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:
Climate change was a major topic.

If we learned anything new from the first Republican presidential debate in Milwaukee on Wednesday night, it was not what anyone planned to do about climate change. The candidates failed to expand on their already scant or nonexistent platforms. Almost all of them failed to acknowledge that climate change was caused by humans.
But what was notable was the fact that the issue has finally earned a more prominent spot on the debate stage. Four years ago, activists railed against Democratic primary debate moderators for not asking any questions about climate change until the second hour of the program. The Fox News hosts got to the issue in about 20 minutes.
Below we’ve recapped what happened next, and the other most remarkable moments of the night for global warming, decarbonization, and energy.

Getty Images/Heatmap Illustration
North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, making his first comments in the debate, used a prompt to discuss the economy as a chance to rail against President Biden's historic climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act.
“The economy, energy, and national security are all tied together. We’ve got a plan, the $1.2 trillion of Green New Deal spending in the ‘Inflation Creation Act,’ that’s subsidizing China,” Burgum said. His primarily claim: That IRA subsidies will benefit Chinese battery and renewable manufacturers.
“If we’re going to stop buying oil from the Middle East and start buying batteries from China, we’re going to trade OPEC for Sinopec.”
The IRA, outside of the U.S., has come under fire for its stringent domestic production requirements for electric vehicles and includes domestic content bonuses. —Will Kubzansky

Screenshot courtesy of Fox News
It only took 20 minutes for the Republican debate’s big climate change question to be asked.
Moderator Bret Baier chronicled the summer’s disasters, mentioning missing people in Maui, the rarity of a tropical storm in California, and the overheated ocean in Florida. Then Fox News played a clip from a young conservative.
Alexander Diaz, a student at the Catholic University of America on behalf of the conservative group Young America’s Foundation, noted the importance of climate change to young voters, teeing up Fox News’ Martha MacCallum to ask a simple question: “We want to start on this with a show of hands. Do you believe … human behavior is causing climate change? Raise your hand if you do.”
No candidates had raised their hand — although former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson seemed to be inching his hand up — when Ron DeSantis interrupted to say: “We’re not schoolchildren, let’s have the debate.” —Will Kubzansky and Emily Pontecorvo

Getty Images/Heatmap Illustration
Vivek Ramaswamy initially introduced himself to the American people on Wednesday night as a “skinny guy with a funny last name” — but perhaps his name was more aptly made, at least with many young conservatives, by calling “the climate change agenda … a hoax.”
Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur running for his first political office, has previously claimed he’s not a “climate denier,” but also played coy, saying global warming will not be “entirely bad.” It was also not the first time he’s attacked what he calls “the climate cult in America.” In a video shared by his Twitter account this spring, Ramaswamy slammed climate activists for allegedly saying “that you have to abandon carbon emissions at all costs if you live in the United States.” He added, “It’s a cult that says … ‘We’re against nuclear energy’ … because nuclear energy might be too good at solving the alleged clean energy problem, which means they couldn’t use the climate as an excuse to advance a very different agenda.” Nuclear energy has historically been something of a bogeyman for environmentalists, who fear waste and meltdowns, but the nuclear power industry is also receiving billions of dollars from Biden’s two biggest pieces of legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Wednesday’s “hoax” comment specifically came in reaction to the Fox News moderators trying to push the candidates into a yes-or-no answer about whether humans are responsible for climate change. Notably, no one immediately raised their hand. An overwhelming consensus of scientists — 99.9% of them, The Guardian found — say climate change is caused by mankind.
Ramaswamy’s answer was clearly an attempt to align his candidacy with former President Trump, who has called climate change "a hoax," “a total hoax,” “an expensive hoax,” and “a total, and very expensive, hoax.” Somewhat surprisingly, Ramaswamy's quip was met by audience boos — as well as interruptions from other candidates, who took issue with him calling himself the “only person on the stage who wasn’t bought and paid for.”
Earlier in the debate, a number of candidates had tip-toed around the possibility of “open[ing] up … energy production,” though Ramaswamy — who’s been said to be gunning to be “Republicans’ next Trump” — was characteristically blunt on that point, as well. “This isn’t that complicated, guys,” the 38-year-old chided his peers. “Unlock American energy. Drill. Frack. Burn coal. Embrace nuclear.” —Jeva Lange

Getty Images/Heatmap Illustration
When moderator Martha MacCallum asked the candidates to raise their hand if they believe that human behavior is causing climate change, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis took issue with the question.
“We’re not schoolchildren,” DeSantis immediately snapped back before anyone had put a hand in the air. “Let’s have the debate.” But instead of having the debate, he pivoted to bashing President Biden and showing off his extreme weather bonafides. “Biden was on the beach while those people were suffering,” he said, referencing the president’s response to the wildfires in Maui. “As someone who’s handled disasters in Florida, you gotta be activated.”
From there, the moment descended into chaos. Vivek Ramaswamy interrupted to say the “climate change agenda” was a “hoax.” Christie jumped in to toss insults at Ramaswamy.
The only candidate who managed to get a word in about their stance on the issue was Nikki Haley. ”We care about clean air and clean water but there’s a right way to do it,“ she said. “First of all, is climate change real? Yes it is.”
Haley's sole proposal was to push China and India to cut their emissions. She accused Biden of putting money in China’s pocket by subsidizing electric vehicles, and said the subsidies are “not working.” However, car makers have responded to the Inflation Reduction Act’s subsidies by investing millions in domestic manufacturing and domestic supply chains.
At the end, President Biden chimed in on Twitter with the last word. —Emily Pontecorvo
This article was first published at 9:48 PM ET on Wednesday, August 23. It was last updated at 11:44 PM ET.
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 next governor of the Garden State turned a potential liability into an advantage.
Mikie Sherrill was vulnerable. While New Jersey’s gubernatorial elections tend to favor the party not in control of the White House, no party had won three straight terms in the governor’s mansion at Drumthwacket since the Kennedy administration.
Yet the Democratic congresswoman and former Navy helicopter pilot defeated her Republican rival, former New Jersey State Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli, on Tuesday night by a comfortable margin of 56% to 43% at press time.
To get there, Sherrill had to overcome not only historical precedent but a potentially devastating kitchen table issue: New Jersey has seen its already high electricity prices rise faster than almost anywhere else in the country, with retail rates going up as much as 20% this summer alone.
It could have proved politically lethal. Heatmap polling has shown that voters blame their state government and electric utility for rising rates more than anyone currently or formerly in power in Washington, D.C. And they are worried about electricity prices — according to CNN exit polling, the top issues among New Jersey voters were taxes and the economy, with about 60% saying that electricity costs were a “major problem where they live.”
Sherrill sought to turn the electricity cost issue from a burden to an advantage by making a clear and simple pledge: that she would declare a state of emergency and freeze utility bills. “On day one, I’m declaring a state of emergency on utility hikes. I’ll freeze those rate hikes to lower your family’s bills… New Jersey, I am not playing. I am not writing a strongly worded letter, I am not starting up a working group, I'm not doing a 10 year study. I am declaring a state of emergency,” Sherrill declared at a pre-election rally.
The results speak for themselves, but they are not entirely unexpected. Sherrill had consistently led in polling against Ciattarelli and even had a 10-point lead on who would handle energy costs better, according to a Fox News poll.
“Mikie Sherrill took the issue of soaring utility bills seriously and centered her campaign around a concise solution to this ongoing crisis,” Skanda Amarnath, the executive director of economics think tank Employ America, told me. “She deserves credit for not shying away from what could have easily been a liability of a campaign issue.”
Sherrill was able to use the electricity prices issue to create some space from her predecessor, incumbent governor Phil Murphy. Murphy was associated with a renewables forward strategy, including offshore wind, and had cast some doubt on the effectiveness and practicality of Sherrill’s pledge. “I’m not sure how you’d actually do that,” Murphy told reporters in August.
“Governor Murphy has taken a lot of blame for increased energy prices. He kind of went all in on clean energy. I think she’s trying to create distance between herself and an incumbent from her party,” Dan Crawford, senior vice president at Echo Communications Advisors, a public relations firm that specializes in climate and clean energy, told me.
Sherrill also embraced nuclear energy on the trail, one of the few non-politically-polarizing energy generation sources left in the United States, saying she would “immediately develop a plan for a new nuclear power site in Salem County.”
Ciattarelli stuck to standard Republican moves on energy, saying he would ban offshore wind and take New Jersey out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the Northeastern cap-and-trade system.
“The price freeze was a very smart move because it was very old in a way. It's very Trumpy,” Crawford said. “I'm going to use an executive order to freeze prices. I'm going to fight for you. I'm going to take the fight to PJM. She’s not really worrying as much about the details, but she’s calling attention to the issue. I think that did kind of make energy prices a bigger issue in the campaign and put Ciattarelli on the defensive a little bit.”
Now Sherrill will have to deal with the politics and practicalities of actually implementing a price freeze, navigating potential legal challenges, and maintaining the necessary investment levels in the state’s grid in order to meet its decarbonization goals.
“For the first time in a long time, utility bills became a top issue in a gubernatorial election. In New Jersey, both candidates leaned heavily on utility affordability messaging, feeling pressure from voters to demonstrate leadership on this issue,” Charles Hua, the executive director of Powerlines, told me. “Now, it is imperative for Governor Sherrill to deliver on her promise to make utilities affordable — voters will be paying attention.”
Environmental groups hailed Sherrill’s win as a victory for renewables against the regulatory assault launched on them by President Trump and as a sign that advocates for renewables could effectively leverage the electricity price issue to their advantage.
“Make no mistake, out of control energy costs were a top tier issue in this year’s election, and in Sherrill, New Jerseyans have elected a governor who knows that renewable energy is cheaper, cleaner, and faster to deploy than dirty, old alternatives, and who has a strong mandate to lead the Garden State forward,” EDF Action president David Klieve said in a statement.
And the electricity price issue will likely flare up in statewide and national races in 2026.
“Electricity price spikes are going on all over the country,” Justin Balik, a vice president at Evergreen Action, told me. “Folks should be taking a close look at how Mikie messaged around these issues.”
A “seismic change” comes for the state’s Public Service Commission.
Voters in Georgia ousted two Republican energy regulators in a statewide election on Tuesday, shaking up the party’s nearly two decade-long run holding all five seats on the state’s Public Service Commission.
Democrats Alicia Johnson and Peter Hubbard, who campaigned on the promise to protect ratepayers from skyrocketing energy bills by pushing for more renewable energy, won in a landslide against incumbents Tim Echols and Fitz Johnson.
“The election of two new Public Service Commissioners represents a seismic change in Georgia’s energy landscape and reflects a new politics of electricity in America,” Charles Hua, the executive director of PowerLines, a nonprofit focused on reforming utility regulation, said in a statement. “Consumers have sent a clear message: they are paying attention and will hold public officials accountable for decisions that impact their utility bills.”
Public Service Commissioners are key gatekeepers in the energy transition. When utilities want to build new power plants, transmission lines, pipelines, or other energy infrastructure, they first have to get approval from the local PSC. Not only do commissioners preside over what gets built, but also how much of the cost can be put on ratepayers. They are smack dab in the middle of today’s holy trinity of energy politics — climate change, data centers and demand growth, and affordability.
Every state has a Public Service Commission, but only 10 let voters choose who sits on it — elsewhere commissioners are appointed by the governor or legislature. Utility regulation is so esoteric, however, that these races rarely draw much attention. In Georgia, there was an even bigger uphill battle than usual to engage voters, since in many places, the PSC contest was the only race on the ballot. Yet mounting frustration over electricity costs propelled the race into the spotlight.
“I've never seen a Public Service Commission race catch the cultural zeitgeist and break through to the general public like this one has,” Daniel Tait, the research and communications director for the Energy and Policy Institute, a utility watchdog group, told me.
There’s also been a long buildup to the race after it was held up for the past two election cycles due to a lawsuit. During that time, the commission approved six rate hikes for customers of Georgia Power, the largest utility in the state, in part to pay for major cost overruns on new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle. Rates increased by 33% in the past 2 years, translating to an additional $500 per year for the average household, according to PowerLines. Meanwhile, Georgia Power reported $4 billion in profits last year.
“If Georgia Power comes to the commission and wants a rate increase, they get it,” said Tait. “If they want to build a bunch of gas plants, they get it. If they want to raise their profit margin, they get it.”
Now Georgia Power is proposing a major expansion of natural gas power — more than 5 nuclear reactors’ worth — mostly to meet data center demand. The new commission will be assessing those plans and have power to approve or reject the utility’s proposed generation projects.
Johnson and Hubbard, the two Democrats, have promised to bring greater scrutiny to utility spending. With just two out of five seats, though, they may be limited in what they can do. Tait expects they might be able to find a third vote on some issues, such as strengthening data center rules and taking another look at utility profit margins — especially if sitting Republicans get skittish about their own seats after this election. The PSC in Louisiana previously had a similar three to two makeup, Tait said, and there were a number of votes that did not split on party lines.
Hubbard, however, will have to build his reputation in record time — while a typical term on the commission is six years, the lawsuits screwed up the schedule for Hubbard’s seat, and he’ll be forced to run for re-election next year.
Emerald AI’s Arushi Sharma Frank wants to apply “connect and manage” to AI development.
Everyone knows now how great Texas is for renewables. Its particular combination of sun, wind, and permissive market structure has led the state to overtake even California in clean energy generation. At the same time, however, the state is nervous about data centers and their effects on the grid, even passing a law this past legislative session to more closely examine the data center industry and to establish protocols for curtailing data center operations when electricity is tight.
But what if you could do for data centers what Texas has done for renewables? That’s roughly the idea Arushi Sharma Frank, who helped bring Tesla’s energy business to Texas and is now an advisor to Nvidia-backed Emerald AI, has come up with.
On Friday, Frank filed a proposal with ERCOT, the electricity market that sits outside federal regulation and covers about 90% of the state, that would reform its rules to allow data centers to connect to the grid much faster. The rough idea is that by applying ERCOT’s existing “connect and manage” system for getting new electricity generators on the grid to new large demand sources like data centers, the data centers can get power more quickly — if they can handle not getting access to the grid sometimes.
The proposal “creates the basis of connect-and-manage of load using the existence system that ERCOT already has for generators and batteries,” Frank told me.
Her idea would reward data centers for being able to modulate how much electricity they need in the interconnection process. This could mean that data centers get credit for curtailment and for having their own generation on site. And crucially, unlike a widely-panned proposal by PJM Interconnection to essentially mandate that some customers be forced to curtail their energy use, the ability to curtail or self-power a data center would result in faster interconnection, not simply the cost of doing business.
Frank pointed to chip designer Nvidia’s recent announcement that it would back a Virginia data center using Emerald AI software to smooth out power usage, saying she wants to be “able to actually do that at scale” for “any developer in Texas.”
Getting power for data centers is one of the biggest barriers to getting them built, and so anything that can deliver faster interconnection without foisting enormous new costs on the system as a whole counts as a win-win. With this system in place, Frank told me, data centers and other large loads could “invest in firming their own power needs before major transmission upgrades get built, enabling them to voluntarily choose to be flexible participants on the grid in exchange for earlier interconnection.”
Texas has been able to deploy wind, solar, and batteries so quickly, many energy policy experts and developers say, precisely because of connect and manage, whereby new generators can get on the grid after just a local grid study, without having to examine their effect on the whole system, which most of the country’s grids require. After these system-wide studies often come expensive transmission upgrades, the costs of which are passed on to all electricity customers in the form of higher bills. This process, Duke University’s Tyler Norris has written, “can often make generators financially unviable, introduce uncertainty for project economics, and delay interconnection by years.”
That level of extensive review is partially responsible for the interconnection delays seen in the rest of the country, which can stretch to as long as several years. Projects in Texas take on average two years to complete the interconnection process, according to the trade group Advanced Energy United.
The trade-off for allowing new resources onto the grid without those upgrades means that they’re more likely to be curtailed if the amount of electricity they generate overwhelms the grid — the “manage” part of “connect and manage.” Frank made an analogy to me between a data center and an 18-wheeler, which might be allowed to start its journey sooner if it agreed in advance to get off the road in the case of heavy traffic.
Frank delivered her proposal along with support from a group of big-name and deep-pocketed stakeholders, including former Loans Program Office chief Jigar Shah, renewables developers like Cypress Creek Renewables, and a number of datacenter developers and technology providers.
In comments on the proposal, Agentic Infrastructure, which works on powering data centers, said that Frank’s plan will allow for “private capital investment to energize with dispatchable service ahead of the timeline required for expansion of firm network service,” which would ensure that “the risks of serving rapid load growth are managed privately while the economics benefits of load growth are socialized to the public rate base.”
In other words, more users of electricity would come online faster, allowing them to make payments to utilities and split up fixed costs among all customers, while the developers would take on the risk of not always being able to power their data centers.
In a best-case scenario, the proposal could be approved at an ERCOT board meeting early next year, Frank said.
Allowing flexible large loads to connect faster is “the most viable way for loads to actually invest with their complex webs of financing and technology partners in creating dispatchability,” she added.
“Everyone is talking about” how important dispatchability is, Frank told me, but “no one is doing anything about it, except for the proposal at PJM and random one-off deals that folks like Google are doing.”
“What makes ERCOT different,” Frank said, “is that it is a place that gets national attention, and it can get national attention because things generally just happen faster there.”