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:
The Federal Highway Administration believes it has found a workaround to a court-ordered stay of execution.

The Federal Highway Administration issued a letter to state Departments of Transportation on Thursday declaring that states were no longer authorized to spend billions of dollars previously approved for electric vehicle charging networks. The decree pertains to the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program, or NEVI, a program created in 2021 under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which allocated $5 billion to states to strategically build electric vehicle charging networks along major roads.
The program has been under threat since the day Donald Trump stepped into the White House. His executive order “Unleashing American Energy,” which ordered agencies to pause the disbursement of funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, specifically called out NEVI as a program to freeze. Twenty-two Democrat-controlled states quickly took legal action, and a U.S. District court issued a temporary restraining order requiring the Trump administration to keep congressionally-approved funds flowing, at least to those states.
In general, advocates believed the NEVI program was untouchable. The program’s “safeguards make it nearly impossible to claw back money already allocated, except in cases of misuse or noncompliance.” Beth Hammon, a senior advocate for EV infrastructure at the Natural Resources Defense Counsel wrote in a recent blog post.
But the Federal Highway Administration apparently thinks it has found a workaround.
Under NEVI, states are each allocated a certain amount of money every year for five years, and they have to submit an annual plan for how they intend to use the funds. Those plans must align with overall program guidance published by the secretary of transportation.
Now, the new leadership at the Department of Transportation has decided to rescind the previously issued guidance. That means the state plans that were previously approved are no longer valid, the letter says: “Therefore, effective immediately, no new obligations may occur under the NEVI Formula Program until the updated final NEVI Formula Program Guidance is issued and new State plans are submitted and approved.”
Advocates for NEVI don’t believe this strategy will hold up in court. “This should be carefully scrutinized by states and the legal community,” Justin Balik, the senior state program director for Evergreen Action told me, “as it looks like an attempt to sabotage the program based on ideology that’s dressed up in bureaucratic language about plan and guidance revisions.” Balik said NEVI was “one of the most important resources states have been given by the feds to fight climate change.”
Several Democratic governors put out infuriated statements about the DOT’s decision. “Fresh off their ludicrous attempt to tie highway funding to birthrates, the Trump administration is attacking the freedom to move, including the freedom to drive, and putting their own agendas above what Americans and the market are demanding,” Jared Polis, the governor of Colorado, said.
Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers had more strong words. “Just a week after I joined Kwik Trip to launch Wisconsin’s first federally funded EV charging stations, Sean Duffy and the Trump Administration want to yank tens of millions of investments to help build infrastructure for the 21st Century across Wisconsin,” he said.
An important thing to understand about NEVI is that after a state has its annual plan approved, it is legally entitled to that year’s allocation of funding. That doesn’t mean said funding immediately gets transferred into the state’s coffers, however. States have to continually request reimbursement from the federal DOT as they implement their programs. So, for example, if a state puts out a request for proposals for NEVI projects, it can then invoice the federal government for the related administrative costs. Once the state awards grants to specific projects, those projects have to reach certain benchmarks before they get any money. If the first benchmark is getting permits, for example, then once a project is permitted, its developer can invoice the state government for the associated costs, and then the state government can file with the federal government for reimbursement.
According to Paren, an EV charging data analytics firm that has been closely following the rollout of the NEVI program, states are legally entitled to spend roughly $3.27 billion on NEVI. That accounts for plans approved for fiscal years 2022 through 2025. To date, states have awarded about $615 million of the funds to just under 1,000 projects — with 10% of those projects being led by Tesla.
The letter says states will still be able to get reimbursed for expenses related to previously awarded projects, “in order to not disrupt current financial commitments.” But the more than $2.6 billion that has not been awarded will be frozen.
“This has been a learning curve for state DOTs and we’re just beginning to hit our stride in a lot of ways,” said Balik. “Exactly the worst time to cut this off at its knees.”
Prior to the memo issued Thursday, states had been divided over how to respond to the chaos of executive orders and court orders. At least six states — Alabama, Ohio, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Missouri, and Oklahoma — had already suspended their programs indefinitely.
“We are still working with FHWA to understand specific impacts to NEVI funding,” a spokesperson for the Ohio DOT told me on Thursday prior to the federal letter being released. Ohio had been an unexpected early leader for the NEVI program. It was the first state in the country to bring a NEVI-funded charging station online, in October 2023. It has since opened 18 additional stations, more than any other state, and has selected awardees to build 24 more. Missouri, by contrast, had been lagging behind. The state had not yet issued a single request for proposals.
But at least until Thursday evening, other states, such as Oregon and California, were advancing their programs. The Oregon DOT posted an informational notice about federal grants on its website earlier this week saying that NEVI funding was not frozen. A spokesperson for the California DOT told me on Thursday afternoon that, “For now, federal courts have prohibited federal agencies from pausing or terminating payment of federal financial assistance funds,” and that “Caltrans’ services remain fully operational.” When I followed up asking if these comments took into account the new letter issued Thursday, the agency said it would need to get back to me on Friday.
The decision to rescind the guidance and invalidate state plans is sure to face court challenges. The Federal Highway Administration, for its part, said it plans to issue new draft guidance for NEVI in the spring, which will then be subject to public comment before being finalized — so the agency doesn’t seem to be trying to throw the program out altogether.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include statements from the governors of Wisconsin and Colorado.
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.
Trump’s “data center dividend” appears to have backfired. Our latest poll results help explain why.
This year’s midterm elections called into question the efficacy of a push to pay local residents directly in exchange for building data centers.
Before the elections, I profiled the campaign for politicians to embrace the data center “dividend,” a policy idea modeled off Alaska’s Permanent Fund, which doles out checks to residents from profits off state oil, gas and mineral royalties. The Bitcoin Policy Institute, a tech policy think tank, was one of the first to trumpet the concept, but it was quickly taken up by President Donald Trump, who started raising it in speeches and on social media. “If companies want to make their Data Centers popular, pay the community, and/or individuals within the community, a ‘dividend,’” Trump posted to Truth Social on October 21.
Clearly the idea didn’t stop the bleeding. Democrats trounced Trump’s party in the midterms on a message that was heavy on attacks against data centers. But that still doesn’t explain why direct payments did so little to move the American public.
A Heatmap Pro poll conducted in early-to-mid October, right before the midterm elections, gives us an answer. As part of a broader survey of 2,500 registered voters, we asked about the idea — what we believe to be the first independent poll on direct payments for data centers by a news organization. We asked respondents whether there was a specific dollar amount they’d accept as a one-time cash payment in exchange for a data center being built near them. We also gave them the option to say no amount of money was sufficient.
Shockingly, a majority of people surveyed said they’d reject the data center cash payment in any amount. Among those who said they’d actually take the money, the median figure was around $10,000. The average was a whopping $146,000, skewed by the number of people who wrote $999,999, the maximum allowed by the survey.
This tracks what we’re seeing play out in communities where developers have tried this idea. In Hazle Township, Pennsylvania, NorthPoint — developer of an Amazon-linked data center project — proposed $10,000 cash payments to residents, no catch. Residents compared it to a bribe. In De Soto, Kansas, data center developer Digital Realty is offering annual $1,000 tax credits for a decade to neighbors of its proposed data center project. That proposal has been reportedly met with mixed reviews, too.
Clearly one of the problems here is that data centers not only face public perception issues around their local impacts, but are also more broadly associated with systemic inequality in the U.S. economy. The same Heatmap Pro survey found that a majority of voters believed AI companies have more control over the government than the oil and gas industry, pharmaceutical companies, banks, or other large industries.
Shaunna Thomas, executive director of Democratic-allied super PAC Guardrails Alliance, told me that during the campaign season they found that residents often associated the dividends with bribes, and that the president’s support for direct payments ultimately fed into voter sentiments about the tech sector controlling the government and society.
“People don’t want to have a conversation about distribution of wealth disconnected from a conversation about distribution of power,” Thomas said. “Specifically because Trump was saying that, we started hearing from voters in focus groups that it didn’t work for them. They’re hearing it as a bribe. They’re hearing they may get some sort of short-term economic or financial incentive to accept a technology they don’t trust is designed to help them.”
The Heatmap Pro survey results about cash payments ultimately reveal how emotionally driven the data center debate has become, said Sam Lyman of the Bitcoin Policy Institute. I asked Lyman to respond to the results because I thought they called into question the political effectiveness of the proposal we’d discussed months earlier. Lyman stipulated that he thinks the one-time payment nature of the question may have undermined the results, saying he prefers the dividends be paid out “in perpetuity.” But he acknowledged they also show “there’s still a lot of education to be done on data centers, what they do, and the impacts they have on the places where they’re built.”
“I think there’s a lot of Americans out there who have legitimate concerns that the future economy doesn’t include them. That’s something that needs to be addressed,” said Lyman, who said he laid part of the blame on what he called “irresponsible rhetoric” from AI industry executives about their technology’s impacts on society. “With data center dividends, the idea behind this policy is to help Americans understand the AI economy includes them. To give them a very material stake in that economy as it gets built out, especially in the rural communities that make data centers possible in the first place.”
Congressional seats were more likely to flip in states where bills rose fastest, according to our partners on the Electricity Price Hub.
The rise in household electricity costs over the past couple of years followed elected officials to the ballot box last week. But the pattern didn't hold evenly: Congressional seats flipped most often in states where bills rose fastest, while governors and regulators, the officials closest to rate decisions, were judged on very different terms.
No analysis can account for exactly why someone voted the way they did. Still, polling just before and after the election has made clear that soaring utility bills and the cost of living were at the forefront of voters’ minds. It’s easy to imagine that a South Carolina voter who backed Trump in 2024 and is now paying about $20 per month more for electricity might have been more inclined to vote for Annie Andrews for Senate than the president’s pick, Darline Graham. While we can’t yet make a causal claim about how increases in voters’ average monthly bills influenced their decisions, we can look at where bills rose and where seats changed hands.
To do that, we use data from Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub to unpack the correlation between rising electricity bills under the second Trump administration and the electoral swings of this year’s midterms. Nationally, average electricity bills are up 10% since the start of the Trump administration. Meanwhile, the House popular vote swung 15 points toward Democrats compared to 2024’s presidential results, according to data from The New York Times.
A swing that size would have flipped many seats regardless of bills. The more telling question is whether seats flipped beyond what the swing predicts. Among seats where the incumbent party was vulnerable (those won by less than 15 points in 2024), states with above-average bill growth matched or exceeded the expected losses. States with below-average growth flipped fewer seats than a uniform 15-point swing would predict.
Further, nearly two-thirds of the 44 House seats Democrats flipped were in states where the average electricity bill grew faster than the national average over the past year, and one in five were in states where bill growth was double the national average. If Democrats flip the Senate seat in Alaska, then seven out of the nine Democratic pickups in the Senate will be in states with above national average one-year bill growth.
States with fast-rising bills differ in other ways, from their mix of competitive seats to their exposure to broader economic trends. Our bill growth figures are also statewide averages, and bills can vary widely within a state. The overall trend is in line with expectations, but the relationship between rising bills and electoral outcomes goes deeper.
Elections for governor or other statewide positions are historically less nationalized than their federal counterparts. That makes them a weaker test of national frustration with bills, but allows for additional analysis on how local conditions shape voters’ choices.
State races are not fully isolated from national trends. The Blue Tsunami flipped five gubernatorial seats, with zero pickups in the reverse direction so far. (Alaska is still undecided.) But those flips weren't concentrated in high-growth states. Three of the five (Georgia, Iowa, and Texas) came in states with some of the lowest bill growth over the past year. Meanwhile, the incumbent party held governorships in high-growth states at a higher rate than the national environment would predict, though Alaska could affect these results.
A few moderate Republican governors even held on in otherwise blue states. Incumbency certainly played a part, but the holds also demonstrate where voters targeted their backlash. In the Northeast, New Hampshire re-elected Governor Kelly Ayotte by four points, despite the Democratic Senate candidate carrying the state by 14 points. Vermont voters re-elected Phil Scott by six points. Both states had double-digit bill growth since President Trump took office, with average bills increasing by 18% and 15%, respectively.
On the other end, Democratic candidate Rob Sand flipped an open governorship in Iowa, outperforming the Democratic Senate candidate on the ballot. Statewide average bills in Iowa have grown at some of the slowest rates nationally; however growth rates vary across the state. Governor-elect Sand ran furthest ahead of his party’s Senate candidate in counties where bills rose the most.
The lessons of state-level races are less clear than federal ones. In states with popular incumbents, affordability backlash may have focused on a Republican-controlled Congress, while voters most affected by rising costs within a state sought new leadership in their state capital.
Another set of key players in electricity affordability, state energy regulators, were also on the ballot in these midterm elections. The general election mostly spared these races from the anti-incumbent party fervor, with only one state out of nine (Georgia) flipping control of their commission. These races, which were in more predominantly Republican states, largely followed partisan voting shares of other races in these states, with the greatest fervor around unseating establishment officials occurring during the primaries or last year’s off-cycle elections. That is not the end of the story, however: Utility commissioners are appointed, rather than elected, in most states, meaning there is more turnover to come.
The lack of electoral backlash toward the regulators who sign off on rate increases may indicate a lack of voter awareness of how different policymakers influence their bill. It may also highlight how national coverage has focused on rising generation costs, such as the Mid-Atlantic’s capacity cost spike, which pushes greater blame towards federal officials than state regulators that have less purview over generation prices that pass through to residential customers.
Utility costs alone didn’t produce this year’s Democratic wave, and the data can’t tell us precisely how much they contributed. But a below-the-hood look at the data shows a consistent pattern: the party broadly in power in Washington lost the most ground where bills rose fastest, while governors and regulators were judged on local circumstances, from incumbency to long-running rate fights. With new majorities in both chambers and rate cases pointing to more increases, there is an opportunity for this new Congress to meet voters’ demands and bring costs down.
On Meta’s green materials, China’s SMR wave, and Alaskan crude
Current conditions: The United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has declared the ongoing El Niño a “super” version of the weather patterns that could be the most intense ever recorded • Storm Charles deluged Madeira, Portugal’s island exclave, as hundreds of flights were canceled to and from the Iberian country • Temperatures in New York City are set to drop as low as 39 degrees Fahrenheit as a nor’easter pummels the American Northeast ahead of what’s forecast to be a brisk but sunny weekend.
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang stepped down Thursday amid a ballooning scandal over his extramarital affairs with a Chinese spy and at least two employees of the world’s top designer of microchips for artificial intelligence, according to press reports. His departure, and the controversy left in his wake, poses a test for AI stocks, which took a battering last week after Democrats’ blue wave victory in Congress, and of what The Wall Street Journal called “the great-man theory that the course of history is often determined by singular individuals.” SpaceX Elon Musk (who said it “would be an honor” to hire Huang) is plowing ahead with plans to invest more than $74 billion at two supercomputing campuses in Texas and Arizona that are designed to train frontier AI models, Investor’s Business Daily reported. While the company says it plans to work with local generators to power the Arizona site, the Texas campus is expected to run on behind-the-meter natural gas-fired generation. Such huge new sources of demand for natural gas risk driving up prices for regular consumers, Sonia Aggarwal and Jamie Van Nostrand wrote yesterday in a piece for our Ideas section that called for a Gas Customer Protection Pledge. “It’s simple supply and demand.”
Meta, meanwhile, struck a series of deals to make the physical material that builds its data centers greener. In back-to-back partnerships announced on Thursday, the Facebook owner agreed to buy low-carbon cement from the Massachusetts startup Sublime Systems and green steel from Sweden’s Stegra. While the supply of green steel has not yet caught up with demand, Meta said it would fulfill its contract with environmental attribute certificates that “let us act on those emissions now, with third-party verification, and direct demand toward production that is still coming online. That is how the market for green steel gets built.”
I cannot think of any New York Times editorial board endorsement that swung a race in last week’s midterm elections. But the paper’s opinion section leaders made a splash Thursday morning by giving the Senate’s permitting reform deal its full-throated backing. “Anyone who cares about climate change should cheer this bill,” the paper wrote. “And a party that just won an election on affordability should not pass up a chance to start delivering immediately.” The headline pointedly read: “Democrats, take the deal.”
But the argument has a glaring omission: It does not address the most potent source of opposition to the bill. “Unsurprisingly, the Time’s [sic] Editorial Board says nothing about tribes, even while tribal issues are central to negotiations,” Julian Brave NoiseCat, the Academy Award-nominated documentarian and writer and member of the Canim Lake Band Tsq’escen in British Columbia, wrote in a post on X. “It is absolutely outrageous how little American cultural, political, and economic elites know about Indigenous peoples and our concerns.”
China is building more nuclear reactors at home than any other country. Nearly all 30-plus of them — created by two state-owned nuclear giants — are large-scale conventional reactors. But more than 20 startups in the country are now racing to develop small modular reactors, according to a tally published Thursday in the South China Morning Post. Founded last year, Weilan NuEnergy, a Shanghai-based startup looking to develop water-cooled SMRs, said the push by private companies to build out an SMR industry to compete with the sector emerging in the U.S. is relatively recent. “There were no similar domestic competitors when we launched,” Hu Po, Weilan’s chief executive, told Hong Kong’s English-language newspaper of record. “This allowed us to successfully recruit a cohort of outstanding engineers from the industry with extensive practical experience. Building a high-caliber team is our greatest competitive advantage at present.” While the commercialization of SMRs has only just begun, Hu said he expected the technology to spread overseas. “Just like China’s other large-scale energy projects, while we will fully secure and meet domestic energy needs, we will certainly actively pursue a global footprint,” Hu said.
Just look at renewables. At the United Nations COP31 climate summit in Antalya, Turkey, China signed a $15 billion deal to sell 7 gigawatts of solar and wind to the host country, along with battery storage capacity and 4 gigawatts of transmission infrastructure. “This cooperation will not only increase our renewable energy capacity but also facilitate technology transfer, making a very significant contribution to the production of wind turbine equipment in our country and the development of our domestic industry,” Alparslan Bayraktar, Turkey’s minister of energy and natural resources, wrote in a post on X.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
California’s energy regulators ordered the state’s three major investor-owned utilities to jointly propose a common framework for coordinating distributed energy resources such as rooftop solar and home batteries. The proposal, announced late last month and reported by Utility Dive on Thursday, sets a deadline of next October to show how the DER load can be orchestrated and dispatched. “Our decision gives families and businesses more options to charge a car, electrify a home, or expand operations while reducing the need for costly upgrades,” the California Public Utilities Commission’s Christine Harada said in a statement. “Those options need to be easy to understand and easy to use, people shouldn’t need an engineering degree to benefit.”
In New York, meanwhile, the state took what it called “a significant step in its effort to develop at least 1 gigawatt” of new nuclear power upstate. On Thursday, the New York Power Authority approved 10 developers’ requests to qualify as potential vendors. “In qualifying 10 major players in the nuclear industry, NYPA has strengthened its ability to directly advance the development of the first nuclear facility in New York in generations,” NYPA CEO Justin Driscoll said in a statement.

It’s been exactly 6,645 days since then-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin stood on stage at the 2008 Republican National Convention and vowed to “drill, baby, drill.” The three-word slogan — still widely used in American politics today — has far outlasted the former Republican vice presidential nominee, whose relevance faded years ago. But Alaska is, indeed, drilling. New analysis by the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows a projected 13% uptick in crude production in the state next year. That’s more than double the 6% increase in 2026. “If realized, these annual production increases will be the largest since the 1980s, when Alaskan crude production peaked at 2.0 million barrels per day,” the agency wrote.

China’s electric vehicle champion has unveiled a new integrated charging system powered by solar panels. Built in the Abu Dhabi desert, the new station — which looks like a gas pump — features panels, batteries, ultra-fast charging, and a robotic arm that automatically plugs into the vehicle. “We are providing clean energy generation, energy storage and ultra-fast charging together, and we are making the charging experience smarter, simpler and more seamless for drivers around the world,” Stella Li, BYD’s executive vice president, said in a statement.