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.
Current conditions: The Atlantic set a record on Saturday for the longest stretch of the hurricane season since the advent of satellites without a major named storm • Argentina is bracing for severe Zonda winds, a type of intense downslope gust unique to the eastern side of the Andes Mountains • While the wildfires darkening skies over Indonesia have receded, blazes are still raging across the southern shores of Sumatra, Borneo, and West Papua.
The United States is preparing to eliminate any cap on the amount of planet-warming pollution from burning coal or gas that power plants can spew into the atmosphere. On Sunday night, The New York Times reported that the Environmental Protection Agency planned to announce a final repeal of climate rules on the power sector at this week’s summit in Houston of energy ministers from the Group of 20 nations. The EPA already moved to remove the entire legal basis for regulating greenhouse gases at any level by gutting its endangerment finding, which my colleagues Robinson Meyer and Emily Pontecorvo explained last winter. In March, as I told you at the time, almost half of all U.S. states sued to block the administration from rescinding the finding. The EPA went on to scrap standards on climate-heating emissions for car tailpipes and loosened rules on heat-trapping chemicals used in refrigerators and air conditioners. Under the new proposal, which the Times noted would come out Monday, power plants would still face limits on mercury, arsenic, and other contaminants, “though the EPA has already loosened restrictions on how much mercury they can emit.”
Nearly a year ago, I told you about the legal challenges already mounting for President Donald Trump’s order to keep a Michigan coal-fired station open past its planned retirement date on the grounds that the broader grid system is under an “emergency” level of stress. Maintaining the J.H. Campbell coal station for just three months past its previously-agreed closure cost the utility Consumers Energy nearly $30 million. And all that was to fulfill an illegal order, a federal court just decided. On Friday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Trump administration’s use of emergency powers to force the plant to stay open. The court found that the Department of Energy illegally invoked Section 202(c), the emergency authority of the Federal Power Act, to override the long-term planning process through which Consumers, Michigan, and the Energy Department had agreed to terminate power production at the 1.4-gigawatt plant. The agency has since used the same statute to order coal plants in Colorado, Florida, Indiana, and Washington to remain open. “The DOE needs to stay in its lane and use its emergency powers only in actual emergencies,” Michael Lenoff, Earthjustice attorney, said in a statement. “Preventing the market-driven retirements of coal plants to advance a coal-friendly agenda is not a proper use of emergency powers.” In July, Washington State announced a deal with utility TransAlta to convert the state’s only remaining coal plant to run on natural gas. But that same day, the Energy Department renewed its directive to keep TransAlta’s Centralia coal plant running for at least another three months. “America needs more reliable power, not less, and today’s order will help ensure reliable electricity generation remains available to help address periods of peak demand,” Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said in a statement at the same time. “The Trump administration remains committed to reversing the misguided energy subtraction policies it inherited from past leaders.”
The White House, meanwhile, is considering using the Defense Production Act to expand U.S. oil refining capacity. The proposal, reported by Reuters, came up during a meeting between Trump and a dozen U.S. refiners, who told the president that federal money “would be better directed toward making refineries more efficient or expanding existing plants rather than financing an entirely new refinery,” which would cost more and take years to complete.
A surge of utility-scale solar projects racing to completion before the federal tax credits expires in July added 11.4 gigawatts of capacity to the U.S. in the second quarter of this year, representing a 45% increase. That’s according to a PV Tech analysis of the latest Solar Energy Industries Association report I told you about on Thursday. Rooftop solar was a mixed bag in the second three-month stretch of 2026. Residential solar installations fell 12% year over year and community solar declined 14%, but corporate and industrial projects grew by 11%. Utility-scale projects, on the other hand, soared by 61% year over year. “The concentration on utility-scale developments was a direct response to the Trump administration’s phaseout of tax credits for renewable energy deployments from July 4, 2026 and the ‘safe harbor’ period that requires projects are placed in service,” PV Tech wrote.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney instructed his special envoy to Europe to “scope out the most ambitious possibilities short of full membership” in the European Union or its common market, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. The details, the newspaper noted, “are still being sketched by technical working groups for what the prime minister has told his aides will be the reorienting of an economy and a society that for half a century has been dominated by the U.S.” If successful, the pivot to Brussels would reshape the energy and resource profile of both continents, pairing Europe’s wealth and vast population with Canada’s vast supply of oil, gas, and minerals. “In a more dangerous and divided world, Canada and our European partners are moving ever closer,” Carney said in a statement over the weekend. “Our shared values, complementary strengths, and common interests serve as the strong foundation on which we can build a stronger future. Together, Canada and our European partners have the ambition and strength to create a more just, stable, and universally prosperous world.”

Canada boasts the world’s second-biggest output of uranium, a potential boon to Europe’s nuclear sector. But with Kazakhstan, the world’s top supplier, cautioning that more of its supply could end up going to China and other new buyers, Australia — the world’s No. 4 supplier — is looking for a bigger stake in the world’s third-place producer, Namibia. A pair of Australian companies are pushing ahead with plans to build new projects in the southwest African nation, Bloomberg reported last week. Bannerman Energy and Deep Yellow are both based in the Western Australian mining hub of Perth. Bannerman is considering a joint venture with China National Nuclear Corporation in which Beijing’s state-owned reactor operator would buy a 45% stake in a mine and agree to buy 60% of its output once the project is commissioned in 2028. Deep Yellow’s nearby Tumas project is, per the newswire, “a little less advanced but targeting a final investment decision toward the end of the year.”
China’s wind turbine champion, Goldwind, is getting into another green sector. The world’s largest turbine manufacturer shipped its first batch of green methanol from a 160-megawatt project in Inner Mongolia to South Korea, where it’s expected to be shipped to a buyer in the EU, Hydrogen Insight reported. It’s yet another sign of how China is stepping up to meet the EU’s carbon tariff.
Even the hardiest are shivering at the price of heating oil.
As leaves begin to turn from green to autumn hues of amber, gold, and brown, New England is preparing for an expensive winter.
While most of the country heats their homes with natural gas or electricity, about 5 million households — overwhelmingly located in the Northeast — use oil. Like diesel and gasoline (both of which have set price records recently) home heating oil is distilled from crude oil, which is currently trading at prices not seen since the early months of the war between the United States, Israel, and Iran.
Benchmark oil prices are over $100 for the first time since the spring as the Iran War grinds forward with no end in sight. Houthi attacks on Saudi oil tankers and infrastructure in and around the Red Sea and continued Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian refineries have put added pressure on U.S. facilities to supply the world with gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel, raising prices domestically. Russia’s own fuel imports reached a record 172,000 metric tons in August, according to an analysis from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, mostly from South Korea and India, putting further strain on the global market (the country was once the largest exporter of refined products).
The effects have trickled downstream to the distillate market, as well. Diesel prices surged past $6 per gallon on Friday, while retail home heating oil prices in Maine, one of the Northeastern states most dependent on oil to heat homes, are around $5.39, their highest since April. Making matters worse, stocks of distillate fuel oil, which includes heating oil, are at their lowest level for this time of year since the Energy Information Administration started keeping records. The EIA released a new forecast this week projecting that “global production of distillate fuel will remain below last year’s levels in the coming months, contributing to low U.S. diesel inventories and high diesel prices.”
For Mainers and others across New England, that adds up to a hard winter to come.
“As the most heating oil reliant state in the country, Mainers are uniquely impacted by rising and volatile oil prices,” Acting Commissioner of the Maine Department of Energy Resources Celina Cunningham told me in an emailed statement. About half of the state’s residents “still rely on oil as their primary heating fuel,” she told me, even as outgoing Governor Janet Mills has encouraged heat pump adoption. “The cost of heating oil is already more than 60% higher than it was at this time last year,” Cunningham added, “putting added pressure on Maine households as we head into the winter heating season.”
Mark Wolfe, executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, told me that the total cost of heating a home exclusively on oil will jump from $1,740 to $2,297 this winter. “Families using heating oil will get hit twice — first from gasoline, and then heating oil,” he said.
The price of home heating oil has long been a hot button issue in New England politics, and this year’s slate of Congressional races is no exception. Matt Dunlap, the state auditor and Democratic nominee in Maine’s Trump-voting 2nd Congressional District, told reporters earlier this week while standing in front of a heating oil delivery truck that “right now, families across this district are sitting at their kitchen tables signing their heating oil contracts for the winter and staring at numbers they simply cannot afford.” In keeping with Trump’s recent admonition to pretend he’s on the ballot, Dunlap used the occasion to criticize the president’s foreign policy. The Iran War, Dunlap said, “is not an abstract foreign policy debate. That’s the reason your heating bill this winter could be hundreds of dollars higher than it was last year.”
Susan Collins, the Republican senator running for re-election in Maine, regularly highlights her role in bringing in funding from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program for Mainers, even as staff in charge of administering the program were laid off early in the Trump administration.
To the extent New Englanders can expect any relief, it likely won’t come from the supply dynamics of heating oil — the EIA has upped its price forecast for both this year and 2027. They may, however, simply need less. Thanks to what could be an historically strong El Niño, New England may be in for a warmer (albeit wetter) winter than usual.
Talking about the data center backlash, the midterm elections, and the future of renewables with Columbia Law School’s Romany Webb.
This week’s conversation is a quick catch-up with our friends at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. I hopped on the phone with the center’s deputy director Romany Webb to chat about recent updates they published to anti-renewables opposition analysis. I wanted to dig into their research beyond the toplines — what should people care about in the coming election? How have data centers come up in their research? Or the repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act?
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Let’s start with the updates. Walk me through what’s new in your research.
So, we published two-year reports that detail renewable energy opposition across the United States; one is our report we’ve published since 2021 and it’s a new edition, and the other is an update of a report we published a few years ago on false claims about renewable energy where we highlight the misinformed used against projects.
This year’s local opposition report found local opposition continues to be widespread and really endemic. There’s been opposition to renewable energy development in every state across the country and we’re seeing it still have a real impact on whether projects get built. But there are small glimmers of hope. We identified 70 new state and local restrictions, which was a decline from previous years — that’s notable.
In select states where there have been a lot of these local restrictions, we’ve seen a drop off, like in Michigan after they enacted their state siting law. These are encouraging signs, and obviously it’s still early days, but it shows some of these state reforms are having a positive impact.
How is data center opposition coming up in your research?
Our reports do not track opposition to data center development. But we do certainly hear anecdotally that debates over data center development are spilling over into debates over renewable energy and battery storage. Often, local communities express concern that these new projects are just being built to power data centers — in some cases when there’s no connection at all, really. But I don’t have data on that link.
You said the law Michigan enacted might be working. Do you know if these laws limiting local opposition actually help with fighting renewable energy opponents, or are they engendering their own backlashes that undermine their effectiveness?
I think it’s too early to say the impacts they’ll have over the medium to long term. In the near term, many of the laws have been successful in accelerating the permitting of renewable energy projects or making it easier for them to be approved. Recent data out of New York shows that many of the projects that have gone through the new siting process are being approved — they’re still fairly long but they’re consistent which is good for development. In other places we’ve seen efforts to limit local government’s ability to adopt restrictions on renewable energy development, like Illinois and Michigan.
Those laws are relatively new, but the data we have shows that drop-off. It suggests the intended effect. But we need more time to know how effective they are and some of those laws have been getting quite a bit of pushback. There’s been a myriad of bills enacted in state legislatures across the country that would roll back those recent reforms or impose new restrictions on renewable development.
How much does the coming midterm election matter for the future of opposition to renewable energy?
I do think the next election will have important implications on whether we continue to see the ever-growing number of state level restrictions adopted or if we see a shift there.
Even if we see a shift in the composition of legislatures, I do think we’ll continue to see community opposition in many places to these projects. We shouldn’t ignore that developing a solar or wind project does have impacts on the local community and so developers really need to take steps to mitigate and manage those impacts.
If they don’t they’ll face the opposition, and even if they are they may face it because of misinformation around these projects.
My last question is, to what extent did the repeal of the IRA impact the ability for local opposition to kill projects in the crib?
I can’t say that definitively. I certainly don’t have the data that would support that sort of claim. And we don’t track that, specifically.
But often, groups that are opposed to renewable energy development will express concerns about the costs of projects or emphasize projects may not be viable without government subsidies. So the rollback of tax credits under the IRA plays into that argument. Of course when you look at the data, renewable energy projects are cheaper and the argument doesn’t hold muster.
But it’s an argument we regularly see pushed by opposition groups. That is how we have seen the IRA repeal affect this.