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.
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.