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:
The challenges of long-duration energy storage have inspired some creative solutions.
Imagine a battery. Maybe you envision popping one into a fading flashlight or a dead remote controller. Perhaps you consider the little icon on the top of your phone or laptop screen, precariously dipping into the red while you search for a charger. Or you might picture the powerful battery pack inside your electric vehicle, helping to make gas stations obsolete.
These minor to major electrochemical marvels are fine, but the opportunity space for energy storage is so, so much larger — and weirder. Water moving between two reservoirs is a classic un-classic battery, but compressed air stored in a cavern, raising and lowering heavy blocks, even freezing water or heating up rocks can also all be batteries. And these methods of energy storage have the potential to be enormously helpful where standard lithium-ion batteries fall short — namely for long-duration energy storage and large-scale heating and cooling applications.
Lithium-ion batteries still dominate the market, Kevin Shang, a senior research analyst at energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, told me. But “over the next 10 years, we do see more and more long-duration energy storage coming into play.” Typical lithium-ion batteries can provide only about four hours of continual power, occasionally reaching up to eight — though that’s an economic constraint rather than a technical one. Generally speaking, it’s too pricey for lithium-ion to meet longer-duration needs in today’s market. So as states and countries get real about their clean energy targets and install more wind and solar generation, they need some way to ensure their grids’ reliability when the weather’s not cooperating or demand is peaking.
“There’s a need for something that can substitute for natural gas,” Logan Goldie-Scot, director of market research at the sustainable infrastructure investment firm Generate Capital told me. Almost no one believes lithium-ion batteries will be a viable alternative. “And so then it is an open question of whether that role will be filled by long-duration energy storage, by green hydrogen, or by clean firm power” like nuclear or geothermal, he said.
There are some novel battery chemistries and configurations out there, from Form Energy’s iron-air batteries to flow batteries that store their electrolytes in separate tanks to zinc-based batteries. But there are also numerous more creative, non-chemical, not-what-you-might-consider-a-battery batteries vying for a role in the long-duration storage market.
Founded back in 2010, Toronto-based Hydrostor has been pursuing “advanced compressed air energy storage” for a while now. Essentially, the system uses off-peak, surplus, or renewable grid energy to compress air and pump it into a water-filled cavern, displacing that water to the surface. Then when energy is needed, it releases the water back into the cavern, pushing the air upward to mix with stored heat, which turns a turbine and produces electricity.
“Everybody has talked about long-duration storage for probably the past five years or so. The markets have not been there to pay for it at all. And that’s starting to change,” Jon Norman, Hydrostor’s president, told me.
Part of Hydrostor’s pitch is that its tech is a “proven pathway,” as it involves simply integrating and repurposing preexisting systems and technologies to produce energy. It’s also cheaper than lithium-ion storage, with no performance degradation over a project’s lifetime. Major investors are buying it — the company raised $250 million from Goldman Sachs in 2022, to be paid out in tranches tied to project milestones. At the time, it was one of the largest investments ever made in long-duration energy storage.
The company has operated a small 1.75 megawatt facility in Canada since 2019, but now with Goldman’s help it’s scaling significantly, developing a 500 megawatt grid-scale project in California in partnership with a community choice aggregator, as well as a 200 megawatt microgrid project in a remote town in New South Wales, Australia.
“Our bread and butter application is serving the needs of grids and utilities that are managing capacity and keeping the lights on all the time,” Norman told me. The company’s projects under development are designed to deliver eight hours of energy. “That’s what the market’s calling for right now,” Norman said, though theoretically Hydrostor could handle multi-day storage.
Standard lithium-ion batteries have shown that they can be economical in the eight-hour range too, though. Back in 2020, a coalition of community choice aggregators in California requested bids for long-duration storage projects with at least eight hours of capacity. While Hydrostor and numerous other startups threw their hats in the ring, the coalition ultimately selected a standard lithium-ion battery project for development.
While this could be viewed as a hit to more nascent technologies, Hydrostor said the process ultimately led to the company’s 25-year, 200 megawatt offtake contract with Central Coast Community Energy, which will purchase power from the company’s 500 megawatt project in California’s Central Valley, set to come online in 2030. But that long lead time could be one of the main reasons why Hydrostor didn’t win the coalition’s bid in the first place.
“When you consider the very pertinent needs for energy storage systems today in California and yesterday, a technology that is not due to come online for another six years – I don’t think you’re even yet at the cost comparison conversation,” Goldie-Scot told me, in reference to Hydrostor’s timeline. “It’s just, how soon can some of these companies deliver a project?” Generate recently acquired esVolta, a prominent developer of lithium-ion battery storage projects.
But ultimately, Norman says he doesn’t really view Hydrostor as in competition with lithium-ion. “We would even add [traditional] batteries to our system if we wanted to provide really fast response times,” he told me. He says the use cases are just different, and that he has faith that compressed air storage will eventually prove to be the superior option for grid-scale, long-duration applications.
Another company taking inspiration from pumped storage hydropower is Energy Vault. Founded in 2017, the Swiss company is pursuing a “gravity-based” system that can store up to 24 hours of energy. While the design of its system has shifted over the years, the basic concept has remained the same: Using excess grid energy to lift heavy blocks (initially via cranes, now via specialized elevators), and then lowering those blocks to spin a turbine when there’s energy demand.
The company raised $110 million from Softbank Vision Fund in 2019, but failed to find an immediate market for its tech. “When we founded the company, we started thinking long-duration was going to be required much more quickly, and hence the focus on gravity,” Rob Piconi, Energy Vault’s CEO, told me.
But instead of waiting around for the long-duration market to boom, the company went public via SPAC in early 2022 and reinvented itself. Now it makes much of its revenue selling the sort of traditional lithium-ion energy storage systems that it once sought to replace, and has made moves into the green hydrogen space, too.
“The near term difficulty for many of these long-duration storage companies is that we’re still relatively early on in the scaling of lithium-ion,” Goldie-Scot, told me, noting that prices for Chinese-made batteries have plunged in the past year. Generate usually only invests in tech that’s well-proven and ready to scale up. So while lithium-ion alternatives will look more and more attractive as the world moves toward full decarbonization, in the interim, “there’s a gap between that longer term need and where the market is today.”
Piconi agrees. “If you look at storage deployments 95% to 98% of them are all this shorter duration type of storage right now, because that’s where the market is,” he said, though he added that he’s seeing demand pick up, especially in places like California that are investing heavily in storage.
All that’s to say the company hasn’t given up on its foundational concept — its first commercial-scale gravity energy storage system was recently connected to the grid in China, and the company has broken ground on a second facility in the country as well. These facilities provide four hours of energy storage duration, which lithium-ion batteries can also easily achieve — but the selling point, Piconi says, is that unlike lithium-ion, gravity storage systems don’t catch fire, rely on critical minerals, or degrade over time. And once the market demands it, Energy Vault can provide power for much longer.
Still, the upfront costs of Energy Vault’s system can be daunting for risk-averse utilities. So in an effort to lower prices, the company recently unveiled a series of new gravity storage prototypes that leverage either existing slopes or multi-purpose skyscrapers. They were designed in partnership with the architecture and engineering firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, the company behind the world’s tallest building.
The market may not have been ready five years ago, Piconi told me. But “in 12 to 24 months, we’re going to start to see gravity pop up,” he projected.
But wait, there’s more. Perhaps one of the best use cases for lithium-ion alternatives is in onsite, direct heating and cooling applications. That’s what the Israeli company Nostromo Energy is focused on, aiming to provide cleaner, cheaper air conditioning for large buildings like offices, school campuses, hotels, and data centers.
The company uses off-peak or surplus renewable energy to freeze water, storing it for later use in modular cells. Then, as temperatures rise and air conditioning turns on, that frozen water will cool down the building without the need for energy-intensive chillers, which commercial buildings normally rely upon. The system can be configured to discharge energy for two-and-a-half all the way up to 10 hours.
“Because air conditioning is roughly half of the electricity consumption of a building, we can provide that half from stored energy. And that’s overall a huge relief on the grid,” Nostromo’s CEO Yoram Ashery told me.
While a lot of (my) attention has been focused on how thermal batteries can help decarbonize heat-intensive industrial processes, and much has been written about the benefits of electric heat pumps over gas-powered heating, cooling is sometimes overlooked. That’s at least partially because air conditioning is already electrified.
But as more of our vehicles, appliances, and systems go electric, strain on the grid is poised to increase, especially during times of peak energy demand in the late afternoon and evening as people return home from the office before the sun goes down. Nostromo’s system can help shift that load by charging either midday (when solar is abundant) or at night (when wind is peaking), and discharging as demand for AC ramps throughout the afternoon.
Goldie-Scot said thermal storage technologies like this “offer something that some of the other technologies that are purely power-focused cannot. But they are still competing against relatively cheap natural gas.”
The upfront cost of the system, $2 to $3 million, is also nothing to sneeze at. But Ashery says it will fully pay for itself after just five years, as building owners stand to see significant savings on their electricity bills by shifting their demand to off-peak hours.
While one could theoretically power a building’s AC system using large lithium-ion-batteries, “it’s a problem to put big lithium batteries inside buildings,” Ashery told me. That’s due to the fire risk, which could impact insurance premiums for businesses, as well as space issues — these batteries would need to be container-sized to run an HVAC system. “That’s why only 1% of energy storage currently goes into commercial/industrial buildings,” Ashery wrote in a follow up email.
Shang told me that he sees so-called “behind the meter” applications like this as promising early markets for long-duration storage tech, especially given that utilities are “pretty cautious to adopt these technologies on a large scale.” But ultimately, he believes that policy is what’s really going to jumpstart this market.
“For long-duration storage, it may look years ahead, but actually the future is now,” he said. Because some of these new systems take longer to design and build, Shang told me, “you have to invest now. For the policies, you have to be ready now to support the development of these [long-duration energy storage] technologies.”
The Biden administration is certainly trying. All energy storage tech — thermal, compressed air, gravity, and lithium-ion — stands to benefit from generous IRA tax credits, which will cover 30% of a project’s cost, assuming it meets certain labor standards. Additional savings can accrue if a project meets domestic content requirements or is sited in a qualifying “energy community,” such as a low-income area that derives significant revenue from fossil fuel production.
The Department of Energy’s ultimate goal is to reduce the cost of grid-scale long-duration energy storage by 90% this decade (with “long” defined as 10-plus hours). And last year, the DOE announced $325 million in funding for 15 long-duration demonstration projects.
So while the market might not be quite ripe yet for funky, alternative approaches to long-duration storage, support like this is going to be necessary to ensure that these technologies are proven, cost-effective and available as the grid decarbonizes and the need crystallizes.
“There is not currently a system-wide way of valuing long-duration energy storage while competing against gas, but there are customers and utilities that have shown a willingness, especially with federal and state support, to invest in these technologies,” Goldie-Scot said. “That I think is giving us the first real inkling of the role that the long-duration can play in this market.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Shine Technologies is getting close to breakeven — on operations, at least — by selling neutrons and isotopes.
Amidst the frenzied investment in fusion and the race to get a commercial reactor on the grid by the 2030s, one under-the-radar fusion company has been making money for years. That’s Shine Technologies, which has been operating in some form or another since 2005, making neutrons for materials testing and nuclear isotopes for medical imaging, all while working toward an eventual energy-generating reactor of its own.
“I think we can moonshot ourselves to net energy,” Greg Piefer, founder and CEO of Shine, told me, referring to the point at which the energy produced from a fusion reaction exceeds the energy required to sustain it. “But I don’t think we can moonshot ourselves to break even costwise.”
Rather than trying to build a full-scale reactor that can produce net energy via a self-sustaining fusion reaction right off the bat, Shine uses a particle accelerator to drive a series of small-scale fusion reactions. When high-energy ions connect with fuels, such as tritium or deuterium, they undergo a fusion reaction that produces high-energy neutrons and specialized isotopes more often generated for use in industry via fission.
Piefer, who has a PhD in nuclear engineering from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, started up his company by making neutrons for materials testing in the aerospace and defense industries. Unlike other forms of radiation, such as X-rays, neutrons can penetrate dense materials such as metals, hydrogen-containing fuels, or ceramics, making it possible to spot hidden flaws. An otherwise invisible crack in a turbine blade, for example, could still block or scatter neutrons, while contamination from water or oil would absorb neutrons — making these faults clear in a radiographic image.
Scientists also use neutrons to test nuclear fission fuel by identifying contamination and verifying uranium enrichment levels. According to Piefer, Shine produces the neutrons used to test half of all fission fuel today. “Fusion actually already enables the production of 50% of the fission fuel in this country,” he told me.
My mind was blown. I didn’t understand how fusion — a famously expensive endeavor — could be an economically viable option for these applications.
Piefer understood. “I’ll sit here in one breath and I’ll tell you fusion is way too expensive to compete making electricity, and in another breath that it’s much cheaper than fission for making isotopes and doing testing,” he said. As Piefer went on to explain, if the goal isn’t net energy, you can strip the fusion reactor of a good deal of complexity — no superconducting magnets, complicated structures to produce tritium fuel, or control systems to keep the burning fusion plasma contained.
With a simplified system, Piefer told me, it’s much easier to produce a fusion reaction than a fission reaction. The latter, he explained, “operates on the razor’s edge of something called criticality” — a self-sustaining reaction that must be precisely balanced. If a fission reaction accelerates too quickly, power surges dangerously and you get a disaster like Chernobyl. If it slows, there’s simply no reaction at all. Plus, even after a fission reactor shuts down, it keeps producing heat, and thus must be actively cooled. But when it comes to fusion, there’s no danger of an out of control power surge, because, unlike fission, it’s not a chain reaction — if the input conditions change, fusion stops immediately. Furthermore, fusion produces no heat after the reaction stops.
Some of Shine’s customers include manufacturers of turbine blades and explosives such as the U.S. Army and GE Hitachi, as well as the biopharmaceutical companies Blue Earth Therapeutics and Telix Pharmaceuticals. Piefer told me that the company is now “on the verge of essentially breakeven” — no fusion pun intended — when it comes to its operating expenses. These days, it’s reinvesting much of its revenue to build out what Piefer says will be the largest isotope production facility in the world in Wisconsin. Isotopes are created when high energy neutrons strike stable elements, causing the nuclei to absorb the neutron and become radioactive. The isotope’s radioactive properties make them useful for targeting particular tissues, cells, or organs in medical imaging or focused therapies..
Shine’s in-progress facility will primarily produce molybdenum‑99, the most commonly used isotope for medical imaging. The company already operates one smaller isotope facility producing lutetium-177, which features in cutting-edge cancer therapies.
Compared to materials testing, producing medical isotopes has required Shine to increase the temperature and thus the efficiency of its fusion target. Subsequent applications will require greater efficiency still. The idea is that as Shine applies its tech to increasingly challenging and energy-intensive tasks, it will also move step by step toward a commercially viable, net-energy-generating fusion reactor. Piefer just doesn’t know what exactly those incremental improvements will look like.
The company hasn’t committed to any specific reactor design for its fusion energy device yet, and Piefer told me that at this stage, he doesn’t think it’s necessary to pick winners. “We don’t have to, and don’t want to,” he said. “We’ve got this flexible manufacturing platform that’s doing all the things you need to do to get really good at making fusion systems, regardless of technology.”
Fusion energy aside, the company doesn’t even know how it’s going to reach the heat and efficiency requirements needed to achieve its next target — recycling spent fission fuel. But Piefer told me that if Shine can get there, scientists do already understand the chemistry. First, Shine would separate out the long-lived, highly radioactive waste products from the spent fuel using much the same approach it uses for isolating medical isotopes, no fusion reaction needed. Then, Piefer told me, “fusion can turn those long-lived wastes into short-lived waste” by using high-energy fusion neutrons to alter the radioactive nuclei in ways that make them decay faster.
If the company pulls that off — a big if indeed — it would then move on to building an energy-generating reactor. Overall, Piefer guesses this final stage will wind up taking the fusion industry “more time and money than most people predict.” Perhaps, he said, investors will prove willing to bankroll buzzy fusion startups far longer than their ambitious timelines currently imply. But perhaps not. And in the meantime, he thinks many companies will end up turning to the very markets that Shine has been exploring for decades now.
“So we’re well positioned to work with them, well positioned to help create mutual success, or well positioned to use our position to move ourselves forward,” Piefer told me, hinting that the company would be interested in making acquisitions.
Indeed, some fusion companies are already following Shine’s lead, eyeing isotopes as an early — or primary — revenue generating opportunity. Microreactor company Avalanche Energy eventually wants to replace diesel generators, but in the meantime plans to produce radioisotopes for medical and energy applications. U.K.-based fusion company Astral Systems is also making desktop-sized reactors, but with the central aim of selling medical isotopes.
If too many companies break their promises or extend their timelines interminably, as Piefer thinks is likely, more and more will come around to the pragmatism of Shine’s approach, he said. “Near term applications are increasingly talked about,” Piefer told me. “They’re not the highlight of the show yet, but I’d say the voice is getting louder.”
So while he still doesn’t have any idea what the final form for Shine’s hypothetical fusion power plant will take, in his mind the company is leading the race. “I believe we’re actually on the fastest path to fusion commercialization for energy of anybody out there,” Piefer told me. “Because commercial is important to us, and it always has been.”
The state quietly refreshed its cap and trade program, revamped how it funds wildfire cleanup, and reorganized its grid governance — plus offered some relief on gas prices.
California is in the trenches. The state has pioneered ambitious climate policy in the United States for more than two decades, and each time the legislature takes up the issue, the question is not whether to expand and refine its strategy, but how to do so in a politically and economically sustainable way.
With cost of living on everyone’s minds — California has some of the highest energy costs in the country — affordability drove this year’s policy negotiations. After a bruising legislative session, however, California emerged in late September with six climate bills signed into law that attempt to balance decarbonization with cost-reduction measures — an outcome that caught many climate advocates off guard.
“It was definitely touch and go whether this was all going to come together,” Victoria Rome, the director of California government affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told me. “It was a lot of complicated policy to put forward in a relatively short time frame.”
The package reauthorizes California’s signature cap and trade program, rebranded as “cap and invest,” with a slight tweak that will help lower electricity bills. It clears a major hurdle to creating a more integrated Western electricity market that has the potential to deliver cleaner energy throughout the region at lower cost. It replenishes a rapidly diminishing wildfire fund that ensures utilities don’t go belly-up when they’re found liable for wildfires — and offsets the cost to customers by limiting how much of the cost of transmission upgrades utilities are allowed to pass on. And lastly — and most controversially — in an attempt to stabilize gasoline prices, it streamlines approval of new oil wells in Kern County, California.
Not everyone was happy with the compromise. The Center for Biological Diversity condemned the oil and gas bill, while environmental justice advocates were angry that lawmakers did not do more to protect low-income communities in the reform of cap and trade. It also remains to be seen how much the cost containment measures will help. Some of them, like the new Western electricity market, likely won’t pay off for many years. The cap and trade extension could ultimately exacerbate costs.
A few other groundbreaking climate-related bills are still sitting on Newsom’s desk, such as one that would set a safe maximum indoor temperature, requiring landlords to provide cooling to tenants, and another that would override local zoning rules to allow taller, denser housing to be built near public transit. He has until next Monday to sign them. But even without those, the package illustrates how California Democrats are at least trying to leverage the new politics of affordability to advance their climate goals, and the ways in which the two are difficult to align.
Here’s a breakdown of the major changes.
California’s cap and trade program is the state’s centerpiece climate policy. It puts a price on pollution by requiring dirty industries to buy and retire state-auctioned “allowances” for every ton of carbon they emit, with a declining amount of allowances released into the market each year. Funds raised through allowance sales are funneled into utility bill credits for consumers as well as climate-friendly projects throughout the state.
Prior to last month’s legislation, the program was only authorized to continue through 2030, and the closer that date got, the greater the uncertainty became about whether it would continue. According to one analysis, that uncertainty cost the state $3.6 billion in revenues over the year ending in May 2025 as companies relied on allowances they’d stocked up on in previous years, when they were cheaper and more plentiful. If the program was going to expire in 2030, there was less incentive to collect more — or to invest in emission-reducing solutions like replacing their boilers with industrial heat pumps.
The legislature extended cap and trade through 2045, rebranding as “cap and invest” — a more politically resonant title originating in Washington State that highlights the revenue-raising aspect of the program. It also introduced several key reforms. By 2031, earnings from the program reserved for utility credits will go exclusively toward electric bill savings, i.e. it will no longer subsidize residential gas. “The general idea was that almost every gas customer is an electric customer,” Danny Cullenward, a California-based climate economist and lawyer, told me. “And so if you shift the same total dollars from gas and electric to just electric, you concentrate the benefits on the electric side, which supports building decarbonization, but you don’t take any dollars away from the customer.”
California has the highest electric rates in the continental U.S., and so right now, switching from using natural gas to all-electric appliances is not in everyone’s best interest. Providing more relief on the electric side will help with that — especially as the price of allowances increases in the coming years, translating into more revenue to fund bill credits. The legislation also directs electric utilities to apply the credits over the summer, when bills are highest, rather than on the twice-a-year schedule they used previously.
The other major reform has to do with the way carbon offsets are integrated into the program. Previously, companies could purchase offsets instead of allowances to account for a certain amount of their emissions, giving them a cheaper way to comply. Now, every time a company retires an offset instead of an allowance, the state will also retire an allowance. This is an implicit recognition by lawmakers that carbon offsets haven’t been effective at reducing emissions, Cullenward told me.
While he called the extension of cap and invest a “profound and important accomplishment,” Cullenward also raised major concerns about its future impacts on affordability. The program literally puts a price on carbon, after all, and that price is now set to rise, pervading much of California’s economy, from the pump to the cost of goods and services. “Outside of my hope that this will be a net benefit for electric utility ratepayers, which I think is a very good and positive thing, this is not an affordability bill,” he told me.
Lawmakers have done nothing to mitigate the program’s effect on gasoline and diesel costs, he pointed out. They also haven’t addressed the elephant in the room — a $95 price ceiling on allowances that, if they ever get there, may be politically untenable. (Right now prices are around $30.) State regulators now have a chance to revise the price ceiling, Cullenward said, ideally with an eye toward balancing ambition with consumer cost impacts. “That’s the main part of the work that is completely not yet done,” he said.
Energy nerds throughout the West have been scheming to unite its disparate grids for years. Unlike the entire eastern half of the country, where utilities buy and sell energy across state lines in competitive markets on both a daily and realtime basis, and work together to plan transmission upgrades throughout their territories, most Western states do all of their energy trading through longer-term bilateral contracts.
After years of failed efforts to change that, lawmakers have finally given California’s grid operator their blessing to work with other states in the region on creating such a market. Proponents argue that more competition and coordination between utilities in the West will create efficiencies that save money, improve reliability, and accelerate decarbonization. For example, California, which often produces more solar energy than it can use during the day, would be able to sell more of that power to other states. When there’s a heat wave coming, it’ll have more supply to draw from.
To be clear, California was already working on all this prior to last month’s legislation. The state’s grid operator launched a realtime electricity trading market in 2014, which now has 21 utility participants throughout the West. Next year it will launch an extended day-ahead market, enabling utilities to buy power about a week in advance of when they’ll need it. That will initially have just two participants, PacifiCorp and Portland General Electric, with five others planning to join in later years.
But seven companies does not a competitive market make. To grow to its fullest potential, the day-ahead market will need many more participants. That was always going to be a tough sell so long as California was in charge, Vijay Satyal, the deputy director of regional markets at the nonprofit Western Resource Advocates, told me. CAISO, California’s grid operator, is overseen by a governor-appointed board, “which is one reason why the larger West never wanted to be part of CAISO, if the governance and decision making would be controlled by the governor of one state,” he said.
An effort is already underway between state officials, utilities, and other stakeholders, including those from California, to create an independently-governed Western Energy Market called the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative. The new legislation grants CAISO permission to transition governance of its realtime and day-ahead markets to the organization that comes out of that effort — as long as the group meets certain requirements around transparency and engagement with state leadership.
“Now there’s opportunity for all the utilities across the West to come together and for clean energy developers to be part of a larger market and be transparent, independent, and not controlled by one state’s policies,” Satyal told me. The other advantage of having this regional organization is that it can engage in more coordinated transmission planning — another potential cost-saving measure.
Wildfires have been a huge part of California’s electricity affordability crisis. Case in point: Since 2019, Californians have had to pay an extra fee on top of their electric bills that goes into a state Wildfire Fund to help utilities cover post-wildfire loss and damage claims — a sort of insurance mechanism to prevent utility insolvency.
This year, lawmakers were under pressure to add more money to the pot. Experts worried that without another infusion, payments related to January’s Eaton Fire in Los Angeles, which the U.S. Department of Justice alleges was caused by faulty utility equipment, would deplete much of what’s left.
The legislature extended the fee, adding $18 billion to the Wildfire Fund that will be split evenly between ratepayers and utility shareholders over the next decade. But it also passed several measures that will help offset that cost by minimizing future rate increases. First, utilities will be prohibited from earning a profit on the first $6 billion they spend on wildfire mitigation projects, such as burying power lines, starting next year. Companies will be required to finance this spending more cheaply through ratepayer-backed bonds rather than through equity, which commands a higher rate of return.
On top of that, the legislature directed the governor’s office to create a “Transmission Infrastructure Accelerator,” a program that will develop public financing options for new transmission lines, such as low-cost loans, revenue bonds, or even partial public ownership of the projects. The program will have a dedicated “Revolving Fund” that will be replenished each year with a portion of cap and invest revenue.
“It is the largest electricity affordability measure in the whole package,” Sam Uden, the co-founder and managing director for the nonprofit policy shop Net Zero California, told me — to the tune of $3 billion in savings per year once the new lines are constructed, according to an analysis his group commissioned.
Gavin Newsom has not necessarily been a friend to the oil industry. He’s instituted distance requirements for new oil wells barring drilling near homes and schools, and given local jurisdictions more authority over drilling. But gasoline prices — ever a political issue in California — have tested his resolve. The price at the pump in California has averaged around a dollar higher than the rest of the U.S. for the past several years, and that margin has crept up closer to $1.30 this year. After two of the state’s refineries announced they would close this year and next, threatening to drive prices higher, Newsom backed a bill this session to increase oil production in Kern County.
Uden of Net Zero California justified the bill as a “short term measure.” The provisions that streamline drilling permits only apply through 2036. “We are really trying to grapple with what is a very difficult transition,” he told me. “We’ve got to phase down oil, but we can’t do it in a way that just spikes gas prices.”
It’s unclear, however, whether more drilling in Kern County will do much to address the problem — especially if the cap and invest program continues to drive up prices, as Cullenward fears. At least to date, the state’s high gasoline prices have not been caused by a lack of gasoline supply, according to University of California, Berkeley, economist Severin Borenstein. The bigger factors driving price increases are taxes and environmental fees and the special blend of gasoline required by the state’s air quality regulators.
What will drive prices up are refinery closures. Lawmakers are making a bet that increased in-state oil production will prevent further closures by giving refineries access to cheaper crude. But Borenstein notes that the state will continue to rely on crude imports, meaning the price of gasoline will still be tied to the global market. His preferred solution to keep prices in check is to remove barriers to importing more refined gasoline.
“The longer run challenge is to balance refining supply and demand, which oil production doesn’t address,” Borenstein wrote.
Michael Wara, a senior research scholar at Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment, agreed on the urgency of opening a new import terminal. He told me he saw the Kern County bill as a way to buy time. “We’ve done the kind of stopgap measure. The increased permits will help stabilize Northern California refineries for probably a couple years,” he said. “But if we don’t use that couple of years in the right way, then we will be in big trouble.”
Wara also wasn’t too worried about the measure creating some kind of oil Renaissance. “Permits are one thing. The decision to actually drill a well is an economic decision that’s going to be driven by oil prices, which are pretty low right now. I don’t think anybody thinks that handing out more permits is going to stem the decline in that industry.”
On stronger uranium, Elon Musk’s big gamble, and Japan’s offshore headwinds
Current conditions: A warm front coming from the Southwest is raising temperatures up to 30 degrees Fahrenheit above average across the Upper Midwest • A heat wave nearly 200 miles north of Montreal in La Tuque, Quebec, is sending temperatures to nearly 80 degrees today • Typhoon Matmo has made landfall in southern China, forcing thousands to evacuate amid peak holiday season.
The United States’ beleaguered offshore-wind industry has found a new ally in its effort to fend off President Donald Trump’s assault: Big Oil. On Sunday, the Financial Times published an interview with Shell’s top executive in the U.S., in which she called the administration’s decision to halt permitting on seaborne turbines “very damaging” to investment and warned that a future Democratic president could use the precedent Trump set to attack the oil and gas industry. “However far the pendulum swings one way, it’s likely that it’s going to swing just as far the other way,” Colette Hirstius, president of Shell USA, told the newspaper when asked about the Trump administration’s stop-work orders on offshore wind farms. “I certainly would like to see those projects that have been permitted in the past continue to be developed. Similarly, if you think of the business I run offshore [Gulf of Mexico], that type of permitting uncertainty has been utilized to undermine the permits that we have in the past — and that’s equally as damaging.”
As I reported last month in this newsletter, a federal judge blocked Trump’s stop-work order on the 80% complete wind farm off Rhode Island’s coast. But the administration’s multi-agency onslaught against the offshore wind industry, which Heatmap’s Jael Holzman called a “total war,” is already taking a toll. Danish wind giant Orsted, for example, was forced to raise money via an unusual offering of new shares — which it then sold at a nearly 70% discount.
The Trump administration said Friday it would delay $2.1 billion in funding for transit projects in Chicago amid negotiations with Democrats in Congress to approve a federal budget. The move comes after Russ Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, announced cuts to major New York City infrastructure projects, in what Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin interpreted as Trump’s “seeking retribution from New Yorkers” for the ongoing government shutdown, since Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries both hail from the city.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, meanwhile, is withholding more than $300 million in emergency preparedness grants from states until they can prove that the population estimates used to calculate the funding awards do not include people who have been deported as part of the administration’s immigration crackdown. A group representing state emergency management agencies called the move “a never-before-seen provision” that amounts to “further delaying resources intended to strengthen disaster preparedness and emergency response,” The New York Times reported Friday.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave fuel giant Urenco’s U.S. subsidiary the green light last week to produce reactor pellets enriched with up to double the normal concentration of uranium-235. This past spring, the utility giant Southern Company made history by loading one of the older reactors at the nation’s most powerful nuclear station in Georgia with what’s known as LEU+, a version of low-enriched uranium that goes beyond the roughly 5% enrichment limit regulators typically set for the fuel. Uranium enriched up to 10% with U-235, the fissile isotope that can produce energy through atom-splitting, leaves behind less waste and can keep a reactor going for longer. In a press release, Urenco said the federal permit to produce LEU+ at its Eunice plant in New Mexico “will create new opportunities for the current U.S. reactor fleet by allowing for longer operating cycles and fewer refueling outages.”
Elon Musk will need to spend at least $18 billion to buy roughly 300,000 more Nvidia microchips to complete his sprawling Memphis data center complex, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. The project, called Colossus, has a colossal appetite for electricity. In July, Musk bought a former gas plant in Mississippi. In August, green groups accused xAI of violating federal air pollution rules with its use of gas-fired turbines to power its servers. The federally owned Tennessee Valley Authority’s aggressive push to build more nuclear reactors is often discussed as a means of supplying Musk’s demand with cleaner power, but those projects are still years away from producing electrons.
Over the course of one year, Musk’s xAI has surged to become the second-largest taxpayer in the Tennessee county, after FedEx, as the company burns through cash at what the newspaper called “a breakneck clip.” Earlier this year, xAI raised $10 billion through a combination of debt and equity, and its billionaire founder has turned to his privately held SpaceX to chip in $2 billion. “In typical xAI and Elon fashion, the company’s future is highly unpredictable,” Dylan Patel, chief executive of the semiconductor and artificial intelligence research firm SemiAnalysis, told the Journal. “Elon will do everything he can to not lose to Sam Altman.” He’s struggling. On Monday morning, Altman’s OpenAI inked a deal to buy chips from AMD, just weeks after signing a $100 billion agreement with Nvidia, The New York Times reported.
Japan last week “delayed indefinitely” an auction to set government funding levels for offshore wind projects in what Bloomberg called “the latest blow to the country’s push to expand renewable energy supplies.” The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry put the auction, which had been scheduled to start on October 14 and run for two weeks, on hold to give officials time to reassess the effects of higher interest rates and rising material costs. In August, Japanese industrial giant Mitsubishi Corp. announced its withdrawal from several projects won via a previous auction, citing escalating construction costs.
Scientists have long wondered when and how otophysans, the supergroup of fish that accounts for two-thirds of all freshwater fish and includes catfish, carps, and tetras, evolved to live outside saltwater oceans. A fossil of a tiny fish found in southwestern Alberta has provided some answers. The four-centimeter specimen from the Late Cretaceous period — between 100.5 million and 66 million years ago, when the iconic Tyrannosaurus Rex lived — showed the distinct first four vertebrae that otophysans evolved to transmit vibrations to the ear from the swim bladder. The discovery of the species, named Acronichthys maccognoi, “fills a gap in our record of the otophysans supergroup,” Neil Banerjee, a Western University scientist and co-author of the study, said in a press release. “It is the oldest North America member of the group and provides incredible data to help document the origin and early evolution of so many freshwater fish living today.”