You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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:
With the ongoing disaster approaching its second week, here’s where things stand.

A week ago, forecasters in Southern California warned residents of Los Angeles that conditions would be dry, windy, and conducive to wildfires. How bad things have gotten, though, has taken everyone by surprise. As of Monday morning, almost 40,000 acres of Los Angeles County have burned in six separate fires, the biggest of which, Palisades and Eaton, have yet to be fully contained. The latest red flag warning, indicating fire weather, won’t expire until Wednesday.
Many have questions about how the second-biggest city in the country is facing such unbelievable devastation (some of these questions, perhaps, being more politically motivated than others). Below, we’ve tried to collect as many answers as possible — including a bit of good news about what lies ahead.
A second Santa Ana wind event is due to set in Monday afternoon. “We’re expecting moderate Santa Ana winds over the next few days, generally in the 20 to 30 [mile per hour] range, gusting to 50, across the mountains and through the canyons,” Eric Drewitz, a meteorologist with the Forest Service, told me on Sunday. Drewitz noted that the winds will be less severe than last week’s, when the fires flared up, but he also anticipates they’ll be “more easterly,” which could blow the fires into new areas. A new red flag warning has been issued through Wednesday, signaling increased fire potential due to low humidity and high winds for several days yet.
If firefighters can prevent new flare-ups and hold back the fires through that wind event, they might be in good shape. By Friday of this week, “it looks like we could have some moderate onshore flow,” Drewitz said, when wet ocean air blows inland, which would help “build back the marine layer” and increase the relative humidity in the region, decreasing the chances of more fires. Information about the Santa Anas at that time is still uncertain — the models have been changing, and the wind is tricky to predict the strength of so far out — but an increase in humidity will at least offer some relief for the battered Ventura and Orange Counties.
The Palisades Fire, the biggest in L.A., ripped through the hilly and affluent area between Santa Monica and Malibu, including the Pacific Palisades neighborhood, the second-most expensive zip code in Los Angeles and home to many celebrities. Structures in Big Rock, a neighborhood in Malibu, have also burned. The fire has also encroached on the I-405 and the Getty Villa, and destroyed at least two homes in Mandeville Canyon, a neighborhood of multimillion-dollar homes. Students at nearby University of California, Los Angeles, were told on Friday to prepare for a possible evacuation.
The Eaton Fire, the second biggest blaze in the area, has killed 16 people in Altadena, a neighborhood near Pasadena, according to the Los Angeles Times, making it one of the deadliest fires in the modern history of California.
The 1,000-acre Kenneth fire is 100% contained but still burning near Calabasas and the gated community of Hidden Hills. The Hurst Fire has burned nearly 800 acres and is 89% contained and is still burning near Sylmar, the northernmost neighborhood in L.A. Though there are no evacuation notices for either the Kenneth or the Hurst fires, residents in the L.A. area should monitor the current conditions as the situation continues to be fluid and develop.
The 43-acre Sunset Fire, which triggered evacuations last week in Hollywood and Hollywood Hills, burned no homes and is 100% contained.
The Lidia Fire, which ignited in a remote area south of Acton, California, on Wednesday afternoon, burned 350 acres of brush and is 100% contained.
It can take years to determine the cause of a fire, and investigations typically don’t begin until after the fire is under control and the area is safe to reenter, Edward Nordskog, a retired fire investigator from the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, told Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo. He also noted, however, that urban fires are typically easier to pinpoint the cause of than wildland fires due to the availability of witnesses and surveillance footage.
The vast majority of wildfires, 85%, are caused by humans. So far, investigators have ruled out lightning — another common fire-starter — because there were no electrical storms in the area when the fires started. In the case of the Palisades Fire, there were no power lines in the area of the ignition, though investigators are now looking into an electrical transmission tower in Eaton Canyon as the possible cause of the deadly fire in Altadena. There have been rumors that arsonists started the fires, but investigators say that scenario is also pretty unlikely due to the spread of the fires and how remote the ignition areas are.
Officially, 24 people have died, but that tally is likely to rise. California Governor Gavin Newsom said Sunday that he expects “a lot more” deaths will be added to the total in the coming days as search efforts continue.
Incoming President Donald Trump slammed the response to the L.A. fires in a Truth Social post on Sunday morning: “This is one of the worst catastrophes in the history of our Country,” he wrote. “They just can’t put out the fires. What’s wrong with them?”
Though there is much blame going around — not all of it founded in reality — the challenges facing firefighters are immense. Last week, because of strong Santa Ana winds, fire crews could not drop suppressants like water or chemical retardant on the initial blazes. (In strong winds, water and retardant will blow away before they reach the flames on the ground.)
Fighting a fire in an urban or suburban area is also different from fighting one in a remote, wild area. In a true wildfire, crews don’t use much water; firefighters typically contain the blazes by creating breaks — areas cleared of vegetation that starve a fire of fuel and keep it from spreading. In an urban or suburban event, however, firefighters can’t simply hack through a neighborhood, and typically have to use water to fight structure fires. Their priority also shifts from stopping the fire to evacuating and saving people, which means putting out the fire itself has to wait.
What’s more, the L.A. area faced dangerous fire weather going into last week — with wind gusts up to 100 miles per hour and dry air — and the persistence of the Santa Ana winds during firefighting operations through the weekend made it extremely difficult for emergency managers to gain a foothold.
Trump and others have criticized Los Angeles for being unprepared for the fires, given reports that some fire hydrants ran dry or had low pressure during operations in Pacific Palisades. According to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, about 20% of hydrants were affected, mostly at higher elevations.
The problem isn’t a lack of preparation, however. It’s that the L.A. wildfires are so large and widespread, the county’s preparations were quickly overwhelmed. “We’re fighting a wildfire with urban water systems, and that is really challenging,” Los Angeles Department of Water and Power CEO Janisse Quiñones said in a news conference last week. When houses burn down, water mains can break open. Civilians also put a strain on the system when they use hoses or sprinkler systems to try to protect their homes.
On Sunday, Judy Chu, the Democratic lawmaker representing Altadena, confirmed that fire officials had told her there was enough water to continue the battle in the days ahead. “I believe that we're in a good place right now,” she told reporters. Newsom, meanwhile, has responded to criticism over the water failure by ordering an investigation into the weak or dry hydrants.
So-called “super soaker” planes have had no problem with water access; they’re scooping directly from the ocean.
Yes. Although aerial support was grounded in the early stages of the wildfires due to severe Santa Ana winds, flights resumed during lulls in the storms last week.
There is a misconception, though, that water and retardant drops “put out” fires; they don’t. Instead, aerial support suppresses a fire so crews can get in close and use traditional methods, like cutting a fire break or spraying water. “All that up in the air, all that’s doing is allowing the firefighters [on the ground] a chance to get in,” Bobbie Scopa, a veteran firefighter and author of the memoir Both Sides of the Fire Line, told me last week.
With winds expected to pick up early this week, aerial firefighting operations may be grounded again. “If you have erratic, unpredictable winds to where you’ve got a gust spread of like 20 to 30 knots,” i.e. 23 to 35 miles per hour, “that becomes dangerous,” Dan Reese, a veteran firefighter and the founder and president of the International Wildfire Consulting Group, told me on Friday.
Because of the direction of the Santa Ana winds, wildfire smoke should mostly blow out to sea. But as winds shift, unhealthy air can blow into populated areas, affecting the health of residents.
Wildfire smoke is unhealthy, period, but urban and suburban smoke like that from the L.A. fires can be particularly detrimental. It’s not just trees and brush immolating in an urban fire, it’s also cars, and batteries, and gas tanks, and plastics, and insulation, and other nasty, chemical-filled things catching fire and sending fumes into the air. PM2.5, the inhalable particulates from wildfire smoke, contributes to thousands of excess deaths annually in the U.S.
You can read Heatmap’s guide to staying safe during extreme smoke events here.
“The bad news is, I’m not seeing any rain chances,” Drewitz, the Forest Service meteorologist, told me on Sunday. Though the marine layer will bring wetter air to the Los Angeles area on Friday, his models showed it’ll be unlikely to form precipitation.
Though some forecasters have signaled potential rain at the end of next week, the general consensus is that the odds for that are low, and that any rain there may be will be too light or short-lived to contribute meaningfully to extinguishing the fires.
The chaparral shrublands around Los Angeles are supposed to burn every 30 to 130 years. “There are high concentrations of terpenes — very flammable oils — in that vegetation; it’s made to burn,” Scopa, the veteran firefighter, told me.
What isn’t normal, though, is the amount of rain Los Angeles got ahead of this past spring — 52.46 inches in the preceding two years, the wettest period in the city’s history since the late 1800s — which was followed by a blisteringly hot summer and a delayed start to this year’s rainy season. Since October, parts of Southern California have received just 10% of their normal rainfall
This “weather whiplash” is caused by a warmer atmosphere, which means that plants will grow explosively due to the influx of rain and then dry out when the drought returns, leaving lots of dry fuels ready and waiting for a spark. “This is really, I would argue, a signature of climate change that is going to be experienced almost everywhere people actually live on Earth,” Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who authored a new study on the pattern, told The Washington Post.
We know less about how climate change may affect the Santa Anas, though experts have some theories.
At least 12,000 structures have burned so far in the fires, which is already exacerbating the strain on the Los Angeles housing market — one of the country’s tightest even before the fires — as thousands of displaced people look for new places to live. “Dozens and dozens of people are going after the same properties,” one real estate agent told the Los Angeles Times. The city has reminded businesses that price gouging — including raising rental prices more than 10% — during an emergency is against the law.
Los Angeles had a shortage of about 370,000 homes before the fires, and between 2021 and 2023, the county added fewer than 30,000 new units per year. Recovery grants and federal aid can lag, and it often takes more than two years for even the first Housing and Urban Development Disaster Recovery Grants’ expenditures to go out.
My colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote for Heatmap that the economic impact of the Los Angeles fire is already much higher than that of other fires, such as the 2018 Camp fire, partly because of the value of the Pacific Palisades real estate.
The wildfires may “deal a devastating blow to [California’s] fragile home insurance market,” Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote last week. In recent years, home insurers have left California or declined to write new policies, at least partially due to the increased risk of wildfires in the state.
Depending on the extent of the damage from the fires, the coffers of California’s FAIR Plan — which insures homeowners who can’t get insurance otherwise, including many in Pacific Palisades and Altadena — could empty, causing it to seek money from insurers, according to the state’s regulations. As Zeitlin writes, “This would mean that Californians who were able to buy private insurance — because they don’t live in a region of the state that insurers have abandoned — could be on the hook for massive wildfire losses.”
First and foremost, sign up for all relevant emergency alerts. Make sure to turn on the sound on your phone and keep it near you in case of a change in conditions. Pack a “go bag” with essentials and consider filling your gas tank now so that you can evacuate at a moment’s notice if needed. Read our guide on what to do if you get a pre-evacuation or an evacuation notice ahead of time so that you’re not scrambling for information if you get an alert.
The free Watch Duty app has become a go-to resource for people affected by the fires, including friends and family of Angelenos who may themselves be thousands of miles away. The app provides information on fire perimeters, evacuation notices, and power outages. Its employees pull information directly from emergency responders’ radio broadcasts and sometimes beat official sources to disseminating it. If you need an endorsement: Emergency responders rely on the app, too.
There are many scams in the wake of disasters as crooks look to take advantage of desperate people — and those who want to help them. To play it safe, you can use a hub like the one established by GoFundMe, which is actively vetting campaigns related to the L.A. fires. If you’re looking to volunteer your time, make a donation of clothing or food, or if you’re able to foster animals the fire has displaced, you can use this handy database from the Mutual Aid Network L.A. There are also many national organizations, such as the Red Cross, that you can connect with if you want to help.
The City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Fire Department have asked that do-gooders not bring donations directly to fire stations or shelters; such actions can interfere with emergency operations. Their website provides more information about how you can help — productively — on their website.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A conversation with Rep. Mike Levin of California
It’s crunch time for the Senate’s bipartisan permitting reform and transmission bill. In three days, the bill’s authors plan to put the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act to a vote on the Senate floor. That means there’s probably only three days to finish up an amendment to the bill that addresses critics’ concerns without toppling the delicate balance the authors initially struck to foster bipartisan support.
BAAJA has major implications for climate policy, as it would make it much easier and cheaper to build high-voltage transmission lines that connect renewable energy from where it is generated to demand centers. It includes ratepayer protection provisions that require data centers to pay all of the costs of upgrading the grid so that they can hook up to it. The bill would also speed up permitting for energy projects of all stripes, from solar farms and geothermal plants to pipelines and liquified natural gas terminals.
The trade-offs, beyond the benefits for fossil fuels, include making it far more difficult — in some cases, potentially impossible — to revoke permits for a project once the federal government has issued them. While this might help solar and wind under Trump or a Trump-like president, critics are worried it will give Trump carte blanche to approve shoddy oil and gas projects with abandon in his remaining two years. The bill also limits public participation in the environmental review process, makes significant changes to landmark environmental laws like the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, and weakens tribal consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act.
Several Democratic Senators and House members who had yet to comment on the bill came out of the woodwork in the post-midterms glow to share where they stood. Ruben Gallego, the senator from Arizona and likely 2028 presidential candidate, told a Washington Sun reporter that the White House may not be so willing to negotiate six months from now after a possible impeachment. “Or maybe we get too close to an election and Vance doesn't want to negotiate, right?” he said. “So why not take this win now?”
Senator Mark Kelly, of Arizona, on the other hand, said he wants to wait and see if Democrats can get more of their priorities into the bill in the next Congress, according to Politico. That sentiment seems to be growing among Democrats in the House, where minority leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York has come out against the current iteration of the bill. “Leader Jeffries will not rubber-stamp legislation that emerges from the Senate without more constructive involvement with our Caucus as we fight to make life more affordable for the American people,” Jeffries’ spokesperson told Politico.
The political calculus on the bill is in the eye of the beholder. Proponents are sure this is the best chance Democrats are going to get to clear transmission bottlenecks that will open the door to a clean energy future. Skeptics are worried the risks are too great, or otherwise feel it’s worth attempting a better deal in the next Congress when Democrats have more power.
On Thursday, I spoke to Representative Mike Levin from California as he was coming down from the high of his own reelection win on Tuesday night. Levin told me he was decidedly undecided on the bill, and so we talked through how he’s thinking about it.
Let’s start with the big picture. What is your opinion of the legislation as written?
I think a few things. One, having such a huge democratic victory in the House and the Senate changes the dynamics around the deal and really around the negotiations — not just around permitting reform, but all the things that have been punted to the lame duck. I think there’s a list of like a dozen things.
The question is, do we choose to accept the permitting deal in its current construct with whatever technical changes there are in the manager’s amendment? Do we negotiate much broader changes this Congress with the massive vote we received on Monday? Or do we wait until the 120th Congress when Democrats have the pens?
The next thing we're going to learn, after we get the final numbers in the House and Senate, is what does the manager’s amendment actually look like? There’s risks to any of the options here. There are more conversations that our caucus needs to have on permitting in light of Tuesday. We’ve raised specific concerns to our colleagues in the Senate. I know others have as well, and I’m going to be watching closely to see if Martin [Heinrich] and Sheldon [Whitehouse] can address some of these concerns that we’ve raised.
What are your biggest concerns about the bill?
There’s a big picture test that I have, a three-prong test. First: Is it going to actually lower costs? This whole election has been about lowering costs for consumers. Second: Is it going to protect the environment, and specifically, will it promote clean air and clean water that communities need? And then, third: Will it actually do the job on access to clean energy?
And what I would say is: there are some real problems. I have a lot of good things to say about the transmission provisions. A lot of it mirrors what we’ve been working on in the Energy Bills Relief Act for a long time. But I think there are loopholes around project certainty language. I read my friend John Podesta’s phrase of “loaded Howitzer” in Heatmap. I see these loopholes as ripe for corruption and potentially allowing permits for fossil fuel projects, and that’s very concerning.
You have the historic preservation tribal issues, right? My friends in New Mexico have been very loud about that, and other places as well. They’re very unhappy about the [National Historic Preservation Act] process and tribal sovereignty.
And I worry in the context of the whole data center fight that there aren’t enough steps in here to improve transparency for the public through the permitting process. You can’t have projects that are shrouded in secrecy, and you need community engagement to lead to better and more successful projects. So those are a few things, and those are not small things.
What is your sense of the sentiment around the bill in the House in general? Are there House Republicans that are against it? Do you think it could get the votes in the House?
Mike Johnson obviously came out strongly for it, which may not help get House Democrats on board. I have to tell you, the fact that he was so enthusiastically for it — in my view that wasn’t a great tell.
In my own opinion, any bipartisan permitting bill or any bipartisan bill at all is going to require compromise, and we owe the negotiators the room to try to get to a deal to a certain extent. We shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But until we see the final text, it’s tough to take a stance on the bill, and that includes the managers’ amendment. And we need more assurances and progress from the administration than we’re getting.
Time is running out for that, it seems.
Yeah. They still refuse to implement our current laws in good faith, and that doesn’t give me confidence that they’re going to implement any new law in good faith.
The other thing that I don’t think really gets talked about in this context, but I see it as germane — at least in the behavior of the administration — is what happened on the Lindsey Graham sanctions bill. This bill was negotiated by the White House, and there were a lot of Dems that were for it. It was a close vote for me. I voted against because I could not trust the administration to proceed in good faith. I thought Trump would use the tariff authority and the sanctions waiver authority in an unintended way, and that’s exactly what happened. Lindsey Graham would never, in a million years, have been okay with how Trump waived sanctions on Russia using a bill intended to impose sanctions. Just the same, I could see a scenario where, with the permit-certainty language, it is in fact the loaded Howitzer that John Podesta described. That’s my two cents.
Some proponents of the bill have said the midterms are an argument to pass this bill because they showed how much voters care about affordability, and this bill, by their account, is all about affordability, and if newly elected Democrats want to do more on clean energy down the road, this is a prerequisite. What do you make of those arguments?
They want us to get stuff done. There’s no question about that. But I also think that they want us to get things done that actually are reflective of our priorities and our values. And in this case, the three things that I laid out are reflective of those priorities and values. Again, costs, environmental implications, and access to clean energy — and clearly there are big challenges with unintended environmental repercussions.
I found it interesting that in [the Rhodium Group’s] analysis, they basically omit the certainty provision from their analysis of the GHG impact because there’s really no way to know how the administration will interpret and potentially abuse that provision. There’s great potential for abuse with that provision; I think it needs to be reworked. And it’s naive to think all of a sudden that the Trump administration will behave any differently than they have in the first six years of their opportunity to run afoul of bedrock environmental law, kneecap clean energy, and double down on fossil fuels. I would expect more of the same.
The other thing I think is wrong is the presumption that everyone in the clean energy industry is all on board —you're not talking to enough actual project developers who may not be on board.
Do you see a clear pathway to do something like your Energy Bills Relief Act in the next Congress?
There's a tremendous opportunity to do the Energy Bills Relief Act in the next Congress. We obviously have to discuss with all of our many new and unexpected colleagues to get them on board, and we may have to make amendments to the bill as it was constituted in the 119th Congress. But we got 160 on board. We have lots and lots of new people, and we may, after making changes, find ourselves with a really strong number of people in support. And I’m not giving up on the Republicans that are left in the House, some of whom have claimed to be more pro-clean energy. We’ll get there, and in the meantime, there are things we can do right at the beginning around the war and tariffs — maybe around other ideas as Nikki Budzinski and I presented to Leader [Hakeem] Jeffries that I’ll let him run with as we scope out the first 100 hours, 100 days in the year of the new 120th Congress.
If you do have an opportunity to do something like the Energy Bills Relief Act next Congress, how do you get Trump to sign it? Or another permitting bill if this one doesn’t pass?
Well, I guess two ways. One is if you get the majority in the House and you get 60 votes in the Senate, you send it to the president’s desk. And if you were to get two-thirds in both houses, then it’d obviously be veto-proof. I would have thought veto-proof majorities to be incredibly difficult, but then we saw something on Tuesday I didn’t expect. We got 260, perhaps more, in the House, and you need 290 to get your two-thirds. And then in the Senate, we got 56, if we hold in Mississippi and Alaska, meaning you’d need 11 Senate Republicans. And you have a changed national mood, where I think a lot of those Republican senators who will be up for re-election — I'm pretty confident you probably could get four of them, but maybe you could get more, and you could get all the way to 11.
But if you were to send a bill to the president’s desk that, on balance, is positive. The president could do what he did for the Road to Housing Act — neither sign nor veto. He could go that route. So I think it’s a lot more possible now with the majorities that we have. What I don’t think we need to do is just accept that the only option is the current deal, have that pass into law with the downside that there are still some pretty stark environmental rollbacks, and the risk that we don't have any real indications that this administration will faithfully implement the bill.
There are two other options as well: Given what happened in the election, we can make our Senate colleagues come to the table and pass a bill that is more reflective of those things I mentioned — costs, environment, and clean energy.
Or a third option is my friend Jared Huffman, who says, ‘Wait until we retake the majority in January, try to strike a better deal,’ with the risk that Trump is not willing to work with us at all.
Another idea I've heard floated by proponents of the bill is: pass it as is, and if there are things that turn out to be really bad or that you want to change down the line, Congress can come at it again later on. What do you think about that strategy?
That's true. The challenge is how long would that take, and what damage would be done in the interim? If Trump does take the certainty sections and turns it into a free-for-all for fossil, then I think it’s going to be two years of some really bad stuff happening, two years of unintended consequences, and potentially longer than two years if you have a Republican winning the White House in 2028.
We’ve got to be clear-eyed about the deal as it stands. This is not the last time in human history that we will have Congress and the White House negotiating. It’s a great opportunity to try to get something done that will be very meaningful, particularly around the transmission piece. And again, I don’t believe in perfect being the enemy of the good, but I want to make sure that it’s actually good.
Just to make sure I'm 100% clear on where you stand on this right now, it sounds like you're still relatively undecided, given what the bill says at this moment?
I am waiting to take a stance on the bill until I see the final text. I am closely watching the Senate process, and again, I’m judging the bill by those three factors that I mentioned, and I won’t know where I stand until I see the final text. We also have to have family discussions back in Washington D.C. next week. It doesn’t do any good to negotiate with the press before we discuss amongst ourselves. I have seen a lot of my colleagues that are very, very interested in this. They reach out to me, and I give them the best information that I can. I can also tell you that I have tremendous respect for John Podesta’s opinion.
This interview was edited for length and clarity.
Talking with Arnab Pal, the executive director of Deploy Action.
This week’s conversation is with Arnab Pal, executive director of Deploy Action, president of Clean Infrastructure Advisors, and former principal advisor at the Energy Department’s Loan Programs Office under the Biden administration alongside Jigar Shah.
I reached out to Pal for guidance on where he saw state-level policy going around renewables development after the 2026 blue wave election. Simply put, few could’ve provided better guidance. We have no idea what could happen next after an unprecedented election result, but he couldn’t have been more clear-eyed and, as he put it to me, focused on the future. I appreciated our conversation and decided it was worthwhile to provide it to you in full.
The following transcript was lightly edited for clarity.
When it comes to state policy, what opportunities are created by this blue wave election?
I think this opens up a bunch of possibilities but I also think we also need to be very careful in understanding what the election was about in terms of what we focus on in the energy sector. The focus was on affordability. That was the number one message. On electricity, housing, gas.
The problems I see from these wave elections is that somebody wins — a party, an ideology — after campaigning on something and then they govern on something completely different. The message to take away here is, people can’t afford their day-to-day lives. What we’re working on at Deploy Action and other groups focused on electricity and energy, we’re all really focusing on the issue of consumer protection and affordability. We should not try to package in our own individual goals and call it affordability.
One of the starkest results, at least to me, was what happened in states where permitting had been streamlined for renewable energy — Wisconsin, Michigan, New York. The Republicans campaigned against those laws streamlining those permits and lost handily. How do you see these results affecting permitting certainty for renewable energy at the state level in parts of the country?
If it truly addresses affordability, I think permitting is certainly on the table. Especially because governors are going to be judged on what they accomplished and some of these states are going to be having a Democratic governor for the first time in one or two decades. I think they’re going to really hone in on that. And a lot of permitting is state-level. Conversations around federal permitting are often around transmission — a lot of the project-level is at the state level.
But permitting is really only one part of the puzzle. It’s the part everyone likes to focus on because it’s easier to understand. There’s also the market structures of how utilities operate. How they’re incentivized to make money. How they bring on new customers. That’s really going to determine how we bring down bills, or at the very least limit the increases in these bills over the next five or ten years.
Can you give some examples?
So one of the things we focus on [at Deploy Action] is trying to not change the utility business model but alter it to take into account efficiency, especially when it comes to transmission and distribution. Right now utilities’ cap-ex and their ability to earn a return on that is building transmission and distribution lines. In some places it’s generation too. What we’re saying is, we need to create an incentive structure where they’re first incentivized to use existing lines, so as you bring more customers online it reduces the need for new infrastructure per customer which will ultimately bring down costs for everyone.
The perfect example here, and another policy example here, is data centers. It’s completely understandable why they ran against them and why the public is not a fan. But there’s a way to do data centers intelligently in a way to reduce people’s bills. The way to do that is not these monstrosities but smaller data centers that can be coupled with battery storage and renewables instead of gas and diesel. These smaller ones can be used as their own distribution resource which allows you to bring on new paying customers without building more lines. These are things we’ve been working on in Virginia, in California to a lesser extent and in Pennsylvania, and the election opens up the possibility to do more of this work.
How do these state-level data center moratoria affect renewable energy development?
It depends.
I think there’s a very nuanced and smart compromise to be had. These new governors need to consider that instead of an outright ban there needs to be an understanding there are data centers of a certain size that can actually be beneficial to ratepayers and done without using massive amounts of water and renewables. The moratoria needs to turn into policy. The way to get a policy in place that’ll help people every day with their lives and their bills while actually preventing some of the harms people are thinking about with data centers is to set that size limit.
Do these pauses affect transmission development?
It shouldn’t theoretically. I think the argument that would come up though is people would say big data centers would mean more demand for more transmission. And yes, we want more demand growth but you want to build more transmission to bring down costs. You don’t want to build more transmission just to build more transmission.
What do you think is the biggest challenge this election result poses for renewable energy?
Focus.
Here’s the thing: It’s a new election. People will have tons of ideas. The renewables’ best argument is we are the cheapest solution and oftentimes the fastest solution. If what you’re trying to do is bring on new demand, whether it’s for EVs or for certain types of data centers, and then at the least cost supply for that demand.
There’s a lot of things we can focus on with renewables but if we stick to the purpose of this being to bring down people’s bills and create a steady grid for everyone then, well, the opportunities are strong and will be available to us in the industry.
Evidence suggests data center concerns probably didn’t actually flip many votes.
This week’s midterm elections were undeniably horrible for the data center industry. But a closer look indicates dominant media narratives about the impact of AI infrastructure on voting behavior also deserve more scrutiny.
On election night, candidates who railed against data center sprawl during their campaigns won across the country, including statewide races in red areas. The most striking example was Gina Hinojosa, now governor-elect for the data center-centric state of Texas, who ran on instituting a complete pause on projects across the Lone Star State. So striking was her win, it sent AI and data center stocks into freefall. Cleanview, a clean energy news and data site, said Hinojosa’s pause, if put into effect, could affect up to 88.4 gigawatts of “planned” data center development, depending on how it's implemented.
It’s true data centers were this year’s election boogeyman. However, a deeper dive into the results we have thus far tells us crucial nuance is necessary in the discourse about the midterms and the impacts data centers had on voting behavior.
Two important questions must be asked. First, did data centers play a key role in the 2026 midterm elections? Yes — and no.
One can easily make the case that data centers were instrumental to Democrats winning big because, by and large, they chose data centers as a go-to punching bag in attack ads against Republican candidates. Analysis ahead of Election Day by Tech Oversight Project — an outfit run by former Democratic staffers — found 136 federal and gubernatorial races used “tech accountability messaging in paid media,” including 74% of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s target seats to flip for House control. Much of this advertising focused on tying GOP lawmakers to data centers, whether by connecting the GOP’s recent tax cuts bill to lower taxes on data centers or alleging Republicans held stocks in, or took donations from, data center developers.
This echoes Heatmap Pro’s most recent polling, which shows that Americans say the tech industry has a uniquely firm hold over the Trump administration. When asked if large technology companies have more influence over the government than other large industries, like finance and oil and gas, 64% of Americans said yes.

It’s certainly true Democrats capitalized on public opinion souring on data centers with ads that sought to tie GOP candidates to the unpopular industry. Some of these ads focused solely on data centers, like this ad against Republican Representative Brad Finstad in Minnesota, whose district included the controversial Google data center project in Pine Island I’ve previously reported on. Finstad’s likely to lose his seat; his Democratic opponent, Jake Johnson, has claimed victory, but the race is likely to go to a recount. Democrats also ran data center-only ads in Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District, a community already angry about transmission lines that then voted for Democrat Rebecca Cooke to replace Republican incumbentDerrick Van Orden. And Democrats used this strategy in ads in Montana’s 1st Congressional District, which is now controlled by a Democrat, as well as in South Carolina’s 1st, which is now also blue.
However, there is also evidence that data centers did not decide key statewide races. David Crowley, a Democrat who was perceived as weaker on this issue, won the Wisconsin gubernatorial race by eight points, in keeping with the state’s leftward swing. The same is true for Byron Donalds, a Republican who overcame data center attacks to become Florida’s first Black governor.
This brings us to the second key question: Did data center development in local communities flip any votes? We have no way of knowing for sure, because data centers are unpopular across party lines and there’s evidence at least some voters saw opposing a data center as compatible with voting for their preferred political party because other issues also matter to them.
There is a crucial difference between data centers being unpopular and local data center development affecting how people vote for higher office. We see this in the midterms data, as communities actively fighting data centers in their backyards continued to vote Republican like before. I’d also note this data has significant limitations, as it’s challenging to separate a community getting bluer from the relevance or use of political attacks tied to data centers.
At most, where movement was registered, these sorts of towns, cities, and counties moved in line with the national partisan swing toward Democrats.
We can see this dynamic playing out in Ohio, where voters across the state weighed in on 21 ballot initiatives about data center development. In all cases, these ballot initiatives were either approved or rejected in order to block development — i.e., the data centers lost all of them. However, when you drill down to the precinct-level data, communities simultaneously voted against their local data center while continuing to support the Republican in higher office. Perhaps some folks split their tickets; others decidedly did not.
Take Conneaut, the northernmost city in Ohio, located in Ashtabula County on the rim of Lake Erie, which overwhelmingly voted to institute a moratorium on large data centers within city limits. Some precincts voted for Democrat Amy Acton to be governor, while others went overwhelmingly for Vivek Ramaswamy, the Republican candidate. Two-thirds of them also voted yes on the moratorium. (Precinct-level data here for transparency!)
The state’s 21 ballot initiatives were the project of Conserve Ohio, a new grassroots organization founded explicitly to advocate against data center development from an apolitical perspective. Austin Baurichter, one of the organization’s founders, told me at least 65% of the volunteers with his organization have been “historical Republicans” and “historical Trumpers,” and he acknowledged there is potential this issue has “moved people around politically."
Baurichter said he has no proof yet whether any of the ballot initiatives led communities that were once Republican to turn blue. He was open to the idea that may have happened somewhere in the state. But he also bristled at the suggestion, because what he’s seeing on the ground is what Heatmap polling also shows: Republicans are upset at data centers, and those feelings are apolitical and nonpartisan.
“The fact there was a blue wave indicates that people did something different at the polls, but I frame it less as a switching of parties and more as an abandoning of the two-party system,” he told me. “These efforts to understand are well expended. But I think a lot is up in the air.”