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:
Julie Liu is converting gas customers to heat pumps, one home at a time.

For Julie Liu, electrifying a home is like putting on an Off- Off- Broadway show.
Working almost entirely alone, Liu serves as producer, stage manager, and director, bankrolling the production, hiring the crew, arranging the logistics, choreographing the action, and dazzling the audience — the homeowner or tenants — along the way. Heat pumps and induction stoves are the stars. Plumbers, HVAC technicians, and insulation specialists sub in for set decorators, sound engineers, and costume designers. Electricians play themselves.
If all goes well, after just a week or so of focused, frenzied work, the show arrives at the grand finale: the capping of the gas line.
Liu has staged this performance more than 25 times since 2023 as the implementation contractor for Electric Advantage, an incentive program in New York offered by the gas and electric utility Con Edison. The program covers 100% of the cost of replacing a building owner’s gas-powered appliances with electric versions, plus installing insulation and air sealing. Although it sounds too good to be true, there’s no catch — except that you have to be lucky enough to own a building that’s eligible for the program and agree to cut your gas connection.
ConEd, as it’s known, delivers natural gas to just over a million customers in the Bronx, Manhattan, Northern Queens, and Westchester County, and qualifies buildings for the program by first identifying sections of pipeline on the peripheries of its network that are due for replacement. Then it runs a cost-benefit analysis. If it would be cheaper to electrify all of the buildings served by a given stretch of gas main than to dig up the street and replace the pipe, the company starts going out to the homeowners and businesses along the line to gauge their interest. If the owners agree to go electric, that’s when Liu steps in.
There’s no established name for what Liu does. “It’s not a home improvement business, it’s not an energy efficiency business, it’s not an HVAC business,” she told me. “It’s about putting together a tight live production.” An apt title would be “electrification contractor” — one of the few, if not the only one of her kind operating in the New York area.
Anyone who has tried to electrify even just one appliance in their home has probably wished they could hire someone like Liu. Between finding an available and trustworthy contractor, navigating quotes and equipment choices, and managing ballooning costs, the process is often frustrating and confusing. It’s a major time commitment, not to mention a big capital investment — not a winning formula for mass adoption.
Liu doesn’t offer her services to just any homeowner, though. She only takes on jobs that come through contracts with utilities and government agencies like the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, or NYSERDA. Having ConEd’s backing is actually one of the major benefits Liu brings to the work. It means she’s held to stringent standards of performance. Her business fronts the full cost of every Electric Advantage project, putting up tens of thousands of dollars for parts and labor, and only gets paid back by the utility after she demonstrates she’s met every requirement. Engineers check her design choices on the front end and the installations on the back end. A missing anti-tip bracket on a stove once almost cost her an entire $100,000 job, she told me.
Liu is the first to admit that all of this is a huge headache and a tough business model. She also fundamentally believes in this being utility-backed work. When a homeowner pursues a project on their own, the oversight is only as strong as their own ability to vet contractors and manage the job — which, with limited time, information, and leverage in the market, is likely not nearly as strong as Liu’s.
“My conviction is, for the middle class to thrive, we need to have a lot of things that are expensive to do and complex to do to become utilities,” Liu said. “That’s my hypothesis since I was 22.”
In the climate world, a lot of advocates and experts also believe that a utility-run program like Electric Advantage is the key to unlocking an all-electric future, although for slightly different reasons. When random individual homeowners decide to electrify, a shrinking number of remaining gas customers have to pay to maintain the entire pipeline system. If utilities instead strategically prune the gas system while helping customers go electric, the theory goes, it can reduce costs for remaining gas customers while also creating sustained demand for heat pump retrofits. This would help build the workforce necessary to perform them and create economies of scale.
The problem is, ConEd has 4,400 miles of gas mains. In just over two years of running Electric Advantage, the utility has retired about half of one mile. If the program, or similar ones at other New York utilities, were ever to scale from converting about a dozen buildings a year to taking on the whole state, it would need a lot more Julie Lius. ConEd has a small network of contractors who take on projects with more limited scopes, but Liu is the only one doing whole-home decarbonization.
“It’s high capex deployment of complex work in the field, and you have to have people who go into people’s homes and not piss them off,” said Liu. “That’s a very unique business.”
Liu is not exactly a known figure in the world of building electrification. She’s not on social media or otherwise broadcasting her accomplishments or policy views. You won’t find her headlining clean energy panels or on the boards of nonprofits. But Liu has been quietly leading building electrification in the New York area for nearly a decade. Her early belief in heat pumps and determination to bring them to the New York market helped lay the foundation for future programs in the state.
Long before all of this, Liu was a Taiwanese immigrant growing up in Hacienda Heights, Los Angeles. Her family moved to California from Taipei in 1983, just before she entered seventh grade. Liu told me she “did all the good, dutiful-daughter things.” Her family owned a small furniture manufacturing business, and she went to college at Carnegie Mellon for business and industrial design with the intention of helping her dad produce “more inspiring furniture than colonial reproductions.”
Then her education at Carnegie Mellon took her in a different direction. The programs were built around “productivity, process orientation, efficiency, build it cheaper, faster — it’s all about, can you get things done?” She developed an appreciation for utilities, in a broad sense — for how much of the economy was built around “serving more and more people at scale, and serving them better things.”
When she graduated in the mid-1990s, Liu broke the news to her parents that she wanted to get into telecommunications — the hot field at the time. She initially thought she wanted to work at the Federal Communications Commission, but some early mentors warned her that she wasn’t suited for government work and connected her with a job at DirectTV. “You’re too eager to get things done, you’ll be banging your head against the wall,” she recalled being told at the time. “Go to the private sector.”
She went on to spend the next 15-odd years working in satellite television in New York, with a brief interlude starting a software-as-a-service company with an ex-boyfriend that was a little too ahead of its time, according to Liu. She was successful in the industry, but she wasn’t very happy, she told me. She felt like she was “growing couch potatoes.”
By 2014, after a few zigs and zags — business school, a stint at an online real estate startup in Luxembourg — Liu found herself back in New York, unemployed, and spending a lot of her time trying to fix up the rat-infested Brooklyn brownstone she owned. The building had an oil-burning heating system that was draining her bank account. She wanted to install minisplit heat pumps, which were everywhere back in Taiwan, but at the time nobody was really doing that in New York.
In early 2016, still unemployed and living off savings and tenant rent, Liu reached out to the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, or NYSERDA, to ask about incentives for minisplits, and got connected to a consulting firm called the Levy Partnership that was putting together a proposal for the agency’s first-ever heat pump pilot project. The company told her that brownstones were too difficult and expensive, though, and that it was planning to propose doing the pilot in just a couple of mobile homes on Long Island.
Liu was peeved. Statistically that wouldn’t have even constituted a demonstration, she told me. “That’s not even an alpha in the world of where I came from, satellite communications.” She made a bet with the firm. It was a Thursday. If she could get a bunch of her neighbors to sign letters of interest in the pilot by Monday, she told the company, then “you’re gonna copy and paste that trailer park proposal and say there’s gonna be one for brownstones.”
Needless to say, she got the letters. But Liu didn’t just get the Levy Partnership to expand its proposal or to include her brownstone in the pilot. She convinced it to hire her to help implement the projects. She had looked up the census data on home heating and saw that about half the boilers in the New York City area used expensive heating oil. “I was like, there’s the money,” she told me. She saw that people could lower their bills by switching to heat pumps, while also getting access to better cooling in the summertime. “The business opportunity was just like when I got into satellite, right? It was a transition,” she said.
A week after she and the firm co-submitted their proposal to NYSERDA, Liu incorporated her new company under the name Centsible House. (Her business now goes by the name Carta Electric Homes.) NYSERDA awarded the team the funding a few months later, and by March 2017 they were executing agreements with homeowners to participate. The pilot ran for two years and installed heat pumps in 20 homes throughout Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and Long Island, including Liu’s brownstone. Learnings from those projects informed the development of New York’s statewide Clean Heat program, a partnership between utilities and the state that launched in 2020, offering rebates for heat pumps. Liu was “patient zero,” she told me.
After that, NYSERDA as well as ConEd and another local utility, National Grid, hired Liu for other demonstration projects and heat pump programs. She racked up more than a dozen trainings and certifications from the Building Performance Institute, the Environmental Protection Agency, and various equipment manufacturers, developing expertise in building envelopes, heat pumps, refrigerant systems, and health and safety.
In this piecemeal way, Liu created the job of the electrification contractor from the ground up. By the time ConEd was preparing to launch the Electric Advantage program, Liu had the only contracting business in the area that was essentially purpose-built to take it on.
On a recent Thursday morning in Croton, New York, a suburb of New York City, the show was behind schedule. Liu and I pulled up to a two-family house at the top of a hill to oversee what was supposed to be the “grand finale” day of an Electric Advantage-funded retrofit.
In this case, workers had already put in a new electrical panel, minisplit heat pumps, and a heat pump clothes dryer. Now, electricians would rewire the kitchens with 220-volt outlets for new induction stoves, while a father and son duo of plumbers would put heat pump water heaters in the basement, and a weatherization team would spray insulation around the perimeter of the basement roof and attic floor.
While still sitting in the driveway, Liu called PC Richard, the appliance store, to check on the stove delivery, but the sales rep on the other end was confused — she didn’t have anything scheduled. Liu kept her cool and worked it out, setting a new delivery date for the following day. She turned to me, with sympathy, to let me know this meant I wouldn’t get the denouement she had promised — the cutting and capping of the gas line. She made sure the plumbers could come back on Friday to finish the job.
The planning for this project began many months before, with a knock on the door from a man named Mark Brescia, who manages Electric Advantage for ConEd. Brescia does all the initial outreach, making house calls, phone calls, and sending emails, trying to sell homeowners on the idea. Part of the challenge is that in most cases, unless 100% of the buildings served by a given gas main agree to participate, the company can’t move forward because it won’t be able to retire the pipe. The majority of successful Electric Advantage projects to date have replaced gas mains that were serving a single building.
The company doesn’t sell the program to customers by talking about climate change or emissions. Instead, Brescia explains that the money that would have been spent digging up a gas pipeline could instead be used to buy them brand new appliances. “Customers are excited about the opportunity to make their everyday living more comfortable,” Brescia told me when I asked what the biggest selling point tended to be. They also “no longer worry about having to spend money to replace equipment when it fails.” If the building owner is interested, the next step is for them to schedule a visit from Liu, who does a site evaluation and budgets the job.
Survey data collected by ConEd shows that the most common reason customers decline to participate is a preference for gas cooking. The second is fear of higher electric bills. ConEd makes no guarantees to customers that their overall bills will go down if they participate, but by pairing the new appliances with air sealing and insulation, it tries to ensure the homes will run as efficiently as possible. Liu does her best to provide customer education, walking them through how to operate their heat pumps correctly — running the devices consistently, rather than turning them up and down or on and off, which uses more energy. Customers can also opt in to a special ConEd electricity rate that can save heat pump customers money if they run their systems this way.
“Many customers are still learning about the superior performance and convenience these technologies offer,” Brescia said. But there are also other bottlenecks to expanding the Electric Advantage program. Under New York law, if customers want to keep their gas service, ConEd must oblige them. So unless and until legislators change this “duty to serve,” the program will be hamstrung by customers who turn it down.
The program also currently only targets replacement of leak-prone “radial” mains — pipes that connect to the wider gas distribution system on just one end — as these can be removed without affecting system safety or reliability. The path to expanding it beyond these is uncertain because, as currently structured, that would start to put an untenable burden on customers.
Whether the money goes to a new gas main or a home electrification project, it comes from ConEd’s gas ratepayers through their bills. Whenever ConEd identifies a new batch of mains that meet the program’s specifications, it must submit a benefit-cost analysis to state regulators for approval to pursue the projects before it can begin reaching out to homeowners. In the most recent batch submitted to regulators, for example, replacing the 26 mains identified would have cost nearly $8 million, while the estimated cost of electrifying the buildings served was around $6 million, plus another $1 million in electric system upgrades. The latter is obviously a better deal for customers, even if, as an incentive, ConEd earns back part of the difference as a bonus — also paid for by customers.
Since gas customers pay for the program, it doesn’t totally solve the problem of a shrinking number of customers covering these major investments, even if they are spending less than they otherwise would. And once the most cost-effective projects get taken care of, the expense of electrification will be harder to justify.
Growing the program also depends on having more contractors like Liu to implement it, Brescia told me. Liu has a proven track record of coordinating multiple trades, upholding standards, and educating customers. “Delivering an exceptional customer experience is essential to building trust and driving widespread adoption of electric appliances,” he said.
Throughout the day that I spent with her, Liu vacillated over the question of whether she should or even could expand her business. Working alone enables her to keep costs down, she told me. “I cannot afford to hire additional people,” she said, “because every extra bit of cash flow I end up generating as a profit gets fed to more jobs” — that is, more electrification projects. She also doesn’t want to take on a bunch of high interest debt in order to front more capital to take on more projects.
At other points, she talked about scaling as both important and inevitable. She believes in whole-home electrification — both as a climate solution and as a way to change people’s lives for the better — and wants to see other entrepreneurs like her, especially women, be able to pursue this as a career. She already gets more job leads than she’s able to pursue. She’s starting to think about other fundraising options, such as finding private investors.
Liu also recently started working with a Columbia University masters student to develop software that would help manage and automate all of the “mind-numbing, insane amounts of reporting, submissions, and invoicing” she has to do. Although she already does all of the administrative work digitally, the process has only gotten more arduous as the various programs and companies she works with frequently change what and how she has to report back, whether due to shifting policies or just a round of McKinsey-ification. This is part of what prevents her from being able to take on more work, since all the bureaucratic overhead makes it harder for her to fully close a job and get paid.
Although it’s still very early in the process, her hope is that this kind of software solution could also make it easier for others to get into the field.
“I actually really think this is a very suitable career for every eight-year-old little girl who wants a Barbie’s dream house,” she told me. “If every woman can run a $10 million electrification business, it’d be great. I think we’ll get a lot more done.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A new paper from Energy Innovation and GridLab lays out some options for Governor Gavin Newsom — or whoever comes next.
California’s continued progress on climate change may depend on whether the state can find a way to bring down its high electricity rates, which hurt the economics of cleaner technologies like electric vehicles and heat pumps and make climate action more politically difficult.
Ahead of the upcoming governor’s race, the clean energy research firms Energy Innovation and GridLab convened a group of more than 20 local electricity experts to develop a policy roadmap for the state’s next administration to reduce energy costs. They published the findings on Thursday, describing a number of opportunities for policymakers to better manage utility spending and more fairly allocate costs among utilities, residents, and communities.
“There is so much work to be done to correct for and address the underlying forces that have led to consistent rate increases over the last 25 years,” Mike O’Boyle, the senior director for policy and strategy at Energy Innovation, told me. There are also no quick fixes, he added. Instead, the report offers directional solutions rather than specific policy proposals, recognizing that it will take years of sustained leadership to make progress.
By far the most significant force driving California’s high rates, especially over the past decade, is the cost of responding to and preventing catastrophic wildfires. The state Public Advocate’s office recently found that the wildfire-related share of the average customer’s bill is 14% to 19%, or $21 to $41 per month.
Just before the Labor Day weekend, Governor Gavin Newsom faced a showdown with the legislature over his proposal for how to reallocate wildfire liability. For weeks, Newsom had been pushing lawmakers for a package that would reduce the amount of money utilities would be on the hook for after their equipment sparks a wildfire. One of his priorities was to outlaw subjugation, a mechanism by which insurance companies sue utilities to recover the cost of paying out wildfire claims. Newsom was responding to pleas from utilities warning that their credit would be downgraded unless the state reduced their share of the risk. Lower credit ratings would mean increased borrowing costs and, ultimately, higher electricity rates.
The full details of Newsom’s package were never released to the public, but it saw major pushback from insurance companies and victims groups who framed it as a "utility bailout.” Eventually, with just a few days left on the legislative calendar, the governor and legislature put out a compromise bill. It did nothing on subrogation, but it would have blocked hedge funds from buying up and reaping profits from insurance claims, and blocked bonuses for C-suite utility officers when the company sparks a fire.
Despite the supposed compromise, the bill died on the floor of the Assembly. Speaker Robert Rivas said it “does not yet deliver the relief, accountability or meaningful reform that Californians deserve” and vowed to go back to work to “deliver real results.”
Lawmakers may have been convinced by the market’s quick reaction to the bill. The Monday after it was released, California utility PG&E’s stock dropped 20%, while Edison International, which owns Southern California Edison, saw a drop of 23%. Last Wednesday, after the deal had fallen apart, PG&E announced that it would defer $2 billion in capital spending for the next year. In a pre-recorded video, the company’s CEO Patti Poppe discussed how far the company has come since its 2019 bankruptcy, praising its recent track record of no ignitions and innovative investments in grid modernization, but said it was “unable to fund the continued transformation at our current pace. When risks go up, lenders charge more.”
The issue Newsom was trying to address stems from the fact that California assigns full liability to utilities when their equipment sparks a wildfire, regardless of whether the incident was the result of negligence. That’s only one part of the problem, however. The other is that the state leans heavily on utilities to do the majority of its wildfire prevention work, rather than spreading out the responsibility across a broader array of residents and communities. The liability policy also amplifies the second issue, as it creates a perverse incentive for utilities and their regulators to try to reduce the risk of sparking a fire to as close to zero as possible, no matter the cost.
Electricity ratepayers cover both the liability utilities face after a fire as well as the cost of all of that risk reduction — but they spend far more on the latter. Between 2019 and 2024, utility regulators authorized the state’s three private electric companies to recover $40 billion in wildfire-related costs from its ratepayers. Just a third were liability-related costs, such as insurance premiums and payments into a fund utilities can draw on to cover settlements with victims. The rest was mitigation.
The Energy Innovation and GridLab report puts aside thorny questions about wildfire liability and focuses on addressing this mitigation side of the issue with three overarching recommendations.
First, California needs a better way to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different types of wildfire mitigation. Part of the issue is that when a utility says it needs to spend $200 million on tree trimming in Lake Tahoe, for example, regulators don’t have the tools to assess whether there’s a more cost effective alternative. Maybe $100 million on tree trimming with another $20 million for other kinds of community hardening would provide the same amount of risk reduction.
Second, the state could better leverage public finance, for example by expanding the use of ratepayer-backed bonds to pay for wildfire mitigation. California started down this path in a big utility package passed last year, authorizing utilities to borrow $6 billion from ratepayers through 2035 — a lower-cost form of finance than investor equity. Utilities are spending $9 billion per year on wildfires, however, so that measure was a drop in the bucket.
Third, the state should more equitably spread the responsibility of mitigating wildfire risks, re-allocating some costs from ratepayers to taxpayers and at-risk communities. Utilities spend $9 billion a year on wildfire-related costs, but the state’s Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s most recent mitigation budget was just $440 million. “The reality is that the status quo of ratepayers paying for all this is untenable,” O’Boyle said. Utility-led mitigation focuses on preventing ignitions, but it doesn’t address factors unrelated to electric infrastructure that can worsen a blaze, such as overgrown forests, development near wildlands, and brush surrounding homes.
While the fracas around Newsom’s compromise package focused on the liability aspects, the bill would have also taken small steps toward some of these recommendations. It required CalFIRE to develop standards for wildfire risk reporting data and incorporate them into community risk reduction metrics — a move toward better evaluations of the most cost-effective measures.
It also would have required the state’s Natural Resources Agency to create a comprehensive statewide community wildfire preparedness strategy, provide support for counties to develop protection plans that align with the strategy, and base state support on communities’ annual progress updates.
We’ll see if any of that gets salvaged. While the legislative session is officially over, Newsom could still call a special session to get a wildfire bill done this year.
This is what we’re tracking in energy and climate over the next four months — and beyond.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
We’re in the last third of 2026. In yesterday’s newsletter, I looked at the biggest planned upcoming events in climate and energy policy that we’re tracking at Heatmap for the rest of this year.
Today, I want to look at some of the biggest questions that I’m pondering for the rest of the year.
What will the AI backlash mean for data centers and energy demand?
In just the past 24 hours, existential concerns about artificial intelligence has gone mainstream. Even though AI engineers have warned that the technology could trigger some kind of mass fatality event — or even human extinction — for years, the resignation of Sam Coxon from Anthropic seems to have broken through into a new tier of public awareness. “We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade,” Evan Hubinger, an Anthropic employee, posted on X after Coxon’s resignation broke.
It’s unscientific, but I’ve seen more celebrity Instagram posts, vertical videos, and concerned messages from friends about AI doom in the past day than I have in weeks. Senator Bernie Sanders is now holding a bipartisan meeting next week to discuss the “extraordinary dangers” posed by AI, according to Axios.
We already know that the public detests AI data centers. But so far the data center story has been somewhat severable from the AI story — voters, politicians, and journalists could talk about the AI infrastructure buildout separately from the tales of, say, AI allegedly solving century-old math problems. Will that remain the case? Or will the two stories merge? If that happens, will politicians and AI safety experts start to encourage (or even empower) the data center backlash because it might slow down AI’s overall development? What will that mean for the politics of infrastructure, electrification, and load growth — and will it cut greenhouse gas emissions?
What will happen in Iran, how high can oil go, and what will it mean for the energy system?
President Donald Trump has never been “looking for long term” in Iran, yet his war continues to drag on without an obvious or easy resolution. It has dragged energy prices up with it.
The global crude benchmark has now edged above $100. Gasoline costs more than $4.20 a gallon on average in the United States (and far more in Europe), and diesel is even more expensive. According to an ongoing estimate from Brown University researchers, the war has now cost Americans more than $100 billion due to energy inflation since it began. Hostilities have seemed to intensify in the past few days; Iran fired missiles at U.S. Navy ships and the United States responded by destroying oil tankers.
This has been generally bad for European economies, which are to some degree still recovering from the triple shock of Covid, energy inflation from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and China’s ongoing export boom. At the same time, the Iran war has broadly vindicated China’s energy strategy, which has used electrified technology, strategic stockpiling, and a coal, solar, and battery-dependent power grid to reduce economic dependence on seaborne liquid fuels. (China’s greenhouse gas emissions actually fell in the second quarter because of a drop in the country’s oil consumption.)
The most urgent question here, of course, is whether President Trump will find a way to end the war that he began earlier this year — and how expensive oil and liquified natural gas will get in the interim.
But an end to the war will trigger another set of questions about what this energy shock will mean for energy, climate, and industrial policy going forward. Shocks like these tend to dominate national strategy for years or decades after they happen; Thailand’s government announced last month that it’s backing off LNG imports in favor of renewables. Will we start to see a wider set of countries do the same? Will more countries build strategic oil stockpiles, driving up oil demand in the short term? And will more middle- and low-income countries embrace Chinese-made electric cars in the name of boosting energy security and cutting their oil dependence?
Will the U.S. get bipartisan permitting reform?
The most important political question this year — if you are a normal person — is whether Democrats will take over the House of Representatives and even the Senate in the upcoming midterm election. But we aren’t normal people here at Heatmap. And the midterm elections will, for us, only commence the year’s most interesting political moment.
Right now, lawmakers from both parties say they are trying to reach a deal on bipartisan permitting reform. Such a bill would make it easier to build transmission lines, renewable energy, and some fossil fuel infrastructure, as well as presumably restraining the president’s extralegal war on solar and wind. It could even make it easier for the government to build public infrastructure of all sorts.
We haven’t seen the text of such a deal yet — although my Shift Key interview with Daniel Palken, a permitting expert at Arnold Ventures, offers a lot of clues to its potential content. So it remains an open question whether lawmakers can reach a deal in November and shepherd it through a lame-duck Congress before the end of the year.
If they can, it could enable a future president to conduct a faster and more aggressive clean energy or infrastructure buildout than was previously imaginable. If they can’t, then it will be hard to imagine when such a deal might ever come together, as it has failed to congeal under almost every partisan combination of a president and Congress.
Will 2026 be the hottest year ever?
Back in the spring, climate scientists assigned low odds to the probability that 2026 would become the hottest year ever measured. Since then, though, a monstrous El Niño has clawed out of the Pacific Ocean, nudging up global temperatures and contributing to America’s record-breaking summer.
2026 now has a greater than 33% chance of eclipsing 2024’s hottest-year-on-record title, according to a late July estimate from Carbon Brief; the odds have probably risen further since then. Either way, 2026 will probably come in about 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer than the pre-industrial average — and 2027 is very likely to be even hotter.
Are we entering a post-Trump, post-2010s energy and climate era — and what will it look like?
President Donald Trump is about as unpopular as he has ever been, and on a range of issues, he seems to be losing touch with the American public. Simply by dint of being the country’s most prominent political figure for most of the past 10 years, he has become an establishment politician. He now champions AI, data centers, and the Iran War, for instance, while Americans seem skeptical of all three (at best).
In the next several months, these trends are all likely to intensify: Trump is likely to lose control of Congress — at least according to the polls and the betting markets — and a new presidential election will begin, one in which he will probably not be running.
Which isn’t to say that Trump will lose his grip on the Republican Party or its voters — nor that his actions in the coming years will be lawful, or even Constitutional. But nevertheless if you squint, you can begin to imagine what a post-Trump political era might look like, and it is quite different from the epoch that we have just lived through. It is an era where voters will likely be more worried about inflation and the cost of living than unemployment and economic growth. It is an era where Democrats will be looking to play up economic populism and where the federal deficit might matter again. It is an era where Millennials will be in their prime earning years, where politicians will fear a backlash to industrial policy and infrastructure buildout, and where America’s role in the world will remain unsettled.
It is, in short, not at all like the era that gave us the Green New Deal or the other energy and climate policy of the early 2020s; even if a recession hits and employment becomes a major concern once again, then the resulting political environment might look more like 1992 (or even 1937) than 2008. We are, in short, entering a new era — one we’re excited to watch, develop, and cover here at Heatmap.
Current conditions: Hurricane Lowell came within 40 miles of making landfall over Hawaii, knocking out power in much of Kaua’i • The Atlantic hurricane season, which hit its climatological peak this week, is now trending toward a record low amount of storm activity • After months of heat, an unusual cold front is arriving in Central Europe, threatening flooding from the temperature whiplash.

Back in 1986, the writer Marc Reisner painted a bleak picture of the future of the reservoirs that helped fulfill America’s Manifest Destiny, spread Anglo civilization westward, and quench the thirst of farms, people, and their lawns. His classic Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water predicted that the hydrological system would be thrown into disarray as sediment filled in reservoirs, leaving croplands parched and water scarce. A startling new Bloomberg analysis of scant federal reservoir data suggests that future is fast approaching. Compiling 140 sediment surveys from the Bureau of Reclamation of 105 unique dams, the newswire found that nearly one in three are more than 10% full of sediment. That’s only an average. Montana’s Fresno Reservoir is roughly 29% full of sediment, “displacing enough water to last nearly one-third of the state’s residents for a year.” Wyoming’s Buffalo Bill Dam, meanwhile, “has lost most of its hydroelectric generating capacity due to sediment.” An engineer who oversaw sediment work at the Bureau of Reclamation estimated that the U.S. has already lost up to 44% of its per capita water storage since a peak in the 1970s. “People back in the ’60s and ’70s figured, ‘Well, the next generation can figure that out,’” Randle told the publication. “But now, fast-forward to the present, there aren’t any great solutions.”
The finding comes just months after the Western U.S. suffered what my colleague Jeva Lange called “a once-in-a-4,433-year heat wave” with consequences that “will linger well past the high temperatures.”
In 2020, when activists sought to block individual gas or oil pipelines as a way to spur decarbonization, then-New York Governor Andrew Cuomo bowed to months of protests by blocking the state’s approval of water permits for a major gas pipeline under New York Bay. The project, known as the Northeast Supply Enhancement pipeline, would have carried gas from the fracking fields of Pennsylvania to the nation’s most densely populated and increasingly energy-starved region. In the meantime, demand for gas has soared, particularly as New York and Massachusetts shut down major nuclear stations and the offshore wind buildout began stalling even before President Donald Trump launched what my colleagues have repeatedly described as a “war” on turbines. When Trump returned to office, now-New York Governor Kathy Hochul compromised with the new administration by agreeing to work together to move forward with the mothballed pipeline plans. Last November, New Jersey followed suit by approving the water permits for the project on the same day New York did. Williams broke ground in April.
But bipartisan consensus is no guarantee against this nation’s process rules for environmental permitting. On Tuesday, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s water certifications. Prior to the decision last year, New Jersey’s state agency held only one public hearing, prompting a lawsuit from a coalition of green groups. NJ Sierra Club, one of the leading litigants, hailed Tuesday’s ruling as “a massive victory over the fossil fuel industry.” The decision “tells us what we already knew, the DEP couldn’t prove that NESE will not harm our water quality and waterways,” Anjuli Ramos-Busot, NJ Sierra Club’s director, said in a statement. When I emailed Williams to ask about the ruling last night, spokesperson Cherice Corley told me the company was “reviewing the court’s decision.”
It’s a big week for carbon capture and sequestration in Europe. On Monday, the continent’s largest CCS facility officially opened at the fertilizer company Yara International’s Sluiskil plant in the Netherlands. At full capacity, the facility will capture and liquify up to 800,000 tons of carbon dioxide annual from an ammonia production plant. Yara said the facility “proves that large-scale industrial decarbonization is possible today.” The European Union’s climate commissioner, Wopke Hoekstra, said “this is exactly the kind of project Europe needs to combine climate ambition with a strong and resilient industrial base.”
That same day, the British startup Cool Planet Technologies christened its 10,000-ton-per-year CCS plant at building material maker Holcim’s cement plant in Lower Saxony, Germany. “We are relying on leading European technology and drawing on the engineering expertise of our technology partners,” Holcim Germany CEO Stephan Hinrichs told the Carbon Herald. “Together in Lower Saxony, we are proving that climate protection and industrial competitiveness can go hand in hand.” Someone may want to tell the incoming far-right rulers of neighboring Saxony-Anhalt.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
If bipartisan consensus on gas infrastructure bows to environmental lawfare in blue states, bipartisan consensus on transmission lines seems equally vulnerable to not-in-my-backyard-ism in states of any color. But there’s at least some bipartisan consensus on doing something about that. On Tuesday, Representatives Scott Peters, a California Democrat, and Gabe Evans, a Colorado Republican, introduced the Certainty in Litigation for Electric Asset Reliability, or CLEAR Act, to “resolve ambiguity in current law so that Department of Energy-coordinated transmission projects follow clear standards.”
“Our grid is too old and too slow to meet our skyrocketing energy demand,” Peters said in a press release. “We can’t wait years for badly needed infrastructure to be built. The CLEAR Act would accelerate the review process for large energy infrastructure projects and establish clear rules for stalled transmission projects.” While permitting reform may bring down the cost of transmission lines, and bring more renewables and other new generation onto the grid, it won’t do much to deal with oil prices, now soaring again as the Iran War drags on. Brent crude — the main European and global metric for oil prices — surpassed $100 per barrel again yesterday. West Texas Intermediate, the benchmark for the U.S. supply, hovered just below $96.
The Department of the Interior is planning to “significantly reorganize” the National Park Service and other bureaus in the agency as part of what The Washington Sun called “the second major shake-up of the nation’s public lands infrastructure” since Trump’s return to office. While the leaked document the publication obtained suggested the agency would avoid layoffs “in the short term,” talking points told officials to “avoid categorical promises; explain notification process” if asked about job cuts.
“We want to reorganize. We want to make things more efficient. You know what? We can do all those things, but how is that actually helping us be a leader and setting an example of how we protect our nation’s natural and cultural resources?” Russell Galipeau, who served as superintendent of Channel Islands National Park for 15 years, told the publication.
The summer of 2023 marked Quebec’s worst wildfire season on record, burning some 4.5 million hectares of boreal forests and darkening the skies of cities such as New York with toxic smoke. A new study by Concordia University researchers is among the first to quantify how the smoke affected wildlife. The research looked at lepidoptera — moths and butterflies — and concluded that the smoke exposure during the larval stage caused significantly higher rates of wing deformities in spruce budworm and forest tent caterpillar moths. “These insects are important because they are considered pests, meaning they have outbreak seasons, where the population density becomes very high,” Rosa Alicia Castillo Salazar, the study’s co-author, said in a statement. “We do not yet know how forest fires and climate change will affect them in the long term. However, there was no significant change in their population the following year.”