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:

Much of the southern United States is in an extended heat wave, with no end in sight until at least the end of the month. Phoenix, Arizona, just experienced its 19th consecutive day of heat over 110 degrees Fahrenheit on Tuesday, setting a new record. People are getting third degree burns from the pavement. Even in comparatively mild Connecticut, country star Jason Aldean recently fled the stage due to heat stroke.
But the extreme and prolonged heat of a warming world is not just a threat to our physical health. It’s also trying us psychologically, whether you’re lucky enough to be cooped up inside, handcuffed to your air conditioner, or forced to brave the outdoors.
One 2018 study looked at the correlation between heat waves and deaths by suicide and found that monthly suicide rates rose more than 2% due to temperature in the hottest months between 1968 and 2004. The authors also collected more than 600 million Twitter posts published over the course of about a year beginning in May 2014 and found more instances of depressive language like “lonely,” “trapped” or “suicidal” when temperatures rose.
Another study published last year looked at emergency room visits for mental health throughout the United States during the summer months between 2010 and 2019. The researchers found a 5% to 10% increase in visits on the hottest days. The association held true across a wide range of conditions, including substance use disorders, childhood-onset behavioral anxiety disorders like ADHD, schizophrenia, and self-harm.
Amruta Nori-Sarma, the lead author of that study and an assistant professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, told me that the study only includes those covered by commercial insurance providers, and may be underestimating the problem.
“I think we’re potentially missing very vulnerable people,” she said. “Folks who are on Medicare, Medicaid, or people who don’t have health insurance.”
While the study did not assess causes, the authors hypothesize that one factor may be disruptions to sleep due to heat. They cite another paper which found an association between higher nighttime temperatures and self-reported nights of insufficient sleep. Heat can also trigger physiological responses that exacerbate mental health conditions, like the release of stress hormones that send your body into fight or flight mode. Psychiatric medicines can affect how your body regulates temperature, and dehydration has been linked to increased anxiety and impaired cognitive function.
When people ask her what they can do, Nori-Sarma said to rely on social networks. If you know someone who might be vulnerable, check in on them and make sure they are doing okay, she said.
But while we are starting to understand the effects of extreme heat on people who have some of the most severe forms of mental illness, we still know very little about what those with general anxiety or other less acute conditions experience, Nori-Sarma told me. “If we want to intervene and try and reduce the impacts of heat exposure, it might be good to know, earlier in that pathway, where we could potentially help people,” said Nori-Sarma, “so they don’t end up needing to go to the emergency department.”
I asked Anna Graybeal, a psychologist based in Austin, Texas, one of the cities hit hard by this summer’s extended heat wave, whether any of her patients were struggling due to the heat. At first she said no, and hypothesized that people who can afford therapy are generally also able to stay in air conditioning most of the time. She wondered aloud what would happen if the power went out, noting that during the 2021 winter blackout in Texas, when much of the state was stranded without heat during freezing temperatures, many of her patients were stressed and scared.
But then she remembered that one patient had actually brought up the heat in a session that morning, expressing frustration about their inability to exercise outdoors, which they felt was crucial to regulating their mental health.
But for the most part, the main way heat comes up in her sessions is in discussions about climate anxiety. Graybeal is part of the Climate Psychology Alliance and trains other providers to work with clients who are worried about climate change.
When asked what people can do if they are experiencing anxiety related to heat or global warming, Graybeal encourages talking about it, whether that’s with a therapist, friends, family, or in a group therapy setting. “It’s so important to talk to other people because, when it comes down to it, our relationships are almost always what matters most to us over the course of our lives,” she said. “So in this time of existential crisis, we need to talk with others so we aren‘t alone with the dreadful feelings, but instead feel understood, cared about, and connected.”
Graybeal added that if you’re in distress, it’s always important to give extra attention to habits of self care, like sleeping, exercising, and eating well. “And then bring in some kind of practice of mental or emotional self care, like meditation, or breathing and relaxation techniques,” she said. “In general that will help almost anyone.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Here’s where things stand after some major recent decisions.
Trump started his second term in office with a sweeping federal funding freeze that invited a spate of lawsuits all raising the same general question: Can the president refuse to spend the money Congress appropriates?
When it came to climate programs, the funds at stake included billions of dollars lawmakers had set aside for clean energy, green banks, scientific research, technological development, conservation, and environmental justice projects in the Inflation Reduction Act and the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law.
The legal landscape has evolved significantly since this all started. Although several courts issued injunctions on the funding freeze almost immediately after it went into effect, the administration quickly moved on to terminating grants instead. Also, a lot of the IRA money that was initially caught up in the freeze is now gone, rescinded by Congress in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025.
Still, a significant chunk — more than $90 billion — was formally awarded before OBBBA took effect and remains in jeopardy. A few recent court decisions, however, suggest that some grantees may be able to see their projects through.
Here’s a guide to the current state of play.
There are generally four categories of lawsuits over the climate grants.
First are the suits challenging the legality of Trump’s freeze on IRA and infrastructure law funding, which he laid out in his Day 1 executive order “Unleashing American Energy.” In Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council v. USDA, for example, several nonprofits allege that the administration overstepped its statutory authority and acted contrary to the laws that Congress passed when agencies froze funds. In April of last year, a district court judge put a preliminary injunction on the freeze while the case played out, and the plaintiffs started receiving money again.
Second, there are a number of suits fighting the agencies’ elimination of specific programs. In Harris County v. EPA, to name one, the Texas county is suing the Environmental Protection Agency for terminating Solar for All, a $7 billion IRA program designed to fund solar projects in low-income communities. Harris County argues that the decision was arbitrary and capricious, violating the Administrative Procedures Act, and that it also violates the constitution’s separation of powers, which gives Congress the power of the purse.
Third, there are a few suits challenging the cancellation of individual grants. In City of Saint Paul, Minnesota v. Wright, for instance, the city and several other groups challenged the Department of Energy’s move to cancel more than 300 grants in blue states on the first day of a government shutdown last October. Each of the grants had an address on file with the government that was in a state that voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. Saint Paul and the other plaintiffs argued that the cancellations violated equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.
Each of the cases I’ve described so far challenges Trump on statutory and constitutional grounds, and is playing out in district and appeals courts. The last category is notably different.
More recently, a number of grantees whose funding was terminated have filed lawsuits against the government in the Court of Federal Claims. These suits allege violations of the terms of the individual grant contracts, which lay out the specific circumstances under which the government can cancel an award. The key difference in these cases is that they can only result in monetary damages — the Court of Federal Claims cannot compel an agency to reinstate a grant, or weigh in on the president’s right to eliminate congressionally-mandated programs.
In Sublime Systems Inc. v. United States, for example, the clean cement company is claiming “billions of dollars in damages” in lost income, lost funding, and lost company value. The Energy Department canceled Sublime’s $87 million grant to build a first-of-a-kind cement plant last year, notifying the company that it no longer “effectuates the program/agency priorities” with no further explanation as to what had changed and why.
Perhaps the most consequential question in many of the cases is who has jurisdiction. In the district court cases, one of the government’s main arguments is that these suits are, in essence, contract disputes, and therefore belong in the Court of Federal Claims.
To date, a number of courts have weighed in on this question with mixed opinions. Most notably, the Supreme Court issued orders in two cases involving education and health grants saying that the district courts likely lacked jurisdiction to reinstate canceled grants.
These were emergency orders to provide temporary relief — a channel legal scholars refer to as the Court’s “shadow docket” — and do not carry the same legal significance as a decision on the merits of the underlying cases would. Still, some district courts have cited these orders in their judgments, concluding that allegations by grantees are contractual in nature and belong in the Court of Federal Claims. Other district courts have disregarded the Supreme Court orders and approved grantees’ requests for injunctions on the terminations. In some of those cases, however, appeals courts have later disagreed.
An important ruling on this question came in early August in the case of Climate United v. EPA. The suit involves a group of nonprofits fighting to reinstate their grants under the IRA’s $20 billion green bank program. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s preliminary injunction on the EPA’s termination of the program, cracking open the door for money to start flowing again. The appeals court’s order was short, but it notably did not raise any issue with the district court hearing the case.
The Trump administration signaled that it planned to appeal the Climate United decision to the Supreme Court. If the high court holds a full merit hearing on the case and decides it’s a contract dispute, that could not only shut down the Climate United case, but also many of the other lawsuits, and send hundreds of grantees running to the Court of Federal Claims.
Many of the cases became more complicated after the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The law explicitly rescinded “unobligated funds” from Inflation Reduction Act programs, referring to funds that hadn’t yet been formally awarded.
The plaintiffs in the grant cases argue that because their funds were obligated prior to the OBBBA, the new law shouldn’t change anything. The Trump administration, however, has argued that since it moved to terminate the grants prior to OBBBA, they were no longer technically obligated when that law passed, and therefore the lawsuits challenging the terminations are moot.
In at least one case, The Sustainability Institute v. Trump, the district court judge rejected that argument, deeming it “without merit” in a June 2026 order and ordering the EPA to pay out the funds. The lawsuit concerns the Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants, a $2.8 million program supporting air quality monitoring, climate adaptation, and pollution reduction. The government is appealing the decision.
In other lawsuits over grants from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the situation is even more convoluted. Congress set aside $27 billion in the IRA for grants and loans for projects that reduce emissions, and to establish green banks that would do the same — these are the programs at stake in the Climate United and Harris County cases. OBBBA did not just rescind unobligated funds from this program, it also repealed the underlying statute establishing it.
Romany Webb, the deputy director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, told me this complicates the arguments alleging violations of the constitution. “If you’re arguing that EPA dismantled a congressionally-approved program in violation of the separation of powers, and then afterwards Congress moves to dismantle that program, can you still make that same argument?”
In early August’s Climate United ruling, the appeals court split on what it all meant. Four of the 10 judges questioned whether the injunction on the EPA’s terminations was still warranted since, per their understanding, the repeal of the program gave the agency the ability to terminate the grants without violating the IRA. One judge, while disagreeing with that read, questioned whether EPA could be ordered to reinstate the grants, since the agency no longer had any funding to administer the program.
“There’s lots of questions about the impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, both in terms of the substance of the arguments, and then if those arguments are accepted, the remedy that the court can provide,” Webb said.
At least 10 cases are currently pending in the Court of Federal Claims that hinge on the question of whether a clause in the grant contracts that allows agencies to terminate an award if it “no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities” gives the government cover for canceling awards with no notice or explanation.
There’s actually a separate district court fight going on over this very language on constitutional grounds. A group of 22 states, led by New Jersey, is suing the government, alleging that this language, which is standard in government funding contracts, does not give the administration permission to change its priorities on a whim. They argue that it’s intended to govern situations where the grant can no longer achieve the original program goals and agency priorities, not where the agency priorities change. In early July, the court issued an order agreeing with that interpretation. The government still has time to appeal, so it’s too soon to say how this will affect the Federal Claims court cases.
There is one set of cases where the plaintiffs have been undoubtedly successful. In the Saint Paul case I mentioned earlier, seven plaintiffs had been awarded grants by the Department of Energy for various kinds of projects — EV charging stations, methane mitigation, energy efficiency. The government’s lawyers freely admitted that the agency canceled these grants primarily because they were awarded to entities in blue states. The judge ruled that this did, in fact, violate the Fifth Amendment. She vacated the terminations in January.
After that win, another group of 11 grantees in the same situation — their grants were terminated as part of the same attack on blue states — filed suit in the same court, and the same judge vacated their terminations in June. The government has not appealed either decision. Since hundreds of other grantees could make the same discrimination argument, there may be more of these cases on the way.
Current conditions: Floodwaters swept through eastern Iowa, swelling the White River to its highest level in 113 years • A southwest monsoon, or hagabat, has capped off several weeks of storms in the Philippines that, combined, killed nearly two dozen people • Temperatures in Madrid are lingering near 100 degrees Fahrenheit until midweek, when the Spanish capital will cool off into the high 80s; the Greek capital of Athens, meanwhile, is bracing for the exact reverse.
Tropical storms almost never hit the Hawaiian islands directly. The last time a tropical system struck the archipelago was in 2018, when Tropical Storm Olivia made landfall over Maui. It was, per CTV News, the first time a storm had come ashore like that since records began in the 1950s. The last full-blown hurricane to strike the state was in 1992, when Category 4 Iniki landed on Kauai, the chain’s northernmost island, as the strongest storm on record to hit the state. But the Big Island hadn’t seen a major storm make landfall since 1900. So Tropical Storm Lala, by some measures a Category 1 hurricane, left a mark. Nearly 200,000 homes and businesses — representing roughly 70% of the Big Island — remained without electricity on Sunday night as winds of up to 75 miles per hour and floodwaters hammered the state’s infrastructure. “Customers should prepare for extended outages lasting weeks or even months in the hardest hit rural areas of Hawaii island,” Hawaiian Electric, the utility that serves 95% of the state, told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser.
“It doesn’t matter how many poles we fix in your neighborhood, they’re not going to be getting any power,” Jim Kelly, a spokesman for the utility, told Honolulu Civil Beat. “So we’ve got to focus on restoring those transmission lines first.”
Georgia has over the past decade emerged as a hotbed for cutting-edge industry in the United States. The state welcomed battery factories, solar manufacturers, and the nation’s only wholly new nuclear reactors in decades. But regulators are now cracking down on data centers. Last week, Georgia Power opted to delay the start date for a 25-year service contract to supply the ChatGPT maker OpenAI’s $20 billion data center near the state’s coast with electricity. The voluntary delay, E&E News reported, gives the utility 12 days to revise its proposal before the Public Service Commission, which had signaled its plans to reject the original pitch amid a groundswell of opposition to artificial intelligence infrastructure. The new deadline to review and approve the proposal is August 26.
The postponement comes about a week after West Virginia attempted to “clean slate” with a new set of proposals to regulate data centers aimed at undercutting the movement to block server projects across the country. Governor Patrick Morrisey, a Republican, issued a plan that calls for reducing and possibly eliminating state income taxes on the back of new revenue from AI companies. The move came after Mountain State Spotlight, a venerable investigative outlet based in West Virginia, published a report outlining how a data center developer was using the state’s patchwork of regulations to push a project with limited oversight. It’s no surprise. At least seven in 10 Americans oppose data centers being built near their homes now, according to the latest polling from Heatmap Pro.
Batteries are booming as lithium-ion units grow cheaper and more useful to back up the grid. The industry saw 70% annual growth last year, as my colleague Robinson Meyer wrote last week. But powering the grid off of batteries requires actually hooking them up to the power system. Across the country, some 750 gigawatts of energy storage projects — roughly equal to more than 700 nuclear reactors — are waiting in the queue for a grid connection, according to data the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory shared with Bloomberg. Not all the projects will be built. But the median wait time for a grid connection was five years in 2025, up from a year and a half in 2015.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Last I checked, it’s actually illegal to write about the geothermal industry’s looming boom without making a pun about heat. So you’ll have to forgive the headline. But things really are getting steamy between investors and developers. When the Bureau of Land Management held a geothermal lease sale in New Mexico in June, the agency netted more than $16.5 million, making it the second-highest-grossing sale in its history, according to Utility Dive. The record-setting bid was from Rock Canyon Resources, which paid $3.14 million for one 4,479-acre tract. Another auction is set to take place in Utah on Tuesday.

The U.S. used to produce and enrich the uranium that fueled the world’s largest fleet of nuclear power stations. In the 1990s, however, then-President Bill Clinton brokered a deal to establish the famous “megatons to megawatts” with Russia, whereby American power plants promised to buy fuel made from disassembled Soviet warheads. As a nonproliferation exercise, it was a success. But the Russian fuel undercut the domestic market, putting many American miners and enrichers — already facing dimmer prospects as the U.S. stopped building new atomic power stations — out of business. By the time the 2022 invasion of Ukraine plunged Washington’s relations with Russia to their lowest point since the Cold War, the U.S. remained heavily dependent on imports from the Kremlin-owned nuclear company Rosatom. Congress banned Russian uranium imports in 2024, but allowed for waivers until the start of 2028. That cliff is fast approaching, right as one of the other largest suppliers — Kazakhstan — lowered production at its mines.
Luckily for the resurgent U.S. nuclear industry, Canada remains America’s largest supplier of uranium. And a lot of Canadian uranium is coming to the market. On Friday, NexGen Energy broke ground on the first phase of what’s expected to be one of the largest uranium mines on Earth. The project in northern Saskatchewan was first conceived more than a decade ago. The company had started drilling for samples in 2012, but failed after 13 attempts. In winter of 2014, the company tried again. “On the very first home, we hit mineralization,” NextGen CEO Leigh Curyer told CBC News. “We didn’t know it at the time, but we were on top of what has become the world’s most important energy fuel project.” Canada isn’t the only country planning for a nuclear future. Spain, the world’s last major country still pursuing a phaseout policy, seems to be inching toward saving its nuclear plants. Last week, regulators cleared the Almaraz nuclear station to operate through 2030. But NucNet cautioned that left-wing Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s government still planned to shut down the reactors by 2035.
Peter Thiel has invested in Facebook, SpaceX, and Palantir, where he serves as chairman of the board and co-founder. Add Argentina’s oil and gas sector to his portfolio. In a Friday filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the billionaire disclosed a 1% stake in Vista, one of Argentina’s largest oil companies operating in the Vaca Muerta shale formation roughly the size of Belgium, where Argentine President Javier Milei wants to ramp up fracking. Reuters reported that Thiel also recently bought a new home in Buenos Aires.
In Providence, at least, climate change is still on the ballot.
Here’s some trivia for you: What was the first state to see its average temperature break the 2-degree Celsius threshold for warming above pre-industrial levels? It wasn’t Alaska, the fastest-warming state, nor was it California or Florida, states with some of the most visible impacts of the extreme weather crisis. It was not Arizona or Texas, either, though “hot” and “warming” are often conflated.
The answer, in fact, is humble Rhode Island, which passed the international benchmark for accelerated climatic impacts back in 2019. It is perhaps less surprising, then, to learn that in the Ocean State’s largest city, Providence, climate change and how to adapt to it have become one of the central talking points in a heated mayoral race, which in the deep-blue city is likely to culminate in the September 9 primary.
There is plenty to worry voters. Providence sits at the head of Narragansett Bay, which has warmed 1.6 degrees Celsius, enough to drive lobsters from the region and convert the local lobstermen into crabbers, fishing for crustaceans they previously considered bycatch. The sea level has risen on Rhode Island’s 400-plus miles of coastline by more than 10 inches since 1930, more than in Venice or Miami, meaning the city floods frequently. Locals hold their breath every hurricane season; a hit from a category 4 or larger storm could tally billions in damages. And as home to the biggest port in the region, Providence is also an unfortunate case study in industrial and fossil-fuel-related pollution affecting historically redlined neighborhoods.
“Since I’ve been in office, we’ve had dramatic, chronic flooding. We’ve had high heat days in the fall that have closed public schools, which is not something that ever happens here in September,” Providence Mayor Brett Smiley told me. “We had some of the highest snowfall in recorded history [in the city]. We’re seeing the effects.”
Smiley, who was elected in 2022, has described investing in infrastructure upgrades for the nearly four-century-old city as one of his “principal responsibilities” as mayor. During his second year in office, he signed an ordinance requiring all of the 122 city-owned buildings to decarbonize by 2040, and that fall published a 10-year plan that introduced air quality, heat, and stormwater management goals, provisions aimed at curbing pollution at the Port of Providence, and would have effectively banned the construction of new gas stations. (A later amendment relaxed the restrictions.) He’s also invested in long-overdue repairs to the city’s hurricane barriers.
This year, Smiley also announced the creation of a Green Revolving Fund to support Providence’s ambitious carbon neutrality goals. “I’ve been in government long enough to know that operating budgets can change as priorities change, and so having a dedicated recurring revenue stream is vital to ensuring that this work continues,” he said.
In the face of federal headwinds, and at a time when the political currency of “climate change,” at least in so many words, is on the downswing, Smiley’s focus on climate issues stands out. That is especially true against the backdrop of a broader state-level reassessment of environmental goals, with Democratic Governor Dan McKee proposing a budget earlier this year that would have slashed climate programs funded by monthly utility charges in the name of affordability. Though Rhode Island lawmakers ultimately rejected that rollback, McKee’s move fits into a larger trend in the region of blue-state politicians in places like Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York curbing or weakening climate ambitions under the pressure of affordability politics. (McKee also faces his own competitive primary.)
“Providence alone can’t solve the climate crisis. But our actions, at least in Rhode Island, are pushing other communities in the state to take action,” Smiley said.
But there are others — including Smiley’s progressive challenger, State Representative David Morales — who say the mayor’s tenure has been a lot of talk and little action, and that he’s neglected Providence’s low-income and frontline communities.
Morales’ campaign did not get back to me for this article, despite requests through multiple channels. But Steve Ahlquist, an independent reporter who follows environmental justice-related issues in Rhode Island, also told me that “over the years, and also in dealing with Mayor Smiley as an incumbent, I’ve had some real difficulty with what I would even call basic honesty out of his administration.” He added that the mayor’s office has a history of downplaying and denying police harassment of unhoused people in particular, including lying about the presence of police officers at a homeless encampment and their involvement in an “illegal search” in 2023.
When I asked the Smiley administration about Ahlquist’s accusations, press secretary Carl Austin Miller Grondin told me the city has a “multi-department approach” for addressing encampments of which “Providence Police are one piece,” though he didn’t address the 2023 incident directly. As for the idea that Smiley represents the status quo, Grondin said the mayor has made “significant investments” in programs for underprivileged groups including affordable housing, eviction prevention, public schools and youth programming, and public safety.
Ahlquist also finds Smiley’s talk about affordability and clean energy false, however. Smiley notably vetoed a rent control ordinance, despite the city having some of the highest rates in the country, and while serving as former Governor Gina Raimondo’s chief of staff between 2016 and 2019, he helped push for the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure in the form of a $1 billion fracked gas and diesel oil power plant that was ultimately thwarted by community pushback. (Grondin told me “rent control policies do not lower rents” and that the mayor “has instead taken a disciplined, results-driven approach to lowering housing costs.” The power plant project was proposed before Smiley’s tenure in Raimondo’s administration, he added.)
Morales, 27, is a Democratic Socialist and has won the backing of Vermont’s Independent Senator Bernie Sanders. His scrappy campaign against an establishment incumbent Democrat has earned him comparisons to New York City’s young, charismatic Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Unlike Mamdani, however, Morales has made climate central to his campaign.
Morales has gone after Smiley particularly hard on environmental justice issues, sensing a weak spot in his record. “Industrial facilities near the Port of Providence have polluted our neighborhoods for decades,” his issues page reads. “David will require them to contribute more toward the city services and infrastructure our communities deserve.”
A nearly two-mile stretch of Allens Avenue, which flanks the port, is home to asphalt plants, scrap metal recyclers, oil and gas companies, and petroleum storage tanks with a history of leaks, spills, dumps, and other forms of contamination. Locals complain that even just driving along the avenue is enough to make you sick, with 11 identified polluters within a mile radius of National Grid’s newest LNG plant. Traffic to and from the port adds to the odor — and health impacts — in the neighboring communities of South Providence and Washington Park, which have some of the highest hospitalization rates in southern New England. Notably, South Providence’s population is 90% people of color; Washington Park’s is above 60%.
Smiley bristled at Morales’ plan to tax polluters. “Many of my opponent’s proposals — which continue to evolve, by the way — are illegal or not allowed, and he leaves some of those details out, and sometimes changes his position,” he told me. Ahlquist, who issued a rare endorsement of Morales last spring, contends that “we know for a fact it is not illegal” to tax polluters at a different rate. (In truth, it’s a bit of a legal gray area; Providence’s tax code allows it to adopt a classification system with different rates for industrial properties, but whether that classification can be used to single out specific polluters on Allens Avenue is murkier.)
In an interview with Ahlquist, Morales has also proposed buying out the Rhode Island Recycled Metals property — where some of the worst contamination has originated — and pursuing “brownfield mediation” in the area. “I find it shameful that Public Street, one of the few shoreline access points around the Port of Providence, is not a very welcoming environment,” he said. On the adaptation side, he’s proposed passing a green energy bond to invest in renewable energy and upgrade the sewage system with an eye on future flooding.
A week ago, it might have seemed as though Morales had progressive momentum on his side. But after the upset of Democratic Socialist Francesca Hong in Wisconsin on Tuesday night and the narrow victory by progressive up-and-comer Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan the week before, the narrative is now more complicated. Meanwhile, the first primary poll shows Smiley with a 4-point edge — within the margin of error, but still likely to have the Morales campaign in a state of jitters.
Climate adaptation can sometimes fall under a variation of the refrain parodied in urban infrastructure circles: One more study would fix this. That’s especially true in Rhode Island, where study after study has highlighted the problems Morales and Smiley are circling, and yet here they still are, at the center of yet another mayoral race.
“One of the things that frustrates me is when you write a plan and then put it on the bookshelf, and that’s the end of it,” Smiley told me, sounding genuinely irked as we spoke on the phone. “That’s not how I do plans.” He told me stormwater infrastructure would be a major focus of his administration if he’s elected to another term, while he hopes his decarbonization roadmap and the green revolving fund will outlast his mayoralty, whenever and however it may end.
Morales has been stymied before, too. Ahlquist recalled watching the young legislator in the State House at the end of a legislative session, when, in the waning hours, he was told by leadership that a bill he’d been working on wasn’t going to get through. “David, when he’s in public, he’s very controlled, very managed,” Ahlquist said. But from his vantage point, Ahlquist could see Morales had started to cry.
“It’s midnight, the last days of session, and I just saw something raw in him then,” Ahlquist said. “It was like, Wow, this is a guy who really gives a shit.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include responses from the Smiley campaign.