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.
The number of data centers canceled after pushback set a record in the first quarter of the year, new data from Heatmap Pro shows.
Data centers are getting larger and larger. But even so, few are as large as the Sentinel Grove Technology Park, a proposed data center near Port St. Lucie, Florida.
The proposed facility — which became known as Project Jarvis — was set to be built on old agricultural land. It would use up to 1 gigawatt of electricity, enough to power a mid-size city, and bring in up to $13.5 billion in investment to the county.
The project was immediately controversial. But its developers anticipated issues: They would build their own self-contained, self-provided water facilities to service the project, and they agreed to set its 60-foot buildings back far enough from the road so that they couldn’t be seen by drivers.
It wasn’t enough. The project lost a key vote in the planning board in October. And in February, Project Jarvis’s developers withdrew their land use application entirely after Governor Ron DeSantis proposed AI regulation in the statehouse.
The facility was the largest data center project canceled after facing opposition in the first quarter of 2026. But it wasn’t the only one.
At least 20 proposed data center projects were canceled after local pushback during the first three months of 2026, smashing a record set only in the previous quarter, according to a review of press accounts, public records, and project announcements conducted by Heatmap Pro.
These canceled projects accounted for more than $41.7 billion in investment and represented at least 3.5 gigawatts of electricity demand.
The cancellations reveal the rapidly expanding backlash to data center construction has not yet peaked. From Georgia to Pennsylvania, locals have rebelled against newly proposed data centers, even when the planned facilities are not planning to run artificial intelligence models.

If anything, fights over data centers are surging now. Heatmap Pro’s researchers added roughly 100 new data center fights to their database during the first three months of the past year, a new record.
These fights are succeeding in terminating projects. Last year, roughly 25 data center projects were canceled nationwide after facing some type of local opposition, according to Heatmap Pro data. The country is likely to break that record in 2026 over the next few weeks, our data suggests — only five months into the year.
At least $85 billion in data center projects have been canceled over the past three years, according to Heatmap Pro data.

These numbers haven’t been previously reported. Over the past year, researchers at our intelligence platform Heatmap Pro have conducted a comprehensive national survey of local opposition to data center construction. They have regularly called every U.S. county to tally data center cancellations and any new rules limiting data center construction.
This data is normally available to companies and individuals who subscribe to Heatmap Pro, but we periodically publish a high-level summary of this data. We last released our results in January.
Current conditions: The East Coast’s Acela corridor is cooling down this week, with temperatures dropping from 85 degrees Fahrenheit in Philadelphia yesterday to the 60s for the rest of the week • Cape Agulhas is under one of South Africa’s Orange Level 6 warnings for damaging winds and dangerous waves • Floods and landslides in Brazil’s northern state of Pernambuco have left six dead and thousands displaced.
The Securities and Exchange Commission has advanced a measure to formally end Biden-era climate disclosure rules for publicly-traded companies. The regulator sent the proposal to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget for review on May 4, according to a post on a government website first spotted by Bloomberg. The Wall Street watchdog’s 2024 disclosure rule mandated that publicly traded companies report on the material risks climate change poses to their business models, including the financial impact of extreme weather. Some large companies would have been required to disclose Scope 1 emissions, which are produced by the firm’s own operations, and Scope 2 emissions, which are produced by companies with which the firm does off-site business such as electricity. The rule had already been watered down before its finalization to remove Scope 3 emissions, which come from suppliers up and down the value chain and from customers who use a product such as oil.
In an even bigger move, the SEC also proposed scrapping mandatory quarterly reporting for U.S.-listed companies, instead switching to a twice-yearly filing. The idea, which President Donald Trump first floated years ago as a way of getting companies to focus on longer-term goals, “would provide companies with increased regulatory flexibility,” SEC chair Paul Atkins told the Financial Times. “Public companies have an obligation under the federal securities laws to provide information that is material to investors. Yet, the rigidity of the SEC’s rules has prevented companies and their investors from determining for themselves the interim reporting frequency that best serves their business needs and investors.” While cast as part of a larger deregulatory push, the move could actually be a boon to climate action. Supporters of decarbonization have long lamented how quarterly reporting norms disincentivized costly bets that take longer than three months to pan out.
If you have ever body surfed in the ocean — or observed how docks and peers weather over time — it’s easy to intuit why harnessing renewable energy from waves is so tricky. Among experts who often list wave energy along with tidal power as two sources of underdeveloped but potentially promising renewable energy, the latter has long been considered the more commercially viable, with turbines harnessing tidal flows already in operation in France and elsewhere. Wave energy, by contrast, has been perceived as a riskier frontier in the energy industry.
That didn’t stop wave-energy startup Panthalassa from raising $140 million in a Series B round led by Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel this week as the company looks to develop floating data centers that can operate in open ocean. The financing will fund the completion of the company’s pilot manufacturing facility near Portland, Oregon, and speed up deployment of its Ocean-3 series of facilities that “will perform AI inference computing at sea” with power generated from ocean waves.
“There are three sources of energy on the planet with tens of terawatts of new capacity potential: solar, nuclear, and the open ocean,” Panthalassa CEO and co-founder Garth Sheldon-Coulson said in a statement. “We’ve built a technology platform that operates in the planet’s most energy-dense wave regions, far from shore, and turns that resource into reliable clean power. We’re now ready to build factories, deploy fleets, and provide a sustainable new source of energy for humanity.” The deal, per the Financial Times, values the company at about $1 billion. “The future demands more compute than we can imagine,” Thiel said in a press release. “Extra-terrestrial solutions are no longer science fiction. Panthalassa has opened the ocean frontier.”
The company has some competition. Earlier this year, the San Francisco-based Aikido Technologies launched a new line of floating platforms for deep-water offshore wind turbines that include data centers built into the ballasts.
Allow me to give you a glimpse into the anxious mind of a young father: Sometimes, I distract myself from my fear over what global weather patterns might look like by the time my one-year-old daughter is my age with my more urgent terror over what particulate matter is entering her perfect little lungs and what microplastics sneak into even her home-cooked meals. Well, worry not! Turns out the two aren’t mutually exclusive. In theory, I knew this was always the case, since the rise of plastic pollution is at least somewhat spurred on by oil and gas companies making big money off the feedstocks for the cheap, single-use plastics that break down into dangerous tiny particles in our environment. But new research shows that microplastics in the atmosphere are actually magnifying the effects of climate change. In a new paper published in the journal Nature Climate Change, scientists in China and the U.S. outlined how tiny, colored plastic bits absorb sunlight as the wind blows them around the world, trapping heat and adding to temperature rise. “The plastic problem is not just in our blue oceans, it is also in the invisible skies above us,” Hongbo Fu, a co-author of the study and an atmospheric scientist at Fudan University in Shanghai, said at a press conference, per Bloomberg. “Climate models need to be updated.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Like wave and tidal power, geothermal was once a sleepy corner of the clean energy world. But next-generation startups that promised to use new drilling techniques to harness geothermal energy in more places than ever thought possible are radically upending an industry that saw its largest power station — the Geysers in California — built in the 1960s and hitherto hadn’t aimed higher. Until a few years ago, next-generation geothermal drilling was esoteric even among energy nerds. But things change quickly in the modern energy business. Fervo Energy, the first major next-generation startup to prove that fracking technology could be used to revolutionize geothermal power, is now eyeing a $6.5 billion valuation. That’s according to a document the company filed with the SEC this week as it prepares to raise more than $1.3 billion in an initial public offering of its stock.
Fervo sees a big market. As Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote last month when the company first filed to go public, Fervo told investors its reviewed leases represent over 40 gigawatts of energy. That’s equal to about 15% of all installed solar capacity in the U.S.

The United Arab Emirates already ranks as the world’s seventh-largest producer of crude, and could ascend as the country’s exit from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries frees Abu Dhabi to pump for oil. The UAE’s debut atomic power plant — the four-reactor, Korean-built Barakah station in Abu Dhabi — set a new standard for nuclear construction in a Western-aligned nation and vaulted the federation of monarchies to the forefront of global discussions about fission. Now the UAE is making a big move on solar. Abu Dhabi’s state-owned renewables developer Masdar has signed a deal with Emirates Water and Electricity Company to deploy more than 30 gigawatts of solar capacity and 8 gigawatts of batteries. “As the driving force behind the UAE’s energy transition, EWEC is at the forefront of a global shift towards sustainable, utility-scale power and water production,” Ahmed Ali Alshamsi, the utility chief in charge of the Emirates Water and Electricity Company, told PV Tech. “This CFA with Masdar is a pivotal strategic tool that empowers us to accelerate this transformation and meet 60% of Abu Dhabi’s total energy demand from renewable and clean sources by 2035.”
Norway led the world in electric vehicle adoption. It’s now at the forefront of autonomous vehicle adoption. Europe’s first self-driving bus without a supervisor onboard is set to be rolled out in the southwestern city of Stavanger following a recent regulatory change. While the bus still requires preparation by a human before operating, the project has been underway since 2022 and represents Europe’s most advanced public deployment of the technology.
Rob talks with the billionaire investor and philanthropist about how energy, Chinese EVs, and why he’s “very optimistic” that Congress will pass permitting reform this year.
If you work around climate or clean energy, you probably know about John Arnold. Although he began his career as a natural gas trader, Arnold has since become one of the country’s most important clean energy investors. He’s the chairman of Grid United, a transmission development firm undertaking some of the country’s most ambitious power line projects, and he is an investor in the advanced geothermal startup Fervo. He and his wife Laura run the philanthropic organization Arnold Ventures.
On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob talks with Arnold about the current energy chaos and what might come next. They discuss Arnold’s first trip to China, whether Congress might pass permitting reform this year, and what clean energy companies should learn from the fossil fuel industry.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Robinson Meyer: What needs to change or what needs to happen between now and, say, the end of the year for [a permitting deal] to actually get done?
John Arnold: So I think on an election year, it's very unusual for any big piece of bipartisan legislation to get passed, really, the whole year. And so what we're really looking at is most likely is that it would get passed after the election in the lame duck period. And so you start working backwards from there and really need to have language that's agreed upon in the next 45 days. It's hard to work over the summer. Congress scatters. Everybody scatters. Then you come back. There's a little bit of work time in September, and then everybody's focused on the elections. So the bill needs to get written today. And then again, in the next 45 days, and there's a lot of work happening behind the scenes. So again, sometimes it's hard to know exactly where it is, but everybody's saying the right things. There's been fits and stops to date, particularly when the administration hit the pause on offshore wind. They've made some changes. They brought Senator Whitehouse back to the negotiating table, for instance. So again, everything I think is looking good, but getting anything passed in D.C. these days might be a long shot.
You can also find a complete transcript of the episode on Heatmap.
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by Salesforce.
Salesforce is the No. 1 AI CRM, where humans with agents drive success together. We invest in bold climate technologies and leverage agentic AI to accelerate nature-based solutions that benefit people and the planet. Learn more. You can also learn more about Salesforce's investments in watersheds here.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.