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:
They fall short of President Biden’s power plant goals — and he’s running out of time and tools.

As you may have heard, the Biden administration on Thursday proposed regulating greenhouse-gas emissions from new and existing power plants.
The rule is a landmark. If implemented successfully, it would mark the first time that the United States has regulated emissions from existing power plants, one of the largest sources of carbon pollution in the economy.
Yet coverage of the rule has deviated in some respects from what it would actually do. The rule falls short of its goals in at least one important way: It will not meet President Joe Biden’s targets for the power sector.
Soon after he took office, President Biden committed the United States to generating 100% of its electricity from zero-carbon sources by 2035. It is part of his broader Paris Agreement pledge to slash U.S. carbon pollution in half by 2030 as compared to 2005 levels.
But the EPA’s proposal would not achieve a zero-carbon power grid even by 2040, five years after the president’s deadline. If the rule is implemented, then the American electricity system will emit 458 million metric tons of carbon pollution in 2040. While that is a significant reduction — it’s about 70% lower than today’s annual emissions — it is obviously not zero.
“These rules and this section of the Clean Air Act is not designed to achieve President Biden’s clean power targets,” Charles Harper, a policy analyst at Evergreen, a climate advocacy organization and think tank, told me.
“These power-sector rules are an important contributor to reducing emissions to the power sector, but they alone won’t get to a zero-carbon grid — and that’s by design within the statute.”
On one hand, the EPA’s proposal reveals the success of President Biden’s flagship climate accomplishment, the Inflation Reduction Act. The EPA’s proposal can mandate carbon capture and storage so aggressively because that law’s subsidies and tax credits made it economically feasible for utilities. The proposal is “designed very, very well to work in tandem with the IRA tax credits,” Nick Bryner, a law professor at Louisiana State University, told me.
In fact, according to the rule’s analysis, the climate law — and not the proposed rule — will drive most of the emissions declines in the power sector from 2028 to 2040. The rule is tinkering around the edges of a much larger transformation.
But on the other hand, the rule reveals the limits of that metamorphosis. The Biden administration has adopted more climate policy than any previous administration, yet they are running out of tools to make their climate goals a reality. The EPA will be lucky to finalize these rules before the end of Biden’s first — and potentially only — term. And it is not working on any other proposed power-sector regulation that might get the country all the way to Biden’s 2035 goal.
At this point, Biden may need a revolution of state and local climate advocacy — not to mention another four years in office, and perhaps even another congressional majority — to achieve his most ambitious climate goals. The planet is only getting hotter.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Current conditions: Cold air is sweeping into the American Northeast after a brief blast of summer-like heat that drove temperatures in New York City up to 85 degrees Fahrenheit last week • Hurricane Nolo crossed the International Date Line, officially becoming Typhoon Nolo • The heat wave roasting Southern California is straining the grid, causing outages for more than 23,000 people in the Los Angeles area.
Greenland’s government on Monday approved the mining and decommissioning plans for Critical Metals’ Tanbreez rare earths project, which Mining.com described as one of the world’s “larger undeveloped heavy rare earth projects outside China.” The preliminary economic analysis for the mine pegged its total value at $2.1 billion, with an estimated initial capital cost of $290 million. “Approval of the Mining and Closure Plans is a defining milestone for Tanbreez and for Critical Metals Corp.,” Tony Sage, the chairman and chief executive of Critical Metals, said in a press release. “It gives us a clear framework through 2050 to responsibly develop one of the world’s largest heavy rare earth deposits, in partnership with the government of Greenland and the communities of South Greenland.”
If it goes forward, the project could be among the first major rare earths mines in Greenland, where the Trump administration has claimed the right to veto any major foreign investments as part of the deal signed with the Danish government last month, which gives Washington perpetual security oversight over the self-governing North American island. Critical Metals, notably, is headquartered in New York, though its largest shareholder is the Australian mineral investor European Lithium Limited. Yet opening a new mine in the U.S. might be getting even easier. As my colleague Matthew Zeitlin reported last week, miners — ahem — struck gold with the regulatory changes in the bipartisan permitting reform bill.
The Department of Energy is preparing to unveil $150 million in funding for a 223-mile transmission line in Alaska that would serve nearly three-quarters of the state’s population of just 735,000 people. The move, reported first by Reuters, comes as Vice President JD Vance prepares to visit the state to support Republican Senator Dan Sullivan’s bid for reelection in what’s expected to be a tight race with Democrat Mary Peltola. The total cost of the project is $400 million.
First Solar built the largest photovoltaic manufacturing business in the U.S. by churning out thin-film panels that, while less efficient than the polysilicon-based technology popularized by China, perform better in low light and high temperatures, earning a solid market among utility-scale developers. But now Chinese manufacturer JA and its subsidiaries are allegedly muscling in on thin film — as is American Panel Solutions, a wholly owned U.S.-based subsidiary of the polysilicon giant Corning. First Solar now accuses the companies of illegally infringing its patent for manufacturing its solar cells, according to PV Tech. The Ohio-based giant has previously sued Jinko, Canadian Solar, T1 Energy, and Trina Solar. First Solar won a key preliminary victory in January.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

Starbucks has abandoned or watered down green targets and let go its sustainability staff as the coffee and food chain looks to cut $2 billion in costs. On Monday, the Financial Times reported that the company had revised or dropped pledges to halve water use and waste, and placed a target of slashing carbon emissions by 50% under review. While the pullback comes amid a broader retreat from environmental goals under the Trump administration, other coffee companies are still seeking to reduce pollution. Just yesterday, I told you that Keurig Dr. Pepper had come out with a version of its individual instant coffee pods that uses seaweed instead of plastic.
Type One Energy has raised a $200 million Series B as the startup races to develop the world’s first fusion power plant at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Bull Run site in eastern Tennessee. The financing round was co-led by Breakthrough Energy Ventures and Clutterbuck Capital, with additional backing from Lowercarbon Capital, Siemens Energy Ventures, and SiteGround Capital. “The breadth and quality of investors in this funding round demonstrates growing support for our strategy to industrialize the commercial deployment of fusion energy,” Christofer Mowry, Type One Energy’s chief executive, said in a statement. “The Series B financing enables us to remain focused on advancing our stellarator technology and Project infinity design activities.”
The company has been working to establish its supply chain. In March, my colleague Katie Brigham broke news of a deal to start getting the material needed for its reactors.
New York City is notorious for the ways in which trash piles up on our sidewalks and evaporates into foul smelling mist during the hot summer days. But did you know it’s also piling up in the places we send it? The latest draft of the city’s once-in-a-decade management plan for solid waste indicates that the landfills receiving much of the five boroughs’ trash are filling up. Per Inside Climate News, the state is projected to run out of landfill capacity for the city’s garbage within 16 to 25 years.
The startup’s system builds on a vessel’s existing engine and makes it effectively fuel-agnostic.
The shipping industry has a dilemma. The European Union and other jurisdictions are increasingly requiring vessels to cut their carbon emissions, pushing shipowners toward lower-carbon fuels and away from traditional bunker fuel or diesel. But it’s still anybody’s guess which cleaner fuel — ammonia, methanol, or liquified natural gas — will prove most economical and efficient at scale. That leaves shipowners facing an uncomfortable choice: They must decide on a technology around which to build new engines and retrofit existing ones without knowing whether the fuel they bet on today will still be the best option a few years from now.
Blaze Energy says that its product will eliminate that choice. The startup, which announced a $6.5 million seed round on Tuesday — is making a compact fuel “reformer,” a device that uses a heated catalyst to split various alternative fuels into a hydrogen-rich gas. That gas can then be combined with the original fuel and conventional shipping fuel to power existing engines. With Blaze’s bolt-on retrofit, which the startup aims to make less than a tenth the size of the engine itself, shipping companies “can adjust their assets based on how the global energy landscape, regulation, as well as their company direction is changing,” the company’s CEO and co-founder, Rok Sitar, told me. For example, maybe LNG looks cheapest in the short term given its established supply chain, but ammonia could win out down the road.
So far, Blaze has conducted small scale demonstrations showing that its proprietary catalyst can reform ammonia, methanol, and LNG. The resulting hydrogen-rich mixture is extremely fast-burning, which helps the other fuels to burn more completely and efficiently than they otherwise would.
Blaze’s first product, however, focuses solely on ammonia reformation. The system works by diverting a portion of the liquid ammonia to flow over the startup’s electrically-heated catalyst, which breaks it down into hydrogen and nitrogen. The resulting gas goes directly into the engine, where the nitrogen passes through and exits via the exhaust, while the hydrogen helps the remaining ammonia burn more efficiently alongside conventional shipping fuel. No burners or complex gas separation systems required.
As Sitar explained, “a certain composition of ammonia and hydrogen burns just like diesel,” allowing Blaze to essentially “trick the engine” into operating like it’s burning just diesel or standard bunker fuel rather than a blend that includes hydrogen and ammonia. That means the startup can add its retrofit system onto an existing ship engine without modifying the engine itself. And if the reformer fails for any reason, the ship can simply revert to running on conventional fuel alone. Sitar said this fail-safe feature lowers the risk for shipowners considering Blaze’s tech.
The company’s strategic partners include vessel owner and operator Lomar Shipping, which expects to pilot the system at sea beginning sometime next year, and ship management consultancy Link Marine, which plans to offer it to tanker operators. Blaze is aiming for commercial rollout in 2028.
Retrofitting the existing global fleet represents “an enormous opportunity” for Blaze, Sitar told me. As he explained, there are roughly 100,000 vessels in the global commercial fleet, but the industry only builds about 1,500 new ships each year. And because shipping companies are unlikely to choose alternative-fuel engines for every new vessel they order, a company in Blaze’s position pretty much has to drum up demand among the ships already in the water. The startup aims to install its system when vessels enter “dry dock” for routine inspection and maintenance, which typically happens at least once every five years.
Blaze is also developing a version of its product for new-builds, however, working with engine manufacturers to integrate its fuel reformer hardware into both conventional ship engines as well as those already designed to run on ammonia. Even in ammonia-burning engines, Sitar said Blaze’s system will improve fuel efficiency thanks to the fast-burning hydrogen in its blend.
The startup has ambitious goals for its seed round, which Sitar says should carry it through the next 18 months. Those include proving out its ammonia reformer on land with unnamed “leading” engine manufacturers, validating its performance at sea with Lomar, securing the maritime certifications needed to launch its first commercial product, and expanding its operations and headcount in the U.S. and Norway.
Blaze will likely look to raise again around 2028, at which point the International Maritime Organization expects to have its Net-Zero Framework in place. This would establish legally binding requirements for the entire shipping industry to reduce its emissions intensity, with the goal of reaching net-zero by 2050. The agency expected to adopt the framework last October, but delayed a final vote to approve the measure after the Trump administration strong-armed nations into withdrawing their support. The framework will come up for a vote again this December.
While the ongoing ambiguity has become a headache for the industry as a whole, Sitar sees it as something of an advantage for Blaze, which, he said, “thrive[s] in uncertainty.” Around 2028, the startup aims to begin piloting its broader multi-fuel technology, which can reform not just ammonia, but also methanol and LNG, for use in diesel engines. Blaze also expects to begin delivering its first commercial ammonia retrofit systems at this time.
From there on, the company sees a path to adapting the technology across numerous other industries reliant on combustion engines, such as heavy equipment, mining, industrial heat, and diesel power generation for data centers. “By proving our system in maritime engines, we can very easily translate this into other hardware sectors,” he said. Shipping, in his view, is perhaps the most challenging but strategically useful beachhead market of all, from both a technical and regulatory perspective.
As he put it to me, “if you prove it on maritime shipping, you basically have a product that can be deployed anywhere else, because everything else is simpler and has less regulation.”
The global vehicle market is splitting into two — with just a few exception.
The past three months have been crucial for Rivian, America’s biggest all-electric car company not run by Elon Musk.
The California-based automaker debuted the R2, its long-awaited and somewhat more affordable sport utility vehicle. (Our reviewer gave it high marks.) Rivian also formally took out a nearly $6.6 billion loan from the Department of Energy to finance its new Georgia factory. And it finally unveiled the plans for that facility, which will include a rail tie-in and a 1,000-acre preserved woodland.
All that was well and good, but the crucial question remained: How is the R2 selling? And the answer is: Pretty well, seemingly! Rivian delivered 19,248 vehicles last quarter, beating analyst expectations and setting a new all-time quarterly sales record. More importantly, its vehicle deliveries have now recovered above where they stood in the third quarter of last year — a key milestone, since President Trump and Congress ended the federal government’s consumer-side EV incentives last September.
Tesla is seemingly also about to clear that threshold, although nobody outside the firm knows for sure. Elon Musk’s company doesn’t break out its sales by continent or model, but it delivered 486,532 vehicles last year — just about 2% below last year’s third quarter results. (Although a few of Rivian’s Amazon delivery vans have made their way into fleets abroad, the company only sells its consumer R1 and R2 vehicles in the United States and Canada, so its sales data is mostly U.S. by default.)
Alas, those two stand alone for now. No other automaker is close to breaking its quarterly EV sales record in the United States, and Ford, General Motors, and Hyundai all saw their domestic EV sales crumble last quarter. The new Chevrolet Bolt, GM’s most affordable EV — and its only American-made vehicle of any kind priced below $30,000 — has sold abysmally, moving just 8,090 units since the year began. The company is now likely to cap its production run at 35,000 units sold; it initially planned to produce 150,000.
Looking at these trends, I think you can see two different phenomena taking place.
The first is a big and growing divergence between America’s transportation sector and the rest of the world’s. The oil supply shock triggered by America’s war in Iran (and the resulting closure of the Strait of Hormuz) may be driving a long-term shift, encouraging consumers and countries to move away from oil. But for now, the crisis’s high prices have hit parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia far worse than they’ve impacted much of North America. Global EV sales reached a record high in the spring, for instance — just not in the United States.
The second is that we’re seeing demand destruction without decarbonization. According to new Nikkei data, gasoline-only cars made up less than half of global new car sales during the six months of 2026.
That’s never happened before, and it is a remarkable change: Gasoline-only cars have lost about a quarter of their global market share in less than five years. But as consumers switched away from gasoline, they didn’t move only to battery-only cars — instead, more than half of them shifted to hybrids or plug-in hybrids. That shift is good news, in that it will depress global oil use and therefore global greenhouse-gas emissions. But it won’t allow for the possibility of zeroing out emissions in the same way that EVs can.
But sometimes demand destruction will cut emissions significantly. If want to see that in the United States, check out the diesel market. As my colleague Alexander Kaufman wrote about this morning, FedEx has responded to eye-watering domestic diesel prices by placing an order for 2,000 electric box trucks with the California-based automaker Harbinger Motors. The shipper believes that the move will save it $800 million in fuel costs over time. When I talked to John Henry Harris, Harbinger’s CEO, last year, he told me the company didn’t need tax credits to sell vehicles — the math justified it on its own. Seems like FedEx agrees.