’ve said they wouldn’t be able to continue on without the revenue from solar or BESS projects.
The broader community is concerned solar is displacing rural farming, but what we hear from rural landowners is that these projects are allowing them to keep their farms.
Most people when they start looking at renewables, they don’t make that connection. They’re primed to ask, what’s the downside here? But it’s nothing in terms of physical land while the economic value it brings is long-term. It’s 30 years — at a time when the American public is seeing lots of headwinds.
I know at a broader level, you’re addressing the conflicts in solar energy. Do you think the solar industry offers any lessons for the folks now trying to get data centers built?
Anyone who is building large infrastructure projects can’t ignore early community engagement. One of the things people should be thinking about as they’re developing projects is these things are going to be here 20, 30 years, right? When we develop those projects we are trying to build relationships in a sustainable fashion.
We really take into consideration the concerns we hear. Again, people are primed to see the downside in any development, and without that early engagement – genuinely – you risk whether other people come along and hear the benefits or feel like their voice mattered in the process of development.