You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
The consequences will linger well past the high temperatures.

It is difficult to describe how bonkers this week’s heat wave is in the southwestern United States. Alan Gerard, a typically even-keeled meteorologist with 35 years of forecasting experience under his belt, attempted to do so in a recent edition of his newsletter, Balanced Weather. He settled on: “jaw-dropping,” “insane,” “truly historic,” “literally flabbergasting,” “incredible,” and “anomalous [even for] the middle of summer.”
Jeff Berardelli, the chief meteorologist at WFLA, the NBC affiliate in Tampa, tried to contextualize it on social media, noting that based on historical patterns, Phoenix could expect a March day as hot as it was on Thursday — 105 degrees Fahrenheit — only once every 4,433 years.
Phoenix is just one part of the story. The heat wave — which began ramping up on Tuesday, peaks Friday, and won’t subside until early next week — has set or tied March record highs in at least 480 locations so far, stretching from New Mexico to Southern Oregon. California has already broken the record for the hottest winter day ever recorded anywhere in the U.S.: 109 degrees on Thursday at a station in the eastern Coachella Valley. “The extent and magnitude of this particular heat wave is without comparison to anything that we’ve seen in March,” John Abatzoglou, a professor of Climatology at the University of California, Merced, who specializes in climate impacts in the West, told me.
That’s partially because this heat wave would be “virtually impossible for the time of year in a world without human-induced climate change,” per a report released Friday by scientists from World Weather Attribution. Heat waves have one of the clearest climate signals of any extreme weather event because a hotter planet means a hotter baseline. “Across almost the entire western U.S., temperatures [this week] were made at least five times more likely due to climate change,” Zachary Labe, a climate scientist at Climate Central, which maps the effects on daily temperatures, told me.
The March 2026 heat wave is likely to become a reference point in the same vein as the 2021 heat dome in the Pacific Northwest, subject to study, research, and scrutiny by climatologists, public health experts, hydrologists, and emergency managers in the months and years to come. The consequences of the current heat wave will also outlast the record temperatures. When it is this hot — and, more importantly, when it is this hot this soon — the effects compound, touching everything from hydropower capacity to the coming wildfire season.
To make matters worse, “this week is exacerbating conditions that were already bad,” Labe said.
Let’s take a look.
About half of the total utility-scale hydroelectricity in the U.S. is generated in the three West Coast states, but it is part of the energy mix in almost every state experiencing the heat wave this week, including also Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. In these states, high-elevation snowpack acts as a kind of battery; the slow release of melting winter snow from the mountains over the spring and summer helps keep generation reliable. In the case of a major heat wave, however, the water can run off too fast or evaporate, limiting supply in the summer-peaking months.
Though reservoirs in California are mostly in good shape at this point, with the rivers flowing high this early, there will be less water available when the squeeze comes in July and August. “This year, at least for precipitation, it’s been really quite good [in California],” Abatzoglou, the UC Merced professor, told me. The issue is, it’s also “just been way too damn warm.”
Every major river basin in the western U.S. experienced its first- or second-warmest winter this year, setting a grim stage for the high temperatures that have settled over the region this week. What little snowpack there already was — 97% of the snowpack-monitoring weather stations in Colorado are in snow drought — is now being hammered by the kind of heat the region doesn’t often experience before late spring or early summer. Daniel Swain, a climate scientist with the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, has warned that, as a result, we might see “June snowpack levels by April 1” in some parts of the West.
Of particular concern is what this will mean for Lake Powell, the reservoir created by the Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River, which supplies electricity to more than 5 million customers across seven states. The reservoir is a mere 40 feet away from the minimum volume required to turn the turbines in the dam, Bloomberg reports.
The early-season heat-driven runoff will further diminish the river’s already reduced flow in the coming months. Snow accumulation in the basin above Lake Powell was only at 67% of the 30-year median for March. Earlier this week, the U.S. Colorado Basin River Forecast Center downgraded its two-week-old forecast for inflows to Lake Powell during the critical April through July period from 2.3 million acre-feet of water to less than 1.8 million acre-feet. That would represent just 27% of the river’s 30-year historical average inflow; to understand how much the unseasonable heat has affected that, projections were more than 3.6 million acre-feet of water at the start of the year.
Though it is the bottom left corner of the country that has drawn the most attention for its triple-digit temperatures this week, records are also toppling in southeastern Oregon and southwestern Idaho, where highs are 20 to 25 degrees Fahrenheit above normal. Kurt Miller, the executive director of the Northwest Public Power Association, a nonprofit that represents public utilities in the region, told me his modeling shows that two consecutive 80-degree days in Boise are enough to trigger runoff starting “in earnest” in the Pacific Northwest, where dams meet about 60% of the region’s electricity demand.
The good news is that the high temperatures in Idaho are forecast to be “peaky” rather than prolonged, as they will be in the southwest, meaning the Pacific Northwest isn’t likely to string together the series of hot days necessary to trigger a catastrophic melt-off scenario. Additionally, while snowpack in the Northwest has been dismal this year, hydropower in the region is largely determined by upstream conditions in British Columbia and Montana, which have been closer to seasonal norms and, more importantly, are out of range of this week’s heat event.
There is another obvious downside to the early snowmelt in the West: Fire season will likely start sooner. “This is basically hitting fast-forward,” Abatzoglou, the University of California, Merced professor, told me. “It’s pushing us much faster toward the crispy season.”
Especially given the already historically low snowpack (in the northern Sierras, snow is at just 38% of its normal levels), the heat current wave could move up the start of fire season by weeks as high elevations melt out and soil and vegetation begin to dry. Usually, such conditions aren’t seen before the late spring or early summer.
While major wildfires have mostly spared high-elevation landscapes in recent years, “I expect that will not be the case this year,” Swain, the scientist at UC ANR, said in a video posted earlier this week. He further predicted that “we’ll see an especially severe and early start to fire season in the four corners — Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado,” as well as a potential “severe peak” later in the forests of Northern California, Oregon, and the Rockies. (If there’s a saving grace, though, it’s that the lack of precipitation in the West has also curbed the fuel loads by keeping vegetation growth to a minimum.)
Adding to the alarm is the fact that “this year’s snow accumulation pattern most closely resembles 2015, followed by 2005,” as the National Interagency Fire Center wrote at the start of the month. Both were historically bad fire seasons: In 2005, a then-record 8.7 million acres burned, and in 2015, the U.S. broke more than 10 million acres burned for the first time.
Some research also indicates that longer fire seasons can lead to more severe wildfires, which, in addition to posing greater risks to people and property, take a deeper toll on state and federal firefighting resources and personnel. If the season starts sooner, wildland firefighters are more likely to be exhausted by the time the severe fire days of “dirty August” and “Snaptember” finally come around.
Still, any estimates of the direct impact of this week’s heat wave on the upcoming fire season should come with a hefty margin for error. Wildfires are influenced by a number of factors, both climate-related and not, ranging from historic forest management practices to the timing of the “green up” of local fuel loads to, yes, when and where the snow melts off. But an early dry fuel bed also means prescribed burning efforts can begin sooner, the NIFC notes in its March forecast (although that said, the dry fuel bed may also eventually “curtail burning late spring into early summer if timely moisture intrusions do not materialize”).
It could still take months for the immediate-term impacts of this week’s heat wave to come into focus. Excess mortality takes weeks to calculate and sometimes years to pin down precisely; researchers didn’t conclude their formal study of the 159 deaths resulting from the 2021 heat wave in Washington state until 2023.
What we do know is that early-season severe heat is especially dangerous for human health because people aren’t yet acclimatized to it. In fact, between 50% and 70% of outdoor heat-related fatalities occur in the first few days of a heat wave, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. That’s because it can take between four days and two weeks to adapt physiologically to handling heat stress, including the slow process of building up adequate blood plasma to cope with the increased cardiovascular and cooling demands on the body.
And lest we forget, this heat has arrived staggeringly early, in some places breaking the daily temperature record by as much as 11 degrees. It took until August last year for Los Angeles to experience a similarly “strong” heat wave, senior AccuWeather meteorologist Heather Zehr said in a press release.
Drownings increase during heat waves as people seek out water to cool off, but there is a reason to be especially concerned about water this week. That’s because many people will head to rivers, and that water will likely be cold and high due to rapid snowmelt in the mountains, Abatzoglou told me. In addition to its extreme heat warnings this week, the National Weather Service has also been posting PSAs reminding Americans that “cold water can kill.”
There could be impacts on agriculture, too. It is fruit- and nut-blossom season in California’s Central Valley, which produces about three-quarters of those products consumed in the United States. It’s the Valley’s Mediterranean-esque climate, in part, that makes the region so productive; this time of year, daily highs are more typically in the mid-60s, perfect for the trees. Now, however, they’re cresting 90 degrees, threatening the Valley’s $21 billion in annual exports and more than 200,000 agricultural jobs. Further south near San Diego, there are also mounting concerns for the avocado industry, as the plants have particularly heat-sensitive blooms.
Though the heat wave is expected to begin breaking next week, a definitive end to the dry, unseasonably warm troubles in the West is nowhere in sight. April is the crucial transition month in the West, when states can sometimes stabilize after winters with poor snowpack or low precipitation through late-season storms. But “unfortunately, taking a look at some of the longer-range outlooks, it’s more likely than not there will be warmer than normal temperatures continuing across the West into April,” Labe said. “So just all around bad news.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
An investor argues that climate tech should learn to stop worrying and love the robots.
For three years the entire conversation about artificial intelligence in the climate tech and clean energy communities has been about demand. This, of course, is reasonable. The scale of what the world is building right now has no precedent. Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft together spent more than $420 billion on data center infrastructure in 2025, a number dwarfed by the $745 billion they’re expected to spend in 2026. The McKinsey Global Institute puts the global data center buildout through 2030 at $7 trillion — more than the New Deal, the Marshall Plan, and the Apollo program combined.
About 15% to 20% of that unfathomable spending is going exclusively to power the data center scale-up. By 2030, data centers will consume between 3% and 5% of all electricity generated on Earth.
The carbon cost is worse than the financial cost. Google's total greenhouse gas emissions rose by more than 50% in 2024 compared to five years earlier, even as the company worked harder than any of its peers to source clean power. In Armstrong County, Texas, the company is working with developer Crusoe Energy on a nearly gigawatt-scale natural gas plant to power its Goodnight data center campus.
But here is something else to consider: In 2024, Google ran a 17-week trial on 2,400 transatlantic American Airlines flights using a system designed to predict and avoid the formation of contrails. Contrails are the ice crystal trails left by jet engines that account for roughly a third of aviation's total warming impact — more than the impact of the fuel burning. The AI model rerouted flights slightly to avoid the atmospheric conditions that produce persistent contrails, and in doing so, cut contrail formation by 62% without any meaningful increase in fuel burn.
Around the same time, Microsoft used its Azure Quantum Elements platform to sift through 32 million possible chemical candidates for new battery chemistries, and in 80 hours narrowed the field to a handful of promising compounds that could reduce the amount of lithium required by as much as 70%. Meta, working with Georgia Tech, built one of the largest open-source datasets for discovering better sorbent materials for direct air capture, the process of pulling carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. Researchers ran nearly 40 million quantum mechanics calculations across 8,400 candidate materials, looking for those that could grab CO2 efficiently without also absorbing water from the air.
All of these things happened in the past two years. They were largely invisible to consumers. Yet they produced meaningful, even transformative climate benefits. Crucially, they cost almost nothing compared to the AI infrastructure buildout. They were side projects, pursued by teams whose quarterly numbers did not depend on their product’s success.
I argued two years ago in an interview with Heatmap that the steep financial and carbon costs of the AI buildout are worth it, and that if we stick with it, the power of AI will quickly yield innovative solutions to address climate change. But the opposition to data centers and AI deployment has created a frustrating paradox. A sector that has spent years describing a technology primarily as a threat — to the grid, to society, to humanity itself — will not, at the end of that time, be in a strong position to invest in what that technology can build. The sector wrote itself into the role of the regulator and critic at precisely the moment it should have been adopting the role of the main customer.
In the first half of 2026 alone, investors put $407 billion into AI startups, Pitchbook calculated. Climate tech, over the same stretch, did fine: $26.1 billion, according to CTVC’s insights report, up 55% year-over-year, the strongest first-half investment numbers since 2022. But low-carbon data centers alone took 34% of it, and two of the sector’s biggest deals were both for data center infrastructure. We essentially took an historic year of climate tech investment and used it to become AI's electricity supplier.
This is definitely a net positive, and critical to a clean hyperscale movement. But there’s more to be done.
Roughly one climate venture dollar in five went to something AI-enabled in 2025, which is a real increase from previous years. But out of $40 billion total climate tech investment last year, that amounts to only about $8 billion. Set that against the $242 billion that went into AI startups in a single quarter — the world's entire annual investment in AI for climate is roughly what AI startups raised every three days at the start of this year.
The three breakthroughs I mentioned at the beginning of this article are just the beginning of what AI can do for the climate — in many cases they’re the easy breakthroughs. They’re prediction, search, and optimization problems where the AI is essentially a faster pair of eyes.
The larger prize is what my colleagues at Obvious Ventures and I have come to call “generative science.” These are models trained in chemistry, physics, and biology that can propose genuinely novel arrangements of atoms rather than merely sorting through existing ones. This is where we unlock nuclear fusion, carbon-free cement and steel, and grid systems that balance themselves. We can make cancer vaccines and drugs optimized with a single patient’s DNA. If we ever make it to another planet, it will be because of AI. The same is true if we ever learn to sustainably feed 10 billion people.
This is not a speculative category anymore. A series of startups are making meaningful breakthroughs in these kinds of technologies. In Cambridge, England, a materials science company called CuspAI is building foundation models for chemistry to find materials for direct air capture of carbon dioxide. In California, Periodic Labs, founded by the researcher who led materials and chemistry at Google DeepMind, raised a $300 million seed round at a $1 billion valuation to run autonomous synthesis labs hunting for superconductors that work at higher temperatures (its valuation has since risen dramatically). And Zanskar, a company Obvious Ventures has backed, trained its models on subsurface data and a century of drilling and satellite records to find geothermal resources the industry had already written off. Last year, it identified a blind site in western Nevada with no geysers or surface expression that has the potential to generate over 100 megawatts.
Zanskar, however, is an exception. None of these other technologies were backed by climate funders. CuspAI and Periodic Labs have received financing from sovereign wealth funds, chipmakers, generalist growth firms, and individual investors who made their fortunes in software.
I’ll be the first to acknowledge that building a climate tech company isn’t easy. Investors often have to make two bets at once: that the science will work and that, if it does, there will be a viable business on the other side. Unlike chatbots from the frontier AI labs that have grown to $1 trillion valuations in less than five years, meaningful climate tech breakthroughs take longer to deploy, and even longer for their impact to put a meaningful dent in climate change.
But companies like CuspAI, Periodic, and Zanskar are proof of what’s possible when we point AI and climate tech in the same direction.
There are three main things we can do differently to continue that progress, and we can start each of them today.
As with any economic shift, aligning the incentives gets us much further than any fleeting policy commitment. When alignment happens, it creates a flywheel where AI powers research in climate tech, whose breakthroughs get fed back into AI to run models more cleanly and efficiently.
Jakob Uszkoreit, the former Google engineer who co-authored the transformer architecture that powers today’s leading large language models, described to me the paradox this way: AI needs carbon to get off the ground, but once airborne, it becomes the mechanism that solves the carbon problem. The question is whether we achieve liftoff before the end of the runway.
New research finds that Europe’s 2025 heat wave was made measurably worse by greenhouse gas emissions since the Paris Agreement.
Europe’s record-breaking heat wave in 2025 would have been a third of a degree Celsius cooler if not for emissions released just since the Paris Climate Agreement was signed in 2015, researchers found in a new study published Tuesday by the American Geophysical Union’s Geophysical Research Letters.
The research marks a step forward for attribution science, which has traditionally worked to tie extreme events such as heat waves and floods to climate change writ large. Now, using artificial intelligence trained on climate models, researchers have managed to link extreme weather to a specific subset of emissions.
“Not only does every little bit of emissions count, but the amount of emissions released since 2015 significantly increased the temperature of [the 2025 European] heat wave,” Jared Trok, the study’s lead author and a PhD student at the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, told me. “Before this paper” — which found 99-in-100 odds that human-caused emissions since 2015 increased the severity of the 2025 heat wave — “we couldn’t really make a claim to that extent.”
Though the record-breaking 2026 heat wave fell outside the scope of the study, the 2025 heat wave was no joke either — temperatures crested 115 degrees Fahrenheit in Spain and Portugal, and more than 16,000 died across the continent. Trok’s findings about a relationship between the past decade of emissions and intensified heat also held true for Europe’s hottest week in every year since at least 2021.
While a third of a degree Celsius might not sound like a lot — “it’s smaller than our ability to actually sense,” Trok acknowledged — there’s a growing body of scientific literature that suggests even incremental increases in temperature can be deadly. “It’s nonlinear,” Trok added. “For every additional increment of temperature, the impacts on heat-related mortality are even larger than the previous increment.” Though Trok and his colleagues did not look at mortality specifically, the reasoning indicates dozens if not hundreds of people could have died due to that fraction of a degree.
The study highlights the advances in the specificity and speed of attribution science, which a quarter of a century ago struggled to distinguish the influence of all historical emissions on any individual event. But it also suggests something grim: The past decade also overlaps with the biggest global efforts toward decarbonization. “Even if the decarbonization goals are achieved, these results as well as others suggest near certainty that the extremes, particularly extreme heat, will continue to intensify,” Noah Suresh Diffenbaugh, a Stanford climate scientist and the paper’s senior author, told me.
Paired with a separate commentary also published today by the U.S. Climate Collection, a joint project of AGU and the American Meteorological Society, the research adds an urgent underline to the need for research like Trok’s to be incorporated into state and local policymaking. Many of the institutions that existed to do so in the U.S., however, have collapsed or been actively dismantled by the second Trump administration.
The Climate Collection formed in the void that followed the forced breakup of the sixth National Climate Assessment (and is made up of many of its authors), and argues that the NCA did more than just good rigorous science — it also helped translate that research into a reliable springboard for policymakers.
The U.S. Climate Collection aims to compile an open-access collection of research papers that “lays the groundwork for future national and subnational assessments of climate risks and solutions in the United States.”
The group’s first paper serves as “a call to our colleagues to meet that need and the charge that has been given to us by society to produce the science” necessary for policymakers and other groups to “make better decisions,” Melissa Kenney, one of the commentary’s lead authors and director of research and knowledge initiatives at the University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment, told me.
In the past, the formal NCAs have helped inform everything from New Hampshire flood risk management plans to city- and state-level climate policies, the Climate Collection writes in their commentary. (They also set expectations: The last NCA required the involvement of 500 authors, 250 technical contributors, and synthesized more than 8,200 studies, meaning the Collective likely couldn’t replicate the rigor and scope even if it wanted to.) The Climate Collection specifically singles out attribution as an area of priority.
“Compounding extremes and cascading climate risks are increasingly overwhelming our legacy policies and infrastructure,” Kenney said, adding that “being able to understand the impact of these compounding extremes is really critical in a number of communities to be able to make smart, multi-decadal decisions like infrastructure choices.”
But as Trok’s research shows, even assumptions about the climate of 2015 are out of date. Investments in adaptation are a small fraction of the total dollars spent addressing climate change, and as Diffenbaugh stressed, the new paper is just the latest “of a number of studies that highlight that we can expect further acceleration of impacts from extreme events.”
The U.S. Climate Collection doesn’t intend to fill the gap left by the collapse of NCA6 (nor could it, its authors point out, given that it’s a self-organized volunteer group). But its call for synthesis papers of smaller scopes could give policymakers grounds to make decisions pulled from rigorous, peer-reviewed research as the world changes all around us. “These types of assessment reports are one of our greatest professional obligations as scientists,” Kenney said. “Most people will not go and read hundreds of scientific papers to be able to understand what we know and what we still need to know.”
“But,” she added, “there’s a real need for us to be able to provide the information” — before it becomes old news, too.
On geothermal research, Solar for All, and a Monster El Niño
Current conditions: Rains from Typhoon Dujuan caused landslides that killed four people in regions near Tokyo, while six are still missing • More than 20 active fires, including one threatening the popular tourist town Villa de Leyva, have led Colombian authorities to declare a public calamity • It’s cool and damp in New York City, where United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres is preparing to open his final session of high-level debate at the United Nations General Assembly.
Less than two weeks ago, my colleague Alexander C. Kaufman told you about the average U.S. diesel price breaking $6 per gallon for the first time ever. Oh, how young we were then. As of Tuesday, the average diesel price was nearly $6.53, more than a cent higher than Monday and nearly a dollar higher than the price of a month ago. As Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote when the average diesel price was just $5.50 per gallon, “While there’s probably never a good time for fuel prices to spike, the increase in diesel prices right now will likely translate to increased costs for farmers as they rev up their equipment for the harvest season.” Indeed, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican, took to X over the weekend to say that fuel costs are “KILLING FARMERS INCOME” and call for an embargo on diesel exports. It seems Trump was listening: According to Politico, the president called up Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins Monday to discuss the issue. Though Rollins said to expect news “very soon on some potential actions,” an export ban doesn’t seem likely to be among them. A White House official told Politico that the administration is “not considering an export ban or export restrictions at this time.”
Meanwhile, the president is considering standing up a $5 billion fund to help rebuild Middle East energy infrastructure damaged in the war with Iran. As outlined in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, the plan would call for soliciting matching funds from partners Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Iraq, and Jordan, with the goal of raising $10 billion in total. Reactions from analysts were mixed. “This strategy has risk written all over it,” Bilal Saab, senior managing director of consulting firm TRENDS US, told the paper. Eurasia Group energy senior analyst Gregory Brew, however, called the plan a “great idea” and pointed back to his own essay from Foreign Affairs in May advocating for “strategies that build energy resilience and reduce exposure to future strait closures.”
The Department of Energy announced on Monday that it has selected 21 next-generation geothermal projects to receive a total of $99 million in funding with the aim to “advance geothermal development” across the U.S. Five of the projects will conduct field research on enhanced geothermal technologies, while the remaining 16 will conduct exploratory drilling to identify potential new well sites. The recipients include industry darlings such as Fervo Energy, Zanskar Geothermal and Minerals, and Quaise Energy. The data from these projects will be made public via the DOE’s Geothermal Data Repository, allowing companies and developers outside this select group to benefit from the research.
“These projects will empower American innovators to unlock the tremendous geothermal resources beneath our feet,” DOE Under Secretary of Energy Kyle Haustveit said in a statement. “Under President Trump’s leadership, we’re advancing next-generation geothermal technologies that can lower costs, strengthen American energy dominance, and turn more of our vast domestic geothermal resources into reliable and affordable power.”
Last Friday afternoon, Judge Mary McElroy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island ruled that attempts by Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency to claw back $7 billion in funding distributed under the Biden-era Solar for All program were illegal. The ruling hinged on the wording of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, in which Congress rescinded “unobligated” funds from the program. The EPA seized on this authority to attempt to cancel the program entirely, cutting off access to funds that had been obligated but not yet distributed. “The OBBBA did not convert SFA funding into a lump-sum amount subject to EPA’s discretion,” McElroy wrote in her decision, according to The Hill. “Instead, Congress’s clear intent was that EPA continue to administer the already obligated SFA grants.”
This represents the second defeat in a row for EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in August upheld an injunction against his attempt to rescind $20 billion in awards from a related program, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. My colleague Robinson Meyer wrote at the time that the decisions “would amount to a victory — if it holds.” Though the judge’s opinion required the agency to give grant recipients access to their funds while the case proceeded, the EPA later made a deal to keep the funds frozen while it prepares an appeal to the Supreme Court. An EPA spokesperson told The Hill on Friday that it is already “reviewing the decision and considering options for appeal” in the Solar for All case.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

SB Energy, the SoftBank subsidiary backing some of the biggest projects of the data center boom — including a planned 9.2-gigawatt natural gas-fired power plant in Ohio — was all set to go public as soon as this month. Now, however, The New York Times is reporting that those plans have been delayed as mounting public distrust in artificial intelligence and its associated infrastructure has led to skepticism among investors. Heatmap has tracked the backlash closely, including in our exclusive polling showing that 75% of Americans now oppose data center construction near them.
The backlash is also causing political problems for data centers, especially in Texas, where Governor Greg Abbott has issued another salvo against developers. After freezing new data center grid connections last month, Abbott on Monday ordered the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state’s environmental regulator, to stop issuing permits for new data center construction. “Simply put, Texans must come first," Abbott said in a statement. “Data centers must pay their own way, protect our grid and water,” and complete audits with the state’s grid and water authorities. “Until they do, TCEQ will issue no permits sought by data center projects.”
The surface temperature in a key section of the Pacific Ocean registered 3.07 degrees Celsius higher than average over the weekend, putting it in a statistical tie with the previous record set in 2015, according to an analysis in Carbon Brief Monday. This particular section of the Pacific is the one scientists monitor to determine the presence of the cyclical El Niño weather pattern, which occurs when average temperatures breach half a degree Celsius above average for the region. Two degrees higher and it’s a Super El Niño. “This is going to be so far beyond a Super El Niño, if the models are right, that we sort of need a new term for it,” the author of the analysis, Zeke Hausfather, told Rob in August on an episode of Shift Key. El Niño temperatures typically peak in November or December, meaning that there are likely several months of intensification still to come. California Governor Gavin Newsom on Monday declared a state of emergency to boost preparedness against the storms and flooding the intense weather pattern is likely to bring to the state.
As my colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote in her dispatch from Day 1 of New York Climate Week yesterday, the carbon dioxide removal industry has money problems. That makes the $35 million debt financing deal between Italian lender Mediobanca and American carbon removal company Vaulted Deep announced Monday that much more exciting. Vaulted Deep has a unique approach to sequestering carbon, processing organic materials into a slurry that it then injects underground, and has previously received support from the carbon removal backer Frontier Climate. The funding arrangement, announced Monday, is a proof of concept of the advanced market commitment model Vaulted Deep co-founder and CEO Julia Reichelstein told Axios.