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:
You can take advantage of rising inventory.

First of all, I want everyone to just take a deep breath and calm down.
Despite data that indicates much slower sales than many anticipated, the American electric vehicle market is not collapsing before it ever really took off. EVs are not failed experiments, public and private investments into battery plants and public chargers are not about to evaporate, and we are not collectively doomed to be driving coal-rolling trucks for lack of a better option until we’ve extinguished most non-cockroach life on this planet.
Three things are true, however. The first is that EVs remain expensive like any new technology, and while that means they aren’t flying off dealer lots in record time, sales are still growing fast — including globally. The second is that Tesla is still posting record revenues and huge sales. Its rapid-fire price cuts have paid off handsomely; the Model 3 and Model Y are lapping everyone else in the EV race because they’re screaming deals. That fact alone has me not worried about declining EV demand.
The third thing is that now may actually be a good time to buy an EV, if you know where to look.
Do you feel better now?
EV adoption remains a long-term (though increasingly difficult) goal for many automakers. More EVs are coming and prices are expected to drop over time as the technology develops and batteries are built stateside. But while immediate action is needed on multiple fronts to reduce carbon emissions, it’s tough to ask many families to spend $60,000 on a Hyundai in this economy. And EVs piling up at car dealerships reflects this trend, but it doesn’t reflect a lack of interest, experts told me.
“I don't think that's fair to say no one wants EVs,” said Brian Moody, the executive editor of Cox Automotive, the research firm that sounded the alarm about EV inventory increasing. “I don't think that's accurate.”
Moody added, “One thing that we see is that about 50% of shoppers say they're open to the idea of getting an electric car, so that's a pretty good number and that probably bodes well for the future. But that doesn't necessarily translate to sales tomorrow.”
Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:
Cox Automotive’s data indicates U.S. car dealers had a more than 100-day supply of EVs on their lots on average by the end of June — 60 days is considered healthy — and the average EV lists for $63,486. So at a time when interest rates are high and car buyers’ budgets are squeezed, Moody said they may find a $36,000 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid more appealing than a $50,000 fully electric Hyundai Ioniq 6. “I think the good thing about EVs today is they provide consumers a choice,” he said.
Tom McParland has firsthand experience helping buyers to navigate these choices. He runs a consulting service that helps people purchase cars and contributes car-buying advice columns to publications like Jalopnik. (Full Disclosure: I was previously editor-in-chief of that site, where he was one of our contributors.) His service helps about 20 to 30 people a month to buy a car.
McParland said that last year, he was turning away customers who wanted to buy a Ford F-150 Lightning or a Mustang Mach-E because there were none to be found or because dealer markups were so extraordinarily high.
Now, he’s seen a “mixed bag” lately when it comes to EVs: “If I look at how many of my clients in 2023 are requesting EVs or plug-in [hybrids], there’s definitely an uptick overall compared to last year,” he said. However, “as soon as the tax credit rules changed, I saw a big dropoff in the level of interest for those cars,” he said. “Nobody was asking me for Ioniq 5s,” he added, referring to Hyundai’s cyberpunk-looking Model Y competitor.
For a few months at the start of the year, nearly every EV qualified for generous tax breaks. But by spring, only North American-built cars with North American-built batteries could get the incentives, excluding options from Kia, Hyundai, Volvo, BMW, Toyota, and others. And while car dealers don’t want those cars taking up space on lots forever, there’s only so much they can do — or are willing to do, McParland said.
“Dealers can only go so deep until the math no longer makes sense,” he said. “They are not going to discount that car 20% and lose 50% on the back end just to move it.” Also, while a kind of loophole allows more brands to qualify for tax breaks if they’re leased, McParland said he’s a bit skeptical that this always equals a good deal because the price cuts are baked into a lower residual value at the end of your term.
But it’s not that buyers aren’t willing to go green at all. To Moody’s point about hybrids, McParland said he’s seen a huge spike in buyer interest in those cars this year.
“If somebody comes to me looking for a Honda, they don't care about a gas Honda,” he said. “They want an Accord Hybrid, or they want a CR-V hybrid. Because the price delta between the gas and the hybrid version is not much.”
That’s a net positive for the planet. Hybrid cars are still a remarkable tool for reducing emissions right now in ways that may be easier to live with until a more robust EV charging network gets built out. Having said that, McParland told me to forget about deals on hybrid cars. “There’s no deals there because the demand is so high,” he said.
So where can you get deals on a green car right now, especially one that doesn’t use gasoline at all?
Some cursory hunting revealed a number of 2022 model-year EVs that are still “new” cars — maybe they’ve been at the dealership that long and just have a few hundred or thousand miles on them — and are going for almost fire-sale prices. Take this 2022 Hyundai Ioniq 5 with just 2,562 miles for a very tempting $40,000 even (about $6,000 to $10,000 off the average price.) Or this Kia EV6 with 7,353 miles and a $37,991 price tag. I’d seen a few examples recently of the Mustang Mach-E that also fit that bill.
There’s also still the Chevrolet Bolt, which is soon to be discontinued and has some outdated charging tech but is going out with a mid-$20,000 fire-sale bang. Not only are they eligible for the full $7,500 tax credit, but some states are giving extra incentives. In Colorado, for instance, you might be able to pick up one of the last new Bolts for around $15,000 after all the tax credits kick in.
On the manufacturer's side, Ford slashed the prices of the F-150 Lightning pickup (after raising them this year amid supply chain issues) by up to $10,000 this week, leaving the base Lightning Pro at $51,990. Now, that’s still more expensive than it was a year ago, but hey, a deal’s a deal. (It’s also eligible for the full $7,500 tax credit.)
McParland added that he’s seen some more aggressive deals on BMW and Mercedes-Benz’s electric models as part of their summer sales events as well. One reason might be that neither automaker has any fully electric car that qualifies for a U.S. tax credit at the moment. (For the record, I’m a fan of BMW’s i4 electric sport sedan, and other people seem to be too; BMW’s actually doing very well on the EV sales front this year.)
“We're seeing some manufacturer incentives… more so on the higher end of the market,” McParland said. So maybe not great news if you want a commuter on a budget, but not bad if you can stand to treat yourself a bit.
And there’s always Tesla. While McParland said some of his customers have been turned off by the CEO’s recent antics or just want some variety — “People have come to me, and this is the exact conversation. I want EV but I don't want to buy a Tesla, that sort of thing,” he said — the fact is that the cars’ specs are still among the best out there. So are the deals. Between Tesla’s own price cuts and the EV tax incentives, these are hot sellers for good reason right now. “And you’ve got people looking into used ones now that there are so many out there,” McParland said.
Moody added that there are other ways to save on EV ownership besides just the car, too. Many manufacturers offer deals on home chargers or are throwing them in for free. There are also state and federal tax incentives to help cover the cost of charging. “I would not just call a place someplace up and buy [a charger,]” he said. “I would do a lot of research and see if I could get one for free or at a discounted rate.”
Finally, McParland said patience may be a virtue as the year goes on and new model-year cars hit dealerships. That’s when they get more aggressive at moving the older stuff.
“My prediction is that as we start to get closer to the fall, the deals might even get better than they are now,” he said. “I think we're still in the early stages of this ‘too much inventory’ situation.”
America is past the “early adopter” stage of EVs, when people were evangelizing gas-free cars but had few choices and terrible options for living with them. But we’re not in the critical mass stage, either. Getting to that point could take a number of years; transitioning to zero-emission transportation was never going to happen overnight, even if we need it to.
In the meantime, if you see EV ownership in your future, be on the lookout for great deals as much as you are for public chargers near your place.
Read more about EVs:
Tesla Is Still Winning the EV Race
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Whether any of them will hold up in court is now the big question.
Environmental lawyers are in for years of déjà vu as the Trump administration relitigates questions that many believed were settled by the Supreme Court nearly 20 years ago.
On Thursday, Trump rescinded the “endangerment finding,” the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 determination that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles threaten Americans’ public health and welfare and should be regulated. In the short term, the move repeals existing vehicle emissions standards and prevents future administrations from replacing them. In the longer term, what matters is whether any of the administration’s justifications hold up in court.
In its final rule, the EPA abandoned its attempt to back the move using a bespoke climate science report published by the Department of Energy last year. The report was created by a working group assembled in secret by the department and made up of five scientists who have a track record of pushing back on mainstream climate science. Not only was the report widely refuted by scientists, but the assembly of the working group itself broke federal law, a judge ruled in late January.
“The science is clear that climate change is creating a risk for the public and public health, and so I think it’s significant that they realized that it creates a legal risk if they were to try to assert otherwise,” Carrie Jenks, the executive director of Harvard’s Environmental and Energy Law Program, told me.
Instead, the EPA came up with three arguments to justify its decision, each of which will no doubt have to be defended in court. The agency claims that each of them can stand alone, but that they also reinforce each other. Whether that proves to be true, of course, has yet to be determined.
Here’s what they are:
Congress never specifically told the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. If it did, maybe we would have accomplished more on climate change by now.
What happened instead was that in 1999, a coalition of environmental and solar energy groups asked the EPA to regulate emissions from cars, arguing that greenhouse gases should be considered pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act. In 2007, in a case called Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court agreed with the second part. That led the EPA to consider whether these gases posed enough of a danger to public health to warrant regulation. In 2009, it concluded they did — that’s what’s known as the endangerment finding. After reaching that finding, the EPA went ahead and developed standards to limit emissions from vehicles. It later followed that up with rules for power plants and oil and gas operations.
Now Trump’s EPA is arguing that this three-step progression — categorizing greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act, making a scientific finding that they endanger public health, and setting regulations — was all wrong. Instead, the agency now believes, it’s necessary to consider all three at once.
Using the EPA’s logic, the argument comes out something like this: If we consider that U.S. cars are a small sliver of global emissions, and that limiting those emissions will not materially change the trajectory of global warming or the impacts of climate change on Americans, then we must conclude that Congress did not intend for greenhouse gases to be regulated when it enacted the Clean Air Act.
“They are trying to merge it all together and say, because we can’t do that last thing in a way that we think is reasonable, we can’t do the first thing,” Jenks said.
The agency is not explicitly asking for Massachusetts v. EPA to be overturned, Jenks said. But if its current argument wins in court, that would be the effective outcome, preventing future administrations from issuing greenhouse gas standards unless Congress passed a law explicitly telling it to do so. While it's rare for the Supreme Court to reverse course, none of the five justices who were in the majority on that case remain, and the makeup of the court is now far more conservative than in 2007.
The EPA also asserted that the “major questions doctrine,” a legal principle that says federal agencies cannot set policies of major economic and political significance without explicit direction from Congress, means the EPA cannot “decide the Nation’s policy response to global climate change concerns.”
The Supreme Court has used the major questions doctrine to overturn EPA’s regulations in the past, most notably in West Virginia v. EPA, which ruled that President Obama’s Clean Power Plan failed this constitutional test. But that case was not about EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, the court solely struck down the particular approach the EPA took to those regulations. Nevertheless, the EPA now argues that any climate regulation at all would be a violation.
The EPA’s final argument is about the “futility” of vehicle emissions standards. It echoes a portion of the first justification, arguing that the point alone is enough of a reason to revoke the endangerment finding absent any other reason.
The endangerment finding had “severed the consideration of endangerment from the consideration of contribution” of emissions, the agency wrote. The Clean Air Act “instructs the EPA to regulate in furtherance of public health and welfare, not to reduce emissions regardless [of] whether such reductions have any material health and welfare impact.”
Funnily enough, to reach this conclusion, the agency had to use climate models developed by past administrations, including the EPA’s Optimization Model for reducing Emissions of GHGs from Automobiles, as well as some developed by outside scientists, such as the Finite amplitude Impulse Response climate emulator model — though it did so begrudgingly.
The agency “recognizes that there is still significant dispute regarding climate science and modeling,” it wrote. “However, the EPA is utilizing the climate modeling provided within this section to help illustrate” that zero-ing out emissions from vehicles “would not materially address the health and welfare dangers attributed to global climate change concerns in the Endangerment Finding.”
I have yet to hear back from outside experts about the EPA’s modeling here, so I can’t say what assumptions the agency made to reach this conclusion or estimate how well it will hold up to scrutiny. We’ll be talking to more legal scholars and scientists in the coming days as they digest the rule and dig into which of these arguments — if any — has a chance to prevail.
The state is poised to join a chorus of states with BYO energy policies.
With the backlash to data center development growing around the country, some states are launching a preemptive strike to shield residents from higher energy costs and environmental impacts.
A bill wending through the Washington State legislature would require data centers to pick up the tab for all of the costs associated with connecting them to the grid. It echoes laws passed in Oregon and Minnesota last year, and others currently under consideration in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, and Delaware.
Several of these bills, including Washington’s, also seek to protect state climate goals by ensuring that new or expanded data centers are powered by newly built, zero-emissions power plants. It’s a strategy that energy wonks have started referring to as BYONCE — bring your own new clean energy. Almost all of the bills also demand more transparency from data center companies about their energy and water use.
This list of state bills is by no means exhaustive. Governors in New York and Pennsylvania have declared their intent to enact similar policies this year. At least six states, including New York and Georgia, are also considering total moratoria on new data centers while regulators study the potential impacts of a computing boom.
“Potential” is a key word here. One of the main risks lawmakers are trying to circumvent is that utilities might pour money into new infrastructure to power data centers that are never built, built somewhere else, or don’t need as much energy as they initially thought.
“There’s a risk that there’s a lot of speculation driving the AI data center boom,” Emily Moore, the senior director of the climate and energy program at the nonprofit Sightline Institute, told me. “If the load growth projections — which really are projections at this point — don’t materialize, ratepayers could be stuck holding the bag for grid investments that utilities have made to serve data centers.”
Washington State, despite being in the top 10 states for data center concentration, has not exactly been a hotbed of opposition to the industry. According to Heatmap Pro data, there are no moratoria or restrictive ordinances on data centers in the state. Rural communities in Eastern Washington have also benefited enormously from hosting data centers from the earlier tech boom, using the tax revenue to fund schools, hospitals, municipal buildings, and recreation centers.
Still, concern has started to bubble up. A ProPublica report in 2024 suggested that data centers were slowing the state’s clean energy progress. It also described a contentious 2023 utility commission meeting in Grant County, which has the highest concentration of data centers in the state, where farmers and tech workers fought over rising energy costs.
But as with elsewhere in the country, it’s the eye-popping growth forecasts that are scaring people the most. Last year, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, a group that oversees electricity planning in the region, estimated that data centers and chip fabricators could add somewhere between 1,400 megawatts and 4,500 megawatts of demand by 2030. That’s similar to saying that between one and four cities the size of Seattle will hook up to the region’s grid in the next four years.
In the face of such intimidating demand growth, Washington Governor Bob Ferguson convened a Data Center Working Group last year — made up of state officials as well as advisors from electric utilities, environmental groups, labor, and industry — to help the state formulate a game plan. After meeting for six months, the group published a report in December finding that among other things, the data center boom will challenge the state’s efforts to decarbonize its energy systems.
A supplemental opinion provided by the Washington Department of Ecology also noted that multiple data center developers had submitted proposals to use fossil fuels as their main source of power. While the state’s clean energy law requires all electricity to be carbon neutral by 2030, “very few data center developers are proposing to use clean energy to meet their energy needs over the next five years,” the department said.
The report’s top three recommendations — to maintain the integrity of Washington’s climate laws, strengthen ratepayer protections, and incentivize load flexibility and best practices for energy efficiency — are all incorporated into the bill now under discussion in the legislature. The full list was not approved by unanimous vote, however, and many of the dissenting voices are now opposing the data center bill in the legislature or asking for significant revisions.
Dan Diorio, the vice president of state policy for the Data Center Coalition, an industry trade group, warned lawmakers during a hearing on the bill that it would “significantly impact the competitiveness and viability of the Washington market,” putting jobs and tax revenue at risk. He argued that the bill inappropriately singles out data centers, when arguably any new facility with significant energy demand poses the same risks and infrastructure challenges. The onshoring of manufacturing facilities, hydrogen production, and the electrification of vehicles, buildings, and industry will have similar impacts. “It does not create a long-term durable policy to protect ratepayers from current and future sources of load growth,” he said.
Another point of contention is whether a top-down mandate from the state is necessary when utility regulators already have the authority to address the risks of growing energy demand through the ratemaking process.
Indeed, regulators all over the country are already working on it. The Smart Electric Power Alliance, a clean energy research and education nonprofit, has been tracking the special rate structures and rules that U.S. utilities have established for data centers, cryptocurrency mining facilities, and other customers with high-density energy needs, many of which are designed to protect other ratepayers from cost shifts. Its database, which was last updated in November, says that 36 such agreements have been approved by state utility regulators, mostly in the past three years, and that another 29 are proposed or pending.
Diario of the Data Center Coalition cited this trend as evidence that the Washington bill was unnecessary. “The data center industry has been an active party in many of those proceedings,” he told me in an email, and “remains committed to paying its full cost of service for the energy it uses.” (The Data Center Coalition opposed a recent utility decision in Ohio that will require data centers to pay for a minimum of 85% of their monthly energy forecast, even if they end up using less.)
One of the data center industry’s favorite counterarguments against the fear of rising electricity is that new large loads actually exert downward pressure on rates by spreading out fixed costs. Jeff Dennis, who is the executive director of the Electricity Customer Alliance and has worked for both the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, told me this is something he worries about — that these potential benefits could be forfeited if data centers are isolated into their own ratemaking class. But, he said, we’re only in “version 1.5 or 2.0” when it comes to special rate structures for big energy users, known as large load tariffs.
“I think they’re going to continue to evolve as everybody learns more about how to integrate large loads, and as the large load customers themselves evolve in their operations,” he said.
The Washington bill passed the Appropriations Committee on Monday and now heads to the Rules Committee for review. A companion bill is moving through the state senate.
Plus more of the week’s top fights in renewable energy.
1. Kent County, Michigan — Yet another Michigan municipality has banned data centers — for the second time in just a few months.
2. Pima County, Arizona — Opposition groups submitted twice the required number of signatures in a petition to put a rezoning proposal for a $3.6 billion data center project on the ballot in November.
3. Columbus, Ohio — A bill proposed in the Ohio Senate could severely restrict renewables throughout the state.
4. Converse and Niobrara Counties, Wyoming — The Wyoming State Board of Land Commissioners last week rescinded the leases for two wind projects in Wyoming after a district court judge ruled against their approval in December.