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:
With layoffs in the Supercharging division, Elon Musk is beating Tesla’s past into a pulp.

Chaos at Tesla is nothing new. But the company now appears to be going through something of an identity crisis, with its future at war with its past.
Let’s just recap the past few weeks: First, Tesla released first-quarter delivery numbers that came up well short of even analysts’ most cynical predictions, followed by first-quarter earnings that were, in a word, poor. In between those two events, Reuters reported that Tesla had canceled a long-promised sub-$30,000 electric vehicle (a report CEO Elon Musk denied ... sorta), and the company laid off more than 10% of its workforce.
All of which brings us to today and reports of further layoffs at Tesla, this time in the company’s Supercharging division. To just about everyone who follows the company, this was shocking news. Tesla’s Supercharging network isn’t just a competitive advantage, it’s the de facto national standard for EVs in the United States. Major automakers — Ford, Toyota, General Motors — and EV startups like Rivian have signed deals with Tesla to use its charger design, known as the North American Charging Standard and designed their new vehicles (or sent adapters) so their drivers can access the network.
The Supercharging network was, however, consistent with what might now be called the “old” model of Tesla — a company that tried to “accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy,” as the company’s mission statement put it, by getting as many electric cars (ideally, but not solely, its own) on the road as possible. But that model seems to be on its way out. As Musk told investors on the earnings call, Tesla should be thought of “thought of as an AI or robotics company” — not, anymore, as merely a car company.
Those Supercharging partnerships weren’t an act of charity. BloombergNEF, Bloomberg’s in-house energy research group, estimated that Tesla’s charging business could generate three-quarters of a billion dollars of profits by 2030. While it doesn’t seem like Tesla is going to rip the Superchargers from the ground, a now-former Tesla employee said on X that “further improvements to standards and engagements across the industry will suffer.” Already the company has pulled out of four planned new Supercharger locations in New York, according to Electrek.
“Tesla still plans to grow the Supercharger network, just at a slower pace for new locations and more focus on 100% uptime and expansion of existing locations,” Musk tweeted (after the market close) Tuesday afternoon.
If the future of the growth of the Supercharging network is in doubt, Tesla’s expansion of its self-driving efforts (which are still well short of rivals like Waymo’s) is full steam ahead. Close Tesla-watchers have speculated that the future of Tesla’s charging infrastructure will change as the company advances further towards truly autonomous driving and its much-heralded “robotaxi,” which Musk has promised to reveal by August 8. All of this seems to have pleased investors, who responded to the announcement by sending Tesla shares up 10% in aftermarket trading. That share price jumped again Monday, after news that Musk had paved the way for Full Self-Driving to be deployed in China.
One would think that reports of Tesla further tightening its focus on artificial intelligence and automation would have delighted these investors. The company's burned some $2.5 billion of cash in the first quarter thanks to both its extravagant spending on developing its AI capabilities and the fact that it made too many cars for what turned out to be a soft electric vehicle market. “Hopefully these actions are making it clear that we need to be absolutely hard core about headcount and cost reduction,” Musk wrote in an email to staff about the Supercharging layoffs, according to The Information. “While some on exec staff are taking this seriously, most are not yet doing so.” And yet shares were down 5.5% by the time the market closed on Tuesday.
The investment community can’t seem to decide whether it wants Tesla to be the type of company that will devote its resources to a mass market car or throw them at a much more exciting — though by no means assured — autonomous driving play.
In its earnings presentation, Tesla said that new models were coming, but not on a whole new platform, which meant that there would less capital expenditure for a new production line. For some analysts, it was all they needed to hear, Morningstar's Seth Goldstein wrote a note titled “Our Long-Term Growth Thesis Is Confirmed as Affordable Vehicle Still in Development.”
And some in the the analyst community were also jazzed by Musk's China jaunt. Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas, a longtime Tesla bull, hailed the trip, writing “whether Tesla’s CEO is sleeping on a floor or on a plane ... the message is clear: he’s back.” Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities, another Tesla optimist, said approval for FSD in China was “a watershed moment for the Tesla story.” As recently as Tuesday morning, Axios cautiously declared that the company “may be steadily regaining investor confidence after a rough patch.”
Tesla is also working on wireless charging, as was confirmed last year in a video hosted by, of all people, Jay Leno. Tesla’s design chief, Franz von Holzhausen, told Leno that “we are working on inductive charging. You don’t even need to plug anything in at that point. You just drive over the pad in your garage and you start charging.” It’s obvious why this type of charging would be more conducive to autonomous driving than the company’s exist Superchargers, as all they would require is driving over them.
Even the multiple rounds of deep layoffs are a sign to some Tesla optimists that Musk’s attention is now fully devoted to the company. When asked by an analyst on the earnings call to “talk about where your heart is at in terms of your interests,” Musk said that Tesla “constitutes a majority of my work time,” adding: I'm going to make sure Tesla is quite prosperous.”
If investors are sending mixed messages, Musk, certainly, has made his preference clear. Tesla will become a autonomous driving company or die trying — at least until he changes his mind again.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Talking with National Grid’s Matthew Satterwhite about his new report with S&P Global.
This week’s conversation is with Matthew Satterwhite, head of U.S. policy for National Grid. This week National Grid released a report in collaboration with S&P Global I found noteworthy amidst the data center backlash, asserting that building new transmission lines can potentially reduce consumer costs. I reached out asking if we could chat about how this argument leans into the fight over hyperscale infrastructure. I found our conversation illuminating and educational.
The following Q&A was lightly edited for clarity.
Why did you make this report?
It’s all focused on our customers. We’re always looking to find ways to make sure we can provide our service in the most affordable way possible, the most efficient way possible, and we always think of transmission, but it’s fallen out of favor recently. There’s so much demand with large loads, data centers, advanced manufacturing, reshoring. There’s such a need, and a lot of the debate has been focused on what we need on the generation side. We think transmission is an answer, as well.
We focused on what we have control over — since we’re in deregulated states, the only generation we’re doing is to help states reach their renewable goals. It’s a real page-turner. We really get to the core of everything.
Can we lower customer bills with transmission? This report actually showed us that’s a good investment and helps with the resource adequacy and the constraint problems we have in the Northeast. You can bring cheaper electricity in.
With respect to concerns for everyday consumers, how much do you feel like new transmission might alleviate ordinary Americans’ concerns about rising energy prices?
When you look at the demand that’s coming, the projection is that by 2035, we’ll have to add 45 gigawatts, currently. We’re on that path right now. Transmission alone isn’t going to meet that, but the question is, how do we temper that down? What do we do as National Grid to help alleviate the need for all that demand? Can we get that somewhere else rather than in the region by building generation? It's a different version of all of the above. It’s not a generation single answer or a transmission single answer. We think transmission is a big part of that.
This also allows you to bring in cleaner energy from other places. The more robust the network is, you can have energy in different places and bring that in. It replaces the need for some of the generation to be built and pays for itself by creating a cheaper return for customers adding this.
How much of the data center backlash is affecting your transmission project planning calculus? How is it changing what lines are built in the country?
We’re focused on how we can provide the cheapest service for our customers and physics. It’s science and long-term planning. We don’t have the luxury — we can’t follow, this month we’re thinking something, someone got mad, and so we’re thinking something else. We study a lot of science and physics to figure out how to build the grid.
Do you feel like the average Joe Schmoe American sees transmission as making their life less expensive and making their electricity more reliable?
I think there’s frustration and a lack of understanding about the industry overall. There’s fear of the unknown. Are data centers really driving everything that’s happening? That’s where I think, with reports like this, the benefit of it will be that people will read this and see there’s other things we can do to address the load that we need, something different than building a bunch of generation plants.
How do the question marks around whether data centers get built affect transmission planning? How much harder is the backlash making your job?
It’s a science question. Do we do a bunch of work and then nothing happens? That’s why states put their policies out. There’s multiple studies you go through with a region and with a utility. I think that’s one reason why you see states slowing down, to make sure the policy is in check so people don’t do work they don’t need to do. It’s about having the policy to make sure, if you’re studying something, you’re doing it with a purpose.
Plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.
1. Clark County, Nevada – The first data center approved on federal lands has hit a legal brick wall.
2. Jackson County, Missouri – We have yet another high-profile case of a city councilor losing their job over voting for a data center, and this one’s a doozy.
3. Utah – What’s it take for the Bureau of Land Management to approve a big transmission line for zero-emission energy generation these days? Geothermal, baby.
4. Huntsville, Alabama – You can’t even build a tiny battery storage facility in the middle of Alabama anymore.
Where temporary moratoria could happen next.
Brace yourself for more statewide data center moratoria.
So far there are only two full state-wide blocks on data center permits, in New York and Texas. At least fifteen states have moratorium legislation in the pipeline, but few if any of those bills stand a chance of becoming law in the short term. Here are five states, however, where a broad development pause may gain momentum in the next year or two — and all of them are crucial to watch this November.
If you blinked you may have missed it: New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayotte, a Republican, said she wants to enact a statewide data center moratorium.
Ayotte first came out in support of a pause last month at a Rotary Club meeting, declaring, “It does not make any sense at all to site a data center in New Hampshire.” She also reportedly plans to include a moratorium proposal in her upcoming 2027 fiscal budget. New Hampshire’s legislative sessions occur in the first half of the year, so we won’t see action on a moratorium bill this fall. But Ayotte’s statements suggest the Granite State — which is controlled by the GOP — could pivot to a pause very soon.
New Hampshire has very few data centers. Like, almost none. Only two project fights exist in the Heatmap Pro database, both in Portsmouth, and each has been canceled amidst opposition. Ayotte’s remarks were prompted by the fight against a hyperscale project being studied in the small town of Bow at a former coal plant that closed in late 2025.
None of this should surprise anyone familiar with New England NIMBYs. A New Hampshire moratorium also makes sense given the state’s proximity to Maine, which almost had one of its own. Ayotte, who is up for re-election this year, is likely looking at the political fortunes of Governor Janet Mills and trying to avoid potholes ahead of a likely blue wave hitting her state.
This week, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, came out in support of a statewide data center moratorium.
Mayes told Arizonans in a public statement on Monday that she wants to avoid undue strain on the electric grid and adding to the burden of water cuts led by the Trump administration. Phoenix, where opposition grows by the day, seems to be the primary reason. This shouldn’t in any way be a surprise given the backlash to these projects, which in Arizona’s case is rooted in legitimate water security concerns.
One of the first high-profile data center conflicts I ever learned about was in Arizona: Project Blue, which had to move on from the city of Tucson after officials voted it down last summer. That led Amazon to bail from the facility, though it’s still under development elsewhere on county land. Locals are deeply concerned about the water impacts.
Ordinarily an attorney general wouldn’t have any sway on legislative or executive policy, but the state is already quite receptive to restricting data center development. Governor Katie Hobbs has enacted a three-year pause on tax abatements for data centers, and in response to requests for comment on Mayes’ statement, has told media she’s working on more policies targeting the sector. Hobbs has said she will do more in the following legislative session, but it’s not clear what.
The real decisive action here is probably going to be legislation, and that will depend on the reception any moratorium finds with Republicans in the state legislature, which is typically split in this purple state. The Arizona GOP is quite pro-industry, and Mayes’ opponent in her race for re-election opposes restricting data center construction.
You really should get to know the name Cindy Holscher for the next two months.
Holscher, a state senator, won a surprise upset victory in the Democratic gubernatorial primary this year, and currently sits within a one-point margin of her Republican opponent. How’d she get the nom? By calling for a statewide data center moratorium. “It reminds me of when the automobile manufacturers had to put seatbelts into their cars,“ Holscher told MSNOW after she won the primary. “We as a people and as a state just need to make sure there are guardrails in place.”
Kansas politics are weird. The state is best known as a conservative ideological bastion that’s pro-business. Full Republican control of the Kansas government during the Obama era led to significant social services cuts most closely associated with former Governor Sam Brownback. But after that, Kansans seemed to like moderate Democratic governors, electing Laura Kelly in 2022. Kelly is now term limited out of office.
Kansas already has a colorful patchwork of local data center and renewable energy restrictions. Land use is a big deal in this agricultural behemoth. Should Holscher win in a blue wave year, she would have a mandate to enact a statewide moratorium. Still, Republicans control the legislature, and that’s unlikely to change. My major questions are, should Holscher win, would the GOP in state government listen to Holscher’s request? Or can she do this through the executive branch?
Politics nerds are obsessing over Ohio right now. There, Trump acolyte Vivek Ramaswamy is neck-and-neck in the polls for governor with a Democratic candidate who backs a “conditional” data center moratorium: Amy Acton.
What’s a conditional moratorium? It’s in the eye of the beholder, really. Technically speaking, Governor Josh Shapiro instituted a conditional moratorium in Pennsylvania, where data center projects cannot get permits unless they meet very specific standards set by the governor himself. Shapiro did it through executive action, but in this case, it’s unclear whether the moratorium will be codified through that process or through law.
Should Acton win — or if former Senator Sherrod Brown defeats sitting Senator Jon Husted in the U.S. Senate race — I anticipate major legislative action on data centers in Ohio. Republicans there have essentially permanent control of the state legislature, and they’ve historically been pro-data center. But the freakout over opposition to artificial intelligence and hyperscalers in the senate race specifically has spooked national Republicans, who think it provided the opening Brown needed to potentially win back his seat. Acton and Brown’s political fortunes appear to be wedded to one another, linked to a general angst in the American public.
Every top 5 list needs a wild card, and mine is Oklahoma.
Currently, there’s minimal risk of a data center moratorium. I might’ve had this state higher on my list had Gentner Drummond won the runoff for the GOP gubernatorial primary, given his proclivity to side with anti-renewables activists who also oppose data centers. Instead, likely future governor Mike Mazzei is running on a more moderate, Trump-friendly approach to data centers centered on maintaining industry growth while protecting ratepayers from new infrastructure costs. His opponent, Cyndi Munson, supports a one-year moratorium.
I consider Oklahoma’s odds of having a data center moratorium about equal to the chance of a statewide wind energy ban. Momentum for anti-wind legislation began in the state legislature, and I expect the same to happen with data centers. But unlike the wind industry, which has enormous power in the state, data centers are still a nascent industry. This is a place that may take about two or three years to manifest full cultural upheaval over these projects.