You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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:

During Alan Greenspan’s decade-plus run leading the Federal Reserve, investors and the financial media were convinced that there was a “Greenspan put” underlying the stock market. The basic idea was that if the markets fell too much or too sharply, the Fed would intervene and put a floor on prices analogous to a “put” option on a stock, which allows an investor to sell a stock at a specific price, even if it’s currently selling for less. The existence of this put — which was, to be clear, never a stated policy — was thought to push stock prices up, as it gave investors more confidence that their assets could only fall so far.
While current Fed Chair Jerome Powell would be loath to comment on a specific volatile security, we may be seeing the emergence of a kind of sociopolitical put for Tesla, one coming from the White House and conservative media instead of the Federal Reserve.
The company’s high-flying stock shed over $100 billion of value on Monday, falling around 15% and leaving the price down around 50% from its previous all-time high. While the market as a whole also swooned, especially high-value technology companies like Nvidia and Meta, Tesla was the worst hit. Analysts attributed the particularly steep fall to concerns that CEO Elon Musk was spending too much time in Washington, and that the politicization of the brand had made it toxic to buyers in Europe and among liberals in the United States.
Then the cavalry came in. Sean Hannity told his Fox News audience that he had bought a Model S, while President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that “I’m going to buy a brand new Tesla tomorrow morning as a show of confidence and support for Elon Musk, a truly great American.” By this afternoon, Trump had turned the White House lawn into a sales floor for Musk’s electric vehicles. Tesla shares closed the day up almost 4%, while the market overall closed down after Trump and his advisors’ furious whiplash policy pronouncements on tariffs.
Whether the Tesla put succeeds remains to be seen. The stock is still well, well below its all-time highs, but it may confirm a new way to understand Tesla — not as a company that sells electric vehicles to people concerned about climate change, but rather as a conservative culture war totem that has also made sizable investments in artificial intelligence and robotics.
When Musk bought Twitter and devoted more of his time, energy, money, and public pronouncements to right wing politics, some observers thought that maybe he could lift the dreadful image of electric vehicles among Trump voters. But when Pew did a survey on public attitudes towards electric vehicles back in 2023, it found that “Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, younger adults, and people living in urban areas are among the most likely to say they would consider purchasing an EV” — hardly a broad swathe of Trump’s America. More than two-thirds of Republicans surveyed said they weren’t interested in buying an electric car, compared to 30% of Democrats.
On the campaign trail, Trump regularly lambasted EVs, although by the end of the campaign, as Musk’s support became more voluminous, he’s lightened up a bit. In any case, the Biden administration’s pro-electric-vehicle policies were an early target for the Trump administration, and the consumer subsidies for EVs passed under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act are widely considered to be one of the softest targets for repeal.
But newer data shows that the tide may be turning, not so much for electric vehicles, but likely for Tesla itself.
The Wall Street Journal reported survey data last week showing that only 13% of Democrats would consider buying a Tesla, down from 23% from August of 2023, while 26% of Republicans would consider buying a Tesla, up from 15%. Vehicle registration data cited by the Journal suggested a shift in new Tesla purchases from liberal urban areas such as New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, towards more conservative-friendly metropolises like Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, and Miami.
At the same time, many Tesla investors appear to be mostly seeing through the gyrations in the famously volatile stock and relatively unconcerned about month-to-month or quarter-to-quarter sales data. After all, even after the epic fall in Tesla’s stock price, the company is still worth over $700 billion, more than Toyota, General Motors, and Ford combined, each of which sells several times more cars per year than Tesla.
Many investors simply do not view Tesla as a luxury or mass market automaker, instead seeing it as an artificial intelligence and robotics company. When I speak to individual Tesla shareholders, they’re always telling me how great Full Self-Driving is, not how many cars they expect the company to sell in August. In many cases, Musk has made Tesla stockholders a lot of money, so they’re willing to cut him tremendous slack and generally believe that he has the future figured out.
Longtime Tesla investor Ron Baron, who bought hundreds of millions of dollars worth of shares from 2014 to 2016, told CNBC Tuesday morning, that Musk “believes that digitization [and] autonomy is going to be driving the future. And he thinks we’re … on the verge of having an era of incredible abundance.” Baron also committed that he hasn’t, won’t, and will never sell. “I’m the last in, I’ll be the last out. So I won’t sell a single share personally until I sell all the shares for clients, and that’s what I’ve done.”
Wedbush Securities’ Dan Ives, one of the biggest Tesla bulls on the street, has told clients that he expects Tesla’s valuation to exceed $2 trillion, and that its self-driving and robotics business “will represent 90% of the valuation.”
Another longtime Tesla bull, Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas, told clients in a note Monday that Tesla remained a “Top Pick,” and that his price target was still $430, compared to the stock’s $230.58 close price on the day. His bull case, he said, was $800, which would give the company a valuation over $2.5 trillion.
When the stock lags, Jonas wrote, investors see Tesla as a car company. “In December with the stock testing $500/share, the prevailing sentiment was that the company is an AI ‘winner’ with untapped exposure to embodied AI expressions such as humanoid robotics,” Jonas wrote. “Today with the stock down 50% our investor conversations are focused on management distraction, brand degradation and lost auto sales.”
In a note to clients Tuesday, Ives beseeched Musk to “step up as CEO,” and lamented that there has been “little to no sign of Musk at any Tesla factory or manufacturing facility the last two months.” But his bullishness for Tesla was undaunted. He argued that the scheduled launch of unsupervised Full Self-Driving in June “kicks off the autonomous era at Tesla that we value at $1 trillion alone on a sum-of-the-parts valuation.”
“Autonomous will be the biggest transformation to the auto industry in modern day history,” Ives wrote, “and in our view Tesla will own the autonomous market in the U.S. and globally.”
The most effective put of all may not be anything Trump says or does, but rather investors’ optimism about the future — as long as it’s Elon Musk’s future.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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 computing facilities rise and fall on tax revenue, our new Heatmap Pro poll finds.
This is Heatmap Daily, a weekday digest written by our executive editor. Subscribe here.
Americans know why they like data centers, and they know why they don’t like them. They just can’t decide what to do about it.
That’s one takeaway from Heatmap Pro’s new poll, conducted by Embold Research, which earlier this month surveyed Americans’ fast-changing sentiment about data centers.
The poll asked more than 2,500 Americans about their views on data centers, clean energy, and economic development during the first half of October.
As I wrote yesterday, it found public opinion about data centers has rebounded slightly since the late summer. While more than 70% of Americans still say they would oppose a hypothetical data center slated for their area, support for the projects increased in our survey for the first time in more than a year.
The new results we’re releasing today add to that story. They reveal what pro- and anti-data-center arguments Americans find convincing, at least according to registered voters themselves, and they reveal the fissures over how to move forward.
Let’s start with what Americans say motivates them most to support data centers. When allowed to select up to three reasons why they might support a data center project, respondents gravitated to a few answers. Voters’ No. 1 reason to support a project is that it can generate huge amounts of tax revenue, our polling shows. Other popular answers are that data centers can help keep property taxes low or improve local sewer systems or the power grid.
Americans also seem to admire what data centers do for the economy … as long as they’re not the kind that is involved in AI. When a data center runs traditional cloud-based services like streaming, online banking, and GPS, Americans are much more likely to be in favor of it.

As you might expect, the arguments against data centers that Americans find most convincing also have a lot to do with money. The No. 1 reason to oppose a data center, respondents told us, is that it could raise power or water bills. Americans also dislike when a community has little transparency into a data center deal, when there’s a risk of local environmental harm, or when their own tax bills could go up to pay for the project.
It’s worth noting that these arguments don’t necessarily align with what actually dooms projects. Heatmap Pro’s market intelligence data suggests that loud noise is one of the biggest drivers of data center cancellations. But only about one in 10 Americans told our poll that a data center being “noisy” would cause them to oppose it.

One takeaway from these results: Americans aren’t very motivated in either direction by progress in artificial intelligence. That data centers “enable the building of AI” convinces the smallest share of Americans to support a given project. Yet it’s also among the worst-performing reasons to oppose data centers. People just don’t seem particularly exercised about AI as a technology, at least when they’re thinking about the infrastructure that might house it.
So what does all this mean for national policy, and the federal government’s outlook on data centers? Voters are split over what to do, but most prefer slowing down or restricting the boom in some form.
The plurality of Americans believe the country should keep building data centers, but “require stronger protections for electricity customers and nearby communities.” At the same time, about half of the country wants to hamper the buildout through either a temporary pause or a more aggressive permanent restriction.

Reading these results, I can’t help but think of the bipartisan Senate permitting reform bill, which, as I’ve written, would force AI data centers to pay for grid expansion and lock in protections for normal ratepayers. The debate over that proposal — and the relative importance of those provisions vis a vis the broader package — seems to get at these questions in miniature. Many climate advocates are happy about a policy that would “require stronger protections for electricity customers.” Others just want the boom to stop — at any price.
The Heatmap Pro poll of 2,537 American registered voters was conducted by Embold Research via text-to-web responses from October 3 to 15, 2026. The survey included interviews with Americans in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.
It should only pass if lawmakers disarm a key provision, the former Biden senior climate adviser says.
Former Biden senior climate adviser John Podesta wants lawmakers to take a red pen to the bipartisan permitting deal.
Podesta criticized a key part of the Senate’s bipartisan permitting deal on Friday, according to a recording I obtained of a fireside chat at the University of Colorado Boulder. He praised the bill’s transmission reforms, but argued Democratic negotiators had handed President Trump “a loaded Howitzer” in their quest for permitting certainty for renewable energy projects, and that it should only pass if lawmakers remove the weapon.
The comments are notable because Podesta helped implement the Inflation Reduction Act and attempted to strike a permitting deal during the Biden administration. That effort, led by Senator Joe Manchin and John Barrasso, ultimately ran aground on criticism from environmental groups.
In the new remarks, Podesta applauded the parts of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act that would unlock new long-distance transmission construction. But he sharply criticized the bill’s reforms to fossil fuel permitting and federal land development. He indicated a belief there will be “give and take when we come back after the election.”
“If you’ve worked on the Hill, you know once you get started on something, you keep going. And I think they were trying to address a really serious problem,” Podesta said. “[The bill would] really take on some needed reforms on transmission to really build the infrastructure that’s necessary to fully integrate renewables into the system, and indeed, I think the bill is pretty good on that. Pretty strong. They got a lot on that question in terms of forcing utilities to use grid-enhancing technologies, doing better planning, getting data centers to pay their fair share.”
But Podesta added: “Then they gave up stuff.” He then unloaded on the bill’s “permitting certainty” provisions, which Podesta notably described as a Democratic priority during negotiations to get to yes.
Those provisions have attracted concern from tribal groups and some environmental groups in recent weeks. If enacted, the bill would bar federal agencies from revoking, changing, or tampering with any federal permits issued after September of this year. It would also prohibit officials from denying or delaying permits in a way that shows a “pattern of disparate treatment” against specific energy or mineral projects. (If you want to read more about the bill’s certainty provisions, you can read our full explainer.)
This was “one place where I think they made a huge mistake,” Podesta said, calling the restriction on revoking or rescinding decisions “one of the worst provisions of the bill.” He complimented lawmakers for trying to address Trump’s attacks on already-permitted renewable energy projects, including stop-work orders on offshore wind facilities under construction, and for seeking commitments from the administration to continue permitting projects in exchange for a deal.
However, Podesta said they are “going to have to take it out” or significantly revise it because he believes this language would allow Trump to illegally approve projects on sensitive or protected lands and courts would not be able to force the government to undo approvals that violate the law. He argued this would mean Trump could permit development in many areas land conservation groups, tribes, and anti-drilling advocates have long fought to protect from industry, including the Chaco Culture National Historic Park in New Mexico, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota, and the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah.
“I think they have handed Trump not just a loaded gun, but they’ve handed him a loaded Howitzer to go after public lands, to permit stuff that even if it’s illegal can’t be reversed by the courts,” Podesta said. “They’re going to have a permit gorge like you’ve never seen, not really caring about whether they’re going through the legal steps to do it, and under this bill, those can’t be reversed. That’s got to change if this bill’s going to pass.”
The former Biden administration alum’s comments are especially noteworthy because he previously helped negotiate a permitting deal that was similarly pilloried by environmental activists. “We did a permitting reform [bill] on the debt limit bill. Some of the environmental community didn’t like it. I thought it was a fair compromise,” he said, referring to that legislation in order to explain why he is focusing on a “provision I think the Democrats asked for.”
“It’s one thing to say I’m getting a lot and I’m going to have to give up something,” he said.
He added that “there are other issues” with the bill in his view, including “removing states’ ability to ensure clean drinking water” and “a lot of restraint on the ability to get courts to enjoin for NEPA violations.” Those are examples where “you can debate whether one is worth the other.”
“My line gets drawn with giving Trump more ways to do mischief and to do bad things, especially to the most important, most iconic places we need to protect."
I reached out to Podesta after obtaining the recording of his remarks, and in a brief interview, he clarified that he does believe the transmission provisions of the bill are central enough to the energy transition that if “they can resolve those matters and fix those problems,” and they can pass it during the lame duck period, “I would say go ahead.”
Podesta acknowledged “another school of thought” — most notably voiced by House Natural Resources ranking member Jared Huffman — that legislators should wait until the next Congress when Democrats may be able to strike a different deal after a potential blue wave in this year’s midterm elections. “Trump’s not making it easy by never fulfilling his end of the bargain. I think they thought he was actually going to go ahead and move forward with permitting these wind projects and instead he’s trying to stop them,” Podesta said.
Still, the certainty language to him is a “poison pill.” And regardless of what Congress elects to do with the permitting deal, Podesta maintained his biggest fear is enacting legislation that protects or emboldens Trump’s behavior: “If you give him things he can interpret that you think you had a deal on, he will make them worse than you could imagine, so you better not give him any more additional power.”
“The question becomes, is it worth trying to resolve these items which I think have surfaced since this text came forward,” Podesta said. “If they can resolve them, fine. If not, there’s always next year.”
Ford reveals a promising tidbit about its upcoming electric pickup.
When the Ford Fathom debuts in 2027, much of the attention will focus on its size and its price. As it should: The all-electric mid-size truck is promised to start under $30,000, and the success or failure of that car at that price will tell us a lot about the future of Ford, as well as mainstream America’s true appetite for EVs.
While we wait for our first real look at the truck and the full list of its specifications, Ford just revealed a promising tidbit. The automaker has been working in the background to make it simpler and cheaper for Fathom drivers to use bidirectional charging: the ability for power to flow both ways so that EV drivers can use the energy stored in the vehicle battery to power secondary loads, to back up a home power supply during a blackout, or even to feed back onto the power grid.
Specifically, Ford announced on Tuesday that the Fathom will be the first EV from a U.S. automaker with a starting price below $30,000 that does not need a separate wall-mounted inverter — the piece needed to transform the DC power stored in the car’s battery to the AC power used in the house. Instead, engineers built one into the truck’s “e-box” module that houses much of its electronics. That on-board unit is good enough to supply more than 10 kW of AC power to a home, Ford says.
Bidirectional charging isn’t new to American EVs or to Ford. The F-150 Lightning EV got this feature when it debuted five years ago. The trouble is that this game-changing technology doesn’t come cheap: The Lightning — now discontinued, soon to be revived as an extended-range EV — was an expensive ride starting above $50,000. The electrical hardware needed to connect the truck to one’s home power supply added thousands of dollars on top of the truck’s price.
The same was true for other EV makers. Two years ago, when I interviewed EV pickup drivers after Hurricane Helene hit North Carolina, I found F-150 Lightning and Tesla Cybertruck owners alike who hadn’t forked over more money for the extra tech needed to hook directly into the home. They got themselves through the blackout the Macgyver way, plugging the refrigerator and other critical appliances right into the power outlets in the back of the truck.
Ford’s Fathom, though, comes closer to giving the best of bidirectional charging to the masses. In addition to installing an on-board inverter, Ford says it will make the Ford Home Power Station and Home Backup Panel — the hardware that drivers will need to connect to the house — cost at least 60% less than the brand’s first-generation tech. The Detroit giant also says it’s working with a consortium of utilities, including American Electric Power, BC Hydro, Consumers Energy, Exelon, and Pacific Gas and Electric Co., to iron out how Fathom owners across the country will connect to their homes and the grid.
As Ford notes in its release: “There are more than 3,000 utilities across the U.S. and Canada with largely unique interconnection processes. Interconnection processes were primarily written for rooftop solar and stationary battery storage, which are fixed assets. Bidirectional EVs bring new considerations since they are vehicles first, not stationary equipment.”
Indeed, cooperation between car companies and utilities is suddenly a pressing matter as more EVs hit the roads, and the grid. Rivian and other electric car makers are trying to make their vehicles play nice with the power grid as a way for their customers to save money and reduce grid strain by having EVs charge when demand is low and electricity is cheap. And at some point, electric cars will become a major cog in virtual power plants — the ability of the power grid to pull energy from sources like EVs, backup batteries, and homeowner solar in times of need.
That day is finally approaching. Although bidirectional charging is a striking bonus feature for EVs, something so much more interesting and sophisticated than what a fossil fuel car can accomplish, the tech has flown fairly under the radar in the U.S. One could blame not only the lagging pace of EV adoption here, but also the fact that Tesla, far and away the market leader, has been slow to get on board. Just this month, it finally said that Model Y and Model 3 vehicles, the two best-selling electric cars in America, would get bidirectional capability.
The Ford Fathom, then, may do more than revitalize the lagging fortunes of Ford, which lost billions upon billions in its first forays into electrification and started up a skunkworks team to design the new truck in a totally different way. Their creation might also show Americans the EV’s enormous role in the home, and the grid, of tomorrow.