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:
And that’s a problem for the United Auto Workers.

The United Auto Workers’ six-week strike has won large concessions from the Big Three American automakers, including substantial wage hikes.
But in order to win the war over the future of unionized labor in the auto industry, the UAW will need to do something even harder than extracting raises from Ford, Stellantis, and GM: It will have to grow the union by bringing foreign automaker and non-union workforces into the UAW, something it has largely failed to accomplish. Today, it only represents around 15% of the roughly one million autoworkers in the United States.
The UAW leadership had tread a narrow path on electrification. Its president Shawn Fain has said he and the union support it, but the UAW has harshly criticized the Biden administration when subsidies go to non-union battery plants. Conservatives have tried to drive a wedge between the UAW and the Democratic Party by arguing that electrification will lead to American autoworkers being displaced by cars and batteries from overseas.
The UAW is well aware of the risk that electrification poses to its workforce and it made demands during its strike accordingly. The union won an important concession around EVs, easing the way for battery plant workers to be represented by the union, even though the plants are often joint ventures. This means that the UAW’s presence within the Big Three will not be fissured by the electrification of the American auto fleet. And at Stellantis, the UAW even won a commitment to add “over a thousand jobs” at a planned battery plant in Belvidere, Illinois.
But despite decades of trying, the union has failed to organize foreign automakers’ factories in the South or Tesla, let alone startup electric vehicle companies like Rivian. And it’s these automakers and these regions that are seeing big increases in investment thanks to government-encouraged electrification, with subsidies for the purchase of vehicles made in the United States.
The union has dismissed fretting from the Big Three — especially at Ford — that a generous deal could make them uncompetitive compared to foreign and non-union automakers.
“The days of the UAW and Ford being a team to fight other companies are over. We won’t be used in this phony competition. We will always and forever be on the side of working people everywhere. Non-union autoworkers are not the enemy, those are our future union family,” UAW president Shawn Fain in live stream. “We’re going to organize non-union auto companies like we’ve never organized before.”
Any future organizing efforts will be an uphill battle for the UAW, but one that offers large potential gains in membership and influence, especially as the American auto sector electrifies.
The bulk of American EV purchases are from non-union automakers. These automakers are electrifying the fastest, and they’re also perfectly happy to build these vehicles in the United States, taking advantage of the nexus of subsidies and incentives to do so.
About half of the EV market is controlled by Tesla, according to Cox Automotive, while traditional automakers with at least 10% of their sales coming from EVs are all foreign. (Even though Ford sells the second most electric vehicles, it only delivers about one tenth of what Tesla does).
In short, when someone in the U.S. buys an electric crossover or sedan, they are likely buying from a non-union automaker. But when they buy a pickup truck, there’s a good chance it rolled off a line worked by UAW members.
In the U.S., according to Kelly Blue Book, Tesla has sold 494,000 cars in the first nine months of this year. Ford, by contrast, has sold 47,000 electric vehicles so far this year and GM has sold around 56,000 battery electric vehicles. Stellantis doesn’t even sell an all-electric car yet. (It has sold around 98,000 plug-in hybrids this year though.)
During the first seven months of the year, only two of the top 10 battery-electric vehicles in the United States were made by the Big Three, according to a Morgan Stanley report. These were Ford’s Mustang Mach-E and the Chevrolet Bolt.
Another two cars on the list — the Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe and Wrangler 4xe — are plug-in hybrids made by Stellantis.
But the list was otherwise dominated by models — such as the Tesla Model Y, Rivian R1T, and Hyundai Ioniq 5 — that are made either abroad or in a non-union American factory. Most of those vehicles are nonetheless eligible for some or all of a $7,500 federal subsidy for lease or purchase.
That deviates from what the Biden administration had once hoped. While early drafts of what would become the Inflation Reduction Act restricted tax credits to union-made vehicles, the provisions were stripped out at the insistence of Joe Manchin, the Democratic senator from West Virginia. (Toyota, which is not unionized, operates an engine and transmission plant in his state.)
In other words, the majority of fully electric vehicles sold in America today are not made by UAW members, and nothing about the country’s EV policy per se will force that to change.
And precisely because the U.S. auto industry is already heavily non-union, any burst of new manufacturing will tend to flow to non-union shops, which is largely what’s occurred as the American auto fleet becomes electrified.
Electric Volkswagens roll off the line in Chattanooga, while Tesla churns out cars for the U.S. market in Fremont, California, and Austin, Texas. BMW and Honda are planning battery factories in South Carolina and Ohio, respectively, and Mercedes already has one in Alabama.
In the 10 largest UAW union elections since 2000, the UAW has won six and lost four. Of those losses, three were at foreign automaker factories in the South, including at the Chattanooga Volkswagen plant in 2019, where the union had previously lost a vote in 2014. The UAW’s big recent organizing victories, which grow the size of the union’s membership, have largely been on university campuses, organizing graduate student workers at Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Southern California.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On Venezuela’s oil, permitting reform, and New York’s nuclear plans
Current conditions: Cold temperatures continue in Europe, with thousands of flights canceled at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport, while Scotland braces for a winter storm • Northern New Mexico is anticipating up to a foot of snow • Australia continues to swelter in heat wave, with “catastrophic fire risk” in the state of Victoria.
The White House said in a memo released Wednesday that it would withdraw from more than 60 intergovernmental organizations, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the international climate community’s governing organization for more than 30 years. After a review by the State Department, the president had determined that “it is contrary to the interests of the United States to remain a member of, participate in, or otherwise provide support” to the organizations listed. The withdrawal “marks a significant escalation of President Trump’s war on environmental diplomacy beyond what he waged in his first term,” Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer wrote Wednesday evening. Though Trump has pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement (twice), he had so far refused to touch the long-tenured UNFCCC, a Senate-ratified pact from the early 1990s of which the U.S. was a founding member, which “has served as the institutional skeleton for all subsequent international climate diplomacy, including the Paris Agreement,” Meyer wrote.
Among the other organizations named in Trump’s memo was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which produces periodic assessments on the state of climate science. The IPCC produced the influential 2018 report laying the intellectual foundations for the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
More details are emerging on the Trump administration’s plan to control Venezuela’s oil assets. Trump posted Tuesday evening on Truth Social that the U.S. government would take over almost $3 billion worth of Venezuelan oil. On Wednesday, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright told a Goldman Sachs energy conference that “going forward we will sell the production that comes out of Venezuela into the marketplace.” A Department of Energy fact sheet laid out more information, including that “all proceeds from the sale of Venezuelan crude oil and oil products will first settle in U.S. controlled accounts,” and that “these funds will be disbursed for the benefit of the American people and the Venezuelan people at the discretion of the U.S. government.” The DOE also said the government would selectively lift some sanctions to enable the oil sales and transport and would authorize importation of oil field equipment.
As I wrote for Heatmap on Monday, sanctions are just one barrier to oil development among a handful that would have to be cleared for U.S. oil companies to begin exploiting Venezuela’s vast oil resources.
In a Senate floor speech, Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico blasted the Trump administration’s anti-renewables executive actions, saying that the U.S. is “facing an energy crisis of the Trump administration’s own making,” and that “the Trump administration is dismantling the permitting process that we use to build new energy projects and get cheaper electrons on the grid.” Heinrich, a Democrat, is the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and a key player in any possible permitting reform bill. Though he said he supports permitting reform in principle, calling for “a system that can reliably get to a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ on a permit in two to three years — not 10, not 17,” he said that “any permitting deal is going to have to guarantee that no administration of either party can weaponize the permitting process for cheap political points.” Heinrich called on Trump officials “to follow the law. They need to reverse their illegal stop work orders, and they need to start approving legally compliant energy projects.”
He did offer an olive branch to the Republican senators with whom he would have to negotiate on any permitting legislation, noting that “the challenge to doing permitting reform is not in this building,” specifying that Senators Mike Lee, chair of the ENR Committee, and Shelly Moore-Capito, chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, have not been barriers to a deal. Instead, he said, “it is this Administration that is poisoning the well.”

The climate science nonprofit Climate Central released an analysis Thursday morning ranking 2025 “as the third-highest year (after 2023 and 2024) for billion-dollar weather and climate disasters — with 23 such events causing 276 deaths and costing a total of $115 billion in damages,” according to a press release.
Going back to 1980, the average number of disasters costing $1 billion or more to clean up was nine, with an average total bill of $67.9 billion. The U.S. hit that average within the first weeks of last year with the Los Angeles wildfires, which alone were responsible for over $61 billion in damages, the most economically damaging wildfire on record.
The New York Power Authority announced Wednesday that 23 “potential developers or partners,” including heavyweights like NextEra and GE Hitachi and startups like The Nuclear Company and Terra Power, had responded to its requests for information on developing advanced nuclear projects in New York State. Eight upstate communities also responded as potential host sites for the projects.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul said last summer that New York’s state power agency would go to work on developing 1 gigawatt of nuclear capacity upstate. Late last year, Hochul signed an agreement with Ontario Premier Doug Ford to collaborate on nuclear technology. Ontario has been working on a small modular reactor at its existing Darlington nuclear site, across Lake Ontario from New York.
“Sunrise Wind has spent and committed billions of dollars in reliance upon, and has met the requests of, a thorough review process,” Orsted, the developer of the Sunrise Wind project off the coast of New York, said in a statement announcing that it was filing for a preliminary injunction against the suspension of its lease late last year.
The move would mark a significant escalation in Trump’s hostility toward climate diplomacy.
The United States is departing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the overarching treaty that has organized global climate diplomacy for more than 30 years, according to the Associated Press.
The withdrawal, if confirmed, marks a significant escalation of President Trump’s war on environmental diplomacy beyond what he waged in his first term.
Trump has twice removed the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, a largely nonbinding pact that commits the world’s countries to report their carbon emissions reduction goals on a multi-year basis. He most recently did so in 2025, after President Biden rejoined the treaty.
But Trump has never previously touched the UNFCCC. That older pact was ratified by the Senate, and it has served as the institutional skeleton for all subsequent international climate diplomacy, including the Paris Agreement.
The United States was a founding member of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It first joined the treaty in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush signed the pact and lawmakers unanimously ratified it.
Every other country in the world belongs to the UNFCCC. By withdrawing from the treaty, the U.S. would likely be locked out of the Conference of the Parties, the annual UN summit on climate change. It could also lose any influence over UN spending to drive climate adaptation in developing countries.
It remains unclear whether another president could rejoin the framework convention without a Senate vote.
As of 6 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday, the AP report cited a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the news had not yet been announced.
The Trump administration has yet to confirm the departure. On Wednesday afternoon, the White House posted a notice to its website saying that the U.S. would leave dozens of UN groups, including those that “promote radical climate policies,” without providing specifics. The announcement was taken down from the White House website after a few minutes.
The White House later confirmed the departure from 31 UN entities in a post on the social network X, but did not list the groups in question.
Bloom Energy is riding the data center wave to new heights.
Fuel cells are back — or at least one company’s are.
Bloom Energy, the longtime standard-bearer of the fuel cell industry, has seen its share of ups and downs before. Following its 2018 IPO, its stock price shot up to over $34 before falling to under $3 a share in October 2019, then soared to over $42 in the COVID-era market euphoria before falling again to under $10 in 2024. Its market capitalization has bounced up and down over the years, from an all time low of less than $1 billion in 2019 and further struggles in early 2020 after it was forced to restate years of earnings thanks to an accounting error after already struggling to be profitable, up again to more than $7 billion in 2021 amidst a surge of interest in backup power.
The stock began soaring (again) in the middle of last year as anything and everything plausibly connected to artificial intelligence was going vertical. Today, Bloom Energy is trading at more than $111 a share, with a market cap north of $26 billion — and that’s after a dramatic fall from its all-time high price of over $135 per share, reached in November. By contrast, Southwest Airlines is worth around $22 billion; Edison International, the parent company of Southern California Edison, is worth about $22.5 billion.
This is all despite Bloom recording regular losses according to generally accepted accounting principles, although its quarterly revenue has risen by over 50%, and its reported non-GAAP and adjusted margins and profits have grown considerably. The company has signed deals or deployed its fuel cells with Oracle, the utility AEP, Amazon Web Services, gas providers, the network infrastructure company Equinix, the real estate developer Brookfield, and the artificial intelligence infrastructure company CoreWeave, Bloom’s chief executive and founder, KR Sridhar, said in its October earnings call.
While fuel cells have been pitched for decades as a way to safely use hydrogen for energy, fuel cells can also run on natural gas or biogas, which the company has seized on as a way to ride the data center boom. Bloom leadership has said that the company will double its manufacturing capacity by the end of this year, which it says will “support” a projected four-fold annual revenue increase. “The AI build-outs and their power demands are making on-site power generated by natural gas a necessity,” Sridhar said during the earnings call.
To get a sense of how euphoric perception of Bloom Energy has been, Morgan Stanley bumped its price target from $44 dollars a share to $85 on September 16 — then just over a month later, bumped it again to $155, calling the company “one of our favorite ‘time to power’ stocks given its available capacity and near-term expansion plans.”
Bloom has also won plaudits from semiconductor and data center industry analysts. The research firm SemiAnalysis described Bloom’s fuel cells as a “a fairly niche solution [that] is now taking an increasingly large share of the pie.”
It’s been a long journey from green tech darling to AI infrastructure for Bloom Energy — and fuel cells as a technology.
Bloom was founded in 2001, originally as Ion America, and quickly attracted high profile Silicon Valley investors. By 2010, fuel cells (and Bloom) were still being pitched as the generation source of the future, with The New York Times reporting in 2010 that Bloom had “spent nearly a decade developing a new variety of solid oxide fuel cell, considered the most efficient but most technologically challenging fuel-cell technology.” That product launch followed some $400 million in funding, and Bloom would hit an almost $3 billion valuation in 2011.
By 2016, however, when the company first filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission to sell shares to the public, it was being described by the Wall Street Journal as “a once-ballyhooed alternative energy startup,” in an article that said the fuel cell industry had been an “elusive target for decades, with a succession of companies unable to realize its business potential.” The company finally went public in 2018 at a valuation of $1.6 billion.
Then came the AI boom.
Fuel cells don’t use combustion to generate power, instead combining oxygen ions with hydrogen from natural gas and generating emissions of carbon dioxide and water, albeit without the particulate pollution of other forms of fossil-fuel-based electricity generation. This makes the process of getting permits from the Environmental Protection Agency “significantly smoother and easier than that of combustion generators,” SemiAnalysis wrote in a report.
In today’s context, Bloom’s fuel cells are yet another on-site, behind-the-meter natural gas power solution for data centers. “The rapid expansion of AI data centers in the U.S. is colliding with grid bottlenecks, driving operators to adopt BTM generation for speed-to-power and resilience to their modularity, fast deployment, and ability to handle volatile AI workloads,” Jefferies analyst Dushyant Ailani wrote in a note to clients. “Natural gas reciprocating engines, Batteries, and Bloom fuel cells are emerging as a preferred solution due to their modularity, fast deployment, and ability to handle volatile AI workloads.”
SemiAnalysis estimates that capital expenditure for Bloom fuel cells are substantially higher than those for gas turbines on a kilowatt-hour basis — $3,000 to $4,000 for fuel cells, compared to between $1,500 and $2,500 for turbines. But where the company excels is in speed. “The big turbines are sold out for four or five years,” Maheep Mandloi, an analyst at Mizuho Securities, told me. “The smaller ones for behind the meter for one to two years. These guys can deliver, if needed, within 90 days.”
Like other data center-related companies, Bloom has faced some local opposition, though not a debilitating amount. In Hilliard, Ohio, the state siting board overrode concerns about the deployment of more than 200 fuel cells at an AWS facility.
Bloom is also far from the only company that has realigned itself to ride the AI wave. Caterpillar, which makes simple turbine systems largely for the oil and gas industry, has become a data center darling, while the major turbine manufacturers Mitsubishi, Siemens Energy, and GE Vernova have all seen dramatic increases in their stock price in the last year. Korean industrial conglomerate Doosan is now developing a new large-scale turbine. Even the supersonic jet startup Boom is developing a gas turbine for data centers.
While artificial intelligence — or at least artificial intelligence companies — promises unforeseen technological and scientific advancements, so far it’s being powered by the technological and scientific advancements of the past.