You’ve reached your free article limit
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:
A new fundraise from Isometric, plus more of this week’s — and last week’s! — big money moves.

With the Juneteenth holiday last Friday we missed out on our weekly roundup of energy and climate tech funding news. That means this week brings a double dose of announcements, covering three deals from this week and two from last.
As my colleagues Alexander C. Kaufman and Robinson Meyer both reported last week, the coalition of carbon removal buyers known as Frontier announced a new $915 million funding commitment, notably now counting artificial intelligence giant Anthropic among its members. That set the stage for a related development this week: Isometric, the carbon removal market’s largest certification platform, also announced fresh funding as it looks to expand the scope of its certification methodology to cover things like low-carbon materials and renewable energy certificates.
In a sign of continued momentum across the electric and autonomous vehicle industries, this week also brought a tranche of debt financing for charging infrastructure, alongside a large European utility deal for iron-air battery startup Ore Energy. And rounding out last week’s activity, Foundation Alloy raised a Series A to scale lower-energy metals production, while yet another SpaceX alum secured funding for a new startup, this time to mass manufacture geothermal turbines, aiming to reduce deployment timelines and costs.
Eamon Jubbawy founded the UK-based certification platform Isometric in 2022 with the goal of creating a carbon credit standard to end all carbon credit standards. The voluntary carbon market was — and largely still is — a confusing patchwork of registries, protocols, and verification bodies offering myriad ways for companies to offset their emissions, with the price and quality of offsets varying dramatically. Isometric set out to make sense of it all by hiring a team of scientists to evaluate the efficacy of different carbon removal pathways, ultimately developing a rigorous set of standards that carbon crediting companies must meet to earn Isometric certification.
Now, having become the world’s largest carbon removal certification company by contracted volume, the startup is taking its model beyond this beachhead market. This week, Isometric raised a $40 million Series A led by global venture capital firm AVP to expand into the broader industrial economy. That includes verifying everything from the embodied emissions of low-carbon steel and cement to superpollutant reductions, renewable energy certificates that attest to the generation of clean power at a specific time and place, and the climate impact of low-carbon fuels used in shipping and aviation.
“Isometric was basically founded to say, look, the long-term solution here is obviously government and regulation, but in the meantime, this is too important to let the market just keep doing it like this,” Lukas May, Isometric’s chief commercial officer, told me when I interviewed him in September 2024. He was referring to the voluntary carbon removal market — and the need for federal regulators to eventually determine what does and doesn’t qualify as carbon removal — but the same argument could easily apply to the new sectors where Isometric is now applying its meticulous approach.
The startup’s team of scientists is also getting a major boost from AI. Isometric says its “agentic certification platform” can do in mere hours what used to take months, with agents ingesting millions of data points underpinning claims around things like carbon reduction or clean energy generation and cross-checking them against first-hand sources such as sensor readings, satellite imagery, and supply chain records. That allows the company’s scientists to focus on investigating meaningful discrepancies rather than manually spot-checking datasets at random.
Terawatt Infrastructure was little more than a year out of stealth in 2022 when it rocked the electric vehicle charging industry by raising a colossal $1 billion Series A to expand its full-service platform. The company offers more than just charging infrastructure — it also owns the underlying real estate, power management software, operations, and, in some cases, even the energy assets themselves.
Now the company founded by Google’s former head of energy strategy Neha Palmer has secured up to $300 million in debt financing, backed by a group of global banks led by RBC Capital Markets, to further expand its network. The deal indicates that these large financial institutions now view this type of full-stack charging infrastructure as a secure, bankable asset as EV and autonomous vehicle fleets proliferate. Goldman Sachs projects that the latter will become a $415 billion global market by 2035, representing an expansion from about 7,000 robotaxis in 2025 to 6 million in 2035.
Terawatt already counts Waymo and PepsiCo among its customers, and, according to Bloomberg, operates more than 50 properties in around a dozen states, with over 200 megawatts of power capacity in development. While this latest debt financing will help it expand its network, it’s still just a drop in the bucket in terms of what’s needed: BloombergNEF estimates that building out the global charging infrastructure for electric and autonomous fleets will require more than $635 billion in investment through 2040.
Back in February, I covered the news that Ore Energy, a European iron-air battery startup and Form Energy competitor, had completed a grid-connected pilot in France with EDF, the state-owned electric utility. The project helped validate the startup’s core technology: a 100-hour battery that can discharge continuously for four days under real-world operating conditions. This week, the startup built on that progress by announcing a deal with Dutch utility Budget Thuis for a 1-gigawatt-hour iron-air battery system, with the first phase — a 400-megawatt-hour installation — slated for delivery in 2028.
This agreement marks the first iron-air offtake deal with a European energy supplier, an impressive milestone considering Ore has raised just shy of $30 million, compared to Form’s roughly $1.2 billion. The partnership with Budget Thuis is designed to help shield customers from volatile gas prices while stabilizing the Dutch grid as it becomes increasingly reliant on wind power. Like many battery storage technologies, Ore’s system dispatches clean, low-cost electricity when power is scarce, dirty, or expensive. But unlike conventional lithium-ion technologies, Ore’s is designed for those multi-day lulls in renewables generation — a challenge that’s particularly acute when it comes to wind energy.
According to Latitude Media, Ore aims to scale to providing 50 gigawatt-hours per year by 2030, suggesting this announcement could be the first of many to come. "We’ve shown our iron-air chemistry works in a European utility setting, and this deployment is the next step in commercialisation: meaningful volume, tied to a real project, with an energy supplier that understands what multi-day storage means for its business,” Aytaç Yilmaz, co-founder and CEO of Ore Energy said in the company’s press release. “We believe iron-air will become as important for wind as lithium-ion has been for solar.”
Metals production is typically an extremely energy-intensive process, involving melting a base metal at hundreds or even thousands of degrees Celsius before mixing in additional elements to create an alloy. The metals startup Foundation Alloy thinks it has a way to simplify this process, however, while significantly lowering energy demand. Rather than melting metals — a process that traditionally relies on fossil fuels to generate enough heat — the startup mechanically bonds metal powders together in a solid state process. This takes substantially less heat and no melting, though the mechanical grinding and fusing carries an energy cost of its own. The final product is an alloy with a more granular, uniform internal structure from the outset, thus eliminating the need for many secondary processing steps.
The startup raised a $22 million Series A last week, led by the climate-focused VC Voyager Ventures, to scale beyond the lab and into commercial production in both the U.S. and Asia. It’s building a 36,000-square-foot factory in Massachusetts, as well as a smaller facility in New Hampshire, with plans to double headcount across its production, engineering, and commercial teams to meet growing demand for alloys in the defense, manufacturing and energy sectors. “Our new Massachusetts facility and modular production cell are set to grow capacity from pilot-scale today to tons per week by 2027 — a 100x increase, built on a modular equipment platform that deploys and scales 10x faster than traditional metals manufacturing,” Jake Guglin, Foundation Alloy’s CEO, said in the company’s press release.
Today, the startup primarily produces molybdenum-based alloys used in high-temperature industrial applications such as hot forging and die casting, and is expanding into iron-based alloys such as stainless steel. Exactly how much energy its production process saves remains unclear, as the company has not disclosed any quantitative energy or emissions reduction figures for the full lifecycle of its products, although it says that the processing chain for its metals is fully electrified.
As my colleagues Matthew Zeitlin and Emily Pontecorvo reported a few weeks ago, the multiverse of former Elon Musk employees who have gone on to start fascinating, often out-there sounding clean tech companies is vast and varied. Last week brought funding news on yet another: turbine manufacturing startup Critical Energy. Founded by former SpaceX rocket propulsion engineer Spencer Jackson, the company raised $19 million in seed funding alongside $3 million in venture debt to build modular turbines designed for geothermal power plants and waste heat applications.
The premise is that while geothermal drilling has become dramatically faster and more efficient in recent years, turbine manufacturing has failed to keep pace. Today’s geothermal turbines are typically bespoke and assembled almost entirely onsite. But Critical Energy’s thesis is that shifting most of the manufacturing and construction process into factories can shrink turbine deployment timelines from years to weeks while substantially reducing costs. It designs its modular turbines to fit inside shipping containers, allowing them to be shipped via truck and assembled onsite. The startup’s first two products are 2.5-megawatt and 5-megawatt turbines, which can stack together to accommodate larger projects as opposed to building one large, custom turbine.
According to TechCrunch, this new funding will go towards Critical Energy’s first 2.5-megawatt project, which is slated for a power plant in a yet-to-be-named location expected to come online in 2027. Longer term, The company aims to be manufacturing gigawatts of turbines by the early 2030s, ultimately enabling over 300 gigawatts of new power generation annually by 2045. But its bet on factory manufacturing will only prove to be a scaleable, cost effective strategy if demand for geothermal power continues to grow at a rapid clip, leveling off at a scale that can justify this type of high-volume production.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Even the smallest wave, tidal, and river-current projects are currently licensed as if they were 1,000-megawatt dams.
Tucked inside the Senate’s ambitious new permitting bill, the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, is a major win for an energy technology that often flies under the radar: marine power. Small-scale wave, tidal, and river-current projects could help power everything from remote communities and military installations to ocean sensors and coastal desalination systems — at least in theory.
Drawing largely from the bipartisan FLOWS Act, introduced in the Senate last December but never brought to a floor vote, BAAJA aims to streamline the licensing pathway for so-called micro hydrokinetic projects, which harness moving water without dams or reservoirs and have a capacity of 5 megawatts or less. The bill would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission one year to act on commercial license applications for these projects, while exempting them from full review under the National Environmental Policy Act. It would also allow FERC to issue 10- to 20-year licenses, giving projects a pathway to long-term commercial operation, as opposed to relying on pilot licenses designed for temporary testing.
The bill wouldn’t eliminate environmental oversight altogether. Small-scale marine energy projects would still undergo basic environmental screenings as a part of FERC licensing, and would still require state and local permits, which can trigger their own environmental reviews. They’d also remain subject to the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act — though the bill would expedite reviews under both of those laws, too. On the whole, the reforms are intended to give developers and investors alike a quicker, more predictable timeline.
“Taking a 1-megawatt marine energy project and trying to license it like it’s a 1,000-megawatt conventional dam just wasn’t working. It was apples to oranges,” Matthew Allen, senior director of legislative affairs at the National Hydropower Association, told me. “Recognizing that it deserves its own process could be a tremendous market signal for the technology.”
After all, this tech certainly doesn’t look like large-scale hydropower, where colossal dams unleash thousands of tons of water per second that rush through electricity-generating turbines to the river below. Such gargantuan infrastructure projects typically require favorable geography — think big rivers running through steep, mountainous terrain, where a dam can create a sharp drop in elevation. And with most of the best sites in the U.S. already developed, the country is unlikely to build many new greenfield hydro projects anytime soon.
But less-developed marine energy technologies have barely scratched the surface of their potential. Some look like large buoys, bobbing with the ocean swells and converting that motion into electricity. Others use turbines anchored to the seafloor or riverbed, spinning as tides ebb and flow or river currents rush past. While these devices generate essentially zero power for the grid today, in theory the resource is enormous: The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that wave, tidal, and river-current projects have the technical potential to generate a staggering 2,300 terawatt-hours of electricity annually — more than half of the country’s total electricity generation last year. Wave energy alone accounts for about 60% of that number.
Of course, technical potential is a long way from practical reality. Economic constraints, environmental regulations, competing water uses, and public acceptance could limit uptake of these technologies. NREL suggests that we would be lucky to eventually tap even 10% of marine energy’s potential. Meanwhile, most of the tech remains in the pilot or demonstration stage in the U.S. — which is exactly why expediting permitting for small-scale projects stands to have significant impact.
“Marine energy is so new and still so novel that a 5-megawatt device, it doesn’t even exist right now,” Jennifer Garson, former director of the Water Power Technologies Office during the Biden administration, told me. “So you’re still talking about a good amount of headroom for being able to deploy smaller-scale marine energy devices in rivers and nearshore.”
Early deployments have largely served remote or island communities. In the 70-person Alaska Native village of Igiugig, for example, Ocean Renewable Power Company installed two 35-kilowatt turbine systems on a local riverbed, designed to supply nearly half the village’s power and thus reduce reliance on expensive diesel generators. While the project’s pilot license expires in three years, the permitting bill could offer a pathway to continued power generation.
The lack of a commercial licensing pathway has already led to the demise of one promising project, National Hydropower Association senior program manager Kelly Rogers told me. Verdant Power’s tidal energy pilot in New York City’s East River — the first project of its type to receive a license in the U.S. — officially shuttered in 2021 when said pilot license expired. By then, its turbines had delivered over 312 megawatt-hours of total electricity to the grid, harnessing the tides as they flowed in and out of the saltwater channel.
Other companies in this space include wave energy startups Oscilla Power and CalWave, which make surface-floating and submerged wave energy converters, respectively, with the goal of selling to utility customers and remote communities alike. C-Power, another early-stage wave energy company, is focused on powering off-grid equipment like ocean sensors. And while all have received at least some venture backing, a significant portion of their funding comes from Department of Energy grants.
In 2022, all three received DOE funding to trial their tech at PacWave, an Oregon-based facility that’s the first grid-connected wave energy test site in the continental U.S. Backed by the DOE, the facility secured all its necessary state and federal approvals in advance so that companies working there could largely bypass the permitting process and get their tech straight into the water. But getting there, Garson told me, involved an arduous 15 years of negotiations among the DOE, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and state and local authorities before the facility could open for testing this August.
The permitting bill can only do so much to accelerate a permitting process like this, Garson explained. Even with a faster FERC licensing process, all projects in federal waters — generally those more than 3 nautical miles from shore — will still need a separate lease from BOEM, a complex process that the bill’s new permitting pathway wouldn’t replace. “One of the complexities of anything that you do with water is you just have so many split jurisdictional challenges and questions,” she told me.
It’s also telling that as of yet, there are no wave energy devices in PacWave’s waters, as the Trump administration’s federal funding freeze has scrambled the plans of some of the marine energy developers who’d originally intended to test there. Oregon startup AquaHarmonics, for example, was on track to deploy its wave energy converter at PacWave but had to shut down last year after the Trump administration withheld its previously allocated grant money.
“A lot of the device deployments, particularly in the United States, have been contingent on or reliant on federal funding,” Garson told me. “You’re dealing with still such early-stage R&D that it really points to a necessity for the federal government to be in this space”
But while the federal budget for emerging marine energy technologies has generally grown year over year, Garson said relatively little of that money is actually reaching developers. When she was still at the DOE, for example, the Water Power Technologies Office launched a funding solicitation offering up to $112.5 million in total for wave energy companies to test their devices at sea, including at PacWave. But while the DOE was supposed to announce the winners last year, Garson said it has yet to do so — and it’s disbursed no funding, either.
“That’s a long time for a lot of these companies to sit and wait for any funding to even be available,” she told me. CalWave, at least, still plans to hook its system up at PacWave, as the startup’s CEO, Marcus Lehmann, told me the company is “now in the construction phase of installing the first grid-connected system” and that it plans to launch at PacWave sometime in 2027 or 2028.
He sees the permitting bill as “really critical” in helping early-stage projects “get online faster, and just to prove it out on a community level or a microgrid level” before scaling up to larger installations and device arrays that would likely exceed the 5-megawatt threshold.
“Regulatory certainty, particularly when you’re dealing with capital-tight startups — great. Anything that makes their lives easier, I am all for,” Garson told me, calling the existing permitting structure for marine energy “byzantine.” But she doesn’t think that if the bill passes we’ll suddenly see a slew of wave, tidal, and river-current projects coming online. “You’re still talking about relatively small outputs of power until we reach more [technological] maturity.”
But it could certainly be a first step toward recognizing the potential of water power technologies beyond conventional hydropower — and giving them a place in the broader clean energy conversation. “This is a meaningful amount of power to a lot of people. We just tend to get so lost in the gigawatt conversation,” Garson told me.
And while developers do measure these projects in kilowatts and megawatts for now, one day they too could help move the needle at the gigawatt level. As Garson put it, “If we can figure out how to unlock the ocean — power for everybody, everywhere.”
On methane emissions, renewables’ costs, and Poland’s atomic ambition
Current conditions: Hurricane Simon is lingering off Mexico’s coast as a new tropical depression that could form into a powerful storm begins gathering strength • Iceland has issued an orange-level warning — the notch just below the most severe — across the whole country ahead of an intense storm that could bring vicious winds and snow • The mountain areas surrounding Los Angeles are on red alert for wildfires throughout the rest of the week.
Over Labor Day weekend, I found myself on the upper deck of the ferry to Block Island, a rustic little vacation enclave between Rhode Island and New York’s Long Island, marveling at a seemingly endless horizon of spinning wind turbines. Revolution Wind, Orsted’s first big chunk of the Northeast’s offshore wind buildout, was, as its name implied, an act of defiance. The Trump administration had tried for months to kill the project, which was nearly finished when President Donald Trump returned to office last year. But the Danish energy giant won one battle after another in court, and ultimately brought the 704-megawatt turbine array online. Its completion, however, isn’t the end of the fight.
On Friday, the Department of Justice asked a federal court to rescind the Department of the Interior’s approval of a construction and operation plan for Revolution Wind. Citing a regulatory filing, Bloomberg broke news yesterday that the Interior Department wants to reconsider whether the permit complies with federal law. In response, my colleague Robinson Meyer asked last night whether Trump was “trying to blow up the permitting deal,” which includes a whole section on project certainty. (See my colleague Jael Holzman’s reporting on the bill for more.) White House energy advisor Jarrod Agen appeared to suggest the legal move was a negotiating tactic, calling on “the media” to “stop their attempts to blow up a GREAT deal for the American people.” In a post on X, he said, “This is an old lawsuit brought by the local community—who had serious concerns about this project—against the Biden Administration! The White House maintains support for PERMITTING REFORM! We look forward to the Senate voting on this historic legislation.” In a joint statement Senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, the chief Democratic negotiators of the permitting deal, said “the administration needs to start showing good faith progress on wind permits.”
Of the 1,583 executive orders presidents have issued since 1993, 22 explicitly mention coal. More than a third of those bore Trump’s signature. That’s according to a new analysis by the Financial Times, whose reporting found that lobbying by the coal industry has significantly increased in Trump’s second term. “When we would meet with the Biden administration they were like, ‘Let’s just keep that coal in the ground,’” Michelle Bloodworth, chief executive at trade association America’s Power, told the newspaper. “It’s been just amazing, unbelievable to have President Trump and the administration talk so publicly about the importance of coal.”
Meanwhile, there’s an optimistic climate case for fossil fuel that has driven the shift away from coal and reducing America’s emissions. The problem with natural gas has always been that, despite producing less carbon when burned, the drilling and transportation of the fuel leaks methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that stays in the atmosphere for less time but traps more heat throughout those decades. But methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas sector are remaining steady despite surging production, according to new research by Johns Hopkins University. The study, published yesterday in the peer-reviewed journal Communications Earth & Environment, highlights a big reason: “Companies have built more infrastructure needed to better capture methane — a vital component of natural gas — and transport it for sale as a fuel, providing a financial incentive to limit the amount escaping into the atmosphere.” That’s a double-edged sword, the paper’s author said. “The good news is that emissions have not markedly increased, as many scientists feared would happen after an enormous increase in natural gas production in the decades following the hydraulic fracturing boom,” Scot Miller, an associate professor of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins University who studies greenhouse gases, said in a statement. “The bad news is that oil and gas production is still a large percentage of U.S. methane emissions, and we do not find any evidence that a flurry of federal legislation had an impact on emissions.”

Wind and solar is cheap to build, and even cheaper to operate. But data suggests “there is no meaningful relationship between wind and solar deployment” and lower wholesale electricity prices, according to a new analysis from the consultancy BloombergNEF. “This is also the case when considering all renewable generation, and renewable-plus-nuclear power.” That’s because, in many markets, renewables bid at or below zero, and are thus tapped first. As a result, fossil fuels set the marginal price during the hours when they’re in demand as a dispatchable resource when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. On average, fossil fuels such as gas or coal set the price in Europe roughly 58% of the time in 2021, despite a declining share of generation. In the United Kingdom, it was around 90% in the early 2020s, but has since shrunk to 60%. In PJM Interconnection, the second-largest U.S. grid system, natural gas set the marginal price 60% of hours last year. A big problem is the high rate at which renewable power plants are forced to reduce output below maximum levels to keep from overloading the grid. Across 27 markets worldwide, BNEF found that the average rate at which wind and solar are curtailed was 10.5% last year. “Indeed, more wind and solar deployment may increase other cost inputs for retail prices unless other fundraising mechanisms are used,” the report warned. “For example, renewables integration is a key driver of grid expansion and reinforcement, for which network charges in consumer bills have been a crucial source of funding in many markets.”
So, when will wind and solar actually start reducing bills? It depends on where you’re talking about. Over the next decade, Germany’s prices are set to fall by 20% below the 2025 average. Britain’s offshore wind and solar buildout are expected to reduce prices by 26% over that same period between now and 2035. Spain, on the other hand, is forecast to see steady power prices over the next few years followed by an increase as its nuclear plants come offline. In the U.S., prices in PJM and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas are set to soar “partly due to the phaseout of wind and solar tax credits” and “delays to new gas-fired capacity and transmission build.” The Texas grid in particular could see prices soar by 160% over 2025 levels by 2035. But the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, the nation’s largest grid spanning the Midwest, and New York’s statewide grid are poised for “a gradual decline from 2026 driven by steady renewable additions, lowering the need for thermal generation.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The Department of Energy is pumping $581 million into upgrading the Tennessee Valley Authority’s grid system. The agency said Tuesday the funding would support 84 transmission and distribution projects across eight states in the federally owned utility’s territory, adding about 2.5 gigawatts of capacity. While $331 million will go to cost-share programs that require the TVA and local utilities to kick in funding, another $250 million will come as direct federal funding. “America’s electric grid cannot become a roadblock to economic growth,” Katie Jereza, the assistant energy secretary of the Office of Electricity, said in a statement.
When I visited the site where Poland plans to build its first nuclear power station with a trio of America’s flagship reactors, Westinghouse AP1000s, the area was little more than a cleared portion of a rural field on the Baltic Sea, where crews were conducting seismic tests. But as I told you last week, Poland cemented its plans by approving the purchase of long lead-time items. All along, the country had planned to build at least one more atomic power station. At first, the second plant was supposed to be financed with private capital and use South Korean technology. But those plans have largely fallen to the wayside in recent years.
Now the same state-owned firm behind the AP1000 facility has officially committed to building a second plant. The U.S., France, and Canada have all begun bidding to build the No. 2 facility, according to World Nuclear News.
Last month, I told you that the AI energy software provider Verse had tripled that amount of power capacity under its control. Now, I can reveal exclusively for this newsletter, the company is out with a new calculator that shows the potential impact of the data center buildout on Texas ratepayers. Without new power supply, data centers would add $624 per year to the average household’s bills, Verse’s calculations found. But requiring data centers to build their own power would reduce that increase to $35 per year. But data centers that respond to grid demand with flexibility, ramping down when supply when is lower, could actually reduce households' electricity bills by $223 per year. You can play with the calculator here for yourself.
The Trump administration has asked a court to re-examine a key permit for Revolution Wind in Rhode Island.
This is Heatmap Daily, an evening news digest written by our executive editor. Subscribe here.
Updated, 11:05 p.m. ET
At the end of the day, the biggest threat to the bipartisan permitting deal probably isn’t green groups, the fossil fuel industry, or monopoly utilities. It’s President Trump himself.
The legislative proposal is meant to constrain the president from tampering with clean energy projects — and if it passes, then some of its provisions seem like they could do so. But in order for it to pass, Trump must adhere to the deal that he brokered with the bill’s Senate Democratic negotiators, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico.
Under that deal, the Trump administration must allow the 30 wind farms held up by what is normally a Department of Defense box-checking exercise to proceed. (Trump himself agreed to allow these projects to move forward, according to Politico reporting from last month.) More broadly, the administration has to make a show of good faith that it will return to what Whitehouse has called “regular order” on wind and solar permits. That could include approving a longer list of more than 200 onshore wind projects held up in the queue.
That somewhat informal deal is now facing its biggest test yet. On Friday, the Department of Justice filed a motion in court to re-examine a key permit granted to Revolution Wind, a nearly complete offshore wind farm being built off the coast of Rhode Island. The filing was first reported by Bloomberg.
Revolution Wind is one of six Biden-era offshore projects that is now operating or at least still moving forward. It could eventually produce as much as 700 megawatts of electricity. (Other offshore wind projects have accepted Trump’s $4 billion payouts.)
This isn’t the first time that the Trump administration has gone after this particular offshore project: The White House fought, and then resoundingly lost, an effort to stop work on Revolution Wind last year. But the timing of the filing — and the fact that it’s happening in Senator Whitehouse’s backyard — could make this filing far more significant.
In a post on X, the White House energy official Jarrod Agen seemed to play down the legal move without fully disowning it.
“This is an old lawsuit brought by the local community—who had serious concerns about this project—against the Biden Administration!,” he wrote. (The lawsuit in question was filed by Green Oceans, an anti-wind-energy group. Its law firm has what The New York Times described as “close ties” to the conservative legal movement.)
The White House still supports permitting reform, Agen added, adding that “the media should stop their attempts to blow up a GREAT deal for the American people!”
Sorry, Jarrod — we’re just doing our job. After we initially published this story, Senators Whitehouse and Heinrich sent a joint statement: “Frankly, we need to get permitting certainty in law, and this proves it,” they said. “In the meantime, the administration needs to start showing good faith progress on wind permits.”