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:
$4 of gasoline will actually get you pretty far these days.

Everyone’s mad about high oil prices, but are they doing anything about it? With around 11 million barrels per day (about a tenth of global production) shut in, and thus missing from the global oil market, someone has to be using less of it. Maybe it’s petrochemical plants that run on tight margins slowing down. Maybe it’s European airlines cancelling flights.
At least so far, it’s probably not American drivers.
“In the U.S. we’re seeing an indifference, in terms of what we can see from consumption numbers,” David Doherty, head of natural resources research at BloombergNEF, told me on the sidelines of the research group’s annual summit last week. The Energy Information Administration’s proxy for gasoline consumption, “product supplied of finished motor gasoline,” shows no dramatic change following the beginning of the war or subsequent spike in oil prices.
Gas prices in the United States sit at $4.11 per gallon according to AAA, compared to $3.15 a year ago. But even in the context of the almost $5 per gallon in 2022 and the $4.11-ish gas hit in the summer of 2008, the impact on actual households is likely more mild.
“$4 now is very different to $4 five years ago. And it's definitely different to $4 in 2008, which is when the last price spikes came through,” Doherty said. “$4 doesn't get you a coffee now. $4 a decade ago got you coffee plus oat milk.”
For one, a dollar is hardly a dollar anymore. There’s been higher than typical inflation since 2022, and a substantial rise in overall prices since 2008. This means that a dollar of gasoline (or even $4) is taking up a smaller portion of American consumer spending than it has in the past.
Looking back even further, the American auto fleet has gotten more efficient, meaning that drivers are getting more miles per gallon — and thus miles per dollar — than they were in the past. And that’s not even taking into account the rise of electric vehicles, which allow drivers to opt out of gasoline price volatility altogether.
Ironically, a big chunk of the credit comes from the now essentially scrapped Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards — themselves a response to the 1973 oil shock and designed to ease the American auto fleet’s dependency on fuels with volatile prices set by the global market by ratcheting up fuel economy over time. Then in 2007, President George W. Bush signed into law the first major tightening of CAFE standards in nearly 30 years.
“CAFE standards — which have just been neutered — ultimately have helped,” Doherty told me, referring to the Trump administration’s successful efforts to undo further fuel economy progress under the Obama and Biden administrations.
Overall, the U.S. economy has also gotten less “oil intensive” — we simply use less oil per dollar of economic activity than we used to. Since 1970, oil consumption has gone up by about 20%, while the size of the economy as measured in GDP has more than quadrupled.
When it comes to how the changing price of oil, and thereby gasoline, affects drivers, it’s a little trickier. I decided to calculate the “miles per dollar” on an annual basis, and then conservatively estimated how fleet efficiency would have increased by now.
To do this, I looked at the average miles per gallon of the U.S. car fleet and the “all grades” gasoline price for those same years. (“All grades” a little higher than the typical “regular” gas series, but the data goes back further.) The MPG data only goes back to 2024, so I conservatively projected it out to this year. While U.S. drivers are getting less out of their dollar than they did in 2024, they’re also going farther than they did in 2022 and 2008, the last time gas prices spiked dramatically.
I also wanted to get an idea of how much household spending is on gasoline. There’s no perfect way to do this with up-to-date data, but I was able to look at the relative importance of transportation fuel in the Consumer Price Index, which tells you the portion of spending on gasoline among the goods and services tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As expected, the relative importance rose dramatically in the 1970s and early 1980s, and hit a new high in 2007; in 2025, it fell close to its all time lows at just under 3%.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics also looks at annual household spending on gasoline. The latest data from 2024 agreed that it had been falling, from $2,805 in 2022, to $2,449 in 2023, and then $2,411 in 2024, but the 2025 data isn’t available yet.
Looking at more frequently updated data, the Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee estimated that spending in February on “gasoline and other energy goods” was just over 1.9% of all personal consumption, a more than 0.2 percentage point decline from a year ago. This was, of course, before gasoline prices soared in March and into April.
“If you were to put [gasoline] beside the cost of your rent, for example, it's becoming a much smaller slice of your outlays,” Doherty said. This is the now-abandoned fuel efficiency standards actually working, Doherty said. “It's a different share of your budget. It's a more efficient car, and that’s through design.”
This also helps explain why in the United States, we’re not seeing the “demand destruction” that should accompany a contraction in oil supply, where consumers cut back consumption in response to high prices.
But with lines of empty tankers queuing up at the United States’ Gulf Coast petroleum export complex, looking to bring American crude to markets that can’t get their hands on oil from the Persian Gulf, prices may still have a way to go. Drivers in the United States are now in a barrel-for-barrel competition with the rest of the world.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On China’s fossil fuel controls, Maine data centers, and a faster NRC
Current conditions: Nearly two dozen states from Texas to Minnesota are bracing for days of thunderstorms, tornadoes, hail, and winds up to 70 miles per hour • Japan is deploying 1,400 firefighters to battle a wildfire in Iwate prefecture that has forced at least 3,000 people to evacuate • While it’s nearly 50 degrees Fahrenheit and sunny today in Chernobyl, Ukraine, exactly 40 years ago yesterday the weather worsened the world’s worst nuclear accident by blowing radiation from the melted-down reactor.
The Trump administration has dismissed every member of the independent board that oversees the National Science Foundation. In what The New York Times described as a “terse email” sent Friday afternoon, members of the 25-member National Science Board were told their position was “terminated, effective immediately.” Willie E. May, a terminated board member and a vice president at Morgan State University, told the newspaper: “I am deeply disappointed, though I cannot say I am entirely surprised. I have watched the systematic dismantling of the scientific advisory infrastructure of this government with growing alarm, and the National Science Board is simply the latest casualty.” The move to seize tighter control over funding for scientific research comes two months after the Environmental Protection Agency repealed the legal finding that underpins all federal climate regulations and days after the Department of Health and Human Services nixed publication of a study about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.
Meanwhile, a top Republican in Congress has confirmed the limits of President Donald Trump’s bid to cap pay at the Tennessee Valley Authority. The White House’s push to limit compensation at the nation’s largest public power utility to $500,000 only applies to the chief executive, Representative Chuck Fleischmann, Republican from Tennessee, told The Knoxville News Sentinel. The White House sought to fire TVA CEO Don Moul last year, but ultimately backed down.

Beijing has laid out plans for tighter controls over fossil fuel use and greater oversight of heavy emitters in what experts told Carbon Brief was “a signal of China’s ongoing commitment to climate action and bridging policy” between the government’s national and sectoral five-year plans. The policy document, totaling nearly 2,800 words when translated into English, is what’s known as a “guiding opinion,” and “is not strictly binding, it bears the stamp of the two highest bodies in China’s political system, conveying a strong sense of authority,” wrote Anika Patel, the China editor at Carbon Brief, noting that “this is the first high-level document to explicitly link decarbonisation efforts with energy security and industrial development.” As Qi Qin, a China analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, told Heatmap’s Katie Brigham last month: “I don’t think China is creating these technologies as a niche climate experiment anymore. They’re being folded into a broader industrial strategy. I think that the more important question is which of them are moving into real deployment now, and which are still at the stage of strategic signaling.”
At roughly the same time, the Chinese government has published an atlas of deep-sea mineral deposits as the People’s Republic looks to ramp up its ambitions to harvest critical metals from the ocean floor.
At the start of this month, I told you Maine was poised to become the first state to ban construction of data centers, at least temporarily. Not anymore. On Friday, Governor Janet Mills vetoed the bill, the Portland Press-Herald reported. In her message to the legislature, the Democrat said that, while a moratorium “is appropriate given the impacts of massive data centers in other states on the environment and on electricity rates,” the “final version of this bil fails to allow for a specific project in the Town of Jay that enjoys strong local support from its host community and region.” The 2023 closure of Androscoggin Mill, a pulp and paper plant, dealt what she called “a devastating blow” to the town, located roughly an hour and 20 minutes north of Portland, and the server farm would help “promote reinvestment and job creation at the former mill,” she said. Mills is locked in a heated race with left-wing populist Graham Platner for the Democratic nomination to take on Republican Senator Susan Collins this November.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The British-listed green fertilizer company Atome is set to build a first-of-a-kind project in Paraguay, taking advantage of low-cost hydropower to produce ammonia using green hydrogen instead of natural gas. The firm’s final investment decision on the $665 million plant in Villeta, south of the capital of Asunción, comes as the Iran War disrupts fertilizer markets and drives up costs. “We’ve proven that you can actually close and finance an industrial-scale, green fertilizer facility,” chief executive Olivier Mussat told the Financial Times. “It’s never been done before.”
Duke Energy’s Robinson nuclear power plant in South Carolina just won the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s approval to operate for 80 years as part of the fastest license renewal review in the agency’s history. The NRC cleared Unit 2 of the Robinson Steam Electric Plant — a single-unit pressurized water reactor — to operate for another 20 years. This, according to World Nuclear News, is the unit’s “second, or subsequent, license renewal: it received a 20-year renewal of its original 40-year license in 2004.” The NRC formally accepted the license renewal application for docketing on April 28, 2025, then completed the review within a 12-month timeframe. That’s six fewer months than the previous schedule, in accordance with an executive order Trump issued last year. “This milestone proves we can deliver results quickly without compromising safety,” NRC Chairman Ho Nieh said in a statement. “By focusing on essential factors for sustained nuclear power plant safety and applying lessons learned from past renewals, our team was able to work efficiently while maintaining their commitment to enabling timely safety decisions.”
TotalEnergies may be exiting offshore wind in the U.S. for the price of $1 billion from the Trump administration. But over in Kazakhstan, the French energy giant is expanding its wind footprint. While the landlocked Central Asian country doesn’t have much in the way of shores off of which to build turbines, it does have vast, windy steppelands. TotalEnergies plans to invest in a gigawatt of wind power and 600 megawatt-hours of battery storage, Renewables Now reported.
Plus three big announcements from the annual hullabaloo.
Now in its fourth year, San Francisco Climate Week is noticeably bigger and buzzier each time I go. When I first attended in 2024, everyone was trying to shoehorn generative artificial intelligence into climate solutions. Last year, founders and funders were struggling to figure out how to deploy capital and stay afloat after Trump took a hammer to Biden-era climate incentives.
This year — which reportedly saw double 2025’s attendance, with roughly 60,000 people choosing from more than 700 events — everyone was banking on the data center buildout, the speed-to-power race, and the broader effort to squeeze more capacity out of the existing grid to save climate tech. Given that the AI race is essentially keeping the U.S. economy afloat during a tumultuous year of tariffs, war, and ongoing energy price shocks, that doesn’t look like such a bad bet, at least for now.
But it wasn’t the only issue at play. Critical minerals were another hot topic, while conversations around adaptation and resilience are finally becoming a bigger part of the picture. I also moderated a surprisingly technical panel on distributed energy resources and virtual power plants, though that inevitably managed to touch on data centers and strategies for managing AI-driven load growth, too.
At Heatmap House, our day of conversations and roundtables with leading climate thinkers, one investor mentioned he had recently backed a lab-grown meat startup – a true contrarian investment if I’ve ever seen one. And my colleague Robinson Meyer hosted a fascinating pair of back-to-back conversations on a controversial geoengineering approach known as solar radiation management, which proposes using aerosolized chemicals to reflect sunlight away from Earth. He first spoke with the CEO of Stardust Solutions, a private company actively building this tech, followed by an advocate for research into solar engineering but certainly not near-term commercial deployment.
It’s impossible to capture the exact essence of a conference with hundreds of individual events — at some level, it’s always going to be what you make of it. But as I bopped around the city shaking hands, I picked up a range of interesting perspectives, along with three pieces of news that I thought were worth unpacking here — one related to funding for critical minerals, and two focused on bringing data centers online as quickly and cleanly as possible.
At a Climate Week event, Atana Elements CEO Thomas Wilson disclosed that the critical minerals exploration startup has quietly closed its seed round, which totals $27.5 million, according to an SEC filing. The round includes participation from Earthshot Ventures, as well as Lowercarbon Capital, and Hitachi Ventures. Last year Atana officially — but stealthily — spun out of Lilac Solutions, a startup developing a cleaner method of extracting lithium from saltwater brines.
But while Lilac is focused on commercializing its novel lithium extraction technology, Atana is tackling the broader upstream mineral discovery process. Its scope includes lithium, but extends to other so-called “flowing” critical minerals dissolved in brines, such as helium, hydrogen, and copper. In the years before the spinout, Atana compiled reams of historical geological datasets — think “Soviet-era oil and gas reports,” Wilson said. It used these to train predictive artificial intelligence models designed to identify previously overlooked mineral deposits.
“You can think of Atana as somewhat analogous to Kobald, but for flowing minerals such as lithium brines rather than hard rock resources,” said Matt Logan of Earthshot Ventures at the event, hosted by the nonprofit climate tech investor Elemental Impact. Kobald similarly uses AI for minerals discovery, and following a $537 million Series C round last year, is reportedly valued at nearly $3 billion.
Atana formed as a team within Lilac back in 2019, benefiting from the more mature startup’s relatively long and well-funded runway — Lilac has raised about $315 million to date. “We have found some of the biggest deposits in the world, and we’ve drilled 19 exploration wells across three continents,” Wilson said. “Around 2% to 3%of the world’s new minerals have been found by this particular team.” That’s a huge number for a startup that’s yet to even formally launch.
To date, Atana has identified a high-grade lithium brine resource in an Argentinean salt flat and secured 1.5 million acres across Germany and Poland, where it’s conducting exploration for lithium brine deposits. While lithium is likely to remain a core market, Wilson said he’s looking forward to broadening Atana’s ambition, asking “now that we’ve been released from the Lilac lithium play, what can we do in copper, helium, hydrogen, and where can we do that in other parts of the world?”
Data center-driven load growth, speed-to-power, and grid flexibility dominated the conversation at SF Climate Week, and the much-hyped data center management platform Emerald AI came prepared with a fitting announcement: It’s partnering with Silicon Valley Power, Santa Clara’s municipally owned utility, not only to demonstrate the benefits of flexible data centers for the grid, but to actually attempt to implement a program that expedites grid interconnection for data centers with flexible loads.
The latter objective differentiates this from Emerald AI’s earlier utility pilots, which were primarily technical demonstrations of its software — proving it can slow, pause, or reroute AI workloads during periods of peak demand without disrupting critical operations, which research shows could unlock nearly 100 gigawatts of grid capacity. This new pilot appears to go a step further by explicitly linking that flexibility to interconnection outcomes. As Emerald AI’s business development lead Daniel Padilla confirmed at a panel, data centers operating flexibly in Silicon Valley Power’s territory “will get material acceleration in time-to-power.”
Santa Clara, which sits about 45 miles south of San Francisco, is a major West Coast data center hub, with roughly 58 facilities packed into 19 square miles, according to Chris Karwick, Silicon Valley Power’s assistant director of utility operations, who spoke later at the same event. Karwick confirmed that the pilot with Emerald includes a “flexible load interconnection program,” and noted that while utilities broadly recognize the need for solutions to rising data center load growth, few are eager to be first movers. “We’re the electric utility for a city. We’re not known for being innovative — we’re usually followers. So this is big for us,” he explained.
Since emerging from stealth last summer, Emerald AI has already raised $67.5 million, and is now working with Nvidia to develop a 96-megawatt flexible data center facility in Virginia called Aurora, which Padilla said is expected to come online in October.
As Heatmap’s end-of-year survey revealed, experts widely consider Meta to be among of the worst hyperscalers when it comes to its climate impact and sustainability efforts. But the company nevertheless maintains a net-zero by 2030 target, even as it continues to bring plenty of new natural gas capacity online to power its AI expansion. Now, however, the company is throwing its weight behind a markedly greener — and less proven — technology, the ultra-long duration energy storage startup Noon Energy.
Meta announced this week that it has reserved 100 gigawatt-hours of storage capacity from Noon, which completed a successful demonstration of its 100-plus-hour carbon-oxygen battery earlier this year. Noon’s system charges by breaking down CO2 and discharges by recombining it using a technology known as a reversible solid-oxide fuel cell, and is certainly one of the earliest-stage data center power technologies that Meta has supported.
“There’s an urgency now that I don’t think existed before,” Carolyn Campbell, head of clean technology innovation at Meta said at a Climate Week panel, referring to the need to deploy emerging energy tech to meet the surge in data-center driven electricity demand. She added that Meta is evaluating how its procurement strategy can help commercialize early-stage climate tech — an area it so far hasn’t backed as extensively as its peers Google and Microsoft.
“When we sign a partnership agreement with a new company, does that help them with their next financing round because their investors see a different level of interest in the technology than they would have otherwise?” Campbell speculated. “Can we provide some upfront development capital to support a pilot that was maybe conceptual — going from concept to reality? So I think that’s one of the things that I’m really excited about with the Noon partnership.”
As I reported earlier this year, Noon CEO Chris Graves expects initial commercial deployments to begin as soon as next year, with early systems installed onsite to allow data centers or other large loads to draw power directly from Noon’s batteries rather than interconnecting to the grid itself. The startup’s collaboration with Meta will kick off with a 2.5-gigawatt-hour project, scheduled for completion by 2028.
Climate tech investors talk investing in moonshots at SF Climate Week.
Three climate investors walked onto a boat.
That’s not the start of a joke — it’s a description of a panel at Heatmap House, a day of conversations and roundtables with leading policymakers, executives, and investors at San Francisco Climate Week (at the Klamath, a venue made out of an old ship).
Heatmap’s Katie Brigham moderated the roundtable conversation with Prelude Ventures Managing Director Gabriel Kra, Azolla Ventures co-founder Matthew Nordan, and Toba Capital Partner Susan Su. Many of their investments are in moonshot climate technologies that other financial players might avoid.
“Things that look contrarian is kind of what we do,” said Kra. “Occasionally, there’s an idea that looks bad that’s actually a good idea.”
Prelude Ventures funds early-stage climate companies that are “weird, or non-consensus, or counter cyclical, or just ahead of the curve,” according to Kra.
Nordan, for instance, said he backs cultivated meat despite some doubts that the category will achieve widespread popularity.
“I’m presently leading an investment in a company called Pythag Technologies,” said Nordan, talking about the generative AI company focused on lab-grown meat. “It’s actually a really interesting time to invest counter-cyclically in a field like that.”
Like Nordan, Su described her firm as one that is open to unconventional choices.
“We are very weird in that we invest across lots of different categories and lots of different stages,” said Su.
One of her personal investments is in Xeno. “This company does electric motorbikes for commercial drivers, as well as swapping and energy networks in emerging markets, starting in East Africa,” she explained.
The panelists told Katie that opting for less popular investments can be rewarding because they may help fund a major breakthrough.
“We placed a couple of bets on fusion before this current melée occurred that sort of had everybody thinking that, you know, fusion was the next hot thing,” said Kra (who claimed that he intended the pun).
Nordan emphasized the gap that venture can fill, left by larger institutional investors who may shy away from high-risk technologies.
“If there are true breakthroughs out there that just may not be investable by mainstream finance at the earliest stages,” Nordan said, “not because people don’t think they’re really good ideas, but they may be crazy early-stage or kind of weird, or non-consensus, or counter-cyclical, or just ahead of the curve, it would be a real shame.”