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.
Members of the nation’s largest grid couldn’t agree on a recommendation for how to deal with the surge of incoming demand.
The members of PJM Interconnection, the country’s largest electricity market, held an advisory vote Wednesday to help decide how the grid operator should handle the tidal wave of incoming demand from data centers. Twelve proposals were put forward by data center companies, transmission companies, power companies, utilities, state legislators, advocates, PJM’s market monitor, and PJM itself.
None of them passed.
“There was no winner here,” PJM chief executive Manu Asthana told the meeting following the announcement of the vote tallies. There was, however, “a lot of information in these votes,” he added. “We’re going to study them closely.”
The PJM board was always going to make the final decision on what it would submit to federal regulators, and will try to get something to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by the end of the year, Asthana said — just before he plans to step down as CEO.
“PJM opened this conversation about the integration of large loads and greatly appreciates our stakeholders for their contributions to this effort. The stakeholder process produced many thoughtful proposals, some of which were introduced late in the process and require additional development,” a PJM spokesperson said in a statement. “This vote is advisory to PJM’s independent Board. The Board can and does expect to act on large load additions to the system and will make its decision known in the next few weeks.”
The surge in data center development — actual and planned — has thrown the 13-state PJM Interconnection into a crisis, with utility bills rising across the network due to the billions of dollars in payments required to cover the additional costs.
Those rising bills have led to cries of frustration from across the PJM member states — and from inside the house.
“The current supply of capacity in PJM is not adequate to meet the demand from large data center loads and will not be adequate in the foreseeable future,” PJM’s independent market monitor wrote in a memo earlier this month. “Customers are already bearing billions of dollars in higher costs as a direct result of existing and forecast data center load,” it said in a quarterly report released just a few days letter, pegging the added charges to ensure that generators will be available in times of grid stress due to data center development at over $16 billion.
PJM’s initial proposal to deal with the data center swell would have created a category for new large sources of demand on the system to interconnect without the backing of capacity; in return, they’d agree to have their power supply curtailed when demand got too high. The proposal provoked outrage from just about everyone involved in PJM, including data center developers and analysts who were open to flexibility in general, who said that the grid operator was overstepping its responsibilities.
PJM’s subsequent proposal would allow for voluntary participation in a curtailment program, but was lambasted by environmental groups like Evergreen Collaborative for not having “any semblance of ambition.” PJM’s own market monitor said that voluntary schemes to curtail power “are not equivalent to new generation,” and that instead data centers should “be required to bring their own new generation” — essentially to match their own demand with new supply.
A coalition of environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defence Council and state legislators in PJM, said in their proposal that data centers should be required to bring their own capacity — crucially counting demand response (being paid to curtail power) as a source of capacity.
“The growth of data centers is colliding with the reality of the power grid,” Tom Rutigliano, who works on grid issues for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. “PJM members weren’t able to see past their commercial interests and solve a critical reliability threat. Now the board will need to stand up and make some hard decisions.”
Those decisions will come without any consensus from members about what to do next.
“Just because none of these passed doesn’t mean that the board will not act,” David Mills, the chairman of PJM’s board of managers, said at the conclusion of the meeting. “We will make our best efforts to put something together that will address the issues.”
California energy companies are asking for permission to take in more revenue. Consumer advocates are having none of it.
There’s a seemingly obvious solution to expensive electricity bills: Cut utility profits.
Investor-owned utilities have to deliver profits to their shareholders to be able to raise capital for grid projects. That profit comes in the form of a markup you and I pay on our electricity bills. State regulators decide how much that mark-up is. What if they made it lower?
A growing body of evidence suggests they should at least consider it. In principle, the rate of return on equity, or ROE, that regulators allow utilities to charge should reflect the risk that equity investors are taking by putting their money in those utilities, but that relationship seems to have gotten out of whack. Among the first to draw attention to the issue was a 2019 paper by Carnegie Mellon researchers which found that since the 1990s, the average “risk premium” exhibited by utility ROEs as compared to relatively risk-free U.S. Treasury bonds has grown from 3% to nearly 8%.
“An error or bias of merely one percentage point in the allowed return would imply tens of billions of dollars in additional cost for ratepayers in the form of higher retail power prices,” the authors wrote.
Subsequent research reproduced and built on those findings, showing that a generous ROE creates a perverse incentive for utilities to increase their capital investments, leading to excess costs for consumers of $3 billion to $11 billion per year. Now, the ex-chief economist of a major U.S. utility company, Mark Ellis, is putting his own analysis out there, arguing that unreasonably high ROEs are costing U.S. energy customers $50 billion per year, or over $300 per household.
Not only does this hurt consumers, it also makes the energy transition more expensive and less politically palatable.
That’s what environmental and consumer advocates are worried about in California, where the Public Utility Commission is currently considering requests by the state’s four largest energy companies to raise each of their ROE. Utilities in the state have reported record profits amid a worsening affordability crisis. On Friday, the commission signaled that it would instead lower the companies’ ROE — although not nearly as much as advocates have recommended. A final decision is expected in December.
“It’s a joke,” Ellis, the former utility executive, told me of the commission proceedings. “If you read the proposed decision, they don’t address any of the facts or evidence in the case at all.” His own analysis, which he submitted to the California commission on behalf of the Sierra Club, proposes that an average ROE of 6%, down from about 10%, would be justified and has the potential to save California energy customers more than $6 billion per year.
Utilities, of course, disagree, and have brought their own analysis and warnings about the risks of lowering their ROE. Regulators are left to sort through it all to figure out the magic number — one large enough to appeal to investors, but not so large as to throw ratepayers under the bus.
How does the ROE work its way into your bill? Let’s say your local utility, The Electric Company, has a regulated return on equity of 10%, and it plans to spend $100 million to build new substations. Utilities typically finance these kinds of capital projects with a mix of debt (loans they will have to pay interest on) and equity (shares sold to investors). Then they recover that money from ratepayers over the course of decades. If The Electric Company raises half of the capital, or $50 million, via equity, an ROE of 10% means it will be able to charge ratepayers $5 million on top of the cost of the project. That additional $5 million is factored into the per-killowatt-hour rates that customers pay. The profit can then be reinvested into future projects, issued to shareholders as dividends, paid out to executives as bonuses — the list goes on.
The energy research group RMI, which agrees that the average utility ROE is much too high, estimates the surcharge currently makes up between 15% and 20%% of the average customer’s utility bill. “Setting ROEs at the right level is necessary to bring forward a rapid, just, and equitable transition,” RMI wrote.
Utilities, however, say the “right level” is likely higher, not lower. They warn that in reality, lowering their ROE would trigger a cascade of negative effects — credit downgrades, higher borrowing costs, lower stock prices, investors taking their money elsewhere — that would push energy rates up, not down. These effects would also make it more difficult for utilities to invest in projects to clean up and expand the electric grid.
Timothy Winter, the portfolio manager of a utility-focused fund at the investment firm Gabelli, told me this “virtuous cycle” runs in both directions. Higher ROEs lead to a lower cost of capital, which leads to more investment, better reliability, and lower rates, he argued. Winter said that if California regulators reduced utility ROEs to 6%, investors would flee the state.
Between growing wildfire risk and the bankruptcy of California’s largest utility, PG&E, California energy providers are too exposed to warrant such low returns, he said. As a comparison, he noted that U.S. Treasury bonds, which are generally viewed as risk-free, yield about 4%. “If it’s a 6% return with an equity risk, they’re not going to do it,” he said of investors.
I probed Winter a bit more on this. Is that really true given that utilities are still, in many ways, the opposite of risky investments? They have captive customers, stable income, and are seeing skyrocketing growth in demand for their product.
This caused him to spiral down into an investor’s worst nightmare scenario. “Yes, there is a risk,” he said. “If a regulator is willing to give a 6% return and they used to give 11%, how do I know they’re not going to decide, okay, rates keep going up, next rate case it’s going to be 4%?” After that, he said, how can investors be sure the government won’t end up taking over the utility altogether?
Travis Miller, a senior equity analyst at Morningstar, was more measured. He hesitated to tell me whether a 6% ROE would hurt utilities’ ability to raise capital. “What usually happens” when regulators lower the ROE, he said, “is the utilities just decide not to invest very much, so then they don’t have to raise capital.” He would expect the California utilities to “invest to maintain reliability and that’s about it,” meaning that “a lot of new data center build that is planned in California would have to go elsewhere.”
Return on equity also isn’t the only thing investors look at, Miller added. They consider the overall regulatory environment. Is it predictable? Is it transparent? He said there have been cases where regulators cut a utility’s ROE but the overall regulatory environment remained strong, and other instances where the cut to ROE was “another sign of a deteriorating relationship” — a phrase that brings to mind Winter’s panic about government takeovers. (I should note, advocates for public takeovers of utilities cite this whole dynamic around the need to woo investors and the perverse incentives it creates as a key justification for their cause. Publicly-owned utilities — which serve about 1 in 7 electricity customers in the U.S., including in large cities like Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Seattle — don’t charge an ROE.)
When I spoke to Ellis about his proposal, I fired off all of the utility arguments I could think of. Won’t utilities stop building stuff and making the investments we need them to make if they can’t earn as much? “They have a legal obligation to continue to invest,” he said. But will they be able to raise equity? They don’t necessarily need to raise new equity, he responded, suggesting that utilities could reinvest more of their profits rather than distributing the money as dividends. This is not how utilities traditionally operate, he admitted, but it’s an option.
Prior to taking up the consumer cause, Ellis spent 15 years in leadership and executive roles at Sempra Energy, the parent company of San Diego Gas and Electric and SoCal Gas — two of the companies that petitioned for higher ROE. “I know how they think about this issue,” he told me, asserting that the arguments the companies make to regulators do not match how they think about ROE internally.
During our interview, Ellis described the current state of utility regulation of ROE in California as “reprehensible,” “egregious,” “heartbreaking,” and “a huge injustice.”
In the analysis he submitted to the utility commission, Ellis not only makes the case that the average U.S. utility’s ROE is much higher than is necessary to attract capital, but also that the potential impacts to consumers of lowering it — i.e. the potential to hurt a utility’s credit rating and increase its cost of debt — would be outweighed by customer savings.
He argues that to justify their requests for higher ROEs, the utilities use forecasts from biased sources, cherry-pick and manipulate data, and make economically impossible assumptions, like that earnings will grow faster than GDP.
Stephen Jarvis, an assistant professor at the London School of Economics who has conducted research on ROE rates, has reached similar conclusions about them being excessively high. Nonetheless, he told me he sympathized with the challenge regulators face. He said there was no “right” answer for how to calculate the appropriate ROE. “Depending on the assumptions that you use, you can come up with quite different numbers for what a fair rate of return should be,” he said.
The sentiment echoes the preliminary decision the California Public Utilities Commission issued last week, when it observed that all of the proposals submitted in the proceeding were “dependent on subjective inputs and assumptions.”
Ellis said the decision contained a “smoking gun,” however, proving that the commission didn’t really do its job. Changes in ROE are supposed to reflect changes to a company’s risk profile, he said. The risk profile for Southern California Edison, which is facing lawsuits related to the Eaton Fire and already paying out hundreds of millions of dollars to survivors, has certainly changed in a different way than its peers. Regardless, the commission made the exact same recommendation for each utility to reduce ROE by 0.35%. “The Commission clearly is not looking at the evidence.”
There is likely some truth to that. “It’s more art than science,” Cliff Rechtschaffen, who served for six years on the California Public Utilities Commission, told me when I asked how the people in those seats attempt to calibrate ROE. He acknowledged there was a self-reinforcing element to the process — regulators look at where investors might go if the rate of return is too low, and use that to determine what the rate should be. “But the rates of return that are set in other jurisdictions are, in turn, influenced by the national utility market, which includes your own utility market,” he said.
Similarly, regulators rely on market analysts, investment advisors, investment bankers, and so on, who have an inherent interest in building up the market and ensuring healthy rates of return, he said. “That makes it harder to discern and do true price discovery.”
Rechtschaffen said he was glad that environmental and consumer advocates were bringing greater scrutiny to ROE, adding that it was the “right time” to do so. “Particularly in this environment where utilities have forecast that they’re going to be spending tens of billions of dollars on capital upgrades, do we need the same rates of return that we’ve seen?”
On ravenous data centers, treasured aluminum trash, and the drilling slump
Current conditions: The West Coast’s parade of storms continues with downpours along the California shoreline, threatening mudslides • Up to 10 inches of rain is headed for the Ozarks • Temperatures climbed beyond 50 degrees Fahrenheit in Greenland this week before beginning a downward slide.
The Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office just announced a $1 billion loan to finance Microsoft’s restart of the functional Unit 1 reactor at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant. The funding will go to Constellation, the station’s owner, and cover the majority of the estimated $1.6 billion restart cost. If successful, it’ll likely be the nation’s second-ever reactor restart, assuming Holtec International’s revival of the Palisades nuclear plant goes as planned in the next few months. While the Trump administration has rebranded several loans brokered under its predecessor, this marks the first completely new deal sanctioned by the Trump-era LPO, a sign of Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s recent pledge to focus funding on nuclear projects. It’s also the first-ever LPO loan to reach conditional commitment and financial close on the same day.
“Constellation’s restart of a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania will provide affordable, reliable, and secure energy to Americans across the Mid-Atlantic region,” Wright said in a statement. “It will also help ensure America has the energy it needs to grow its domestic manufacturing base and win the AI race.” Constellation’s stock soared in after-hours trading in response to the news. Holtec’s historic first restart in Michigan got the green light from regulators to come back online in July, as I reported in this newsletter at the time. But already another company is lining up to turn its defunct reactor back on: As I reported here in August, utility giant NextEra wants to revive its Duane Arnold nuclear station in Iowa. The push to restart older reactors reflects a growing need for electricity long before new reactors can come online. Meanwhile, next-generation reactors are plowing ahead. The nuclear startup Valar Atomics claimed this week to achieve criticality long before the July 4 deadline set in an Energy Department competition.
Over the next five years, American demand for electricity is set to grow by the equivalent of 15 times the peak demand of the entirety of New York City. That’s according to the latest annual forecast from the consultancy Grid Strategies. The growth — roughly sixfold what was forecast in 2022 — comes overwhelmingly from data centers, as shown by which regions expect the largest growth:

“The fact that these facilities are city-sized is a huge deal,” John Wilson, Grid Strategies’ vice president and the report’s lead author, told Canary Media. “That has huge implications if these facilities get canceled, or they get built and don’t have long service lives.” Mounting political opposition to data centers could make deals less certain. A Heatmap Pro survey in September found just 44% of Americans would welcome a data center opening nearby. And last week I wrote about how progressives in Congress are rallying around a crackdown on data centers.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The contrast couldn’t be starker. In Washington, President Donald Trump rolled out the red carpet for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, offering an opulent welcome to the White House and lashing out at reporters who asked about September 11 or the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. In Belém, Brazil, meanwhile, former Vice President Al Gore tore into the team of delegates Saudi Arabia sent to the United Nations climate summit for “flexing its muscles” in negotiations about how to shift away from oil and gas. “Saudi Arabia appears to be determined to veto the effort to solve the climate crisis, only to protect their lavish income from selling the fossil fuels that are the principal cause of the climate crisis,” Gore told the Financial Times. “I hope that the rest of the world will stand up to this obscene greed and recklessness on the part of the kingdom.”
But the Trump meeting could yield some progress on clean energy. Among the top issues the White House listed in its read-out of the summit was the push to export American atomic energy technology to Saudi Arabia as the country looks to follow the United Arab Emirates in embracing nuclear power.
Facing growing needs for domestic sources of metal for the energy transition, the European Union is seeing its trash as treasure. On Tuesday, the European Commission proposed restricting exports of aluminum scrap amid what The Wall Street Journal called “concerns that rising outflows of the resource could leave Europe short of a critical input for its decarbonization efforts.” Speaking at the European Aluminum Summit, EU trade chief Maros Sefcovic referred to the exports as “leakage.” The proposal wouldn’t fully block sales of aluminum scrap overseas, but would adopt a “balanced” measure that ensures sufficient supplies and competitive prices in the single market. “Scrap is a strategic commodity given its important contribution to circularity and decarbonization, as production from secondary materials releases less emissions and is less energy intensive, as well as to our strategic autonomy,” Sefcovic said. The measure is set to be adopted by spring 2026.
In the U.S., the Biden administration made what Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin last year called a “big bet” on aluminum. The Trump administration slapped steep new tariffs on imported aluminum, though as our colleague Katie Brigham wrote, “aluminum producers rely on imports of these same materials to build their own plants. Tariffs on these vital construction materials — plus exorbitant levies on all goods from China — will make building new production facilities significantly costlier.”

The average number of active rigs per month that are drilling for oil and natural gas in the continental United States fell steadily over the past year. As of last month, the U.S. had 517 rigs in operation, down from a peak of 750 in the end of 2022. The number of oil-pumping rigs dropped 33% to 397 rigs, while gas-pumping rigs slid 23% to 120 rigs over the same period from December 2022 to October 2025. While the Energy Information Administration said the declining rig count “reflects operators’ responses to declining crude oil and natural gas prices,” the federal research agency said it’s also “improvement in drilling efficiencies,” meaning companies are getting more fuel out of existing wells.
It’s been a pattern in recent research on sustainability. Scientists look at methods that Indigenous groups have maintained as traditions only to find that approaches that have sustained throughout centuries or millennia are finding new value now. A study by the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa’s Hawaiʻi Institute of Marine Biology found that Native Hawaiian aquaculture systems — essentially fish ponds known as loko iʻa — effectively shielded fish populations from the negative impacts of climate change, demonstrating resilience and bolstering local food security. “Our study is one of the first in academic literature to compare the temperatures between loko iʻa and the surrounding bay and how these temperature differences may be reflected in potential fish productivity,” lead author Annie Innes-Gold, a recent PhD graduate from the university, said in a press release. “We found that although rising water temperature may lead to declines in fish populations, loko iʻa fish populations were more resilient.”