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:
Here’s what the American Conservation Coalition hopes to hear at the first Republican debate.

After the first Republican presidential debate wraps up in Milwaukee on Wednesday night, the candidates will be invited to an unusual reception. The official afterparty has been sponsored by the American Conservation Coalition, a young conservative advocacy group that has made a name for itself advocating for Republican Party leaders to act on climate change.
The group was founded in 2017 by Benji Backer, a student at the University of Washington who wanted to see the party return to its Rooseveltian environmental roots, and was convinced that his peers felt the same. While polls consistently show that climate change is not a priority for Republican voters — many don’t even consider it a threat — the picture changes when broken down by age, with younger generations wanting the government to do more on the issue.
The ACC has since grown into a network of about 20,000 members and helped pass a handful of bipartisan bills under both the Trump and Biden administrations, including the Great Outdoors Act, which directed billions to the National Parks Service for deferred maintenance, and the Growing Climate Solutions Act, designed to help farmers engage in carbon markets. In general, the ACC wants to see the government invest more in innovation, conservation, and domestic energy production, and mostly get out of the market’s way. Most recently, it has been pushing for Congress to streamline environmental reviews to speed up energy development, an issue often summarized as “permitting reform.”
But the ACC has faced an uphill battle. Climate change is still polarizing in Congress, and solutions are increasingly framed by conservative officials and pundits in culture war terms. Now, gearing up for the first presidential election since the group’s founding, the ACC hopes to convince Republican candidates, who have been mostly reticent about the warming planet, to start talking about it. “Fewer than half of Americans believe that Biden's climate policies are taking the country in the right direction,” the ACC’s new president, Christopher Barnard, told me, citing a recent Pew survey. “That offers an incredible opportunity for Republicans to offer a more compelling alternative, and right now, we're not really doing that.”
I spoke to Barnard just after he landed in Milwaukee on Tuesday about the "electoral ticking time bomb" Republicans face, what questions he wants candidates to speak to at the debate, and the group's hopes for sponsoring the afterparty. Our conversation has been lightly edited for concision and clarity.
Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:
What has the American Conservation Coalition been up to in 2023 so far?
The 118th Congress marks the first time in quite a while that we've had Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives. We've looked at that as an opportunity for Republicans to take a seat at the table when it comes to pushing for policy that can help tackle climate change, strengthen energy security, and reduce emissions. And so we've done a lot of engagement on Capitol Hill on things like permitting reform, nuclear energy, the farm bill, nature-based solutions, critical minerals.
We feel like we're in a really interesting moment right now, where, from our perspective, all of the top solutions to climate and energy problems are things that conservatives can not only get behind, but can actually lead on.
When you say the top solutions are things that Republicans can lead on, are you seeing that leadership in this Congress?
Yeah. Especially on the policy side of things, we saw how much McCarthy and Congressman Graves and Chairman Westerman have been pushing for permitting reform. We obviously got a taste of that in the debt ceiling negotiation. We would like to see much more and that's something that Republicans are still pushing for, which I think is the number one thing right now we can do to tackle climate change.
There is still a little bit of a disconnect between that and their rhetoric on the issue. When it comes to nuclear or critical minerals or permitting reform, there's really a huge opportunity for Republicans to retake the climate and environmental conversation and say, Look, these are conservative, limited-government, small market-based solutions, that would actually really help climate change more than say, the Green New Deal. And they're not really putting it that way. So while I've been pleased with some of the policy progress, we want to see Republicans be bolder and more ambitious and really start saying the things that are going to win them back the youth vote that they've lost.
What kinds of questions do you hope to see the presidential candidates asked about climate change tomorrow?
If I were to ask them a question, I would ask, what do you tell a young conservative, who loves America, who is also concerned about environmental and climate issues? What is your positive vision of the future to tackle this problem?
I think there's a tendency for questions around climate change to be loaded with words that are quite partisan. For example, the term climate crisis is incredibly unpopular with Americans in general and obviously Republicans don't respond very well to that. But asking about things like how do you tackle pollution? How do you make sure that we have a thriving planet for future generations? How do you ensure clean energy, all-of-the-above energy? Those are all things that Republicans are actually very on board with.
Also, what their plan is for American strength on the international stage. Battery technologies, EVs, wind and solar, critical minerals, all these crucial components of the clean energy future are being taken over by China because they see what's going to happen. They want to be the Saudi Arabia of clean energy, and we cannot allow that to happen. So any Republican answer on foreign policy should include, what are we going to do to be the most innovative country in the world? To have secure supply chains? To work with our allies? I think those are interconnected with other issues that Americans and Republicans care about, which is national security, energy security, etc.
What other climate-related messages or policies does the ACC want to hear the candidates talk about?
ACC has a platform called the Climate Commitment with six big ideas to tackle climate change rooted in limited government, market-based, conservative ideals. Some of those that I think would make perfect sense for a Republican candidate to bring up would be the importance of unleashing all American energy. So it's not just fossil fuels, but it’s unleashing nuclear energy, unleashing wind and solar, getting the government-imposed barriers out of the way of these energy sources and allowing them all to thrive and compete in the marketplace.
I think another one is how America's rural communities, farmers, ranchers, hunters, can be part of tackling climate change and protecting the environment. Those are super conservative, red parts of the country that actually have a huge role to play, whether it's farmers implementing sustainable practices on their land that reduces emissions, or rural communities hosting clean energy sites. There's so much that rural communities can do to be part of the solution.
What does it mean for ACC to be sponsoring the afterparty for the debate? What are you hoping to get out of it?
It’s to show that Republicans take this issue seriously now. They understand that they have a huge electoral ticking time bomb if they don't talk about it. We've seen already in the last few months how some of the impacts of climate change, whether it's heat waves, or whatever else it might be— people are realizing the importance of this.
ACC hosting this shows that it's entirely possible to be both an environmentalist and a conservative. They are, in many ways, two sides of the same coin. That's really the message that we want to bring to this, and to push Republicans, especially those standing up on the stage, to come up with a compelling vision of how they're going to tackle this issue that young conservatives can get excited about.
What did you mean when you said they have an electoral ticking time bomb?
If you look at demographic numbers, by 2028, millennials and Gen Z will be a majority of potential voters. By next decade, they will be over 60% of potential voters. Polling routinely shows that climate and environment are the top three, top five issues for them.
And young people are increasingly swinging elections. We saw in the midterms that in all the key Senate races that Republicans lost, young people showed out in historic numbers and overwhelmingly voted for Democrats. If Republicans don't regain the trust of young people on this issue, they face losing an entire generation of voters that are increasingly prioritizing this.
At this after-party, if you're coming face to face with the candidates, and you're trying to convince them why they should make climate change a bigger part of their campaign, what’s your argument? When right now, the majority of the Republican Party does not see it as a priority?
We know that this is an issue that matters enormously in general elections, whether it's trying to peel off independent voters, whether it's suburban moms, whether it's young voters. In some districts, it's just a few thousand votes that can make the difference. So I would tell them you need to, at the very least, have a bit of a platform to go off if you were to get to a general. I think DeSantis is really well-positioned for this, because he can point to his strong conservation track record in Florida in his time as governor — a lot of work on clean air, clean water, healthy communities. Base voters won't be upset about that, but that also allows him a jumping off point for a general election.
There's plenty of examples around the country of red states where governors have embraced things like EVs or wind and solar because they're creating jobs in their state. Wind and solar are much more popular with Republicans than people might think. And so I think there's ways that you can talk about this issue that don't evoke a negative reaction.
Which candidates are you most looking forward to hearing from tomorrow night?
I'm interested in seeing what DeSantis has to say after his campaign faltering, and seeing if he can stage a comeback and what that might look like. And in the past, ACC has been impressed by things that Tim Scott has said and done. I'll be interested to see what his “happy warrior” approach will look like in the debate. We did a video with Nikki Haley about what the conservative alternative to the green New Deal looks like, and so I’m interested to see what she's going to bring to the table.
What does it say to you that Donald Trump has decided not to participate in the debate tomorrow?
I was honestly very disappointed by it. Because my general sense is that if you want to have the American people vote for you, you should be willing to stand on stage and make that case why they should vote for you.
Read more about the Republican primary:
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
By neutering the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, the Trump administration cements the country’s dependence on oil and liquid fuels.
This is Heatmap Daily, a weekday news digest written by our executive editor.
President Trump’s big fuel efficiency rollback is here. This afternoon, the Department of Transportation significantly weakened the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, the federal government’s rules that encourage new cars and trucks to get gradually more fuel-efficient over time. Instead of mandating that new cars and trucks hit a target of more than 50 miles per gallon, as the old Biden-era rules had required, new vehicles sold in the U.S. will now need to average only 34.9 miles per gallon.
That target is below the level that most automakers have already achieved in their vehicle fleet. (For reasons too obscure to recount here, the regulatory standard of 34 miles per gallon aligns to real-world gas mileage in the mid-to-high 20s — something my 15-year-old hatchback manages to achieve without much straining.) The new rules also retroactively rewrite the standard back to 2022, meaning that automakers whose fleets once broke the law may now be in the clear.
These changes, in other words, render the fuel economy law, first enacted in 1975, is now moot. But Republicans in Congress had arguably already achieved this last year, when they zeroed out all of the law’s fines for automakers as part of the president’s tax and spending bill. These two changes, taken together, mean that the Trump administration has successfully neutered the U.S. fuel efficiency rules.
We are digging into the rule-making here at Heatmap, and I hope to have more on the documents in the days to come. But one of the lasting ironies of President Trump’s approach to fuel efficiency will be that his own presidency demonstrates its strategic inadequacy.
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy law, after all, did not originate as an environmental policy — climate change had scarcely emerged as a pressing issue in the mid-1970s — but as a national security and economic sovereignty measure. In the aftermath of the oil embargo, American politicians realized that the U.S. economy was far too dependent on oil for its long-term good. This set off a scramble to find new energy sources, prompting a dash back to coal in the electricity sector and a surge in federal R&D spending on alternative energy. (This funding boost eventually created the modern solar, wind, battery, and fracking industries.)
It also led to a successful push to regulate gas mileage. Crucially, this effort did not limit emissions from any one type of vehicle, as the Environmental Protection Administration’s toxic air pollution rules aim to do. Rather, it targeted the average fuel efficiency of cars and light-duty trucks sold in the United States in each model-year. The point was not to regulate any one type of vehicle out of existence, but to increase the country’s overall fuel efficiency over time.
That decades-long effort was never perfect. It created in American statute, for instance, a lasting distinction between cars and trucks, which has bedeviled regulators as SUVs have taken up a larger portion of the new vehicle fleet. But it has also inarguably succeeded: The United States ekes far more value out of every barrel of oil today than it did half a century ago.
Yet the time is ripe to keep making progress. President Trump’s administration has illustrated the persistence of our oil dependence — and the political and strategic problems that it can still engender. Even though the United States has since become the world’s largest producer of oil, the linked and globalized nature of fuel markets means that a supply shock anywhere leads to price hikes everywhere. When an oil crisis arrives — even a largely self-inflicted one, as in the case of the Iran war — then the price of moving things and people rises, the economy suffers, and the president’s popularity falls. Countries can protect themselves from these shocks on a short-term basis by stockpiling oil (as the United States, in fact, does), but they can avoid them only by switching to a far more efficient and electrified transportation system.
President Trump, in other words, may regret the current oil and refining crisis. But by gutting the fuel economy standards — and waging war on electric vehicle incentives more broadly — he is increasing the likelihood that America will face many more crises like it in future years. Consider it his particular gift to his successors.
The cofounders of The Impact Project have a three-step test for voters.
In November 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced a $40 billion Google investment in his state and declared, “Texas is the epicenter of AI development, where companies can pair innovation with expanding energy.” At a campaign stop in East Texas seven months later, he had a different message: “We must prohibit them from building AI data centers in rural Texas neighborhoods.” Last week, Abbott instructed Texas’ environmental agency to stop issuing permits to data center projects until the state’s grid operator completes an audit of all data centers in the interconnection process.
Abbott is not alone. In the past week, three other candidates for governor moved toward limits. On September 23, Maryland Governor Wes Moore, a Democrat, signed an executive order tying state incentives for large projects to a new review process, pledged that “the state will not go around a local community’s ‘no,’” and announced that he would ask lawmakers to repeal the state’s data center tax exemption, passed in 2020. The same day, Kansas Democratic nominee Cindy Holscher, who voted for data center tax incentives as a state senator and now backs a moratorium, said she “certainly would vote differently based on the information we have now.” Teri Ann Hourihan, Arizona’s No Labels candidate, also promised a “Day 1” moratorium on new data centers.
These shifts represent a pattern we’re seeing across party lines during an election season dominated by conversations about data centers and artificial intelligence. At The Impact Project, we track where the candidates for governor stand on data centers: 143 candidates in 36 states and three territories. By our count, 69 of the 78 major party candidates have voiced positions on data centers. Thirty-eight candidates have staked out restrictive positions on data centers, while 31 are supportive, ranging from unequivocal support to reluctant support with significant safeguards and concessions. Importantly, we counted a candidate as supportive if they champion data center development, even if they want a pause or a moratorium to take a closer look first.
Across party lines, candidates appear to be trying to balance environmental and social concerns with economic and technological priorities. At least 30 support a pause, halt, moratorium, or ban, including 20 Democrats and 10 Republicans. In five states — Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, and Texas — the Democratic and Republican candidates both clearly back a pause. Among sitting governors up for reelection, a quarter back a pause; among major party candidates newly seeking the job, 43% do. The 65 third-party and independent candidates lean further toward restriction: We documented positions for 32 of them, including 19 who back a pause, moratorium, or ban. Today, we are making our research publicly available.
Candidates appear to be following voters, whose opinions have shifted rapidly. In September 2025, Americans were evenly divided over whether they would support a data center being built near their homes. By August, 75% opposed one. In Virginia, the share of voters comfortable with a new data center in their community fell from 69% in 2023 to 35% in 2026 in 2026. In May of this year, seven in 10 Americans told Gallup they oppose AI data centers in their area, with the strongest opposition in the Midwest and the South. Voters’ complaints are concrete, concerning water use, air pollution, persistent noise, rising utility bills, and projects negotiated under nondisclosure agreements without neighbor consent.
Candidates should be responsive to their constituents’ priorities, but the electorate is naturally skeptical when candidates shift their positions so dramatically during an election year. These pivots invite questions about whether some candidates’ new skepticism of the data center boom will last beyond November.
In Nevada, Democratic nominee Aaron Ford co-sponsored the 2015 law that created the state’s data center tax abatements. He now promises to pause them. His Republican opponent, incumbent Governor Joe Lombardo, once called data centers the state’s new “gold rush.” On September 18, less than two months before the election, he signed an executive order curbing the tax breaks. Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, told lawmakers in January that she voted for the state’s data center tax exemption as a legislator, and that she now wants to eliminate it. Wisconsin’s Republican nominee, Tom Tiffany, called data centers “exciting new technology” in January. His campaign now says, “[w]e are America’s Dairyland, not America’s Dataland.”
Pennsylvania’s Republican nominee, Stacy Garrity, was even more blunt: Last summer she praised data center deregulation and expansion. This June, Garrity announced that “we pause for as long as we need the pause.” Garrity’s opponent, incumbent Democrat governor Josh Shapiro, has similarly flipped: Last year, Shapiro celebrated fast-tracking permitting for data center and AI development. This year, Shapiro signed an executive order proposing limits on data centers and has spoken about developers “running roughshod” over communities. In Ohio, billionaire Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy called his state’s data center boom “great” in 2025. Now he promises an executive order pausing construction.
Candidates, of course, are allowed to change their minds, and these changes may be sincere. Our understanding of the burdens of data centers is growing along with the industry. The vast AI hyperscalers being built today are not the server farms of 2015, which is how Nevada’s Ford explained his shifting position.
Are we witnessing political convenience or a real change of heart? No one can see inside a candidate’s head. Voters can, however, check three things.
First, does a candidate’s promise come with a plan? Many of the loudest pledges are for a “Day 1” executive order. Executive orders are the easiest policy to make and the easiest to undo, and a pause is hollow without regulatory action to follow it up. We can ask what bill language the candidate would support, what it would require, and what happens the day a proposed pause ends. We can also question whether the candidate can deliver. Utility rates are set by public utility commissions, not governors, and tax incentives are written into law. A governor can stop new deals, but signed deals keep running. Lombardo’s order, for instance, applies only to companies seeking new tax breaks.
Second, does the plan require disclosure? We cannot regulate what we cannot measure. Many candidates describe their pause as time to study the problem. Maryland’s Republican nominee, Dan Cox, wants a moratorium “so that we can study this.” A study needs data, and data centers developers and operators are famously opaque. As data is so infrequently available directly from data centers, journalists, activists, and researchers have resorted to techniques as varied as satellite imagery, public records requests, thermal drone footage, tax document sleuthing, and human tips to collect data and break news about data centers. Yet fewer than a quarter of candidates who call for a pause call for mandatory disclosure. A pause without reporting requirements ends where it started: without the facts needed to regulate.
Third, what did the candidate do before this was popular? Votes, signed deals, and ribbon cuttings are public record. A candidate who switched should be able to say what changed and what they got wrong. One who cannot is asking voters to trust the new position on faith.
After November, voters can keep score. Watch the first legislative session and the first budget. Do data center incentives come back under a new name? Does a “Day 1” pause end with rules, or does it simply end? Communities have already shown what accountability looks like locally, where residents have recalled officials and replaced council members who approved unpopular projects. Governors deserve the same attention.
What voters want is reasonable. When a Michigan poll asked about a data center within 25 miles of home, 55% said they were not open to it, 11% were not sure, and only 33% said they were open to it. After hearing a set of protections, including no rate hikes, no tax incentives or secret deals, and closed-loop cooling, 49% said they would be open to one. What most voters oppose is data centers without rules.
Americans are demanding change, and data centers are top of mind. Candidates who mean what they say will make good on campaign promises by writing rules and passing them. The rest will let their hollow promises lapse and hope no one is counting. We all should be.
The renewables developer is expanding its business to serve “our nation’s growing energy needs.”
Two years ago, Arevia Power marketed itself as a renewable energy development powerhouse founded by solar industry veterans.
Today, the company is now also building data centers and gas turbines, Arevia chief development officer Ricardo Graf confirmed in a statement to me.
“Arevia is an energy company that delivers reliable and affordable electricity to the communities and utilities we serve,” Graf told me via email, acknowledging that “in some cases, that energy may be solar; in others, it may be gas.” He added that “yes, we also develop data center projects, but ones with accompanying power solutions to ensure ratepayers are not impacted by the data center’s energy needs.”
I’ve been keeping a close eye out to see whether any renewable energy developers, faced with the Trump administration’s squeeze on federal permits, will bet on diversifying their businesses. Maybe if they couldn’t build a solar farm on federal lands or access ample federal tax credits for constructing new projects, they’d invest in other sorts of large infrastructure projects instead.
We’ve definitely seen large U.S. energy developers such as NextEra and Invenergy take Trumpian tacks towards supplying data centers with new gas power under. Over the summer I broke the news that Clearway Energy asked the Bureau of Land Management to change a five year-old application for solar farm permits with “a proposed data center and natural gas facility.” After those plans were made public, Clearway told me in a statement to me that it was nixing the idea because it did not comport with their business strategy. “As a clean energy developer and operator, our focus in Nevada remains solar and battery storage.”
In mid-September, D.C. news outlet The Washington Sun first reported that Rhea Data, a subsidiary of Arevia Power, was behind the proposal for a giant data center and energy complex in Idaho including thousands of acres of federal land. On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management sent me a statement confirming key details such as the inclusion of a 450-megawatt on-site gas facility. The next day, a Nebraska public radio station reported that Arevia and Graf were connected to prospective early-stage data center project site evaluation outside the city of Lincoln.
When I asked whether the company was reorienting itself toward data centers and the gas energy business, Graf acknowledged how things looked. “While this may be perceived as ‘pivoting,’ it is just a product of the evolution of our nation’s growing energy needs, which solar alone cannot satisfy,” he said over email on Friday. “Our company takes an all-above approach to helping our nation meet its increasing power demands.”