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:

Last week, the Biden administration announced its final car emission standards, aimed at pushing the auto industry to create more zero-emission vehicles. While there’s plenty in the 1,200-page document for policy wonks, politicians, environmental advocates, and automakers to hem and haw over, there’s at least one thing no one seems too bothered about: The new emissions rules stand to boost plug-in and conventional hybrid sales, thanks in part to some small changes to how their emissions are considered within the mix of an automaker’s fleet.
To recap: The biggest headline change from the proposed rule to the final one is that automakers now have a slower ramp toward reducing their fleet-wide emissions by roughly 50% come 2032. A handful of sensational headlines notwithstanding, the new rules do not mandate that automakers build and sell only EVs. The point is to reduce tailpipe emissions. How automakers go about it is their business.
“Automakers may see it fit to introduce more hybrids and plug-in hybrids, along with some electrics,” Thomas Boylan, regulatory director at the Zero Emissions Transportation Association, told me. “Or if they can find the engineering capacity to create an internal combustion engine that doesn't produce tailpipe emissions, that's a viable pathway to these standards,” he added. That said, how automakers account for the emissions from their fleets — and specifically from hybrids and plug-in hybrids — is not open to interpretation.
When plug-in hybrids are running on battery power, the Environmental Protection Agency counts those as zero-emission miles. Historically, the EPA has assumed that everyone with a PHEV plugs it in every day and is therefore maximizing its battery-powered mileage, however more recent studies have shown that is probably not actually the case.
“There's some mixed data out there in terms of how frequently people who own these [PHEV] vehicles plug them in, and that's a big factor in how much compliance they should get,” Chris Harto, the senior policy analyst for transportation and energy at Consumer Reports, told me.
“How much compliance they should get” became a key question in how the new car emissions standards would account for PHEVs. The draft rule issued last year had proposed reducing the amount of compliance credit automakers would get for plug-ins starting in model year 2027 to account for the discrepancy in battery miles traveled. But the final rule delayed that phase-in until model year 2031, in order “to provide additional stability for the program, and to give manufacturers ample time to transition to the new compliance calculation.”
Hybrid and PHEV vehicle sales have been surprisingly robust over the past few years, as Jesse Jenkins pointed out on Heatmap’s Shift Key podcast. Hybrid electric sales were about on par with battery electric sales in 2023, at around 1.1 million vehicles each, Jenkins said, which is “way higher than what we expected.”
As of February, plug-in and traditional hybrid sales were growing five times faster than EV sales, Morgan Stanley reported. The Argonne National Laboratory also found that during the same month, PHEV and hybrid sales rose to more than 130,000 all together. To put that in perspective, last year's record EV sales alone averaged just about 100,000 per month across all brands. These robust sales numbers, combined with the new EPA tailpipe emission rules, could continue to drive growth in hybrid and PHEV sales, even as EV sales growth cools.
“I think a lot of automakers underappreciated the big bump in hybrid sales that many people have rightly celebrated in 2023. That huge jump in hybrid sales coincides directly with a huge jump in EPA emission standards from 2022 to 2023,” Harto told me. In 2021, the Biden administration revised a Trump-era rule that sought to weaken vehicle emission standards. Those revised rules, which took effect for the 2023 model year, were 10% tighter than the year prior.
“These standards have a history of pushing automakers to deliver vehicles that save consumers money on fuel,” Harto said. “I don't think we would have seen the jump in hybrid sales that we saw last year without the jump in emission standards in 2023.”
Still, he noted, “The more hybrids (or other gasoline efficiency improvements) and PHEVs automakers build, the fewer BEVs they will have to build to comply.”
This will likely slow the EV adoption curve, but if it leads to more and cheaper plug-in hybrids than we would have had otherwise, it could help U.S. consumers get more comfortable with the idea of plugging in rather than filling up their cars.
“I think the final rule reflects more of an understanding that there will be more hybrid electric vehicle penetration rates over the next few years,” Boylan told me. While the true cost and emissions savings are in fully battery electric vehicles, it might take consumers a minute to get there. “I think, ultimately, a PHEV offers an opportunity to educate a consumer on what an electric vehicle might be able to do to meet their personal needs, and that creates a pathway to a true BEV purchase, on the next vehicle.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
There is a heat wave in Europe, the world’s fastest warming continent. And so, as you may have heard, a perennial topic of online climate discourse has returned: Why don’t more Europeans have air conditioning?
I’m partially convinced this is psy op, or at least a figment of how social media organizes attention. I have a hypothesis that various “For You” page algorithms, especially that of the social network X, began to reward content that performed unusually well across national borders a few years ago. Since then, the amount of America vs. Europe content has surged. (Of course, writers have been comparing American and European lifestyles for much longer than that.)
Suffice it to say, though: It’s a fraught topic. I’ve assumed that as extreme heat gets worse as the climate changes, Europeans will simply get on with it and install AC, much as Americans in the Pacific Northwest have done. Yet there are cultural and regulatory obstacles to AC’s growth in Europe.
I’m sure I’ll write about it in the future, but for now I want to get a grip on the facts themselves. And so as a Friday special, I present to you — the facts about European AC, as I understand it:
Thanks so much for reading, and talk soon.
The movement against data centers is raising up a raison d'etre of the anti-renewables movement: protecting would-be farmland.
Farm owners and operators across the U.S. are winning national headlines almost every week for rejecting big dollar offers from data center developers. In Hanover County, Virginia, protestors are chanting “Grow Tomatoes, Not Data Centers.” In Pennsylvania and elsewhere, Republican legislators are mulling proposals to block the sale of so-called “prime farmland” for data center development. In Texas, the fight over data center development has engulfed the race for the state’s ag commissioner seat. In the Midwest, where agriculture reigns supreme, statewide races and congressional campaigns are slowly but surely being defined by the issue. Like in Nebraska where Austin Ahlman, an independent candidate running for Congress in Nebraska’s first district, told me he believes the data center backlash is reflective of a populist politics that broadly criticize elites and top-down control of the economy: “I think sometimes people misunderstand the anxieties of rural Americans when it comes to these data centers because a lot of their fears are about control long term.”
Unlike the farmland backlash around renewable energy development, the loudest critics are on the anti-monopolist left. On Wednesday, the prominent opposition group Food and Water Watch signaled farmland could soon be a watchword in the national data center debate – in a fashion analogous to what we’ve seen with renewable energy. The organization’s blog post entitled “The AI Data Center Boom Is Coming for Farmers” declared data centers verboten because of the threat they posed to “small and midsized family farmers.” Mitch Jones, deputy director of the campaign outfit, said he believes the threat to farmland is “a compelling reason to oppose data center development” but that his organization’s fight is primarily focused on protecting small business owners and an anti-monopoly sentiment.
“If data centers are coming into their areas, this puts even more pressure on them. It drives up the cost of their electricity, just as it does anyone else. It competes with them for water for crops, and it affects the value of their land in a perverse way,” Jones told me.
None of this should be surprising. An agricultural workforce has always been a good barometer for figuring out if a community will accept new infrastructure of any kind. We’ve seen as much time and time again with renewable energy, carbon capture, fossil energy and mining, just to name a few industries.
This same rule is true with data centers. In April, county commissioners in Kosciusko County, Indiana, unanimously rejected a Prologis data center; nearly 90% of acreage in Kosciusko County is being actively farmed, according to the Heatmap Pro database. Linn County, Iowa, in February enacted a rule severely restricting data center development in unincorporated areas; almost three-fourths of the land is used by the ag sector. A potential Amazon facility is causing heartburn in Clinton County, Ohio; nearly all land in the county is used for farming and utility-scale solar development has a recent history of conflict with landowners.
To be candid, I’m struck by the similarity in the backlash over siting data centers on farmland – a resemblance so close that some counties are starting to restrict renewable energy and data center development on farmland at the same time. This week, Eau Claire County, Wisconsin created a new “farmland preservation plan” discouraging utility-scale solar energy and data centers on any potential farmland. (More than 40% of land in this county is currently being used for farmland, according to Heatmap Pro.)
Jones at Food and Water Watch said his organization taking on the “protect farmland” mantle had nothing to do with the success this argument has had against renewable energy. “That thought never entered my head,” he told me, adding that if communities respond to the data center backlash by taking steps that short-circuit solar and wind too, that’s “a coincidence.”
I kept pressing. What if the pivot to farmland protection leads to more communities restricting renewable energy along with the data centers? “If you’re looking for a reason to oppose solar and wind, you can come up with that without having to attach data centers to it,” Jones said. “We’ve seen rural communities oppose solar and wind before data centers blew up across the country. It’s nothing new.”
And more of the week’s top news around project fights.
1. Virginia Beach, Virginia – The right-wing interest group lawsuit against Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia offshore wind is now dead, concluding one of the wackier tales of the Trump 2.0 energy era.
2. Box Elder County, Utah – Call it the Box Elder County massacre.
3. Davidson County, Tennessee – We have the latest updates in the Nashville Zoo data center drama and they’re a doozy and a half.
4. Clark County, Ohio – Yet another utility-scale solar farm is in the Ohio state permitting graveyard.