You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
On graphite mining, local climate policy, and East Asia’s LNG crunch

Current conditions: Thunderstorms are ripping through the Ohio Valley with winds of up to 85 miles per hour • The historic heat wave in the Southwest is finally cooling down, with temperatures in Phoenix hitting 100 degrees Fahrenheit today before easing into the mid-90s over the weekend • Hail storms that pummeled Laos damaged the roofs of thousands of homes in the capital Vientiane.

A week ago, I told you that Chinese automakers were wasting no time in setting up a Canadian beachhead in the North American vehicle market, with at least three companies on track to start selling cars by the end of this year. Now the largest of Beijing’s auto giants, BYD, has outlined plans for at least 20 dealerships in its first year in Canada. The company “is moving fast to establish a physical retail presence in Canada,” Electrek reported, and is already scouting out locations in the Toronto area. BYD has hired Dealer Solutions Mergers & Acquisitions, an Ontario-based automotive consultancy, to find dealership locations throughout the country. “They’ve asked us to help them find as many of the 20 that they possibly can, but they’re out there doing that themselves, as well,” Farid Ahmad, the consultancy’s chief executive, told The Global and Mail. BYD’s cutting-edge designs and low price tags are the result of China’ ability to “innovate so relentlessly because of its abundance of process knowledge,” Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer wrote last year, citing Dan Wang, a researcher at Yale Law School who studies Chinese technology. “This community of engineering practice may have been seeded by Apple’s iPhone-manufacturing effort in the aughts and Tesla’s carmaking prowess in the 2010s, but it has now taken on a life of its own.” BYD is also tapping good old-fashioned Hollywood starpower to promote its global rollout. On Wednesday, the company’s luxury brand, Denza, announced British actor Daniel Craig as the face of its new advertising campaign.
Ford, meanwhile, is sweating the competition as the iconic American automaker seeks to rebuild its electric vehicle line from the ground up. The first models designed through the company's new Model T-like approach are due out next year, InsideEVs reported this week.
The top U.S. electricity regulator criticized tech companies for not engaging federal authorities more on the buildout of artificial intelligence data centers. In remarks Axios reported from CERAWeek in Houston, Laura Swett, the chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said she talks to utilities about surging data center demand “probably nine times as much” as she hears from hyperscalers. “I don’t talk to them as much as I thought that they would be coming to me,” she said. Axios reporter Amy Harder called the comments “unusually blunt, far more candid than a lot of other main stage conversations underway here at what’s considered the world’s most influential energy gathering.”
The backlash to data centers, a force Heatmap’s Jael Holzman wrote is “swallowing American politics,” is only growing. On Thursday, two U.S. senators, Democrat Elizabeth Warren and Republican Josh Hawley, sent a letter to the Energy Information Administration urging the agency to collect “comprehensive, annual energy-use disclosures” on data centers, according to a scoop from Wired reporter Molly Taft.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
The Trump administration is adding yet another mineral company to the federal government’s portfolio of equity stakes. On Wednesday, the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation announced a strategic investment in Australia’s Syrah Resources. The company’s facility in Louisiana is the first U.S. supplier of natural graphite, a key battery material. Syrah also controls the Balama mine in Mozambique, one of the world’s largest natural graphite reserves. The agency plans to convert a $31 million loan into equity, taking a roughly 20% stake in the company. Once complete, the deal will make the DFC the second-largest shareholder in the miner. “In today’s era of global competition, economic security is national security,” Ben Black, the DFC’s chief executive, said in a statement. “With this transaction, we will secure U.S. access to one of the largest graphite reserves in the world, supply jobs for the U.S. and our allies, and support a valuable hub of economic activity for the people of Mozambique.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Two legal decisions that came down this week highlighted the limits of both municipalities’ right to sue over the effects of global warming and a key federal statute’s authority to stop the city government in Washington, D.C., from adopting greener building codes. On Tuesday, Maryland’s Supreme Court tossed out lawsuits filed against fossil fuel companies by Baltimore, Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County, ruling that the localities were stepping on federal jurisdiction in what Maryland Matters called a “scathing decision.”
Then came the second decision, coincidentally just over the border in the nation’s capital. On Thursday, Judge Ana Reyes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia “roundly rejected” claims by trade associations representing the gas industry that the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act prevented Washington from requiring in 2022 that new and renovated buildings be constructed to a net-zero energy standard by 2027, E&E News reported. The federal statute sets energy efficiency standards for appliances and bars state and local regulators from enacting rules that would alter a product’s design. But Reyes ruled that the EPCA, as it’s known, does not prevent local or state governments from tightening rules on energy consumption.
Two of East Asia’s biggest economies, Taiwan and Japan, grew increasingly dependent on shipments of liquified natural gas over the past decade as the former phased out nuclear power entirely and the latter paused its reactors in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. Now that gas tankers coming from one of the world’s top suppliers, Qatar, can’t traverse the Strait of Hormuz, the two Pacific archipelago nations are in a bind. Japan is racing to turn its nuclear reactors back on, as I have previously written. In the meantime, Tokyo has just lifted restrictions on the operation of coal-fired power plants in a bid to shore up the electricity supply, Nikkei reported. Taiwan, on the other hand, is stockpiling LNG and finding alternative vendors. On Wednesday, the Ministry of Economic Affairs said Taiwan had more than its legally-required 11 days of cushion if all shipments halted. The self-governing island, meanwhile, spent an extra $600 million to secure LNG through June to replace the lost Qatari supply, Bloomberg reporter Stephen Stapczynski noted on X. The prices were roughly twice as high as before the war.
Norway made history last year with the first shipment to its debut carbon storage facility near the North Sea, as I wrote last summer. Now the country is taking another stride in carbon capture and storage with the launch of a new bioenergy project paired with CCS that Carbon Herald described as “the first permanent storage of biogenic carbon dioxide captured from biogas production.” While a mouthful, the distinction is notable. The facility just began transporting and storing liquified CO2 captured from a wastewater facility, injecting the carbon into geological formations roughly 8,500 feet into the North Sea’s seabed. When the wastewater treatment plant produces biogas as organic waste breaks down, carbon dioxide comes out as a byproduct. Instead of entering the atmosphere, “this stream is captured, purified, and prepared for transport.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The data center boom is everywhere you look in U.S. economic and emissions data.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
It isn’t exactly a new thought, but I’ve been struck recently by how many trends in America’s economic and environmental data are fundamentally about the data center boom and the return of electricity demand:
First, the Energy Information Administration reported this week that U.S. emissions grew by more than 2% last year, driven by surging electricity demand and an increase in coal-fired generation.What caused that higher power demand? New factories and data centers — as well as record summertime cooling demand.
Second, many of the new factories driving that higher power demand are themselves producing goods that are … let’s say … data center-adjacent. There are the enormous new semiconductor fabs, of course. But Ford and General Motors have also set up new production lines (or repurposed old ones) to manufacture grid-scale batteries to meet power demand.
Third, take a look at the recent U.S. spending on private non-residential construction — in other words, everything American companies are building that is not houses, condos, or apartments.
The construction industry’s spent almost $60 billion on data centers over the past year, which is more than it spent on all other office buildings combined (and more than it spent building warehouses, too). Just a handful of categories — data centers, power plants, electricity infrastructure, and certain kinds of electronics manufacturing — now make up a third of all U.S. private non-residential construction investment. They’ve never made up such a large share of construction spending since data collection began in 2014.
As The New York Times recently noted, the American economy is unusually dependent on the American stock market right now — and the stock market is unusually dependent on artificial intelligence. This week, investors started to balk at the enormous spending hyperscalers are planning to keep building out the AI boom; Alphabet’s shares dropped 8% this week after it boosted its planned 2026 capital expenditure and signaled 2027 will be even bigger. If the data center boom started to slow down in earnest, then more than just that budget will change.
Speaking of which, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote earlier this week about how many businesses are struggling to even estimate their carbon emissions from artificial intelligence. The carbon accounting startup Watershed recently unveiled a new formula to help companies get a sense of their AI-related emissions.
But even that formula is still limited by the amount of data hyperscalers publish — and they don’t publish that much. Google, for instance, is the only AI company that has (laudably) provided estimates of its emissions on a per-prompt basis. Yet no company has published its per-token emissions, or how emissions sync up with particular models or regions.
So Emily asked Google: Why aren’t you — or any other model provider — disclosing this kind of data yet?
The tech company didn’t get back to us until after we’d published Emily’s story. But its response was interesting enough that I wanted to quote some of it here.
The problem is “industry consensus,” Cooper Elsworth, a Google spokesperson, told us. “There is currently very little consensus on how to comprehensively and fairly measure the serving environmental impact of generative AI (such as text generation),” he wrote. “Without standardized, ‘apples-to-apples’ frameworks, it is difficult to compare different providers accurately.”
That’s partly because energy use — and emissions data — can vary from site to site and depend on “custom-built hardware, software compilers, and advanced inference techniques.” And he claimed Google doesn’t always have the measurement hardware in place to provide such specific estimates: “Providing precise, repeatable data requires highly advanced measurement infrastructure,” he said. “For example, software-based energy monitoring tools often suffer from sampling biases. For our study, we had to step away from top-down averages and directly measure actual energy at the physical power supply unit (PSU) level across our deployed fleet. Not all providers have the telemetry or data sets required to benchmark their operations at this level of granularity.”
Read Emily’s story to understand the other reasons why estimating — or even “guesstimating” — AI-related carbon emissions is so challenging.
A conversation with Emma Uridge of the Kansas Health Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Emma Uridge, analyst with the Kansas Health Institute. Uridge spent copious hours analyzing state and local laws on data center development to best understand how policymakers are responding to the potential environmental public health impacts of large AI infrastructure, including power and water. The report, which came out this week, also goes in depth into those health impacts. I reached out to her to discuss what she sees as must-watch territory for our readers on this emerging policy arena.
Our conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
What is actually being done on policy when it comes to data centers — beyond moratoria of course?
So first I’d like to just talk about the point of moratoria. It’s helpful to talk about how these policies emerge in the first place. One area where moratoria are helpful is when a data center is proposed but the county has no approach for how they’d like to potentially regulate them. That’s temporary, most of the time. It lets local governments conduct research on the various impacts and also negotiate community benefits, ones that can mitigate any potential negative impacts — like Lancaster Pennsylvania, which instituted a community benefit agreement that maximized the potential benefits of development while mitigating what large data centers can do. That agreement looked at capping municipal water use at 20,000 gallons per day and requiring 100% clean energy. It had financial penalties for non-compliance. The company also committed $20 million to their local economic development and clean energy fund. There are ways to negotiate with developers.
We also see amendments to existing zoning. Data center proposals are increasingly popping up in rural areas, many of which are unzoned, so there’s no way a county can negotiate unless there’s a moratorium in place.
Other policy solutions include different performance standards or requiring on-site renewable energy, like what Jefferson County, Missouri, looked at. Also setback requirements, mandatory noise buffers, ending by-right zoning.
Where are local governments getting ideas for regulating data centers?
A lot of the technical information comes from developers. That can in cases be seen as a biased source of information. I wouldn’t say there’s a dedicated group providing assistance to local governments when a project is proposed — which is a similar story to wind industry development, where we have only a handful of consultants who provide technical advice. It can be really helpful to get a multi-disciplinary approach to hearing information. It can be helpful to have the utility commission, public health folks, those in academia, as well as the developer.
As of right now, especially in rural areas, local governments have a hard task of balancing pushback while getting the most accurate, evidence-based, neutral information to make decisions. That balance can be contentious.
What is the federal government doing on data center policy? How is the Trump administration approaching it?
A few things there. In the early days, the drive was for AI expansion and to be competitive with foreign adversaries. Now due to the amount of public pushback in red and blue localities and a more cautious approach.
I’m not seeing a lot of actual policy movement at this time.
I know the EPA is looking at the chemicals used in cooling data centers because when that water is cycled through the system, some of it is discharged into the water system, so they’re looking at the Toxic Substances and Control Act for monitoring that.
How much of an impact does this minimal federal role have on industry behavior?
Y’know, this isn’t specific to data centers. This is true for all kinds of large-scale development: there’s a need to require some sort of federal monitoring and regulation.
That’s where I see an emerging role for public health. At the federal level, there could be policy movement towards requiring some sort of environmental monitoring at data centers to make sure they’re operating responsibility. Looking at specific water use relative to water availability and what happens when there’s a time of severe, persistent drought. With air quality too — we’ve seen areas where the grid isn’t as reliable so their diesel generators are kicking on more and affecting air quality for residents.
We’re just not seeing all of that right now. We need corporate disclosure.
What do you see as the most important public health impacts from data center development?
It varies by localities. The most discussed obviously is water usage. One thing I’d note about my conversations with folks enthusiastic around emerging tech is, there are still questions that need to be asked about the capacity of localities to support a data center. Like a small town in Kansas may only be using 40% of their water for their utility needs. If a data center came online, how much of that water goes to the data center?
One area underexplored within the public health discipline is energy poverty and energy security. The ability of a household to meet the needs of everything energy provides in our lives. It’s known we have an aging electric grid but we’re not talking enough about large-scale blackouts when the grid is not sufficient to support some of these new data centers.
Plus more of the week’s big development fights.
1. Laramie County, Wyoming — Meta is fighting the fine it received in the Cheyenne data center water pollution controversy, and the conflict between the tech giant and the city’s small board of public utilities is continuing to spill out into the public.
2. Niagara County, New York — This county just rejected a solar project’s highway work permits in a show of retaliation against the state’s Office of Renewable Energy Siting.
3. Barron County, Wisconsin — The anti-solar protest is the new campaign stop in deep red Wisconsin.
4. Chesapeake, Virginia — A large battery storage project on the Virginia coastline is on the rocks amidst rampant local opposition.
5. Lewis County, West Virginia — West Virginia is now a key battleground in the fight over transmission, as a line spanning all of West Virginia and Maryland — and cutting through Data Center Alley in Virginia — causes compounding consternation.