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 decarbonization benefits abound.

Electric vehicles? Really?
Is it really true that Heatmap looked at every way that you can decarbonize your life, meditated upon the politics, did the math, and concluded … that you should buy an EV? Are EVs really that important to fighting climate change?
You’ll find more thorough answers to all those questions throughout Decarbonize Your Life (plus our guide to buying an EV), but the short answer is: Yes. If you really need a car, then switching from a gas car to an electric vehicle (or at least a plug-in hybrid) is the most important step you can take to combat climate change. And it’s not only good for your personal carbon footprint, it’s good for the entire energy system.
Here is why we make that recommendation — and why you should trust us:
The best reason to use an electric vehicle is the most straightforward one: Driving an EV produces fewer greenhouse gases than driving a gasoline- or diesel-burning car. The Department of Energy estimates that the average EV operating in the U.S. produces 2,727 pounds of carbon dioxide pollution each year, while the average gasoline-burning car emits 12,594 pounds of carbon dioxide. Even a conventional hybrid vehicle — like a Toyota Prius — emits 6,800 pounds of CO2, or roughly 2.5 times as much as an EV.
These gains hold almost regardless of how you analyze the question. Even in states where coal makes up a large share of the power grid — such as West Virginia, Wyoming, or Missouri — EVs produce half as much CO2 as gasoline vehicles, according to the DOE. That’s because EVs are much more energy efficient than internal combustion vehicles. So even though coal is a dirtier energy source than gasoline or diesel, EVs need to use far less of it (in the form of electricity) to drive an additional mile.
EVs retain this carbon advantage even when you take into account their full “lifecycle” emissions — the cost of mining minerals, refining them, building a battery, and shipping a vehicle to its final destination. Across the full lifetime of a vehicle, EVs will release 57% to 68% less climate pollution than internal-combustion cars in the United States, according to a landmark analysis from the International Council on Clean Transportation. (As the publication Carbon Brief has shown, many analyses of EVs versus gas cars fail to take into account the full lifecycle emissions of the fossil-fuel system: the carbon pollution produced by extracting, refining, and transporting a gallon of gasoline.)
Even if you only care about emissions math, two more important reasons justify switching to an EV.
First, when you switch to an EV, you cut down enormously on the marginal environmental cost of driving an additional mile. Most of an EV’s environmental harm is “front-loaded” in its lifetime; that is, it is associated with the cost of producing and selling that vehicle. (Most electronics, including smartphones and laptops, have a similarly front-loaded carbon cost.)
But the carbon emissions of driving an additional mile are relatively low. In other words, converting an additional kilowatt of electricity into a mile on the road is relatively benign for the climate.
That’s not the case for an internal combustion vehicle. In a conventional gasoline- or diesel-powered car, every additional mile you drive requires you to burn more fossil fuels.
Don’t overthink it: There is no way to operate a gasoline or diesel car without burning more fossil fuels. Conventional ICE cars are machines that turn fossil fuels into (1) miles on the road and (2) greenhouse gas pollution. This means that — importantly — using an internal combustion vehicle, or even a conventional hybrid vehicle, will never be climate-friendly.
That’s why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that switching to an electrified transportation system — in other words, switching from gas cars to EVs — is “likely crucial” for cutting climate pollution and meeting the Paris Agreement goals. As the International Council on Clean Transportation concluded recently, “There is no realistic pathway for deep decarbonization of combustion engine vehicles.”
This calculus is likely to improve over time. Over the past decade, the U.S. power grid’s climate pollution has plunged while emissions from the transportation sector have slightly risen; we anticipate that, over the next decade, the U.S. power grid’s greenhouse gas emissions are likely to decline at least moderately. Energy experts also expect more renewables to get built, and that natural gas will continue to drive coal off of the grid. These changes mean that the per-mile cost of driving an EV will likely fall. (If you’re in the market for an EV, Heatmap is here to guide you.)
When you switch to an EV, you do something else, too — something that may sound self-evident but is actually quite important: You increase demand for EVs and for the EV ecosystem.
To be painfully direct about why this is important, this means that you stop spending so much money into the gasoline-powered driving system — the network of car dealers, gas stations, and oil companies that subsist on fossil fuels — and begin paying for products and services from the car dealerships, charging stations, and automakers who have invested in the new, low-carbon future.
This is more important than it may seem at first. In the United States, automakers have struggled to ramp up their EV production in part because consumers haven’t been buying their EVs. EVs are a manufactured good, and the world is betting on their continued technological improvement. The more EVs get made at a company or industry level, the cheaper they should get. When you buy an EV, you prime the pump for further improvements in that manufacturing chain.
Under the Biden administration, the Environmental Protection Agency has adopted rules that could make EVs more than half of all new cars sold by 2032. But those rules are somewhat flexible — automakers could also meet them by selling a lot of conventional and plug-in hybrids — and they are under legal threat. If Donald Trump wins this year’s presidential election, then he will almost certainly roll them back, much as he reversed the Obama administration’s less ambitious car rules. And even if Kamala Harris wins, then the zealously conservative Supreme Court could easily throw out the rules.
Under most future scenarios, in other words, American consumers will have considerable power over how rapidly the country switches to electric vehicles. Even in a world where the federal government keeps subsidizing EV manufacturing and offers a $7,500 tax credit for EV buyers, the country’s transition to EVs will still depend on ordinary American families deciding to make a change and buy the cars.
So if you want to decarbonize your life, switching to an EV — provided that you drive enough for it to make sense — is one of the most important steps that you can take.
When you switch to an electric vehicle, you are doing several things. First, you are cutting off a source of demand for the oil industry. Second, you are creating a new source of demand for the EV industry. Third, you are generating new demand for the companies and infrastructure — such as charging stations — that will be needed for the entire transition.
Buying an EV is a climate decision that makes sense if you want to cut your carbon footprint and if you want to change the American energy system. That’s why it’s Heatmap’s No. 1 recommendation for how to decarbonize your life.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On bring-your-own-power, Trump’s illegal energy cuts, and New York’s nuclear bonanza
Current conditions: Temperatures in Buffalo, New York, are set to plunge by 40 degrees Fahrenheit • Snow could hit the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast as early as midweek • A cold snap in northern India is thickening fog in the region.
In a post on Truth Social last night, President Donald Trump said he’s “working with major American Technology Companies to secure their commitment to the American People” and shift the burden of financing the data center buildout away from ordinary consumers. “First up is Microsoft, who my team has been working with, and which will make major changes beginning this week to ensure that Americans don’t ‘pick up the tab’ for their POWER consumption, in the form of paying higher utility bills.” He said more announcements were coming in the weeks ahead. While “Data Centers are key to that boom, and keeping Americans FREE and SECURE,” he said “Companies who build them must ‘pay their own way.’”
Hours earlier, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg set the stage for a similar announcement when he posted on Threads that the company was establishing a new “top-level initiative” aimed at building “tens of gigawatts” of power for the Facebook owner’s data centers.
A federal judge has overturned President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to kill New England’s Revolution Wind project. On Monday evening, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction suspending the Trump administration’s order halting construction on the nearly complete joint venture from Danish wind giant Orsted and Global Infrastructure Partners’ Skyborn Renewables. The decision allows construction to restart immediately while the underlying lawsuit challenging multiple attempts by the Department of the Interior to yank its permits continues in court. In a statement, Orsted said it would resume construction as soon as possible. “Today’s ruling is a decisive win for energy reliability and the hundreds of thousands of families counting on Revolution Wind,” Kat Burnham, the industry group Advanced Energy United’s senior principal and New England policy lead, said in a statement. “The court rightly saw through a politically motivated stop-work order that would have caused real harm: driving up costs, delaying power for Rhode Island and Connecticut, and putting good-paying jobs at risk. It’s good news for workers, ratepayers, and anyone who recognizes the need for a fair energy market.” To glean some insights into how the White House’s most recent effort fell short, it’s worth reviewing my colleague Jael Holzman’s coverage of the last failure and this time.
The Environmental Protection Agency is scrapping the decades-long practice of calculating the health benefits of reducing air pollution by estimating the cost of avoided asthma attacks and premature deaths to justify clean-air rules. Citing internal documents, The New York Times reported Monday that the Trump administration plans to stop tallying the health benefits from curbing two of the most widespread, deadly pollutants: fine particulate matter and ozone. The newspaper called the move “a seismic shift that runs counter to the EPA’s mission statement.” The overhaul could make slashing limits on pollution from coal-burning plants, oil refineries, and steel mills easier. It’s part of a broader overhaul of the EPA’s regulatory system to disregard the scientific realities that few, if any, credible scientists challenged before. As Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo asked in July when the agency dispensed with the idea that carbon emissions are dangerous, “what comes next?”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
A federal judge ruled Monday that the Trump administration’s decision to slash $8 billion in energy grants to recipients in mostly Democratic-led states was illegal. In his decision, Amit Mehta, whom Obama appointed to the bench of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, wrote that the “terminated grants had one glaring commonality: all the awardees (but one) were based in states whose majority of citizens casting votes did not support President Trump in the 2024 election.” The ruling called on the Department of Energy to reverse its decision to rescind all awards mentioned in the case. The case only covered seven grants, leaving funding for more than 200 other projects up in the air. But as NOTUS noted, the Energy Department’s internal watchdog announced an audit into the cancellations last month.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul positioned herself as one of the most ambitious Democratic governors on nuclear power last summer when, as Heatmap’s Mattew Zeitlin covered at the time, she directed the state-owned New York Power Authority to facilitate construction of at least a gigawatt of new atomic power reactors by 2040. Last week, as we covered here, her administration unveiled 23 potential commercial partners, including Bill Gates’ TerraPower and the utility NextEra, and eight possible communities in which to site the state’s next nuclear plant. Now the governor’s office has told the Syracuse Post-Standard that the administration aims to up the goal from 1 gigawatt to 5 gigawatts of new reactors.
The move comes as Hochul prepares to announce another initiative Tuesday to force data centers to pay for their own energy needs. Piggybacking off Trump’s push, the effort will require “that projects driving exceptional demand without exceptional job creation or other benefits cover the costs they create – through charges or supplying their own power,” according to Axios.
Brazil and Argentina are South America’s only two countries with commercial nuclear power. Despite having governments on opposite sides of the continent’s political divide, the two nations are collaborating on maritime nuclear, using small modular reactors to power ships or produce power from floating plants. “The energy transition process we are experiencing guides us to work together to evolve nuclear regulations and their necessary harmonization, with a view to the use of nuclear reactors on board ships worldwide and, especially, in our jurisdictional waters,” Petronio Augusto Siqueira De Aguiar, the Brazilian admiral from the Naval Secretariat for Nuclear Safety and Quality, said in a statement.
A federal court has once again allowed Orsted to resume construction on its offshore wind project.
A federal court struck down the Trump administration’s three-month stop work order on Orsted’s Revolution offshore wind farm, once again allowing construction to resume (for the second time).
Explaining his ruling from the bench Monday, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said that project developer Orsted — and the states of Rhode Island and Connecticut, which filed their own suit in support of the company — were “likely” to win on the merits of their lawsuit that the stop work order violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Lamberth said that the Trump administration’s stop work order, issued just before Christmas, amounted to a change in administration position without adequate justification. The justice said he was not sure the emergency being described by the government exists, and that the “stated national security reason may have been pretextual.”
This case was life or death for Revolution Wind. If the stop work order had not been enjoined, Orsted told the court it may not have been able to secure proper vessels for at-sea construction for long enough to complete the project on schedule. This would have a domino effect, threatening Orsted’s ability to meet deadlines in signed power agreements with Rhode Island and Connecticut and therefore threatening wholesale cancellation of the project.
Undergirding this ruling was a quandary Orsted pointed out to the justice: The government issued the stop work order claiming it was intended to mitigate national security concerns but refused to share specifics of the basis for the stop work order with the developer. At the Monday hearing on the injunction in Washington, D.C., Revolution Wind’s legal team pointed to a key quote in a filing submitted by the Justice Department from Interior Deputy Assistant Secretary Jacob Tyner, saying that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the federal offshore energy regulator, was “not aware” of whether the national security risks could ever be mitigated, “and, if they can, whether the developers would find the proposed mitigation measures acceptable.”
This was the first positive outcome in what are multiple legal battles against the Christmas stop work orders against offshore wind projects. As I reported last week, two other developers filed individual suits alongside Orsted against their respective pauses: Dominion Energy in support of the Coastal Virginia offshore project, and Equinor over Empire Wind.
I expect what happened in the Revolution Wind case to be the beginning of a trend, as a cursory examination of the filings in those cases indicate similar contradictions to those that led to Revolution winning out. We’ll find out soon: The hearing on Empire’s stop work order is scheduled for Wednesday and Coastal Virginia on Friday.
A Heatmap Pro review of public records shows that 25 data centers were scrubbed last year after local pushback — four times as many as 2024.
President Trump has staked his administration’s success on America’s ongoing artificial intelligence boom. More than $500 billion may be spent this year to dot the landscape with new data centers, power plants, and other grid equipment needed to sustain the explosively growing sector, according to Goldman Sachs.
There’s just one problem: Many Americans seem to be turning against the buildout. Across the country, scores of communities — including some of the same rural and exurban areas that have rebelled against new wind and solar farms — are blocking proposed data centers from getting built or banning them outright.
At least 25 data center projects were canceled last year following local opposition in the United States, according to a review of press accounts, public records, and project announcements conducted by Heatmap Pro. Those canceled projects accounted for at least 4.7 gigawatts of electricity demand — a meaningful share of the overall data center capacity projected to come online in the coming years.
Those cancellations reflect a sharp increase over recent years, when local backlash rarely played a role in project cancellations, according to Heatmap’s review.
The surge reflects the public’s growing awareness — and increasing skepticism — of the large-scale fixed investment that must be kept up to power the AI economy. It also shows the challenge faced by utilities and grid planners as they try to forecast how the fast-growing sector will shape power demand.
The number of cancellations is likely to grow in the year to come. At least 99 data center projects nationwide are now being contested by local activists or residents, according to a Heatmap review of local news stories and public records, out of about 770 planned data centers across the country, according to Data Center Map. Another 200 or so proposed projects are already under construction.
About 40% of data centers that face sustained local opposition are eventually canceled, Heatmap’s review suggests.
These numbers have not been previously reported. Over the past seven months, researchers at our intelligence platform Heatmap Pro have conducted a comprehensive national survey of local opposition to data center construction. Researchers have monitored local media and called every U.S. county to tally recent data center cancellations and any local restrictions or bans on data center construction.
This data is normally available to companies and individuals who subscribe to Heatmap Pro. In this story, we are making a high-level summary available to the public for the first time.
The number of cancellations seems to be increasing more quickly than other measurements of data center growth. The amount of electricity used by data centers nationwide grew by about 22% last year, according to a recent report from S&P Global, and aggressive estimates suggest that the sector’s power use will double or even triple over the next 10 years. Yet data center cancellations due to local opposition have quadrupled in just the past 12 months.
“Those numbers don’t totally surprise me,” Peter Freed, a founding partner at the Near Horizon Group and the former director of energy strategy at Meta, told me. “This is what projects falling out of the development pipeline looks like.” He expects only about 10% of data center projects that are now being planned or developed to turn into finished projects, he added.
“I also think that the pace of canceled projects will increase, matching the acceleration in new project announcements we saw through the balance of last year,” he added.
The pace of cancellations has already grown rapidly in the past six months. Only two data centers were canceled following sustained local protest in 2023, according to Heatmap data, and six were canceled in 2024. But as electricity inflation surged and the AI boom became the biggest story in the economy, Americans took notice of what was happening on vacant land nearby. Of the 25 data center projects canceled due to local opposition last year, 21 were terminated in the second half of 2025.
Environmental and quality-of-life concerns overwhelmingly drive Americans’ opposition to data centers. Water use is the No. 1 reason cited in press accounts for local opposition to a proposed project, and is mentioned for more than 40% of contested projects, according to our review. (Some experts now dispute that data centers are unusually large water consumers, especially compared to golf courses or farms.)
The next most-cited concerns among opponents are about energy consumption and higher electricity prices, followed by worries about noise.
“Affordability is the first, second, and third issue — at least that’s what I’m hearing,” Freed said of his conversations with developers. “I also fundamentally believe that there are lots of good existing ways and creative new ways to make sure we’re insulating people from costs, but the industry has not done a very good job of telling that story.”
Many technology companies, such as Amazon, now argue that their data centers affirmatively help keep a lid on local power prices. Even so, politicians from both parties — including Energy Secretary Chris Wright — have suggested changing grid rules or requiring tech companies to “bring their own power” to reduce the AI boom’s costs to existing utility ratepayers.
Data center cancellations aren’t evenly spread out across the country. Texas is a hotspot for new data center proposals, and more than 150 gigawatts of data centers have asked to hook up to its grid. But we recorded zero cancellations due to local opposition in the Lone Star State. That’s probably because it’s difficult for residents to cancel any project in Texas, which has no state-level zoning rules.
Most cancellations were located in PJM Interconnection, the country’s largest electricity grid, which spans the Mid-Atlantic and upper Midwest. Virginia — a longstanding locus of data center development — tied with Indiana for the most cancellations due to local opposition. Each saw eight cancellations, including a proposed 600-megawatt facility northeast of Indianapolis. Just last week, local opposition killed yet another planned data center project southeast of Indiana’s capitol.
The overwhelming majority of cancellations came in states that President Trump won in the 2024 election — and often in the very suburban and exurban areas that fueled his victory. Trump won Oldham County, Kentucky, by more than 20 points in 2024. That didn’t help an effort to build a new 600-megawatt AI data center there last year. The project was dropped in July by its developer Western Hospitality Partners, who had once described it as the state’s largest economic development project.
The rising local resistance to data center development may suggest an early victory for the left flank of the environmental movement, which has opposed the expansion of virtually all AI infrastructure. Last month, Greenpeace USA, Friends of the Earth, and Food and Water Watch called for a national moratorium on all new data center construction.
“The rapid, largely unregulated rise of data centers to fuel the AI and crypto frenzy is disrupting communities across the country and threatening Americans’ economic, environmental, climate and water security,” the groups wrote in a letter to lawmakers.
But in many communities, resistance to data centers has come from a more unlikely alliance of environmentalists and anti-renewable energy advocates, Heatmap’s review has found. The same set of concerns people mention about wind farms or solar and battery projects — that they will bring more noise, threaten local farms, and change a community’s rural character — also appear in press reports about why residents oppose data centers.
AI advocates expect that these concerns will continue to spread as the footprint of data centers expands around the country. “Inevitably, as the main electricity arteries of the country get congested and the low-hanging fruit are picked, the projects that are being proposed will expand geographically,” Daniel King, a fellow who studies energy and AI at the Foundation for American Innovation, a center-right think tank, told me. “I expect us to see the obstructions and failed projects spread geographically as well.”
He said developers have been increasingly worried about the rise of cancellations due to local opposition, but that Heatmap’s review suggested to him the problem might not be as bad as he once feared.
Still, “the trend is a concerning one,” he said. Many counties have moved from blocking individual governments to considering bans on new data center construction, he said — another move borrowed from the anti-renewable playbook. That could be “potentially harmful” to the potential for economic development in those areas, he said.