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:
On California’s stalled reforms, space solar, and VPPs

Current conditions: Tropical Storm Edouard is making landfall over Texas and Louisiana, bringing flooding as it moves inland • Already facing a southwest monsoon, or habagat, the Philippines is now staring down Tropical Storm Pilandok • Intensifying flooding in South Sudan’s Sudd, the largest wetlands in Africa, is displacing families by the droves.
Oil prices surged north of $90 per barrel Tuesday as the United States exchanged fire with Iran amid the ongoing fight to control the Strait of Hormuz. West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. benchmark, rose nearly 2% to $91.74 per barrel. Europe’s Brent crude measure closed less than 2% higher at just below $97. Murban crude, the yardstick for oil out of Abu Dhabi, soared nearly 8% to over $106 per barrel. In a post on Truth Social, President Donald Trump said he was “not trying to force Iran to the bargaining table.” Rather, “I couldn’t care less if they sign a worthless, to them, agreement,” he continued. “I like our position now much better, with almost total control of the Hormuz Strait, and their economy totally collapsing.” Referring to the U.S. military as the “American terrorists,” the Tasnim News Agency, a semi-official outlet associated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, reported that Tehran “had previously warned and promised” that “the Iranian armed forces will respond decisively and extensively to any aggression against our country’s territory and interests.”
Meanwhile, the Group of 20 — the club of 18 rich economies, plus the European Union and African Union — concluded its latest meeting with a joint statement that affirmed the necessity of central bank independence, called out energy affordability in the age of AI, and admonished “non-market economies” with “excessive and persistent external surpluses” that distort the global market. China didn't like that, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC, issuing a dissent.
If the sun were blasting onto all the solar panels in China all at once, the overall electricity output would top that of every one of the country’s coal plants firing at the same time. It’s a major milestone, Bloomberg reported, highlighting just how extensively Beijing has glazed its fields, foothills, and urban rooftops with photovoltaic panels in recent years. But the achievement comes with an asterisk. “No matter how you feel about solar or coal as an energy source, CAPACITY is not ENERGY,” energy analyst Nicholas Birkhead wrote in a post on X. “These solar capacity numbers way overstate the energy mix, which is what matters! I really wish we’d all just publish capacity numbers after they’re adjusted for capacity factor.” In other words: As significant as this seems, China is still burning a whole lot of coal more frequently than the midday sun is shining.
Last year, upward of $440 billion flowed into solar worldwide, while $540 billion went to upstream oil drilling. It’s a sign, according to a new report from McKinsey, that “markets are financing both fossil fuels and low-carbon energy simultaneously” and that “the system is not replacing one fuel type with another but rather building them in parallel.” Moving forward, the consultancy cautioned, policymakers and planners need to assess not just the cheapest available options for new generation but what best supports the performance of the entire energy system. Just look at what Ontario did when deciding to move forward with what’s expected to be North America’s first small modular reactors. Instead of looking at the upfront cost of the generating assets alone, the province-owned Ontario Power Generation considered the whole cost of transmission and backup generation that would have come in the fine print of choosing wind turbines over nuclear reactors. The example, as my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote, highlights the problems with levelized cost of energy, the widely used measure of the overnight costs of building new generation assets: “Everyone’s favorite energy metric is wrong.”
A long-awaited California bill covering state policy on wildfires, insurance, and utilities collapsed in the state legislature Tuesday. The proposal, called Senate Bill 492, had been the product of intense negotiations between legislative leaders and Governor Gavin Newsom. The deal was released on Saturday and included provisions to speed up payouts to victims of fires and nibbled around the edges of the vast payouts California utilities are forced to make to insurers when their equipment sparks a blaze. The legislators fractured because it failed to address the core issue of California’s strict rules around wildfire liability and insurance, where insurers can sue utilities to recover damages when, for example, a transformer or power line ignites dried brush. Instead, the deal would have tweaked the system, making it harder for insurers to sell claims to investors, pushing out payouts to victims faster, and limiting utility executive bonuses when their companies’ equipment causes a fire. These payouts can drag utilities into bankruptcy, as happened with Pacific Gas & Electric in 2019 following a series of wildfires, and end up elevating electricity rates. “The only solution is to return to fix the entire problem, not part of it,” Newsom said in a statement to Politico.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Fervo Energy’s stock soared nearly 30% on Tuesday after the next-generation geothermal giant announced its biggest deal yet, to sell nearly 400 megawatts of electricity to Google. When Fervo starts up its Cape Station project in southwestern Utah sometime in 2028, the facility will become the world’s largest enhanced geothermal plant. In enhanced geothermal plants, the underground heat harnessed for power production comes from artificial wells drilled with fracking technology rather than naturally forming subterranean reservoirs of hot water. If Houston-based Fervo can bring down the cost of its drilling, the technology could enable construction of geothermal power stations in vastly more locations than the industry previously believed possible. “Even though right now we don’t have clarity yet on how this will serve a data center … we know that it will be a foundational building block of power generation for a data center presence in Utah,” Lucia Tian, Google’s director of advanced energy technologies, told The Wall Street Journal, which broke news of the deal.
Next-generation nuclear startups, meanwhile, are facing a looming challenge over plutonium. The material, which doesn’t occur naturally, was largely produced in the 20th century for weapons production. Now, however, developers of novel kinds of reactors are angling to use some of the world’s 571 metric tons of stockpiled plutonium for energy production. In a feature on the topic published this week, the Financial Times outlined the split between countries such as the U.S., which I told you in May was giving out plutonium to startups, and the United Kingdom, which opted to bury its material. “It’s like a car that runs on diamonds. Plutonium reserves are about the same size as diamonds around the world, which gives you an idea of how rare this precious element is,” a French official told the newspaper.

The Department of Energy is pumping $12 million into developing and manufacturing technology for solar panels that can be used in space. In keeping with the Trump administration’s skeptical position on the weather limits of wind and solar, the agency pointed out that, “unlike terrestrial solar energy systems, which are subject to regulate interruption by weather and the Earth’s rotation, space PV can deliver near-constant power.” The funding is aimed at projects that will enhance the durability and cost of solar cells for space and develop manufacturing methods that can provide “innovative, high-volume” processes for mass production. “The next frontier for solar PV power generation is in space,” Audrey Robertson, the assistant secretary of energy, said in a statement. “As demand for space-grade PV skyrockets, this investment will establish American leadership in next-generation, space-based PV, bolster our national security, and enhance our economic competitiveness.”
Investors are putting big G’s behind VPPs. Virtual power plants promise to ease stress on grids and direct power that might otherwise have been wasted toward all the new demand coming online. Amid the scramble to supply power to data centers, money is flowing into companies that can harness those distributed assets. On Tuesday, the VPP software maker Light announced a $46 million Series A. That same day, the British distributed energy giant Octopus Energy closed its deal to buy a majority stake in the VPP provider Uplight.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
1. Suffolk County, New York – Rarely do I get to say battery fire fears can be quelched but we have a very good example brewing in the Empire State.
2. Loudon County, Virginia – I can’t believe it: Data Center Alley is going to enact a moratorium.
3. Pulaski County, Arkansas – Entergy has dropped the lawsuit it filed against an Arkansas newspaper over the publication of a power deal with Google.
4. Darlington County, South Carolina – We conclude this week’s Hotspots with a focus on a GOP-leaning county rejecting a renewables moratorium.
A conversation with Sam Lyman of the Bitcoin Policy Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Sam Lyman, head of research at the Bitcoin Policy Institute. Originally focused on cryptocurrency, Lyman’s organization has expanded to policy and messaging development around data centers, most notably providing research many AI boosters cite to claim foreign influence is driving opposition to new hyperscale projects. Last week, the think tank released a new report calling for a novel solution to the data center permitting bottleneck: direct cash payments from data center projects to individuals involved with building them, as well as residents nearby facilities once they’re operating.
I reached out to BPI and asked for a chat with Lyman about the data center dividend proposal. I also tried to get to the bottom of where this increasingly relevant think tank stands on the general idea of a national data center law. The conversation was immensely informative. So here it is, in a lightly abridged and edited format.
Let’s start with the data center dividend proposal. Walk my readers through it.
Data center dividends came from the idea that, ideally in the AI revolution, we want all Americans to benefit. Especially rural Americans. You look at the landscape today, the majority of AI data centers are being built in rural America. It’s critical they’ll benefit from the massive wealth AI will unlock.
There’s lots of ways to make that happen. People point to the jobs AI data centers will build out, for example. But with data center dividends, we take the logic of the Alaska Permanent Fund and we apply it to America’s rural counties, which are sitting on a proverbial gold mine right now but lack any kind of public mechanism allowing them to benefit from that in a maximal way.
If you look at the tax revenue these data centers create, which is astronomical, how do we distribute this tax revenue in a way where it has the most tangible impact on the families living there? We believe data center dividends are the best way to do that – after allocating money for schools, public safety, and infrastructure, it allows these counties with tens of millions of dollars left over to distribute them as they see fit. They should distribute that money to the men and women who make those data centers happen in the first place.
The most effective form of a dividend would take a direct payment: a cash payment, a physical check, a direct deposit. Or the form of credits paying back property taxes, utility bills, an endowment for scholarships. There’s a number of different forms this can take.
Hopefully this gets the conversation going about how we can make these work for everybody.
Who do you want to see set up this dividend mechanism? How’s your approach to implementation?
The report is addressed to county commissioners. I’m thinking of commissioners who represent both sides of the political spectrum facing this huge backlash. Many of them want to do good by their communities and their voters, even if it means doing a data center, in places where it’s difficult to explain right now. Dividends make this indisputably clear.
I tried to put myself in the shoes of an enterprising county commissioner who sees the merits in the data center buildout and wants to break out of the political storm. It’s important to note data centers can be a huge economic boon for communities, in ways that can impact lives positively.
Have any communities – counties, as you noted – taken this idea up yet? Are there any models for this proposal?
The best analogue is West Feliciana, Louisiana, which is the case study we feature. West Feliciana made an agreement with a data center developer where in lieu of taxes, they make direct payments of about $90 million a year to the parish. That triples the community’s tax budget every year. It leaves ample room not only for essential services but dividends afterwards. Louisiana then passed a law – Act 434 – that allowed West Feliciana to remit some of those payments to residents as a tax credit. This bill first provided the opportunity for the parish to even remit those payments as cash, but it was changed in the legislature to make it a credit. That’s the closest we’ve gotten so far.
As far as reaching out to individual counties, we’re a think tank. We put ideas into the universe. We haven’t had anyone reach out to us since the publication of the report so far but we’re hoping they will.
Your report does lay out how there’s a bottleneck in development and this could help with easing it. Do you see an impetus to put ideas like the dividend out there right now, in light of the increased data center scrutiny in this year’s midterms?
Our publication is irrespective of the midterms. But it is tied to the fact that a bottleneck facing the data center buildout includes it becoming a politicized issue. We’re of the belief these projects shouldn't be political at all. One way to break through the noise is by showing how they can benefit those involved in construction and residents who live there. Data centers are critical infrastructure; other forms of critical infrastructure aren’t being politicized. Our efforts are to demonstrate how these shouldn’t be political.
When it comes to the future of AI data center regulation, this proposal is obviously geared towards incentivizing a resolution to the bottleneck through using resources produced from data centers – namely, new investment.
Where does your organization stand on the increased push for environmental or siting regulation on AI data centers?
I’m not familiar with what you might be referring to there.
I mean, there’s all kinds of proposals at the federal level and in states for everything from being required to pay for infrastructure upgrades to being required to use closed-loop cooling to siting restrictions, like temporary moratoria.
What I’m asking is, what else do you as an organization believe when it comes to regulating AI data center development at the federal level? State level?
We believe data centers should work for the communities where they’re being built. That’s important. So the concept of BYOP – Bring Your Own Power – we very much support that idea. We think the Ratepayer Protection Pledge is a great proposal because ultimately we want data centers, with them being critical infrastructure, to not only strengthen our national security but strengthen the communities where they’re being built.
Some states are rejecting data centers. We think that’s a mistake because it's something that’ll ultimately short-change the people who live there. For the states that do decide to build data centers, it's up to them what regulations make data centers more sustainable over time.
There’s increased public discussion for policy on AI development – as an organization, do you see any role in the federal government making policy here with a national data center law?
We think AI will be key to America’s prosperity over the long-term. We have concerns about the regulation of open-source artificial intelligence; bitcoin is a form of open-source software and open-source money. We believe intelligence should be something available to all Americans. That’s our concern with talk about regulating AI right now, it feels like a ploy for regulatory capture.
But what about national policy on AI data centers? Does your think tank support the national legislature doing a federal data center bill or is that something best for localities or states?
It depends on the bill. Are you talking about Sen. Bernie Sanders’ national moratorium?
With a permitting deal seemingly on the horizon, Republican Gabe Evans and Democrat Scott Peters may be about to see their partnership pay off.
The fate of permitting reform legislation that could smooth the way to all kinds of new and improved energy infrastructure — including transmission lines and renewables — is currently hostage to opaque discussions between Senate committee chairs. Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the Democratic ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told a Rhode Island business group earlier this week that “we’re actually in a pretty good place on permitting reform,” and that there was “maybe another week of negotiations.” Whitehouse’s Republican counterpart on the EPW committee, West Virginia Senator Shelly Moore-Capito, told Semafor on Friday that any bill has “got to pop out of here in the next 48 hours.”
If that’s going to happen, it will be because Republicans and Democrats have decided it’s worth it to get along. Any deal will eventually have to be voted on by the House, which has already produced several bills on a bipartisan basis, and even passed one — the SPEED Act — late last year.
Two of the busier House members on this issue are Scott Peters, a Democratic former environmental lawyer from San Diego, and Gabe Evans, a first term Colorado Republican representing a suburban and rural district north of Denver that includes wind farms and crude oil production. “The district that I represent truly is an all of the above energy district,” Evans told me.
Their latest effort is a bill aimed at smoothing out permitting for transmission development, especially interregional transmission. Last week, the two congressmen unveiled the CLEAR Act, seeking to apply a stricter set of standards for lawsuits against transmission projects that aligned with how natural gas and hydropower projects are treated under the Federal Power Act (it’s much harder to sue to stop these projects). Earlier this year, the two also sponsored the CERTAIN Act, a more comprehensive streamlining of federal permitting for energy infrastructure projects.
“We’re proud to have a lot of our work as the foundation for this, and I think if they send us over something that includes this, it’s got a really good chance of passing in the House,” Peters told me. Evans added that bringing forward bipartisan bills “gives a little bit more impetus to the Senate to know that the House is looking for these things.”
While the Senate’s deal will be up to the senators, Peters told me he envisions a broad permitting package that could include reforms to the National Environmental Policy Act to shorten permitting timelines, preventing the president from nixing individual projects, and reform Section 401 of the Clean Water Act which effectively devolves power to tribes and states to block a variety of interstate projects. “I think it’s coming together pretty well,” Peters said. “Obviously, we’re waiting for white smoke from the Senate.”
A permitting reform package may be one of the last major bills several bipartisan-minded House members get to vote on.
Election day is about six weeks off, and while Peters will likely have an easy time getting reelected for this eighth term, Evans is in a tough race. His purple-hued district is a target for the House Democratic campaign arm, which is hoping to flip it to former Colorado House of Representatives member Manny Rutinel, who worked as a lawyer at the environmental group Earthjustice. The Cook Political Report rates the race as toss-up, and Nate Silver gives Rutinel a roughly 75% to win.
But Rutinel won’t be getting any campaign help from Peters.
When I asked Peters about the timing of releasing a bill that could boost an endangered Republican’s bipartisan bona fides less than two months before an election, Peters told me that he and Evans had been working on it “for a while,” and that “my colleagues know that I’ve worked with Republicans to get problems solved.”
He said he wasn’t “participating in Gabe’s election” and wasn’t giving any money to his campaign, but also that he wouldn’t campaign Evans’ challenger, despite the opportunity to bolster his own caucus.
Peters is not shy about praising Evans. “What I appreciate about Gabe is that it takes a little bit of initiative to separate yourself from the majority — particularly when you’re in the trifecta — and do your own thing. He’s been a good partner in helping find ways to reduce process and make things go faster,” he told me.
Evans told me that he and Peters met early in this Congress, as Evans was getting settled into his new office in the Longworth building. “We’ve built the relationship over the last two years with a lot of the different areas that we’ve collaborated on.”
“I always try to meet the members of my committee and find out who will work with me. And I was fortunate to find Gabe,” Peters said.
“I do want to win the majority in the next Congress,” Peters went on, but “the norm should be that we figure out ways to work together to solve problems, and, you know, we’ll let the voters of Colorado 8 decide who to send me.”
Evans, for his part, told me that he had to work with Democrats to get anything passed as a member of a minuscule Republican minority in the Colorado statehouse, and that the 40-plus members of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus have agreed not to campaign against each other. “There’s 385 other members that you can go pick fights with,” he said.