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:
Meanwhile, automakers and policymakers alike are looking to it for inspiration.

Even as the Environmental Protection Agency was preparing to release federal tailpipe emissions rules that will steer more U.S. drivers into electric vehicles, California was working in the background to harden its own, more stringent emissions standards.
On Tuesday, the state announced an agreement with Stellantis, the automaking conglomerate that contains the Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, and Ram brands to comply with more restrictive tailpipe emissions rules through 2026. California also said Stellantis would go along with its electrification mandates through 2030 — regardless of whether either is struck down by federal regulators or the courts.
The agreement is part of California’s effort to preserve its ability to set emissions standards and mandate electrification even with a hostile White House and judicial branch. By trying to get enough of the industry to agree to its rules voluntarily and not join any effort that may arise to throw them out, it hopes either to preserve its rule-making ability or, in the worst case scenario, leverage the industry’s desire for predictability to keep the rules themselves intact.
David Clegern, public information officer at the California Air Resources Board, told me there was no connection between Tuesday’s agreement and today’s EPA announcement. The deal “gives Stellantis flexibility in how they meet California's existing greenhouse gas emissions vehicle requirements," he said. In exchange, the state gets an even deeper emissions cut than it would otherwise — some 10 million extra tons of foregone greenhouse gas emissions.
Stellantis also agreed “not to oppose California’s authority under the Clean Air Act for its greenhouse gas emissions and zero-emissions vehicle standards,” the California Air Resources Board said in its announcement of the agreement.
California has long had the ability to set its own emissions standards thanks to the structure of the Clean Air Act and a waiver from the EPA. California got some automakers to agree to a version of Obama-era tailpipe emissions rules in the summer of 2019 that the Trump administration had planned on scrapping, after which Trump officials revoked California’s ability to set emissions rules. California finalized its agreement with the automakers the following year, then regained its authority to set emissions rules in 2022.
The principle behind the Stellantis deal is similar to those earlier agreements, Clegern said. Stellantis had been on the outside looking in on California’s deals with automakers, and late last year initiated an administrative process to try to get them thrown out. (It was unsuccessful.) Now, the company has agreed not only to implement emissions and electrification rules, but also to invest in electrification in the state by spending $4 million on charging infrastructure in California and $6 million in states that also adopt California’s emissions rules.
Meanwhile, the EPA is working on a new waiver process for California’s electrification standards, which would need to be completed before the end of this year to both avoid interference from a potential incoming Republican administration and to make sure it applies on the schedule the state has set out, Kathy Harris, clean vehicles director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told me. The rules, known as the Advanced Clean Car Standard II regulations, start with the 2026 model year and apply through 2035 and mandate that all new car sales in the state be electric by the middle of the 2030s.
About a dozen other states so far have adopted the ACC II standards, including Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon.
Many commenters on the EPA car emission proposal set out the California rules as a model for what the agency should do. “Vehicle manufacturers also commented that they had extensive collaboration with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) during the development of CARB’s recently finalized Advanced Clean Car II (ACC II) standards,” according to the final rule, “and industry broadly recommended that EPA adopt the ACC II program in lieu of our proposed standards.”
In the end, the EPA rules follow a different model than the California standards, Harris said. Crucially, the EPA isn’t mandating electrification. In remarks at a White House even on Wednesday, EPA administrator Michael Regan emphasized that they were instead technology neutral and performance based, meaning that they leave it up to the automakers to figure out how to comply.
David Reichmuth, the senior engineer in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ clean transportation program, told me that, compared to California's, the EPA rules “are distinct in what they regulate and how they regulate vehicles,” he told me. Nevertheless, “they are pulling in the same direction in trying to reduce emissions from transportation and air pollution from vehicles.”
California’s ability to set its own emissions rules is not just likely to be questioned by a Republican administration should Donald Trump win in 2025, it also could be at risk in the courts. Ohio and other states with Republican attorneys general sued the EPA in 2022 over the existence of the California waiver in a case that was heard by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last fall. The ruling is still pending.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On Venezuela’s oil, permitting reform, and New York’s nuclear plans
Current conditions: Cold temperatures continue in Europe, with thousands of flights canceled at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport, while Scotland braces for a winter storm • Northern New Mexico is anticipating up to a foot of snow • Australia continues to swelter in heat wave, with “catastrophic fire risk” in the state of Victoria.
The White House said in a memo released Wednesday that it would withdraw from more than 60 intergovernmental organizations, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the international climate community’s governing organization for more than 30 years. After a review by the State Department, the president had determined that “it is contrary to the interests of the United States to remain a member of, participate in, or otherwise provide support” to the organizations listed. The withdrawal “marks a significant escalation of President Trump’s war on environmental diplomacy beyond what he waged in his first term,” Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer wrote Wednesday evening. Though Trump has pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement (twice), he had so far refused to touch the long-tenured UNFCCC, a Senate-ratified pact from the early 1990s of which the U.S. was a founding member, which “has served as the institutional skeleton for all subsequent international climate diplomacy, including the Paris Agreement,” Meyer wrote.
Among the other organizations named in Trump’s memo was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which produces periodic assessments on the state of climate science. The IPCC produced the influential 2018 report laying the intellectual foundations for the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
More details are emerging on the Trump administration’s plan to control Venezuela’s oil assets. Trump posted Tuesday evening on Truth Social that the U.S. government would take over almost $3 billion worth of Venezuelan oil. On Wednesday, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright told a Goldman Sachs energy conference that “going forward we will sell the production that comes out of Venezuela into the marketplace.” A Department of Energy fact sheet laid out more information, including that “all proceeds from the sale of Venezuelan crude oil and oil products will first settle in U.S. controlled accounts,” and that “these funds will be disbursed for the benefit of the American people and the Venezuelan people at the discretion of the U.S. government.” The DOE also said the government would selectively lift some sanctions to enable the oil sales and transport and would authorize importation of oil field equipment.
As I wrote for Heatmap on Monday, sanctions are just one barrier to oil development among a handful that would have to be cleared for U.S. oil companies to begin exploiting Venezuela’s vast oil resources.
In a Senate floor speech, Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico blasted the Trump administration’s anti-renewables executive actions, saying that the U.S. is “facing an energy crisis of the Trump administration’s own making,” and that “the Trump administration is dismantling the permitting process that we use to build new energy projects and get cheaper electrons on the grid.” Heinrich, a Democrat, is the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and a key player in any possible permitting reform bill. Though he said he supports permitting reform in principle, calling for “a system that can reliably get to a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ on a permit in two to three years — not 10, not 17,” he said that “any permitting deal is going to have to guarantee that no administration of either party can weaponize the permitting process for cheap political points.” Heinrich called on Trump officials “to follow the law. They need to reverse their illegal stop work orders, and they need to start approving legally compliant energy projects.”
He did offer an olive branch to the Republican senators with whom he would have to negotiate on any permitting legislation, noting that “the challenge to doing permitting reform is not in this building,” specifying that Senators Mike Lee, chair of the ENR Committee, and Shelly Moore-Capito, chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, have not been barriers to a deal. Instead, he said, “it is this Administration that is poisoning the well.”

The climate science nonprofit Climate Central released an analysis Thursday morning ranking 2025 “as the third-highest year (after 2023 and 2024) for billion-dollar weather and climate disasters — with 23 such events causing 276 deaths and costing a total of $115 billion in damages,” according to a press release.
Going back to 1980, the average number of disasters costing $1 billion or more to clean up was nine, with an average total bill of $67.9 billion. The U.S. hit that average within the first weeks of last year with the Los Angeles wildfires, which alone were responsible for over $61 billion in damages, the most economically damaging wildfire on record.
The New York Power Authority announced Wednesday that 23 “potential developers or partners,” including heavyweights like NextEra and GE Hitachi and startups like The Nuclear Company and Terra Power, had responded to its requests for information on developing advanced nuclear projects in New York State. Eight upstate communities also responded as potential host sites for the projects.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul said last summer that New York’s state power agency would go to work on developing 1 gigawatt of nuclear capacity upstate. Late last year, Hochul signed an agreement with Ontario Premier Doug Ford to collaborate on nuclear technology. Ontario has been working on a small modular reactor at its existing Darlington nuclear site, across Lake Ontario from New York.
“Sunrise Wind has spent and committed billions of dollars in reliance upon, and has met the requests of, a thorough review process,” Orsted, the developer of the Sunrise Wind project off the coast of New York, said in a statement announcing that it was filing for a preliminary injunction against the suspension of its lease late last year.
The move would mark a significant escalation in Trump’s hostility toward climate diplomacy.
The United States is departing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the overarching treaty that has organized global climate diplomacy for more than 30 years, according to the Associated Press.
The withdrawal, if confirmed, marks a significant escalation of President Trump’s war on environmental diplomacy beyond what he waged in his first term.
Trump has twice removed the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, a largely nonbinding pact that commits the world’s countries to report their carbon emissions reduction goals on a multi-year basis. He most recently did so in 2025, after President Biden rejoined the treaty.
But Trump has never previously touched the UNFCCC. That older pact was ratified by the Senate, and it has served as the institutional skeleton for all subsequent international climate diplomacy, including the Paris Agreement.
The United States was a founding member of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It first joined the treaty in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush signed the pact and lawmakers unanimously ratified it.
Every other country in the world belongs to the UNFCCC. By withdrawing from the treaty, the U.S. would likely be locked out of the Conference of the Parties, the annual UN summit on climate change. It could also lose any influence over UN spending to drive climate adaptation in developing countries.
It remains unclear whether another president could rejoin the framework convention without a Senate vote.
As of 6 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday, the AP report cited a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the news had not yet been announced.
The Trump administration has yet to confirm the departure. On Wednesday afternoon, the White House posted a notice to its website saying that the U.S. would leave dozens of UN groups, including those that “promote radical climate policies,” without providing specifics. The announcement was taken down from the White House website after a few minutes.
The White House later confirmed the departure from 31 UN entities in a post on the social network X, but did not list the groups in question.
Bloom Energy is riding the data center wave to new heights.
Fuel cells are back — or at least one company’s are.
Bloom Energy, the longtime standard-bearer of the fuel cell industry, has seen its share of ups and downs before. Following its 2018 IPO, its stock price shot up to over $34 before falling to under $3 a share in October 2019, then soared to over $42 in the COVID-era market euphoria before falling again to under $10 in 2024. Its market capitalization has bounced up and down over the years, from an all time low of less than $1 billion in 2019 and further struggles in early 2020 after it was forced to restate years of earnings thanks to an accounting error after already struggling to be profitable, up again to more than $7 billion in 2021 amidst a surge of interest in backup power.
The stock began soaring (again) in the middle of last year as anything and everything plausibly connected to artificial intelligence was going vertical. Today, Bloom Energy is trading at more than $111 a share, with a market cap north of $26 billion — and that’s after a dramatic fall from its all-time high price of over $135 per share, reached in November. By contrast, Southwest Airlines is worth around $22 billion; Edison International, the parent company of Southern California Edison, is worth about $22.5 billion.
This is all despite Bloom recording regular losses according to generally accepted accounting principles, although its quarterly revenue has risen by over 50%, and its reported non-GAAP and adjusted margins and profits have grown considerably. The company has signed deals or deployed its fuel cells with Oracle, the utility AEP, Amazon Web Services, gas providers, the network infrastructure company Equinix, the real estate developer Brookfield, and the artificial intelligence infrastructure company CoreWeave, Bloom’s chief executive and founder, KR Sridhar, said in its October earnings call.
While fuel cells have been pitched for decades as a way to safely use hydrogen for energy, fuel cells can also run on natural gas or biogas, which the company has seized on as a way to ride the data center boom. Bloom leadership has said that the company will double its manufacturing capacity by the end of this year, which it says will “support” a projected four-fold annual revenue increase. “The AI build-outs and their power demands are making on-site power generated by natural gas a necessity,” Sridhar said during the earnings call.
To get a sense of how euphoric perception of Bloom Energy has been, Morgan Stanley bumped its price target from $44 dollars a share to $85 on September 16 — then just over a month later, bumped it again to $155, calling the company “one of our favorite ‘time to power’ stocks given its available capacity and near-term expansion plans.”
Bloom has also won plaudits from semiconductor and data center industry analysts. The research firm SemiAnalysis described Bloom’s fuel cells as a “a fairly niche solution [that] is now taking an increasingly large share of the pie.”
It’s been a long journey from green tech darling to AI infrastructure for Bloom Energy — and fuel cells as a technology.
Bloom was founded in 2001, originally as Ion America, and quickly attracted high profile Silicon Valley investors. By 2010, fuel cells (and Bloom) were still being pitched as the generation source of the future, with The New York Times reporting in 2010 that Bloom had “spent nearly a decade developing a new variety of solid oxide fuel cell, considered the most efficient but most technologically challenging fuel-cell technology.” That product launch followed some $400 million in funding, and Bloom would hit an almost $3 billion valuation in 2011.
By 2016, however, when the company first filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission to sell shares to the public, it was being described by the Wall Street Journal as “a once-ballyhooed alternative energy startup,” in an article that said the fuel cell industry had been an “elusive target for decades, with a succession of companies unable to realize its business potential.” The company finally went public in 2018 at a valuation of $1.6 billion.
Then came the AI boom.
Fuel cells don’t use combustion to generate power, instead combining oxygen ions with hydrogen from natural gas and generating emissions of carbon dioxide and water, albeit without the particulate pollution of other forms of fossil-fuel-based electricity generation. This makes the process of getting permits from the Environmental Protection Agency “significantly smoother and easier than that of combustion generators,” SemiAnalysis wrote in a report.
In today’s context, Bloom’s fuel cells are yet another on-site, behind-the-meter natural gas power solution for data centers. “The rapid expansion of AI data centers in the U.S. is colliding with grid bottlenecks, driving operators to adopt BTM generation for speed-to-power and resilience to their modularity, fast deployment, and ability to handle volatile AI workloads,” Jefferies analyst Dushyant Ailani wrote in a note to clients. “Natural gas reciprocating engines, Batteries, and Bloom fuel cells are emerging as a preferred solution due to their modularity, fast deployment, and ability to handle volatile AI workloads.”
SemiAnalysis estimates that capital expenditure for Bloom fuel cells are substantially higher than those for gas turbines on a kilowatt-hour basis — $3,000 to $4,000 for fuel cells, compared to between $1,500 and $2,500 for turbines. But where the company excels is in speed. “The big turbines are sold out for four or five years,” Maheep Mandloi, an analyst at Mizuho Securities, told me. “The smaller ones for behind the meter for one to two years. These guys can deliver, if needed, within 90 days.”
Like other data center-related companies, Bloom has faced some local opposition, though not a debilitating amount. In Hilliard, Ohio, the state siting board overrode concerns about the deployment of more than 200 fuel cells at an AWS facility.
Bloom is also far from the only company that has realigned itself to ride the AI wave. Caterpillar, which makes simple turbine systems largely for the oil and gas industry, has become a data center darling, while the major turbine manufacturers Mitsubishi, Siemens Energy, and GE Vernova have all seen dramatic increases in their stock price in the last year. Korean industrial conglomerate Doosan is now developing a new large-scale turbine. Even the supersonic jet startup Boom is developing a gas turbine for data centers.
While artificial intelligence — or at least artificial intelligence companies — promises unforeseen technological and scientific advancements, so far it’s being powered by the technological and scientific advancements of the past.