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 Tesla’s profit plunge, Josh Shapiro’s battery win, and TVA staying public

Current conditions: Tropical Storm Melissa is now forecast to strengthen into a hurricane, with the potential to dump 30 inches of rain over parts of the Caribbean and blow winds of up to 50 miles per hour • Waves brought on by Tropical Storm Fengshen are big enough to rip up sidewalks in Vietnam • Myanmar broke an October heat record with temperatures of nearly 98 degrees Fahrenheit in the southeastern resort town of Kyeikkhame.

Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the ranking Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, threatened to withhold votes on permitting reforms he endorsed unless the Trump administration backs off what Heatmap’s Jael Holzman dubbed the “total war on wind.” At an unrelated hearing on Wednesday, Whitehouse said that “unless these illegal acts stop and unless offshore wind is included, there will be no permitting deal,” Politico reporter Josh Siegel reported on X. The remarks came two days after Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum said the administration would not halt its attempts to block construction of offshore turbines in exchange for a bipartisan bill to overhaul federal permitting. “I hadn’t thought about the idea of trading something that makes sense for everybody in America for something that makes no sense — and that’s sort of how I view offshore wind,” Burgum said at an American Petroleum Institute event.
As I wrote in yesterday’s newsletter, US Wind warned in federal court this week that, if the administration wins its court case to revoke the project’s construction and operating permits, the Baltimore-based developer will likely go bankrupt. While Secretary of Energy Chris Wright dismissed the wind assault as a “one-off exception, or one-off complication,” the oil industry doesn’t see it that way. As I wrote earlier this month, Shell’s top U.S. executive spoke forcefully against the administration’s anti-wind crusade, warning that Democrats could use the precedents being set against oil and gas companies in the future. That isn’t slowing the administration’s plans to expand offshore oil drilling, however. A document leaked to the Houston Chronicle this week shows that the White House aims to open broad swaths of both the east and west coasts to offshore drilling, months after the administration rescinded designations for millions of acres of federal waters to serve for seaborne wind turbine development.
Tesla’s profit tanked 37% to $1.4 billion from a year earlier despite a revenue hike of 12% to $28.1 billion, the company reported in its latest quarterly earnings Wednesday evening. The automaker sold more cars in the last quarter than it did in the same period a year prior but still lost money on price cuts and low-interest loans. Elon Musk’s electric automaker rolled out stripped-down versions of its Model Y sport utility vehicle and its Model 3 sedan earlier this month, effectively matching the prices that buying an entry-level Tesla came out to before Trump rescinded the $7,500 federal tax credit for battery-powered cars last month. “In other words, you can still buy a Tesla in the $35,000 to $40,000 range,” Andrew Moseman wrote in Heatmap. “It just won’t be as good a Tesla as you used to be able to get for the money.”
Meanwhile, at the opposite end of the market, Tesla rival Rivian’s micromobility spinoff, Also, debuted a product meant to capture a share of the luxury segment that wants a $4,500 electric bicycle.
Last week, the Department of Energy confirmed plans to revoke $700 million in grants to American battery manufacturers, as I reported here on Monday. This week, Pennsylvania made up for a small part of that lost funding. Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro announced plans to give Eos Energy Enterprises roughly $22 million in grants and capital funding to lure the nation’s leading manufacturer of zinc-based battery storage systems to relocate its headquarters from Edison, New Jersey, to Pittsburgh, and open a new factory in Allegheny County. Combined with the money the company is spending, the total investment will come to just under $353 million and create 735 new permanent positions. “Pennsylvania is positioning itself at the forefront of America’s energy transition — enabling us to bring America’s battery to scale,” Joe Mastrangelo, the chief executive of Eos Energy, said in a statement.
Meanwhile, in another electorally crucial northern state, OpenAI announced plans for yet another data center in its Stargate network. On Wednesday, the ChatGPT maker and software giant Oracle unveiled plans for a data center campus outside Milwaukee in Port Washington, Wisconsin, to be built with hyperscale developer Vantage Data Centers.
Trump’s nominees to serve in the empty seats on the Tennessee Valley Authority’s board of directors all pledged to oppose any privatization effort of the nation’s largest government-owned utility, the Chattanooga Times Free Press reported. Selling off all or portions of the TVA, a remnant of the New Deal-era electrification of the South, have come up frequently since the mid 20th century, including under former President Barack Obama. Trump revived the debate in his first administration, proposing to sell off the TVA’s transmission and distribution business, but the effort went nowhere. In July, the White House abruptly moved to fire the remaining three members of the TVA’s board that Trump hadn’t yet dismissed unless they forced out the chief executive. The move was interpreted by insiders at the TVA as the first step toward a new privatization effort. But outcry over the potential to disrupt what has been a steady source of cheap electricity for the region appears to have tempered those ambitions.
An ounce of beef requires roughly 7,600 times more energy and 1.1 million times more water than a single prompt on ChaptGPT, a University of California academic recently calculated. Yet nearly two-and-a-half times more Americans are concerned about the environmental impacts of artificial intelligence than about meat production, according to a poll released Thursday morning by the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Of the 72% of Americans who expressed concern about AI’s environmental footprint, 41% said they were “very or extremely” concerned. That exceeds how many respondents said the same thing about cryptocurrency (29%), meat production (29%), and air travel (23%.) “Looking ahead, Americans are more likely to believe AI will be harmful rather than helpful to society, the economy, and the environment in the next 10 years,” the pollsters explained in a press release, “but they are divided on its impact on them personally.”
The findings mirror Heatmap Pro’s own survey results from August, which found that just 44% of Americans would welcome a data center nearby.
Americans are kings in our own castles, while Germans bow to a Kafkaesque bureaucracy even in their own homes … right? Not when it comes to installing batteries and solar panels on our own roofs. Germans just have to fill out a simple two-page application. Americans? Depending on where we live, we have to fill out all kinds of physical paperwork, get multiple rounds of approval from zoning officials and homeowners associations, and navigate disparate systems at the neighborhood, county, and state levels. That’s according to a new analysis that the group Permit Power shared with me exclusively for Heatmap. The report proposed axing that red tape. Doing so could dramatically lower the cost of rooftop solar and batteries, and ultimately save Americans more than $1 trillion — yes, with a T — over the next quarter-century.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
At this point, I think it’s clear that AI data centers are unpopular.
You probably know it, at least. I was preparing talk about data center opposition on a podcast today and I took the opportunity to dive back into our data, so I certainly know it. At this point, we’ve written about results from our polling that show Americans overwhelmingly oppose local data center construction, that majorities of Americans now support a national data center moratorium, and that the only group of Americans who feels more optimistic than pessimistic about artificial intelligence is … men older than 65 years old.
So I got curious: Given all that, who actually supports AI data centers?
One question from our recent Heatmap Pro poll, conducted by Embold Research, helps give us a sense. This is the profile of someone our data says would support a data center built in their local area:
A few facets stand out. These data center YIMBYs are more likely to be men, and more likely to be 2024 Trump voters, but they’re not locked into one age demographic or voting cohort. A third are Harris supporters, and roughly a third are women. Data center YIMBYs are more likely to be older than 50, but the majority isn’t overwhelming.
Get Rob in your inbox daily.
Perhaps more surprising: The group has many more people who voted third-party in the 2024 election (8%) than the general population (just under 2%), although that response could also include people who didn’t vote. (Alas, the data can’t quite confirm how many in this group are libertarian.)
What’s perhaps most interesting: This group overwhelmingly believes that artificial intelligence will make their lives better. And in heartening news for climate advocates, they are even more likely to support a given data center project if it is powered by renewables.
I was going to joke that the profile is essentially a newly retired engineering dad — except that, to my surprise, these data center YIMBYs are far less gender imbalanced than the American engineering profession. (They’re also less gender-imbalanced than American Tesla owners.) So I’ll leave it at that.
Five takeaways from the latest Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy report.
It’s all getting more expensive.
That’s the conclusion of the investment bank Lazard’s latest report on the levelized cost of energy, one of the most closely watched and cited energy reports of the year.
Levelized cost of energy measures the dollars per megawatt-hour a power plant needs to earn in revenue to break even over the course of its lifetime in present-value terms.
What makes LCOE so alluring is that it’s a way to compare any type of generator, whether it requires a large upfront investment but has few operating costs, like a utility-scale solar project, or whether its expenses are largely fuel costs incurred in the future, like a combined cycle natural gas plant. This is also why LCOE has its critics, who point out that a solar panel that only runs during certain times of day has a different value to the electricity system than a natural gas plant that can ramp up and down quickly or a nuclear plant that provides steady baseload power.
Anyway, here’s what we can learn from this year’s Lazard report.
Curves that were once gently sloping downward are starting to look like incipient U’s. While longterm LCOE falls are still dramatic and impressive for some technologies — utility solar has fallen from $359 per megawatt-hour in 2009 to $69 in 2026 — the short term rises are worrisome. That $69 per megawatt hour represents a nearly 10% increase from 2025, when utility-scale solar had a LCOE of $58. And it’s not just renewables — the LCOE for a combined cycle natural gas plant rose from $78 per megawatt-hour to $90 in the past year. Gas plant LCOE got as low as $60 in 2021. That’s a 50% price hike in just five years.
Lazard attributed the increase in solar and wind LCOE to “higher capital costs, sustained interest rates, tariff pass-through and supply chain repricing.” These technologies are also the most “sensitive” to subsidies by way of the tax code, with federal tax tax credits taking the low end cost of utility solar to as low as $16 per megawatt hour. To the extent those tax credits are no longer available or weren’t accessible due to strict eligibility rules, that could be a source of future upward pressure on costs.
That being said, renewables “maintain their relative cost advantage despite facing the same cost pressures affecting the rest of the generation stack,” the Lazard analysts concluded.
Natural gas, meanwhile, is seeing prices spiral upward on huge and growing customer demand.
“Continuous upward revisions to demand projections have driven a sharp increase in announced new-build gas generation despite a 15-year high LCOE and historically long development lead times,” according to Lazard.
The report hints at what LCOE is not always able to capture, namely that generators like gas have attributes besides low cost that make them attractive. “New gas combined cycle plants offer the lowest-cost dispatchable power in high-demand and low-cost-gas environments,” the analysts point out.
Anyone building a new combined cycle gas plant, however, will have to deal with the high cost and low availability for turbines, which is “extending development timelines well beyond historical norms.” That provides an opening for renewables that can be deployed quickly and cheaply, like solar and accompanied by battery storage.
In 2019, the low end of LCOE for onshore end was $28 per megawatt-hour, according to Lazard’s figures, and the high end was $54. In 2026, however, the low end costs sits a bit higher at $37 per megawatt-hour, but the high end cost rose to $99. There’s a similar story for utility solar: in 2019, the spread between low and high was a snug $8 per megawatt-hour, while this year it’s ballooned to $58.
The broadening range is “likely reflecting that some project developers have been better able to mitigate broader cost pressures across supply chain and project-level economics than others,” the Lazard analysts wrote.
The Lazard report doesn’t just look at the discounted cost of individual generators over their lifetimes. It also tries to figure how much they cost on certain grids. One way of doing this is to look at what Lazard calls the “cost of firming intermittency” or “levelized firming costs.” This is essentially looking at what it costs to bring solar, solar and storage, and wind and storage onto actual grids considering their ability to perform when the grid is most stressed.
This measure tries to refine LCOE to give a sense of how various forms of energy generation compare to gas plants in real world circumstances, not just as a financial construct. This is not a perfect, real-world comparison — gas capacity needs to be “firmed” as well, as it’s not always entirely available at times of peak need — but at least it gives an idea of how these resources actually function in a real-world grid.
Even with firming costs, “renewables remain broadly cost-competitive,” the report concludes.
Not surprisingly, some of the most dramatic costs are in America’s most troubled electricity market, PJM Interconnection. The unsubsidized cost of firming intermittency for solar and storage is $167 per megawatt-hour, compared to $150 in Texas or $115 in California. That’s also compared to a $129 per megawatt-hour at the high end for conventional combined cycle gas plants in PJM.
PJM is notorious for its inability to bring on new resources quickly and its strict standards for accrediting the contribution of storage and renewables to grid stability.
While the Lazard authors explicitly caution that it doesn’t measure what the“total system costs are for 1 MWh of incremental electricity” and can’t say “the optimal mix of renewables, conventional generation and storage,” it does conclude that “firming costs and dispatchability are increasingly critical for comparing resources on a more complex grid.”
In short, no matter what ends up on the grid, grid planners will have to think carefully about how to make sure it’s reliable and works in concert with what’s already there.
Timber companies think of them as pests, but new research indicates that stands of the slender tree can act as barriers against raging flames.
Colorado’s Aspen Acres Fire is named after a quiet RV campground located high in the San Isabel Mountains, about a five-hour drive due southeast of the state’s better-known Aspen. Both places, however, are named after the iconic deciduous tree known for its golden leaves in the fall. While the start of monsoon season may yet prevent the Aspen Acres Fire — the seventh-largest in Colorado’s history — from joining Utah’s Babylon Fire as the second 100,000-acre “megafire” of the season, the conflagration has been aided in its rampage not by aspens, but rather by dead, downed, and blighted ponderosa pines, spruce, and Douglas firs. The wildfire has now burned over 98,000 acres and nearly 300 homes, and is only 36% contained due to steep terrain that has hampered firefighting efforts, along with extreme drought conditions and beetle infestations that have greatly degraded the forest health of the region.
But what about its aspens? Though the extent of the damage at the campground remains unknown, according to a recent study of Populus tremuloides, Colorado’s iconic golden trees could be one of the keys to more wildfire-resistant forests in the future.
Flavie Pelletier, a recent PhD graduate of McGill University’s Natural Resource Sciences program, told me she first became interested in aspens while working as a tree planter in British Columbia. “The historical assumption on aspen is that stands are very good at stopping fire progression. But the paradox is that if you take an aspen by itself, it’s going to burn at high severity,” Pelletier, who published her findings in Forest Ecology and Management, told me.
By creating near-real-time maps of fires using satellites and comparing them against the Canadian Forest Service’s newly available maps of dominant tree species in the boreal, Pelletier and her colleagues discovered that aspen were almost two and a half times more common at the perimeter of a burned area than inside it. The finding suggests that despite the flammability of a single aspen with its thin bark, stands of aspen act as a kind of barrier when wildfire ran up against them, likely because they lack the flammable resins of conifers and their high foliage helps force running crown fires back toward the ground. Pine and spruce, by contrast, showed a near-zero or even negative effect.
When aspen stands did burn, Pelletier found they did so more slowly: A tree cover of 50% aspen burned at about 224 hectares per day, compared to 717 hectares per day in areas where aspen made up less than 10% of the cover. That’s the equivalent of about 1,000 FIFA-regulation soccer pitches per day in places where aspen are sparser — like Aspen Acres.
Even more surprising, though, was that the pattern held true in the early season, when the trees are still twiggy and have yet to grow their moisture-filled leaves, and despite the severity of fire weather. “Aspen still showed resilience even when the fire weather was very intense, [like in 2023, when] we had all the fires,” Pelletier said.
But she was also the first to admit that seasons are getting more extreme, and that there’s no guarantee the pattern will hold for the next 10 or 20 years.
Pelletier was reluctant to make a policy recommendation based on her research, noting that she’s not a forest manager. But in Alberta and British Columbia, timber companies spray hundreds of thousands of acres of timber with glyphosate, an herbicide, to kill off aspens because the trees outcompete the more commercially valuable conifers. Her findings are “a big argument to stop the spreading of herbicides because you’re increasing the risk of fire in your forest by removing aspen,” Pelletier said.
Despite her hesitation, Pelletier is explicit in her paper about one thing: that aspens “should be encouraged — specifically around key landscape positions, such as population centers” — given that they are a proven means of hardening the wildland-urban interface against wildfires. It might be too late for the idyllically named Aspen Acres, of course; any of the aspens that once drew tourists to the area are likely now ash.
But this not be Colorado’s last fire, either.