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:
Lee Zeldin is upending the mission of the agency largely in secret.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin said earlier this week that he had canceled more than 400 grants “across nine unnecessary programs.”
What were those unnecessary programs? Why were they deemed unnecessary? The Trump administration refuses to say.
This is the fourth round of grant cancellations that Zeldin, working “hand-in-hand” with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, has announced, which together will “save” the American people more than $1.9 billion in funds. After contacting the EPA four times over the course of a week for more information on the grants in question and getting no response at all, the agency finally instructed me to “refer to the March 10 announcement,” which doesn’t contain any additional details about which grants were canceled, “and to the Department of Government Efficiency’s webpage for additional updates.”
The efficiency department website has not yet been updated to reflect the more than 400 grants that were canceled on Monday. The previous rounds of cancellations are listed by date and amount, but there is no information about which programs the funds were from or whether they were already under contract.
“The claims of these grants being unnecessary, or wasteful, or saving American taxpayers funding, in my mind, is complete misinformation,” David Cash, the former EPA regional administrator for New England under the Biden administration, told me. “These grants were created because of statutes passed by Congress.”
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act gave the EPA more than $100 billion to spend across more than 70 programs. By the end of last year, about 88% of appropriated funds had been awarded to cities, states, tribes, researchers, nonprofits, and companies. “The EPA was given both the authority and the requirement to invest federal taxpayer dollars into projects that are going to bring down energy costs for families, grow clean energy jobs, make the air cleaner for communities,” said Cash. “The real savings are in energy costs that families would have been able to benefit from.”
Zeldin’s announcements are an escalation of President Trump’s “freeze” and review of funding for climate change and DEI-related programs. Despite a federal judge issuing a temporary restraining order on the freeze in February, followed by a preliminary injunction last week, the administration has continued to lock out grant recipients from the government’s payment system, and now, apparently, cancel grants altogether with no explanation. In refusing to comply with the court’s orders, Trump is teeing up a Supreme Court challenge to the Impoundment Control Act, a 50-year-old law that says the president can’t revoke funds without requesting permission from Congress.
Without knowing which grants Zeldin is trying to cancel, we can’t know for sure whether they would have helped consumers save money, created jobs, or produced cleaner air. But Zeldin appears to be scrubbing that last goal — arguably the entire purpose of the EPA — from the agency’s mission statement. On Wednesday, he announced a plan to “reconsider” dozens of environmental rules in “the biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history.” Since its inception, the EPA’s mission has been to “protect human health and the environment;” Zeldin, by contrast, said his priorities were to “lower the cost of buying a car, heating a home and running a business.”
After scouring a social media-like feed on the efficiency department homepage, I found information on just two of the targeted grants:
Cash questioned the logic of canceling an effort to track spending. “That makes for efficient government. We should know where we’re spending our money and the impact that it’s having,” he said. “And shouldn’t we want to be investing in those areas that have suffered the highest asthma rates or have had a history of water pollution? Why wouldn’t we want to invest in those communities?”
The sudden cancellation of billions of dollars in government funding with no disclosure as to what the money was earmarked for is in stark contrast to President Trump’s pledge to have “the most transparent Administration in history,” as well as the EPA’s assertion that it “is committed to accountability and transparency for the American people.”
The grant cancellations come on top of Zeldin’s much-publicized termination of the $20 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a program created by Congress to set up nonprofit lending authorities that would finance clean energy projects around the country. Zeldin claims to have “identified material deficiencies which pose an unacceptable risk to the lawful execution of these grants,” but has given no explanation as to what those deficiencies are. The closest thing to a suggestion of impropriety has been the fact that the money was being managed by an outside institution, an arrangement that the federal government has used to disburse funds for decades, including under the previous Trump administration.
In a letter to the Department of Justice and FBI on Tuesday, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island requested evidence predicating a criminal investigation of the GGRF. He accused the Trump administration of “purposefully misusing the tools of law enforcement, and pursuing false allegations of criminal conduct, with the improper purpose to wrongfully freeze assets appropriated by Congress and obligated to designated recipients.”
Whitehouse held a hearing on Trump’s funding freeze on Wednesday, during which he accused Trump and Musk of “stealing from the American people to pay for tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy” and deeming this “gangster government.”
During the hearing, Caley Edgerly, the president and CEO of a bus dealership in Virginia, described the “chaos” caused by a freeze on grants for electric school buses. His company ordered 48 buses for five school districts that had been awarded funding. He’s worried about interest on those orders piling up, his ability to make payroll, and being left holding the bag. He’s also worried about the impact on manufacturers, who have invested in the materials, batteries, transmissions, and inverters to deliver on these electric bus orders. “The entire industry, all school bus manufacturers, by my estimation, has about a billion dollars invested in these materials,” he said. “They’re sitting on the shelf.” On top of that, he said, the local utility, Dominion, has spent about a million dollars on chargers for the school districts to charge the buses.
It’s unclear whether the electric bus grants that Edgerly discussed are among those Zeldin is attempting to cancel.
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.