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 the California waiver, an SMR, and CATL
Current conditions: Burbank, California, may hit 95 degrees Fahrenheit today, matching or potentially breaking the 1988 daily record • An area of low pressure could bring snow to the mountains in South Africa• Heavy rain is expected in Washington, D.C., where House Speaker Mike Johnson — perhaps wishfully — aims to hold a floor vote on the reconciliation bill today.
California Air Resources Board
Senate Republicans plan to vote this week on California’s ability to set its own emissions standards, Majority Leader John Thune said on the Senate floor Tuesday. Since 1967, the Environmental Protection Agency has granted California a waiver to set stricter-than-federal restrictions on emissions in acknowledgment of the state’s unique air pollution challenges, including smog; due to the state’s size, however, those standards have largely been adhered to by automakers nationally. The House voted earlier this month to end California’s waiver — which has long been opposed by Republicans, who’ve called it, erroneously, an “electric vehicle mandate” — although there had been some uncertainty over whether the Senate would take up the vote, since Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough and the Government Accountability Office had both ruled that the EPA waiver is not subject to the Congressional Review Act, which is what Republicans have called upon to attempt to overturn it.
Thune confirmed that the chamber would take up the three House resolutions unwinding the California waiver, claiming Democrats were “attempting to derail a repeal by throwing a tantrum over a supposed procedural problem.” In response, Senator Alex Padilla of California, a Democrat, said, “If this attempt is successful, the consequences will be far-reaching, not only for our clean energy economy, the air our children breathe, and for our climate, but for the future of the CRA and for the Senate as an institution.”
The Tennessee Valley Authority is seeking a permit to build a small modular reactor, the Journal-News reports, the first utility to do so. On Tuesday, the TVA — the nation’s largest public power provider — took another step toward adding an SMR to its nuclear fleet by applying for a construction permit from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build a site on Tennessee’s Clinch River.
While the project had previously been touted by the Biden administration as helping advance the nation toward “a clean energy future,” my colleague Matthew Zeitlin noted that language has vanished from the construction application, which now argues the SMR is the next step in “establishing America’s energy dominance to power artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and advanced manufacturing.” Regardless of spin, the fastest Clinch River could go into operation is about five years, Adam Stein, the director of the nuclear energy innovation program of the Breakthrough Institute, told Matthew.
The world’s biggest manufacturer of electric vehicle batteries, CATL, raised $4.6 billion in its debut on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange Tuesday, making it the largest share offering of 2025 to date. The stock surged 16% over the subscription price, although onshore U.S. investors were largely shut out by the company in order to “limit its exposure to U.S. legal liability,” with the Pentagon having put the Fujian province-based company on a blacklist earlier this year for its alleged links to China’s military, Bloomberg writes.
CATL’s manufacturing is done almost entirely within China, although the company has said it will use 90% of its proceeds from the Hong Kong offering on the construction of a new factory in Hungary, The Economist reports. Though the company faces an uphill battle making inroads in the U.S. due to slowing demand for electric vehicles and scrutiny of Chinese companies by American politicians, The Economist adds that CATL also has “plenty of room for further expansion,” including growing its “higher-margin energy-storage business.”
Japanese automaker Honda announced Tuesday that it will pivot away from its investment in electric vehicles in order to focus on growing demand for hybrids, Reuters reports. The company revised its electrification investment from about $69 billion to $48 billion, while at the same time planning 13 hybrid models between 2027 and 2031.
Honda cited a slowdown in EV sales as justification for its decision, though as Electrek points out, “It’s estimated that this year – not 2030 – 25% of cars sold globally will be EVs,” and that “any company that sells less than that is lagging behind the curve, losing ground to companies that are ready for the transition that is already happening.” Electrek adds that Honda’s profits have largely slipped due to competition in the Chinese auto market from domestic EVs.
If the world merely sustains the current level of warming, at 1.2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, ice melt off of Greenland and Antarctica could still “profoundly alter coastlines around the world, displacing hundreds of millions of people, and causing loss and damage well beyond the limits of adaptation,” a grim new study published in Nature has found. Even keeping global temperature rise beneath the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold established in the Paris Climate Agreement could result in “catastrophic inland migration and forced migration,” the University of Bristol’s Jonathan Bamber, one of the authors of the report, told The Guardian. In fact, “you don’t slow sea level rise at 1.5,” lead author Chris Stokes of Durham University told CNN. Rather, “you see quite a rapid acceleration.”
Around 230 million people live less than a meter, or 3.2 feet, above sea level, including many residents of Miami. The researchers estimated that due to ice melt, seas could rise 40 inches by the end of the century, requiring “massive land migration on scales that we’ve never witnessed since modern civilization,” Bamber told CNN. As Stokes added, “There’s very little that we’re observing that gives us hope here.”
Svea Solar
Ikea has begun selling air-to-water heat pumps in Germany, in partnership with Svea Solar. “Sustainable living should be accessible to the masses,” Jacqueline Polak of Ikea Germany said in a statement.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Rob and Jesse sort dig into the implications of the House budget bill.
Republicans are preparing to tear up America’s clean energy tax credits as part of their budget reconciliation megabill. Hollowing out those policies will have sweeping implications for the country’s energy system — it could set back solar, nuclear, and geothermal development; bring less electricity supply onto the grid; and devastate the country’s fledgling electric vehicle supply chain.
A new report — written by our own Jesse Jenkins — is all about the real-life consequences of killing the tax credits. On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Jesse shares the forthcoming analysis of the bill from Princeton University’s REPEAT Project. Rob and Jesse discuss what best-in-class modeling tells us the bill will mean for carbon emissions, the energy economy, the power grid, and consumer energy costs. Shift Key is hosted by Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University, and Robinson Meyer, Heatmap’s executive editor.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Robinson Meyer: We may not know exactly what Republicans in Congress are going to do, but when you look at the set of possibilities encapsulated by the Republican bill, what does this mean for the energy system and for the climate? Is it good?
Jesse Jenkins: Uh, no, it is not good. And I wish I had some silver linings to pull out here, but they are non-existent — or few and far between, if there are any we can find. Dismantling the current policy trajectory would result in a substantial increase in greenhouse gas emissions, on the order of half a gigaton, 500 million tons, by 2030, rising to over a billion metric tons, or a gigaton by 2035.
And at the same time it would, of course, slow the energy transition. So less deployment of clean electricity technologies, a slower uptake of electric vehicles, and other impacts across the economy. And all that also translates to higher energy costs for Americans, for households, for businesses as we do two things. One is we remove tax credits and subsidies that are currently lowering the cost of investing in all of this new infrastructure, whether it’s new power generation or storage or new vehicles for fleets or households.
So those subsidies shift some costs out of household and business budgets right onto the federal tax code. And by slowing down measures like energy efficiency, electrification, EVs, measures that reduce fossil energy consumption, we’re also likely to see fossil fuel prices go up as demand rises. So relative to a world where we’re reducing demand for these fuels, if we slow down that process and we consume more fossil fuels overall, that’s also going to translate through the law of supply and demand into higher costs for Americans.
So that’s, I think, the top line: Higher emissions, slow down — although not halt — the energy transition, and higher energy costs for most Americans and for our businesses around the country. It’s not quite our frozen policy scenario from the beginning of January, 2021. But not surprisingly, a scenario where we dismantle the entirety of the Biden-era policy apparatus does revert us pretty close to where we would be if those laws had not passed. Not entirely. There’s some momentum that will continue. But a full repeal scenario, which is maybe where the House is trending, would mean that we’re going to see half-a-gigaton-scale increase in emissions from our current trajectory in 2030, and about a gigaton or more in 2035.
Meyer: I realize that there’s a tendency for numbers, especially gigatons, these numbers attached to giant units, to slide by and kind of be like, Oh, that’s a number. But that is staggering. U.S. energy emissions are about five gigatons. I think global energy emissions are 38 gigatons …
Jenkins: Yeah, close to 40. Exactly.
Meyer: This is a sizable increase compared to baseline in carbon emissions.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
The nation’s largest public power provider just applied to build a small modular reactor.
Can the nuclear renaissance be publicly owned? And will the Trump administration let it?
That’s the question facing the Tennessee Valley Authority as it continues its long-gestating project to build a small modular nuclear reactor, or SMR, to complement its already sizable nuclear fleet. On Tuesday, the project reached another milestone when the public power company applied for a construction permit from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build a facility for GE Vernova Hitachi’s BWRX-300 reactor at a site on Tennessee’s Clinch River.
Because of the long lead times for nuclear projects and the promise (for now, at least) of government support, how developers talk about them tends to change along with the partisan revolutions of power.
TVA has been considering the Clinch River site for new nuclear since 2010, applied for an early site permit from the NRC in 2016, and received it in 2019. When TVA announced in 2022 that it wouldspend another $150 million on the project, in addition to the $200 million that had already been authorized, the public utility’s then-CEO Jeff Lyash justified the investment as part of an overall effort to convert America to clean energy. “We believe advanced nuclear technologies will play a critical role in our region and nation’s drive toward a clean energy future,” he said. The following year, when then-Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholmvisited the Clinch River site, the TVA touted how new nuclear generation would reduce the system’s overall carbon emissions.
As the project marches on under Donald Trump, however, the emissions talk is gone.
In Tuesday’s announcement, “carbon,” “emissions,” and even “clean” go unmentioned. Instead the construction application is “TVA’s next step in … establishing America’s energy dominance to power artificial intelligence, quantum computing and advanced manufacturing.”
American energy — and nuclear — policy is in flux, but rhetoric aside, TVA’s nuclear ambitions appear to be an area of continuity between the Trump and Biden administrations. The TrumpWhite House is reportedly working on a series of executive actions to speed up regulatory approvals for nuclear projects and remove some of the NRC’s power and independence.
At the same time,energy policy experts have lambasted Republicans in Congress for theirproposed cuts to the Loans Program Office andphase-out of tax credits for nuclear power. Contra the legislative winds, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said Tuesday that he supports “every incentive” for nuclear power, and that he favorsextending tax credits for nuclear and geothermal for another 15 years while more quickly phasing out wind and solar credits.
While this is not the first construction permit application for a SMR, it is the first for a utility that seeks to connect the planned reactor to the grid. Both the Bill Gates-backedTerraPower and the partnership of X-Energy and Dow have applied for construction permits for reactors.
The TVA application is another step in a long journey towards new nuclear for the power authority, which is one of two organizations to actually turn on a nuclear plant in the United States this century. It’s also a big step for Ontario Power Generation, TVA’s Canadian counterpart, which recently received a construction permit from Canadian regulators to build a BWRX-300. By building the same design multiple times in sequence — first in Ontario, then in Oak Ridge, and then hopefully in Ontario again — the projects’ developers hope to be able to apply lessons learned from one reactor to the next, as well as shuttle specialized workers back and forth between construction sites.
“If you flip flop sites, they can transition from one site that’s ready to another site that’s ready for the stage that needs that speciality. That’s better utilization of workforce and supply chain,” Adam Stein, director of the nuclear energy innovation program of the Breakthrough Institute, told me.
GE-Hitachi, meanwhile, applied to the NRC for a license for its SMR design in 2019. Despite all the excitement and investment around SMRs, there is onlyone licensed design, NuScale’s US600 — and no current plans for anyone to build it.
The fastest the Clinch River project could actually go into operation is about five years, Stein told me. “A construction permit is part of a two-step licensing process. You get a construction permit, and then you’re allowed to start building the plant. Then you need to get an operating license,” he explained.
The environmental review should go quickly, Stein said, because TVAalready has its site permit. “They should be able to do less intensive environmental review to make sure that nothing changed in the application versus what it’s already approved,” Stein added.
While TVA is a government entity, it funds itself and operates independently, albeit with a presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed board. The board currently does not have a quorum thanks to the Trump administration firing two Biden-appointed members, and would not be able to make a final investment decision on the project until it adds new members. The firings came after Tennessee’s two Republican senators, Bill Hagerty and Marsha Blackburn,wrote an op-ed criticizing the TVA for moving too slowly on its SMR work. TVA also has a new chief executive, Dan Moul, who took over in March, after Lyash announced in January that he intended to resign and looked forward to “spending more time with family.”
Nuclear already comprises over 40% of TVA’s generation capacity. The utility has asked for assistance from the Department of Energy to increase that,including an $800 million grant to help speed up construction at Clinch River and an $8 million grant to specifically defray licensing costs for the SMR.
The Trump administration has shown some friendliness to Biden-era nuclear initiatives, including honoring aloan guarantee to restart the Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan.
Considering the long and uncertain time frame for building any nuclear reactor, it’s almost certain that, if TVA’s application is approved, the project will be completed under a different president than Trump. By then, it might be a carbon-free and emissions-reducing one again.
Energy Innovation has some bad news for House Republicans.
House Republicans are racing to overcome intraparty disagreements and deliver their “one big, beautiful” budget bill to the Senate before the Memorial Day weekend. As currently written, the bill would render the nation’s clean energy tax credits largely inaccessible, severely impairing clean energy development.
We now have a more detailed picture of what’s at stake if this bill or something like it makes it all the way to the president’s desk. The research firm Energy Innovation modeled all of the energy and environment provisions in the version of the bill that passed the House Budget Committee on Sunday night. It found that the proposed changes to oil and gas leasing, greenhouse gas emissions standards, and tax credits, could cost the United States more than $1 trillion in GDP over the next decade compared to a world where these policies remain untouched.
That number is a reflection of the narrow subset of policies the group modeled and does not take into account Trump’s tax cuts. In theory, those could have a positive effect on GDP that offsets some of the loss. But the effects on energy costs and jobs on their own tell a grim story.
By 2030, the average American would spend $120 more per year on transportation and home energy costs than they otherwise would. By 2035, the increase would climb to more than $230. Lower demand for clean technologies like electric vehicles and solar panels would kill more than 700,000 potential jobs across the economy in 2035.
Energy Innovation isn’t the only group warning of dire consequences. The bill “represents a crisis for America’s ability to build the energy infrastructure we need to meet surging demand,” Abigail Ross Hopper, the CEO and president of the Solar Energy Industries Association said in a statement yesterday. The group estimates that the bill would put 287 factories that serve the solar industry at risk of closing or never opening in the first place. Most of those are in red states.
The forecasts stem from key changes the GOP is proposing to make to tax credits that incentivize wind and solar development, domestic manufacturing, and consumer adoption of electric vehicles and energy efficiency upgrades. The bill would end these subsidies earlier than currently planned (though how much earlier is currently in flux), and impose stricter materials sourcing requirements, tighter development timelines, and more rigid project finance rules for the years they remain in effect, making it nearly impossible to use them.
As a result, fewer wind, solar, and energy storage projects would get built. Those that did get built would cost more, meaning that natural gas would set the price in energy markets more frequently. Natural gas would also be more expensive because of higher demand. The Energy Information Administration already expects natural gas costs to rise this year and next, even without changes to tax incentives. Altogether, generating electricity would cost about 50% more in 2035 than it otherwise would, according to Energy Innovation, which would translate to roughly 17% higher bills for consumers.
Budget hawks in the House are now pushing for an even more aggressive phase-out of the green tax credits before they agree to send their legislation to the Senate, and the Republican leadership can afford to lose just three votes on the floor, giving them a narrow window to please everyone. But the earlier phase-out would have little impact on Energy Innovation’s findings, Robbie Orvis, the senior director for modeling and analysis for the group, told me. The existing provisions in the bill that prevent companies from sourcing materials from China would be so difficult to meet that the model assumes the affected credits would be unclaimable beginning next year.
The modeling shows a similar effect in transportation costs. Terminating the tax credit for electric vehicles would lower demand for EVs and increase demand for gasoline, causing prices at the pump to go up. Less demand for EVs would also mean fewer domestic jobs producing them, and fewer jobs producing the components that go into them. Then there’s the overall tightening of purse strings that would come as a result of higher energy costs, which could reduce hiring still further.
Orvis said the estimates for job loss are likely conservative, as the model looks at changes in demand for EVs and other clean technologies but doesn’t do a good job accounting for the changes in supply that would result from early repeal of 45X, the clean manufacturing tax credit.
Notably, energy costs go up in the model despite provisions in the bill that are designed to lower the cost of oil and gas. Those include more frequent lease sales and lower royalty rates for companies that pay to drill on federal lands and waters. But Energy Innovation found that demand-driven price increases more than offset any price declines resulting from these measures.
The tax credit termination also isn’t the only factor here. Energy Innovation included the House’s proposed repeal of the Environmental Protection Agency’s emissions standards for cars and trucks, which amplified the effects. This provision may not make it into the final text, however, as the special rules governing the budget reconciliation process in the Senate prohibit policies that aren’t budgetary in nature. As the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund put it in a memo to reporters, the regulations were issued to protect public health, and while they do result in costs and benefits for Americans and companies, they do not change the federal budget. “Even if Republican leadership tries to claim any budgetary impacts here, they would be clearly incidental to the main purpose of the proposed legislation,” the group said.
Of course, at least seven Senate Republicans have been vocal about their disapproval of the House’s treatment of the tax credits, so the whole thing may still be subject to change.