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:
Brightband emerges from stealth to commercialize AI-weather forecasting.
The weather has never been hotter.
The past few years have seen a boom in the weather prediction industry, with AI-based weather models from the likes of Google DeepMind, Huawei, and Nvidia consistently outperforming traditional models. Most of that work has been research-oriented, but today the startup Brightband emerged from stealth with $10 million in Series A funding and a unique plan to commercialize generative AI weather modeling. Instead of trying to go up against Weather.com, Brightband is tailoring models to specific industries such as insurance, finance, agriculture, energy, and transportation. The round was led by Prelude Ventures.
Weather forecasting has traditionally been the domain of the public sector, with the most widely used models coming from the U.S. National Weather Service and the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. Brightband’s CEO Julian Green told me that private companies haven’t been able to break in “because it has cost so much to have billion dollar supercomputers,” which are required to run today’s so-called “numerical” weather models.
These models rely on complex atmospheric equations based on the laws of physics to predict future weather patterns, and because of their computational intensity, are usually only updated four times daily. It’s possible then that AI-based weather prediction could thus actually reduce energy demand — because while it takes a lot of energy to train an AI model, after that’s done, generating forecasts is simple. “So instead of six hours to have a forecast, it takes under a second. Instead of using a billion dollar supercomputer, you’re using a laptop,” Green told me.
AI models like Brightband’s are trained on decades worth of past weather data, and when fed a snapshot of current conditions, can predict what will come next, much like ChatGPT does with text. “Think about the weather AI prediction problem as predicting the next frame in a radar sequence,” Green told me.
He said that customizing forecasts for particular industries will also be as simple as querying a large language model. A wind farm operator could, for example, “just take an attached file of historical wind energy production, and throw it in there and say, hey, tell me what the wind energy is going to be like next week.” Likewise folks in the aviation industry could have the model tell them if their plane’s wings are likely to ice up, utilities could get detailed insight into expected energy demand and generation, and finance companies could get up-to-the-minute information about weather-sensitive commodities. Previously, companies would’ve had to build their own forecasting teams or hire third-party advisors to get such specific predictions.
Brightband wants to further differentiate itself from the types of models that tech companies have already built by using only raw data inputs to generate its forecasts, from sources such as satellites, weather balloons, and radar systems. Perhaps surprisingly, this is not the way that most models currently work. Because there are data gaps, such as over oceans and in the developing world, the datasets used to train today’s AI weather models, Green explained, “smear the available data over a three-dimensional grid of the globe,” diluting the accuracy of both the real-time weather and presumably the resulting forecasts.
It’s hard to say how much more accurate using only raw data inputs will be, because “that’s what nobody has done yet,” Green told me. Data gaps are still an issue of course, but Green told me that Brightband’s approach will also allow the company to better analyze when and where filling these gaps would add the most value.
Brightband says it hopes to publish a paper by year’s end with an open-source version of its forecast model, alongside evaluation tools to assess its performance.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Without the federal tax credit and until battery prices come down, automakers will have to argue that pricey EVs are worth it.
America’s federal tax credit for buying an electric car was supposed to be the great equalizer, an incentive meant to solve for the fact that EVs have long been more expensive than the polluting fossil fuel vehicles they must replace.
That tax credit is now dead. Thanks to the Republican budget reconciliation bill pushed through Congress this summer, the incentive will die after September 30 of this year.
Its demise comes at a particularly inopportune time. For a long time, even a $7,500 benefit wasn’t enough to make many of the best electric cars cost-competitive with their gasoline-powered rivals. Slowly, that had begun to change: More EVs with a starting MSRP in the $30,000 range, such as the base-level Chevy Equinox EV, could compete directly on price with internal combustion once the tax credit (along with any state and local incentives) was taken into consideration.
Without the tax credit, most EVs can’t compete on price alone. Battery production costs are falling, but not fast enough for a new EV in America to cost the same as a comparable gas car. With electricity prices seemingly set to rise, the appeal of never again buying gasoline isn’t as strong. At the same time, the federal government has been trying to add new, nonsensical taxes on EV ownership. Cars.com says the tax credit was a major reason half of EV owners cited for choosing their vehicle, and that it’s driving the decision for about half of curious buyers.
Add it all up and a big group of American shoppers who might have considered buying an EV if the dollars and cents added up probably won’t, at least for now. The mess leaves electric vehicle makers in a precarious position. They must convince American drivers that EVs are simply superior — more capable, more dependable, and more fun. As longtime Rivian executive Jiten Behl told InsideEVs’ Patrick George last week: “Forget they’re electric for a moment. They’re just better cars. And a better product will always win.”
That argument is an existential one for Rivian, which Behl departed last year. Deliveries of its long-awaited R1S SUV started in 2022, and since then the vehicle has become a Range Rover-replacing status symbol in my part of Los Angeles. But after three years, most people with the means and desire to buy a $70,000 to $80,000 EV have done so, yet the company’s more affordable R2 and R3 vehicles remain at least a year away.
Rivian’s solution for the meantime is to push the limit of electric vehicle performance, dollars be damned. This summer, I’ve driven triple-motor Tri Max versions of both the R1S and the R1T pickup trucks. Zooming from a stop, its 800-plus horsepower and instantaneous torque is whiplash-inducing. Put in Conserve mode and the vehicles approach 400 miles of range, enough to obliterate range anxiety. There’s plenty of power for towing and off-roading, plus all the other functionalities that make EVs better than combustion cars: using the vehicle battery to power one’s home or other uses, Dog Mode, or tapping into battery power to pre-condition the cabin on a scorching or frigid day.
Gas vehicles have modes, of course. Over the past decade or two, drivers have gotten used to the way that “sport” or “eco” modes subtly change the character of a car. In a super-EV like the Rivian, having so much capability at your fingertip feels like the EV could become a totally different car at the push of a button. For the Tri Max models, this level of muscular competence costs north of $100,000. But such prowess speaks to someone out there. Rivian has been developing the more-ultimate-than-ultimate electric vehicle, a quad-motor version with horsepower in the four digits, for those in the “money is no object” tax bracket who’ve been convinced that electric is better (or at least that electric is the future, and they want to own it).
A more telling case will be next year’s arrival of the R2, a two-row electric SUV meant to cost in the neighborhood of $45,000. Without the tax credit, prospective buyers can’t tell themselves that it’s really in the $30,000s. On price, then, it’s competing with BMW SUVs, not Chevys.
This is nothing new for the EV market. Selling electrics as luxury cars with a high price tag helps to mask the cost of the battery, and it brings in more revenue for a startup company like Rivian that desperately needs it. Tesla sold a lot of cars this way even though its refinements, build quality, and creature comforts weren’t quite up to par compared to a Mercedes-Benz or a BMW. Part of the luxury people paid for was the feeling of owning the cool new thing, at least back before Tesla’s brand was tainted.
It’s a bit trickier for legacy car companies, who are struggling to navigate shifting attitudes and incentives in America and to compete against cheap, Chinese-made EVs abroad. Take the Hyundai Ioniq 9 that arrived this summer. Hyundai and Kia are the farthest along of the traditional brands in selling great EVs to Americans, and the Ioniq 9 may be the best electric offering for families that need a three-row vehicle to accommodate their tribe. Thanks in part to the hulking 110-kilowatt hour battery needed for this boat to have 300 miles of EPA-rated range, however, the Ioniq 9 starts at $59,000 — more than $20,000 higher than Hyundai’s similarly sized, gas-powered Palisade.
Even a $7,500 benefit wouldn’t bridge such a divide between electric and gas. So, Hyundai bet all along that, incentives or not, buyers would find the Ioniq 9 to be the premium product that it proved to be during my road trip test drive in one this past weekend. Where the Palisade comes with 291 horsepower from its gas engine, Ioniq 9’s 422 electric horsepower allowed the big vehicle to accelerate effortlessly onto the highway and zoom up the Grapevine mountain pass that leads into Los Angeles, dusting plenty of combustion-powered cars huffing and puffing to get uphill. It is remarkably spacious and startlingly quiet, even when putting out lots of power.
My top-of-the-line Ioniq 9 had numerous tech features meant to make it feel special, like the enormous curved touchscreen that spanned from dashboard to center console and the heads-up display — specs that feel futuristic and attempt to justify the extra cost. But let’s be real. For anyone who’d choose a $60,000 EV over the same company’s $40,000 gas-guzzling SUV, it comes down to the simple, everyday advantages of an electric car: Your home is your gas station and you begin every day with a full tank. You’re sitting on a big battery full of electricity that can be used for more than driving, whether that’s backing up your home appliances during a blackout or just air-conditioning your dog while you run into the drugstore. No oil changes. No belts, sparks plugs, or antifreeze to worry about. No tailpipe emissions poisoning your city’s air or filling your garage with carbon monoxide. Immediate power at your feet. And, of course, the possibility of one day running the family car entirely on clean energy.
None of those reasons will change the financial calculation and make the EV less expensive in the long run. For now, the argument for EVs is that you get what you pay for. When more Americans experience a premium EV, that might be enough to convince them that electric is worth the extra cash, tax credit or not.
On residential solar dims, New Jersey makes history, and Brazil’s challenge
Current conditions: Tropical Storm Dexter has formed in the Atlantic, sending rough surf and rip currents to beaches along the U.S. East Coast • Heavy rainfall threatens flooding in southern Taiwan and northern Vietnam • Storm Floris is battering Scotland with winds of up to 80 miles per hour.
Two top GOP senators are pushing back on President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at severely restricting access to tax credits for renewables before a phaseout begins next year. Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley and Utah Senator John Curtis placed holds on three Trump nominees to the Treasury Department, the agency in charge of writing the rules and guidance for the tax provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Grassley had negotiated a “glidepath for an orderly phaseout” of tax credits for wind and solar, he said in placing the hold, giving developers until next July to start construction on projects. But in an apparent concession to hard-line Republicans in the House of Representatives, Trump signed an executive order days after the bill became law calling for a new guidance to restrict what it means to start construction. As my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote yesterday, the executive order “has generated understandable concern within the renewables industry” ahead of the deadline in two weeks for the Internal Revenue Service to issue its new guidance. A more restrictive interpretation of what “begin construction” means “could turn the tax credit language into a dead letter,” Matthew reported. Grassley warned that, “until I can be certain that such rules and regulations adhere to the law and congressional intent, I intend to continue to object to the consideration of these Treasury nominees.”
Chemicals giants Chemours, DuPont, and Corteva agreed Monday to pay out $875 million over the next 25 years to support communities affected by pollution from “forever chemicals,” The New York Times reported. New Jersey officials called this the biggest environmental settlement ever achieved by a single state. As part of the deal, the companies are required to fund the cleanup of four former industrial sites, create a remediation fund of up to $1.2 billion, and put $475 million aside to guarantee the remediation goes forward even if any of the companies go bankrupt. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, typically shortened to PFAS, are called “forever chemicals” because they accumulate in water and in human bodies and never leave. They are linked to all kinds of kidneys and testicular cancer, high cholesterol, and liver damage. “PFAS are particularly insidious,” New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said in a statement. “These dangerous chemicals build up and accumulate everywhere, and New Jersey has some of the highest levels of PFAS in the country.”
As my colleague Jeva Lange has written, “The United States Geological Survey estimates that as much as 20% of Americans drink, bathe, and brush their teeth with PFAS-contaminated water.” During his first administration, Trump promised to crack down on PFAS. But in May, his Environmental Protection Agency delayed enforcement of federal drinking water limits until 2031, and said it would reconsider rules completed under the Biden administration.
Just 7.5% of suitable owner-occupied residential homes in the United States had installed rooftop solar panels as of the end of 2024. With tax credits and support from the Biden administration’s policies, that segment would have grown by 9% per year over the next five years to reach an adoption rate of 13% nationwide by 2030. But of course, Trump won the election and passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Now new data from the consultancy Wood Mackenzie show that residential solar capacity could fall by 46% below those previous projections. That’s due in part to the new federal policies directly, but it also takes into account the potential for no interest rate cuts over the next five years thanks to Trump’s larger economic agenda.
For years, Tesla has cultivated a fandom akin to the cultish following around Apple products in the early 2010s. But since CEO Elon Musk entered the political sphere as a top surrogate for Trump last summer, brand loyalty for the electric automaker has plunged, according to new data the research firm S&P Global Mobility shared with Reuters. Using data gleaned from vehicle registrations in all 50 states, the report shows that Tesla’s customer loyalty peaked in June 2024, the month before Musk endorsed Trump. At that point, 73% of Tesla-owning households in the market for a new car bought another Tesla. By March, the rate had nosedived to 49.9%, just below the automotive industry average.
Dead trees in the Brazilian Amazon. Mario Tama/Getty Images
During his first stretch in office in the early 2000s, Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva oversaw a miracle few developing countries had ever accomplished: He slashed deforestation while riding the global commodities boom to grow South America’s largest economy and lift millions out of poverty. Since returning to office in 2022, the left-wing leader better known as Lula sought once again to crack down on the destruction of the Amazon while expanding Brazil’s oil and gas production.
His government now faces an uncomfortable pivot point. His environment minister, Marina Silva, is battling legislation that would gut conservation rules in what the Financial Times called “the biggest potential setback to environmental protection in Brazil in four decades.” At the same time, British oil giant BP announced Monday its biggest oil and gas discovery in 25 years off the coast of Brazil. Striking the right balance is more important than ever as the 79-year-old Lula prepares for a tough reelection campaign next amid ratcheting tensions with Trump. Brazil is also the site of the next United Nations climate conference, COP30, which will take place in Belém in November.
The global economic losses associated with the health costs of plastics pollution now top $1.5 trillion annually, according to a new paper in The Lancet. But the esteemed medical journal notes that the “continued worsening of plastics’ harms is not inevitable. Similar to air pollution and lead, plastics’ harms can be mitigated cost-effectively by evidence-based, transparently tracked, effectively implemented, and adequately financed laws and policies.”
Without the endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, the state could have a case for re-imposing its own greenhouse limits on auto emissions.
Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency has moved to abdicate the federal government’s responsibility to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for vehicles. At this point it’s only a proposal, and legal challenges to the shift could take years to resolve even after the change gets finalized.
But if the law eventually closes the door on national standards, it might open a new one for states.
The Clean Air Act prohibits states from enacting their own pollution regulations for mobile sources, such as cars and trucks. California, however, is allowed to request a waiver from the EPA to create its own, stricter rules, since the state was already regulating vehicle pollution prior to the law’s passage. Once EPA approves one of California’s waivers, other states can subsequently adopt the stricter rules without requesting the same federal dispensation.
At first California’s air quality regulations were focused on more traditional health-harming pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter. But in 2005, California created the world’s first greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars, beginning with model year 2009, and requested a waiver from the EPA to enforce them.
At the time the EPA did not have any national standards for greenhouse gas emissions, but a seminal court case would soon force it to create them. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts vs. EPA that greenhouse gases are pollutants, as defined by the Clean Air Act, and that the agency has a duty to regulate them if it finds that they endanger public health or welfare. In 2009, the EPA under President Obama issued its “endangerment finding,” determining under a mountain of evidence that yes, greenhouse gases threaten public health, and prompting the development of the first federal climate standards for vehicles.
Now the Trump administration is trying to reverse that finding and put an end to federal climate regulations for vehicles once and for all.
At the same time, Trump has approved a move by Congress to rescind California’s latest waivers — although the move was legally dubious and the state is challenging it in court. Congress revoked the waivers under the Congressional Review Act, a law that allows the legislative branch to undo recently-finalized agency rules with a simple majority, despite previous rulings from the Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian that the waivers are not “rules” as defined by the Congressional Review Act.
But if the EPA says the Clean Air Act does not require the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, does California even need those waivers?
“If I were the state of California and the endangerment finding gets rescinded, I would argue that there are no federal standards,” Ann Carlson, a professor of environmental law at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a former Biden administration official, told me. “There is, in the view of EPA, no need to regulate, and therefore states shouldn’t be preempted. I don’t know if that’s a winner, but I think it’s worth a try.”
Eliminating the endangerment finding would give states a solid argument for being able to regulate greenhouse emissions themselves, Carlson told me. But what would make the argument a “slam dunk,” she said, was if the Supreme Court ultimately overturned Massachusetts vs. EPA, and ruled that greenhouse gases are not air pollutants under the Clean Air Act after all.
The road to that outcome would be long and could veer in a different direction if Democrats retake the White House in 2028. First, the EPA has to put out its proposal for public comments and issue a final decision. That process alone could take a year. Then states or environmental groups would challenge the decision in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which would likely take another year to reach a ruling, putting us into mid-2027 or so.
While we won’t know what EPA’s exact argument will be until it issues the final decision, the justifications it has put forward so far are weak, according to experts. The agency’s main claim in the proposal is that it can only regulate pollutants that endanger health through local or regional exposures — the global problem of climate change doesn’t count. “This is hard to square with the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts vs. EPA,” Harvard Law School’s Jody Freeman told me, “but EPA claims that doesn’t settle it.”
Carlson said she thinks there’s a pretty good chance the D.C. court would strike down the EPA’s attempt to reverse the endangerment finding. But the Trump administration would presumably appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court, which would present an opportunity for the conservative majority to overturn Massachusetts vs. EPA. Chief Justice Roberts, along with Justices Alito and Thomas, dissented in the original 2007 decision, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was confirmed in 2018, “has made clear his disdain for using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gasses,” Carlson said.
There are a lot of open questions about what would happen next. If the case is still ongoing by 2029, the next administration could decide to withdraw it, or simply to reinstate the endangerment finding.
Another wrinkle: The Inflation Reduction Act amended the Clean Air Act to explicitly define greenhouse gases as pollutants under new sections of the law. That could make it harder for the Supreme Court to overturn Massachusetts vs. EPA, although the court has previously held that different sections of the law may define “air pollutant” differently.
Finally, even if the case goes all the way to the point of reversing Massachusetts vs. EPA, there would probably still need to be additional litigation to clarify what states can do, Atid Kimelman, a clean vehicles attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told me.
He noted that the federal government might argue that regardless of the fact that the EPA isn’t regulating greenhouse gases, states are still preempted, as the whole point of the preemption in the Clean Air Act is to make sure that the country doesn’t have 50 different standards for motor vehicles. Another hurdle might be that the federal Energy Policy Conservation Act, which authorizes the Department of Transportation to set fuel economy standards, also preempts states from adopting their own vehicle regulations.
“This is somewhat novel territory that hasn’t really played out in courts,” he said. “These are arguments that have to be tested.”