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.
Whether any of them will hold up in court is now the big question.
Environmental lawyers are in for years of déjà vu as the Trump administration relitigates questions that many believed were settled by the Supreme Court nearly 20 years ago.
On Thursday, Trump rescinded the “endangerment finding,” the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 determination that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles threaten Americans’ public health and welfare and should be regulated. In the short term, the move repeals existing vehicle emissions standards and prevents future administrations from replacing them. In the longer term, what matters is whether any of the administration’s justifications hold up in court.
In its final rule, the EPA abandoned its attempt to back the move using a bespoke climate science report published by the Department of Energy last year. The report was created by a working group assembled in secret by the department and made up of five scientists who have a track record of pushing back on mainstream climate science. Not only was the report widely refuted by scientists, but the assembly of the working group itself broke federal law, a judge ruled in late January.
“The science is clear that climate change is creating a risk for the public and public health, and so I think it’s significant that they realized that it creates a legal risk if they were to try to assert otherwise,” Carrie Jenks, the executive director of Harvard’s Environmental and Energy Law Program, told me.
Instead, the EPA came up with three arguments to justify its decision, each of which will no doubt have to be defended in court. The agency claims that each of them can stand alone, but that they also reinforce each other. Whether that proves to be true, of course, has yet to be determined.
Here’s what they are:
Congress never specifically told the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. If it did, maybe we would have accomplished more on climate change by now.
What happened instead was that in 1999, a coalition of environmental and solar energy groups asked the EPA to regulate emissions from cars, arguing that greenhouse gases should be considered pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act. In 2007, in a case called Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court agreed with the second part. That led the EPA to consider whether these gases posed enough of a danger to public health to warrant regulation. In 2009, it concluded they did — that’s what’s known as the endangerment finding. After reaching that finding, the EPA went ahead and developed standards to limit emissions from vehicles. It later followed that up with rules for power plants and oil and gas operations.
Now Trump’s EPA is arguing that this three-step progression — categorizing greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act, making a scientific finding that they endanger public health, and setting regulations — was all wrong. Instead, the agency now believes, it’s necessary to consider all three at once.
Using the EPA’s logic, the argument comes out something like this: If we consider that U.S. cars are a small sliver of global emissions, and that limiting those emissions will not materially change the trajectory of global warming or the impacts of climate change on Americans, then we must conclude that Congress did not intend for greenhouse gases to be regulated when it enacted the Clean Air Act.
“They are trying to merge it all together and say, because we can’t do that last thing in a way that we think is reasonable, we can’t do the first thing,” Jenks said.
The agency is not explicitly asking for Massachusetts v. EPA to be overturned, Jenks said. But if its current argument wins in court, that would be the effective outcome, preventing future administrations from issuing greenhouse gas standards unless Congress passed a law explicitly telling it to do so. While it's rare for the Supreme Court to reverse course, none of the five justices who were in the majority on that case remain, and the makeup of the court is now far more conservative than in 2007.
The EPA also asserted that the “major questions doctrine,” a legal principle that says federal agencies cannot set policies of major economic and political significance without explicit direction from Congress, means the EPA cannot “decide the Nation’s policy response to global climate change concerns.”
The Supreme Court has used the major questions doctrine to overturn EPA’s regulations in the past, most notably in West Virginia v. EPA, which ruled that President Obama’s Clean Power Plan failed this constitutional test. But that case was not about EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, the court solely struck down the particular approach the EPA took to those regulations. Nevertheless, the EPA now argues that any climate regulation at all would be a violation.
The EPA’s final argument is about the “futility” of vehicle emissions standards. It echoes a portion of the first justification, arguing that the point alone is enough of a reason to revoke the endangerment finding absent any other reason.
The endangerment finding had “severed the consideration of endangerment from the consideration of contribution” of emissions, the agency wrote. The Clean Air Act “instructs the EPA to regulate in furtherance of public health and welfare, not to reduce emissions regardless [of] whether such reductions have any material health and welfare impact.”
Funnily enough, to reach this conclusion, the agency had to use climate models developed by past administrations, including the EPA’s Optimization Model for reducing Emissions of GHGs from Automobiles, as well as some developed by outside scientists, such as the Finite amplitude Impulse Response climate emulator model — though it did so begrudgingly.
The agency “recognizes that there is still significant dispute regarding climate science and modeling,” it wrote. “However, the EPA is utilizing the climate modeling provided within this section to help illustrate” that zero-ing out emissions from vehicles “would not materially address the health and welfare dangers attributed to global climate change concerns in the Endangerment Finding.”
I have yet to hear back from outside experts about the EPA’s modeling here, so I can’t say what assumptions the agency made to reach this conclusion or estimate how well it will hold up to scrutiny. We’ll be talking to more legal scholars and scientists in the coming days as they digest the rule and dig into which of these arguments — if any — has a chance to prevail.
The state is poised to join a chorus of states with BYO energy policies.
With the backlash to data center development growing around the country, some states are launching a preemptive strike to shield residents from higher energy costs and environmental impacts.
A bill wending through the Washington State legislature would require data centers to pick up the tab for all of the costs associated with connecting them to the grid. It echoes laws passed in Oregon and Minnesota last year, and others currently under consideration in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, and Delaware.
Several of these bills, including Washington’s, also seek to protect state climate goals by ensuring that new or expanded data centers are powered by newly built, zero-emissions power plants. It’s a strategy that energy wonks have started referring to as BYONCE — bring your own new clean energy. Almost all of the bills also demand more transparency from data center companies about their energy and water use.
This list of state bills is by no means exhaustive. Governors in New York and Pennsylvania have declared their intent to enact similar policies this year. At least six states, including New York and Georgia, are also considering total moratoria on new data centers while regulators study the potential impacts of a computing boom.
“Potential” is a key word here. One of the main risks lawmakers are trying to circumvent is that utilities might pour money into new infrastructure to power data centers that are never built, built somewhere else, or don’t need as much energy as they initially thought.
“There’s a risk that there’s a lot of speculation driving the AI data center boom,” Emily Moore, the senior director of the climate and energy program at the nonprofit Sightline Institute, told me. “If the load growth projections — which really are projections at this point — don’t materialize, ratepayers could be stuck holding the bag for grid investments that utilities have made to serve data centers.”
Washington State, despite being in the top 10 states for data center concentration, has not exactly been a hotbed of opposition to the industry. According to Heatmap Pro data, there are no moratoria or restrictive ordinances on data centers in the state. Rural communities in Eastern Washington have also benefited enormously from hosting data centers from the earlier tech boom, using the tax revenue to fund schools, hospitals, municipal buildings, and recreation centers.
Still, concern has started to bubble up. A ProPublica report in 2024 suggested that data centers were slowing the state’s clean energy progress. It also described a contentious 2023 utility commission meeting in Grant County, which has the highest concentration of data centers in the state, where farmers and tech workers fought over rising energy costs.
But as with elsewhere in the country, it’s the eye-popping growth forecasts that are scaring people the most. Last year, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, a group that oversees electricity planning in the region, estimated that data centers and chip fabricators could add somewhere between 1,400 megawatts and 4,500 megawatts of demand by 2030. That’s similar to saying that between one and four cities the size of Seattle will hook up to the region’s grid in the next four years.
In the face of such intimidating demand growth, Washington Governor Bob Ferguson convened a Data Center Working Group last year — made up of state officials as well as advisors from electric utilities, environmental groups, labor, and industry — to help the state formulate a game plan. After meeting for six months, the group published a report in December finding that among other things, the data center boom will challenge the state’s efforts to decarbonize its energy systems.
A supplemental opinion provided by the Washington Department of Ecology also noted that multiple data center developers had submitted proposals to use fossil fuels as their main source of power. While the state’s clean energy law requires all electricity to be carbon neutral by 2030, “very few data center developers are proposing to use clean energy to meet their energy needs over the next five years,” the department said.
The report’s top three recommendations — to maintain the integrity of Washington’s climate laws, strengthen ratepayer protections, and incentivize load flexibility and best practices for energy efficiency — are all incorporated into the bill now under discussion in the legislature. The full list was not approved by unanimous vote, however, and many of the dissenting voices are now opposing the data center bill in the legislature or asking for significant revisions.
Dan Diorio, the vice president of state policy for the Data Center Coalition, an industry trade group, warned lawmakers during a hearing on the bill that it would “significantly impact the competitiveness and viability of the Washington market,” putting jobs and tax revenue at risk. He argued that the bill inappropriately singles out data centers, when arguably any new facility with significant energy demand poses the same risks and infrastructure challenges. The onshoring of manufacturing facilities, hydrogen production, and the electrification of vehicles, buildings, and industry will have similar impacts. “It does not create a long-term durable policy to protect ratepayers from current and future sources of load growth,” he said.
Another point of contention is whether a top-down mandate from the state is necessary when utility regulators already have the authority to address the risks of growing energy demand through the ratemaking process.
Indeed, regulators all over the country are already working on it. The Smart Electric Power Alliance, a clean energy research and education nonprofit, has been tracking the special rate structures and rules that U.S. utilities have established for data centers, cryptocurrency mining facilities, and other customers with high-density energy needs, many of which are designed to protect other ratepayers from cost shifts. Its database, which was last updated in November, says that 36 such agreements have been approved by state utility regulators, mostly in the past three years, and that another 29 are proposed or pending.
Diario of the Data Center Coalition cited this trend as evidence that the Washington bill was unnecessary. “The data center industry has been an active party in many of those proceedings,” he told me in an email, and “remains committed to paying its full cost of service for the energy it uses.” (The Data Center Coalition opposed a recent utility decision in Ohio that will require data centers to pay for a minimum of 85% of their monthly energy forecast, even if they end up using less.)
One of the data center industry’s favorite counterarguments against the fear of rising electricity is that new large loads actually exert downward pressure on rates by spreading out fixed costs. Jeff Dennis, who is the executive director of the Electricity Customer Alliance and has worked for both the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, told me this is something he worries about — that these potential benefits could be forfeited if data centers are isolated into their own ratemaking class. But, he said, we’re only in “version 1.5 or 2.0” when it comes to special rate structures for big energy users, known as large load tariffs.
“I think they’re going to continue to evolve as everybody learns more about how to integrate large loads, and as the large load customers themselves evolve in their operations,” he said.
The Washington bill passed the Appropriations Committee on Monday and now heads to the Rules Committee for review. A companion bill is moving through the state senate.
Plus more of the week’s top fights in renewable energy.
1. Kent County, Michigan — Yet another Michigan municipality has banned data centers — for the second time in just a few months.
2. Pima County, Arizona — Opposition groups submitted twice the required number of signatures in a petition to put a rezoning proposal for a $3.6 billion data center project on the ballot in November.
3. Columbus, Ohio — A bill proposed in the Ohio Senate could severely restrict renewables throughout the state.
4. Converse and Niobrara Counties, Wyoming — The Wyoming State Board of Land Commissioners last week rescinded the leases for two wind projects in Wyoming after a district court judge ruled against their approval in December.