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:
Texas’ Board of Education is voting on whether to “promote’’ fossil fuels in schools.

Fights over school curricula have become issues du jour, and today officials in Texas are voting on what kids in that state will read about climate change in their school textbooks. The problem, according to the AP, is that the textbooks in their current form are “too negative towards fossil fuels.”
Wayne Christian, a member of the Texas Railroad Commission, which oversees oil and gas in the state (you thought it was going to be trains, didn’t you?), is pushing the Texas State Board of Education to “choose books that promote the importance of fossil fuels for energy promotion.” Board member Aaron Kinsey, a Republican and an oil executive himself, seems to like that idea, saying that the photos in textbooks right now are too negative towards oil and gas.
Democrats and educational groups, meanwhile, are trying to push the board in the other direction. The National Science Teaching Association sent a letter to the board urging them not to “allow misguided objections to evolution and climate change impede the adoption of science textbooks in Texas.” Republicans have a majority on the board, however, so the outcome of the vote is fairly easy to predict.
Texas is just the latest state to be embroiled in an argument over how to present climate change to schoolchildren. Back in August, the state of Florida approved the use of videos made by The Prager University Foundation (PragerU) — a conservative group backed by fracking billionaires that pushes out right-wing “educational content” and tried and failed to sue YouTube for restricting its videos — in state classrooms. Kids in that state can now be treated to a teacher playing videos that extol the benefits of coal and plastic, for example, or state that wind and solar power are simply not powerful enough for modern energy needs.
This is all part of a large conservative playbook to push back against “woke” ideas like critical race theory and climate change. In Virginia, Governor Glenn Youngkin created a hotline for parents who detected critical race theory in their kids’ classrooms. An Indiana bill prohibits teachers from discussing "anti-American ideologies,” but doesn’t define what those ideologies are. The so-called “don’t say gay” law in Florida bans classes about sexual orientation or gender identity through third grade. And across the country, conservative activists are wielding book bans to excise content they deem unacceptable.
In an FAQ on its website, PragerU makes clear that it “is not an accredited university, nor do we claim to be.” New Hampshire and Oklahoma have both also approved PragerU content for use in their schools, as a result of intense lobbying by the company. Next in its sights? Texas.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Fights over AI-related developments outnumber those over wind farms in the Heatmap Pro database.
Local data center conflicts in the U.S. now outnumber clashes over wind farms.
More than 270 data centers have faced opposition across the country compared to 258 onshore and offshore wind projects, according to a review of data collected by Heatmap Pro. Data center battles only recently overtook wind turbines, driven by the sudden spike in backlash to data center development over the past year. It’s indicative of how the intensity of the angst over big tech infrastructure is surging past current and historic malaise against wind.
Battles over solar projects have still occurred far more often than fights over data centers — nearly twice as many times, per the data. But in terms of megawatts, the sheer amount of data center demand that has been opposed nearly equals that of solar: more than 51 gigawatts.
Taken together, these numbers describe the tremendous power involved in the data center wars, which is now comparable to the entire national fight over renewable energy. One side of the brawl is demand, the other supply. If this trend continues at this pace, it’s possible the scale of tension over data centers could one day usurp what we’ve been tracking for both solar and wind combined.
The administration reinstated previously awarded grants worth up to $1.2 billion total.
The Department of Energy is allowing the Direct Air Capture hub program created by the Biden administration to move forward, according to a list the department submitted to Congress on Wednesday.
The program awarded up to $1.2 billion to two projects — Occidental Petroleum’s South Texas DAC Hub, and Climeworks and Heirloom’s joint Project Cypress in Louisiana — both of which appeared on a list of nearly 2,000 grants that have passed the agency’s previously announced review of Biden-era awards.
This fate was far from certain. The DAC Hubs program originally awarded 21 projects, most of them smaller in scale or earlier in development than the Louisiana and Texas hubs. The DOE terminated 10 of those awards last October. A few days after the news of the cancellations broke, the Louisiana and Texas hubs both appeared on a leaked list of additional projects slated for termination. The companies never received termination letters, however, and now the DOE has notified the developers that the projects will be allowed to proceed.
A spokesperson for Battelle, the lead project developer for Project Cypress, told me the company has been “advised that the DOE project team with oversight of Project Cypress will be contacting us soon to begin the process of moving the project forward.”
Wright has signaled that many of the projects that made it through the review process had to be modified, but it is unclear which ones or how the DAC hubs will be affected. Neither Battelle nor the other companies responded to questions about whether their plans have changed.
The award amount is also up in the air. Originally, each project was awarded about $50 million for early development, with the opportunity to receive up to $600 million each. The spreadsheet of retained projects lists each of the DAC hubs at $50 million, but that may just be the amount that has been obligated so far. The DOE’s budget request for 2027 suggests it could be planning to pay out the full amount: The agency wants to rescind $2.3 billion from the $3.5 billion DAC Hubs program, which, if approved, would still leave $1.2 billion, the amount earmarked for the Project Cypress and South Texas hubs.
In an email, Climeworks spokesperson Tristan Lebleu told me the company “looks forward to engaging with the Department of Energy and our partners on next steps to advance our project in Louisiana."
Vikram Aiyer, the head of policy for Heirloom, said the project has strong support from local leaders, including Louisiana's Congressional Delegation and Governor Jeff Landry. He said the startup looks forward to working with the DOE on “unlocking the appropriated and obligated monies to create high-quality jobs, strengthen domestic supply chains, and pair industrial growth with advanced carbon management and utilization.”
A spokesperson from Occidental declined to comment, advising me to contact the DOE. The DOE has not responded to a request for comment.
While the companies are painting this as positive news, they must now contend with a new challenge: raising private investment for these projects in a very different environment than when the projects were first proposed. Carbon removal purchases are down and investors are not as keen on the industry as they once were.
“This is a step in the right direction but what’s important now is that these projects get built,” Giana Amador, the executive director of the Carbon Removal Alliance, wrote on LinkedIn. “That means steel in the ground, agreements honored, and clarity so our companies can do what they do best: build.”
The nearly California-based company is buying a pipeline of projects from an unnamed Japanese developer.
The energy transition isn’t static, and the companies pivoting to match the shifting needs of the moment tend to point the way to where demand is going.
Take Energy Vault. Founded by a group of Swiss engineers in 2017, the company sought to meet the swelling need for long-duration energy storage that can last beyond the four hours or so you get from a grid-scale lithium-ion battery by devising a new gravity-based systems for keeping energy stored for the long term. The problem was, there was no obvious market.
After going public in 2021 via a reverse merger with a blank-check company, Energy Vault swerved. The startup widened its focus beyond a long-duration energy storage technology critics called “obviously flawed” to energy storage in general, beefing up its portfolio of projects with traditional lithium-ion batteries and green hydrogen facilities.
Now Energy Vault is attempting to follow the well-trodden path for a Western company with a compelling technological alternative to fossil fuels: Make it big in Japan.
On Thursday, the company plans to announce its formal entry into the Japanese market through a binding agreement to buy a pipeline of battery projects from a domestic developer, I can exclusively report for Heatmap.
The move comes as East Asia braces for the worst of the energy shock emanating from the Strait of Hormuz. Despite the two-week ceasefire deal President Donald Trump announced Tuesday with Iran to reopen the waterway to tanker traffic, the market has yet to fully digest the weeks of near-total closure, as the last ships to leave the Persian Gulf are still arriving in ports to unload fuel deliveries. Countries such as Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan are particularly vulnerable to price swings due to their heavy reliance on imports of oil and liquified natural gas. Japan became especially dependent on LNG as a primary source of fuel after halting power production at most of its nuclear reactors following the 2011 Fukushima disaster.
Energy Vault declined to disclose the name of the developer from which it’s buying the projects, only describing the counterparty as a “leading” Japanese storage provider.
The deal includes 350 megawatts of “advanced-stage” battery projects that are expected to start construction by the second half of next year and begin operations in the second half of 2028. It also includes another 500 megawatts of early-stage projects, providing what the company called “a robust, multi-year growth pipeline that positions Energy Vault for long-term leadership in the Japanese energy storage market,” which it described as “one of the fastest growing and structurally advantaged” in any developed country.
The Japanese energy market allows storage companies to engage in what’s called “revenue stacking,” pulling in income from wholesale arbitrage, capacity markets, and grid-balancing services. Energy Vault said it maintains a “technology-agnostic approach,” which should allow it to take advantage of that flexibility, and touted a recent strategic partnership with the sodium-ion battery developer Peak Energy as an example of next-generation hardware it hopes to commercialize.
“Entering the Japanese market is a key component of our high-growth markets expansion strategy and represents one of the most compelling energy storage growth opportunities globally,” Robert Piconi, the chairman and chief executive of Energy Vault, told me in a statement. “Despite being a highly developed economy, Japan’s energy storage market remains significantly underpenetrated and is now entering a period of accelerated growth driven by renewable expansion and structural grid constraints.”