You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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:
In a new estimate, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory says the U.S. is on track for a major milestone.

America’s electricity grid may be only eight years away from hitting a major decarbonization milestone, according to a new federal report.
On Wednesday, researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory published a new forecast about what the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure law could mean for the country’s power grid. They find that the grid could hit a crucial target — generating 80% of its electricity without burning fossil fuels — by the end of the decade.
Under some of the lab’s scenarios, the American grid could, by 2030, generate 90% of its electricity without burning carbon.
That is more than double today’s share, and it would make America’s power grid one of the cleanest in the world. Climate pollution from the power sector could plunge to 84% below its 2005 levels, when U.S. carbon pollution reached an all-time high.
The report is the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s first analysis of the two laws’ effects. Although NREL is funded by the Department of Energy, it is operated independently of the federal government.
In one sense, the report’s biggest finding isn’t so shocking. The two laws — which Energy Department staffers lovingly call “Uncle IRA and Uncle BIL” — have always stood to transform the power sector more than other parts of the economy. “NREL’s analysis aligns fairly well with other independent assessments of the impact of federal policies passed by the last Congress,” Jesse Jenkins, a Princeton professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering, told me.
Last year, Jenkins’s research group estimated that the IRA and BIL would produce a 75 to 77% zero-carbon grid by 2030. That estimate is slightly below NREL’s estimate because the Princeton researchers forecast that Americans will adopt electric cars and other climate tech more quickly, causing the country’s demand for electricity to grow and forcing natural-gas power plants to meet the gap.
But the new NREL estimate is a reminder of just how significant the two laws are for the climate. Over the next eight years, the American electricity grid will change as much as it has in the past two decades. And the rapid decarbonization of the American grid was not a foregone conclusion, but driven entirely by policy. As recently as 19 months ago, U.S. power sector emissions were expected to plateau after 2025. Now they will plunge through the end of the decade.
The forecast contains a few more findings worth drawing out.
First, it looks at whether America’s ongoing struggle to build new transmission lines and other large-scale energy infrastructure could imperil the grid’s transformation. Its results are mixed but not catastrophic. Under its most transmission-constrained scenario, a little more than a fifth of the IRA’s potential carbon-pollution cuts to the power sector would fail to materialize. At the absolute low end, this would produce a grid that’s 71% clean in 2030 — still much better than today. Yet it lags the high-end estimate: If the U.S. passed optimal policy, and technology costs fell faster than expected, then the grid could become 90% zero-carbon by 2030.
Second, it looks at the IRA’s less discussed conventional environmental benefits — which are substantial. Coal and natural-gas power plants release a slew of toxic air pollutants, including tiny shards of soot and particulate matter known as PM2.5 because they measure less than 2.5 microns across. PM2.5 is so small that it wreaks havoc in the body, inflaming and damaging heart, lung, and brain tissue. But over the next decade, as coal and gas plants close to make way for new renewable and nuclear facilities, PM2.5 will subside.
Thanks to the climate and infrastructure laws, fewer Americans will suffer heart attacks, lung disease, and asthma attacks, the report finds. By 2030, the law could avert 11,000 to 18,000 early deaths, the analysis finds.
And that points to the final finding: The IRA and the infrastructure law will save society perhaps more than a trillion dollars — in ways that will and won’t ever show up on a traditional balance sheet. The two laws’ subsidies, first, will reduce electricity costs for people and businesses, saving $50 to $115 billion in this decade alone. Second, the health effects mentioned above could save $120 to $190 billion in health-care costs. But most impressive is NREL’s estimate of the laws’ benefits to the climate, as measured in dollars. In its view, the IRA and BIL could avert enough carbon emissions that they could save $880 billion in climate damages.
These suggest that even if the highest estimates of the IRA’s cost to the government come to pass, the law will more than pay for itself through its benefits to the climate alone.
Much could still go wrong in either law’s implementation, of course. But for now, research continues to suggest that some of the summer’s lofty predictions were not inaccurate. The IRA and the bipartisan infrastructure law, while imperfect, stand to turbocharge the transformation of the American energy system. The climate era is upon us.
Get the best of Heatmap directly in your inbox every weekday:
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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 City of London has issued a pollution warning after fireworks launched in celebration of Guy Fawkes Day and Diwali created a dangerous haze over the British capital • The first snow of the season is coming to the northern parts of the Great Lakes and Northeast • The Southeast, too, is bracing for frost and chilly temperatures by the end of the week.
The Senate has permitted permitting reform to progress — or, as my colleague Jael Holzman put it, the bill “survived its first test.” On Monday evening, the chamber voted 73 to 25 to advance the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, or BAAJA. The cloture vote — an initial procedural step to end debate on a bill and move to a final vote — split the Democrats who won new terms in last week’s election. Senators Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock of Georgia, Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, and Ruben Gallego of Arizona all voted yes; Senators Mark Kelly of Arizona, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, and Cory Booker of New Jersey voted no.
The vote drew swift condemnation from the conservation groups that overwhelmingly opposed the legislation from the start. “Sadly, the Senate has failed to learn a striking lesson from last week’s midterm elections — that Americans are fed up with unchecked aggression from Big Tech and the out-of-control construction of AI data centers,” Jim Walsh, the policy director at Food & Water Watch, said in a statement. The solar industry’s main lobby, on the other hand, praised the vote. “Americans urgently need lower energy costs, a better electric grid, and more energy made in the U.S.A. This bipartisan legislation delivers all three,” Tim Pawlenty, the chief executive at the Solar Energy Industries Association, said in a statement. Despite lending his support to the vote in a Sunday night statement, President Donald Trump threw a wrench into negotiations, stating from the podium of the White House briefing room Monday afternoon that he would not approve any new wind farms — a major stipulation for Democratic support of the bill. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the Rhode Island Democrat who helped broker the deal, brushed it off, telling reporter Nico Portuondo, “He’s 80” and “didn’t get the memo.” The initial cloture vote is no guarantee of passage. Senator Lisa Murkowski, the Alaska Republican, raised concerns over Native American groups’ opposition to the bill and said she was not certain she would vote yes, despite casting a ballot to advance the legislation Monday.
After Southern Company completed work on the nation’s first two new reactors in a generation back in 2023 and 2024, the U.S. went through what I called a nuclear dry spell. Then in March, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave Bill Gates’ reactor developer TerraPower a construction permit for its debut plant in Wyoming. In September, the agency greenlit the Tennessee Valley Authority’s project to build what could end up being the country’s first small modular reactor, a water-cooled GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy BWRX-300, at the federally owned utility’s Clinch River site. Now the NRC has given Amazon-backed X-energy the agency’s first construction permit for a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor in nearly six decades. On Monday, the NRC greenlit the Long Mott Generating Station, designed to support chemical giant Dow’s Seadrift Operations plant on the Texas Gulf coast. The thumbs up for X-energy’s Xe-100, an 80-megawatt reactor that’s cooled with helium instead of water, marks what the NRC called “several regulatory firsts” for the agency. It’s the first approval of a facility meant to provide both electricity and heat; the first for a reactor that’s designed to be refueled while it’s still operating; and the first review of a reactor of its kind to use the agency’s new 18-month licensing pathway. NRC Chairman Ho Nieh said in a press release that this demonstrates the agency is capable of completing “rigorous safety reviews on predictable timelines that move advanced nuclear technology from design to construction.”
X-energy’s won’t be the nation’s first commercial high-temperature gas-cooled reactor, however. That was the Fort St. Vrain plant, Colorado’s only nuclear station, which shut down in the early 1990s after only a few years due to operating challenges. X-energy has told me it’s taken a lot of lessons from that plant’s failure into account in its design. The NRC permit offers “further validation” of the company’s plans, X-energy CEO J. Clay Sell said in a statement. “This is an important day,” he added. “Getting the construction permit earlier than expected is reflective of the thorough and efficient work of the NRC.”

A coalition of landowners is suing the Louisiana Public Service Commission for fast-tracking Meta’s vast data center complex in the state. In a lawsuit filed Monday, the trio of groups argued that regulators violated the state constitution by adopting a “lightning directive” pathway that allowed utility giant Entergy to skip steps designed to protect ratepayers as it sought approval for seven gas plants and transmission lines to serve the Facebook owner’s largest-ever data center, known as Hyperion. “We want our elected officials to be accountable to the people who elected them,” Dustin McAnn, a cattle farmer whose land is affected by the directive, told New Orleans Public Radio — “not to corporations, not to NDAs, not to secrecy, but to the people who elected them to the office they serve.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Until this summer, Seth Cohen served as the Trump administration’s bulldog in the Department of Energy, pushing to overhaul what the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency saw as unnecessary hurdles to building new nuclear power infrastructure. He left in June to return to the private sector. Now he’s looking to bring that same streamlining to data center construction. On Monday, he announced the launch of Mavria, a startup to design and deploy modular data centers in weeks rather than years. The company told The Wall Street Journal that it had raised a $130 million Series A at a nearly $1 billion valuation. Mavria’s first product line is called Terrain, a modular data center that can be hauled in by truck.
“The fundamental design philosophy for Terrain was, instead of asking the supply chain to bend to our designs, why not bend to the supply chain?” Cohen told me by phone yesterday. “With our projects, we’re going in and trying to match with communities that actually want us there in the first place — or, if they’re skeptical of data centers, where we can earn their trust and figure out how we can come in as a productive and beneficial member of the community.” Working on nuclear power, he said, taught him how to select good locations for infrastructure that carries political baggage. “The closer you go to a nuclear plant, the more popular nuclear becomes,” Cohen said. “We believe in a world where data centers will be more popular the closer you are to a Terrain deployment.”
The market for liquified natural gas — the version of the fuel that’s superchilled to liquid form for easy transport in tankers — is booming as prices skyrocket in response to the U.S. war in Iran, the Russian war in Ukraine, and cold weather in Europe. But could a bust be looming? A new analysis by the investigative site Gas Outlook found that a “tidal wave of new LNG capacity is coming and the war may ultimately lead to a deep market downturn in the years ahead.”
“While some LNG exporters are raking in record profits from war-time pricing, the boom could quickly turn to bust,” the outlet wrote, citing analysts. “Indeed, the LNG market was headed for a colossal glut prior to the war. That supply overhang has been delayed, but not wiped out.” Gas consumption actually declined a small amount this year, according to the latest estimates from the Global Carbon Project, contributing to a slight, 0.4% projected decline in global emissions from fossil fuels in 2026. Other factors in that decrease include the proliferation of clean energy and electric vehicles and the oil supply shock from the war in Iran.

Greta Thunberg rose to prominence in 2019 as a teenage protester who inspired students to boycott school over global inaction on climate change. In recent years, however, the Swedish activist has diversified her political portfolio to include virtually any left-wing movement in the Western world. She has become a high-profile figure in global protests against Israel, twice attempting to sail a flotilla to Gaza. She’s also appeared in support of the riots that tore through France in recent weeks. But after five years without attending a United Nations climate summit, Bloomberg found the now 23-year-old Thunberg standing in a long security line at COP31 late Monday afternoon at the start of the conference in Antalya, Turkey. “We’ve had 31 COPs now, and we’re still speeding in the wrong direction,” she told the newswire.
If Democrats plan to restore the solar and wind tax credits, then passing BAAJA now suddenly looks like the savvy move.
This is Heatmap Daily, a weekday digest written by our executive editor. Subscribe here.
So here we are. The bipartisan permitting reform bill has cleared its first and most important procedural hurdle in the Senate. On Monday evening, 73 senators voted to end debate on the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, or BAAJA, which would broadly make it faster and easier to build federal infrastructure projects of all sorts, especially power lines.
The bill will still undergo what its backers call a “healthy amendment process,” and it will face procedural and substantive votes for the next week or two. But its path to passage, at least in the Senate, is getting clearer.
That’s more than a little surprising. Going into the midterm elections, the conventional wisdom in Washington was that the bigger the Democratic wave, the harder it would be to pass BAAJA. Supporters feared that Democrats, newly flush with confidence, would drop the compromise and choose to restart negotiations anew in the next Congress. That’s certainly what Representative Jared Huffman, the likely incoming chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, has pushed for on X over the past week. And soon after the scale of the electoral deluge for Republicans became clear, Heatmap reported that the bill’s odds of passage had gotten a little steeper.
And yet the bill has actually gotten closer to becoming law, not further, since last Tuesday. And as I pondered the situation over the weekend, I realized the original conventional wisdom was misguided. The midterm elections have strengthened the politics of permitting reform. Tuesday’s results can help explain why the Democratic Senate caucus is now speeding toward passage.
The first dynamic is obvious: This is an affordability bill — it’s right there in the name — and Democrats just won an affordability election. The bill’s projected energy affordability benefits are small but real, and proponents argue (plausibly) that the bill’s most important changes are impossible to quantify in an energy model. The bill will make federally funded public transit much faster to build, for instance, which will have big affordability and emissions implications but is essentially impossible to model.
What’s more, much of the incoming Democratic Senate class ran on a policy platform that looks a lot like BAAJA. James Talarico of Texas, Adam Hamilton of Kansas, Annie Andrews of South Carolina, and — if they win — Scott Colom of Mississippoi and Mary Peltola of Alaska all promised an all-of-the-above energy policy that would expand the supply of fossil fuels and clean energy. That is what BAAJA does, according to its supporters and detractors.
South Carolina’s Andrews even went one step further and explicitly committed to finding a permitting reform compromise with Republicans. “Nobody has the political will to get to work and pass this bipartisan plan. It’s embarrassing,” she wrote. “In the Senate, I'll work to bring members of both parties together to finally get this done.” Now Democrats can get it done before she even gets to the Hill.
BAAJA mirrors Democratic policy commitments in more specific ways, too. Seven of the incoming 11 Democratic senators campaigned on forcing data centers to pay the full cost of their electricity use; it was even one of Abdul El-Sayed’s mandatory “terms of engagement” for the facilities. The rest of the winning Senate class made more vague pledges that data centers should not make Americans’ power bills go up.
The permitting bill would accomplish this goal, too. BAAJA would force data centers and crypto miners to pay the full costs of their connection to the grid, and it would let states go even further in transferring additional system costs from other ratepayers onto data centers.
Last week’s elections could help ease specific data center worries around the bill, as well. Some of BAAJA’s critics have feared that the bill could accelerate the nationwide data center buildout. And in a world where data centers are growing fastest in Republican states, activists might be loath to surrender any federal tool — no matter how feckless — that would be useful to fighting them. But many of the states where data centers and behind-the-meter gas plants are growing most quickly — such as Texas, Ohio, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania — will now have new Democratic governors or outright trifectas next year. The most effective tool for slowing the data center buildout remains state, county, and municipal land use laws. BAAJA would not touch those ordinances. And its data center electricity provisions would actually expand the ways that incoming Democratic governors could make data centers pay for the rest of the grid or even build new infrastructure.
Likewise, BAAJA’s new utility oversight tools look far more powerful in a world where state politicians have promised to fight utilities. Democrats likely also find it easier to write those powers into law in a world where public utility commissions are trending Democratic.
And there is one more reason Democrats might feel more comfortable passing this bill now: Tuesday has made their odds of gaining even more power in the future look better, and this bill will improve as Democrats pass other clean energy or climate policies to augment it.
If Congress soon restores the wind and solar tax credits, for instance — as most every incoming congressional Democrats have vowed to do — then BAAJA’s transmission provisions will go from being merely somewhat good for the climate to being very good. When the Inflation Reduction Act fell short, it was because the United States could not build new power lines fast enough to hook new solar and wind farms to electricity demand. But marrying the IRA’s clean energy tax credits to BAAJA’s transmission mandates would supercharge them both. And if a future Democratic Congress chooses to fund and build a national macrogrid, then passing BAAJA now would make it much easier, because some of the hardest political aspects of such a task — such as creating a federal backstop siting mechanism for new power lines — will already be done. There’s a reasonable political argument that Democrats should eagerly welcome Republican co-ownership of BAAJA’s transmission provisions, so that the party does not have to own the political consequences of such a buildout alone in the future.
Likewise, BAAJA will disproportionately benefit the party that wins the next presidential election, because the bill’s greatest affordability benefits will start accruing to the president who follows Donald Trump. Like all big energy bills, BAAJA will take time to work its way through the energy system. Americans won’t immediately experience cheaper bills or faster projects; after BAAJA’s passage, independent agencies such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will need to write rules governing the law’s new programs and communicate them to states, utilities, and grid managers.
Many of those effects will start to be felt right around the time the next president takes office in January 2029 — or even in the early 2030s. If Democrats feel better about their chances of taking the White House today than they did a week ago, then they may very well feel better about passing this bill now, too.
BAAJA survived its first test, but Trump says the bill “hasn’t been fully negotiated.”
The Senate on Monday night moved to open debate on the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act — just after the president bizarrely threw cold water on the deal he struck for the bill.
Senators agreed to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed to the bill by a vote of 73–25, a forceful bipartisan tally that could bolster momentum behind the bill. Up next comes what Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the Democrat from Rhode Island and one of the key sponsors of the bill, called a “healthy amendment process” at a press conference Monday morning. This will constitute the last remaining opening for senators and outside constituencies to try and change provisions they disagree with. How many amendments will make it to a vote, however, is not publicly known. Nor is how fast debate on the bill will move along, so best be patient.
I’m aware of pushes for at least two amendments to be considered — one ostensibly to remove the bill’s changes to the National Historic Preservation Act and another related to future administrations potentially revoking Trump-era permits. Some of the lawmakers who voted to proceed on the bill may become “nays” depending on how the amendment process goes.
In a normal world, this would be the clarifying moment for BAAJA, when the clouds would part and a pathway to passage and enactment would appear obvious. There are certainly rays of hope for the pro-BAAJA squad because a large bipartisan vote would help the legislation move briskly in the House.
But we still live in the Trump era, so instead, just as senators were preparing to vote, and after the White House released a formal statement endorsing the bill, the president told the world that actually, the deal wasn’t done.
Politico reported in September that the president told his aides he would direct the Pentagon to clear its queue of onshore wind projects to strike a deal on permitting. The White House has for weeks been telling reporters it’s been advancing wind projects through the Pentagon airspace clearance process in good faith. As we reported in late October, these claims have not always lined up with what the administration and renewable energy trade groups have been stating in federal court, where a judge months ago required the government to resume these once-routine height approvals.
For some reason, asked about this at a White House media briefing Monday evening, Trump told reporters from the press room podium that actually he won’t approve wind turbines even if the bill becomes law. Then he said, “The bill hasn’t been fully negotiated.” You can watch the full clip of the comments here.
It’s unclear whether these comments affected the bill’s odds at final passage, but they did lead to a very long all-caps post on X from Representative Jared Huffman, who’s in line to lead the House Committee on Natural Resources in the coming Congress. The White House has tried to clarify the president’s remarks, and Senator Whitehouse blamed the comments on Trump’s age. So just because we’re seeing legislative progress doesn’t mean the future will make sense.