You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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 end of consumer electric vehicle tax credits isn’t great, but clawing back federal funding has been even worse.

Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill took a huge bite out of the climate economy. One segment that emerged largely unscathed, however, is advanced climate tech. Companies working on nuclear, geothermal, battery storage, biofuels, and carbon capture may be shaken by the volatile business environment and a tad worried about provisions such as foreign entities of concern rules that could make their supply chains more complicated. But as of now, they can pretty much proceed with business as usual.
There is one big exception to that, however: The growing ecosystem of electric vehicle charging startups. Not only did OBBBA take a hammer to consumer EV tax credits, Trump also paused funding for key federal charging initiatives on his first day in office. While the startups I talked to were notably blasé about the former situation, executives are seriously worried about how attempts to clawback funding for charging infrastructure will impact the industry as a whole.
The outlook isn’t entirely bleak. Highway fast charging — generally the domain of larger companies such as Tesla, Electrify America, and ChargePoint — has actually seen solid growth so far this year despite the obstacles. But figuring out how to make charging work in urban centers and outlying communities has been a hot market for venture-backed companies over the past few years. And now some of them are facing a moment of reckoning.
“Cities are still pushing forward, but I would say there is a capital-C caution that’s being applied,” Tiya Gordon, founder of the curbside EV charging company It’s Electric, told me. “I think they feel that they need to get it right, and this is true for us as well as a startup. There’s not a margin for error in this environment.”
It’s Electric’s core innovation is siphoning off spare electrical capacity from buildings in cities to run its curbside Level 2, a.k.a. non-fast-charging EV charging network, negating the need for what can be a lengthy and complex grid interconnection process. The company then shares a portion of its revenue with the building owners who agree to the arrangement.
Just days before Trump took office, the startup was awarded $2.2 million from the Department of Transportation’s Charging and Fueling Infrastructure program to deploy curbside charging in Washington, D.C., legally obligated money that the new administration is now trying to rescind. That award remains in legal limbo. “We are proceeding as if we can’t count on that,” Gordon told me. “It’s sand through your fingers in an hourglass.”
That funding came on top of the company’s numerous awards from the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, an interagency collaboration between the Department of Energy and the Department of Transportation created under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Now the Joint Office has been effectively dismantled as former employees took deferred resignations and Trump has tried to revoke the funding awarded to It’s Electric and other startups.
All of this threatens to shut down a significant source of capital for It’s Electric, as Gordon told me nondilutive funding — largely from federal and state grants — represents nearly half of the company’s total capital raised to date.
Gordon said she sees states stepping into the breach, as climate leaders such as California and New York have thus far stood by their EV expansion plans. But Gordon has already noticed cities employing more diligence than ever when it comes to selecting partners. “They’re really going deep, they’re really taking time, they’re not rushing into any awards. So time is a big factor that represents caution,” she told me. And when it comes to the amount of chargers that cities seem to be looking to build, “the numbers are a little bit more modest.”
She mainly credits this pullback to the whiplash that Trump’s attempt to rescind funding for EV charging has caused. Compared to that, whatever deceleration the end of EV tax credits will cause in consumer uptake is a secondary concern.
“Honestly, that doesn’t really impact us at all,” Jeffrey Prosserman, CEO at Voltpost told me of the tax credits. His company retrofits lampposts in cities and suburbs, turning them into Level 2 EV charging platforms. “At the end of the day, EV adoption will either increase X or Y percent in a given year, but it’s going to continue to increase year over year. We’re past the tipping point, going from early adopters into the mainstream,” he told me.
EV prices are still falling, large businesses still want to electrify their fleets, and self-driving cars — which are far better suited to electric drivetrains — are still getting people excited, all of which should continue to fuel demand for a charging buildout. So while Prosserman acknowledged that nixing the consumer tax credits could “slow adoption by a couple percentage points,” he’s optimistic that the next political cycle will see a resurgence in support.
Like Gordon, however, he is quite concerned about the holdup in funding for both the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure program, or CFI, and its sister initiative, the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program, or NEVI. “It creates challenges for the EV charging companies like Voltpost, but it really fundamentally creates challenges for the cities and the general public who expected to have access to charging through these programs,” he told me. “That’s not to say that there isn’t a path forward. It’s just that the path that effectively the entire sector was operating on for the last few years has been reconfigured.”
NEVI is a $5 billion program that aims to build out a national charging network along highways, while CFI allocates $2.5 billion to deploy charging infrastructure in cities, towns, and hard-to-reach areas. Both were stood up in 2021 by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Politicians, industry analysts, and transportation officials alike have heavily critiqued these programs over the years for appearing to lack urgency, as building a network from scratch has proven to be an enormously complex and cumbersome undertaking. The former executive director of the joint office, Gabe Klein, said at a conference last year that the NEVI program wouldn’t really hit its stride until sometime between 2026 and 2028. Then Trump entered the White House and paused funding for both initiatives, creating a major roadblock for “the entire U.S. EV sector,” Prosserman told me.
Much like It’s Electric, Voltpost started the year by winning its own CFI funding to deploy its chargers in the broader Washington, D.C. region and also secured a number of awards through the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. With all of that money now tied up in lawsuits challenging Trump’s attempts to freeze the programs, Voltpost’s plans for growth have slowed. “We’re taking a more conservative approach for this year,” Prosserman told me, saying that while the company will eventually seek to raise a Series A it’s “not actively raising that Series A right now, given the macro situation.”
Prosserman said he’s been disappointed to see the general pullback in climate tech venture funding in the first half of 2025. “You have a group of investors who frankly said they are mission aligned, but are now taking a pause, not a stop, given the macroeconomic conditions, and having to wait until the dust settles to see how to reconfigure their portfolios,” Prosserman said. For now, he told me that Voltpost is leaning into its private-sector partnerships such as those with AT&T and Zipcar.
Not all charging companies have experienced this whiplash of funding awards and rescissions, though. SparkCharge, which makes portable, battery-powered fast chargers for commercial fleets and businesses, hasn’t received any NEVI or CFI grant money. The startup primarily serves customers by dispatching off-grid chargers on-demand or setting up stand-alone deployments, which are not core focus areas of either program.
The startup’s Chief Financial Officer David Piperno told me he’s glad that SparkCharge hasn’t relied on such capital, as it’s managed to “become a profitable enterprise with zero incentives, no state funding, no government funding.” That, he said, has allowed the company “to take a different approach to EV charging and be more innovative and have a variable pay-as-you-go model.” So far that seems to be working out pretty well, as it announced $30.5 million in new funding in May through a combination of equity financing and a venture loan.
Reaching former President Joe Biden’s goal of installing 500,000 publicly accessible EV chargers by 2030 still might be a longshot, though, especially as long as the Trump administration continues to target all things EV-related. And yet, charging executives remain relatively upbeat about the sector’s long-term fortunes.
“If you drive one of these vehicles, compared to what you had before, it’s just a superior car, right?” Piperno said, arguing that should continue to power steady consumer growth, even if it doesn’t happen as quickly as experts once predicted. While growth in EV sales increased by 40% in 2023, that slowed to just about 10% last year, as concerns over the availability of charging infrastructure, price, and range persist. “I think everyone thought that [the EV adoption] curve was going to be a lot faster. But I think that’s really normalized over the past few years already, and we don’t, quite frankly, see it normalizing much more than it has.”
At least now, executives told me, there’s more certainty regarding the policy landscape than at the beginning of the year. That holds especially true for startups that are willing and able to operate under the assumption that they might never see much of their recently awarded federal funding — at least anytime soon.
“The expression was, wait and see, wait and see, wait and see,” Gordon told me of Trump’s first months in office and the uncertainty around EV incentives and funding programs. “And now we waited and we saw, and it’s gone. And so we mourn and we move on, right?”
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A conversation with the Guardrails Alliance’s Shaunna Thomas.
This week’s Q&A is with Shaunna Thomas of the Democrat-allied super PAC Guardrails Alliance, which describes itself as “not anti-technology” but supportive of AI “rules, accountability, and a government that actually represents the public.” Part of that AI accountability they’re calling for is on data centers.
After the midterms, Guardrails Alliance sent a memorandum to all House and Senate Democratic offices arguing for AI and data center accountability to be a key part of their message and plans heading into the new Congress. Described as a “playbook for how to understand and channel anxieties about AI and data centers,” the document laid out “key narratives” that they said voters who care about these issues want to see reflected and echoed by their politics. They said the push against data centers could help Democrats build more lasting political power.
I reached out and asked if Thomas could explain further what all of this means to my readers. She kindly obliged.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Let’s start with the elections. What were your takeaways when it came to what voters want to see on data centers?
I think the elections were a rebuke of the status quo on a number of fronts. We saw across the board that people are frustrated with what amounts to legalized corruption and the forcing without consent of new technology, and new infrastructure to support a technology that they didn’t ask for in ways that are harmful to their lives and the country.
What we saw in polling is that the data center backlash is one of the most bipartisan political issues of our time, driven by everything from noise pollution to rate hikes to Big Tech trying to steamroll state and local governments. Americans are sick and tired of the AI industry trying to control our lives by building data centers in our communities, which goes along with trying to control our data and who represents us in government. The AI industry was also trying to spend a lot on elections trying to control the outcome.
When we dig deeper on all that, it’s not just about elections. They’re seeing this unholy alliance between Big Tech and the Trump administration.
In the post-election analysis laid out in that memo, you explain these key narratives that you think Democrats should pick up against the tech sector. Can you explain how you developed these?
What we dug into during the primaries and the lead-up to the general election was questions in focus groups and polling with Republicans and Democrats about what was behind the frustration. Is this just about buildings they don’t want in their backyard or is this connected to AI and bigger picture concerns over who makes choices? About control? The data centers people were most opposed to were data centers specifically for AI, which was a really important indicator it was both/and.
We then started to talk to voters in Ohio and Iowa and Michigan about what they’d want to see in terms of changes, in terms of new leadership, how they would want to see this framed. What was appealing? We tested a number of frames and these key narratives are a compilation of that data. So for example, a key narrative says, The AI oligarchs and their political allies are wildly out of step with a supermajority of the public. There’s also sample messaging under it in the memo. And it’s a reflection of the sentiment and the tone and the language a lot of people used when they got into robust conversations about what they’re really concerned about or what they want to see their leaders doing differently.
Can you say more about these focus groups? And can you say more about what you saw in terms of bipartisan shared concern around not just data centers but these messages you’re bringing up?
I can tell you about some of the key findings of the focus groups we did in Michigan and Ohio and Iowa in August and September. People are generally open to the idea AI can have some benefit to their lives, and they’re open to using it personally. But everyone we talked to expressed some concern about the pace it was being developed. You can see technology having value but also see there’s no regulation in place or guardrails around the technology itself.
Most people we spoke to expressed concerns about how the technology has been affecting society and the environment — that came up a lot in data center conversations. People are also concerned about the role chatbots could have in their children’s lives, and that AI could replace teachers.
It’s also a lot of concern about and a lack of confidence in either government regulators or AI companies to properly regulate the technology. You saw more support for regulators at the state level and people deeply opposed to federal pre-emption, because they see more evidence of democracy working at the state level as opposed to the federal level.
People express mixed reviews about the specific policy solutions. What we’re seeing is people see AI as a vehicle for a small handful to amass more wealth and power. I don’t think we have had enough of a robust debate about how you deal with that problem.
So, on that point in particular, I want to drill down. What do we know about what voters want to see? What does accountability or guardrails look like to them?
First of all, there’s blanket support for federal regulations in general to deal with the way the technology is developed and deployed. We see a lot of clarity from voters about the fact they may not have a lot of confidence the federal government will step in. They want to see it.
When it comes to the economy, where there’s still broad public support is taxing billionaires and CEOs of these companies and raising the minimum wage and raising the social safety net. People’s interest in seeing that move forward has been growing in intensity.
On AI specifically, people don’t want to have a conversation about distribution of wealth without a conversation about distribution of power. They don’t want to be bribed to accept the acceleration of AI in their lives. They want to know that the power of those companies to do what they’re doing is going to be significantly limited and safety guardrails are put in place to keep us all safe from what the new technology is capable of.
I think once the safety conversation is step one. Step two is the conversation about how you distribute wealth from a technology built on other people’s labor and intellectual property.
On the concern about bribes, we’ve been reporting on Trump’s call for cash payments to communities to accept data centers. Are you telling me proposals like that might not be a good political strategy?
It was precisely because Trump was talking about it that we heard it brought up in focus groups, and how it was described was that voters may get some short term incentive to accept a technology they don’t trust is designed to help them fundamentally. They believe it is being deployed to more deeply consolidate power and wealth. And they don’t want that. When the president or a big AI company says they agree with it, it’ll have an impact on how the idea is perceived.
It has to also be coupled with a set of policies that are putting democratic governance over the technology itself before its deployment. People want to see technology isn’t going to continue to advance without guardrails.
Distinct from Trump’s data center dividend, some policymakers have suggested a “data dividend” — a distribution of wealth from the usage of AI products because they’re using people’s data. That’s more of what we’re talking about.
What do we know about what the public wants to see regarding data centers?
It’s important we recognize local leaders have had demands driven by their local communities. But as a structural matter, the public sees slowing down data centers as a mechanism for slowing down the project of AI generally. It remains an open question about how you do that.
There are federal policymakers working on a set of solutions that could create more space for people at the local level to be in the driver’s seat on when, how, or if data centers get built. I think we’ll see more proposals on that front.
So where do you think this conversation goes next?
I would expect the public to continue to make demands from policymakers and I would expect the Big Tech sector to continue down the path they’re going, which is, we were always Democrats and pro-regulation all the time. This will look like policies resembling always being okay with regulation but actually avoid putting checks on their power. And that’ll mean the public has even more at stake and the government has an even bigger obligation to make sure AI is deployed for public benefit as opposed to for the profits of a few companies and CEOs.
Plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.
1. New York City — We have a new must-watch offshore wind lawsuit with potential implications for the entire sector — and this time, it’s from lobstermen seeking damages.
2. Hinds County, Mississippi — The largest proposed solar farm in Mississippi is moving forward after an appeals court rejected arguments from aggrieved local residents that it had been improperly approved.
3. Dakota County, Minnesota — I’m scrutinizing a lawsuit against a data center developer centering on allegedly improper permitting of its cooling technology.
4. Polk County, Florida — Will the Sunshine State remain a challenging place for data centers after Ron DeSantis? A test case could reveal the future quite quickly.
Trump’s “data center dividend” appears to have backfired. Our latest poll results help explain why.
This year’s midterm elections called into question the efficacy of a push to pay local residents directly in exchange for building data centers.
Before the elections, I profiled the campaign for politicians to embrace the data center “dividend,” a policy idea modeled off Alaska’s Permanent Fund, which doles out checks to residents from profits off state oil, gas and mineral royalties. The Bitcoin Policy Institute, a tech policy think tank, was one of the first to trumpet the concept, but it was quickly taken up by President Donald Trump, who started raising it in speeches and on social media. “If companies want to make their Data Centers popular, pay the community, and/or individuals within the community, a ‘dividend,’” Trump posted to Truth Social on October 21.
Clearly the idea didn’t stop the bleeding. Democrats trounced Trump’s party in the midterms on a message that was heavy on attacks against data centers. But that still doesn’t explain why direct payments did so little to move the American public.
A Heatmap Pro poll conducted in early-to-mid October, right before the midterm elections, gives us an answer. As part of a broader survey of 2,500 registered voters, we asked about the idea — what we believe to be the first independent poll on direct payments for data centers by a news organization. We asked respondents whether there was a specific dollar amount they’d accept as a one-time cash payment in exchange for a data center being built near them. We also gave them the option to say no amount of money was sufficient.
Shockingly, a majority of people surveyed said they’d reject the data center cash payment in any amount. Among those who said they’d actually take the money, the median figure was around $10,000. The average was a whopping $146,000, skewed by the number of people who wrote $999,999, the maximum allowed by the survey.
This tracks what we’re seeing play out in communities where developers have tried this idea. In Hazle Township, Pennsylvania, NorthPoint — developer of an Amazon-linked data center project — proposed $10,000 cash payments to residents, no catch. Residents compared it to a bribe. In De Soto, Kansas, data center developer Digital Realty is offering annual $1,000 tax credits for a decade to neighbors of its proposed data center project. That proposal has been reportedly met with mixed reviews, too.
Clearly one of the problems here is that data centers not only face public perception issues around their local impacts, but are also more broadly associated with systemic inequality in the U.S. economy. The same Heatmap Pro survey found that a majority of voters believed AI companies have more control over the government than the oil and gas industry, pharmaceutical companies, banks, or other large industries.
Shaunna Thomas, executive director of Democratic-allied super PAC Guardrails Alliance, told me that during the campaign season they found that residents often associated the dividends with bribes, and that the president’s support for direct payments ultimately fed into voter sentiments about the tech sector controlling the government and society.
“People don’t want to have a conversation about distribution of wealth disconnected from a conversation about distribution of power,” Thomas said. “Specifically because Trump was saying that, we started hearing from voters in focus groups that it didn’t work for them. They’re hearing it as a bribe. They’re hearing they may get some sort of short-term economic or financial incentive to accept a technology they don’t trust is designed to help them.”
The Heatmap Pro survey results about cash payments ultimately reveal how emotionally driven the data center debate has become, said Sam Lyman of the Bitcoin Policy Institute. I asked Lyman to respond to the results because I thought they called into question the political effectiveness of the proposal we’d discussed months earlier. Lyman stipulated that he thinks the one-time payment nature of the question may have undermined the results, saying he prefers the dividends be paid out “in perpetuity.” But he acknowledged they also show “there’s still a lot of education to be done on data centers, what they do, and the impacts they have on the places where they’re built.”
“I think there’s a lot of Americans out there who have legitimate concerns that the future economy doesn’t include them. That’s something that needs to be addressed,” said Lyman, who said he laid part of the blame on what he called “irresponsible rhetoric” from AI industry executives about their technology’s impacts on society. “With data center dividends, the idea behind this policy is to help Americans understand the AI economy includes them. To give them a very material stake in that economy as it gets built out, especially in the rural communities that make data centers possible in the first place.”