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:
A new study from E3 shows big potential cost savings for utilities with smart chargers.

Ditching the combustion engine for an electric vehicle is a good first step for cutting transportation emissions. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that owning an electric car on its own is not enough. When and how you charge the car makes an enormous difference, not only for reducing CO2 emissions, but also for helping the power grid withstand the coming electrification wave.
We know that not all charging is created equal. Location, for example, is an obvious difference-maker. In places with ample renewable energy such as hydro-dominated Washington or solar California, electric vehicles produce vastly less climate pollution over their lifetimes than gasoline cars. In places with fossil-fuel-heavy grid, the climate benefit is still there, but much smaller.
The matter of when to charge is, similarly, about aligning EV charging with the supply of renewable energy. As Heatmap has noted before, it makes sense for solar-heavy states to encourage EV owners to charge at midday when clean energy generation peaks — that would help to level out California’s duck curve rather than make it worse. That’s easier said than done, though, since not everyone’s workplace has electric vehicle chargers. Besides, the simplest form of the EV lifestyle is to plug in upon returning home from work and errands in the evening, the very moment when electricity use spikes and solar energy is dropping off for the day.
Charging’s place and time are both important for maximizing the climate good EVs can do. They are also matters of growing importance for electric utilities that must learn how to balance the coming acceleration in electricity demand without seeing their costs spiral out of control. According to new research by the group Energy and Environmental Economics, smarter ways to optimize the when and the how of EV charging could save them an enormous amount in upgrade costs.
E3’s researchers ran case studies, including one that modeled the EV-heavy territory of Southern California Edison, to find out how different approaches to widespread EV charging affected how much extra costs the utilities incurred. The researchers considered three approaches to charging. In the first, “unmanaged,” drivers plug in as soon as they get home and the vehicle charges until full. In the second, a “passive managed" scenario, the EV doesn’t necessarily charge to full immediately, but instead waits until off-peak hours when the price of electricity drops. The third, “optimized,” used Rhythmos.io’s software to imagine a system wherein a car can detect the exact moments to charge to place the least strain on the grid.
The differences were stark. E3 used California’s official Avoided Cost Calendar to measure the added costs to SCE under each scenario. Whereas unmanaged charging cost the utility $984 per EV added to the system, optimized charging dropped that figure to just $407, a 60% reduction. (The middle-ground scenario came in at $686.)
Much of these savings are attributable to avoiding the wear and tear and possible overloads that electrical transformers would suffer in a world where everyone tries to charge their EVs all at once. (The transformers that form that backbone of the power grid are rated to specific currents and voltages they cannot safely exceed, which is one of the limiting factors on how much the system can handle.) It’s a particularly pressing matter in this age of transformer shortages, when it can take years to get a replacement for a broken or outdated one.
Although the financial and resilience benefits of optimized EV charging are clear in E3’s findings, they’re far from simple to achieve in the complex moment-to-moment reality of the grid. E3 study coauthor Eric Cutter told me it starts with communication — utilities could give EV drivers a forecast a day in advance, for example, telling them when clean energy will be in good supply and prices will be low.
“They could say, ‘Tomorrow is a sunny day, so please charge during the day,’ or, ‘Tomorrow is a cloudy day, and it happens to be very hot and humid, so the air conditioners are going to be ringing, so please don't charge in the evening and charge late at night,’” he says. “And they could make that determination each day as to what's going to be the most beneficial for the system.”
But much of this work will be automatic and algorithmic. For optimized charging to work, all drivers have to do is leave their EV plugged in and be okay with whenever the system decides to send them electricity. The software will decide which cars get which levels of charge, and when, to minimize strain on grid infrastructure.
That raises another question about trust. People who don’t like the local power company — and there’s a lot of them — might not want to allow that entity to decide when their EV gets to charge. They also might not trust that they’ll have enough battery range when they need it. To combat the first issue, Cutter said, perhaps drivers will sign up for a charging management system run through their car’s manufacturer, since drivers often have a better opinion of Honda or Ford than they do of their utility. And to fight the range anxiety problem, he says, some pilot programs have given customers a button to opt out of optimized charging.
“What the programs have found out is that customers want the button, but they never use it. It's very, very rare,” he says.
The number of EVs in America, especially in markets outside California, has yet to reach a point where a smarter way to charge has become a necessity. Although their sales share is rising, EVs accounted for just 8.1% of cars sold in 2024; only California has seen the energy demand from electric vehicles exceed 1 million megawatt-hours, though the numbers are rising fast. Even with EVs and electrification facing stiff political headwinds, utilities across the nation are already at work on plans to handle the influx of EV demand.
“Ten years ago when we were talking to utilities, a lot of them would say, ‘We're not worried about EVs. Come back to me when that's 5% of adoption or 10% of load.’ But not anymore. I don't think utilities anymore are waiting until that level of adoption to start thinking about how they need to plan for them.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Activists are suing for records on three projects in Wyoming.
Three wind projects in Wyoming are stuck in the middle of a widening legal battle between local wildlife conservation activists and the Trump administration over eagle death records.
The rural Wyoming bird advocacy group Albany County Conservancy filed a federal lawsuit last week against the Trump administration seeking to compel the government to release reams of information about how it records deaths from three facilities owned and operated by the utility PacifiCorp: Dunlap Wind, Ekola Flats, and Seven Mile Hill. The group filed its lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act, the national public records disclosure law, and accused the Fish and Wildlife Service of unlawfully withholding evidence related to whether the three wind farms were fully compliant with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
I’m eyeing this case closely because it suggests these wind farms may fall under future scrutiny from the Fish and Wildlife Service, either for prospective fines or far worse, as the agency continues a sweeping review of wind projects’ compliance with BGEPA, a statute anti-wind advocates have made clear they seek to use as a cudgel against operating facilities. It’s especially noteworthy that a year into Trump’s term, his promises to go after wind projects have not really touched onshore, primarily offshore. (The exception, of course, being Lava Ridge.)
Violating the eagle protection statute has significant penalties. For each eagle death beyond what FWS has permitted, a company is subject to at least $100,000 in fines or a year in prison. These penalties go up if a company is knowingly violating the law repeatedly. In August, the Service sent letters to wind developers and utilities across the country requesting records demonstrating compliance with BGEPA as part of a crackdown on wind energy writ large.
This brings us back to the lawsuit. Crucial to this case is the work of a former Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Mike Lockhart, whom intrepid readers of The Fight may remember for telling me that he’s been submitting evidence of excessive golden eagle deaths to Fish and Wildlife for years. Along with its legal complaint, the Conservancy filed a detailed breakdown of its back-and-forth with Fish and Wildlife over an initial public records request. Per those records, the agency has failed to produce any evidence that it received Lockhart’s proof of bird deaths – ones that he asserts occurred because of these wind farms.
“By refusing to even identify, let alone disclose, obviously responsive but nonexempt records the Conservancy knows to be in the Department’s possession and/or control, the Department leaves open serious questions about the integrity of its administration of BGEPA,” the lawsuit alleges.
The Fish and Wildlife Service did not respond to a request for comment on the case, though it’s worth noting that agencies rarely comment on pending litigation. PacifiCorp did not immediately respond to a request either. I will keep you posted as this progresses.
Plus more of the week’s biggest fights in renewable energy.
1. York County, Nebraska – A county commissioner in this rural corner of Nebraska appears to have lost his job after greenlighting a solar project.
2. St. Joseph County, Indiana – Down goes another data center!
3. Maricopa County, Arizona – I’m looking at the city of Mesa to see whether it’ll establish new rules that make battery storage development incredibly challenging.
4. Imperial County, California – Solar is going to have a much harder time in this agricultural area now that there’s a cap on utility-scale projects.
5. Converse County, Wyoming – The Pronghorn 2 hydrogen project is losing its best shot at operating: the wind.
6. Grundy County, Illinois – Another noteworthy court ruling came this week as a state circuit court ruled against the small city of Morris, which had sued the county seeking to block permits for an ECA Solar utility-scale project.
A conversation with Public Citizen’s Deanna Noel.
This week’s conversation is with Deanna Noel, climate campaigns director for the advocacy group Public Citizen. I reached out to Deanna because last week Public Citizen became one of the first major environmental groups I’ve seen call for localities and states to institute full-on moratoria against any future data center development. The exhortation was part of a broader guide for more progressive policymakers on data centers, but I found this proposal to be an especially radical one as some communities institute data center moratoria that also restrict renewable energy. I wanted to know, how do progressive political organizations talk about data center bans without inadvertently helping opponents of solar and wind projects?
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Why are you recommending we ban data centers until we have regulations?
The point of us putting this out was to give policymakers a roadmap and a starting point at all levels of government, putting in guardrails to start reeling in Big Tech. Because the reality is they’re writing their own rules with how they’d like to roll out these massive data centers.
A big reason for a moratorium at the state and local level is to put in place requirements to ensure any more development that is happening is not just stepping on local communities, undermining our climate goals, impacting water resources or having adverse societal impacts like incessant noise. Big Tech is often hiding behind non-disclosure agreements and tying the hands of local officials behind NDAs while they’re negotiating deals for their data centers, which then becomes a gag order blocking officials and the public from understanding what is happening. And so our guide set out to provide a policy roadmap and a starting point is to say, let’s put a pause on this.
Do you see any cities or states doing this now? I’m trying to get a better understanding of where this came from.
It’s happening at the local level. There was a moratorium in Prince George’s County [in Maryland], where I live, until a task force can be developed and make sure local residents’ concerns are addressed. In Georgia, localities have done this, too.
The idea on its own is simple: States and localities have the authority and should be the ones to implement these moratoriums that no data centers should go forward until baseline protections are in place. There are many protections we go through in our guide, but No. 1, Big Tech should be forced to pay their way. These are some of the most wealthy corporations on the planet, and yet they’re bending backwards to negotiate deals with local utilities and governments to ensure they’re paying as little as possible for the cost of their power infrastructure. Those costs are being put on ratepayers.
The idea of a moratorium is there’s a tension in a data center buildout without any regulations.
Do you have any concerns about pushing for blanket moratoria on new technological infrastructure? We’re seeing this policy thrown at solar and wind and batteries now. Is there any concern it’ll go from data centers to renewables next in some places?
First off, you’re right, and the Trump administration wants to fast-track an expansion that’ll rely on fossil fuels: coal, oil and gas. We’re in a climate crisis, and we’d be better off if these data centers relied entirely on renewable energy.
It’s incredibly important for policymakers to be clear when they’re setting moratoria that they’re not inadvertently halting clean, cheap energy like wind and solar. This is about the unfettered expansion of the data center industry to feed the AI machine. That’s what the focus needs to be on.
Yes, but there’s also this land use techlash going on, and I’m a little concerned advocacy for a moratorium on data centers will help those fighting to institute moratoria on solar and wind. I’m talking about Ohio and Wisconsin and Iowa. Are you at all concerned about a horseshoe phenomenon here, where people are opposing data centers for the same reasons they’re fighting renewable energy projects? What should folks in the advocacy space do to make sure those things aren’t tethered to one another?
That’s a great question. I think it comes down to clear messaging for the public.
People are opportunistic — they want to get their passion projects no matter what. We as advocates need to consistently message that renewable energy is not only the energy of tomorrow, but of today. It’s where the rest of the world is headed and the U.S. is going backwards under the Trump administration.
The data center issue is separate. Data centers are using way more land – these massive hyperscaler data center campuses – are using more land than solar and wind. We can be creative with those energies in a way we can’t with the data center expansion.
We need to make it absolutely clear: This is about corporate expansion at the expense of everyone else in a way that solar and wind aren’t. Those bring costs down and don’t have anywhere near as much of an environmental impact.