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:
Green hydrogen may yet descend the cost curve, and expect lots more fusion research.

While some of our most promising decarbonization technologies were born in one of the Department of Energy’s National Labs or in Silicon Valley, China is where so many of them — from solar panels to electric vehicles and battery energy storage — have achieved critical commercial scale. That makes the country’s latest Five-Year Plan an essential document for understanding the future of climate tech.
With a U.S. administration that has eschewed its own climate commitments, many have hoped that China would take on a global leadership role. On that front, many experts have been left wanting. The document makes no promises on phasing out coal, which accounts for over half of China’s energy consumption, and doesn’t set a target for the expansion of solar.
“It’s a green tech addition plan as opposed to a decarbonization plan,” Jeremy Wallace, a Professor of China Studies at Johns Hopkins University, told me. Over the past five years, the country has deployed nearly a terawatt of new solar, far exceeding even its own ambitions. “So the buildout rapidly exceeded expectations, but has not seemingly led to a systematic rethinking about the system,” Wallace said.
The plan does lean into climate tech, however, even if it stops short of positioning new forms of clean energy generation as direct coal replacements. And that interest extends far beyond already commercialized sectors like solar, wind, battery storage, and electric vehicles. The list of “future industries” that the party is prioritizing includes “hydrogen energy and nuclear fusion energy,” alongside quantum science, biological manufacturing, brain-computer interfaces, and 6G wireless networks.
“I don’t think China is creating these technologies as a niche climate experiment anymore. They’re being folded into a broader industrial strategy,” Qi Qin, a China analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, told me of the emergent tech that the plan mentions. “I think that the more important question is which of them are moving into real deployment now, and which are still at the stage of strategic signaling.”
Much of that should come into sharper focus in the coming months. Now that the national direction has been set, local officials will begin translating the state’s broad agenda into concrete targets and on-the-ground projects. It is not too much to say that how they choose to do so will largely determine how quickly the world decarbonizes.
The plan’s repeated mention of green hydrogen and hydrogen-derived fuels is particularly notable given these industries' struggles in the U.S. to reach economic viability and secure offtakers, as the Trump administration has dialed back the clean hydrogen tax credits and canceled grants for planned green hydrogen hubs.
And while China also can’t ignore the underlying economics of green hydrogen — which is useful for decarbonizing heavy industry and transport by truck, ship, or air, but still expensive to produce and not so helpful outside those specific use cases — the party appears much more open to bringing it down the cost curve. As Qin put it, “hydrogen has clearly moved up in political visibility.” The plan promises to “expand applications of hydrogen energy in transportation, electricity, industrial, and other domains,” according to an unofficial translation, while improving “renewable energy hydrogen production equipment” such as electrolyzers, advancing “the hydrogen energy industry chain toward green ammonia, methanol, and sustainable aviation fuels,” and accelerating technological breakthroughs in hydrogen storage and transportation. (China has not released an official translation of the plan.)
The Five-Year Plan also comes amidst a slew of recently announced policies supporting the industry’s development, Yuki Yu, an independent researcher with a deep knowledge of China’s hydrogen economy, told me.
The week before the plan was finalized, Premier Li Qiang delivered China’s annual policy statement to the National People’s Congress, which included a pledge to “establish the National Low‑Carbon Transition Fund, and cultivate hydrogen energy, green fuels and other new growth points.” By rhetorically linking the fund — which Yu described to me as functioning “a little bit like a national private equity company to invest directly into frontier technology” — specifically to hydrogen and clean fuels, it signals that the country views these technologies as core pillars of its energy transition, Yu said.
Then just days after the plan was adopted, the country launched a green hydrogen pilot program, offering performance-based government funding to five regions for projects spanning sectors such as fuel cell vehicles, green ammonia and methanol production, low-carbon steelmaking, and industrial heating. The four-year program aims to cut the end-use price of hydrogen to below 25 Chinese yuan (approximately $3.50) per kilogram, and double the national fleet of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles nationwide to 100,000.
Taken together, all of this sends a “very, very clear financial signal” to the industry, Yu told me. While government funding for hydrogen had previously focused primarily on fuel-cell vehicles like trucks and buses, Yu said China now appears to be placing a far greater emphasis on commercializing other hydrogen use-cases.
Yet as Qin sees it, producing hydrogen with renewable energy — which powers the process of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen — is, in some sense, simply a diversion from leveraging renewables to replace coal on the grid.
“I think that part of the reason that green fuels has become a hot topic, has become a new focus in China is because nobody wants to touch that 55% of coal power,” Qin told me, referencing coal’s approximate share of primary energy. Hydrogen, she said, offers an attractive way to decarbonize certain hard-to-abate sectors without having to overturn the coal economy.
Wallace also noted that electrolyzers — the devices used to split hydrogen from water — made in China are generally viewed as “second rate” compared with Western systems, which are typically more powerful and better able to ramp up and down in tandem with solar and wind resources. Perhaps, he suggested, the country is betting that its lower-cost electrolyzers will go the way of lithium iron phosphate batteries, a cheaper alternative to the traditional lithium-ion chemistry involving nickel and cobalt, which are much more expensive and supply constrained than iron. LFP batteries “approximate the first rate tech, but at a much cheaper price point,” Wallace told me, which could be the arc its electrolyzer industry attempts to follow.
None of the other frontier tech gets quite as enthusiastic a shoutout in the Five-Year Plan as green hydrogen. Fusion, however, seems to be an area of keen interest, at least on the research front.
In a section on key technological breakthroughs the country aims to achieve, the document lists “key fusion technologies such as tritium fuel preparation and circulation, material radiation testing, high-performance lasers, and superconducting magnet manufacturing,” with the ultimate goal being to “advance fusion research and development.”
And yet the plan does not set a timeline or explicit goal related to fusion commercialization, even as well-capitalized American startups such as Commonwealth Fusion Systems, Thea Energy, and Pacific Fusion aim to put electrons on the grid in the 2030s. “I think the government sees, okay, this is a very strategic and very interesting direction that we should also pursue,” Yu told me. And yet, it “seems to have a conservative look, or a cautious look on how commercialized these technologies truly are.”
Similarly, while Qin sees the inclusion of fusion in the plan as “politically meaningful” in and of itself, she said it “should be read as a signal about ambition” and not as a “near-term climate solution.”
Last year, China launched a state-owned fusion company, the aptly named China Fusion Energy Co., with $2.1 billion in capital, as well as a 10-nation alliance to promote collaborative fusion energy research and knowledge sharing. Yet the government has largely steered clear of talking about fusion as a commercial possibility, and when it has, the timeline is far longer than what the U.S. upstarts are promising. As Zhang Libo, the General Manager of China Fusion Energy Co. has stated, the company wants to build a demonstration reactor by 2045, while the China National Nuclear Corporation said it expects to produce commercial power around 2050.
This type of circumspection is par for the course with the Chinese Communist Party, which tends to underpromise and overdeliver when it comes to its clean energy targets. “In general, a lot of this seemingly moderate change can really kick off ripple effects and have long term impacts,” Yu told me. For instance, while China previously set a target to deploy 1,200 gigawatts of combined wind and solar capacity by 2030, it ended up achieving that goal a full six years early. “So even though sometimes the policy could come across as mild or more conservative, the effect does not necessarily mean the same.”
That may provide little comfort to those longing to see a disavowal of coal in writing. But if the past has taught us anything, it could also mean that five years from now China will have changed the game for hydrogen, clean fuels, fusion, and a host of other emerging industries.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
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.”
Current conditions: Tropical Storm Arthur made landfall over Texas just hours after strengthening into the first named storm of the Atlantic hurricane season • Temperatures in Spain, France, and Portugal are forecast to eclipse 104 degrees Fahrenheit by this weekend • A fast-moving wildfire is scorching homes in the Beacon Hill area of Spokane, Washington.
On Wednesday, President Donald Trump signed a 14-paragraph memorandum of understanding with Iran to end the war. Under the deal, which is set for tougher negotiations over the fine details within 60 days, the Strait of Hormuz will reopen, the U.S. will lift sanctions on Iran and unfreeze billions of dollars, and Tehran will continue expanding its civilian nuclear program with a pledge not to seek an atomic weapon. Oil markets responded to the milestone with mixed results. The benchmark prices for oil produced in the U.S. and Europe tumbled about 2% on Wednesday, while the standard for crude from the United Arab Emirates jumped over 3%.
In other macroeconomic news: The Federal Reserve announced Wednesday that it was leaving its benchmark interest rate unchanged for the fourth straight time. Speaking at his first policy meeting since taking office, Kevin Warsh, Trump’s newly appointed Fed chairman, promised to “deliver price stability.” But CNN noted that most of Warsh’s colleagues signaled in their economic outlooks that they anticipated hiking rates again later this year. Rate cuts, as Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin has written, are key to boosting renewables, whose upfront costs make them sensitive to interest rates on capital.
The Department of the Interior has agreed to pay the developer Invenergy $765 million to cancel its four offshore wind leases, an amount equal to what the company paid the federal government for access to the areas. Like the administration’s previous deals to kill off as-yet-unbuilt offshore wind projects, Invenergy’s agreement is structured as a legal settlement. As Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo explained, the deal follows a similar $928 million arrangement with TotalEnergies announced in March, and an $885 million agreement with several joint ventures in April. That brings the total amount the administration has agreed to pay to end offshore wind leases to more than $2.5 billion to date.
A group of state attorneys general filed a legal challenge to those previous deals earlier this month that questions their use of the Judgment Fund, a functionally unlimited well of cash the federal government can use to settle ongoing or imminent lawsuits. Here’s Emily with more on the Judgment Fund and why using it may be tricky for the administration to defend.
Among the most poignant critiques of solar energy are its intermittency and the amount of land needed to generate vast quantities of power. Batteries are quickly solving the first part of that equation. But data from a new interactive map the Solar Energy Industries Association published this morning shows that solar today takes up just 0.04% of the total U.S. land area, and 0.07% of prime American farmland. There were zero states where solar used more than 0.5% of prime farmland, according to the data, which was shared exclusively with Heatmap. In fact, nearly every state has more abandoned prime farmland than solar-developed parcels. Nationally, there are 43 acres of abandoned prime farmland for every acre of solar on prime farmland. As a particularly jarring point of comparison, golf courses alone use 2.6 times as much prime farmland as solar, while suburban development just since 2014 uses roughly six times as much. “America depends on our land to grow our food, build our communities, and power our lives,” Tim Pawlenty, the newly-appointed chief executive of SEIA and a former Republican governor of Minnesota, told me in a statement. “Responsible land use means balancing all of those needs. This map helps provide important context by showing that solar and agriculture can thrive together. Solar development uses a very small amount of farmland compared to many other common land uses, while also delivering affordable energy, local tax revenue, and reliable income for farmers and landowners.”

Solar, meanwhile, hit a major milestone in California. In the first five months of 2026, utility-scale solar generation in the California Independent System Operator surpassed natural gas power, according to a new analysis from the Energy Information Administration. Compared to the same five-month period in 2024, this year saw a 21% increase in solar generation. Gas-fired generation, meanwhile, sank by 60%.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Estonia’s parliament has passed a new bill creating the Baltic nation’s first complete set of rules for producing nuclear energy and overseeing its safety, NucNet reported, a key step toward building the NATO country’s first atomic power station. Meanwhile, Swiss lawmakers just rejected a bid to slow down legislation to allow for construction of new reactors again. Switzerland’s Council of States, its upper house of parliament, blocked a motion to refer a nuclear bill to the Federal Council ahead of a planned vote later this week.
In Sweden, the parliament approved legislation to streamline permitting for mining and processing uranium. The bill also included an amendment to open up more coastal sites to reactor development, World Nuclear News reported.
The U.S. is seeing the start of a solar manufacturing boom, perhaps best exemplified by the opening of the first fully integrated plant in Qcells’ factory. Now Soltec, a startup that manufactures tracking equipment to maximize power production, has launched a new line of hardware that it says is completely compliant with new restrictions on foreign imports. The company said it had spent the past year “reorganizing its U.S. supply chain with a clear objective: to provide customers with a highly localized supply network capable of meeting the domestic content requirements” of new federal rules. “By localizing its U.S. supply chain, Soltec helps customers pursue Made-in-USA tax benefits while improving cost competitiveness, delivery certainty, and resilience against tariffs, freight volatility and broader geopolitical disruptions,” Mariano Berges, Soltec’s chief executive, said in a statement. “The objective is to protect U.S. customers and provide greater execution certainty for their projects in an increasingly complex market environment.”
In case you were wondering where former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem may turn up, here’s your answer: copper mining. The current special envoy to the Shield of the Americas, a pact of right-leaning Western Hemisphere countries, has joined NovaRed Mining, a junior miner that holds two early-stage copper exploration assets in Canada. Noem, who is taking an adviser role, boasts “extensive experience spanning economic development, infrastructure, energy, agriculture, national security and public-private collaboration,” the company said in a press release.
A natural gas well in Kansas is not the same as an offshore wind farm in Maine.
It happened again. The Trump administration has struck a deal with an offshore wind developer to cancel another round of projects. My colleague Emily Pontecorvo has the full story: The Chicago-based company Invenergy has accepted $765 million to give up four offshore wind leases off the coast of New York, California, and Maine.
These deals might be legally suspect — Democratic state attorneys general sued to block them a few weeks ago — but the administration says more are coming. “The Department of Justice looks forward to continued cooperation from companies that are reevaluating their energy investments,” the official press release about today’s deal intones. I have to applaud the federal lawyer who chose the phrase “continued cooperation” here; it is suitably menacing while implying that developers who give in to the racket are somehow complicit.
If you read Heatmap, you knew a deal like this might be coming. As Emily writes, she predicted that Trump would target Invenergy for a deal back in April. Eyes now turn to the German developer RWE, which is sitting on two more leases and hasn’t yet taken a bargain.
Most observers have seen these deals as a front in the president’s war on wind power. And, of course, they are. But they should also be viewed as part of Trump’s peculiar attack on the economy of coastal states.
Get Heatmap in your inbox daily.
By Heatmap’s tally, the Trump administration has now terminated the leases for more than 14 gigawatts of planned offshore wind capacity, or roughly enough to power at least 6 million to 7 million homes. More than half of those gigawatts were initially planned to go to New York and New Jersey’s strained power markets (and on from there to New England and the Mid-Atlantic).
Another 3.4 gigawatts were planned for Maine’s power grid. Maine already suffers from some of the highest power bills in the country, according to Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub; its rates have risen more than 10% in the past year.
California was slated to get another 4 gigawatts, and the Carolinas were due the last remaining gigawatt.
What’s funny — or perhaps fishy, given the maritime setting — is that administration officials seem to realize that they shouldn’t be taking so much electricity generation off the map. Today’s Invenergy deal includes a new quasi-quid pro quo arrangement: In exchange for giving up its offshore wind leases, Invenergy agreed to develop natural gas or geothermal power plants in Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. (Previous deals countenanced only fossil fuel development, so I suppose this counts as a “win.”)
But of course, as Hilary Bright, who leads the pro-wind group Turn Forward, argued this afternoon, that doesn’t work. “These buyouts are not one-for-one ‘swaps’ for another kind of energy,” she said in a statement. These wind farms were meant to bring new generation capacity online in some of the country’s most stressed power markets. It doesn’t work to cancel them, then build new power plants in the middle of the country. New York is particularly power-constrained at the moment and faces a risk of summertime blackouts as soon as the end of this decade. Invenergy’s wind leases in the tristate area — or, as FIFA would call it, New York/New Jersey — were closer to operation than any of its other projects.
If and when blackouts arrive in Gotham, will New Yorkers look back and remember this moment? Or — somewhat more importantly to Trump — will voters in Maine and North Carolina, both of which have elections this November that will help determine the balance of the Senate. Whatever happens, we’ll be watching it here at Heatmap.