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:

“They’ve spent trillions of dollars on things having to do with the Green New Scam. It’s a scam,” said Donald Trump in his recent convention speech. His running mate J.D. Vance echoed the sentiment, saying in his speech that the country needs “a leader who rejects Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’s Green New Scam.”
To get the reference, you would have had to understand that they were talking about the Green New Deal — which most Americans probably recall dimly, if at all — and have some sense of both what was in it and why you shouldn’t like it. Neither Trump nor Vance explained or elaborated; it was one of many attacks at the Republican convention that brought cheers from the delegates but were likely all but incomprehensible to voters who aren’t deeply versed in conservative memes and boogeymen.
But here’s the irony. The Green New Deal never made the transition from a general statement of goals to a concrete and comprehensive policy plan. It wasn’t enacted through Congress. And today, most Democrats, even those who supported it in the past, seldom mention it by name. Yet without too many people noticing, the Green New Deal has been enormously successful.
From the beginning, it was envisioned as both a set of policy objectives and a public relations campaign, starting with the name. By invoking Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, its advocates intended to communicate three essential messages. First, climate change is an urgent crisis on the scale of the Great Depression, one that demands a government response without delay. Second, the plan itself is hugely ambitious, seeking to marshal vast resources across multiple federal agencies to confront the problem. And third, the programs it envisions would be as transformative and lasting in their effects as those of the New Deal, putting millions to work, creating economic security, and providing direct benefits to Americans’ lives.
But the plan itself was not really a plan at all. The legislation filed in 2019 by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey is a mere 14 pages long. It articulates five goals:
1. Achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions
2. Creating millions of high-wage jobs
3. Investing in sustainable infrastructure
4. Securing clean air and water, climate and community resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment
5. Promoting environmental justice
The rest of the document name-checks a variety of areas where future programs will be targeted (manufacturing, housing, transportation, agriculture, etc.) and principles those programs should embody (support for unions, community involvement, opposition to corporate monopolies). In the years since, Ocasio-Cortez and Markey, along with other advocates, have attached the Green New Deal name to other, more detailed proposals (e.g. the Green New Deal for Public Housing Act).
So not only does the Green New Deal remain somewhat abstract and hypothetical, most Democrats don’t even bring it up anymore. Which is why it sounds so absurd when Republicans attack it as though it were an enacted law; every time the crumbling Texas energy grid fails, foes of the clean energy transition rush to Fox News to say the Green New Deal is the culprit.
If you wanted to be generous, you could say the Republican critics are not lying, just using the phrase “Green New Deal” — or in Trump and Vance’s formulation, “Green New Scam” — as a shorthand to refer to any and all efforts to address climate change. In that sense, they might actually be on to something.
To understand why, we should go back to the Green New Deal’s high point as a topic of political debate: the 2020 Democratic presidential primary campaign. Most of the two dozen Democrats running for the nomination supported it, and many — including Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Kamala Harris — were cosponsors of the legislation. When Joe Biden released his first campaign climate plan in 2019, it read, “Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.” A year later he put out an updated plan that backed away from the Green New Deal moniker but won praise from climate advocates for its ambition, including pledges to spend $2 trillion and reduce carbon emissions from power plants to zero by 2035.
That change foreshadowed where most elected officials in the Democratic Party would move: Most of them wound up setting aside the Green New Deal name, but they adopted its policy goals. What was originally thought by many to be a pie-in-the-sky idea advanced by those on the left edge of the party became something almost any Democrat with serious ambitions has to be on board with, however they might describe it. Democratic senators and governors may not all agree on every particular, but they have come around to the Green New Deal’s fundamental approach: aggressive, ambitious government action on climate, with the emphasis on carrots rather than sticks to produce tangible benefits the public will support.
And just as Green New Deal advocates hoped, Democrats have not allowed Republicans to sucker them into endless arguments about cost. When Republicans make preposterous claims (for instance, that it will cost $100 trillion to implement all the plan’s profligate schemes), Democrats tend to dismiss it and move on, accepting that climate action entails investing money up front, and that it’s worth it.
As for Biden, as he heads toward the end of his presidency he’s gotten lots of deserved praise for his commitment and achievements in addressing climate. While this might not be the way he would describe it, there’s no question that between the Inflation Reduction Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the efforts of agencies including the EPA and Department of Energy, he has made progress on all five of the Green New Deal’s goals.
Net-zero emission targets? Check. Focus on well-paid green jobs? Check. Sustainable infrastructure? Check. Clean air and water? Check. Environmental justice? Check. One might question whether the steps his administration has taken in these areas have been effective or sufficient, but no one can say Biden hasn’t pursued the Green New Deal’s objectives.
The Green New Deal may not have been signed into law in its pure form, but it did what its advocates hoped: It captured the conversation around climate and was adopted to a great extent by an entire political party. And much of what it sought has found its way into law and policy. So while Trump may call it a scam, it looks a lot like a triumph.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On gas turbine backorders, Europe’s not-so-green deal, and Iranian cloud seeding
Current conditions: Up to 10 inches of rain in the Cascades threatens mudslides, particularly in areas where wildfires denuded the landscape of the trees whose roots once held soil in place • South Africa has issued extreme fire warnings for Northern Cape, Western Cape, and Eastern Cape • Still roiling from last week’s failed attempt at a military coup, Benin’s capital of Cotonou is in the midst of a streak of days with temperatures over 90 degrees Fahrenheit and no end in sight.

Exxon Mobil Corp. plans to cut planned spending on low-carbon projects by a third, joining much of the rest of its industry in refocusing on fossil fuels. The nation’s largest oil producer said it would increase its earnings and cash flow by $5 billion by 2030. The company projected earnings to grow by 13% each year without any increase in capital spending. But the upstream division, which includes exploration and production, is expected to bring in $14 billion in earnings growth compared to 2024. The key projects The Wall Street Journal listed in the Permian Basin, Guyana and at liquified natural gas sites would total $4 billion in earnings growth alone over the next five years. The announcement came a day before the Department of the Interior auctioned off $279 million of leases across 80 million acres of federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico.
Speaking of oil and water, early Wednesday U.S. armed forces seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela in what The New York Times called “a dramatic escalation in President Trump’s pressure campaign against Nicolás Maduro.” When asked what would become of the vessel's oil, Trump said at the White House, “Well, we keep it, I guess.”
The Federal Reserve slashed its key benchmark interest rate for the third time this year. The 0.25 percentage point cut was meant to calibrate the borrowing costs to stay within a range between 3.5% and 3.75%. The 9-3 vote by the central bank’s board of governors amounted to what Wall Street calls a hawkish cut, a move to prop up a cooling labor market while signaling strong concerns about future downward adjustments that’s considered so rare CNBC previously questioned whether it could be real. But it’s good news for clean energy. As Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote after the September rate cut, lower borrowing costs “may provide some relief to renewables developers and investors, who are especially sensitive to financing costs.” But it likely isn’t enough to wipe out the effects of Trump’s tariffs and tax credit phaseouts.
GE Vernova plans to increase its capacity to manufacture gas turbines by 20 gigawatts once assembly line expansions are completed in the middle of next year. But in a presentation to investors this week, the company said it’s already sold out of new gas turbines all the way through 2028, and has less than 10 gigawatts of equipment left to sell for 2029. It’s no wonder supersonic jet startups, as I wrote about in yesterday’s newsletter, are now eyeing a near-term windfall by getting into the gas turbine business.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The European Union will free more than 80% of the companies from environmental reporting rules under a deal struck this week. The agreement between EU institutions marks what Politico Europe called a “major legislative victory” for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who has sought to make the bloc more economically self-sufficient by cutting red tape for business in her second term in office. The rollback is also a win for Trump, whose administration heavily criticized the EU’s green rules. It’s also a victory for the U.S. president’s far-right allies in Europe. The deal fractured the coalition that got the German politician reelected to the EU’s top job, forcing her center-right faction to team up with the far right to win enough votes for secure victory.
Ravaged by drought, Iran is carrying out cloud-seeding operations in a bid to increase rainfall amid what the Financial Times clocked as “the worst water crisis in six decades.” On Tuesday, Abbas Aliabadi, the energy minister, said the country had begun a fresh round of injecting crystals into clouds using planes, drones, and ground-based launchers. The country has even started developing drones specifically tailored to cloud seeding.
The effort comes just weeks after the Islamic Republic announced that it “no longer has a choice” but to move its capital city as ongoing strain on water supplies and land causes Tehran to sink by nearly one foot per year. As I wrote in this newsletter, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian called the situation a “catastrophe” and “a dark future.”
The end of suburban kids whiffing diesel exhaust in the back of stuffy, rumbling old yellow school buses is nigh. The battery-powered bus startup Highland Electric Fleets just raised $150 million in an equity round from Aiga Capital Partners to deploy its fleets of buses and trucks across the U.S., Axios reported. In a press release, the company said its vehicles would hit the streets by next year.
Cities across the state are adopting building codes that heavily incentivize homeowners to make the switch.
A quiet revolution in California’s building codes could turn many of the state’s summer-only air conditioners into all-season heat pumps.
Over the past few months, 12 California cities have adopted rules that strongly incentivize homeowners who are installing central air conditioning or replacing broken AC systems to get energy-efficient heat pumps that provide both heating and cooling. Households with separate natural gas or propane furnaces will be allowed to retain and use them, but the rules require that the heat pump becomes the primary heating system, with the furnace providing backup heat only on especially cold days, reducing fossil fuel use.
These “AC2HP” rules, as proponents call them, were included in a routine update of California building codes in 2024. Rather than make it mandatory, regulators put the heat pump rule in a package of “stretch codes” that cities could adopt as they saw fit. Moreno Valley, a city in Riverside County, east of Los Angeles, was the first to pass an ordinance adopting the AC2HP code back in August. A steady stream of cities have followed, with Los Gatos and Portola Valley joining the party just last week. Dylan Plummer, a campaign advisor for Sierra Club's Building Electrification Campaign, expects more will follow in the months to come — “conversations are moving” in Los Angeles and Sacramento, as well, he told me.
“This is a consumer protection and climate policy in one,” he said. As California gets hotter, more households in the state are getting air conditioners for the first time. “Every time a household installs a one-way AC unit, it’s a missed opportunity to install a heat pump and seamlessly equip homes with zero-emission heating.”
This policy domino effect is not unlike what happened in California after the city of Berkeley passed an ordinance in 2019 that would have prohibited new buildings from installing natural gas. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups helped lead more than 70 cities to follow in Berkeley’s footsteps. Ultimately, a federal court overturned Berkeley’s ordinance, finding that it violated a law giving the federal government authority over appliance energy usage. Many of the other cities have since suspended their gas bans.
Since then, however, California has adopted state-wide energy codes that strongly encourage new buildings to be all-electric anyway. In 2023, more than 70% of requests for service lines from developers to Pacific Gas & Electric, the biggest utility in the state, were for new all-electric buildings. The AC2HP codes tackle the other half of the equation — decarbonizing existing buildings.
A coalition of environmental groups including the Sierra Club, Earthjustice, and the Building Decarbonization Coalition are working to seed AC2HP rules throughout the state, although it may not be easy as cost-of-living concerns grow more politically charged.
Even in some of the cities that have adopted the code, members of the public worried about the expense. In Moreno Valley, for instance, a comparatively low-income community, six out of the seven locals who spoke on the measure at a meeting in August urged elected officials to reject it, and not just because of cost — some were also skeptical of the technology.
In Glendale, a suburb of Los Angeles which has more socioeconomic diversity, all four commenters who spoke also urged the council to reject the measure. In addition to cost concerns, they questioned why the city would rush to do something like this when the state didn’t make it mandatory, arguing that the council should have held a full public hearing on the change.
In Menlo Park, on the other hand, which is a wealthy Silicon Valley suburb, all five speakers were in support of the measure, although each of them was affiliated with an environmental group.
Heat pumps are more expensive than air conditioners by a couple of thousands of dollars, depending on the model. With state and local incentives, the upfront cost can often be comparable. When you take into account the fact that you’re moving from using two appliances for heating and cooling to one, the equipment tends to be cheaper in the long run.
The impacts of heat pumps on energy bills are more complicated. Heat pumps are almost always cheaper to operate in the winter than furnaces that use propane or electric resistance. Compared to natural gas heating, though, it mostly depends on the relative cost of gas versus electricity. Low-income customers in California have access to lower electricity rates that make heat pumps more likely to pencil out. The state also recently implemented a new electricity rate scheme that will see utilities charge customers higher fixed fees and lower rates per kilowatt-hour of electricity used, which may also help heat pump economics.
Matthew Vespa, an senior attorney at Earthjustice described the AC2HP policy as a way to help customers “hedge against gas rates going up,” noting that gas prices are likely to rise as the U.S. exports more of the fuel as liquified natural gas, and also as gas companies lose customers. “It’s really a small incremental cost to getting an AC replaced with a lot of potential benefits.”
The AC2HP idea dates back to a 2021 Twitter thread by Nate Adams, a heat pump installer who goes by the handle “Nate the House Whisperer.” Adams proposed that the federal government should pay manufacturers to stop producing air conditioners and only produce heat pumps. Central heat pumps are exactly the same as air conditioners, except they provide heating in addition to cooling thanks to “a few valves or ~$100-300 in parts,” Adam said at the time.
The problem is, most homeowners and installers are either unfamiliar with the technology or skeptical of it. While heat pumps have been around for decades and are widespread in other parts of the world, especially in Asia, they have been slower to take off in the United States. One reason is the common misconception that they don’t work as well as furnaces for heating. Part of the issue is also that furnaces themselves are less expensive, so heat pumps are a tougher sell in the moment when someone’s furnace has broken down. Adams’ policy pitch would have given people no choice but to start installing heat pumps — even if they didn’t use them for heating — getting a key decarbonization technology into homes faster than any rebate or consumer incentive could, and getting the market better acquainted with the tech.
The idea gained traction quickly. An energy efficiency research and advocacy organization called CLASP published a series of reports looking at the potential cost and benefits, and a manufacturer-focused heat pump tax credit even made its way into a bill proposal from Senator Amy Klobuchar in the runup to the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. While rules that target California homeowners obviously won’t have the nation-wide effect that Adams’ would have, they still have the potential to send a strong market signal, considering California is the fifth largest economy in the world.
The AC2HP codes, which start going into effect next year, will help smooth the road to another set of building electrification rules that will apply in some parts of the state beginning in 2029. At that point, households in the Bay Area will be subject to new air quality standards that require all newly installed heating equipment to be zero-emissions — in other words, if a family’s furnace breaks down, they’ll have to replace it with a heat pump. State regulators are developing similar standards that would apply statewide starting in 2035. The AC2HP rule ensures that if that same family’s air conditioner breaks between now and then, they won’t end up with a new air conditioner, which would eventually become redundant.
The rule is just one of a bunch of new tools cities are using to decarbonize existing buildings. San Francisco, for example, adopted an even stricter building code in September that requires full, whole-home electrification when a building is undergoing a major renovation that includes upgrades to its mechanical systems. Many cities are also adopting an “electrical readiness” code that requires building owners to upgrade their electrical panels and add wiring for electric vehicle charging and induction stoves when they make additions or alterations to an existing building.
To be clear, homeowners in cities with AC2HP laws will not be forced to buy heat pumps. The code permits the installation of an air conditioner, but requires that it be supplemented with efficiency upgrades such as insulating air ducts and attics — which may ultimately be more costly than the heat pump route.
“I don’t think most people understand that these units exist, and they’re kind of plug and play with the AC,” said Vespa.
Current conditions: The Pacific Northwest’s second atmospheric river in a row is set to pour up to 8 inches of rain on Washington and Oregon • A snow storm is dumping up to 6 inches of snow from North Dakota to northern New York • Warm air is blowing northeastward into Central Asia, raising temperatures to nearly 80 degrees Fahrenheit at elevations nearly 2,000 feet above sea level.
Heatmap’s Jael Holzman had a big scoop last night: The three leading Senate Democrats on energy and permitting reform issues are a nay on passing the SPEED Act. In a joint statement shared exclusively with Jael, Senate Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Martin Heinrich, Environment and Public Works ranking member Sheldon Whitehouse, and Hawaii senator Brian Schatz pledged to vote against the bill to overhaul the National Environmental Policy Act unless the legislation is updated to include measures to boost renewable energy and transmission development. “We are committed to streamlining the permitting process — but only if it ensures we can build out transmission and cheap, clean energy. While the SPEED Act does not meet that standard, we will continue working to pass comprehensive permitting reform that takes real steps to bring down electricity costs,” the statement read. To get up to speed on the legislation, read this breakdown from Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo.

In June, Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin explained how New York State was attempting to overcome the biggest challenge to building a new nuclear plant — its deregulated electricity market — by tasking its state-owned utility with overseeing the project. It’s already begun staffing up for the nuclear project, as I reported in this newsletter. But it’s worth remembering that the New York Power Authority, the second-largest government-controlled utility in the U.S. after the federal Tennessee Valley Authority, gained a new mandate to invest in power plants directly again when the 2023 state budget passed with measures calling for public ownership of renewables. On Tuesday, NYPA’s board of trustees unanimously approved a list of projects in which the utility will take 51% ownership stakes in a bid to hasten construction of large-scale solar, wind, and battery facilities. The combined maximum output of all the projects comes to 5.5 gigawatts, nearly double the original target of 3 gigawatts set in January.
But that’s still about 25% below the 7 gigawatts NYPA outlined in its draft proposal in July. What changed? At a hearing Tuesday morning, NYPA officials described headwinds blowing from three directions: Trump’s phaseout of renewable tax credits, a new transmission study that identified which projects would cost too much to patch onto the grid, and a lack of power purchase agreements from offtakers. One or more of those variables ultimately led private developers to pull out at least 16 projects that NYPA would have co-owned.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
During World War II, the Lionel toy train company started making components for warships, the Ford Motor Company produced bomber planes, and the Mattatuck Manufacturing Company known for its upholstery nails switched to churning out cartridge clips for Springfield rifles. In a sign of how severe the shortfall of equipment to generate gas-powered electricity has become, would-be supersonic jet startups are making turbines. While pushing to legalize flights of the supersonic jets his company wants to build, Blake Scholl, the chief executive of Boom Supersonic, said he “kept hearing about how AI companies couldn’t get enough electricity,” and how companies such as ChatGPT-maker OpenAI “were building their own power plants with large arrays of converted jet engines.” In a thread on X, he said that, “under real world conditions, four of our Superpower turbines could do the job of seven legacy units. Without the cooling water required by legacy turbines!”
The gas turbine crisis, as Matthew wrote in September, may be moving into a new phase as industrial giants race to meet the surging demand. In general, investors have rewarded the effort. “But,” as Matthew posed, “what happens when the pressure to build doesn’t come from customers but from competitors?” We may soon find out.
It is, quite literally, the stuff of science fiction, the kind of space-based solar power plant that Isaac Asimov imagined back in 1940. But as Heatmap’s Katie Brigham reported in an exclusive this morning, the space solar company Overview Energy has emerged from stealth, announcing its intention to make satellites that will transmit energy via lasers directly onto Earth’s power grids. The company has raised $20 million in a seed round led by Lowercarbon Capital, Prime Movers Lab, and Engine Ventures, and is now working toward raising a Series A. The way the technology would work is by beaming the solar power to existing utility-scale solar projects. As Katie explained: “The core thesis behind Overview is to allow solar farms to generate power when the sun isn’t shining, turning solar into a firm, 24/7 renewable resource. What’s more, the satellites could direct their energy anywhere in the world, depending on demand. California solar farms, for example, could receive energy in the early morning hours. Then, as the sun rises over the West Coast and sets in Europe, ‘we switch the beam over to Western Europe, Morocco, things in that area, power them through the evening peak,’” Marc Berte, the founder and CEO of Overview Energy, told her. He added: “It hits 10 p.m., 11 p.m., most people are starting to go to bed if it’s a weekday. Demand is going down. But it’s now 3 p.m. in California, so you switch the beam back.”
In bigger fundraising news with more immediate implications for our energy system, next-generation geothermal darling Fervo Energy has raised another $462 million in a Series E round to help push its first power plants over the finish line, as Matthew wrote about this morning.
When Sanae Takaichi became the first Japanese woman to serve as prime minister in October, I told you at the time how she wanted to put surging energy needs ahead of lingering fears from Fukushima by turning the country’s nuclear plants back on and building more reactors. Her focus isn’t just on fission. Japan is “repositioning fusion energy from a distant research objective to an industrial priority,” according to The Fusion Report. And Helical Fusion has emerged as its national champion. The Tokyo-based company has signed the first power purchase agreement in Japan for fusion, a deal with the regional supermarket chain Aoki Super Co. to power some of its 50 stores. The Takaichi administration has signaled plans to increase funding for fusion as the new government looks to hasten its development. While “Japan still trails the U.S. and China in total fusion investment,” the trade newsletter reported, “the policy architecture now exists to close that gap rapidly.”
Another day, another emerging energy or climate technology gets Google’s backing. This morning, the carbon removal startup Ebb inked a deal with Google to suck 3,500 tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere. Ebb’s technology converts carbon dioxide from the air into “safe, durable” bicarbonate in seawater and converting “what has historically been a waste stream into a climate solution,” Ben Tarbell, chief executive of Ebb, said in a statement. “The natural systems in the ocean represent the most powerful and rapidly scalable path to meaningful carbon removal … Our ability to remove CO2 at scale becomes the natural outcome of smart business decisions — a powerful financial incentive that will drive expansion of our technology.”