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 nonprofit uses a mixture of public data and algorithmic magic to unleash funds fast.

Whether they’re dealing with fires like the ones ravaging Los Angeles or hurricanes like those that wreaked havoc in Florida and North Carolina just a few months ago, when natural disasters lay waste to homes and towns, what low-income residents often need most is quick cash. That, however, can be difficult to come by. Insurance companies can take months or even years to fully resolve claims. The Federal Emergency Management Agency requires significant documentation before it will offer relief, and often denies victims with no explanation.
The nonprofit GiveDirectly is trying to circumvent all this maddening complexity, working with Google to overlay government data on things like median income and food stamp enrollment with damage data gleaned from satellite imagery and local incident reports to get cash in the hands of those who need it most — quickly. After a disaster, low-income residents in especially hard-hit areas are automatically deemed eligible for aid, no opt-in necessary. They’ll get a notification on their phone that they qualify for a direct cash transfer, and can enroll in a matter of minutes, with no additional documentation required.
“Especially as disasters become more prevalent and more severe, having a way to pre-verify vulnerable populations — to get people resources as quickly as possible — becomes so valuable,” Laura Keen, GiveDirectly’s U.S. program director, told me. As she explained, cash is often more useful than “in kind” donations such as clothing or food, as it allows recipients to prioritize specific needs and reduces barriers associated with government-run disaster programs. “You have to have the means and the know-how and the language abilities to apply for that assistance,” Keen said. Still, over 75% of global humanitarian assistance is in-kind.
GiveDirectly set up its fundraising campaign for L.A. fire victims on January 10, and is thus far over 40% of the way to its $1 million dollar goal. While the fundraiser won’t officially close for another 25 days, Keen said the organization plans to send out its first payments “as soon as next week.” While GiveDirectly has yet to finalize amounts, it estimates that recipients will get on the order of $3,000 to $4,000 — significantly more than the nonprofit gave to victims of Hurricane Ian in 2022 or Hurricanes Helene and Milton last year. That’s because with these fires, “the damage has been so severe, and we expect people are going to be facing temporary housing costs for a matter of months,” Keen explained. For a campaign like this, Keen said she expects about 88 cents out of every dollar donated to go directly to affected individuals and families, the same efficiency rate as the organization’s Helene and Milton campaign. That remaining 12 cents will go towards transaction fees, offices, and staff.
If these rapid payouts remind you of parametric insurance, you’re on the right track. Parametric insurance also exists to get cash quickly into the hands of those who have experienced disaster, without the need for damage audits. But as is implied by the word “insurance,” it is also an opt-in service that involves the payment of monthly premiums. GiveDirectly’s cash comes out of the blue, free and clear.
To get the actual money out the door, GiveDirectly works with Propel, an app for low-income households to manage government benefits such as SNAP food stamps. GiveDirectly tells Propel what areas its mapping tool has honed in on, and Propel sends out an alert to users in these zones, notifying them that they’re eligible to receive money. Individuals then complete a brief survey confirming their contact information, preferred language, and signing some consent notices.
“The last response that we did in western North Carolina and in Florida last fall, it took them, on average, 68 seconds to complete that enrollment form,” Keen told me. The last time she looked at the data, there were about 2,300 households using Propel in the impacted areas of L.A., a number that’s only growing as the largest fires remain uncontained. Once people enroll, they can expect to receive money directly to their debit accounts within three days.
While quick and simple, this strategy is far from comprehensive. Only about one in four households that receive SNAP benefits has the Propel app. And those that do may not open it regularly, meaning they could miss the alert that they qualify for cash. For Propel users who see the notification, Keen said, enrollment is above 80%, while overall user enrollment is much lower — around 40%. “But typically, we have more Propel users than we have funds,” Keen explained. Basically, it wouldn’t actually be possible to give the target amounts to everyone who meets the criteria. Rather, the strategy is to get money out as quickly as possible, knowing full well there'll be many who are missed. Plus, relying on Propel makes the whole system safe from fraud (something GiveDirectly has dealt with in the past), as Propel users have already verified their eligibility for government benefits. “So we just have very high confidence in who we're supporting,” Keen told me.
Domestic disaster relief was not initially on the agenda for GiveDirectly, which was started in 2008 by a group of econ grad students at Harvard and MIT as a way to get money into the hands of some of the poorest people in the developing world. Since the organization began accepting public donations in 2011, it’s mostly retained this international focus, making its first foray into domestic cash transfers in 2017, when it provided physical debit cards to victims of Hurricane Harvey in Texas.
“At that time, we had pretty rudimentary targeting,” Keen told me. “We would just drive to different areas, talk with as many people as we could, visually look for signs of damage, try to source any open source information where we could, and then overlay that with administrative data.” Since then, the company has integrated artificial intelligence into its hurricane relief efforts, training algorithms to generate damage assessments for thousands or even millions of structures. But fire damage is much more uniform (if a house burns, it’s usually 100% destroyed) and easy to identify from satellite imagery alone, Keen explained.
If GiveDirectly exceeds its fundraising target in L.A., however, it may run out of eligible residents who are reachable via the Propel app, meaning the organization will need to go back to basics: establish an in-person presence in the city., enroll people onsite, and hand out debit cards once more. “Right now our goal is to get to $1 million, and then all of that we can deliver via Propel,” Keen told me. “But if we exceed that, we would definitely explore other options.”
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 facility will power OpenAI’s 10-gigawatt data center in Pike County, Ohio.
The Trump administration aims to complete its environmental review of what would be the biggest fossil fuel power project in the country in just a few months, Heatmap has learned.
This news follows Monday’s announcement from OpenAI that it intends to lease a new 10-gigawatt data center under development in Pike County, Ohio, financed by a mixture of money from a SoftBank subsidiary and the chip company Nvidia. This AI hyperscale facility — known as the PORTS-Pike project — is expected to draw power from the largest gas power facility ever built in the United States, a 9.2-gigawatt facility sited on federal lands that would be built and owned by the Energy Department.
According to OpenAI, the data center campus will be built and started up in phases, with the first 800 megawatts starting construction this year and operational in 2028. That first phase will rely mostly on existing power infrastructure operated by AEP Ohio. How things progress from there will depend at least in part on the permitting and construction timelines for the new power plant.
Building large infrastructure of any kind on federal land or with significant federal investment typically triggers a review under the National Environmental Policy Act. I’ve been curious to find out what kind of review this particular project was going to get, especially after the administration allowed a NEPA review for a solar project to be repurposed for a data center on federal lands earlier this year.
Turns out some information about the PORTS-Pike permitting process is public. Before OpenAI confirmed its involvement with the site, the Trump administration added the project to the federal FAST-41 permitting dashboard, where it posts regular updates on the timeline for getting federal sign-offs. Per the lone federal notice available about the PORTS-Pike project, it will include “several data center buildings and power plants.” That will require at least two federal greenlights: an Army Corps of Engineers permit and approval from the Fish and Wildlife Service, which is being consulted about potential endangered bats in the project area.
The NEPA permitting work for this historically large data center-plus-fossil fuel power project began on July 10 and will conclude on December 23, the day before Christmas Eve, according to the Trump administration’s estimates. This comes after paperwork to begin the review was submitted to the Army Corps in May, per the federal notice — a total timeline of about seven months.
Those familiar with NEPA and the debate over permitting reform will likely be surprised by the speed of this review. It’s moving fast in part because the project is receiving just an Environmental Assessment, the lesser and smaller type of analysis than the EIS. I do not know why the government decided to take this route because the government’s NEPA review determination is not currently public, but I have asked the Army Corps to explain this move.
I’m not sure exactly how air permitting will fit into this NEPA review, as the Clean Air Act isn’t listed as a review step on the federal dashboard. The Ohio EPA has primary authority over permitting projects like these under the Clean Air Act, and I’ve reached out to them to confirm whether PORTS has submitted a permitting application. The state agency’s permitting database does not have any information on air permitting for the project, though it does include reports from third-party consultants confirming wetlands and protected species warranted reviews from the Army Corps and Fish and Wildlife.
Lastly, these timetables are not sacrosanct. Under the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, agencies are supposed to complete environmental assessments within one year, but nevertheless they regularly fail to meet them. The White House’s Council on Environmental Quality said in a report to Congress last year that from mid-2023 to mid-2025, the Army Corps was the agency that most often missed these statutory NEPA deadlines for environmental assessments.
Still, news of this speedy review for a priority Trump project is sure to excite pro-data center advocates who see expedited construction as an imperative in the global AI arms race. It’s also guaranteed to put a foul taste in the mouths of environmentalists already frustrated by federal revisions to NEPA regulations they say elide analysis of climate impacts.
What’s undebatable in all this is that, as my colleague Robinson Meyer wrote, the PORTS project could ignite a new era of mega-gas plants. This permitting timeline couldn’t be more important for the future of the data center boom — and the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.
SB Energy, the SoftBank subsidiary behind the data center project, did not provide comment before publication.
A new front opens in the data center wars.
A series of lawsuits filed in federal court asks a big question – are data center moratoria constitutional?
In early August, data center developer DC Blox sued the city of Nashville in federal court to overturn a zoning moratorium stopping them from building a hyperscale facility adjacent to the city zoo. “The Data Center Moratorium, moreover, is a targeted attack against DC BLOX, in violation of federal constitutional protections,” the suit argued, claiming that it defied the corporation’s due process and equal protection rights.
Around the same time, another developer – Wixom Industrial One – filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Wixom, Michigan, to try and “invalidate the city’s illegal police power moratorium” blocking their data center.
These two cases were far from novel or the first of their kind, and they’re now a fresh front in the battle over hyperscale data centers. At least that’s what some who work on these cases say: In April, attorneys with the law firm Vorys published a “client alert” asserting “many moratoria may be vulnerable to statutory, procedural, and constitutional challenges.” The attorneys advised that constitutional arguments against moratoria “may be stronger where a government singles out data centers without a sound factual basis, treats similar land uses differently without a reasonable basis, or adopts a restriction driven more by political pressure than by defensible planning or regulatory objectives.”
Months later, according to court documents, the Vorys attorneys who authored the alert now represent real estate firm Thor Equities in a federal case against the Ohio city of Urbana, arguing the city’s decision to reject their data center project broke “fundamental protections” under the U.S. Constitution. (Vorys and Thor Equities did not respond to requests for comment.)
It’s unclear how many of these kinds of cases have been filed to date. Data on federal court cases is quite opaque. But legal experts and industry attorneys tell me we should expect them to be on the rise as developers seek whatever tools they can find to get projects built.
“Bringing a lawsuit like this is fairly cheap, something they can do at a relatively low cost, and imposes a real cost on local governments to defend themselves,” said Daniel Metzger, director of the Cities Climate Law Initiative at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center. “The cases out there will be bellwethers. And if successful, there’ll be a lot more of them.”
What developers probably want looks a lot like Hill County, Texas, where an LLC proposing an $80 million data center project was stymied in May by the state’s first countywide moratorium. (It predated Governor Greg Abbott’s temporary freeze of data center development in Texas by three months.) Within a period of only a few weeks, the LLC sued and the county rescinded the pause on approvals. The case was dropped a month later. Local reports state the county had to afterwards pay the corporation $100,000 in legal fees – a drop in the bucket compared to what a drawn-out court battle would have cost the rural county.
Metzger said whether the companies will win these cases is ultimately not the point – their goal is to win a finished data center, not a judicial ruling. By filing expansive litigation in the national court system, a hypothetical developer can exhaust the coffers of a city or county with legal expenses that are chump change compared to would-be billions in private financing for compute infrastructure.
“These lawsuits may deter some local governments from taking steps to oppose data center development, just because of the cost it would impose on them to defend a lawsuit, even if they know they have a strong legal basis for the action they want to take.”
Those I spoke to in private practice about data center developers’ constitutional arguments agreed with Metzger’s assessment that it’s too early to tell whether the companies will win. Generally, they said, a city or county will win this kind of case if it demonstrates a rational basis for its decision-making and courts typically want to defer to governmental autonomy. The onus will be on the developers to prove a moratorium was meritless – that’s the due process challenge – or unfairly targeted their industry in a way other sectors don’t face, which is the basis of the equal protection claim.
“What they’re saying is in essence that these actions the municipality is taking are arbitrary and capricious, which is one of the sort of catch-all standards,” Thomas Allen, a partner at K&L Gates, told me. “They say the laws lack a rational basis. And then they make equal protection claims, saying data centers are being singled out because of political concerns as opposed to actual things relevant to the legislature’s directive. They’re not basing their decisions on the underlying merits of the project but reacting to political pressure.”
“It’s a reliance question and it’s about the treatment of their projects,” added Laura Morton, an attorney with Ashurst Perkins Coie. “It’s always been important to talk about and engage with communities where your infrastructure is planned. Here, I think this is the developers going in, maybe having conversations, and then suddenly they’re getting a reversal after already receiving these approvals and making investments based off of what the conversations and rules were.”
The likelihood of these constitutional challenges reaching higher courts anytime soon is quite low. It’ll be a long time before we see one of these cases reach a verdict, let alone some kind of appeals process come to fruition. Nevertheless, the new legal ambiguity around these local restrictions is an important new facet of the data center wars, including for developers.
“Companies want to act within the law to get [things] done, so whatever tactics they can do to help get the project over the line that are legal and ethical, they may try those,” Allen told me. “And if that includes the pressure of a lawsuit, that’s a judgment they’ll have to make.”
And more on this week’s conflicts around project development.
1. Montgomery County, Pennsylvania – We reached a new normal in the data center backlash, and it all seems to have started in King of Prussia.
2. Columbia County, Wisconsin – The gubernatorial race in this state is transforming local fights over wind projects into must-watch popcorn fodder for anyone obsessed with the state of the energy transition, or national politics for that matter.
3. Shelby County, Alabama – One quick update on the intervention of John Rich, the country star turned Trump’s “special envoy for American landowners,” in an Alabama Power transmission project: it’s getting a lot more elected officials involved.
4. New Jersey – We try to conclude every Hotspots on a positive note. So this week’s silver lining comes to you from the Garden State, where state regulators have approved more than a dozen agrivoltaics projects.