You’ve reached your free article limit
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:
Talking with SVP of strategy Sarah Jewett about the competition, expansion plans, and how to get more Americans informed and onboard.

Just three years ago, enthusiasm for geothermal energy was lukewarm at best. In a sign of just how marginal it seemed, the firehose of federal money directed at clean energy investments under the Biden administration contained just $84 million for geothermal, specifically for next-generation technologies. By contrast, the next-generation nuclear industry received roughly 40 times more.
Geothermal electricity generation uses heat from the Earth’s molten core to spin turbines that generate carbon-free, 24/7, renewable energy — a pretty attractive offer in today’s age of rampant climate change and soaring demand. Though the technology has been in use since 1913, it’s been stymied since then by the industry’s dependence on finding rare and unique underground reservoirs of hot water.
Then in 2023, a little-known startup backed by Bill Gates, among others, achieved a breakthrough at a pilot project in Nevada, showing that fracking technology could be used to harvest energy from hot, dry rocks, which can be found virtually anywhere in the world.
Fervo Energy’s announcement hit the geothermal industry’s smoldering embers like a splash of gasoline. Investors saw a reliable new source of carbon-free electricity that could tap into existing oil and gas supply chains and workforces and clamored to put their money into the startup, which had raised roughly $1.5 billion from private investors prior to the IPO. As the need for more energy to power data centers for artificial intelligence has grown, that interest has only intensified. Case in point: The company actually upsized its initial public offering on the Nasdaq stock exchange this week.
The money from the IPO, the company said in its initial filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, would go to Fervo’s flagship installation at its debut 500-megawatt Cape Station plant in Utah. When all was said and done after the company’s Tuesday debut, it had netted nearly $1.9 billion — about 50% more than the initially planned $1.3 billion. When trading picked up again on Wednesday, the price soared more than 30%, to over $36 per share.
Late Wednesday afternoon, I spoke to Sarah Jewett, Fervo’s senior vice president of strategy, to discuss the IPO and what’s next for the company. The transcript of our conversation, conducted over Zoom, has been lightly edited for clarity and length.
Congratulations, Fervo has just made quite the stock market debut. Just a few days ago, the company upsized its initial public offering. Then yesterday, when the FRVO ticker officially launched at the Nasdaq, you ended up raising nearly $1.9 billion, beyond the $1.3 billion you initially anticipated. You must be feeling pretty good today.
I’m teeing you up for the pun here, Alexander: Geothermal is so hot right now. The IPO is not a finish line for Fervo. It is a financing milestone that facilitates the build out of more clean, firm, reliable, affordable energy. That is what we are most excited about as we ring the bell in Nasdaq. As we celebrate, we are more excited than anything to get back to work, to put clean megawatts in the grid.
Well then, let’s drill down on that. What were you seeing from investors before the IPO?
Investors, when we went around to sell, sell, sell , they were familiar with the need for energy. They were familiar with what’s happening in tech and AI. They were familiar with the existing solutions for power. They saw us as a new entrant into the scene that is highly capable of bearing the weight of resolving this intense energy crunch. Because of that, as we sold our story over the IPO roadshow, we just saw insane demand and decided it was the right idea to upsize the round.
Beyond the big player in conventional geothermal, Ormat Technologies, there haven’t really been many pure-play options in the retail market for people who want a piece of the action more broadly within geothermal. Where do you draw the line between where investors are buying into Fervo, specifically, and where they are buying into geothermal, generally?
These are really sophisticated investors. It’s overly reductive to say they’re just investing in us because we are a leading contender in an interesting industry to them. These are sophisticated investors who have vetted our technology, our performance, our execution to date, how we think about growth. They really bought into that story, specifically, as being a story that they believe to have real sustainability.
Where do you see the biggest potential competition? Do you think it will come from an incumbent player who makes a pivot into the next-generation market? Or do you think one of these other startups in the mix such as Sage Geosystems or XGS Energy or Quaise Energy could find similar success to Fervo?
We’re driving a rising tide that should lift all boats. I’m not going to publicly place bets on who I think will be the closest follower. But I’m hopeful that we will start to see more successful competitors in the years to come. The market that we’re addressing is massive right now. Because of that, we should see enhanced competition going forward. In some ways, we would be disappointed if that weren’t the case. We have developed a technological solution that is really meaningful. It should encourage others to come try to do the same.
Fervo is really differentiated in the years of execution that we have under our belt. At this point in time, we’ve drilled 40 horizontal geothermal wells. That is a huge differentiating factor at this point in time. The demand is here now. We are well positioned to meet that demand in a way that is rapidly scalable. We are in the right place at the right time.
We like to say internally that, coming to this point, we didn’t have to contend with Fervo. Now competitors will have to contend with Fervo. We obviously believe in the geothermal energy industry, which is why we’ve been so public with publishing our data and talking about what we’re trying to do. But we do really think that we have a substantial lead on the market, just in execution. And then, of course, we have immense amounts of IP and data and learnings to go with it.
Do you plan for the primary business to remain electricity production? Do you foresee going into industrial heat, or district heating in Europe?
We will pursue all of those as business lines in the future. Right now, we are proving ourselves to be uniquely good at delivering power projects. That will be our focus for the near term.
I know you have been focused on the U.S. Where are you looking internationally?
The U.S. is a substantial market at this point in time, so while we do plenty of business development outside of the United States, right now we’re focused on developing at home.
How long will it take for the company and for the industry more broadly to start developing overseas projects in a big way?
We’re close to that already. It’s just a question of what is smart from a business model perspective, and when the timing is right. I’m probably not at liberty to say right now when the timing will be right to really lean into a thriving export side of the business.
If you had to estimate, what would you say is the share of your investors now who are classic energy investors — the types of people who would have been buying into or did buy into shale — versus the share you think are motivated by climate concerns and the clean energy potential of what geothermal is doing? Obviously I realize there’s plenty of overlap. But if you had to discern between those camps, where would you say you’re more indexed?
I would say the majority of energy sector specialists who are investing in this deal are either technology agnostic or are focused on the clean energy side of the business. We do have some marquee shale investors that we will be bringing on as part of the public offering that we’re really, really excited about. So, it’s probably a healthy mix.
Is the shale industry the best analog for how you expect geothermal to scale?
Certainly on the subsurface side it is the closest analog to what we’re doing. We are taking technology that was developed for the shale industry in the subsurface, then we’re deploying it in a similar fashion, which is just over and over and over repeated wells to ensure that we are learning at a really rapid rate and then achieving cost reduction on a learning curve in a single basin. That is a big part of our cost reduction story.
The other thing that we talk a lot about internally is bringing a manufacturing mindset to geothermal energy. It is an industry that has historically been much more akin to a construction industry, building bespoke projects that are tailored for a bespoke commercial need. That is not what we’re trying to do. We’re trying to build a much more scalable business. In order to build a scalable business, you have to establish what is the unit that you are standardizing around and iterating upon. We intend to standardize our design, and iterate and optimize off of a standardized design to allow us to move really fast and to get a lot better, to pull costs out of the business and to be able to scale.
Given how much faster you guys are coming to market, obviously, you have an advantage here over some of the new nuclear technologies being promoted right now. Do you think geothermal is mostly going to eat into the potential market that those could serve? Or do you see nuclear as having different use cases than what geothermal can do?
It’s an overlapping use case, for sure. We don’t talk a lot about eating market share, because the pie is really, really large right now.
How soon before we can anticipate building enhanced geothermal systems on the East Coast and in the Northeast, places where the subsurface heat is not as easily accessible as in the Southwest?
We like to remind people that the demand in the West is massive right now. Probably 18 months ago, we weren’t having as productive conversations with hyperscalers about siting the West as we are today. Today we are having tons and tons of conversations about siting and co-locating alongside geothermal projects in the Western U.S. So the market is really big. We like to mention that just to remind people that expansion is not the only marker of success here.
That said, there is hot rock everywhere, it’s just a question of how deep that hot rock is. We, through our standardized and iterative and repetitive approach in the subsurface, are meaningfully driving cost out of the subsurface, making depth much more of an economic question. If it is more expensive to drill to a certain depth but you already pulled an immense amount of cost per foot out of your drilling, then temperature at depth becomes more accessible even when it’s deeper.
Because drilling is just a portion of the capex of these projects, and a power plant doesn’t care whether it’s located in the West or the East, we basically think that we can move into the Eastern U.S. sooner than we probably had originally thought. It is our goal to do that sometime in the next decade.
In the scant polling I have seen on partisan attitudes on geothermal, most American voters are unaware of it, but among those who are, there seems to be a pretty close match to nuclear in terms of emerging as a rare purple form of energy with closely aligned support between Democrats and Republicans. As you grow, how are you thinking about maintaining that broad appeal and reaching more of those Americans still in the dark?
We benefit from being in an incredibly bipartisan seat right now, and that has been so helpful for our growth and development and is very important to us to maintain going forward. There’s no reason why it shouldn’t be bipartisan. It is a story that is relatable to all. We are highly adjacent to the oil and gas supply chain and oil and gas workforce. We are reliable energy. We are driving towards affordability. We are a clean energy industry with no operating emissions. And really, more than anything, we’re trying to build in a sustainable fashion. We’re trying to deliver projects the right way. It’s something that we have really been able to gain support on both sides of the aisle.
Obviously, that’s been hugely beneficial as we think about extending tax credits. Geothermal energy benefited from increasing tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act, under President Biden. Then President Trump preserved geothermal energies tax credits in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. That was hugely helpful to Fervo’s early development.
As we look to bring the cost of the technology down, we hope to continue educating a large group of stakeholders about this technology going forward, and continuing to bring people along with the story, no matter which side of the aisle they sit on.
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: Churning off Mexico’s west coast, Tropical Storm Vance is strengthening into the 11th major hurricane to hit the eastern Pacific this year • A magnitude 7 earthquake that struck a remote corner of northeast Tibet killed at least 18 people and injured dozens more • A series of offshore storms in the Atlantic are hammering the East Coast with dangerous swells.
President Donald Trump issued a proclamation Thursday declaring that imported wind turbines and their parts “threaten to impair the national security of the United States,” affirming the findings of an investigation the Department of Commerce opened last summer. But the White House stopped short of imposing the tariffs the agency recommended. It’s tempting, of course, to interpret the White House’s decision to punt on tariffs as a concession to win Democratic votes in Congress for the bipartisan infrastructure deal. In keeping with Trump’s famously chaotic negotiating style, the Department of Justice in the past week reopened permitting decisions on two major offshore wind farms while the Pentagon advanced two of the droves of onshore wind projects amid the bureaucratic blockade that has stymied the sector for months.
But a source with direct knowledge of the White House’s thinking told me Trump made his proclamation Thursday to meet a statutory 90-day deadline between the release of the Commerce Department’s findings in its Section 232 investigation. If Trump failed to acknowledge the conclusions of the probe within that three-month notice period, the source said, the president would lose the legal right to act on the findings. Instead, the proclamation represents what the source called “the minimum viable product” to maintain the option to impose tariffs based on the Commerce Department investigation at a later date. Trump followed a similar approach in July, when he declined to impose tariffs on imported aircraft parts despite the threat the administration warned the foreign dependence posed.

Chinese turbine companies already dominate the global wind industry. But as firms such as Goldwind and Mingyang Smart Energy make a push into the European market, where countries are increasingly building out turbines to ease demand for fossil fuels, Beijing is ordering its Chinese companies to stick to Chinese-made parts. Until now, Chinese turbine companies relied on components made in Europe and elsewhere. But an investigation published this week by Poland’s state-backed Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich found that Chinese utilities are racing to replace foreign technology with domestic alternatives in hundreds of operating wind farms. The Warsaw-based think tank, known in English by the acronym OSW or as the Centre for Eastern Studies, analyzed 1,686 wind-sector procurement documents issued by Chinese utilities and their subsidiaries, “and found 293 that call for foreign technology to be replaced with Chinese alternatives, or impose domestic-localization requirements on new installations.” Of these, 251 covered replacements for wind farms that are currently online, and 42 imposed domestic requirements on new installations. That “localization drive,” OSW noted, includes grid equipment, solar panels, batteries, and coal-fired power plants.
The localization drive doesn’t stem from any one government mandate, “It works through a collection of opaque administrative measures, which is why procurement records are the place to uncover it,” OSW wrote. “But those records sit on fragmented platforms and older notices are often deleted, so what follows is the visible portion of something likely larger. Wind is also one area among many.” So, why focus on wind? “Europe has not yet decided how to treat Chinese suppliers in this sector,” the organization argued. “Chinese manufacturers are just beginning to establish a presence in the European market, while Europe is actively debating the conditions that should apply to their access. China’s treatment of foreign suppliers therefore has direct relevance for European debates over the future of the economic and trade relationship.” While Poland is internally divided in a culture war that many Americans would find recognizable, the country has long found unity in its skepticism of Europe’s embrace of Russian gas throughout the opening decades of this century. That proved to be keen foresight, as we all learned when Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine in 2022. So when a country that’s rapidly building out wind power both on and offshore raises concern over Beijing’s grip over a supply chain, it’s worth paying attention.
Last year, the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense established new programs to help startups developing novel nuclear reactors build prototypes and run tests, with several companies splitting atoms for the first time earlier this year. Now the data collected from those trial runs can count on the companies’ formal applications for commercial licenses. On Thursday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission finalized a rule allowing reactor developers who took part in those programs to apply their results, saving potentially millions of dollars by avoiding steps already approved by other federal experts. While the rule amends two of the main licensing pathways for reactors — known as Parts 50 and 53 — to allow information gathered at the Energy Department and the Pentagon to count, companies must “still demonstrate compliance with NRC requirements” and point out the differences between the demonstration project and a proposed commercial plant. Describing it as an “expedited path” for alumni of the other agencies’ programs, NRC Chairman Ho Nieh said “high-quality applications showing how DOE and DOW results apply to NRC requirements will help us review them more efficiently.” The move is part of a shift at the NRC that began before Trump returned to office. Former President Joe Biden signed the ADVANCE Act into law in 2024, explicitly directing the NRC to broaden its mission to include weighing both the risk of building nuclear reactors and not constructing them. Trump accelerated the change with executive orders calling on the NRC to speed up approvals for new reactors. He also tightened his control over the agency by successfully challenging the traditional interpretation of the agency’s independence to mean that presidents can appoint new commissioners but not fire existing ones in the middle of their terms.
Finland, meanwhile, just permitted the world’s first permanent repository for nuclear waste. I visited the facility in western Finland, known as Onkalo, back in 2022. Dug more than 1,300 feet into the bedrock that geologists say hasn’t moved in billions of years, the site has already inspired Sweden and Canada to pursue similar projects. The U.S., on the other hand, is moving away from its long stalled plan to bury nuclear waste in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. Instead, it’s embracing technology to reprocess spent fuel into fresh fuel. That isn’t to say there aren’t some key links between nuclear industries on opposite sides of the Atlantic. A subsidiary of Canada’s Ontario Power Generation, the state-owned utility in the country’s most populous province that’s building the first small modular reactor in North America, just inked a deal to develop that same technology in the United Kingdom, World Nuclear News reported. All good news for Arnold Schwarzenegger. The former California governor and clean energy advocate told the Financial Times on Thursday that he wants more nuclear power to “terminate pollution.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Copper is hitting record highs as the U.S. stockpiles the metal and Chile’s mine output contracts. Aluminum is dealing with the shock of the Iran War shutting down a key smelter. Nickel is facing new export restrictions from Indonesia, the world’s top supplier. The lithium shortage is driving demand for hundreds of billions in new investment. That’s the backdrop of the global mineral market right as the artificial intelligence boom is adding new demand, according to a report the consultancy Wood Mackenzie published Thursday. “Data centers represent an economy-wide power infrastructure challenge, but the bigger story is the collision between accelerating demand and increasingly complex supply delivery,” Lindsay Grant, Wood Mackenzie’s vice president of metals and mining research, said in the report. “High prices should trigger investment, yet project sanctioning remains below expectations. Without faster approvals and investment commitments, the industry cannot deliver the mine supply needed to support future growth.”

Market chaos is driving long- and short-term shortages abound. U.S. refineries are working overtime to meet soaring gas prices. The facilities averaged more than 95% of capacity from May to September, the highest output for those months since 1998, according to an analysis the U.S. Energy Information Administration published Thursday. During a speech in Iowa on Thursday night, Trump said he would direct $150 million in Defense Production Act money toward beefing up refineries further.
The Commerce Department is investing $175 million into the fusion startup Helion. The company — which the Financial Times described as a “speculative” venture backed by Josh Kushner, the brother of Trump’s son-in-law; conservative tech billionaire Peter Thiel; and OpenAI founder Sam Altman — will receive the funding from a pool of money the agency had leftover from the CHIPS Act. In exchange, the U.S. government will take an equivalent non-voting equity stake. The deal marks the Commerce Department’s largest commitment yet to a single company in the sector.
The Israeli government, meanwhile, is looking to ramp up its investments into fusion. On Thursday, Israel’s Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure published what The Jerusalem Post described as a strategic report detailing the opportunity to invest now in a fusion market that could be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming decades. Israel has long eschewed fission energy, as establishing a traditional civilian nuclear program would invite the International Atomic Energy Agency’s scrutiny of the country’s nuclear weapons arsenal, which Jerusalem has long refused to confirm. But the decision by U.S. regulators to treat fusion reactors like research and medical reactors rather than fission power plants could set the stage for laxer global oversight of the technology in the future.
With war tragically raging on between Israel and the Iran-backed Hezbollah militia in Lebanon’s south, financing utility-scale solar and wind projects has proven difficult. The first large solar farm is poised to begin construction before the end of the year. But Lebanon’s small-scale distributed solar is booming. In 2020, Renewables Now reported, the country had less than 100 megawatts of peak solar generating capacity installed. Now that figure has risen to 1.5 gigawatts, the Lebanese Center for Energy Conservation told the trade publication. Even before the war, Lebanon’s grid repeatedly failed, spurring Lebanese to install more rooftop solar panels and batteries to keep the lights on.
Jason Fenske loved his Lucid. Or at least, the idea of it.
Fenske is the proprietor of the influential Engineering Explained channel on YouTube, which digs into the mechanical minutiae of both combustion and electric vehicles. While he regularly test-drives all sorts of cars, Fenske last year bought himself a Lucid Air, the big, beautiful sedan from the California EV startup.
The choice was no surprise. Fenske called the Air “one of the most impressive feats of engineering in the automotive world.” Technologically, it is indeed a car without compromise. Despite delivering 600-plus horsepower and a 0-60 mph time of barely more than 3 seconds, it was also the most efficient car in America, a fact that helped push its driving range above 400 miles per charge. But after a year of Fenske’s Air struggling with seemingly incurable software glitches, the company bought back his car and gave him a long-term loan of the Gravity, its new electric SUV. When that, too, suffered software bugs, he finally moved on to a Ford.
The episode encapsulates what has been a trying time for the automaker. Alongside Tesla and Rivian, Lucid looked to be the third successful EV startup to spring out of California. Tesla, once it overcame the trials of “manufacturing hell” to produce the Model 3 and Model Y, seized control of the American EV market and has yet to let go. Rivian, buoyed through the bad years by investments from the likes of Volkswagen and Amazon, appears poised to reach a sustainable future now that the more affordable R2 is out and thriving. Lucid, though, is stuck in an earlier stage in startup evolution — reportedly burning through cash as it struggles with both the software side of its vehicles and with the state of the U.S. EV market. The mood grew so grim this summer that the company announced a full operational reset to try to restore investor confidence, which included CEO Peter Rawlinson, formerly the man in charge of the Tesla Model S, stepping down.
Things started off much more promising in 2021, when the Air established Lucid as the efficiency nerd’s EV. Today, the rear-wheel-drive version gets the equivalent of 146 miles per gallon — tops in the U.S., and good enough for the Air to get 420 miles of range. The most expensive Air, with a supersized battery to match, delivers an eye-popping figure of 512 miles.
The obvious next step for the American market is to build an SUV, which Lucid has done with the Gravity. We tested it this past weekend in a seven-seat configuration, ferrying five people and three dogs up to Oak Glen, California, the mountain town of apple orchards and pumpkin patches where Angelenos come to cosplay autumn. (Bibi, one of the four-legged passengers who doesn’t care for cars, loved the Lucid). Despite its length, which gives it the proportions of a svelte minivan, the Gravity’s ample power makes it drive like a lighter vehicle. And despite its size, the Lucid’s efficiency obsession gives the car 400-plus miles of range, allowing us to drive a three-hour round trip and still have half the battery capacity left over. I can’t tell you how luxurious that feels compared to everyday life in a standard-range Tesla Model 3.
Inside, the Gravity is truly deluxe and inviting. Where Tesla embraced a fully minimalist interior and Rivian projects more of an REI, gentrified outdoorsy aesthetic, Lucid tilts more toward being the electric black car. The sprawling curved screen across the dashboard and secondary large touchscreen in the central console, combined with the elegant approach to its UI, is just so much more sophisticated than what you’d see in a legacy carmaker’s EV.
The setup offers a refined way to use all the car’s basic functions like climate, music, and navigation, as well as search for charging stations and view all of the car’s energy and efficiency stats. The array of settings and options allows an EV enthusiast to tweak a thousand things about their car. Take charge planning on road trips, a sore spot I often gripe about: In the Lucid, a bevy of options lets you select and deselect whichever charging networks you want, tell the computer whether to prioritize total time versus number of charging stops, and lots more. Then there are the premium extras meant to justify the Gravity’s price, which starts at $80,000 and rises from there. Wellness and relaxation programs can take over the digital displays and lighting, transforming the cabin into a little spa on wheels for as long as you’d like. The car simply feels like Silicon Valley affluence.
Within that user experience lies the problem, though. Lucid’s EVs are unquestionably mechanically excellent. But in the age of the software-defined car, all the software has to be excellent, too. Fenske’s Air wasn’t the only Lucid beset by bugs. This is an unavoidable fact of life in the 21st century — Tesla and Rivian have certainly had their share — but Lucid appears to have struggled more to cleanse them. Even my test unit would erroneously flash a momentary warning while I was rolling down the freeway (close latch before driving!) that disappeared just as quickly. It made no real difference to the driving experience, yet it’s one of those tiny glitches that saps one’s confidence in a car whose software is also responsible for keeping you safe.
Set aside software woes, and the timeline is troublesome for Lucid, too. Tesla established a pattern for EV startups: it built the very expensive Model S and X first, making just enough revenue from those pricey halo cars to survive until it could build the more affordable Model 3 and Y and generate a reliable revenue stream. Rivian took a similar path, selling R1 pickups and SUVs that cost $70,000, and sometimes much more, before introducing the R2 this year. Lucid’s smaller and cheaper EVs would be called the Cosmos and Earth, but we’ve yet to see those vehicles, and they won’t arrive until at least next year. When they do show up, they’ll have to compete with an improving set of luxury EVsfrom the likes of BMW and Mercedes-Benz.
Once those $50,000 Lucids exist, far more drivers will be exposed to all the things that the brand does right. And maybe — as long as there’s enough investment cash to get there — that will establish Lucid as a brand that is here to stay. Until then, the sticker price of these dream machines means that Lucid is competing in a small slice of an already small market, since not even a year of expensive gas has been enough to tip Americans toward EVs for good.
This is Heatmap Daily, a weekday digest written by our executive editor. Subscribe here.
My colleague Emily Pontecorvo has a fascinating story today about Net Power, an energy and power development company whose technology once seemed key to decarbonizing the country’s electricity grid.
When Net Power went public in 2023, it was working on a natural gas-burning power plant that would generate little to no emissions in part by using carbon capture and storage. Its invention seemed to have big implications, and not just for the company’s bottom line: Back then, the Environmental Protection Agency was drafting climate rules that would have required new natural gas plants built in the 2030s to capture their carbon dioxide emissions. Net Power’s technology seemed like one of the best available ways to meet that standard.
Cut to 2026, and the world looks different. Thanks to the artificial intelligence boom, electricity demand is surging. But Net Power hasn’t successfully commercialized its proprietary power plant technology. Even if it had, few companies are willing to pay the high premium required by Net Power’s technology, especially when cheaper options are available. And the government certainly isn’t going to require it. Emily’s story reveals what happened next.
When I helped start Heatmap more than three years ago, I never thought I would write this much about data centers. I believed that electricity demand growth was inevitable, sure, and I thought the U.S. power grid had to expand for the country to decarbonize. But I didn’t foresee such a staggering near-term surge in electricity demand. (To be fair, even long-time students of the computing industry’s energy use didn’t see the coming increase, either.)
What I didn’t anticipate — or understand — were two fast-moving trends. The first was that the AI models were responding to scale: the more text or images they consumed, or training they received, or (crucially) computational power they had access to, the better they got. The second was that Wall Street was happy to pay to continue that speedy scale-up. As long as models kept getting better, investors were willing to keep lending or investing more money to the companies making them. Through the power of those two scaling functions, the data center boom became one of the biggest infrastructure buildouts in American history.
In recent days, the second of those trends has started to falter. After a surprisingly hot inflation report last week, and a disclosure on Wednesday evening that Meta has gone free cash flow negative to finance its ongoing AI buildout, stocks with any proximity to AI or data centers stumbled on Wall Street today. The data center developer Coreweave and independent power producer Vistra were each down about 10%, while Microsoft, Alphabet, and Nvidia all fell in daily trading. Meta’s stock lost almost 7% of its value; GE Vernova, which produces gas turbines, was down 10%.
These declines look more significant when you zoom out. Since late June, a good chunk of the AI portfolio has sagged into the red. Coreweave’s stock is down 54% over the past six months. Alphabet and GE Vernova have also posted declines since the summer. (The trend isn’t uniform: Nvidia and Microsoft are still very much in the green.)
None of this, to be sure, guarantees that the AI boom is ending or even slowing down. But this finance-applied friction is what such a slowdown could look like. Investors aren’t (yet) saying that AI is a business dud, to be clear, just that companies perhaps don’t need to go and construct all this stuff so fast. And given what the data center buildout has meant for energy construction — not to mention greenhouse gas emissions — that’s a trend nobody in climate or energy can ignore.
Editor’s note: This article originally misstated Vistra’s core business. It has been corrected. We regret the error.