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:
The Ford-Tesla partnership is good — and I hate it.

Ford’s Jim Farley sent a jolt through the electric vehicle world on Thursday. In a joint announcement with Tesla boss Elon Musk, streamed on Musk’s own Twitter Spaces, the two CEOs announced a partnership in which Ford EVs would be able to use Tesla’s vast Supercharger network. By early 2024, Fords will be able to power up at around 12,000 Tesla Superchargers.
The move is an obvious boon to the Blue Oval brand, which saw its stock price soar Friday morning on the promise of offering its electric drivers an enormous expansion of charging options. It’s probably a good thing for a nation on the verge of electrification to have a lot of fast-chargers open to everyone rather than competing proprietary networks. Musk said as much during the Ford announcement: “We don’t want Tesla superchargers to be a walled garden.” And it’s a revenue plus for Tesla, which just acquired a new group of customers who’ll pay to use its chargers.
Yet one question lingers: Did Tesla just give away its biggest competitive advantage?
Musk’s company has a huge head start in the American EV space. Even as a new crop of competitors erodes its market share, Tesla still claims six of every 10 new EVs sold in this country. Musk and company built that lead on the desirability of its vehicles, sure. But the brand’s ace up its sleeve has always been the Supercharger network, which includes more stations and overall plugs compared to the independent charging companies like Electrify America and EVgo that serve other brands.
In 2019, when my family was determined to go electric, we bought a Tesla Model 3. Even then there were other electric vehicles (Hyundai Kona EV, Chevy Bolt) that offered similar range at a similar price. The dearth of chargers was the dealbreaker. Only Tesla’s network offered us the capability to use an EV as our only car and still drive nearly anywhere we wanted to go.
Over the past four years, Tesla has entrenched that advantage by filling in the map. As sales skyrocketed here in California, the company opened a slew of new Superchargers in and between the major cities to combat the lines that form on popular travel days and busy times of day. Even so, it’s possible to search for a Supercharger on the car’s center display and see the clock icon that indicates you’ll be waiting for a plug.
And so I have been dreading this day. Superchargers across Europe have been open to non-Telsa EVs for a while now. Stateside, Musk has promised the same thing, though, so far, just a handful of stations have been equipped with the “Magic Dock” that allows cars without the Tesla connector to charge. With the Ford announcement, I can already feel my blood pressure rising in anticipation of plug rage. One day in the not-too-distant future, I’ll pull into a Supercharger in Burbank, Buttonwillow, Berkeley, or Buellton and find there’s nowhere to charge because an F-150 Lightning or Mustang Mach-E occupies the last stall.
This trend cuts both ways, however. It took years, but Tesla now offers an official adapter that would allow its drivers to plug in at stations with the CCS standard that serves current cars by GM, Ford, and other car brands. I wish I’d had that gadget years ago when I tried to cover the expanse between Albuquerque and Gallup, New Mexico. Ignoring the car’s advice — give up and go back to Albuquerque — I puttered at 55 miles per hour on a 65 mph highway to ensure we’d make it. With an adapter, I could’ve stopped at a CCS halfway for a little anxiety-relieving electricity.
Despite my selfish desire to see Superchargers remain a walled garden, it’s better for everyone if the country’s EV infrastructure is open to all. Ford drivers with access to the Supercharger network will find they’re less likely to get stuck waiting for a plug during highway rest stops and, in some states, more able to reach destinations off the beaten path.
But is it better for Tesla? Musk certainly believes whatever sales advantage is lost by loosening the reins on his charging network is made up for not only by selling more kilowatts to more drivers, but also by getting access to a chunk of money from the federal government. The Biden administration’s infrastructure law includes money for companies that build EV chargers, but only if those chargers aren’t proprietary to a particular car brand. Which may explain some of Tesla’s motivation to rebrand its connector as the “North American Charging Standard” and to convince other automakers, like Ford, to use it.
This means Tesla will have one less differentiating factor when buyers choose their EV. But it also means the company will have a bigger revenue stream in its back pocket.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
There is a heat wave in Europe, the world’s fastest warming continent. And so, as you may have heard, a perennial topic of online climate discourse has returned: Why don’t more Europeans have air conditioning?
I’m partially convinced this is psy op, or at least a figment of how social media organizes attention. I have a hypothesis that various “For You” page algorithms, especially that of the social network X, began to reward content that performed unusually well across national borders a few years ago. Since then, the amount of America vs. Europe content has surged. (Of course, writers have been comparing American and European lifestyles for much longer than that.)
Suffice it to say, though: It’s a fraught topic. I’ve assumed that as extreme heat gets worse as the climate changes, Europeans will simply get on with it and install AC, much as Americans in the Pacific Northwest have done. Yet there are cultural and regulatory obstacles to AC’s growth in Europe.
I’m sure I’ll write about it in the future, but for now I want to get a grip on the facts themselves. And so as a Friday special, I present to you — the facts about European AC, as I understand it:
Thanks so much for reading, and talk soon.
The movement against data centers is raising up a raison d'etre of the anti-renewables movement: protecting would-be farmland.
Farm owners and operators across the U.S. are winning national headlines almost every week for rejecting big dollar offers from data center developers. In Hanover County, Virginia, protestors are chanting “Grow Tomatoes, Not Data Centers.” In Pennsylvania and elsewhere, Republican legislators are mulling proposals to block the sale of so-called “prime farmland” for data center development. In Texas, the fight over data center development has engulfed the race for the state’s ag commissioner seat. In the Midwest, where agriculture reigns supreme, statewide races and congressional campaigns are slowly but surely being defined by the issue. Like in Nebraska where Austin Ahlman, an independent candidate running for Congress in Nebraska’s first district, told me he believes the data center backlash is reflective of a populist politics that broadly criticize elites and top-down control of the economy: “I think sometimes people misunderstand the anxieties of rural Americans when it comes to these data centers because a lot of their fears are about control long term.”
Unlike the farmland backlash around renewable energy development, the loudest critics are on the anti-monopolist left. On Wednesday, the prominent opposition group Food and Water Watch signaled farmland could soon be a watchword in the national data center debate – in a fashion analogous to what we’ve seen with renewable energy. The organization’s blog post entitled “The AI Data Center Boom Is Coming for Farmers” declared data centers verboten because of the threat they posed to “small and midsized family farmers.” Mitch Jones, deputy director of the campaign outfit, said he believes the threat to farmland is “a compelling reason to oppose data center development” but that his organization’s fight is primarily focused on protecting small business owners and an anti-monopoly sentiment.
“If data centers are coming into their areas, this puts even more pressure on them. It drives up the cost of their electricity, just as it does anyone else. It competes with them for water for crops, and it affects the value of their land in a perverse way,” Jones told me.
None of this should be surprising. An agricultural workforce has always been a good barometer for figuring out if a community will accept new infrastructure of any kind. We’ve seen as much time and time again with renewable energy, carbon capture, fossil energy and mining, just to name a few industries.
This same rule is true with data centers. In April, county commissioners in Kosciusko County, Indiana, unanimously rejected a Prologis data center; nearly 90% of acreage in Kosciusko County is being actively farmed, according to the Heatmap Pro database. Linn County, Iowa, in February enacted a rule severely restricting data center development in unincorporated areas; almost three-fourths of the land is used by the ag sector. A potential Amazon facility is causing heartburn in Clinton County, Ohio; nearly all land in the county is used for farming and utility-scale solar development has a recent history of conflict with landowners.
To be candid, I’m struck by the similarity in the backlash over siting data centers on farmland – a resemblance so close that some counties are starting to restrict renewable energy and data center development on farmland at the same time. This week, Eau Claire County, Wisconsin created a new “farmland preservation plan” discouraging utility-scale solar energy and data centers on any potential farmland. (More than 40% of land in this county is currently being used for farmland, according to Heatmap Pro.)
Jones at Food and Water Watch said his organization taking on the “protect farmland” mantle had nothing to do with the success this argument has had against renewable energy. “That thought never entered my head,” he told me, adding that if communities respond to the data center backlash by taking steps that short-circuit solar and wind too, that’s “a coincidence.”
I kept pressing. What if the pivot to farmland protection leads to more communities restricting renewable energy along with the data centers? “If you’re looking for a reason to oppose solar and wind, you can come up with that without having to attach data centers to it,” Jones said. “We’ve seen rural communities oppose solar and wind before data centers blew up across the country. It’s nothing new.”
And more of the week’s top news around project fights.
1. Virginia Beach, Virginia – The right-wing interest group lawsuit against Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia offshore wind is now dead, concluding one of the wackier tales of the Trump 2.0 energy era.
2. Box Elder County, Utah – Call it the Box Elder County massacre.
3. Davidson County, Tennessee – We have the latest updates in the Nashville Zoo data center drama and they’re a doozy and a half.
4. Clark County, Ohio – Yet another utility-scale solar farm is in the Ohio state permitting graveyard.