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:

Maybe you remember the time before the “basic economy” fare. A ticket on a major airline like Delta or United used to come with a few automatic amenities, like the ability to choose one’s seats — or, before 2008, even to check a bag without a fee. In the 2010s, facing rising costs and competition from the likes of Spirit and Frontier, the big airlines began to embrace the a la carte approach of the budget airlines: Passengers could buy an uber-cheap fare, but anything beyond a seat on the plane and a Diet Coke became an upsell.
The trajectory of air travel was on my mind this week as the world learned more details about Slate. The EV startup backed by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, among others, revealed its compact electric pickup to the world, and the world was struck by the vehicle’s simplicity. The little truck represents a kind of bare-bones transportation not seen at American car dealerships in decades, with power windows and plain metal panels coming standard — and everything else as an add-on.
Its success or failure will tell us something about Americans’ appetite for the kind of truly compact trucks that disappeared from our roads when bloat came for the pickup. It will tell us even more about whether Americans, faced with a lousy economy and skyrocketing car prices, are ready for the Spirit Airlines model to come to the automotive world.
Slate’s name is a clear reference to the idea of a blank slate. The base version of the little electric truck comes with manually adjustable rear view mirrors, no built-in infotainment system, and an uninspiring 150 miles of range. The exterior comes in any color the customer wants, as long as it’s the hue of plain, unadorned metal.
The little truck’s pitch is about the power of customization. Buyers will be able to choose from more than 100 add-on features, including roll bars, more airbags, and extra seats. There will be kits to lower the truck, kits to raise the truck, kits to turn the truck into an SUV. Most of these additions are advertised as DIY, though once the truck arrives in 2026, Slate promises there will be service professionals to install these add-ons for those who are not weekend garage mechanics. You’ll even be able to put on a vinyl wrap to make your truck something other than gray. Just how much these additions will raise the price is not yet clear.
It’s a compelling case, and one meant to be the antithesis of the car industry’s modern approach. A typical new vehicle comes in a handful of trim levels, where each successive trim represents another tier that adds a new group of luxury or technology features. (This is what the alphabet soup on the back of a car means, if you’ve ever wondered just what Toyota RAV4 “XLE” is.) The Ford F-150, the best-selling vehicle in the country, comes in eight trim levels that take the truck from a base price around $38,000 to nearly $80,000 for the fanciest, most capable trucks. You can do some customization outside of those tiers, sure. What you can’t do is buy a brand-new F-150 for $25,000 because it comes with the best in-car amenities 1995 had to offer, even though such a vehicle would do a perfectly good job of transporting people and cargo from A to B, the thing a truck is supposed to do.
Today’s cars come in mostly neutral colors because buyers have been taught to maximize resale value and it’s easier to sell a silver truck than a teal one; Slate’s encouragement to customize the exterior is a reaction against this aesthetic staleness. And EVs, in particular, haven’t been built with the hacker or tinkerer in mind. With Tesla (led by Bezos rival Elon Musk) at the forefront of the industry and legacy automakers following its lead, electric vehicles have become smartphones on wheels — closed boxes of intimidating hardware and proprietary software. Slate is a welcome change.
One could, of course, pay for upgrades to make the flight aboard Spirit Airlines a little more tolerable. But the cheap fare is the point. Spirit may be the butt of “Weekend Update” jokes, but basic economy is a lifeline for people who need cheap air travel. The test for Slate, then, isn’t whether buyers will embrace its DIY model and get excited about configuring their own trucks, though some definitely will. It is, instead, whether the rock-bottom, dirt-cheap, simple version of the truck is enough to convince a lot of people to go electric.
Incentives will go a long way to providing the answer. With a sticker price in the mid-$20,000s, a barebones Slate truck is a tough sell compared directly to other new vehicles; its spartan interior and inferior range don’t compare well to the kinds of entry-level gasoline cars a person could buy in that price range, all of which offer at least a taste of the latest in automotive technology. But if the $7,500 federal tax credit were to stay in place despite the EV antagonist living the White House, then the basic Slate will be a new car that can be had for less than 20-grand.
That’s a tempting number for the many Americans who see their car as an appliance, not an extension of their personality, and who generally make automotive decisions with their wallets. It’s also a powerful example of how much difference incentives could make once EVs approach the affordable end of the car market. A Rivian with $7,500 knocked off is a slightly cheaper expensive car. A Chevy Equinox EV at $7,500 off is cost-competitive with combustion rivals. A Slate truck marked down by $7,500 goes from an ugly duckling to an economic lifeline for the countless Americans who need an affordable ride.
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 new front opens in the data center wars.
A series of lawsuits filed in federal court asks a big question – are data center moratoria constitutional?
In early August, data center developer DC Blox sued the city of Nashville in federal court to overturn a zoning moratorium stopping them from building a hyperscale facility adjacent to the city zoo. “The Data Center Moratorium, moreover, is a targeted attack against DC BLOX, in violation of federal constitutional protections,” the suit argued, claiming that it defied the corporation’s due process and equal protection rights.
Around the same time, another developer – Wixom Industrial One – filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Wixom, Michigan, to try and “invalidate the city’s illegal police power moratorium” blocking their data center.
These two cases were far from novel or the first of their kind, and they’re now a fresh front in the battle over hyperscale data centers. At least that’s what some who work on these cases say: In April, attorneys with the law firm Vorys published a “client alert” asserting “many moratoria may be vulnerable to statutory, procedural, and constitutional challenges.” The attorneys advised that constitutional arguments against moratoria “may be stronger where a government singles out data centers without a sound factual basis, treats similar land uses differently without a reasonable basis, or adopts a restriction driven more by political pressure than by defensible planning or regulatory objectives.”
Months later, according to court documents, the Vorys attorneys who authored the alert now represent real estate firm Thor Equities in a federal case against the Ohio city of Urbana, arguing the city’s decision to reject their data center project broke “fundamental protections” under the U.S. Constitution. (Vorys and Thor Equities did not respond to requests for comment.)
It’s unclear how many of these kinds of cases have been filed to date. Data on federal court cases is quite opaque. But legal experts and industry attorneys tell me we should expect them to be on the rise as developers seek whatever tools they can find to get projects built.
“Bringing a lawsuit like this is fairly cheap, something they can do at a relatively low cost, and imposes a real cost on local governments to defend themselves,” said Daniel Metzger, director of the Cities Climate Law Initiative at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center. “The cases out there will be bellwethers. And if successful, there’ll be a lot more of them.”
What developers probably want looks a lot like Hill County, Texas, where an LLC proposing an $80 million data center project was stymied in May by the state’s first countywide moratorium. (It predated Governor Greg Abbott’s temporary freeze of data center development in Texas by three months.) Within a period of only a few weeks, the LLC sued and the county rescinded the pause on approvals. The case was dropped a month later. Local reports state the county had to afterwards pay the corporation $100,000 in legal fees – a drop in the bucket compared to what a drawn-out court battle would have cost the rural county.
Metzger said whether the companies will win these cases is ultimately not the point – their goal is to win a finished data center, not a judicial ruling. By filing expansive litigation in the national court system, a hypothetical developer can exhaust the coffers of a city or county with legal expenses that are chump change compared to would-be billions in private financing for compute infrastructure.
“These lawsuits may deter some local governments from taking steps to oppose data center development, just because of the cost it would impose on them to defend a lawsuit, even if they know they have a strong legal basis for the action they want to take.”
Those I spoke to in private practice about data center developers’ constitutional arguments agreed with Metzger’s assessment that it’s too early to tell whether the companies will win. Generally, they said, a city or county will win this kind of case if it demonstrates a rational basis for its decision-making and courts typically want to defer to governmental autonomy. The onus will be on the developers to prove a moratorium was meritless – that’s the due process challenge – or unfairly targeted their industry in a way other sectors don’t face, which is the basis of the equal protection claim.
“What they’re saying is in essence that these actions the municipality is taking are arbitrary and capricious, which is one of the sort of catch-all standards,” Thomas Allen, a partner at K&L Gates, told me. “They say the laws lack a rational basis. And then they make equal protection claims, saying data centers are being singled out because of political concerns as opposed to actual things relevant to the legislature’s directive. They’re not basing their decisions on the underlying merits of the project but reacting to political pressure.”
“It’s a reliance question and it’s about the treatment of their projects,” added Laura Morton, an attorney with Ashurst Perkins Coie. “It’s always been important to talk about and engage with communities where your infrastructure is planned. Here, I think this is the developers going in, maybe having conversations, and then suddenly they’re getting a reversal after already receiving these approvals and making investments based off of what the conversations and rules were.”
The likelihood of these constitutional challenges reaching higher courts anytime soon is quite low. It’ll be a long time before we see one of these cases reach a verdict, let alone some kind of appeals process come to fruition. Nevertheless, the new legal ambiguity around these local restrictions is an important new facet of the data center wars, including for developers.
“Companies want to act within the law to get [things] done, so whatever tactics they can do to help get the project over the line that are legal and ethical, they may try those,” Allen told me. “And if that includes the pressure of a lawsuit, that’s a judgment they’ll have to make.”
And more on this week’s conflicts around project development.
1. Montgomery County, Pennsylvania – We reached a new normal in the data center backlash, and it all seems to have started in King of Prussia.
2. Columbia County, Wisconsin – The gubernatorial race in this state is transforming local fights over wind projects into must-watch popcorn fodder for anyone obsessed with the state of the energy transition, or national politics for that matter.
3. Shelby County, Alabama – One quick update on the intervention of John Rich, the country star turned Trump’s “special envoy for American landowners,” in an Alabama Power transmission project: it’s getting a lot more elected officials involved.
4. New Jersey – We try to conclude every Hotspots on a positive note. So this week’s silver lining comes to you from the Garden State, where state regulators have approved more than a dozen agrivoltaics projects.
A conversation with Ella Nilsen — formerly of CNN, now with Echo Communications — about where we stand in the fight over the energy transition.
This week’s conversation is with Ella Nilsen, who recently left CNN as a climate reporter and is now a new vice president at energy and cleantech PR firm Echo Communications. Having worked on Capitol Hill alongside Nilsen, I knew her to be an exceptional reporter who asked hard questions of those in power on all sides. So when I found out she was taking her journalism hat off and putting the comms cap on, I wanted to do something you rarely get to do with one of your reporting peers: ask for her own opinion about where we stand in the fight over the energy transition.
Our chat was lightly edited for clarity.
What’s it like going from CNN and climate journalism to advising on communications in the energy sector, especially when it comes to clean tech in this fraught moment?
So before I covered climate and clean energy, I was a political reporter who covered campaign cycles and Capitol Hill for a while, and I was always interested in the nexus of politics and politics. I tried to make as much of my coverage about that. Politics is policy, and the other way around.
Being on the other side of it is, well, I know from my experience as a reporter what interests them. I’m trying to figure out ways to make sure when I’m bugging you all that the pitch lands, because hopefully it’ll be something people are interested in. Things are changing so fast. It’s a really fascinating time to be a reporter and be in the clean energy comms space.
Okay, but now that you’re in clean energy comms, how do you handicap the fight over developing these technologies? Who is winning, who is losing, and why?
I think it’s tough to call exact winners and losers right now because over the last few months, there have been so many new and interesting developments.
Look at the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition, which has been getting involved in Republican primaries for Freedom Caucus members. There’s been this perception for a long time that the clean energy industry didn’t fare well in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act fight. They had important wins while losing pretty key stuff. But there’s been this interesting reckoning within the industry, and even this last summer, where people are moving the ball forward in interesting ways. They’re trying to get involved in political fights with direct results.
What messages do these primaries send? On the one hand I can see there being political consequences but also, now, more solar energy money going into Republican politics has the anti-renewable folks saying they need to go harder at them. I’m curious how you see the energy fight landscape changing in light of these election results.
I think it shows the industry has some fight in it. What the Coalition would probably say is, they want to be lethal and this is political warfare. They’re trying to be taken seriously.
There is sort of this two-pronged strategy happening right now. Obviously Invest in Tomorrow has gotten a lot of press attention for their track record. There’s also within the industry an attempt to shape a public narrative around wind, solar, battery storage to combat misinformation, both through conventional media and social media. They’re happening in tandem and it's a reflection of the results.
How is the backlash over data center development affecting the work you’re now doing?
Well, I’m still early, but I think the data center question is a fascinating one. Conversations around policy and where we go from here really seem to me to be happening in the state realm. Not a lot of policy happening at the federal level. There’s New York State’s data center pause, which is leading to lawmakers trying to get more leverage.
It’s in the backdrop, where projects are being announced with massive power plants to supply new data center demand, and at the same time there’s a conversation around virtual power plants, DERs. Another phrase emerging for it is “community power.”
It’s starting to be a fascinating conversation around community benefits. There are tax benefits when a data center comes to town but when it comes to energy use, what can communities actually leverage out of this? I know former Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has been arguing for strong community benefit agreements, getting big tech companies to pay for solar and EVs and then using all of that to create a virtual power plant. Getting that to be flexible for data centers. That’s only one part of the pie but it’s fascinating to have this conversation about what forms of energy we need for all this demand happening.
What do you foresee about the impact of the backlash, given that land use, visuals, air, and water – its all being swept up in the same conversation?
I don’t have a crystal ball and have the same questions.
It’s all happening so quickly and it’s all playing out in so many different states. There are really important questions here and there are people smarter than I am on this, talking about how we meet this demand in the short term and long term or whether this is an opportunity for getting clean energy onto the grid. But it’s a delicate dance.