You’ve reached your free article limit
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:
All you’ll need is thousands of dollars and some elbow grease.

When Adam Roe hits the accelerator and sends his vintage Land Rover flying past a Porsche, he likes to imagine what the other driver must be thinking.
While Roe’s ride looks the part of a restored Land Rover Series II, an off-roading, unbreakable icon from the late 1950s, the secret is what’s under the skin. Whereas the original bruiser produced about 45 total horsepower, Roe says, the “restomod” created by his company, ZeroLabs, is a fully electric vehicle with 600 horses — more than enough to catch a sports car by surprise.
Being a classic car enthusiast doesn’t have to mean burning fossil fuels anymore. ZeroLabs is part of a small but growing community of startup companies and DIYers who are transforming some of the most beloved vehicles of automotive history into zero-emissions EVs. The next time you see a beautifully restored boxy Chevy Blazer rolling down the highway, it might just be battery-powered.
Patrick Mackey has been turning vintage Mazda Miatas into electric cars for more than a decade. Back in the 2000s, he wanted a fun but fully electric car like the original Tesla Roadster, but couldn’t afford what Elon Musk was asking. When he looked around at the kind of cars the DIY-inclined were hacking into EVs, he thought about small rides like the Toyota Yaris and Honda De La Soul. But it was the classic Miata — derided by muscle-heads as too wimpy, but beloved by car enthusiasts who recognize its compact greatness — that became the obvious choice.
“The Miatas have a great reputation for handling,” Mackey says. “They sold a ton of ‘em, so there’s a lot of ‘em out there and you can get one for a reasonable price.” Despite its small stature, the Miata was a sturdy car, with thick frame rails that are strong enough to hold a hefty EV battery back. (Mazda itself won’t be selling you an electric Miata until 2026, by the way.)
Initially, Mackey and his colleagues considered building their own EV conversions and selling them directly to people, like ZeroLabs does, or making kits to sell that would contain all the parts a person would need to turn a gas-powered Miata into an electric one. But the steel parts weighed a ton and wouldn’t fit inside one another for shipping, rendering the idea impractical.
Instead, Mackey’s EV Miata website offers all the plans and fabrication documents a home mechanic would need to take on the job. It’s up to the builder to source the off-the-shelf electrical components to do the job, or, perhaps, to salvage them from a wrecked EV as many DIYers do now, he says.

A surprising amount of the original Miata parts can survive the transformation. “You would keep the transmission and everything behind it, so that part of the powertrain you keep. You’d replace the motor with an adapter plate to connect the motor up to it. Then there’s the battery pack and the controller and all those E components come into play. But in that case, the majority of the car is there. If you are going racing, or you’re looking for something with higher performance, you could remove the transmission and then do a direct drive and have two or three motors that are driving the rear wheels.” Or, he says, some people are doing what’s called a stack replacement. They get a Nissan Leaf’s entire subframe, containing the axles and transmission and motors, and swap that into their EV conversion so it’s running on all Leaf parts.
Car restoration has always been a money pit of a hobby. EV conversion is no different — you do it for love, not because it’s cheaper than just buying an electric car. Mackey says the EV Miata project probably costs about $22,000 now, not counting the cost of buying an old Mazda nor the sweat equity required to build it.
Nevertheless, plenty of people with the proper mechanical chops take on the challenge. At Caltech, where I work (and where lots of people are electrical engineers), there’s a vintage Porsche often plugged in next to me that was clearly hacked into an electric. With enough cash, you could buy a kit to convert just about any classic car into an EV.
And the DIY EV is just one end of the spectrum. On the far side lies fully realized conversions like those by ZeroLabs, which specializes in not just electrifying, but modernizing Ford Broncos and other beloved SUVs of yore.

“A restoration is to say, hey, we’re going to put this back to the original condition exactly as it would’ve been, which means no Bluetooth, no three-point seat belts. You got to use radial tires, you got to put on whitewalls. You got to use period-correct paint and AM radio and [an] ashtray. That’s a restoration. That’s not what we’re doing.”
Roe was inspired by a backcountry snowboarding trip when the engine on his old Bronco cut out, a problem that plagued the old SUVs. As it coasted silently, he fell in love with the idea of a classic car without all the noise. “You could hear the winds, you could hear the tires, you’re in your classic, but you’re also kind of with nature versus being hidden by this loud rumbly loud noise engine with your stereo,” he says.
In place of their original bare-bones interiors, ZeroLab’s reimagined EV trucks and SUVs have all the tech features of a modern vehicle. “We looked at everything that needs to be done for a modern car: How do we think about steering, how do we think about brakes, communication, upgradeability, and charging rates? All of that has changed, and so simply electrifying that car isn't really enough.”
Their creations aren’t for the faint of wallet. The fully realized ZeroLabs first-generation Bronco starts at nearly $300,000. But it seems there are plenty of wealthy buyers looking for a boxy, retro, or just plain eccentric electric car that doesn’t look anything like the production EVs now rolling off the assembly line. Roe exudes optimism that EV restomods will have their Tesla moment within the next couple of years — and the EVs that are old on the outside and new on the inside will be the next big thing.
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 proposal resolves an issue that has bedeviled the industry since 2022.
Is Rosemont about to be BAAJA blasted away?
In a 2022 decision formally titled Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Rosemont Copper Company its claim under the General Mining Act of 1872 did not give the company license to dump literally millions of tons of waste rock on adjacent Forest Service land. Though Rosemont argued that the use fell under the law’s provisions for “mill sites” on public lands used for mining, the court found that because the parcel in question lacked valid mining claims of its own, the Mining Act did not justify its use under its own permissive regime.
The conservative energy group ClearPath Action described the decision as “a significant departure from long-held mining practices.” Industry groups said that the decision would vastly extend and complicate the process of mining on public lands by putting areas with mineral claims into a separate legal and permitting category from adjacent land that had customarily been considered part of the mining development.
Almost immediately after the court decision, the mining industry and its allies in Congress got to work trying to “fix” the Rosemont decision in order to restore the pre-2022 status quo.
One proposed fix — the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act — has been introduced several times in both houses of Congress, including as far back as 2023 in a Senate bill co-sponsored by Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Jim Risch of Idaho.
Another version of the bill, sponsored by Nevada Republican Mark Amodei, Nevada Democrat Steven Horsford, and Alaska Republican Mark Begich, passed the House of Representatives late last year with a handful of Democratic votes. Both bills would have explicitly established that miners could claim public land for waste rock disposal as long as it was “reasonably necessary” and “reasonably incident” to mineral development.
Now they may all be getting their wish. The comprehensive permitting bill introduced by Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate known as the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, includes the full text of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act
Both parties have been trying to jumpstart the domestic mining and critical minerals industry, especially for materials key to energy sectors, such as copper and lithium. The long lead time it takes to permit and open a mine is one of the major barriers to developing the domestic mining industry (along with nasty price competition from overseas miners and refiners, especially those controlled by Chinese firms).
This is not the first time a bipartisan permitting bill has included what’s known a “Rosemont fix.” There was also one in the 2024 Energy Permitting Reform Act, and in the Senate FREEDOM Act introduced by Cortez Masto and Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton this past summer.
You may have noticed lots of Nevadans associated with these bills. That’s because “Nevada is to mining as Texas is to oil and gas,” Aaron Mintzes, deputy policy director of Earthworks, a frequent and vigorous adversary of the mining industry, told me
While environmental groups generally supported the Rosemont decision, some groups supporting the clean energy industry backed the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, including Bipartisan Policy Center’s lobbying arm, the clean energy trade group Advanced Energy United, and the Zero Emission Transportation Association, which includes several copper and lithium companies among its members. (Mintzes described ZETA as “the lithium mining lobby” and an “outlier” among clean energy groups in supporting the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act.)
Instead of a technical fix that would comply with the spirit of existing law, Mintzes described the changes to mining regulation in BAAJA as giving mining companies “a nearly unlimited amount of public lands for their waste dumps, for their roads, for their pipelines, for their transmission lines, and for any other purpose that would be reasonably incident to mining.” That goes beyond the mill sites envisioned by the 1872 law, he said.
The National Mining Association, on the other hand, praised the bill Wednesday, with its president Rich Nolan saying in a statement that the existing permitting process is “mired in duplication, endless litigation and uncertainty,” and that “elected officials on both sides of the aisle have long acknowledged that the status quo cannot continue.”
Albert Gore, the executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, told me that there was a “broad recognition” among miners, refiners, and operators that the Rosemont decision required a statutory fix.
“It needed to be clarified in order to remove uncertainty. It's hard enough to invest in mineral production in the United States,” Gore said.
BAAJA’s mining provisions also include the Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund, which would be funded by maintenance fees collected by the Department of the Interior under the same 19th century mining law. This fund would support a program established by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to clean up abandoned mining sites.
In a transcript of a strategy call between environmental organizations on the BAAJA published by Punchbowl, Mintzes described the fund as “the one good thing I spotted in this bill so far.”
Exploratory projects are making a splash in Maine and Alaska.
A legal brawl is brewing over what could be the nation’s first underwater data centers.
Two subsidiaries of a new LLC named DeepGreen have applied for “preliminary” permits from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that would give four years of permission for studies and analysis towards constructing underwater data centers off remote coastlines in Maine and Alaska. The data centers as proposed would be powered entirely by tidal energy, as in, the power of waves themselves – a technological innovation from hydropower still being piloted around the world. Project descriptions submitted to FERC lay out what these data centers would look like in broad strokes: hundreds of hydrokinetic turbines, dozens of underwater “data center pods,” and miles of subsea cable. The permits would not authorize construction, which would need its own lengthy review process. But these early green lights would tee both areas up for years of potential conflict over hypotheticals that feel real to those on the ground.
There are upsides from purely a carbon emissions perspective. Relying on tidal energy suggests they’d be greenhouse gas-free, powered by the energy of the ocean. It would also eliminate the land use problem that upends so many AI data center projects. There are also clear environmental risks, as they’re also being suggested in ocean areas often coveted for protection, off coastlines where it’s unclear if the neighboring communities will accept them.
DeepGreen’s Alaska project is proposed within a more than 1,000-acre channel of the Cook Inlet, an estuary coveted by fishermen and wildlife conservation advocates, where fights over resource development already occur often. The upstart company’s Maine project is planned for the northernmost tip of the state, in the Bay of Fundy, which shares a transnational border with Canada. Canadian tidal power generation for the general populace marginally exists today in the Bay of Fundy – with major stipulations for marine life protection because it affects the general nature of water currents.
It’s crucial to note neither project has much information available online, sans brief text file project descriptions available through FERC’s online filing database. There is no public-facing website to date for the project, or for DeepGreen itself. When I contacted Louis Wolfson, a vice president at the company who is listed on company filings, he declined to talk about the developments over the phone and suggested I contact him at an email address listed in FERC application documents. That email address uses a website – “DeepGreenCoastal.com” – that does not seem to exist.
Still, we already know enough to say both development areas are likely to require substantial federal review. Not only does their presence in these waters almost necessitate it but both development areas receive considerable whale traffic. DeepGreen has already acknowledged a need to coordinate passive acoustic monitoring and “non-invasive study methodologies” with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the federal marine protection agency run out of NOAA. The Bay of Fundy is a prominent summer home for the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale and the National Marine Fisheries Service has already intervened in the FERC case for the Maine project, signalling in its filing that Endangered Species Act and fish habitat consultations “may be necessary for the project.”
The Center for Biological Diversity has also filed motions to intervene in both FERC cases, which they tell me is a prelude to potential litigation. “Putting one of these in the ocean just seems like a dystopian nightmare but it was especially alarming because of the areas they want to put these in,” Kristen Monsell, CBD Oceans Program Litigation Director, told me in an interview. “[The motions] are a step required in order for us to participate in the permitting process at FERC and then preserve our ability to challenge the decision in court if we think that’s necessary.”
In Maine, the coastline neighbors are the city of Eastport, which is vociferously opposed to this data center being built. The city passed a moratorium on data center development in response to the project and filed a request to intervene in its FERC case this week. “The City's concerns include potential effects on fisheries, marine habitat, water quality, currents, sediment, underwater noise, electromagnetic fields, equipment heat, existing uses of the waterway, and access to marine resources,” the city stated. “Questions also remain about equipment failure, storm damage, emergency response, equipment recovery, site restoration, and eventual decommissioning. These concerns are specific to the proposed placement and extended operation of computing and energy infrastructure on and beneath the seabed.”
In Alaska, DeepGreen doesn’t face a situation like Eastport with a bustling tourist destination-turned-nemesis, but there’s still quite a bit of local confusion and consternation.
The Kenai Peninsula Borough, which is the equivalent of a county-level government, is currently neutral on the development. But the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Conservation Alliance, a newly-formed nonprofit that includes fishing permit holders in the Cook Inlet, submitted a filing to FERC claiming the project site doesn’t properly take into account existing fishing permit holders and that “a preliminary permit proceeding that advances a project of this scale without any commercial fishing impact assessment” would fail the agency’s public interest obligations.
I asked DeepGreen if it had any comment on the litigation risk around their projects. This is what Louis Wolfson provided: “Preliminary permits under the Federal Power Act do not authorize construction or physical disturbance. Their sole purpose is to establish priority while environmental, bathymetric, and technical feasibility studies are conducted. Stakeholder participation is an expected and healthy part of the FERC regulatory process. DeepGreen welcomes the engagement of conservation organizations, local communities, and regulatory resource agencies as we evaluate whether these sites can deliver low impact, zero carbon infrastructure in full compliance with federal environmental laws."
And more of the week’s biggest fights around project development
1. Ottawa County, Michigan – A congressional district House Democrats are targeting for control of the Lower Chamber is now a battleground over solar development on farmland, and I’m waiting to see if President Trump gets involved.
2. Texas – The Lone Star State sure is action-packed right now, huh? Let’s break down a few of the most important fights.
3. Lincoln County, Oklahoma – A massive wind project in rural Oklahoma is now on hold amidst continued local opposition, according to a Republican member of the state legislature.
4. Clinton County, Indiana – Well hey, at least some places are still approving some things. Like in rural Indiana, where a community actually voted for considering a data center.