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:
Activists on both the left and the right are pushing back against AI development.

The techlash over data center development is becoming a potent political force that could shape elections for generations.
At a national level, political leaders remain dedicated to the global race to dominate artificial intelligence. But cracks are beginning to show when it comes to support for the infrastructure necessary to get there. Nearly every week now across the U.S., from arid Tucson, Arizona, to the suburban sprawl of the D.C. area, Americans are protesting, rejecting, restricting, or banning new data center development.
It’s also popping up in our elections. On Tuesday in Virginia, voters in the No. 1 state for data center development ousted their GOP political leadership, sending to the governor’s mansion a Democrat who promised to make the growing sector pay more for its electricity. In the run-up to Election Day, polling showed voters were hyperfocused on the risk that data centers could negatively affect their lives. Some candidates in local races campaigned almost entirely on the issue, while others pledged to new bans.
“There’s a lot of other things going on too, [but] data centers are much more important than candidates want to admit,” said Chris Miller, president of Piedmont Environmental Council, a conservation advocacy group in Virginia that tracks and fights data center development. “An industry that is used to moving fast and breaking things is moving up against a physical world they’ve never dealt with before.”
Meanwhile, in Georgia, two Democrats won seats on the Public Service Commission on campaigns that wound up focused on data centers and rising energy bills.
We here at Heatmap have gone to great lengths to better understand why this opposition is so widespread. In August, our data intelligence platform Heatmap Pro conducted polling to figure out how Americans feel about the billions of dollars being poured into data centers for cloud computing and AI development. We found that the dislike is incredibly strong — less than half of Americans are willing to support a data center near them. The hostility crosses party lines, with Republicans nearly as likely to express disdain towards these projects as Democrats. The frustrations with these facilities are also poised to increase over generations, as data centers are most underwater with the younger cohorts, aged 18 to 49, who may be more familiar with AI.
The polling also showed that people are easily convinced to oppose data center development in their neighborhoods. Rhetoric in favor of data centers — how they contribute to tax revenue, create jobs, help the U.S. compete with China — might win some hearts and minds, but rhetoric decrying data centers consistently polled stronger than any of the supportive arguments we tested. This registered across party lines. And making matters worse for the tech sector, individuals who previously opposed renewable energy projects were more likely to be anti-data centers.
What you get in the end is a populist conflict appealing to younger people that bridges the ends of the political spectrum, connecting the left and right — and that should make developers very worried.
On one end of the spectrum, left-aligned activists and local leaders are raging against the energy and water system strain that’ll come from the data center boom. You have folks like Blake Coe, an activist fighting data center projects in San Marcos, Texas. Coe told me he began opposing data centers after being politically awakened by a totally different issue: the Israeli government’s offensive in Gaza and alleged genocide of Palestinians there. But as he told me, he didn’t have “the clout, the money, the whatever to work on fixing a genocide.” After learning about the project in San Marcos, he concluded that the community there was something he “can fight for.”
“There’s been this air of inevitability around data centers and AI and all this new tech stuff coming out — how it’s going to happen, so either get out of the way or get run over,” he said. “And our job is to try and remind people in power of their humanity, at the end of the day.”
At the same time, activists fighting renewable energy projects from the right are also lining up to fight data centers, echoing the same frustrations voiced by environmentalists while also tarring the infrastructure as part of a broader social change imposed by Big Tech elites. Take Indiana, one of the most popular data center destinations after Virginia, where the backlash is hitting Indianapolis and rural GOP strongholds alike. Or Missouri, whose Senator Josh Hawley summed up my story here in one post in October.
“These data centers are massive electricity hogs,” Hawley said on X, months after notably leading the push for the Trump administration to defund the Grain Belt Express, a large transmission line proposal that its developer said will help states meet data center electricity demand. “That’s why Silicon Valley wants more transmission lines, solar farms and windmills,” Hawley said. “Somebody has to pay for it all — don’t believe any politician who says it won’t ultimately be you.”
In Oklahoma, 21-year-old GOP organizer Kennedy Laplante Garza started fighting a nearby data center proposal known as Clydesdale after learning over the summer that it would be built a mile from her family’s farm. “I didn’t even know that much about data centers at that point,” she told me. “But I knew my friends across the state were fighting similar things, whether they were solar panels or wind turbines.” Garza wound up organizing a mass petition campaign against the project that ultimately proved unsuccessful — Clydesdale broke ground this week.
Out in Oklahoma there aren’t very many elected Democrats at all, just different shades of Republican. But because of that, Garza told me, party affiliation matters less to voters than whether their elected representatives are listening to them — meaning there could still be consequences for GOP politicians who side with tech companies over any populist revolt against data center development.
“We’d probably see our elections flip, too, if people started running on it,” Garza said, referring to data center opposition.
This brings us back to Virginia, where local races now hinge on data center conflicts. On Tuesday, Democrat John McAuliff — a former White House energy adviser who worked on the Inflation Reduction Act — flipped a seat in the state House of Delegates, taking out an incumbent Republican representing a D.C. ex-urb that went for Donald Trump in last year’s presidential election. McAuliff’s secret sauce? A laser focus on the Virginia data center boom.
“There’s the environmental impact these are having, and of course these are very large water users. But there’s also the cultural impact that they are having,” McAuliff told me in an interview after his victory. “And then of course, there’s the energy bills piece. Because we’re all here in Data Center Alley, we’re bearing the biggest brunt of the increase in transmission lines, the increase in substations.”
Representatives of the nascent data center sector are beginning to acknowledge that they have a PR problem, but they say the issue is one of education — Americans simply do not yet understand the tax and employment benefits that can come with new data centers. In an interview conducted before this most recent Election Day, Data Center Coalition Vice President for State Policy Dan Diorio told me that opposition has “cut across states,” and that protests have become “very much a learning experience.”
“There definitely is a need for better communication,” Diorio said, adding that companies need to be “responsive to things like aesthetics or sound,” while making sure their projects match “the economic development goals of a community.”
Whenever I asked Diorio about how the data center sector should respond to this political quagmire, he would pivot to education. In the industry’s view, people would be more supportive if they simply knew more about companies’ ongoing sustainability efforts.
This left me with the sense that the business sector does not fully understand the scope of the problem it’s facing. Bukola Folashakin, an analyst with Morningstar, told me that’s plainly evident from the sheer magnitude of money — billions — being invested in a new American data center boom without hesitation.
“The data right now, what we’re seeing,” Folashakin said, “is that it’s not clear if investors are concerned from a social perspective. If social issues were such a concern, you wouldn’t see capital going in that direction.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Current conditions: Severe storms are drenching a broad swath of the Midwest with heavy rain from Des Moines to Fort Wayne • Intense downpours put all 76 of Thailand’s provinces, or changwat, on a five-day flooding alert, ending on Sunday • Tropical Storm Dujuan has strengthened in the Pacific en route to Japan.

The Trump administration has narrowed the federal government’s interpretation of the Endangered Species Act to only consider intentional targeting of protected animals illegal. The move, part of what The New York Times called “a seismic shift” in the application of one of the nation’s bedrock conservation laws, would essentially free energy companies from the need to, for example, invest in infrastructure to keep migratory birds from making deadly landings in ponds of oil and gas slurry. Killing endangered animals “almost always happens incidentally, in the course of economic activity,” the newspaper noted. It’s unclear whether the legal change would also apply to one of the industries President Donald Trump most frequently antagonizes for its accidental killing of birds: the wind industry.
When President Donald Trump announced an energy truce between Ukraine and Russia, he promised that a halt to attacks on pipelines and refineries would lower prices on diesel worldwide, insisting the Iran War wasn’t to blame. But half of Russia’s six top diesel-producing refineries were forced to significantly cut back or completely stop production this month due to damage from Ukrainian drone attacks, according to a Reuters analysis published Wednesday. Russian President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, is making a $135 billion bet on Arctic oil that OilPrice.com suggested “could save his Ukraine war.”
U.S. energy companies, meanwhile, are storming into a country in America’s backyard that — unlike the Kremlin’s attempt at a blitzkrieg capture of Kyiv’s leaders in 2022 — successfully decapitated a rebellious regime and reasserted Washington’s regional dominance. I’m talking, of course, about Venezuela. Harold Hamm, the oil tycoon behind the U.S. shale boom, told the Heartlander News yesterday that his company had signed a tentative agreement to explore one of the South American nation’s oil fields. New York-based Heeney Capital is eyeing a gold mine in Venezuela, per Reuters. Bloomberg reported that the company is also looking to ship aluminum from Venezuela to the U.S. Exxon Mobil, meanwhile, is “nearing a preliminary deal” to invest in Venezuela oil, according to The Wall Street Journal.
The Federal Reserve raised the benchmark federal interest rate by a quarter point Wednesday. The U.S. central bank’s first rate change since Chairman Kevin Warsh took over in May, and its first rate hike since 2023, will bring the federal funds rate to between 3.75% and 4%. The increase could make raising capital “more difficult” for “capital-intensive renewable and clean energy industries,” my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote yesterday.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Lawmakers in the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the first major bill to curb the costs of the AI boom with legislation Politico described as “intended to shield Americans from potential energy costs associated with data centers.” The Ratepayer Protection Act passed in a 417 to 3 vote. The bipartisan win hands the GOP a victory ahead of the November election on one of the issues firing up voters the most. The bill would require states to consider a federal standard guaranteeing that large power consumers pay for 100% of the costs of new generation and transmission upgrades, but falls short of a direct mandate.
Meanwhile, the House split along partisan lines for another bill on California’s right to regulate pollution more strictly than the federal government. The chamber voted 216 to 211 to bar California from setting strict new limits on air pollution from ships docked at the state’s ports, marking what The New York Times called “the latest salvo by Republicans against the state’s pioneering environmental policies.” The move comes after Congress last year banned Sacramento from imposing a ban on gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035.
One of the most significant nuclear stock market debuts of the past few years has hit a major hiccup. On Wednesday night, Holtec Nuclear Corporation suspended plans for an initial public offering, citing “market conditions.” Bloomberg and Reuters first reported the postponement, which I confirmed with Holtec last night. “Holtec will continue to evaluate the timing of the offering in the future,” the company told me. With plans to restart a nuclear reactor for the first time in U.S. history in the coming months, Holtec is the only company likely to bring (somewhat) new atomic electricity onto the grid before 2030. The company owns several other decommissioning nuclear plants, where it plans to build its own in-house small modular reactors.
Another major player in the burgeoning nuclear market, meanwhile, hit a major regulatory milestone. Blue Energy, a developer that bills itself as “agnostic” to reactor technologies, is instead focused on building facilities that will initially run on gas and eventually transition to reactors, with GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s BWRX-300 — the closest rival to Holtec’s SMR-300 — centering in those plans at the moment. On Wednesday, Blue Energy submitted its application for a construction permit to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for its inaugural gas-to-nuclear project in Port of Victoria, Texas. The submission makes Blue Energy one of just five companies so far to ask the NRC for permission to begin building. “This is serious work done by serious people for a serious project,” Blue Energy CEO Jake Jurewicz said in a statement. “This is another huge step towards building the world’s first gas-to-nuclear power plant and proving the Blue Energy approach to build nuclear in the safest, quickest, and most scalable way possible.”
The wine-dark sea is getting more briny. As its temperatures rise faster than the global ocean surface average, the Mediterranean Sea is growing saltier. The upper 100 meters of the sea between Europe and Africa have been about 2 degrees Celsius warmer than their 1950 to 1999 average, according to a study published in Geophysical Research Letters. “For us, what was alarming was the rate at which this is changing and the depths that such significant changes reach,” Elena Terzić, a physical oceanographer at the Ruđer Bošković Institute and lead author of the study, told Bloomberg. “The warming and salinification are statistically significant down to three or four thousand meters, and the speed-up itself reaches down to about 2,500 meters.”
The company plans to invest in domestic manufacturing for its high-heat magnets.
Our electricity system runs on magnets. Every transformer stepping voltage up or down, every inductor smoothing out electrical current, and every motor turning electricity into motion relies on the same basic physics: magnetic fields that control the flow of electrons, converting, filtering, and transporting power at every stage. But as AI and electrification push the grid to its limits, better magnetic materials can help power electronics — and our grid itself — keep up.
That’s the bet behind CorePower Magnetics, a Pittsburgh-based startup which raised a $10.5 million funding round co-led by Engine Ventures and Material Impact, announced on Thursday. The startup is developing more efficient, power-dense components such as inductors and transformers using proprietary nanocrystalline magnetic materials, whose ultra-fine grains reduce energy loss. While these materials have historically been brittle and limited to operating at temperatures below 150 degrees Celsius, CorePower says it engineered alloys that can perform above 200 degrees while maintaining durability.
That higher temperature ceiling is critical. As surging electricity demand meets our increasingly complex grid, power electronics like inductors and transformers are being pushed to handle more power, greater voltages, and higher frequencies than ever before. Magnetic material that can run hotter allows engineers to push more power through smaller components. In the context of a data center, for example, that could equate to about a 10% overall reduction in power demand, CorePower’s CEO Sam Kernion told me
“Data centers are the tip of the spear for this really big push into power electronics,” Kernion explained. “If you look more broadly, electricity demand is growing, but the grid itself is becoming a lot more complex, and data centers are just a great example of that.”
Traditionally, electricity flowed unidirectionally from large, centralized power plants to homes, businesses, and other end users. But now the system must support a wider array of both generation and demand sources. Distributed energy resources like rooftop solar panels can generate power directly where it’s consumed, while batteries (and soon electric vehicles) can both draw power and send it back to the grid. Today’s standard electrical equipment isn’t built to handle the bidirectional power flow and real-time current and voltage conversions that this new ecosystem demands.
Solid-state transformer startups such as Heron Power and DG Matrix are tackling this same challenge, using advanced semiconductor technology to convert voltage electronically while also handling functions like bidirectional power flow and alternating-to-direct current conversion. But even these newer systems still generally rely on conventional magnetic materials, which CorePower says have become a key bottleneck.
“We’re taking a car engine, and now we’re going to a jet engine in terms of how different this is,” Kernion told me regarding the demands of this new, higher performance operating environment.
CorePower is designing its advanced, medium-frequency transformers to operate across a broad range of frequencies, from 10 kilohertz to 100 kilohertz. Eventually it plans to sell these transformers to power electronics manufacturers, which will build complete, solid-state systems around the startup’s magnetic core, adding components such as semiconductors and capacitors along with their own software and control systems.
While CorePower hasn’t disclosed any customers to date, it did launch its first product last year, a standardized, low-voltage inductor that’s smaller, lighter, and more efficient than the industry standard. The device smooths out current in power conversion systems, including data center distribution equipment, EV chargers, and inverters that convert DC electricity to AC. Next, CorePower is preparing to launch its standardized transformer product.
The company’s magnet tech could ultimately find numerous applications beyond inductors and transformers. “We’re also able to supply onboard magnetic components for EVs, or uninterruptible power supplies at data centers, or inverters for renewables,” Kernion explained. “Every electron everywhere passes through a magnetic component at some point, so there’s a whole bunch of opportunity out there.”
It’s certainly a fortuitous time to be a domestic power electronics manufacturer. Last month, President Trump signed an executive order banning the import of certain foreign-made bulk power equipment, including substation transformers and grid-connected inverters. While CorePower is mainly focused on producing high-performance equipment that Kernion says can’t currently be sourced domestically or abroad, the push to shore up domestic manufacturing is providing a tailwind for another of its new business lines: amorphous ribbon, a traditional alternative to the electric steel used in conventional distribution transformers on the grid.
With this latest funding, CorePower plans to expand its team and increase manufacturing capacity at its 10,000 square foot pilot manufacturing facility in Pittsburgh, which it was able to complete thanks to a $5 million ARPA-E grant. The company is eventually looking to move into a larger, 100,000 square foot facility in the region to scale its material and component manufacturing further, though there’s no confirmed timeline for this yet.
One of the largest companies in the world says its products pose catastrophic peril. Sound familiar?
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.
Imagine, for a moment, a vast and growing firm — a conglomerate that could be said to define its era of American capitalism. Over the past several years, this firm’s products have become the biggest story in the U.S. economy. Its products are so mindbogglingly expensive to produce that they have driven new types of financial and infrastructural innovation, yet nevertheless the company seems to be quite profitable.
And little wonder: Everyone wants what they have. Investors, policymakers, and economists believe that America’s ongoing economic growth and competitiveness depend on ample access to this company’s products. The sitting Republican president has staked his administration on making sure Americans can get as much of it as they want — regulations be damned.
But there is a problem. One of the company’s researchers has become convinced that the company’s products are dangerous — so harmful, in fact, that their continued use and growth trajectory portends catastrophic risk for humanity. He attempts to alert the company’s executives to this fact. What happens next?
Perhaps you know the story. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Exxon’s internal scientists concluded that the ongoing growth of fossil fuels would raise global temperatures and have “potentially catastrophic” effects on the planet’s climate. They presented these results to Exxon’s executives. A senior scientist warned that humanity had a brief window — “five to 10 years” — before “the need for hard choices regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”
Exxon led a large research effort into climate change, affirming its scientific validity. But then in the late 1980s, its CEO decided to go in the other direction. Its executives chose not to warn the public about climate change — and instead began a successful disinformation campaign meant to convince the public that climate change was not settled science.
But what if things had gone differently? We’re getting a taste of that pathway now. Last week, Sam Coxon, a researcher at the artificial intelligence company Anthropic, resigned because he feared the AI industry was too close to building an “out of control” intelligence. He quit his job just a few months before his corporate equity would have vested, giving up what would have likely been life-changing wealth to warn about what he believes to be existential risks. Humanity only had a brief period of time — perhaps a year — to steer the technology to a better path, he said.
Anthropic researchers who remain at the company affirmed his analysis. “We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans,” a senior scientist at the company posted on the social network X.
But this time, Anthropic’s CEO, Dario Amodei, did not respond as Exxon’s leadership did three decades ago. Instead, Amodei basically agreed with Coxon: He asked for the government to regulate artificial intelligence and “pace the frontier,” meaning that it should enforce a slower rate of cutting-edge artificial intelligence development.
I’ve thought of these two examples over the past few days as I’ve tried to make sense of the surge in public concern about AI and existential risk.
It seems to me that climate change is looming over the AI conversation and shaping the assumptions, outlook, and behavior of many key players and observers. President Trump, of course, is reading from the old playbook and has deemed AI to be a “hoax”; Coxon, appearing on Fox News, has downplayed climate change’s existential risk as compared to runaway AI. Yet even beyond those reruns and revisions, the analogy goes deeper: Just as nuclear non-proliferation agreements structured early attempts to regulate global greenhouse emissions, climate policy is now shaping how people understand AI risk.
And not for lack of cause. In some important ways, the problems — or alleged problems, depending on your perspective on AI — resemble each other. For instance, because technology exists in a global commons, any successful AI diplomacy must involve the United States and China. And since China’s AI development currently lags the United States, American politicians must persuade China that their proposals to regulate AI are not just concealed attempts to restrain China’s development.
This dynamic has long bedeviled climate negotiations, too. Since economic growth has (until very recently) required fossil fuels, China and other middle-income countries have long feared that any global climate treaty would constrain their future economic development. The Kyoto Protocol tried to finesse this problem by splitting countries into two groups, rich and not-rich; the Paris Agreement did it by imposing no collective restrictions on fossil fuel consumption at all.
Neither approach has worked, exactly, but each offer examples, counterexamples, and tools for thought. Perhaps the Montreal Protocol, which has successfully limited global production of the pollutants destroying stratospheric ozone — and has shown how to stop the growth of a dangerous but hard-to-manufacture technology that presents near-term existential risk — is a superior model.
There is at least one big way the two risks differ. Climate change is a chemical problem that arises from the size and scale of global fossil fuel consumption. Scientists have known that the greenhouse effect is real since the early 20th century. Climate change’s physics are rudimentary enough that Exxon’s in-house scientists could predict the path of future warming with some accuracy. It is a verifiable risk.
AI’s alleged existential risks, on the other hand, emerge from a lab pushing the technological frontier too far and drilling, like Tolkien’s dwarves, too deep. AI concern relies not on empirical observations, but on a story about exponential change and runaway growth. In this way, it’s a harder risk to predict, and a harder one to accept.
Climate advocates have long wondered what would have happened if Exxon’s leaders had embraced reality and warned the public in the 1980s that global warming is real and caused by fossil fuels. Inside Climate News once called it a “road not taken.” I can’t help but wonder if we’re watching it.