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:
Investing in red states doesn’t make defying Trump any safer.

In the end, it was what the letters didn’t say.
For months — since well before the 2024 election — when asked about the future health and safety of the clean energy tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act, advocates and industry folks would point to the 20 or so House Republicans (sometimes more, sometimes fewer) who would sign on to public statements urging their colleagues to preserve at least some of the law. Better not to pull out the rug from business investment, they argued. Especially not investment in their districts.
These letters were “reassuring to a lot of folks in clean energy and climate communities,” Chris Moyer, the founder of Echo Communications and a former staffer for longtime Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, told me.
“I never felt reassured,” Moyer added.
Plenty of people did, though. The home solar company Sunrun, for instance, told investors in a presentation earlier this month that a “growing number of Republicans in Congress — including 39 overall House members and four Senators — publicly support maintaining energy tax credits through various letters over the past few months.” The company added that “we expect a range of draft proposals to be issued, possibly including draconian scenarios, but we expect any extreme proposals will be moderated as they progress.”
Instead, the draft language got progressively worse for the residential solar industry, with the version that passed the House Thursday morning knocking billions of dollars off the sector, as tax credits were further squeezed to help make room for other priorities that truly posed an existential threat to the bill’s passage.
What Sunrun and others appear to have failed to notice — or at least publicly acknowledge — is that while these representatives wanted to see tax credits preserved, they never specified what they would do if their wishes were disregarded. Unlike the handful of Republicans who threatened to tank the bill over expanding the deduction for state and local taxes (each of whom signed one of the tax credit letters, at some point), or the Freedom Caucus, who tend to vote no on any major fiscal bill that doesn’t contain sizable spending cuts (so, until now, every budget bill), the tax credit Republicans never threatened to kill the bill entirely.
Ultimately, the only Republicans to outright oppose the bill did so because it didn’t cut the deficit enough. All of the House Republicans who signed letters or statements in support of clean energy tax credits voted yes on the legislation, with a single exception: New York’s Andrew Garbarino, who reportedly slept through the roll call. (He later said he would have voted for it had he been awake.)
“The coalition of interests effectively persuaded Republican members that tax credits were driving investment in their districts and states,” Pavan Venkatakrishnan, an infrastructure fellow at the Institute for Progress, told me in a text message. “Where advocates fell short was in convincing them that preserving energy tax credits — especially for mature technologies Republicans often view skeptically — should take precedence over preventing Medicaid cuts or addressing parochial concerns like SALT.”
The Inflation Reduction Act itself was, after all, advanced on a party-line basis, as was Biden’s 2021 American Rescue Plan. Combined, those two bills received a single Democratic no vote and no Republican yes votes.
In the end, Moyer said, Republican House members in the current Congress were under immense political pressure to support what is likely to be the sole major piece of legislation advanced this year by President Trump — one that contained a number of provisions, especially on SALT, that they agreed with.
“There are major consequences for individual house members who vote against the president’s agenda,” Moyer said. “They made a calculation. They knew they were going to take heat either way. They would rather take heat from clean energy folks and people affected by the projects.”
It wasn’t supposed to be this way.
White House officials and outside analysts frequently touted job creation linked to IRA investments in Republican House districts and states as a tangible benefit of the law that would make it politically impossible to overturn, even as Congress and the White House turned over.
“President’s Biden’s policies are leading to more than 330,000 new clean energy jobs already created, more than half of which are in Republican-held districts,” White House communications director Ben LaBolt told reporters last year, previewing a speech President Biden would give on climate change.
Even after Biden had been defeated, White House climate advisor Ali Zaidi told Bloomberg that “we have grown the political consensus around the Inflation Reduction Act through its execution,” citing one of the House Republican letters in support of the clean energy tax credits.
One former Biden White House climate official told me that having projects in Republican districts was thought by the IRA’s crafters to make the bill more politically sustainable — but only so much.
“A [freaking] battery factory is not going to save democracy,” the official told me, referencing more ambitious claims that the tax credits could lead to more Democratic electoral victories. (The official asked to remain anonymous in order not to jeopardize their current professional prospects.) Instead, “it was supposed to make it slightly harder for Republicans to overturn the subsidies.”
Congresspeople worried about jobs weren’t supposed to be the only things that would preserve the bill, either, the official added. Clean energy and energy-dependent sectors, they thought, should be able to effectively advocate for themselves.
To the extent that business interests were able to win a hearing with House Republicans, they were older, more traditionally conservative industries such as nuclear, manufacturing, agriculture, and oil and gas.The biofuels industry (i.e. liquid Big Agriculture) won an extension of its tax credit, 45Z. The oil and gas industry’s favored measure, the 45Q tax credit for carbon sequestration, was minimally fettered. Nuclear power was the one sector whose treatment notably improved between the initial draft from the House’s tax-writing committee and the version voted on Thursday. Advanced nuclear facilities can still claim tax credits if they start construction by 2029, while other clean energy projects have to start construction within 60 days of the bill’s passage and be in service by the end of 2028.
“I think these outcomes are unsurprising. In places where folks consistently engaged, things were protected,” a Republican lobbyist told me, referring to manufacturing, biofuels, and nuclear power, requesting anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly. “But assuming a project in a district would guarantee a no vote on a large package was always a mistake.”
“The relative success of nuclear is a testament to the importance of having strong champions — predictable but notable show of political might,” a second Republican lobbyist told me, who was also not allowed to speak publicly about the bill.
But all hope isn’t lost yet. The Senate still has to pass something that the House will agree with. Some senators had made noises about how nuclear, hydropower, and geothermal were treated in the initial language.
“Budget reconciliation is, first and foremost, a fiscal exercise,” Venkatakrishnan told me. “Energy tax credits offer a path of least resistance for hitting lawmakers’ fiscal targets. As the Senate takes up this bill, the case must be made that the marginal $100 billion to $200 billion in cuts seriously jeopardizes grid reliability and energy innovation.” Whether that will be enough to generate meaningful opposition in the Senate, however, is the $600 billion question.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
That means it’s also buying natural gas — but by storing the emissions, the company says, it can still meet its climate goals.
Google is buying gas. The hyperscale tech company — which invented the power purchase agreement as a way to support renewables development in the 2010s and has been a leader in setting standards for and procuring renewable power — announced on Thursday that it is agreeing to buy the majority of the power generated by a planned natural gas-fired plant in Decatur, Illinois. Here’s the twist: The plant will also capture and store its carbon emissions, a first of its kind installation at commercial scale.
The Broadwing Energy Center will be developed by Low Carbon Infrastructure on a site owned by agribusiness giant ADM. The facility features an existing ethanol plant with carbon capture and storage nearby, including the Class VI wells necessary for carbon dioxide sequestration. The plant will provide 400 megawatts of power, as well as steam for the ADM facility.
“We’re going to work with LCI to hopefully have it all up and running by early 2030,” Michael Terrell, Google’s head of advanced energy, told me.
While CCS has not yet been developed at anything like a commercial scale, it is already both a bogeyman and a panacea in the decarbonization debate — or as my colleague Emily Pontecorvo has called it, “an oil exec’s fantasy, an environmentalist’s nightmare, and an energy expert’s object of fascination.”
Natural gas with CCS promises the dispatchability of natural gas — power produced exactly when and in the exact amounts the grid needs — without the greenhouse emissions of traditional gas plants. The problem is that the technology is expensive, meaning that its development has largely been seen to depend on emissions regulations that would essentially force generators to build or install CCS.
Those regulations were finalized during the final year of Biden’s presidency and, unsurprisingly, are no longer happening. That leaves the private sector to bear the cost and technological uncertainty of CCS development, with little obvious financial incentive to do so.
While this is Google’s first gas deal, it is not entirely unexpected. Google hit its initial goal of matching its worldwide energy consumption with renewable energy generation on an annual basis in 2017, upgrading that goal in 2020 to aim at generating clean power on a 24/7 basis in the same area that its energy consumption occurs by 2030.
This meant going beyond wind and solar and procuring power from generators that worked in all weather and at night.
In the same 2020 whitepaper where Google set out its hourly matching goal, it specifically mentioned CCS as one of “a number of emergent technologies” that “appear to be making good progress.”
In another 2023 whitepaper, Google affirmed its commitment to clean firm technology beyond wind and solar, adding that “we must also develop and commercialize new technologies to fully decarbonize electricity systems quickly and cost-effectively while maintaining reliability.” Once again it called out “power generation with carbon capture and storage” by name.
Since then Google has struck a number of deals to support clean firm development, including a development agreement with the advanced nuclear company Kairos and a “clean transition tariff” agreement with utility NV Energy to pay for geothermal power in Nevada produced by the enhanced geothermal company Fervo.
But carbon capture and storage remained in the picture as something that would be key for Google to meet its goals. “We set 24/7 carbon free energy as our North Star,” Terrell told me. “The other critical piece to that is CCS.”
At the same time, Google — and the rest of the technology industry — has been on a data center building spree, moving as fast as it can to put up bigger data centers that turn electricity into artificial intelligence. This has meant rising power usage and emissions. In 2024, Google reported that its emissions had gone up almost 50% over the previous five years, following a similar announcement from Microsoft.
“We’re still committed to those goals. They’re extremely ambitious, and we’ve never been shy about sharing that. 24/7 carbon free energy is a moonshot, but we are pushing very, very hard,” Terrell said.
The turn to CCS is not just driven by the advantages gas has over renewables — namely dispatchability — but also by the current political environment.
Google has a long track record of buying the output from renewables projects, including wind, in the broader Midcontinent Independent System Operator grid, where the Decatur project sits. But on a national basis, Terrell noted, “we’re seeing headwinds in the market due to policy changes” for renewables.
Solar and wind have now lost some of the incentives that spurred huge growth in both sectors in recent years, while projects that can pass the regulatory gauntlet have to linger in interconnection queues to get approved by electricity markets and often require transmission that can be expensive and challenging to build. The Trump administration has specifically targeted renewables — especially wind — for regulatory scrutiny, which will likely hinder renewable development in MISO, which gets 15% of its power from wind — far more than from solar, and about comparable with its nuclear generation.
“The markets are tough because of some of the changes in policy, interconnection rules, and lack of transmission,” Terrell said. “That’s certainly affecting our ability to procure with speed and scale.”
Google and LCI claim that the Broadwing plant will be able to capture and store over 90% of its carbon dioxide emissions.
The project started, LCI chief executive Jonathan Wiens told me, in 2020, primarily as an industrial decarbonization project to provide low-emissions steam to ADM for its food processing efforts, with the rest of the power going to the grid.“In the midst of this development,” Wiens said, “there were data centers that were 40 megawatts. Now they’re aspiring to be a gigawatt-plus, and it’s totally changed the power end of this.”
Of Google, he said, “they put their money where their mouth is and they’re willing to participate in a project.”
Both Terrell and Wiens confirmed that Google wanted to work with LCI beyond developing and purchasing power from the Broadwing facility. “It’s not just this one plant,” Wiens said. “It’s a much broader approach to deploying this in as many places as we can.”
Google did not disclose the terms of the PPA, but Terrell said, “We believe that CCS can be competitive at scale with other generation technologies, and certainly other low carbon or zero carbon generation technologies.”
Over time, he added, LCI and Google should be able to drive down prices as they work on more power plants. “That’s certainly something that we’re hoping to do.”
On Tesla’s profit plunge, Josh Shapiro’s battery win, and TVA staying public
Current conditions: Tropical Storm Melissa is now forecast to strengthen into a hurricane, with the potential to dump 30 inches of rain over parts of the Caribbean and blow winds of up to 50 miles per hour • Waves brought on by Tropical Storm Fengshen are big enough to rip up sidewalks in Vietnam • Myanmar broke an October heat record with temperatures of nearly 98 degrees Fahrenheit in the southeastern resort town of Kyeikkhame.

Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the ranking Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, threatened to withhold votes on permitting reforms he endorsed unless the Trump administration backs off what Heatmap’s Jael Holzman dubbed the “total war on wind.” At an unrelated hearing on Wednesday, Whitehouse said that “unless these illegal acts stop and unless offshore wind is included, there will be no permitting deal,” Politico reporter Josh Siegel reported on X. The remarks came two days after Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum said the administration would not halt its attempts to block construction of offshore turbines in exchange for a bipartisan bill to overhaul federal permitting. “I hadn’t thought about the idea of trading something that makes sense for everybody in America for something that makes no sense — and that’s sort of how I view offshore wind,” Burgum said at an American Petroleum Institute event.
As I wrote in yesterday’s newsletter, US Wind warned in federal court this week that, if the administration wins its court case to revoke the project’s construction and operating permits, the Baltimore-based developer will likely go bankrupt. While Secretary of Energy Chris Wright dismissed the wind assault as a “one-off exception, or one-off complication,” the oil industry doesn’t see it that way. As I wrote earlier this month, Shell’s top U.S. executive spoke forcefully against the administration’s anti-wind crusade, warning that Democrats could use the precedents being set against oil and gas companies in the future. That isn’t slowing the administration’s plans to expand offshore oil drilling, however. A document leaked to the Houston Chronicle this week shows that the White House aims to open broad swaths of both the east and west coasts to offshore drilling, months after the administration rescinded designations for millions of acres of federal waters to serve for seaborne wind turbine development.
Tesla’s profit tanked 37% to $1.4 billion from a year earlier despite a revenue hike of 12% to $28.1 billion, the company reported in its latest quarterly earnings Wednesday evening. The automaker sold more cars in the last quarter than it did in the same period a year prior but still lost money on price cuts and low-interest loans. Elon Musk’s electric automaker rolled out stripped-down versions of its Model Y sport utility vehicle and its Model 3 sedan earlier this month, effectively matching the prices that buying an entry-level Tesla came out to before Trump rescinded the $7,500 federal tax credit for battery-powered cars last month. “In other words, you can still buy a Tesla in the $35,000 to $40,000 range,” Andrew Moseman wrote in Heatmap. “It just won’t be as good a Tesla as you used to be able to get for the money.”
Meanwhile, at the opposite end of the market, Tesla rival Rivian’s micromobility spinoff, Also, debuted a product meant to capture a share of the luxury segment that wants a $4,500 electric bicycle.
Last week, the Department of Energy confirmed plans to revoke $700 million in grants to American battery manufacturers, as I reported here on Monday. This week, Pennsylvania made up for a small part of that lost funding. Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro announced plans to give Eos Energy Enterprises roughly $22 million in grants and capital funding to lure the nation’s leading manufacturer of zinc-based battery storage systems to relocate its headquarters from Edison, New Jersey, to Pittsburgh, and open a new factory in Allegheny County. Combined with the money the company is spending, the total investment will come to just under $353 million and create 735 new permanent positions. “Pennsylvania is positioning itself at the forefront of America’s energy transition — enabling us to bring America’s battery to scale,” Joe Mastrangelo, the chief executive of Eos Energy, said in a statement.
Meanwhile, in another electorally crucial northern state, OpenAI announced plans for yet another data center in its Stargate network. On Wednesday, the ChatGPT maker and software giant Oracle unveiled plans for a data center campus outside Milwaukee in Port Washington, Wisconsin, to be built with hyperscale developer Vantage Data Centers.
Trump’s nominees to serve in the empty seats on the Tennessee Valley Authority’s board of directors all pledged to oppose any privatization effort of the nation’s largest government-owned utility, the Chattanooga Times Free Press reported. Selling off all or portions of the TVA, a remnant of the New Deal-era electrification of the South, have come up frequently since the mid 20th century, including under former President Barack Obama. Trump revived the debate in his first administration, proposing to sell off the TVA’s transmission and distribution business, but the effort went nowhere. In July, the White House abruptly moved to fire the remaining three members of the TVA’s board that Trump hadn’t yet dismissed unless they forced out the chief executive. The move was interpreted by insiders at the TVA as the first step toward a new privatization effort. But outcry over the potential to disrupt what has been a steady source of cheap electricity for the region appears to have tempered those ambitions.
An ounce of beef requires roughly 7,600 times more energy and 1.1 million times more water than a single prompt on ChaptGPT, a University of California academic recently calculated. Yet nearly two-and-a-half times more Americans are concerned about the environmental impacts of artificial intelligence than about meat production, according to a poll released Thursday morning by the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Of the 72% of Americans who expressed concern about AI’s environmental footprint, 41% said they were “very or extremely” concerned. That exceeds how many respondents said the same thing about cryptocurrency (29%), meat production (29%), and air travel (23%.) “Looking ahead, Americans are more likely to believe AI will be harmful rather than helpful to society, the economy, and the environment in the next 10 years,” the pollsters explained in a press release, “but they are divided on its impact on them personally.”
The findings mirror Heatmap Pro’s own survey results from August, which found that just 44% of Americans would welcome a data center nearby.
Americans are kings in our own castles, while Germans bow to a Kafkaesque bureaucracy even in their own homes … right? Not when it comes to installing batteries and solar panels on our own roofs. Germans just have to fill out a simple two-page application. Americans? Depending on where we live, we have to fill out all kinds of physical paperwork, get multiple rounds of approval from zoning officials and homeowners associations, and navigate disparate systems at the neighborhood, county, and state levels. That’s according to a new analysis that the group Permit Power shared with me exclusively for Heatmap. The report proposed axing that red tape. Doing so could dramatically lower the cost of rooftop solar and batteries, and ultimately save Americans more than $1 trillion — yes, with a T — over the next quarter-century.
A new analysis by Permit Power calculates the cumulative benefits of cheap rooftop solar over the lifetime of a typical rig.
Liberty-loving Americans are prone to poke fun at the bureaucratic nightmares Australians and Germans face when attempting to do just about anything. But try installing solar panels on your roof in the U.S. Americans pay a median price of $28,000 for a 7-kilowatt system. The typical Australian, meanwhile, spends just $4,000, and the German — after filling out a mere two-page application — pays $10,000 per project.
How is this possible? Blame state and local governments, and even homeowners associations, for holding back Americans from generating their own carbon-free electricity from the sun with onerous permitting regimes, inspection requirements, and interconnection processes.
It doesn’t have to be this way. A new analysis by the research group Permit Power, shared exclusively with Heatmap, outlines a path toward slashing the red tape.
The nonprofit, which advocates for fewer restrictions on renewables, proposed that states adopt several policies already popular in other countries. Those include adopting software that will allow for virtually instantaneous permitting of solar and battery projects, allowing for remote inspections verified via photos or video submitted online, and automatic grid interconnections for residential systems that use smart inverters that manage voltage and frequency to keep energy flowing safely back and forth onto power lines.
If states championed the reforms, the analysis found, more than 18 million U.S. households could afford solar that can’t today. Given rising electricity rates, the free power the panels would provide during the day would shave an average $1,600 off households’ annual utility bills, growing to $56,000 over the 25-year lifetime of a typical rooftop solar system. That would deliver cumulative savings to the U.S. of $1.2 trillion over that time period.
“It’s a number that starts with a ‘t,’” Nick Josefowitz, Permit Power’s founder and chief executive, told me. “That’s a really big number.”
Examples cited in the report highlight just how much time and effort Americans need to go through to install solar panels or batteries even if they can afford the high cost of the equipment.
Illinois requires paper submissions of permitting and inspection documents and approvals from multiple agencies with different document requirements for each local government. Minnesota mandates in-person submission of documents and monthly township meetings for zoning approvals before construction. New York sets strict limits on batteries and requires architects to review the projects in certain areas. Colorado’s bespoke file-naming conventions and mixed paper and digital formats create a bureaucratic quicksand that leads to increased corrections, resubmissions and delays.
“If you were to try and go city by city and modernize permitting in 20,000 different municipalities, that’d be an endless task,” Josefowitz said. “There’s hope we can solve these problems at the state level.” Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, and Texas have all passed legislation to streamline permitting processes in the past year, he said.
While most countries have a national system for regulating solar, “the U.S. is quite unique,” said Andrew Birch, the chief executive of Open Solar, a software company that helps solar installers navigate local rules. “It’s a problem that’s unique to the United States.”
The implications go beyond household electricity costs. The U.S. is struggling to meet surging electricity demand as the backlog of gas turbine orders mounts. Meanwhile, new nuclear reactors remain years away, and the Trump administration has cut back on federal investments in transmission lines and yanked permitting for large-scale solar and offshore wind projects.
By equipping more homes with equipment to generate and store their own electricity, households can temporarily go off-grid when demand is particularly high, freeing up far more room on the existing system for new sources of power and avoiding forced blackouts, said Jigar Shah, the former head of the Biden-era Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office, who reviewed Permit Power’s findings.
While solar panels have gotten the most attention, he said, batteries are the critical equipment.
“Rooftop solar alone does very little to solve the growth issue. What really solves the growth issue is residential batteries,” Shah told me. “The reason you get solar is because charging those batteries off the grid is expensive. Solar off your roof might be 10 cents per kilowatt hour, while power from the utility is 30 cents.”
To Josefowitz, what makes his group’s findings so practical at this moment is that none of the policy proposals the report puts forward depend on the federal government.
“If we had to go through the federal government, we couldn’t because no one is working there right now — and even when they were working they struggled to come to agreement on anything,” he said. “We can solve these problems at the state level, and allow American families to have the nice things at the nice prices that families in Australia and Germany enjoy.”