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 state assembly is about to vote on legislation that would force companies to reveal their emissions and climate risks. Here's why that matters.

Corporate sustainability is a mess. For consumers, investors, employees, and anyone else trying to wrap their heads around a business’ greenhouse-gas emissions, it’s hard to know where to look for information or how one company stacks up against another. The businesses that share data publicly do so on a number of different forums and in wildly different formats. Then there are still many that don’t disclose any info at all.
“It's like a climate ‘Tower of Babel,’” Steven Rothstein, a managing director at the nonprofit Ceres, which advocates for market-based climate solutions, told me.
But the tower is close to crumbling. Two landmark bills that passed the California State Senate in May and head to a vote in the Assembly this week or next could finally put systems and standards in place, with wide-reaching effects, as California is the fifth largest economy in the world.
One would require companies doing business in the state with annual revenues over $1 billion to report their greenhouse gas emissions each year. It would cover an estimated 5,300 U.S. corporations, according to Ceres.
The second bill orders businesses with revenues of more than $500 million to produce annual assessments of their exposure to climate-related risks, and what they are doing about those risks. More than 10,000 companies would have to report on whether heat waves that idle outdoor workers could hurt their profits, for example, or how vulnerable their facilities are to wildfires and floods.
Though the federal Securities and Exchange Commission is considering similar disclosure rules, the California bills go further by applying to privately-owned firms in addition to public-traded companies. About 73% of the companies that would have to report their emissions to California are private, according to Ceres.
Proponents of the policies say investors don’t currently have enough information to understand how exposed their investments are to the effects of global warming or to future climate-related policies.
“If I'm an investor, or I'm going to go work for a company and I want to think about how they're going to grow, knowing what they're doing will affect your decision making,” said Rothstein. “This is really a financial disclosure bill. It's really helping people understand more about the safety and soundness of those companies.”
These new disclosure laws would also ripple through the currently opaque practice of environmental, social, and governance, or ESG investing, making it easier to scrutinize claims made by index fund providers. As Madison Condon, a Boston University law professor summed it up to me, “How is Blackrock supposed to report on the emissions of its S&P 500 portfolio if the S&P 500 companies have not been required to report their emissions?”
But many believe these types of laws would be useful beyond Wall Street and help unlock more progress on climate change.
“Put plainly, it is difficult to imagine a successful approach to the climate challenge that does not have widespread mandatory disclosure as its foundation,” wrote the authors of a recent study on corporate emissions published in the journal Science. They argue that reliable measurement and credible data is an essential prerequisite for both market-based policies, like a carbon tax, and more straightforward regulations on carbon.
The data would also empower outside groups to hold firms accountable to their climate claims. Suddenly, it would be relatively easy to compare the carbon emitted by Uniqlo versus Gap, In-N-Out versus Taco Bell, or Amazon versus Walmart, for example. Legal scholars Michael Gerrard of Columbia University and Eric Orts of University of Pennsylvania expect advocacy groups will also rank companies by their emissions, as many do with the limited data available today, which could lead firms to try and improve their ranking.
The Science study I referenced earlier illustrates the opportunity there. The authors analyzed voluntarily reported emissions data for nearly 15,000 publicly traded companies. After normalizing the data by calculating it as a fraction of those firms’ operating profits, emissions varied widely even within each industry, with medians that were much lower than the means. They found that if all firms with emissions above their industry’s median made reductions to achieve the median, total emissions would decline by more than 70%.
A number of companies have come out in support of the California bills, like Microsoft, Ikea, and some of the biggest trade groups representing American clothing brands. There has also been intense opposition from agricultural and food businesses, airlines, cement companies, chambers of commerce, and the Western States Petroleum Association, which represents the oil and gas industry. Opponents have spent more than $7 million on lobbying efforts, according to an analysis by The Lever’s Rebecca Burns.
But it seems that even if the California bills don’t pass, it’s only a matter of time before companies face similar requirements elsewhere. The European Union is close to finalizing standards for emissions disclosure that will apply to some 50,000 companies, including many headquartered in the United States, beginning in 2024. In the U.S., the Biden administration’s “Buy Clean” initiative requires the government to procure building materials that meet certain carbon thresholds, meaning manufacturers will have to measure and report their emissions. A number of states have passed or are contemplating similar programs. There are also the upcoming SEC rules I mentioned earlier.
“When you take a step back, it is an unequivocal trend that the world is moving to more mandatory climate disclosure,” said Rothstein.
Read more about climate data:
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 state is the first to backtrack on binding emissions legislation.
A wave of climate action swept the country’s statehouses in the early 2020s, with nearly two dozen states setting targets to slash their emissions. New York was ahead of the pack and among the most ambitious, passing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, or CLCPA, in the summer of 2019 to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
Now, however, the Empire State will distinguish itself as the first of the bunch to walk back its landmark climate law in the wake of Trump’s re-election.
The New York legislature released the text of the deal it reached with Governor Kathy Hochul to reform the state’s climate law on Tuesday. The deal includes two consequential changes: delaying a plan to regulate carbon from 2024 (it was already behind schedule) until 2028, and modifying how the state accounts for the powerful greenhouse gas methane in a way that will look like the state has accomplished deeper reductions than under the current method.
The governor has been signalling her intent to weaken the CLCPA for months, arguing that as written, it would have imposed untenable costs on New Yorkers. “Reality has been harsh,” she said during a press conference about the budget agreement in early May, before the text was released. “We cannot meet the current timelines without driving energy costs higher.”
Local environmental groups were widely critical of the deal, with New York Renews calling it a “major blow for New Yorkers and for the country” that would set “a dangerous precedent,” and Environmental Advocates NY deeming the rollbacks “bad politics and bad policy.”
Some remained hopeful that the changes would not derail the state’s progress by much, however. “There’s no way to sugarcoat it, this is a setback,” Jackson Morris, the director of state power sector, climate and energy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told me. “At the same time, I don’t think it’s a setback that we can’t recover from.”
The CLCPA set targets to cut economy-wide emissions 40% by 2030 relative to 1990 levels, and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. It also codified an earlier plan to source 70% of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030 and power the state entirely with zero-emissions resources by 2040.
New York didn’t make up these targets. They’re based on reports from the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which mapped out how the world could minimize the risks of climate change in line with the Paris Agreement. After Donald Trump announced he would pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement when he first took office in 2017, a number of Democratic governors banded together to show that America was still “all in” to achieve the pact’s goals, leading to a flurry of state climate laws in the years that followed.
Hochul’s budget deal doesn’t change the renewable electricity targets or the overall trajectory of the original law. Instead, it delays the regulations that would make the economy-wide emissions reductions possible to achieve.
The CLCPA directed state agencies to promulgate rules and regulations by 2024 that would put New York on the path to achieve the 2030 and 2050 targets. In the years since the law passed, the state has been developing a cap-and-invest program that would tax carbon emissions progressively over time, and use the proceeds to fund clean energy programs throughout the state. This program was the crux of Hochul’s affordability concerns, as it would make energy more expensive for some New Yorkers in the near term.
The budget deal moves the deadline for the regulations to the end of 2028. Crucially, it also does not require that those regulations help the state achieve the 2030 emissions target. Instead, it specifies that the regulations be designed to achieve a new goal of reducing emissions 60% by 2040, in addition to the original net zero by 2050 target.
Morris, of the NRDC, was quick to note that the deal does not get rid of the 2030 target. While there will be no state programs aimed at achieving it, it still provides a statutory foundation that agencies such as the Department of Environmental Conservation can point to as a reason to reject fossil fuel project permits, for example, he said. Meanwhile, Morris is optimistic that the new 2028 deadline and 2040 target can keep the state on track.
“We obviously prefer that none of this is happening,” he said. “But because it’s happening, I think that’s one aspect of this deal that we see as providing some ground to stand on.”
One of the aspects of the CLCPA that made it more ambitious than other state climate laws was the way it required New York to account for methane. The budget deal will eliminate this edge.
There were two key components to New York’s unique methane rules. The first was that they forced the state to take responsibility for methane emissions that occurred outside its borders that were nevertheless tied to its natural gas use. For instance, a major source of methane emissions is leakage from the infrastructure used to drill, process, and transport natural gas. New York banned fracking in 2014, and the state gets most of its natural gas via pipeline from Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Under Hochul’s changes, the state can take these “imported” emissions off its books.
The second is a bit more convoluted and has to do with how methane behaves in the atmosphere. When governments or companies set emissions targets, they typically convert all greenhouse gases into “carbon dioxide equivalents” so that they can set one round number goal for all emissions, like New York’s 60% reduction by 2040. There’s no single way to do this, since unlike carbon dioxide, which remains in the atmosphere for centuries, methane breaks down quickly. Over 20 years, one metric ton of methane has a similar effect to about 80 metric tons of carbon, but over 100 years, it’s more akin to 25 metric tons of carbon. New York uses the 20-year effect as its conversion factor, but under the budget deal, it will switch to the 100-year method. That will make its methane emissions suddenly appear much lower, and thus make the state look further along in fighting climate change without actually changing anything about its strategy.
This will ease the pressure on the state to electrify buildings, clean up landfills, and take other difficult steps to cut methane emissions. It will also, however, align New York’s methane math with that of most U.S. states and much of the rest of the world.
The national climate advocacy group Evergreen Action, which focuses on state policy, is less concerned about the changes to the climate law and more concerned about how they happened. Justin Balik, the nonprofit’s vice president for states, told me that Hochul never brought her concerns to environmental stakeholders or asked for policy proposals for how to accelerate clean energy while lowering costs.
“We need to see more urgency from the governor and the legislature to actually do the things that will result in emissions reductions and cutting costs for people,” Balik told me, “and less fretting about the targets that are written into law.”
Balik argued that the changes will do nothing to address the factors that are increasing energy rates. He cited the state’s dependence on natural gas as a key driver, as natural gas prices can fluctuate dramatically due to geopolitics and supply and demand. If anything, he said, delaying the cap-and-invest regulations will delay clean energy deployment and exacerbate affordability by deferring the revenue the state would have collected to and used to fund emissions-cutting programs and rate relief.
The budget deal attempts to make up for the shortfall with a $1 billion allocation to the state’s Sustainable Future Fund, which will support state programs to cut emissions from buildings and roads with heat pumps, thermal energy networks, electric school buses, and fast-charging stations.
Evergreen, NRDC, and other groups now have their sights set on the 2028 regulations.
“If we can move forward quickly with a robust process to stand up that cap-and-invest construct in New York State, and get it cutting pollution and generating billions of dollars in revenue for reinvestment in communities, that's going to be a huge breakthrough for the state of New York,” Morris said.
On a California chem leak, solar manufacturing, and BHP’s climate retreat
Current conditions: Unprecedented May heat is roasting Western Europe, with temperatures shattering records in at least 20 French towns and soaring to 95 degrees Fahrenheit in London • Bougainville, the autonomous and ethnically distinct region of Papua New Guinea that’s expected to vote for independence next year to become the world’s newest nation, is enduring a week of lightning storms and heavy rain • The Tajik city of Khorog, a provincial capital located in a canyon near the Afghan border, is bracing for snow.
The price per barrel of crude fell nearly 7% on Monday as Iranian negotiators arrived in Qatar for peace talks the same day two tankers carrying liquified natural gas passed through the Strait of Hormuz. The vessels shipping LNG from Qatar to China and Pakistan, respectively, successfully navigated the waterway at the mouth of the Persian Gulf on Monday. The signal of a loosening blockade comes two days after another tanker taking crude to China crossed the strait. While President Donald Trump said over the weekend that an agreement in principle to halt fighting with Tehran could come soon, The Wall Street Journal reported that it would take far longer to ease the bottlenecks created by the conflict. Despite reports of new U.S. strikes in Iran Monday night, prices fell another 4% in early trading Tuesday.
U.S. producers, meanwhile, are stepping up to fill the gap in oil and gas supply. On Saturday, the Financial Times reported that companies such as Diamondback, America’s third-largest producer in the Permian Basin, and shale driller Continental Resources were expanding drilling by more than 40% as a result of the war. U.S. companies have added at least 18 rigs since the start of the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign. Increased production isn’t just happening at home, either. Exxon Mobil just began drilling a new offshore well near its new operations in Guyana, according to Upstream. Over at the British oil giant BP, however, this morning brought upheaval as the board of directors ousted its chairman after just six months.

California officials ordered as many as 50,000 Orange County residents to evacuate Sunday after a crack formed in a tank at an industrial facility holding 7,000 gallons of a highly flammable toxic chemical. The accident at the suburban Los Angeles plant owned by the British fighter jet supplier GKN Aerospace began on Thursday, when firefighters in Garden Grove, California, found that a tank containing methyl methacrylate, a feedstock used to make plastic, had started bulging with pressure and releasing gas as it overheated. By Saturday, a fissure had formed in the tank — one of three on site containing the chemical — in what NPR called “good news,” since the opening eased pressure, making an explosion less likely. So far, no one has been injured. “Safety at our facilities is paramount,” a GKN spokesperson told the Los Angeles Times. “We follow all standard safety protocols and processes and are regularly audited by numerous state and federal agencies.” But authorities as far east as Arizona were bracing for the possibility of an explosion. In an update posted on X Monday morning, Orange County’s interim fire chief announced that the threat of what’s called a “boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion,” or BLEVE (pronounced blevvy), “is now off the table,” adding that “that threat has been eliminated.”
While the accident will no doubt draw scrutiny to GKN’s record at the facility, known for producing parts for the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jet, the episode is unlikely to draw the same fervid response as the fire at California’s Moss Landing battery plant last January. That incident set off what Heatmap’s Jael Holzman pegged as nationwide backlash to batteries. So far, thankfully, cooler heads have prevailed in resisting the urge to demand a shutdown of all production of aircraft components as a result of an accident.
The Trump administration’s yet-undefined rules for determining a key factor in solar projects’ eligibility for outgoing federal tax credits are bifurcating the U.S. market. The administration has yet to spell out in detail how companies should determine what percentage of their project inputs come from a so-called foreign entity of concern. While the list of FEOCs includes Russia, Iran, and North Korea, the main sticking point for developers is China, which dominates the global renewables supply chain. On one side are developers willing to roll the dice on imported equipment. On the other are companies avoiding the risk by buying panels either made in America, or in allied countries. To make navigating the process easier, the SEMA Coalition — an industry group representing U.S. solar manufacturers that support restrictions on cheap Chinese imports — put out a new report that includes a check list to determine whether a panel producer is likely to qualify for federal tax incentives or not. The paper, which was shared exclusively with me for this newsletter, was “informed by tax opinions, legal counsel who advise the SEMA Coalition’s members, as well as public documents.” The findings show that “some of these rules are ambiguous, while others are clear but challenging to comply with in practice.”
As I told you last week, American solar manufacturing is finally seeing something of a boom. Nearly 30 new utility-scale solar factories began production last year, providing more than enough capacity to meet U.S. demand.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Amid a sweltering London heat wave in 2019, BHP laid out plans for the “biggest global mobilization since World War II” in the name of cutting back on fossil fuel use and fighting a climate that threat that “could be existential,” the world’s largest mining company’s then-CEO Andrew Mackenzie said at the time. Today, however, the giant is reversing course, quietly shelving billions of dollars in projects designed to cut emissions from its mining operations. An internal memo from last year leaked to Australia’s ABC News and The Guardian shows that the need for renewables at BHP’s iron-ore facility in Pilbara had “diminished,” and that a plan to hit net-zero by 2050 had a “low probability of success.”
The West Coast’s continental shelf drops off far more steeply into the Pacific than America’s East Coast slides into the Atlantic, making siting offshore wind turbines tricky off California’s shores. Nevertheless, a developer was trying to build the first floating offshore turbines in the U.S. — at least until the Trump administration struck a dubious deal to pay the company to quit. That agreement is drawing blowback from California regulators, as I told you earlier this month. But the Golden State isn’t abandoning its goals. On Monday, offshoreWIND.biz reported that the California Energy Commission had reaffirmed its target of 25 gigawatts of offshore turbine capacity by 2045. “At a time of global energy volatility, offshore wind is not just a climate strategy. It is part of a national security strategy,” Noel Hacegaba, chief executive at the Port of Long Beach, said in a statement. “The grid we built for the last century cannot carry us through the next. This is renewable energy’s moment.”
The market for offshore wind looks even brighter outside the U.S. Last week, the Danish Energy Agency received bids for two different offshore development areas totaling a combined 1.8 gigawatts of turbines, according to Renewables Now. In an interview with Wind Power Monthly, the chief executive of the automaker Volvo lauded Sweden’s offshore wind farms for giving manufacturers like his a “competitive edge.”
Canadians can now cruise around the 10,000-year-old Columbia Icefield in a vehicle whose pollution isn’t adding to polar melting. On Monday, InsideEVs reported that the truck maker Pursuit had retrofitted one of its old diesel ice explorers to go electric with a huge, 528-kilowatt-hour battery. That’s big enough for about 30 trips up and down the Rocky Mountain icefield. The renovation involved keeping the old cabin but replacing the chassis and driveline with battery-propelled equipment. It is the world’s first all-electric ice explorer.
Rob sits down with the Josh Parker, head of sustainability at America’s world-leading chip designer.
America’s tech companies are transforming the electricity system — building entirely new fleets of new solar panels, batteries, and gas turbines — in order to power what are essentially warehouses filled with cutting-edge chips.
Almost all of those chips are made by Nvidia. On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob is joined by Josh Parker, Nvidia’s head of sustainability. They discuss the climate and electricity impacts of artificial intelligence, why Josh is incredibly bullish on AI’s ability to cut carbon emissions and whether it has done so so far, and the company's work with clean energy and fossil fuel companies.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from their conversation:
Robinson Meyer: So Heatmap has been tracking what, to us, has been a very sudden and shocking rise of local pushback against AI data centers. And of course, this has become a larger meme over the past few months, as it’s gotten more attention. For instance, we think about 50 AI data centers or data centers broadly were canceled last year after facing local pushback. And we think more than 50 have already been canceled this year.
Are you seeing that at all at Nvidia? I mean, it doesn’t look — your quarterly results came out yesterday and they were, they absolutely blew out expectations. And so evidently it’s not affecting demand yet. But do you hear it from customers? Is this affecting Nvidia’s business at all? And how do you think about it as a risk going forward?
Josh Parker: So I’m aware of the sentiment, the paranoia around AI, mostly on a personal level because I see it on social media like other people do, as well. I’m not aware of any direct impact on our sales, so I can’t comment on that. But what I will say is, I do think it’s particularly tragic, because this technology has the potential to be the most beneficial, both for environmental goals and for social goals — so things like education and health care, and kind of across-the-board social issues benefit from AI, as well. And the concerns about AI, a lot of them are based on either erroneous data or old data. And I worry that some people don’t fully understand the net impacts, the positive as well as the negative of AI.
Plus, we have the uphill battle of, it’s really hard if the data center is being built a few miles down the road, to tie that data center — which, they don’t always look beautiful and things like that — to the benefits that the whole world is going to get from AI. So if — obviously not promising this — but AI could unlock cancer cures or cures to other diseases, and we’re seeing trends in the direction of cures and treatments and drug discovery and so forth. But it’s really hard for us as humans to draw a line between the infrastructure that we see down the street, and especially the speculative, the moonshot benefits. But even the more fundamental ones, like the benefits and productivity that we’re seeing in potential for wage growth and education and so forth, even though it’s hard for us to draw the line between the infrastructure.
So it’s understandable, but I do think it’s tragic. And I think it’s our responsibility in the tech industry to help people see the bigger picture and to address people’s concerns head on about environmental impacts and social impacts. Because the data really does demonstrate that, by and large, these data centers are pro-sustainability. They don’t have the impacts that most people are concerned about, and they’re manageable. And most data center operators are trying to operate them in a sustainable way.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
Previously on Shift Key: Data Centers Are Creating a New Kind of Battery Monster
Previously on Shift Key: A Skeptic’s Take on AI and Energy Growth
From Heatmap: Exclusive: Local Opposition to Data Centers Explodes in 2026
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Heatmap Pro brings all of our research, reporting, and insights down to the local level. The software platform tracks all local opposition to clean energy and data centers, forecasts community sentiment, and guides data-driven engagement campaigns. Book a demo today to see the premier intelligence platform for project permitting and community engagement.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.