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:
On weather projections, deadly EV attacks, and hydrogen tax credits
Current conditions: A series of Arctic blasts hitting the U.S. could make for the coldest January since 2011 • Power has been restored in Puerto Rico after a massive New Year’s Eve blackout • Temperatures will get down to about 43 degrees Fahrenheit tonight in Barcelona, where gas-powered patio heaters are officially banned due to their carbon emissions.
Authorities are investigating whether yesterday’s deadly truck attacks in New Orleans and Las Vegas may be linked. Both incidents involved electric pickups. In New Orleans, a man drove a Ford F-150 Lightning into a crowd in the French Quarter, killing 15 people and injuring dozens of others. In Vegas, a Tesla Cybertruck packed with explosives detonated outside the Trump International Hotel, killing the driver and injuring seven others. Both vehicles were rented through a budget app called Turo. Electric vehicles tend to be heavier than their internal combustion counterparts, mostly due to their battery packs. This can make them particularly deadly in collisions with smaller vehicles and, of course, pedestrians. Ford’s 2024 F-150 Lightning has a curb weight ranging from 6,000 to nearly 7,000 pounds; the Cybertruck starts at 6,600 pounds, about 2,000 pounds heavier than the average new vehicle weight.
In the Las Vegas explosion, Sheriff Kevin McMahill indicated the Cybertruck actually “limited the damage that occurred.” The vehicle’s exterior appeared to remain intact. In a post on X, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said: “The evil knuckleheads picked the wrong vehicle for a terrorist attack.”
The Biden administration plans to release guidance for hydrogen production tax credits this week, likely on Friday, two sources told Reuters. The guidance will “provide a pathway” for tax credits for hydrogen producers that use nuclear power, the outlet reported. Back in October, Deputy Secretary Wally Adeyemo told Heatmap the rules would be out by the end of 2024. As Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer explained, the Treasury Department’s must decide how hydrogen producers who use electrolysis — sending electricity through water to split its molecules — should deal with the indirect carbon emissions associated with drawing power from the grid. “Finalizing rules that will help scale the clean hydrogen industry while implementing the environmental safeguards established in the law remains a top priority for Treasury,” spokesperson Michael Martinez told Reuters. “In that process, we are carefully considering the numerous comments we have received on the proposed regulations.” In his conversation with Heatmap, Adeyemo acknowledged that the final rules were unlikely to please everyone.
Climate change meant that there were about 41 more “extreme heat” days in 2024, according to the World Weather Attribution’s annual extreme weather report. Climate change contributed to at least 3,700 deaths, but “it’s likely the total number of people killed in extreme weather events intensified by climate change [in 2024] is in the tens, or hundreds of thousands,” the group said. While the El Niño weather pattern contributed to global trends, climate change played a bigger role in fueling extreme weather. “As the planet warms, the influence of climate change increasingly overrides other natural phenomena affecting the weather,” the report added.
World Weather Attribution
China’s weather agency also reported that 2024 was the country’s warmest year on record, and that “the top four warmest years ever were the past four years, with all top 10 warmest years since 1961 occurring in the 21st century.” And a report from the National Institute for Space Research concluded that Brazil’s Amazon rainforest experienced 140,328 fires last year, the highest number in 17 years. In a New Year’s message, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said we are in an era of real-time climate breakdown.
The UK’s Met Office projected that global temperatures will remain high in 2025 despite the shift to La Niña, averaging between 2.3 and 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above the pre-industrial average. “Years such as 2025, which aren’t dominated by the warming influence of El Niño, should be cooler,” said Professor Adam Scaife, who leads the team behind the Met Office’s global forecast. “2016 was an El Niño year and at the time it was the warmest year on record for global temperature. In comparison to our forecast for 2025 though, 2016 is now looking decidedly cool.”
Met Office
In case you missed it: New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed a new bill into law that allows the state to fine fossil fuel companies for climate damages. The law could see the companies incur charges of up to $75 billion over the next 25 years – though many are expected to file legal challenges. Firms will be fined based on their emissions between 2000 and 2018. The money will go into a Climate Superfund and be put toward mitigation and adaptation measures. Vermont implemented a similar law last summer. “New York has fired a shot that will be heard round the world: The companies most responsible for the climate crisis will be held accountable,” New York Sen. Liz Krueger said in a statement.
“A generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people.” –The late President Jimmy Carter, upon installing solar panels on the roof of the West Wing of the White House in 1979. Ronald Reagan had the panels removed seven years later. Carter died on Sunday at the age of 100.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A war of attrition is now turning in opponents’ favor.
A solar developer’s defeat in Massachusetts last week reveals just how much stronger project opponents are on the battlefield after the de facto repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act.
Last week, solar developer PureSky pulled five projects under development around the western Massachusetts town of Shutesbury. PureSky’s facilities had been in the works for years and would together represent what the developer has claimed would be one of the state’s largest solar projects thus far. In a statement, the company laid blame on “broader policy and regulatory headwinds,” including the state’s existing renewables incentives not keeping pace with rising costs and “federal policy updates,” which PureSky said were “making it harder to finance projects like those proposed near Shutesbury.”
But tucked in its press release was an admission from the company’s vice president of development Derek Moretz: this was also about the town, which had enacted a bylaw significantly restricting solar development that the company was until recently fighting vigorously in court.
“There are very few areas in the Commonwealth that are feasible to reach its clean energy goals,” Moretz stated. “We respect the Town’s conservation go als, but it is clear that systemic reforms are needed for Massachusetts to source its own energy.”
This stems from a story that probably sounds familiar: after proposing the projects, PureSky began reckoning with a burgeoning opposition campaign centered around nature conservation. Led by a fresh opposition group, Smart Solar Shutesbury, activists successfully pushed the town to drastically curtail development in 2023, pointing to the amount of forest acreage that would potentially be cleared in order to construct the projects. The town had previously not permitted facilities larger than 15 acres, but the fresh change went further, essentially banning battery storage and solar projects in most areas.
When this first happened, the state Attorney General’s office actually had PureSky’s back, challenging the legality of the bylaw that would block construction. And PureSky filed a lawsuit that was, until recently, ongoing with no signs of stopping. But last week, shortly after the Treasury Department unveiled its rules for implementing Trump’s new tax and spending law, which basically repealed the Inflation Reduction Act, PureSky settled with the town and dropped the lawsuit – and the projects went away along with the court fight.
What does this tell us? Well, things out in the country must be getting quite bleak for solar developers in areas with strident and locked-in opposition that could be costly to fight. Where before project developers might have been able to stomach the struggle, money talks – and the dollars are starting to tell executives to lay down their arms.
The picture gets worse on the macro level: On Monday, the Solar Energy Industries Association released a report declaring that federal policy changes brought about by phasing out federal tax incentives would put the U.S. at risk of losing upwards of 55 gigawatts of solar project development by 2030, representing a loss of more than 20 percent of the project pipeline.
But the trade group said most of that total – 44 gigawatts – was linked specifically to the Trump administration’s decision to halt federal permitting for renewable energy facilities, a decision that may impact generation out west but has little-to-know bearing on most large solar projects because those are almost always on private land.
Heatmap Pro can tell us how much is at stake here. To give you a sense of perspective, across the U.S., over 81 gigawatts worth of renewable energy projects are being contested right now, with non-Western states – the Northeast, South and Midwest – making up almost 60% of that potential capacity.
If historical trends hold, you’d expect a staggering 49% of those projects to be canceled. That would be on top of the totals SEIA suggests could be at risk from new Trump permitting policies.
I suspect the rate of cancellations in the face of project opposition will increase. And if this policy landscape is helping activists kill projects in blue states in desperate need of power, like Massachusetts, then the future may be more difficult to swallow than we can imagine at the moment.
And more on the week’s most important conflicts around renewables.
1. Wells County, Indiana – One of the nation’s most at-risk solar projects may now be prompting a full on moratorium.
2. Clark County, Ohio – Another Ohio county has significantly restricted renewable energy development, this time with big political implications.
3. Daviess County, Kentucky – NextEra’s having some problems getting past this county’s setbacks.
4. Columbia County, Georgia – Sometimes the wealthy will just say no to a solar farm.
5. Ottawa County, Michigan – A proposed battery storage facility in the Mitten State looks like it is about to test the state’s new permitting primacy law.
A conversation with Jeff Seidman, a professor at Vassar College.
This week’s conversation is with Jeff Seidman, a professor at Vassar College and an avid Heatmap News reader. Last week Seidman claimed a personal victory: he successfully led an effort to overturn a moratorium on battery storage development in the town of Poughkeepsie in Hudson Valley, New York. After reading a thread about the effort he posted to BlueSky, I reached out to chat about what my readers might learn from his endeavors – and how they could replicate them, should they want to.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So how did you decide to fight against a battery storage ban? What was your process here?
First of all, I’m not a professional in this area, but I’ve been learning about climate stuff for a long time. I date my education back to when Vox started and I read my first David Roberts column there. But I just happened to hear from someone I know that in the town of Poughkeepsie where I live that a developer made a proposal and local residents who live nearby were up in arms about it. And I heard the town was about to impose a moratorium – this was back in March 2024.
I actually personally know some of the town board members, and we have a Democratic majority who absolutely care about climate change but didn’t particularly know that battery power was important to the energy transition and decarbonizing the grid. So I organized five or six people to go to the town board meeting, wrote a letter, and in that initial board meeting we characterized the reason we were there as being about climate.
There were a lot more people on the other side. They were very angry. So we said do a short moratorium because every day we’re delaying this, peaker plants nearby are spewing SOx and NOx into the air. The status quo has a cost.
But then the other side, they were clearly triggered by the climate stuff and said renewables make the grid more expensive. We’d clearly pressed a button in the culture wars. And then we realized the mistake, because we lost that one.
When you were approaching getting this overturned, what considerations did you make?
After that initial meeting and seeing how those mentions of climate or even renewables had triggered a portion of the board, and the audience, I really course-corrected. I realized we had to make this all about local benefits. So that’s what I tried to do going forward.
Even for people who were climate concerned, it was really clear that what they perceived as a present risk in their neighborhood was way more salient than an abstract thing like contributing to the fight against climate change globally. So even for people potentially on your side, you have to make it about local benefits.
The other thing we did was we called a two-hour forum for the county supervisors and mayor’s association because we realized talking to them in a polarized environment was not a way to have a conversation. I spoke and so did Paul Rogers, a former New York Fire Department lieutenant who is now in fire safety consulting – he sounds like a firefighter and can speak with a credibility that I could never match in front of, for example, local fire chiefs. Winning them over was important. And we took more than an hour of questions.
Stage one was to convince them of why batteries were important. Stage two was to show that a large number of constituents were angry about the moratorium, but that Republicans were putting on a unified front against this – an issue to win votes. So there was a period where Democrats on the Poughkeepsie board were convinced but it was politically difficult for them.
But stage three became helping them do the right thing, even with the risk of there being a political cost.
What would you say to those in other parts of the country who want to do what you did?
If possible, get a zoning law in place before there is any developer with a specific proposal because all of the opposition to this project came from people directly next to the proposed project. Get in there before there’s a specific project site.
Even if you’re in a very blue city, don’t make it primarily about climate. Abstract climate loses to non-abstract perceived risk every time. Make it about local benefits.
To the extent you can, read and educate yourself about what good batteries provide to the grid. There’s a lot of local economic benefits there.
I am trying to put together some of the resources I used into a packet, a tool kit, so that people elsewhere can learn from it and draw from those resources.
Also, the more you know, the better. All those years of reading David Roberts and Heatmap gave me enough knowledge to actually answer questions here. It works especially when you have board members who may be sympathetic but need to be reassured.