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:
What even is “energy independence”?

For being so cozy with (not to mention bankrolled by) the oil and gas industry, Donald Trump still manages to get a lot wrong about the world’s dominant petroleum industry. Here’s everything he’s gotten wrong, and occasionally right, about the oil and gas industry while on the 2024 campaign trail.
“On January 6, we were energy independent.” [June 27, 2024]
Fact check: What does “energy independence” actually mean? Experts frequently dismiss the term as a political buzzword that isn’t helpful for understanding the United States’ position in the global energy market.
According to one definition, “energy independence” means that the United States produces more energy than it consumes. By this metric, the U.S. became energy independent in 2019, during the Trump administration, for the first time in 40 years, though it was the cumulative result of the shale boom that started in 2005 and stretched across three presidential administrations. By this same metric, U.S. “energy independence” actually reached its highest level in 70 years in 2022 under President Biden, not Trump.
Another way to define “energy independence” would be that the U.S. doesn’t import any energy. This definition would also make Trump’s statement inaccurate: In 2020 under Trump, the U.S. imported 7.9 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products per day. In 2023, under Biden, that number rose to 8.51 million barrels per day. Under both Trump and Biden, the U.S. has been a net exporter of oil products due in large part to its processing of crude oil. Check out this visualization from the U.S. from the Energy Information Administration for more granular detail on U.S. petroleum flows.
“We’re refining the oil. We have our refinery for that oil. It’s really, I call it tar. It’s not oil. It’s terrible. We have real stuff, but we’re refining it in Houston. So for all of the environmentalists, you ought to look at that because all of that tar is going right up into the atmosphere. You just ought to take a look. It’s the only plant that can do it. We have the only plants that can take tar and make it into oil.” [ March 6, 2024]
Fact check: Just because Trump decides to call something “tar” doesn’t mean it actually is tar. What he seems to be talking about here are the Canadian oil sands, sometimes called tar sands, which contain bitumen. The heavy, dirty, and diluted crude oil is transported via rail and pipeline from Canada to Texas, which is where most (but contrary to Trump’s claim, not all) of the world’s specialized heavy oil refineries are located.
Extracting, transporting, and refining bitumen is a pollution-heavy process. “All of that tar” doesn’t literally go “right up into the atmosphere,” but the refining process does emit benzene, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide, which are known to increase instances of cancer, asthma, and other health conditions in the people who live or work nearby.
“Just yesterday, Biden blocked the export of American natural gas to other countries … Now, why he stopped it, I guess it was the environmentalists. I guess. But it’s good for the environment, not bad. And it’s good for our country. I will approve the export terminals on my very first day back.” [Jan. 27, 2024]
Fact check: This is wrong in a number of ways. Let’s take it from the top: First, Biden did not block the export of liquified natural gas to other countries; he temporarily paused the approval of new licenses to export LNG, including 17 that had been in the, er, pipeline. The United States is already the top exporter of LNG in the world, with output expected to double by the end of the decade from projects that are already licensed and under construction. The LNG licensing pause “will not impact our ability to continue supplying LNG to our allies in the near-term,” the Biden administration has said; current exports have been more than enough to meet Europe’s needs so far, even accounting for the war in Ukraine.
The permitting process will resume once the Department of Energy has updated its criteria for determining whether new LNG export terminals are in the “public interest” once their climate impacts are considered.
Now, about those climate impacts: It’s true that natural gas burns “cleaner” than coal, producing about 40% less carbon dioxide (and about 30% less than oil). But natural gas is also largely composed of methane, “a climate-altering super pollutant,” Jeremy Symons, an environmental and political analyst and strategist, told Heatmap.
While methane breaks down more quickly in the atmosphere than CO2, it also traps more heat — about 80 times more heat over the course of 20 years. The process of liquifying natural gas not only requires additional energy, it also introduces new opportunities for methane to leak, adding to the fuel’s climate impacts. Once all those leaks have been quantified, argues Cornell University researcher Robert Howarth, LNG is not only not beneficial to the environment, it’s actually worse than other fossil fuels. Howarth’s paper has not yet been peer-reviewed, and some have questioned his conclusions in the past. But there’s no question that building new LNG facilities will lock the U.S. into producing planet-warming fuel for years to come.
LNG certainly isn’t “good for the environment” of the people who live near fracking sites and export terminals, either, where health issues are rampant. In addition to methane, LNG plants release volatile organic compounds, which have been linked to higher instances of cancer, asthma, and birth defects.
“You have the highest energy costs in the entire country. In the first year, they’re going to be reduced by 50% because we’re going to drill, baby, drill.” [Jan. 23, 2024]
Fact check: Trump made these remarks after winning the New Hampshire primary — and they’re wrong. For one thing, while energy is expensive in the Granite State, New Hampshire’s Department of Energy says its energy costs are the fifth-highest in the lower 48.
There’s an even bigger fallacy in Trump’s statement, though: that drilling can quickly lower energy prices. For one thing, oil from new leases doesn’t hit the market for at least four years, according to the Government Accountability Office. (Offshore drilling takes even longer since building the rigs alone can take two to three years.) As NPR explains, there are also operational limits; drilling new wells is “not as simple as turning a spigot and watching oil gush out.”
Much to the dismay of environmentalists, the Biden administration has also been keeping pace with Trump’s historic drilling. In fact, as of 2024, the U.S. is producing more domestic crude than at any point during Trump’s presidency.
But even with all this new domestic crude, the U.S. is still susceptible to fluctuations in the global price of oil. That’s partially because the U.S. imports a different kind of oil than it exports — what those in the trade call light, sweet crude, compared to the gunkier, heavy crude most U.S. refineries are set up for. Reconfiguring refineries to handle the light crude oil “could underserve some product markets and idle (or even strand) the hundreds of billions of dollars invested in refinery conversion capacity,” the American Petroleum Institute warns. Plus, it would also take even more time.
All that means that the U.S. is stuck relying on importing and exporting oil even if domestic production ramps up even more than it already has. And that, in turn, means we’re at the mercy of fluctuations in global energy costs, which remain out of the White House’s singular control.
One more thing to note: “The oil industry can decide to produce more oil whenever it wants,” the Center for American Progress, a liberal public policy think tank, explains, noting that the oil industry is sitting on “more than 9,000 approved — but unused — drilling permits on federal lands.” This is the base of the criticism that the oil industry is raking in “unprecedented profits” and burdening Americans with an artificially high cost of energy.
“Energy caused inflation, and energy has destroyed many families. Energy is considered very strongly. Energy is considered a country killer.” [Dec. 17, 2023]
Fact check: Economists mostly agree that “energy caused” the spike in inflation that we’ve seen since 2020, so in that sense, Trump is correct. But in making this argument, he inadvertently endorses the case for clean energy — since renewables aren’t subject to the same kinds of supply volatility as fossil fuels, they are therefore considered intrinsically deflationary.
“We are a nation that is begging Venezuela and others for oil. ‘Please, please, please help us,’ Joe Biden says, and yet we have more liquid gold under our feet than any other country anywhere in the world. We are a nation that just recently heard that Saudi Arabia and Russia will be reducing their oil production while at the same time substantially increasing the price. And we met that threat by announcing that we will no longer be drilling for oil in large areas in Alaska or elsewhere, anywhere in our states. We are a nation that is consumed by the radical left’s Green New Deal, yet everyone knows that the Green New Deal is fake. It is really the green new scam.” [Dec. 17, 2023]
Fact check: First, the United States is the top oil-producing country globally, followed by Russia and Saudi Arabia. It is true that the U.S. eased oil sanctions on Venezuela late last year, though that reprieve was explicitly temporary and contingent on the country holding free and fair elections.
Trump also appears to be referencing the Biden administration’s recent decision to cancel oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and block 13 million acres in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska from new drilling. While that does qualify as a large area in Alaska, the moves notably do not stop ConocoPhillips’ controversial Willow drilling project from going forward.
Trump further seems to be alluding to Biden’s campaign promise to not approve any new drilling (“ ...anywhere in our states!”), but that hasn’t exactly gone to plan; although Biden issued a pause on new oil and gas leases on federal lands one week after taking office, the administration then lifted that pause a little over a year later in the face of numerous legal and political challenges. Over the summer, however, the Interior Department did raise the cost of drilling on federal lands.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Just look at Heatmap’s latest poll results.
A few times a year, Heatmap News surveys a few thousand Americans on the biggest questions driving the world of energy, environment, and climate change. We’ve spent the past few days writing up the results of our latest poll, which was in the field in late May and which I thought was particularly striking.
It’s worth taking a step back to look at the biggest results together, because the American view of data centers is essentially in free fall:
The upshot of these findings: The public‘s turn against artificial intelligence and AI infrastructure is real, widespread, and cross-partisan. It doesn't matter whether Americans started out tolerating data centers or having no opinion about them; they now seem to resent them en masse.
Sign up to receive Heatmap Daily in your inbox:
These results also suggest Americans see little distinction between data centers as energy users and data centers as the physical embodiment of AI and Big Tech. At Heatmap, we can be a wonky and energy-focused bunch, and so we tend to think about data centers primarily as large-scale electricity users. I think most approaches to come up with “data center policy” do the same. We know data centers are distinctive in some ways, of course — an AI data center might require more on-site batteries or power generation than, say, an EV factory — but fundamentally it is just another air polluter, large-scale power user, and light-industrial land user.
But the public does not see things this way. Americans understand data centers in the context of the much broader AI policy conversation about jobs, growth, alignment, and even human extinction. And so, I should add, do politicians: Senator Bernie Sanders has framed his data center moratorium proposal as a response to rapid AI development as much as anything having to do with energy affordability. For that reason, I wonder how long the distinction between these two policy conversations — data centers here, and AI policy over there — can persist.
One last thought on this topic: Is the public’s resentment starting to affect the AI boom overall? I think it might be. It was hard for me not to think of our polling results — or our analysis of canceled data center projects — as I read about a recent JPMorgan analysis that found America’s data center boom is “falling way behind schedule,” in the words of The Wall Street Journal. More than 60% of the data center capacity that is supposed to come online next year has yet to break ground, according to the bank; another 7% is “delayed.”
That’s partially due to equipment and labor shortages, but it also might be what a siting-and-permitting bottleneck would look like. Much like renewable developers or venture capitalists, data center developers work by picking a number of sites and trying to develop on all of them. If only a few sites work out, they’re still in the money. But if a falling share of projects are working out — if building anything, anywhere, is getting harder, everywhere — then it might materialize as delays.
Plus more of the week’s big money moves in critical minerals and electric vehicle charging.
Two of climate tech’s hottest sectors — fusion and critical minerals — dominated this week’s funding headlines. Helion led the pack with its $465 million Series G, helping to push the startup with the sector’s most aggressive commercialization timeline one step closer to putting power on the grid. The round follows last week’s news that German fusion startup Focused Energy secured a $240 million Series A, making it Europe’s most valuable fusion company.
Then there’s the critical minerals. Shortly after venture firm Gigascale Capital announced the close of its $250 million fund targeting the physical clean energy economy, it announced one of its first investments: Red Metals, a startup working to bring copper refining back to the U.S. Terra AI, which is using artificial intelligence to identify promising sites for mineral extraction, also landed fresh funding. Rounding out the week’s deals, EV charging and energy services company InCharge also raised a new round as it looks to expand into a broader suite of energy services.
Leading fusion startup Helion has nearly tripled its valuation with its latest $465 million Series G round, which aims to help the company deliver commercial fusion power this decade — the most ambitious timeline in the industry. Per the terms of the power purchase agreement Helion signed with Microsoft in 2023, the startup plans to turn on its first commercial reactor just two years from now. That’s far sooner than even its most precocious competitors, who aim to put fusion power on the grid by the 2030s at the earliest.
Joshua Kushner’s venture firm Thrive Capital led the round, which also included participation from new investors including Lux Capital and Alta Park Capital. Thrive now values the company at $15.5 billion.
“The investors that have joined this round, it’s institutional capital, some very marquee investors,” Helion’s CEO David Kirtley told me, explaining they were willing to back an unproven technology thanks to a series of recent milestones that Helion’s latest prototype reactor, Polaris, achieved. “Polaris earlier this year set records for temperature and fuel. We’ve also reduced a lot of the business risk on the regulatory front, the commercial front, and the actual supply chain, too.” In February, Polaris became the first reactor developed by a private fusion company to operate on deuterium-tritium fuel — the most common fuel in the industry — and to achieve a plasma temperature of 150 million degrees Celsius.
Helion differs from many of its peers pursuing more established reactor concepts such as tokamaks, stellarators, or laser-driven inertial confinement. Instead, Helion’s tech uses powerful magnets to collide and compress two fusion plasmas together, generating temperatures over 100 million degrees Celsius and triggering a fusion reaction. It then seeks to capture the electricity this reaction generates via electromagnetic induction — no steam turbine required — similar to the way regenerative braking works in an electric vehicle. If successful, the approach could enable smaller, more modular fusion reactors than conventional designs would.
While the company had originally aimed for Polaris to demonstrate electricity production from fusion in 2024, that date came and went with no new goal set. Kirtley told me that Helion remains on track to meet the terms of its agreement with Microsoft, however. The startup broke ground on its commercial reactor site last year in Malaga, Washington, where it already has access to a substation and grid interconnection from a dormant aluminum smelter. In addition to building out this facility, Helion also plans to use its new funding to boost production at its electrical component manufacturing plant in nearby Everett, which Kirtley said opened earlier this year.
As investors pour billions into artificial intelligence and the infrastructure supporting it, former Meta CTO Mike Schroepfer has raised an inaugural $250 million fund for his venture firm, Gigascale Capital, which is focused on the physical clean energy economy. This represents Gigascale’s first institutional fundraise since its founding in 2023; until now, the firm’s investments have come entirely out of Schroepfer’s own pocket.
The fund will target early-stage companies working in clean energy, grid infrastructure, critical minerals, and AI-enabled design and manufacturing, while reserving capital to continue backing its portfolio companies as they scale. Gigascale has already backed a number of big names in the space, including Commonwealth Fusion System, iron-air battery developer Form Energy, solid-state transformer company Heron Power, and clean baseload power startup Arbor Energy.
It’s also already begun investing out of this new fund, announcing this week that it led a $10 million seed round for critical minerals company Red Metals, which also included participation from JB Straubel, founder and CEO of the battery recycling company Redwood Materials. The company aims to help reshore copper refining in the U.S., and will use this fresh capital to support the development of a $70 million refining facility in Charleston, South Carolina. Red Metals says its process can convert copper scrap directly into a finished copper product, bypassing several of the costly and emissions-intensive intermediate steps typical of conventional refining.
The investment offers a window into the kinds of companies Schroepfer is most interested in — businesses that might lack the glamor of an AI startup but represent bipartisan opportunities to address core industrial bottlenecks. Copper, for example, is essential to all sorts of clean energy infrastructure, including transformers, power lines, and anode battery materials, but also critical for defense technologies such as radar systems and ammunition. Yet American copper production has been on the decline, with analysts projecting that the U.S. will face a refined copper shortage of over 2.5 million metric tons annually by 2035.
Sustainability-focused firm S2G Investments has been on a roll recently, announcing a $1 billion fund last month that aims to fill climate tech’s “missing middle” and backing Goshe Energy Storage with up to $40 million in strategic financing last week. Its latest move is leading a $46 million strategic investment round for InCharge Energy, an EV charging and distributed energy management company.
InCharge got its start installing and managing electric vehicle charging stations, and is now operating more than 30,000 assets across North America. Through its software platform and network of technicians, the company handles all monitoring, diagnostics, and on-the-ground repairs, taking on a charger’s full lifecycle to minimize downtime. With this new capital, InCharge plans to expand beyond EV charging and leverage its software and field service network in adjacent industries, including electrical infrastructure work such as panel upgrades and wiring repairs, as well as distributed energy resources like rooftop solar and battery storage systems.
“EV charging was the entry point, but our customers increasingly need help operating more complex energy infrastructure,” Rich Mohr, InCharge’s CEO said in a press release. “This investment from S2G accelerates our evolution into a full energy solutions provider and allows us to advance smarter technology and strengthen our service capabilities nationwide.”
It’s a hot week — nay a hot year, for critical minerals and subsurface exploration startups, especially for those pairing geology with artificial intelligence. AI-powered mineral exploration company KoBold Metals has raised about $1.2 billion to date, while geothermal exploration startup Zanskar has brought in about $220 million.
Now, another entrant is attracting investor attention. Terra AI has raised a $20 million Series A led by Khosla Ventures to help do it all — use AI to identify prospective sites for critical minerals mining, next-generation geothermal development, and permanent carbon sequestration.
Terra’s platform integrates vast geological and geophysical datasets to generate 3D subsurface models, as well as risk assessments that allow teams to evaluate a range of potential geologic scenarios. From there, the team can identify the best sites for exploratory drilling and thus reduce risk and uncertainty much sooner in the project’s lifecycle. The company even uses what it calls “geology reasoning agents” to help operators create their exploration plans, all with the goal of drastically reducing the notoriously long timeline between discovery and production, which can stretch to nearly two decades for many subsurface projects.
“Minerals sit at the center of every major technology and infrastructure transition, but today’s exploration results are not keeping pace with demand,” Terra’s CEO John Mern posted on LinkedIn. “Our mission is to advance the frontier of AI into the geosciences and help supply the metals and resources the next generation needs.”
One of the biggest fusion funding rounds of the year landed last week, and somehow much of the media — including me — missed it. German fusion startup Focused Energy raised a whopping $240 million Series A led by RWE, one of Germany’s largest energy companies. Yet unlike most deals of this magnitude, it arrived with little fanfare: No press release in my inbox nor a flood of headlines. So in the interest of making up for lost time, here are the details.
With this latest round, which also includes participation from the German Federal Agency for Breakthrough Innovation, the European Innovation Council Fund and Prime Movers Lab, Focused Energy has become Europe’s most valuable fusion company. Like several other leading players, including Inertia Enterprises and Pacific Fusion, Focused Energy relies on an approach known as inertial confinement fusion. This involves using powerful lasers to compress a tiny fuel target, creating the extreme pressures and temperatures required for a fusion reaction. To date, inertial confinement remains the only approach to have demonstrated net energy gain, with Lawrence Livermore National Lab achieving this milestone in 2022.
The startup plans to use this latest funding to build out a demonstration plant in the German state of Hesse, at a site where RWE formerly operated a nuclear fission plant. The company ultimately aims to build a commercial reactor by the mid-2030s.
Catching up with the American Council on Renewable Energy’s Ray Long.
Today’s chat is with Ray Long, CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy. We first discussed the odds of permitting reform a year and a half ago, for one of the first Q&As in The Fight. Flash forward and we’re still in the same situation, but now also wrestling with added demand for electricity to power data centers. I wanted to talk again about whether he thought the rise of artificial intelligence would increase the odds of some federal deal happening any time soon. The result: a wide-reaching conversation about the future of the electric grid, the struggles to win community buy-in and the sclerotic nature of the U.S. Congress.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Do you think the buildout of our energy grid is entwined with the rise of the nation’s data center buildout?
When you look at what we need over the next four years — 166 gigawatts, 15 times the peak load of New York City — that’s a lot of power to build. Roughly half of that is for data center and AI growth.
There are five things we can build in the next four years at scale to address that collective amount. First, it’s transmission — the transmission buildout will help to get a modern grid to enable power flow to where it’s needed in a much more effective way. That’s the first step because if we just build all that power, the current grid can’t handle it.
Second, there are four supply technologies that can be built: solar, batteries, wind, and natural gas. All four of those technologies, we know there’s enough equipment here in the U.S. available for purchase that we can build at volume. And I’ll say this — natural gas is only about 10% of all those gigawatts because of the availability of turbines from suppliers. You can’t get enough over the next four years. So when I talk about decarbonization, most of what is built to address this issue is zero-carbon resources, renewable energy resources.
If you were to compare the current conversation around data center development to the debate over developing renewable energy in the U.S. — or energy in general — do you see any similarities or differences?
There are always issues with permitting projects. Communities are always going to have concerns about what’s built in their backyards.
What’s new — and your polling shows this — is the level of concern communities have. But here’s the thing: Most of this can be overcome by developers going in, listening to what the needs of the communities are, then responding and through the permitting process addressing those concerns. You can’t do that 100% of the time. But my experience is, when you take that sort of approach, you can overcome a lot of it.
Most of the large data centers are actually doing the things I’m discussing — going in and saying, Look, we want to be grid interconnected because grid connection at the end of the day means the resources we’re bringing to bear are also going to make a stronger grid. Number two, it's investing in power generation sources like the ones I said — and those power sources will be on the grid, so they’ll solve for the increased power demands of a community.
Third, water. They should bring the water solutions. You’re seeing data centers coming in and saying it head on now, that they have closed-loop systems or whatever the solution is. At the end of the day, the communities they’re proposing these in have a real negotiating opportunity to make sure they’re holding the data center developers accountable to the needs of the community.
For a community to say we don’t want it here misses a real opportunity for those communities to get the power they need, the grid they need, and the ability to bring down energy costs.
How is the data center debate affecting permitting reform conversations in Washington, from your perspective?
Permitting reform in the U.S. at the state and federal level has been broken for years. The SunZia transmission project? It took 17 years to permit. Ribbon-cutting is in a week or two and there’s still litigation around it. From a business perspective, it’s just untenable, and it’s a miracle that the project is getting built. Developers need a chance to come in and have their project evaluated. Both the community and the developer should be able to get to a go or no-go in a couple of years on one of these projects.
How is data center growth affecting the permitting reform discussion? It’s a very hot issue right now. Right now I think in part because the data center issue is so huge — because we’ve only got four years to solve for the first really big tranche of power we need and prices across the board for electricity are escalating — this is coming to a head. The data center load is a part of the catalyst to get people talking about it [permitting reform].
Do you expect legislating in Congress on permitting reform this year? Anything beyond more conversation?
My hope is that we get a bill. A few weeks ago someone from the administration was quoted as saying they wanted a framework for a bill by the end of May, and it’s June now. We haven’t seen both sides or the administration coalesce around a final project yet.
We’re in a midterm election cycle. Typically it’s very difficult during these cycles to move bills like this. At the same time, with electricity prices increasing and the need to build more, to fix this, I’m very hopeful something will come together. And look at the Senate — you’ve got Republicans and the Democratic ranking members talking about this. It’s all good signs.
If everyone’s talking about energy and affordability during this election, isn’t that a good thing for action in the next Congress?
I’ll say this: You’re seeing the catalyst for it right now with prices rising, and almost every grid operator around the country has raised concerns about shortages at some point this year or next year. It’ll hopefully be enough to have policymakers do something about it this year.