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:
Overturning the basis for America’s tailpipe emissions rules could actually raise prices at the pump — according to the Trump administration itself.
It hasn’t attracted much attention, but a document filed by the Trump administration last week admits to something important: The Trump administration believes that it is going to make gasoline more expensive for Americans.
That disclosure came in a technical analysis filed by the Environmental Protection Agency to support its attempt to repeal all carbon dioxide rules under the Clean Air Act. The document is meant to bolster the EPA’s case that carbon dioxide is not a dangerous air pollutant, and that the agency should therefore withdraw all tailpipe pollution limits for cars and trucks.
The document also shows that President Trump will struggle to meet his own campaign promises around energy. When he ran for president last year, Trump promised to cut energy and electricity prices by “at least half” within 12 months of taking office.
Now, the president’s policies are — by his own administration’s admission — likely to cause energy prices to rise. At least compared to the world where those policies never went into effect.
The admission comes on page 10 of the filing in a chart and associated discussion. It’s a confusing image at first glance, so take a look at it, then I’ll walk through it.
Reconsideration of 2009 Endangerment Finding and Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards | Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis
The rollback would affect light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicles — that is, everything from a small Toyota Corolla sedan to a Freightliner Cascadia semi. Because of that, the chart shows both gasoline prices (in red) and diesel prices (in black).
The solid black and red lines are what the government projected would happen to gasoline and diesel prices two years ago based on then-current policy. (They’re labeled AEO 2023 Reference because they came from the Energy Information Administration’s 2023 Annual Energy Outlook, the big yearly compendium of long-term market trends.)
The dashed black and red lines are what the government projected would happen to gasoline and diesel prices in its most recent 2025 Annual Energy Outlook. As you can see, in that report, federal analysts considerably downgraded their forecast for future gasoline and diesel prices — projecting gas prices, in particular, as much as 75 cents cheaper than in 2023. (These lines are labeled AEO 2025 Reference.)
The dotted red and black lines are what the government now thinks will happen when it rolls back the EPA’s tailpipe pollution rules. (These lines are labeled 2025 Alt Transportation, which is the name of the deregulatory scenario in the annual energy report.) As you can see, these — the Trump rollback scenario — come in far above the current 2025 forecast, particularly for gasoline. In other words, the Trump administration believes that rolling back the EPA tailpipe standards will raise gasoline prices.
The document itself acknowledges this: “For the AEO 2025 Alternative Transportation case, the difference compared to AEO 2023 is smaller, yet still lower than the prices in the AEO 2023, and the difference remains relatively stable over time.”
In other words, the document concedes that gas prices under Trump’s rollback will be more expensive — that is, much closer to the 2023 projections — than they were projected to be with the Biden-era regulations in place. The Trump document argues that’s okay: As long as gas prices are cheaper now than they were projected to be in 2023, Americans will have less to save by driving more fuel-efficient cars, so the EPA can roll back its pollution rules without worrying about the resulting increase in gas prices.
It’s an odd argument, one that relies heavily on the global decline in gasoline price forecasts from 2023 to 2025, which has little to nothing at all to do with Trump’s policymaking. As the filing says elsewhere, global gasoline markets can go up and down for many reasons, including “(1) changes in U.S. policies; (2) international incidents (e.g., wars); (3) changes in policies by international organizations (e.g., OPEC); and (4) changes in supply and demand of gasoline and diesel.” If gasoline prices go up significantly in the future, it could throw one argument for Trump’s rollback into question.
The problem for the EPA — and for the president — is that removing gas mileage rules means that American consumers will, as a whole, consume more gasoline. That might be good for the oil and gas industry, and it might slightly reduce the costs of a new car or appliance. But it will drive up energy costs as well — especially for Americans who already own a car or who are not in the market for a new appliance.
This analysis also makes Trump’s rollback oddly captive to the vagaries of Chinese policy. One reason that global gasoline price forecasts have stalled since 2023 is because Chinese gas demand has plateaued due to the explosive growth of that country’s EV industry. The Trump EPA is saying, in essence: Because China has switched en masse to EVs, it’s cheaper for Americans to keep driving gasoline cars. The follow-on innovation effects of this — the fact that American carmakers will fall behind — are not considered in the sample.
But the concession points to a deeper problem for Trump. The president campaigned on a promise to cut energy costs for Americans upon taking office. But over the past seven months, his administration has aggressively rolled back energy efficiency and fuel economy rules. It has imposed tariffs on some energy imports and moved to crack down on some zero-carbon forms of electricity production. At the same time, Trump has personally demanded that OPEC increase drilling to lower gasoline prices.
This Trump rollback — and the resulting rise in projected gasoline demand — comes as the overall energy cost environment has grown more inflationary. As I’ve previously written, electricity prices show every sign of rising in the coming years because of natural gas supply constraints, the Trump administration’s renewables policy, and equipment shortages. The president only has five months left — and a year at most — to cut energy prices in half, as he once promised during the campaign. He better get cracking.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Rob talks with the author and activist about his new book, We Survived the Night.
Julian Brave NoiseCat is a writer, Oscar-nominated filmmaker, champion powwow dancer, and student of Salish art and history. His first book, We Survived the Night, was released this week — it uses memoir, reporting, and literary anthology to tell the story of Native families across North America, including his own.
NoiseCat was previously an environmental and climate activist at groups including 350.org and Data for Progress. On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob talks with Julian about Native American nations and politics, the complexity and reality of Native life in 2025, and the “trickster” as a recurring political archetype.
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, YouTube, 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: What were lessons that you took away from the writing of the book, or from the reporting of the book, that changed how you thought about climate or the environment in some way that maybe wasn’t the case when you were working on these issues full time?
Julian Brave NoiseCat: I would say that while I was working on climate issues, I was actually, myself, really changing a lot in terms of my thoughts on how politics worked and did not work. I think I came into my period of my life as a climate activist really believing in the power of direct action, and protest, and, you know, if you get enough people in the streets and you get enough politicians on your side, you eventually can change the laws. And I think that there is some truth to that view.
But I think being in DC for four years, being really involved in this movement, conversation — however you want to put that — around the Green New Deal, around eventually a Biden administration and how that would be shaped around how they might go about actually taking on climate change for the first time in U.S. history in a significant way, really transformed my understanding of how change happens. I got a greater appreciation, for example, for the importance of persuading people to your view, particularly elites in decision-making positions. And I also started to understand a little bit more of the true gamesmanship of politics — that there is a bit of tricks and trickery, and all kinds of other things that are going on in our political system that are really fundamental to how it all works.
And I bring that last piece up because while I was writing the book, I was also thinking really purposefully about my own people’s narrative traditions, and how they get at transformations and how they happen in the world. And it just so happens that probably the most significant oral historical tradition of my own people is a story called a coyote story, which is about a trickster figure who makes change in the world through cunning and subterfuge and tricks, and also who gets tricked himself a fair amount.
And I think that in that worldview, I actually found a lot of resonance with my own observations on how political change happened when I was in Washington, D.C., and so that insight did really deeply shape the book.
Mentioned:
We Survived the Night, by Julian Brave NoiseCat
How Deb Haaland Became the First Native American Cabinet Secretary
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.
A warmer world is here. Now what? Listen to Shocked, from the University of Chicago’s Institute for Climate and Sustainable Growth, and hear journalist Amy Harder and economist Michael Greenstone share new ways of thinking about climate change and cutting-edge solutions. Find it here.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
Long-duration storage is still an awkward fit in most U.S. electricity markets.
It’s hard to imagine a decarbonized grid without batteries that can last longer — far longer — than the four hours today’s grid-scale, lithium-ion batteries can pump power onto the grid. But who’s going to pay for it?
That’s the question developers and researchers are puzzling over as the U.S. electricity grid struggles to replace aging generation and transmission infrastructure. At the same time, forecast demand for electricity is surging thanks to electrification of transportation and home heating, factory construction, and, of course, data centers. With solar (still) coming online, there’s a need to spread out the plentiful power generated in the middle of the day — or even year — across other hours and seasons.
In much of the country, electricity markets are set up to optimize the delivery of energy on very short time frames at the lowest cost, and to ensure ancillary services that can keep the grid stable from second to second. Then there are capacity markets, where electricity generators receive payments in exchange for their future availability in order to maintain long-term reliability.
Molly Robertson, an associate fellow studying electricity market design at Resources for the Future, a nonprofit research institution, is skeptical about how long-duration energy storage can fit into this market. “If we think about the market as compensating for those three things, there’s two questions,” she told me. “One is, is the market covering all of the things that the grid needs? And are there enough products that are being purchased that actually cover all of the needs of the grid?”
Long-duration batteries fit awkwardly into that equation. “Right now, I think you don’t see long duration storage because there are resources that are more cost competitive” for what existing wholesale markets reward, Robertson told me.
But the grid today may not be the grid of tomorrow — or at least that’s the argument of the long-duration energy storage industry.
“This energy transition was always going to be necessary around this time frame, regardless of the decarbonization agenda or anything like that,” Jon Norman, the president of Hydrostor, a Canadian company developing large-scale, compressed air batteries, told me. “Most of the infrastructure was built in the 80s and 90s and it’s hitting its natural end-of-life cycle. So these traditional coal-fired power plants, gas-fired power plants would either need to be rebuilt or new infrastructure built.”
“There’s no way of avoiding that,” he added.
Norman, of course, thinks that long-duration storage is a “good replacement for a lot of those assets.” Large-scale batteries like Hydrostor’s can store surplus electricity from when renewables are producing more than the grid needs, and then discharge that energy when needed — and for far longer than today’s batteries.
Lithium-ion is the dominant chemistry for battery energy storage systems today, thanks to its high energy density and ability to withstand many charging and discharging cycles, the same factors that have made it the default choice for electric cars. Because of both lithium-ion’s physical limits and the specific needs of the grid, however, the vast majority of grid-scale systems top out at four hours of discharge.
From a grid planning perspective, the difference between those batteries and long-duration storage, which can discharge for 10 or more hours at a time, means that the latter “can reliably replace” existing fossil fuel generation, Norman said. That makes Hydrostor’s batteries less like an “energy” product and more like capacity — a role typically filled by coal and natural gas, which get paid handsomely for doing so.
Restructured electricity markets work fine at wholesale electricity pricing for infrastructure that already exists, Norman argued. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, when electricity markets were deregulated, “you didn’t need a lot of buildout,” he said. Instead, the question was, “How can we most efficiently dispatch this stuff? How do we send the right signals to the generators?”
But sudden demand growth and the ravages of time have brought a new set of challenges. “The issue that we’ve seen over the past 10 years — and it’s coming to a head now — is, how do you build new capacity? Nobody’s really investing in these markets because there’s a real disconnect between those power market signals that are in real time and short term and the long-run cost of building infrastructure,” Norman told me.
Relying on market forces to come up with new capacity has not worked, he said. “This experiment has failed.”
Management of the PJM Interconnection, the country’s largest electricity market, has practically had to beg developers to bring more firm power onto the grid. It’s also overhauling its internal processes to get projects approved for interconnection more quickly.
In the meantime, as capacity payments and reliability worries continue to spiral, the market’s managers have introduced a pair of proposals that would subject new large sources of electricity demand (i.e. data centers) to mandatory shutoffs and allow utilities to get back into building generation. The former would essentially undo the foundational “duty to serve” model that’s been at the heart of electricity policy for over a century, and the other would reverse decades of electricity market deregulation and restructuring.
Suppliers and customers alike revolted against the idea of mandatory curtailment, and both proposals are now on hold. Whether or not either is ever realized, the fact that they’re even being discussed shows how dire the capacity crisis is.
Even in Texas, the most deregulated market in the country, a plan to offer cheap financing to natural gas-fired power plants to shore up the reliability following the 2021 Winter Storm Elliott disaster has found few takers and few viable projects. You have to get outside restructured electricity markets in states like Tennessee or Georgia, where utilities also control the generation of electricity, to find any appetite for large-scale generation projects like nuclear power plants. These markets are able — for better or worse — to pass along the cost of new power plants to ratepayers. It’s no coincidence that all the new nuclear power — a large source of firm power on the grid that takes a notoriously long time to develop — built this century has come in vertically integrated markets.
Everywhere else, building long-lasting infrastructure assets requires planning to lead the market, Norman told me. “Run really sophisticated competitive procurements — competitive mechanisms that allow you to hit a particular objective instead of the objective supposedly being decided by the market in real time,” he explained.
He pointed to California, where regulators tell utilities to procure clean firm generation like geothermal and long-term energy storage (or the state does it itself). Virginia, which is a vertically integrated market within PJM, has targets for energy storage procurement by its utilities.
Norman’s critique of restructured power markets rhymes with those of former Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Mark Christie, who said that there’s “missing money” in the electricity markets that exposes consumers to financial and reliability risks. He also asked whether restructured electricity markets, “especially the multi-state capacity markets, have been successful in ensuring a sufficient supply of the power necessary to sustain reliability,” as he wrote in widely noted in a 2023 law review paper.
For her part, Robertson cautioned that there are real technological and logistical questions for how long-duration storage would work in an electricity market, even if you can figure out a way to get them on the grid.
“When we think about longer-duration storage, we have to think about, how would those generators operate, and what timelines are they operating on? If you have a multi-day storage opportunity, how are you going to determine the best time to charge and discharge over that long of an opportunity window?” she asked.
In a RFF paper, Robertson and her co-authors argue that long-duration batteries “likely will not be sufficiently incentivized by price fluctuations within a 24-hour period,” as four-hour batteries are, and will instead have to “take greater advantage of long-term revenue opportunities like capacity markets.” But even then, she cautioned, markets would need to see big swings in prices over potentially multi-day periods to make the charging and discharging cycles of long-duration batteries economical.
Norman, however, had harsh words for critics who say this kind of procurement and planning will lead to inflated costs for infrastructure that may or may not be useful in the future. “What bugs me about keeping our head in the sand is that then results in us saying, Well, we just don’t want to pay for that, so we’re not going to set this target, and we’re going to let the markets decide,” he told me. “All we’re doing is deferring the problem and causing it to cost way more. And so I think we need a bit of a wakeup call.”
On hydrogen woes, Stegra’s steel costs, and refining vs. mining
Current conditions: The Northeastern U.S. is facing winds of up to 80 miles per hour • The remnants of Typhoon Halong are lashing the Alaskan villages of Kipnuk and Kwigillingok with powerful winds and storm surge • A heat wave in South Korea is bringing higher average temperatures this week than in July.
The United States military is stockpiling up to $1 billion of critical minerals as part of a global effort to counter China’s dominance over the metals necessary for sensitive industries including advanced manufacturing and defense. A Financial Times analysis of public filings from the Pentagon’s Defense Logistics Agency showed that the Trump administration has accelerated procurements in recent months as Beijing has cracked down on exports of rare earths and other metals, over which Chinese companies enjoy a tight grip over global supplies. The Department of Defense is “incredibly focused on the stockpile,” a former agency official told the newspaper. “They’re definitely looking for more, and they’re doing it in a deliberate and expansive way, and looking for new sources of different ores needed for defence products.” Among the companies that received funding from the so-called DLA, as I reported last month, is the Ohio-based startup Xerion, whose pioneering method for processing cobalt is now being applied to gallium.
The Trump administration has been on a partial-nationalization spree in recent months to secure mineral supplies. In July, the U.S. military became the largest shareholder in MP Materials, the lone company producing rare earths in the U.S. Last month, the Department of Energy overhauled a loan to Lithium Americas’ Thacker Pass project to take a stake in what will become one of the world’s biggest lithium mines. Earlier this month, President Donald Trump took a share of the Alaskan mining startup Trilogy Metals, as I reported in this newsletter. Reuters reported that the administration is also considering buying shares in Critical Metals, the company looking to develop rare earths in Greenland.
Mega-constulancy McKinsey & Company published a new report on the energy transition Monday, modeling different scenarios for the energy mix of the near-future. None of those scenarios includes clean hydrogen in a significant role. The fuel “is not yet cost competitive at scale, so it is expected to play a limited role in the energy mix,” the report says. Unless governments mandate its use, the analysis found, fuels such as clean hydrogen “are not likely to achieve broad adoption before 2040.” By contrast, fossil fuels are projected to retain between 41% and 55% of the global energy mix by 2050
The report shows hydrogen with a growing but still tiny share of energy usage in 2050.McKinsey
In a sign of where hydrogen may be in its development, another report published Tuesday morning by the California Hydrogen Business Council listed “raising awareness” and “understanding hydrogen” as the first two steps in laying the groundwork for the safe usage of the fuel. The trade group’s 66-page analysis concluded that, while hydrogen “is a hazardous material,” it “can also be used safely” and that “safety should not be viewed as a barrier, but as a catalyst for innovation and acceptance.”
Stegra, the Swedish low-carbon steel startup that aims to use clean hydrogen in its production process, is “scrambling to survive as it struggles to resolve a growing funding gap,” the Financial Times reported Monday. One of Europe’s highest-profile green industrial projects, the company was founded by the same Swedish financiers as the bankrupt battery maker Northvolt. Stegra now needs to raise more than $1.7 billion to build its plant as costs tripled in the past three months, unnamed sources familiar with the financing told the newspaper. Northvolt went under in March despite raising $15 billion in debt, equity, and government funds, signaling how quickly costs can cripple a company’s capacity to continue operating.
While the U.S. steel industry is already cleaner than many countries’ due to its dependence on scrap material rather than iron produced with coal, the Trump administration has slashed funding for green steel, including Cleveland-Cliffs nation-leading effort to produce green steel with clean hydrogen. Yet the “golden share” President Donald Trump claimed for the U.S. Government in U.S. Steel as part of his approval for Japanese rival Nippon Steel’s takeover deal this summer could give a future administration the legal grounds to require the American steelmaker to go green, as Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin reported.
Commodities trading giant Trafigura, the world’s largest metals dealer, issued a stark warning to Western countries looking to dig new ores out of the Earth to compete with China. “Mining is not critical,” Trafigura CEO Richard Holtum said in London on Monday, according to Mining Journal. “ True supply chain security comes from processing investment, not just extraction.” China refines roughly 65% of the world’s copper, 70% of its lithium, and 90% of its rare earths. “Western nations are fighting the wrong battle,” Giacomo Prandelli, a commodities trader and analyst, wrote in a post on LinkedIn in response to Holtum’s speech. “They obsess over mining permits while China and Indonesia dominate the midstream, turning raw ore into refined metals that power the global energy transition.”
Investments in refining minerals, however, are costly. While the Pentagon’s purchases of metals guarantees at least one buyer, the Trump administration’s elimination of tax credits for electric vehicles eliminated a key source of demand that would have promised more offtakers for refined metals, representing what Matthew called “the paradox Trump’s critical minerals crusade” back in January.
After raising $78 million in a Series C round last April, sodium-ion battery startup Alsym Energy has rolled out its first battery designed for stationary storage that the company says will be cheaper than lithium-ion systems from day one, Heatmap’s Katie Brigham reported this morning. “I believe we are farthest ahead than anyone else in that space today in the United States,” Alsym’s co-founder and CEO Mukesh Chatter told her. Since the U.S. has vast sodium reserves, Chatter said the company’s America-made batteries will be cheaper than anywhere else. But either way, the company’s cells “will be cost-competitive with the leading lithium-ion chemistry right off the bat,” Katie wrote, with the overall system 30% cheaper because the battery’s thermal stability and ability to perform at high temperatures makes costly cooling systems moot. While sodium-ion cells are less energy dense than lithium-ion, getting rid of the entire HVAC system makes the batteries can operate in “space-constrained environments such as commercial or residential buildings.”
In California, zero-emission vehicles represented 29.1% of new car sales in the third quarter of 2025, the highest quarterly sales ever recorded in the state, Governor Gavin Newsom’s press office announced Monday. “This comes despite the efforts by the Trump administration to derail the ZEV industry and raise the cost of a clean car.” The spike could also be a result of it. Across the country, Americans scrambled to buy electric vehicles at a record clip to secure federal tax credits before the September 30 expiration date set under Trump’s landmark tax law.