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:
From what it means for America’s climate goals to how it might make American cars smaller again

The Biden administration just kicked off the next phase of the electric-vehicle revolution.
The Environmental Protection Agency unveiled Wednesday some of the world’s most aggressive climate rules on the transportation sector, a sweeping effort that aims to ensure that two-thirds of new cars, SUVs, and pickups — and one-quarter of new heavy-duty trucks — sold in the United States in 2032 will be all electric.
The rules, which are the most ambitious attempt to regulate greenhouse-gas pollution in American history, would put the country at the forefront of the global transition to electric vehicles. If adopted and enforced as proposed, the new standards could eventually prevent 10 billion tons of carbon pollution, roughly double America’s total annual emissions last year, the EPA says.
The rules would roughly halve carbon pollution from America’s massive car and truck fleet, the world’s third largest, within a decade. Such a cut is in line with Biden’s Paris Agreement goal of cutting carbon pollution from across the economy in half by 2030.
Transportation generates more carbon pollution than any other part of the U.S. economy. America’s hundreds of millions of cars, SUVs, pickups, 18-wheelers, and other vehicles generated roughly 25% of total U.S. carbon emissions last year, a figure roughly equal to the entire power sector’s.
In short, the proposal is a big deal with many implications. Here are seven of them.

Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images
Every country around the world must cut its emissions in half by 2030 in order for the world to avoid 1.5 degrees Celsius of temperature rise, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That goal, enshrined in the Paris Agreement, is a widely used benchmark for the arrival of climate change’s worst impacts — deadly heat waves, stronger storms, and a near total die-off of coral reefs.
The new proposal would bring America’s cars and trucks roughly in line with that requirement. According to an EPA estimate, the vehicle fleet’s net carbon emissions would be 46% lower in 2032 than they stand today.
That means that rules of this ambition and stringency are a necessary part of meeting America’s goals under the Paris Agreement. The United States has pledged to halve its carbon emissions, as compared to its all-time high, by 2020. The country is not on track to meet that goal today, but robust federal, state, and corporate action — including strict vehicle rules — could help it get there, a recent report from the Rhodium Group, an energy-research firm, found.

Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images
Until this week, California and the European Union had been leading the world’s transition to electric vehicles. Both jurisdictions have pledged to ban sales of new fossil-fuel-powered cars after 2035 and set aggressive targets to meet that goal — although Europe recently watered down its commitment by allowing some cars to burn synthetic fuels.
The United States hasn’t issued a similar ban. But under the new rules, its timeline for adopting EVs will come close to both jurisdictions — although it may slightly lag California’s. By 2030, EVs will make up about 58% of new vehicles sold in Europe, according to the think tank Transportation & Environment; that is roughly in line with the EPA’s goals.
California, meanwhile, expects two-thirds of new car sales to be EVs by the same year, putting it ahead of the EPA’s proposal. The difference between California’s targets and the EPA’s may come down to technical accounting differences, however. The Washington Post has reported that the new EPA rules are meant to harmonize the national standards with California’s.

Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images
With or without the rules, the United States was already likely to see far more EVs in the future. Ford has said that it would aim for half of its global sales to be electric by 2030, and Stellantis, which owns Chrysler and Jeep, announced that half of its American sales and all its European sales must be all-electric by that same date. General Motors has pledged to sell only EVs after 2035. In fact, the EPA expects that automakers are collectively on track for 44% of vehicle sales to be electric by 2030 without any changes to emissions rules.
But every manufacturer is on a different timeline, and some weren’t planning to move quite this quickly. John Bozella, the president of Alliance for Automotive Innovation, has struck a skeptical note about the proposal. “Remember this: A lot has to go right for this massive — and unprecedented — change in our automotive market and industrial base to succeed,” he told The New York Times.
The proposed rules would unify the industry and push it a bit further than current plans suggest.

Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images
The EPA’s proposal would see sales of all-electric heavy trucks grow beginning with model year 2027. The agency estimates that by 2032, some 50% of “vocational” vehicles sold — like delivery trucks, garbage trucks, and cement mixers — will be zero-emissions, as well as 35% of short-haul tractors and 25% of long-haul tractor trailers. This would save about 1.8 billion tons of CO2 through 2055 — roughly equivalent to one year’s worth of emissions from the transportation sector.
But the proposal falls short of where the market is already headed, some environmental groups pointed out. “It’s not driving manufacturers to do anything,” said Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right to Zero campaign. “It’s following what’s happening in the market in a very conservative way.”
Last year, California passed rules requiring 60% of vocational truck sales and 40% of tractors to be zero-emissions by 2032. Daimler, the world’s largest truck manufacturer, has said that zero emissions trucks would make up 60% of its truck sales by 2030 and 100% by 2039. Volvo Trucks, another major player, said it aims for 50% of its vehicle deliveries to be electric by 2030.

Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images
One of the more interesting aspects of the new rules is that they pick up on a controversy that has been running on and off for the past 13 years.
In 2010, the Obama administration issued the first-ever greenhouse-gas regulations for light-duty cars, SUVs, and trucks. In order to avoid a Supreme Court challenge to the rules, the White House did something unprecedented: It got every automaker to agree to meet the standards even before they became law.
This was a milestone in the history of American environmental law. Because the automakers agreed to the rules, they were in effect conceding that the EPA had the legal authority to regulate their greenhouse-gas pollution in the first place. That shored up the EPA’s legal authority to limit greenhouse gases from any part of the economy, allowing the agency to move on to limiting carbon pollution from power plants and factories.
But that acquiescence came at a cost. The Obama administration agreed to what are called “vehicle footprint” provisions, which put its rules on a sliding scale based on vehicle size. Essentially, these footprint provisions said that a larger vehicle — such as a three-row SUV or full-sized pickup — did not have to meet the same standards as a compact sedan. What’s more, an automaker only had to meet the standards that matched the footprint of the cars it actually sold. In other words, a company that sold only SUVs and pickups would face lower overall requirements than one that also sold sedans, coupes, and station wagons.
Some of this decision was out of Obama’s hands: Congress had required that the Department of Transportation, which issues a similar set of rules, consider vehicle footprint in laws that passed in 2007 and 1975. Those same laws also created the regulatory divide between cars and trucks.
But over the past decade, SUV and truck sales have boomed in the United States, while the market for old-fashioned cars has withered. In 2019, SUVs outsold cars two to one; big SUVs and trucks of every type now make up nearly half the new car market. In the past decade, too, the crossover — a new type of car-like vehicle that resembles a light-duty truck — has come to dominate the American road. This has had repercussions not just for emissions, but pedestrian fatalities as well.
Researchers have argued that the footprint rules may be at least partially to blame for this trend. In 2018, economists at the University of Chicago and UC Berkeley argued Japan’s tailpipe rules, which also include a footprint mechanism, pushed automakers to super-size their cars. Modeling studies have reached the same conclusion about the American rules.
For the first time, the EPA’s proposal seems to recognize this criticism and tries to address it. The new rules make the greenhouse-gas requirements for cars and trucks more similar than they have been in the past, so as to not “inadvertently provide an incentive for manufacturers to change the size or regulatory class of vehicles as a compliance strategy,” the EPA says in a regulatory filing.
The new rules also tighten requirements on big cars and trucks so that automakers can’t simply meet the rules by enlarging their vehicles.
These changes may not reverse the trend toward larger cars. It might even reveal how much cars’ recent growth is driven by consumer taste: SUVs’ share of the new car market has been growing almost without exception since the Ford Explorer debuted in 1991. But it marks the first admission by the agency that in trying to secure a climate win, it may have accidentally created a monster.

Heatmap Illustration/Buenavista Images via Getty Images
The EPA is trumpeting the energy security benefits of the proposal, in addition to its climate benefits.
While the U.S. is a net exporter of crude — and that’s not expected to change in the coming decades — U.S. refineries still rely on “significant imports of heavy crude which could be subject to supply disruptions,” the agency notes. This reliance ties the U.S. to authoritarian regimes around the world and also exposes American consumers to wilder swings in gas prices.
But the new greenhouse gas rules are expected to severely diminish the country’s dependence on foreign oil. Between cars and trucks, the rules would cut crude oil imports by 124 million barrels per year by 2030, and 1 billion barrels in 2050. For context, the United States imported about 2.2 billion barrels of crude oil in 2021.
This would also be a turning point for gas stations. Americans consumed about 135 billion gallons of gasoline in 2022. The rules would cut into gas sales by about 6.5 billion gallons by 2030, and by more than 50 billion gallons by 2050. Gas stations are going to have to adapt or fade away.

Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images
Although it may seem like these new electric vehicles could tax our aging, stressed electricity grid, the EPA claims these rules won’t change the status quo very much. The agency estimates the rules would require a small, 0.4% increase in electricity generation to meet new EV demand by 2030 compared to business as usual, with generation needs increasing by 4% by 2050. “The expected increase in electric power demand attributable to vehicle electrification is not expected to adversely affect grid reliability,” the EPA wrote.
Still, that’s compared to the trajectory we’re already on. With or without these rules, we’ll need a lot of investment in new power generation and reliability improvements in the coming years to handle an electrifying economy. “Standards or no standards, we have to have grid operators preparing for EVs,” said Samantha Houston, a senior vehicles analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from replacing gas cars will also far outweigh any emissions related to increased power demands. The EPA estimates that between now and 2055, the rules could drive up power plant pollution by 710 million metric tons, but will cut emissions from cars by 8 billion tons.
This article was last updated on April 13 at 12:37 PM ET.
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 Trump administration has started to weaken the rules requiring cars and trucks to get more fuel-efficient every year.
In a press event on Wednesday in the Oval Office, flanked by advisors and some of the country’s top auto executives, President Trump declared that the old rules “forced automakers to build cars using expensive technologies that drove up costs, drove up prices, and made the car much worse.”
He said that the rules were part of the “green new scam” and that ditching them would save consumers some $1,000 every year. That framed the rollback as part of the president’s seeming pivot to affordability, which has happened since Democrats trounced Republicans in the November off-cycle elections.
That pivot remains belated and at least a little half-hearted: On Wednesday, Trump made no mention of dropping the auto tariffs that are raising imported car prices by perhaps $5,000 per vehicle, according to Cox Automotive. Ditching the fuel economy rules, too, could increase demand for gasoline and thus raise prices at the pump — although they remain fairly low right now, with the national average below $3 a gallon.
What’s more interesting — and worrying — is that the rules fit into the administration’s broader war on innovation in the American car and light-duty truck sector.
The United States essentially has two ways to regulate pollution from cars and light trucks: It can limit greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and trucks, and it can require the fuel economy from new vehicles to get a little better every year.
Trump is pulling screws and wires out of both of these systems. In the first category, he’s begun to unwind the Environmental Protection Agency’s limits on carbon pollution from cars and light duty trucks, which he termed an “EV mandate.” (The Biden-era rules sought to require about half of new car sales be electric by 2030, although hybrids could help meet that standard.) Trump is also trying to keep the EPA from ever regulating anything to do with carbon pollution again by going after the agency’s “Endangerment Finding” — a scientific assessment that greenhouse gases are dangerous to human wellbeing.
That’s only half of the president’s war on air pollution rules, though. Since the oil crises of the 1970s, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has regulated fuel economy for new vehicles under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards. When these rules are binding, the agency can require new cars and trucks sold in the U.S. to get a little more fuel-efficient every year. The idea is that these rules help limit the country’s gasoline consumption, thus keeping a lid on oil prices and letting the whole economy run more efficiently.
President Trump’s signature tax law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, already eliminated the fines that automakers have to pay when they fail to meet the standard. That change, pushed by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, effectively rendered the regulation toothless. But now Trump is weakening the rules just for good measure. (At the press conference on Wednesday, Cruz stood behind the president — and next to Jim Farley, the CEO of Ford.)
Under the new Trump proposal, automakers would need to achieve only an average of 34.5 miles per gallon in 2031. Under Biden’s proposal, they needed to hit 50 miles per gallon that year.
Those numbers, I should add, are somewhat deceptive — because of how CAFE standards are calculated, the headline number is 20% to 30% stricter than a real-world fuel economy number. In essence, that means the new Trump era rules will come out to a real-world mile-per-gallon number in the mid-to-high 20s. That will give automakers ample regulatory room to sell more inefficient and gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles and pickups, which remain more profitable than electric vehicles.
Which is not ideal for air pollution or the energy transition. But the real risk for the American automaking industry is not that Ford might churn out a few extra Escapes over the next several years. It’s that the Trump proposal would eliminate the ability for automakers to trade compliance credits to meet the rules. These credit markets — which allow manufacturers of gas guzzlers to redeem themselves by buying credits generated by cleaner cars — have been a valuable revenue source for new vehicle companies like Tesla, Lucid, and Rivian. The Trump proposal would cut off that revenue — and with it, one of the few remaining ways that automakers are cross-subsidizing EV innovation in the United States.
During his campaign, President Trump said that he wanted the “cleanest air.” That promise is looking as incorrect as his pledge to cut electricity costs in half within a year.
How will America’s largest grid deal with the influx of electricity demand? It has until the end of the year to figure things out.
As America’s largest electricity market was deliberating over how to reform the interconnection of data centers, its independent market monitor threw a regulatory grenade into the mix. Just before the Thanksgiving holiday, the monitor filed a complaint with federal regulators saying that PJM Interconnection, which spans from Washington, D.C. to Ohio, should simply stop connecting new large data centers that it doesn’t have the capacity to serve reliably.
The complaint is just the latest development in a months-long debate involving the electricity market, power producers, utilities, elected officials, environmental activists, and consumer advocates over how to connect the deluge data centers in PJM’s 13-state territory without further increasing consumer electricity prices.
The system has been pushed into crisis by skyrocketing capacity auction prices, in which generators get paid to ensure they’re available when demand spikes. Those capacity auction prices have been fueled by high-octane demand projections, with PJM’s summer peak forecasted to jump from 154 gigawatts to 210 gigawatts in a decade. The 2034-35 forecast jumped 17% in just a year.
Over the past two two capacity auctions, actual and forecast data center growth has been responsible for over $16.6 billion in new costs, according to PJM’s independent market monitor; by contrast, the previous year’s auction generated a mere $2.2 billion. This has translated directly to higher retail electricity prices, including 20% increases in some parts of PJM’s territory, like New Jersey. It has also generated concerns about reliability of the whole system.
PJM wants to reform how data centers interconnect before the next capacity auction in June, but its members committee was unable to come to an agreement on a recommendation to PJM’s board during a November meeting. There were a dozen proposals, including one from the monitor; like all the others, it failed to garner the necessary two-thirds majority vote to be adopted formally.
So the monitor took its ideas straight to the top.
The market monitor’s complaint to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission tracks closely with its plan at the November meeting. “PJM is currently proposing to allow the interconnection of large new data center loads that it cannot serve reliably and that will require load curtailments (black outs) of the data centers or of other customers at times. That result is not consistent with the basic responsibility of PJM to maintain a reliable grid and is therefore not just and reasonable,” the filing said. “Interconnecting large new data center loads when adequate capacity is not available is not providing reliable service.”
A PJM spokesperson told me, “We are still reviewing the complaint and will reserve comment at this time.”
But can its board still get a plan to FERC and avoid another blowout capacity auction?
“PJM is going to make a filing in December, no matter what. They have to get these rules in place to get to that next capacity auction in June,” Jon Gordon, policy director at Advanced Energy United, told me. “That’s what this has been about from the get-go. Nothing is going to stop PJM from filling something.”
The PJM spokesperson confirmed to me that “the board intends to act on large load additions to the system and is expected to provide an indication of its next steps over the next few weeks.” But especially after the membership’s failure to make a unified recommendation, what that proposal will be remains unclear. That has been a source of agita for the organizations’ many stakeholders.
“The absence of an affirmative advisory recommendation from the Members Committee creates uncertainty as to what reforms PJM’s Board of Managers may submit to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and when stakeholders can expect that submission,” analysts at ClearView Energy Partners wrote in a note to clients. In spite of PJM’s commitments, they warned that the process could “slip into January,” which would give FERC just enough time to process the submission before the next capacity auction.
One idea did attract a majority vote from PJM’s membership: Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative’s, which largely echoed the PJM board’s own plan with some amendments. That suggestion called for a “Price Responsive Demand” system, in which electricity customers would agree to reduce their usage when wholesale prices spike. The system would be voluntary, unlike an earlier PJM proposal, which foresaw forcing large customers to curtail their power. “The load elects to not take on a capacity obligation, therefore does not pay for capacity, and is required to reduce demand during stressed system conditions,” PJM explained in an update. The Southern Maryland plan tweaks the PRD system to adjust its pricing mechanism. but largely aligns with what PJM’s staff put forward.
“There’s almost no real difference between the PJM proposal and that Southern Maryland proposal,” Gordon told me.
That might please restive stakeholders, or at least be something PJM’s board could go forward with knowing that the balance of its voting membership agreed with something similar.
“We maintain our view that a final proposal could resemble the proposed solution package from PJM staff,” the ClearView note said. “We also think the Board could propose reforms to PJM’s PRD program. Indeed, as noted above, SMECO’s revisions to the service gained majority support.”
The PJM plan also included relatively uncontroversial reforms to load forecasting to cut down on duplicated requests and better share information, and an “expedited interconnection track” on which new, large-scale generation could be fast-tracked if it were signed off on by a state government “to expedite consideration of permitting and siting.”
Gordon said that the market monitor’s complaint could be read as the organization “desperately trying to get FERC to weigh in” on its side, even if PJM is more likely to go with something like its own staff-authored submission.
“The key aspect of the market monitor’s proposal was that PJM should not allow a data center to interconnect until there was enough generation to supply them,” Gordon explained. During the meeting preceding the vote, “PJM said they didn’t think they had the authority to deny someone interconnection.”
This dispute over whether the electricity system has an obligation to serve all customers has been the existential question making the debate about how to serve data centers extra angsty.
But PJM looks to be trying to sidestep that big question and nibble around the edges of reform.
“Everybody is really conflicted here,” Gordon told me. “They’re all about protecting consumers. They don’t want to see any more increases, obviously, and they want to keep the lights on. Of course, they also want data center developers in their states. It’s really hard to have all three.”
Atomic Canyon is set to announce the deal with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Two years ago, Trey Lauderdale asked not what nuclear power could do for artificial intelligence, but what artificial intelligence could do for nuclear power.
The value of atomic power stations to provide the constant, zero-carbon electricity many data centers demand was well understood. What large language models could do to make building and operating reactors easier was less obvious. His startup, Atomic Canyon, made a first attempt at answering that by creating a program that could make the mountains of paper documents at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, California’s only remaining station, searchable. But Lauderdale was thinking bigger.
In September, Atomic Canyon inked a deal with the Idaho National Laboratory to start devising industry standards to test the capacity of AI software for nuclear projects, in much the same way each update to ChatGPT or Perplexity is benchmarked by the program’s ability to complete bar exams or medical tests. Now, the company’s effort is going global.
On Wednesday, Atomic Canyon is set to announce a partnership with the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency to begin cataloging the United Nations nuclear watchdog’s data and laying the groundwork for global standards of how AI software can be used in the industry.
“We’re going to start building proof of concepts and models together, and we’re going to build a framework of what the opportunities and use cases are for AI,” Lauderdale, Atomic Canyon’s chief executive, told me on a call from his hotel room in Vienna, Austria, where the IAEA is headquartered.
The memorandum of understanding between the company and the UN agency is at an early stage, so it’s as yet unclear what international standards or guidelines could look like.
In the U.S., Atomic Canyon began making inroads earlier this year with a project backed by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operators, the Nuclear Energy Institute, and the Electric Power Research Institute to create a virtual assistant for nuclear workers.
Atomic Canyon isn’t the only company applying AI to nuclear power. Last month, nuclear giant Westinghouse unveiled new software it’s designing with Google to calculate ways to bring down the cost of key components in reactors by millions of dollars. The Nuclear Company, a startup developer that’s aiming to build fleets of reactors based on existing designs, announced a deal with the software behemoth Palantir to craft the software equivalent of what the companies described as an “Iron Man suit,” able to swiftly pull up regulatory and blueprint details for the engineers tasked with building new atomic power stations.
Lauderdale doesn’t see that as competition.
“All of that, I view as complementary,” he said.
“There is so much wood to chop in the nuclear power space, the amount of work from an administrative perspective regarding every inch of the nuclear supply chain, from how we design reactors to how we license reactors, how we regulate to how we do environmental reviews, how we construct them to how we maintain,” he added. “Every aspect of the nuclear power life cycle is going to be transformed. There’s no way one company alone could come in and say, we have a magical approach. We’re going to need multiple players.”
That Atomic Canyon is making inroads at the IAEA has the potential to significantly broaden the company’s reach. Unlike other energy sources, nuclear power is uniquely subject to international oversight as part of global efforts to prevent civilian atomic energy from bleeding over into weapons production.
The IAEA’s bylaws award particular agenda-setting powers to whatever country has the largest fleet of nuclear reactors. In the nearly seven decades since the agency’s founding, that nation has been the U.S. As such, the 30 other countries with nuclear power have largely aligned their regulations and approaches to the ones standardized in Washington. When the U.S. artificially capped the enrichment levels of traditional reactor fuel at 5%, for example, the rest of the world followed.
That could soon change, however, as China’s breakneck deployment of new reactors looks poised to vault the country ahead of the U.S. sometime in the next decade. It wouldn’t just be a symbolic milestone. China’s emergence as the world’s preeminent nuclear-powered nation would likely come with Beijing’s increased influence over other countries’ atomic energy programs. As it is, China is preparing to start exporting its reactors overseas.
The role electricity demand from the data centers powering the AI boom has played in spurring calls for new reactors is undeniable. But if AI turns out to have as big an impact on nuclear operations as Lauderdale predicts, an American company helping to establish the global guidelines could help cement U.S. influence over a potentially major new factor in how the industry works for years, if not decades to come.