You’ve reached your free article limit
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:

It’s another bad day for the renewable energy business.
The ill tidings started early Friday morning with SolarEdge, a company that primarily sells inverters, which convert the electricity produced by a solar panel into the kind that can be used in homes.
In an unexpected announcement, SolarEdge’s chief executive Zvi Lando said that, in the third quarter, the company had “experienced substantial unexpected cancellations and pushouts of existing backlog from our European distributors.” Many of its core financial metrics, including revenue and operating income, would fall below the low end of the range it had projected earlier, SolarEdge warned. The company also said it expected “significantly lower revenues in the fourth quarter.” (SolarEdge is based in Israel but the company said that the Hamas-Israel war was not related to their financial troubles.)
Investors promptly panicked, selling off the stock and sending it down 27% in trading Friday afternoon.
Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:
Other solar stocks were also down. Enphase, another solar services and inverter company, tumbled 14%. Sunrun, a residential solar systems company (which means it actually installs panels), was down 6%. Shares in SunPower, a competitor to Sunrun, were down around 9%.
With today’s trading, SolarEdge has fallen more than 70% in the past year. And those other companies aren’t too far behind — they’re all down around 50% to 67% on the year.
The worry is that the problems SolarEdge identified are not unique to the company itself or even the inverter business, but to the solar industry as a whole.
The company said that its European business had both a pileup of inventory and “slower than expected installation rates,” specifically “at the end of the summer and in September where traditionally there is a rise in installation rates.”
In a note to clients earlier this week, Citi analyst Vikram Bagri noted that downloads of solar apps in Europe, which can be used as a proxy for sales, “declined sequentially … in September, we typically observe sequential acceleration in downloads exiting the seasonally slower August period.”
But Friday’s troubles were not restricted to solar.
In New York, the offshore wind business took another hit from the state government. Governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, vetoed a bill passed this summer which would have kickstarted the regulatory process necessary to connect a transmission cable from the planned Empire Wind 2 project on the south shore of Long Island to a substation in Island Park, which is just slightly inland.
In her veto message, Hochul said that the onus was on Empire Wind 2’s developer, Equinor, and other companies in the offshore wind business “to cultivate and maintain strong ties to their host communities throughout the planning, siting, and operation of all large-scale projects,” adding that the Long Beach city council did not support using the beach for the project.
Wind projects are no stranger to local opposition — hostility to such projects on land actually increased between 2000 and 2016. Proponents of offshore wind thought that they could avoid this type of local opposition because the planned projects are out to sea, typically out of sight from residents, but the infrastructure necessary to bring the power generated offshore to homes and businesses still requires building transmission cables and substations on land.
The planned Empire Wind 2 would have 1,260 megawatts of capacity to serve downstate New York, the most populous region of the state and one that depends largely on fossil fuels for electricity generation. State law mandates that New York as a whole generate 70 percent of its electricity by 2030, but that goal will be imperiled if renewable energy projects aren’t built to serve the New York City area.
“The veto of ‘The Planned Offshore Wind Transmission Act’ undermines New York’s commitment to the energy transition and the role offshore wind must play in achieving the state’s renewable energy mandates. This decision sends another troubling signal to renewable energy developers following last week’s action by the New York State Public Service Commission,” Molly Morris, the president of Equinor Renewables America, told me in an emailed statement.
Hochul’s veto came a week after the state’s utility regulator refused to adjust contracts for renewable projects, including four offshore wind projects, after companies saw much higher costs than expected.
And those higher costs aren’t just in offshore wind. The entire renewables sector is in trouble, at least for now.
Read more about the climate industry:
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
These seven elections could change state energy policy.
No matter how well Democrats do in the House and Senate in November, it’s unlikely to mean anything new on climate policy in Washington, D.C., for as long as Donald Trump remains in the White House.
That is not true when it comes to the other elections this year.
Several states are on the verge of a possible Democratic trifecta, meaning unified control of both chambers of the state legislature and the governor’s mansion. It’s a position that could enable such states to either top off existing climate and energy policies passed in the last decade or to make the first real run at climate legislation in recent history.
There are also several races for control of public utilities commissions — and, in turn, for influence over rates and the potential adoption or expansion of clean energy — that are being closely watched.
Here are some of the biggest climate races beyond the House and Senate.
Minnesota passed its comprehensive climate legislation in 2023 after Governor Tim Walz won reelection in 2022 and the state Senate flipped to Democratic control. The bill included a 100% clean energy goal for 2040. Almost a year after Walz signed his bill, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed her own, with a 100% clean energy target for 2040, along with energy efficiency and permitting streamlining. Walz would also sign a follow-on permitting bill in 2024. That November, however, Democrats lost control of both state houses (sort of — you’ll see).
Now many climate advocates and strategists look forward to possibly regaining trifectas in the two upper Midwestern states. “They’re in a spot where they haven’t been able to pass anything for two years,” Caroline Spears, the executive director of Climate Cabinet, a nonprofit advocacy group, told me. She said a priority for both states would be writing laws specific to data centers to make sure the energy they use is clean and they don’t increase costs for residential ratepayers.
“What you’re able to do when you have multiple bites at the apple is change your existing energy policy to match the current market and match the current needs, and that’s what Minnesota and Michigan have to do now,” Spears said.
In the case of Michigan, the House of Representatives stands at 58 Republicans to 52 Democrats, while the Senate is 20 Democrats to 18 Republicans. In Minnesota, Democrats have a one-seat edge in the House of Representatives, with 67 seats, compared to the Republicans’ 66 thanks to a Republican resignation (68 are required to reach a majority). But the House is still under a power-sharing agreement with a Republican speaker. Ballotpedia currently rates the possibility of a Democratic trifecta in either state as a “toss-up,” although Minnesota has a slightly easier path.
In both Michigan and Minnesota, a trifecta could deliver “policies that are focused on reigning in utilities’ profits to bolster affordability,” Courtney Brady, Evergreen Action’s senior Midwest director, told me.
“Really strong guardrails are needed in Michigan to ensure that data centers and utilities that are providing them energy have to continue to abide by the state’s clean energy laws,” Brady added.
Michigan Democratic gubernatorial candidate and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said she would “ban rate increases that are only being used to pad profits” and implement performance-based standards for utility payouts. She also said she would “conduct a comprehensive audit of our power grid and address the vulnerabilities and outdated infrastructure of our aging energy infrastructure.” Benson’s energy platform “heavily focuses on affordability,” Charlotte Jameson of the Michigan Environmental Council, a clean air and water nonprofit, told me.
Amy Klobuchar, the Democratic candidate for governor in Minnesota, has been less specific, typically including utility costs in a laundry list of affordability items including health care, housing, and child care.
And while Michigan does have a clean power standard, “We’ve not in Michigan really tackled transportation sector emissions, or frankly, housing and buildings,” Jameson said. A Democratic trifecta could shift transportation spending toward mass transit and away from lane widening, Jameson added, and could devote resources to electric-vehicle charging. Benson has also supported bringing high-speed rail to Michigan.
While Michigan and Minnesota have passed climate legislation that could be revisited for the age of load growth, several states may elect Democratic trifectas for the first time in decades, giving them a first shot at climate policymaking. Strategists and activists are targeting Wisconsin, Arizona, and Pennsylvania.
In Wisconsin, Republicans have an 18-15 majority in the state Senate, with half the seats up for reelection; Democrats only need to flip two. To gain control of the state Assembly, Democrats would need to flip five seats in the 99-member chamber.
Any energy legislation in the next session would likely address data center construction and ratepayer protection, including empowering utility regulators to better scrutinize requests for new gas plants and demand projections, Brady told me. Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial candidate David Crowley has also proposed bolstering the state’s existing weatherization and efficiency programs.
In Arizona, where Republicans have a four-seat majority in the state Senate and a 33-27 majority in the House of Representatives, the oncoming Democratic trifecta is always an election away. While Arizonans have elected Democrats to both U.S. Senate seats — and to governor, with Katie Hobbs running for reelection — the party hasn’t controlled any house of the Arizona state legislature since the early 1990s. This has meant that progress on energy legislation has so far largely consisted of Hobbs vetoing anti-renewables legislation passed by Republican majorities.
A Democratic majority could do more to encourage solar development in the sunny state. “The thing we’ve always been pushing for with the Arizona state legislature in getting to a trifecta is any kind of clean energy incentive bill,” John Qua, campaign director at Lead Locally, a group that works to elect progressive candidates, told me. He also said a Democratic majority in the statehouse could implement “guardrails” on energy and water use by data centers in the state.
In Pennsylvania, Republicans hold a four-seat majority in the state Senate while Democrats have a three-seat majority in the House of Representatives. With Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro likely cruising to reelection, climate advocates are looking at maybe finally having an opportunity to pass legislation in a major energy-producing and exporting state with relatively little renewable generation. This could include beefing up standards for clean energy generation for the state’s utilities and getting the Senate to agree to a community solar bill.
Qua said that majority makers in the state legislature support “strong regulations of data centers somewhere between very tough guardrails and moratoriums,” and would likely push Shapiro to continue his turn against rampant data center development.
The 2025 Georgia Public Service Commission elections revolved almost entirely around data centers and electricity costs and resulted in two massive Democratic wins for the utility regulator. Now one of those commissioners, Peter Hubbard, is running for reelection following his special election victory, and another Democrat, Shelia Edwards, could flip partisan control of the PSC if she and Hubbard both win. A super PAC connected to the solar industry is spending $250,000 in the race to support the two Democrats.
“The solar and storage industry is building political power by investing in high-impact local elections like the Georgia PSC races, where policymakers have significant influence over permitting, utility policy, regulation, and energy markets,” Steph Bosh, board chair of the Community Clean Energy Coalition, said in a statement. “Building a durable network of solar and storage champions across the country is a long-term strategy, not a one-year effort, and we’re focused on scaling that work with industry buy-in.”
A Democratic PSC would likely look more skeptically on deals between data center developers and Georgia’s dominant utility, Georgia Power, and would be more friendly to deployment of solar and storage to meet the state’s growing electricity needs.
The other utility regulator race getting national attention is the Arizona Corporation Commission, which has two seats up for election this year. Arizona’s Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes has tangled with the Republican-controlled board over data centers and the possibility of shifting costs towards ratepayers. The Commission currently has five Republicans, but both Qua and Spears told me part of the challenge is getting voters — who may be voting for Hobbs and other Democratic candidates — to realize the Corporation Commission is a partisan race at all. “It’s standard for most people to say, ‘I think I know what the Arizona Corporation Commission is, but I'm just not sure,’” Spears told me.
“In terms of our get-out-the-vote work, we are mostly focused on hiring organizers for the state legislature,” Qua said. “And then as a second ask: ‘Also, have you heard of the corporation commission?’”
A conversation with Harmol Samra of Host Digital
This week’s conversation is with Harmol Samra, CEO of data center developer Host Digital. I asked Samra for a conversation because his team expressed a willingness to offer candid views on the industry’s problems with social license to operate — namely, why is the industry botching this so badly? From his point of view, many could learn a lot from industrial revolutions of the past, and they should be careful not to let mega-project expansions get in the way of broader acceptance of the data center sector.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Can you start with your experience right now trying to get permission to build and operate data centers in the U.S.?
What we do is we focus on data centers between 20 megawatts and 100 megawatts — we call them “right-sized” — that are currently energized and delivering in the next 10 to 14 months. So really focusing on the front end of that curve. To your question of social license, we’re focused on building the right-sized data centers that communities are used to seeing and have been seeing for the last 20 years. Very similar to any other industrial warehouse you would see in your community in a business park or things like that. We’re not building multi-gigawatt campuses in a community that has 20,000 people and has an overarching, overbearing impact.
On the social license piece of it, we understand that this is the base layer of infrastructure we’re building. We’re providing the base layer as long as we agree that we all want to store our data for cloud usage, we do need to train our models, we all want to interact with AI and have some imprint — that’s what we support.
On the community benefits piece, we don’t ask for any tax breaks or incentives anywhere we go. In fact, we do the opposite — in most cases we set up community benefits programs. Our data center might become operational in a year, and that’ll pay real estate taxes, but what about in between now and then? In instances, it’s been a new AI training program in high school. In other instances, it has been [people saying], “AI’s great, but using it is expensive, so what if we could provide tokens so students can learn?”
Can you give us an example of a time you were challenged in developing data center infrastructure? Help us get a better understanding of how you’ve faced this backlash yourself.
Our first site in northeast Oklahoma, in Tulsa, enacted a moratorium on data centers after we purchased a site and were going through our leasing and financing process for it. It was a bitcoin mining site we were converting to a data center, in this case. We went to engage with the community, with the city planning office, and with the city council members. Unanimously, by 9-0, we got an exemption [from their moratorium] for us to be able to go build their data center.
When we went and made our case, what we are doing in our strategy was retrofitting this site. Not really adding new load to the system. They said, “The moratorium was not put in place to capture developments like you.” It was put in place for the mega campuses. It was about walking them through our strategy with a site that has been drawing power for the past few years.
Do you feel retrofitting sites changes the perspectives of local officials?
Yes it does, because there are a couple of things you can address up front. We’re not asking for new load; 55 megawatts has been drawn to the site for the past few years. The building we’re converting has been there for years. It calms people’s fears about a new data center coming. It’s just a building that has its computers.
It becomes easier and more bite-sized to digest. Now, obviously there are no gigawatt-scale things you can retrofit.
What do you think other energy sectors can teach the data center sector from their experiences dealing with backlash?
Overarching, as an industry, we have to be net positive to a community.
Other energy sectors and players have worked with their actual impacts to the climate and to the community, and that’s what we have to learn. If you build a data center, what is the social benefit? Through jobs? Through revenue? Through infrastructure they need? It’s the point we need to hammer home.
What do you think of some of the strategies raised thus far to improve community benefits? I’ve heard some new ideas like data center dividends, and I wonder what you make of all the proposals floating out there.
One idea is tax offsets.
Let’s say you’re going to build a data center in a town with 10,000 people. They’re all paying on average real estate taxes of $3,000. That’s a total impact of $3 million that people are paying out of their pocket. Now, if that can be supplemented by having a new data center there, offsetting that entire dollar amount, that is a direct benefit to people living there. It’s a net benefit to local residents.
There’s a reason some of the impact plans we are seeing today are direct and dollar-denominated, right? We can offset taxes, pay for our own infrastructure upgrades, add new generation to the grid — wherever we build a data center, we can build a new renewable asset and bring energy back to the grid. Frankly, some of these ideas have resonated with communities.
Why do you think the data center unrest and backlash is happening, then?
I think the biggest reason we’re seeing that is that data centers are a physical embodiment of what artificial intelligence is. It’s the base asset for AI to work. There’s a lot of unease about how we perceive AI will impact our society and our lives and livelihoods, and its harder for communities to tell an Anthropic how to change their models. But they do think if they stop the buildout of a data center, they can stop the expansion of AI until we all figure out where it goes.
Some of the factual opposition in the beginning was high electricity usage that might impact people’s bills. That’s been addressed. Excess water? That’s been addressed. Noise impacts? You can put cooling equipment outside and wrap it in a way with sound barriers where it doesn’t impact.
The factual impacts, Jael, I think have been addressed. It’s more a corollary function of how people feel about AI — that with the data centers, people see a physical asset and they wonder how to stop that.
On The Nuclear Company, Venture Global’s power dreams, and super pollutants
Current conditions: A cold front is sweeping into the Northeast, potentially bringing snow to higher elevations in New York and New England • Early snow is blanketing parts of the Mountain West, with as much as 16 inches in Great Falls, Montana • Temperatures in Jakarta are nearing 100 degrees Fahrenheit as Indonesia battles the world’s worst air with haze brought on by forest fires.

President Donald Trump’s controversial and potentially illegal deal to unilaterally lift U.S. sanctions on Russia to allow Moscow to export millions of tons of diesel to the global market was meant to curb the surging price of the fuel, which has added as much as $1,000 per week to commercial truckers’ costs in the U.S. in recent months. But the agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin could backfire as Ukraine responds by breaking with Washington and once again targeting the Kremlin’s oil refineries. In an interview Thursday with the Financial Times, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the ban on attacking refineries “is out” after U.S. intelligence pulled back from sharing information with Kyiv and Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite internet service, on which the Ukrainian military has depended for drone attacks, weakened amid a wave of Russian attacks. “We’re done,” Zelenskyy said.
When Jair Bolsonaro took power in 2019, Brazil’s right-wing firebrand former president vowed to industrialize the Amazon, clearing the way for ranchers, loggers, and miners to exploit the vast jungle’s resources. Later that year, fires consumed broad chunks of the Amazon. Now Flávio Bolsonaro, Jair’s son, is the frontrunner in the October 25 runoff election against left-wing President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Bolsonaro’s supporters post semi-facetious, AI-generated videos depicting a hulking, muscly Flávio riding on the back of a velociraptor, flamethrowering the rainforest to make way for rows of McDonald’s. Right on cue, the Amazon is once again on fire. Droughts brought on by El Niño have “left the Amazon rainforest primed to burn, and scientists say the region has entered the early stages of what they think will be a long and severe fire season,” according to an analysis by NASA. Already, satellite images show a sharp increase in fire and smoke in the central and Eastern Amazon. Brazil now has the worst wildfire-wrought air quality in the world after Indonesia.
Last month, Holtec Nuclear — the company behind the nation’s first restart of an atomic power station and a frontrunner to build some of our first small modular reactors — canceled its plans to debut itself on the stock market with an initial public offering. The reason? Every nuclear company that went public in recent months has seen its stock price plummet. On Thursday, Axios reported that The Nuclear Company, the developer that brought together the team that helped build the country’s first Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at Georgia’s Plant Vogtle to build more large-scale plants, had backed away from its own IPO plans. (Listen to my colleague Robinson Meyer’s interview with The Nuclear Company’s chief executive here.)
The detail highlights how the market has cooled to nuclear startups since next-generation SMR developer Oklo went public and made billions of dollars as retail investors sought to bet on a nuclear comeback. And yet The Nuclear Company only raised its first Series A funding round last year. Its fate has always seemed tied to Westinghouse, which is eyeing its own IPO. While The Nuclear Company will almost certainly need to go public at some point, given the capital intensity of its projects, it hadn’t yet filed a confidential S-1 to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Without that, it’s unlikely The Nuclear Company would be IPOing by next year anyway.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Venture Global has inked a deal with GE Vernova and Baker Hughes Energy Services to build up to 16 new 720-megawatt power island units and transformers as America’s No. 2 liquified natural gas company builds out a behind-the meter industrial power network. The deal, per a press release, provides “a pathway to make up to 10 gigawatts of new compute capacity available over time” at sites owned by Venture Global. The company already boasts 4.5 gigawatts of what it calls “island mode modular, gas-fired generation.” In a statement, Venture Global CEO Mike Sabel said the company will maintain “one of the world’s largest private industrial electric grids.”
The move comes as the U.S. added a record 89 gigawatts of clean power capacity in the second half of this year, with momentum building for another new high next year, according to the latest market outlook from BloombergNEF. The consultancy projected that solar will reach 48.9 gigawatts in 2026, with 430 gigawatts of utility-scale solar forecast to come online through 2036. That, surprisingly, is down nearly 8% from BNEF’s previous estimate at the start of the year. More surprising is the energy source that is on the rise: Onshore wind additions could peak at 9.2 gigawatts in 2028, with 99.7 gigawatts forecast through 2036 — and that’s 15% above BNEF’s past forecast. Energy storage is on track to add 383 gigawatts through 2036, a 35% bump from BNEF’s past estimate. Nuclear, meanwhile, is expected to pick up again after a decade of stagnation, with 13.7 gigawatts on track to come online through 2036.
Back in 2024, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo covered Google’s first-of-a-kind deals to lock in carbon removal. Two years later, she was lamenting the “sorry state” of the industry amid a broader pullback from the cutting-edge technology to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Things may be picking back up again. On Thursday, the tech giant backed an $11.7 million deal with the carbon marketplace Frontier to pay to remove 20,932 tons of carbon from the atmosphere using the startup 44.01’s mineralization technology, which converts carbon into solid rock within three years. “44.01’s technology dissolves captured CO2 that is injected deep beneath the Earth’s surface. There, it reacts to form solid carbonate minerals within a few years,” Randy Spock, Google’s head of carbon removal, wrote in a post on LinkedIn. “Those minerals stay put for millennia with no risk of reversal.”
In May, the Trump administration eased U.S. restrictions on so-called super pollutants, the class of refrigerants that rapidly spur on global warming. On Thursday, a coalition of climate philanthropies announced over $36 million in new funding to support a push to expand energy-efficient, sustainable cooling. “As demand for cooling grows, so do potential emissions,” Christie Ulman, president of Sequoia Climate Foundation, said in a press release. “Targeted philanthropic funding can be a catalytic force in unlocking broader investments in sustainable cooling and fast-acting super pollutant solutions that shield vulnerable communities and advance climate goals.”