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:
It took a lot of scrutiny and a lot of patience, but the city council is finally making progress against natural gas infrastructure.
Susan Albright, a city councilor in Newton, Massachusetts, was reviewing the latest batch of requests from the local gas utility in early July when one submission caught her off guard. The company, National Grid, regularly asks the city for permission to tear up stretches of road in order to replace aging gas mains and service lines. But this time, the utility wanted to install a new 46-foot pipeline leading to Newton Crossing, a mixed-use housing development that’s currently under construction.
“I thought, Oh my god,” Albright told me. “Here we are trying to get rid of pipe, and here’s some new pipe that they’re asking for.”
Such “grant of location” requests used to be a rubber stamp exercise for the Public Facilities Committee, of which Albright is the chair. But more recently, they’ve become contentious. Activists have started showing up to public meetings to question the necessity of pipeline work. Could the pipes be repaired instead of replaced? Or even better, retired? Could the houses served by them be electrified?
To get ahead of public outcry about a brand new pipe, Albright sprung into action. She pulled up plans the housing developer had filed with the city and learned that the apartments were intended to be all-electric. The developer had requested a gas connection solely to serve commercial businesses on the ground level. Albright found a contact for the project and picked up the phone.
“Is there any possibility that you could go electric for your commercial?” she recalled asking, explaining the connection between natural gas and climate change, and the city’s goal of weaning off gas. “At first he was very reluctant,” she told me. “But then he called me back and said that he’s willing to try it.” His ability to do so will depend on whether the electric utility can supply enough power. Nonetheless, Albright had successfully pushed a vote on the request to a later date. “We will review that grant of location at our meeting on July 28, and hopefully he will withdraw it, but we don’t know,” she said.
The city committed to transitioning away from natural gas by 2050 as part of its Climate Action Plan, enacted in 2019. Although residents have started to electrify their homes, the city hasn’t been able to slow down investment into the gas system. The story of Newton Crossing illustrates a strategy that has finally begun to move the needle. Councilors and activists have begun doggedly scrutinizing each of National Grid’s requests in hopes of finding alternatives that avoid investing more ratepayer money into a gas system that is — or should be — on a path toward obsolescence.
Progress has not been linear, and almost all of these attempts have so far failed. But the city does seem to have gotten the company’s attention. Earlier, in June, National Grid came to Newton with a different kind of request — an invitation to embark on a collaboration together with the local electric utility, Eversource, to proactively plan the city’s transition away from gas, and in doing so, begin to create a model for the company, the state, and possibly the country.
“I’m so excited to be here today because this is the first of its kind,” Bill Foley, National Grid’s director of strategy and transformation told the Public Facilities Committee while presenting the proposal. “We’ve never sat down with Eversource, National Grid, and another community to talk about how we’re going to broadly electrify a community.”
The subterranean network of natural gas pipes that runs under Massachusetts is old and leaky, with some sections dating back to the late 19th century. Utilities in the Commonwealth have always been required to address dangerous leaks, but in 2014, the state passed a law incentivizing more proactive measures to replace or repair leak-prone pipes. It was a matter of public safety as well as environmental protection — the methane that seeps out can kill tree roots in addition to being a powerful greenhouse gas.
The law created the Gas System Enhancement Program, or GSEP. Each fall, companies would file annual plans to the Department of Public Utilities outlining all the pipeline repair and replacement projects they aimed to complete in the coming year. In return, they’d get quicker approvals from regulators and be able to recover the costs more quickly from ratepayers.
In the years since, utilities have spent billions of dollars replacing thousands of miles of pipelines. Simultaneously, the state has fleshed out its plans to tackle climate change, making it clear that electrifying buildings would be a key component. As a result, the tide of public opinion about the pipeline program shifted. Replacing aging pipes may actually be worse for the climate, many activists now believe, since it means putting major investments in new fossil fuel infrastructure, thereby increasing inertia in the energy system and possibly delaying the transition to carbon-free solutions.
Former mechanical engineer Peter Barrer is one of those activists. Barrer lives in Newton, and has become an expert on the local gas network and the state’s pipeline policies. Using public data filed with state regulators, he calculated that out of the $18 million National Grid spent to address aging pipes under the GSEP program in Newton in 2023, only about $200,000 went to repairs, with the rest going to replacements. (National Grid later disputed the number, reporting that it spent $3 million on repairs that year.)
Barrer is concerned that the GSEP gives the company cover to spend excessively on pipeline replacements, which earn them larger profits than repairs. Other analysts have reached similar conclusions. Last year, the energy research consultancy the Brattle Group submitted testimony to state regulators on behalf of the Massachusetts attorney general’s office arguing that utilities are increasingly using GSEP to make everyday capital improvements. The level of spending “goes far beyond remediating immediate risks to safety caused by gas leaks,” the consultants wrote.
Barrer’s research on GSEP led him to a potential point of leverage with National Grid. When the utility wants to dig up a street, it has to submit a Grant of Location request to Newton’s Public Facilities Committee, which is then subject to a public hearing.
Newton is a progressive city that has long been at the forefront of climate action in the state. It’s one of 10 communities granted permission by the state to ban gas hookups in new buildings. (The Newton Crossing development got its permits before the policy went into effect.) The city council has also passed an ordinance requiring the largest existing buildings to reduce their emissions to net-zero by 2050.
While the Public Facilities Committee doesn’t have the power to deny National Grid’s Grant of Location requests, Albright, the city councilor, told me, the meetings do present an opportunity to engage with the utility. Members and the public can ask questions and delay approvals. Barrer and other activists began using the requests as an opportunity to highlight the paradox of the city approving new gas infrastructure.
One particularly contentious fight began last October over a replacement on Garland Road, a street known for hosting a “Sustainable Street Tour,” during which residents spoke about their experiences greening their homes with solar, insulation, EVs, and heat pumps. “Bells kind of rang in my mind,” Barrer told me. “Here’s a great place to fight National Grid.”
The gas company argued that the Garland Road pipeline, 600 feet of cast iron from the 1920s, was simply too high-risk. “National Grid cannot agree to delay replacement long enough to determine if the Garland Rd customers that still use their gas service for one or more uses are willing to have their gas service disconnected,” Amy Smith, the director of the company’s New England Gas Business Unit, wrote in an email to Albright in January. “In addition, even if all customers on Garland Rd agree to have their gas service cut off, we do not currently have a mechanism to fund the costs of full electrification of each home.” The Committee signed off on the project.
But activists continued to challenge it. A resident of Garland Road, Jon Slote, surveyed his neighbors and found that all were either neutral or supportive of electrification. He also put together a cost comparison and found that the capital cost of electrifying the homes was 18% to 41% lower than that of replacing the pipeline.
National Grid didn’t budge. One of the reasons the block couldn’t be electrified, Smith explained to Barrer in emails that I reviewed, was that this segment of pipe “plays a critical role in providing pressure support for approximately 120 homes in the area. Maintaining minimum pressure is vital for both safety and reliability.”
Barrer told me he’s skeptical that replacing the pipe is the only solution, but acknowledged that the issue is real.
Perhaps Barrer’s biggest grievance, though, is that National Grid frequently makes requests that are not in its regulator-approved plans. Nearly 60% of the money the company spent in 2023 and was able to recover through the expedited GSEP process went to such projects, he found. A related issue: GSEP plans often don’t disclose the full extent of each project. “This is important for municipal planning,” Barrer told me. If the public can’t see in advance which areas the company is planning to work on, he said, “there’s no opportunity for the city to investigate. Maybe there’s streets on there that we can get support for electrification.”
He described the fight over gas pipelines in Newton as “a David and Goliath situation.” Activists want the opportunity to get ahead of these projects and figure out alternatives, he said, but aren’t given enough notice or details. “They have all the cards. They have a monopoly on gas, and they also have a monopoly on information.” He wants the state legislature to help them put up a fairer fight by passing two new bills that would require the utilities to disclose more information, sooner.
Albright, meanwhile, told me she thinks National Grid has acted in good faith. “The people that I’ve been working with, I trust that they’re trying to do the best for the company and for us as customers. I mean, they don’t want these pipes to explode.”
For about a year, Albright said, she has been having conversations with Smith of National Grid about what the city could do to start getting off gas. At the end of 2024, Smith came back with an offer — National Grid would work with Newton on an electrification pilot project. The company has since provided the city with a list of streets to consider for the pilot — mostly dead ends on the outskirts of the gas system, areas where taking out a stretch of pipe won’t affect other customers downstream.
Meanwhile, a lot has changed at the state level. Late last year and continuing into this spring, lawmakers and regulators enacted new policies to reform GSEP and better align it with the Commonwealth’s clean energy plans. That meant focusing on the highest risk pipes, prioritizing repairs instead of replacements, lowering the cap on spending for companies, and enabling them to spend some of the money on alternatives to pipelines, including electrification projects.
Perhaps these changes help explain what led National Grid to approach Newton earlier this summer with its proposal to collaborate. At the Public Facilities Committee’s June 18 meeting, representatives from National Grid and Eversource spent nearly three hours explaining their “integrated energy planning” effort, figuring out how to transition from gas to electricity while containing costs and ensuring reliable service. Now they wanted the chance to begin testing it out in a community.
“The technical stuff is easy,” Foley of National Grid told the Committee. “When it comes to knocking on a door and saying, Hey, how do we get you to electrify? That’s the challenging part. That’s what we’re going to learn.”
The Committee, the mayor, and city staff welcomed the idea. Even Barrer is optimistic. “I think it is unprecedented,” he told me, “and it could be very, very useful.” But he’s also skeptical. Will the company actually share the information advocates like him are looking for to analyze alternatives? And will it work quickly?
“From my perspective, every year that the plan doesn’t turn into action is another half a billion dollars of ratepayer money the National Grid gets to invest.” But, he added, “I’m hopeful. Let’s see what actually develops.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On uranium challenges, Cadillac’s EV dreams, and a firefighter’s firestorm
Current conditions: Atlantic hurricane season enters its peak window and a zone west of Africa is under close monitoring for high risk tropical storm development this week • A polar air mass came down from Canada and dropped temperatures 15 degrees below historical averages in the Great Plains and the Northeastern U.S. • Croatia braces for floods as up to 11 inches of rain falls on the Balkans.
Add the Department of Transportation to the list of federal agencies waging what Heatmap’s Jael Holzman called “Trump’s total war on wind.” The Transportation Department said Friday it was eliminating or withdrawing $679 million in federal funding for 12 projects across the country designed to buttress development of offshore turbines. The funding included $427 million awarded last year for upgrading a marine terminal in Humboldt County, California, meant to be used for building and launching floating wind turbines. The list also included a $48 million offshore wind port on Staten Island, $39 million for a port near Norfolk, Virginia, and $20 million for a staging terminal in Paulsboro, New Jersey. “Wasteful, wind projects are using resources that could otherwise go towards revitalizing America’s maritime industry,” Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said in a statement. “Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg bent over backwards to use transportation dollars for their Green New Scam agenda while ignoring the dire needs of our shipbuilding industry.”
It’s just the Trump administration’s latest attack on wind. The Department of the Interior has led the charge, launching a witch hunt against any policies perceived to favor wind power, de-designating millions of acres of federal waters for offshore wind development, and kicking off an investigation into bird deaths near turbines. Last month, the Department of Commerce joined the effort, teeing up future tariffs with its own probe into whether imported turbines pose a national security threat to the U.S. In response, the Democratic governors of New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey on Monday issued a statement calling on the administration “to uphold all offshore wind permits already granted and allow these projects to be constructed.”
Only a tiny percentage of plastic waste is recycled.Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
In what the New York Times called a “sharp escalation” of its legal strategy to fend off liability for pollution, Exxon Mobil has countersued California, accusing the state’s landmark litigation over plastic waste of defaming the oil giant. At a court hearing last month, Exxon attorney Michael P. Cash described the lawsuit California Attorney General Rob Bonta and a cadre of environmental groups first filed last year as “an attack” aimed at the oil company’s home state of Texas and said the issue should be litigated there. As Times reporter Karen Zraick noted, Cash illustrated his point by displaying “a graphic showing a missile aimed at Texas from California” and by comparing Bonta and his nonprofit allies to “The Sopranos.”
Backed by a parallel lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club, Baykeeper, Heal the Bay, and the Surfrider Foundation, Bonta sued Exxon in state court on the grounds that the company had deceived Californians by “promising that recycling could and would solve the ever-growing plastic waste crisis,” alleging that the pollution had created a public nuisance and sought damages worth “multiple billions of dollars.” The lawsuit mirrors past litigation over planet-heating emissions, but targets the petrochemical division that has been one of the fastest-growing for Exxon and other oil giants. The courtroom drama came right as international negotiations in Geneva over a global treaty to curb plastic pollution failed after the United States joined Russia and other petrostates to block measures supported by more than 100 other nations that would have curbed production.
In North America, nuclear fuel may soon become harder to come by. Canadian uranium giant Cameco has warned that delays in ramping up production at its McArthur River mine in Saskatchewan could shrink its forecast output for the year. The move came just a week after one of the world’s other major suppliers of uranium, Kazakhstan’s state-owned miner Kazatomprom, announced plans to slash its production by 10% next year.
The pullback is happening right as the U.S. nuclear industry’s dealmaking boom is taking off. Now that Trump’s tax law assured that support for atomic energy would continue, Adam Stein from the Breakthrough Institute told Heatmap’s Katie Brigham that more reactor plans are coming. “We might have seen more deals earlier this year if there wasn’t uncertainty about what was going to happen with tax credits. But now that that’s resolved, I expect to hear more later this year,” he told Katie. That includes Europe. Despite similarly lethargic construction of reactors over the last three decades, France and Germany have finally united around the need for more atomic energy to power the continent’s energy transition. A pact signed at last week’s Franco-German summit “appears to herald rapprochement on reactors,” the trade publication NucNet surmised.
Once a stodgy gas-guzzling automaker, Cadillac refashioned itself as a luxury electric vehicle maker in recent years, rising alongside Chevrolet to put General Motors in the No. 2 slot behind Tesla. Roughly 70% of buyers who purchased the electric versions of the Cadillac Optiq or Lyriq switched from other luxury brands, including 10% who previously owned Tesla. That number could rise with Tesla’s brand loyalty nosediving, as this newsletter previously reported. “We’re in a position of great momentum,” John Roth, the global vice president of Cadillac, told The New York Times. “We offer more electric S.U.V.s than any luxury manufacturer, all with more than 300 miles of driving range.” But as Times reporter Lawrence Ulrich wrote, “that moment will soon be tested” as the electric car industry reels from the repeal of tax credits in President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill.
The challenges ahead are best illustrated through the Escalade, Cadillac’s iconic luxury SUV. The company sold just 3,800 electric Escalade IQs in the first six months of the year. While that’s a strong showing for a three-row SUV starting around $130,000, the V-8 engine gas-powered Escalade starts at about $87,000, and sold about 24,000 vehicles – roughly six times as many as the electric version.
Lawyers in Oregon are demanding the release of a firefighter arrested last week by Border Patrol while fighting a wildfire in Washington state. The man, whose name hasn’t been released, was among two firefighters cuffed in the Olympic National Forest as they fought to contain the Bear Gulch Fire that had burned about 14 square miles as of Friday and forced evacuations. The arrests sparked a political firestorm over what critics saw as a jarring example of the warped priorities of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. That’s particularly so in the case of this firefighter, who attorneys said had received his U-Visa certification from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Oregon in 2017 and had submitted his U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services application the following year.
When the AP asked the Bureau of Land Management why its contracts with two firefighting companies were terminated and 42 firefighters were escorted away from Washington’s largest wildfire, the agency declined to comment. The decisions came as the American West is essentially a tinderbox. As Heatmap’s Jeva Lange reported, Washington and Oregon are both at high risk of a megafire igniting this fall.
Turns out mammoths weren’t just in the icy tundra. Scientists in Mexico discovered mammoth bones, shedding light on a once-obscure population of extinct tropical elephantids that ranged as far south as Costa Rica. In a paper published this week in Science, National Autonomous University of Mexico paleogenomicist Federico Sánchez Quinto documented the previously unknown lineage of the Santa Lucía mammoths, which he said split from northern Columbian mammoths hundreds of thousands of years ago. “If you had told me 5 years ago that I would be collecting these samples, I would have said, ‘You’re crazy,’” he said. “This paper really is an exciting beginning of something.”
Toyota’s new “sweep” system will power a Mazda factory in Japan.
Toyota is helping to build Mazdas. At least, its aging car batteries are.
Cooperation between rivals is nothing new in the car world. Toyota and Subaru have teamed up to build small sports cars and electric vehicles that are, underneath the skin and the logos, essentially the same. GM and Hyundai have signed a memo of understanding to share new vehicles and clean energy tech, while Honda has used GM’s Ultium platform as the basis of its Prologue EV.
In Japan, Toyota and Mazda now say they will work together to deploy Toyota’s Sweep Energy Storage System, a way to reuse old EV batteries. The “sweep” will combine all kinds of old batteries from electric cars and hybrids into a single unit that can store energy to help power Mazda’s Hiroshima car factory. It’s a clever and promising method to give those batteries a second life, where old car parts help to create new cars.
Energy storage systems are among the most interesting answers to the question of what to do with the forthcoming flood of old EV batteries. It’s true that recycling can recover many of the precious metals therein, and a new industry has arisen to do that work. But the process remains dirty and expensive. Stationary energy storage, meanwhile, is a way to extend a battery’s useful life rather than send it to the recycling yard.
Consider a unit from an older EV that has lost half its capacity, diminishing the vehicle’s range from a healthy 250 miles to a paltry 125. That would be an impractically small distance between charges for many drivers, but it doesn’t mean the battery is cooked. It takes a lot of energy to push a car that weighs several thousand pounds, so that old unit still can store plenty of kilowatt-hours for purposes other than propulsion.
Storage systems can use batteries, old or new, to save surplus solar energy during the day to be used overnight, or to stash backup energy that could be fed onto the grid to avoid blackouts in times of shortage. This application gives older batteries a less labor-intensive way to remain useful in their retirement years. The batteries can be daisy-chained together so that even older units with diminished performance can create ample energy storage.
At Mazda’s Hiroshima factory, Toyota’s system connects to 1,500 megawatts of solar capacity installed on the roof — the only power generation system in Japan run by a car company. The sweep battery, currently in a testing phase to see whether it can interface seamlessly with the plant, would help balance out the supply and demand of the renewable energy coming from upstairs.
The real key to Toyota’s system is its versatility. Most battery backup systems, like Tesla’s Powerwall, use identical batteries in the creation of a whole, which cuts down the electrical complexity. The sweep system, however, can use a mishmash of batteries from different vehicles with different capacities or battery chemistries. The technique that gives the “sweep” system its name is the software’s ability to sweep across all the batteries in the series and turn the power supply from any of them off and on within microseconds in order to control the energy output of the whole system.
It matters not whether the units came from a new all-electric car or an old Toyota Prius hybrid. Whether they are lithium-ion, nickel-metal-hydride, or lead-acid makes no difference. As CarBuzz explains, it’s as if you could combine all the extra batteries in your junk drawer and all the half-used ones around the house to seamlessly create one big unit that taps into all their energy. Even old batteries salvaged from car accidents can be used if the batteries themselves are undamaged. Toyota says it integrates the old batteries’ original inverters (the devices that transform DC into AC power) into the system, negating the need to build a new one for the system as a whole.
The giant automaker has already proven the sweep concept: In 2022, it built a sweep system for the Japanese energy giant Jera that, with its battery powers combined, could store more than 1,200 kilowatt-hours. (For a comparison, the battery in the long-range version of the current Tesla Model Y can store 75 kilowatt-hours, while the average American home uses about 900 kilowatt-hours per month.)
Toyota will need to prove that the sweep can scale up to the level of a car factory, and larger. If it can, then it’s a promising way for yesterday’s batteries to help stabilize and manage the green energy of tomorrow. Not bad for a geriatric power pack.
The new climate politics are all about affordability.
During the August recess, while members of Congress were back home facing their constituents, climate and environmental groups went on the offensive, sending a blitz of ads targeting vulnerable Republicans in their districts. The message was specific, straightforward, and had nothing to do with the warming planet.
“Check your electric bill lately? Rep. Mark Amodei just voted for it to go up,” declared a billboard in Reno, Nevada, sponsored by the advocacy group Climate Power.
“They promised to bring down prices, but instead our congressman, Derrick Van Orden, just voted to make our monthly bills go up,” a YouTube ad told viewers in Wisconsin’s 3rd district. “It removes clean energy from the electric grid, creating a massive rate hike on electricity,” the voiceover says, while the words “VAN ORDEN’S PLAN: ELECTRICITY RATE HIKE” flash on screen. The ad, paid for by Climate Power, the League of Conservation Voters, and House Majority Forward, a progressive campaign group, was shown more than a million times from August 13 to 27, according to Google’s ad transparency center.
Both were part of a larger, $12 million campaign the groups launched over the recess in collaboration with organizations including EDF Action and Climate Emergency Advocates. Similar billboards and digital ads targeted Republicans in more than a dozen other districts in Arizona, California, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. There were also TV spots, partnerships with Instagram influencers, bus stop posters, and in-person rallies outside district offices — all blaming Republicans in Congress for the increasing cost of food, healthcare, and energy.
Courtesy of Climate Power
As others have observed, including Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin back in March, rising utility rates and the broader cost of living crisis are becoming a political liability for Republicans and President Trump. Clean energy advocates are attempting to capitalize on that, trying to get Americans to connect the dots between their mounting electricity bills and their representatives in Congress who voted to cut support for renewable energy.
Some of this is run-of-the-mill politicking, but it’s not only that. It also represents a strategic shift in how the climate movement talks about the energy transition.
It’s not new for green groups to make the argument that renewable energy can save people money. Relying on “free” wind and sun rather than fuels that are subject to price volatility has always been part of the sell, and the plummeting cost of solar panels and wind turbines have only made that pitch more compelling.
But it is new for the affordability argument to come first — above job creation, economic development, reducing pollution, and, of course, tackling climate change.
For most of the past four years, the climate movement has gone all in on trying to build an association in the American mind between the transition to clean energy and jobs. “When I think of climate change, I think of jobs,” then-candidate Joe Biden said during one of his 2020 campaign speeches.
It made sense at the time, Daniel Aldana Cohen, a sociologist at the University of California, Berkeley, told me. Just two years earlier, the Sunrise Movement had emerged as a political force with a headline-grabbing rally in Nancy Pelosi’s office demanding “green jobs for all.” The group was joined by then-newly elected Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who soon introduced her framework for a Green New Deal that would offer a “just transition” for fossil fuel workers, ensuring them a place in the new clean energy economy.
The fossil fuel industry had seeded divisions between labor and environmental groups for decades by arguing that regulations kill jobs, and Democrats would have to upend that narrative if they wanted to make progress on climate. But the rationale was also more pressing: Unemployment was skyrocketing due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and whoever won the presidency would be responsible for rebuilding the U.S. workforce.
Fast forward to the end of Biden’s first year in office, however, and the unemployment rate had snapped back to pre-pandemic levels. Meanwhile, inflation was rising fast. Even though the Democrats managed to name their climate bill the “Inflation Reduction Act,” the administration and the climate movement continued talking about it in terms of jobs, jobs, jobs.
Cohen co-directs the Climate and Community Institute, a progressive think-tank founded in 2020, and admitted that “from the very start, we would just model every policy with jobs numbers,” partly because modeling the effects of policies on cost of living was a lot more complicated. Now he sees two issues with that approach. For one, it was always going to take time for new manufacturing jobs to materialize — much longer than an election cycle. For another, when unemployment is low, “everybody experiences inflation, but extremely few people experience a good new green job,” Cohen said.
During a recent panel hosted by the Institute for Policy Studies, Ben Beachy, who was a special assistant to Biden for climate policy, expressed some regret about the jobs push. “It wasn't addressing one of the biggest economic concerns of most people at that point, which was the rent is too damn high,” he said. But Beachy also defended the strategy, noting that all of the policies addressing cost of living in Biden’s big climate bill, like money for housing, public transit, and childcare, had been stripped out to appease West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin. “So we were left without a strong policy leg to stand on to say, this is going to lower your costs.”
When the moderator asked what message Beachy thinks climate candidates should run on today, Beachy replied, “affordability, affordability, affordability.”
Jesse Lee, a senior advisor at Climate Power who also worked as a senior communications advisor in the Biden White House, echoed Beachy’s account of what went wrong post-IRA. The cost of living crisis makes it almost impossible to talk about anything else now, he told me. “If you don't start off talking about that, you’ve lost people before you’ve even begun,” he said.
Average U.S. electricity rates jumped 10% in just the year from 2021 to 2022, and have continued to rise faster than inflation. All evidence suggests the trend will continue. Utilities have already requested or received approval for approximately $29 billion in rate increases this year, according to the nonprofit PowerLines, compared to roughly $12 billion by this time last year. And these increases likely don’t reflect the expected costs associated with ending tax credits for wind and solar, hobbling wind and solar development, and keeping aging, expensive coal plants online.
In mid-July, Climate Power issued a strategy document advising state and local elected officials how to talk about clean energy based on the group’s polling. A post-election poll found that “more than half of Americans (51%) say the main goal of US energy policies should be to lower energy prices,” and that 85% “believe policymakers should do more to lower energy costs.” A more recent poll found that telling voters that “cutting clean energy means America produces less energy overall, and that means families will pay even more to keep the lights on,” was the most persuasive among a variety of arguments for clean energy.
This tracks with our own Heatmap Pro opinion polling, which found that the top perceived benefit of renewables in the U.S. is “lower utility bills” — though while 75% of Democrats believe that argument, only 56% of Republicans do. An affordability frame also aligns with academic research on clean energy communication strategies, which has found that emphasizing cost savings is a more effective and enduring message than job creation, economic development, or climate change mitigation.
The pivot to affordability isn’t just apparent in district-level campaigns to hold Republicans accountable. Almost every press release I’ve received from the climate group Evergreen Action this month has mentioned “soaring power bills” or “Trump’s energy price hike” in reference to various actions the administration has taken to hamstring renewables. Even clean energy groups, which at first attempted to co-opt Trump’s “energy dominance” frame, can no longer parrot it with a straight face. After Trump issued a stop work order on Orsted’s offshore Revolution Wind project, which is 80% built, the American Clean Power Association accused the administration of “raising alarms about rising energy prices while blocking new supply from reaching the grid.”
Several people I spoke to for this story pointed to the example of Mikie Sherill, the Democrat running for governor in New Jersey, who last week vowed to freeze utility rates for a year if elected. She immediately followed that statement with a promise to “massively expand cheaper, cleaner power generation,” including solar and batteries.
Dan Crawford, the senior vice president of Echo Communications Advisors, a climate-focused strategy firm, declared in a recent newsletter that Democrats should “become the party of cheap electricity.” He mused that we may be at an inflection point “where the old politics of clean-vs.-polluting makes way for a new debate of cheap-vs.-expensive.”
Debate is probably too tame a term — the claim to affordability is becoming a full-on messaging war. Last week, President Trump took to social media to declare that states that get power from wind and solar “are seeing RECORD BREAKING INCREASES IN ELECTRICITY AND ENERGY COSTS,” — a claim that has no basis in reality. The Trump administration is leaning heavily on affordability arguments to justify keeping coal plants open. In defense of canceling Revolution Wind, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told Fox News that “this is part of our drive to make sure we’ve got affordable, reliable energy for every American … These are the highest electric prices in the country coming off of these projects.” On Thursday, Energy Secretary Chris Wright posted a news story about his agency rescinding a loan for an offshore wind transmission project, writing that “taxpayers will no longer foot the bill for projects that raise electricity prices and ultimately don't work.”
Clean energy proponents aren’t just going up against Trump — the fossil fuel industry has leaned on affordability as a rhetorical strategy for a long time, Joshua Lappen, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Notre Dame studying the energy transition, told me. Lappen, who lives in California, said cost has been at the forefront of conflicts over climate policy in the state for a while. At the moment, it’s driving a fight over oil refinery closures that threaten to drive up gas prices even more. “I took a trip over the weekend and drove through the Central Valley,” Lappen told me, “and there are placards zip-tied to every gas pump at Chevron stations that are highlighting that state climate policy is increasing the cost of gas.”
I asked Lee, of Climate Power, how the climate movement could make a convincing case when clean energy has become so politically charged. He’s not worried about that right now. “I don’t think we necessarily need to win a debate about what’s cheaper,” he said. “All we have to do is say, Hey, we're in favor of more energy, including wind and solar, and it's nuts, nuts to be taking wind and solar and batteries off the table when we have an energy crisis and when utility rates have gone up 10%.”
That may work for now, at least at the national level. Americans tend to blame whoever is in office for the economic pains of the moment, even though presidents have little influence on prices at the pump and it can take years for policy changes to make their way into utility rates.
But there’s a difference between defensively blaming rising energy costs on the administration’s efforts to block renewables, and making a positive case for the energy transition on the same grounds. While there is an argument for the latter, it’s a lot harder to convey.
The factors pushing up energy prices, such as necessary grid modernization and disaster-related costs, likely aren’t going away, whether or not we build offshore wind farms. Meanwhile, the savings that large-scale wind and solar projects offer won’t be experienced as a reduction in rates — they won’t be experienced at all because they’re measured against a counterfactual world where renewables don’t get built. That’s a lot trickier to communicate in a pithy campaign. People may end up blaming the wind farms either way.
This dilemma is a hallmark of the so-called “mid-transition,” Lappen told me. The term was coined by his advisor, the energy engineer and sociologist Emily Grubert, and Sara Hastings-Simon, a public policy professor at the University of Calgary. The two argue that the mid-transition is a period where fossil fuel systems persist alongside the growing clean energy sector.
“Comparisons of the new system to the old system are likely to rest on experience of a world less affected by climate change, such that concerns about lower reliability, higher costs, and other challenges might be perceived as inherent to zero-carbon systems, versus energy systems facing consequences of climate change and long-term underinvestment,” they write.
To Cohen, advocates need to go a lot further than rhetoric to link clean energy with affordability. “We need to rebuild the brand and then rebuild the investment priorities of climate action so that working class communities see and literally touch direct, tangible benefits in their life,” he said. He described a “green economic populism” with much more public investment in helping renters access green technologies that will lower their bills, for example, or in fixing up homes that have deferred maintenance so that they can eventually make energy efficiency improvements.
It’s not about abandoning industrial policy or research and development, Cohen told me, but rather about a shift in emphasis. He pointed to Sherill’s approach. “She's not just saying, oh, clean energy will automatically lower bills if you just unleash it. She's like, I'm going to assertively use the government to guarantee a price freeze, and then I’m going to backfill that with clean energy policies to bring down prices over time.”
To be fair, the IRA did contain policies that would have produced more tangible benefits. The $7 billion Solar for All program would have delivered the benefits of residential solar — i.e. energy bill savings — to low-income households all over the country. The remainder of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, of which Solar for All was a part, was set to make a range of other green home upgrades more accessible to the working class, and the Green and Resilient Retrofit Program would have done the same for low-income housing developments and senior living centers. Electric school bus grants and urban tree-planting programs would have brought cleaner, cooler air to communities.
These were big, ambitious programs that were never going to produce results in the span of two years, and now the Trump administration has made every effort to ensure they never do. Whether they would have paid political dividends eventually, we’ll never know. But a successful energy transition may depend on giving it another shot.