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:
“Do you ever think about electric cars?”

Between solar roofs, home batteries, and electric vehicles, Tesla could potentially “do more to fight climate change than any other company — perhaps any other entity — in the world,” Walter Isaacson muses in his much-anticipated biography of Elon Musk, out Tuesday.
But while the central character is at times painted as a heroic visionary (Isaacson’s previous subjects have included Steve Jobs, Einstein, and Leonardo da Vinci), the biography also makes it clear that Tesla’s mercurial CEO isn’t always the easiest to work with — or, in the blunter words of Bill Gates, he can be “super mean.” Here are some of the most surprising moments about climate and energy shared in Isaacson’s Elon Musk:
On Musk’s EV passion:
When Elon went with [Peter] Nicholson’s daughter, Christie, to a party one evening, his first question was “Do you ever think about electric cars?” As he later admitted, it was not the world’s best come-on line.
On education:
Musk also focused on electric cars. He and [his friend Robin] Ren would grab lunch from one of the food trucks and sit on the campus lawn, where Musk would read academic papers on batteries. California had just passed a requirement mandating that 10 percent of vehicles by 2003 had to be electric. “I want to go make that happen,” Musk said.
Musk also became convinced that solar power, which in 1994 was just taking off, was the best path toward sustainable energy. His senior paper was titled “The Importance of Being Solar.” He was motivated not just by the dangers of climate change but also by the fact that fossil fuel reserves would start to dwindle. “Society will soon have no option but to focus on renewable power sources,” he wrote. His final page showed a “power station of the future,” involving a satellite with mirrors that would concentrate sunlight onto solar panels and send the resulting electricity back to Earth via a microwave beam. The professor gave him a grade of 98, saying it was a “very interesting and well written paper, except the last figure that comes out of the blue.”
On investing in batteries:
Eager to keep the conversation going, [Tesla co-founder JB] Straubel changed the topic to his idea for building an electric vehicle using lithium-ion batteries. “I was looking for funding and being rather shameless,” he says. Musk expressed surprise when Straubel explained how good the batteries had become. “I was going to work on high-density energy storage at Stanford,” Musk told him. “I was trying to think of what would have the most effect on the world, and energy storage along with electric vehicles were high on my list.” His eyes lit up as he processed Straubel’s calculations. “Count me in,” he said, committing to provide $10,000 in funding.
On building the Gigafactory:
The idea that Musk proposed in 2013 was audacious: build a gigantic battery factory in the U.S. […] There was one problem, Straubel recalls. “We had no clue how to build a battery factory.”
So Musk and Straubel decided to pursue a partnership with their battery supplier, Panasonic […] Musk and Straubel were invited to Japan by Panasonic’s new young president Kazuhiro Tsuga. “It was a come-to-Jesus session where we had to make him truly commit that we were going to build the insane Gigafactory together,” Straubel says.
The dinner was a formal, multicourse affair at a traditional low-table Japanese restaurant. Straubel was fearful about how Musk would behave. “Elon can be so much hell and brimstone in meetings and just unpredictable as all get out,” he says. “But I’ve also seen him flip a switch and suddenly be this incredibly effective, charismatic, high-emotional-intelligence business person, when he has to do it.” At the Panasonic dinner, the charming Musk appeared. He sketched out his vision for moving the world to electric vehicles and why the two companies should do it together. “I was mildly shocked and impressed, because, whoa, this is not like how Elon usually was on other days,” says Straubel. “He’s a person who’s all over the map, and you don’t know what he’s going to say or do. And then, all of a sudden, he pulls it all together.”
On the origins of SolarCity:
“I want to start a new business,” Musk’s cousin Lyndon Rive said as they were driving in an RV to Burning Man, the annual art-and-tech rave in the Nevada desert, at the end of the summer of 2004. “One that can help humanity and address climate change.” “Get into the solar industry,” Musk replied. Lyndon recalls that the answer felt like “my marching orders.” With his brother Peter, he started work on creating a company that would become SolarCity. “Elon provided most of the initial funding,” Peter recalls. “He gave us one clear piece of guidance: get to a scale that would have an impact as fast as possible.”
On buying SolarCity:
When Musk announced the deal in June 2016, he called it a “no-brainer” that was “legally and morally correct.” The acquisition fit with his original “master plan” for Tesla, which he had written in 2006: “The overarching purpose of Tesla Motors is to help expedite the move from a mine-and-burn hydrocarbon economy towards a solar electric economy.”
On hating SolarCity:
The solar roof project caused enormous friction between Musk and his cousins. In August 2016, around the time he was teasing the new product, Peter Rive invited Musk to inspect a version that the company had installed on a customer’s roof. It was a standing-seam metal roof, meaning the solar cells were embedded in sheets of metal rather than tiles. When Musk drove up, Peter and fifteen people were standing in front of the house. “But as often happened,” Peter recalled, “Elon showed up late and then sat in the car looking at his phone while we all just waited very nervously for him to get out.” When he did, it was clear that he was furious. “This is shit,” Musk explained. “Total fucking shit. Horrible. What were you thinking?”
On really, really hating SolarCity:
There were four versions [of solar roofs], including those that looked like French slate and Tuscan barrel tiles, along with a house that featured the metal roof that Musk hated. When Musk visited two days before the scheduled event and saw the metal version, he erupted. “What part of ‘I fucking hate this product’ don’t you understand?” One of the engineers pushed back, saying it looked okay to him and that it was the easiest to install. Musk pulled Peter aside and told him, “I don’t think this guy should be on the team.” Peter fired the engineer and had the metal roof removed before the public event.
On cutting solar roof installation time:
[…] Musk clambered up a ladder to the peak of the roof, where he stood precariously. He was not happy. There were too many fasteners, he said. Each had to be nailed down, adding time to the installation process. “Instead of two nails for each foot, try it with only one,” he ordered. “If the house has a hurricane, the whole neighborhood is fucked up, so who cares? One nail is going to be fine.” Someone protested that could lead to leaks. “Don’t worry about making it as waterproof as a submarine,” he said. “My house in California used to leak. Somewhere between sieve and submarine should be okay.” For a moment he laughed before returning to his dark intensity.
On talking climate with Bill Gates:
“Hey, I’d love to come see you and talk about philanthropy and climate,” Bill Gates said to Musk when they happened to be at the same meeting in early 2022. Musk’s stock sales had led him, for tax reasons, to put $5.7 billion into a charitable fund he had established. Gates, who was then spending most of his time on philanthropy, had many suggestions he wanted to make. They’d had friendly interactions a few times in the past, including when Gates brought his son Rory to SpaceX. [...] Gates argued that batteries would never be able to power large semitrucks and that solar energy would not be a major part of solving the climate problem. “I showed him the numbers,” Gates says. “It’s an area where I clearly knew something that he didn’t.” He also gave Musk a hard time on Mars. “I’m not a Mars person,” Gates later told me. “He’s overboard on Mars. I let him explain his Mars thinking to me, which is kind of bizarre thinking. It’s this crazy thing where maybe there’s a nuclear war on Earth and so the people on Mars are there and they’ll come back down and, you know, be alive after we all kill each other.”
On dismissing climate philanthropy:
At the end of the tour, [Gates and Musk’s] conversation turned to philanthropy. Musk expressed his view that most of it was “bullshit.” There was only a twenty-cent impact for every dollar put in, he estimated. He could do more good for climate change by investing in Tesla.
On Bill Gates’ betrayal:
There was one contentious issue that [Bill Gates and Elon Musk] had to address. Gates had shorted Tesla stock, placing a big bet that it would go down in value […] Short-sellers occupied [Musk’s] innermost circle of hell. Gates said he was sorry, but that did not placate Musk. “I apologized to him,” Gates says. “Once he heard I’d shorted the stock, he was super mean to me, but he’s super mean to so many people, so you can’t take it too personally.”
[...] When I asked Gates why he had shorted Tesla, he explained that he had calculated that the supply of electric cars would get ahead of demand, causing prices to fall. I nodded but still had the same question: Why had he shorted the stock? Gates looked at me as if I had not understood what he just explained and then replied as if the answer was obvious: he thought that by shorting Tesla he could make money. That way of thinking was alien to Musk. He believed in the mission of moving the world to electric vehicles, and he put all of his available money toward that goal, even when it did not seem like a safe investment. “How can someone say they are passionate about fighting climate change and then do something that reduced the overall investment in the company doing the most?” he asked me a few days after Gates’s visit. “It’s pure hypocrisy. Why make money on the failure of a sustainable energy car company?”
On rejection:
Gates followed up in mid-April, sending Musk the promised paper on philanthropy options that he had personally written [...] “Sorry,” Musk shot back instantly. “I cannot take your philanthropy on climate seriously when you have a massive short position against Tesla, the company doing the most to solve climate change.” When angry, Musk can get mean, especially on Twitter. He tweeted a picture of Gates in a golf shirt with a bulging belly that made him look almost pregnant. “In case u need to lose a boner fast,” Musk’s comment read.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Forget data centers. Fire is going to make electricity much more expensive in the western United States.
A tsunami is coming for electricity rates in the western United States — and it’s not data centers.
Across the western U.S., states have begun to approve or require utilities to prepare their wildfire adaptation and insurance plans. These plans — which can require replacing equipment across thousands of miles of infrastructure — are increasingly seen as non-negotiable by regulators, investors, and utility executives in an era of rising fire risk.
But they are expensive. Even in states where utilities have not yet caused a wildfire, costs can run into the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Of course, the cost of sparking a fire can be much higher.
At least 10 Western states have recently approved or are beginning to work on new wildfire mitigation plans, according to data from E9 Insights, a utility research and consulting firm. Some utilities in the Midwest and Southeast have now begun to put together their own proposals, although they are mostly at an earlier phase of planning.
“Almost every state in the West has some kind of wildfire plan or effort under way,” Sam Kozel, a researcher at E9, told me. “Even a state like Missouri is kicking the tires in some way.”
The costs associated with these plans won’t hit utility customers for years. But they reflect one more building cost pressure in the electricity system, which has been stressed by aging equipment and rising demand. The U.S. Energy Information Administration already expects wholesale electricity prices to increase 8.5% in 2026.
The past year has seen a new spate of plans. In October, Colorado’s largest utility Xcel Energy proposed more than $845 million in new spending to prepare for wildfires. The Oregon utility Portland General Electric received state approval to spend $635 million on “compliance-related upgrades” to its distribution system earlier this month. That category includes wildfire mitigation costs.
The Public Utility Commission of Texas issued its first mandatory wildfire-mitigation rules last month, which will require utilities and co-ops in “high-risk” areas to prepare their own wildfire preparedness programs.
Ultimately, more than 140 utilities across 19 states have prepared or are working on wildfire preparedness plans, according to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
It will take years for this increased utility spending on wildfire preparedness to show up in customers’ bills. That’s because utilities can begin spending money for a specific reason, such as disaster preparedness, as soon as state regulators approve their plan to do so. But utilities can’t begin passing those costs to customers until regulators review their next scheduled rate hike through a special process known as a rate case.
When they do get passed through, the plans will likely increase costs associated with the distribution system, the network of poles and wires that deliver electricity “the last mile” from substations to homes and businesses. Since 2019, rising distribution-related costs has driven the bulk of electricity price inflation in the United States. One risk is that distribution costs will keep rising at the same time that electricity itself — as well as natural gas — get more expensive, thanks to rising demand from data centers and economic growth.
California offers a cautionary tale — both about what happens when you don’t prepare for fire, and how high those costs can get. Since 2018, the state has spent tens of billions to pay for the aftermath of those blazes that utilities did start and remake its grid for a new era of fire. Yet it took years for those costs to pass through to customers.
“In California, we didn’t see rate increases until 2023, but the spending started in 2018,” Michael Wara, a senior scholar at the Woods Institute for the Environment and director of the Climate and Energy Policy Program at Stanford University, told me.
The cost of failing to prepare for wildfires can, of course, run much higher. Pacific Gas and Electric paid more than $13.5 billion to wildfire victims in California after its equipment was linked to several deadly fires in the state. (PG&E underwent bankruptcy proceedings after its equipment was found responsible for starting the 2018 Camp Fire, which killed 85 people and remains the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in state history.)
California now has the most expensive electricity in the continental United States.
Even the risk of being associated with starting a fire can cost hundreds of millions. In September, Xcel Energy paid a $645 million settlement over its role in the 2021 Marshall fire, even though it has not admitted to any responsibility or negligence in the fire.
Wara’s group began studying the most cost-effective wildfire investments a few years ago, when he realized the wave of cost increases that had hit California would soon arrive for other utilities.
It was partly “informed by the idea that other utility commissions are not going to allow what California has allowed,” Wara said. “It’s too expensive. There’s no way.”
Utilities can make just a few cost-effective improvements to their systems in order to stave off the worst wildfire risk, he said. They should install weather stations along their poles and wires to monitor actual wind conditions along their infrastructure’s path, he said. They should also install “fast trip” conductors that can shut off powerlines as soon as they break.
Finally, they should prepare — and practice — plans to shut off electricity during high-wind events, he said. These three improvements are relatively cheap and pay for themselves much faster than upgrades like undergrounding lines, which can take more than 20 years to pay off.
Of course, the cost of failing to prepare for wildfires is much higher than the cost of preparation. From 2019 to 2023, California allowed its three biggest investor-owned utilities to collect $27 billion in wildfire preparedness and insurance costs, according to a state legislative report. These costs now make up as much as 13% of the bill for customers of PG&E, the state’s largest utility.
State regulators in California are currently considering the utility PG&E’s wildfire plan for 2026 to 2028, which calls for undergrounding 1,077 miles of power lines and expanding vegetation management programs. Costs from that program might not show up in bills until next decade.
“On the regulatory side, I don’t think a lot of these rate increases have hit yet,” Kozel said.
California may wind up having an easier time adapting to wildfires than other Western states. About half of the 80 million people who live in the west live in California, according to the Census Bureau, meaning that the state simply has more people who can help share the burden of adaptation costs. An outsize majority of the state’s residents live in cities — which is another asset, since wildfire adaptation usually involves getting urban customers to pay for costs concentrated in rural areas.
Western states where a smaller portion of residents live in cities, such as Idaho, might have a harder time investing in wildfire adaptation than California did, Wara said.
“The costs are very high, and they’re not baked in,” Wara said. “I would expect electricity cost inflation in the West to be driven by this broadly, and that’s just life. Climate change is expensive.”
The administration has already lost once in court wielding the same argument against Revolution Wind.
The Trump administration says it has halted all construction on offshore wind projects, citing “national security concerns.”
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced the move Monday morning on X: “Due to national security concerns identified by @DeptofWar, @Interior is PAUSING leases for 5 expensive, unreliable, heavily subsidized offshore wind farms!”
There are only five offshore wind projects currently under construction in U.S. waters: Vineyard Wind, Revolution Wind, Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, Sunrise Wind, and Empire Wind. Burgum confirmed to Fox Business that these were the five projects whose leases have been targeted for termination, and that notices were being sent to the project developers today to halt work.
“The Department of War has come back conclusively that the issues related to these large offshore wind programs create radar interference, create genuine risk for the U.S., particularly related to where they are in proximity to our East Coast population centers,” Burgum told the network’s Maria Bartiromo.
David Schoetz, a spokesperson for Empire Wind's developer Equinor, told me the company is “aware of the stop work order announced by the Department of Interior,” and that the company is “evaluating the order and seeking further information from the federal government.” Schoetz added that we should ”expect more to come” from the company.
This action takes a kernel of truth — that offshore wind can cause interference with radar communication — and blows it up well beyond its apparent implications. Interior has cited reports from the military they claim are classified, so we can’t say what fresh findings forced defense officials to undermine many years of work to ensure that offshore wind development does not impede security or the readiness of U.S. armed forces.
The Trump administration has already lost once in court with a national security argument, when it tried to halt work on Revolution Wind citing these same concerns. The government’s case fell apart after project developer Orsted presented clear evidence that the government had already considered radar issues and found no reason to oppose the project. The timing here is also eyebrow-raising, as the Army Corps of Engineers — a subagency within the military — approved continued construction on Vineyard Wind just three days ago.
It’s also important to remember where this anti-offshore wind strategy came from. In January, I broke news that a coalition of activists fighting against offshore wind had submitted a blueprint to Trump officials laying out potential ways to stop projects, including those already under construction. Among these was a plan to cancel leases by citing national security concerns.
In a press release, the American Clean Power Association took the Trump administration to task for “taking more electricity off the grid while telling thousands of American workers to leave the job site.”
“The Trump Administration’s decision to stop construction of five major energy projects demonstrates that they either don’t understand the affordability crises facing millions of Americans or simply don't care,” the group said. “On the first day of this Administration, the President announced an energy emergency. Over the last year, they worked to create one with electricity prices rising faster under President Trump than any President in recent history."
What comes next will be legal, political and highly dramatic. In the immediate term, it’s likely that after the previous Revolution victory, companies will take the Trump administration to court seeking preliminary injunctions as soon as complaints can be drawn up. Democrats in Congress are almost certainly going to take this action into permitting reform talks, too, after squabbling over offshore wind nearly derailed a House bill revising the National Environmental Policy Act last week.
Heatmap has reached out to all of the offshore wind developers affected, and we’ll update this story if and when we hear back from them.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect comment from Equinor and ACP.
On Redwood Materials’ milestone, states welcome geothermal, and Indian nuclear
Current conditions: Powerful winds of up to 50 miles per hour are putting the Front Range states from Wyoming to Colorado at high risk of wildfire • Temperatures are set to feel like 101 degrees Fahrenheit in Santa Fe in northern Argentina • Benin is bracing for flood flooding as thunderstorms deluge the West African nation.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul inked a partnership agreement with Ontario Premier Doug Ford on Friday to work together on establishing supply chains and best practices for deploying next-generation nuclear technology. Unlike many other states whose formal pronouncements about nuclear power are limited to as-yet-unbuilt small modular reactors, the document promised to establish “a framework for collaboration on the development of advanced nuclear technologies, including large-scale nuclear” and SMRs. Ontario’s government-owned utility just broke ground on what could be the continent’s first SMR, a 300-megawatt reactor with a traditional, water-cooled design at the Darlington nuclear plant. New York, meanwhile, has vowed to build at least 1 gigawatt of new nuclear power in the state through its government-owned New York Power Authority. Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote about the similarities between the two state-controlled utilities back when New York announced its plans. “This first-of-its-kind agreement represents a bold step forward in our relationship and New York’s pursuit of a clean energy future,” Hochul said in a press release. “By partnering with Ontario Power Generation and its extensive nuclear experience, New York is positioning itself at the forefront of advanced nuclear technology deployment, ensuring we have safe, reliable, affordable, and carbon-free energy that will help power the jobs of tomorrow.”
Hochul is on something of a roll. She also repealed a rule that’s been on the books for nearly 140 years that provided free hookups to the gas system for new customers in the state. The so-called 100-foot-rule is a reference to how much pipe the state would subsidize. The out-of-pocket cost for builders to link to the local gas network will likely be thousands of dollars, putting the alternative of using electric heat and cooking appliances on a level playing field. “It’s simply unfair, especially when so many people are struggling right now, to expect existing utility ratepayers to foot the bill for a gas hookup at a brand new house that is not their own,” Hochul said in a statement. “I have made affordability a top priority and doing away with this 40-year-old subsidy that has outlived its purpose will help with that.”
Redwood Materials, the battery recycling startup led by Tesla cofounder J.B. Straubel, has entered into commercial production at its South Carolina facility. The first phase of the $3.5 billion plant “has brought a system online that’s capable of recovering 20,000 metric tons of critical minerals annually, which isn’t full capacity,” Sawyer Merritt, a Tesla investor, posted on X. “Redwood’s goal is to keep these resources here; recovered, refined, and redeployed for America’s advantage,” the company wrote in a blog post on its website. “This strategy turns yesterday’s imports into tomorrow’s strategic stockpile, making the U.S. stronger, more competitive, and less vulnerable to supply chains controlled by China and other foreign adversaries.”
A 13-state alliance at the National Association of State Energy Officials launched a new accelerator program Friday that’s meant to “rapidly expand geothermal power development.” The effort, led by state energy offices in Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, and West Virginia, “will work to establish statewide geothermal power goals and to advance policies and programs that reduce project costs, address regulatory barriers, and speed the deployment of reliable, firm, flexible power to the grid.” Statements from governors of red and blue states highlighted the energy source’s bipartisan appeal. California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, called geothermal a key tool to “confront the climate crisis.” Idaho’s GOP Governor Brad Little, meanwhile, said geothermal power “strengthens communities, supports economic growth, and keeps our grid resilient.” If you want to review why geothermal is making a comeback, read this piece by Matthew.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Yet another pipeline is getting the greenlight. Last week, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved plans for Mountain Valley’s Southgate pipeline, clearing the way for construction. The move to shorten the pipeline’s length from 75 miles down to 31 miles, while increasing the diameter of the project to 30 inches from between 16 and 23 inches, hinged on whether FERC deemed the gas conduit necessary. On Thursday, E&E News reported, FERC said the developers had demonstrated a need for the pipeline stretching from the existing Mountain Valley pipeline into North Carolina.
Last week, I told you about a bill proposed in India’s parliament to reform the country’s civil liability law and open the nuclear industry to foreign companies. In the 2010s, India passed a law designed to avoid another disaster like the 1984 Bhopal chemical leak that killed thousands but largely gave the subsidiary of the Dow Chemical Corporation that was responsible for the accident a pass on payouts to victims. As a result, virtually no foreign nuclear companies wanted to operate in India, lest an accident result in astronomical legal expenses in the country. (The one exception was Russia’s state-owned Rosatom.) In a bid to attract Western reactor companies, Indian lawmakers in both houses of parliament voted to repeal the liability provisions, NucNet reported.
The critically endangered Lesser Antillean iguana has made a stunning recovery on the tiny, uninhabited islet of Prickly Pear East near Anguilla. A population of roughly 10 breeding-aged lizards ballooned to 500 in the past five years. “Prickly Pear East has become a beacon of hope for these gorgeous lizards — and proves that when we give native wildlife the chance, they know what to do,” Jenny Daltry, Caribbean Alliance Director of nature charities Fauna & Flora and Re:wild, told Euronews.