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:
New research reveals the U.S. has a plausible but narrow path to accomplishing its international climate commitments.

Here’s the good news: The United States is closer than it’s ever been to reaching its ambitious Paris Agreement goals. For the first time since President Joe Biden set a new and aggressive carbon-reduction target in 2021 — and for the first time, arguably, since the climate accord was signed in 2016 — America has a plausible path to accomplishing its international climate commitments.
Here’s the bad: The country still needs a few more big policies to get over the line. Cities, states, companies, and the federal government must slash carbon pollution in ways that go beyond what the Inflation Reduction Act, Biden’s signature climate law, will achieve. Even then, emissions must plunge more than twice as fast over the next seven years as they did over the past 17.
Those are the headline findings of a new report from the Rhodium Group, a California-based energy-research firm that produces independent analyses of American climate policy.
The report finds that in order to make its 2030 goal, the U.S. needs to cut emissions about 40% faster than current estimates project. That is doable, but it will require a broad societal effort, Ben King, an author of the report and an associate director at the Rhodium Group, told me. Rhodium dubs this playbook the “joint action” scenario.
“It’s totally appropriate to look at it and say [the Paris goals] are within reach,” he said. “But being within reach doesn’t mean it’s an easy reach.”
Those policies will not be easy to pass, although according to King, they should make economic sense: The policies and actions necessary to make the Paris goal should help American households somewhere on the order of $290 to $350 a year.

Under the Paris Agreement, the U.S. has committed to reducing its annual emissions 50 to 52% by 2030, as compared to the all-time high that they reached in 2005. For reference, American emissions were about 15.5% below their all-time high last year, according to an early estimate. So the country obviously has a long way to go.
Some emissions cuts are already baked in, however. Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, America is on track to get its emissions about 40% below their all-time high by 2030, the report says. (There’s some uncertainty here: If fossil-fuel prices spike and the IRA is more successful than hoped, American emissions could fall as much as 42% below their all-time high; if fossil-fuel prices crash, renewable prices spike, and the IRA founders, then emissions may only fall 32% of the way below their all-time high.) So in order to make its Paris goal, the country must find an extra 10 percentage points of emissions cuts — and it must do so quickly enough to make a difference eight years from now.
So what will that require? Consider this a check list to making America’s Paris Agreement goals:
First, the Environmental Protection Administration must adopt a robust set of anti-pollution rules across several parts of the economy, King said. It must use the Clean Air Act to pass stringent new limits on how much greenhouse-gas pollution that power plants can pump into the atmosphere — and it must tighten existing rules on conventional air pollution, including toxic airborne mercury and smog that crosses state lines. The EPA also has to finalize its rules on methane pollution from oil and gas facilities, and it has to strengthen its rules for tailpipe pollution from cars and trucks so that they run to 2030.
Other federal agencies must take new actions, too. The Department of Energy needs to strengthen its energy-efficiency standards, which apply to home appliances, building equipment, and industrial machinery, King said. And the Department of Agriculture must finish setting up a program that pays farmers and foresters to use climate-smart practices.
These executive actions must then survive judicial scrutiny and remain on the books until 2030, enduring a change of presidential administration in 2024 or 2028. How likely is that? Not as improbable as you might think. Many of the rules, including the Energy Department standards and most of the EPA’s regulation, clearly falls within their respective agency’s authority, and Congress has already funded the program for climate-smart farming. But some rules, particularly the EPA’s greenhouse-gas rules for power plants, could test the conservative Supreme Court’s limits. Last year, that court struck down the EPA’s attempt to establish a carbon cap-and-trade scheme under the Clean Air Act; the justices also claimed the right to strike down any executive action that raises a “major” political question. But that ruling didn’t forbid the EPA from ever issuing carbon-related regulations, and the agency could publish a new and much simpler rule that will accomplish the same carbon cuts at greater cost.
Yet even an aggressive suite of federal rules won’t be enough to achieve the country’s 2030 goal, the report found. When layered on top of the IRA, those federal programs will get the country’s emissions only about 46% below their all-time high. The country still needs to find another four to six percentage points of emissions cuts in order to lock in Paris.
So states must step up. About 20 states belong to the U.S. Climate Alliance, a pact of largely Democratic governors who committed to meeting the Paris Agreement goals. Those states must adopt “best-in-class policies,” King said, including clean-energy standards, zero-emissions targets, and low-carbon fuel standards. They must fund and grow their public-transit systems. But even that won’t be enough. In order for the U.S. to meet its goals, every utility with a clean-electricity pledge in 2030 or 2050 must have either achieved its goal or be well on its way to doing so.
If all that happens — and fossil-fuel prices don’t collapse, solar-panel and wind-turbine prices don’t spike, and the IRA isn’t rendered ineffectual or repealed outright — then the U.S. could barely make its 2030 Paris goals.
This litany of policies might seem far-fetched, but remember: The IRA, which will take America most of the way to meeting its 2030 goal, itself once seemed impossible. Finishing that journey will require many smaller impossibilities. But such is the work when the prize — a wealthy economy that is well on its way to total decarbonization — is so sweet.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Talking with National Grid’s Matthew Satterwhite about his new report with S&P Global.
This week’s conversation is with Matthew Satterwhite, head of U.S. policy for National Grid. This week National Grid released a report in collaboration with S&P Global I found noteworthy amidst the data center backlash, asserting that building new transmission lines can potentially reduce consumer costs. I reached out asking if we could chat about how this argument leans into the fight over hyperscale infrastructure. I found our conversation illuminating and educational.
The following Q&A was lightly edited for clarity.
Why did you make this report?
It’s all focused on our customers. We’re always looking to find ways to make sure we can provide our service in the most affordable way possible, the most efficient way possible, and we always think of transmission, but it’s fallen out of favor recently. There’s so much demand with large loads, data centers, advanced manufacturing, reshoring. There’s such a need, and a lot of the debate has been focused on what we need on the generation side. We think transmission is an answer, as well.
We focused on what we have control over — since we’re in deregulated states, the only generation we’re doing is to help states reach their renewable goals. It’s a real page-turner. We really get to the core of everything.
Can we lower customer bills with transmission? This report actually showed us that’s a good investment and helps with the resource adequacy and the constraint problems we have in the Northeast. You can bring cheaper electricity in.
With respect to concerns for everyday consumers, how much do you feel like new transmission might alleviate ordinary Americans’ concerns about rising energy prices?
When you look at the demand that’s coming, the projection is that by 2035, we’ll have to add 45 gigawatts, currently. We’re on that path right now. Transmission alone isn’t going to meet that, but the question is, how do we temper that down? What do we do as National Grid to help alleviate the need for all that demand? Can we get that somewhere else rather than in the region by building generation? It's a different version of all of the above. It’s not a generation single answer or a transmission single answer. We think transmission is a big part of that.
This also allows you to bring in cleaner energy from other places. The more robust the network is, you can have energy in different places and bring that in. It replaces the need for some of the generation to be built and pays for itself by creating a cheaper return for customers adding this.
How much of the data center backlash is affecting your transmission project planning calculus? How is it changing what lines are built in the country?
We’re focused on how we can provide the cheapest service for our customers and physics. It’s science and long-term planning. We don’t have the luxury — we can’t follow, this month we’re thinking something, someone got mad, and so we’re thinking something else. We study a lot of science and physics to figure out how to build the grid.
Do you feel like the average Joe Schmoe American sees transmission as making their life less expensive and making their electricity more reliable?
I think there’s frustration and a lack of understanding about the industry overall. There’s fear of the unknown. Are data centers really driving everything that’s happening? That’s where I think, with reports like this, the benefit of it will be that people will read this and see there’s other things we can do to address the load that we need, something different than building a bunch of generation plants.
How do the question marks around whether data centers get built affect transmission planning? How much harder is the backlash making your job?
It’s a science question. Do we do a bunch of work and then nothing happens? That’s why states put their policies out. There’s multiple studies you go through with a region and with a utility. I think that’s one reason why you see states slowing down, to make sure the policy is in check so people don’t do work they don’t need to do. It’s about having the policy to make sure, if you’re studying something, you’re doing it with a purpose.
Plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.
1. Clark County, Nevada – The first data center approved on federal lands has hit a legal brick wall.
2. Jackson County, Missouri – We have yet another high-profile case of a city councilor losing their job over voting for a data center, and this one’s a doozy.
3. Utah – What’s it take for the Bureau of Land Management to approve a big transmission line for zero-emission energy generation these days? Geothermal, baby.
4. Huntsville, Alabama – You can’t even build a tiny battery storage facility in the middle of Alabama anymore.
Where temporary moratoria could happen next.
Brace yourself for more statewide data center moratoria.
So far there are only two full state-wide blocks on data center permits, in New York and Texas. At least fifteen states have moratorium legislation in the pipeline, but few if any of those bills stand a chance of becoming law in the short term. Here are five states, however, where a broad development pause may gain momentum in the next year or two — and all of them are crucial to watch this November.
If you blinked you may have missed it: New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayotte, a Republican, said she wants to enact a statewide data center moratorium.
Ayotte first came out in support of a pause last month at a Rotary Club meeting, declaring, “It does not make any sense at all to site a data center in New Hampshire.” She also reportedly plans to include a moratorium proposal in her upcoming 2027 fiscal budget. New Hampshire’s legislative sessions occur in the first half of the year, so we won’t see action on a moratorium bill this fall. But Ayotte’s statements suggest the Granite State — which is controlled by the GOP — could pivot to a pause very soon.
New Hampshire has very few data centers. Like, almost none. Only two project fights exist in the Heatmap Pro database, both in Portsmouth, and each has been canceled amidst opposition. Ayotte’s remarks were prompted by the fight against a hyperscale project being studied in the small town of Bow at a former coal plant that closed in late 2025.
None of this should surprise anyone familiar with New England NIMBYs. A New Hampshire moratorium also makes sense given the state’s proximity to Maine, which almost had one of its own. Ayotte, who is up for re-election this year, is likely looking at the political fortunes of Governor Janet Mills and trying to avoid potholes ahead of a likely blue wave hitting her state.
This week, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, came out in support of a statewide data center moratorium.
Mayes told Arizonans in a public statement on Monday that she wants to avoid undue strain on the electric grid and adding to the burden of water cuts led by the Trump administration. Phoenix, where opposition grows by the day, seems to be the primary reason. This shouldn’t in any way be a surprise given the backlash to these projects, which in Arizona’s case is rooted in legitimate water security concerns.
One of the first high-profile data center conflicts I ever learned about was in Arizona: Project Blue, which had to move on from the city of Tucson after officials voted it down last summer. That led Amazon to bail from the facility, though it’s still under development elsewhere on county land. Locals are deeply concerned about the water impacts.
Ordinarily an attorney general wouldn’t have any sway on legislative or executive policy, but the state is already quite receptive to restricting data center development. Governor Katie Hobbs has enacted a three-year pause on tax abatements for data centers, and in response to requests for comment on Mayes’ statement, has told media she’s working on more policies targeting the sector. Hobbs has said she will do more in the following legislative session, but it’s not clear what.
The real decisive action here is probably going to be legislation, and that will depend on the reception any moratorium finds with Republicans in the state legislature, which is typically split in this purple state. The Arizona GOP is quite pro-industry, and Mayes’ opponent in her race for re-election opposes restricting data center construction.
You really should get to know the name Cindy Holscher for the next two months.
Holscher, a state senator, won a surprise upset victory in the Democratic gubernatorial primary this year, and currently sits within a one-point margin of her Republican opponent. How’d she get the nom? By calling for a statewide data center moratorium. “It reminds me of when the automobile manufacturers had to put seatbelts into their cars,“ Holscher told MSNOW after she won the primary. “We as a people and as a state just need to make sure there are guardrails in place.”
Kansas politics are weird. The state is best known as a conservative ideological bastion that’s pro-business. Full Republican control of the Kansas government during the Obama era led to significant social services cuts most closely associated with former Governor Sam Brownback. But after that, Kansans seemed to like moderate Democratic governors, electing Laura Kelly in 2022. Kelly is now term limited out of office.
Kansas already has a colorful patchwork of local data center and renewable energy restrictions. Land use is a big deal in this agricultural behemoth. Should Holscher win in a blue wave year, she would have a mandate to enact a statewide moratorium. Still, Republicans control the legislature, and that’s unlikely to change. My major questions are, should Holscher win, would the GOP in state government listen to Holscher’s request? Or can she do this through the executive branch?
Politics nerds are obsessing over Ohio right now. There, Trump acolyte Vivek Ramaswamy is neck-and-neck in the polls for governor with a Democratic candidate who backs a “conditional” data center moratorium: Amy Acton.
What’s a conditional moratorium? It’s in the eye of the beholder, really. Technically speaking, Governor Josh Shapiro instituted a conditional moratorium in Pennsylvania, where data center projects cannot get permits unless they meet very specific standards set by the governor himself. Shapiro did it through executive action, but in this case, it’s unclear whether the moratorium will be codified through that process or through law.
Should Acton win — or if former Senator Sherrod Brown defeats sitting Senator Jon Husted in the U.S. Senate race — I anticipate major legislative action on data centers in Ohio. Republicans there have essentially permanent control of the state legislature, and they’ve historically been pro-data center. But the freakout over opposition to artificial intelligence and hyperscalers in the senate race specifically has spooked national Republicans, who think it provided the opening Brown needed to potentially win back his seat. Acton and Brown’s political fortunes appear to be wedded to one another, linked to a general angst in the American public.
Every top 5 list needs a wild card, and mine is Oklahoma.
Currently, there’s minimal risk of a data center moratorium. I might’ve had this state higher on my list had Gentner Drummond won the runoff for the GOP gubernatorial primary, given his proclivity to side with anti-renewables activists who also oppose data centers. Instead, likely future governor Mike Mazzei is running on a more moderate, Trump-friendly approach to data centers centered on maintaining industry growth while protecting ratepayers from new infrastructure costs. His opponent, Cyndi Munson, supports a one-year moratorium.
I consider Oklahoma’s odds of having a data center moratorium about equal to the chance of a statewide wind energy ban. Momentum for anti-wind legislation began in the state legislature, and I expect the same to happen with data centers. But unlike the wind industry, which has enormous power in the state, data centers are still a nascent industry. This is a place that may take about two or three years to manifest full cultural upheaval over these projects.