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:
Fire prevention comes as part of the deal.
Deep in Inyo National Forest in the Eastern Sierra Nevada are a couple of bright white domed tents protecting an assemblage of technical equipment and machinery that, admittedly, looks a bit out of place amidst the natural splendor. Surrounding shipping containers boast a large “Charm Industrial” logo, an indication that, yes, the U.S. Forest Service is now working with the well-funded carbon removal startup in a two-for-one endeavor to reduce wildfire risk and permanently remove carbon from the atmosphere.
The federal agency and its official nonprofit partner, the National Forest Foundation, have partnered with San Francisco-based Charm on a pilot program to turn leftover trees and other debris from forest-thinning operations into bio-oil, a liquid made from organic matter, to be injected underground. The project is a part of a larger Cal Fire grant, to implement forest health measures as well as seek out innovative biomass utilization solutions. If the pilot scales up, Charm can generate carbon removal credits by permanently locking away the CO2 from biomass, while the Forest Service will finally find a use for the piles of leftover trees that are too small for the sawmill’s taste.
“It's actually pretty shocking how big the backlog of wildfire fuel reduction projects is in the United States,” Peter Reinhardt, co-founder and CEO at Charm, told me. “The pattern of putting out fires as much as possible, as quickly as possible, has created just an enormous amount of fuel in our forests that has to be treated one way or another.” Controlled burns and forest thinning are the primary ways of dealing with this fuel buildup, but as Reinhardt explained to me, California has few pellet mills, and thus few offtakers for leftover wood. What’s left often ends up being burned in a big pile.
That’s common at Inyo, which is considered a “biomass utilization desert,” according to Katlyn Lonergan, a program coordinator with the National Forest Foundation. NFF is paying Charm a nominal fee to take the waste biomass off their hands, though not nearly enough to constitute a primary source of revenue for the company.
At this point, funding isn’t a problem at Charm. Last year, the company announced a $100 million Series B round and received a $53 million commitment from Frontier, the Big Tech-led carbon removal initiative, to permanently remove 112,000 tons of CO2 between 2024 and 2030, the coalition’s first offtake agreement. At the time, Charm had delivered over 6,000 tons of removal, “more than any other permanent CDR supplier to date,” the group wrote. Since then, the company has received an additional $50,000 from the Department of Energy and is currently in the running for a DOE carbon removal purchase prize of up to $3 million.
Charm’s process begins with woody biomass and an industrial chipper, after which the biomass is screened and dried. The chips are then rapidly heated in a low oxygen environment, a process called fast pyrolysis, which vaporizes the cellulose in the biomass. The remaining plant matter is then condensed into a liquid and injected thousands of feet underground.
Until now, the company has gotten more attention for its efforts to use agricultural biomass like corn stalks. But Reinhardt told me that lately, 100% of the company’s feedstock comes from “fuel load reduction projects,” — unhealthy trees that have been cut down — though in the future, it plans to source from both agricultural and forest waste. The change in feedstock prioritization, Reinhardt said, is due to wildfires becoming “a more and more urgent issue,” plus the advantages that come from working with denser materials. “Almost all the cost of biomass is in the logistics, and the cost of logistics is driven by density,” he said. Transporting puffy bales of corn stalks, leaves, and husks to Charm’s pyrolyzer is just not as energy efficient as trucking a log.
And because there are already plenty of piles of logs and residue sitting around in forests like Inyo, if Charm can bring its pyrolizers directly to the forest, it can increase efficiency still further. Bringing Charm’s operations onsite could eventually help the Forest Service save money, too. “The Eastern Sierra, it's pretty isolated for this industry,” Lonergan told me. “And so we are actually hauling that [biomass] to Carson City, which is three and a half hours away.”
Fixing the agency’s transportation woes is a ways away though — Charm is starting small, processing just 60 tons of biomass over six weeks of operation in Inyo. The pilot is already more than halfway over.
Charm won’t be claiming carbon removal credits for this project, as Reinhardt told me it’s more a “demonstration of the production” to make sure the logistics work out. Scaling up will mean deploying larger pyrolyzers that can process significantly more biomass. “Our next iteration of pyrolyzers will be probably 10x the throughput,” Reinhardt told me. “So instead of 1 or one-and-a-half tons a day, about 10 to 15 tons a day.” Those numbers start to sound pretty darn small, though, when you consider the amount of forestry biomass and agricultural residue generated per year, which Reinhardt said is around 50 million tons and 300 million tons, respectively.
And while this particular project comprises 538 acres of forest, California alone has set a goal of thinning 1 million acres per year to reduce wildfire risk. Basically, Charm’s not going to run out of feedstock anytime soon, and the Forest Service isn’t going to find a quick fix for its piles and piles of unwanted wood. “I don't envision it being the one solution that fits all,” Lonergan said of Charm’s technology. But, she told me, “it can absolutely contribute to these biomass materials that we don't have an answer for yet.”
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 war of attrition is now turning in opponents’ favor.
A solar developer’s defeat in Massachusetts last week reveals just how much stronger project opponents are on the battlefield after the de facto repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act.
Last week, solar developer PureSky pulled five projects under development around the western Massachusetts town of Shutesbury. PureSky’s facilities had been in the works for years and would together represent what the developer has claimed would be one of the state’s largest solar projects thus far. In a statement, the company laid blame on “broader policy and regulatory headwinds,” including the state’s existing renewables incentives not keeping pace with rising costs and “federal policy updates,” which PureSky said were “making it harder to finance projects like those proposed near Shutesbury.”
But tucked in its press release was an admission from the company’s vice president of development Derek Moretz: this was also about the town, which had enacted a bylaw significantly restricting solar development that the company was until recently fighting vigorously in court.
“There are very few areas in the Commonwealth that are feasible to reach its clean energy goals,” Moretz stated. “We respect the Town’s conservation go als, but it is clear that systemic reforms are needed for Massachusetts to source its own energy.”
This stems from a story that probably sounds familiar: after proposing the projects, PureSky began reckoning with a burgeoning opposition campaign centered around nature conservation. Led by a fresh opposition group, Smart Solar Shutesbury, activists successfully pushed the town to drastically curtail development in 2023, pointing to the amount of forest acreage that would potentially be cleared in order to construct the projects. The town had previously not permitted facilities larger than 15 acres, but the fresh change went further, essentially banning battery storage and solar projects in most areas.
When this first happened, the state Attorney General’s office actually had PureSky’s back, challenging the legality of the bylaw that would block construction. And PureSky filed a lawsuit that was, until recently, ongoing with no signs of stopping. But last week, shortly after the Treasury Department unveiled its rules for implementing Trump’s new tax and spending law, which basically repealed the Inflation Reduction Act, PureSky settled with the town and dropped the lawsuit – and the projects went away along with the court fight.
What does this tell us? Well, things out in the country must be getting quite bleak for solar developers in areas with strident and locked-in opposition that could be costly to fight. Where before project developers might have been able to stomach the struggle, money talks – and the dollars are starting to tell executives to lay down their arms.
The picture gets worse on the macro level: On Monday, the Solar Energy Industries Association released a report declaring that federal policy changes brought about by phasing out federal tax incentives would put the U.S. at risk of losing upwards of 55 gigawatts of solar project development by 2030, representing a loss of more than 20 percent of the project pipeline.
But the trade group said most of that total – 44 gigawatts – was linked specifically to the Trump administration’s decision to halt federal permitting for renewable energy facilities, a decision that may impact generation out west but has little-to-know bearing on most large solar projects because those are almost always on private land.
Heatmap Pro can tell us how much is at stake here. To give you a sense of perspective, across the U.S., over 81 gigawatts worth of renewable energy projects are being contested right now, with non-Western states – the Northeast, South and Midwest – making up almost 60% of that potential capacity.
If historical trends hold, you’d expect a staggering 49% of those projects to be canceled. That would be on top of the totals SEIA suggests could be at risk from new Trump permitting policies.
I suspect the rate of cancellations in the face of project opposition will increase. And if this policy landscape is helping activists kill projects in blue states in desperate need of power, like Massachusetts, then the future may be more difficult to swallow than we can imagine at the moment.
And more on the week’s most important conflicts around renewables.
1. Wells County, Indiana – One of the nation’s most at-risk solar projects may now be prompting a full on moratorium.
2. Clark County, Ohio – Another Ohio county has significantly restricted renewable energy development, this time with big political implications.
3. Daviess County, Kentucky – NextEra’s having some problems getting past this county’s setbacks.
4. Columbia County, Georgia – Sometimes the wealthy will just say no to a solar farm.
5. Ottawa County, Michigan – A proposed battery storage facility in the Mitten State looks like it is about to test the state’s new permitting primacy law.
A conversation with Jeff Seidman, a professor at Vassar College.
This week’s conversation is with Jeff Seidman, a professor at Vassar College and an avid Heatmap News reader. Last week Seidman claimed a personal victory: he successfully led an effort to overturn a moratorium on battery storage development in the town of Poughkeepsie in Hudson Valley, New York. After reading a thread about the effort he posted to BlueSky, I reached out to chat about what my readers might learn from his endeavors – and how they could replicate them, should they want to.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So how did you decide to fight against a battery storage ban? What was your process here?
First of all, I’m not a professional in this area, but I’ve been learning about climate stuff for a long time. I date my education back to when Vox started and I read my first David Roberts column there. But I just happened to hear from someone I know that in the town of Poughkeepsie where I live that a developer made a proposal and local residents who live nearby were up in arms about it. And I heard the town was about to impose a moratorium – this was back in March 2024.
I actually personally know some of the town board members, and we have a Democratic majority who absolutely care about climate change but didn’t particularly know that battery power was important to the energy transition and decarbonizing the grid. So I organized five or six people to go to the town board meeting, wrote a letter, and in that initial board meeting we characterized the reason we were there as being about climate.
There were a lot more people on the other side. They were very angry. So we said do a short moratorium because every day we’re delaying this, peaker plants nearby are spewing SOx and NOx into the air. The status quo has a cost.
But then the other side, they were clearly triggered by the climate stuff and said renewables make the grid more expensive. We’d clearly pressed a button in the culture wars. And then we realized the mistake, because we lost that one.
When you were approaching getting this overturned, what considerations did you make?
After that initial meeting and seeing how those mentions of climate or even renewables had triggered a portion of the board, and the audience, I really course-corrected. I realized we had to make this all about local benefits. So that’s what I tried to do going forward.
Even for people who were climate concerned, it was really clear that what they perceived as a present risk in their neighborhood was way more salient than an abstract thing like contributing to the fight against climate change globally. So even for people potentially on your side, you have to make it about local benefits.
The other thing we did was we called a two-hour forum for the county supervisors and mayor’s association because we realized talking to them in a polarized environment was not a way to have a conversation. I spoke and so did Paul Rogers, a former New York Fire Department lieutenant who is now in fire safety consulting – he sounds like a firefighter and can speak with a credibility that I could never match in front of, for example, local fire chiefs. Winning them over was important. And we took more than an hour of questions.
Stage one was to convince them of why batteries were important. Stage two was to show that a large number of constituents were angry about the moratorium, but that Republicans were putting on a unified front against this – an issue to win votes. So there was a period where Democrats on the Poughkeepsie board were convinced but it was politically difficult for them.
But stage three became helping them do the right thing, even with the risk of there being a political cost.
What would you say to those in other parts of the country who want to do what you did?
If possible, get a zoning law in place before there is any developer with a specific proposal because all of the opposition to this project came from people directly next to the proposed project. Get in there before there’s a specific project site.
Even if you’re in a very blue city, don’t make it primarily about climate. Abstract climate loses to non-abstract perceived risk every time. Make it about local benefits.
To the extent you can, read and educate yourself about what good batteries provide to the grid. There’s a lot of local economic benefits there.
I am trying to put together some of the resources I used into a packet, a tool kit, so that people elsewhere can learn from it and draw from those resources.
Also, the more you know, the better. All those years of reading David Roberts and Heatmap gave me enough knowledge to actually answer questions here. It works especially when you have board members who may be sympathetic but need to be reassured.