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:
Why climate might be a more powerful election issue than it seems.

Climate change either is or isn’t the biggest issue of our time. It all depends on who you ask — and, especially, how.
In March, as it has since 1939, Gallup asked Americans what they thought was the most important problem facing the country. Just 2% of respondents said “environment/pollution/climate change” — fewer than those who said “poor leadership” or “unifying the country” (although more than those who said “the media.”) Pew, meanwhile, asked Americans in January what the top priority for the president and Congress ought to be for this year, and “dealing with climate change” ranked third-to-last out of 20 issues — well behind “defending against terrorism,” “reducing availability of illegal drugs,” and “improving the way the political system works.”
The Biden administration seems to be taking the apparent message to heart, softening parts of its climate agenda while Democrats in tight elections run interference with their economy-first constituents. Mention of the Inflation Reduction Act, the president’s landmark climate legislation, still mostly elicits blank stares from Americans, and the administration hasn’t done much to help its case. During his State of the Union address, Biden didn’t refer to the IRA by name even once.
And yet Americans clearly, obviously, patently are worried about the climate. More than half of the respondents to a Yale Program on Climate Change opinion poll last winter said “global warming should be a priority for the next president and Congress.” Around the same time, seven in 10 called climate change a “serious issue” and a third reported being “extremely concerned” about it in Heatmap’s own Climate Poll.
“You could also ask, ‘Is the survival of American democracy a defining issue in this campaign or not?,’ and the polls will sometimes mislead you into thinking it’s way down the list,” former Vice President Al Gore said at a recent leadership conference for his nonprofit Climate Reality Project in New York — and indeed the March Gallup poll from March had “elections/election reform/democracy” as the top issue facing the country for just 3% of people. “But when people get into the voting booth,” Gore continued, “and they think about the fact that democracy is at risk — as we saw in the last bye elections — that actually did matter. And I think climate is the same way.”
Gore wasn’t just relying on his own intuition. A widely circulated New York Times/Siena College poll conducted ahead of the 2022 midterms showed 71% of voters believed democracy was at risk, but only 7% identified it as the most important issue facing the country, leading many to start eulogizing American democracy. And yet candidates from the Democratic Party, which has positioned itself as a bulwark against the erosion of representative government, dominated the most contested elections.
When you start to ask more targeted questions, the research tends to concur. “If you say, ‘Is climate change an important priority?,’ you get about two-thirds of people who agree with that,” Matthew Burgess, an assistant professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado Boulder, told me. “If you say, ‘the single most important issue,’ then that’s where it falls off.”
Burgess’s work has examined a particularly odd discrepancy between the limited number of voters who list climate as the most urgent issue facing the country and the fact that climate change, on its own, can seemingly swing elections. In fact, Burgess and his co-authors argued in a paper they published earlier this year that climate voters might have secured Biden's 2020 victory. Using data from the nonpartisan Voter Study Group, Burgess and his co-authors found that “how important voters considered climate change to be as an issue was one of the strongest predictors of whom they voted for in 2020.” How strong a predictor? Strong enough to shift the national popular vote margin by 3% or more toward Biden, they concluded.
But when I asked Burgess what’s missing from a statistic like Gallup’s, which shows few voters prioritizing climate over other concerns, he admitted, “I don’t know.” He has plenty of theories, though. Recent election margins have been so tight that climate change would not actually have to have a significant effect on voting to swing the outcome, he told me. Or perhaps voters are beginning to connect the dots between climate change and issues they more openly profess to care about, such as the economy and national security. When I asked Justin McCarthy, an analyst at Gallup, about Burgess’ findings, he told me that “our question is not meant to measure issues affecting vote choice.”
It takes a lot of faith to buy any of those arguments, and Democrats in tight down-ballot races might not be willing to bet their limited resources on it. But we risk blowing past important context by writing off polling that shows Americans putting the economy over their concern about climate change, according to Emily Becker, the deputy director of communications on the climate and energy team at Third Way, a center-left think tank.
Becker has no problem advising frontline candidates “not to talk about climate and to talk about clean energy instead,” she told me. In her opinion, the two are separate issues — and the popular habit of using them as euphemisms is helping neither voters nor climate-conscious candidates.
“We tend to talk about clean energy as having one core purpose: emissions abatement. Then there are the positive externalities: job creation, clean air and water, money into your community, etc.,” Becker told me. But when it comes to Americans struggling to pay their bills, or who see minimal opportunities for good, well-paying jobs in their communities, “the positive externalities are no longer side effects,” she said. “They’re the main piece.”
By way of example, Becker said, it’s especially telling that investing in clean energy to address climate change appears to be popular in polls, but follow-up questions that ask how voters would feel about that investment if it raises their household costs see a “big drop.” “It’s kind of a luxury issue,” Becker said of climate change-first voting. Third Way’s own research shows that people who self-identify that way tend to be older, white, and more educated.
But young voters — traditionally thought of as the most climate-friendly demographic — are also facing some of the worst economic odds of any living generation. “The idea that you’re going to make decisions at the ballot box based on a faraway problem and not based on the problems right in front of you is a little bit delusional,” Becker told me.
Heather Hargreaves, the deputy executive director of campaigns at Climate Power, a strategic communications group with a robust research and polling operation, had a slightly different takeaway. “I don’t think any elected official who is seeing a national poll where climate change is getting a lower percentage than the economy should be like, ‘Oh, this means I shouldn’t talk about climate change,’” she told me. “That’s misguided.”
Climate Power’s polling has found that “clean energy and climate messaging” moved every demographic toward Biden, particularly — again — young voters, as well as independents, who were key in Burgess’ research. “If you look at the things people care about the most, gas prices and utility costs are always up there,” Hargreaves said. “And these are both related to how we address climate change.”
As even more evidence that climate is a winning message after all, Hargreaves pointed out that Republicans in red districts are “not shying away” from talking about how the IRA has brought money, improvements, and clean-energy investments to their districts. For example, Senator Tom Cotton bragged last summer that “Senator Boozman and I were able to secure the grants” for highway improvement projects funded by the infrastructure law — which the Arkansas pair had voted against. Likewise, Nancy Mace, a congresswoman from South Carolina, hosted a press conference touting a local transit hub with electric buses despite having once called electric mass transit “socialism.”
“They’re now trying to take credit for it — and that’s proof it’s politically a winner,” Hargreaves told me.
As an election-year message, it’s hard to argue that “climate change” — at least phrased as such — actually resonates with the majority of Americans. But “it must be a big tent issue if we’re going to actually solve it,” Burgess, the University of Colorado Boulder professor, told me. And opinions are still being shaped: Gallup has found that victims of extreme weather events are more likely to worry about climate change and view it as a threat. As Hargreaves stressed to me, polling trends tend to be more revealing than any individual battery questions, and they generally show growing levels of urgency.
Becker also offered a word of advice. “Be willing to be told that your issue does not matter as much as you want it to,” she said. “And figure out how you can make your priorities and the priorities of the electorate overlap.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And future administrations will learn from his extrajudicial success.
President Donald Trump is now effectively blocking any new wind projects in the United States, according to the main renewables trade group, using the federal government’s power over all things air and sky to grind a routine approval process to a screeching halt.
So far, almost everything Trump has done to target the wind energy sector has been defeated in court. His Day 1 executive order against the wind industry was found unconstitutional. Each of his stop work orders trying to shut down wind farms were overruled. Numerous moves by his Interior Department were ruled illegal.
However, since the early days of Trump 2.0, renewable energy industry insiders have been quietly skittish about a potential secret weapon: the Federal Aviation Administration. Any structure taller than 200 feet must be approved to not endanger commercial planes – that’s an FAA job. If the FAA decided to indefinitely seize up the so-called “no hazard” determinations process, legal and policy experts have told me it would potentially pose an existential risk to all future wind development.
Well, this is now the strategy Trump is apparently taking. Over the weekend, news broke that the Defense Department is refusing to sign off on things required to complete the FAA clearance process. From what I’ve heard from industry insiders, including at the American Clean Power Association, the issues started last summer but were limited in scale, primarily impacting projects that may have required some sort of deal to mitigate potential impacts on radar or other military functions.
Over the past few weeks, according to ACP, this once-routine process has fully deteriorated and companies are operating with the understanding FAA approvals are on pause because the Department of Defense (or War, if you ask the administration) refuses to sign off on anything. The military is given the authority to weigh in and veto these decisions through a siting clearinghouse process established under federal statute. But the trade group told me this standstill includes projects where there are no obvious impacts to military operations, meaning there aren’t even any bases or defense-related structures nearby.
One energy industry lawyer who requested anonymity to speak candidly on the FAA problems told me, “This is the strategy for how you kill an industry while losing every case: just keep coming at the industry. Create an uninvestable climate and let the chips fall where they may.”
I heard the same from Tony Irish, a former career attorney for the Interior Department, including under Trump 1.0, who told me he essentially agreed with that attorney’s assessment.
“One of the major shames of the last 15 months is this loss of the presumption of regularity,” Irish told me. “This underscores a challenge with our legal system. They can find ways to avoid courts altogether – and it demonstrates a unilateral desire to achieve an end regardless of the legality of it, just using brute force.”
In a statement to me, the Pentagon confirmed its siting clearinghouse “is actively evaluating land-based wind projects to ensure they do not impair national security or military operations, in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements.” The FAA declined to comment on whether the country is now essentially banning any new wind projects and directed me to the White House. Then in an email, White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly told me the Pentagon statement “does not ‘confirm’” the country instituted a de facto ban on new wind projects. Kelly did not respond to a follow up question asking for clarification on the administration’s position.
Faced with a cataclysmic scenario, the renewable energy industry decided to step up to the bully pulpit. The American Clean Power Association sent statements to the Financial Times, The New York Times and me confirming that at least 165 wind projects are now being stalled by the FAA determination process, representing about 30 gigawatts of potential electricity generation. This also apparently includes projects that negotiated agreements with the government to mitigate any impacts to military activities. The trade group also provided me with a statement from its CEO Jason Grumet accusing the Trump administration of “actively driving the debate” over federal permitting “into the ditch by abusing the current permitting system” – a potential signal for Democrats in Congress to raise hell over this.
Indeed, on permitting reform, the Trump team may have kicked a hornet’s nest. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Ranking Member Martin Heinrich – a key player in congressional permitting reform talks – told me in a statement that by effectively blocking all new wind projects, the Trump administration “undercuts their credibility and bipartisan permitting reform.” California Democratic Rep. Mike Levin said in an interview Tuesday that this incident means Heinrich and others negotiating any federal permitting deal “should be cautious in how we trust but verify.”
But at this point, permitting reform drama will do little to restore faith that the U.S. legal and regulatory regime can withstand such profound politicization of one type of energy. There is no easy legal remedy to these aerospace problems; none of the previous litigation against Trump’s attacks on wind addressed the FAA, and as far as we know the military has not in its correspondence with energy developers cited any of the regulatory or policy documents that were challenged in court.
Actions like these have consequences for future foreign investment in U.S. energy development. Last August, after the Transportation Department directed the FAA to review wind farms to make sure they weren’t “a danger to aviation,” government affairs staff for a major global renewables developer advised the company to move away from wind in the U.S. market because until the potential FAA issues were litigated it would be “likely impossible to move forward with construction of any new wind projects.” I am aware this company has since moved away from actively developing wind projects in the U.S. where they had previously made major investments as recently as 2024.
Where does this leave us? I believe the wind industry offers a lesson for any developers of large, politically controversial infrastructure – including data centers. Should the federal government wish to make your business uninvestable, it absolutely will do so and the courts cannot stop them.
Current conditions: Colorado is digging out of its biggest snowstorm of the season, which dumped another six inches on Denver yesterday • Heavy rain and mudflows in Tajikistan have killed at least four people this week • Spring showers are drenching the Croatian island of Ugljan in the Kornati archipelago.
Electricity prices went up again last month, but as Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo reported this morning, it’s not because of the Iran War. The latest spike, which appears in a data update released this morning in Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub, shows that prices were 6.7% higher, on average, than the same month the previous year. The 12-month trailing average, a measure that smooths out seasonal fluctuations in rates, was up 6.5% from a year ago.
While both of these stats represent new peaks — as is almost always the case with electricity prices over time — the overall growth in prices in April was not unusual, Emily wrote. “National average electricity prices have been increasing at a similar rate this year as they have during the past five years, with the exception of 2022, when there was a significant spike in the cost of natural gas. Natural gas plants generate the largest proportion of U.S. power, and the cost of the fuel has an outsized influence on our electricity prices.”
But some places, such as New Jersey and Washington, D.C., saw 21% and 25% increases, respectively, in their 12-month trailing averages due to strained dynamics in PJM, the electricity market they are part of, where power demand is outstripping supply. But Emily writes that: “The new April data also shows how sometimes electricity prices undergo big fluctuations for more arbitrary, and ultimately temporary reasons.” For example, some states such as California and Massachusetts issued dividends or rebates that reduced bills during hotter months when electricity costs typically rise.
See the data for yourself here..
We all know that the backlash to data centers is mounting. As I reported for Heatmap in February, the proportion of voters who strongly oppose developing server farms grew by an eye-popping 50% in just a few months. Now Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer has some exclusive data via our intelligence platform Heatmap Pro that really puts a fine point on how effective that political pushback has become. At least 20 proposed data centers were canceled amid local pushback during the first three months of 2026, smashing a record set only in the previous quarter. “The cancellations,” Rob wrote, “reveal the rapidly expanding backlash to data center construction has not yet peaked.” About 100 new data center fights were also added to Heatmap Pro’s database during the first quarter, another new record.
It’s no wonder why. Even the data centers owned by the richest man in the world aren’t fulfilling basic promises made to voters about the sustainability of the projects. Elon Musk pledged two years ago to build a state-of-the-art water recycling plant in Memphis, Tennessee, to guarantee that his xAI servers wouldn’t deplete the city’s groundwater. Now that Musk’s first data center dedicated to his AI chatbot is up and running, construction on the recycling facility has come to an abrupt halt.
Add this to the list of achievements for China’s booming offshore wind industry. China Three Gorges Corporation announced that it has completed the installation of a 16-megawatt floating offshore wind turbine off the coast of Guangdong province, in what offshoreWIND.biz described as “the world’s largest single-unit floating wind turbine platform.” The pilot project is located in waters nearly 44 miles offshore at depths of close to 165 feet. The developer called the installation a milestone toward deep-sea floating wind technology that could harness stronger air flows and expand the footprint of offshore wind into areas of the Pacific coastline where the continental shelf drops off steeply and close to shore. As in sectors such as solar panels and batteries, the floating wind industry is driven by fierce internal competition in China.
In the U.S., meanwhile, the developer that had planned to build the nation’s first floating offshore wind farm off central California just took a payout from the Trump administration in exchange for abandoning its federal lease. Golden State Wind was among two companies that followed French energy giant TotalEnergies in taking refunds from the Department of the Interior while promising to halt all offshore wind development in the future, as I wrote last month. And as I told you on Tuesday, California regulators are now investigating the developer.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
As the nation’s largest federally owned utility, the Tennessee Valley Authority is, in many ways, the closest thing the U.S. has to one of the giant state companies that handle nuclear construction in countries with major atomic energy sectors such as France, South Korea, or Japan. The TVA has recently refashioned itself as a testing ground for new American reactor technologies. The world’s second BWRX-300, the 300-megawatt boiling water reactor from GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy, is set to be built at the TVA’s Clinch River site. The first power purchase agreement between a next-generation reactor developer and a U.S. utility was Kairos Power’s Google-backed deal to sell electricity from its first commercial molten salt reactor to the TVA. The White House is even giving the TVA an early look at new rules coming out of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. So it’s fitting that now the TVA is generating far more electricity from nuclear energy than this time last year. The utility’s nuclear fleet supplied 41% of its power in the first half of this year, compared to 31% in the same six-month window of 2025, Utility Dive reported. The milestone comes as Mike Skaggs, the TVA’s interim chief executive since CEO Don Moul announced his retirement last month, names nuclear as a top priority.
Type One Energy, a U.S.-based fusion company backed by Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy Ventures, has made a deal to develop its first commercial power plant in the United Kingdom within a decade. The consortium includes the U.S. engineering firm Aecom and the British fusion supplier Tokamak Energy. Type One is already in “very early conversations with several potential customers,” CEO Chris Mowry told the Financial Times. The move comes just weeks after Gates’ fission company, TerraPower, began construction on its first plant in Wyoming, as I wrote last month.
Meanwhile, another clean energy venture in the U.K. is going under. Morrow Batteries, a lithium-ion manufacturer in Europe, filed for bankruptcy Wednesday. “It’s a tough outcome after years of building with over €400 million invested, strong technology, real products in the field, and an outstanding team that stands together through tremendous challenges,” CEO Jon Fold von Bülow wrote in a post on LinkedIn. “I firmly believe this is not the end.” He said he’s hoping to sell to a buyer who will take the technology forward.

I’ll let this chart from the sustainability research service Watershed speak for itself. As Watershed’s head of science John Bistline put it on X: “Texas just passed California in utility-scale solar. And it's not close in wind or energy storage.”
The cost of electricity goes up like clockwork.
Electricity prices continued to climb higher in April, according to Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub. Prices in April 2026 were 6.7% higher, on average, than the same month the previous year. The 12-month trailing average, a measure that smooths out seasonal fluctuations in rates, was up 6.5% from a year ago.
While both of these stats represent new peaks — as is almost always the case with electricity prices over time — the overall growth in prices in April was not unusual. National average electricity prices have been increasing at a similar rate this year as they have during the past five years, with the exception of 2022, when there was a significant spike in the cost of natural gas. Natural gas plants generate the largest proportion of U.S. power, and the cost of the fuel has an outsized influence on our electricity prices.
Although Trump’s war with Iran has inflated gasoline prices and the cost of other crude oil-based products, perhaps counterintuitively, it has not had any effect on U.S. power prices. Unlike in Europe and Asia, where the Iran war has led to natural gas shortages and price spikes, the U.S. is mostly self-sufficient when it comes to natural gas. The only way the war would affect our power prices is if it led to an increase in exports, tightening our domestic supply. That’s not possible any time soon — our export facilities are already at max capacity. “We couldn't export more gas, even if we wanted to,” Ryan Kellogg, an energy economist at the University of Chicago, told me.
The picture of what’s happening with U.S. electricity prices changes again, however, when we zoom in to the state level. Even though the national average growth rate is comparable to the past several years, there are a handful of individual states that are seeing much more rapid increases.
New Jersey and Washington, D.C., for instance, saw 21% and 25% increases, respectively, in their 12-month trailing averages between May 2025 and April 2026, compared to a national average increase of 6%. These areas are seeing more rapid growth due to the strained dynamics in PJM, the electricity market they are a part of, where electricity demand is outpacing supply.
The new April data also shows how sometimes electricity prices undergo big fluctuations for more arbitrary, and ultimately temporary reasons. In California, for example, rates were about the same over the first three months of this year as the same months in 2025, but in April they were more than 50% higher. That’s because last year, Californians received a big bill credit in the month of April — a sort of dividend from the state’s carbon tax. For this year, regulators voted to shift that payment to August, when residents’ electricity bills are typically higher due to air conditioning.
Similarly, one of the largest month-to-month price spikes in the data set was in Massachusetts, where the utility Eversource’s electric rates jumped 36% between March and April. The utility had agreed to artificially lower its rates in February and March after the governor asked for rate relief during the winter months. In April, rates sprang back up.
That’s why the 12-month trailing average is a helpful metric — it can be deceiving to look at how much rates and bills change on a monthly basis.