You’ve reached your free article limit
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:

Maybe you’re reading this in a downpour. Perhaps you’re reading it because you have questions about the upcoming hurricane season. Or maybe you’re reading it because you’re one of the 150 million Americans enduring record-breaking temperatures in this week’s heat dome.
Whatever the reason, you have a question: Is this climate change?
There’s an old maxim — that, like many things, is often dubiously attributed to Mark Twain — that goes something like, “Climate is what you expect and weather is what you get.” Weather refers to the event itself, while climate refers to the trends (averaged over 30 years or more, usually) that might make such an event more or less likely.
Climate change is almost always an exacerbating factor in the case of something like a heat wave or a heat dome. In other situations, the picture is far more complicated and uncertain. It can take years to understand if and how climate change made an extreme weather event more likely, and while organizations like World Weather Attribution work hard to provide quick and accurate estimations, getting the science wrong can fuel climate skepticism and bolster deniers’ arguments. While it might be tempting to pin all extreme weather on climate change, the truth is, not all of it is.
Still, we do know a lot about how climate change influences the weather — and we’re always learning more. While this guide is far from the be-all and end-all of attribution and should be referred to with caveats, here is what we know about how climate change is shaping the extreme weather we see today.
“When you’re looking at heat extremes, there is almost always a climate change signal,” Clair Barnes, a research associate with World Weather Attribution, told me. “I don’t think there’s ever not been a climate change signal since I’ve been doing it in the last couple of years.”
As the planet warms, local temperatures respond everywhere. There are not as many complicating variables in this relationship as there are with something like drought. “With heat waves, it’s the same answer every time: It got hotter because it’s got hotter,” Barnes said.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that the kind of heat waves that would have occurred once in a decade before the Industrial Revolution now occur almost three times more frequently and are 1.2 degrees Celsius (or 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer. The most extreme examples — like the 2021 heat dome over the Pacific Northwest — appear to have been possible only because of warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, about 37% of global heat-related deaths, which amount to tens of thousands of deaths per year, are attributable to climate change.
There have, of course, always been heat waves. But it is with high confidence that scientists say they are hotter and last longer now than they would otherwise because of climate change.
Did climate change do it? It is “virtually certain” that heat waves are more frequent and hotter than they otherwise would be because of climate change.
WWA doesn’t specifically study wildfires since they aren’t technically “weather” (though once they form, they can make their own). Instead, the organization studies the conditions that make a fire more likely. In the American West, this deadly combo usually involves high pressure, extremely dry air, and some wind.
Globally, burned areas decreased between 1998 and 2015, but that isn’t because fire-weather conditions are improving — rather, regional leaders have gotten better at things like land use and fire management. Fire weather, meanwhile, is increasing and lasting longer due to climate change. In particular, hotter temperatures — especially hotter overnight temperatures — make it more difficult to combat the fires that do ignite. (Most fires in the U.S. start due to human negligence or arson, rather than by natural causes such as lightning strikes.)
This is especially the case in California, where 10 of the state’s largest fires have occurred in the past two decades, with five in 2020 alone; a 2023 National Integrated Drought Information System-funded study further found a 320% increase in burned areas in the state between 1996 and 2021 due to contributions of human-caused climate change, with that number expected to grow in the coming decades.
On average, wildfire weather season lengthened by two weeks around the globe from 1979 to 2019. The IPCC has medium confidence in the claim that fire weather has become more probable in the U.S., Europe, Australia, and parts of Europe over the past century, and high confidence that fire weather will increase regionally due to global warming in the coming years.
Did climate change do it? Climate change has almost certainly exacerbated the heat, humidity, and drought conditions necessary for wildfires to start. The actual ignition of the fire is frequently human-caused, however, and complicating variables such as local vegetation, forest management, and land use can also muddle the picture.
Tropical cyclones are large and complicated storm systems. Ocean temperatures, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, wind shear, barometric pressure, atmospheric moisture, the shape of the continental shelf, emergency preparedness measures, and pure luck all affect how destructive a given storm might be — when or if it makes landfall. Climate change can put a thumb on the scale, but it is far from a lone actor.
Hurricanes — the strongest manifestation of a tropical cyclone — essentially work by transferring heat from the ocean into wind energy. Because the ocean absorbs excess heat from the warming atmosphere, scientists expect to see more “major” hurricanes of Category 3 or above in the coming years.
The storms aren’t just getting more powerful, though. Because of the interaction between ocean heat and energy in a hurricane, the storms also intensify more rapidly and are “more than twice as likely to strengthen from a weak Category 1 hurricane to a major Category 3 or stronger hurricane in a 24-hour period than they were between 1970 and 1990,” according to new research published last year.
WWA says it cannot attribute the intensification of any individual storm to climate change due to relatively limited modeling so far, so the organization instead looks at how climate change may have amplified associated rainfall and storm surges. Rainfall and flooding are, in fact, more deadly than high wind speeds in hurricanes, and both are understood to be increasing because of climate change. Put simply, a warmer atmosphere can hold more water, which means worse deluges. Researchers linked extreme rainfall during Hurricanes Katrina, Maria, and Irma to climate change; Hurricane Harvey, which flooded up to 50% of the properties in Harris County, Texas, when it made landfall in 2017, had a rainfall total 15% to 38% greater than it would have been in a pre-industrial world, researchers found. Additionally, rising sea levels caused by climate change will worsen coastal flooding during such events.
However, “trends indicate no significant change in the frequency of tropical cyclones globally,” according to the IPCC. That is, there aren’t more hurricanes; the ones that form are just more likely to become major hurricanes. Scientists understand far less about what climate change means for the smaller Category 1 or 2 storms, or if it will impact the diameter of the storms that do form.
Did climate change do it? The greenhouse effect is making the atmosphere warmer, and in a warmer climate, we’d expect to see more major hurricanes of Category 3 and above. Evidence also points to hurricanes intensifying much more rapidly in today’s climate than in the past. Climate does not seem to play a role in the overall number of storms, though, and other critical factors like the path of a storm and the emergency preparedness of a given community have a significant impact on the potential loss of life but aren’t linked to a warmer atmosphere. Hurricanes are complicated events and there is still much more research to be done in understanding how exactly they’re impacted by climate change.
In the winter, your skin might feel dry, and your lips might chap; in the summer, many parts of the country feel sticky and swampy. This is simple, observable physics: Cold air holds less moisture, and warm air holds more. The “Clausius-Clapeyron” relation, as it is known, tells us that in 1 degree C warmer air, there is 7% more moisture. All that moisture has to go somewhere, so quite literally, when it rains, it pours. (That is, when and where it rains: WWA notes that “an attribution study in northern Europe found that human influence has so far had little effect on the atmospheric circulation that caused a severe rainfall event.”)
Like heat, the relationship between warm air and rainfall is well understood, which is why the IPCC is highly confident in the attributable influence of climate change on extreme rain. While it may seem confusing that both droughts and intense rainfall are symptoms of climate change, the warming atmosphere seems to increase precipitation variability, making events on the extreme margins more likely and more frequent.
Increased precipitation can have counterintuitive results, though. Rain occurring over fewer overall days due to bursts of extreme rainfall, for example, can actually worsen droughts. And while it might seem like more water in the atmosphere would mean snowier winters, that’s only true in certain places. Because it’s also warmer, snowfall is declining globally while winters are getting wetter — and as a result, probably more miserable.
But what does “more rain” really mean? Rain on its own isn’t necessarily bad, but when it overwhelms urban infrastructure or threatens roads and houses, it can quickly become deadly. Flooding, of course, is often the result of extreme rain, but “the signal in the rainfall is not necessarily correlated to the magnitude of the floods because there are other factors that turn rain into a flood,” Barnes, the research associate with WWA, told me, citing variables such as land use, water management, urban drainage, and other physical elements of a landscape.
Landslides, likewise, are caused by everything from volcanic eruptions to human construction, but rain is often a factor (climate-linked phenomena like wildfires and thawing permafrost also contribute to landslides). The IPCC writes with “high confidence” that landslides, along with floods and water availability, “have the potential to lead to severe consequences for people, infrastructure, and the economy in most mountain regions.”
Did climate change do it? More extreme rainfall is consistent with our understanding of climate change’s effects. Many other local, physical factors can compound or mitigate disasters like floods and mudslides, however.
When I spoke with Barnes, of WWA, she told me, “It’s really easy to define a heat wave. You just go, ‘It was hot.’” Droughts, not so much. For one thing, you have to define the time span you’re looking at. There are also different kinds of drought: meteorological, when there hasn’t been enough rain; hydrological, when rivers are low possibly because something else is diverting water from the natural cycle; and agricultural, when there is not enough water specifically for crops. Like flooding, many different infrastructural and physical factors go into exacerbating or even creating various kinds of droughts.
Drought as we mean it here, though, is a question of soil moisture, Barnes told me. “That’s really hard to get data on,” she said, “and we don’t necessarily understand the feedback mechanisms affecting that as well as we understand heat waves.” As recently as 2013, the IPCC had only low confidence that trends in drought could be attributed to climate change.
We have a better understanding of how drought and climate change interact now, including how higher temperatures drive evaporation and cut into snowpack, leading to less meltwater in rivers. The IPCC’s most recent report concluded that “even relatively small incremental increases in global warming (+0.5C) cause a worsening of droughts in some regions.” The IPCC also has high confidence that “more regions are affected by increases in agricultural and ecological droughts with increasing global warming.”
WWA’s attribution studies have, however, found examples of droughts that have no connection to climate change. The organization flags that it has the highest confidence in the climate affecting droughts in the Mediterranean, southern Africa, central and eastern Asia, southern Australia, and western North America and lower confidence in central and west Africa, western and central Europe, northeast South America, and New Zealand.
Did climate change do it? Maybe. Some droughts have a strong climate signal — California’s, for example. Still, researchers remain cautious about attribution for these complicated events due in part to their significant regional variability.
Tornadoes are extremely difficult to study. Compared to droughts, which can last years, tornadoes occupy a teeny tiny area and last for just a blip in time. They “wouldn’t even register” on the models WWA uses for its attribution studies, Barnes said. “It would probably look like a slightly raised average wind speed.” The IPCC, for its part, has only “low confidence” in a connection between climate change and “severe convective storms” like tornadoes, in part due to the “short length of high-quality data records.”
But we are learning more every day. This spring, researchers posited that Tornado Alley is moving east and “away from the warm season, especially the summer, and toward the cold season.” Though it’s not entirely clear why this is happening, one theory is that it relates to how climate change is affecting regional seasonality: winters and nights are becoming warmer in certain areas, and thus more conducive to tornado formation, while others are becoming too hot for storms to form during the normal season.
Did climate change do it? Researchers aren’t entirely sure but there doesn’t appear to be a correlation between tornado formation and climate change. Still, warmer temperatures potentially make certain areas more or less prone to tornadoes than they were in the past.
We say “it was a dark and stormy night” because “it was a severe convective storm” doesn’t have the same ring. But an SCS — which forms when warm, moist air rises into colder air — is the most common and most damaging weather phenomenon in the United States. You probably just call it a thunderstorm.
Severe convective storms cause many localized events that we think of as “weather,” including heavy rainfall, high winds, tornadoes, hail, thunder, and lightning. Because heat and moisture are necessary ingredients for these kinds of storms, and because the atmosphere is getting both warmer and wetter, climate models “consistently” and confidently predict an “increase in the frequency of severe thunderstorms,” the IPCC notes — but, “there is low confidence in the details of the projected increase.” Trends remain poorly studied and highly regionally dependent; in the United States, for example, there is still no evidence of a “significant increase in convective storms, and hail and severe thunderstorms.” Still, other research suggests that for every 1.8 degree F of warming, the conditions favorable to severe convective storms will increase in frequency by up to 20%.
Hail forms during severe convective storms when the hot, moist air rises to a region of the atmosphere where it is cold enough to freeze. Like thunderstorms more generally, data is fairly limited on hail, making it difficult to study long-term trends (most climate models also do not look directly at hail, studying convective storms more broadly instead). However, it’s been hypothesized that climate change could create larger and more destructive hail in the future; if thunderstorm updrafts grow stronger, as projected, then they could hold hail at freezing high altitudes for longer, allowing individual hailstones to grow larger before falling back to Earth. One study even suggested that with continued warming, there could be a 145% increase in “significant severe hail” measuring at least 2 inches in diameter — that is, a little smaller than a tennis ball.
Did climate change do it? Everything we know about thunderstorms suggests that a warmer, wetter atmosphere will mean severe convection storms become both more frequent and more intense. But there is still very little available data to track the long-term trends, so attributing any one storm to climate change would be nearly impossible.
Just as virtually all heat waves worldwide are worsened by climate change, “nearly every instance of extreme cold across the world has decreased in likelihood,” according to the WWA. While the organization has run attribution studies on “a few” heavy snowfall events, it has either found no link to climate change or has been unable to state a conclusion confidently. On the other hand, the loss of snow cover, permafrost, Arctic sea ice, and glaciers has a high-confidence link to human-caused climate change in the IPCC report.
Just because climate change makes extreme cold and snowstorms less likely does not mean they won’t happen. Research published in Nature earlier this year suggests climate change could bring more snow to certain places, as extremely cold parts of the world warm to snow-friendly temperatures, and increased precipitation from a warmer atmosphere results in more flurries. Parts of Siberia and the northern Great Plains are even experiencing a deepening snowpack.
Did climate change do it? Probably not — though there are notable exceptions.
An earthquake is usually caused by the release of energy when two tectonic plates suddenly slip past each other (though they can also be caused by fossil fuel extraction). But before you dismiss earthquakes as having no connection to climate change, there is one place where there could be a link: water.
As Emily Pontecorvo wrote for Heatmap this spring, “Changes in surface water, whether because of heavy rain, snow, or drought, could either increase or relieve stress on geologic faults, causing them to shift.” Admittedly, even if there is a relationship between climate change, water, and earthquakes, it appears to be small — so small that humans probably can’t feel any resulting quakes.
Did climate change do it? It’s highly unlikely.
Earlier this year, extreme turbulence on a Singapore-bound flight from London killed one person and injured at least 20 others. While such events remain rare — the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board recorded just 101 serious injuries caused by turbulence on millions of flights between 2013 and 2022 — extreme turbulence appears to be increasing, potentially because of climate change.
According to one study, severe turbulence is up 55% between 1979 and 2020, seemingly due to an increase in wind shear at high altitudes caused by the temperature contrast between the equator and the North Pole. (This relationship is a little bit complicated, but essentially, at higher altitudes, the temperature over the pole has been declining due to rapid Arctic temperature changes even as it’s increased at the equator; lower in the troposphere, the opposite is happening). Other studies have similarly shown that doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could increase moderate-to-severe turbulence by as much as 127%.
Data, however, is limited and fairly subjective, leading to some skepticism in the scientific community and inaccurate dismissals by climate-change deniers. As with many complex weather phenomena, our understanding of how climate change interacts with turbulence will likely grow in the coming years as the field of research develops.
Did climate change do it? Potentially in some cases, but there is still much to learn about the connection between the two.
Desertification differs from drought in that it describes a decline in soil fertility, water, and plant life to the point of total “land degradation.” (In contrast, land can become productive again after a drought.) Like other compound disasters, desertification results from natural processes, climatic conditions, and land management practices such as grazing and deforestation.
According to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, land degradation is “almost always” the result of these “multiple interacting causes,” and the warming climate certainly isn’t helping. Heat stress can kill off vegetation, making landscapes more prone to desertification, as well as drive aridification.
In the resulting drylands — which comprise about 46% of global land area — you can expect dust storms (also known as haboobs), and sand storms resulting from the wind kicking up loose soils. While there have always been sand storms, one study suggests that climate change is one of the critical drivers of global annual dust emissions increasing by 25% between the late 19th century and today.
However, “climate change impacts on dust and sand storm activity remain a critical gap,” writes the IPCC, and more research is desperately needed to address this. By the UN’s estimate, dust storms were associated with the deaths of 402,000 people in 2005. As many as 951 million people, mainly in South Asia, Central Asia, West Africa, and East Asia, could be vulnerable to the impacts of desertification if climate change continues.
Did climate change do it? It was potentially a factor, but we have lots more to learn.
Are locust swarms technically “weather”? Not really. But so long as we’re on the topic of weather events of Biblical proportions, locust swarms might as well be addressed, too.
And the answer may surprise you: Climate appears to be a driver of locust swarms, which threaten food security and exacerbate famines throughout Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Locusts prefer “arid areas punched by extreme rainfall,” according to one study that looked at the connection between swarms and climate change, and while much of that pattern is fixed in the natural El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle, a warming climate will also “lead to widespread increases in locust outbreaks with emerging hotspots in west central Asia.” In particular, the research found that in a low-emissions scenario, locust habitat could increase by 5%, while in a high-emissions scenario, it could increase by 13% to 25% between 2065 and 2100.
Did climate change do it? It’d likely be tricky to attribute any one locust swarm to climate change, but as with many other natural phenomena, climate likely plays a compounding factor.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Spoiler: They’re mostly winners.
There’s seemingly plenty to celebrate in the Senate’s new 400-plus-page permitting reform bill, the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, or BAAJA. The headline benefit — and the one drawing the most praise from energy hawks — is that expediting the buildout of energy infrastructure and transmission lines ought to bring tons more zero-carbon energy online. No doubt it will speed up fossil fuel projects as well, but modeling shows that renewables like wind and solar are disproportionately held back by the notoriously contentious and slow planning and permitting processes the bill seeks to overhaul.
Old-school renewables aren’t the only technologies that stand to benefit from BAAJA, however.
Here are four more climate tech sectors — and the startups working in them — that are probably pretty happy to see that, after four years of debate and countless failed negotiations, a permitting bill finally appears poised to become law.
No surprises here: It’s well known at this point that geothermal is a beloved bipartisan technology, and BAAJA affirms the government’s commitment to bringing more of this clean, firm energy source online as soon as possible.
The bill would categorically exclude drilling exploratory geothermal test wells from review under the National Environmental Policy Act, and exempt lower-impact activities such as mapping and surface surveying from NEPA entirely. It would also require the Interior Department to hold annual geothermal lease sales, and drop the federal drilling permit requirement for geothermal exploration on non-federal land, so long as the government owns less than half of the underground resource.
Next-generation geothermal companies such as Fervo Energy, Sage Geosystems, Mazama Energy, and Quaise Energy stand to benefit, of course, as finding viable sites to trial their tech and build early commercial projects requires plenty of mapping and exploratory drilling. This cohort aims to expand geothermal beyond the relatively small number of geographies with the ideal combination of high heat at shallow depths, naturally occurring subsurface water or steam, and permeable rock that conventional geothermal power plants rely on. But a company like Zanskar, which uses AI to identify overlooked conventional geothermal resources, stands to benefit, too — its approach also depends on scouting and drilling across many sites.
BAAJA is intent on advancing tech that can squeeze more capacity out of the transmission lines we already have. The bill requires utilities to conduct recurring evaluations on technologies that could increase the capacity of existing transmission infrastructure, such as higher-capacity replacement wires or monitoring systems that determine when the lines can safely carry more power. Investor-owned utilities have historically had little incentive to adopt any of this, since they earn money by building new infrastructure, not by making existing infrastructure more efficient. Now, that math could change. If the evaluations find this tech will provide net benefits, utilities are required to deploy it within a certain timeframe, lest the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission impose penalties.
That’s welcome news for dynamic line rating startups such as LineVision and Heimdall Power, which use sensors to monitor power lines in real time to determine when they’re capable of carrying more electricity than their fixed ratings allow. Companies building higher-capacity lines are also likely to see more business. This includes TS Conductor, which makes a carbon-fiber core wire that it says can double or even triple a line’s capacity, and VEIR, which originally aimed to build “high-temperature superconducting transmission lines,” though it recently pivoted to data center power solutions. Startups like NewGrid, whose software finds ways to avoid congested lines and route more electricity through the existing grid, could benefit, too.
The bill also opens doors for virtual power plants, networks of distributed energy resources such as rooftop solar panels, batteries, smart thermostats, and electric vehicle chargers that operate like a single power plant, responding to spikes in energy demand or shifting load to off-peak hours. Like grid-enhancing technologies, VPPs can reduce the need for new poles, wires, and power plants by making better use of the energy resources already installed in homes and businesses. And they also include an added perk: They pay these customers for adjusting their energy use when the grid needs it.
While FERC ordered grid operators to open their markets to these aggregators in 2020, implementation has dragged. BAAJA would speed things up by requiring operators to allow VPPs into their markets within 18 months of the bill’s passage and setting a low, 100-kilowatt threshold for device networks to be considered VPP-eligible. It would also require utilities to connect VPPs quickly and allow them to export power, while barring utilities from requiring aggregators to install the utilities’ own equipment like separate submeters and switches, which adds delays and added costs for hardware and installation. Separately, the bill directs the Department of Energy to fund efforts to streamline local government permitting and inspections for distributed energy resources like rooftop solar and batteries.
This is a boon for aggregators including Voltus, Renew Home, and David Energy, which sell grid services like demand response, capacity, and frequency regulation into utility programs and wholesale markets. Under this bill, they could do so more easily thanks to guaranteed market access and lower entry thresholds.
VPP software platforms like Leap could benefit, too. Leap helps manufacturers of devices such as smart thermostats and EV chargers enroll customers in VPP programs, so fewer utility equipment requirements and what will presumably be a much bigger addressable market would help. Home battery companies such as Lunar Energy and Base Power, which aggregate their residential batteries into VPPs, and smart panel-maker Span, which coordinates home appliances to respond to grid needs, could see similar benefits.
Hard rock mining is also among the bill’s clear winners. It clarifies that miners can use as much federal land as is “reasonably necessary” to store waste rock and tailings, and opens additional federal land for hard-rock mining leases. It also requires lawsuits challenging mining approvals to be filed within 150 days. Broader changes to NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Clean Water Act will also accelerate the mining approval process.
This will undoubtedly be controversial for many climate advocates; while the energy transition demands more critical minerals, mining itself is a dirty endeavor. Yet there are a number of climate tech-adjacent companies focused on extracting, refining, and processing materials like lithium, nickel, cobalt and copper that stand to benefit.
One of the buzziest startups trying to develop new critical minerals mines, AI-driven exploration and development company KoBold Metals, is mainly working abroad right now. But a more favorable domestic environment could prove an enticement to invest more at home. Mariana Minerals, a software-driven developer working to bring mines online faster and cheaper, definitely stands to benefit given its current domestic focus. So could startups like Jetti and Endolith, which are developing technology to extract more copper from low-grade ores. Both work with existing mines, so could stand to profit from a domestic mining boom.
Of course not everyone will win here. For the horde of climate-tech adjacent startups trying to jump on the data center bandwagon — perhaps those working on chip cooling or capturing and recycling the waste heat from data center servers — maybe the added costs this bill imposes on data centers will reduce demand for their services just a bit. But I wouldn’t count on that. The bill certainly won’t stop the buildout so much as change who pays for some of the infrastructure required to serve it, shifting the cost of new power lines and grid upgrades from ratepayers onto the tech giants and developers themselves.
Then there are the myriad software startups such as Nira Energy, Paces, and Piq Energy that help energy developers navigate the grid interconnection process. Since the bill requires regional grids to streamline their queues, this could reduce demand for their services. But developers will still need to know where the grid has room and where projects pencil out, and utilities and grid operators will have to rebuild their interconnection processes, a transition that could generate demand for software of this sort.
There’s also just an array of climate industries that go largely unaddressed. While the Inflation Reduction Act offered incentives for practically every decarbonization technology under the sun, this bill is far more targeted, leaving sectors such as EV manufacturing, industrial decarbonization products like clean cement and steel, agricultural technologies, and methane abatement relatively untouched.
Carbon capture and removal projects, EV charging, and hydrogen get only minor nods: protection from administrative delays for carbon management projects and DOE funding to help local governments expedite permitting for EV chargers and hydrogen refueling stations. All of these industries could still benefit when building manufacturing plants or other facilities that need federal sign offs. But they could also lose ground if speedier approvals for fossil fuel infrastructure make cleaner alternatives less competitive.
On Korean reactors, California plug-in solar, and Europe’s green steel champion
Current conditions: Floodwaters from the remnants of Hurricane Polo breached a 20-foot dam in southern New Mexico, forcing evacuations • The Pacific’s active hurricane season continues as Hurricane Rachel threatens dangerous rip tides off Baja California • Further north in the Pacific, Tropical Storm Choi-wan is headed toward the Northern Mariana Islands.
It’s 417 pages — or, for those of you who think in such terms, roughly two-and-a-three-quarters the length of a standard environmental impact statement. And it the landed yesterday with much fanfare. The Senate’s grand compromise on permitting reform, dubbed the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, or BAAJA, is packed with sweeping changes that promise to upend how data centers are built, whether transmission lines get constructed at all, and speed up deployments of all kinds of energy infrastructure. My colleagues — there are five bylines on this sucker, if you have any doubt about how seriously Heatmap is taking this — have a dense and comprehensive explainer here.
Whether the bill becomes law is another question. Already, House Democrats are casting doubt over whether they will vote for the legislation during the lame-duck session after Republicans likely lose control of at least the lower chamber of Congress in November’s midterm elections. “Most Democrats will want to see how things go on Nov. 3 and then do a reality check,” Representative Jared Huffman, a California Democrat, told Bloomberg reporter Ari Natter. “If we’re on our way to a majority in one or both Houses, it makes no sense to fold our hand when we could wait a few months and have a much better deal early next year.” Any hope of brokering a deal to vote on the bill before the election seems unlikely. A GOP source told me “there is no way” House Speaker Mike Johnson, the Louisiana Republican, “will call back people from the campaign trail to vote on this in the House.” So it may be too soon to turn the acronym into a name. But my humble suggestion is to pronounce BAAJA as BAH-zhuh, which sounds like Basha, my late grandmother’s name. I can only assume the rest of you are equally moved by that association.
South Korea is the only country in the democratic world with a strong, recent track record of building nuclear reactors competently and on time. Seoul’s state nuclear giant is also bound by a settlement with America’s flagship nuclear company, Westinghouse, which accused Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power of ripping off the design of the U.S. reactor, the AP1000. As a result, the Koreans can’t build their own reactors in North America or Europe. But in a bid to stave off President Donald Trump’s tariffs, South Korea has agreed to spend $200 billion on U.S. energy projects. That includes an investment into Alaska LNG, a major liquified natural gas terminal, a gas-fired station in Texas, and eight nuclear reactors, according to Bloomberg and Politico. The deal is the culmination of talks ongoing since the spring, as I previously reported, and comes amid swirling rumors in the South Korean press over whether Seoul could secure a stake in Westinghouse if the American company makes a debut on the stock market. In a statement, the Canadian uranium giant Cameco, which owns 49% of Westinghouse, said the eight reactors in the Korean deal “contemplates” the construction of as many as six new AP1000s and up to two Korean APR1400 reactors. Still, the company emphasized that it was focused on the Department of Energy’s condition loan commitment to finance AP1000 components for any joint venture between Westinghouse and a utility building one of its reactors. But it said that, if both the American and Korean reactors can be built successfully, “both technologies are expected to be deployed on federal sites designated” by the U.S. government, “beginning with the deployment of two AP1000 reactors.”
It’s unclear when the South Korean money will flow into actual projects on the ground. But New York is putting up dollars. On Tuesday, New York Governor Kathy Hochul awarded another $10 million to the New York Power Authority to support workforce development programs in a bid to train more people to staff the nuclear power stations her administration has tasked the state utility with financing. “Advanced nuclear is a cornerstone of my all-of-the-above strategy to keep the lights on and costs down for New Yorkers,” Hochul said in a statement. “The $10 million in funding approved today by the NYPA board will help ensure New York’s advanced nuclear future will be built by and for New Yorkers and also re-energize an industry that will create thousands of high-quality jobs while complementing our nation-leading efforts on wind and solar.” Canada, meanwhile, is upping its ambition. Saskatchewan’s provincial government announced plans this week to build at least two large-scale reactors by the early 2040s, NucNet reported.
When Secretary of Energy Chris Wright sat down with my colleague Robinson Meyer last week, he said he doubted the Trump administration would impose a temporary ban on exporting diesel amid record-high prices. But the Financial Times reported Wednesday that the White House was holding “crisis talks” to determine whether the move was merited. Experts have cautioned that it could lower diesel prices in the U.S. slightly, but would send prices soaring in Europe.
Russia, meanwhile, just renewed its ban on diesel exports, blunting both the effects of the global market chaos and the profits the Kremlin could be yielding given its rising crude exports, Bloomberg reported.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a series of bills Wednesday that clear the way for more homeowners in the state to slash their electricity costs and personal carbon footprints. Under one new law, utilities will offer a voluntary incentive to electrify homes whenever the pipe connecting a home to a gas main line is due for replacement. Under another, homeowners and even renters will be able to install plug-in solar panels that can generate small amounts of electricity on roofs or balconies.
As grows a market in the nation’s most populous state, so goes the country. The so-called balcony solar bill in particular is expected to supercharge the market, making cheap, personal solar panels more widely accessible. As my colleague Katie Brigham wrote last year, plug-in solar is popular in Europe, and could find a big market in the U.S. New York, for example, passed legislation this spring, though Hochul has yet to sign it.
Europe once boasted two cutting-edge green industrial manufacturers, both in Sweden, with shared investors and executives. Northvolt, an electric vehicle battery manufacturer, declared bankruptcy last year. That left only Stegra, the green steelmaker. Shortly after Northvolt went under, Stegra went looking for another financial lifeline to cover the mounting costs of commercializing its renewable electricity-based method for forging steel. It ultimately received one from a French hydrogen investor. Now Stegra says it needs more money to complete its flagship first project in northern Sweden. The company named former Saab aerospace executive Håkan Buskhe as its new chief executive, replacing Henrik Henriksson who served in the top role since 2021. The new leadership’s review of its books and plans revealed “that additional capital is required to complete the project, as estimated costs of completing it are significantly higher than assumed in June.” The high costs “are mainly the result of substantial ramp-up costs following the prolonged scaling back of work earlier this year, as well as inflation.”
The U.S., meanwhile, may be getting what Canary Media called a “lower carbon steel mill” in Iowa. Mesabi Metallics, which is already building America’s first new iron ore mine in 50 years, announced plans this week for a $15 billion steel plant in southeast Iowa that would rely on what’s called direct reduced iron, a cleaner method of making iron than a traditional coal-fired blast furnace. As my colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote last year, the Trump administration may have violated the law when it diverted Energy Department funding from a green steel project in Ohio to instead reboot a blast furnace. Hyundai is also building a gas-powered DRI steel mill in Louisiana, which the automaker plans to eventually run on low-carbon hydrogen, as I previously reported.

Before the artificial intelligence boom (and its less sexy older brother, the cryptomining boom), electricity demand growth was a problem many proponents of decarbonization actually wanted, because it would mean electrification was taking off. Last year, record EV sales translated into record 16% growth in electricity demand for charging the light-duty battery electric vehicles. But this year the growth fell by half to just 8%, according to the latest analysis by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Controlled Thermal Resources has completed key financial steps ahead of its planned Nasdaq debut.
California’s inland Salton Sea is a potential clean energy double dip, with vast and largely untapped geothermal hotspots for generating heat and electricity and rich deposits of lithium, manganese, and other critical minerals needed to fuel the battery revolution.
Now one of the companies looking to commercialize both resources is taking a big step toward debuting on the stock market.
On Thursday, Controlled Thermal Resources is set to announce that it’s converting $205 million of debt into equity ahead of a planned initial public offering on the Nasdaq later this year, Heatmap can exclusively report. Among the big investors swapping debt for a stake in the Imperial, California-headquartered startup is the automaker Stellantis, according to a source with direct knowledge of the deal.
“Like a lot of our colleagues in this industry, we need to raise a lot of capital to build out a multi-stage project,” Rod Colwell, CTR’s chief executive, told me this week. An IPO, he said, “is a mechanism that enables us to keep going back to the market as we build out our 650-plus megawatts and supporting infrastructure that follows.”
He declined to comment on what interest Stellantis, which owns brands such as Chrysler, Jeep, and Maserati, has in the deal. The Dutch auto giant did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
“Automakers who successfully build out a resilient EV supply chain, including mining and mineral processing, will be in a good position to compete as the U.S. auto market continues to evolve in the years ahead,” Corey Cantor, the research director at the trade group Zero Emission Transportation Association, told me via email. With electric vehicles sales also booming globally, “having a more resilient supply chain up and running soon is more important than ever.”
CTR isn’t pursuing a traditional IPO. Instead, the startup is planning to go public via a merger with a special purpose acquisition company, a so-called blank-check firm that’s already trading, allowing the actual primary entity to swiftly issue stock to retail investors. While plenty of SPAC deals have proven volatile in recent years, particularly in cutting-edge clean energy, geothermal stocks are particularly — forgive me — hot.
Fervo Energy, the country’s frontrunner in developing next-generation geothermal power plants, is racing to complete its first major facility, known as Cape Station. Shares in the Houston-based firm skyrocketed after its IPO in May, though the price has sunk in the intervening months.
With demand for electricity soaring, CTR shifted its strategy to focus on building its debut 50-megawatt geothermal power station. Power and heat from that facility will, in turn, be used to extract and process lithium and other minerals from the briny inland lake.
CTR said it aims to move forward with its plant next June, with the facility expected to come online in 2028.
“Shortly thereafter, we’ll be building out the critical minerals component,” Colwell said. “That’ll be commissioned in 2030.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the generation capacity of CTR’s debut power station.