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:
Don’t ignore what the president says he wants to do, no matter how unwise it seems.

On Saturday evening, President Donald Trump signed orders placing 25% tariffs on all goods imported from Canada and Mexico, and a lower, 10% tariff on Canadian oil, natural gas, uranium, and other energy sources.
Trump also imposed a 10% tariff on all goods imported from China.
The tariffs will go into effect on Tuesday, giving Trump — who revels in proposing tariffs but has shown some reluctance to impose them for real — another 48 hours to maneuver. But if the new tariffs do actually bite, then they will affect nearly half of America’s imports and reshape some of the world’s most important energy and trading relationships.
Every day, millions of barrels of oil and cubic feet of natural gas flow across the U.S., Canada, and Mexico borders. The three countries have developed an integrated and harmonized network of pipelines, storage tanks, and refineries that has helped turn the United States into the world’s No. 1 producer of oil and natural gas.
The tariffs will almost inevitably disrupt that relationship. They may also upset the millions of dollars’ worth of electricity that shuttles from Canada to the United States every day across their shared power grids.
The tariffs will prove economically painful, although just how damaging is hard to know in advance. They could shrink the United States’ GDP by 0.4%, while increasing taxes by $830 per household, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation, a center-right think tank. Another estimate from the Budget Lab at Yale says that the tariffs could push up the personal consumption expenditures price index — the Fed’s chosen inflation gauge — by 0.75%, reducing the average household’s purchasing power by $1,200 over the course of a year.
Get the best of Heatmap in your inbox daily.
These costs could worsen as Mexico, Canada, and China raise their own tariffs or trade barriers in retaliation. Late on Saturday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that Canada would impose its own 25% tariffs on CA$155 billion of goods imported from the United States.
The economic hit to the U.S. economy could also be much larger than estimated if some manufacturers respond to higher costs not by hiking prices, but rather by delaying or shutting down production.
We’ve been reporting on the economic impact of these tariffs at Heatmap over the past week, documenting their potential impacts for oil refineries and the electricity grid. But now that the details are here, a few things stand out.
First, the tariffs on China are qualitatively different from the tariffs on our North American neighbors — especially Canada.
Chinese tariffs are not new. Trump engaged China in a trade war during his first term and ultimately reached a handshake agreement, although he has since said that China did not buy enough American agricultural products to keep up its end of the bargain. Some of the tariffs Trump placed on Chinese imports last time — including eye-watering levies on solar panels — remain in effect; the new 10% tariff will be added to those figures.
What did not happen last time was a serious, out-and-out trade war with Canada and Mexico, America’s neighbors and biggest trading partners. Although Trump entertained the possibility of Mexican tariffs during the campaign, he did not propose tariffs on Canadian imports until after his November election.
Second, the tariffs are quantitatively different, too. The president has not yet explained why he has placed higher tariffs on Canada and Mexico, who are our allies, than on China, which is our economic frenemy at best and our geostrategic adversary at worst. During the campaign, Trump sometimes proposed a “universal tariff” of 10% to 20% on all American imported goods, regardless of their country of origin. That proposed universal tariff — which was seen by some analysts as an extreme and unlikely proposal — was at a lower rate than what he is now levying on North American imports.
Third, this trade war has apparently been concocted and planned much more haphazardly than the one during Trump’s first term. Last time, the U.S. was careful to exempt electronics — iPhones, laptops, Xboxes — from its levies, as well as other consumer products. These tariffs do not do so, at least not yet. Nor do they exempt certain minerals that are essential to manufacturing electric vehicle batteries or other high-end electronics. (Bloomberg has reported that as recently as Friday, Tesla was lobbying for an exemption for graphite, a mineral crucial to making EV anodes.)
Finally, what is so striking about these tariffs is how they will be good for almost nobody.
The tariffs will hurt the American oil industry. As I wrote earlier this week, U.S. energy companies have spent tens of billions of dollars on special equipment that can refine the sludgy, sulfurous crude oil extracted in Canada; Canadian companies, in turn, have sold us that crude oil at a discount and built infrastructure so that it can be used by the United States.
The tariffs will hurt oil refineries. The U.S. refines about 18 million barrels of oil a day, but it extracts — even today, around its all-time high — only 13.5 million barrels a day. Most of the difference between what it refines and what it extracts is made up by heavy crude from Canada and Mexico, which blends well with the lighter petroleum produced by U.S. fracking wells. By raising the cost of Canadian and Mexican fuel imports, the cost of all refined products will rise.
The tariffs will hurt anyone who buys gasoline in the Midwest and Mountain West, where Canadian oil plays a much larger role in local markets. They will hurt diesel and jet fuel prices in those regions too.
But the damage will not be limited to the fossil fuel industry.
The tariffs will hurt anyone who uses electricity across the parts of the country, especially the Northeast, that import large amounts of electricity from Canada’s roaring hydroelectric plants.
The tariffs will hurt home builders and construction companies because the United States gets its best building-grade lumber from Canada. That lumber — already made more expensive by a climate change-intensified supply crisis — will now face additional taxes at the border.
The tariffs will hurt anyone who wants to buy or rent a home in the United States because the lack of lumber will worsen the housing shortage and general affordability crisis.
They will hurt automakers, who in the past three decades have constructed sophisticated supply chains spanning North America — a logistical dance that allows a single vehicle’s components and parts to cross the U.S., Canadian, and Mexico borders many times on their way to becoming a final product. They will hurt autoworkers, who depend on that supply chain. They will even hurt car dealerships, who will respond to higher prices by selling less inventory.
If the dollar rises to accommodate the new tariff level, as some White House officials have argued, then the tariffs will hurt all U.S. domestic manufacturers because their products will become more expensive, and therefore less competitive on the global market.
I am not saying, to be clear, that these tariffs are an economic catastrophe. We don’t actually know their economic cost yet — perhaps it will be minimal. But even then, they will still be a stupid waste of money that will help nobody, and which will make the U.S. economy neither more complex nor more secure.
The tariffs are a warning. As recently as last week, Goldman Sachs analysts put the risk of tariffs at only a 20% chance of actually happening. They ignored what Trump had said he would do because it struck them as too implausible, too unwise, too patently harmful. Perhaps in the next two days they will be proven right. But Trump has begun to blather about many unwise and harmful ideas — invading Panama (where Secretary of State Marco Rubio is headed right now), annexing Greenland, making Canada (somehow) the 51st state. Many seem even more implausible than these tariffs, and yet Donald Trump says that he wants to do them, too. How much longer can Republican lawmakers and business leaders pretend that he doesn’t mean what he says? The chance of calamity has only just begun.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Current conditions: The Northeast heatwave is breaking, with temperatures set to crash by as much as 50 degrees Fahrenheit over the Memorial Day weekend • The Sandy Fire just north of Los Angeles has now prompted mandatory evacuation orders for more than 10,000 homes in Ventura County, California • It’s the United Nations’ International Tea Day, and Myanmar’s Shan State — widely considered the birthplace of Camellia sinensis — is in the midst of intense rainstorms expected to last through at least the beginning of June.
The blockade at the heart of the global energy crisis right now appears to be softening. On Wednesday, the Financial Times reported that two supertankers shipping Iraqi oil to China made it through the Strait of Hormuz. A third megavessel carrying Kuwaiti crude to South Korea also appeared in shipping data to be crossing the narrow waterway at the mouth of the Persian gulf before its transponder went offline. The three ships are ferrying a combined 6 million barrels of crude, which the newspaper noted may be the largest volume to leave the Gulf in a single day since the end of February, when the U.S. and Israel began bombing Iran. An analyst from the data company Kpler said the ships steered through a route designated by Iran, suggesting “there was a deal done” with Tehran. If, as analysts told Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin back in March, “the time lag in global arrivals also helps explain why the physical market is only now starting to bite,” the latest shipments may loosen the jaws a bit.
Nearly 30 new utility-scale solar factories started production in the U.S. last year, reaching a high enough capacity to supply nearly twice the expected demand for photovoltaic modules through the end of the decade. That’s according to the latest report out this morning from the American Clean Power Association, the biggest trade group representing the renewable energy industry. The country now has the capacity to produce more than 60 gigawatts of panel modules per year, enough to meet forecast demand through 2030 of just over 35 gigawatts per year nearly twice over. The increase in module manufacturing capacity over the last five years topped 1,600%. But it’s not all rosy. Upstream, solar cell manufacturing has seen a far slower uptick, with just three active factories. The number of factories in the pipeline between now and 2030 falls just below projected demand. Thanks to tariffs, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s repeal of solar tax credits, and tight new eligibility restrictions on the use of foreign products in federally-supported projects, solar imports last year fell 33% compared to 2024 levels. The U.S. is also growing self-sufficient on batteries. Last year, the country expanded its manufacturing base enough to meet battery demand with domestic modules, putting the industry on track to do so with domestic cells as well by the end of this year. The five new active anode material plants set to come online by December — one of which is already in operation — could meet total U.S. demand for battery storage by 2028. “We haven’t attracted all of the supply chain yet, it’s still a work in progress, but so far the signs are quite good,” John Hensley, ACP’s senior vice president of markets and policy analysis, told Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo in an exclusive interview.

For the past five years, solar has been king among corporate energy buyers. Wind, then, could be considered the crown prince, trailing behind photovoltaics but undeniably the second in line for the throne. Not anymore. In 2025, nuclear surpassed wind as the second-largest technology in corporate deals, with over 5 gigawatts of capacity announced in a single year, according to the latest data from the Corporate Energy Buyers Association. It’s not just about fission, either. “Beyond nuclear, 2025 saw buyers procure more geothermal and hydropower capacity than in any previous year tracked, as well as growth in fusion and the first-ever natural gas with CCS deal, reflecting growing attention to reliability and system adequacy,” the report stated.
New York culture is full of stark rivalries. Artists versus finance bros. Yankees versus Mets. Islanders versus Rangers. Puerto Rican mofongo versus Dominican mofongo. West Side versus East Side. But between the city’s two great train stations, there has long been a clear winner: Grand Central. By comparison, Penn Station, as I can tell you from countless commutes, has long been the armpit of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, a complex maze of perpetually sticky floors, fluorescent lighting, and bathrooms so dirty that even a nauseatingly tipsy teenager thinks twice about entering. And yet the 2021 opening of the Moynihan Train Hall marked a serious upgrade. Now the Trump administration is chipping in another $8 billion to remake the rail hub.
The announcement, according to Gothamist, marked the first time the federal government has publicly disclosed how much it will spend to reconstruct the station since the White House took over control of the project from the MTA last year and turned the work over to the facility’s owner, Amtrak. “When it comes to our rail, we’re making generational improvements to the Northeast Corridor,” Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said under oath during his opening testimony at a Senate hearing Tuesday morning. “That means … a transformative investment in New York’s Penn Station — $8 billion, by the way.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Back in February, I told you the cautionary tale of Boston Metal. The Massachusetts-based green steel startup faced an unexpected equipment accident at its plant in Brazil, making it impossible to meet a key development milestone needed to unlock another tranche of funding from its financiers. As a result, the company had to lay off much of its workforce. Now it’s mounting a comeback. On Wednesday, the firm announced a new $75 million funding round to support the scaling of its operations worldwide. Combined with previous financing deals, the company has now raised a total of more than $500 million. The latest funding will allow Boston Metal to expand its business into metals such as niobium, tantalum, vanadium, and nickel — all of which the U.S. wants to secure more supplies of from domestic sources or allied countries. “This financing marks a pivotal step for Boston Metal,” Rick Cutright, a venture capitalist whose firm, Climate Investment, joined the latest round, said in a statement. “The company has built a new metallurgical platform and demonstrated its ability to produce high-quality metals from complex feedstocks; now the focus is commercial production. Critical metals are the right first market because the need is immediate.”
In South Dakota, meanwhile, the world’s largest producer of biofuels just inked a major energy storage deal. POET agreed to buy a 5-gigawatt-hour, multi-day thermal energy storage system from the startup Antora Energy. The technology will back up POET’s bioprocessing facility in Big Stone City. “Homegrown energy sources create good-paying jobs, support our agriculture producers, and provide affordable options for consumers,” Senator John Thune, the South Dakota Republican, said in a statement. “I’m grateful for this impressive addition to South Dakota’s budding biofuels industry, and I can’t wait to see the benefits for South Dakota producers and families across our state.”
Convective Capital is not your usual venture capital firm. The San Francisco-based company, which Heatmap’s Katie Brigham has written about repeatedly, formed around a parochial specialty with ubiquitous appeal to Californians: wildfire technology. The startups financed through its first fire-focused fund have so far attracted hundreds of millions of dollars in investment. Now Convective is launching a second fund. On Thursday morning, the firm announced $85 million for a fund focused on resiliency. In a blog post, Convective founder Bill Clerico said the company has already launched a media channel to tell stories about companies finding novel ways to shore up infrastructure against extreme weather disasters and assembled a network of more than 10,000 resiliency-focused professionals. “There’s $60 trillion of real estate that's at high risk from disaster,” Clerico told Katie in an interview yesterday. “While we spend as a nation a trillion dollars a year preparing to fight enemies overseas, we spend comparatively very little at home protecting our neighborhoods and cities. I think the silver lining in this is that it’s gotten so bad that I think the private markets can now take over.”
It’s been almost exactly a year since the rooftop solar giant Sunnova went bankrupt. Now its former chief executive is back with a new startup called Otovo that’s focused on servicing and fixing solar panels, batteries, and generator systems “orphaned” by their original developers’ bankruptcies. The business is panning out. This morning, I reported exclusively for Heatmap that Otovo has so far racked up 30,000 customers in less than a year and is considering listing on an American stock exchange as early as this year.
John Berger’s new company, Otovo, is eyeing a U.S. listing by the end of the year.
Here’s a little secret I learned from my father and grandfather, both of whom spent decades-long careers selling cars around New York City: Dealerships make real money not from sales and leases, but from providing the repairs, oil changes, and tune-ups on those vehicles long after they’re driven off the lot. It’s a big business. While AAA does not release its national revenue figures, the nonprofit federation of automotive clubs that provide speedy service to drivers stranded with a flat tire or overheated engine is estimated to pull in billions of dollars per year.
That’s the kind of business John Berger set out to build during his 13 years as chief executive of Sunnova. But the Houston-based rooftop solar giant racked up so much debt from the leasing business that the publicly-traded firm filed for Chapter 11 protections last June after the Trump administration canceled a $3 billion loan. His dream of deploying enough panels to sustain the company on servicing subscriptions fizzled.
Three months after Sunnova’s collapse, Berger returned to the industry with a new startup dedicated to providing round-the-clock maintenance for solar, battery, and generator systems. The new startup, Otovo, built off the existing name and business model of an eponymous Norwegian company that merged with Berger’s Texas-based American firm in December.
Now, Heatmap has learned, the company has hit a major milestone.
As of Thursday morning, Otovo has racked up 30,000 customers, two-thirds of whom are paying recurring subscription fees ranging from $9 to $49 per month for maintenance service, with the pricier memberships providing the fastest guaranteed fixes.
Otovo’s first-year growth — which exceeded the company’s own initial estimates — may say as much about the state of the solar market as it does about the startup itself.
Surging inflation, supply chain shocks from the wars in Ukraine and Iran, and seesawing policy incentives in the United States have put the squeeze on many solar installers, spurring a wave of bankruptcies on both sides of the Atlantic. Berger — no stranger to how it felt to be the insolvent counterparty on the other side of the negotiating table — seized on the opportunity. As installers such as California’s Solar Service Professionals, Germany’s Zolar, the Netherlands’ Soly, or Norway’s Solcellespesialisten went under, Otovo bought their customer books.
“All these orphaned customers? Well over 37 million exist between the European Union and the United States,” Berger told me. “That’s an enormous market, and it’s an enormous amount of pain when you have rising power bills.”
That orphaned customer figure, he said, was an estimate based on data from the trade group Solar Energy Industries Association, the consultancy Wood Mackenzie, and individual companies such as generator giant Generac, whose units run on natural gas, propane, and diesel.
For now, about two-thirds of Otovo’s customers are in Europe, where the company has traded on the Oslo stock exchange since before Berger’s involvement. But Berger said the long-term goal is to see its subscriber base split evenly between the U.S. and Europe.
That could be a challenge. While the European subsidies for solar vary by country, the continent is typically more “methodical and deliberate” about government policy, he said, meaning those nations avoid the “whipsaw” of American politics, where Democrats lavish support on solar and batteries and Republicans yank that funding away.
“It wouldn’t surprise me the least bit,” he said, if Congress brings back an enhanced 25D, the Biden-era tax credit for rooftop solar systems that President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act repealed last year, sometime after the midterm elections.
“It was a really crazy political decision by the Republicans to kill 25D,” Berger said. “These are the people, the homeowners, that pay the taxes that then fund the tax credits for the utilities, the monopolies, and all the big companies in an affordability crisis.” He also called axing the credit “political suicide.”
Either way, he said, building new solar panels in the U.S. is getting more expensive, making it all the more important to maintain existing units. He’s optimistic about future growth.
“We continue to sell memberships every single day in all of our territories,” Berger said. “In fact, we’re gearing up to ramp that up with a significant sales effort across the board in both Europe and the U.S.”
Otovo is planning to go public in a dual listing on a U.S. stock exchange by December.
“We feel pretty good that, over the next several months, we’ll be able to pop out here and have a pretty good listing in the United States,” he said. “If it’s not before the end of the year, it’ll be very shortly after the new year. But as any CEO will tell you, taking a company public, which I’ve done before, involves a good bit of luck.”
Emails raise questions about who knew what and when leading up to the administration’s agreement with TotalEnergies.
The Trump administration justified its nearly $1 billion settlement agreement with TotalEnergies to effectively buy back the French company’s U.S. offshore wind leases by citing national security concerns raised by the Department of Defense. Emails obtained by House Democrats and viewed by Heatmap, however, seem to conflict with that story.
California Representative Jared Huffman introduced the documents into the congressional record on Wednesday during a hearing held by the House Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
“The national security justification appears to be totally fabricated, and fabricated after the fact,” Huffman said during the hearing. “DOI committed to paying Total nearly a billion dollars before it had concocted its justification of a national security issue.”
The email exchange Huffman cited took place in mid-November among officials at the Department of the Interior. On November 13, 2025, Christopher Danley, the deputy solicitor for energy and mineral resources, emailed colleagues in the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the secretary’s office an attachment with the name “DRAFT_Memorandum_of_Understanding.docx.”
According to Huffman’s office, the file was a document entitled “Draft Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of the Interior and TotalEnergies Renewables USA, LLC on Offshore Wind Lease OCS-A 0545,” which refers to the company’s Carolina Long Bay lease. (The office said it could not share the document itself due to confidentiality issues.)
While the emails do not discuss the document further, the November date is notable. It suggests that the Interior Department had been negotiating a deal with Total before BOEM officials were briefed on the DOD’s classified national security concerns about offshore wind development.
Two Interior officials, Matthew Giacona, the acting director of BOEM, and Jacob Tyner, the deputy assistant secretary for land and minerals management, have testified in federal court that they reviewed a classified offshore wind assessment produced by the Department of Defense on November 26, 2025, and then were briefed on it again by department officials in early December. They submitted this testimony as part of a separate court case over a stop work order the agency issued to the Coastal Virginia Offshore wind project in December.
“After my review of DOW’s classified material with a secret designation,” Giacona wrote, “I determined that CVOW Project’s activities did not adequately provide for the protection of national security interests,” leading to his decision to suspend ongoing activities on the lease.
Giacona and Tyner are copied on the emails Huffman presented on Wednesday, indicating that the memorandum of understanding between Total and the Interior Department had been drafted and distributed prior to their reviewing the classified assessment.
The final agreement both parties signed on March 23, however, justifies the decision by citing a series of events that it portrays as taking place after officials learned of the DOD’s national security concerns.
The Interior Department paid Total out of the Judgment Fund, a permanently appropriated fund overseen by the Treasury Department with no congressional oversight that’s set aside to settle litigation or impending litigation. The final agreement describes the background for the settlement, beginning by stating that the Interior Department was going to suspend Total’s leases indefinitely based on the DOD’s classified findings, which “would have” led Total to file a legal claim for breach of contract. Rather than fight it out in court, Interior decided to settle this supposedly impending litigation, paying Total nearly $1 billion, in exchange for the company investing an equivalent amount into U.S. oil and gas projects.
But if the agency had been negotiating a deal with Total prior to being briefed on the national security assessment, it suggests that the deal was not predicated on a threat of litigation. During the hearing, Eddie Ahn, an attorney and the executive director of an environmental group called Brightline Defense, told Huffman that this opens the possibility for a legal challenge to the deal.
I should note one hiccup in this line of reasoning. Even though Interior officials testified that they were briefed on the Department of Defense’s assessment on November 26, this is not the first time the agency raised national security concerns about offshore wind. When BOEM issued a stop work order on Revolution Wind in August of last year, it said it was seeking to “address concerns related to the protection of national security interests of the United States.”
During the hearing, Huffman called out additional concerns his office had about the settlement. He said the amount the Interior Department paid Total — a full reimbursement of the company’s original lease payment — has no basis in the law. “Federal law sets a specific formula for the compensation a company can get when the government cancels an offshore lease,” he said, adding that the settlement was for “far more.” He also challenged a clause in the agreement that purports to protect both parties from legal liability.
Huffman and several of his fellow Democrats also highlighted the Trump administration’s latest use of the Judgment Fund — to create a new $1.8 billion legal fund to issue “monetary relief” to citizens who claim they were unfairly targeted by the Biden administration, such as those charged in connection with the January 6 riot.
“Now we know that that was just the beginning,” Maxine Dexter of Oregon said. “This president’s fraudulent use of the judgment fund is the most consequential and damning abuse of taxpayer funds happening right now.”