You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
The state has binding emissions cut goals but still no regulations to meet them.

When New York Governor Kathy Hochul gave her State of the State address on Tuesday, climate advocates expected her to unveil an overdue plan to implement and fund the state’s climate law, which was enacted in 2019. Instead, she implied that she was delaying the plan indefinitely. In doing so, legal experts say Hochul would be breaking the law.
New York has a statutory requirement to cut emissions 40% from 1990 levels by 2030, and 85% by 2050. The deadline to draw up regulations to achieve this passed in January 2024. Hochul’s administration has been working on a solution — a cap and invest program, which would set a limit on total greenhouse gas emissions from the state that would decline over time and put a price on those emissions, bringing in revenue that could be reinvested in carbon reduction projects. The state expects decarbonization to cost $15 billion per year by 2030, and $45 billion in 2050.
As recently as a few weeks ago, New York climate advocates were hearing that Hochul planned to preview the program in her State of the State address before including it in her proposed budget. “All indications were that this was all systems go,” Justin Balik, the senior state program director for Evergreen Action, told me.
But Hochul didn’t mention cap and invest once in her speech. Her State of the State policy book, published Tuesday, acknowledges the program and notes that in the coming months, her administration will propose new emissions reporting regulations “while creating more space and time for public transparency and a robust investment planning process.” Advocates interpreted the message as a kiss-off.
“There have to be enforceable regulations that ensure we can meet the emission reduction mandates,” Rachel Spector, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, told me. “Those were supposed to be in place a year ago. Now they are late and there’s no clear date when we are getting those regulations, and that’s a really troubling situation.”
Get the best of Heatmap in your inbox daily.
Governments miss statutory deadlines all the time. But without any clear timeline on when the regulations might happen, the state’s overarching climate law could become impossible to carry out. “We have a [presidential] administration that’s coming in that's extremely hostile to moving forward on climate mitigation, and is going to potentially take us backwards,” Balik told me. “And so we need states to be the bulwark like they were during the last Trump term.”
There are a few possibilities for what can happen next.
Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change at Columbia University, likened the situation to when Hochul tried to impose an indefinite delay on congestion pricing in New York City last June, just days before it was set to go into effect. “I helped coordinate an effort that led to two lawsuits in New York state court claiming that Hochul did not have the power to do that,” he told me in an email. “We won the lawsuits, congestion pricing survived several lawsuits against it, and it launched on January 5.”
Gerrard added that some of the groups involved in those suits and others are now considering challenging Hochul’s indefinite delay of cap and invest. The text of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, which created the emissions targets, “allows citizens to bring proceedings in state court for violations of the statute,” he said. And there does not appear to be any pathway for achieving the targets without cap and invest, he added.
Liz Moran, a policy advocate for Earthjustice, said that cap and invest was never going to be enough anyway, and is urging the legislature to make progress on sector-specific policies. She called for the state assembly to pass the New York Heat Act, for instance, a bill that would remove barriers to transitioning away from the use of natural gas for home heating and set in motion a plan for mass conversion to efficient electric heating.
Early outlines of New York’s cap and invest program indicate that regulators were considering a relatively low price ceiling on pollution, making it easier for companies to buy their way out of compliance with the cap. As New York Focus has reported, the state’s own modeling shows that the program alone would not achieve the 2030 target. “Given what the governor has outlined as the ambition of the cap and invest program, there was always going to need to be additional sectoral mandates or policies that come from the legislature to drive emission reductions,” Moran told me.
In theory, the legislature could also put forward a bill outlining its own cap and invest program. Assemblywoman Anna Kelles, from Ithaca, New York, introduced a cap and invest bill last year, though it never left the environmental conservation committee.
Hochul spoke at length in her speech about affordability, and her stalling of cap and invest may be related to concerns that it would raise costs for consumers — or at least the perception that it would. “New York needs to get the transition right and keep our state affordable for families,” her policy book says. This would not be the first time Hochul’s fears about the cost of climate action (and potential backlash to it) have caused her to do an about-face. In 2023, Hochul tried to change the way the state accounted for greenhouse gas emissions under the idea that it would lower the cost of decarbonization. Her backpedaling on congestion pricing is another example.
The state’s own analysis, however, found that cap and invest would likely raise costs slightly for some New Yorkers while lowering them for others. Low-income residents would be eligible for direct rebates that would more than offset the higher cost of fuel. Depending on how the remaining revenue is spent, it could bring further cost reductions by helping New Yorkers pay for energy efficiency improvements that lower their bills.
“The governor is rightly focused on affordability, which is why extensive consumer rebates were baked into this,” said Balik. “From our perspective, the way that the state was planning on moving forward with this was perfectly in line with the governor's affordability agenda.”
The one bit of climate action Hochul did commit to on Tuesday was to call for spending $1 billion of the next budget on climate action — the “largest climate investment in the history of the state budget” — though she did not say where the money would come from or where it would go. Her State of the State book gives little more detail, noting only that it will “span different sectors of our economy and across the state’s geography,” with nods to clean heating and transportation projects. Cap and invest, meanwhile, is expected to bring in $3 billion to $5 billion in its first year.
“It's a start,” Spector said of the $1 billion. “But it’s definitely not enough.”
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Even in the worst case scenario, BAAJA wouldn't increase emissions, an analysis by the Rhodium Group concludes.
The bipartisan permitting reform bill is likely to slightly cut greenhouse gas emissions and lower electricity bills by 2040 — or at worst leave emissions on the same trajectory that they are on today — as compared to the status quo, according to a new analysis of many of its provisions by the Rhodium Group, an independent research firm.
The analysis examines the policies in the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, or BAAJA, that would have the most-clear cut effects on climate pollution and the energy system. It is the most comprehensive account of the bill’s effects on emissions so far, although it does not examine all of its provisions.
The bill is hard to analyze because — unlike recent partisan energy bills, such as the Inflation Reduction Act or President Trump’s tax and spending bill — its effects on the climate are more ambiguous and often seem to counteract each other. BAAJA will make it easier to build not only long-distance transmission lines, which are essential for clean energy, but also natural gas pipelines, which can expand fossil fuel production.
Yet the climate benefits likely outweigh or balance out the harms, at least among the studied policies, the report finds. In the best case scenario, the bill could cut U.S. economy-wide emissions by 4%, reduce energy bills by $78 per year, and drive more than 200 gigawatts of new clean energy capacity by 2040, compared to status quo policy. In a worst case scenario, greenhouse gas emissions would remain unchanged on their current trajectory.
The results should be viewed as more directionally instructive than a precise accounting of the legislation, Ben King, an energy and climate director at Rhodium, told me.
“We don’t see emissions increasing because of the bill,” King said. “This bill should drive some emission reductions, it should drive some more clean energy on the grid, and it should drive electricity bills down. And given the complexity of the bill, that’s what we can say at this point.”
The analysis does not look at the bill’s permitting certainty provisions, which Democrats initially sought to stop President Trump’s war on wind but have become one of its thorniest sections. Rhodium’s modeling is also a crude tool for assessing transmission policy, since the model can look only at economic inputs such as supply and demand, and not the physical reality of the U.S. grid, such as where transmission lines run or where the bottlenecks are.
It is the second analysis to find that the bill could modestly lower carbon pollution. A more limited report focusing only on the power grid, published last week by the think tank Resources for the Future, found the legislation could cut electricity emissions by 6% while reducing power bills by $350 billion through 2041.
The effects of the bill may sound small, but BAAJA is not a climate bill. It’s not engineered to reduce reliance on fossil fuels or boost clean energy technologies. Its overarching purpose is to address various federal bottlenecks that bog down America’s ability to build stuff, whether that’s a pipeline or a highway or a power line or a solar farm. So it’s not entirely surprising that it’s not expected to have a dramatic effect on emissions.
The reason it’s a priority for Senate climate champions is that many of its provisions are important precursors to decarbonizing the U.S. economy more quickly. By enabling faster expansion of the power grid, the bill would put the country in a much better position to transition to clean energy. After Joe Biden’s big climate bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022, Princeton University researchers found that the country’s slow buildout of transmission lines would be a major obstacle to gleaning the law’s benefits. Unless the country more than doubled the rate of transmission expansion, they wrote, more than 80% of the IRA’s emission reduction potential by 2030 would be lost.
BAAJA could nearly triple the build rate of high-voltage transmission, the Rhodium Group found, from an average of about 0.7 terawatt-miles added per year over the past decade to an average annual pace of 1.9 to 2.6 terawatt-miles through 2040. Because Republicans and President Trump have repealed so many of the IRA’s provisions, this won’t drive as much clean energy as the Princeton researchers expected, but Rhodium estimates that by 2040, BAAJA would help between 17 and 249 gigawatts of clean resources get built compared to a world without it.
The growing grid is the main reason why the bill cuts energy costs, because it enables more lower-cost resources to connect to the grid. The bill’s requirement that data centers pay the full cost of connecting to the grid also puts downward pressure on electricity rates.
“If your goal is to do climate policy in the future, this is an important down payment to making progress there,” King said.
The authors studied the bill’s provisions under a range of economic assumptions, including a “best case” scenario in which clean energy gets cheaper and easily outcompetes natural gas, and a “worst case” scenario where natural gas prices collapse and the inexpensive fuel keeps dominating the U.S. energy system.
The authors limited their analysis to the bill’s provisions that speed up transmission line and natural gas pipeline permitting. They assumed that when you make it easier to approve transmission lines, the lines get cheaper to build and get built more quickly. The same goes for gas pipelines. Then they looked at how the energy system would respond. Would we build more power plants? Would there be more natural gas production? Where will that gas go?
The caveats, aside from omitting the bill’s “project certainty” provisions, are that they did not account for policies that support geothermal energy, virtual power plants, advanced transmission technologies, or the ways in which the bill would reduce congestion on the grid — all of which could result in fewer emissions. At the same time, the modeling assumes that all of the data centers that get built between now and 2040 connect to the grid, even though today, many data centers are planning to run on inefficient off-grid natural gas plants. That means this modeling likely underestimates emissions from data centers. (Although the authors did a separate exercise that went deeper into data centers, which I’ll explain shortly.)
The report also limited its analysis to the United States. While the modeling found that liquified natural gas exports would increase by 8% to 15% under BAAJA, the authors did not account for how those exports could affect the energy mix or emissions in the rest of the world.
They found that the bill’s changes to the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act would enable more gas pipeline development, which, in isolation, would increase emissions relative to a world without BAAJA. More pipelines means more production of oil and natural gas, which means higher methane and CO2 emissions throughout the fossil supply chain. Under a worst case scenario, they estimate a 4% increase in the amount of new gas capacity, although gas-fired generation as a whole increases by less than 1% in 2040. Even then, emissions would simply be flat compared to current expectations.
“On net, the emissions increases that we see there are outweighed by the emissions benefits that come from the transmission provisions of the bill,” King said.
The report also studied how BAAJA might affect data center emissions. Its “base case” scenario — which includes all the analysis I’ve shared with you so far — assumes data centers will make up about 17% of electricity demand by 2040. That figure already supposes huge growth in data center energy consumption, because data centers only use about 5% of U.S. electricity today.
But what if data center demand grows even faster than that? The authors modeled two additional scenarios to see what would happen if data center electricity demand instead accounted for more than a quarter of U.S. electricity demand in 2040.
While BAAJA would make it easier for data centers to connect to the grid, it also includes ratepayer protection provisions that would make it more expensive to do so — roughly 10% more for a 1 gigawatt data center, Rhodium estimates. Determining whether that will drive developers on-grid or off-grid was beyond the scope of the analysis, so the modelers looked at the two extremes — a world where all additional data center demand hooks up to the grid and one where none of it does.
For the on-grid scenario, whether or not that additional demand is met with mostly gas plants or cleaner sources largely depends on the price of fossil versus clean generation. But even if most of the demand was met by natural gas plants on the grid, emissions would still be 30% lower than if it was met by natural gas plants off the grid, Rhodium found.
And more of the week’s top fights around development.
1. Richland Parish, Louisiana – Gird your loins for the coming fight over the Meta Hyperion data center’s gas pipeline.
2. Spartanburg County, South Carolina – I have one last data center race to tell you to watch on Tuesday: South Carolina’s 4th, on the northern rim of the state.
3. Goodhue County, Minnesota – Google reached a settlement with an environmental group suing to stop its data center in the small southern Minnesota town of Pine Island, resulting in what local press are saying will be the Land of 10,000 Lakes first state-level environmental review of a data center project.
4. Trumbull County, Ohio – Ohio looks like it just got a tad friendlier for data center opponents.
Talking with Kevin Gundersen, the head of public affairs for Digital Realty.
This week’s conversation is with Kevin Gundersen, head of public affairs for data center developer Digital Realty. On Wednesday, Digital Realty released a fascinating poll as part of Infrastructure for America, a pro-data center organization that also includes Compass, Vantage Data Centers, and QTS. The poll pushed back on the idea that we’re currently in the middle of a “data center election”; instead, it found most voters are not expected to choose their national elected officials based on a politician’s stance on data centers.
I reached out to folks involved in the poll's release, and they put me in touch with Gundersen, whom I’ve met before and consider to be a straight shooter. He accepted my invitation to do a candid hot-seat chat about the findings, his thoughts on all the data center attack ads, and whether his industry’s actually recovering any ground with the American people.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So first off: Is this the “data center election”?
No. I think there are communities across this country that are learning about data centers and whose opinions are being formed by all sorts of things. I’ve also sat in communities that want data centers, that understand the benefits they provide, and I think there are loud voices on all ends of the spectrum saying things about data centers that frankly aren’t true. That’s unfortunate.
Now, that doesn’t dismiss people’s real concerns about data centers in communities that have never had them before or states that haven’t had them before. So it’s the industry’s job to have those conversations honestly and openly.
This is a new thing for the industry. If you look at the history of the data center industry, it was really confined to Northern Virginia, Santa Clara [California], and urban areas like New York City or Chicago where there are large customer bases and data needs. For the most part, people didn’t really pay attention to data centers.
This is now a historic build-out, so there’s an education going on. Data centers have become a physical manifestation of people’s fears about AI, and that’s something we need to manage as an industry. How we do that is to create organizations like IFA. Our company has been doing this for 25 years. We have 300 data centers around the world. For us, this is how we’ve always been doing this, but there’s no question our industry needs to be doing a better job as to why data centers benefit communities.
I think there’s a disconnect between what I see on the ground locally and the national narrative around the election. Every issue in America is nationalized. But if you look at some polls, this isn’t in the top five issues people are thinking about day to day.
It makes sense a data center developer would make this case. It’s your right to do so. But can you help me better understand the evidence, when we’re seeing so much television advertising attacking candidates for previous data center support?
The basis for me saying it is, I’ve sat in communities where people want data centers and been in parts of America that haven’t had revenue sources for decades. Now they have an opportunity for a data center in their city, county, state, and I think sometimes where there’s a disconnect is the national narrative around AI.
It’s hard to stop ChatGPT. But someone can use the data center as their target, so to speak. It’s the physical manifestation of their opposition to AI.
The biggest evidence is, there are a lot of communities that [have] welcomed data centers in the last 30 years. Not just the last couple of years. Santa Clara, California, is one of the nicest places in the country, and they have so many data centers. The history of people supporting data centers has been the norm, and the opposition is a relatively new thing in and of itself.
What about the electoral impacts? Have you personally not seen any? Either against your industry or for them?
We haven’t seen any of our developments’ electoral impacts on the local level yet. We could have this conversation next week after the election, but not yet. I honestly think I could answer that question better then.
But do I think data centers in most of America are the number one thing on people’s minds? No. Not when you talk to them outside the chatroom on Facebook when you can present dialogue and facts. There are communities that will decide they don’t want data centers. That’s fine. Some communities have made that decision. There are others who want them.
I’m not looking at next week. These developments are going to go on regardless of the election because there’s a huge demand for digital infrastructure, and a lot of communities do want these developments.
What do you see as the role of your polling when it comes to convincing the American public or the news media that this isn’t an election being decided by data centers?
IFA was created to tell stories about data centers and the benefits we provide to communities. These are real stories from real people and real companies. They’re mom-and-pop food trucks, electricians, real people all around the country. IFA is geared toward telling the story, a very positive story that is getting lost in the national debate.
When I think about the ads I see every day, the negative ads about data centers, these are real jobs. People making money wearing hard hats. I actually think it's unfortunate because I see people’s lives being lifted by data center development, and then they turn on their TV to see attacks on their industry.
The biggest companies in the world right now are taking their money and investing in the United States, creating a blue-collar jobs boom, and for some reason our politics make it something people want to oppose.
I think after the election there’ll be some kind of level set on both sides of the aisle because I think people were caught by surprise about some of the early polls on the AI issue that came out earlier this year. The industry wasn’t quick enough to talk about the benefits. But I think there are a lot of governors who’ve been balanced since they came into office about data center development, where they haven’t pushed moratoriums because they realize there are benefits from data centers.
The AI issue is great on the campaign trail, but separating AI from data centers and the investments they bring to a community is important. Data centers provide digital infrastructure. The demand for that is only going up.
Why should a skeptic of this industry believe this information from a developer?
I mean, have they talked to the IBEW? Have they talked to the unions? There are a lot of constituencies out there that see the benefits of data centers. Don’t take my word for it. Go to a community and talk to people.
There’s going to be people who don’t want a data center in their community, but if we do it openly, transparently, and tell the story of who we are — we’ve been around for 25 years! There’s all sorts of information out there about our company. And we’re going to keep talking to communities.
Why should they believe us? We don’t have anything to hide, and we’ll bring benefits to their community. That might sound like a cliché answer, but it’s the case.
What do you think the outcome will be from so many attack ads about data centers?
I think it's unfortunate, and I think it's bad for the country because elected officials right now are spending tens of millions of dollars in political ads telling people data centers are bad when in fact they bring huge benefits to communities.
We’re going to have to spend lots of time and energy and resources to make up for that. Perhaps we should’ve been doing this sooner. I’m sure we’d all in this industry loved to have gotten our story out before the campaign cycle took hold. We can’t go back and change the past.
I always say, we have the truth and physics on our side. What I mean by that is, we’ve got a great story, these developments have tons of benefits, and the demand is only going up. People have two phones. They have connected devices in their homes. Flat-screen TVs and Oura rings and Ring cameras. When you think about the digital products and services you use every day, it’s massive.
We’re going to have to tell our story. I do think a lot of elected officials at all levels of government want us to go do that. When I sit behind closed doors with folks, they know the benefits. People of both parties.