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:
Think of all the stuff you use electricity for that you didn't 20 or 25 years ago — all those devices, maybe even your car — and yet electricity use has barely budged this century. In 2000, the country used about 4 million gigawatt-hours of electricity, according to the International Energy Agency; in 2022, it used about 4.5 million GWh, a growth rate of about 0.5%.
In some ways, the purpose of current U.S. climate policy is to reverse this trend. Only about a fifth of all energy produced in the United States is electrical. Removing carbon emissions from transportation, heating and industry will require first converting all of those industries from running on combusted hydrocarbons to running on electricity — while at the same time, of course, working to make electricity generation carbon-free.
All that is to say, we’re definitely going to be using more electricity. Today, if you ask any utility, electricity market organization, or anyone working on energy generation and transmission, they’ll tell you we’re in for an era of load growth.
“For a long period of time, we could balance out additional demand with efficiency improvements,” Xan Fishman, energy policy director at the Bipartisan Policy Center, told me. “Recent forecast are showing we’re going to need a lot more electricity.”
When GridStrategies LLC looked at documents grid planners filed with federal regulators, it found that their aggregate five-year load growth forecasts had gone up from 2.6% in 2022 to 4.7% last year, while their forecast for peak demand, i.e. the maximum amount grids plan on having to be able to provide, had shot up by 18 GW. That’s the equivalent of about 35 gas-fired power plants running on full blast.
In New England, for example, ISO-NE is forecasting 2.4% annual growth over the next 10 years, while its winter peak demand will grow by 3% per year thanks largely to electrifying transportation and heating; that, in turn, is largely thanks to aggressive decarbonization mandates in the region’s constituent states.
Not all of the demand growth we’re currently seeing comes from electrifying our existing energy consumption. New sources of demand are popping up all over the grid — which, especially where they’re generated by new industrial uses, shows how the Biden administration’s combined climate and industrial policy raises the bar for itself. As a result of domestic content requirements for tax subsidies and explicit subsidies for certain kinds of non-energy manufacturing (namely semiconductors), manufacturing construction has shot up in the past few years. And these new plants require huge amounts of electricity.
When PJM Interconnection, the 13-state East Coast and Midwest electricity market, was making its load forecast, it specifically called out Intel’s CHIPS Act-funded facility under construction outside Columbus, Ohio; the electrification of New Jersey ports funded by the Inflation Reduction Act; and planned data centers in Maryland and Virginia as notable examples of increased load generation. For AEP, the utility serving Columbus, the forecast peak summer load in 2030 has gone from about 23.5 GW to 26 GW, compared to around 21 GW in 2023. Dominion, the utility serving Virginia and the booming Loudon County datacenter complex, forecast annual load growth of around 5% over the next decade.
To get a sense of how tremendous that is, when the energy system researchers with Princeton University’s REPEAT project wanted to project how much electricity consumption would have to increase annually to reach net zero by 2050, it turned out to be “only” 2.4%. Virginia is planning load growth at twice that rate just to feed electrons to its data centers.
“When you’re talking about a data center or a three-shift, seven-day-a-week manufacturing process, that’s far less manageable” than, say, electric cars, David Porter, vice president of electrification and sustainable energy strategy at the Electric Power Research Institute, told me. EVs can be powered at specific times based on demand for electricity across the grid, or by a distributed energy resource like residential solar and batteries. To power energy-hungry manufacturing processes, though, requires the kind of consistency that only fossil fuels and nuclear (or naturally limited renewables like hydropower) have historically been able to provide.
There’s no better example of the tension between electrification and emission reductions than in Georgia, where the state’s main utility Georgia Power has said that its estimates for load growth between 2023 and 2031 had jumped up from less than 400 megawatts to 6,600, a 17-times increase. The utility attributed this forecasting hike to “rapid economic expansion and an unprecedented increase in the demand for energy to the state,” including electric vehicle and battery manufacturing facilities, which the Biden administration has done so much to boost demand for and encourage their construction in the United States.
The utility also said that to serve this load growth, it would have to add new renewable resources, acquire power from other utilities and generators, and build new gas power plants, which immediately raised the ire and suspicion of green groups. The Sierra Club described the request as “shocking.”
But proponents of climate action shouldn’t necessarily despair at this new load, Fishman told me. “It’s really easy to decarbonize if you stop building stuff,” he said. “But [Americans] would likely keep buying stuff, and that stuff would be built elsewhere, quite likely with greater emissions intensity.”
In other words, “a resurgence of American manufacturing might lead to more U.S. emissions than in a scenario where we aren’t increasing our manufacturing base,” Fishman told me, but it’s “highly likely to reduce global emissions.” That’s because even now, U.S. electricity is cleaner than electricity in, for example, China, which is still heavily reliant on coal. (According to the IEA, 63% of China's electricity comes from coal burning, compared to 20% in the United States.)
Data centers, meanwhile, are expected to account for 6% of total electricity demand in the U.S. by 2026, according to the IEA, up from about 4% in 2022. And the AI ones will eat up even more: A ChatGPT query is about nine times as energy intensive as a Google search, according to the IEA. If generative artificial intelligence grows at anywhere near the rate that its proponents expect, it will lead to hefty increases in electricity demand, both from manufacturing the chips needed to power the systems and the electricity to power them. One example is Silicon Valley Power, a utility serving, well, Silicon Valley, which forecast load to double by 2035, “primarily” due to data centers’ demand for electricity.
But there may be some reason for skepticism about these load growth projections from data centers, Jon Koomey, a veteran information technology and energy researcher, told me. The particularly energy intensive large language models may not win out as a business, which would slow the growth in data center electricity demand, he said. And even if data centers continue to grow, they could also get far more efficient in how they use electricity — and might just end up using less than what they ask for from utilities.
“You don’t want to get caught short,” Koomey said, explaining why requests for power will be biased on the high end. “There’s an incentive for everyone to request more.”
But still, it’s no surprise that the companies at the heart of the data center boom — Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI — have shown an interest in finding ways to match that constant electricity demand with non-carbon-emitting power. Their facilities need to be powered 24/7, which existing renewable sources largely struggle to provide. (It’s neither windy nor sunny 100% of the time.) This has led to a flurry of investment and dealmaking by these companies to develop and procure “clean firm” resources. Google has a deal with Fervo, the enhanced geothermal startup, to purchase power generated by its operation in Nevada, while Microsoft signed an agreement with Constellation to purchase nuclear-generated electricity for its Virginia data centers to complement its existing renewable power. Silicon Valley Power also said in its planning documents that it’s looking to acquire more geothermal resources. And OpenAI’s Sam Altman has invested in a fusion company.
“If we want to grow our manufacturing base we need the energy to make that work, we need to get that energy to those new manufacturing plants,” Fishman said. “It would be bad if we had a bunch of companies who said, ‘We want to build a factory,’ and can’t because they don’t get enough electricity.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Trump just quasi-nationalized U.S. Steel. That could help climate policy later.
The government is getting into the steel business. The deal between Japan’s Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel, long held off by the Biden administration due to national security and economic concerns, may finally happen, and the government will have a seat at the table. And some progressives are smarting over the fact that a Republican did it first.
On Friday, Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel announced “that President Trump has approved the Companies’ historic partnership,” which would include $11 billion in new investments and “a Golden Share to be issued to the U.S. Government” as well as “commitments” that include “domestic production” and “trade matters.”
The New York Times reported that this “Golden Share” would give the president, including Trump’s successors, the ability to appoint or veto some of the company’s directors, and require the government to sign off on a wide range of corporate decisions, like moving production overseas or idling or closing plants or the procurement of raw materials.
The Trump administration will likely use its oversight to encourage domestic production of steel, in tandem with its tariffs on steel imports. The unique arrangement “will massively expand access to domestically produced steel,” Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick wrote on X.
While neither the administration nor the two companies involved in the deal have mentioned decarbonizing steel — and in fact existing steel decarbonization programs have floundered in the first months of the Trump’s second term — it is this government oversight of steel production that could, with a different administration, help steer the steel industry into greener pastures.
A future president could wield a golden share to encourage or require the significant capital investments necessary to decarbonize some of U.S. Steel’s production, investments that the Biden administration had trouble catalyzing even with direct government financial support.
And considering that steel makes up for some 7% of global emissions, decarbonization is a necessary — if costly — step to substantially reducing global emissions.
“It’s honestly embarrassing that Republicans beat us to actually implementing a golden share or something like it,” Alex Jacquez, who worked on industrial policy for the National Economic Council in the Biden White House, told me.
When the steel giant Cleveland Cliffs first hinted that it would not go forward with $500 million worth of federal grants to help build a hydrogen-powered mill, it cited “fears that there won’t be buyers for the lower-carbon product,” thanks to a 40% price gap with traditional steel, Ilmi Granoff wrote for Heatmap., This tracked what steel producers and buyers were telling the Biden administration as it tried to convene the industry to see what it needed to go green.
“The largest issue by far in advancing green steel production in the U.S. is demand. It’s still not price competitive and not worth capital investment upgrades, given where the market is right now and without stable demand from customers who are going to pay a premium for the product,” Jacquez said. “There’s no case to make to shareholders for why you’re investing.”
When the Roosevelt Institute looked at barriers to transition to clean steel, specifically a Cleveland-Cliffs project, among familiar community concerns like what it would mean for steel employment, there was “corporate inertia and focus on short-term shareholder value over long-term public value and competitiveness.”
While the Trump administration sees shareholder demands leading to insufficient domestic production of any steel, a future administration could be a counterweight to investors not wanting to make green steel investments.
Shareholder reticence is a “huge obstacle,” one of the report’s authors Isabel Estevez, co-executive director of the industrial policy think tank I3T, told me.
“Of course investors are not going to green light investments that don’t produce the same returns as doing nothing or doing something else would do,” Jacquez said.
And when green steel projects have gotten canceled, in the U.S. and abroad, it’s been dismal shareholder returns that are often the explicit or implicit justification, as well as the high cost of producing green hydrogen necessary to fuel green steel operations. “We are not only pushing the boundaries of what is technologically feasible with this project. We are also currently pushing the boundaries of economic viability. Or, as it stands today: beyond it,” the chief executive of ThyssenKrupp told the North Rhine-Westphalia parliament, according to Hydrogen Insight.
And the resulting Trump administration retrenchment from the Biden administration’s climate policy has made the environment even less friendly for green steel.
Earlier this month Cleveland-Cliffs scrapped the hydrogen-fuel steel project and said instead it would try to extend its existing coal-fueled blast furnace. And the Swedish company SSAB earlier this year withdrew from a prospective project in Mississippi.
Would these outcomes be any different with a “golden share”? When the Roosevelt Institute looked at steel decarbonization even full-on nationalization was considered as one of the “sticks” that could push along decarbonization (many steel companies globally are either state-owned or have some state investment). The golden share, at least as reported, will seem to put the government in the driver’s seat of a major player of the steel industry, while still maintaining its private ownership structure.
“Assuming the nature of the golden share allows the public sector to make certain requirements about the way that profits are used, it could be very valuable for encouraging U.S. Steel to use their profits to make important investments,” Estevez told me.
On Israel and Iran, G7, and clean-energy jobs
Current conditions: Fairbanks will “cool” to 85 degrees Fahrenheit on Monday after NOAA issued the first heat advisory in Alaska’s history over the weekend • Nashville’s total rainfall for the year is 33.25 inches, making it the city’s wettest since 1979 • It could hit 124 degrees Fahrenheit in Ar Rabiyah, Kuwait, today, potentially setting a new hottest temperature of June so far.
An Israeli strike on the Shahran oil depot in Tehran.Stringer/Getty Images
Oil analysts and investors are bracing for further escalation after Israel and Iran’s attacks on each other’s energy infrastructure this weekend. On Saturday, Iran reported that Israel had struck its natural gas processing facility near the South Pars field, as well the main fuel depot in Tehran — targets that “suggest Israel is attempting to weaken and disrupt Iran’s domestic gas and fuel supply chains to cause shortages, rather than pursuing the country’s oil and gas production or exports, which would rock the markets,” the Financial Times writes. Iran responded on Saturday by hitting an Israeli refinery and damaging pipelines north of Tel Aviv. Israel preemptively cut off the natural-gas flow from its oil fields in case those pipelines become additional targets, with Egypt and Jordan reporting they’ve already seen disruptions to their supplies as a result, The Wall Street Journal reports.
Iran has the second-largest natural gas reserves and the fourth-largest crude oil reserves in the world, and is the third-largest producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. The country has also threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, a major transit route for a third of the world’s oil, although many analysts are skeptical of such a threat, given that it would also cut off Iran’s own export route to its biggest customer, China, Bloomberg reports. While some analysts expect President Trump to call on OPEC+ to increase its production capacity if the global oil supply is disrupted, “it’s unclear whether the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries could offset a severe and prolonged outage in Iran, which pumps around 3.4 million barrels a day,” Bloomberg adds. Brent crude rose 5.5% to $78.32 a barrel at the start of trading on Monday morning, after gaining 7% on Friday — the most in three years.
The Group of Seven summit begins today in western Alberta, but in a break with precedent, climate policy will not be on the agenda. Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Germany, and Britain will reportedly take pains to avoid “riling” President Trump at the meeting in Kananaskis, The Washington Post reports, while Bloomberg notes that “other G7 leaders won’t even try for a statement of unity on matters such as Ukraine or climate change.” Since 1975, the group has “dedicated an average of 5% of its declarations to climate change at each summit,” The Global Governance Project reports, and it has made “496 climate commitments, taking 6% of the total on all subjects.” But despite the hesitancy to contradict the U.S., certain climate policies will be “integrated into the agenda, a senior government official told a briefing this week, pointing to an effort to improve the international joint response to the growing global forest fire threat,” per the BBC.
The Republican budget bill could potentially threaten 2 million jobs, a new report by BlueGreen Alliance found. In addition to 300,000 direct manufacturing jobs that may be lost if the GOP follows through on eliminating the corresponding tax credits, the report also found that a million indirect jobs (like “supply chain jobs, providing parts for auto or clean energy manufacturing”) and 643,000 induced jobs (like “restaurant workers, store clerks, and the other types of jobs you’d see when an area increases in population or has more money to spend”) are also at risk of evaporating, Electrek notes. Georgia alone could lose 258,000 jobs. “Every bit of data shows clearly that repealing these credits will hurt working Americans,” Ted Fertik, the vice president of manufacturing and industrial policy at BlueGreen Alliance, said in a statement. “We hope the Senate will see reason and reverse these damaging provisions.”
The European Commission, which is set to propose a cut-off date for the European Union’s imports of Russian gas, will not propose similar limits on the nation’s nuclear fuel, Reuters reported Monday. Russia currently supplies the bloc with 38% of its enriched uranium and 23% of its raw uranium, and five EU countries use Russian-designed reactors intended to run on Russian fuel. “The question about nuclear is, of course, complicated, because we need to be very sure that we are not putting countries in a situation where they do not have the security of supply,” EU energy commissioner Dan Jorgensen said. Though the announcement was a reversal from the Commission’s statement in June that it would target Russian enriched uranium, Jorgensen added that “we’re working as fast as we can to also make that a part of the proposal.”
In case you missed it, late last week Meta announced a deal with XGS Energy to add 150 megawatts of geothermal electricity in New Mexico to help the company power its local expansion into artificial intelligence. XGS specifically uses a closed-loop system to prevent water from escaping as it extracts geothermal energy from the rock, which is “especially crucial in a drought-prone state like New Mexico,” The Verge writes. The goal is for the facility to be operational by 2030.
Though the deal between Meta and XGS is no larger than a separate geothermal deal the tech company struck with Sage Geosystems last year, the proposal would still “represent about 4% of total U.S. geothermal production,” Reuters reports. Meta also announced a nuclear agreement with Constellation Energy earlier this month. My colleague Matthew Zeitlin has more on the tech clean-power buying spree, which you can read about here.
The world’s biggest sand battery is now operating in the small municipality of Pornainen, Finland. The nearly 50-foot wide, 43-foot-tall tank is filled with sand that is capable of storing 1 megawatt of thermal power from excess solar and wind electricity, and which can be used to meet one month of Pornainen’s heat demands in the summer or a week of its demands in the winter, per its owner, Polar Night Energy.
How the perpetually almost-there technology could get shut out of the Inflation Reduction Act’s surviving nuclear tax credits.
The House offered a last minute olive branch to the increasingly bipartisan nuclear industry when it passed its version of the budget reconciliation bill now working its way through the Senate, opting to preserve tax credit eligibility for so-called “advanced nuclear facilities” that start construction by 2029. That deadline will be difficult for many nuclear companies to meet, regardless of their technological approach or reactor size. But one much anticipated, potentially world-changing technology won’t even have a shot: nuclear fusion.
That’s not because fusion is so futuristic that the 2029 deadline would be categorically unworkable. As I keep hearing, the tech is finally, possibly, actually on the verge of commercialization, and some industry leaders such as Commonwealth Fusion Systems could probably break ground on a commercial reactor by then.
Fusion won’t have a shot simply because, as defined by Congress and the IRS, it does not fall within the category of an “advanced nuclear facility.” Instead, it’s defined and regulated as a separate class of zero-emission technology, thus excluding it from the nuclear carve out in the budget bill. That distinction was made clear in January, when the IRS released its final regulations for the Inflation Reduction Act, Julien Barber, an investor in multiple fusion technologies at Emerson Collective, told me. That separation happened because “we wanted to regulate them differently,” he said.
Fusion reactors can’t melt down and don’t produce the kind of highly radioactive nuclear waste that fission does, meaning that many of the safety constraints on conventional nuclear don’t apply to fusion. In 2023, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission decided to regulate fusion reactors more like particle accelerators, which are typically licensed at the state level, have fewer siting constraints, less stringent security requirements, and are often exempt from full environmental review. Last year, a bipartisan group of senators worked together to pass the Fusion Energy Act, which confirmed the NRC’s decision to separate the regulatory processes.
If the Senate approves the House’s version of the clean energy investment and production tax credits, fusion energy will be subject to the same tight restrictions as other clean energy solutions. The timeline for credit eligibility requires energy projects to begin construction a mere 60 days after the bill’s passage, and be placed in service by 2029. That, Barber said, is “essentially impossible for any of the fusion companies out there.” Brian Berzin, CEO of the fusion startup Thea Energy, agreed. “Most private fusion companies will be left unable to benefit from these financial incentives,” he wrote in an emailed statement.
There’s confusion, however, around whether this fusion exclusion was a deliberate decision from the House or simply an oversight. Barber is betting on the latter.
“This was happening quickly,” Barber told me. “There was some push by some of the companies in the [Fusion Industry Association] to review the language, but they just didn’t have time to review the language in time to write comments, and it just kind of got pushed through as is.”
The bill’s final language also took the CEO of the Fusion Industry Association, Andrew Holland, by surprise. “We had heard that fusion would be part of the carve out too, but then it wasn’t,” Holland told me.
A more pessimistic interpretation is also possible, Barber conceded. “There’s the idea that people don’t think fusion is ever going to be the case,” he told me. Certainly for some both in and out of government, fusion represents a dream perpetually deferred.
What Barber thinks many people fail to realize, though, is that some fusion industry leaders are operating on timelines similar to fission companies building small modular reactors. “If you talk to CFS, they’re going to say, We’re going to be putting our first power plant on the grid by the early 2030s, which is the same timeline as [small modular reactor company] X-energy, right?”
Until this moment, the distinction that top governing bodies such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have made between fusion and fission has been nothing but a positive for fusion companies and advocates alike. When the Fusion Energy Act passed, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, Republican John Cornyn of Texas, said that “fusion energy is a promising clean and safe power source that could help address America’s growing energy demands.” Another co-sponser, Republican Todd Young of Indiana, said that fusion “has the potential to usher in a new era of energy production in America.”
But whether generalized Republican support for fusion will extend beyond easing regulations to actively include subsidies for the technology remains to be seen. And for now, most of the companies themselves are staying quiet. As of publication time, CFS, Zap Energy, Type One Energy, and Xcimer Energy all either said they could not comment or else did not respond to my request for comment.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include comments from the Fusion Industry Association.