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:
One of the most vulnerable states in the U.S. wants nothing to do with “climate change.”

The Biden administration loves a hub. There are the hydrogen hubs, the direct air capture hubs, and now there are the tech hubs. Established as a part of the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, the $10 billion program has so far seeded 12 such hubs across the country. Four of these are focused on clean energy and sustainability, and one is located in the great state of Florida, which recently passed legislation essentially deleting the words “climate change” from state law.
The South Florida ClimateReady Tech Hub did not, in the end, eliminate climate from its name. But while Governor Ron DeSantis might not approve, the federal government didn’t seem to mind, as the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration awarded the hub $19.5 million to “advance its global leadership in sustainable and resilient infrastructure.”
“Regardless of how you feel about the word climate or the words climate change, what I have found in this process is what deeply resonates with folks is that their relationship with water is changing,” Francesca de Quesada Covey, chief of economic innovation and development for Miami-Dade County, told me.
Sea levels around Florida have risen about 8 inches since 1950, and the rate of rise is only accelerating, putting the state’s extensive, low-lying coastlines at high risk for flooding and, eventually, total submersion. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that by 2100, average sea levels will have risen between 1.4 and 2.8 feet, with more drastic scenarios possible if little is done to curb emissions.
Covey, who grew up in Miami, said everyone agrees there are simply more puddles and flooded roads to navigate than when she was a kid. “So there is an understanding that regardless of how you think it happened, or why you think it happened, that our everyday life is harder because the environment around us is changing.”
This narrative, she believes, can help form a basis of bipartisan support for Florida’s hub, which she told me has three technical focus areas: limiting coastal hazards due to sea level rise and extreme weather events, implementing energy efficient technologies, and building resilient structures using low-carbon concrete and cement. South Florida, Covey said, is the perfect place to undertake these projects, as the state has been investing in climate adaptation and mitigation since 1992, when Hurricane Andrew touched down in Miami-Dade County, causing $25 billion in damages. Since then, she says the state’s universities have been churning out climate tech intellectual property.
“We’re seeing the IP grow 10% year-over-year over the last few years,” Covey said. Nine colleges and universities are tech hub partners, with the bulk of the funding going to Florida International University, which will receive $10.3 million to help scale up low-carbon concrete tech, establish an infrastructure innovation center, and improve upon industry building codes and standards. Miami Tech Works, which aims to build a pipeline of tech talent in South Florida, is set to receive $6 million for workforce development programs while the Miami-Dade County government will get $3.2 million for governance and oversight. Two private companies working on advanced concrete products, Titan America and Carbon Limit, are also getting a portion of the FIU funding — $740,000 for Carbon Limit and an undisclosed amount for Titan.
Tim Sperry, CEO of Carbon Limit, is used to getting questions about why he based his early-stage startup out of Florida, his home state. “Great that you guys are a climate tech company, but why would you be in South Florida?” Sperry said people wonder. “Florida at all was a bad look for climate tech companies until this hub actually came together,” he told me. Since the hub was initially announced last October, Sperry says he’s seen more money for climate tech flowing into the state.
Carbon Limit has a patented powder additive for concrete mixes, which enhances concrete’s natural ability to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it permanently, thereby reducing the carbon intensity of built infrastructure such as buildings and roads. So far the company has worked with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to pave a section of interstate highway, and with Google to pave a portion of its campus. Carbon Limit raised a $1 million pre-seed round two years ago, and its business model revolves around licensing the formula for its additive to concrete producers.
Sperry sees Florida as “ground zero” for climate-related natural disasters, and thus a natural home for this type of technology. When he worked in Miami, he saw people kayaking down the streets during king tides, and found crabs in his office after floods. “They actually raised the road four feet and put pumps and did all this stuff down there. So I think, why shouldn’t it be South Florida?” he asked, “Short of the government stuff …”
Ah yes, the government stuff. While DeSantis hasn’t weighed in publicly on the ClimateReady Tech Hub, Covey said the state’s DeSantis-appointed Chief Resilience Officer, Wesley Brooks, is supportive. Brooks helped craft the “state support” section of the hub’s application, which calls the Office of Resilience “an advocate for the Hub and an ally in providing technical guidance to local governments.”
Climate tech startups can’t eat guidance, however. If the hub is going to accomplish its lofty technical and workforce development goals, it’s going to need a lot more than $19.5 million, and a lack of state-level support could make securing additional funds that much more difficult.
“We requested $70 million,” Covey told me, the maximum amount of federal funding that tech hubs could apply for. Most of the other hubs received between $40 million and $50 million, putting the South Florida hub at the small end of the bunch. Covey said the county didn’t receive feedback as to why. “The way that we’re looking at $19.5 [million] is that this is our first investment tranche. We will be going back to the federal government. We will be going back to private funders. We will be going back to philanthropic funders in order to achieve our metrics,” she told me.
Ultimately, Miami-Dade County wants to leverage the ClimateReady Tech Hub to create 23,000 green jobs with an average base salary of $87,000 over a 10-year period. Thus far, Miami-Dade has raised an additional $500,000 — not nothing, but far from its ultimate goal of raising another $50 million. The increasing probability of a Trump win in November could put future federal funding for the hub at the whims of a notoriously mercurial and climate-adverse cabinet.
But if the tech hub does achieve its goals, Covey estimates the payoff will be huge, adding $41 billion to the region’s GDP. Given all the growth South Florida has seen over the last four years, with entrepreneurs and venture capitalists flooding into the region during the pandemic, Covey thinks the hub’s got a real shot of securing the money it needs. She even told me she views South Florida as “the most competitive place when it comes to climate technology.”
When I noted that the San Francisco Bay Area might beg to differ, Covey emphasized how much it matters that Miami-Dade County is experiencing the impacts of climate change in real time. “The Bay Area doesn’t have those sort of real life testing conditions that we have here. We have $3.5 trillion exposed to climate change right now,” she told me, citing a figure from a National Wildlife Federation report showing that out of all the cities in the world, Miami stands to lose the most from coastal flooding. In other words, in South Florida climate tech isn’t a matter of theoretical tinkering and ideating. As Covey says, “Our economy depends on it.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the name of the chief of economic innovation and development for Miami-Dade County and the target average salary for new jobs created by the hub.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
It’s either reassure investors now or reassure voters later.
Investor-owned utilities are a funny type of company. On the one hand, they answer to their shareholders, who expect growing returns and steady dividends. But those returns are the outcome of an explicitly political process — negotiations with state regulators who approve the utilities’ requests to raise rates and to make investments, on which utilities earn a rate of return that also must be approved by regulators.
Utilities have been requesting a lot of rate increases — some $31 billion in 2025, according to the energy policy group PowerLines, more than double the amount requested the year before. At the same time, those rate increases have helped push electricity prices up over 6% in the last year, while overall prices rose just 2.4%.
Unsurprisingly, people have noticed, and unsurprisingly, politicians have responded. (After all, voters are most likely to blame electric utilities and state governments for rising electricity prices, Heatmap polling has found.) Democrat Mikie Sherrill, for instance, won the New Jersey governorship on the back of her proposal to freeze rates in the state, which has seen some of the country’s largest rate increases.
This puts utilities in an awkward position. They need to boast about earnings growth to their shareholders while also convincing Wall Street that they can avoid becoming punching bags in state capitols.
Make no mistake, the past year has been good for these companies and their shareholders. Utilities in the S&P 500 outperformed the market as a whole, and had largely good news to tell investors in the past few weeks as they reported their fourth quarter and full-year earnings. Still, many utility executives spent quite a bit of time on their most recent earnings calls talking about how committed they are to affordability.
When Exelon — which owns several utilities in PJM Interconnection, the country’s largest grid and ground zero for upset over the influx data centers and rising rates — trumpeted its growing rate base, CEO Calvin Butler argued that this “steady performance is a direct result of a continued focus on affordability.”
But, a Wells Fargo analyst cautioned, there is a growing number of “affordability things out there,” as they put it, “whether you are looking at Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware.” To name just one, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro said in a speech earlier this month that investor-owned utilities “make billions of dollars every year … with too little public accountability or transparency.” Pennsylvania’s Exelon-owned utility, PECO, won approval at the end of 2024 to hike rates by 10%.
When asked specifically about its regulatory strategy in Pennsylvania and when it intended to file a new rate case, Butler said that, “with affordability front and center in all of our jurisdictions, we lean into that first,” but cautioned that “we also recognize that we have to maintain a reliable and resilient grid.” In other words, Exelon knows that it’s under the microscope from the public.
Butler went on to neatly lay out the dilemma for utilities: “Everything centers on affordability and maintaining a reliable system,” he said. Or to put it slightly differently: Rate increases are justified by bolstering reliability, but they’re often opposed by the public because of how they impact affordability.
Of the large investor-owned utilities, it was probably Duke Energy, which owns electrical utilities in the Carolinas, Florida, Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio, that had to most carefully navigate the politics of higher rates, assuring Wall Street over and over how committed it was to affordability. “We will never waver on our commitment to value and affordability,” Duke chief executive Harry Sideris said on the company’s February 10 earnings call.
In November, Duke requested a $1.7 billion revenue increase over the course of 2027 and 2028 for two North Carolina utilities, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress — a 15% hike. The typical residential customer Duke Energy Carolinas customer would see $17.22 added onto their monthly bill in 2027, while Duke Energy Progress ratepayers would be responsible for $23.11 more, with smaller increases in 2028.
These rate cases come “amid acute affordability scrutiny, making regulatory outcomes the decisive variable for the earnings trajectory,” Julien Dumoulin-Smith, an analyst at Jefferies, wrote in a note to clients. In other words, in order to continue to grow earnings, Duke needs to convince regulators and a skeptical public that the rate increases are necessary.
“Our customers remain our top priority, and we will never waver on our commitment to value and affordability,” Sideris told investors. “We continue to challenge ourselves to find new ways to deliver affordable energy for our customers.”
All in all, “affordability” and “affordable” came up 15 times on the call. A year earlier, they came up just three times.
When asked by a Jefferies analyst about how Duke could hit its forecasted earnings growth through 2029, Sideris zeroed in on the regulatory side: “We are very confident in our regulatory outcomes,” he said.
At the same time, Duke told investors that it planned to increase its five-year capital spending plan to $103 billion — “the largest fully regulated capital plan in the industry,” Sideris said.
As far as utilities are concerned, with their multiyear planning and spending cycles, we are only at the beginning of the affordability story.
“The 2026 utility narrative is shifting from ‘capex growth at all costs’ to ‘capex growth with a customer permission slip,’” Dumoulin-Smith wrote in a separate note on Thursday. “We believe it is no longer enough for utilities to say they care about affordability; regulators and investors are demanding proof of proactive behavior.”
If they can’t come up with answers that satisfy their investors, ultimately they’ll have to answer to the voters. Last fall, two Republican utility regulators in Georgia lost their reelection bids by huge margins thanks in part to a backlash over years of rate increases they’d approved.
“Especially as the November 2026 elections approach, utilities that fail to demonstrate concrete mitigants face political and reputational risk and may warrant a credibility discount in valuations, in our view,” Dumoulin wrote.
At the same time, utilities are dealing with increased demand for electricity, which almost necessarily means making more investments to better serve that new load, which can in the short turn translate to higher prices. While large technology companies and the White House are making public commitments to shield existing customers from higher costs, utility rates are determined in rate cases, not in press releases.
“As the issue of rising utility bills has become a greater economic and political concern, investors are paying attention,” Charles Hua, the founder and executive director of PowerLines, told me. “Rising utility bills are impacting the investor landscape just as they have reshaped the political landscape.”
Plus more of the week’s top fights in data centers and clean energy.
1. Osage County, Kansas – A wind project years in the making is dead — finally.
2. Franklin County, Missouri – Hundreds of Franklin County residents showed up to a public meeting this week to hear about a $16 billion data center proposed in Pacific, Missouri, only for the city’s planning commission to announce that the issue had been tabled because the developer still hadn’t finalized its funding agreement.
3. Hood County, Texas – Officials in this Texas County voted for the second time this month to reject a moratorium on data centers, citing the risk of litigation.
4. Nantucket County, Massachusetts – On the bright side, one of the nation’s most beleaguered wind projects appears ready to be completed any day now.
Talking with Climate Power senior advisor Jesse Lee.
For this week's Q&A I hopped on the phone with Jesse Lee, a senior advisor at the strategic communications organization Climate Power. Last week, his team released new polling showing that while voters oppose the construction of data centers powered by fossil fuels by a 16-point margin, that flips to a 25-point margin of support when the hypothetical data centers are powered by renewable energy sources instead.
I was eager to speak with Lee because of Heatmap’s own polling on this issue, as well as President Trump’s State of the Union this week, in which he pitched Americans on his negotiations with tech companies to provide their own power for data centers. Our conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
What does your research and polling show when it comes to the tension between data centers, renewable energy development, and affordability?
The huge spike in utility bills under Trump has shaken up how people perceive clean energy and data centers. But it’s gone in two separate directions. They see data centers as a cause of high utility prices, one that’s either already taken effect or is coming to town when a new data center is being built. At the same time, we’ve seen rising support for clean energy.
As we’ve seen in our own polling, nobody is coming out looking golden with the public amidst these utility bill hikes — not Republicans, not Democrats, and certainly not oil and gas executives or data center developers. But clean energy comes out positive; it’s viewed as part of the solution here. And we’ve seen that even in recent MAGA polls — Kellyanne Conway had one; Fabrizio, Lee & Associates had one; and both showed positive support for large-scale solar even among Republicans and MAGA voters. And it’s way high once it’s established that they’d be built here in America.
A year or two ago, if you went to a town hall about a new potential solar project along the highway, it was fertile ground for astroturf folks to come in and spread flies around. There wasn’t much on the other side — maybe there was some talk about local jobs, but unemployment was really low, so it didn’t feel super salient. Now there’s an energy affordability crisis; utility bills had been stable for 20 years, but suddenly they’re not. And I think if you go to the town hall and there’s one person spewing political talking points that they've been fed, and then there’s somebody who says, “Hey, man, my utility bills are out of control, and we have to do something about it,” that’s the person who’s going to win out.
The polling you’ve released shows that 52% of people oppose data center construction altogether, but that there’s more limited local awareness: Only 45% have heard about data center construction in their own communities. What’s happening here?
There’s been a fair amount of coverage of [data center construction] in the press, but it’s definitely been playing catch-up with the electric energy the story has on social media. I think many in the press are not even aware of the fiasco in Memphis over Elon Musk’s natural gas plant. But people have seen the visuals. I mean, imagine a little farmhouse that somebody bought, and there’s a giant, 5-mile-long building full of computers next to it. It’s got an almost dystopian feel to it. And then you hear that the building is using more electricity than New York City.
The big takeaway of the poll for me is that coal and natural gas are an anchor on any data center project, and reinforce the worst fears about it. What you see is that when you attach clean energy [to a data center project], it actually brings them above the majority of support. It’s not just paranoia: We are seeing the effects on utility rates and on air pollution — there was a big study just two days ago on the effects of air pollution from data centers. This is something that people in rural, urban, or suburban communities are hearing about.
Do you see a difference in your polling between natural gas-powered and coal-powered data centers? In our own research, coal is incredibly unpopular, but voters seem more positive about natural gas. I wonder if that narrows the gap.
I think if you polled them individually, you would see some distinction there. But again, things like the Elon Musk fiasco in Memphis have circulated, and people are aware of the sheer volume of power being demanded. Coal is about the dirtiest possible way you can do it. But if it’s natural gas, and it’s next door all the time just to power these computers — that’s not going to be welcome to people.
I'm sure if you disentangle it, you’d see some distinction, but I also think it might not be that much. I’ll put it this way: If you look at the default opposition to data centers coming to town, it’s not actually that different from just the coal and gas numbers. Coal and gas reinforce the default opposition. The big difference is when you have clean energy — that bumps it up a lot. But if you say, “It’s a data center, but what if it were powered by natural gas?” I don’t think that would get anybody excited or change their opinion in a positive way.
Transparency with local communities is key when it comes to questions of renewable buildout, affordability, and powering data centers. What is the message you want to leave people with about Climate Power’s research in this area?
Contrary to this dystopian vision of power, people do have control over their own destinies here. If people speak out and demand that data centers be powered by clean energy, they can get those data centers to commit to it. In the end, there’s going to be a squeeze, and something is going to have to give in terms of Trump having his foot on the back of clean energy — I think something will give.
Demand transparency in terms of what kind of pollution to expect. Demand transparency in terms of what kind of power there’s going to be, and if it’s not going to be clean energy, people are understandably going to oppose it and make their voices heard.