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:
While they had some reservations, the sheer scale of China’s decarbonization efforts were undeniable.

As I walked participants through Heatmap’s end-of-year survey, there was one question that consistently elicited thoughtful sighs, nervous laughs, and cautious qualifications from the 55 climate researchers, policymakers, scientists, innovators, business leaders, and other prominent voices that we spoke with.
On its face, the question was simple: Is China more of a hero or villain on climate?
Some said the country is a hero, full stop. Only four tilted toward villain. One investor told me I should write a book about this question. And 13 couldn’t quite decide — perhaps both? Maybe neither? As Mijin Cha, an environmental studies professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz put it to my colleague, “Is China doing more on decarbonization than other countries? Yes. Are they doing it in a way that I think is just? Unlikely.”
In the final tally, nearly three quarters of our survey respondents viewed China as more of a hero overall. The general vibe was one of conflicted but reluctant appreciation for a nation that’s building more new coal capacity than any other country on Earth but also magnitudes more solar, wind, and batteries. Not to mention the way that it’s cleaning America’s clock on manufacturing electric vehicles, especially the more affordable models. In China, over 50% of all new cars sold this year were EVs compared to only about 10% in the U.S.
“If you’re looking at scaling the production of clean energy, infrastructure, and assets, they’re a hero,” one climate tech investor told me. “We blew that one.”
Perhaps it’s unsurprising that many of the “innovators” I spoke with — a category largely comprised of U.S.-based climate tech investors — were especially gung-ho about China, with 14 out of 16 saying that it’s a hero. After all, the country builds stuff, and fast. In the U.S., construction on our two most recently completed nuclear reactors took roughly 15 years and over $35 billion. China is home to nearly half of the world’s reactors under construction, building them for an average of about $3 billion each.
Even when it comes to fusion — long dominated by American national labs, universities, and entrepreneurs — China is catching up quickly, as the government pours billions into its new state-owned fusion company.
Whereas Tom Chi of At One Ventures told me that there’s a narrative in the U.S. that clean energy is “this huge economic drag, just for these liberal elites trying to go push their agenda,” China’s actions offer a wordless rebuttal best summarized as, “you might have that wrong, because we’re making crazy money on green technologies.”
“It’s like the Nike commercial — they just do it,” a former Department of Energy employee told my colleague. By contrast, the U.S. can look litigious and regulation-heavy, with layers of environmental review, permitting, and lawsuits routinely stalling domestic projects. China’s blend of technocratic authoritarianism gives it the freedom to sidestep red tape and override local opposition, respondents told us.
Not to say that the country’s advances are solely the product of its own ingenuity. As another climate-focused venture investor told me, “A lot of Chinese companies are just taking what American companies do and then copying or short-circuiting or stealing IP.” On net, however, they still felt that China tilted toward the hero side of the ledger.
The one person I spoke with who categorized China as a villain — an investor focused on first-of-a-kind projects — argued that it’s important to consider not just what China does at home, but also “what they’re going to do to everyone else.”
Indeed, research shows that the country is still financing the construction of coal plants abroad, despite a 2021 pledge to stop doing so, and it’s deeply entwined with Africa’s oil and gas industry. China also outsources some of the dirtiest links in its battery supply chain — think cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and nickel mining in Indonesia — to low-income countries with exploitative labor practices and lax environmental standards.
“I think China will increase other countries’ emissions substantially while reducing their own,” this investor told me.
Part of what seemed to make this question so messy was the overall perception that on climate, China’s actions are mostly driven by self-interest rather than any grander, “heroic” sense of global responsibility. The nation’s latest round of emissions reductions targets — which all Paris Agreement countries are required to update every five years — were widely seen as underwhelming and insufficient, reinforcing the perception that the country is more interested in being an economic powerhouse than a climate leader.
Thus, China’s role in the energy transition will "entirely hinge” on whether it views “the market opportunity to enhance decarbonization with Chinese technology as advantageous or disadvantageous,” another climate tech VC told me. Naturally, they predict that China will continue to see this moment as an opportunity to fuel economic growth and expand its global reach.
“China is more like water flowing downhill. There’s no value to it, they’re just doing what’s smart and strategic,” one lawmaker told my colleague, landing on the same conclusion that most eventually accepted. “The effect of it will be, on balance, heroic."
The Heatmap Insiders Survey of 55 invited expert respondents was conducted by Heatmap News reporters during November and December 2025. Responses were collected via phone interviews. All participants were given the opportunity to record responses anonymously. Not all respondents answered all questions.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Co-founder Mateo Jaramillo described how the startup’s iron-air battery could help address the data center boom — and the energy transition
Well before the introduction of ChatGPT and Claude, Ireland underwent a data center construction boom similar to the one the U.S. is experiencing today.
That makes it a fitting location for Form Energy’s first project outside the U.S. Mateo Jaramillo, the CEO of the long-duration energy storage startup, described Ireland as “a postcard from the future” at Heatmap House, a day of conversations and roundtables with leading policymakers, executives, and investors at San Francisco Climate Week.
In a one-on-one interview with Robinson Meyer, Jaramillo went on to explain the potential of a 100-hour battery, calling it the duration at which you can “functionally replace thermal resources on the grid or compete with them.” Such storage capacity would not only bolster data centers’ power reliability but also speed up the transition from oil and gas to renewables.
Form Energy, which Jaramillo co-founded in 2017, is best known for its iron-air battery that can continuously discharge energy for 100 hours. In February, the startup announced a partnership with Google and the utility Xcel Energy to build the highest-capacity battery in the world, capable of storing 30 gigawatt-hours of energy, as Heatmap’s Katie Brigham reported.
Despite the troublesome state of renewables deployment in the U.S., energy storage firms like Form appear to be doing well, thanks to record load growth. “When we founded the company, we didn’t anticipate the boom of data center demand that we’re currently experiencing,” said Jaramillo. “But we did bet on the overall mega-trend being pretty firmly in place, which is electricity growth.”
In addition to load growth, battery manufacturers are still benefiting from the Inflation Reduction Act’s energy storage tax credits, which survived the deep cuts Republicans made to the signature climate law last summer. Jaramillo noted that customers can still claim a tax credit for purchasing energy systems, while a manufacturing protection credit also remains in place. “We absolutely qualify for both those things,” Jaramillo said. “In fact, 100 hours as a duration is written into the legislative text for the manufacturing [tax credit].”
Though batteries can help accelerate the retirement of natural gas plants by providing firm energy to supplement renewables’ generation, politicians’ fear of load growth seems to have forged a bipartisan consensus supporting batteries. For its part, Form Energy is focused on continuing to drive down the cost of its iron-air battery.
From “where we sit today,” Form Energy is “quite confident that we will hit that roughly $20 a kilowatt-hour cost within a very short period of time,” Jaramillo said.
At San Francisco Climate Week, John Reynolds discussed how the state is juggling wildfire prevention, climate goals, and more.
Blessed with ample sun and wind for renewables but bedeviled by high electricity prices and natural disasters, California encapsulates the promise and peril of the United States’ energy transition.
So it was fitting that Heatmap House, a day of conversations and roundtables with leading policymakers, executives, and investors at San Francisco Climate Week, kicked off with John Reynolds, president of the California Public Utilities Commission.
The CPUC oversees the most-populous state’s utilities and has the power to approve or veto electricity and natural gas rate increases. At Heatmap House, Reynolds — “one of California’'s most important climate policymakers,” as Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer called him — affirmed that affordability has been top of mind as power bills have risen to become a mainstream political issue across the country. California’s electricity prices are the second-highest in the nation, behind only Hawaii, according to the Electricity Price Hub.
“I’d really like to see us drive down the portion of household income that is consumed by energy prices,” Reynolds said in a one-on-one interview with Rob. “That’s a really important metric for making sure that we’re doing our job to deliver a system that’s efficient at meeting customer needs and is able to support the growth of our economy.”
The Golden State’s power premium has been exacerbated by the fallout from multiple wildfires that have devastated various parts of the state in recent years, which have necessitated costly grid upgrades such as undergrounding power lines. California-based utility PG&E has also invested in more futuristic fire solutions such as “vegetation management robots, power pole sensors, advanced fire detection cameras, and autonomous drones, with much of this enhanced by an artificial intelligence-powered analytics platforms,” as Heatmap’s Katie Brigham wrote shortly after last year’s fires in Los Angeles.
Affordability affects not just Californians’ financial wellbeing, but also the state’s ability to decarbonize quickly. “The affordability challenge that we’re seeing in electric and gas service is one that is going to make it more difficult to meet our climate goals as a state,” Reynolds said.
One contentious — and somewhat byzantine — aspect of California’s energy transition is how much of a financial incentive the CPUC should offer for residents to install rooftop solar. Net metering is a billing system that rewards households with solar panels for sending excess generation back to the grid. Three years ago, the CPUC adopted a new standard that substantially lowered the rate at which solar panel users were compensated.
“We had to slow the bleeding,” Reynolds said, referring to the greater financial burden paid by utility customers without solar panels. “The net billing tariff did slow the bleeding, but it didn’t stop it.”
Asked whether he is focused more on electricity rates (the amount a customer pays per kilowatt-hour) or bills (the amount a utility charges a ratepayer), Reynolds said both are important.
“If we can drive down electric rates, we’re going to enable more electrification of transportation and of buildings,” Reynolds said. “It’s really important to look at bills, because that is fundamentally what hits households. People’s wallets are limited by their bills, not by their rates.”
The state has terminated an agreement to develop substations and other necessary grid infrastructure to serve the now-canceled developments.
Crucial transmission for future offshore wind energy in New Jersey is scrapped for now.
The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities on Wednesday canceled the agreement it reached with PJM Interconnection in 2021 to develop wires and substations necessary to send electricity generated by offshore wind across the state. The board terminated this agreement because much of New Jersey’s expected offshore wind capacity has either been canceled by developers or indefinitely stalled by President Donald Trump, including the now-scrapped TotalEnergies projects scrubbed in a settlement with his administration.
“New Jersey is now facing a situation in which there will be no identified, large-scale in-state generation projects under active development that can make use of [the agreement] on the timeline the state and PJM initially envisioned,” the board wrote in a letter to PJM requesting termination of the agreement.
Wind energy backers are not taking this lying down. “We cannot fault the Sherrill Administration for making this decision today, but this must only be a temporary setback,” Robert Freudenberg of the New Jersey and New York-focused environmental advocacy group Regional Plan Association, said in a statement released after the agreement was canceled.
I chronicled the fight over this specific transmission infrastructure before Trump 2.0 entered office and the White House went nuclear on offshore wind. Known as the Larrabee Pre-Built Infrastructure, the proposed BPU-backed network of lines and electrical equipment resulted from years of environmental and sociological study. It was intended to connect wind projects in the Atlantic Ocean to key points on the overall grid onshore.
Activists opposed to putting turbines in the ocean saw stopping the wires as a strategy for delaying the overall construction timelines for offshore wind, intensifying both the costs and permitting headaches for all state and development stakeholders involved. Some of those fighting the wires did so based on fears that electromagnetic radiation from the transmission lines would make them sick.
The only question mark remaining is whether this means the state will try to still proceed with building any of the transmission given rising electricity demand and if these plans may be revisited at a later date. The board’s letter to PJM nods to the future, asserting that new “alternative pathways to coordinated transmission” exist because of new guidance from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. These pathways “may serve” future offshore wind projects should they be pursued, stated the letter.
Of course, anything related to offshore wind will still be conditional on the White House.