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:
While they’re getting more accurate all the time, they still rely on data from traditional models — and possibly always will.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has had a bruising few weeks. Deep staffing cuts at the hands of Elon Musk’s efficiency crusaders have led to concerns regarding the potential closure of facilities critical to data-gathering and weather-forecasting operations. Meteorologists have warned that this could put lives at risk, while industries that rely on trustworthy, publicly available weather data — from insurance to fishing, shipping, and agriculture — are bracing for impact. While reliable numbers are difficult to come by, the agency appears to have lost on the order of 7% to 10% of its workforce, or more than 1,000 employees. NOAA’s former deputy director, Andrew Rosenberg, wrote that Musk plans to lay off 50% of the agency, while slashing its budget by 30%.
Will that actually happen? Who the heck knows. But what we can look at are the small cracks that are already emerging, and who could step in to fill that void.
One thing that’s certain is that the National Weather Service, a division of NOAA, announced last week that it is suspending operations at a weather balloon launch site in Alaska, due to staffing shortages. The data gathered at this remote outpost helped inform the agency’s weather forecasts, which are relied upon by hundreds of millions of people, as well as many of the world’s largest companies and public agencies.
Perhaps to Musk’s department, this looks like a prime opportunity for the private sector to step up and demonstrate some nimble data gathering prowess — and indeed a startup that I’ve covered before, WindBorne, has already offered its services. The company, which makes advanced weather balloons, has offered to provide NOAA with data from its own Alaska launches for six months, at no cost. WindBorne is also one of a number of private companies creating AI-based weather models that have outperformed NOAA’s traditional, physics-based models on key metrics such as temperature, wind speed and direction, precipitation, humidity, and pressure.
All this raises the question, though, of what kind of role the private sector could and should play in the weather forecasting space overall. If the architects of Project 2025 have their way, NOAA would be “broken up and downsized,” and its National Weather Service division would “fully commercialize its forecasting operations.” If the Trump administration achieves these goals, “the Weather Service would cease to function in a way that it could meet its mandate to protect American life and property,” Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, told me.
But given that heavyweights like Google, Huawei, and Nvidia are already in the AI-based weather prediction game, along with startups such as WindBorne and Brightband, which is making weather predictions tailored to the needs of specific industries such as insurance, agriculture, or transportation, it wasn’t clear to me whether, if NOAA were to crumble, the accuracy of weather forecasts necessarily would, too. I thought that perhaps Musk, the White House’s most notorious AI enthusiast, might be thinking the same thing. So I asked around.
“There’s actually a very good argument that I think would be very uncontroversial to expand the role of the private sector, even to offload certain parts of the workflow to the private sector,” Swain told me, with regards to NOAA and its adoption — or lack thereof — of AI-based weather forecasting. But what nobody wanted was to get rid of free, publicly available government forecasts completely.
“I don’t want to have to figure out what company to trust. I just want to be able to go and open the National Weather Service and know what’s going on,” John Dean, the CEO and co-founder of WindBorne, told me.
Julian Green, the CEO and co-founder of Brightband, agreed. “The government doesn’t just forecast the weather, but it gives people alerts. And there’s regulation around whether [it tells you that] you should evacuate, or shut your factory down, or so on.” It’s not hard to imagine the ethical quandaries that could arise from a private company with a profit motive deciding who can access potentially life-saving forecasts, and for how much.
WindBorne’s and Brightband’s AI models, as well as those from tech giants such as Google, are significantly less computationally intensive to operate than those from NOAA or the other leading weather forecasting agency, the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. These traditional models rely on supercomputers crunching complicated atmospheric equations based on the laws of physics to make their predictions.
But this doesn’t mean the physics-based models are getting replaced by AI now, or potentially ever. Government data and traditional forecasts still make up the backbone of advanced AIs, which are trained on decades of data largely gathered by NOAA satellites, weather balloons, and radar systems, and then interpreted through the lens of standard physics-based models. After training is complete, the AI models can predict what weather patterns will develop, much like ChatGPT predicts the next word in a sequence, but only after being fed a snapshot of initial weather conditions — also pulled from traditional physics-based models.
Essentially, these AI forecasts are built on the backs of the giants, and while their outcomes are hugely promising, they could not exist without that solid foundation. While one day, it might be possible to operate AI forecasting models without relying on traditional models, Dean and Green told me that physics-based models might always be critical for training the AI. So while their companies’ respective models have yielded impressive results, both Dean and Green nixed the idea that their companies could wholly replace the predictions made by the National Weather Service.
All of this is in flux of course, but as Green put it to me in an email, “a good mechanic doesn't throw away good older tools just because you get new tools.” Plus, as Dean explained, there are still conditions under which physics-based models tend to outperform AI, such as “really small-scale and high-res phenomena — let’s say convective events, let’s say severe thunderstorms in the Plains, or tornado formation.”
Even Project 2025’s authors point out that private industry forecasters rely on publicly available NOAA data, though it doesn’t make any reference to AI models or physics models. The document simply says that the agency “should focus on its data-gathering services” and the “efficient delivery of accurate, timely, and unbiased data to the public and to the private sector.”
There are also questions around whether AI models, trained on data from the past, will be able to predict the types of unusual and extreme weather events that are becoming more and more common in a warming world, Swain told me. “Does it fully capture those?” he asked. “There’s a lot of evidence that the answer is no.”
Lastly, NOAA’s weather model, the Global Forecast System, is simply measuring much more than the AI models do today. “It predicts so many different phenomena, like different types of snow, hail, mixing ratios, turbulence,” Dean said. “We’re building up over time to add more and more variables. But for both WindBorne and other models, it’s not the same currently as what GFS does.”
So while the Heritage Foundation might want to delegate all forecasting responsibilities to private companies, the vision I heard from the startups I talked to looked more like a mutually beneficial arrangement than the full commercialization of weather prediction, or even a clean division of labor. “It’s not privatized weather, it’s a public-private partnership,” Dean said of his ideal future, “where you get freely available forecasts from a public institution like NOAA, but they work with our industry to iterate faster and to drive more innovation.”
What everyone seems to want is simply for the government to forecast better, and today that means moving quickly to build AI-based models. NOAA has taken some steps forward, prototyping some models, bolstering its computing capabilities, and even recently partnering with Brightband to optimize its observational data to train AI models. But it remains behind other agencies in this regard. “The Chinese government and the European Center for Medium Range Weather Forecasts have done a far better job at adopting AI-based weather forecasts than NOAA has,” Dean told me. “So something does need to change at NOAA to get them to move faster.”
Indiscriminately laying off hundreds of the agency’s employees may not be the best place to start. But if there’s anything we know Musk loves, it’s AI and private sector ingenuity. So maybe, just maybe, this administration will be able to forge the kind of partnerships that can supercharge federal forecasting, while keeping NOAA’s weather predictions free and open for all. Or maybe we’ll all just be paying the big bucks to figure out when a hurricane is going to hit.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The tension between the two GOP energy philosophies — one admitting renewables, the other firmly rejecting — could tank the SPEED Act.
The fate of a House GOP permitting deal stands on a knife’s edge.
During a dramatic vote on the House floor Tuesday, far-right Republicans and opponents of the offshore wind industry joined with Democrats in a nearly-successful attempt to defeat a procedural vote on the SPEED Act, a bill to streamline implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act.
Speaking with reporters off the House floor, GOP lawmakers said that the bill — which has the backing of both the oil and gas sector and some large trade groups that represent renewables companies — faced opposition from a handful of Republicans over language that would block the federal government from rescinding previously-issued permits for energy projects. The tactic is one Trump has used repeatedly to stymie offshore wind projects. Republican hardliners feared that a future version of the deal would take that language further, restricting the president’s power to stall solar and wind permit applications through extralegal bureaucratic delays.
The vote to consider SPEED ultimately passed with a margin of 215 to 209 votes, with two Republicans — Representatives Anna Paulina Luna and Christopher Smith — voting no. Though the bill is alive for now, the outcome casts a pall over the prospects for any permitting deal this Congress because, as Heatmap’s reporting has made clear, there is little shot of a grand deal on NEPA reform without exactly the sort of executive power restrictions Republican objectors feared.
That the bill nearly came up short also illustrates a shift in the GOP’s thinking on energy policy that has gone largely unnoticed. Vestiges of the party remain committed to the philosophy of “all of the above,” but the new generation of lawmakers is more likely to be anti-renewables at all costs. Combined with today’s hyper-partisan environment and narrow majorities in both chambers, that tension makes legislating on energy almost impossible.
Republicans used to approach energy policy in a laissez faire, let-a-thousand-flowers bloom fashion. This fuel-type agnosticism characterized Republicans’ approach to energy policy under the first Trump administration, as well as during the Biden era. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy repeated the “all of the above” mantra to nudge his party closer to anything resembling a climate policy, and subscribed to the idea that any permitting deal would have to benefit all types of energy projects.
The SPEED Act closely resembles a McCarthy-era approach to energy policy: just make everything go faster.
It is true that the bill would bind the hands of the executive in some ways, requiring them to get consent from the project developer in order to voluntarily vacate a previously-issued NEPA approval. If someone sued the government because they believed a NEPA approval was invalid and got a federal court to agree, the judge overseeing the case would be barred from immediately vacating the approval or issuing an injunction on construction. This is a big reason why the oil and gas industry supports the bill, as it’s a way to shield the sector from environmentalists filing lawsuits against fossil-based extraction and fuel transportation projects (e.g. pipelines).
But there’s a small irony in the SPEED Act spinning out over offshore wind concerns, which is that if it were enacted today, not even its supporters think it would actually stop the administration from messing with wind projects. As pro-fossil pundit Alex Epstein noted on X, the bill would only limit the president’s authority to revoke approvals under NEPA. It would do nothing to erode presidential power under any other statute, including another one of the administration’s favorite tools against offshore wind, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
I spoke with two separate energy industry attorneys who confirmed this interpretation. “It would be welcome for whatever the next administration would look like,” Peter Whitfield, a partner at Sidley Austin who works on energy projects, told me of the SPEED Act. “It might not be helpful now.” The bill’s clean energy backers are looking at the legislation as a “long range” play, he said: “They’re not looking at year one, two, three — they’re looking at years eight and after. I think that’s why there is so much enthusiasm in the renewable energy space for reform.”
Another attorney, who requested anonymity because they did not have permission from their firm, confirmed that the bill would stop the Trump administration from exploiting NEPA in the future, but said that nothing in the legislation requires agencies to move forward on energy projects.
It’s that eight-years-from-now future that seems to have the anti-renewables conservative wing in Congress worried. The House is expected to vote on the SPEED Act as soon as tomorrow, but lawmakers will first consider amendments offered by the Republicans who nearly killed the bill, including one that would explicitly bar offshore wind projects from benefiting under any of its NEPA changes.
If those amendments fail, the odds of final House passage are uncertain, although some Democrats who voted against the procedural motion may wind up voting for the final bill. If they succeed and the bill moves to the Senate, Democrats aim to add new ideas on transmission and the renewables permitting freeze that may upset frazzled Republicans even more.
“We would expect that senators wouldn’t endorse a House product,” Frank Macchiarola, chief advocacy officer for American Clean Power, told me in an interview last week. Macchiarola said the language in the House bill “goes a long way towards addressing the problem” of Trump’s war on renewables permits, but that it is “not a perfect product,” though he declined to speak on the record about what would get it closer to ideal. If I had to guess, I’d say that senators will try to provide new avenues for companies to compel an end to the review process, whether through legal challenges or other means of protest.
In other words, grab your popcorn — more drama is coming.
On EU’s EV reversal, ‘historic’ mineral deals, and India’s nuclear opening
Current conditions: Yet another powerful atmospheric river, this one dubbed Pineapple Express, is on track to throttle the Pacific Northwest this week • Bolivia is facing landslides • Western Australia is under severe risk of bushfire.
The Ford Motor Company expects to pay roughly $19.5 billion in charges, primarily from its electric vehicle business. In a press release, the automaker said it would refocus on hybrids and “efficient gas engines,” ramp up manufacturing of batteries for a standalone business, and boost truck production. The battery business aims to churn out 20 gigawatts of capacity every year starting in 2027. But the charges the company faces stem from its decision to abandon multibillion-dollar investments the carmaker made in new assembly lines for electric vehicles, demand for which slowed last year and dipped at the end of this year after the Trump administration phased out federal tax credits in September. “This is a customer-driven shift to create a stronger, more resilient and more profitable Ford,” Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a press release. “The operating reality has changed, and we are redeploying capital into higher-return growth opportunities: Ford Pro, our market-leading trucks and vans, hybrids and high margin opportunities like our new battery energy storage business.”
Ford isn’t the only one accelerating in reverse away from electric vehicles. Last week I told you about the deal the European Union struck between its center-right and far-right lawmakers to curb environmental regulations. Now the bloc has moved to scrap its 2035 target to ban sales of new combustion-engine vehicles. The move would have marked a dramatic sea change in the West’s transportation policy, all but eliminating sales of traditional gasoline-powered cars in favor of battery-propelled alternatives. It’s a sign of Brussels’ broader effort to pull back from green mandates that European President Ursula von der Leyen blames for the continent’s economic malaise.

It could have been worse. The Treasury guidance issued Friday dictating what wind and solar projects will be eligible for federal tax credits could have effectively banned developers from tapping the write-offs set to start phasing out next July. In the weeks before the Internal Revenue Service released its rules, GOP lawmakers from states with thriving wind and solar industries, including Senators John Curtis of Utah and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, publicly lobbied for laxer rules as part of what they pitched as the all-of-the-above “energy dominance” strategy on which Trump campaigned. Grassley went so far as to block two of Trump’s Treasury nominees “until I can be certain that such rules and regulations adhere to the law and congressional intent,” as Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin covered earlier in August.
Since the guidance came out on Friday, both Grassley and Curtis have put out positive statements backing the plan. “I appreciate the work of Secretary [Scott] Bessent and his staff in balancing various concerns and perspectives to address the President’s executive order on wind and solar projects,” Curtis said, according to E&E News. Calling renewables “an essential part of the ‘all of the above’ energy equation,” Grassley’s statement said the guidance “seems to offer a viable path forward for the wind and solar industries to continue to meet increased energy demand” and “reflects some of the concerns Congress and industry leaders have raised.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Virginia’s outgoing Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed more energy bills than he signed last year, killing legislation designed to increase rooftop solar and energy storage, boost utility planning requirements, and make efficiency improvements more available to low-income residents. Now that Democrat Abigail Spanberger is coming in to replace Youngkin as the next governor, those bills are coming back, the Virginia Mercury reported. In a column, lawyer and environmentalist Ivy Main called on Democrats to dream bigger. “Data center development is so far outstripping supply side solutions that if legislators aren’t more aggressive this year, next year they will find themselves further behind than ever,” Main wrote. “As more bills are filed over the coming weeks, we are likely to see plenty of bold proposals. Hopefully, legislators now understand the urgency, and will be ready to act.”
Data centers are now “swallowing American politics,” Heatmap’s Jael Holzman wrote recently. Just 44% of Americans would welcome a data center nearby, according to a poll from September by Heatmap Pro.
The 1984 Bhopal chemical disaster in India never resulted in any serious ramifications for Union Carbide, the Dow Chemical subsidiary responsible for the accident that left more than 3,700 dead from exposure to toxic gases. In 2010, India passed a law that threatened to impose full civil penalties on any private nuclear company that suffered an accident somehow. That legislation has prevented all but Russia’s state-owned nuclear company from entering the Indian market. Hoping to lure American small modular reactor companies to India, the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has vowed all year to overhaul the civil liability law. On Monday, Modi-aligned lawmakers proposed legislation to reform the nuclear sector and free foreign vendors from financial responsibility for anything that could potentially happen with their equipment.
The renewables industry, meanwhile, is continuing to boom on the subcontinent. The Japanese industrial giant agreed to invest $1.3 billion into renewable power in India in its latest push into green energy in South Asia, Bloomberg reported.
There’s green hydrogen, made from blasting freshwater with electricity made by renewables. There’s blue hydrogen, the version of the fuel that comes from natural gas mitigated with carbon capture equipment. Gray hydrogen is the traditional kind made with natural gas that spews pollution into the atmosphere. And then there’s pink hydrogen, made like the green kind with clean electricity except generated by a nuclear reactor. Orange is the latest color in the hydrogen rainbow, referring to the version of the gas that comes from a chemical process that accelerates production of the gas in natural formations underground. The startup Vema has announced a 10-year conditional offtake agreement with the off-grid data center power provider Verne to supply over 36,000 metric tons per year of “orange” hydrogen for server farms, Heatmap’s Katie Brigham reported.
The startup Vema just signed a new offtake agreement to provide 36,000 tons of orange hydrogen per year for data centers.
Love it or hate it, it’s looking like there may be a good reason to add yet another color to the hydrogen rainbow. In 2022, Florian Osselin, co-founder and CSO of the startup Vema Hydrogen, published a paper in Nature called “Orange hydrogen is the new green,” in which he outlines how to expedite the natural process of hydrogen formation in certain underground geologies, laying the foundation for what the company now calls Engineered Mineral Hydrogen.
Osselin’s startup, Vema, is now announcing a 10-year conditional offtake agreement with the off-grid data center power startup Verne to supply over 36,000 metric tons per year of so-called “orange” hydrogen for data centers. The announcement comes on the heels of Vema’s $13 million seed round earlier this year, which supports the company’s efforts to take its engineered hydrogen experiments out of the lab and into the field.
Vema’s ultimate goal is to produce low-carbon hydrogen at less than $1 per kilogram, making it cost competitive with petroleum-derived hydrogen and magnitudes cheaper than clean hydrogen produced via electrolysis.
“The Earth is generating hydrogen all the time,” Colin McCulley, the startup’s senior vice president of operations, told me. “So those reactions, when they’re close to the surface, are very, very slow and not fast enough to create enough hydrogen to capture.” To expedite natural hydrogen production — which occurs when water interacts with iron-rich rocks underground — Vema will inject water and its proprietary catalyst into suitable formations. The catalyst is designed to increase both the speed and the scale of the reaction, rapidly forming large, commercially relevant quantities of hydrogen.
The company has done extensive exploration and testing, McCulley told me, with the team running over 100 experiments per week for over a year. But though the lab results have been promising, scaling up will be the true test. If the tech is a success, the plan is to begin selling hydrogen in 2028.
“We’re going to start small, in which case we will likely sell truckloads of hydrogen — think 10 tons a day-type scale,” McCulley told me. “The eventual goal is to have on-site — or basically next door — consumption of the hydrogen.” This would eliminate the need to build expensive hydrogen pipelines or transport the fuel via truck. That’s a valuable cost-cutting proposition for producers of clean fuels such as methanol and ammonia, which face steep green premiums and use hydrogen as a feedstock. McCulley also envisions co-locating with data centers.
Right now, the company is starting a pilot project in Canada, and planning for others atr undisclosed locations, where McCulley says there are well-studied deposits of iron-rich rocks that sit relatively close to the surface, ripe for producing engineered hydrogen. West Coast states including Oregon, Washington, California, and Alaska have particularly well-suited subsurface geologies that lie decently close to major metropolitan areas, he explained.
Low exploration risk is a key reason why Vema thinks it’s a better bet than geologic hydrogen companies such as Koloma, which focus on locating and extracting naturally occurring underground hydrogen deposits — no additional stimulation required. But these natural formations typically lie far deeper than Vema is targeting and there’s much less certainty about where they’re located, Vema’s CEO Pierre Levin told me in an email.
“Natural geologic hydrogen depends on complex underground systems with multiple interdependent variables,” Levin, who previously served as CEO of the geologic hydrogen company Hethos, wrote. “With natural hydrogen, you’re at nature’s mercy. [Engineered Mineral Hydrogen] changes the game because we control the subsurface production process, which means predictable, manageable flow rates.”
At the moment, however, investors appear to be lining up behind the geologic hydrogen approach. Koloma alone has raised over $350 million since its founding in 2021 — though it also has yet to produce commercial hydrogen.
McCulley estimates that its hydrogen won’t be cost competitive with fossil fuels until Vema has already completed several large-scale projects, which isn’t likely to happen until 2035 or 2040. “So we need to be able to get through some of these first projects where we’re going to have to sell at a premium price,” he told me. It’s never a guarantee that emerging technologies like this will find patient backers willing to bet on the promise that economies of scale are just over the horizon. The startup is currently raising its Series A, though, and McCulley said he’s seen strong interest from the tech industry in supporting Vema at the price point it’s targeting
The company wouldn’t reveal what price this is, though, and the numbers for its contract with Verne are also under wraps. That deal depends on both Vema and Verne advancing their tech to the point where it’s well-proven and bankable. For Verne, that means demonstrating the viability of its next-generation data center power systems, which include more efficient, off-grid generators capable of running on clean hydrogen. For Vema, it requires completing pilot testing and building a successful demo project. Both sides also have to secure additional funding.
If Vema can pull that together, the payoff looks huge. “If you start producing this stuff at less than $1 per kilogram, the sky’s the limit,” McCulley told me. “The current industrial [hydrogen] gas plants, the biggest ones are, say, around 200 tons per day,” he explained. “We can be five times that from one location.”