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:
Congress has left well enough alone, but that doesn’t mean funds are necessarily flowing.

The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have done a pretty good job working in tandem to tear down American climate policy. But one key set of clean energy programs has remained relatively unscathed.
The Inflation Reduction Act’s two home energy efficiency rebate programs — one for carbon-cutting appliances and one for whole-home efficiency upgrades — have not been targeted for agency termination or Congressional repeal, or at least not to date.
Still, that doesn’t mean they haven’t run into roadblocks. The rebate programs are paid for by the federal government and administered by states, which have to apply for the funding and stand up programs to disburse it. While the Biden administration had obligated funding to all 49 states that applied for it, only a small handful of states had fully executed contracts enabling them to use the money by the time Biden left office. The rest are now being stonewalled by the Department of Energy, which is still undertaking a “review” of Biden-era funding decisions. Some officials are wondering whether they’ll ever get their applications approved.
Vermont, for example, is stuck in a holding pattern for its Home Electrification and Appliance Rebates, or HEAR program. HEAR provides low- and moderate-income households cash back on appliances like heat pumps and induction stoves, as well as on insulation, air sealing, and electrical upgrades. The Biden administration “conditionally” approved Vermont’s $58 million application, which focused almost exclusively on heat pumps, according to Melissa Bailey, the director of efficiency and energy resources at the Vermont Department of Public Service. It’s not clear that anything in the application is deficient or needs to be changed, she told me. But the new administration has been unresponsive about next steps.
“Candidly, we were concerned that the funding may just not come through at all, so we essentially have paused our planning efforts,” Bailey said.
Vermont is fortunate in that its application for the other IRA rebate program, known as Home Efficiency Rebates and often referred to as HOMES, was finalized before Biden left office. HOMES offers rebates for upgrades based on the amount of energy the upgrades saved, rather than for specific purchases, and Vermont plans to funnel its $29 million HOMES funding into an existing weatherization program. The state has been able to get administrative expenses reimbursed, but it hasn’t technically launched the program yet, as it’s still waiting on the DOE to approve the modeling software the state plans to use to estimate energy savings.
“DOE is very actively engaging with us on the HOMES application as we move forward,” she said. But on HEAR, which is further back in the approval process, the administration has been much more cagey. “Anytime we bring up HEAR, verbally on calls and email, it’s just this kind of standard language that is, thank you for your patience, we’ll let you know when we’re ready to talk about it.”
By combing through public data and reaching out to state energy offices, I found that just five states plus the District of Columbia have been able to launch both rebate programs. Seven additional states have launched HEAR, but their HOMES applications are in various stages of approvals. But 36 states, plus five U.S. territories, have not launched either program, almost three years after the passage of the IRA.
The Department of Energy did not respond to my questions about the rebate programs. But the agency has been reviewing all Biden-era funding decisions. On June 10, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright told the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that his review was ongoing, but didn’t give a clear indication of how long it would take. “We got a process in place, we have a team in place, we’re getting through maybe a dozen or more projects a week, maybe more than a dozen projects a week,” he said. “And so by the end of this summer or middle of this summer we’re going to have clarity on most of the big projects.”
Since neither the reconciliation bill nor Trump’s budget nor his requested rescissions have threatened the rebate programs, there’s no reason to suspect that the DOE will try to claw back the obligated funds. But the funding review and soft pause on applications has created lingering uncertainty.
Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are working to strip away other funding for energy efficiency. Both the House and Senate have proposed repealing the federal energy efficiency home improvement tax credit — which has existed in some form since 2005 — as part of Trump’s One, Big Beautiful Bill.
The program helps homeowners reduce their energy use, save money, and make their buildings more comfortable. It also eases strain on the grid. The latest iteration offered 30% off the cost of Energy Star-rated windows and doors, insulation, air sealing, heat pumps, and new electrical panels, up to $3,200 per year.
If Trump signs off on terminating this tax credit and the tax credit for rooftop solar, which also seems doomed, the IRA’s rebate programs will be some of the only subsidies left in many states to help Americans afford home improvements that have high up-front costs but long-term financial benefits.
But the termination of the tax credits could also have a negative impact on the rebate programs. That’s what Brian Kealoha, the Chief Growth and Impact Officer at VEIC, a nonprofit that’s working with seven states and the District of Columbia on their IRA rebate programs, is worried about. “The return on investment is just not going to be attractive enough” for heat pumps, he told me. “Unless you’re passionate about decarbonization … how much participation are you going to get without making the return look good?”
Some of the states that have already launched their IRA rebates were able to move quickly because they had pre-existing energy efficiency programs that they could funnel the funding into, rather than having to develop entirely new initiatives. New York, for example, which launched the first HEAR program in the country, put about $40 million of its $158 million award into its Empower+ program, which already provided incentives to low- and moderate-income New Yorkers for upgrades like insulation and heat pumps. Since then, the program has “supported nearly 5,700 projects, yielding $1.82 million in total energy bill savings,” a NYSERDA spokesperson told me.
The state later launched a second program in November offering rebates for heat pump clothes dryers. That has approved 1,100 applicants so far, 350 of whom have redeemed the rebate.
California, similarly, has launched its appliance rebate program in phases, with only the first phase of funding for heat pumps operating so far. The program is already fully subscribed for single family homes, having approved more than 4,000 applications totaling more than $32 million, but is still accepting applications for multifamily buildings. The California Energy Commission told me the second phase is still under development, and that staff are also working on implementation plans for the HOMES program, which they will submit to DOE later this summer.
Other states have taken the opposite approach, choosing to target projects that were not already served by existing programs. Maine already had a successful rebate for homeowners who switch from fossil fuel heating to heat pumps, for example, so it created two new programs using HEAR funding to get heat pumps to other markets — new multifamily buildings that serve low-income households and manufactured homes, often called mobile homes. To date, it has received 12 multifamily applications and approved five, providing up to $2.5 million to install heat pumps in more than 300 low-income units. It’s also awarded an average of $10,500 to 19 manufactured homeowners to switch their propane or kerosene heating systems to heat pumps.
Afton Vigue, the communications manager for the Governor’s Energy Office, told me in an email that Maine’s application for the HOMES program has been “conditionally awarded” and it is “awaiting guidance from the U.S. Department of Energy” but doesn’t know when that will come.
But it seems that everywhere these programs are operating, they have seen high demand.
Georgia was one of the first states to launch both HEAR and HOMES rebates. As of June 12, the state had paid out 178 HEAR rebate applications totaling $1.6 million, and had 72 more in the pipeline, Shane Hix, the director of public affairs at the Georgia Environmental Finance Authority, told me. Its HOMES program had awarded 93 households totaling $922,500, with 89 applications pending.
North Carolina is also operating both programs, but is rolling them out one county at a time, starting in “high energy burden, disadvantaged communities,” Sascha Medina, the Public Information Officer at the State Energy Office told me. Between the launch in January and June 13, the state had received more than 4,100 applications, she said.
The good news for those living in places that are stuck in limbo is that the funding for the rebate programs was authorized through 2031. As long as Chris Wright doesn’t decide the rebates are a waste of taxpayer dollars, and he ultimately resumes approvals for the programs, you’ll still have a number of years to take advantage.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The industry has gotten excited before, to no avail. Will it stick this time?
Over a decade ago, when the global price of silicon-based photovoltaic modules was roughly five times what it is today, the solar industry and media were already hyping up the next big thing: perovskites, a class of materials defined by their specific cube-like crystal structure. The technology promised to boost photovoltaic efficiency while driving down costs, and the industry was atwitter.
“All the cool solar-cell scientists are working on perovskites photovoltaics,” IEEE Spectrum proclaimed in a 2014 article. In the same piece, Oxford Photovoltaics predicted that it would have commercially available cells within four years. The Wall Street Journal profiled the tech that same year, and in 2015, The Guardian declared that perovskites could be “game changing.” The excitement centered around the potential for higher output at lower costs: Perovskite cells were seeing rapid efficiency gains, could be made from cheap materials, and were remarkably thin and lightweight. When the question of durability came up, it was often as an afterthought. But that has turned out to be the technology’s biggest obstacle.
“What the industry came to understand very quickly is that, yes, you could see higher efficiency, but that material is going to degrade pretty quickly,” Laureen Sanderson, chief communication officer at the perovskite startup Cubic PV, told me. “A lot of the efficiency records that you were seeing were records that were achieved on very small scale devices in a laboratory environment, potentially measured in the dark.” Not ideal for a technology designed to soak up the sun on a large scale.
It’s true that perovskite cells tend to break down rapidly on contact with moisture, heat, and light, a problem scientists have been slowly chipping away at in the lab. That fragility largely arises because perovskites are made of electrically charged ions held together mostly by the attraction between positive and negative charges, much like magnets snapping together. That’s an intrinsically looser structure than the covalent bonds in silicon, which fuse the atoms together via shared electrons. As a result, the ions in perovskites migrate when exposed to the elements, accumulating in places where they react with surrounding materials to form unwanted byproducts that gradually break down the cell’s structure.
But while durability has been its fatal flaw, efficiency is perovskite’s superpower. Silicon’s efficiency tops out at 29.4%, a fundamental physics limitation that no amount of engineering can overcome. But because perovskites can be tuned to absorb different wavelengths of light beyond what silicon can capture, stacking a thin perovskite cell atop a conventional silicon cell lets the combined device make use of more sunlight than either material could alone. In July, one of these silicon-perovskite tandem cells — the industry’s dominant architecture — set a new 35.5% efficiency record.
So while this new tech still doesn’t match the stability of conventional panels, it’s getting much better. Tandem cells hold up increasingly well when exposed to heat, light, and moisture in the lab, and early outdoor trials are starting to produce promising real-world performance data. With headlines about perovskites starting to roll in once more, scientists say there’s good reason to believe that, this time around, the hype might actually be justified.
“Over the better part of a decade, there’s been lots of, for want of a better word, device engineering to engineer the material to just be much more stable,” Sam Stranks, an energy materials professor at the University of Cambridge and co-founder of perovskite startup Swift Solar, told me. That includes swapping out an unstable chemical building block in perovskites called methylammonium with a more stable one called formamidinium, improving the connection point that binds the perovskite layer to the electrode layer, and improving the packaging of perovskite cells to seal them off from air and moisture.
“There’s still work to be done to really get it to the point where you could put it up on a rooftop for 25 years and you know it will last. But the trajectory is very promising,” Stranks said.
Scientists have managed to extend perovskite durability from mere hours to the point where cells and modules are now passing industry-standard tests that suggest they could survive outdoors for five to 10 years. That’s still a ways away from the standard 25-year warranties for silicon solar panels, which typically guarantee that a module will retain 85% to 90% of its original output by year 25. And because these latest perovskites simply haven’t been around that long, scientists have yet to test these more ambitious durability claims in the real world.
Industry experts say there’s no reason continued incremental improvements can’t get perovskites to that 25-year standard relatively soon, however. “If you look at silicon, it’s been 70 years of trial and error,” Scott Wharton, CEO of perovskite startup Tandem PV, told me. “Seventy years of constant tweaking and improvement, whereas perovskites have only had about 12.”
Wharton said that Tandem’s testing indicates its panels will degrade at a rate of less than 1% per year. Furthermore, he predicts perovskites will become the dominant solar technology by 2033, a more ambitious timeline than others in the industry typically project. But as he sees it, seven years is roughly enough time to build and deploy two generations of perovskite factories — the kind of iterative ramp-up he says new technologies typically need to achieve market dominance.
The economics just make sense, he told me. Because perovskites are more efficient, they will produce more power per unit — which means less land, hardware, wiring, and labor needed to achieve the same total energy output, driving down costs at every step of the process. Why wouldn’t everyone jump onboard immediately? “All of our customers have said that once we’ve proven it out, they’re going to move,” Wharton told me. “They’re going to move 100% to tandems because of the power of the efficiency gains.”
Others are somewhat more measured regarding how long this may take. Stranks predicted it would be about five years before perovskites with multi-decade warranties even begin hitting the market, while Sanderson estimated they’ll gain real commercial traction by 2029, with perovskites making up a “significant portion of the market” throughout the 2030s.
While the date of that tipping point remains up for debate, the industry appears to have largely settled the question of materials. At least for now, the preferred configuration is to pair a lead-based perovskite cell with silicon rather than build an all-perovskite cell, which would likely face even greater durability challenges. That’s because such a cell would also need a tin-based perovskite layer to capture lower-energy light like silicon does, but tin degrades even faster than lead. In other words, it’s easier to keep silicon — a proven, durable material — in the mix by building so-called “tandem cells” for the foreseeable future.
But there’s still plenty that remains unknown. Every startup’s exact chemistry is proprietary, and there’s no clearly dominant formula yet. There’s also no industry consensus on the architecture best poised to address perovskite’s stability challenge, either, with leading players typically taking one of two different approaches.
Stranks’ Swift Solar team is pursuing what’s known as a “two-terminal” tandem architecture, in which a manufacturer builds the perovskite layer directly on top of the silicon layer, with the two cells functioning as a single unit. That’s opposed to a “four-terminal” design, where companies build two independent perovskite and silicon cells and then mechanically stack them on top of each other rather than fusing them together.
Two-terminal is the more widely studied approach, pursued by other industry leaders such as Oxford PV — the same company that once predicted commercialization by 2018 — along with Chinese solar giants LONGi and JinkoSolar. Proponents argue that using fewer material layers means less light lost, which translates into greater efficiency and lower costs. In a blog post last year, Swift Solar’s team also argued that the four-terminal designs rely on laser cutting, which it says can create more entry points for degradation.
Two-terminal isn’t just the leading theoretical contender, it’s the first architecture to officially make it to market. Oxford PV’s finally executed its long-delayed commercial launch in 2024, shipping its modules to an undisclosed U.S. customer for use in a utility-scale solar project. It was the world’s first commercial sale of perovskite panels, which Oxford claimed could produce up to 20% more energy than standard silicon modules.
But newer market entrants such as Cubic PV and Tandem PV are bullish on the four-terminal approach. For one, while two-terminal designs use fewer materials, they are more difficult to manufacture. Building a perovskite layer directly onto silicon’s rough surface is more technically difficult than coating it onto smooth glass, as Cubic and Tandem do. And because four-terminal companies manufacture the perovskite and silicon cells separately, they can swap in whatever silicon cell is cheapest or most efficient at any given moment, rather than being locked into a single supplier’s tech.
That flexibility could prove important as the market moves beyond early adopters. For now, Stranks said, customers buying tandem modules are probably doing so for strategic testing purposes — placing small, one-off orders to trial the tech themselves. An installer today can’t simply go buy perovskites on the open market by consulting a public pricing list or product catalogue the way they can with silicon panels. “But it’s not too far away before that would be the case,” he explained.
For its part, Swift is moving … swiftly, acquiring the manufacturing assets and IP of the bankrupt Swiss silicon cell maker Meyer Burger this spring. The company plans to use those assets first to build a U.S.-based gigawatt-scale silicon cell and module factory to meet demand for domestically manufactured solar cells, eventually adding silicon-perovskite tandem module production to that same facility.
Tandem PV is also pushing ahead with plans to begin selling to customers by the end of this year “in a volume that would be big enough to hit bankability goals,” Wharton told me. It also plans to bring a gigawatt-scale factory online by 2028. The company is targeting the independent power producers who build, own, and operate most utility-scale solar projects today. And like Oxford, Swift, and Cubic, Tandem is focused primarily on the utility-scale solar market — by far the biggest opportunity for perovskite technology.
Cubic scrapped plans in 2024 to build a facility producing silicon wafers — the raw material used to make solar cells — amid collapsing wafer prices globally and surging construction costs domestically. While Sanderson says the company remains interested in building its own factory, it has no timeline for doing so. But in the meantime, it’s also interested in licensing its IP to other perovskite companies.
The outlook for domestic wafer production has improved in recent years, though, after the Biden administration provided stronger financial incentives for producing wafers in the U.S. The Trump administration has kept these in place, though it’s made domestic content requirements stricter and more complex overall.
There’s also another new policy variable in the mix: Section 232 tariffs on cheap silicon wafers from China. Going into effect this December, the tariffs could benefit producers like Swift and Cubic, which plan to manufacture silicon cells domestically, while potentially raising costs for companies like Tandem that hope to simply source the cheapest, most efficient silicon available on the market.
At any rate, perovskites give the U.S. a chance to secure a domestic supply chain for the next wave of solar tech. Because while Chinese perovskite producers are setting efficiency records, Wharton told me that they tend to be quieter on the question of durability. That could easily give a Western producer with a credible, multi-decade warranty the opportunity to jump to the front of the pack.
And that may happen sooner than you’d expect. “This always follows the same pattern,” Wharton said of technology breakthroughs generally. “You have a bunch of early entrepreneurs who overhype things, and then everybody goes, Yeah, that was a bunch of BS. And then it actually gets real, and then people go, It’s real, but it’s going to take forever. But then it doesn’t take forever because economics always wins.”
On Duane Arnold, Germany’s far-right win, and Israel’s Falklands play
Current conditions: After decades without a major storm, Hawaii is set to be brushed by its second hurricane this season as Hurricane Lowell comes within 100 miles of the state’s western islands • Typhoon Krovanh is stalling over Okinawa, Japan, and weakening back into a tropical depression • Eastward in the Pacific, Hurricane Marie battered Southern California with 10-foot waves.
On Labor Day, I took a long drive through southern New England and filled the tank of my typically very efficient Honda Accord. The price at the pump made me grateful for work. Gas prices hit a record high for America’s end-of-summer holiday, reaching an average of $4.14, according to the AAA motor club. The national average has never been above $4 for Labor Day weekend, and the new figure easily bested the previous peak of $3.82, set on September 3, 2012. I was too irritated to write down the exact price I paid on Interstate 95 in Connecticut, but it was somewhere closer to $4.30.
The new high came as Iran set up what The Independent called a “potential clash with the U.S. Navy” over a new exclusion zone the Islamic Republic threatened to enforce in the Strait of Hormuz. In response, the price of crude ticked upward. Murban crude, the benchmark for barrels coming out of the United Arab Emirates, spiked more than 3% to nearly $107. Europe’s Brent crude rose nearly 1% to $97 per barrel. West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. measure, rose by more than 1% to about $93. Never fear, for the Russians are — despite sanctions — bringing more supply online. Rosneft shipped the first crude from its Vostok Oil project, which Russia believes holds around 7 billion tons of low-sulfur crude. Per Oil Price, the “project reinforces Russia’s energy pivot toward Asia and the Arctic, with the Northern Sea Route becoming increasingly important for future exports.”
The Department of Energy has unveiled a $1.9 billion loan to restart Iowa’s lone, shuttered nuclear station, the Duane Arnold Energy Center. This morning, the agency’s Office of Energy Dominance Financing said it had already closed the deal with NextEra Energy, the station’s owner. The funding comes as little surprise. The Trump administration is pushing hard to bring more nuclear generation online. One of the first Biden-era spending packages the current administration approved to go out after taking office was a $1.5 billion loan to fund the restart of the first reactor expected to ever begin operations again after a permanent closure, the Palisades nuclear station in Michigan. That plant, as I told you in July, has reached a “watershed moment” and could come back online before its contract to sell electricity kicks in early next year. “Returning 615 megawatts of reliable baseload generation will drive down electricity costs, while supporting thousands of American jobs,” James Danly, the deputy secretary of energy, said in a statement. The head of the financing office, Gregory Beard, called Duane Arnold, which closed in 2020, “exactly the kind of investment that will help restore American nuclear leadership.”
The company behind Palisades, meanwhile, just took a major step toward debuting on the stock market. Early this morning, Holtec Nuclear Corporation, as the company previously called Holtec International will now be known, announced plans to raise more than $1 billion when it starts trading on the Nasdaq. Holtec has not yet given a specific date for its IPO. And just now, another nuclear startup announced an initial fundraising round. Bluecore Energy, one of the firms competing to commercialize offshore floating nuclear in the U.S., pulled in a $50 million seed round led by the venture firm Silverton Partners.
The U.S. Export-Import Bank has issued a letter of interest expressing its willingness to invest up to $750 million into Project Dynamo, a rare earth processing facility in Louisiana.
The plant is the flagship refinery of Alcara Resources, where the Vancouver-based company behind the project, plans to process heavy rare earths such as dysprosium and terbium from its Carina mine in Goiás, Brazil. Compared to the light rare earths produced at California’s Mountain Pass mine, the only U.S. rare earths mine, heavy rare earths are more difficult to refine. The infrastructure is particularly risky given its high cost and the relatively small volumes of heavy rare earths that are needed. “The potential support from EXIM would provide a pathway to bring these capabilities together at industrial scale,” Ramón Barúa, Aclara’s chief executive, said in a press release. “Our objective is to establish a secure, traceable, and sustainable supply chain capable of serving U.S. and allied industries across some of the most critical sectors of the global economy.”Meanwhile, Africa is set for its largest initial public offering in the history of any stock exchange on the continent. Alika Dangote, Africa’s richest man, is looking to raise at least $1.6 billion by listing his oil refinery business on the Nigerian stock exchange. “We’re targeting 10 million shareholders from all over Africa and maybe other parts of the world,” Dangote told the Financial Times. “If you can afford 10 shares, you buy 10. If you can afford one million, you buy one million.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

For the first time since democracy returned to Germany after World War II, a far-right party is set to assume control of one of the republic’s states. In Sunday’s elections, Alternative für Deutschland won the race to control Saxony-Anhalt, bringing the party to power in one of five former East German states. The national party’s manifesto calls for a “180-degree U-turn in energy policy.” The statewide party in Saxony-Anhalt pledges a “wind power moratorium,” though an analysis by the German investigative site Correctiv — translated into English by the anti-fossil fuels publication DeSmog — cautioned that the party has limited powers since turbine permits are regulated at the federal level. In 2024, Saxony-Anhalt bested the national average by generating about 60% of its power from renewables. Before Germany’s other parties embraced calling the country’s nuclear phaseout a mistake, the AfD, at least on the national level, was among atomic energy’s only high-profile defenders in the country. Still, the AfD’s most significant electoral victory to date sent shockwaves through Germany, where anxiety over the Nazi era has stirred intense debates over whether the party itself has a legal right to compete in elections where right-wing extremists are barred. The party’s defenders, including Elon Musk, counter that the AfD is a legitimate conservative movement addressing issues Germany’s mainstream parties have ignored or obscured.
Across the border in the country exporting lots of nuclear power into Germany every day, France is putting up nearly $1.2 billion to support farmers suffering losses from this summer’s brutal heat waves and wildfires. The funds, according to Bloomberg, will compensate farmers whose crops died off during the drought and heat. “This is new money, not recycled,” Agriculture Minister Annie Genevard said Friday in a press conference, pledging a “massive effort” from the government amid heated debates over the 2027 budget and preparations for next year’s presidential election, which could vault the far-right Marine Le Pen to office.”
You may have been barbecuing and drinking Surfsides on your day off. But on Monday, Ilya Espino de Marotta took over as the new head of the Panama Canal Authority, becoming the first woman to lead the agency overseeing the waterway. The Panamanian engineer has her work cut out for her. She arrives at the helm after a summer of drought that left water levels in the 50-mile pass between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans impassably low. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, she said she is simultaneously taking on major infrastructure upgrades while managing an influx of shipping as cargo haulers veer away from the Persian Gulf amid the ongoing war. “We are developing a new lake, the Río Indio project. It will be able to accumulate enough water to provide 10 to 15 additional transits per day or about the same volume consumed by drinking water,” she said when asked about water levels. “This project should be ready in 2031.”
In more inflammatory Latin American geopolitics, Israel’s controversial national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, has publicly urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to recognize Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands. Buenos Aires has long claimed the oil-rich archipelago, which has no documented history of indigenous habitation prior to the British setting up the most permanent settlement ever established. In repeated elections since Britain defeated Argentina following its invasion in 1982, the population of fewer than 4,000 predominantly British people has voted almost unanimously to remain under the Union Jack. Now that the United Kingdom is building the infrastructure to begin drilling for oil offshore starting in 2032 — under a project led by investors with strong ties to Israel, mind you — Argentinian President Javier Milei is working his strong relationships with other right-wing leaders, including President Donald Trump, to gain recognition of what his country calls Las Malvinas. “It’s time for the State of Israel to publicly recognize that the Malvinas Islands are Argentine territory under occupation, which the British violently stole from the Argentine people. The British are not content with merely occupying the territory; they also carry out oil drilling there and steal the money from the Argentine people,” Ben-Gvir wrote in a Spanish-language post on X. “I call upon Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to recognize Argentina’s sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands and to impose sanctions on Great Britain as long as the occupation continues.”
In November 2016, I rode a ferry from Rhode Island to see North America’s first-ever offshore wind turbines. The five-turbine Block Island wind farm, located just off the vacation enclave, seemed magnificently novel a decade ago. This past weekend I rode the ferry with my family to Block Island — the first time I had come near these waters since then. When I stood on the port side pointing out what looked like pinwheels in the distance, I was struck by the vast array of turbines that preceded it: Revolution Wind. On a sunny day, most of the blades in sight were spinning. That wasn’t a given. Regular Heatmap readers know the saga of that project well: Trump tried to kill Revolution Wind repeatedly, the developer fought back, and now it’s roaring. Back when the U.S. turned away from nuclear power following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, a lot of nuclear engineers headed to South Korea to help that country build what’s now the democratic world’s most competitive atomic power industry. Offshore wind workers may consider a similar pathway. Last week, Renewables Now reported that Seoul plans to designate 25 gigawatts of preliminary offshore wind zones by 2031, with the potential to support up to 45 gigawatts of turbines by 2040.
Talking with National Grid’s Matthew Satterwhite about his new report with S&P Global.
This week’s conversation is with Matthew Satterwhite, head of U.S. policy for National Grid. This week National Grid released a report in collaboration with S&P Global I found noteworthy amidst the data center backlash, asserting that building new transmission lines can potentially reduce consumer costs. I reached out asking if we could chat about how this argument leans into the fight over hyperscale infrastructure. I found our conversation illuminating and educational.
The following Q&A was lightly edited for clarity.
Why did you make this report?
It’s all focused on our customers. We’re always looking to find ways to make sure we can provide our service in the most affordable way possible, the most efficient way possible, and we always think of transmission, but it’s fallen out of favor recently. There’s so much demand with large loads, data centers, advanced manufacturing, reshoring. There’s such a need, and a lot of the debate has been focused on what we need on the generation side. We think transmission is an answer, as well.
We focused on what we have control over — since we’re in deregulated states, the only generation we’re doing is to help states reach their renewable goals. It’s a real page-turner. We really get to the core of everything.
Can we lower customer bills with transmission? This report actually showed us that’s a good investment and helps with the resource adequacy and the constraint problems we have in the Northeast. You can bring cheaper electricity in.
With respect to concerns for everyday consumers, how much do you feel like new transmission might alleviate ordinary Americans’ concerns about rising energy prices?
When you look at the demand that’s coming, the projection is that by 2035, we’ll have to add 45 gigawatts, currently. We’re on that path right now. Transmission alone isn’t going to meet that, but the question is, how do we temper that down? What do we do as National Grid to help alleviate the need for all that demand? Can we get that somewhere else rather than in the region by building generation? It's a different version of all of the above. It’s not a generation single answer or a transmission single answer. We think transmission is a big part of that.
This also allows you to bring in cleaner energy from other places. The more robust the network is, you can have energy in different places and bring that in. It replaces the need for some of the generation to be built and pays for itself by creating a cheaper return for customers adding this.
How much of the data center backlash is affecting your transmission project planning calculus? How is it changing what lines are built in the country?
We’re focused on how we can provide the cheapest service for our customers and physics. It’s science and long-term planning. We don’t have the luxury — we can’t follow, this month we’re thinking something, someone got mad, and so we’re thinking something else. We study a lot of science and physics to figure out how to build the grid.
Do you feel like the average Joe Schmoe American sees transmission as making their life less expensive and making their electricity more reliable?
I think there’s frustration and a lack of understanding about the industry overall. There’s fear of the unknown. Are data centers really driving everything that’s happening? That’s where I think, with reports like this, the benefit of it will be that people will read this and see there’s other things we can do to address the load that we need, something different than building a bunch of generation plants.
How do the question marks around whether data centers get built affect transmission planning? How much harder is the backlash making your job?
It’s a science question. Do we do a bunch of work and then nothing happens? That’s why states put their policies out. There’s multiple studies you go through with a region and with a utility. I think that’s one reason why you see states slowing down, to make sure the policy is in check so people don’t do work they don’t need to do. It’s about having the policy to make sure, if you’re studying something, you’re doing it with a purpose.