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:
On financial shocks, severe flooding in the South, and data centers
Current conditions: Streets turned into rivers and at least 30 people were killed in the Democratic Republic of Congo after torrential rain • A month’s worth of snow is expected to fall over just two days in Moscow this week • Warm temperatures in Central Florida could break heat records Monday.
Financial markets in Asia and Europe plummeted this morning in response to President Trump’s tariffs. U.S. markets are also expected to tumble, with the S&P 500 approaching a 20% decline into a bear market. On the energy front, the fallout hasn’t spared domestic U.S. battery makers who will need to source affordable construction materials if they want to scale their operations. Bay Area-based lithium-sulfur battery producer Lyten told Heatmap’s Katie Brigham that the company needs to build a lot of infrastructure, and tariffs on building materials like steel, aluminum, cement, and drywall will likely make doing so much more expensive. “The building of physical factories, those materials, the infrastructure to do that, the equipment to do that, a lot of that is coming through international trade,” said Lyten’s CEO Keith Norman. And as Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo reported, the tariffs could scramble Trump’s plans to expand liquefied natural gas exports, with rising costs threatening to derail contracts for LNG export terminals. “The tariffs (not to mention the uncertainty about how long they’ll last) could also turn off potential buyers from signing long-term contracts with the U.S.,” Pontecorvo said. “They may begin to look elsewhere, or impose retaliatory tariffs, as China has already done.”
Meanwhile the fate of the Inflation Reduction Act hangs in the balance as Congress works on its joint budget resolution. Republican Rep. Mark Amodei of Nevada told Gabby Birenbaum from The Nevada Independent that preserving the 45X advanced manufacturing production credit and the 30D new clean vehicle tax credit is a red line for him. Birenbaum says Amodei is “the first Republican to take that stance.”
At least 18 people have died in violent storms that began last week and endured through the weekend, bringing tornadoes and severe flooding to states across the Midwest and South. Days of relentless rain caused rivers to overflow their banks in Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, Texas, Tennessee, Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio. More than a foot of rain was reported in parts of Kentucky and Tennessee. The storm systems rolled through at a time when the Trump administration has been cutting jobs within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. According to The Associated Press, the National Weather Service’s forecast offices are currently critically understaffed, making it harder to issue storm warnings and survey damage.
Flooding in Missouri.Scott Olson/Getty Images
The Trump administration is considering closing the Department of Energy’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, Bloomberg reported. The OCED was created in 2021 under the Biden administration and is aimed at testing and scaling clean energy technologies including carbon capture, advanced nuclear, long-duration storage, and clean hydrogen. The proposed plan, according to Bloomberg, would see the agency’s staff and funding slashed significantly. Whatever remains will be rolled into the DOE. The administration has already been considering cutting funding for some of the OCED’s seven hydrogen hubs scattered across the country, something lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have pushed back against. Also up for elimination is a Texas direct air capture project run by Occidental Petroleum’s subsidiary 1PointFive that was selected to receive a slice of $1.2 billion from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Resources for the Future published its annual energy outlook Monday. The analysis collates and compares 13 possible scenarios from seven recent energy outlooks published by various companies and organizations like the International Energy Agency, BloombergNEF, and oil giants BP and OPEC. This year’s report forecasts significant headwinds for the energy transition as nations move to prioritize energy security over emissions reduction, the United States shifts its energy policies dramatically, and a surge in global electricity demand looms.
Across all 13 scenarios RFF examined, fossil fuel energy generation stays flat or declines through 2050, “but the degree of decline and share of generation in 2050 depends on the scale of climate ambition.” Solar and wind power grow substantially to account for up to 74% percent of global generation by 2050 in all scenarios. And while everyone is worried about how AI and data centers will spike electricity demand, the RFF report notes that “data center growth is only a small part of total growth in U.S. electricity needs” through 2050, and says the impact from data centers is assumed to be “modest relative to other sectors.” Thanks to improvements in energy efficiency, global energy demand grows slowly or even declines in all scenarios. The carbon intensity of energy falls, as well, which RFF notes marks “a change from the last several decades.”
But what does this all mean for emissions? The report finds that while emissions are expected to decline over the next 25 years, governments’ current efforts are not going to be enough to keep warming below 2 degrees Celsius by 2100. Just four of the scenarios have us reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. The wide range of emissions projections “highlights the gap between existing efforts and the goals articulated by countries” in their published climate plans.
RFF
Tesla’s shares are falling this morning after Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives, described as “one of Wall Street’s biggest fans of Tesla Inc.,” cut his price target for the company by 43% from $550 to $315. In a note to clients on Sunday, Ives indicated that new tariffs and growing backlash against CEO Elon Musk’s role within the Trump administration are both bad for business. “This situation is not sustainable and the brand of Tesla is suffering by the day as a political symbol,” Ives wrote. “Our longstanding bull view of Tesla remains, but there is no denying this is a pivotal moment of truth for Musk to turn things around … or darker days are ahead.” Tesla’s stock is down more than 10% in early trading today. The company’s share price rose on the back of President Trump’s election as it became clear Musk would be one of his key advisors, but that post-election bump has since vaporized. There have been recent rumors that Musk will soon step away from his role leading the Department of Government Efficiency.
The Department of Homeland Security subjected Cameron Hamilton, currently the acting administrator of FEMA, to a lie detector test to figure out whether he leaked information about meetings in which DHS Secretary Kristi Noem discussed curbing FEMA’s abilities to respond to natural disasters. Hamilton passed.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A war of attrition is now turning in opponents’ favor.
A solar developer’s defeat in Massachusetts last week reveals just how much stronger project opponents are on the battlefield after the de facto repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act.
Last week, solar developer PureSky pulled five projects under development around the western Massachusetts town of Shutesbury. PureSky’s facilities had been in the works for years and would together represent what the developer has claimed would be one of the state’s largest solar projects thus far. In a statement, the company laid blame on “broader policy and regulatory headwinds,” including the state’s existing renewables incentives not keeping pace with rising costs and “federal policy updates,” which PureSky said were “making it harder to finance projects like those proposed near Shutesbury.”
But tucked in its press release was an admission from the company’s vice president of development Derek Moretz: this was also about the town, which had enacted a bylaw significantly restricting solar development that the company was until recently fighting vigorously in court.
“There are very few areas in the Commonwealth that are feasible to reach its clean energy goals,” Moretz stated. “We respect the Town’s conservation go als, but it is clear that systemic reforms are needed for Massachusetts to source its own energy.”
This stems from a story that probably sounds familiar: after proposing the projects, PureSky began reckoning with a burgeoning opposition campaign centered around nature conservation. Led by a fresh opposition group, Smart Solar Shutesbury, activists successfully pushed the town to drastically curtail development in 2023, pointing to the amount of forest acreage that would potentially be cleared in order to construct the projects. The town had previously not permitted facilities larger than 15 acres, but the fresh change went further, essentially banning battery storage and solar projects in most areas.
When this first happened, the state Attorney General’s office actually had PureSky’s back, challenging the legality of the bylaw that would block construction. And PureSky filed a lawsuit that was, until recently, ongoing with no signs of stopping. But last week, shortly after the Treasury Department unveiled its rules for implementing Trump’s new tax and spending law, which basically repealed the Inflation Reduction Act, PureSky settled with the town and dropped the lawsuit – and the projects went away along with the court fight.
What does this tell us? Well, things out in the country must be getting quite bleak for solar developers in areas with strident and locked-in opposition that could be costly to fight. Where before project developers might have been able to stomach the struggle, money talks – and the dollars are starting to tell executives to lay down their arms.
The picture gets worse on the macro level: On Monday, the Solar Energy Industries Association released a report declaring that federal policy changes brought about by phasing out federal tax incentives would put the U.S. at risk of losing upwards of 55 gigawatts of solar project development by 2030, representing a loss of more than 20 percent of the project pipeline.
But the trade group said most of that total – 44 gigawatts – was linked specifically to the Trump administration’s decision to halt federal permitting for renewable energy facilities, a decision that may impact generation out west but has little-to-know bearing on most large solar projects because those are almost always on private land.
Heatmap Pro can tell us how much is at stake here. To give you a sense of perspective, across the U.S., over 81 gigawatts worth of renewable energy projects are being contested right now, with non-Western states – the Northeast, South and Midwest – making up almost 60% of that potential capacity.
If historical trends hold, you’d expect a staggering 49% of those projects to be canceled. That would be on top of the totals SEIA suggests could be at risk from new Trump permitting policies.
I suspect the rate of cancellations in the face of project opposition will increase. And if this policy landscape is helping activists kill projects in blue states in desperate need of power, like Massachusetts, then the future may be more difficult to swallow than we can imagine at the moment.
And more on the week’s most important conflicts around renewables.
1. Wells County, Indiana – One of the nation’s most at-risk solar projects may now be prompting a full on moratorium.
2. Clark County, Ohio – Another Ohio county has significantly restricted renewable energy development, this time with big political implications.
3. Daviess County, Kentucky – NextEra’s having some problems getting past this county’s setbacks.
4. Columbia County, Georgia – Sometimes the wealthy will just say no to a solar farm.
5. Ottawa County, Michigan – A proposed battery storage facility in the Mitten State looks like it is about to test the state’s new permitting primacy law.
A conversation with Jeff Seidman, a professor at Vassar College.
This week’s conversation is with Jeff Seidman, a professor at Vassar College and an avid Heatmap News reader. Last week Seidman claimed a personal victory: he successfully led an effort to overturn a moratorium on battery storage development in the town of Poughkeepsie in Hudson Valley, New York. After reading a thread about the effort he posted to BlueSky, I reached out to chat about what my readers might learn from his endeavors – and how they could replicate them, should they want to.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So how did you decide to fight against a battery storage ban? What was your process here?
First of all, I’m not a professional in this area, but I’ve been learning about climate stuff for a long time. I date my education back to when Vox started and I read my first David Roberts column there. But I just happened to hear from someone I know that in the town of Poughkeepsie where I live that a developer made a proposal and local residents who live nearby were up in arms about it. And I heard the town was about to impose a moratorium – this was back in March 2024.
I actually personally know some of the town board members, and we have a Democratic majority who absolutely care about climate change but didn’t particularly know that battery power was important to the energy transition and decarbonizing the grid. So I organized five or six people to go to the town board meeting, wrote a letter, and in that initial board meeting we characterized the reason we were there as being about climate.
There were a lot more people on the other side. They were very angry. So we said do a short moratorium because every day we’re delaying this, peaker plants nearby are spewing SOx and NOx into the air. The status quo has a cost.
But then the other side, they were clearly triggered by the climate stuff and said renewables make the grid more expensive. We’d clearly pressed a button in the culture wars. And then we realized the mistake, because we lost that one.
When you were approaching getting this overturned, what considerations did you make?
After that initial meeting and seeing how those mentions of climate or even renewables had triggered a portion of the board, and the audience, I really course-corrected. I realized we had to make this all about local benefits. So that’s what I tried to do going forward.
Even for people who were climate concerned, it was really clear that what they perceived as a present risk in their neighborhood was way more salient than an abstract thing like contributing to the fight against climate change globally. So even for people potentially on your side, you have to make it about local benefits.
The other thing we did was we called a two-hour forum for the county supervisors and mayor’s association because we realized talking to them in a polarized environment was not a way to have a conversation. I spoke and so did Paul Rogers, a former New York Fire Department lieutenant who is now in fire safety consulting – he sounds like a firefighter and can speak with a credibility that I could never match in front of, for example, local fire chiefs. Winning them over was important. And we took more than an hour of questions.
Stage one was to convince them of why batteries were important. Stage two was to show that a large number of constituents were angry about the moratorium, but that Republicans were putting on a unified front against this – an issue to win votes. So there was a period where Democrats on the Poughkeepsie board were convinced but it was politically difficult for them.
But stage three became helping them do the right thing, even with the risk of there being a political cost.
What would you say to those in other parts of the country who want to do what you did?
If possible, get a zoning law in place before there is any developer with a specific proposal because all of the opposition to this project came from people directly next to the proposed project. Get in there before there’s a specific project site.
Even if you’re in a very blue city, don’t make it primarily about climate. Abstract climate loses to non-abstract perceived risk every time. Make it about local benefits.
To the extent you can, read and educate yourself about what good batteries provide to the grid. There’s a lot of local economic benefits there.
I am trying to put together some of the resources I used into a packet, a tool kit, so that people elsewhere can learn from it and draw from those resources.
Also, the more you know, the better. All those years of reading David Roberts and Heatmap gave me enough knowledge to actually answer questions here. It works especially when you have board members who may be sympathetic but need to be reassured.