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:
Can the state decarbonize without bailing out its dicey projects?

This hasn’t been a good month for the offshore wind industry in New York, but the state is pushing ahead to try to reach its aggressive decarbonization goals. Governor Kathy Hochul announced on Tuesday contracts for three big offshore wind projects slated to go into operation in 2030 and bring four gigawatts of renewable energy to the grid.
As evidenced by the attendance of a senior White House official, Ali Zaidi, at the announcement, both the Hochul and Biden administrations are excited about New York’s offshore wind plan — or at least committed to making it work, despite the challenges and setbacks it has faced. And you can see why: Combine the three projects announced Tuesday with the four previously contracted out and the total is over eight gigawatts by 2030, almost the state’s goal of nine gigawatts by 2035.
But plans written down on paper are not steel in the sea and turbines in the air.
Up and down the East Coast, many states’ offshore wind projects are seeing rapidly accelerating costs from higher interest rates and supply chains that are throwing their plans to decarbonize their electricity sectors into doubt. Some projects, like Commonwealth Wind in Massachusetts, were mothballed while others, like Ocean Wind 1 in New Jersey, are eligible for fresh infusion of subsidies thanks to action by the legislature.
New York itself has so far failed to follow New Jersey’s lead. Two weeks ago, the state’s utility regulators denied a request by offshore wind developers to have their existing contracts readjusted for their new reality. An industry group warned the denial would likely lead to canceled projects, imperiling the state’s decarbonization goals.
So I was curious, does Hochul’s plan tackle the cost issue at all? It turns out it does, but not in a way that will rescue already troubled projects.
Before Tuesday’s announcement, she released a “10-point action plan” for renewables that included a provision to “launch an accelerated renewable energy procurement process for both offshore and onshore renewable energy projects, aiming to backfill any contracted projects which are terminated.”
These new contracts would have mechanisms to address rising costs without special payments or cancelling the deals. In short, the state’s strategy to address rising costs largely rests on coming up with new contracts that allow costs to rise (or are just more expensive in the first place), as opposed to going back and adjusting deals it has already struck with developers.
“Whereas in the earlier projects developers bore the risk of cost increases, in this current solicitation prices would be somewhat lower because risk is somewhat shifted to ratepayers,” Fred Zalcman, the director of the New York Offshore Wind Alliance, told me.
Emily Cote, a spokesperson for New York State Energy Research and Development Authority told me that the “strike price” of $145 per megawatt (an estimate of the all-in cost of the project divided by megawatt-hour — basically, it’s what developers are guaranteed to get paid) for the three announced is “approximately 28 percent higher” compared to the four existing projects, but 13 percent less than the what developers were asking for in inflation adjustments.
“This award group will also support a comparable amount of [offshore wind] development (4 gigawatts of new offshore wind projects) at a lower cost to ratepayers than the amount requested by these companies to the [New York state regulators],” Cote said.
Outside analysts think this system will work, at least for the new developers. Tancrede Fulop, an analyst at Morningstar, estimated that one of the three developers selected in this round, Community Ocean Wind (a consortium of the German energy company RWE and the utility National Grid), would ultimately get a strike price of $171 per megawatt after adjustments, compared to the $110 per megawatt that Orsted and Eversource’s Sunrise Wind received.
Community Ocean Wind’s deal, Fulop wrote, “impl[ies] good value accretion.” Morgan Stanley analysts wrote that the deal was “supportive of value creation even at conservative assumptions.”
But whether that approach will work to meet the state’s goals remains to be seen. All four of the existing wind projects may not be viable, their developers warned after the state decided not to adjust their contracts. While it’s possible the projects could end up being cancelled and bid on again under the new, more flexible contract arrangements, that could still add up to serious delays.
“The proponents of earlier projects have made clear that without relief ... the projects were in economic peril,” Zalcman said.
It’s also unclear if New York’s existing offshore wind developers will be around for a re-start.
Two of the groups currently building wind projects in New York — Equinor and BP plus Orsted and Eversource — bid in the latest round, but neither were picked. Both groups had asked for a version of the inflation adjustment present in this round to be retroactively applied to their current projects. Their rejection was an ominous sign for their chances of that happening.
Meanwhile, one of the winning bidders includes Rise Light & Power, which had actually publicly opposed the adjustments when much of the renewable industry was united in requesting them. Observers interpreted the move as Rise making a play for future renewable energy deals with the state.
“We are disappointed that New York did not select Sunrise Wind 2 in its latest offshore wind solicitation. Sunrise Wind 2 prioritized our commitment to financial discipline while delivering new economic activity and local jobs,” an Orsted spokesperson told me, noting it would “continue to evaluate opportunities.”
The spokesperson also reiterated that its South Fork Wind project’s construction is “underway and ongoing” with “turbine installation expected to begin imminently,” and electricity actually expected to flow by the end of the year. But the spokesperson also noted that for Sunrise Wind, a 924 megawatt project, its “viability and therefore ability to be constructed are extremely challenged without this adjustment.”
“We’re optimistic, but if experience tells us anything, these are exceedingly challenging projects that require a number of different elements coming together. It won’t be easy,” Zalcman said.
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.
Invest in Tomorrow Coalition says it took out clean energy adversaries in the midterms. Now it’s setting its sights on 2028.
A pro-renewables Super PAC – Invest in Tomorrow Coalition – is taking a victory lap, claiming it played a key role in the blue wave and announcing plans to be involved in the 2028 presidential primaries.
When I first heard of the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition, it was clearly a revenge operation. Backed by renewables companies and crypto magnate Chris Larsen, the Super PAC waded into primary elections this year to take out Republicans who voted to repeal most of the Inflation Reduction Act. Tom Matzzie, a renewables executive leading the Super PAC, described the organization to me as “focused on accountability for elected officials who decide they want to attack the clean energy industry.” Shortly afterwards, Invest in Tomorrow announced an investment in seven races before ultimately expanding to 18 races.
Now that the dust is settled, Matzzie told me that most of the races they intervened in wound up flipping red to blue: “I think we’re on track to win 12 or 13 of the 18 we invested in. We had seven or eight marquee races and we’re winning the majority of those. We were hopeful we’d get one in a tough district. We didn’t expect to get this many.”
Their favorite trophy is Indiana’s 5th congressional district in the northern Indianapolis region, where Rep. Victoria Spartz lost a historically comfortable GOP seat to J.D. Ford, a Democratic state senator. Matzzie told me the Super PAC invested $2 million in the race to beat Spartz, which he claimed is more than both campaigns spent combined. (My search of FEC records shows that may be true, if you don’t count other outside assistance.)
After Spartz was declared the loser, the Super PAC sent an email blast to the media with a short statement: “Tell Victoria Spartz. We want her to know it was us.”
The Super PAC also claims at least partial responsibility for helping oust Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, who lost by just a few thousand votes. I’m told they invested $1.5 million in the race, including on a digital ad centered around an incident where Boebert was escorted out of a live stage performance of “Beetlejuice.” The ad claimed Boebert couldn’t be trusted around children. It prompted Boebert to do a whole segment bashing the Super PAC while guest hosting former Rep. Matt Gaetz’s One America News show.
“Oh, I love it when they complain about us. I love it when they whine about us. We want them to spread the word to other members of Congress about what we’re doing,” Matzzie told me. “We want to send a message that we will do what is necessary to defeat you in your next election, including getting down in the mud if needed, and we have limits on what we say and won’t say, but it has to be truthful.”
Since it is already time for 2028 discussions, I asked Matzzie if the Super PAC had any ambitions to be involved in the presidential primaries next. Absolutely, he said. First that involvement will look like education. That could look like having pro-renewables voices urging GOP candidates to be more receptive to the sector, whether they be representatives of the business community or landowners with solar on their properties.
“The accountability part of this comes later as people firm up their point of view on what they’re running on and we don’t know what that is yet. We totally invite all of the candidates to be supportive of the clean energy industry if they’re running for president. That is our ideal outcome,” Matzzie said.
But if candidates don’t get the message will they go on the attack against primary candidates? “I have no hesitation about doing it.”
On electrification’s shortfall, AI for nuclear, and Alva Energy’s big plans
Current conditions: Heavy rain is overflowing rivers in the Dominican Republic’s eastern inland towns, including Monte Plata, where floodwaters are washing away cars • With weeks to go before the Atlantic hurricane season officially ends, a new tropical storm may be forming between the Bahamas and Bermuda • It’s cloudy and 51 degrees Fahrenheit in London, where the British are marking Guy Fawkes Day, a holiday commemorating the 421st anniversary of the failed plot by English Catholics to assassinate King James VI of Scotland and I of England by blowing up the House of Parliament.
It’s a rebuke of President Donald Trump! A new era! A sign that President Lyndon B. Johnson’s prediction that the Democrats would lose the South until the end of young Bill Moyers’ lifetime (he died last year) was true! Maybe it’s all of these things. But one thing is certain: Democrats’ big victory Tuesday night halts what my colleague Robinson Meyer called “Trump’s energy revolution,” meant to defy the economics of renewables. There’s still much to dissect — we don’t even know who won shockingly competitive U.S. Senate races in Mississippi and Alaska. But my colleagues have a nice slate of stories to help us get started:
Vice President JD Vance is openly blaming the Trump administration’s war with Iran for Republicans’ midterm shellacking, and Democrats are formulating a new approach after campaigning against the conflict and its associated energy shock. Iran, meanwhile, is signaling its openness to peace talks, even as Tehran turns to guerrilla tactics to regain control over the Strait of Hormuz. All that looks to oil traders like more crude hitting the market. On Wednesday, the price of West Texas Intermediate crude, the U.S. benchmark, fell more than 8% to $88 per barrel. Brent crude, the global price measure, plunged nearly 9% to just under $95 per barrel. Murban crude, the stuff that leaves a Persian Gulf port in the United Arab Emirates, dropped 1% to just under $101 per barrel.

Big meals, big trucks, big computers — it’s the American way. Only one of those is a problem for electricity prices — a problem that’s also uniquely American. New projections from the Rhodium Group suggest that the U.S. is the only major market where data centers are the primary driver behind surging electricity demand, constituting between 62% and 77% of gross demand growth. In China, Europe, India, and the Middle East, residential and commercial buildings are by far the biggest new sources of demand for electricity to power air conditioning, heating, and appliances. Meanwhile, according to data from the consultancy Cleanview, upward of 41% of planned data centers in the U.S. are in states where newly elected governors are considering moratoria on new projects
.

The Rhodium forecast also shows big global challenges for the fight to slow global warming. Electricity serves just 21% of the world’s end-use energy; by 2035, countries pledged to raise that figure to 35%. But the global average for electrification is on track to hit just 28% in the next nine years, threatening to maintain planet-heating pollution levels even as renewables surge and power emissions fall. Low-carbon sources of electricity are on track to generate upward of 80% of the power in China and the world’s richest economies, with variable renewables such as wind and solar producing the bulk of the output. Clean firm sources such as nuclear power and geothermal maintain a steady share of total output as variable sources eat into fossil fuels’ market. As a result, emissions shift to the parts of the world where fossil fuels will remain dominant. China and rich countries will account for 37% of emissions in 2050, down from 54% in 2024. India’s emissions will rise 26% by the middle of the century, and the entire African continent’s output by 37%. Worldwide industrial emissions are on track to stay static as the benefits of low-carbon steel are offset by the spike in production from coal-fired blast furnaces.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Whenever OpenAI or Anthropic releases a new model, the healthcare industry, say, can measure its capabilities by seeing how quickly it can pass a medical board test. Last year, the AI startup Atomic Canyon — which formed to help nuclear plant operators sift through mountains of documents using large language models — inked a deal with the Idaho National Laboratory to create a test that can check the software’s ability to work with a nuclear plant. Fourteen months later, the partnership has yielded results. On Thursday, I can report exclusively for this newsletter, Atomic Canyon is set to launch what it calls NuclearBench, the first open-source benchmark designed specifically to evaluate how LLMs perform on questions related to nuclear energy. “Think about it like an open-book exam for AI models,” Trey Lauderdale, Atomic Canyon’s founder and chief executive, told me. The company worked with INL to design a 280-question exam, which can then be administered to AI models, whose answers are judged by accuracy and context.
“As you’d expect, the more advanced models perform better. You’ve got OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic all vying at the top,” Lauderdale said. “Nothing we wouldn’t expect, but it’s nice to have actual metrics and information that validate general hypotheses you might have. You could instinctively say, This model is doing better. But it’s really important as an industry that you start benchmarking what these models can do.” Atomic Canyon’s test is not yet at the level of a medical board exam, he said. But the company plans to continuously update its exam to account for the growing sophistication of LLMs. Eventually, Lauderdale hopes to roll out more targeted tests focusing on safety and risk, reactor engineering, emergency preparedness, radiation, and other factors. “It’s the equivalent of the tests to become a general physician or those to become a cardiologist, dermatologist, or gastroenterologist,” he said.
Last month, I told you when tech giants announced a series of deals to help fund “uprates” at existing nuclear plants, renovations that potentially squeeze hundreds of megawatts of new generation out of reactors that are already running. The deals with Google and Amazon looked to generate more than a gigawatt of new power through uprates across PJM Interconnection, the most stressed grid system in the U.S. Now a startup specifically designed to affordably uprate reactors is considering projects to generate as much as 1.2 gigawatts of new power out of existing plants — and it just received a major endorsement from a utility industry heavyweight. I can exclusively report that, on Thursday, the developer Alva Energy plans to announce that Jeff Lyash, the former chief executive of the Tennessee Valley Authority and Ontario Power Generation, would join its board of directors. Lyash has plenty of nuclear experience. OPG, owned by Canada’s most populous province, operates the second-largest nuclear fleet in North America after the U.S.-based Constellation Energy. It’s also building the continent’s first small modular reactor, the first of GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s 300-megawatt units. The federally owned TVA, from which Lyash retired last year following Trump’s return to the White House, operates three nuclear plants and is building what’s expected to be America’s first SMR, the second GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 after OPG’s project at its Darlington plant. Lyash will be the fifth member of Alva’s board. After former Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger, he’s the second to come from outside the company; the other three board members are Alva’s co-founders.
“What’s been pretty amazing is that we’re starting to attract top-tier industry talent,” James Krellenstein, Alva’s chief executive and co-founder, told me. “Jeff joining the board has been pretty transformational because he brings a massive amount of experience in modifying existing plants.” At OPG in particular, Krellenstein said, Lyash oversaw refurbishments of the utility’s CANDU reactors. He also sits on the boards of the utility Dominion Energy, the Canadian construction giant Aecon, the industrial conglomerate Curtiss-Wright, and the European reactor startup Newcleo, which Krellenstein said lends Alva greater insight into other sectors’ large-scale project management. “What the economy of the United States is looking for is sources of clean, 24/7 power. Nuclear power uprates are a way in the short term to get that demand fulfilled in the United States while simultaneously rebuilding the execution capability necessary to create new plants. That’s the exact scaling strategy that Alva is working on.”
It’s no Norway, where electric vehicles make up nearly 99% of new car sales. But EVs’ share of Germany’s new car market soared to a record 37% last month, according to data from the country’s national motor vehicle authority, the Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt. That, according to Electrek, equates to 94,086 new battery-electric vehicles, up nearly 80% from the 53,425 sold a year earlier.
‘It’s truly possible that a lot of people will wake up and realize that the spell is broken from Trump.’
After Donald Trump won his second term two years ago, I wrote about “the death of climate tech” — or at least the death of the term. That largely held up. Climate-focused investors and startups increasingly dropped the label in favor of energy security, efficiency, and infrastructure resilience, often reframing their pitch to serve the booming data center industry along the way. Following the Democrats’ midterm sweep on Tuesday, I checked in with “climate tech” investors to see whether the industry might be ready for a rhetorical — and ideally literal — comeback.
On the rhetoric, they were largely unconvinced. On the substance, they were a bit more hopeful.
“This was not an election that was a referendum about climate or energy or anything even close to that,” Lara Pierpoint, managing director at the philanthropic climate tech firm Trellis Climate, told me. The consensus was that voters were far more concerned with affordability, Trump’s deep unpopularity, and, to some extent, the data center backlash. Sure, all of these issues touch on climate, but it was by no means anyone’s central message.
But that doesn’t mean Tuesday wasn’t still a win for the energy transition.
“This new Congress, controlled by Democrats, will focus mostly on energy affordability and access,” Gabriel Kra, managing director at Prelude Ventures, told me. That, he said, will likely encompass a push for more solar, wind, and batteries in energy planning — but “all in the name of affordability and reliability, not focused on climate.”
Susan Su, a climate investor and analyst, expects this El Niño cycle to bring climate back into the conversation, but “maybe more in the form of adaptation, extreme weather, and just resilience,” she told me.
“I don’t think we’re going to rush back to talk about climate this or that. I think we will rush back to acknowledging that this is the macro of all macros,” Andrew Beebe of Obvious Ventures told me, meaning climate remains one of the biggest forces shaping the global economy, whether or not investors and policymakers choose to call it that. “Maybe it’ll just get more attention in whatever name, I don’t really care.”
Still, investors aren’t expecting an immediate flood of federal climate action in the lame-duck session, although, of course, passing the permitting bill would ease the way for economy-wide electrification. And Kra told me it’s still too soon to know whether some of the Trump administration’s canceled or frozen grants for technologies like clean cement, steel, hydrogen, and carbon capture could be revived under a Democratic Congress. Restarting that funding would certainly offer a beacon of hope for clean industries that have yet to move down the cost curve and into the realm of true affordability.
Investors’ most realistic near-term hope is that Tuesday’s results mark the beginning of a more stable era for the clean energy ecosystem. “The Trump administration has just introduced so much chaos, and markets hate chaos. They love certainty,” Su told me. She pointed out that as the results rolled in, the 10-year Treasury yield dipped. Su read that as a sign that investors were rushing to lock in today’s higher rates, betting that a more stable political environment would lower borrowing costs down the road. That would both make first-of-a-kind projects cheaper to finance and push investors to chase riskier, higher-return bets in the venture market.
“Even just the perception of more certainty via a potential check on Trump — a legislative check on Trump — could bring cost of capital down, which is going to have a positive halo effect across our whole sector,” Su told me.
Kra expressed a similar hope: that the next two years will lay the groundwork for a more durable U.S. energy and industrial policy framework. “By durable, I mean guidelines and rules and laws that can survive a changed administration and a change of control of Congress,” he told me. “That will unlock affordable reshoring of American manufacturing. That will unlock an industrial and commercial response that will really catalyze growth in the economy, in clean electricity and energy, and in the innovation economy.”
I also heard some optimism that Republicans, battered by Tuesday’s results, might start to find their voice on clean energy as they begin to break free from Trump’s yoke. “My big hope would be that we finally enter a phase where Republicans can not be threatened to say what I think most of them already know, which is that the climate issues are real and need addressing,” Beebe told me. “It’s truly possible that a lot of people will wake up and realize that the spell is broken from Trump, and they will be able to, in the plain light of day, evaluate things at face value again.”
That could help depoliticize and expedite the rollout of technologies like electric vehicles and heat pumps, which have become partisan products in recent years. Meanwhile, Rajesh Swaminathan of Khosla Ventures told me via email that he sees lots of potential for bipartisan momentum behind superhot rock geothermal, fusion, critical minerals, and cost-competitive clean cement and steel.
Now, Su told me, it’s time for climate technologies that have talked a big game on affordability to prove it, giving investors and Republican skeptics no reason to dismiss them. “For years, founders have been talking about, ‘Oh, we’re not just cleaner, but we’re actually cheaper and better.’ Okay, so now it’s time to put your money where your mouth is,” she told me.
She’s also optimistic that this younger generation of newly elected lawmakers will be more open to the full spectrum of climate solutions, from adaptation and carbon removal to more speculative and unconventional ideas like solar geoengineering. “It’s not going to be Al Gore anymore,” she told me. “I think younger people have a very different view on, let’s do what we need to do to make ourselves have a livable future versus sticking to older mental models.”
But perhaps the most liberating takeaway from Tuesday night for Su and her fellow investors? “We don’t have to pretend that we’re friends with Donald Trump anymore.”