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:

Much of the world is once again asking whether fossil fuels are as reliable as they thought — not because power plants are tripping off or wellheads are freezing up, but because terawatts’ worth of energy are currently stuck outside the Strait of Hormuz in oil tankers and liquified natural gas carriers.
The current crisis in many ways echoes the 2022 energy cataclysm, kicked off when Russia invaded Ukraine. Then, oil, gas, and commodity prices immediately spiked across the globe, forcing Europe to reorient its energy supplies away from Russian gas and leaving developing countries in a state of energy poverty as they could not afford to import suddenly dear fuels.
“It just shows once again the risk of being dependent on imported fossil fuels, whether it’s oil, gas, LNG, or coal. It’s an incredibly fragile system that most of the world depends on,” Nick Hedley, an energy transition research analyst at Zero Carbon Analytics, told me. “Most people are at risk from these shocks.”
Countries suddenly competing once again for scarce gas and oil will have to make tough decisions about their energy systems, with consequences for both their economies and the global climate. In the short run, it is likely that many countries will make a dash for energy security and seek to keep their existing systems running, either paying a premium for LNG or turning to coal. In the long run, however, this moment of energy scarcity could provide yet another reason to turn towards renewables and electrification using solar panels and batteries.
The immediate economic risks may be most intense to Iran’s east.
About 90% of LNG from Qatar goes to Asia, with Qatar serving as essentially the sole supplier of LNG to some countries. Even if there’s more LNG available from non-Qatari sources, many poorer Asian countries are likely to lose out to richer countries in Europe or East Asia that can outbid them for the cargoes.
For countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh, “The result is demand destruction, not aggressive spot purchasing,” according to Kpler, the trade analytics service.
LNG supply is “critical” for Asia — roughly a fifth of Asia’s power can be traced back to LNG from the Middle East, Morgan Stanley analysts wrote in a note to clients Thursday.
In its absence, coal usage will likely tick up in the power sector, leading to declining air quality locally and higher emissions of greenhouse gases globally. “For uninterrupted power, coal remains the key alternative to LNG and there is flex capacity available in South Asia, which has seen new coal plants open,” the Morgan Stanley analysts wrote.
In India, the government is considering implementing an emergency directive to coal-fired power plants to “boost generation and to plan fuel procurement to meet peak summer demand,” sources told Argus Media.
Anne-Sophie Corbeau, global research scholar at the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy, told me that she does “expect to see some coal switching,” and that she has “already seen an increase in coal prices.” Benchmarks have already risen to their highest level in at least two years, according to the Financial Times.
This likely coal surge comes as two of the world’s most coal-hungry economies — namely India and China — saw their electricity generation from coal power drop in 2025, the first time that’s happened in both countries at once in around 50 years, according to an analysis by Lauri Myllyvirta of the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. In much of the rich world, by contrast, coal consumption has been falling for decades.
At the same time energy insecurity may tempt countries to stoke their coal fleet, the past few years have also offered examples of huge deployments of solar in some of the countries most affected by high fossil fuel prices, leading some energy analysts to be guardedly optimistic about how the world could respond to the latest energy crisis.
In the developing world especially, the need to import oil for gasoline and natural gas for electricity generation weighs on the terms of trade. Countries become desperate to export goods in exchange for hard currency to pay for essential fuel imports, which are then often subsidized for consumers, weighing on government budgets. But at least for electricity and transportation, there are increasingly alternatives to expensive, imported fossil fuels.
“This is the first oil and gas crisis-slash-pricing scare in which clean alternatives to oil and gas are fully price-competitive,” Isaac Levi, an analyst at CREA, told me. “Looking at the solar booms, we can expect this to boost clean energy deployment in a major way, and that will be the more significant and durable impact.”
The most cited example for this kind of rapid emergency solar uptake is Pakistan, which has experienced one of the fastest solar conversions in history and expects this year to see a fifth of its electricity come from solar, according to the World Resources Institute.
The country was already under pressure from the rising price of energy following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, when it was forced to hike fuel and power prices and cut subsidies as part of a deal with the International Monetary Fund. From 2021 to 2024, Pakistan’s share of generation from solar more than tripled thanks to the growing glut of inexpensive Chinese solar panels that were locked out of the rich world — especially the United States — by tariffs.
“Countries which are heavily dependent on fossil fuel imports are once more feeling very nervous,” Kingsmill Bond, an energy strategist at the clean energy think tank Ember, told me. “The interesting thing is we have two answers: renewables and electrification. If you want quick results, you put solar panels up quickly.”
Other examples of fast transitions have been in transportation, particularly electric cars.
Ethiopia banned the import of internal combustion vehicles due to worries about the high costs of oil imports and fuel subsidies. EVs make up some 8% of the cars on the road in the East African country, up from virtually zero a few years ago. In Asia, Nepal executed a similar push-pull as part of a government effort to reduce both imports and smog; about five years later, over three-quarters of new car sales in the country were electric.
But getting all the ducks in a row for a green transition has proven difficult in both the rich world and the developing world. Few countries have been able to electrify their economies while also powering them cheaply and cleanly. Ethiopia and Nepal are two examples of electrifying demand for power, particularly transportation. But while the two countries are poor compared to much of the world, they are rich in water and elevation, giving them plentiful firm, non-carbon-emitting electricity generation.
Pakistan, on the other hand, is far from being able to, say, synthesize fertilizers at scale with renewable power. In addition to being a power source, natural gas is also a crucial input in industrial fertilizer manufacturing. Faced with spiking costs, fertilizer plants in Pakistan are shutting down, imperiling future food supplies. All the cheap Chinese solar panels and BYD cars in the world can’t feed a chemical plant.
What remains to be seen is whether this crisis will be severe and enduring enough to lead to a fundamental rethinking about the global energy supply — what kind of energy countries want and where they will get it.
“Energy security crises produce the same structural response: the search for sources that do not require crossing borders and global chokepoints,” Jeff Currie, a longtime commodities analyst, and James Stavridis, a retired admiral and NATO’s former Supreme Allied Commander, argued in an analysis for The Carlyle Group. “Solar, wind, and nuclear are children of the 1970s oil shocks — with growth driven by security, not environmentalism.”
While the United States is not unaffected by the unfolding energy crisis — gasoline prices have spiked over $0.25 per gallon in the past week, and diesel prices have spiked $0.40 — its resilience comes from both its domestic oil and gas production and its solar, wind, and nuclear fleets. Much of this electricity generation and power production can be traced back in some respect to those 1970s oil shocks.
In 2024, the United States imported 17% of its primary energy supply, according to the Energy Information Administration, compared to a peak of 34% in 2006 and the lowest since 1985. Today, Asia still imports 35%, and Europe 60%, Bond told me.
“That’s massive levels of dependency in a fragile world,” Bond said. “It’s a question of security.”
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: The French government has recorded at least seven deaths linked to the record early heatwave roasting Western Europe • New York City’s springtime temperature swing is surging upward to about 85 degrees Fahrenheit before dropping back into the 60s later this week • Temperatures in Berbera, the prized Red Sea port city in the de facto independent state of Somaliland, are revving up to 100 degrees today.
The Trump administration is considering handing over leftover weapons-grade plutonium that was set to be buried to companies that aim to use the highly radioactive material as reactor fuel. On Tuesday, the Department of Energy selected five finalists to submit plans to safely transfer the plutonium from a government stockpile. The companies include fuel maker Standard Nuclear, waste reprocessor Exodys Energy, fusion company Shine Technologies, and reactor developers Flibe Energy and Oklo. The move is sure to draw criticism from non-proliferation experts who worry that, unlike the low-enriched uranium used as fuel in conventional reactors, plutonium increases the threat of a rogue actor obtaining material for a bomb. “Countries have tried this before, and they concluded that, as nice as it would be to use that plutonium as fuel, it’s really just a liability and we need to dispose of it permanently,” Scott Roecker, a vice president at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, told The New York Times. In an emailed statement to me, Shine Technologies CEO Greg Piefer said the access to fuel solves “one of the hardest problems in the advanced reactor industry right now.”

China is constructing more reactors at home than any other country by far, and it’s gotten quite good at building its standardized designs for large light water reactors faster and more cheaply than anyone else in the business. Yet Beijing has been slow to make export deals, so far selling just six reactors to two separate power plants in Pakistan. But the People’s Republic is stepping up. With a growing number of countries now seeking to build their first or latest nuclear stations, China is now bidding on major projects. Beijing went head to head with Washington in Riyadh when offering to build Saudi Arabia’s first atomic power station. Now China has submitted what Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic called “an incredible proposal” to build what would be the country’s first nuclear project in a European country, according to NucNet. It’s part of a broader investment scheme that includes $1.1 billion to boost production of artificial intelligence, automobiles, and robots, Bloomberg reported.
That’s far from the country where green technology is finding ways out of China. On Tuesday, InsideEVs reported that Jeep-owner Stellantis is considering manufacturing Chinese-branded cars in Mexico and Canada. Stellantis already owns a majority stake in the Chinese joint venture Leapmotor, and maintains a small North American factory footprint for the brand. The company is using one of its factories in Spain to produce Leapmotor cars in Europe, and now it’s also in talks with the Chinese automaker Dongfeng about adding its more expensive Voyah models to its lineup in France. Still, Stellantis CEO Antonio Filosa warned that such vehicles won’t be hitting American streets anytime soon. “I believe that there is space in Mexico. There is, maybe, space in Canada. We’ll see,” Filosa told CNBC. “Now there is no space in the United States. We don’t see that.” Maybe not for long. As Heatmap contributor Andrew Moseman put it in January: “Chinese EVs are at the gates.”
The United States achieved energy dominance over Europe as the continent started buying loads of liquified natural gas from America to replace pipeline fuel that once flowed west from Russia once the war in Ukraine began. The Iran War looked set to only deepen that advantage as the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz kept shipments of Qatari LNG at bay. But North America’s other big energy producer is muscling in. On Tuesday, The New York Times reported that Canada had struck a deal to export up to a million metric tons of LNG to Germany each year from a Pacific Coast terminal in British Columbia. The first deliveries would be due in the early 2030s, and the contract would continue for 20 years. Officials told the newspaper the deal would be announced today.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Last week, I told you about Otovo, a U.S. -Norwegian startup that billed itself as a kind of AAA for rooftop solar panels and other home energy systems. Founded by the former chief executive of the bankrupt solar installer Sunnova, Otovo aims to serve the very customers “orphaned” by the Chapter 11 and left without a go-to company to fix faulty panels, batteries, or generators. So far, Otovo has built a base of about 30,000 customers subscribed to its repair service, two-thirds of whom are in Europe. On Wednesday morning, I can report exclusively for this newsletter, the company plans to announce that it acquired the customer book from SunSystem Technology. The customer base covers nine U.S. states, nearly tripling Otovo’s footprint to 14 states in total. The deal marks Otovo’s seventh acquisition since its relaunch less than a year ago.
Last week, the Department of Housing and Urban Development published an interim final rule axing a key step from the environmental review process for large, federally-backed developments. Environmental assessments conducted by HUD staff on projects with more than 200 units will now, according to E&E News, “no longer need an additional review by the field environmental clearance officer.” The change, set to take effect June 22, is meant to streamline affordable housing construction.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s effort to smooth the permitting rules for companies looking to start a whole new sector the deep seafloor is similarly picking up pace. The Metals Company, the U.S.-Canadian startup that helped pioneer the latest effort at establishing a global industry, is the well-known frontrunner racing for U.S. approval, even as the United Nations body that regulates commerce in international waters has yet to lay out its own ground rules for tapping the ocean floor for minerals. As I told you back in March, that U.N. entity, the International Seabed Authority, promised to broker a deal for a global permitting regime this summer. In the meantime, E&E News reports that at least eight ventures are now vying for federal permits in the U.S.
Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft were among the companies to sign onto a new initiative designed to support investment in next-generation energy and materials technologies meant to reduce the environmental impact of data centers. The Data Center Innovation Initiative, organized by the nonprofit investor group Elemental Impact, “will test and validate critical technologies in data center environments, creating potential pathways for future adoption across broader energy and industrial sectors.” Other participants include Salesforce and Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy. “Data centers are uniquely positioned to serve as catalysts for clean energy and sustainable building materials,” Nat Sahlstrom, Meta’s vice president of energy and sustainability, said in a press release. “By sharing what we learn together, we can support entrepreneurs to scale faster and move these innovations to real-world impact.”
Update: This article originally misidentified a signatory of the Data Center Innovation Initiative. It has since been corrected. We regret the error.
The state is the first to backtrack on binding emissions legislation.
A wave of climate action swept the country’s statehouses in the early 2020s, with nearly two dozen states setting targets to slash their emissions. New York was ahead of the pack and among the most ambitious, passing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, or CLCPA, in the summer of 2019 to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
Now, however, the Empire State will distinguish itself as the first of the bunch to walk back its landmark climate law in the wake of Trump’s re-election.
The New York legislature released the text of the deal it reached with Governor Kathy Hochul to reform the state’s climate law on Tuesday. The deal includes two consequential changes: delaying a plan to regulate carbon from 2024 (it was already behind schedule) until 2028, and modifying how the state accounts for the powerful greenhouse gas methane in a way that will look like the state has accomplished deeper reductions than under the current method.
The governor has been signalling her intent to weaken the CLCPA for months, arguing that as written, it would have imposed untenable costs on New Yorkers. “Reality has been harsh,” she said during a press conference about the budget agreement in early May, before the text was released. “We cannot meet the current timelines without driving energy costs higher.”
Local environmental groups were widely critical of the deal, with New York Renews calling it a “major blow for New Yorkers and for the country” that would set “a dangerous precedent,” and Environmental Advocates NY deeming the rollbacks “bad politics and bad policy.”
Some remained hopeful that the changes would not derail the state’s progress by much, however. “There’s no way to sugarcoat it, this is a setback,” Jackson Morris, the director of state power sector, climate and energy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told me. “At the same time, I don’t think it’s a setback that we can’t recover from.”
The CLCPA set targets to cut economy-wide emissions 40% by 2030 relative to 1990 levels, and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. It also codified an earlier plan to source 70% of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030 and power the state entirely with zero-emissions resources by 2040.
New York didn’t make up these targets. They’re based on reports from the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which mapped out how the world could minimize the risks of climate change in line with the Paris Agreement. After Donald Trump announced he would pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement when he first took office in 2017, a number of Democratic governors banded together to show that America was still “all in” to achieve the pact’s goals, leading to a flurry of state climate laws in the years that followed.
Hochul’s budget deal doesn’t change the renewable electricity targets or the overall trajectory of the original law. Instead, it delays the regulations that would make the economy-wide emissions reductions possible to achieve.
The CLCPA directed state agencies to promulgate rules and regulations by 2024 that would put New York on the path to achieve the 2030 and 2050 targets. In the years since the law passed, the state has been developing a cap-and-invest program that would tax carbon emissions progressively over time, and use the proceeds to fund clean energy programs throughout the state. This program was the crux of Hochul’s affordability concerns, as it would make energy more expensive for some New Yorkers in the near term.
The budget deal moves the deadline for the regulations to the end of 2028. Crucially, it also does not require that those regulations help the state achieve the 2030 emissions target. Instead, it specifies that the regulations be designed to achieve a new goal of reducing emissions 60% by 2040, in addition to the original net zero by 2050 target.
Morris, of the NRDC, was quick to note that the deal does not get rid of the 2030 target. While there will be no state programs aimed at achieving it, it still provides a statutory foundation that agencies such as the Department of Environmental Conservation can point to as a reason to reject fossil fuel project permits, for example, he said. Meanwhile, Morris is optimistic that the new 2028 deadline and 2040 target can keep the state on track.
“We obviously prefer that none of this is happening,” he said. “But because it’s happening, I think that’s one aspect of this deal that we see as providing some ground to stand on.”
One of the aspects of the CLCPA that made it more ambitious than other state climate laws was the way it required New York to account for methane. The budget deal will eliminate this edge.
There were two key components to New York’s unique methane rules. The first was that they forced the state to take responsibility for methane emissions that occurred outside its borders that were nevertheless tied to its natural gas use. For instance, a major source of methane emissions is leakage from the infrastructure used to drill, process, and transport natural gas. New York banned fracking in 2014, and the state gets most of its natural gas via pipeline from Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Under Hochul’s changes, the state can take these “imported” emissions off its books.
The second is a bit more convoluted and has to do with how methane behaves in the atmosphere. When governments or companies set emissions targets, they typically convert all greenhouse gases into “carbon dioxide equivalents” so that they can set one round number goal for all emissions, like New York’s 60% reduction by 2040. There’s no single way to do this, since unlike carbon dioxide, which remains in the atmosphere for centuries, methane breaks down quickly. Over 20 years, one metric ton of methane has a similar effect to about 80 metric tons of carbon, but over 100 years, it’s more akin to 25 metric tons of carbon. New York uses the 20-year effect as its conversion factor, but under the budget deal, it will switch to the 100-year method. That will make its methane emissions suddenly appear much lower, and thus make the state look further along in fighting climate change without actually changing anything about its strategy.
This will ease the pressure on the state to electrify buildings, clean up landfills, and take other difficult steps to cut methane emissions. It will also, however, align New York’s methane math with that of most U.S. states and much of the rest of the world.
The national climate advocacy group Evergreen Action, which focuses on state policy, is less concerned about the changes to the climate law and more concerned about how they happened. Justin Balik, the nonprofit’s vice president for states, told me that Hochul never brought her concerns to environmental stakeholders or asked for policy proposals for how to accelerate clean energy while lowering costs.
“We need to see more urgency from the governor and the legislature to actually do the things that will result in emissions reductions and cutting costs for people,” Balik told me, “and less fretting about the targets that are written into law.”
Balik argued that the changes will do nothing to address the factors that are increasing energy rates. He cited the state’s dependence on natural gas as a key driver, as natural gas prices can fluctuate dramatically due to geopolitics and supply and demand. If anything, he said, delaying the cap-and-invest regulations will delay clean energy deployment and exacerbate affordability by deferring the revenue the state would have collected to and used to fund emissions-cutting programs and rate relief.
The budget deal attempts to make up for the shortfall with a $1 billion allocation to the state’s Sustainable Future Fund, which will support state programs to cut emissions from buildings and roads with heat pumps, thermal energy networks, electric school buses, and fast-charging stations.
Evergreen, NRDC, and other groups now have their sights set on the 2028 regulations.
“If we can move forward quickly with a robust process to stand up that cap-and-invest construct in New York State, and get it cutting pollution and generating billions of dollars in revenue for reinvestment in communities, that's going to be a huge breakthrough for the state of New York,” Morris said.
On a California chem leak, solar manufacturing, and BHP’s climate retreat
Current conditions: Unprecedented May heat is roasting Western Europe, with temperatures shattering records in at least 20 French towns and soaring to 95 degrees Fahrenheit in London • Bougainville, the autonomous and ethnically distinct region of Papua New Guinea that’s expected to vote for independence next year to become the world’s newest nation, is enduring a week of lightning storms and heavy rain • The Tajik city of Khorog, a provincial capital located in a canyon near the Afghan border, is bracing for snow.
The price per barrel of crude fell nearly 7% on Monday as Iranian negotiators arrived in Qatar for peace talks the same day two tankers carrying liquified natural gas passed through the Strait of Hormuz. The vessels shipping LNG from Qatar to China and Pakistan, respectively, successfully navigated the waterway at the mouth of the Persian Gulf on Monday. The signal of a loosening blockade comes two days after another tanker taking crude to China crossed the strait. While President Donald Trump said over the weekend that an agreement in principle to halt fighting with Tehran could come soon, The Wall Street Journal reported that it would take far longer to ease the bottlenecks created by the conflict. Despite reports of new U.S. strikes in Iran Monday night, prices fell another 4% in early trading Tuesday.
U.S. producers, meanwhile, are stepping up to fill the gap in oil and gas supply. On Saturday, the Financial Times reported that companies such as Diamondback, America’s third-largest producer in the Permian Basin, and shale driller Continental Resources were expanding drilling by more than 40% as a result of the war. U.S. companies have added at least 18 rigs since the start of the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign. Increased production isn’t just happening at home, either. Exxon Mobil just began drilling a new offshore well near its new operations in Guyana, according to Upstream. Over at the British oil giant BP, however, this morning brought upheaval as the board of directors ousted its chairman after just six months.

California officials ordered as many as 50,000 Orange County residents to evacuate Sunday after a crack formed in a tank at an industrial facility holding 7,000 gallons of a highly flammable toxic chemical. The accident at the suburban Los Angeles plant owned by the British fighter jet supplier GKN Aerospace began on Thursday, when firefighters in Garden Grove, California, found that a tank containing methyl methacrylate, a feedstock used to make plastic, had started bulging with pressure and releasing gas as it overheated. By Saturday, a fissure had formed in the tank — one of three on site containing the chemical — in what NPR called “good news,” since the opening eased pressure, making an explosion less likely. So far, no one has been injured. “Safety at our facilities is paramount,” a GKN spokesperson told the Los Angeles Times. “We follow all standard safety protocols and processes and are regularly audited by numerous state and federal agencies.” But authorities as far east as Arizona were bracing for the possibility of an explosion. In an update posted on X Monday morning, Orange County’s interim fire chief announced that the threat of what’s called a “boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion,” or BLEVE (pronounced blevvy), “is now off the table,” adding that “that threat has been eliminated.”
While the accident will no doubt draw scrutiny to GKN’s record at the facility, known for producing parts for the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jet, the episode is unlikely to draw the same fervid response as the fire at California’s Moss Landing battery plant last January. That incident set off what Heatmap’s Jael Holzman pegged as nationwide backlash to batteries. So far, thankfully, cooler heads have prevailed in resisting the urge to demand a shutdown of all production of aircraft components as a result of an accident.
The Trump administration’s yet-undefined rules for determining a key factor in solar projects’ eligibility for outgoing federal tax credits are bifurcating the U.S. market. The administration has yet to spell out in detail how companies should determine what percentage of their project inputs come from a so-called foreign entity of concern. While the list of FEOCs includes Russia, Iran, and North Korea, the main sticking point for developers is China, which dominates the global renewables supply chain. On one side are developers willing to roll the dice on imported equipment. On the other are companies avoiding the risk by buying panels either made in America, or in allied countries. To make navigating the process easier, the SEMA Coalition — an industry group representing U.S. solar manufacturers that support restrictions on cheap Chinese imports — put out a new report that includes a check list to determine whether a panel producer is likely to qualify for federal tax incentives or not. The paper, which was shared exclusively with me for this newsletter, was “informed by tax opinions, legal counsel who advise the SEMA Coalition’s members, as well as public documents.” The findings show that “some of these rules are ambiguous, while others are clear but challenging to comply with in practice.”
As I told you last week, American solar manufacturing is finally seeing something of a boom. Nearly 30 new utility-scale solar factories began production last year, providing more than enough capacity to meet U.S. demand.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Amid a sweltering London heat wave in 2019, BHP laid out plans for the “biggest global mobilization since World War II” in the name of cutting back on fossil fuel use and fighting a climate that threat that “could be existential,” the world’s largest mining company’s then-CEO Andrew Mackenzie said at the time. Today, however, the giant is reversing course, quietly shelving billions of dollars in projects designed to cut emissions from its mining operations. An internal memo from last year leaked to Australia’s ABC News and The Guardian shows that the need for renewables at BHP’s iron-ore facility in Pilbara had “diminished,” and that a plan to hit net-zero by 2050 had a “low probability of success.”
The West Coast’s continental shelf drops off far more steeply into the Pacific than America’s East Coast slides into the Atlantic, making siting offshore wind turbines tricky off California’s shores. Nevertheless, a developer was trying to build the first floating offshore turbines in the U.S. — at least until the Trump administration struck a dubious deal to pay the company to quit. That agreement is drawing blowback from California regulators, as I told you earlier this month. But the Golden State isn’t abandoning its goals. On Monday, offshoreWIND.biz reported that the California Energy Commission had reaffirmed its target of 25 gigawatts of offshore turbine capacity by 2045. “At a time of global energy volatility, offshore wind is not just a climate strategy. It is part of a national security strategy,” Noel Hacegaba, chief executive at the Port of Long Beach, said in a statement. “The grid we built for the last century cannot carry us through the next. This is renewable energy’s moment.”
The market for offshore wind looks even brighter outside the U.S. Last week, the Danish Energy Agency received bids for two different offshore development areas totaling a combined 1.8 gigawatts of turbines, according to Renewables Now. In an interview with Wind Power Monthly, the chief executive of the automaker Volvo lauded Sweden’s offshore wind farms for giving manufacturers like his a “competitive edge.”
Canadians can now cruise around the 10,000-year-old Columbia Icefield in a vehicle whose pollution isn’t adding to polar melting. On Monday, InsideEVs reported that the truck maker Pursuit had retrofitted one of its old diesel ice explorers to go electric with a huge, 528-kilowatt-hour battery. That’s big enough for about 30 trips up and down the Rocky Mountain icefield. The renovation involved keeping the old cabin but replacing the chassis and driveline with battery-propelled equipment. It is the world’s first all-electric ice explorer.