You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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:
Renewable energy isn’t the only big beneficiary of Biden’s announcement in Pennsylvania.

Seven regions of the country are about to become laboratories for a whole new system of producing and using energy. If all goes according to the Biden administration’s plans, by the end of the decade, clean hydrogen, which can be produced and used without greenhouse gas emissions, will replace fossil fuels across a variety of industries that can’t easily run on renewable energy.
President Biden announced the seven regions that will be eligible for up to $7 billion to build “hydrogen hubs” while visiting Pennsylvania on Friday. The selected hubs are made up of coalitions of governments, companies, labor groups, and universities that will use a combination of private and public funding to build new infrastructure to test the production, transport, and use of hydrogen.
The hubs have not yet been awarded any funding and will now move into a negotiation phase where they will refine their community benefits plans and other aspects of their proposals before being awarded an initial grant to move forward. In the coming weeks, the Department of Energy will begin hosting virtual community briefings with the project teams and local stakeholders in their regions, which may be used to inform the negotiation process.
Friday’s announcement included the names of the seven hubs that are eligible for funding and a few paragraphs explaining the general outline of what they plan to do. The Department of Energy provided the following map which offers a rough sense of the number of projects within each hub and where they will be located. But there’s still very little information about what these projects are.

Based on what we do know, here are three big takeaways from the announcement today.
At least some of the dots on that map will be production facilities. The main benefit of hydrogen is that it doesn’t release emissions when burned, but the challenge is that it isn’t readily available in the environment like coal or gas or renewable energy. It has to be produced. And it will only help tackle climate change if it can be produced without emissions.
Three of the hubs — in California, the Pacific Northwest, and the Mid-Atlantic — plan to make hydrogen using only renewable energy, nuclear power, or biomass. But at least three of the hubs — in the Gulf Coast, Appalachia, and the Midwest — plan to make it from natural gas and capture the carbon released in the process. (The Department of Energy did not specify what resources the Heartland hub plans to use.)
A lot of climate advocates and researchers are skeptical if not outright against schemes to make hydrogen from natural gas with carbon capture. One risk is that not all of the carbon will be captured. Another is that it takes additional natural gas to run the capture equipment, so the overall effect could be increased natural gas production. That could perpetuate pollution in communities living near wells and processing facilities. Depending on how much methane leaks from natural gas infrastructure, it could also cancel out any benefits from using hydrogen.
The scale of these risks will become clearer after the projects move to the awards phase, at which point they will have to “submit detailed risk assessments and risk management plans outlining potential risks and impacts, and how they will mitigate those impacts.”
Hydrogen has the potential to be used in basically any application that we use fossil fuels in today. But because it takes so much energy to make, it won’t necessarily make sense to use it everywhere. One of the main purposes of the hydrogen hubs program is to determine the cases where hydrogen will be an efficient, economical way to cut emissions.
The hubs outline a variety of ways they will use hydrogen, from steelmaking to fertilizer production to power generation. But there’s one area that at least six out of the seven hubs all see a future in: heavy duty transportation. All of the regions except the Heartland hub describe building networks of hydrogen fueling stations for long-haul trucks, buses, municipal waste, drayage, and other heavy duty vehicles.
Truck manufacturers are mixed on whether hydrogen will ultimately be the best solution to replace diesel. Equipping trucks with rechargeable batteries could turn out to be cheaper. But powering trucks with hydrogen fuel cells may be a lighter, space-saving option, and offer the ability to refuel more quickly. If the hubs program establishes a national network of hydrogen fueling stations, that could help tip the scales in favor of fuel cell trucks. The question is whether it will be built in time to beat the pace of battery innovation.
However, there are two other types of transport where many experts agree hydrogen will be useful: aviation and shipping. The Midwest and Pacific hubs also plan to produce aviation fuel, and the Gulf Coast aims to produce fuel for ships.
While hydrogen hubs certainly come with risks, they also have the potential to deliver big economic benefits to communities. The research firm Rhodium Group estimates that a commercial-scale hydrogen production facility that uses electricity is associated with an average of 330 jobs during the construction phase and 45 permanent jobs when the plant becomes operational.
The hubs are expected to create more than 200,000 jobs during the construction phase, and more than 100,000 permanent jobs. The question, as always, is whether these will be “good” jobs. But at least three of the hubs — in California, the Mid-Atlantic, and the Pacific Northwest — say they will require labor agreements for all projects connected to their hubs. If the job estimates provided by the hubs are accurate, some 86% of the permanent positions created by the hubs will be in these three regions.
By definition, these kinds of deals are hashed out between developers and local unions prior to any hiring and establish wages and benefits for the workers involved in a project. They don’t guarantee that union workers will be hired, but they do level the playing field for union contractors to compete with non-union shops — and set clear standards for whoever is ultimately hired.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The computing facilities rise and fall on tax revenue, our new Heatmap Pro poll finds.
This is Heatmap Daily, a weekday digest written by our executive editor. Subscribe here.
Americans know why they like data centers, and they know why they don’t like them. They just can’t decide what to do about it.
That’s one takeaway from Heatmap Pro’s new poll, conducted by Embold Research, which earlier this month surveyed Americans’ fast-changing sentiment about data centers.
The poll asked more than 2,500 Americans about their views on data centers, clean energy, and economic development during the first half of October.
As I wrote yesterday, it found public opinion about data centers has rebounded slightly since the late summer. While more than 70% of Americans still say they would oppose a hypothetical data center slated for their area, support for the projects increased in our survey for the first time in more than a year.
The new results we’re releasing today add to that story. They reveal what pro- and anti-data-center arguments Americans find convincing, at least according to registered voters themselves, and they reveal the fissures over how to move forward.
Let’s start with what Americans say motivates them most to support data centers. When allowed to select up to three reasons why they might support a data center project, respondents gravitated to a few answers. Voters’ No. 1 reason to support a project is that it can generate huge amounts of tax revenue, our polling shows. Other popular answers are that data centers can help keep property taxes low or improve local sewer systems or the power grid.
Americans also seem to admire what data centers do for the economy … as long as they’re not the kind that is involved in AI. When a data center runs traditional cloud-based services like streaming, online banking, and GPS, Americans are much more likely to be in favor of it.

As you might expect, the arguments against data centers that Americans find most convincing also have a lot to do with money. The No. 1 reason to oppose a data center, respondents told us, is that it could raise power or water bills. Americans also dislike when a community has little transparency into a data center deal, when there’s a risk of local environmental harm, or when their own tax bills could go up to pay for the project.
It’s worth noting that these arguments don’t necessarily align with what actually dooms projects. Heatmap Pro’s market intelligence data suggests that loud noise is one of the biggest drivers of data center cancellations. But only about one in 10 Americans told our poll that a data center being “noisy” would cause them to oppose it.

One takeaway from these results: Americans aren’t very motivated in either direction by progress in artificial intelligence. That data centers “enable the building of AI” convinces the smallest share of Americans to support a given project. Yet it’s also among the worst-performing reasons to oppose data centers. People just don’t seem particularly exercised about AI as a technology, at least when they’re thinking about the infrastructure that might house it.
So what does all this mean for national policy, and the federal government’s outlook on data centers? Voters are split over what to do, but most prefer slowing down or restricting the boom in some form.
The plurality of Americans believe the country should keep building data centers, but “require stronger protections for electricity customers and nearby communities.” At the same time, about half of the country wants to hamper the buildout through either a temporary pause or a more aggressive permanent restriction.

Reading these results, I can’t help but think of the bipartisan Senate permitting reform bill, which, as I’ve written, would force AI data centers to pay for grid expansion and lock in protections for normal ratepayers. The debate over that proposal — and the relative importance of those provisions vis a vis the broader package — seems to get at these questions in miniature. Many climate advocates are happy about a policy that would “require stronger protections for electricity customers.” Others just want the boom to stop — at any price.
The Heatmap Pro poll of 2,537 American registered voters was conducted by Embold Research via text-to-web responses from October 3 to 15, 2026. The survey included interviews with Americans in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.
It should only pass if lawmakers disarm a key provision, the former Biden senior climate adviser says.
Former Biden senior climate adviser John Podesta wants lawmakers to take a red pen to the bipartisan permitting deal.
Podesta criticized a key part of the Senate’s bipartisan permitting deal on Friday, according to a recording I obtained of a fireside chat at the University of Colorado Boulder. He praised the bill’s transmission reforms, but argued Democratic negotiators had handed President Trump “a loaded Howitzer” in their quest for permitting certainty for renewable energy projects, and that it should only pass if lawmakers remove the weapon.
The comments are notable because Podesta helped implement the Inflation Reduction Act and attempted to strike a permitting deal during the Biden administration. That effort, led by Senator Joe Manchin and John Barrasso, ultimately ran aground on criticism from environmental groups.
In the new remarks, Podesta applauded the parts of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act that would unlock new long-distance transmission construction. But he sharply criticized the bill’s reforms to fossil fuel permitting and federal land development. He indicated a belief there will be “give and take when we come back after the election.”
“If you’ve worked on the Hill, you know once you get started on something, you keep going. And I think they were trying to address a really serious problem,” Podesta said. “[The bill would] really take on some needed reforms on transmission to really build the infrastructure that’s necessary to fully integrate renewables into the system, and indeed, I think the bill is pretty good on that. Pretty strong. They got a lot on that question in terms of forcing utilities to use grid-enhancing technologies, doing better planning, getting data centers to pay their fair share.”
But Podesta added: “Then they gave up stuff.” He then unloaded on the bill’s “permitting certainty” provisions, which Podesta notably described as a Democratic priority during negotiations to get to yes.
Those provisions have attracted concern from tribal groups and some environmental groups in recent weeks. If enacted, the bill would bar federal agencies from revoking, changing, or tampering with any federal permits issued after September of this year. It would also prohibit officials from denying or delaying permits in a way that shows a “pattern of disparate treatment” against specific energy or mineral projects. (If you want to read more about the bill’s certainty provisions, you can read our full explainer.)
This was “one place where I think they made a huge mistake,” Podesta said, calling the restriction on revoking or rescinding decisions “one of the worst provisions of the bill.” He complimented lawmakers for trying to address Trump’s attacks on already-permitted renewable energy projects, including stop-work orders on offshore wind facilities under construction, and for seeking commitments from the administration to continue permitting projects in exchange for a deal.
However, Podesta said they are “going to have to take it out” or significantly revise it because he believes this language would allow Trump to illegally approve projects on sensitive or protected lands and courts would not be able to force the government to undo approvals that violate the law. He argued this would mean Trump could permit development in many areas land conservation groups, tribes, and anti-drilling advocates have long fought to protect from industry, including the Chaco Culture National Historic Park in New Mexico, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota, and the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah.
“I think they have handed Trump not just a loaded gun, but they’ve handed him a loaded Howitzer to go after public lands, to permit stuff that even if it’s illegal can’t be reversed by the courts,” Podesta said. “They’re going to have a permit gorge like you’ve never seen, not really caring about whether they’re going through the legal steps to do it, and under this bill, those can’t be reversed. That’s got to change if this bill’s going to pass.”
The former Biden administration alum’s comments are especially noteworthy because he previously helped negotiate a permitting deal that was similarly pilloried by environmental activists. “We did a permitting reform [bill] on the debt limit bill. Some of the environmental community didn’t like it. I thought it was a fair compromise,” he said, referring to that legislation in order to explain why he is focusing on a “provision I think the Democrats asked for.”
“It’s one thing to say I’m getting a lot and I’m going to have to give up something,” he said.
He added that “there are other issues” with the bill in his view, including “removing states’ ability to ensure clean drinking water” and “a lot of restraint on the ability to get courts to enjoin for NEPA violations.” Those are examples where “you can debate whether one is worth the other.”
“My line gets drawn with giving Trump more ways to do mischief and to do bad things, especially to the most important, most iconic places we need to protect."
I reached out to Podesta after obtaining the recording of his remarks, and in a brief interview, he clarified that he does believe the transmission provisions of the bill are central enough to the energy transition that if “they can resolve those matters and fix those problems,” and they can pass it during the lame duck period, “I would say go ahead.”
Podesta acknowledged “another school of thought” — most notably voiced by House Natural Resources ranking member Jared Huffman — that legislators should wait until the next Congress when Democrats may be able to strike a different deal after a potential blue wave in this year’s midterm elections. “Trump’s not making it easy by never fulfilling his end of the bargain. I think they thought he was actually going to go ahead and move forward with permitting these wind projects and instead he’s trying to stop them,” Podesta said.
Still, the certainty language to him is a “poison pill.” And regardless of what Congress elects to do with the permitting deal, Podesta maintained his biggest fear is enacting legislation that protects or emboldens Trump’s behavior: “If you give him things he can interpret that you think you had a deal on, he will make them worse than you could imagine, so you better not give him any more additional power.”
“The question becomes, is it worth trying to resolve these items which I think have surfaced since this text came forward,” Podesta said. “If they can resolve them, fine. If not, there’s always next year.”
Ford reveals a promising tidbit about its upcoming electric pickup.
When the Ford Fathom debuts in 2027, much of the attention will focus on its size and its price. As it should: The all-electric mid-size truck is promised to start under $30,000, and the success or failure of that car at that price will tell us a lot about the future of Ford, as well as mainstream America’s true appetite for EVs.
While we wait for our first real look at the truck and the full list of its specifications, Ford just revealed a promising tidbit. The automaker has been working in the background to make it simpler and cheaper for Fathom drivers to use bidirectional charging: the ability for power to flow both ways so that EV drivers can use the energy stored in the vehicle battery to power secondary loads, to back up a home power supply during a blackout, or even to feed back onto the power grid.
Specifically, Ford announced on Tuesday that the Fathom will be the first EV from a U.S. automaker with a starting price below $30,000 that does not need a separate wall-mounted inverter — the piece needed to transform the DC power stored in the car’s battery to the AC power used in the house. Instead, engineers built one into the truck’s “e-box” module that houses much of its electronics. That on-board unit is good enough to supply more than 10 kW of AC power to a home, Ford says.
Bidirectional charging isn’t new to American EVs or to Ford. The F-150 Lightning EV got this feature when it debuted five years ago. The trouble is that this game-changing technology doesn’t come cheap: The Lightning — now discontinued, soon to be revived as an extended-range EV — was an expensive ride starting above $50,000. The electrical hardware needed to connect the truck to one’s home power supply added thousands of dollars on top of the truck’s price.
The same was true for other EV makers. Two years ago, when I interviewed EV pickup drivers after Hurricane Helene hit North Carolina, I found F-150 Lightning and Tesla Cybertruck owners alike who hadn’t forked over more money for the extra tech needed to hook directly into the home. They got themselves through the blackout the Macgyver way, plugging the refrigerator and other critical appliances right into the power outlets in the back of the truck.
Ford’s Fathom, though, comes closer to giving the best of bidirectional charging to the masses. In addition to installing an on-board inverter, Ford says it will make the Ford Home Power Station and Home Backup Panel — the hardware that drivers will need to connect to the house — cost at least 60% less than the brand’s first-generation tech. The Detroit giant also says it’s working with a consortium of utilities, including American Electric Power, BC Hydro, Consumers Energy, Exelon, and Pacific Gas and Electric Co., to iron out how Fathom owners across the country will connect to their homes and the grid.
As Ford notes in its release: “There are more than 3,000 utilities across the U.S. and Canada with largely unique interconnection processes. Interconnection processes were primarily written for rooftop solar and stationary battery storage, which are fixed assets. Bidirectional EVs bring new considerations since they are vehicles first, not stationary equipment.”
Indeed, cooperation between car companies and utilities is suddenly a pressing matter as more EVs hit the roads, and the grid. Rivian and other electric car makers are trying to make their vehicles play nice with the power grid as a way for their customers to save money and reduce grid strain by having EVs charge when demand is low and electricity is cheap. And at some point, electric cars will become a major cog in virtual power plants — the ability of the power grid to pull energy from sources like EVs, backup batteries, and homeowner solar in times of need.
That day is finally approaching. Although bidirectional charging is a striking bonus feature for EVs, something so much more interesting and sophisticated than what a fossil fuel car can accomplish, the tech has flown fairly under the radar in the U.S. One could blame not only the lagging pace of EV adoption here, but also the fact that Tesla, far and away the market leader, has been slow to get on board. Just this month, it finally said that Model Y and Model 3 vehicles, the two best-selling electric cars in America, would get bidirectional capability.
The Ford Fathom, then, may do more than revitalize the lagging fortunes of Ford, which lost billions upon billions in its first forays into electrification and started up a skunkworks team to design the new truck in a totally different way. Their creation might also show Americans the EV’s enormous role in the home, and the grid, of tomorrow.