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:
NET Power’s power plants are an oil exec’s fantasy, an environmentalist’s nightmare, and an energy expert’s object of fascination. The company builds natural gas-burning power plants that, due to the inherent design of the system, don’t release carbon dioxide or other health-harming pollutants. If the tech can scale, it could be a key contender to complement solar and wind energy on the grid, with the ability to dispatch carbon-free power when it’s needed and run for as long as necessary, unconstrained by the weather.
The company is especially well-positioned now that the Environmental Protection Agency has finalized emissions standards for new natural gas plants that require them to reduce their emissions by 90% by 2032 — part of what landed NET Power a spot on our list of 10 make-or-break new energy projects in the U.S. In checking in on how things were going at the company, however, we learned NET Power hadn’t made quite as much progress as we thought.
NET Power’s leadership has said its process is so efficient that when built at scale, it will produce cheaper power than a conventional natural gas plant. Today’s plants combust methane with air to heat up water and produce steam, which spins a turbine to generate electricity. NET Power’s system instead combusts methane with pure oxygen, producing extremely hot CO2 that can drive a specially designed turbine. By replacing air, which is about 78% nitrogen, with oxygen, the CO2 produced is very pure. The system recovers most of the gas and uses it to generate more electricity, but the small amount that is not recovered is easier (and cheaper) to capture and store than the mix of gases that comes out of a typical power plant.
The company, whose backers include Occidental Petroleum, Constellation Energy, and Baker Hughes, broke ground on a demonstration project in La Porte, Texas in 2016, and began testing the equipment in 2018. In November 2021, it made waves among clean energy wonks when it announced a major milestone: The plant had successfully “synchronized” with the Texas grid, delivering enough electricity to power about 1,000 homes.
“This is a Wright-brothers-first-flight kind of breakthrough for energy,” NET Power’s then-CEO Ron DeGregorio said at the time. “Zero-emission, low-cost electricity delivered to the grid from natural gas-fueled technology.”
But the breakthrough wasn’t exactly what it seemed. In reports filed to the Securities and Exchange Commission as recently as last month, under a section titled “Risk Factors,” the company noted that its La Porte demonstration plant has “not yet overcome all power loads to provide net positive power delivery to the commercial grid during its operation.”
In other words, despite having successfully delivered power to the Texas grid, NET Power’s plant did not — and still hasn’t — generated more power than it consumes. Here is the rest of the explanation from the filing:
Our Demonstration Plant successfully generated electric power while synchronized to the grid, but it has not yet overcome all facility auxiliary power loads (pumps, compressors, etc.) to provide net positive power delivery to the commercial grid during its operation. If initial commercial power plants are unable to efficiently provide net power output to the commercial grid using the NET Power Cycle, this could harm our business, results of operation and reputation.
The company told me this was all according to plan. “NET Power’s La Porte Demonstration Facility was designed and built for one goal — to prove the technical viability of the NET Power Cycle, which it did,” NET Power said in an emailed statement. “Given its small scale” — just 25 megawatts — “and the design considerations required for a flexible test facility, La Porte was not intended to provide net positive power to the grid.” It added that Project Permian, the company’s first utility-scale project, “is intended to generate and deliver net positive power,” and is expected to be operational in late 2027, or early 2028.
Though NET Power never said anything to the contrary, several energy experts I reached out to said this was news to them. “It’s sort of surprising that they didn’t report it before, because obviously that would have been known at the time,” Sara Hastings-Simon, a physicist who researches the energy transition at the University of Calgary. The excitement around NET Power is rooted in its potential to be cheaper than a typical carbon capture project, which adds a big cost to power generation. “The challenge is now, it’s really hard to know until it gets there whether there is truth to that statement or not,” said Hastings-Simon.
Chris Bataille, a research fellow at the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy who sees a lot of promise in the company’s technology, said he saw this as a red flag. “I don’t think it sinks it,” he told me. “I don’t think suddenly it has crashed and burned. But it does say that they’re less advanced.”
But Joshua Rhodes, an energy systems researcher at the University of Texas, was unfazed when I asked whether it mattered that the company still hadn’t passed this milestone after nearly three years. “I’m sure they would have liked to pass it by now and I don’t know if there are any factors that are hindering them,” he said in an email. “That said, it is a new technology that, if it can be shown to work, could be huge.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A new letter sent Friday asks for reams of documentation on developers’ compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is sending letters to wind developers across the U.S. asking for volumes of records about eagle deaths, indicating an imminent crackdown on wind farms in the name of bird protection laws.
The Service on Friday sent developers a request for records related to their permits under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which compels companies to obtain permission for “incidental take,” i.e. the documented disturbance of eagle species protected under the statute, whether said disturbance happens by accident or by happenstance due to the migration of the species. Developers who received the letter — a copy of which was reviewed by Heatmap — must provide a laundry list of documents to the Service within 30 days, including “information collected on each dead or injured eagle discovered.” The Service did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
These letters represent the rapid execution of an announcement made just a week ago by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who released a memo directing department staff to increase enforcement of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act “to ensure that our national bird is not sacrificed for unreliable wind facilities.” The memo stated that all permitted wind facilities would receive records requests related to the eagle law by August 11 — so, based on what we’ve now seen and confirmed, they’re definitely doing that.
There’s cause for wind developers, renewables advocates, and climate activists to be alarmed here given the expanding horizon of enforcement of wildlife statutes, which have become a weapon for the administration against zero-carbon energy generation.
The August 4 memo directed the Service to refer “violations” of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act to the agency solicitor’s office, with potential further referral to the Justice Department for criminal or civil charges. Violating this particular law can result in a fine of at least $100,000 per infraction, a year in prison, or both, and penalties increase if a company, organization, or individual breaks the law more than once. It’s worth noting at this point that according to FWS’s data, oil pits historically kill far more birds per year than wind turbines.
In a statement to Heatmap News, the American Clean Power Association defended the existing federal framework around protecting eagles from wind turbines, noted the nation’s bald eagle population has risen significantly overall in the past two decades, and claimed golden eagle populations are “stable, at the same time wind energy has been growing.”
“This is clear evidence that strong protections and reasonable permitting rules work. Wind and eagles are successfully co-existing,” ACP spokesperson Jason Ryan said.
The $7 billion program had been the only part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund not targeted for elimination by the Trump administration.
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to cancel grants awarded from the $7 billion Solar for All program, the final surviving grants from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, by the end of this week, The New York Times is reporting. Two sources also told the same to Heatmap.
Solar for All awarded funds to 60 nonprofits, tribes, state energy offices, and municipalities to deliver the benefits of solar energy — namely, utility bill savings — to low-income communities. Some of the programs are focused on rooftop solar, while others are building community solar, which enable residents that don’t own their homes to access cheaper power.
The EPA is drafting termination letters to all 60 grantees, the Times reported. An EPA spokesperson equivocated in response to emailed questions from Heatmap about the fate of the program. “With the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, EPA is working to ensure Congressional intent is fully implemented in accordance with the law,” the person said.
Although Solar for All was one of the programs affected by the Trump administration’s initial freeze on Inflation Reduction Act funding, EPA had resumed processing payments for recipients after a federal judge placed an injunction on the pause. But in mid-March, the EPA Office of the Inspector General announced its intent to audit Solar for All. The results of that audit have not yet been published.
The Solar for All grants are a subset of the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, most of which had been designated to set up a series of green lending programs. In March, Administrator Lee Zeldin accused the program of fraud, waste, and abuse — the so-called “gold bar” scandal — and attempted to claw back all $20 billion. Recipients of that funding are fighting the termination in an ongoing court case.
State attorneys generals are likely to challenge the Solar for All terminations in court, should they go through, a source familiar with the state programs told me.
All $7 billion under the program has been obligated to grantees, but the money is not yet fully out the door, as recipients must request reimbursements from the EPA as they spend down their grants. Very little has been spent so far, as many grantees opted to use the first year of the five-year program as a planning period.
Along with Senator John Curtis of Utah, the Iowa senator is aiming to preserve the definition of “begin construction” as it applies to tax credits.
Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley wants “begin construction” to mean what it means.
To that end, Grassley has placed a “hold” on three nominees to the Treasury Department, the agency tasked with writing the rules and guidance for implementing the tax provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, many of which depend on that all-important definition.
Grassley and other Republican senators had negotiated a “glidepath for the orderly phaseout” of tax credits for renewables, the senator in a statement announcing the hold, giving developers until July 2026 to start construction on projects (or complete the projects and have them operating by the end of 2027) to qualify for tax credits.
Days after signing the law, however, President Trump signed an executive order calling for new guidance on what exactly starting construction means. The title of that order, “Ending Market Distorting Subsidies for Unreliable, Foreign Controlled Energy Sources,” has generated understandable concern within the renewables industry that, as part of a deal to get conservative House members to support the bill, the Treasury Department will write new guidance making it much more difficult for wind and solar projects to qualify for tax credits.
“What it means for a project to ‘begin construction'’ has been well established by Treasury guidance for more than a decade,” Grassley said. Under these longstanding definitions, “beginning construction” can mean undertaking “physical work of a significant nature,” which can include or buying certain long-lead equipment or components like transformers. Another way to qualify for the credits is to spend 5% of the total cost of the project.
A more restrictive interpretation of “begin construction,” however, could turn the tax credit language into a dead letter, especially when combined with the rest of the administration’s full-spectrum legal assault on renewable energy.
Grassley said that new guidance is expected within two weeks, and that “until I can be certain that such rules and regulations adhere to the law and congressional intent, I intend to continue to object to the consideration of these Treasury nominees.”Grassley has a long history with production tax credits for wind energy, playing a pivotal role in their extension in 2015. “As the father of the first wind energy tax credit in 1992, I can say that the tax credit was never meant to be permanent,” Grassley said at the time. “The five-year extension for wind energy brings about the best possible long-term outcome that provides certainty, predictability and a responsible phase-down of a tax incentive for a renewable energy source.”
Almost 60% of Iowa’s electricity is generated by wind turbines, the highest proportion of any state, according to Energy Information Administration data.
Utah Senator John Curtis has joined Grassley in placing a hold on nominees, delaying their vote before the whole Senate, according to Politico’s Joshua Siegel. Grassley and Curtis, alongside Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, were unable to get a meeting with the Treasury Department to discuss the guidance, Siegel reported.