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:
Here’s where things stand now, according to the International Energy Agency.

Two years ago, the International Energy Agency sent shockwaves through the climate community when it published its first net-zero by 2050 roadmap. The report made a declaration that proved to be a sort of energy transition Rorschach test: “There is no need for investment in new fossil fuel supply in our net-zero pathway,” it said.
Climate advocates quickly began talking up the fact that the authoritative IEA was calling for an end to fossil fuels. But from another perspective, the statement highlighted the scale of the challenge ahead. In order to forego more fossil fuel supplies, there would have to be an unprecedented deployment of clean energy, efficiency improvements, behavioral changes, and technological advancements. The world was not on track for that net-zero pathway in 2021. And while a lot has changed in two years — much of it in the right direction — that’s still the case.
On Tuesday, the IEA published an update to its blueprint for hitting net-zero and halting warming by mid-century. The research group insists that it’s still possible to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius this century, with a brief period where temperatures tip above that benchmark, but “the path has narrowed.”
Here are seven charts from the report that show the good, the bad, and the ugly of where we’re at and where we need to be.
One of the most hopeful takeaways from the report is that two key clean technologies — solar installations and electric vehicle adoptions — are already being deployed at a pace in line with achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. Not only are they on track today, but companies’ plans to expand their manufacturing capacity for EVs and solar would enable us to deploy about 30% more than the IEA’s roadmap requires.
This is huge, since those two technologies alone are responsible for about 30% of emission reductions between now and 2030 in the roadmap.
The report also highlights rapid growth in two other key, mass-manufactured technologies — heat pumps and energy storage for the electric grid.

Though solar has seen steady growth since 2015, there was a significant uptick between 2021 and 2022, when about a third of all installations took place. Similarly, about 60% of total electric car sales took place in that one-year period.
Much of this growth has taken place in advanced economies like the European Union and the United States, but the vast majority has taken place in China. In 2022, the nation was responsible for more than 40% of the global deployment of solar panels and nearly 60% of electric vehicles.
Another chart from the report that I find particularly hopeful shows how much less energy the world will need, overall, if we electrify everything that we possibly can. That’s because solutions like electric vehicles and heat pumps are inherently much more efficient than the fossil fuel-burning boilers and engines they replace. The world would use 15 exajoules less energy annually simply by switching fully to electric cars and heat pumps alone. That’s about the amount that the entire nation of Japan uses in a year.

Despite significant clean energy progress in the last two years, emissions remain “stubbornly high,” the IEA notes. Global carbon emissions reached a new high of 37 gigatons in 2022, with most of that growth driven by China and other developing economies.

The report also warns that current planned investments in fossil fuel supplies, power plants, and other end uses are estimated to be about $3.6 trillion higher by 2035 than they are in the net-zero roadmap.
Getting on track for net-zero already requires shutting many existing fossil fuel plants before they are fully paid off. The challenge will only get harder if we build more. “Further delaying the hard choices necessary to reach global net zero emissions by 2050 would make the problems substantially worse, and much harder to solve,” the report says.
In 2022, scientists estimated that the world’s carbon “budget,” the amount we could emit before surpassing 1.5 degrees C, was around 380 gigatons of CO2. The figure below shows we might emit nearly double that amount by 2050 if we don’t make the tough decision to shut down existing fossil fuel power plants early. This is especially an issue that China will need to confront, the report notes, as it has a large fleet of young coal plants and accounts for nearly half of the emissions in the chart below.

One of the gravest charts in the report pertains to a topic that doesn’t get enough daylight in western discussions of the energy transition. A tenth of the global population still lacks access to electricity, and a third use polluting open fires or stoves that threaten their health.

The electricity chart’s downward slope, which is due to major electrification efforts in India and Indonesia, shows it’s possible to turn this trend around. But access to electricity in Sub-Saharan Africa has decreased. Throughout the report, the IEA emphasizes that success in reaching net-zero hinges on stronger international cooperation and support for developing economies. The roadmap requires clean energy investment to increase sevenfold in developing economies other than China by 2030.
There has been a long-running debate among energy experts and climate advocates about how to improve energy access in the developing world. Should countries be allowed to exploit their fossil fuel reserves, the way wealthy countries have? Or should they “leap-frog” fossil fuels and go straight to renewables? The chart below, which shows the energy mix the IEA has modeled, has solar providing more than half of modern electricity access by 2030.

Okay, I cheated — there’s one more chart worthy of your time, and it doesn’t fall neatly within my good, bad, and ugly rubric. It’s about individual action.
The IEA’s net-zero roadmap illustrates just one potential pathway out of many to keeping climate change in check. It’s based on all kinds of assumptions about energy demand, policies, and costs. But it also makes assumptions about something that’s incredibly hard to model — human behavior.
The authors put about 1 gigaton of emissions mitigation into the hands of the people. I don’t want to put this entirely on you and me — policy support can go a long way to helping us make these changes. But if we don’t start flying less, driving less, and taking steps to make our buildings more efficient, this monumental project of unprecedented technological advancement and clean energy deployment will be much, much harder.

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.