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:
Fact-checking a Trump-inspired fear.

As someone on the “will this thing kill me” beat, I was paying close attention when the former president of the United States recently expressed concern about electric-powered boats — apparently, the new aquatic twist on his electric car rant. “Let’s say your boat goes down and I’m sitting on top of this big powerful battery and the boat’s going down,” Donald Trump mused to a group of supporters in the landlocked state of Iowa. “Do I get electrocuted?”
Trump then dramatically upped the stakes by imagining the sinking electric boat was also being circled by a shark. “So I have a choice of electrocution or shark,” he went on. “You know what I’m going to take? Electrocution. I will take electrocution every single time.”
I wanted to find out if it was actually possible for Trump to be electrocuted and/or eaten by a shark (you know, hypothetically). It was a question that inspired many related, obsessive searches: What about if you drive an electric vehicle into a lake — would that electrocute you? Are first responders afraid to help people in submerged EVs? Would they leave you inside to die?!
Like I said, I can be a little morbid.
Below, I attempt to sort electrocution fact from electrocution fiction, with a few detours thrown in.
People have been using electricity to power their boats for over 120 years. In fact, until the high-energy storage density of oil became obvious around the turn of the century, electric boats actually enjoyed a bit of a heyday. (RIP to the electric canoe).
Moreover, if you’ve ever been on a marine vessel with any more sophistication than a rowboat, it probably had a battery and an electrical system on board, even if it wasn’t powered by an electric motor. Standard 12-volt marine batteries are used for everything from starting the main engine to running the lights, radio, or a trolling motor on board.
The modern iteration of the fully electrified boat movement is still in its relative infancy and faces some big challenges. But the short version is, we’ve been using electricity at sea for a long time and have gotten pretty good at not electrocuting ourselves. And the potential electrocution problems that do exist usually aren’t exclusive to high-voltage electric boats, but gas-powered ones as well.
First of all, battery packs on electric boats are designed to be watertight — duh, because they’re
on a boat. Believe it or not, electric boat makers have taken into account the fact that their products could, in a worst-case scenario, end up underwater. A spokesperson for Arc Boat Company, a flashy new player in the electric boat space, pointed me to their FAQ which explains that “our fault table — a list of possible points of failure and what to do about each one — is hundreds of lines long, meaning we’ve thought about, tested, and planned for every scenario you might encounter on and off the water.” (This seems like a job I could be good at.)
In fact, all the electric boat manufacturers I was in touch with said they meet a waterproofing standard that is either at, or just below, what is required for a submarine. The high-voltage batteries are additionally kept in “puncture-resistant shells,” so even if the boat somehow got completely mangled, the battery won’t just be openly exposed to the water.
Still, you definitely don’t want to sit on an exposed “big powerful battery,” as Trump suggests in his scenario, since you could theoretically interrupt the closed loop of a DC battery’s electrical circuit and get shocked. But just being on an electric boat that is sinking does not inherently expose you to electrocution danger.
Electric shock drowning is caused by faulty wiring at a dock or a marina leaking 120-volt alternating current into the water. That electricity can potentially kill a nearby swimmer on its own, or cause them to become incapacitated and drown.
This overwhelmingly happens in lakes and rivers, since human bodies are a better conductor of electricity than fresh water but not saltwater. “In saltwater, the human body only slows electricity down, so most of it will go around a swimmer on its way back to ground unless the swimmer grabs hold of something — like a propeller or a swim ladder — that’s electrified,” BoatUS, a marine insurance company and safety advocacy group, explains in its publication Seaworthy. “In fresh water, the current gets ‘stuck’ trying to return to its source and generates voltage gradients that will take a shortcut through the human body.”
While it’s possible that a poorly maintained electric boat charging station could cause this sort of leak, it’s not a danger exclusive to the electric boat world; gas-powered boats hooked to shore power kill people every year, as well. Regardless, this is why you should never, ever swim around boat docks, especially at lakes.
If you are worried about sea life getting electrocuted by a high-voltage shipwreck, don’t be. When a battery is underwater, its current will flow into the water between its two terminals. This is bad for the battery (it’ll cause it to rapidly discharge) but you don’t have to worry about the entire ocean or lake getting filled with charge and electrocuting everything in it; high-voltage batteries are powerful but not nearly that powerful. If a shark is in the immediate vicinity of the battery — like, trying to eat it — it might potentially get hurt, but this whole premise is also starting to get absurd with this many “what ifs” piled on top of each other. (Really, the environmental hazard of a leaking lithium battery on the seafloor is probably the greater cause for concern.)
You’ll have bigger problems than electrocution!
Like electric boats, EV batteries are obsessively insulated and the cars are designed with a number of fail-safes to isolate the battery in the case of an accident. Again, the people who thought up these things have already considered the worst-case scenarios. (Plus, getting sued for repeatedly electrocuting anyone who drives through a puddle is not good business).
What’s important to understand is that unlike the 12-volt batteries used in gas-powered cars, which are harmlessly grounded to the car’s large chassis, high-voltage systems in EVs use a floating ground, which helps prevent you from being electrocuted if the car becomes submerged. “It’s not grounded chassis — there is no return path for a vehicle that has been submerged to return that charge,” Joe McLaine, a safety engineer with General Motors, told me. “And if there [are] any faults or anomalies with the high voltage system, and it’s operating in normal functioning ranges, it’s going to shut off anyway.”
Yes — and it’s also true of driving in the rain, or washing your car, or charging in a downpour.
Trying to drive an EV through deep water is not a great idea for a number of very good reasons, but fear of electrocution isn’t one of them. The most likely scenario is that the water will cause any less-well-insulated electronic components to short out, causing the car to die — which is what happened when Motor Mythbusters tried to drive a Nissan Leaf through a water-filled trench.
Of course, gas-powered cars don’t love driving in floods, either, and there is some reason to believe that EVs might actually do better in flood conditions than their counterparts.
Back in 2016, Elon Musk tweeted that the “Model S floats well enough to turn it into a boat for short periods of time.” Just searching the words “EV” or “Tesla” and “flood” or “boat mode” will lead you to tons of videos of EVs plowing through deep bodies of water.
Don’t … do this. Most flood-related deaths occur in cars, and this fact doesn’t change just because your vehicle has a plug. Additionally, just because an EV drove through a flood successfully in a short video doesn’t mean there was no lasting damage from the water (which, it should be added, isn’t covered under warranty).
Florida’s State Fire Marshal’s Office reported there were at least 21 EV battery fires in the aftermath of Hurricane Ian in 2022. This is specifically a phenomenon caused by saltwater storm surge: When the car eventually dries out, the salt residue can remain behind on the battery, creating conductive “bridges” that lead to short circuits and fires.
This is still fairly rare: “The odds that your electric battery pack is on fire in Florida are about the same odds of you getting struck by lightning,” Joe Britton, the executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, told Utility Drive. To be safe, FEMA recommends that any EVs flooded by saltwater be moved at least 50 feet away from any structures, other vehicles, or combustibles. And if you are expecting storm surge, move your EV preemptively to higher ground.
Tesla echoes this advice: “As with any electric vehicle, if your Tesla has been exposed to flooding, extreme weather events, or has otherwise been submerged in water (especially in salt water), treat it as if it’s been in an accident and contact your insurance company for support,” the company writes in its user manual.
“That is not true,” McLaine, the safety engineer with General Motors, told me. McLaine is responsible for GM’s Battery Electric Vehicle First Responder Training program, which has educated over 5,000 first- and second-responders in 25 different locations across the U.S. and Canada, and is focused on dispelling some of the rumors and misinformation around electric cars.
In addition to trainings like GM’s, a growing familiarity with the thousands of EVs now on the road has also made first responders more confident when responding to bad accidents. Orange cables are used to easily identify high-voltage components, which are placed “in areas and locations in the vehicle in which first responders typically wouldn’t have access to anyway,” McLaine explained.
First responders are trained to disable the high-voltage systems in an EV just like they would snip the cut loops around a 12-volt battery in a gas-powered vehicle accident. Additionally, most manufacturers make it extremely easy to find individual emergency response guides for their vehicles online, and there are various hotlines available for first- and second-responders when EV-related questions arise.
What First Responders Do in an EV Accidentwww.youtube.com
As for first responders handling cars that have been fully or partially submerged: Pretty much all of the emergency response documents I could find stated some version of “A submerged electric vehicle does not have a high voltage potential on the metal vehicle body, and is safe to touch” (this one specifically comes from the papers for the RAV 4 EV). Though first responders need to be careful with cutting into crushed cars, there are no shocking surprises when it comes to simply handling a submerged EV.
Are you kidding me? Electrocution would at least be quick! Trump got that part right: In this round of “would you rather,” you should take electrocution every time.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more of the week’s top news around development conflicts.
1. Benton County, Washington – The bellwether for Trump’s apparent freeze on new wind might just be a single project in Washington State: the Horse Heaven wind farm.
2. Box Elder County, Utah – The big data center fight of the week was the Kevin O’Leary-backed project in the middle of the Utah desert. But what actually happened?
3. Durham County, North Carolina – While the Shark Tank data center sucked up media oxygen, a more consequential fight for digital infrastructure is roiling in one of the largest cities in the Tar Heel State.
4. Richland County, Ohio – We close Hotspots on the longshot bid to overturn a renewable energy ban in this deeply MAGA county, which predictably failed.
A conversation with Nick Loris of C3 Solutions
This week’s conversation is with Nick Loris, head of the conservative policy organization C3 Solutions. I wanted to chat with Loris about how he and others in the so-called “eco right” are approaching the data center boom. For years, groups like C3 have occupied a mercurial, influential space in energy policy – their ideas and proposals can filter out into Congress and state legislation while shaping the perspectives of Republican politicians who want to seem on the cutting edge of energy and the environment. That’s why I took note when in late April, Loris and other right-wing energy wonks dropped a set of “consumer-first” proposals on transmission permitting reform geared toward addressing energy demand rising from data center development. So I’m glad Loris was available to lay out his thoughts with me for the newsletter this week.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
How is the eco right approaching permitting reform in the data center boom?
I would say the eco-right broadly speaking is thinking of the data center and load growth broadly as a tremendous and very real opportunity to advance permitting and regulatory reforms at the federal and state level that would enable the generation and linear infrastructure – transmission lines or pipelines – to meet the demand we’re going to see. Not just for hyperscalers and data centers but the needs of the economy. It also sees this as an opportunity to advance tech-neutral reforms where if it makes sense for data centers to get power from virtual power plants, solar, and storage, natural gas, or co-locate and invest in an advanced reactor, all options should be on the table. Fundamentally speaking, if data centers are going to pay for that infrastructure, it brings even greater opportunity to reduce the cost of these technologies. Data centers being a first mover and needing the power as fast as possible could be really helpful for taking that step to get technologies that have a price premium, too.
When it comes to permitting, how important is permitting with respect to “speed-to-power”? What ideas do you support given the rush to build, keeping in mind the environmental protection aspect?
You don’t build without sufficient protections to air quality, water quality, public health, and safety in that regard.
Where I see the fundamental need for permitting reform is, take a look at all the environmental statutes at the federal level and analyze where they’re needing an update and modernization to maintain rigorous environmental standards but build at a more efficient pace. I know the National Environmental Policy Act and the House bill, the SPEED Act, have gotten lots of attention and deservedly so. But also it’s taking a look at things like the Clean Water Act, when states can abuse authority to block pipelines or transmission lines, or the Endangered Species Act, where litigation can drag on for a lot of these projects.
Are there any examples out there of your ideal permitting preferences, prioritizing speed-to-power while protecting the environment? Or is this all so new we’re still in the idea phase?
It’s a little bit of both. For example, there are some states with what’s called a permit-by-rule system. That means you get the permit as long as you meet the environmental standards in place. You have to be in compliance with all the environmental laws on the books but they’ll let them do this as long as they’re monitored, making sure the compliance is legitimate.
One of the structural challenges with some state laws and federal laws is they’re more procedural statutes and a mother may I? approach to permitting. Other statutes just say they’ll enforce rules and regulations on the books but just let companies build projects. Then look at a state like Texas, where they allow more permits rather quickly for all kinds of energy projects. They’ve been pretty efficient at building everything from solar and storage to oil and gas operations.
I think there’s just many different models. Are we early in the stages? There’s a tremendous amount of ideas and opportunities out there. Everything from speeding up interconnection queues to consumer regulated electricity, which is kind of a bring-your-own-power type of solution where companies don’t have to answer or respond to utilities.
It sounds like from your perspective you want to see a permitting pace that allows speed-to-power while protecting the environment.
Yeah, that’s correct. I mean, in the case of a natural gas turbine, if they’re in compliance with the regulations at the state and federal level I don’t have an issue with that. I more so have an issue if they’re disregarding rules at the federal or state level.
We know data centers can be built quickly and we know energy infrastructure cannot. I don’t know if they’ll ever get on par with one another but I do think there are tremendous opportunities to make those processes more efficient. Not just for data centers but to address the cost concerns Americans are seeing across the board.
Do you think the data center boom is going to lead to lots more permitting reform being enacted? Or will the backlash to new projects stop all that?
I think the fundamental driver of permitting reform will be higher energy prices and we’ll need more supply to have more reliability. You just saw NERC put out a level 3 warning about the stability of the grid, driven by data centers. People really pay attention to this when prices are rising.
Will data centers help or hurt the cause? I think that remains to be seen. If there’s opportunities for data centers to pay for infrastructure, including what they’re using, there are areas where projects have been good partners in communities. If they’re the ones taking the opportunity to invest, and they can ensure ratepayers won’t be footing the bill for the power infrastructure, I think they’ll be more of an asset for permitting reform than a harm.
The general public angst against data centers is – trying to think of the right word here – a visceral reaction. It snowballed on itself. Hopefully there’s a bit of an opportunity for a reset and broader understanding of what legitimate concerns are and where we can have better education.
And I’m certainly not shilling for the data centers. I’m here to say they can be good partners and allies in meeting our energy needs.
I’m wondering from your vantage point, what are you hearing from the companies themselves? Is it about a need to build faster? What are they telling you about the backlash to their projects?
When I talk to industry, speed-to-power has been their number one two and three concern. That is slightly shifting because of the growing angst about data centers. Even a few years ago, when developers were engaging with state legislatures, they were hearing more questions than answers. But it’s mostly about how companies can connect to the grid as fast as possible, or whether they can co-locate energy.
Okay, but going back to what you just said about the backlash here. As this becomes more salient, including in Republican circles, is the trendline for the eco-right getting things built faster or tackling these concerns head on?
To me it's a yes, and.
I would broaden this out to be not just the eco right but also Abundance progressives, Abundance conservatives, and libertarians. We need to address these issues head on – with better education, better community engagement. Make sure people know what is getting built. I mean, the Abundance movement as a whole is trying to address those systemic problems.
It’s also an opportunity for the necessary policy reform that has plagued energy development in the U.S. for decades. I see this from an eco right perspective and an abundance progressive perspective that it's an opportunity to say why energy development matters. For families, for the entire U.S. energy economy, and for these hyperscalers.
But if you don’t win in the court of public opinion, none of this is going to matter. We do need to listen to the communities. It’s not an either or here.
And future administrations will learn from his extrajudicial success.
President Donald Trump is now effectively blocking any new wind projects in the United States, according to the main renewables trade group, using the federal government’s power over all things air and sky to grind a routine approval process to a screeching halt.
So far, almost everything Trump has done to target the wind energy sector has been defeated in court. His Day 1 executive order against the wind industry was found unconstitutional. Each of his stop work orders trying to shut down wind farms were overruled. Numerous moves by his Interior Department were ruled illegal.
However, since the early days of Trump 2.0, renewable energy industry insiders have been quietly skittish about a potential secret weapon: the Federal Aviation Administration. Any structure taller than 200 feet must be approved to not endanger commercial planes – that’s an FAA job. If the FAA decided to indefinitely seize up the so-called “no hazard” determinations process, legal and policy experts have told me it would potentially pose an existential risk to all future wind development.
Well, this is now the strategy Trump is apparently taking. Over the weekend, news broke that the Defense Department is refusing to sign off on things required to complete the FAA clearance process. From what I’ve heard from industry insiders, including at the American Clean Power Association, the issues started last summer but were limited in scale, primarily impacting projects that may have required some sort of deal to mitigate potential impacts on radar or other military functions.
Over the past few weeks, according to ACP, this once-routine process has fully deteriorated and companies are operating with the understanding FAA approvals are on pause because the Department of Defense (or War, if you ask the administration) refuses to sign off on anything. The military is given the authority to weigh in and veto these decisions through a siting clearinghouse process established under federal statute. But the trade group told me this standstill includes projects where there are no obvious impacts to military operations, meaning there aren’t even any bases or defense-related structures nearby.
One energy industry lawyer who requested anonymity to speak candidly on the FAA problems told me, “This is the strategy for how you kill an industry while losing every case: just keep coming at the industry. Create an uninvestable climate and let the chips fall where they may.”
I heard the same from Tony Irish, a former career attorney for the Interior Department, including under Trump 1.0, who told me he essentially agreed with that attorney’s assessment.
“One of the major shames of the last 15 months is this loss of the presumption of regularity,” Irish told me. “This underscores a challenge with our legal system. They can find ways to avoid courts altogether – and it demonstrates a unilateral desire to achieve an end regardless of the legality of it, just using brute force.”
In a statement to me, the Pentagon confirmed its siting clearinghouse “is actively evaluating land-based wind projects to ensure they do not impair national security or military operations, in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements.” The FAA declined to comment on whether the country is now essentially banning any new wind projects and directed me to the White House. Then in an email, White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly told me the Pentagon statement “does not ‘confirm’” the country instituted a de facto ban on new wind projects. Kelly did not respond to a follow up question asking for clarification on the administration’s position.
Faced with a cataclysmic scenario, the renewable energy industry decided to step up to the bully pulpit. The American Clean Power Association sent statements to the Financial Times, The New York Times and me confirming that at least 165 wind projects are now being stalled by the FAA determination process, representing about 30 gigawatts of potential electricity generation. This also apparently includes projects that negotiated agreements with the government to mitigate any impacts to military activities. The trade group also provided me with a statement from its CEO Jason Grumet accusing the Trump administration of “actively driving the debate” over federal permitting “into the ditch by abusing the current permitting system” – a potential signal for Democrats in Congress to raise hell over this.
Indeed, on permitting reform, the Trump team may have kicked a hornet’s nest. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Ranking Member Martin Heinrich – a key player in congressional permitting reform talks – told me in a statement that by effectively blocking all new wind projects, the Trump administration “undercuts their credibility and bipartisan permitting reform.” California Democratic Rep. Mike Levin said in an interview Tuesday that this incident means Heinrich and others negotiating any federal permitting deal “should be cautious in how we trust but verify.”
But at this point, permitting reform drama will do little to restore faith that the U.S. legal and regulatory regime can withstand such profound politicization of one type of energy. There is no easy legal remedy to these aerospace problems; none of the previous litigation against Trump’s attacks on wind addressed the FAA, and as far as we know the military has not in its correspondence with energy developers cited any of the regulatory or policy documents that were challenged in court.
Actions like these have consequences for future foreign investment in U.S. energy development. Last August, after the Transportation Department directed the FAA to review wind farms to make sure they weren’t “a danger to aviation,” government affairs staff for a major global renewables developer advised the company to move away from wind in the U.S. market because until the potential FAA issues were litigated it would be “likely impossible to move forward with construction of any new wind projects.” I am aware this company has since moved away from actively developing wind projects in the U.S. where they had previously made major investments as recently as 2024.
Where does this leave us? I believe the wind industry offers a lesson for any developers of large, politically controversial infrastructure – including data centers. Should the federal government wish to make your business uninvestable, it absolutely will do so and the courts cannot stop them.