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:
It was approved by the House Natural Resources Committee on Thursday by a vote of 25 to 18.

A key House panel this afternoon advanced a bipartisan permitting deal that would include language appearing to bar Donald Trump or any other president from rescinding permits for energy projects.
The House Natural Resources Committee approved the SPEED Act, which would do stuff energy developers of all stripes say they want – time-clocks on when federal permits are issued and deadlines on when court challenges can be filed — by a vote of 25 to 18.
Under an amendment added by voice vote to the bill in committee, the bill now also includes language explicitly saying federal agencies cannot revoke, suspend, alter or interfere with an already-approved permit to an energy project. GOP Natural Resources chair Bruce Westerman told the audience at the bill markup that the amendment was the result of behind-the-scenes talks to try and assuage Democrats holding out over the Trump administration’s freeze on federal permitting for renewable energy and its attacks on previously permitted offshore wind projects.
During the hearing House Democrats listed out other complaints they want addressed before giving their support, including “parity” between renewable energy and fossil fuels in the permitting process as well as some extra mechanism against blocking projects in the bureaucratic pipeline. It’s easy to understand why they want more assurances given rescinding permits is only one of many ways Trump has gone after renewables projects.
But as Thomas Hochman of the Foundation for American Innovation noted at a Heatmap event in D.C. on Tuesday, the oil and gas industry is also interested in neutralizing the permitting process from any tech-specific politics that could come back to bite them. “They’re imagining a President Newsom in 2029 and they’re worried the same tools that have been uncovered to block wind and solar will then be used to block oil and gas.”
The bill would also insert a number of new stipulations into the permitting review process intended to move things along in a simpler, faster fashion. For example, an agency would only be able to consider impacts that "share a reasonably close causal relationship to, and are proximately caused by, the immediate project or action under consideration; and may not consider effects that are speculative, attenuated from the project or action, separate in time or place from the project or action, or in relation to separate existing or potential future projects or actions."
But judging by the final vote, it’s unclear if the amendment targeting the Trump administration will be enough to get a permitting deal across the finish line should this bill get ultimately voted out of the House by the full legislative chamber. Only two Democrats – outgoing centrist Jared Golden who helped author the bill and moderate swing district Californian Adam Gray – voted in support.
“The Trump administration is putting culture wars ahead of lowering energy costs for the American people. Unleashing American energy means unleashing all of it, including affordable clean energy,” said Rep. Seth Magaziner, a Democrat from Rhode Island critical of Trump’s attacks on offshore wind. Magaziner said under other circumstances he may have supported the legislation but “in order for me to vote for this bill I need strong language to ensure the Trump administration cannot continue to unfairly block clean energy projects from getting to the grid.”
Other Democrats in the hearing echoed Magaziner’s comments, and during the markup the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition – a group of influential Democrats working on climate policy in the chamber – put out a statement saying their frustrations remain and demanding the bill “affirmatively end the scorched-earth attacks on clean energy, restore permitting integrity for projects that have been unfairly targeted, and ensure fairness and neutrality going forward.”
Still, the Democrats on the Natural Resources Committee will not be able to stop the bill and it might get more support from members of the party on the House floor (the committee is usually where a lot of more progressive firebrands land). But their concerns are very much representative of what Senate Democrats might raise.
Rep. Scott Peters, a California Democrat involved in the House permitting talks, told me during a phone interview this afternoon that the language added to the bill “solves a lot of the problem on permit certainty” but that getting the deal across the finish line will require solving “the Burgum problem,” referring to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.
Apparently, per Peters, a major Democratic sticking point is Burgum’s new layer of political review requiring him to sign off on essentially every Interior Department decision needed for permitting solar and wind projects. Any progress further will mean Republican concessions there. “Sending a camera out to survey a site... the Secretary of Interior has to sign off on that, and that’s the opposite of permitting reform.”
An ideal way to deal with the Interior Department’s stall tactic, he said, is to add compulsory deadlines for specific decisions to the bill so that political leaders can’t sit on their hands like that. Still, Peters is optimistic after the addition of the language blocking presidents from rescinding previously-issued permits.
“Today didn’t finish the job but it was a big step forward,” Peters said.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
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.”
Noise ordinances won’t necessarily stop a multi-resonant whine from permeating the area.
What did you do for Earth Day this year? I spent mine visiting a notoriously loud artificial intelligence campus in Virginia’s Data Center Alley. The experience brought home to me just how big a problem noise can be for the communities adjacent to these tech campuses – and how much further local officials have to go in learning how to deal with them.
The morning of April 22, I jumped into a Toyota Highlander and drove it out to the Vantage VA2 data center campus in Sterling, Virginia, smack dab in the middle of a large residential community. The sensation when I got out of the car was unignorable – imagine an all-encompassing, monotonous whoosh accompanied by a low rumble you can feel in your body. It sounds like a jet engine that never stops running or a household vacuum amplified to 11 running at all hours. It was rainy the day I visited and planes from nearby Dulles International Airport were soaring overhead, but neither sound could remotely eclipse the thudding, multi-resonant hum.
If you want to hear the sound for yourself, this video accurately sums it up.
After parking nearby I walked to one of the residential enclaves adjacent to VA2. One resident of a home across the street, who declined to give me her name, said she moved there before the project was completed. When asked how she felt about the noise, she told me, “It’s not as bad as it could be on the other side [of the data center], where all the equipment is.” (While the sound does get louder on the other side, I could clearly hear VA2 from her driveway.)
VA2’s noise has been causing problems for months, as documented by numerous social media posts, local news clips, and a feature published in Politico. It’s doubtful many of those living near the data center wanted it there. The project was built quite quickly – so quickly that Google Earth still shows undeveloped woodlands on the site. Per public filings, Vantage first proposed the facility in 2022 under the county’s fast-track commercial incentive program, an expedited permitting process for specific preferred industries. It was under construction as recently as October 2024, according to images captured by Google Street View.
Noise is one of the most common issues associated with data centers. At least a third of all conflicts over data centers are over noise complaints, and noise is the number one reason for opposition in cases where projects were ultimately canceled, according to Heatmap Pro data.
This issue goes back almost a decade. In 2019, residents of the Phoenix ex-urb Chandler, Arizona, became irate after a loud monotonous hmmmm began emanating from a CyrusOne data center. In that case, CyrusOne traced the noise back to chilling fans, and the company reduced the sound with muffling devices.
Chandler wound up adopting a new ordinance in 2023 requiring sound mitigation measures to prevent companies from exceeding certain ambient noise levels in the surrounding areas. That did nothing to improve the mood of the people who live there, however. Now Chandler, once known as a potential data center development hub, is now firmly in the anti- camp. The city council unanimously rejected a proposed $2.5 billion data center campus in December over noise concerns, despite an expensive lobbying push backed by former Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema.
As data centers spread across the U.S., noise is becoming an ever-more-common complaint. You can hear the familiar hum at a DataOne data center project in Vineland, New Jersey. DataOne told us they “understand concerns about ambient noise in the area” and are operating within the limits of local noise ordinances.
The hum is also in Dowegiac, Michigan, where people living nearby are calling their new Hyperscale Data facility a “noise trap,” with little explanation to date for the issue. Hyperscale Data did not respond to a request for comment.
And the hum is in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, where the sound from a new Microsoft data center campus rises above any din from rain. The hyperscaling giant is doing more to mitigate the issue than I’m used to seeing from data center developers, however.
On April 15, the company published an update on its own internal investigations into noise complaints. “Although the facility noise levels meet the requirements set by local ordinance, we take this feedback seriously and understand the impact this has had on our neighbors,” the update read. “We anticipated that our systems would need adjustments and create some noise as part of the datacenter startup, but we did not expect the tonal quality of the sound to travel as far as it has.”
To address the noise, Microsoft said it was “manually adjusting the cooling fans” to reduce noise, and that “we expect this change to address community concerns about the tonal humming.” On top of that, the company said it will install “additional sound reduction components” to “provide even further reductions in measured sound levels.” A Microsoft spokesperson told me in an email: “We’ve identified the source of the noise concerns and have implemented changes to significantly reduce sound from our facility.”
It isn’t cooling fans causing the noise at Vantage’s VA2 in Virginia, however. The sound, according to media reports, is coming from gas turbines powering the data center.
VA2 is one of the first in Virginia to function entirely off-grid, a design companies are adopting in order to avoid lengthy grid connection processes. Company spokesman Mark Freeman told me the facility is “fully compliant with all local noise ordinances, and this has been verified by third-party sound studies.”
“Additionally, in line with our commitment, we are actively working with third-party engineers to explore additional sound mitigation options,” Freeman continued. Freeman said “Our goal is to further reduce noise levels where possible and continue to foster a positive environment for everyone.”
Here’s the thing, though: I visited the Vantage campus after initially hearing from the company, and it was loud. Very loud.
I did not bring a decibel meter with me, so I cannot know whether they were operating within legal limits that day. What I do know is that noise ordinances struggle to properly capture sounds in multiple frequency ranges, making high and low frequencies challenging to regulate, according to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, a bipartisan non-profit think tank. Officials representing Loudon County, where VA2 is located, have acknowledged that the local ordinance may need to change in order to address the most distressing frequencies from the data center campus.
“We can change the zoning ordinance and noise ordinance,” Loudon County supervisor Mike Turner told local TV station WUSA9 last week. “Noise can be mitigated. I just don’t believe that the noise problem cannot be solved.”
I wrote Freeman, the Vantage spokesman, to tell him I had visited the VA2 campus and found the noise to be “quite foul.” He replied soon after, telling me that Vantage is going “above and beyond what is required in order to address concerns from nearby residents.” The company is using “targeted enhancements to turbine-related equipment such as dampening equipment, enclosure inlets and enclosure exhausts.” These measures “represent meaningful progress and will help us better evaluate the effectiveness of the broader solutions under consideration.” Freeman also said the company is “actively assessing additional options” focused on “targeted frequency ranges.”
As we continue to track local regulation of data centers, I’m we’ll see many more cases like VA2, in which obtrusive sound prompts forms of regulation we may have never seen before.
Or, people will just hear these noises and say no to more data centers.