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:
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.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
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.”
Current conditions: With colder air spilling southward from Canada, snow is expected in New England and Upstate New York • Winds of up to 50 miles per hour are blasting the West Coast • Temperatures of nearly 108 degrees Fahrenheit are roasting Senegal.

It’s Election Day. Not every race has significant implications for climate change, but at least a few do. As Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo wrote, those races include:
One other race I’ll add, since it’s one of the most closely-watched elections in the nation, is the one for New York City mayor. While frontrunner Zohran Mamdani has so far said little about energy besides opposing a controversial gas pipeline into the five boroughs, the left-wing Democratic nominee said he would support construction of new nuclear power plants upstate at the last debate. City Hall has limited say over state energy policy, but the mayor does control the contracts the city government writes with the state-owned utility, the New York Power Authority, which is currently working on building a new nuclear plant. If his remarks at the final debate are any indication, Mamdani may endorse contracts to buy power from nuclear power plants as well as the wind and solar he vocally supported as a state lawmaker. “If he can buck the trend of the environmental left’s hostility to nuclear, he could demonstrate to New York City — and to democratic socialist supporters nationwide, who already view him as a likely successor to (notoriously antinuclear) Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders — that the left can think rationally about the energy system, its affordability, and the wide scope of the climate problem,” the writer Fred Stafford wrote in an op-ed for Heatmap this morning. “That would truly be charting a new path.”
On stage at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference yesterday, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum announced the United States’ support for a critical minerals “club” of countries that will trade the metals needed for energy and weapons without relying on China. “In the last few weeks, the United States has announced a framework for creating a club of nations to be able to trade … [and for] refining and processing critical minerals,” Burgum said at the Adipec conference, according to E&E News.
As Heatmap’s Katie Brigham put it recently, “everybody wants to invest in critical minerals startups,” including the Trump administration. The U.S. military’s Office of Strategic Capital put up a $620 million loan for Vulcan Elements’ efforts to build a factory to produce 10,000 metric tons of rare earth magnets, according to The Wall Street Journal. The Department of Commerce is chipping in another $50 million, while private investors contribute $550 million to a deal that involves ReElement Technologies, a startup that purifies and recycles rare earth metals. Meanwhile, the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. signed onto a letter of interest promising to provide as much as $191 million in financing to Locksley Resources’ rare earths project in California’s Mojave desert.
Bloomberg Businessweek has a sweeping new dispatch from the rainforests of Guinea, where China recently completed a railroad that allows mining companies mostly controlled by Beijing to tap one of the world’s largest and richest iron ore deposits. At $23 billion, the project is Africa’s biggest ever mining project and could make the tiny West African nation the continent’s No. 2 mineral exporter. “Never before has China held this level of pricing power over the seaborne iron ore trade,” Tom Price, head of commodities strategy at Panmure Liberum, told the magazine. “Expect it to start calling the shots here.”
The U.S. has largely struggled to get a leg up on China in critical minerals. As I wrote here last month, the world’s leading commodities traders have urged Western governments to focus on refining metals, not just mining them. In September, I broke news in Heatmap about an Ohio startup called Xerion extending its novel approach to processing mineral ore from cobalt to gallium.
Utility giant Southern Company has signed deals for at least 7 gigawatts of data centers and other large power users, but has a pipeline of more than 50 gigawatts in the works, the company said in its third-quarter earnings last week. The company, which controls some of the largest utilities in the Southeast, is requiring “strong customer protections and credit provisions” to protect against rate increases to serve the new loads, Chief Financial Officer David Poroch said on the call, according to Utility Dive. “Our pipeline of large load data centers and manufacturers continues to be robust across our electric subsidiaries. The total pipeline remains more than 50 gigawatts of potential incremental load by mid 2030s.”
Poroch’s price caveats track with a trend Matthew Zeitlin wrote about recently, of utilities bending over backward to convince even their investors that ratepayers won’t be on the hook for the cost of serving the artificial intelligence buildout. With opposition to data centers high and rising, they’re trying to avoid a popular backlash.
Nineteen Democrats in the New York State Assembly want Governor Kathy Hochul to reject a mandate for electrifying new buildings. The signatories to a letter calling on the governor to halt plans to ban gas hookups in new construction include lawmakers from New York City, Long Island, and upstate, along with Assembly Majority Leader Crystal Peoples-Stokes. The letter was sent to the governor Monday, but Hochul already said she’d consider the request, Politico reported.
Another key test Mamdani's likely election will set up is how highly he prioritizes opposition to the Northeast Supply Enhancement pipeline designed to carry gas from Pennsylvania's fracking fields to stoves and furnaces in the outer boroughs. Hochul supports the project, which backers say will bring down the cost of a fuel that -- even in the most ambitious decarbonization scenarios -- New York will continue to need for many years. After running a campaign laser-focused on affordability, his approach to the project may reveal how important opposing fossil fuel infrastructure remains for the left wing of the Democratic Party.
It’s not your typical kind of media deal. The Cool Down, a climate and sustainability website known for its explainers about sustainable lifestyles and how-to guides, sold itself to the clean-energy company Palmetto. The North Carolina-based company, which leases solar panels, batteries, heat pumps, and other electrified technologies to consumers, has been expanding in recent months, as Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer wrote in a scoop on the acquisition yesterday. “By bringing our companies together, we’re pairing trusted consumer education with real, accessible energy solutions. Together we intend to empower households to take control of their energy future and benefit from the transition that’s already underway,” Chris Kemper, the founder and CEO of Palmetto, said in a statement.