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:
At San Francisco Climate Week, everything is normal — until it very much isn’t.
San Francisco Climate Week started off on Monday with an existential bang. Addressing an invite-only crowd at the Exploratorium, a science museum on the city’s waterfront, former vice president and long-time climate advocate Al Gore put the significance and threat of this political moment — and what it means for the climate — in the most extreme terms possible. That is to say, he compared the current administration under President Trump to Nazi Germany.
“I understand very well why it is wrong to compare Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich to any other movement. It was uniquely evil,” Gore conceded before going on: “But there are important lessons from the history of that emergent evil.” Just as German philosophers in the aftermath of World War II found that the Nazis “attacked the very heart of the distinction between true and false,” Gore said, so too is Trump’s administration “trying to create their own preferred version of reality,” in which we can keep burning fossil fuels forever. With his voice rising and gestures increasing in vigor, Gore ended his speech on a crescendo. “We have to protect our future. And if you doubt for one moment, ever, that we as human beings have that capacity to muster sufficient political will to solve this crisis, just remember that political will is itself a renewable resource.”
The crowd went wild. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took the stage and reminded the crowd that Gore has been telling us this for decades — maybe it’s time we listen. But I missed all that. Because just a few miles away, things were getting a little more in the weeds at the somewhat less exclusive venture capital-led panel entitled “The Economics of Climate Tech: Building Resilient, Scalable, and Sustainable Startups.” Here, I learned about a new iron-sodium battery chemistry and innovations in transformers for data centers, microgrids, and EV charging infrastructure.
I heard Tom Chi, founding partner of At One Ventures, utter sentences such as “parity dies because of capex inertia,” referring to the need to make clean tech not only equivalent to but cheaper than fossil-fuels on a unit economics basis. Such is the duality of climate week during the Trump administration — occasionally lofty in both its alarm and its excitement, but more often than not simply business-as-usual, interrupted by bouts of heady doom or motivational proclamations.
Some panels, like the one I moderated on the future of weather forecasting using artificial intelligence, made it a full hour without discussing Trump, tariffs, or tax credits at all. So far, that’s held true for a number of talks on how AI can be a boon to climate tech. It makes sense — the administration is excited about AI, and there’s really no indication that Trump has given any thought to either the positive or negative climate externalities of it.
But rapid data center buildout and the attendant renewables boom that it may (or may not) bring will certainly be influenced by the administration’s fluctuating policies, an issue that was briefly discussed during another panel: “AI x Energy: Gridlocked or Grid Unlocked?” Here, representatives from Softbank, Pacific Gas & Electric, and the data center builder and operator Switch touched on how market uncertainty is making it difficult to procure energy for data centers — and to figure out the cost of building a data center, period.
“There is a lot of refiguring and rereading contracts and looking at the potential exposure to things like the escalation in the cost of steel for construction projects,” Skyler Holloway of Switch said. Pinning down a price on the energy required to power data centers is also a bottleneck, Gillian Clegg, vice president of energy policy and procurement at PG&E explained. “For projects that want to connect between now and 2030, any kind of uncertainty or delay means that the generation doesn't get to the market,” Clegg said. “Maybe the load gets there first, and you have an out of balance situation.”
Everyone acknowledges that uncertainty is bad for business, and that delays related to funding, contracts, and construction can kill otherwise viable companies. But unsurprisingly, nobody here has admitted that said uncertainty might put them out of business, or even deeply in the red. Every panel I attend, I find myself wondering whether a founder or investor is finally going to raise their voice, à la Al Gore, and tell the audience that while their company’s business model is well and good, the Trump administration’s illogical antipathy towards green-coded tech and ill-conceived trade war is throwing the underlying logic — sound as it may have been just a year ago — into disarray.
None of the seven energy, food, and agricultural startups that presented at the nonprofit climate investor Elemental Impact’s main show, for instance, discussed the impacts of the administration’s policies on their businesses. Rather, they maintained a consistently upbeat tone as they described the promise of their concepts — which ranged from harnessing ocean energy to developing plant-based fertilizers to using robotics for electronics recycling — and the momentum building behind them. Nuclear and geothermal companies, seemingly poised to be the clean tech winners of Chris Wright’s Department of Energy, have been especially optimistic this week.
But really, what else can climate tech companies and investors be expected to do right now besides, well, rise and grind? It’s not like anybody has answers as to what’s coming down the policy pike. In a number of more casual conversations this week, a common sentiment I heard was that it’s not necessarily a bad time to be an early-stage startup — keep your head down, focus on research and prototyping, and reassess the political environment when you’re ready to build a pilot or demonstration plant. As for later-stage companies and venture capital firms, they’re likely working to ensure that their business models and portfolios really aren’t dependent on government subsidies, grants, or policies — as they keep assuring me is the case.
Even that might not be enough these days though. Chi said he’s always tailored his investments with At One Ventures towards companies that are viable based on unit economics alone, no subsidies and no green premium. So he wasn’t initially worried about his portfolio when Trump was elected. “None of our business models were invalidated by the election,” he said. “The only way that we could be in trouble is if they mess it up so bad that it ruins all of business, not just climate …”
Oops.
If there’s one dictum that I would expect to hold, though, it’s that the startups that make it through this period will likely be around for the long haul. I’ve been hearing that sentiment since the election, and Mona ElNaggar, a partner at Valo Ventures, echoed it once again this week. “Microsoft and Apple were founded in the mid 1970s, which was a time of severe recession and stagflation. Amazon started at the tail end of a big recession in the early 1990s,” ElNaggar reminded the audience at the Economics of Climate Tech panel, which she moderated. “Companies that survive and actually thrive in such periods share a common thread of resilience.”
As that panel wrapped up, things got existential once more as Chi’s talk moved from describing his investment thesis to the moment at large. “This time period in history is going to bring us tragedy after tragedy, and it’s really that moment that we’re going to understand the deep underlying structure of half of the world that we’ve built, and also the character of who we are,” Chi told the audience. It was unclear whether we were even talking about climate tech anymore. Chi continued, “It’s in that time period that we are going to step up and become whatever we are meant to be or not at all.”
The crowd sat there, a little stunned. Were we, in this very moment, becoming who we were meant to be? I took a bite of my free sushi as the networking and hobnobbing began.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On Crux’s growth, Tesla’s slow ‘death,’ and a carbon storage warning
Current conditions: In the Pacific, Hurricane Kiko has strengthened into a Category 2 storm, and is on track to reach “major storm” status • In the Atlantic, moisture is moving into an area with a lot of dry air, posing a “high risk” of developing into a tropical storm • Northern India is facing intense monsoon winds and deadly landslides.
The White House has taken what The New York Times described as “the extraordinary step” of ordering half a dozen agencies to draft plans to thwart the country’s offshore wind industry. Helming the effort are White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. While the assault on the wind industry has largely taken place at the Department of the Interior, the departments of Transportation and Commerce joined the effort in the past two weeks, as this newsletter reported yesterday. Now the Trump administration is tapping in even more agencies, including those that traditionally have little jurisdiction over marine energy production. The Department of Health and Human Services has begun a study into whether wind turbines emit electromagnetic fields that could damage human health. The Department of Defense, meanwhile, is probing whether the projects pose a risk to national security. “We’re all working together on this issue,” Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of health and human services, said during a cabinet meeting last week.
Heatmap’s Jael Holzman has been following the administration’s increasingly outlandish efforts to squelch wind projects in her newsletter, The Fight. Last week, discussing the potential redesignation of incidental bird deaths as purposeful under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, she wrote, “It’s worth acknowledging just how bonkers this notion is on first blush.” The move would make operating a wind farm effectively illegal, depriving numerous states of a major source of electricity. “Even I, someone who has broken quite a few eye-popping stories about Trump’s war on renewables, struggle to process the idea of the government truly going there,” she said.
Until earlier this year, clean-energy finance startup Crux was a digital marketplace exclusively for buying and selling tax credits made available by the Inflation Reduction Act. When Republicans in Congress threatened to eliminate tax credit transferability in March, however, the company moved into debt financing, a market that CEO Alfred Johnson told Heatmap’s Katie Brigham was seven times bigger. Now, in an exclusive interview Katie published yesterday, Crux said it’s expanding yet again into the tax and preferred equity markets. “The tax equity market was a $20 billion market before the IRA, and is now a $32 billion to $35 billion market,” Johnson told Katie, citing numbers from the company’s forthcoming mid-year market intelligence report. That’s a 10% to 20% increase over last year. Crux’s overall goal is to make itself a one-stop shop for project financing.
Australian rooftop solar is roughly half the price of Americans pay. Tesla
Tesla’s energy division released a new white paper warning that U.S. regulations were imposing “death by a thousand cuts” on the rooftop solar industry. In a post on LinkedIn, Tesla’s senior director of residential solar Colby Hastings said the “regulatory landscape slows progress, and we need more than one rule change to solve this.”
“Solar insiders have long lamented that residential deployments in the U.S. are too expensive compared to overseas. With the passage of the OBBB and tax credits expiring, it is imperative that we take a hard look at how the industry will navigate the next decade,” she wrote. “We must ensure that consumers have competitive choices for energy. This means affordable solar and storage at home.” Among the changes she proposed were enacting national code standards “that simplify rules, keep pace with hardware innovation, and limit regional variation.” She also called for reducing tariff on imported components to lower the cost of hardware. “Bottom line — we see an opportunity to cut ~40% from the cost stack, reducing average solar + storage installation from > $5/W today to ~$3/W.”
More than 85 climate scientists signed onto a line-by-line critique of the Department of Energy’s recent report sowing doubt over the severity and causes of rising global temperatures. The analysis pointed out that the federal report was written by a “tiny team of hand-picked contrarians” known for “often writing outside their areas of expertise.” The controversial government study had “no peer review of transparency,” they wrote, “unlike legitimate assessments,” and relied on “cherry-picked evidence and miscitations” to reach a “predetermined outcome.”
It’s far from the only criticism Secretary of Energy Chris Wright is attracting. In a Tuesday post on X, Wright claimed that “if you wrapped the entire planet in a solar panel, you would only be producing 20% of global energy,” arguing that “one of the biggest mistakes politicians can make is equating the ELECTRICITY with ENERGY!” A community note X users appended to the agency chief’s post pointed out that this wildly undercounted the potential to capture energy from the sun, which covers the planet in enough solar potential to meet “3,000x global energy use.” Yet even that failed to capture how “funny and sad” Wright’s “silly and unsophisticated” post really was, said electricity analyst David Fishman. In particular, Fishman noted, Wright seemed to underestimate how much total energy usage worldwide could be converted to electricity. “That's thinking like a guy who spent his whole career drilling for gas, but never learned much about physics, electricity, industry, or energy systems,” he wrote. “Really not what you want to see from someone in such a position.”
The amount of carbon emissions that the world can safely store is just a 10th of industry estimates, according to a Bloomberg writeup of a new study in the journal Nature. Researchers at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and Imperial College London found “a prudent global limit” of around 1.46 trillion tons of CO2 that can be safely stored in geologic formations. That’s “almost 10 times smaller than estimates proposed by industry that have not considered risks to people and the environment.” Utilizing all the practical areas to store carbon would curb global warming by 0.7 degrees Celsius, compared to industry estimates of 6 degrees Celsius or higher.
Cooling data centers consumes a huge amount of electricity, and nearly half of that energy is lost as low-temperature waste heat that’s simply vented into the air. But a new study from Rice University found a way to close the loops and channel that heat into more electricity. “There’s an invisible river of warm air flowing out of data centers,” Laura Schaefer, the chair of the mechanical engineering program at Rice and co-author of the paper, said in a press release. “Our question was: Can we nudge that heat to a slightly higher temperature with sunlight and convert a lot more of it into electricity? The answer is yes, and it’s economically compelling.”
Climate policy strategist Justin Guay has a populist pitch for our warming world.
There’s a famous saying in management circles: Culture eats strategy for breakfast.
In a warming world marked by populist politics, the climate equivalent might be: Culture eats climate policy for breakfast.
As air conditioning becomes the latest front in the culture wars, climate hawks would be wise to avoid the culture war trap being set. Instead we should meet the world where it is with a simple, culturally relevant, and popular approach that keeps people cool on a warming planet — a heat pump populism for the masses.
As the climate warms, increasing numbers of cities, regions, and countries are being faced with an uncomfortable new reality — their built environments weren’t built for this environment. Heat waves like the “once in a millennium” Pacific Northwest heat dome of 2021 or this year’s “warmest summer on record” for the UK — which has kept track of such things since 1884 — are driving the need for air conditioning in places it hasn’t historically been required.
The new air conditioning units installed in response to these heat waves drive up already significant electricity consumption — and greenhouse gas emissions in the process. Air conditioning emissions alone account for 3% of global emissions, and are projected to grow significantly as AC unit sales triple by 2050. In China, which also saw heat records fall this summer, air conditioner sales doubled from June to July.
The climate community has responded with concern about the climate doom loop this represents. The impacts of climate change — most pertinently in this case, increased temperatures — unleash more air conditioning usage, which only exacerbates the underlying problem of climate change, itself.
But there’s another, far more sinister doom loop climate hawks should fear — a doom loop that undermines the political resilience necessary to respond to climate change at all.
This doom loop begins with climate impacts that directly harm average people, generating resentment towards existing institutions — notably the ruling government — that anti-climate populist politicians seize on to aid their rise to power. That in turn leads to anticlimate policymaking that exacerbates the underlying problem, climate change, unleashing yet more impacts. And on and on the cycle goes.
Take for example what happened following the historic flooding in Spain’s Valencia region last fall. Rather than looking to address the underlying causes of the catastrophe, including climate change, populist anti-climate parties seized on the perceived inability of mainstream politics to deal with the situation. They instead sought to sow distrust and climate denial by painting the government as inept and incapable of helping people in their time of need, thereby bolstering their case to overthrow the powers that be.
That appears to be a page from the same playbook populists all over Europe are now using after heat waves gripped a region where air conditioning use is projected to grow by 40% by 2050, compared to the historical average from the last decade. From France to the UK, anti-climate populists are seeking to paint the political left — particularly climate-minded parties — as out of touch radicals bent on denying the sweaty masses their relief. As Nicolas Bouzou, the French liberal economist and essayist, put it recently: “The left is against air conditioners, and the right is in favor.”
In other words, the anti-climate right is actively laying a climate doom loop trap — and it appears that at least some members of the climate community are walking right into it. In the UK, 58% of Green Party voters support discouraging AC installation to cope with heat waves. Meanwhile, in France, the head of the French Green party reportedly “scoffed” at Marine Le Pen’s proposal to deploy air conditioners as part of her policy platform, instead, he offered more energy-efficient buildings as a solution. France’s left-wing daily Liberation called AC “an environmental aberration that must be overcome.”
But what if climate hawks attempted some political jiu jitsu instead? What if we decided to make some lemonade out of these lemons? What if, and hear me out, we decided to scold a little less and push abundance a little more? What if, in a hotter world, we stood for something cool?
May I present: the humble heat pump, otherwise known as a two-way AC, i.e. just the opportunity climate advocates should be looking for. The heat pump is essentially an AC unit that can heat as well as cool. Most AC companies don’t unlock the heating capability because it adds to their manufacturing costs — generally $200 to $500 — to do so. If that modest cost were not an issue, AC manufacturers could not only help deploy desperately needed relief from extreme temperatures and rising costs, they could also deploy cheaper, clean and fossil fuel-free heating at the same time.
That’s the argument Nate Adams and the team at the Collaborative Labeling and Appliance Standards Program — otherwise known as Clasp, a nonprofit organization focused on improving the efficiency of everyday appliances and equipment — made when they called for a supply-side intervention to make heat pumps affordable and universally available. Rather than subsidizing heat pump purchases and hoping homeowners take advantage, we should incentivize AC manufacturers and distributors to exclusively sell two-way air conditioners moving forward — no more one-way AC.
Under such a policy, participating manufacturers or distributors would receive a few-hundred-dollar incentive for every two-way AC (i.e. heat pump) sold. That subsidy would decline over time as manufacturers convert production lines and costs come down. Crucially, any participating company would have to commit to stop producing one-way ACs. In addition, governments and participating manufacturers would be wise to invest in training and education programs for HVAC contractors to speed deployment and support consumer education.
The Clasp team calculates that a program like this would cost somewhere between $3 billion to $12 billion in the United States and result in 45 million new two-way ACs deployed, which would save citizens $27 billion in direct energy costs and $80 billion in indirect societal benefits — such as, yes, mitigating climate change.
As I’ve argued previously alongside Nate, the shift in policy focus from consumers to manufacturers and suppliers is really, really important. Most AC replacement purchases are driven by existing equipment breaking down — and now by historic heat waves setting in — which causes panic-buying. That almost always leads people to buy the first replacement they can find, and that’s almost never a heat pump.
If we instead incentivize manufacturers to ensure that heat pumps and only heat pumps are on hardware and home goods store shelves and make it easy for average people to buy and install them by educating HVAC installers around their benefits then we solve this problem. Heat pumps become the default.
Now map that policy onto the political landscape. Imagine that instead of climate-oriented politicians being perceived as out of touch radicals who want to ban air conditioning, we have political leaders using the next inevitable heat wave to announce a new policy of abundant air conditioning for all. That alone won’t win the culture war — it will still require savvy salesmanship to make the pitch land with voters, not to mention digital acumen of a sort the left seems woefully behind in developing. But the ingredients are there, if only our leaders are willing and able to seize on them.
Ironically, as wildfires now ravage Spain, the country’s center-left prime minister is now calling for a national climate pact. His call is a beacon of hope that the climate doom loop can indeed be broken by forward-looking politicians who realize that we must address the underlying cause of these impacts before it’s too late.
It’s time others follow his lead and use these moments of visceral climate impact to drive climate policy forward with an unabashedly populist policy agenda. That’s how we take the bite out of the air conditioning culture war before it even begins. And maybe, just maybe, it’s how we begin to reclaim our politics.
In a Heatmap exclusive interview, CEO Alfred Johnson discusses the clean energy financing marketplace’s latest big move.
Crux is expanding again.
Until earlier this year, the clean energy finance startup was a digital marketplace exclusively for buying and selling tax credits unlocked by the Inflation Reduction Act. But in March, as Republicans in Congress briefly threatened to eliminate tax credit transferability, the company moved into debt financing, a market Crux CEO Alfred Johnson told me later on is more than seven times bigger.
Now, in its quest to become a one-stop shop for efficient project financing, Crux has told Heatmap that it’s growing once more into the tax and preferred equity markets, two additional funding avenues for clean energy projects that could certainly stand to be organized, standardized, and digitized as they grow in importance. “The tax equity market was a $20 billion market before the IRA, and is now a $32 billion to $35 billion market,” Johnson told me, citing numbers from the company’s forthcoming mid-year market intelligence report. That’s a 10% to 20% increase over last year.
Johnson said that Crux’s platform will ameliorate some of the complexity and high costs that have historically made tax equity financing so difficult to access. In these deals, clean energy developers partner with tax equity investors, typically banks, which provide them with cash in exchange for an equity stake in their project — and the associated tax benefits.
In one way, it’s a funny move for Crux. Before the IRA passed, tax equity was essentially the only way for project developers with low tax burdens to monetize their credits, and transferability itself was billed as a solution to these kludgy deals. But even though the transferable tax credit marketplace has proven to be a valuable option for many developers, there are reasons why some still prefer tax equity financing.
For one, tax equity partnerships can actually be the cheapest form of project financing for large developers overall. That’s in large part because tax equity is such a scarce but critical form of capital that if a developer can secure it, they can often then raise other forms of funding, such as bridge loans, more easily. Tax equity deals also serve to establish the fair market value of a project, which thus ensures that project developers can maximize the value of their tax benefits.
Lastly, Johnson explained that tax equity financing allows project developers to capture the value of a tax benefit known as “accelerated depreciation,” in which a large percent of a project’s asset costs can be deducted in the first few years of operation as opposed to evenly over the project’s useful life. Unlike with tax credit transferability, there’s no direct way for developers to monetize accelerated depreciation benefits other than via tax equity partnerships.
These types of partnerships will, in all likelihood, still only make sense for well-capitalized projects deploying proven technologies such as solar, wind, and storage. More novel tech such as advanced nuclear, long-duration storage, or next-generation geothermal will probably continue to rely primarily on the tax credit transfer market. But as Johnson told me, “for the developers that have really strong financials, have large projects, are able to secure tax equity, that is often preferred as a way of monetizing their credits to selling directly in the transfer market.”
At the same time, the markets for tax equity and credits are increasingly converging. That’s because it’s become more common for tax equity investors — or the partnership itself — to sell the credits they now hold into the transfer market, Johnson told me. This provides the investor or partnership with immediate liquidity, which can then be invested into other projects. This type of hybrid structure has thus far made up over 60% of tax equity commitments in 2025, according to the company’s mid-year market report.
Crux is also expanding into preferred equity, a type of financing that allows project developers to raise additional capital closer to the start of commercial operations. Then, once operation commences, preferred equity investors typically receive fixed, priority returns before any distributions are made to common equity holders. This structure reduces risks for preferred investors, giving them a more predictable income stream. It’s a smaller market than tax equity financing, but still an important piece of the puzzle, Johnson said.
And then there’s — what else? — artificial intelligence.
As developers and investors that have used Crux’s tax credit marketplace “graduate” into new, often more complex forms of project financing such as tax and preferred equity, Johnson told me there are “huge opportunities” to make these deals more efficient. As he sees it, this will involve integrating the company’s current workflow management and documentation tools with AI language models designed to streamline document organization and synthesis, along with other administrative processes. The idea is to save time “without any deterioration in the quality of the underwriting,” Johnson said.
These latest expansionary moves will be far from Crux’s last, Johnson told me. There’s all sorts of equity financing Crux could theoretically help to facilitate, along with transactions between equipment manufacturers and project developers or project developers and utilities.
It’s all on the table, Johnson said. “I think we will continue to find that this mix of liquidity, efficiency, and intelligence makes sense in lots of different categories.”