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:
Isometric is trying to become the most trusted name in the scandal-plagued carbon market.

Regulations are probably coming for the scandal-plagued voluntary carbon market. After years of mounting skepticism and reports of greenwashing, governments are now attempting to rein in the historically unchecked web of platforms, registries, protocols, and verification bodies offering ways to offset a company’s emissions that vary tremendously in price and quality. Europe has developed its own rules, the Carbon Removal Certification Framework, while the Biden administration earlier this year announced a less comprehensive set of general principles. Plus, there are already mandatory carbon credit schemes around the world, such as California’s cap-and-trade program and the E.U. Emissions Trading System.
“The idea that a voluntary credit should be a different thing than a compliance credit, obviously doesn’t make sense, right?” Ryan Orbuch, Lowercarbon Capital’s carbon removal lead, told me. “You want it to be as likely as possible that the thing you’re buying today is going to count in a compliance regime.”
That’s where the carbon credit certification platform Isometric comes into play. Founded in 2022, the startup raised $25 million in its seed round last year, co-led by Lowercarbon and Plural, a European venture capital firm. It has created a rigorous, scientifically-driven standard for carbon removal credits, with the intention of becoming the benchmark that buyers, sellers, and other stakeholders can coalesce around. So whenever federal standards or compliance regimes do kick in, there will be no doubt whether Isometric-verified credits are up to snuff.
“Isometric was basically founded to say, look, the long-term solution here is obviously government and regulation, but in the meantime, this is too important to let the market just keep doing it like this,” Lukas May, chief commercial officer at Isometric, told me. He believes that the government’s role in the carbon market should mirror the financial sector, but instead of preventing insider trading or predatory lending, federal regulators would make high-level determinations on things like what types of credits count and how long carbon must be locked away to count as “permanent removal.” Platforms like Isometric (often referred to as registries) could then focus on setting more granular, scientifically specific requirements for particular methods of carbon removal.
The startup aims to separate itself from existing registries, which include Puro.earth, Verra, and the Gold Standard, in two big ways.
First is just a focus on science. May said that 15 of Isometric’s first 25 hires were scientists. Today, the company’s chief scientist is Jennifer Wilcox, who recently left her position on the leadership team at the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, housed within the U.S. Department of Energy. Other registries, he told me, are “filled with NGO types” and “policy people” who lack the technical background to, say, evaluate what types rock formations are best for the geological sequestration of bio-oil or how CO2 fluxes in the soil impact enhanced rock weathering. These types of in-the-weeds analyses are integral to establishing stringent protocols to validate the amount of carbon that’s actually been removed.
Additionally, May, Orbuch, and Khaled Helioui, a partner at Plural who led the firm’s investment in Isometric, all said the company fixes a key flaw in the voluntary carbon market —- alignment of financial incentives. Traditionally, carbon removal suppliers pay registries to certify their credits, which creates an incentive for registries to overlook lax standards. But Isometric is instead paid a flat fee by the buyers for performing verification work on a per-ton basis.
This year, Isometric verified its first credits ever, from the carbon removal companies Vaulted Deep, which collects sludgy, organic waste and deposits it underground, and Charm Industrial, which injects processed biomass into abandoned oil and gas wells. Credits from these two suppliers were sold to Frontier, the carbon-removal initiative led by the payments firm Stripe. Just last week, Frontier identified Isometric as its first and only leading credit issuer.
“What makes Isometric stand out is they’re explicitly focused on durable CDR [carbon dioxide removal],” Joanna Klitzke, Frontier’s procurement and ecosystem strategy lead, told me. “Durable” refers to the fact that Isometric’s projects must sequester CO2 for 1,000 years or more. “They’re building tech products that make data and reporting particularly easy for suppliers and for credit management,” she added.
Everyone is essentially trying to avoid another scandal like the one that engulfed rainforest carbon offsets, which were found to be largely worthless. The industry has thus been shifting away from more nebulous carbon offsets, which seek to avoid future emissions by preventing deforestation or funding renewables development, and towards more concrete, but often more expensive, forms of carbon removal — think direct air capture, enhanced rock weathering, or biomass carbon removal and storage, all of which have seen a boom in investment.
“As carbon removal was emerging as a new and potentially very exciting way to do this stuff, potentially more measurable and more rigorous, we couldn’t just sit and watch the same registries do the same thing,” May told me, saying doing so would “destroy trust in the carbon removal industry before it’s even off the ground.”
In a past life, Isometric’s founder and CEO, Eamon Jubbawy, founded a digital identity verification company for the financial services industry. This gave investors confidence that he could bring his expertise in trust-building and verification services to the carbon removal space.
“It’s not a like for like, but there’s a lot of overlap in terms of actually introducing efficiency, effectiveness, and having technology really open a market,” Plural’s Helioui told me. “This is not an endeavor or an opportunity where I would have been necessarily that keen to back a first-time founder, just because of the complexity of what you need to manage,” he said. “We’re really talking about market creation.”
But May doesn’t expect Isometric to totally dominate other registries. Just like there are many private banks, May envisions an “ecosystem of high quality registries,” eventually unified around a set of federal guardrails. Until then, he believes Isometric’s role is to “set a bar that is so high that the expectation and norm in the market shifts,” thus avoiding a race to the bottom where companies are able to greenwash their image with cheap, low-quality credits.
Now, not every company can afford the highest quality credits. And because of Isometric’s 1,000-year storage requirement, many cheaper, nature-based projects, such as reforestation, are excluded from its registry, even though there’s still demand for them. Orbuch told me that Isometric will continue adding guidelines for different carbon removal pathways, as it recently did for biochar, a charcoal-like brick that locks up carbon contained within biomass.
It’s still early days, and there’s plenty of room for Isometric to grow alongside the market. After all, it’s only issued 5,350 carbon removal credits to date, while nearly two billion credits have been issued in the voluntary carbon market overall.
“The whole industry needs to be scaling up,” May told me. “So we need to, in 10 years time, be, you know, issuing and verifying hundreds of millions, if not billions, of credits annually.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Just as Americans have started to revolt against expensive cars.
The car bubble couldn’t last forever. For years now, the steadily rising cost of new vehicles has led American drivers to take on longer and longer car loans — six, seven, even eight years, as opposed to the four or five that used to be typical. The average new car sale in America crept up to nearly $50,000 in November, a seemingly unsustainable number for a country drowning in debt.
But as 2025 draws to a close, we’re seeing more signs that Americans are starting to change their behavior, according to the Wall Street Journal. With people keeping their old cars even longer and more shopping used, new car sales saw very little growth this year, and are projected to look flat again in 2026. Even the seemingly bulletproof full-size trucks that make up the backbone of the U.S. auto industry aren’t immune. Kelley Blue Book says the Ram 1500, which has had a lock on the number three spot in all U.S. auto sales behind the Ford F-150 and Chevrolet Silverado, is slated to drop out of the top three this year.
A bear market sounds especially bleak for electric vehicles. EVs, after all, have long suffered an affordability problem, and the Trump administration this fall killed off the federal tax break meant to make them more cost-competitive with fossil fuel vehicles. A country of cost-conscious drivers is even less likely to pay a premium for battery power.
Yet as a new year dawns, EVs in America might be better positioned than you think.
For one thing, this isn’t the EV market of a couple years ago. That reckoning for too-expensive pickup trucks? Electrics already went through it. Consider the Ford F-150 Lightning, which was quietly discontinued this month. The fully electric version of America’s best-selling vehicle was an amazing piece of technology, with breakthrough features like the ability to back up a home’s power supply with the truck battery. But the pickup cost a fortune because of how much battery it takes to make an EV truck do the kinds of things a gas-powered F-150 can do. The inflated price, along with many truck buyers’ reluctance to go EV for political and cultural reasons, led to disappointing sales and shattered any dreams of an easy electrification of America’s massive pickup truck market.
As a result, electric pickup trucks were already moving toward the smaller, more affordable end of the market even before the F-150 Lightning died. Ford’s maintains that its mission to fix its flailing EV division will start with a far more affordable $30,000 midsize pickup. One of the most anticipated electric models is the bare-bones Slate truck, which is slated (pun intended) to start in the mid $20,000s.
We’re also on the cusp of seeing more new EVs that are cost-competitive with gas-burners even without the big tax credits. I’ve repeatedly lauded Chevy for delivering a version of the Equinox EV at $35,000, which helped the vehicle become the third-best-selling electric in America (and top seller that’s not a Tesla). A variety of electric cars arriving in 2026 will come in close to the $30,000 mark or below, a group that includes Toyota’s battery-powered version of its C-HR small crossover and the promising revivals of both the Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Bolt.
No, we still don’t have the $25,000 EV that would compete directly with a Toyota Corolla. But there’s ample opportunity for electrics to compete at the budget end of the car market, with no economy car segment left to speak of. KBB notes that the car industry this year offered just five models that truly cost less than $25,000, all things considered, down from 36 such vehicles in 2017. The car companies went all-in on more expensive — and more lucrative — trucks and SUVs as Americans displayed a limitless hunger for them. Now that buyers are finally curbing that appetite, there is a window of opportunity for the new wave of economy-focused EVs.
That’s not to say the EV market is headed for smooth sailing. As Mack Hogan at InsideEVs has written, battery-powered cars still have a major problem with “uncompetitive” models. Beyond the familiar success stories — Tesla’s Model 3 and Model Y, the Ford Mustang Mach-E, Hyundai’s Ioniq 5, and a few others — the car market is littered with EVs that sell just a few hundred or thousand models per year, often because they simply don't measure up to their gas rivals on cost or performance. It’s hard to see how those vehicles find their place, especially when some of them still suffer from disappointing battery ranges and driving comfort that doesn’t measure up to their more polished petroleum-powered cousins.
Still, there’s reason for hope that some of the affordable electrics will find their footing among penny-counting drivers, especially as more of them are enticed by the potential of saying goodbye to pumping gas and paying for oil changes. Because they started out expensive, EVs have yet to be seen as economy cars — in the United States, at least. But with more affordable models arriving just as the car market starts to creak, that could soon change.
On permitting reform passing, Oklo’s Swedish bet, and GM’s heir apparent
Current conditions: New Orleans is expecting light rain with temperatures climbing near 90 degrees Fahrenheit as the city marks the 20th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina • Torrential rains could dump anywhere from 8 to 12 inches on the Mississippi Valley and the Ozarks • Japan is sweltering in temperatures as high as 104 degrees.
In a Mad Libs of a merger story, President Donald Trump’s social media company inked a $6 billion deal Thursday to combine with fusion energy company TAE Technologies in a bid to start construction on “the world’s first utility-scale fusion power plant” next year. It’s a lofty claim, to put it minimally. Once the darling of private fusion investors, TAE has since fallen behind rivals pursuing technological approaches that are considered easier and better studied, such as Commonwealth Fusion Systems. A key difference between the two technologies is the fuel. While TAE's deuterium-fueled reactor has to get as hot as 1 billion degrees Celsius, Commonwealth Fusion’s tritium-deuterium fuel needs to reach only — I almost want to put “only” in quotes since we’re talking about a temperature nearly seven times hotter than the center of the sun — 100 million degrees. The more than two dozen private fusion companies racing to build the first power plant aren’t just competing against each other. China, as I have written in this newsletter recently, is outspending the rest of the world combined on fusion investments.
But the all-stock deal between TAE and Trump Media and Technology Group, the parent company of Truth Social, could capture more money from retail investors eager to get in on the fusion game. After all, the next-generation nuclear fission industry has a growing stable of startups whose stocks generate billions of dollars but whose businesses have no revenue. The merger shows “both the Trump administration’s commitment and investor appetite for clean, scalable fusion energy,” Greg Piefer, the chief executive of the rival fusion company SHINE Technologies, wrote in a LinkedIn post. Still, he said his startup, which Heatmap’s Katie Brigham wrote recently is already generating revenue selling medical isotopes, will be able “to scale faster than any other fusion company.” That’s a diplomatic way of analyzing a deal involving the president. When I called up Chris Gadomski, the lead nuclear analyst at the consultancy BloombergNEF yesterday morning, he told me, “I’m just flabbergasted.”
The House voted 221-196 Thursday to pass the SPEED Act, a bipartisan permitting reform bill to overhaul the National Environmental Policy Act. Eleven Democrats supported the bill, and just one Republican voted no. But GOP lawmakers made last-minute changes to appease right-wing critics of offshore wind, causing some Democrats who planned to vote yes to defect, Politico reported. That provision will almost certainly make passage in the Senate a challenge. As Heatmap’s Jael Holzman reported last week, top Senate Democrats vowed to oppose the legislation unless the bill barred executive branch agencies from yanking already-granted permits, a move designed to halt the Trump administration’s assault on offshore wind. As our colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote yesterday, passing the House was one thing, “but now comes the hard part.”
Easing federal environmental assessments isn’t the only approach to speeding up energy deployment. As our other colleague Matthew Zeitlin explained yesterday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is pushing to make it easier to plug data centers directly into power plants.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
The Department of Energy’s independent watchdog is opening an investigation into the agency’s decision to cancel $8 billion in funding for clean energy projects in California and other Democratic-leaning states. The bulk of the projects, including a $1.2 billion regional hydrogen hub, were located in California, the Los Angeles Times noted. The audit by the Energy Department’s Office of the Inspector General came in response to a plea from nearly 30 California lawmakers raising concern that the states were illegally targeted “for their perceived lack of support for President Trump.”
At the same time, a coalition of cities, consumer advocates, and green groups sued the Internal Revenue Service on Thursday over new Treasury Department rules “that unfairly and illegally discriminate against wind and solar projects.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

The Swedish nuclear startup Blykalla raised $50 million in a fresh round of funding to hasten its work on building small modular reactors. The most interesting name among the investors? The American nuclear startup Oklo. In a statement to NucNet, the companies said that by aligning two of the fastest-moving reactor developers in the world, the companies could shorten “critical paths to development, reducing schedule risks and unlocking supply chain efficiencies.” While Oklo’s as-yet-unbuilt microreactors would use liquid metal as a coolant, Blykalla’s design uses lead. But both models qualify as fourth-generation reactors.
General Motors CEO Mary Barra may have identified her heir apparent, but first she plans to put him through a “tough test” in his new role as chief product officer. Sterling Anderson, the former head of Tesla’s self-driving Autopilot division, first joined the Detroit giant in May, in what the electric vehicle site Electrek called “a surprising move that put a tech executive in charge of the legacy automaker’s entire vehicle development program.” Now a new report from Bloomberg stated that Barra sees Anderson as a frontrunner to replace her when she eventually steps down.
Flying drones over whales to collect samples of exhaled breath from blowholes is considered a breakthrough in non-invasive health monitoring for marine giants in Arctic regions. Now, however, a study of wild humpback, sperm and fin whales in northern Norway has revealed for the first time a potentially deadly virus known as cetacean morbillivirus circulating above the Arctic Circle. The upside is that the new use of drones could support conservation by detecting the virus, which is connected to mass strandings, early before major death events. “Drone blow sampling is a game-changer,” Terry Dawson, a co-author of the study and a professor at King’s College London, said in a statement. “It allows us to monitor pathogens in live whales without stress or harm, providing critical insights into diseases in rapidly changing Arctic ecosystems.”
The SPEED Act faces near-certain opposition in the Senate.
The House of Representatives has approved the SPEED Act, a bill that would bring sweeping changes to the nation’s environmental review process. It passed Thursday afternoon on a bipartisan vote of 221 to 196, with 11 Democrats in favor and just one Republican, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, against.
Thursday’s vote followed a late change to the bill on Wednesday that would safeguard the Trump administration’s recent actions to pull already-approved permits from offshore wind farms and other renewable energy projects.
Prior to that tweak, the bill would have limited the Trump administration’s ability to alter or revoke a federal permitting decision after the fact. The new version, adopted to secure votes from Republican representatives in Maryland and New Jersey, carves out an exception for agency actions taken between January 20 and the day the law takes effect.
"Last-minute changes to the SPEED Act undercut the bill’s intent to provide certainty to American business,” Rich Powell, the CEO of the Clean Energy Buyers Association said in a press release after the bill passed. “We hope the Senate will now take this language and strengthen those protections for existing and new projects needed to maintain grid reliability and meet growing electricity demand.”
At a high level, the SPEED Act would hasten federal permitting by restricting the evidence that federal agencies consider during the environmental review process and limiting the amount of time a court can deliberate over challenges to federal decisions. It would also disallow courts from vacating permits or issuing injunctions against projects if it finds that a federal agency violated NEPA. The changes would apply to permits of all kinds, including for oil and gas drilling, solar and wind farms, power lines, and data centers.
Environmental groups were generally against the bill. “Far from helping build the clean energy projects of the future, the SPEED Act will only result in an abundance of contaminated air and water, dirty projects, and chronic illnesses with fewer opportunities to hold polluters accountable in court,” Stephen Sciama, senior legislative council for Earthjustice Action, said in a press release on Thursday.
But proponents, such as the conservative energy group Clearpath Action, argue the bill will enable American industry to “invest and build with confidence” by cutting unnecessary red tape, improving coordination across agencies, and setting clearer rules and timelines for judicial review.
In House floor testimony on Thursday morning, Republican Bruce Westerman of Arkansas, the SPEED Act’s lead sponsor, said the bill had the backing of more than 375 industry groups and businesses, and bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. “The SPEED act will deliver the energy and infrastructure Americans need,” he said.
The bill lost at least one significant industry supporter after Wednesday’s changes, however. The American Clean Power Association, which had previously joined the American Petroleum Institute and others in a letter urging the House to pass the bill, withdrew its support, calling the new language a “poison pill” that “injects permit uncertainty, and creates a pathway for fully permitted projects to be canceled even after the Act’s passage.”
The Solar Energy Industries Association also denounced the bill’s passage.
Contrary to Westerman’s assertion, the bill’s fate in the Senate is far from certain. “Even if the House passes this bill today, it is going nowhere in the Senate,” Democratic Representative Jared Huffman of California asserted on the floor on Thursday. “What a missed opportunity to tackle a serious issue that Democrats were very interested in working on in good faith.”
Some Senate Democrats came out in opposition of the bill even before the late-breaking amendments. Senators Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico told my colleague Jael Holzman that the bill did not do enough to ensure the buildout of transmission and affordable clean energy, but that they “will continue working to pass comprehensive permitting reform that takes real steps to bring down electricity costs.”
Some see getting the SPEED Act through the House as merely a starting point for a more comprehensive and fair permitting deal. Democratic Representative Adam Gray of California told Politico’s Joshua Siegel Thursday that he was voting in favor of the bill despite the last minute changes due to his faith that the Senate will hammer out a version that provides developers of all energy stripes the certainty they need.
His Californian colleague Representative Scott Peters, on the other hand, voted against the bill, but committed to getting a deal done with the Senate. “We need to get permitting reform done in this Congress,” he said on the House floor Thursday.