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 Oscar-winner and El Capitan free solo-er talks to Heatmap about solar panels, fatherhood, and his new docuseries, Arctic Ascent.

In 2017, rock climber Alex Honnold went on Jimmy Kimmel Live! to promote Free Solo, the then-new documentary about his unassisted climb of Yosemite’s El Capitan. “Is there anything bigger than that?” Kimmel prompted as a closing question.
“I mean, there are technically some bigger walls in the world,” Honnold said. “But they’re in very remote places — like Greenland.”
Five years and an Oscar later, Honnold was scrambling off a boat at the base of Ingmikortilaq, a crumbly sea cliff that towers nearly 1,000 feet higher than El Cap over an iceberg-ridden fjord in eastern Greenland. His intended first ascent was the culmination of a six-week adventure across ice fields and glaciers.
This time, Honnold wasn’t alone. The Greenland expedition included two other legendary climbers, Hazel Findlay and Mikey Schaefer, as well as Aldo Kane, who provided safety and technical support; Adam Kjeldsen, a Greenlandic guide; and perhaps most surprisingly, Heïdi Sevestre, a French glaciologist who helped set up or run 16 different studies to collect data for scientists around the world.
The team’s adventure is captured in Arctic Ascent with Alex Honnold, a three-part docuseries that premieres on Hulu and Disney+ on February 5. Ahead of its release, I spoke separately with Honnold and Sevestre about the expedition, the importance of climate science, and their respective climbs. (While Sevestre, previously a non-climber, didn’t attempt Ingmikortilaq, she did scale a 1,500-foot rock face known as the Pool Wall while drilling rock cores for samples.) Our conversations have been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.
Unlike a lot of other outdoor sports like mountaineering or skiing or even surfing, rock climbing doesn’t seem as obviously imperiled by climate change. How did this become the cause you wanted to devote your time and money to?
Oh, I think climbing is more imperiled by climate change than most other sports. I mean, you’re right that maybe it’s not as impactful as to skiing, but it’s way more impactful than almost every other sport.
You’re still in the mountains. Wildfire smoke every summer — that’s now a thing that just didn’t exist when I was growing up climbing. Even if you’re just rock climbing, you’re always approaching in the mountains. Nowadays, most couloirs [chutes between rocks that might typically fill with snow in the winter] have melted out. Stable snow fields that have existed for generations are now melted out. Piles of teetering rubble are falling down mountainsides, and also a lot of routes are just less safe. The mountainsides themselves are collapsing, like the Aiguille du Midi gondola in Chamonix. Which, actually — one of the things we were installing in Greenland were temperature sensors on one of the cliffs, related to studying how rocks thaw out, what happens when permafrost melts. I would say that climate change is still incredibly relevant for us.
Your way into climate was through your climbing, then?
A big part of my environmental awareness in general is because of the experiences I’ve had outdoors as a climber. But long before [the Greenland expedition], I started a foundation in 2012 where I’ve been supporting community solar projects around the world and caring about the transition to renewables. I’ve cared about climate change forever. I think this was just the first opportunity to do it on mainstream television.
I saw that Arctic Ascent purchased carbon credits to compensate for production emissions. I was hoping you could talk about that decision, and how else you might have minimized your impact on the expedition, since I don’t think people are aware of how energy intensive film and TV productions can be.
In this case, other than the obvious expense of all of our flights getting to Greenland, we had a relatively low carbon footprint because we were camping the whole time. I think you’re right that a lot of television is kind of insane when you have all the RVs and everyone’s in their own thing and there’s hair and makeup and it’s just crazy with, like, a million cameras. In this case, it was basically a bunch of people camping on a glacier for six weeks, so it’s not quite the same as a Hollywood set.
But yeah, I think the idea to purchase offsets was the obvious bare minimum for a project like this. If you’re going to be doing a whole story around sea level rise, you have to do something.
The Honnold Foundation focuses on bringing solar panels to vulnerable communities, but these are fairly small projects compared to the expansive solar farms we might more traditionally think of. Why did you choose to focus your time on something that might seem, at least on paper, to be of a smaller scale than, say, electrifying the grid?
It’s a totally fair question. In 2012, it wasn’t totally clear that the world was transitioning to renewables at all. It seemed like it was inevitable, but you’re never really sure — you know, back then people were into hydrogen and you’re like, “Oh, maybe we’re going to have hydrogen cars, or maybe battery electric really takes off,” blah, blah, blah. Anyway, now it seems totally clear that the world is transitioning to renewables. Within some timeframe, like 20 to 50 years, the world will be 100% renewable.
The thing is, we currently live in a world where something like a billion people don’t have access to power, and transitioning to renewables will still leave us in a world where a billion people don’t have access to power. [Editor’s note: The number of people living without electricity today is actually closer to 760 million.] As the system changes, there are so many people who are left behind. What the Honnold Foundation tries to do is find that sweet spot in helping with the transition, helping the people who are being left behind.
Part of that is just by necessity — I’m a professional rock climber, I’m not a tech billionaire. So the small-scale grants just make more sense to some extent, but they also have the biggest impact on human lives because when you do these small-scale projects, you can fundamentally change the way people live. That’s a huge impact.
I live in Las Vegas, and you see huge solar farms around the desert. It’s great; the grid is going 100% renewable. I’m into that. But realistically, the only difference it makes in most people’s lives is maybe a small change in their utility rate. Really, the people that benefit are the utility shareholders — it’s some Warren Buffett-owned utility in my case, NV Energy. That really isn’t that inspiring. This is my long rant to say that the Honnold Foundation is trying to help the humans who need it the most.
Did you get a chance to use solar panels on the Greenland expedition?
On this trip, no, because they were running a generator for production and it was charging, like, 50 batteries.
It’s funny because we did an expedition in Antarctica where we made a little climbing film as well. And on that trip, they planned to take a generator and then somebody just forgot the fuel. So we got there and we were like, “Oh, no,” and we wound up doing the whole trip off solar and it totally worked.
This was your first expedition since becoming a father. You’ve worked on the climate cause for a long time now, but I’m curious if your perspective has changed at all since your daughter June joined your family — and I know you have another daughter on the way!
Yeah, soon! No, I don’t think my perspective has changed too much. I’ve always cared about these kinds of issues. The bigger change is in the way that I spend my time. Having a family forces me to be a little bit tighter about the choices that I’m making, what expeditions I choose to go on. That makes a trip like this even more worthwhile, where you get to do great climbing and there’s a real purpose behind it, and you get to share important knowledge about things that matter.
Can you tell me a little more about the decision to bring Heïdi on board? I heard her version of the story earlier this week but I’m curious about how you found her and roped her in.
Isn’t she so amazing?
She was delightful!
That’s the thing with Heïdi. Because when you spend time with her, she just makes you care about about ice. And I don’t even like ice. It’s not my thing; I like rocks. But she made me much more knowledgeable and much more caring about that type of world.
Do you consider yourself an optimist when it comes to climate change?
I think so, which is weird because I’m optimistic despite all the data to the contrary. I understand the predictions, but there’s so much to gain. So far it’s been 20 years that I’ve been reading environmental nonfiction and we haven’t really chosen to make anything of this opportunity, but we still have this incredible opportunity to build a better world to live in, a cleaner world. We can still choose that at any point. And I just keep thinking that at some point, we’re going to choose it. You can’t keep ignoring the obvious thing forever.
How did you get involved in the Arctic Ascent expedition?
This was an absolute dream come true for me — I felt extremely lucky to get a call from the team. It is extremely challenging to go to that one remote location, one of the least studied places on Earth. But Alex, as you know, is a firm believer in the scientific work. The planets really aligned. It took about a year prior to the expedition to design the work we could do with boots on the ground.
I wanted to know what it was like to put together scientific objectives for an expedition like this. It’s a little bit unconventional because there’s a film crew and there was climbing involved.
I think it was extremely brave and extremely daring of the entire team to have the willingness to invite the scientists on board. Because not only did we have the best climbers in the world climbing in a very challenging and hostile environment, we’re also filming a series of documentaries and we have to do some of the very best possible science. So it’s not that easy! But what we did is, we took it step by step. We contacted all the universities and labs and institutions interested in data from this part of the world — and also interested in training me on how to collect this data. Because I really felt — it’s what I was thinking the whole time — I really felt like I was an astronaut on the ISS. I was the only one, and I had to do the best possible work.
We ended up with 16 different protocols to do on this expedition, so it was really major. And, you know, we worked with NASA, we worked with research institutes in Denmark, the University of Buffalo, and the University of Kansas, for example. So it was challenging but a dream come true to be trusted by the scientists.
Your first big polar expedition was actually to Greenland, back in 2011. Had you been back to the island between that research trip and this one?
I had spent a tiny bit of time — not so far in the field as East Greenland, but around the coastlines. But what I was doing there was mostly science communication with people who wanted to learn about the impacts of climate change on the Greenland ice sheets. So I hadn’t been on a big research expedition to Greenland since 2011. And the changes were absolutely massive.
That was going to be my question!
The Arctic is one of the fastest-warming places on Earth. Everything that’s taking place in Greenland is impacting the rest of the world, so I felt that we had a duty and a mission — on top of climbing these incredible monoliths, we actually had to bring something back to society.
In the series, you talk about how remote and understudied East Greenland is by climate scientists. But during the expedition, you were being assisted by support helicopters and by boats. So why aren’t expeditions like this one happening all the time? Is it an issue of funding or a lack of scientific interest in this particular region?
It’s crazy to think of how little data we have from the ground [in East Greenland]. We have satellites — we have as many satellites as we want. But it is very tricky to get there. What you have to understand about this place is that for 10 months of the year, there is sea ice blocking access to this field. Ten months of the year! So the rest of the year — yes, we can access by plane, we can access by boat, but it’s very expensive.
What was great about this project is that we had in mind, “How can we lower our carbon footprint?” This is why, for example, we worked with fishermen who had boats from a nearby village at the entrance of the field. It was very important for us to use local means of transportation. Of course, we had to use helicopters every now and then, because there was no other way. But it’s remote, it’s expensive, and on top of everything, it is extremely hostile.
Oh my gosh, the bashing you get when you go there! This is something that we really wanted to show in the series — how powerful nature can be. And climate change is accelerating and making these changes even more violent. So I think it’s important to show that when nature starts to be a bit destabilized, it can get very angry.
There was a paper in Nature that came out earlier this month that said nearly every glacier in Greenland has thinned or retreated over the past few decades. In the series, there’s a bit of good news, which is that the Daugaard-Jensen Glacier is a little bit more stable than you were anticipating. Do you have any insight into why that might be?
What’s so great is, it keeps part of the mystery! I like that we still don’t totally understand what’s taking place.
The scientists we’ve been working with have told us — this is a bit technical — but it has to do with the shape of the bedrock. It seems that the glacier is resting on a little ridge that might be holding everything together. This might be the reason why the glacier is still stable; also, this part of Greenland still receives a lot of snow.
But we’ve seen some cracks in this perfect picture. You know, the NASA float [that we launched on the expedition] has told us that the temperature of the water in the fjords is increasing. So it’s not all perfect. The environment around it is definitely changing, but it seems that it has some advantages.
Were there any findings from the expedition that you are particularly excited about?
All of them! But science takes a very long time, so at the moment, we’re still waiting on a lot of the results from these different protocols. But what I want to share is something that is very simple: Greenland holds a lot of ice, and if we lose the ice, it means 6 to 7 meters of sea-level rise. As you saw in the paper that was published by Nature, at the moment, Greenland is losing 30 million tons of ice per hour. What is crucial to understand is that every action we conduct back home to reduce our carbon footprints and to preserve our climate helps Greenland and helps our collective future. All this data will help us to prepare for the things to come.
Last question: Have you taken up rock climbing?
I’ll be honest: no. I think I’m a bit traumatized in a good way. I think I needed a minute to recover. But I really want to start climbing again — now, with the launch of this series, I know that it’ll be my mission for this year. Otherwise, I think Alex and Hazel will never forgive me.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Tales from a day of “thoughtful dialogues on energy, climate change, and human lives” on Day 3 of New York Climate Week.
“I’m here because I love thoughtful dialogues on energy, climate change, and human lives,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright told my colleague Robinson Meyer this afternoon. “That’s been a passion my whole life, and nothing will change that.”
It’s our passion too — and was a defining theme of Heatmap House on Wednesday at New York Climate Week, with 27 sessions across topics including clean energy development, U.S. climate policy, the future of mobility, climate tech, and reindustrialization. From Wright backpedaling on President Trump’s embrace of a diesel export ban to former Vice President Al Gore asserting that 2026 might mark “the positive tipping point on climate,” it was a full day of news, contrarian opinions, juicy predictions, and lots and lots of coffee (consumed by yours truly).
Early in the day, Carlos Araque, the CEO and co-founder of Quaise, an advanced geothermal company, started things off by addressing the elephant in the room: potentially imminent movement on permitting reform. “It’s always easy to be picky and want for more,” he acknowledged, although he added that “my ask has always been — as far back as 2018 — if you can do for geothermal what you do for oil as in terms of regulatory permitting exclusions, then you’re moving 90% of the way to the goal. So that’s happening — that’s slowly and surely happening.”
Get Heatmap in your inbox daily.
New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill also spoke about permitting reform at a local scale. “You cannot simply say to people, ‘Sorry, your bills are just going to keep skyrocketing,’” she stressed. “That is not the answer, which is why we’ve acted so aggressively. I approved 18 solar and battery storage projects in the first six months [of my term]. We knew the federal credits were going to run out if we did not get that done, so that’s why we had to take on permitting reform right away to make sure we were growing that.”
And while Jane Flegal, the principal at Flegal Energy Advisors, didn’t have any secret insight into the potential deal, she broke down her predictions into three buckets: reforms to conventional environmental statutes such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act; transmission, “which, no one knows what’s in there, but we all know what was in the Manchin deal, and I think we can and should expect something at least that ambitious;” and permitting certainty, which would constrain executive power to cancel permits after they’ve been issued.
Chris Hayes, the host of All In with Chris Hayes on MS NOW and a former climate reporter, took the stage just after Gore, who marked the 20-year anniversary of his Academy Award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Like Gore, Hayes was in a reflective mood. “I think to some degree, we’re kind of moving forward in this understanding that all of us are implicated in the system that’s going to change very slowly over time,” he said, calling it one of the lessons of the past 20 years. “But I think there was a high-water mark of consumer activism that is sort of gone.”
Then, of course, there was Wright. The energy secretary — whom climate insiders have described to us as the biggest climate villain in the Trump administration after Trump himself — talked to Rob about as many fuels as they could cover. Wind: “There have been very spirited dialogues in the administration about this. I do believe a successful permitting reform thing changes the playing field for anything you want to build in this country, including wind.” Nuclear: “Our thing is just to try to get it back on its feet and get out of the way.” Natural gas: “Gas in my lifetime is going to be the American energy superpower for sure, but you never want all your eggs in one basket.” Batteries: “I’m all in.” And EVs: “Should we have the broader America subsidizing, you know, the habits of wealthy people? I don’t think we should.”
Electric vehicles also came up in our mobility session, of course, along with other forms of mobility including ferries, subways, and rail. “It’s not something we talk about very much in the U.S.,” Laura Fox, the co-founder and managing partner of Streetlife Ventures, told me, adding that “we have a really great rail freight network that is underutilized and that typically saves shippers 30% to 40% when they’re shipping goods in the current environment.” (Representative Mike Levin of California also shared that if he could only connect two places in his proposed giant high-performance rail system, “I’d like to see the line between Los Angeles and San Diego solidified.”)
The evening wrapped with a focus on reindustrialization. Tom Steyer, the co-executive chair of Galvanize Solutions, told us he’s doing fine after his unsuccessful bid for California governor. (Nothing a trip to Tahoe with the family couldn’t cure.) He also shared that the climate movement may have lessons for the modern movement opposing AI and data centers. The world’s richest companies can’t just “come in and take people’s water, especially at a time when people are so water insecure,” he stressed. “How could that possibly be right?”
AI — and water — also came up in conversation with Emilio Tenuta, the senior vice president and chief sustainability officer of Ecolab, which provides industrial and commercial water and hygiene solutions. (Ecolab also sponsored our reindustrialization section.) He argued that “what we really need to focus on is the Water Efficiency Index” when evaluating, for example, semiconductor fabrication plants, because it contextualizes water use in more absolute terms than traditional metrics.
Page Crahan, general manager of Tapestry, an Alphabet X moonshot project that uses AI to develop a model of the grid’s electricity network, zeroed in on how best to use artificial intelligence. “We had 10 years to build what it took us 110 years to build globally” in order to meet anticipated energy demand, she told my colleague Jael Holzman. “And that was in 2023, before data centers.” For “computationally intensive challenges, data-heavy challenges, and certainly running simulations and insights for a system this size,” AI is a good use case, she said.
Tapestry is using its models in partnership with PJM Interconnection (as we’ve covered here at Heatmap) — and speaking of PJM, its executive director of strategic policy and external affairs, Asim Haque, spoke to my colleague Matthew Zeitlin next. “If you do not bring your own new capacity, we are going to curtail you before we curtail your average residential consumer for sure,” he said, adding, “this is a concept that is pending in front of the FERC right now. We can talk about carrots. We can talk about sticks. I don’t know which one this is. I think from the data center perspective, it’s likely a stick.”
Josh Parker, the head of sustainability at Nvidia, rounded the day out on a positive note. “The good news is, we are very quickly unlocking new capacity with clean energy,” he said, including developing new clean energy technologies like advanced fission and geothermal. “All of these technologies are benefiting from AI, and so that, coupled with the fact that data center operators with AI factories generally are some of the largest consumers of clean energy and are still are looking for all the clean energy they can, leads me to believe — and I think this is the most credible forecast — that very soon we’re going to see all of that convert over to clean as soon as we can get through the supply constraints that we’re currently in.”
If you were with us in person, thank you again. You’re what made our event one to remember. And if you weren’t able to join us this year — we hope to see you in 2027.
But wait! Before I send you on your way, you can find all of our coverage of the day below along with some additional quotes from some of my favorite conversations:
The Commonwealth Fusion Systems CEO made his case at Heatmap House.
Without billions in new federal investment the United States may lose its pole position in the global race to be the first nuclear fusion superpower, Commonwealth Fusion Systems CEO Bob Mumgaard told attendees at Heatmap House in New York City.
When asked onstage whether Commonwealth Fusion could still develop its fusion aspirations at scale without U.S. government financing, Mumgaard said: “I think so – it’s a question of the timing and the place.” Then he suggested that the company — and the industry — might go elsewhere if the country doesn’t put more capital into the growing sector. “There are offers on the table to build nuclear fission power plants not in the United States, so we can do that.”
You’d be forgiven if you thought Commonwealth and nuclear fusion was already doing well. The Massachusetts-based pioneer in fusion technologies raised $1 billion in new investment just a couple months ago. Generally speaking, innovation in nuclear power is incredibly popular in Congress, which has an influential bipartisan Fusion Energy Caucus. Commonwealth has received public support from the Trump administration’s Energy Department, as has one of the Heatmap House sponsors, Inertia.
But we’re talking about nuclear fusion, a still-futuristic form of energy generation seeking to harness the power of stars exploding in contained environments. It’s an insanely promising tech moonshot.
Mumgaard said the company is aiming for its tech to provide electrons onto the grid by the 2030s. He also said a Fusion Industry Association request to Congress and the Trump administration for $10 billion of investment might be what’s needed for that power to be American first.
“We debated that [amount] with the industry association, and you have to say what gets the job done. It’s a disservice to lowball what’s needed,” he told my colleague Katie Brigham. “This is a very important thing. It’s an entirely new industry. Let’s treat it as such.”
He added his view that U.S. fusion development is essentially an energy security maneuver, and that competition with China on fusion should be seen as parallel to the race for dominance in artificial intelligence.
“Think about what it means in a technological race. Power is the thing that powers the next economy, right?” Mumgaard said. “All the geostrategic strife we have right now is about power in the form of natural resources. Who has them? What are they? What boats are they on through what body of water? Fusion takes all of that off the table.”
Representative Mike Levin, It’s Electric, Rivian, and more showed up for the mobility session at Heatmap House.
On the surface, the climate case for electric vehicles is simple: Battery-powered cars can eliminate our need to burn dirty gasoline and diesel, and as more renewables come onto the grid, they’ll only run more and more cleanly. But the benefits that can be gained from electrifying the vehicle fleet run far deeper, a case that a variety of speakers made at Heatmap House on Wednesday as part of New York Climate Week.
Andrew Peterman, director of advanced energy solutions at the EV maker Rivian, explained how electric vehicles are becoming a multi-tiered grid solution. Rivian itself is cooperating with drivers and utilities to create automatic smart charging so that EVs can charge when energy is abundant and inexpensive, saving the user money — in some cases as much as $1,000 per year — and easing strain on the grid. Doing so helps to keep electricity prices down, which is good for the country and for the bottom line of an electric vehicle maker.
“Our ability to sell and give people value out of an electric vehicle can only be enabled if we transform the grid to be able to be affordable, reliable, and cleaner for everyone,” Peterman told Heatmap deputy editor Jillian Goodman. “We need to use our role in the energy system to enable customers to get more value out of the grid. So everything we do is about grid transformation to enable electric vehicles to have an even stronger and stronger value proposition. When we bring down electricity costs, that brings down the total cost of ownership for our vehicle owners.”
Of course, energy can go in the other direction, too. Now that millions of EVs are on the road, the multitude of kilowatt-hours stored in EV batteries can be a grid asset. That goes for vehicle-to-grid integration, where EVs can discharge energy to help balance the grid when they’re not driving. But it’s an especially compelling proposition when those batteries get older and are no longer optimal for powering vehicles. Rivian is working with partners such as Redwood Materials to recycle old EV batteries and to repurpose some as grid storage. The same is true at Waymo, whose fleet of autonomous, only-electric rideshare vehicles have racked up hundreds of thousands of miles in some cases.
“Our fleets are sometimes outlasting our batteries where they still work, but they’re just not optimal for the ride-hailing fleet,” Waymo head of environment and sustainability Adam Lenz told Nico Lauricella, Heatmap’s CEO and editor in chief. “So we’re taking those batteries out, refreshing them, and then there’s still a lot of life left on this battery. We’re working with a partner that’s based out of L.A. County where we provide service and they’re deploying those batteries to support front of the meter grid storage.” (Waymo is also a sponsor of Heatmap House.)
It’s clear that the rideshare economy will be dominated by electric vehicles, and Lenz argued that this fact helps extend the climate benefits of electrification and autonomy to people who don’t want to drive or have been priced out by the upfront costs of an EV. The promise that self-driving cars will ultimately be much safer compared to those driven by fallible humans makes it safer to walk or bike, the most sustainable transportation methods. Waymo recently introduced a partnership with Visa to give San Francisco Bay Area riders a $2.85 Waymo account credit (the price of a bus ride in S.F.) when they combine a rideshare trip with a train or bus linkup to create a mulit-modal journey — a roundabout way to create “free” buses.
Across the country, EV charging could help give New York City not only cleaner skies but also improved grid management. The city’s Green Ride Initiative is meant to have New York’s taxi and rideshare trips be majority-electric by 2030, yet NYC has been a charging desert compared to other dense cities like London. Tiya Gordon, co-founder and COO of charging company it’s electric, came to Heatmap House to discuss her company’s recent win of a contract to install 700 new street chargers in New York, which has only 88 today.
It’s not just how many chargers are going in, she said, but where — the majority will go into neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens where rideshare drivers live and park their cars overnight. Albert Gore, executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, added: “It makes a lot of sense also when you think about the impact to the grid. If you are directing a lot of that charging at night, particularly for these high mileage use cases, that actually puts downward pressure on electricity rates. EVs are a very, very flexible load.”