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:
To the tune of $37 billion in the past month alone.

It took a year and a half, but over the past month, money from the Inflation Reduction Act has started to flow out in earnest. Among the grants given just in the past four weeks are:
$20 million for ice cream factories in Tennessee and Vermont so they can replace their natural gas boilers with climate-friendly ones.
$51 million for a manufacturing plant that makes bathroom faucets and showerheads in Arizona.
And $6.97 billion to stand up a new green community bank that will help small farms, small businesses, households, and schools replace fossil fuels in their buildings and install electric vehicle chargers.
The size of these IRA programs can be difficult to put into perspective, but here’s one way of looking at it: The $37 billion in climate funding spent over the past month exceeds what the recent foreign aid bill will give to Israel, Taiwan, and humanitarian aid in Gaza, combined.
As the election approaches, the Biden administration is spending funds from the IRA much faster than it was last year. As of October 2023, a Heatmap analysis found, only $11.8 billion of the law’s roughly $110 billion in grant funds had been spent. What’s been awarded in just the past month represents about a quarter of the total grant funding allocated under the law.
Most of that comes from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a $27 billion pot of money meant to seed green banks around the country. The bulk of its awards went to three coalitions — Climate United Fund, Coalition for Green Capital, and Power Forward Communities — made up of nonprofits, state-level green banks, and community development financial institutions, which are a type of federally certified nonprofit bank.
They’ll use that money to invest in new solar farms, decarbonize homes and apartment buildings, and make communities more resilient to extreme weather and other climate impacts. The returns from those projects will then go back to the coalition and allow them to fund more projects over time. If successful, that will keep those billions cycling in the economy long after other IRA funding has dried up.
Many of the projects funded over the past month work this way, Sam Ricketts, a veteran of Jay Inslee’s presidential campaign and the cofounder of the climate consulting firm S2 Strategies, told me. They are meant to unleash more funding than their dollar amounts would suggest, getting private investors to match or exceed the government’s investment. “You look at EPA’s $20 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund — they talk about each of those dollars leveraging seven more. We’re talking about a massive transformation here,” he said.
“With the industrial decarbonization program” — a $10 billion set of awards to more than 130 companies, funded with $6 billion of IRA money — “the number that DOE is touting isn’t $6 billion. It’s $20 billion, because all the projects require cost sharing. That money is going to leverage much more” investment, Ricketts said. (The total funding amount also represents awards from the 48C tax credit, which is meant to help build new energy and critical mineral projects in the United States.)
The industrial sector is expected to be the economy’s most emissions-intensive sector by the middle of this decade. The slew of new projects funded by the Energy Department include first-of-a-kind efforts to build facilities that will accomplish key industrial processes — including chemical and cement production, ironmaking, and even glass bottlemaking — while producing vastly less carbon pollution than facilities make today.
“The cool thing about each of these programs is they’re all creating new terrain. [The EPA Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund] is going to be opening up new market segments, in some cases creating entirely new markets for sustained, leveraged, and recycled public investment in clean energy,” Ricketts said. “The industrial decarbonization programs are first-of-a-kind inroads into a sector that has traditionally been called hard to abate.”
Yet another new EPA program, dubbed “Solar for All,” will spend $7 billion to help 900,000 households get rooftop solar or join a community solar project. It’s joined by the American Climate Corps, another new IRA program that will train and employ 20,000 young people to work on conservation or clean energy projects.
At an Earth Day event in a Virginia park on Monday, President Joe Biden bragged about the Solar for All and American Climate Corps programs. “You'll get paid to fight climate change, learning how to install those solar panels, fight wildfires, rebuild wetlands, weatherize homes, and so much more,” he said.
Biden is “is overseeing the single biggest federal investment in tackling the climate crisis in our nation's history,” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said at the event.
The IRA’s more than $100 billion in grant programs do not represent all — or even most — of what the climate law will eventually spend into the economy. The overwhelming majority of the law’s support for decarbonization will come in the form of tax credits and other payments made to households and companies. These subsidies, which by some estimates exceed $1 trillion, will help build new wind and solar farms, manufacture grid-scale batteries and electric vehicles, and refine minerals needed for zero-carbon technologies.
Data on the uptake of these tax credits and subsidies is not yet available. In February, an analysis from three independent modeling organizations found that the IRA was decarbonizing the vehicle fleet at roughly the expected pace, but that carbon reductions from the power grid lagged behind what was expected.
While rich communities can sometimes fund the kind of weatherization or decarbonization projects paid for by these new green banks by raising revenue or taking out bonds, that’s not a possibility for poor communities, he said. “This is still new territory,” Advait Arun, an energy finance researcher at the Center for Public Enterprise, told me. “It’s written and structured in a way that’s meant to mobilize private investment that wouldn’t get to these communities on their own.”
The new EPA program will also pay for “technical assistance,” which will teach local nonprofit, government, and banking leaders how to think about financing and managing long-term clean energy and climate projects.
“This is an unprecedented infusion to ensure that these projects that we want for local decarbonization and resilience actually reach the communities that need them,” Arun said.
Many of the IRA’s incentives can — and likely will — be stacked on top of each other, and the same projects may be able to qualify for grants, loan programs, and tax incentives. So a community solar project that is funded by the EPA green bank will also qualify for its tax credits. So will a large-scale building retrofit or a geothermal project. Because those tax credits cover a larger share of projects in low-income communities, they could sometimes cover more than half a project, Ricketts said.
“The money’s coming. The dollars are here,” Ricketts told me. And they’re not going to stop.
“This cavalry is going to be followed by an even bigger force, which is the tax incentives,” he said. “You’ve got the right hand jab of grants, and you’ve got the big left hook of tax incentives. And combined are the fists of climate-fighting fury.”
Editor’s note: This story originally misstated the amount of GGRF funding that went to three specific coalitions. We regret the error.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
OpenAI’s new Ohio data center will rely on the country’s largest fossil-fueled power plant — which will be built on federal land.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
This morning, OpenAI announced that it is leasing an enormous data center facility that will be built in Pike County, Ohio. The facility’s ownership structure will be arcane, to say the least: It will be built on federal land, operated by a subsidiary of the Japanese firm SoftBank, and partially backstopped by the chip designer Nvidia. The project is the most significant example so far of the increasingly creative off-book financing that’s now driving the artificial intelligence boom.
For our purposes, though, what sticks out about the facility is not its financing per se but the scale of its energy demand. The supercomputer will consume 10 gigawatts of electricity, or roughly as much power as New York City demands on a summer day.
To supply this energy, the Energy Department will build and own … a 9.2-gigawatt natural-gas-burning power plant on-site. It will be financed by the Japanese government and operated by SB Energy, the SoftBank subsidiary. Although this power plant was announced back in March as part of President Donald Trump’s trade deal with Japan, it wasn’t as clear then whether it would actually get built. Nvidia’s involvement raises the odds that it will reach completion. (In any case, it will get built in stages.)
There are several notable things about this extraordinary — and enormous — power plant, assuming that it does get built. Upon completion, it would rank as the largest power plant in the United States, nearly 40% larger than the Grand Coulee Dam. It would also become one of the largest natural gas power plants in the world, rivaling the Jebel Ali Power and Desalination Plant in Dubai. The scale of natural gas throughput required to feed the plant will resemble that required for a large liquified natural gas export facility; simply feeding the plant everyday could eat up a sizable chunk of, say, Ohio’s overall natural gas production.
There’s much we still don’t know about this power plant as well, including what kind of turbine it will use. That question will play a big role in its overall greenhouse emissions and air pollution footprint — although no matter what it will become a major polluter.
It will inaugurate, as well, a new era of national mega-gas plants. We learned earlier this month, for instance, that Amazon is behind a 7.65-gigawatt gas-burning facility being built in Texas dubbed Gigawatt Ranch. That enormous plant, if built, will also outrank the Grand Coulee Dam. (The market research company Cleanview first reported Amazon’s involvement in the facility.) The data center developer Nexus has proposed a 6-gigawatt gas-burning facility near Hubbard, Texas, as well — another enormous power plant. Since the beginning of the fracking boom, natural gas has been distinguished in part by its highly modular nature: For both regulatory and technical reasons, it’s been possible to erect a gas-burning power plant in a variety of sizes in a variety of places on the grid. The rise of these newly behemoth gas-burning facilities suggests that we might be in a new era of truly behemoth gas development.
And what makes the Ohio facility different from the Texas examples, too, is that it's going to be owned by the U.S. government. It's essentially going to be a public natural gas-burning power plant. That has interesting implications for climate and energy policy, because the government’s involvement could bring it under the auspices of future federal regulation — or even executive authority. While its continued operation will likely be protected by two-way federal contracts with Nvidia, SB Energy, and other counterparties, the Trump administration has already stretched the bounds of contract law to allow for, let’s say, entrepreneurial federal policy making on its chosen issues. AI is not exactly popular as is. In a different political moment, with a different mandate, how might a future Democratic president look at this site?
Here’s where things stand after some major recent decisions.
Trump started his second term in office with a sweeping federal funding freeze that invited a spate of lawsuits all raising the same general question: Can the president refuse to spend the money Congress appropriates?
When it came to climate programs, the funds at stake included billions of dollars lawmakers had set aside for clean energy, green banks, scientific research, technological development, conservation, and environmental justice projects in the Inflation Reduction Act and the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law.
The legal landscape has evolved significantly since this all started. Although several courts issued injunctions on the funding freeze almost immediately after it went into effect, the administration quickly moved on to terminating grants instead. Also, a lot of the IRA money that was initially caught up in the freeze is now gone, rescinded by Congress in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025.
Still, a significant chunk — more than $90 billion — was formally awarded before OBBBA took effect and remains in jeopardy. A few recent court decisions, however, suggest that some grantees may be able to see their projects through.
Here’s a guide to the current state of play.
There are generally four categories of lawsuits over the climate grants.
First are the suits challenging the legality of Trump’s freeze on IRA and infrastructure law funding, which he laid out in his Day 1 executive order “Unleashing American Energy.” In Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council v. USDA, for example, several nonprofits allege that the administration overstepped its statutory authority and acted contrary to the laws that Congress passed when agencies froze funds. In April of last year, a district court judge put a preliminary injunction on the freeze while the case played out, and the plaintiffs started receiving money again.
Second, there are a number of suits fighting the agencies’ elimination of specific programs. In Harris County v. EPA, to name one, the Texas county is suing the Environmental Protection Agency for terminating Solar for All, a $7 billion IRA program designed to fund solar projects in low-income communities. Harris County argues that the decision was arbitrary and capricious, violating the Administrative Procedures Act, and that it also violates the constitution’s separation of powers, which gives Congress the power of the purse.
Third, there are a few suits challenging the cancellation of individual grants. In City of Saint Paul, Minnesota v. Wright, for instance, the city and several other groups challenged the Department of Energy’s move to cancel more than 300 grants in blue states on the first day of a government shutdown last October. Each of the grants had an address on file with the government that was in a state that voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. Saint Paul and the other plaintiffs argued that the cancellations violated equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.
Each of the cases I’ve described so far challenges Trump on statutory and constitutional grounds, and is playing out in district and appeals courts. The last category is notably different.
More recently, a number of grantees whose funding was terminated have filed lawsuits against the government in the Court of Federal Claims. These suits allege violations of the terms of the individual grant contracts, which lay out the specific circumstances under which the government can cancel an award. The key difference in these cases is that they can only result in monetary damages — the Court of Federal Claims cannot compel an agency to reinstate a grant, or weigh in on the president’s right to eliminate congressionally-mandated programs.
In Sublime Systems Inc. v. United States, for example, the clean cement company is claiming “billions of dollars in damages” in lost income, lost funding, and lost company value. The Energy Department canceled Sublime’s $87 million grant to build a first-of-a-kind cement plant last year, notifying the company that it no longer “effectuates the program/agency priorities” with no further explanation as to what had changed and why.
Perhaps the most consequential question in many of the cases is who has jurisdiction. In the district court cases, one of the government’s main arguments is that these suits are, in essence, contract disputes, and therefore belong in the Court of Federal Claims.
To date, a number of courts have weighed in on this question with mixed opinions. Most notably, the Supreme Court issued orders in two cases involving education and health grants saying that the district courts likely lacked jurisdiction to reinstate canceled grants.
These were emergency orders to provide temporary relief — a channel legal scholars refer to as the Court’s “shadow docket” — and do not carry the same legal significance as a decision on the merits of the underlying cases would. Still, some district courts have cited these orders in their judgments, concluding that allegations by grantees are contractual in nature and belong in the Court of Federal Claims. Other district courts have disregarded the Supreme Court orders and approved grantees’ requests for injunctions on the terminations. In some of those cases, however, appeals courts have later disagreed.
An important ruling on this question came in early August in the case of Climate United v. EPA. The suit involves a group of nonprofits fighting to reinstate their grants under the IRA’s $20 billion green bank program. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s preliminary injunction on the EPA’s termination of the program, cracking open the door for money to start flowing again. The appeals court’s order was short, but it notably did not raise any issue with the district court hearing the case.
The Trump administration signaled that it planned to appeal the Climate United decision to the Supreme Court. If the high court holds a full merit hearing on the case and decides it’s a contract dispute, that could not only shut down the Climate United case, but also many of the other lawsuits, and send hundreds of grantees running to the Court of Federal Claims.
Many of the cases became more complicated after the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The law explicitly rescinded “unobligated funds” from Inflation Reduction Act programs, referring to funds that hadn’t yet been formally awarded.
The plaintiffs in the grant cases argue that because their funds were obligated prior to the OBBBA, the new law shouldn’t change anything. The Trump administration, however, has argued that since it moved to terminate the grants prior to OBBBA, they were no longer technically obligated when that law passed, and therefore the lawsuits challenging the terminations are moot.
In at least one case, The Sustainability Institute v. Trump, the district court judge rejected that argument, deeming it “without merit” in a June 2026 order and ordering the EPA to pay out the funds. The lawsuit concerns the Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants, a $2.8 million program supporting air quality monitoring, climate adaptation, and pollution reduction. The government is appealing the decision.
In other lawsuits over grants from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the situation is even more convoluted. Congress set aside $27 billion in the IRA for grants and loans for projects that reduce emissions, and to establish green banks that would do the same — these are the programs at stake in the Climate United and Harris County cases. OBBBA did not just rescind unobligated funds from this program, it also repealed the underlying statute establishing it.
Romany Webb, the deputy director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, told me this complicates the arguments alleging violations of the constitution. “If you’re arguing that EPA dismantled a congressionally-approved program in violation of the separation of powers, and then afterwards Congress moves to dismantle that program, can you still make that same argument?”
In early August’s Climate United ruling, the appeals court split on what it all meant. Four of the 10 judges questioned whether the injunction on the EPA’s terminations was still warranted since, per their understanding, the repeal of the program gave the agency the ability to terminate the grants without violating the IRA. One judge, while disagreeing with that read, questioned whether EPA could be ordered to reinstate the grants, since the agency no longer had any funding to administer the program.
“There’s lots of questions about the impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, both in terms of the substance of the arguments, and then if those arguments are accepted, the remedy that the court can provide,” Webb said.
At least 10 cases are currently pending in the Court of Federal Claims that hinge on the question of whether a clause in the grant contracts that allows agencies to terminate an award if it “no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities” gives the government cover for canceling awards with no notice or explanation.
There’s actually a separate district court fight going on over this very language on constitutional grounds. A group of 22 states, led by New Jersey, is suing the government, alleging that this language, which is standard in government funding contracts, does not give the administration permission to change its priorities on a whim. They argue that it’s intended to govern situations where the grant can no longer achieve the original program goals and agency priorities, not where the agency priorities change. In early July, the court issued an order agreeing with that interpretation. The government still has time to appeal, so it’s too soon to say how this will affect the Federal Claims court cases.
There is one set of cases where the plaintiffs have been undoubtedly successful. In the Saint Paul case I mentioned earlier, seven plaintiffs had been awarded grants by the Department of Energy for various kinds of projects — EV charging stations, methane mitigation, energy efficiency. The government’s lawyers freely admitted that the agency canceled these grants primarily because they were awarded to entities in blue states. The judge ruled that this did, in fact, violate the Fifth Amendment. She vacated the terminations in January.
After that win, another group of 11 grantees in the same situation — their grants were terminated as part of the same attack on blue states — filed suit in the same court, and the same judge vacated their terminations in June. The government has not appealed either decision. Since hundreds of other grantees could make the same discrimination argument, there may be more of these cases on the way.
Current conditions: Floodwaters swept through eastern Iowa, swelling the White River to its highest level in 113 years • A southwest monsoon, or hagabat, has capped off several weeks of storms in the Philippines that, combined, killed nearly two dozen people • Temperatures in Madrid are lingering near 100 degrees Fahrenheit until midweek, when the Spanish capital will cool off into the high 80s; the Greek capital of Athens, meanwhile, is bracing for the exact reverse.
Tropical storms almost never hit the Hawaiian islands directly. The last time a tropical system struck the archipelago was in 2018, when Tropical Storm Olivia made landfall over Maui. It was, per CTV News, the first time a storm had come ashore like that since records began in the 1950s. The last full-blown hurricane to strike the state was in 1992, when Category 4 Iniki landed on Kauai, the chain’s northernmost island, as the strongest storm on record to hit the state. But the Big Island hadn’t seen a major storm make landfall since 1900. So Tropical Storm Lala, by some measures a Category 1 hurricane, left a mark. Nearly 200,000 homes and businesses — representing roughly 70% of the Big Island — remained without electricity on Sunday night as winds of up to 75 miles per hour and floodwaters hammered the state’s infrastructure. “Customers should prepare for extended outages lasting weeks or even months in the hardest hit rural areas of Hawaii island,” Hawaiian Electric, the utility that serves 95% of the state, told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser.
“It doesn’t matter how many poles we fix in your neighborhood, they’re not going to be getting any power,” Jim Kelly, a spokesman for the utility, told Honolulu Civil Beat. “So we’ve got to focus on restoring those transmission lines first.”
Georgia has over the past decade emerged as a hotbed for cutting-edge industry in the United States. The state welcomed battery factories, solar manufacturers, and the nation’s only wholly new nuclear reactors in decades. But regulators are now cracking down on data centers. Last week, Georgia Power opted to delay the start date for a 25-year service contract to supply the ChatGPT maker OpenAI’s $20 billion data center near the state’s coast with electricity. The voluntary delay, E&E News reported, gives the utility 12 days to revise its proposal before the Public Service Commission, which had signaled its plans to reject the original pitch amid a groundswell of opposition to artificial intelligence infrastructure. The new deadline to review and approve the proposal is August 26.
The postponement comes about a week after West Virginia attempted to “clean slate” with a new set of proposals to regulate data centers aimed at undercutting the movement to block server projects across the country. Governor Patrick Morrisey, a Republican, issued a plan that calls for reducing and possibly eliminating state income taxes on the back of new revenue from AI companies. The move came after Mountain State Spotlight, a venerable investigative outlet based in West Virginia, published a report outlining how a data center developer was using the state’s patchwork of regulations to push a project with limited oversight. It’s no surprise. At least seven in 10 Americans oppose data centers being built near their homes now, according to the latest polling from Heatmap Pro.
Batteries are booming as lithium-ion units grow cheaper and more useful to back up the grid. The industry saw 70% annual growth last year, as my colleague Robinson Meyer wrote last week. But powering the grid off of batteries requires actually hooking them up to the power system. Across the country, some 750 gigawatts of energy storage projects — roughly equal to more than 700 nuclear reactors — are waiting in the queue for a grid connection, according to data the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory shared with Bloomberg. Not all the projects will be built. But the median wait time for a grid connection was five years in 2025, up from a year and a half in 2015.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Last I checked, it’s actually illegal to write about the geothermal industry’s looming boom without making a pun about heat. So you’ll have to forgive the headline. But things really are getting steamy between investors and developers. When the Bureau of Land Management held a geothermal lease sale in New Mexico in June, the agency netted more than $16.5 million, making it the second-highest-grossing sale in its history, according to Utility Dive. The record-setting bid was from Rock Canyon Resources, which paid $3.14 million for one 4,479-acre tract. Another auction is set to take place in Utah on Tuesday.

The U.S. used to produce and enrich the uranium that fueled the world’s largest fleet of nuclear power stations. In the 1990s, however, then-President Bill Clinton brokered a deal to establish the famous “megatons to megawatts” with Russia, whereby American power plants promised to buy fuel made from disassembled Soviet warheads. As a nonproliferation exercise, it was a success. But the Russian fuel undercut the domestic market, putting many American miners and enrichers — already facing dimmer prospects as the U.S. stopped building new atomic power stations — out of business. By the time the 2022 invasion of Ukraine plunged Washington’s relations with Russia to their lowest point since the Cold War, the U.S. remained heavily dependent on imports from the Kremlin-owned nuclear company Rosatom. Congress banned Russian uranium imports in 2024, but allowed for waivers until the start of 2028. That cliff is fast approaching, right as one of the other largest suppliers — Kazakhstan — lowered production at its mines.
Luckily for the resurgent U.S. nuclear industry, Canada remains America’s largest supplier of uranium. And a lot of Canadian uranium is coming to the market. On Friday, NexGen Energy broke ground on the first phase of what’s expected to be one of the largest uranium mines on Earth. The project in northern Saskatchewan was first conceived more than a decade ago. The company had started drilling for samples in 2012, but failed after 13 attempts. In winter of 2014, the company tried again. “On the very first home, we hit mineralization,” NextGen CEO Leigh Curyer told CBC News. “We didn’t know it at the time, but we were on top of what has become the world’s most important energy fuel project.” Canada isn’t the only country planning for a nuclear future. Spain, the world’s last major country still pursuing a phaseout policy, seems to be inching toward saving its nuclear plants. Last week, regulators cleared the Almaraz nuclear station to operate through 2030. But NucNet cautioned that left-wing Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s government still planned to shut down the reactors by 2035.
Peter Thiel has invested in Facebook, SpaceX, and Palantir, where he serves as chairman of the board and co-founder. Add Argentina’s oil and gas sector to his portfolio. In a Friday filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the billionaire disclosed a 1% stake in Vista, one of Argentina’s largest oil companies operating in the Vaca Muerta shale formation roughly the size of Belgium, where Argentine President Javier Milei wants to ramp up fracking. Reuters reported that Thiel also recently bought a new home in Buenos Aires.