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 outdoorsy retailer’s new facility in Lebanon, Tennessee features skylights, solar panels, and some quirky design choices.

Almost by definition, warehouses are boring — spaces of pure industry and function with no aesthetic value.
Boring, though, is not very efficient. The Department of Energy keeps national statistics on warehouses (instead of the more obvious Department of Commerce), largely because it’s the purview of the U.S. Energy Information Administration to keep track of the energy consumption of buildings, and warehouses consume a lot. The transportation sector makes up about 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions, a number that jumps to 11% when you factor in warehousing-related activities. There is an estimated 4.7 billion square feet of warehouse space in the country already — enough to cover Maine’s Acadia National Park more than twice over — and it’s growing rapidly.
Almost all the $1.1 trillion of U.S. e-commerce sales filters through warehouses at some point in the journey from clicking “purchase” on your screen to a package arriving at your front door. The trucks coming and going with goods from distribution centers spew nitrogen dioxide, which is linked to asthma and is 20% more prevalent on average in the air near industrial parks. Concrete monstrosities that they are, warehouses can even mess with local stormwater drainage due to the acres of ground cover, roads, and loading docks they require. And about a third of the ones in the United States are more than half a century old, meaning they’re not exactly at the state of the art of energy efficiency.
Until very recently, this was mostly an accepted fact. Customers never see the inside of warehouses, meaning there isn’t a lot of external pressure for companies to make them nicer. (Being out of sight and out of mind has also historically allowed them to become sites of rampant exploitation and safety violations.) As Andrew Dempsey, director of climate at outdoor recreation retailer REI Co-op, put it to me, “Folks are not thinking about their warehouses and distribution centers as opportunities for leadership.”
Late last year, REI opened the 10th warehouse in the country to earn a LEED v4 Platinum certification, a designation the nonprofit U.S. Green Building Council reserves for projects that go above and beyond sustainability considerations. (Levi Strauss & Co. has one in Nevada, and the National Institute of Health has another in North Carolina, among others.) Located in Lebanon, Tennessee, near important transportation corridors for the business, the new REI warehouse still looks, at least from the outside, a little like the boring designs of the past: At some 400,000 square feet, it’s certainly blocky and large.
“With most of these types of projects, there is always going to be a tension between some of the impact goals you’re looking to achieve and some of the business objectives,” Dempsey added — that is to say, a warehouse still needs to house wares. But, he added, “Under certain constraints, you can get very creative.”
According to the DOE, lighting is one of the biggest energy-sucks in a warehouse. For the Lebanon project, REI partnered with Al. Neyer, a commercial real estate developer with experience designing and constructing LEED-certified buildings, and zeroed in on “design decisions that aren’t overly complex or necessarily bleeding edge,” Dempsey explained. For example, to light the space, the team simply installed 90 skylights, which not only allows in more sun (and thus, reduces the need for lightbulbs), it also helps workers keep an “understanding of the rhythms of the day.” Sensors that turn off lights and conveyor belts when not in use allow the warehouse to run on 30% less energy than code requires.
Solar panels are another common way for warehouses to go greener, and the Lebanon facility has them, too. However, REI also wanted to bring more zero-emission energy to the surrounding community, so it teamed up with Clearloop, a local start-up, to build a supplementary solar project nearby. In addition to keeping the warehouse at its 100% renewable energy goal, the solar facility will also help power several hundred surrounding homes.
Perhaps the biggest challenge REI took on is making the construction process — another traditionally high-emissions part of a building’s lifecycle — zero-waste, which occasionally led to some delightfully woo-woo material decisions. Trees cut down in preparation for construction at the site were recycled for interior design accents like stair barristers. An old barn on the property was likewise deconstructed and its wood repurposed for the warehouse’s atrium space. (The lobby and lounge have the same Restoration Hardware-chic style as many REI retail spaces.)
Many other materials came from “right outside the windows of the building,” Dempsey told me, “which I think is really important to give the folks working there a connection to the history of that land.” Even interior wayfinding elements were made more whimsical: Though there is no way to avoid pouring vast emissions-intensive concrete floors in a warehouse, a polished path on their surface mimics the nearby Cumberland River, and is meant to further blend the indoors with the outdoors.
Stefanie Young, the vice president of technical solutions at the U.S. Green Building Council, who has worked on a number of warehouse projects, told me environmental sustainability is not necessarily the only motivator for companies pursuing LEED certificates. “It’s also about the health and wellness for the occupants: ventilation, access to amenities, the ability to travel to and from the site,” she said, adding, “It might be minimal, but every person that comes into that building is important.”
And while the REI facility is still an oddball in the warehouse space, the advantages of a climate-friendly design are attracting interest from more and more developers. The attention is not necessarily all altruistic: “Clearly, the more efficient the facility is, the less their utility bills will be,” Young pointed out. Owners and developers are also looking for places to meet their ESG or carbon reduction goals, and warehouse upgrades help boost those bona fides. (REI, for example, aims to halve its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.)
Warehouses will probably never actually be sexy. But it also doesn’t take groundbreaking innovations to make them a little more pleasant — at the end of the day, we’re still just talking about adding some skylights, drought-resistant landscaping, and a few electric forklifts to make them better for both the planet and workers. But these little things matter: “Customers won’t come into this space, but several hundred of our employees will,” Dempsey said. “And that alone merits us to create the best space possible.”
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 data center boom is everywhere you look in U.S. economic and emissions data.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
It isn’t exactly a new thought, but I’ve been struck recently by how many trends in America’s economic and environmental data are fundamentally about the data center boom and the return of electricity demand:
First, the Energy Information Administration reported this week that U.S. emissions grew by more than 2% last year, driven by surging electricity demand and an increase in coal-fired generation. What caused that higher power demand? New factories and data centers — as well as record summertime cooling demand.
Second, many of the new factories driving that higher power demand are themselves producing goods that are … let’s say … data center-adjacent. There are the enormous new semiconductor fabs, of course. But Ford and General Motors have also set up new production lines (or repurposed old ones) to manufacture grid-scale batteries to meet power demand.
Third, take a look at the recent U.S. spending on private non-residential construction — in other words, everything American companies are building that is not houses, condos, or apartments.
The construction industry’s spent almost $60 billion on data centers over the past year, which is more than it spent on all other office buildings combined (and more than it spent building warehouses, too). Just a handful of categories — data centers, power plants, electricity infrastructure, and certain kinds of electronics manufacturing — now make up a third of all U.S. private non-residential construction investment. They’ve never made up such a large share of construction spending since data collection began in 2014.
As The New York Times recently noted, the American economy is unusually dependent on the American stock market right now — and the stock market is unusually dependent on artificial intelligence. This week, investors started to balk at the enormous spending hyperscalers are planning to keep building out the AI boom; Alphabet’s shares dropped 8% this week after it boosted its planned 2026 capital expenditure and signaled 2027 will be even bigger. If the data center boom started to slow down in earnest, then more than just that budget will change.
Speaking of which, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote earlier this week about how many businesses are struggling to even estimate their carbon emissions from artificial intelligence. The carbon accounting startup Watershed recently unveiled a new formula to help companies get a sense of their AI-related emissions.
But even that formula is still limited by the amount of data hyperscalers publish — and they don’t publish that much. Google, for instance, is the only AI company that has (laudably) provided estimates of its emissions on a per-prompt basis. Yet no company has published its per-token emissions, or how emissions sync up with particular models or regions.
So Emily asked Google: Why aren’t you — or any other model provider — disclosing this kind of data yet?
The tech company didn’t get back to us until after we’d published Emily’s story. But its response was interesting enough that I wanted to quote some of it here.
The problem is “industry consensus,” Cooper Elsworth, a Google spokesperson, told us. “There is currently very little consensus on how to comprehensively and fairly measure the serving environmental impact of generative AI (such as text generation),” he wrote. “Without standardized, ‘apples-to-apples’ frameworks, it is difficult to compare different providers accurately.”
That’s partly because energy use — and emissions data — can vary from site to site and depend on “custom-built hardware, software compilers, and advanced inference techniques.” And he claimed Google doesn’t always have the measurement hardware in place to provide such specific estimates: “Providing precise, repeatable data requires highly advanced measurement infrastructure,” he said. “For example, software-based energy monitoring tools often suffer from sampling biases. For our study, we had to step away from top-down averages and directly measure actual energy at the physical power supply unit (PSU) level across our deployed fleet. Not all providers have the telemetry or data sets required to benchmark their operations at this level of granularity.”
Read Emily’s story to understand the other reasons why estimating — or even “guesstimating” — AI-related carbon emissions is so challenging.
A conversation with Emma Uridge of the Kansas Health Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Emma Uridge, analyst with the Kansas Health Institute. Uridge spent copious hours analyzing state and local laws on data center development to best understand how policymakers are responding to the potential environmental public health impacts of large AI infrastructure, including power and water. The report, which came out this week, also goes in depth into those health impacts. I reached out to her to discuss what she sees as must-watch territory for our readers on this emerging policy arena.
Our conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
What is actually being done on policy when it comes to data centers — beyond moratoria of course?
So first I’d like to just talk about the point of moratoria. It’s helpful to talk about how these policies emerge in the first place. One area where moratoria are helpful is when a data center is proposed but the county has no approach for how they’d like to potentially regulate them. That’s temporary, most of the time. It lets local governments conduct research on the various impacts and also negotiate community benefits, ones that can mitigate any potential negative impacts — like Lancaster Pennsylvania, which instituted a community benefit agreement that maximized the potential benefits of development while mitigating what large data centers can do. That agreement looked at capping municipal water use at 20,000 gallons per day and requiring 100% clean energy. It had financial penalties for non-compliance. The company also committed $20 million to their local economic development and clean energy fund. There are ways to negotiate with developers.
We also see amendments to existing zoning. Data center proposals are increasingly popping up in rural areas, many of which are unzoned, so there’s no way a county can negotiate unless there’s a moratorium in place.
Other policy solutions include different performance standards or requiring on-site renewable energy, like what Jefferson County, Missouri, looked at. Also setback requirements, mandatory noise buffers, ending by-right zoning.
Where are local governments getting ideas for regulating data centers?
A lot of the technical information comes from developers. That can in cases be seen as a biased source of information. I wouldn’t say there’s a dedicated group providing assistance to local governments when a project is proposed — which is a similar story to wind industry development, where we have only a handful of consultants who provide technical advice. It can be really helpful to get a multi-disciplinary approach to hearing information. It can be helpful to have the utility commission, public health folks, those in academia, as well as the developer.
As of right now, especially in rural areas, local governments have a hard task of balancing pushback while getting the most accurate, evidence-based, neutral information to make decisions. That balance can be contentious.
What is the federal government doing on data center policy? How is the Trump administration approaching it?
A few things there. In the early days, the drive was for AI expansion and to be competitive with foreign adversaries. Now due to the amount of public pushback in red and blue localities and a more cautious approach.
I’m not seeing a lot of actual policy movement at this time.
I know the EPA is looking at the chemicals used in cooling data centers because when that water is cycled through the system, some of it is discharged into the water system, so they’re looking at the Toxic Substances and Control Act for monitoring that.
How much of an impact does this minimal federal role have on industry behavior?
Y’know, this isn’t specific to data centers. This is true for all kinds of large-scale development: there’s a need to require some sort of federal monitoring and regulation.
That’s where I see an emerging role for public health. At the federal level, there could be policy movement towards requiring some sort of environmental monitoring at data centers to make sure they’re operating responsibility. Looking at specific water use relative to water availability and what happens when there’s a time of severe, persistent drought. With air quality too — we’ve seen areas where the grid isn’t as reliable so their diesel generators are kicking on more and affecting air quality for residents.
We’re just not seeing all of that right now. We need corporate disclosure.
What do you see as the most important public health impacts from data center development?
It varies by localities. The most discussed obviously is water usage. One thing I’d note about my conversations with folks enthusiastic around emerging tech is, there are still questions that need to be asked about the capacity of localities to support a data center. Like a small town in Kansas may only be using 40% of their water for their utility needs. If a data center came online, how much of that water goes to the data center?
One area underexplored within the public health discipline is energy poverty and energy security. The ability of a household to meet the needs of everything energy provides in our lives. It’s known we have an aging electric grid but we’re not talking enough about large-scale blackouts when the grid is not sufficient to support some of these new data centers.
Plus more of the week’s big development fights.
1. Laramie County, Wyoming — Meta is fighting the fine it received in the Cheyenne data center water pollution controversy, and the conflict between the tech giant and the city’s small board of public utilities is continuing to spill out into the public.
2. Niagara County, New York — This county just rejected a solar project’s highway work permits in a show of retaliation against the state’s Office of Renewable Energy Siting.
3. Barron County, Wisconsin — The anti-solar protest is the new campaign stop in deep red Wisconsin.
4. Chesapeake, Virginia — A large battery storage project on the Virginia coastline is on the rocks amidst rampant local opposition.
5. Lewis County, West Virginia — West Virginia is now a key battleground in the fight over transmission, as a line spanning all of West Virginia and Maryland — and cutting through Data Center Alley in Virginia — causes compounding consternation.