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:
We’ll never know what a Tesla without Elon Musk could have looked like.

Elon Musk got his money.
At a meeting on Thursday, Tesla shareholders voted to re-approve an enormous pay package for Musk, the CEO, worth $45 billion or more depending on Tesla’s fluctuating stock price. The deal had been struck down in January by a judge in Delaware, where the EV company is (for now) incorporated. Musk spent much of the intervening months campaigning on his social network, X, for the gigantic package to be reinstated.
The vote puts to bed a variety of rumors and threats surrounding the electric car company — including, most seriously, that Musk would neglect Tesla in favor of his other companies if he didn’t get his way and might consider leaving for good, taking his talents for artificial intelligence and autonomous driving elsewhere. With his colossal payday back in place, he appears likely to stay and to push Tesla toward those fields.
It means, for better and for worse, that Tesla the company will remain tethered to the whims of its mercurial chief. While Musk excels at generating hype and driving up Tesla’s stock price (the thing that earned him the enormous payday in question), we may have lost our last chance to see what Tesla would look like if it matured into a normal, steady company that just makes good electric vehicles.
New companies, especially flashy startups out of Silicon Valley, often go through a transition moment when they must decide how to grow up. Sometimes that means moving on from the combustible, blue-sky founder or CEO who helped the company become a hit, but isn’t the right fit for growing into a large company on a solid foundation.
Now would have been Tesla’s time. With the introduction of the Model 3 and especially the Model Y, the EV-maker reached remarkable scale, with the latter becoming the best-selling EV in the United States and the best-selling car in the entire world in 2023. A more conventional business leader might have tried to expand Tesla’s huge lead in the EV market, and double down on the advantage it gained by convincing the other carmakers to adopt its charging standard by re-commiting to the Supercharger team. We might have seen this alternate universe Tesla fill the burgeoning EV space with crossovers of varying size to beat GM and Hyundai/Kia to the punch. We might have seen it commit to the entry-level EV project to grab the next group of Americans who’ll go electric.
Musk, though, built his entire brand on being seen as unconventional. Instead of introducing an electrified pickup truck that resembled everything else on the road, he built the Cybertruck. He laid off the Supercharger team just when things were looking up. Rather than introducing a slightly bigger or smaller version of the Model Y, he bought Twitter, and then tweeted a lot about AI while Tesla sales started to decline.
You take the bad with the good when it comes to Musk. With their ‘yes’ vote on his stock package, the company’s board and shareholders decided the good was worth it — and that by backing the horse that brought them, the company and its stock value could continue on to new heights. In doing so, they hitched their wagons to Musk’s notion that Tesla is decidedly not a car company, but rather a software and AI company that happens to put those things into vehicles. The Tesla in our timeline will live or die with projects such as the fully autonomous robotaxi Musk has promised to reveal in some capacity later this summer.
As many analysts predicted, the shareholders decided they needed Musk. Perhaps even more than he needed Tesla, if his big bluff can be believed. “Tesla is Elon,” as one investor put it. The chairperson of the Tesla board came right out and said that the shareholders needed to approve Musk’s stock deal to keep his attention focused on Tesla rather than SpaceX, X, or his other ventures.
Now, as the company recommits to his path, the question for everybody else is: How badly do we need Tesla?
Very badly is what I would have said just a few years ago. When I bought my Model 3 in 2019, the available competitors weren’t inspiring and the competing fast-charging networks were utterly unreliable. Tesla was responsible for taking EVs mainstream in the United States and it was by far the best hope for those who wanted to see more and more American cars go electric.
Things change in five years, though. The Model Y still rules the roost, but Tesla is losing ground to the good electric offerings that are finally coming from the legacy carmakers. With other EVs already using or soon to be able to use Tesla’s Supercharger network, one major competitive advantage that Musk’s company had in selling electric vehicles is disappearing. Maybe Musk will crack true-self driving. But as far as how important Tesla is to getting the average person into an EV, the answer looks to be: less and less all the time.
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.