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:

The Department of Energy is giving the green light to Project Cypress, a cluster of facilities in southwest Louisiana that will filter carbon dioxide directly from the air and store it underground. The agency announced Wednesday that it will award the project $50 million for the next phase of its development, which will be matched by $51 million in private investment.
Before receiving any money, the Project Cypress team had to reach an agreement with the DOE regarding how they would engage with community and labor stakeholders. The result, also released Wednesday, was a series of commitments — for example, to assemble a community advisory board, to partner with local workforce development organizations, and to create a public website with project information.
The developers have yet to provide a list of more concrete, measurable benefits the project will bring to the community. This was more like a plan to make a plan that will have robust community input. That the project sits near Lake Charles, home to some of the most contested energy projects in the country, will not make the next steps easy, however.
The funding is part of a $3.5 billion program authorized by Congress in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to create four such “direct air capture hubs” around the country in an effort to help commercialize the nascent technology. This is the first award the DOE has handed out after selecting Project Cypress last August as one of two hubs it would consider supporting. A second hub under development by Occidental Petroleum in South Texas is still in negotiations with the agency and has yet to receive funding.
Once it’s fully operational, Project Cypress is designed to capture 1 million tons of carbon from the air per year, employing two different technological approaches to do so.
The first, developed by the Swiss startup Climeworks, uses fans to draw air into metal boxes containing a material called a sorbent that attracts carbon dioxide molecules. Then it heats the sorbent, which releases the CO2 so that it can be stored.
The second approach, pioneered by a California-based company called Heirloom, involves crushing and cooking limestone so that it becomes calcium oxide, a white powder that’s thirsty for CO2. Heirloom lays the powder out on trays, where it binds with carbon dioxide in the air. Then it bakes the powder in an electric kiln to remove the CO2.
Both companies say they will use renewable energy to power their respective processes. To lock the carbon away underground, they are partnering with a company called Gulf Coast Sequestration which has applied for permits to drill two CO2 storage wells on a vast, privately-owned cattle and horse ranch in West Calcasieu Parish. After the carbon is captured, it will be liquified and delivered by pipeline to a well, where it will be injected into porous sandstone about 10,000 feet below the Earth’s surface.
With this award, the project will enter the second of four implementation phases, during which the companies will finalize the project’s design, engage with area residents and stakeholders to complete a community benefits plan, and start on the permitting process.
Phase two will not be quick — it’s expected to last two to three years. Then the companies will begin negotiating with the DOE for funding for phases three — construction — and four — the ramp-up to full-scale operation. The DOE has structured the DAC Hubs program with off-ramps at the start of each phase, allowing the agency to deny additional funding to a project if it finds that it is not meeting previously agreed-upon objectives. But if all goes well, Project Cypress is eligible for up to $600 million.
The Carbon Removal Alliance, a group that lobbies for policies to support what it calls “high quality carbon removal,” sees this award as a “fresh start” for the Department of Energy in that it shows the agency moving beyond its traditional role of funding research and development to commercializing technologies.
“With official funding beginning to flow into states like Louisiana and backed by robust community benefits plans to ensure the highest standards, we’re about to see how technologies like direct air capture can provide positive benefits to our economies and environment,” said Giana Amador, the executive director of the Carbon Removal Alliance.
Members of the community, however, are skeptical that the project will benefit them.
The industrial history of Calcasieu Parish is both an asset and a curse for Project Cypress. The area is home to a high concentration of refineries, petrochemical plants, and liquified natural gas terminals. The developers chose the location because it had a local workforce with relevant skills and the right geology to trap carbon underground, but the residents’ trust will be hard-won after decades of living in one of the most polluted corridors in the country, where news of toxic spills and leaks is common. Many residents have spent the last few years furiously fighting the buildout of several new LNG plants that are expected to increase pollution even more.
One of those activists is James Hiatt, a former refinery worker based in Sulphur, Louisiana. About a year ago, Hiatt founded a group called For A Better Bayou because he wanted to build a grassroots movement to reimagine the future of Louisiana — to be for something, not just against heavy industry.
“I want people to really imagine and embrace an alternative future for ourselves,” he told me. But to him, direct air capture is not it. “I wish I was so sold on it, like this is the way forward and I could get behind it and we could be like oh yeah, let's do this,” he told me. “But it just does not add up for me.”
When the project developers and the DOE held a meeting for stakeholders last November, Hiatt said, even attendees who worked in the oil and gas and petrochemical industries expressed doubts about the plan.
Hiatt shared a few videos from the meeting with me. One speaker questioned whether the jobs created would truly go to people from the area. This is not the first time a company has come in promising jobs and economic growth, only to hire workers from Alabama or Texas. Another speaker called the idea of a community benefits plan a way to “distract the community” from the risks of the project, which the companies have yet to define. (A preliminary list published Wednesday included things like increased traffic and noise during construction, risk of leakage during the transport or storage of the CO2, and energy and water use.) Others implored the companies not to seek property tax breaks, which divert revenue away from schools and social services.
When Project Cypress was first announced, the developers said it would create “approximately 2,300 quality jobs and generate a billion-dollar economic stimulus in the region, with increased opportunities for local contractors, suppliers, and small businesses.” The project also has a stated goal of hiring at least 10% of its workforce from the local fossil fuel and plastics industries.
But beyond that, its intentions are vague. The list of commitments published on Wednesday included lots of plans — i.e., a plan to create a “Site Labor and Workforce Development plan” which will “describe plans to provide equal access to jobs for local residents for construction and operations” — but few concrete actions or outcomes, yet.
Hiatt is especially skeptical that the carbon will stay underground and is worried about leaks. But perhaps more than that, the math of it all doesn’t make sense to him. Project Cypress might capture a million tons of CO2 from the air per year, but Louisiana alone releases more than 200 million tons annually, and is still approving new emissions-intensive facilities like those LNG plants. “Even if we scale this up, we'd have to scale it up orders of magnitude higher than will ever be possible,” he told me. “It doesn't seem like it's worth the time or the money to be doing this when we should be reducing the emissions to start with.”
There are many hurdles to scaling up direct air capture, but overcoming this cognitive dissonance is one of the trickiest. Ultimately, the goal of the project is not to offset Louisiana’s emissions. It’s to demonstrate a technology that could eventually, if we develop the right incentives to support it, clean up carbon that’s already in the atmosphere. But believing in that vision demands that people also see a world where emissions will start to decline — one that’s perhaps not yet apparent in Lake Charles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
“We will not cease exports of U.S. diesel,” the Secretary of Energy told us at Heatmap House.
Secretary of Energy Chris Wright threw cold water on a potential diesel export ban, telling Heatmap executive editor Robinson Meyer that the president “didn’t endorse it.”
“We are open to any ideas to lower energy prices for Americans,” Wright said at our Heatmap House event at New York Climate Week. “We have a continual, thoughtful dialog based on the facts on the ground of what are the most practical steps moving forward, and it looks like right now we do need to grow the diesel supply in the United States.”
There could be some adjustments to the diesel industry, Wright told Rob, saying there may “be some tweak in where diesel flows out of U.S. refineries.” About a full-scale ban, however, he was unequivocal. “We will not cease exports of U.S. diesel.”
That stands in contrast to President Trump’s remarks Tuesday, when he told reporters, “I’ve said, ‘Let’s not send out the diesel.’ I’ve called for it. I’ve called for it within my people.” Politico reported Wednesday afternoon that the administration is “preparing” a 90-day export ban.
When asked if a diesel export ban would hurt America’s reputation as an energy superpower, Wright told Heatmap, “It certainly would have impacts.” But, he added, “I don’t think there’s serious consideration, although there’s always been a dialogue. I don’t think you will see a blanket ban on diesel. And yes, of course, we want to be the energy superpower supplying the whole world.”
Some Republicans in Congress have called for a diesel export ban, including Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, who represents agriculture-heavy Iowa. High diesel prices impose a particularly large cost on two groups: farmers and New Englanders. Farmers need diesel to fuel equipment to harvest crops and trucks to move their goods, while millions of New Englanders rely on heating oil — which is virtually interchangeable with diesel — to heat their homes in the winter. Bills for heating oil may exceed $2,000 this winter, according to Mark Wolfe, the executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association
Diesel prices today are sitting at just over $6.50 per gallon, according to AAA, up from $3.69 a year ago and $5.60 just a month ago.
The former vice president joined us at Heatmap House at New York Climate Week to talk about electric vehicles, artificial intelligence, and why clean energy will ultimately win.
In front of a packed room at Heatmap House on Wednesday morning, former Vice President Al Gore made the case for optimism on climate change.
“There is a possibility we will look back on this year of 2026 as the positive tipping point on climate,” he said.
He started with some high water marks in renewable energy and electric vehicles. Last year was the first year that the production of energy from renewable sources exceeded the overall increase in global energy demand, for example. Whereas 20 years ago, when Gore’s landmark climate change film An Inconvenient Truth premiered, there were virtually no electric vehicles on the road, by the end of this year about 30% of all new cars sold globally will be EVs.
On top of that, he later added, “the war in Iran marks the second time in four years that the fossil fuel supply chain has been disrupted, and price volatility has returned, and people around the world have reacted to this and in a really dramatic way.” Just in the past six months, EV sales reached record levels in 50 countries; Korea’s president committed to speed its transition off fossil fuels; Thailand announced a shift from liquified natural gas to renewables; and solar is booming in Africa.
“These are signs that this thing is really moving into high gear,” he said. “The fossil fuel industry is losing, they know they’re losing, and they’re trying to slow down how quickly they lose.”
Gore was also surprisingly hopeful about artificial intelligence, arguing that data centers were a cause for concern but “not a justification for panic.” He’s not convinced that the carbon emissions from powering artificial intelligence will have a decisive impact on our climate trajectory, and is far more worried about “cognitive atrophy and the emergence of an intelligence that makes us no longer the apex intelligence on the planet.”
The conversation with Gore followed an interview with one of his climate champion descendents, so to speak. Mikie Sherrill, the governor of New Jersey, showed off her energy bona fides in a conversation about her approach to affordability and data centers. She talked up her administration’s swift approvals of solar and battery projects to ensure they made the deadline for federal tax credits, lifting the state’s moratorium on nuclear, and implementation of virtual power plants.
“There is a crisis going on, so you cannot simply say to people, ‘Sorry, your bills are just going to keep skyrocketing,’” she said. “That is not the answer, which is why we’ve acted so aggressively.”
Sherrill also criticized data center developers for the way they have frequently come into the state without engaging with communities. “I told a data center, I said, ‘You guys have been horrible at it. I’m just telling you, nobody knows what a data center is, and you need to explain why it's even important. Are you curing cancer? What are you doing? Why is this a societal benefit?’”
She encouraged future Democratic candidates for public office to make sure they have a deep understanding of the specific energy circumstances of their state, and to speak to that on the campaign trail. “The can has been kicked down the road on too many different issues, and if you were going to try to duck your head and say some mealy-mouthed thing like, ‘We’re going to do all of the above’ and ‘Everyone's welcome and we like business,’ that’s not going to cut it.”
On offshore wind lawsuits, transmission woes, and a nuclear IPO
Current conditions: A potential nor’easter is barreling toward New York City, potentially hitting the five boroughs just as world leaders gathered for the United Nations General Assembly get set to fly home • Hurricane Polo has rapidly strengthened into a Category 5 storm off Mexico’s Pacific coast, threatening flooding, winds, and storm surge • Yet another tropical storm is forming off the coast of Hawaii, risking mudslides and flooding.
The air is crisp here in Manhattan. UN representatives are grandstanding. And many of the biggest names in energy and climate are gathering alongside my colleagues at Heatmap House, our day-long summit for New York Climate Week. Some of the talks today include:
You can join the waitlist to come in person by registering here. And you can register to watch the livestream here.

In his opening address to the annual gathering of nearly all the world’s nations in New York, United Nations Secretary General António Guterres called for an end to what he desscribed as “the most profound intergenerational power imbalance of all.” Climate change, he said, has led to “one group profiting, while those least responsible suffer first and worst.” The former Portuguese prime minister from the Iberian country’s leading center-left party highlighted last month’s catastrophic flood in Nepal as an example of the unfair toll global warming is taking. “As tragic events have shown, impacts are arriving sooner, hitting harder, and spreading further than many anticipated. Now we face a near certain breach of the 1.5-degree limit, with a supersized El Niño speeding straight for humanity,” he said. “The dangers are real. But so is the hope.”
President Donald Trump struck a decidedly different tone in his remarks to the assembly. In a characteristically fiery speech defending the U.S. war with Iran, he vowed to “annihilate the Islamic Republic “ or “drive them into hell with no chance of survival” if Tehran doesn’t agree to a peace deal with Washington soon — and that doing so would bring down oil prices. “If we stand united, we will soon see a world free of the last 51-year menace of Iranian terror,” Trump said. “And oil prices will come plummeting down even lower than they were at the start of the conflict. And they were very low in the United States. They were really low. With courage and resolve, anything is possible.” As an example, he pointed to what he called the largest oil deal in history with Venezuela last month. “When you add the United States and Venezuela together, we have more than 60% of the oil in the world,” Trump said. “So it’s perhaps the biggest deal. It was a war, but it’s perhaps the biggest deal ever made. To the victor belong the spoils.” Among the other spoils the president sees: Tuesday’s signing of his updated deal with Greenland to permanently bar Russian, Chinese, and other adversaries from making large-scale investments or setting up military outposts on the Danish-controlled Arctic island.
Back in June, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed what my colleague Emily Pontecorvo clocked as the first major state lawsuit challenging any of the Trump administration’s series of deals to pay offshore wind developers to abandon their projects. The lawsuit zeroed in on TotalEnergies and the $1 billion the Department of the Interior offered for the French giant to walk away from two proposed projects. On Tuesday, Albany announced two more lawsuits seeking to block deals with the developers Bluepoint Wind and Invenergy that, combined, would equal “$1.4 billion in taxpayer dollars in exchange for canceling four critical offshore wind projects.” New York Governor Kathy Hochul, who joined the lawsuit, admonished “the Trump administration’s unlawful pay-to-not-play scheme to pressure companies to forgo planned offshore wind projects in America,” which she called “an outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars that hurts our ability to meet our energy needs.”
That same day, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit over the Interior Department’s deal with Invenergy to kill off what would have been one of the first major offshore wind projects on the West Coast. “At a time when we need more reliable, clean energy, President Trump is trying to send $111 million dollars to his fossil fuel industry friends and wants taxpayers and working families to cover the tab,” Bonta said in a press release. “This outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars will damage the offshore wind industry and create unnecessary obstacles to clean and reliable energy powering our homes and economies.” Both states explicitly tied the timing of the lawsuits to New York Climate Week, the five-day series of events around Manhattan that are tied to the UN General Assembly and seen as the aperitif for November’s global climate talks in Turkey.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
A 190-mile transmission line stretching across Wisconsin is drawing blowback from Democrats and Republicans. The state’s congressional delegation is increasingly aligned. Representative Mark Pocan, a Democrat, said Midcontinent Grid Solutions’ outreach to residents on the power line “does not match the scale of the project’s impact on their land, their livelihoods, and their communities,” the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. Senator Tammy Baldwin, another Democrat, called for a “slowdown” of the development process. On the other side of the aisle, Republican Representative Derrick Van Orden has backed a full moratorium on the project.
Coincidentally, Trump has signaled he’s willing to ease the administration’s blockade on renewables in a bid to secure a federal permitting deal with Democrats, Politico reported Tuesday. Two unnamed sources told the outlet that Trump has agreed to direct the Department of Defense to start clearing its queue of long-delayed onshore wind projects. My colleague Jael Holzman reported last week that, despite a court ruling ordering the military to resume its reviews, the administration hasn’t yet.
It was a bullish time for nuclear, it was a bearish time for nuclear. Billions of dollars are flowing into projects and ideas for reactors are proliferating as has not been seen since the mid-20th century atomic power buildout in North America, Europe, and East Asia. But startups debuting on the stock market are falling far short of expectations. Fuel maker Standard Nuclear went public in July in what Bloomberg called “a downsized U.S. IPO,” while the Amazon-backed next-generation reactor company X-Energy has fallen nearly 40% below its IPO price. America’s nuclear champion, Westinghouse, is still eyeing a $50 billion valuation ahead of a potential IPO. But it remains unclear whether that deal will ultimately go through. The market uncertainty isn’t stopping one of Europe’s most advanced nuclear startups from going public in the U.S. On Tuesday, Newcleo listed on the Nasdaq after completing a $247 million deal with a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, essentially a cheat code for a swift IPO that involves merging with an already-traded black-check company and thus allowing the firm to avoid the months of due diligence with investment bankers that typically precedes a stock market debut. Newcleo CEO Stefano Buono called the deal “a new steppingstone that sets up” the company “for long-term success.”
For fusion no longer to be “the energy source of tomorrow that always will be,” as the old joke goes, the startups promising to bring about the so-called holy grail of clean power need to scale up supply chains. Inertia, the fusion startup that formed with much of the team of U.S. government scientists that pulled off the historic 2022 breakthrough that made fusion energy a possibility, is now laying the groundwork for commercialization. On Tuesday, the company, led by former Twilio CEO Jeff Lawson (yes, the same one that’ll be at Heatmap House), announced what it called “close collaborations” with three companies to begin manufacturing the lasers needed for Inertia’s fusion power plants at scale. “These are the first of many industrial collaborations we will coordinate to bring the scale of mass manufacturing to industrialize the laser fusion energy supply chain,” the company said.