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 list of terminated grants obtained by Heatmap contains a number of grants that will cost jobs and revenue in Republican-led states.

The Trump administration terminated billions in climate and clean energy grants on Wednesday, in what appears to be yet another act of retribution against Democrats over the government shutdown. White House budget director Russell Vought announced on X that “nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left's climate agenda is being cancelled,” noting that the projects were in 16 states, all but two of which — Vermont and New Hampshire — have Democrats in their governor’s mansion. A Department of Energy release published late last night further clarified that it was terminating 321 awards supporting 223 projects, with a total closer to $7.5 billion.
But a list of the 321 canceled grants that the Department of Energy sent to Congress, obtained by Heatmap, tells a different story. While much of the funding was awarded to blue state-based companies, the intended projects would have benefitted communities elsewhere, including in Texas, Florida, and Louisiana.
The list identifies the grants by their award numbers, and includes information on the DOE office overseeing the grant, the recipient name, and state. The document does not specify the project names, the programs under which they were awarded, or the amounts awarded.
That leaves a lot of open questions about the true impact of the terminations. It’s unclear, for instance, whether the $7.5 billion price tag the Department of Energy assigned to the cancellations is an estimate of the total amount awarded or the unspent remainder still in the agency’s coffers. Five of the listed projects, worth nearly $900 million, were already announced as terminated in an earlier round of cuts back in May.
Many of the projects listed have signed contracts with the government, are already well underway, and have spent at least some of their award. For example, the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships has already published copious educational materials related to its community-driven transportation plan for the Northeast, a project supported by one of the terminated grants.
The list does seem to confirm that blue state grants were the hardest hit, with 79 award cancellations in California, 41 in New York, 34 in Colorado (Secretary of Energy Chris Wright’s home state), 33 in Illinois, and 31 in Massachusetts.
But when I began looking up projects by their award number, I found that many would actually have benefitted Republican strongholds. Take, for example, Moment Energy, a Delaware-based company that was awarded $20 million by the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains to build the first certified manufacturing facility in the United States producing battery energy storage systems from repurposed electric vehicle batteries. The plant was set to be built in Taylor, Texas, creating 50 construction jobs and 200 new permanent positions. After receiving the Energy Department’s stamp of approval, the company raised a $15 million Series A funding round in January to help finance the plant.
Also listed are a $10 million grant for Carbon Capture Inc, a California-based company, to conduct an engineering study for a direct air capture plant in Northwest Louisiana, and a $37 million grant to New York-based Urban Mining Industries to build one of its low-carbon concrete manufacturing plants in Florida. Linde, the global industrial gas company based in Connecticut, had $10 million to build hydrogen fueling stations for heavy duty trucks in La Porte, Texas, clawed back. BKV, a Colorado-based natural gas company set to study the transportation of captured CO2 by barge throughout the Gulf Coast region, also had its $2.5 million grant canceled.
In addition to hurting investments and jobs in Republican states, the Department of Energy’s cancellations also target some unlikely victims. The list names 16 grants for General Electric, including 11 for GE Vernova, the company’s manufacturing arm, which produces natural gas turbines and components for wind energy generation; many of those awards were for wind technology research projects. The agency also canceled 24 grants for the Institute for Gas Technology and the Electric Power Research Institute, the research arms of gas and electric companies’ two biggest trade groups, respectively. Several of these awards funded research projects into carbon capture and storage.
Also on the list was a more than $6.5 million grant for a controversial study to retrofit the Four Corners coal plant in New Mexico with carbon capture equipment. The plant is currently scheduled to close in 2031.
Back in May, Wright promised Congress his agency’s review of Biden-era climate funding would be over by the end of the summer. “Certainly in the next few months, by the end of this summer — hopefully before the end of this summer — we will have run through all of the four or 500 large projects that are currently in the pipeline at the DOE,” he said during a House Appropriations Committee hearing.
As reported yesterday by Bloomberg, two regional Hydrogen Hubs in California and the Pacific Northwest — projects awarded funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to develop full hydrogen production and consumption ecosystems — are on the list. That leaves the agency’s intentions for the remaining five hubs scattered throughout the Midwest, Midatlantic, Appalachia, the Great Plains, and Texas unclear. And while the list includes a few smaller grants for early-stage Direct Air Capture Hubs, it is still a mystery whether the Department of Energy plans to support the two more advanced direct air capture projects in Louisiana and Texas that were selected for $1.2 billion under the Biden administration.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
NineDot Energy’s nine-fiigure bet on New York City is a huge sign from the marketplace.
Battery storage is moving full steam ahead in the Big Apple under new Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
NineDot Energy, the city’s largest battery storage developer, just raised more than $430 million in debt financing for 28 projects across the metro area, bringing the company’s overall project pipeline to more than 60 battery storage facilities across every borough except Manhattan. It’s a huge sign from the marketplace that investors remain confident the flashpoints in recent years over individual battery projects in New York City may fail to halt development overall. In an interview with me on Tuesday, NineDot CEO David Arfin said as much. “The last administration, the Adams administration, was very supportive of the transition to clean energy. We expect the Mamdani administration to be similar.”
It’s a big deal given that a year ago, the Moss Landing battery fire in California sparked a wave of fresh battery restrictions at the local level. We’ve been able to track at least seven battery storage fights in the boroughs so far, but we wouldn’t be surprised if the number was even higher. In other words, risk remains evident all over the place.
Asked where the fears over battery storage are heading, Arfin said it's “really hard to tell.”
“As we create more facts on the ground and have more operating batteries in New York, people will gain confidence or have less fear over how these systems operate and the positive nature of them,” he told me. “Infrastructure projects will introduce concern and reasonably so – people should know what’s going on there, what has been done to protect public safety. We share that concern. So I think the future is very bright for being able to build the cleaner infrastructure of the future, but it's not a straightforward path.”
In terms of new policy threats for development, local lawmakers are trying to create new setback requirements and bond rules. Sam Pirozzolo, a Staten Island area assemblyman, has been one of the local politicians most vocally opposed to battery storage without new regulations in place, citing how close projects can be to residences, because it's all happening in a city.
“If I was the CEO of NineDot I would probably be doing the same thing they’re doing now, and that is making sure my company is profitable,” Pirozzolo told me, explaining that in private conversations with the company, he’s made it clear his stance is that Staten Islanders “take the liability and no profit – you’re going to give money to the city of New York but not Staten Island.”
But onlookers also view the NineDot debt financing as a vote of confidence and believe the Mamdani administration may be better able to tackle the various little bouts of hysterics happening today over battery storage. Former mayor Eric Adams did have the City of Yes policy, which allowed for streamlined permitting. However, he didn’t use his pulpit to assuage battery fears. The hope is that the new mayor will use his ample charisma to deftly dispatch these flares.
“I’d be shocked if the administration wasn’t supportive,” said Jonathan Cohen, policy director for NY SEIA, stating Mamdani “has proven to be one of the most effective messengers in New York City politics in a long time and I think his success shows that for at least the majority of folks who turned out in the election, he is a trusted voice. It is an exercise that he has the tools to make this argument.”
City Hall couldn’t be reached for comment on this story. But it’s worth noting the likeliest pathway to any fresh action will come from the city council, then upwards. Hearings on potential legislation around battery storage siting only began late last year. In those hearings, it appears policymakers are erring on the side of safety instead of blanket restrictions.
The week’s most notable updates on conflicts around renewable energy and data centers.
1. Wasco County, Oregon – They used to fight the Rajneeshees, and now they’re fighting a solar farm.
2. Worcester County, Maryland – The legal fight over the primary Maryland offshore wind project just turned in an incredibly ugly direction for offshore projects generally.
3. Manitowoc County, Wisconsin – Towns are starting to pressure counties to ban data centers, galvanizing support for wider moratoria in a fashion similar to what we’ve seen with solar and wind power.
4. Pinal County, Arizona – This county’s commission rejected a 8,122-acre solar farm unanimously this week, only months after the same officials approved multiple data centers.
.
A conversation with Adib Nasle, CEO of Xendee Corporation
Today’s Q&A is with Adib Nasle, CEO of Xendee Corporation. Xendee is a microgrid software company that advises large power users on how best to distribute energy over small-scale localized power projects. It’s been working with a lot with data centers as of late, trying to provide algorithmic solutions to alleviate some of the electricity pressures involved with such projects.
I wanted to speak with Nasle because I’ve wondered whether there are other ways to reduce data center impacts on local communities besides BYO power. Specifically, I wanted to know whether a more flexible and dynamic approach to balancing large loads on the grid could help reckon with the cost concerns driving opposition to data centers.
Our conversation is abridged and edited slightly for clarity.
So first of all, tell me about your company.
We’re a software company focused on addressing the end-to-end needs of power systems – microgrids. It’s focused on building the economic case for bringing your own power while operating these systems to make sure they’re delivering the benefits that were promised. It’s to make sure the power gap is filled as quickly as possible for the data center, while at the same time bringing the flexibility any business case needs to be able to expand, understand, and adopt technologies while taking advantage of grid opportunities, as well. It speaks to multiple stakeholders: technical stakeholders, financial stakeholders, policy stakeholders, and the owner and operator of a data center.
At what point do you enter the project planning process?
From the very beginning. There’s a site. It needs power. Maybe there is no power available, or the power available from the grid is very limited. How do we fill that gap in a way that has a business case tied to it? Whatever objective the customer has is what we serve, whether it’s cost savings or supply chain issues around lead times, and then the resiliency or emissions goals an organization has as well.
It’s about dealing with the gap between what you need to run your chips and what the utility can give you today. These data center things almost always have back-up systems and are familiar with putting power on site. It must now be continuous. We helped them design that.
With our algorithm, you tell it what the site is, what the load requirements are, and what the technologies you’re interested in are. It designs the optimal power system. What do we need? How much money is it going to take and how long?
The algorithm helps deliver on those cost savings, deliverables, and so forth. It’s a decision support system to get to a solution very, very quickly and with a high level of confidence.
How does a microgrid reduce impacts to the surrounding community?
The data center obviously wants to power as quickly and cheaply as possible. That’s the objective of that facility. At the same time, when you start bringing generation assets in, there are a few things that’ll impact the local community. Usually we have carbon monoxide systems in our homes and it warns us, right? Emissions from these assets become important and there’s a need to introduce technologies in a way that introduces that power gap and the air quality need. Our software helps address the emissions component and the cost component. And there are technologies that are silent. Batteries, technology components that are noise compliant.
From a policy perspective and a fairness perspective, a microgrid – on-site power plant you can put right next to the data center – helps unburden the local grid at a cost of upgrades that has no value to ratepayers other than just meeting the needs of one big customer. That one big customer can produce and store their own power and ratepayers don’t see a massive increase in their costs. It solves a few problems.
What are data centers most focused on right now when it comes to energy use, and how do you help?
I think they’re very focused on the timeframe and how quickly they can get that power gap filled, those permits in.
At the end of the day the conversation is about the utility’s relationship with the community as opposed to the data center’s relationship with the utility. Everything’s being driven by timelines and those timelines are inherently leaning towards on-site power solutions and microgrids.
More and more of these data center operators and owners are going off-grid. They’ll plug into the grid with what’s available but they’re not going to wait.
Do you feel like using a microgrid makes people more supportive of a data center?
Whether the microgrid is serving a hospital or a campus or a data center, it’s an energy system. From a community perspective, if it’s designed carefully and they’re addressing the environmental impact, the microgrid can actually provide shock absorbers to the system. It can be a localized generation source that can bring strength and stability to that local, regional grid when it needs help. This ability to take yourself out of the equation as a big load and run autonomously to heal itself or stabilize from whatever shock it's dealing with, that’s a big benefit to the local community.