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:
The raw material of America’s energy transition is poised for another boom.

In the town of Superior, Arizona, there is a hotel. In the hotel, there is a room. And in the room, there is a ghost.
Henry Muñoz’s father owned the building in the early 1980s, back when it was still a boarding house and the “Magma” in its name, Hotel Magma, referred to the copper mine up the hill. One night, a boarder from Nogales, Mexico, awoke to a phantom trying to pin her to the wall with the mattress; naturally, she demanded a new room. When Muñoz, then in his fearless early 20s, heard this story from his father, he became curious. Following his swing shift at the mine, Muñoz posted himself to the room with a six-pack of beer and passed the hours until dawn drinking and waiting for the spirit to make itself known.
Muñoz didn’t see a ghost that night, but he has since become well acquainted with others in town. There is the Mexican bakery, which used to sell pink cookies but now opens only when the late owner’s granddaughter feels up to it. There’s the old Magma Club, its once-segregated swimming pool — available one day a week to Hispanics — long since filled in. Muñoz can still point out where all the former bars were on Main Street, the ones that drew crowds of carousing miners in the good years before copper prices plunged in 1981 and Magma boarded up and left town. Now their dusty windows are what give out-of-towners from nearby Phoenix reason to write off Superior as “dead.”
“What happens when a mine closes, the hardship that brings to people — today’s generation has never experienced that,” Muñoz told me.
Superior is home to about 2,400 people, less than half its population when the mine was booming. To tourists zipping past on U.S. 60 to visit the Wild West sites in the Superstition Mountains, it might look half a step away from becoming a ghost town, itself. As recently as 2018, pictures of Main Street were used as stock photos to illustrate things like “America’s worsening geographic inequality.”
But if you take the exit into town, it’s clear something in Superior is changing. The once-haunted boarding house has undergone a multi-million-dollar renovation into a boutique hotel, charging staycationers that make the hour drive south from Scottsdale $200 a night. Across the street, Bellas Cafe whips up terrific sandwiches in a gleaming, retro-chic kitchen. The Chamber of Commerce building, a little further down the block, has been painted an inviting shade of purple. And propped in the window of some of the storefronts with their lights on, you might even see a sign: WE SUPPORT RESOLUTION COPPER.
Resolution Copper’s offices are located in the former Magma Hospital, where Muñoz was born and where his mother died. People in hard hats and safety vests mill about the parking lot, miners without a mine, which is not an unusual sight in Superior these days — no copper has been sold out of the immediate area in over two decades. And yet just a nine-minute drive further up the hill and another 15-minute elevator ride down the deepest mine shaft in the country lies one of the world’s largest remaining copper deposits. It’s estimated to be 40 billion pounds, enough to meet a quarter of U.S. demand, according to the company’s analysis.
That’s “huge,” Adam Simon, an Earth and environmental sciences professor at the University of Michigan, told me, and not just in terms of sheer size.
“Copper is the most important metal for all technologies we think of as part of the energy transition: battery electric vehicles, grid-scale battery storage, wind turbines, solar panels,” Simon said. In May, he published a study with Lawrence Cathles, an Earth and atmospheric sciences researcher at Cornell University, which looked at 120 years of copper-mining data and found that just to meet the demands of “business as usual,” the world will need 115% more of the material between 2018 and 2050 than has been previously mined in all of human history, even with recycling rates taken into account.
Aluminum, used in high-voltage lines, is sometimes floated as a potential substitute, but it’s not as good of a conductor, and copper is almost always the preferred metal in batteries and electricity generation. Renewables are particularly copper-intensive; one offshore wind turbine can require up to 29 tons. What lies in the hills behind Superior, then, represents “millions of electric vehicles, millions of wind turbines, millions of solar panels. And it’s also lots of jobs, from top to bottom — jobs for people with bachelor’s degrees in engineering, mining, geology, and environmental science, all the way down to security officers and truck drivers,” Simon said. He added: “The world will need more copper year over year for both socioeconomic improvement in the Global South and also the energy transition, and neither of those can happen without increasing the amount of copper that we produce.”
Muñoz insisted to me that the promises of jobs and a robust local economy are a kind of Trojan horse. “Everybody’s getting drunk and having a good time: ‘Oh, look at the gift they brought us!’” he said of Superior’s support for Resolution Copper. “But at night, they’re going to sneak out of that horse, and they’re going to leave an environmental disaster.”
For now, though, the copper has just one catch: Resolution isn’t allowed to touch it.
If not for a painted sign declaring the ground HOLY LAND, there would be nothing visible to suggest the 16 oak-shaded tent sites over Resolution Copper’s ore body were anything particularly special. The Oak Flat campground is less than five miles past Superior, but at an elevation of nearly 4,000 feet, it can feel almost 10 degrees Fahrenheit cooler. On the late June day that I visited with Muñoz, Sylvia Delgado, and Orlando “Marro” Perea — the leaders of the Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners Coalition — the floor of the East Valley was 113 degrees Fahrenheit, and the altitude offered only limited relief.
Directly below us and to the east of the campground, beneath a bouldery, yucca-studded desert, lies the copper deposit. At 7,000 or so feet deep, extracting it would require an advanced mining process called block caving, in which ore is collected from below through what is essentially a controlled cave-in, like sand slipping through the neck of an hourglass.
Muñoz, a fifth-generation miner, prefers the metaphor of going to the dentist. “They drill out your tooth and refill it: that’s basically traditional cut-and-fill mining,” he told me. “Block cave, on the other hand, would be going to the dentist and having them pull out the whole molar. It just leaves a vacant hole.” In this case, the resulting cavity would be almost two miles wide and over 1,000 feet deep by the time the ore was exhausted sometime in the 2060s.
Even four decades is just a blink of an eye for Oak Flat, though, where human history goes back at least 1,500 years; anthropologists say the mine’s sinkhole would swallow countless Indigenous burial locations and archeological sites, including petroglyphs depicting antlered animals that Muñoz and Perea showed me hidden deep in the rocks. Even more alarmingly, the subsidence would obliterate Chí'chil Biłdagoteel, the Western Apache’s name for the lands around Oak Flat, which are sacred to at least 10 federally recognized tribes. The members of the San Carlos Apache who are leading the opposition effort, and use the location for a four-day-long girlhood coming-of-age ceremony, say it is the only place where their prayers can reach the Creator directly.
Mining and Indigenous sovereignty have been at odds in Arizona for over a century. “The Apache is as near the lobo, or wolf of the country, as any human being can be to a beast,” The New York Times wrote in 1859, claiming the tribe was “the greatest obstacle to the operations of the mining companies” in the area. Three years later, the U.S. Army’s departmental commander ordered Apache men killed “wherever found,” the social archaeologist John Welch writes in his eye-opening historical survey of the region, in which he also advocates for using the term “genocide” to describe the government’s policies. That violence still casts a shadow in Superior: Apache Leap, an astonishing escarpment that looms over the town and backs up against Oak Flat, is named for a legend that cornered Apache warriors jumped to their deaths from its cliffs rather than surrender to the U.S. Cavalry.
As the Apache were being forced onto reservations and into residential boarding schools during the late 1890s, a treaty with the government set aside Oak Flat for protection. The land was later fortified against mining by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, with the federal protections reconfirmed by the Nixon administration in the 1960s. (The defunct Magma Mine that fueled the first copper boom in Superior is located just off this 760-acre “Oak Flat Withdrawal Area.”)
In 1995, the enormity of the Oak Flat ore body — and the billions it would be worth if it could be accessed — started to become apparent. The British and Australian mining companies Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton formed a U.S. subsidiary, Resolution Copper, which bought the old Magma mine and began to lobby Arizona politicians to sign over the neighboring parcel of Oak Flat. Between 2004 and 2013, lawmakers from the state introduced 11 different land transfer bills into Congress, none of which managed to earn broad support.
Then, in December 2014, President Barack Obama signed a must-pass defense spending bill. On page 1,103 was a midnight rider, inserted by Arizona Republican Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake, which authorized a land transfer of 2,400 acres of Tonto National Forest, including Oak Flat, to Resolution Copper in exchange for private land the company had bought in other parts of the state. (Flake previously worked as a paid lobbyist for a Rio Tinto uranium mine, and the company contributed to McCain’s 2014 Senate campaign.)

The senators’ rider also included an odd little twist. While the National Environmental Policy Act requires the Forest Service to conduct an environmental impact statement for a potential mine, the bill stipulated that the land transfer to Resolution Copper had to be completed within a 60-day window of the final environmental impact statement’s release, regardless of what the FEIS found.
After six years of study, the FEIS was rushed to publication by President Donald Trump in the final five days of his term, triggering that 60-day countdown. President Biden rescinded Trump’s FEIS once he took office in 2021, pending further consultation with the tribes, but the clock will begin anew once a revised FEIS is released, potentially later this year. (The new FEIS was expected last summer, but the Forest Service has since reported there is no timeline for its release. The agency declined to comment to Heatmap for this story, citing ongoing litigation.)
A spokesperson for Resolution Copper told me that the company is “committed to being a good steward of the land, air, and water throughout the entirety of this project,” and described programs to restore the local ecology and preserve certain natural features, including Apache Leap. “At each step,” the spokesperson said, “we have taken great care to solicit and act upon the input of our Native American and other neighbors. We have made many changes to the project scope to accommodate those concerns and will continue those efforts over the life of the project.”
Meanwhile, Apache Stronghold — the San Carlos Apache-led religious nonprofit opposing the mine — filed a lawsuit to block the land transfer, arguing that the destruction of Oak Flat infringes on their First Amendment right to practice their religion. The lower courts haven’t agreed, citing a controversial 1988 decision against tribes who made a similar argument in defense of a sacred grove of trees in California. Apache Stronghold, joined by the religious liberty group Becket, is now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its case, a decision that is expected any day now. Nearly everyone I spoke with for this story, however, was pessimistic that the Justices would agree to hear the battle over Oak Flat, meaning the lower court’s ruling against Apache Stronghold would stand.
If Mila Besich could have it her way, Biden would visit Superior. He’d marvel at Apache Leap and Picketpost Mountain, visit the impressive new Superior Enterprise Center — paid for partially with money from his 2021 American Rescue Plan Act — and maybe wrap up the day with a purple scoop of prickly pear ice cream from Felicia’s Ice Cream Shop. And, most importantly, he’d hear her pitch: that “Superior and the state of Arizona have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to be the leader in advancing your green energy strategy.” She says Superior — and America — needs this mine.
Superior is a blue town, and Besich, its mayor, is a Democrat, which means she has found herself in the awkward position of defending Resolution Copper against colleagues like Congressman Raúl Grijalva of Tucson and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who have introduced unsuccessful bills in Congress to prevent the land transfer. There is something of a bitter irony, too, in seeing her party tout the economic upsides of the energy transition while standing in the way of Superior’s mine, which would employ an average of 1,434 workers per year and add over $1 billion annually to Arizona’s economy during its lifespan, according to the FEIS.
“Every mayor wants more jobs in their community,” Besich told me simply. But, she also pointed out, “Copper is critical to the green economy, so if we want the green economy, we should want to be mining American copper.”
Superior, of course, isn’t just any town. “Everybody here either worked in the mines or had family that worked in the mines,” James Schenck, a former employee of Resolution Copper who supports the mine and serves as the treasurer for Rebuild Superior, a nonprofit working to diversify the local economy, told me. “They understand the downsides, and some of them, for a while, were having a hard time understanding how this is different than what went on before.”
Though everyone seems to be on cordial terms — at one point during my visit, I was having lunch with Muñoz and Delgado when Besich walked in, and everyone smiled politely at one another — there are still clear factions. A Facebook group for locals warns against “posts concerning DRAMA, POLITICS, RELIGION, and MINING,” presumably the same topics to be avoided at family Thanksgivings.
The critical mineral experts I talked to for this story, though, said Schenck is largely right on that point. “Mining in 2024 is radically different than mining in 1954 or in 1904,” Simon told me. “It is really surgical.”
Muñoz is one of those in town who still isn’t buying it, and has converted his garage into an interpretive center for exposing the perceived infiltrators. As soft classic rock played over the speakers and a fan whirred to keep us cool, he showed me the 3D model he had commissioned of the Oak Flat sinkhole, with a miniature Eiffel Tower subsumed in its crater for scale. Laid out on a table on the other side of the room was a row of six dictionary-thick, spiral-bound sections of the FEIS, their most pertinent sections bookmarked. On the walls, Muñoz had hung pictures of comparable tailings sites in other parts of the world — cautionary tales of the hazards posed during the long lifespan of mines. (Including the water demands, no small concern in a place like Arizona, which opens a whole other can of worms).
“I use my experience to educate the people,” Muñoz said. “This isn’t what it’s made out to be. They’re going to play you.”
Muñoz was employed at the Magma Copper mine until 1982, when he was 27. “One day they said, ‘We’re shutting down.’ They folded up just like a carnival does on Monday morning,” he recalled. The abrupt departure devastated Superior: In These Times described the following years as an “economic cataclysm” for the town. By 1989, the median household income was just $16,118 compared to $36,806 in Queen Creek, the nearest Phoenix suburb just a 45-minute drive away.
“I witnessed grown men cry,” Muñoz said. “Men who’d been in the mines pretty close to 30 years — they never knew nothing else.” His father, the former boarding house owner, was among them: “He had limited writing abilities and what have you. He was 58. People lost their homes here. They lost their cars. There were divorces. Some people committed suicide. The drinking, the drugs. It was a bad time.”
Muñoz went on food stamps and unemployment. “This generation that is coming up, they’ve never experienced that,” he said. “They’ve never experienced a repossession note in the mail from the bank. They’ve never experienced a disconnection notice hanging from your front door knob. And they’ve never experienced calling up the utilities and saying, ‘Hey, can you wait until Friday when my unemployment check comes in?’”
Superior’s story isn’t unique; Arizona’s Copper Triangle is a constellation of hollowed-out company towns. Like many other out-of-work Magma miners, Muñoz eventually found a job at San Manuel, a BHP-owned block cave mine about an hour south of Superior. Then, in 1999, copper prices stuttered again, and by 2003, it shut down, too.
Muñoz had just returned from a car show in San Manuel when we met in his garage, and he reported it was still a sorry sight. “The main grocery store is closed, the Subway, all the buildings are boarded up, and the schools are shut down,” he said. The mine “just abandoned that town.”
Even as Muñoz and the Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners Coalition work with Apache Stronghold and national environmentalist groups like HECHO, the Sierra Club, and the National Wildlife Federation try to block Resolution Copper’s mine, there is a distinct feeling in Superior of its inevitability. Schenck, the treasurer for Rebuild Superior, told me he suspects just “10% or 15%” of people in town are “against the project.”
“My personal belief is this copper deposit is going to be developed at some point,” Schenck said. “It’s too important.”
Besich, the mayor, gave this impression too. “What people need to understand is, this ore body is not going anywhere,” she said. “Someone will mine it in the future.” She views Superior and the copper industry as partners in an “arranged marriage,” and her job as mayor is helping them “figure out how to get along.”
From the outside, though, Resolution Copper looks more like a sugar daddy. To date, Rio Tinto and BHP have spent more than $2 billion combined pursuing the Oak Flat mine, including pumping money into the Chamber of Commerce building, the Enterprise Center, and the fire department. When the town of Kearny, downstream of the mine’s proposed tailings site, needed a new ambulance, Resolution Copper offered to help foot the bill. Local high schoolers and tribal members can even apply for Resolution Copper scholarships.
Critics say Resolution Copper is buying political and social influence in the Copper Corridor, a modern-day iteration of the propaganda tactics that swept aside the Apache in the late 1800s. Rio Tinto and BHP “remain committed to influencing U.S. government decisions about the use of public lands and minerals, regardless of additional harms to those lands, to Native Americans, or to National Register historic sites and sacred places,” the archaeologist Welch wrote in his Oak Flat study.
Rio Tinto is infamous even in the mining industry for its poor history of handling community- and heritage-related concerns. To pick a recent example, the company drew international condemnation for its 2020 destruction of the Juukan Gorge cave in Western Australia, a sacred site to the Aboriginal people that had evidence of continuous human occupation going back to the Ice Age. Though Rio Tinto had the legal right to destroy the 45,000-year-old caves, “it is hard to believe community engagement is being taken seriously” by the company, Glynn Cochrane, a former Rio Tinto senior advisor, said in a testimony in the aftermath. Archaeologists and sympathetic politicians have warned that the cultural and spiritual loss caused by mining Oak Flat would be like a second Juukan Gorge.
The San Carlos Apache are not a monolith, however, and the community has differing beliefs about the cultural importance of Oak Flat. Tribal members who support the mine or work for Resolution Copper are often cited by non-Native supporters as proof of Apache Stronghold’s supposedly arbitrary defense of Oak Flat. (Apache Stronghold, which is on a prayer journey to petition the Supreme Court, did not return Heatmap’s request for comment.)
Muñoz and his team are specifically worried about how Superior, the town, will make out. U.S. copper smelters are already at capacity, meaning Resolution Copper would likely send much if not all of the raw copper extracted at Oak Flat to China for processing. (Rio Tinto’s largest shareholder is the Aluminum Corporation of China.) The spokesperson for Resolution Copper told me that it’s the company’s priority to process the ore domestically, and Rio Tinto does have its own facility in the U.S., the Kennecott copper smelting facility in Utah. Yet it hasn’t committed publicly to processing the Arizona ore there, and it’s far from clear that it even has the capacity to do so.
For Simon, the University of Michigan professor, that shouldn’t be a deterrent: “If we mine more copper here and it just means we have to export it — who cares?” he pushed back. “If it has to go to China and they smelt it, then you send it to China and they smelt it. Climate is the prize, and if we want to mitigate our impact, we’ve got to do it. There are no ifs, ands, or buts.”
Oak Flat is also located outside of Superior’s town limits, meaning the community would only recoup about $500,000 in tax revenue, on the high end, from the mine annually, according to the 2021 FEIS — Schenek told me the town’s budget is around $3 million, so it’s hardly insignificant, though it is peanuts compared to the $38 million the state would reap. The FEIS additionally estimated that only about a quarter of the mine’s eventual employees would actually “seek to live in or near Superior;” many would choose instead to commute the hour or so from Phoenix’s Maricopa County.
Because of technological advances in mining and robotics, the mine also won’t bring back the physical jobs locals remember from the 1970s — by Resolution Copper’s own admission. Besich, at least, isn’t bothered by this detail: “In all reality, I don’t see my children and their peers wanting to do the manual physical labor that my grandfather, my father, and certainly my great-grandfather did,” she told me. “So the change in technique is good, and I think that it’s actually better for the environment in the long term.” She added that Resolution Copper’s investment in things like local infrastructure and worker training programs will compensate for the comparably insignificant tax revenue the town will otherwise receive, ensuring Superior gets a fair cut of the bonanza.
What supporters and opponents of the mine can agree on is that Superior must avoid the devastation of the 1980s if or when the Oak Flat mine is exhausted in 40 or more years. Besich and Schenck told me their vision is for Superior to be a town with a mine, not a mining town. But is such a thing even possible? In recent years, Superior has tried to position itself as an outdoor recreation gateway to the many climbing routes and hiking trails in the area. Yet I struggle to imagine anyone would want to vacation or recreate so close to a massive mining operation.
Muñoz believes Superior should throw itself entirely into tourism, which brings in three times as much revenue as the copper industry in Arizona. He dismissed arguments that losing the mine this far into negotiations and preparations would set the town back two decades, telling me about a conversation he had with Vicky Peacey, the president of Resolution Copper. “She said, ‘How do I tell my 300-plus employees that they don’t have a job?’” he recalled. “I said, ‘The same way BHP told the 3,300 in San Manuel they didn’t have a job. Magma Copper didn’t have a problem telling us we didn’t have a job in ‘82.”
Whatever gets decided about Oak Flat will reverberate far beyond Superior, though. “We’ve got to keep our eyes on the prize,” Simon told me. “And if the prize is mitigating human impacts on climate, and that requires the energy transition, and that requires copper, and we have a potential mine in Arizona that would provide 500,000 tons of copper every year for decades — we need to do that.”
At the end of my day in Superior, I went with Muñoz and Delgado, another former miner, to visit the haunted boarding house.
The renovated interior was surprisingly beautiful, decorated with period-appropriate details like iron bed frames, clawfoot bathtubs, and lace curtains that softened the harshness of the mid-afternoon light. Though even the FEIS warns that “mining in Arizona has followed a ‘boom and bust’ cycle, which potentially leads to great economic uncertainty,” it was with a pang that I imagined the building one day falling back into disrepair. It, and the town, had survived too much.
After peeking into Room 103, where Muñoz had passed his tipsy night all those decades ago, we asked the friendly woman working the front desk if she’d had any supernatural experiences herself — surely she’d seen the mattress-flipping phantom, or swinging chandeliers, or perhaps a white-boot miner who’d come down from the hills?
To our disappointment, she shook her head. For now, whatever ghosts there once might have been in Superior had gone.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include comment from Resolution Copper.
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.
Current conditions: A Pineapple Express — the powerful atmospheric river that hits the West Coast, not the marijuana strain — could pummel the Southwest with heavy rain on Halloween • The remnants of Typhoon Champi are driving a severe storm in the Bering Sea, with four-foot waves lapping on Alaska’s shore • Despite India’s evacuation of nearly 200,000 people, Cyclone Arnab killed at least nine and destroyed tens of thousands of acres of crops in Andhra Pradesh.
The Federal Reserve voted Wednesday to keep benchmark interest rates steady despite last month’s spike in inflation statistics. In a post-meeting statement, the Federal Open Market Committee said it had decided to keep the federal funds target range between 3.75% and 4%, maintaining the central bank’s quarter percentage-point hike from last month. “Inflation remains elevated,” the statement cautioned. “The accumulation of more information will help the Committee determine the policy stance appropriate to ensure a timely return of inflation to the Committee’s 2% goal.”
For clean energy developers, whose projects’ upfront costs make them sensitive to the price of borrowing money, a hold is better than a hike. But a reduction is better than a hold.
GE Vernova’s gas turbine business is going gangbusters as data centers drive demand for new generators. Its nuclear-focused joint venture with the Japanese industrial giant Hitachi, meanwhile, is making real progress toward building out an order book for its 300-megawatt small modular reactor, the BWRX-300. Now the General Electric spinout is making a big bet on the future of the transmission buildout. On Wednesday, the company announced a deal to pay $9 billion for Trench Group, a global manufacturer of high-voltage transmission equipment and grid components. The deal is expected to close at the end of next year. “Trench’s differentiated high-voltage grid technology, strong execution, and deep customer relationships are key enablers of the modernized, resilient grid required to keep pace with the electricity supercycle,” GE Vernova CEO Scott Strazik said in a press release.
It’s far from the only company betting on future grid construction. Hitachi announced a $1 billion investment into a U.S. transformer factory last year. Meanwhile, a former Tesla executive just launched a startup called Heron Power aiming to make transformers specifically designed to patch more data centers and renewables onto the grid. There’s plenty of money to go around: As you may recall, the Department of Energy has in recent weeks pumped billions of dollars into upgrading the U.S. power grid.
More than 40 clean tech startups urged both parties in Congress to pass permitting reform legislation before the session ends. In a letter published Thursday morning and shared exclusively with me for this newsletter, the companies said the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act “helps innovators spend more time building and less time waiting.” Signatories included geothermal heavyweights Fervo Energy, Quaise, and Zanskar; carbon removal company Heirloom, and fusion giants Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Realta. The bill, they continued, “restores confidence that American projects can move from concept to construction on predictable timelines.”
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, on the other hand, came out with its own statement warning lawmakers against the bill. In its view, BAAJA would “lock in dirty energy for decades” and make it “harder for people to show they are harmed by pollution.” The group will undoubtedly find sympathetic audiences at the upper rungs of the Democratic Party. In remarks my colleague Jael Holzman obtained, John Podesta, the Biden White House’s senior climate policy advisor, said at a conference last week that he worried the bill could hand Trump “a loaded Howitzer.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Man bites dog: New York City might just have something to learn from Connecticut. In 2011, New York’s neighbor established the nation’s first green bank. As of this year, the agency has directed more than $3 billion toward things like developing solar and storage systems on public housing. “What we saw in Connecticut was a way to get community-scale renewable projects built that markets alone were not delivering,” Jason Kowalski, the executive director of the Public Renewables Project, told me. “With New York City, similarly, we’re looking to fill market gaps.” In a new report released Wednesday, his group — along with fellow left-leaning energy policy advocates Public Power NY and the Climate & Community Institute — proposed that New York City create its own green bank, modeled on Connecticut’s experiment. “We’re not thinking about public versus private,” Kowalski added. “We’re thinking of public versus nothing. We’re targeting places where nothing is getting built. This is a mechanism for building revenue-positive projects that are not being built because of the transaction costs or because there is no planning function that’s brought in to plan at any scale.” The proposal could find sympathetic eyes in Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration. The democratic socialist has embraced venturing where, since the 1990s, government has rarely gone. City Hall brokered a deal two weeks ago to chip in $30 million for New York University’s next-generation computing lab in exchange for 15% of the proceeds from any technology the facility develops and sells. As you may recall, I called the agreement “New Dealism for quantum computing.”
Public financiers could also come in handy as cities undertake the costly renovations and infrastructure upgrades needed to survive in a hotter, more meteorologically chaotic world. The European Commission this week unveiled new climate rules requiring governments to establish who is responsible for protecting citizens from climate disasters, Euronews reported. Brussels wants major cities to prepare for as much as 3 degrees Celsius of warming above pre-industrial norms. That’s more than double the warming we are already getting a taste of from El Niño.
Cement produces roughly 8% of global emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide — four times the output of airplanes. Cutting emissions across the wider economy requires building a lot of stuff. Paradoxically, that means using a lot more cement, adding to emissions. But a growing suite of startups is rolling out new technological approaches to make low-carbon cement. One of them just announced a major deal with Meta. The Facebook owner agreed to buy 200,000 tons of San Jose-based Fortera’s low-carbon cement. “Agreements of this scale and duration are what unlock financing and move projects from plans to production,” Fortera CEO Ryan Gilliam said in a statement. “They also show the market that low-carbon cement is a product that buyers are serious about and planning around for years to come.” The clean cement sector has been, as my colleague Katie Brigham wrote, riding the artificial intelligence wave.

Antimony is a lustrous, silvery-gray metalloid. It’s needed for solar panel glass and all kinds of batteries. And the U.S. overwhelmingly relies on imports of it from China and Tajikistan. Maybe not for long, Mining Technology hinted. On Wednesday, Alaska’s Department of Natural Resource gave its final approvals to the startup Nova Minerals. The project, funded with nearly $45 million from the Department of Defense, aims to begin production next year.
Rob talks with David Pomerantz, the executive director of the Energy and Policy Institute.
Climate and environmental advocates are sharply divided over the Senate’s bipartisan permitting reform proposal. But what most people agree is that the bill’s changes to electricity and transmission law are really, really good — and in some sense are much better than expected.
Because of how the media works, that means nobody has talked about these proposals very much. So on this show, we wanted to focus on the part of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act that has gotten rave reviews.
On this episode of Shift Key, Rob is joined by David Pomerantz, the executive director of the Energy and Policy Institute and a former Greenpeace campaigner. They discuss how the bill would rewrite electricity law, why the bill is bad for utilities, and why utilities are (in Dave’s view) such a problem for decarbonization.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from their conversation:
Robinson Meyer:
Will this decline in utility political clout continue, or is this limited to this moment? Then if [BAAJA] doesn’t pass, are utilities going to close ranks and there won’t be another chance to take on utility power again?
David Pomerantz:
That’s kind of the million-dollar political question, from where I sit. On the one hand, unfortunately for ratepayers and customers, I don’t see investors and utilities having, like, a sudden change of heart and doing the things that they could and should do to arrest inflation and lower people’s bills. I do want to make it clear, like, they could do that. There are a lot of things that utilities could do if they weren’t looking at their next quarterly returns and just sort of maxing cap-ex, to bring people's bills down. Like, you could see that on the public side of the sector. I don’t think they will. I think their incentives are too perverse. And because of that, I think they’re going to keep getting themselves into trouble politically by going for rate increases and bill increases. And so I see that, at least for the next couple of years, as being somewhat secular. Some of it, by the way, is actually not wrong, right? Like, the grid is aging, and they do need to spend money. That’s why it’s unfortunate that they’re not saving money where they can because they are kind of in a pickle there. So that part I see as sticking around at the same time on the other side of that argument.
I think one thing doing this work has taught me is that these companies have been around for over 100 years. If you read some of the history on some of the big political fights that investors and utilities were having in the 1930s, they do the exact same things now. They spent on propaganda. They route their money through trade associations. They recruit other parts of the political economy, like labor, to back them with politicians for whom that constituency is important. This is something EPI has really tried to investigate and highlight and ultimately address — they have, at the end of the day, a publicly subsidized pool of ratepayer money to spend on politics that almost no other industry has. And so I think they will regroup. Counting them out is probably a mistake.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
The Senate’s Big Bipartisan Permitting Deal, Explained
The Senate Permitting Deal Contains a Data Center Double Tap
The Long, Strange Success Story of America’s Biggest Clean Energy Project
Previously on Shift Key: What a Permitting Reform Deal Could Look Like
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Formed through a joint venture between Wärtsilä and RCT Solutions, Valo helps utilities, independent power producers, and developers navigate market and grid complexity without sacrificing system performance. Learn more at valoenergy.com.
RE+ 26 is the largest clean energy event in North America, happening November 16th through 19th at the Las Vegas Convention Center. Register at re-plus.com and use code SHIFTKEY20 to save 20% off a Full Conference pass.
Every year Giving Green researches the top climate nonprofits and sends 100% of every dollar donated to its Giving Green Fund straight to them. Make your first gift before the new year, and it will be matched up to $1,000. Go to GivingGreen.earth/Shift.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
This transcript has been automatically generated.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Robinson Meyer:
Hello, it's Thursday, October 29. And as you know, the biggest story in U.S. Energy policy right now, at least other than the upcoming midterm elections, is that Congress will take up bipartisan permitting reform next month. This was a legislative proposal advanced in September by four senators called the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act. And if you read Heatmap or you look at social media, or even sometimes if you look at Instagram Reels, you will see that this package is very controversial. American environmentalists, climate activists, clean energy folks, they have been arguing about this bill essentially constantly since it came out. That's partially because it would just do a lot of different things: It would encourage the expansion of the power grid. It would change environmental review laws. It would make it easier to build clean energy and also pipelines. And it would make it harder for presidents to revoke permits from some energy projects. There's a lot of different views about those provisions and how they would all work together.
But just about everyone involved agrees the bill's power grid policies are really, really good. The Natural Resources Defense Council described this section as one of the bill's, quote, “green flags,” as opposed to what it saw as its red flags. And even John Podesta, the former Biden climate advisor who's been more critical of the proposal, said the grid section was, quote, “pretty strong,” unquote, and told our reporter that this section was actually worth passing the bill over if negotiators could fix some of his other criticisms.
All of this has had an interesting effect on what we cover, both at Heatmap and I think more broadly. And that's because the media — we love to cover conflict. That's not just because conflict or disagreement is more interesting, although I think often it is, but also because it lets us as journalists be useful. It can actually be helpful for reporters or an informed person to poke around a disputed question, try to learn new information, and then try to figure out what's true. That's really one of our jobs as journalists. What all of that means, though, is that when there's less conflict over something, we don't cover it as much, even when it's really, really important.
And that's happening, I think, with this power grid section, which will be one of the most important parts of the law if it passes — but which nobody has really talked about because nobody disagrees about it very much. So today I want to talk to someone who knows a lot about this package, knows a lot about this particular area of the law, and is really jazzed about the changes that this bill would make.
David Pomerantz is executive director of the Energy and Policy Institute, a watchdog and research group that investigates fossil fuel and monopoly utility lobbying. He's been at the Institute for more than 10 years, but his background is in climate activism. He was previously at Greenpeace for eight years, where he rose to be a senior climate campaigner. Dave and I discuss what this bill would do and how it would take on the power of monopoly utilities. We talk about why a bill like this could only really pass now in recent U.S. political history. And we also discuss why utilities are, at least in Dave's view, one of the biggest enemies of the energy transition, even though utilities are in charge of the electricity system and at least in theory generating more electricity is what we want to do if we want to decarbonize the economy. It was a really interesting conversation. I learned a lot.
I'm Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News, and it's all coming up on ShiftKey. David Pomerantz, welcome to Shift Key.
David Pomerantz:
Thanks so much for having me.
Robinson Meyer:
It's funny. I mean, we were talking about this right before we started, but we have known each other for a long time. I feel like I read Energy and Policy Institute work all the time, but we've never had you on the show. So it's very exciting to have you finally here on Shift Key.
David Pomerantz:
Well, I'm very grateful for the invitation. I am an avid listener and so honored to be here with you. Thanks, Robinson.
Robinson Meyer:
I think for those of us who do anything around electricity, the Energy and Policy Institute is a very familiar name. But it might not be a name that everyone in Climate World, so to speak, or climate and energy world is familiar with. Could you just give us a brief intro to your work and what the Institute's work does?
David Pomerantz:
Yes, happily. So the Energy and Policy Institute, or EPI, is a utility watchdog organization. So we do a mixture of investigative work and analysis and communications. What we're investigating and trying to document is the harms posed by monopoly utility companies to ratepayers and to the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. So most of the people, my colleagues who I work with, are kind of climate people. We are motivated by trying to hasten the transition away from fossil fuels. With that said, as we've been doing this work, or at least I've been doing it for the last decade, and getting more and more exposure to how utilities are set up and organized and what incentives they have and how they behave, I think our purview has gotten a bit broader than that. And nowadays, we're sort of — as much as we are interested in utility reform in so much as it affects the transition to clean energy, we're also just generally interested in how utilities act toward their customers and what can be done about that.
Robinson Meyer:
I feel like this is not an atypical pattern, where people get into a policy area because they care about decarbonization and climate change. And then once they get into it, they're like, oh, my gosh, this thing is really screwed up. I feel like this has happened to me to some degree with manufacturing and industrial policy in the U.S. I'm like, oh, my gosh, we've got to get a handle on this kind of for decarbonization reasons. But also just generally, often when you look closer at something that you care about for some other reason, you discover that actually there's a ton of work to be done there, regardless of the importance of decarbonization.
David Pomerantz:
That's definitely been my experience and journey about utilities. I mean, I got into this stuff a little over a decade ago. And even then, I think in the climate community, this sort of two-part equation that people are so familiar with now, which is moving the electric sector to clean sources of energy that don't emit carbon, and then electrifying everything else that we can. That was well in place when I started working on utilities and so, if that's the equation you're thinking about, electric utilities kind of are right at the center of all that. So it made a lot of sense for me from a climate perspective as I've gone — and coming from a place of humility, like really not being a technical expert in electricity and learning a lot as I've gone along the way, you realize from all these other perspectives sort of a general good government and campaign finance and concentration of power in the economy and just generally —I mean, the cost of electricity is kind of the base input for so many parts of the economy. If it's even a little bit higher than it needs to be, the spillover effects of that on everything are really big. So, yeah, that's certainly been my experience as I've gone along, is like, utilities are so important for climate and also so important for just about everything else.
Robinson Meyer:
You described this two-step plan to decarbonize the economy. The first is you clean up the electricity system. You shift as much demand as possible to zero carbon and clean fuels. And then you expand the electricity system. You try to electrify everything you can. And the way that the technologies that we want to electrify work is that you can do this a little bit out of order. If you're also gradually decarbonizing the electricity system, it's better to have more EVs, even if you power them with natural gas in the short term, because then you lock in the EV infrastructure and then you can gradually clean up the grid. It's like a two-part race and you can kind of run both at the same time.
David Pomerantz:
Totally in parallel.
Robinson Meyer:
OK. But when people hear this game plan, I think there's a sense that the utilities will be on board with it or certainly that the utilities will not oppose it. What has your experience been of how utilities feel about this plan? I mean, are they a fan of expansion and not as much a fan of decarbonization? Or are their incentives so misaligned, let's say, that they don't even necessarily care about the kind of expansion in terms of kilowatt hours that we all care about? And what they're really focused on is just building a lot of infrastructure of any kind that then they can make their customers pay for.
David Pomerantz:
I'd say a few things. So one thing — this is such a boring disclaimer that everybody gives when they talk about utilities, but it's true and worth making the caveat up front: they're not all the same. Putting aside the big differences within the sector, right? So you have about two-thirds of America served by investor-owned electric utilities. So these are corporations owned by investors on Wall Street. And then the other third is split between, you know, different versions of public power entities, either cooperative utilities, mostly in rural parts of America, or municipal utilities. Those are all very different.
But even if you just look within the investor-owned utilities, which I think is mostly what we're going to talk about, they're not all the same. So for instance, one important distinction for this question about their posture toward decarbonization and electrification, there are some utilities that all they do is electricity, right? Like they sell electricity, they distribute electricity. There are others who also own gas utilities. This has become more common as the industry has concentrated and as a function of mergers and acquisitions over the last couple of decades, really conglomerated a lot. And so if you're a utility holding company that owns multiple utilities.
Robinson Meyer:
Like Berkshire Hathaway Energy.
David Pomerantz:
Sure, that's a good example, right? So taking Berkshire Hathaway Energy, they own electric utilities. Berkshire Hathaway, their pipeline group, runs about 20,000 miles of pipe and moves about 15% of the gas consumed in the U.S. in 2024. So they have a different set of incentives. The people who run their electric utilities might be relatively positively inclined toward electrification, but the people who run their gas pipeline certainly aren't. They own a majority stake of a LNG terminal, Cove Point. So even within a single corporate utility, you might have pretty mixed incentives towards something like electrification. I think one very broad way to answer this is I think most electric utilities, just looking at the electric part of the sector, they're going to be relatively positively inclined toward electrification, mixed on decarbonization.
But actually, I think this is one of those cases where everybody who is really interested in climate change, and I certainly put myself in that category, even people who are really opposed to climate action, say from the political right, are way overindexed on how and whether that is a defining principle of how utilities make decisions. The way utilities make decisions, the most important thing to them, the most valuable commodity to them by far has nothing to do with, like, is it solar or gas or wind or coal? It's their monopolies. That is the crown jewel of how a utility makes money. And that leads to some situations where, like, you've had utilities in blue states who will accept government policy to speed up transition to renewable energy, but they'll try to get their pound of flesh as part of that acceptance. And usually that pound of flesh is a retrenchment or reification of their monopoly. So they'll say, like, “Yeah, we can dance with decarbonization a little bit, but we want to increase our ownership share of that new clean energy system of assets that we're going to build.” And you've actually seen that literal tradeoff happen in states where you've had really politically powerful utilities and democratic policymakers who don't want to fight with them, but want to get climate policy to happen. So it's like, everything in service to the monopoly.
Robinson Meyer:
And the monopoly here, this is a type of corporate — I'm not even sure what to call it, that exists in very rare places in American law. Or doesn't exist that often in American law, right? It emerges from this correct observation, especially correct in the early 20th century, but I would argue still holds in many respects to this day, that the electricity grid is a natural monopoly. We would rather have one provider of the electricity grid to everyone's homes because we don't want lots of duplicative infrastructure. You don't want, like, your neighbor in your apartment building or your neighbor in your street to have a different set of wires going to their house than go to yours. So we need a ton more extra wires then.
So it all dates from when electricity and distributed electricity was a new technology form in the early 20th century. And different entrepreneurs were racing to get electric light and different wires strung up. And there are some early stories from that period where, like, as new companies were competing to distribute electricity, there would be parts of New York City, for instance, where there's enough wire getting strung up where, you know, you can’t see the sky — that kind of thing. I don't know how apocryphal that might have been. But at that time, certainly, it made sense to have a monopoly on electric distribution.
Robinson Meyer:
And the monopoly here is like a true jurisdiction, right? It's basically saying, “In this geographic area, only one company can provide electricity service. No other company can do it.” And that kind of corporate right exists only for this small set of regulated monopolies in the country. I mean, we have it for water and electricity and natural gas distribution. And that's kind of it, I think.
David Pomerantz:
It's very, very rare in our economy. And I think there's an interesting conversation happening right now, sort of on the sidelines of all this stuff among a small handful of antitrust lawyers of like, how much should that still be the case? Like, maybe in the early 20th century, utilities did have a sort of, quote unquote, “natural monopoly,” where increasing scale and reserving it to one company would make all this cheaper. Now it's certainly true that to the extent there are natural monopolies in this industry, they cover a much smaller part of the electricity value chain than they once did, so like, maybe electric utilities should still be entitled to monopolies over the distribution wires, is that true for electric generation or transmission or even, billing and the customer relationship? All those are areas where in different parts of the country, to varying degrees, competition's been introduced and often to really good effect.
Robinson Meyer:
Well, let's talk about the bill. I want to get back to these questions, but let's start by talking about the bill. So I think the bill's biggest effect on the power grid are these transmission provisions. And I've been covering a lot over the past several years about how important transmission is for decarbonization. What does the bill do on transmission? How do you think about this bill overall and its effect that it would have on the energy system?
David Pomerantz:
Yeah, so the bill I'd say is pretty ambitious when it comes to reforming how transmission is planned and permitted and paid for, and also who gets to control it. So maybe just in terms of the status quo, the short version is, for the kinds of transmission that we're going to be talking about here, this distinction is pretty crucial — like, longer lines, higher voltage lines, the ones that connect different regions of the country to each other that are critical for the energy transition, and also, candidly, would be quite critical even without it, right? Like, just for cost and reliability. Those lines we are not building. We're just building very few of them. Some parts of the country are doing a little bit better, but that's clearing the very low bar of doing almost nothing. Building regional or interregional transmission has basically ground to a halt in America.
So the bill, I think, seeks to address that problem. And it does a few things. So starting with the big stuff, probably the centerpiece of transmission, the first reform listed in the transmission section of the bill is around permitting. So currently, if a transmission line — one of these long lines that I'm talking about, that has to cross multiple states — it has to be permitted by each state it crosses. The bill says that if a single state says no on one of these high voltage lines or is just taking too long to decide, federal regulators can step in and approve the line if they find that it benefits the public. They can't do it capriciously, but if they find that it benefits the public, they can step in and approve that line. And if they're even higher voltage lines — so lines of 345 KV or more — those lines can actually file at FERC in parallel at the same time as they're filing for permissions at the state. And so it should make getting those lines permitted much easier.
So that's one change.
Another really big one is around planning. So right now there are different transmission organizations in different parts of the country. So I think most of your listeners will be familiar with some of these even though most Americans probably are not, but some of these are called RTOs or regional transmission organizations. Those are formal organizations, there's one called PJM that covers kind of the mid-Atlantic states, in the eastern part of the Midwest there's MISO, in the sort of more Great Plainsy part of the midwest extending kind of in a big vertical strip down the middle of the country, They all plan transmission differently, right?
And if that sounds a little bit nutty, I think everybody would probably agree that if you were building this system from scratch, we wouldn't have it that way. And this is really important. The system wasn't built from scratch. So we didn't have regional transmission organizations up until reforms that started in the late 1990s. So for the entirety of the 20th century, utilities basically did this on their own. Like, they decided if they needed a transmission line and that was kind of it. So one way to look at this is, like, we've been on this long journey toward trying to take control of the transmission system away from individual utility companies and sort of put it more in the public sphere. Developing regional transmission organizations was a part of that, but it's been an incomplete journey, I would say. And so one of the things that BAAJA does is this kind of consolidated planning. It gets the country's various grid regions to plan in congruent ways. And I said we're not building much regional transmission earlier. In terms of inter-regional transmission, so transmission that actually crosses between regions, like crosses from PJM to MISO, we're building basically none of that. So that kind of consolidated planning should help with that.
Robinson Meyer:
So there's one set of changes in the bill, as you were saying — I mean, we talk about this, we've talked about this before, written about it, which is basically like: if you wanna build a natural gas pipeline, you go to the government and if the federal government says, yes, you can build it. Like, they have a checklist of things that they have to do to see if your pipeline's in the national interest and they check, check. “Okay, it's in the national interest. Here's your permit, you can go build.” This, I believe, would not quite do that for transmission lines, but it basically creates a federal backstop authority where FERC can do it. And I believe it even says, like, with pipelines, FERC basically is told, “Look, if this transmission line meets this criteria and that criteria, you will find it in the national interest.” This isn't just a “you may.” This is like, “You must actually go and find this thing in the national interest if it meets certain certain guidelines.”
David Pomerantz:
That's right. The way I would describe this is the reforms in the bill for transmission permitting probably don't make it quite as easy to permit a transmission line, interstate transmission line, as it currently is to get permitted an interstate gas pipeline. But it's a lot closer to that, whereas under the status quo, this is all fragmented. It's really hard. And in the best case, it's taking you years and years.
Robinson Meyer:
We can get into why it is so easy to build a natural gas pipeline while it's still not easy to build a transmission line. And my sense is, yes, it's that the whole system is built to service the needs of fossil fuel companies and not as much electricity. But it's also just — number one, it is an open question to me of whether even if you were the most powerful set of organizations in the world you could get Congress to pass a law that gives any kind of linear infrastructure private developer the kind of authority that natural gas developers have under the law right now. And that's because the law that gives them all that authority was written in the 1930s. It's very old. It's just like an old New Deal-era law.
David Pomerantz:
I'd agree with that. I mean, you're not going to get me to disagree with the fact that much of the federal government's decision-making is sort of — there are a lot of incumbency biases that fossil fuels have. I think the fundamental thing happening there is that the Natural Gas Act was passed a long time ago and it would be probably harder to pass it that way now, so what's good about the the current transmission permitting legislation on the table is it certainly gets closer to that point, where it would be easier to permit transmission now.
Look, not everybody's going to be in favor of that, it's probably worth noting. Building long transmission lines does often generate a lot of discontent from landowners. So there's no point dismissing that. That becomes a value judgment for people who are landowners who oppose a transmission line. I don't think there's anything in the bill that takes away their ability to file comment, to say they want the line moved. I don't believe the permitting reforms in here are like railroading people in that way. But there's going to be people who are unhappy with anything that gets transmission lines built faster.
I am of the opinion personally that as a country, both for energy transition reasons and also to have a better functioning electric system and ultimately lower rates, that the balance is off right now. And we have to be able to build more of this. And I think, like, this maybe gets into some of the broader questions in the bill about permitting and how hard it should be to build energy infrastructure, I think, is a question that's sort of laced through the entire legislation.
Without getting into all that, I'll just say it's worth keeping in perspective, like, a transmission line versus other things. So one of the arguments I've tried to make to people, at least privately, who are understandably sympathetic to, like, landowners or conservation interests or tribes who are opposed to a transmission line is, for the most part, their opposition is around the viewshed. Basically, they don't want to look at it. And I'm not saying that in a pejorative way. I think there are a lot of cases where those concerns are very real and deeply felt. I do compare that to, however, like if building more transmission lines, more regional transmission lines allows coal plants to shut down, which it would in the long run, because it would undercut their value, when we're talking about the effects of those plants, we're not talking about somebody's view, right? We're talking about people's lungs. And so the bill will make it easier to build transmission lines and there will be people who don't like that. But I think that comparison's pretty important to keep in mind when we're talking about that.
This is all sort of in the “making it easier to build transmission” category. The next one is like, Who gets to control it and are we building the right type, and is it a good value for customers? So we can talk about that next, but in the “making it easier to build” category, a couple of other things. These are more discreet, but important. So one section of the bill basically says that if a transmission owner wants to reconduct to their line — so I'm probably going to sort of do violence to the technological nuance here, but for normal people, you could think of it as, like, basically string-up better wires, wires made out of better materials that can carry more electricity. It exempts the transmission owner from having to go through NEPA review for that if it's in an existing right of way. So I think that makes a lot of sense. Like, they've already presumably gotten that line permitted. They don't need a new review for stringing up new wires.
And then the other thing that it does that's in this sort of encouraging-new-technology vein is that it requires that investors and utilities use what the bill calls advanced transmission technologies on all new lines, including the best available conductor technology. And actually to look at existing lines and say, if the benefits of upgrading the line outweigh the costs, they need to do that too. And it assumes that it's prudent, which means that that actually is a thing that will help the utilities do that. It's really good for customers. There's a lot to be gained from just upgrading the lines that we have. There's been lots of studies on this. We can really increase the capacity of the system that way. It's probably being underused right now because, from a utilities perspective, the cheaper solution isn't always the best one.
Robinson Meyer:
I mean, we've talked about this in previous shows, but this is because utilities turn a profit and in fact, make all their profit off of building big permanent infrastructure that they can quote unquote “rate base,” which means that they then take that infrastructure, break it up into 30 year payments, add a guaranteed profit on top of it. Often now in the 8 to 12% range, I mean, it's much higher than you could get from say, putting your money in treasury bonds and then just charging it to electricity to their captive customers on top of whatever their operational expenses from generating the electricity that they need to generate are that month, right? Is that a fair description?
David Pomerantz:
That's exactly right. That's exactly right. Utilities make money from the equity share of their capital investments at a rate of return that is administratively set by regulators. So most businesses who sell stuff, they want to have the lowest costs and the highest revenues. For utilities, actually for their capital expenses, the building stuff, they want higher costs, at least insofar as they're funding it with their investors' money because that's what they earn a profit off of.
Robinson Meyer:
The transmission section is the, I don't know that this is the right framing, but it's often framed as climate advocates as like the good part of the bill. This is like all the things that people want to see happen in the electricity system, or certain environmental groups have framed it as the good part of the bill, and they've contrasted it with other changes that the bill makes to say longstanding environmental review laws. They say, “Oh, we love the transmission section. We love the transmission planning section. This is the good part of the bill.” But it does sound ultimately like a planning process, and not that we're mandating everyone build more transmission lines. And so why do we think that this planning process will ultimately produce more transmission or that the bill as a whole will ultimately produce more transmission lines across the country?
David Pomerantz:
Well, those are fair questions. I think a couple of things. One is in the cases where regional transmission organizations have basically gotten their act together and come up with a plan to sort of value and figure out the cost allocation and who's going to pay for what and plan out a lot of transmission. They actually have done that. The examples are just far too few and far between. But MISO is probably the best case study of this. Starting, I think, in 2011, they had their MVP process to plan regional transmission, and it's all happening too slowly, but it is happening. Like, they sort of got on the same page as an RTO about how to do planning, and you're starting to see lines being developed. Now, they're not building lines yet in the southern part of their region, which I think you can draw a line directly tracing that failure to the resistance of an investor-owned utility, Entergy. And they're not building lines yet between MISO North. So this is like Minnesota and the Dakotas and those areas, and MISO South, like Arkansas and Louisiana. There's a big physical bottleneck there.
And everybody recognizes they need to build more north-south transmission in the middle of the country to bring cheap wind from the Dakotas and Minnesota down to the Arkansas, Louisiana regions and Mississippi. And the company that has been sort of at the center of blocking that has been Entergy. So, like, I think what we know from just observing the way the RTOs are working now is if they're prodded and pushed and given standards and sort of clearing out a lot of the bureaucratic process and fighting, they can plan regional transmission.
A lot of the components of the bill, some of which we haven't talked about yet but should, I think are designed to subdue some of that utility opposition to building more regional and inter-regional transmission as well. But it's a totally fair question. I mean, like what the planning and permitting reforms in the bill do is, they do this very carefully, but they take some power away from local interests like utilities and RTOs and they give it to FERC. They do that, I think, thoughtfully, which you would expect with Republican co-sponsors who care about federalism. So it's not like just totally throwing those interests by the wayside and giving the federal government all planning authority as much as some people would probably really like that. You know, seeking to create a more robust, empowered FERC when it comes to transmission planning.
David Pomerantz:
A fully reasonable question is, will FERC use those new powers effectively and responsibly? And that is probably a threat to the bill's efficacy looking forward. At the same time, the status quo is not working. And actually, I think this is an issue where FERC has shown an appetite for action and even some bipartisan action in recent years. So there's some reason for optimism that FERC will step up and use its new powers in an effective way.
Robinson Meyer:
My understanding is also that part of what happens as part of these planning processes and part of what happened in a grid-planning process is that if a need for a line is shown, then a third-party kind of outside transmission developers can step in and build that line and they get faster permitting and they get all these authorities involved. That right now they would never have. And so to some degree, there's a bit of a backstop here, which is like if an RTO through this process under FERC's oversight determines it needs a line and then the line like the utility doesn't build the line or the opposition to the line, like someone else can step in and build this line. And it's like you get all your papers stamped really quickly if the line is found to be beneficial.
David Pomerantz:
That's true. I mean, I would broadly characterize the transmission reforms in this legislation as being very pro-competition right now. And I think one of the sort of sticks in the bill is saying that if an RTO and the incumbent utilities don't step up to build these lines and competitive developers can, then there's a pathway for that to happen. There are a bunch of other ways that the bill encourages competition that I think are really important. And really, I think why they're so important is because, maybe to zoom out and say, because I'm not sure we've answered this question yet: Why haven't we built transmission? If it's so needed and it would lower rates and it's good for the energy transition, all these things, why have we not done this? And a lot of the debate around permitting has actually focused on the wrong factors here because it fits into other bigger political conversations around permitting reform. There's been a lot of talk around, landowner or conservation or tribal resistance. Those things are real. And as we discussed, there's titles in the bill to address some of that. But I would argue that the big reason we haven't built regional and inter-regional transmission in the last couple of decades has actually been utility resistance. And so maybe to come back to a question you asked earlier, like why would they resist? Like they build the transmission, right? I think the key thing here for people to understand is the reason transmission has so much value, like the reason it's good that it would lower rates to build interregional transmission lines, is because you're importing electricity from a place where it's cheaper to a place where it's more expensive. Well, that's great for ratepayers. But what about the company that owns that expensive electric generation? They stand to lose. Like that's undermining their assets.
Robinson Meyer:
And their monopoly, really, too, right?
David Pomerantz:
Yes, it's 100% undermining their monopoly. So, like, if I can, let me just give one or two examples of how utilities have responded to this threat because I think it speaks to what the bill is trying to solve. Next Era, ironically, a company that builds plenty of transmission, but I think that's kind of part of the point; they show how even utilities who build transmission can oppose lines if it threatens their own assets. So Next Era contributed over $20 million to a group called Mainers for Local Power. That was most of the money that group spent in support of a ballot referendum in 2021 to ban a transmission line to carry hydropower from Canada to New England. That initiative won. Courts later overruled it and the line went forward. But Next Era did more than that. That spending was public. Previously to that, they privately spent covert money on groups to route money to the Democratic Party in Maine and others to try to stop the line. Why'd they do that? Well, they own nuclear- and gas-generating assets in New England that would be undercut by that cheaper power. And then I mentioned Entergy before. Entergy is probably the poster child for this. So Entergy serves customers in Louisiana, Arkansas, and parts of Texas. And other utilities in the Southeast are actually not part of an RTO. They're probably the fiercest opponents to regional transmission.
Robinson Meyer:
The Southern Company and Georgia Powers of the world?
David Pomerantz:
Yes. Yes, that's right. Southern Company, Duke Energy, those companies. So Entergy was very happy not being in an RTO like at Southern Piers, they actually committed to join an RTO at the point of a gun. So they were facing a DOJ antitrust investigation into alleged anti-competitive transmission practices. This kind of gets back to your question, Rob, about whether they're natural monopolies or what. Well, the DOJ at this time felt that energy was surpassing its monopoly privileges, at least in the realm of transmission. So it made an interesting choice to join MISO, the mid-continent RTO team. And they joined Entergy to join MISO in 2013. There's actually really good data on what happened next. So MISO tracks its planning hours, like the hours it spends to plan transmission. And they went at the time of MISO joining in 2014 from 1,000 hours to, by 2018, almost 6,000 hours. So basically Entergy's role in MISO is to gum up the works. I mentioned earlier, MISO approved over $20 billion in regional lines in 2024. All of those lines went into the Midwest. None of them went into the South, where they might out-compete Entergy's plants.
There's a really good paper on this from an economist named Catherine Hausman that asked the question of, like, how much would transmission lines cost Entergy if they were built? And she found, I believe it was $850 million in net revenues that the company would lose out on if cheaper electricity were imported into its region. So that's what they stood to lose. And they did all kinds of kooky things to protect that monopoly. So Entergy actually had kind of like an undercover former executive attend MISO meetings without disclosing that they were working on behalf of Entergy, they co-opted their state regulators. So my colleagues at EPI did some great reporting on this, showing that Entergy coordinated with the Mississippi PSC staff and the PSC's outside consultants to push back on MISO's long-range planning. When NextEra was actually trying to build a line in East Texas that would have connected ERCOT to the rest of the grid, Entergy backed a law in the legislature that would block anybody but Entergy from building a line like that. And MISO later canceled the line. So companies like Entergy, NextEra, Southern Company has been probably the worst offender on this. They've all sought to undermine transmission development and kind of like an endless parade of chicanery. And even when it's not like undercover, hiring undercover consultants, Southern Company has like a decade-long record of just advocating to FERC that there's no new value from electric transmission, regional transmission to the Southeast. They've got it covered and there's no reason for reform at all.
Robinson Meyer:
I want to hit a few more things quickly. You mentioned basically Southern Company has opposed transmission lines repeatedly. And Southern Company, the Southeast, unlike other parts of the country, where, you know, in the Mid-Atlantic, we have PJM and New York and New England and the Midwest and Texas and California. There are electricity markets in Colorado. There's electricity markets and the electricity markets function and there's independent power producers. And there's still local utilities and the local utilities have a lot of monopoly power. But there's been successive efforts over time to reform the electricity provisioning structure that exists in those regions of the country. That is not true in the southeast. In the southeast, there are still monopoly utilities. And those monopoly utilities are Southern Company. There's George Power. There's a handful of others. They own all the power plants that produce electricity. They own the transmission lines that get the electricity to customers, and then they own the line that runs from the local substation into the customers' homes. There are exceptions to all of this, but in general, these are still old-fashioned, vertically integrated monopoly utilities. What does the bill do to make sure that organizations like Southern Company or the Southeast generally have additional transmission capacity?
David Pomerantz:
Yeah. So the most important thing the bill does is it covers them, which is something that in the flurry of lobbying over the next few weeks, Southern Company and Duke Energy, I expect, will try to get themselves exempted. So even though there's no RTO in the Southeast, they are covered by the various laws and orders from FERC that says they have to do transmission planning of some kind. And they would be covered by this bill as it currently stands based on the public draft. The problem is they're not doing any of that. Southern Company, as a good example, Southern Company is one of the biggest utility companies in the country. They own the monopoly utilities, the only monopoly investor-owned utility that serve Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia. Georgia Power, Alabama Power, and Mississippi Power for electricity, at least. They're co-ops too, but they're the only game in town when it comes to large corporate utility companies. To date, it's not that Southern Company — and this is actually true for other utilities around the country too, but the problem is most pronounced in the Southeast— it's not that they don't build transmission. They build local transmission, right, that enjoys really high profits but is of questionable need and is much easier to permit because it often doesn't cross state lines. So the bill would cover Southern Company and Duke and the other Southeastern utilities for its planning components. It doesn't draw a distinction from the RTO regions. It says they have to do consolidated planning and then they have to sync up with their neighbors to match planning with them as well.
The Southeastern utilities will fight all that. Aggressively. Southern companies probably spend more money lobbying FERC than any other utility. NextEra, which is in Florida, owns the Florida Power and Light utility. Florida Power and Light and NextEra spend more money lobbying than any other utilities. Actually, for what it's worth on this point, we looked at Q3 lobbying disclosures in the Senate. And while the companies don't have to list, like, details, they don't have to say the position they took on legislation, you do see what they lobbied on. Almost all these companies lobbied on BAAJA. And while you don't see how much they spent on any one bill, just for a sense of scale, Southern Company only on its in-house lobbying team spent over $3 million dollars in the third quarter this year on federal lobbying. That's just in three months. They spent a million dollars a month lobbying Congress, and they do list transmission planning, interconnection, permitting, EEI — the Trade Association for Electric Utilities — they spent 1.6 million. Entrygy spent a little over half a million. This is a lot of money that is pouring into the coffers of utility lobbyists in the last few months to influence the bill. So far, they've been unsuccessful, which speaks to how down on their political luck utilities are right now.
But coming back to that local transmission, just quickly, this is where I think the bill seeks to do maybe the most unexpected and important thing that I would draw attention to. I think it's probably utilities' top priority to kill, which is that, like I said, currently utilities, it's not that they're building no transmission, they're building plenty of this local low-voltage transmission. The bill would allow, and this is totally new, would allow states to refer to FERC, a utility's local transmission planning. If they find that the utility is not picking efficient or cost-effective local projects, or that it's getting in the way of regional planning in the exact way I mentioned Entergy is doing, then the state, like a state like Georgia or Louisiana, could say, hey, FERC, can you help us out here? Because the reason we're not building the regional transmission we need is because the utility is blocking that and wasting all the customers' money on local transmission. And then a joint team between FERC investigators and the STEEC would be able to investigate that utility obstruction. And if they found findings that the utility was in fact doing that, they could take action. They could cut the profit rate the utility earns on those local lines. They could issue fines. I think the utilities will come gunning for that really hard. I actually think that's a really important part of this bill because it recognizes that the problem isn't that the utilities aren't spending money on transmission. It's that they're only spending on the kind that they like that doesn't threaten them. So if all the bill did was around permitting and aligning planning, I think that would be really important and worth doing. But this extra component, I think, will give the whole thing a lot more teeth.
Robinson Meyer:
Why can this kind of provision or just all the reforms that the bill would make to the transmission system, why can all of this happen now? Like, why is it happening now? Because I think, much like, say, the local and community banks, which have a lot of power in Congress, even more power in some respects than the investment banks, the utilities are supposed to have a lot of power in Congress, too. Almost every member of Congress, there's a local utility in their district, right? And so why is this happening now?
David Pomerantz:
Well, I think utilities are in their weakest political moment they have been in for a long time. It's bipartisan. And the simplest answer is we're going through a ratepayer revolt nationally where utilities have raised rates and bills on their customers repeatedly. I mean, investor-owned utilities rates have gone up faster than inflation. And by the way, one thing that's really important here is that it's not just like, oh, it's because transformers are more expensive and everything's more expensive and it's sort of a part of the economy. Public utilities like co-ops and municipally-owned utilities, have not raised rates faster than inflation. Their rates have actually gone up slower than inflation.
I'm going to parody myself here, but really a lot of this is about corporate greed. I mean, utilities at this moment where data centers are creating all this incredible new demand and even absent that, there'd be new demand from electrification. The pie for investor-owned utilities to make a lot of money should be growing bigger. Unfortunately, they kind of insist on having every slice of the pie. It's really turned the public against them dramatically. And you're seeing that public sentiment change, I think, reflected in politicians. And it's interestingly bipartisan, right? So maybe not surprising that Democrats who for some years have been conditioned to think that electric utilities are not always on the right side of climate. There are large corporations who are raising people's rates. Like you could kind of see where that would maybe be coming from. But it's just as much with Republicans. And that's probably the much more dramatic change, actually, is that from the reporting I've read, the Republican negotiators on the bill were very happy to sort of introduce utility accountability type provisions in there. And that just would have been unheard of five years ago.
Robinson Meyer:
There's a meme from SpongeBob SquarePants where Mr. Krabs, the cartoon crab character for those listeners who are Older Gen X and above, says, “Wait, I hate golf” in the middle of him golfing. He realizes he hates golf while he's golfing and people sub other things. And I think there's a story of this bill, which is basically Democrats going, “Wait, I hate permitting laws.” And Republicans going, “Wait, I hate utilities.” And yes, this bill basically being the product of those two realizations.
David Pomerantz:
I totally agree with that. I mean, some of this is just about people's bills going up and being mad at utilities and the political moment reflecting that. I do think there are some other things happening below the water level. One of the first things that made my eyebrows go up in the second Trump administration was in early 2025. The Trump administration's Department of Justice formed this anti-competitive regulations task force. It was in response to a Trump executive order. And it had paragraphs for different sectors of the economy. And on energy, it said it was seeking comment on, and I'm quoting this part, “laws and regulations can undermine reliability and affordability by protecting incumbent electricity providers from competition or disruptive innovation.” I mean, that could have been written by any environmental group in the country who's been battling incumbent utilities for the last several decades. And it was coming from the White House.
And so, like, traditionally, utilities have probably at the federal level been closer with Republicans than Democrats. They give more money to Republicans by about a two to one margin in most election cycles. But I think that has changed in the last couple of years. I mean, if you just look at Trump one versus Trump two, Trump's first Department of Energy was rife with staffers who came from electric industry, came from industry. That is not the case now. Like, there is a strong sort of anti-monopoly sentiment in parts of the Republican Party, whether it's always expressed is a different question. But I think you're seeing a lot of that bubbling up. And then with everything happening on energy prices and data centers, it sort of became a perfect storm for utilities to very quickly lose a lot of institutional power that they had previously held with Congress.
Robinson Meyer:
Do you think that this will continue just from what you're getting a sense of? Will this decline in utility political clout continue or is this limited to this moment? And if this bill doesn't pass, then utilities are going to close ranks. And there won't be another chance to take on utility power again.
David Pomerantz:
That's kind of the million-dollar political question from where I sit. On the one hand, unfortunately for ratepayers and customers, I don't see investors and utilities having like a sudden change of heart, and doing the things that they could and should do to arrest inflation and lower people's bills. I do want to make it clear, like, they could do that. There are a lot of things that utilities could do if they weren't looking at their next quarterly returns and just sort of maxing cap-ex, that they could do to bring people's bills down. Like, you could see that on the public side of the sector. I don't think they will. I think their incentives are too perverse. And because of that, I think they're going to keep getting themselves into trouble politically by going for rate increases and bill increases. And so I see that at least for the next couple of years as being somewhat secular. Some of it, by the way, is actually not wrong, right? Like the grid is aging and they do need to spend money. That's why it's unfortunate that they're not saving money where they can because they are kind of in a pickle there. So like, that part I see as sticking around at the same time on the other side of that argument.
I think one thing doing this work has taught me is that these companies have been around for over 100 years. If you read some of the history on some of the big political fights that investors and utilities were in the 1930s, they do the exact same things now. They did that. They spent on propaganda. They route their money through trade associations. They recruit other parts of the political economy, like labor, to back them with politicians for whom that constituency is important. Like, they have and this is something EPI has has really tried to investigate and highlight and ultimately address they have at the end of the day like a publicly subsidized pool of money of ratepayer money to spend on politics that almost no other industry has and so I think like they will regroup. Counting them out is probably a mistake. a utility CEO a couple weeks ago, I think for Eversource, got caught sort of saying the quiet part out loud, which is, I think he was trying to appease investors, but he said, “Look, I know you're hearing a lot of pretty nasty things about us from governors around the country, but those people, you know, they text me privately, we talk, and they'll tell me privately we're still friends and this will all blow over after the election.” So I think that is the hope of the sector, that, all this stuff, all this anger about prices, their political misfortunes right now, that only lasts through November and people will find something else to be angry about given enough time. I don't think that's true when so many Americans are being forced to choose between their medicine and groceries and rent and their utility bills. And you can see it in the polling. It's pretty dramatic, but that is what they'll be working toward, and they'll have a lot of political money to try to make people forget.
Robinson Meyer:
You observe basically that municipal utilities, publicly owned utilities, government owned utilities have not risen rates as fast as inflation. Well, investor owned utilities have risen rates much faster than inflation. So this was because of corporate greed. I think what's interesting is like whenever I hear this account, like this was not happening in the 2010s. It is happening now. And I assume greed being one of the seven deadly sins has a somewhat monotonic relationship in the economy. So what changed in the past few years that allowed these companies to exert their greed or their authority much more aggressively than they could, say, in the decades before? Like what has helped trigger this broader inflationary hike?
David Pomerantz:
Yeah, it's a little bit hard to pin down to a particular year because the way so much of utility finance works is like, a lot of their profitability is driven by the return that they're able to secure from regulators. And that return then compounds over years and years. So like, if a utility secures a really high return on equity in one year, like you're still seeing that drive its profit margins up, like 15, 20 years later, which makes it really hard to sort of draw lines between cause and effect, like what period at which they started making a lot more money versus what period the regulatory changes happened. One thing I'll say though is we have been in a period in recent years where, for a couple of reasons, the grid genuinely has needed investment, sort of alluded to this before, but one of those reasons is just like the cycling out of infrastructure. So a lot of the grid is pretty old. The other reason is because of increasing effects of extreme weather. So that's storms in the south and wildfires in the west and utility infrastructure, electric infrastructure is very exposed to all that stuff.
So we are in a period in the last decade of utilities genuinely needing to turn over a lot of that investment. They should be allowed to do that. The problem is they shouldn't be allowed to sort of rake people and laugh all the way to the bank along the way. I think probably if you ask most Americans and even just most politicians, like, should utilities be able to profit at really high levels from the stuff that they need to build or rebuild as a result of a hurricane or wildfire or some other tragedy, I think most people actually, if you ask them, would assume they were doing that at cost. Like, they wouldn't even understand that that can be such a big utility profit center in the first place. So I think it's a combination of really poor regulation at the state level by public utility commissions who are in charge of this stuff, and FERC for that matter, and being in a period of needed cap-ex investment for the grid.
Robinson Meyer:
Do you think the bill is good for data centers? And what's been your observation of how utilities have behaved during the data center boom?
David Pomerantz:
I think the bill is good for keeping data centers on the grid and making them pay more for it. So let me unpack that a little bit. Right now, data centers have this choice they have to make where they can either try to get a grid connection, which is hard because the grid is so broken. I mean, the sort of fundamental reason it's hard is because it's so hard to build transmission. And the bill seeks to address that. Because it's been really hard for data centers to get a grid connection, some of them are instead building these off-grid gas parks. We need a more malevolent sounding word than park, but like these behemoth facilities.
Robinson Meyer:
Totally islanded, basically massive, extremely dirty natural gas power plant fields.
David Pomerantz:
Yes, that's much better. These are cropping up in West Texas or cropping up in Ohio and other places. From my perspective, this is the worst possible outcome. Like, these are climate super emitters. To the extent you believe, and I do, that data center development that was done really well could lower people's rates. It takes away that possible upside, right? And I don't even know that it totally insulates people from rate impacts of data centers, like putting aside the pollution, like nothing is totally disconnected from supply chains, right? So even the off-grid data centers, that's part of the implicit promise there is that they're going to hold rate payers harmless. Well, they're still buying up all the turbines and all the transformers and like everything that the grid needs.
Robinson Meyer:
I think this is a particularly salient concern in Pennsylvania and Ohio because the Trump administration is trying to expedite 9 gigs of gas in Ohio. And like, I know there's a ton of gas in the Marcellus, it's completely conceivable to me that, like, production increases and we just get an extra 9 gigawatts of gas every day out of the Marcellus. But like, it just does seem to me that there's going to be a bottleneck somewhere and that is going to increase natural gas prices for everyone else in the Marcellus and everyone else in that basin. And it's not good for the climate, but that's how energy prices work in equilibrium. But it means we need to be realistic about what adding 9 gigawatts of quite dirty gas consumption would do to the entire region and that you can never prevent new energy demand of that scale from not doing something to everyone else's rates when you're talking about a system that can only grow so fast.
David Pomerantz:
Yes, I totally agree with that. I see that off-grid gas as basically like a failure mode for everybody. It's not really what the data center operators want. It's not really what the utilities want. They'd rather have the load. It's terrible for the climate and I don't think it does anything for ratepayers, so to me, the goal should be: data centers, if they're going to be built, that are on the grid paying their fair share and even like going beyond their fair share, right. There's some interesting fights actually happening between the data centers and the utilities, where in places like Virginia, some people are saying — and some of the hyperscalers, at least in selected cases, are volunteering for this, since utility capital is so expensive and that's where they make their profit, and what the data centers really want is speed, but they're somewhat price insensitive, or at least more price insensitive than they are speed sensitive: Like, why don't you displace all that utility financing with data center financing? Make them pay for the stuff we need on the grid.
That to me is the best case scenario, is that the data centers that are built are built on the grid, and they not only pay for their stuff, but they pay for the grid that we all want and need. What BAAJA does on data centers moves toward that goal. So it makes a policy change that allows utilities to charge data center customers for not only the cost of using specific transmission infrastructure that their data centers cause to be built, but also the cost of the existing power grid. And I think that's a significant change. Now, like, if your whole orientation toward this issue is to stop all data centers at any cost, independent of whether they're on-grid or off-grid, then, like, I guess a reform that makes the on-grid solution a little bit easier for data centers and everybody else — factories, hospitals, everybody, but also sort of makes them pay more — then maybe you don't like that. If your goal, from a climate perspective, is to have data centers that are going to be built on the grid be less polluting and contribute more toward funding the grid, then I think the bill is progress on that goal.
I also don't think those things are totally mutually independent. People can do whatever they want, of course, but people could support data center moratoria and support legislation that makes it more likely that data centers that are built are on the grid and paying their fair share. So anyway, that's what the bill does with regard to data centers.
Robinson Meyer:
One of the many problems that Americans seem to have with data centers is this disproportionate effect they have on electricity rates. And sometimes that's an effect of how the local electricity market works. And increasingly, it will become more and more just a result of the enormous electricity demand from data centers. And Americans have other problems with data centers, too. And people who fight data centers have lots of problems with them and would prefer to see a world with no data centers. And so this bill is not a data center bill, but it's trying to fix some problems around data centers in the energy system because it is an energy bill. And I think to some people, they look at that and they go, well, this is just going to make it easier to build data centers. And data centers are bad for X, Y, and Z reasons, not this reason. And that drives why, to their perspective, this can be a bad thing.
Notably, the politicians who have had the most success talking about data centers are not running on a — Abdul El-Sayed, Gina Hinojosa in Texas, right? They are actually not running on a “no data centers anywhere, anytime ever” platform. They're running on a “data centers if they solve this set of problems” platform. And the bill does in fact solve the energy set of problems around data centers.
David Pomerantz:
I think it at least moves the ball forward. One area where I'm somewhat sympathetic to people who say — I've seen this point made — that there's an asymmetrical time horizon issue in the bill where parts of the bill that will make it easier to build fossil fuel infrastructure could take effect pretty quickly, whereas the parts of the bill designed to encourage transmission development, I think, like we said, the tradeoffs may be a little more complicated than that, but that's the oversimplified version is that the transmission development parts of the bill will take some time. And I actually think that's pretty fair. People can make their own judgments about how they should treat the bill in light of that. The reason the transmission development portions of the bill will take some time to implement is because, like, mechanically the way a lot of this works is it kicks things to FERC to make rulemakings. And in those rulemakings — utilities will spend millions of dollars on lawyers to block the intentions of the bill. So I don't think that means the bill's transmission reforms aren't going to be effective. I do think what it means is if people want to see transmission reform happening, this bill passing would not be the finish line. If it overcomes the utility lobbying, which will be furious in the next two weeks or so or three weeks to either kill it or define it, even in that event, even if it basically passed as written, that will open a whole series of new fights.
And so to the extent this is a moment where Congress is interested and recognizing the detrimental effect that utilities are having on repairs, there's no reason they need to stop. I mean, there are a whole load of other things Congress could do, and certainly that dozens of new state legislatures and governors could do, to crack down on concentrated utility monopoly power that the utilities will use to subvert the transmission reforms in this bill if they pass.
Robinson Meyer:
As someone who's written basically saying we should create a continent-wide macro-grid of some kind, however we do it, it doesn't need to be the government who does it. I think that would make sense. It seems like that would be faster in a lot of ways, but it doesn't need to be. Like, this is the opening gun on that. This bill to me seems like the door opening to that possibility, like you cannot execute that plan without a piece of legislation like this passing but you cannot actually but it will not result it will produce a much better grid than the one we have. And if this, I think, bill were to pass alone, it would be an improvement, at least from the transmission perspective, on what exists right now. But this is like the door opening and then basically legislators, lawmakers, policymakers, potentially Democrats will have to walk through that door in the future. The John the Baptist of saving America's electricity grid — this is not the final salvation.
David Pomerantz:
I agree with that characterization 100%. And if there's an optimistic note to end on for that in terms of like what could happen next, what might happen next, I do think the fact that from all the reporting I've read, the transmission reforms and the bill have been relatively bipartisan, could mean that policymakers, both in Congress and hopefully at the state level, are ready to take the next steps in that, journey and not say, well, we sort of poked the big bad utilities in the eye this one time, but now let's all be friends again, but that they're actually ready to move consistently, which I agree with you, is critical. I think from a transmission and a grid perspective, the reforms in here are very necessary progress and wholly insufficient. So if they pass, there will be a lot of work to build on.
Robinson Meyer:
No matter what happens to this bill, I want to keep talking about it. I think it's such an important conversation. So I'm looking forward to continuing the conversation in the future. And in the meantime, David Pomerantz, thank you for joining us on Shift Key.