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:
Because you never know what’s going to take off.

Not even 12 months of unceasingly bleak climate news could keep climate tech founders and funders from getting involved in some seriously sci-fi sounding ideas. While the first half of the year may have been defined by a general retrenchment, the great thing about about early-stage venture capital is that it very much still allows for — nay, encourages — the consideration of technologies so far beyond the mainstream that their viability is almost entirely untethered from current political sentiment.
Below are seven of the most fantastical technologies investors took a bet on this year, with almost all announced in just the past quarter alone. In an undeniably rough year for the sector, perhaps VCs are now ready to let their imaginations — and pocketbooks — run just a little bit wilder.
In November, the startup Terranova emerged from stealth with $7 million in seed funding and a plan to lift low-lying areas out of flood zones by deploying robots to inject a wood-based slurry deep underground, thereby raising the land above sea level. The lead investors were Outlander and Congruent Ventures.
“Terranova’s mission is nothing less than to terraform the earth and usher in a new era of resilience and societal abundance,” Terranova’s 24-year old CEO Laurence Allen said in a press release. He cofounded the company with his father, Trip Allen, who lives in the flood-prone Bay Area city of San Rafael.
The company says that its system, which consists of three robots and one “mothership,” can lift one acre by a foot per day, making it more cost-effective than other options for defending against climate change-driven flood risk, such as building a levee or a sea wall. Already the startup has quoted San Rafael $92 million to lift about 240 acres of land about four feet.
Not one, but two space-based solar companies made headlines this year. Just this month, Overview Energy emerged from stealth with plans to deploy satellites that beam energy via lasers directly to Earth, targeting preexisting utility-scale solar farms. The company has already raised $20 million in seed funding in a round led by Lowercarbon Capital, Prime Movers Lab, and Engine Ventures, and is now raising a Series A expected to close next spring.
Back in April, another space-based solar startup called Aetherflux raised a $50 million Series A led by Index Ventures and Interlagos. That funding will support the startup’s first launch, targeted for next year, which will deploy a constellation of satellites into low-earth orbit — a far lower altitude than Overview is targeting. These satellites will also use lasers to transmit solar energy to ground stations on Earth, where the power will be stored in batteries for later use.
If these companies can prove that their tech actually works in space, they have the potential to turn solar into an always available, 24/7 resource. That’s not going to happen in the next few years, though. Overview’s CEO Marce Berte told me that the company is aiming to put megawatts of power on the grid by 2030 and gigawatts by the mid-2030s, with the ultimate goal of building a system that can deliver the equivalent of 10% to 20% of global electricity use by 2050.
Did you know that low-frequency sound waves can extinguish a fire? It’s a relatively well-understood phenomenon, but now one company, Sonic Fire Tech, has raised $3.5 million to turn this hypothetical concept into a commercial firefighting tool. With a seed round co-led by Khosla Ventures, Third Sphere, and AirAngels, the startup hopes to launch pilots with homeowners, utilities, and firefighting agencies at the beginning of next year.
As Scientific American explained, the system emits low-frequency sound waves below the threshold of human hearing, which prevent and extinguish flames by displacing oxygen away from the fuel. This deprives a potential or existing fire of the air it needs to sustain combustion. The system can channel the soundwaves through ducts atop a building’s roof and beneath its eaves, or be installed on utility equipment. There’s even the potential for a “sonic backpack,” which would offer portable protection for firefighters.
The startup’s goal is to produce 500 units by the second quarter of next year, and it’s now seeking public-sector grant funding as well as partnerships with insurance companies for its novel “infrasound-based fire suppression.”
My colleague Robinson Meyer broke the news in October that an Israeli geoengineering startup called Stardust Solutions had raised a $60 million round led by Lowercarbon Capital. The company aims to develop tech that would enable solar radiation management — an as-of-now hypothetical method of cooling the planet by injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight away from Earth — by the end of the decade.
The tech is controversial, however. Many experts believe that solar radiation management systems, if they’re developed at all, should be built by governments after much public deliberation. Stardust, by contrast, is a for-profit company seeking patent protection for its proprietary sunlight-reflecting particle. While the company says that the particle meets certain standards for safety and reflectivity, it has not disclosed what those standards are or anything about its composition.
The company’s CEO, Yanai Yedvab, said that Stardust is farther along than any other research efforts, public or private. And while some dispute the viability of Stardust’s proprietary particle, the fact that the company received a vote of confidence from a prominent climate tech VC indicates that this tech is entering the mainstream. As Rob put it, “Stardust may not play the Prometheus here and bring this particular capability into humanity’s hands. But I have never been so certain that someone will try in our lifetimes.”
Though climate tech investors have poured millions into the long-held dream of fusion energy, we’re likely still a long ways away from connecting a commercial reactor to the grid. But one startup, Maritime Fusion, is already looking to put fusion reactors on ships. The company raised a $4.5 million seed round last month led by the transportation firm Trucks VC to do just that.
The startup is developing a low power-density tokamak reactor that requires less power and less uptime than grid-connected power systems. According to TechCrunch, the startup projects that its first reactor will be up and running by 2032 and will cost about $1.1 billion to build, a far lower price than reactors on land will likely command. Another potential advantage is that at sea, fusion won’t have to compete with low-cost solar and wind resources, but rather more costly green shipping fuels such as ammonia and hydrogen.
"Breakeven fusion is on the horizon, but the grid may not be the first place fusion achieves commercial success," said Maritime Fusion’s CEO Justin Cohen in a press release.
Even with the rapid rise in grid-scale batteries, pumped storage hydropower still leads the world in total energy storage capacity. But traditional pumped hydro is costly to build and only feasible in specific geographies. One startup, Sizeable Energy, thinks it can overcome these constraints by building pumped hydro out at sea, raising $8 million in a round led by Playground Global to do so.
Traditional pumped-hydro systems store energy by using excess electricity to pump water into an elevated reservoir, then releasing it downhill through turbines when demand rises. Sizeable’s concept is the same, just offshore: One reservoir floats on the water’s surface, while the other — connected by a pipe and turbines — sits on the seafloor. When power is plentiful, brine is pumped into the upper reservoir; when it’s scarce, the brine gets released. And because that brine is heavier than the surrounding seawater, it naturally flows downwards to spin turbines.
Sizable is now working to deploy its pilot plant in Italy, with the goal of installing commercial projects at a variety of sites around the world next year.
This one’s a bit of a bonus. Technically Deep Fission, a startup planning to build tiny fission reactors in underground boreholes, raised its pre-seed round last year, But this year it went public via a curious SPAC merger on the lesser-known stock exchange OTCQB, raising $30 million in the process.
The idea is that building a reactor a mile underground will save costs and enhance safety, as it negates the need for the large pressure vessels and containment structures that are typically responsible for holding a reactor in place and preventing radioactive leaks. Instead, the company says that the surrounding rock will serve as a natural barrier and containment vessel.
But as Latitude Media pointed out, some are questioning whether the recent raise will be enough for the company to build what’s sure to be an expensive pilot by next July — as it aims to do — and to deploy reactors at the three project sites that it’s already announced. Next year certainly promises to be a reckoning for the hitherto unconsidered fortunes of the underground small modular reactor industry.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Whether any of them will hold up in court is now the big question.
Environmental lawyers are in for years of déjà vu as the Trump administration relitigates questions that many believed were settled by the Supreme Court nearly 20 years ago.
On Thursday, Trump rescinded the “endangerment finding,” the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 determination that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles threaten Americans’ public health and welfare and should be regulated. In the short term, the move repeals existing vehicle emissions standards and prevents future administrations from replacing them. In the longer term, what matters is whether any of the administration’s justifications hold up in court.
In its final rule, the EPA abandoned its attempt to back the move using a bespoke climate science report published by the Department of Energy last year. The report was created by a working group assembled in secret by the department and made up of five scientists who have a track record of pushing back on mainstream climate science. Not only was the report widely refuted by scientists, but the assembly of the working group itself broke federal law, a judge ruled in late January.
“The science is clear that climate change is creating a risk for the public and public health, and so I think it’s significant that they realized that it creates a legal risk if they were to try to assert otherwise,” Carrie Jenks, the executive director of Harvard’s Environmental and Energy Law Program, told me.
Instead, the EPA came up with three arguments to justify its decision, each of which will no doubt have to be defended in court. The agency claims that each of them can stand alone, but that they also reinforce each other. Whether that proves to be true, of course, has yet to be determined.
Here’s what they are:
Congress never specifically told the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. If it did, maybe we would have accomplished more on climate change by now.
What happened instead was that in 1999, a coalition of environmental and solar energy groups asked the EPA to regulate emissions from cars, arguing that greenhouse gases should be considered pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act. In 2007, in a case called Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court agreed with the second part. That led the EPA to consider whether these gases posed enough of a danger to public health to warrant regulation. In 2009, it concluded they did — that’s what’s known as the endangerment finding. After reaching that finding, the EPA went ahead and developed standards to limit emissions from vehicles. It later followed that up with rules for power plants and oil and gas operations.
Now Trump’s EPA is arguing that this three-step progression — categorizing greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act, making a scientific finding that they endanger public health, and setting regulations — was all wrong. Instead, the agency now believes, it’s necessary to consider all three at once.
Using the EPA’s logic, the argument comes out something like this: If we consider that U.S. cars are a small sliver of global emissions, and that limiting those emissions will not materially change the trajectory of global warming or the impacts of climate change on Americans, then we must conclude that Congress did not intend for greenhouse gases to be regulated when it enacted the Clean Air Act.
“They are trying to merge it all together and say, because we can’t do that last thing in a way that we think is reasonable, we can’t do the first thing,” Jenks said.
The agency is not explicitly asking for Massachusetts v. EPA to be overturned, Jenks said. But if its current argument wins in court, that would be the effective outcome, preventing future administrations from issuing greenhouse gas standards unless Congress passed a law explicitly telling it to do so. While it's rare for the Supreme Court to reverse course, none of the five justices who were in the majority on that case remain, and the makeup of the court is now far more conservative than in 2007.
The EPA also asserted that the “major questions doctrine,” a legal principle that says federal agencies cannot set policies of major economic and political significance without explicit direction from Congress, means the EPA cannot “decide the Nation’s policy response to global climate change concerns.”
The Supreme Court has used the major questions doctrine to overturn EPA’s regulations in the past, most notably in West Virginia v. EPA, which ruled that President Obama’s Clean Power Plan failed this constitutional test. But that case was not about EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, the court solely struck down the particular approach the EPA took to those regulations. Nevertheless, the EPA now argues that any climate regulation at all would be a violation.
The EPA’s final argument is about the “futility” of vehicle emissions standards. It echoes a portion of the first justification, arguing that the point alone is enough of a reason to revoke the endangerment finding absent any other reason.
The endangerment finding had “severed the consideration of endangerment from the consideration of contribution” of emissions, the agency wrote. The Clean Air Act “instructs the EPA to regulate in furtherance of public health and welfare, not to reduce emissions regardless [of] whether such reductions have any material health and welfare impact.”
Funnily enough, to reach this conclusion, the agency had to use climate models developed by past administrations, including the EPA’s Optimization Model for reducing Emissions of GHGs from Automobiles, as well as some developed by outside scientists, such as the Finite amplitude Impulse Response climate emulator model — though it did so begrudgingly.
The agency “recognizes that there is still significant dispute regarding climate science and modeling,” it wrote. “However, the EPA is utilizing the climate modeling provided within this section to help illustrate” that zero-ing out emissions from vehicles “would not materially address the health and welfare dangers attributed to global climate change concerns in the Endangerment Finding.”
I have yet to hear back from outside experts about the EPA’s modeling here, so I can’t say what assumptions the agency made to reach this conclusion or estimate how well it will hold up to scrutiny. We’ll be talking to more legal scholars and scientists in the coming days as they digest the rule and dig into which of these arguments — if any — has a chance to prevail.
The state is poised to join a chorus of states with BYO energy policies.
With the backlash to data center development growing around the country, some states are launching a preemptive strike to shield residents from higher energy costs and environmental impacts.
A bill wending through the Washington State legislature would require data centers to pick up the tab for all of the costs associated with connecting them to the grid. It echoes laws passed in Oregon and Minnesota last year, and others currently under consideration in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, and Delaware.
Several of these bills, including Washington’s, also seek to protect state climate goals by ensuring that new or expanded data centers are powered by newly built, zero-emissions power plants. It’s a strategy that energy wonks have started referring to as BYONCE — bring your own new clean energy. Almost all of the bills also demand more transparency from data center companies about their energy and water use.
This list of state bills is by no means exhaustive. Governors in New York and Pennsylvania have declared their intent to enact similar policies this year. At least six states, including New York and Georgia, are also considering total moratoria on new data centers while regulators study the potential impacts of a computing boom.
“Potential” is a key word here. One of the main risks lawmakers are trying to circumvent is that utilities might pour money into new infrastructure to power data centers that are never built, built somewhere else, or don’t need as much energy as they initially thought.
“There’s a risk that there’s a lot of speculation driving the AI data center boom,” Emily Moore, the senior director of the climate and energy program at the nonprofit Sightline Institute, told me. “If the load growth projections — which really are projections at this point — don’t materialize, ratepayers could be stuck holding the bag for grid investments that utilities have made to serve data centers.”
Washington State, despite being in the top 10 states for data center concentration, has not exactly been a hotbed of opposition to the industry. According to Heatmap Pro data, there are no moratoria or restrictive ordinances on data centers in the state. Rural communities in Eastern Washington have also benefited enormously from hosting data centers from the earlier tech boom, using the tax revenue to fund schools, hospitals, municipal buildings, and recreation centers.
Still, concern has started to bubble up. A ProPublica report in 2024 suggested that data centers were slowing the state’s clean energy progress. It also described a contentious 2023 utility commission meeting in Grant County, which has the highest concentration of data centers in the state, where farmers and tech workers fought over rising energy costs.
But as with elsewhere in the country, it’s the eye-popping growth forecasts that are scaring people the most. Last year, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, a group that oversees electricity planning in the region, estimated that data centers and chip fabricators could add somewhere between 1,400 megawatts and 4,500 megawatts of demand by 2030. That’s similar to saying that between one and four cities the size of Seattle will hook up to the region’s grid in the next four years.
In the face of such intimidating demand growth, Washington Governor Bob Ferguson convened a Data Center Working Group last year — made up of state officials as well as advisors from electric utilities, environmental groups, labor, and industry — to help the state formulate a game plan. After meeting for six months, the group published a report in December finding that among other things, the data center boom will challenge the state’s efforts to decarbonize its energy systems.
A supplemental opinion provided by the Washington Department of Ecology also noted that multiple data center developers had submitted proposals to use fossil fuels as their main source of power. While the state’s clean energy law requires all electricity to be carbon neutral by 2030, “very few data center developers are proposing to use clean energy to meet their energy needs over the next five years,” the department said.
The report’s top three recommendations — to maintain the integrity of Washington’s climate laws, strengthen ratepayer protections, and incentivize load flexibility and best practices for energy efficiency — are all incorporated into the bill now under discussion in the legislature. The full list was not approved by unanimous vote, however, and many of the dissenting voices are now opposing the data center bill in the legislature or asking for significant revisions.
Dan Diorio, the vice president of state policy for the Data Center Coalition, an industry trade group, warned lawmakers during a hearing on the bill that it would “significantly impact the competitiveness and viability of the Washington market,” putting jobs and tax revenue at risk. He argued that the bill inappropriately singles out data centers, when arguably any new facility with significant energy demand poses the same risks and infrastructure challenges. The onshoring of manufacturing facilities, hydrogen production, and the electrification of vehicles, buildings, and industry will have similar impacts. “It does not create a long-term durable policy to protect ratepayers from current and future sources of load growth,” he said.
Another point of contention is whether a top-down mandate from the state is necessary when utility regulators already have the authority to address the risks of growing energy demand through the ratemaking process.
Indeed, regulators all over the country are already working on it. The Smart Electric Power Alliance, a clean energy research and education nonprofit, has been tracking the special rate structures and rules that U.S. utilities have established for data centers, cryptocurrency mining facilities, and other customers with high-density energy needs, many of which are designed to protect other ratepayers from cost shifts. Its database, which was last updated in November, says that 36 such agreements have been approved by state utility regulators, mostly in the past three years, and that another 29 are proposed or pending.
Diario of the Data Center Coalition cited this trend as evidence that the Washington bill was unnecessary. “The data center industry has been an active party in many of those proceedings,” he told me in an email, and “remains committed to paying its full cost of service for the energy it uses.” (The Data Center Coalition opposed a recent utility decision in Ohio that will require data centers to pay for a minimum of 85% of their monthly energy forecast, even if they end up using less.)
One of the data center industry’s favorite counterarguments against the fear of rising electricity is that new large loads actually exert downward pressure on rates by spreading out fixed costs. Jeff Dennis, who is the executive director of the Electricity Customer Alliance and has worked for both the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, told me this is something he worries about — that these potential benefits could be forfeited if data centers are isolated into their own ratemaking class. But, he said, we’re only in “version 1.5 or 2.0” when it comes to special rate structures for big energy users, known as large load tariffs.
“I think they’re going to continue to evolve as everybody learns more about how to integrate large loads, and as the large load customers themselves evolve in their operations,” he said.
The Washington bill passed the Appropriations Committee on Monday and now heads to the Rules Committee for review. A companion bill is moving through the state senate.
Plus more of the week’s top fights in renewable energy.
1. Kent County, Michigan — Yet another Michigan municipality has banned data centers — for the second time in just a few months.
2. Pima County, Arizona — Opposition groups submitted twice the required number of signatures in a petition to put a rezoning proposal for a $3.6 billion data center project on the ballot in November.
3. Columbus, Ohio — A bill proposed in the Ohio Senate could severely restrict renewables throughout the state.
4. Converse and Niobrara Counties, Wyoming — The Wyoming State Board of Land Commissioners last week rescinded the leases for two wind projects in Wyoming after a district court judge ruled against their approval in December.