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 Democratic Senate candidate from Maine told Heatmap that any ban on construction must be paired with policymaking.

We’re about to find out whether progressive energy populism can flip control of Congress.
Graham Platner, the presumptive Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate from Maine, released an energy plan on Friday calling for a “national electricity rate freeze” to deal with high power prices, which many fear is in no small part from the scramble to build out new generation to meet new demand from data centers. Notably, however, the plan did not address data centers themselves.
In an interview the next day, the candidate revealed more of his views about the controversial technology, and told me his campaign is working on an artificial intelligence and data center-specific policy plan.
“I am extremely worried about, one, just AI as a general concept — the impact it’s going to have on the labor force, its impact on things like mass surveillance and manipulation of people and markets. Those things terrify me,” Platner told me. “We are dealing with a technology and a reality that we have done absolutely no regulatory preparation for, and that is utterly terrifying with something that seems to be as big and expensive and impactful as AI and the infrastructure necessary to power it.”
While he was careful in our conversation not to explicitly back a nationwide data center moratorium, he has previously given the idea his full-throated support. During a March 6 interview with environmental activists considering whether to endorse the candidate, Platner was asked whether he supports a “halt” to the fast-paced buildout of data centers. He was also queried on whether he would cosponsor legislation authored by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that would temporarily ban new data center projects. (The interview occurred before the bill was introduced.)
“Yes and yes. That’s probably the easiest question I’m going to get asked today,” Platner replied, according to a recording of the internal conversation shared with me by Food and Water Action. FWA was one of the four organizations involved in the call, all of which endorsed his campaign Tuesday morning. Platner’s camp declined to comment on the video.
The stakes of Platner’s campaign couldn’t be higher for Democrats. The seat is one of a handful that will determine control of the U.S. Senate. Platner, a 41-year-old oyster farmer and first-time politician, is fighting against 73-year-old five-term incumbent Republican Senator Susan Collins. While Maine voted for Kamala Harris in 2024 by about seven points and early polls indicate a competitive race that Platner could win, Collins has lasted this long in office for a reason.
Maine is a frontline battleground for modern energy politics in many ways. The northernmost New England state suffers some of the highest electricity rates in the country. The state has also seen some of the country’s steepest yearly cost increases; bills there have risen at least 8.3% just in the past year, according to Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub. And prices are only expected to go higher.
Though the state has seen far less data center development than, say, Virginia or Indiana, the facilities have nevertheless become a hot issue for Mainers. Multiple towns have rejected large AI infrastructure projects over the past year. Earlier this year, the Democratically-controlled state legislature passed a statewide moratorium on new data center development. Governor Janet Mills — who was at the time vying with Platner for the Senate nomination — vetoed the moratorium, arguing for protections so one former mill town could still build a data center. She suspended her campaign soon after, conspicuous timing she blamed on dwindling finances.
“Her veto of the bill that was going to put stringent limits on AI centers was something that bothered a lot of people in the Democratic Party,” Jim Melcher, a political science professor at the University of Maine at Farmington, told me.
Meanwhile, Platner supporters “are the kind of people that are nervous about the effects on the environment from data centers, particularly electricity usage and the water usage,” he said. “It’s something Susan Collins hasn’t made much of.”
In addition to the activist groups, leading climate and labor organizations have also endorsed Platner, including Sierra Club’s Maine chapter and the AFL-CIO. (LCV Action Fund, the campaign finance arm of the League of Conservation Voters, told me it hasn’t formally endorsed Platner but is “working with his campaign” and “excited about the opportunity to elect a clean energy champion in Maine this year.”)
Some of the policies in the energy plan were table-stakes bipartisan stuff, like repealing the gas tax to deal with higher gas prices from the Iran War — something Trump says he wants to do, too. Other ideas were quintessential Maine, like a “strategic marine fuel reserve” to quell price increases during fishing season. Unsurprisingly for a Democrat, Platner supports permitting reform for renewable energy projects including solar and offshore wind.
But one big proposal caught my eye — a so-called “national electricity rate freeze.” According to the plan, a combination of “repurposed” fossil fuel funding and a new oil industry “windfall tax” would fund “low-cost energy infrastructure financing to any state that freezes or lowers electricity rates for four years.”
“Not only would this relieve Americans of the burden of Trump’s war,” the document stated, “but it would also reduce the political impetus on the part of Big Oil to continue to push America into costly Middle East interventions that just so happen to reap them billions in profit.”
Though it did not mention data centers explicitly, the proposal echoed a similar policy from New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill, whose campaign pledge last year to freeze electricity rates was a direct response to data center impacts.
A moratorium on data center development would be a step far beyond taking action on electricity prices. When I asked about the Sanders proposal in our interview, Platner told me he supports “anything” that would slow down data center development. But on the general idea of temporarily banning these projects, he clarified, it “can’t be a moratorium for the sake of being a moratorium.”
“If we’re just slowing it down to assuage people’s fears but we’re not also building legislation at the exact same time, that kind of defeats the point,” he said. “What might be — I’m still a little skeptical — but what might be the single most transformational technology around productivity of our time, the idea that’s just going to happen and we don’t have any regulatory structures around it and we’re not even having the time to have the conversation while it gets built and utilized? That’s insane. Except that’s exactly what’s happening right now.”
Platner’s plainclothes populism came through when I asked why he thinks energy prices are going up. On the one hand, he said, “People need more energy and we’re not producing enough of it.” But he added: “It’s that, connected with corporate consolidation and greed. These two things together [are] what’s primarily driving how expensive energy is.”
Collins, meanwhile, has started sketching her own approach to energy in campaign season — promoting domestic natural gas. Speaking at a manufacturing business summit on Friday, Collins countermessaged with support for new pipeline infrastructure to carry gas from Pennsylvania up north to increase supply and hopefully lower prices. “We have the highest dependence in the country on home heating oil for our homes. Natural gas is cleaner, it’s cheaper, and it should be more available in our state,” she told reporters.
Collins has pursued her own reform efforts around AI, including a call to ban AI-generated depictions of candidates in election ads. Mainers haven’t gotten much from Collins about data centers, though. Neither her campaign nor her Senate office responded to requests for comment. “She really hasn't talked much about it,” Melcher said of Collins’ approach to energy and data centers.
Prior to releasing his energy plan, Platner took a Zohran Mamdani-like approach to climate and energy, focusing primarily on cost of living issues.
When he did speak on those subjects, it was with the same unapologetically anti-corporate approach that leads him to say companies like Google and Palantir “shouldn’t exist.” In a clip posted to YouTube in February, Platner outlines his position on fossil fuels, arguing that the federal government must “pull back” on financing for the industry in order to “buy us the future we need to deal with the problems of climate change.” The responsibility for addressing climate change rests not at the feet of individual citizens, he says, but rather with “the structures and the corporations that have made an immense amount of money out of destroying the planet.”
It remains to be seen whether Platner’s populist pugilism will prove successful for Democrats in a crucial race. Collins has a powerful perch atop the Senate Appropriations Committee, which allows her to argue on the trail that she’ll bring Mainers home more bacon.
Both Melcher and Mark Brewer, a political science professor at the University of Maine, told me they’re confident Platner is relying on the support of voters who want him to support a blanket data center ban. They each told me Collins’ relative silence on this topic is something Platner could use to his advantage, especially as energy prices continue to rise.
“They’ll probably both try to stake out a position that says we're clearly concerned about environmental issues and the cost of electricity,” Brewer said. “I don’t know if it’ll be at the top of the agenda, but at some point in this campaign, we’ll all be talking about AI data centers.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the name of Food and Water Action.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Behind both the Anthropic IPO and the Iran War negotiations sits the energy transition.
When you get down to it, two stories are dominating the American economy at the moment.
The first is the artificial intelligence boom. The second is the Iran war — and the wavering peace talks, and unprecedented energy transformation, that accompany it. Both stories advanced on Monday.
In the morning, the frontier AI lab Anthropic announced that it had confidentially filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for an initial public offering, a widely anticipated step that could see its shares start trading as early as the fall.
The Iran news was perhaps less bullish. Iran announced this morning that it was suspending negotiations after it traded missile and bomb attacks with the United States through the weekend. Oil prices surged on the news before relaxing somewhat after President Trump personally intervened to keep Israel from bombing Lebanon. Trump claimed peace talks with Iran “are continuing, at a rapid pace.”
Still, oil ended the day higher than where it started. The global Brent crude benchmark rose more than 4.5% to over $95 per barrel. The American benchmark, WTI, rose more than 5% to around $92. While neither benchmark has reached its highs from earlier in the war, the episode seemed to remind investors that an oil crisis is still happening and that talks could fall apart at any time. The Strait of Hormuz remains (mostly) closed.
Taken together, the two stories suggest generally good news — or at least, that’s what investors thought. Most major U.S. stock indices crept up slightly through the day; the S&P 500 closed up a quarter of a percent. (It helped that Nvidia — whose head of sustainability I interviewed for Heatmap’s podcast, Shift Key, last week — also unveiled a new consumer laptop chip this morning, sending its shares surging.)
Viewed from another angle, though, you can see a common energy story in these updates. The Anthropic filing — taken together with last week’s news that “mind-blowing growth” is about to propel the lab behind the Claude AI assistant into its first profitable quarter — is a reminder that surging electricity demand is now a dependable part of our electricity system. Demand will in turn remain strong for anything that can help supply that electricity — solar panels, batteries, wind turbines, and (yes) natural gas paraphernalia.
Meanwhile, who knows what will happen in a week or two, but for now, the Iran-induced oil shortage has caused so much demand destruction in China — and seemed to encourage so much switching to electric vehicles — that it seems almost manageable. The commodity researchers at JP Morgan last week mused that the world may be learning to live with 9% less oil. It helps, of course, that China — and the rest of the world — is drawing down its strategic reserves; price action has remained muted in part because oil investors believe Trump is desperate for a deal. But if East Asia and Europe respond to the oil shortage by permanently deleting at least part of their oil demand, it will be by switching from oil and diesel-burning technologies to power-sipping EVs and batteries.
Behind both of the economy’s biggest stories, in other words, sits the great global transition to electricity.
A climate scientist goes back to the numbers to argue that we’re overestimating the cost of the energy transition.
I’ve long been struck by how hard it is to predict the evolution of our energy system even a few years in advance, never mind 25 or 30 years. I still remember the “peak oil” craze in the mid-2000s, when people were telling me the end of oil was nigh. It sounded convincing right up until it turned out to be wrong.
Let me show you how bad previous predictions have been for the electricity sector.
Each plot below shows predictions of how a particular source of electricity will evolve, as well as what actually happened. The data comes from the Energy Information Administration and covers the U.S. electricity sector.
We’ll start with coal. In the first plot, the black line shows actual U.S. coal-fired electricity generation. The blue lines are predictions made each year since 2008.
In 2008, coal was expected to produce increasing amounts of electricity into the future. Instead, it immediately started to decline. It took until 2023 for the EIA to begin predicting a long-term decline in coal, despite the fact that coal had been declining for 15 years.
Natural gas, by contrast, has generated an increasing share of U.S. electricity. This is largely due to the tidal wave of cheap natural gas from hydraulic fracturing. The predictions, on the other hand, did not anticipate this.
The takeaway here is that predicting the evolution of our energy system is not just difficult in the long run, e.g., 30 years from now, but also that it’s difficult even in the short run.
If we combine coal and gas, the forecasts look better. This reflects the fact that natural gas has largely replaced coal over the years, so that the underestimate for gas helps cancel out the overestimate for coal.
But even for the combined category, the forecasts vary widely.
Moving on to renewables, here’s solar, including both utility and residential solar:
And here’s wind:
For both energy sources, predictions before 2015 were really bad. What changed after that I can’t say — my guess is they got sick of being so wrong.
Across all energy sources, the 2023 and 2025 forecasts differ sharply from the 2026 forecast. The predictions made for those years assume the persistence of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, while 2026 predictions assume the reversal of those policies.
The difference between 2025 and 2026 is an estimate of the role that politics plays in the future evolution of our electricity sector. That we cannot confidently predict who will win future elections or what their policies will be is another very good reason why it’s so hard to predict the future of our energy system.
Why is it so hard to predict the energy mix in our electricity system? One big reason is that it is hard to predict the future rate of innovation. We can see this in a plot of the cost of energy:
I’m using levelized cost of energy as my measure of the cost to produce power from each source. I understand the limitations of LCOE, but for an energy developer, LCOE is the number that counts. Yes, wind and solar are intermittent, but that’s a grid problem. All that matters to the developer is which low-LCOE energy source they can build.
You can see that the price of wind and solar plummeted in the early 2010s, reflecting enormous innovation in the production of renewable energy. That was not predicted by most mainstream forecasts, as confirmed by predictions of wind and solar above.
There has also been a lot of innovation in fossil fuel production, most importantly fracking and horizontal drilling. These technologies drove down the cost of natural gas in the late 2000s and changed the economics of electricity generation almost overnight. Coal plants that had looked like safe long-term investments suddenly faced a cheaper competitor.
Yet this, too, was largely missed. In the late 2000s, many utilities were still trying to build coal plants, unable to see that coal was entering a precipitous decline. TXU Corp., for instance, tried to build 11 new coal plants in Texas in the mid-aughts. Though it was the state’s largest utility at the time, it ultimately got bought out by private equity, who compromised with environmental groups and agreed to build just three of the original 11 proposed plants, two of which are still in operation.
Meanwhile, the restructured TXU declared bankruptcy in 2014, after natural gas prices collapsed.
All of this goes to show that coal was not beaten by a single technology. It was beaten by a sequence of technologies that forecasters failed to anticipate.
Based on economics, coal is now a stone-cold loser. Its remaining advantage is not cost, nor is it speed of construction or flexibility. It is politics. The Trump Administration is forcing coal-fired plants to stay open, and recent reporting suggests these interventions are raising costs for consumers.
In the competition between solar, wind, and natural gas, solar and wind are the cheapest. The combination of low costs and short construction times with the price volatility of natural gas gives wind and solar a huge market advantage, explaining their exponential growth.
Yes, solar and wind are coming for natural gas.
The LCOE plot also shows the profound disadvantage nuclear faces. Nuclear energy costs nearly $200 per megawatt-hour, around four times the cost of wind and solar. And it takes a decade or two to get it online. Without government mandates or heavy policy support, I would say there is little likelihood we will see a nuclear renaissance.
Much of the debate in climate policy centers on the cost, difficulty, and timeline for phasing out fossil fuels in order to achieve net zero. You constantly hear pundits and analysts throwing around eye-popping numbers, confidently claiming, e.g., that “it will cost XXX trillions of dollars to reach net zero in our economy by 2050.”

But if the forecasting failures of the past 20 years have taught us anything, it’s this: We simply have no idea how much decarbonization will cost.
You should treat numbers like McKinsey’s estimate above as guesses. They could be right, but historically speaking, they probably aren’t.
To summarize, here are the reasons why the true cost of reaching net zero remains so uncertain:
Overall, the uncertainty in these long-term forecasts is enormous. And if history is any guide, the errors are not random. They usually point in the same direction — they overestimate the cost of the energy transition.
One reason is that traditional forecasting models tend to assume slow, steady technological progress. But energy technologies do not always improve that way. Solar, wind, batteries, and fracking all show that costs can change fast when conditions line up. Most models, which assume gradual change, will miss these breaks.
Another problem is that fossil fuels are often treated as stable, low-risk alternatives. They are not. Their prices can swing wildly, and their supply chains are exposed to wars, political instability, and global market shocks. Those costs are real and hard to predict, so they are left out of these estimates.
That is the central point: Estimates of the cost of the energy transition should be treated as conditional guesses built on assumptions about technology, fuel prices, politics, and geopolitics, all of which have repeatedly surprised us.
The lesson of the past 20 years is not that the energy transition will be easy or hard — we really don’t know. Anyone claiming to know the cost decades in advance should be treated with skepticism.
Editor’s note: A version of this article originally appeared in the author’s newsletter, The Climate Brink, and has been repurposed for Heatmap.
Current conditions: The Atlantic hurricane season officially began today, in what’s expected to be a relatively mild year • A powerful storm with winds of up to 80 miles per hour is walloping broad swaths of millions of Australians • Temperatures in Oman are approaching 120 degrees Fahrenheit.

The United States’ offshore wind industry is, at this very moment, booming — at least in terms of the turbine arrays finally coming online in recent weeks. But there are no new projects underway as President Donald Trump pulls out all the stops to kill the industry in what I have previously called a death by a thousand cuts. That’s despite the fact that demand for electricity is soaring in the U.S. Luckily for Americans, our nation’s aging network of power grids overlaps with our northern neighbor’s. And Canada is now looking at a potential offshore wind boom. Last summer, Nova Scotia started laying the groundwork for offshore wind projects. Now Ming Yang, the world’s third-largest manufacturer of wind turbines, is considering investing in a project off Canada’s Pacific coast. The proposed project in the Hecate Strait off British Columbia would add up to 2 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity to Canada’s portfolio, according to Renewables Now. It’s part of Ming Yang’s broader push into Western markets, as my colleague Matthew Zeitlin reported last October.
Just days after New York State delayed its carbon-cutting plan and loosened the rules on how it counts greenhouse gases, California mounted its own retreat on climate goals. On Friday, Bloomberg reported that the California Air Resources Board had voted to give as much as $4 billion of free allowances to oil refiners and other industrial polluters to make compliance with the state’s 13-year-old carbon market easier. At least New York Governor Kathy Hochul “had the decency” to signal publicly that she intended to roll back the state’s climate law, said Danny Cullenward, an economist and lawyer who wrote a book on climate policy. “Here in California we do the same in private and call it climate leadership,” Cullenward wrote of California Governor Gavin Newsom and CARB Chair Lauren Sanchez in a post on Bluesky.
Kudos to the Trump administration, then, for being so open about its plans to render the SEC something that might more appropriately serve as an acronym for Salting the Earth of Climate disclosures. Last month, I told you that the Securities and Exchange Commission was reviewing a Biden-era rule requiring companies to disclose the risk climate change posed to their businesses. On Friday, the agency formally proposed eliminating the regulation. “SEC disclosure obligations should comply with the Commission’s statutory authority, be guided by materiality as the North Star, avoid the practical effect of dictating corporate behavior, and be imposed only when the expected benefits justify the likely costs and burdens,” SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins said in a statement.
Rehlko isn’t a household name, but it used to be: The 106-year-old firm was previously called Kohler Energy. But since spinning out from the titan of American manufacturing of kitchen sinks and bathroom toilets, Rehlko has honed its business as a leading producer and installer of generators and the infrastructure to house the diesel-, gas-, or hydrogen-fired power sources. Now, I can report exclusively for this newsletter, the company is preparing to expand its factory in Wisconsin as its backlog of orders for generators to power data centers stretches beyond 13 months. In an interview on Friday, Rehlko CEO Brian Melka told me that this facility is part of a plan “to increase the size and the output of the business about four to five times, or 400% to 500%, over the next five or six years.” The Wisconsin plant is specifically designed to assemble the company’s “e-frame” product, a generator enclosure that looks like a shipping container and includes the wiring and fire suppression tools needed to safely house one of Rehlko’s proprietary generators, which provide off-grid back-up power to data centers, hospitals, and other large power users. In addition to beefing up its capacity to manufacture more generators and enclosures, the company is expanding its engineering team for larger projects in which Rehlko uses another firm’s gas turbines for full-time power generation.
“We want to maintain that competitive edge, not only to be able to deliver the product faster but also to deliver the entire solution faster,” Melka said. “This is going to significantly increase our capacity as we go into 2027 with this new facility to be able to build many more fully enclosed units. The demand keeps pushing out. We essentially sold out the capacity for that building for 2027 and 2028 before we even signed the lease.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Unlike Russia, France, Japan, and China, the U.S. doesn’t recycle its nuclear waste. That is, until now. Roughly half a dozen companies are competing to be the first to create a beachhead for a new recycling industry in the U.S. Now one of those startups, Curio, has kicked off the pre-application process for a Nuclear Regulatory Commission permit. It’s just an inaugural step: Submitting a letter of intent to the agency to establish a docket and start providing documents to the regulator. But Curio plans to build a plant that could process up to 4,000 metric tons of used commercial light water reactor fuel per year. “The initiation of this application process marks a key and decisive moment for Curio and our nation as we commercially deploy what will be the world’s most advanced and capable used nuclear fuel recycling facility based on our game-changing NuCycle technology,” Curio CEO Ed McGinnis said in a statement, referring to the brand of the company’s reprocessing technology that was recently validated by four of the Department of Energy’s national laboratories.
South Korea, meanwhile, wants to start enriching and reprocessing its own fuel, and has garnered support from the Trump administration to do so. In the meantime, the democratic world’s most competent builder of civilian nuclear plants is doing what it does best and starting construction on a new reactor. On Friday, World Nuclear News reported that crews had poured the first concrete for Shin Hanul nuclear plant’s fourth reactor.
In January, I told you when Century Aluminum overhauled its plans to build the first new aluminum smelter in the U.S. to include an investment from an Emirati company. At the time, the Energy Department hailed the deal as a sign that Trump’s tariffs were working. On Friday, Mining.com published a feature building off a report from the advocacy group Industrious Labs that examined the recent push for new aluminum smelting in the U.S. The analysis concluded that, while 50% tariffs bolstered the sector, “access to industrial-scale electricity — and increasingly industrial-scale clean electricity — is the pain point,” said Annie Sartor, senior campaigns director at Industrious Labs. “Aluminum producers are being scooped by data centers and hyperscalers. They can simply pay more for the power.”
Among the more exciting concepts for supplying the market with cheap, clean, and affordable hydrogen is finding the stuff in naturally-formed underground reservoirs, allowing oil and gas drillers to do their thing for a green fuel. Now Oman, the Arab world’s diplomatic equivalent of Switzerland, is making progress in drilling the first wells for natural hydrogen. HyTerra, the Australian startup exploring for hydrogen in the country, told the Oman Observer that the successful pilot well boded well for tapping “one of the best source rock systems” for natural hydrogen yet discovered in the world. Given the latest heat wave in the country, the value of a fossil fuel replacement is likely becoming more obvious.