You’ve reached your free article limit
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 hot hatch is a car enthusiast’s car. Neither garage tinkerer nor street racer can resist a practical hatchback stuffed with enough power to push your brains back into the headrest and handling to outdrive cars that cost twice as much. At last, the category’s standard-bearer, the Volkswagen GTI, is drifting into its electrified future. VW has revealed the ID.GTI Concept, a preview of the fully battery-powered GTI to come a few years down the line.
With the GTI EV en route, we can cross off the hot hatch as a car category without an electric champion. The arrival of the Rivian R1T and Ford F-150 Lightning have put full battery-powered pickups into America’s hypercompetitive truck market. Yet even as automakers turn over their lineups to include more and more EV versions of the gas cars they’ve always built, there are still glaring holes — car categories where nary an EV has arisen, and models that demand to become an EV. Here are some electrics on its way, and some that should be.

The Rivian R1T is a dream machine, every bit the shimmering, LED-laden pickup truck of the future that lots of people expected from Elon Musk before he revealed, well, something else. The truck’s R1S counterpart packages the same guts into an SUV form that’s more practical for some. But both come with an aspirational price to go with their aspirational design. The starting prices near $70,000 leave lots of Rivian fans out in the cold, waiting for the company to debut an offering within reach.
The EV startup’s R2 platform aims to support a smaller and less expensive, but still rugged and capable, pickup truck and SUV. In an interview with Heatmap earlier this year, Rivian CEO R.J. Scaringe said the company wants to roll out the new vehicles in 2026 at a price of $40,000 to $45,000.

Other 4x4s can pose on a boulder or traverse a trail that’s turned to muck, but none have the old-time military looks and mechanics that make the Wrangler iconic. Updating a legend is always tricky. In 2021, Jeep went halfway to electrifying the Wrangler, creating the 4xe plug-in hybrid that Car & Driver derided as a “science fair project.”
This time around, no half-measures. For the 2024 model year, Jeep is slated to release a true Wrangler EV for the enthusiast who seeks an emissions-free way to terrorize the environment. In truth, lots of people who occasionally — or never — drive off-road own a Wrangler because, simply, they fell in love with it. Transforming the One True Jeep into an EV will make bombing around the urban jungle a little easier on the wallet as well as the atmosphere.
Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:

VW struck a countercultural nerve when, in 2017, it unveiled the concept of an electrified VW Microbus and made flower power aspirants everywhere say, “shut up and take my money.” This, of course, is not your grandmother’s hippie wagon. To bring the bus into the 21st century VW ditched the underdog, fix-it-yourself ethos of the original for a whiz-bang software-controlled EV that costs north of $40,000. But damn if it isn’t cute.
ID.Buzz recently made its American debut, and is finally going on sale in the U.S. as a 2025 model. What the world needs now is Buzz, sweet Buzz — read Heatmap’s coverage for more.

We need a fun little EV. The original Fiat 500e tried to deliver on that by putting a battery in the beloved city car, but that electrified taste of Italy could barely top 80 miles of range and was discontinued a few years back.
The newer, better version currently driving around the roads of Europe is coming to America in 2024 and should be able to offer twice as many miles per charge, at around 160. That pales in comparison to the numbers that new big EVs can deliver (hey, you can only cram so much battery into a microcar). But if you’re an urban dweller with an eye for style, it’s enough to get by.

Wait long enough and lots of iconic performance cars — the Alfa Romeo Giulia, the Dodge Charger Daytona — will go electric. Not just to keep with the times, but also to take advantage of the instantaneous torque available from an electric motor that makes EVs zip off the line. In terms of hype, though, it’s still the Corvette that matters most.
The launch of every new Corvette is, well, a whole to-do. That’s doubly true now, because a Corvette EV is coming perhaps as soon as 2025 and may produce ridiculous power numbers. In addition, it may bring with it an entire sub-brand of Corvette-branded cars that don’t say “Chevy” anywhere, including a spicy crossover SUV.

Nobody can be told what Canoo is. You have to see the EV startup’s very rounded concept truck and van — which look like police vehicles mocked up for an episode of Black Mirror — for yourself.
The future pod of a van, called the Canoo Lifestyle Vehicle, bucks convention as often as possible. On the outside, its styling is like nothing else. On the inside, for example, its seating can be shifted so occupants face one another or move to make a ton of empty floor space.
Amid a sea of vehicles that all look the same, the Canoo’s over-the-top quirkiness earned plenty of early devotees and aspirant buyers. Whether they’ll actually get to part with their cash in exchange for the vehicles is another matter entirely: Canoo has endured corporate restructuring and, while it has managed to produce a few vehicles for clients such as NASA, it is always close to running out of money before it gets around to selling cars to people.

Once upon a time, $35,000 was the magic number — the mark Tesla would hit with its unicorn affordable EV that became the Model 3. While few people navigated the hurdles necessary to actually get one that cheap, the entry-level Model 3s like mine got close.
Now the whispers conjure a $25,000 Tesla, one that would truly put EVs in line with the most affordable gas-burning vehicles. CEO Elon Musk teased the possibility in 2020 and pegged the promised price to the possibility of slashing battery production costs.
Tesla famously enjoys the whooshing sound deadlines make as they fly by, so the $25k model may be several years away — especially since we have no idea what it would look like. But if Musk and company roll out a compact sedan or hatchback with 250 miles of range at anything close to that price, Tesla may not be able to keep them in stock.

Let me tell you the car journalist’s mantra: Actually, minivans are good. When I was an editor at Popular Mechanics, the test-drivers would race to the defense of the minivan: Unlike the high-riding crossover that replaced it as this century’s de facto kid-mover, the minivan rides lower to the ground like a car, and those iconic sliding doors and removable seats make it easy to load and unload stuff.
Nevertheless, the SUV has left the much-maligned minivan in the dust. The people’s champion for electrified minivan drivers has been the Chrysler Pacifica plug-in hybrid, which delivers just 32 miles of electric-only range but is the only PHEV vehicle in its class. The good news for minivan loyalists: Chrysler is committed to electrifying its lineup, which means a full EV Pacifica is probably in the works.
(The ID.Buzz and Canoo are, arguably, modern reinventions of the form, but they feel so far removed from the archetype of the American minivan as to be in their own category.)

Let me now tell you the car journalist’s other mantra: Actually, the Miata is good. Like the minivan, the Miata was slandered by ‘90s popular culture as too wimpy, too effeminate. Just like the Minivan, the Miata is actually delightful to drive and beloved by the people who test vehicles for a living.
Mazda hit a home run with the excellent current Miata, which it has been making since 2015. But the brand has been among the slowest to adopt electric powertrains, so a true Miata EV (unless you have the engineering chops to convert one to battery power) remains many years away. The next Miata will be “electrified,” but to what extent — whether this means a hybrid or a true EV — is unknown.

Once represented by classic vehicles like the Ford Ranger and Chevy S-10, America’s small truck market grew critically endangered when pickups became super-luxury vehicles that can cost north of $50,000. Ford struck a blow for the reasonably-sized utilitarian truck when it introduced the Maverick to slot into its lineup below the Ranger (which has grown to mid-size in the intervening years) and promptly sold a ton of the little trucks.
No battery-powered small pickup has yet come along, but when it does, the Maverick Lightning, Ranger Lightning, or whatever it is will find a horde of happy buyers.
Read more about EVs:
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Talking with Dan Hartinger, the land conservation group’s senior policy director.
This week’s Q&A is with Dan Hartinger, senior policy director for The Wilderness Society, a prominent land conservation organization in D.C. that this week called for a moratorium on data center development on public land. The public statement was relatively scant on details about the group’s stance, and a decade of reporting on policy in Washington has taught me that its positions are quite influential, especially in more traditional outdoor recreation and conservationist circles that are also often bipartisan. So I reached out and asked if someone could further explain the society’s position, and Dan obliged.
The following chat was lightly edited for clarity.
Let’s start at the beginning. What brought The Wilderness Society to make a call for a moratorium against data centers on public lands?
Like many others, we were concerned about news reporting on industrial-scale data centers being proposed on public lands. When we saw the scale of what was proposed – covering tens of thousands of acres of public lands, being pushed through without public input about whether this was an acceptable use of this land – it became clear we needed to hit the brakes and give the public a chance to evaluate this.
Our mission and vision for The Wilderness Society is not on the broader debate about AI data centers. It’s on public lands. Those are a shared resource we need to manage for the benefit of all Americans. We need to be careful not to sacrifice those for poorly understood impacts from the data center boom.
You called for Congress to do this during the lame duck session. Why call for this now?
We think this is urgently needed now. If we allow public lands to be sacrificed for a data center boom, we could very well never get them back, so we think it’s urgently necessary a moratorium is enacted. We’d love to see the administration institute a moratorium, and we’re rightly skeptical given what boosters they’ve been. It really just kind of leaves it in the hands of Congress.
There’s legislation introduced by Rep. Rashida Tlaib to institute a moratorium on data centers on federal lands, including Interior, Department of Defense, and Energy property. Do you support that bill?
We don’t have any expertise on Department of Energy or Department of Defense lands. I know Sen. Ron Wyden introduced a bill recently to ban data centers on public land managed by the Agriculture and Interior Departments. Our focus right now is on calling for a moratorium. When you’re contemplating a novel industrial use, the public needs time to understand.
Your call doesn’t include the Department of Energy or Defense lands?
We’re not national security experts. We haven’t waded in on whether there are some limited use cases where maybe there’s national security reasons, I guess.
So you want this to happen in a lame duck, when right now the likeliest thing Congress debates is instead building things faster through permitting reform. Does your organization have any stance on the impacts that the permitting reform effort underway in Congress could have regarding data centers on public lands?
We’re still wading through our stance on the [Senate] bill. I don’t know I have much to share on that. We’re concerned about some of the impacts that bill could have on public lands, but there’s also a whole lot of other factors from that bill to weigh.
Talking to folks who are more public about their stances on the bill, and looking at the set of projects even preliminarily underway on federal lands, it’s hard to imagine that changing NEPA and other environmental laws makes things on public lands go slower. I understand you’re still figuring out where you as an organization stand on the bill, but can you speak to the current state of infrastructure development on federal land and changes the administration has made to permitting?
I think through the lens of data centers, narrowly, all of the project reviews and approvals – which is a limited number – have been attempted without additional NEPA analysis. We saw with the Townsite project in Nevada, they tried to claim a solar farm was essentially the same as a data center. There have been authorizations for data centers’ geotechnical surveys approved through categorical exclusions under NEPA.
Certainly, we’re seeing the administration in every single possible opportunity eliminate or shortcut public input and review, and the permitting bill certainly seems to be pointing further in that direction.
The whole rush for speed-to-power over the next few years makes the rest of the Trump administration, should the permitting reform bill become law, feel more important. How does that timing weigh on your organization as you approach the lame duck session? You’re calling for a moratorium on data centers on public lands as we approach a conversation about whether to make it easier to build on federal lands.
That’s why we’re calling for a moratorium eyes open. It’s an uphill push. But if you look at the backlash happening, a lot of it is because the public is concerned these are being pushed forward with very little transparency, or regardless of whether the public supports them, and often done through mechanisms that hide the scale and scope of their impacts. That’s one of the big motivators behind seeking a moratorium. Because this is proceeding so fast, it’s even more essential we pump the brakes and give the public a chance for input.
What do you want to see come after a moratorium? What are the appropriate safeguards? Or do you just not want to see these projects on Interior land?
There are fundamental questions we need answered, including whether the BLM has clear authority to permit and authorize these large projects on public lands. They haven’t answered sufficient questions about that. There’s also the question of the public’s view on this. We don’t want to pre-suppose what the future post moratorium will look like.
There’s just this huge, novel use case, and the public needs to weigh in. If they’re ever given a chance to actually say something, all the polling we’ve seen says the public doesn’t want these on public lands at all. And so, we hope this is also a conversation about what we want for our public lands generally.
Plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.
1. Central Michigan – I regret to inform you of this back-and-forth between candidates running for Congress and a would-be constituent because it’s a warning sign for the renewable energy sector (and sort of broke my brain).
2. Doña Ana County, New Mexico – I suggest you pay closer attention to the federal permitting fight playing out over Oracle’s Project Jupiter.
3. Phoenix, Arizona – Does anyone want to tell me what happened to the Lava Run wind and solar Project?
4. Nashville, Tennessee – Data center developer DC Blox is hitting a roadblock in Nashville. Let’s hope it doesn’t turn into a legal zoo.
The Senate’s compromise bill enters the chat at a moment when federal land and anti-pipeline advocates are already quite activated.
The AI data center backlash is getting louder in D.C. ahead of the midterms – and it’s poised to collide head-on with the new permitting reform deal being negotiated in Congress.
This week, major environmental advocacy organizations are taking large public steps to lean in on the data center fight. The League of Conservation Voters and Natural Resources Defense Council, I’ve been told, are imminently announcing a $250,000 ad buy in the Washington, D.C. market focused entirely on decrying fossil fuel-powered data centers and Trump administration policies to speed up their construction. The Wilderness Society, a prominent land conservation organization, announced it now supports a moratorium against data centers on “public lands” focused on the roughly half billion acres under the Interior Department’s stewardship. And Earthjustice on Thursday did a detailed report claiming that 80% of the data centers under development “bringing their own power” are going to rely on gas generation.
“We are trying to reach a D.C. audience and add to the conversation on data centers,” Sara Chieffo, LCV’s head of government affairs, told me of the ad buy. “We’re at a time when there have been no regulations passed at the federal level on Big Tech, or data centers, and we have communities from very many different backgrounds, across the political spectrum, really shouting for enforceable safeguards to be put in place for data center development. For their pocket book, for air and water, and for having a say in what their actual communities look like.”
In a vacuum, all of this action would feel normal – what environmental organization isn’t focused on data centers right now? And if this much fossil fuel is going to be burned in the name of computing, why wouldn’t these groups be focused so intently on the problem?
But there’s another wrinkle: It’s impossible to ignore the elephantesque permitting debate in the room, given any progress on a bill would undoubtedly help data centers with any kind of federal nexus, as well as some of the large fossil power infrastructure they’re demanding.
Last week, we all learned of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, or BAAJA, which would radically change federal permitting for essentially all large infrastructure projects with a federal nexus. The bill, negotiated by top Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Senate, aims to expedite bureaucratic review processes for industrial projects with any presence on federal lands, water pollution risk covered under the Clean Water Act, and/or potential impacts to federally-protected species habitat and historic sites. Many of these changes, like significantly narrowing claims under the National Environmental Policy Act, could mean quicker permitting decisions from the federal government; other policies in the bill, like a truncated statute of limitations for lawsuits, could mean developers avoid significant and costly litigation risk as they apply for federal permits.
There’s a lot to potentially love in this bill for decarb hawks – transmission reforms and permitting certainty, among other things. But the bill is incredibly divisive, especially amongst those interested in seeing renewable energy boosted without undue compromise for fossil fuel development and preserving the existing legal framework for protecting the environment through litigation. So controversial is this bill that all of the organizations I’ve mentioned – LCV, Sierra Club, NRDC, Wilderness Society, Earthjustice – have so far eschewed explicit formal statements opposing the bill, instead expressing caution about air and water impacts while saying they need more time to review it and speak with lawmakers.
It’s clear though the environmentalist community wants people to think about data centers as debate on the bill approaches. Those who publicly oppose the bill at this moment say its enactment under the current administration would fully unlock federal acreage for the worst incarnation of an unfettered fossil-powered data center boom. “In any permutation, this bill is a good thing for data centers,” said Brett Hartl, director of government affairs for Center for Biological Diversity. After the bill was introduced, an organizing call between environmentalists leaked revealing discussions on how to stop it from gaining traction. One idea raised, per a transcript of the call published by Punchbowl News, was leaning heavily into talking about AI data center permitting.
I asked Chieffo if the LCV ad buy was related to the permitting debate in D.C. She told me it was in the works before senators introduced the bipartisan permitting deal last week. “This is a longstanding focus of ours, to make sure the buildout of data centers do not perpetuate dirty energy or exacerbate the climate crisis,” she told me. Then I asked, if this isn’t about the permitting bill, but it is about federal policy about approving data centers, then how do AI data centers play into the conversation around permitting reform? Do you see the AI data center conversation playing a role in the permitting reform debate?
“The way I would answer that is, well, there are equities and impacts that permitting reform has on the ability to build data centers in this country. And there’s a much larger conversation that should be happening – and isn’t yet happening – around fully holding data centers and Big Tech accountable for their environmental and consumer impacts, safety, and broader regulation. It’s a much bigger conversation than just permitting conversations,” Chieffo told me.
Then she added something else: “The provisions in conversation right now in the Senate do not cover the full suite of what we believe we need to see to hold data centers accountable and address the environmental impacts, let alone the other impacts folks are concerned about with jobs, safety and the rest.”
There’s absolutely a hypothetical risk that enacting such sweeping permitting legislation could enable a faster fossil-powered AI data center buildout, particularly in two ways: federal land development and easier pipeline permits.
We know that President Trump’s executive order encouraging data centers on federal land has led to interest in developing large projects on Interior Department acreage in Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Utah. How many of these projects are serious is unclear, partially because the federal land permitting process is opaque, and also due to some permitting applications gleaning more early-stage speculation than a commitment (see: Clearway’s reversal on this project). At least some of this development would be powered by gas, as we’ve previously covered.
There’s also the pipelines. We’ve previously covered how the bill’s changes to the Clean Water Act would take away a provision under the law previously cited by Democratic governors to block pipeline expansions, while limiting state and tribe authority under the law to cite impacts other than direct water discharges when rejecting or blocking permits. In the name of project certainty, the bill would also enshrine protections against approval revocation for all kinds of energy facilities, including pipelines. Many of the pipelines under development today are capacity expansions and not explicitly for data centers, and many of them may be approved regardless of whether BAAJA becomes law. But it’s almost impossible to divorce new gas projects from the data center industry’s fortunes, given climbing demand.
Advocates for decarbonizing the U.S. economy who support the bill say the legislation offers a safer trade-off than critics suggest. They put forward that most data center development is not on federal lands, rendering much of the actual AI infrastructure outside the scope of the bill’s impacts. In addition, they argue there are potential upsides, like the bill’s provisions unlocking new transmission development, expediting interconnection queue processing, and making data center developers pay for new energy grid upgrades, all of which could be good for renewable energy development.
Grayson Flood, a senior fellow at Groundwork Collaborative, told me he believes the bill will actually incentivize more data center developers to hook up to the grid and may result in fewer projects relying on off-grid gas plants constructed purely for operating GPUs. Studies have shown building off-grid can be almost twice as expensive. By reducing barriers to connection, and encouraging new transmission that unlocks renewable energy, Flood said one can easily see a pathway to a cleaner data center sector in the future under the bill.
“At the end of the day, if you want these data centers to be powered by clean, firm capacity, anything from solar and storage to wind and storage to nuclear, geothermal, and hydropower, you’re going to need to have a grid that can bring those sources to the data centers, and right now we really don’t have that,” said Flood, who previously worked as legislative director for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. “At a macro level, we need the bulk power system built out to see the power we want to see, and this bill makes data centers pay more than any other piece of proposed federal legislation to make that happen.”
Where does this leave us? Over the next month, we’ll live through a midterms election cycle chock full of ads activating anti-data center sentiments on both sides of the aisle. Then, right afterwards, the energy sector will pivot its attention span back to Congress and fight to pass a permitting bill that will not primarily benefit data centers, but clearly has upsides its opponents will want to call attention to.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the organization collaborating on the ad buy with LCV.