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:
Home to two million people, the Gaza Strip sits squeezed between Israel and the Mediterranean Sea on a bit of land just twice the size of Washington, D.C. Gaza is the smaller part of Palestine’s two territories; you could walk the length of its southern border with Egypt in under three hours. But land is not the only thing that’s long been in short supply in Gaza. As the war between Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that rules the region, has made clear, Gaza is also increasingly bereft of water.
Over the course of the tragic war, water infrastructure has played an unprecedented role. In the aftermath of Hamas’s massacre and kidnapping of Israeli civilians on October 7, the Israeli government took measures to halt drinking water — as well as aid, food, and electricity — from entering the Strip. First, on October 9, Israel shut off the pipelines that usually send water into Gaza and halted deliveries by truck. And while it turned back on some of the pipelines on October 15, it didn’t restart the electricity or the fuel shipments that power Gaza’s desalination and wastewater treatment plants.
Yet these harsh measures in recent weeks belie a much longer-term problem, as a deeper dive into the region’s infrastructure reveals. Palestinians in Gaza have not had access to safe or ample drinking water for decades.
“The water crisis that Gaza is facing is a chronic crisis,” Dr. Shaddad Attili, the former Palestinian minister of water and head of the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) from 2008 to 2014, told me. “But now water is being used as a weapon. If they don’t get killed by missiles, they will die from the contaminated water that they’re using.”
The Israeli Defense Forces, the water authority in the West Bank, and COGAT, the Israeli body responsible for the government activities in the Palestinian territories, all did not reply to requests for comment by the time of publication.
There are three natural water resources that run through Israel and Palestine: the Jordan River Basin on the eastern border; the Mountain Aquifer, which runs directly through the West Bank; and the Coastal Aquifer, on which Israel is upstream and Gaza is downstream. The majority of the water comes from these three sources, but since the region is a desert geography, water is generally in short supply.
Israel acquired control over all the water that runs through the Israeli and Palestinian territories in the Six-Day War in 1967 when it seized the Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank from Jordan, and the Golan Heights in the north from Syria. In November of that year, Israel introduced a military order stating that Palestinians could not construct any new water infrastructure without first obtaining a permit from the Israeli army. Israel gave, and continues to give, these permits sparingly.
Today, the water discrepancy is striking. While there are eight times more Palestinians living in the West Bank than Israeli settlers, 70% of the water output is given to the settlements, where it is largely used for farming, according to an April 2023 report on the West Bank’s water deprivation by the Israeli humanitarian organization, B’Tselem.
During the Oslo Accords in the mid-1990s, the West Bank won some rights to run their own pumping stations in select parts of the territory. Today, they still need to earn permits from the Israeli military in order to build new pumping stations. Gaza used to pump their water from the Coastal Aquifer, but developments over the past 30 years have made that water inaccessible.
Prior to this war, the water situation in Gaza was already dire. The World Health Organization said that Gaza’s water supply was unable to meet the minimum requirement for daily per capita water consumption.
Gaza has some unregulated pumping stations that pull water up from the aquifer, but they’re not a major cause of the problem. The Coastal Aquifer extends from a town called Binyamina in Northern Israel to the Sinai Desert in Egypt. Just 2% of the total aquifer passes through Gaza. Through the late 1990s, it supplied drinkable tap water to most of Gaza’s residents. While it historically has provided 95% of their freshwater, it’s unusable now for a few reasons.
First, Gaza’s population growth rate is among the highest in the world, with almost half of the population under 18 years old in 2022. High population growth means the already scarce groundwater can no longer replenish fast enough to meet demand.
But there are deeper problems with the water’s quality. Seawater seeps into the aquifer since it’s so close to the coast and untreated wastewater has polluted the aquifer for decades to a point that it’s no longer safe to drink. In 2020, a study in the journal Water said that the quality of groundwater in the Coastal Aquifer had “deteriorated rapidly,” largely due to Israeli pumping.
“At least 95% of the freshwater (from the aquifer) is either inaccessible or not drinkable,” said Jordan Fischbach, director of planning and policy research at The Water Institute and author of a report on the public health impacts of Gaza’s water crisis in 2018.
As a result, the Coastal Aquifer — the primary source of Gaza’s water — is essentially out of commission. Residents of Gaza are now left with only about 20% of their needs filled.
But those sources have also proven to be unreliable.
The first are the pipelines, which were built with funding from international humanitarian aid. The pipelines run from Israel-controlled fresh aquifers and the water is paid for by the Palestinian National Authority (PA) in the West Bank. These are the pipelines that Israel stopped sending water from following Hamas’ attack on Israeli civilians.
But even in the best of times, the pipelines only supply around 10% of the water demand in Gaza. Attili from the Palestinian National Authority said that the water is combined with some of the unsafe brackish water in order to increase volume.
The second source of water are small-scale desalination plants, which turn seawater into potable water, but they rely on electricity to run.
Usually they provide another 10% of Gaza’s water, but when Israel halted the importation of fuel and shut down electricity transmission into Gaza, these plants stopped running too.
However, even when electricity and fuel are available, over one-third of plants are not monitored, maintained, or officially regulated. “A number of construction materials, fuel and other things you would need to build and power drinking and wastewater facilities are considered ‘dual use.’” said Fischbach, meaning they could also be used to build weapons. “These are types of materials that are restricted by both Egyptian and Israeli authorities.”
A 2021 study showed that 79% of desalination plants are unlicensed and 12% of water samples tested showed dangerous contamination levels.
“Desalination is necessary to get anything even close to drinking water quality and only a fraction of [desalination plants] are actually licensed and monitored” said Fischbach. “Many of them are producing water that we would still consider below drinking water quality.”
He added that most of them don’t run to their capacity anyways because they are so energy intensive and Gaza doesn’t have enough electricity.
Gaza also gets water from water trucks controlled by humanitarian aid or delivered by the Palestinian National Authority. This water passes directly through Israeli land, which means Israel was able to easily halt deliveries in the wake of the Hamas attacks.
In recent weeks, some residents of Gaza have resorted to drinking sea water or brackish water directly from the Coastal Aquifer. Not only are these not sources of freshwater, they are also further polluted by untreated sewage running through the region.
Israel’s decision to cut electricity to Gaza also meant that the wastewater treatment plants can’t run. Treated wastewater is used for showering and other sanitation uses. But when it’s not processed through a plant, wastewater runs into the aquifer and groundwater, further polluting what’s left of their drinking sources.
While the situation is worse due to the lack of electricity from the war, Gaza has never had ample wastewater treatment plants.
“For two decades now Palestinians have been prevented from building and maintaining the infrastructures that keep wastewater out of the aquifer,” says Sophia Stamatopoulou-Robbins, a cultural anthropologist and professor at Bard College. She is the author of Waste Siege: the Life and Infrastructure of Palestine.
In the West Bank, the aquifer is deep, carrying around 340 million cubic meters of water every year, so wastewater that has been somewhat treated can be further cleaned by soil and rock as it seeps through the aquifer. But Gaza’s aquifer is very shallow — its estimated to carry only about 55 million cubic meters per year —, and therefore cannot clean the water. Instead, it needs extensive infrastructure.
“In Gaza, you would need an incredibly high sophistication of technology to permit the wastewater to go safely into the ground,” says Stamatopoulou-Robbins. “Even the kind of concrete containers that would hold wastewater are not permitted to be maintained or built.”
In addition to the plants themselves, you would need piping to connect buildings to the wastewater treatment plants, she adds. “So all of the conveyance technology and infrastructure which is expensive anywhere in the world, all of that is subject to Israeli controls and tends to be prevented.”
As is the case with desalination plants, neither Israel nor Egypt allows the necessary materials into Gaza for building wastewater treatment plants because those materials are also considered dual-use materials.
Even as Israel turned the water and electricity back on, there are questions around how many of these desalination and wastewater treatment plants have been bombed and are no longer running.
As far as logistically turning off these resources, it’s fairly straightforward. “The ability to shut off electricity transmission is quite easy,” said Fischbach. “It’s just flipping a switch — the same way with a rolling blackout. Fuel imports are also easy. Nothing is going into Gaza. As far as drinking water lines, you can just not pump that water. So the logistics are easy.”
Several reports of hygiene related diseases spreading through cramped spaces are surfacing in recent days. Doctors in Gaza are saying that patients are showing signs of disease caused by overcrowding and poor sanitation. Children are suffering from diarrhea, lung infections, and rashes.
“The desalination plants are out of service because there’s no electricity, the sewage treatment plants are out of service because there is no electricity. And because our people now take refuge in shelters, there is a hygiene problem,” said Attili. “I have gone to so many conferences where we say water is a tool for cooperation, not conflict, and they all agree, but now the international community remains silent.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The assembly line is the company’s signature innovation. Now it’s trying to one-up itself with the Universal EV Production System.
In 2027, Ford says, it will deliver a $30,000 mid-size all-electric truck. That alone would be a breakthrough in a segment where EVs have struggled against high costs and lagging interest from buyers.
But the company’s big announcement on Monday isn’t (just) about the truck. The promised pickup is part of Ford’s big plan that it has pegged as a “Model T moment” for electric vehicles. The Detroit giant says it is about to reimagine the entire way it builds EVs to cut costs, turn around its struggling EV division, and truly compete with the likes of Tesla.
What lies beneath the new affordable truck — which will revive the retro name Ford Ranchero, if rumors are true — is a new setup called the Ford Universal EV Platform. When car companies talk about a platform, they mean the automotive guts that can be shared between various models, a strategy that cuts costs compared to building everything from scratch for each vehicle. Tesla’s Model 3 and Model Y ride on the same platform, the latter being essentially a taller version of the former. Ford’s rival, General Motors, created the Ultium platform that has allowed it to build better and more affordable EVs like the Chevy Equinox and the upcoming revival of the Bolt. In Ford’s case, it says a truck, a van, a three-row SUV, and a small crossover can share the modular platform.
At the heart of the company’s plan, however, is a new manufacturing approach. The innovation of the original Model T was about the factory, after all — using the assembly line to cut production costs and lower the price of the car. For this “Model T moment,” the company has proposed a sea change in the way it builds EVs called the Ford Universal EV Production System. It will demonstrate the strategy with a $2 billion upgrade to the Ford factory in Louisville, Kentucky, that will build the new pickup.
In brief, Ford has embraced the more minimalist, software-driven version of car design embraced by EV-only companies like Tesla and Rivian. The vehicles themselves are mechanically simpler, with fewer buttons and parts, and more functions are controlled by software through touchscreen interfaces. Building cars this way cuts costs because you need far fewer bits, bobs, fasteners, and workstations in the factory. It also reduces the amount of wiring in the vehicle — by more than a kilometer of the stuff compared to the Mustang Mach-E, Ford’s current most popular EV, the company said.
Ford is in dire need of an electric turnaround. The company got into the EV race earlier than legacy car companies like Toyota and Subaru, which settled on more of a wait-and-see approach. Its Mustang Mach-E crossover has been one of the more successful non-Tesla EVs of the early 2020s; the F-150 Lightning proved that the full-size pickup truck that dominates American car sales could go electric, too.
But both vehicles were expensive to make, and the Lightning struggled to make a dent in the truck market, in part because the huge battery needed to power such a big vehicle gave it a bloated price. When Tesla started a price war in the EV market a few years ago, Ford began hemorrhaging billions from its electric division, struggling to adapt to the new world even as carmakers like GM and Hyundai/Kia found their footing.
The big Detroit brand has been looking for an answer ever since, and Monday’s announcement is the most promising proposal it has put forward. Part of the production scheme is for Ford to build its own line of next-gen lithium-ion phosphate, or LFP batteries in Michigan, using technology licensed from the Chinese giant CATL. Another step is to employ the “assembly tree,” which splits the traditional assembly line into three parallel operations, which Ford says reduces the number of required workstations and cuts assembly time by 15%.
Affordability has always been a bugaboo for the American EV industry, a worry exacerbated by the upcoming demise of the $7,500 tax credit. And while Ford’s manufacturing overhaul will go a long way toward building a light-duty pickup EV that sells for $30,000, so too will a fundamental change in thinking about batteries, weight, and range. The F-150 Lightning isn’t the only pickup with a big battery and an even bigger price. That truck’s power pack comes in at 98 kilowatt-hours; large EV pickups like the Rivian R1T and Chevy Silverado EV have 150 or even 200 kilowatt-hour batteries, necessary to store enough power to give these heavy beasts a decent driving range.
InsideEVs reports, however, that the affordable Ford truck may have a battery capacity of just over 50 kilowatt-hours, which would dramatically reduce its cost to make. The trade-off, then, is range. The Slate small pickup truck that made waves this year for its promised price in the $20,000s would have just 150 miles of range in its cheapest form. Ford hasn’t released any specs for its small EV truck, but even using state-of-the-art LFP chemistry, such a small battery surely won’t deliver many more miles per charge.
Whatever the final product looks like, the new Ford truck and the infrastructure behind it are another reminder that, no matter the headwinds caused by the Trump administration, EVs are the future. Ford had been humming along through its EV struggles because its gas-burning cars remained so popular in America, and so profitable. But those profits collapsed in the first half of 2025, according to The New York Times. Meanwhile, Ford and every other carmaker are struggling to catch up to the Chinese companies selling a plethora of cheap EVs all over the world. Their very future depends on innovating ways to build EVs for less.
Governors, legislators, and regulators are all mustering to help push clean energy past the starting line in time to meet Republicans’ new deadlines.
Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act put new expiration dates on clean energy tax credits for business and consumers, raising the cost of climate action. Now some states are rushing to accelerate renewable energy projects and get as many underway as possible before the new deadlines take effect.
The new law requires wind and solar developers to start construction by the end of this year in order to claim the full investment or production tax credits under the rules established by the Inflation Reduction Act. They’ll then have at least four years to get their project online.
Those that miss the end-of-year deadline will have another six months, until July 4, 2026, to start construction, but will have to meet complicated sourcing restrictions on materials from China. Any projects that get off the ground after that date will face a severely abbreviated schedule — they’ll have to be completed by the end of 2027 to qualify, an all-but-impossibly short construction timeline.
Adding even more urgency to the time crunch, President Trump has directed the Treasury Department to revise the rules that define what it means to “start construction.” Historically, a developer could start construction simply by purchasing key pieces of equipment. But Trump’s order called for “preventing the artificial acceleration or manipulation of eligibility and by restricting the use of broad safe harbors unless a substantial portion of a subject facility has been built,” an ominous sign for those racing to meet already accelerated deadlines.
While the changes won’t suppress adoption of these technologies entirely, they will slow deployment and make renewable energy more expensive than it otherwise would have been. Some states that have clean energy goals are trying to lock in as much subsidized generation as they can to lessen the blow.
There are two ways states can meet the moment, Justin Backal Balik, the state program director at the nonprofit Evergreen Action, told me. Right now, many are trying to address the immediate crisis by helping to usher shovel-ready projects through regulatory processes. But states should also be thinking about how to make projects more economical after the tax credits expire, Balik said. “States can play a role in tilting the scale slightly back in the direction of some of the projects being financially viable,” he said, “even understanding that they’re not going to be able to make up all of the lost ground the incentives provided.”
In the first category, Colorado Governor Jared Polis sent a letter last week to utilities and independent power producers in the state committing to use “all of the Colorado State Government to prioritize deployment of clean energy projects.”
“Getting this right is of critical importance to Colorado ratepayers,” Polis wrote. The nonprofit research group Energy Innovation estimates that household energy expenses in Colorado could be $170 higher in 2030 than they would have been because of OBBB, and $310 higher in 2035. “The goal is to integrate maximal clean energy by securing as much cost-effective electric generation under construction or placed in service as soon as possible, along with any necessary electricity balancing resources and supporting infrastructure,” Polis continued.
As for how he plans to do that, he said the state would work to “eliminate administrative barriers and bottlenecks” for renewable energy, promising faster state reviews for permits. It will also “facilitate the pre-purchase of project equipment,” since purchasing equipment is one of the key steps developers can take to meet the tax credit deadlines.
Other states are looking to quickly secure new contracts for renewable energy. In mid-July, two weeks after the reconciliation bill became law, utility regulators in Maine moved to rapidly procure nearly 1,600 gigawatt-hours of wind and solar — for context, that’s about 13% of the total energy the state currently generates. They gave developers just two weeks to submit proposals, and will prioritize projects sited on agricultural land that has been contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, the chemicals known as PFAS. (When asked how many applications had been submitted, the Maine Public Utilities Commission said it doesn't share that information prior to project selection.)
Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection is eyeing a similar move. During a public webinar in late July, the agency said it was considering an accelerated procurement of zero-carbon resources “before the tax increase takes effect.” The office put out a request for information to renewable energy developers the next day to see if there were any projects ready to go that would qualify for the tax credits. Officials also encouraged developers to contact the agency’s concierge permit assistance services if they are worried about getting their permits on time for tax credit eligibility. Katie Dykes, the agency’s commissioner, said during the presentation that the concierge will engage with permit staff to make sure there aren’t incomplete or missing documents and to “ensure smooth and efficient review of projects.”
New York’s energy office is planning to do another round of procurement in September, the outlet New York Focus has reported, although the solicitation is late — it had originally been scheduled for June. The state has more than two dozen projects in the pipeline that are permitted but haven’t yet started construction, according to Focus, and some of them are waiting to secure contracts with the state.
Others are simply held up by the web of approvals New York requires, but better coordination between New York agencies may be in the works. “I assembled my team immediately and we are trying to do everything we can to expedite those [renewable energy projects] that are already in the pipeline to get those the approvals they need to move ahead,” Governor Kathy Hochul said during a rally at the State University of New York’s Niagara campus last week. The state’s energy research and development agency has formed a team “to help commercial projects quickly troubleshoot and advance towards construction,” according to the nonprofit Evergreen Action. (The agency did not respond to a request for more information about the effort.)
States and local governments are also planning to ramp up marketing of the consumer-based credits that are set to expire. Colorado, for example, launched a new “Energy Savings Navigator” tool to help residents identify all of the rebate, tax credit, and energy bill assistance programs they may be eligible for.
Consumers have even less time to act than wind and solar developers. Discounts for new, used, and leased electric vehicles will end in less than two months, on September 30. Homeowners must install solar panels, batteries, heat pumps, and any other clean energy or efficiency upgrades before the end of this year to qualify for tax credits.
Many states offer additional incentives for these technologies, and some are re-tooling their programs to stretch the funding. Connecticut saw a rush of demand for its electric vehicle rebate program, CHEAPR, after the OBBB passed. Officials decided to slash the subsidy from $1,500 to $500 as of August 1, and will re-assess the program in the fall. “The budget that we have for the CHEAPR program is finite,” Dykes said during the July webinar. “We are trying to be good stewards of those dollars in light of the extraordinary demand for EVs, so that after October 1 we have the best chance to be able to provide an enhanced rebate, to lessen the significant drop in the total level of incentives that are available for electric vehicles.”
As far as trying to address the longer-term challenges for renewables, Balik highlighted Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s proposal to streamline energy siting decisions by passing them through a new state board. “One of the big things states can do is siting reform because local opposition and lawsuits that drag forever are a big drag on costs,” Balik told me.
A bill that would create a Reliable Energy Siting and Electric Transition Board, or RESET Board, is currently in the Pennsylvania legislature. (New York State took similar steps to establish a renewable siting office to speed up deployment in 2020, though so far it’s still taking an average of three years to permit projects, down from four to five years prior to the office’s establishment.) Connecticut officials also discussed looking at ways to reduce the “soft costs” of permitting and environmental reviews during the July webinar.
Balik added that state green banks can also play a role in helping projects secure more favorable financing. Their capacity to do so will be significantly higher if the courts force the federal government to administer the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
When it comes to speeding up renewable energy deployment, there’s at least one big obstacle that governors have little control over. Wind and solar projects need approval from regional transmission operators, the independent bodies that oversee the transmission and distribution of power, to connect to the grid — a notoriously slow process. The lag is especially long in the PJM Interconnection, which governs the grid for 13 mid-Atlantic States, and has generally favored natural gas over renewables. But governors are starting to turn up the pressure on PJM to do better. In mid July, Shapiro and nine other governors demanded PJM give states more of a say in the process by allowing them to propose candidates for two of PJM’s board seats.
“Can we use this moment of crisis to really impress the urgency of getting some of these other things done — like siting reforms, like interconnection queue fixes, that are all part of the economics of projects,” Balik asked. These steps may help, but lengthy federal permitting processes remain a hurdle. While permitting reform is a major bipartisan priority in Congress, as my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote recently, a deal that’s good for renewables might require an about-face from the president on wind and solar.
The Danish government is stepping in after U.S. policy shifts left the company’s New York offshore wind project in need of fresh funds.
Orsted is going to investors — including the Danish government — for money it can’t get for its wind projects, especially in the troubled U.S. offshore wind market.
The Danish developer, which is majority owned by the Danish government, told investors on Monday that it would seek to raise over $9 billion, about half its valuation before the announcement, by selling shares in the company.
Publicly traded companies do not typically raise money by selling stock, which is more expensive for the company, tending instead to finance specific projects or borrow money.
But the offshore wind business is not any industry.
In normal times, Orsted and other wind developers will conduct “farm-downs,” selling stakes in projects in order to help finance the next ones. Due to “recent material adverse development in the U.S. offshore wind market,” however, the early-morning announcement said, “it is not possible for the company to complete the planned partial divestment and associated non-recourse project financing of its Sunrise Wind offshore wind project on the terms which would provide the required strengthening of Orsted’s capital structure” — a long way of explaining that it can’t find a buyer at an acceptable price. Hence the new equity.
While the market had been expecting Orsted to raise capital in some form, the scale of the raise is about twice what was anticipated, according to Bloomberg’s Javier Blas.
About two-thirds of the stock sale will be used to continue financing Sunrise Wind, a 924-megawatt planned offshore wind project off the coast of Long Island, according to Morgan Stanley analysts. Construction began last summer, just days after Orsted took full ownership of the project by buying out a stake held by the utility Eversource.
Despite all the sound and fury around offshore wind in the United States, the company said in its earnings report, also released Monday, that “we successfully installed the first foundations at Sunrise Wind, following completion of the wind turbine foundation installation at Revolution Wind,” a 704-megawatt project off the coasts of Rhode Island and Connecticut. “Construction of our offshore U.S. assets is progressing as expected and according to plan,” the company said.
But the report also said Orsted took a hit of over a billion Danish kroner in the first half of this year due to tariffs and what it gingerly refers to as “other regulatory changes, particularly affecting the U.S.,” a.k.a. President Donald Trump.
The president and his appointees have been on a regulatory and financial campaign against the wind sector, especially offshore wind, attempting to halt work on another in-construction New York project, Empire Wind, before Governor Kathy Hochul was able to reach a deal to continue. All future lease sales for new offshore wind areas have been canceled.
Even before Trump came back into office, the offshore wind industry in the U.S. had been hammered by high interest rates, which raised the cost of borrowed money necessary to fund projects, and spiraling supply chain costs and project delays, which also increased the need for the more expensive financing.
“Because of the sharp rise in construction costs and interest rates since 2021, all the projects turned out to be value-destructive,” Morningstar analyst Tancrede Fulop wrote in a note about the Orsted share issue. The company took large losses on scuttled projects in the U.S. and already cancelled its dividend and announced a plan to partially divest many other projects in order to shore up its balance sheet and fund future projects.
While the start-and-stop Empire Wind project belongs to Equinor, Orsted’s Scandinavian neighbor (majority-owned by the Norwegian government), Orsted management told analysts on its conference call that “the issues surrounding Empire Wind's stop-work order from April 2025 had negatively impacted financing conditions for Sunrise,” according to Jefferies analyst Ahmed Furman.
Equinor, too, has had to take a bigger share of Empire Wind, buying out the stake held by BP in January of this year. BP had bought 50% stakes in three Equinor wind projects in 2020, but last year wrote down its investment in the offshore wind sector in the U.S. by over $1 billion.
Why could Orsted not simply pull out of Sunrise Wind? “Orsted and our industry are in an extraordinary situation with the adverse market development in the U.S. on top of the past years’ macroeconomic and supply chain challenges,” Rasmus Errboe, who took over as the company’s chief executive earlier this year, said in a statement. “To deliver on our business plan and commitments in this environment, we’ve concluded that a rights issue is the best solution for Orsted and our shareholders.”
The Danish government will maintain its 50.1% stake in the company, putting the small Scandinavian country with its low-boiling trade and territorial conflicts against the Trump administration in direct capitalist conflict with the American president and his least favorite form of electricity generation.
In the immediate wake of the announcement, Jefferies analyst Ahmed Farman wrote to clients that the deal would “obviously de-risk the [balance sheet], but near-term dilution risk seems substantial,” citing the unexpected magnitude of the raise and no sign pointing to new growth. “As a result, we expect the initial stock reaction to be quite negative.”
And so it has been: The stock closed down almost 30%, its biggest-ever single-day drop and below the price at which it went public in 2016, according to Bloomberg data.