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:
A number of terms used by climate activists, politicians, and communicators are unfamiliar to the majority of Americans.

The biggest debates during the annual United Nations climate conference, underway this week in Dubai, always center around language.
The Paris Agreement, the 2015 treaty significant for uniting almost every country in the world in supporting a common strategy to address climate change, was almost scuttled by an argument over whether nations “should” cut emissions or “shall” do it. This year, delegates are at odds over whether the world should “phase down” or “phase out” fossil fuels, and whether to allow for “abated” fossil fuels, a euphemism for the use of carbon capture technologies that prevent emissions from entering the atmosphere.
To explain the significance of these debates, the media often points to the scientific consensus that the world must reach “net zero” to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. But does anyone know what we’re talking about?
Heatmap’s second Climate Poll, conducted in mid-November by Benenson Strategy Group, found that the “Paris Agreement,” “Net Zero,” and a number of other terms used by activists, politicians, and climate communicators, are still unfamiliar to the majority of Americans.
One thousand adults, ages 18 and up, were asked, “In the context of climate change, sustainability and environmental responsibility, how familiar are you with the following terms?”
The results are not exactly surprising. It makes sense that people would be far more familiar with mature technologies like solar, wind, and nuclear, than with terms like “green hydrogen” and “direct air capture,” which are much newer to the conversation and barely exist at scale in the real world yet.
When I ran the findings by Jonathon Schuldt, an associate professor at Cornell University who studies public opinion on health and environmental issues, he agreed that they reflect “the effect of time and exposure” to these terms among the public. “Solar, wind, and nuclear energy have been part of the mainstream discourse for many decades,” he said, “even before terms like global warming and climate change.” To prove it, Schuldt showed me the results of running the terms through the Google Books Ngram Viewer, which identifies their prevalence in books over time:

But now, the reality on the ground in the U.S. is changing rapidly. The Biden administration is pouring more than $10 billion dollars into deploying green hydrogen plants and direct air capture machines at various sites around the country as a result of two major climate packages passed in 2021 and 2022, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. Even as these two pieces of legislation have reshaped the energy and climate discussion in the U.S. in the last two years, public familiarity with green hydrogen and direct air capture appears to have remained static. Our findings line up very closely with a similar poll conducted by Data for Progress in May 2021. While both solutions hold a lot of promise to reduce climate change, they come with many more risks and trade-offs than solar or wind.
In general, we found that more Democrats were familiar with the terms on the list than Republicans. But slightly more Republicans expressed familiarity with “ESG” (40% vs 35%) “nuclear energy,” (71% vs 70%) “wind energy,” (77% vs 75%), “the IPCC 1.5C report” (22% vs 21%) and “Paris agreement” (38% vs 35%).
More men also expressed knowledge of the terms than women in every category.
There was also a significant gap between Americans below and above the age of 50, with younger generations far more likely to know terms like “environmental justice,” “carbon removal,” and “the IPCC 1.5C report.”
We also found a correlation between people who said that they had been personally affected by climate change and knowledge of key climate concepts. About three times as many people who had been affected by climate change knew what “green hydrogen” or a “direct air capture plant” was, compared with those who said they had not been affected by climate change.
“A key question is whether familiarity corresponds to support,” Schuldt told me. “Especially given COP28’s emphasis on the need to shift to renewable energy. On the other hand, that most respondents were unfamiliar with central terms like environmental justice and net zero suggests that the climate movement has more work to do when it comes to engaging the general public in these conversations.”
Well, Heatmap asked about support, too, for at least a few of these. And while solar and wind do have significant support, some of the results are a bit contradictory to the familiarity findings, because far more people said they would support the Paris Agreement and environmental justice than admitted they knew what these phrases meant. (The added context probably helped too.)
We went a lot deeper on some of these questions, especially around support for renewable energy, and will have more to share with you in the coming weeks.
The Heatmap Climate Poll of 1,000 American adults was conducted by Benenson Strategy Group via online panels from Nov. 6 to 13, 2023. The survey included interviews with Americans in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A new study from energy company Foundry-Logic argues that simply replacing old solar panels could add significant new capacity to the grid.
All across the United States, solar panels are withering on the vine. Equipment installed 10 to 15 years ago is still capturing sunlight and pumping out electricity, but significantly less of it than when the cells were new.
This is not a story about decline, however, but about growth. America’s aging solar farms represent an opportunity to expand clean energy capacity without using more land — and potentially without having to wait years for new projects to get through the grid’s interconnection queue.
Modern panels can produce as much as 70% more energy than new ones sold 20 years ago, according to Wood Mackenzie. A report published Monday estimates that “repowering” existing solar farms, or replacing old panels with new ones, could unlock about 9.6 gigawatts of solar power by 2030, 29 gigawatts by 2035, and 67 gigawatts by 2040. (For comparison, the U.S. added 27.2 gigawatts of utility-scale solar last year.) If every project up for repowering between now and 2040 installed batteries, as well, that would add up to 13 additional gigawatts of storage to the grid by 2030, and nearly 92 gigawatts by 2040. The U.S. has just over 50 gigawatts of storage online today.
That means repowered solar farms could supply about a third of the growth in peak demand the North American Electric Reliability Corporation expects to be driven by data centers by 2035, the report found.
“Solar is entering its first replacement cycle at this moment when we are seeing a structural increase in demand,” Lisa Hansmann, the director of energy company Foundry-Logic and one of the paper’s authors, told me. “The more we dug in, the more it became clear that this market is early, but it is fast growing and ultimately could be very large.”
Advances and cost declines in battery technology are key to harnessing this generation potential. If a developer wants to increase the output of their solar farm, they’ll likely have to get a new interconnection agreement, which can take years. Adding a battery to ensure the plant doesn’t send more power to the grid than it was initially approved for can help avoid that, although it depends on the specs of the project, the location, and regional regulatory requirements.
Foundry-Logic, which published the paper in partnership with the clean energy finance company Crux, is focused on “getting more out of the installed base of energy systems.” The paper, in other words, is essentially Foundry-Logic’s sales pitch. It estimates that when combined with battery storage, repowering will represent a $10.8 billion market in 2030, growing to $51.8 billion by 2040.
The estimates are certainly on the high end of what’s possible, however, as the authors looked at technical potential rather than regulatory or economic feasibility. While the first half of the paper highlights the reasons repowering can be so attractive — existing interconnections, land leases, and permits — the second half digs into the real-world conditions that complicate that narrative.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requires regional transmission organizations to offer “surplus interconnection service,” rules that allow new generators to skip the interconnection queue if they connect to the grid using the same infrastructure as an existing power source, so long as there’s “surplus” room to connect at that node. The rules vary throughout the country, however. The paper finds that the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, which covers much of the Midwest, has the most favorable regulations for repowering, followed by the Southwest Power Pool, which covers the swath of the country between Montana and the Texas panhandle. In the nation’s largest transmission region, PJM, the surplus interconnection process has historically taken nearly as long as the queue, but the regional operator recently indicated it’s considering reforming the process.
Requirements also vary widely depending on the type of project — utility-scale versus smaller solar farms versus rooftop arrays — as well as by state and region. Utility-scale projects require interconnection agreements from regional transmission operators, while smaller projects connect at the local distribution level with permission from the relevant utility.
“Policy is evolving to meet the market demand for speed to power, and that's one of the things we tried to highlight too,” Josh Price, the director of market intelligence and research at Crux, told me. Because of the data center buildout and surging energy demand, he said, state regulatory commissions have started to push their utilities to examine their distribution systems, identify where there’s available interconnection capacity, and create rules or pilot programs to leverage it.
Price added that another advantage to repowering projects is that developers don’t have to start the financing process from scratch. In most cases, they already have a lender, an equity sponsor, and potentially a tax equity partner. They might need to renegotiate terms, but they also have 10 to 15 years of real-world data into how solar performs at the site, making it a less risky investment than a brand new development.
I spoke with one solar farm operator, CleanCapital, which owns many smaller sites throughout the country that were built in the early 2010s “and are needing more love,” as Zoe Berkery, the company’s chief operating officer, put it to me. The first step in deciding what to do with them, she said, is to try to extend the offtake contract for the power. “Otherwise, there would be no justification for pouring in so much additional capital into a site that may be rolling off in just a couple of years, so that piece has been something that CleanCapital has focused on pretty intensely over the last, I would say, six years,” she said.
CleanCapital has repowered some of its projects, but only to restore the original generating capacity. It has not yet added batteries to any legacy sites. Berkery said the company looked at adding batteries in New Jersey and California, but has not been able to make the economics work. “I do think there's a lot of potential there,” she said. “It just depends on the site, the space, the market.”
Hansmann told me that a lot has changed in the past year to make it easier to add batteries to existing solar sites, including new ways to get paid for energy storage, such as through participation in virtual power plants. For example, in June, Google announced it would fund a virtual power plant in PJM run by the company Voltus, which will aggregate batteries from homes and businesses, among other distributed energy resources.. “For the first time, you're having the technical potential and the commercial potential line up in a very interesting way.”
Current conditions: In the central Pacific, Hurricane Nolo lashed Hawaii as a Category 2 storm with winds of up to 105 miles per hour • In the eastern Pacific, Hurricane Polo whacked the Southern California coast with seven-foot swells • In the western Pacific, Typhoon Surigae is barreling toward Okinawa, Japan, and the Philippines’ most populous island, Luzon.

Nearly 200,000 households across the northeastern United States lost electricity over the weekend as a powerful nor’easter storm walloped the nation’s most densely populated region with winds topping 70 miles per hour. Tens of thousands more Americans suffered outages in Hawaii as Hurricane Nolo brushed past the storm-struck archipelago state. By Sunday night, however, just over 90,000 households remained without access to the grid, according to data on the U.S. Power Outage tracker. Of those, roughly 19,000 each were located in New York and Hawaii. As of this morning, the total number dropped to just under 54,000.

Americans experienced an average of 11 hours of power interruptions in 2024, nearly twice as many as the annual average in the decade before, according to an analysis last year by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That was largely due to an increase in powerful storms right as the grid is growing older and the equipment needed to repair and upgrade the system is in short supply. An expert cited in a feature story in The New York Times Magazine last month on the mounting risk of blackouts in the U.S. warned that the country could be thrust into darkness for 18 months or longer if saboteurs took out major transformers.
President Donald Trump plans to slash fuel efficiency rules on new cars and light trucks Monday, in his administration’s latest effort to undo regulations meant to curb emissions and save drivers money over the operating lives of their vehicles. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump said he had “just approved new Fuel Economy Standards,” falsely claiming that former President Joe Biden had imposed a “mandate” to buy electric vehicles under the most recent update to the rulebook. “The Dumocrats cost our Great Auto Manufacturers $Billions, forced Americans into cars they never wanted, and wasted Billions on Chargers that were never built,” he wrote. “These new Standards will take the waste out of building cars in America.” In his own post on X, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said the final proposal would be released Monday. It wasn’t immediately clear how the agency would alter the rules, but the shift is expected to significantly weaken the standards. The move highlights Trump’s reliance on what the Rhodium Group described earlier this year to my colleague Robinson Meyer as “outdated economics” to justify cars that are cheaper to manufacture but more expensive to drive.
China will import at least 10 million metric tons of coal from the U.S. next year and again in 2028, according to a White House fact sheet. The deal, which came out of last week’s summit between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, is part of an overall pledge to ease tariffs on as much as $30 billion of goods exchange between the two superpowers. In 2023, the U.S. exported roughly 5.9 million metric tons of coal to China, making the People’s Republic the fifth-largest overseas buyer of American coal that year, after India, Japan, the Netherlands, and Brazil. But U.S. exports overall dropped off last year after Beijing halted orders amid the trade war Trump kicked off. The latest purchase agreement helps to restore the American market share lost due to Chinese tariffs.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
New York wants to build 5 gigawatts of new nuclear reactors, the largest buildout of any other state and far more capacity than the U.S. has added nationwide in decades. During the New York Climate Week festivities last week, the head of the state energy office, the president of the grid operator, and top advisers to Governor Kathy Hochul appeared at a pro-nuclear summit to assure investors, industry officials, and rival states that Albany was moving full-speed ahead. In a public comment submitted to Hochul and state energy regulators last week, however, three dozen state legislators called nuclear reactors “environmentally destructive, expensive, and slow-to-build,” and called instead for devoting all Albany’s spending on new power generation to wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries. Of the signatories, nine lawmakers are Democratic Socialists of America, such as state senators Jabari Brisport, Julia Salazar, and Emily Gallagher — all close allies and friends of the nationally influential New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Much of the rest of the list are self-described progressives.
But the former base of left-wing political power in the U.S. — labor unions — are taking the exact opposite position. In its own public comment, Climate Jobs NY, a coalition of unions that support decarbonization as a way to increase employment, said the only way for New York “to establish a carbon-free energy sector” is to “rely on nuclear power,” which just so happens to boast the most unionized workforce of any energy sector. “There is no other clean firm, or baseload power that can supply industrial operations at scale,” the organization wrote. “Solar, wind and battery storage are essential to our energy supply in the state, but they cannot provide all of the baseload power that our state depends on. For this reason, among others, nuclear must be a key part of New York’s energy future.” Fred Stafford, the pseudonymous energy writer and researcher who has written for Heatmap, pondered on X: “Can the Left be torn away from dead-end environmental nonprofits and renewables developers and instead align with the state’s climate-focused labor unions when it comes to nuclear?”
If you were looking for a sign that the European Union’s hydrogen ambitions are dimming, consider this: Brussels just announced that it was going after all but one of its member states for failing to enshrine the bloc-wide hydrogen rules into national law. The EU launched what are called “infringement proceedings” — a procedural punishment that can result in financial sanctions — against 26 of the 27 countries in the continental bloc. Brussels adopted the Hydrogen and Decarbonized Gas directive in 2024, and gave countries two years to pass national laws that match the guidelines for establishing domestic clean fuel industries. When the deadline passed early last month, just one nation had met the qualifications, according to Hydrogen Insight: Italy.
When I interviewed Ernest Moniz, the secretary of energy under former President Barack Obama, at a Climate Week event last Wednesday, he told me “nothing has hit the jackpot” on clean fuels just yet. But given that only 21% of end-use energy worldwide is served by electricity, the hunt for affordable, scalable, clean molecules is central to any potential decarbonization effort in the future.
Ford Motor produces more than 300,000 pickup trucks and sports utility vehicles at its assembly plant in Hermosillo, Mexico, every year. But the facility has been plagued lately by the kind of pest you normally find on city streets: pigeons. Enter: El Charro. The automaker’s “latest employee of the month,” according to The Wall Street Journal, is a hawk the Mexican plant brought on to hunt the pigeons. “It has given very good results,” Jesus Teran, central maintenance manager at Hermosillo and a 25-year veteran at the facility, told the newspaper. The bird’s name harkens to the Mexican term for cowboy.
A permitting deal seems closer than ever — but possibly delayed til after the election.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
Good afternoon and happy Friday.
Let’s start with the news: The new episode of our podcast, Shift Key, is my full interview with U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, which we recorded at Heatmap House in New York on Wednesday.
Listen to it here. You can find it on Heatmap’s website or wherever you get your podcasts. You don’t need to be a Heatmap subscriber to tune in.
My colleagues at Heatmap have covered a few takeaways from our conversation — including Secretary Wright’s prediction that there will not be a “blanket ban” on U.S. diesel exports, which he then hedged slightly — but we haven’t previewed everything, and I think the conversation is still worth your time. A few highlights:
We discussed the Trump administration’s lengthy war on wind and whether it might end in the future. “I do believe a successful permitting reform … changes the playing field for anything you want to build in this country, including wind,” Wright said. He also explained why he thought congressional Democrats should trust the administration’s word about that.
Wright hit on the Energy Department’s program to build a new fleet of nuclear reactors across the country, which could (if successful) bring roughly 10 gigawatts of zero-carbon electricity capacity online across five sites. There are now “well more than five” companies interested in entering the deal, he said, meaning that five will soon be selected. Allegedly there was a dinner last night to discuss the program, but we haven’t heard anything more about it.
Also up for discussion: whether the United States is leaning too hard into natural gas, how China has buttressed the global economy from the Strait of Hormuz oil shock, and why Wright thinks China is now the “swing importer” of oil globally and has successfully “taken off the peaks” of global pricing.
“If [China] were listening to me for their energy policy — and they are not — but if they were, I’d have them ramp up those refineries more rapidly because they have oil, the world has oil, but we’re very, very tight on refining capacity right now,” he said.
It was a fascinating conversation. Some of it pointed to ways that American energy policy will need to evolve in the future, regardless of which president or party is in charge. You can find it wherever you get your podcasts: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, YouTube.
***
I’d be loath not to mention — at least briefly — all the movement in the past week on permitting reform.
When we last checked in on permitting over the summer, Daniel Palken, the head of infrastructure at Arnold Ventures, helped me understand the emerging outline of a bipartisan compromise deal on energy and infrastructure permitting. Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico also sketched the state of negotiations for us in August.
Since then, I had heard that Senate negotiators were making progress, but had not heard many concrete details. But this week we saw a flurry of activity. At the beginning of the week, the White House seemed to want to move quickly to seal a compromise, promising to allow stalled solar and wind projects to proceed in return for getting something inked before the midterm elections. (That said, actually getting a law passed before the November 3 elections would have required Speaker Mike Johnson to bring his caucus back to Washington, D.C.)
But late on Wednesday, Senate Democrats signaled that they want to slow down the talks and seemingly delay any deal until after November. “We believe there is a good deal to be had,” the lead Democratic negotiators, Senator Heinrich and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, said in a statement today. But “getting that [deal] right has to matter more than election-year deadlines.”
As a reminder, any permitting deal will need at least 60 votes in the Senate in order to clear the filibuster hurdle. That means such a deal will almost certainly need to be bipartisan — and therefore that a deal can only come together in a political environment where legislators from both parties feel like they can plausibly prosper in the near-term by making it easier to build. Right now, it seems like both parties do feel that way, even if they’re bickering about whether to get a deal done before or after November.
I have been careful not to endorse any bill until I see it, of course. It will all depend on what’s in the final text. But it would be a mistake, I think, for House and Senate Democrats to let this legislating opportunity pass them by if they are indeed so close to a deal that the decarbonization hawks Whitehouse and Heinrich feel good about. Just because Congress reaches a deal now doesn’t mean it can’t reach another one in the future. As we’ve discussed on Shift Key, recent history suggests that when lawmakers adjust one part of the law or one statute, they feel more comfortable returning to it in the future, making further addendums as needed.
Remember: Because federal permitting laws chiefly constrain what the government can do, they act as a brake primarily on public infrastructure. It took years, recall, for state and local governments in New York to get the permits necessary to implement their own scheme to tax traffic congestion in New York City. If you want to build big new infrastructure in the United States, be it high-speed trains, transmission lines, or zero-carbon power plants — and if you specifically want the government to build public works faster and better than it has in recent decades — then you should want a different federal permitting scheme than we have now. Let’s hope congressional Democrats remember that in the days, weeks, and months to come.