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:
They might not be worried now, but Democrats made the same mistake earlier this year.

Permitting reform is dead in the 118th Congress.
It died earlier this week, although you could be forgiven for missing it. On Tuesday, bipartisan talks among lawmakers fell apart over a bid to rewrite parts of the National Environmental Policy Act. The changes — pushed for by Representative Bruce Westerman, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee — would have made it harder for outside groups to sue to block energy projects under NEPA, a 1970 law that governs the country’s process for environmental decisionmaking.
When those talks died, they also killed a separate deal over permitting struck earlier this year between Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming. That deal, as I detailed last week, would have loosened some federal rules around oil and gas drilling in exchange for a new, quasi-mandatory scheme to build huge amounts of long-distance transmission.
Rest in peace, I suppose. Even if lawmakers could not agree on NEPA changes, I think Republicans made a mistake by not moving forward with the Manchin-Barrasso deal. (I still believe that the standalone deal could have passed the Senate and the House if put to a vote.) At this point, I do not think we will see another shot at bipartisan permitting reform until at least late 2026, when the federal highway law will need fresh funding.
But it is difficult to get too upset about this failure because larger mistakes have since compounded the initial one. On Wednesday, Republican Speaker Mike Johnson’s bipartisan deal to fund the government — which is, after all, a much more fundamental task of governance than rewriting some federal permitting laws — fell apart, seemingly because Donald Trump and Elon Musk decided they didn’t like it. If I can indulge in the subjunctive for a moment: That breakdown might have likely killed any potential permitting deal, too. So even in a world where lawmakers somehow did strike a deal earlier this week, it might already be dead. (As I write this, the House GOP has reportedly reached a new deal to fund the government through March, which has weakened or removed provisions governing pharmacy benefit managers and limiting American investments in China.)
The facile reading of this situation is that Republicans now hold the advantage. The Trump administration will soon be able to implement some of the fossil fuel provisions in the Manchin-Barrasso deal through the administrative state. Trump will likely expand onshore and offshore drilling, will lease the government’s best acreage to oil and gas companies, and will approve as many liquified natural gas export terminals as possible. His administration will do so, however, without the enhanced legal protection that the deal would have provided — and while those protections are not a must-have, especially with a friendly Supreme Court, their absence will still allow environmental groups to try to run down the clock on some of Trump’s more ambitious initiatives.
Republicans believe that they will be able to get parts of permitting reform done in a partisan reconciliation bill next year. These efforts seem quite likely to run aground, at least as long as something like the current rules governing reconciliation bills hold. I have heard some crazy proposals on this topic — what if skipping a permitting fight somehow became a revenue-raiser for the federal government? — but even they do not touch the deep structure of NEPA in the way a bipartisan compromise could. As Westerman told Politico’s Josh Siegel: “We need 60 votes in the Senate to get real permitting reform … People are just going to have to come to an agreement on what permitting reform is.” In any case, Manchin and the Democrats already tried to reform the permitting system via a partisan reconciliation bill and found it essentially impossible.
Even if reconciliation fails, Republicans say, they will still be in a better negotiating position next year than this year because the party will control a few more Senate votes. But will they? The GOP will just have come off a difficult fight over tax reform. Twelve or 24 months from now, demands on the country’s electricity grid are likely to be higher than they are today, and the risk of blackouts will be higher than before. The lack of a robust transmission network will hinder the ability to build a massive new AI infrastructure, as some of Trump’s tech industry backers hope. But 12 or 24 months from now, too, Democrats — furious at Trump — are not going to be in a dealmaking mood, and Republicans have relatively few ways to bring them to the table.
In any case, savvy Republicans should have realized that it is important to get supply-side economic reforms done as early in a president’s four-year term as possible. Such changes take time to filter through the system and turn into real projects and real economic activity; passing the law as early as possible means that the president’s party can enjoy them and campaign on them.
All of it starts to seem more and more familiar. When Manchin and Barrasso unveiled their compromise earlier this year, Democrats didn’t act quickly on it. They felt confident that the window for a deal wouldn’t close — and they looked forward to a potential trifecta, when they would be able to get even more done (and reject some of Manchin’s fossil fuel-friendly compromises).
Democrats, I think, wound up regretting the cavalier attitude that they brought to permitting reform before Trump’s win. But now the GOP is acting the same way: It is rejecting compromises, believing that it will be able to strike a better deal on permitting issues during its forthcoming trifecta. That was a mistake when Democrats did it. I think it will be a mistake for Republicans, too.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania advance a flurry of new ideas to manage the boom.
We know a little bit more about New York’s AI data center moratorium than we did yesterday. Here’s what stands out to me:
Governor Kathy Hochul says this won’t become a ban. “I’m not expecting the need for a ban. I want [the AI companies] to work with us,” she told Bloomberg’s “Odd Lots” podcast. “I understand how important AI is.”
The moratorium isn’t enough for some left-wing groups. As I wrote on Tuesday, Hochul’s order allowed her to avoid signing a more stringent moratorium that included wage requirements and renewable energy mandates for a much wider scope of projects. Kristen Gonzalez, a democratic socialist and a cosponsor of that bill, hailed Hochul anyway for “protecting everyday New Yorkers with a first in the nation moratorium on new large data centers.”
Some New York City progressive groups, while endorsing that more restrictive bill, suggested that she should have gone much further. The New York City chapter of the Sunrise Movement and other left-wing organizations, for instance, posted an Instagram carousel that said: “The dream isn’t better data centers. The dream is no data centers at all.”
New York is also exploring a grid acceleration fund. The governor’s order hints that a few policies should be in place by the time the moratorium ends. These include a new rule that data centers either bring their own power or “pay their fair share” for electricity, and a new state program to help local governments negotiate for community benefits with developers.
But it also opens the door for requiring projects to pay into a grid modernization fund. Such a fund could finance upgrades, set up new virtual power plants, or pay for new sources of zero-carbon energy, the order says. That idea — which resembles proposals from the Searchlight Institute and Groundwork Collaborative — suggests that the state is exploring ways to harness the AI boom for the public. “We want to make sure [data center developers] are investing in the grid,” Hochul said on Tuesday, “but they’re not being asked.”
Which brings me to my larger point. We’re seeing an efflorescence of interesting policymaking on data centers from Democratic governors and state legislators. New York has now enacted this moratorium, of course. Pennsylvania, a true national epicenter of data center construction, has passed new disclosure requirements, and Governor Josh Shapiro has pushed for serious reforms in the country’s largest electricity market.
In New Jersey — where surging power prices were central to last year’s gubernatorial election — the data center buildout has already produced a flurry of new laws. In its most recent session, the state legislature pared back tax incentives for data centers, required utilities to offer a rate for large electricity users, and required data center operators to publish water and energy data. It also set up a novel program that will let data centers pay to reduce electricity demand elsewhere on the grid, such as by setting up virtual power plants (or paying those who participate in them).
It’s been exciting to see different states — and, to be blunt, to see Democratic-governed states, particularly those in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic — try to take on the data center boom. It’s good to see them test out ideas, solve problems through legislation, and harness this moment for the public good without strangling the buildout entirely. For too long, blue states have leaned into a particular economic model, one in which states want to attract varying forms of development but in fact succeed only in creating new suburbs, office buildings, and warehouses.
Soon after Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act, observers noticed that the law’s fruits — and notably its manufacturing investments — were sprouting in red or purple states, particularly in the Southeast and Sun Belt. The so-called Battery Belt bloomed in the Mid-South, for instance, not the Rust Belt. As I discussed with the political scientist Alexander Gazmararian on Heatmap’s podcast Shift Key, that was often due (counterintuitively, I think, for liberals) to a failure of governance: It is GOP-governed states that have the local expertise, institutional capacity, and political muscle memory to attract big new economic development projects.
If Democrats want to see their states do big things — build new housing and transit, decarbonize their power grids, or give birth to new industries — then they will need to develop the same kind of capability. That’s why I’ve so relished seeing blue states reckon with the data center boom. It should be encouraging that New Jersey policymakers, for instance, have to figure out how to manage a new and fast-growing industry on the technological frontier. Even questions that may seem troublesome right now — around land use, for instance, or how to relieve a congested power grid — will likely lead to policies that improve the state.
This kind of policymaking helps the Democratic Party, too. After all, the party’s future national leaders — its members of Congress, cabinet secretaries, and even presidents — are currently serving at the state and local level. The data center boom’s lessons — for good and ill — will resound among the party’s leadership for a long time.
Can she appease AI skeptics, economic development advocates, and renewables boosters?
New York Governor Kathy Hochul tried to pick out a middle way with her data center moratorium, carefully charting a course between the demands of industry, advocacy groups, and voters who are increasingly suspicious of the data center and artificial intelligence industries. Did she succeed? Only time will tell.
Hochul’s first-in-the-nation permitting pause has been hailed by data center opponents who want to re-orient American politics around the artificial intelligence backlash and lamented by the technology sector and its allies, including several in the Trump administration. President Donald Trump himself wrote on Truth Social, “New York State has made a terrible decision.” adding that the “Radical Left Dumocrats must not be allowed to cause us to lose Data Centers, AI, and all of this incredible new Technology, to China.”
Before we discuss what Hochul did, we must first discuss what she didn’t do.
What Hochul’s moratorium is not is her signature on the Responsible Data Center Development Act, a data center moratorium that passed both houses of the state legislature in June. That moratorium had a lower energy use threshold for the moratorium: 20 megawatts, compared to Hochul’s 50 megawatts.
One of that bill’s sponsors, democratic socialist Kristen Gonzalez, appeared alongside Hochul when she signed the executive order Tuesday and hailed the governor for “protecting everyday New Yorkers with a first in the nation moratorium on new large data centers.” When asked about this discrepancy by reporters, Hochul said that “we want to make sure we didn’t touch the data centers that are powering hospitals and schools and research centers,” and specifically mentioned data centers used by “bank back-office operations.”
Protecting bank back-office operations is not typically top of mind for democratic socialists. Gonzalez’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
The goal of the moratorium, Hochul said, is to develop a process for data centers to pay their way in terms of grid costs and electricity rates.
“We expect this process, which we already launched, to be completed within the year,” she said. “Once this policy’s in place, the moratorium will be reviewed and lifted.”
What is still unclear is how this moratorium interacts with renewables development, especially upstate where there is enough open space for both wind and solar power as well as large data centers.
While the New York governor has pulled back on the state’s climate goals as renewable energy and transmission has come under the dual assault of the Trump administration and rising costs, Hochul has made a point of promoting clean power development across the state, especially nuclear and hydropower, which can be built and maintained close to her western New York home base.
A New York data center industry could — emphasis on could — be a major customer for renewable power in the state, especially as there’s little prospect of large-scale new natural gas development.
During her speech announcing the moratorium, Hochul emphasized that “we’ve invested so much in other forms of power to meet the current needs of New Yorkers and our businesses,” and that “New York will require data centers to either produce their own energy or pay a premium to tap into our grid.”
The executive order itself lays out a process whereby, once the moratorium is lifted, new data centers may be required “to fund new clean electric generation and/or battery storage dedicated to their operations, consistent with the State’s clean energy goals, including customer-sited distributed energy resources, to the greatest extent feasible.”
When discussing her energy and economic policies on Bloomberg’s “Odd Lots” podcast this week, Hochul connected her data center moratorium with economic development efforts, especially upstate, where large data centers are more likely to be sited.
Referring to Micron’s $100 billion Syracuse-area semiconductor manufacturing project, Hochul told hosts Joe Weisenthal and Tracy Alloway, “I’ll work with you to get the power you need.” (The state approved a transmission line for the project last year.)
“If I have to choose between powering a largely vacant data center with the same amount of power I can have with a Micron with 1,000 jobs, I can tell you right now where I’m going,” Hochul said. “They can come under the conditions we lay out.”
But it may be just as likely data center developers take the hint and avoid a state with expensive power and high costs of doing business in the best of times.
“I don’t think we know yet how this will impact what’s known as behind-the-meter or off-the-grid power solutions: natural gas, cogeneration, solar, wind, battery storage,” Jeffrey Moerdler, a partner at the law firm Haynes Boone who chairs the data center practice, told me. “I assume it will hold up data centers powered by alternative energy sources.”
As for whether Hochul can successfully keep the one-year moratorium a year (temporary policies have a tendency to become permanent), develop new rules to address her concerns about grid costs and local opposition, and then have data centers line up to get back into New York, Moerdler was skeptical.
“It’s going to take years to make up for that shift” against data center development, he told me, predicting that the moratorium could lead to “many years of new data centers not locating here because they already started during that one-year period somewhere else.”
Something else that must be noted in all of this: “New York is not a high priority location for data centers.” Whether the state’s governor wants it to be remains to be seen.
Where is the smoke worst, where will it go next, and what causes that color?
Before wildfire smoke turns the skies to a jaundiced yellow-gray, it might look almost pretty. Midday light grows diffuse, taking on a crepuscular golden hue. Shadows soften and stretch long. The sunsets are particularly incredible: radiant, neon red.
But as with oleander and poison dart frogs, beautiful things are often the most dangerous. The same wildfire particulates that scatter the light will, once dense enough, turn the air around you orange, then black. They will get into your lungs — slipping past your nose hairs and mucus, the body’s defenses that stop larger particulates — and provoke your immune system into an attack. The tiny air sacs at the ends of the bronchioles in your lungs, where the gas exchange of “breathing” actually happens, will become inflamed. You will become short of breath. You will cough. The smallest smoke particulates may even enter your bloodstream.
And if you are like 24,000 other Americans every year, this will kill you.
Though wildfire smoke exposure might seem to be more of a nuisance to a healthy person than anything else, experts agree it should be taken seriously. “In my profession, wildland firefighting, you make a decision that you run into that,” Nicholai Allen, a firefighter and founder of Safe Soss, a home-hardening product line, told me. “But for my family and my children, I don’t want them breathing in the smoke that’s traveling that far. We have air purifiers, and we’re taking similar precautions.”
On Wednesday, more than 100 million people in the Midwest and Northeast face unhealthy smoke conditions from fires burning up to 2,000 miles away. Here’s what you need to know.
The smoke is largely coming from 150 or so lightning-ignited fires in Ontario and northeastern Minnesota. Triple-digit temperatures, dry conditions, and high winds have fanned a “wall of fire” across the region, as the firefighting newsletter The Hotshot Wakeup put it, even as Canada is, on the whole, tracking behind its five-year average for area burned so far. Most of the fires sending smoke to the U.S. this week are still out of control and spreading rapidly.

A high-pressure area over the central U.S. and a low-pressure area over Eastern Canada are acting as a funnel, pulling bad air east across the Great Lakes region and into the populous Acela Corridor. Conditions are worst closest to the fires: Around 8 a.m. on Wednesday morning, Duluth, Minnesota had a “hazardous” air quality rating of 785 out of 800. By the afternoon, Toronto had the worst air quality of any major city in the world, and drivers in northern Michigan have been advised to slow down and turn on their low-beam headlights because visibility has been so reduced by the smoke. The eastern-moving plume has also blanketed large portions of Upstate New York.
Degraded air quality reached the Boston and New York City areas on Tuesday night and is expected to linger through Thursday. The smoke reaches as far north as Maine, having dimmed the morning light in New Hampshire, and could spread as far south as Washington, D.C. over the next 24 hours.
Though the smoke is staying largely to the north over the middle part of the country, forecasts show it could dip into downtown Chicago on Thursday as well.
Wednesday and early Thursday will be the worst days for the eastern U.S., per the current outlook. A cold front should help push the worst of the smoke out of the region as we head into the weekend.
So far it appears that much of the smoke has remained high enough in the atmosphere that while you’ll be able to see and likely smell it, it might not cause extreme air quality problems on the ground. As of Wednesday afternoon, New York City was recording some of the worst air on the East Coast, with an air quality index of around 160 — bad enough to trigger an “unhealthy” alert for the general public and to rank fifth-worst among major cities worldwide. The rest of the region still mostly showed orange readings designed to alert sensitive groups such as older adults, people with respiratory conditions, and pregnant women, or more moderate yellow ratings.
Conditions could still change, though. Heat, pressure, and winds can drive smoke down to ground level, where it becomes a threat to public health. In fact, the Fox Forecast Center’s models indicate that particulate matter concentrations around the Great Lakes and Northeast could be on par with the 2023 East Coast smoke event, during which New York had the world’s worst air quality, although The New York Times reports that “even the most severe forecasts” this week should not approach that level.
The best thing to do is to continue monitoring your local air quality. If you want help navigating what those readings mean, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo has written a great explainer.
For many on the East Coast, the orange skies are a flashback to the 2023 smoke event. While eerie and apocalyptic, the smoke also gives us an excuse to talk about Mie theory.
Air molecules are much smaller than the wavelength of light. When white light from the sun enters the atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen scatter the short, higher-frequency blue light in multiple directions. This is known as Rayleigh scattering, and is also the answer to, “Why is the sky blue?” Under normal conditions, wherever you look in the sky, blue light is headed toward your eye.
Smoke particles, while small enough to enter our lungs when inhaled, are larger than air molecules — about the same size as light wavelengths. Because these particles are larger, they also scatter light more democratically, including the lower-frequency, longer reds and oranges. This is called Mie scattering. When sunlight passes through smoke, the reds, oranges, yellows, and blues are all mixed together as they reach our eyes, appearing as a hazy gray or white.
You might expect thicker smoke to result in a darker gray, then. But smoke also contains organic compounds from burned plants called brown carbon, plus soot, both of which absorb visible light. Brown carbon, in particular, prefers light at the shorter end of the spectrum, absorbing about three-quarters of the total light at blue wavelengths in smoke plumes, compared to about half at red wavelengths. That means that when the smoke thickens, the blue light doesn’t reach our eyes nearly as well, and the sky takes on an orange appearance.
One of the dangers of the current smoke event is that it coincides with high temperatures across the Central U.S. and New England. Both conditions together — high heat and smoke — can lead to some confusion over how to respond.
The best strategy is to keep your windows closed. But while it might feel safe side, wildfire smoke can still degrade indoor air quality. “If you have a fresh air intake on your air conditioning system, I would shut that off so that you’re recirculating just your purified air inside your house,” Allen, the firefighter, told me.
You can also install activated carbon exterior filters on attic and crawl space vents and run a purifier with a HEPA filter. (If you bought an air purifier during the last smoke event, consider this your reminder to replace your filter.) “Then I would avoid going outside or exercising outside if there’s smoke in the air,” Allen added. “When the particles are arriving to you from a great distance from the wildfire, they are the smaller particles that can get in your lungs. So not to create undue fear, but there’s definitely stuff in that air that you don’t want to breathe.”