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:

President Trump has had it in for electric vehicle charging since day one. His January 20 executive order “Unleashing American Energy” singled out the $5 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program by name, directing the Department of Transportation to pause and review the funding as part of his mission to “eliminate” the so-called “electric vehicle mandate.”
With the review now complete, the agency has concluded that canceling NEVI is not an option. In an ironic twist, the Federal Highway Administration issued new guidance for the program on Monday that not only preserves it, but also purports to “streamline applications,” “slash red tape,” and “ensure charging stations are actually built.”
“If Congress is requiring the federal government to support charging stations, let’s cut the waste and do it right,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a press release. “While I don’t agree with subsidizing green energy, we will respect Congress’ will and make sure this program uses federal resources efficiently.”
Duffy’s statement stands in sharp contrast to the stance of other federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy, which continue to block congressionally-mandated spending programs.
Only time will tell whether the new guidance is truly a win for EV charging, however. It’s a win in the sense that many EV advocates feared the agency would try to kill the program or insert poison pills into the guidance. But it’s unclear whether the changes will speed up NEVI deployment beyond what might have happened had it not been paused.
“The real story to me is the needless delay,” Joe Halso, a senior attorney for Sierra Club, told me. “They took six months to produce something that they could have done in an afternoon, and that didn’t require them to halt the program in the first place. Every day of that delay stalled critical EV charging projects.”
The goal of the NEVI program was to help states install charging stations in areas that the market, on its own, was not serving. States had to submit annual plans to the FHWA for how they would deploy the funds to fill gaps in regional EV charging networks. Once those plans are approved, states could issue requests for proposals from EV charging companies to build the new charging stations and award grants to help get them financed.
In February, Duffy issued a letter to state Departments of Transportation suspending approval of their plans for all fiscal years, pending forthcoming new guidance from the agency. That meant states would not be able to issue new awards, essentially freezing the program. At the time, the agency had approved state spending plans totaling more than $3.2 billion for fiscal years 2022 through 2025. Of that money, states had committed only about $526 million to specific projects.
In early May, 16 states plus the District of Columbia challenged the DOT’s actions in court, winning a preliminary injunction that prevented the agency from suspending or revoking their previously-approved plans. While the injunction unfroze the program in the plaintiff states, about $1.8 billion for the rest of the country was still locked up. But the judge allowed a coalition of national, regional, and community groups, including the Sierra Club, to become parties in the case and fight for the funding to be restored across the board. That means that if the plaintiffs are ultimately successful, the verdict will apply to every state, not just those 16 that filed the case.
The fact that the DOT issued new guidance this week doesn’t change anything about the case, Halso of the Sierra Club told me. The move could wind up delaying the program further.
“This new guidance prolongs the freeze by forcing states to resubmit already approved plans to access money they’re already entitled to,” Halso explained. “And we don’t know if or when federal highways will approve those plans and restore states’ access to money.” The guidance gives states 30 days to submit their plans, though it does allow them to simply re-submit previously-approved versions.
In Monday’s press release, Duffy declared the program’s implementation to date a “failure,” citing the fact that only 16% of the funds had been obligated so far. It’s true that the program has been slow in getting underway. As of this week, there are at least 106 NEVI-funded charging stations with 537 ports across 17 states, Loren McDonald, the chief analyst for the EV charging data analytics firm Paren, told me. That’s a long way off pace to achieve President Biden’s stated goal of installing 500,000 by 2030.
It’s also true that the new rules are simpler. The previous guidance, which was 30 pages long, contained more than five pages of detailed “considerations” states had to follow in developing their plans, which designated specific distances between chargers, required projects to mitigate adverse impacts to the electric grid, and mandated that States target “rural areas, underserved and overburdened communities, and disadvantaged communities,” among other rules. The new guidance, by contrast, is a tight seven pages devoid of almost any obligations not explicitly required by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which created the program.
Under the previous guidance, for example, NEVI-funded stations had to be built within one mile of a federally-designated EV corridor and at no greater than 50-mile increments along those corridors. The new guidance simply says that states should “consider the appropriate distance between stations to allow for reasonable travel and certainty that charging will be available to corridor travelers when needed.”
McDonald told me that some states had been frustrated with the 50-mile siting requirement and would likely welcome that change. NATSO and SIGMA, two industry associations that represent rest stops, travel centers, and fuel marketers, issued a joint statement praising the “flexible, consumer-oriented approach.” They also specifically applauded the guidance for encouraging states to prioritize projects that are built and operated by the site owner. Some NEVI projects were being developed by a third party, such as Tesla, which had to sign a long-term lease with the site owner, like a grocery store or hotel. These agreements took time to work out, and would sometimes fall apart, McDonald told me.
But from McDonald’s vantage point, what was slowing down the program most was the fact that every state had different requirements and a different process for soliciting and scoring proposals from developers. Also, while a few states already had previous experience administering EV charging grant programs, many lacked staff and expertise in the subject. “I don’t mean this the way it’s going to come out,” McDonald said. “But they barely knew how to spell EV charging. A lot of the state DOTs really just were about building roads and bridges, and they had never had to deal with any charging.”
The new DOT guidance doesn’t seek to address either of those issues. “I’m not seeing anything in here that’s going to lead to a significant reduction in time,” McDonald said. “It seems to sort of miss where the lengthy processes were.”
The Zero Emission Transportation Association, an industry group, had a more positive outlook. Research associate Corey Cantor told me the new guidance is “workable” for the industry and provides regulatory certainty. When I asked Cantor if the changes the agency made to the guidance would help get more money out the door, he said it “remains to be seen on the implementation side,” but that states had been asking for more flexibility.
Cantor emphasized that it was important for state DOTs to have regulatory certainty and to get the funds flowing again. “Charging anxiety, after the upfront cost of EVs, is one of the highest cited barriers for entry for new adopters of electric vehicles,” he said. “And so getting the charging network filled out is key to helping us move to this next stage of the transition.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On offshore wind's defense, Three Mile Island, and virtual power plants
Current conditions: Heavy hail storms across Belgium, France, and Italy have injured at least 30 people • Powerful winds are churning up dust storms that are blanketing broad swaths of Delhi, India’s capital region • The United Nations just warned that El Niño weather patterns have an 80% chance of returning by September, threatening to supercharge weather extremes.
New York Attorney General Letitia James led a group of Northeast states in a lawsuit against the Trump administration to pay TotalEnergies nearly $1 billion to abandon its two offshore wind leases in the United States. The lawsuit comes on the heels of reporting by Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo that found, contrary to the administration’s announcements, the U.S. government’s agreement with Total didn’t actually require any new investments in fossil fuels, as the administration strongly implied, and that the payment may not have actually met the requirements to be drawn from a federal coffer designed to fund legal settlements. “After repeatedly losing in court, this administration cooked up a sham deal to pay a foreign energy company hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to abandon offshore wind and invest in oil and gas instead,” James said in a press release. “We are fighting back to stop this illegal agreement that threatens to erase over a thousand union jobs and cheat millions of New Yorkers out of clean, affordable energy.” New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont joined the litigation.
Meanwhile, New York State lawmakers are preparing to pass legislation enacting a one-year moratorium on large centers by the end of the week, Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie told Gothamist, as Democrats caution that the grid can’t handle the new demand. On X, reporter Jimmy Vielkind warned that it’s unclear whether Governor Kathy Hochul would sign the bill. Data from the website Data Center Map shows that the state has more than 130 data centers, nearly half of which are located in the New York City metropolitan area.

The House of Representatives voted Tuesday to pass a package of bills aimed at bolstering development of geothermal energy in the U.S. The package overhauls geothermal-specific rules for permitting and land sales to speed up the timelines for deploying the technology. In a statement, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a progressive from New York who is widely discussed as a potential contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nod, thanked her Republican colleagues for working across the aisle on the legislation. “At a time of extreme political polarization, this package shows that Congress can still come together on commonsense solutions to better the lives of the American people,” she said.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is eliminating a network of sensors designed to track environmental changes off America’s shores. A decade ago, the U.S. government built a $368 million deep-ocean observation system to monitor coastal environments and marine life and track the shifting ocean currents that affect global weather patterns. Not for long. On Tuesday, The New York Times reported that the National Science Foundation planned to “dismantle” the system, removing more than 900 deep-sea instruments anchored off Oregon, Washington State, Alaska, North Carolina, and the Irminger Sea between Greenland and Iceland. The federal agency said the decision to scrap the Ocean Observatories Initiative aligns with a “wider strategy to have a nimbler approach to prioritizing support for evolving scientific priorities.” But Craig McLean, a former acting chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration during President Donald Trump’s first term, said the move “reflects the further lack of understanding that the current administration has of scientific value and scientific merit.” He added: “By dismantling such a system, we push the United States back yet again into a rear seat in global scientific leadership.”
The world’s meager capacity to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere already falls far short of what’s needed to bend the curve on climate change. Now, as Emily wrote of a new report, “the chasm is widening.” On Tuesday, the academic consortium behind the State of Carbon Dioxide Removal report put out the third version of the analysis. The findings are sobering. While research and deployment of carbon removal technologies has made progress in the past two years, it is still not growing quickly enough to reach the scale required to support the Paris Agreement temperature limits. “We’re seeing a lot of signs that there’s still growth happening,” Morgan Edwards, an assistant professor of public affairs at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and one of the authors, told Emily. “But we need to see a step change in both early indicators like investment and also actual deployments” between now and 2030, in addition to major emission reductions.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has given Constellation Energy, the nation’s largest operator of nuclear plants, approval to transfer the right to connect to the grid from its Eddystone gas-fired plant outside Philadelphia to the Three Mile Island nuclear plant. The approval marks a major step forward for Constellation’s plan to turn the defunct atomic station into its new Crane Clean Energy Center and begin producing electricity as early as next year. Previously, PJM Interconnection, the regional grid operator, had warned that the plant could not begin supplying new power until 2031. But Constellation said this week’s waiver puts it back on track for a 2027 restart.
Meanwhile, Europe’s top producer of nuclear fuel is ramping up its capacity in the U.S. Urenco, the nuclear fuel enricher co-owned by the British and Dutch governments, on Tuesday announced plans to expand capacity at the only U.S. commercial uranium enrichment facility by nearly 50%, marking what it called a major commitment to strengthening the domestic supply chain. The multi-billion-dollar investment will increase the output from the firm’s National Enrichment Facility in Eunice, New Mexico. “For more than 15 years, Urenco USA has provided its U.S. utility customers with a reliable domestic supply of enriched uranium to power their nuclear reactors,” Boris Schucht, the chief executive of Urenco Global, said in a statement. “This expansion reinforces our commitment to a resilient U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain focused on meeting the long-term needs of our customers as well as supporting U.S. energy security through continued investment by Urenco.”
Virtual power plants — software that can tap into networks of distributed energy resources such as solar panels and batteries to supply the grid in times of need — are having a moment as demand from data centers runs laps around any new supply. And while my colleague Katie Brigham recently outlined the steep challenges this technology faces, the deals keep coming. On Tuesday, Google announced a three-year deal with the VPP provider Voltus to supply up to 100 megawatts of new electricity capacity from distributed resources in the country’s highly stressed largest grid, PJM Interconnection. “Under the agreement, Voltus will orchestrate flexible distributed resources — such as batteries and smart thermostats — to reduce energy demand when the grid needs it, paying the local homes and businesses who participate,” Michael Terrell, Google’s global head of advanced energy, wrote in a blog post. “This enables new capacity for the system, channels investment into local communities, and strengthens the grids that serve our data centers.”
Nearly a year after launching a new company focused on manufacturing next-generation medium-voltage power electronics that can better integrate solar, wind, and data centers onto the grid, former Tesla executive Drew Baglino has struck a major deal. His new startup, Heron Power, just inked an agreement with LG Energy Solution to integrate its solid-state transformer technology with the South Korean battery giant’s energy storage systems in the U.S. “This collaboration reflects a shared commitment to advancing American energy manufacturing and delivering next-generation infrastructure at scale,” Baglino, who serves as Heron’s chief executive, said in a statement. “By engineering a holistic solution together, we are unlocking higher power density, greater efficiency, and faster deployment for developers building the grid of the future.”
A new Heatmap Pro poll shows a rapid shift in public opinion since last fall.
Americans have changed their minds about data centers. Decisively.
At least seven in 10 Americans would now oppose a data center being built near their home, according to a new Heatmap Pro poll, a record low that reveals a staggering shift in public opinion against the facilities powering the artificial intelligence boom.
The survey, conducted by Embold Research, finds that an outright majority of Americans are now strongly opposed to data center construction in their area. Young people, Democrats, and rural voters are more hostile to the projects, but they are broadly unpopular with Americans across geographic and political categories.
The new result reflects a rapid and profound shift in public opinion.
When Heatmap first asked Americans how they would feel about a nearby data center project last September, Americans were evenly split: 43% said they would support it, 42% were opposed, and 15% said they weren’t sure.
When asked the same question in February, Americans were more skeptical. Forty-eight percent said they would support a data center project or weren’t sure, while 51% opposed one in their area.
Now, 55% of Americans — an absolute majority — “strongly” oppose a data center project built near where they live, and an additional 16% are “somewhat” opposed. Only 21% of Americans would support a new nearby data center. The public has swung 49 points against data centers in just nine months, underscoring the heightened political salience of the facilities and the AI industry that they embody.
Other statistics suggest that the public’s skepticism of data centers is surging. At least 20 data center projects were canceled after facing significant public backlash in the first quarter of this year, according to Heatmap Pro data released last month. That is more than double the number that were canceled the previous quarter, the data shows.
The canceled projects from the first quarter wiped out more than $41 billion in planned investment and at least 3.5 gigawatts of electricity demand, according to the Heatmap Pro review.
Little wonder: The new polling shows that skepticism of data centers is widespread across all age groups, political parties, and regions of the country. Some 78% of Americans who said they voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election would oppose a local data center project; so would 63% of Americans who reported voting for Donald Trump. And no region of the U.S. saw less than 69% data center opposition.
For the past decade, many political issues have polarized along urban and rural lines, with city dwellers lining up on the liberal side of an issue and rural voters trending more conservative. But the new poll suggests data centers may be defying that trend: Data centers are slightly more unpopular among rural voters than among other voters.
Americans in smaller communities were 54 points opposed, on net, to a data center getting built near their home — in other words, 73% opposed a project, while 19% supported it. Suburbanites and urban voters were 48 and 47 points net opposed, respectively.
Young voters are also strongly against data centers. Eighty percent of Americans ages 18 to 34 said they would oppose a new data center near where they live.
Republicans, non-white Americans, and people who did not go to college are slightly more supportive of data centers in their communities than the median, but even that left the developments at least 30 points underwater.
Just 5% of Democrats, by contrast, said they would “strongly” support a data center getting built in their area, with another 10% describing partial support. Sixty-three percent of Democrats would strongly oppose the project and another 15% would somewhat oppose it.
Five percent of independents would strongly support a data center in their area, with 11% somewhat in support. Seventy-two percent of independents would be strongly or somewhat opposed to such a project.
The Heatmap Pro poll of 4,118 American registered voters was conducted by Embold Research via text-to-web responses from May 15 to 28, 2026. The survey included interviews with Americans in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 1.6 percentage points.
Attorney General Letitia James leads a group of states suing the administration’s move to buy back two offshore wind leases.
A group of Northeast attorneys general led by New York’s Letitia James is suing the Trump administration for paying TotalEnergies nearly $1 billion to walk away from its two U.S. offshore wind leases.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Tuesday, alleges that the government’s settlement agreement with Total violates the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the statute governing offshore wind, as well as the Judgment Fund Act, which controls the pot of money the federal government uses to pay legal settlements. The other plaintiffs are New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
“After repeatedly losing in court, this administration cooked up a sham deal to pay a foreign energy company hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to abandon offshore wind and invest in oil and gas instead,” James said in a press release. “We are fighting back to stop this illegal agreement that threatens to erase over a thousand union jobs and cheat millions of New Yorkers out of clean, affordable energy.”
On March 23, the Interior Department announced it had reached an agreement with Total to cancel two offshore wind leases — one in the New York area, and one near North Carolina — and refund the $928 million cost back to the company; in exchange, the announcement said, Total would invest an equivalent amount in U.S. oil and gas projects. In a later release, the department said it would pay Total from the Judgment Fund, a permanently appropriated pot of money overseen by the Treasury Department used to settle ongoing or imminent litigation.
According to the signed settlement agreement, the Trump administration said that it would have suspended construction on the lease indefinitely due to national security concerns, after which Total would have claimed breach of contract, but instead, the two parties settled.
James’ lawsuit claims that this does not meet the Judgment Fund’s standard for imminent litigation. “A hypothetical lawsuit to challenge an agency action that had not even been threatened — here, the suspension or cancellation of the Lease — does not constitute actual or imminent litigation under the Judgment Fund Act,” it says.
The lawsuit also contends that there was no actual disagreement between the parties. Both Total and the Trump administration wanted to cancel the leases, it says, citing reporting from Axios in which Total’s CEO asserted that the agreement “came from us — we took the initiative.”
If the parties wanted to cancel the leases, they could have done so legally under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. But the government’s actions violate that statute as well, according to the lawsuit. Proper procedure would have required a hearing to investigate whether continued activity on the lease would cause serious harm to the environment or national security, and whether the advantages of cancelling outweigh those of continuing to honor the lease. The law also requires the administration to notify and coordinate with the governors of affected states, which the Interior Department did not do, the suit argues.
The states that brought the lawsuit allege the terminations will harm their economies, energy grids, and climate goals. New Jersey awarded a contract to one of Total’s offshore wind projects, called Attentive Energy Two, in 2024; the finished development would have provided the state 1.3 gigawatts of power, enough to power about 650,000 homes. On its own, the agreement would have gone a third of the way toward fulfilling a state law passed in 2018 that required New Jersey to procure 3.5 gigawatts of offshore wind energy. In addition to feeding the state’s tight electricity market, in which demand is now outpacing supply, the Attentive Energy Project would have delivered an estimated $3.1 billion in direct, indirect, and induced benefits into New Jersey’s economy.
New York did not have an active contract with any projects under development within the leased areas, but it was anticipating Total bidding into the state’s next round of offshore wind solicitations, according to the lawsuit. The state has many aging power plants nearing retirement, and its grid operator has warned that the New York City area faces a reliability risk without new generation coming online. Total’s project would have provided “critical energy diversity benefits” to the city, the suit says.
The Interior Department disputed the basis for the lawsuit, telling Heatmap that “the only thing blatantly unlawful here was the process by which these offshore wind leases were negotiated and imposed under the Biden administration.” A spokesperson reiterated that “there were serious national security risks that demanded immediate attention,” although did not elaborate on what those risks were. They also emphasized that the settlement agreements were voluntary and were approved by the Department of Justice.
“Attempts to rewrite history now cannot erase the reality of these projects and the damage they could cause,” they said.
Offshore wind advocates, however, applauded the suit. “We commend the Northeast Governors for standing up again against actions that threaten jobs, investment, and the nation's ability to meet growing electricity demand with an affordable and reliable energy source,” Liz Burdock, the president and CEO of the Oceantic Network, said.