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:
Oh, he’d never self-identify as an environmentalist. But not even climate activists have had the courage to propose a 10% tax on energy.

Dear Donald Trump,
I will be honest with you. I doubted at first. I didn’t understand the plan. But now that I see what you are doing, I have to say: I underestimated you. I was not really familiar with your game.
Yes, I finally see it all now. Even though you have attacked environmentalists for years, even though you have called climate change a “hoax” and a “scam,” and even though you have given climate deniers access to the highest echelons of your administration, I finally appreciate your peculiar genius.
You say that your big and beautiful tariffs are meant to bring about a new American golden age, but I know you’re hiding the truth. With your unprecedented tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports — and your levies on building materials of all sorts — you are doing what nobody else has had the courage to do.
You are trying to engineer the shock decarbonization of America — no matter the peril, no matter the cost.
Yes, it might seem crazy. But think about it. For years, whenever environmentalists have gathered in secret — and I’m talking the real radicals here, not the ones who send out mailers or go on TV — they plot about a vast agenda to remake America. They hate the fossil fuel industry, of course. But they go further than that. They loathe driving, so they want to destroy the auto industry. They hate big trucks, especially SUVs and pickups. They want to make gasoline more expensive. And really, if we’re being honest, they want to force everyone to live in cities.
I don’t go for such a radical agenda, myself. I’m much more of a moderate. But I have to admit: I know a secret radical environmentalist when I see one. And you, Mr. Trump — well, I won’t say it out loud. But as one former Democratic climate official texted me (and this is real), it might be time to start talking about a “GREEN NEW DONALD.”
Just think about it. Transportation is the most carbon-intensive sector of the U.S. economy, and big personal vehicles — SUVs and pickups — are responsible for the largest share of that pollution. Selling those big trucks to Americans is what drives Ford and General Motors’ profits, and those two companies have developed complex supply chains that can cross the U.S., Mexican, and Canadian borders half a dozen times before their vehicles’ final assembly. The biggest trucks — like the Chevy Silverado — have a particularly arcane value chain, spanning Canada, Mexico, Germany, and Japan.
Environmentalists have struggled to figure out how to deal with Americans’ affinity for these big cars. But you, Mr. Trump, you knew just what needed to be done. You slapped giant tariffs on cars and trucks and auto parts, which could spike new car prices by $4,000 to $10,000, according to Anderson Economic Group.
There’s even a good chance that price hike could hit internal combustion cars worse than it hits EVs — in part because the internal-combustion car supply chain has existed for longer and has had more time to ooze across North America. This widespread damage could prompt layoffs at Ford and GM — but you didn’t hesitate for the climate’s sake, comrade! You were ruthless.
But Mr. Trump, you didn’t stop there. As you surely know, roughly a third of America’s greenhouse gas emissions come from natural gas. It is the prize jewel of fossil fuels, and it’s absolutely core to the U.S. energy system — and Mr. Trump, you did not hesitate to tax it directly. Thanks to your new 10% tariff on Canadian energy imports, American consumers can now expect to pay an extra $1.1 billion a year for natural gas, according to the American Gas Association. Those higher costs will be concentrated in western states and New England.
Your tariffs are also going to make electricity prices go up, particularly in some of the swingiest congressional districts around the Great Lakes. Electricity will also get more expensive in Maine, which has a Senate race in 2026. Mr. Trump, this is an act of true political courage. Normally, environmentalists wouldn’t support raising electricity prices, because it might discourage people from buying EVs or electrifying their homes. But since you’re raising electricity and natural gas and oil prices at the same time, you’re practically begging Americans to buy heat pumps, induction stoves, and invest in energy efficiency technologies essential for decarbonization. And to do so even though it might put your own party’s control of the Senate at risk? You are one hell of an environmental zealot.
Even your steel and aluminum tariffs and your new levies on Canadian lumber are inspired by your climate fervor. By raising the cost of new construction, you are discouraging single-family home construction and all but forcing more Americans to live in multi-family buildings, which are more energy efficient and have lower emissions. Mr. Trump, you really think of everything! I never should have doubted. You are going to make us live in the pods! And with your steep agricultural tariffs, you might even make us eat the bugs!
The most impressive thing you’ve done, though, is your sly little attack on the American oil industry.
The American fossil fuel industry imports more than a million barrels of oil from western Canada every day. This sulfurous sludge is important to the U.S. refining industry because it complements the lighter oil that comes roaring out of American fracking wells. By combining America’s lighter oil with Canada’s heavy crude, U.S. refineries can cheaply churn out a range of high-value products, including gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel.
It’s really important that these American refineries have easy access to as much western Canadian oil as they need as its easy availability lets them ramp up and down different types of fuel production depending on what the market requires at the moment. That’s why they have invested tens of billions of dollars in equipment specially designed to process heavy, sulfur-rich Canadian oil.
In the past, Canadian companies have tried to expand these exports. As you remember, more than a decade ago, one Canadian company wanted to build a pipeline known as Keystone XL. But this came with downsides for the climate: Canadian crude is some of the most carbon-intensive oil in the world, and burning it in large quantities could have meant it was “game over for the climate,” according to journalist-turned-activist Bill McKibben.
The goal of fighting the Keystone XL pipeline was to raise the cost of importing Canadian crude oil, hopefully keeping it in the ground, while undercutting U.S. refinery profit margins. Activists won that fight — and they had your help, Mr. Trump. After the Biden administration revoked Keystone XL’s construction permit in 2021, its developer sued the U.S. government in international trade court and lost. Ironically, it may have had a better shot at winning its case under NAFTA than under its Trump-negotiated replacement, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
But of course, even that didn’t unwind America’s and Canada’s decades of economic integration. The United States still imports hundreds of millions of barrels of Canadian oil a year, and all that oil damages the climate while simultaneously keeping U.S. gasoline prices low.
But Mr. Trump — you are now attacking this too! You astound me. You have bashed those Canadian oil imports with a 10% energy tax. This will prove even more effective at hurting the North American fossil fuel industry and raising American gasoline prices than blocking the Keystock XL pipeline did, because it will knock refineries right in their profit margins. If you play your cards right, you might even raise the cost of diesel and jet fuel too!
Now, Mr. Trump: I realize you can’t come out and say all this. In fact, you claimed last week that you wanted to revive Keystone XL, even though its developer has given up on it.
This struck many people as silly, but I know just what you are doing here. With your words, you are trying to look like a fossil-fuel-friendly Republican to please your base. But with your actions, you are actually raising taxes on the U.S. fossil fuel industry. What other explanation is there? Surely nobody would be so silly as to propose making it cheaper to import Canadian crude oil at the same time that they deliberately make it more expensive. And surely nobody would say they support autoworkers while actually destroying the U.S. auto industry. That would be truly self-defeating — and Mr. Trump, you are a winner!
Some people — well, really, just your Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick — have implied that you might lift these tariffs as soon as tomorrow. I don’t believe them. I know what you’re up to here. You are not going to fold so soon. You are trying to keep talking the talk even as you whack away at cars, oil, and gas. I might even say that you are like a moldy strawberry: “Republican red” on the outside but “deep green” on the inside.
Now, you could go even further. Conservatives have long observed, however sarcastically, that since carbon emissions correlate with GDP in so many countries (although not in the U.S.), the fastest way to fight climate change is to engineer a giant recession. Some might assume this would be going too far for you — it would be going much too far for me. But on Tuesday, the International Chamber of Commerce warned that your tariffs could set off spiraling trade wars, putting the country in “1930s trade-war territory” and triggering a new Great Depression. Just think of how the emissions will fall from that!
Oh, Mr. Trump! You really ARE a Green New Donald. You truly are willing to sacrifice anything for the climate — even if it means kneecapping the American economy, bamboozling the world, and even ending industrial civilization to do it! Oh, Mr. Trump, I am overcome. You astound, captivate, and enthrall me. Now I understand how JD Vance feels.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On power prices keep climbing, TVA’s ‘historic’ gas buildout, and mounting climate woes
Current conditions: A powerful storm is rolling in from the Pacific to dump several inches of rain across Southern California, threatening floods • The Northeast is set to remain roughly 5 degrees Fahrenheit below historical averages, with New York City topping out at 50 degrees • A major storm is developing over Namibia, bringing flooding to its southern regions.

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro has withdrawn his state from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, leaving the state with the fourth-highest emissions in the country without a significant climate policy. The cap-and-trade market included 10 other states, including all of New England, New York, and some Mid-Atlantic states. After a two-year legal fight over the state’s decision to quit the carbon-cutting alliance through regulatory fiat, Virginia’s Republicans governor successfully exited the group. But, as E&E News noted, Shapiro is the first governor from any party to sign legislation pulling his state out of RGGI. The millions generated from RGGI were earmarked for clean energy and transportation projects in the commonwealth. Philadelphia’s transit system is teetering on the brink of a budget crisis, alongside the bus and light-rail network in San Francisco and Chicago, Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo wrote last month. Shapiro, widely considered a serious contender for the Democratic presidential nod in 2028, has sought to dominate the moderate lane in his party, maintaining vocal support for Israel, touting his popularity with his state’s Republican voters, and now reversing a major climate initiative in the name of “cutting costs.”
Meanwhile, in another blow to the climate movement, 350.org, the advocacy group founded by writer Bill McKibben to protest construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline more than a decade ago, plans to “temporarily suspend programming” in the U.S. amid a funding pinch, Politico reported.
Wholesale electricity rates across the United States are forecast to spike again next year by as much as 8.5% to $51 per megawatt-hour, up from $45 per megawatt-hour this year, according to the latest outlook from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. This year’s prices were already 23% higher than the 2024 average. The biggest driver pushing up rates next year is the northern pricing hub of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the state’s independent grid operator, as demand from data centers and cryptocurrency mines exceeds available supply. The EIA warned that natural gas prices are the primary determinant of power prices. “But in 2026,” the federal analysts wrote, “the increase in power prices in ERCOT tends to reflect large hourly spikes in the summer months due to high demand combined with relatively low supply in this region.” Rising electricity rates could make the pitch for electrifying heating, appliances, and transportation a tougher sell, as Heatmap’s Katie Brigham wrote.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
Lithium is geographically limited, costly to mine, and, in batteries, has a bad tendency to overheat and blow up. Sodium-ion batteries solve all of those problems. But it’s been difficult to get sodium ions to move quickly and reliably through solids. Scientists at Western University in Ontario say they have a fix by formulating a new material containing sulfur and chlorine. Traditional electrolytes are chemically stable, but tend to move sodium ions too slowly between the positive and negative ends of a battery. Adding sulfur to the design boosts the conductivity by making it easier for ions to volley through the battery.
Katie has covered the nascent sodium-ion battery business well. Back in April, she wrote about the death of the startup Bedrock Materials. Last month, she described how the startup Alsym planned to break the industry’s streak of failures and establish a manufacturing line in the U.S.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
In his first few months in office, President Donald Trump fired most of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s board of directors and, in July, demanded the remaining members terminate the federally owned utility’s top brass. But CEO Don Moul has held onto his job, and is now singing a tune the administration should like. On Thursday’s earnings call, Moul said the TVA was “undertaking one of the largest new asset campaigns in our history,” with 3.7 gigawatts of new generation under construction. What kind of generation? It’s “a historic gas build right now,” the TVA’s finance chief Tom Rice said, according to Utility Dive. The utility is also developing new nuclear fission and fusion power plants, including what may be the nation’s first small modular reactor.
Global emissions from fossil fuels are on track to rise 1.1% this year, reaching an all-time high, according to data published Thursday by the Global Carbon Project. “Keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius is no longer plausible,” Pierre Friedlingstein, a climate researcher at the University of Exeter who led the study, told E&E News. The findings also suggested that the amount of carbon the planet’s land and forests absorb “is substantially smaller than previously estimated,” while the volumes the ocean takes in are now understood to be even greater, Bloomberg noted.
A new study by researchers at Pusan National University in South Korea illustrated what’s at stake for big global systems as temperature rises beyond humanity’s control. Melting sea ice in polar regions is transforming how oceans move and mix. New models to examine previously difficult-to-study patterns found that sea ice loss “strengthens currents and turbulence, particularly in the Arctic and Southern Oceans,” and that “such changes are expected to substantially alter the transport of heat, carbon and nutrient, ultimately affecting polar marine ecosystems.”
The symbolism is almost eerie, a microcosm of the violence and discomfort heralded by rising global temperatures. As the global climate summit in the Amazonian city of Belém reaches the end of its first week, the United Nations has scolded Brazil for failing to maintain security at the conference and keep the facilities at a comfortable air conditioned temperature.
Rob goes to Yale with Heatmap staff writers Emily Pontecorvo and Matthew Zeitlin.
It’s been a huge few weeks for climate news. Democrats swept state and local elections in New Jersey, Virginia, California, and New York City — and won two crucial regulatory races in Georgia. A few weeks before, the climate tech investor and philanthropist Bill Gates released a memo arguing for a pivot on climate funding vis a vis global health.
On this special episode of Shift Key, Rob talks to Heatmap staff writers Emily Pontecorvo and Matthew Zeitlin about what the 2025 elections might mean for climate policy, why “affordability” politics could hamper decarbonization, and whether the Gates memo represents anything but a rebrand. They recorded this conversation live at the Yale School of Management’s annual clean energy conference in New Haven, Connecticut.
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:
Robinson Meyer: When you talk to clean energy people about this race [for the Georgia Public Service Commission], how did they explain the stakes? Because one thing I've wondered is that, back during the Biden administration, when you talked to Biden energy officials about nuclear and about why nuclear was often unsuccessful, those officials — who are Democrats — would say, Oh, you gotta do what they did in Georgia. Look what they did in Georgia. That plant ran mega-over-budget and they just kept ratebasing it, and those ratepayers could absorb it. And that's how you should do nuclear, is find a sufficiently big electricity market where you can just begin pushing costs into the electricity market.
I'd also hear, to be fair, Biden energy officials basically saying, We have to authorize as many AP1000s as we can, which is the nuclear reactor that was built around Vogtle, that was built in Georgia. We have to authorize and get as many of these started as we can before the rate increases start hitting Georgia rate payers, because once they do, people are going to turn on the politics of nuclear in a way that maybe we're not anticipating.
Anyway, how did clean energy people think about this? Because one of the biggest drivers of rate increases in Georgia is the Georgia PSC’s total willingness to just keep taking costs from the 24/7 clean electricity giants that are nuclear plants and shoving them on rate payers.
Emily Pontecorvo: I actually think that the clean energy folks were thinking about this more in terms of the risks around a natural gas buildout in Georgia. Because Georgia Power, the biggest electricity utility in the state, has recently, in their most recent resource plan, proposed building, like, five nuclear power plants’ worth of new natural gas in the state to essentially power the data center buildout that they're anticipating. And like I said before, the commission has been known to basically just give them what they ask for, and say yes, and not ask questions, and not ask for alternatives. And also I think the commission has been accused of really stunting the growth of rooftop solar, facilitating more utility-scale solar but kind of stunting rooftop solar.
And so the Democrats really campaigned on saying, We're going to look at that resource plan, and we're going to ask questions, and we're going to ask to see what an alternative scenario with more renewable energy would look like. So I think those were the stakes.
Now, whether they're going to get anywhere is another question. Because of the lawsuits and the strange timeline for this election, one of the candidates will only serve for one year before having to be reelected. They also are only two out of five seats on the commission. The other three are Republicans. And so, it's a little bit unclear where they're going to find points of agreement with the other folks on the commission.
Mentioned:
How Mikie Sherrill Won New Jersey’s Electricity Election, by Matthew
Democrats Win 2 Key Energy Races in Georgia, by Emily
Zohran Mamdani’s Muted Climate Politics, by Rob
7 New Takes From Bill Gates on Climate ‘Doomsday’ Talk and Global Health
Where Bill Gates Got It Wrong, by Zeke Haufather
Previously on Shift Key: How to Talk to Your Friendly Neighborhood Public Utility Regulator
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.
In some cases, rising electricity rates are the least of a company’s worries.
Skyrocketing electricity prices are hitting Americans hard, which makes one wonder: Are electrification-based technologies doomed? No doubt sectors like green hydrogen, clean fuels, low-carbon steel and cement, and direct air capture would benefit from a hypothetical world of cheap, abundant electricity. But what happens if that world doesn’t materialize anytime soon?
The answer, as it so often turns out, is significantly more complicated than a simple yes or no. After talking with a bunch of experts, including decarbonization researchers, analysts, and investors, what I’ve learned is that the extent to which high electricity prices will darken the prospects for any given technology depends on any number of factors, including the specific industry, region, and technical approach a company’s taking. Add on the fact that many industries looking to electrify were hit hard by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which yanked forward deadlines for clean hydrogen and other renewable energy projects to qualify for subsidies, and there are plenty of pressing challenges for electrification startups when it comes to unit economics.
“Having lower energy prices is good for everybody,” Bryan Fisher, a managing director at the energy think tank RMI focused on industrial decarbonization, told me simply. And so when those prices go up, “the biggest macro theme is it hurts industries or applications of industry unevenly — green hydrogen being the biggest one.”
There was a general consensus among the people I spoke with that electrolytic hydrogen — known as green hydrogen if it’s produced with renewable electricity — is the clearest casualty here. That’s unsurprising given that electricity drives roughly 60% to 70% of its production cost, as it powers the process that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen. Rising hydrogen costs will also have knock-on effects across other emergent industries, as many companies and investors are banking on green hydrogen to replace fossil fuels in hard-to-electrify sectors such as chemical production or long-haul transport.
Fisher told me that rising electricity costs now means that the transition from blue hydrogen — produced from natural gas feedstock, with carbon capture and storage to control emissions — to green hydrogen will be prolonged. “What we always thought was going to happen was that a blue hydrogen market would develop and be replaced by green as those costs went down,” Fisher explained. “So I think the time at which the market will utilize low-emissions blue hydrogen is just extended.”
Dan Lashof, the former U.S. director and a current senior fellow at the World Resources Institute, told me that if and when hydrogen projects scale, circumventing the rising costs of grid electricity with behind-the-meter renewable power could be a viable option, given that new wind and solar generation remains quite cheap. He also emphasized the other factors at play when it comes to making green hydrogen economically feasible — mainly the high cost of electrolyzers themselves, the devices that split water into its component parts. “Tariffs on Chinese imports are going to be a big factor in terms of electrolyzer costs,” he told me. That leads him to ask, “will other countries like India step up and be able to produce low cost electrolyzers for the U.S. market?”
Among industries that rely on green hydrogen, sustainable aviation and green shipping might suffer the most, as hydrogen is a necessary ingredient in certain net-zero fuels. But high electricity prices — and by extension green hydrogen costs — are far from their only financial concern. Producing clean fuels often requires combining hydrogen with captured carbon to synthesize hydrocarbons.Sourcing and capturing CO2, breaking it down into carbon monoxide, and synthesizing hydrocarbons are all expensive in and of themselves.
Fisher told me that when it comes to the category of sustainable aviation fuels known as e-SAF, which is made from green hydrogen and captured carbon dioxide, innovations in these other areas — as well as economies of scale — are more likely to make a meaningful dent in fuel prices than cheaper electricity. “Power prices going up 20% adds about $1 or $1.50 a gallon to e-SAF,” he explained. “And right now we’re probably $5 to $7 out of the money.” So while lower electricity prices would certainly be welcome, the industry needs cost breakthroughs on multiple fronts before this fuel has a shot at competing.
Some companies, including Twelve, require electrolyzers to break down both CO2 and H2O. Rajesh Swaminathan, a partner at Khosla Ventures, told me he simply doesn’t think the current approaches to e-SAF will get there economically. “It’s a terrible economic idea. It doesn’t pass any kind of sniff test,” he said. “Even if electricity prices were extremely low, this will not be competitive from a capex and opex perspective,” he said, referring to both capital expenditures and the cost of operating the business.
Khosla has instead invested in Lanzatech, which sources carbon-rich gases from industrial facilities such as steel mills and ferments them into ethanol, which can then be chemically converted into jet fuel. Its core process doesn’t rely on green hydrogen or electrolysis at all. “That’s such a low-cost approach that will meet the SAF targets of $4 per gallon,” Swaminathan told me — a claim that remains to be seen, of course.
Efforts to decarbonize high heat industrial processes such as steel and cement production also rely heavily on electrification. The clean cement company Sublime Systems and clean steel companies Boston Metal and Electra, for instance, all use electricity-driven chemical processes to replace the need for burning fossil fuels in either cement kilns or the blast furnaces used in steel production.
The companies themselves often emphasize the importance of low electricity prices for making this tech cost-competitive. For example, when Boston Metal’s CEO Tadeu Carneiro was asked by a Time magazine reporter two years ago about where the company would source the enormous amount of electricity needed to melt iron ore as planned, he replied, “If you don’t believe that electricity will be plentiful, reliable, available, green, and cheap, forget about it,” essentially acknowledging the tech won’t pencil out in the absence of cheap power. He added that there are regions such as Quebec and Scandinavia — both of which have abundant hydropower resources — where it would make economic sense to deploy Boston Metal’s tech sooner rather than later. Similarly, Sublime is building its first commercial-scale clean cement plant in Holyoke, Massachusetts, where it’s sourcing power from the city’s hydroelectric dam.
“We have to believe that the electricity will be available,” Carneiro told Time.
Lashof told me that in the meantime, higher electricity prices will “push industrial decarbonization more towards using carbon capture and sequestration pathways” over electrification-driven approaches. But Fisher thinks that in many cases there’s still “headroom” for electrification of power and heat to make sense domestically, even with a relatively significant “20% to 30% type increase” in electricity costs.
“If you’re doing a heat by electrification project at your industrial site, in some cases it’s an adaptive problem, not an economic problem.” he told me. Indeed, plants will need to be redesigned — no small cost in itself — and teams must be willing to change their systems and processes to accommodate new technologies. That organizational inertia could, in some cases, prevent the adoption of novel electrification tech, even if electricity prices would support it.
One technology that Fisher is absolutely certain isn’t constrained by electricity prices so much as the lack of a fundamental technical breakthrough is engineered carbon removal, such as direct air capture. “Innovation is the key, not low power prices, because we need to get from $500 bucks a ton in carbon removal to $50 bucks a ton,” he told me. While DAC certainly requires loads of electricity to pull CO2 out of the air and chemically separate it, that won’t be enough to conjure the 90% price reduction necessary before DAC can reach scale.
But rest assured, rising electricity prices will also create some winners, with energy efficiency likely to be at the top of the list, Duncan Turner, a general partner at venture capital firm SOSV, told me. Personally, he’s excited about everything from innovations in HVAC systems to companies developing more energy-efficient chemical separation processes, low-power light-based data transfer hardware for data centers, and plasma-based cooling products for computing chips.
Energy efficiency isn’t the only category he thinks stands to benefit. “There’s a bunch of long-duration energy storage companies that will look very interesting indeed as the price of electricity starts to go up and the demand for electricity from data centers starts to peak,” Turner told me. Like Fisher, he also sees an opportunity for point-source carbon capture, viewing it as a way to “very quickly get cheaper and cleaner electricity onto the grid.”
Moments like these are also when investors are quick to remind us that betting on consistency across seemingly any dimension — whether that’s clean energy incentives, the funding environment, or commodity prices — is often a losing strategy. Or, as Turner put it, “It’s probably for the good for the whole industry — our community as a whole — that we reset to, We work better than anything else, even when there’s expensive electricity.”