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 defense of “everything bagel” policymaking.
The U.S. too enmeshed in the global financial system for the rest of the world to solve climate change without us.
And coal communities and fracking villages and all the rest.
The founder of Galvanize Climate Solutions and a 2020 presidential candidate does some math on how smart climate policy could help the U.S. in a trade war.
Direct air capture isn’t doing everything its advocates promised — yet. That doesn’t make it a scam.
What the Council on Foreign Relations’ new climate program gets drastically wrong.
Biden’s Secretary of Energy argues that if Trump wants to achieve his goals, preserving his predecessor’s manufacturing incentives is the only way.
What if — despite the news — America is in fact the world’s most promising country to invest in right now? What if now is actually the best time to build a manufacturing facility in the U.S., particularly for the new energy economy? What if hundreds of communities could be rejoicing in fresh opportunities to work in future-facing industries?
And what if the reason comes down to the combined efforts of Joe Biden and Donald Trump?
I’ve always said that to reshore and rebuild manufacturing in America, we have to play two parts offense and one part defense. The Inflation Reduction Act, which Biden signed into law in 2022, is the biggest offensive play the U.S. has ever made, with tax credits and incentives that are unleashing a clean energy arms race right here at home. Tariffs can be defense, provided they’re phased in and negotiated smartly to allow for U.S. supply chains to develop.
We now face a choice: Abandon our offensive strategy by gutting those IRA tax incentives, or play to win by building on the work we did during the Biden administration. It’s that simple — to achieve true energy dominance, America needs the IRA. And then over the next three years the Trump administration will have the honor of cutting the ribbon on all those new factories.
But the time is urgent. Congress is debating the federal budget over the next few weeks, and the fate of the IRA — and all of those factories and jobs — hangs in the balance.
The fact is, the IRA is working. When I was Secretary of Energy, the department partnered with businesses on over 500 new energy projects, from hydrogen hubs to nuclear power supply chains. Syrah Technologies is scaling up graphite refining in Louisiana. Lithium Americas just snagged a more than $2.2 billion loan to tap Thacker Pass in Nevada. Qcells opened the first major U.S. solar panel factory since the IRA became law. Fifty gigawatts of solar module capacity have been announced just this year.
This isn’t a blue-state fever dream. As you have no doubt heard, red states are raking in 85% of the investment and 68% of the jobs. Georgia, Texas, South Carolina, North Carolina — these places aren’t debating the IRA, they’re building it. In steel. In solar. In wages. In futures. That’s not “someday.” That’s happening now in the Heartland, in manufacturing towns, in places that haven’t heard the word booming in decades.
That’s how you build dominance — by making the U.S. the place where the world’s energy future gets manufactured. By making the U.S. irresistible for energy investment.
This isn’t just about being “green.” It’s about geopolitics. It’s about making sure the electrons that power our homes, our tanks, and our data centers come from American soil, not authoritarian states. China currently dominates clean energy supply chains — 70% of battery manufacturing, 80% of solar cell production, almost 100% of critical mineral processing. That’s not coincidence; it’s strategy.
The IRA isn’t just correcting a trade imbalance — it’s rewriting the global energy map. Whether or not you believe in climate change, the rest of the world is buying and building the products to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which will become a $34 trillion global market by 2050. Without the IRA, we lose our shot to beat China and the EU in innovation. We lose those jobs. We lose low-cost energy. And we give away the opportunity to power artificial intelligence-driven growth with American electrons.
And let’s talk about AI for a second, because data centers are now part of national security. In 2024, the U.S. used 45% of the world’s data center power. That number’s going to double by 2030. Our AI doesn’t run on hopes and vibes — it runs on power. And if it’s not our power, we’re exposed. We lose data centers to countries that are eager to power the AI economy, and we lose our national security right along with it.
The IRA makes that energy surge possible, and quickly. It’s catalyzing the hundreds of gigawatts of clean power slated to be added to the grid over the next three years.
Since the IRA passed, DOE counted over 950 factory and project announcements, promising almost 800,000 jobs by 2030. A recent Rhodium Group report showed that the IRA has more than tripled investment in solar, wind, batteries, and electric vehicle manufacturing since its passage, triggering a U.S. manufacturing boom. But in Q1 2025, due to the uncertainty over tax credits and tariffs, almost $7 billion of that investment has been canceled — the highest quarterly cancellation rate on record. Freyr Battery killed plans to build a $2.6 billion battery cell manufacturing plant in Georgia. In Arizona, Kore Power scrapped its gigafactory. Dominance shrivels when policy is weak.
Repealing the tax credits would raise electric bills on working families by 7% to 10%. That’s $6 billion out of the pockets of American families by 2030, and over $9 billion by 2035. Strip the IRA, and we lose supply chains. We lose factories. For what? To make China stronger? To make our grid weaker? To raise bills on the very communities who finally have something to look forward to?
Here’s the truth: You can’t be energy “dominant” if you gut the energy sources that are projected to add 80% to 90% of new gigawatts to the U.S. grid between now and 2030. Clean power is projected to add a whopping 463 gigawatts of power to the grid by 2030, according to the Energy Information Administration. That’s the equivalent of 230 Hoover Dams — but only if the IRA stays. And you can’t claim dominance when you gut the means to manufacture those products at home. Saying that the U.S. is striving for energy dominance except in the clean energy sector is like opening a steakhouse and forgetting the meat. What happened to “all of the above”?
If we’re serious about reclaiming energy dominance, the path isn’t theoretical, it’s legislative. It’s the IRA. It’s our biggest shot at securing the grid, reshoring supply chains, lowering bills, and out-innovating everyone else.
Energy dominance requires a no-holds-barred battle plan; let’s not surrender our most powerful weapon as we make America irresistible for investment again.
The views expressed here are the author’s own and not necessarily those of the DGA Group.
“Energy dominance” has to start with energy reliability.
As we sat down to write this essay in mid-March, hundreds of thousands of people in Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and Texas were without electricity for days after heavy late-season snows and high winds took down power lines. Then just days ago, more powerful storms swept through the Midwest, leaving thousands more in the dark. Both events were stark reminders that America's grid is careening toward its breaking point.
“Energy dominance” is the Trump Administration's energy motto, which we interpret as producing enough reliable and affordable domestic energy to meet our increasing needs. We’re missing a piece of the puzzle. While domestic oil and natural gas production continues to rise, the U.S. electricity system is in decline.
After two decades of relatively level electricity consumption, demand is growing again. By 2050, our electricity needs are projected to nearly double, according to the Department of Energy. Advanced manufacturing plants, electric vehicles, and data centers processing artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency mining are among the major drivers of this growth.
A modern grid can restore power in minutes, meet growing manufacturing and AI electricity needs, and protect against cyberattacks. Our grid isn't prepared for this challenge. We lack sufficient high-voltage transmission lines to safely carry additional electricity to large-load consumers. Much of our existing infrastructure is outdated. Most of our grid was built in the 1960s and 1970s, approaching the end of its useful life. We continue to rely on lines across communities on wooden poles vulnerable to increasingly severe weather. While we've automated energy distribution systems for efficiency, this has made them more susceptible to cyberattacks.
Soon, activating a new data center might feel like a dangerous gamble. That area's grid could remain functional — or not.
America needs a national plan to rescue our grid. In February, we got together with more than 80 top energy experts, including former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, for a meeting at Stanford University to explore how to meet critical U.S. electricity challenges. That meant coming up with ideas that were both technically feasible and politically palatable.
The resulting report outlines six big ideas for achieving an affordable, reliable, and secure grid:
1. Ensure American security remains at the heart of the nation’s energy strategy.
2. Advance a true all-of-the-above energy strategy.
3. Create a new federal and state grid investment trust fund.
4. Reform permitting processes to expedite grid infrastructure projects.
5. Promote and scale innovative, flexible grid policies.
6. Prioritize affordability through modernized utility operations and business models.
One place we drew inspiration is from the Highway Trust Fund, which has financed much highway construction and maintenance since 1956. A similar endowment dedicated to strengthening the grid could cover the costs of building additional transmission lines and renovating aging ones. Congress might consider financing this grid infrastructure trust fund with proportional contributions from the largest electricity users.
Such financing can succeed only alongside meaningful national permitting reform. New transmission lines are frequently delayed for a decade or more because states hesitate to issue permits. When developers seek to build transmission lines on federal lands, they face cumbersome environmental reviews that can halt projects entirely. Major permitting reform failed to pass Congress as recently as last year, but bipartisan negotiators can bring a successful bill to the floor in the current session.
Transmission lines are agnostic about the source of the energy flowing across them, and our energy policy should be the same. The keyword should be, as it has long been in many political circles, “all of the above.” We shouldn't undermine any energy source ready to deploy today. Few new natural gas, coal, and nuclear power plants can be constructed by 2030. In the near term, renewables and energy storage are more ready to deploy, and regardless of what is best, these are what utilities are relying on for the next few years.
We want technology companies developing the world's most sophisticated AI models in America. We want manufacturing plants building cutting-edge products in our communities. Producing enough energy to power these industries is fundamental to our national and economic security. If AI systems can enable new weapons development, support offensive cyber operations, or facilitate mass surveillance, we should oversee and regulate those systems within our borders.
New manufacturing plants are already creating good-paying American jobs while bringing supply chains for semiconductors and other critical technologies back home. Turning away these businesses because we can't meet their energy needs would mean surrendering our technological and economic advantage to overseas competitors.
Alongside drinkable water, clean air, and paved roads, Americans expect reliable electricity. We can build and repair our transmission systems while producing more energy. We can permit new high-voltage lines while supporting data centers and manufacturing plants. We can incentivize power production, simplify bureaucracy, and strengthen national security.
Our hope is that these six ideas spark a conversation about how we can rescue our grid and, as a result, our economic growth, technological leadership, and national security. Advancing them will require working across the aisle, across sectors, and in partnership across federal, state, and local levels.
Done right, America can fortify its transmission infrastructure against grid overload, natural disasters, and cyberattacks. Large corporate consumers would access the electricity they need, while homeowners and small businesses would enjoy reliable power from a modernized grid.
Congress can make our energy economy the envy of the world. The work starts by rescuing our grid.
