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 Empire State just passed legislation to try to live up to its climate goals. Will other states follow?

The Empire State took a big leap toward a carbon-free future this week.
Late Tuesday night, after more than a month of negotiations, the New York state legislature passed a $229 billion budget, enacting three major climate policies in the process. The legislation will not only give teeth to ambitious emissions targets the state established four years ago, but it also forms a sort of blueprint for state-level clean energy transitions around the country.
New York passed a law setting up targets to cut emissions across its economy back in 2019 when Andrew Cuomo was governor. But it didn’t stipulate how the state was supposed to achieve them. Instead, the law set in motion a multi-year process for state leaders and appointed advisors to work out the best path forward. The group’s findings were finally published in December, and two of the climate policies enacted this week — a ban on natural gas in new buildings and a cap-and-invest program — are key recommendations from that document. The third, which creates a new avenue for publicly-owned renewable energy projects, was not part of that plan, but was born out of a vigorous, four-year grassroots campaign by the Democratic Socialists of America.
New York’s budget deal won’t fill in all the gaps in its strategy to decarbonize. But it does accomplish a number of big and essential first steps, like limiting the growth of natural gas and developing sources of funding to pay for the transition. About half of the country has enacted greenhouse gas reduction targets, but few states have put in place the policies to achieve them.
Below, a look at New York’s three big climate moves and why they could be a model for other states looking to live up to their own climate goals.
Buildings are by far the largest contributor to climate change in New York, accounting for 32% of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. They are also an exceedingly hard source to tackle, as those emissions come from a bunch of long-lived appliances like natural gas heating systems, stoves, and clothes dryers. But electric alternatives, which can be powered by renewable energy, are readily available. One easy first step any state can take is to stop the problem from getting worse by requiring that new buildings forego fossil fuels.
A few municipalities in the Empire State, like New York City and Ithaca, have already enacted bans on fossil fuel-burning appliances in new buildings. Now, Governor Kathy Hochul is set to pass a similar state-wide ban that will begin to go into effect in 2026. This is a year later than what was recommended by the state’s climate plan. But it will still send a powerful message that gas is no longer a growth industry in one of the biggest economies in the U.S.
“It is very, very clear now what the direction of travel is,” Pete Sikora, climate and inequality campaigns director of New York Communities for Change, a grassroots organization, told me. “That’s a monumental shift, as I see it, from an earlier environment, where Democrats were mouthing that ‘gas is a bridge fuel to the future.’ We’ve blown up that bridge. That bridge is collapsing into a ravine.”
While a few other states, like California and Washington, have effectively done the same thing via changes to their building codes, New York is the first state to build enough political support to cut off gas growth through its legislature. Jonny Kocher, a manager for the Carbon-Free Buildings Program at the clean energy group RMI, told me he anticipates that New York’s approach will have fewer exemptions than other states, and expects California and Washington to follow suit with legislation in order to strengthen their own policies. Washington State is currently facing a lawsuit for sidestepping the legislature.
Kocher said a gas ban isn’t necessarily a step that all states need to take in order to limit emissions from new buildings. The latest electric appliances, like heat pumps, are more efficient than gas-burning boilers or furnaces, and all-electric new construction will save consumers money in many parts of the country, so many states will move in this direction anyway. “We believe that states with existing (or new) energy efficiency goals will inevitably shift towards an all-electric code because it is simply the least expensive pathway to reach those energy efficiency goals,” he said in an email.
Implementation of New York’s climate plan has been somewhat piecemeal to date. Like many states, New York has a clean energy standard that requires utilities to buy an increasing amount of renewable energy each year. It also participates in a regional effort to cut emissions from power plants. That program raises some money for clean energy programs, like energy efficiency and electric vehicle rebates.
But while these policies are serving to clean up New York’s grid, they leave out other parts of the economy that also produce emissions, like fuel suppliers, natural gas utilities, and industrial facilities. The state has also failed to figure out how to pay for its energy transition, which is estimated to cost some $300 billion over the next 30 years. To address both of these gaps, Hochul announced in January that New York will establish a cap-and-invest program like those used by California and Washington State. The legislation passed this week fleshes out the “invest” side of the plan.
Cap-and-invest is similar to a price on carbon, and is often called a “polluter pays” program. Companies with big carbon footprints will have to purchase permits to pollute, and the number of permits available will shrink over time to ensure that the state hits its emissions targets.
These programs are complex and notoriously hard to implement well. Policy experts and environmental justice advocates have criticized California’s program for giving companies too much leeway to purchase carbon offsets instead of reducing their pollution, and for auctioning off more permits than needed.
Many of the details in New York have yet to be worked out. But the budget deal ensures that at least 30% of the proceeds raised by the program will be returned to New Yorkers to offset higher costs that may result from it. The rest will go into a climate action fund to pay for all kinds of clean energy projects and incentives.
A growing number of climate advocates are starting to unite around a more radical vision for the transition to clean energy — a shift toward publicly-owned power. Some consider it a key tenet of the Green New Deal, others just see it as a way to bring more accountability to energy companies. Utilities have historically been some of the biggest obstructors of climate action. Proponents argue that publicly-owned utilities would be better equipped to usher in the energy transition since they aren’t beholden to shareholders and can prioritize clean energy and equity over profit.
“If you’re leaving it up to the market, you can create incentives, but you have less power over where this energy is sited, who is benefitting,” said Johanna Bozuwa, executive director of the Climate and Community project.
In New York, advocates discovered that they had a “sleeping giant” in the New York Power Authority. The state-owned utility operates several big hydroelectric dams and a number of fossil fuel power plants, but its ability to build and operate solar and wind projects was severely curtailed under statute. After a four year push, and the election of a slew of DSA candidates into the legislature, the public power movement successfully pressured Hochul into changing that.
The budget deal mandates strong labor standards for any new generation built and also instructs NYPA to retire its fossil fuel plants by 2030, five years earlier than previously planned.
It remains to be seen whether authorizing NYPA to build will actually result in it using that authority. But the odds are better than they were a year ago, thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act. The law made a key change to the country’s clean energy tax credits, allowing public institutions and nonprofits to claim them for the first time. Bozuwa told me that this means other states will be looking at what happens in New York and could follow its lead.
“Not every state has a NYPA, but I think that people will look to NYPA and say, ‘oh, my gosh, we could be doing that too,’” she said. “Because there’s so much money flowing in, this is the perfect time for states or even municipalities to start to develop a renewable energy generation fleet.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
In some ways, fossil fuels make snowstorms like the one currently bearing down on the U.S. even more dangerous.
The relationship between fossil fuels and severe weather is often presented as a cause-and-effect: Burning coal, oil, and gas for heat and energy forces carbon molecules into a reaction with oxygen in the air to form carbon dioxide, which in turn traps heat in the atmosphere and gradually warms our planet. That imbalance, in many cases, makes the weather more extreme.
But this relationship also goes the other way: We use fossil fuels to make ourselves more comfortable — and in some cases, keep us alive — during extreme weather events. Our dependence on oil and gas creates a grim ouroboros: As those events get more extreme, we need more fuel.
This weekend, some 200 million Americans will be cranking up the thermostats in their natural-gas-heated homes, firing up their propane generators, or hitting icy roads in their combustion-engine cars as a major winter storm brings record-low temperatures to 35 states, knocks out power, and grinds air travel to a halt.
Climate change deniers love to use major winter storms as “proof” that global warming isn’t real. But in the case of this weekend’s polar vortex, there is evidence that Arctic warming is responsible for the record cold temperature projections across the United States.
“In the Arctic, in the winter, the ocean is much, much warmer than the atmosphere,” Judah Cohen, a climatologist at MIT and the author of a 2021 paper linking Arctic variability to extreme weather in the U.S., told me. Sea ice acts as an insulating layer separating the warmer ocean water from the frigid air. But as it melts — as it is doing every month of the year — “all of this heat can now be extracted out of the ocean.” The reduced temperature difference between the ocean and atmosphere creates wavy high-pressure ridges and low-pressure troughs that are favorable to the formation of polar vortices, which can funnel extreme cold air down over North America, as they seemingly did over Texas in 2021’s Winter Storm Uri, when 246 people died.
The exact mechanisms and interactions of this phenomenon are still up for debate. “I am in the minority that argues that there is causal link between a warm Arctic and cold continents,” Cohen added to me via email. “Most others argue that it is a coincidental relationship.” Still, scientists generally agree that extreme cold events will persist in a warming world; they’ll just become rarer.
Cold kills more people in the United States than heat, but curiously, warmer winters aren’t likely to significantly reduce these seasonal deaths. That’s because about half of the cases of excess mortality in winter are from cardiovascular diseases, which are, by nature, “highly seasonal,” Kristie Ebi, a professor of global health at the University of Washington, told me. “Since people began studying these, there are more of them in the winter than there are in the summer.” Researchers still aren’t sure why that is — though since the 1940s, we’ve known that people’s blood pressure, cholesterol, and even blood viscosity go up during the colder and darker months, perhaps due to changes in diet or exercise. That also appears to be the case regardless of climate or temperature, holding true whether you’re in Yellowknife or Miami.
In other words, “if seasonal factors other than temperature are mainly responsible for winter excess mortality, then climate warming might have little benefit,” Patrick Kinney, the director of Columbia University’s Climate and Health Program, wrote in Environmental Research Letters back in 2015. Extreme heat-related deaths, by contrast, have no ceiling, meaning global warming will result in more temperature-related deaths than it will prevent.
Our anthropogenically warmer winters could even prove to be more deadly in certain ways. Dana Tobin is a researcher at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder who studies how weather affects traffic accidents. She’s found that driving in freezing rain is more dangerous than driving in snow “because of the ice glaze that it can produce on surfaces, especially those that are untreated,” she told me. As winters become warmer, there will, counterintuitively, be more ice on roads in many places, since freezing rain requires a bit of warm air before it hits the ground and becomes black ice.
Researchers working in Scandinavia have similarly found that as the atmosphere warms and more days hover around freezing, “there is a higher risk of icy conditions … which may lead to a predisposition to falls and road traffic accidents.” (As I’ve previously reported, milder winters might also make us even more depressed than very cold ones.)
There is something slightly karmic about the fact that cars become increasingly unsafe as the planet, warmed by their emissions, becomes more hazardous. But this connection gets even bleaker when carbon monoxide poisoning is factored in.
On Thursday, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation issued a statement warning that “much of North America is at an elevated risk of having insufficient energy supplies to meet demand in extreme operating conditions,” including “advancing winter weatherization of power plants and fuel acquisition to enable operations during cold temperatures.” Heavy ice can also snap branches above power lines, causing local outages.
When the power goes out or the gas lines freeze, desperate people will do anything to stay warm. That includes, in tragic cases, running improperly vented generators or plugging in propane heaters indoors, which can produce odorless and colorless CO — instead of the usual water and carbon dioxide — when fossil fuels don’t burn correctly. Accidental carbon monoxide poisoning is on the rise in the United States due to the proliferation of such appliances amid increasingly frequent extreme weather events, jumping 86% between 2012 and 2022. That’s even as, worldwide, carbon monoxide poisoning is decreasing.
Snow and ice are among the most dangerous weather conditions in the U.S., and people should take warnings of “life-threatening conditions” at face value. Tobin, the traffic researcher, stressed that one of the best protections from winter weather hazards is knowledge alone. “I believe the best thing that we can do when it comes to messaging to protect drivers from hazards is to empower motorists to make educated and informed decisions for their own safety and the safety of others,” she told me.
Winter storms highlight the entangled nature of our dependence on fossil fuels. We can’t separate extreme weather events from the energy required to survive them. But the dark irony is that, as the planet becomes more volatile, the most dangerous fossil fuels might be the ones meant to keep us warm and get us back home.
The cloak-and-dagger approach is turning the business into a bogeyman.
It’s time to call it like it is: Many data center developers seem to be moving too fast to build trust in the communities where they’re siting projects.
One of the chief complaints raised by data center opponents across the country is that companies aren’t transparent about their plans, which often becomes the original sin that makes winning debates over energy or water use near-impossible. In too many cases, towns and cities neighboring a proposed data center won’t know who will wind up using the project, either because a tech giant is behind it and keeping plans secret or a real estate firm refuses to disclose to them which company it’ll be sold to.
Making matters worse, developers large and small are requiring city and county officials to be tight-lipped through non-disclosure agreements. It’s safe to say these secrecy contracts betray a basic sense of public transparency Americans expect from their elected representatives and they become a core problem that lets activists critical of the data center boom fill in gaps for the public. I mean, why trust facts and figures about energy and water if the corporations won’t be up front about their plans?
“When a developer comes in and there’s going to be a project that has a huge impact on a community and the environment – a place they call home – and you’re not getting any kind of answers, you can tell they’re not being transparent with you,” Ginny Marcille-Kerslake, an organizer for Food and Water Watch in Pennsylvania, told me in an interview this week. “There’s an automatic lack of trust there. And then that extends to their own government.”
Let’s break down an example Marcille-Kerslake pointed me to, where Talen Energy is seeking to rezone hundreds of acres of agricultural land in Montour County, Pennsylvania, for industrial facilities. Montour County is already a high risk area for any kind of energy or data center development, ranking in the 86th percentile nationally for withdrawn renewable energy projects (more than 10 solar facilities have been canceled here for various reasons). So it didn’t help when individuals living in the area began questioning if this was for Amazon Web Services, similar to other nearby Talen-powered data center projects in the area?
Officials wouldn’t – or couldn’t – say if the project was for Amazon, in part because one of the county commissioners signed a non-disclosure agreement binding them to silence. Subsequently, a Facebook video from an activist fighting the rezoning went viral, using emails he claimed were obtained through public records requests to declare Amazon “is likely behind the scenes” of the zoning request.
Amazon did not respond to my requests for comment. But this is a very familiar pattern to us now. Heatmap Pro data shows that a lack of transparency consistently ranks in the top five concerns people raise when they oppose data center projects, regardless of whether they are approved or canceled. Heatmap researcher Charlie Clynes explained to me that the issue routinely crops up in the myriad projects he’s tracked, down to the first data center ever logged into the platform – a $100 million proposal by a startup in Hood County, Oregon, that was pulled after a community uproar.
“At a high level, I have seen a lack of transparency become more of an issue. It makes people angry in a very unique way that other issues don’t. Not only will they think a project is going to be bad for a community, but you’re not even telling them, the key stakeholder, what is going on,” Clynes said. “It’s not a matter of, are data centers good or bad necessarily, but whether people feel like they’re being heard and considered. And transparency issues make that much more difficult.”
My interview with Marcille-Kerslake exemplified this situation. Her organization is opposed to the current rapid pace of data center build-out and is supporting opposition in various localities. When we spoke, her arguments felt archetypal and representative of how easily those who fight projects can turn secrecy into a cudgel. After addressing the trust issues with me, she immediately pivoted to saying that those exist because “at the root of it, this lack of transparency to the community” comes from “the fact that what they have planned, people don’t want.”
“The answer isn’t for these developers to come in and be fully transparent in what they want to do, which is what you’d see with other kinds of developments in your community. That doesn’t help them because what they’re building is not wanted.”
I’m not entirely convinced by her point, that the only reason data center developers are staying quiet is because of a likelihood of community opposition. In fairness, the tech sector has long operated with a “move fast, break things” approach, and Silicon Valley companies long worked in privacy in order to closely guard trade secrets in a competitive marketplace. I also know from my previous reporting that before AI, data center developers were simply focused on building projects with easy access to cheap energy.
However, in fairness to opponents, I’m also not convinced the industry is adequately addressing its trust deficit with the public. Last week, I asked Data Center Coalition vice president of state policy Dan Diorio if there was a set of “best practices” that his large data center trade organization is pointing to for community relations and transparency. His answer? People are certainly trying their best as they move quickly to build out infrastructure for AI, but no, there is no standard for such a thing.
“Each developer is different. Each company is different. There’s different sizes, different structures,” he said. “There’s common themes of open and public meetings, sharing information about water use in particular, helping put it in the proper context as well.”
He added: “I wouldn’t categorize that as industry best practice, [but] I think you’re seeing common themes emerge in developments around the country.”
Plus more of the week’s biggest renewable energy fights.
Cole County, Missouri – The Show Me State may be on the precipice of enacting the first state-wide solar moratorium.
Clark County, Ohio – This county has now voted to oppose Invenergy’s Sloopy Solar facility, passing a resolution of disapproval that usually has at least some influence over state regulator decision-making.
Millard County, Utah – Here we have a case of folks upset about solar projects specifically tied to large data centers.
Orange County, California – Compass Energy’s large battery project in San Juan Capistrano has finally died after a yearslong bout with local opposition.
Hillsdale County, Michigan – Here’s a new one: Two county commissioners here are stepping back from any decision on a solar project because they have signed agreements with the developer.