This week’s episode examines how clean energy is increasingly intersecting with politics, economics, and local communities. The hosts discuss a Texas primary race influenced by solar-backed political spending, a federal plan to repurpose Cold War plutonium for nuclear fuel, and growing turmoil in China’s dominant solar industry. They also look at how stalled federal reviews are putting billions in U.S. wind investments at risk. Heatmap News’ Robinson Meyer joins the show to explain why local opposition to data centers is surging and what it could mean for future development.
Paul Gerke:
Hey everybody and welcome to another edition of This Week in Clean Tech. Your favorite 15-minute roundup of some of the biggest stories in climate and energy each week. We're recording this one for Friday, May 29th, 2026. We do have a special guest waiting, Robinson Meyer from Heatmap News, joining us shortly. I'm Factor This Content Director, Paul Gerke.
Mike Casey:
I have effectively cracked up my co-host, cleantech commentator Mike Casey from TigerCom before the show, making me feel good. Like I still got the fastball, Mike. Like maybe I could still pursue this postponed career of stand-up comedy that I'd been toying around with. It makes me feel good to make you laugh.
Mike Casey:
First off, I want to give a shout out to Joseph Orgeron. He is not only executive director of Restore or Retreat, he's also the co-founder of Second Wind Marine, and he's a Louisiana State Rep. He wrote to me on LinkedIn and he said he loves the show and catches every episode. Joseph, thanks for reaching out, man. I appreciate it.
Paul Gerke:
Yeah, I'd really love to hear from you guys. If you want a shout out on the show or you've got an opinion to share, two cents to throw at us, you can email us. TWIC@tigercom.us. Mike, we've got five stories locked and loaded. What's the first one in the chamber?
Mike Casey:
All right. Politico, Liz Crampton. Representative Chip Roy loses run for Texas Attorney General to a MAGA challenger. Let's go to the story behind this story, Paul Gerke.
Paul Gerke:
If you listen to this show, you might recall an E&E News story that we covered back in March about a solar-backed political action committee, a PAC, that spent more than $650,000 opposing Chip Roy in his campaign for Texas Attorney General. The messaging there saying Roy was not MAGA enough for Texas.
This week, Chip Roy lost the primary to state Senator Mayes Middleton after he was portrayed as insufficiently loyal to MAGA causes. Middleton convinced voters he was the best Republican to lead MAGA from outgoing Attorney General Ken Paxton, who just won the Texas State Senate primary. Mike, I'm sure you've got a lot of things to say about this.
Mike Casey:
Roy has shoveled billions of dollars in corporate welfare at oil and gas companies while hating on renewables. But he could not overcome accusations that he betrayed his party by breaking with Trump over fiscal spending and voting to certify Trump's 2020 election loss.
When a solar-backed PAC chaired by CleanChoice's Tom Matzzie throws its weight behind a race and the votes to back it up, it sent a message that even Freedom Caucus incumbents like Roy aren't untouchable.
Hat tip to Stephen Lacey, another awesome podcaster, for his interview on LinkedIn with Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen and former Sierra Club Executive Director Mike Brune, who are involved with this PAC effort, on whether clean energy can build the same political strategy that took down Chip Roy.
I gotta say, the bedwetting underneath Stephen Lacey's post was just remarkable. A bunch of people who are clearly taking advantage of legalized psychedelics, living in a parallel universe, complaining about this.
Paul, let's go to story number two.
Paul Gerke:
Let's do it. Let's get a little clean energy with our politics.
Second story this week from Brad Plumer at The New York Times. It's titled U.S. Aims to Give Cold War Plutonium to Startups for Nuclear Fuel.
Mike Casey:
The administration is moving forward with a plan to provide plutonium from old dismantled nuclear warheads to five companies, including California-based Oklo, that want to convert the dangerous material into fuel for nuclear plants.
If finalized, this would be the first time the U.S. government made weapons-grade plutonium available to private companies.
The DOE has more than 50 tons of surplus plutonium leftover from nuclear weapons programs, and the agency has previously planned to dilute and bury it. But some nuclear startups argue the U.S. is currently unable to make enough conventional fuel from uranium to supply nuclear plants. Harvesting old plutonium stockpiles would be a good short-term solution.
I will add, if handled competently.
Paul, what do you think?
Paul Gerke:
Yeah, that's an important caveat.
This is a bit outside of my realm of understanding, but I do have some basic thoughts from the piece.
One is the first thing that you mentioned: we're talking about the kind of stuff that you use to build nuclear weapons, so there needs to be some bumpers around it, some safeguards, if you will. We can't just be handing out plutonium to companies that say they're interested. There has to be some due diligence and process there.
There are some who argue that the efforts to turn it into fuel are not all that easy. There are some real technical challenges. It gets really expensive, so maybe it is better to just bury the stuff in the ground.
But I say all that to say this: the Trump administration has a goal of quadrupling the size of the U.S. nuclear fleet by 2050. There's some real traction in that space. Nuclear always feels seven to ten years away.
But if we're to believe that's actually what they're intent on doing, this might need to be considered as one of those options to get there.
Mike, story three.
Mike Casey:
Economist: China's World-Beating Solar Industry Is in Turmoil.
Paul Gerke, are you in turmoil?
Paul Gerke:
Not at the moment. It was a bit of turmoil this morning when my dog decided to fight a mama deer. He lost, by the way. Little Theo's going to be okay, but it was not a fight that he should ever choose to pick again.
Anyway, I digress.
China makes about 80% of the world's solar panels. It's driving the growth that led renewables to generate more electricity than coal globally last year. That's a big deal. It's the first time that's happened.
But the country's solar industry is having some troubles.
Domestic demand is falling for the first time in decades because they've got a lot of generation out there. Factories are pumping out so many panels that supply has outpaced demand. You can get them really, really cheap.
And more and more markets abroad are taking protectionist measures and saying, hey, you can't just stockpile this stuff into our markets and more or less put the rest of our panel makers out of business.
China's always been the main market for solar panels. Quite frankly, the grid hasn't been able to keep up because they've been able to build it out so fast.
When solar output exceeds what the grid can handle, that surplus has nowhere to go. That's called curtailment.
In January and February, that came to about 9% of China's total solar generation wasted. That's up from 6% the year before, which makes it hard to justify putting more solar onto the grid unless China's also storing that solar power with batteries or moving it long distances to where it might be needed.
Mike Casey:
China's solar companies are also dealing with a glut of supply.
They're able to produce 1,000 gigawatts of solar capacity a year. Only 600 gigawatts were installed worldwide in 2025.
That's a serious math challenge.
Installations in China could fall between 24 and 43% from last year, enough to cause a drop in global demand for the first time in two decades, per BloombergNEF.
Manufacturers call for self-discipline and try to agree on production quotas and price floors.
On the government side, feed-in tariffs and subsidies have been pulled back.
But it's still a rough outlook for China. More than 40 Chinese solar firms have either gone bankrupt, been acquired, or been delisted from stock exchanges since 2024. A third of the workforce from five of their biggest firms have been laid off.
Two things could revive this industry:
One, trade barriers falling and exports surging.
Two, new solar tech becoming more efficient and cheaper.
But only if firms survive long enough to see it.
Paul Gerke:
Yeah, I expect more consolidation because the FEOC rules and ownership scrutiny are really starting to percolate through the clean energy space.
As ownership changes and companies reorganize, we're going to see further consolidation in the Chinese solar market.
Paul Gerke:
Our fourth story this week from Bloomberg: Wind Permit Stall Is Threatening $50 Billion in U.S. Developments.
Putting the brakes on an entire industry is doing some economic harm.
Mike Casey:
About $50 billion in wind investments and 150,000 jobs are in jeopardy because of the Trump administration's halt to approvals for new onshore projects, according to American Clean Power.
The Pentagon has stalled roughly 130 proposed wind projects, stopping investments that could power 20 million American homes.
Texas has a quarter of these projects worth about $11 billion.
New onshore wind projects are unable to move forward because the Department of Defense has stopped sending reviews to the Federal Aviation Administration, which must sign off before any project can proceed.
The Defense Department reviews wind farms to make sure they don't interfere with military operations, but the industry alleges it has halted all projects, even those with no military concerns.
Paul Gerke:
Trump officials have criticized both wind and solar power. They've called them ugly, subsidy-dependent, unreliable, and on down the line.
But as we deal with surging electricity demand driven by AI, electrification, air conditioning, and more, the administration has shown some flexibility on projects, particularly with solar.
They've still been fighting wind tooth and nail.
Offshore wind might be sunk in the U.S. for all intents and purposes. But now it looks like onshore projects are running into problems as well, even in places that traditionally support development, like Texas.
Mike Casey:
Our last story is with Rob Meyer from Heatmap News. His story is titled Exclusive: Local Opposition to Data Centers Explodes in 2026.
Rob, thanks for coming on.
Robinson Meyer:
Thank you so much for having me. I'm so excited to be here.
Mike Casey:
Give us a preview of the big points from your reporting.
Robinson Meyer:
This research came out of our exclusive work at Heatmap Pro, which helps developers assess political risk.
What we found is that local opposition to data centers is surging.
In Q1 of this year, 20 data centers were canceled after facing local opposition.
In Q4 of 2025, that number was 12.
In Q3 it was 11.
In Q2 it was fewer than five.
Last year in all of 2025, we found 25 data centers canceled after facing local opposition.
So in just Q1 of this year, we nearly matched the total for all of last year.
We also found 100 new permitting battles over data centers in Q1. That's significantly higher than previous quarters.
If you compare Q3 of last year to Q1 of this year, the number of new fights has doubled in six months.
Paul Gerke:
What are the primary drivers?
Robinson Meyer:
The biggest reasons people oppose data centers are energy use, water use, and environmental impacts.
But interestingly, the number one reason projects actually get canceled is noise.
Noise acts as a proxy for building too close to residential areas.
People may raise concerns about energy or water, but what often kills a project is proximity to neighborhoods.
Paul Gerke:
Gas turbines are noisy and pretty loud.
Robinson Meyer:
Yes, they are.
Mike Casey:
Do you see broader concerns around AI, jobs, and tech companies contributing?
Robinson Meyer:
Absolutely.
In energy circles, we think of data centers as large electricity users driving load growth.
But there's a completely separate policy conversation around AI, automation, jobs, and societal impacts.
Those conversations merge at the local level.
People are concerned about water use, electricity rates, and noise, but they're also concerned about tech oligarchs, AI, and broader economic anxieties.
Those factors help build coalitions against projects.
Paul Gerke:
Living in New Jersey, I've seen local pushback firsthand.
Do hyperscalers just go somewhere else?
Robinson Meyer:
One thing that's notable is that we don't see data centers getting canceled in Texas.
Partly because there's more land, easier interconnection, and a development-friendly environment.
Generally, though, if development isn't welcomed somewhere, it tends to move elsewhere.
I think data centers could follow a pattern similar to fracking.
Some states embraced it. Others rejected it.
The states that welcomed it got economic growth and investment, while also accepting associated tradeoffs.
I think we're going to see something similar happen with data centers.
Mike Casey:
Talking from Northern Virginia, the data center capital of the world, opposition is growing quickly across party lines.
It'll be interesting to see whether this follows historical patterns or becomes something entirely new.
Paul Gerke:
We are over time, but time well spent.
This week's Cleantecher of the Week is Tom Sisto, CEO of XL Batteries.
XL Batteries produces organic flow batteries capable of storing energy for 250 hours.
They run on non-toxic, non-flammable electrolytes, meaning they can be deployed in densely populated areas without the permitting challenges often associated with lithium-ion systems.
Very cool technology.
I had no idea someone was doing a 250-hour battery.
Congrats to Tom Sisto, CEO of XL Batteries.
Mike Casey:
Yeah, man.
Paul Gerke:
Thanks for checking out another episode of This Week in Cleantech.
One more shout out to Rob Meyer for joining us this week.
Go read his story if you haven't already.
Please subscribe if you enjoyed the show, leave feedback, and share story suggestions to the email address we mentioned at the top.
You can read every article we discuss each week in the episode description and on factorthis.com.
Until next time, be good, people.