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:
Experts explain what you can do about the smoke engulfing the East Coast and Midwest.

Canadian wildfire smoke has descended upon large swaths of the Midwest and Eastern United States this week, and as of publication tens of millions of Americans are living under air quality alerts warning them not to go outside. As my colleague Jeva Lange writes, the air in New York City today is reminiscent of a time before the Clean Air Act existed.
Wildfires, for the most part, have historically been the purview of the West; East Coasters, accustomed to hurricanes and blizzards, have mostly managed to avoid the fallout from forest fires. That’s not quite so true anymore, and this week’s smoke is a likely preview of how things will work in the future. So how should people react when smoke makes its way to their cities?
To find out, I called up two doctors from Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health: Francesca Dominici, professor of biostatistics, population, and data science; and Kimberly Humphrey, an emergency physician and a fellow at the school’s Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment. I spoke separately to Dominici and Humphrey; our conversations have been combined and edited for length and clarity.
Dominici: I think the way to think about it is not to be overly panicking, but maybe it’s a day to not spend hours outside exercising. For people that have compromised immune systems or existing respiratory or cardiovascular diseases, it would be good to limit outdoor exposure as much as possible. So don't panic but be cautious.
Humphrey: Smoke from wildfires is a complex mixture of things. The thing about wildfires is they can burn anything. If a house is burning, for example, you have really complex mixtures of whatever is in that house that’s going into the air.
The one that we really worry about is the fine particles, which are known as PM 2.5 (i.e. particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers). They’re very little particles that people breathe in which have really significant impacts on heart and lung function, particularly in people who have chronic health conditions. But the impacts are still significant for people who are healthy previously and have no underlying health problems. It can cause coughing, wheezing, difficulty breathing, eye irritation, and short-term issues with lung function, even in people who don’t have any previous problems with their lungs.
Dominici: It’s not like walking by, for example, a construction site. You can see that dust, and those are not small particles. Those are coarse particles that make you cough or sneeze or bring tears to your eyes. That’s actually good, because you’re basically filtering them out. But these small particles, you don’t feel them. They penetrate very deep into the lungs, and then they cause inflammation that makes our immune response less effective.
Dominici: We know that these exposures to high-level fine particulate matter have both an immediate effect and a very acute effect. So we see an increase in, for example, hospital admissions, which go up the same day and the day after. But there have also been lots of studies that have documented that this effect can last for a very long time. We see chronic effects including effects on cognitive function like an exacerbation of dementia and Alzheimer's disease.
Humphrey: The first thing we would say is stay inside, shut your windows, stay away from the smoke, maybe buy an air purifier, exercise indoors.
But one of the tricky things with giving this kind of advice is that wildfire smoke affects people who are from disadvantaged socioeconomic communities more predominantly. And those are often the people that can't do the things that we would recommend to protect their health. For instance, many people have to go out to work or may be sleeping rough or have housing insecurity, and they don't have access to well-structured houses that protect them against wildfire smoke. So there's a real inequity there about the ability for people to follow the advice to keep themselves safe.
Dominici: You can totally take your dog for a walk or your kid to the playground, but if your child has asthma that’s something to watch out for. Maybe don’t spend hours outside, and make sure you have their asthma medications. People with pre-existing conditions should contact their primary-care physicians and discuss if they should potentially change their medication dosage to make sure their exposure to smoke doesn’t exacerbate whatever problem they have.
Humphrey: We’re seeing health impacts at levels below what the EPA recommends as safe levels of PM 2.5 exposure, so when our apps say “sensitive people” it’s probably actually a message for all of us. It’s important, I think, for people who call themselves healthy to understand that you can be a marathon runner and any exposure to wildfire smoke is going to have some kind of impact on you.
Humphrey: It’s very similar to COVID, so cloth masks and surgical masks offer some protection, they’re better than nothing, but they’re not as good as N95 masks. We’d recommend a really high-quality mask like an N95 because it does filter out those very, very tiny particles and offers really good protection.
Humphrey: I think we have the tools. What’s missing is education. So many people have access to air quality data, it’s on an app or on the internet, but they need more education about what to do with it. I’m very, very concerned with the socioeconomic inequities in particular. It’s a lot of the same issues as COVID: All of these issues are really, really hard to solve but are part of this whole piece.
Dominici: In a certain way, COVID has been a wake-up call. We are much more cautious about what’s in our air. I think it’s always important to keep in mind that when we’re talking about the health effects, we have to really understand that they’re a manifestation of the climate crisis. It’s not something we’re going to see in the future. It’s something that’s happening right now.
Read more about wildfire smoke:
The World's Wildfire Models Are Getting Torched
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 overwhelming majority of the ordinances were enacted this year, a Heatmap Pro review shows. They’re helping to drive an unprecedented surge of data center cancellations.
America’s data center backlash is gaining steam.
Anti-data-center protesters briefly interrupted President Trump’s speech at a General Motors facility in Michigan earlier this week. A day later, the country music legend Willie Nelson called on Americans to “fight against data centers invading our land.”
Washington has yet to pass major data center regulation. But the backlash is already reshaping local zoning and land use codes across the country, according to an extensive review of public records conducted by Heatmap Pro. A surge of new restrictions and bans have killed dozens of proposed data centers this year.
More than 500 counties or municipalities now actively restrict or block new data centers, according to the review. This tally includes only the most severe constraints — such as steep setback requirements, impossible noise limits, or outright bans on permit approvals — that all but forbid the construction of a data center.
The overwhelming majority of these restrictions have been enacted since the beginning of the year. Nearly 190 have been passed since June 1.
The pace of moratoriums is “accelerating,” Peter Freed, a founding partner at the Near Horizon Group and the former director of energy strategy at Meta, told me.
Broadly, these new local restrictions seem to be succeeding. More than 50 data centers have been canceled so far this year after facing local pushback of some kind, according to a Heatmap Pro review of press accounts, public records, and project cancellations.
That’s more than twice as many projects as were canceled under similar circumstances in all of 2025, according to our data. Eight projects were canceled in July alone.
Ominously for developers, the rate of projects facing cancellations seems to be increasing over time.
More than 200 pending data center projects are now being fought at the local level nationwide. This could mean that a project faces lawsuits, physical protests, contentious public hearings, or an ad campaign.
About 430 data center projects have been contested over the past five years, including the roughly 200 that are currently being fought, the data shows. Roughly 40% of data center projects that faced some kind of local challenge over that period were eventually canceled, according to Heatmap Pro data.
But that figure has gone up in recent months. Today, a data center project that’s challenged by local activists has about a 50% chance of being canceled. A contested data center now has roughly the same odds as a contested solar or wind farm of getting canceled, Heatmap Pro data suggests.

Data center proposals of every size have faced major delays and cancellations this year. Earlier this month, a sprawling campus that would have built 37 data center buildings near Manassas National Battlefield Park in Virginia was canceled after sustained local protest.
Even the economy’s largest companies have abruptly withdrawn major projects following opposition. Amazon, Microsoft, and Google each canceled large-scale proposals after sustained pushback in Arizona, Wisconsin, and Indiana in the past year. Susan Li, the chief financial officer at Meta, described the infrastructure building environment as “dynamic and uncertain” on a quarterly earnings call this week.
Some analysts have cautioned that the worsening development environment — and snarled supply chains — could imperil the overall artificial intelligence boom. Earlier this year, a JPMorgan report warned that 60% of data center capacity slated to open in 2027 had yet to start construction as of early June.
“Even the major developers are having trouble with projects, but you always have trouble with projects,” Freed said. The question is whether developers have enough proposals in their pipeline to keep up with surging demand, he said.
“I think the answer is mostly still yes. But it’s getting harder to find,” he added. “The impact is increasingly that developers are stopping efforts in those communities [that pass restrictions] and shifting their attention elsewhere.”
State-to-state cancellation rates can vary significantly. Some 71% of contested data center proposals in Michigan are eventually canceled, as are 56% of challenged projects in Indiana, according to Heatmap Pro data.
By comparison, about 17% of challenged data center projects in Texas are canceled.
Polling suggests that Americans want much more strict data center regulation than is in place right now. About six in 10 Americans would support a data center moratorium at the national, state, or local level, according to Heatmap Pro polling.
Majorities of self-identified Democrats and MAGA Republicans would support a ban at all three levels of government. So far only one state, New York, has adopted a moratorium on new data center permit approvals. That one-year ban is not included in this survey of county and municipal restrictions.
The hundreds of laws restricting data centers may not be a permanent feature of U.S. land use laws. Many of the ordinances are — at least on paper — set to expire in the coming year to give local officials time to create their own schemes for regulating data centers in the absence of federal regulation.
But many restrictions on wind and solar energy were also initially described as temporary. Officials have still renewed them year after year in order to avoid dealing with a controversial issue.
Even when local moratoriums do not always kill projects, they can ensure that an already troubled project gets the boot.
Last year, the housing developer Deltona Corp. sought to build a 1,300-acre data center campus roughly 50 miles north of Tampa. Citrus County commissioners passed a 12-month moratorium on new data centers, but that law didn’t apply to the proposal, which was already pending and therefore exempt.
But when the county planning commission rejected a rezoning proposal for the site months later, it effectively killed the proposal, which could not file a new application without becoming subject to the moratorium.
“The people are not ok with this and clearly some, if not all, of the commissioners are also not ok with this,” Holly Davis, a county commissioner, told the local paper at the time.
Even relatively small data centers can face obstacles. After the University of Michigan bought 120 acres in a light-industrial area of Ypsilanti Township, Michigan, to build a data center, local residents — and municipal officials — vowed to battle the project.
Residents worried about the data center’s energy use, noise levels, environmental impact and its potential security risks. (The facility will be run with Los Alamos National Lab.) But the facility, at its largest, will demand 110 megawatts of electricity — much smaller than most artificial intelligence data centers.
“There’s literally not a conversation that I have, not a stop that I make, where data centers and AI don’t come up,” Abdul El-Sayed, a Democratic candidate for Michigan’s U.S. Senate seat, said earlier this month. He has not endorsed a data center moratorium, but has said projects should have mandatory “terms of engagement.”
The public’s turn against data centers has been swift. In just nine months, Americans swung 49 points against supporting a data center in their area, according to Heatmap Pro polling from the spring. Other polls have shown similar shifts.
A majority of Republicans, Democrats, and independents now say they would oppose a data center proposal in their area.
Yet even with the new surge of bans, most of America remains open — to some degree — for business. More than 90% of counties nationwide have not banned or significantly restricted data centers.
“I don’t think we’re anywhere close to a breaking point yet,” Freed said. “It’s still a big country.”
On ‘precariously low’ oil stockpiles, China’s ammonia milestone, and a PFAS destroyer
Current conditions: The wildfires in France and Europe are slowing, but three firefighters have died and the looming heat wave could bring yet more disaster • New York and New Jersey are facing flash floods as a storm system makes its way across the Northeast United States • Days of thunderstorms are causing floods across Vientiane, Laos’ sprawling capital.
Last month, I toured Commonwealth Fusion Systems’ headquarters in small-town central Massachusetts. The place was abuzz in activity. On the factory floor side, workers were assembling the magnets needed to ultimately form the torus-shaped reactor — think a giant doughnut with an interior that curves like the core of an apple — called the tokamak. On the actual reactor side, SPARC — the prototype that CFS expects will make history next year as the first private enterprise and only tokamak to ever generate more energy that it took to start the fusion reaction — was starting to look like a functional machine from my view on a second-story walkway overlooking the sterile assembly room. The old joke that fusion is the energy source of tomorrow — and always will be — certainly didn’t ring as funny now. I’ll tell you who isn’t laughing: All the new investors that just poured another $1 billion into CFS. The company announced its latest funding round early this morning, which brings the startup’s total fundraising since its launch as a spinout from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2018 to $4 billion. CFS now accounts for 30% of all the private capital that has flowed into fusion. What distinguishes this round, my colleague Katie Brigham wrote, is that the money is coming from a bunch of institutional investors, such as pension funds and sovereign wealth funds, rather than venture capitalists. On a call with reporters this week, CFS’s newly-named chief financial officer, Lorence Kim, said it’s the first-time institutional investors comprised the majority of the new funding. When I asked the company’s spokeswoman for a percentage estimate breaking down the new versus old investors in this round, she declined to comment. Kim cautioned that the funding isn’t the kind of capital you raise before launching on a stock market. But his hire is notable. The former Goldman Sachs banker famously helped take the pharmaceutical giant Moderna public and held the top financial role through the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Meanwhile, a federal Superfund site at a facility in Kentucky once used to enrich uranium for atomic bombs is being transformed into a data center. On Wednesday, the Department of Energy announced a deal between investment giant Brookfield, utility behemoth NextEra Energy, and three local power providers to redevelop portions of the Paducah site into a $100 billion data center campus. “By transforming former DOE sites into engines of innovation and economic growth, we can revitalize communities with increased tax revenue and thousands of jobs, while also strengthening America’s energy security,” Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said in a press release.
The Federal Reserve held the country’s benchmark interest rate steady at Wednesday’s meeting of the U.S. central bank’s top brass. But three bank presidents voted to increase rates as renewed fighting in Iran sent energy prices upward. The dissent “underscored officials’ fraying patience with looking past another price shock on the heels of tariff-related increases last year and with robust demand stemming from the artificial-intelligence buildout,” The Wall Street Journal reported. That is, of course, bad news for renewables and other clean energy developers who rely on cheap upfront money to build, as my colleague Matthew Zeitlin has written.
But there are potentially bigger problems afoot for American energy consumers. U.S. crude stockpiles fell sharply last week as American refineries ramped up production to seize on surging fuel prices as fighting erupted in Iran. The stocks have now reached “precariously low” levels, analysts told the Financial Times, meaning there’s far less cushion if the war worsens the supply shock.
Last month, the energy team at the liberal policy shop Third Way assembled 100 swing voters from across the country to talk about the data centers that poll after poll shows are becoming less and less popular, to put it mildly. The conclusion of the discussions was this: “America’s opposition to data centers has less to do with their feelings about artificial intelligence and more to do with their anger and distrust of large corporations and government.” The findings, shared with me exclusively in advance, showed that most participants were open to a new data center if they believed it would come with tangible benefits for their communities. While some investors, such as “Shark Tank” star Kevin O’Leary, have tried to present those offerings, “the trust isn’t there.” While Emily Becker, the director of Communications for Third Way’s Climate and Energy Program, told me she was “not surprised by how much opposition there was, what was heartening is people understood that benefits were possible. They just didn’t think they would receive them.”
Speaking of data centers and the public trust: NV Energy has accused one of the biggest developers of data centers in Nevada of attempting to illegally bypass state regulators to determine through private arbitration how and when the Berkshire Hathaway-owned utility should provide power to its operations. The lawsuit, filed Friday in Washoe County’s Second Judicial District Court, alleges that the developer, Tract, is trying to skirt the usual process by which the state Public Utilities Commission determines what share of the utility’s electricity should go to the large power user. Tract, according to the complaint, “wants NV Energy to reserve and provide enormous amounts of power for Tract's private development while shifting the infrastructure and energy costs to Nevada families, small businesses, and existing customers who did not cause them.” Sorting out those questions through arbitration would help to “keep these issues hidden” from state regulators and the public, NV Energy said, according to The Nevada Independent.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

When the Biden administration attempted to overhaul regulations on electrical transformers to make the key grid components more efficient, the proposal drew fierce bipartisan pushback amid a years-long nationwide shortage of the equipment. Ultimately, the Biden administration backed down and changed the proposal after receiving public comments. That would have seemed to provide some certainty for factories. But just two years after the final rule won acclaim from across the industry, the Trump administration is now considering revising the requirements for rules set to take effect in 2029. “We’re not aware of anyone asking for this,” Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, told Utility Dive. The group supported the 2024 transformer rule and other stricter efficiency requirements DOE finalized during the Biden administration.
China has signaled it’s planning to take on what Bloomberg described as a bigger role in steering global negotiations over climate change. The 15th five-year plan published Monday by the Ministry of Ecology and Environment and other key agencies outlines how Beijing “will constructively lead the multilateral governance process to address climate change” and states that “China’s influence, guiding capacity, shaping power, and moral appeal in global climate governance will be significantly enhanced” through the end of the decade. Beijing is already looking to increase how much renewable energy it consumes, as I told you last week.
As you may recall, China is going all in on figuring out how to make green hydrogen work, especially now that the People’s Republic is throwing everything at the wall to diversify its domestic supply of fuels as the Iran War chokes off its regular supply of hydrocarbons. One of the trickier questions with green hydrogen is how to ship the world’s small molecules without leaks. A popular solution is to convert the hydrogen into green ammonia. On Tuesday, SPIC Green Energy announced the successful loading of 3,750 metric tons of green ammonia produced in Jilin Province onto a vessel at the Lianyungang Port in Jiangsu Province and shipped to South Korea. “The shipment represents the world’s largest single-batch delivery of green ammonia,” analyst Jian Wu wrote in his China Hydrogen Bulletin newsletter. “It marks China’s transition from technical demonstration to large-scale international commercial delivery.”
A company promising to put an expiration date on so-called forever chemicals just raised a bunch of money to bring its technology to market. Claros Technologies is developing a proprietary system that can break down the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, contaminating millions of Americans’ drinking water systems. This week, the startup closed a $55 million Series B financing round. “Over the past year, Claros has crossed the threshold from breakthrough technology to successful commercial reality,” CEO Michelle Bellanca said in a statement.
Risk-averse but deep-pocked institutional investors join the party.
When the Fusion Industry Association surveyed the sector earlier this month, it found that the industry’s 56 active companies had collectively raised more than $14.2 billion over the past five years. But an ever-larger share of that money is ending up in the hands of one startup: Commonwealth Fusion Systems.
With its latest $1 billion funding round, announced today, the MIT spinout now accounts for nearly 30% of all capital in the industry. The new financing, led by a wave of institutional investors entering the sector for the first time, will support construction of the company’s first commercial power plant in Chesterfield County, Virginia, which CEO Bob Mumgaard says is on track to come online in the early 2030s.
In a media briefing, Mumgaard noted that this latest raise marks “the largest single funding round among fusion energy companies since our last large round of $1.8 billion in 2021.” It brings the total capital raised by CFS to an even $4 billion as the company races to complete construction of SPARC, its demo reactor. If all goes according to plan, it should begin operating sometime next year, proving out the physics and engineering approach underpinning ARC, the planned commercial plant.
The new financing deviates from the typical venture capital round, as it brings in a broad but unnamed mix of “large pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, infrastructure funds doing project finance, and industrial corporates.” These risk-averse investors would typically steer clear of expensive, first-of-a-kind facilities, demonstrating the degree to which CFS has succeeded in building confidence in an industry long critiqued for overpromising and underdelivering.
The company credits the trust it built to its extensive peer-reviewed research as well as its decision to build a tokamak — widely regarded as the most mature fusion reactor design. “I don’t think there’s any other company that’s been as transparent and open with their physics and how it actually works,” Katie Rae, CEO and managing partner at Engine Ventures, told me. Rae has participated in every one of CFS’s funding rounds, and while she says her firm has evaluated virtually every startup in the sector, the company remains its only fusion investment.
But even flush with institutional capital, Mumgaard is clear that the company will need billions more to fully finance ARC and the numerous reactors to follow. It’s unclear where exactly that money will come from, though he’s pushing for government involvement. Alongside the Fusion Industry Association, Mumgaard is advocating for a one-time, roughly $10 billion federal infusion of cash into the broader industry to expand public-private partnerships, build shared research infrastructure, and help finance first-of-a-kind plants in an effort to keep pace with China’s rapidly growing fusion program.
According to reporting from Politico, a Department of Energy official told CFS and other fusion companies that such a level of federal funding is “unrealistic in this environment.” But though insiders argue it’s what the industry needs to scale, Rae says CFS doesn’t depend on it. “I think it is the right kind of investment to make, but we didn’t count on it from an investor perspective,” she told me.
One obvious alternative is the public markets. The IPO window for climate tech has reopened, with geothermal giant Fervo and nuclear fission startup X-energy both completing successful public offerings in recent months. SPACs have also made a comeback, as numerous nuclear companies are opting for this faster, though riskier, path to the public markets. But CFS’s newly appointed CFO, Lorence Kim, said during the briefing that this latest round proves “that the private markets have a lot of capital to deploy toward our mission.” Whether an IPO is in the company’s near future remains an open question, though he cautioned against interpreting his hiring as any indication of “IPO prep in a specific way.”
For what it’s worth though, Kim has taken another high-profile, pre-revenue startup public before: Moderna. As CFO from 2014 to 2020, he helped the company scale its mRNA platform and lead its blockbuster $600 million IPO in late 2018 — the largest ever in the biotech industry at the time. Notably, this all happened before Moderna had an approved product or the Covid pandemic made its signature vaccine a household name, similar to where Commonwealth finds itself today.
“Moderna was in this moment in time where the science worked, and the strategy was focused on execution and scale and deploying capital in a way that could enable real impact on the world,” Kim explained. CFS is now at the same juncture, he said. “And so in the same way that Moderna industrialized mRNA and made it inevitable and made it ubiquitous, it was really clear to me that CFS could do the same for fusion.”
Of course, CFS is not alone in its confidence — other fusion companies are equally bullish on their own approach. Take Inertia Enterprises, a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory spinout, which last week unveiled its own commercial roadmap for a laser-driven fusion reactor. The company emphasized it’s the only one to have definitively demonstrated the viability of its underlying physics in a real-world experiment, rather than through theoretical work or simulations.
Or take Helion, which has raised $1.5 billion and secured a highly ambitious power purchase agreement with Microsoft to supply electricity to the tech giant by 2028. Or Pacific Fusion, which netted a staggering $900 million Series A to be doled out in milestone-based tranches. There are dozens of others — many with hundreds of millions in funding — pursuing a range of approaches that some of the field’s brightest minds consider technically feasible.
But when I mused to Rae about how exciting it is that institutional investors now appear willing to back an industry once viewed as bordering on science fiction, she was quick to correct me.
“They’re willing to bet on Commonwealth Fusion — that’s what you mean.”