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:
Using the Supercharger network with a non-Tesla is great — except for one big, awkward problem.

You can drive your life away and never notice the little arrow on the dashboard — the one next to the fuel canister icon that points out which side of the car the gas cap is on. The arrow is a fun piece of everyday design that has inspired many a know-it-all friend or TikTok. But while the intel it relays can be helpful if you’re driving a rental car, or are just generally forgetful, it doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme what side your fuel filler is on. Service stations are so big that there’s generally enough space to park at an open pump in whatever orientation a vehicle demands.
That’s not quite the case with electric cars.
When I test-drove the new Hyundai Ioniq 9 this summer, the industrial designers had included their own version of the little arrow to point out the location of the EV’s charging port. In the Ioniq 9’s case, it’s on the passenger’s side, the opposite of where you’d find the port on a Tesla. Turns out, that’s a problem. On our trip from L.A. to San Jose, Hyundai's navigation system directed me to a busy Tesla Supercharger just off the interstate in the parking lot of a Denny’s. But because of the big EV’s backward port placement, I needed two empty stalls next to each other — both of which I wound up blocking when I backed in to charge. The episode is an example of how we screwed over the present by not thinking hard enough when we built the infrastructure of the recent past.
Let’s back up. In the opening stage of the EV race, the charging question was split between Tesla and everybody else. The other electric carmakers adopted a few shared plug standards. But just like with gas cars, where the left-or-right placement of the gas cap seemed to vary arbitrarily vehicle to vehicle, there was no standardized placement of the charging port. Because all manner of different EVs pulled in, companies like Electrify America and Chargepoint built their chargers with cords long enough to reach either side of a car.
Tesla, meanwhile, built out its excellent but vertically integrated Supercharger network with only Tesla cars in mind. In most cases, a station amounted to eight or more parking spaces all in a row. The cable that came off each charging post was only long enough to reach the driver’s side rear, where all the standardized ports on Teslas can be found. The thinking made sense at the time. Other EVs weren’t allowed to use the Supercharger network. Why, then, would you pay for extra cabling to reach the other side of the vehicle?
It became a big issue late in 2022. At that point, Musk made Tesla’s proprietary plug an open-source standard and encouraged the other carmakers to adopt it. One by one they fell in line. The other car companies pledged to use the newly renamed North American Charging Standard, or NACS, in their future EVs. Then Tesla began to open many, but not all, of its stations to Rivians, Hyundais, and other electric cars.
Which leads us to today. The Ioniq 9, which began deliveries this summer, comes with a NACS port. This allows drivers to use Tesla stations without the need to keep an annoying dongle handy. But because Hyundai put the port on the opposite side, the car is oriented in the opposite direction from the way hundreds or thousands of Supercharger stations are set up. Suppose you find an empty spot between two Teslas and back in — the plug that could reach your passenger’s side port actually belongs to the stall next to you, and is in use by the EV parked there. The available cord, the one meant for the stall you actually parked in, can’t reach over to the passenger’s side.
The result is a mess. Find two open stalls next to each other and you can make it work, though it means you’re taking up both of them (stealing the cord meant for the neighboring stall and blocking the cord meant for the one you’re parked in). At giant stations with dozens of plugs, this is no big deal. At smaller ones with just 12 or 16 plugs, it’s a nuisance. I’ve walked out and moved the Rivian I was test-driving before I had all the electricity I wanted because I felt guilty about blocking two stalls. To avoid this breach of etiquette you might need to park illegally, leaving your EV in a non-spot or in a place where it’s blocking the sidewalk just so it can reach the plug. (Says Tesla FAQ: “In some cases you might have to park over the line in order to charge comfortably. Avoid parking diagonally to reach the cable and try to obstruct as few charge posts as possible.)
Some relief from this short-sightnedness is coming. Tesla’s new “V4” stations that are currently opening around the world are built with this complexity in mind and include longer cables and an orientation meant to reach either side of the vehicle. The buildout of EV chargers of all kinds is slated to continue even with the Trump administration’s opposition to funding them, and new stations should be flexible to any kind of electric car. And the idea of making sure EVs of any size and shape can charge is picking up steam. For example, many of the stations in Rivian’s Adventure Network include at least one stall where the charging post is off to the side of an extra-long parking space so that an EV towing a trailer can reach its charging port.
Yet for now, we’re stuck with what we’ve already built. There are more than 2,500 Tesla Supercharger stations in the U.S., representing more than 30,000 individual plugs, and most of those were built with the V2 and V3 versions of Tesla’s technology that have this orientation problem. For years to come, many of those stations will be the best or only option for non-Tesla EVs on a road trip, which means we’re all in for some extra inconvenience.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The most popular scope 3 models assume an entirely American supply chain. That doesn’t square with reality.
“You can’t manage what you don’t measure,” the adage goes. But despite valiant efforts by companies to measure their supply chain emissions, the majority are missing a big part of the picture.
Widely used models for estimating supply chain emissions simplify the process by assuming that companies source all of their goods from a single country or region. This is obviously not how the world works, and manufacturing in the United States is often cleaner than in countries with coal-heavy grids, like China, where many of the world’s manufactured goods actually come from. A study published in the journal Nature Communications this week found that companies using a U.S.-centric model may be undercounting their emissions by as much as 10%.
“We find very large differences in not only the magnitude of the upstream carbon footprint for a given business, but the hot spots, like where there are more or less emissions happening, and thus where a company would want to gather better data and focus on reducing,” said Steven Davis, a professor of Earth system science in the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability and lead author of the paper.
Several of the authors of the paper, including Davis, are affiliated with the software startup Watershed, which helps companies measure and reduce their emissions. Watershed already encourages its clients to use its own proprietary multi-region model, but the company is now working with Stanford and the consulting firm ERG to build a new and improved tool called Cornerstone that will be freely available for anyone to use.
“Our hope is that with the release of scientific papers like this one and with the launch of Cornerstone, we can help the ecosystem transition to higher quality open access datasets,” Yohanna Maldonado, Watershed’s Head of Climate Data told me in an email.
The study arrives as the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, a nonprofit that publishes carbon accounting standards that most companies voluntarily abide by, is in the process of revising its guidance for calculating “scope 3” emissions. Scope 3 encompasses the carbon that a company is indirectly responsible for, such as from its supply chain and from the use of its products by customers. Watershed is advocating that the new standard recommend companies use a multi-region modeling approach, whether Watershed’s or someone else’s.
Davis walked me through a hypothetical example to illustrate how these models work in practice. Imagine a company that manufactures exercise bikes — it assembles the final product in a factory in the U.S., but sources screws and other components from China. The typical way this company would estimate the carbon footprint of its supply chain would be to use a dataset published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that estimates the average emissions per dollar of output for about 400 sectors of the U.S. economy. The EPA data doesn’t get down to the level of detail of a specific screw, but it does provide an estimate of emissions per dollar of output for, say, hardware manufacturing. The company would then multiply the amount of money it spent on screws by that emissions factor.
Companies take this approach because real measurements of supply chain emissions are rare. It’s not yet common practice for suppliers to provide this information, and supply chains are so complex that a product might pass through several different hands before reaching the company trying to do the calculation. There are emerging efforts to use remote sensing and other digital data collection and monitoring systems to create more accurate, granular datasets, Alexia Kelly, a veteran corporate sustainability executive and current director at the High Tide Foundation, told me. In the meantime, even though sector-level emissions estimates are rough approximations, they can at least give a company an indication of which parts of their supply chain are most problematic.
When those estimates don’t take into account country of origin, however, they don’t give companies an accurate picture of which parts of their supply chains need the most attention.
The new study used Watershed’s multi-region model to look at how different types of companies’ emissions would change if they used supply chain data that better reflected the global nature of supply chains. Davis is the first to admit that the study’s findings of higher emissions are not surprising. The carbon accounting field has long been aware of the shortcomings of single-region models. There hasn’t been a big push to change that, however, because the exercise is already voluntary and taking into account global supply chains is significantly more difficult. Many countries don’t publish emissions and economic data, and those that do use a variety of methods to report it. Reconciling those differences adds to the challenge.
While the overall conclusion isn’t surprising, the study may be the first to show the magnitude of the problem and illustrate how more accurate modeling could redirect corporate sustainability efforts. “As far as I know, there is no similar analysis like this focused on corporate value chain emissions,” Derik Broekhoff, a senior scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute, told me in an email. “The research is an important reminder for companies (and standard setters like the Greenhouse Gas Protocol), who in practice appear to be overlooking foreign supply chain emissions in large numbers.”
Broekhoff said Watershed’s upcoming open-source model “could provide a really useful solution.” At the same time, he said, it’s worth noting that this whole approach of calculating emissions based on dollars spent is subject to significant uncertainty. “Using spending data to estimate supply chain emissions provides only a first-order approximation at best!”
The decision marks the Trump administration’s second offshore wind defeat this week.
A federal court has lifted Trump’s stop work order on the Empire Wind offshore wind project, the second defeat in court this week for the president as he struggles to stall turbines off the East Coast.
In a brief order read in court Thursday morning, District Judge Carl Nichols — a Trump appointee — sided with Equinor, the Norwegian energy developer building Empire Wind off the coast of New York, granting its request to lift a stop work order issued by the Interior Department just before Christmas.
Interior had cited classified national security concerns to justify a work stoppage. Now, for the second time this week, a court has ruled the risks alleged by the Trump administration are insufficient to halt an already-permitted project midway through construction.
Anti-offshore wind activists are imploring the Trump administration to appeal this week’s injunctions on the stop work orders. “We are urging Secretary Burgum and the Department of Interior to immediately appeal this week’s adverse federal district court rulings and seek an order halting all work pending appellate review,” Robin Shaffer, president of Protect Our Coast New Jersey, said in a statement texted to me after the ruling came down.
Any additional delays may be fatal for some of the offshore wind projects affected by Trump’s stop work orders, irrespective of the rulings in an appeal. Both Equinor and Orsted, developer of the Revolution Wind project, argued for their preliminary injunctions because even days of delay would potentially jeopardize access to vessels necessary for construction. Equinor even told the court that if the stop work order wasn’t lifted by Friday — that is, January 16 — it would cancel Empire Wind. Though Equinor won today, it is nowhere near out of the woods.
More court action is coming: Dominion will present arguments on Friday in federal court against the stop work order halting construction of its Coastal Virginia offshore wind project.
On Heatmap's annual survey, Trump’s wind ‘spillover,’ and Microsoft’s soil deal
Current conditions: A polar vortex is sweeping frigid air back into the Northeast and bringing up to 6 inches of snow to northern parts of New England • Temperatures in the Southeast are set to plunge 25 degrees Fahrenheit below last week’s averages, with highs below freezing in Atlanta • Temperatures in the Nigerian capital of Abuja, meanwhile, are nearing 100 degrees.

To comically understate the obvious, it’s been a big year for climate. So Heatmap called up 55 of the most discerning and disputatious experts — scientists, researchers, innovators, and reformers; some of whom led the Biden administration’s policy efforts, some of whom are harsh or heterodox critics of mainstream environmentalism. We asked them to take stock of everything going on now, from the Trump administration’s shifting policy landscape to China’s evolving place in the world.
The results of that inquiry are now out. You can check out everything on this homepage.
Or see:
Wyoming is inching closer to building what could be the United States’ largest data center after commissioners in Laramie County last week unanimously approved construction of a complex designed to scale from an initial 1.8 gigawatts to 10 gigawatts. The facility, called Project Jade, is set to be built by the data center giant Crusoe, with the neighboring gas turbines to power the plant provided by BFC Power and Cheyenne Power Hub. Crusoe’s chief real estate officer, Matt Field, told commissioners last week that the first phase would “leverage natural gas with a potential pathway for CO2 sequestration in the future” by tapping into developer Tallgrass Energy Partners’ existing carbon well hub, Inside Climate News wrote Wednesday.
While the potential for renewables is under discussion, a separate state hearing last week highlighted mounting opposition to the most prolific source of clean power in the state: Wind energy. Nearly two dozen residents from central and southeast Wyoming lambasted a growing “wall” of wind turbines in what Wyofile described as “emotional pleas.” One Cheyenne resident named Wendy Volk said: “This is no longer a series of isolated projects. It is a continuous, or near continuous, industrial corridor stretching across multiple counties and landscapes.”

Global wind executives are warning of “negative spillover” effects on investor sentiment from the Trump administration’s suspended leases on all large U.S. offshore wind projects. In an interview with the Financial Times, Vestas CEO Henrik Andersen, who also serves as the president of the industry group WindEurope, called 2025 a “rollercaster” year. “When you have a 20- to 30-year investment program, the only way you can cover yourself for risk is to ask for a higher return,” he said. “When you get impairments in an industry, everyone would start saying, ‘could that hit us as well?’”
The British government seems willing to reduce that risk. On Wednesday, the United Kingdom handed out record subsidy contracts for offshore wind projects. At the same time, however, oil giant BP wrote down the value of its low-carbon business — which includes wind, solar, and hydrogen — by upward of $5 billion, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Microsoft on Thursday announced one of the largest soil-based deals to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Under a 12-year agreement, the tech giant will purchase 2.85 million credits from the startup Indigo Carbon PBC, which sequesters carbon dioxide in soil through regenerative agricultural practices. It’s the third deal between Indigo and Microsoft, building on 40,000 metric tons in 2024 and 60,000 last year. “Microsoft is pleased by Indigo’s approach to regenerative agriculture that delivers measurable results through verified credits and payments to growers, while advancing soil carbon science with advanced modeling and academic partnerships,” Phillip Goodman, Microsoft’s director of carbon removal, said in a statement. Microsoft, as my colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote recently, has “dominated” carbon removal over the past year, increasing its purchases more than fivefold in 2025 compared to 2024.
Despite major progress on clean energy, especially with solar and batteries, a new report by McKinsey & Company found big gaps between current deployments and 2030 goals. The analysis, the first from the megaconsultancy to include China and nuclear power, highlighted “notable discrepancies between announced projects and those with committed funding,” and warned that less than “15% of low-emissions technologies required to meet Paris-aligned goals have been deployed.” In a statement, Diego Hernandez Diaz, McKinsey partner and co-author of the report, said the “progress landscape is nuanced by region and technology and while achieving energy transition commitments remain paramount for countries and companies alike, recent announcements indicate that shifting priorities and slowing momentum have led to project pauses and cancellations across technologies.”
The findings come as emissions are rising. As I wrote in yesterday’s newsletter, the latest Rhodium Group estimate of U.S. emissions notched a reversal of the last two years of declines. In a new Carbon Brief analysis, climate scientist Zeke Hausfather found that 2025 was in the top-three warmest years on record with average surface temperatures reaching 1.44 Celsius above pre-industrial averages across eight independent datasets.
China just installed the most powerful turbine ever built offshore. The 20-megawatt turbine off the coast of Fujian Province set a record for both capacity and rotor diameter, 300 meters from its 147-meter blades. “Compared with offshore wind farms with 16-megawatt units, 20-megawatt units can help wind farms reduce the number of units by 25%, save sea area, dilute development costs, and open up economic blockages for the large-scale development of deep-sea wind power,” the manufacturer, Goldwind, said in a statement.