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:
It would be a gamechanger for EV adoption — and for the electric grid too.

The United States now has thousands of fast-charging stations lining its interstates and major highways, making most of the country accessible to electric vehicle drivers. We have slower “Level 2” chargers at grocery stores, hotels, and an assortment of other places where people might spend a chunk of time. But we have relatively few charging stations at work, where most of our hours outside of the home occur.
Even as EVs have gone mainstream in California and begun to break through across the nation, it’s still relatively rare for a company to have installed chargers in the garage or parking lot so employees can get juice while they work. It’s difficult to determine exactly how many, but a 2021 report by the National Renewable Energy Lab found just under 10,000 private workplace charging ports, and the Department of Energy’s Station Locator lists just under 14,000 total private ports as of this writing.
This is a problem. For the great transformation from gasoline to EV to run as smoothly as possible, we need to charge at the office.
Most EV charging happens at home, which makes sense. Because electric vehicles have generally been expensive, early adopters tend to be the high-income types most likely to have a garage and the ability to put a Level 2 charger in their home. Those folks can not only charge their batteries overnight but also tell the car to do so when electricity is cheapest.
Now, fast-forward a few years. Picture a world where most people have an EV and the grid has made a big move toward renewable energy so that those EVs fulfill their potential for reducing automotive greenhouse emissions. Suddenly, our charging model has some major issues.
Lots of drivers will come home and plug in their cars during the early evening, that troublesome time when solar power is falling off for the day but energy demand rises as people turn on home AC and appliances (a problem that gets thornier as the autumn days get shorter). Those who delay their charging sessions to the wee hours may pay less for that off-peak electricity, but they’re sure not using solar power.
As they stare at the possibility of millions of thirsty EVs trying to fill their batteries, a lot of energy experts are focused on aligning that demand with our renewable energy supply. For example, Iain Walker, a research scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, tells me recently that his team has modeled test cases for the Pacific Northwest to see whether the region’s infrastructure could handle a swell of new EVs.
“Can we electrify half the vehicle fleet and not have to build any more plants? The answer is yes,” he says. “But they can only do that if you're smarter about when you do things, not just how much of it you do.”
In many places, including the giant automotive markets of Texas and California, that means cars need to charge during the sunny hours of midday when solar energy is plentiful. That, in turn, means people need to charge at the office.
Such a setup is the opposite of what we have now. Home chargers are incentivized to fill their batteries during off-peak hours, and so are drivers who are reliant on visiting public fast charging stations. Across Los Angeles, for example, many of Tesla’s superchargers sell electricity at several different rates throughout the day. It’s typically costly in midday, when more people are on the road, and often half as expensive late at night. This helps to balance electricity demand, and it reduces lines at the charger, since many people who can wait until night time to pay less will do so. But it certainly doesn’t solve the solar issue.
Fast-charging stations point to another reason we need work charging: Not everybody can plug in at home. My apartment complex doesn’t have shared EV plugs in its parking lot, but my employer is one of the few with dozens of chargers available in its parking structures, which means I can accomplish most of my week-to-week charging while typing away in my office.
Without workplace charging, many future EV owners who can’t plug in at home will be reliant on visiting fast-charging stations whenever the battery gets low. Which is, in a word, annoying. Because chargers are still relatively sparse compared to gas stations, even in an electrified city like L.A., it could mean driving miles out of our way or carefully planning errands around sitting at the supercharger. And given that charging still takes longer than pumping gas, it’s a bit of a time waste to live this way.
There is hope on the horizon. Because of the workplace upheaval that COVID caused, far more people now work from home — a place where they can decide to install a dedicated charger (or even just run a long extension cord from an outlet) without waiting for their employer to take the leap.
And crucially, the tax credits to help people and businesses put in EV charging infrastructure are back. Those incentives had been set to expire at the end of 2021, but their reinstatement through 2032 was part of the Inflation Reduction Act. Now, companies can earn a tax credit for up to 30 percent of the cost of EV charging installation, provided they follow the designated labor and construction practices. The act also raised the maximum credit for businesses from $30,000 to $100,000 for projects built after 2022.
Of course, having dozens of employees charging simultaneously will strain a business’s own electric systems. That’s why workplace charging may go hand-in-hand with load management technologies that decide which cars receive maximum charging rates, and when, to keep EVs from overwhelming the capacity of the parking garage.
The battle over returning to the physical workplace is far from settled. But perhaps, a few years in the future, those who must commute to the office might at least enjoy a full battery when 5 o’clock rolls around.
Read more about electric vehicles:
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.