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:
Secretary of Energy Chris Wright canceled 24 decarbonization grants worth $3.7 billion.

Secretary of Energy Chris Wright is clawing back 24 grants for projects to cut emissions from heavy industry after signaling earlier this month that he was reviewing the Biden administration’s award decisions. The total lost funding comes to just over $3.7 billion, and would have helped a wide range of companies, including those in food and beverage production, steelmaking, cement, and chemicals deploy cutting edge clean energy solutions.
The agency, however, decided that the projects “failed to advance the energy needs of the American people, were not economically viable and would not generate a positive return on investment of taxpayer dollars,” according to the announcement.
Most of the cancelled projects were part of the Industrial Demonstration Program, which was created by the Inflation Reduction Act and designed to help commercialize decarbonization solutions that were past the early experimental stage, but were also not quite ready for mass deployment.
Proponents of the program found the DOE’s decision outrageous. “They’re not building an economy — they’re dismantling it and giving away the future of manufacturing,” Evan Gillespie, a partner at the advocacy group Industrious Labs, said in a statement. Canceling these projects is “handing the competitive advantage to Europe, China, Canada, and other nations that are making significant investments in clean manufacturing while leaving the U.S behind,” he added.
The Kraft Heinz Food Company, for example, was supposed to get $172 million to swap out fossil fuel-fired boilers and other heating equipment for electric heat pumps and solar thermal systems at 10 of its factories. “This project seeks to help a major American brand achieve deep decarbonization and serve as an example for other U.S. food and beverage companies to reduce emissions from process heat while reducing energy costs,” the original award from the DOE said. Diageo, the liquor conglomerate, and Kohler, the kitchen and bathroom appliance brand, were also among the awardees.
Cement production is one of the biggest sources of industrial emissions in the world, and also among the most difficult to decarbonize due to an integral chemical reaction that releases carbon into the atmosphere regardless of whether the plant burns fossil fuels. Experts aren’t sure yet what the best solution will be, and the DOE program awarded a variety of projects to test different pathways.
Heidelberg Materials, one of the largest cement companies in the world, was going to get $500 million to demonstrate the first cement plant to capture and sequester its carbon emissions in the U.S. A company called Sublime Systems that’s using an alternative chemistry and electric currents to make cement was supposed to receive $87 million to build its first commercial-scale factory in Holyoke, Massachusetts. Just last week, Sublime signed a deal to supply 623,000 metric tons of zero-carbon cement to Microsoft, in part to support the tech giant’s data center buildout. Another company called Brimstone was awarded $189 million to produce low-carbon cement alongside alumina, the base material used to make aluminum.
“Given our project's strong alignment with President Trump's priority to increase U.S. production of critical minerals, we believe this was a misunderstanding,” a spokesperson for Brimstone told me. “Brimstone's Rock Refinery represents the only economically viable way to produce the critical mineral alumina in the U.S. from U.S.-mined rocks. As the first U.S.-based alumina plant in a generation, our project — which would also make Portland cement — would clear a 'mine-to-metal' path for U.S. aluminum production, fortifying the U.S. critical mineral supply chain and creating thousands of jobs.”
Sublime also shared a statement asserting that its technology would enable the Trump administration’s priorities. “We continue our bipartisan appeal to leaders who recognize that investing in American-invented breakthrough industrial technologies can address multiple policy priorities in tandem to the benefit of Americans from all walks of life,” Sublime said. The company added that it has “prepared for the possibility of this disappointing outcome” and is “evaluating various scenarios that leave our scale-up unimpeded.”
Oil and gas companies were also hit. A $332 million grant to help Exxon switch to low-carbon hydrogen at one of its refineries was canceled, as were $540 million in grants for the energy company Calpine to install carbon capture on its natural gas plants.
“It is hugely disappointing to see these projects canceled — projects that had already progressed through a rigorous, months-long review process by technical experts at DOE,” Jessie Stolark, the executive director of the Carbon Capture Coalition, said in a statement. While Wright said the terminations would generate taxpayer savings, Stolark argued they were depriving Americans of economic benefits. “Every dollar invested by the American taxpayer can lead to up to $4 in economic output through additional supply and material orders, job creation, and broader economic benefits to regional economies,” she wrote, citing a Department of Energy-authored analysis.
None of the awardees responded to my inquiry as to whether they would consider pursuing legal challenges. According to the law under which the program was created, the funding was to be awarded “on a competitive basis,” based on the expected greenhouse gas emission reductions from the project and its potential to provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. Additional criteria in the agency’s application process said it would evaluate projects based on the “degree to which the applicant assesses and demonstrates potential market competitiveness and sustainability for the proposed project, technology, and manufactured product(s) through market analysis and offtake agreements.”
Notably absent from the list of canceled projects is a grant for the steelmaking company Cleveland Cliffs. Earlier this month, I reported that the company was renegotiating its award under the Industrial Demonstration Program. On an earnings call, its CEO said it was abandoning plans to use clean energy and instead looking to use the funds to extend the life of its fossil fuel-fired blast furnace.
If gone unchallenged, the funding is not likely to be re-awarded to other projects. The budget bill that is currently working its way through Congress would rescind any money from the Industrial Demonstrations Program that isn’t under contract.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Current conditions: Typhoon Kalmaegi is slamming into Vietnam after leaving more than 110 dead in the Philippines • Temperatures are plunging 15 degrees Fahrenheit on average across the eastern half of the United States, bringing the season’s first snowfall in many places • A barrage of autumn storms are set to deluge parts of the Pacific Northwest with up to 8 inches of rain.
Ford may be veering away from the zero-emissions model of the pickup that spent nearly a half-century as America’s most popular passenger vehicle. Executives at the Detroit giant “are in active discussions about scrapping the electric version of its F-150 pickup,” The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday, declaring the discontinuation “America’s first major EV casualty.” When Ford first unveiled the truck in 2022, the company compared the Lightning to its Model T. But with $13 billion in losses since 2023, and overall electric vehicles sales falling since Congress ended the federal credit in September, the sleek Space Age-looking pickup has looked less likely to take off. “The demand is just not there” for F-150 Lightning and other full-size trucks, Adam Kraushaar, owner of Lester Glenn Auto Group in New Jersey, told the newspaper. “We don’t order a lot of them because we don’t sell them.”
The mood is rosier over at the nation’s electric vehicle champion. Despite slipping market share and plunging profits, Tesla shareholders overwhelmingly approved a new pay package for chief executive Elon Musk worth upward of $1 trillion over 10 years if the company manages to hit certain benchmarks, such as selling 1 million humanoid robots.
The Department of the Interior has halted plans to “imminently” pink slip as many as 2,000 agency staffers for the duration of the federal government shutdown, court documents E&E News published Thursday revealed. In a statement to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the agency’s chief human resources official said Interior “has no plans” for imminent layoffs.
White House budget chief Russ Vought has sought to use the shutdown as a tool to slash funding or personnel in vast swaths of the federal bureaucracy, as Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote. But unions sued and, last month, a federal judge temporarily blocked the cuts from beginning.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
Take a look at this Google Trends graph charting out the popularity of “critical minerals.” The term historically applied to the metals such as lithium, rare earths, and cobalt that were needed for modern energy and weapons manufacturing shot up in usage after 2023.

Now, the Trump administration wants to broaden its definition to include a commodity that, unlike those other rocks, plays a necessarily vanishing role in the transition to cleaner energy. The U.S. Geological Survey added metallurgical coal along with potash, rhenium, silicon, and lead to the federal government’s list of critical minerals, alongside more predictable additions such as uranium, copper, and silver. The list, as Bloomberg noted, “dictates what commodities are included” in trade probes the Trump administration is carrying out. The administration has taken an aggressive approach toward securing new sources of minerals China controls, including signing a landmark deal with Australia last month.
The Michigan Public Service Commission greenlit new levies on data centers to avoid saddling ratepayers with the cost of supplying energy-thirsty server farms with enough electricity. The ruling came in response to a petition from the utility Consumers Energy requesting permission to implement tariffs on large-load customers such as the server farms providing the computing for artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency mining. Environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club, argued on behalf of stronger protections for consumers against paying for tech giants’ computing centers. It’s part of what Heatmap’s Jael Holzman described as “the techlash,” blowback to tech infrastructure that’s so widespread at the moment, polling Heatmap’s Pro service conducted found more than half the country considered data centers unwelcome near their homes.
Redwood Materials has started up its $3.5 billion South Carolina factory capable of recycling 20,000 metric tons of critical minerals (not coal, though) from old electric vehicle batteries, Bloomberg reported. The move comes as the company, founded by Tesla cofounder JB Straubel, opened a recycling plant in Sparks, Nevada, which collects 60,000 tons of minerals annually, including rare metals such as cobalt.
Three new species of an unusual group of African toads skip the tadpole phase and give birth to live, squirming babies. “It’s common knowledge that frogs grow from tadpoles — it’s one of the classic metamorphosis paradigms in biology. But the nearly 8,000 frog species actually have a wide variety of reproductive modes, many of which don’t closely resemble that famous story,” said Mark D. Scherz, an associate professor and co-author of the study from Natural History Museum Denmark, a coauthor on the study.
Delegates will attempt to whittle down and codify a list of “indicators” that started with more than 10,000 different options.
The 30th annual United Nations climate conference, which kicks off in Brazil next week, arrives on the heels of one of the strongest hurricanes ever to make landfall in the Atlantic. After Hurricane Melissa, which brought destructive wind and rain to the shores of Jamaica and was made stronger and more intense by climate change, it’s fitting that one of the most concrete outcomes expected from COP30, as the conference is known, has to do with climate adaptation.
By the end of the two-week session, leaders from around the globe may finally decide on how to measure how much progress their countries and the world at large are making to adapt to the warming we already know is coming.
Exactly 10 years ago, the landmark Paris Agreement instructed parties to establish a “global goal on adaptation.” In the years following, however, developed countries pushed to keep the focus of the annual gathering on reducing emissions and preventing the worst climate outcomes. Thus, to date, there is still no global goal on adaptation.
While part of the holdup has been an age-old debate over whether to prioritize mitigation or adaptation, another part has been the complex nature of the task. Setting a mitigation goal is straightforward — the world can aim to limit warming to a certain temperature, or to reduce emissions by a certain amount by a certain date. Adaptation can’t be distilled into a single global metric.
Countries finally made some strides at COP28, when — in the typically glacial, bureaucratic United Nations fashion — they agreed to a “framework” for action on adaptation. The framework established vague, qualitative goals across the categories of water, food, health, ecosystems, infrastructure, poverty eradication, and cultural heritage. The water goal, for example, calls for “significantly reducing climate-induced water scarcity and enhancing climate resilience to water-related hazards towards a climate-resilient water supply, climate-resilient sanitation and access to safe and affordable potable water for all.”
The framework also set four higher-level targets relating to the process of adapting to climate change. It asked that by 2030, countries conduct a risk assessment, create a national adaptation plan, make progress in implementing the plan, and establish a system for monitoring and learning from the outcomes.
For the past two years, delegates have been working to compile a list of potential metrics by which to set more specific adaptation targets and measure progress. For example, countries could measure the water goal described above by the proportion of bodies of water with good ambient water quality, or by the proportion of water and sanitation systems that are ready to withstand climate-related hazards. At COP29 in Baku, countries agreed to adopt a final list of metrics, called “indicators,” this year in Brazil. Experts from member countries initially proposed nearly 10,000 indicators, but have since narrowed down the proposal to 100. Whether negotiators will try to set more specific targets within each indicator is an open question.
Looming over the final talks will be a question that has been at the heart of every annual climate conference since the start — the question of finance.
Funding for adaptation has increased over the years, but still lags far behind funding for mitigation. At COP26 in Glasgow, countries tried to change that by agreeing to double climate finance for adaptation in developing countries by 2025. While it’s still too early to say what the actual numbers are for this year, it is safe to say that this has not been achieved. A recent UN report found that from 2022 to 2023, financial flows from developed to developing countries for adaptation declined from $28 billion to $26 billion.
While countries have since agreed to increase overall climate finance to $300 billion per year by 2035, the UN estimates that the cost of adaptation alone in developing countries will be anywhere from $310 billion to $365 billion per year by 2035.
Developing countries have pushed to establish discrete indicators and targets for finance during past negotiations over the global goal on adaptation, but developed countries have successfully punted the question. We’ll see if they can continue to dodge it.
Activists on both the left and the right are pushing back against AI development.
The techlash over data center development is becoming a potent political force that could shape elections for generations.
At a national level, political leaders remain dedicated to the global race to dominate artificial intelligence. But cracks are beginning to show when it comes to support for the infrastructure necessary to get there. Nearly every week now across the U.S., from arid Tucson, Arizona, to the suburban sprawl of the D.C. area, Americans are protesting, rejecting, restricting, or banning new data center development.
It’s also popping up in our elections. On Tuesday in Virginia, voters in the No. 1 state for data center development ousted their GOP political leadership, sending to the governor’s mansion a Democrat who promised to make the growing sector pay more for its electricity. In the run-up to Election Day, polling showed voters were hyperfocused on the risk that data centers could negatively affect their lives. Some candidates in local races campaigned almost entirely on the issue, while others pledged to new bans.
“There’s a lot of other things going on too, [but] data centers are much more important than candidates want to admit,” said Chris Miller, president of Piedmont Environmental Council, a conservation advocacy group in Virginia that tracks and fights data center development. “An industry that is used to moving fast and breaking things is moving up against a physical world they’ve never dealt with before.”
Meanwhile, in Georgia, two Democrats won seats on the Public Service Commission on campaigns that wound up focused on data centers and rising energy bills.
We here at Heatmap have gone to great lengths to better understand why this opposition is so widespread. In August, our data intelligence service Heatmap Pro conducted polling to figure out how Americans feel about the billions of dollars being poured into data centers for cloud computing and AI development. We found that the dislike is incredibly strong — less than half of Americans are willing to support a data center near them. The hostility crosses party lines, with Republicans nearly as likely to express disdain towards these projects as Democrats. The frustrations with these facilities are also poised to increase over generations, as data centers are most underwater with the younger cohorts, aged 18 to 49, who may be more familiar with AI.
The polling also showed that people are easily convinced to oppose data center development in their neighborhoods. Rhetoric in favor of data centers — how they contribute to tax revenue, create jobs, help the U.S. compete with China — might win some hearts and minds, but rhetoric decrying data centers consistently polled stronger than any of the supportive arguments we tested. This registered across party lines. And making matters worse for the tech sector, individuals who previously opposed renewable energy projects were more likely to be anti-data centers.
What you get in the end is a populist conflict appealing to younger people that bridges the ends of the political spectrum, connecting the left and right — and that should make developers very worried.
On one end of the spectrum, left-aligned activists and local leaders are raging against the energy and water system strain that’ll come from the data center boom. You have folks like Blake Coe, an activist fighting data center projects in San Marcos, Texas. Coe told me he began opposing data centers after being politically awakened by a totally different issue: the Israeli government’s offensive in Gaza and alleged genocide of Palestinians there. But as he told me, he didn’t have “the clout, the money, the whatever to work on fixing a genocide.” After learning about the project in San Marcos, he concluded that the community there was something he “can fight for.”
“There’s been this air of inevitability around data centers and AI and all this new tech stuff coming out — how it’s going to happen, so either get out of the way or get run over,” he said. “And our job is to try and remind people in power of their humanity, at the end of the day.”
At the same time, activists fighting renewable energy projects from the right are also lining up to fight data centers, echoing the same frustrations voiced by environmentalists while also tarring the infrastructure as part of a broader social change imposed by Big Tech elites. Take Indiana, one of the most popular data center destinations after Virginia, where the backlash is hitting Indianapolis and rural GOP strongholds alike. Or Missouri, whose Senator Josh Hawley summed up my story here in one post in October.
“These data centers are massive electricity hogs,” Hawley said on X, months after notably leading the push for the Trump administration to defund the Grain Belt Express, a large transmission line proposal that its developer said will help states meet data center electricity demand. “That’s why Silicon Valley wants more transmission lines, solar farms and windmills,” Hawley said. “Somebody has to pay for it all — don’t believe any politician who says it won’t ultimately be you.”
In Oklahoma, 21-year-old GOP organizer Kennedy Laplante Garza started fighting a nearby data center proposal known as Clydesdale after learning over the summer that it would be built a mile from her family’s farm. “I didn’t even know that much about data centers at that point,” she told me. “But I knew my friends across the state were fighting similar things, whether they were solar panels or wind turbines.” Garza wound up organizing a mass petition campaign against the project that ultimately proved unsuccessful — Clydesdale broke ground this week.
Out in Oklahoma there aren’t very many elected Democrats at all, just different shades of Republican. But because of that, Garza told me, party affiliation matters less to voters than whether their elected representatives are listening to them — meaning there could still be consequences for GOP politicians who side with tech companies over any populist revolt against data center development.
“We’d probably see our elections flip, too, if people started running on it,” Garza said, referring to data center opposition.
This brings us back to Virginia, where local races now hinge on data center conflicts. On Tuesday, Democrat John McAuliff — a former White House energy adviser who worked on the Inflation Reduction Act — flipped a seat in the state House of Delegates, taking out an incumbent Republican representing a D.C. ex-urb that went for Donald Trump in last year’s presidential election. McAuliff’s secret sauce? A laser focus on the Virginia data center boom.
“There’s the environmental impact these are having, and of course these are very large water users. But there’s also the cultural impact that they are having,” McAuliff told me in an interview after his victory. “And then of course, there’s the energy bills piece. Because we’re all here in Data Center Alley, we’re bearing the biggest brunt of the increase in transmission lines, the increase in substations.”
Representatives of the nascent data center sector are beginning to acknowledge that they have a PR problem, but they say the issue is one of education — Americans simply do not yet understand the tax and employment benefits that can come with new data centers. In an interview conducted before this most recent Election Day, Data Center Coalition Vice President for State Policy Dan Diorio told me that opposition has “cut across states,” and that protests have become “very much a learning experience.”
“There definitely is a need for better communication,” Diorio said, adding that companies need to be “responsive to things like aesthetics or sound,” while making sure their projects match “the economic development goals of a community.”
Whenever I asked Diorio about how the data center sector should respond to this political quagmire, he would pivot to education. In the industry’s view, people would be more supportive if they simply knew more about companies’ ongoing sustainability efforts.
This left me with the sense that the business sector does not fully understand the scope of the problem it’s facing. Bukola Folashakin, an analyst with Morningstar, told me that’s plainly evident from the sheer magnitude of money — billions — being invested in a new American data center boom without hesitation.
“The data right now, what we’re seeing,” Folashakin said, “is that it’s not clear if investors are concerned from a social perspective. If social issues were such a concern, you wouldn’t see capital going in that direction.”