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:
Everything you need to know — including one big (potential) drawback.

The humble water heater, like your fridge or septic tank, is the type of home technology that you only notice if and when it breaks. For most homeowners, that’s every 13 years. But if you’re on a mission to decarbonize your life, you might want to rethink your current set-up, and perhaps consider a makeover. Per the Department of Energy, water heating accounts for roughly 18% of the average household’s energy use, making it the second largest energy expense in any home.
Back in April, the DOE released new residential water heater standards that it says will save American households approximately $7.6 billion per year on their energy bills “while significantly cutting energy waste and harmful carbon pollution.” The standards will also, in effect, phase out electric resistance water heaters, which currently account for half the U.S. market, in favor of more energy-efficient heat pump water heaters by 2029. If any of that confuses you, read on. We’re breaking down everything you need to know about this oft-forgotten, basement-dwelling home technology, from the taxonomy of water heater types to tax credit and rebate tips to product recommendations.
Andy Meyer is a senior program manager at Efficiency Maine, an independent agency that implements energy efficiency programs in the state. His team is responsible for providing resources on heat pump water heaters to Maine residents, who buy one out of every 10 purchased in the U.S.
Ben Foster is vice president of operations at Barnett Plumbing & Water Heaters, a leading heat pump water heater contractor in California. He’s also developed loaner water heater programs supported by TECH Clean California, and notes that most contractors don’t have access to loaner programs:
Joseph Wachunas is a senior project manager at the New Buildings Institute, a nonprofit working to reduce emissions and deliver climate solutions through the built environment. At NBI, he heads up the Advanced Water Heating Initiative, which aims to decarbonize water heating through heat pump water heaters.
“Heat pump water heaters are simple to install — any plumber or handy person can do it — but plumbers may not be familiar with them. So if you talk with a plumber who has concerns, consider calling another plumber,” Meyer told me. “Again, Mainers have installed over 70,000 in the last 12 years. They are no longer new.”
A heat pump water heater is made up of a compressor, storage tank, condenser, evaporator coil, fan, backup heating elements, and refrigerant. The compressor, located in the upper compartment of the water heater, uses refrigerant to heat the water in the storage tank (via the condenser, which acts as a heat exchanger). The evaporator coil and fan work to change refrigerant from liquid back to gas after the water has been heated. The backup electric heating elements kick in only in periods of high demand to ensure consistent hot water supply.
A common misconception about heat pumps in general is that they don’t work in colder climates. This is not at all the case — half of electric water heaters in Maine, for instance, are now heat pumps. As long as they are installed indoors and in an area where pipes won’t freeze (typically, a basement), heat pump water heaters work throughout the year in all climates, according to Meyer and Wachunas. The rule of thumb, per the DOE, is to install your heat pump water heater in locations that remain in the 40 degree to 90 degree Fahrenheit range year-round.
Per the DOE, replacing your standard electric water heater with a heat pump water heater can save you up to 10% on your electricity bill, reducing your water heating energy consumption and costs by up to 70%.
The number one mistake homeowners make when it comes to their water heaters is waiting until they’re broken to replace them. This severely limits your options for new water heaters — as Foster notes, no one “wants to go days without hot water, let alone weeks,” and it can take weeks or even months to fit your home for a heat pump water heater. (We’ll get into why a bit later.)
“A lot of contractors, if you want a heat pump and you have a leaking water heater that needs to be replaced today, they're just going to convince you to go with gas,” Foster said.
Some contractors have loaner water heater programs, so you can temporarily use a gas heater in an emergency situation, but these programs are few and far between. If you’ve had your water heater for 10 years or more — even if it’s working just fine — it might be time to think about replacing it. If you do, you’ll need to consider a few things about your home and lifestyle, especially if you’re considering a heat pump water heater:
Heat pump water heaters require a significant amount of space. Per Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, heat pump water heaters can require more than 6 feet of height clearance to account for their air filters, as well as a 3-foot diameter space to provide clearance for the drain pan and other connections. Additionally, the heat pump water heater should be positioned so the exhaust outlet is at least 8 inches away from a wall, door, or ceiling.
Also, since heat pump water heaters work by drawing heat from the surrounding air, they require 700 cubic feet of unenclosed space surrounding the water heater location. While it is possible to install a heat pump water heater in a location with insufficient air volume (for instance, by installing the water heater with a door equipped with top and bottom grills), this would require extra work from your contractor. Taking all these measurements into account, this basically means that a heat pump water heater requires a 10-foot by 9-foot room with an 8-foot-tall ceiling.
Heat pump water heaters also require monthly and yearly service, Meyer told me. You should change the water filter every two to six months, and clear the condensate lines to ensure your unit doesn’t get clogged with mold or bacteria. Additionally, if your unit is a hybrid, you’ll have to keep an eye on its anode rod, which can become corroded over time and lead to heating issues. You’ll have to flush your heat pump water heater annually to avoid corrosion.
If you’re going to DIY it, understanding your household’s water needs is key to sizing and installing a new heat pump water heater. First, determine your house’s peak hour demand (the maximum amount of water your house uses in one hour per day) using this worksheet from the DOE. You can then use that number (measured in gallons) to determine what size heat water heater to buy — look at the heater’s first hour rating, a.k.a. the amount of hot water the heater can supply per hour, starting with a tank full of hot water. You’ll want your heater’s first hour rating to be equal to (or ideally, higher than) your peak hour demand.
Though you should use the worksheet to determine your unique peak hour demand, a general rule is that households of one to two people should use a 50-gallon water heater, while households of three or more people should use a 65- to 80-gallon tank. The average family uses 50 gallons of hot water per day, Wachunas explained. “So even if you have lots of showers in the morning, your heat pump in two to four hours will heat that water back up and you have plenty of extra supply.”
If you’re between two sizes of heat pump water heaters, always upsize, Foster said. This ensures that the heat pump is the primary source of heat, as opposed to the much less efficient backup electric mechanisms. In other words, it’s far more efficient (and less expensive!) for a larger heat pump water heater to heat a few extra gallons of water using the heat pump than it is for a smaller heat pump water heater to have to use its electric elements to keep up with excess demand.
Since many heat pump water heaters have certain voltage requirements, you may have to upgrade your electrical panel for 240-volt hardwired service. The cost and time involved in having your service upgraded can vary and depends on whether the power lines coming into your house are above ground. If they’re underground, Foster explained, a contractor will have to excavate and run new cables, which can take over a year. The best way to determine if you’ll need to upgrade your service is to have a trusted contractor do an assessment on your home. (This is also why it’s essential to plan in advance.)
Basements are always the best places for heat pump water heaters, regardless of climate. Other common locations for installation include garages, interior rooms, and rooms outside the thermal envelope, like attached sheds and utility rooms. The garage does not have to be insulated if outdoor temperatures are usually above 50°F, but if temperatures dip below freezing and the garage is uninsulated, it’d be best to consider another location. Interior rooms, like laundry or IT rooms, are a great choice because a heat pump water heater can utilize any waste heat generated by the equipment in the room. Finally, rooms outside the thermal envelope, like attached sheds, can be even more efficient than interior spaces in hot or warm climates because of the excess hot air.
Feeling ready to go shopping? Here’s everything you need to know about the buying and installation process.
This plug-in model caused quite a stir when it came out two years ago, and for good reason. Its low voltage allows it to be plugged into a standard outlet, making it a great fit for smaller homes with fewer residents, or anyone in need of a quick fix. (This is also a relatively foolproof choice for DIYers because of the quick and easy installation process.) For those wanting a model with a bit more flexibility but still an easy install, there’s the A.O. Smith Signature 900 Plug-in Hybrid, which is more expensive but has the added benefit of back-up electric resistance elements that help with higher hot water demand. Alternatively, you can go for the 120-Volt Rheem ProTerra Plug-in Water Heater with HydroBoost, which utilizes a mixing valve for maximum hot water output.
If app functionality is especially important to you, Rheem’s ProTerra line might be particularly appealing. The EcoNet app allows users to monitor the hot water heater from their phone, with status updates on potential leaks as well as compressor health, hot water availability and the unit’s set water temperature.
Another solid choice for larger families, for roughly the same price, is A.O. Smith’s Signature 900 80-Gal. For further durability, consider Bradford White’s Aerotherm Series water heaters, which can only be purchased through a qualified contractor, but are frequently praised for their resilience and anti-microbial technology.
Split-system heat pump water heaters are the answer for truly huge houses, where the heat pump itself is outside while the storage tank remains inside. “You can chain together as many heat pump units as you want with as many storage tanks as you want,” Foster said. “So you can create as big a system as you want.” While split-system heat pump water heaters are much less widely-available in the U.S. than they are in Asia and Europe, you can purchase this one online. SANCO is also shipping a new fifth generation unit soon, Quit Carbon advises, which may prove more cost-effective and will qualify for more rebates in California.
The quietest HPWH on the market, at 45 decibels, is made by A.O. Smith, according to Foster. It’s available in 50, 65, and 80 gallon sizes, so it can accommodate a variety of household types. Another quiet option is LG’s Inverter Heat Pump Water Heater, though LG is much newer to the heat pump water heater game than Rheem and A.O. Smith, so it may be more difficult to find qualified contractors.
Three more expert contractors I spoke with — Nate Adams, a longtime HVAC insulation and sealing contractor in West Virginia who specializes in electrification retrofits for homeowners; John Semmelhack, an HVAC consultant and the owner of Think Little, a building science consulting firm specializing in mechanical system design for passive house and net-zero energy homes; and Tim Portman, the owner of Portman Mechanical, specializing in electrification, heating and cooling, and home performance — had concerns about heat pump water heater installations.
Adams said heaters he’s installed have had a 50% failure rate, while Portman and Semmelhack cite a 60% failure rate. These issues have seemingly cropped up after 2018 and are almost entirely occurring with A.O. Smith and Rheem’s fifth generation of water heater models; older generations performed and continue to perform much better. “All my installs from 2014-2018 are still running to my knowledge,” says Adams. “Which is a big part of my frustration— we had this figured out already.”
The specific causes of these failures vary, spanning from tanks bursting to heat pumps losing charge, according to Adams. Semmelhack and Portman, meanwhile, pointed mainly to refrigerant leaks and compressor issues. (A.O. Smith and Rheem did not respond to requests for comment.) “All of the failures are happening inside the first year of operation,” noted Semmelhack. “So it's happening pretty quick, which makes us think that it's a factory problem and not an environmental problem inside the household.”
Semmelhack and Portman are hopeful about Cala’s new heat pump water heaters, which use an AI-powered control system to forecast hot water demand and heat the water in the tank accordingly with a heat pump. They’re aiming to start shipping those units in 2025, and you can preorder and learn more here.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Rob takes Jesse through our battery of questions.
Every year, Heatmap asks dozens of climate scientists, officials, and business leaders the same set of questions. It’s an act of temperature-taking we call our Insiders Survey — and our 2026 edition is live now.
In this week’s Shift Key episode, Rob puts Jesse through the survey wringer. What is the most exciting climate tech company? Are data centers slowing down decarbonization? And will a country attempt the global deployment of solar radiation management within the next decade? It’s a fun one! Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap, and Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Robinson Meyer: Next question — you have to pick one, and then you’ll get a free response section. Do you think AI and data centers energy needs are significantly slowing down decarbonization, yes or no?
Jesse Jenkins: Significantly. Yeah, I guess significantly would … yes, I think so. I think in general, the challenge we have with decarbonization is we have to add new, clean supplies of energy faster than demand growth. And so, in order to make progress on existing emissions, you have to exceed the demand growth, meet all of that growth with clean resources, and then start to drive down emissions.
If you look at what we’ve talked about — are China’s emissions peaking, or global emissions peaking? I mean, that really is a game. It’s a race between how fast we can add clean supply and how fast demand for energy’s growing. And so in the power sector in particular, an area where we’ve made the most progress in recent years in cutting emissions, now having a large, and rapid growth in electricity demand for a whole new sector of the economy — and one that doesn’t directly contribute to decarbonization, like, say, in contrast to electric vehicles or electrifying heating —certainly makes things harder. It just makes that you have to run that race even faster.
I would say in the U.S. context in particular, in a combination of the Trump policy environment, we are not keeping pace, right? We are not going to be able to both meet the large demand growth and eat into the substantial remaining emissions that we have from coal and gas in our power sector. And in particular, I think we’re going to see a lot more coal generation over the next decade than we would’ve otherwise without both AI and without the repeal of the Biden-era EPA regulations, which were going to really drive the entire coal fleet into a moment of truth, right? Are they gonna retrofit for carbon capture? Are they going to retire? Was basically their option, by 2035.
And so without that, we still have on the order of 150 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants in the United States, and many of those were on the way out, and I think they’re getting a second lease on life because of the fact that demand for energy and particularly capacity are growing so rapidly that a lot of them are now saying, Hey, you know what, we can actually make quite a bit of money if we stick around for another 5, 10, 15 years. So yeah, I’d say that’s significantly harder.
That isn’t an indictment to say we shouldn’t do AI. It’s happening. It’s valuable, and we need to meet as much, if not all of that growth with clean energy. But then we still have to try to go faster, and that’s the key.
Mentioned:
This year’s Heatmap Insiders Survey
Last year’s Heatmap Insiders Survey
The best PDF Jesse read this year: Flexible Data Centers: A Faster, More Affordable Path to Power
The best PDF Rob read this year: George Marshall’s Guide to Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Heatmap Pro brings all of our research, reporting, and insights down to the local level. The software platform tracks all local opposition to clean energy and data centers, forecasts community sentiment, and guides data-driven engagement campaigns. Book a demo today to see the premier intelligence platform for project permitting and community engagement.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
They still want to decarbonize, but they’re over the jargon.
Where does the fight to decarbonize the global economy go from here? The past 12 months, after all, have been bleak. Donald Trump has pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement (again) and is trying to leave a precursor United Nations climate treaty, as well. He ripped out half the Inflation Reduction Act, sidetracked the Environmental Protection Administration, and rechristened the Energy Department’s in-house bank in the name of “energy dominance.” Even nonpartisan weather research — like that conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research — is getting shut down by Trump’s ideologues. And in the days before we went to press, Trump invaded Venezuela with the explicit goal (he claims) of taking its oil.
Abroad, the picture hardly seems rosier. China’s new climate pledge struck many observers as underwhelming. Mark Carney, who once led the effort to decarbonize global finance, won Canada’s premiership after promising to lift parts of that country’s carbon tax — then struck a “grand bargain” with fossiliferous Alberta. Even Europe seems to dither between its climate goals, its economic security, and the need for faster growth.
Now would be a good time, we thought, for an industry-wide check-in. So we called up 55 of the most discerning and often disputatious voices in climate and clean energy — the scientists, researchers, innovators, and reformers who are already shaping our climate future. Some of them led the Biden administration’s climate policy from within the White House; others are harsh or heterodox critics of mainstream environmentalism. And a few more are on the front lines right now, tasked with responding to Trump’s policies from the halls of Congress — or the ivory minarets of academia.
We asked them all the same questions, including: Which key decarbonization technology is not ready for primetime? Who in the Trump administration has been the worst for decarbonization? And how hot is the planet set to get in 2100, really? (Among other queries.) Their answers — as summarized and tabulated by my colleagues — are available in these pages.
You can see whether insiders think data centers are slowing down decarbonization and what folks have learned (or, at least, say they’ve learned) from the repeal of clean energy tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act.
But from many different respondents, a mood emerged: a kind of exhaustion with “climate” as the right frame through which to understand the fractious mixture of electrification, pollution reduction, clean energy development, and other goals that people who care about climate change actually pursue. When we asked what piece of climate jargon people would most like to ban, we expected most answers to dwell on the various colors of hydrogen (green, blue, orange, chartreuse), perhaps, or the alphabet soup of acronyms around carbon removal (CDR, DAC, CCS, CCUS, MRV). Instead, we got:
“‘Climate.’ Literally the word climate, I would just get rid of it completely,” one venture capitalist told us. “I would love to see people not use 'climate change' as a predominant way to talk to people about a global challenge like this,” seconded a former Washington official. “And who knows what a ‘greenhouse gas emission’ is in the real world?” A lobbyist agreed: “Climate change, unfortunately, has become too politicized … I’d rather talk about decarbonization than climate change.”
Not everyone was as willing to shift to decarbonization, but most welcomed some form of specificity. “I’ve always tried to reframe climate change to be more personal and to recognize it is literally the biggest health challenge of our lives,” the former official said. The VC said we should “get back to the basics of, are you in the energy business? Are you in the agriculture business? Are you in transportation, logistics, manufacturing?”
“You're in a business,” they added, “there is no climate business.”
Not everyone hated “climate” quite as much — but others mentioned a phrase including the word. One think tanker wanted to nix “climate emergency.” Another scholar said: “I think the ‘climate justice’ term — not the idea — but I think the term got spread so widely that it became kind of difficult to understand what it was even referring to.” And one climate scientist didn’t have a problem with climate change, per se, but did say that people should pare back how they discuss it and back off “the notion that climate change will result in human extinction, or the sudden and imminent end to human civilization.”
There were other points of agreement. Four people wanted to ban “net zero” or “carbon neutrality.” One scientist said activists should back off fossil gas — “I know we’re always trying to try convince people of something, but, like, the entire world calls it ’natural gas’” — and another scientist said that they wished people would stop “micromanaging” language: “People continually changing jargon to try and find the magic words that make something different than it is — that annoys me.”
Two more academics added they wish to banish discussion of “overshoot”: “It’s not clear if it's referring to temperatures or emissions — I just don't think it's a helpful frame for thinking about the problem.”
“Unit economics,” “greenwashing,” and — yes — the whole spectrum of hydrogen colors came in for a lashing. But perhaps the most distinctive ban suggestion came from Todd Stern, the former chief U.S. climate diplomat, who negotiated the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.
“I hate it when people say ’are you going to COP?’” he told me, referring to the United Nations’ annual climate summit, officially known as the Conference of the Parties. His issue wasn’t calling it “COP,” he clarified. It was dropping the definite article.
“The way I see it, no one has the right to suddenly become such intimate pals with ‘COP.’ You go to the ball game or the conference or what have you. And you go to ‘the COP,’” he said. “I am clearly losing this battle, but no one will ever hear me drop the ‘the.’”
Now, since I talked to Stern, the United States has moved to drop the COP entirely — with or without the “the” — because Trump took us out of the climate treaty under whose aegis the COP is held. But precision still counts, even in unfriendly times. And throughout the rest of this package, you’ll find insiders trying to find a path forward in thoughtful, insightful, and precise ways.
You’ll also find them remaining surprisingly upbeat — and even more optimistic, in some ways, than they were last year. Twelve months ago, 30% of our insider panel thought China would peak its emissions in the 2020s; this year, a plurality said the peak would come this decade. Roughly the same share of respondents this year as last year thought the U.S. would hit net zero in the 2060s. Trump might be setting back American climate action in the near term. But some of the most important long-term trends remain unchanged.
OUR PANEL INCLUDED… Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies | Ken Caldeira, senior scientist emeritus at the Carnegie Institution for Science and visiting scholar at Stanford University | Kate Marvel, research physicist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies | Holly Jean Buck, associate professor of environment and sustainability at the University at Buffalo | Kim Cobb, climate scientist and director of the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society | Jennifer Wilcox, chemical engineering professor at the University of Pennsylvania and former U.S. Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy and Carbon Management | Michael Greenstone, economist and director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago | Solomon Hsiang, professor of global environmental policy at Stanford University | Chris Bataille, global fellow at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy | Danny Cullenward, senior fellow at the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania | J. Mijin Cha, environmental studies professor at UC Santa Cruz and fellow at Cornell University’s Climate Jobs Institute | Lynne Kiesling, director of the Institute for Regulatory Law and Economics at Northwestern University | Daniel Swain, climate scientist at the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources | Emily Grubert, sustainable energy policy professor at the University of Notre Dame | Jon Norman, president of Hydrostor | Chris Creed, managing partner at Galvanize Climate Solutions | Amy Heart, senior vice president of public policy at Sunrun | Kate Brandt, chief sustainability officer at Google | Sophie Purdom, managing partner at Planeteer Capital and co-founder of CTVC | Lara Pierpoint, managing director at Trellis Climate | Andrew Beebe, managing director at Obvious Ventures | Gabriel Kra, managing director and co-founder of Prelude Ventures | Joe Goodman, managing partner and co-founder of VoLo Earth Ventures | Erika Reinhardt, executive director and co-founder of Spark Climate Solutions | Dawn Lippert, founder and CEO of Elemental Impact and general partner at Earthshot Ventures | Rajesh Swaminathan, partner at Khosla Ventures | Rob Davies, CEO of Sublime Systems | John Arnold, philanthropist and co-founder of Arnold Ventures | Gabe Kleinman, operating partner at Emerson Collective | Amy Duffuor, co-founder and general partner at Azolla Ventures | Amy Francetic, managing general partner and founder of Buoyant Ventures | Tom Chi, founding partner at At One Ventures | Francis O’Sullivan, managing director at S2G Investments | Cooper Rinzler, partner at Breakthrough Energy Ventures | Gina McCarthy, former administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | Neil Chatterjee, former commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission | Representative Scott Peters, member of the U.S. House of Representatives | Todd Stern, former U.S. special envoy for climate change | Representative Sean Casten, member of the U.S. House of Representatives | Representative Mike Levin, member of the U.S. House of Representatives | Zeke Hausfather, climate research lead at Stripe and research scientist at Berkeley Earth | Shuchi Talati, founder and executive director of the Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering | Nat Bullard, co-founder of Halcyon | Bill McKibben, environmentalist and founder of 350.org | Ilaria Mazzocco, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies | Leah Stokes, professor of environmental politics at UC Santa Barbara | Noah Kaufman, senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy | Arvind Ravikumar, energy systems professor at the University of Texas at Austin | Jessica Green, political scientist at the University of Toronto | Jonas Nahm, energy policy professor at Johns Hopkins SAIS | Armond Cohen, executive director of the Clean Air Task Force | Costa Samaras, director of the Scott Institute for Energy Innovation at Carnegie Mellon University | John Larsen, partner at Rhodium Group | Alex Trembath, executive director of the Breakthrough Institute | Alex Flint, executive director of the Alliance for Market Solutions
The Heatmap Insiders Survey of 55 invited expert respondents was conducted by Heatmap News reporters during November and December 2025. Responses were collected via phone interviews. All participants were given the opportunity to record responses anonymously. Not all respondents answered all questions.
Plus, which is the best hyperscaler on climate — and which is the worst?
The biggest story in energy right now is data centers.
After decades of slow load growth, forecasters are almost competing with each other to predict the most eye-popping figure for how much new electricity demand data centers will add to the grid. And with the existing electricity system with its backbone of natural gas, more data centers could mean higher emissions.
Hyperscalers with sustainability goals are already reporting higher emissions, and technology companies are telling investors that they plan to invest hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars, into new data centers, increasingly at gigawatt scale.
And yet when we asked our Heatmap survey participants “Do you think AI and data centers’ energy needs are significantly slowing down decarbonization?” only about 34% said they would, compared to 66% who said they wouldn’t.
There were some intriguing differences between different types of respondents. Among our “innovator” respondents — venture capitalists, founders, and executives working at climate tech startups — the overwhelming majority said that AI and data centers are not slowing down decarbonization. “I think it’s the inverse — I think we want to launch the next generation of technologies when there’s demand growth and opportunity to sell into a slightly higher priced, non-commoditized market,” Joe Goodman co-founder and managing partner at VoLo Earth Ventures, told us.
Not everyone in Silicon Valley is so optimistic, however. “I think in a different political environment, it may have been a true accelerant,” one VC told us. “But in this political environment, it’s a true albatross because it’s creating so many more emissions. It’s creating so much stress on the grid. We’re not deploying the kinds of solutions that would be effective."
Scientists were least in agreement on the question. While only 47% of scientists thought the growth of data centers would significantly slow down decarbonization, most of the pessimistic camp was in the social sciences. In total, over 62% of the physical scientists we surveyed thought data centers weren’t slowing down decarbonization, compared to a third of social scientists.
Michael Greenstone, a University of Chicago economist, told us he didn’t see data centers and artificial intelligence as any different from any other use of energy. “I also think air conditioning and lighting, computing, and 57,000 other uses of electricity are slowing down decarbonization,” he said. The real answer is the world is not trying to minimize climate change.”
Mijin Cha, an assistant professor of environment studies at the University of California Santa Cruz, was even more gloomy, telling us, “Not only do I think it’s slowing down decarbonization, I think it is permanently extending the life of fossil fuels, especially as it is now unmitigated growth.”
Some took issue with the premise of the question, expressing skepticism of the entire AI industry. “I’m actually of the opinion that most of the AI and data center plans are a massive bubble,” a scientist told us. “And so, are there plans that would be disruptive to emissions? Yes. Are they actually doing anything to emissions yet? Not obvious.”
We also asked respondents to name the “best” and “worst” hyperscalers, large technology companies pursuing the data center buildout. Many of these companies have some kind of renewables or sustainability goal, but there are meaningful differences among them. Google and Microsoft look to match their emissions with non-carbon-power generation in the same geographic area and at the same time. The approach used by Meta and Amazon, on the other hand, is to develop renewable projects that have the biggest “bang for the buck” on global emissions by siting them in areas with high emissions that the renewable generation can be said to displace.
Among our respondents, the 24/7 “time and place” approach is the clear winner.
Google was the “best” pick for 19 respondents, including six who said “Google and Microsoft.” By contrast, Amazon and Meta had just three votes combined.
As for the “worst,” there was no clear consensus, although two respondents from the social sciences picked “everyone besides Microsoft and Google” and “everyone but Google and Microsoft.” Another one told us, “The best is a tie between Microsoft and Google. Everyone else is in the bottom category.”
A third social scientist summed it up even more pungently. “Google is the best, Meta is the worst. Evil corporation” — though with more expletives than that.
The Heatmap Insiders Survey of 55 invited expert respondents was conducted by Heatmap News reporters during November and December 2025. Responses were collected via phone interviews. All participants were given the opportunity to record responses anonymously. Not all respondents answered all questions.