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:
We’re back to emitting like it’s 1991 — even with a much bigger economy.

For the first time since the pandemic began, both America’s economy and its carbon emissions moved in the right direction last year, according to a major annual estimate of the country’s climate pollution.
America’s greenhouse gas pollution from energy and industrial activities fell by 1.9% in 2023 compared to the year before, even as the broader American economy grew, according to the Rhodium Group, an energy research firm. It’s the first time this decade that the United States has hit the important mark of growing its economy and cutting its climate pollution at the same time.
Yet despite that progress, emissions probably aren’t falling fast enough for the U.S. to hit its climate goals under the Paris Agreement.
The new report is the first to provide a sense of how America’s greenhouse gas emissions changed last year, when the fuel economy of new cars hit an all-time high and the Biden administration’s climate law began to go into effect. The estimate is part of the Rhodium Group’s long-running series of analyses of American emissions, which are regularly cited by experts and government officials.
Here are five big takeaways from the new report:
1. The American economy is becoming less carbon-intensive — and the rate of that change is accelerating.
America’s carbon emissions peaked in 2005, when the U.S. released nearly 7.5 billion tons of greenhouse gases. Since then, the economy has kept growing, but climate pollution has slowly fallen. Last year, America emitted as much carbon as it did in 1991, when the economy was roughly a quarter of its current size.
This trend has picked up recently, according to the new report. Although the American economy has mounted a vigorous recovery from the pandemic recession, emissions remain about 6% below their 2019 level. The U.S. also cut emissions faster this year than it did during the 2010s.

2. The power grid is driving most of those emissions reductions.
Last year, climate pollution from the power sector fell by 8%, a greater decline than in any other part of the economy.
That’s partly because the coal industry is dying. Coal continues to generate less and less power every year (even though it blipped back up briefly in 2021) as the economics of natural gas, wind, and solar drive it off the grid. Not only did the United States install a record amount of solar in 2023, it also opened its first new nuclear reactor in decades. Last year, for only the second time ever, nuclear power plants generated more electricity than coal plants did.
3. A warm winter also helped.
About 10% of America’s greenhouse gas emissions are produced by buildings, which mostly mean the furnaces in homes and offices. Space heating is the most energy-intensive thing most Americans do in their homes, and the overwhelming majority of American private residences and commercial buildings are heated with fossil fuels.
Thanks to climate change, 2023 was the warmest year ever measured, featuring an especially mild winter in the eastern and southern parts of the country. That meant that — ironically — Americans had to burn less oil, propane, and gas in their tens of millions of furnaces nationwide to keep warm, causing building emissions to fall by about 4% compared to the year before.
4. Transportation and industrial emissions are still problems.

Not every part of the economy saw emissions fall. In the transportation sector, carbon pollution levels rose slightly, driven not by cars and trucks as much as by an increase in air travel, which all but depends on fossil fuels. Last year was the busiest year for air travel in American history, and demand for jet fuel rose 5% compared to 2022.
The industrial sector — a catch-all term for dozens of heavy industries, including steel, cement, mining, and chemicals-making — also increased its emissions last year. Unlike in the power sector (and, for that matter, ground-based transportation), engineers and experts are still figuring out how to do many of the most carbon-intensive industrial activities without releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
But the industrial sector also includes the fossil-fuel industry, and last year, America’s oil and gas production reached an all-time high. Oil and natural gas emit climate pollution not just when they’re burned, but also when they’re extracted, and in 2023, the country’s roaring oil and gas industry was the biggest contributor to the industrial sector’s rising emissions.
Leaking, flaring, or venting natural gas — which is mostly comprised of methane, a greenhouse gas more than 20 times as potent as carbon dioxide over the long term — especially puts additional climate pollution in the air. While the EPA will soon begin enforcing rules that crack down on natural gas-related pollution, those aren’t in place yet.
5. The U.S. remains off its Paris Agreement track.
President Biden has pledged that the United States will cut its emissions in half as compared to their all-time high by 2030. But with six years left to meet that deadline, emissions are only 17.2% below their high.
That means America must roughly triple its pace of pollution reductions — cutting them by 6.9% each year — to meet its goal.
Although carbon pollution is likely to drop more quickly in the next few years, especially as the Inflation Reduction Act and new Environmental Protection Agency rules kick in, emissions cuts of that magnitude are probably not feasible. That said, almost no other country is on track to meet its Paris Agreement goals, either. So at least there’s that.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Rob digs deep on critical minerals with Full Tilt Strategies’ Nathaniel Horadam.
President Trump announced on Monday that the U.S. would create a domestic stockpile of critical minerals for civilian use — essentially a Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but for lithium, copper, rare earths, and other rocks central to electronics and decarbonization.
It’s one of many experimental and unusual steps that the administration has taken to boost U.S. mineral production over the past 13 months. But are any of those plans working? What could improve — and what does any of this mean for clean energy?
On this week’s Shift Key, we talk to someone who saw these policies up close. From 2023 to 2025, Nathaniel Horadam worked on electric vehicle and mineral policy at the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office, eventually overseeing the office’s critical mineral portfolio last year. The office is the department’s in-house bank (it’s since been rechristened the Energy Dominance Financing Office) and it runs some of the federal government’s most ambitious industrial policy.
Horadam is now founder and president of Full Tilt Strategies, LLC, and he writes about mineral issues for his Tailings substack. He joins us to discuss what’s working, what’s not working, and what needs to improve. Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap, and Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University. Jesse is off this week.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Nathaniel Horadam: My like third cardinal rule here: Losing money is okay. At the end of the day, you’re providing an insurance policy —
Robinson Meyer: The government losing money is okay.
Horadam: Yeah. I mean, at the end of the day, one of my biggest observational complaints with the way the Trump administration’s approaching a lot of these deals right now is they’re being structured to not lose money.
Even if they’re taking risk, you’re taking equity stakes, and you’re looking to collateralize enough stuff. It’s a private equity mindset. It’s not necessarily setting up projects to succeed in the long term, and mechanisms to succeed in the long term. And the same thing — I mean, the Export-Import Bank, I applaud them for getting creative here and trying to find ways to extend its existing authorities as much as possible. But Ex-Im has a pretty strict loss cap that has traditionally constrained the amount of risk it can take. And between that and the fact that they were able to pull in outside investors to do this means it’s being structured to make a profit.
That may run against the goals of actually trying to provide the shock absorbers that you need for actual critical materials. I hope it doesn’t end up steering deal flow toward things that are more lucrative to try and keep this in the green and meet investor expectations. Certainly the encouraging bit that I saw in the Bloomberg story is that they are letting the industrial end users dictate what they stockpile. But at the end of the day, it’s still controlled by an administration that’s getting a lot of pressure to fix various markets for different materials, and it may be inclined to intervene in places that are a little bit outta scope. Let’s put it that way.
Mentioned:
Final 2025 List of Critical Minerals
Reuters: US moves away from critical mineral price floors
“What exactly are ‘Critical Minerals’?,” by Nathaniel Horadam
The Secure Minerals Act, by Senators Todd Young and Jeanne Shaheen
The Pentagon’s Rare Earths Deal Is Making Former Biden Officials Jealous
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Accelerate your clean energy career with Yale’s online certificate programs. Explore the 10-month Financing and Deploying Clean Energy program or the 5-month Clean and Equitable Energy Development program. Use referral code HeatMap26 and get your application in by the priority deadline for $500 off tuition to one of Yale’s online certificate programs in clean energy. Learn more at cbey.yale.edu/online-learning-opportunities.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
The FREEDOM Act aims to protect energy developments from changing political winds.
A specter is haunting permitting reform talks — the specter of regulatory uncertainty. That seemingly anodyne two-word term has become Beltway shorthand for President Donald Trump’s unrelenting campaign to rescind federal permits for offshore wind projects. The repeated failure of the administration’s anti-wind policies to hold up in court aside, the precedent the president is setting has spooked oil and gas executives, who warn that a future Democratic government could try to yank back fossil fuel projects’ permits.
A new bipartisan bill set to be introduced in the House Tuesday morning seeks to curb the executive branch’s power to claw back previously-granted permits, protecting energy projects of all kinds from whiplash every time the political winds change.
Dubbed the FREEDOM Act, the legislation — a copy of which Heatmap obtained exclusively — is the latest attempt by Congress to speed up construction of major energy and mining projects as the United States’ electricity demand rapidly eclipses new supply and Chinese export controls send the price of key critical minerals skyrocketing.
Two California Democrats, Representatives Josh Harder and Adam Gray, joined three Republicans, Representatives Mike Lawler of New York, Don Bacon of Nebraska, and Chuck Edwards of North Carolina, to sponsor the bill.
While green groups have criticized past proposals to reform federal permitting as a way to further entrench fossil fuels by allowing oil and gas to qualify for the new shortcuts, Harder pitched the bill as relief to ratepayers who “are facing soaring energy prices because we’ve made it too hard to build new energy projects.”
“The FREEDOM Act delivers the smart, pro-growth certainty that critical energy projects desperately need by cutting delays, fast-tracking approvals, and holding federal agencies accountable,” he told me in a statement. “This is a common sense solution that will mean more energy projects being brought online in the short term and lower energy costs for our families for the long run.”
The most significant clause in the 77-page proposal lands on page 59. The legislation prohibits federal agencies and officials from issuing “any order or directive terminating the construction or operation of a fully permitted project, revoke any permit or authorization for a fully permitted project, or take any other action to halt, suspend, delay, or terminate an authorized activity carried out to support a fully permitted project.”
There are, of course, exceptions. Permits could still be pulled if a project poses “a clear, immediate, and substantiated harm for which the federal order, directive, or action is required to prevent, mitigate, or repair.” But there must be “no other viable alternative.”
Such a law on the books would not have prevented the Trump administration from de-designating millions of acres of federal waters to offshore wind development, to pick just one example. But the legislation would explicitly bar Trump’s various attempts to halt individual projects with stop work orders. Even the sweeping order the Department of the Interior issued in December that tried to stop work on all offshore wind turbines currently under construction on the grounds of national security would have needed to prove that the administration exhausted all other avenues first before taking such a step.
Had the administration attempted something similar anyway, the legislation has a mechanism to compensate companies for the costs racked up by delays. The so-called De-Risking Compensation Fund, which the bill would establish at the Treasury Department, would kick in if the government revoked a permit, canceled a project, failed to meet deadlines set out in the law for timely responses to applications, or ran out the clock on a project such that it’s rendered commercially unviable.
The maximum payout is equal to the company’s capital contribution, with a $5 million minimum threshold, according to a fact-sheet summarizing the bill for other lawmakers who might consider joining as co-sponsors. “Claims cannot be denied based on project permits or energy technology type,” the document reads. A company that would have benefited from a payout, for example, would be TC Energy, the developer behind the Keystone XL oil pipeline the Biden administration canceled shortly after taking office.
Like other permitting reform legislation, the FREEDOM Act sets new rules to keep applications moving through the federal bureaucracy. Specifically, it gives courts the right to decide whether agencies that miss deadlines should have to pay for companies to hire qualified contractors to complete review work.
The FREEDOM Act also learned an important lesson from the SPEED Act, another bipartisan bill to overhaul federal permitting that passed the House in December but has since become mired in the Senate. The SPEED Act lost Democratic support — ultimately passing the House with just 11 Democratic votes — after far-right Republicans and opponents of offshore wind leveraged a special carveout to continue allowing the administration to commence its attacks on seaborne turbine projects.
The amendment was a poison pill. In the Senate, a trio of key Democrats pushing for permitting reform, Senate Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Martin Heinrich, Environment and Public Works ranking member Sheldon Whitehouse, and Hawaii senator Brian Schatz, previously told Heatmap’s Jael Holzman that their support hinged on curbing Trump’s offshore wind blitz.
Those Senate Democrats “have made it clear that they expect protections against permitting abuses as part of this deal — the FREEDOM Act looks to provide that protection,” Thomas Hochman, the director of energy and infrastructure policy at the Foundation for American Innovation, told me. A go-to policy expert on clearing permitting blockages for energy projects, Hochman and his center-right think tank have been in talks with the lawmakers who drafted the bill.
A handful of clean-energy trade groups I contacted did not get back to me before publication time. But American Clean Power, one of the industry’s dominant associations, withdrew its support for the SPEED Act after Republicans won their carveout. The FREEDOM Act would solve for that objection.
The proponents of the FREEDOM Act aim for the bill to restart the debate and potentially merge with parts of the previous legislation.
“The FREEDOM Act has all the critical elements you’d hope to see in a permitting certainty bill,” Hochman said. “It’s tech-neutral, it covers both fully permitted projects and projects still in the pipeline, and it provides for monetary compensation to help cover losses for developers who have been subject to permitting abuses.”
Maybe utilities’ “natural monopoly” isn’t so natural after all.
Debates over electricity policy usually have a common starting point: the “natural monopoly” of the transmission system, wherein the poles and wires that connect power plants to homes and businesses have exclusive franchises in a certain territory and charge regulated rates to access them.
The thinking is that without a monopoly franchise, no one would make the necessary capital expenditures to build and maintain the power lines and grid infrastructure necessary to connect the whole system, especially if they thought someone would build a new transmission line nearby. So while a government body oversees investment and prices, the utility itself is not subject to market-based competition.
But what if someone really did want to build their own wires?
“There are at least two of us who do not think that electricity is a natural monopoly,” Glen Lyons, the founder of Advocates for Consumer Regulated Electricity, told me.
The other one is Travis Fisher, an energy scholar at the Cato Institute, who corrected his friend and colleague.
“Between me, and Joseph Schumpeter, and Wayne Crews, and Glen Lyons, there’s at least four of us. Only three of us are alive,” Fisher said, referencing the Austrian economist Schumpeter, who died in 1950, and the libertarian scholar Crews, who was a critic of the restructuring of the electricity market in the 1990s.
Fisher and Lyons, however, are the team behind a proposal put out on Tuesday by the libertarian Cato Institute calling for “consumer-regulated electricity.” Instead of a transmission system with a monopoly franchise that independent generators can connect to and sell power to utilities in a process regulated by a combination of a public utility commission and regional transmission organization or independent system operators, CRE systems would be physically islanded electricity systems that customers would privately and voluntarily sign up for.
Crucially, CRE would not be regulated under existing federal law, and would have no connection to the existing grid, allowing for novel price structures and even physical set-ups, like running on different frequencies or even direct current, Fisher said.
They would also, Fisher and Lyons argue, help solve the dilemma haunting electricity policymakers: how to bring new load on the grid quickly without saddling existing ratepayers with the cost of paying for utility upgrades.
“If enabled, CRE utilities would generate, transmit, and sell electricity directly to customers under voluntary contracts, without interconnecting to the existing regulated grid or seeking permission from economic regulators at the state or federal level,” the Cato proposal reads.
This idea has a natural audience among political conservatives, as it’s essentially a bet that more entrepreneurship and less regulation will solve some of our biggest energy system problems. On the other hand, utilities tend to be a powerful force in conservative politics at both the state and federal levels, which is one reason why these kinds of ideas are still marginal.
But less marginal than they have been.
Consumer-regulated electricity is more than just another think tank white paper. It has also won the approval of the influential American Legislative Exchange Council, better known as ALEC, a conservative group that writes model legislation for state legislatures to adopt. Fisher proposed version of the consumer-regulated utilities plan to the network in December of last year, and ALEC approved it in January.
A few days after the group finalized the model policy to allow CRE at the state level, Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton proposed his own version in the form of the DATA Act, which would “amend the Federal Power Act to exempt consumer-regulated electric utilities from Federal regulation.”
While the CRE proposal is a big conceptual departure from about a century of electricity regulation, the actual reform is modest. Fisher and Lyons propose a structure would apply solely to “sophisticated customers … who voluntarily contract for service and can manage their own risks,” i.e. big industrial users like data centers, not your home.
While this sounds like behind the meter generation, whereby large electricity users such as, say, xAI in Memphis, simply set up their own electricity plants, CRE goes further. The idea is to capture the self-regulation benefits of building your own power within a structure that still allows for the economies of scale of a grid. Or in the words of Cato’s proposal, CRE “would enable third-party utilities to serve many customers, resulting in lower costs, higher reliability, and a smaller environmental footprint compared to self-supply options.”
Fisher and Lyons argue that CRE would also have an advantage over so-called co-location, where data centers are built adjacent to generation and share interconnection with the grid, which still requires interacting with public utility commissions and utilities. The pair have also suggested that the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission use its existing rulemaking process on data center interconnection to encourage states to pass the necessary laws to allow islanded utility systems.
While allowing totally private utility systems may be a radical — and certainly a libertarian — departure from the utility regulation system as it exists today, proposals are popping up on both the left and the right to try to reduce utility influence over the electricity system.
Tom Steyer, the hedge fund billionaire and climate investor who is running for governor of California, has said that he would “break up the utility monopolies to lower electric bills by 25%.” In a January press conference, Steyer clarified that he “wants to force utility companies to choose cheaper ways of wildfire-proofing their infrastructure and give customers other options for buying power, including making it easier to build neighborhood-level solar projects or allowing more communities to operate their own local grids,” according to CalMatters. California already has some degree of retail choice, although a more expansive version of a retail competition model infamously collapsed during the 2001 rolling blackouts.
To Fisher, while his and Lyons’ proposal is in some ways radical, it is also not a particularly big risk. If there’s truly no demand for private electricity networks, none will be built and nothing will change, even if there’s regulatory reform to allow for it.“I’m not surprised to see it get traction,” Fisher said of the plan, “just because there’s no downside, and the upside could be absolutely nothing — or it could be a breakthrough.”