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:
The unsung hero of the energy transition needs a little help.

Transformers are the unsung heroes of the energy transition. These bulky devices come in a range of forms, from canisters mounted on distribution lines to garage-sized industrial units at substations and metal boxes on concrete pads outside apartment buildings. But regardless of form, they all serve a single essential purpose: adjusting voltage — either up, which is more efficient for long-distance transmission, or down for safe delivery to end users.
“If you’re getting an EV charging station, you need this equipment. If you’re building a large industrial facility that uses electricity to run the process, you need this equipment. Solar, battery storage plants, and wind energy projects need these. Data centers need these,” Anirudh Reddy, CEO of the power grid equipment startup Ayr Energy, told me. “It’s omnipresent.”
But ever since Covid scrambled global supply chains, the world has been staring down a severe transformer shortage. Even as economywide electrification accelerated, with rising electric vehicle adoption and rapid renewables deployment, the system failed to recover. Lead times for high-voltage transformers can now exceed two, three, even four years, raising costs and slowing the deployment of renewables and electrification projects.
While many of the big traditional players like Hitachi, Siemens Energy, and GE Vernova are still working to expand production, there’s now a group of startups looking to address the issue from other angles.
Reddy’s company, Ayr, is tackling it head on by standardizing transformer component designs and tapping underutilized manufacturing capacity in India to cut delivery times from years to months. Then there’s the growing field of startups that includes DG Matrix, Heron Power, and Amperesand, which are commercializing solid-state transformers for powering data centers, charging EVs, and solar and storage projects. This novel tech could offer an appealing replacement for today’s low- and medium-voltage transformers, as it provides grid services beyond just passive voltage conversions in a more efficient, compact package.
Right now, the most acute bottleneck and longest lead times are for high-voltage transformers, which is where Ayr sees the largest opportunity. These units step up a power plant’s output to transmission-level voltage for long-distance delivery, before stepping it back down to medium voltage at substations. These transformers can be the size of garages or small houses. Even when supply chains were functioning normally, they still took around a year to manufacture.
To return to that timetable, Ayr is taking its cues from automotive companies, which Reddy told me rely on standardized components throughout most of the manufacturing process and defer vehicle customization — think special features, finishes, and trims — until the final stages. When applied to transformers, this means equipment that is designed “such that you can address specification for a variety of projects and a variety of customers with the same architecture,” Reddy told me, allowing the company to shorten the time from initial customer engagement to final product delivery.
It all raises the question, why haven’t these equipment manufacturers been building more standardized transformers all along? Reddy blames it on a fundamental disconnect between transformer manufacturers and project developers. “That dialog never really happened. It was a very linear information flow,” he told me, with customers typically submitting bespoke specifications at the outset. That forced manufactures to build around these requirements from day one, making the whole supply chain and manufacturing process needlessly customized and complex.
But many of those unique design elements aren’t really necessary, Reddy said. Ayr often asks developers to tweak their specifications to align with a standardized model, which he told me yields no difference in overall project performance. That lets Ayr place orders with its Indian manufacturing partners in advance based on expected demand.
Surplus capacity in India is key to this business model, of course. Unlike U.S.-based manufacturers or those that export transformers and components to the U.S. — such as Mexico, Canada, and China — Reddy said Indian factories stayed ahead of local demand, even as electrification in the country ramped up. Lower labor costs allows factories to operate below peak capacity, providing an opportunity for Ayr to swoop in and contract with them immediately — even though many had previously produced almost entirely for the Indian market.
“It’s a highly manual, labor intensive process when you’re building bespoke heavy electric equipment. So the overhead of a factory that’s not producing equipment is pretty high,” Reddy told me. “Doing so in the U.S. would kill the company. Doing so in India, not so much.”
Ayr only emerged from stealth about seven months ago, and in the past year alone, Reddy said it’s built a backlog of over half a billion dollars in signed equipment orders, representing over 20 gigawatts of projects. The company started deploying its transformers and other backlogged power infrastructure in the middle of last year, and Reddy said it’s expecting its first high-voltage transformer to come online this quarter. So while the company has received early backing from venture firm General Catalyst — $3.5 million according to Pitchbook — Reddy told me it has no need to raise additional capital at this time.
Other transformer startups pursuing solid-state technology are bringing in plenty of venture capital — DG Matrix raised a $140 million Series B round and Heron Power raised a $60 million Series A round, both in February, while Singapore-based Amperesand secured $80 million last November — though their technology is only just beginning to commercialize. While conventional transformers rely on copper coils and iron cores to magnetically adjust voltage, solid-state transformers use power semiconductors — often made from silicon carbide — to perform voltage conversions electronically, while also enabling capabilities such as bidirectional power flow, AC/DC conversion, real-time voltage regulation, and rapid response to power surges.
But while these companies can also help ease the transformer shortage, their value proposition is distinctly different and likely to take longer to materialize than Ayr’s. For one, current solid-state transformer designs do not scale practically or economically to the high voltages required for the transmission grid. Instead, this novel tech is a better candidate to replace medium-voltage transformers on the distribution grid or low-voltage transformers inside facilities. This includes converting the low-voltage DC power produced by solar panels and batteries into medium-voltage AC power for the grid, delivering medium-voltage power from the grid to data centers and EV charging systems, and transporting low-voltage power around the data centers themselves, such as at the server rack level.
DG Matrix, for one, is primarily focused on data center applications for its solid-state transformers, which it initially plans to use to manage power generated onsite. The startup’s differentiating feature is its ability to balance electricity from multiple sources simultaneously, regardless of whether they’re operating on AC or DC power. For example, the company’s so-called “multi-port” device can integrate electricity generated from solar panels, natural gas generators, batteries, and the grid to provide power to data centers “in any ratio we want,” the company’s CEO Haroon Inam told me. It can also provide power back to the grid as needed.
Without such a unit, managing all these different sources would require significantly more space and numerous separate electrical components — protection equipment, multiple transformers for stepping voltage up or down, and converters to switch between AC and DC power. DG Matrix’s device thus promises to cut costs while boosting efficiency and reliability, especially for microgrid applications.
Now, Inam told me, the startup is looking at a “multi-billion dollar pipeline” for supplying low-voltage power to data centers for distribution inside the facilities themselves. It’s working to scale production at its North Carolina manufacturing facility, aiming to reach full capacity by July before pursuing a further expansion.
Heron Power, by contrast, is targeting a broader slice of the energy infrastructure market — in addition to data centers, it’s also seeking partnerships with operators of utility-scale solar and battery projects. Whereas DG Matrix is focused on coordinating onsite power from multiple sources, Heron is primarily interfacing with the grid, designing medium-voltage solid-state transformers that can step down power for delivery to end users such as data centers, and step up low-voltage power from solar and batteries to feed into the distribution grid — all without needing separate inverters for AC/DC conversions.
“It does what a traditional transformer does, but it also does what switchgear does, what tap changers do, what capacitor banks do, and what a synchronous condenser does, in a single package, managed in real time by software,” Heron’s CEO Drew Baglino told me via email.
During Baglino’s prior tenure leading the development and deployment of Tesla's EV Superchargers and large-scale battery storage systems, he constantly found conventional transformers to be “a supply chain constraint, a deployment bottleneck, and a physical hazard,” leading him to believe there simply had to be a better way. But because solid-state designs are driven by software-controlled power electronics rather than fixed hardware, that fundamentally shifts the paradigm, he said. “A traditional transformer that's wrong for the job gets ripped out and replaced. A Heron Link gets a firmware update.”
The company has publicly announced just two customers to date, but they’re big ones — clean energy developer Intersect Power and data center developer Crusoe. Overall, Heron said it’s secured over 50 gigawatts worth of orders, and is now working to build out a U.S.-based factory capable of producing 40 gigawatts of transformers annually, with initial production beginning next year.
Even if the transformer shortage resolves sooner rather than later, Inam doesn’t expect it to dampen interest in DG Matrix’s technology or solid-state transformers overall. Their ability to integrate multiple energy sources, he told me, “provides a more economic path to distributed generation” — especially as microgrids become an increasingly common way to circumvent the interconnection queue and generate power onsite.
“The fastest area of demand growth for transformers is for new energy technologies like solar, batteries, and data centers,” Baglino told me. So while he declined to speculate on when the shortage will end, he too expects continued demand. As for Reddy, he thinks the supply crunch is unlikely to fully ease until after 2030, when he predicts leading manufacturers will be able to fully ramp up the new transformer facilities and expansions that they’ve announced. .
At any rate, the frenzied data center buildout certainly shows no signs of waning, with the International Energy Agency projecting that global data center electricity consumption will double by 2030 and more than double in the U.S., where it will rise by about 2.3x. And with recent volatility in fossil fuel prices likely to accelerate the electrification of certain markets, transformers are set to remain as ubiquitous and critical as ever.
To meet the moment, Baglino said, “What's needed is the same concentration of focus, urgency, and scale that transformed electric transportation, directed at the infrastructure that powers everything else.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
1. Suffolk County, New York – Rarely do I get to say battery fire fears can be quelched but we have a very good example brewing in the Empire State.
2. Loudon County, Virginia – I can’t believe it: Data Center Alley is going to enact a moratorium.
3. Pulaski County, Arkansas – Entergy has dropped the lawsuit it filed against an Arkansas newspaper over the publication of a power deal with Google.
4. Darlington County, South Carolina – We conclude this week’s Hotspots with a focus on a GOP-leaning county rejecting a renewables moratorium.
A conversation with Sam Lyman of the Bitcoin Policy Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Sam Lyman, head of research at the Bitcoin Policy Institute. Originally focused on cryptocurrency, Lyman’s organization has expanded to policy and messaging development around data centers, most notably providing research many AI boosters cite to claim foreign influence is driving opposition to new hyperscale projects. Last week, the think tank released a new report calling for a novel solution to the data center permitting bottleneck: direct cash payments from data center projects to individuals involved with building them, as well as residents nearby facilities once they’re operating.
I reached out to BPI and asked for a chat with Lyman about the data center dividend proposal. I also tried to get to the bottom of where this increasingly relevant think tank stands on the general idea of a national data center law. The conversation was immensely informative. So here it is, in a lightly abridged and edited format.
Let’s start with the data center dividend proposal. Walk my readers through it.
Data center dividends came from the idea that, ideally in the AI revolution, we want all Americans to benefit. Especially rural Americans. You look at the landscape today, the majority of AI data centers are being built in rural America. It’s critical they’ll benefit from the massive wealth AI will unlock.
There’s lots of ways to make that happen. People point to the jobs AI data centers will build out, for example. But with data center dividends, we take the logic of the Alaska Permanent Fund and we apply it to America’s rural counties, which are sitting on a proverbial gold mine right now but lack any kind of public mechanism allowing them to benefit from that in a maximal way.
If you look at the tax revenue these data centers create, which is astronomical, how do we distribute this tax revenue in a way where it has the most tangible impact on the families living there? We believe data center dividends are the best way to do that – after allocating money for schools, public safety, and infrastructure, it allows these counties with tens of millions of dollars left over to distribute them as they see fit. They should distribute that money to the men and women who make those data centers happen in the first place.
The most effective form of a dividend would take a direct payment: a cash payment, a physical check, a direct deposit. Or the form of credits paying back property taxes, utility bills, an endowment for scholarships. There’s a number of different forms this can take.
Hopefully this gets the conversation going about how we can make these work for everybody.
Who do you want to see set up this dividend mechanism? How’s your approach to implementation?
The report is addressed to county commissioners. I’m thinking of commissioners who represent both sides of the political spectrum facing this huge backlash. Many of them want to do good by their communities and their voters, even if it means doing a data center, in places where it’s difficult to explain right now. Dividends make this indisputably clear.
I tried to put myself in the shoes of an enterprising county commissioner who sees the merits in the data center buildout and wants to break out of the political storm. It’s important to note data centers can be a huge economic boon for communities, in ways that can impact lives positively.
Have any communities – counties, as you noted – taken this idea up yet? Are there any models for this proposal?
The best analogue is West Feliciana, Louisiana, which is the case study we feature. West Feliciana made an agreement with a data center developer where in lieu of taxes, they make direct payments of about $90 million a year to the parish. That triples the community’s tax budget every year. It leaves ample room not only for essential services but dividends afterwards. Louisiana then passed a law – Act 434 – that allowed West Feliciana to remit some of those payments to residents as a tax credit. This bill first provided the opportunity for the parish to even remit those payments as cash, but it was changed in the legislature to make it a credit. That’s the closest we’ve gotten so far.
As far as reaching out to individual counties, we’re a think tank. We put ideas into the universe. We haven’t had anyone reach out to us since the publication of the report so far but we’re hoping they will.
Your report does lay out how there’s a bottleneck in development and this could help with easing it. Do you see an impetus to put ideas like the dividend out there right now, in light of the increased data center scrutiny in this year’s midterms?
Our publication is irrespective of the midterms. But it is tied to the fact that a bottleneck facing the data center buildout includes it becoming a politicized issue. We’re of the belief these projects shouldn't be political at all. One way to break through the noise is by showing how they can benefit those involved in construction and residents who live there. Data centers are critical infrastructure; other forms of critical infrastructure aren’t being politicized. Our efforts are to demonstrate how these shouldn’t be political.
When it comes to the future of AI data center regulation, this proposal is obviously geared towards incentivizing a resolution to the bottleneck through using resources produced from data centers – namely, new investment.
Where does your organization stand on the increased push for environmental or siting regulation on AI data centers?
I’m not familiar with what you might be referring to there.
I mean, there’s all kinds of proposals at the federal level and in states for everything from being required to pay for infrastructure upgrades to being required to use closed-loop cooling to siting restrictions, like temporary moratoria.
What I’m asking is, what else do you as an organization believe when it comes to regulating AI data center development at the federal level? State level?
We believe data centers should work for the communities where they’re being built. That’s important. So the concept of BYOP – Bring Your Own Power – we very much support that idea. We think the Ratepayer Protection Pledge is a great proposal because ultimately we want data centers, with them being critical infrastructure, to not only strengthen our national security but strengthen the communities where they’re being built.
Some states are rejecting data centers. We think that’s a mistake because it's something that’ll ultimately short-change the people who live there. For the states that do decide to build data centers, it's up to them what regulations make data centers more sustainable over time.
There’s increased public discussion for policy on AI development – as an organization, do you see any role in the federal government making policy here with a national data center law?
We think AI will be key to America’s prosperity over the long-term. We have concerns about the regulation of open-source artificial intelligence; bitcoin is a form of open-source software and open-source money. We believe intelligence should be something available to all Americans. That’s our concern with talk about regulating AI right now, it feels like a ploy for regulatory capture.
But what about national policy on AI data centers? Does your think tank support the national legislature doing a federal data center bill or is that something best for localities or states?
It depends on the bill. Are you talking about Sen. Bernie Sanders’ national moratorium?
With a permitting deal seemingly on the horizon, Republican Gabe Evans and Democrat Scott Peters may be about to see their partnership pay off.
The fate of permitting reform legislation that could smooth the way to all kinds of new and improved energy infrastructure — including transmission lines and renewables — is currently hostage to opaque discussions between Senate committee chairs. Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the Democratic ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told a Rhode Island business group earlier this week that “we’re actually in a pretty good place on permitting reform,” and that there was “maybe another week of negotiations.” Whitehouse’s Republican counterpart on the EPW committee, West Virginia Senator Shelly Moore-Capito, told Semafor on Friday that any bill has “got to pop out of here in the next 48 hours.”
If that’s going to happen, it will be because Republicans and Democrats have decided it’s worth it to get along. Any deal will eventually have to be voted on by the House, which has already produced several bills on a bipartisan basis, and even passed one — the SPEED Act — late last year.
Two of the busier House members on this issue are Scott Peters, a Democratic former environmental lawyer from San Diego, and Gabe Evans, a first term Colorado Republican representing a suburban and rural district north of Denver that includes wind farms and crude oil production. “The district that I represent truly is an all of the above energy district,” Evans told me.
Their latest effort is a bill aimed at smoothing out permitting for transmission development, especially interregional transmission. Last week, the two congressmen unveiled the CLEAR Act, seeking to apply a stricter set of standards for lawsuits against transmission projects that aligned with how natural gas and hydropower projects are treated under the Federal Power Act (it’s much harder to sue to stop these projects). Earlier this year, the two also sponsored the CERTAIN Act, a more comprehensive streamlining of federal permitting for energy infrastructure projects.
“We’re proud to have a lot of our work as the foundation for this, and I think if they send us over something that includes this, it’s got a really good chance of passing in the House,” Peters told me. Evans added that bringing forward bipartisan bills “gives a little bit more impetus to the Senate to know that the House is looking for these things.”
While the Senate’s deal will be up to the senators, Peters told me he envisions a broad permitting package that could include reforms to the National Environmental Policy Act to shorten permitting timelines, preventing the president from nixing individual projects, and reform Section 401 of the Clean Water Act which effectively devolves power to tribes and states to block a variety of interstate projects. “I think it’s coming together pretty well,” Peters said. “Obviously, we’re waiting for white smoke from the Senate.”
A permitting reform package may be one of the last major bills several bipartisan-minded House members get to vote on.
Election day is about six weeks off, and while Peters will likely have an easy time getting reelected for this eighth term, Evans is in a tough race. His purple-hued district is a target for the House Democratic campaign arm, which is hoping to flip it to former Colorado House of Representatives member Manny Rutinel, who worked as a lawyer at the environmental group Earthjustice. The Cook Political Report rates the race as toss-up, and Nate Silver gives Rutinel a roughly 75% to win.
But Rutinel won’t be getting any campaign help from Peters.
When I asked Peters about the timing of releasing a bill that could boost an endangered Republican’s bipartisan bona fides less than two months before an election, Peters told me that he and Evans had been working on it “for a while,” and that “my colleagues know that I’ve worked with Republicans to get problems solved.”
He said he wasn’t “participating in Gabe’s election” and wasn’t giving any money to his campaign, but also that he wouldn’t campaign Evans’ challenger, despite the opportunity to bolster his own caucus.
Peters is not shy about praising Evans. “What I appreciate about Gabe is that it takes a little bit of initiative to separate yourself from the majority — particularly when you’re in the trifecta — and do your own thing. He’s been a good partner in helping find ways to reduce process and make things go faster,” he told me.
Evans told me that he and Peters met early in this Congress, as Evans was getting settled into his new office in the Longworth building. “We’ve built the relationship over the last two years with a lot of the different areas that we’ve collaborated on.”
“I always try to meet the members of my committee and find out who will work with me. And I was fortunate to find Gabe,” Peters said.
“I do want to win the majority in the next Congress,” Peters went on, but “the norm should be that we figure out ways to work together to solve problems, and, you know, we’ll let the voters of Colorado 8 decide who to send me.”
Evans, for his part, told me that he had to work with Democrats to get anything passed as a member of a minuscule Republican minority in the Colorado statehouse, and that the 40-plus members of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus have agreed not to campaign against each other. “There’s 385 other members that you can go pick fights with,” he said.