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:
Voters are mad at Trump over rising bills, but assigning blame is complicated.
Electricity prices are rising and voters are mad about it — two facts that might seem to add up to a political victory for Democrats.
Environmental groups and elected officials alike are gearing up to use electricity prices against Trump, citing the president’s multi-pronged assault on renewables as the problem and promising to immediately bring them down as the solution. “Cheap is clean and clean is cheap,” Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz said at Heatmap House during New York Climate Week, echoing what has become essentially a universal talking point among climate activists.
The problem with that message, however, is that lowering electricity prices is really hard. In reality, the responsibility for high prices can’t be laid that the feet of any one person, party, or governmental body. What’s worse for Democrats: the voters seem to agree.
That’s not to say Trump isn’t giving Democrats a fighting chance.
“What’s interesting politically is that Trump started this term with cost of living being his single strongest issue, and now it’s his weakest,” Democratic political strategist David Shor said at an event hosted by the moderate Democratic group Third Way during New York Climate Week last week.
“A lot of the Democratic attacks trying to blame these energy price increases on Republicans have done well in our testing,” Shor said, and that there was “potential” for such attacks to be effective.
But the public’s views on energy go back further than January 20.
Trump won the 2024 election in part because of public outrage at rising prices across the board. Polling done during the campaign showed that Trump both had an advantage on cost of living issues in general and energy in particular. A Third Way poll conducted early last year showed that Trump had strong advantages on energy production, supporting manufacturing, reducing the cost of energy and gasoline, and the economy in general.
“While Biden was president, energy was one of his biggest vulnerabilities,” Shor said on the panel. “The flip side though, though, is that Democrats aren’t in charge anymore.”
According to polling by Heatmap Pro, voters largely don’t pin the fault for high electricity prices on Washington, D.C. They are more likely to blame “more demand,” their “ electricity utility,” or their “state government,” with roughly equal numbers blaming “the Biden administration and Democrats” and “the Trump administration and Republicans,” with predictable partisan splits.
And while the Trump administration is undoing tax credits for clean energy projects and unleashing regulatory hellfire on existing projects, the electricity price hikes we’re already experiencing are largely due to the cost of the poles and wires that transit and distribute electricity. In some cases, sharply rising demand has played a role, especially in the Mid-Atlantic and parts of the Midwest covered by PJM Interconnection.
Because the bulk of high energy costs are due to investments that have already been made — and can likely only be slowed down by new investments in longer-distance transmission — politicians are unlikely to find a way to lower costs, so much as perhaps slow down their increase. “Unfortunately, electricity rates are not going to go down. Our goal here is to minimize how much they go up,” Gretchen Kershaw, vice president of strategy at Grid Strategies, said on the same Climate Week panel as Shor’s.
Any politician running as a challenger can simply say that rising electricity prices are bad and force incumbents to take responsibility for it, even if they don’t have a plan to lower prices in the short term.
However, Democrats are in charge in some places that have seen large price increases, and that has tripped up their ability to make electricity price increases a marquee issue.
New Jersey, for instance, not only has some of the highest retail electricity prices in the nation, it has seen substantial price increases over the last five years as the state’s electricity market, PJM, has faced billions of dollars in new costs for capacity. Just in the past year, retail electricity prices in New Jersey have risen by over 25%, to around 25 cents per kilowatt-hour.
Along with Virginia, New Jersey’s gubernatorial election — held the year after the presidential election, is often considered a kind of mid-mid-term temperature-check for the country as a whole.
New Jersey is a solidly Democratic state, although one that swung considerably towards Trump in 2024. The Democratic nominee in this year’s governor’s race, Mikie Sherrill, is the favorite and should be able to ride the backlash against Trump to Drumthwacket, a.k.a. the New Jersey governor’s mansion. But with electricity prices at the center of the race, she has failed to dominate the polls.
Her Republican opponent, Jack Ciattarelli, has tried to pin the price increases on progressive policy, namely support for renewables, especially the troubled offshore wind industry, as well as efforts to prevent new fossil fuel power plants from opening.
One anti-Sherrill ad quotes the congresswoman saying, “We need to move into clean power. It’s going to cost you an arm and a leg, but if you’re a good person you’ll do it,” and describes her price freeze plan as just a way to “lock in” already high prices.
Sherrill’s campaign has hit back at the Republican Governors Association, which ran the ad, pointing out that the quote was actually Sherrill explaining how not to talk about climate and energy policy. In other words, Sherrill is getting tagged with the argument that she explicitly says Democrats should reject.
Sherrill has tried to go after utilities specifically in her campaign, and in August proposed a freeze on electricity rate increases.
There’s some indication that voters in New Jersey at least give an edge to Republicans on energy and electricity questions. In a Quinnipiac poll showing Sherrill leading Ciattarelli 49% to 41%, she had just a two-point lead on electricity prices, specifically, with 17% of the respondents not having an opinion.
In short, Sherrill was right to be concerned about how voters perceive Democrats when it comes to electricity prices.
“Democrats have to be very careful,” Shor said. “If you just ask people ‘what party do you trust more to keep energy prices down’? Historically, that’s something that Republicans have massive advantages on.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On disaster aid, rare-earth magnets, and China’s green steel
Current conditions: Hurricane Humberto has strengthened into a Category 4 storm as it makes its way northward, likely hitting Bermuda with heavy rainfall by midweek • Vietnam is evacuating thousands and canceling flights as Typhoon Bualoi makes landfall • Temperatures are surging to 113 degrees Fahrenheit in Paraguay, where the risk of wildfire is rising.
The federal government could shut down as early as Tuesday if Congress doesn’t agree to a funding bill. Over the weekend, Republicans urged Democrats to join together to approve a short-term spending bill to stave off a shutdown. Democrats are under pressure to leverage the risk of a shutdown to halt what their supporters see as the more authoritarian actions of the Trump administration. But, as I reported in this newsletter last week, President Donald Trump has threatened to use the temporary closure of federal agencies to institute “mass firings” that could affect the remaining government workforce in charge of climate research, clean-energy financing, and weather forecasting. The risk comes right as Hurricane Humberto and Tropical Storm Imelda gather strength en route toward the East Coast, making steady federal data critical.
About 85% of the federal government’s 25,000 disaster employees would be exempt from furloughs, according to a September 19 memo from the Department of Homeland Security. The National Weather Service, meanwhile, would continue to issue warnings even if Congress doesn’t approve new spending at the end of the fiscal year on Tuesday at midnight, E&E News reported. But a showdown could trigger a lapse in coverage under the National Flood Insurance Program, according to Fox News. That could pose a serious problem to South Carolina, which faces severe flooding if Imelda makes landfall later this week as expected.
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration’s bid to condition access to disaster aid on whether states participated in immigration authorities’ crackdown, E&E News reported on Friday. In a decision handed down last week, Judge William Smith of the U.S. district court for the District of Rhode Island called the Department of Homeland Security policy threatening distribution of billions of dollars in funding “coercive,” “hopelessly vague,” and “unlawfully ambiguous.”
The effect of halting payments to states is severe. As Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo explained in March when states first sued over the Trump administration’s decision to hold up funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the consequences of losing access to money come swiftly. She wrote: “If Hawaii doesn’t start receiving reimbursements for its federally-funded case management program by March 31, for example, it will be forced to immediately discontinue its work helping more than 4,000 wildfire survivors create tailored disaster recovery plans and navigate recovery resources."
Niron Magnetics started construction on a new 1,500-ton-per-year permanent magnet factory in Sartell, Minnesota. The company, spun out of Department of Energy research, is among the first to move forward on new domestic manufacturing capacity of a product of which the U.S. wants to claw back control from China. The privately-held Niron already has commercial partners: Stellantis, Samsung, Allison Transmission, and Magma.
While Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act killed off the electric vehicle tax credit that was widely seen as an important demand signal for critical minerals, the administration has sought to bolster production of both the metals and magnets. Over the summer, the Department of Defense bought a large stake in MP Materials, the only rare earths producers in the U.S., making the biggest intervention in a private market since the country’s railroads were nationalized in World War I. The boldness of the move made Biden administration officials jealous, as Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin reported in July.
China made history this summer by selling its first shipment of steel forged with green hydrogen to Europe, in a sign Beijing was vaulting ahead of the U.S. on overseas sales of zero-carbon steel. But China’s plans to clean up its steelmaking industry are faltering amid a shortage of the electric-arc furnaces needed to replace traditional coal-fired steel production, Bloomberg reported. New analysis by the Centre for Research and Clean Air found that China will generate roughly 10% of its total steel output this year from electric-arc furnaces. That’s far below the global average of 29%. By comparison, the U.S. — which reduced its coal-fired steel production over the past half century — uses electric-arc furnaces for 72% of steelmaking.
China’s solar installations, meanwhile, fell to a three-year low following electricity market reforms that reduced domestic demand, as this newsletter reported in July. The country added just 7.36 gigawatts of panels last month, down a third from July, before the policy changes kicked in.
Rosatom, Russia’s state-owned nuclear power company, is building the vast majority of newcomer countries’ debut atomic energy stations worldwide, from Egypt to Turkey to Bangladesh to Iran. Now the Kremlin has inked an even bigger deal to expand nuclear energy production in the Islamic Republic. The $25 billion deal announced last week came as the United Nations voted to reimpose sanctions on Iran.
Brazil's solar boom.EIA
Brazil has long benefited from an electrical system built around hydropower plants. But distributed solar is now the fastest-growing source of new generation in the South American country. Distributed solar capacity grew from less than 1 gigawatt in 2018 to 40 gigawatts this year as of June, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
From the notebooks of Heatmap’s reporters and editors.
The three letter acronym I heard the most during New York Climate Week wasn’t EPA, COP, NDC, or GHG. It was PJM. The country’s largest electricity market — the PJM Interconnection, which reaches into 13 states, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan — has become the poster child for data center growth, clogged interconnection queues, and political backlash to rising electricity prices. Nearly every conversation I have about PJM includes a preamble about how nerdy and impenetrable the whole field of wholesale electricity markets is. Even so, it’s quickly becoming a central preoccupation of the political system, especially in states like New Jersey, where electricity prices have become a central issue in the gubernatorial campaign. — Matthew Zeitlin
As expected, this climate week featured lots of chatter about artificial intelligence — both the pros and the cons. On Tuesday, I attended an actual debate on the topic hosted by Deloitte, titled “AI for Sustainability: Friend of Foe,” which asked four participants to argue for or against a strongly worded motion: “AI is humanity’s best hope for tackling climate change.” To be frank, I disagreed with the premise before either side launched into their arguments, as did many others in attendance. When the audience was polled ahead of time, 49% disagreed, 36% were undecided, and 15% agreed.
The AI advocates — Riaz Raihan of Trane Technologies and Jen Huffstetler, HP’s chief sustainability officer — did share a few striking figures. Raihan, for instance, noted that Trane’s AI platform can make HVAC systems up to 25% more efficient. If that tech were deployed worldwide, it would save significantly more power than all the world’s data centers currently consume. But it was ultimately David Wallace-Wells of the New York Times who expressed the sentiment that I found most compelling when he cited the very human problems that keep renewable energy projects stuck in interminably long interconnection queues for years.
“What is it that’s stopping that renewable power from getting online. Is it a lack of intelligence? Is it too limited, too scarce intelligence? Or is it the human challenges, the concrete, real-world challenges? How do we deal with politics? How do we deal with land use? How do we prioritize what we’re doing in this world?” Ultimately, the audience appeared persuaded by his arguments, too — as well as those of his co-debater, Sarah Myers of the AI Now Institute. When the debate was over, 78% of the audience disagreed with the motion, 16% agreed, and 6% remained undecided. — Katie Brigham
At this point, I think we’re used to the idea that the artificial intelligence boom is creating more demand for electricity — and that this higher demand is helping renewable developers during what would otherwise be a tough moment. One theme that stuck out to me at New York Climate Week, though, is how much the surge in Big Tech investment is harmonizing what used to be otherwise regional markets.
Because a relatively small number of companies are driving such a large share of electricity capex, utilities across the country — who would normally do business with residential developers or small-to-medium-sized industrials — are now working with the same few tech firms. Those firms have the same sorts of demands everywhere. And because those tech firms are so flush with cash (and so far from achieving their climate goals), they are becoming important buyers for early-stage climate tech products. In that way, the AI boom — whose first-order labor effects have been quite concentrated in the San Fransisco area — is already transforming the U.S. economy. — Robinson Meyer
Here at Heatmap, we promise to bring you the “inside story of the race to fix the planet.” I’m biased, of course, but I think we tend to deliver, and my colleague Emily Pontecorvo certainly did this week with her story on the obscure accounting debate that has the potential to reshape our emissions future for years to come. We’re talking specifically about the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, the primary standard-setting body for corporate carbon accounting, which is in the process of revising its guidelines for how companies should report the emissions from the electricity they consumer, otherwise known as scope 2 emissions.
While it hasn’t cracked the headlines in many places, Amazon Director Sustainability Policy told the crowd at our Heatmap House event on Wednesday that it was on everyone’s minds all week — and indeed, it came up over and over again during our “Up Next in Tech” session. I’ll spare you the details of the debate (though you should definitely read Emily’s story), but suffice it to say that it comes down to some pretty profound questions about why we count emissions in the first place. Is it to help consumers make informed choices? Or is it to help decarbonize the global economy? — Jillian Goodman
The administration argued in the name of national defense — but Orsted had receipts.
When the Trump administration ordered work on Orsted’s Revolution Wind offshore wind project to shut down in late August, it cited national security concerns as the reason for the delay.
Within weeks, a federal judge had lifted the stop work order, allowing construction to proceed.
What happened in between matters. In its rush to stop a wind project, the Trump administration exposed the first cracks in its anti-wind policy agenda — a loss that may embolden companies targeted by the crackdown on renewable energy development to fight back.
Orsted, the Danish wind giant, was more than halfway done building Revolution Wind by August 22, the day the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management ordered an immediate stop to construction. In a one-page letter explaining the order, the agency dedicated a single paragraph to the rationale behind its decision: “BOEM is seeking to address concerns related to the protection of national security interests of the United States and prevention of interference with reasonable uses of the exclusive economic zone, the high seas, and the territorial seas,” it said.
Orsted filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government within days and asked for a preliminary injunction against the stop-work order. The Trump administration had acted arbitrarily when it halted construction on Revolution Wind, the company argued, a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, which forces the government to have at least some sensible reason for its decision-making.
There were urgent financial stakes to the court’s decision, the company said. On top of strict timelines for completing the project that were laid out in power purchase agreements, the cable installation company working on Revolution Wind has just a brief window before it is booked for other projects through mid-2028. Unless the judge acted quickly, according to Orsted, Revolution Wind could face “project cancellation and termination of the enterprise,” at an estimated cost of more than $1 billion.
After Orsted filed its suit, the attorneys general of Connecticut and Rhode Island — two of the three states designated to receive electricity from Revolution Wind — soon followed course. The Trump administration responded by doubling down on its claims related to national defense. Revolution Wind, officials argued, would negatively impact radar detection and result in dangerous electromagnetic emissions. They also asserted that Defense Department officials were overruled or ignored when they raised concerns about this matter in the review process for the project, which received its final permits in 2023. (It’s worth noting the Trump administration’s legal filings refer to the military as the Department of War, or DOW.)
The Department of the Interior’s acting assistant secretary for land and minerals management, Adam Suess, told the court on September 12 in a sworn declaration that Revolution Wind had not fully addressed a host of concerns. Suess elaborated on the stop work order, asserting that it concerned the project’s “continued inability to reach certain mitigation agreements” with the military and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Suess stated Revolution Wind was not in full compliance with the terms of its construction and operations plan, which are subject to government approval. He also said there were outstanding issues with Revolution Wind’s coordination with military operators at sea, and that there was still “risk from distributed optical fiber sensing and acoustic monitoring equipment.
“The Department has been in touch with NOAA and the DOW to gather more information,” the filing said, somewhat cryptically.
Suess also acknowledged that the Trump administration is reconsidering its prior green lights for Revolution Wind, including its approval of the construction and operations plan, linking this to a broader all-of-government review of the offshore wind industry Trump ordered on Day One via executive order.
In response, Orsted called the government’s bluff. The company submitted sworn declarations from top company officials who had worked on Revolution Wind, attesting to the fact that before Trump came into office, the military and NOAA were saying everything looked A-OK.
“Mr. Suess’ declaration makes new allegations against Revolution Wind that were not mentioned in the stop work order,” Orsted’s attorneys wrote in their reply. “These new allegations are factually inaccurate and controverted by Revolution Wind’s compliance with project requirements.”
One of Orsted’s declarations was from Melanie Gearon, the company’s head of northeast permitting. Suess had claimed that Revolution Wind was far from reaching a critical agreement with NOAA’s Fisheries division, known as the National Marine Fisheries Service, to mitigate the effects of sea surveys on fishing vessels. But Gearon painted a completely different picture, detailing years of negotiations with NOAA and BOEM about how to handle the surveys.
These talks had apparently continued months into the Trump administration. Orsted submitted an email from BOEM to the company dated July 9, in which an official explicitly says that agency staff were discussing scenarios where Orsted could just “state that they are continuing to work with [the National Marine Fisheries Service] on a Survey Mitigation agreement, which could still be submitted at a later date.” Gearon said the company had received “updated cost modeling” from the agency as recently as September 9, days before Suess’ comments were submitted in court.
Then came the comments from Orsted’s head of marine affairs, Edward LeBlanc, who served in the military for decades and worked on offshore energy oversight. He told the court that the Navy had never once raised any issues with the project’s export cable and that as recently as July 2025, no military officials had expressed lingering concerns about electromagnetic emissions, vessel collisions or other potential national security problems.
“To date, Revolution Wind has never received a notice or any indication that it has failed to coordinate with DOD regarding its offshore activities, or that the U.S. Navy or DOD has any concerns with the ongoing coordination,” LeBlanc stated.
It was after this filing that the justice overseeing the case, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, approved the preliminary injunction and lifted the stop-work order.
As long as offshore wind has existed there has been tension with the U.S. military over use of the sea, and it is true that turbines could hinder radar detection.
In 2011, the Defense Department established a “clearinghouse” to resolve any potential issues with ocean energy development of any kind, whether oil, gas, or wind power. The clearinghouse reviews more than 5,000 projects every year, and its activities include regular give and take with the Interior Department and Federal Aviation Administration. One of the many pieces of evidence Orsted submitted in the Revolution Wind case was a December 2024 letter from the clearinghouse stating the project “would not have adverse impacts to DOD missions in the area.”
Josh Kaplowitz, an environmental attorney who represents renewable energy companies including offshore wind developers, and who previously worked in the Interior Department solicitor’s office, told me: “There is not a single situation I am aware of where the Defense Department ever requested something and the approving agency said, ‘No, we’re going to do something else.’”
“There are some problems with coming in after the fact and coming up with post hoc national security rationalizations when the process of review was so rigorous,” Kaplowitz said.
Independent analysis has also cleared the military’s consultation with offshore wind permitting agencies of having any serious issues.
Earlier this year the Government Accountability Office — a quasi-independent watchdog under the control of Congress — released a detailed review of the offshore wind industry’s federal permitting process. The review was requested by one of the sector’s biggest adversaries in Congress, Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey, who has been heavily involved in fighting offshore wind development in his home state.
Smith, a Republican, ultimately celebrated the review’s publication because it pointed out certain ways offshore wind could impact radar detection and military readiness. In his public statements, however, the lawmaker left out a key detail of the report — that it raised no issues with interactions between the military and offices involved in greenlighting offshore wind projects. In fact, it went into great detail on the lengths researchers and government officials had gone toward solving these potential problems.
“We didn’t have any recommendations there,” Frank Russo, director of GAO’s natural resources department, told me in an interview. “It seemed like coordination was going well, that DOD was satisfied with what was going on, and if there were concerns they could be mitigated.”
Russo said that Defense officials had for years been involved in offshore wind leasing, meaning that military staff from the Navy and Coast Guard had already weighed in on potential safety and readiness problems before companies even knew where they were allowed to build, and certainly prior to the project-specific permitting stage.
“At the very start of it, they know where their main concerns are,” Russo said of the Defense Department’s role in offshore wind development.
The Interior Department normally declines to comment on pending litigation. But I still wanted to ask Interior to comment on the assertions from Russo that the Interior Department and military were properly handling the security implications of offshore wind. It felt especially important to ask them about this because Interior Secretary Doug Burgum last month explained the Revolution Wind stop work order on national TV by claiming radar interference would leave the country vulnerable to “swarm attacks” from underwater drones.
Tory Peabody, a Bureau of Ocean Energy Management spokesperson, provided the following statement to Heatmap: “As a result of the court’s decision, Revolution Wind will be able to resume construction as BOEM continues its investigation into possible impacts by the project to national security and prevention of other uses on the Outer Continental Shelf. The Department of the Interior remains committed to ensuring that prior decisions are legally and factually sound.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include a statement from BOEM, and to remove an errant “not” in the second-to-last paragraph.