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

Current conditions: Invest 93 could develop into a tropical depression and dump 3 to 6 inches of rain on southern Louisiana between now and this weekend • Western and central Massachusetts face a small tornado risk this afternoon and evening • Spain attributes more than 1,100 deaths this spring and summer to extreme heat.
A new secretarial order from the Department of the Interior’s deputy chief of staff for policy, Gregory Wischer, states that “all decisions, actions, consultations, and other undertakings” that are “related to wind and solar energy facilities” will now be required to go through multiple layers of political review from Wischer’s and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s respective offices. My colleague Jael Holzman, who reviewed the document, explains that the new layer of review would apply to “essentially anything Interior and its many subagencies would ordinarily be consulted on before construction,” creating a further bottleneck for projects that need to be underway to qualify for federal tax credits under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The order lists 68 different activities that will now come under this extra level of review. In sum, the order is “so drastic it would impact projects on state and private lands, as well as federal acreage,” Jael writes. “In some cases, agency staff may now need political sign-offs simply to tell renewables developers whether they need a permit at all.” Read her full report here.
Solar and wind are “economically unstoppable,” even without tax credits, a new report on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act from the Columbia Business School found. According to the report, solar photovoltaic prices have decreased by approximately 80% over the past decade, wind by approximately 70%, and lithium-ion battery by approximately 90%. As a result, gas combined cycle power plants are now more expensive than both solar and wind. Still, given the 2026 phaseout of production tax credits, “we will likely see a brief spike in projects for the next 18 months as they race to be placed while still eligible, then a deceleration,” Columbia Business School found. Additionally, while the OBBBA offers a “silver lining” for renewable projects like nuclear, geothermal, and carbon capture, cuts to Department of Energy research and development funding will mean “the United States will only fall further behind in the global clean energy race,” the report continues.
A coalition of 20 Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit in federal court in Boston on Wednesday against the Federal Emergency Management Agency over its elimination of a natural disaster mitigation grant program, The New York Times and Associated Press report. The lawsuit, which follows near-record rains in New York and New Jersey, as well as the catastrophic floods in Texas, claims that terminating the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program is unlawful because it wasn’t done with the approval of Congress. The Trump administration’s shutdown of the grant is “making it much harder for communities across our state to protect themselves against future extreme weather events and putting lives at risk,” New Jersey’s attorney general, Matthew J. Platkin, said in a statement.
Initially established by law in 2000, BRIC’s roughly $4.5 billion grants have helped fund nearly 2,000 resiliency and mitigation projects around the country. FEMA justified its decision to terminate the program as part of an ongoing effort by the Trump administration to eliminate “waste, fraud, and abuse.”
A bipartisan group of governors representing nine of the 13 states in which PJM operates issued an open letter on Wednesday demanding the grid operator appoint “widely respected leaders” to its two open board seats to “restore PJM’s legitimacy.” The letter specifically cited a lack of confidence in PJM due to its “multi-year inability to connect new resources to its grid efficiently and to engage in effective long-term transmission planning,” as well as the termination of two members of its Board of Managers and the upcoming departure of its CEO. The governors further requested a meeting with PJM’s nominating committee to share its proposed slate of candidates who “understand the concerns of ratepayers facing rising costs and who will be ready to collaborate with the incoming CEO to instill a new, more collaborative and more effective ethos at PJM.”
As my colleague Matthew Zeitlin has reported, though many states in PJM’s service area on the Mid-Atlantic have ambitious decarbonization goals, the operator is “actively seeking to bring new gas-fired generation onto the grid to meet its skyrocketing projections of future demand.” But while PJM has blamed permitting woes and the retirements of power plants for its challenges, “state officials and clean energy advocates have instead placed the blame for higher costs and impending reliability gaps on PJM’s struggles to connect projects, how the electricity market is designed, and the operator’s perceived coolness towards renewables,” Matthew goes on.
The Netherlands will cut its offshore wind goals by as much as 40%, claiming its aim of 50 gigawatts of generation capacity by 2030 is “not realistic,” Bloomberg reports. The new target will be in the range of 30 to 40 gigawatts, adjusted to consider both the high cost of development and lagging power demand growth. The announcement comes as part of a larger slowdown in offshore wind globally. The International Renewable Energy Agency has stated that to meet global targets of tripling renewable energy use by 2030, offshore wind capacity would need to grow to 494 gigawatts by 2030, up from 73 gigawatts currently.

Tesla teased the launch of a six-seat version of its Model Y, the Model YL, on Wednesday. The car will be available in China in the fall, and appears to be a strategic move by the automaker to “boost its sales amid rising competition from BYD and other domestic manufacturers,” The Verge reports.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The data center boom is everywhere you look in U.S. economic and emissions data.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
It isn’t exactly a new thought, but I’ve been struck recently by how many trends in America’s economic and environmental data are fundamentally about the data center boom and the return of electricity demand:
First, the Energy Information Administration reported this week that U.S. emissions grew by more than 2% last year, driven by surging electricity demand and an increase in coal-fired generation. What caused that higher power demand? New factories and data centers — as well as record summertime cooling demand.
Second, many of the new factories driving that higher power demand are themselves producing goods that are … let’s say … data center-adjacent. There are the enormous new semiconductor fabs, of course. But Ford and General Motors have also set up new production lines (or repurposed old ones) to manufacture grid-scale batteries to meet power demand.
Third, take a look at the recent U.S. spending on private non-residential construction — in other words, everything American companies are building that is not houses, condos, or apartments.
The construction industry’s spent almost $60 billion on data centers over the past year, which is more than it spent on all other office buildings combined (and more than it spent building warehouses, too). Just a handful of categories — data centers, power plants, electricity infrastructure, and certain kinds of electronics manufacturing — now make up a third of all U.S. private non-residential construction investment. They’ve never made up such a large share of construction spending since data collection began in 2014.
As The New York Times recently noted, the American economy is unusually dependent on the American stock market right now — and the stock market is unusually dependent on artificial intelligence. This week, investors started to balk at the enormous spending hyperscalers are planning to keep building out the AI boom; Alphabet’s shares dropped 8% this week after it boosted its planned 2026 capital expenditure and signaled 2027 will be even bigger. If the data center boom started to slow down in earnest, then more than just that budget will change.
Speaking of which, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote earlier this week about how many businesses are struggling to even estimate their carbon emissions from artificial intelligence. The carbon accounting startup Watershed recently unveiled a new formula to help companies get a sense of their AI-related emissions.
But even that formula is still limited by the amount of data hyperscalers publish — and they don’t publish that much. Google, for instance, is the only AI company that has (laudably) provided estimates of its emissions on a per-prompt basis. Yet no company has published its per-token emissions, or how emissions sync up with particular models or regions.
So Emily asked Google: Why aren’t you — or any other model provider — disclosing this kind of data yet?
The tech company didn’t get back to us until after we’d published Emily’s story. But its response was interesting enough that I wanted to quote some of it here.
The problem is “industry consensus,” Cooper Elsworth, a Google spokesperson, told us. “There is currently very little consensus on how to comprehensively and fairly measure the serving environmental impact of generative AI (such as text generation),” he wrote. “Without standardized, ‘apples-to-apples’ frameworks, it is difficult to compare different providers accurately.”
That’s partly because energy use — and emissions data — can vary from site to site and depend on “custom-built hardware, software compilers, and advanced inference techniques.” And he claimed Google doesn’t always have the measurement hardware in place to provide such specific estimates: “Providing precise, repeatable data requires highly advanced measurement infrastructure,” he said. “For example, software-based energy monitoring tools often suffer from sampling biases. For our study, we had to step away from top-down averages and directly measure actual energy at the physical power supply unit (PSU) level across our deployed fleet. Not all providers have the telemetry or data sets required to benchmark their operations at this level of granularity.”
Read Emily’s story to understand the other reasons why estimating — or even “guesstimating” — AI-related carbon emissions is so challenging.
A conversation with Emma Uridge of the Kansas Health Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Emma Uridge, analyst with the Kansas Health Institute. Uridge spent copious hours analyzing state and local laws on data center development to best understand how policymakers are responding to the potential environmental public health impacts of large AI infrastructure, including power and water. The report, which came out this week, also goes in depth into those health impacts. I reached out to her to discuss what she sees as must-watch territory for our readers on this emerging policy arena.
Our conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
What is actually being done on policy when it comes to data centers — beyond moratoria of course?
So first I’d like to just talk about the point of moratoria. It’s helpful to talk about how these policies emerge in the first place. One area where moratoria are helpful is when a data center is proposed but the county has no approach for how they’d like to potentially regulate them. That’s temporary, most of the time. It lets local governments conduct research on the various impacts and also negotiate community benefits, ones that can mitigate any potential negative impacts — like Lancaster Pennsylvania, which instituted a community benefit agreement that maximized the potential benefits of development while mitigating what large data centers can do. That agreement looked at capping municipal water use at 20,000 gallons per day and requiring 100% clean energy. It had financial penalties for non-compliance. The company also committed $20 million to their local economic development and clean energy fund. There are ways to negotiate with developers.
We also see amendments to existing zoning. Data center proposals are increasingly popping up in rural areas, many of which are unzoned, so there’s no way a county can negotiate unless there’s a moratorium in place.
Other policy solutions include different performance standards or requiring on-site renewable energy, like what Jefferson County, Missouri, looked at. Also setback requirements, mandatory noise buffers, ending by-right zoning.
Where are local governments getting ideas for regulating data centers?
A lot of the technical information comes from developers. That can in cases be seen as a biased source of information. I wouldn’t say there’s a dedicated group providing assistance to local governments when a project is proposed — which is a similar story to wind industry development, where we have only a handful of consultants who provide technical advice. It can be really helpful to get a multi-disciplinary approach to hearing information. It can be helpful to have the utility commission, public health folks, those in academia, as well as the developer.
As of right now, especially in rural areas, local governments have a hard task of balancing pushback while getting the most accurate, evidence-based, neutral information to make decisions. That balance can be contentious.
What is the federal government doing on data center policy? How is the Trump administration approaching it?
A few things there. In the early days, the drive was for AI expansion and to be competitive with foreign adversaries. Now due to the amount of public pushback in red and blue localities and a more cautious approach.
I’m not seeing a lot of actual policy movement at this time.
I know the EPA is looking at the chemicals used in cooling data centers because when that water is cycled through the system, some of it is discharged into the water system, so they’re looking at the Toxic Substances and Control Act for monitoring that.
How much of an impact does this minimal federal role have on industry behavior?
Y’know, this isn’t specific to data centers. This is true for all kinds of large-scale development: there’s a need to require some sort of federal monitoring and regulation.
That’s where I see an emerging role for public health. At the federal level, there could be policy movement towards requiring some sort of environmental monitoring at data centers to make sure they’re operating responsibility. Looking at specific water use relative to water availability and what happens when there’s a time of severe, persistent drought. With air quality too — we’ve seen areas where the grid isn’t as reliable so their diesel generators are kicking on more and affecting air quality for residents.
We’re just not seeing all of that right now. We need corporate disclosure.
What do you see as the most important public health impacts from data center development?
It varies by localities. The most discussed obviously is water usage. One thing I’d note about my conversations with folks enthusiastic around emerging tech is, there are still questions that need to be asked about the capacity of localities to support a data center. Like a small town in Kansas may only be using 40% of their water for their utility needs. If a data center came online, how much of that water goes to the data center?
One area underexplored within the public health discipline is energy poverty and energy security. The ability of a household to meet the needs of everything energy provides in our lives. It’s known we have an aging electric grid but we’re not talking enough about large-scale blackouts when the grid is not sufficient to support some of these new data centers.
Plus more of the week’s big development fights.
1. Laramie County, Wyoming — Meta is fighting the fine it received in the Cheyenne data center water pollution controversy, and the conflict between the tech giant and the city’s small board of public utilities is continuing to spill out into the public.
2. Niagara County, New York — This county just rejected a solar project’s highway work permits in a show of retaliation against the state’s Office of Renewable Energy Siting.
3. Barron County, Wisconsin — The anti-solar protest is the new campaign stop in deep red Wisconsin.
4. Chesapeake, Virginia — A large battery storage project on the Virginia coastline is on the rocks amidst rampant local opposition.
5. Lewis County, West Virginia — West Virginia is now a key battleground in the fight over transmission, as a line spanning all of West Virginia and Maryland — and cutting through Data Center Alley in Virginia — causes compounding consternation.