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:

Tesla already looked beleaguered last week as a tumbling stock price tied to public anger at CEO Elon Musk wiped out more than a half-billion dollars in value. The slide erased all the gains the company had garnered since new Musk ally Donald Trump was reelected as president. On Monday the stock went into full freefall, losing 15% of its value in one day. By Tuesday, Trump had to pose with Tesla vehicles outside the White House to try to defend them.
With a crashing market valuation and rising rage against its figurehead, Tesla’s business is in real jeopardy, something that’s true regardless of Musk’s power in the federal government. If he can’t magically right the ship this time, this self-sabotaging MAGA turn will go down as one of the great self-owns.
Musk’s heel turn has also upended EV culture and meaning. Tesla ownership, once a signal of climate virtue for those who bought in early, has been rebranded as a badge of shame. I’m annoyed that a vehicle I chose for the purpose of not burning fossil fuels has become a political albatross, and that many drivers are resorting to self-flagellating bumper stickers in the hopes it will stop vandals from spray-painting their doors. I wish I knew then what we know now, of course. But what would have become of the EV revolution if we had?
When, exactly, we should have seen Elon’s true self is a question that will inspire countless arguments amid the wave of Tesla hate. Signs were there early. By 2018, before the Model 3 even hit the road, Musk had been hit by so much criticism of his bad tweets and weird behavior that the magazine I worked for at the time felt the need to publish a contrarian defense of him as just the kind of risk-taking innovator the world needs.
That angle aged like milk, but within it lay a few grains of truth. Tesla truly did the bulk of the work in transforming the image of the electric car from a dumpy potato that only climate advocates would ever own, like the original Nissan Leaf, into a desirable consumer product. This is the company’s signature achievement, one that kickstarted the widespread adoption of EVs.
As I’ve written before, Musk wasn’t exactly untainted by 2019, when I bought my own Model 3. The Tony Stark luster of the new space age entrepreneur had worn off as the man sullied himself with pointless “pedo guy” accusations leveled at a rescuer in the Thailand cave incident. But the man had the best electric vehicle on the market, and more importantly, the best charging network. Having just moved to Los Angeles and in need of a vehicle, I wanted an EV to be my family’s only car. Without a home charger in the apartment, I simply couldn’t have lived with a Chevy Bolt or Hyundai Kona EV and the inferior charging networks they relied on at the time.
Millions of people who bought Teslas between then and now made the same choice. Some did it because a Tesla became a status symbol; many others were like me, simply interested in the most practical EV they could get. The ascendance of the Model Y to the world’s best-selling car of any kind in 2023 — a fact that feels astonishing in this flood of horrible vibes and MAGA antagonism just two years later — turned countless people into EV drivers.
After Musk’s far-right reveal, sales are tanking in the U.S., Europe, Australia, and other places that just saw a Tesla boom. Many owners, at least those with the financial wherewithal to buy a new car based on the prevailing political winds, are trying to unload their Musk-affiliated vehicles.
All those people in search of a new ride have a much better selection of electric vehicles to choose from than I did in 2019, which, weirdly, is thanks to the legacy carmakers and new EV startups that raced to catch up to Tesla. If I hadn’t bought a Model 3 in 2019, I would’ve had to get a hybrid and keep burning gasoline. If you want to avoid Musk in 2025, there are great Hyundai, Chevrolet, and other EVs waiting for you.
This isn’t to say there’s no alternate history where electric vehicles take off without Tesla. It didn’t invent the EV. Other automakers were experimenting with EVs before Musk’s company took off and conquered the market, and government environmental goals pushed carmakers toward electrification. Yet it’s hard to argue we’d be where we are now, with tens of millions of EVs on the world’s roads, without the meteoric rise of Musk’s car brand.
It stinks, simply put, to say anything nice about Tesla now, even if one is stating facts. Yes, Musk’s success buoyed electrification on multiple fronts: selling tons of EVs, forcing the other automakers to get serious about their electrification goals, and building a charging network that let his vehicles go just about anywhere a gas car would go. It also made him the world’s richest man, giving him the resources to buy and ruin Twitter and then help Trump get re-elected and undo federal policy support for the very cars he helped popularize. He made the world a better place for a moment, then ruined it because he could.
As an EV advocate, I can’t ignore the fact that Tesla got us to here. But as a human, I eagerly await the time Musk’s company no longer dominates the market it created. Thank goodness, that time seems to be coming soon.
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: The Northeast heatwave is breaking, with temperatures set to crash by as much as 50 degrees Fahrenheit over the Memorial Day weekend • The Sandy Fire just north of Los Angeles has now prompted mandatory evacuation orders for more than 10,000 homes in Ventura County, California • It’s the United Nations’ International Tea Day, and Myanmar’s Shan State — widely considered the birthplace of Camellia sinensis — is in the midst of intense rainstorms expected to last through at least the beginning of June.
The blockade at the heart of the global energy crisis right now appears to be softening. On Wednesday, the Financial Times reported that two supertankers shipping Iraqi oil to China made it through the Strait of Hormuz. A third megavessel carrying Kuwaiti crude to South Korea also appeared in shipping data to be crossing the narrow waterway at the mouth of the Persian gulf before its transponder went offline. The three ships are ferrying a combined 6 million barrels of crude, which the newspaper noted may be the largest volume to leave the Gulf in a single day since the end of February, when the U.S. and Israel began bombing Iran. An analyst from the data company Kpler said the ships steered through a route designated by Iran, suggesting “there was a deal done” with Tehran. If, as analysts told Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin back in March, “the time lag in global arrivals also helps explain why the physical market is only now starting to bite,” the latest shipments may loosen the jaws a bit.
Nearly 30 new utility-scale solar factories started production in the U.S. last year, reaching a high enough capacity to supply nearly twice the expected demand for photovoltaic modules through the end of the decade. That’s according to the latest report out this morning from the American Clean Power Association, the biggest trade group representing the renewable energy industry. The country now has the capacity to produce more than 60 gigawatts of panel modules per year, enough to meet forecast demand through 2030 of just over 35 gigawatts per year nearly twice over. The increase in module manufacturing capacity over the last five years topped 1,600%. But it’s not all rosy. Upstream, solar cell manufacturing has seen a far slower uptick, with just three active factories. The number of factories in the pipeline between now and 2030 falls just below projected demand. Thanks to tariffs, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s repeal of solar tax credits, and tight new eligibility restrictions on the use of foreign products in federally-supported projects, solar imports last year fell 33% compared to 2024 levels. The U.S. is also growing self-sufficient on batteries. Last year, the country expanded its manufacturing base enough to meet battery demand with domestic modules, putting the industry on track to do so with domestic cells as well by the end of this year. The five new active anode material plants set to come online by December — one of which is already in operation — could meet total U.S. demand for battery storage by 2028. “We haven’t attracted all of the supply chain yet, it’s still a work in progress, but so far the signs are quite good,” John Hensley, ACP’s senior vice president of markets and policy analysis, told Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo in an exclusive interview.

For the past five years, solar has been king among corporate energy buyers. Wind, then, could be considered the crown prince, trailing behind photovoltaics but undeniably the second in line for the throne. Not anymore. In 2025, nuclear surpassed wind as the second-largest technology in corporate deals, with over 5 gigawatts of capacity announced in a single year, according to the latest data from the Corporate Energy Buyers Association. It’s not just about fission, either. “Beyond nuclear, 2025 saw buyers procure more geothermal and hydropower capacity than in any previous year tracked, as well as growth in fusion and the first-ever natural gas with CCS deal, reflecting growing attention to reliability and system adequacy,” the report stated.
New York culture is full of stark rivalries. Artists versus finance bros. Yankees versus Mets. Islanders versus Rangers. Puerto Rican mofongo versus Dominican mofongo. West Side versus East Side. But between the city’s two great train stations, there has long been a clear winner: Grand Central. By comparison, Penn Station, as I can tell you from countless commutes, has long been the armpit of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, a complex maze of perpetually sticky floors, fluorescent lighting, and bathrooms so dirty that even a nauseatingly tipsy teenager thinks twice about entering. And yet the 2021 opening of the Moynihan Train Hall marked a serious upgrade. Now the Trump administration is chipping in another $8 billion to remake the rail hub.
The announcement, according to Gothamist, marked the first time the federal government has publicly disclosed how much it will spend to reconstruct the station since the White House took over control of the project from the MTA last year and turned the work over to the facility’s owner, Amtrak. “When it comes to our rail, we’re making generational improvements to the Northeast Corridor,” Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said under oath during his opening testimony at a Senate hearing Tuesday morning. “That means … a transformative investment in New York’s Penn Station — $8 billion, by the way.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Back in February, I told you the cautionary tale of Boston Metal. The Massachusetts-based green steel startup faced an unexpected equipment accident at its plant in Brazil, making it impossible to meet a key development milestone needed to unlock another tranche of funding from its financiers. As a result, the company had to lay off much of its workforce. Now it’s mounting a comeback. On Wednesday, the firm announced a new $75 million funding round to support the scaling of its operations worldwide. Combined with previous financing deals, the company has now raised a total of more than $500 million. The latest funding will allow Boston Metal to expand its business into metals such as niobium, tantalum, vanadium, and nickel — all of which the U.S. wants to secure more supplies of from domestic sources or allied countries. “This financing marks a pivotal step for Boston Metal,” Rick Cutright, a venture capitalist whose firm, Climate Investment, joined the latest round, said in a statement. “The company has built a new metallurgical platform and demonstrated its ability to produce high-quality metals from complex feedstocks; now the focus is commercial production. Critical metals are the right first market because the need is immediate.”
In South Dakota, meanwhile, the world’s largest producer of biofuels just inked a major energy storage deal. POET agreed to buy a 5-gigawatt-hour, multi-day thermal energy storage system from the startup Antora Energy. The technology will back up POET’s bioprocessing facility in Big Stone City. “Homegrown energy sources create good-paying jobs, support our agriculture producers, and provide affordable options for consumers,” Senator John Thune, the South Dakota Republican, said in a statement. “I’m grateful for this impressive addition to South Dakota’s budding biofuels industry, and I can’t wait to see the benefits for South Dakota producers and families across our state.”
Convective Capital is not your usual venture capital firm. The San Francisco-based company, which Heatmap’s Katie Brigham has written about repeatedly, formed around a parochial specialty with ubiquitous appeal to Californians: wildfire technology. The startups financed through its first fire-focused fund have so far attracted hundreds of millions of dollars in investment. Now Convective is launching a second fund. On Thursday morning, the firm announced $85 million for a fund focused on resiliency. In a blog post, Convective founder Bill Clerico said the company has already launched a media channel to tell stories about companies finding novel ways to shore up infrastructure against extreme weather disasters and assembled a network of more than 10,000 resiliency-focused professionals. “There’s $60 trillion of real estate that's at high risk from disaster,” Clerico told Katie in an interview yesterday. “While we spend as a nation a trillion dollars a year preparing to fight enemies overseas, we spend comparatively very little at home protecting our neighborhoods and cities. I think the silver lining in this is that it’s gotten so bad that I think the private markets can now take over.”
It’s been almost exactly a year since the rooftop solar giant Sunnova went bankrupt. Now its former chief executive is back with a new startup called Otovo that’s focused on servicing and fixing solar panels, batteries, and generator systems “orphaned” by their original developers’ bankruptcies. The business is panning out. This morning, I reported exclusively for Heatmap that Otovo has so far racked up 30,000 customers in less than a year and is considering listing on an American stock exchange as early as this year.
John Berger’s new company, Otovo, is eyeing a U.S. listing by the end of the year.
Here’s a little secret I learned from my father and grandfather, both of whom spent decades-long careers selling cars around New York City: Dealerships make real money not from sales and leases, but from providing the repairs, oil changes, and tune-ups on those vehicles long after they’re driven off the lot. It’s a big business. While AAA does not release its national revenue figures, the nonprofit federation of automotive clubs that provide speedy service to drivers stranded with a flat tire or overheated engine is estimated to pull in billions of dollars per year.
That’s the kind of business John Berger set out to build during his 13 years as chief executive of Sunnova. But the Houston-based rooftop solar giant racked up so much debt from the leasing business that the publicly-traded firm filed for Chapter 11 protections last June after the Trump administration canceled a $3 billion loan. His dream of deploying enough panels to sustain the company on servicing subscriptions fizzled.
Three months after Sunnova’s collapse, Berger returned to the industry with a new startup dedicated to providing round-the-clock maintenance for solar, battery, and generator systems. The new startup, Otovo, built off the existing name and business model of an eponymous Norwegian company that merged with Berger’s Texas-based American firm in December.
Now, Heatmap has learned, the company has hit a major milestone.
As of Thursday morning, Otovo has racked up 30,000 customers, two-thirds of whom are paying recurring subscription fees ranging from $9 to $49 per month for maintenance service, with the pricier memberships providing the fastest guaranteed fixes.
Otovo’s first-year growth — which exceeded the company’s own initial estimates — may say as much about the state of the solar market as it does about the startup itself.
Surging inflation, supply chain shocks from the wars in Ukraine and Iran, and seesawing policy incentives in the United States have put the squeeze on many solar installers, spurring a wave of bankruptcies on both sides of the Atlantic. Berger — no stranger to how it felt to be the insolvent counterparty on the other side of the negotiating table — seized on the opportunity. As installers such as California’s Solar Service Professionals, Germany’s Zolar, the Netherlands’ Soly, or Norway’s Solcellespesialisten went under, Otovo bought their customer books.
“All these orphaned customers? Well over 37 million exist between the European Union and the United States,” Berger told me. “That’s an enormous market, and it’s an enormous amount of pain when you have rising power bills.”
That orphaned customer figure, he said, was an estimate based on data from the trade group Solar Energy Industries Association, the consultancy Wood Mackenzie, and individual companies such as generator giant Generac, whose units run on natural gas, propane, and diesel.
For now, about two-thirds of Otovo’s customers are in Europe, where the company has traded on the Oslo stock exchange since before Berger’s involvement. But Berger said the long-term goal is to see its subscriber base split evenly between the U.S. and Europe.
That could be a challenge. While the European subsidies for solar vary by country, the continent is typically more “methodical and deliberate” about government policy, he said, meaning those nations avoid the “whipsaw” of American politics, where Democrats lavish support on solar and batteries and Republicans yank that funding away.
“It wouldn’t surprise me the least bit,” he said, if Congress brings back an enhanced 25D, the Biden-era tax credit for rooftop solar systems that President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act repealed last year, sometime after the midterm elections.
“It was a really crazy political decision by the Republicans to kill 25D,” Berger said. “These are the people, the homeowners, that pay the taxes that then fund the tax credits for the utilities, the monopolies, and all the big companies in an affordability crisis.” He also called axing the credit “political suicide.”
Either way, he said, building new solar panels in the U.S. is getting more expensive, making it all the more important to maintain existing units. He’s optimistic about future growth.
“We continue to sell memberships every single day in all of our territories,” Berger said. “In fact, we’re gearing up to ramp that up with a significant sales effort across the board in both Europe and the U.S.”
Otovo is planning to go public in a dual listing on a U.S. stock exchange by December.
“We feel pretty good that, over the next several months, we’ll be able to pop out here and have a pretty good listing in the United States,” he said. “If it’s not before the end of the year, it’ll be very shortly after the new year. But as any CEO will tell you, taking a company public, which I’ve done before, involves a good bit of luck.”
Emails raise questions about who knew what and when leading up to the administration’s agreement with TotalEnergies.
The Trump administration justified its nearly $1 billion settlement agreement with TotalEnergies to effectively buy back the French company’s U.S. offshore wind leases by citing national security concerns raised by the Department of Defense. Emails obtained by House Democrats and viewed by Heatmap, however, seem to conflict with that story.
California Representative Jared Huffman introduced the documents into the congressional record on Wednesday during a hearing held by the House Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
“The national security justification appears to be totally fabricated, and fabricated after the fact,” Huffman said during the hearing. “DOI committed to paying Total nearly a billion dollars before it had concocted its justification of a national security issue.”
The email exchange Huffman cited took place in mid-November among officials at the Department of the Interior. On November 13, 2025, Christopher Danley, the deputy solicitor for energy and mineral resources, emailed colleagues in the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the secretary’s office an attachment with the name “DRAFT_Memorandum_of_Understanding.docx.”
According to Huffman’s office, the file was a document entitled “Draft Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of the Interior and TotalEnergies Renewables USA, LLC on Offshore Wind Lease OCS-A 0545,” which refers to the company’s Carolina Long Bay lease. (The office said it could not share the document itself due to confidentiality issues.)
While the emails do not discuss the document further, the November date is notable. It suggests that the Interior Department had been negotiating a deal with Total before BOEM officials were briefed on the DOD’s classified national security concerns about offshore wind development.
Two Interior officials, Matthew Giacona, the acting director of BOEM, and Jacob Tyner, the deputy assistant secretary for land and minerals management, have testified in federal court that they reviewed a classified offshore wind assessment produced by the Department of Defense on November 26, 2025, and then were briefed on it again by department officials in early December. They submitted this testimony as part of a separate court case over a stop work order the agency issued to the Coastal Virginia Offshore wind project in December.
“After my review of DOW’s classified material with a secret designation,” Giacona wrote, “I determined that CVOW Project’s activities did not adequately provide for the protection of national security interests,” leading to his decision to suspend ongoing activities on the lease.
Giacona and Tyner are copied on the emails Huffman presented on Wednesday, indicating that the memorandum of understanding between Total and the Interior Department had been drafted and distributed prior to their reviewing the classified assessment.
The final agreement both parties signed on March 23, however, justifies the decision by citing a series of events that it portrays as taking place after officials learned of the DOD’s national security concerns.
The Interior Department paid Total out of the Judgment Fund, a permanently appropriated fund overseen by the Treasury Department with no congressional oversight that’s set aside to settle litigation or impending litigation. The final agreement describes the background for the settlement, beginning by stating that the Interior Department was going to suspend Total’s leases indefinitely based on the DOD’s classified findings, which “would have” led Total to file a legal claim for breach of contract. Rather than fight it out in court, Interior decided to settle this supposedly impending litigation, paying Total nearly $1 billion, in exchange for the company investing an equivalent amount into U.S. oil and gas projects.
But if the agency had been negotiating a deal with Total prior to being briefed on the national security assessment, it suggests that the deal was not predicated on a threat of litigation. During the hearing, Eddie Ahn, an attorney and the executive director of an environmental group called Brightline Defense, told Huffman that this opens the possibility for a legal challenge to the deal.
I should note one hiccup in this line of reasoning. Even though Interior officials testified that they were briefed on the Department of Defense’s assessment on November 26, this is not the first time the agency raised national security concerns about offshore wind. When BOEM issued a stop work order on Revolution Wind in August of last year, it said it was seeking to “address concerns related to the protection of national security interests of the United States.”
During the hearing, Huffman called out additional concerns his office had about the settlement. He said the amount the Interior Department paid Total — a full reimbursement of the company’s original lease payment — has no basis in the law. “Federal law sets a specific formula for the compensation a company can get when the government cancels an offshore lease,” he said, adding that the settlement was for “far more.” He also challenged a clause in the agreement that purports to protect both parties from legal liability.
Huffman and several of his fellow Democrats also highlighted the Trump administration’s latest use of the Judgment Fund — to create a new $1.8 billion legal fund to issue “monetary relief” to citizens who claim they were unfairly targeted by the Biden administration, such as those charged in connection with the January 6 riot.
“Now we know that that was just the beginning,” Maxine Dexter of Oregon said. “This president’s fraudulent use of the judgment fund is the most consequential and damning abuse of taxpayer funds happening right now.”