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:

If President Trump’s proposed 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada — which were set to begin tomorrow morning before the two countries’ leaders negotiated 30-day delays — were to go into effect, they would hit automotive supply chains like a lightning bolt. A single spring inside a fuel pump can zig-zag across the northern and southern U.S. borders half a dozen times before making it into a vehicle. The jolt of tariffs would follow it, gathering force at each crossing before shocking car buyers with higher prices.
Electric vehicles, however, famously do not have as many parts as conventional cars. There’s no engine, transmission, exhaust system, or fuel pump. EV drivers will also not have to contend with the effect of tariffs on the price of gasoline. So does it follow that, despite Trump’s wish to undo Biden’s EV subsidies, he would actually be making battery-powered cars more competitive?
Experts I spoke with agreed that EV manufacturers might be somewhat less exposed. But the tariffs will still affect them, and the small edge could be outweighed by other Trump administration policies.
An internal combustion engine vehicle can have 20,000 to 30,000 parts, Amy Broglin-Peterson, an expert in automotive supply chains at Michigan State University, told me; an electric vehicle might have anywhere from several hundred to a few thousand. Many of these components are manufactured by independent specialists throughout North America. “They’ll be assembled utilizing cheaper Mexican labor, and then they’ll cross back into the U.S. and be put into a bigger assembly, which is then sent back down again for either more assembly work or finished vehicle production,” she said.
Electric vehicles also contain many of the same complex components as conventional cars, like seats and lights and dashboards and radios and mirrors. “That’s kind of the great equalizer amongst these different vehicles,” Mike Wall, an auto analyst at S&P Global Mobility told me. “They’re all going to be in the same soup in terms of vulnerability to cross-border trade.”
But EVs lack the most complex component of all — the engine. Instead, EVs have a battery, and many automakers are either already producing their batteries in the U.S. or are building new factories to do so. As of December, there were more than 80 facilities making battery components, assembling battery packs and cells, manufacturing drive units, producing EV chargers, and doing final EV assembly in the U.S., according to a database maintained by Wellesley University historian Jay Turner. But that’s set to increase over the next few years due to tax incentives and grants that were part of Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act, which reward domestic manufacturing of clean technology components. More than 200 additional facilities, including critical mineral extraction and processing facilities, are in various stages of development.
Broglin-Peterson told me her quick answer to my question is that EVs likely wouldn’t be hit quite as hard by tariffs as conventional cars. But she emphasized that they will still see an impact, and she wasn’t sure of the extent to which other Trump administration policies would undermine any tariff-related advantages. “The EV picture right now has become a lot more murky, obviously, since President Trump was elected,” she told me. “I do think the traditional automakers are more heavily leveraged, though, on their internal combustion engine supply chains.”
Wall agreed that EVs were somewhat less exposed, but he said it really depends on which internal combustion engine vehicle you’re comparing them to. Some engines are assembled in the U.S. and have more U.S.-manufactured components than others. Battery makers are still vulnerable, as the processing of the critical minerals that go into EV batteries is currently heavily concentrated in China, which will also be hit by 10% tariffs on top of existing tariffs on Chinese goods. When you take into account the president’s plans to end the electric vehicle tax credit and leasing option, which can shave up to $7,500 off a car’s sticker price, EVs could still end up less competitive than before Trump took office, Wall said.
Some electric vehicle producers will be hit harder than others. Tesla, for instance, has one of the lowest exposures to non-U.S. content, according to data collected by the Department of Transportation. But some 20% to 25% of Tesla components come from Mexico.
“There’s a lot of uncertainty around tariffs,” Vaibhav Taneja, Tesla's chief financial officer, said during an earnings call last week. “Over the years, we’ve tried to localize our supply chain in every market, but we are still reliant on parts from across the world for all our businesses.” The company’s stock price dropped 5% on Monday, though that may be partly because the company also lost market share in Europe.
Rivian builds its EVs in Illinois and is opening a second factory in Georgia. But the company’s CEO RJ Scaringe told Inside EVs that tariffs will still hurt. “Many, many, many hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested in Mexico in production capacity for supply chains that supply to all of us,” he said. “That will need to get remapped or will just carry higher costs.”
Other manufacturers are more spread out. Ford assembles its Mustang Mach-E in Mexico and its F-150 Lightning in Michigan. GM makes its Chevy Silverado, GM Sierra, and Cadillac Escalade EVs in Michigan, but its Equinox and Blazer EVs in Mexico. Stellantis makes its electric Jeep Wagoneer in Mexico, but recently invested more than $400 million to prep three of its Michigan factories for EV assembly.
Analysts told me not to expect any sudden moves from car companies. “Revamping the automotive supply chain to be 100% U.S. based is probably not realistic,” David Whiston, an equity strategist who covers the auto sector for Morningstar, told me in an email. “Companies right now are not willing to pivot capacity on a dime — they won’t allocate capital without more certainty.”
Trump doesn’t have much interest in certainty. After threatening to put the tariffs into immediate effect last weekend, the president quickly struck agreements with Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Monday to pause the tariffs for 30 days while the countries negotiate. He has yet to discuss next steps with China.
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 data center boom is everywhere you look in U.S. economic and emissions data.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
It isn’t exactly a new thought, but I’ve been struck recently by how many trends in America’s economic and environmental data are fundamentally about the data center boom and the return of electricity demand:
First, the Energy Information Administration reported this week that U.S. emissions grew by more than 2% last year, driven by surging electricity demand and an increase in coal-fired generation. What caused that higher power demand? New factories and data centers — as well as record summertime cooling demand.
Second, many of the new factories driving that higher power demand are themselves producing goods that are … let’s say … data center-adjacent. There are the enormous new semiconductor fabs, of course. But Ford and General Motors have also set up new production lines (or repurposed old ones) to manufacture grid-scale batteries to meet power demand.
Third, take a look at the recent U.S. spending on private non-residential construction — in other words, everything American companies are building that is not houses, condos, or apartments.
The construction industry’s spent almost $60 billion on data centers over the past year, which is more than it spent on all other office buildings combined (and more than it spent building warehouses, too). Just a handful of categories — data centers, power plants, electricity infrastructure, and certain kinds of electronics manufacturing — now make up a third of all U.S. private non-residential construction investment. They’ve never made up such a large share of construction spending since data collection began in 2014.
As The New York Times recently noted, the American economy is unusually dependent on the American stock market right now — and the stock market is unusually dependent on artificial intelligence. This week, investors started to balk at the enormous spending hyperscalers are planning to keep building out the AI boom; Alphabet’s shares dropped 8% this week after it boosted its planned 2026 capital expenditure and signaled 2027 will be even bigger. If the data center boom started to slow down in earnest, then more than just that budget will change.
Speaking of which, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote earlier this week about how many businesses are struggling to even estimate their carbon emissions from artificial intelligence. The carbon accounting startup Watershed recently unveiled a new formula to help companies get a sense of their AI-related emissions.
But even that formula is still limited by the amount of data hyperscalers publish — and they don’t publish that much. Google, for instance, is the only AI company that has (laudably) provided estimates of its emissions on a per-prompt basis. Yet no company has published its per-token emissions, or how emissions sync up with particular models or regions.
So Emily asked Google: Why aren’t you — or any other model provider — disclosing this kind of data yet?
The tech company didn’t get back to us until after we’d published Emily’s story. But its response was interesting enough that I wanted to quote some of it here.
The problem is “industry consensus,” Cooper Elsworth, a Google spokesperson, told us. “There is currently very little consensus on how to comprehensively and fairly measure the serving environmental impact of generative AI (such as text generation),” he wrote. “Without standardized, ‘apples-to-apples’ frameworks, it is difficult to compare different providers accurately.”
That’s partly because energy use — and emissions data — can vary from site to site and depend on “custom-built hardware, software compilers, and advanced inference techniques.” And he claimed Google doesn’t always have the measurement hardware in place to provide such specific estimates: “Providing precise, repeatable data requires highly advanced measurement infrastructure,” he said. “For example, software-based energy monitoring tools often suffer from sampling biases. For our study, we had to step away from top-down averages and directly measure actual energy at the physical power supply unit (PSU) level across our deployed fleet. Not all providers have the telemetry or data sets required to benchmark their operations at this level of granularity.”
Read Emily’s story to understand the other reasons why estimating — or even “guesstimating” — AI-related carbon emissions is so challenging.
A conversation with Emma Uridge of the Kansas Health Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Emma Uridge, analyst with the Kansas Health Institute. Uridge spent copious hours analyzing state and local laws on data center development to best understand how policymakers are responding to the potential environmental public health impacts of large AI infrastructure, including power and water. The report, which came out this week, also goes in depth into those health impacts. I reached out to her to discuss what she sees as must-watch territory for our readers on this emerging policy arena.
Our conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
What is actually being done on policy when it comes to data centers — beyond moratoria of course?
So first I’d like to just talk about the point of moratoria. It’s helpful to talk about how these policies emerge in the first place. One area where moratoria are helpful is when a data center is proposed but the county has no approach for how they’d like to potentially regulate them. That’s temporary, most of the time. It lets local governments conduct research on the various impacts and also negotiate community benefits, ones that can mitigate any potential negative impacts — like Lancaster Pennsylvania, which instituted a community benefit agreement that maximized the potential benefits of development while mitigating what large data centers can do. That agreement looked at capping municipal water use at 20,000 gallons per day and requiring 100% clean energy. It had financial penalties for non-compliance. The company also committed $20 million to their local economic development and clean energy fund. There are ways to negotiate with developers.
We also see amendments to existing zoning. Data center proposals are increasingly popping up in rural areas, many of which are unzoned, so there’s no way a county can negotiate unless there’s a moratorium in place.
Other policy solutions include different performance standards or requiring on-site renewable energy, like what Jefferson County, Missouri, looked at. Also setback requirements, mandatory noise buffers, ending by-right zoning.
Where are local governments getting ideas for regulating data centers?
A lot of the technical information comes from developers. That can in cases be seen as a biased source of information. I wouldn’t say there’s a dedicated group providing assistance to local governments when a project is proposed — which is a similar story to wind industry development, where we have only a handful of consultants who provide technical advice. It can be really helpful to get a multi-disciplinary approach to hearing information. It can be helpful to have the utility commission, public health folks, those in academia, as well as the developer.
As of right now, especially in rural areas, local governments have a hard task of balancing pushback while getting the most accurate, evidence-based, neutral information to make decisions. That balance can be contentious.
What is the federal government doing on data center policy? How is the Trump administration approaching it?
A few things there. In the early days, the drive was for AI expansion and to be competitive with foreign adversaries. Now due to the amount of public pushback in red and blue localities and a more cautious approach.
I’m not seeing a lot of actual policy movement at this time.
I know the EPA is looking at the chemicals used in cooling data centers because when that water is cycled through the system, some of it is discharged into the water system, so they’re looking at the Toxic Substances and Control Act for monitoring that.
How much of an impact does this minimal federal role have on industry behavior?
Y’know, this isn’t specific to data centers. This is true for all kinds of large-scale development: there’s a need to require some sort of federal monitoring and regulation.
That’s where I see an emerging role for public health. At the federal level, there could be policy movement towards requiring some sort of environmental monitoring at data centers to make sure they’re operating responsibility. Looking at specific water use relative to water availability and what happens when there’s a time of severe, persistent drought. With air quality too — we’ve seen areas where the grid isn’t as reliable so their diesel generators are kicking on more and affecting air quality for residents.
We’re just not seeing all of that right now. We need corporate disclosure.
What do you see as the most important public health impacts from data center development?
It varies by localities. The most discussed obviously is water usage. One thing I’d note about my conversations with folks enthusiastic around emerging tech is, there are still questions that need to be asked about the capacity of localities to support a data center. Like a small town in Kansas may only be using 40% of their water for their utility needs. If a data center came online, how much of that water goes to the data center?
One area underexplored within the public health discipline is energy poverty and energy security. The ability of a household to meet the needs of everything energy provides in our lives. It’s known we have an aging electric grid but we’re not talking enough about large-scale blackouts when the grid is not sufficient to support some of these new data centers.
Plus more of the week’s big development fights.
1. Laramie County, Wyoming — Meta is fighting the fine it received in the Cheyenne data center water pollution controversy, and the conflict between the tech giant and the city’s small board of public utilities is continuing to spill out into the public.
2. Niagara County, New York — This county just rejected a solar project’s highway work permits in a show of retaliation against the state’s Office of Renewable Energy Siting.
3. Barron County, Wisconsin — The anti-solar protest is the new campaign stop in deep red Wisconsin.
4. Chesapeake, Virginia — A large battery storage project on the Virginia coastline is on the rocks amidst rampant local opposition.
5. Lewis County, West Virginia — West Virginia is now a key battleground in the fight over transmission, as a line spanning all of West Virginia and Maryland — and cutting through Data Center Alley in Virginia — causes compounding consternation.