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 Yucca Mountain, Europe’s inverter boom, and Romanian offshore wind

Current conditions: The wildfires in Spain and France are burning so hot they’re creating rare pyrocumulonimbus clouds • Hurricane Genevieve has strengthened into the first Category 5 storm of 2026 as the monster cyclone rampages across the open Pacific with no immediate destination to make landfall • A tornado in Wisconsin toppled power lines, cutting off electricity to nearly 350,000 people.

The back-to-back record heat waves that roasted Western Europe last month killed thousands in France and Germany. The heat also dried out forests, turning woodlands on opposite sides of the Pyrenees into tinderboxes that are now ablaze in some of the worst wildfires the European Union has faced in modern history. With another heat wave now looming, firefighters are racing to contain the flames as hundreds of thousands evacuate in France and Spain. “We need to realize that we’re facing a totally unprecedented fire,” President Emmanuel Macron of France told reporters Monday during a visit to the fire department of Bordeaux. “The situation we’re facing today is the hardest we’ve ever recorded, the hardest since World War II.” In Spain’s Valencia region, the flames are detonating buried ordinances leftover from the Spanish Civil War in the early 1930s, Reuters reported.
The other week, I told you when PJM Interconnection once again hit its price cap at its latest capacity auction — and still came up short of the generation needed to meet demand in 2028. On Monday, the board of the nation’s largest grid operator said in a public letter it would hold another emergency auction to find nearly 7 gigawatts of power generation to make up for the shortfall. “The board believes this reliability threat requires decisive action,” the letter stated. The move comes just weeks after PJM shattered its peak demand record after underestimating just how much electricity the grid could need during a recent heat wave in the American Northeast. It’s yet another sign of the mounting stress on the system covering 13 states as everyone from governors to the grid operator itself strive for reforms, as my colleague Matthew Zeitlin has written.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Nuclear waste is a political paradox. Critics of atomic energy say that the radioactive waste produced during fission cancel out the benefits of using the most efficient source of carbon-free power humanity has yet harnessed. In the 1980s, the federal government took control of nuclear waste and set about building the world’s first permanent repository to store spent fuel underground for centuries. Yucca Mountain in Nevada was designated as the debut location for such a facility. Opponents in the Silver State fought back, imagining that Washington was subjecting Nevada to dangers akin to the atomic bomb tests that once took place in its deserts. In 2010 — in a move that nonpartisan Government Accountability Office later pegged as an entirely political, rather than technical, motive — President Barack Obama halted work on a project the then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wanted kiboshed. The problem is that federal law dictates Yucca Mountain be completed as the first nuclear waste repository before other sites can be considered. No one in Congress has stepped up to make the change. As a result, the U.S. — operator of the world’s largest nuclear fleet and wannabe exporter to countries who want to get into the atomic energy game — has had no clear long-term plan for dealing with nuclear waste in 16 years.
The Trump administration is trying to change that. The Department of Energy has floated plans for nuclear innovation campuses where cutting-edge recycling companies could test out new technologies to reprocess waste into medical isotopes and fresh fuel. But E&E News reported Monday that the administration is poised to press Congress to update federal law to allow the U.S. to finally move on from Yucca Mountain. A leaked document the newswire obtained outlines the administration’s plans to instead press states to take on waste repositories and recycling facilities, in line with the Energy Department’s campus idea. That may not be easy. Even Texas, whose government has sought to roll out the red carpet for nuclear developers recently unsuccessfully sued federal regulators to the Supreme Court to block construction of a waste storage facility.
Last month, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of President Donald Trump’s right to fire commissioners from previously independent agencies such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees pipelines and the grid. On Monday, E&E News published a feature examining the implications for FERC at a particularly sensitive time in its history, when a once-sleepy agency is increasingly facing scrutiny over the health of the U.S. grid. Experts were mixed on the effects. Ari Peskoe, the director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard University, called Trump “a loose cannon” with “no justification for firing any FERC Commissioner.” Commissioner David LaCerte, a Republican, cheered the Supreme Court for overturning what he said was an unlawful restriction put in place a century ago that limited the White House’s ability to fire any commissioners for anything beyond poor performance. “If a commissioner is going to buckle under that pressure and compromise their integrity because they are afraid of being fired, well, they probably didn’t deserve to be in this job in the first place,” he said during the FERC meeting. But fellow Republican Mark Christie, who previously served as FERC chair and whom Matthew dubbed “the most interesting man” on the commission, said that while he agrees with the court’s decision, open requisitions remain as to what it would mean in practice. “If FERC is now completely under the supervision of the president, is the executive branch going to say how to decide a rate case?” said Christie. “That to me is the single biggest question.”
The Department of Transportation, meanwhile, is gutting funding for public transit, walkways, and bike lanes. In a letter outlining the agency’s spending priorities to the Senate, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy proposed eliminating the Highway Trust Fund’s mass transit account and slashing funding for infrastructure that provides for the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists, bike lanes, and grants for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. That’s not all: Smart Cities Dive reported that a competitive grant program to fund solutions to traffic safety would scrap options that include public transit improvements and tolling from even being considered.
China produces most of the world’s inverters for solar panels. It’s increasingly a problem. Last year, Reuters reported that the U.S. had found “killswitch” devices in some inverters, suggesting that Beijing could — in theory — remotely disable solar panels when demand is high on the grid, or try to cause frequency problems like those that triggered the great Iberian blackout of 2025. At the start of this month, I told you the Federal Communications Commission was weighing a ban on Chinese inverters. If you share the Trump administration’s concerns, there’s good news: China’s command over the global inverter market peaked in 2024, according to new data from the research division at PV Tech. Europe, meanwhile, has emerged as a major manufacturer, hitting over 100 gigawatts of factory capacity this year. The U.S. is now at 40 gigawatts, while India is at 20 gigawatts. You’d be reasonable to wonder if these are just Chinese companies setting up shop in Europe. But you’d be wrong. “What distinguishes Europe’s inverter manufacturing expansion from other sectors, particularly solar modules, is the composition of its manufacturing base,” analyst Mollie McCorkindale wrote in the magazine. “As of 2026, over 90% of Europe’s 100-gigawatt manufacturing capacity comes from European-headquartered companies.”
Everyone knows the U.S. is veering away from offshore wind, and diligent readers of this newsletter (for whom I feel such affection) may recall that Japan is on a parallel trajectory. Elsewhere, however, offshore wind is booming. Romania, whose coastline makes up a single-digit percentage of its mostly landlocked borders, is the latest country to make big plans for seaward turbines. Bucharest is now targeting nearly 12 gigawatts of offshore wind, Renewables Now reported.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
American offshore wind’s existential crisis was laid bare at this year’s Climate Week.
California and New York officials gathered on Tuesday at the New York Bar Association in Manhattan to tell attendees of the annual climate action mega-event about their efforts to hold the Trump administration to account. After Trump regulators upended wind projects off the East Coast and struck buyout trades with energy developers to ditch ocean wind leases, both states filed fresh legal action against the administration, targeting what they said were egregious abuses of taxpayer dollars that canceled once-promising projects that would’ve given gigawatts of power to grids expecting energy demand to spike.
“Every megawatt in offshore wind power is not a megawatt of fossil fuel generated power. That’s really important. That means fewer emissions that contribute to respiratory and cardiac disease,” Lem Srolovic, bureau chief of the New York attorney general’s environmental protection bureau, said at the event, as he and California attorney general Rob Bonta laid out the view that Trump’s actions against offshore wind were illegal.
The federal courts have concurred thus far, and it’s possible more judges will agree. But later in the event, Doreen Harris – CEO and President of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority – said the quiet part out loud.
“Ultimately, the challenge we have in litigation is that even if successful, we deal with realities of what a commercial entity would do in response to these risks. That remains unresolved,” Harris confessed. “How do we move to an investable future for energy infrastructure if this is the way energy infrastructure has to be advanced?”
Indeed, more litigation clearly isn’t going to help the offshore wind sector’s prospects. As we’ve reported on time and again, the Trump administration has not only used every regulatory lever imaginable – and some once unimaginable – to delay wind farms, both on and offshore. But it has gone beyond the legal, now stalling onshore wind in ways industry says stretches the boundaries of court remedy. If that’s the case on solid ground, what future could possibly exist in the U.S. for an industry that must build entirely in federal waters? And even if Trump leaves office providing for a more industry-friendly president, couldn’t a future successor undo whatever they do as well?
“There may be some hesitancy to reinvest in offshore wind in the U.S. given what has happened in the Trump administration,” Kevin Beicke, vice president of project finance at Morningstar DBRS, told me in a phone interview. This week Morningstar, a leading market analysis firm, agreed with Harris’ assessment and reaffirmed a negative outlook for the entire American offshore wind industry through at least 2028 – adding the future beyond that horizon is essentially unknown.
“It’s my view these companies would need to see some kind of substantial support for their industry if they were to try and get back into it under a future administration. And public support would be needed to support a future administration providing regulatory and financial support to the U.S. offshore wind industry.”
So this begs the question: why are states bothering with litigation they probably know won’t improve the offshore wind sector’s fortunes in the near term?
Harris told me after the event that part of the litigation is to provide a signal to the business community that they shouldn’t abandon the U.S. offshore wind industry in the future.
“Very much so. It’s a move intended not only to preserve the processes and systems that are supposed to apply but also to say, ‘We are here because we are committed to the resource, and we’re committed to the companies developing it, and they can consider a state a partner to realize those outcomes.’ That’s what we want them to understand,” she told me.
Harris’ indignation didn’t surprise me, but it was especially prescient, as New York City’s annual Climate Week chaos became embroiled in a “will they or won’t they” news cycle around Trump’s freeze on wind energy permits. During the offshore wind event, news broke in Politico that President Trump told Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Energy Secretary Chris Wright that he agreed to “green-light wind energy projects to strike [a] permitting deal” and that they’d “lift” the “blockade of renewable energy projects to get Senate Democrats moving on permitting.” The next day, at Heatmap House, Wright himself declined to speak declaratively on that report, instead signalling the issue was still a live ball. But he said a permitting deal would address concerns about “easier to build everything in America.”
Wright also suggested the administration had actively debated the de facto freeze on height clearances for wind turbines, which has essentially snagged the entire sector. “Wind has been very controversial and there have been spirited dialogues in the administration about this,” Wright told my colleague Robinson Meyer. “I do believe a successful permitting reform thing changes the playing field for anything you want to build in this country, including wind.”
When I asked Harris about the Politico report, she told me she’d rather focus on the courts. The same goes for California Energy Commission chair David Hochschild, who told me he doesn’t believe anonymous reports about a president “who also promised no new endless wars.”
“We want to make it crystal clear we’re going to fight for this and our support [for offshore wind] is going to continue,” Hochschild said. “The legal fight we’re engaged in now is necessary but not sufficient. We have a lot more work to do to build the ecosystem that’s necessary for this to come to fruition. For research and development. For permitting. For infrastructure. It’s a lot of work but we’ve done this before. All these barriers existed when we started with solar in the early days when there was skepticism.”
And more of the week’s top news around project development.
1. Ada County, Idaho – Trump’s push for more data centers on federal lands is causing a lot more ruckus and catching another solar company in the cross-fire.
2. Carbon County, Wyoming – Tell me if you’ve heard this one before: The Trump administration just delayed a large fossil-free power project after criticism from a powerful Republican senator. But this time, it’s hydropower.
3. Crawford County, Wisconsin – Fighting transmission lines in Wisconsin is bipartisan now.
4. Highland County, Ohio – If you want good news, here’s a slightly positive story in Ohio.
A conversation with Tom Matzzie of the Investing in Tomorrow Coalition
This week’s Q&A is with Tom Matzzie, chair of the Investing in Tomorrow Coalition – a pro-renewables Super PAC fighting lawmakers of both sides of the aisle who spurn the sector. The Super PAC won quite a few victories during the primary season, successfully boosting challengers to hardline conservatives in the U.S. that fought for cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act and are no longer going to serve in the Lower Chamber. Matzzie, also CEO of solar firm CleanChoice Energy, is intent the sector must go on offense to win more public bipartisan support and survive the Trump 2.0 era.
I chatted with Matzzie to hear how he’s looking at the general election season. The conversation revealed to me they want the renewables industry to be seen as politically lethal. And they’re paying close attention to the Wisconsin gubernatorial race.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So first of all, how is your role going to change as we go into the general elections?
We’re focused on accountability for elected officials who decide they want to attack the clean energy industry, making it harder for us to exist. We have elected officials who say they want to kill projects. Our industry employs hundreds of thousands of people, and we also deploy hundreds of thousands in capital, so we look at the attacks on the industry as something that needs accountability.
It’s not about people we just disagree with. It’s about the worst of the worst. And that will continue to be the focus.
We’re not announcing the new races as of yet. But if you look at what we did during the primary season we focused on members of the House Freedom Caucus who had a history of attacking the industry for their own political gain. We also supported a Republican during a primary who was being attacked by the chief NIMBY in her district.
Our M.O. will continue to focus on the House Freedom Caucus and people like them. These ideological trophy hunters on the far right are extremists.
By the end of the month, we’ll announce for sure. It’ll be a five-or-six week campaign towards Election Day.
How many candidates will be targeted?
No more than ten. I feel confident saying that.
Walk me through how you decide the message against these candidates?
The important thing is, we’re crafting a message about the industry. We’re telling a story about us. Whether we’re stronger or to be feared or to be ignored. So to that regard, the effectiveness and lethality of our political apparatus matters a lot.
While many voters care about our issues, in most elections, we’re not the top issues. There’s other things that would be more effective attacks on the incumbent or a way to build up a challenger. We go in, we do message research, we figure out the most efficacious way to move the voters we want to move, and this is the best practice in modern politics is to use data-driven approaches to targeting both voters and the message. What media they consume, how you reach them.
We’re telling a story about us, not just our issues.
As you determine what races to get into, how are you taking into account the whole “data center trojan horse” situation, like what’s happening in Wiscons–
So absolutely, we’re paying close attention to [GOP gubernatorial candidate] Tom Tiffany in Wisconsin, and his smear that every data center means 100,000 acres lost [for solar]. Which by the way, 100,000 acres of solar could probably power most of the upper Midwest. So yeah, we’re paying attention to what Tom Tiffany is saying in his race.
That’s the short way of saying it.
How is the data center backlash and the role it's playing in the midterms affecting your decision-making?
It’s not. We use a data driven approach on what to say, and you follow that approach without much concern because the data is better than rumors on the internet, for lack of a better term.
What we do know is that data centers that embrace solar and wind have received more popular support in those communities. Data centers that have community benefit agreements and more responsible purchase development have received better receptiveness.
If they’re concerned about a data center, they’re going to be even more concerned about natural gas on site. But we don’t see it showing up in the research at this point.
There’s a lot of research [showing] voters care about data centers but affordability is the primary thing showing up in the research as what voters are concerned about.