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:

From the outrage factory that brought you Joe Biden’s War on Gas Stoves comes a new hit just in time for summer: Joe Biden’s War on Dishwashers.
Late last week, the Department of Energy announced new efficiency standards for household dishwashers, the result of a congressionally mandated regulatory review that nevertheless has sent conservative media into a tizzy. “As usual with environmentalist crusades, the target is poorly chosen and the ‘solution’ is likely to aggravate people, with no benefit to the planet,” The National Review slammed. Fox Business complained that the “war on appliances continues.” The Daily Mail deployed its signature scare caps to blare that “now Biden is going after your DISHWASHERS.” From the trenches, Reason wearily dispatched that “Joe Biden’s War on Dishwashers Rages On.”
When a commissioner for the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, whose job it is to make sure the stuff in our house doesn’t kill us, pointed out last January that maaaaybe having methane-leaking gas stoves in our kitchens isn’t the healthiest of ideas, a similar conservative firestorm had also ensued. Never mind that a federal “ban” was never actually on the table: right-wingers and honorary right-wingers alike tripped over each other to profess that they love their gas stoves the most.
I even sort of get it! A Wolf Gas Range is pretty sexy. But a Miele Lumen Ecoflex dishwasher is … not. In America, chefs are celebrities and gas is the aspirational cooktop featured on many a food and home renovation show; even refrigerators have become show-offy status symbols. But the humble dishwasher is tasked with handling our messes once the Instagramable #foodporn has been scraped away. Why, then, is right-leaning media acting like a SWAT team is posed to bust through our windows and spirit away our outdated dishwashers when we didn’t even realize we were supposed to love them in the first place?
The answer is that “news purveyors” have what Intelligencer calls “a strong incentive to keep consumers in a constant state of agitation” with “new fights that touch on such existential questions as who we are as Americans” since these “tend to light up amygdalae better than old, stuffy arguments over … jobs, wages, and the rising cost of living.” What this means in practice, though, is that the battle lines have been drawn before there are any battles to be had. “Americans with conservative views came to see driving a gas-guzzler, eating meat, and other climate-unfriendly practices as salient to their political and cultural identities,” explains The New Republic, “while recycling, eating vegan, and other environmental habits became coded as coastal leftist habits.” In other words, dishwashers have been recruited into the ongoing culture wars — because energy efficient = bad! — and may now take their seat somewhere between “masks” and “drag queen story hours.”
The dishwasher battle is especially supercharged, though, because former President Donald Trump has taken a keen personal interest in it. During a 2019 rally now best remembered for the president’s rant about not being able to flush his toilet, Trump also took aim at energy-efficient dishwashers: “Remember the dishwasher, you press it?” he’d regaled his audience. “Boom, there’d be like an explosion, five minutes later, you open it, the steam pours out, the dishes. Now you press it 12 times, women tell me. Again. You know, they give you four drops of water. And they’re in places where there’s so much water they don’t know what to do with it.” If you parsed that, congratulations.
A year later, Trump confirmed he’d lifted the “burdensome regulations” on dishwashers and subsequently boasted on the campaign trail that “now you can buy a dishwasher and it comes out beautiful.” (I, for one, don’t believe the former president has ever done dishes in his life — “now you press it 12 times, women tell me”??? — but I digress).
In truth, Trump actually hadn’t lifted a regulation on dishwashers so much as he’d written a new one, Wirecutter points out. Under Trump’s watch, the Department of Energy introduced a whole new product class for special dishwashers that run on short cycles, which are hyper-fast and usually energy- and water-intensive. These new speedy dishwashers wouldn’t be regulated and therefore could use unlimited water and energy. Huzzah! Only, hilariously, manufacturers didn’t exactly rush to make these new machines (the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, an industry interest group, actually opposed them), and Biden eventually closed the silly little loophole.
The rules proposed by the Biden administration last week build on the Trump-era rollback by further calling for “conventional household dishwashers made in or imported into the U.S. as soon as 2027 … to use 27% less power and 34% less water — no more than 3.3 gallons during their normal, default cycles,” Bloomberg reports. “Normal, default cycles” is the key term here because it’s actually the only dishwasher mode that the government restricts; “short cycle” modes are still allowed on dishwashers sold in the U.S., and aren’t regulated by the new rules. The short cycles just can’t be the default modes on the appliances. Surprisingly, this actually makes a huge difference: A Consumer Reports survey found most people don’t actually push the “short cycle” button, and only 6% of people use it “most of the time.” Even with short-cycle options available on all future dishwashers, the DOE still expects its new regulations to amount to $3 billion in utility bill savings over 30 years, reduce CO2 emissions by 12.5 million metric tons, and save 240 billion gallons of water.
So what are conservatives so upset about? One complaint is that energy-efficient dishwashers take too long to run, and while it’s true many cycles top two hours, there is, again, still a short cycle option available on some machines if you want it (though what’s the rush? You’re in a hurry to unload the dishwasher?). There is also Trump’s complaint that energy-efficient dishwashers aren’t as effective at cleaning as energy-sucking ones, though “several of today’s models that already meet the [newly] proposed efficiency standards have five-star cleaning performance ratings from Consumer Reports,” the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), an organization that advocates for more energy-efficient appliances, pointed out in a recent statement. Wirecutter likewise concluded that “crappy cleaning performance and long cycles aren’t an inevitable outcome of efficiency standard” and “if your dishwasher is slow and sucks (and a better detergent doesn’t fix the problem), blame the company that built it.”
Well, how about the cost, then? A representative from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, the aforementioned industry interest group, told Reason that “we’re seeing costs of new products going up dramatically” due to new energy regulations, but Bloomberg reports that the DOE estimates consumers will only pay “an extra $15 for a new standard-sized dishwasher but could take in potentially three times that in reduced operating costs over the device’s lifetime.” ASAP additionally notes that “most dishwashers that don’t yet meet the proposed standard could be modified to do so by making changes in their programming, rather than physical design modifications,” meaning lagging manufacturers don’t need to start from scratch, either.
Of course, rational arguments about the new standards aren’t really the point. The fury is because the Biden administration has the audacity to do something that kind of sort of maybe could be called “regulatory overreach” if you’re totally unmoored from reality. Again, these standards were required to be reviewed by the DOE, hadn’t been updated since 2012, and the vast majority of dishwashers on the market require only simple programming tweaks to comply with the standards if they don’t already. This isn’t going to ruin anyone’s kitchen, much less their life. But in today’s political environment, it all somehow still means war.
Just don’t tell the conservative rabble-rousers that the same DOE energy efficiency proposal for dishwashers also cracks down on another familiar piece of large equipment.
Otherwise a “War on Vending Machines” will be next.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
At San Francisco Climate Week, John Reynolds discussed how the state is juggling wildfire prevention, climate goals, and more.
Blessed with ample sun and wind for renewables but bedeviled by high electricity prices and natural disasters, California encapsulates the promise and peril of the United States’ energy transition.
So it was fitting that Heatmap House, a day of conversations and roundtables with leading policymakers, executives, and investors at San Francisco Climate Week, kicked off with John Reynolds, president of the California Public Utilities Commission.
The CPUC oversees the most-populous state’s utilities and has the power to approve or veto electricity and natural gas rate increases. At Heatmap House, Reynolds — “one of California’'s most important climate policymakers,” as Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer called him — affirmed that affordability has been top of mind as power bills have risen to become a mainstream political issue across the country. California’s electricity prices are the second-highest in the nation, behind only Hawaii, according to the Electricity Price Hub.
“I’d really like to see us drive down the portion of household income that is consumed by energy prices,” Reynolds said in a one-on-one interview with Rob. “That’s a really important metric for making sure that we’re doing our job to deliver a system that’s efficient at meeting customer needs and is able to support the growth of our economy.”
The Golden State’s power premium has been exacerbated by the fallout from multiple wildfires that have devastated various parts of the state in recent years, which have necessitated costly grid upgrades such as undergrounding power lines. California-based utility PG&E has also invested in more futuristic fire solutions such as “vegetation management robots, power pole sensors, advanced fire detection cameras, and autonomous drones, with much of this enhanced by an artificial intelligence-powered analytics platforms,” as Heatmap’s Katie Brigham wrote shortly after last year’s fires in Los Angeles.
Affordability affects not just Californians’ financial wellbeing, but also the state’s ability to decarbonize quickly. “The affordability challenge that we’re seeing in electric and gas service is one that is going to make it more difficult to meet our climate goals as a state,” Reynolds said.
One contentious — and somewhat byzantine — aspect of California’s energy transition is how much of a financial incentive the CPUC should offer for residents to install rooftop solar. Net metering is a billing system that rewards households with solar panels for sending excess generation back to the grid. Three years ago, the CPUC adopted a new standard that substantially lowered the rate at which solar panel users were compensated.
“We had to slow the bleeding,” Reynolds said, referring to the greater financial burden paid by utility customers without solar panels. “The net billing tariff did slow the bleeding, but it didn’t stop it.”
Asked whether he is focused more on electricity rates (the amount a customer pays per kilowatt-hour) or bills (the amount a utility charges a ratepayer), Reynolds said both are important.
“If we can drive down electric rates, we’re going to enable more electrification of transportation and of buildings,” Reynolds said. “It’s really important to look at bills, because that is fundamentally what hits households. People’s wallets are limited by their bills, not by their rates.”
The state has terminated an agreement to develop substations and other necessary grid infrastructure to serve the now-canceled developments.
Crucial transmission for future offshore wind energy in New Jersey is scrapped for now.
The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities on Wednesday canceled the agreement it reached with PJM Interconnection in 2021 to develop wires and substations necessary to send electricity generated by offshore wind across the state. The board terminated this agreement because much of New Jersey’s expected offshore wind capacity has either been canceled by developers or indefinitely stalled by President Donald Trump, including the now-scrapped TotalEnergies projects scrubbed in a settlement with his administration.
“New Jersey is now facing a situation in which there will be no identified, large-scale in-state generation projects under active development that can make use of [the agreement] on the timeline the state and PJM initially envisioned,” the board wrote in a letter to PJM requesting termination of the agreement.
Wind energy backers are not taking this lying down. “We cannot fault the Sherrill Administration for making this decision today, but this must only be a temporary setback,” Robert Freudenberg of the New Jersey and New York-focused environmental advocacy group Regional Plan Association, said in a statement released after the agreement was canceled.
I chronicled the fight over this specific transmission infrastructure before Trump 2.0 entered office and the White House went nuclear on offshore wind. Known as the Larrabee Pre-Built Infrastructure, the proposed BPU-backed network of lines and electrical equipment resulted from years of environmental and sociological study. It was intended to connect wind projects in the Atlantic Ocean to key points on the overall grid onshore.
Activists opposed to putting turbines in the ocean saw stopping the wires as a strategy for delaying the overall construction timelines for offshore wind, intensifying both the costs and permitting headaches for all state and development stakeholders involved. Some of those fighting the wires did so based on fears that electromagnetic radiation from the transmission lines would make them sick.
The only question mark remaining is whether this means the state will try to still proceed with building any of the transmission given rising electricity demand and if these plans may be revisited at a later date. The board’s letter to PJM nods to the future, asserting that new “alternative pathways to coordinated transmission” exist because of new guidance from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. These pathways “may serve” future offshore wind projects should they be pursued, stated the letter.
Of course, anything related to offshore wind will still be conditional on the White House.
This year’s ocean-heating phenomenon could make climate change seem less bad than it really is — at least in the U.S.
You may have heard that we could be in for a “super” or even a “super duper” El Niño this year. The difference is non-technical, a matter of how warm the sea surface temperature in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation region of the central-eastern Pacific Ocean gets. An El Niño forms when the region is at least half a degree Celsius warmer than average, which causes more heat to be released into the atmosphere and affects global weather patterns. A super El Niño describes an anomaly of 2 degrees or higher. Some models predict an anomaly of over 3 degrees higher than average for this year.
If a super El Niño forms — and that is still a big if, about a one-in-four chance — it would be the fourth such event in just over 40 years. But the impacts could be even more severe, simply because the world is hotter today than it was in the previous super El Niño years of 1983, 1998, and 2016.
“2016 would be an unusually cold year if it occurred today,” Zeke Hausfather, the climate research lead for payment processing giant Stripe and a research scientist at Berkeley Earth, told me. “1998 would be exceptionally cold.”
And yet in a strange twist, a 2026-2027 El Niño event might actually make Americans care less about climate change. Though many parts of the world are likely to get clobbered by El Niño’s characteristic combination of hotter, drier weather, the phenomenon has the potential to alleviate some of the extreme weather we’ve seen recently in the United States.
For example, warmer, wetter conditions in the southern U.S., milder winters in the north, and increased wind shear in the Atlantic hurricane basin are all classic El Niño signatures in North America.
“It may actually mean a better snow season for the Western U.S. and the mountains, hopefully recovering our snowpack if it’s not too warm,” Hausfather said. “We might benefit from higher rainfall” next winter, which could help lift widespread drought conditions in the southwest. High wind shear usually results in reduced hurricane activity in the Atlantic by depriving the storm systems of their heat engines and causing them to be too lopsided to organize into a full-blown cyclone.
Though the body of evidence for climate change remains incontrovertible, the temporary reprieve in some of its more visible effects will almost certainly make some Americans less concerned. Blame it on evolutionary biology. Brett Pelham, a social psychologist at Montgomery College who researches egocentrism and biases, told me that humans are hardwired to pay attention to the conditions happening directly around them. “That’s great if you’re living 20,000 or 80,000 years ago,” he said. “But today, we’re pumping tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and it’s a recipe for disaster because people only care deeply about that problem if they feel the heat on a pretty chronic basis where they live.”
People are generally less likely to believe the planet is warming on a snowy day in March than they are in the summer, and a lower average state temperature is about as reliable a predictor of climate change skepticism as being a Republican, even when controlling for income, party affiliation, education, and age. Given that it is, in theory, easier to convince someone living in scorching hot Phoenix that greenhouse gases are warming the atmosphere than someone living by a lake in Minnesota, if an El Niño mellows out some extreme weather trends in the U.S. this year and next, it could also mellow some of the sense of urgency to act.
“It’s a definite implication of my work that day-to-day variation, monthly variation, and geographical variation matter,” Pelham said.
“If my data are true,” he added, “it’s going to be true on average that in places that have an unseasonably cool summer or winter, there’s going to be a temporary shift in the average attitude.”
Such shifts affect the average by just a few points either way — “they’re not night and day, like ‘I believed in climate change and now I don’t,’” Pelham stressed. But it’s undoubtedly ironic — and concerning — that heading into what could be one of the hottest years on the planet in recent history, Americans may be predisposed to feeling relatively safe.
Other parts of the world won’t have such luxury. Even a normal-strength El Niño, which looks all but certain to form this year, could cause major damage, from wildfires in parched Indonesia to catastrophic floods in East Africa to water rationing in South America. In Peru and Ecuador, El Niño is already a “current event,” Ángel F. Adames Corraliza, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a 2025 MacArthur Fellow, told me. Warm coastal conditions off the continent — a known, albeit not guaranteed, global El Niño precursor — are causing deluges, landslides, and heat waves in the upper northwest corner of South America. “You can see how the impacts start extending towards other parts of the world until it reaches us,” he said.
It is possible to combat local biases. Pelham told me other researchers have found that images can break through our egocentrism. So “if we see more pictures of melting glaciers or waters rising in our own backyards, we would start to say, ‘Oh my goodness, we really have to do something about this global problem,” he said.
But to that end, coverage of climate change that might have this effect is becoming rarer. Stories about global warming have dropped about 38% since 2021; even people working in climate-related industries have “a kind of exhaustion with ‘climate’ as the right frame through which to understand the fractious mixture of electrification, pollution reduction, clean energy development, and other goals that people who care about climate change actually pursue,” my colleague Robinson Meyer wrote based on the results of latest Heatmap Insiders Survey.
Of course, there is no promise that the U.S. will skirt disaster because of El Niño. Increased rainfall means more floods and landslides; if the El Niño pushes temperatures up too high, snowpack will once again be an issue next winter. All it takes is one big hurricane forming and making landfall for it to be considered a bad storm year, which is as much a roll of the dice as anything else. And because El Niño releases ocean heat into the atmosphere, the periods immediately following it are often about two-tenths of a degree Celsius warmer, increasing the severity of heat waves and droughts. Compounded by climate change, that puts 2027 on track to be potentially the hottest year the planet has seen in human history.
“We might be at 1.45 degrees Celsius [above preindustrial levels] next year from human activity, and we might end up at 1.65 degrees because there’s a very strong El Niño,” Hausfather said. But for context, “we are seeing that much warmth added to the climate system from human activity roughly every decade,” he told me. That is, “— we’re adding a permanent super El Niño-worth of heat to the climate system” via the continued burning of fossil fuels.
There couldn’t be a worse time to let up on our collective sense of climate urgency, to put it mildly. But if El Niño makes conditions in the U.S. appear any better, then even if there’s disaster elsewhere, “you’re going to give a sigh of relief,” Pelham predicted. “You’re going to feel like [climate change is] not as bad as people have hyped it up to be.”