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:
All American cities are at risk.

The fires that have swept greater Los Angeles over the past two weeks have shattered long-held assumptions about wildfire risk. Unlike many of the catastrophic, climate-intensified wildfires that have burned various swaths of California over the past decade, the Palisades and Eaton fires have blazed past the wildland-urban interface to devastate a wide variety of neighborhoods – some of the region’s oldest and some of its newest; gridded city blocks as well as winding mountainside subdivisions; apartments, duplexes, and bungalow courts as well as stand-alone suburban houses.
In other words, the places that have burned represent a far wider swath of the American urban landscape than most burn zones. Likewise, rebuilding these places is going to raise not only locally-specific questions of wildfire safety, adaptation, and retreat, but also universally-applicable questions about energy provision and decarbonization that every American city will eventually be forced to confront. In particular, greater Los Angeles’ burned neighborhoods are already revealing a looming natural gas crisis, decades before most American cities will face it.
In greater Los Angeles’ grim collection of leveled neighborhoods, gas meters protruding from the rubble serve as stark reminders of the elaborate buried pipeline network that powered homes and businesses. As communities begin to rebuild, California’s building code, state resiliency grants, and federal Inflation Reduction Act incentives together make it highly likely that the majority of new structures will go electric, cutting their dependence on the outmoded and dangerous gas connections that may have complicated firefighting efforts. This same transition to all-electric buildings is unfolding more slowly across the rest of the country, where many residents are just beginning to embrace the ease, efficiency, and quality of heat pumps and induction stoves, or to recognize the health risks of burning gas indoors.
In even the most thoroughly devastated neighborhoods, though, a few incongruous buildings have survived. As the rebuilding effort reaches its conclusion, these grizzled veterans will become solitary consumers of gas in a soon-to-be-electrified landscape. But the cost of maintaining the branching networks that provide gas won’t shrink along with the gas customer base. With maintenance costs fixed but revenue decimated, the gas system could begin to crumble. Remaining gas users could see their bills spiral higher as greater Los Angeles’ leading gas utility, SoCalGas, attempts to meet its costs and more customers flee the system. Worse still, declining revenue could pressure the utility to cut back on repairs, leading to neglected pipelines that leak, corrode, and even spark future fires.
A version of this crisis will come for every American neighborhood eventually. Gas networks only work economically and safely when costs are shared across a broad user base. Without coordination, maintaining the gas network in electrifying neighborhoods will rapidly become an unsustainable risk borne most by those least able to transition away from gas. The best solution to this approaching crisis is both bold and simple: act proactively. Prune back the branching gas pipeline network to protect both the system as a whole and the burned neighborhoods themselves.
Local government, state regulators, and our gas and electric utilities can together support the transition of burned neighborhoods’ remaining buildings off of gas so that entire branches of the system can be shut off, leaving safer and cleaner all-electric neighborhoods in their place. This is the only way Angelenos can begin to avoid the post-fire catastrophe of skyrocketing costs and collapsing safety.
By removing an entire branch of the gas distribution network, greater Los Angeles can simultaneously make the electric grid safer and more resilient. Over the past decade, overhead power lines have become famous as one of the leading causes of wildfire ignition – but burying them usually imposes an eye-watering cost that the electric system cannot afford. Much of that cost, though, stems from the need to dig by hand around existing gas lines. By shutting down their local gas networks for good, burned and high-fire-risk neighborhoods can eliminate the greatest risk and biggest expense of burying electric lines – and in some cases, might even be able to run electric lines through the decommissioned pipes themselves.
In one sweep, greater Los Angeles’ burn zones and high-fire-risk neighborhoods like them elsewhere can eliminate two major sources of fire danger and chart a path away from the looming threat of unmanaged gas system collapse. In the midst of the state’s intensifying insurance crisis, systematically reducing the risk of new fires at the neighborhood level would also offer insurers provable risk mitigation. Pulling off this transformation, though, will require quick action — before rebuilding begins. So far, state and local leaders have focused on promising the return of normalcy, in part by attempting to suspend all-electric building requirements. Given that all-electric construction is both faster and cheaper, this rollback makes little practical sense. At a broader level, these early rollbacks constitute an attempt to avoid the hard questions of how to rebuild more safely and resiliently – and when it has become too dangerous to rebuild at all. The win-win of systematic gas decommissioning and electric undergrounding offers an onramp to those more difficult conversations.
Just how to negotiate an entire neighborhood’s simultaneous transition away from natural gas remains an unsolved problem of political will and neighborly cooperation, but greater Los Angeles’ burned zones are suddenly forcing the question. Creating a clear, affordable path to electrification for the surviving buildings will require pairing increased financial support with coordinated planning and clear deadlines to help homeowners and businesses understand the urgency of the switch.
Amidst the incalculable losses of these fires, greater Los Angeles is being confronted not only with the painful challenges of recovery, but also with the looming specter of new crises accelerated by the fires’ devastation. The risk of gas system collapse has come to greater Los Angeles decades before it will reach most other American communities. Confronting it before it becomes a disaster of its own can help secure the region’s devastated neighborhoods against future fires, while blazing a trail for other high-fire-risk neighborhoods across the country to follow.
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.