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.
The most important states to watch for the future of renewable energy policy sit at the nexus of the data center backlash.
Over the last week, I’ve poured over what I believe to be the top five most important spaces to watch for all things utility-scale solar, battery storage and transmission development: Texas, California, Arizona, Alabama and Wisconsin. I selected these five states because they either have some of the largest in generation capacity (Texas, California, Arizona) or crucial statewide elections that could decide not only the future of renewable energy in the state but elsewhere across the country (Alabama, Wisconsin).
In four out of the five states I found remarkable harbingers of troubles and tension in the foreground, as the nation careens toward a midterm election fast being defined by rising electricity bills and the AI infrastructure many Americans believe to be to blame.
In Texas an influential conservative think tank, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, is urging the state utilities commission to pause transmission permitting so legislators can help “the market to direct less revenue to wind, solar, and storage.” In Arizona, Democrats and Republicans are clashing over a four mile “nuisance” setback for solar and wind projects which industry backers have claimed would be a de facto ban on new projects. In Wisconsin, GOP gubernatorial hopeful Tom Tiffany is campaigning with renewables dissidents while railing against data centers too on a platform of empowering local control over infrastructure siting.
My only exception is California where, for a multitude of reasons, our Heatmap Pro data actually finds renewable energy conflicts and cancellations are actually down from their all-time average.
So here’s my breakdown of the top five states to watch for the future of policy governing renewable energy development. I hope this list is helpful. On, and for the sake of saving you time, I’m not going to delve deep into wind energy policy specifically, because there’s no reason to – you and I both know that industry’s fate is being decided by Donald Trump alone.
On Wednesday, after briefing Fight subscribers about this list in advance, I didn’t think I’d be breaking huge news. Then I spotted a grassroots anti-transmission organizer in the Lone Star State exclaiming on Facebook about a letter submitted that day to a Texas Public Utilities Commission docket from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, one of the most influential conservative think tanks in the United States.
The TPPF letter, which has not yet been reported, called for a statewide pause on transmission permitting pending new legislation that would deprioritize solar, wind, and battery storage on the state grid. It endorsed a motion to abate proceedings for approving new 765-kV high voltage power lines, a buildout in progress responding to various constraints on the grid as well as data center growth. And there were consignatories, including a litany of oil company executives as well as ranchers. “The need for so many long-distance lines is fundamentally driven by the failure of the wholesale market to properly incentivize the development of dispatchable generation close to load,” wrote Greg Sinclar, the think tank’s CEO. “The PUC and ERCOT need to implement a complete solution instead of partial fixes. Fundamentally, Texas needs the market to direct less revenue to wind, solar, and storage and more to reliable generation to properly account for the differences in reliability, variability, and duration of those different resources.”
Towards the end of the message, the think tank recommended what I now consider to be one of the most important pieces of state-level legislation considered anywhere in the country and which nearly became law last year. I wrote about the bill last year, as it would require energy generation projects to produce electricity whenever called upon or else they’d pay a fine, a concept opponents effusively say would target solar and wind projects lacking the energy storage to be on call for grid operators 24/7. (Nevermind the fact that solar plus storage has been the hero of the Texas grid this summer.)
“We think that the market will respond to those changes by building the amount and types of reliable generation needed in Texas and eliminate the need for more transmission and out-of-market subsidies,” Sinclair concluded.
The conservatives’ request was subsequently endorsed by Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, but wasn’t heeded. The Public Services Commission on Friday approved two large 765-kV lines out to West Texas, and it’s unclear whether the commission will heed future requests to pause green lines for these power lines given ongoing reliability concerns. But suddenly, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s support for a permitting pause looks a little different, especially since Texas attorney general and GOP senate candidate Ken Paxton filed comments supporting the abatement request earlier in the day.
“The Commission should pause to allow the Legislature time to evaluate the benefits and risks of these massive transmission lines. While the potential benefit of such lines may be significant, so is the risk of damage to privately owned lands and natural resources and the Legislature has not yet had the ability to balance those interests,” Paxton wrote in a legal brief to the commission, per the Texas Tribune.
For months now, myself and others at Heatmap have warned that the data center backlash could provide room for an anti-renewables Trojan Horse, as demand constraints and energy price politics change the calculus around the generation mix for elected officials and candidates for public office. Suddenly there’s a flashy new reason to argue for “firm” generation like gas and coal that can run all the time, especially in a state like Texas already dealing with blackout risk. And now it’s more evident than ever how at least one influential corner of conservative orthodoxy wants to respond: halting new electricity infrastructure so investors downgrade the value of building renewables.
When reached for comment, TPPF confirmed its desire to see this legislation passed before any major transmission buildout in the Lone Star State. “Texas ratepayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize billions in transmission infrastructure built primarily to move intermittent wind and solar generation that can't reliably deliver when Texans need it most,” read a statement provided by the think tank’s vice president of communications Eric Oldfather, which posited that “much of the pressure for these lines is coming from companies trying to meet their ESG goals, not by what Texas actually needs for a reliable grid.”
“The Legislature needs to weigh in before the PUC locks in costs that families and businesses will be paying for decades,” the statement concluded.
When Trump was first elected, the “Abundance” movement said California needed to be more like Texas when it came to permitting renewables. I’m not so sure that’s true anymore.
New renewable energy fights have consistently declined since early 2025, according to Heatmap Pro data, from a high of 18 fresh fights in the first quarter of that year to eight in the last three months. Every quarter, the number of new conflicts has gone down.

This could be for any number of reasons, like enactment of a siting law giving developers alternatives to local regulators more likely to represent the state’s historical NIMBYist tendencies. But it’s also possible that the state benefits from lacking the data center boom and backlash snaring other areas of the country. While California currently has one of the largest sets of operating data center facilities, it’s far from the primary destination for the new builds we’re seeing for artificial intelligence. There’s a teeny backlash happening, but it's been comparatively tiny.
Unlike New York State, there isn’t even a legislative push gaining steam for a statewide moratorium yet. That could be because rumored 2028 presidential contender Gov. Gavin Newsom last year vetoed a bill mandating new water use disclosures, suggesting he may not have purchase for that sort of law. But this also demonstrates regulating data centers is not as important a priority to him as, let’s say, strengthening the grid from fire risk and lowering gas prices.
In other words, California has more favorable waters than anyone could’ve expected last year.
Some lawmakers in the sunniest state really want solar energy to be far, far away from people.
This year the Arizona state house passed a bill that would label utility-scale renewable energy projects a "nuisance" and compel them to be located at least four miles away from residential homes. Per the legislative text, project operators would suddenly be subject to a misdemeanor, unless they got certificates from the Arizona Corporation Commission and its committee on power plant and transmission siting. And it would require the state attorney general to immediately bring legal action to “abate, enjoin, and prevent” projects from being built or operating out of compliance with the new restriction. Pro-renewables organization Advanced Energy United called the proposal a “practical siting ban plus an automatic litigation trigger.” (At least the bill authors exempted rooftop solar from being a nuisance, because how would that work?)
It’s unlikely that in an election year favorable for Democrats this bill stands any chance of becoming law. Yet it’s important to recognize Arizona is now for the second time in two years home to a bitter divide over indefinitely halting at least some forms of renewable energy, after legislators last year rejected a flat out wind project ban. Should there be a Red Wave election cycle, we can only surmise the potential for choppy waters and relative instability in this otherwise blossoming state for solar development.
Renewable energy developers better hope the future of Republican public utility regulators doesn’t look like Jim Zeigler.
In June, Zeigler won the GOP primary for a Public Service Commissioner against an incumbent, Chris Beeker. At the time, the former state auditor campaigned primarily on fighting the growth of data centers and solar farms in the state, lumping them together in the same breath. “They can ruin your community, consume water, and drive your electric bills up,” Zeigler said of both industries in an ad featured on the homepage of his campaign website. Zeigler is responding to local concerns like those in Stockton, a town south of the city Montgomery where residents are opposing a large Silicon Ranch project. People in the area routinely link the solar farm to a Meta data center campus being built north of them, in the city.
When Zeigler won the nomination, I predicted his candidacy, if successful, could set a blueprint for other Republicans elsewhere in the United States hoping to harness an industrial techlash against the development of renewable energy projects. In another era, I’d think a man who defended Roy Moore would have more trouble in Alabama. But it’s entirely plausible Zeigler’s previous work on the commission decades ago, combined with an enthusiastic base of support in the state’s Republican base, will catapult his remarkable candidacy to the PSC.
Nothing has irritated me more lately than the online discourse over the Wisconsin gubernatorial campaign and data center development.
Right after winning the Democratic primary for governor, former Milwaukee County executive David Crowley told NBC News he opposed a moratorium on new data center projects because some communities might still want them. Then his GOP opponent Tom Tiffany went on a posting spree littered with deceptively cut clips and trotted out a Trumpian nickname for his opponent: Data Center David. Since then, for weeks, I’ve watched my X feed routinely return to this spat to debate whether Democrats let Republicans win on this issue as a whole, not only in Wisconsin but nationally.
Except… Tiffany doesn’t support a moratorium either. Where the two candidates differ most is that Crowley would require new data centers to not only bring their own energy but prioritize using 100% clean carbon-free energy. Tiffany, meanwhile, has been trotting around the Badger State campaigning in rural communities fighting renewable energy projects and also data centers, criticizing Crowley’s “BYONCE” approach. “David Crowley has called for 100% wind, solar, and battery storage to power data centers. That means not only paving over land for the data centers themselves, but destroying tens of thousands of additional acres of Wisconsin land for solar panels, wind turbines, battery facilities, and transmission infrastructure,” states Tiffany’s website.
Like Zeigler, a Tiffany victory would have ripple effects for renewable energy politics across the country. Both candidates combine this angst over data centers with an overlapping Venn Diagram of potential policy pain for solar, wind, battery storage, and transmission.
In Wisconsin, the most likely practical impact of a Tiffany victory would be changes to state siting. Wisconsin is like California in that state regulators can have a final say over utility-scale solar and wind permitting, instead of localities. And like in Michigan, I expect any new governing GOP majority in the state legislature to ready, aim, fire at that permitting structure, opting instead for emboldening local control over energy development.
With wars going on in Ukraine and the Middle East, margins for fuel producers have gotten “insane.”
It’s never been a better time to turn oil into gasoline and diesel, and the United States refining industry is processing every drop it can.
America’s refineries are currently running at over 97% utilization, up slightly from the week prior, according to the Energy Information Administration, and at their highest rate since 2018. In the Gulf Coast refining complex specifically, refining capacity has been above 95% for 19 straight weeks, well surpassing the previous record of 15 weeks in 2022, according to Gulf Oil advisor Tom Kloza.
Meanwhile, refiners are putting off whatever maintenance they can. But refineries may have to undertake the large-scale, prescheduled “turnaround” operations that happen in the fall, and can take facilities offline for months.
The reason? It pays to wait. The “crack spread” — which measures the margin of refining three barrels of oil into two barrels of gasoline and one of diesel — sits at over $72.
“This is historically unprecedented,” Kloza told me, referring to both the continuously high levels of utilization for American refiners and the margins they’re receiving for running so continuously. “It’s insane.”
The insanity is the result of not one but two overlapping crises in the global fossil fuel industry. And while one (the protracted closure of the Strait of Hormuz) is in superposition between deterioration and resolution, the other (the relentless Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian refineries) shows no sign of letting up. Both crises contribute to the increasing unavailability of refined products like gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel, the scarcity of which has sent prices soaring.
Russia has banned diesel exports at least through September, leaving a hole that can be filled, at least in part, by American exports to the rest of the world. Diesel exports stand at around 1.8 million barrels per day, up from around 1.2 million a year ago.
One major refinery in New Brunswick, Canada that helps supply the Northeastern U.S. — which relies on diesel as a heating fuel in winter — is due to shut down for maintenance for over two months starting in September. Other refineries, however, have “basically every incentive right now to defer maintenance as long as they can,” considering the high profits they can get, Patrick DeHaan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, told me.
While refineries are designed to run up to (and maybe even slightly above) 100% utilization, “occasionally when you do run really hard, there can be some issues that come up from time to time,” DeHaan said. “Not all maintenance can be pushed.”
Even if U.S. refineries are operating as, uh, well-oiled machines, there’s another risk at this time of year beside mechanical issues: hurricanes.
While meteorologists expect this to be a below average hurricane season due to the above average El Niño stalking the Pacific, big storms can still knock out refining capacity on the Gulf Coast, where around half of the U.S. refining industry is located.
“If there’s a hurricane, they’re going to have to throttle back, and that will push the prices right up even more,” DeHaan said. A “perfect storm,” he said, could send those crack spreads up by another $20 to $30 a barrel. And yet he also noted that “it’s looking less and less likely that we’re going to see a perfect storm. El Niño is doing a great job mitigating risk for us.”
Even without adding a hurricane to the mix, fuel prices are high enough for anyone who uses diesel or heating oil — including truckers, farmers, and, eventually, New Englanders — to constitute a predicament.
“What we’re seeing now is extraordinarily rare to see,” DeHaan said, referring to the high level of output from U.S. refineries.
Nationwide, average diesel prices are $5.62 a gallon, according to AAA, up from $5.30 a month ago and $3.71 a year ago. In California, the number one agricultural exporter among the 50 states, diesel is $7.21 a gallon, hitting farmers (and eventually consumers) hard, as grapefruit, peaches, plums, apricots, avocadoes, tomatoes, cucumbers, apples, and figs (to name just a portion of the state’s bounty) are harvested in August and September.
The high level of exports has helped drive down inventories of distillate fuel, which are at their lowest level for this time of year since the EIA started keeping records in 1982.
The tightness of the market means that refineries are likely to be pushed near their limit. If any one goes off line — whether for maintenance or weather or anything else — it will likely mean a windfall for everyone else who can stay online.
On rare earth recycling, Africa’s solar boom, and Thailand’s LNG addiction
Current conditions: Tropical Storm Dolly formed in the Atlantic and is heading toward the Caribbean, threatening the Lesser Antilles with heavy rains and winds • Temperatures topped 110 degrees Fahrenheit in Las Vegas as the heat heads east to the Mississippi Valley • In Nepal, survivors of the catastrophic flood near the border with Tibet are swimming in debris-laden waters to fish out fuel cans as supplies run short.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration brokered yet another deal to pay a developer to, as Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer put it bluntly, “not build wind farms.” The German energy giant RWE took the $1.2 billion deal to kill off three already-stalled projects in New York and New Jersey. Turns out the bulk of that will go to a billionaire who owns a mansion on a private island in Florida near President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, and who personally donated nearly $1 million to the president’s inaugural committee. On Thursday, The Washington Post reported that the roughly $900 million from the settlement that RWE pledged to invest into liquified natural gas would go to a facility under construction by the company founded and run by Michael Dorrell, an Australian native with U.S. citizenship who has boasted of hobnobbing with his neighbor, the president. The White House said it had nothing to do with RWE’s decision to invest in the project, and called the newspaper’s story “a brazen attempt to insinuate a conflict-of-interest that does not exist.” But Representative Jared Huffman of California, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, said “fake ‘settlements’” that “were already an insane waste of taxpayer funds and a ridiculous charade that seems to be blatantly illegal” now also carry “the stench of corruption.”
Cue the record scratch: We’ve got a narrative violation. A utility in the industrial Midwest portion of PJM Interconnection, the nation’s largest and most infamously stressed grid system, says that all the money it’s making off data centers will justify lowering the price of electricity for everyone else. Fort Wayne-based Indiana Michigan Power asked state regulators to reduce the base rate by enough to shave roughly $100 off annual bills. If the savings apply to the average customer using 1,000 kilowatts a month, the total combined savings in 2027 could come out to $59 million, according to The Journal Gazette, a family-owned newspaper published six days a week in Indiana’s second-largest city. The utility said it expects the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to decide on its proposed plan next June, meaning savings would kick in during the summer. The utility also asked to freeze rates at a lower amount for three consecutive years as part of what it called “one of the nation’s largest base rate reduction plans,” which it said was “made possible thanks to load growth and increased revenue from large customers including data centers.”
Since 2021, electricity prices statewide in Indiana spiked by more than 30%, according to data from Heatmap and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Electricity Price Hub. But Indiana Michigan Power’s prices hiked by less than half the statewide average in that same period. When bills went up nearly 7% statewide last year, customers in the northeastern Indiana region that the utility serves saw a nearly 2% drop. All of which is to say: This particular case may not be as indicative of a potential trend as many might hope.
A pair of back-to-back funding deals on Thursday show just how much investors have warmed to geothermal and critical minerals, two domestic industries that — until recently — had spent decades either stagnant or in decline. Quaise Energy, the geothermal startup developing technology to drill to new depths in pursuit of super-hot rocks, just raised $180 million in its Series B. That includes a $35 million investment from Nabors Industries, owner and operator of one of the world’s largest fleets of drilling rigs. The money brings the Houston-based startup’s total fundraising to date to $280 million. “We are unlocking the most powerful clean energy source on Earth, and the Series B signals deep conviction across a wide range of investors,” Quaise CEO Carlos Araque said in a statement.
Meanwhile, metals recycler Cyclic Materials raised $75 million in a strategic financing round, bringing its total equity funding to date to $237 million. The latest funding was led by accounts advised by T. Rowe Price Associate, which had previously invested in the startup last year. The company’s first commercial facility in Arizona is expected to come online this year, and the funding will support the “advancement” of an integrated rare earths campus in South Carolina. “Our continued investment reflects our confidence in the company’s ability to scale domestic rare earth recycling and production infrastructure for use across critical U.S. industries and technologies,” Vineet Khanna, an investment analyst at T. Rowe Price, said in a press release.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Even before the world outside feels like it’s burning, big chunks of the real-life human economy just stop churning. It seems self evident enough to be worthy of a rhyming truism (forgive me, I’m a recent recruit to the corny dad club). What’s alarming is that it’s starting to show up in data. A new Barclays survey of British businesses and consumers found that this year’s heat waves kept shoppers at bay, construction crews idled, and farmhands still. Temperatures above 77.2 degrees Fahrenheit were deemed too hot for shopping. Shave off just 2 degrees and Britons no longer wanted to commute. The construction and farming sectors took what Bloomberg called a “particularly hard hit” this summer when temperatures surpassed 100 degrees in the United Kingdom. But the newswire noted that the “intense heat also laid bare the extent to which much of Britain’s critical infrastructure is unprepared for rapidly rising temperatures, as schools, hospitals and public transport suffered under the strain.” As such, 60% of businesses reported that they are “now investing in or plan to invest in technologies to help them adapt to extreme heat.”

Exactly one year ago, I told you about new data showing that Africa’s purchases of Chinese solar panels had skyrocketed by 60%, with 20 countries setting new import records. Sierra Leone alone brought in enough panels to match more than 60% of its entire 2023 electrical output. What wasn’t clear is whether the equipment was going to warehouses or actually being deployed. Now Ember, the clean energy research firm behind last year’s analysis, is out with new numbers quantifying Africa’s solar boom. The continent installed record capacity of 17 gigawatts in 2026 so far, up 45% year-over-year. Chinese exports of solar panels to Africa soared in the 12 months leading up to June. Ember’s new analysis found that, including the Middle East and Latin America, around 73% of Chinese imports have been installed, with an average six-month delay. Across Africa, roughly 100,000 panels were installed every day in the past year.
Of Africa’s 54 countries, 36 are on track to install record amounts of solar in 2026, and 19 are exceeding 100% growth compared to the same period last year. The Democratic Republic of the Congo saw a 544% spike. Zimbabwe’s solar sector soared by 282%. Egypt’s by 176%. For Zambia, it’s 117%. Not too far behind is Sierra Leone, at 97%.
Thailand is famously one of only a handful of modern nations never colonized by European empires. Some debate that distinction, since the kingdom once called Siam did, in fact, lose a lot of territory to French and British conquest. Today, however, Thailand is undeniably at the mercy of foreign energy powers. The country generates more than 60% of its electricity from natural gas, of which it produces little. Instead, it imports from Australia, Qatar, the U.S., Malaysia, and Oman. Maybe not for long. Bangkok has announced plans to shift away from gas and embrace renewables and nuclear power in the wake of the Iran War energy shock, Bloomberg reported. The country now aims to swap to producing 60% of its electricity from carbon-free sources in 25 years — more than double the previous goal.