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 new list of Department of Energy grants slated for termination will hit clean energy and oil majors alike, including Exxon and Chevron.

A new list of Department of Energy grants slated for termination obtained by Heatmap reveals an additional 338 awards for clean energy projects that the agency intends to cancel. Combined with the 321 grants the agency said it was terminating last week, the total value is nearly $24 billion.
While last week’s announcement mostly targeted companies and institutions located in Democratic states, the new list appears to be indiscriminate. Conrad Schneider, the senior U.S. director at Clean Air Task Force, told me in a statement that the move “will have far-reaching consequences — with virtually no region unscathed.”
“The federal government plays an essential role in addressing gaps that stall the commercialization of energy breakthroughs by providing grants and loans to accelerate innovative projects,” he said. “By abruptly canceling funding for several hundred energy projects, the U.S. risks ceding American energy leadership and signals that U.S. innovation is not a priority.”
Some of the most significant new terminations on the list include:
While two of the seven hydrogen hubs — those in California and the Pacific Northwest — were on last week’s cancellations list, all seven have their status listed as “terminate” on this new list. That includes hubs that planned to make hydrogen from natural gas based in Appalachia, the Gulf Coast, Texas, and the Midwest.
Those awards came out of $8 billion allocated by Congress in the IIJA in 2021 to develop hubs where companies and states would work together to produce and test the use of cleaner hydrogen fuel in new industries. The move would hit oil majors in addition to green energy companies. Exxon and Chevron were partners on the Hyvelocity hydrogen hub on the Gulf Coast.
“If the program is dismantled, it could undermine the development of the domestic hydrogen industry,” Rachel Starr, the senior U.S. policy manager for hydrogen and transportation at Clean Air Task Force told me. “The U.S. will risk its leadership position on the global stage, both in terms of exporting a variety of transportation fuels that rely on hydrogen as a feedstock and in terms of technological development as other countries continue to fund and make progress on a variety of hydrogen production pathways and end uses."
The Inflation Reduction Act’s Domestic Manufacturing Conversion Grants, which were meant to support the conversion of shuttered or at-risk auto plants to be able to manufacture electric vehicles and their supply chains, would be fully obliterated based on the new list. All 13 grants that were awarded under the program are there, including $80 million for Blue Bird’s new electric school bus plant in Fort Valley, Georgia, $500 million for General Motors’ Grant River Assembly Plant in Lansing, Michigan, and $285 million for Mercedes-Benz’s next-generation electric van plant in Ladson, South Carolina.
Some of the other projects slated for termination raise questions about other projects from the same grant program that are not on the list. For example, a $45 million grant for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association to deploy microgrids in seven communities shows up as terminated, along with several other awards made as part of the IIJA’s Energy Improvements in Rural or Remote Areas program. Grants for indigenous tribes in Alaska, Wisconsin, and throughout the Southwest from that program appear to be preserved, however.
A $9.8 million grant to Sparkz to build a first-of-its-kind battery-grade iron phosphate plant in West Virginia also makes an appearance. The award was made as part of a nearly $430 million funding round from the IIJA to accelerate domestic clean energy manufacturing in 15 former coal communities. Similar awards made to Anthro Energy in Louisville, Kentucky, Infinitum in Rockdale, Texas, Mainspring Energy in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, and a company called MetOx International developing an advanced superconductor manufacturing facility in the Southeast appear to be safe.
When asked about the new list, DOE spokesperson Ben Dietderich told me by email that he couldn’t attest to its validity. He added that “no further determinations have been made at this time other than those previously announced,” referring to the earlier 321 cancellations.
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 most popular scope 3 models assume an entirely American supply chain. That doesn’t square with reality.
“You can’t manage what you don’t measure,” the adage goes. But despite valiant efforts by companies to measure their supply chain emissions, the majority are missing a big part of the picture.
Widely used models for estimating supply chain emissions simplify the process by assuming that companies source all of their goods from a single country or region. This is obviously not how the world works, and manufacturing in the United States is often cleaner than in countries with coal-heavy grids, like China, where many of the world’s manufactured goods actually come from. A study published in the journal Nature Communications this week found that companies using a U.S.-centric model may be undercounting their emissions by as much as 10%.
“We find very large differences in not only the magnitude of the upstream carbon footprint for a given business, but the hot spots, like where there are more or less emissions happening, and thus where a company would want to gather better data and focus on reducing,” said Steven Davis, a professor of Earth system science in the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability and lead author of the paper.
Several of the authors of the paper, including Davis, are affiliated with the software startup Watershed, which helps companies measure and reduce their emissions. Watershed already encourages its clients to use its own proprietary multi-region model, but the company is now working with Stanford and the consulting firm ERG to build a new and improved tool called Cornerstone that will be freely available for anyone to use.
“Our hope is that with the release of scientific papers like this one and with the launch of Cornerstone, we can help the ecosystem transition to higher quality open access datasets,” Yohanna Maldonado, Watershed’s Head of Climate Data told me in an email.
The study arrives as the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, a nonprofit that publishes carbon accounting standards that most companies voluntarily abide by, is in the process of revising its guidance for calculating “scope 3” emissions. Scope 3 encompasses the carbon that a company is indirectly responsible for, such as from its supply chain and from the use of its products by customers. Watershed is advocating that the new standard recommend companies use a multi-region modeling approach, whether Watershed’s or someone else’s.
Davis walked me through a hypothetical example to illustrate how these models work in practice. Imagine a company that manufactures exercise bikes — it assembles the final product in a factory in the U.S., but sources screws and other components from China. The typical way this company would estimate the carbon footprint of its supply chain would be to use a dataset published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that estimates the average emissions per dollar of output for about 400 sectors of the U.S. economy. The EPA data doesn’t get down to the level of detail of a specific screw, but it does provide an estimate of emissions per dollar of output for, say, hardware manufacturing. The company would then multiply the amount of money it spent on screws by that emissions factor.
Companies take this approach because real measurements of supply chain emissions are rare. It’s not yet common practice for suppliers to provide this information, and supply chains are so complex that a product might pass through several different hands before reaching the company trying to do the calculation. There are emerging efforts to use remote sensing and other digital data collection and monitoring systems to create more accurate, granular datasets, Alexia Kelly, a veteran corporate sustainability executive and current director at the High Tide Foundation, told me. In the meantime, even though sector-level emissions estimates are rough approximations, they can at least give a company an indication of which parts of their supply chain are most problematic.
When those estimates don’t take into account country of origin, however, they don’t give companies an accurate picture of which parts of their supply chains need the most attention.
The new study used Watershed’s multi-region model to look at how different types of companies’ emissions would change if they used supply chain data that better reflected the global nature of supply chains. Davis is the first to admit that the study’s findings of higher emissions are not surprising. The carbon accounting field has long been aware of the shortcomings of single-region models. There hasn’t been a big push to change that, however, because the exercise is already voluntary and taking into account global supply chains is significantly more difficult. Many countries don’t publish emissions and economic data, and those that do use a variety of methods to report it. Reconciling those differences adds to the challenge.
While the overall conclusion isn’t surprising, the study may be the first to show the magnitude of the problem and illustrate how more accurate modeling could redirect corporate sustainability efforts. “As far as I know, there is no similar analysis like this focused on corporate value chain emissions,” Derik Broekhoff, a senior scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute, told me in an email. “The research is an important reminder for companies (and standard setters like the Greenhouse Gas Protocol), who in practice appear to be overlooking foreign supply chain emissions in large numbers.”
Broekhoff said Watershed’s upcoming open-source model “could provide a really useful solution.” At the same time, he said, it’s worth noting that this whole approach of calculating emissions based on dollars spent is subject to significant uncertainty. “Using spending data to estimate supply chain emissions provides only a first-order approximation at best!”
The decision marks the Trump administration’s second offshore wind defeat this week.
A federal court has lifted Trump’s stop work order on the Empire Wind offshore wind project, the second defeat in court this week for the president as he struggles to stall turbines off the East Coast.
In a brief order read in court Thursday morning, District Judge Carl Nichols — a Trump appointee — sided with Equinor, the Norwegian energy developer building Empire Wind off the coast of New York, granting its request to lift a stop work order issued by the Interior Department just before Christmas.
Interior had cited classified national security concerns to justify a work stoppage. Now, for the second time this week, a court has ruled the risks alleged by the Trump administration are insufficient to halt an already-permitted project midway through construction.
Anti-offshore wind activists are imploring the Trump administration to appeal this week’s injunctions on the stop work orders. “We are urging Secretary Burgum and the Department of Interior to immediately appeal this week’s adverse federal district court rulings and seek an order halting all work pending appellate review,” Robin Shaffer, president of Protect Our Coast New Jersey, said in a statement texted to me after the ruling came down.
Any additional delays may be fatal for some of the offshore wind projects affected by Trump’s stop work orders, irrespective of the rulings in an appeal. Both Equinor and Orsted, developer of the Revolution Wind project, argued for their preliminary injunctions because even days of delay would potentially jeopardize access to vessels necessary for construction. Equinor even told the court that if the stop work order wasn’t lifted by Friday — that is, January 16 — it would cancel Empire Wind. Though Equinor won today, it is nowhere near out of the woods.
More court action is coming: Dominion will present arguments on Friday in federal court against the stop work order halting construction of its Coastal Virginia offshore wind project.
On Heatmap's annual survey, Trump’s wind ‘spillover,’ and Microsoft’s soil deal
Current conditions: A polar vortex is sweeping frigid air back into the Northeast and bringing up to 6 inches of snow to northern parts of New England • Temperatures in the Southeast are set to plunge 25 degrees Fahrenheit below last week’s averages, with highs below freezing in Atlanta • Temperatures in the Nigerian capital of Abuja, meanwhile, are nearing 100 degrees.

To comically understate the obvious, it’s been a big year for climate. So Heatmap called up 55 of the most discerning and disputatious experts — scientists, researchers, innovators, and reformers; some of whom led the Biden administration’s policy efforts, some of whom are harsh or heterodox critics of mainstream environmentalism. We asked them to take stock of everything going on now, from the Trump administration’s shifting policy landscape to China’s evolving place in the world.
The results of that inquiry are now out. You can check out everything on this homepage.
Or see:
Wyoming is inching closer to building what could be the United States’ largest data center after commissioners in Laramie County last week unanimously approved construction of a complex designed to scale from an initial 1.8 gigawatts to 10 gigawatts. The facility, called Project Jade, is set to be built by the data center giant Crusoe, with the neighboring gas turbines to power the plant provided by BFC Power and Cheyenne Power Hub. Crusoe’s chief real estate officer, Matt Field, told commissioners last week that the first phase would “leverage natural gas with a potential pathway for CO2 sequestration in the future” by tapping into developer Tallgrass Energy Partners’ existing carbon well hub, Inside Climate News wrote Wednesday.
While the potential for renewables is under discussion, a separate state hearing last week highlighted mounting opposition to the most prolific source of clean power in the state: Wind energy. Nearly two dozen residents from central and southeast Wyoming lambasted a growing “wall” of wind turbines in what Wyofile described as “emotional pleas.” One Cheyenne resident named Wendy Volk said: “This is no longer a series of isolated projects. It is a continuous, or near continuous, industrial corridor stretching across multiple counties and landscapes.”

Global wind executives are warning of “negative spillover” effects on investor sentiment from the Trump administration’s suspended leases on all large U.S. offshore wind projects. In an interview with the Financial Times, Vestas CEO Henrik Andersen, who also serves as the president of the industry group WindEurope, called 2025 a “rollercaster” year. “When you have a 20- to 30-year investment program, the only way you can cover yourself for risk is to ask for a higher return,” he said. “When you get impairments in an industry, everyone would start saying, ‘could that hit us as well?’”
The British government seems willing to reduce that risk. On Wednesday, the United Kingdom handed out record subsidy contracts for offshore wind projects. At the same time, however, oil giant BP wrote down the value of its low-carbon business — which includes wind, solar, and hydrogen — by upward of $5 billion, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Microsoft on Thursday announced one of the largest soil-based deals to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Under a 12-year agreement, the tech giant will purchase 2.85 million credits from the startup Indigo Carbon PBC, which sequesters carbon dioxide in soil through regenerative agricultural practices. It’s the third deal between Indigo and Microsoft, building on 40,000 metric tons in 2024 and 60,000 last year. “Microsoft is pleased by Indigo’s approach to regenerative agriculture that delivers measurable results through verified credits and payments to growers, while advancing soil carbon science with advanced modeling and academic partnerships,” Phillip Goodman, Microsoft’s director of carbon removal, said in a statement. Microsoft, as my colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote recently, has “dominated” carbon removal over the past year, increasing its purchases more than fivefold in 2025 compared to 2024.
Despite major progress on clean energy, especially with solar and batteries, a new report by McKinsey & Company found big gaps between current deployments and 2030 goals. The analysis, the first from the megaconsultancy to include China and nuclear power, highlighted “notable discrepancies between announced projects and those with committed funding,” and warned that less than “15% of low-emissions technologies required to meet Paris-aligned goals have been deployed.” In a statement, Diego Hernandez Diaz, McKinsey partner and co-author of the report, said the “progress landscape is nuanced by region and technology and while achieving energy transition commitments remain paramount for countries and companies alike, recent announcements indicate that shifting priorities and slowing momentum have led to project pauses and cancellations across technologies.”
The findings come as emissions are rising. As I wrote in yesterday’s newsletter, the latest Rhodium Group estimate of U.S. emissions notched a reversal of the last two years of declines. In a new Carbon Brief analysis, climate scientist Zeke Hausfather found that 2025 was in the top-three warmest years on record with average surface temperatures reaching 1.44 Celsius above pre-industrial averages across eight independent datasets.
China just installed the most powerful turbine ever built offshore. The 20-megawatt turbine off the coast of Fujian Province set a record for both capacity and rotor diameter, 300 meters from its 147-meter blades. “Compared with offshore wind farms with 16-megawatt units, 20-megawatt units can help wind farms reduce the number of units by 25%, save sea area, dilute development costs, and open up economic blockages for the large-scale development of deep-sea wind power,” the manufacturer, Goldwind, said in a statement.