You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Biden-Harris policies have created hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the industries of the future — all of which now hang in the balance.

For my entire life, I’ve heard politicians talk about bringing manufacturing jobs back to America. Now it is finally happening. “We’re not going back!” has become Kamala Harris’s rallying cry, and it’s apt here too, because those jobs and industries of the future are what’s at stake in this election.
The Biden-Harris administration and the 117th Congress enacted a trio of laws — the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, otherwise known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law — that made major public investments to cultivate and strengthen several key industries of the future: semiconductors, electric vehicles, batteries, solar and wind manufacturing, hydrogen-based energy, and clean steel.
Those new laws (and other Biden-Harris Administration actions on trade and tariffs) have directed and amplified a megatrend in “reshoring” and driven a huge surge in private sector investments in U.S. manufacturing, creating tens of thousands of good jobs in communities across America. Investment in manufacturing construction has more than doubled since passage of the IRA and CHIPS, and the U.S. has seen nearly 127,000 new jobs created, according to Energy Innovation policy analyst Jack Conness.
Just last week, on the occasion of the IRA’s two-year anniversary, Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo wrote about a new report finding that 6,285 utility-scale clean energy projects in the U.S. may be eligible for IRA tax credits, meaning 3.9 million jobs, all of which will be subject to minimum pay standards if they want the federal rewards.
These investments are supporting a diverse set of communities across America. Of the nearly $71 billion of clean energy manufacturing investments announced in 2023, more than $59 billion — around 83% — were in House districts represented by Republicans per the Clean Economy Tracker, a partnership between Atlas Public Policy and Utah State University. That’s tens of billions of dollars flowing into rural areas, including a significant chunk going to “energy communities,” areas that have historically produced, processed, or transported fossil fuels.
We all know that manufacturing plants can be an anchor employer for a community and play an even more important role than the direct jobs numbers reveal. The opening of dozens of new advanced manufacturing plants means dozens of communities across America have a brighter economic future — or at least, they do for now.
Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s vision for “the next conservative administration,” contains a set of plans and policies that would put all those communities and hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs in jeopardy. Energy Innovation modeled the policy scenario outlined in Project 2025 against one in which the U.S. meets its stated goal of reducing emissions 50% to 52% below 2005 levels by 2030 and found that the former would lead to 3.9 million fewer jobs in 2030 compared to the latter, including 1.7 million jobs straight-up lost. The overall economic effect would be catastrophic: a $320 billion annual drop in GDP in 2030, compared to a $450 billion per year gain if the U.S. meets its clean energy and climate goals.
Trump has publicly disavowed Project 2025, but the evidence for his private alignment with its authors and principles continues to mount — most recently the release of secret Project 2025 training videos, featuring more than two-dozen former Trump administration figures.
Project 2025 calls for gutting the IRA and the infrastructure law, which would, in the words of a memo released last week by the center-left think tank Third Way, “end crucial federal investments in US manufacturing, scrap tax incentives that help U.S. manufacturers compete with China, and make it harder for U.S. manufacturers to obtain loans.” It would also have ominous implications for America’s geopolitical position in the medium- to long-term. “Funding basic research and then cutting all subsequent support, as Trump plans to do, opens the door for other countries to swoop in and claim market share,” the authors write. This has happened before: The U.S. developed much of the solar and battery technology China is now using to dominate those global markets.
That’s to say nothing of the overall environment of chaos and policy uncertainty that comes with a Trump presidency, which wreaks havoc on business investment. Business leaders would be wise to remember what it was like under Trump 1.0. Trump might promise corporate tax cuts, but with a strong economy, cooling inflation, and a vibrant manufacturing renaissance finally underway, the worst thing we could do is pull the rug out from under the entire U.S. economic policy framework — continuity and certainty are good for business.
As Greg Sargent pointed out in The New Republic, “All this gives Harris an opening.” The green transition can be exciting, a source of the kind of joy Harris and her vice presidential nominee, Tim Walz, have been stumping about. “Without getting entangled in cultural cross-signaling around fossil fuels, she can argue that the very last thing we should do is reverse the clean energy boom. It’s creating lots of jobs building cool, innovative stuff right in the American heartland.”
I, for one, will be looking to see if this contrast starts to show up in political ads and speeches at this week’s Democratic National Convention — something like: “Harris will continue investing in U.S. manufacturing and the industries of the future. Trump will blow that all up. The choice is on the ballot. And we’re not going back.”
What future do you choose?
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Catching up with the American Council on Renewable Energy’s Ray Long.
Today’s chat is with Ray Long, CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy. We first discussed the odds of permitting reform a year and a half ago, for one of the first Q&As in The Fight. Flash forward and we’re still in the same situation, but now also wrestling with added demand for electricity to power data centers. I wanted to talk again about whether he thought the rise of artificial intelligence would increase the odds of some federal deal happening any time soon. The result: a wide-reaching conversation about the future of the electric grid, the struggles to win community buy-in and the sclerotic nature of the U.S. Congress.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Do you think the buildout of our energy grid is entwined with the rise of the nation’s data center buildout?
When you look at what we need over the next four years — 166 gigawatts, 15 times the peak load of New York City — that’s a lot of power to build. Roughly half of that is for data center and AI growth.
There are five things we can build in the next four years at scale to address that collective amount. First, it’s transmission — the transmission buildout will help to get a modern grid to enable power flow to where it’s needed in a much more effective way. That’s the first step because if we just build all that power, the current grid can’t handle it.
Second, there are four supply technologies that can be built: solar, batteries, wind, and natural gas. All four of those technologies, we know there’s enough equipment here in the U.S. available for purchase that we can build at volume. And I’ll say this — natural gas is only about 10% of all those gigawatts because of the availability of turbines from suppliers. You can’t get enough over the next four years. So when I talk about decarbonization, most of what is built to address this issue is zero-carbon resources, renewable energy resources.
If you were to compare the current conversation around data center development to the debate over developing renewable energy in the U.S. — or energy in general — do you see any similarities or differences?
There are always issues with permitting projects. Communities are always going to have concerns about what’s built in their backyards.
What’s new — and your polling shows this — is the level of concern communities have. But here’s the thing: Most of this can be overcome by developers going in, listening to what the needs of the communities are, then responding and through the permitting process addressing those concerns. You can’t do that 100% of the time. But my experience is, when you take that sort of approach, you can overcome a lot of it.
Most of the large data centers are actually doing the things I’m discussing — going in and saying, Look, we want to be grid interconnected because grid connection at the end of the day means the resources we’re bringing to bear are also going to make a stronger grid. Number two, it's investing in power generation sources like the ones I said — and those power sources will be on the grid, so they’ll solve for the increased power demands of a community.
Third, water. They should bring the water solutions. You’re seeing data centers coming in and saying it head on now, that they have closed-loop systems or whatever the solution is. At the end of the day, the communities they’re proposing these in have a real negotiating opportunity to make sure they’re holding the data center developers accountable to the needs of the community.
For a community to say we don’t want it here misses a real opportunity for those communities to get the power they need, the grid they need, and the ability to bring down energy costs.
How is the data center debate affecting permitting reform conversations in Washington, from your perspective?
Permitting reform in the U.S. at the state and federal level has been broken for years. The SunZia transmission project? It took 17 years to permit. Ribbon-cutting is in a week or two and there’s still litigation around it. From a business perspective, it’s just untenable, and it’s a miracle that the project is getting built. Developers need a chance to come in and have their project evaluated. Both the community and the developer should be able to get to a go or no-go in a couple of years on one of these projects.
How is data center growth affecting the permitting reform discussion? It’s a very hot issue right now. Right now I think in part because the data center issue is so huge — because we’ve only got four years to solve for the first really big tranche of power we need and prices across the board for electricity are escalating — this is coming to a head. The data center load is a part of the catalyst to get people talking about it [permitting reform].
Do you expect legislating in Congress on permitting reform this year? Anything beyond more conversation?
My hope is that we get a bill. A few weeks ago someone from the administration was quoted as saying they wanted a framework for a bill by the end of May, and it’s June now. We haven’t seen both sides or the administration coalesce around a final project yet.
We’re in a midterm election cycle. Typically it’s very difficult during these cycles to move bills like this. At the same time, with electricity prices increasing and the need to build more, to fix this, I’m very hopeful something will come together. And look at the Senate — you’ve got Republicans and the Democratic ranking members talking about this. It’s all good signs.
If everyone’s talking about energy and affordability during this election, isn’t that a good thing for action in the next Congress?
I’ll say this: You’re seeing the catalyst for it right now with prices rising, and almost every grid operator around the country has raised concerns about shortages at some point this year or next year. It’ll hopefully be enough to have policymakers do something about it this year.
Plus more of week’s biggest development fights.
1. Ohio — This state might just be the most important flashpoint in the national fight over advanced energy and tech infrastructure.
2. Laramie County, Wyoming — The Cowboy State’s capital city is one of the few to reject a data center moratorium. But tech companies. don’t get your hopes up too high.
3. Los Angeles County, California — Elsewhere, we saw the first city in California vote to ban data centers … once and for all.
4. Charles County, Maryland — This populous county south of D.C. is now out of reach for data center development.
5. Baldwin County, Alabama — There will be a vote at the end of this month on whether to ban solar in the county whose opposition nearly prompted a statewide moratorium on development.
6. Hopkins County, Texas — I have one last update related to a large data center legal fight we’ve been covering closely.
The national AI data center moratorium has momentum.
As I’ve been documenting for months here at The Fight, data center opposition is surging across the country. Our latest Heatmap Pro poll puts some very hard numbers behind that picture. More than 7 in 10 Americans oppose new data center construction near where they live, up from just over 4 in 10 last fall. Part of what’s driving that opposition: More than half of respondents hold data centers largely responsible for rising electricity prices, and nearly half are pessimistic about the effect artificial intelligence will have on their lives.
Here’s yet another data point from our poll that underscores the intensity of the opposition: A majority of Americans now say they support a nationwide halt to new data center construction.
Digging into demographics, support for a national AI data center moratorium breaks predictably based on age and gender — younger people are more likely to back the idea, as are women. Americans are just as likely to back moratoria in their own states as they are a national stop to development, indicating the public relations rot may run deep amongst its critics in the public.
The notion of an AI data center moratorium comes from the political left, specifically Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who introduced the first bill to enact such a pause earlier this year. Yet its appeal straddles political lines. Among Democrats, 66% said they’d back a national moratorium, compared to just 19% opposed; in the Republican camp, 55% said they backed the idea, compared to 28% opposed. Independents echoed those views as well, with answers falling neatly in between the two sides (58% support, 21% oppose).
The surge in support for a country-wide stop to new data centers stands in contrast to the more hesitant attitude politicians of all stripes have shown toward the opposition movement. That includes the White House, which until this week embraced a deregulatory approach to fostering AI tech before abruptly changing course this week and seeking early access to new models.
A good example of this political distance exists in Missouri, where Republican Governor Mike Kehoe last month proudly declared that Google was investing $15 billion in a hyperscale data center project in the rural town of New Florence in Montgomery County. After Kehoe’s announcement, the White House’s rapid response media account joined in on celebrating this economic investment, touting the potential for “thousands of construction jobs and hundreds of permanent jobs” from the Google project.
Among the hoi polloi, however, discontent was rife. This was actually the second large data center project in New Florence, and locals in and around this town of fewer than 1,000 residents have been busy suing the county to halt a separate Amazon data center proposed directly across from Google’s project.
Montgomery County is incredibly conservative politically and “has voted red since I can’t even remember,” Sabrina Cope, an organizer with opposition group Preserve Montgomery County, told me over the phone. “They’re turning up their nose at the White House’s support for these kinds of projects. This isn’t an issue solely Democrats or Republicans are upset about.” (The White House did not respond to a request for comment.)
The political mismatch here is also bipartisan.
In New York, state legislators on Thursday passed legislation to enact a one-year pause on new data center permitting. The bill now goes to the desk of New York’s governor, Democrat Kathy Hochul, who has signaled she’s against a broad moratorium. “This is a local decision for municipalities,” Hochul told reporters last month, according to a Politico report. “It’s not a statewide approach, necessarily, but it’s something I’m looking at intensely.”
The scene in the Empire State feels eerily similar to what happened in the Pine Tree State when Maine Democrats sought to enact a moratorium, only to be stymied by a veto from Governor Janet Mills, also a Democrat. Should Hochul spurn the state legislature, it would defy what our polls say is the overwhelming political opinion.
Our poll also found rural voters are almost 10 points more likely than suburban and urban denizens to support a moratorium on new data centers. Knowing how often land use conflicts occur in upstate New York, where voters skew Republican, the yeoman’s calculus in both parties might lead more politicians to support temporarily stopping or stalling data center industry growth.
In Illinois, we’re starting to see policy start to align at least a little more closely with what Democratic voters want. On Friday, Governor J.B. Pritzker announced he would pause data center tax breaks and ask the state legislature to enact a new statute governing the industry’s water and energy use as well as deployment of non-disclosure agreements. If Illinois is a harbinger of things to come in blue states, we’ll see more action like this.