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:
Here’s what we know so far, including what’s changed since last year.

The Biden administration announced final new emissions standards for cars on Wednesday, significantly curtailing both the carbon dioxide and the toxic soot and chemicals that spew from the tailpipes of the nation’s light- and medium-duty vehicles.
With that, Biden is checking off one of the two most important pieces of unfinished climate business he has left on his first term to-do list. The rules tighten pollution limits gradually over six years, beginning in 2027. In concert with other Biden policies including consumer tax credits for electric vehicles purchases, initiatives to build out charging infrastructure, and support for domestic manufacturing, the standards will help accelerate the transition to electric vehicles that is already well underway.
Transportation is responsible for more planet-warming emissions than any other part of the U.S. economy. To get the country on the path of reaching net zero emissions by 2050, as Biden has set out to do, curbing car emissions is unavoidable.
When the rules were originally proposed last year, we wrote that they would “roughly halve carbon pollution from America’s massive car and truck fleet, the world’s third largest, within a decade.” That’s still broadly the case, even though the final version features one big change: Automakers will now have more time to cut emissions from their fleets. They will still have to achieve the same standard in 2032 as what was originally proposed, but they can transition to it more slowly.
Ahead of the official release, senior administration officials downplayed the significance of the slower rollout. They argued that giving automakers, dealers, and labor unions more time in the near-term would make for a sturdier rule, and that the cumulative emissions benefits of the final standard converge with the original proposal. At a White House event on Wednesday, members of the president’s climate team built on that message, framing the new rules not as a government mandate but rather as a tool to give consumers more of what they already want. “We are witnessing a technological revolution driven by the markets,” Environmental Protection Agency administrator Michael Regan proclaimed.
Also speaking at the event was John Bozzella, head of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents most U.S. automakers, including the Big Three. Bozzella praised the administration for heeding the industry’s concerns over the original proposal’s rapid phase-in and said the new rules were “much improved” from what had initially been proposed. “Pace matters to automakers,” he said. “It certainly matters to consumers.”
The full rule was released mid-day Wednesday, and we’re digging through it to find out exactly what else has changed. But here’s what we know so far.
The rules strengthen greenhouse gas emission limits, in terms of grams of CO2 per mile, that automakers will have to adhere to, on average, across their product lines. They also tighten limits on dangerous pollutants, including particulate matter — the tiny bits that make up soot — and nitrogen oxides.
This chart shows how the cuts in the final rule compare to those proposed in the draft rule. The version released last April required automakers to make steeper reductions to carbon emissions in the first three years, while the final rule allows for a more gradual reduction.
No. They are what’s called technology-neutral standards, meaning that automakers have options for how to comply with them. Since automakers have to meet the emissions targets on average across their fleets, rather than for each vehicle, it’s likely they’ll produce a range of options in 2032, including plug-in hybrids, regular hybrids, and even some gas cars with improved efficiency — though their fleets will probably have a much higher proportion of EVs than they do now.
While that generally hasn’t changed from the preliminary rule, the Biden administration’s messaging around it has.
When it released the initial proposal, the EPA emphasized that the least-cost path to achieving the standards would be for about two-thirds of new vehicles sold in 2032 to be electric. Although this was just one potential scenario, it was widely interpreted as a target or even a mandate — particularly by Biden’s political opponents.
On Tuesday, administration officials said that the two-thirds finding had been based on limited data. The EPA now estimates that EVs may make up anywhere between 30% and 56% of new light-duty sales from model years 2030 to 2032.
By 2032, the light-duty fleet on offer from automakers will emit half as much carbon as vehicles on the market in 2026.
The EPA estimates that these rules will avoid 7.2 billion metric tons of carbon from 2027 to 2055, which accounts for the vehicles’ full lifetime on the road. That’s slightly less than the 7.3 billion metric tons the initial proposal would have avoided.
The rules will change the mix of vehicles sold by automakers, encouraging dealers to sell more hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric vehicles. They’re also expected to save Americans roughly $62 billion in fuel costs and avoided maintenance costs, since the EPA assumes that EVs are still cheaper to operate and maintain. On average, a consumer will save about $6,000 over the lifetime of a 2032 vehicle compared to one sold in 2026, according to the agency.
The tailpipe rule will likely increase the cost of building each vehicle, which could translate into higher prices for consumers. However, state and federal tax incentives — as well as the cheaper cost of operating and fueling EVs — will offset that increase.
The rules are projected to deliver major health and environmental benefits to the public. The EPA estimates they will produce $37 billion in benefits from improved public health and climate mitigation, including avoided hospitalizations and premature deaths.
This is what the EPA was created to do — use the best available science to protect human health and the environment. But even after decades of improvements in air quality, there is still a lot of room for improvement. More than one third of the population still live in places with unhealthy levels of ozone or particulate pollution, according to The American Lung Association’s most recent “ state of the air” report. The risks are deeply unequal, with people of color making up half of those exposed. The report also noted that climate change is making it harder to protect people, as heat, drought, and wildfires increasingly lead to spikes in these pollutants. Altogether, ozone and particulate matter are responsible for more than 60,000 premature deaths annually, according to the Health Effects Institute, a nonprofit, independent research organization funded by the EPA and automakers.
Officials stressed that EV sales are already shattering analyst predictions, prices are dropping, and product availability is growing. They see this rule as part of a larger ecosystem of policies — including those in the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the CHIPS and Science Act — that are revitalizing American manufacturing and creating jobs while also contributing to the global fight against climate change. The EPA’s press release notes that companies have announced more than $160 billion in domestic clean vehicle manufacturing, and that the auto manufacturing sector as a whole has added more than 100,000 jobs since Biden took office.
The administration is also, perhaps less loudly, selling the pollution standards as a path to freedom from fossil fuels. During the press call Tuesday, a senior administration official said the rules would enable consumers to break loose from the oil industry’s grip on how we get around and how much it costs us.
The new rules kick in for cars in model year 2027, which will go on sale in 2026 and are being designed right now. Although the Biden administration has suggested that the new rules have won the support of the car industry — including automakers, labor unions, and dealerships — it could still face a court challenge from attorneys general in Republican-controlled states. Republican officials have repeatedly sued to block the Biden administration’s climate policies.
It’s unclear how the Supreme Court would respond to such a challenge. Although the Court has long backed the EPA’s ability to limit climate pollution from cars and trucks, its hard-right majority has recently rolled back what were once thought to be bedrock environmental laws. In this term alone, the Court seems likely to restrict the EPA’s ability to regulate toxic air pollution while sweeping away a central legal doctrine of environmental regulation.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect the White House event announcing the new rules.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Cities across the state are adopting building codes that heavily incentivize homeowners to make the switch.
A quiet revolution in California’s building codes could turn many of the state’s summer-only air conditioners into all-season heat pumps.
Over the past few months, 12 California cities have adopted rules that strongly incentivize homeowners who are installing central air conditioning or replacing broken AC systems to get energy-efficient heat pumps that provide both heating and cooling. Households with separate natural gas or propane furnaces will be allowed to retain and use them, but the rules require that the heat pump becomes the primary heating system, with the furnace providing backup heat only on especially cold days, reducing fossil fuel use.
These “AC2HP” rules, as proponents call them, were included in a routine update of California building codes in 2024. Rather than make it mandatory, regulators put the heat pump rule in a package of “stretch codes” that cities could adopt as they saw fit. Moreno Valley, a city in Riverside County, east of Los Angeles, was the first to pass an ordinance adopting the AC2HP code back in August. A steady stream of cities have followed, with Los Gatos and Portola Valley joining the party just last week. Dylan Plummer, a campaign advisor for Sierra Club's Building Electrification Campaign, expects more will follow in the months to come — “conversations are moving” in Los Angeles and Sacramento, as well, he told me.
“This is a consumer protection and climate policy in one,” he said. As California gets hotter, more households in the state are getting air conditioners for the first time. “Every time a household installs a one-way AC unit, it’s a missed opportunity to install a heat pump and seamlessly equip homes with zero-emission heating.”
This policy domino effect is not unlike what happened in California after the city of Berkeley passed an ordinance in 2019 that would have prohibited new buildings from installing natural gas. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups helped lead more than 70 cities to follow in Berkeley’s footsteps. Ultimately, a federal court overturned Berkeley’s ordinance, finding that it violated a law giving the federal government authority over appliance energy usage. Many of the other cities have since suspended their gas bans.
Since then, however, California has adopted state-wide energy codes that strongly encourage new buildings to be all-electric anyway. In 2023, more than 70% of requests for service lines from developers to Pacific Gas & Electric, the biggest utility in the state, were for new all-electric buildings. The AC2HP codes tackle the other half of the equation — decarbonizing existing buildings.
A coalition of environmental groups including the Sierra Club, Earthjustice, and the Building Decarbonization Coalition are working to seed AC2HP rules throughout the state, although it may not be easy as cost-of-living concerns grow more politically charged.
Even in some of the cities that have adopted the code, members of the public worried about the expense. In Moreno Valley, for instance, a comparatively low-income community, six out of the seven locals who spoke on the measure at a meeting in August urged elected officials to reject it, and not just because of cost — some were also skeptical of the technology.
In Glendale, a suburb of Los Angeles which has more socioeconomic diversity, all four commenters who spoke also urged the council to reject the measure. In addition to cost concerns, they questioned why the city would rush to do something like this when the state didn’t make it mandatory, arguing that the council should have held a full public hearing on the change.
In Menlo Park, on the other hand, which is a wealthy Silicon Valley suburb, all five speakers were in support of the measure, although each of them was affiliated with an environmental group.
Heat pumps are more expensive than air conditioners by a couple of thousands of dollars, depending on the model. With state and local incentives, the upfront cost can often be comparable. When you take into account the fact that you’re moving from using two appliances for heating and cooling to one, the equipment tends to be cheaper in the long run.
The impacts of heat pumps on energy bills are more complicated. Heat pumps are almost always cheaper to operate in the winter than furnaces that use propane or electric resistance. Compared to natural gas heating, though, it mostly depends on the relative cost of gas versus electricity. Low-income customers in California have access to lower electricity rates that make heat pumps more likely to pencil out. The state also recently implemented a new electricity rate scheme that will see utilities charge customers higher fixed fees and lower rates per kilowatt-hour of electricity used, which may also help heat pump economics.
Matthew Vespa, an senior attorney at Earthjustice described the AC2HP policy as a way to help customers “hedge against gas rates going up,” noting that gas prices are likely to rise as the U.S. exports more of the fuel as liquified natural gas, and also as gas companies lose customers. “It’s really a small incremental cost to getting an AC replaced with a lot of potential benefits.”
The AC2HP idea dates back to a 2021 Twitter thread by Nate Adams, a heat pump installer who goes by the handle “Nate the House Whisperer.” Adams proposed that the federal government should pay manufacturers to stop producing air conditioners and only produce heat pumps. Central heat pumps are exactly the same as air conditioners, except they provide heating in addition to cooling thanks to “a few valves or ~$100-300 in parts,” Adam said at the time.
The problem is, most homeowners and installers are either unfamiliar with the technology or skeptical of it. While heat pumps have been around for decades and are widespread in other parts of the world, especially in Asia, they have been slower to take off in the United States. One reason is the common misconception that they don’t work as well as furnaces for heating. Part of the issue is also that furnaces themselves are less expensive, so heat pumps are a tougher sell in the moment when someone’s furnace has broken down. Adams’ policy pitch would have given people no choice but to start installing heat pumps — even if they didn’t use them for heating — getting a key decarbonization technology into homes faster than any rebate or consumer incentive could, and getting the market better acquainted with the tech.
The idea gained traction quickly. An energy efficiency research and advocacy organization called CLASP published a series of reports looking at the potential cost and benefits, and a manufacturer-focused heat pump tax credit even made its way into a bill proposal from Senator Amy Klobuchar in the runup to the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. While rules that target California homeowners obviously won’t have the nation-wide effect that Adams’ would have, they still have the potential to send a strong market signal, considering California is the fifth largest economy in the world.
The AC2HP codes, which start going into effect next year, will help smooth the road to another set of building electrification rules that will apply in some parts of the state beginning in 2029. At that point, households in the Bay Area will be subject to new air quality standards that require all newly installed heating equipment to be zero-emissions — in other words, if a family’s furnace breaks down, they’ll have to replace it with a heat pump. State regulators are developing similar standards that would apply statewide starting in 2035. The AC2HP rule ensures that if that same family’s air conditioner breaks between now and then, they won’t end up with a new air conditioner, which would eventually become redundant.
The rule is just one of a bunch of new tools cities are using to decarbonize existing buildings. San Francisco, for example, adopted an even stricter building code in September that requires full, whole-home electrification when a building is undergoing a major renovation that includes upgrades to its mechanical systems. Many cities are also adopting an “electrical readiness” code that requires building owners to upgrade their electrical panels and add wiring for electric vehicle charging and induction stoves when they make additions or alterations to an existing building.
To be clear, homeowners in cities with AC2HP laws will not be forced to buy heat pumps. The code permits the installation of an air conditioner, but requires that it be supplemented with efficiency upgrades such as insulating air ducts and attics — which may ultimately be more costly than the heat pump route.
“I don’t think most people understand that these units exist, and they’re kind of plug and play with the AC,” said Vespa.
Current conditions: The Pacific Northwest’s second atmospheric river in a row is set to pour up to 8 inches of rain on Washington and Oregon • A snow storm is dumping up to 6 inches of snow from North Dakota to northern New York • Warm air is blowing northeastward into Central Asia, raising temperatures to nearly 80 degrees Fahrenheit at elevations nearly 2,000 feet above sea level.
Heatmap’s Jael Holzman had a big scoop last night: The three leading Senate Democrats on energy and permitting reform issues are a nay on passing the SPEED Act. In a joint statement shared exclusively with Jael, Senate Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Martin Heinrich, Environment and Public Works ranking member Sheldon Whitehouse, and Hawaii senator Brian Schatz pledged to vote against the bill to overhaul the National Environmental Policy Act unless the legislation is updated to include measures to boost renewable energy and transmission development. “We are committed to streamlining the permitting process — but only if it ensures we can build out transmission and cheap, clean energy. While the SPEED Act does not meet that standard, we will continue working to pass comprehensive permitting reform that takes real steps to bring down electricity costs,” the statement read. To get up to speed on the legislation, read this breakdown from Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo.

In June, Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin explained how New York State was attempting to overcome the biggest challenge to building a new nuclear plant — its deregulated electricity market — by tasking its state-owned utility with overseeing the project. It’s already begun staffing up for the nuclear project, as I reported in this newsletter. But it’s worth remembering that the New York Power Authority, the second-largest government-controlled utility in the U.S. after the federal Tennessee Valley Authority, gained a new mandate to invest in power plants directly again when the 2023 state budget passed with measures calling for public ownership of renewables. On Tuesday, NYPA’s board of trustees unanimously approved a list of projects in which the utility will take 51% ownership stakes in a bid to hasten construction of large-scale solar, wind, and battery facilities. The combined maximum output of all the projects comes to 5.5 gigawatts, nearly double the original target of 3 gigawatts set in January.
But that’s still about 25% below the 7 gigawatts NYPA outlined in its draft proposal in July. What changed? At a hearing Tuesday morning, NYPA officials described headwinds blowing from three directions: Trump’s phaseout of renewable tax credits, a new transmission study that identified which projects would cost too much to patch onto the grid, and a lack of power purchase agreements from offtakers. One or more of those variables ultimately led private developers to pull out at least 16 projects that NYPA would have co-owned.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
During World War II, the Lionel toy train company started making components for warships, the Ford Motor Company produced bomber planes, and the Mattatuck Manufacturing Company known for its upholstery nails switched to churning out cartridge clips for Springfield rifles. In a sign of how severe the shortfall of equipment to generate gas-powered electricity has become, would-be supersonic jet startups are making turbines. While pushing to legalize flights of the supersonic jets his company wants to build, Blake Scholl, the chief executive of Boom Supersonic, said he “kept hearing about how AI companies couldn’t get enough electricity,” and how companies such as ChatGPT-maker OpenAI “were building their own power plants with large arrays of converted jet engines.” In a thread on X, he said that, “under real world conditions, four of our Superpower turbines could do the job of seven legacy units. Without the cooling water required by legacy turbines!”
The gas turbine crisis, as Matthew wrote in September, may be moving into a new phase as industrial giants race to meet the surging demand. In general, investors have rewarded the effort. “But,” as Matthew posed, “what happens when the pressure to build doesn’t come from customers but from competitors?” We may soon find out.
It is, quite literally, the stuff of science fiction, the kind of space-based solar power plant that Isaac Asimov imagined back in 1940. But as Heatmap’s Katie Brigham reported in an exclusive this morning, the space solar company Overview Energy has emerged from stealth, announcing its intention to make satellites that will transmit energy via lasers directly onto Earth’s power grids. The company has raised $20 million in a seed round led by Lowercarbon Capital, Prime Movers Lab, and Engine Ventures, and is now working toward raising a Series A. The way the technology would work is by beaming the solar power to existing utility-scale solar projects. As Katie explained: “The core thesis behind Overview is to allow solar farms to generate power when the sun isn’t shining, turning solar into a firm, 24/7 renewable resource. What’s more, the satellites could direct their energy anywhere in the world, depending on demand. California solar farms, for example, could receive energy in the early morning hours. Then, as the sun rises over the West Coast and sets in Europe, ‘we switch the beam over to Western Europe, Morocco, things in that area, power them through the evening peak,’” Marc Berte, the founder and CEO of Overview Energy, told her. He added: “It hits 10 p.m., 11 p.m., most people are starting to go to bed if it’s a weekday. Demand is going down. But it’s now 3 p.m. in California, so you switch the beam back.”
In bigger fundraising news with more immediate implications for our energy system, next-generation geothermal darling Fervo Energy has raised another $462 million in a Series E round to help push its first power plants over the finish line, as Matthew wrote about this morning.
When Sanae Takaichi became the first Japanese woman to serve as prime minister in October, I told you at the time how she wanted to put surging energy needs ahead of lingering fears from Fukushima by turning the country’s nuclear plants back on and building more reactors. Her focus isn’t just on fission. Japan is “repositioning fusion energy from a distant research objective to an industrial priority,” according to The Fusion Report. And Helical Fusion has emerged as its national champion. The Tokyo-based company has signed the first power purchase agreement in Japan for fusion, a deal with the regional supermarket chain Aoki Super Co. to power some of its 50 stores. The Takaichi administration has signaled plans to increase funding for fusion as the new government looks to hasten its development. While “Japan still trails the U.S. and China in total fusion investment,” the trade newsletter reported, “the policy architecture now exists to close that gap rapidly.”
Another day, another emerging energy or climate technology gets Google’s backing. This morning, the carbon removal startup Ebb inked a deal with Google to suck 3,500 tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere. Ebb’s technology converts carbon dioxide from the air into “safe, durable” bicarbonate in seawater and converting “what has historically been a waste stream into a climate solution,” Ben Tarbell, chief executive of Ebb, said in a statement. “The natural systems in the ocean represent the most powerful and rapidly scalable path to meaningful carbon removal … Our ability to remove CO2 at scale becomes the natural outcome of smart business decisions — a powerful financial incentive that will drive expansion of our technology.”
The Series E round will fund the enhanced geothermal company’s flagship Cape Station project.
The enhanced geothermal company Fervo is raising another $462 million, bringing on new investors in its Series E equity round.
The lead investor is a new one to the company’s books: venture capital firm B Capital, started by Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin. Fervo did not disclose a valuation, but Axios reported in March that it had been discussing an IPO in the next year or two at a $2 billion to $4 billion valuation.
Much of the capital will be devoted to further investments in its Cape Station facility in Utah, which is due to start generating 100 megawatts of grid power by the end of 2026. A smaller project in Nevada came online in 2023.
Fervo’s last equity round was early last year, when it raised $255 million led by oil and gas company Devon. It also raised another $206 million this past summer in debt and equity to finance the Cape Station project, specifically, and reported faster, deeper drilling numbers.
“I think putting pedal to the metal is a good way to put it. We are continuing to make progress at Cape station, which is our flagship project in Southwest Utah, and some of the funding will also be used for early stage development at other projects and locations to expand Fervo’s reach across the Western U.S.,” Sarah Jewett, Fervo’s senior vice president of strategy, told me
“Enhanced geothermal” refers to injecting fluid into hot, underground rocks using techniques borrowed from hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas. Along with the geothermal industry as a whole, Fervo has found itself in the sweet spot of energy politics. It can provide power for technology companies with sustainability mandates and states with decarbonization goals because it produces carbon-free electricity. And it can host Republican politicians at its facilities because the power is 24/7 and employs labor and equipment familiar to the oil and gas industry. While the Trump administration has been on a warpath against solar and (especially) wind, geothermal got a shoutout in the White House’s AI Action Report as an electricity source that should be nurtured.
“Being clean and operating around the clock is just a really strong value proposition to the market,” Jewett said. “Utilizing an oil and gas workforce is obviously a big part of that story; developing in rural America to serve grids across the West; producing clean, emissions-free energy. It's just a really nice, well-rounded value proposition that has managed to maintain really strong support across the aisle in Washington despite the administration shift.”
But bipartisan support on its own can’t lead to gigawatts of new, enhanced geothermal powering the American west. For that Fervo, like any venture-backed or startup energy developer, needs project finance, money raised for an individual energy project (like a solar farm or a power plant) that must be matched by predictable, steady cashflows. “That is, obviously the ultimate goal, is to bring the cost of capital down for these projects to what we call the ‘solar standard,’’’ Jewett said, referring to a minimum return to investors of below 10%, which solar projects can finance themselves at.
While solar power at this point is a mature technology using mass-manufactured, standardized parts having very good foreknowledge of where it will be most effective for generating electricity (it’s where the sun shines), enhanced geothermal is riskier, both in finding places to drill and in terms of drilling costs. Project finance investors tend to like what they can easily predict.
“We are well on our way to do it,” Jewett said of bringing down the perceived risk of enhanced geothermal. “This corporate equity helps us build the track record that we need to attract” project finance investors.
Whether enhanced geothermal is price competitive isn’t quite clear: Its levelized cost of energy is estimated to be around twice utility scale solar's, although that metric doesn’t give it credit for geothermal’s greater reliability and lack of dependence on the weather.
While Cape Station itself is currently covered in snow, Jewett said, construction is heating up. The facility has three power plants installed, a substation and transmission and distribution lines starting to be put up, putting the facility in line to start generating power next year, Jewett said.By the time it starts generating power for customers, Fervo hopes to have reduced costs even more.
“Cost reductions happen through learning by doing — doing it over and over and over again. We have now drilled over 30 wells at the Cape Station field and we’re learning over time what works best,” Jewett said.