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:

In the closing days of April, Elon Musk shocked the EV world when he laid off Tesla’s entire 500-person charging division.
The company suddenly — and seemingly for reasons of professional pique — gave up on its biggest competitive advantage. At a time when every other automaker was supposed to be moving to Tesla’s best-in-class charging network, Tesla seemed to be abandoning it.
The announcement shot the American EV industry through with fear and seemed to cement the broader industry’s malaise. If Tesla was giving up on EVs and becoming an “AI and robotics company,” what chance did anyone else stand?
More than a month has now passed. Tesla hasn’t released its sales figures yet for May, and it isn’t likely to do so until its shareholders vote on a $56 billion pay package for Elon Musk next week. Given how the company has been acting lately, its sales probably won’t inspire.
But in the meantime, we can take stock of the rest of the industry. And the results have been … pretty good! Hyundai, Kia, General Motors, and Ford all saw their best May ever for EV sales. With little fanfare, EVs continue growing as a share of American car sales and making concerted progress. Tesla’s future business might be a question mark, but EVs have a foothold in the rest of the industry.
Let’s break down the data:
Hyundai, one of the Korean automakers that has emerged as an electric power player in the U.S., says that its EV sales were up 42% nationwide year-over-year. The Ioniq 5, its all-electric hatchback, just had its best sales month ever. It has already sold nearly 21,000 cars in its Ioniq line-up so far this year.
Its Korean partner, Kia, also saw its electric sales double in May, which was Kia’s best month for EV sales ever. For the first time, Kia sold more than 7,000 all-electric cars in one month. Although it’s too early for this to appear in the sales data, Kia also began to produce its three-row SUV, the EV9, at its new assembly factory in Georgia this month, which means that the EV9 will qualify for the full $7,500 tax credit under the Inflation Reduction Act.
So far this year, Kia has sold more than 16,000 EV6 and EV9s. (Hyundai and Kia also sell plug-in hybrids, but they don’t regularly break them out in their monthly sales data announcements.)
American automakers also put up solid numbers. General Motors recorded its best-ever month for EV sales in May — even though it has now stopped selling the Chevrolet Bolt, which was previously the cheapest EV on sale in America. But GM’s new electric platform, Ultium, is starting to fill the gap. Sales of the Cadillac Lyriq, which had previously lagged GM’s cars, are suddenly surging; the vehicle is on track to outsell the Tesla Model X this year. This month, Chevrolet launched the Chevrolet Equinox EV, a two-row SUV starting just around $43,000 that got “surprisingly great” reviews. The Equinox qualifies for the full EV tax credit.
Ford also put up decent numbers: May was its third-best month for EV sales ever. Sales of the Ford Lightning, Mustang Mach E, and E-Transit van were all up by 46% year-over-year, and Ford’s electric sales overall are 88% above where they stood at the same time last year. But Ford, unlike GM, hasn’t announced any new electric cars in the pipeline.
Other good news came not in the form of sales, but in product announcements and updates. The automaker Stellantis — you might know it best as Fiat-Chrysler — disclosed that it will release a $25,000 all-electric Jeep in America soon, based on the same platform as the cheap EVs that it already sells in Europe.
The electric automaker Rivian also made progress on its goal to become profitable by the end of the year. The EV truckmaker has reopened its factory in Normal, Illinois, after retooling and renovating it last month. It also unveiled new versions of its flagship R1S SUV and R1T pickup with more range and new features. While Rivian’s ultimate survival will be determined by its sales in the second half of the year, it is checking the boxes on its plan to stop burning cash by 2025.
“The last two weeks have had good vibes for maybe the first time all year,” Corey Cantor, an analyst at Bloomberg NEF, told me. “A lot of the companies that have had to make progress are starting to make progress.”
The one big weak spot in the month was in charging. As predicted, Musk has hired back some of the charging employees that it laid off five weeks ago, but the rate of its charging expansion has slowed — and no other company has stepped up to fill the gap. GM has said that its EV drivers will have access to Tesla’s network by “spring 2024,” a deadline that will arrive in 13 days. And the charging network funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has yet to produce more than a handful of stations.
Another point of caution: It’s still unclear whether EV sales in May will fall overall — but that would be entirely because Tesla, which makes up a large share of EV sales nationwide, has seen such slowing deliveries lately. In recent months, EV sales have had a “Tesla problem,” where every automaker that isn’t Tesla sees record growth, but Tesla brings down the overall rate. There’s a positive way to view that trend (the EV transition is broadening beyond Tesla!) and a negative way (fewer folks are buying EVs overall). That could happen again this month: We won’t know until Tesla reports its monthly figures.
Still, even in a year defined so far by big road bumps for electric cars, the direction of travel is good.
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 data center boom is everywhere you look in U.S. economic and emissions data.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
It isn’t exactly a new thought, but I’ve been struck recently by how many trends in America’s economic and environmental data are fundamentally about the data center boom and the return of electricity demand:
First, the Energy Information Administration reported this week that U.S. emissions grew by more than 2% last year, driven by surging electricity demand and an increase in coal-fired generation. What caused that higher power demand? New factories and data centers — as well as record summertime cooling demand.
Second, many of the new factories driving that higher power demand are themselves producing goods that are … let’s say … data center-adjacent. There are the enormous new semiconductor fabs, of course. But Ford and General Motors have also set up new production lines (or repurposed old ones) to manufacture grid-scale batteries to meet power demand.
Third, take a look at the recent U.S. spending on private non-residential construction — in other words, everything American companies are building that is not houses, condos, or apartments.
The construction industry’s spent almost $60 billion on data centers over the past year, which is more than it spent on all other office buildings combined (and more than it spent building warehouses, too). Just a handful of categories — data centers, power plants, electricity infrastructure, and certain kinds of electronics manufacturing — now make up a third of all U.S. private non-residential construction investment. They’ve never made up such a large share of construction spending since data collection began in 2014.
As The New York Times recently noted, the American economy is unusually dependent on the American stock market right now — and the stock market is unusually dependent on artificial intelligence. This week, investors started to balk at the enormous spending hyperscalers are planning to keep building out the AI boom; Alphabet’s shares dropped 8% this week after it boosted its planned 2026 capital expenditure and signaled 2027 will be even bigger. If the data center boom started to slow down in earnest, then more than just that budget will change.
Speaking of which, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote earlier this week about how many businesses are struggling to even estimate their carbon emissions from artificial intelligence. The carbon accounting startup Watershed recently unveiled a new formula to help companies get a sense of their AI-related emissions.
But even that formula is still limited by the amount of data hyperscalers publish — and they don’t publish that much. Google, for instance, is the only AI company that has (laudably) provided estimates of its emissions on a per-prompt basis. Yet no company has published its per-token emissions, or how emissions sync up with particular models or regions.
So Emily asked Google: Why aren’t you — or any other model provider — disclosing this kind of data yet?
The tech company didn’t get back to us until after we’d published Emily’s story. But its response was interesting enough that I wanted to quote some of it here.
The problem is “industry consensus,” Cooper Elsworth, a Google spokesperson, told us. “There is currently very little consensus on how to comprehensively and fairly measure the serving environmental impact of generative AI (such as text generation),” he wrote. “Without standardized, ‘apples-to-apples’ frameworks, it is difficult to compare different providers accurately.”
That’s partly because energy use — and emissions data — can vary from site to site and depend on “custom-built hardware, software compilers, and advanced inference techniques.” And he claimed Google doesn’t always have the measurement hardware in place to provide such specific estimates: “Providing precise, repeatable data requires highly advanced measurement infrastructure,” he said. “For example, software-based energy monitoring tools often suffer from sampling biases. For our study, we had to step away from top-down averages and directly measure actual energy at the physical power supply unit (PSU) level across our deployed fleet. Not all providers have the telemetry or data sets required to benchmark their operations at this level of granularity.”
Read Emily’s story to understand the other reasons why estimating — or even “guesstimating” — AI-related carbon emissions is so challenging.
A conversation with Emma Uridge of the Kansas Health Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Emma Uridge, analyst with the Kansas Health Institute. Uridge spent copious hours analyzing state and local laws on data center development to best understand how policymakers are responding to the potential environmental public health impacts of large AI infrastructure, including power and water. The report, which came out this week, also goes in depth into those health impacts. I reached out to her to discuss what she sees as must-watch territory for our readers on this emerging policy arena.
Our conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
What is actually being done on policy when it comes to data centers — beyond moratoria of course?
So first I’d like to just talk about the point of moratoria. It’s helpful to talk about how these policies emerge in the first place. One area where moratoria are helpful is when a data center is proposed but the county has no approach for how they’d like to potentially regulate them. That’s temporary, most of the time. It lets local governments conduct research on the various impacts and also negotiate community benefits, ones that can mitigate any potential negative impacts — like Lancaster Pennsylvania, which instituted a community benefit agreement that maximized the potential benefits of development while mitigating what large data centers can do. That agreement looked at capping municipal water use at 20,000 gallons per day and requiring 100% clean energy. It had financial penalties for non-compliance. The company also committed $20 million to their local economic development and clean energy fund. There are ways to negotiate with developers.
We also see amendments to existing zoning. Data center proposals are increasingly popping up in rural areas, many of which are unzoned, so there’s no way a county can negotiate unless there’s a moratorium in place.
Other policy solutions include different performance standards or requiring on-site renewable energy, like what Jefferson County, Missouri, looked at. Also setback requirements, mandatory noise buffers, ending by-right zoning.
Where are local governments getting ideas for regulating data centers?
A lot of the technical information comes from developers. That can in cases be seen as a biased source of information. I wouldn’t say there’s a dedicated group providing assistance to local governments when a project is proposed — which is a similar story to wind industry development, where we have only a handful of consultants who provide technical advice. It can be really helpful to get a multi-disciplinary approach to hearing information. It can be helpful to have the utility commission, public health folks, those in academia, as well as the developer.
As of right now, especially in rural areas, local governments have a hard task of balancing pushback while getting the most accurate, evidence-based, neutral information to make decisions. That balance can be contentious.
What is the federal government doing on data center policy? How is the Trump administration approaching it?
A few things there. In the early days, the drive was for AI expansion and to be competitive with foreign adversaries. Now due to the amount of public pushback in red and blue localities and a more cautious approach.
I’m not seeing a lot of actual policy movement at this time.
I know the EPA is looking at the chemicals used in cooling data centers because when that water is cycled through the system, some of it is discharged into the water system, so they’re looking at the Toxic Substances and Control Act for monitoring that.
How much of an impact does this minimal federal role have on industry behavior?
Y’know, this isn’t specific to data centers. This is true for all kinds of large-scale development: there’s a need to require some sort of federal monitoring and regulation.
That’s where I see an emerging role for public health. At the federal level, there could be policy movement towards requiring some sort of environmental monitoring at data centers to make sure they’re operating responsibility. Looking at specific water use relative to water availability and what happens when there’s a time of severe, persistent drought. With air quality too — we’ve seen areas where the grid isn’t as reliable so their diesel generators are kicking on more and affecting air quality for residents.
We’re just not seeing all of that right now. We need corporate disclosure.
What do you see as the most important public health impacts from data center development?
It varies by localities. The most discussed obviously is water usage. One thing I’d note about my conversations with folks enthusiastic around emerging tech is, there are still questions that need to be asked about the capacity of localities to support a data center. Like a small town in Kansas may only be using 40% of their water for their utility needs. If a data center came online, how much of that water goes to the data center?
One area underexplored within the public health discipline is energy poverty and energy security. The ability of a household to meet the needs of everything energy provides in our lives. It’s known we have an aging electric grid but we’re not talking enough about large-scale blackouts when the grid is not sufficient to support some of these new data centers.
Plus more of the week’s big development fights.
1. Laramie County, Wyoming — Meta is fighting the fine it received in the Cheyenne data center water pollution controversy, and the conflict between the tech giant and the city’s small board of public utilities is continuing to spill out into the public.
2. Niagara County, New York — This county just rejected a solar project’s highway work permits in a show of retaliation against the state’s Office of Renewable Energy Siting.
3. Barron County, Wisconsin — The anti-solar protest is the new campaign stop in deep red Wisconsin.
4. Chesapeake, Virginia — A large battery storage project on the Virginia coastline is on the rocks amidst rampant local opposition.
5. Lewis County, West Virginia — West Virginia is now a key battleground in the fight over transmission, as a line spanning all of West Virginia and Maryland — and cutting through Data Center Alley in Virginia — causes compounding consternation.