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:
The race is on to build a game-changing affordable EV.

This occasion passed with much less fanfare than you might’ve expected, but Tesla (formerly Tesla Motors) turned 20 this month. Back then, Tesla’s co-founder — no, not the guy you’re thinking of — Martin Eberhard called the very few green vehicles on the market around that time “punishment cars.” Abysmal little things. Seemingly designed by and for people who didn’t think you should be driving at all, and nothing with any real appeal beyond a vague notion of saving the planet.
One of Tesla’s greatest victories was making EVs sexy and fast and desirable. Particularly with the Model S, a flashy luxury car that competed directly against the best from Mercedes-Benz and BMW. And it worked, eventually; almost every automaker has spent the last few years racing to catch up using the same playbook.
But what the rising EV industry needs now — what the world needs even more — is more EVs at the bottom of the market. And this time, they won’t even be the punishment cars that Eberhard hated so much.
There remain two major barriers to wider EV adoption. The first is making charging more widely available and less terrible, both at home and in public; that’s changing quickly thanks to huge government investments and market forces. Just this week, seven major global automakers announced they’d team up to do what Tesla did years ago by building a vast charging network across North America. It’s going to take years to fully materialize, but it’s progress nonetheless.
The other barrier — the greater one — is cost. There are reasons EVs have been so expensive, of course. Every new technology follows that trajectory. Batteries are hard to source and build, the factories to make them barely exist at the scale automakers need to drive down costs, and the capital costs involved with this electric reinvention is hard for Wall Street to swallow. (Ask Ford about that one.)
Especially in recent decades, car companies have spent considerable energy focusing on the top of the market — the most expensive cars where they can drive the biggest profit margins. But right now, the market is speaking in the other direction when it comes to EVs.
Just this week, General Motors hit reverse on a plan to kill off the Chevrolet Bolt. GM would previously say the Bolt was old, based on outdated batteries, unable to charge as quickly as modern rivals, and reportedly rather unprofitable. But tell that to the nearly 20,000 Americans who bought a Bolt or its crossover version in the first quarter of this year alone, spurred by the fact that they could get a car that used no gasoline and had great daily range for a mid-$20,000 price tag — or less, if you knew how to score a deal.
Evidently, GM has finally seen the light and decided that killing off yet another beloved electrified car with a lot of potential and a huge following was a bad decision. Now, CEO Mary Barra says, the Bolt will return using GM’s all-new battery setup for more modern performance and the “great affordability” its current customers love.
It’s a smart business decision: The automaker even says 70 percent of people trading a car in for the Bolt are new to GM. That’s not something a car company should give up. So if GM can finally get the Bolt to profitability — and maybe it can since the new Bolt will be using the built-at-scale Ultium batteries it’s using for every EV moving forward — it could win a market that barely even exists right now. A future, hopefully sub-$30,000 Chevrolet Bolt is going to be a huge deal.
So too is the new Volvo EX30, a small electric crossover with 275 miles of range, an IKEA-tastic minimalist interior built largely with recycled materials, and a compelling $34,950 starting price. I spent some time with the EX30 at its debut in New York this week, and it’s one of the more compelling and interesting EVs I’ve seen in a while. Coming from a more premium brand like Volvo, this will be no “punishment car,” and people at the Scandinavian car company say the demand for it is already far greater than they expected. “We operate from Japan to Brazil to the U.S. and Sweden. Everyone wants this car,” a Volvo rep told me.
Finally, there’s the company that’s both the EV market leader and the industry wild card: Tesla. CEO Elon Musk has long alluded to some kind of $25,000-ish car, possibly called the Model 2 or Model C. This would be absolutely crucial to Tesla’s take-over-the-world sales goals, and it would address one of the biggest criticisms of the company as of late, which is that it’s not working on new products. Now, the usual skepticism around a Musk declaration is warranted here — he has also claimed before that Tesla could build such a car and make it “fully autonomous.” But if anyone selling cars in the U.S. can pull that off at scale right now, it’s Tesla. And I would not call such a car, or a revamped Bolt, or this Volvo a “punishment car.” Just an affordable one.
Note my qualification above about selling here. China’s automakers are already pulling this off. Thanks to years of massive government investment and a laser focus on batteries and software over ICE powertrains, its EVs are incredibly advanced now — enough to spook a lot of other automakers. They’re making inroads into European countries and stealing market share there. Why? Not just because they’re good, but because they’re cheap, too.
Political tensions and stiff tariffs keep Chinese-made EVs out of our market for now, but that feels destined to change; automakers are already finding ways around that. That screaming-deal Volvo EX30? It’s made in China, and it’s part of how Volvo, which is owned by a Chinese automaker, can achieve those low prices, even with the tariff. I expect we’ll see more of that in the coming years.
How do they get the prices down from their $54,000 average sticker? Production at scale, batteries made from cheaper materials like lithium-ion phosphate, simplifying interiors and other components like Volvo has done, and rethinking production techniques like Tesla has done and Toyota’s about to try. There might even be an unexpected benefit to all of this: those cheaper EVs starting to emerge on the horizon? They’re generally going to be smaller, too. If people are enticed to try these cars by their price tags — maybe even as a second or third car, as Volvo thinks will be the case — they may realize they’ve been buying a bit too big for their needs. From a safety, infrastructure, and resource perspective, EV weight needs to go down. Maybe smaller, cheaper cars will help with that, but I’m reluctant to be too optimistic about it.
Then again, even RJ Scaringe, the CEO of $75,000 EV truck maker Rivian, gets it. His company’s next planned EV is a smaller, more affordable vehicle. “We hope that the R2 platform helps pull a lot of customers across that jump where I want to spend $45,000 or $40,000 in a vehicle,” he told Heatmap in an interview published this week.
I’d go even deeper than that and say that the next automaker who can figure out a truly great $25,000 EV, and build it at enough scale to be profitable, is going to have a game-changing hit on its hands. At this point, it’s not a question of if, but when — and from whom.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
What happens when one of energy’s oldest bottlenecks meets its newest demand driver?
Often the biggest impediment to building renewable energy projects or data center infrastructure isn’t getting government approvals, it’s overcoming local opposition. When it comes to the transmission that connects energy to the grid, however, companies and politicians of all stripes are used to being most concerned about those at the top – the politicians and regulators at every level who can’t seem to get their acts together.
What will happen when the fiery fights on each end of the wire meet the broken, unplanned spaghetti monster of grid development our country struggles with today? Nothing great.
The transmission fights of the data center boom have only just begun. Utilities will have to spend lots of money on getting energy from Point A to Point B – at least $500 billion over the next five years, to be precise. That’s according to a survey of earnings information published by think tank Power Lines on Tuesday, which found roughly half of all utility infrastructure spending will go toward the grid.
But big wires aren’t very popular. When Heatmap polled various types of energy projects last September, we found that self-identified Democrats and Republicans were mostly neutral on large-scale power lines. Independent voters, though? Transmission was their second least preferred technology, ranking below only coal power.
Making matters far more complex, grid planning is spread out across decision-makers. At the regional level, governance is split into 10 areas overseen by regional transmission organizations, known as RTOs, or independent system operators, known as ISOs. RTOs and ISOs plan transmission projects, often proposing infrastructure to keep the grid resilient and functional. These bodies are also tasked with planning the future of their own grids, or at least they are supposed to – many observers have decried RTOs and ISOs as outmoded and slow to respond. Utilities and electricity co-ops also do this planning at various scales. And each of these bodies must navigate federal regulators and permitting processes, utility commissions for each state they touch, on top of the usual raft of local authorities.
The mid-Atlantic region is overseen by PJM Interconnection, a body now under pressure from state governors in the territory to ensure the data center boom doesn’t unnecessarily drive up costs for consumers. The irony, though, is that these governors are going to be under incredible pressure to have their states act against individual transmission projects in ways that will eventually undercut affordability.
Virginia, for instance – known now as Data Center Alley – is flanked by states that are politically diverse. West Virginia is now a Republican stronghold, but was long a Democratic bastion. Maryland had a Republican governor only a few years ago. Virginia and Pennsylvania regularly change party control. These dynamics are among the many drivers behind the opposition against the Piedmont Reliability Project, which would run from a nuclear plant in Pennsylvania to northern Virginia, cutting across spans of Maryland farmland ripe for land use conflict. The timeline for this project is currently unclear due to administrative delays.
Another major fight is brewing with NextEra’s Mid-Atlantic Resiliency Link, or MARL project. Spanning four states – and therefore four utility commissions – the MARL was approved by PJM Interconnection to meet rising electricity demand across West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania. It still requires approval from each state utility commission, however. Potentially affected residents in West Virginia are hopping mad about the project, and state Democratic lawmakers are urging the utility commission to reject it.
In West Virginia, as well as Virginia and Maryland, NextEra has applied for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to build the MARL project, a permit that opponents have claimed would grant it the authority to exercise eminent domain. (NextEra has said it will do what it can to work well with landowners. The company did not respond to a request for comment.)
“The biggest problem facing transmission is that there’s so many problems facing transmission,” said Liza Reed, director of climate and energy at the Niskanen Center, a policy think tank. “You have multiple layers of approval you have to go through for a line that is going to provide broader benefits in reliability and resilience across the system.”
Hyperlocal fracases certainly do matter. Reed explained to me that “often folks who are approving the line at the state or local level are looking at the benefits they’re receiving – and that’s one of the barriers transmission can have.” That is, when one state utility commission looks at a power line project, they’re essentially forced to evaluate the costs and benefits from just a portion of it.
She pointed to the example of a Transource line proposed by PJM almost 10 years ago to send excess capacity from Pennsylvania to Maryland. It wasn’t delayed by protests over the line itself – the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission opposed the project because it thought the result would be net higher electricity bills for folks in the Keystone State. That’s despite whatever benefits would come from selling the electricity to Maryland and consumer benefits for their southern neighbors. The lesson: Whoever feels they’re getting the raw end of the line will likely try to stop it, and there’s little to nothing anyone else can do to stop them.
These hyperlocal fears about projects with broader regional benefits can be easy targets for conservation-focused environmental advocates. Not only could they take your land, the argument goes, they’re also branching out to states with dirtier forms of energy that could pollute your air.
“We do need more energy infrastructure to move renewable energy,” said Julie Bolthouse, director of land use for the Virginia conservation group Piedmont Environmental Council, after I asked her why she’s opposing lots of the transmission in Virginia. “This is pulling away from that investment. This is eating up all of our utility funding. All of our money is going to these massive transmission lines to give this incredible amount of power to data centers in Virginia when it could be used to invest in solar, to invest in transmission for renewables we can use. Instead it’s delivering gas and coal from West Virginia and the Ohio River Valley.”
Daniel Palken of Arnold Ventures, who previously worked on major pieces of transmission reform legislation in the U.S. Senate, said when asked if local opposition was a bigger problem than macro permitting issues: “I do not think local opposition is the main thing holding up transmission.”
But then he texted me to clarify. “What’s unique about transmission is that in order for local opposition to even matter, there has to be a functional planning process that gets transmission lines to the starting line. And right now, only about half the country has functional regional planning, and none of the country has functional interregional planning.”
It’s challenging to fathom a solution to such a fragmented, nauseating puzzle. One solution could be in Congress, where climate hawks and transmission reform champions want to empower the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to have primacy over transmission line approvals, as it has over gas pipelines. This would at the very least contain any conflicts over transmission lines to one deciding body.
“It’s an old saw: Depending on the issue, I’ll tell you that I’m supportive of states’ rights,” Representative Sean Casten told me last December. “[I]t makes no sense that if you want to build a gas pipeline across multiple states in the U.S., you go to FERC and they are the sole permitting authority and they decide whether or not you get a permit. If you go to the same corridor and build an electric transmission that has less to worry about because there’s no chance of leaks, you have a different permitting body every time you cross a state line.”
Another solution could come from the tech sector thinking fast on its feet. Google for example is investing in “advanced” transmission projects like reconductoring, which the company says will allow it to increase the capacity of existing power lines. Microsoft is also experimenting with smaller superconductor lines they claim deliver the same amount of power than traditional wires.
But this space is evolving and in its infancy. “Getting into the business of transmission development is very complicated and takes a lot of time. That’s why we’ve seen data centers trying a lot of different tactics,” Reed said. “I think there’s a lot of interest, but turning that into specific projects and solutions is still to come. I think it’s also made harder by how highly local these decisions are.”
Plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.
1. Franklin County, Maine – The fate of the first statewide data center ban hinges on whether a governor running for a Democratic Senate nomination is willing to veto over a single town’s project.
2. Jerome County, Idaho – The county home to the now-defunct Lava Ridge wind farm just restricted solar energy, too.
3. Shelby County, Tennessee - The NAACP has joined with environmentalists to sue one of Elon Musk’s data centers in Memphis, claiming it is illegally operating more than two dozen gas turbines.
4. Richland County, Ohio - This Ohio county is going to vote in a few weeks on a ballot initiative that would overturn its solar and wind ban. I am less optimistic about it than many other energy nerds I’ve seen chattering the past week.
5. Racine County, Wisconsin – I close this week’s Hotspots with a bonus request: Please listen to this data center noise.
A chat with Scott Blalock of Australian energy company Wärtsilä.
This week’s conversation is with Scott Blalock of Australian energy company Wärtsilä. I spoke with Blalock this week amidst my reporting on transmission after getting an email asking whether I understood that data centers don’t really know how much battery storage they need. Upon hearing this, I realized I didn’t even really understand how data centers – still a novel phenomenon to me – were incorporating large-scale battery storage at all. How does that work when AI power demand can be so dynamic?
Blalock helped me realize that in some ways, it’s more of the same, and in others, it’s a whole new ballgame.
The following chat was lightly edited for clarity.
So help me understand how the battery storage side of your business is changing due to the rise in data center development.
We’re really in the early stages for energy storage. The boom is really in generation – batteries aren’t generators. They store, they shift, they smooth power, but they don’t generate the power from fuel. In this boom right now, everyone is trying to find either grid connections or on-site power generation. Those are the longest lead time items – they take a while – so we’re still in the early stages of those types of projects coming back and saying, we need to start procuring batteries. We need to start looking at the controls and how everything’s going to work together. That’s still a little bit in the future.
Are you seeing people deploy batteries responsibly, in an integrated way, or is it people unsure what they need?
There’s definitely uncertainty as to what they need. The requirements are still hard to nail down. A lot of the requirements come from the load curve of the AI workloads they’re doing, and that’s still a bit of a moving target. It’s the importance of knowing the whole system and planning that out in the modeling space.
The biggest space of all this is the load profile. Without a load profile, there’s uncertainty about what you’re going to need –
When you say load profile, what do you mean?
The AI workload. The GPUs. The volatility. In a synchronized training load, all of the GPUs are generally doing the same thing at the same time. They all reach a pause state at the same time, and you’re close to full power on the data center, and then they say, okay now we go idle. It has a little bit of a wait and then starts back up again.
It’s that square wave, very sharp changes in power – that’s the new challenge of an AI data center. That’s one of the new uses of BESS that’s being added compared to the traditional data center doing data storage. They’re more stable which use less power and are more stable.
The volatility is where some of the friction comes in, and that has to be handled by some technology.
So what you’re telling me is that data center developers do not know how much they need in terms of battery storage? Simply put, they don’t know how much power they need?
Traditionally, utility-scale batteries – the projects we’ve been doing – come from a PPA, an interconnect agreement. There’s something in place where they know exactly how many batteries they can install. They know how many megawatts they’re allowed to install. Then they come to us and they say, I need a 4-megawatt battery for two hours. Tell me how many batteries you’re going to give me.
In a data center, they don’t know that first number. They don’t know how many megawatts they need. So that’s the first question: well, how big of a battery do you need?
If you have a 1-gigawatt data center that means the load change is 60% of that – 600 megawatts is the step up-and-down. The starting point is 600 megawatts for two hours. That’s the starting point that’ll cover being able to take care of that volatility. The duration is a part of it, too. From there you get into more detailed studies.
When it comes to transmission, how much of a factor is it in how much storage a data center needs?
The first thing is whether it’s connected at all. The battery is a shock absorber for the whole system. If you are grid-connected, the BESS is still a stability asset – it’s still improving the power quality and stability at an interconnect. If you’re doing on-site generation, it becomes vital because you have only one system being controlled.
As far as when you talk about permitting and transmission, the details of that don’t really play that much into the BESS, but it’s tangentially related. The BESS is an important part of how you handle that situation. Whether you get to interconnect or not, it’s an extremely important asset in that mix.
With respect to the overall social license conversation, how does battery storage fit into the conversations around energy bills and strain on the grid?
Bias aside, I think it’s the most important piece.
If you look at the macro scale, it’s like transitioning to renewables where they’re intermittent; batteries turn intermittent generation from renewables into firm, dispatchable power. It’s still not going to be available all the time – you’re not going to turn a solar plant into a 24-hour baseload plant – but a battery allows you to shift the energy. It greatly alleviates the problem.
The other aspect is it’s a stability asset. The short version of that is you have big thermal plants – rotating metal masses that have momentum to them that stabilize everything on the grid. As you take those offline, the coal plants and the gas plants, the grid itself loses that inertia so it is more susceptible to spikes and failures because of small events. Batteries are able to synthesize that inertia.