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:
The contrasts may be quiet, but they’re also quite clear.
The United States Senate sits on a knife-edge. Democrats currently control the chamber by a 51-49 margin, but they are defending more seats than Republicans are in this election. In fact, with the retirement of Joe Manchin and the nearly inevitable passing of that West Virginia seat to a Republican, Democrats need to win almost every contested race in order to keep the chamber at 50-50, which would give them control if Kamala Harris wins the White House and Tim Walz is able to cast tie-breaking votes.
The consequences of a shift in control for climate policy could be enormous, not just in the legislation that will (or won’t) pass, but in the fate of nominees to key agencies. So how are Senate candidates confronting the climate issue? This roundup of the 10 most closely contested races shows that while the contrasts between the candidates are stark, for the most part, climate has been a secondary or even absent issue on the campaign trail.
The contrasts between the candidates are unmistakeable; to take just one example, every Democrat on this list who was in Congress at the time voted for the Inflation Reduction Act, the most significant climate legislation in history, and every Republican opposed it. But with the exception of Pennsylvania, where fracking has been a major issue, and to a lesser extent in Arizona, where Ruben Gallego often brings up the toll of increasing temperatures, in none of these races is climate change anywhere near the forefront of the debate.
That’s mostly because Democrats have chosen not to elevate the issue. Though they might criticize their Republican opponents for opposing the IRA or ignoring climate altogether if you ask them, they haven’t put time and resources behind the criticism. You don’t see them discussing climate in their advertising, and in most cases you won’t even find it mentioned on their websites — or if it’s there, it merits only a brief statement of intentions and nothing more detailed.
Nevertheless, the contrast remains: All of these Democrats can be counted on to support most or all of a Harris administration’s climate initiatives, just as the Republicans will reliably oppose them, or support a second Trump administration’s efforts to roll back the measures the Biden administration has undertaken. Which is why so much depends on where the Senate falls after election day.
The candidates: Democrat Ruben Gallego vs. Republican Kari Lake
Gallego has been a particularly forceful advocate on one aspect of climate change: extreme heat. He told The Arizona Republic that “our state will become uninhabitable in the summer if we wait much longer to act,” has introduced multiple bills to address it, and criticized the Biden administration for not going far enough to confront the danger of rising temperatures. Lake, on the other hand, dismisses any such concern. Last summer she accused Gallego and Governor Katie Hobbs of “pushing mass hysteria in an effort to declare a climate emergency.” She told a podcast, “Newsflash, it’s hot in Arizona in the summer,” and said “don’t tell me that we’re in some sort of a weird heating trend … I don’t believe that for a minute.”
The candidates: Democrat Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, the challenger vs. Republican Rick Scott, the incumbent
When he became Florida’s governor in 2011, Scott reportedly issued an informal ban on the use of the terms “climate change” and “global warming” in state communication. He denied the story and in recent years has softened his previous climate denial, but he was regularly criticized for inaction in a state unusually vulnerable to climate impacts and has been a consistent opponent of efforts to address warming. Mucarsel-Powell’s website says she “knows climate change is real and she is ready to take action to address the climate crisis that is impacting Floridians, their lives, and their property,” but she’s been quiet about it on the trail.
The candidates: Democrat Angela Alsobrooks vs. Republican Larry Hogan
Former Governor Hogan is the most moderate Republican on this list, and during his tenure in Annapolis he went farther on climate than most Republicans liked, but not as far as state Democrats wanted. He committed the state to reducing emissions, but grappled with Democrats in the legislature over a sweeping climate plan, eventually allowing a scaled-back version to become law without his signature. Alsobrooks calls climate change an “existential threat” and touts her climate efforts as Prince George’s County Executive, including obtaining funding for more electric buses and creating a composting program. She issued an executive order in 2022, setting a goal of making her country carbon-neutral by 2045.
The candidates: Republican Tim Sheehy, the challenger vs. Democrat Jon Tester, the incumbent
For a red-state Democrat, Tester talks a good deal about climate, not mincing words about the effects of global warming (which he says he witnesses as a working farmer) and regularly touting funding he has secured to mitigate climate effects in Montana; he gets a lifetime score of 89% from the League of Conservation Voters. But he favors carrots over sticks, objecting to some tougher pollution regulations and supporting continued fossil fuel production, including the Keystone XL pipeline. Sheehy is a full-on climate denier who rails against “the radical climate cult agenda” and the “woke crap” of ESG investing. Yet the company that made Sheehy rich markets its wildfire-fighting efforts as a response to climate change’s effects.
The candidates: Republican Mike Rogers vs. Democrat Elissa Slotkin
Slotkin, a current member of the House of Representatives, has portrayed herself as something of a climate moderate in Congress, cosponsoring bipartisan emissions legislation but declining to support the Green New Deal. Still, she often brings up her work preparing the Department of Defense to adapt to climate change, and has been supportive of the Biden administration’s climate initiatives. Rogers, on the other hand, was a consistent vote in the House, where he served from the aughts to the mid-2010s, against all kinds of environmental initiatives, and ridiculed DOD climate efforts: “When we dedicate scarce defense funding to global climate change, biofuel initiatives and social engineering experiments with military personnel, you can almost hear the cheers and laughter of our adversaries,” he wrote in 2021. While Slotkin has brought up climate on the campaign trail, neither candidate mentions it on their website.
The candidates: Republican Sam Brown, the challenger vs. Democrat Jacky Rosen, the incumbent
Rosen has been more outspoken about climate change than many Democrats on this list, and has been a particularly strong booster of Nevada’s solar industry; she also attended COP26 in 2021. Brown’s website says, “We have been blessed with an abundance of natural resources, but we’ve also been plagued by politicians pushing extreme left energy agendas, like the Green New Deal, that raise prices and destroy jobs”; he has also criticized electric vehicles and incentives to increase EV sales.
The candidates: Democrat Sherrod Brown, the incumbent vs. Republican Bernie Moreno, the challenger
Senator Brown has used his chairmanship of the Senate Banking Committee to draw attention to climate issues, including pressing the Federal Reserve to incorporate climate risks into its relationship with the banking industry. He has called climate “one of the greatest moral issues of our time,” and has long advocated clean energy as a vehicle to rebuild the country’s industrial base. But during this campaign, he has become increasingly wary of certain emissions regulations he fears will lead to job loss, saying “I’ve spent most of my career looking at trade or environment through the eyes of employment in my state.” Moreno wants to eliminate EV subsidies and has attacked “Biden’s radical Green New Deal agenda,” arguing that achieving “energy dominance” through fossil fuel production is vital to prosperity.
The candidates: Democrat Bob Casey, the incumbent vs. Republican Dave McCormick, the challenger
Though Casey has a strong environmental record, McCormick has succeeded in making fracking a central issue of the campaign, including falsely accusing Casey of supporting a ban on the technique, which is commonly used in Pennsylvania to extract natural gas. McCormick acknowledges that climate change is real, but nevertheless told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette he wants to “unlock oil and gas production here at home.” (The U.S. is already the world’s largest producer of both oil and natural gas.) In the midst of the fracking controversy, Casey seems to have quieted his prior climate advocacy somewhat (his website has no section on climate, but does have one on “Preserving Pennsylvania’s Energy Legacy”), but he hasn’t publicly disavowed any of his prior positions.
The candidates: Democrat Colin Allred, the challenger vs. Republican Ted Cruz, the incumbent
Cruz has long been one of Congress’ most prominent climate deniers and one of the top recipients of contributions from the fossil fuel industry. He blames the Green New Deal, a piece of legislation that was never voted on, for high electricity prices in Texas, and has attacked federal agencies for “fueling youth climate anxiety.” While Allred has supported climate action in the past, he has trod somewhat carefully on the issue during the campaign (he advocates “an all-of-the-above energy strategy” and has promoted liquified natural gas exports) and hasn’t made an issue of Cruz’s climate denial.
The candidates: Democrat Tammy Baldwin, the incumbent vs. Republican Eric Hovde, the challenger
Baldwin has been a consistent advocate for climate action, including co-sponsoring a bill to achieve net-zero emissions for the entire country by 2050. Hovde has spent a good deal of the campaign railing against EV subsidies and other green energy spending, calls efforts to phase out fossil fuels “delusional,” and instead promotes increased fossil fuel production.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The widely circulating document lists more than 68 activities newly subject to upper-level review.
The federal government is poised to put solar and wind projects through strict new reviews that may delay projects across the country, according to a widely circulating document reviewed by Heatmap.
The secretarial order authored by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Gregory Wischer is dated July 15 and states that “all decisions, actions, consultations, and other undertakings” that are “related to wind and solar energy facilities” will now be required to go through multiple layers of political review from Burgum’s office and Interior’s Office of the Deputy Secretary.
This new layer of review would span essentially anything Interior and its many subagencies would ordinarily be consulted on before construction on a project can commence — a milestone crucial for being able to qualify for federal renewable energy tax credits under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The order lists more than 68 different activities newly subject to higher-level review, including some basic determinations as to whether projects conform with federal environmental and conservation laws, as well as consultations on compliance with wildlife protection laws such as the Endangered Species Act. The final item in the list sweeps “any other similar or related decisions, actions, consultations, or undertakings” under the order’s purview, in case there was any grey area there.
In other words, this order is so drastic it would impact projects on state and private lands, as well as federal acreage. In some cases, agency staff may now need political sign-offs simply to tell renewables developers whether they need a permit at all.
“This is the way you stall and kill projects. Intentionally red-tape projects to death,” former Biden White House clean energy adviser Avi Zevin wrote on Bluesky in a post with a screenshot of the order.
The department has yet to release the document and it’s unclear whether or when it will be made public. The order’s existence was first reported by Politico; in a statement to that news outlet, the department did not deny the document’s existence but attacked leakers. “Let’s be clear: leaking internal documents to the media is cowardly, dishonest, and a blatant violation of professional standards,” the statement said.
Interior’s press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Heatmap about when this document may be made public. We also asked whether this would also apply to transmission connected to solar and wind. You had better believe I’ll be following up with the department to find out, and we’ll update this story if we hear back from them.
Two former Microsoft employees have turned their frustration into an awareness campaign to hold tech companies accountable.
When the clean energy world considers the consequences of the artificial intelligence boom, rising data center electricity demand and the strain it’s putting on the grid is typically top of mind — even if that’s weighed against the litany of potential positive impacts, which includes improved weather forecasting, grid optimization, wildfire risk mitigation, critical minerals discovery, and geothermal development.
I’ve written about a bunch of it. But the not-so-secret flip side is that naturally, any AI-fueled improvements in efficiency, data analytics, and predictive capabilities will benefit well-capitalized fossil fuel giants just as much — if not significantly more — than plucky climate tech startups or cash-strapped utilities.
“The narrative is a net impact equation that only includes the positive use cases of AI as compared to the operational impacts, which we believe is apples to oranges,” Holly Alpine, co-founder of the Enabled Emissions Campaign, told me. “We need to expand that conversation and include the negative applications in that scoreboard.”
Alpine founded the campaign alongside her partner, Will Alpine, in February of last year, with the goal of holding tech giants accountable for the ways users leverage their products to accelerate fossil fuel production. Both formerly worked for Microsoft on sustainability initiatives related to data centers and AI, but quit after what they told me amounted to a string of unfulfilled promises by the company and a realization that internal pressure alone couldn’t move the needle as far as they’d hoped.
While at Microsoft, they were dismayed to learn that the company had contracts for its cloud services and suite of AI tools with some of the largest fossil fuel corporations in the world — including ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Shell — and that the partnerships were formed with the explicit intent to expand oil and gas production. Other hyperscalers such as Google and Amazon have also formed similar cloud and AI service partnerships with oil and gas giants, though Google burnished its sustainability bona fides in 2020 by announcing that it would no longer build custom AI tools for the fossil fuel industry. (In response to my request for comment, Microsoft directed me to its energy principles, which were written in 2022, while the Alpines were still with the company, and to its 2025 sustainability report. Neither addresses the Alpines’ concerns directly, which is perhaps telling in its own right.)
AI can help fossil fuel companies accelerate and expand fossil fuel production throughout all stages of the process, from exploration and reservoir modeling to predictive maintenance, transport and logistics optimization, demand forecasting, and revenue modeling. And while partnerships with AI hyperscalers can be extremely beneficial, oil and gas companies are also building out their own AI-focused teams and capabilities in-house.
“As a lot of the low-hanging fruit in the oil reserve space has been plucked, companies have been increasingly relying on things like fracking and offshore drilling to stay competitive,” Will told me. “So using AI is now allowing those operations to continue in a way that they previously could not.”
Exxon, for example, boasts on its website that it’s “the first in our industry to leverage autonomous drilling in deep water,” thanks to its AI-powered systems that can determine drilling parameters and control the whole process sans human intervention. Likewise, BP notes that its "Optimization Genie” AI tool has helped it increase production by about 2,000 oil-equivalent barrels per day in the Gulf of Mexico, and that between 2022 and 2024, AI and advanced analytics allowed the company to increase production by 4% overall.
In general, however, the degree to which AI-enabled systems help expand production is not something companies speak about publicly. For instance, when Microsoft inked a contract with Exxon six years ago, it predicted that its suite of digital products would enable the oil giant to grow production in the Permian Basin by up to 50,000 barrels by 2025. And while output in the Permian has boomed, it’s unclear how much Microsoft is to thank for that as neither company has released any figures.
Either way, many of the climate impacts of using AI for oil and gas production are likely to go unquantified. That’s because the so-called “enabled emissions” from the tech sector are not captured by the standard emissions accounting framework, which categorizes direct emissions from a company’s operations as scope 1, indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy as scope 2, and all other emissions across the value chain as scope 3. So while tailpipe emissions, for example, would fall into Exxon’s scope 3 bucket — thus requiring disclosure — they’re outside Microsoft’s reporting boundaries.
According to the Alpines’ calculations, though, Microsoft’s deal with Exxon plus another contract with Chevron totalled “over 300% of Microsoft’s entire carbon footprint, including data centers.” So it’s really no surprise that hyperscalers have largely fallen silent when it comes to citing specific numbers, given the history of employee blowback and media furor over the friction between tech companies’ sustainability targets and their fossil fuel contracts.
As such, the tech industry often ends up wrapping these deals in broad language highlighting operational efficiency, digital transformation, and even sustainability benefits —- think waste reduction and decreasing methane leakage rates — while glossing over the fact that at their core, these partnerships are primarily designed to increase oil and gas output.
While none of the fossil fuel companies I contacted — Chevron, Exxon, Shell, and BP — replied to my inquiries about the ways they’re leveraging AI, earnings calls and published corporate materials make it clear that the industry is ready to utilize the technology to its fullest extent.
“We’re looking to leverage knowledge in a different way than we have in the past,” Shell CEO Wael Sawan said on the company’s Q2 earnings call last year, citing AI as one of the tools that he sees as integral to “transform the culture of the company to one that is able to outcompete in the coming years.”
Shell has partnered since 2018 with the enterprise software company C3.ai on AI applications such as predictive maintenance, equipment monitoring, and asset optimization, the latter of which has helped the company increase liquid natural gas production by 1% to 2%. C3.ai CEO Tom Siebel was vague on the company’s 2025 Q1 earnings call, but said that Shell estimates that the partnership has “generated annual benefit to Shell of $2 billion.”
In terms of AI’s ability to get more oil and gas out of the ground, “it’s like getting a Kuwait online,” Rakesh Jaggi, who leads the digital efforts at the oil-services giant SLB, told Barron’s magazine. Kuwait is the third largest crude oil producer in OPEC, producing about 2.9 million barrels per day.
Some oil and gas giants were initially reluctant to get fully aboard the AI hype train — even Exxon CEO Darren Woods noted on the company’s 2024 Q3 earnings call that the oil giant doesn’t “like jumping on bandwagons.” Yet he still sees “good potential” for AI to be a “part of the equation” when it comes to the company’s ambition to slash $15 billion in costs by 2027.
Chevron is similarly looking to AI to cut costs. As the company’s Chief Financial Officer Eimear Bonner explained during its 2024 Q4 earnings call, AI could help Chevron save $2 to $3 billion over the next few years as the company looks towards “using technology to do work completely differently.” Meanwhile, Saudi Aramco’s CEO Amin Nasser told Bloomberg that AI is a core reason it’s been able to keep production costs at $3 per barrel for the past 20 years, despite inflation and other headwinds in the sector.
Of course, it should come as no surprise that fossil fuel companies are taking advantage of the vast opportunities that AI provides. After all, the investors and shareholders these companies are ultimately beholden to would likely revolt if they thought their fiduciaries had failed to capitalize on such an enormous technological breakthrough.
The Alpines are well aware that this is the world we live in, and that we’re not going to overthrow capitalism anytime soon. Right now, they told me they’re primarily running a two-person “awareness campaign,” as the general public and sometimes even former colleagues are largely in the dark when it comes to how AI is being used to boost oil and gas production. While Will said they’re “staying small and lean” for now while they fundraise, the campaign has support from a number of allies including the consumer rights group Public Citizen, the tech worker group Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, and the NGO Friends of the Earth.
In the medium term, they’re looking toward policy shifts that would require more disclosure and regulation around AI’s potential for harm in the energy sector. “The only way we believe to really achieve deep change is to raise the floor at an international or national policy level,” Will told me. As an example, he pointed to the EU’s comprehensive regulations that categorize AI use cases by risk level, which then determines the rules these systems are subject to. Police use of facial recognition is considered high risk, for example, while AI spam filters are low risk. Right now, energy sector applications are not categorized as risky at all.
“What we would advocate for would be that AI use in the energy sector falls under a high risk classification system due to its risk for human harm. And then it would go through a governance process, ideally that would align with climate science targets,” Will told me. “So you could use that to uplift positive applications like AI for methane leak detection, but AI for upstream scenarios should be subject to additional scrutiny.”
And realistically, there’s no chance of something like this being implemented in the U.S. under Trump, let alone somewhere like Saudi Arabia. And even if such regulations were eventually enacted in some countries, energy markets are global, meaning governments around the world would ultimately need to align on risk mitigation strategies for reigning in AI’s potential for climate harm.
As Will told me, “that would be a massive uphill battle, but we think it’s one that’s worth fighting.”
A longtime climate messaging strategist is tired of seeing the industry punch below its weight.
The saga of President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act contains at least one clear lesson for the clean energy industry: It must grow a political spine and act like the trillion-dollar behemoth it is. And though the logic is counterintuitive, the new law will likely provide an opportunity to build one.
The coming threat to renewable energy investment became apparent as soon as Trump won the presidency again last fall. The only questions were how much was vulnerable, and through what mechanisms.
Still, many clean energy leaders were optimistic that Trump’s “energy abundance” agenda had room for renewables. During the transition, one longtime Republican energy lobbyist told Utility Dive that Trump’s incoming cabinet had a “very aggressive approach towards renewables.” When Democratic Senator John Hickenlooper introduced would-be Secretary of Energy Chris Wright at the fracking executive’s confirmation hearing, he vouched for Wright’s clean energy cred. Even Trump touted Wright’s experience with solar.
At least initially, the argument made sense. After all, energy demand is soaring, and solar, wind, and battery storage account for 95% of new power projects awaiting grid connection in the U.S. In red states like Texas and Oklahoma, clean energy is booming because it’s cheap. Just a few months ago, the Lone Star State achieved record energy generation from solar, wind, and batteries, and consumers there are saving millions of dollars a day because of renewables. The Biden administration funneled clean energy and manufacturing investment into red districts in part to cultivate Republican support for renewables — and to protect those investments no matter who is president.
As a result, for the past six months, clean energy executives have absorbed advice telling them to fly below the radar. Stop using the word “climate” and start using words like “common sense” when you talk to lawmakers. (As a communications and policy strategist who works extensively on climate issues, I’ve given that specific piece of advice.)
But far too many companies and industry groups went much further than tweaking their messaging. They stopped publicly advocating for their interests, and as a result there has been no muscular effort to pressure elected officials where it counts: their reelection campaigns.
This is part of a broader lack of engagement with elected officials on the part of clean energy companies. The oil and gas industry has outspent clean energy on lobbying 2 to 1 this year, despite the fact that oil and gas faces a hugely favorable political environment. In the run up to the last election, the fossil fuel industry spent half a billion dollars to influence candidates; climate and clean energy advocates again spent just a fraction, despite having more on the line. My personal preference is to get money out of politics, but you have to play by the rules as they exist.
Even economically irresistible technologies can be legislated into irrelevance if they don’t have political juice. The last-minute death of the mysterious excise tax on wind and solar that was briefly part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was a glaring sign of weakness, not strength — especially given that even the watered-down provisions in the law will damage the economics of renewable energy. After the law passed, the President directed the Treasury Department to issue the strictest possible guidance for the clean energy projects that remain eligible for tax credits.
The tech industry learned this same lesson over many years. The big tech companies started hiring scores of policy and political staff in the 2010s, when they were already multi-hundred-billion dollar companies, but it wasn’t until 2017 that a tech company became the top lobbying spender. Now the tech industry has a sophisticated influence operation that includes carrots and sticks. Crypto learned this lesson even faster, emerging almost overnight as one of the most aggressive industries shaping Washington.
Clean energy needs to catch up. But lobbying spending isn’t a panacea.
Executives in the clean energy sector sometimes say they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Democrats and the segment of potentially supportive Republicans at the local and federal levels talk and think about clean energy differently. And the dissonance makes it challenging to communicate honestly with both parties, especially in public.
The clean energy industry should recognize that the safest ground is to criticize and cultivate both parties unabashedly. The American political system understands economic self interest, and there are plenty of policy changes that various segments of the clean energy world need from both Democrats and Republicans at the federal and state levels. Democrats need to make it easier to build; Republicans need to support incentives they regularly trumpet for other job-creating industries.
The quality of political engagement from clean energy companies and the growing ecosystem of advocacy groups has improved. The industry, disparate as it is, has gotten smarter. Advocates now bring district-by-district data to policymakers, organize lobby days, and frame clean energy in terms that resonate across the aisle — national security, economic opportunity in rural America, artificial intelligence, and the race with China. That’s progress.
But the tempo is still far too low, and there are too many carrots and too few sticks. The effects of President Trump’s tax law on energy prices might create some leverage. If the law damages renewable energy generation, and thereby raises energy prices as energy demand continues to rise, Americans should know who is responsible. The clean energy sector has to be the messenger, or at least orchestrate the messaging.
The campaigns write themselves: Paid media targeting members of Congress who praised clean energy job growth in their districts and then voted to gut jobs and raise prices; op-eds in local papers calling out that hypocrisy by name; energy workers showing up at town halls demanding their elected officials fight for an industry that’s investing billions in their communities; activating influencers to highlight the bright line between Trump’s law and higher electricity bills; and more.
If renewable energy is going to grow consistently in America, no matter which way the political wind blows, there must be a political cost to crossing the sector. Otherwise it will always be vulnerable to last-minute backroom deals, no matter how “win-win” its technology is.