Coastal impacts—What’s El Niño got to do with it?

Fossil fuel-driven climate change and El Niño both have their fingerprint on what we’re seeing. Warmer ocean temperatures in the eastern Pacific Ocean from the super El Niño and climate change have created a perfect storm: a record hurricane season for the Eastern Pacific, higher sea levels, increased wave heights, heavier rainfall and extensive coastal erosion. The combination of sea level rise, ocean heat, king tides, Kelvin waves and peak tidal cycles means wave heights are higher, can reach further inland, and are more dangerous.

While El Niño events are part of a natural cycle in our climate system, climate change is helping to load the dice to produce more intense El Niños, my colleague Dr. Marc Alessi explains in a recent blog. We’re already witnessing the strongest El Niño on record. A large part has to do with the fact that ocean surface temperatures have reached a record high thanks to fossil fueled-climate change.

The southern California coast is not only dealing with sea level rise from fossil fuel-driven climate change and the super El Niño but has also seen impacts from multiple tropical systems intensifying in the very warm Pacific Ocean, including the remnants of Hurricane Marie in September and Tropical Storm Rachel in October.

Southern California has been hit particularly hard by coastal flooding. Earlier this month, Orange County declared a state of emergency, as did Laguna Beach, Long Beach,  Dana Point and San Clemente. Some of these towns are dealing with multiple emergencies like San Clemente, which recently was working to put out the Norte fire.

Dana beach is one example where the town will take advantage of an emergency permit from California’s coastal commission to fast track a rock filled berm to temporarily protect more than a dozen properties, to the residents’ consternation—they want a permanent solution to protect their homes. Typically, California’s Coastal Development Permit requires a more in-depth application that shows compliance with coastal rules and public notices.

What is California doing to prepare for El Niño?

California has been proactive in its response to projected El Niño impacts. In September, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency (read the declaration here) to help prepare and protect vulnerable communities and infrastructure from flooding, landslides and other risks associated with the developing El Niño.

California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) is working with local agencies and is looking at preparing for more coastal erosion, riverine flooding, landslides, debris flows and power outages. They’re also looking at areas affected by wildfires, particularly newer burn scars because that ground will not soak up water as well, which can increase the risk of land- and mudslides (such as in recently burned areas in San Bernadino, Los Angeles and Northern California rural communities).

California is also coordinating messaging across state agencies and partners and communicating guidance such as the need for communities to understand their local risk, sign-up for local public alerts and have an evacuation plan so each person knows where to go and knows how to stay connected with their family and has supplies for power outages (such as necessary medications, back-up power, or pet supplies).

While California has invested in the latest science and tools and tends to be well prepared to respond to disasters, it still faces the challenge of having many people, homes, critical infrastructure and precious ecosystems in harm’s way. As climate change worsens and disasters mount, it needs resources to protect and help communities recover from disasters, as well as rebuild and make infrastructure more resilient. And California is not so different from any other state when it comes to major or catastrophic disasters. States and Tribal nations need federal support from FEMA and will request a disaster declaration for federal disaster assistance when the scale of the disaster exceeds their reserves and capabilities.

Under usual circumstances, for help with basic infrastructure recovery, states will request resources from FEMA’s Public Assistance program to support clearing debris from roads, covering household rooftops with tarps, or building back critical infrastructure like water or electric utilities.

States may also apply for resources under the Individual Assistance program to provide communities with a range of support including temporary housing. But under the Trump administration, FEMA has been completely politicized and is increasingly stepping way from its core functions and responsibilities even as its staff has been drastically reduced. All of this is cruelly putting people in more danger and leaving them feeling abandoned after disasters.

Longer-term coastal adaptation

Flooding and erosion are not new threats to the California coast, and sea level rise due to climate change will require long term adaptation. My colleague Dr. Ángel S. Fernández-Bou contributed to California’s Fifth Climate Change Assessment that was recently released, and he wrote about the striking reality check it provides for California’s future. One in five Californians—about 7 million people—live in areas at risk of flooding, according to the report. Farmworkers, Indigenous communities and communities of color, rural communities, renters, people experiencing homelessness, and low-income individuals and families face the most exposure to flooding and have the fewest resources to recover, the assessment found.

As CalOES has been planning to respond to the disasters right in front of them, California’s Coastal Commission has been preparing for these coastal risks, issuing sea level rise policy guidance in 2024 that provides the best available science on sea level rise and guidelines for local governments to develop sea level rise adaptation plans and better integrate environmental justice. The guidance provides specific adaptation strategies for seven different coastal sectors, all of which are applicable to other coastal areas.

So what does coastal adaptation look like? There are a range of measures traditionally organized under three categories: protect, accommodate, and relocate. Protecting our coasts against ocean-driven change, whether storm damage, erosion from waves, and, increasingly, tidal flooding, has widely been a first-order response. While historically it relied on hard infrastructure, like sea walls, protection also now relies on nature-based solutions.

Accommodating sea level rise can be accomplished by elevating or retrofitting structures and making space in communities for water to go.  Retreat, unfortunately, has often occurred reactively, post disaster, and has caused harm to social capital and disruptions to community cohesion particularly disadvantaged and lower-income communities. Carefully planned relocation and strategic coastal retreat will become increasingly necessary as seas rise and coastal disruption mounts and will need to be approached in ways that minimize these harms.

The Fifth National Climate Assessment speaks to how we often see incremental adaptation or minor shifts that primarily preserve the status quo and notes that this leaves us at unacceptable risk. We also must work towards transformative adaptation which can mean major shifts in behavior and technology and landscape-scale solutions. The best available science will be critical to supporting which adaptation measures make the most sense and must be done with community involvement to ensure just transitions. Likewise, it’s important to avoid maladaptive measures that contribute to more risky development, provide very short-term relief while increasing risks over time, or privilege wealthier communities while leaving lower income communities exposed.

An iconic coastal adaptation project is Surfer’s Point in Ventura, which represents a hybrid approach including retreat (moving back the parking lot and bike path) and protection (beach and dune system that incorporated an engineered cobble berm). While it took decades to finish and needed multiple champions and funding sources, the good news is, it looks to have survived the September storms. Let’s hope Surfer’s Point will continue to be resilient to Super El Niño’s impacts into the new year and continue to serve as a model for effective coastal adaptation.

Local governments must also plan for adaptation. In 2023, California passed SB 272 requiring that local governments plan for sea level rise and develop adaptation plans by 2034. These plans must include the best available science, vulnerability assessments, adaptation strategies and project recommendations, among other elements. 

The good news is, California is investing in and mandating resilience even in the absence of federal leadership and resources. In addition to the climate science and adaptation strategy guidance, California has grant funding available targeted for specific risk.

In 2024, California passed proposition 4, a milestone funding mechanism establishing a $10 billion climate bond with requirements for at least 40 percent of that funding to be directed to disadvantaged or vulnerable communities and 10 percent of that to severely disadvantaged communities. Of these funds, $1.2 billion is targeted for coastal flood resilience. This targeted funding is welcome news to historically disinvested in California communities living in close proximity to hazardous facility sites and are at risk of flooding.

What does California tell us about future climate resilience needs?

This snapshot of California’s coastal resilience illustrates that while California is a big state with a long coast (2^nd longest in the lower 48 states) and many towns along the way to support, we can learn from how the state is responding to El Niño and the risks that come from fossil-fueled climate change. These lessons can be shared and incorporated across all levels of government.

Key lessons include:

• Leadership matters;
• Releasing an early emergency declaration helps on many fronts including (hopefully) advancing federal resources and uniting state communication and resources;
• Investing in climate science is essential, as is guidance on adaptation strategies;
• Adaptation takes time, partners and funding: start now; and
• Legislation that provides both incentives (e.g. funding) and guardrails (e.g. regulations) is critical.

While we reflect on these lessons, we must advance a broader conversation with communities across the nation and demand action from the next Congress for a robust package of climate resilience provisions. And we must remember that even though not every state has the resources California does, federal support is crucial for all states, especially those lower resourced states.

It’s been five years since the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) was signed into law, and it’s been four years since what was considered the major climate bill—the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)—was signed into law. While IIJA had a considerable amount of climate resilient investments spread across many federal agencies, the IRA bill was primarily focused on emissions reductions. Despite the many climate change mitigation projects these bills funded, measures to throttle clean energy and transportation in favor of fossil fuel expansion have contributed to record-breaking global average temperatures for three years in a row. As my colleague Dr. Rachel Cleetus wrote “the climate future we feared is here.”

We don’t have time to wait. Whether it’s chronic tidal flooding, El Niños, hurricanes, flooding from extreme rainfall, wildfires, extreme heat, or drought, communities are being impacted repeatedly, and we need Congress to be ready to act.

This pattern introduces accountability to American politics, and that’s why this president and his allies—afraid of losing power— are trying to limit the ability of voters to in this year’s election.

Consistent with the historical pattern that authoritarian actors seek to undermine accountability by obstructing free and fair elections, there are three main ways the Trump administration and its allies are trying to stifle democracy ahead of this year’s elections. Two of these tactics take place before Election Day: gerrymandering of Congressional maps and  efforts to disenfranchise voters from casting ballots. Another tactic worth monitoring happens after the polls close on Election Day: potential challenges to certifying elections that would produce turnover in which party is in the majority on Capitol Hill. Regardless of when they fall these tactics attempt to thwart a free and fair election. We can monitor and challenge these tactics, but in the longer term, the reform provided by proportional representation can strengthen democracy and mitigate the efforts of authoritarians to prevent discontent from  discontent to electoral turnover.

Before the Vote: Gerrymandering and Disenfranchisement Tactics

As his poll numbers began to decline in the summer of 2025, President Trump called on the state legislature in Texas to engage in an aggressive gerrymandering, explicitly aiming to increase the number of safe Republican seats in the state to protect  the Republican majority on Capitol Hill. Following the successful effort by the Texas legislature to redraw their congressional maps—intended to net a forecasted five or more seats at the expense of Democratic incumbents—the California state legislature responded by successfully proposing a voter initiative to bypass the state’s independent redistricting commission and redraw the state’s congressional districts, aimed at shifting five Republican-held seats to Democratic control. The opening salvos by Texas and California triggered a redistricting war between both national parties across the respective states in which they control the redistricting process. States such as North Carolina, Ohio, and Missouri redrew their districts towards the benefit of one political party. (Missouri’s remapping was reversed this year.)

In their quest to blunt the prospect of electoral accountability through the gerrymandering of districts, supporters of gerrymandering were also aided by the recent Louisiana vs. Callais Supreme Court decision, which narrowed the scope of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Callais decision made it harder to challenge racially-discriminatory district maps, protecting the right to gerrymander for political reasons and making it harder to undo these maps in the absence of direct evidence of intentional discrimination. Callais effectively ended protections for majority-minority districts formed across the South following the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which aimed at addressing the dilution of African American electorates through gerrymandering. With the Supreme Court’s implicit blessing, southern legislatures had a new opening, and rushed to gerrymander their states even further. These efforts, over the objections of national Civil Rights groups and voting rights activists, resulted in safe Republican seats being drawn at the expense of former majority-minority districts in Alabama, Tennessee, and Louisiana.

President Trump’s demands for his political allies to draw new maps, aimed at blunting the typical midterm backlash to an incumbent president, t sparked a series of mid-decade gerrymandering decisions that are unprecedented in modern American politics, though the ultimate outcome is unclear. Given the unpopularity of the administration, experts expect the redistricting wars to net President Trump’s congressional allies only a few seats, an advantage that a large enough Democratic wave could erase or even reverse. But the potential for this plan to backfire in the short term shouldn’t make us disregard the clear intention to limit electoral accountability and protect the Trump administration from the accountability that typically results from the “referendum model” of midterm elections.

In addition to pushing allies in the states to re-draw their maps, the administration has taken its own efforts to insulate itself from electoral accountability, targeting voters’ ability to participate and citing myths and fabrications, including the absolutely false concept that voter fraud is widespread and pivotal in deciding elections, as justification. President Trump pursued various authoritarian actions to undermine the access to the right to vote. A March executive order sought to make the U.S. Postal Service the gatekeeper of mail ballots, though the Supreme Court declined to let its postal rule take effect for 2026. In September, the Supreme Court did allow an expanded federal citizenship database built on Social Security data, despite documented errors that flag eligible citizens as noncitizens. Meanwhile, the Justice Department has sued roughly 30 states for their voter files; the FBI seized Fulton County’s 2020 ballots; and the Pentagon removed an option for overseas citizens who have never lived in the United States from federal absentee voting forms. The President has also refused to rule out sending immigration agents to polling places or invoking the Insurrection Act around the election. And for the first time since 2002, the administration declined to invite international observers to monitor a federal election.

Suppression During and After the Vote

Taken together, these efforts at the national level by the administration represents a systematic effort that uses the myth of systematic fraud to place obstacles in front of citizens exercising their constitutional right to vote, while laying the groundwork to delegitimize the outcome of a free and fair election. While many of these efforts have been struck down by judicial decisions, we are closely watching how the administration is trying to shape the electorate and distort the results.

Currently, there are ongoing efforts by politicians at the state level to systematically place barriers between voters and the early voting process. In North Carolina, to give just one example, the State Board of Elections (placed under Republican control by a 2024 lame-duck law) approved a Guilford County plan with no early voting on the campuses of North Carolina A&T University, a historically Black university, or UNC Greensboro, despite both campuses hosting early voting sites in 2024. The board also voted along party lines to drop Sunday early voting in ten counties. And, while federal law bars systematic purges of voter rolls ninety days before Election Day, challenges still exist to individual voters’ eligibility and require careful watching through the November election.

The danger isn’t over once votes are cast: once polls close, states need to count and certify the results, and we’re watching this process closely. In some states, the processing of mail ballots cannot begin until Election Day, potentially delaying results of narrowly-decided contests by a few days, or even longer in cases involving a recount, which are required by some state laws in the event of a very narrow margin.

And, of course, the peaceful transfer of power and the democratic norms of legitimate elections require the losing candidate to concede defeat to the winning candidate. As political science research shows, the number of candidates claiming fraud and refusing to accept the outcome of an election is markedly on the rise, following President Trump’s refusal to accept the outcome of the 2020 election. As of this writing, President Trump still has not conceded the 2020 election or publicly acknowledged defeat in a free and fair election. Indeed, the administration is using falsehoods about the 2020 election to justify their efforts to restrict the vote.

Already, we can see the administration laying the groundwork to challenge or refuse to accept the outcomes of the 2026 elections. In just one example, the Department of Justice, at the behest of President Trump, preemptively filed a lawsuit that would block certification of the Alaska U.S. Senate race if the President’s endorsed candidate does not win re-election. The DOJ has also made unconstitutional demands of states, such as their efforts to get California to set aside mail ballots based on dubious allegations of non-citizen voting.  We’ll be watching for candidates who potentially undermine confidence in our democratic institutions by falsely claiming a lack of free and fair elections, and state officials who shirk their mandatory duty to certify election outcomes. Indeed, in recent cycles, courts have enforced this responsibility of certifying election results against officials who sought to invoke discretion (that does not exist) to simply refuse to certify election outcomes they disagreed with. This commitment by the courts to compel state officials to fulfill their statutory responsibility to certify the results of a free and fair election is particularly important during a period where about a quarter of Americans express low trust in the electoral process.

Lastly, we will watch closely the final milestone ratifying the results of the 2026 elections: the seating of a new Congress on January 3, 2027. The House is not a continuing body under the 20th amendment, and every member’s term, including the Speaker’s, ends on noon of that day. As a result, the outgoing Speaker has no power to refuse to seat the new Congress. Operationally, this means that the House Clerk calls the roll of members-elect based on the election certificates the states submit, and those new members elect their own Speaker, a precondition of the formal swearing-in of the members-elect. While the Speaker cannot refuse to seat a duly elected member-elect, we are watching for the narrower risk lying in disputes over individual seats, whether through contested certificates or challenges under Article I, Section 5, which makes the entire body of the House the judge of its members’ elections. This is why certification matters towards the orderly transition of power following a free and fair election.

It’s a vital test of electoral accountability in a democracy: does the incoming House reflect the outcome of a free and fair election? As political scientists and election forecasters note, all objective signs point to a classic midterm election resulting from the “referendum model,” where out-party voters are more mobilized than in-party voters and thus sweep their party into power for the final two years of a presidential term, a pattern overwhelmingly consistent in over a century of election outcomes. Absent a proportional representation system that would constrain gerrymandering as strategy of blunt voter accountability, we note that the concentrated efforts we’ve seen to systematically gerrymander congressional districts are an attempt to stifle the “referendum model” outcome. A change in Congressional power could prove both a challenge to the legislative agenda of the Trump administration and open the administration to scrutiny as a new Congress exercises its oversight and investigatory power. We know why the Trump administration is trying to prevent this, and we can see the array of tactics they’re using. We remain vigilant but calm, in hopes for a truly free and fair election. Fortunately, courts have generally struck down efforts to disenfranchise voters and block certification of results. Despite a bitterly contested and polarized electoral landscape, with diligence, we can participate in the electoral process and act to defend free and fair elections for all.

In the fall of 2025, each of those utilities kicked off their own multi-year integrated-resource planning (IRP) process, which allows Commission staff and other stakeholders to weigh in on utilities’ plans for meeting electricity demand 20 years into the future. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has weighed in via technical comments on the initial modeling assumptions of both Entergy and Cleco. Cleco was set to publish a draft version of its detailed IRP this week, but now the utility wants to wait until May. (More on that later.)

Though Louisiana’s IRP process has its fair share of issues, a ruling by a Commission administrative law judge over the summer marks an important improvement in transparency. But there’s still a long way to go in improving this planning process.

Judge rules utilities must respond to discovery requests

The judge’s ruling, issued in June 2026 in Entergy’s IRP, stated that formal “discovery” is permitted in Louisiana IRPs. That means when stakeholders seek detailed information from the utility company, the utility must respond to those information requests. This is in contrast to how Louisiana’s IRPs have historically been conducted, where utilities have only informally answered a limited number of questions from stakeholders within the proceeding, making the discovery process essentially voluntary and making the entire resource-planning process much more opaque.

The judge issued the ruling in response to a motion by the Alliance for Affordable Energy (with Earthjustice’s legal representation), Sierra Club, the Southern Renewable Energy Association, and UCS. At the time that motion was filed, Entergy hadn’t responded to a single request for information over the course of several months, including from LPSC staff.

In UCS’s April 2026 analysis on the potential impacts of Louisiana’s AI data center growth, we recommended the Commission implement IRP discovery requirements as one measure to facilitate better planning for the uncertain future of AI. This new ruling sets the precedent for current and future IRPs and is one important step toward making the state’s electricity-resource planning more transparent, particularly in an era where Louisiana residents are feeling the impacts of electricity bill increases and staring down significant additional increases in the near future.

Further, Louisiana utilities continue to over-rely on polluting gas-fired power plants, which contributed 66% of power-sector electricity and 72% of total statewide electricity (including for commercial and industrial uses) in 2025. And residents continue to experience power outages due to both distribution-system disruptions, power plant outages, and lack of transmission connectivity, the latter two contributing to multiple rolling-blackout events in 2025. It’s past due for the Commission to ensure that Louisiana utility companies are planning wisely and investing in a future power system that serves residents at a reasonable cost, while minimizing risk to public health and safety.

Though the IRP is non-binding, meaning utilities may end up building resources that don’t align with their final plans, this long-term planning process serves as a roadmap for how companies will meet future power demand in the face of a whole host of uncertainties. Making sure that regulators and other stakeholders have the same information as utilities is an essential improvement to this process and should lead to more people-centered investments.

However, there are still many improvements that need to be made, both to the IRP process itself, and the substance of utilities’ plans thus far.

IRPs need clearer and tighter timelines

While the discovery ruling in Entergy’s IRP proceeding was positive, it underscored the need for other reforms to ensure that the process stays relevant for guiding actual utility investments. Entergy’s IRP has been delayed, and Cleco now wants to delay its IRP too.

Plus, the ruling brought to light a new issue.

Because the ruling did not provide a timeline for when utilities must respond to a given discovery request, utilities have been taking multiple months to fully respond to discovery requests by stakeholders. This is in large contrast to the proceedings where utilities are actually applying to build new infrastructure and charge ratepayers for it. In those proposals, a clear turnaround time is set at the beginning. For example, in Entergy’s proposal to build 7 more gas plants for Meta Platforms’ data center, the Commission set a 15-day turnaround time for discovery responses.

The IRP process will foster much more productive collaboration once utilities start providing more certainty on when Commission staff and other stakeholders can expect responses to discovery requests. Without that certainty, independent analysis and feedback for informing resource plans is more difficult to plan for, and is largely at the whims of when utility companies provide responses. We recommended the Commission clarify a specific turnaround time for IRP discovery as soon as it can.

The discovery dispute with Entergy also reminded all stakeholders of how drawn out of a process the IRP can be. And now that the dispute has pushed the schedule back, it will be further delayed.

Entergy (along with other utilities) first filed to start this process in the fall of 2025. The company was initially scheduled to publish its draft IRP, the first version of a detailed plan, in October 2026, but is now going to publish it in April 2027. This means that the process won’t be wrapped up until April 2028 at the earliest. The state of Louisiana’s power grid will likely be in a completely different state by that time.

This type of uncertainty will never go away completely, and utilities shouldn’t be expected to try to account for every major change that takes place during an IRP proceeding. But unfortunately, Cleco is now attempting some version of that.

Just three days before the company was set to publish its draft IRP report, Cleco filed a “notice” that it is seeking to delay the report until May 2027 because a final Commission decision on one of its new gas plant proposals isn’t expected until March 2027. In other words, Cleco is trying to make the case that it essentially needs time for an IRP re-do because of one new power plant. If utilities resort to delaying the IRP every time circumstances change, as opposed to just adjusting their existing analyses, the IRP will never get done. Cleco’s new proposed schedule doesn’t foresee the process completing until June 2028 at the earliest.

The bottom line is that the longer this process drags out, the less relevant the resource plan will be to the actual state of the world when it is completed. A shorter timeline for these proceedings, and strengthened accountability for utilities to stick to those timelines, should be top priorities for the Commission in crafting reforms.

Up-to-date information is crucial

I must also stress that some factors leading to an out-of-date IRP are completely avoidable.

Entergy, for example, filed its initial modeling assumptions in January 2026, which was before the company proposed seven more gas plants, plus additional infrastructure, for Meta’s data center in March 2026. However, even in an April 2026 update to its assumptions, the company still did not include any modeling scenarios with those seven plants or the associated data center load. Entergy said in discovery that it isn’t planning to include in its IRP modeling any of the Meta-driven projects, resulting in more than $15 billion in proposed construction costs going unanalyzed in its long-term vision of Louisiana’s power system.

Such a glaring and avoidable omission should not be permitted in this important resource-planning process. A judge overseeing the Entergy/Meta proceeding noted in a July ruling that the proposal is “larger in scale than any previous request before this Commission.” If there’s any project that should be included in an IRP, it’s this one—especially given the uncertainty of what the AI data center landscape will look like in the future.

The Commission must make reforms to its IRP process to address these types of shortcomings, and harmonize the reformed process with new, binding protections from data center impacts. (If you want to read more about the data center piece of this, read UCS’s comments alongside the Alliance for Affordable Energy and Earthjustice.)

Utilities should not repeat past IRP mistakes

Louisiana’s IRP process is now more transparent following the June discovery ruling, which is worth acknowledging. However, the substance of utilities’ resource plans thus far suggest they may be repeating some of the same mistakes they made in the previous cycle. I’ll briefly get into a couple of these shortcomings in their approach, but if readers want more detail, I recommend reading our comments on how Entergy and Cleco can improve their IRP modeling approaches.

First, Entergy and Cleco failed to mention in their filed assumptions how they would evaluate transmission options, which IRP rules require. As more information came out in discovery and stakeholder meetings, it became clear that neither utility was planning on evaluating transmission options in their IRP modeling.

Commission staff criticized utilities for doing this in the previous IRP cycle, yet the companies appear intent on repeating themselves. By ignoring transmission options and not allowing energy models to “build” new transmission capacity, the models will resort to building power plant capacity that may not have been selected in a more holistic analysis. In the real world, this will likely lead to Louisiana utilities missing out on electricity sharing across much longer distances, which can substantially reduce ratepayer costs, reduce power-outage risk, and cut fossil fuel emissions. Utilities should be evaluating transmission investments in their IRPs, and there are readily available modeling tools that have those capabilities.

Additionally, utilities should be assessing the possibility of power plants retiring earlier than expected due to lack of economic value, policy changes, or other changing circumstances. Cleco has said it plans to evaluate these types of “premature” plant retirements, but Entergy claims that this is not part of the IRP process. Once again, Commission staff criticized Entergy in the last IRP cycle for not evaluating the possibility of early retirements, which is within its model’s capabilities. But the company is seeking to only use its own pre-determined plant retirement dates, as opposed to allowing its model to produce potential early retirements as modeling outputs.

This is particularly concerning because of the massive risk of “stranded assets”—essentially worthless assets that have been built but are no longer useful—arising from the growth of data centers. Entergy is seeking to build roughly $20 billion worth of infrastructure to serve one data center site to be used by Meta Platforms. Even 20 years from now, there will be billions in infrastructure costs that ratepayers will be on the hook for, and the problem could be even worse if Meta exits early.

These are exactly the types of risks that should be contemplated and debated in the IRP proceeding, but Entergy claims that the analysis of early retirements and stranded assets is not part of the IRP process. The Commission’s stated goal of the IRP is for utilities is to comprehensively evaluate resource options to determine the most “economic and reliable” resource plan, which isn’t possible to accomplish if resources’ lack of economic value is ignored. The Commission should be requiring utilities to conduct such analysis to protect Louisiana ratepayers from paying for more money-losing infrastructure.

A good start, but more IRP reforms are needed

Louisiana utilities are now required to respond to discovery requests in IRPs, due to the administrative law judge’s June ruling. That’s undoubtedly a step in the right direction for transparency and ensuring utilities are mapping out a power grid that better serves communities across the state.

But the Commission should not continue allowing utilities to respond to those requests whenever it is convenient for them. IRPs should be brought to the same standard as other Commission proceedings and have pre-set discovery-turnaround deadlines to allow for more effective collaboration and stakeholder engagement.

And finally, the Commission should open a new rulemaking proceeding to field input on other potential IRP reforms. The proceeding would allow a diverse set of stakeholders to weigh in on how the state could make the process more useful, including shortening the entire IRP timeline and different ways to bolster utility accountability. With all the challenges residents are currently facing, long-term planning of the power grid should be a top priority for utilities and the Commission.

Gavin Newsom was first elected governor back in 2018, the same year the state passed its requirement to achieve 100% clean electricity by 2045. Since 2018, the state has made substantial progress towards its renewable and clean electricity goals. California’s grid has gone from 35% renewable energy in 2018 to 45% in 2024. The state has gone from less than 1 gigawatt (GW) of energy storage in 2018 to more than 20 GW (!!) in 2026. At the same time, the state passed policies that allow for increased collaboration on the western grid, rein in data center expansion, and much more. California has made significant and steady progress.

But unfortunately for the next governor, Newsom didn’t quite wrap all the state’s energy issues up with a bow. There are some solutions Newsom couldn’t quite muscle through the legislature, other issues Newsom has purposefully left for the next governor, and still others that never rose to the top.

Which is why I don’t envy the winner: there are many consequential and controversial energy issues that will require their attention.

But to make life easier for the new governor, I’ll go through all the big energy issues facing California, and I’ll break them down into near-term issues that will inevitably come up, long-term issues critical to the success of the state’s clean energy transition, and the elephant in the room, or the biggest issue of all. (Hint: affordability.)

Near-term issues

Addressing utility-caused wildfires

Wildfire has been one of the top issues facing California’s electricity sector ever since PG&E filed for bankruptcy in 2018 a few months after sparking the Camp Fire. In response, California utilities began pouring tremendous amounts of money into wildfire mitigation to reduce the risk of sparking fires with their power lines. The state also created a wildfire fund, which is funded by both ratepayers and utility shareholders, to help pay for the costs of utility-caused wildfires.

But that hasn’t solved the problem. Power lines have continued to spark catastrophic wildfires. For example, an SCE transmission line reportedly sparked the Eaton Fire in 2025, and if the state had not replenished the wildfire fund proactively, Eaton fire damage claims could have exhausted the fund. Meanwhile, electricity bills have skyrocketed due in large part to all the utility spending on wildfire mitigation and other wildfire-related costs. And now the pace of the clean energy transition could even be slowed by utilities deferring investments in grid infrastructure and slow-walking the interconnection of clean energy.

Simply put, the status quo is not sustainable. The state can’t keep squeaking by with a wildfire fund that’s seemingly always one big fire away from depletion. California policymakers need to find more effective ways to prevent catastrophic wildfires and contain utility spending on wildfire. This includes solutions such as reforming utility wildfire liability rules, developing a stronger safety and learning culture across utilities, and advancing a whole-of-society response to the state’s wildfire risks. The state should also explore holding fossil fuel companies accountable for paying their fair share of wildfire costs, since emissions from the world’s largest fossil fuel producers have been directly linked to worsening wildfires in the West. If policymakers don’t act proactively, this issue will force itself to the forefront sooner or later.

Mitigating data center impacts

Because of the challenges they pose to the electricity system, data centers have been a top issue in the energy world for a few years now. Thankfully, California isn’t projecting the mind-boggling buildout that’s been proposed in other parts of the country, but the state is still facing a significant increase in electricity demand due to data centers. In response, California policymakers passed a promising package of data center protections in 2026, which will help protect ratepayers and nearby communities from the impacts of data centers.

However, California policymakers could and should still do more to protect Californians from the varied impacts of data centers. For example, the state should require data centers to pay for sufficient clean energy to power their operations so that data centers don’t drive up fossil fuel emissions from the power grid or drive up the cost of electricity for all other customers. In addition, policymakers should put stricter limits on highly-polluting diesel backup generators and encourage the deployment of cleaner alternatives for backup power. While no one is certain exactly how many data centers will set up shop in California, it’s important for the state to be prepared by having such additional policies to limit impacts on consumer costs and on pollution.

Not extending Diablo Canyon

The final near-term issue that is virtually guaranteed to come up is the fate of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. While PG&E was originally planning to shut the plant down by 2025, the California legislature granted a five-year extension in response to rolling blackouts in 2020 and the grid reliability concerns that lingered for years afterwards. Now that PG&E has been granted a license from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to continue operating Diablo Canyon until 2045, the main thing standing in the way of continued operations is California law that requires the plant to shut down by 2030.

Rumor has it that, over this past year, PG&E has been working behind the scenes in Sacramento to drum up support for keeping the plant online through 2045. However, even though Newsom was one of the biggest proponents of the original extension, he purposefully left this decision to the next governor.

There are pros and cons to keeping Diablo Canyon open, but at the end of the day, California should let the plant shut down by 2030. Yes, it will make California’s transition to clean electricity a bit more difficult to achieve, but it isn’t worth the seismic safety risks and environmental impacts of keeping the plant open. However, if California policymakers do go ahead with an extension, it will be critical to ensure ratepayers aren’t left holding the bag (as was the case with the recent extension).

Long-term issues

Diversifying clean energy resources

California has made real progress transitioning to clean electricity in the last decade. Although electricity sector emissions stagnated for half a decade, emissions are now trending back down. Without a doubt, solar has been the major driver of California’s clean energy progress, and the rapid buildout of energy storage in recent years is another critical part of the state’s energy transition.

However, California can’t do it all with just solar and storage. The state will need other clean resources, such as wind and geothermal, to make the transition more affordable and more reliable. Unfortunately, these other clean technologies, which the state is counting on, just haven’t materialized at the required pace.

Over the coming decade, California will need to spur the growth of in-state wind, out-of-state wind, offshore wind, conventional geothermal, advanced geothermal, and other clean technologies that would aid the state’s energy transition. California will need at least some, but perhaps not all, of these technologies to scale up dramatically. But it won’t be simple, because there’s no single solution to make it all happen. Different technologies face different barriers, such as transmission access, permitting barriers, financing challenges, and many more. California needs to chip away at these barriers and intentionally focus on diversifying the technologies contributing to its energy transition.

Expanding and modernizing the grid

Over the long term, California needs to significantly expand its grid infrastructure to meet rising electricity demand from electrification and to connect new clean energy projects to the grid. California’s grid operator often tasks utilities with building the big new projects, such as transmission lines and substations, that the state needs. However, utilities have been unacceptably slow at building these projects, with delays stretching on for years. California recently passed legislation co-sponsored by UCS that will hold utilities accountable for these delays, but the state must remain vigilant, especially as PG&E has publicly stated its intention to slow down its grid investments even further.

But there’s another way to accommodate increases in electricity demand without needing to build out so many poles and wires: modernizing the grid by harnessing distributed energy resources (DERs). DERs include technologies such as rooftop solar, home energy storage, demand response, and electric vehicles. They can generate electricity, store it, shift electricity demand, or reduce demand altogether. Electric vehicles in particular could play a huge role in reducing California’s need to build not only transmission and distribution grid infrastructure, but generation resources as well, all while bolstering grid reliability and saving ratepayers money. One easy first step towards achieving these benefits is for the California Energy Commission to restart SB 59 implementation, which could help get more cars on the road that can discharge energy back to the grid.

As California greatly expands its grid through the clean energy transition, the state should simultaneously pursue solutions, such as DERs, that reduce the need for more grid infrastructure in the first place.

Advancing a regional grid

After nearly a decade-long impasse, California is finally on board with a plan that could result in a much better-integrated western power grid. There’s too much history to rehash it all here, but the short version is that a diverse group of stakeholders developed a plan to create a new, regional organization to govern western energy markets. The motivation behind this plan has been to attract more utilities from across the west to participate in western energy markets, which would help reduce electricity costs, improve grid reliability, and ease the clean electricity transition. California policymakers gave the plan a greenlight in 2025, and since then stakeholders have been working to set up the new organization and put the whole plan into motion.

California should continue down this path and ensure that the California Public Utilities Commission develops a reasonable approval process for utility participation. The state should also (carefully) consider participating in additional market services that could help even more with affordability, reliability, and clean energy.

The elephant in the room: energy affordability

Last but certainly not least is affordability, the largest and most pervasive issue facing California’s energy sector. Electricity rates have skyrocketed over the past decade, with more than 1 in 5 households now behind on their energy bills. Californians are still clamoring for relief, and policymakers have yet to deliver.

Just about every single one of the solutions discussed previously will also address affordability, including reining in utility spending on wildfire, ensuring data centers pay for the cost increases they cause rather than socializing those costs, and continuing with utility participation in expanded western energy markets which drive down the cost of electricity.

More generally, there are three ways to tackle the affordability issue: reduce utility spending, change how people pay for utility spending, or reduce utility profits. The solutions discussed already can help to reduce utility spending. At the same time, the state should also pursue changes in how people pay for utility spending. For example, California could substitute taxpayer dollars for ratepayer dollars, which would be much more progressive, or the state could change rate structures or expand assistance programs so that folks with lower incomes pay less and those with more means pay more. Finally, policymakers can reduce utility profits, which are ultimately funded by ratepayers, by reexamining the allowed return on equity which is likely too high.

Final thoughts

As I mentioned at the outset, there are many consequential and controversial energy issues that will require the next governor’s attention. Since there’s no silver bullet, the next administration will need to pursue a suite of solutions, with affordability front and center, to continue California’s progress on its transition to clean electricity and to maintain its status as a global leader on climate policy.

In early October, Long Beach residents were evacuated from their homes, which were battered by waves from Tropical Storm Rachel. Many oceanfront houses were damaged by the relentless impacts from waves. But it wasn’t just Tropical Storm Rachel pushing the ocean into homes, it was a combination of many factors, including sea level rise from fossil fuel-driven climate change, the intense marine heatwave off the California coast, and a Kelvin wave from the super El Niño.

These ingredients combined to produce water levels over several days that were 1.6 feet higher than the predicted tide, approaching record tide levels for Los Angeles County. Rachel’s waves were occurring on top of this increase in the normal tide, a combination that destroyed homes along the county’s coastline.

But how exactly do all of these factors combine to raise sea levels? Here’s a primer on Kelvin waves, marine heatwaves, sea level rise from climate change, and more, to get a full understanding of what the coastal communities in California now face and will have to deal with on a worsening basis during the upcoming super El Niño-charged winter.

King Tides and overlapping peaks in multi-year tidal cycles

This fall and winter will feature the naturally occurring king tides, which occur when the Earth, moon, and sun come into alignment, resulting in the year’s highest water levels. Just the king tides alone add about 1-2 feet to average high tides.

But this is also a very important year: tidal cycles that peak every 4.4 years and every 18.6 years are both, unfortunately, expected to peak this year, bringing even higher king tides than usual. According to Patrick Barnard at UC Santa Cruz, this would result in an extra 2-4 inches of sea level rise this winter, on top of the already 1-2 feet increase from king Tides, with repeated peaks around Thanksgiving, Christmas, and MLK Day, around the successive full moons.

Sea level rise from fossil fuel-driven climate change

Yes, the planet is warming. Yes, it’s because of emitting heat trapping gases, like CO₂, into the atmosphere. The oceans have absorbed an astonishing 91% of the added heat to the climate system due to fossil fuel-driven climate change. Over the past century, the oceans have warmed drastically, and this has had major implications for sea level rise.

The first mechanism raising global sea levels is something called thermal expansion. When water is warmer, it takes up more space, leading to higher sea levels around the world. The second is the melting of glaciers and ice sheets, which recently became the dominant source of sea level rise.

Put the melting from glaciers/ice sheets and thermal expansion together, and you get about 8 inches (~20 cm) of global sea level rise since 1901. This number is slightly different depending on where you are on planet Earth, but California coastal waters from San Francisco to La Jolla have also risen about 8 inches over the last 100 years.

Marine heatwaves and more thermal expansion

Alright, so we have the background sea level rise from fossil fuel-driven climate change covered. But something else climate change-related is occurring on a much more local scale: a marine heatwave. This particular marine heatwave has been ongoing off the coast of California since earlier this year. According to NOAA’s Marine Heatwave Watch, a category 4 marine heatwave, which is an “extreme” marine heatwave, is currently occurring off the coast of Baja California and the central and southern California coasts.

In the last section, I noted that when water is warmer, it expands. Well, we’re seeing this occur with this localized marine heatwave. So, not only are we seeing sea level rise from the overall global warming of the oceans from climate change, but we’re also seeing sea level rise from this localized marine heatwave. There are estimates of this marine heatwave contributing from 6 to as much as 10 inches of extra water height to a normal tide (on top of the 8 extra inches from climate change).

Kelvin waves on the California coast are from super El Niño

The first two sections covered the effects of global and localized climate change on California coastal water levels, but we also know that we’re at the beginning of a very strong, or “super,” El Niño event. El Niño can raise water levels off the coast of California by about 6-12 inches through something called Kelvin waves.

As you’ve probably read by now, Kelvin waves are not massive storm waves or tsunami waves. In fact, they’re invisible to the human eye, traveling under the surface of the water. The mechanism is this: during an El Niño event, winds blowing from east to west over the equator in the Pacific Ocean weaken, allowing for ocean water that is normally pushed westward toward Indonesia to essentially slosh back across the Pacific from west to east.

Eventually, this vast wave of ocean water sloshes up against South America, splits in two, and the northerly wave runs up the Central American coast under the surface of the water. This is exactly what’s happening off the California coast: a bulge of water is running up the Central American then North American coasts, raising sea levels with it.

A Kelvin wave already made its way up the coast earlier this month, helping to produce higher tidal heights that pushed Tropical Storm Rachel’s waves into homes. But another 3 to 4 will run up the coast before this El Niño event ends later this winter.

Another thing to mention: Kelvin waves bring with them warmer water from the Tropical Pacific Ocean. Each time a Kelvin wave runs up the coast of California, it warms the water, strengthening the marine heatwave, and leading to more thermal expansion (on top of the sea level rise from a greater volume of water sloshing up the coast!). This warming can remain off the coast, even as the Kelvin wave passes, and can be compounded when the next Kelvin wave passes through.

Put it all together…

When you combine the effects of sea level rise (1) from the annual peak in king tides, (2) from multi-year tidal cycles, (3) from climate change, (4) from the climate-driven marine heatwave, and (5) from the approaching Kelvin waves, you get a tidal height that is nearly 4+ feet above normal. These factors on their own can and do cause coastal flooding, especially during a peak Kelvin wave or peak king tides. Together, they make a dangerous combination.

…and add storms on top

But as we saw a preview from Tropical Storm Rachel earlier this month, a tremendous additional threat is the wave action on top of this sea level rise (though 4+ feet on its own is already enough to cause significant coastal flooding).

As I mentioned in my last El Niño blog, the jet stream, which is a river of fast-moving air in the upper atmosphere that steers storm systems, often shifts over California during an El Niño, bringing an increase in storm activity and rainfall to the Southwestern US. Storms, like those associated with the Pineapple Express, can bring significant wave heights (over 10+ feet in the strongest storms) to coastal California, mainly due to winds associated with these storms.

These waves, on top of the sea level rise from the aforementioned factors, could lead to record-breaking, historic coastal flooding this winter. In preparation, Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency last month, partly for the expected damaging coastal erosion.

Climate change is a threat multiplier

What is happening in California reflects the reality that we live in a fundamentally different climate system than the one a century ago. Yes, California has observed El Niños and king tides for thousands of years, but fossil fuel-driven climate change is fueling marine heatwaves, a remarkably active Pacific hurricane season, and significant background sea level rise.

Intense storms producing waves greater than 13 feet in height occurred twice as frequently in the 1996-2016 period than the 1949-1969 period, according to a 2023 study. And since 1900, human-caused sea level rise has quadrupled the frequency of coastal flooding events. Furthermore, there is evidence that El Niños are getting more intense due to fossil fuel-driven climate change, which directly influences the strength of coastal Kelvin waves.

To follow the most recent updates on the El Niño and the threat of coastal flooding and harm this winter, the California Institute for Water Resources and Listos California have put together a dashboard of resources that will be useful for planning as well as monitoring.

Although California is a wealthier state than many other states and has a strong emergency management system, it still needs federal assistance to help communities recover after disasters. El Niño is causing compound and repetitive impacts on California’s coastal communities in addition to the impacts from an active Pacific hurricane season

As we’re witnessing these unprecedented events, it left many of us incredulous that FEMA’s administrator, Cameron Hamilton, would make good on the Trump administration’s intention to put the disaster response and recovery burden onto local and state governments. Governor Newsom immediately criticized this policy, reminding everyone that FEMA has a fundamental responsibility to help people before, during and after disasters. It is going to be a huge challenge for people and communities to weather this likely unprecedented flooding, especially for households of color and those with people living in poverty, who are often more seriously impacted.

And of course, we wouldn’t be in this position if it weren’t for the burning of fossil fuels. It is critical we continue to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for the deliberate spread of disinformation and profiting off the polluting of our planet and dismantling of our stable climate.

BAAJA undermines bedrock environmental laws while granting the fossil fuel industry more power, more access to public lands, and less accountability. In return, the package includes tenuous renewable energy and transmission provisions, many of which could be achieved under current law. Without significant improvements, which seem unlikely, enactment of BAAJA could be worse than the status quo. 

The status quo is already terrible 

Senate negotiators appear to have “compromised” between the Trump administration’s harmful current energy policy and something worse, rather than undoing recent attacks on clean energy and environmental and community protections. 

In 2023, as part of a bipartisan deal to raise the debt ceiling, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was amended to narrow the scope of the statute and insert arbitrary time and page limits on environmental reviews. The Trump Administration then issued an Executive Order revoking the authority of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to promulgate NEPA regulations. The Supreme Court then further narrowed the scope of the law in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County (145 S. Ct. 1497 (2025)).  

The courts, this Congress, and the Trump administration have taken similar steps to undermine decades of settled law and practice under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Clean Water Act (CWA). Rather than demand that BAAJA reverse any of these trends, Senate negotiators appear to have accepted the Trump administration’s position as a new baseline and then agreed to even more dangerous backsliding as the price to help modernize our antiquated grid.  

Small “wins” are even smaller than they appear 

To be clear, the package includes provisions to speed deployment of transmission lines and renewable energy projects, which should be enacted. 

Federal Backstop Authority 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has long had authority to resolve interstate transmission siting disputes, but the process has never functioned effectively. The new bill would remove bureaucratic and technical challenges that have rendered this federal “backstop” siting authority ineffective and would empower FERC to approve interstate transmission projects that provide benefits to consumers and are in the public interest. 

Order 1920 

In 2024, FERC issued Order 1920 to mandate robust, forward-looking regional grid planning and cost allocation, but compliance has been slow and multiple court challenges to the Order are pending. The Senate bill would write a similar regional and interregional planning mandate into law, strengthen it to help ensure beneficial projects actually get built, and add further ratepayer protections to the process. If enacted, this provision would achieve the goals of Order 1920, regardless of the outcome of pending litigation.  

Advanced Transmission Technologies 

Advanced transmission technologies (ATTs) are widely recognized as a quick and cost-effective way to get more from the existing grid, but utilities have long resisted installing ATTs, preferring larger new investments that provide more (and more certain) profits. The Senate bill would require deployment of cost-effective ATTs when building new lines or upgrading existing lines that would provide a pathway for relatively quick cost savings for consumers and improved reliability of the existing system.  

eNEPA 

The legislation also includes “eNEPA” provisions, directing CEQ to implement a program to put uniform standards, definitions, and metrics online, so that permitting agencies can better coordinate reviews, and to provide public access and transparency. While a funding source for the project is not identified, this program, if implemented, would help streamline and standardize the federal permitting process. 

Data Centers 

Finally, the legislation would require FERC to revise its transmission pricing policies to require utilities to charge data centers for cost increases they cause and prohibit those costs from being passed on to other customers. The provision would require cost recovery to continue until the full cost is paid, even if the data center ends its contract, to protect other ratepayers from being on the hook for potential “stranded assets.”  

Most of the remaining provisions in the transmission title of BAAJA, while positive, are achievable using authority FERC or other agencies already have in law. Even the new federal backstop authority and regional planning mandate could be underused or even abused by the Trump administration.  

Overall, the transmission title is a collection of provisions with potential, long-term benefits, dependent on adequate funding and good-faith implementation by this Administration. What is sorely needed, and missing from BAAJA, are transmission investments that would provide a host of benefits in addition to access to clean energy. Better reliability, improved public health, greater resilience to extreme weather, strengthened national security, expanded economic development, and lower energy costs as more people access renewable energy resources are among the many benefits that aggressive, smart grid investments would deliver.  

What is unclear is why negotiators failed to think bigger and why the transmission and clean energy improvements that are included in the bill require devastating, pro-fossil fuel provisions as “offsets” to secure bipartisan support in Congress. 

Project (un)certainty 

BAAJA includes language billed as providing certainty for federal permittees. Supporters highlight this provision as one of the main strengths of the bill and claim the language would prevent President Trump from continuing to cancel approved wind and solar projects. Unfortunately, the provision appears to provide more permanence for fossil fuel projects than renewables. 

On its face, the revocation provision (section 1401) is simple—federal agencies can’t revoke, suspend, alter, or “interfere with” permits in effect on or after September 16, 2026. If they do, the agency must prove one of a few narrow exceptions using “clear and convincing evidence,” or pay the developer a percentage of its sunk costs. A separate provision (section 1402) lets developers who prove a “pattern of disparate treatment” against certain types of projects recover 50–100% of their expected construction costs. 

An obvious flaw is that these provisions do nothing to restore permits cancelled by the Trump administration before September. My colleague, John Rogers, documents some of the offshore wind projects already sabotaged by the Administration here and points out that these actions are likely already illegal. 

And going forward, a permit applicant would have to prove disparate treatment for their category of projects compared to the baseline over the previous five years. Because that five-year baseline is already skewed by this administration, future administrations could keep denying or slow-walking wind and solar with little consequence, while facing damage awards if they revisit fossil fuel projects approved by the Trump administration. 

Fracturing the bedrock 

If enacted as currently drafted, BAAJA would be the most significant reversal in environmental and community protections in decades. 

NEPA 

The bill redefines the phrase “major federal action,” – the trigger for NEPA – to add a raft of new categories of projects no longer covered by the law (including pipeline expansions in existing corridors, drilling on lands with mixed federal and non-federal ownership, and projects using federal grant or loan funding but not run by federal agencies).  

When added to the hollowing out of the law already achieved by the Trump Administration and SCOTUS, NEPA would be reduced to a discretionary table-top exercise, not subject to timely or meaningful judicial review or public input. The requirements that federal agencies consider alternatives when reviewing permit applications, and solicit and consider public input on those alternatives, would become little more than a formality.  

CWA 

Section 101(b) of the Clean Water Act reads in part: 

It is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of states to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and water resources . . . 

In practice, this means states can require reasonable conditions on CWA permits and the burden is on applicants to overcome those objections. The Senate permitting proposal destroys this basic concept of cooperative federalism. States could deny certification only by providing “clear and convincing evidence” that no condition could make the project comply with the law, and any condition they do impose must be the “least burdensome” option. Both standards are designed to be difficult, if not impossible, to meet. 

For interstate gas pipelines and transmission lines, state water quality certification would be limited to direct point-source discharges, excluding the stream and wetland crossings, sedimentation, and construction runoff that have been the basis for past state denials. 

These changes, combined with provisions limiting judicial review under the CWA, could speed development of transmission corridors, but absolutely would speed development of natural gas pipelines by depriving states (and Tribes) of the ability to place reasonable conditions on permits impacting their water quality. 

ESA/Historic Preservation/Mining 

BAAJA would also make sweeping changes to existing protections for endangered species, historic and cultural resources, and public lands.  

The bill would limit agency consultation under the ESA and delegate federal authority to states, many of which do not have the scientific expertise to manage listed species. 

Similarly, review of permits pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act would be limited, leading Tribal Leaders, among others, to express strong opposition to the bill because it “fail[s] to respect our inherent sovereignty, self-determination, and Indigenous Knowledge.” 

The Senate package would also change decades of precedent and effectively overturn a recent federal court decision by authorizing mining companies to dump mining waste on land not covered by their mining claims. International mining conglomerates already enjoy broad access to US public lands under the outdated Mining Law of 1872, and the Senate proposal would expand that access to vast swaths of new land for waste dumping. 

Process fouls 

The Senate bill was largely crafted behind closed doors without meaningful input from broad categories of stakeholders, including environmental groups, scientific experts, Tribal governments, and Environmental Justice communities. Bill sponsors have announced a plan to forgo hearings or mark-ups in any of the committees of jurisdiction and place the bill on the Senate floor immediately after the November elections.  

Such a flawed process is perhaps fitting for legislation that would enshrine reckless speed, limited transparency, and lack of accountability into law. 

It does not have to be this way 

UCS is not alone in raising serious concerns regarding the Senate proposal. A review of the bill by the Natural Resources Defense Council may be found here, and a statement from WE ACT for Environmental Justice is here. A review by Earthjustice is here, and an assessment of the bill’s impact on public lands by The Wilderness Society may be found here. 

The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act might accelerate transmission deployment and benefit some renewable energy projects down the road, but it will lock in fossil fuel projects now and well into the future. Senate negotiators argue they have no choice but to agree to a deal largely on President Trump’s terms, and that the President will follow the new law if it is enacted. Neither claim is convincing. 

The fossil fuel industry and its allies are profiting from our current energy system while minimizing competition from cheaper, cleaner competitors. Instead of righting this imbalance, the Senate permitting deal will lock it in place for generations to come.  

It does not have to be this way. An efficient permitting process, rooted in science and public participation, can get us to the cleaner, more affordable energy future we desperately need. We know the targets we need to hit, and we have the technology to get us there—we just need the will.  

California has leveraged enormous economic power to drive ambitious climate policy, fund incredible clean innovation and show the world that progress towards a cleaner, healthier future is possible.  

But it is not all rainbows and butterflies here in the Golden State. Our next governor will also face an affordability crisis that threatens progress, an incumbent fossil fuel sector that is clinging to power, and climate emergencies that simultaneously necessitate and challenge continued climate action. 

Whoever wins in November must be prepared to do what it takes to overcome inevitable hardships and use them to forge enduring policies that build a stronger and more resilient California. 

Priorities for a bold governor 

To meet the state’s necessarily ambitious climate and air quality goals, California must transition its state’s transportation sector to zero emissions, responsibly manage the phaseout of fossil fuels, and build out new renewable energy resources at an unprecedented scale. 

At the same time, the state must come to terms with a massive transition of historically irrigated agricultural land in the San Joaquin Valley as groundwater depletion and climate-fueled weather whiplash make the status quo impossible.  

Responding to each of these necessities will require difficult decisions that address multiple goals: affordability, reliability, resilience, public health and environmental outcomes.  

This is the first in a series of blogs UCS experts will release to layout priorities for California’s next governor. I will provide an overview of these priorities here, but if you crave more, fear not! More detailed blogs on the issues highlighted here will be coming to a blog site near you.  

Phasing out fossil fuels

One of the most important challenges the next governor will face is the continued transition away from fossil fuels in the transportation sector. This transition is upon us as declining gasoline demand and global movement towards consolidation of refining capacity have caused in-state refineries to close in recent years. 

There is no doubt that more will shutter, or at least threaten to, during the next administration. If California plans for this transition, the state could accelerate the adoption of cleaner transportation while ensuring Californians have access to affordable gasoline. 

The state has already started this planning, and UCS has been diligently working to ensure that process moves forward thoughtfully and holistically. Meanwhile, the oil industry is working overtime to make the case that the state must roll back its ambition and move heaven and earth to keep polluters happy.  

 The next Governor must understand that there are policies that can provide Californians with affordable gasoline while also achieving our clean transportation imperative. If they see this clearly and acts accordingly, Californians can have more reliable, more affordable, and cleaner transportation.  

Continued clean energy progress 

California has made tremendous strides towards achieving its goal of 100% clean electricity by 2045. The state has increased its grid battery capacity by 2500% since 2019 and was powered by 100% clean energy for a portion of 279 days last year. 

This is amazing progress, but it is not enough to get us where we need to go. UCS continues to be laser focused on identifying and overcoming barriers to the development of renewable energy. 

The next governor must urgently implement policies UCS has championed such as western state grid regionalization and efforts to remedy transmission development delays. At the same time, they must overcome new challenges like massive potential load growth from data centers, wildfire liability, affordability, and bringing diverse clean energy resources online, including wind and geothermal to balance the grid. 

Just land transition 

The San Joaquin Valley is amid a substantial and necessary transition away from intensive irrigated agriculture to a sustainable future that allows communities to thrive.  

Central Valley communities are surrounded by a sea of irrigated agricultural operations. But the groundwater that feeds these operations is rapidly depleting, and as it does, the next administration must work to transition irrigated cropland at an enormous pace and scale.  

This transition must be coordinated, thoughtful, inclusive and above all—just. Currently, efforts to transition land are driven by market forces instead of centering community needs.  

The next Governor needs to fix this by launching a broad planning process across state agencies, local governments, labor groups, sustainable industries, and most importantly, with communities. 

Driving towards a cleaner future 

The context of California’s transition to zero-emission transportation has changed significantly in recent years. Prior to President Trump’s second inauguration, UCS was advocating for and passing historic regulations to sell 100% zero emission new cars by 2035 and phaseout fossil fuel trucks. 

Today, the federal government is challenging California’s authority to enforce these lifesaving regulations and now the state is having to reimagine what it will take to continue its progress towards widespread adoption of zero emission vehicles. 

The next governor will need to think creatively about how to drive the adoption of zero emission vehicles despite the current, hostile federal administration. This will mean doubling down on incentives and pursuing revenue generating policies.  

He must also pursue electric vehicles not only for their emission benefits, but for their ability to export their power back to homes and the grid and endeavor to ensure the future of transportation is as sustainable as possible with strong end-of-life battery policies that ensure reuse where possible and recycling.   

Time for California leadership 

California can continue its historic role as a leader in climate policy while maintaining its spot as one of the world’s leading economies. The state can do this while ensuring that Californians have access to clean, affordable transportation and liveable communities. 

If the next governor is serious about combating the interconnected climate, affordability and livability crises and taking on the issues highlighted in this blog, the state can show the world that climate progress and a better future for all humans is possible.  

To achieve all this, California needs bold leadership and UCS stands ready to bolster the next administration with the independent science, strong advocacy, and a dedicated network of scientists and supporters.  

Will world leaders heed the science and the urgent calls to put people and planet before selfish, myopic political gamesmanship and the corrupt interests of fossil fuel companies? I’ll be on the ground in Türkiye alongside many others—including scientists, civil society organizations, Indigenous and frontline community activists, faith leaders, and youth leaders—to demand that policymakers take action commensurate with the scale and urgency of the climate crisis.

The sobering context for COP31

Two recent UN reports— on Limiting Overshoot of 1.5°C and the annual Emissions Gap report—underscore how far off track the global heat-trapping emissions trajectory is from the guardrails enshrined in the Paris Agreement, the dangers of the current path, and what’s needed to help limit harms.

To limit exceedance of 1.5°C, the emissions gap report says, “global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would have to be reduced by 18 per cent by 2030, 45 per cent by 2035 and 69 per cent by 2040, all relative to 2025 levels,” alongside increasing levels of carbon dioxide removal. However, nations’ current commitments would only cut global emissions “by 5-8 per cent by 2030 and 11-15 per cent by 2035, relative to 2025 levels—leaving the world on track to only limit warming this century to 2.6°C.” It’s important to reiterate that those global emission reductions must be achieved in an equitable way, with richer high-emitting nations taking on responsibility for more rapid, steeper cuts and providing climate finance for lower income nations to also sharply reduce their emissions.

The climate impacts of overshooting 1.5°C of global warming, let alone going as catastrophically high as 2.6°C, are truly sobering—including accelerating sea level rise, extreme heat and wildfires, collapse of ecosystems like coral reefs, threats to food and water security and infrastructure, and even irreversible, profound changes to glaciers and permafrost.

The reality is we are already seeing devastating changes today. Research shows that this summer’s brutal heatwaves in Europe killed over 50,000 people, two-thirds of those attributable to fossil fuel-driven climate change. Nepal’s floods triggered by glacier collapse—which bear the clear fingerprints of climate change—has led to a death toll which has crossed 1,500 people, with 5,600 still missing, and a left this low-income nation reeling from over $4.7 billion dollars in damage.

Pre-COP stage-setting

This COP is unusual in that, for the first time, there will be two countries sharing leadership roles, Türkiye and Australia—a compromise solution reached in Brazil at COP30 after a protracted stalemate last year. The COP31 President is Murat Kurum, Türkiye’s minister of environment, urban planning and climate change. Chris Bowen, Minister for Climate Change and Energy for Australia, has been appointed as COP31 President of Negotiations.

The Pacific pre-COP meeting held in Fiji in early October—which was far too sparsely attended—highlighted urgent priorities for the region, long champions for the 1.5°C goal, high ambition and equity in the climate negotiations. Nations endorsed the Taku Pakasoa Declaration, a Tuvaluan phrase connoting strength in unity and collective action. The powerful declaration recognizes the leadership of youth, Indigenous people, and local communities, as well as the Pacific Island nations which requested the historic International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion clarifying states’ legal obligations to address climate change. It also calls attention to the imperative of using the best available science to inform climate action, the need to enhance climate finance for lower income nations, and elevating the importance of the ocean-climate nexus.

As Filimoni Vosarogo, the Fiji Minister for Lands and Mineral Resources noted: “The ocean has absorbed around a quarter of the carbon dioxide that we emit as humans and more than 90% of the excess heat that we have trapped. It is the planet’s climate regulator and the largest carbon sink active, and the reason the world is not already far warmer than it is. And it’s paying for this service with its health.” 

For more on the ocean-climate nexus, please read this blogpost from my colleague Erika Spanger.

Key Issues for COP31 Negotiations

Here are some of the crucial issues that will determine success (or lack thereof) at COP31:

1. Can a global electrification target help advance a transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy? At the June climate talks in Bonn, the COP31 Presidency announced a new “35% by 2035” global electrification target—to raise the share of final energy demand met by electricity to 35% by 2035 from just over 20% today—as a centerpiece of its Action Agenda for COP. A subsequent report from the IEA shows how this can be achieved cost-effectively using technologies available today. To truly advance climate progress and cut global heat-trapping emissions, electrification of energy use across sectors including transport, industry and buildings must be accompanied by a just transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy as well as enhanced energy efficiency. The human and economic toll from the fossil fuel energy crisis triggered by the US’s illegal war against Iran underscores, yet again, why a transition to clean energy is the best path forward. While renewable electricity—especially cheap, plentiful solar power—is booming globally, it’s not yet displacing fossil fuels fast enough. Insights from the Santa Marta conference on a Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands, with a second one hosted by Tuvalu and Ireland now in the works, can help drive momentum alongside and within the COP negotiations. The deep-pocketed fossil fuel industry and its allies have long worked to obstruct progress at the UN climate talks. World leaders must stand up to those destructive tactics, hold fossil fuel companies accountable and chart a rapid path toward a fast, fair phaseout of fossil fuels.
   
2. Will leaders prioritize adaptation and loss and damage? Adaptation and loss and damage do not get nearly enough attention at the climate talks, leading to a continued shortfall in commitments and funding for these priorities from richer nations. As global heat trapping emissions continue to rise, already putting the world on a trajectory to soon exceed 1.5°C of global warming, many communities are struggling to cope with extreme climate impacts, often beyond their ability to adapt. This year’s deadly heatwaves in Europe, Asia and Africa; intensifying Pacific typhoons and hurricanes; catastrophic wildfires in Canada, the US, Spain and Portugal; and the terrible floods and mudslides in Nepal triggered by melting Himalayan glaciers are just the latest reminder that burning fossil fuels has dangerously altered the climate regime. It’s not enough to just react after disasters hit; we have to ramp up resilience proactively to protect people ahead of time. The UN Adaptation Gap reports repeatedly point out the massive gap in funding required by lower income nations, in the absence of which people are losing their lives and livelihoods and entire economies are being battered by climate disasters. Adaptation finance must be at least tripled by 2035, as already agreed, and concrete outcomes are needed on the Global Goal on Adaptation. Nations—especially high-emitting, rich nations—must do their utmost to cut heat-trapping emissions and get to net negative emissions quickly to limit climate change. And they must provide funding for people on the frontlines of the climate crisis who desperately need investments in resilience and measures to address the loss and damage they’re already facing. The Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FFRLD) has just agreed to “set aside” $21.6 million dollars in response to Nepal’s urgent ask for support after its deadly floods, at a first-ever Extraordinary meeting of the FFRLD Board on Oct 22. Nepal and many more low-income countries reeling from devastating climate impacts caused by richer countries’ emissions deserve justice on a much larger, more meaningful scale. It’s absolutely shameful how paltry the amounts are that richer nations have thus far committed to the FFRLD.
3. Will climate negotiations be guided by the best available science from the IPCC? Recent climate meetings have seen a highly concerning trend of attacks on the inclusion of references to the best available science from the IPCC in negotiating texts. Added to this, the suspension of the recent IPCC plenary meeting because of a continued lack of agreement between countries on the timeline for producing the IPCC’s seventh assessment cycle of reports (AR7) ahead of the conclusion of the second global stocktake under the Paris Agreement in 2028 is extremely worrying. Science and equity should never be pitted against each other. Using the best available science to guide and inform the climate negotiations, emissions reduction goals, adaptation investments and measures to address loss and damage is vital to protecting people and ecosystems. “For countries on the frontlines of climate change, timely science is not a matter of convenience. It is essential for protecting lives, livelihoods, and our futures. We cannot afford a process in which the best available science arrives too late to inform decisions that will shape our survival,” Ambassador Adao Soares Barbosa, Chair of the Least Developed Countries Group on Climate Change powerfully said in a recent statement. Crucially, world leaders must commit to funding mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage in equitable ways so that poorer nations are not unfairly burdened with the costs of responding to climate change caused primarily by rich nations. Equity is a core principle guiding the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and should not be treated as an afterthought or optional. Without that, we greatly increase the risks of falling short of necessary climate goals, putting more people and more critical ecosystems in danger.  
   
4. Will richer countries address their grossly insufficient climate finance commitments? Year after year, richer nations continue to renege on their climate finance commitments, even as they deepen the climate crisis by remaining tethered to polluting fossil fuels. This injustice is untenable and is directly contributing to a breakdown in trust in the UN climate negotiations. Lower income nations struggling to overcome poverty and reach basic development milestones are being set back repeatedly by climate-fueled disasters, wars, and unsustainable debt. Added to that, the unfolding Super El Niño, coming on top of fossil fuel-driven climate change—threatens to push tens of millions more into acute hunger. Global North countries must prioritize climate finance—including tripling adaptation finance by 2035—on par with actions they must take to phase out fossil fuels, otherwise the world will not meet climate goals and the inequities of that failure will mount.
5. Can leaders find ways to drive forward climate ambition in a new world order? Current geopolitics, including the destructive actions of the Trump administration, are scrambling the world order in unpredictable ways. One certainty is that addressing major global challenges—including climate change—requires global cooperation and cannot be solved through unilateral actions by any one nation. And it’s not enough for global climate agreements to just endure; world leaders must actively recommit to meeting their goals in a just way. UN Secretary-General António Guterres, an extraordinary climate champion, will soon come to the end of his term and the new UNSG will face a formidable task on multiple fronts, including urging greater ambition to meet climate goals. COP32 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, next year, and the 2028 conclusion of the next global stocktake under the Paris Agreement, will be key moments for measuring progress coming out of Türkiye.

Renewed clarity, determination and resolve

The latest science on fossil fuel-driven climate change is truly sobering, as are the dire impacts already devastating communities around the world. The gross injustice of climate change is also mounting—for billions of people today who are suffering despite contributing the least to the problem, and for young people and generations to come who are literally seeing their futures greatly diminished because of choices being made today by the rich and powerful.

The United States, the world’s biggest historical emitter, has played an especially egregious role in stepping away from the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, with the Trump administration taking a wrecking ball to federal clean energy and climate policies. The 2026 UNEP emissions gap report notes that in 2025 “emissions growth slowed down in the G20, with the United States of America being the major exception.”

It bears repeating that we already have most of the core climate solutions we need today, and those solutions can help advance public health and economic prosperity too. Richer nations also have the ability to raise the funding needed to scale up climate solutions globally—they are just choosing to spend it on things that are directly contrary to the public good (such as endless wars) or on outright giveaways to fossil fuel industry and corporate billionaires while driving up costs to everyone else.

As scientists and climate justice advocates, these times can feel dark and daunting. In many ways, the climate future we feared is now here—deadly and costly fossil-fueled disasters mounting, oceans boiling, an accelerating pace of warming, and the profound injustice of the worst losses inflicted on those who are least responsible for climate change. Wars, lack of care for our shared humanity, and the erosion of multilateral institutions are taking the world in the opposite direction from acting in the collective good.

Yet the solutions we have been fighting for are (still) exactly what this moment calls for, which brings renewed clarity, determination and resolve. Whether we are trying to address inequality and affordability concerns, pollution and public health challenges, the energy poverty gap or food insecurity, it’s clear that just climate and clean energy solutions are crucial to improving human welfare and healing the planet.

Wherever you are engaged in this transformative fight for climate justice—from your hometown to world capitals to international venues like COP31—this is a fight we must win, for people across the world today and for the sake of generations to come. We are on the right side of history as we take on intransigent politicians and fossil fuel villains to save a livable future.

This year, Phoenix, Arizona confirmed its first heat-related death in April. More than a dozen of the 29 people who died heat-related deaths in New Jersey over the Fourth of July weekend were unhoused, in what the New Jersey Coalition to End Homelessness called a “mass casualty event.” By early August, 50 people in Maryland had died due to heat-related causes, breaking the state’s record. And in early September, Obed Azahel Hernández Perez, a 24-year-old man from Mexico died in North Mississippi from prolonged heat exposure while harvesting sweet potatoes.

I don’t share statistics and news reports of heat deaths lightly. I’ve written before about my loved ones whose health and safety have been threatened by extreme heat exposure. The thought of my dad, a skilled tradesman, not coming home at the end of a day’s work is one of my biggest fears, and that fear has been reality for far too many families. In fact, the number of people who die in part because of heat has been vastly undercounted.

It’s worrying that, even as 2026 broke many heat records, 2027’s might be even worse. That’s why we need to do everything in our power now to protect people from extreme heat.

Record-breaking 2026 may be outdone by 2027 El Niño-charged heat

The months of July, August, and September 2026 each broke heat records, and summer 2026 was the hottest in the United States in the 132-years since records have been kept. Arizona tied for its warmest year on record, while New Mexico, Utah and Colorado had their warmest recorded summers.

On top of this, we can expect the combination of fossil fuel-driven climate change and the super El Niño to bring record-breaking, deadly heat in 2027 globally.

“El Niño events are characterized by warmer-than-usual ocean surface temperatures in the eastern Equatorial Pacific off the coasts of Ecuador and the Galapagos Islands… They affect weather patterns around the world,” explains Dr. Marc Alessi, UCS climate scientist.

“While El Niño is a natural cycle in Earth’s climate system, fossil fuel-driven climate change is not. When you combine an El Niño event with the overall warming of Earth due to emissions from heat-trapping fossil fuels, you get an exceptionally warm planet,” Dr. Alessi adds. We know that the planet will be warmer over the next year, which will increase the chance of heatwaves, and though we cannot pinpoint exactly where these heatwaves will occur in the world, we know we aren’t prepared for the heat we’re already experiencing in the US.  

One heat death is one too many

Heat is the leading cause of weather-related deaths despite the fact that heat illness and death are preventable with the right safety measures. Every heat death tells us that we are not doing enough to keep people safe from the dangerous heat we face today, and if we don’t act urgently and strategically at every opportunity, heat-related illnesses and deaths will continue to mount as our world warms.

A study by Boston University and NPR found that “on average between 2018 and 2025, we estimate that some 9,000 deaths each year in the country are impacted by heat—a factor of five higher than the official average over that same period. Some years, heat-related deaths can top 10,000.”

Extreme heat is taking an immense toll on human health and well-being, and human-caused climate change is increasing people’s risk. Climate change accounted for an average of 27% emergency room department visits for heat-related illnesses, suggesting that hospitals may need to plan additional staffing in ERs during heat season, a new scientific study found.  

To understand exposure to extreme heat, heat surveillance is a crucial baseline of information for local leaders to know what is happening in their communities so that they may identify and implement effective, tailored interventions to keep people safe.

Maricopa County in Arizona is leading the way in heat surveillance by tracking heat-related deaths and hospital visits on a public dashboard. You can see the staggering numbers of confirmed deaths and those that remain under investigation this year, and how those numbers compare with the date range in the previous year.

Health systems across the US should invest in tracking and investigating heat-related deaths and illnesses to the best of their ability to understand the complex health and socioeconomic factors putting people at risk.

Enforceable worker heat protections are long overdue

When the heat index—the combination of heat and humidity—is high, everyone including young, healthy adults can be at risk of heat illness or death. People who work in hot environments, both indoors and outdoors, are even more susceptible to heat illness and death.

Agricultural workers are 35 times more likely to die from heat-related occupational deaths and construction workers are 13 times more likely to die. Employers must provide employees with a workplace “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees” per the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) General Duty Clause. Additionally, OSHA’s Heat National Emphasis Program (NEP) aims to reduce worker heat illness, injury, and death through inspections, employer outreach, and compliance assistance.

However, workers continue to get sick and die due to exposure to extreme heat on the job and worker advocates say that OSHA guidelines and the NEP are not a substitute for a permanent, enforceable standard—and they are significantly under-resourced. For example, there is only one OSHA inspector for every 84,937 workers.

Several states have enacted worker heat protection standards in the absence of a federal rule, and these standards vary in enforceability and effectiveness. At the recent Arizona State University Heat Health Governance Symposium, Dr. Vibhu Krishna, of the University of California San Francisco, told the story of Maria Isabel Vásquez Jiménez, a pregnant 17-year-old farmworker who died after her body temperature reached 108 degrees Fahrenheit.

Maria’s death came after California passed the most rigorous heat rules, but “state labor inspectors found more than half of the employers they audited were violating the rules.” Dr. Krishna emphasized the need for enforceable work standards because, “without that, people like Maria slip through the cracks.”

In fact, a new policy brief estimates that “extending California’s heat protections to the entire United States could prevent roughly 1,000 to 1,500 worker deaths per year.” Why should we choose California’s standard to follow? The key is in its enforceability. Researchers found that California’s protections have reduced heat-related deaths by an estimated 51 percent, only after the policy was updated to include enforcement and further revised in 2015. Clearly, enacting a standard is the first step, but it is crucial to enforce and revise implementation to ensure the intended benefits are achieved.

“Heat is everyone’s problem, but nobody’s responsibility”

Heat can affect us all, but we are not all equally affected. It is important for all of us individually to learn how to keep ourselves, our loved ones, and neighbors safe, but it is beyond time for policymakers to take responsibility and act.

“Heat is everyone’s problem, but nobody’s responsibility,” Dr. Jenni Vanos, Associate Professor in the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University, said during the same ASU symposium.

Here are a few urgent opportunities for leaders to act to keep people safe ahead of another hot and dangerous summer headed our way.

The Trump administration must finalize OSHA’s Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings rule

In 2024, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published the proposed rule: Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings. This rule would “clarify employer obligations and the steps necessary to effectively protect employees from hazardous heat,” also stating that its “ultimate goal is to prevent and reduce the number of occupational injuries, illnesses, and fatalities caused by exposure to hazardous heat.” The rule has gone through years of development and extensive public comment with support from leading labor, union, and health advocates. After years of public comments, the OSHA standard needs to be rolled out as it stands to protect US workers. Instead, the Trump administration is delaying the rulemaking and narrowing it to be less protective and putting more workers at risk.

Congress must:

• Pass the bipartisan Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act

If the Trump administration fails to implement the OSHA standard, or weakens it, then Congress must pass the Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act. This bill would finally ensure that employers give workers water, rest, and shade among other commonsense safety measures to prevent heat illness and death. The legislation is supported by members on both sides of the aisle in the House and the Senate.

• Oppose H.R. 6213  

Some members of Congress are actively seeking to prevent OSHA from implementing a heat standard. H.R. 6213 would “prohibit the Secretary of Labor from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing a proposed standard with respect to heat injury and illness prevention.” UCS joins dozens of advocates in opposing this effort that would continue to put workers at risk. House Representatives of all stripes should care about this, as new research from Climate Central revealed that human-caused climate change has warmed every US congressional district since 1970. Every elected official should be doing everything to understand how their residents are at risk in a warming world, not blocking life-saving measures.

State and local leaders must pass heat policies

Policymakers across states and local governments can use the Heat Policy Agenda which provides hundreds of examples of actions to create, develop, and inform their own heat protection standards. Use this checklist for a model heat illness prevention rule.

Workers must hold employers accountable and advocate for each other

In 2023, I wrote about the Teamsters union’s campaign to get UPS to implement cooling equipment in their fleet vehicles to protect delivery drivers from dangerous heat conditions. The Teamsters successfully won a contract requiring UPS to increase air-conditioning available in vehicles, and to provide cooling stations and clean, cool drinking water. Unions across the country are working to win heat protections in their contracts and helping to train each other to stay safe in dangerous conditions. Learn more from the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health’s Fired Up! Workers for Heat Justice campaign and heat organizing toolkit.

The cost of inaction is too high

There is also an economic cost to killer heat. Research by UCS found that if we don’t take action on climate change, extreme heat would cause tens of millions of outdoor workers in the US to risk losing a collective $55.4 billion in earnings each year by midcentury. While lost wages and productivity costs are important and should motivate employers to do better on heat adaptation, people’s lives are invaluable.

Moreover, a new study suggests that the argument against heat standards is misguided: “Opponents of heat standards claim that such regulations will negatively impact outdoor industries…We found no evidence that California’s heat standard negatively affected the state’s construction or agriculture sectors.”

The cooler months ahead offer us a brief respite from the heat but are not an excuse for a break from action. We know that 2027 is going to be dangerously hot as we experience the combination of climate change and a super El Niño. As the death count rises in 2026, it is apparent that as a nation we are not doing enough to keep people safe from killer heat. Our leaders must pursue ambitious actions to protect people from heat in advance of next year. Every leader, from the neighborhood level to Congress has an opportunity to act. The time is now to assert that any heat death is unacceptable and put people’s lives first by enacting and implementing lifesaving measures.

Before I joined UCS, I coordinated the San Joaquin Valley regional report for California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, the first regional assessment ever done specifically for the Valley. Back then, we wrote about what might happen: longer droughts, less snowpack, more dry wells, more extreme heat, and drought-to-flood whiplash. Since then, we have watched much of it happen, sometimes more extreme and more frequent than we expected.

What we have witnessed recently

Since the Fourth Assessment, California has been hit hard by events that climate change caused or made worse. The 2020–2022 drought left thousands of domestic wells dry, mostly in disadvantaged communities. Then a winter of atmospheric rivers, including nine in just three weeks, flooded the state and brought Pa’ashi (Tulare Lake) back, flooding roads, farms, and homes in a lakebed that was drained a century ago. And this year, the snow drought that left California’s snowpack at just 18% of average by April 1 hit much of the West, and climate change made it about four times more likely. Our recent research shows that climate change caused by major fossil fuel polluters dramatically influences our water cycle. 

Nine of the 10 largest wildfires on record have occurred in the last decade, including Dixie and the August Complex fires that burned nearly two million acres combined. In the last decade, about 14 million acres have burned in California (an area equivalent to about 14% of the state burned in a decade). Our research at UCS found that emissions traced to the 88 largest fossil fuel producers and cement manufacturers are responsible for 37% of the forest area burned in the western United States and southwestern Canada since 1986.

In 2025, the Palisades and Eaton fires became the most expensive wildfire disaster on record (with losses estimated at up to $250 billion and more than 16,000 structures destroyed), killing 31 people directly and causing about 440 indirect deaths. Climate change made the fire weather 35% more likely and 6% more intense.

I guess we all have seen the effects of climate change everywhere.

In the United States in 2024, Hurricane Helene killed more than 200 people, mostly in North Carolina; climate change made its rainfall about 10% heavier and its winds about 11% stronger. In 2023, extreme heat killed 645 people in metro Phoenix, a record, in a month-long heat wave that scientists found would have been “virtually impossible” without climate change. In 2021, the Pacific Northwest heat dome killed hundreds of people in Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia; without climate change, this extreme heat dome would be at least 150 times less likely to occur, and if global temperatures increase by an additional 1.4°F, these heat domes that currently may happen once every 1,000 years, may occur every 5 to 10 years.

Around the world, climate change made the 2022 monsoon rains that flooded Pakistan up to 50% more intense, affecting more than 33 million people; made the 2023 rains that collapsed two dams above Derna, Libya, killing thousands, up to 50 times more likely; and made the rainfall that killed more than 230 people in Valencia, Spain, in 2024 about 21% heavier. By mid-2026, about 82% of the global ocean was experiencing marine heatwaves, with consequences for ecosystems and fisheries that are hard to predict. The oceans have absorbed about 90% of the excess heat trapped by climate change. That looks like a “ticking bomb”: that heat fuels stronger storms and marine heat waves today, and it will keep raising sea levels for centuries, even if we stopped all emissions now.

It is concerning, but if we know the predictions about it, we can prepare. But many scientists are very concerned about what we will not know, since the current US administration disbanded the author team for the sixth National Climate Assessment, the country’s main tool for understanding climate risks to every region and sector.

When a country stops measuring a threat, the threat does not go away. We just see it later, when it costs more, and the people with the fewest resources pay first, sometimes with their lives. In 2022, the White House Office of Management and Budget estimated that climate change could cost the federal budget up to $2 trillion a year by the end of the century.

That loss and destruction is what the California Climate Change Assessments are trying to prevent or minimize.

What makes this California assessment different from previous ones

Four things stand out:

1. Climate change is analyzed by warming level, not only by date. Instead of asking only, “what will 2050 look like?”, the reports also ask, “what happens to California when the world reaches 2°C of warming?” That focuses planning on how intense the impacts will be and what investments the state should make to protect communities.
   
2. Projections are more local. New downscaling methods translate global climate models into implications for California’s valleys, mountains, deserts, and coasts.
   
3. Tribes and communities shaped the science. Every regional report involved consultation with communities and Tribes. We did this for the San Joaquin Valley in the Fourth Assessment, the State saw that it made the report more connected to people’s reality, and now it is part of how every report is built. Tribes also had more support to develop their own research than in the Fourth Assessment.
   
4. The focus is shifting to solutions. We have a good idea of what kind of change is coming to California’s climate and its likely effects. Now we are focusing on the solutions that people on the ground want to see and, in some cases, are already testing.

California’s climate future, in a few numbers

The Statewide Summary brings together findings from across the assessment. A few that every Californian should know are:

• It will be much hotter. Average temperatures are projected to rise 3.5 °F to 4.3°F (1.9°C to 2.4°C) by 2050, and 5.7°F to 8°F (3.2°C to 4.4°C) by 2100, depending on the trajectory of global heat-trapping emissions.
  
• Our snowpack, which is an essential water reservoir, is shrinking too fast. April snowpack is projected to shrink about 40% by mid-century and about 60% by the end of the century.
  
• Weather whiplash will become the norm. Swings between very wet and very dry years will become more frequent. One in five Californians (about 7 million people) already live in areas at risk of flooding.
  
• Smoke will kill more people. California is projected to have the largest increase in wildfire smoke deaths of any state, more than 5,000 additional deaths per year by 2050.
  
• Heat waves will last longer. Under a high emissions scenario, the longest heat wave of the year grows from about three days across the state today to as long as 19 days in the Sierra Nevada and 17 days in the Inland Deserts by end-of-century. At present, people living unsheltered are 0.5% of Californians but represent 13% of heat-related hospitalizations.
  
• The coast is moving in. Sea level rise of 0.8 ft (0.2 m) by mid-century and 3.3 ft (1 m) by 2100, combined with a 100-year storm, can expose to coastal flooding 166,000 people and $60 billion in property (mid-century), and up to 310,000 people and $122 billion (2100).
  
• We are already paying for it. Home insurance premiums rose 85% on average between 2020 and 2026, and wildfire costs explain about 5 of the 6.2 cents per kilowatt-hour that electricity prices rose from 2019 to 2024.

Across all nine regions, the message is the same: farmworkers, Tribes, rural communities, renters, people living unsheltered, and low-income individuals and families face the most exposure and have the fewest resources to recover.

The San Joaquin Valley: water is the thread that ties everything together

I live in the San Joaquin Valley, and I coauthored the regional assessment again. The Valley is one of the most transformed landscapes in North America, with too many structural problems and injustices. That is why at UCS we focus a lot on this region, especially for all the relatively low-cost, high-reward opportunities to improve climate resilience, prosperity, and well-being.

The San Joaquin Valley is home to 4.4 million people, with a majority living in disadvantaged communities, and it includes dozens of Tribes that survived genocide and displacement over the last two centuries. The Valley is also the most profitable agricultural region in the United States. The Valley has lost 95% of its original wetlands and riverside forests, which has led to a massive loss of our natural climate resilience to cope with droughts, floods, and extreme heat. In some places the groundwater overdraft is so intense that the land has sunk more than one inch per month during droughts, permanently reducing the groundwater storage we need for future water and food security.

Here is what our report found:

• The Valley is warming fast. Temperatures have risen nearly 3°F (1.7°C) over the past half-century and could rise up to 5.5°F (3°C) more by 2100, a direct threat to the farmworkers and outdoor workers who feed the country, and also to livestock and crops.
  
• Winters are losing their chill. Much of the Valley has lost 160 to 400 winter chill hours over four decades, and models project about 20% fewer by mid-century, putting walnuts, pistachios, and stone fruits like cherries at risk.
  
• Water is becoming more volatile. Snow melts earlier, droughts are more intense, and the atmosphere is getting “thirstier”. The 2012–2014 drought was the most severe in at least 1,200 years, while extremely wet years are also becoming more likely.
  
• Groundwater, our “water savings account,” is overdrafted by about 2.2 million acre-feet per year, leaving thousands of dry wells and more concentrated nitrate, arsenic, and uranium in the communities least able to afford water treatment.
  
• Agriculture will look different. Irrigated acreage in the Valley could decline by up to about 40% under future climate projections. Our current agricultural system was built on water we do not have and on a climate that no longer exists.  

The same rural communities that breathe some of the worst air in the country are the ones most likely to lose their wells, work in dangerous heat, and wait the longest for help. Valley fever, which is increasing with wet-dry whiplash and can be lethal, hits the San Joaquin Valley and its farmworkers hardest.

Solutions for the San Joaquin Valley that are already on the ground

The question is not whether the Valley’s landscape will change, but how, and who will decide. As our research shows, if we repurpose cropland strategically, in revitalization zones near communities and with communities shaping the plans, we can save water, reduce nitrate and pesticide pollution, restore habitat, and create better-paying jobs. These can all contribute to building communities that thrive even under extreme climate change. If we do it wrong, we could create dust bowls, ghost towns, and new injustices.

The Fifth Assessment documents solutions that work, in the Valley and across the state:

• Community-led land repurposing. In Allensworth, the Allensworth Progressive Association is building a community-owned Agroecology Hub with regenerative agriculture, agrivoltaics, and land access for farmers of color (watch Allensworth mini documentary if you haven’t). In Fairmead, residents are turning a 17.3-acre almond orchard into a stormwater basin with native habitat and a walking path. This approach is called creating buffers or revitalization zones around communities, and the State’s Multibenefit Land Repurposing Program funds this kind of transition that is already showing positive results.
  
• Managed aquifer recharge. About 3.6 million acres of agricultural land statewide could bank floodwater underground, turning the next flood into the next drought’s water supply, as long as we avoid contaminated sites.
  
• Floodplain restoration and smarter reservoir operations. Dos Rios State Park, guided by Mewuk and Yokuts Tribal communities, turned a former dairy into California’s largest floodplain restoration. Forecast-informed reservoir operations (FIRO) can keep more water in storage without increasing flood risk.
  
• Tribal stewardship. Prescribed and cultural fire can reduce the likelihood of catastrophic wildfire by up to 92% for a decade, and the removal of four Klamath River dams, after decades of advocacy by the Yurok, Karuk, and Klamath Tribes, reopened more than 420 miles of salmon habitat.
  
• Clean energy and climate-smart farming done right. Solar on repurposed farmland and agrivoltaics can create jobs and cut emissions with community support, while cover crops, compost, and diverse crops help farms hold more water and withstand heat and drought.

These solutions tackle climate change and also many of the root problems behind it, improving quality of life and, in many cases, our prosperity.

The importance of climate assessments for the future

California’s Climate Assessments are important to inform science-based, equitable resilience policies to help protect the State’s people, ecosystems, and economy from the impacts of climate change. Not every state has the capacity or resources needed to conduct this kind of assessment, but we all need it. We also need a robust National Climate Assessment, which is unfortunately under threat from the current administration.

Science helps us understand the challenges we face and points us toward the solutions that can help us build a safer, better future for people today and for generations to come.

That’s why I am grateful for California’s Fifth Climate Assessment.

Antes de llegar a UCS, coordiné el informe regional del Valle de San Joaquín para la Cuarta Evaluación del Cambio Climático de California, la primera evaluación hecha específicamente para el Valle. En aquel entonces escribimos sobre lo que podía pasar: sequías más largas, menos nieve en las montañas, más pozos secos, más calor extremo y cambios bruscos de la sequía a las inundaciones. Desde entonces hemos visto cómo buena parte de eso se ha cumplido, y a veces con más fuerza y más seguido de lo que esperábamos.

Lo que hemos vivido en los últimos años

Desde que se publicó la Cuarta Evaluación, California ha recibido golpes muy duros de eventos causados o agravados por el cambio climático. La sequía de 2020 a 2022 dejó sin agua miles de pozos domésticos, sobre todo en comunidades desfavorecidas. Luego vino un invierno de ríos atmosféricos, con nueve en solo tres semanas, que inundaron el estado y trajeron de vuelta a Pa’ashi (el lago Tulare): carreteras, campos de cultivo y casas quedaron bajo el agua en el fondo de un lago que fue drenado artificialmente hace un siglo.

Y este año, la falta de nieve que dejó la capa de nieve de California en apenas el 18% de lo normal golpeó a buena parte del Oeste, y el cambio climático la hizo unas cuatro veces más probable. Nuestra investigación más reciente muestra que el cambio climático causado por las grandes compañías de combustibles fósiles está alterando de forma dramática nuestro ciclo del agua.

Nueve de los 10 incendios forestales más grandes de la historia de California han ocurrido en la última década, entre ellos el Dixie y el August Complex, que entre los dos quemaron casi 2 millones de acres (810.000 hectáreas). En los últimos diez años se han quemado en California unos 14 millones de acres (5,7 millones de hectáreas), una superficie equivalente a cerca del 14% del estado. En UCS investigamos que las emisiones de las 88 mayores compañías productoras de combustibles fósiles y cemento son responsables del 37% de la superficie de bosque quemada en el oeste de Estados Unidos y el suroeste de Canadá desde 1986.

En 2025, los incendios Palisades y Eaton se convirtieron en el desastre por incendios forestales más caro de la historia (con pérdidas estimadas de hasta 250.000 millones de dólares y más de 16.000 edificios destruidos). Murieron 31 personas directamente y se calcula que hubo unas 440 muertes indirectas. El cambio climático hizo que las condiciones atmosféricas que aumentan el riesgo de incendios fueran un 35% más probables y un 6% más intensas.

Pero todos hemos visto los efectos del cambio climático por todas partes.

En Estados Unidos, el huracán Helene mató en 2024 a más de 200 personas, la mayoría en Carolina del Norte, y el cambio climático hizo que sus lluvias fueran cerca de un 10% más fuertes y sus vientos un 11% más intensos. En 2023, el calor extremo mató a 645 personas en el área de Phoenix, un récord, durante una ola de calor de un mes que, según los científicos, habría sido “prácticamente imposible” sin el cambio climático. En 2021, el domo de calor del Pacífico Noroeste mató a cientos de personas en Oregón, Washington y la Columbia Británica. Sin el cambio climático, un calor así habría sido al menos 150 veces menos probable, y si la temperatura del planeta sube otros 1,4 °F (0,8 °C), estos domos de calor, que hoy podrían darse una vez cada mil años, podrían repetirse cada 5 a 10 años.

En el resto del mundo, el cambio climático hizo que las lluvias del monzón que inundaron Pakistán en 2022 fueran hasta un 50% más intensas, con más de 33 millones de personas afectadas; hizo hasta 50 veces más probables las lluvias de 2023 que reventaron dos presas sobre la ciudad de Derna en Libia, y mataron a miles de personas; e hizo cerca de un 21% más fuertes las lluvias que en 2024 mataron a más de 230 personas en Valencia, España. A mediados de 2026, cerca del 82% de los océanos del planeta estaba sufriendo olas de calor marinas, con consecuencias difíciles de prever para los ecosistemas y la pesca. Los océanos han absorbido cerca del 90% del calor extra que atrapa el cambio climático. Eso me parece una “bomba de relojería”: ese calor ya alimenta tormentas más fuertes y olas de calor marinas, y seguirá subiendo el nivel del mar durante siglos, aunque dejáramos de emitir hoy mismo.

Es preocupante, pero si sabemos lo que viene, podemos prepararnos. Lo que tiene a muchos científicos muy preocupados es lo que vamos a dejar de saber, ahora que el gobierno actual de Estados Unidos desmanteló el equipo de autores de la sexta Evaluación Nacional del Clima, la principal herramienta del país para entender los riesgos climáticos en cada región y en cada sector.

Cuando un país deja de medir una amenaza, la amenaza no desaparece. Simplemente la vemos más tarde, cuando sale más cara, y los que tienen menos recursos son los primeros en pagarla, a veces con su vida. En 2022, la Casa Blanca calculó que el cambio climático podría costarle al presupuesto federal hasta 2 billones de dólares al año (2 millones de millones) para finales de siglo.

Esas pérdidas y esa destrucción son justamente lo que las Evaluaciones del Cambio Climático de California buscan evitar o al menos reducir.

Qué tiene de nuevo esta evaluación

Hay cuatro cosas que destacan:

El cambio climático se analiza por nivel de calentamiento, no solo por fecha. Los informes no solo preguntan “¿cómo será 2050?”, sino también “¿qué le pasará a California cuando el planeta se caliente 3,6 °F (2 °C)?”. Así la planificación se enfoca en qué tan fuertes serán los impactos y en qué inversiones tiene que hacer el estado para proteger a las comunidades.

Las proyecciones son más locales. Con nuevos métodos de reducción de escala, los modelos climáticos globales se traducen en lo que significan para los valles, las montañas, los desiertos y las costas de California.

Las Tribus y las comunidades ayudaron a construir la ciencia. Para cada informe regional se consultó a las comunidades y a las Tribus. Nosotros lo hicimos en el Valle de San Joaquín para la Cuarta Evaluación, el estado vio que así el informe quedaba mucho más conectado con la realidad de la gente, y ahora forma parte de cómo se hace cada informe. Además, esta vez las Tribus tuvieron más apoyo para hacer su propia investigación.

El enfoque está pasando a las soluciones. Ya tenemos una idea bastante clara de cómo va a cambiar el clima de California y de lo que eso va a provocar. Ahora nos estamos enfocando en las soluciones que la gente en las comunidades quiere ver y que, en algunos casos, ya está probando.

El futuro climático de California, en algunos datos clave

El sumario de los informes reúne los hallazgos de toda la evaluación. Estos son algunos datos que todo californiano debería conocer:

• Va a hacer mucho más calor. Se calcula que la temperatura promedio subirá entre 3,5°F y 4,3°F (1,9°C a 2,4°C) para 2050, y entre 5,7°F y 8°F (3,2°C a 4,4°C) para 2100, según cuánto sigan aumentando las emisiones de gases que atrapan el calor en el mundo.
• La nieve de las montañas, que es una de nuestras grandes reservas de agua, se está acabando demasiado rápido. Se calcula que la nieve acumulada en abril bajará cerca de un 40% para mediados de siglo y cerca de un 60% para finales de siglo.
• Los cambios bruscos entre años muy secos y muy lluviosos serán lo normal. Una de cada cinco personas en California (unos 7 millones) ya vive en zonas con riesgo de inundación.
• El humo de los incendios causará más muertes. California será el estado donde más aumenten las muertes por humo de incendios forestales, con más de 5.000 muertes adicionales al año para 2050.
• Las olas de calor durarán más. Con emisiones altas, la ola de calor más larga del año pasaría de unos tres días en la actualidad en promedio en todo el estado, a hasta 19 días en la Sierra Nevada y 17 días en los desiertos del interior para finales de siglo. Hoy en día, las personas que viven en la calle son el 0,5% de la población de California, pero representan el 13% de las hospitalizaciones por calor.
• El mar le está ganando terreno a la costa. Si el nivel del mar sube 0,8 pies (0,25 m) para mediados de siglo y 3,3 pies (1 m) para 2100, una tormenta centenaria podría inundar zonas costeras donde viven 166.000 personas, con propiedades por valor de $60.000 millones (a mediados de siglo), y hasta 310.000 personas y $122.000 millones en propiedades (en 2100).
• Ya lo estamos pagando. El seguro de vivienda subió en promedio un 85% entre 2020 y 2026, y los costos de los incendios explican unos 5 de los 6,2 centavos por kilovatio-hora que subió la electricidad entre 2019 y 2024.

En las nueve regiones del estado, el mensaje es el mismo: los trabajadores del campo, las Tribus, las comunidades rurales, los inquilinos que rentan, las personas sin casa y las familias de bajos ingresos son los más expuestos y los que menos recursos tienen para recuperarse.

El Valle de San Joaquín: el agua lo conecta todo

Vivo en el Valle de San Joaquín y he vuelto a ser coautor de la evaluación regional. El Valle es uno de los paisajes más transformados de Norteamérica, y arrastra demasiados problemas estructurales e injusticias. Por eso en UCS trabajamos tanto en esta región, sobre todo por la cantidad de oportunidades de relativamente bajo costo y alto beneficio que hay para mejorar la resiliencia climática, la prosperidad y el bienestar de la gente.

En el Valle de San Joaquín viven 4,4 millones de personas, la mayoría en comunidades desfavorecidas, y también decenas de Tribus que sobrevivieron al genocidio y al despojo de los últimos dos siglos. El Valle es, además, la región agrícola más rentable de Estados Unidos. Ha perdido el 95% de sus humedales y bosques ribereños originales, y con ellos buena parte de su resiliencia climática natural frente a sequías, inundaciones y calor extremo.

En algunas zonas, la sobreexplotación de aguas subterráneas es tan grave que el terreno se ha hundido más de una pulgada (2,5 cm) al mes durante las sequías, y eso reduce para siempre la capacidad de almacenar el agua subterránea que vamos a necesitar para asegurar el agua y la comida en el futuro.

Esto es lo que encontramos en nuestro informe:

• El Valle se está calentando rápido. La temperatura ha subido casi 3°F (1,7°C) en el último medio siglo y podría subir hasta 5,5°F (3°C) más para 2100, una amenaza directa para los trabajadores del campo y quienes trabajan al aire libre, que son los que alimentan al país.
• Los inviernos ya no son tan fríos. En gran parte del Valle se han perdido entre 160 y 400 horas de frío invernal en cuatro décadas, y los modelos calculan cerca de un 20% menos para mediados de siglo. Eso pone en riesgo cultivos como la nuez, el pistacho y frutas de hueso como la cereza.
• El agua es cada vez más impredecible. La nieve se derrite antes, las sequías son más fuertes y la atmósfera tiene cada vez “más sed”. La sequía de 2012 a 2014 fue la peor en al menos 1.200 años, y al mismo tiempo los años extremadamente lluviosos son cada vez más probables.
• El agua subterránea, nuestra “cuenta de ahorros” de agua, está sobreexplotada en unos 2,2 millones de acres-pie (2.700 hm³) al año. Eso deja miles de pozos secos y más nitrato, arsénico y uranio en el agua de las comunidades que menos pueden pagar por tratarla.
• La agricultura va a cambiar. Según las proyecciones, la superficie de agricultura irrigada en el Valle podría bajar hasta cerca de un 40%. Nuestro sistema agrícola se construyó con agua que no tenemos y para un clima que ya no existe.

Las mismas comunidades rurales que respiran parte del peor aire del país son las que tienen más probabilidades de quedarse sin agua en sus pozos, de trabajar con un calor peligroso y de ser las últimas en recibir ayuda. La fiebre del valle, que va en aumento con estos cambios bruscos entre años lluviosos y secos y que puede ser mortal, golpea más fuerte al Valle de San Joaquín y a sus trabajadores del campo.

Soluciones que ya están funcionando en el Valle de San Joaquín

La pregunta no es si el paisaje del Valle va a cambiar, sino cómo va a cambiar y quién lo va a decidir. Como muestra nuestra investigación, si reusamos tierras agrícolas de manera estratégica, en zonas de revitalización cerca de las comunidades y con las comunidades diseñando los planes, podemos ahorrar agua, reducir la contaminación por nitratos y pesticidas, restaurar hábitat y crear trabajos mejor pagados. Todo eso ayuda a construir comunidades que salgan adelante incluso con un cambio climático extremo. Si lo hacemos mal, podemos acabar con tormentas de polvo, pueblos fantasma y nuevas injusticias.

La Quinta Evaluación documenta soluciones que funcionan, en el Valle y en todo el estado:

• Reúso de tierras agrícolas liderado por la comunidad. En Allensworth, la Asociación Progresista de Allensworth está construyendo un centro de agroecología que pertenece a la comunidad, con agricultura regenerativa, agrivoltaica y acceso a la tierra para agricultores de color (si no lo has visto, mira el minidocumental sobre Allensworth). En Fairmead, los vecinos están convirtiendo un huerto de almendros de 17,3 acres (7 hectáreas) en una cuenca de aguas de lluvia de tormenta, con hábitat nativo y un sendero para caminar. A esto lo llamamos crear zonas de amortiguamiento o de revitalización alrededor de las comunidades, y el programa estatal Multibenefit Land Repurposing Program (programa para el reúso de tierras con múltiples beneficios) financia este tipo de transición, que ya está dando buenos resultados.
• Recarga gestionada de acuíferos. Cerca de 3,6 millones de acres (1,46 millones de hectáreas) de tierras agrícolas en el estado podrían guardar agua de las crecidas bajo tierra, para que el agua de la próxima inundación sirva en la próxima sequía, siempre que evitemos los terrenos contaminados.
• Restaurar las zonas de inundación de los ríos y manejar mejor las presas. El Parque Estatal Dos Ríos, considerando la perspectiva de comunidades tribales Mewuk y Yokuts, convirtió una antigua lechería en la restauración de llanura de inundación más grande de California. Y operar las presas con base en los pronósticos del tiempo (FIRO, por sus siglas en inglés) permite guardar más agua sin aumentar el riesgo de inundaciones.
• El cuidado de la tierra por parte de las Tribus. Las quemas culturales pueden reducir hasta en un 92% la probabilidad de incendios catastróficos durante una década, y la eliminación de cuatro presas en el río Klamath, después de décadas de lucha de las Tribus Yurok, Karuk y Klamath, reabrió más de 420 millas (675 km) de hábitat para el salmón.
• Energía limpia y agricultura climáticamente inteligente, bien hechas. Los paneles solares en tierras agrícolas reusadas y la agrivoltaica pueden crear empleos y reducir emisiones, siempre con el respaldo de las comunidades. Y los cultivos de cobertura, la composta y la diversidad de cultivos ayudan a que la tierra guarde más agua y resista mejor el calor y la sequía.

Estas soluciones no solo enfrentan el cambio climático, sino también muchos de los problemas estructurales: mejoran la calidad de vida y, en muchos casos, nuestra prosperidad.

Por qué las evaluaciones climáticas son clave para el futuro

Las Evaluaciones Climáticas de California son clave para diseñar políticas de resiliencia justas y basadas en la ciencia, que protejan a la gente, los ecosistemas y la economía del estado frente a los impactos del cambio climático. No todos los estados tienen la capacidad ni los recursos para hacer este tipo de evaluación, pero todos la necesitamos. También necesitamos una Evaluación Nacional del Clima sólida, que lamentablemente está en riesgo por las decisiones del gobierno actual.

La ciencia nos ayuda a entender los retos que tenemos por delante y nos muestra las soluciones para construir un futuro más seguro y mejor, para nosotros y para las próximas generaciones.

Por eso agradezco tanto la Quinta Evaluación del Cambio Climático de California.

The sharp growth of data centers creates unprecedented impacts on our electricity supply. Because electric companies are regulated monopolies—which, in theory, means stricter government control over prices— maybe, just maybe, these companies will protect you and me from paying more on our electric bills. The signs so far don’t look so good, especially on power plant costs. 

Utilities crave the growth of data denters  

When a data center developer unfurls their blueprints and tells the local electric company it wants to become a customer, big things start to happen at the electric company. From the business perspective, electric utility companies welcome the data centers’ ambitions to be the largest customers in their history. They see data centers as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to dramatically increase sales, investment, and profits. For scale, the data centers planned by Amazon is said to need 44 GW of power. That’s roughly the present electric use in all of New York and New England, combined!  

Electric companies need to build transmission infrastructure and new power plants to be able to supply these data centers (too often defaulting to fossil fuels, despite UCS research proving renewables could meet these needs). Electric infrastructure construction must keep pace to protect everyone’s electric power reliability. There are already some very real questions about how the utility industry can build the infrastructure fast enough to allow all this growth, or keep the lights on if the growth is not managed.

The answer isn’t only addressed through money, but this blog will focus on who really pays. 

The amount of money required 

The estimates of how much money is required for the projected AI data center plans require assumptions a few basic aspects, from replacement of obsolescent AI chips to the performance or success of AI business models. I see the optimists speculate as much as $7 Trillion will be spent over the next decade for data centers and grid needs, while others indicate that data center borrowing is already distorting the bond market and the stock market.   

With expectations that AI data centers are going to require so much construction based on so much debt, we need to scrutinize what, if any, protective measures the electric companies are taking. 

Electric companies require new infrastructure to serve large data center customers, specifically transmission lines and power plants, and the revenue to pay for both these kinds major grid investments.  Accepting the data center as a customer requires the transmission side of the electric company to get busy.  

In my earlier blogs, I uncovered billions of dollars in new plans for transmission facilities which have no other purpose or use than to connect enormous new data centers. In addition, the electric companies include the demand from these data centers in their plans for new supplies, namely new power plants. In the 13-state region of PJM, the cost to meet the new demand is adding as much as $9 Billion per year to everyone’s electric bills. This began in summer of 2025, continued in 2026 and is not predicted to end any time soon. 

A first step    

There’s real concern  that the data center owners might not stick around and pay the portion of these costs that are assigned to them. UCS and others argue that the protections adopted so far are just half-measures, still allowing most new costs to fall on consumers. Perhaps it is telling that these large load rules are popular with utilities. It is the utilities that draft and propose them to protect their vulnerabilities. In 2026, 25 utilities introduced new large-load service rules for regulators to approve. Over the past few years, a mixed bag of requirements and optional improvements have been applied to new data center customers at the state level.  

Utility-sponsored reforms often require the new policy to be woven into other policies and may provide only limited benefits if the assumptions used by the utility actually prove to be accurate. The trajectory of data center businesses is hard to predict, but some results are starting to come in.  

Utilities’ attempts are half-hearted at best 

In Illinois, the major utility ComEd is dealing with new data center proposals—which “have a cumulative maximum demand that is larger than the all-time ComEd system peak” —by adopting requirements to hold data center developer responsible for paying for some of the initial engineering costs. This is an underwhelming first step, limited to only costs that aren’t part of either transmission or generation. UCS argued ComEd emphasized consumer protection by proposing adjustments to $1 million deposits, while on the other hand overlooking transmission costs caused by the same individual customers that add over $200 million to the bills paid by all ComEd customers. ComEd classifies the largest costs to connect data centers as transmission costs paid by everyone.  

The electric companies can bring transmission cost rule updates to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for consideration, and ComEd’s parent company Exelon has a new process specifically for data centers. ComEd and other utilities now have data center developers sign a Transmission Service Agreement (TSA) to define requirements for data centers’ electric bills and provide a letter of credit as a security deposit.  

Still, this doesn’t change how the costs to bring more data centers online are distributed. In the TSAs, ComEd agrees to continue to seek “recovering the costs of the needed transmission facilities through Utility’s rates.” In one case, ComEd got approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a TSA with a new data center campus in DeKalb, Illinois in February 2026—only to have the data center cancel in the next month, March 2026. Maybe that’s a win, if this one wasn’t yet counted in the need for power plants. Still, as of July, ComEd is still planning to socialize data center transmission costs.  

Here’s one dollar of earnest money 

In another example where ComEd signed a TSA with a proposed data center that calls upon ComEd to seek the costs for necessary transmission infrastructure to be collected from all consumers, the data center company is fighting the forced termination of its TSA. The developer of a 1.8 GW, $20-billion data center in Joliet, Illinois is reportedly proposing to meet the TSA security requirement by posting a letter of credit good for a remarkable amount: one dollar. That’s so outrageous, even the utility called foul! Unfortunately, this fight is bouncing around the courts and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission without a resolution yet. 

Uh-oh 

This raises the question: what about the power plant commitments needed to supply data centers projects which are now being cancelled? We can see the rising demand, and sometimes cancellation, for transmission from data centers. But it is less clear how downward changes are used in plans for new power plants and the related costs which come to customer bills. 

The TSAs and planning process that are used to start the transmission spending also feed new power plant commitments for the future. Utilities such as ComEd bring new “Large Load Adjustments” to the PJM demand forecast. Added together, the demand forecast shapes the amount of power supply purchased in the next few years. The process to contract for future power plants doesn’t have the means to recalculate the previously set need to reflect lower demand due to data center cancellations, in part because the costs for those power plants are spread across all the consumers in the 13-state PJM region. At the moment, conditions create a risk of over inflated need to build power plants at cost to everyone despite utilities beginning to see delays and cancellations from data centers.  

Utility plans show delays and cancellations     

I returned to the utilities’ planning documents and found a dozen data center transmission projects cancelled in 2026 presentations due to data center cancellations. These combined with the disputed one in Joliet makes over 5.3 GW of reduced need in Pennsylvania, Virginia and Illinois alone. Depending on the maturity and timing of the plans, those changes will be reflected in the utilities provide in the PJM Large Load Adjustments.  

The forecasts finalized in 2025 and 2026, as well as the majority of initial presentations for 2027, show the demand anticipated in the next three years (2027-2029) is not growing as fast as predicted earlier. When making predictions, forecasts are more accurate for the near term than the long term. The utilities are saying their data center energy demand is growing slower than had been projected in the years that they can see most clearly. 

Unfortunately, in the PJM framework for annual power plant commitments, the initial load adjustments are quickly put into the aggregated demand forecast that sets the amount of supply. That level is set several years in the future and each utility can see clearly how actions to revise the need downward made too late do not affect the power plant commitments already made. Worse, the utilities have included optimistic expectations in reporting about their future customer needs, such as 100% completion success for the data centers included.  

This isn’t good for consumers 

To summarize, the utilities can see the new data centers increase the demand for more power plants. That demand raises costs for everyone. New transmission is needed, and that also raises costs paid by all consumers. When there are data center cancellations, the utility protections are mostly protecting the utilities and not so much the rest of us consumers.  

So, this is a case of private profits and socialized risks.  

This doesn’t have to be. This is happening in a regulated industry where the problem of protecting consumers is a well-defined problem and regulatory bodies—looking at you, FERC—are well established. We just need those regulators to show some interest in the job they agreed to do. 

That’s where we’ve found ourselves recently in Louisiana. In late September 2026, Earthjustice filed an appeal of a regulatory decision that allowed Meta Platforms to conceal information about its North Louisiana data center project, on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and Louisiana-based Alliance for Affordable Energy (AAE). The filing is now under review by a state district court in Baton Rouge.

As detailed in our appeal, the state’s main utility regulatory agency, the Louisiana Public Service Commission, erroneously overrode a ruling by one of the agency’s own administrative law judges. The judge had ruled earlier in the summer, and reaffirmed with a second ruling, that Meta had to hand over documents demonstrating both the level of investment and permanent job creation expected from the data center, as well as the data center’s electricity demands.

More transparency on jobs and electricity demand is needed

Gaining clarity on these two areas, with real evidence, is crucial for informing whether this proposal should go forward.

This is first because the state’s largest utility, Entergy Louisiana, is currently moving through the Commission’s new fast-track approval process for the data center’s power infrastructure, all in the name of economic development and job creation.

And secondly, the amount of power infrastructure Entergy is proposing—most of which is fossil fuel infrastructure—is enormous, withan initial price tag of more than $15 billion. In attempting to justify building this much, Entergy points to Meta’s claim that the data center will demand a large city’s worth of electricity supply. Because Louisiana residents are on the hook for the cost of this new power infrastructure (more on that in a little bit), the companies should be providing evidence demonstrating the data center will in fact demand that much electricity. This should be a basic requirement for determining whether the proposal is “in the public interest” and should therefore be approved by the Commission.

How we got here

For some context, this proceeding at the Commission started in March 2026, when Entergy filed its application for seven more gas plants, plus some battery storage and new transmission projects. The utility told the Commission in its application that the need for the new fossil fuel plants was being driven by an expansion of Meta’s data center currently under construction near Monroe and Rayville in Richland Parish—an undertaking that would more than double the power demand of the facility.

Entergy already received approval for three new gas plants last year for the first phase of the data center. If the next seven were to be approved, Entergy would be building 10 gas plants—all for a single data center development by Meta. The plants would all be 754 megawatts (MW) of power, for a total of about 7.54 GW. That is enough to power the entire city of New Orleans six times over, and is more than the average demand of New York City.

From the beginning of the proceeding, Entergy sought to fast-track the approval of these seven gas plants through a new Commission process created in late 2025 by the so-called “Lightning Amendment.” UCS opposes this policy, as it opens the door to more polluting and more costly power infrastructure in the state, potentially allowing 75% of data centers’ power costs to be subsidized by other ratepayers. Our partners at AAE recently called on the Commission to withdraw it, asserting that it was passed in violation of the Louisiana Constitution.

Because the Commission approved Entergy’s request to fast-track the plants through the Lightning Amendment, the Commission is currently set to wrap the proceeding in less than nine months—the final vote is currently set to take place in December—and Entergy will not have to seek competitive bids for constructing the plants. That’s because the Lightning Amendment bypasses the Commission’s normal rule that utilities must solicit bids from third-party power providers, meaning that Entergy can proceed with building the plants itself at a potentially higher cost.

Additionally, there will still be substantial costs that remain unpaid at the end of Meta’s 20-year electricity supply contract with Entergy. The utility estimates that the roughly $13.6 billion in new generation capital costs—the gas plants and the much smaller amount of batteries—would be about 75% paid down at the end of the contract term, leaving about $3.4 billion to be paid for by other customers. Louisiana ratepayers would be the ones stuck footing the bill, effectively acting as co-signers on a lease they’re not even permitted to view, because the electricity supply contract is kept confidential. If folks want more detail on this and additional costs ratepayers could be on the hook for, I suggest reading the second half of my previous blog, which goes into the testimony AAE and UCS submitted in this case.

Commissioners squash Meta subpoena without any explanation

With all the ratepayer costs, fossil fuel emissions, and grid reliability risks at stake, getting more information directly from Meta is essential. But unlike Entergy, Meta is not a formal party to the proceeding.  So, UCS and other stakeholders aren’t able to get details from Meta via discovery requests or cross-examination. As a result, Earthjustice requested a subpoena to Meta on behalf of AAE and UCS.

As I mentioned in the intro, the administrative law judge overseeing this Commission proceeding partially granted our request, ruling that in order for the Commission to determine whether Entergy’s proposal is in the public interest and should therefore be approved, Meta must demonstrate 1) the level of investment and permanent job creation expected from the data center, and 2) the data center’s electricity demands. Meta attempted to have the subpoena cancelled, but the judge rejected the company’s arguments, reaffirming that this information is pertinent to the proceeding.

However, the judge also granted the Meta’s request to have the full Commission review the issue, giving the elected Commissioners the option of overriding the judge’s ruling. And in a packed room on August 12, 2026, more than 20 community members and stakeholders provided an hour and a half of public testimony to the commissioners, all in favor of letting the subpoena stand so that more transparency is required of Meta.

Nevertheless, three out of four commissioners—Eric Skrmetta, Jean-Paul Coussan, and Mike Francis—voted to deny the subpoena. (Commissioner Foster Campbell, who represents District 5, was not present.)

None of the three Commissioners offered any explanation at the August meeting as to why the judge’s rulings were incorrect, and the Commission’s subsequent written order did not provide any rationale either.

The Meta subpoena should be restored

To use the legal terminology in our appeal, the Commission’s decision to override the subpoena was “arbitrary and capricious” and therefore unlawful. The state district court should restore the administrative rulings to require basic transparency from Meta on this data center project, which—as the administrative law judge noted—calls for electricity resources “larger in scale than any previous request before this Commission.” The appeal also calls for additional actions by the court, including stopping all activity in the Commission case, and requiring the Commission to reopen the record once Meta has handed over the information the judge ruled it had to produce.

Meta wants Entergy to build seven more fossil fuel plants for its data center, with potential grid reliability risks, a large city’s worth of pollution, and billions of dollars in ratepayer costs on the line. Meta should have to back up its claims about the proposal’s drivers and impacts. If the company can’t support them, Louisiana regulators and residents deserve to know.

In a Nature Climate Action comment released two weeks ago, my colleagues and I propose a significant normative shift in climate attribution science—and ultimately, in how we talk about climate change. Rather than repeatedly asking and testing for human influence in climate or weather extremes, scientists should begin by assuming that fossil fuel-driven climate change impacts every event to some extent.

Our climate system—the atmosphere, ocean, and land—has been fundamentally changed due to decades of fossil fuel-driven climate change. For example, due to warmer temperatures, the atmosphere can now hold more water, leading to an intensification of the global water cycle. In addition to an expanding Hadley Circulation, there is evidence of a poleward shift of the westerly jet streams, which changes weather patterns over the US. In the oceans, which have absorbed 92% of the heat added to the climate system from fossil fuel-caused warming, more frequent and intense marine heatwaves are occurring globally.

Given humans’ clear role in fundamentally changing the system, my colleagues and I attempt to shift the norms within attribution science and chart out a path that more directly achieves climate action and climate justice initiatives.

What is climate attribution science?

Climate attribution science is a mature sub-field of climate science that has been tested and perfected over the last two decades. For example, extreme event attribution answers the question in many instances, “how much more intense was this extreme event due to fossil fuel-driven climate change?” Or, “how much more frequent will this extreme event become due to fossil fuel-driven climate change?”

Scientists have now published hundreds of attribution studies, many finding conclusive evidence that extreme heat and rainfall, tropical cyclone rainfall, and weather conditions that produce wildfires in the western U.S. are exacerbated by human-caused climate change.

Yet still, scientists, journalists, and media frequently ask after an extreme event, “did climate change contribute to this?” The answer is yes. According to the latest IPCC report, “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land… climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe.” The emission of heat-trapping gases into our atmosphere has fundamentally changed how our climate system works. We no longer need to ask, “was this influenced by climate change?” We can instead assume there was some influence, and instead ask, “how? And to what extent?” And the urgent question, “what do we do about it?”

Big Oil learned from Big Tobacco

Why are we in this mess to begin with? It all has to do with “doubt” in the science, manufactured by Big Oil. According to a report released by my colleagues, Big Oil knew that the burning of fossil fuels would lead to climate change as early as the late 1950s, but instead of acting on this knowledge to change their business model to reflect the science, they began sowing doubt in the science in order to continue profiting off of the extraction and burning of fossil fuels.

Scientists have been in this position—where an industry spreads lies to confuse people about settled scientific facts—before. In the mid-20^th century, a buildup of evidence linking smoking to lung cancer led tobacco companies to deliberately spread misinformation that cast doubt on the established medical science, allowing them to profit off the sale of their product despite known deadly health impacts.

Today, the fossil fuel industry is using the same methods as Big Tobacco, and today’s situation is actually far worse. Fossil fuel-driven climate change was well-understood in the 1980s, and President George H. W. Bush famously pushed for action on the climate crisis, contributing to the formation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Big Oil responded by deliberately spreading misinformation, including questioning the scientific basis of climate science and citing the economic cost of switching away from fossil fuels without accounting for the costs of climate change itself. This was done through advertorials and the funding and amplifying of junk science, which Exxon and other companies were working to create and spread by the late 1990s.

Why does this matter for attribution science? The fact is that climate scientists are constantly held back by persistent disinformation spread by the fossil fuel industry. A substantial amount of resources and capacity have been spent to replicate and communicate the same research and conclusions that have been well understood for decades, when scientists could have instead been innovating climate science more rapidly.

It’s also clear that advancements in attribution science could strengthen climate litigation. In response, conservative groups are continuing to spread the lie that climate science isn’t settled, and legislators are openly questioning the validity of attribution science in proposed legislation that would grant Big Oil legal immunity.

The future of attribution science

With this NPJ Climate Action comment, we argue for moving beyond repeating well-established conclusions of climate change, which is exactly what Big Oil wants us to do. We don’t need to redo the science that a given extreme heatwave is influenced by fossil fuel-driven climate change when it already occurs in a changed system!

The message here is not just for climate scientists, but also journalists, opinion leaders, and the general public. We should begin all analyses of extreme weather events from the established physical reality that all events occur within a fossil fuel-altered climate system. We no longer need to question if each event was influenced by climate change.

This normative shift enables scientists to focus on opportunities for innovation in attribution science that more directly address equitable climate action. For example, more scientists could shift their focus to improving both impact and source attribution science. Impact attribution answers questions like, “how many more deaths or how much more economic damage resulted from this extreme weather event due to fossil fuel-driven climate change?” Source attribution studies quantify oil and gas producers’ individual contributions to climate trends and extreme events. As litigation pursues accountability for fossil fuel companies, source attribution studies can be key in informing these lawsuits.

As the impacts from fossil fuel-driven climate change continue to accelerate, it is up to scientists, communicators, and the public to break through the disinformation that bad actors continue to spread to slow down scientific advancement and climate action. Updating the norms of attribution science will allow for the science to continue to evolve and effectively respond to the climate crisis. Our climate science needs to be able to shed the dead weight of these tired, fossil fuel-interest-serving arguments, and instead to bring all its energy to helping create a lasting society for future generations.

Together, these cases illustrate two increasingly important fronts in climate accountability: whether decision-makers must confront the full emissions consequences of fossil fuel extraction, and whether fossil fuel companies can be held responsible for the financial costs of climate harms linked to their conduct. For each of these, scientific evidence is helping define the questions courts can meaningfully answer. 

Importantly, the Australian case also holds some lessons for other high courts and shows that courts do have the skills and capacity to grapple with scientific evidence to help make informed decisions for our world.  

The Australian victory: Scope 3 emissions and legal duty 

The High Court of Australia’s decision is particularly significant because it is the first climate case to reach that nation’s highest court, and the first to acknowledge that all heat-trapping gas emissions, including those from combustion, must be assessed as part of efforts to minimize emissions. The Union of Concerned Scientists intervened in this proceeding to ensure the court had access to the best available science regarding heat-trapping gas emissions and attribution science.  

At the heart of the case was the Mount Pleasant coal mine expansion in New South Wales. The Independent Planning Commission had granted development consent, but the New South Wales Court of Appeal subsequently invalidated that consent. The Court of Appeal found that the Commission failed to comply with its statutory duty to consider whether conditions should be imposed to ensure heat-trapping gas emissions were “minimised to the greatest extent practicable.” 

The critical issue was Scope 3 emissions—the indirect emissions that occur when the coal extracted from the mine is burned, for example when the product is used as intended. These emissions represent 98% of the project’s total greenhouse gas footprint. The Commission had previously reasoned that because these emissions would be accounted for in the countries where the coal was consumed (under the Paris Agreement), they did not need to consider minimizing them in the approval process. 

The High Court, in a 3-2 majority decision, dismissed the mining company’s appeal, upholding the invalidation of the consent. The majority opinion clarified that the statutory requirement to consider minimizing emissions applies to all heat-trapping gas emissions, including Scope 3. A decisionmaker cannot simply defer responsibility to international accounting frameworks; they must actively consider how to minimize the full climate impact of a project to the greatest extent practicable. 

This ruling shows courts have the capacity to explore and engage with the complexities of climate science, and that science can inform better, safer decisions. 

The US context: liability and preemption 

While Australia was deciding a case about permitting and emissions assessment, the US Supreme Court began its new term last Monday hearing a different climate case: Suncor Energy v. Boulder County. 

The legal questions addressed in these two cases differ in key ways. Unlike the Australian case, which focused on administrative law and the duty to consider emissions during the approval process, the underlying issue in the Suncor case is a “polluter pays” liability suit based on whether fossil fuel companies misled the public about the risks of their products while knowingly profiting from activities that drive climate change. Local governments in Colorado are seeking compensation from fossil fuel companies for the costs of adapting to climate impacts—wildfires, floods, and heatwaves—alleging that these companies deceived the public about the risks of their products. This is really important to understand: fundamentally this case is about fraud, not emissions.  

During oral arguments, some of the justices did not seem focused on the central  question before SCOTUS: whether state courts have jurisdiction to hear these claims. The preemption argument advanced by fossil fuel companies rests on a misrepresentation of the case’s subject matter—one that, if accepted, would bar communities from bringing fraud cases in state courts regardless of the merits.  

Based on the oral arguments, several justices expressed skepticism toward the oil industry’s position, while others appeared to accept the premise that the case was primarily about reducing emissions. Justice Elena Kagan pressed the industry’s lawyers on where their preemption argument was grounded in law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that the Clean Air Act does not regulate marketing or advertising. Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that state courts have long allowed people to file suits for injuries occurring in their state. Justice Amy Coney Barrett characterized one of the oil companies’ arguments as “a little slippery.” 

Some justices also questioned whether the Supreme Court should even be hearing this case yet. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked why the Court shouldn’t wait for state courts to finish their work before stepping in. These questions suggest the Court may be hesitant to shut the door on climate accountability lawsuits before they’ve had a chance to be heard and adjudicated on the merits. 

If these cases move forward, the courts will have the opportunity to examine two distinct bodies of evidence. First, social science research documenting fossil fuel industry deception campaigns. Second, physical climate attribution science. As Jeff Goodell recently wrote in the New York Times, this science has oil companies “running scared” because it can inform questions about foreseeability, causation, and damages. When courts allow these cases to proceed, science can help inform judicial decision-making, like we saw in the Australian case.  

Courts as venues for science 

While the Australia case did show one way science can help to inform the courts, there is still room for improvement. When I was preparing the Union of Concerned Scientists’ intervention in the Australian case, I was struck by how much the attribution science had advanced between the initial planning commission decision and the High Court hearing. What we can say with confidence in 2026 is far more precise than what was available when the case first entered the court system. 

This pattern isn’t unique to Australia. Cases filed by Boulder and other communities and states in the United States have similarly moved through the courts while the underlying science has developed. Methods that connect emissions to specific climate impacts and quantify damages have evolved and improved. Yet our legal processes don’t always have built-in mechanisms to ensure judges have access to the most current science as cases progress. 

For scientists, this presents an opportunity. The legal questions being asked—about the minimization of emissions, the foreseeability of harm, and the allocation of costs—are fundamentally scientific questions wrapped in legal doctrine. When courts ask, “Did the decisionmaker consider the full scope of emissions?” or “Can we trace these damages to these actions?”, they are inviting the scientific community to provide the evidence needed to answer them and to help to intervene in cases to ensure the courts have access to the best science.  

What comes next? 

The outcomes of these cases will ripple far beyond their specific jurisdictions. The High Court of Australia’s ruling on considering Scope 3 emissions sets a powerful precedent for how projects are assessed globally. It informs litigators and policymakers that ignoring the downstream impacts of fossil fuel extraction is not legally tenable.  

Now, states and communities across the United States are awaiting the Supreme Court judgment in the Boulder case. But these lawsuits aren’t happening in a vacuum. As fossil fuel companies argue in court that they should be shielded from liability, their allies are simultaneously pushing state legislation to grant the industry blanket immunity—attempting to close courthouse doors through multiple channels. 

As Jeff Goodell noted, even an unfavorable ruling on the Boulder case won’t slam the door shut on climate accountability. The science informing these cases remains compelling. The communities seeking resources for damages will continue to fight for justice, and the need for climate accountability will outlast any single decision.  

Today, UCS published a new report, Community Access to Clean Air Decisionmaking: Analysis of State Engagement in Title V Permitting. The report investigates the degree to which US state agencies are meaningfully engaging the public in air permitting for so-called “major source” polluters like power plants, refineries, chemical plants, and solid waste incinerators. While some states have made significant strides to enhance public participation in Title V Clean Air Act permitting, this analysis finds substantial, inconsistent gaps in access, transparency, follow-up, and opportunities for meaningful input.

Public participation in air permitting

Giving people the opportunity to weigh in on decisions that affect them isn’t just the right thing to do. Numerous federal laws require that the government engage the public in decisionmaking. That can include accepting public comments on issuing new or updated regulations, as well as hosting town halls or community meetings on specific issues. The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires public participation in air permitting, the process by which industrial facilities like power plants must apply for a permit for their air pollution emissions before construction and operation. The permit specifies how much air pollution the facility is “allowed” to release, how those releases should be monitored, and any other measures the facility must take to control pollution. Air permits are one of the main ways in which the public can participate in decisions that impact air quality, especially if a facility is proposed in their own communities. They’re a big part of what makes the Clean Air Act effective.

One such program covers operating permits under Title V of the CAA. These permits cover what are generally described as “major sources” of air pollution. While overseen by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Title V permits are administered by state and local governments. Under the law, when a facility owner/operator applies for a Title V permit and a state or local agency drafts it, the public must be allowed to comment on that permit and request a public hearing, and the agency must review and respond to “significant comments.” The EPA must also give the public an opportunity to petition the agency regarding a permit decision, including challenging a permit that was approved.

But this is just the bare minimum required by law. State and local agencies can do more to enhance meaningful engagement. Furthermore, research suggests that the process is not often accessible to the public. For example, a focus group analysis of Title V permit notices in Michigan revealed that members of the public perceived the documents as “intentionally biased [toward industry], unnecessarily technical, and without clear directions on how and why to participate.” Furthermore, groups that represent communities overburdened by pollution have frequently submitted Title V petitions that call out state agencies for inadequate opportunities to meaningfully engage in the process and for failure to follow up once a decision is made.

Where states are doing well

For our analysis, we developed a survey tool informed by peer-reviewed literature, guidance and best practices developed by federal and state agencies, and calls to action integrating expertise from environmental justice leaders and organizations. The survey covers three categories of questions: information access; agency rules, guidance, and practices; and agency capacity. We received complete responses from 25 states and partial responses from three states; eight states indicated that they intended to provide responses but did not; six states declined to participate; and eight states did not respond at all (see map below).

By and large, we found that states are performing best with respect to information access—namely, posting notices for draft Title V permits and providing opportunities for the public to comment (both of which are required by the CAA). Nearly all agencies provide information about approved and draft permits on their websites, including instructions for how to submit a public comment and request a public hearing. Most states also appear to provide accessibility services, like language translation and ASL interpretation, upon request.

Most states also have a webpage or document describing how the public can participate in the permitting process. For example, Arizona’s Department of Environmental Quality has a YouTube video describing the environmental permitting process, Minnesota’s Pollution Control Agency has an infographic describing how to make effective public comments, and North Dakota’s Department of Environmental Quality provides examples of “common comment mistakes.”

These findings suggest that states largely appear to be complying with the legal requirements of the CAA to ensure the public has an opportunity to participate. But beyond that, progress is mixed with major gaps.

Where states are falling short

Despite most states posting public notices online, our findings align with past research that suggests that Title V notices are posted without much effort to make them understandable. In our review of 87 public notices available across 35 states, most notices received a letter grade score of B or C for  readability, and only one scored A. Furthermore, most notices did not widely integrate elements of plain language in notices, such as defining technical terms and using bullet points, headers, and white space.

Even though states are providing opportunities for the public to comment, it is not always clear whether and how public input is shaping the process. Of the 28 agencies that sent us complete or partial responses to our survey questions, 18 indicated that they publicly post online responses to public comments on draft permits. Among those, only 13 could provide an example of when public input led to at least one change to a final permit. These findings suggest that public comments may not have a great deal of influence on the final permit, and even if they do, that information may not be shared with the public. South Carolina’s Department of Environmental Services provides an instructive example of how such information can be made explicitly available. The department’s “Air Quality Department Decisions” web page includes its decision, responses to comments, the final permit, a letter to the public, and contact information for further questions.

We also observed significant differences across states in agency policies and practices. For example, at least 16 states have internal guidance for agency staff related to enhancing meaningful engagement, and an additional nine use health, socioeconomic, and/or pollution burden data (such as those found in an environmental justice screening tool) in Title V permit reviews. At least half of these states in each category also have laws in place that enhance public participation in air permitting, some of which are cumulative impacts laws that require additional screening/analysis and engagement in permitting decisions. Overall, we observed that states with these types of laws appear to generally have more policies and practices in place to enhance meaningful engagement.

Some states also have advisory boards and committees that members of the public can serve on, and provide input on agency decisions, including permitting. However, of the 28 states we received completed or partial responses from, only nine have a board or committee that has some degree of authority or influence in Title V permitting decisions. And among these, only six require that members represent the “public interest” rather than a specific field of expertise.

To adequately engage the public in permitting, agencies must also be adequately resourced to do so. Of the 28 agencies we received complete or partial responses from, 20 indicated they provide explicit training to staff on topics related to public participation and/or environmental justice. However, only 16 of the 28 have at least one full-time employee dedicated to enhancing public participation.

Taken together, these findings reveal that while some states are making strides to enhance meaningful engagement in air permitting, progress is mixed across states and significant gaps remain.

Broader federal efforts to sideline public participation in air permitting

Our findings must also be understood within the broader context of our federal government, which oversees Title V air permits. State agencies face funding shortfalls, bureaucratic hurdles, and political pressure from state lawmakers and the federal government. Many states also face threats from the Trump administration for work that advances environmental justice and meaningful engagement. And the Trump administration has demonstrated their hostility to transparency and accountability—even when it’s legally required, taking many steps to limit public input on a variety of decisionmaking processes.

Earlier this year, the EPA issued guidance urging states to expedite Title V permit review, focusing on rapid approval of permits over thoughtful consideration of public comments. The agency also proposed a rule to eliminate the minimum public-notice-and-comment requirements for New Source Review permits, a different type of air permit for certain new or modified facilities. The elimination of requirements would extend to applications for sources like data center electricity-generation facilities, landfills, and asphalt plants.

States can do more

Meaningful engagement requires investment at all levels, from elected officials (including governors) to agency leadership (and the culture they establish). Furthermore, public engagement requires time, funding, and a commitment to building trust with the people who state agencies serve. Permitting authorities, especially at the state level, can and should do more to expand opportunities for the public to engage in air permitting processes, to clearly communicate how the public can influence decisions, and to transparently report how those decisions were shaped by public input.

Read our report to see our full list of recommendations, which include urging state and local agencies to strengthen engagement by making participation information accessible and multilingual, using plain language, publishing responses to comments, proactively evaluating engagement efforts, and providing clear opportunities for continued community involvement. Governors and lawmakers can reinforce these practices through executive orders, agency-wide standards, stronger participation requirements, advisory bodies, community grant programs, and dedicated funding for staffing, training, translation, interpretation, accessibility, and outreach. Ultimately, state, local, and federal leaders need to understand their responsibility is to the people they serve, not polluters.

Thousands of government scientists have been pushed out of their public service careers since the second Trump administration took office. Some were fired, while others left because their work was targeted for political interference. Nearly 95,000 science employees are no longer in federal service.

This massive loss doesn’t just affect individual scientists or their agencies, but everyone in the country. Federal scientists carry out lifesaving medical research; monitor and help communities prepare for severe weather; protect consumers from foodborne illnesses; study pollution impacts to ensure we have effective public health rules; and do work that helps keep us safe, healthy, and prosperous.

Under the Trump administration, science is under attack like never before. These are just a few of the stories of scientists whose important, public-serving work was callously discarded, and what this means to us and for the relationships the US scientific enterprise has cultivated over decades with institutions and countries around the world.

Tom DiLiberto

Former position: Public affairs specialist/climate scientist/meteorologist, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Current position: Media director, Climate Central

I’ve known I wanted to be a meteorologist since I was in third grade. For me, there’s meaning in providing information for families and communities that they can use to stay safe. I wanted to help people, and that’s why I went into federal service.

I was working at NOAA when I was fired. It’s a weird experience to see all the work that you did just—poof—disappear within six months. My entire career has been almost completely wiped away. And it’s not just me. It’s the people forecasting your weather, making sure your seafood is safe to eat, anyone doing research on climate.

It took decades to build up some of these programs, and now the people aren’t there to be able to do it. You can’t just stop research and restart it in 5 or 10 years. As taxpayers, we pay for these services, and we’re getting a degraded service. We’ll see the impact of that, which is that people are going to get hurt needlessly.

The United States was lucky last year because we didn’t have too many extreme weather events happen. But we can’t count on that. So, whether we see hurricanes ahead, heat waves, or wildfires, I have less trust that the government can do what it needs to do. The people in government who are still there are going to try their best. But there’s only so much they can do. And that scares me.

Whether that lost expertise can be replaced . . . well, who would want that job now? It’s a lot easier to burn something down than it is to build it up.

Melinda Laituri, PhD

Former position: Jefferson Science Fellow, US Department of State; federal contractor

Current position: Retired

In 2014, I started a yearlong program—the Jefferson Science Fellowship—with the State Department. My division created maps based on both satellite data and community-based information, to help decisionmakers place humanitarian resources and infrastructure where they’re needed. 

As a professor at Colorado State, one important aspect of collaborating with the federal government was what you could bring back to your teaching, your research, the institution—to show young people how issues of policy relate to science. The ability to share what I knew was incredible.

More recently, I was a contractor working with the State Department on the Secondary Cities Initiative, a follow-on from my fellowship. This is a global network of geospatial experts working together to tackle issues like security, resilience, and disaster response. I’ve traveled all over the world for this work. Through this project, I’ve worked with regional environmental officers serving at US embassies. I’ve developed partnerships with people on the ground, including helping cities and universities develop maps. The Secondary Cities Initiative gave rise to an important COVID-19 mapping and mitigation project. The on-the-ground experts I’ve met were amazing people, with local knowledge and expertise, who were able to make the Secondary Cities Project possible.

Our initiative recently submitted a proposal for a grant from USAID, and then USAID went away. Now it’s on hold.

So much of what I did was built on this network and these partnerships. The relationships are strong enough to maintain, but the funding to support that work is gone. I still am in touch with many of the colleagues I worked with around the world. A lot of them are just mystified by what’s happening in the United States.

Aubrey Paris, PhD

Former position: Senior policy advisor for gender, climate change and innovation, the Secretary of State’s Office of Global Women’s Issues

Current position: Director, Parlee Center, Ursinus College

My portfolio with the Office of Global Women’s Issues covered the ways climate change affects women. 

I worked with different State Department bureaus to understand how the “gender-climate nexus” affected their topic or their region, and I coordinated across 14 different federal agencies to develop policy and strategy. I did a lot of travel, meeting with partners in different countries, and training State Department staff through the Foreign Service Institute.

My office created the Innovation Station initiative, helping to identify women—including scientists and entrepreneurs—who were developing solutions to climate and energy challenges in their countries. In many places women are noticing these challenges first and know their community enough to identify and come up with solutions to problems. We helped them share their work locally and build relationships internationally. That’s some of the work I’m proudest of: helping promote these women and expand the impact of their innovations. 

Our work was under attack from Inauguration Day. With little guidance and an overall atmosphere of fear, all of our colleagues proactively self-censored. It seemed like the administration wanted women’s empowerment work to disappear without having to say it explicitly. 

In April 2025, the New York Times leaked the State Department reorganization plan, and we weren’t on it. That’s how we knew it was over.

We’ve lost hundreds of years of expertise, years of hard work, academic and professional expertise in how to effectively advance women’s rights and empowerment in ways that benefit all of society.  

Environmental health researchers like me often think about how exposures to different toxic substances and chemicals impact groups of people differently, including what we call “sensitive populations,” like kids, who may be more susceptible to harm. Kids are not just small adults. Their bodies are different: they grow rapidly, and they breathe faster, eat more food, and drink more water relative to their body weights than adults. They also interact with the world differently, by playing in dirt and dust, and exploring new things by putting them in their mouths. Children also do not get to choose where they live or control their home and school environments.

Taken together, these factors can make children more susceptible to exposure to toxic substances and, as a result, more harm from these exposures. The issues I navigate as a scientist are the same ones I navigate as a parent, while also expecting another child. What is best for my toddler’s and growing baby’s health is a reel constantly running in the back of my mind.

My concern for my children is not unique. Every parent wants to know that the air their child breathes, the water they drink, and the products they are around are safe. That is why we rely on a strong public health system grounded in independent science. When that science is sidelined by the federal government, it becomes harder to identify risks, prevent harm, and protect the families who depend on those safeguards.

President Trump’s empty promises to “Make Our Children Healthy Again”

The White House’s “Make Our Children Healthy Again” (MOCHA) Strategy Report pledges to prioritize children’s health. But the Trump administration’s actions have not only failed to provide substantive actions that safeguard our nation’s kids, but have endangered their health.

In addition to the Trump administration cutting funding for scientific research aimed at understanding and preventing environmental hazards, they also undermined access to and trust in life-saving vaccines, rolled back or delayed environmental protections, and stopped calculating the financial value of the public health benefits of regulations.

For one example, last year the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) weakened screening levels for the neurotoxicant lead in soil, as well as the level above which a site will be cleaned up. This means that kids could potentially be exposed to more lead in soil before the government intervenes. I referenced this guideline for my own home when we were tackling lead remediation. Lead exposure harms children’s brains, and there has not been a safe level of exposure demonstrated. However, it is preventable with the right measures and information.

The Trump administration has also sidelined the only federal advisory committee committed to protecting children’s health at the EPA, the Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC). It is impossible to imagine how the agency will prioritize kids’ health without this network of scientists to advise it.

Science-informed protections for kids

The EPA’s CHPAC is composed of independent experts, including academics, clinicians, and state and Tribal government officials that advise the agency on science and policy matters related to children’s health. The committee was formed nearly 30 years ago following Executive Order 13045, and has provided science-informed guidance to EPA on matters like childhood lead poisoning prevention, asthma disparities, and prenatal chemical exposures, among much more.

For decades the EPA has issued “charge” questions that the committee must address, investigating scientific and policy issues related to protecting children’s health that they summarize for public input, and for agency scientists and leadership to consider and respond to. For example, in 2009, the EPA convened a “School Siting Task Group” within CHPAC that provided recommendations that were then implemented in the agency’s subsequent school siting guidelines. These guidelines urge consideration of environmental health and safety hazards when siting new schools.

But under the Trump administration, CHPAC is not currently operating.

Trump’s EPA has blocked CHPAC from performing its duties to keep kids safe

Earlier this year, several CHPAC members reached the end of their committee terms. In August 2025—ahead of their terms ending—EPA issued a request for nominations for new members, with a goal of filling vacancies by March 1, 2026. But so far, the positions have not been filled, and the committee has not met since August 2025. CHPAC has also yet to receive a charge related to the MOCHA report, which stated that the EPA administrator would direct the committee to “focus on advancing research and communication recommendations that align with the implementation of the MAHA strategy elements.”

No meetings and no charge means no CHPAC mission. And as a result, the EPA is unable to receive or implement advice from the committee to keep kids safe.

Moreover, last year, CHPAC published a “Plastics and Children’s Health Charge Response Letter” documenting the ways in which exposure to plastic pollution can increase the risk of developmental disabilities, birth defects, cancer, and other health harms in children. A majority of the committee members reached the same conclusions regarding the scientific literature on plastics and children’s health. However, one member, an employee of Bayer Crop Science, did not agree with the group’s conclusions and wrote a dissenting letter that contradicted the scientific conclusions of the first letter. This divergence resulted in an unprecedented decision to publish two separate letters—Letter A and Letter B—despite CHPAC operating procedures that urge the committee to “reach consensus on all recommendations wherever possible.” The EPA has yet to respond to these letters or implement any actions to address the risks of plastic pollution (in fact, EPA has rolled back protections, or punted regulations).

Pattern of attacks on independent science advice

CHPAC is one of hundreds of federal advisory committees that have been terminated or disrupted since President Trump began his second term. As of July of this year, federal agencies had terminated nearly 200 federal advisory committees, most of which were in science agencies like EPA and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Many more, including CHPAC, do not have enough members, have been prevented from meeting, or reconstituted with many members who have financial conflicts of interest. Without these committees, federal agencies—many of which are already operating with far fewer staff and resources—do not have access to rigorous, independent science advice that shapes policies that protect public health and our planet.

How we’re fighting back and how you can, too

Last week, UCS co-led a group of more than 70 children’s health organizations and experts, many of whom are former CHPAC members, in sending a letter to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy calling on the EPA to:

• Set a clear timeline for appointing and convening a “scientifically credible, varied and balanced CHPAC.”
• Provide a written response to the aforementioned plastics letter and associated recommendations.
• Convene EPA leadership and health experts to discuss alignment between CHPAC’s goals and the administration’s children’s health priorities.

UCS is working to support and uplift efforts to convene independent advisory committees and shine a light on what is lost when these committees are silenced. The Trump administration is failing the American public—especially kids—and we must hold elected officials accountable to following through on their promises and protect children from exposure to harmful toxic chemicals.

Get involved by checking out our toolkit for convening independent science advisory committees or share our letter to the Trump administration with your Members of Congress, urging them to call for CHPAC to be allowed to meet with its full membership.

This proposal was released alongside the agency’s final repeal of the power plant carbon standards, while earlier this month, the Trump administration also rolled back fuel economy standards. These attacks follow the agency’s repeal of the Endangerment Finding earlier this year, and are part of a series of dozens of key health and climate protection rollbacks by the Trump administration. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin has literally upended the mission of the agency: instead of protecting public health and welfare, based on the best available science, he is intent on boosting the interests of fossil fuel companies and other major polluters.

Here’s what I said in my oral testimony at the public hearing—you can also watch the whole recording below.

Good morning. My name is Rachel Cleetus, and I am the climate program director for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

I am testifying today in strong opposition to EPA’s egregious and dangerous proposal to entirely abandon its authority and responsibility under the Clean Air Act to set limits on the power sector’s global warming pollution. With climate impacts rapidly worsening—in some cases irreversibly—and proliferating data centers driving increases in fossil fuel-fired power plants, this move by EPA administrator Zeldin threatens to greatly exacerbate public health harms.

Coal- and gas-fired power plants are the United States’ largest stationary source of global warming emissions. Globally, the United States is the second-largest contributor of annual heat-trapping emissions, and the largest historical emitter. There is no question that U.S. power plant emissions are a significant contributor to the cumulative emissions that drive fossil-fueled climate change.

This proposal stands in direct contradiction to decades of scientific evidence underscoring the human health harms from heat-trapping emissions. A 2025 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) that synthesizes the latest science says that “… the evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute.” 

This proposal also contradicts established law, namely the Clean Air Act, a law passed by Congress. EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2007 and upheld by courts repeatedly since then.

At a time when people across our nation are already experiencing costly and deadly climate-fueled disasters—including extreme heatwaves, floods, drought and wildfires—EPA should be doing everything it can to protect communities, businesses and our economy from the mounting toll. Instead, if this proposal is finalized, it would exacerbate the harms and costs to everyone.  

EPA should not be forcing a false choice between our health and our prosperity. In fact, it is abundantly clear that the economic costs and human toll from climate change are already rapidly escalating. As just one example, we are seeing the consequences in the insurance market where people are facing skyrocketing premiums driven in part by climate-fueled disasters.

Quite simply, the choices we make today about our carbon emissions will have profound consequences for generations to come. With the planet on the verge of breaching 1.5°C of global warming and with the US and the world just experiencing the hottest summer on record, it couldn’t be clearer why the EPA must act urgently to limit heat-trapping emissions. EPA should do its job and stop looking for dubious ways to abdicate its responsibility to protect the public while propping up the interests of fossil fuel polluters. 

I urge you to abandon this harmful proposal to gut EPA’s Clean Air Act authority to regulate power sector heat-trapping emissions and instead please fulfill your obligations to limit health-harming global warming pollution.  

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

According to emails obtained through a state open records request, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) actively recruited sponsors this year for draft legislation that would not only bar future lawsuits against fossil fuel corporations and polluter-pays bills but also nullify ongoing suits representing millions of people harmed by climate change.  

The emails show that ALEC representatives contacted nine Utah lawmakers in May and June 2026 to solicit support for three model bills at the organization’s annual meeting, when bills are discussed and approved for circulation to state lawmakers. ALEC is a lobbying group that brings together state lawmakers and companies to draft model legislation that can be introduced in state legislatures across the country. ALEC claims dedication to “principles of limited government, free markets and federalism,” but in practice provides corporations access to the political system. That ALEC reached out to lawmakers in a state where immunity legislation passed only months earlier shows how far the group is willing to go for big oil. 

The emails also show that past tactics of the fossil fuel industry—a major ALEC supporter—are still in play. A recent Senate report lays out how decades of disinformation and political obstruction by the fossil fuel industry and its political enablers has culminated in the Trump administration’s attacks on climate science and the legal process. As UCS President Gretchen Goldman testified at a congressional “spotlight” hearing on attacks on science, “the administration is delivering on promises it has made to special interests who profit from the suppression of science—and in the case of climate science, that special interest is the fossil fuel industry.” Concerns about fossil fuel industry influence and conflicts of interest extend to the Supreme Court, where Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from Suncor v. Boulder just a week before oral arguments. 

Start in the states: the industry’s current scheme 

The emails were sent by fossil fuel apologists and propagandists including Frank Lasee, a former Wisconsin state senator who now helms an organization called Truth in Energy and Climate. Lasee was briefly president of the Heartland Institute, a climate-denier think tank and beneficiary of oil industry funding, but was reportedly let go after one year for tanking the budget. Lasee names Craig Rucker, co-founder of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), as his partner in supporting the bills for ALEC. Founded in 1985, CFACT was among the groups named in 1998 by a task force of the American Petroleum Institute—the largest US oil and gas trade association—as a potential “fund allocator” for a disinformation strategy that aimed to sow doubt about the science behind climate change. 

Separate emails were sent by Randy Eminger, a longtime coal industry lobbyist with a history of creating front groups claiming to represent the public. Eminger wrote that he was coordinating with other organizations to pass the bill, concluding with a plea to “consider helping the fossil fuel industry.”  

In March, Utah’s governor signed HB222, one of five state bills passed this year preventing litigation against oil and gas companies (bills were also passed in Tennessee, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Iowa). Where HB222 allowed litigation in the case of regulatory violation, ALEC’s supercharged immunity bill deploys a scorched-earth approach. Among other attacks, the Act would prevent state and local governments from suing oil companies or anyone associated with them; prohibit lawsuits based on state laws such as fraud; block climate superfund laws; stop plaintiffs from collecting liabilities; and force those with adverse rulings to pay the industry’s legal fees. It would also retroactively apply to suits filed years ago. 

The two other bills use a similarly punitive strategy. One would prevent any state entity–including cities, counties and schools—from adopting net-zero policies by threatening to withhold their funding. Another would force federal energy regulators and state utilities—including those owned by ratepayers—to adopt pricing schemes benefitting fossil energy companies.  

The link to Suncor v. Boulder 

It’s pertinent that the lawsuit before the Supreme Court  is based on fraud and deception perpetrated by the very groups pushing these measures. The Court is hearing oral arguments in Suncor v. Boulder, a petition by fossil fuel companies named in a 2018 climate accountability lawsuit. That lawsuit, Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County v. Suncor Energy, seeks to hold ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy accountable for concealing and misleading the public about the climate harms of their fossil fuel products while continuing to produce them.  

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in May 2025 that Boulder’s case could move to discovery and proceed toward trial, but defendants asked the US Supreme Court to review that decision. Big Oil has fought for years to keep climate accountability lawsuits from being heard on their merits and unearthing more of its dirty secrets. Those lawsuits are numerous: Climate accountability suits filed by eleven U.S. states, the District of Columbia, two Tribal governments, and dozens of municipal governments are currently making their way through the courts, representing one-fourth of people in the United States.  

An amicus brief filed in the Boulder case by UCS and other experts states that defendants “directed substantial financial support to organizations that publicly questioned or rejected the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change.” For example, ExxonMobil provided at least $37 million to dozens of climate-denial organizations between 1998 and 2019 according to the company’s own grantmaking reports, including CFACT and ALEC (except for Chevron, most major oil companies have left the organization after pressure from investors and advocates). 

The empire strikes back at science 

Fossil-fuel companies and their political proxies have sought to thwart accountability and intimidate advocates with a barrage of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), counter-suits, attacks on climate science and scientists, and legislation like Utah’s that would provide blanket immunity from legal accountability—unheard of for such a large industry. The American Petroleum Institute named immunity as a top 2026 priority, and a ProPublica investigation revealed that immunity bills introduced in a handful of Republican-controlled state houses across the country have stemmed from a network of groups connected to prominent right-wing operative Leonard Leo, including ALEC. At the federal level, Representative Harriet Hageman and Senator Ted Cruz introduced a bill earlier this year essentially immunizing the fossil fuel industry from liability in an attempt to subvert the legal system. 

These machinations show the fear that accountability strikes in the fossil fuel industry. Recent polling shows nearly two-thirds of voters oppose shielding oil and gas companies from being held accountable for climate damages, a figure that will likely increase as climate damages mount.  

The Supreme Court, Congress, and state legislatures must resist Big Oil’s full-court press to avoid accountability and give Boulder—and others harmed by climate change—their day in court. 

UCS has documented the wide range of negative ecological impacts associated with artificial intelligence, as well as the financial burdens placed-on ratepayers. These factors, coupled with health impacts, can feel overwhelming. But, cumulative impacts analysis, a framework used for evaluating all the way the decisions may affect the local environment and health, could help. Data-center-specific cumulative impacts analyses could give decision makers a more complete understanding of the plethora of potential health impacts from a proposed center. Ultimately, this could help us avoid, minimize, and mitigate some of these impacts, preventing them from further exacerbating existing inequities. 

Understanding Data Centers’ Public Health Impacts 

One of the most prominent environmental stressors associated with data centers is air pollution. Across the United States, around 60% of data centers’ exorbitant energy demands are met through fossil fuels, emitting massive quantities of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and nitrous oxides. In fact, it was estimated that last year hyperscale data centers were responsible for up to 54 million metric tons of CO2 emissions—as much as 11.7 million cars.  

Many data centers also rely on diesel backup generators, which are even more polluting, releasing 200-600 times as much nitrogen oxide, for example, than even gas power plants. Air pollutants harm nearly every system in the body and have been linked to atherosclerosis, neurodegenerative disease like Alzheimer’s, decreased intelligence and cognitive processing, and increased stroke and cardiac mortality, among other conditions. 

But data centers are doing more than polluting the air. In fact, we’ve identified over six distinct pathways by which data centers threaten the health of their host communities.  

One of the most overlooked yet potentially deadly environmental health impacts of a data centers is thermal pollution. A preliminary study found hyperscale centers raised surface temperatures up to ten kilometers away by up to 16 degrees Fahrenheit.  For reference, a 16-degree temperature change is the same difference as that between the average US temperatures in July versus October. In Utah, a proposed data center known as the Stratos Project, could release thermal energy equivalent to the heat output of roughly 23 Hiroshima-scale atomic bombs every single day. This excess heat can accelerate already worsening extreme heat resulting in more rapid and frequent heat illnesses (heat stroke or heat exhaustion) on hot days. It would also worsen chronic conditions aggravated by heat including  asthma, acute kidney injury and preterm and still birth rates. 

Between loud cooling systems and brightly lit perimeters, data centers can also be significant source of noise and light pollution. In fact, research suggests a hyperscale data center can emit as much light as a small town. Both noise and light pollution have been linked to a plethora of health challenges as they trigger the body’s stress response which causes inflammation and high blood pressure, the leading contributor to heart disease, stroke, and kidney failure. 

In addition to air, light, noise, and thermal pollution, most data centers rely on toxic “forever” chemicals called PFAS to cool their computers, for fire suppression, and in the computers’ semiconductors. These chemicals can escape data centers as gas or enter waste-water or ground-water. Some PFAS are known carcinogens, and they’ve also been linked to reduced fertility and disrupted fetal neurodevelopment.  

Data centers can also indirectly threaten public health by increasing energy bills, which often forces many to make costly and difficult trade-offs such as keeping their homes at unsafe temperatures or foregoing healthcare to afford energy costs. In addition to contributing to energy insecurity, most hyperscale centers consume millions of gallons of water each day, worsening droughts and contributing to water scarcity  

Addressing and preventing these health harms

Without proper guardrails and regulations, data centers could become a public health nightmare. The limited research on how simultaneous exposure to these environmental health threats will impact communities is of deep concern. We know, for example, that exposure to noise and light pollution have separately been linked to hypertension—but how would exposure to both compound the health impacts?  

While we need more research to better understand how these threats interact simultaneously, communities should take immediate action to address independent impacts. Across the country, we’ve also already started to see data centers harm human and ecological health. Moreover, given the exponential rise in data center demand, we need frameworks for considering and protecting human and ecological health as new data centers are proposed.  

Enter cumulative impacts analyses.   

Cumulative impacts are defined as the totality of exposure to chemical and non-chemical stressors and their effects on health, well-being, and quality of life outcomes. Cumulative impacts analyses (CIAs) are a well-suited framework for addressing the health concerns associated with data centers. CIAs would not only facilitate the consideration of the total burden from the range of chemical (PM2.5, NOx, PFAS) and non-chemical (light, noise, heat) stressors from the proposed data center, but they’d also allow for the consideration of existing burdens such as current pollution levels from other data centers or nearby infrastructure.  

Currently, only a few states have cumulative impacts legislation, and none have data center-specific frameworks. Existing CIA legislation is imperfect and contains loopholes, allowing many data centers to avoid the process entirely. In Massachusetts, a state which already uses cumulative impacts in air quality permitting, residents of the city of Lowell were forced to take a data center to court after the center’s proposal to add eight additional backup generators and new cooling towers was approved without adequate consideration of cumulative impacts.  

In Minnesota, CIAs are only required if projects are proposed in environmental justice (EJ) communities in three of the state’s major cities. While a focus on communities that have already shouldered more than their fair share of impacts makes sense, data center-specific CIA requirements would help ensure that data centers don’t create new overburdened areas.  

Data centers are also often built in rural communities that may not be classified as EJ communities but still are more vulnerable due to limited access to healthcare. These communities have a set of unique considerations, such as being some of the only areas with minimal light pollution, where stars aren’t drowned out by urban lights. Under current CIA frameworks, these considerations often go overlooked.  

What would a Data-Center Specific Cumulative Impact Process Look Like? 

We can draw on existing CIA frameworks to imagine what a data-center-specific process could look like.  

First, a data center developer would be required to outline all potential and estimated chemical and non-chemical stressors based on a predetermined list that includes on-site stressors and stressors released elsewhere, including from secondary sites such as power plants.  

Second, for each category of stressor, the estimated impacts would be compared against current conditions. If the CIA finds there is already a higher density of pollution and health burdens, then that data center could be subject to more stringent regulations. This could help address the problem of multiple data centers compounding to worsen public health, ensure that overburdened communities aren’t further exposed to harm, and that unique ecological and cultural resources aren’t overlooked. Other elements of a community’s risk, including access to healthcare, linguistic barriers, and ecological importance, could also be considered here.  

Surprisingly, simply requiring companies to disclose emissions can motivate them—particularly if publicly traded via shareholder pressure—to minimize pollution. Beyond being publicly available, though, the completed CIA could be used by permitting agencies to deny or “condition” permits. “Conditioning” could mean that agencies approve permits only if data centers take additional specific steps, such as using battery backup options rather than polluting generators to avoid pollution. Conditioning could also mean requiring mitigation strategies, such as heat reuse, where excess thermal energy from data centers is redirected to heat nearby buildings. This could not only mitigate the “data center heat island” effect, but it could also lower community electricity costs. CIAs could also lead to discussions about community benefit agreements (CBAs).

CBAs are agreements between developers and community members that guarantee specific local benefits for the community.For many states, this wouldn’t require a whole new set of laws. States like New Jersey already use CIAs in the permitting process for certain facilities (including major air polluters, landfills, and sewage plants), ensuring that decisionmakers are thoroughly informed. Expanding these requirements to encompass data centers could be a step towards ensuring public health is considered in data center related permitting and decisions.  In states without CIA legislation, the creation of data center CIA laws—inspired by other states’ general CIA frameworks—could catalyze a broader advancement of environmental justice by bringing CIA’s to these states.  

 The unmitigated growth of hyperscale data center development and the associated public health impacts are not inevitable. A data center-specific CIA framework would ensure that decisionmakers and community members are aware of the many, simultaneous exposures associated with a proposed data center. Moreover, it would highlight the severity of potential health impacts by detailing baseline and existing community risk factors that could compound the data centers’ individual impacts.  

Ultimately, such a framework could facilitate the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of data center pollution, improve public health, and could even foster more sustainable community relationships with industrial developers.  

On top of this record-breaking news, California declared a state of emergency in anticipation of the upcoming El Niño. The declaration directs state agencies “to begin protecting vulnerable communities, prepare roads and critical infrastructure, stage emergency supplies, and help local partners reduce flood, landslide, and coastal risks.”

This Super El Niño will no doubt significantly impact the Southwestern US this winter, with effects from record-high sea levels and coastal erosion to the potential for excessive rainfall and consequent flash flooding throughout the southern half of the country.

And remember, what happens in the ocean doesn’t stay in the ocean: we’re seeing this El Niño impact weather patterns around the world, modifying where precipitation—and lack thereof—occurs, as I’ll discuss below.

Record-breaking El Niño according to ONI

We’re now observing a record El Niño, according to the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI), which measures ocean surface temperature anomaly (with respect to the 30-year average) in the Niño 3.4 region. This record is particularly striking because it’s only September— El Niño doesn’t typically peak until November-January. It would be one thing to observe a record ONI value in December; the fact that it’s happening in September is indicative of an upcoming El Niño that is truly off the historical charts.

But there is a nuance worth mentioning: while ONI does technically remove the effects of background ocean warming from fossil fuel-driven climate change, it does so in a way that can mis-define an El Niño event. ONI is literally the 30-year average ocean temperature (“climatology”) in the Niño 3.4 region subtracted from the values observed today.

However, this climatology is continuously changing due to fossil fuel-driven climate change, so the definition of an El Niño will change based on the climatology used. For example, something that may have been considered an El Niño in the 1950s may not be considered an El Niño in today’s climate merely because of the gradual warming of the oceans due to climate change.

NOAA scientists realized this problem over the last few years as the oceans continued to warm and the climatology increased. In 2024, they introduced the Relative Oceanic Niño Index (RONI). The RONI gives a more accurate picture of the strength of the developing El Niño: it removes the effects of a changing climatology, allowing for El Niños from different decades to be compared more directly. RONI became NOAA-official earlier this year.

Believe it or not, according to the RONI, we’re still near record-breaking territory, meaning that even considering the different climatologies influenced by fossil fuel-driven climate change, we are still seeing a near-unprecedented El Niño (though 2015 and 1982 RONI values still remain more intense).

In other words, putting the different El Niños (1982, 2015, and 2026) on the same playing field by removing any background influence of climate change or climatological bias, puts the 2026 El Niño as the third strongest for any time of year in recorded history. It’s also the strongest El Niño for where we are now in early October, which is no doubt manifesting in the lack of hurricane season in the Atlantic, and the record hurricane season in the East Pacific.

A reason for this is that, as I mentioned in my April blog on the developing Super El Niño, there is evidence that, while El Niño is part of a natural cycle in our climate system, climate change produces more intense El Niño events. We also see this in a paleoclimate study looking at El Niños from the past thousand years.

How El Niño impacts global weather patterns

There’s a lot of talk of record-breaking El Niño, but why does this matter for you? This is what I mean by “what happens in the ocean doesn’t stay in the ocean,” and why it’s particularly true in the Tropical Pacific right now.

Believe it or not, the location of storms and precipitation in the Pacific actually follows the warmest ocean surface temperatures. When the area of warmest ocean surface temperatures moves, so too does the main development region of storms and precipitation.

Storms in the Tropical Pacific are powerful beasts: they send up an incredible amount of energy from around the equator to the midlatitudes—the area of the Earth between the equator and the North or South Pole—which directly impacts where weather sets up here in the US.

Check out these two schematics below. In the first figure, the “1.” indicates warm ocean surface temperatures over surrounding Indonesia and Oceania, which is a typical setup. In response to this warmth, storms and precipitation develop right over Indonesia and surrounding countries (denoted by clouds). These storms then send a wave of energy (the “2.”) to the midlatitudes (in this case, I’m just showing the northern midlatitudes). The energy then affects the position of the jet stream, basically a river of fast-moving air in the upper atmosphere, that guides our weather systems.

The second figure shows what an El Niño does: it shifts the area of warm ocean surface temperatures to the Central or Eastern Pacific (“1.”). This then shifts the area of storms and precipitation, and therefore the energy being communicated to the midlatitudes (“2.”). The jet stream also shifts (“3.”), allowing for more moisture to be transported inland and more rainfall to be observed in southern parts of the US.

And the shifts shown in the second schematic don’t just stay in the Pacific and the US. They’re communicated around the world. We often see drought in Indonesia, Caribbean, southern Brazil, Mozambique, and Botswana; a delayed monsoon in India and Southeast Asia; and increased precipitation in Uruguay and Argentina.

Regional weather impacts this winter

So, since El Niño can impact global weather patterns through a shift in how energy is sent to the midlatitudes from the tropics, what does this mean for the US? As is hinted in the schematic, the forecast for California and the Southwest US reflects this shift in precipitation patterns: the current seasonal forecast for California and the rest of the Southwest is above average precipitation expected this winter.

However, just because there’s an El Niño doesn’t mean we’ll observe more precipitation than usual in California. For example, during the last Super El Niño in 2015-2016, California saw a slightly drier-than-usual winter. Yes, El Niño shifts weather patterns, but it doesn’t always do it in anticipated or predictable ways.

For this year, seasonal weather model forecasts are generally in agreement and calling for a rainy winter, which could bring some significant drought relief to the Southwest. There is, however, a point where too much rain can fall. As the California State of Emergency notes, there is a significant threat for floods and landslides similar to those experienced during the Super El Niño of 1998.

And then there’s the threat of sea level rise. Sea levels have already risen off the California coast about 8 inches in some areas due to fossil fuel-driven climate change due to heat expansion. During an El Niño, a giant “wave” of water, called a “Kelvin wave,” typically raises sea levels in California. In fact, sea levels could rise by a foot in the next few days.

On top of the thermal expansion from climate change and the Kelvin wave, tides are expected to peak around Thanksgiving and Christmas. Throw a few storm systems on top of that, and you get significant sea level rise in California. The Kelvin wave alone could add another 6 inches of coastal sea level rise.

Across the world, a threat to human food systems

Earlier in August, the World Food Programme released an analysis highlighting how this El Niño will affect global food systems. Tens of millions of additional people could face food insecurity over the next year as regions deal with drought, including Central America, the Caribbean, and eastern and southern African countries. El Niño is also expected to significantly impact global food prices over the next year.

Furthermore, this Super El Niño will release a significant amount of heat from the oceans into the atmosphere, allowing for global heat temperature records to be shattered over the next year. In fact, a new study from University of Chicago’s Climate Impact Lab suggests there could be over 451,000 excess deaths this year due to heat.

The reality of the world we live in

As a climate scientist, I find it harder and harder to share this reality and close on a high note or, frankly, even on a call to action. This Super El Niño is a global force of nature, wildly exacerbated by human-caused climate change, and nothing we do today is going to contain it. But we can prepare far better than we are preparing today.

That includes making sure FEMA and NOAA are fully funded for emergency preparation/response and weather and climate forecasting, respectively. As always, it’s important to hold the bad actors accountable who have been spreading misinformation around climate change for decades —the fossil fuel industry. Check out my colleague’s blog on three ways scientists can hold Big Oil accountable.

The Supreme Court will be considering the question of fossil fuel industry accountability for climate deception and its resulting harms on Monday, October 5, in oral arguments for the case Suncor v Boulder. I’ll be speaking at the People vs Big Oil rally outside the Supreme Court that morning in support of justice for the people of Boulder, Colorado, and all of us whose health, safety, and livable environment are at risk because of the decades of deception perpetrated by the fossil fuel industry.

The testimony the other witnesses and I provided at this hearing powerfully illustrates why Congress must reject a liability shield for Big Oil. Send a message to your legislators now urging them not to give these companies immunity.

Ranking Member Whitehouse, Members of the Environment and Public Works Committee: My name is Dr. Gretchen Goldman, and I am president and CEO of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a science advocacy organization with more than 600,000 supporters nationwide—including scientists, engineers, and concerned citizens from all backgrounds.

Rigorous, independent science has long been a cornerstone of US leadership in research, technology, medicine, innovation and security. Federal funding seeded early research into the internet, Doppler radar, MRI technology, and sequencing the human genome, just to name a few examples.

And beyond research, federal scientists do critical work through evidence-based policy decisions, regulation, and communications that keeps us all healthier and safer, whether we realize it or not:

• Scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and at the Food and Drug Administration work quickly to identify and contain food-borne illness and infectious disease outbreaks;
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists protect our local communities from deadly severe weather; and
• The US Environmental Protection Agency experts have saved thousands of lives through cleaner air and water for decades.

These science agencies work on behalf of the American people, are paid for by American tax dollars, and are staffed by dedicated public servants.

Or at least they used to be.

The Trump administration has engaged in an all-out assault on these and other science agencies and programs across the federal government, harming the American people and enriching the powerful and polluting.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has identified more than 600 such attacks on science in just the first 18 months of the current administration.

From weakening health guidance and pollution standards, to gutting scientific infrastructure and censoring data, these attacks on science jeopardize people’s health and safety; risk America’s long-term investments in security and innovation; and threaten our standing as a world leader.

Attacks on federal scientists

Since inauguration day in 2025, nearly 95,000 science employees, including 10,000 PhDs, have left their jobs, resulting in centuries of lost scientific expertise and institutional memory.

NOAA lost more than 1800 employees during the first six months of the administration, amounting to the departure of more than 27,000 years of experience.

In addition to NOAA, the CDC, the EPA, the National Institutes of Health, and National Science Foundation all lost significant numbers of scientific staff, threatening their ability to carry out their missions.

Attacks on science-based regulations

The administration has singled out climate science in their attacks, adopting fossil fuel industry talking points and going after policies informed by the best available science—all while putting people’s lives and health at risk, as the impacts of climate change rapidly worsen.

Among the most egregious examples of this is the EPA’s recent repeal of the 2009 Endangerment Finding, a science-based legal finding which affirmed the agency’s statutory obligation, under the Clean Air Act, to regulate health-harming heat-trapping emissions.

As the National Academies highlighted in their own recent report, the scientific evidence for current and future public health harms from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions is beyond scientific dispute and has only grown stronger since 2009. The administration is now using this repeal as a justification to overturn standards to limit global warming pollution from vehicles and power plants.

The Trump administration has also targeted the regulations and safeguards that keep politics out of what should be science-based decisions.

They have gutted federal scientific integrity infrastructure.

They have demolished Congressionally mandated climate activities, like the US Global Change Research Program.

They have destroyed funding based on keyword searches for research with at-risk populations.

And they have admitted to canceling scientific funding in states the President did not win.

The role of the fossil fuel industry

The motivation for such a coordinated and sustained assault on the federal scientific enterprise is part of an extreme anti-science agenda, but goes beyond that.

The administration is delivering on promises it has made to special interests who profit from the suppression of science—and in the case of climate science, that special interest is the fossil fuel industry.

At the direction of the industry, the Trump administration is leveraging the full power of the federal government to attack science to protect industry profits and evade accountability—all at the expense of the American people and the planet.

Attribution science, which identifies and quantifies the contributions of climate change to long-term trends and extreme events, is a robust scientific discipline that has been cited by consensus scientific reports like those from the IPCC and our own National Climate Assessment.

Given its centrality in legal efforts to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable, attribution research has become a lightning rod for attacks by government leaders and industry allies.

Industry is so scared of this growing scientific evidence that it is seeking legislation from this Congress to provide legal immunity to the fossil fuel industry for the harm they know they have caused.

Coordinated attacks on FEMA, NOAA, EPA, NSF, NCAR and other agencies and programs are all part of a coordinated campaign to try to bury the evidence of climate change—even as people experience its harsh impacts—all to protect the profit margins of fossil fuel companies.

Closing

Independent science, access to scientific expertise, and strong support of scientific inquiry are critical pillars of a strong democracy.

Attacks on inconvenient scientific findings showcase the corporate capture and corruption that have come to define the second Trump administration, and it is people across the US and the world who will suffer the consequences. Thank you.

Backup generators support critical services in the case of power outages. Hospitals, fire stations, folks with medical needs, and others rely on backup generation to keep the power running for important and lifesaving purposes.

Another entity that also heavily relies on backup generation is data centers. A common refrain in the industry is 99.999% uptime meaning data centers are essentially expected to always be running. In the case of power outages, data centers rely on backup generators to supply their power.

The majority of backup generation for data centers is powered by diesel, which is the industry norm despite being highly polluting. That is increasingly concerning as the rapid growth in data centers is similarly producing a growing backup generation fleet. Luckily, backup generation technology is evolving and cleaner alternatives to diesel are available. These cleaner solutions need to become more common as the backup power option for data centers.

All diesel is bad, some diesel is slightly less bad

Diesel-fueled generators are the primary technology for backup generation at data centers. There are benefits to using diesel – it has high power density, the technology is mature and considered cost-effective, and fuel can be stored onsite.

But surrounding communities bear a steep burden—diesel combustion emits extremely harmful pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, which are linked to respiratory and cardiovascular problems. These pollutants tend to linger locally and since data centers are often geographically clustered, they can have health impacts on nearby residents that worsen with time. Multiple studies have raised concerns about emissions from diesel backup generators at data centers and their health impacts on local communities. Incidences such as diesel spills are also raising environmental concerns and the need for stronger oversight of diesel backup generation at data centers.

The health impacts of diesel pollutants are well known and there have been efforts to regulate emissions and improve technology. The Environmental Protection Agency has defined four tiers of diesel generators with Tier 4 being the least polluting. The difference is quite big with Tier 4 having over 90% lower emissions limits than Tier 2 for certain pollutants. While Tier 4 is generally the standard when diesel generators are running as the main source of power, the lower tiers are still often allowed for backup generation. Some states and local governments have set stricter limits for backup generation as well, such as California’s Bay Area Air District which as of 2024 requires Tier 4 for all new emergency backup generation applications, although this practice is still very limited across the country.

While backup generators run relatively little, between the testing, maintenance, and emergency operations, emissions from backup generators are still quite concerning given how polluting diesel is. There have also been instances in the mid-Atlantic region of the US and in California where diesel backup generators were allowed to run during times of grid stress, such as potential power outages, overriding emissions regulations. If the data center buildout continues at its projected rate, relying on diesel backup generation and especially earlier tiers (very few states require Tier 4 for backup generation) raises notable emissions and public health concerns.

Cleaner solutions for backup generation are here

While the vast majority of data centers use diesel backup generators, cleaner solutions do exist and are gaining traction.

Battery energy storage systems have proven themselves critical for a clean and reliable grid, and can be a clean solution for backup generation as well. They don’t produce emissions and have additional local benefits such as reduced noise. From a usage perspective, batteries do not need fuel and generally require less maintenance. Data centers have begun deploying batteries as backup power, especially as battery technology continues to improve and becomes more economical.

Batteries have the added benefit of supporting the grid when their backup services are not needed. They can charge during times of excess renewable generation or when electricity demand is low, and then be used to power the data center when electricity demand is peaking to help reduce demand. Batteries can also be used to mitigate rapid power fluctuations from data centers which stress the grid, potentially leading to outages.

Hydrogen fuel cells are another potential avenue for cleaner backup generation, although this depends largely on how the hydrogen gas is produced – some of it is much cleaner than others. Hydrogen fuel cells use hydrogen gas to produce electricity in a chemical reaction that only produces water and heat as byproducts. It’s a cleaner solution that also has potential for prolonged outages and is being tested by tech companies like Microsoft and Google.

These cleaner solutions are promising even though they do still have barriers to widespread deployment. Battery systems are often shorter duration, require a large footprint that may be difficult in urban areas, and lithium-ion batteries can have a fire risk. Hydrogen fuel is expensive and distribution infrastructure is limited. But these technologies do have the significant advantage over diesel generation in that they do not emit pollutants that harm the health of local communities or contribute to climate change.

Methane gas generators are still problematic

Methane gas as backup generation is still limited in its deployment at data centers although it is being touted as a cleaner alternative to diesel generators. That doesn’t mean methane gas doesn’t have major drawbacks, it’s still quite problematic in terms of its emissions that contribute to climate change and public health concerns.

At a high level, switching to gas backup generators risks locking in more polluting fossil fuel infrastructure, a concerning direction for the clean energy transition. Even from a practical standpoint as backup generation, there are issues with using gas generation. Fuel for these generators is supplied through gas utilities and the gas system can be unreliable in extreme weather events shuttering services when backup generation is most needed.

Diesel should not be the norm for data center backup generation

The number of data centers is projected to grow significantly across the country, and the associated wave of diesel-fueled backup generators is deeply concerning for air quality and public health of nearby communities. This is especially notable in urban settings, where data centers are often concentrated and where backup generators would fire up simultaneously in the event of a power outage.

Cleaner technologies to diesel exist, and continued innovation can increase the scale at which they are deployed. For example, batteries increasingly have longer duration storage abilities, and improvements in technology and management of battery systems can reduce fire risk. There are also increasingly creative battery systems, such as new battery technologies, using recycled electric vehicle batteries, and pairing batteries with other resources such as solar and hydrogen, that could better suit the needs of data centers.

Policy incentives for these clean solutions will be critical for speeding up the transition away from polluting diesel and minimizing air quality and health impacts. For data centers with diesel backup generation, increasing scrutiny of when these data centers are allowed to run their backup generation is important. Instances where data centers have switched to backup generation during non-emergencies, such as grid disturbances and not actual outages, reveal major gaps in data center regulations.

It’s alarming how quickly the development of data centers is moving forward unchecked. While states have started passing legislation around data centers such as reporting requirements, these have not included policies on diesel backup generation. One of the consequences of this buildout could be a large fleet of highly-polluting diesel backup generators with serious air quality and public health impacts. There are cleaner solutions for backup generation at data centers and now is the time to incentivize and continue innovating these new technologies.