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:
Here’s the climate case for the Department of Energy buying millions of barrels of oil.

This might sound like heresy from a climate-change reporter, but here goes: President Joe Biden should start buying oil soon. A lot of it.
Specifically, he should begin refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or SPR, a set of subterranean salt caverns that line the Gulf Coast and can store hundreds of millions of barrels of oil. Over the past year or so, Biden sold 180 million barrels of oil from these caverns, but now it’s time to start buying that oil back. Doing so would help Biden’s domestic agenda and allow him to execute the trade of the century, generating billions of dollars in profits for the federal government.
But it would also help the climate. And every day that goes by without refilling that oil, Biden squanders his credibility and loses his clout. It’s time for the president to seal the deal.
But let’s back up.
Last year, Biden did something that — at least according to experts — should have been impossible. He tried to lower gas prices. And then he did it.
The SPR was key to the magic trick. After Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, oil prices spiked. By mid-March, the U.S. benchmark price for a barrel of oil — which had lingered in the $60 range for much of 2021 — reached $110. Gas hit $4.14 a gallon.
So Biden announced that the government would sell 180 million barrels of oil from the SPR over the course of six months. Despite initially rising, oil prices eventually dropped. In October, Biden formalized the SPR strategy and promised to keep oil in a goldilocks window. When oil hit $67 to $72 a barrel, he said, the Energy Department would begin refilling the SPR. That number was chosen because it’s slightly above the “breakeven” price, the price-per-barrel that American drillers need in order to turn a profit.
This pledge virtually guaranteed that the government would profit from Biden’s trade: It sold high in 2022, then it would buy low in 2023 and beyond.
There’s only one problem: It hasn’t started buying yet.
In March, oil sank below the $72 mark for two weeks, but the Energy Department didn’t start refilling the SPR. Instead, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm offered excuses as to why the department needed more time to start repurchases. Eventually, the OPEC+ cartel — annoyed that Biden hadn’t taken action yet — cut production and brought oil prices out of the refill range.
That was a profound missed opportunity — but now the White House has another chance. Earlier this week, oil fell back into the $67 to $72 range.
Here are three reasons that Biden needs to be as good as his word and buy oil — for the climate’s sake, for the country’s, and for his own.
1. When gasoline gets too cheap, the climate suffers. When oil is inexpensive, people use more of it, and they think less of using it in the future. They let their car idle longer in the driveway, and they choose to drive places that they might otherwise walk or bike to. All of that, of course, results in more carbon pollution.
Yet the real danger happens as people integrate cheap gasoline into their plans for the future. Then consumers and businesses buy bigger, more inefficient trucks and SUVs to drive around town, or they put off buying hybrids — or electric vehicles — because the fuel savings aren’t worth it. Even if the oil price eventually goes back up, those gas-guzzling vehicles remain in the fleet for years, contributing to a higher baseline of oil demand than would otherwise exist.
That’s how persistently cheap oil could drag down Biden’s climate policy. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has argued that even though electric vehicles cost more upfront, they’re “cheaper to own” than gas cars; the Environmental Protection Agency has made a similar case about its clean-cars proposal, which aims for EVs to make up two-thirds of new car sales by 2032. Those calculations are true right now, but they depend on oil prices remaining in a certain window: If gas gets too cheap, then all bets are off about EV affordability — especially if the price of lithium or another important mineral spikes, as some analysts expect.
I should add: This argument is, like, the opposite of counterintuitive. Virtually every climate-policy proposal from across the political spectrum — whether it’s implementing a carbon tax or blowing up pipelines — aims to make fossil fuels more expensive. Because if fossil fuels are more expensive, fewer people will use them. That’s the whole idea.
And refilling the SPR would certainly raise oil prices, in the same way emptying it lowered them. Which brings me to:
2. The federal government is squandering a rare moment to assert its authority in the global energy market. Since 2010, fracking and the shale revolution have turned America into the world’s largest oil producer and a net-oil exporter. Last year, the United States produced 20% of the world’s oil, more than Saudi Arabia and Iran combined. On paper, at least, the long-held dream of multiple presidential administrations — that the U.S. achieve “energy independence” — has come true.
But it’s not true in reality. That’s because power within the global oil market rests not with the biggest producer per se, but with the biggest swing producer: the country or countries that can ramp their oil production up or down at will. Right now, an informal cartel of countries called “OPEC+” — made up of the traditional OPEC countries plus Russia — has that power.
In a way, you can think of the global oil market as a giant, very fancy bathtub. Water can only enter the tub from a few dozen big faucets. (These are the oil-producing countries) And the water exits the system as it runs down a giant drain. (Oil exits the market when it’s refined into a fuel and burned, or when it’s turned into a chemical or plastic.)
In such a system, who gets to decide how full the tub is? It’s not the person with the biggest faucet, but whoever can turn their faucet on or off.
That’s what makes OPEC+ so powerful: It can turn its tap on and off. When OPEC+ decreases the flow of oil, oil prices rise; when it opens the tap, they fall. It helps, yes, that OPEC+ produces 40% of the world’s oil, but what really matters is that it can adjust its own faucet.
The United States, meanwhile, has the world’s largest faucet, but no ability to turn it on or off. In the OPEC countries, state-run companies produce oil, so governments can decide to ramp up or ramp down their country’s production as need be. But in America, hundreds of private companies and investors decide when to open new wells and increase production. Our faucet goes on and off in response to circumstances outside anyone’s control.
That was why the White House’s SPR gambit was such a neat trick. In essence, the Biden administration found a way to turn up the United States’ faucet, refilling the world’s tub and lowering oil prices for Americans. It has the opportunity to do the opposite now. By filling the SPR immediately, Biden can use the bathtub, in effect, like turning down a faucet — and therefore establish a floor under the global oil price. (Because the SPR would buy oil specifically from American producers, he would do so in a way that helps the domestic economy.)
But Biden must act now to do so. Oil is a physical thing; it can’t be delayed and appealed like a legal deadline. If Biden doesn’t seize the moment now, while oil is in this price window, then OPEC+ could cut supply again, boosting the oil price and robbing Biden of any clout and leaving America at the whim of international price setters. (This isn’t a hypothetical concern: Paranoid Democrats should consider what Biden would do — and whether he’d be able to act — if Saudi Arabia and Russia decided to, say, slash oil production a month before next year’s presidential election.)
3. Yet these wonky arguments are somewhat beside the point. There’s one overriding reason why the government must refill the SPR immediately: because President Biden said that it would.
President Biden — and the Department of Energy — are engaged in a once-in-a-generation experiment to revive “a modern American industrial strategy.” Biden wants to reshape markets, make big public investments, and push American companies to make productive and innovative decisions that help the middle class and better the planet. This is going to be hard. It’s going to be fraught. And no matter what, it’s going to require credibility: Business leaders must believe that Biden will do what he says — and that he won’t renege on commitments when politics intervene.
If Biden squanders his credibility on the SPR, the effect will be neither immediate nor dramatic. But the SPR failure will seep into his policymaking and eat away at his authority. Executives will second-guess the president’s commitment to labor, childcare, or renewables.
Presidents are said to have a “bully pulpit,” but Teddy Roosevelt coined that term to describe how the president’s words can shape economic outcomes that the Executive Branch has no explicit power over. The bully pulpit, in other words, is a major tool of industrial policy. If Biden doesn’t practice what he preaches, his will cease to exist.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Rob goes to Yale with Heatmap staff writers Emily Pontecorvo and Matthew Zeitlin.
It’s been a huge few weeks for climate news. Democrats swept state and local elections in New Jersey, Virginia, California, and New York City — and won two crucial regulatory races in Georgia. A few weeks before, the climate tech investor and philanthropist Bill Gates released a memo arguing for a pivot on climate funding vis a vis global health.
On this special episode of Shift Key, Rob talks to Heatmap staff writers Emily Pontecorvo and Matthew Zeitlin about what the 2025 elections might mean for climate policy, why “affordability” politics could hamper decarbonization, and whether the Gates memo represents anything but a rebrand. They recorded this conversation live at the Yale School of Management’s annual clean energy conference in New Haven, Connecticut.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap, and Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University. Jesse is off this week.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Robinson Meyer: When you talk to clean energy people about this race [for the Georgia Public Service Commission], how did they explain the stakes? Because one thing I've wondered is that, back during the Biden administration, when you talked to Biden energy officials about nuclear and about why nuclear was often unsuccessful, those officials — who are Democrats — would say, Oh, you gotta do what they did in Georgia. Look what they did in Georgia. That plant ran mega-over-budget and they just kept ratebasing it, and those ratepayers could absorb it. And that's how you should do nuclear, is find a sufficiently big electricity market where you can just begin pushing costs into the electricity market.
I'd also hear, to be fair, Biden energy officials basically saying, We have to authorize as many AP1000s as we can, which is the nuclear reactor that was built around Vogtle, that was built in Georgia. We have to authorize and get as many of these started as we can before the rate increases start hitting Georgia rate payers, because once they do, people are going to turn on the politics of nuclear in a way that maybe we're not anticipating.
Anyway, how did clean energy people think about this? Because one of the biggest drivers of rate increases in Georgia is the Georgia PSC’s total willingness to just keep taking costs from the 24/7 clean electricity giants that are nuclear plants and shoving them on rate payers.
Emily Pontecorvo: I actually think that the clean energy folks were thinking about this more in terms of the risks around a natural gas buildout in Georgia. Because Georgia Power, the biggest electricity utility in the state, has recently, in their most recent resource plan, proposed building, like, five nuclear power plants’ worth of new natural gas in the state to essentially power the data center buildout that they're anticipating. And like I said before, the commission has been known to basically just give them what they ask for, and say yes, and not ask questions, and not ask for alternatives. And also I think the commission has been accused of really stunting the growth of rooftop solar, facilitating more utility-scale solar but kind of stunting rooftop solar.
And so the Democrats really campaigned on saying, We're going to look at that resource plan, and we're going to ask questions, and we're going to ask to see what an alternative scenario with more renewable energy would look like. So I think those were the stakes.
Now, whether they're going to get anywhere is another question. Because of the lawsuits and the strange timeline for this election, one of the candidates will only serve for one year before having to be reelected. They also are only two out of five seats on the commission. The other three are Republicans. And so, it's a little bit unclear where they're going to find points of agreement with the other folks on the commission.
Mentioned:
How Mikie Sherrill Won New Jersey’s Electricity Election, by Matthew
Democrats Win 2 Key Energy Races in Georgia, by Emily
Zohran Mamdani’s Muted Climate Politics, by Rob
7 New Takes From Bill Gates on Climate ‘Doomsday’ Talk and Global Health
Where Bill Gates Got It Wrong, by Zeke Haufather
Previously on Shift Key: How to Talk to Your Friendly Neighborhood Public Utility Regulator
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Hydrostor is building the future of energy with Advanced Compressed Air Energy Storage. Delivering clean, reliable power with 500-megawatt facilities sited on 100 acres, Hydrostor’s energy storage projects are transforming the grid and creating thousands of American jobs. Learn more at hydrostor.ca.
Uplight is a clean energy technology company that helps energy providers unlock grid capacity by activating energy customers and their connected devices to generate, shift, and save energy. The Uplight Demand Stack — which integrates energy efficiency, electrification, rates, and flexibility programs — improves grid resilience, reduces costs, and accelerates decarbonization for energy providers and their customers. Learn more at uplight.com/heatmap.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
In some cases, rising electricity rates are the least of a company’s worries.
Skyrocketing electricity prices are hitting Americans hard, which makes one wonder: Are electrification-based technologies doomed? No doubt sectors like green hydrogen, clean fuels, low-carbon steel and cement, and direct air capture would benefit from a hypothetical world of cheap, abundant electricity. But what happens if that world doesn’t materialize anytime soon?
The answer, as it so often turns out, is significantly more complicated than a simple yes or no. After talking with a bunch of experts, including decarbonization researchers, analysts, and investors, what I’ve learned is that the extent to which high electricity prices will darken the prospects for any given technology depends on any number of factors, including the specific industry, region, and technical approach a company’s taking. Add on the fact that many industries looking to electrify were hit hard by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which yanked forward deadlines for clean hydrogen and other renewable energy projects to qualify for subsidies, and there are plenty of pressing challenges for electrification startups when it comes to unit economics.
“Having lower energy prices is good for everybody,” Bryan Fisher, a managing director at the energy think tank RMI focused on industrial decarbonization, told me simply. And so when those prices go up, “the biggest macro theme is it hurts industries or applications of industry unevenly — green hydrogen being the biggest one.”
There was a general consensus among the people I spoke with that electrolytic hydrogen — known as green hydrogen if it’s produced with renewable electricity — is the clearest casualty here. That’s unsurprising given that electricity drives roughly 60% to 70% of its production cost, as it powers the process that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen. Rising hydrogen costs will also have knock-on effects across other emergent industries, as many companies and investors are banking on green hydrogen to replace fossil fuels in hard-to-electrify sectors such as chemical production or long-haul transport.
Fisher told me that rising electricity costs now means that the transition from blue hydrogen — produced from natural gas feedstock, with carbon capture and storage to control emissions — to green hydrogen will be prolonged. “What we always thought was going to happen was that a blue hydrogen market would develop and be replaced by green as those costs went down,” Fisher explained. “So I think the time at which the market will utilize low-emissions blue hydrogen is just extended.”
Dan Lashof, the former U.S. director and a current senior fellow at the World Resources Institute, told me that if and when hydrogen projects scale, circumventing the rising costs of grid electricity with behind-the-meter renewable power could be a viable option, given that new wind and solar generation remains quite cheap. He also emphasized the other factors at play when it comes to making green hydrogen economically feasible — mainly the high cost of electrolyzers themselves, the devices that split water into its component parts. “Tariffs on Chinese imports are going to be a big factor in terms of electrolyzer costs,” he told me. That leads him to ask, “will other countries like India step up and be able to produce low cost electrolyzers for the U.S. market?”
Among industries that rely on green hydrogen, sustainable aviation and green shipping might suffer the most, as hydrogen is a necessary ingredient in certain net-zero fuels. But high electricity prices — and by extension green hydrogen costs — are far from their only financial concern. Producing clean fuels often requires combining hydrogen with captured carbon to synthesize hydrocarbons.Sourcing and capturing CO2, breaking it down into carbon monoxide, and synthesizing hydrocarbons are all expensive in and of themselves.
Fisher told me that when it comes to the category of sustainable aviation fuels known as e-SAF, which is made from green hydrogen and captured carbon dioxide, innovations in these other areas — as well as economies of scale — are more likely to make a meaningful dent in fuel prices than cheaper electricity. “Power prices going up 20% adds about $1 or $1.50 a gallon to e-SAF,” he explained. “And right now we’re probably $5 to $7 out of the money.” So while lower electricity prices would certainly be welcome, the industry needs cost breakthroughs on multiple fronts before this fuel has a shot at competing.
Some companies, including Twelve, require electrolyzers to break down both CO2 and H2O. Rajesh Swaminathan, a partner at Khosla Ventures, told me he simply doesn’t think the current approaches to e-SAF will get there economically. “It’s a terrible economic idea. It doesn’t pass any kind of sniff test,” he said. “Even if electricity prices were extremely low, this will not be competitive from a capex and opex perspective,” he said, referring to both capital expenditures and the cost of operating the business.
Khosla has instead invested in Lanzatech, which sources carbon-rich gases from industrial facilities such as steel mills and ferments them into ethanol, which can then be chemically converted into jet fuel. Its core process doesn’t rely on green hydrogen or electrolysis at all. “That’s such a low-cost approach that will meet the SAF targets of $4 per gallon,” Swaminathan told me — a claim that remains to be seen, of course.
Efforts to decarbonize high heat industrial processes such as steel and cement production also rely heavily on electrification. The clean cement company Sublime Systems and clean steel companies Boston Metal and Electra, for instance, all use electricity-driven chemical processes to replace the need for burning fossil fuels in either cement kilns or the blast furnaces used in steel production.
The companies themselves often emphasize the importance of low electricity prices for making this tech cost-competitive. For example, when Boston Metal’s CEO Tadeu Carneiro was asked by a Time magazine reporter two years ago about where the company would source the enormous amount of electricity needed to melt iron ore as planned, he replied, “If you don’t believe that electricity will be plentiful, reliable, available, green, and cheap, forget about it,” essentially acknowledging the tech won’t pencil out in the absence of cheap power. He added that there are regions such as Quebec and Scandinavia — both of which have abundant hydropower resources — where it would make economic sense to deploy Boston Metal’s tech sooner rather than later. Similarly, Sublime is building its first commercial-scale clean cement plant in Holyoke, Massachusetts, where it’s sourcing power from the city’s hydroelectric dam.
“We have to believe that the electricity will be available,” Carneiro told Time.
Lashof told me that in the meantime, higher electricity prices will “push industrial decarbonization more towards using carbon capture and sequestration pathways” over electrification-driven approaches. But Fisher thinks that in many cases there’s still “headroom” for electrification of power and heat to make sense domestically, even with a relatively significant “20% to 30% type increase” in electricity costs.
“If you’re doing a heat by electrification project at your industrial site, in some cases it’s an adaptive problem, not an economic problem.” he told me. Indeed, plants will need to be redesigned — no small cost in itself — and teams must be willing to change their systems and processes to accommodate new technologies. That organizational inertia could, in some cases, prevent the adoption of novel electrification tech, even if electricity prices would support it.
One technology that Fisher is absolutely certain isn’t constrained by electricity prices so much as the lack of a fundamental technical breakthrough is engineered carbon removal, such as direct air capture. “Innovation is the key, not low power prices, because we need to get from $500 bucks a ton in carbon removal to $50 bucks a ton,” he told me. While DAC certainly requires loads of electricity to pull CO2 out of the air and chemically separate it, that won’t be enough to conjure the 90% price reduction necessary before DAC can reach scale.
But rest assured, rising electricity prices will also create some winners, with energy efficiency likely to be at the top of the list, Duncan Turner, a general partner at venture capital firm SOSV, told me. Personally, he’s excited about everything from innovations in HVAC systems to companies developing more energy-efficient chemical separation processes, low-power light-based data transfer hardware for data centers, and plasma-based cooling products for computing chips.
Energy efficiency isn’t the only category he thinks stands to benefit. “There’s a bunch of long-duration energy storage companies that will look very interesting indeed as the price of electricity starts to go up and the demand for electricity from data centers starts to peak,” Turner told me. Like Fisher, he also sees an opportunity for point-source carbon capture, viewing it as a way to “very quickly get cheaper and cleaner electricity onto the grid.”
Moments like these are also when investors are quick to remind us that betting on consistency across seemingly any dimension — whether that’s clean energy incentives, the funding environment, or commodity prices — is often a losing strategy. Or, as Turner put it, “It’s probably for the good for the whole industry — our community as a whole — that we reset to, We work better than anything else, even when there’s expensive electricity.”
On America’s climate ‘own goal,’ New York’s pullback, and Constellation’s demand response embrace
Current conditions: Geomagnetic activity ramped up again last night, bringing potential glimpses of the Aurora Borealis as far south as the Gulf Coast states • Heavy rain and mountain snow is disrupting flights across the Southwestern United States • Record November heat across Spain brought temperatures as high as 84 degrees Fahrenheit.
President Donald Trump signed legislation to fund the government and reopen operations late Wednesday, setting the stage for federal workers to return as soon as Thursday morning. “That is what has happened in the past — if it is signed the night before, no matter how late, you head back to work the next day,” Nicole Cantello, the head of a union that represents Environmental Protect Agency employees in the agency’s Chicago regional office, told E&E News, noting that it’s told its members to prepare to go back to the office today.
As I noted in yesterday’s newsletter, the longest government shutdown in U.S. history came with some climate casualties. As Heatmap reported throughout the funding lapse, the administration gutted a backup energy storage system at a children’s hospital, major infrastructure projects in New York City, and a bevy of grants for clean energy.
Speaking at the United Nations climate summit in Belém, Brazil, on Tuesday, California Governor Gavin Newsom accused Trump of scoring an economic “own goal” by abandoning federal climate policies and ceding dominance over clean energy to China. The Democrat, widely expected to run for his party’s presidential nod in 2028, is the highest-profile American politician to appear at the first conference in years where the sitting U.S. administration declined to send a high-level delegation. Reversing the Biden administration’s carbon-cutting policies amounted to “the own goal of the president of the United States who simply doesn’t understand how enthusiastic President Xi is that the Trump administration is nowhere at COP30,” Newsom told the audience at the Amazonian confab, according to the Financial Times. “The United States of America better wake up at that. It’s not about electric power. It’s about economic power.”
As I wrote in Tuesday’s newsletter, China is on a climate winning streak. New analysis published this week in Carbon Brief found that the country’s emissions stayed flat in the last quarter, extending a trend of flat or falling carbon pollution since March 2024. The biggest driver of power plant development in the U.S., meanwhile, appears to be on increasingly shaky footing. A new report from the Center for Public Enterprise found that data center companies are increasingly taking on debt and creating interlocking financing deals to pay for the rapid buildout of server farms.
Plug Power put plans to build as many as six new hydrogen production plants across the U.S. on hold as the Trump administration pares back its plans to support the zero-carbon fuel. The company, which has never turned a profit, said it has suspended its rollout of factories in Texas, New York, and other states, and, according to the Albany Times-Union, “will instead buy hydrogen from an existing supplier.” Plug Power had received funding not just from the Department of Energy, but also from the New York Power Authority, which awarded a large allocation of low-cost hydropower to support a $290 million green hydrogen facility in Genesee County, just east of Buffalo.
It’s part of a broader reshuffling of decarbonization priorities in the Empire State. New York agreed on Wednesday to suspend implementation of new statewide rules that would have banned all new low-rise buildings from establishing hookups to the gas system, effectively mandating the use of electric heating and cooking appliances. The move comes just weeks after the state lost its biggest battery project on Staten Island amid growing pushback from residents, as Heatmap’s Jael Holzman reported.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

While New York City still has the West Coast handily beaten on public transit, the self-driving robotaxi company Waymo just rolled out rides on freeways for the first time. The Google-spinout startup, which uses all electric vehicles, announced plans on Wednesday to start offering rides on freeways in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Phoenix metropolitan areas. “We’re offering freeway access to a growing number of public riders and will introduce the service to more over time, including as we expand freeway capabilities to Austin, Atlanta, and beyond — always guided by our commitment to safety and service excellence,” the company said in a blog post. “Freeway trips make Waymo even more convenient and efficient, whether you’re headed to Sky Harbor International Airport, cruising from Downtown LA to Culver City, or commuting in our newly expanded Bay Area service.”"
Among the warring tribes of the energy transition, you often get so-called nuclear bros on one side calling for as much abundant clean power as possible, and renewables hardliners on the other demanding more judicious use of existing clean power by cutting back on wasted energy. The latest plan from the nation’s largest nuclear plant operator tries to have it both ways. In his utility giant’s latest earnings call, Constellation Energy CEO Joe Dominguez said the company is “seeing a lot of great capability to use backup generation and flex compute,” Utility Dive reported.
It’s a sign of the growing trend toward demand response, wherein large power uses such as data centers scale back when the grid is under particular stress, such as on a hot day when everyone is using air conditioning. “I don’t think we’re going to get to a point where we could flex on and off the full output of data centers,” Dominguez warned. But he said the company is exploring the potential for artificial intelligence software to “attract some of our customers to actually providing the relief or the slack on the system during the key hours.” Still, the idea is attracting attention. Regulators at the state and federal level are now considering what Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin called “one weird trick for getting more data centers on the grid.”
The first front of climate action, started in the 1900s, was conservation, figuring out how to use energy more efficiently. The second front was about cleaning up the toxic mess left behind by mid-20th century industry. The third front, now emerging, is about finding ways to support construction of more energy infrastructure in recognition of the fact that there’s no such thing as national prosperity in a low-energy economy. That’s the take from Aliya Haq, the president of the nonprofit Clean Energy Project, who called for a new approach to climate advocacy in a new Heatmap op-ed.