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:
While hurricanes often dominate summer worries, climate change is supercharging the risks from your typical unnamed rainstorm.

When a slow-moving storm soaked Vermont with two-months worth of rain on Sunday and Monday, there was a ready comparison at hand: Tropical Storm Irene. The August 2011 storm similarly caused widespread flooding and resulted in more than $700 million in damages. While damage assessments are ongoing from this week’s storm, more than 200 people had to be rescued throughout the state as floodwaters surged, and early images show extensive public and private infrastructure losses.
Governor Phil Scott referred to the recent onslaught as “Irene 4.0” on Tuesday, while the National Weather Service’s Burlington, Vermont, office has repeatedly made its own Irene comparisons to drive home the danger residents continue to face from floodwaters.
However, this was not a tropical storm, which means there’s no name or ranking to refer back to. Instead, it was the sort of no-name summer storm that has long been a feature of the region but is now intensifying due to rising temperatures.
“We're not used to thinking about summer rainstorms as being a really dangerous hazard,” Anna Weber, a senior policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, told me. “But with the effects of climate change, maybe we should be.”
For many in the Northeast, unpredictable storms are a regular feature of summer months: sheets of rain that slice through the humidity, often ending as abruptly as they began. They might even be welcomed, the accompanying clouds offering a brief reprieve from the baking sun. Such storms are more common from June to September in this area since there is typically more moisture in the air and heat, which can together create atmospheric instability.
The Washington Post described the Vermont storm as a “typical summertime weather system that encountered a powder keg of atmospheric conditions,” including a combination of pressure systems which slowed down the storm’s movement. An official at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration told the Post that the agency’s modeling — based on historical data — would place a storm like this happening in the Northeast at a “1-in-100 chance of occurring in any given year.” But climate change is altering that calculus, with warming conditions correlating with an increase in rainfall quantities.
When it comes to thinking of “really dangerous” storms happening over summer months, it’s probably those tropical systems that come to mind. Gathering over the Atlantic Ocean, they can blow fast enough to be labeled a hurricane before heading for the coast — or, as Irene did in 2011, making their way further inland. But there’s a marked difference in how hurricanes are approached by officials and the public compared to summer storms.
For starters, due to the perceived threat tropical storms pose, they are meticulously tracked from conception to see if they fizzle out or develop into a swirling system worthy of a name. According to the NOAA, the reason you might see your name as a hurricane hashtag over the summer months is “to avoid confusion and streamline communications.” Wildfires receive location-based monikers for a similar reason.
Some researchers have advocated for expanding the label to other disasters, saying they help communicate risk. Last year, Seville, Spain started naming heat waves in hopes of better alerting the public of their risks. Greece is doing it, too. Kostas Lagouvardos, research director at the National Observatory of Athens, told The Observer he believes people are “more prepared to face an upcoming weather event” if it is named.
There is also a set scale in place for hurricanes, though it only takes into account wind speeds, not precipitation. Though it’s an imperfect system, it still offers a way for officials and the public alike to assess the potential risk — something that can be challenging to communicate with no-name storms.
“I would think that if there's a difference between a tropical or summer storm system, it is probably the surprise of people that a summer storm system could actually do something like this,” Chad Berginnis, executive director of the Association of Floodplain Managers, told me.
“Yet the data trends have been very clear now for probably a good decade that we're going to have more intense rainfall events.”
As climate change makes your average summer storm more dangerous, Weber told me researchers are trying to understand how our expectations correlate with protective actions, such as evacuating or stocking up on supplies. It’s a question researchers are posing not only to the public, but also to government agencies and emergency managers, who are tasked with communicating risks to the rest of us and setting relevant protocols in place. The Federal Emergency Management Agency shared its own concern about “conventional natural hazards” in its 2022 National Preparedness Report, explaining that the combination of existing vulnerabilities and hazards intensifying beyond current expectations could be “catastrophic.”
In Vermont, behind many of the comparisons to 2011 was the acknowledgement that the state has dealt with this sort of disaster before. Ultimately, when it comes time to address the damage, Berginnis says the approach is the same whether flooding stems from a hurricane or any other storm. Vermont officials also understood they would likely deal with a bad storm again — the state recently established a Flood Resilient Communities Fund to support locales looking to mitigate flooding damage.
State authorities realized at least two days ahead of the storm they would require additional resources, NPR reported, and they began reaching out to other states for help. On Tuesday, President Biden approved Governor Scott’s request to declare a state of emergency, making Vermont eligible for assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Both flooding and hurricanes are hazards identified in the Stafford Act, which dictates which natural disasters can receive such federal support. During a press conference Thursday, Governor Scott announced he would also be requesting a major disaster declaration, which, if approved, would unlock additional federal aid once the recovery process begins in earnest.
Unfortunately, Vermont is not there yet: Scattered thunderstorms are forecasted to begin Thursday and last throughout the weekend.
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 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.
Plus, a look into the future of solar and wind tax credits.
Heatmap AM and Daily will be off tomorrow for the July 4 holiday, but we’ll see you back here on Monday.
We’re staring down the barrel of a holiday weekend here in the United States, so I’ll keep it quick. Two things:
July 4 will mark the formal end of the solar and wind tax credits in the United States. These incentives — which date back in some form to 1978 — were repealed by President Trump’s tax cuts and spending law last year. In order to qualify for the last of these subsidies, solar and wind projects must “commence construction” by Saturday and be ready to generate power by the end of 2027.
Although the policies haven’t yet expired, there’s already chatter about bringing them back. Some Democrats want to revive the incentives should they win back Congress and the White House in two or six years. But 2029 or 2032 will likely look different than the earlier years of this decade, when the Inflation Reduction Act was written and passed: Power prices are higher now, the grid more congested, and the federal budget more constrained. So today, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo previews one of the next big questions in climate policy: Should Democrats try to bring back the solar and wind tax credits?
Her story is great, and one disconnect in particular stuck out to me. Among the climate and clean energy wonks Emily interviewed, “everyone” agreed that “in the near term, the most important thing Congress could do to help clean energy is break down some of the non-cost barriers to development through permitting reform.” Permitting reform, after all, has no fiscal cost and could be achieved during this Congress.
But Democratic lawmakers themselves sound far less sure about its importance. “I don’t think Democrats can engage in a serious way with Republicans on permitting reform,” Representative Jared Huffman, the ranking member on the House Natural Resources Committee, tells her. Read the rest of Emily’s story for more on how lawmakers are thinking about this question, which will only get more important as we get closer to ‘28.
Get Heatmap in your inbox daily.
We’ve begun to get Q2 sales data for global automakers — and there’s actually decent news for electric vehicles. Some highlights:
Enjoy your holiday weekend, and remember: We’re now in Q3. Thanks, as always, for reading.