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.
But this might all be moot thanks to the “major questions doctrine.”
Could President Trump’s expansive interpretation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act empower a future president to, gasp, tariff carbon intensive goods?
That’s the terrifying prospect Justice Neil Gorsuch, a staunch conservative who often votes in line with Trump and his administration’s positions, raised to Solicitor General D. John Sauer in Wednesday’s oral arguments in the federal court case seeking to throw out Trump’s tariffs.
In a series of questions designed to draw out what limits Sauer thought existed on executive power, Gorsuch asked, “Could the president impose a 50% tariff on gas-powered cars and auto parts to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad of climate change?” (This echoed the language of the statute the Solicitor General cited to justify the tariffs.)
“It’s very likely that could be done,” Sauer conceded.
“I think that would have to be the logic of your view,” Gorsuch replied.
“Obviously this administration would say that’s a hoax, this is not a real crisis,” Sauer said.
“I’m sure you would,” Gorsuch said to chuckles.
“But that would be a question for Congress, under our interpretation, not the courts,” Sauer said.
Gorsuch’s questioning touched on the “major questions doctrine,” first propounded in the court’s 2022 opinion in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. In that case, which resulted in the court striking down the Obama-era Clean Power Plan power plant regulations, the conservative majority argued that “given both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent, the agency must point to ‘clear congressional authorization’ for the authority it claims,” which it claimed the rules lacked.
In a note to clients following the emissions rules case, the white shoe law firm Davis Polk wrote that the majority opinion “does not provide guidance for applying the major questions doctrine in future cases,” but noted that a concurrence authored by Justice Gorsuch “attempted to provide such guidance for future cases.” In said concurrence, Gorsuch wrote that the major questions doctrine could be invoked when the executive branch is dealing with a question of “great political significance” or “a significant portion of the American economy.”
Hmm!
Some progressives flagged this aspect of the tariffs case as it worked its way through the courts, pointing out that it could call into question powers that future presidents may want to use to implement expansive industrial policy, including climate policy. Some of the broader legal arguments against the tariffs, Todd Tucker of the progressive Roosevelt Institute wrote in a brief, “tilt the scales overwhelmingly against progressive priorities.”
“Limits on Trump today will bind future presidents tomorrow. This could include centrists, progressives, MAGA types, or traditional conservatives, who will need or want robust executive tools to address ruinous competitiveness or climate emergencies.”
But in pursuit of their clients’ interests, advocates for striking down the tariffs were more than happy to pick up the thread dropped by Gorsuch to make libertarian-leaning arguments about presidential powers.
“It is simply implausible that in enacting” the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the law Trump has used to justify his retributive import taxes, “Congress handed the president the power to overhaul the entire tariff system and the American economy in the process, allowing him to set and reset tariffs or any and every product from any and every country at any and all times,” Neal Katyal, the lawyer arguing on behalf of a beer and wine distributor and a longtime figure in Democratic legal circles, said in his oral argument.
Perhaps seeking to appeal to the Republican majority on the court, Katyal returned to Justice Gorsuch’s climate change example, arguing that “if the government wins, another president could declare a ’climate emergency’ and impose huge tariffs without floors or ceilings, as Justice Gorsuch said.”
“My friend’s answer,” Katyal said, referring to Sauer, “is, ‘This administration would declare it a hoax.’ The next president may not quite say that.”
Many legal experts thought that the administration got the worse of the oral arguments and questioning of the attorneys, with conservative Justices Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts all asking skeptical questions of Sauer, while Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito repeatedly threw the White House argumentative lifelines, including, in Alito’s case, suggesting other laws that could justify the tariffs.
Alito even gently mocked Katyal, a Democrat who served as acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, for blatantly using conservative-tinged legal arguments about the scope of executive authority over the economy.
“I wonder if you ever thought that your legacy as a constitutional advocate would be the man who revived the non-delegation argument,” referring to the idea that certain powers are too much akin to lawmaking to delegate to the executive branch, which in theory could vastly restrict the authority of regulators.
But Katyal resisted the implied contradiction and persisted in targeting the right wing of an already conservative Supreme Court.
“Heck yes,” Katyal said. “I think Justice Gorsuch nailed it on the head when saying that when you’re dealing with a statute that is this open-ended — unlike anything we’ve ever seen.”
On Massachusetts’ offshore headwinds, Biden’s gas rules, and Australia’s free power
Current conditions: The Pacific Northwest is getting blasted with winds of up to 70 miles per hour • Heavy snow is coming this week for the higher elevations in New England and upstate New York • San Cristóbal de La Laguna in the Canary Islands saw temperatures surge to 95 degrees Fahrenheit.

Democratic candidates swept to victory in key races with implications for climate change on Tuesday night. In Virginia, Democrat Abigail Spanberger — who vowed to push forward with offshore wind, new nuclear reactors, and fusion energy — seized the governor’s mansion in the first major race to be called after polls closed. In New Jersey, Democrat Mikie Sherrill, who campaigned on building new nuclear plants and pressing the state’s grid operator, PJM Interconnection, to cut electricity prices, trounced her Republican opponent. In New York City, Democrat Zohran Mamdani, who said little about energy during his campaign but came out in the last debate in favor of nuclear power, easily beat back his two rivals for Gracie Mansion. Yet the Georgia Public Service Commission's incumbent Republican Tim Echols lost his race against Democrat Alicia Johnson, a defeat for a conservative who championed construction of the only two nuclear reactors built from scratch in modern U.S. history. In what one expert called a sign of a “seismic shift” on the commission, Peter Hubbard, another Democrat running to flip a seat on the commission, also won.
At a moment when the Trump administration is “disassembling climate policy across the federal government,” Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo wrote, “state elections are arguably more important to climate action than ever.”
A federal judge in Washington ruled Tuesday that the Trump administration can reconsider the Biden-era approval of SouthCoast Wind off the coast of Nantucket, Massachusetts. The decision, reported in The New York Times, is a setback for the joint venture between EDP Renewables and Engie, and handed the White House a victory in what we’ve called here the administration’s “total war on wind.” Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the project developers would not “suffer immediate and significant hardship” if the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management were allowed to reevaluate the project’s construction and operation permits.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld Biden-era Department of Energy efficiency rules for gas-fired residential furnaces and commercial water heaters in a ruling that rejected the gas industry’s challenge on Tuesday. “Overall, we find that DOE’s economic justification analysis and conclusions were robust,” the panel ruled, according to Bloomberg Law. The decision will maintain the status quo of how the agency enforces energy efficiency rules for the appliances. Under standards updated in 2021 and 2023, the Biden-era bureaucrats proposed raising efficiency levels to 95% for furnaces and using condensing model designs to heat water.
White House budget officials pressed the Environmental Protection Agency to expand its rollback of tailpipe regulations this summer as the agency sought to repeal the foundational policy that undergirds federal climate rules, E&E News reported. Documents the green newswire service obtained showed the White House Office of Management and Budget pushed the environmental regulator to weaken limits on vehicular pollution, including soot and smog-forming compounds in addition to planet-heating carbon. The EPA initially pushed back, but the documents revealed the staffers at OMB demanded the agency pursue a more aggressive rollback.
Australia launched a new plan to force energy companies to offer free electricity to households during the day to use excess solar power and push the grid away from coal and gas. The policy, called the “Solar Sharer” plan, aims to take advantage of the country’s vast rooftop solar panels. More than 4 million of Australia’s 10.9 million households have panels, and the capacity has overtaken the nation’s remaining coal-fired power stations. The proposal, the Financial Times reported, would also extend the benefits of distributed solar resources to the country’s renters and apartment dwellers.
For years, nuclear scientists have dreamed of harnessing atomic energy from thorium, potentially shrinking radioactive waste and reducing the risk of weapons proliferation compared to uranium. In the West, that has remained largely a dream. In China, however, researchers are vaulting ahead. This week, Chinese scientists announced a major breakthrough in converting thorium to uranium in a reactor. “This marks the first time international experimental data has been obtained after thorium was introduced into a molten salt reactor, making it the only operational molten salt reactor in the world to have successfully incorporated thorium fuel,” Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences said in a statement.
Rob and Jesse touch base with WeaveGrid CEO Apoorv Bhargava.
Data centers aren’t the only driver of rising power use. The inexorable shift to electric vehicles — which has been slowed, but not stopped, by Donald Trump’s policies — is also pushing up electricity use across the country. That puts a strain on the grid — but EVs could also be a strength.
On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob and Jesse talk to Apoorv Bhargava, the CEO and cofounder of WeaveGrid, a startup that helps people charge their vehicles in a way that’s better and cleaner for the grid. They chat about why EV charging remains way too complicated, why it should be more like paying a cellphone bill than filling up at a gas station, and how the AI boom has already changed the utility sector.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap, and Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Robinson Meyer: In your experience, are consumers willing to make this deal, where they get some money off on their power bill in order to change how their car works? Because it does seem to include a mindset change for people, where they’re going from thinking of their car as a machine — I mean, this is part of the broader transition to EVs. But there’s an even further mindset shift that seems to me like it would be required here, where you go from thinking about your car as a machine that you wholly own — that enables your freedom, that is ready to drive a certain amount of miles at any time — to a machine that enables you to have transportation services but also is one instantiation of the great big cloud of services and digital technologies and commodity energy products that surround us at any time.
Apoorv Bhargava: Yeah, I mean, look, I think we have seen faster adoption rates than any other consumer-side resource participating in energy has. So I feel very good about that. But ultimately, I think of this as a transition to the normal experience for folks who are going through what is a new experience altogether.
Again, similar to my cell phone plan, if this was just offered to me as a standard offering — you buy an EV, your utility offers you a plan, it’s called the EV plan — in the same way that we have EV time-of-use rates, quote-unquote. If you’re just offered an EV plan where it’s exactly the same thing — I’m going to make sure you’re fully charged every night in the way you want it to be charged, with the cleanest, cheapest, most reliable charging possible, and it’s just being taken care of.
I think what’s so hard for most folks to grok, is that the way this experience works is it’s supposed to be completely frictionless, right? You’re really supposed to not think about it. It’s actually only in the few moments where you need to change your 99% behavior to the 1% behavior — where you’re like, Oh, I need to go to the airport, or, Oh, I need to go on a road trip. That’s where you need to think about it. It’s flipped from thermostat management programs where you actually need to think about it actively in the moments where the grid is really strained.
Where we’ve overinvested, in my view —and this is a controversial view — we’ve overinvested in trying to make EVs be like gas stations or like the gas station model. We keep talking about it all the time. We’ve over-talked about range anxiety. The fact of the matter is 80% of charging still happens at home. Even in the long run, 30% of charging will happen in the workplace. 50- plus-percent will happen at home. It’s very little charging that’s gonna happen on fast charging. But we’ve talked so much, ad nauseam, about fast charging that we’ve actually forgotten that underpinning the iceberg of the electrification cost is the grid itself. And never before has the grid been so strained.
Mentioned:
Rob on how electricity got so expensive
Utility of the Future: An MIT Energy Initiative response to an industry in transition, December 2016
Previously on Shift Key: Utility Regulation Really Sucks
Jesse’s downshift; Rob’s upshift.
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Hydrostor is building the future of energy with Advanced Compressed Air Energy Storage. Delivering clean, reliable power with 500-megawatt facilities sited on 100 acres, Hydrostor’s energy storage projects are transforming the grid and creating thousands of American jobs. Learn more at hydrostor.ca.
Uplight is a clean energy technology company that helps energy providers unlock grid capacity by activating energy customers and their connected devices to generate, shift, and save energy. The Uplight Demand Stack — which integrates energy efficiency, electrification, rates, and flexibility programs — improves grid resilience, reduces costs, and accelerates decarbonization for energy providers and their customers. Learn more at uplight.com/heatmap.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.