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.
And data centers might be collateral damage.
After derailing gigawatts of renewable power with a permitting freeze, the Trump administration is expanding its war on renewable energy, retaining one of country music’s biggest stars in a PR offensive against utility-scale projects on “prime farmland.”
The administration recently onboarded John Rich – one half of the stadium-packing American musical duo Big & Rich – to be Trump’s “special envoy for American landowners.” Rich entered activism around landowner rights last January when he backed opponents fighting a large Tennessee Valley Authority transmission project routed through his home county of Cheatham, Tennessee. This led to him joining the Trump team, where he’s fashioning himself as a go-to guy and cheerleader for anyone who wants Trump to help stop a solar or wind farm they don’t want built.
Rich’s first fight on behalf of the Trump team? Battling solar projects in upstate New York. Over the weekend, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, and the freshly-annointed Rich wrote New York Governor Kathy Hochul grilling her on the state’s definition of “prime farmland” and claiming “the absence of a clear plan” for disposing of solar panels after projects are decommissioned. The letter resulted from Rich’s conversations with a prominent anti-solar Substack author in upstate New York, Alexandra Fasulo, and it references a specific Repsol project under development in Glen, New York, that she is fighting in state court.
“Only 8 weeks ago, I decided to start posting my written content from Facebook and Substack to X. It didn’t take long before John Rich and I connected,” Fasulo wrote in a blog on Monday. “John and I spoke on the phone a few times. We texted and I began to share my research with him. Many meetings later… and the US Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and John Rich put their heads together.” In her post Fasulo signaled more is coming. “If you read the letter slowly, you’ll get the gist of what the feds are trying to do here. For legal purposes, I am not going to explain that in writing. Read between the lines,” she said. “This lays the foundation for battling destruction at the hands of solar and wind complexes, battery storage, and so much more. Have a little faith and patience. There is A LOT to come.”
Trump is pivoting to farmland fights because there are few battlegrounds left for the federal government to fire upon. He has totally undermined large-scale renewable energy development in the ocean – I mean, look at offshore wind. He’s wrecked progress in the desert, where large solar farms on federal lands remain trapped in bureaucratic permitting delays. Some facilities are now getting through, like Primergy Power’s Purple Sage Energy Center south of Pahrump, Nevada, which got its permits last month. Yet other large projects are petering out; permitting on at least three large solar proposals – Smith Blythe’s Desert Energy Charger Project and Intersect Power’s Perkins Renewable Energy Project in California and Balanced Rock Power’s Samantha Solar effort in Nevada – has been paused or canceled outright since the start of the year.
The president’s turn to fighting projects on farmland also makes sense from a political standpoint. He’s facing an enormous backlash to a buildout of hyperscale data centers he supported, many of which are sited on acreage suitable for agriculture. Republicans running statewide in must-watch midterms battlegrounds – Texas and Iowa, for example – will have to navigate this rocky terrain where something their president supported is deeply unpopular. By bringing Rich aboard and letting him wail on renewable energy in the public square, it’ll be a signal that the Big Man is still listening to rural MAGA voters wary of industrial development.
In media interviews, Rich has claimed Trump created this new, unpaid special envoy position after the country star turned down an offer to sit on the TVA. “I said [to Trump], ‘if I serve with the TVA I cannot disparage the TVA, and I fully intend on keeping my right to disparage them intact.’” He said, ‘You know what, I respect that. So what do you want to do?’ And I said, ‘Man, give me a position where I’ve got some authority and I can work with the highest agencies in the land to protect landowners. Can you create something like that for me?’”
That’s at least the public story for how the president created the “special envoy” role, which Rich has described in ways that are equal parts citizen-government liaison and culture warrior. It’s now clear from his many posts on X that he’ll be heavily involved in messaging against the construction of new renewable energy facilities, carbon pipelines and, potentially, hyperscale data centers.
“[I’ll] go out, find these egregious situations where landowners are being infringed upon and I can go in, work with USDA, EPA, Secretary of the Interior, HUD, the Energy Department, and then all the way of course [to] the Oval Office – to throw up a defense against American landowners,” Rich told Atkisson. He added that data centers will also be a focus of his in government, and there are “two or three” projects out there where he wanted to intervene.
“The president wants to see the data centers built, but he also wants the farm and ranchland to be preserved. We have to have food security for America. We have to.”
Rich and Fasulo then joined Rollins and other administration officials at a press conference Thursday in Washington, D.C. Fasulo spoke at length against New York solar and wind development. Pressed on how data centers square with farmland protection, Rollins spoke about the anxiety in rural America around hyperscalers.
“That debate is raging right now,” she said. “I think that the importance of private property rights, the importance of preserving American farmland, the importance of ensuring we’re going to have another 250 years of freedom is paramount. Does that mean it is completely incompatible with data centers? I don’t think so and I know President Trump doesn’t think so. But what it does mean is that we have to be extremely intentional. There should be plenty of land in this country where data centers can be built that will not be on prime, important farmland. That’s my take on that.”
When Rich joined the federal government is unclear. The Agriculture Department formally announced Rich joined the administration on June 10, but Rich first disclosed Trump “made an offer for a position” in a subscriber-only post made to X on July 24, 2025. He then provided updates in similarly paywalled statements, revealing the Trump appointment to his subscribers in April. Then in May, he told subscribers that he’d completed federal onboarding. “I’m really looking forward to pushing bad guys off of good guys’ land:) You’ll be seeing the official announcement soon, but I wanted you to know 1st!”
What’s clear, however, is that Rich has other targets too. As Rich was brought into federal service, he began routinely sharing a URL – “usda.gov/lawfare” – and directed aggrieved landowners to report potential misdeeds around land seizure. A review of his back-and-forth communications on social media indicate several potential fights he may wade into. Wind energy projects in Kansas. Solar development in rural Virginia. An aluminum smelter in Oklahoma. Carbon capture proposals in Louisiana.
Prior to formally joining the administration, Rich got involved in a conflict over eminent domain and transmission for data centers in Coweta County, Georgia, which had gone viral on right-wing social media. On May 12, Rich said he “just had a great phone call” with Rep. Brian Jack, the GOP congressman who represents the transmission battleground in question. “I will be speaking more on the matter soon,” he tweeted, declaring the power lines threatened “not only homes, but cattle farms and row crops.” Rich also says he facilitated federal engagement between the USDA and Casey Murph, a rancher in Navajo County, Arizona, who claims the state prematurely ended a land lease he held so Orsted can build a solar project.
It’s also apparent Rich will be the first major Trump administration official to publicly root for more counties to indefinitely ban solar and wind development. “The best way for farm and ranch land to be protected from wind/solar projects is for the county to pass a moratorium on those energy sources, disallowing them to ever be built in the county,” Rich told an X follower on May 16.
No one can predict how harmful it’ll be to have one of country music’s most famous artists turning into a spokesperson against renewable energy. But I doubt even paying Katie Miller to say nice things about solar will be able to overcome newly-empowered activism from a Nashville legend.
And more of the week’s top news around project fights.
1. Kansas City, Missouri – Data centers are so toxic that politicians are using them as boogeymen in totally unrelated policy discussions.
2. Ingham County, Michigan – We have our first major anti-data center candidate in a Democratic congressional primary.
3. Nueces County, Texas - The Longhorn State is on a bull run towards data center hostility.
4. Pulaski County, Arkansas - We have yet another municipal employee losing their job over helping a data center.
5. Marathon County, Wisconsin - Yet again rural residents are poised to lose against state permitting primacy laws benefiting renewable energy.
This week’s conversation is with Grant Gutierrez, head of community impacts at carbon management company Carbon Direct. This week Carbon Direct published a white paper Gutierrez authored on opposition around data centers he’s studied. His research reinforces much of what Heatmap Pro has uncovered, but I was particularly intrigued by a topline finding – that transparency is the most common thread in the 46 data center fights he looked into. Was he seeing what I’ve been seeing? So I asked him to hop onto a Zoom call and let me know his thoughts.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
If you were to explain the findings in your white paper to someone at a bar… how would you put it?
What I would say is that we were really interested in the kinds of concerns communities were articulating as they were opposing or resisting data center development in the U.S. To answer and explore those questions, we developed our own data center cancellation tracker where we looked for cases where we could find a strong correlation between cancelation or withdrawal status and opposition. Then we did high-level analyses of the demographics surrounding those data centers, using standard best practices from environmental justice methodologies and pulling sociodemographic and environmental burden characters from EPA’s EJScreen tool. We were mostly looking at public records. Press materials. City council meeting minutes. Things you wouldn’t have to dig too hard to find.
The kinds of communities we saw successfully resisting data centers tracked across the demographic middle of the United States – slightly more middle income, slightly more white than a majority of the American community, but mostly what you’d consider the average American community.
What is the intended audience of this paper and what are you hoping to communicate?
I think it’s important for data center developers and the capital behind them is that they need to move their engagement to early stage, responsible design. A second audience is regulators, city councils, and local zoning commissions about how to engage with developers and advocate for the right disclosure requirements from industry.
The key topline message is that developers who treat community engagement as a permitting formality instead of a critical early stage input are burdening communities, breaking trust. This is resulting in reputational risk for developers, stranded assets, losing capital – and the loss of future opportunities as developers want to build 21st century infrastructure.
Walk me through what you saw evaluating these projects. What’s the development pattern that leads to such opposition?
We saw five key themes. Some of them you might expect – concerns around natural resources, water impacts, electricity rates, land. The rural character came up quite consistently. And then there was a lack of transparency through the use of NDAs.
The NDA example I was surprised to see was the most consistent in all of our case studies. Communities are largely concerned with the process that unfolds as much as the impacts. That’s a very important signal that transcends political lines. Communities want to be heard, involved in the process. They want large infrastructural development with impacts to listen to their concerns. When those decisions are made behind NDAs or with no transparency or equitable engagement, communities quickly mobilize and organize at a hyperlocal level and are successful in opposing these data centers.
I know there are a number of companies out there – without naming names – that are putting responsible development principles forward. The ones we advocate for across our business, whether we’re working in carbon removal or other things. I see companies leading and saying, if we’re involved in this infrastructure, we are not going to sign an NDA. Those who are pushing forward renewable energy commitments, community benefit agreements, and local public-private partnerships are leading with transparency and equity in their engagements.
How any of this carries in the broader industry is yet to be seen.
In your report you point to various ways opposition can crop up to a project. One of those ways was due to the presence of co-located gas – you note that gas power at a data center engendered environmental opponents, which then strengthened those fighting a data center. Can you elaborate on whether you think a new gas power presence is making it harder to get a data center built?
The case you’re pointing to, that’s the Ballico case where on top of the data center there was a 3,500 megawatt co-located gas plant. That quickly led to major community concerns and a partnership with the Southern Environmental Law Center, which became the legal anchor for thinking through the opposition here and commissioned the technical evidence, and provided the legal [support] there.
You see a broad coalition coalesce around not only the data center concern but the climate concerns that arise. I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw a repeated concern around the expansion of fossil energy and combustion sources going hand in hand with community opposition and organizing on data centers. But that remains to be seen.
What in your research have you seen when you compare opposition to data centers and campaigns against, let’s say, fossil fuels? Or mining? Or renewables?
What I think about with data centers is they’re the highways of the 21st century. As we know through the highway projects in the U.S., there were major disproportionate impacts on communities of color. I think there’s potential for data centers if they follow that playbook to have that same impact.
When it comes to comparing these, that’s something I have not done yet. But I think there’s a few things happening. I think the scale and scope of the buildout is taking the American public by surprise. Articulation around impacts to natural resources and electricity prices in a heightened political climate and a difficult economy. It’s also the existential problem AI introduces, which is the role AI plays in society. This is unique compared to other kinds of extraction, which feed technologies already at play.
How do you feel about the fact that so many of us in energy, environment and climate are now talking about data centers all the time?
Never in my career, working in carbon removal and nature based solutions, I never thought data centers would be a major focus in my career as an environmental justice advocate and social scientist.
Data centers are probably emerging to be one of the biggest environmental justice problems of our time so while it’s not something I planned to work on, I am emboldened to see the response from the nonprofit community and others trying to wrap their heads around this. What is the right kind of information? What does the public need to know? How do we advocate for our communities and build the world we would like to build?
While data centers are moving fast, I’m encouraged to see communities organizing and advocating for their own needs as well. Over the next few years, the story will tell itself.
Last question – what was the last song you listened to?
DtMF by Bad Bunny.