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 AQI is dropping in New York City and Boston ... again.

One thing New Yorkers could always reliably lord over urban Californians was our air. No, our city isn’t perfect — we manage our trash by piling it on the curb and have this pesky thing called “winter” — but at least in recent years our metro area beat San Francisco, Sacramento, and smoggy Los Angeles when it came to the particulates we inhale.
It brings me no joy to report, then, that this spring, tides have turned. Or at least the winds have. East Coasters have evidently inhaled more smoke than most Californians in 2023 due to a quiet start to the wildfire season out West and an explosive start to the one upwind of us in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and now Nova Scotia.
Here’s what the historic AQI has looked like in New York since late April (the yellow spikes mark smoky days):

And here’s what it’s looked like in Boston:

By comparison, here is San Francisco:

And Sacramento (note the AQI scale here has changed on the left to out of 50):

Though the air quality in Los Angeles has been significantly worse than the AQI in New York or Boston this spring, the yellow “moderate” AQI columns below overlap with a period of heavy urban pollution, rather than wildfire smoke. The yellow columns on the East Coast AQI charts, by contrast, match periods when wildfire smoke blew in from Canada.

New Yorkers might be surprised to hear they’ve experienced more smoked-tinted sunrises and sunsets this year than Californians, but it checks out: There have been no major (more than 1,000 acres) fires in California yet in 2023. While that might seem unusual, it isn’t; what is unusual are the years like 2021, when the season started in early spring. But 2023 is so far looking to be an average year for California wildfires, which means large burns and regional smoke pollution aren’t expected in the Golden State until late summer and early fall (of course, an El Niño could throw all of this into question).
Meanwhile, in Canada, it is fire season — and it’s been an especially bad one. Almost 5 million acres have already burned, with Alberta on track to have its worst fire year ever. Though smoke from the Canadian fires has blown into a number of northern U.S. states, including Washington and Montana, the jet stream generally carries air east, with some particulate matter making it as far as Boston and New York. (Winds have likewise prevented Canadian wildfire smoke from making it as far southwest as California, hence the unexpected smoke disparity). Over the weekend, a new fire also started in Nova Scotia, causing some 16,000 evacuations around Halifax; the wind has blown much of that smoke southwest, with residents of Connecticut and Massachusetts reporting on Tuesday that they could smell and even taste the smoke.
The smoke from Canada is also, of course, causing the air quality across the East Coast to plunge. This is not in and of itself a rare occurrence: In 2021, smoke from fires in California likewise caused New York City to experience its worst AQI in 15 years.
East Coast residents may nevertheless feel — incorrectly — that they’re isolated from the dangers of wildfires. In truth, roughly three-quarters of smoke-related asthma cases and deaths occur east of the Rocky Mountains, one study found, due to both population density and wind patterns. Another pre-print study by Stanford researchers that was recently referenced by David Wallace-Wells in The New York Times found similarly that 60 percent of the smoke impact from U.S. wildfires occurs in a different state than the one where the fire is actually burning. Separately, a University of Washington study found that people were 1% more likely to die from “nontraumatic” causes like a heart attack or stroke on a day when they were exposed to wildfire smoke — and 2% more likely the day after.
New Yorkers live in the superior coastal city, but we shouldn’t get too smug about our air. Thinking we’re somehow immune to the West’s smoke problems is patently false
and getting falser. Besides, why should Angelenos get to have all the fun? It’s only fair that we get to obsess over our PurpleAir score, too.
Get the best of Heatmap delivered to your inbox:
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 Emily Pritzkow of Wisconsin Building Trades
This week’s conversation is with Emily Pritzkow, executive director for the Wisconsin Building Trades, which represents over 40,000 workers at 15 unions, including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the International Union of Operating Engineers, and the Wisconsin Pipe Trades Association. I wanted to speak with her about the kinds of jobs needed to build and maintain data centers and whether they have a big impact on how communities view a project. Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.
So first of all, how do data centers actually drive employment for your members?
From an infrastructure perspective, these are massive hyperscale projects. They require extensive electrical infrastructure and really sophisticated cooling systems, work that will sustain our building trades workforce for years – and beyond, because as you probably see, these facilities often expand. Within the building trades, we see the most work on these projects. Our electricians and almost every other skilled trade you can think of, they’re on site not only building facilities but maintaining them after the fact.
We also view it through the lens of requiring our skilled trades to be there for ongoing maintenance, system upgrades, and emergency repairs.
What’s the access level for these jobs?
If you have a union signatory employer and you work for them, you will need to complete an apprenticeship to get the skills you need, or it can be through the union directly. It’s folks from all ranges of life, whether they’re just graduating from high school or, well, I was recently talking to an office manager who had a 50-year-old apprentice.
These apprenticeship programs are done at our training centers. They’re funded through contributions from our journey workers and from our signatory contractors. We have programs without taxpayer dollars and use our existing workforce to bring on the next generation.
Where’s the interest in these jobs at the moment? I’m trying to understand the extent to which potential employment benefits are welcomed by communities with data center development.
This is a hot topic right now. And it’s a complicated topic and an issue that’s evolving – technology is evolving. But what we do find is engagement from the trades is a huge benefit to these projects when they come to a community because we are the community. We have operated in Wisconsin for 130 years. Our partnership with our building trades unions is often viewed by local stakeholders as the first step of building trust, frankly; they know that when we’re on a project, it’s their neighbors getting good jobs and their kids being able to perhaps train in their own backyard. And local officials know our track record. We’re accountable to stakeholders.
We are a valuable player when we are engaged and involved in these sting decisions.
When do you get engaged and to what extent?
Everyone operates differently but we often get engaged pretty early on because, obviously, our workforce is necessary to build the project. They need the manpower, they need to talk to us early on about what pipeline we have for the work. We need to talk about build-out expectations and timelines and apprenticeship recruitment, so we’re involved early on. We’ve had notable partnerships, like Microsoft in southeast Wisconsin. They’re now the single largest taxpayer in Racine County. That project is now looking to expand.
When we are involved early on, it really shows what can happen. And there are incredible stories coming out of that job site every day about what that work has meant for our union members.
To what extent are some of these communities taking in the labor piece when it comes to data centers?
I think that’s a challenging question to answer because it varies on the individual person, on what their priority is as a member of a community. What they know, what they prioritize.
Across the board, again, we’re a known entity. We are not an external player; we live in these communities and often have training centers in them. They know the value that comes from our workers and the careers we provide.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone who says that is a bad thing. But I do think there are other factors people are weighing when they’re considering these projects and they’re incredibly personal.
How do you reckon with the personal nature of this issue, given the employment of your members is also at stake? How do you grapple with that?
Well, look, we respect, over anything else, local decision-making. That’s how this should work.
We’re not here to push through something that is not embraced by communities. We are there to answer questions and good actors and provide information about our workforce, what it can mean. But these are decisions individual communities need to make together.
What sorts of communities are welcoming these projects, from your perspective?
That’s another challenging question because I think we only have a few to go off of here.
I would say more information earlier on the better. That’s true in any case, but especially with this. For us, when we go about our day-to-day activities, that is how our most successful projects work. Good communication. Time to think things through. It is very early days, so we have some great success stories we can point to but definitely more to come.
The number of data centers opposed in Republican-voting areas has risen 330% over the past six months.
It’s probably an exaggeration to say that there are more alligators than people in Colleton County, South Carolina, but it’s close. A rural swath of the Lowcountry that went for Trump by almost 20%, the “alligator alley” is nearly 10% coastal marshes and wetlands, and is home to one of the largest undeveloped watersheds in the nation. Only 38,600 people — about the population of New York’s Kew Gardens neighborhood — call the county home.
Colleton County could soon have a new landmark, though: South Carolina’s first gigawatt data center project, proposed by Eagle Rock Partners.
That’s if it overcomes mounting local opposition, however. Although the White House has drummed up data centers as the key to beating China in the race for AI dominance, Heatmap Pro data indicate that a backlash is growing from deep within President Donald Trump’s strongholds in rural America.
According to Heatmap Pro data, there are 129 embattled data centers located in Republican-voting areas. The vast majority of these counties are rural; just six occurred in counties with more than 1,000 people per square mile. That’s compared with 93 projects opposed in Democratic areas, which are much more evenly distributed across rural and more urban areas.
Most of this opposition is fairly recent. Six months ago, only 28 data centers proposed in low-density, Trump-friendly countries faced community opposition. In the past six months, that number has jumped by 95 projects. Heatmap’s data “shows there is a split, especially if you look at where data centers have been opposed over the past six months or so,” says Charlie Clynes, a data analyst with Heatmap Pro. “Most of the data centers facing new fights are in Republican places that are relatively sparsely populated, and so you’re seeing more conflict there than in Democratic areas, especially in Democratic areas that are sparsely populated.”
Our polling reflects this: Rural Republicans exhibit greater resistance to hypothetical data center projects in their communities than urban Republicans: only 45% of GOP voters in rural areas support data centers being built nearby, compared with nearly 60% of urban Republicans.

Such a pattern recently played out in Livingston County, Michigan, a farming area that went 61% for President Donald Trump, and “is known for being friendly to businesses.” Like Colleton County, the Michigan county has low population density; last fall, hundreds of the residents of Howell Township attended public meetings to oppose Meta’s proposed 1,000-acre, $1 billion AI training data center in their community. Ultimately, the uprising was successful, and the developer withdrew the Livingston County project.
Across the five case studies I looked at today for The Fight — in addition to Colleton and Livingston Counties, Carson County, Texas; Tucker County, West Virginia; and Columbia County, Georgia, are three other red, rural examples of communities that opposed data centers, albeit without success — opposition tended to be rooted in concerns about water consumption, noise pollution, and environmental degradation. Returning to South Carolina for a moment: One of the two Colleton residents suing the county for its data center-friendly zoning ordinance wrote in a press release that he is doing so because “we cannot allow” a data center “to threaten our star-filled night skies, natural quiet, and enjoyment of landscapes with light, water, and noise pollution.” (In general, our polling has found that people who strongly oppose clean energy are also most likely to oppose data centers.)
Rural Republicans’ recent turn on data centers is significant. Of 222 data centers that have faced or are currently facing opposition, the majority — 55% —are located in red low-population-density areas. Developers take note: Contrary to their sleepy outside appearances, counties like South Carolina’s alligator alley clearly have teeth.
With investment in AI booming, any business that can promise quick generation is looking pretty good right now.
It’s a good time to be selling stuff to data center developers.
That was the message from the beginning of earnings season for the renewables and the energy industry: If you can promise power to data centers quickly, you’re doing good business. (If you’re just a software business that investors think will be displaced by large language models, the value of your company has probably fallen by a quarter so far this year).
Caterpillar, while better known for its gargantuan mining and construction equipment, also sells gas turbines and reciprocating engines — basically giant car engines that run on natural gas. Its power generation business is now by far its biggest segment, outpacing oil and gas and industrial, and its revenue of $3.2 billion in the fourth quarter was 44% more than a year earlier.
“Sales increased in large reciprocating engines, primarily data center applications. Turbines and turbine-related services increased as well,” the company said in its earnings release late last month. And it’s not likely to stop: “We anticipate growth in power generation for both CAT reciprocating engines and solar turbines driven by increasing energy demand to support data center build-out related to cloud computing and generative AI.,” the company’s chief executive officer Joe Creed said on a call with analysts. We “talk to hyperscalers and large data center customers weekly and make sure we stay in line with their plans.”
And those hyperscalers are going to spend even more in 2026.
Big tech companies have some $600 billion in capital expenditures planned for this year, with the growth in spending coming largely from data centers.
And while the vast majority of the cost of owning an AI datacenter is the chips, you need power to run a data center, and the more quickly you can get that power, the sooner your data center can be up and running.
This “speed-to-power” problem has thus put a massive premium on any power generation technology that can be deployed quickly.
Like fuel cells.
Bloom Energy, the long-tenured fuel cell company, reported around $780 million in quarterly revenue in the fourth quarter, up 36% from the year before. “Our growth has been fueled by seismic changes in customer attitude towards power,” the company’s founder and chief executive, KR Sridhar, said on the company’s earnings call Thursday. “On-site power has moved from being a decision of last resort to a vital business necessity. This shift has led large power users to seek Bloom to fulfill their needs. Our demand from data centers and commercial and industrial or C&I customers is secular and growing.”
Bloom has been kicking around for two decades, but it took the data center boom for the company to really, well, bloom.
Large turbines for natural gas power are sold out through the end of the decade; meanwhile, Bloom claims to be able to get fuel cells on site before the data center itself is fully constructed. “We can ramp up and provide that additional power to that customer before they are ready,” Sridhar said. “Typically, it takes more than a year to stand up a greenfield data center. It takes more than a year to stand up a factory, from permits all the way to full implementation. We can be ready for them before then.”
While on-site power can be crucial to actually beginning operations, data centers tend to want to connect to the grid eventually, which means more demand for services from utilities and large scale developers of power. The utility and developer NextEra has long promoted the “speed to power” narrative, pointing out that it’s far easier to procure and assemble solar panels and batteries than it is gas turbines.
“Battery storage now represents almost one-third of our 30-gigawatt backlog, with nearly 5 gigawatts originated over the past 12 months. We don’t see this demand slowing. Nearly every region in the country needs capacity, and battery storage is the only new capacity resource available at scale,” NextEra chief executive John Ketchum said on the company’s earnings call late last month.
He also said that he would be “disappointed” if the company’s plans for 15 gigawatts of “data center hubs” doesn’t double to 30 gigawatts by 2035. These hubs, Ketchum said, will be powered “through a mix of new renewables, battery storage and gas generation.”
The Minnesota-based utility Xcel said it expects to have 3 gigawatts of contracted data centers by the end of this year and six by 2027.
“If you think about where we sit in sustainability goals as a company, where these hyperscalers and data centers and customers of data center developers wanna be, it’s a highly sustainable product,” Xcel’s chief executive Bob Franzel said on the company’s earnings call Thursday.
As for the companies actually making the solar panels and batteries that could power data centers, they largely haven’t reported earnings yet, although the American solar manufacturer First Solar did get a scare recently when its share price dropped 13% last Thursday — and no, not because of a change in tariffs or tax credits or permitting rules. It was because Elon Musk said he wanted to build 100 gigawatts of solar panels a year. The speed to power question, at least for Elon Musk, is not limited to Earth.
“We think the best way to add significant capability to the grid is solar and batteries on Earth and solar in space,” Musk said on Tesla’s fourth quarter earnings call last week.