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 a $6 billion EV write-down, a disappointing bullet train, and talks on a major mining merger
Current conditions: Nearly all of Australia is under a heat warning as wildfires continue to burn • 65,000 properties in the United Kingdom lose power due to Storm Goretti • Two tornadoes ripped through Oklahoma on Thursday, the first in the U.S. in 2026.
After writing a memo last year that shook up the climate community with its call for a pragmatic “pivot,” Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates published another missive Friday morning laying out his ideas on global problems — and their solutions. The bulk of his “The Year Ahead: Optimism with Footnotes” letter touches on his primary philanthropic concern, global public health, and he laments that “the world went backwards last year on a key metric of progress: the number of deaths of children under 5 years old.” Across both public health and climate change, he maintains his characteristic optimism about innovation (now, innovation buoyed by artificial intelligence), but says that “my optimism comes with footnotes.”
On climate change specifically, Gates hails “meaningful progress” in the past 10 years in cutting projected emissions, but returns to his mantra of technological advancements to decarbonize hard-to-abate sectors and bring down the cost of green technology. “We still have a lot of innovation and scaling up to do in tough areas like industrial emissions and aviation. Government policies in rich countries are still critical because unless innovations reach scale, the costs won’t come down and we won’t achieve the impact we need,” Gates says. As for his philanthropy, he writes that “I will be investing and giving more than ever to climate work in the years ahead while also continuing to give more to children’s health, the foundation’s top priority.”
Glencore and Rio Tinto, two of the world’s largest mining companies, are considering a merger, Bloomberg News reported Thursday. If Rio Tinto were to buy Glencore, they would form a $200 billion mining giant. While the two mine and trade a number of commodities, they are both big players in copper, a key metal for electrification and decarbonization because of its use in electrical equipment. Glencore is also a major producer of coal, a business Rio Tinto has exited. People familiar with the merger talks told Bloomberg that Rio Tinto would be “open to retaining Glencore’s coal business if talks are successful,” however.
General Motors said in a regulatory filing that it expects to “record charges of approximately $6.0 billion” related to downsizing its electric vehicle business. The company cited “the termination of certain consumer tax incentives and the reduction in the stringency of emissions regulations,” which caused “industry-wide consumer demand for EVs in North America … to slow in 2025.” The filing is a marked change from October, when the company predicted a $1.6 billion charge. which Heatmap contributor Andrew Moseman attributed at the time to “chaos” induced by the Trump administration.
GM has been reducing its EV and battery commitments in the United States of late, including by transitioning an EV manufacturing facility to producing internal combustion pickup trucks and selling its stake in a battery cell joint venture. GM said in its regulatory filing that the $6 billion worth of charges “include non-cash impairments and other non-cash charges of approximately $1.8 billion as well as supplier commercial settlements, contract cancellation fees, and other charges of approximately $4.2 billion.” In other words, it's writing down the value of investments made in manufacturing capacity it won’t need and making payments to suppliers who had invested as well. It also said it expects “to recognize additional material cash and non-cash charges in 2026 related to continued commercial negotiations with our supply base” and that “proposed regulatory changes to the greenhouse gas emission standards could result in an impairment of our emissions credits.”

Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
Tom Cotton, the Arkansas Republican Senator, introduced a new data center proposal on Thursday called the DATA Act. Like many government officials at the state, local, and federal levels, Cotton is aiming to balance support for data center development with protections for consumers on electricity costs. Cotton’s bill goes beyond previous proposals to promote “behind the meter” generation and would seek to foster generation that served specific customers with a setup known as a“consumer-regulated electric utility” — i.e. not a public utility.
These CREUs would exist “exclusively for the purpose of serving new electric loads that were not previously served by any retail electricity supplier” — in other words, a new electric system for new demand. These systems would operate outside of regulatory requirements for public utilities, as long as they’re “physically islanded” from the existing electric grid. “American dominance in artificial intelligence and other crucial emerging industries should not come at the expense of Arkansans paying higher energy costs,” Cotton wrote on X.
Stellantis, the parent company of Jeep and Chrysler, is ceasing production of all its brands’ plug-in hybrid models. These include the Wrangler 4xe, which Moseman described as the company’s “signature electrified effort so far.”
Stellantis confirmed the news to industry publication The Drive, telling the outlet: “With customer demand shifting, Stellantis will phase out plug‑in hybrid (PHEV) programs in North America beginning with the 2026 model year, and focus on more competitive electrified solutions, including hybrid and range‑extended vehicles where they best meet customer needs.”
“I debated whether or not to include this in my comments,” California Governor Gavin Newsom said in his final State of the State address before discussing the progress being made on California’s troubled high-speed rail project. The project is due to start running — albeit only from Bakersfield to Modesto — in 2033. The estimated cost to complete the full Los Angeles-to-San Francisco line is now some $128 billion, compared to the $33 billion targeted in 2020.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A chat with CleanCapital founder Jon Powers.
This week’s conversation is with Jon Powers, founder of the investment firm CleanCapital. I reached out to Powers because I wanted to get a better understanding of how renewable energy investments were shifting one year into the Trump administration. What followed was a candid, detailed look inside the thinking of how the big money in cleantech actually views Trump’s war on renewable energy permitting.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Alright, so let’s start off with a big question: How do investors in clean energy view Trump’s permitting freeze?
So, let’s take a step back. Look at the trend over the last decade. The industry’s boomed, manufacturing jobs are happening, the labor force has grown, investments are coming.
We [Clean Capital] are backed by infrastructure life insurance money. It’s money that wasn’t in this market 10 years ago. It’s there because these are long-term infrastructure assets. They see the opportunity. What are they looking for? Certainty. If somebody takes your life insurance money, and they invest it, they want to know it’s going to be there in 20 years in case they need to pay it out. These are really great assets – they’re paying for electricity, the panels hold up, etcetera.
With investors, the more you can manage that risk, the more capital there is out there and the better cost of capital there is for the project. If I was taking high cost private equity money to fund a project, you have to pay for the equipment and the cost of the financing. The more you can bring down the cost of financing – which has happened over the last decade – the cheaper the power can be on the back-end. You can use cheaper money to build.
Once you get that type of capital, you need certainty. That certainty had developed. The election of President Trump threw that into a little bit of disarray. We’re seeing that being implemented today, and they’re doing everything they can to throw wrenches into the growth of what we’ve been doing. They passed the bill affecting the tax credits, and the work they’re doing on permitting to slow roll projects, all of that uncertainty is damaging the projects and more importantly costs everyone down the road by raising the cost of electricity, in turn making projects more expensive in the first place. It’s not a nice recipe for people buying electricity.
But in September, I went to the RE+ conference in California – I thought that was going to be a funeral march but it wasn’t. People were saying, Now we have to shift and adjust. This is a huge industry. How do we get those adjustments and move forward?
Investors looked at it the same way. Yes, how will things like permitting affect the timeline of getting to build? But the fundamentals of supply and demand haven’t changed and in fact are working more in favor of us than before, so we’re figuring out where to invest on that potential. Also, yes federal is key, but state permitting is crucial. When you’re talking about distributed generation going out of a facility next to a data center, or a Wal-Mart, or an Amazon warehouse, that demand very much still exists and projects are being built in that middle market today.
What you’re seeing is a recalibration of risk among investors to understand where we put our money today. And we’re seeing some international money pulling back, and it all comes back to that concept of certainty.
To what extent does the international money moving out of the U.S. have to do with what Trump has done to offshore wind? Is that trade policy? Help us understand why that is happening.
I think it’s not trade policy, per se. Maybe that’s happening on the technology side. But what I’m talking about is money going into infrastructure and assets – for a couple of years, we were one of the hottest places to invest.
Think about a European pension fund who is taking money from a country in Europe and wanting to invest it somewhere they’ll get their money back. That type of capital has definitely been re-evaluating where they’ll put their money, and parallel, some of the larger utility players are starting to re-evaluate or even back out of projects because they’re concerned about questions around large-scale utility solar development, specifically.
Taking a step back to something else you said about federal permitting not being as crucial as state permitting–
That’s about the size of the project. Huge utility projects may still need federal approvals for transmission.
Okay. But when it comes to the trendline on community relations and social conflict, are we seeing renewable energy permitting risk increase in the U.S.? Decrease? Stay the same?
That has less to do with the administration but more of a well-structured fossil fuel campaign. Anti-climate, very dark money. I am not an expert on where the money comes from, but folks have tried to map that out. Now you’re even seeing local communities pass stuff like no energy storage [ordinances].
What’s interesting is that in those communities, we as an industry are not really present providing facts to counter this. That’s very frustrating for folks. We’re seeing these pass and honestly asking, Who was there?
Is the federal permitting freeze impacting investment too?
Definitely.
It’s not like you put money into a project all at once, right? It happens in these chunks. Let’s say there’s 10 steps for investing in a project. A little bit of money at step one, more money at step two, and it gradually gets more until you build the project. The middle area – permitting, getting approval from utilities – is really critical to the investments. So you’re seeing a little bit of a pause in when and how we make investments, because we sometimes don’t know if we’ll make it to, say, step six.
I actually think we’ll see the most impact from this in data center costs.
Can you explain that a bit more for me?
Look at northern Virginia for a second. There wasn’t a lot of new electricity added to that market but you all of the sudden upped demand for electricity by 20 percent. We’re literally seeing today all these utilities putting in rate hikes for consumers because it is literally a supply-demand question. If you can’t build new supply, it's going to be consumers paying for it, and even if you could build a new natural gas plant – at minimum that will happen four-to-six years from now. So over the next four years, we’ll see costs go up.
We’re building projects today that we invested in two years ago. That policy landscape we invested in two years ago hasn’t changed from what we invested into. But the policy landscape then changed dramatically.
If you wipe out half of what was coming in, there’s nothing backfilling that.
Plus more on the week’s biggest renewables fights.
Shelby County, Indiana – A large data center was rejected late Wednesday southeast of Indianapolis, as the takedown of a major Google campus last year continues to reverberate in the area.
Dane County, Wisconsin – Heading northwest, the QTS data center in DeForest we’ve been tracking is broiling into a major conflict, after activists uncovered controversial emails between the village’s president and the company.
White Pine County, Nevada – The Trump administration is finally moving a little bit of renewable energy infrastructure through the permitting process. Or at least, that’s what it looks like.
Mineral County, Nevada – Meanwhile, the BLM actually did approve a solar project on federal lands while we were gone: the Libra energy facility in southwest Nevada.
Hancock County, Ohio – Ohio’s legal system appears friendly for solar development right now, as another utility-scale project’s permits were upheld by the state Supreme Court.
The offshore wind industry is using the law to fight back against the Trump administration.
It’s time for a big renewable energy legal update because Trump’s war on renewable energy projects will soon be decided in the courts.
A flurry of lawsuits were filed around the holidays after the Interior Department issued stop work orders against every offshore wind project under construction, citing a classified military analysis. By my count, at least three developers filed individual suits against these actions: Dominion Energy over the Coastal Virginia offshore wind project, Equinor over Empire Wind in New York, and Orsted over Revolution Wind (for the second time).
Each of these cases are moving on separate tracks before different district courts and the urgency is plain. I expect rulings in a matter of days, as developers have said in legal filings that further delays could jeopardize the completion of these projects due to vessel availability and narrow timelines for meeting power contracts with their respective state customers. In the most dire case, Equinor stated in its initial filing against the government that if the stop work order is implemented as written, it would “likely” result in the project being canceled. Revolution Wind faces similar risks, as I’ve previously detailed for Heatmap.
Meanwhile, around the same time these cases were filed, a separate lawsuit was dropped on the Interior Department from a group of regional renewable energy power associations, including Interwest Energy Alliance, which represents solar developers operating in the American Southwest – ground zero for Trump’s freeze on solar permits.
This lawsuit challenges Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s secretarial orders requiring his approval for renewable energy decisions, the Army Corps of Engineers’ quiet pause on wetlands approvals, and the Fish and Wildlife Services’ ban on permitting eagle takes, as well as its refusal to let developers know if they require species consultations under the Endangered Species Act. The case argues that the administration is implementing federal land law “contrary to Congress’ intent” by “unlawfully picking winners and losers among energy sources,” and that these moves violate the Administrative Procedures Act.
I expect crucial action in this case imminently, too. On Thursday, these associations filed a motion declaring their intent to seek a preliminary injunction against the administration while the case is adjudicated because, as the filing states, the actions against the renewables sector are “currently costing the wind and solar industry billions of dollars.”
Now, a victory here wouldn’t be complete, since a favorable ruling would likely be appealed and the Trump administration has been reluctant to act on rulings they disagree with. Nevertheless, it would still be a big win for renewables companies frozen by federal bureaucracy and ammo in any future legal or regulatory action around permit activity.
So far, Trump’s war on solar and wind has not really been tested by the courts, sans one positive ruling against his anti-wind Day One executive order. It’s easy in a vacuum to see these challenges and think, Wow, the industry is really fighting back! Maybe they can prevail? However I want to remind my readers that simply having the power of the federal government grants one the capacity to delay commercial construction activity under federal purview, no matter the legality. These matters can become whack-a-mole quite quickly.
Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia offshore wind project is one such example. Intrepid readers of The Fight may remember I was first to report the Trump administration might try to mess around with the permits previously issued for construction through litigation brought by anti-renewables activists, arguing the government did not adequately analyse potential impacts to endangered whales. Well, it appears we’re getting closer to an answer: In a Dec. 18 filing submitted in that lawsuit, Justice Department attorneys said they have been “advised” that the Interior Department is now considering whether to revoke permits for the project.
Dominion did not respond to a request for comment about this filing, but it is worth noting that the DOJ’s filing concedes Dominion is aware of this threat and “does not concede the propriety” of any review or revocation of the permits.
I don’t believe this alone would kill Coastal Virginia given the project is so far along in construction. But I expect a death by a thousand cuts strategy from the Trump team against renewable energy projects writ large, regardless of who wins these cases.