You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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:

If there’s one climate policy you’re likely to hear about in the debt ceiling deal, it’s the Mountain Valley Pipeline.
The 304-mile pipeline, which will link West Virginia’s booming gas fields to the East Coast and Texas, essentially received automatic approval under the bipartisan deal. The bill compels federal agencies to approve the pipeline and then shields those permits from judicial review, all but guaranteeing the project’s eventual completion.
If nothing else, the deal brings the saga over the Mountain Valley Pipeline to a close almost a year after it began: The White House initially agreed to support the project last year in exchange for Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia’s support for Biden’s climate law. But neither Manchin nor Biden could get a bill containing the pipeline through Congress last year as part of a larger package of permitting reforms. Manchin persevered, and the pipeline wriggled into the deal over the weekend thanks to House Republicans and oil-and-gas lobbyists. Manchin, it seems, finally has his pipeline.
The project isn’t the most important climate item in the deal. That distinction has to go to the deal’s preservation of the Inflation Reduction Act, which will ensure hundreds of billions of dollars go to clean energy and infrastructure over the next decade. Nor is it the deal’s worst blow to the climate: As I wrote yesterday, Democrats’ failure to secure any power-grid reform takes that title.
Yet the Mountain Valley Pipeline, or MVP, is the item that environmental groups have focused on the most. “Allowing this deal to advance sets a dangerous precedent,” Ben Jealous, the Sierra Club’s executive director, said in a statement. “We can pay America’s bills without undermining bedrock environmental protections or fast tracking the fracked gas Mountain Valley Pipeline.”
So I was curious: How big a deal is the MVP? When completed, it will transmit 2 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day: What does that actually mean for the country’s natural gas transmission?
Well, here’s a potentially helpful chart:

This is the Energy Information Administration’s chart of new natural-gas pipeline capacity from 1995 to 2022 with my addition. I’ve added the MVP’s capacity at the right. As you can see, the MVP alone will add more pipeline capacity than the entire U.S. added last year — but that’s partially because the country added much less capacity in 2022 than it has in any year since records began in 1995.
I’ll be honest that the chart helps me think more clearly about the project, but not in a way that’s easy to describe. The Mountain Valley Pipeline is a medium-largeish pipeline — big enough to single-handedly expand the country’s ability to move natural gas, but not so big that it will change the fundamental trend that fewer new pipelines are getting built every year.
The MVP’s most important effect may not be its size, but its strategic location: By connecting the productive Utica and Marcellus shale fields in Appalachia to the Transcontinental pipeline, a massive backbone conduit that links New Jersey to the Rio Grande Valley, it will make it easier for cheap natural gas to reach the population centers — and export terminals — of the Eastern Seaboard and Gulf Coast. That will, in turn, spur a modest increase in natural-gas drilling, which could increase American emissions by roughly 6 to 16 million metric tons a year, according to an estimate from The Washington Post.
The Inflation Reduction Act, by comparison, will eliminate roughly 660 million tons a year by 2030. So preserving the IRA is worth the carbon cost of this pipeline — but it would be better, of course, not to have to make such a choice at all.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
It should only pass if lawmakers disarm a key provision, the former Biden senior climate adviser says.
Former Biden senior climate adviser John Podesta wants lawmakers to take a red pen to the bipartisan permitting deal.
Podesta criticized a key part of the Senate’s bipartisan permitting deal on Friday, according to a recording I obtained of a fireside chat at the University of Colorado Boulder. He praised the bill’s transmission reforms, but argued Democratic negotiators had handed President Trump “a loaded Howitzer” in their quest for permitting certainty for renewable energy projects, and that it should only pass if lawmakers remove the weapon.
The comments are notable because Podesta helped implement the Inflation Reduction Act and attempted to strike a permitting deal during the Biden administration. That effort, led by Senator Joe Manchin and John Barrasso, ultimately ran aground on criticism from environmental groups.
In the new remarks, Podesta applauded the parts of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act that would unlock new long-distance transmission construction. But he sharply criticized the bill’s reforms to fossil fuel permitting and federal land development. He indicated a belief there will be “give and take when we come back after the election.”
“If you’ve worked on the Hill, you know once you get started on something, you keep going. And I think they were trying to address a really serious problem,” Podesta said. “[The bill would] really take on some needed reforms on transmission to really build the infrastructure that’s necessary to fully integrate renewables into the system, and indeed, I think the bill is pretty good on that. Pretty strong. They got a lot on that question in terms of forcing utilities to use grid-enhancing technologies, doing better planning, getting data centers to pay their fair share.”
But Podesta added: “Then they gave up stuff.” He then unloaded on the bill’s “permitting certainty” provisions, which Podesta notably described as a Democratic priority during negotiations to get to yes.
Those provisions have attracted concern from tribal groups and some environmental groups in recent weeks. If enacted, the bill would bar federal agencies from revoking, changing, or tampering with any federal permits issued after September of this year. It would also prohibit officials from denying or delaying permits in a way that shows a “pattern of disparate treatment” against specific energy or mineral projects. (If you want to read more about the bill’s certainty provisions, you can read our full explainer.)
This was “one place where I think they made a huge mistake,” Podesta said, calling the restriction on revoking or rescinding decisions “one of the worst provisions of the bill.” He complimented lawmakers for trying to address Trump’s attacks on already-permitted renewable energy projects, including stop-work orders on offshore wind facilities under construction, and for seeking commitments from the administration to continue permitting projects in exchange for a deal.
However, Podesta said they are “going to have to take it out” or significantly revise it because he believes this language would allow Trump to illegally approve projects on sensitive or protected lands and courts would not be able to force the government to undo approvals that violate the law. He argued this would mean Trump could permit development in many areas land conservation groups, tribes, and anti-drilling advocates have long fought to protect from industry, including the Chaco Culture National Historic Park in New Mexico, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota, and the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah.
“I think they have handed Trump not just a loaded gun, but they’ve handed him a loaded Howitzer to go after public lands, to permit stuff that even if it’s illegal can’t be reversed by the courts,” Podesta said. “They’re going to have a permit gorge like you’ve never seen, not really caring about whether they’re going through the legal steps to do it, and under this bill, those can’t be reversed. That’s got to change if this bill’s going to pass.”
The former Biden administration alum’s comments are especially noteworthy because he previously helped negotiate a permitting deal that was similarly pilloried by environmental activists. “We did a permitting reform [bill] on the debt limit bill. Some of the environmental community didn’t like it. I thought it was a fair compromise,” he said, referring to that legislation in order to explain why he is focusing on a “provision I think the Democrats asked for.”
“It’s one thing to say I’m getting a lot and I’m going to have to give up something,” he said.
He added that “there are other issues” with the bill in his view, including “removing states’ ability to ensure clean drinking water” and “a lot of restraint on the ability to get courts to enjoin for NEPA violations.” Those are examples where “you can debate whether one is worth the other.”
“My line gets drawn with giving Trump more ways to do mischief and to do bad things, especially to the most important, most iconic places we need to protect."
I reached out to Podesta after obtaining the recording of his remarks, and in a brief interview, he clarified that he does believe the transmission provisions of the bill are central enough to the energy transition that if “they can resolve those matters and fix those problems,” and they can pass it during the lame duck period, “I would say go ahead.”
Podesta acknowledged “another school of thought” — most notably voiced by House Natural Resources ranking member Jared Huffman — that legislators should wait until the next Congress when Democrats may be able to strike a different deal after a potential blue wave in this year’s midterm elections. “Trump’s not making it easy by never fulfilling his end of the bargain. I think they thought he was actually going to go ahead and move forward with permitting these wind projects and instead he’s trying to stop them,” Podesta said.
Still, the certainty language to him is a “poison pill.” And regardless of what Congress elects to do with the permitting deal, Podesta maintained his biggest fear is enacting legislation that protects or emboldens Trump’s behavior: “If you give him things he can interpret that you think you had a deal on, he will make them worse than you could imagine, so you better not give him any more additional power.”
“The question becomes, is it worth trying to resolve these items which I think have surfaced since this text came forward,” Podesta said. “If they can resolve them, fine. If not, there’s always next year.”
Ford reveals a promising tidbit about its upcoming electric pickup.
When the Ford Fathom debuts in 2027, much of the attention will focus on its size and its price. As it should: The all-electric mid-size truck is promised to start under $30,000, and the success or failure of that car at that price will tell us a lot about the future of Ford, as well as mainstream America’s true appetite for EVs.
While we wait for our first real look at the truck and the full list of its specifications, Ford just revealed a promising tidbit. The automaker has been working in the background to make it simpler and cheaper for Fathom drivers to use bidirectional charging: the ability for power to flow both ways so that EV drivers can use the energy stored in the vehicle battery to power secondary loads, to back up a home power supply during a blackout, or even to feed back onto the power grid.
Specifically, Ford announced on Tuesday that the Fathom will be the first EV from a U.S. automaker with a starting price below $30,000 that does not need a separate wall-mounted inverter — the piece needed to transform the DC power stored in the car’s battery to the AC power used in the house. Instead, engineers built one into the truck’s “e-box” module that houses much of its electronics. That on-board unit is good enough to supply more than 10 kW of AC power to a home, Ford says.
Bidirectional charging isn’t new to American EVs or to Ford. The F-150 Lightning EV got this feature when it debuted five years ago. The trouble is that this game-changing technology doesn’t come cheap: The Lightning — now discontinued, soon to be revived as an extended-range EV — was an expensive ride starting above $50,000. The electrical hardware needed to connect the truck to one’s home power supply added thousands of dollars on top of the truck’s price.
The same was true for other EV makers. Two years ago, when I interviewed EV pickup drivers after Hurricane Helene hit North Carolina, I found F-150 Lightning and Tesla Cybertruck owners alike who hadn’t forked over more money for the extra tech needed to hook directly into the home. They got themselves through the blackout the Macgyver way, plugging the refrigerator and other critical appliances right into the power outlets in the back of the truck.
Ford’s Fathom, though, comes closer to giving the best of bidirectional charging to the masses. In addition to installing an on-board inverter, Ford says it will make the Ford Home Power Station and Home Backup Panel — the hardware that drivers will need to connect to the house — cost at least 60% less than the brand’s first-generation tech. The Detroit giant also says it’s working with a consortium of utilities, including American Electric Power, BC Hydro, Consumers Energy, Exelon, and Pacific Gas and Electric Co., to iron out how Fathom owners across the country will connect to their homes and the grid.
As Ford notes in its release: “There are more than 3,000 utilities across the U.S. and Canada with largely unique interconnection processes. Interconnection processes were primarily written for rooftop solar and stationary battery storage, which are fixed assets. Bidirectional EVs bring new considerations since they are vehicles first, not stationary equipment.”
Indeed, cooperation between car companies and utilities is suddenly a pressing matter as more EVs hit the roads, and the grid. Rivian and other electric car makers are trying to make their vehicles play nice with the power grid as a way for their customers to save money and reduce grid strain by having EVs charge when demand is low and electricity is cheap. And at some point, electric cars will become a major cog in virtual power plants — the ability of the power grid to pull energy from sources like EVs, backup batteries, and homeowner solar in times of need.
That day is finally approaching. Although bidirectional charging is a striking bonus feature for EVs, something so much more interesting and sophisticated than what a fossil fuel car can accomplish, the tech has flown fairly under the radar in the U.S. One could blame not only the lagging pace of EV adoption here, but also the fact that Tesla, far and away the market leader, has been slow to get on board. Just this month, it finally said that Model Y and Model 3 vehicles, the two best-selling electric cars in America, would get bidirectional capability.
The Ford Fathom, then, may do more than revitalize the lagging fortunes of Ford, which lost billions upon billions in its first forays into electrification and started up a skunkworks team to design the new truck in a totally different way. Their creation might also show Americans the EV’s enormous role in the home, and the grid, of tomorrow.
Current conditions: Tropical Storm Olana is headed for Hawaii with yet more flooding and powerful winds as the state continues to recover from previous storms • Tropical Cyclone Arnab is strengthening into a “severe” storm as it approaches the northern coast of India’s Andhra Pradesh state near the port city of Visakhapatnam • In-fa has become a typhoon, en route by the end of this week to the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. territory that took the brunt of this month’s Super Typhoon Champi.
Call it Anthropic’s magnum Opus 5.5. The Claude maker filed its public paperwork Monday ahead of its planned stock market debut. Aside from the basic details of how the company makes money and what risks its technology may pose to humanity itself, Anthropic mentions the word “energy” at least 14 times in the section of the document outlining the risks to its business. “Climate” and “climate change” are mentioned just four times. The overarching concern, per my colleague Matthew Zeitlin’s rundown of the S-1 filing, is that the company “might not get enough power for data centers running its large language models,” and that “the pace of the energy infrastructure build-out “is generally behind the need.
Brazil’s national oil company, meanwhile, had a brutal day of trading on the stock market following left-wing Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s surprise surge to reelection in Sunday’s runoff. Shares of Petrobras plunged 14% on the New York Stock Exchange by the time trading ended Monday evening. While conservative candidate Flávio Bolsonaro had promised more privatization and fewer environmental regulations, Lula has ramped up drilling, particularly offshore, as he seeks to capitalize on South America’s oil boom.

EQT Corporation bills itself as “America’s only large-scale, vertically integrated natural gas producer.” Soon it will also be the largest gas company in the nation. On Monday, the company announced plans to acquire Range Resources Corporation in a deal to create a North American gas giant worth more than $50 billion. The all-stock transaction would also establish the biggest gas producer in the U.S. by output. Combined, EQT and Range pump out 9 billion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent per day. The next largest shale gas producer in the U.S. is Expand Energy, at 7.5 billion cubic feet per day. The merged company would also command a network of pipelines and other midstream infrastructure that tops 3,700 miles. “This transaction brings together two of the highest-quality, longest-duration asset bases in North America and creates a company uniquely positioned for the next era of natural gas,” EQT CEO Toby Z. Rice said in a statement. “We believe this combination creates a must-own energy company capable of generating durable, through-cycle free cash flow while compounding value for shareholders for decades to come.”
The deal is a sign “U.S. gas consolidation is accelerating,” Salih Yilmaz, a senior oil analyst at the consultancy Bloomberg Intelligence, wrote in a post on X. “The bigger theme is consolidation: scale, concentration, and infrastructure control are becoming increasingly important in US gas, especially as LNG exports and power demand grow.”
U.S. orders for wind turbines vaulted to 2.8 gigawatts in the second quarter of this year — the highest since the end of 2023 — as developers scrambled to meet the deadlines to qualify for expiring tax credits, according to a new market analysis by the consultancy Wood Mackenzie. New Mexico saw the biggest surge as the SunZia megaproject, the largest wind farm ever built in the U.S., came online, raising the state to the top of the list of capacity additions. Despite the Trump administration’s efforts to kill or slow walk permits for wind projects, the industry is on track to add 39 gigawatts of new onshore wind farms by 2030. More than half the projects set to come online over the next two years are already under construction, meaning there’s little risk of disruption. Offshore wind, by contrast, tops out at 5 gigawatts, all of which is on course to be delivered in the next two years. “Policy is the variable with the greatest impact on wind installations,” Wood Mackenzie analyst Tyler Gifford said in a statement. “With tax credit expirations on the horizon, developers are prioritizing projects that can be operational by 2030, so the five-year onshore wind installation outlook remains stable.”
On the other side of the Atlantic, exports of wind turbines are booming. While Europe is still debating how to deal with the sudden rise of China’s wind companies, as I told you last week, the European Union's exports of wind turbines spiked by nearly 11% to $3.4 billion last year, Renewables Now reported.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The climate movement, as virtually anyone involved will tell you, is broken. Even those who are part of it want to stop talking about “climate change,” according to the results of this year’s Heatmap Insiders Survey. Clean Air Task Force, one of the more pragmatic groups in the policy arena fighting for clean energy, is out with a new memo detailing the strategy it plans to use through the end of the decade. Dubbed CATF Forward, the plan is “designed to drive the global adoption of climate solutions, orienting around three clear impact priorities and rooted in the attributes that have made” the group “uniquely effective” since its launch 30 years ago. “The world’s increasingly complex climate and energy challenges require sober thinking and sharper focus,” Armond Cohen, CATF’s founder and executive director, said in a statement. “How do we protect climate in a world turned upside down?”
His answer:
All of that seems fairly straightforward. But the document is defined as much by what it omits as what it includes. Amid a growing debate over whether climate activists should keep targeting fossil fuel infrastructure, which my colleague Robinson Meyer aired out nicely on a recent episode of our podcast Shift Key, CATF isn’t pushing for boycotts of fossil fuels or, you know, committing crimes in the name of saving the planet.
India’s solar factories have boomed in recent years as the world’s most populous country turns to photovoltaics to meet surging domestic electricity demand and supply overseas buyers looking for alternatives to China. But the subcontinent has struggled to take on China’s dominance of the solar supply chain’s upstream elements. On Monday, Noida-based Jakson Solar announced plans to invest over $525 million into manufacturing solar cells, ingots, and wafers. The company plans to commission a 3-gigawatt cell factory by the end of next year, managing director Ivan Saha told Reuters on the sideline of a conference. The company then plans to stand up a 3-gigawatt ingot and wafer plant by the third quarter of 2028. That will all feed into Jakson’s existing 1.2-gigawatt module-making factory.
Indonesia and Malaysia have launched more than 100 cloud-seeding missions this year in an attempt to engineer rain to quench parched lands as El Niño worsens droughts. The worst wildfire season in decades has shrouded the region in devastating toxic smog. But the high cost of the effort, including using dry ice to break up warm air that traps smog on the ground, “have so far brought little in the way of lasting results,” Bloomberg reported. “Sometimes, there’s a lot of political pressure to do things that may not be really well-founded scientifically,” Steven Siems, a professor at Monash University in Melbourne and the co-chair of an expert team on weather modification at the World Meteorological Organization, told the newswire.