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:

Kamala Harris quickly rang up endorsements from Democratic elected officials and convention delegates Sunday afternoon after President Joe Biden ended his re-election campaign, making Vice President Harris the likeliest Democratic nominee for the presidency of the United States. Many of these plaudits came from figures in the climate policy space, but few were quite as vociferous as the one from Gina McCarthy, a director of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Obama and White House climate advisor under Biden.
“Vice President Harris would kick ass against Trump,” she said in a statement. “She has spent her whole life committed to justice, fighting for the underdog, and making sure that no one is above the law. She will fight every day for all Americans to have access to clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment.”
When Harris has had the chance to formulate climate action on her own — as the attorney general of California, as a U.S. senator, as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 — it has tended to be aggressive in its timelines for decarbonization and heavily focused on the harms that fossil fuel extraction and processing inflict on marginalized communities.
As vice president, however, she has been subsumed into the rollout of both the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In some cases, the programs she’s pitched and praised have an organic connection to her own personal policy work — a grant program for electric school buses, for instance, the launch of which was the source of one of her more enduring Kamala-isms: “Who doesn’t love a yellow school bus?”
Assuming she wins the party’s nomination and then, finally, the White House, a Kamala Harris climate agenda would no doubt look much like Biden’s. To people who’ve been paying attention all along, however, there’s no reason to think she couldn’t push the country even more zealously toward decarbonizing.
For one, there’s the historical record. Harris not only endorsed Green New Deal legislation in 2019, she also put out a climate plan during her campaign that included $10 trillion of public and private spending and called for reaching net-zero by 2045, achieving a carbon neutral electric grid by 2030, no new fossil fuel leasing on public lands, and a carbon pollution fee. While expansive, Harris’s plan was not the work of someone like Jay Inslee, who has legislated on climate for years, or Bernie Sanders, who was willing to simply outbid his fellow candidates on progressive policy, but her climate policy was the process of consulting with climate activists. In fact, her team had reached out to Inslee’s after he dropped out for advice on climate, Jamal Raad, Inslee’s campaign communications director, told me.
“If we jump in the Wayback Machine, [Harris] was one of the most ambitious presidential candidates in the 2020 primary cycle,” Justin Guay, program director at Quadrature Climate Foundation, told me. “She had the largest proposed spending plan of any candidate not named Bernie. She promised a sum 10 times that of the greatest climate president we’ve ever had, Joe Biden.” Importantly, he added, she focused on “sticks, not just carrots,” including investigating and bringing lawsuits against fossil fuel companies, as she’d done in California. This, he said, is “red meat for the climate base.”
Where she did stand out in the Senate, on the campaign trail, and in the Biden administration was in her focus on environmental justice, an issue combining green politics and racial justice that she used to reach out to the party’s left wing. By the time the she was picked to be President Biden’s vice presidential nominee, she had won the praise of both the youth-led Sunrise Movement (which has since protested outside her Southern California home and notably withheld its support from Biden during his reelection campaign) and Evergreen Action, a climate policy group built by former Inslee staffers. “She made environmental justice central to her climate plans on the presidential campaign,” said Raad, an Evergreen Action cofounder.
In the summer of 2019, she joined up with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on a bill that would have required all climate-related legislation to undergo a review of its effect on “frontline communities,” those living adjacent to energy-related facilities, which tend to be disproportionately populated by poor people of color, and created offices of climate equity within the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget.
While this particular piece of legislation went nowhere, the motivating ideas have been all over the Biden-Harris White House’s policy agenda — in tax benefits directed toward projects in “energy communities;” in the Justice40 Initiative, which aims to direct 40% of climate and related spending to flow toward disadvantaged communities; and in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a.k.a. “green banks,” aimed at making climate-friendly investing more affordable.
That’s all great, Raad told me. But he also added, “What’s more relevant has been how central she’s made climate in her vice presidency as one of her top priorities.” Harris reached out to Raad and others in the run-up to the IRA’s passage, he said. “She held a town hall. She barnstormed the country. As far as folks wanting further momentum in the next presidency, that’s the more relevant development — that she wanted to be associated with climate action.”
Whatever her policy priorities as president, they would have to fit between the lines of what would be, at best, narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress, limited by the filibuster and reconciliation process, along with large policy shifts that any new administration will have to deal with, such as the expiration of key portions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2025. It will be a far distance from the heady days of the 2020 Democratic primary campaign, when Harris eagerly participated in a bidding war between the candidates for the most aggressive and expansive climate program — less Frank Capra, more Alan J. Pakula.
“The reality is that the climate movement should focus as much, if not more, on creating the conditions that force politicians to act on climate as we do pushing for candidates with a hawkish climate policy platform to begin with,” Guay told me. “That was the greatest lesson from the Joe Biden era. He was no climate hawk when he entered the 2020 primaries,” but thanks to decades of unrelenting pressure and calls for more policy ambition, “he emerged the most powerful climate president we’ve ever had.”
Raad, too, emphasized the importance of realpolitik at this point in history. Having a president willing to put herself on the line for climate policy is important — “even if we don’t get major legislation done,” he told me. “We need to make sure the IRA is implemented effectively in the fullest way possible. We need a very careful eye towards writing regulations that are as effective as possible so they’re not getting overturned by Federalist Society judges.” Getting money out the door will be key, he said, “and that’s why we need an advocate in the White House.”
With assistance from Jeva Lange and Robinson Meyer.
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.
Rep. Jeff Van Drew was defeated by ... another wind opponent.
Democrat Zack Mullock unseated Representative Jeff Van Drew, one of offshore wind’s biggest foes, on Tuesday night in the race for New Jersey’s second district. But while Mullock is a fan of renewable energy, he’s still a man of the south Jersey shore — and unlikely to be a champion for turbines off his coast.
District 2 encompasses the entire lower quarter of the state, covering six coastal counties from Atlantic City down to the tip of Cape May and around to the Delaware Bay. The area is a hotbed for offshore wind opposition, where groups like Protect our Coasts NJ have filed legal challenges against almost every wind project proposed in the region.
After heading to Congress in 2019, Van Drew, who was previously a Democrat, switched parties and became a key ally to this movement. He called for a moratorium on offshore wind development, held hearings on offshore wind “industrialization”, and requested that the Government Accountability Office investigate the industry. He also worked with the Trump administration to block projects that were under construction.
During a debate in late October, Mullock accused Van Drew of flip flopping on wind, arguing that the congressman was a staunch supporter of the industry during his decade-long tenure in the New Jersey legislature. Mullock, who is currently serving his second term as mayor of the city of Cape May, summed up his own position by citing a resolution he signed in 2023 calling for a moratorium on surveying and acoustic testing for offshore wind development pending an investigation into a spate of whale deaths. He signed it due to “concerns” about the environment and commercial fishing, he said.
“I believe very much in our future with renewable energy,” he said. “We need to go full steam ahead with solar panels. And yes we should do wind where it is appropriate, where it doesn't hurt our environment and it doesn't hurt our commercial fishing industry.”
Mullock’s campaign website says he supports federal investments in renewable energy and incentives for energy-efficient homes. He also wants “stricter enforcement of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act,” and to fund coastal resiliency and other “smart infrastructure” projects that protect against climate impacts. He also campaigned in support of a data center moratorium.
Early signs point to a rough election for AI infrastructure.
We’ve seen enough: If this was the data center election, it was a really bad night for the industry.
Democratic campaigns and their affiliated Super PACs spent bigly on data center-themed attack ads. The ads came in various flavors. Some ads painted a vote for tax cuts as aiding data center developers. Others brought up candidates’ previous support for data centers or stock the candidate may have held in the tech industry or AI infrastructure developers. As Election Day approached, the data center industry sought to bat back claims that their sector’s poor reputation with the electorate would sway the results. People may have soured on their industry, they argued, but people weren’t going to vote based on that position.
Results are still coming in, but so far congressional races heavily featuring these data center attacks are heavily going in Democrats’ favor. In addition, these races have so profoundly shifted that it’ll be challenging for the industry to argue they played no role in the outcome.
Some of the most illustrative examples are obvious. In Georgia, Democrat Keisha Lance Bottoms campaigned on a statewide data center moratorium and won control of the governor’s mansion, becoming the first black woman to ever lead a U.S. state. Similar results in Ohio where Amy Acton flipped party control of the governor’s seat with a campaign that included going hard against data centers. In Pennsylvania, two Democrats who focused on data centers in their races have flipped Republican districts: Scranton mayor Paige Cognetti and firefighter Bob Brooks. In New Jersey, Cape May mayor Zack Mullock rode data center attacks to defeat Rep. Jeff Van Drew, the biggest opponent of the offshore wind industry. In Virginia, Democrat Shannon Taylor rode data center-laden attacks to take control of the Richmond area congressional seat from Rep. Rob Wittman.
If you’re arguing this election was decided by data centers, your best proof point: Democrat Gina Hinojosa has taken control of the governor's mansion in Texas, defeating incumbent Greg Abbott, who’d sought recently to take a hard line against the industry. Hinojosa ran on going further, calling to pass a law completely pausing data center development across one of the industry’s favorite states. She won a decisive victory. So did Democratic Texas Agriculture Commissioner candidate Clayton Tucker, who I explained months ago became one of anti-data center Facebook’s favorite online personalities.
But it makes sense that data centers would matter a lot in Texas, which could be compared to Virginia in terms of their buildout. When you inspect the election results more closely, they tell a more complicated story about the upper boundaries of these data center attacks.
For decades, Greenville and Spartanburg County have been GOP vote strongholds and reliable for both Republican congressional candidates and statewide campaigns. The congressional district gave Donald Trump at least a 20-point cushion in the 2024 presidential election, according to Decision Desk HQ. Last week, I explained for subscribers to The Fight how Courtney McClain, a novice candidate living one mile from a controversial data center proposal, was running against incumbent Rep. William Timmons. I couldn’t find much in the way of online ad spending on either side in this race and it’s never been on the radar of most political observers as a campaign that could somehow flip party control. But the data center debate in Spartanburg County has been immense.
Tonight, Timmons kept his ordinarily ruby red district by slim single digits after running even for most of the night. But this swing was essentially the same as the national margin. And because Timmons didn’t lose, this actually feels like a crucial distinction – data centers were not deciding races themselves in all cases. Democrat Annie Andrews defeated Republican Darlene Graham in a result driven by Democratic overperformance and GOP underperformance in this area, but it’s challenging to tie this result to the data center issue at all. Anything from the economy and the Iran War to Graham’s deceased brother and his baggage could be blamed for this result from this heavily evangelical region.
However, it will be challenging for the data center sector to differentiate themselves from this outcome, especially since a pro-data center Super PAC – Building the Future – publicly waded into the race in support of Graham only to lose. “Darlene Graham’s loss is a black eye for the data center industry,” wrote Teddy Schleifer of The New York Times on election night.
The same story played out in Georgia’s 1st district, which includes the city of Savannah. OpenAI is developing a controversial data center project in Effingham County, northwest of Savannah and the congressional race – which like South Carolina’s 4th had comparatively little spending – has been chock full of data center mudslinging, with the Democrat Amanda Hollowell calling for broader moratoria on development.
Effingham County went for Trump by almost 50 points in 2024. As of this story’s publication, the Republican, Jim Kingston, is winning by a single percentage point with 93% of the vote in. Most of what’s left is in Effington. Should this candidate win, it’s safe to say it’s because voters in this county looked past data centers, or did not link their vote for a national candidate to the local development.
On Election Night, Effingham County formally tabled any decision on the OpenAI data center. So at least on the ground level, people are paying close attention to these results.
After taking two seats in a special election last year, the party gained a third in the midterms.
Democrats claimed two seats on the Georgia Public Service Commission in a special election last year, ending almost 20 years of unanimous Republican control over the regulator.
One of those winning Democrats, Peter Hubbard, ran again this year for a full six-year term in a rematch against Republican Fitz Johnson. The other open seat this year saw Sheila Edwards running in an open race against Republican Josh Tolbert.
Both Hubbard and Edwads won, securing a 3–2 Democratic majority on the Public Service Commission.
“Over the last 12 months, Georgian consumers have made one thing clear: They are tired of rising utility bills and they are hungry to see change. Georgia’s sea change moment for energy policy has arrived,” Charles Hua, the executive director of the utility-focused advocacy group PowerLines, told me.
The Democrats have not been shy about what their priorities will be on the commission.
“Winning control of the Georgia Public Service Commission means prioritizing lowering power bills instead of constantly increasing corporate profits, ramping up the deployment of clean energy technologies, and focusing the people in our decision-making as state regulators,” Hubbard said in a statement on his website.
Edwards, for her part, made it clear where she stands on data centers specifically in an October debate with Tolbert. “They came into our communities,” Edwards said. “They didn’t pay any taxes. They are using our water, using our electricity, and they’re being a public nuisance to the communities that they’re coming into.”
Hubbard also talked about data centers on Heatmap’s Shift Key podcast back in June. “I advocate for a whole-of-government approach, because while the Public Service Commission really only has oversight over the power side of things — where that power comes from and how much data centers are paying on their tariff — there’s much larger issues in terms of water use, in terms of the tax incentives,” he told my colleague Robinson Meyer. “The estimate is $3.5 billion in tax abatements this year in Georgia, uncollected revenue that data centers otherwise would be willing to pay.”
The race has seen outsize spending and interest from major figures not accustomed to dealing in utility regulator races. (Just 10 states have elected utility commissions, period.) Kamala Harris appeared at a virtual fundraiser for the Democratic candidates in Georgia, as well as Democratic hopefuls to the Arizona Corporation Commission. The solar energy industry spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of the Democrats in Georgia. Meanwhile, anonymous donors pumped millions of dollars into Tolbert’s bid.
Democrats swept into the Georgia PSC last year on a wave of dissatisfaction with rising electricity prices, especially rate hikes attached to the construction of two new nuclear reactors at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, which ran years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. In the runup to the election, the PSC approved a three-year base rate freeze proposed by Georgia Power in an attempt to head off public dissatisfaction.
In the past year, rates in Georgia have gone up by less than 1% across the state on average, according to the Heatmap-MIT Electricity Price Hub, while rates are up over 18% in the last three years and over 6% in the past two years.
Shares in Southern Company, the parent company of Georgia Power, were down slightly more than 0.5% in after-hours trading Tuesday night.