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:
Once you experience an electric car’s regenerative braking, it’s hard to go back.

Instant torque, quick acceleration, silent operation, and a smooth ride — these are hallmarks of the electric vehicle experience, all major improvements over how an internal combustion car performs. They're a big reason why car buyers find EVs so alluring.
But to me, the single best thing about driving an EV is one-pedal regenerative braking. Once you’ve experienced it, you’ll never want to go back.
In a regular car, you slow down using friction brakes. Press the brake pedal and the brake pads clamp the rotor, decelerating the car and turning kinetic energy into wasted heat. But in an EV, instead of starting to coast, letting off the throttle results in the electric motors running in reverse, which slows the car and recaptures the kinetic energy back into the battery, increasing your range as you decelerate – that’s regenerative braking.
Most new EVs offer one-pedal driving, which is regen that’s strong enough to bring the car to a complete stop even from highway speeds. This means in the vast majority of situations, you never have to touch the brake pedal. All electric cars still have friction brakes, though – even the best regen braking isn’t sufficient for every braking situation, especially not emergency stops. Still, in addition to the efficiency benefits, electric cars require their brakes to be serviced and replaced a lot less frequently than a gas car’s, as the physical brake components just aren’t used as much.
Some companies, like Volvo and Polestar, only have one regenerative braking setting — you either have maximum regen with one-pedal driving, or you have no regen at all. But most EVs offer a few settings ranging from mild regen to full one-pedal driving as well as an off setting, usually toggled via paddle shifters. Mercedes-Benz and Hyundai EVs even offer an adaptive regen setting that adjusts the braking force according to the traffic ahead. But not every brand offers true one-pedal driving, with regen that is strong but annoyingly won’t bring the car to a complete stop.
It does take time to get used to one-pedal driving, as you have to completely rethink how you drive a car. Even the most diehard enthusiasts will struggle with modulating the throttle at first. Sometimes the regen braking is so strong you’ll come to a stop 100 feet away from the stoplight, or you’ll start decelerating more sharply than you planned. But once you nail it, the experience is fantastic. It becomes easy, even second nature, to smoothly transition from acceleration and coasting to deceleration just with the right pedal. Navigating through a city or sitting in a traffic jam is especially pleasant with one-pedal driving, and EVs will let you turn off creep, so when at a stop there’s no need to keep your foot on a pedal.
One-pedal driving is enjoyable when you’re being sporty, too, and it’s already being optimized for performance cars. Being able to carve through a canyon road while barely ever touching the brake pedal is a joy, with the driving experience feeling more fluid than in a normal car. For instance the Lucid Air’s max regen setting provides 0.3 g of deceleration, and the car’s chassis is engineered so it responds to weight transfer and other variables in the same way whether under regen or friction braking. Strong regen braking also has major benefits off-road, where smoothness and small inputs are key to navigating rough terrain.
The pinnacle of this technology is the Rimac Nevera hypercar, the spawn of a Croatian company that recently entered a joint venture with Bugatti. The Nevera is the quickest accelerating production car in the world and the fastest EV on the market – it’ll reach 60 mph in less than 1.9 seconds and hit a top speed of 258 mph. It also stops extremely quickly thanks to the most powerful regenerative braking of any car on the market, with its four electric motors giving it 300 kW of regen alone. A special electro-hydraulic brake booster distributes braking force between the regen and the massive carbon-ceramic friction brakes for optimal heat dissipation and deceleration, with the transitions going unnoticed by the driver even when racing around a track.
There is one major brand being a holdout: Porsche. The brand’s fantastic Taycan EV does without regenerative braking almost completely, at least when it comes to deceleration. Porsche says that its customers want their EVs to drive, well, like a Porsche, so jumping from a 911 to an EV feels familiar and easy. The Taycan does utilize up to 290 kW of regen when braking using the pedal and friction brakes, still turning that kinetic energy back into electricity to juice the battery instead of heat like an internal combustion car would. To Porsche’s credit the Taycan is a phenomenal EV to drive, and it really does feel like a Porsche. But I still wish for more powerful regen.
Many consumers skeptical of switching to an electric car just haven’t experienced driving one for themselves. Out of all the benefits that an EV provides, regenerative braking is the biggest reason EVs feel like the future.
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.