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:
The founder of Zero Emissions Northwest talks about furloughing his staff — and about the farmers he serves, who are also paying a price.

As President Donald Trump has thrown funding for a broad swath of energy-related federal programs into disarray, Heatmap has been tracking the tangible impacts. On Friday I got the chance to talk with David Funk, founder and president of Zero Emissions Northwest, who had to furlough his three employees this week after Trump’s executive order “Unleashing American Energy” paused the disbursement of funds from the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for up to 90 days.
ZEN’s staff — and the rural Pacific northwest farmers and small business owners that it serves — rely on grants from the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Energy for America Program. As Funk explained in a LinkedIn post on Thursday, the organization has secured 67 grants in its 15 months of operation, each one representing a specific renewable energy- or energy efficiency-related project for a rural customer — think solar installations, heat pumps, better refrigeration, or even agricultural spray drones. But Funk told me that the majority of these projects have yet to be completed, and now their future is in question.
“I do think that we are a canary in a coal mine right now, and we are a leading indicator of impacts that are going to be much larger than what we’re seeing with our program and our company,” Funk told me.
I asked Funk about the work ZEN does, the confusion around learning that its funding was affected, and how he and the customers he serves have responded. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Get the best of Heatmap in your inbox daily.
What led you to start Zero Emissions Northwest?
I’ve been in energy for coming up on two decades, so I’ve got experience in the space. Then the second thing that happened was I married a farmer’s daughter outside of Spokane — so a 10,000-acre wheat farm — and that got me a lot closer to agriculture than I had ever been. And the last thing, about four years ago, I looked at my father in law’s shop and said, there’s got to be a grant for a farmer to put solar on their shop. I found the Rural Energy for America Program, wrote him a grant, successfully won it, and then about six of his neighbors came by and said, “Hey, how’d you get him money? I want money to go and improve my farm.” So then I was the most experienced person in eastern Washington. And the USDA launched a contract called the Technical Assistance contract, which we won in Idaho and Washington. And that's when I quit my job and started ZEN.
In rough numbers, our projects have won about $4 million worth of grant support, and that $4 million worth of grant support is matched by private capital. And then those projects are going to save $20 million over their useful life. So call it $30 million of total investment in rural communities, because the money saved on these farms doesn’t go to anything other than fertilizer for next year’s crop, and seed, wheat, and maintenance and mechanics. All of this gets reinvested in making that farm better or making that business better.
How did you learn that ZEN would be impacted by Trump’s executive order?
We talked to people in the government, and they have repeatedly told us that obligated grants have never been removed. So we were operating on the understanding that once a project is obligated, we can then start working and helping that farmer execute on that project. So Trump takes office, we’re still heads down doing what we’re doing — and we do have this belief that the work that we’re doing is exactly the work that Trump wants to see.
We get paid roughly about four times a year, so basically a quarterly invoice. So we haven’t been paid since October. We submitted an invoice in early January for our normal operating procedures, and the USDA processed that in the first week of the Trump administration, and said, “Cool. They’ve done everything, press pay,” and it didn’t go through. We were told verbally that there were back-end restrictions.
We thought it was all tied to this OMB thing. On Tuesday night, [the OMB memo] was blocked, and then on Wednesday, it was rescinded. And all of that’s happening in real time with everybody in the country — not just us citizens, but employees as well. Bureaucrats going, we’re learning about this by tweet, too! And then on Wednesday, we learned in real time with our partners that [the pause in funding] was actually from an executive order, not from the OMB memo. We made the decision that day to furlough our employees. If this goes for 90 days, it’ll be six months of us not getting paid on our largest source of revenue.
Have the farmers and small businesses that you work with had to halt their in-process projects?
It varies for each project. We have a handful of solar projects that are up, and we’re just waiting on a utility interconnection. So those projects we’re finishing. We’ve got equipment like new washing machines en route to a rural laundromat. That’s going to still happen, because he’s already bought them, but his second invoice is going to become due when those show up on site. So he doesn’t really know what’s going on and how to pause that. But if you haven’t started on your project, we’re advising people to not take on more risk by spending money and [instead] just pausing [their projects].
I know it’s only been a few days, but what efforts have you made thus far to get in touch with the federal government?
I’ve got a long list of people that we’re trying to get in touch with. I’ve told all of our customers — many of whom are in the GOP in eastern Washington and northern Idaho — to call their representatives, as well as if they have Twitter, tweet at Donald Trump. So we’re trying to empower our customers to really advocate for their projects, and that’s our main focus.
I’m sure a majority of our customers voted for Donald Trump and voted for the GOP representatives, and we just want them to really explain how this is damaging their business and their farm.
Given that many of your customers support President Trump, what has their reaction to this funding freeze been like?
Everybody expected that funding would continue. That was the message that we were getting from the USDA — the obligated funds have been obligated, the government has signed a contract. So everybody was surprised about that. But I’ll be honest, their reactions are mixed. Some farmers are furious. They have spent this money. They have taken on a risk. They did so with the expectation that the government would honor their contract. So that’s one category. We have another category of farmer that kind of lumps this into weather — things they can’t control. There’s much more understanding if you did vote for Donald Trump. We have had a farmer say, “Maybe they’ll find some waste and it’ll filter through, and we’ll eventually get paid. We can’t control that, but this might be a good thing for our country.” To which I replied, I want the filter first, not second!
But nobody thinks that their project doesn’t fit this mold of unleashing American energy. Nobody is really doubting that they might eventually get paid, because this is aligned with what everybody wants. We’re helping farmers take control of their costs, generate onsite power, or conserve energy through upgrades that really benefit their bottom line and really improve their own farm. We’re helping them reinvest in themselves through the process. We prioritize Made in America equipment wherever possible. We want to see these tax dollars and these incentives stay in the country. So we’ve actually never had a farmer choose to go with a non-Made in America solar system.
Even if this funding pause ends soon, how do you think about the future of your organization given President Trump’s apparent antipathy toward renewable energy and energy efficiency projects — or at least language that highlights any sustainability-related benefits?
If we’re going to go and apply for more contracts to the USDA, one of my big concerns right now is if we’re talking about [renewable energy and energy efficiency], are we going to get blacklisted from doing the work that we do in rural Washington? We have always been, with our customer base, really focused on finance, cost savings, practicality — and then all of the decarbonization benefits of this stuff is very secondary for all of our projects.
When I named the company, all of those things were also in question, right? I called a farmer and said, “Hi, it’s David Funk from Zero Emissions Northwest.” And they said, “What? You don’t fart?” And he hung up on me. We think about, how are we being viewed by our customers? And with the politicalization of language, are we losing out on a market segment that we could be helping, just because somebody looks at our name and says, well, I’m not gonna work with them? It’s an active discussion always, how we present ourselves on paper.
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.