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:
As SPCX hits the Nasdaq, here’s some more from our Musk Mafia survey.
Hopefully by now you’ve read our comprehensive look at Elon Musk’s “climate tech mafia” — a coterie of founders and executives running clean energy and decarbonization companies who jumpstarted their careers at Tesla and SpaceX. But, to quote another hardware executive, we have one more thing.
The backbone of this story was responses to a questionnaire we sent the executives and founders on our list, and we got more great responses than we were able to put in the story, so we wanted to share some of the most insightful and surprising answers they gave us here.
Mateo Jaramillo
Founder and CEO, Form Energy
Formerly: VP Products & Programs, Tesla Energy
“During my time at Tesla, I realized there was a lot of opportunity for energy storage beyond lithium-ion that had never really been commercialized. What I heard over and over again from utility executives while building up the lithium-ion business was that there was a need for something offering much longer duration. Absent that kind of storage, you’re going to build two grids — a renewable grid and a thermal-based grid for reliability — and neither one becomes particularly cost-efficient. So that was the space I went on to go explore.”
Philipp Schröder
Founder and CEO, 1KOMMA5°
Formerly: Country director for Germany and Austria, Tesla
“Total electrification as a precondition for clean energy abundance was a core realization during my time at Tesla. Electrification merges mobility, heating, cooling, and regular consumption into one mega energy stack. That realization also led to our Masterplan for founding 1KOMMA5°.”
Justin Lopas
COO and cofounder, Base Power
Formerly: Lead engineer for Starship manufacturing, SpaceX
“You can get way more done in a day and can move way faster than you think. This does not mean necessarily more hours (although solving any hard problem requires that too), but instead being thoughtful about sequencing work, not accepting delays from suppliers or external counterparties without solid rationale, parallel pathing, accelerating critical learnings to early in the project, etc.”
Cole Ashman
Founder and CEO, PILA
Formerly: Product and applications engineer, Tesla Powerwall
“Question every requirement. It was something that permeated Tesla engineering culture — start from the best possible way to do something and solve for that, instead of letting perceived constraints define what you build.”
Jonathan Criss
Founder and CEO, Vital Lyfe
Formerly: Manager, Starlink development engineering
“At SpaceX, you were expected to own the full outcome, not just your piece of it. I could not go to Elon and say the program slipped because the bathrooms overflowed. He would call me dumb and ask why I did not fix the bathrooms. That mindset forces you to think through every possible failure mode and take responsibility for the overall result. It is basically like running a mini business inside the larger business that is SpaceX.”
Landon Mossburg
Founder and CEO, Peak Energy
Formerly: Director of software engineering and operations, Tesla
“Tesla instills a culture of resourcefulness and extreme cash conservatism when building out operational systems. Being part of that environment teaches you how to design highly effective, creative solutions without wasting capital, allowing us to hit our deployment milestones while remaining exceptionally lean and disciplined with our funding.”
Arch Rao
Founder and CEO, Span
Formerly: Head of products, application, and sales engineering, Tesla Energy
“J.B. Straubel is easily one of the smartest yet incredibly humble engineers and leaders I’ve had the opportunity to work with. He has deep domain knowledge and a keen sense of how to build a high-performance team. To this day, I connect with him to talk about technical ideas and for mentorship.”
Kunal Girotra
Founder and CEO, Lunar Energy
Formerly: Senior director and head of Tesla Energy
“J.B. [Straubel] and Drew [Baglino] were both influential in how they helped solve complex problems within the company while dealing with constant pressure on cash and company survival — [the] company wasn’t the insanity of stock price that it is right now. The formative periods of Tesla were the ones that defined the company, and both of them led from the front.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Current conditions: The powerful storm system rolling through the Midwest and the Plains on Thursday caused more than 350 incidents of severe weather in just two states, Iowa and Michigan • New York City is getting its own thunderstorm today, which will break the heat going into the weekend • Temperatures in Mecca are already 110 degrees Fahrenheit, and will climb higher on Saturday.
The Department of Energy has reversed its terminations of 11 grants to clean energy projects in states that voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024. The move comes months after the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the cancellations violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee, citing the continuation of comparable grants to states that voted for President Donald Trump in the election. Under the terms of an agreement between the litigants and the federal government filed on Thursday, the Energy Department will vacate the terminations. Among the primary reasons for the decision, according to a blog post from a network for former Energy Department officials, is that the agency itself admitted that part of its justification for canceling the projects was that they were listed in documents as taking place in “blue states.” But it wasn’t just Democratic-leaning states that were targeted in the initial cuts last fall. As Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo wrote, red state projects were on the chopping block, too.
With shares set to start trading on the Nasdaq this morning, SpaceX is on track to become a $1.7 trillion behemoth after raising roughly $75 billion at its stock market debut. Elon Musk’s rocket business, which has also emerged as one of the world’s leading satellite internet providers, is aiming to launch its first extraterrestrial data center in 2028.
Musk’s business empire has spawned an entire ecosystem of companies looking to innovate on hardware and categories venture capitalists call “deep tech.” As Emily and Matthew Zeitlin wrote in a feature yesterday, Musk — once a don of the PayPal mafia — has now emerged at the helm of a new “climate tech mafia” that includes such startups as the next-generation transformer maker Heron Power and the fusion company Maritime Fusion.

Michigan utility regulators should reject utility giant Consumers Energy’s proposed sale of 13 hydroelectric dams to a private equity buyer. In a 312-page ruling detailed by Bridge Michigan, an administrative law judge called the utility’s plan to sell the dams and buy back power at an inflated price “highly problematic” and “inconsistent with the public interest.”
The proposed deal is a sign of growing interest in hydropower, even as existing dams struggle through lengthy relicensing processes. Just last month, the investment firm Hull Street bought the North American hydro giant First Light. Last July, Google brokered the biggest hydropower deal in history, purchasing 3 gigawatts of power.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
General Motors has inked a deal with the sodium-ion battery startup Peak Energy to deploy the competitors to lithium power packs as energy storage systems. The automaker’s investment arm, GM Ventures, will back a partnership with Peak Energy (incidentally another Musk mafia company, co-founded by former Tesla director Landon Mossburg). The move highlights electric vehicle manufacturers’ shift toward grid storage as the battery-making capacity that came online has failed to find demand for all-electric cars. “We believe sodium-ion will be a defining chemistry for grid-scale energy storage systems in the years ahead,” Kurt Kelty, vice president of battery and sustainability at General Motors, said in a statement to InsideEVs.
The United Kingdom is preparing to build Europe’s largest direct air capture facility. Three companies — the developer Progressive Energy, and the carbon-capture specialists Airhive and Mission Zero Technologies — formed a joint venture to build a new plant in northeast England, Bloomberg reported. The venture, wittily named UnionDAC, would come online in 2030 and sequester 60,000 tons annually within two years.
In the U.S., meanwhile, the startup Twelve brought the world’s first commercial e-fuels plant online, using direct air capture to suck CO2 out of the thin air. The company, according to Hydrogen Insight, already has offtake agreements with Alaska Airlines and Microsoft.
New York is officially moving forward with its ambitious nuclear plans. On Thursday, the state Public Service Commission launched a bid to procure 8.4 gigawatts of nuclear power to serve as the “backbone of zero emissions electricity.” The process kicks off with “a full examination of ways to bring new advanced nuclear power online in a timely, cost-effective manner.” In a statement, Governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat up for reelection this year, said advanced nuclear “is one of the best available options to provide both relief to consumers and strengthen the resilience of New York’s grid with round-the-clock emissions-free energy,” noting that the push is part of her “vision for an all-of-the-above energy strategy that includes renewables and other forms of energy to keep the lights on.”
The former ExxonMobil CEO left his legacy both on the Earth and in the sky.
Lee Raymond, the former ExxonMobil chief executive who became one of the country’s most important and influential climate science deniers, died in Dallas on Saturday. His death was announced today.
Raymond would probably count as a world-historic figure even if viewed only through the lens of the fossil fuel business. As Exxon’s chief executive, he personally negotiated the company’s merger with Mobil, creating the modern oil and gas juggernaut ExxonMobil in 2000 — and uniting two major pieces of the old Standard Oil monopoly. He ran Exxon from 1993 to 1999, and then ExxonMobil until 2005, at a crucial period in the history of that company, turning it from a diversified conglomerate that sold office furniture, real estate, and uranium fuel into a streamlined and exorbitantly profitable oil and gas business. Even before taking over the company, he managed its response to the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill; he later oversaw a worker safety push that would be widely copied by the industry.
In a way, he transformed Exxon from a company that was itself a portfolio — that distinguished itself via managerial competence across business lines — into a ruthlessly focused oil and gas supermajor meant to sit inside other people’s portfolios and churn out cash. Under his leadership, ExxonMobil became the world’s most profitable publicly traded company; it later lost that title to Apple.
Yet even if Raymond had merely played a bit part in the history of oil and gas, he would remain essential to the modern ordeal of climate change. Today, people throw around the “climate change denier” label often enough that it has lost some of its charge. But Raymond was the genuine article, a true villain. It was Raymond who turned ExxonMobil into one of the world’s most important funders of falsehood and denial about fundamental climate science research.
Raymond, an engineer by training, straightforwardly rejected the mainstream scientific consensus that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels cause climate change. Even though Exxon’s in-house climate research arm knew by the late 1970s that “there is no doubt” fossil fuels worsened the “potential problem of CO2 in the atmosphere,” Raymond did everything he could to elevate more industry-friendly perspectives. And he was willing to muddy the truth to win.
Under Raymond’s leadership, Exxon spent millions of dollars funding a shadowy network of think tanks and pseudo-scientific groups who published memos, briefings, and advertisements meant to cast doubt on climate change. As the journalist Steve Coll wrote in his book Private Empire,
Under Lee Raymond, ExxonMobil had persistently funded a public policy campaign in Washington and elsewhere that was transparently designed to raise public skepticism about the science that identified fossil fuels as a cause of global warming. ExxonMobil ran some aspects of its campaign clandestinely; that is, it did not initially disclose the full scope and purpose of contributions it made. […] What distinguished the corporation's activity during the late 1990s and the first Bush term was the way it crossed into disinformation.
In his capacity as CEO, Raymond made it clear that he personally rejected bedrock science. “Is the Earth really warming? Does burning fossil fuels cause global warming? And do we now have a reasonable scientific basis for predicting future temperature?,” he asked rhetorically during a 1997 meeting of the World Petroleum Congress in Beijing.
He answered all three questions in the negative, concluding, “Let’s agree there’s a lot we really don't know about how climate will change in the 21st century and beyond.” (In fact, we now know that even ExxonMobil’s primitive in-house climate models, then 20 years old, basically got global warming right.) He also claimed — we now know incorrectly — that any policy passed in the 1990s would be “very unlikely” to affect the future trajectory of mid-21st-century emissions declines.
The campaign worked. Exxon’s activism during this period, conducted sub and supra rosa, helped prevent the passage of major global and domestic climate policy in the 1990s; it also kept the United States from developing expertise in the solar, wind, and battery industries that other countries now dominate.
One of the ironies of this era is that much of modern climate science is derived from oil geology. You cannot grasp the all-important role that carbon plays in the Earth system — the way it has functioned as the thermostat for Earth’s climate over the long run — without a rich understanding of what the fossil record tells us about the Permian, Carboniferous, or the Upper Jurassic periods.
Take the Permian, for instance: When it began 299 million years ago, the Earth was relatively cool, with atmospheric CO2 levels somewhere around 200 to 400 parts per million. But soon enormous volcanoes ignited subterranean stores of fossil fuels, dumping thousands of gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere and initiating an era of rapid global warming and ocean acidification. When the Permian ended 252 million years ago in the largest mass extinction in Earth’s history — an annihilation that climate scientists call “the Great Dying” — atmospheric CO2 was closer to 2,500 parts per million.
When Lee Raymond was born in South Dakota in 1938, the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration sat at about 311 parts per million. When he died last week, it read 421 parts per million. Look at it this way, I suppose: Many people would feel captive to a change of that magnitude. But Raymond did something about it.
The Science Based Targets Initiative just released a major update to its signature rulebook for setting climate goals.
Companies have a new rulebook for what constitutes credible climate action. The Science Based Targets Initiative, an organization that seeks to align corporate sustainability plans with the goals of the Paris Agreement, published a major update to its signature Net Zero Standard on Thursday designed to help companies assess their progress on climate goals, not just set them.
The update marks a significant expansion of the standard, which previously defined what a good corporate emissions target looked like, but did not say much about how to achieve it. The new version sets requirements for what companies must do to prove they are advancing toward their benchmarks.
“The standard is moving from being focused on ambition only to really focused on implementation,” Alberto Carrillo Pineda, the SBTi’s co-founder and chief technical officer, told me.
This accompanies a broader rhetorical shift in the standard, which asks companies to demonstrate progress on a “best-efforts basis” rather than judging them solely on absolute emissions reductions. In the foreword to the standard, Chair Francesco Starace says that the SBTi made “an explicit choice to recognize that companies do not control everything, and that pretending otherwise does not serve anyone.”
That ethos permeates the revisions and additions to the standard. Here’s a breakdown of some of the biggest changes.
Version 2 of the standard introduces a new “implementation hierarchy.” Companies must first do everything in their power to reduce emissions directly. Once they have exhausted those options, they can then pursue indirect actions such as buying renewable energy certificates or certificates for low-carbon cement.
This isn’t just a guideline. It’s a reporting requirement. Companies are asked to “document and demonstrate” all of the actions they have assessed and implemented to reduce their emissions directly, as well as to define the constraints to pursuing additional reductions. They also have to describe their indirect actions and explain how they “complement, and do not substitute for” direct reductions.
The updated standard differentiates between larger and smaller companies, and those based in higher-income and lower-income countries, recognizing that the former in both cases will have an easier time decarbonizing than the latter.
Larger companies in higher-income countries, referred to as “category A companies” are required to set near-term, five-year targets for all emissions related to their businesses, whether they fall under scope 1, 2 or 3. All others are required to set targets only for scope 1 and 2. Category A companies are also required to verify much of their reporting to the SBTi with a third party, while this is optional for other companies.
The updated standard clarifies that in order for renewable energy certificates to count toward a company’s scope 2 target, they must be “deliverable,” or purchased from a clean energy source within the same grid region as the company. That means a company with offices or factories in Idaho can’t buy certificates from a solar farm in Florida. (The standard does seem to offer some wiggle room on that rule to companies with many locations.)
An earlier draft of the new standard released last year would have required that companies set targets for purchasing hourly-matched, deliverable clean electricity. That would mean looking at their energy consumption for every hour they operate and setting a goal to match it with an equivalent amount of locally produced clean power for a certain percentage of hours.
Much to the disappointment of proponents of this strategy, however, that’s not in the final standard. Companies can set scope 2 targets on an annual matching basis, meaning they can effectively claim they consumed solar power at night and will not have to do the hard work of trying to clean up the harder-to-decarbonize hours of the day.
The standard does, however, require those larger companies in category A to at least report the percentage of their energy use that they have matched with clean power on an hourly basis. This reporting rule aligns with a proposal by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, a separate corporate standard-setter focused on emissions accounting. The SBTi also aims to encourage companies to make progress on hourly-matched clean power by creating a new dashboard showing which companies have exceeded certain benchmarks — 50% until 2030, 75% until 2035, and 90% from that year onward.
Previously, regular old carbon credits like the kind that pay a Brazilian landowner not to cut down trees or fund a methane capture system at a landfill had no place in the SBTi’s net-zero standard. Also, while the “net-zero” in the name implied that companies should eventually begin investing in carbon removal credits to make up for any residual emissions, the earlier version did not say when they should start doing that.
Now, the SBTi says it will require category A companies to begin covering some of their ongoing emissions with carbon removal beginning in 2035. Because companies are only required to set targets in five year increments, they won’t have to report on those efforts for several years. But the carbon removal industry will require investment now to be able to meet demand in 2035, so companies will likely need to begin buying credits today in order to meet that deadline.
Prior to 2035, companies will be able to earn kudos for purchasing carbon avoidance and removal credits by participating in something the SBTi is calling the “ongoing emissions responsibility program.” The program has three tiers that will recognize companies that are contributing to a lower, medium, and high degrees of carbon mitigation, ranked either by tallying dollars spent or tons of carbon abated. Companies will still not be allowed to count these credits when measuring progress toward their targets, however.
One question hanging over the news is whether the SBTi’s definition of a “science based target” is still appropriate. The organization requires companies to calibrate their targets to be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. But many scientists believe the world has already warmed more than 1.5 degrees. In theory, cooling the planet back down to this level by 2100 is still possible with a huge amount of carbon removal, but it appears exceedingly unlikely.
“Of course, there is healthy scientific debate about what is the most likely temperature outcome, so that's something that we are aware of,” Pineda said when I asked about this. “But we maintain the focus to catalyze transformation consistent with achieving net-zero emissions by mid-century.”
Pineda may have been downplaying how much the SBTi has considered this. After our call, I did a search for “1.5°” in the new version of the standard and the old one. The temperature target appeared 59 times in the old document, but just once in the new one, and only in the executive summary, where it was used to describe the SBTi’s larger mission as an organization. Nevertheless, the standard continues to emphasize a long-term goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, and there is no indication that the underlying modeled decarbonization pathways that the SBTi uses to validate targets are going to change.