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:
Toyota and Honda never really believed in EVs. Then China gave them a wake-up call.

An entire nation’s automotive industry may have misjudged the moment. Environmental issues are forcing changes it doesn’t seem ready for. New competitors boasting more efficient technologies have led some observers to wonder if it will survive at all.
Am I talking about America’s automotive industry during the infamous 1970s Malaise Era, or the Japanese auto industry in the 2020s? In the growing arms race around battery-electric vehicles, Japan’s automakers may have some serious catching up to do.
On a lot of levels, comparing the Toyota of today to, say, Ford in 1977 is rather unfair. After all, automakers like Toyota, Honda, Mazda, Subaru and the rest — though hammered by the pandemic and the chip shortage — continue to be handsomely profitable and still produce high-quality, reliable, and fuel-efficient traditional cars and hybrids. It’s hard to start a Death Watch for a company like Toyota when it sold more than 10 million cars globally last year.
But buyers who are loyal to Japanese brands and want to break up with gasoline entirely are better served by Tesla, Ford, Chevrolet, or Hyundai.
Nissan, an early pioneer in the EV world with the soon-to-be-discontinued Leaf, offers just one electric crossover and its production is already flagging. Mazda’s sole battery electric vehicle, the MX-30, only has about 100 miles of range and is only sold in California, as if it were a compliance car from a decade ago. Toyota has one battery-electric vehicle it co-developed with Subaru and also sells as a Lexus. All three versions suffer from middling range, subpar tech, and a lack of fast-charing power like many rivals; two were also recalled last year because their wheels were falling off. (It doesn’t, to paraphrase a TV show from my youth, smack of effort.) Then there’s Honda, which has just one fully electric SUV coming out next year called the Prologue — and under the skin, it’s actually one of General Motors’ EVs.
It’s an unfathomable outcome for the Japanese auto industry. Not that long ago, Japan Inc. was teaching the rest of the world how to efficiently and reliably make cars; Honda was making engines for GM, not the other way around. Now, even Toyota, the creator of the Prius and godfather of the original hybrid car, is being called out by environmental activist groups.
Things do seem to be changing rapidly. Several Japanese automakers are planning multibillion-dollar battery plants now, including in the U.S.; Honda is doing one in Ohio, Nissan in Tennessee, and Toyota in North Carolina. All of them, including tiny, independent Mazda, are planning big expansions of their all-electric lineups.
Toyota, in particular, has signaled under its new CEO that it’s deadly serious about EVs. Earlier this month the automaker announced what it calls “New Technology That Will Change the Future of Cars”: a significant revamping of its manufacturing processes to cut EV costs; a third of its global sales to be electric by 2030; newer, cheaper kinds of batteries; and ultimately, solid-state batteries — a kind of holy-grail technology being sought by countless companies — that could enable 900 miles of electric driving.
But it’s worth asking how these companies got relegated to “EV laggard” status, and the answer is complicated. In talking to countless people in and around the auto industry, I’ve come to the conclusion that Japan’s predicament has to do with perception as much as it does with conditions on the ground. And it speaks to the question of whether the future of cars will really — or should be — be fully battery-powered, and if so, how long it will take to get there.
But given how heavily the car market is trending toward battery EVs right now, Japan’s automakers may not have a choice but to meet the moment.
As global as car companies are, they’re often still rooted in their cultures and values at the home office. And Japan has plenty of reasons to be skeptical of battery EVs.
As a country, it’s poor in natural resources, making the raw materials key to EV batteries tough to obtain. Japan’s densely populated cities make car ownership generally undesirable, let alone ones that need to be charged somewhere. And the 2011 Fukushima disaster led to a decline in electricity from nuclear power plants. Japan made up the gap using fossil fuels, leading to a belief that fully battery-powered cars wouldn’t be as “green” as fuel-sipping hybrids since they relied on a dirty energy grid.
That local backdrop helps explain why Toyota, usually the world’s largest or second-largest automaker, has tilted so heavily toward hybrid evangelism. Over the past few years, it’s turned much of its car lineup into hybrids, even its latest pickup trucks — a stratospheric reduction in carbon emissions, which the company deserves credit for. It argues that it takes fewer scarce minerals to build smaller batteries for hybrids than full EVs.
And Toyota says that it operates globally, with cars tailored to different regions’ needs; it’s a lot easier to fully electrify the cars in a country like Norway than it is in parts of Africa, where Toyota is a top-seller.
Finally, Toyota has spent several decades leading the charge for hydrogen as a power source for cars — both for fuel-cell EVs and as a zero-carbon liquid fuel for internal combustion. But right now, Toyota sells just one hydrogen fuel-cell car in America and only a handful of fueling stations exist on this continent. I’ve heard from those in the know that Toyota viewed hydrogen as a kind of 100-year project; the first in a long-term push toward what could become a kind of hydrogen-powered society as the supplies dwindled and petroleum became too expensive for most people.
But things have changed in recent years to challenge that thesis. Volkswagen’s diesel cheating scandal didn’t put a nail in internal combustion’s coffin, but it did force it to pick out a burial plot. Tesla’s sky-high stock price has investors demanding the same from other car companies. And the data around rising global temperatures from carbon emissions has only gotten more shocking in recent years. Hydrogen — which shows promise in heavy trucking, aviation and industrial applications — could still be a major fuel source, but the world clearly can’t wait 100 years.
Then there’s China, which is what really made the wake-up call that kicked Japan out of bed.
This year’s Auto Shanghai show, a motor industry expo that was the first one held in person since China’s COVID lockdowns ended, showed the world just how far ahead the Chinese automakers are with battery EVs. Driven by government mandates and ample funding, their battery supply chains are robust, their sales are booming, they’re rapidly expanding into places like Europe and Australia where they’re getting good reviews to boot. (For now, Chinese cars are kept out of the U.S. market by steep tariffs, but their arrival seems inevitable — if American consumers will have them.) And in China, those buyers are turning away from “foreign” brands like Honda, Ford and Toyota to buy local.
Even if you think, as I do, that any transition to an EV car market will be messier and take longer than even car companies will publicly admit, the staggering public and private investments into battery plants and EV tech prove this is where the market is going right now. America alone is dumping billions of tax dollars into EV incentives and charging stations. Last week, Ford got a $9.2 billion Department of Energy loan and it’s certainly not for hydrogen fuel cells.
Meanwhile, demand for battery EVs is soaring; their share of the car market in America increases like clockwork every quarter. Hybrids are starting to be considered passé among the green crowd, even if they don’t necessarily deserve to be.
In order to compete in the world’s two biggest car markets now and beyond, they need to go electric. And soon.
It’s also important to understand that the entire auto industry’s move to battery electric power is a reluctant one. If any of these car companies could get a free pass to keep making the same kinds of cars and engines, with the same parts suppliers, dealer networks, and sales models they’ve used for a century, they’d take it in a heartbeat. Excitement from the marketing department masks real, palpable fears about whether they can pull it off or not, and we should all be questioning the authenticity of promises to go “zero-emission” by a hard date like 2035 even as they put billions of dollars into making new gasoline trucks and SUVs. The auto industry is slow to change on its best day, and this very expensive sea change is driven by regulations, China, and Tesla, not a passion for clean transportation.
So if you argue the Japanese automakers are behind the curve on EVs, you also have to ask, behind whom and behind how? The Tesla Model Y is now the best-selling car in the world, but Tesla struggles to launch new products; the same cannot be said of Toyota. EVs are still expensive and unprofitable for most car companies. Even Japan’s competitors are just now ramping up battery factories in America, driven by climate-friendly legislation pushed through over the past two years by the Biden administration. And every car company making EVs — GM, Ford, Hyundai, Volkswagen, all of them — is dealing with production defects, delays, software bugs, battery issues, and other problems.
But as Automotive News reported recently, Tesla and the Chinese car companies are not just making EVs but resetting the entire manufacturing process just as the “lean” manufacturing techniques pioneered by Toyota once did. Now Japan’s automakers are having to rethink how they make cars, just as they once forced the Americans and Europeans to do. Indeed, the future of Toyota manufacturing looks a lot like what Tesla’s doing now, which says a lot.
This isn’t just about making a new type of car; it’s about rethinking the entire car industry from top to bottom, including how the labor force and supply lines operate. Every automaker is still figuring it out. But while we’re still in the Wild West days of moving away from fossil fuels, waiting to act is no longer an option even from a business perspective — let alone a climate one.
Toyota’s big battery announcement does signal that change is coming. A 900-mile battery? I’ve heard these kinds of pie-in-the-sky claims from sketchy startup companies my entire career. It is not the kind of thing I hear from Toyota, arguably the most powerful manufacturing apparatus on the planet and a company whose culture stresses under-promising and over-delivering. Even Toyota’s “It’s coming!” promises around hydrogen never got this specific. So when Toyota lays down the gauntlet, I’m inclined to believe it’ll either make good on its word or come pretty damn close.
Even so, by the time the Japanese automakers get their best and most “modern” EVs on the road — software updates, more automated driving assistance, cheaper costs, better range — competitors like Ford and Hyundai will be on round two or three of doing the same thing.
For now, the Japanese automakers are probably smart to keep at least some powder dry when it comes to hybrids and hydrogen, especially in those places on Earth that might not be best served by fully electric cars quite yet. But if they don’t get moving on the EV front, they won’t have a chance to find out.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Just look at Heatmap’s latest poll results.
A few times a year, Heatmap News surveys a few thousand Americans on the biggest questions driving the world of energy, environment, and climate change. We’ve spent the past few days writing up the results of our latest poll, which was in the field in late May and which I thought was particularly striking.
It’s worth taking a step back to look at the biggest results together, because the American view of data centers is essentially in free fall:
The upshot of these findings: The public‘s turn against artificial intelligence and AI infrastructure is real, widespread, and cross-partisan. It doesn't matter whether Americans started out tolerating data centers or having no opinion about them; they now seem to resent them en masse.
Sign up to receive Heatmap Daily in your inbox:
These results also suggest Americans see little distinction between data centers as energy users and data centers as the physical embodiment of AI and Big Tech. At Heatmap, we can be a wonky and energy-focused bunch, and so we tend to think about data centers primarily as large-scale electricity users. I think most approaches to come up with “data center policy” do the same. We know data centers are distinctive in some ways, of course — an AI data center might require more on-site batteries or power generation than, say, an EV factory — but fundamentally it is just another air polluter, large-scale power user, and light-industrial land user.
But the public does not see things this way. Americans understand data centers in the context of the much broader AI policy conversation about jobs, growth, alignment, and even human extinction. And so, I should add, do politicians: Senator Bernie Sanders has framed his data center moratorium proposal as a response to rapid AI development as much as anything having to do with energy affordability. For that reason, I wonder how long the distinction between these two policy conversations — data centers here, and AI policy over there — can persist.
One last thought on this topic: Is the public’s resentment starting to affect the AI boom overall? I think it might be. It was hard for me not to think of our polling results — or our analysis of canceled data center projects — as I read about a recent JPMorgan analysis that found America’s data center boom is “falling way behind schedule,” in the words of The Wall Street Journal. More than 60% of the data center capacity that is supposed to come online next year has yet to break ground, according to the bank; another 7% is “delayed.”
That’s partially due to equipment and labor shortages, but it also might be what a siting-and-permitting bottleneck would look like. Much like renewable developers or venture capitalists, data center developers work by picking a number of sites and trying to develop on all of them. If only a few sites work out, they’re still in the money. But if a falling share of projects are working out — if building anything, anywhere, is getting harder, everywhere — then it might materialize as delays.
Plus more of the week’s big money moves in critical minerals and electric vehicle charging.
Two of climate tech’s hottest sectors — fusion and critical minerals — dominated this week’s funding headlines. Helion led the pack with its $465 million Series G, helping to push the startup with the sector’s most aggressive commercialization timeline one step closer to putting power on the grid. The round follows last week’s news that German fusion startup Focused Energy secured a $240 million Series A, making it Europe’s most valuable fusion company.
Then there’s the critical minerals. Shortly after venture firm Gigascale Capital announced the close of its $250 million fund targeting the physical clean energy economy, it announced one of its first investments: Red Metals, a startup working to bring copper refining back to the U.S. Terra AI, which is using artificial intelligence to identify promising sites for mineral extraction, also landed fresh funding. Rounding out the week’s deals, EV charging and energy services company InCharge also raised a new round as it looks to expand into a broader suite of energy services.
Leading fusion startup Helion has nearly tripled its valuation with its latest $465 million Series G round, which aims to help the company deliver commercial fusion power this decade — the most ambitious timeline in the industry. Per the terms of the power purchase agreement Helion signed with Microsoft in 2023, the startup plans to turn on its first commercial reactor just two years from now. That’s far sooner than even its most precocious competitors, who aim to put fusion power on the grid by the 2030s at the earliest.
Joshua Kushner’s venture firm Thrive Capital led the round, which also included participation from new investors including Lux Capital and Alta Park Capital. Thrive now values the company at $15.5 billion.
“The investors that have joined this round, it’s institutional capital, some very marquee investors,” Helion’s CEO David Kirtley told me, explaining they were willing to back an unproven technology thanks to a series of recent milestones that Helion’s latest prototype reactor, Polaris, achieved. “Polaris earlier this year set records for temperature and fuel. We’ve also reduced a lot of the business risk on the regulatory front, the commercial front, and the actual supply chain, too.” In February, Polaris became the first reactor developed by a private fusion company to operate on deuterium-tritium fuel — the most common fuel in the industry — and to achieve a plasma temperature of 150 million degrees Celsius.
Helion differs from many of its peers pursuing more established reactor concepts such as tokamaks, stellarators, or laser-driven inertial confinement. Instead, Helion’s tech uses powerful magnets to collide and compress two fusion plasmas together, generating temperatures over 100 million degrees Celsius and triggering a fusion reaction. It then seeks to capture the electricity this reaction generates via electromagnetic induction — no steam turbine required — similar to the way regenerative braking works in an electric vehicle. If successful, the approach could enable smaller, more modular fusion reactors than conventional designs would.
While the company had originally aimed for Polaris to demonstrate electricity production from fusion in 2024, that date came and went with no new goal set. Kirtley told me that Helion remains on track to meet the terms of its agreement with Microsoft, however. The startup broke ground on its commercial reactor site last year in Malaga, Washington, where it already has access to a substation and grid interconnection from a dormant aluminum smelter. In addition to building out this facility, Helion also plans to use its new funding to boost production at its electrical component manufacturing plant in nearby Everett, which Kirtley said opened earlier this year.
As investors pour billions into artificial intelligence and the infrastructure supporting it, former Meta CTO Mike Schroepfer has raised an inaugural $250 million fund for his venture firm, Gigascale Capital, which is focused on the physical clean energy economy. This represents Gigascale’s first institutional fundraise since its founding in 2023; until now, the firm’s investments have come entirely out of Schroepfer’s own pocket.
The fund will target early-stage companies working in clean energy, grid infrastructure, critical minerals, and AI-enabled design and manufacturing, while reserving capital to continue backing its portfolio companies as they scale. Gigascale has already backed a number of big names in the space, including Commonwealth Fusion System, iron-air battery developer Form Energy, solid-state transformer company Heron Power, and clean baseload power startup Arbor Energy.
It’s also already begun investing out of this new fund, announcing this week that it led a $10 million seed round for critical minerals company Red Metals, which also included participation from JB Straubel, founder and CEO of the battery recycling company Redwood Materials. The company aims to help reshore copper refining in the U.S., and will use this fresh capital to support the development of a $70 million refining facility in Charleston, South Carolina. Red Metals says its process can convert copper scrap directly into a finished copper product, bypassing several of the costly and emissions-intensive intermediate steps typical of conventional refining.
The investment offers a window into the kinds of companies Schroepfer is most interested in — businesses that might lack the glamor of an AI startup but represent bipartisan opportunities to address core industrial bottlenecks. Copper, for example, is essential to all sorts of clean energy infrastructure, including transformers, power lines, and anode battery materials, but also critical for defense technologies such as radar systems and ammunition. Yet American copper production has been on the decline, with analysts projecting that the U.S. will face a refined copper shortage of over 2.5 million metric tons annually by 2035.
Sustainability-focused firm S2G Investments has been on a roll recently, announcing a $1 billion fund last month that aims to fill climate tech’s “missing middle” and backing Goshe Energy Storage with up to $40 million in strategic financing last week. Its latest move is leading a $46 million strategic investment round for InCharge Energy, an EV charging and distributed energy management company.
InCharge got its start installing and managing electric vehicle charging stations, and is now operating more than 30,000 assets across North America. Through its software platform and network of technicians, the company handles all monitoring, diagnostics, and on-the-ground repairs, taking on a charger’s full lifecycle to minimize downtime. With this new capital, InCharge plans to expand beyond EV charging and leverage its software and field service network in adjacent industries, including electrical infrastructure work such as panel upgrades and wiring repairs, as well as distributed energy resources like rooftop solar and battery storage systems.
“EV charging was the entry point, but our customers increasingly need help operating more complex energy infrastructure,” Rich Mohr, InCharge’s CEO said in a press release. “This investment from S2G accelerates our evolution into a full energy solutions provider and allows us to advance smarter technology and strengthen our service capabilities nationwide.”
It’s a hot week — nay a hot year, for critical minerals and subsurface exploration startups, especially for those pairing geology with artificial intelligence. AI-powered mineral exploration company KoBold Metals has raised about $1.2 billion to date, while geothermal exploration startup Zanskar has brought in about $220 million.
Now, another entrant is attracting investor attention. Terra AI has raised a $20 million Series A led by Khosla Ventures to help do it all — use AI to identify prospective sites for critical minerals mining, next-generation geothermal development, and permanent carbon sequestration.
Terra’s platform integrates vast geological and geophysical datasets to generate 3D subsurface models, as well as risk assessments that allow teams to evaluate a range of potential geologic scenarios. From there, the team can identify the best sites for exploratory drilling and thus reduce risk and uncertainty much sooner in the project’s lifecycle. The company even uses what it calls “geology reasoning agents” to help operators create their exploration plans, all with the goal of drastically reducing the notoriously long timeline between discovery and production, which can stretch to nearly two decades for many subsurface projects.
“Minerals sit at the center of every major technology and infrastructure transition, but today’s exploration results are not keeping pace with demand,” Terra’s CEO John Mern posted on LinkedIn. “Our mission is to advance the frontier of AI into the geosciences and help supply the metals and resources the next generation needs.”
One of the biggest fusion funding rounds of the year landed last week, and somehow much of the media — including me — missed it. German fusion startup Focused Energy raised a whopping $240 million Series A led by RWE, one of Germany’s largest energy companies. Yet unlike most deals of this magnitude, it arrived with little fanfare: No press release in my inbox nor a flood of headlines. So in the interest of making up for lost time, here are the details.
With this latest round, which also includes participation from the German Federal Agency for Breakthrough Innovation, the European Innovation Council Fund and Prime Movers Lab, Focused Energy has become Europe’s most valuable fusion company. Like several other leading players, including Inertia Enterprises and Pacific Fusion, Focused Energy relies on an approach known as inertial confinement fusion. This involves using powerful lasers to compress a tiny fuel target, creating the extreme pressures and temperatures required for a fusion reaction. To date, inertial confinement remains the only approach to have demonstrated net energy gain, with Lawrence Livermore National Lab achieving this milestone in 2022.
The startup plans to use this latest funding to build out a demonstration plant in the German state of Hesse, at a site where RWE formerly operated a nuclear fission plant. The company ultimately aims to build a commercial reactor by the mid-2030s.
Catching up with the American Council on Renewable Energy’s Ray Long.
Today’s chat is with Ray Long, CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy. We first discussed the odds of permitting reform a year and a half ago, for one of the first Q&As in The Fight. Flash forward and we’re still in the same situation, but now also wrestling with added demand for electricity to power data centers. I wanted to talk again about whether he thought the rise of artificial intelligence would increase the odds of some federal deal happening any time soon. The result: a wide-reaching conversation about the future of the electric grid, the struggles to win community buy-in and the sclerotic nature of the U.S. Congress.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Do you think the buildout of our energy grid is entwined with the rise of the nation’s data center buildout?
When you look at what we need over the next four years — 166 gigawatts, 15 times the peak load of New York City — that’s a lot of power to build. Roughly half of that is for data center and AI growth.
There are five things we can build in the next four years at scale to address that collective amount. First, it’s transmission — the transmission buildout will help to get a modern grid to enable power flow to where it’s needed in a much more effective way. That’s the first step because if we just build all that power, the current grid can’t handle it.
Second, there are four supply technologies that can be built: solar, batteries, wind, and natural gas. All four of those technologies, we know there’s enough equipment here in the U.S. available for purchase that we can build at volume. And I’ll say this — natural gas is only about 10% of all those gigawatts because of the availability of turbines from suppliers. You can’t get enough over the next four years. So when I talk about decarbonization, most of what is built to address this issue is zero-carbon resources, renewable energy resources.
If you were to compare the current conversation around data center development to the debate over developing renewable energy in the U.S. — or energy in general — do you see any similarities or differences?
There are always issues with permitting projects. Communities are always going to have concerns about what’s built in their backyards.
What’s new — and your polling shows this — is the level of concern communities have. But here’s the thing: Most of this can be overcome by developers going in, listening to what the needs of the communities are, then responding and through the permitting process addressing those concerns. You can’t do that 100% of the time. But my experience is, when you take that sort of approach, you can overcome a lot of it.
Most of the large data centers are actually doing the things I’m discussing — going in and saying, Look, we want to be grid interconnected because grid connection at the end of the day means the resources we’re bringing to bear are also going to make a stronger grid. Number two, it's investing in power generation sources like the ones I said — and those power sources will be on the grid, so they’ll solve for the increased power demands of a community.
Third, water. They should bring the water solutions. You’re seeing data centers coming in and saying it head on now, that they have closed-loop systems or whatever the solution is. At the end of the day, the communities they’re proposing these in have a real negotiating opportunity to make sure they’re holding the data center developers accountable to the needs of the community.
For a community to say we don’t want it here misses a real opportunity for those communities to get the power they need, the grid they need, and the ability to bring down energy costs.
How is the data center debate affecting permitting reform conversations in Washington, from your perspective?
Permitting reform in the U.S. at the state and federal level has been broken for years. The SunZia transmission project? It took 17 years to permit. Ribbon-cutting is in a week or two and there’s still litigation around it. From a business perspective, it’s just untenable, and it’s a miracle that the project is getting built. Developers need a chance to come in and have their project evaluated. Both the community and the developer should be able to get to a go or no-go in a couple of years on one of these projects.
How is data center growth affecting the permitting reform discussion? It’s a very hot issue right now. Right now I think in part because the data center issue is so huge — because we’ve only got four years to solve for the first really big tranche of power we need and prices across the board for electricity are escalating — this is coming to a head. The data center load is a part of the catalyst to get people talking about it [permitting reform].
Do you expect legislating in Congress on permitting reform this year? Anything beyond more conversation?
My hope is that we get a bill. A few weeks ago someone from the administration was quoted as saying they wanted a framework for a bill by the end of May, and it’s June now. We haven’t seen both sides or the administration coalesce around a final project yet.
We’re in a midterm election cycle. Typically it’s very difficult during these cycles to move bills like this. At the same time, with electricity prices increasing and the need to build more, to fix this, I’m very hopeful something will come together. And look at the Senate — you’ve got Republicans and the Democratic ranking members talking about this. It’s all good signs.
If everyone’s talking about energy and affordability during this election, isn’t that a good thing for action in the next Congress?
I’ll say this: You’re seeing the catalyst for it right now with prices rising, and almost every grid operator around the country has raised concerns about shortages at some point this year or next year. It’ll hopefully be enough to have policymakers do something about it this year.