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:
Bye bye, community compost program budget. Hello, delays in curbside organic waste collection.

For the past 30 years, New York City has funded community-based programs that spread the gospel of compost. What started as a few education and outreach sites at the city’s botanical gardens has grown into a vast network of more than 200 neighborhood food scrap drop-off locations where devoted New Yorkers enthusiastically deliver bags of rotting waste each week. Today, the programs employ 115 people and divert more than 8.3 million pounds of organic waste from landfills each year.
Now, with the stroke of Mayor Eric Adams’s pen, they will likely have to shut down.
Adams eliminated all funding for community composting, totalling $15 million over the next four years, in a round of budget cuts announced last week that are meant to offset the rising cost of aid to migrant asylum seekers. This comes in spite of the fact that the city’s publicly run — and much more expensive — curbside composting program is still not fully functional more than a decade in.
“It feels very dire right now,” Christine Datz-Romero, the co-founder and executive director of one of the oldest community compost groups, the Lower East Side Ecology Center, told me.
Adams’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
Few services have escaped the strain caused by the flood of asylum-seekers fleeing poverty, violence, authoritarian governments, and climate change. In September, Adams asked all city agencies to prepare to cut their annual budgets by at least 5% to address a projected $7 billion fiscal shortfall. The plan released last week shows the Department of Education losing about $1 billion over the next two years, which threatens the city’s free preschool program and will eliminate hundreds of non-classroom positions. Cuts to library budgets will force many locations to reduce their hours.
Community composting organizations knew budget cuts were coming. They were already bracing for a decline in funding because of the city’s plans to scale up the Department of Sanitation’s curbside organic waste collection program, which picks up food scraps right at people’s doorsteps, similar to recycling.
“We built all the support for it,” Justin Green, the executive director of Big Reuse, told me. “Now that the city is rolling out curbside, to be cut without warning is pretty galling.” Even that rollout is no longer assured — a planned expansion to Staten Island and the Bronx will now be delayed until next October. Originally budgeted for around $24 million a year, the curbside program saw its budget slashed by $4.8 million between now and 2025.
Curbside composting has been a holy grail for New York mayors since Michael Bloomberg, but has long remained mired in the bureaucratic swamps. Former Mayor Bill DeBlasio managed to get a voluntary program off the ground in 2013, but it was criticized for poor management and only serving wealthier neighborhoods, and participation was notoriously low. In 2020, the service fell victim to the pandemic.
On the campaign trail in 2021, Adams vowed to bring curbside collection back as a way to cut emissions and solve the city’s rat problem, and in February announced plans to relaunch voluntary curbside pickup in every borough. (For now it’s available in Brooklyn and Queens, plus parts of Manhattan and the Bronx.) The city council then went a step further, passing an ambitious zero-waste package in June that will make food waste separation mandatory as curbside collection grows.
Organic waste is the city’s third largest source of greenhouse gas emissions after buildings and transportation, producing about 20% of New York’s total climate pollution. Composting doesn’t fully eliminate food waste emissions, but it has the potential to reduce them by up to 84%, according to a recent study.
It’s unclear how much real composting the curbside program will do. Currently, most of the organics picked up by the sanitation department go to wastewater treatment facilities in New Jersey and Brooklyn, where the scraps are mixed with sewage and put through an anaerobic digester. The process breaks down the solid material and separates out methane gas, which is then injected into gas pipelines and carried into people’s homes. Or at least, that’s the idea — a few weeks ago, Gothamist reported that the system was undergoing maintenance and the gas was being burned off on site.
Datz-Romero hopes the city will eventually invest in real utility-scale composting facilities. It’s a chicken and egg problem — the wastewater treatment facility is already there and has capacity to manage the waste, and the city can’t justify spending millions on its own site until there’s robust public participation in food waste separation.
“What do you create first, the infrastructure or the need for infrastructure?” Datz-Romero said. During the DeBlasio administration, the city was shipping organic waste to private processing facilities. It did build one large composting facility on Staten Island, but that has limited capacity.
Low participation is one reason community composters say they still have a crucial outreach role to play, even as curbside pickup expands. They are in communities every day talking to people about food waste, teaching them about composting, and bringing tangible benefits like soil restoration to their parks and street trees.
“People can actually engage with that, and they can also understand on a whole other level why separating food scraps out is so important,” said Datz-Romero. “Even if composting is mandatory tomorrow, people are not going to wake up and say, ‘Oh yeah, that’s what I always wanted to do — separate my banana peels.’”
Green and Datz-Romero said they will have to lay off the staff that run their food scrap pick-up sites and outreach and education programs. Though they do get some funding from foundations, Green said that without the support of the city, those other sources could dry up.
The coalition of community composting groups started a petition urging the mayor and city council to reverse the decision. At time of publishing, it had more than 20,000 signatures.
Community composting might not be making a significant dent in carbon emissions, Green told me. But it has helped people feel empowered to do something about climate change.
“People are hungry for things that they can do together as a community. This is one step that they could do to be like, ‘Okay, I’m taking my compost to the farmers market, and I can volunteer to apply the compost to street trees in my neighborhood.’ I think that was valuable. When people are feeling so much hopelessness around climate, it gives them something active to do.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Rob preps for Giving Tuesday with Giving Green’s Dan Stein.
It’s been a tumultuous year for climate politics — and for climate nonprofits. The longtime activist group 350.org suspended its operations in the U.S. (at least temporarily), and Bill Gates, the world’s No. 1 climate funder, declared that the decarbonization movement should make a “strategic pivot” to poverty reduction. How should someone who wants to help the global climate navigate this moment?
Our guest has recommendations. On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob talks to Dan Stein, the founder and executive director of Giving Green. Giving Green is a nonprofit that researches the most high-impact climate groups and helps people and companies donate to them. Stein talked about the top five climate groups Giving Green recommends this year, effective altruism and the future of climate philanthropy, and whether Bill Gates is right that climate activism has focused too much on emissions targets.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap, and Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University. Jesse is off this week.
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 our conversation:
Dan Stein: You can think of this set of solutions that’s very easily measurable, and to a first order approximation call that the carbon offset market. And so if you’re very obsessed about measurements and accountability, you’re playing in the offset market — which is okay, but I just think people can do better, right? Like, we need to change systems. We need to change laws. And you can’t do that with a carbon offset. So we sometimes advise companies, as well, and that’s what I tell them. I’m like, if you put yourself in this box of having to measure the amount of tons that you are reducing to solve your net zero goal, well then you’re extremely restrained in terms of the upside impact you can have.
Robinson Meyer: It seems like you’ve followed an arc that is not unrecognizable from other parts of life. Like, I think of what’s happened with effective altruism, which is kind of where GiveWell initially came out of — this idea that everyone could be saving more lives if they were way more thoughtful and exact and precise, and scrutinized their methods much better in picking which groups to give to. And that obviously has had some big successes, among them GiveWell, which is quite impressive, I think, in some ways, and has saved a lot of lives and changed how people think about development. But ultimately you do run into politics, at the end of it.
I even think in economics more broadly, there’s incredible attention given to small policy changes that can produce more or less growth and more or less equality or inequality. But then when you talk about these big picture questions like why do certain countries become rich, or why does development happen in some places and not others? Once you move past the basic geographic constraints, then as far as I can tell, the current economic answer is like, well, some places had histories that developed good institutions and some places didn’t. And if you have good institutions, you have economic growth.
And it feels like we’re hitting the institution question of climate tech, or of decarbonization. Like, yeah, your dollars could go a little farther on some sorts of carbon offsets than others. But if you really care about decarbonization, you’re actually back at this big set of very mushy questions at the intersection of society and technology and policy and politics.
Stein: Definitely. And I mean, not to get us too derailed — you know, I’m an economist, Rob. But anyway —
Meyer: That’s why I’ve intentionally driven this car into a ditch.
Stein: Development economics has also gone through waves of this. If you think of the 70s and 80s, like, early versions of the World Bank were all about institutions and getting the rules of the game, right? And then free markets will solve everything. And then you kind of get a reaction to that in the 90s and 2000s of more microdevelopment.
And now I actually think maybe the pendulum is swinging the other way, going more towards growth. Now you even see it for someone like GiveWell. They’re now making a ton of grants not just to these super measurable direct intervention orgs, but to more meta orgs that are trying to increase the total amount of aid or the quality of aid or health systems or whatever. It’s really hard to avoid these questions of policy and technology and markets if you’re trying to solve big problems.
Mentioned:
Giving Green’s top climate nonprofits for 2025:
The Giving Green regranting fund
Bill Gates’ memo on “three tough truths about climate”
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Hydrostor is building the future of energy with Advanced Compressed Air Energy Storage. Delivering clean, reliable power with 500-megawatt facilities sited on 100 acres, Hydrostor’s energy storage projects are transforming the grid and creating thousands of American jobs. Learn more at hydrostor.ca.
Uplight is a clean energy technology company that helps energy providers unlock grid capacity by activating energy customers and their connected devices to generate, shift, and save energy. The Uplight Demand Stack — which integrates energy efficiency, electrification, rates, and flexibility programs — improves grid resilience, reduces costs, and accelerates decarbonization for energy providers and their customers. Learn more at uplight.com/heatmap.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
Congress is motivated to pass a bipartisan deal, but Democrats are demanding limits on executive power.
A big bipartisan permitting reform deal may be in the offing in Washington. But getting it done will require taking away one of Donald Trump’s favorite toys: The power to mess with solar and wind permits.
Last week the House Natural Resources Committee advanced the SPEED Act, a bill introduced by Republican committee chair Bruce Westerman, that would put the full weight of Congress behind the federal permitting process. There’s a lot in this bill for energy developers of all stripes to like — and a lot for environmental activists to loathe, including a 150-day statute of limitations on litigation, language enforcing shorter deadlines for reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (also known as NEPA), and a requirement that final approvals be released within 30 days of said review’s completion.
But this bill will mean nothing for the renewables industry if the Trump administration continues to dawdle on the kinds of routine governmental actions necessary to move any infrastructure project forward.
Since the start of Trump’s latest turn in office, officials have woven a paralytic web of bureaucratic hold-ups that make it next to impossible for a solar or wind energy project to get federal permits for construction activities. Meanwhile the SPEED Act, like NEPA, is essentially a process statute at this point — it deals with the boundaries within which environmental reviews are conducted. Without requiring the government to process any project regardless of whether it’s a renewable energy project or a new coal plant, Trump officials could easily produce endless delays and remain inside the letter of the law.
This is why Representative Jared Golden, a retiring moderate Democrat from Maine, pushed to add language to the SPEED Act that blocks any president from rescinding a permit after its approval. In theory, this would insulate offshore wind projects from losing even more permits (see: SouthCoast Wind, Atlantic Shores).
The bill — including the restriction on executive power — passed the House Natural Resources Committee on a bipartisan 25 to 18 vote, though only two Democrats voted in favor.
For lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, energy bill inflation and data center drama have created serious momentum for getting bipartisan permitting legislation done ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The SPEED Act would more easily serve that need with stronger language addressing executive permitting powers, according to numerous interviews with Democratic lawmakers, D.C. policy wonks, and energy lobbyists.
“Any deal hinges on the Trump administration providing assurances they’re not going to kill every single clean energy project in existence,” Representative Mike Levin told me on Tuesday.
Levin, a California Democrat who is involved in permitting talks, said that an ideal fix for Democrats would be a proposal he co-authored with Democratic Representative Sean Casten that would require “parity” in the permitting process between fossil and non-fossil projects of all kinds. This language would explicitly require the Interior Secretary to ensure that project applications, authorizations, and approvals needed for wind, solar, battery storage, and transmission projects are “not subject to more restrictive or burdensome procedural requirements than those applied to oil, gas or coal projects.” It would also mandate that the department rescind any existing policies that violate this “parity” requirement.
“We’re going to need language in any bill that would provide certainty that all these projects permitted would be allowed to proceed, that permits will be honored, that in the future more permits will be granted. And I do not trust this administration to honor that without concrete language in the bill,” Levin told me.
Levin’s colleagues in the House echoed those sentiments. House Natural Resources Committee ranking member Jared Huffman told me that he’s hearing from representatives of the clean power sector who are “actually aligned” with environmentalists that “all of this is completely academic if you don’t release the hostage.” Representative Paul Tonko, ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce environment subcommittee, told me in a statement that “for any permitting reform negotiations to move forward, the least we need are guarantees that whatever comes of an agreement will have the force of law and will be followed by this Administration.”
Public reactions to the SPEED Act from the renewable industry have ranged from warily cheerful to notably silent, in a way that rings somewhat political, in a way that has discernible political undertones. American Clean Power, a major energy sector trade association, and the American Council on Renewable Energy, otherwise known as ACORE, have carefully applauded the bill’s advancement while also emphasizing the need for bipartisan compromise. The Solar Energy Industries Association has yet to endorse the bill, and Rachel Skaar, a spokesperson for the group, told me it is “currently reviewing the language that passed out of committee.”
These complaints won’t mean much in the full House — Republicans can pass this bill without any votes from the opposing party. But this degree of party-wide consternation almost always translates to a filibuster in the Senate. It’s hard to imagine Senators Martin Heinrich and Sheldon Whitehouse, the top Democrats on the two main Senate committees overseeing permits, trying to roll this solid bloc of colleagues. And while enough Senate Democrats broke with the party leadership to break the filibuster and reopen the government earlier this month, two of those were Senators Catherine Cortez-Masto and Jacky Rosen of Nevada, where Big Solar wields a lot of sway.
“Its going to be a big factor in these talks,” said a senior Democratic congressional aide familiar with the bill, referring to the bureaucratic holdups facing renewables permits. The aide, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations, said that lawmakers are racking their brains to find the “perfect language” to keep Trump in check. “Everything now has to be explicitly and clearly defined by Congress because there’s a track record of the federal government using any daylight where they can navigate the system to their advantage,” the aide told me.
Based on all my conversations, the House will likely vote to pass the SPEED Act, along with probably a slate of other permitting bills, maybe as soon as December. This will probably kickstart momentum in the Senate to produce something more bipartisan, which would in turn produce more pressure to address Trump’s permitting freeze head on.
There will be challenges with crafting language that makes all sides happy without creating unforeseen policy issues around executive powers in the future. “This issue of project certainty, as this subset of permitting talks has been called, is really tricky,” said Xan Fishman of the Bipartisan Policy Center. “How you actualize that into law is tough.” But if the Schoolhouse Rock of it all can be overcome, House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune would be able to present a ready-made deal to the president.
Whether Trump would actually sign such a deal, however, is another ball of wax.
“The $64,000 question is, as this becomes even more real, will the White House start to intervene?” asked Josh Freed, senior vice president at Third Way’s climate and energy program.
There’s definitely outside momentum toward dealing with Trump’s permitting freeze under the valence of tech neutrality — whatever is good for the renewables goose would be good for the energy sector gander, so to speak. Mike Sommers, CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, said in a recent interview with Politico that addressing this freeze would help stop a future Democratic president from using the same trick on pipelines and drill sites. And Congressional Republicans appear to be negotiating in good faith with Democrats on the SPEED Act.
One D.C. energy lobbyist involved in the talks, however, confessed to me that the appearance of movement is “a lot of kabuki” unless Congress addresses the underlying issues around renewables permitting.
“It’s going to have to have teeth,” said the lobbyist, who requested anonymity because they did not have clearance to speak publicly. “The administration’s going to do whatever it wants.” And even with the language on executive power, the bill can only protect processes that fall under the federal government’s purview — that is, it won’t do anything with the litany of municipal and county restrictions that more frequently undermine renewable energy development.
When asked whether the White House was providing input on the SPEED Act, a spokesperson for Natural Resources Republicans told me that staff had “received technical assistance” from “relevant agencies.” The White House did not respond to requests for comment.
On California solar eating gas, China’s newest reactor, and GOP vs. CCS
Current conditions: Snow is blanketing parts of the Mountain West and Upper Midwest, making travel difficult in Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota • Winds of up to 40 miles per hour could disrupt some air travel through Chicago and Detroit • A cold snap in China is set to drop temperatures by double digit degrees Fahrenheit in northern areas.
In just the last three months, Georgia Power has removed 6 gigawatts of projected demand from its 2030s forecasts — enough to serve every household in the Atlanta metropolitan area more than three times over, according to a filing Friday with the Georgia Public Service Commission. The cause: canceled or postponed data center developments. Projects totaling nearly 6 gigawatts of projected demand by the mid 2030s fell off the books. Of the 28 large power user projects the Southern Company-owned utility disclosed in its report to regulators, 18 have broken ground and 10 are pending constructions. That indicates that the developers are pushing to make sure they advance, and suggests the dip in the last quarter may not extend. In the report, Utility Dive noted, Georgia Power said the “majority of new generation” the company wanted approval for was “not backed by” contracts with large power users.
The adjustment comes as Georgia Power pushes regulators to approve a large new buildout of power plants that could raise monthly bills by $20, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. Voters ousted long-time Republicans from the Public Service Commission, electing two Democrats who campaigned on slashing rising rates, Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo reported earlier this month. Data centers, however, are proliferating elsewhere. Just last night, Amazon unveiled plans to invest $15 billion in data center complexes in northern Indiana.

Over the last three years, California generated steadily more electricity from utility-scale solar farms while generation from natural gas-fired plants dropped. Gas still dominates the state’s power generation, but industrial solar generation more than doubled in the first eight months of 2025 compared to the same period in 2020, new analysis from the federal Energy Information Administration found. Between January and August of this year, natural gas supplied 18% less power than during the same months five years ago. Gas-fired generation spiked in 2021 to compensate for droughts reducing hydroelectric output, and has fallen since. But the largest year-over-year drop occurred this year.
You can count on one hand the number of new nuclear reactors built in the United States and Europe in recent memory. And while the Trump administration is taking major steps toward spurring new reactor projects in the U.S., the long-trumpeted nuclear renaissance has scarcely led to any new power plants with the promise of producing electrons anytime soon. That’s certainly not the case in China. Friday’s newsletter included China’s latest approval of two new reactors to begin construction. Today’s newsletter includes the update that China has officially patched yet another reactor onto the grid. China National Nuclear Corporation, one of the two major state-owned atomic power utilities in the country, announced that Unit 2 of its Zhangzhou nuclear plant is officially hooked up to the grid, World Nuclear News reported. It’s the second of six planned reactors, based on the Chinese-designed Hualong One model, at the same location in Fujian province.
It’s that capacity to build even the most complex of clean-energy infrastructure that has flattened out China’s emissions in recent years, as I wrote earlier this month. To go deeper on China’s grid, you should listen to the episode of Heatmap’s Shift Key podcast that includes UC San Diego export Michael Davidson.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The Environmental Protection Agency has granted certain states the power to permit so-called Class VI wells to store captured carbon dioxide. Now many of those Republican-led states want to use that authority to reject carbon wells, E&E News reported. In Texas, the colorful energy regulator Wayne Christian called his agency’s decision to permit a major carbon removal and storage project “a danger.” In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis called carbon storage a “scam” in a video posted on Facebook in March. In Louisiana, Governor Jeff Landry issued an executive order in October slapping a moratorium on new applications for Class VI permits until the state could “put into place a well-thought-out and methodical approach to application review and permitting.” And in Alabama, GOP state lawmaker Matthew Hammett prefiled a bill that would ban CO2 wells in the state’s southern county of Covington.
Arguably the biggest problem facing carbon capture technology is where to put that captured carbon and how to get it there. CO2 pipelines come with some risks, and mounting pushback. Until there’s somewhere for those pipelines to go, such as a well, it’s hard to justify the investment. No wells and no pipelines mean capturing carbon emissions before they enter the atmosphere will likely remain an unaffordable luxury.
The Trump administration has granted polluters waivers from Clean Air Act rules as part of its effort to revive heavy industry. But until recently, regulators appointed by President Donald Trump said such a pass wasn’t needed for the coking industry, which distills coal into fuel for a blast furnace. On Friday, Trump issued a proclamation granting a dozen coke manufacturing plants a two-year extension on fully meeting hazardous air pollutant rules, E&E News reported.
The move isn’t entirely unexpected. Trump has tried to revive coal-fired power generation, but keeps coming up against broken equipment that shuts down stations anyway, as Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin reported. But as Matthew wrote in July, global coal demand is rising, and the U.S. wants in on it.
As recently as 2022, when Cameco bought its 49% share of Westinghouse, the Canadian uranium producer doubted the company had a future in reactors. Cameco was primarily interested in Westinghouse’s fuel fabrication and maintenance service businesses. “We just assumed there wouldn’t be anything new,” Grant Isaac, Cameco’s president and chief operating officer, told The Wall Street Journal. Now, the Trump administration putting up $80 billion to fund at least 10 new Westinghouse AP1000, each with the capacity to power 1 million American homes.