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:

Earlier this month, the electric-car maker Rivian announced its new SUV, the R2 — a $45,000 family hauler that will get more than 300 miles in range. It also debuted the R3 and R3X hatchbacks, which entranced online car nerds.
These new Rivian models are sleek and important, but they won’t go on sale until 2026 at the earliest. Can Rivian last that long? We also chat about how electric vehicles’ physical requirements — big batteries, high voltage wires — are changing the design of cars themselves.
In this week’s episode, Rob and Jesse discuss Rivian’s quest to survive, how electrification is creating new vehicle categories, and the coolest EVs coming down the pike.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Robinson Meyer: There’s this term called carcinization in evolutionary biology.
Jesse Jenkins: Ooh.
Meyer: People know this meme, which is that things in the sea tend to evolve into crabs. There’s lots of animals that look like crabs in the sea that are not true crabs, so to speak, because the crab is like a very successful bottom dweller form factor. And so animals that do not start as crabs, once they fill the same ecological niche as crabs, will wind up looking like crabs after you know 10 million, 15 million years.
To remember another guy, I have been thinking also a lot of the — again, if you’re not driving, Google this — the 1990s Toyota Previa, which was a kind of, it was a minivan that was like a half oval. It was kind of pill shaped. And again, the wheels were right at the front and right at the back. It was a more successful car, you’ll see it, it was the iconic 90s Toyota minivan.
And I do feel like, to some degree, the whole car market is undergoing this process of carcinization, where what is actually the vehicle that people want the most, especially families want the most, is a minivan. But minivans are not seen as cool or rugged, and so the whole car market is like trying to generate a vehicle that is as close to the Previa as possible but does not look like a mini— You know, it’s not actually, but to some degree I feel like we keep evolving minivans again and again.
If you think about the history of what the family car has been, where it was a station wagon in the 70s and 80s, then it was a minivan. Now it's this crossover SUV thing.
Jenkins: Yeah, because they make a lot of sense.
Meyer: Those are, broadly, very similar cars. They’re very similar, right? They let you seat two to three kids and they give you a lot of space in the back. But as fashion changes and what's cool, we have to keep redesigning that form factor for just what’s trendy at the moment. But we’re just dancing around this common design.
Jenkins: Yeah, it’s really interesting. There’s such a funny love hate relationship out there with minivans. I mean, they are incredibly useful cars, right? But it’s so hard culturally. It’s so hard to be like, Oh, I got a minivan, I gotta drive a minivan now. I turned 40 this year, so I’m right there. I grew up—
Meyer: You're closer to your midlife crisis than I am here.
Jenkins: —in a household with, originally, when I was first born, they had two Volkswagen bugs. And then as we, my sister and I grew up and we needed more space, both my parents traded in their bugs for Volkswagen minibuses. So we had the Volkswagen bus. And it was like the best family car growing up, right? Because we could all camp in it. Like, you know, we could throw the back seat down and put a mattress there. One of us could sleep on the floor, the middle seats. All my friends would fit inside it for trips to the beach. You know, it was just a super useful vehicle.
And of course that, you know, that sort of design atrophied out in terms of the mass market. People still buy them to convert for campers and things like that, like the Volkswagen California and other kinds of models like that in the van segment. But it’s interesting, the ID.4 Buzz is coming back to the market in the U.S. this year, as well. It’s the sort of rebirth of theVolkswagen microbus, and I'm really curious to see how it does because it’s a cool design. It’s a very retro forward, right? Which is very similar to how the R3 looks, I'd say.
I'll come back to that in a minute. But I’m really curious to see how it sells. I know my family’s been really interested in it, waiting for it to come out and see what it actually looks like in real life, and maybe test drive it and see if it’s something we might want in the future. But I would love to see more in that category, right? The van.
And you know, the SUV is really just trying to imitate a van with rugged looks that you really don't need. If you just admit it, you just want a minivan.
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by…
Advanced Energy United educates, engages, and advocates for policies that allow our member companies to compete to power our economy with 100% clean energy, working with decision makers and energy market regulators to achieve this goal. Together, we are united in our mission to accelerate the transition to 100% clean energy in America. Learn more at advancedenergyunited.org/heatmap
KORE Power provides the commercial, industrial, and utility markets with functional solutions that advance the clean energy transition worldwide. KORE Power's technology and manufacturing capabilities provide direct access to next generation battery cells, energy storage systems that scale to grid+, EV power & infrastructure, and intuitive asset management to unlock energy strategies across a myriad of applications. Explore more at korepower.com.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
An investment boom is exploding in outer space. Investors have thrown their backing behind space-based solar power, orbital data centers, and even extraterrestrial power grids. SpaceX is pursuing an IPO — potentially the largest the world has ever seen — in part to fund its own off-Earth data center ambitions. The Space Foundation reported that the global space economy reached $613 billion in 2024, combining commercial revenue and government funding, while PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates the sector could grow to reach $2 trillion by 2040, largely driven by private sector innovation and support.
Different though they may be, these technologies all leverage the vast unknown outside our atmosphere to monitor, manage, and optimize terrestrial energy and climate systems.
This boom comes after roughly a decade of sharply falling launch costs, which has fueled a surge in satellite deployments for telecommunications and remote sensing applications. Together, these shifts have expanded the scope of what’s technically and economically possible in space — and in turn, broadened the range of systems and services needed to make this off-Earth infrastructure work.
“We’ve got over 14,000 satellites in space already, and that’s growing every day. It’s going to triple over the next five, six years,” Jeff Johnson, a general partner at the venture firm B Capital, told me. “And if you look at the other trend that’s happening, the power requirements for what’s going up in space have been growing dramatically and will continue to do so.” As Johnson explained, that’s because we’re asking satellites to do more — and to do it faster — than ever before: deliver high-speed internet globally, extend cell coverage in remote areas, and perform onboard data processing before transmitting imagery and other information down to Earth.
SpaceX, of course, has been the dominant force driving down launch costs while dramatically increasing the scale of satellite deployments with its partially reusable Falcon 9 rockets. More recently, it’s laid out an ambitious plan to put 100 gigawatts of “AI compute satellites” into orbit each year, with launches beginning as soon as 2028. As the company wrote in its S-1 filing ahead of its pending IPO, “we believe orbital AI compute is an incredibly difficult technical challenge that only we can solve at scale in the near term.” It also acknowledged, however, that the effort involves “significant technical complexity, unproven technologies, or technologies that do not exist,” and that ultimately, “such initiatives may not achieve commercial viability.”
It’s a startlingly frank assessment of an industry that holds both great potential and significant uncertainty. Much of SpaceX’s growth strategy — and likely the prospects of numerous other companies looking to launch large infrastructure into space — hinges on the success of its next-generation rocket called Starship. Designed to be fully reusable and much larger than any rocket built before, Starship will be capable of carrying roughly five to six times the volume and over eight times the massas Falcon 9. Throughout its 12 test launches so far, the rocket has seen both success and failures, accumulating mounting delays along the way.
The uncertainty around Starship’s future is one reason Johnson’s firm invested in Star Catcher, a startup that bills itself as “the first power grid in space.” He doesn’t view the startup’s value proposition as dependent on Starship’s success, betting that it can serve as critical infrastructure for satellites already in orbit today — not just for the bigger and better systems that future launch vehicles could enable.
Founded less than two years ago, Star Catcher is developing a laser-based system to beam solar energy to satellites in low Earth orbit, supplying additional power directly to their solar arrays even when they’re in Earth’s shadow. This enables satellites to perform ever more power-intensive operations. It also addresses a fundamental constraint of satellite design: A satellite is only as powerful as the size of its solar array, which must be small enough to fit inside a rocket and also degrades over time.
“The average satellite in the Earth’s orbit has like 1,500 watts of power generation, which is as much as my kids’ gaming computer uses,” Andrew Rush, Star Catcher’s CEO, told me. “But we’re saying that satellite is going to be a cell tower, it’s going to be a data center, and those are multi-kilowatt, tens of kilowatts, hundreds of kilowatts applications. There’s a big disconnect there.”
B Capital led Star Catcher’s oversubscribed $65 million Series A round, which closed earlier this month. The fresh capital will help the company demonstrate its system in orbit and move towards commercialization. Star Catcher plans to launch its own constellation of power node satellites with the sole purpose of harnessing energy from the sun — or, as Rush quipped, “the greatest fusion reactor known to humankind.” Each node will then beam that energy to other power-hungry satellites by directing concentrated, near-infrared laser light at their solar panels. This type of light can deliver far greater power density than diffuse sunlight, providing satellites with a roughly 10-fold increase in power capacity compared to what they would generate alone.
As Rush explained, this then enables both satellite and rocket companies to “shrink the size of the solar arrays, and therefore, shrink the size of the spacecraft — actually make it less complex, less massive, and therefore less costly to field.” Already, he said the startup has signed seven power purchase agreements with satellite companies such as Loft Orbital and Astro Digital, as well as agreements or letters of intent with “almost every orbital data center startup” including Starcloud, which wants to begin offering cloud computing in space by early 2027.
For its part, Star Catcher aims to scale commercially by the end of the decade. Rush argues that just as bringing data processing closer to mobile users on the ground speeds up browsing and streaming, the growth of satellite broadband will create demand for the same infrastructure in space. That means everything from caching streaming content to running AI inference and processing satellite data in orbit, thus reducing the latency involved with routing everything to space and back.
While Star Catcher is focused on providing grid infrastructure for conventional satellites and orbital data centers, another recently funded startup, Cowboy Space, wants to build those data centers itself — and the rockets that will bring them to space. The company was founded in 2024 under the name Aetherflux, with the goal of beaming solar energy from space down to Earth. But with its latest $275 million Series B fundraise earlier this month, the company unveiled both a new name and a new mission.
Modern rocket designs from SpaceX — Cowboy Space’s most formidable competitor — pair a reusable lower section with a disposable upper section that carries satellites into orbit mounted at the rocket’s tip. After that upper section releases the satellite into orbit, the now purposeless component drifts through space, eventually burning up as it reenters Earth’s atmosphere. But Cowboy Space aims to transform what would otherwise be discarded debris into an orbital, 1-megawatt data center, integrating hundreds of Nvidia chips into the rocket’s upper section.
“We started with a blank sheet of paper with a goal of packing as many GPUs as tightly and densely as possible, and getting them to space,” Joseph Yaffe, the startup’s COO, told me over email. “We believe that this is a first-of-its-kind approach — the launch vehicle and the orbital data center designed as a single integrated system from day one.”
He told me that existing launch providers couldn’t offer the launch capacity or flexibility that Cowboy Space needs, and that the economics just wouldn’t pencil unless they did it themselves. Of course that’s an extremely tall order. SpaceX currently dominates the market for private rocket launches, a sector notoriously littered with failures. Only a few other private companies have even managed to make a dent in the space, and they’re still far behind Elon Musk’s industry giant.
Yaffe naturally thinks his company is well-positioned to become the exception, and prominent backers such as Index Ventures, Breakthrough Energy Ventures, and Andreessen Horowitz seem to agree. The startup is targeting the end of 2028 for its first proprietary rocket launch. Eventually, Cowboy Space plans to deliver processing power on par with conventional data centers, with Yaffe explaining that “abundant solar power and radiative cooling in orbit are what make that cost structure achievable.”
It’s true that space-based data centers would not require the same energy- and water-intensive fans, chillers, or cooling towers used on Earth, instead dissipating heat into space via infrared radiation — essentially emitting thermal energy as invisible light. But using today’s technology, power dense satellites can’t radiate heat quickly enough to sustain AI workloads, and how Cowboy Space plans to overcome this remains an open question. Even Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang acknowledged the difficulty, remarking in a recent keynote address at the GPU Technology Conference in San Jose that “we have to figure out how to cool these systems out in space.”
But if Cowboy Space and others can overcome these technical hurdles, there are some clear advantages to putting data centers into orbit. For one, building these energy-hungry behemoths has become a fraught political issue on both sides of the aisle, with local opposition exploding this year. Then there are the familiar constraints of limited power availability and interminably long grid interconnection queues, which are preventing hyperscalers from ramping up their AI efforts as quickly — and cleanly — as they’d like.
“AI demand is growing faster than terrestrial infrastructure can scale,” Yaffe argues. He’s betting that this dynamic will hold even if policy fixes such as permitting reform eventually materialize. “Orbital data centers aren’t a replacement for terrestrial infrastructure. The long-term opportunity is about expanding total compute capacity.”
Likewise, Johnson of B Capital doesn’t see the primary value proposition of orbital data centers as alleviating power or permitting constraints. “The reason why things are moving to space isn’t because we don’t have telecommunications that work right on Earth, it’s because new use cases are getting unlocked that are better,” he told me. “The first time you’re on a plane and use Startlink, you see that. The first time you need to be somewhere that isn’t really served well by Wi-Fi, and you use it, you see that. So there’s use cases that are transformational that can get unlocked by the space economy”
Not everyone is as bullish, however. Luigi Scatteia, the lead of PwC’s global space practice, told me he expects there to be “some form of data relay in orbit.” That might look more like space-based computing networks processing data from Earth observation satellites, as we’re already seeing the beginnings of today. But full-on data centers with the capabilities of terrestrial server farms? Launched from rockets? “I’m just going to say what my professor in university always used to tell us: Anything you do on Earth is always going to be more difficult in space.”
He, too, thinks the real unlock for orbital data centers and beyond would be “if Starship really works as intended,” he told me. “If you really want to do massive things in space — if you want to have a paradigm shift, a Copernican change — you need to drastically raise the capacity and lower the cost to orbit.”
No question these are two incredibly difficult tasks, not just for SpaceX but for the broader ecosystem of emerging space startups betting that private industry can fundamentally reshape the space economy. But according to Rush of Star Catcher, investors are now increasingly willing to take that bet too, in a way they weren’t when he first entered the industry a decade ago.
“Now, there’s the full spectrum of capital available, from seed all the way through IPO and beyond,” Rush told me. And that money is flowing to “really every flavor of space company. And so just by that metric alone, this is the golden age to build in space.”
Current conditions: The French government has recorded at least seven deaths linked to the record early heatwave roasting Western Europe • New York City’s springtime temperature swing is surging upward to about 85 degrees Fahrenheit before dropping back into the 60s later this week • Temperatures in Berbera, the prized Red Sea port city in the de facto independent state of Somaliland, are revving up to 100 degrees today.
The Trump administration is considering handing over leftover weapons-grade plutonium that was set to be buried to companies that aim to use the highly radioactive material as reactor fuel. On Tuesday, the Department of Energy selected five finalists to submit plans to safely transfer the plutonium from a government stockpile. The companies include fuel maker Standard Nuclear, waste reprocessor Exodys Energy, fusion company Shine Technologies, and reactor developers Flibe Energy and Oklo. The move is sure to draw criticism from non-proliferation experts who worry that, unlike the low-enriched uranium used as fuel in conventional reactors, plutonium increases the threat of a rogue actor obtaining material for a bomb. “Countries have tried this before, and they concluded that, as nice as it would be to use that plutonium as fuel, it’s really just a liability and we need to dispose of it permanently,” Scott Roecker, a vice president at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, told The New York Times. In an emailed statement to me, Shine Technologies CEO Greg Piefer said the access to fuel solves “one of the hardest problems in the advanced reactor industry right now.”

China is constructing more reactors at home than any other country by far, and it’s gotten quite good at building its standardized designs for large light water reactors faster and more cheaply than anyone else in the business. Yet Beijing has been slow to make export deals, so far selling just six reactors to two separate power plants in Pakistan. But the People’s Republic is stepping up. With a growing number of countries now seeking to build their first or latest nuclear stations, China is now bidding on major projects. Beijing went head to head with Washington in Riyadh when offering to build Saudi Arabia’s first atomic power station. Now China has submitted what Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic called “an incredible proposal” to build what would be the country’s first nuclear project in a European country, according to NucNet. It’s part of a broader investment scheme that includes $1.1 billion to boost production of artificial intelligence, automobiles, and robots, Bloomberg reported.
That’s far from the country where green technology is finding ways out of China. On Tuesday, InsideEVs reported that Jeep-owner Stellantis is considering manufacturing Chinese-branded cars in Mexico and Canada. Stellantis already owns a majority stake in the Chinese joint venture Leapmotor, and maintains a small North American factory footprint for the brand. The company is using one of its factories in Spain to produce Leapmotor cars in Europe, and now it’s also in talks with the Chinese automaker Dongfeng about adding its more expensive Voyah models to its lineup in France. Still, Stellantis CEO Antonio Filosa warned that such vehicles won’t be hitting American streets anytime soon. “I believe that there is space in Mexico. There is, maybe, space in Canada. We’ll see,” Filosa told CNBC. “Now there is no space in the United States. We don’t see that.” Maybe not for long. As Heatmap contributor Andrew Moseman put it in January: “Chinese EVs are at the gates.”
The United States achieved energy dominance over Europe as the continent started buying loads of liquified natural gas from America to replace pipeline fuel that once flowed west from Russia once the war in Ukraine began. The Iran War looked set to only deepen that advantage as the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz kept shipments of Qatari LNG at bay. But North America’s other big energy producer is muscling in. On Tuesday, The New York Times reported that Canada had struck a deal to export up to a million metric tons of LNG to Germany each year from a Pacific Coast terminal in British Columbia. The first deliveries would be due in the early 2030s, and the contract would continue for 20 years. Officials told the newspaper the deal would be announced today.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Last week, I told you about Otovo, a U.S. -Norwegian startup that billed itself as a kind of AAA for rooftop solar panels and other home energy systems. Founded by the former chief executive of the bankrupt solar installer Sunnova, Otovo aims to serve the very customers “orphaned” by the Chapter 11 and left without a go-to company to fix faulty panels, batteries, or generators. So far, Otovo has built a base of about 30,000 customers subscribed to its repair service, two-thirds of whom are in Europe. On Wednesday morning, I can report exclusively for this newsletter, the company plans to announce that it acquired the customer book from SunSystem Technology. The customer base covers nine U.S. states, nearly tripling Otovo’s footprint to 14 states in total. The deal marks Otovo’s seventh acquisition since its relaunch less than a year ago.
Last week, the Department of Housing and Urban Development published an interim final rule axing a key step from the environmental review process for large, federally-backed developments. Environmental assessments conducted by HUD staff on projects with more than 200 units will now, according to E&E News, “no longer need an additional review by the field environmental clearance officer.” The change, set to take effect June 22, is meant to streamline affordable housing construction.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s effort to smooth the permitting rules for companies looking to start a whole new sector the deep seafloor is similarly picking up pace. The Metals Company, the U.S.-Canadian startup that helped pioneer the latest effort at establishing a global industry, is the well-known frontrunner racing for U.S. approval, even as the United Nations body that regulates commerce in international waters has yet to lay out its own ground rules for tapping the ocean floor for minerals. As I told you back in March, that U.N. entity, the International Seabed Authority, promised to broker a deal for a global permitting regime this summer. In the meantime, E&E News reports that at least eight ventures are now vying for federal permits in the U.S.
Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft were among the companies to sign onto a new initiative designed to support investment in next-generation energy and materials technologies meant to reduce the environmental impact of data centers. The Data Center Innovation Initiative, organized by the nonprofit investor group Elemental Impact, “will test and validate critical technologies in data center environments, creating potential pathways for future adoption across broader energy and industrial sectors.” Other participants include Salesforce and Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy. “Data centers are uniquely positioned to serve as catalysts for clean energy and sustainable building materials,” Nat Sahlstrom, Meta’s vice president of energy and sustainability, said in a press release. “By sharing what we learn together, we can support entrepreneurs to scale faster and move these innovations to real-world impact.”
Update: This article originally misidentified a signatory of the Data Center Innovation Initiative. It has since been corrected. We regret the error.
The state is the first to backtrack on binding emissions legislation.
A wave of climate action swept the country’s statehouses in the early 2020s, with nearly two dozen states setting targets to slash their emissions. New York was ahead of the pack and among the most ambitious, passing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, or CLCPA, in the summer of 2019 to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
Now, however, the Empire State will distinguish itself as the first of the bunch to walk back its landmark climate law in the wake of Trump’s re-election.
The New York legislature released the text of the deal it reached with Governor Kathy Hochul to reform the state’s climate law on Tuesday. The deal includes two consequential changes: delaying a plan to regulate carbon from 2024 (it was already behind schedule) until 2028, and modifying how the state accounts for the powerful greenhouse gas methane in a way that will look like the state has accomplished deeper reductions than under the current method.
The governor has been signalling her intent to weaken the CLCPA for months, arguing that as written, it would have imposed untenable costs on New Yorkers. “Reality has been harsh,” she said during a press conference about the budget agreement in early May, before the text was released. “We cannot meet the current timelines without driving energy costs higher.”
Local environmental groups were widely critical of the deal, with New York Renews calling it a “major blow for New Yorkers and for the country” that would set “a dangerous precedent,” and Environmental Advocates NY deeming the rollbacks “bad politics and bad policy.”
Some remained hopeful that the changes would not derail the state’s progress by much, however. “There’s no way to sugarcoat it, this is a setback,” Jackson Morris, the director of state power sector, climate and energy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told me. “At the same time, I don’t think it’s a setback that we can’t recover from.”
The CLCPA set targets to cut economy-wide emissions 40% by 2030 relative to 1990 levels, and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. It also codified an earlier plan to source 70% of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030 and power the state entirely with zero-emissions resources by 2040.
New York didn’t make up these targets. They’re based on reports from the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which mapped out how the world could minimize the risks of climate change in line with the Paris Agreement. After Donald Trump announced he would pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement when he first took office in 2017, a number of Democratic governors banded together to show that America was still “all in” to achieve the pact’s goals, leading to a flurry of state climate laws in the years that followed.
Hochul’s budget deal doesn’t change the renewable electricity targets or the overall trajectory of the original law. Instead, it delays the regulations that would make the economy-wide emissions reductions possible to achieve.
The CLCPA directed state agencies to promulgate rules and regulations by 2024 that would put New York on the path to achieve the 2030 and 2050 targets. In the years since the law passed, the state has been developing a cap-and-invest program that would tax carbon emissions progressively over time, and use the proceeds to fund clean energy programs throughout the state. This program was the crux of Hochul’s affordability concerns, as it would make energy more expensive for some New Yorkers in the near term.
The budget deal moves the deadline for the regulations to the end of 2028. Crucially, it also does not require that those regulations help the state achieve the 2030 emissions target. Instead, it specifies that the regulations be designed to achieve a new goal of reducing emissions 60% by 2040, in addition to the original net zero by 2050 target.
Morris, of the NRDC, was quick to note that the deal does not get rid of the 2030 target. While there will be no state programs aimed at achieving it, it still provides a statutory foundation that agencies such as the Department of Environmental Conservation can point to as a reason to reject fossil fuel project permits, for example, he said. Meanwhile, Morris is optimistic that the new 2028 deadline and 2040 target can keep the state on track.
“We obviously prefer that none of this is happening,” he said. “But because it’s happening, I think that’s one aspect of this deal that we see as providing some ground to stand on.”
One of the aspects of the CLCPA that made it more ambitious than other state climate laws was the way it required New York to account for methane. The budget deal will eliminate this edge.
There were two key components to New York’s unique methane rules. The first was that they forced the state to take responsibility for methane emissions that occurred outside its borders that were nevertheless tied to its natural gas use. For instance, a major source of methane emissions is leakage from the infrastructure used to drill, process, and transport natural gas. New York banned fracking in 2014, and the state gets most of its natural gas via pipeline from Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Under Hochul’s changes, the state can take these “imported” emissions off its books.
The second is a bit more convoluted and has to do with how methane behaves in the atmosphere. When governments or companies set emissions targets, they typically convert all greenhouse gases into “carbon dioxide equivalents” so that they can set one round number goal for all emissions, like New York’s 60% reduction by 2040. There’s no single way to do this, since unlike carbon dioxide, which remains in the atmosphere for centuries, methane breaks down quickly. Over 20 years, one metric ton of methane has a similar effect to about 80 metric tons of carbon, but over 100 years, it’s more akin to 25 metric tons of carbon. New York uses the 20-year effect as its conversion factor, but under the budget deal, it will switch to the 100-year method. That will make its methane emissions suddenly appear much lower, and thus make the state look further along in fighting climate change without actually changing anything about its strategy.
This will ease the pressure on the state to electrify buildings, clean up landfills, and take other difficult steps to cut methane emissions. It will also, however, align New York’s methane math with that of most U.S. states and much of the rest of the world.
The national climate advocacy group Evergreen Action, which focuses on state policy, is less concerned about the changes to the climate law and more concerned about how they happened. Justin Balik, the nonprofit’s vice president for states, told me that Hochul never brought her concerns to environmental stakeholders or asked for policy proposals for how to accelerate clean energy while lowering costs.
“We need to see more urgency from the governor and the legislature to actually do the things that will result in emissions reductions and cutting costs for people,” Balik told me, “and less fretting about the targets that are written into law.”
Balik argued that the changes will do nothing to address the factors that are increasing energy rates. He cited the state’s dependence on natural gas as a key driver, as natural gas prices can fluctuate dramatically due to geopolitics and supply and demand. If anything, he said, delaying the cap-and-invest regulations will delay clean energy deployment and exacerbate affordability by deferring the revenue the state would have collected to and used to fund emissions-cutting programs and rate relief.
The budget deal attempts to make up for the shortfall with a $1 billion allocation to the state’s Sustainable Future Fund, which will support state programs to cut emissions from buildings and roads with heat pumps, thermal energy networks, electric school buses, and fast-charging stations.
Evergreen, NRDC, and other groups now have their sights set on the 2028 regulations.
“If we can move forward quickly with a robust process to stand up that cap-and-invest construct in New York State, and get it cutting pollution and generating billions of dollars in revenue for reinvestment in communities, that's going to be a huge breakthrough for the state of New York,” Morris said.