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:
C’mon Ford. Don’t let me down.

Automakers sit at the towering heights of global capitalism. Nearly every important industry or commodity — steel, rubber, chemicals, semiconductors, minerals, and, of course, oil — feeds into car-making. Car companies receive so much government support that their brands often come to symbolize the state itself: Volkswagen, Toyota, and Ford are arguably more tied up with their countries’ national histories than, say, currywurst, sushi, or cheeseburgers.
Undertaking the construction of a wholly new car is such an expensive and arduous challenge that multiple automakers will often collaborate on it, creating a “platform” that involves a shared chassis and a set of interlocking components.
So it would be folly — if not outright delusion — to look at one of these companies and tell them that they should make a car for no reason other than that you want them to. Surely Ford Motor Company has better things to do than read a column and decide to shift its product line accordingly.
But that is what I’m going to do.
Ford should take its compact Maverick pickup truck — the smallest truck in their fleet — and release it as a plug-in hybrid. Here are the seven reasons why.
I like little trucks. I realize this is a character deficiency, and a somewhat unusual vice for my demographic: I’m a city-dwelling climate-change reporter who has no particular love for the canyon-face monsters that make up most modern pickup lines. But it’s hopefully a forgivable one.
Forty years ago, if you wanted a compact pickup, you could have bought the trusty little Ford Ranger, a 15-foot bear cub of a truck that weighed a mere ton and could haul up to 1,600 pounds. The Ranger was a revolution, signaling that American automakers weren’t content to cede the compact pickup market to Japanese brands like Mazda and Toyota.

Then compact pickups began to vanish. Toyota’s sprightly Tacoma, once a tail-wagger of a utility vehicle, slowly became super-sized. Ford stopped making the Ranger in 2012. By the middle of the 2010s, essentially no small trucks were available on the American market
Recently, compacts have started to come back. Ford brought back the Ranger, although the new model is as sleek and functional as a linebacker. Hyundai has released the Santa Cruz, the closest thing in America to the venerable Australian ute. Then in 2021, Ford started making the Maverick. At 16-feet long and 3,600 pounds, it’s bulkier and heavier — but not much bigger — than the chipper Rangers of yore. The Maverick is so popular that Ford had to stop taking orders for it last year. And while the Mav is currently offered as a hybrid … Ford could do better.
I take it as a given that Ford will eventually release an all-electric Maverick. But in the meantime, a plug-in hybrid would be potentially more useful. Here’s why.
A plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, or PHEV, is just what it sounds like: a car or truck that has a gas tank and a battery that gets a little bit of range — maybe 30 miles. That larger battery differentiates a PHEV from a conventional hybrid, like the Prius (or the current Maverick hybrid), whose battery can only propel the car shorter distances or regenerate energy during braking.
PHEVs are more expensive than hybrids, and they have a reputation for being, well, the jazz choirs of power trains: By trying to do too much at once, they don’t do anything well.
Theoretically, you can use the gas tank in a PHEV as a backup power source, making short errands using only the battery. But a recent study from Transport & Environment, a European think tank, found that some PHEVs fell short of their advertised electric range, and therefore emitted five to seven times as much CO₂ in cities as claimed. And because of the weight of their batteries, PHEVs also require more gasoline than conventional hybrids.
But for all their downsides, PHEVs remain the best way for city-dwellers like me who don’t have EV chargers at home to take part in the EV revolution. I also only drive a few times a month — probably not often enough to justify locking up precious (and still scarce) EV metals in a vehicle that will mostly sit around on the street. Most of my trips are to the grocery store, which has charging in the parking lot. For a certain kind of consumer — i.e., me, the city-dwelling compact-pickup lover — a PHEV is ideal for right now.
According to MotorTrend, someone spotted a Ford Maverick last year with all-wheel drive and a PHEV power train. So it’s out there. It might be sitting in a Batcave-style basement somewhere in Michigan, but someone has done it.
“There’s no current need for a PHEV,” Mike Levine, a Ford spokesman, told me in an email, when I told him I was writing this story.
The “Maverick hybrid is incredibly efficient (40 mpg city) and affordable. The EPA estimates that Maverick hybrid’s total annual fuel cost is just $1,500,” he said. On top of that, Ford only sells one PHEV at the moment: a Ford Escape variant that goes for about $40,000. The Maverick, by comparison, starts at about $22,500.
Let’s stipulate a few things. The first is that even if the United States aggressively ramps up the rollout of electric vehicles, gasoline — which is a fossil fuel! — will be available for a long time. The Biden administration hopes that EVs will make up 50% of new car sales in 2030 and 66% of new sales in 2032. That means that gas-burning cars will by definition make up half of the new car fleet in 2030 and one-third of the fleet in 2032. Under the EPA’s current proposal, most new heavy-duty trucks sold in those years will burn gasoline or diesel, too.
A rollout that quick may be delusional — you can make a plausible case that the EV transition will go faster or slower than the government believes. But if we assume that it’s a plausible base case, then we can also conclude that gas-burning cars will remain on the road well into the late 2040s. They might be costly to run and face extremely high fees in some places; driving one may incur some social stigma, like smoking indoors today; gasoline itself may even become a specialty rural fuel. But without a mandatory federal buy-back program of internal-combustion cars, it will probably be no rarer to see a gas car in the year 2050 than it is to see, say, a Subaru Baja today.
And that will be bad. Fossil fuels cause climate change. We should aim to eliminate them from society as soon as possible. But if you are alive in the 2040s, God willing, then you probably won’t be running to the Wal-mazon Mart in a gas car. Most vehicle miles traveled in the year 2050 probably won’t involve gasoline or diesel.
But it’s plausible that you, you Aging Millennial, may — you just may — have a gas-powered truck in your garage, one that you almost never use but that reminds you of your younger, freer days. One that mostly sits there, smiling idly, til you take it out to give the grandkids a ride around the farm or haul the occasional stump. A trusty, plastic-cladded friend. A golden retriever of a vehicle.
A plug-in hybrid Ford Maverick.
Can you help your friend move with a Prius Prime? Can you carry some flat-packed bookshelves home from an Ikea run? Can you carry an unused mattress to the dump? Don’t answer that because you actually can do all three things with a Prius. But it would be way more fun to do it with a truck.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more of the week’s top news around project fights.
1. Richland Township, Louisiana - The Meta Hyperion project is suddenly now a central focus of activists and media coverage, just as it is seeking environmental permits for a key gas pipeline.
2. Memphis, Tennessee – Hyperion won’t be the first data centers that House Democrats go after if they retake the lower chamber in Congress though – that looks like it’ll be xAI’s Colossus projects. Congrats, Elon!
3. Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada – The federal government’s decision to use an environmental review for a solar farm on a data center instead, which I scooped earlier this week, quickly became a national story. Now the fight against the move is coming into focus.
4. Suffolk County, New York – Last but not least, we have to talk about the battery fire mess on Long Island because it’s a disaster in the making.
5. Montgomery County, Maryland – Bonus for you: my home county just instituted an 18-month moratorium on new data centers. I don’t really have much to add except, if the backlash has come to my neighborhood it’ll probably hit yours sooner rather than later.
This week’s conversation is with Peter Gardett, CEO of the AI-powered energy market research firm Noreva. Before helming the price and deal research consultancy, Gardett built a strong repertoire as an energy expert spearheading analysis at S&P Global, IHS Markit, and Argus Media. I reached out to Gardett because I wanted a candid conversation about the fuel choices data center companies are making under the Trump administration and, to my delight, Gardett was open to sitting in my hot seat.
Let’s get into it then. The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
How is the Trump 2.0 era affecting the choices data center developers are making when it comes to powering with gas versus alternative sources like renewable energy or nuclear power?
Well I think the question you’re asking is about natural gas, and what I tell people is every private equity firm has a behind-the-meter 1 gigawatt natural gas project they’d like to move forward. They’re familiar with the economics. They like the regulatory fortune for that fuel right now. They look at the futures curve and think the prices will be stable for this fuel in the future, I would argue discounting some of the likely volatility drivers that exist.
There’s clearly a rush to island yourself with your natural gas supply and let the rest of the world do what it might, if you’re a large hyperscaler.
If you look at the Meta facility in Louisiana – Hyperion – that’s a good example, or the X facility Colossus. The first mega data centers become the blueprints everyone would like to follow.
You brought up the regulatory appetite for gas infrastructure. How much of this rush to build gas from the industry side is due to federal policy changes?
Quite a bit. There have been major changes to implementation of the Clean Water Act that provably have been part of what’s enabled large construction of data centers and the accompanying power. It’s the same kind of shifts in oversight, when it comes to the Clean Water Act. We saw a proposal from the EPA to allow states to implement some parts of the Clean Air Act, which would certainly make it easier for them to build large gas generation that accompanies a large load.
It’s part of an entire emerging trend I theorize as “the great data center migration.” You have everyone moving down to the AI band, to West Texas to Georgia – that strip of states is where large data centers are moving and where the power will follow.
With respect to the renewable side of things, the nuclear side, alternative fuel choices than gas – are they benefiting from this buildout?
Yeah, I mean, we’re in a strange moment for renewables.
There’s been a rush to get things online before the July 4 tax cliff. If you look at additions to the grid, solar and batteries have benefited from this condensing of the pipeline and moving forward of the pipeline to avoid the cliff. We’ve seen a lot of buildouts and a lot of those electrons have gone to data centers. I’m doing a PPA project for a client right now that shows PPA prices having tripled in some regions, and that’s for renewables – solar and wind. You see plenty of demand. If you can get your hands on an electron you’re going to pay for it and go ahead. You don’t mind what kind of electron it is.
That being said, there’s a requirement for a capacity factor to create reliability. Where you’re looking to do behind-the-meter stuff and you feel you’ll be unable to interconnect, or you want to build your own power supply… that does have a unique match to natural gas. All you’re going to need is pipe and available fueling capacity. If you can find the fuel and if you can place yourself over a gas system that’s underutilized, a lot of your other concerns go away. You have access to a power source with a very high capacity factor, is reliable, and matches to your load. The equivalent of solar would require a vast amount of land, changing the economics of a project.
Before the start of this federal regime in the U.S., the trendline was investment going towards green capital – zero-emission generation. Obviously things have changed. From your vantage point in the market, when it comes to where investors are putting their money, has it gone from green power to data centers specifically? Is this boom a redirection, taking their money and putting it into something else?
This is not a trade-off moment. It’s an expansion moment.
We’ve seen a Venn diagram between digital infrastructure and power infrastructure. They move directly over each other, overlapping in capital markets. This is understandable; it’s the one thing you can’t do without if you have a data center. If you want chips, you also need power. And I think people underestimate how much one gigawatt of power is.
There’s a rush to build anything. It’s about more than anything else. I do think the second half of 2026 will be an interesting test of a thesis that a lot of renewables people have been talking about, which is that the low cost of energy – the LCOE factors – is still favorable and even without tax credit support there will be a lot of further additions. We’ve seen models, and we’ve done models, that have renewables as kind of an air pocket because it’s so cheap and the fuel cost. But on the other hand you can make the argument there’ll be a bigger problem.
When it comes to the investor space, how seriously do folks take opposition to data centers as a medium and long term risk – not just the next few weeks but the coming elections?
Very seriously. What you see in PJM with demand destruction is being taken very seriously by a number of the large institutional asset managers, some of the large institutional asset managers. These are people who are my biggest clients. I’m under some confidentiality when it comes to talking about them but nonetheless I can tell you that there are several large projects in PJM that are announced and appear on paper to be fully financed that are actually in cold storage until there is a better understanding of what is going to happen with large load, in PJM and Pennsylvania in particular.
There are large energy projects that are waiting around to see if the demand is going to materialize?
Exactly.
It doesn’t sound like an easy place to be if you’re developing these assets, no?
No.
If you’ve done the work and seen the models, it's very difficult to get this capital running in one direction and have an ISO operator say it's too expensive or puts too much on ratepayers. What you’ve seen folks try to do is create a secondary market, a parallel market, in which price discovery for that kind of power – large load – where it won’t filter through to ratepayers. But that’s much more difficult to pull off. The complexity of operating a grid in that way.
This is why more people are turning to behind the meter and to gas.
Current conditions: The unusual humidity thickening the Los Angeles air this week is the result of a warmer Pacific Ocean, a sign of climate change • Temperatures are topping triple digits Fahrenheit in the Spanish capital of Madrid • Severe storms are pummeling the central United States from the Plains to Appalachia.
The latest heat wave roasting Europe is warming up rivers and drying the watercourses on which the continent’s energy systems rely. In Eastern Europe, the mighty Danube has hit record lows, beaching boats in Croatia, squeezing out a quarter of Serbia’s fuel shipments, and forcing Hungary’s only nuclear power station to shut down as cooling water disappeared. The cost of navigating the barges that ship petroleum products, chemicals, coal, and steel down the Rhine river skyrocketed 400% in the last two months as water levels plummeted, as Bloomberg columnist Javier Blas pointed out. Economists warned the German broadcaster DW this week that the Rhine’s low levels could slash as much as 0.2% off Germany’s entire economic output in the third quarter of this year. It’s a stark reminder of what Heatmap contributor Hazel Southwell wrote back in 2023: Economies aren’t ready for rivers to dry up.
The wildfires blazing across the continent aren’t isolated to the mainland. A fire raging in eastern England forced dozens of evacuations and put the Sizewell B nuclear plant, which just won approval to extend its license this month, on emergency alert.
As quickly as public opinion over data centers is plummeting, local ordinances barring or limiting construction of new facilities are proliferating. More than 530 such statutes are now in place all over the country, and the vast majority were enacted this year, according to an extensive review of public records conducted by Heatmap Pro that my colleague Robinson Meyer wrote up. These restrictions are driving a wave of project cancellations.
Meanwhile, Anthropic is in what The Wall Street Journal described as “advanced talks” with banks to borrow $15 billion to build a sweeping new data center and power-generating complex. The deal would be backed by a consortium of banks led by Morgan Stanley and would back the project in Hubbard, Texas, which would include a 1.6-gigawatt natural gas power plant. To raise the debt, Google has provided guarantees for billions of dollars of the Claude maker’s lease and obligations to pay for electricity.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
The Federal Communications Commission’s ban on imported inverters, the devices that help patch solar panels into data centers and onto the grid, will have little effect on the buildout of panels in the U.S., according to the latest assessment from the consultancy BloombergNEF. “Previously approved inverter models can still be imported and sold, so most planned projects are expected to proceed without supply shortages,” the consultancy told me in an emailed memo. U.S. factories cannot meet demand on their own, matching only 18% of the American market in 2025. “The biggest risk is delayed access to newer technology,” the memo read. “New inverter models will require conditional approval from the government, but approval processes remain unclear.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

The U.S. needs antimony to make ammunition, semiconductors, and batteries. But the country stopped mining the lustrous gray metalloid back in 1983. Since then, China has dominated the global market, with Russia trailing in second place and Tajikistan in a steady third, according to the latest U.S. Geological Survey data. Now America is getting back into the antimony game. On Thursday, the U.S. unveiled a new modular mineral processing plant designed to establish a new end-to-end domestic supply chain for antimony, Mining.com reported. The project is supported by the mining company Perpetua Resources, the U.S. Army, and the Idaho National Laboratory. Backed by billionaire hedge fund manager John Paulson, Perpetua was designated last year by the Trump administration for a fast-track permitting program. In May, the federal Export-Import Bank gave the project a $2.9 billion loan.
It’s a good time for energy startups. Fresh off Commonwealth Fusion Systems’ $1 billion round yesterday, Antora Energy, the thermal battery startup that converts electricity into heat with large carbon blocks, just netted $550 million in a Series C. Meant to help the company ramp up production, the funding round comes after the company launched one of the largest battery storage projects in the world, a 5-gigawatt-hour system in South Dakota that was built in less than a year. “From factories to data centers, energy is the bottleneck to industrial growth,” Andrew Ponec, Antora’s co-founder and chief executive, said in a statement. “Antora has shown we can help break that bottleneck — delivering energy fast, at massive scale, with American innovation. With this funding round, we’re continuing to strengthen our investment in U.S. manufacturing, delivering affordable energy across the country and around the world.”
Mexico is getting ready to do something about the algae. This week, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said her government will create a comprehensive plan to free the country from a vast bloom of sargassum. While not dangerous to humans, the seaweed can rot on shore and emit foul odors.