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:
Plus answers to other pressing questions about the offshore wind project.

The blade that snapped off an offshore turbine at the Vineyard Wind project in Massachusetts on July 13 broke due to a manufacturing defect, according to GE Vernova, the turbine maker and installer.
During GE’s second quarter earnings call on Wednesday, CEO Scott Strazik and Vice President of Investor Relations Michael Lapides said there was no indication of a design flaw in the blade. Rather, the company has identified a “material deviation” at one of its factories in Gaspé, Canada.
“Because of that, we're going to use our existing data and re-inspect all of the blades that we have made for offshore wind,” Strazik told investors, adding that the factory has produced about 150 blades total.
Company executives shared more details about their findings at a public meeting in Nantucket on Wednesday night. Roger Martella, GE Vernova’s chief sustainability officer, said there were two issues at play. The first was the manufacturing issue — basically, the adhesives applied to the blade to hold it together did not do their job. The second was quality control. “The inspection that should have caught this did not,” he said. “So it’s a combination of the two factors.”
Two dozen turbines have been installed as part of the Vineyard Wind project so far, with 72 blades total. GE Vernova has not responded to requests for clarification about how many of them originated at the Gaspé facility.
The re-inspection process does not involve physically inspecting each blade, Martella explained. The company takes “incredibly detailed ultrasound pictures” of every blade it produces, he said, and will be reviewing the images as “a desktop exercise.” He likened the process to getting a second, more detailed opinion from a doctor on an MRI. When asked why the company did not catch the defect the first time these scans were inspected, Martella said answering that is part of the ongoing investigation. In the meantime, blade production at the factory is on pause.
GE also stressed that the incident at Vineyard Wind was unrelated to a blade failure at the Dogger Bank wind farm in the U.K. earlier this year, which was due to an installation error. Installation has resumed at Dogger Bank.
Tensions were high at Wednesday night’s meeting, where Nantucket residents again lined up to lambast Vineyard Wind. Select Board chair Brooke Mohr opened the meeting by saying that the incident has shown the inadequacy of the Good Neighbor Agreement, a settlement between the town and Vineyard Wind reached in 2020. Under the agreement, the company would contribute $4 million to a community fund and take steps to minimize visual impacts of the wind farm. In return, the town would “convey support” for the project to the community and to state and federal officials. Mohr said the town now intends to renegotiate these terms. “The Select Board is committed to holding vineyard wind and GE, the manufacturer of the turbine blades, accountable,” she said.
Town representatives are going to meet with Vineyard Wind next week to negotiate compensation for the costs it has incurred as a result of the accident.
Meanwhile, on the ground and in the water around Nantucket, crews from Vineyard Wind and GE continued to collect blade debris on Wednesday morning, for the ninth day straight. An initial environmental assessment of the blade debris published late Tuesday night began to answer key questions about the risks all that debris poses to people and marine life.
The report was commissioned by GE and conducted by Arcadis US, an engineering and environmental consultancy. It asserts that the primary risk to people is injury from the sharp edges of fiberglass fragments and that the debris “are considered inert, non-soluble, stable, and nontoxic.”
It also cautions, however, that further evaluation will be required to understand the risks posed by any blade materials that remain in the environment, such as assessing the potential for degradation. At the meeting in Nantucket on Wednesday night, one resident asked whether they should be worried about eating fish or shellfish that may have ingested pieces of the blade. Jim Nuss, one of the authors of the Arcadis report, said the firm had “not considered that yet,” and that it would be “one of the future looking activities.”
One particularly concerning question has been whether the debris could discharge dangerous per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS or “forever chemicals,” into the environment. Though there are no PFAS used in the blade construction itself, the firm did identify the chemicals in “aerodynamic add-ons,” small 6 inch by 8 inch pieces of plastic that are installed on the outside of the blade to improve its efficiency that are also commonly used on airplanes, it said.
According to the report, the total amount of PFAS on one blade equals 28.2 grams, or about 0.06 pounds. To put that in perspective, the chemical company Daikin once estimated it would release roughly 200 pounds of PFAS per day into the wastewater at one of its paper mills, according to federal filings obtained by the Environmental Defense Fund in 2018. It’s not yet clear how many of those plastic “add-ons” made it into the ocean.
A comprehensive list of all materials that make up the blades shows that more than half, by weight, is fiberglass. The other key ingredients include carbon fiber and PET foam, a common construction material. “There are 33 different materials involved in the production of a turbine blade, from the most basic common household adhesives to the more complex industrial materials used to build the blade,” the report says.
An introduction to the report notes that GE is creating an inventory of the debris collected to assess how much of the blade has been recovered. The company has also hired Resolve Marine, a marine salvage firm, to aid in dismantling the remainder of the blade that’s still attached to the turbine, though it didn’t offer a timeline for this work.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect the events of the July 24 Nantucket Select Board meeting.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
“It is difficult to imagine more arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking than that at issue here.”
A federal court shot down President Trump’s attempt to kill New York City’s congestion pricing program on Tuesday, allowing the city’s $9 toll on cars entering downtown Manhattan during peak hours to remain in effect.
Judge Lewis Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the Trump administration’s termination of the program was illegal, writing, “It is difficult to imagine more arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking than that at issue here.”
So concludes a fight that began almost exactly one year ago, just after Trump returned to the White House. On February 19, 2025, the newly minted Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy sent a letter to Kathy Hochul, the governor of New York, rescinding the federal government’s approval of the congestion pricing fee. President Trump had expressed concerns about the program, Duffy said, leading his department to review its agreement with the state and determine that the program did not adhere to the federal statute under which it was approved.
Duffy argued that the city was not allowed to cordon off part of the city and not provide any toll-free options for drivers to enter it. He also asserted that the program had to be designed solely to relieve congestion — and that New York’s explicit secondary goal of raising money to improve public transit was a violation.
Trump, meanwhile, likened himself to a monarch who had risen to power just in time to rescue New Yorkers from tyranny. That same day, the White House posted an image to social media of Trump standing in front of the New York City skyline donning a gold crown, with the caption, "CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING!"
New York had only just launched the tolling program a month earlier after nearly 20 years of deliberation — or, as reporter and Hell Gate cofounder Christopher Robbins put it in his account of those years for Heatmap, “procrastination.” The program was supposed to go into effect months earlier before, at the last minute, Hochul tried to delay the program indefinitely, claiming it was too much of a burden on New Yorkers’ wallets. She ultimately allowed congestion pricing to proceed with the fee reduced from $15 during peak hours to $9, and thereafter became one of its champions. The state immediately challenged Duffy’s termination order in court and defied the agency’s instruction to shut down the program, keeping the toll in place for the entirety of the court case.
In May, Judge Liman issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the DOT from terminating the agreement, noting that New York was likely to succeed in demonstrating that Duffy had exceeded his authority in rescinding it.
After the first full year the program was operating, the state reported 27 million fewer vehicles entering lower Manhattan and a 7% boost to transit ridership. Bus speeds were also up, traffic noise complaints were down, and the program raised $550 million in net revenue.
The final court order issued Tuesday rejected Duffy’s initial arguments for terminating the program, as well as additional justifications he supplied later in the case.
“We disagree with the court’s ruling,” a spokesperson for the Transportation Department told me, adding that congestion pricing imposes a “massive tax on every New Yorker” and has “made federally funded roads inaccessible to commuters without providing a toll-free alternative.” The Department is “reviewing all legal options — including an appeal — with the Justice Department,” they said.
Clean energy stocks were up after the court ruled that the president lacked legal authority to impose the trade barriers.
The Supreme Court struck down several of Donald Trump’s tariffs — the “fentanyl” tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China and the worldwide “reciprocal” tariffs ostensibly designed to cure the trade deficit — on Friday morning, ruling that they are illegal under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
The actual details of refunding tariffs will have to be addressed by lower courts. Meanwhile, the White House has previewed plans to quickly reimpose tariffs under other, better-established authorities.
The tariffs have weighed heavily on clean energy manufacturers, with several companies’ share prices falling dramatically in the wake of the initial announcements in April and tariff discussion dominating subsequent earnings calls. Now there’s been a sigh of relief, although many analysts expected the Court to be extremely skeptical of the Trump administration’s legal arguments for the tariffs.
The iShares Global Clean Energy ETF was up almost 1%, and shares in the solar manufacturer First Solar and the inverter company Enphase were up over 5% and 3%, respectively.
First Solar initially seemed like a winner of the trade barriers, however the company said during its first quarter earnings call last year that the high tariff rate and uncertainty about future policy negatively affected investments it had made in Asia for the U.S. market. Enphase, the inverter and battery company, reported that its gross margins included five percentage points of negative impact from reciprocal tariffs.
Trump unveiled the reciprocal tariffs on April 2, a.k.a. “liberation day,” and they have dominated decisionmaking and investor sentiment for clean energy companies. Despite extensive efforts to build an American supply chain, many U.S. clean energy companies — especially if they deal with batteries or solar — are still often dependent on imports, especially from Asia and specifically China.
In an April earnings call, Tesla’s chief financial officer said that the impact of tariffs on the company’s energy business would be “outsized.” The turbine manufacturer GE Vernova predicted hundreds of millions of dollars of new costs.
Companies scrambled and accelerated their efforts to source products and supplies from the United States, or at least anywhere other than China.
Even though the tariffs were quickly dialed back following a brutal market reaction, costs that were still being felt through the end of last year. Tesla said during its January earnings call that it expected margins to shrink in its energy business due to “policy uncertainty” and the “cost of tariffs.”
Alphabet and Amazon each plan to spend a small-country-GDP’s worth of money this year.
Big tech is spending big on data centers — which means it’s also spending big on power.
Alphabet, the parent company of Google, announced Wednesday that it expects to spend $175 billion to $185 billion on capital expenditures this year. That estimate is about double what it spent in 2025, far north of Wall Street’s expected $121 billion, and somewhere between the gross domestic products of Ecuador and Morocco.
This is a “a massive investment in absolute terms,” Jefferies analyst Brent Thill wrote in a note to clients Thursday. “Jarringly large,” Guggenheim analyst Michael Morris wrote. With this announcement, total expected capital expenditures by Alphabet, Microsoft and Meta for 2026 are at $459 billion, according to Jefferies calculations — roughly the GDP of South Africa. If Alphabet’s spending comes in at the top end of its projected range, that would be a third larger than the “total data center spend across the 6 largest players only 3 years ago,” according to Brian Nowak, an analyst at Morgan Stanley.
And that was before Thursday, when Amazon told investors that it expects to spend “about $200 billion” on capital expenditures this year.
For Alphabet, this growth in capital expenditure will fund data center development to serve AI demand, just as it did last year. In 2025, “the vast majority of our capex was invested in technical infrastructure, approximately 60% of that investment in servers, and 40% in data centers and networking equipment,” chief financial officer Anat Ashkenazi said on the company’s earnings call.
The ramp up in data center capacity planned by the tech giants necessarily means more power demand. Google previewed its immense power needs late last year when it acquired the renewable developer Intersect for almost $5 billion.
When asked by an analyst during the company’s Wednesday earnings call “what keeps you up at night,” Alphabet chief executive Sundar Pichai said, “I think specifically at this moment, maybe the top question is definitely around capacity — all constraints, be it power, land, supply chain constraints. How do you ramp up to meet this extraordinary demand for this moment?”
One answer is to contract with utilities to build. The utility and renewable developer NextEra said during the company’s earnings call last week that it plans to bring on 15 gigawatts worth of power to serve datacenters over the next decade, “but I'll be disappointed if we don't double our goal and deliver at least 30 gigawatts through this channel by 2035,” NextEra chief executive John Ketchum said. (A single gigawatt can power about 800,000 homes).
The largest and most well-established technology companies — the Microsofts, the Alphabets, the Metas, and the Amazons — have various sustainability and clean energy commitments, meaning that all sorts of clean power (as well as a fair amount of natural gas) are likely to get even more investment as data center investment ramps up.
Jefferies analyst Julien Dumoulin-Smith described the Alphabet capex figure as “a utility tailwind,” specifically calling out NextEra, renewable developer Clearway Energy (which struck a $2.4 billion deal with Google for 1.2 gigawatts worth of projects earlier this year), utility Entergy (which is Google’s partner for $4 billion worth of projects in Arkansas), Kansas-based utility Evergy (which is working on a data center project in Kansas City with Google), and Wisconsin-based utility Alliant (which is working on data center projects with Google in Iowa).
If getting power for its data centers keeps Pichai up at night, there’s no lack of utility executives willing to answer his calls.