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:
It’s not just emissions rules. Fuel economy regulations are changing, too, and investments are massive. It may just work.

Two summers ago, the Biden Administration announced a somewhat daunting goal for America’s car industry at the time: to make sure that 50% of all new vehicles sold in 2030 would be zero-emission vehicles.
Evidently, that wasn’t enough of a stunner. With the Environmental Protection Agency’s announcement today of vastly more stringent proposed new emissions standards — the strictest ones America has ever seen — the adoption of new all-electric vehicles specifically could be as high as 67% by 2032.
To be fair, a lot has changed in less than two years. Countless new EV models have rolled out since and many more are coming soon. America’s charging network is rapidly expanding, thanks to federal and state investments as well as billions of dollars in grants for private companies. And last year’s Inflation Reduction Act mapped out a robust domestic battery manufacturing supply chain, as well as a modernized tax credit scheme to incentive EV adoption.
But besides seeing more EVs and chargers around, it may not be readily apparent to most people how quickly things are changing. Make no mistake: between those actions, what the EPA is proposing today, and broader global industry trends, the groundwork is being laid right now to transform the car industry into a mostly battery-electric one. Today’s EPA announcement could be seen as the “It’s happening” moment for the wide-scale shift away from gasoline vehicles.
“I think it’s one of the most pivotal climate regulations this administration has rolled out,” said Leilani Gonzalez, the policy director for the nonprofit Zero Emission Transportation Association.
The EPA’s announcement isn’t all that is happening. More changes are expected soon to American fuel economy standards as well that should drive automakers even faster toward an electrified future.
Moreover, some experts say today’s rules could even spur the growth of hybrid cars, specifically plug-in hybrids since the EPA will require automakers to lower emissions but it doesn’t stipulate which powertrain must be used.
Broader industry trends, tough regulations in Europe and China, and the global nature of the car business meant things were likely headed in this direction anyway. But in America, they just feel more official now.
Today’s EPA proposal deals specifically with tailpipe emissions for light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles — in other words, cars, trucks, vans, buses, and large work vehicles. Passenger cars will be the most visible and meaningful example for most people, but these new regulations hit across the board.
According to the proposed rules, vehicles made from 2027 through 2032 will face vastly stricter emissions regulations such that it’s going to be easier for automakers to be in compliance if they mostly sell EVs instead. The EPA even projects as much in its announcement today.
That isn’t all that’s happening. What’s gotten less attention so far are reports that the U.S. Department of Energy is also due to revise how it defines “MPGe” — a somewhat obscure and ill-understood measurement that means the “miles per gallon equivalent” for electric and plug-in hybrid cars. It basically gauges an EV’s energy consumption compared to internal combustion vehicles; you see it on any EV’s spec sheet at the dealership. The rules are about 20 years old.
Without getting too deep into the weeds, MPGe calculations could soon be revised downward to meet a more modern, realistic standard in line with their actual behavior. According to Reuters, this means a Ford F-150 Lighting’s MPGe could drop from 237.1 to 67.1 MPGe, and a Chrysler Pacifica PHEV’s rating will go from 88.2 to 59.5 MPGe.
Fuel economy for automakers is measured in averages for their entire fleets. (You may have heard of Corporate Average Fuel Economy or CAFE.) So by revising MPGe to be more realistic, it keeps automakers from meeting their fuel economy average requirements by sandbagging things with a couple of EVs, like the one person in a group project who does all of the work for everyone. Environmental groups like the Sierra Club have asked for this change for years.
Furthermore, another American auto regulator, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is due to release revised CAFE rules soon as well. Those are expected to get much more strict as well, Reuters reports, even more so than were released last year when the agency reversed the Trump administration’s rollback.
Taken altogether, this means new cars of the late 2020s into the 2030s and beyond must be cleaner, and more fuel efficient, and automakers will not be able to rely on a handful of EVs to carry the weight of their whole fleets. They will have to produce more efficient vehicles with cleaner emissions soon — or no emissions at all. That this is all happening at once does not feel like a coincidence.
Again, the zero-emission car revolution has been in the works for many years. Automakers are largely global enterprises now that don’t like to sell multiple types of vehicles in different markets for cost reasons (though Americans specifically do love their big trucks) and they’re staring down an all-EV market in China and outright ICE bans in Europe. These rules now put America on the same trajectory as other nations and regions — or even some of its own states, like California. They also seem to limit the number of America-specific cars that could be out of compliance with strict global standards.
But it all begs the question: Can it be done? Even Loren McDonald, the head of EV marketing and research firm EVAdoption, said he has his doubts.
“When I looked at the 50% target, I think that was actually achievable,” McDonald said. “Sixty-seven percent by 2032 is a whole other level.”
He said that hitting this goal would require 80%-90% zero-emission vehicle adoption in some of the most populous U.S. states like California. For these reasons and more, including income, various cultural factors and the scarcity of charging, he sees this as a tougher ask in more rural states.
Among his concerns are the still-high cost of EVs, which need to be brought down considerably; the obvious need to grow the public charging infrastructure; the fact that many of the ICE cars on the road now could stay on the road for decades to come; and the ongoing lack of charging options for people in multi-family homes.
On the upside, McDonald said he thinks these new rules could spur some novel innovations that we haven’t seen yet.
“The best thing about this is they haven’t dictated the powertrain,” McDonald said. Future zero- or lower-emission cars could mean a variety of things, although battery EVs remain the most likely long-term solution for passenger cars.
“That will help the GOP [critics of Biden], the automakers, the lobbying groups and so on,” he said. “They’ve said these cars don’t have to be EVs. They recognize that’s probably the way to get there, but it does encourage innovation — maybe long-range hybrids or even other types of fuels.”
Typically, automakers throw a fit whenever they are faced with strict new standards, before developing new technologies to meet these challenges. But switching from a century of gasoline-powered car infrastructure to a battery-centric one does have legitimate, realistic challenges.
These are the concerns expressed by one of the auto industry’s largest lobbying groups, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation — but not without a surprising degree of optimism too.
“The question isn’t can this be done, it’s how fast can it be done, and how fast will depend almost exclusively on having the right policies and market conditions in place to achieve the shared goal of a net zero carbon automotive future,” said the alliance’s president and CEO John Bozzella in a blog post after today’s news.
Many of Bozzella’s concerns show what a long-game approach this will require, from ramping up EV production to increasing chargers to bringing all involved costs down. Taken altogether, it feels almost like the Biden Administration’s equivalent of President Kennedy ordering a moon landing by the end of the decade in 1961.
But Gonzalez, of Zero Emission Transportation Association, said she views today’s news on a much more positive note. She said that the eventual goal is to build an infrastructure where batteries can be recycled over and over again, their minerals repurposed for new uses, so that they cannot be depleted the way gasoline eventually will be.
Gonzalez added that even if Biden loses the White House in 2024 or the Republicans gain power over the Senate, these proposed EPA rules could go into effect in 2027. That means the earliest a new administration could make changes is by 2026, and by then, the auto industry will have already spent years moving toward these aggressive goals. At the same time, she thinks significant growth in charging, battery manufacturing, and more is needed to support zero-emission transportation.
“I think we’re going to get there,” Gonzalez said. “I think folks are doing everything they possibly can to get there.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Whether any of them will hold up in court is now the big question.
Environmental lawyers are in for years of déjà vu as the Trump administration relitigates questions that many believed were settled by the Supreme Court nearly 20 years ago.
On Thursday, Trump rescinded the “endangerment finding,” the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 determination that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles threaten Americans’ public health and welfare and should be regulated. In the short term, the move repeals existing vehicle emissions standards and prevents future administrations from replacing them. In the longer term, what matters is whether any of the administration’s justifications hold up in court.
In its final rule, the EPA abandoned its attempt to back the move using a bespoke climate science report published by the Department of Energy last year. The report was created by a working group assembled in secret by the department and made up of five scientists who have a track record of pushing back on mainstream climate science. Not only was the report widely refuted by scientists, but the assembly of the working group itself broke federal law, a judge ruled in late January.
“The science is clear that climate change is creating a risk for the public and public health, and so I think it’s significant that they realized that it creates a legal risk if they were to try to assert otherwise,” Carrie Jenks, the executive director of Harvard’s Environmental and Energy Law Program, told me.
Instead, the EPA came up with three arguments to justify its decision, each of which will no doubt have to be defended in court. The agency claims that each of them can stand alone, but that they also reinforce each other. Whether that proves to be true, of course, has yet to be determined.
Here’s what they are:
Congress never specifically told the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. If it did, maybe we would have accomplished more on climate change by now.
What happened instead was that in 1999, a coalition of environmental and solar energy groups asked the EPA to regulate emissions from cars, arguing that greenhouse gases should be considered pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act. In 2007, in a case called Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court agreed with the second part. That led the EPA to consider whether these gases posed enough of a danger to public health to warrant regulation. In 2009, it concluded they did — that’s what’s known as the endangerment finding. After reaching that finding, the EPA went ahead and developed standards to limit emissions from vehicles. It later followed that up with rules for power plants and oil and gas operations.
Now Trump’s EPA is arguing that this three-step progression — categorizing greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act, making a scientific finding that they endanger public health, and setting regulations — was all wrong. Instead, the agency now believes, it’s necessary to consider all three at once.
Using the EPA’s logic, the argument comes out something like this: If we consider that U.S. cars are a small sliver of global emissions, and that limiting those emissions will not materially change the trajectory of global warming or the impacts of climate change on Americans, then we must conclude that Congress did not intend for greenhouse gases to be regulated when it enacted the Clean Air Act.
“They are trying to merge it all together and say, because we can’t do that last thing in a way that we think is reasonable, we can’t do the first thing,” Jenks said.
The agency is not explicitly asking for Massachusetts v. EPA to be overturned, Jenks said. But if its current argument wins in court, that would be the effective outcome, preventing future administrations from issuing greenhouse gas standards unless Congress passed a law explicitly telling it to do so. While it's rare for the Supreme Court to reverse course, none of the five justices who were in the majority on that case remain, and the makeup of the court is now far more conservative than in 2007.
The EPA also asserted that the “major questions doctrine,” a legal principle that says federal agencies cannot set policies of major economic and political significance without explicit direction from Congress, means the EPA cannot “decide the Nation’s policy response to global climate change concerns.”
The Supreme Court has used the major questions doctrine to overturn EPA’s regulations in the past, most notably in West Virginia v. EPA, which ruled that President Obama’s Clean Power Plan failed this constitutional test. But that case was not about EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, the court solely struck down the particular approach the EPA took to those regulations. Nevertheless, the EPA now argues that any climate regulation at all would be a violation.
The EPA’s final argument is about the “futility” of vehicle emissions standards. It echoes a portion of the first justification, arguing that the point alone is enough of a reason to revoke the endangerment finding absent any other reason.
The endangerment finding had “severed the consideration of endangerment from the consideration of contribution” of emissions, the agency wrote. The Clean Air Act “instructs the EPA to regulate in furtherance of public health and welfare, not to reduce emissions regardless [of] whether such reductions have any material health and welfare impact.”
Funnily enough, to reach this conclusion, the agency had to use climate models developed by past administrations, including the EPA’s Optimization Model for reducing Emissions of GHGs from Automobiles, as well as some developed by outside scientists, such as the Finite amplitude Impulse Response climate emulator model — though it did so begrudgingly.
The agency “recognizes that there is still significant dispute regarding climate science and modeling,” it wrote. “However, the EPA is utilizing the climate modeling provided within this section to help illustrate” that zero-ing out emissions from vehicles “would not materially address the health and welfare dangers attributed to global climate change concerns in the Endangerment Finding.”
I have yet to hear back from outside experts about the EPA’s modeling here, so I can’t say what assumptions the agency made to reach this conclusion or estimate how well it will hold up to scrutiny. We’ll be talking to more legal scholars and scientists in the coming days as they digest the rule and dig into which of these arguments — if any — has a chance to prevail.
The state is poised to join a chorus of states with BYO energy policies.
With the backlash to data center development growing around the country, some states are launching a preemptive strike to shield residents from higher energy costs and environmental impacts.
A bill wending through the Washington State legislature would require data centers to pick up the tab for all of the costs associated with connecting them to the grid. It echoes laws passed in Oregon and Minnesota last year, and others currently under consideration in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, and Delaware.
Several of these bills, including Washington’s, also seek to protect state climate goals by ensuring that new or expanded data centers are powered by newly built, zero-emissions power plants. It’s a strategy that energy wonks have started referring to as BYONCE — bring your own new clean energy. Almost all of the bills also demand more transparency from data center companies about their energy and water use.
This list of state bills is by no means exhaustive. Governors in New York and Pennsylvania have declared their intent to enact similar policies this year. At least six states, including New York and Georgia, are also considering total moratoria on new data centers while regulators study the potential impacts of a computing boom.
“Potential” is a key word here. One of the main risks lawmakers are trying to circumvent is that utilities might pour money into new infrastructure to power data centers that are never built, built somewhere else, or don’t need as much energy as they initially thought.
“There’s a risk that there’s a lot of speculation driving the AI data center boom,” Emily Moore, the senior director of the climate and energy program at the nonprofit Sightline Institute, told me. “If the load growth projections — which really are projections at this point — don’t materialize, ratepayers could be stuck holding the bag for grid investments that utilities have made to serve data centers.”
Washington State, despite being in the top 10 states for data center concentration, has not exactly been a hotbed of opposition to the industry. According to Heatmap Pro data, there are no moratoria or restrictive ordinances on data centers in the state. Rural communities in Eastern Washington have also benefited enormously from hosting data centers from the earlier tech boom, using the tax revenue to fund schools, hospitals, municipal buildings, and recreation centers.
Still, concern has started to bubble up. A ProPublica report in 2024 suggested that data centers were slowing the state’s clean energy progress. It also described a contentious 2023 utility commission meeting in Grant County, which has the highest concentration of data centers in the state, where farmers and tech workers fought over rising energy costs.
But as with elsewhere in the country, it’s the eye-popping growth forecasts that are scaring people the most. Last year, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, a group that oversees electricity planning in the region, estimated that data centers and chip fabricators could add somewhere between 1,400 megawatts and 4,500 megawatts of demand by 2030. That’s similar to saying that between one and four cities the size of Seattle will hook up to the region’s grid in the next four years.
In the face of such intimidating demand growth, Washington Governor Bob Ferguson convened a Data Center Working Group last year — made up of state officials as well as advisors from electric utilities, environmental groups, labor, and industry — to help the state formulate a game plan. After meeting for six months, the group published a report in December finding that among other things, the data center boom will challenge the state’s efforts to decarbonize its energy systems.
A supplemental opinion provided by the Washington Department of Ecology also noted that multiple data center developers had submitted proposals to use fossil fuels as their main source of power. While the state’s clean energy law requires all electricity to be carbon neutral by 2030, “very few data center developers are proposing to use clean energy to meet their energy needs over the next five years,” the department said.
The report’s top three recommendations — to maintain the integrity of Washington’s climate laws, strengthen ratepayer protections, and incentivize load flexibility and best practices for energy efficiency — are all incorporated into the bill now under discussion in the legislature. The full list was not approved by unanimous vote, however, and many of the dissenting voices are now opposing the data center bill in the legislature or asking for significant revisions.
Dan Diorio, the vice president of state policy for the Data Center Coalition, an industry trade group, warned lawmakers during a hearing on the bill that it would “significantly impact the competitiveness and viability of the Washington market,” putting jobs and tax revenue at risk. He argued that the bill inappropriately singles out data centers, when arguably any new facility with significant energy demand poses the same risks and infrastructure challenges. The onshoring of manufacturing facilities, hydrogen production, and the electrification of vehicles, buildings, and industry will have similar impacts. “It does not create a long-term durable policy to protect ratepayers from current and future sources of load growth,” he said.
Another point of contention is whether a top-down mandate from the state is necessary when utility regulators already have the authority to address the risks of growing energy demand through the ratemaking process.
Indeed, regulators all over the country are already working on it. The Smart Electric Power Alliance, a clean energy research and education nonprofit, has been tracking the special rate structures and rules that U.S. utilities have established for data centers, cryptocurrency mining facilities, and other customers with high-density energy needs, many of which are designed to protect other ratepayers from cost shifts. Its database, which was last updated in November, says that 36 such agreements have been approved by state utility regulators, mostly in the past three years, and that another 29 are proposed or pending.
Diario of the Data Center Coalition cited this trend as evidence that the Washington bill was unnecessary. “The data center industry has been an active party in many of those proceedings,” he told me in an email, and “remains committed to paying its full cost of service for the energy it uses.” (The Data Center Coalition opposed a recent utility decision in Ohio that will require data centers to pay for a minimum of 85% of their monthly energy forecast, even if they end up using less.)
One of the data center industry’s favorite counterarguments against the fear of rising electricity is that new large loads actually exert downward pressure on rates by spreading out fixed costs. Jeff Dennis, who is the executive director of the Electricity Customer Alliance and has worked for both the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, told me this is something he worries about — that these potential benefits could be forfeited if data centers are isolated into their own ratemaking class. But, he said, we’re only in “version 1.5 or 2.0” when it comes to special rate structures for big energy users, known as large load tariffs.
“I think they’re going to continue to evolve as everybody learns more about how to integrate large loads, and as the large load customers themselves evolve in their operations,” he said.
The Washington bill passed the Appropriations Committee on Monday and now heads to the Rules Committee for review. A companion bill is moving through the state senate.
Plus more of the week’s top fights in renewable energy.
1. Kent County, Michigan — Yet another Michigan municipality has banned data centers — for the second time in just a few months.
2. Pima County, Arizona — Opposition groups submitted twice the required number of signatures in a petition to put a rezoning proposal for a $3.6 billion data center project on the ballot in November.
3. Columbus, Ohio — A bill proposed in the Ohio Senate could severely restrict renewables throughout the state.
4. Converse and Niobrara Counties, Wyoming — The Wyoming State Board of Land Commissioners last week rescinded the leases for two wind projects in Wyoming after a district court judge ruled against their approval in December.