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:

There are two titanic forces in the clean energy market, and whichever one is stronger will determine the path of the post-One Big Beautiful Bill Act industry.
First there’s federal policy, which, thanks to OBBBA and the Trump administration’s war on renewable permitting, is making things more difficult for developers. Then there’s the technology: Soaring electricity demand from data centers, providing the business case for everything from co-located batteries and solar to small modular nuclear reactors.
“2025 is the storm at night, and there were all these cross-cutting winds that hit the boat. The ones that came from the front are the tariffs and the tax changes and wind cancellations or pauses,” Alfred Johnson, cofounder and chief executive of the clean energy finance platform Crux, told me. “Then the tailwinds at the back were interest rates, the continuation of many [other tax credits] in the OBBBA — including storage credits, nuclear credits, manufacturing credits — and substantial demand coming for the electricity and the components. And when the storm cleared in the morning, the boat is further ahead in the water than you would have anticipated.”
That’s the bifurcated story Crux — a marketplace for tax equity, tax credits, and debt financing — is telling in its 2025 market intelligence report, released Tuesday. There were splits in when investment happened and in which sectors were favored. There were better and worse times for investment. And there were countervailing forces pushing on the clean energy market.
Here’s how Crux views the clean energy financing market as it enters an uncertain time.
Crux found a split in activity between the first and second halves of last year across a number of markets. A lot of that could be chalked up to investors trying to front-run a partial or full repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act, which became all but inevitable following the 2024 election.
Overall there was $120 billion worth of lending to “clean power, fuels, and manufacturing projects” in 2025. That’s more than in 2024, but still a “materially lower growth rate” — 5.8% year over year, compared to 22% in 2024.
“Investment activity was front-loaded during the first half of 2025,” the report found, peaking in the first three months of the year and then declining through “the second and third quarters “as some investors waited to see how debate over the OBBB would resolve itself.” There was capital to be raised throughout 2025, but it “became increasingly selective over the course of the year,” Crux found.
Some $63 billion of tax credits changed hands — but again, there was a slowdown in the second half of the year due to uncertainty around how the OBBBA affected the market. Similarly, pricing for tax credits softened in the second half of the year, and deals got smaller.
Solar and storage “continued to represent a dominant share of current-year spot tax credit activity in 2025,” the Crux report says, making up just over half of the tax credit market. While solar on its own made up just over a third of the market, “storage-linked categories expanded most rapidly on a percentage basis, led by standalone storage, followed by solar and storage,” the team found.
Citing data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration showing that utility-scale storage deployment grew 72% over the course of 2025, from 11 gigawatts to 19 gigawatts, Johnson told me that storage is “categorically booming.”
“Storage was a major outlier and source of growth,” he said. “We continue as a country to provide a lot of support on top of a lot of demand for batteries, and that, in our view, is going to lead to a lot of continued deployment in the battery sector.”
But what about EVs? The large batteries in electric cars are a major source of demand that help catalyze the battery supply chain from the lithium and cobalt to the battery cells and packs. While the EV market may be getting hammered by inconsistent policy, battery manufacturing is still going strong, Johnson said, thanks to the demand for energy storage.
“There was a lot of pearl-clutching about what would happen to the battery supply chain with less policy support and EVs being less in favor,” he told me. “What you have seen is some number of those battery manufacturers have rotated their delivery and their product into grid-connected battery storage because that market has so much demand in it. So you’re still seeing a lot of that demand flow through into the need for capacity.”
Crux found that nearly a quarter of the Fortune 1000 companies are participating in the tax credit market. Their rising participation “drove the aggregate growth in the market and supported pricing despite rising market uncertainty following passage of the OBBB,” the report found.
When the market was just tax equity deals, in which investors partner directly with developers on a project in exchange for the value of the tax credits, it had only “a few dozen participants,” Johnson said. By 2023, a year after the Inflation Reduction Act allowed for those credits to be traded on third-party platform, it had around 50, he told me. Now that number is closer to 250.
“It’s becoming a more common part of the tax planning and cash management strategies that large companies are deploying,” Johnson said, pointing to data showing that tax credit buyers had effective tax rates three percentage points lower than non-buyers.
The Internal Revenue Service rolled out final rules for a new set of production and investment tax credits — the so-called tech neutral tax credits that applied to “any clean energy facility that achieves net-zero greenhouse gas emissions,” not just specific technologies chosen by Congress — in early 2025, just before the Biden administration left office.
Since then, these credits “have entered a choppy market,” the Crux report says.
“Crux’s survey of tax equity sponsors shows that most have limited investment in projects claiming the tech-neutral … credits,” which it attributed to concerns around stringent source requirements companies related to so-called foreign entities of concern must meet to claim these newer credits compared to the legacy investment and production tax credits.
Crux found modest but still measurable discounts for the tech-neutral tax credits compared to their predecessors of about 1 to 2 cents on the dollar for newer projects. (Projects that started construction before the end of 2024 were still eligible for the legacy credits.)
When talking to tax equity investors, Crux found that just 10%“reported actively pursuing tech-neutral tax credits,” while 90% said they would “only look at these credits under certain circumstances.”
“It’s mostly a comfort thing,” Johnson said. That may yet abate — he pointed out that “you saw preference in the early market for wind and solar credits versus advanced manufacturing and fuels and nuclear,” as new credits were developed, but eventually the market became more comfortable with funding new technologies and working with new credits, Johnson said.
“The new guidance that came out from the department on FEOC answers some of those questions,” Johnson said. “We think that that will drive some amount of additional market volume.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
One of the largest companies in the world says its products pose catastrophic peril. Sound familiar?
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.
Imagine, for a moment, a vast and growing firm — a conglomerate that could be said to define its era of American capitalism. Over the past several years, this firm’s products have become the biggest story in the U.S. economy. Its products are so mindbogglingly expensive to produce that they have driven new types of financial and infrastructural innovation, yet nevertheless the company seems to be quite profitable.
And little wonder: Everyone wants what they have. Investors, policymakers, and economists believe that America’s ongoing economic growth and competitiveness depend on ample access to this company’s products. The sitting Republican president has staked his administration on making sure Americans can get as much of it as they want — regulations be damned.
But there is a problem. One of the company’s researchers has become convinced that the company’s products are dangerous — so harmful, in fact, that their continued use and growth trajectory portends catastrophic risk for humanity. He attempts to alert the company’s executives to this fact. What happens next?
Perhaps you know the story. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Exxon’s internal scientists concluded that the ongoing growth of fossil fuels would raise global temperatures and have “potentially catastrophic” effects on the planet’s climate. They presented these results to Exxon’s executives. A senior scientist warned that humanity had a brief window — “five to 10 years” — before “the need for hard choices regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”
Exxon led a large research effort into climate change, affirming its scientific validity. But then in the late 1980s, its CEO decided to go in the other direction. Its executives chose not to warn the public about climate change — and instead began a successful disinformation campaign meant to convince the public that climate change was not settled science.
But what if things had gone differently? We’re getting a taste of that pathway now. Last week, Sam Coxon, a researcher at the artificial intelligence company Anthropic, resigned because he feared the AI industry was too close to building an “out of control” intelligence. He quit his job just a few months before his corporate equity would have vested, giving up what would have likely been life-changing wealth to warn about what he believes to be existential risks. Humanity only had a brief period of time — perhaps a year — to steer the technology to a better path, he said.
Anthropic researchers who remain at the company affirmed his analysis. “We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans,” a senior scientist at the company posted on the social network X.
But this time, Anthropic’s CEO, Dario Amodei, did not respond as Exxon’s leadership did three decades ago. Instead, Amodei basically agreed with Coxon: He asked for the government to regulate artificial intelligence and “pace the frontier,” meaning that it should enforce a slower rate of cutting-edge artificial intelligence development.
I’ve thought of these two examples over the past few days as I’ve tried to make sense of the surge in public concern about AI and existential risk.
It seems to me that climate change is looming over the AI conversation and shaping the assumptions, outlook, and behavior of many key players and observers. President Trump, of course, is reading from the old playbook and has deemed AI to be a “hoax”; Coxon, appearing on Fox News, has downplayed climate change’s existential risk as compared to runaway AI. Yet even beyond those reruns and revisions, the analogy goes deeper: Just as nuclear non-proliferation agreements structured early attempts to regulate global greenhouse emissions, climate policy is now shaping how people understand AI risk.
And not for lack of cause. In some important ways, the problems — or alleged problems, depending on your perspective on AI — resemble each other. For instance, because technology exists in a global commons, any successful AI diplomacy must involve the United States and China. And since China’s AI development currently lags the United States, American politicians must persuade China that their proposals to regulate AI are not just concealed attempts to restrain China’s development.
This dynamic has long bedeviled climate negotiations, too. Since economic growth has (until very recently) required fossil fuels, China and other middle-income countries have long feared that any global climate treaty would constrain their future economic development. The Kyoto Protocol tried to finesse this problem by splitting countries into two groups, rich and not-rich; the Paris Agreement did it by imposing no collective restrictions on fossil fuel consumption at all.
Neither approach has worked, exactly, but each offer examples, counterexamples, and tools for thought. Perhaps the Montreal Protocol, which has successfully limited global production of the pollutants destroying stratospheric ozone — and has shown how to stop the growth of a dangerous but hard-to-manufacture technology that presents near-term existential risk — is a superior model.
There is at least one big way the two risks differ. Climate change is a chemical problem that arises from the size and scale of global fossil fuel consumption. Scientists have known that the greenhouse effect is real since the early 20th century. Climate change’s physics are rudimentary enough that Exxon’s in-house scientists could predict the path of future warming with some accuracy. It is a verifiable risk.
AI’s alleged existential risks, on the other hand, emerge from a lab pushing the technological frontier too far and drilling, like Tolkien’s dwarves, too deep. AI concern relies not on empirical observations, but on a story about exponential change and runaway growth. In this way, it’s a harder risk to predict, and a harder one to accept.
Climate advocates have long wondered what would have happened if Exxon’s leaders had embraced reality and warned the public in the 1980s that global warming is real and caused by fossil fuels. Inside Climate News once called it a “road not taken.” I can’t help but wonder if we’re watching it.
The Federal Reserve raised the federal funds rate by a quarter point, the central bank announced Wednesday afternoon, its first rate change since Chairman Kevin Warsh took his seat in May and its first rate hike in over three years.
The federal funds rate will now sit between 3.75% and 4%. According to projections by regional Federal Reserve presidents and members of the Board of Governors, the central bank expects to hike rates one more time this year.
In its now characteristically brief statements, the Federal Open Market Committee said that the hike “will support a timelier return to the Committee's 2 percent goal” for inflation. Inflation is currently running at 3.4% and has been above the Fed’s 2% target since 2021.
The FOMC’s (brief) statement explaining the hike pointed to “resilient” domestic spending and “robust” capital investment. It characterized the economy as “expanding at a solid pace,” albeit with “elevated” uncertainty due to “geopolitical developments.”
This combination of factors — high oil prices due to the partial shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz and high investment in data centers — have helped push up yields on Treasury bonds, which helped maneuver the Federal Reserve into its rate hike. These rising Treasury yields have made raising capital more difficult for sectors besides artificial intelligence, very much including the capital-intensive renewable and clean energy industries.
Warsh attributed higher Treasury yields to “economic strength, competition for capital, and geopolitics,” in his press conference following the rate announcement. The yield on the 10-year treasury bond, often used as a benchmark for the cost of money throughout the economy, rose to over 5% on the news, the highest level since 2007.
Current conditions: The fast-moving Palos Fire blazed through 17 acres in Los Angeles’ La Habra Heights, injuring two • Heavy rain in São Paulo collapsed a dilapidated building, killing six • The heat index in the Mississippi Valley is topping 110 degrees Fahrenheit.
Two weeks after accusing data center opponents of wanting “to end up being backwards and poor,” President Donald Trump has landed on a new defense of the artificial intelligence buildout. It’s a lot like his old one for abdicating on the federal government’s responsibility to deal with climate-changing emissions. Essentially, it boils down to: My critics are making it all up. “It’s a hoax,” Trump told Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang during the five-minute call the executive put on speaker on stage at a conference Monday in Los Angeles. “The robots are not going to be taking over the world. That’s not going to happen.” He later posted on his Truth Social platform: “The AI Hoax being perpetrated by the Radical Left Dumocrats is reminiscent of their Global Warming Scam of not so long ago, where everyone was going to die from extreme heat. What happened? MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!” Three-quarters of Americans are now opposed to data centers in their backyards, according to Heatmap Pro’s poll from last month. But Trump has recently bucked with some populist positions on technology that have cross-partisan appeal. While law-and-order Republicans in red states are now turning against the Flock cameras that watch for petty crime, Trump defended the technology in a recent Air Force One chat with reporters. “Trump deserves more respect for his anti-slopulist instincts,” Peter Meijer, a former Republican member of Congress who voted to impeach Trump during his previous administration, wrote in a post on X.
Nvidia’s emissions, meanwhile, appear to be soaring. A new Greenpeace analysis of Nvidia’s own climate reports by the pro-renewables analyst Ketan Joshi found that emissions relating to the supply chain for chip manufacturing soared by 725% since 2020, adding nearly 10 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

You wouldn’t believe some of the conditions I have heard placed on owners of hydroelectric dams seeking to relicense major clean power projects. There are obvious demands from regulators for things like new infrastructure to help migrating fish pass down a river. Then there are the less obvious, such as building an amphitheater for Boy Scouts or paving new roads far from a dam or its water source. In what the trade group called a first-of-its-kind analysis, the National Hydropower Association reviewed more than 5,000 mandatory conditions across 4,819 licensing documents filed between 1980 and 2026 in 46 states. Dam owners would need to agree to the legally binding requirements, imposed by either state or federal agencies, before a final operating license could be issued. Compared to earlier licenses, hydropower plants today “carry roughly 10 times as many mandatory conditions,” the trade association wrote in its report. “To make matters worse, many conditions are unrelated to energy production and are essentially ‘wish list’ items that hydropower producers are asked to fund, ranging from road construction unrelated to the projects to building fish passage far beyond where the fish actually are (or even could be),” the organization said. Over the next decade, 348 hydropower permits representing 12 gigawatts of capacity are due for relicensing. Many of those facilities are small, and the trend recently has been for companies to simply surrender their licenses and close up shop rather than make costly renovations.
“I urge anyone who cares about reliable, affordable power to read this groundbreaking study,” Malcolm Woolf, NHA’s top executive, said in a statement. “Hydropower, a superhero of the grid and an American icon of energy production, is at great risk due to a broken regulatory framework. Relicensing an existing hydropower facility often takes decades and costs millions of dollars. If these facilities go away, so does the affordable power they produce, the good jobs they create, and the critical infrastructure and ecosystem care they provide.”
Back in May, I told you that South Korea — arguably the most competent builder of atomic power reactors in the democratic world — was “coming to America’s nuclear rescue.” Last week, we discussed the possibility of Seoul’s state-owned nuclear company building reactors in the U.S. as part of a trade pact with the Trump administration. Now we have a clearer picture of where those negotiations may be going. On Tuesday, The Korea Economic Daily reported that South Korea is seeking a roughly 15% stake in Westinghouse, the maker of America’s flagship nuclear reactor, and a seat on its board as part of any deal with Washington. The move, the newspaper noted, is designed to “turn a U.S. request for Korean capital into a strategic foothold in America’s nuclear buildouts.” Ownership by one of America’s closest East Asian allies would be nothing new for Westinghouse, which was owned in the mid 2000s by the Japanese industrial giant Toshiba. Today Westinghouse is a privately held joint venture between the publicly traded investment behemoth Brookfield Asset Management and the Canadian uranium miner Cameco, but the company filed confidential paperwork to the Securities and Exchange Commission in July as a first step toward going public on the stock market.
The market only appears to be expanding. Global nuclear capacity could more than triple by 2060, according to this week’s latest forecast from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations affiliate that oversees nuclear technologies worldwide.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Spend a few minutes scrolling through a comedy fan’s TikTok stream and you’ll find skits playing to the same memetic trope, an anthropomorphized caricature of an incompetent, mistake-prone AI agent guzzling and spilling lots of water. It’s no wonder the joke has already become hack. More than three-quarters of Americans are at least somewhat concerned about the environmental impact of AI, and half are extremely or very concerned, according to data from the latest annual poll from the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute and the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. In every case, self-identified Democrats are more concerned about environmental issues than Republicans. While 40% of Democrats expressed concern over the environmental impacts of cryptocurrency, just 18% of Republicans said the same. With meat, the ration is 42% to 21%. With air travel, it's Democrats at 38% and Republicans at 17%. But interests converge slightly more on data centers, with 65% of Democrats and 42% Republicans extremely or very concerned about the environmental impacts of AI.
In theory, the late 20th century liberalization of America’s electricity markets should have put a premium on transmission companies building new arteries in the system. In practice, the high cost and grave risk of taking on dozens, sometimes droves, of landowners for right of way to build a power line that stretches hundreds of miles across multiple regional grids makes the task almost impossible, particularly in markets where a power company can’t offset the cost of new lines with other sources of revenue such as generation or power sales. A new report by the Center for Public Enterprise has concluded that “only the federal government can intervene to sew together this national macrogrid by bridging the jurisdictional divides between utilities and regions, instituting planning pipelines with access to finance and cost recovery, and fixing interconnection procedures.” As of yet, that looks unlikely beyond the increased focus on regional planning under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Order 1920. The rule is facing legal challenges that aren’t expected to be resolved until next year, according to Ari Peskoe, director of Harvard Law School’s Electricity Law Initiative.
When I visited Commonwealth Fusion Systems’ headquarters in Massachusetts earlier this summer, I saw how much progress the company had made toward building what could be the world’s first power-producing fusion reactor, called SPARC. To work, the interior of the torus-shaped, doughnut-like reactor needs to be very cold so magnets can pick up on the contrast in temperatures with the extremely hot plasma fusing together. That’s where the cryogenics come in. The facility’s cryogenics equipment is now up and running, the company said on Wednesday, marking yet another milestone toward next year’s anticipated start up. “That temperature, a few degrees above absolute zero, is what’ll enable our magnets to bottle up a superhot cloud of charged particles called a plasma so fusion can occur,” Adam Weiner, the director of cryogenics at Commonwealth Fusion Systems, said in a statement.