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:
CoreWeave signed a deal for a new facility in New Jersey, behind-the-meter power on the side.

The cloud computing company CoreWeave announced Monday that it is leasing a former medical research facility and turning it into a data center. Along with it comes a 25-megawatt power plant that once provided power and steam directly to the former Merck headquarters in Kenilworth, New Jersey, but began to sell more and more power to the grid, the plant’s owner said in a filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In 2023, the facility was purchased by Onyx, a real estate firm, and Machine Investment Group, with the intention to market the site to another life sciences or biotechnology company.
Then the AI revolution happened.
CoreWeave, which started as a miner of cryptocurrency, is now raising and spending billions of dollars to acquire and install the chips necessary to train and run artificial intelligence systems for companies that rent out access to them. According to the deal announcement, the company plans to pour $1.2 billion of investment into the 280,000 square foot facility, along with electrical upgrades from the utility PSE&G and investments from Onyx. The power plant will stop serving the grid and go “behind the meter,” the plant’s owner Atlantic Power said in a letter to PJM Interconnection, the regional electricity market, in September.
The deal confirms that when it comes to power, data centers will take what they can get — and that the long timelines necessary to bring on new power in much of the country may end up benefiting existing owners of generation, especially natural gas.
Data centers require both large amounts of power — sometimes 100 megawatts or more — and the ability to surge up and down quickly. “Renewable power generation is well placed to capture mounting demand from data centers and AI in the long term,” analysts at BNEF wrote in a report in September, “but time constraints for grid interconnection and intermittency issues could support natural gas-fired output.”
Goldman Sachs analysts expect data center power demand to rise from about 3% of the U.S. total to 8% by 2030, with growth running at 15% annually. They assume that capacity will be met mostly by natural gas, but actually finding — let alone building — new natural gas generation is a challenge.
“The hyperscalers are evolving from single data centers dependent on 60 to 100 megawatts to starting to look at multiple gigawatt-size data center parks that support a number of data centers in one location,” GE Vernova chief executive Scott Strazik said on a recent earnings call with analysts.
Building a new natural gas plant on the grid — and especially the transmission infrastructure to serve it — can be a prospect well beyond the build-it-now timelines of big technology companies with a desperate need for computing power.
“Thanks to 10-year delays in permitting for new transmission lines and connecting generation capacity to the grid, the most viable near-term option is behind-the-meter,” Tim Fist and Arnab Datta wrote in a report for the Institute for Progress, a technology and science policy think tank. In other words, one way to get around grid interconnection and intermittency issues is to have your own power plant.
“The economics of developing the power on site don't really hurt the data center economics that much. These things are just really profitable,” Carson Kearl, an analyst at Enverus, told me.
Some data centers have developed their own natural gas generation on site, such as XAi’s cluster in Memphis, Tennessee, which is powered by gas generators.
CoreWeave, meanwhile, is one of the most talked-about and well-funded companies in cloud computing, with access to a huge number of chips made by Nvidia, the leading designer of high-end processors, and which is also an investor in CoreWeave. But the chips can only perform when they’re powered, turning the data center business into a hunt for electricity wherever it can be found.
“Access to reliable power could be a roadblock towards the timely buildout” for a data center, Francois Poirier, the chief executive of TC Energy, the Canadian pipeline company, told analysts on an earnings call in August. “We’re seeing a shift in siting preferences from regions where big telecom infrastructure is in place to regions where energy and supply infrastructure is in place.”
CoreWeave, PSE&G, Onyx, and Atlantic Power’s owner, I Squared Capital, did not respond to requests for comment.
This situation has not come about for lack of effort on the part of the several electricity markets that have been trying to get new natural gas generation on the grid. PJM, for example, has been working to entice new supply, but even following a record auction for power capacity that paid out billions to natural gas plants, few producers have indicated their willingness to make large new investments. Texas has established a multibillion-dollar loan fund to provide low-cost financing to new natural gas plants.
While several large technology companies have announced their intention to buy nuclear power from refurbished or new plants, those deals will take at least several years to actually get any new electrons on the grid.
That leads data center developers like CoreWeave scrambling to find what power they can. In interviews, the company’s chief strategy officer Brian Venturo told Wired that they are avoiding Northern Virginia’s “data center alley” precisely because it’s “a food fight to get power.”
“There's a lot of growing backlash in that market around power usage,” he told Bloomberg. “We're kind of siting our plants and markets where our data centers and markets where we think the grid infrastructure is capable of handling it.”
And what better place than where the power already is.
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 facility will power OpenAI’s 10-gigawatt data center in Pike County, Ohio.
The Trump administration aims to complete its environmental review of what would be the biggest fossil fuel power project in the country in just a few months, Heatmap has learned.
This news follows Monday’s announcement from OpenAI that it intends to lease a new 10-gigawatt data center under development in Pike County, Ohio, financed by a mixture of money from a SoftBank subsidiary and the chip company Nvidia. This AI hyperscale facility — known as the PORTS-Pike project — is expected to draw power from the largest gas power facility ever built in the United States, a 9.2-gigawatt facility sited on federal lands that would be built and owned by the Energy Department.
According to OpenAI, the data center campus will be built and started up in phases, with the first 800 megawatts starting construction this year and operational in 2028. That first phase will rely mostly on existing power infrastructure operated by AEP Ohio. How things progress from there will depend at least in part on the permitting and construction timelines for the new power plant.
Building large infrastructure of any kind on federal land or with significant federal investment typically triggers a review under the National Environmental Policy Act. I’ve been curious to find out what kind of review this particular project was going to get, especially after the administration allowed a NEPA review for a solar project to be repurposed for a data center on federal lands earlier this year.
Turns out some information about the PORTS-Pike permitting process is public. Before OpenAI confirmed its involvement with the site, the Trump administration added the project to the federal FAST-41 permitting dashboard, where it posts regular updates on the timeline for getting federal sign-offs. Per the lone federal notice available about the PORTS-Pike project, it will include “several data center buildings and power plants.” That will require at least two federal greenlights: an Army Corps of Engineers permit and approval from the Fish and Wildlife Service, which is being consulted about potential endangered bats in the project area.
The NEPA permitting work for this historically large data center-plus-fossil fuel power project began on July 10 and will conclude on December 23, the day before Christmas Eve, according to the Trump administration’s estimates. This comes after paperwork to begin the review was submitted to the Army Corps in May, per the federal notice — a total timeline of about seven months.
Those familiar with NEPA and the debate over permitting reform will likely be surprised by the speed of this review. It’s moving fast in part because the project is receiving just an Environmental Assessment, the lesser and smaller type of analysis than the EIS. I do not know why the government decided to take this route because the government’s NEPA review determination is not currently public, but I have asked the Army Corps to explain this move.
I’m not sure exactly how air permitting will fit into this NEPA review, as the Clean Air Act isn’t listed as a review step on the federal dashboard. The Ohio EPA has primary authority over permitting projects like these under the Clean Air Act, and I’ve reached out to them to confirm whether PORTS has submitted a permitting application. The state agency’s permitting database does not have any information on air permitting for the project, though it does include reports from third-party consultants confirming wetlands and protected species warranted reviews from the Army Corps and Fish and Wildlife.
Lastly, these timetables are not sacrosanct. Under the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, agencies are supposed to complete environmental assessments within one year, but nevertheless they regularly fail to meet them. The White House’s Council on Environmental Quality said in a report to Congress last year that from mid-2023 to mid-2025, the Army Corps was the agency that most often missed these statutory NEPA deadlines for environmental assessments.
Still, news of this speedy review for a priority Trump project is sure to excite pro-data center advocates who see expedited construction as an imperative in the global AI arms race. It’s also guaranteed to put a foul taste in the mouths of environmentalists already frustrated by federal revisions to NEPA regulations they say elide analysis of climate impacts.
What’s undebatable in all this is that, as my colleague Robinson Meyer wrote, the PORTS project could ignite a new era of mega-gas plants. This permitting timeline couldn’t be more important for the future of the data center boom — and the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.
SB Energy, the SoftBank subsidiary behind the data center project, did not provide comment before publication.
A new front opens in the data center wars.
A series of lawsuits filed in federal court asks a big question – are data center moratoria constitutional?
In early August, data center developer DC Blox sued the city of Nashville in federal court to overturn a zoning moratorium stopping them from building a hyperscale facility adjacent to the city zoo. “The Data Center Moratorium, moreover, is a targeted attack against DC BLOX, in violation of federal constitutional protections,” the suit argued, claiming that it defied the corporation’s due process and equal protection rights.
Around the same time, another developer – Wixom Industrial One – filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Wixom, Michigan, to try and “invalidate the city’s illegal police power moratorium” blocking their data center.
These two cases were far from novel or the first of their kind, and they’re now a fresh front in the battle over hyperscale data centers. At least that’s what some who work on these cases say: In April, attorneys with the law firm Vorys published a “client alert” asserting “many moratoria may be vulnerable to statutory, procedural, and constitutional challenges.” The attorneys advised that constitutional arguments against moratoria “may be stronger where a government singles out data centers without a sound factual basis, treats similar land uses differently without a reasonable basis, or adopts a restriction driven more by political pressure than by defensible planning or regulatory objectives.”
Months later, according to court documents, the Vorys attorneys who authored the alert now represent real estate firm Thor Equities in a federal case against the Ohio city of Urbana, arguing the city’s decision to reject their data center project broke “fundamental protections” under the U.S. Constitution. (Vorys and Thor Equities did not respond to requests for comment.)
It’s unclear how many of these kinds of cases have been filed to date. Data on federal court cases is quite opaque. But legal experts and industry attorneys tell me we should expect them to be on the rise as developers seek whatever tools they can find to get projects built.
“Bringing a lawsuit like this is fairly cheap, something they can do at a relatively low cost, and imposes a real cost on local governments to defend themselves,” said Daniel Metzger, director of the Cities Climate Law Initiative at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center. “The cases out there will be bellwethers. And if successful, there’ll be a lot more of them.”
What developers probably want looks a lot like Hill County, Texas, where an LLC proposing an $80 million data center project was stymied in May by the state’s first countywide moratorium. (It predated Governor Greg Abbott’s temporary freeze of data center development in Texas by three months.) Within a period of only a few weeks, the LLC sued and the county rescinded the pause on approvals. The case was dropped a month later. Local reports state the county had to afterwards pay the corporation $100,000 in legal fees – a drop in the bucket compared to what a drawn-out court battle would have cost the rural county.
Metzger said whether the companies will win these cases is ultimately not the point – their goal is to win a finished data center, not a judicial ruling. By filing expansive litigation in the national court system, a hypothetical developer can exhaust the coffers of a city or county with legal expenses that are chump change compared to would-be billions in private financing for compute infrastructure.
“These lawsuits may deter some local governments from taking steps to oppose data center development, just because of the cost it would impose on them to defend a lawsuit, even if they know they have a strong legal basis for the action they want to take.”
Those I spoke to in private practice about data center developers’ constitutional arguments agreed with Metzger’s assessment that it’s too early to tell whether the companies will win. Generally, they said, a city or county will win this kind of case if it demonstrates a rational basis for its decision-making and courts typically want to defer to governmental autonomy. The onus will be on the developers to prove a moratorium was meritless – that’s the due process challenge – or unfairly targeted their industry in a way other sectors don’t face, which is the basis of the equal protection claim.
“What they’re saying is in essence that these actions the municipality is taking are arbitrary and capricious, which is one of the sort of catch-all standards,” Thomas Allen, a partner at K&L Gates, told me. “They say the laws lack a rational basis. And then they make equal protection claims, saying data centers are being singled out because of political concerns as opposed to actual things relevant to the legislature’s directive. They’re not basing their decisions on the underlying merits of the project but reacting to political pressure.”
“It’s a reliance question and it’s about the treatment of their projects,” added Laura Morton, an attorney with Ashurst Perkins Coie. “It’s always been important to talk about and engage with communities where your infrastructure is planned. Here, I think this is the developers going in, maybe having conversations, and then suddenly they’re getting a reversal after already receiving these approvals and making investments based off of what the conversations and rules were.”
The likelihood of these constitutional challenges reaching higher courts anytime soon is quite low. It’ll be a long time before we see one of these cases reach a verdict, let alone some kind of appeals process come to fruition. Nevertheless, the new legal ambiguity around these local restrictions is an important new facet of the data center wars, including for developers.
“Companies want to act within the law to get [things] done, so whatever tactics they can do to help get the project over the line that are legal and ethical, they may try those,” Allen told me. “And if that includes the pressure of a lawsuit, that’s a judgment they’ll have to make.”
And more on this week’s conflicts around project development.
1. Montgomery County, Pennsylvania – We reached a new normal in the data center backlash, and it all seems to have started in King of Prussia.
2. Columbia County, Wisconsin – The gubernatorial race in this state is transforming local fights over wind projects into must-watch popcorn fodder for anyone obsessed with the state of the energy transition, or national politics for that matter.
3. Shelby County, Alabama – One quick update on the intervention of John Rich, the country star turned Trump’s “special envoy for American landowners,” in an Alabama Power transmission project: it’s getting a lot more elected officials involved.
4. New Jersey – We try to conclude every Hotspots on a positive note. So this week’s silver lining comes to you from the Garden State, where state regulators have approved more than a dozen agrivoltaics projects.