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:
We’ll never know what a Tesla without Elon Musk could have looked like.

Elon Musk got his money.
At a meeting on Thursday, Tesla shareholders voted to re-approve an enormous pay package for Musk, the CEO, worth $45 billion or more depending on Tesla’s fluctuating stock price. The deal had been struck down in January by a judge in Delaware, where the EV company is (for now) incorporated. Musk spent much of the intervening months campaigning on his social network, X, for the gigantic package to be reinstated.
The vote puts to bed a variety of rumors and threats surrounding the electric car company — including, most seriously, that Musk would neglect Tesla in favor of his other companies if he didn’t get his way and might consider leaving for good, taking his talents for artificial intelligence and autonomous driving elsewhere. With his colossal payday back in place, he appears likely to stay and to push Tesla toward those fields.
It means, for better and for worse, that Tesla the company will remain tethered to the whims of its mercurial chief. While Musk excels at generating hype and driving up Tesla’s stock price (the thing that earned him the enormous payday in question), we may have lost our last chance to see what Tesla would look like if it matured into a normal, steady company that just makes good electric vehicles.
New companies, especially flashy startups out of Silicon Valley, often go through a transition moment when they must decide how to grow up. Sometimes that means moving on from the combustible, blue-sky founder or CEO who helped the company become a hit, but isn’t the right fit for growing into a large company on a solid foundation.
Now would have been Tesla’s time. With the introduction of the Model 3 and especially the Model Y, the EV-maker reached remarkable scale, with the latter becoming the best-selling EV in the United States and the best-selling car in the entire world in 2023. A more conventional business leader might have tried to expand Tesla’s huge lead in the EV market, and double down on the advantage it gained by convincing the other carmakers to adopt its charging standard by re-commiting to the Supercharger team. We might have seen this alternate universe Tesla fill the burgeoning EV space with crossovers of varying size to beat GM and Hyundai/Kia to the punch. We might have seen it commit to the entry-level EV project to grab the next group of Americans who’ll go electric.
Musk, though, built his entire brand on being seen as unconventional. Instead of introducing an electrified pickup truck that resembled everything else on the road, he built the Cybertruck. He laid off the Supercharger team just when things were looking up. Rather than introducing a slightly bigger or smaller version of the Model Y, he bought Twitter, and then tweeted a lot about AI while Tesla sales started to decline.
You take the bad with the good when it comes to Musk. With their ‘yes’ vote on his stock package, the company’s board and shareholders decided the good was worth it — and that by backing the horse that brought them, the company and its stock value could continue on to new heights. In doing so, they hitched their wagons to Musk’s notion that Tesla is decidedly not a car company, but rather a software and AI company that happens to put those things into vehicles. The Tesla in our timeline will live or die with projects such as the fully autonomous robotaxi Musk has promised to reveal in some capacity later this summer.
As many analysts predicted, the shareholders decided they needed Musk. Perhaps even more than he needed Tesla, if his big bluff can be believed. “Tesla is Elon,” as one investor put it. The chairperson of the Tesla board came right out and said that the shareholders needed to approve Musk’s stock deal to keep his attention focused on Tesla rather than SpaceX, X, or his other ventures.
Now, as the company recommits to his path, the question for everybody else is: How badly do we need Tesla?
Very badly is what I would have said just a few years ago. When I bought my Model 3 in 2019, the available competitors weren’t inspiring and the competing fast-charging networks were utterly unreliable. Tesla was responsible for taking EVs mainstream in the United States and it was by far the best hope for those who wanted to see more and more American cars go electric.
Things change in five years, though. The Model Y still rules the roost, but Tesla is losing ground to the good electric offerings that are finally coming from the legacy carmakers. With other EVs already using or soon to be able to use Tesla’s Supercharger network, one major competitive advantage that Musk’s company had in selling electric vehicles is disappearing. Maybe Musk will crack true-self driving. But as far as how important Tesla is to getting the average person into an EV, the answer looks to be: less and less all the time.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And future administrations will learn from his extrajudicial success.
President Donald Trump is now effectively blocking any new wind projects in the United States, according to the main renewables trade group, using the federal government’s power over all things air and sky to grind a routine approval process to a screeching halt.
So far, almost everything Trump has done to target the wind energy sector has been defeated in court. His Day 1 executive order against the wind industry was found unconstitutional. Each of his stop work orders trying to shut down wind farms were overruled. Numerous moves by his Interior Department were ruled illegal.
However, since the early days of Trump 2.0, renewable energy industry insiders have been quietly skittish about a potential secret weapon: the Federal Aviation Administration. Any structure taller than 200 feet must be approved to not endanger commercial planes – that’s an FAA job. If the FAA decided to indefinitely seize up the so-called “no hazard” determinations process, legal and policy experts have told me it would potentially pose an existential risk to all future wind development.
Well, this is now the strategy Trump is apparently taking. Over the weekend, news broke that the Defense Department is refusing to sign off on things required to complete the FAA clearance process. From what I’ve heard from industry insiders, including at the American Clean Power Association, the issues started last summer but were limited in scale, primarily impacting projects that may have required some sort of deal to mitigate potential impacts on radar or other military functions.
Over the past few weeks, according to ACP, this once-routine process has fully deteriorated and companies are operating with the understanding FAA approvals are on pause because the Department of Defense (or War, if you ask the administration) refuses to sign off on anything. The military is given the authority to weigh in and veto these decisions through a siting clearinghouse process established under federal statute. But the trade group told me this standstill includes projects where there are no obvious impacts to military operations, meaning there aren’t even any bases or defense-related structures nearby.
One energy industry lawyer who requested anonymity to speak candidly on the FAA problems told me, “This is the strategy for how you kill an industry while losing every case: just keep coming at the industry. Create an uninvestable climate and let the chips fall where they may.”
I heard the same from Tony Irish, a former career attorney for the Interior Department, including under Trump 1.0, who told me he essentially agreed with that attorney’s assessment.
“One of the major shames of the last 15 months is this loss of the presumption of regularity,” Irish told me. “This underscores a challenge with our legal system. They can find ways to avoid courts altogether – and it demonstrates a unilateral desire to achieve an end regardless of the legality of it, just using brute force.”
In a statement to me, the Pentagon confirmed its siting clearinghouse “is actively evaluating land-based wind projects to ensure they do not impair national security or military operations, in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements.” The FAA declined to comment on whether the country is now essentially banning any new wind projects and directed me to the White House. Then in an email, White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly told me the Pentagon statement “does not ‘confirm’” the country instituted a de facto ban on new wind projects. Kelly did not respond to a follow up question asking for clarification on the administration’s position.
Faced with a cataclysmic scenario, the renewable energy industry decided to step up to the bully pulpit. The American Clean Power Association sent statements to the Financial Times, The New York Times and me confirming that at least 165 wind projects are now being stalled by the FAA determination process, representing about 30 gigawatts of potential electricity generation. This also apparently includes projects that negotiated agreements with the government to mitigate any impacts to military activities. The trade group also provided me with a statement from its CEO Jason Grumet accusing the Trump administration of “actively driving the debate” over federal permitting “into the ditch by abusing the current permitting system” – a potential signal for Democrats in Congress to raise hell over this.
Indeed, on permitting reform, the Trump team may have kicked a hornet’s nest. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Ranking Member Martin Heinrich – a key player in congressional permitting reform talks – told me in a statement that by effectively blocking all new wind projects, the Trump administration “undercuts their credibility and bipartisan permitting reform.” California Democratic Rep. Mike Levin said in an interview Tuesday that this incident means Heinrich and others negotiating any federal permitting deal “should be cautious in how we trust but verify.”
But at this point, permitting reform drama will do little to restore faith that the U.S. legal and regulatory regime can withstand such profound politicization of one type of energy. There is no easy legal remedy to these aerospace problems; none of the previous litigation against Trump’s attacks on wind addressed the FAA, and as far as we know the military has not in its correspondence with energy developers cited any of the regulatory or policy documents that were challenged in court.
Actions like these have consequences for future foreign investment in U.S. energy development. Last August, after the Transportation Department directed the FAA to review wind farms to make sure they weren’t “a danger to aviation,” government affairs staff for a major global renewables developer advised the company to move away from wind in the U.S. market because until the potential FAA issues were litigated it would be “likely impossible to move forward with construction of any new wind projects.” I am aware this company has since moved away from actively developing wind projects in the U.S. where they had previously made major investments as recently as 2024.
Where does this leave us? I believe the wind industry offers a lesson for any developers of large, politically controversial infrastructure – including data centers. Should the federal government wish to make your business uninvestable, it absolutely will do so and the courts cannot stop them.
Current conditions: Colorado is digging out of its biggest snowstorm of the season, which dumped another six inches on Denver yesterday • Heavy rain and mudflows in Tajikistan have killed at least four people this week • Spring showers are drenching the Croatian island of Ugljan in the Kornati archipelago.
Electricity prices went up again last month, but as Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo reported this morning, it’s not because of the Iran War. The latest spike, which appears in a data update released this morning in Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub, shows that prices were 6.7% higher, on average, than the same month the previous year. The 12-month trailing average, a measure that smooths out seasonal fluctuations in rates, was up 6.5% from a year ago.
While both of these stats represent new peaks — as is almost always the case with electricity prices over time — the overall growth in prices in April was not unusual, Emily wrote. “National average electricity prices have been increasing at a similar rate this year as they have during the past five years, with the exception of 2022, when there was a significant spike in the cost of natural gas. Natural gas plants generate the largest proportion of U.S. power, and the cost of the fuel has an outsized influence on our electricity prices.”
But some places, such as New Jersey and Washington, D.C., saw 21% and 25% increases, respectively, in their 12-month trailing averages due to strained dynamics in PJM, the electricity market they are part of, where power demand is outstripping supply. But Emily writes that: “The new April data also shows how sometimes electricity prices undergo big fluctuations for more arbitrary, and ultimately temporary reasons.” For example, some states such as California and Massachusetts issued dividends or rebates that reduced bills during hotter months when electricity costs typically rise.
See the data for yourself here..
We all know that the backlash to data centers is mounting. As I reported for Heatmap in February, the proportion of voters who strongly oppose developing server farms grew by an eye-popping 50% in just a few months. Now Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer has some exclusive data via our intelligence platform Heatmap Pro that really puts a fine point on how effective that political pushback has become. At least 20 proposed data centers were canceled amid local pushback during the first three months of 2026, smashing a record set only in the previous quarter. “The cancellations,” Rob wrote, “reveal the rapidly expanding backlash to data center construction has not yet peaked.” About 100 new data center fights were also added to Heatmap Pro’s database during the first quarter, another new record.
It’s no wonder why. Even the data centers owned by the richest man in the world aren’t fulfilling basic promises made to voters about the sustainability of the projects. Elon Musk pledged two years ago to build a state-of-the-art water recycling plant in Memphis, Tennessee, to guarantee that his xAI servers wouldn’t deplete the city’s groundwater. Now that Musk’s first data center dedicated to his AI chatbot is up and running, construction on the recycling facility has come to an abrupt halt.
Add this to the list of achievements for China’s booming offshore wind industry. China Three Gorges Corporation announced that it has completed the installation of a 16-megawatt floating offshore wind turbine off the coast of Guangdong province, in what offshoreWIND.biz described as “the world’s largest single-unit floating wind turbine platform.” The pilot project is located in waters nearly 44 miles offshore at depths of close to 165 feet. The developer called the installation a milestone toward deep-sea floating wind technology that could harness stronger air flows and expand the footprint of offshore wind into areas of the Pacific coastline where the continental shelf drops off steeply and close to shore. As in sectors such as solar panels and batteries, the floating wind industry is driven by fierce internal competition in China.
In the U.S., meanwhile, the developer that had planned to build the nation’s first floating offshore wind farm off central California just took a payout from the Trump administration in exchange for abandoning its federal lease. Golden State Wind was among two companies that followed French energy giant TotalEnergies in taking refunds from the Department of the Interior while promising to halt all offshore wind development in the future, as I wrote last month. And as I told you on Tuesday, California regulators are now investigating the developer.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
As the nation’s largest federally owned utility, the Tennessee Valley Authority is, in many ways, the closest thing the U.S. has to one of the giant state companies that handle nuclear construction in countries with major atomic energy sectors such as France, South Korea, or Japan. The TVA has recently refashioned itself as a testing ground for new American reactor technologies. The world’s second BWRX-300, the 300-megawatt boiling water reactor from GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy, is set to be built at the TVA’s Clinch River site. The first power purchase agreement between a next-generation reactor developer and a U.S. utility was Kairos Power’s Google-backed deal to sell electricity from its first commercial molten salt reactor to the TVA. The White House is even giving the TVA an early look at new rules coming out of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. So it’s fitting that now the TVA is generating far more electricity from nuclear energy than this time last year. The utility’s nuclear fleet supplied 41% of its power in the first half of this year, compared to 31% in the same six-month window of 2025, Utility Dive reported. The milestone comes as Mike Skaggs, the TVA’s interim chief executive since CEO Don Moul announced his retirement last month, names nuclear as a top priority.
Type One Energy, a U.S.-based fusion company backed by Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy Ventures, has made a deal to develop its first commercial power plant in the United Kingdom within a decade. The consortium includes the U.S. engineering firm Aecom and the British fusion supplier Tokamak Energy. Type One is already in “very early conversations with several potential customers,” CEO Chris Mowry told the Financial Times. The move comes just weeks after Gates’ fission company, TerraPower, began construction on its first plant in Wyoming, as I wrote last month.
Meanwhile, another clean energy venture in the U.K. is going under. Morrow Batteries, a lithium-ion manufacturer in Europe, filed for bankruptcy Wednesday. “It’s a tough outcome after years of building with over €400 million invested, strong technology, real products in the field, and an outstanding team that stands together through tremendous challenges,” CEO Jon Fold von Bülow wrote in a post on LinkedIn. “I firmly believe this is not the end.” He said he’s hoping to sell to a buyer who will take the technology forward.

I’ll let this chart from the sustainability research service Watershed speak for itself. As Watershed’s head of science John Bistline put it on X: “Texas just passed California in utility-scale solar. And it's not close in wind or energy storage.”
The cost of electricity goes up like clockwork.
Electricity prices continued to climb higher in April, according to Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub. Prices in April 2026 were 6.7% higher, on average, than the same month the previous year. The 12-month trailing average, a measure that smooths out seasonal fluctuations in rates, was up 6.5% from a year ago.
While both of these stats represent new peaks — as is almost always the case with electricity prices over time — the overall growth in prices in April was not unusual. National average electricity prices have been increasing at a similar rate this year as they have during the past five years, with the exception of 2022, when there was a significant spike in the cost of natural gas. Natural gas plants generate the largest proportion of U.S. power, and the cost of the fuel has an outsized influence on our electricity prices.
Although Trump’s war with Iran has inflated gasoline prices and the cost of other crude oil-based products, perhaps counterintuitively, it has not had any effect on U.S. power prices. Unlike in Europe and Asia, where the Iran war has led to natural gas shortages and price spikes, the U.S. is mostly self-sufficient when it comes to natural gas. The only way the war would affect our power prices is if it led to an increase in exports, tightening our domestic supply. That’s not possible any time soon — our export facilities are already at max capacity. “We couldn't export more gas, even if we wanted to,” Ryan Kellogg, an energy economist at the University of Chicago, told me.
The picture of what’s happening with U.S. electricity prices changes again, however, when we zoom in to the state level. Even though the national average growth rate is comparable to the past several years, there are a handful of individual states that are seeing much more rapid increases.
New Jersey and Washington, D.C., for instance, saw 21% and 25% increases, respectively, in their 12-month trailing averages between May 2025 and April 2026, compared to a national average increase of 6%. These areas are seeing more rapid growth due to the strained dynamics in PJM, the electricity market they are a part of, where electricity demand is outpacing supply.
The new April data also shows how sometimes electricity prices undergo big fluctuations for more arbitrary, and ultimately temporary reasons. In California, for example, rates were about the same over the first three months of this year as the same months in 2025, but in April they were more than 50% higher. That’s because last year, Californians received a big bill credit in the month of April — a sort of dividend from the state’s carbon tax. For this year, regulators voted to shift that payment to August, when residents’ electricity bills are typically higher due to air conditioning.
Similarly, one of the largest month-to-month price spikes in the data set was in Massachusetts, where the utility Eversource’s electric rates jumped 36% between March and April. The utility had agreed to artificially lower its rates in February and March after the governor asked for rate relief during the winter months. In April, rates sprang back up.
That’s why the 12-month trailing average is a helpful metric — it can be deceiving to look at how much rates and bills change on a monthly basis.