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:
Got a solar panel? Time for a little energy arbitrage.

The new film Dumb Money gives home traders the Hollywood treatment. The movie, based on the GameStop saga of 2021, recounts how amateur stock enthusiasts and trolls united on online platforms like Reddit drove up the stock price of an over-the-hill video game store and caused huge losses for hedge funds that bet against the stock.
The bizarre episode shone a spotlight on just how many armchair stock jockeys are out there. Now, another type of trader is quietly growing in popularity: the garage energy baron.
Online, you can find solar enthusiasts not only celebrating how much energy their panels created but also how much money they made by selling energy back to the electric utility. As more homes can make and store their own energy, more homeowners are trying to get in on “energy arbitrage.” They are buying low and selling high, though this time the product in question is not a share of company stock, but a kilowatt-hour of energy.
Most people have minimal control of their home energy. It is a resource we consume, and the principal way to affect the monthly bill is by turning up the AC or turning off the lights. The roughly 5 percent of Americans with solar panels, along with those who have wind turbines or other ways to generate electricity, have been changing the equation by becoming energy providers rather than passive recipients.
Home solar lowers the amount of energy a home must buy from the grid. Sometimes, when the sun shines high and unobstructed, homeowners with a large solar setup can make more energy than the home requires. In most places, they can turn around and sell the excess energy back to the grid. Net metering, as it is called, helps to recoup the five-figure sum needed to pay for solar panels in the first place.
The revenue can be eye-popping. In the Tesla Solar subreddit, a hive of people with Elon Musk’s solar panels and integrated home energy systems, users recount the details of their system and their savings. A poster from Texas this week uploaded a screenshot showing they made $600 in a month by selling back energy as part of Tesla Electric, the company’s virtual power plant (VPP).
Tesla Electric works because of a new wrinkle in the energy game. With the advent of products such as Tesla’s Powerwall — basically a big, intelligent battery for the house — homeowners can now make their own energy and store it for later, which opens new possibilities. The first is a no-brainer: Stashing excess energy in the battery creates a backup power supply in case of a blackout. However, the ability to charge and discharge the battery at will gives rise to gamesmanship.
Suppose that instead of selling solar energy to the grid right away (in the afternoon when there’s lots of it), a homeowner stashes it and waits. In the evening, when energy demand rises as people get home from work and the price of energy rises, that’s when their system hits the “sell button.”
This is energy arbitrage. It earns the biggest windfalls when prices are volatile, with big gaps between high and low. That’s exactly what happened in Australia in 2022, where wild markets earned record profits for anyone who could use a big battery to buy and sell energy. In Texas, the Tesla Electric VPP automatically sells the energy stored in customers’ home Powerwalls when the price is the highest (and refills the battery when electricity is cheap), which leads to windfall profits during a major “sell event.” One Redditor claimed to be up more than $800 this summer, mostly by using his Powerwall to perform energy arbitrage.
Indeed, homeowners don’t need solar panels or wind turbines to do this, says Jeff Maguire, a researcher at the National Renewable Energy Lab.
“If you're in that scenario and you have a battery, you can charge the battery when energy is cheap and discharge it when energy is expensive,” he says. “You'll make a little bit of profit, and you can do that every day. It’s called energy arbitrage. It's one way to pay [yourself] back for the batteries. It's usually not enough to cover the cost of the battery itself, but it certainly helps, and then you'll have it for resilience when you need it.”
Of course, all this scheming and strategy is reliant upon one basic idea: that a person can sell electricity back to the grid at fair market price. There is no guarantee this will continue indefinitely.
Over the past couple of years, state lawmakers and electric utility operators around the country have proposed cutting off net metering, slashing the rates residents get paid for extra energy. One (disputed) argument from utilities is “cost-shift,” the idea that people with solar panels are subsidized by everybody else who pays for standard electricity, and who pays for the upkeep of the grid as part of every kWh they purchase. Another is technical: America’s aging infrastructure wasn’t built with this “backfeeding” in mind, and may not be able to deal with a very large number of homes sending juice back onto the grid.
The gambit is also about the big utilities’ bottom line. They don’t want to have to “curtail” some of their solar because there’s too much on the grid, thanks to net-metering residents. And they, too, are engaged in the energy arbitrage game.
Many electric utilities are installing their own large energy storage facilities, which is crucial as the country uses more and more renewable energy: If people can’t move their electricity consumption to the times of peak energy supply — say, by charging their EV in the middle of the day when the sun shines — then we need to save lots of our renewable energy for later. When the utility stashes solar energy made from the noontime sun and sells it at 7 p.m. when residential electricity is costlier, it makes a little profit in the process to help pay for the cost of those storage systems.
What all this means for the home energy trader could vary wildly state by state. New Hampshire, in a surprise, just decided against slashing net metering rates. Sunny California, the country’s biggest residential solar market, cut energy payments for new PV installations by 75 percent – in theory because there’s already too much solar – while grandfathering in all the people who already have panels.
It may turn out that if you want to be a solar trader, you should have started yesterday.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Welcoming the world’s first clean energy trillionaire.
SpaceX is now a public company. The rocket and satellite maker’s shares began trading this morning, surging 19% from their initial price of $135 to more than $160 at the market close. With the sale, Elon Musk became the world’s first trillionaire; his wealth has roughly tripled since President Donald Trump won re-election in 2024.
I’ll let other observers judge the IPO’s success, the firm’s long-term prospects, and the meaning of a world where we now have trillionaires. So I will make a few other points:
I remain agog at Musk’s ability to raise enormous amounts of cash from public equity markets to do hardware and manufacturing development. To some degree, the idea of a venture-backed firm doing hardware engineering — or what some now call “deep tech” — is Musk’s most impressive creation. The SpaceX IPO raised $75 billion today. That money will now go in part to scaling and commercializing rockets, factory equipment, and allegedly, at some point in the future, orbiting data centers.
Let’s not forget how crucial the U.S. government is to Musk’s story. In the world of climate, energy and manufacturing, we wail about financing’s “missing middle,” the elusive type of investment that can help scale and deploy early-stage technologies by bridging the gap between expensive venture capital and cheap bank lending. But this is at least partially a solved problem. SpaceX and Tesla survived the valley of death with government help: The Energy Department’s Loan Programs Office (which the Trump administration has dubbed the Office of Energy Dominance Financing) extended a $465 million loan to Tesla to build its Fremont, California, factory in 2010; NASA’s 2008 commercial resupply contract gave SpaceX guaranteed offtake for its Falcon rocket. Neither firm would likely have survived without those key injections of financial certainty.
To some degree, Musk has already made his mark on the American economy by creating a new culture of manufacturing engineering. I cannot recommend enough my colleagues Matthew Zeitlin and Emily Pontecorvo’s report on the new cadre of climate tech founders who came up at SpaceX and Tesla. As it happens, I spent Wednesday touring a clean energy factory founded by a Tesla alumnus, and I was struck by how many signs of Musk’s bottlenecks-focused management approach were visible, even at a company seemingly run more humanely than Musk’s famously “hardcore” firms.
Sign up to get Heatmap in your inbox daily.
To that point, Emily and Matt asked a number of clean tech executives who worked for SpaceX or Tesla what they learned from the experience. Their responses are fascinating; you can read them in full here. These comments from Justin Lopas, the COO of Base Power, stuck out — he was asked the “one thing” he learned from working for Musk:
You can get way more done in a day and can move way faster than you think. This does not mean necessarily more hours (although solving any hard problem requires that too), but instead being thoughtful about sequencing work, not accepting delays from suppliers or external counterparties without solid rationale, parallel pathing, accelerating critical learnings to early in the project, etc
To step back, one irony of Elon Musk’s situation — at least to me — is that relatively few American politicians are eager to talk about what has actually driven his wealth. I’m not just talking about his firms’ reliance on public financing, although that counts too. I mean Tesla itself. Although Musk now describes that business as a “robotics company,” it is and remains an electric vehicle and battery manufacturer. (It recently began high-volume production of the Tesla Semi, a potentially game-changing long-haul electric truck.) After today, Musk’s Tesla stake makes up less than half of his wealth, but, still, he would not be a trillionaire without EVs, solar panels, and batteries.
But that is not a particularly convenient fact. That Musk is a clean energy trillionaire remains unpalatable to Republicans, who would prefer to cast EVs as an inferior substitute made to satisfy government mandates. And Musk’s antisemitism, far-right politics, and gleeful destruction of the U.S. Agency for International Development — not to mention Tesla’s violation of labor law — have obviously destroyed his reputation among Democrats.
Yet his elevation to a 13-digit net worth nonetheless marks a new era in American capitalism. The richest Americans in history have almost always been oilmen: John D. Rockefeller became the country’s first billionaire by creating the Standard Oil trust; when he died in 1937, his net worth of $1.4 billion represented 1% to 2% of the country’s gross domestic product. In the 1960s, J. Paul Getty became the country’s richest person by negotiating Saudi and Kuwaiti oil concessions. Yet Musk became a billionaire not by harnessing commodities, but through his mastery of software, hardware, and clean energy.
Musk’s fortune now exceeds 3% of U.S. GDP. He is the richest American in history, judged as a share of national production. And it was electricity, lithium, and modern factory production — and, if you wish, the kerosene and methane that fuel SpaceX’s rockets — that got him there. As the science fiction writer William Gibson almost said, the future is already here; it’s just not evenly distributed in your retirement portfolio yet.
Many thanks for reading, and have a wonderful weekend.
Plus SAF, another SPAC, and more of the week’s biggest money moves.
With SpaceX’s historic IPO dominating headlines this week, Heatmap turned its attention to the impact Elon Musk’s protégés have had on the climate tech landscape. Right after we published the story, an underwater geothermal startup founded and staffed by SpaceX alumni announced a sizable Series A, with its founder telling TechCrunch that his “experience at a very hardcore company like SpaceX” helped shape his approach to this new endeavor.
In other news, one of the biggest players in the sustainable aviation space, Twelve, opened its first commercial fuels plant and is preparing to begin supplying low-carbon jet fuel to Alaska Airlines later this month. Meanwhile, the battery sector saw two SPAC announcements: In a bid for survival, Factorial Energy officially went public this week through a SPAC merger, while ZincFive announced plans to do the same later this year. And finally there was some positive news for Germany’s heat pump market, as the startup Galvany raised fresh funding to simplify the end-to-end process of buying, installing, and operating a heat pump.
Drawing from an increasingly familiar playbook for Musk alumni, Endurance Energy founder and former SpaceX engineer Andrew Redd applied the lessons he learned from the rocket company’s notoriously “hardcore” culture and rapid pace of development to something completely different. Now that he’s pivoted away from rocket tech, Redd wants to harness geothermal energy from underwater volcanic activity, and his startup just raised a $54 million Series A to make it happen While a growing crop of geothermal startups including Fervo and Zanskar are focused on tapping into the heat beneath our feet, no other company in the sector has sought to develop the resource beneath the ocean floor.
There are good reasons for that, of course. Offshore infrastructure is notoriously difficult and expensive to build, maintain, and repair, and saltwater is corrosive. But if Endurance can crack the code, Redd told TechCrunch he thinks the company could unlock about 6 terawatts of geothermal energy in the coming decade.
Investors seem to be convinced: Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund led the startup’s latest funding roundSeries A, its second capital raise since launching less than two years ago. Other backers include First Round Capital, Felicis Ventures, and Voyager Ventures. EnduranceThe startup is initially targeting remote islands, where electricity costs are often far higher than on the mainland. It’s already launched an initial pilot off the coast of Tonga, which still gets about 80% of its electricity from imported diesel.
Twelve, one of the best capitalized sustainable aviation fuel startups, opened its first e-fuel facility in Washington State this week. The demo plant has officially started production, and the company’s strategic partner and investor, Alaska Airlines, expects to begin using it on commercial flights as soon as this month. The plant’s launch comes roughly two years later than originally planned, a delay that’s hardly unusual for first-of-a-kind industrial projects like this. Last September, Twelve raised $645 million to complete buildout of the facility, as well as to jumpstart development of future plants, which it says will be orders of magnitude larger.
The company’s process begins with renewable-powered electrolysis. Using a proprietary catalyst, Twelve’s electrolyzer splits apart CO2 captured from a nearby ethanol plant at a lower temperature than conventional approaches, making it better suited to running on renewable energy. The company combines the resulting carbon monoxide with hydrogen to create a syngas, which gets refined into sustainable jet fuel. Airlines can blend the resulting product with conventional jet fuel (the Federal Aviation Administration allows a maximum 50% blend) to create a drop-in replacement that requires no engine modifications.
To cover the cost premium of SAF, Twelve and Alaska partnered with Microsoft. The tech giant is buying SAF certificates — essentially carbon credits — from the project to help offset Scope 3 emissions associated with employee travel. “We are seeing strong demand from the corporate offtake side, not only for employee travel, but also for freight and logistics,” Twelve’s CEO, Nicholas Flanders, told me. “Everything from pharmaceuticals to data centers use a lot of air travel.” There are also some policy tailwinds — the European Union now has a sustainable fuels mandate that requires the use of synthetic e-fuels like Twelve’s beginning in 2030.
The plant also comes online at a moment of heightened volatility in the jet fuel market. As my colleague Alexander C. Kaufman noted in Wednesday’s morning newsletter, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has led to soaring fuel prices, prompting domestic refiners to ramp production to record highs. By contrast, Flanders argues that SAF offers customers greater price certainty via long-term offtake agreements. “You can fix the cost of our key inputs like electricity and CO2 and so that actually makes it a more attractive project from a project financing perspective,” he explained.
SPACs are back. But this week, it’s not just another pre-revenue nuclear company that’s looking to get to market as quickly as possible. Solid-state battery startup Factorial Energy, which has yet to develop a commercial product, has merged with the blank check company Cartesian Growth Corporation III, netting it $100 billion at a $1.3 billion valuation.
The company was upfront about needing the SPAC to stay afloat after racking up losses since its founding in 2013. Factorial’s SEC filing states that prior to this new capital, “its liquidity wasn’t sufficient to fund twelve months of operations.” Yet it does have real traction in the industry — Mercedes-Benz, Stellantis, Hyundai, and Kia have all made strategic investments, looking to use Factorial’s tech in their electric vehicles to achieve higher energy density, longer range, and faster charging.
Solid state batteries typically use a solid electrolyte in place of the flammable liquid electrolytes found in conventional lithium-ion cells, but Factorial is starting with more of a hybrid approach. Its initial design relies on a “quasi-solid” gel-like electrolyte, which allows it to use an energy dense lithium metal anode while preventing the needle-like dendrite growth that predisposes solid-state batteries to short circuit. Factorial is manufacturing these cells at a pilot plant in Massachusetts, while working on a prototype with a fully solid electrolyte that could offer even greater performance gains.
Factorial isn’t the only battery company with SPAC news this week. ZincFive, a nickel-zinc battery producer, also announced plans to go public via SPAC in a deal expected to close in the second half of this year. Unlike Factorial, however, ZincFive is already making money, selling its batteries to hyperscalers and other data center operators as a backup power solution to bridge the gap in between when the power goes out and when the backup generator turns on. As the company’s CEO Tod Higinbotham told Bloomberg, “We have the backlog. We have the capacity. We have the demand. We really need capital.”
Navigating the maze of consumer clean energy incentives and coordinating home energy upgrades is hardly a U.S.-specific challenge. Just a few years ago, heat pump sales in Germany were falling precipitously despite generous subsidies and proven tech. One startup, Galvany, theorized the problem wasn’t the heat pumps themselves, but rather the unnecessary complexity of the surrounding ecosystem. Now it’s raised roughly $11.5 million to help streamline the process of getting heat pumps into consumers’ homes and apartments.
“In Germany, heat pumps do not fail because of the technology, but because of the gap between subsidy bureaucracy, installation capacity, and economic viability for the end customer,” the company’s CEO, Raik Belka, said in a press release. This is exactly the gap we are closing.” The approach is already paying off — Galvany has installed more than 2,500 heat pumps to date and became profitable last year after increasing its revenue sevenfold.
The startup produces its heat pump in partnership with Panasonic, but its real innovation lies in the way it streamlines sales, procurement, installation, and ongoing heat pump operations into a single platform. Potential customers enter their building data online and, after a feasibility check, get a quick quote that factors in subsidies. They can then purchase a standardized kit that’s simple for installers to assemble. Once operational, the heat pump’s energy management system, which launches this summer, will automatically adjust heating loads based on the cost of electricity, saving customers money without them having to actively manage the system.
The administration filed to dismiss an appeal of a December ruling that overturned its wind permitting freeze.
Trump’s Department of Justice is giving up on defending the president’s wind permitting moratorium.
The DOJ filed a motion on Wednesday to dismiss its appeal of a federal court’s December decision vacating the order to halt wind energy approvals. The plaintiffs in the case — New York and 16 other states, as well as the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, a trade group — did not oppose the motion. The case will not be officially dismissed, however, until the First Circuit Court of Appeals approves the request, which typically happens quickly when both parties support the dismissal.
The case stems from an executive order President Trump issued on the first day of his current term temporarily withdrawing all areas of the outer continental shelf from offshore wind leasing and pausing all federal authorizations for onshore and offshore wind projects while the administration conducted a review of leasing and permitting practices.
States took the administration to court last May, arguing that the order was arbitrary and capricious and violated the Administrative Procedures Act. They claimed it harmed their ability to source reliable and affordable energy and threatened billions of dollars in investment in supply chains, workforce development, and wind industry-related infrastructure.
On December 8, Judge Patti B. Saris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in the states’ favor and vacated the wind order. More specifically, the judge vacated the portion of the order directing agencies to pause permits and other authorizations. The withdrawal of areas eligible for new leases remains in effect.
What it means is that federal agencies will now have to proceed with permitting wind projects using the existing statutory and regulatory framework, Kit Kennedy, the managing director for power, climate, and energy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told me in an email. “The door to federal permitting is now unlocked again and each developer will be able to make the case for permitting their individual project based on the facts and the law,” she said.
The Trump administration appealed the ruling to the First Circuit in February, but never submitted an opening brief. The initial deadline was May 11, but on May 4, the DOJ requested additional time to file the brief. The judge gave the defendants until June 10. On that date, the defendants filed the motion to dismiss.
This is a developing story and we’ll update it as we learn more about the administration’s actions and their effects.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect that the freeze and ruling apply to onshore as well as offshore wind. It also adds a quote from Kit Kennedy.