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:
Seattle practiced responding to a heat dome during the international soccer tournament. It didn’t go well.

Welcome to Seattle! If you’re one of the 750,000 visitors in town to watch the 2026 North American FIFA World Cup, you’re going to love it here. For one thing, you’ve arrived just in time for the city to suspend its interminable construction for the games. That’s a plus! Be sure to check out our newly pedestrianized Pike Place Market and stroll along the waterfront to “Seattle Stadium” (or sound like a local and call it “Qwest”). You might even get a little chilly from the wind off the bay — you can thank our “temperate, oceanic climate” for that. It’s what makes Seattle the safest place in the United States to attend (or play in) a World Cup game, per researchers at Queen’s University Belfast — at least, from the perspective of extreme heat.
That’s worth bragging about. Extreme heat has been a concern at almost every subsequent World Cup going back to the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, including the 2022 tournament in Qatar, which FIFA had to reschedule to the winter. The 2026 World Cup could get dicey, too. Of the 104 scheduled matches in 16 host cities in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico over the next month, at least half have a 50% chance or greater of being played in temperatures of 82 degrees Fahrenheit or higher, according to research by Climate Central — that being the threshold at which player performance begins to suffer, with athletes slowing down, getting sick, and making poorer decisions because of the heat. The odds of there being impairing heat during the World Cup final in New York on July 19 are basically a coin flip, and 17% higher than they otherwise would have been due to climate change-induced warming.
All of that is just part of what makes Seattle’s host city status so appealing. There is only about a 3% chance of performance-impairing heat during its two mid-June fixtures, rising to 6% later in the month and into July.
Unless, of course, there’s another heat dome.
In 2021, temperatures in Seattle peaked at 108 degrees on June 28, which this year will fall between when the city hosts Egypt vs. Iran and a Round of 32 match. Needless to say, 108 degrees is not just perspiration-inducing; it is well beyond the 89.6-degree wet-bulb globe temperature threshold at which FIFA considers postponing matches. While the possibility of another heat dome in the next few weeks is admittedly an edge case — before 2021, Seattle had only touched 100 degrees three times in 126 years of recorded-keeping— it’s still a realistic enough possibility that last spring, the National Weather Service’s Seattle office ran a tabletop exercise with its local partners to game out just that.
“Before 2021, heat [in Seattle] was just another hazard alongside fire and smoke and those sorts of things,” Reid Wolcott, the warning coordination meteorologist with the NWS Seattle, who helped lead the two-day-long run-through, told me. The heat dome “really highlighted that heat is a powerful hazard that can cause significant loss of life.”
After more than 400 people died in Washington alone, the NWS dedicated considerable time and resources to its heat preparedness and messaging in the Pacific Northwest. Beginning in 2022, the National Integrated Heat Health Information System began offering technical support for heat tabletop exercises in communities around the country. Seattle was supposed to participate in 2024 but “due to some logistical reasons, we ended up delaying it until 2025,” Wolcott said. “And because of that, we were like, We’re well on our way into World Cup planning, here.”
The idea of the “Heat Dome Cup” exercise was to kill two birds with one stone — to test the Seattle area’s response four years after the heat dome, as well as its ability to respond to a weather crisis when thousands of visitors are in the city for the World Cup. Participants included representatives from surrounding cities such as Bellevue, Everett, and Portland, Oregon; county-level offices including from climate, emergency management, and public health; the University of Washington; and the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe.
The results of the exercise were both encouraging and not: For every core capability tested, from “threat/hazard identification” to “communication” and “community resilience,” the after-action report found that Seattle “performed with some challenges.” There was “limited local data” on the compounding hazards of heat, cooling center efficiency, and — particularly alarming — the local healthcare system’s ability to respond during such an event. “Prehospital triage, surge planning, and better integration with public health systems are urgently needed,” the report found. Because paramedics attempt to bring down a heat stroke patients’ temperature before transporting them to a hospital — a laborious process often involving filling a home bathtub with ice, setting the patient in it, and waiting — the emergency response during heat events is slow, and can quickly back up and overwhelm the system.
Heat Dome Cup partners directed my questions about King County’s readiness to handle extreme heat during the World Cup to the public health office, which told me no one was available for an interview.
Carlos Martinez, a senior climate scientist with the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists who did not participate in the exercise, told me that after reading the report, he hopes that “there’s a recognition and awareness of the fact that there’s a lot of work that needs to be done.” He also flagged an observation from the exercise regarding the development of stronger workplace protections during the World Cup.
“That sometimes can be neglected,” he went on. “You have folks in construction, food service, retail, landscaping, and sanitation who work a full day outside during these events. What are the protocols that are out there to ensure that they are protected from heat-related illnesses?”
I put the question to Hollie Stark, the communications coordinator for the Office of Emergency Management in Seattle. (While Stark’s office participated in the exercise, Stark did not.) She told me that Washington’s Department of Labor & Industries offers recommendations for how employers can protect their workers from heat and smoke, including running trainings and publishing posters and pocket cards in multiple languages that promote offering adequate water, shade, and breaks. “We’re thinking about maybe bars and places that might be hosting [FIFA viewing parties] that don’t have access to AC but might have an influx of people,” she said as a hypothetical, “and we’re encouraging them to listen to those recommendations.”
In general, the people I spoke with in Seattle who were involved in the exercise acknowledged that messaging and communication were the areas the city struggled with the most. “That has definitely been the single biggest thing — trying to make sure that we’re all singing from the same sheet of music,” Wolcott told me. “Because we weren’t prior to 2021.”
One of the biggest hurdles has been figuring out exactly how to communicate potential extreme heat warnings to the thousands of visitors traveling to Seattle. During my conversations with officials involved in the Heat Dome Cup, officials pointed me to myriad preparedness websites, real-time risk tools, opt-in alert systems, and health and safety resources for out-of-town visitors, which left me — a local fluent in English — feeling even more confused.
Language itself is one thing — on that front, Stark told me her office has already pre-scripted messaging for extreme heat translated into Spanish and the eight threshold languages of King County — Vietnamese, Somali, Russian, Chinese, Korean, Amharic, Arabic, and Ukrainian — as well as seven additional World Cup spectator-specific languages — Arabic, Farsi, Dutch, French, Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian. But one of the threats of having a heat dome during a major sporting event is that “you have a lot of visitors coming from all different parts of the world,” Wolcott said. “Some come from locations where they are probably more acclimated to heat than we are, but some may be coming from areas that are cooler climates than ours.” Proper acclimation can take weeks, if not an entire season — far longer than most spectators will be in town.
But perhaps the biggest takeaway is that a heat dome isn’t required for people to be under heat stress, even in a place as temperate as Seattle. Wolcott told me the NWS’s seasonal outlook for the summer in the region indicates above-average temperatures, and while that “does increase the risk of a heat event occurring, it has nothing to do with the actual magnitude of it. You could have a 2021-level event, or you could have 30 smaller events, and there is no way to tell exactly what’s going to happen.”
Indeed, even fairly moderate temperatures can sneak up on spectators. While FIFA is in charge of making decisions that impact their athletes’ health, Shel Winkley, the senior engagement specialist and meteorologist at Climate Central, pointed out that “fans are still sitting in the sun in the heat, and if they’re fans like me, they’re not drinking water during [the FIFA-mandated in-game] cooling breaks.” Spectators get to the stadium early, stand in long lines in the sun, sit in crowded stadiums with potentially no shade — and essentially endure an entire day of heat, even if the temperatures seemed manageable when they walked out their hotel door.
At this point, there is nothing to indicate Seattle’s worst-case scenario will come true. (Stark also mentioned that a true worst-case scenario more likely involves the Big One than extreme heat, but we won’t go there.) But “just because historically the odds are low” for a heat dome in the Seattle area “doesn’t mean that they’re zero,” Winkley said.
Martinez, the climate scientist with UCS, stressed to me that while the Heat Dome Cup was an engaging thought experiment, bringing together 30 distinct partners for two whole days, he fears that a gutted NWS and Federal Emergency Management Agency might lack the funding or personnel to act on the weaknesses the exercise exposed. “If you have this one exercise but no follow-through, that can risk eroding trust by those populations who gave time out of their day to come and speak to the federal government about the importance of this issue,” he told me. “We shouldn’t just do this for well-renowned events. This should be an evergreen thing.”
But Wolcott, the lead on the Heat Dome Cup, sounded to me like he was at the end of a long marathon when I spoke to him. “I’ve been planning for [the World Cup] for three years now. I’m ready for it to be over,” he told me, laughing.
“We are always doing this; it was just one exercise that we did last May,” he added. “I’m just looking forward to late July at this point.”
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 data centers might be collateral damage.
After derailing gigawatts of renewable power with a permitting freeze, the Trump administration is expanding its war on renewable energy, retaining one of country music’s biggest stars in a PR offensive against utility-scale projects on “prime farmland.”
The administration recently onboarded John Rich – one half of the stadium-packing American musical duo Big & Rich – to be Trump’s “special envoy for American landowners.” Rich entered activism around landowner rights last January when he backed opponents fighting a large Tennessee Valley Authority transmission project routed through his home county of Cheatham, Tennessee. This led to him joining the Trump team, where he’s fashioning himself as a go-to guy and cheerleader for anyone who wants Trump to help stop a solar or wind farm they don’t want built.
Rich’s first fight on behalf of the Trump team? Battling solar projects in upstate New York. Over the weekend, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, and the freshly-annointed Rich wrote New York Governor Kathy Hochul grilling her on the state’s definition of “prime farmland” and claiming “the absence of a clear plan” for disposing of solar panels after projects are decommissioned. The letter resulted from Rich’s conversations with a prominent anti-solar Substack author in upstate New York, Alexandra Fasulo, and it references a specific Repsol project under development in Glen, New York, that she is fighting in state court.
“Only 8 weeks ago, I decided to start posting my written content from Facebook and Substack to X. It didn’t take long before John Rich and I connected,” Fasulo wrote in a blog on Monday. “John and I spoke on the phone a few times. We texted and I began to share my research with him. Many meetings later… and the US Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and John Rich put their heads together.” In her post Fasulo signaled more is coming. “If you read the letter slowly, you’ll get the gist of what the feds are trying to do here. For legal purposes, I am not going to explain that in writing. Read between the lines,” she said. “This lays the foundation for battling destruction at the hands of solar and wind complexes, battery storage, and so much more. Have a little faith and patience. There is A LOT to come.”
Trump is pivoting to farmland fights because there are few battlegrounds left for the federal government to fire upon. He has totally undermined large-scale renewable energy development in the ocean – I mean, look at offshore wind. He’s wrecked progress in the desert, where large solar farms on federal lands remain trapped in bureaucratic permitting delays. Some facilities are now getting through, like Primergy Power’s Purple Sage Energy Center south of Pahrump, Nevada, which got its permits last month. Yet other large projects are petering out; permitting on at least three large solar proposals – Smith Blythe’s Desert Energy Charger Project and Intersect Power’s Perkins Renewable Energy Project in California and Balanced Rock Power’s Samantha Solar effort in Nevada – has been paused or canceled outright since the start of the year.
The president’s turn to fighting projects on farmland also makes sense from a political standpoint. He’s facing an enormous backlash to a buildout of hyperscale data centers he supported, many of which are sited on acreage suitable for agriculture. Republicans running statewide in must-watch midterms battlegrounds – Texas and Iowa, for example – will have to navigate this rocky terrain where something their president supported is deeply unpopular. By bringing Rich aboard and letting him wail on renewable energy in the public square, it’ll be a signal that the Big Man is still listening to rural MAGA voters wary of industrial development.
In media interviews, Rich has claimed Trump created this new, unpaid special envoy position after the country star turned down an offer to sit on the TVA. “I said [to Trump], ‘if I serve with the TVA I cannot disparage the TVA, and I fully intend on keeping my right to disparage them intact.’” He said, ‘You know what, I respect that. So what do you want to do?’ And I said, ‘Man, give me a position where I’ve got some authority and I can work with the highest agencies in the land to protect landowners. Can you create something like that for me?’”
That’s at least the public story for how the president created the “special envoy” role, which Rich has described in ways that are equal parts citizen-government liaison and culture warrior. It’s now clear from his many posts on X that he’ll be heavily involved in messaging against the construction of new renewable energy facilities, carbon pipelines and, potentially, hyperscale data centers.
“[I’ll] go out, find these egregious situations where landowners are being infringed upon and I can go in, work with USDA, EPA, Secretary of the Interior, HUD, the Energy Department, and then all the way of course [to] the Oval Office – to throw up a defense against American landowners,” Rich told Atkisson. He added that data centers will also be a focus of his in government, and there are “two or three” projects out there where he wanted to intervene.
“The president wants to see the data centers built, but he also wants the farm and ranchland to be preserved. We have to have food security for America. We have to.”
Rich and Fasulo then joined Rollins and other administration officials at a press conference Thursday in Washington, D.C. Fasulo spoke at length against New York solar and wind development. Pressed on how data centers square with farmland protection, Rollins spoke about the anxiety in rural America around hyperscalers.
“That debate is raging right now,” she said. “I think that the importance of private property rights, the importance of preserving American farmland, the importance of ensuring we’re going to have another 250 years of freedom is paramount. Does that mean it is completely incompatible with data centers? I don’t think so and I know President Trump doesn’t think so. But what it does mean is that we have to be extremely intentional. There should be plenty of land in this country where data centers can be built that will not be on prime, important farmland. That’s my take on that.”
When Rich joined the federal government is unclear. The Agriculture Department formally announced Rich joined the administration on June 10, but Rich first disclosed Trump “made an offer for a position” in a subscriber-only post made to X on July 24, 2025. He then provided updates in similarly paywalled statements, revealing the Trump appointment to his subscribers in April. Then in May, he told subscribers that he’d completed federal onboarding. “I’m really looking forward to pushing bad guys off of good guys’ land:) You’ll be seeing the official announcement soon, but I wanted you to know 1st!”
What’s clear, however, is that Rich has other targets too. As Rich was brought into federal service, he began routinely sharing a URL – “usda.gov/lawfare” – and directed aggrieved landowners to report potential misdeeds around land seizure. A review of his back-and-forth communications on social media indicate several potential fights he may wade into. Wind energy projects in Kansas. Solar development in rural Virginia. An aluminum smelter in Oklahoma. Carbon capture proposals in Louisiana.
Prior to formally joining the administration, Rich got involved in a conflict over eminent domain and transmission for data centers in Coweta County, Georgia, which had gone viral on right-wing social media. On May 12, Rich said he “just had a great phone call” with Rep. Brian Jack, the GOP congressman who represents the transmission battleground in question. “I will be speaking more on the matter soon,” he tweeted, declaring the power lines threatened “not only homes, but cattle farms and row crops.” Rich also says he facilitated federal engagement between the USDA and Casey Murph, a rancher in Navajo County, Arizona, who claims the state prematurely ended a land lease he held so Orsted can build a solar project.
It’s also apparent Rich will be the first major Trump administration official to publicly root for more counties to indefinitely ban solar and wind development. “The best way for farm and ranch land to be protected from wind/solar projects is for the county to pass a moratorium on those energy sources, disallowing them to ever be built in the county,” Rich told an X follower on May 16.
No one can predict how harmful it’ll be to have one of country music’s most famous artists turning into a spokesperson against renewable energy. But I doubt even paying Katie Miller to say nice things about solar will be able to overcome newly-empowered activism from a Nashville legend.
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.