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:

China’s car industry has been on a tear lately. Last year, China became the world’s largest auto exporter, and its home-grown carmaker BYD recently eclipsed Tesla as the world’s No. 1 maker of electrified vehicles.
If China were following a playbook first written by Japanese or Korean automakers, you’d expect them to start selling their cars in the United States pretty soon. But China — unlike Japan or South Korea — is not an American ally, and so it’s going to have to follow a different path.
On Thursday, the Biden administration opened an investigation into the national security risks posed by Chinese-made “connected vehicles,” which essentially means any vehicle or any car part that connects to the internet. New cars, especially EVs, are outfitted with cameras, sensors, or cellular modems required for modern safety features.
The probe is the first part of what is likely to be a broad American policy response to the rise of Chinese electric vehicles. “China’s policies could flood our market with its vehicles, posing risks to our national security,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “I’m not going to let that happen on my watch.”
The investigation is a big deal, in part because it marks that the backlash to Chinese EVs has begun in earnest in the U.S. Look closely and you’ll see Biden’s quote this morning gives away the game: Is the risk that Chinese vehicles flood the market, or is the risk that they’ll harm national security? For this administration, one has the sense that it’s both.
In a press briefing with reporters, Commerce Secretary Gina Rainmondo, whose office will lead the investigation, argued that these sensors and computers could pose a risk to national security.
“Imagine if there were thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of Chinese connected vehicles on American roads that could be immediately and simultaneously disabled by somebody in Beijing,” she said. “It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to figure out how a foreign adversary like China with access to this sort of information at scale could pose a serious risk for national security and the privacy of U.S. citizens.”
It was crucial to launch the investigation now, she added, before Chinese-made vehicles became more prevalent on American roads. Today, only a handful of brands — including Volvo, Polestar, and Buick — sell Chinese-made vehicles in the United States, and no Chinese-originating brand sells cars here.
There are three more things to observe about the sudden American action against Chinese EVs.
First, the administration’s actions aren’t particularly surprising. As I’ve previously written, the rise of Chinese EVs poses an existential threat to the legacy American automakers, including Ford and General Motors. These companies employ four times more workers in Michigan than in any other state, and Biden’s path to reelection runs straight through Michigan this November.
And even though Biden’s climate agenda has been aggressively focused on domestic development — you could argue that the Inflation Reduction Act is as much about national competitiveness as emissions reductions, per se — Donald Trump will claim no matter what that Biden’s climate policy is a “job-killing” gift to China. So Biden has to be especially certain that Chinese-made EVs don’t threaten — can’t even seem like a threat — to the Michigan auto industry.
Democrats, too, are not alone in calling for action against Chinese EV makers. Republicans have already branded Biden’s pro-EV campaign as a giveaway to China. On Wednesday, Senator Josh Hawley, a far-right Missouri Republican, proposed legislation that would raise tariffs on Chinese EVs much higher than their current level — to an astounding 125%. That would exceed the highest tariff rates on the books, and it would also apply the duties to Chinese-branded EVs made anywhere in the world, including in countries that the U.S. has a free-trade agreement with.
Second, the investigation reflects just how difficult it will be for the United States and China to keep from fighting over their highest quality technological exports. Over the past few years, the U.S. has targeted or restricted Huawei devices and the social network TikTok. China has slapped rules on how Apple’s and Tesla’s products can be used.
At Heatmap, we have written frequently about how the effort to deploy green technologies is becoming inseparable from geopolitics. But this fight is over something much broader than zero-carbon technologies — it’s potentially about digitized products, anything with software, which includes electric vehicles and batteries as well as smartphones and gadgets. If the American government now believes that Chinese-made products with cameras or sensors risk U.S. national security, then potentially a whole range of products — robot vacuums, e-bikes, GPS watches, even home appliances — could pose some sort of security risk. Electric vehicles may represent a greater security risk, but the difference between them and, say, phones is one of degrees and not kind.
Finally, the investigation reveals something that canny observers have already noted: Tariffs alone probably can’t keep Chinese-branded EVs out of the American market forever. BYD, the world’s No. 1 seller of electrified vehicles, is planning to open a factory in Mexico; it already sells its cars there. If BYD succeeds in establishing a North American beachhead, then its cars could potentially fall under U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement rules and freely enter the United States. (The Hawley bill would theoretically circumvent this by applying its tariffs to Chinese-branded vehicles wherever they are made. Whether this would actually be worth the rift it would open with one of our most important manufacturing partners is an open question.)
Those vehicles could rapidly become the most affordable new cars on the road — if not in the United States itself, then in Mexico and Canada, where American brands compete. BYD recently advertised an $11,000 plug-in hybrid targeted at the Chinese market. Even if meeting American highway safety regulations added another $4,000 to that vehicle’s cost, it would still be among the cheapest new cars sold in this country. Even doubling its price with tariffs would keep it firmly among the country’s most affordable new vehicles.
That could be good. Electric vehicles need to get cheaper everywhere, including the U.S., if we are to fight climate change. Likewise, the Commerce Department’s investigation could result in a happy outcome, by which the national security and privacy risks of Chinese EVs could be managed — through software, for instance — allowing BYD or Polestar to sell some cars here without exposing Americans to significant risk. But that’s not the the direction that I expect things to take.
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: For the first time since 1914, the Atlantic hurricane season may pass without any major hurricanes, per an AccuWeather forecast • From Phoenix to Dallas, flood watches are in effect as the remnants of Hurricane Polo stretch inland from the Pacific through the Southwest • Surigae, now upgraded to a “severe” tropical storm, is set to slam into Japan’s Izu Islands, a partially populated archipelago in the same municipality as Tokyo.
The Department of Energy has ordered the release of 40 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as diesel surpasses $6.50 per gallon and Texas proclaims a statewide “disaster” over soaring prices. The move, which Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said would “stabilize the market,” comes as the Trump administration weighs whether to temporarily ban exports of diesel, a radical step that might only slightly lower American prices while sending Europe’s fuel costs skyrocketing, as the chief executive of the continent’s No. 2 oil company cautioned in a Bloomberg interview this week. The oil is expected to be a loan from the stockpile that would, Wright said, ultimately save Americans more than $3 billion. The transaction follows the same approach the Trump administration has taken since agreeing to distribute 172 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve back in March, when the war with Iran began. Had the administration instead sold the barrels through an emergency drawdown instead of a trade, as it did previously, and simultaneously structured the deal to allow it to buy back oil at the lower prices the futures market is trading at presently, the Energy Department could have significantly increased its profits. That’s the finding of a policy memo from the think tank Employ America that I told you about a few weeks ago. The profit could, in turn, be used to invest in America’s fuel stockpile, clearing some of the $230 million backlog of physical repairs needed on the infrastructure that stores the crude. “The choice to deliver more barrels is fraught, but with that decision made, the administration missed an opportunity to set up the SPR for long-term success,” Arnab Datta, Employ America’s managing director of policy implementation, told me in a text message last night. “I hope they consider creative options to do so moving forward.”
Meanwhile, oil is actually flowing through the Strait of Hormuz again. “Iran’s regime has lost control of the Strait of Hormuz,” energy investor Alexander Stahel wrote in a lengthy post on X. The U.S. military’s naval escorts and the United Arab Emirates’ commitment to circumventing Iran’s blockade are returning the critical waterway to “normal,” as my colleague Robinson Meyer wrote. Over text message last night, I asked an energy trader if this meant we were winning. “I’d say we’re losing less than we had been,” they said. “If Iran hadn’t gotten the Houthis to attack Saudi Arabia and seize the Red Sea, we’d definitely be.” Big if!
British Prime Minister Andy Burnham emerged triumphant from the Labour Party’s recent political implosions after he established himself as a pragmatic left-wing populist during his time as mayor of Manchester — drawing frequent comparisons to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Now Burnham is demonstrating what his brand of “business-friend socialism” means in energy. On Tuesday, Downing Street announced the launch of Great British Grid, a new subsidiary of the state-owned Great British Energy, designed to compete with private companies for investments in the power grid. “We have a cost crisis. We all know it,” Burnham said in a speech, according to The Guardian, which broke news of GB Grid. “The price of energy is crippling for businesses, and British bill payers pay some of the highest energy costs in Europe. We have an energy system where prices are dictated in markets miles away, while families and businesses here shoulder the costs. Once again, the British public has lost control.” His answer? Reverse what he called “40 years of neoliberalism.” Over here on this side of the pond, we are waiting to see what’s in the deal the Senate has brokered to ease federal permitting, one of many hurdles to building new transmission lines in America. The text of the agreement is due out later today.
Down in the South Atlantic, things are heating up in the Falkland Islands, even as temperatures outside remain low. The archipelago has never had a native population — as far as anyone can tell, the longest-lasting settled population has been the mostly British herders and fishers who have voted repeatedly to stay under the British crown. That didn’t stop Argentina, which has claimed what it calls Las Malvinas for centuries, from launching an invasion in 1983, in which the British military won a decisive victory. Now that the sleepy Falklands are preparing to drill oil wells in the offshore economic zone surrounding the islands, Buenos Aires is waging what one Falklander described to the Financial Times as “economic warfare.” Instead of Union Jacked Sea Harriers and Argentinian light cruisers doing the combat, this time Argentina is limiting trade, isolating the Falklands. “We’re just a few thousand people trying not to get blown off a rock,” local radio host Ronnie MacLennan Baird told the newspaper. “We just want to get on with our lives.”

Lots of solar developers are promising to compete with nuclear, geothermal, and hydro plants in generating the type of electricity that matches today’s favored buzzwords of “24/7,” “clean,” and “baseload” by pairing panels with batteries. Few companies, for obvious reasons, actually mean generating solar energy all day and night. Virtus Solis Technology, on the other hand, is promising to pioneer a method for delivering solar power generated from panels affixed to satellites in space, capable of angling at every hour to meet the sun’s rays and beaming wireless power back down to Earth. It’s hardly the only developer reaching for solar in space. But the Troy, Michigan-based startup is the first to get someone to agree to buy that electricity. On Wednesday, the company inked its first power purchase agreement to sell electricity from its debut, 100-megawatt solar satellite to the Chicago-based data center developer Brae Systems over the next 20 years. Virtus Solar called it the “first in a series of commercial offtake agreements” expected in the next several months. As part of the deal, Virtus Solar will build a “dedicated terrestrial receiving station to be constructed in Illinois.” The contract includes an option to increase capacity to 250 megawatts within three years of commercial operations. “Securing a direct 20-year supply of firm, clean power from Virtus Solis ensures our GPU infrastructure operates with predictable power costs and zero carbon emissions, completely insulated from terrestrial grid curtailment,” Brae Systems CEO Vishnu Indukuri said in a statement.
Other frontier energy sources have evolved quickly from plans to deals. Commonwealth Fusion Systems, the current frontrunner in America’s fusion startup race, signed its inaugural power purchase agreement with Google last year. Now the spinout from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is attracting institutional investors, as my colleague Katie Brigham has written, and inching closer to building out its supply chain. On Wednesday morning, the company announced what it called a “landmark supply agreement” with the Japanese industrial giant Fujikura to buy more than 6,200 miles of high-temperature superconducting tape to help build CFS’ doughnut-shaped ARC fusion reactors.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
As of now, the European Union is set to start forcing foreign oil and gas companies to monitor and submit data on their methane emissions or face financial penalties. But Brussels is now considering delaying the methane reporting rules by as much as a year as tight fuel supplies send prices ever higher amid the twin energy shocks from the wars in Iran and Ukraine. On Tuesday, Reuters and OilPrice.com reported that EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jorgensen had confirmed that officials are examining whether to postpone the provisions. The statement came days after Jorgensen made a similar remark to Bloomberg.
Meanwhile, Jorgensen’s native Denmark is heeding the former U.S. Energy Secretary Ernie Moniz’s call to invest more in clean fuels. On Tuesday, Hydrogen Insight reported that the country planned to increase its budget for building a network of dedicated hydrogen pipelines by $850 million.
When I used to think about the Rhine River, the first thing that came to mind was a song off my favorite album from high school. Written and performed by Beirut, the stage name of an American guy who galavanted around Europe making folksy songs that sounded straight out of an American teenager’s romantic notion of an Old World beer hall, the song was called “Rhineland.” Over mournful horns and a plunky mandolin, the song repeats a refrain: “Life, life was all right on the Rhine,” bringing to mind some kind of bucolic interwar existence in an ill-fated era of European history. Two decades later, I can’t tell which has changed more, me or the place I was imagining. The correct answer is probably “both,” but the clearest answer today is the latter. Levels at a key gauge of the mostly German waterway dropped to 1.2 inches below the threshold ship operators use to determine how much cargo their vessel can safely carry down the river without risking damage or running aground, Bloomberg reported. Despite a slight recovery on Monday, the cost of shipping diesel from Rotterdam to Karlsruhe hit a record €260 per ton (equal to just under $296), after more than doubling this month amid the aftershocks of the summer’s record heat waves and droughts.
The latest trouble comes as the Trump administration weighs the merits of a ban on diesel exports. At Heatmap’s Climate Week event last Wednesday, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright ruled out such a step. But Trump said he was “very seriously” considering the step, despite warnings from Goldman Sachs that doing so would raise prices in Europe.
A quick letter of recommendation to close out this morning’s newsletter. Back in 2018, I received a galley copy of a forthcoming book by a niche left-wing sociologist with a growing focus on climate change. The title — After Geoengineering: Climate Tragedy, Repair, and Restoration — struck me. Geoengineering and its associated technological ideas to adapt to a hotter world, such as carbon dioxide removal, were at that point very taboo in climate policy circles. The technology, assuming it even worked, posed what many saw as a moral hazard, a Pandora’s box that, if opened, would sap humanity’s collective will to do the hard work of mitigating fossil fuel emissions. At least, that was the dominant mode of thinking at the time. So, you can imagine, I found that book title provocative. Over the course of 288 pages, the author, Holly Jean Buck, bounced between dense but readable chapters of nonfiction explanations of the latest science behind various cutting-edge climate technologies and sections of fictional sci-fi vignettes. The stories painted a picture of life in the not-so-distant future. One that has stuck with me over the years is a vision of an Oklahoma rancher earning passive income by letting a state carbon disposal program pump captured CO2 into the geological formations beneath his property. I offer my sincere congratulations to Holly, who yesterday was named among the 20 recipients of this year’s MacArthur Foundation’s prestigious “genius grant.”
Novele is aiming to smooth out power consumption for commercial buildings, saving tenants money and easing grid strain.
Electricity is more expensive in times of peak demand — that’s simply a universal truth. But for many commercial building owners and tenants, their most energy-intensive minutes of the month can have an especially outsized impact on their electricity bill. That’s because of the “demand charge,” a fee based on a building’s single highest burst of power consumption, which can make up over 50% of a customer’s monthly bill. Likewise, shrinking those bursts would not only ease strain on the grid, but could also dramatically lower commercial users’ costs.
Or at least that’s Novele’s pitch. The startup, which makes 2-inch-thick, fire-safe lithium-ion batteries that mount on the interior walls of commercial spaces such as offices, hospitals, and big box retailers, announced Wednesday that it raised an oversubscribed $17 million Series A led by impact-focused investor Boisei Labs. The funding will help the company scale its AI-powered battery system, which networks batteries placed throughout a building and uses software to predict impending spikes in power demand. Just before the peak hits, the system can automatically switch the building from grid power to battery power, helping the customer avoid those costly demand charges.
“We learn how the building consumes power, but we’re also taking into account other considerations, like what day of the week it is, how the building is occupied, when it’s being used, what’s happening with the weather conditions,” Novele’s co-founder and CEO Charles Conwell told me.
Of course, battery storage for commercial customers is nothing new. Tesla, for one, has long sold large batteries like its Megapack, along with software designed to help businesses manage and reduce peak demand. But unlike these larger outdoor systems, Novele designed its thin panels for installation inside occupied spaces like hospital hallways and offices, distributing the batteries throughout a building while operating them as a single, coordinated system.
The systems are custom designed, so Novele told me it couldn’t provide an overall cost estimate. But Conwell told me the batteries typically have a 20- to 40-month payback period, the timeframe in which a customer’s electricity bill savings should eclipse the system’s upfront cost. (The company also offers financing options that allow customers to spread out that cost over time.) And while customers may sign up for the cost savings, there are major decarbonization benefits, too. So-called peak-shaving can reduce the need for peaker plants — natural gas facilities that only fire up when demand is highest. These plants are typically among the grid’s most carbon-intensive assets, as they’re designed to ramp up quickly rather than operate efficiently for long periods.
These automated batteries could also enable commercial buildings to participate in virtual power plant programs, which ease strain on the grid by cutting energy use during periods of high demand or by tapping assets like batteries to send power back to the grid. Using stored energy when needed, Conwell explained, is better than typical demand response initiatives, which often require tenants to change their routines — e.g. when they run the dishwasher or charge an EV — to accommodate the grid. That approach, he said, is either “ineffective or doesn’t make the tenants very happy.”
As the company scales, it also envisions building a portfolio of properties that, if they have “a dense enough footprint,” could work in concert to form their own virtual power plant of sorts, Conwell said.
In the near term, however, Novele plans to use its Series A to expand its team, install more systems, and further develop its software. It’s particularly focused on markets where electricity costs are already high or climbing fast, such as California, New York, New England, and parts of the PJM power market. In PJM in particular, record-high capacity prices — largely driven by data center demand — are pushing electricity bills to new heights.
The company says it has already installed batteries for several Fortune 50 customers, though it’s keeping the identities of these early adopters under wraps. Conwell told me that there’s also “a bunch of installations that are in progress,” and that in the coming year, the company will be working toward making the process of purchasing, installing, and operating Novele’s system as seamless as possible.
Once that foundation is in place, Conwell sees an opportunity to help usher in a more responsive, intelligent future for the built environment. “If you get the infrastructure right, if you bring in the controls — the mechanical controls, the machine learning controls, and the artificial intelligence-driven controls — you start to be able to set the stage for a dynamic, autonomous building of the future.”
The former vice president of the United States joined us at Heatmap House for New York Climate Week.
Former Vice President Al Gore needs no introduction. He is, in a way, the original climate influencer. His film An Inconvenient Truth gave rise to a new wave of climate activism in the 2000s. It was one of the highest-grossing documentaries of all time upon its release, and it won an Oscar, a Grammy, and — for Vice President Gore — a Nobel Peace Prize.
He’s remained active in climate policy since then and leads the Climate Reality Project. He is also an investor and was a longtime director at Apple.
For this episode of Shift Key, Vice President Gore joined Rob for a live conversation at our Heatmap House event, part of New York Climate Week. He reflected on the 20th anniversary of An Inconvenient Truth, the existential risk of artificial intelligence, and what has surprised him most about the evolution of climate politics.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, YouTube, 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 their conversation:
Robinson Meyer: Let’s start by talking about 20 years ago, because 20 years ago, An Inconvenient Truth came out. I recently had cause to revisit the film, and I actually have to confess something. I was very excited when the movie came out, but I don’t think I’ve ever admitted this, and maybe this is the wrong audience to do it to: I was too stressed about climate change to actually watch it. Not that it was a daily anxiety, but I was like, “I can’t. There’s so many other things.” And so I actually watched it for the first time only recently.
I had the book, let’s be clear. I had the book.
Al Gore: A limited confession.
Meyer: Yeah, yeah. It was so fascinating watching it 20 years on, because there are some sections of it that I think you could give today. Not that little has changed — the science hasn’t, of course — but the way people think about it, the way people move from denial to doom, hasn’t changed in some ways. I wondered what surprised you most about the intervening 20 years since the film came out. It received a response that, I don’t know what you were anticipating, but it was certainly on a scale beyond what was expected at the time. And then there’s where we are today.
Gore: Well, when Laurie David first made the suggestion, here in this city, I gave an early version of my slideshow when we were promoting that movie. What was it, The Day After —
Meyer: The Day After Tomorrow?
Gore: The Day After Tomorrow. Was that it? Yeah. And they said, “Well, that’s fiction, isn’t it?” And I said, “Well, it’s not as fictional as the then-current administration was about climate.” But when she said, “This needs to be made into a movie,” I said, “You’re crazy.” As one of the early reviewers said, “Al Gore giving a slideshow — what part of that doesn’t scream hit?” So I was a skeptic about the enterprise, and I was surprised at the reception it got.
Really, the credit belongs to the scientists I was just channeling. The fact that everything they predicted has proven to be basically spot on is a credit to them. For the rest of us, the fact that they were so right then should cause us to pay more attention to what they’re warning us about now.
As for what has surprised me, it’s the ferocity and durability and massive continued financing of climate denial by the fossil fuel industry. There was a time during these last 20 years when they said they were going to be part of the solution, and a couple of them made some good-faith efforts in that direction. But then, like Steve Martin on the old SNL, they went, “Nah.” They decided just to give up the ghost and go full speed ahead on more and more fossil fuels. I think they’re losing as we are winning, but they’re hanging in there.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
Previously on Shift Key: Energy Secretary Chris Wright on Trump’s Pro-Nuclear, Pro-Fossil Fuel Agenda
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
RE+ 26 is the largest clean energy event in North America, happening November 16th through 19th at the Las Vegas Convention Center. Register at re-plus.com and use code SHIFTKEY20 to save 20% off a Full Conference pass.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.