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:
What a “whole of government” approach to energy looks like for the next White House.
Within days of stepping into the White House in 2021, President Biden introduced his “whole of government” approach to tackling climate change. Now, months out from Trump’s inauguration, it's looking like the returning president may emulate that whole of government strategy for his energy agenda — of course, to much different ends.
Trump announced last week that he would create a National Energy Council (or is it the Council of National Energy?) to “oversee the path to U.S. ENERGY DOMINANCE.” Doug Burgum, Trump’s pick for Secretary of the Interior, would sit at the helm. Over the weekend Trump announced his nominee for Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, who would also be part of it.
It’s not unusual for presidents to create new councils or offices within the White House to help implement their policy goals. Biden established a National Climate Task Force made up of cabinet secretaries and department heads to facilitate communication and coordination across the federal government. From the little information we have so far about Trump’s plans, it seems he’s creating a similar body to implement his promise of opening up the floodgates for oil and gas production. Here’s what we know.
In a statement announcing Burgum as his nominee for Secretary of the Interior, Trump said Burgum would also be chairman of the “newly formed, and very important, National Energy Council, which will consist of all Departments and Agencies involved in the permitting, production, generation, distribution, regulation, transportation, of ALL forms of American Energy.” A few days later, he also named Wright to the council.
Trump has not named other members yet, but the description implies that his EPA pick, Lee Zeldin, his Transportation Secretary nominee, Sean Duffy, and his Secretary of Commerce candidate, Howard Lutnick, are all likely contenders to join Burgum and Wright.
Membership in the group is likely to be similar to that of Biden’s Climate Task Force, with one exception. Biden’s group was chaired by appointed White House climate advisors — his climate “czars,” if you will — Gina McCarthy and John Podesta, rather than Senate-confirmed agency heads. As Interior Secretary, Burgum’s sphere of influence over energy production would typically be limited to oil and gas leasing and solar and wind development on federally-owned lands and waters. But as the head of Trump’s energy council, he could play a larger role orchestrating energy policy across the federal government, Justin Vaughn, a political scientist at Coastal Carolina University who studies presidential cabinets told me.
Get the best of Heatmap in your inbox each day.
Trump's main directive for the council is to cut red tape for energy projects and focus on “INNOVATION over longstanding, but totally unnecessary, regulation.” He goes on to describe his vision for “energy dominance” as one where the U.S. can “sell energy to our friends, including all European Nations, which will make the world a safer place.” That may be an allusion to plans for approving new liquified natural gas export terminals and expedite permitting for these facilities — items high on the industry’s wish list for the Trump administration. (Trump intends to give Burgum a role on the National Security Council, in addition to the Energy Council, where Burgum could also have a voice in foreign trade policy.)
Another goal Trump mentions in the Burgum announcement is “dramatically increasing baseload power” for the electric grid, which he says will reduce costs for consumers and businesses. That could mean clearing hurdles to build new natural gas power plants, as well as nuclear and geothermal power plants.
The Energy Council won’t have unilateral authority to do any of this. Its primary power will be the ability to convene leaders from different parts of the executive branch and agencies for regular meetings, Costa Samaras, a professor at Carnegie Mellon who served in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy as the Principal Assistant Director for Energy during much of the Biden presidency, told me. The meetings might be a place to track progress on Trump’s overarching goals, flag certain rulemakings that are underway, or develop subgroups to work on specific issues like permitting or leasing. At this point, it’s not clear whether the council could do much more than that.
Samaras objected to Trump’s stated goal of “energy dominance,” arguing that the U.S. already is energy dominant. Oil exports reached a record high in 2023. The U.S. has produced more crude oil than any other nation, ever, for the past six years in a row.
If Trump truly wants to cut costs for consumers, his council should focus on increasing the grid’s transmission capacity, which would “unlock clean energy that is waiting in the interconnection queue,” Samaras said. “I see that as the lowest hanging fruit.”
Vaughn cautioned against reading too much into the council at this point. “When presidents create these offices or councils within their White Houses, it is typically symbolic to show that they're prioritizing something,” he said. What will matter is whether the group actually meets regularly or whether it gets staffed up. For example, Biden created a whole new White House Office of Domestic Climate Policy with a full staff to support the Climate Task Force.
“Sometimes they are very influential. Sometimes they basically exist on paper. And so it remains to be seen,” said Vaughn.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Why Spencer Gore decided it was time for Bedrock Materials to close up shop.
It wasn’t too long ago that the battery world was abuzz over sodium-ion batteries and their potential to be a cost-effective domestic competitor to the Chinese-dominated lithium-ion industry. The prevalence of sodium and the early-stage sodium-ion supply chain seemed to give the U.S. a shot at developing the next big battery for electric vehicles and energy storage systems.
But this past weekend, a promising sodium-ion startup called Bedrock Materials announced that it was shutting down and returning most of its $9 million seed funding to investors. The reason, according to CEO Spencer Gore? Its business model no longer made sense.
“We were responding to a very unique moment in the history of the battery industry,” Gore explained to me about his decision to start the company, which made cathode materials for sodium-ion batteries, in 2023. “Lithium prices had gone up about 10-fold, and so had other battery minerals by lesser degrees.” Experts predicted that the world was in for a long-term lithium shortage. Then the opposite happened: Lithium producers rapidly ramped up supply at the same time EV demand growth slowed, leading to oversupply and a 90% drop in price.
Before all of that happened, Bedrock saw the EV market as a good bet. Automakers were telling Gore that their first priority was lowering costs, and sodium-ion batteries seemed well positioned to help with that. The EV industry was also orders of magnitude larger than the battery storage market, and stood to benefit from the $7,500 consumer tax credit in the Inflation Reduction Act, which incentivizes the use of domestic minerals and battery components.
The election of Donald Trump threw the future of that tax credit into sudden doubt. The cratering raw minerals market, on the other hand, didn’t immediately translate into falling prices for lithium-iron-phosphate cathodes, the chemistry Gore saw as Bedrock’s main competitor, he told me. So long as this lasted, he thought, Bedrock’s business would be viable. But it didn’t.
“LFP prices have now crashed down to the point where it would almost be a viable business to extract the lithium from them and sell it on the open market,” Gore told me. “The active material producers are running single-digit margins. And so when that happened, it just became clear that the economic case for sodium had collapsed.”
Not everyone agrees that the domestic sodium-ion industry is doomed. Bay Area-based Peak Energy, for example, is still chugging away, and the company’s president and chief commercial officer, Cam Dales, told me he doesn’t expect to face the same headwinds as Bedrock. For one, Peak is targeting the sodium-ion energy storage market rather than the EV market, which means that energy density — sodium-ion’s weak point — is not as important a factor. Secondly, Peak is not in the business of producing battery materials, which Dales sees as an inherently risky and low-margin proposition. Rather, the company plans to produce battery cells domestically by 2028, while sourcing cathode and anode materials from other, ideally domestic, manufacturers.
So while the economic benefits of sodium-ion batteries have certainly diminished, Dales told me that the potential performance benefits — longer cycle life, greater efficiency, and ability to withstand high temperatures — are exceeding his initial expectations. Specifically, Peak is developing a cathode chemistry composed of sodium iron phosphate powder, which Dales claims will save customers money over the 20-year lifetime of a storage project, even if the upfront cost of sodium-ion battery cells is now higher than LFP. “System-level and project-level economics vastly outweigh smaller differences at the cell level,” Dales claimed.
The two industry leaders know each other well, as they used to work together at the lithium-ion battery manufacturer Enovix, where Dales was the chief commercial officer and Gore led the EV products team. Dales said he was bummed to learn of Bedrock’s closure, but not surprised. For domestic battery materials producers such as Bedrock to thrive, Dales told me, he thinks temporary policies that protect and nurture their growth will be necessary to ensure they’re not instantly outcompeted by Chinese incumbents.
“Absent that, it’s hard to see how you build a new materials company in the U.S. and compete against a fully scaled supply chain in China,” he told me.
Indeed, when I asked Gore if there was anything he wished he had done differently, he responded without hesitation, “I would have gone to China the very first day that I founded the company.” When he did visit months later, he said his main takeaway was that “most of the sodium-ion companies in China were producing material at scale, but losing money doing it,” even though they were “essentially producing sodium-ion materials on the exact same production lines that they had been using for lithium-ion materials.” The interchangeability of the two production processes made it crystal clear to Gore that Chinese battery giants such as CATL and BYD already had a tremendous advantage over the U.S., which doesn’t have scaled-up battery facilities.
This is why Gore now rejects the notion that the U.S. could win the race to scale up sodium-ion. “If you lost it for lithium-ion, you’ve already lost it for sodium. It’s the same thing, same equipment, same process.” Now he’s more interested in figuring out a way to facilitate a “once-in-a-generation” transfer of knowledge and technology between the U.S. and China. As it stands, he told me, “they’re 20 years ahead of the rest of the world, and we can’t even tie our own shoes.”
Ironically, bolstering domestic industry was the primary rationale behind Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, which have since been put on pause for every nation except China, which will now be subject to 145% levies. And while Dales thinks tariffs would be a net-positive for his company, Gore told me he doesn’t expect them to help the domestic sodium-ion industry overall.
For one, tariffs will make the price of constructing domestic battery materials and cell facilities even more expensive than it already is relative to China. “So that’s one thing nudging us towards spreading out the factory costs over more energy dense cells,” Gore told me. Another incentive to optimize for energy density, tariffs or not, is the 45x tax credit, which gives cell manufacturers $35 per kilowatt-hour for domestically produced cells. “On a global basis, there’s a strong incentive for the most energy dense cells to be produced in the U.S.,” he argued.
While Peak will also have to contend with higher construction costs due to Trump’s tariffs as it builds out its sodium-ion cell production facility, the company’s customers are independent power producers and utilities that can pass cost increases onto ratepayers. This will mean higher electricity costs for Americans, which Dale acknowledged is not ideal, but he also told me, “I don’t think it actually affects our business that much.” While the company wouldn’t publicly disclose its partnerships, Dales said it’s “working with the majority of the large IPPs in the country,” as well as “a number of” utilities.
Gore thinks it’s possible that the sodium-ion performance advantages Peak is betting on will prove to be compelling for customers and investors in the energy storage space. It’s just not a bet he was willing to take. While Bedrock did explore pivoting into the energy storage market, Gore said he concluded that LFP batteries could likely be engineered to achieve the same cycle life, efficiency, and operating temperature benefits that Dales thinks makes sodium-ion stand out.
“Ultimately, we failed to find a niche where we thought that sodium was the best product,” Gore told me. Some investors were initially reluctant to accept that. They encouraged Bedrock to keep going, to pivot, to place a different bet. They had certainly never had a founder try and give back money before, Gore said. But to him, it just made good sense.
“It’s still possible that we would have succeeded,” he told me. “But I think that the likely size of the success and the likelihood of a success, given everything that we’ve now learned, is considerably smaller. The best expected value for us and for our investors was to simply return their money.”
Impulse Labs founder Sam D’Amico breaks down the reasons tariffs won’t help.
The Impulse Cooktop is, as my colleague Emily Pontecorvo has accurately described it, a “status stove.” Made out of “sleek black glass” with “burners that resemble a DJ turntable,” the kitchen appliance also has a large battery that allows it to double as an energy storage device.
The company that makes this stove, Impulse Labs, is thus exposed to two very volatile policy areas: subsidies for clean energy (its stoves, which will start shipping this summer, are currently eligible for a 30% tax credit that knocks down the prices from $5,999 to $4,200) and the global electronics supply chain.
I spoke with Impulse founder and chief executive Sam D’Amico on Wednesday, before President Trump announced his modified tariff policy eliminating so-called “reciprocal” duties and hiking the rate on Chinese goods to 145%. I wanted to get a sense of how the electrical and appliance supply chain — a key aspect of home decarbonization, and one that’s intensely globalized — was being affected by Trump’s on-and-off tariff announcements.
“Our attitude is, ‘Don’t panic and wait,’” he told me. “I don’t think we’re in a position to actually make changes right now, because it appears that things may settle out,” he said he’d been telling his staff — an attitude that was proved wise mere hours later when Trump largely reversed course.
I reached back out to D’Amico on Thursday after Trump’s tariff reversal to see what, if anything, had changed for him. “Currently we tariff tons of manufacturing inputs (since many come from China), which makes it very challenging to onshore production vs. move final assembly to a non-China country,” he told me by email. “The changing policies make it tricky to plan ahead as hardware has significant latency from design to mass production,” he added, quoting top Trump advisor Elon Musk: “The factory is the product.”
Impulse does have U.S.-made components, namely semiconductors (although those chips get packaged in Malaysia). But certain parts of the electronics and energy storage supply chain are always going to be in China, practically speaking. Impulse stoves feature lithium-iron-phosphate batteries, and “all LFP batteries are built in China,” D’Amico explained.
Pointing to none other than YouTube star-turned-consumer packaged good entrepreneur MrBeast, who has been vocal about the tariffs making it comparatively less expensive for him to produce his chocolate bars outside the country, D’Amico walked me through what it would be like to try to build a battery pack in the United States. You would likely have to import the cells from China, which controls almost all of the LFP cathode active material market. With the new tariffs, what was a $100 per kilowatt-hour U.S.-made battery becomes an over $200 per kilowatt-hour U.S.-made battery. “Assembly in the United States is presently disincentivized,” D’Amico said.
Even manufacturing relatively simple components in the U.S. can be expensive. The Impulse stove is 30 inches, whereas many ranges are 36 inches, and the company has received numerous requests to offer an adapter. At first D’Amico and his team thought, “This is a simple thing to build in the United States,” he told me. “It’s a painted sheet metal part.” U.S. sheet metal pourers quoted him $750. The Chinese quote? Below $200. Even with a 145% tariff, manufacturing in China would still be cheaper.
“Now imagine that all of these vendors are going to be super slammed because of the tariffs and stuff like that — and also the tariffs on steel and aluminum,” D’Amico added. For these reasons and more, he told me, he’s extremely skeptical of any plan to encourage American manufacturing by way of tariffs.
D’Amico told me that American contract manufacturers, such as they exist, either “suck,” “build exquisite medical device stuff,” or are too big to deal with startups. Figuring out contract manufacturing is so important, he said, that hardware entrepreneurs should map out the supply chain for their product first, then design their business around it.
“A really big failure point of hardware startups is they’ll go and build stuff out of — maybe not hobbyist components — but they’ll build an exquisite first prototype, and then they’ll have to realize they have a painful conversion process to figure out how to scale this thing.”
D’Amico said he started talking with contract manufacturers in 2022. Back then, the existing 20% tariffs on China were already a difficulty to consider. “Even if you built it in the United States and you were shipping units last year, you’d run into problems just because of the kind of tariffs hitting all of your bill of materials.”
The Impulse Cooktop is more vertically integrated than many big brand appliances. The sensors, power electronics, and the battery itself are all custom designed by Impulse, meaning that more of the value of the product accrues to Impulse as opposed to suppliers and manufacturers. (Think of an iPhone: It’s “designed by Apple in California,” and Apple is a much more valuable company than Foxconn, its contract manufacturer.)
But this also means that, because of its relatively small scale, Impulse is essentially sharing equipment time with other companies who use the same manufacturers. To be able to justify having their own equipment and their own manufacturing line, Impulse would need enormous scale to justify the financing costs and tariffs they would face.
“I’m not Elon,” D’Amico said. “We’re not making a million stoves this year.”
Rockland Solar accuses East Fairfield, Pennsylvania, of “municipal extortion.”
A solar developer is accusing a Pennsylvania town of requesting a $150 million bribe to get its permits, calling it “municipal extortion.”
Rockland Solar – a subsidiary of utility-scale solar developer Birch Creek – filed a federal lawsuit last week accusing officials in the northern Pennsylvania township of East Fairfield of intentionally moving the goalposts for getting permits to build over the span of multiple years. Rockland’s attorneys in the litigation describe the four officials controlling the township’s board of supervisors as engaging in “corrupt” behavior to deny the project, “ultimately culminating in the solicitation of a bride of more than $150,000,000” in exchange for approval of its application to develop land in the township.
The federal complaint scans as a horror story in solar development. Applications for Rockland Solar’s project were first filed in 2021 and granted approval from the township’s zoning officials in 2022, per the company’s legal complaint. But things seem to have gone south when Rockland Solar sought approval of its first land use application from the town, as replies to emails from town officials became scattershot and sporadic.
In August 2024, per the lawsuit, East Fairfield officials scheduled a crucial public meeting to decide whether to approve the application without notifying Rockland Solar itself, which the company claims was an intentional move “in corrupt and underhanded bad faith” meant “to consider, and then deny” the application “without providing due process.” According to the lawsuit, one of the reasons for the denial was that the project was located within the township – despite it already being approved by zoning officials.
Rockland Solar then took the town to Pennsylvania claims court over the decision because it was reached after a statutory deadline, according to the lawsuit. Amidst this legal fight, the company submitted a second application to build the project – making what the company says were many size and setback changes intended to address the reasons for the apparent denial. East Fairfield ultimately denied the project again. But the developer kept trying, negotiating in apparent good faith with the town’s lawyers to try and reach an agreement.
Then came the alleged request for a bribe. Per a letter cited in the legal complaint, officials asked the developer to pay the town annual payments every year the project was operating – starting at $5,000 and then increasing 25% “every year for the life of the facility,” and that land owners bordering the property would also need to be “compensated 10% of their current property value.” Rockland Solar’s attorneys calculated the annual payments alone to total at least $3 million in the thirtieth year of the project and $30 million a decade later.
Altogether, Rockland Solar’s attorneys landed on the whopping $150 million figure, stipulating that this figure doesn’t include the payments to neighboring property owners. The company argues that this “solicitation of money by a township commissioner to a developer” in exchange for “favorable treatment of a land use application” violated the state bribery statute.
I’ve seen a lot of conflict writing The Fight – including lots of lawsuits filed by developers and residents alike – but I’d never seen an escalation this profound. Normally, suing the town you’re building a project in is a bad idea because it can spoil the well of public trust. I can’t help but think this maneuver was a last resort for Rockland Solar.
It’s also quite rare to get an inside look at the negotiations between a developer and a town. We’re used to seeing community benefit agreements and compacts come and go and I’ve told you how those deals have mixed results. Rockland Solar is now a case study in perhaps one of the worst ways those talks can end up.
I reached out to Rockland Solar’s attorneys, as well as Birch Creek, but failed to hear back. I also tried to reach officials in East Fairfield to hear their take on these extraordinary claims, but no dice. Here’s hoping that writing this leads to them reaching out as well, because this is fascinating and I want to learn more for all of you!