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:
Rob talks with Amanda Levin, head of climate science and policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, about why we shouldn’t give up on renewable subsidies just yet.

Two years ago, Donald Trump made an outlandish campaign promise: He would cut Americans’ power bills in half.
It was a ridiculous, impossible pledge — but even so, the affordability problem didn’t need to get this bad. A new report, out this week from the Natural Resources Defense Council, looks at the economic, environmental, and public health costs of Trump’s regulatory and legislative clean energy policies, including his rollback of the wind and solar tax credits.
The report’s author, Amanda Levin, joins Rob on this episode of Shift Key. Levin is a Director of Policy Analysis at the NRDC’s Science Office. They discuss why Trump’s repeal will have long-term effects, the underrated public health impacts of the rollback, and why Levin believes the credits should be restored.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
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 their conversation:
Robinson Meyer: So you’ve said that we should have tax credits that buy down the cost of technologies while we’re installing them. We had Lily Bermel on Shift Key a few weeks ago with her report, and she looked at a different set of questions here, and I think it’s worth kind of talking about them in a second. But her view of the data — which I would say I’ve also heard now from some solar developers, who obviously represent the interests of their industry — but her view of the data was like, look, there’s a lot of solar and batteries that are about to get built as developers rush to hit a deadline, rush to hit the deadline in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Her view is, if you look at this from an emissions perspective, you don’t need wind and solar tax credits. So really ,money would be better spent elsewhere. It would be better spent buying down the cost of clean firm technologies like advanced geothermal, like fusion, perhaps, that can run 24/7 and start to push gas out of the system.
You’ve written an op-ed for Heatmap kind of taking issue with some of those claims, and I want to actually lean into that disagreement. Why should the U.S. restore wind and solar tax credits? Because I would say we’ve learned one thing, actually, in the past month since Lily was on the show. It is that deficit concerns are going to be even more pressing for lawmakers, it seems like, in 2029, even in 2027, than they were in 2024 or 2022, because interest rates are going to be high. They seem to be getting higher. Among the crises that Democrats will have promised to solve is this deficit crisis that is of Trump’s own creation. And so why should a scarce dollar go to wind and solar tax credits?
Amanda Levin: I think it’s important to remember that renewables have a lot of benefits, and not all of them are reflected in the decisions that a utility might make on behalf of its customers. Renewables both lower pollution, which can help reduce the costs and the burden that we have both from public health pollution as well as from climate pollution. They also can enhance energy security and increase economic opportunities.
But I think importantly, it’s a recognition of, one, we need to build a lot of energy fast, and we want to build it clean, as well. And that is going to take quite a bit of money up front. Even if wind and solar are some of the cheapest, lowest cost options over the life of their investment, when looking at something more simplistic, like a levelized cost of energy, it doesn’t mean that they don’t have large upfront costs that need to then be recovered from someone. And in the structure of many of our states, that someone is going to be ratepayers. And often the way that we recover money through electricity bills and rates is not progressive. It’s pretty regressive. So I think the way that we see the kind of tax credits playing into this is it’s an essential part of ensuring that as we transition towards a cleaner system, it remains affordable for everyone by moving costs off of ratepayers, who are going to be much more regressively taxed, and putting them onto the federal government, when we know that we need to be spending more on clean energy to meet our growing load, and also just to invest in our grid that is, in many cases, reaching the end of its life for certain investments.
And so I think to that kind of question of what are we trying to solve here? Obviously, wind and solar, we still see that they are being built, and they make up the bulk of anything that’s going to be built in the next decade. But we’re definitely not building enough.
There was a paper that I was part of at the beginning of 2025 that found that in order to meet our climate commitments, we would need to quadruple the amount of wind, solar, and battery storage that was being added to the system compared to recent day records. The IRA got us basically halfway there. And if you look at where we are now with Trump, we’ve basically lost that halfway there. But what we know is, if we want to actually tackle our societal challenges — climate, health, everything — and affordability, we’re going to both need to build a lot of clean energy, but also we can’t put that on the backs of ratepayers. We need to explore other ways to mitigate the near-term affordability shock that will come from just having to invest in our system.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
Amanda Levin’s new report: An Affordability Crisis of Trump’s Own Making
A ‘Glass Half Full’ Isn’t Enough to Fight Climate Change
Previously on Shift Key: The New Paper Arguing Biden’s Power Sector Emissions Cuts Are Largely Intact — Even Under Trump
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Discover the Yale Clean and Equitable Energy Development online certificate program at the Yale Center for Business and the Environment. In this fully online, 5-month program, you’ll learn from leading experts, develop practical skills, and grow a powerful network. Visit cbey.yale.edu to learn more and apply.
Verse's software platform Aria helps data centers connect to the grid faster and optimize power operations in real time. Learn more at verse.inc.
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.
Current conditions: Cold air is sweeping into the American Northeast after a brief blast of summer-like heat that drove temperatures in New York City up to 85 degrees Fahrenheit last week • Hurricane Nolo crossed the International Date Line, officially becoming Typhoon Nolo • The heat wave roasting Southern California is straining the grid, causing outages for more than 23,000 people in the Los Angeles area.
Greenland’s government on Monday approved the mining and decommissioning plans for Critical Metals’ Tanbreez rare earths project, which Mining.com described as one of the world’s “larger undeveloped heavy rare earth projects outside China.” The preliminary economic analysis for the mine pegged its total value at $2.1 billion, with an estimated initial capital cost of $290 million. “Approval of the Mining and Closure Plans is a defining milestone for Tanbreez and for Critical Metals Corp.,” Tony Sage, the chairman and chief executive of Critical Metals, said in a press release. “It gives us a clear framework through 2050 to responsibly develop one of the world’s largest heavy rare earth deposits, in partnership with the government of Greenland and the communities of South Greenland.”
If it goes forward, the project could be among the first major rare earths mines in Greenland, where the Trump administration has claimed the right to veto any major foreign investments as part of the deal signed with the Danish government last month, which gives Washington perpetual security oversight over the self-governing North American island. Critical Metals, notably, is headquartered in New York, though its largest shareholder is the Australian mineral investor European Lithium Limited. Yet opening a new mine in the U.S. might be getting even easier. As my colleague Matthew Zeitlin reported last week, miners — ahem — struck gold with the regulatory changes in the bipartisan permitting reform bill.
The Department of Energy is preparing to unveil $150 million in funding for a 223-mile transmission line in Alaska that would serve nearly three-quarters of the state’s population of just 735,000 people. The move, reported first by Reuters, comes as Vice President JD Vance prepares to visit the state to support Republican Senator Dan Sullivan’s bid for reelection in what’s expected to be a tight race with Democrat Mary Peltola. The total cost of the project is $400 million.
First Solar built the largest photovoltaic manufacturing business in the U.S. by churning out thin-film panels that, while less efficient than the polysilicon-based technology popularized by China, perform better in low light and high temperatures, earning a solid market among utility-scale developers. But now Chinese manufacturer JA and its subsidiaries are allegedly muscling in on thin film — as is American Panel Solutions, a wholly owned U.S.-based subsidiary of the polysilicon giant Corning. First Solar now accuses the companies of illegally infringing its patent for manufacturing its solar cells, according to PV Tech. The Ohio-based giant has previously sued Jinko, Canadian Solar, T1 Energy, and Trina Solar. First Solar won a key preliminary victory in January.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

Starbucks has abandoned or watered down green targets and let go its sustainability staff as the coffee and food chain looks to cut $2 billion in costs. On Monday, the Financial Times reported that the company had revised or dropped pledges to halve water use and waste, and placed a target of slashing carbon emissions by 50% under review. While the pullback comes amid a broader retreat from environmental goals under the Trump administration, other coffee companies are still seeking to reduce pollution. Just yesterday, I told you that Keurig Dr. Pepper had come out with a version of its individual instant coffee pods that uses seaweed instead of plastic.
Type One Energy has raised a $200 million Series B as the startup races to develop the world’s first fusion power plant at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Bull Run site in eastern Tennessee. The financing round was co-led by Breakthrough Energy Ventures and Clutterbuck Capital, with additional backing from Lowercarbon Capital, Siemens Energy Ventures, and SiteGround Capital. “The breadth and quality of investors in this funding round demonstrates growing support for our strategy to industrialize the commercial deployment of fusion energy,” Christofer Mowry, Type One Energy’s chief executive, said in a statement. “The Series B financing enables us to remain focused on advancing our stellarator technology and Project infinity design activities.”
The company has been working to establish its supply chain. In March, my colleague Katie Brigham broke news of a deal to start getting the material needed for its reactors.
New York City is notorious for the ways in which trash piles up on our sidewalks and evaporates into foul smelling mist during the hot summer days. But did you know it’s also piling up in the places we send it? The latest draft of the city’s once-in-a-decade management plan for solid waste indicates that the landfills receiving much of the five boroughs’ trash are filling up. Per Inside Climate News, the state is projected to run out of landfill capacity for the city’s garbage within 16 to 25 years.
The startup’s system builds on a vessel’s existing engine and makes it effectively fuel-agnostic.
The shipping industry has a dilemma. The European Union and other jurisdictions are increasingly requiring vessels to cut their carbon emissions, pushing shipowners toward lower-carbon fuels and away from traditional bunker fuel or diesel. But it’s still anybody’s guess which cleaner fuel — ammonia, methanol, or liquified natural gas — will prove most economical and efficient at scale. That leaves shipowners facing an uncomfortable choice: They must decide on a technology around which to build new engines and retrofit existing ones without knowing whether the fuel they bet on today will still be the best option a few years from now.
Blaze Energy says that its product will eliminate that choice. The startup, which announced a $6.5 million seed round on Tuesday — is making a compact fuel “reformer,” a device that uses a heated catalyst to split various alternative fuels into a hydrogen-rich gas. That gas can then be combined with the original fuel and conventional shipping fuel to power existing engines. With Blaze’s bolt-on retrofit, which the startup aims to make less than a tenth the size of the engine itself, shipping companies “can adjust their assets based on how the global energy landscape, regulation, as well as their company direction is changing,” the company’s CEO and co-founder, Rok Sitar, told me. For example, maybe LNG looks cheapest in the short term given its established supply chain, but ammonia could win out down the road.
So far, Blaze has conducted small scale demonstrations showing that its proprietary catalyst can reform ammonia, methanol, and LNG. The resulting hydrogen-rich mixture is extremely fast-burning, which helps the other fuels to burn more completely and efficiently than they otherwise would.
Blaze’s first product, however, focuses solely on ammonia reformation. The system works by diverting a portion of the liquid ammonia to flow over the startup’s electrically-heated catalyst, which breaks it down into hydrogen and nitrogen. The resulting gas goes directly into the engine, where the nitrogen passes through and exits via the exhaust, while the hydrogen helps the remaining ammonia burn more efficiently alongside conventional shipping fuel. No burners or complex gas separation systems required.
As Sitar explained, “a certain composition of ammonia and hydrogen burns just like diesel,” allowing Blaze to essentially “trick the engine” into operating like it’s burning just diesel or standard bunker fuel rather than a blend that includes hydrogen and ammonia. That means the startup can add its retrofit system onto an existing ship engine without modifying the engine itself. And if the reformer fails for any reason, the ship can simply revert to running on conventional fuel alone. Sitar said this fail-safe feature lowers the risk for shipowners considering Blaze’s tech.
The company’s strategic partners include vessel owner and operator Lomar Shipping, which expects to pilot the system at sea beginning sometime next year, and ship management consultancy Link Marine, which plans to offer it to tanker operators. Blaze is aiming for commercial rollout in 2028.
Retrofitting the existing global fleet represents “an enormous opportunity” for Blaze, Sitar told me. As he explained, there are roughly 100,000 vessels in the global commercial fleet, but the industry only builds about 1,500 new ships each year. And because shipping companies are unlikely to choose alternative-fuel engines for every new vessel they order, a company in Blaze’s position pretty much has to drum up demand among the ships already in the water. The startup aims to install its system when vessels enter “dry dock” for routine inspection and maintenance, which typically happens at least once every five years.
Blaze is also developing a version of its product for new-builds, however, working with engine manufacturers to integrate its fuel reformer hardware into both conventional ship engines as well as those already designed to run on ammonia. Even in ammonia-burning engines, Sitar said Blaze’s system will improve fuel efficiency thanks to the fast-burning hydrogen in its blend.
The startup has ambitious goals for its seed round, which Sitar says should carry it through the next 18 months. Those include proving out its ammonia reformer on land with unnamed “leading” engine manufacturers, validating its performance at sea with Lomar, securing the maritime certifications needed to launch its first commercial product, and expanding its operations and headcount in the U.S. and Norway.
Blaze will likely look to raise again around 2028, at which point the International Maritime Organization expects to have its Net-Zero Framework in place. This would establish legally binding requirements for the entire shipping industry to reduce its emissions intensity, with the goal of reaching net-zero by 2050. The agency expected to adopt the framework last October, but delayed a final vote to approve the measure after the Trump administration strong-armed nations into withdrawing their support. The framework will come up for a vote again this December.
While the ongoing ambiguity has become a headache for the industry as a whole, Sitar sees it as something of an advantage for Blaze, which, he said, “thrive[s] in uncertainty.” Around 2028, the startup aims to begin piloting its broader multi-fuel technology, which can reform not just ammonia, but also methanol and LNG, for use in diesel engines. Blaze also expects to begin delivering its first commercial ammonia retrofit systems at this time.
From there on, the company sees a path to adapting the technology across numerous other industries reliant on combustion engines, such as heavy equipment, mining, industrial heat, and diesel power generation for data centers. “By proving our system in maritime engines, we can very easily translate this into other hardware sectors,” he said. Shipping, in his view, is perhaps the most challenging but strategically useful beachhead market of all, from both a technical and regulatory perspective.
As he put it to me, “if you prove it on maritime shipping, you basically have a product that can be deployed anywhere else, because everything else is simpler and has less regulation.”
The global vehicle market is splitting into two — with just a few exception.
The past three months have been crucial for Rivian, America’s biggest all-electric car company not run by Elon Musk.
The California-based automaker debuted the R2, its long-awaited and somewhat more affordable sport utility vehicle. (Our reviewer gave it high marks.) Rivian also formally took out a nearly $6.6 billion loan from the Department of Energy to finance its new Georgia factory. And it finally unveiled the plans for that facility, which will include a rail tie-in and a 1,000-acre preserved woodland.
All that was well and good, but the crucial question remained: How is the R2 selling? And the answer is: Pretty well, seemingly! Rivian delivered 19,248 vehicles last quarter, beating analyst expectations and setting a new all-time quarterly sales record. More importantly, its vehicle deliveries have now recovered above where they stood in the third quarter of last year — a key milestone, since President Trump and Congress ended the federal government’s consumer-side EV incentives last September.
Tesla is seemingly also about to clear that threshold, although nobody outside the firm knows for sure. Elon Musk’s company doesn’t break out its sales by continent or model, but it delivered 486,532 vehicles last year — just about 2% below last year’s third quarter results. (Although a few of Rivian’s Amazon delivery vans have made their way into fleets abroad, the company only sells its consumer R1 and R2 vehicles in the United States and Canada, so its sales data is mostly U.S. by default.)
Alas, those two stand alone for now. No other automaker is close to breaking its quarterly EV sales record in the United States, and Ford, General Motors, and Hyundai all saw their domestic EV sales crumble last quarter. The new Chevrolet Bolt, GM’s most affordable EV — and its only American-made vehicle of any kind priced below $30,000 — has sold abysmally, moving just 8,090 units since the year began. The company is now likely to cap its production run at 35,000 units sold; it initially planned to produce 150,000.
Looking at these trends, I think you can see two different phenomena taking place.
The first is a big and growing divergence between America’s transportation sector and the rest of the world’s. The oil supply shock triggered by America’s war in Iran (and the resulting closure of the Strait of Hormuz) may be driving a long-term shift, encouraging consumers and countries to move away from oil. But for now, the crisis’s high prices have hit parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia far worse than they’ve impacted much of North America. Global EV sales reached a record high in the spring, for instance — just not in the United States.
The second is that we’re seeing demand destruction without decarbonization. According to new Nikkei data, gasoline-only cars made up less than half of global new car sales during the six months of 2026.
That’s never happened before, and it is a remarkable change: Gasoline-only cars have lost about a quarter of their global market share in less than five years. But as consumers switched away from gasoline, they didn’t move only to battery-only cars — instead, more than half of them shifted to hybrids or plug-in hybrids. That shift is good news, in that it will depress global oil use and therefore global greenhouse-gas emissions. But it won’t allow for the possibility of zeroing out emissions in the same way that EVs can.
But sometimes demand destruction will cut emissions significantly. If want to see that in the United States, check out the diesel market. As my colleague Alexander Kaufman wrote about this morning, FedEx has responded to eye-watering domestic diesel prices by placing an order for 2,000 electric box trucks with the California-based automaker Harbinger Motors. The shipper believes that the move will save it $800 million in fuel costs over time. When I talked to John Henry Harris, Harbinger’s CEO, last year, he told me the company didn’t need tax credits to sell vehicles — the math justified it on its own. Seems like FedEx agrees.