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:
Artificial intelligence wants the energy and has the money, and climate tech companies need buyers.

Their founders wanted to make transmission lines, powertrains, and electrical switches more efficient. Or maybe they wanted to unlock the potential of geothermal energy or low-carbon cement. Wherever they began, a bevy of deep tech climate startups, clean energy producers, and sustainable materials companies have found their way to the same destination: Building and powering data centers in the most energy efficient way possible.
“They might not have started out as data center companies, but they’ve been pulled — because of this huge market movement towards data centers — into being that,” Lee Larson, an investor at the venture firm Piva Capital, told me.
With power demand from artificial intelligence on track to grow as much as 30x from 2024 to 2035, and the Trump administration seeking to fast track data center buildout, there’s a wealth of opportunity — and literal cash — for startups that can help hyperscalers meet their clean energy targets while cramming as many high-powered computing chips into a data center as physically possible.
“I think the proportion of pitches that we see that reflects some kind of data center messaging has gone from maybe one out of 20 to one out of five,” Matthew Nordan, co-founder and general partner at Azolla Ventures told me. “It’s a lot.”
Perhaps the most obvious data center pitch is for companies offering clean, firm power or energy storage. In Azolla Ventures’ portfolio, that includes the geothermal exploration and development company Zanskar and the underground pumped hydro storage company Quidnet. While neither has announced any data center tie ups to date, both are having conversations with all the usual suspects — a group that includes Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta. “Virtually any reasonably mature, ready to deploy clean, firm power technology company is talking to the same people,” Nordan told me.
Some big deals have already made headlines, especially in the nuclear and geothermal sectors. There’s Microsoft’s plan to reopen the Three Mile Island nuclear plant and Google’s deal with the small modular reactor startup Kairos, plus Fervo’s partnership with Google and Sage Geosystems’ partnership with Meta on the geothermal side. But fusion companies also see data centers as a viable option. Google already has an offtake agreement with Commonwealth Fusion Systems, while Microsoft has a deal with Helion Energy.
But it’s not just the big name cleantech companies that are turning into data center service providers. The AI boom also presents a major opportunity for deep tech startups working on electrical infrastructure. While companies in this sector might not scream “climate tech,” behind the curtain they’re driving significant gains in energy efficiency that data center operators are eager to tap into.
In Azolla’s portfolio, these include Scalvy, founded to build modular powertrain electronics for electric vehicles. The company’s small, distributed units connect directly to EV battery cells, converting DC power from the batteries into AC power for the motor. “The hyperscalers started coming to the company saying, can you do what you’ve done in reverse?” Nordan told me. “Can you take the AC coming in off the grid and then convert that to DC, and then interface with the load and energy storage systems?”
That proved easy, and now Scalvy’s small, building-block style approach allows data centers to control power flow on the server rack itself, as opposed to taking up valuable space with a separate power rack. While the details haven’t yet been announced, Nordan said the startup “has recently done their first agreement for data center power, and it’s with one of the large names that you would expect.”
Piva Capital has also invested in a number of under-the-radar companies in this arena — Veir, for instance, initially proposed to build “high-temperature superconducting transmission lines” that could carry electricity with near-zero resistance, and thus very low energy loss. But after seeing some early interest from data centers, the startup learned that hyperscalers were not only struggling to build transmission lines to their substations, but were also experiencing severe bottlenecks in their low-voltage distribution networks, responsible for getting power into and around data centers.
“We realized we can apply essentially the same superconducting technology that we’re targeting for transmission and distribution applications and build a low-voltage set of products for data centers, specifically, that can allow you to shrink the size and weight of conductors and bus bars [which distribute power within data centers] by 10 times,” Veir’s CEO Tim Heidel told me. With this newly refined focus, the company raised an oversubscribed $75 million Series B round in January, which included participation from Microsoft’s Climate Innovation Fund.
Piva is also an investor in Menlo Micro, a spinout from General Electric that uses a proprietary metal alloy to make high-performance electrical switches that are smaller, faster, and more energy efficient than the industry standard. The startup has already commercialized its tech for use in high-speed radio frequency devices, as well as for testing the performance of semiconductors.
Ultimately, the company is aiming to integrate its switches into a wide range of high-performance electrical equipment, data center power systems very much included. In this context, the startup’s switches could be embedded directly into semiconductor packages or circuit boards rather than installed on racks, leading to more compact and energy efficient data center power management. The switches’ small size and low resistance would also generate less heat than what’s used today, further increasing overall energy efficiency.
Menlo Micro’s CEO Russ Garcia told me that five years down the line, he expects a third of the company’s revenue to come from power applications such as data centers, growing to two-thirds in 10 years’ time.
Even sustainable materials companies are getting pulled in, Nordan told me. The primary example there is Sublime Systems, which inked a purchase agreement with Microsoft for up to 622,500 metric tons of low-carbon cement. The deal gives Microsoft the right to use the cement if and when it's useful, but more importantly, it entitles the tech giant to the cement's environmental attributes — that is, the carbon savings associated with producing it. The idea is that the tech giant can catalyze market demand without the emissions impact of shipping the cement to its data center sites.
Amazon has also invested in a number of companies in this sector, including Brimstone and CarbonCure, which are working to decarbonize cement and concrete, as well as Electra, which is working on green steel. The hyperscaler is also trialing products from Paebbl, which produces a carbon-negative mineral powder that can partially replace cement, on the construction of an Amazon Web Services data center in Europe.
While the current administration may not be exerting pressure on hyperscalers to reduce their emissions, Nordan told me that the tech giants are thinking about the long term. “If the tide turns and there will be real or effective costs to emissions in these data centers, they want to do everything they can to bankroll emissions reductions now. And that manifests itself in low-carbon cement, in green steel, in all sorts of technologies.”
At least some of the aforementioned investments — especially those that increase efficiency while decreasing the size of data center components — won’t necessarily lead to emissions reductions, however. Much as when the Chinese AI firm DeepSeek released its cheaper and more efficient AI model, the idea of Jevon’s Paradox looms large here. This is the theory that making products more efficient and cost-effective will lead to an overall increase in consumption that more than offsets the efficiency gains.
Heidel, for one, told me that Veir’s potential customers don’t see energy efficiency in itself as the startup’s main draw. “It’s actually the space savings, the real estate savings, the ability to lay out data centers and configure them in new ways,” he told me. Mainly what Heidel is focusing on with his customers-to-be is, “how much smaller can you make the building, or how many additional AI pods or servers could you fit into the same footprint, or how much higher of a server density could you achieve using our solution?”
Of course, one day Veir may fulfill its original dream of creating superior transmission infrastructure, just as Scalvy could circle back to its initial focus on EV drivetrains and Menlo Micro could wriggle its way into a whole host of electronic devices.
As Heidel told me, he sees this data center buildout as just the first push in what will be an ongoing effort to meet the world’s growing electricity demand. “If we can figure out how to serve all of this demand at the speed at which data centers are growing, and do so cost effectively, and do so in a low-carbon way, then we can take those learnings and apply them to all of the other industries that are coming in the future that'll also be facing enormous electricity demand,” he explained.
But for the time being, as Larson of Piva Capital told me, investors are simply trying to get their portfolio companies “to skate where the puck is going.” And that’s more than okay for Heidel. As he put it, there’s “so much enthusiasm for data centers today that we are having trouble just keeping up with all the interest in that market.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more of the week’s top news around development conflicts.
1. Benton County, Washington – The bellwether for Trump’s apparent freeze on new wind might just be a single project in Washington State: the Horse Heaven wind farm.
2. Box Elder County, Utah – The big data center fight of the week was the Kevin O’Leary-backed project in the middle of the Utah desert. But what actually happened?
3. Durham County, North Carolina – While the Shark Tank data center sucked up media oxygen, a more consequential fight for digital infrastructure is roiling in one of the largest cities in the Tar Heel State.
4. Richland County, Ohio – We close Hotspots on the longshot bid to overturn a renewable energy ban in this deeply MAGA county, which predictably failed.
A conversation with Nick Loris of C3 Solutions
This week’s conversation is with Nick Loris, head of the conservative policy organization C3 Solutions. I wanted to chat with Loris about how he and others in the so-called “eco right” are approaching the data center boom. For years, groups like C3 have occupied a mercurial, influential space in energy policy – their ideas and proposals can filter out into Congress and state legislation while shaping the perspectives of Republican politicians who want to seem on the cutting edge of energy and the environment. That’s why I took note when in late April, Loris and other right-wing energy wonks dropped a set of “consumer-first” proposals on transmission permitting reform geared toward addressing energy demand rising from data center development. So I’m glad Loris was available to lay out his thoughts with me for the newsletter this week.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
How is the eco right approaching permitting reform in the data center boom?
I would say the eco-right broadly speaking is thinking of the data center and load growth broadly as a tremendous and very real opportunity to advance permitting and regulatory reforms at the federal and state level that would enable the generation and linear infrastructure – transmission lines or pipelines – to meet the demand we’re going to see. Not just for hyperscalers and data centers but the needs of the economy. It also sees this as an opportunity to advance tech-neutral reforms where if it makes sense for data centers to get power from virtual power plants, solar, and storage, natural gas, or co-locate and invest in an advanced reactor, all options should be on the table. Fundamentally speaking, if data centers are going to pay for that infrastructure, it brings even greater opportunity to reduce the cost of these technologies. Data centers being a first mover and needing the power as fast as possible could be really helpful for taking that step to get technologies that have a price premium, too.
When it comes to permitting, how important is permitting with respect to “speed-to-power”? What ideas do you support given the rush to build, keeping in mind the environmental protection aspect?
You don’t build without sufficient protections to air quality, water quality, public health, and safety in that regard.
Where I see the fundamental need for permitting reform is, take a look at all the environmental statutes at the federal level and analyze where they’re needing an update and modernization to maintain rigorous environmental standards but build at a more efficient pace. I know the National Environmental Policy Act and the House bill, the SPEED Act, have gotten lots of attention and deservedly so. But also it’s taking a look at things like the Clean Water Act, when states can abuse authority to block pipelines or transmission lines, or the Endangered Species Act, where litigation can drag on for a lot of these projects.
Are there any examples out there of your ideal permitting preferences, prioritizing speed-to-power while protecting the environment? Or is this all so new we’re still in the idea phase?
It’s a little bit of both. For example, there are some states with what’s called a permit-by-rule system. That means you get the permit as long as you meet the environmental standards in place. You have to be in compliance with all the environmental laws on the books but they’ll let them do this as long as they’re monitored, making sure the compliance is legitimate.
One of the structural challenges with some state laws and federal laws is they’re more procedural statutes and a mother may I? approach to permitting. Other statutes just say they’ll enforce rules and regulations on the books but just let companies build projects. Then look at a state like Texas, where they allow more permits rather quickly for all kinds of energy projects. They’ve been pretty efficient at building everything from solar and storage to oil and gas operations.
I think there’s just many different models. Are we early in the stages? There’s a tremendous amount of ideas and opportunities out there. Everything from speeding up interconnection queues to consumer regulated electricity, which is kind of a bring-your-own-power type of solution where companies don’t have to answer or respond to utilities.
It sounds like from your perspective you want to see a permitting pace that allows speed-to-power while protecting the environment.
Yeah, that’s correct. I mean, in the case of a natural gas turbine, if they’re in compliance with the regulations at the state and federal level I don’t have an issue with that. I more so have an issue if they’re disregarding rules at the federal or state level.
We know data centers can be built quickly and we know energy infrastructure cannot. I don’t know if they’ll ever get on par with one another but I do think there are tremendous opportunities to make those processes more efficient. Not just for data centers but to address the cost concerns Americans are seeing across the board.
Do you think the data center boom is going to lead to lots more permitting reform being enacted? Or will the backlash to new projects stop all that?
I think the fundamental driver of permitting reform will be higher energy prices and we’ll need more supply to have more reliability. You just saw NERC put out a level 3 warning about the stability of the grid, driven by data centers. People really pay attention to this when prices are rising.
Will data centers help or hurt the cause? I think that remains to be seen. If there’s opportunities for data centers to pay for infrastructure, including what they’re using, there are areas where projects have been good partners in communities. If they’re the ones taking the opportunity to invest, and they can ensure ratepayers won’t be footing the bill for the power infrastructure, I think they’ll be more of an asset for permitting reform than a harm.
The general public angst against data centers is – trying to think of the right word here – a visceral reaction. It snowballed on itself. Hopefully there’s a bit of an opportunity for a reset and broader understanding of what legitimate concerns are and where we can have better education.
And I’m certainly not shilling for the data centers. I’m here to say they can be good partners and allies in meeting our energy needs.
I’m wondering from your vantage point, what are you hearing from the companies themselves? Is it about a need to build faster? What are they telling you about the backlash to their projects?
When I talk to industry, speed-to-power has been their number one two and three concern. That is slightly shifting because of the growing angst about data centers. Even a few years ago, when developers were engaging with state legislatures, they were hearing more questions than answers. But it’s mostly about how companies can connect to the grid as fast as possible, or whether they can co-locate energy.
Okay, but going back to what you just said about the backlash here. As this becomes more salient, including in Republican circles, is the trendline for the eco-right getting things built faster or tackling these concerns head on?
To me it's a yes, and.
I would broaden this out to be not just the eco right but also Abundance progressives, Abundance conservatives, and libertarians. We need to address these issues head on – with better education, better community engagement. Make sure people know what is getting built. I mean, the Abundance movement as a whole is trying to address those systemic problems.
It’s also an opportunity for the necessary policy reform that has plagued energy development in the U.S. for decades. I see this from an eco right perspective and an abundance progressive perspective that it's an opportunity to say why energy development matters. For families, for the entire U.S. energy economy, and for these hyperscalers.
But if you don’t win in the court of public opinion, none of this is going to matter. We do need to listen to the communities. It’s not an either or here.
And future administrations will learn from his extrajudicial success.
President Donald Trump is now effectively blocking any new wind projects in the United States, according to the main renewables trade group, using the federal government’s power over all things air and sky to grind a routine approval process to a screeching halt.
So far, almost everything Trump has done to target the wind energy sector has been defeated in court. His Day 1 executive order against the wind industry was found unconstitutional. Each of his stop work orders trying to shut down wind farms were overruled. Numerous moves by his Interior Department were ruled illegal.
However, since the early days of Trump 2.0, renewable energy industry insiders have been quietly skittish about a potential secret weapon: the Federal Aviation Administration. Any structure taller than 200 feet must be approved to not endanger commercial planes – that’s an FAA job. If the FAA decided to indefinitely seize up the so-called “no hazard” determinations process, legal and policy experts have told me it would potentially pose an existential risk to all future wind development.
Well, this is now the strategy Trump is apparently taking. Over the weekend, news broke that the Defense Department is refusing to sign off on things required to complete the FAA clearance process. From what I’ve heard from industry insiders, including at the American Clean Power Association, the issues started last summer but were limited in scale, primarily impacting projects that may have required some sort of deal to mitigate potential impacts on radar or other military functions.
Over the past few weeks, according to ACP, this once-routine process has fully deteriorated and companies are operating with the understanding FAA approvals are on pause because the Department of Defense (or War, if you ask the administration) refuses to sign off on anything. The military is given the authority to weigh in and veto these decisions through a siting clearinghouse process established under federal statute. But the trade group told me this standstill includes projects where there are no obvious impacts to military operations, meaning there aren’t even any bases or defense-related structures nearby.
One energy industry lawyer who requested anonymity to speak candidly on the FAA problems told me, “This is the strategy for how you kill an industry while losing every case: just keep coming at the industry. Create an uninvestable climate and let the chips fall where they may.”
I heard the same from Tony Irish, a former career attorney for the Interior Department, including under Trump 1.0, who told me he essentially agreed with that attorney’s assessment.
“One of the major shames of the last 15 months is this loss of the presumption of regularity,” Irish told me. “This underscores a challenge with our legal system. They can find ways to avoid courts altogether – and it demonstrates a unilateral desire to achieve an end regardless of the legality of it, just using brute force.”
In a statement to me, the Pentagon confirmed its siting clearinghouse “is actively evaluating land-based wind projects to ensure they do not impair national security or military operations, in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements.” The FAA declined to comment on whether the country is now essentially banning any new wind projects and directed me to the White House. Then in an email, White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly told me the Pentagon statement “does not ‘confirm’” the country instituted a de facto ban on new wind projects. Kelly did not respond to a follow up question asking for clarification on the administration’s position.
Faced with a cataclysmic scenario, the renewable energy industry decided to step up to the bully pulpit. The American Clean Power Association sent statements to the Financial Times, The New York Times and me confirming that at least 165 wind projects are now being stalled by the FAA determination process, representing about 30 gigawatts of potential electricity generation. This also apparently includes projects that negotiated agreements with the government to mitigate any impacts to military activities. The trade group also provided me with a statement from its CEO Jason Grumet accusing the Trump administration of “actively driving the debate” over federal permitting “into the ditch by abusing the current permitting system” – a potential signal for Democrats in Congress to raise hell over this.
Indeed, on permitting reform, the Trump team may have kicked a hornet’s nest. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Ranking Member Martin Heinrich – a key player in congressional permitting reform talks – told me in a statement that by effectively blocking all new wind projects, the Trump administration “undercuts their credibility and bipartisan permitting reform.” California Democratic Rep. Mike Levin said in an interview Tuesday that this incident means Heinrich and others negotiating any federal permitting deal “should be cautious in how we trust but verify.”
But at this point, permitting reform drama will do little to restore faith that the U.S. legal and regulatory regime can withstand such profound politicization of one type of energy. There is no easy legal remedy to these aerospace problems; none of the previous litigation against Trump’s attacks on wind addressed the FAA, and as far as we know the military has not in its correspondence with energy developers cited any of the regulatory or policy documents that were challenged in court.
Actions like these have consequences for future foreign investment in U.S. energy development. Last August, after the Transportation Department directed the FAA to review wind farms to make sure they weren’t “a danger to aviation,” government affairs staff for a major global renewables developer advised the company to move away from wind in the U.S. market because until the potential FAA issues were litigated it would be “likely impossible to move forward with construction of any new wind projects.” I am aware this company has since moved away from actively developing wind projects in the U.S. where they had previously made major investments as recently as 2024.
Where does this leave us? I believe the wind industry offers a lesson for any developers of large, politically controversial infrastructure – including data centers. Should the federal government wish to make your business uninvestable, it absolutely will do so and the courts cannot stop them.