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 end of consumer electric vehicle tax credits isn’t great, but clawing back federal funding has been even worse.

Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill took a huge bite out of the climate economy. One segment that emerged largely unscathed, however, is advanced climate tech. Companies working on nuclear, geothermal, battery storage, biofuels, and carbon capture may be shaken by the volatile business environment and a tad worried about provisions such as foreign entities of concern rules that could make their supply chains more complicated. But as of now, they can pretty much proceed with business as usual.
There is one big exception to that, however: The growing ecosystem of electric vehicle charging startups. Not only did OBBBA take a hammer to consumer EV tax credits, Trump also paused funding for key federal charging initiatives on his first day in office. While the startups I talked to were notably blasé about the former situation, executives are seriously worried about how attempts to clawback funding for charging infrastructure will impact the industry as a whole.
The outlook isn’t entirely bleak. Highway fast charging — generally the domain of larger companies such as Tesla, Electrify America, and ChargePoint — has actually seen solid growth so far this year despite the obstacles. But figuring out how to make charging work in urban centers and outlying communities has been a hot market for venture-backed companies over the past few years. And now some of them are facing a moment of reckoning.
“Cities are still pushing forward, but I would say there is a capital-C caution that’s being applied,” Tiya Gordon, founder of the curbside EV charging company It’s Electric, told me. “I think they feel that they need to get it right, and this is true for us as well as a startup. There’s not a margin for error in this environment.”
It’s Electric’s core innovation is siphoning off spare electrical capacity from buildings in cities to run its curbside Level 2, a.k.a. non-fast-charging EV charging network, negating the need for what can be a lengthy and complex grid interconnection process. The company then shares a portion of its revenue with the building owners who agree to the arrangement.
Just days before Trump took office, the startup was awarded $2.2 million from the Department of Transportation’s Charging and Fueling Infrastructure program to deploy curbside charging in Washington, D.C., legally obligated money that the new administration is now trying to rescind. That award remains in legal limbo. “We are proceeding as if we can’t count on that,” Gordon told me. “It’s sand through your fingers in an hourglass.”
That funding came on top of the company’s numerous awards from the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, an interagency collaboration between the Department of Energy and the Department of Transportation created under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Now the Joint Office has been effectively dismantled as former employees took deferred resignations and Trump has tried to revoke the funding awarded to It’s Electric and other startups.
All of this threatens to shut down a significant source of capital for It’s Electric, as Gordon told me nondilutive funding — largely from federal and state grants — represents nearly half of the company’s total capital raised to date.
Gordon said she sees states stepping into the breach, as climate leaders such as California and New York have thus far stood by their EV expansion plans. But Gordon has already noticed cities employing more diligence than ever when it comes to selecting partners. “They’re really going deep, they’re really taking time, they’re not rushing into any awards. So time is a big factor that represents caution,” she told me. And when it comes to the amount of chargers that cities seem to be looking to build, “the numbers are a little bit more modest.”
She mainly credits this pullback to the whiplash that Trump’s attempt to rescind funding for EV charging has caused. Compared to that, whatever deceleration the end of EV tax credits will cause in consumer uptake is a secondary concern.
“Honestly, that doesn’t really impact us at all,” Jeffrey Prosserman, CEO at Voltpost told me of the tax credits. His company retrofits lampposts in cities and suburbs, turning them into Level 2 EV charging platforms. “At the end of the day, EV adoption will either increase X or Y percent in a given year, but it’s going to continue to increase year over year. We’re past the tipping point, going from early adopters into the mainstream,” he told me.
EV prices are still falling, large businesses still want to electrify their fleets, and self-driving cars — which are far better suited to electric drivetrains — are still getting people excited, all of which should continue to fuel demand for a charging buildout. So while Prosserman acknowledged that nixing the consumer tax credits could “slow adoption by a couple percentage points,” he’s optimistic that the next political cycle will see a resurgence in support.
Like Gordon, however, he is quite concerned about the holdup in funding for both the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure program, or CFI, and its sister initiative, the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program, or NEVI. “It creates challenges for the EV charging companies like Voltpost, but it really fundamentally creates challenges for the cities and the general public who expected to have access to charging through these programs,” he told me. “That’s not to say that there isn’t a path forward. It’s just that the path that effectively the entire sector was operating on for the last few years has been reconfigured.”
NEVI is a $5 billion program that aims to build out a national charging network along highways, while CFI allocates $2.5 billion to deploy charging infrastructure in cities, towns, and hard-to-reach areas. Both were stood up in 2021 by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Politicians, industry analysts, and transportation officials alike have heavily critiqued these programs over the years for appearing to lack urgency, as building a network from scratch has proven to be an enormously complex and cumbersome undertaking. The former executive director of the joint office, Gabe Klein, said at a conference last year that the NEVI program wouldn’t really hit its stride until sometime between 2026 and 2028. Then Trump entered the White House and paused funding for both initiatives, creating a major roadblock for “the entire U.S. EV sector,” Prosserman told me.
Much like It’s Electric, Voltpost started the year by winning its own CFI funding to deploy its chargers in the broader Washington, D.C. region and also secured a number of awards through the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. With all of that money now tied up in lawsuits challenging Trump’s attempts to freeze the programs, Voltpost’s plans for growth have slowed. “We’re taking a more conservative approach for this year,” Prosserman told me, saying that while the company will eventually seek to raise a Series A it’s “not actively raising that Series A right now, given the macro situation.”
Prosserman said he’s been disappointed to see the general pullback in climate tech venture funding in the first half of 2025. “You have a group of investors who frankly said they are mission aligned, but are now taking a pause, not a stop, given the macroeconomic conditions, and having to wait until the dust settles to see how to reconfigure their portfolios,” Prosserman said. For now, he told me that Voltpost is leaning into its private-sector partnerships such as those with AT&T and Zipcar.
Not all charging companies have experienced this whiplash of funding awards and rescissions, though. SparkCharge, which makes portable, battery-powered fast chargers for commercial fleets and businesses, hasn’t received any NEVI or CFI grant money. The startup primarily serves customers by dispatching off-grid chargers on-demand or setting up stand-alone deployments, which are not core focus areas of either program.
The startup’s Chief Financial Officer David Piperno told me he’s glad that SparkCharge hasn’t relied on such capital, as it’s managed to “become a profitable enterprise with zero incentives, no state funding, no government funding.” That, he said, has allowed the company “to take a different approach to EV charging and be more innovative and have a variable pay-as-you-go model.” So far that seems to be working out pretty well, as it announced $30.5 million in new funding in May through a combination of equity financing and a venture loan.
Reaching former President Joe Biden’s goal of installing 500,000 publicly accessible EV chargers by 2030 still might be a longshot, though, especially as long as the Trump administration continues to target all things EV-related. And yet, charging executives remain relatively upbeat about the sector’s long-term fortunes.
“If you drive one of these vehicles, compared to what you had before, it’s just a superior car, right?” Piperno said, arguing that should continue to power steady consumer growth, even if it doesn’t happen as quickly as experts once predicted. While growth in EV sales increased by 40% in 2023, that slowed to just about 10% last year, as concerns over the availability of charging infrastructure, price, and range persist. “I think everyone thought that [the EV adoption] curve was going to be a lot faster. But I think that’s really normalized over the past few years already, and we don’t, quite frankly, see it normalizing much more than it has.”
At least now, executives told me, there’s more certainty regarding the policy landscape than at the beginning of the year. That holds especially true for startups that are willing and able to operate under the assumption that they might never see much of their recently awarded federal funding — at least anytime soon.
“The expression was, wait and see, wait and see, wait and see,” Gordon told me of Trump’s first months in office and the uncertainty around EV incentives and funding programs. “And now we waited and we saw, and it’s gone. And so we mourn and we move on, right?”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Agriculture startups are suddenly some of the hottest bets in climate tech, according to the results of our Insiders Survey.
Innovations in agriculture can seem like the neglected stepchild of the climate tech world. While food and agriculture account for about a quarter of global emissions, there’s not a lot of investment in the space — or splashy breakthroughs to make the industry seem that investible in the first place. In transportation and energy, “there is a Tesla, there is an EnPhase,” Cooper Rinzler, a partner at Breakthrough Energy Ventures, told me. “Whereas in ag tech, tell me when the last IPO that was exciting was?”
That may be changing, however. Multiple participants in Heatmap’s Insiders Survey cited ag tech companies Pivot Bio and Nitricity — both of which are pursuing alternate approaches to conventional ammonia-based fertilizers — as among the most exciting climate tech companies working today.
Studies estimate that fertilizer production and use alone account for roughly 5% of global emissions. That includes emissions from the energy-intensive Haber–Bosch process, which synthesizes ammonia by combining nitrogen from the air with hydrogen at extremely high temperatures, as well as nitrous oxide released from the soil after fertilizer is applied. N2O is about 265 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 100-year timeframe and accounts for roughly 70% of fertilizer-related emissions, as soil microbes convert excess nitrogen that crops can’t immediately absorb into nitrous oxide.
“If we don’t solve nitrous oxide, it on its own is enough of a radiative force that we can’t meet all of our goals,” Rinzler said, referring to global climate targets at large.
Enter what some consider one of the most promising agricultural innovations, perhaps since the invention of the Haber–Bosch process itself over a century ago — Pivot Bio. This startup, founded 15 years ago, engineers soil microbes to convert about 400 times more atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia than non-engineered microbe strains naturally would. “They are mini Haber–Bosch facilities, for all intents and purposes,” Pivot Bio’s CEO Chris Abbott told me, referring to the engineered microbes themselves.
The startup has now raised over $600 million in total funding and is valued at over $2 billion. And after toiling in the ag tech trenches for a decade and a half, this will be the first full year the company’s biological fertilizers — which are applied to either the soil or seed itself — will undercut the price of traditional fertilizers.
“Farmers pay 20% to 25% less for nitrogen from our product than they do for synthetic nitrogen,” Abbott told me. “Prices [for traditional fertilizers] are going up again this spring, like they did last year. So that gap is actually widening, not shrinking.”
Peer reviewed studies also show that Pivot’s treatments boost yields for corn — its flagship crop — while preliminary data indicates that the same is true forcotton, which Pivot expanded into last year. The company also makes fertilizers for wheat, sorghum, and other small grains.
Pivot is now selling these products in stores where farmers already pick up seeds and crop treatments, rather than solely through its independent network of sales representatives, making the microbes more likely to become the default option for growers. But they won’t completely replace traditional fertilizer anytime soon, as Pivot’s treatments can still meet only about 20% to 25% of a large-scale crop’s nitrogen demand, especially during the early stages of plant growth, though it’s developing products that could push that number to 50% or higher, Abbott told me.
All this could have an astronomical environmental impact if deployed successfully at scale. “From a water perspective, we use about 1/1000th the water to produce the same amount of nitrogen,” Abbott said. From an emissions perspective, replacing a ton of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer with Pivot Bio’s product prevents the equivalent of around 11 tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere. Given the quantity of Pivot’s fertilizer that has been deployed since 2022, Abbott estimates that scales to approximately 1.5 million tons of cumulative avoided CO2 equivalent.
“It’s one of the very few cases that I’ve ever come across in climate tech where you have this giant existing commodity market that’s worth more than $100 billion and you’ve found a solution that offers a cheaper product that is also higher value,” Rinzler told me. BEV led the company’s Series B round back in 2018, and has participated in its two subsequent rounds as well.
Meanwhile, Nitricity — a startup spun out of Stanford University in 2018 — is also aiming to circumvent the Haber–Bosch process and replace ammonia-based and organic animal-based fertilizers such as manure with a plant-based mixture made from air, water, almond shells, and renewable energy. The company said that its proprietary process converts nitrogen and other essential nutrients derived from combusted almond shells into nitrate — the form of nitrogen that plants can absorb. It then “brews” that into an organic liquid fertilizer that Nitricity’s CEO, Nico Pinkowski, describes as looking like a “rich rooibos tea,” capable of being applied to crops through standard irrigation systems.
For confidentiality reasons, the company was unable to provide more precise technical details regarding how it sources and converts sufficient nitrogen into a usable form via only air, water, and almond shells, given that shells don’t contain much nitrogen, and turning atmospheric nitrogen into a plant-ready form typically involves the dreaded Haber–Bosch process.
But investors have bought in, and the company is currently in the midst of construction on its first commercial-scale fertilizer factory in Central California, which is expected to begin production this year. Funding for the first-of-a-kind plant came from Trellis Climate and Elemental Impact, both of which direct philanthropic capital toward early-stage, capital-intensive climate projects. The facility will operate on 100% renewable power through a utility-run program that allows customers to opt into renewable-only electricity by purchasing renewable energy certificates,
Pinkowski told me the new plant will represent a 100‑fold increase in Nitricity’s production capacity, which currently sits at 80 tons per year from its pilot plant. “In comparison to premium conventional fertilizers, we see about a 10x reduction in emissions,” Pinkowski told me, factoring in greenhouse gases from both production and on-field use. “In comparison to the most standard organic fertilizers, we see about a 5x reduction in emissions.”
The company says trial data indicates that its fertilizer allows for more efficient nitrogen uptake, thus lowering nitrous oxide emissions and allowing farmers to cut costs by simply applying less product. According to Pinkowski, Nitricity’s current prices are at parity or slightly lower than most liquid organic fertilizers on the market. And that has farmers really excited — the new plant’s entire output is already sold through 2028.
“Being able to mitigate emissions certainly helps, but it’s not what closes the deal,” he told me. “It’s kind of like the icing on the cake.”
Initially, the startup is targeting the premium organic and sustainable agriculture market, setting it apart from Pivot Bio’s focus on large commodity staple crops. “You saw with the electrification of vehicles, there was a high value beachhead product, which was a sports car,” Pinkowski told me. “In the ag space, that opportunity is organics.”
But while big-name backers have lined up behind Pivot and Nitricity, the broader ag tech sector hasn’t been as fortunate in its friends, with funding and successful scale-up slowing for many companies working in areas such as automation, indoor farming, agricultural methane mitigation, and lab-grown meat.
Everyone’s got their theories for why this could be, with Lara Pierpoint of Trellis telling me that part of the issue is “the way the federal government is structured around this work.” The Department of Agriculture allocates relatively few resources to technological innovation compared to the Department of Energy, which in turn does little to support agricultural work outside of its energy-specific mandate. That ends up meaning that, as Pierpoint put it, ”this set of activities sort of falls through the cracks” of the government funding options, leaving agricultural communities and companies alike struggling to find federal programs and grant opportunities.
“There’s also a mismatch between farmers and the culture of farming and agriculture in the United States, and just even geographically where the innovation ecosystems are,” Emily Lewis O’Brien, a principal at Trellis who led the team’s investment in Nitricity, told me of the social and regional divides between entrepreneurs, tech investors and rural growers. “Bridging that gap has been a little bit tricky.”
Still, investors remain optimistic that one big win will help kick the money machines into motion, and with Pivot Bio and Nitricity, there are finally some real contenders poised to transform the sector. “We’re going to wake up one day and someone’s going to go, holy shit, that was fast,” Abbott told me. “And it’s like, well you should have been here for the decade of hard work before. It’s always fast at the end.”
The most popular scope 3 models assume an entirely American supply chain. That doesn’t square with reality.
“You can’t manage what you don’t measure,” the adage goes. But despite valiant efforts by companies to measure their supply chain emissions, the majority are missing a big part of the picture.
Widely used models for estimating supply chain emissions simplify the process by assuming that companies source all of their goods from a single country or region. This is obviously not how the world works, and manufacturing in the United States is often cleaner than in countries with coal-heavy grids, like China, where many of the world’s manufactured goods actually come from. A study published in the journal Nature Communications this week found that companies using a U.S.-centric model may be undercounting their emissions by as much as 10%.
“We find very large differences in not only the magnitude of the upstream carbon footprint for a given business, but the hot spots, like where there are more or less emissions happening, and thus where a company would want to gather better data and focus on reducing,” said Steven Davis, a professor of Earth system science in the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability and lead author of the paper.
Several of the authors of the paper, including Davis, are affiliated with the software startup Watershed, which helps companies measure and reduce their emissions. Watershed already encourages its clients to use its own proprietary multi-region model, but the company is now working with Stanford and the consulting firm ERG to build a new and improved tool called Cornerstone that will be freely available for anyone to use.
“Our hope is that with the release of scientific papers like this one and with the launch of Cornerstone, we can help the ecosystem transition to higher quality open access datasets,” Yohanna Maldonado, Watershed’s Head of Climate Data told me in an email.
The study arrives as the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, a nonprofit that publishes carbon accounting standards that most companies voluntarily abide by, is in the process of revising its guidance for calculating “scope 3” emissions. Scope 3 encompasses the carbon that a company is indirectly responsible for, such as from its supply chain and from the use of its products by customers. Watershed is advocating that the new standard recommend companies use a multi-region modeling approach, whether Watershed’s or someone else’s.
Davis walked me through a hypothetical example to illustrate how these models work in practice. Imagine a company that manufactures exercise bikes — it assembles the final product in a factory in the U.S., but sources screws and other components from China. The typical way this company would estimate the carbon footprint of its supply chain would be to use a dataset published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that estimates the average emissions per dollar of output for about 400 sectors of the U.S. economy. The EPA data doesn’t get down to the level of detail of a specific screw, but it does provide an estimate of emissions per dollar of output for, say, hardware manufacturing. The company would then multiply the amount of money it spent on screws by that emissions factor.
Companies take this approach because real measurements of supply chain emissions are rare. It’s not yet common practice for suppliers to provide this information, and supply chains are so complex that a product might pass through several different hands before reaching the company trying to do the calculation. There are emerging efforts to use remote sensing and other digital data collection and monitoring systems to create more accurate, granular datasets, Alexia Kelly, a veteran corporate sustainability executive and current director at the High Tide Foundation, told me. In the meantime, even though sector-level emissions estimates are rough approximations, they can at least give a company an indication of which parts of their supply chain are most problematic.
When those estimates don’t take into account country of origin, however, they don’t give companies an accurate picture of which parts of their supply chains need the most attention.
The new study used Watershed’s multi-region model to look at how different types of companies’ emissions would change if they used supply chain data that better reflected the global nature of supply chains. Davis is the first to admit that the study’s findings of higher emissions are not surprising. The carbon accounting field has long been aware of the shortcomings of single-region models. There hasn’t been a big push to change that, however, because the exercise is already voluntary and taking into account global supply chains is significantly more difficult. Many countries don’t publish emissions and economic data, and those that do use a variety of methods to report it. Reconciling those differences adds to the challenge.
While the overall conclusion isn’t surprising, the study may be the first to show the magnitude of the problem and illustrate how more accurate modeling could redirect corporate sustainability efforts. “As far as I know, there is no similar analysis like this focused on corporate value chain emissions,” Derik Broekhoff, a senior scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute, told me in an email. “The research is an important reminder for companies (and standard setters like the Greenhouse Gas Protocol), who in practice appear to be overlooking foreign supply chain emissions in large numbers.”
Broekhoff said Watershed’s upcoming open-source model “could provide a really useful solution.” At the same time, he said, it’s worth noting that this whole approach of calculating emissions based on dollars spent is subject to significant uncertainty. “Using spending data to estimate supply chain emissions provides only a first-order approximation at best!”
The decision marks the Trump administration’s second offshore wind defeat this week.
A federal court has lifted Trump’s stop work order on the Empire Wind offshore wind project, the second defeat in court this week for the president as he struggles to stall turbines off the East Coast.
In a brief order read in court Thursday morning, District Judge Carl Nichols — a Trump appointee — sided with Equinor, the Norwegian energy developer building Empire Wind off the coast of New York, granting its request to lift a stop work order issued by the Interior Department just before Christmas.
Interior had cited classified national security concerns to justify a work stoppage. Now, for the second time this week, a court has ruled the risks alleged by the Trump administration are insufficient to halt an already-permitted project midway through construction.
Anti-offshore wind activists are imploring the Trump administration to appeal this week’s injunctions on the stop work orders. “We are urging Secretary Burgum and the Department of Interior to immediately appeal this week’s adverse federal district court rulings and seek an order halting all work pending appellate review,” Robin Shaffer, president of Protect Our Coast New Jersey, said in a statement texted to me after the ruling came down.
Any additional delays may be fatal for some of the offshore wind projects affected by Trump’s stop work orders, irrespective of the rulings in an appeal. Both Equinor and Orsted, developer of the Revolution Wind project, argued for their preliminary injunctions because even days of delay would potentially jeopardize access to vessels necessary for construction. Equinor even told the court that if the stop work order wasn’t lifted by Friday — that is, January 16 — it would cancel Empire Wind. Though Equinor won today, it is nowhere near out of the woods.
More court action is coming: Dominion will present arguments on Friday in federal court against the stop work order halting construction of its Coastal Virginia offshore wind project.