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:
The gas tax pays for America’s road repair. So what do we do when everyone drives EVs?

Electric cars may help the United States fix its carbon problem, but they’re about to break the way America pays for its roads.
Every gallon of gas Americans buy is taxed to pay for highway improvements and other infrastructure projects. The federal government takes about 18 cents per gallon of gas (and 24 cents for diesel), while the states, on average, charge even more.
EVs escape this tax. As the Biden Administration pushes for the majority of American cars to go electric within a decade, the nation needs a new way to fund road repairs. That is why all of us, whether we drive gasoline, hybrid, or electric, soon could be taxed on the number of miles we drive.
A vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax has become a hot idea for replacing the gas tax in the age of electric vehicles. Federal laws — including the Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives (STSFA) program and the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (as known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill) — have even included money for states to run VMT pilot programs.
Economists and policymakers love VMT for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, says Adam Hoffer, director of excise tax policy at the nonprofit Tax Foundation, this approach creates a “universal toll road” where people who use the roads the most also pay the most for their upkeep.
“Gas taxes have worked really well as the best proxy for this for almost a hundred years now,” Hoffer told me. “What we're seeing is that with electric vehicles growing in market share, we need a new tool. Vehicle miles traveled taxes seem to fit that bill really well.”
Clifford Winston, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, says another key advantage is that a VMT is customizable. “It has economically desirable features that go beyond generating the revenue that would be lost as the vehicle fleet turns over from internal combustion engines to EVs,” he says.
The tax could simply charge every vehicle the same number of cents per mile. On the other hand, the government could also adjust the cost up or down to incentivize good behaviors. For example, it could charge people less per mile if they drive EVs (and more if they stick with a gas-guzzler). It could put in congestion surcharges to tempt people to avoid rush hour, or charge trucking companies based on how much weight they’re hauling down the highway.
Winston’s version of VMT is an economist’s dream where price drives every choice. He compares it to the experience of calling an Uber or Lyft, where users are presented with several options at different price points. Now, he says, imagine the same scenario when you slide into your own car and enter a destination. The vehicle’s display could show you several routes with not only different driving times, but also different charges based on distance, congestion fees, or other factors.
There are downsides to this plan, of course, and not just that people may hate its complexity. Lots of folks have no choice but to drive during rush hour, and many can’t afford to replace an older car to take advantage of lower taxes on a new EV.
Privacy is the big one, Hoffer says. If drivers are charged a flat fee per mile, they would need to report their odometer reading to the taxman. A dynamic pricing scheme could be even more intrusive, requiring a way to track us everywhere, all the time.
The simplest way to confront this issue, Winston says, is to set up a third party so the government doesn’t have all this tracking data at its fingerprints. “A private company collects all this [information], sends it to the vehicle owner monthly, and says, here's your bill. Pay it,” he says. According to Hoffer, drivers already hand over this data when they sign up for car insurance programs like Progressive’s “Snapshot” that charge people based on how they drive. However, he says, privacy law around these issues is far from clear.
“There have been court cases before where lawyers have used real-time tracking data from these kinds of apps in lawsuits against people,” he says. “I think there are real questions about whether this data could be accessible via a warrant.”
There are less intrusive ways to replace the gas tax. Some states have begun to charge higher annual registration fees for electric cars to make up for the fact that they don’t burn gasoline. But a flat fee is a blunt instrument that can’t account for how far people drive. It also discourages EV sales.
An obvious replacement for taxing gas by the gallon would be to tax electricity by the kilowatt-hour. But you can’t really replicate the old system. While it may sound simple to tax fast-charging stations, lots of EV drivers do most of their charging at home. The electricity specifically used to charge a car is mixed in with the juice they use to run the dishwasher or the AC, making it hard to differentiate (not to mention that residential electricity is already taxed).
VMT may be the most logical solution to the gas tax problem, Hoffer says, but there are still plenty of bugs to work out. States currently running pilot programs, led by California and Oregon, are experimenting with how to practically implement the fee and how much it should be. It’s possible, Hoffer says, that a VMT will exist alongside the gasoline tax, at least while the U.S. car fleet goes through its transformation from gas to electric.
“I don’t see rapid adoption nationwide of a vehicle mile travel system — but I do think it is on the inevitable side of things,” he says.
Get the best of Heatmap right in your inbox:
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A natural gas well in Kansas is not the same as an offshore wind farm in Maine.
It happened again. The Trump administration has struck a deal with an offshore wind developer to cancel another round of projects. My colleague Emily Pontecorvo has the full story: The Chicago-based company Invenergy has accepted $765 million to give up four offshore wind leases off the coast of New York, California, and Maine.
These deals might be legally suspect — Democratic state attorneys general sued to block them a few weeks ago — but the administration says more are coming. “The Department of Justice looks forward to continued cooperation from companies that are reevaluating their energy investments,” the official press release about today’s deal intones. I have to applaud the federal lawyer who chose the phrase “continued cooperation” here; it is suitably menacing while implying that developers who give in to the racket are somehow complicit.
If you read Heatmap, you knew a deal like this might be coming. As Emily writes, she predicted that Trump would target Invenergy for a deal back in April. Eyes now turn to the German developer RWE, which is sitting on two more leases and hasn’t yet taken a bargain.
Most observers have seen these deals as a front in the president’s war on wind power. And, of course, they are. But they should also be viewed as part of Trump’s peculiar attack on the economy of coastal states.
Get Heatmap in your inbox daily.
By Heatmap’s tally, the Trump administration has now terminated the leases for more than 14 gigawatts of planned offshore wind capacity, or roughly enough to power at least 6 million to 7 million homes. More than half of those gigawatts were initially planned to go to New York and New Jersey’s strained power markets (and on from there to New England and the Mid-Atlantic).
Another 3.4 gigawatts were planned for Maine’s power grid. Maine already suffers from some of the highest power bills in the country, according to Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub; its rates have risen more than 10% in the past year.
California was slated to get another 4 gigawatts, and the Carolinas were due the last remaining gigawatt.
What’s funny — or perhaps fishy, given the maritime setting — is that administration officials seem to realize that they shouldn’t be taking so much electricity generation off the map. Today’s Invenergy deal includes a new quasi-quid pro quo arrangement: In exchange for giving up its offshore wind leases, Invenergy agreed to develop natural gas or geothermal power plants in Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. (Previous deals countenanced only fossil fuel development, so I suppose this counts as a “win.”)
But of course, as Hilary Bright, who leads the pro-wind group Turn Forward, argued this afternoon, that doesn’t work. “These buyouts are not one-for-one ‘swaps’ for another kind of energy,” she said in a statement. These wind farms were meant to bring new generation capacity online in some of the country’s most stressed power markets. It doesn’t work to cancel them, then build new power plants in the middle of the country. New York is particularly power-constrained at the moment and faces a risk of summertime blackouts as soon as the end of this decade. Invenergy’s wind leases in the tristate area — or, as FIFA would call it, New York/New Jersey — were closer to operation than any of its other projects.
If and when blackouts arrive in Gotham, will New Yorkers look back and remember this moment? Or — somewhat more importantly to Trump — will voters in Maine and North Carolina, both of which have elections this November that will help determine the balance of the Senate. Whatever happens, we’ll be watching it here at Heatmap.
The deal with developer Invenergy includes a commitment to build geothermal generation in addition to natural gas.
In the third deal of its kind, Trump’s Interior Department has agreed to pay the energy developer Invenergy $765 million to cancel its four offshore wind leases, an amount equal to what Invenergy originally paid the federal government for them.
Like the preceding deals, the administration structured the refund as a legal settlement with Invenergy. That means the government will pay the company out of the Judgment Fund, a reserve of taxpayer dollars overseen by the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department that’s set aside to settle litigation that’s either ongoing or imminent.
The Invenergy agreement follows a similar $928 million arrangement with TotalEnergies announced in March, and an $885 million agreement with several joint ventures in April. That brings the total amount the Trump administration has agreed to pay to cancel offshore wind leases to more than $2.5 billion to date. The agency has not yet posted the settlement publicly, but the previous agreements were predicated on hypothetical lawsuits that the offshore wind developers would have filed if the Trump administration had paused activity on their leases, which it threatened to do based on national security concerns.
The key difference in the Invenergy agreement is in the quid pro quo. The other settlements specified that the companies would only be eligible for payment after investing an equal amount into U.S. oil and gas projects. In exchange for walking away from its offshore wind leases, Invenergy promised not only to develop natural gas-fired power plants, but also geothermal power generation projects — which are emissions-free.
Invenergy is a diversified power developer that builds solar, storage, wind, and natural gas generation. The company currently has more than 30 gigawatts of solar in its development pipeline and 10 gigawatts of natural gas. It has not yet built a geothermal power plant, but it has leased 139,000 acres of federal land to explore geothermal development. It’s also a member of the Mountain West Geothermal Consortium, a group of states, investors, and companies working together to scale the technology.
Invenergy holds one offshore wind lease off the coast of New York and New Jersey that it purchased in 2022 for $645 million, where it was developing its Leading Light project before work stalled last November. It also has a lease off the coast of California that it acquired for $112 million, also in 2022, and two in the Gulf of Maine, for which it paid about $9 million in 2024.
In a blog post published Wednesday, Invenergy said the deal with the Trump administration would “bring more megawatts to the grid and advance projects that can move forward today,” implying that the projects the company will build instead of offshore wind will come online faster.
The problem with Trump’s quid pro quos across all of these deals is that there’s no guarantee the companies wouldn’t have invested the same amount of money into the same projects regardless of whether they were reimbursed for their offshore wind leases. In the case of Total, the settlement is explicit that projects the company had already committed to invest in prior to the deal qualify.
After the administration announced the second round of offshore wind lease buyouts in April, making it clear the strategy was not a one-off settlement with Total but a new strategy to squash the industry, I named Invenergy as one of two developers that could be next. The other one that seems positioned to reach a similar deal is RWE, a German energy company with plans to develop 15 natural gas plants in the U.S. RWE paid $1.1 billion in 2022 to purchase a lease off the coast of New York and New Jersey for a project called Community Offshore — the most any company has paid to date for U.S. offshore wind development rights. It also bought a lease in the Pacific for $121 million, and another in the Gulf of Mexico for about $4 million.
In a press release, the Interior Department signaled its intention to broker more such agreements. “The Department of Justice looks forward to continued cooperation from companies that are reevaluating their energy investments,” it said.
Legal experts I’ve spoken with are skeptical that any of these settlement agreements comply with federal law. The government’s leasing statutes generally do not allow companies to walk away from their agreement and receive a refund.
Earlier this month, a group of seven attorneys general from Northeast states challenged Trump’s deal with TotalEnergies in court. They alleged that there was no actual disagreement between the parties that would legitimize use of the Judgement Fund. They also argued that under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the statute governing offshore wind, the Interior Department was required to hold a hearing to investigate whether continued activity on the lease would cause serious harm to the environment or national security before cancelling it.
The Trump administration has lost every lawsuit thrown its way so far challenging its actions on offshore wind. Last week, it quietly gave up its own appeal of a federal court’s December decision vacating Trump’s Day One Executive Order to halt wind energy approvals. The Invenergy deal suggests that this was less a sign of surrender in Trump’s wind war than part of a pivot to other strategies.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include the press release from the Department of the Interior.
That may be not be the case for long, though, as the AI company poaches energy talent from Google, Meta, the DOE, and others.
To the extent that any $965 billion artificial intelligence company built on pirated model training material can be “good-coded,” Anthropic has somehow managed to earn that reputation, at least relative to its peers. It’s somewhat surprising, then, that the company has been silent on climate change.
Until today. Sort of.
Frontier Climate, a corporate initiative to drive advances in carbon removal, announced a $915 million advance market commitment growth fund on Wednesday, naming Anthropic as one of the participating buyers.
Frontier supports projects that are capable of sucking large amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere, a solution scientists say is a critical supplement to reducing emissions in order to curb climate change. With the new fund, Frontier is shifting its focus from supporting early innovation to taking bigger swings on fewer, larger projects. Anthropic, alongside Google, Stripe, Shopify, and others, has committed to co-sign offtake agreements to buy the resulting carbon removal.
The news throws into relief Anthropic’s nearly complete absence from the clean energy development picture. The company’s primary contribution to climate change is its energy consumption, which is driving up coal and natural gas-fired power generation. According to data shared with Heatmap by the market intelligence company Cleanview, the average carbon intensity of Anthropic’s data centers is among the highest of its competitors, second only to xAI. Yet unlike many of peers, the company has not announced a single clean power purchase agreement to date.
Anthropic’s reputation as the ethical AI company traces back to its origin story, which begins with a guy leaving OpenAI to build a company more committed to AI safety. That guy, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, speaks and writes openly about the risks to humanity posed by powerful AI. Anthropic has also donated millions to support the development of AI regulations and prohibited the use of its models for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons, putting it at odds with the Trump administration. The company has focused on text-based products, in part to avoid the risk of users creating child sexual abuse material.
To date, however, the company has not publicized any sustainability strategy, nor has it published an annual sustainability report. It has not made any public commitments to use clean energy or reduce emissions. It is not a member of the Corporate Energy Buyers Association, a trade group representing companies that buy emissions-free energy. The only mention of any of the above themes in the company’s “Transparency Hub” is a note that many of its customers use Claude, Anthropic’s AI model, to “increase public health, education, environmental sustainability, and societal benefits.”
To be fair, it’s not that Anthropic has never discussed clean power. In a July 2025 report titled “Building AI in America,” the company made recommendations for ensuring the U.S. can support a competitive AI industry. It advocated for an “all of the above” approach to power generation to meet AI demand in the near term, which would “maximize opportunities for AI to catalyze emerging energy technologies, such as next-generation geothermal and advanced nuclear” down the line. It endorsed permitting reform to speed up transmission development and called for increased domestic production of electrical grid equipment.
In a section on the use of federal lands, the report also made a subtle dig at the Trump administration’s discriminatory policies against wind and solar. It noted that “solar, batteries, and geothermal may prove the most economically efficient choices before advanced nuclear power comes online,” and that “limiting developers’ opportunities to procure some power sources but not others” could make American AI “less competitive in a period of global competition.”
From one perspective, it makes sense that Anthropic hasn’t gone out of its way to procure clean power. To date, the company has mostly leased data center capacity from other providers that do have clean power commitments, including Amazon and Google. That will soon be the case no longer, however, as it is planning to both build its own data centers and rent capacity from xAI’s Colossus data centers, which rely heavily on power from on-site natural gas turbines. Colossus is currently the subject of a lawsuit filed by the NAACP over its air pollution.
Anthropic also doesn’t need to own and operate its own data centers to assume responsibility on climate change. Jane Flegal, a senior fellow at the think tank the Searchlight Institute, argued in a recent paper that companies should forget trying to minimize their individual carbon footprints and just make the most high-leverage investments they can, whether that’s helping to finance a geothermal power plant or a transmission line or a new transformer for the grid.
Anthropic did not respond to my inquiry for this story, but there’s some evidence to suggest that the company may be starting to take on climate and clean energy beyond the Frontier deal.
In March and April, Anthropic made three new hires to lead its energy strategy who all have a background in clean power. Ariel Horowitz is the company’s new data center energy lead. She previously spent five years at the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center before becoming the deputy director of grid modernization at the federal Department of Energy during the Biden administration. Sana Ouiji, who spent six years at Google working on data center clean energy strategy, is one of Anthropic’s new energy leads. Another new energy lead, Andrew Rudersdorf, came from roles sourcing energy for Meta’s data centers, including renewables.
The company is also currently hiring for a director of infrastructure and energy accounting, and looking for someone with “experience accounting for energy contracts — Power Purchase Agreements, Virtual PPAs, Renewable Energy Credits, or similar commodity arrangements,” according to the job listing.
Anthropic also appears to be preparing for mandatory emissions reporting rules that large companies will soon be subject to in California and the European Union. In April, the company hired Chris Power, who previously worked in sustainability reporting for Amazon and Salesforce, as its new head of non-financial reporting and strategy, according to LinkedIn. In a post announcing his new job, Power said part of his role would be building out the company’s sustainability reporting capabilities.
While funding carbon removal through Frontier is a major step forward for Anthropic on climate, the company is sure to face criticism over its order of operations. Scientists largely agree that carbon removal is an important solution for down the line, but only if the world also dramatically reduces the amount of carbon it emits in the first place — not least because doing so is less expensive and less resource-intensive than removing emissions in the future.
My colleague Robinson Meyer had Hannah Bebbington Valori, the head of Frontier, on his podcast Shift Key this morning, and asked her whether Anthropic is an example of the common concern that the potential to remove carbon from the atmosphere in the future could be used to delay cutting emissions today.
Bebbington Valori didn’t comment on Anthropic specifically. But she did say that most of the companies buying carbon removal with Frontier and otherwise do have broader climate programs. She also noted that buying carbon removal from Frontier is not a “get out jail free card,” since it costs hundreds of dollars per carbon credit, and that in general the world is spending a lot more money on decarbonization than carbon removal.
“And then, you know, the other way to answer this question,” she added, “is we should hold folks’ feet to the fire on this. People who buy carbon removal, people who don’t buy carbon removal, should be thinking about decarbonizing their emissions.”