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:
Cities across the state are adopting building codes that heavily incentivize homeowners to make the switch.

A quiet revolution in California’s building codes could turn many of the state’s summer-only air conditioners into all-season heat pumps.
Over the past few months, 12 California cities have adopted rules that strongly incentivize homeowners who are installing central air conditioning or replacing broken AC systems to get energy-efficient heat pumps that provide both heating and cooling. Households with separate natural gas or propane furnaces will be allowed to retain and use them, but the rules require that the heat pump becomes the primary heating system, with the furnace providing backup heat only on especially cold days, reducing fossil fuel use.
These “AC2HP” rules, as proponents call them, were included in a routine update of California building codes in 2024. Rather than make it mandatory, regulators put the heat pump rule in a package of “stretch codes” that cities could adopt as they saw fit. Moreno Valley, a city in Riverside County, east of Los Angeles, was the first to pass an ordinance adopting the AC2HP code back in August. A steady stream of cities have followed, with Los Gatos and Portola Valley joining the party just last week. Dylan Plummer, a campaign advisor for Sierra Club's Building Electrification Campaign, expects more will follow in the months to come — “conversations are moving” in Los Angeles and Sacramento, as well, he told me.
“This is a consumer protection and climate policy in one,” he said. As California gets hotter, more households in the state are getting air conditioners for the first time. “Every time a household installs a one-way AC unit, it’s a missed opportunity to install a heat pump and seamlessly equip homes with zero-emission heating.”
This policy domino effect is not unlike what happened in California after the city of Berkeley passed an ordinance in 2019 that would have prohibited new buildings from installing natural gas. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups helped lead more than 70 cities to follow in Berkeley’s footsteps. Ultimately, a federal court overturned Berkeley’s ordinance, finding that it violated a law giving the federal government authority over appliance energy usage. Many of the other cities have since suspended their gas bans.
Since then, however, California has adopted state-wide energy codes that strongly encourage new buildings to be all-electric anyway. In 2023, more than 70% of requests for service lines from developers to Pacific Gas & Electric, the biggest utility in the state, were for new all-electric buildings. The AC2HP codes tackle the other half of the equation — decarbonizing existing buildings.
A coalition of environmental groups including the Sierra Club, Earthjustice, and the Building Decarbonization Coalition are working to seed AC2HP rules throughout the state, although it may not be easy as cost-of-living concerns grow more politically charged.
Even in some of the cities that have adopted the code, members of the public worried about the expense. In Moreno Valley, for instance, a comparatively low-income community, six out of the seven locals who spoke on the measure at a meeting in August urged elected officials to reject it, and not just because of cost — some were also skeptical of the technology.
In Glendale, a suburb of Los Angeles which has more socioeconomic diversity, the measure saw significant public support in early city council meetings. Just before the final vote, however, the four members of the public who showed up to comment urged the council to reject it. In addition to cost concerns, they questioned why the city would rush to do something like this when the state didn’t make it mandatory, arguing that the council should have held a full public hearing on the change.
In Menlo Park, on the other hand, which is a wealthy Silicon Valley suburb, all five speakers were in support of the measure, although each of them was affiliated with an environmental group.
Heat pumps are more expensive than air conditioners by a couple of thousands of dollars, depending on the model. With state and local incentives, the upfront cost can often be comparable. When you take into account the fact that you’re moving from using two appliances for heating and cooling to one, the equipment tends to be cheaper in the long run.
The impacts of heat pumps on energy bills are more complicated. Heat pumps are almost always cheaper to operate in the winter than furnaces that use propane or electric resistance. Compared to natural gas heating, though, it mostly depends on the relative cost of gas versus electricity. Low-income customers in California have access to lower electricity rates that make heat pumps more likely to pencil out. The state also recently implemented a new electricity rate scheme that will see utilities charge customers higher fixed fees and lower rates per kilowatt-hour of electricity used, which may also help heat pump economics.
Matthew Vespa, an senior attorney at Earthjustice described the AC2HP policy as a way to help customers “hedge against gas rates going up,” noting that gas prices are likely to rise as the U.S. exports more of the fuel as liquified natural gas, and also as gas companies lose customers. “It’s really a small incremental cost to getting an AC replaced with a lot of potential benefits.”
The AC2HP idea dates back to a 2021 Twitter thread by Nate Adams, a heat pump installer who goes by the handle “Nate the House Whisperer.” Adams proposed that the federal government should pay manufacturers to stop producing air conditioners and only produce heat pumps. Central heat pumps are exactly the same as air conditioners, except they provide heating in addition to cooling thanks to “a few valves or ~$100-300 in parts,” Adam said at the time.
The problem is, most homeowners and installers are either unfamiliar with the technology or skeptical of it. While heat pumps have been around for decades and are widespread in other parts of the world, especially in Asia, they have been slower to take off in the United States. One reason is the common misconception that they don’t work as well as furnaces for heating. Part of the issue is also that furnaces themselves are less expensive, so heat pumps are a tougher sell in the moment when someone’s furnace has broken down. Adams’ policy pitch would have given people no choice but to start installing heat pumps — even if they didn’t use them for heating — getting a key decarbonization technology into homes faster than any rebate or consumer incentive could, and getting the market better acquainted with the tech.
The idea gained traction quickly. An energy efficiency research and advocacy organization called CLASP published a series of reports looking at the potential cost and benefits, and a manufacturer-focused heat pump tax credit even made its way into a bill proposal from Senator Amy Klobuchar in the runup to the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. While rules that target California homeowners obviously won’t have the nation-wide effect that Adams’ would have, they still have the potential to send a strong market signal, considering California is the fifth largest economy in the world.
The AC2HP codes, which start going into effect next year, will help smooth the road to another set of building electrification rules that will apply in some parts of the state beginning in 2029. At that point, households in the Bay Area will be subject to new air quality standards that require all newly installed heating equipment to be zero-emissions — in other words, if a family’s furnace breaks down, they’ll have to replace it with a heat pump. State regulators are developing similar standards that would apply statewide starting in 2035. The AC2HP rule ensures that if that same family’s air conditioner breaks between now and then, they won’t end up with a new air conditioner, which would eventually become redundant.
The rule is just one of a bunch of new tools cities are using to decarbonize existing buildings. San Francisco, for example, adopted an even stricter building code in September that requires full, whole-home electrification when a building is undergoing a major renovation that includes upgrades to its mechanical systems. Many cities are also adopting an “electrical readiness” code that requires building owners to upgrade their electrical panels and add wiring for electric vehicle charging and induction stoves when they make additions or alterations to an existing building.
To be clear, homeowners in cities with AC2HP laws will not be forced to buy heat pumps. The code permits the installation of an air conditioner, but requires that it be supplemented with efficiency upgrades such as insulating air ducts and attics — which may ultimately be more costly than the heat pump route.
“I don’t think most people understand that these units exist, and they’re kind of plug and play with the AC,” said Vespa.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect that the building code change initially received support in Glendale.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The fourth-generation gas-cooled reactor company ZettaJoule is setting up shop at an unnamed university.
The appeal of next-generation nuclear technology is simple. Unlike the vast majority of existing reactors that use water, so-called fourth-generation units use coolants such as molten salt, liquid metal, or gases that can withstand intense heat such as helium. That allows the machines to reach and maintain the high temperatures necessary to decarbonize industrial processes, which currently only fossil fuels are able to reach.
But the execution requirements of these advanced reactors are complex, making skepticism easy to understand. While the U.S., Germany, and other countries experimented with fourth-generation reactors in earlier decades, there is only one commercial unit in operation today. That’s in China, arguably the leader in advanced nuclear, which hooked up a demonstration model of a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor to its grid two years ago, and just approved building another project in September.
Then there’s Japan, which has been operating its own high-temperature gas-cooled reactor for 27 years at a government research site in Ibaraki Prefecture, about 90 minutes north of Tokyo by train. Unlike China’s design, it’s not a commercial power reactor. Also unlike China’s design, it’s coming to America.
Heatmap has learned that ZettaJoule, an American-Japanese startup led by engineers who worked on that reactor, is now coming out of stealth and laying plans to build its first plant in Texas.
For months, the company has quietly staffed up its team of American and Japanese executives, including a former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission official and a high-ranking ex-administrator from the industrial giant Mitsubishi. It’s now preparing to decamp from its initial home base in Rockville, Maryland, to the Lone Star State as it prepares to announce its debut project at an as-yet-unnamed university in Texas.
“We haven’t built a nuclear reactor in many, many decades, so you have only a handful of people who experienced the full cycle from design to operations,” Mitsuo Shimofuji, ZettaJoule’s chief executive, told me. “We need to complete this before they retire.”
That’s where the company sees its advantage over rivals in the race to build the West’s first commercial high-temperature gas reactor, such as Amazon-backed X-energy or Canada’s StarCore nuclear. ZettaJoule’s chief nuclear office, Kazuhiko Kunitomi, oversaw the construction of Japan’s research reactor in the 1990s. He’s considered Japan’s leading expert in high-temperature gas reactors.
“Our chief nuclear officer and some of our engineers are the only people in the Western world who have experience of the whole cycle from design to construction to operation of a high temperature gas reactor,” Shimofuji said.
Like X-energy’s reactor, ZettaJoule’s design is a small modular reactor. With a capacity of 30 megawatts of thermal output and 12 megawatts of electricity, the ZettaJoule reactor qualifies as a microreactor, a subcategory of SMR that includes anything 20 megawatts of electricity or less. Both companies’ reactors will also run on TRISO, a special kind of enriched uranium with cladding on each pellet that makes the fuel safer and more efficient at higher temperatures.
While X-energy’s debut project that Amazon is financing in Washington State is a nearly 1-gigawatt power station made up of at least a dozen of the American startup’s 80-megawatt reactors, ZettaJoule isn’t looking to generate electricity.
The first new reactor in Texas will be a research reactor, but the company’s focus is on producing heat. The reactor already working in Japan, which produces heat, demonstrates that the design can reach 950 degrees Celsius, roughly 25% higher than the operating temperature of China’s reactor.
The potential for use in industrial applications has begun to attract corporate partners. In a letter sent Monday to Ted Garrish, the U.S. assistant secretary of energy in charge of nuclear power — a copy of which I obtained — the U.S. subsidiary of the Saudi Arabian oil goliath Aramco urged the Trump administration to support ZettaJoule, and said that it would “consider their application to our operations” as the technology matures. ZettaJoule is in talks with at least two other multinational corporations.
The first new reactor ZettaJoule builds won’t be identical to the unit in Japan, Shimofuji said.
“We are going to modernize this reactor together with the Japanese and U.S. engineering partners,” he said. “The research reactor is robust and solid, but it’s over-engineered. What we want to do is use the safety basis but to make it more economic and competitive.”
Once ZettaJoule proves its ability to build and operate a new unit in Texas, the company will start exporting the technology back to Japan. The microreactor will be its first product line.
“But in the future, we can scale up to 20 times bigger,” Shimofuji said. “We can do 600 megawatts thermal and 300 megawatts electric.”
Another benefit ZettaJoule can tap into is the sweeping deal President Donald Trump brokered with Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in October, which included hundreds of billions of dollars for new reactors of varying sizes, including the large-scale Westinghouse AP1000. That included financing to build GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s 300-megawatt BWRX-300, one of the West’s leading third-generation SMRs, which uses a traditional water-cooled design.
Unlike that unit, however, ZettaJoule’s micro-reactor is not a first-of-a-kind technology, said Chris Gadomski, the lead nuclear analyst at the consultancy BloombergNEF.
“It’s operated in Japan for a long, long time,” he told me. “So that second-of-a-kind is an attractive feature. Some of these companies have never operated a reactor. This one has done that.”
A similar dynamic almost played out with large-scale reactors more than two decades ago. In the late 1990s, Japanese developers built four of GE and Hitachi’s ABWR reactor, a large-scale unit with some of the key safety features that make the AP1000 stand out compared to its first- and second-generation predecessors. In the mid 2000s, the U.S. certified the design and planned to build a pair in South Texas. But the project never materialized, and America instead put its resources into Westinghouse’s design.
But the market is different today. Electricity demand is surging in the near term from data centers and in the long term from electrification of cars and industry. The need to curb fossil fuel consumption in the face of worsening climate change is more widely accepted than ever. And China’s growing dominance over nuclear energy has rattled officials from Tokyo to Washington.
“We need to deploy this as soon as possible to not lose the experienced people in Japan and the U.S.,” Shimofuji said. “In two or three years time, we will get a construction permit ideally. We are targeting the early 2030s.”
If every company publicly holding itself to that timeline is successful, the nuclear industry will be a crowded field. But as history shows, those with the experience to actually take a reactor from paper to concrete may have an advantage.
It’s now clear that 2026 will be big for American energy, but it’s going to be incredibly tense.
Over the past 365 days, we at The Fight have closely monitored numerous conflicts over siting and permitting for renewable energy and battery storage projects. As we’ve done so, the data center boom has come into full view, igniting a tinderbox of resentment over land use, local governance and, well, lots more. The future of the U.S. economy and the energy grid may well ride on the outcomes of the very same city council and board of commissioners meetings I’ve been reporting on every day. It’s a scary yet exciting prospect.
To bring us into the new year, I wanted to try something a little different. Readers ask me all the time for advice with questions like, What should I be thinking about right now? And, How do I get this community to support my project? Or my favorite: When will people finally just shut up and let us build things? To try and answer these questions and more, I wanted to give you the top five trends in energy development (and data centers) I’ll be watching next year.
The best thing going for American renewable energy right now is the AI data center boom. But the backlash against developing these projects is spreading incredibly fast.
Do you remember last week when I told you about a national environmental group calling for data center moratoria across the country? On Wednesday, Senator Bernie Sanders called for a nationwide halt to data center construction until regulations are put in place. The next day, the Working Families Party – a progressive third party that fields candidates all over the country for all levels of government – called for its candidates to run in opposition to new data center construction.
On the other end of the political spectrum, major figures in the American right wing have become AI skeptics critical of the nascent data center buildout, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, and former Trump adviser Steve Bannon. These figures are clearly following the signals amidst the noise; I have watched in recent months as anti-data center fervor has spread across Facebook, with local community pages and groups once focused on solar and wind projects pivoting instead to focus on data centers in development near them.
In other words, I predicted just one month ago, an anti-data center political movement is forming across the country and quickly gaining steam (ironically aided by the internet and algorithms powered by server farms).
I often hear from the clean energy sector that the data center boom will be a boon for new projects. Renewable energy is the fastest to scale and construct, the thinking goes, and therefore will be the quickest, easiest, and most cost effective way to meet the projected spike in energy demand.
I’m not convinced yet that this line of thinking is correct. But I’m definitely sure that no matter the fuel type, we can expect a lot more transmission development, and nothing sparks a land use fight more easily than new wires.
Past is prologue here. One must look no further than the years-long fight over the Piedmont Reliability Project, a proposed line that would connect a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania to data centers in Virginia by crossing a large swathe of Maryland agricultural land. I’ve been covering it closely since we put the project in our inaugural list of the most at-risk projects, and the conflict is now a clear blueprint.
In Wisconsin, a billion-dollar transmission project is proving this thesis true. I highly recommend readers pay close attention to Port Washington, where the release of fresh transmission line routes for a massive new data center this week has aided an effort to recall the city’s mayor for supporting the project. And this isn’t even an interstate project like Piedmont.
While I may not be sure of the renewable energy sector’s longer-term benefits from data center development, I’m far more confident that this Big Tech land use backlash is hitting projects right now.
The short-term issue for renewables developers is that opponents of data centers use arguments and tactics similar to those deployed by anti-solar and anti-wind advocates. Everyone fighting data centers is talking about ending development on farmland, avoiding changes to property values, stopping excess noise and water use, and halting irreparable changes to their ways of life.
Only one factor distinguishes data center fights from renewable energy fights: building the former potentially raises energy bills, while the latter will lower energy costs.
I do fear that as data center fights intensify nationwide, communities will not ban or hyper-regulate the server farms in particular, but rather will pass general bans that also block the energy projects that could potentially power them. Rural counties are already enacting moratoria on solar and wind in tandem with data centers – this is not new. But the problem will worsen as conflicts spread, and it will be incumbent upon the myriad environmentalists boosting data center opponents to not accidentally aid those fighting zero-carbon energy.
This week, the Bureau of Land Management approved its first solar project in months: the Libra facility in Nevada. When this happened, I received a flood of enthusiastic and optimistic emails and texts from sources.
We do not yet know whether the Libra approval is a signal of a thaw inside the Trump administration. The Interior Department’s freeze on renewables permitting decisions continues mostly unabated, and I have seen nothing to indicate that more decisions like this are coming down the pike. What we do know is that ahead of a difficult midterm election, the Trump administration faces outsized pressure to do more to address “affordability,” Democrats plan to go after Republicans for effectively repealing the Inflation Reduction Act and halting permits for solar and wind projects, and there’s a grand bargain to be made in Congress over permitting reform that rides on an end to the permitting freeze.
I anticipate that ahead of the election and further permitting talks in Congress, the Trump administration will mildly ease its chokehold on solar and wind permits because that is the most logical option in front of them. I do not think this will change the circumstances for more than a small handful of projects sited on federal lands that were already deep in the permitting process when Trump took power.
It’s impossible to conclude a conversation about next year’s project fights without ending on the theme that defined 2025: battery fire fears are ablaze, and they’ll only intensify as data centers demand excess energy storage capacity.
The January Moss Landing fire incident was a defining moment for an energy sector struggling to grapple with the effects of the Internet age. Despite bearing little resemblance to the litany of BESS proposals across the country, that one hunk of burning battery wreckage in California inspired countless communities nationwide to ban new battery storage outright.
There is no sign this trend will end any time soon. I expect data centers to only accelerate these concerns, as these facilities can also catch fire in ways that are challenging to address.
Plus a resolution for Vineyard Wind and more of the week’s big renewables fights.
1. Hopkins County, Texas – A Dallas-area data center fight pitting developer Vistra against Texas attorney general Ken Paxton has exploded into a full-blown political controversy as the power company now argues the project’s developer had an improper romance with a city official for the host community.
2. La Plata County, Colorado – This county has just voted to extend its moratorium on battery energy storage facilities over fire fears.
3. Dane County, Wisconsin – The city of Madison appears poised to ban data centers for at least a year.
4. Goodhue County, Minnesota – The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, a large environmentalist organization in the state, is suing to block a data center project in the small city of Pine Island.
5. Hall County, Georgia – A data center has been stopped down South, at least for now.
6. Dukes County, Massachusetts – The fight between Vineyard Wind and the town of Nantucket seems to be over.