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:
Here’s where the Biden administration’s climate spending has gone so far.

All across the United States, grant money from the Inflation Reduction Act has begun to flow.
There’s more than $100 million for protecting the Pacific Ocean’s salmon and steelhead fisheries.
Hundreds of millions more to plant urban canopies in Atlanta, Phoenix, and dozens of other cities.
$1 billion for two new weather research ships for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and tens of millions for mapping the best “fuel breaks” — roads, rivers, and other natural features that will slow wildfires in Colorado, Wyoming, and other states.
The Biden administration has begun the gargantuan work of spending down the more than $110 billion in grant funding in the new climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act. It is in a race to spend as much of the money as it can in the next year — before a potential change of administration in 2025 and before climate change gets any worse.
Sign up to receive updates on Heatmap’s database of federal climate spending:
That effort is about 10% complete. The government has disbursed about $11.8 billion in grants, rebates, and other funding in law, according to an analysis conducted by Heatmap.
The spending is expected to pick up in the next year as the administration accelerates its efforts to get money out the door.
The grants are not the only source of funding from the climate law. The IRA contains three new pots of money: grants and rebates, new loans from the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office, and tax credits for clean energy.
The tax credits are the bill’s centerpiece and largest source of funding in the law. They are meant to incentivize people and businesses to switch to clean energy and other climate-friendly technologies. Although they could eventually disburse more than $1 trillion into the economy, according to a Goldman Sachs estimate, we do not yet have public data on their takeup.
The Loan Programs Office, meanwhile, has sent out more than $13 billion in loans to help build new electric-vehicle and battery plants since the law’s passage.
Grants and rebates make up the IRA’s third plank — and one of the largest portions of publicly available funding from the law. They are our first glance at how the law is working.
So far, most of the $11.5 billion in IRA funding already awarded by the Biden administration have gone to pre-existing federal programs or to expand government capacity. The money has decarbonized federal buildings, for instance, or been spent to hire more conservation scientists.
You can see that in the agency that has sent out more IRA-funded grants than any other: the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which has disbursed nearly $3.4 billion from the law this year. That money has largely funded pre-existing agricultural programs, such as the Conservation Stewardship Program, that have now been rewritten to boost “climate-smart agriculture.”
The law’s second-largest tranche of money has gone to the U.S. Postal Service to buy electric delivery vehicles. Although that money has been transferred to the agency, most of it remains unspent. The Postal Service plans to buy 66,000 electric vehicles through 2028 as it moves to an all-electric fleet.
Another $2.4 billion has gone to the Energy Department, which has used the funding to upgrade national labs, including in Idaho, Oregon, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
By comparison, the government has sent out relatively little money from new programs established by the IRA.
That is most evident from the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA has yet to start making grants from its $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, for instance, a multi-purpose fund which will eventually help capitalize dozens of green banks and provide loans to cut the cost of rooftop solar.
The EPA has also yet to disburse money from its new programs to reduce air pollution from ports, cut methane emissions from oil-and-gas infrastructure, and help environmental-justice organizations.
The IRA also provided nearly $10 billion to the USDA to help rural electric cooperatives decarbonize their power plants; that money has yet to flow as well.
In a statement, the White House said that it had launched about two-thirds of the grant and rebate programs in the IRA, totaling more than $70 billion. (In other words, it may have opened up applications to receive funding from those programs, but not yet awarded any money from them.)
“It's a pace we’re proud of, especially since many programs in the Inflation Reduction Act are being set up from scratch,” Michael Kikukawa, a White Housethe spokesman, said. “These programs are investing in communities, creating good-paying jobs in the clean energy economy, and tackling the climate crisis in every corner of the country.”
Advocates said that the pace of funding would likely pick up over the next few years.
“Given that we have spent the past year working with the Biden administration standing up these grant programs, it’s really not surprising at all that we haven’t seen the eventual pace this bill will reach in the first year,” Holly Burke, communications director for Evergreen, a nonprofit that fights for and advises on federal climate policy, told me. “It does leave us the challenge of running in 2024 on a bill that has only begun to deliver on its promise.”
Among Democrats, some concern persists that the government is not spending the funding fast enough.
Perhaps the easiest place to see this worry is in Democrats’ growing anxiety about the IRA’s home-upgrade rebates, which are administered by the Department of Energy.
These programs are meant to help Americans buy climate-friendly appliances — such as heat pumps, induction stoves, and smart breaker boxes — as well as insulate and weatherize their homes. Last month, dozens of Democratic lawmakers wrote to the Energy Department, asking for a faster rollout of the program.
Democrats love these programs, which rank among the law’s most consumer-facing policies. When President Joe Biden signed the IRA last year, he mentioned these rebate programs before any other policy.
The IRA was “about showing … the American people that democracy still works in America,” Biden said at the time. “It’s going to offer working families thousands of dollars in savings by providing them rebates to buy new and efficient appliances, weatherize their homes.”
But the rebate programs have taken longer to implement than Democrats once hoped. There are two rebate programs in the IRA — one focused on efficiency and weatherization, the other on electrification — and the rules governing them have yet to be finalized by a Department of Energy office. Even though states will eventually administer those rebate programs, few states have received funding even to start up their programs.
At this point, most states will probably launch their rebate programs around the middle of next year, Andy Frank, the chief executive of Sealed, a home-retrofit company, told me.
Some states might lag beyond that. In Georgia, state officials have warned they are aiming to launch by September 30, 2024, at the latest.
Companies, too, are starting to get nervous about the slower pace. Because consumers know that the rebates are on the way, they’re delaying buying new appliances or updating their home insulation, Arch Rao, the chief executive of Span, which makes a new kind of circuit-breaker panel, told me.
That caution is hurting contractors and other installers at exactly the moment that they should be staffing up and preparing for a surge in demand.
“Homeowners are saying, ‘Wait, if rebates are going to be imminently available, then we’re going to wait to decarbonize.’ But contractors can’t plan for that,” Rao said, who was previously a head of product at Tesla. “Supply and demand are being built, but coordination between the two isn’t happening.”
“The Department of Energy is laser focused on cutting costs for working families and businesses through the historic consumer rebates program made available by President Biden’s Investing in America agenda,” Charisma Troiano, a Department of Energy spokeswoman, told me.
“We are working with states to help them move as fast as they are ready to, and look forward to continuing the work of helping American families keep more money in their pockets with an energy efficient and electrified home.”
At least one other IRA rebate program is meant to solve some of these problems: a $200 million program meant to train home contractors to install heat pumps and other home efficiency measures. The program will start awarding grants on November 1.
Sign up to receive updates on Heatmap’s database of federal climate spending:
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
By neutering the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, the Trump administration cements the country’s dependence on oil and liquid fuels.
This is Heatmap Daily, a weekday news digest written by our executive editor.
President Trump’s big fuel efficiency rollback is here. This afternoon, the Department of Transportation significantly weakened the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, the federal government’s rules that encourage new cars and trucks to get gradually more fuel-efficient over time. Instead of mandating that new cars and trucks hit a target of more than 50 miles per gallon, as the old Biden-era rules had required, new vehicles sold in the U.S. will now need to average only 34.9 miles per gallon.
That target is below the level that most automakers have already achieved in their vehicle fleet. (For reasons too obscure to recount here, the regulatory standard of 34 miles per gallon aligns to real-world gas mileage in the mid-to-high 20s — something my 15-year-old hatchback manages to achieve without much straining.) The new rules also retroactively rewrite the standard back to 2022, meaning that automakers whose fleets once broke the law may now be in the clear.
These changes, in other words, render the fuel economy law, first enacted in 1975, is now moot. But Republicans in Congress had arguably already achieved this last year, when they zeroed out all of the law’s fines for automakers as part of the president’s tax and spending bill. These two changes, taken together, mean that the Trump administration has successfully neutered the U.S. fuel efficiency rules.
We are digging into the rule-making here at Heatmap, and I hope to have more on the documents in the days to come. But one of the lasting ironies of President Trump’s approach to fuel efficiency will be that his own presidency demonstrates its strategic inadequacy.
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy law, after all, did not originate as an environmental policy — climate change had scarcely emerged as a pressing issue in the mid-1970s — but as a national security and economic sovereignty measure. In the aftermath of the oil embargo, American politicians realized that the U.S. economy was far too dependent on oil for its long-term good. This set off a scramble to find new energy sources, prompting a dash back to coal in the electricity sector and a surge in federal R&D spending on alternative energy. (This funding boost eventually created the modern solar, wind, battery, and fracking industries.)
It also led to a successful push to regulate gas mileage. Crucially, this effort did not limit emissions from any one type of vehicle, as the Environmental Protection Administration’s toxic air pollution rules aim to do. Rather, it targeted the average fuel efficiency of cars and light-duty trucks sold in the United States in each model-year. The point was not to regulate any one type of vehicle out of existence, but to increase the country’s overall fuel efficiency over time.
That decades-long effort was never perfect. It created in American statute, for instance, a lasting distinction between cars and trucks, which has bedeviled regulators as SUVs have taken up a larger portion of the new vehicle fleet. But it has also inarguably succeeded: The United States ekes far more value out of every barrel of oil today than it did half a century ago.
Yet the time is ripe to keep making progress. President Trump’s administration has illustrated the persistence of our oil dependence — and the political and strategic problems that it can still engender. Even though the United States has since become the world’s largest producer of oil, the linked and globalized nature of fuel markets means that a supply shock anywhere leads to price hikes everywhere. When an oil crisis arrives — even a largely self-inflicted one, as in the case of the Iran war — then the price of moving things and people rises, the economy suffers, and the president’s popularity falls. Countries can protect themselves from these shocks on a short-term basis by stockpiling oil (as the United States, in fact, does), but they can avoid them only by switching to a far more efficient and electrified transportation system.
President Trump, in other words, may regret the current oil and refining crisis. But by gutting the fuel economy standards — and waging war on electric vehicle incentives more broadly — he is increasing the likelihood that America will face many more crises like it in future years. Consider it his particular gift to his successors.
The cofounders of The Impact Project have a three-step test for voters.
In November 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced a $40 billion Google investment in his state and declared, “Texas is the epicenter of AI development, where companies can pair innovation with expanding energy.” At a campaign stop in East Texas seven months later, he had a different message: “We must prohibit them from building AI data centers in rural Texas neighborhoods.” Last week, Abbott instructed Texas’ environmental agency to stop issuing permits to data center projects until the state’s grid operator completes an audit of all data centers in the interconnection process.
Abbott is not alone. In the past week, three other candidates for governor moved toward limits. On September 23, Maryland Governor Wes Moore, a Democrat, signed an executive order tying state incentives for large projects to a new review process, pledged that “the state will not go around a local community’s ‘no,’” and announced that he would ask lawmakers to repeal the state’s data center tax exemption, passed in 2020. The same day, Kansas Democratic nominee Cindy Holscher, who voted for data center tax incentives as a state senator and now backs a moratorium, said she “certainly would vote differently based on the information we have now.” Teri Ann Hourihan, Arizona’s No Labels candidate, also promised a “Day 1” moratorium on new data centers.
These shifts represent a pattern we’re seeing across party lines during an election season dominated by conversations about data centers and artificial intelligence. At The Impact Project, we track where the candidates for governor stand on data centers: 143 candidates in 36 states and three territories. By our count, 69 of the 78 major party candidates have voiced positions on data centers. Thirty-eight candidates have staked out restrictive positions on data centers, while 31 are supportive, ranging from unequivocal support to reluctant support with significant safeguards and concessions. Importantly, we counted a candidate as supportive if they champion data center development, even if they want a pause or a moratorium to take a closer look first.
Across party lines, candidates appear to be trying to balance environmental and social concerns with economic and technological priorities. At least 30 support a pause, halt, moratorium, or ban, including 20 Democrats and 10 Republicans. In five states — Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, and Texas — the Democratic and Republican candidates both clearly back a pause. Among sitting governors up for reelection, a quarter back a pause; among major party candidates newly seeking the job, 43% do. The 65 third-party and independent candidates lean further toward restriction: We documented positions for 32 of them, including 19 who back a pause, moratorium, or ban. Today, we are making our research publicly available.
Candidates appear to be following voters, whose opinions have shifted rapidly. In September 2025, Americans were evenly divided over whether they would support a data center being built near their homes. By August, 75% opposed one. In Virginia, the share of voters comfortable with a new data center in their community fell from 69% in 2023 to 35% in 2026 in 2026. In May of this year, seven in 10 Americans told Gallup they oppose AI data centers in their area, with the strongest opposition in the Midwest and the South. Voters’ complaints are concrete, concerning water use, air pollution, persistent noise, rising utility bills, and projects negotiated under nondisclosure agreements without neighbor consent.
Candidates should be responsive to their constituents’ priorities, but the electorate is naturally skeptical when candidates shift their positions so dramatically during an election year. These pivots invite questions about whether some candidates’ new skepticism of the data center boom will last beyond November.
In Nevada, Democratic nominee Aaron Ford co-sponsored the 2015 law that created the state’s data center tax abatements. He now promises to pause them. His Republican opponent, incumbent Governor Joe Lombardo, once called data centers the state’s new “gold rush.” On September 18, less than two months before the election, he signed an executive order curbing the tax breaks. Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, told lawmakers in January that she voted for the state’s data center tax exemption as a legislator, and that she now wants to eliminate it. Wisconsin’s Republican nominee, Tom Tiffany, called data centers “exciting new technology” in January. His campaign now says, “[w]e are America’s Dairyland, not America’s Dataland.”
Pennsylvania’s Republican nominee, Stacy Garrity, was even more blunt: Last summer she praised data center deregulation and expansion. This June, Garrity announced that “we pause for as long as we need the pause.” Garrity’s opponent, incumbent Democrat governor Josh Shapiro, has similarly flipped: Last year, Shapiro celebrated fast-tracking permitting for data center and AI development. This year, Shapiro signed an executive order proposing limits on data centers and has spoken about developers “running roughshod” over communities. In Ohio, billionaire Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy called his state’s data center boom “great” in 2025. Now he promises an executive order pausing construction.
Candidates, of course, are allowed to change their minds, and these changes may be sincere. Our understanding of the burdens of data centers is growing along with the industry. The vast AI hyperscalers being built today are not the server farms of 2015, which is how Nevada’s Ford explained his shifting position.
Are we witnessing political convenience or a real change of heart? No one can see inside a candidate’s head. Voters can, however, check three things.
First, does a candidate’s promise come with a plan? Many of the loudest pledges are for a “Day 1” executive order. Executive orders are the easiest policy to make and the easiest to undo, and a pause is hollow without regulatory action to follow it up. We can ask what bill language the candidate would support, what it would require, and what happens the day a proposed pause ends. We can also question whether the candidate can deliver. Utility rates are set by public utility commissions, not governors, and tax incentives are written into law. A governor can stop new deals, but signed deals keep running. Lombardo’s order, for instance, applies only to companies seeking new tax breaks.
Second, does the plan require disclosure? We cannot regulate what we cannot measure. Many candidates describe their pause as time to study the problem. Maryland’s Republican nominee, Dan Cox, wants a moratorium “so that we can study this.” A study needs data, and data centers developers and operators are famously opaque. As data is so infrequently available directly from data centers, journalists, activists, and researchers have resorted to techniques as varied as satellite imagery, public records requests, thermal drone footage, tax document sleuthing, and human tips to collect data and break news about data centers. Yet fewer than a quarter of candidates who call for a pause call for mandatory disclosure. A pause without reporting requirements ends where it started: without the facts needed to regulate.
Third, what did the candidate do before this was popular? Votes, signed deals, and ribbon cuttings are public record. A candidate who switched should be able to say what changed and what they got wrong. One who cannot is asking voters to trust the new position on faith.
After November, voters can keep score. Watch the first legislative session and the first budget. Do data center incentives come back under a new name? Does a “Day 1” pause end with rules, or does it simply end? Communities have already shown what accountability looks like locally, where residents have recalled officials and replaced council members who approved unpopular projects. Governors deserve the same attention.
What voters want is reasonable. When a Michigan poll asked about a data center within 25 miles of home, 55% said they were not open to it, 11% were not sure, and only 33% said they were open to it. After hearing a set of protections, including no rate hikes, no tax incentives or secret deals, and closed-loop cooling, 49% said they would be open to one. What most voters oppose is data centers without rules.
Americans are demanding change, and data centers are top of mind. Candidates who mean what they say will make good on campaign promises by writing rules and passing them. The rest will let their hollow promises lapse and hope no one is counting. We all should be.
The renewables developer is expanding its business to serve “our nation’s growing energy needs.”
Two years ago, Arevia Power marketed itself as a renewable energy development powerhouse founded by solar industry veterans.
Today, the company is now also building data centers and gas turbines, Arevia chief development officer Ricardo Graf confirmed in a statement to me.
“Arevia is an energy company that delivers reliable and affordable electricity to the communities and utilities we serve,” Graf told me via email, acknowledging that “in some cases, that energy may be solar; in others, it may be gas.” He added that “yes, we also develop data center projects, but ones with accompanying power solutions to ensure ratepayers are not impacted by the data center’s energy needs.”
I’ve been keeping a close eye out to see whether any renewable energy developers, faced with the Trump administration’s squeeze on federal permits, will bet on diversifying their businesses. Maybe if they couldn’t build a solar farm on federal lands or access ample federal tax credits for constructing new projects, they’d invest in other sorts of large infrastructure projects instead.
We’ve definitely seen large U.S. energy developers such as NextEra and Invenergy take Trumpian tacks towards supplying data centers with new gas power under. Over the summer I broke the news that Clearway Energy asked the Bureau of Land Management to change a five year-old application for solar farm permits with “a proposed data center and natural gas facility.” After those plans were made public, Clearway told me in a statement to me that it was nixing the idea because it did not comport with their business strategy. “As a clean energy developer and operator, our focus in Nevada remains solar and battery storage.”
In mid-September, D.C. news outlet The Washington Sun first reported that Rhea Data, a subsidiary of Arevia Power, was behind the proposal for a giant data center and energy complex in Idaho including thousands of acres of federal land. On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management sent me a statement confirming key details such as the inclusion of a 450-megawatt on-site gas facility. The next day, a Nebraska public radio station reported that Arevia and Graf were connected to prospective early-stage data center project site evaluation outside the city of Lincoln.
When I asked whether the company was reorienting itself toward data centers and the gas energy business, Graf acknowledged how things looked. “While this may be perceived as ‘pivoting,’ it is just a product of the evolution of our nation’s growing energy needs, which solar alone cannot satisfy,” he said over email on Friday. “Our company takes an all-above approach to helping our nation meet its increasing power demands.”