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:
Want to use your gifts to help the climate? Here’s where seven climate advocates are donating.

Fighting for clean air and water. Accelerating the green energy transition. Centering economic and racial justice. Engaging future generations of climate innovators.
Nonprofits across the U.S. and around the world are tackling the problem of climate change in zillions of different ways. In recognition of the scope of their work, we at Heatmap are starting a new tradition for Giving Tuesday — asking some of the most prominent voices in the climate space where they would donate this year.
The answers they gave us are varied, exciting, and urgent, with a cause for every interest and concern. Learn how to donate or get involved with an effort close to your own heart, below.
What UPROSE does: Organizes the multiracial, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural population of Sunset Park, Brooklyn to promote sustainability and climate justice.
How you can support UPROSE: Get involved or donate here.
Where Yeampierre would donate this year: NYC Environmental Justice Alliance; NY Renews Climate; and Climate Justice Alliance.
Why: “All three of these organizations have a long and continued track record of shaping policy, base building, and operationalizing a just transition. All are frontline-led and center racial justice and equity in all aspects of their operations. All have changed the landscape and are central to decision-making on all things climate.”
What Generation180 does: Mounts public campaigns for electrification with relentless positivity.
How you can support Generation180: Donate here.
Where Wertz would donate this year: Hollywood Climate Summit.
Why: “This holiday season, I’d consider giving to Hollywood Climate Summit for their important climate communications work. Hollywood is an extremely powerful industry, and for the past four years, the annual Hollywood Climate Summit has served as an urgent call to action for the entertainment industry to address the climate emergency through a compilation of think tanks, workshops, and activities. The climate movement needs to change hearts and minds, and HCS is encouraging the entertainment community to help us achieve the cultural shift we need to advance an equitable, sustainable future.”
What the Indigenous Environmental Network does: Draws on the history of indigenous peoples to empower Native groups working to protect their homelands.
How you can support the IEN: Donate here or explore other ways to support the IEN.
Where White would donate this year: Tonatierra
Why: “We would love to spotlight the incredible work of Tonatierra. They are a family-based organization lifting up the grassroots from the local work on the ground to the United Nations. Sadly, they recently lost their co-founder, Tupac [Enrique Acosta].
“The work of Tonatierra in lifting up Indigenous communities over the past decades has been tireless and selfless. They fight for Indigenous Peoples community empowerment bringing together Indigenous people from the north and south in the fight for justice and human rights all within the framework of the protection of Mother Earth as we are all connected to the land.”
What the Rainforest Alliance does: Leverages business incentives to protect irreplaceable ecosystems — and the communities that rely on them.
How you can support the Rainforest Alliance: Get involved or donate here.
Where Katz would donate this year: Fundación Proyecto Tití and The Billion Oyster Project
Why: “Fundación Proyecto Tití works to stop deforestation and protect the cotton-top tamarin monkey. Also known as the tití, these one-pound primates are only found in the forests of Colombia, but deforestation is destroying their already diminished habitat. Only about 7,000 titís remain in the wild. The organization is effective in part because it works so well with the local community to protect endangered forests and replant degraded lands. The group has a U.S. sponsor, so all gifts are tax-deductible.
“The Billion Oyster Project is a growing New York-based conservation organization working alongside the Harbor School on Governor’s Island to clean up the New York estuary, once home to the largest number of oysters in the world. The Billion Oyster project not only grows oysters, [it] also helps everyone better understand the connection between clean water, biodiversity, and the food we eat. If Billon Oyster is successful — and they are well on the way — in the near future, all New Yorkers will have cleaner rivers and more wildlife thriving throughout the area.”
What SELC does: Defends the local environment in court, using the law to help move the U.S. South toward a more sustainable future.
How you can support SELC: Get involved or donate here.
Where Campaigne would donate this year: Memphis Community Against Pollution
Why: “Memphis Community Against Pollution has done some of the most impressive organizing around in its quest for environmental justice for Black communities in Southwest Memphis. The organization played David as it slayed the Goliath Byhalia crude oil pipeline, then worked successfully to force the closure of another facility that had been releasing toxic, cancer-causing pollution for more than four decades. MCAP has now focused its fierce attention on a climate behemoth: the quasi-federal utility TVA, which is proposing one of the largest methane gas buildouts in the country, a move that would lock the region into fossil fuels for decades to come.”
What Rewiring America does: Teaches U.S. homeowners about the tangible benefits of clean electricity.
How you can support Rewiring America: Get involved or donate here.
Where Young would donate this year: Community-based organizations like Baltimore’s Civic Works
Why: “Changing a handful of machines in our homes and driveways is one of the most important things you can do for the planet. The Inflation Reduction Act and climate philanthropists are accelerating this work at the national level, but for Giving Tuesday, we say go local. Community-based organizations with longstanding, personal connections and deep knowledge of the local landscape are often some of the best-positioned to advance electrification thoughtfully and equitably. This giving season, find an organization working to increase resiliency and improve the quality of life for their community by weatherizing low-income homes, providing financial assistance to install heat pumps, or advocating for local government action to help strengthen building codes and gain access to solar or EV charging.”
What the CATF does: Advocates for climate technologies to decarbonize the global energy system.
How you can support the CATF: Donate here or explore other ways to support CATF.
Who Shaheen would donate to this year: Western Resource Advocates, the Center for Applied Law and Policy, and ClearPath
Why: “We appreciate the work the following organizations are doing to advance effective, pragmatic solutions to climate change. In the U.S., we'd like to showcase Western Resource Advocates, which drives evidence-based solutions to the climate crisis, protecting and sustaining the environment, economy, and people of the interior West; the Center for Applied Law and Policy, which seeks to further innovation in environmental law and policy; and ClearPath, which develops and advances policies that accelerate innovations to reduce and remove global energy emissions.”
What RMI does: Brings cutting-edge research and analysis to business, governments, and the public to build a carbon-free future.
How you can support RMI: Explore ways to give here.
Where Singh would donate this year: Relp
Why: “Relp’s work not only addresses the pressing energy challenges in developing nations but also holds the potential to revolutionize the renewable energy landscape, forging a path toward a greener and more sustainable future for all. Their mission creates a ripple effect in the renewable energy sector, offering a way to scale renewable investments in regions that need them the most. Their comprehensive grasp of renewable energy markets combined with their ability to generate investment opportunities [that were] previously thought infeasible transforms what was once seen as unattainable into achievable milestones.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Whether any of them will hold up in court is now the big question.
Environmental lawyers are in for years of déjà vu as the Trump administration relitigates questions that many believed were settled by the Supreme Court nearly 20 years ago.
On Thursday, Trump rescinded the “endangerment finding,” the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 determination that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles threaten Americans’ public health and welfare and should be regulated. In the short term, the move repeals existing vehicle emissions standards and prevents future administrations from replacing them. In the longer term, what matters is whether any of the administration’s justifications hold up in court.
In its final rule, the EPA abandoned its attempt to back the move using a bespoke climate science report published by the Department of Energy last year. The report was created by a working group assembled in secret by the department and made up of five scientists who have a track record of pushing back on mainstream climate science. Not only was the report widely refuted by scientists, but the assembly of the working group itself broke federal law, a judge ruled in late January.
“The science is clear that climate change is creating a risk for the public and public health, and so I think it’s significant that they realized that it creates a legal risk if they were to try to assert otherwise,” Carrie Jenks, the executive director of Harvard’s Environmental and Energy Law Program, told me.
Instead, the EPA came up with three arguments to justify its decision, each of which will no doubt have to be defended in court. The agency claims that each of them can stand alone, but that they also reinforce each other. Whether that proves to be true, of course, has yet to be determined.
Here’s what they are:
Congress never specifically told the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. If it did, maybe we would have accomplished more on climate change by now.
What happened instead was that in 1999, a coalition of environmental and solar energy groups asked the EPA to regulate emissions from cars, arguing that greenhouse gases should be considered pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act. In 2007, in a case called Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court agreed with the second part. That led the EPA to consider whether these gases posed enough of a danger to public health to warrant regulation. In 2009, it concluded they did — that’s what’s known as the endangerment finding. After reaching that finding, the EPA went ahead and developed standards to limit emissions from vehicles. It later followed that up with rules for power plants and oil and gas operations.
Now Trump’s EPA is arguing that this three-step progression — categorizing greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act, making a scientific finding that they endanger public health, and setting regulations — was all wrong. Instead, the agency now believes, it’s necessary to consider all three at once.
Using the EPA’s logic, the argument comes out something like this: If we consider that U.S. cars are a small sliver of global emissions, and that limiting those emissions will not materially change the trajectory of global warming or the impacts of climate change on Americans, then we must conclude that Congress did not intend for greenhouse gases to be regulated when it enacted the Clean Air Act.
“They are trying to merge it all together and say, because we can’t do that last thing in a way that we think is reasonable, we can’t do the first thing,” Jenks said.
The agency is not explicitly asking for Massachusetts v. EPA to be overturned, Jenks said. But if its current argument wins in court, that would be the effective outcome, preventing future administrations from issuing greenhouse gas standards unless Congress passed a law explicitly telling it to do so. While it's rare for the Supreme Court to reverse course, none of the five justices who were in the majority on that case remain, and the makeup of the court is now far more conservative than in 2007.
The EPA also asserted that the “major questions doctrine,” a legal principle that says federal agencies cannot set policies of major economic and political significance without explicit direction from Congress, means the EPA cannot “decide the Nation’s policy response to global climate change concerns.”
The Supreme Court has used the major questions doctrine to overturn EPA’s regulations in the past, most notably in West Virginia v. EPA, which ruled that President Obama’s Clean Power Plan failed this constitutional test. But that case was not about EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, the court solely struck down the particular approach the EPA took to those regulations. Nevertheless, the EPA now argues that any climate regulation at all would be a violation.
The EPA’s final argument is about the “futility” of vehicle emissions standards. It echoes a portion of the first justification, arguing that the point alone is enough of a reason to revoke the endangerment finding absent any other reason.
The endangerment finding had “severed the consideration of endangerment from the consideration of contribution” of emissions, the agency wrote. The Clean Air Act “instructs the EPA to regulate in furtherance of public health and welfare, not to reduce emissions regardless [of] whether such reductions have any material health and welfare impact.”
Funnily enough, to reach this conclusion, the agency had to use climate models developed by past administrations, including the EPA’s Optimization Model for reducing Emissions of GHGs from Automobiles, as well as some developed by outside scientists, such as the Finite amplitude Impulse Response climate emulator model — though it did so begrudgingly.
The agency “recognizes that there is still significant dispute regarding climate science and modeling,” it wrote. “However, the EPA is utilizing the climate modeling provided within this section to help illustrate” that zero-ing out emissions from vehicles “would not materially address the health and welfare dangers attributed to global climate change concerns in the Endangerment Finding.”
I have yet to hear back from outside experts about the EPA’s modeling here, so I can’t say what assumptions the agency made to reach this conclusion or estimate how well it will hold up to scrutiny. We’ll be talking to more legal scholars and scientists in the coming days as they digest the rule and dig into which of these arguments — if any — has a chance to prevail.
The state is poised to join a chorus of states with BYO energy policies.
With the backlash to data center development growing around the country, some states are launching a preemptive strike to shield residents from higher energy costs and environmental impacts.
A bill wending through the Washington State legislature would require data centers to pick up the tab for all of the costs associated with connecting them to the grid. It echoes laws passed in Oregon and Minnesota last year, and others currently under consideration in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, and Delaware.
Several of these bills, including Washington’s, also seek to protect state climate goals by ensuring that new or expanded data centers are powered by newly built, zero-emissions power plants. It’s a strategy that energy wonks have started referring to as BYONCE — bring your own new clean energy. Almost all of the bills also demand more transparency from data center companies about their energy and water use.
This list of state bills is by no means exhaustive. Governors in New York and Pennsylvania have declared their intent to enact similar policies this year. At least six states, including New York and Georgia, are also considering total moratoria on new data centers while regulators study the potential impacts of a computing boom.
“Potential” is a key word here. One of the main risks lawmakers are trying to circumvent is that utilities might pour money into new infrastructure to power data centers that are never built, built somewhere else, or don’t need as much energy as they initially thought.
“There’s a risk that there’s a lot of speculation driving the AI data center boom,” Emily Moore, the senior director of the climate and energy program at the nonprofit Sightline Institute, told me. “If the load growth projections — which really are projections at this point — don’t materialize, ratepayers could be stuck holding the bag for grid investments that utilities have made to serve data centers.”
Washington State, despite being in the top 10 states for data center concentration, has not exactly been a hotbed of opposition to the industry. According to Heatmap Pro data, there are no moratoria or restrictive ordinances on data centers in the state. Rural communities in Eastern Washington have also benefited enormously from hosting data centers from the earlier tech boom, using the tax revenue to fund schools, hospitals, municipal buildings, and recreation centers.
Still, concern has started to bubble up. A ProPublica report in 2024 suggested that data centers were slowing the state’s clean energy progress. It also described a contentious 2023 utility commission meeting in Grant County, which has the highest concentration of data centers in the state, where farmers and tech workers fought over rising energy costs.
But as with elsewhere in the country, it’s the eye-popping growth forecasts that are scaring people the most. Last year, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, a group that oversees electricity planning in the region, estimated that data centers and chip fabricators could add somewhere between 1,400 megawatts and 4,500 megawatts of demand by 2030. That’s similar to saying that between one and four cities the size of Seattle will hook up to the region’s grid in the next four years.
In the face of such intimidating demand growth, Washington Governor Bob Ferguson convened a Data Center Working Group last year — made up of state officials as well as advisors from electric utilities, environmental groups, labor, and industry — to help the state formulate a game plan. After meeting for six months, the group published a report in December finding that among other things, the data center boom will challenge the state’s efforts to decarbonize its energy systems.
A supplemental opinion provided by the Washington Department of Ecology also noted that multiple data center developers had submitted proposals to use fossil fuels as their main source of power. While the state’s clean energy law requires all electricity to be carbon neutral by 2030, “very few data center developers are proposing to use clean energy to meet their energy needs over the next five years,” the department said.
The report’s top three recommendations — to maintain the integrity of Washington’s climate laws, strengthen ratepayer protections, and incentivize load flexibility and best practices for energy efficiency — are all incorporated into the bill now under discussion in the legislature. The full list was not approved by unanimous vote, however, and many of the dissenting voices are now opposing the data center bill in the legislature or asking for significant revisions.
Dan Diorio, the vice president of state policy for the Data Center Coalition, an industry trade group, warned lawmakers during a hearing on the bill that it would “significantly impact the competitiveness and viability of the Washington market,” putting jobs and tax revenue at risk. He argued that the bill inappropriately singles out data centers, when arguably any new facility with significant energy demand poses the same risks and infrastructure challenges. The onshoring of manufacturing facilities, hydrogen production, and the electrification of vehicles, buildings, and industry will have similar impacts. “It does not create a long-term durable policy to protect ratepayers from current and future sources of load growth,” he said.
Another point of contention is whether a top-down mandate from the state is necessary when utility regulators already have the authority to address the risks of growing energy demand through the ratemaking process.
Indeed, regulators all over the country are already working on it. The Smart Electric Power Alliance, a clean energy research and education nonprofit, has been tracking the special rate structures and rules that U.S. utilities have established for data centers, cryptocurrency mining facilities, and other customers with high-density energy needs, many of which are designed to protect other ratepayers from cost shifts. Its database, which was last updated in November, says that 36 such agreements have been approved by state utility regulators, mostly in the past three years, and that another 29 are proposed or pending.
Diario of the Data Center Coalition cited this trend as evidence that the Washington bill was unnecessary. “The data center industry has been an active party in many of those proceedings,” he told me in an email, and “remains committed to paying its full cost of service for the energy it uses.” (The Data Center Coalition opposed a recent utility decision in Ohio that will require data centers to pay for a minimum of 85% of their monthly energy forecast, even if they end up using less.)
One of the data center industry’s favorite counterarguments against the fear of rising electricity is that new large loads actually exert downward pressure on rates by spreading out fixed costs. Jeff Dennis, who is the executive director of the Electricity Customer Alliance and has worked for both the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, told me this is something he worries about — that these potential benefits could be forfeited if data centers are isolated into their own ratemaking class. But, he said, we’re only in “version 1.5 or 2.0” when it comes to special rate structures for big energy users, known as large load tariffs.
“I think they’re going to continue to evolve as everybody learns more about how to integrate large loads, and as the large load customers themselves evolve in their operations,” he said.
The Washington bill passed the Appropriations Committee on Monday and now heads to the Rules Committee for review. A companion bill is moving through the state senate.
Plus more of the week’s top fights in renewable energy.
1. Kent County, Michigan — Yet another Michigan municipality has banned data centers — for the second time in just a few months.
2. Pima County, Arizona — Opposition groups submitted twice the required number of signatures in a petition to put a rezoning proposal for a $3.6 billion data center project on the ballot in November.
3. Columbus, Ohio — A bill proposed in the Ohio Senate could severely restrict renewables throughout the state.
4. Converse and Niobrara Counties, Wyoming — The Wyoming State Board of Land Commissioners last week rescinded the leases for two wind projects in Wyoming after a district court judge ruled against their approval in December.