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:
Europeans have enjoyed it for years. Now, through careful state interventions and creative salesmanship from startups, Americans are close to having their turn.

For U.S. consumers, going solar is usually a major undertaking, involving tens of thousands of dollars, months of logistics, a slew of financing options, and ever-changing incentives.
But in Germany, upwards of a million customers — homeowners and renters alike — are simply plugging in small, affordable solar arrays to standard power outlets. These small systems are, by law, 800 watts or less, a fraction of the size of a typical rooftop solar system in the U.S. Often called “balcony solar,” these panels can live essentially anywhere with sufficient sunlight: on balconies or patios, or mounted on exterior walls or flat rooftops.
But while governments across the EU have simplified regulations to make installation a quick, DIY process, and utility approval little more than a formality — unleashing a wave of consumer demand in the process — the U.S. has so far failed to follow suit. Here, utility regulations prohibit customers from feeding power back into the grid without a formal interconnection agreement, a process that involves lots of time and paperwork.
Utilities in the U.S. want to account for all electricity sources on the grid, since theoretically, even small plug-in systems could have a cumulative impact on local voltage and power quality, whereas in Germany, for example, this is less of a concern. There, plug-in solar-specific policy caps these systems’ generating capacity, and the grid and metering infrastructure has been more extensively modernized to handle distributed energy generation.
Now, however, there are a number of domestic plug-in solar startups finding creative ways to navigate the constraints of the U.S. market. One of them, the nonprofit Bright Saver, announced on Wednesday that it’s raised $500,000 in new funding from TrueVentures.org and a handful of individual backers. The company gets around power export regulations by selling panels with very low wattage. “So we’re talking 200- or 220-watt systems that never backfeed to the grid, because we think close to every typical household will consume that electricity immediately, simply with the refrigerator,” Cora Stryker, the company’s co-founder, told me.
The San Francisco-based startup has sold a couple dozen systems already and has a waitlist of about 1,500 people, Stryker said. So far, she told me, the majority of this “early adoption crowd” is mainly interested in reducing their own emissions. “We think that’ll change over time,” she said. “The mass adoption in Germany has been driven not by that climate-conscious crowd, but really people who want to save money.”
The main drawback to Bright Saver’s approach, however, is also what makes it possible in the first place: the panels’ incredibly small size, which can’t come close to covering a home’s full power needs. So while the upfront cost of a 200-watt panel is small — $399 at the moment — a customer’s energy savings will also be tiny — potentially on the order of just a few bucks per month. Depending on the location, the savings will eclipse the total cost in about five to 10 years, Stryker told me.
That might not be enticing enough to convince a critical mass of customers to jump onboard the small-scale solar train. But Stryker thinks that getting these products out into the world will help catalyze the type of curiosity and interest that can dovetail into policy change. “Selling product in the next year or two is a small revenue stream for us, but it’s also our theory of change,” she told me. “These need to get out there in order for people to know they even exist.”
Much of Bright Saver’s work involves advocating for easing plug-in solar regulations, which is already starting to happen, bit by bit. In March, the Utah state legislature unanimously passed a bill creating a new category for “small portable solar generation devices” under 1,200 watts, exempting them from interconnection requirements. Stryker told me that Utah’s governor was inspired to introduce the bill after reading a story in The New York Times about balcony solar’s success in Germany.
Now more states, including Vermont, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, are expressing interest in similar legislation. If just a few more get onboard, Stryker told me that would be a critical tipping point. “We’ve had conversations with manufacturers and investors who tell us straight up, they’re not coming to the U.S. market because they see only one state where they’re not going to run into these regulatory concerns,” she said. “They tell us privately, five to seven more states and they’re in. So that’s a key threshold for us.”
But one veteran of the plug-in solar market, Craftstrom, isn’t betting on this happening. The company has been selling 400- to 800-watt systems in Europe since 2017, and expanded into the U.S. a few years later, targeting markets where electricity prices are highest, like California and the Northeast. To deal with domestic regulations, the company patented a new type of meter to be placed inside electric panels that blocks excess power from flowing back into the grid. This prevention mechanism also allows the company to sell larger systems — up to 2,000 watts — in the U.S.
Craftstrom’s chief revenue officer, Ken Hutchings, thinks this type of system is critical for grid safety in the U.S., where distribution networks tend to be older and less standardized than in Europe, and not necessarily built for two-way power flow. This opens up utilities to a good deal of legal liability in the case of equipment failures.
While Hutchings wouldn’t necessarily be surprised to see other states following Utah’s lead, he’s skeptical that the U.S. will become a haven for plug-in solar anytime soon — or even that it’s a good idea. “There’s no risk to one or two guys pushing power back into the grid,” he told me. “But when you have thousands and thousands of people doing it, tens of thousands, and the electric company is not sure who’s doing it, I think that’s where the issue lies.”
Thus far, Craftstrom has sold about 4,000 units in the U.S., with about 500 of those orders coming in the past month alone, Hutchings told me. He attributed the sudden uptick largely to a rush of customers trying to qualify for home energy efficiency tax credits — which he said Craftstrom’s systems are eligible for — before they expire at year’s end.
Craftstrom’s domestic prices are still more expensive than what its own customers in Europe can expect to pay for similar systems due to the extra hardware costs that come along with the specialized meters, as well as the fact that installing these products is not a DIY operation. That means Utah customers should now enjoy the same price relief, since the new state law lifts the grid restrictions that the rest of the U.S. faces. These days, Craftstrom’s more complex hardware plus the cost of labor “just about doubles the cost from what you’re able to get in Utah,” Stryker told me.
Bright Saver sold Craftstrom’s systems when it first started out earlier this year, but chose to discontinue this offering as it “didn’t serve our vision of making this accessible to everyone through cost and self-installation,” Stryker told me. Instead, the organization is focusing on policy changes that will make cheap self-install systems in the 800-watt range feasible in more states. And that means getting legislators onboard with some degree of deregulation, something Stryker acknowledges “has often been a dirty word” in the environmental movement.
“In this case, we need these regulations to get out of the way. They’re outdated. They’re artifacts,” she told me, referring to the requirement that small plug-in systems sign utility interconnection agreements. “I see it as a purple narrative, one that can appeal to values across the political spectrum — energy independence, energy affordability, renters’ rights.”
Of course, Stryker isn’t advocating for complete anarchy in the space. Grid stability is still a concern, and she said that Bright Saver is involved in discussions with regulators and standard-setting bodies to determine acceptable wattage thresholds. Countries that have embraced balcony solar in Europe have “impeccable” safety records, Stryker told me, enabling Germany to raise its wattage limit from 600 to 800 watts at the beginning of last year.
There are still some logistics to work out though. As the recent Utah law is written, plug-in solar arrays must comply with product standards from Underwriters Laboratories, a safety certification body. And while this organization has standards covering the individual components of plug-in solar systems, it has yet to create a systems-level standard. Depending on whom you ask, that might mean all domestic companies in the space are operating in a bit of a regulatory gray area at the moment.
Stryker told me she expects these system-wide standards to be released soon though, ideally in tandem with more bills like the one passed in Utah. “We think it’s a no-brainer.”
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.