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 Japan’s U.S. nuclear investments, Tesla’s solar gear, and Spain’s blackout

Current conditions: Honolulu is reeling from back-to-back kona storms that deluged entire neighborhoods of Hawaii’s capital and largest city with up to 2 inches of rain • Phoenix is bracing for a sixth straight day of triple-digit temperatures as the historic heat dome roasting the Southwest shatters records • Storm Therese pummeled Tenerife in Spain’s Canary Islands over the weekend, blasting the popular holiday spot with snow in what London tabloids declared “the storm of the decade.”
On Saturday, President Donald Trump gave the Iran government until Monday night to fully open the Strait of Hormuz to oil and gas tankers or face an assault on the country’s power plants. If the waterway didn’t return to normal operation “within 48 hours from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various power plants, starting with the biggest one first,” he wrote in a post on Truth Social. Iran’s largest power station is the Bushehr nuclear plant plant. Russia built Iran’s debut atomic power station, opening the single-reactor station in 2011. Another two reactors are under construction. Last Friday, I reported here that a projectile had landed roughly three football fields away from the Bushehr plant. The International Atomic Energy Agency warned that “any attack at or near nuclear power plants violates the seven indispensable pillars related to ensuring nuclear safety and security during an armed conflict and should never take place.” The incident mirrors concerns in recent years over the fate of Europe’s largest atomic power plant, the Zaporizhzhia nuclear station, which went into standby mode in 2022 after becoming the scene of fierce fighting once Russian troops seized control of the Ukrainian facility. As I wrote last month, Russia is now taking steps to formally annex the power plant.
Early Monday, Trump announced a halt to all strikes against Iran for five days following “very good and productive conversations,” he wrote in an all-caps message on Truth Social. The duration of the ceasefire, Heatmap's Matthew Zeitlin noted on X, lasts the trading week. Trump is undoubtedly feeling the heat. A majority of Americans oppose the war in Iran. And the looming energy shock — which experts warn could easily eclipse the 1973 oil embargo — is starting to pinch as gas prices soar past $6 per gallon in car-dependent California, or as Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin put it in the local vernacular: It’s getting “hella expensive.”
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, as I have written here a few times, is bent on restoring the glory of her country’s once-mighty nuclear industry, especially now that the liquified natural gas that largely replaced reactors following a wave of post-Fukushima shutdowns grows more expensive and difficult to ship around the world thanks to the war. Her government already agreed last year to invest $100 billion in a series of large-scale Westinghouse nuclear plants. Now she’s agreed to spend another $40 billion to build new atomic power stations in Alabama and Tennessee. The deal builds out the order books for the BWRX-300, the leading small modular reactor design in North America made by the American-Japanese joint venture GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy. The world’s first BWRX-300 is under construction at the Darlington plant in Ontario, Canada. A second unit is underway at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Clinch River site, with $400 million from the Department of Energy, as I reported for Heatmap last year. There’s still debate over whether the U.S. can build enough of the 300-megawatt units to gain a price advantage through repetition over the traditional approach to building nuclear power stations, which is to construct reactors in larger sizes. More orders for the same reactor lays the groundwork for making that possible.
The BWRX-300 has long been seen as a promising new reactor model because it’s based on old-school boiling water reactor designs and can tap into existing supply chains. But X-energy, the Amazon-backed next-generation nuclear developer, is instead aiming to build 80-megawatt reactors cooled with helium. On Friday, X-energy said it was in talks with the power company Talen Energy to build up to a gigawatt of reactors as the nuclear startup prepares to go public on the stock market. Just one so-called high temperature gas cooled reactor is in commercial operation today, in China. But the technology promises more efficient generation of heat that could also be used for industrial decarbonization. Amazon, which took an equity stake in X-energy in 2024, is already financing construction of the first power plant to use the reactors in Washington.
Emerald AI, a startup whose software serves as a “cloud scheduler for power” to align peak electricity usage at data centers with the periods when the grid is least stressed, announced a new deal with semiconductor giant Nvidia to work on a new class of so-called “AI factories” that “connect to the gird faster, generate valuable AI tokens and intelligence, and operate as flexible energy assets that can support the grid,” according to a press release. To speed up deployment, the data centers are designed to use “co-located energy generation and storage as bridge power for hybrid AI factories, then later harness these resources to flexibly supply the grid, accelerate AI factory interconnection, and support the broader power system.” In a statement, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang said the partnership would help “enable a future for AI where performance, efficiency, and grid responsiveness can be tapped into immediately.” Likewise, Emerald AI CEO Varun Sivaram said data centers — despite mounting opposition that Heatmap’s Jael Holzman recently compared to the Occupy Wall Street movement — “are too valuable to be treated as either passive loads or permanent islands.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Elon Musk’s eyebrow-raising promise to more than double the United States’ solar manufacturing capacity is looking more serious. On Friday, Reuters reported that Tesla is looking to buy $2.9 billion of equipment for manufacturing solar panels and cells from Chinese suppliers, including Suzhou Maxwell Technologies. The billionaire executive said in January that Tesla could meet all the rising electricity demand in the U.S. with solar and promised to deploy 100 gigawatts of “solar manufacturing from raw materials on American soil before the end of 2028.” As of the start of this year, the U.S. has about 65.5 gigawatts of solar manufacturing capacity, according to data from the Solar Energy Industries Association. When Musk made his announcement, seasoned solar analysts told me it was difficult to see how such a lofty goal pans out financially when imported panels remain as cheap as they are. But MAGA influencers, including White House adviser Stephen Miller’s podcaster wife Katie Miller, have recently become full-throated advocates of expanding solar capacity in the U.S., as I previously reported.
One of Tesla’s troubled competitors in the electric vehicle market, meanwhile, is catching a break from the Trump administration. On Sunday, TechCrunch reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission had closed its investigation into EV startup Faraday Future, despite the agency’s career staff recommending legal action last year. The dismissal of the case comes amid a historic drop in enforcement actions by the SEC, which the publication said had only initiated four cases against publicly traded companies in its 2025 fiscal year. The probe into Faraday Future began four years ago, when the SEC opened an investigation into whether the company made “false and misleading statements” when it went public in a 2021 merger with a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, a process that allows a company to forgo much of the due diligence that normally accompanies an initial public offering. Faraday Future founder and co-CEO YT Jia called the dismissal “a major milestone” for the company. “It marks a true turning point,” he said in a statement confirming the end of the probe. “We can now put all our energy into strategy execution.”
Shortly after noon last April 28, nearly all of Iberia lost power in what European grid operators called a “first of its kind” incident that left 60 million people without electricity. The blackout triggered a backlash to Spain’s rapid buildout of solar panels and its plans to stick to one of the world’s only remaining nuclear phaseout policies at a time when countries that shut down reactors are looking to turn them back on. In a final autopsy on the outage that ENTSO-E published last week, the European grid operator group concluded that solar and wind were not the main issue behind the voltage fluctuations that overwhelmed the Spanish grid and caused regionwide outages from the French border to Portugal. Damian Cortinas, the chair of ENTSO-E’s board, told the Financial Times, “the issue is not about renewables,” and lauded Spain for its “pioneer” approach to the energy transition, noting that “we believe that they are encountering things that everyone else could encounter at somepoint.” The takeaway from the incident is that “from now on,” Cortinas said, “every kind of generation,” not just renewables, should have “voltage control capabilities.”
Critics of the report argued that its conclusions assumed that the only potential future grid involved a lot of intermittent renewables and sought to “exonerate” Spain’s pro-solar government. On X, an engineer at the Spanish grid operator cried foul over the report, stating he and his colleagues felt “pressure from the government” to lean too heavily on solar power and promote a “reckless mix” at the time of the blackout. When Dan Jorgensen, the European Union’s energy commissioner, highlighted the “new challenges” in the report, Bloomberg columnist Javier Blas responded on X to call out what appeared to be deliberate vagueness: “No kidding!!! And what are those new challenges — and where do they originate?”

In Washington, the newly-inaugurated Trump administration spent much of 2025 hacking away at federal policies supporting the buildout of wind and solar power. Across the country, however, the U.S. generated a record 17% of its electricity from the two renewables, with wind producing the larger portion. Between 2024 and 2025, wind power’s output increased by 3%, according to analysis by the Energy Information Administration. But solar boomed, with utility-scale projects soaring 35% in 2025 from the previous year.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more of the week’s top news around development conflicts.
1. Benton County, Washington – The bellwether for Trump’s apparent freeze on new wind might just be a single project in Washington State: the Horse Heaven wind farm.
2. Box Elder County, Utah – The big data center fight of the week was the Kevin O’Leary-backed project in the middle of the Utah desert. But what actually happened?
3. Durham County, North Carolina – While the Shark Tank data center sucked up media oxygen, a more consequential fight for digital infrastructure is roiling in one of the largest cities in the Tar Heel State.
4. Richland County, Ohio – We close Hotspots on the longshot bid to overturn a renewable energy ban in this deeply MAGA county, which predictably failed.
A conversation with Nick Loris of C3 Solutions
This week’s conversation is with Nick Loris, head of the conservative policy organization C3 Solutions. I wanted to chat with Loris about how he and others in the so-called “eco right” are approaching the data center boom. For years, groups like C3 have occupied a mercurial, influential space in energy policy – their ideas and proposals can filter out into Congress and state legislation while shaping the perspectives of Republican politicians who want to seem on the cutting edge of energy and the environment. That’s why I took note when in late April, Loris and other right-wing energy wonks dropped a set of “consumer-first” proposals on transmission permitting reform geared toward addressing energy demand rising from data center development. So I’m glad Loris was available to lay out his thoughts with me for the newsletter this week.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
How is the eco right approaching permitting reform in the data center boom?
I would say the eco-right broadly speaking is thinking of the data center and load growth broadly as a tremendous and very real opportunity to advance permitting and regulatory reforms at the federal and state level that would enable the generation and linear infrastructure – transmission lines or pipelines – to meet the demand we’re going to see. Not just for hyperscalers and data centers but the needs of the economy. It also sees this as an opportunity to advance tech-neutral reforms where if it makes sense for data centers to get power from virtual power plants, solar, and storage, natural gas, or co-locate and invest in an advanced reactor, all options should be on the table. Fundamentally speaking, if data centers are going to pay for that infrastructure, it brings even greater opportunity to reduce the cost of these technologies. Data centers being a first mover and needing the power as fast as possible could be really helpful for taking that step to get technologies that have a price premium, too.
When it comes to permitting, how important is permitting with respect to “speed-to-power”? What ideas do you support given the rush to build, keeping in mind the environmental protection aspect?
You don’t build without sufficient protections to air quality, water quality, public health, and safety in that regard.
Where I see the fundamental need for permitting reform is, take a look at all the environmental statutes at the federal level and analyze where they’re needing an update and modernization to maintain rigorous environmental standards but build at a more efficient pace. I know the National Environmental Policy Act and the House bill, the SPEED Act, have gotten lots of attention and deservedly so. But also it’s taking a look at things like the Clean Water Act, when states can abuse authority to block pipelines or transmission lines, or the Endangered Species Act, where litigation can drag on for a lot of these projects.
Are there any examples out there of your ideal permitting preferences, prioritizing speed-to-power while protecting the environment? Or is this all so new we’re still in the idea phase?
It’s a little bit of both. For example, there are some states with what’s called a permit-by-rule system. That means you get the permit as long as you meet the environmental standards in place. You have to be in compliance with all the environmental laws on the books but they’ll let them do this as long as they’re monitored, making sure the compliance is legitimate.
One of the structural challenges with some state laws and federal laws is they’re more procedural statutes and a mother may I? approach to permitting. Other statutes just say they’ll enforce rules and regulations on the books but just let companies build projects. Then look at a state like Texas, where they allow more permits rather quickly for all kinds of energy projects. They’ve been pretty efficient at building everything from solar and storage to oil and gas operations.
I think there’s just many different models. Are we early in the stages? There’s a tremendous amount of ideas and opportunities out there. Everything from speeding up interconnection queues to consumer regulated electricity, which is kind of a bring-your-own-power type of solution where companies don’t have to answer or respond to utilities.
It sounds like from your perspective you want to see a permitting pace that allows speed-to-power while protecting the environment.
Yeah, that’s correct. I mean, in the case of a natural gas turbine, if they’re in compliance with the regulations at the state and federal level I don’t have an issue with that. I more so have an issue if they’re disregarding rules at the federal or state level.
We know data centers can be built quickly and we know energy infrastructure cannot. I don’t know if they’ll ever get on par with one another but I do think there are tremendous opportunities to make those processes more efficient. Not just for data centers but to address the cost concerns Americans are seeing across the board.
Do you think the data center boom is going to lead to lots more permitting reform being enacted? Or will the backlash to new projects stop all that?
I think the fundamental driver of permitting reform will be higher energy prices and we’ll need more supply to have more reliability. You just saw NERC put out a level 3 warning about the stability of the grid, driven by data centers. People really pay attention to this when prices are rising.
Will data centers help or hurt the cause? I think that remains to be seen. If there’s opportunities for data centers to pay for infrastructure, including what they’re using, there are areas where projects have been good partners in communities. If they’re the ones taking the opportunity to invest, and they can ensure ratepayers won’t be footing the bill for the power infrastructure, I think they’ll be more of an asset for permitting reform than a harm.
The general public angst against data centers is – trying to think of the right word here – a visceral reaction. It snowballed on itself. Hopefully there’s a bit of an opportunity for a reset and broader understanding of what legitimate concerns are and where we can have better education.
And I’m certainly not shilling for the data centers. I’m here to say they can be good partners and allies in meeting our energy needs.
I’m wondering from your vantage point, what are you hearing from the companies themselves? Is it about a need to build faster? What are they telling you about the backlash to their projects?
When I talk to industry, speed-to-power has been their number one two and three concern. That is slightly shifting because of the growing angst about data centers. Even a few years ago, when developers were engaging with state legislatures, they were hearing more questions than answers. But it’s mostly about how companies can connect to the grid as fast as possible, or whether they can co-locate energy.
Okay, but going back to what you just said about the backlash here. As this becomes more salient, including in Republican circles, is the trendline for the eco-right getting things built faster or tackling these concerns head on?
To me it's a yes, and.
I would broaden this out to be not just the eco right but also Abundance progressives, Abundance conservatives, and libertarians. We need to address these issues head on – with better education, better community engagement. Make sure people know what is getting built. I mean, the Abundance movement as a whole is trying to address those systemic problems.
It’s also an opportunity for the necessary policy reform that has plagued energy development in the U.S. for decades. I see this from an eco right perspective and an abundance progressive perspective that it's an opportunity to say why energy development matters. For families, for the entire U.S. energy economy, and for these hyperscalers.
But if you don’t win in the court of public opinion, none of this is going to matter. We do need to listen to the communities. It’s not an either or here.
And future administrations will learn from his extrajudicial success.
President Donald Trump is now effectively blocking any new wind projects in the United States, according to the main renewables trade group, using the federal government’s power over all things air and sky to grind a routine approval process to a screeching halt.
So far, almost everything Trump has done to target the wind energy sector has been defeated in court. His Day 1 executive order against the wind industry was found unconstitutional. Each of his stop work orders trying to shut down wind farms were overruled. Numerous moves by his Interior Department were ruled illegal.
However, since the early days of Trump 2.0, renewable energy industry insiders have been quietly skittish about a potential secret weapon: the Federal Aviation Administration. Any structure taller than 200 feet must be approved to not endanger commercial planes – that’s an FAA job. If the FAA decided to indefinitely seize up the so-called “no hazard” determinations process, legal and policy experts have told me it would potentially pose an existential risk to all future wind development.
Well, this is now the strategy Trump is apparently taking. Over the weekend, news broke that the Defense Department is refusing to sign off on things required to complete the FAA clearance process. From what I’ve heard from industry insiders, including at the American Clean Power Association, the issues started last summer but were limited in scale, primarily impacting projects that may have required some sort of deal to mitigate potential impacts on radar or other military functions.
Over the past few weeks, according to ACP, this once-routine process has fully deteriorated and companies are operating with the understanding FAA approvals are on pause because the Department of Defense (or War, if you ask the administration) refuses to sign off on anything. The military is given the authority to weigh in and veto these decisions through a siting clearinghouse process established under federal statute. But the trade group told me this standstill includes projects where there are no obvious impacts to military operations, meaning there aren’t even any bases or defense-related structures nearby.
One energy industry lawyer who requested anonymity to speak candidly on the FAA problems told me, “This is the strategy for how you kill an industry while losing every case: just keep coming at the industry. Create an uninvestable climate and let the chips fall where they may.”
I heard the same from Tony Irish, a former career attorney for the Interior Department, including under Trump 1.0, who told me he essentially agreed with that attorney’s assessment.
“One of the major shames of the last 15 months is this loss of the presumption of regularity,” Irish told me. “This underscores a challenge with our legal system. They can find ways to avoid courts altogether – and it demonstrates a unilateral desire to achieve an end regardless of the legality of it, just using brute force.”
In a statement to me, the Pentagon confirmed its siting clearinghouse “is actively evaluating land-based wind projects to ensure they do not impair national security or military operations, in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements.” The FAA declined to comment on whether the country is now essentially banning any new wind projects and directed me to the White House. Then in an email, White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly told me the Pentagon statement “does not ‘confirm’” the country instituted a de facto ban on new wind projects. Kelly did not respond to a follow up question asking for clarification on the administration’s position.
Faced with a cataclysmic scenario, the renewable energy industry decided to step up to the bully pulpit. The American Clean Power Association sent statements to the Financial Times, The New York Times and me confirming that at least 165 wind projects are now being stalled by the FAA determination process, representing about 30 gigawatts of potential electricity generation. This also apparently includes projects that negotiated agreements with the government to mitigate any impacts to military activities. The trade group also provided me with a statement from its CEO Jason Grumet accusing the Trump administration of “actively driving the debate” over federal permitting “into the ditch by abusing the current permitting system” – a potential signal for Democrats in Congress to raise hell over this.
Indeed, on permitting reform, the Trump team may have kicked a hornet’s nest. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Ranking Member Martin Heinrich – a key player in congressional permitting reform talks – told me in a statement that by effectively blocking all new wind projects, the Trump administration “undercuts their credibility and bipartisan permitting reform.” California Democratic Rep. Mike Levin said in an interview Tuesday that this incident means Heinrich and others negotiating any federal permitting deal “should be cautious in how we trust but verify.”
But at this point, permitting reform drama will do little to restore faith that the U.S. legal and regulatory regime can withstand such profound politicization of one type of energy. There is no easy legal remedy to these aerospace problems; none of the previous litigation against Trump’s attacks on wind addressed the FAA, and as far as we know the military has not in its correspondence with energy developers cited any of the regulatory or policy documents that were challenged in court.
Actions like these have consequences for future foreign investment in U.S. energy development. Last August, after the Transportation Department directed the FAA to review wind farms to make sure they weren’t “a danger to aviation,” government affairs staff for a major global renewables developer advised the company to move away from wind in the U.S. market because until the potential FAA issues were litigated it would be “likely impossible to move forward with construction of any new wind projects.” I am aware this company has since moved away from actively developing wind projects in the U.S. where they had previously made major investments as recently as 2024.
Where does this leave us? I believe the wind industry offers a lesson for any developers of large, politically controversial infrastructure – including data centers. Should the federal government wish to make your business uninvestable, it absolutely will do so and the courts cannot stop them.