AM Briefing
Sayonara, Equinor
On Greenland’s rare earths, Baker Hughes’ geothermal bet, China’s green H2
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 Greenland’s rare earths, Baker Hughes’ geothermal bet, China’s green H2
A new fundraise from Isometric, plus more of this week’s — and last week’s! — big money moves.
On Texas transmission trouble, Russian nuclear reprocessing, and ‘guerrilla solar’
On simplified oil and gas leases, lawsuits over plastic and coal, and a new climate research database
On Michael Bloomberg’s big climate gift, SMRs in Ohio, and the consequences of a “Super El Niño”
Current conditions: Temperatures in the United Kingdom should break 100 degrees Fahrenheit this week • Heavy rain and thunderstorms are forecast to hit the East Coast later today, potentially affecting World Cup matches in Philadelphia and New Jersey • Thousands were left without power after storms in Oklahoma.
In the early hours of Monday morning in Switzerland, mediators from Pakistan and Qatar announced that talks between the United States and Iran had ended after making “encouraging progress.” Now, a “High Level Committee” will attempt to iron out the specifics of a deal over the next 60 days, covering tense issues such as nuclear enrichment, sanctions, and Israeli military actions in southern Lebanon. The statement also said that a “communication line” had been set up “to avoid incidents and miscommunication with the aim of safe passage for commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz.”
The agreement followed several days of confusion over the state of the waterway. While Iran declared the strait closed over the weekend in protest over Israeli actions in Lebanon, a U.S. military spokesman told The New York Times, “Iran does not control the Strait of Hormuz. Traffic continues to flow, and U.S. forces are monitoring the situation to ensure this remains the case.” Meanwhile, Iranian officials have said their own exports are receiving waivers from sanctions, and that a U.S. blockade is no longer in effect. “Oil and petrochem exports are waived, blockade lifted, some frozen assets released, and major reconstruction & development plan launched for Iran,” Iran’s foreign minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi posted on X Sunday evening.
Initial results in Colombia’s presidential election showed Abelardo de la Espriella, the right-wing candidate allied with Donald Trump, winning office against his leftist opponent, Ivan Cepeda, an ally of outgoing President Gustavo Petro. While the campaign largely revolved around issues related to drugs and crime, de la Espriella has also pledged to support the country’s fossil fuel industry, including support for fracking and expanding overall oil and gas production. Petro, by contrast, “sought to wean the Andean nation off fossil fuels by halting new drilling licenses and seeking to ban fracking,” Bloomberg reported. Petro’s environmentalist bent chilled outside investment in the oil and gas sector, which is still Colombia’s No. 1 exporting industry.
China’s Commerce Ministry targeted two favored U.S. rare earth companies with export controls on Monday, Bloomberg reported, adding American mineral producers MP Materials and USA Rare Earth to its export control list. The two companies were among 10 added to the list, Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported. “Organizations and individuals from any country or region are prohibited from transferring or providing dual-use items originating in China to the above-mentioned entities. Relevant ongoing export activities shall be immediately halted, according to the statement,” Xinhua said. Earlier this month, the Pentagon added several Chinese companies to its own list of companies known to support the Chinese military. These included tech giants Baidu and Alibaba, as well as the electric vehicle company BYD. This designation comes with restrictions on the companies’ commercial relationships with the Department of Defense.

The two companies have been the recipient of billions of investment and largesse from the federal government as the U.S. seeks to build up a rare earths mining and processing industry that’s no longer reliant on China, which dominates the sector. MP Materials has received a combination of direct investment, financing, and purchase commitments for its neodymium-praseodymium production and output. While the Trump administration has shown little interest in catalyzing the wind and electric vehicle sectors (both of which use neodymium-praseodymium oxide in their electric motors), the defense industry is a major customer of MP Materials’ rare earths products. USA Rare Earth has received over $1 billion in federal investment.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
It’s not just the risk of a West Coast hurricane — the return of the El Niño weather system could portend a “mini-Dust bowl” in the Midwest. AccuWeather forecasters warned over the weekend that there’s a 70% chance already-present El Niño conditions in the Pacific Ocean could develop into what’s known as a “Super El Niño,” characterized by ocean surface temperatures 2 degrees Celsius hotter than average. Though El Niño is notorious for sending extreme rain into the southern U.S., it can also cause drier conditions further north. Combined with the extremity of this year’s projected temperature anomaly, that could lead to a multi-year drought in the Midwest. “The stronger the upcoming El Niño conditions get, the longer it takes for weather patterns to return to their historical average,” AccuWeather senior meteorologist Paul Pastelok explained. Already several Plains and Mountain West states are in “extreme drought,” and the El Niño could set the table for even more dry weather to come.
Michael Bloomberg, founder of financial news service Bloomberg LP and a prolific climate philanthropist, announced a $285 million commitment on Sunday “to help clean energy scale fast enough to power the world’s energy systems,” according to a press release from his charitable organization, Bloomberg Philanthropy. The gift is aimed at accelerating wind and solar deployment both in developed and emerging markets, with the goal that the two technologies should “generate more than half” of electricity in countries responsible for 70% of global emissions. The money will support trade groups for the wind and solar industry, data collection and analysis efforts to demonstrate wind and solar’s capabilities and costs, technical assistance to set up electricity markets in a way that encourages wind and solar deployment, and working with investors and financial institutions to “help unlock private capital for clean energy infrastructure.”
The substantial gift toward two mature technologies stands in contrast to other climate and philanthropic investment approaches (like, say, Bill Gates’) that focus on “breakthrough” technologies that are not currently widely deployed, or may not even exist at all. Bloomberg’s gift comes after Gates closed his main climate giving vehicle’s advocacy and policy shops early last year, and later issued a memo outlining a “strategic pivot” to focus more on global public health and extreme poverty.
Developer Elementl says it will build a new 1.5-gigawatt nuclear plant 100 miles outside Columbus, Ohio. The twist: It’ll be powered by small modular reactors. The proposed plant would features several BWRX-300 SMRs made by GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy, a design that has also been favored by Ontario Power Generation at its first-on-the-continent SMR facility. Elementl said in a press release Friday that it expects to hear back from PJM Interconnection later this year about interconnection, which would set up the facility to be in service by 2034.
Editor’s note: This article has been updated to correct the location of a potential “mini-Dust Bowl.”
SPACs are back! At the start of this decade, special purpose acquisition companies — publicly traded firms whose raison d’être is taking startups public through mergers — went from a niche financial vehicle to one of Wall Street’s hottest trends. Fueled by near-zero interest rates and a surge in investors’ risk appetite during the pandemic, SPAC deals exploded in 2020 and 2021, with climate tech companies such as Lucid Motors and ChargePoint riding the wave.
“What the SPAC unlocked was retail and public market investor access to these early stage, high growth opportunities that were more speculative in nature,” Julian Klymochko, founder of the SPAC specialist investment firm Accelerate Financial Technologies, told me. SPAC deals offer companies a faster route to market, with parties negotiating valuation and pricing upfront. This provides pre-revenue or pre-profit startups that have exhausted their options in the private market with the quick capital they may need to scale up, build out hard tech infrastructure, or simply survive until their technology is commercially viable.
Referring to those early-2020s boom years as “frothy and crazy,” Klymochko explained that the SPAC wave rose “hand in hand with the whole meme stock boom.” Inevitably, the wave crashed, taking many of these companies down with it.
This time, however, there’s a slew of new SEC requirements meant to legitimize and de-risk SPAC structures, alongside a growing set of capital intensive industries — nuclear, space, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing — in urgent need of cash. Last year, SPACs raised $25.8 billion, a nearly three-fold increase over 2024. And the momentum has continued, with SPACs (also known as blank check companies) outraising traditional IPOs in the first quarter of 2026. It’s a far cry from the peak of the earlier wave, when SPACs raised $144.5 billion in 2021, but it certainly signals that investors are getting over their post-Covid aversion to this market mechanism.
Once again, climate tech companies are jumping onboard. Deep tech startups with long commercialization timelines and bipartisan favorability are natural SPAC candidates, and these days that means nuclear. Inspired, perhaps, by the Sam Altman-backed small modular reactor startup Oklo’s speculative, volatile, but generally successful 2024 SPAC, other SMR companies such as Terrestrial Energy and Newcleo are following suit. Terrestrial began trading last April, while Newcleo plans to list later this year.
Microreactor companies such as Terra Innovatum and Hadron Energy have also listed via SPAC, while fusion company General Fusion plans to close its blank check deal next month. All are, unsurprisingly, billing themselves as data center energy solutions. ONE Nuclear Energy, a company currently focused on building natural gas plants for data centers, even appears to be leaning into its misnomer of a name to bolster its SPAC, which has yet to close.
But the trend isn’t limited to nuclear — earlier this month, solid-state battery startup Factorial Energy went public via SPAC, while nickel-zinc battery producer ZincFive announced last week that it plans to follow suit later this year. Controlled Thermal Resources, a lithium extraction and geothermal power company, also plans to SPAC in the second half of 2026, in a deal that values the company at $4.7 billion.
“I feel like in the private market these days, there’s only money for AI and nothing else, so it certainly makes sense if you’re not an AI company to consider this vehicle as a way to raise a significant amount of capital,” Klymochko told me.
Indeed, as late-stage funding concentrates around AI, the companies best positioned to pursue traditional IPOs — the likes of SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI — are also those that have already managed to raise tremendous sums in the private markets. Even geothermal startup Fervo, by far the most hyped climate tech IPO of the year, raised about $1.5 billion from private investors before going public and netting nearly $2 billion more. This dynamic can leave a financing gap for some smaller but promising companies, which SPACs can help fill.
As ZincFive CEO Tod Higinbotham explained, “We just weren’t big enough. We weren’t asking for enough capital.” The company has spent the past decade developing easily recyclable, low-carbon batteries that provide backup power for traffic lights and other transit systems. More recently, it’s shifted its focus to providing data center backup power, and is now landing the kind of large orders from hyperscalers that it’s long sought. While ZincFive has managed to raise roughly $350 million from private investors over its 10 years in operation, fulfilling its growing orderbook required quickly securing more capital.
What Higinbotham found when he tried the usual route, however, was that a $50 million to $150 million fundraising round fell into a range that many private equity investors considered “way too small.” Most were looking for larger deals, and the terms they offered the startup meant that “we would dilute ourselves out of our own company,” he told me. Furthermore, while ZincFive is revenue-generating, it has yet to turn a profit, making it more difficult to find private investors willing to fund its scale-up.
Ultimately, the need to capitalize on the data center buildout and the private market funding gap changed Higinbotham’s mind about going public via SPAC, a route he’d previously assumed he would never pursue. He does think the way that ZincFive is going about it, however, sets it apart from some of the industry’s riskier bets.
For one, ZincFive already has a real, revenue-generating product and a full customer orderbook. Secondly, it has $100 million in committed capital lined up through a mechanism known as a PIPE, or Private Investment in Public Equity. That means a group of investors has already agreed to buy shares directly from the company once it goes public in the latter half of this year.
That’s not always the case with SPACs, and having a guaranteed PIPE actually sets ZincFive apart from many other companies in its position. In a typical SPAC deal, a shell company raises money in its IPO and holds it in trust until it can merge with a private company, at which point that money essentially becomes theirs. But there’s a catch: The investors in the shell can opt to take back their money before the merger closes. If enough do that, a company going public via SPAC might wind up with a fraction of the cash it expected.
ZincFive, by contrast, isn’t counting on trust money to make its SPAC worth it; the $100 million PIPE alone provides all the near-term capital it needs.
The fact that the SEC tightened SPAC regulations in 2024 also provides Higinbotham with more peace of mind. Whereas five years ago, pre-revenue startups were allowed to make outlandishly bullish projections with minimal supporting evidence, the new rules increase the legal risks associated with misleading forecasts. They also require greater disclosure around things like sponsor incentives — the financial motivations of the shell company’s founders — and potential shareholder dilution, making SPAC mergers look more like traditional IPOs and lengthening the time it takes for transactions to close.
Factorial Energy, a pre-revenue solid-state battery company, hit the public market last week with $100 million in PIPE financing. Since its founding in 2019, the startup has raised about $245 million in venture funding and secured strategic investments from leading automakers including Mercedes-Benz, Stellantis, Hyundai, and Kia, all of whom seek to use Factorial’s tech in electric vehicles to achieve higher energy density, longer range, and faster charging. But the tech has yet to scale or become cost-effective for major automakers or earlier markets like defense drones — an inflection point that requires major capital investment.
Factorial’s CEO Siyu Huang told me she saw a SPAC as the quickest, easiest way to secure the funding her company needed to stay afloat. “It took us three weeks in between Thanksgiving and Christmas to have that capital committed,” she said. The full SPAC process, of course, took longer, but locking in that financing early was pivotal for planning the company’s trajectory. “In six months the world might be very different,” Huang said. Might as well strike when the market is hot — after all, a year-plus IPO process would have exposed the company to a range of shifting variables that could have threatened its market debut.
Not to mention, the company didn’t have a year to spare. In its SEC filing, Factorial made it clear that prior to its PIPE financing and trust proceeds, its existing liquidity “was not sufficient to fund operations for at least twelve months.” Like those of other hardware companies on the long road to commercialization, Factorial’s SPAC filing makes for a pretty bleak read, underscoring the startup’s precarious, early-stage position. As it goes on to state, Factorial “has experienced net losses and negative cash flows from operations since its inception,” and “expects it will continue to incur significant costs including research and development expenses related to its ongoing operations until it successfully develops a commercial product.”
It’s pretty boilerplate disclosure language. But seeing it repeat across these myriad filings reveals a consistent reality: Despite these companies’ best marketing narratives, many remain highly speculative, with success dependent on multiple technical, financial, and regulatory milestones breaking in their favor. For example, SMR developer Terrestrial Energy admits that “the aggregate capital raised from the proposed interim and PIPE financings will not be sufficient to finance the total capital required for the business plan,” while Terra Innovatum writes that “based on our recurring losses and expectations to incur significant expenses and negative cash flows until at least 2028, management has identified substantial doubt about Terra Innovatum’s ability to continue as a going concern.”
At the same time, many founders and experts argue that this new, more heavily regulated SPAC cycle is channeling higher-quality, more mature companies toward the public market. “After each cycle, the industry learns the lesson, and they recalibrate, and they build a healthier trajectory,” Factorial’s Huang told me. Similarly, the global advisory firm FTI Consulting wrote in March that SPACs are back “because the market standards have been reset—and the bar has risen dramatically.” Now that “the weakest sponsors have exited,” the firm claims that “a smaller, more disciplined market” remains.
Data from University of Florida finance professor Jay Ritter’s SPAC performance database, however, shows that post-SPAC returns have stayed consistently negative — both in the post-boom collapse and more recently. Companies that went public via SPAC in 2021 and 2022 lost roughly 64% of their value in their first year, while those that went public last year have dipped about 57%. Three-year returns since 2020 are also deeply negative, though it remains to be seen, of course, how recently public companies will perform in the long-term.
But while these investments sure look like a remarkably efficient way to lose over half your money, maybe there’s nothing wrong with that? After all, most venture investments lose money, and yet few dispute the role of risk-tolerant VCs in financing innovation. “As long as an investor knows what they’re buying, then what’s wrong with the SPAC market?” Higinbotham asks. In his view, SPACs simply represent another venue for high risk, high reward bets. If a startup needs capital and can’t raise it privately, going public through a SPAC may be a perfectly rational choice.
So when the latest one-year return data comes in, will those handful of outsized wins offset the inevitable losses? What about over the long-term? Is the market genuinely maturing, and should I seek to rid myself of my reflexive skepticism toward SPACs?
“No, I don’t think anything’s really changed,” Klymochko said about this latest cycle. “It’ll likely have the same result.”