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:
Two years in, union leaders say Biden’s big climate law is making a difference.
The Inflation Reduction Act is by far the most important climate law ever passed in the U.S. But it also may go down as one of the most important labor laws of recent history. Overnight, jobs installing solar farms that were largely performed by an itinerant, low-wage workforce had the potential to become higher-paid positions occupied by skilled tradespeople — maybe even union jobs.
That’s because in order to qualify for a 30% tax credit on their investment or operating costs, clean energy developers now have to follow two key labor standards. They have to pay construction workers the federally determined prevailing wage for their region, plus hire a designated number of apprentices, who are provided with paid classroom instruction in addition to on-the-job-training.
“I don’t think people have a sense of the scale and the scope of what this law has done and is going to do,” Rick Levy, the president of the Texas AFL-CIO, told me. “From our perspective, putting community well-being and labor standards in the very fabric of this industrial expansion is going to pay dividends for generations.”
On the eve of the IRA’s two-year anniversary, a new report provided exclusively to Heatmap has identified 6,285 utility-scale clean energy projects planned, under construction, or already operating, that are likely candidates for these tax credits. Together, they represent an estimated 3.9 million jobs, according to the Climate Jobs National Resource Center, a nonprofit that supports unions fighting for worker-centered climate action, which compiled the data.
There’s no way to know, at least right now, how many of the projects still in progress will actually get built, or how many have or will adhere to labor standards. Safe harbor provisions in the law also allow developers to claim the full tax credit without adhering to the rules as long as they started construction by the end of January 2023, so the full effect of the provisions will take some time to be realized.
But the report reveals the vast potential for the law to create higher-quality jobs in clean energy all over the country. Based on my reporting, that potential is starting to materialize. Union leaders told me they’re now having conversations with developers who never returned their calls before. And renewable energy developers and tax credit consultants told me it was a no-brainer to meet the labor standards, even though they create substantial administrative burdens. Otherwise, they’ll only be eligible for a 6% credit, leaving a huge amount of money on the table.
Mike Fishman, the executive director of the Climate Jobs National Resource Center, told me that when he first started advocating for high-road climate jobs, he found that many trades workers were afraid of clean energy. “If they had a good job in the fossil fuel industry, then saying, we’re going to reach these goals and shut down all the fossil fuel plants, that was very scary to people.” But since the IRA passed, he’s seen a change in workers’ attitudes about supporting climate action. “It creates a sense that there’s a future for everyone — an economic future, as well as a climate future,” Fishman said.
The IRA’s potential to spur well-paid jobs and training opportunities is actually even larger than the Resource Center’s estimate indicates. The report only covers clean energy generation projects like wind and solar farms, but the law also tied labor standards to tax credits for the construction of clean energy manufacturing plants, EV chargers, carbon capture projects, hydrogen plants, clean fuel factories, and new, energy-efficient buildings.
The standards are likely to affect each of these industries in different ways, but it’s instructive to look at what’s already happening in renewable energy development. To do so, you first have to understand that developers sit near the top of a ladder of companies involved in bringing an energy project into the world. Above them sits investors; below, a series of contractors and subcontractors who manage the project on the ground and hire the workers who ultimately build it.
Before the IRA, everyone along this ladder had an incentive to keep costs as low as possible. At the top, developers are competing for power contracts with utilities. Contractors would try to win bids by quoting the lowest construction costs. Staffing agencies would source temporary workers from all over the country and negotiate wages and benefits on a case by case basis. An investigation into solar work by Vicefound that it was “common to have two workers doing the same job for vastly different pay and living stipends.” Some would travel to a new place for a gig and “pile into motel rooms with other workers on the same projects in order to save money.”
The IRA disrupts that incentive structure, creating a new regime whereby the top priority is getting that 30% tax credit. The law also extended the ladder, creating new rungs of accountability thanks to new tax credit transferability rules that allow developers to sell their tax credits to third parties. That means there are a host of other companies looming over developers’ shoulders with a stake in making sure they don’t cheat the rules. Tax credit buyers don’t want to end up in a situation where the IRS audits the developer who sold them the credits, finds that there weren’t enough apprentices on the project, and claws back the money. The risk is serious enough that buyers also purchase insurance for these transactions, adding another layer of oversight.
“The lawyers are scaring everyone about this,” Derek Silverman, the co-founder and chief product officer of Basis Climate, a startup that matches tax credit buyers and sellers, told me. For example, the law contains a loophole for companies to claim the credit without hiring the required number of apprentices as long as they show they made a “good faith effort.” Treasury defines that as having reached out to at least one registered apprenticeship program in the area every year the project is operating. Silverman said he’s seen lawyers challenge companies that are trying to get around the requirement, asking them who they reached out to and berating them if it wasn’t a legitimate effort.
“They’re saying, you have a huge part of your capital stack that’s based off this tax credit,” said Silverman. “It’s not worth the downside of the government questioning through an audit that you didn’t meet these requirements, and then, boom, you owe them $20 million when it would have cost you $100,000 to do the documentation and get that all square.”
The upside is valuable enough that it’s generated a whole new cottage industry in tax credit compliance. Empact Technologies, for example, is a software company that collects and evaluates payroll data from contractors to make sure they are paying the correct wages and have the right number of apprentices. “Then we have to go back and essentially fix all of the mistakes that they made every single week” — like classifying workers incorrectly and paying them the wrong amount, or falling behind on apprenticeship hours — “which every single contractor does. It’s insane,” Charles Dauber, Empact’s founder, told me.
All of this has added much complexity — and cost — to renewable energy development. David Yaros, who co-leads Deloitte’s US Tax Sustainability Practice, told me that the cost of compliance, including hiring companies like Empact and Deloitte to compile all the documentation, could eat into 5% to 20% of the tax benefits.
“This has raised our costs,” Rodrigo Inurreta Acero, a government affairs manager at the international developer EDP Renewables, confirmed, referring specifically to the added cost of consultants rather than the mostly negligible cost of paying prevailing wages. “But, we are very, very happy to comply with this, because the juice is worth the squeeze.”
There’s clear incentives for developers to do everything in their power to meet the labor standards. The key question is whether these two little provisions — prevailing wage and apprenticeships — are strong enough to “build a strong pipeline of highly-skilled workers” and “ensure clean energy jobs are good-paying jobs,” as the Biden administration has said.
The need is definitely there. A census of U.S. solar jobs in 2022 found that 52% of solar installation and project development companies found it “very difficult” to find qualified workers, with electricians and construction workers being among the most difficult positions to fill.
But even if armies of lawyers are scaring companies into making serious efforts to hire apprentices, that doesn’t mean they are actually finding them. “It’s not clear at this stage whether apprenticeship programs are scaling up fast enough to match labor supply to project demand,” Derrick Flakoll, a policy associate at BloombergNEF told me. He pointed to an announcement made by the White House just last month of $244 million in grants to expand the Registered Apprenticeship system throughout the country. “I’d be skeptical that apprenticeship programs have been able to scale up yet,” said Flakoll.
There’s a catch with the wage requirement, too: “Prevailing wage” doesn’t necessarily mean a living wage, and it can vary dramatically from place to place. The rate is determined by surveys sent out to contractors and labor organizations, and is typically higher in jurisdictions with active labor unions. For example, in Falls County, Texas, where the 640 megawatt Roseland Solar project is under construction, prevailing wage for a general laborer is $8.75 an hour. In Sangamon County, Illinois, where the 800 megawatt Black Diamond Solar project is being built, prevailing wage for a laborer is $34.04 an hour plus benefits worth $29.26 an hour.
Nico Ries, the lead organizer for the Green Workers Alliance, which organizes solar and wind workers, told me solar wages seem to have only increased in places with higher union density. That’s because unions are now on a more even playing-field to compete for jobs in those areas, since their typical rates have become the de facto minimum.
To be clear, the prevailing wage and apprenticeship provisions do not require developers to hire union workers to build their projects. And there are plenty of non-union, registered apprenticeships. Ries told me that the temp staffing agencies that have served the solar industry in the past are quickly standing up apprenticeship programs to stay on top of the market under the IRA. The main problem with that, they said, is that unlike union apprentices, these workers have no representation.
“There’s a lot of misinformation,” Ries said. “People think they are joining an apprenticeship and it’s going to be a whole thing, but it’s really just a little training or two, and then they slap a sticker on your hard hat.”
Nonetheless, unions are starting to make inroads in solar in places that have long been hostile to organized labor. Ethan Link, the assistant business manager for the Southeast Laborers’ District Council, which has members in right-to-work states throughout the south, told me that before and after the IRA was like “night and day.” For the first time, solar developers are calling the union directly to talk about projects on the horizon and to figure out how to work with them. As a result, the union is investing in more solar-specific training for its apprenticeship instructors.
“The Inflation Reduction Act is one of the most consequential and, I think, also most innovative ways of inducing the market to have broad based benefits for the community,” Link said. “The way I’ve experienced it, it’s changed the landscape on the ground with these developers within a matter of months, rather than a matter of years.” He said they don’t yet have a lot of workers actually assigned to projects, but “we’re really optimistic about where things sit right now.”
Kent Miller, president of the Wisconsin Laborers’ District Council, told me his union has been able to double its apprenticeship program from around 300 to 400 students a few years ago to closer to 700 to 800 post-IRA. It’s now looking to build another training campus to expand its capacity. Not all of that growth is thanks to renewable energy, he said, but the union now has a significant portion of its membership that just works in utility-scale solar.
Earlier this year, Wisconsin’s four biggest electric utilities pledged to employ local, union labor on all future renewable energy projects. Miller doesn’t think this would have happened without the incentives in the IRA. Though every wind farm in Wisconsin has been built by union labor, the more nascent solar industry was starting to bring in non-union workers from out of state to build projects. The IRA incentives gave Miller’s union leverage in negotiations with the utilities, because future projects were going to need to be able to find registered apprentices. “Unions run the best registered apprenticeship programs,” he said. “It was showing what we could do, what we could bring to the table.”
There is one more small but potentially powerful incentive for developers to work with unions. The Internal Revenue Service has said that if companies sign a project labor agreement — an agreement with one or more unions, made prior to hiring, that establishes wages and benefits — then they are less likely to be audited, and won’t have to pay penalties if they are found to be non-compliant.
To Levy, of the AFL-CIO in Texas, and others in the labor movement, getting workers to support clean energy is essential to tackling climate change. “Unless workers see themselves and their interests reflected in these new energy technologies, there’s never going to be the kind of political support that we need to be able to do the things we need to do to save the planet,” Levy said. The first step to achieve that, he said, is making sure these jobs are “good union jobs.”
The Climate Jobs National Resource Center connected me with Kim Tobias, a union electrician in Maine, as an example of how union jobs can change lives. Tobias used to work in call centers, providing customer service for healthcare software companies, before leaving to join the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. She was making $16 an hour in her last call center job after more than 10 years in the field, and was fed up after getting passed over for a promotion. When she started as an electrical apprentice in 2019, she essentially doubled her salary overnight once benefits were taken into account.
Today, in part because of the IRA, but also because of a state law that requires developers to pay prevailing wage on all large renewable projects in Maine, Tobias mainly works on solar projects. The work isn’t always ideal — she told me she once had to commute 75 miles away for a solar job — while she was pregnant, no less. “Then again, a year and a half later, I worked a solar job that was 0.9 miles away from my house. So it’s give and take,” she said.
But Tobias also said she sees potential to create high-quality clean energy jobs beyond solar in Maine, where, she lamented, “people under the age of 30 are leaving in droves.” She noted that an old paper mill in Lincoln, Maine, is being turned into an energy storage site, and the developer has already said it would establish a collective bargaining agreement with the Maine Building and Construction Trades. Illustrating Levy’s point about political support, the union is also now advocating for the construction of a new port to support the offshore wind industry, which would have to be built with union labor under a recent state law.
Even if the IRA’s labor provisions are starting to work, which it seems they are, they contain one significant weakness. The rules only apply to the construction of projects — not to their operations. It’s an improvement to have labor standards for construction jobs. But once they are built, wind and solar farms don't take many people to operate. The federally subsidized clean energy manufacturing plants springing up around the country due to the IRA will create a lot more jobs, but, at least right now, those jobs don’t have to be “good.”
“I think that people need to understand the opportunity here,” said Levy, and make sure that we continue to build on it and not turn back.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to clarify the “good faith effort” exception to the apprenticeship provision and that both provisions apply only to construction.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The administration can’t have it both ways on the Clean Air Act.
The Trump administration filed lawsuits this week against four states that are pursuing compensation from oil and gas companies for climate change-related damages. But Trump’s separate aim to revoke the government’s “endangerment finding,” the conclusion that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and should therefore be regulated under the Clean Air Act, could directly undercut the legal basis for the suits.
In each of the cases, the Trump administration is arguing that the Clean Air Act preempts the states’ actions. But if the Environmental Protection Agency rules that the Clean Air Act does not, in fact, require the federal regulation of greenhouse gases, that argument could fall apart.
Two of the lawsuits target Vermont and New York for their new “climate superfund” laws that require the companies responsible for the greatest amount of emissions over the last three decades to pay into a fund supporting adaptation and disaster response. The Department of Justice is also suing Hawaii and Michigan to block them from suing fossil fuel companies for damages for climate change-related harms. Neither state had actually filed such a lawsuit yet, although both had expressed interest in doing so. (Hawaii went ahead and filed its suit on Thursday night.)
“I just want to start by saying that these lawsuits by the government are totally unprecedented,” Rachel Rothschild, an assistant professor of Law at Michigan State University, told me when we hopped on the phone. To her knowledge, never before has the federal government tried to preemptively stop a state from filing a liability case against companies.
In an executive order in early April, Trump had directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to “stop the enforcement” of state climate laws and actions that “may be unconstitutional” or “preempted by federal law.” The order singled out lawsuits against oil companies as well as climate superfund laws, calling both a form of “extortion” and a “threat to economic and national security.”
Nevermind that climate change is a major threat to economic and national security, and states have filed these lawsuits and created these laws because they are scrambling to find ways to pay to address the unprecedented damages brought by the increasing severity of wildfires and floods.
Even before Trump took office, Rothschild said, the federal government had warned states that they were going to need to take more responsibility for preparing for and responding to increasing natural disasters. “[States] do not have the resources alone to address this problem,” said Rothschild. “These companies have engaged in an activity that causes external harms that they’ve not taken into account as part of their business practices, they’'re imposing all the costs of those harms on states and citizens, and they should be liable to help us deal with the resulting problems. That’s a very normal activity for tort suits.”
Dozens of states have filed similar lawsuits seeking damages from oil companies. (A Justice Department press release did not say why it was singling out states that had not taken any legal action yet rather than targeting those that had.) Many of these lawsuits have been stuck in a holding pattern for years, though. “Climate superfund” laws are a new legal strategy, modeled on the federal superfund program, that some states are testing to get oil companies to pay up.
The DOJ’s lawsuits claim that states cannot fine oil companies for their emissions because that authority lies with the federal government under the Clean Air Act. That argument is underpinned by the Environmental Protection Agency’s endangerment finding, which stems from a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases are a pollutant as defined by the Clean Air Act, and therefore the EPA must determine whether these emissions pose a threat to public health. The court said that if the agency finds there is enough scientific evidence to say greenhouse gases are harmful, it must develop regulations to rein them in. EPA officially made this finding in 2009.
This was a big headache for Trump during his first term. He wasn’t allowed to simply repeal Barack Obama’s greenhouse gas rules — by law, he had to replace them. If he’s able to reverse the endangerment finding, however, he could undo climate protection rules and that would be that.
At the same time, he’d make oil companies much more vulnerable. “There is great concern that reversing the finding would open the door to a lot more nuisance lawsuits against all types of energy companies,” Jeff Holmstead, a partner with Bracewell, a lobbying firm, told E&E News. “It would eliminate one of the best arguments that oil companies have used to get lawsuits against them dismissed,” he added.
EPA administrator Lee Zeldin will face an uphill battle in reversing the finding, as there is a mountain of scientific evidence that greenhouse gases cause dangerous climate change. But Zeldin may instead try to argue that the EPA did not consider the cost of addressing these emissions when it made the initial finding — and that the costs of reining them in outweigh the costs of emitting freely.
Legal experts are skeptical this argument will go anywhere, either. In 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court found that the EPA’s endangerment finding should be based on science, not economics. Cost-benefit analyses and other policy considerations are relevant if the EPA finds that greenhouse gases do, in fact, pose a threat, but they “do not inform the ‘scientific judgment’” that the law requires the EPA to make, the judge ruled. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s decision last year to overturn “Chevron deference,” a decades-long precedent that gave agencies broad authority to interpret their statutory mandates, could also hurt Zeldin’s case.
Rothschild, for her part, is confident that states’ superfund laws and tort suits are defensible regardless of what happens to the endangerment finding. These actions have nothing to do with the Clean Air Act, she argued, because they are not an attempt to regulate emissions. “They're trying to impose liability for local, environmental, and public health harms from past activities,” she said.
One thing is for certain: Between states’ lawsuits suing oil companies, oil companies’ countersuits, the DOJ’s new lawsuits against states, and probably future suits against any actions the Trump administration takes on endangerment, there’s going to be a whole lot of new case law about greenhouse gases over the next four years.
The fundamentals are the same — it’s the tone that’s changed.
At some point in the past month, the hydrogen fuel cell developer Plug Power updated its website. Beneath a carousel explaining the hydrogen ecosystem and solutions for transporting fuel, the company’s home page now contains a section titled “Hydrogen at Work.”
“Hydrogen is key to energy independence, providing clean, reliable power while reducing reliance on imported fuels,” the text in this new box reads. “Plug’s hydrogen and fuel cell solutions strengthen the energy grid and enhance national security, positioning the U.S. as a leader in the global energy transition.”
It is fairly ordinary website copy, but to a keen reader, the text jumps out as an obvious Trump 2.0 tell. Plug Power — like many green economy companies — has pivoted to meet the political and economic moment, where “energy independence” and “energy dominance” are in and “climate” and “sustainability” are out.
“I am actually shocked every time I look at the website of a climate tech company that still uses the language from 12 months ago, from four months ago — that doesn’t do them any good,” Peter Atanasoff, the managing director and vice president of Scratch Media and Marketing, which helps B2B technology companies and climate tech businesses achieve growth and recognition, told me.
The shift in language is more significant than just brands chasing the latest buzzwords.
The first Trump administration saw broad-based pushback from the business community against Trump’s more inflammatory positions, especially by consumer-facing brands that played to the pussy hat-wearing, brunch-and-protest attitudes of the time. The CEOs of Facebook (now Meta), Nike, and Google issued statements of disappointment when the U.S. pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement in 2017, and Tesla CEO Elon Musk even dropped out of the president’s business council over the decision. It was, needless to say, a very different time.
During Trump’s second term, he promised “retribution.” Many of the more moderate voices from his first administration are long gone, and there’s a palpable fear among nonprofits and businesses of drawing the wrong kind of attention from Washington, losing grant funding for saying the wrong thing. “The real trigger” for resulting differences in branding between the first and second Trump administrations has been “the change of tone and change of economic policy,” Atanasoff told me. “It is explicit opposition to any of these technologies."
The administration has launched an all-out assault not just on climate policy, but also on the very language of the energy transition. In a February memo obtained by E&E News, the Federal Emergency Management Agency listed 34 words to be erased from official documentation, including “global warming,” “carbon footprint,” “net zero,” and even “green.” As I’ve covered for Heatmap, farmers applying for Department of Agriculture grants have been encouraged to resubmit proposals with climate-focused language removed and “refocus … on expanding American energy production.” And at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, scientists have quickly learned to pivot to talking about “air pollution” rather than emissions, contending with a banned-words list of their own.
Lobbyists and clean energy companies that want to be in the administration’s good graces have adapted, as well. That has changed the tenor of green business at large. Alexander Bryden, who runs the Washington, D.C. office of Browning Environmental Communications, told me over email that tweaking brand language is “typical after any change of administration, particularly when there are significant shifts in policy.” But especially for organizations in the public eye, “it’s more important than ever to highlight the historic and potential economic benefits of environmental solutions — and show how they are supported by, and benefit, people across the political spectrum.”
The actual fundamentals of green business haven’t changed, though. On the contrary, in the first quarter of 2025, venture capitalists and private equity firms invested more than $5 billion in climate tech startups in the U.S., a 65% increase from the same period a year earlier, according to PitchBook data. While there are certainly obstacles like supply chain uncertainty and tariffs to contend with, especially for clean energy manufacturing, on the whole “it’s still a great time to start a climate startup,” Tommy Leep, the founder of the software-focused venture firm Jetstream, told my colleague Katie Brigham last November. His caveat? “Just don’t call it a climate startup.”
Roger Ballentine, the president of the management consulting service Green Strategies and the chairman of the White House Climate Change Task Force under President Bill Clinton, explained this thinking to me. “It’s what I refer to as climate capitalism, which is the realization that by incorporating climate change and its risks and opportunities into your business strategy, you’re actually going to be a more successful, more profitable, and more competitive company,” he said. Even with the recent economic turbulence, “That hasn’t changed. That’s not going to change.”
Where you do see adjustments, however, is “around the edges,” per Ballentine. Companies are attempting to match the frequency of the administration and, in turn, the broader policy ecosystem — a frequency that tends to be aggressive, assertive, and heavy on words like “dominance” and “security.” It might also take the form of decreasing the volume at which companies had previously shouted their climate bona fides.
Anya Nelson, the senior vice president of public relations at Scratch M+M, said her team has also advised touting “American-made production” in brand messaging, and reframing copy to focus on “the positive impacts and immediate business benefits” of the companies, rather than more idealistic messaging about climate goals that may have had stronger resonance during the Biden administration.
At this point, you may have noticed that I haven’t quoted any corporate brand officers. That’s not because I didn’t try to talk to any. (Even Plug Power, my example at the beginning of this story, didn’t respond to a request for comment on the change in their messaging.) Though the sudden prevalence of terms like “energy dominance” becomes conspicuous once you start to look for them, no one wants to draw the wrong kind of attention from the administration. It’s part of a greater trend of clamming up that my colleagues and I have experienced across sectors in our reporting, and at a time when even the word “green” can give you a black mark, I can’t say I don’t understand.
Ballentine, the Green Strategies president, dismissed reading too much into how language itself changes under President Trump. “If yesterday a new technology company was touting itself as a climate solution, and now it’s touting itself as a way to achieve energy dominance — I don’t care,” he said.
His thinking was more pragmatic. “Good business remains good business,” Ballentine went on. “Around the edges, will things change? Yes. General belt tightening? Yes. Fundamental change of direction? No.”
It might sound like branding agencies are encouraging companies to “play along” with the administration, but Nelson of Scratch M+M stressed that wasn’t what she was trying to say. At the end of the day, “your end goal is to be a viable company, right?” she said. “To be a thriving company that is going to change the world, first and foremost, you need to make sure you don’t go out of business.” The message might be more accurately summarized as “read the room.”
A report from Heatmap’s San Francisco Climate Week event with Tom Steyer.
Last Thursday at San Francisco Climate Week, Heatmap hosted an event with a lineup of industry leaders and experts to discuss the most promising up-and-coming climate tech innovations amidst a backdrop of tariff and tax credit uncertainty.
Guests at Heatmap's event, Climate Tech's Next Winners.Sean Vranizan
First up, Heatmap executive editor Robinson Meyer sat down with Tom Steyer, the billionaire investor and co-founder of Galvanize Climate Solutions, to explore the most promising climate technologies to scale. “No one's going to adopt new technologies to be nice,” Steyer noted. “They're gonna adopt new technologies because they're better, because they're a better deal, because they're cheaper or in some ways solve a pain point for the customer.” Steyer went on to emphasize that there is at least one “transformational and disruptive” idea for every six verticals in the climate industry — for example, measuring carbon sequestration in nature with machine learning andAI, a concept that was “literally unimaginable 5 years ago.”
Tom Steyer and Robinson Meyer.Sean Vranizan
As for the Trump-sized elephant in the room, Steyer encouraged climate tech startups to focus on “good leadership” as well as the willingness to adapt in this uncertain moment. “You’re gonna have hard times, and the world is going to change, and you’re going to have to figure out what to do,“ he said. Steyer also noted that all Americans, not only those working in climate tech, should understand the energy transition as a background condition of their careers. “If you want to be a screenwriter (...) be a screenwriter. But it’s really important that you put [the energy transition] into your screenwriting. If you‘re a banker (...) be a banker with an awareness of this issue. Bank the good stuff, not the bad stuff,” Steyer explained. He finished up the discussion with a remembrance of the late Pope Francis, a “tremendous human being for the planet.”
Sam D'Amico and Nico Lauricella.Sean Vranizan
Also on Thursday was a lightning talk between Nico Lauricella, Heatmap’s CEO and editor in chief, and Sam D’Amico, the founder and CEO of Impulse Labs, which sponsored the event. D'Amico explained that in addition to being an induction stove, Impulse’s Cooktop is “a way to get battery storage into people's homes” — a “concept car” for using batteries in appliances to create a more decentralized grid. Lauricella and D’Amico also discussed the impacts of Trump’s tariffs on clean tech companies like Impulse, with D’Amico advising other founders in the room to build prototypes based on the supply chain and to make sure they have options in terms of where their products are manufactured so they can keep up with changing trade policies.
Impulse's high-power Cooktop on display at the event.Sean Vranizan
Lastly, Heatmap News staff writer Katie Brigham hosted a panel with Gabriel Kra, managing director and co-founder at Prelude Ventures, Clea Kolster, partner and head of science at Lowercarbon Capital, and Rajesh Swaminathan, partner at Khosla Ventures. The group spoke about the unique circumstances facing investors in the climate technology space, what their firms are looking for when investing in the newest climate innovations, and how AI fits into the picture.
Katie Brigham, Clea Kolster, Gabriel Kra, and Rajesh Swaminathan.Sean Vranizan
All three panelists acknowledged that it’s a delicate time for clean tech investors and companies alike. “Volatility and uncertainty are the enemies of running and planning a business,” warned Kra. The true cost of the tariffs is therefore extremely high, Kra explained. Kolster agreed that things are generally gloomy in the investment space, but also highlighted the technologies that are currently thriving. Carbon removal, she pointed out, “is going better than ever. Contracts are being inked right now, in the past few weeks.” The companies and technologies she’s excited about, Kolster added, are building “cheaper, better, faster,” as Steyer pointed out earlier in the evening.
Swaminathan added that there will always be a certain element of risk when it comes to investing in emerging technologies. “Clean tech companies have so many single points of failure,” he said. “And you have to prop up each part with the right leadership team. You have to have strong pillars so that [your company] doesn’t break.”
Guests following the discussion.Sean Vranizan
Sean Vranizan
Sean Vranizan
Sean Vranizan
Sean Vranizan
Sean Vranizan
Guests at SFCW
Sean Vranizan
Thank you to our presenting sponsor, Impulse, as well as our supporting sponsor, V2 Communications, and our event host, IndieBio.