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 Department of Energy is advancing 24 companies in its purchase prize contest. What these companies are getting is more important than $50,000.

The Department of Energy is advancing its first-of-a-kind program to stimulate demand for carbon removal by becoming a major buyer. On Tuesday, the agency awarded $50,000 to each of 24 semifinalist companies competing to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere on behalf of the U.S. government. It will eventually spend $30 million to buy carbon removal credits from up to 10 winners.
The nascent carbon removal industry is desperate for customers. At a conference held in New York City last week called Carbon Unbound, startup CEOs brainstormed how to convince more companies to buy carbon removal as part of their sustainability strategies. On the sidelines, attendees lamented to me that there were hardly even any potential buyers at the conference — what a missed opportunity.
Conference panelists asserted that the industry needed to rebuild trust. Purchasing carbon credits has become a risky strategy for companies. In one investigation after another, journalists and researchers have shown that many of the projects behind these credits fail to produce the climate benefits they advertise. There’s a class action lawsuit against Delta Air Lines for marketing itself as “carbon neutral” after purchasing such questionable carbon offsets.
Carbon removal credits are technically different from the offsets that companies bought in the past, which were based on projects that reduce emissions to the atmosphere rather than remove carbon that’s already heating the planet. But there’s still a risk of sham projects. And because the field is relatively new, there’s not yet a set of widely agreed-upon standards to measure and verify how much carbon is being removed.
The Department of Energy hopes that by selecting 24 companies that have been vetted by government scientists, it’s sending a signal to the private sector that there are at least some projects that are legitimate. “We can’t wait to invest in CDR until those standards have been codified,” Noah Deich, the agency’s deputy assistant secretary of carbon management, told me. “We need to invest now so that we actually get the data that we can use to inform the standards, and then over time codify those standards and strengthen and improve them.”
The semifinalists represent a wide range of carbon removal methods. Nine of the companies are building machines that capture carbon dioxide directly from the air. Seven take advantage of the natural ability of plants and algae to suck up carbon, and have developed systems to sequester that carbon for far longer than would otherwise occur. Five employ rocks that naturally absorb carbon and have figured out how to speed up the process. The last three capture carbon from the ocean, enabling the world’s biggest carbon sink to draw down more from the atmosphere.
To proceed to the final round, all of these companies will have to draw up contracts that say how quickly they will be able to remove the promised tons of carbon, and who they will work with to measure and verify the process.
The Biden administration is spending billions on research, development, and deployment of carbon removal. Some of the semifinalists, like Climeworks, Heirloom Carbon, and 1PointFive, were already selected for grants from the DOE to build the U.S.’s first “direct air capture hubs” — projects capable of removing one million tons of carbon from the air per year. But those hubs will fail if the companies don’t ultimately find buyers for their carbon removal. “Every single CDR project that we’re seeing today requires some sort of voluntary credit sale to be profitable,” said Deich.
The Department of Energy’s $30 million budget to buy carbon removal is relatively small. The semifinalists said they could deliver a wide range of credits with their share of the funds, from 3,000 over a three-year period, to more than 30,000. In any case, DOE is unlikely to afford much more than 100,000 tons of carbon taken out of the atmosphere, equivalent to about 0.002% of the CO2 the United States emitted in 2022. When distributed among 10 companies, it’s certainly not enough to finance a project. But Deich told me he sees this contest as a public-private partnership. The agency is challenging the semifinalists to leverage the DOE’s recognition to try and sell as many credits as they can. It’s one of the criteria they’ll be judged on for the final phase of the contest.
Several semifinalists I spoke with were optimistic the DOE’s backing would help. “One of the things that the private sector is wrestling with is the technical underwriting of various carbon dioxide removal technologies,” Barclay Rogers, the CEO of the carbon removal company Graphyte, told me. Graphyte’s process almost sounds too simple to work. The company takes discarded plant matter from forests and fields, dries it out so that it doesn’t decompose, compresses it into bricks, and then buries them. Graphyte has already built a small processing facility in Arkansas and secured a burial site that could store an estimated 1.5 million tons of CO2. Rogers was excited to have DOE’s backing as “a broad signal to the market of the viability of Graphyte’s carbon casting process.”
Others were grateful that the government was branching out to new technologies. To date, most of the DOE’s carbon removal programs have supported direct air capture. Companies working on other approaches have been shut out of funding opportunities, and some worry that this has contributed to a perception among buyers that direct air capture is the only valid method. “We think this is a huge step forward, since it’s really the first time not only that the U.S. government is going to become a purchaser of carbon removal, but also funding a full range of carbon removal solutions,” Nora Cohen Brown, head of market development and policy at Charm Industrial, told me. (Charm also buries plant waste underground, but in the form of oil.) “We really think that biomass CDR has immense potential,” she said. “It’s a big deal to have DOE’s blessing for that pathway.”
Edward Sanders, the chief operating officer of a startup called Equatic, told me that being a semifinalist meant the company would be able to build a plant in the U.S. much sooner than it initially planned. Equatic has developed technology to remove carbon from seawater, enabling the ocean to take up more carbon. It’s currently building its first large-scale plant in Singapore. “This tells prospective future buyers that there is a role to play in the near term in the U.S. for a marine-based pathway.”
Many of the companies on the list, including the three I just mentioned, have already been relatively successful in selling credits. Graphyte sold 10,000 to American Airlines. Equatic has a 62,000 deal with Boeing. Charm will remove more than 100,000 tons for Frontier Climate, a group of buyers that includes Stripe, Alphabet, Shopify, and Meta. But even though a handful of tech companies and airlines are buying carbon removal, these sweeping gestures are not enough to sustain the industry, let alone grow it to the scale that scientists say will be necessary to halt climate change.
DOE’s purchase may help increase confidence in some of these companies and approaches, but it may not do much to solve another problem: There’s little incentive for anyone to pay for carbon removal today, and it’s much more expensive than other options companies have to reduce their emissions. Credits can cost between several hundred to more than a thousand dollars each.
Deich said the agency was trying to set an example for other buyers. Instead of creating a net-zero target and searching for the cheapest credits to accomplish its goal, it’s prioritizing quality and only buying what it can afford. “We need to pay what it costs,” he said, “and then developers can develop projects and figure out how to do it cheaper so that over time, it starts to come down the cost curve significantly, and we can buy larger and larger quantities.”
But this is only the near term plan to help the industry mature. Ultimately, Deich doesn’t think that the voluntary trade of credits will be enough to support the levels of carbon removal that will make a difference in climate change. He sees this purchase prize program as a way to start building the government’s capacity to play a larger role. “There’s going to need to be some sort of mandate or public procurement that happens for the field to really scale beyond 2030,” he said.
Avnos, Inc. — direct air capture — 3,000 credits
Carbon America — direct Air Capture — 3,400 credits
CarbonCapture, Inc. — direct air capture — 3,333 credits
Climeworks — direct air capture — 3,500 credits
Global Thermostat and Fervo Energy — direct air capture — 3,500 credits
Heirloom — direct air capture — 3,030 credits
1PointFive — direct air capture — 3,861 credits
280 Earth — direct air capture — 3,000 credits
8 Rivers — direct air capture — 7,200 credits
Arbor Energy — biomass with carbon removal and storage — 8,000 credits
Carbon Lockdown — biomass with carbon removal and storage — 17,143 credits
Charm Industrial — biomass with carbon removal and storage — 5,000 credits
Clean Energy Systems — biomass with carbon removal and storage — 11,320 credits
Climate Robotics — biochar — 30,252 credits
Graphyte — biomass with carbon removal and storage — 30,000 credits
Vaulted Deep — biomass with carbon removal and storage — 10,320 credits
Alkali Earth — enhanced rock weathering and mineralization — 8,108 credits
CREW Carbon — enhanced rock weathering and mineralization — 7,500 credits
Eion — enhanced rock weathering and mineralization — 9,900 credits
Lithos Carbon — enhanced rock weathering and mineralization — 8,109 credits
Mati Carbon — enhanced rock weathering and mineralization — 4,561 credits
Ebb Carbon — marine-based carbon removal — 3,000 credits
Equatic — marine-based carbon removal — 6,521 credits
Vycarb Inc. — marine-based carbon removal — 3,000 credits
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
PJM is back open for business, but the new generation applying to interconnect is primarily natural gas.
America’s largest electricity market is looking at hooking up new power generation again, and a lot of it is natural gas.
PJM stopped evaluating new generation in 2022, when the backlog of projects awaiting interconnection studies stood at 2,664, of which 1,972 — representing 107 gigawatts, about two-thirds of the total — were renewables.
“They’ve been spending these past four years working through the backlog, studying everything that’s in there, and that process is up,” Jon Gordon, senior director at Advanced Energy United, told me.
The electricity market announced last August that applications for the first cycle of interconnection studies under a new, reformed process would be due this week. Some 811 projects with a combined capacity of 220 gigawatts made the Monday deadline, PJM said Wednesday. This time around, the mix looks a little different.
While solar, storage, and solar-and-storage projects make up more than half the queue by number (536 in total), by capacity, nearly half is natural gas, with 106 gigawatts out of around 220 gigawatts total.
For years, some of the strongest advocates of interconnection queue reform at PJM have been advocates for renewables. With the wait for interconnection stretching up to eight years, solar and wind projects in particular found themselves in trouble. Even as the cost of solar had been dropping dramatically, higher inflation and higher interest rates following the COVID pandemic and Russian invasion of Ukraine made developing renewables more expensive — and that was before Donald Trump regained the White House and declared war on clean energy.
Since 2020, PJM said in a March blog post, 103 gigawatts of interconnection agreements resulted in just 23 gigawatts of new generation being added to the grid. Three-quarters of projects that PJM studied withdrew from the process at some point before sending power to the grid.
PJM spent the past four years reviewing old projects and developing a process designed to get interconnection service agreements done in two years at most. The round of projects submitted up through this week will not be evaluated on the “first-come, first-served” model that had bedeviled the previous system. Instead, PJM has adopted a “first-ready, first-served approach,” which the organization says will mean “prioritizing projects that are more advanced and better positioned to move forward.”
The reformed queue couldn’t come soon enough. Over the past four years, PJM has become desperate for more power to serve exploding data center demand and help alleviate high prices.
Since 2020, electricity prices in PJM have risen almost 50%, from 12.6 cents per kilowatt-hour to 18.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, according to data from Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub. Typical electricity bills have risen from around $128 a month to about $161.
“Current projections show a potential capacity shortfall of 50 GW to 60 GW in the next decade, primarily driven by large load growth,” PJM said last month. For reference, a gigawatt is enough to power a city of around 800,000 homes. PJM’s existing installed capacity is around 180 gigawatts.
When I asked Gordon about the large presence of natural gas in the new queue, he pointed to data centers, which “have become a massive sea change to the whole landscape of energy.” That goes especially for the scale of planned facilities, such as a planned 1.4-gigawatt data center campus on a 700-acre footprint in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
“Now they're talking gigawatt-size data centers that would require, potentially, an enormous natural gas plant — maybe more than one,” Gordon said. Getting the requisite financing and permitting for renewable and storage resources to power such a large-scale project would be “enormously challenging,” he added. Meanwhile, “natural gas has risen to the fore here, and it’s getting a lot of tailwind from the Trump administration.”
(Something else eagle-eyed readers may have spotted in the numbers on new planned projects: their average size is much bigger than those in the queue as of 2022. The new batch comes in at an average size of nearly 272 megawatts each, compared to around 60 megawatts for the old one. That holds especially for solar, storage, and solar-plus-storage projects, which clock in at nearly 198 megawatts on average, compared to just 54 in 2022.)
Earlier this year, governors of states in the PJM region, led by Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro, and the White House agreed on a $15 billion special auction for procuring new generation in PJM. That came after PJM’s most recent capacity auction — in which generators bid to be compensated for their ability to stay on the grid in times of need — failed to meet even PJM’s preferred reliability margin.
Pressure continued to mount on the electricity market following the capacity auction, as federal regulators took it to task for its failure to get more generation online. Two weeks ago, PJM put some meat on the bones of the White House agreement by proposing a two-stage process, whereby power customers would directly contract for new generation with power supplies starting in September and PJM would facilitate an auction for whatever was still necessary to meet its capacity increase goals by March of next year.
The plan met a cool reception in Washington, where Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chair Laura Swett said she was “a bit perplexed” by the PJM proposal, adding it didn’t meet the timeline set out by the White House and the PJM governors to hold an auction this year
While PJM may be able to reform its own processes or come up with special procurements, there’s still the same old issues that have bedeviled energy buildouts everywhere.
Projects that have already been approved are facing “hurdles such as state permitting and supply chain backlogs,” PJM said Wednesday.
That being said, renewables and storage can still benefit from an improved interconnection process, Gordon told me. “Renewables would have always benefited, and still will benefit from improved interconnection,” Gordon told me. That’s largely because renewable projects tend to be smaller on a per-project basis than gas, let alone nuclear, and are more plentiful in number, and therefore stand to benefit disproportionately from faster reviews.
The real tragedy, Gordon said, is that more renewables couldn’t come online when the political and economic winds were blowing in their favor. Projects that were submitted to the queue before its closure in 2022 were “probably very economic back then,” he told me. “They died on the vine as they waited in the queue.”
Current conditions: The Gulf Coast states are bracing for a series of midweek thunderstorms • Temperatures are rocketing up near 100 degrees Fahrenheit in Lahore, Pakistan • San Juan, Puerto Rico, is facing days of severe thunderstorms.
Compass Datacenters is quitting a yearslong bid to build a key part of a 2,100-acre data center corridor in northern Virginia amid mounting pushback from neighbors, marking one of the highest profile examples yet of political opposition killing off a major server farm. The company, backed by the private equity giant Brookfield Asset Management, has gunned for Prince William County’s approval to turn more than 800 acres into a portion of the data center buildout. But after spending tens of millions of dollars on the effort, the firm decided that political resistance to providing tax breaks had created what Bloomberg described Wednesday as “too many roadblocks,” prompting a withdrawal.
The data center backlash, as Heatmap’s Jael Holzman wrote in the fall, is “swallowing American politics.” Polling from Heatmap Pro has shown that public resentment toward server farms they perceive as driving up electricity bills, sucking up too much water, or supporting software that threatens human jobs is rapidly growing. Data centers, as Jael wrote last week, are now more controversial than wind farms.
Nuclear startups taking part in the Department of Energy’s reactor pilot program are approaching the agency’s July 4 deadline to split their first atoms, and companies are making deals left and right for new projects. But just four firms have so far secured commercial offtakers, announced project-specific financing, and locked down contracts with suppliers and construction partners. That’s according to new data from a report by the policy advocate Third Way, shared exclusively with me for this newsletter. TerraPower’s nuclear project in Kemmerer, Wyoming, which broke ground this month, is in the lead, with the most advanced application before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Amazon-backed X-energy has two projects that have achieved all three preliminary milestones. Holtec International’s small modular reactor project in Michigan and GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s debut unit at the Tennessee Valley Authority — each of which recently received $400 million in federal funding, as I previously reported — are close behind.
Among the report’s other takeaways: Federal policy is “too often rewarding hype instead of commercialization readiness,” and the U.S. needs to winnow down the technologies on offer.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has officially entered what CBS News called “a financial danger zone” that threatens to limit spending to only the most urgent life-saving needs. The status, called Imminent Needs Funding, is triggered when FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund drops below $3 billion. The depletion is a symptom of the partial government shutdown of FEMA’s parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, whose funding has become hotly political over the hardline actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But the timing couldn’t be worse: Hurricane season is about a month away. “Disasters are unpredictable. They’re very costly. We don’t know what could happen between now and June 1,” FEMA Associate Administrator Victoria Barton told the network.
This was all predictable. Back in February, Heatmap’s Jeva Lange warned that the DHS shutdown would “starve local disaster response.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The U.S. is racing to get new nuclear projects off the ground. But it’s not yet clear where all the new reactor fuel is going to come from, especially once federal law fully bans all imports of Russian uranium in 2028. A new uranium mining project has started up operations this week in Wyoming’s Shirley Basin. The reactivated mine was previously considered the birthplace of in-situ recovery mining, a more eco-friendly method of extraction that involves injecting a solution into rock that dissolves minerals, then pumping that fluid to the surface for collection. The developer, Ur-Energy, said it’s returning to operations to power at least the next nine years of uranium demand in the U.S.
The milestone at the uranium mine comes as global mining deals reached a new high in the first three months of this year. Global law firm White & Case LLP recorded 121 mergers and acquisitions in the sector in the first quarter, up from 117 a year earlier and 102 in 2024, according to Mining.com. It’s the strongest first quarter since 2023. “The math is unforgiving,” the Breakthrough Institute’s Seaver Wang and Peter Cook wrote in an Ideas essay for Heatmap this week. “We need more minerals, and we need them soon.”

Another week, another new full-scale nuclear reactor has come online in China. On Wednesday, World Nuclear News reported that Unit 1 of the San’ao nuclear station in eastern Zhejiang province has entered commercial operation. The reactor is the first of six Hualong One reactors planned for the site. The Hualong One is China’s leading indigenous reactor design, borrowing heavily from the Chinese version of the Westinghouse AP1000, America’s leading reactor.
South Africa, meanwhile, is making a bid to lure engineers working abroad to come home to help the country build up its own nuclear sector once again. The plan, detailed by Semafor, “aims to attract skilled migrants and South African expatriates, especially those working in the United Arab Emirates,” which hired large numbers of local engineers during the buildout of the Gulf nation’s debut Barakah nuclear plant over the past decade.
Even before China made a big gamble in recent months on green hydrogen to ease the effects of the Iran War’s hydrocarbon shock, the country’s electrolyzer manufacturers were already starting to dominate the industry. Now the first Chinese electrolyzer manufactured in Europe is due to be assembled in the coming weeks. RCT GH Hydrogen, a joint venture between the Jiangsu-based electrolyzer maker Guofu and the German technology company RCT Group, is on track to roll out its first unit in June, Hydrogen Insight reported Wednesday.
Representatives Jared Huffman and Jamie Raskin announced an investigation into the $1 billion offshore wind deal with the Trump administration.
Two House Democrats are going after TotalEnergies after the company ignored an earlier request to defend its $1 billion settlement with the Trump administration to walk away from offshore wind.
Jared Huffman, the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee from California, and Jamie Raskin, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee from Maryland, sent a letter on Wednesday informing Total’s CEO Patrick Pouyanné that they have opened a formal investigation into the company.
“We’re going to get every document, every email, every last receipt on this deal, and every person who had a hand in this is going to answer for it,” Huffman said in a press release. “What I have to say to TotalEnergies is this: Consider yourself on notice, we’re coming for you.”
The move comes just a day after the Trump administration announced two additional identical settlements resulting in the cancellation of two more offshore wind leases.
The letter states that Total’s March 23 settlement with the Interior Department was unlawful in “at least four separate ways.” It demands that Total preserve all records related to the deal and requests that it put the $928 million it was granted by the settlement into escrow until the investigation concludes.
Huffman and Raskin first reached out to the Interior Department and Total on April 6 requesting documents and communications between the two parties related to the deal by April 20. Neither party obliged. Shortly before the deadline, however, the Interior Department published the settlement agreements it signed with Total. The settlements “confirm and surpass our worst fears of what has taken place,” the two representatives wrote on Wednesday.
The settlements state that the agency would have ordered Total to suspend operations on the leases due to national security issues. This “appears to have been a fabricated justification for canceling the leases,” the letter says, citing a discrepancy between when the settlements suggest that the company had reached an agreement with the Trump administration — November 18 — and when the earliest reports of anyone reviewing the national security concerns occurred — November 26.
“That timeline raises the troubling possibility that the national security assessment was not merely pretextual, but also that TotalEnergies may have negotiated the final settlement agreement with full knowledge that the rationale for canceling the leases was false,” Huffman and Raskin write. The fact that Pouyanné has stated publicly multiple times that the company came to the Interior Department with the idea for the settlement supports that conclusion, they add.
Putting the timeline of national security concerns aside, the settlement disregards the law governing offshore wind leases, Huffman and Raskin argue. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act says that when the government cancels a lease that does not yet have an operating project on it, the company is entitled to the “fair value” of the lease at the date of cancellation. The nearly $1 billion figure — which is the amount the company paid for the two leases in 2022 — is “almost certainly a significant overpayment even under the most favorable reading of the statute,” the lawmakers write.
The letter also questions the use of the Department of Justice’s Judgment Fund, a reserve of public money set aside to pay for agency settlements. On one hand, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum recently characterized the payment as a “refund” in testimony before Congress — a type of payment that the Judgment Fund is not authorized to make. On the other hand, even if it was technically a settlement, it doesn’t meet the Judgement Fund’s standard of “a genuine contested dispute over liability or amount,” Huffman and Raskin write. The Interior Department never issued a stop work order to Total. Neither of the company’s projects had even started construction yet.
If the settlement is allowed to go through, the lawmakers warn, any future U.S. administration could repeat the formula to enact their own agenda. “The only requirements would be a hypothetical threat, a side agreement, and a check drawn from a permanent, uncapped federal account that Congress never authorized for this purpose,” they write.
Lastly, Huffman and Raskin accuse the Trump administration and Total of sticking an unlawful clause in the settlements that declare the agreements “not judicially reviewable.” They assert that only Congress has the power to restrict judicial review. Their letter declares that the provision “accomplishes nothing legally,” and characterizes it as evidence that the parties knew the deal would not survive scrutiny.
In addition to preserving records and putting the funds in escrow, the letter to Total again demands a list of documents related to the deal, providing a new deadline of May 13. We’ll see if the company feels compelled to comply. Huffman and Raskin would need the support of the full House to find Total in contempt of Congress, and it’s not clear they would have the numbers.