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:
U.S. manufacturers are racing to get into the game while they still can.

In the weird, wide world of energy storage, lithium-ion batteries may appear to be an unshakeably dominant technology. Costs have declined about 97% over the past three decades, grid-scale battery storage is forecast to grow faster than wind or solar in the U.S. in the coming decade, and the global lithium-ion supply chain is far outpacing demand, according to BloombergNEF.
That supply chain, however, is dominated by Chinese manufacturing. According to the International Energy Agency, China controls well over half the world’s lithium processing, nearly 85% of global battery cell production capacity, and the lion’s share of actual lithium-ion battery production. Any country creating products using lithium-ion batteries, including the U.S., is at this point dependent on Chinese imports.
This has, understandably, sent U.S. manufactures searching for alternatives, and lately they have struck on one that has the industry all excited: sodium-ion batteries. As global interest ramps up, domestic manufacturers have at least a prayer of building out their own sodium-ion supply chains before China completely takes over. Research and consulting firm Benchmark Mineral Intelligence expects to see a 350% jump in announced sodium-ion battery manufacturing capacity this year alone. And while the supply of these batteries is only in the tens of gigawatts today, Benchmark forecasts that it will be in the hundreds of gigawatts by 2030.
Sodium-ion technology itself isn’t particularly disruptive — it’s not new, nor does it serve a new market, exactly. It performs roughly the same as lithium-ion in energy storage systems, providing around four hours of power for either grid-scale or residential applications. But sodium-ion chemistries have a handful of key advantages — perhaps most critically that sodium is significantly more abundant in the U.S. than lithium, and is thus far cheaper. China has unsurprisingly taken an early lead in the sodium-ion market anyway, reportedly opening its first sodium-ion battery storage station in May. But because the industry is still so nascent, domestic manufacturers say there’s still time for them to get in the game.
“We’re focused on catching up to China in lithium-ion batteries, where in our view, we should be leapfrogging to what’s next,” Cam Dales, co-founder and chief commercial officer at Peak Energy, a Bay Area-based sodium-ion battery storage startup, told me. “There’s no CATL of the United States. That’s ultimately our ambition, is to become that.”
As political tensions between China and the U.S. mount, relying on a Chinese-dominated battery supply chain is geopolitically risky. Last month, the Biden administration announced a steep increase in tariffs on a wide array of Chinese imports, including a 25% tariff on lithium-ion non-electric vehicle batteries starting in 2026, and another 25% tariff on battery parts and certain critical minerals starting this year.
Because sodium is so plentiful and cheap, companies in the space estimate that sodium-ion storage systems could eventually be around 40% less expensive than lithium-ion systems, once manufacturing scales. This lower price point could eventually make sodium-ion economically viable for storage applications “up to eight, 10, maybe even 12 hours,” Dales told me.
Sodium-ion also has a leg up on lithium-ion when it comes to safety. While this is an ongoing area of research, so far sodium-ion batteries appear less likely to catch fire, at least in part because of their lower energy density and the fact that their electrolytes generally have a higher flashpoint, the temperature at which the liquid is capable of igniting. This could make them safer to install indoors or pack close together. It’s also possible to discharge sodium-ion batteries down to zero volts, completely eliminating the possibility of battery fires during transit, whereas lithium-ion can’t be completely discharged without ruining the battery. Finally, sodium-ion performs better in the cold than lithium-ion batteries, which notoriously struggle to charge and discharge as efficiently at low temperatures.
“When we saw announcements coming out of China about very large investments in large capacity sodium projects, that was really an eye opener for us,” Dales told me. He and co-founder Landon Mossburg launched Peak Energy last year with $10 million in funding. The company is currently importing sodium-ion cells and assembling battery packs domestically, but by 2027, Dales said he hopes to produce both cells and packs in the U.S., with an eye toward opening a gigafactory and onshoring the entirety of the supply chain.
He’s not alone in this ambition. Natron Energy, another Silicon Valley-based sodium-ion company, has been at this for more than a decade. The startup, founded in 2012, recently opened the first commercial-scale sodium-ion battery manufacturing facility in the U.S. When fully ramped, the plant will have the capacity to produce 600 megawatts of batteries annually, paving the way for future gigawatt-scale facilities.
It cost Natron over $40 million to upgrade the Michigan-based plant, which formerly produced lithium-ion batteries, into a sodium-ion facility, and while the first shipments were expected to begin in June, none have yet been announced. The company’s backers include Khosla Ventures as well as strategic investors such as Chevron, which is interested in using this tech at EV charging stations; United Airlines, which hopes to use it for charging motorized ground equipment; and Nabor Industries, one of the world’s largest oil and gas drilling companies, which is interested in using sodium-ion batteries to power drilling rigs. It also received nearly $20 million from ARPA-E to fund the conversion of the Michigan facility.
Beyond the U.S. and China, France-based sodium-ion cell developer Tiamat is planning to build out a massive 5-gigawatt facility, while Sweden-based Northvolt and UK-based Faradion are also hoping to bring sodium-ion battery manufacturing to the European market.
Sodium-ion isn’t a magic bullet technology, though, and it certainly won’t make sense for all applications. The main reason there hasn’t been much interest up until now is because these batteries are about 30% less energy-dense than their lithium-ion counterparts. That likely doesn’t matter too much for grid-scale or even residential storage systems, where there’s usually enough open land, garage, or exterior wall space to install a sufficiently-sized system. But it is the reason why sodium-ion wasn’t commercialized sooner, as lithium-ion’s space efficiency is better suited to the portable electronics and electric vehicle markets.
“It’s only in the last two years probably, that the stationary storage market has gotten big enough where it alone can drive specific chemistries and the investment required to scale them,” Dales told me.
Catherine Peake, an analyst at Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, also told me that lithium iron phosphate batteries — the specific flavor of lithium-ion that’s generally favored for energy storage systems — usually have a longer cycle life than sodium-ion batteries, meaning they can charge and discharge more times before performance degrades. “That cycle life is actually a pretty key metric for [energy storage system] applications,” she said, though she acknowledged that Natron is an outlier in this regard, as the company claims to have a longer cycle life than standard lithium-ion batteries.
Lithium is also a volatile market. Though prices have bottomed out recently, less than two years ago the world was facing the opposite scenario, as China saw the price for battery-grade lithium carbonate hit an all-time high, Kevin Shang, a senior research analyst at the energy consultancy WoodMackenzie, told me. “So this catalyzed a soaring interest in sodium-ion batteries,” he said.
Although Shang and Peake agree that the U.S. could seize this moment to build a domestic sodium-ion supply chain, both also said that scaling production up to the level of China or other battery giants like South Korea or Japan is a longshot. “After all, they have been doing this battery-related business for over 10 years. They have more experience in scaling up these materials, in scaling up these technologies,” Shang told me.
These countries are home to the world’s largest battery manufacturers, with CATL and BYD in China and LG Energy in South Korea. But Natron and Peak Energy are both startups, lacking the billions that would allow for massive scale-up, at least in the short term.
“It shouldn't be underestimated how hard it is to make anything in large volume,” Matt Stock, a product director at Benchmark, told me. Largely due to the maturity of lithium-ion battery supply chains, the research firm doesn’t see sodium-ion becoming the dominant energy storage tech anytime soon. Rather, by 2030, Benchmark forecasts that sodium-ion batteries will comprise 5% of the battery energy storage market, increasing to over 10% by 2040. BloombergNEF is somewhat more optimistic, predicting sodium-ion will make up 12% of the stationary energy storage market by 2030.
And while storage may be the most obvious near-term use case for sodium-ion batteries, it’s certainly not the only industry that stands to benefit. China is experimenting with using these batteries in two- and three-wheeled vehicles such as electric scooters, bikes, and motorcycles. And as the tech improves, Stock said it’s possible that sodium-ion batteries could become a viable option for longer-range EVs as well.
Ultimately, Dales thinks these batteries will follow a similar technological trajectory to lithium iron phosphate, a chemistry that many in the west thought would never be suitable for use in electric vehicle batteries. “Over time, our view is that sodium-ion will continue to increase its energy density just like [lithium iron phosphate] did,” Dales told me. Now, lithium iron phosphate is the dominant battery chemistry for Chinese-made EVs. “But what actually happened was it was so cheap and they made it better and better and better than now it’s taking over the world. We see this playing out again with sodium-ion.”
Benchmark, on the other hand, is more circumspect regarding sodium-ion’s world dominating potential. Stock said he sees the technology more as a supplement to lithium-ion, which can swoop in when lithium prices boom or critical minerals shortages hit. “When that happens, something like sodium-ion can fill the space. And that’s really where it’s a complementary technology rather than a replacement,” he told me. “If there were other technologies as mature as sodium-ion, we’d also see those being scaled alongside it, but sodium-ion is kind of next in line.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Emails raise questions about who knew what and when leading up to the administration’s agreement with TotalEnergies.
The Trump administration justified its nearly $1 billion settlement agreement with TotalEnergies to effectively buy back the French company’s U.S. offshore wind leases by citing national security concerns raised by the Department of Defense. Emails obtained by House Democrats and viewed by Heatmap, however, seem to conflict with that story.
California Representative Jared Huffman introduced the documents into the congressional record on Wednesday during a hearing held by the House Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
“The national security justification appears to be totally fabricated, and fabricated after the fact,” Huffman said during the hearing. “DOI committed to paying Total nearly a billion dollars before it had concocted its justification of a national security issue.”
The email exchange Huffman cited took place in mid-November among officials at the Department of the Interior. On November 13, 2025, Christopher Danley, the deputy solicitor for energy and mineral resources, emailed colleagues in the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the secretary’s office an attachment with the name “DRAFT_Memorandum_of_Understanding.docx.”
According to Huffman’s office, the file was a document entitled “Draft Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of the Interior and TotalEnergies Renewables USA, LLC on Offshore Wind Lease OCS-A 0545,” which refers to the company’s Carolina Long Bay lease. (The office said it could not share the document itself due to confidentiality issues.)
While the emails do not discuss the document further, the November date is notable. It suggests that the Interior Department had been negotiating a deal with Total before BOEM officials were briefed on the DOD’s classified national security concerns about offshore wind development.
Two Interior officials, Matthew Giacona, the acting director of BOEM, and Jacob Tyner, the deputy assistant secretary for land and minerals management, have testified in federal court that they reviewed a classified offshore wind assessment produced by the Department of Defense on November 26, 2025, and then were briefed on it again by department officials in early December. They submitted this testimony as part of a separate court case over a stop work order the agency issued to the Coastal Virginia Offshore wind project in December.
“After my review of DOW’s classified material with a secret designation,” Giacona wrote, “I determined that CVOW Project’s activities did not adequately provide for the protection of national security interests,” leading to his decision to suspend ongoing activities on the lease.
Giacona and Tyner are copied on the emails Huffman presented on Wednesday, indicating that the memorandum of understanding between Total and the Interior Department had been drafted and distributed prior to their reviewing the classified assessment.
The final agreement both parties signed on March 23, however, justifies the decision by citing a series of events that it portrays as taking place after officials learned of the DOD’s national security concerns.
The Interior Department paid Total out of the Judgment Fund, a permanently appropriated fund overseen by the Treasury Department with no congressional oversight that’s set aside to settle litigation or impending litigation. The final agreement describes the background for the settlement, beginning by stating that the Interior Department was going to suspend Total’s leases indefinitely based on the DOD’s classified findings, which “would have” led Total to file a legal claim for breach of contract. Rather than fight it out in court, Interior decided to settle this supposedly impending litigation, paying Total nearly $1 billion, in exchange for the company investing an equivalent amount into U.S. oil and gas projects.
But if the agency had been negotiating a deal with Total prior to being briefed on the national security assessment, it suggests that the deal was not predicated on a threat of litigation. During the hearing, Eddie Ahn, an attorney and the executive director of an environmental group called Brightline Defense, told Huffman that this opens the possibility for a legal challenge to the deal.
I should note one hiccup in this line of reasoning. Even though Interior officials testified that they were briefed on the Department of Defense’s assessment on November 26, this is not the first time the agency raised national security concerns about offshore wind. When BOEM issued a stop work order on Revolution Wind in August of last year, it said it was seeking to “address concerns related to the protection of national security interests of the United States.”
During the hearing, Huffman called out additional concerns his office had about the settlement. He said the amount the Interior Department paid Total — a full reimbursement of the company’s original lease payment — has no basis in the law. “Federal law sets a specific formula for the compensation a company can get when the government cancels an offshore lease,” he said, adding that the settlement was for “far more.” He also challenged a clause in the agreement that purports to protect both parties from legal liability.
Huffman and several of his fellow Democrats also highlighted the Trump administration’s latest use of the Judgment Fund — to create a new $1.8 billion legal fund to issue “monetary relief” to citizens who claim they were unfairly targeted by the Biden administration, such as those charged in connection with the January 6 riot.
“Now we know that that was just the beginning,” Maxine Dexter of Oregon said. “This president’s fraudulent use of the judgment fund is the most consequential and damning abuse of taxpayer funds happening right now.”
The effort brings together leaders of four Mountain West states with nonprofit policy expertise to help speed financing and permitting for development.
Geothermal is so hot right now. And bipartisan.
Long regarded as the one form of electricity generation everyone in Washington can agree on (it’s both carbon-free and borrows techniques, equipment, and personnel from the oil and gas industry), the technology got yet another shot in the arm last week when leading next-generation geothermal company Fervo raised almost $2 billion by selling shares in an initial public offering.
Now, a coalition of western states and nonprofits is coming together to work on the policy and economics of fostering more successful geothermal projects.
Governor Jared Polis of Colorado and Governor Spencer Cox of Utah will announce the formation of the Mountain West Geothermal Consortium this afternoon at a press conference in Salt Lake City.
The consortium brings together governors, regulators, and energy policy staffers from those two states and their Mountain West neighbors Arizona and New Mexico, along with staffing and organizational help from two nonprofits, the Center for Public Enterprise and Constructive, both of which employ former Department of Energy staffers.
The consortium will help coordinate permitting, financing, and offtake agreements for geothermal projects. This could include assistance with permitting on state-level issues like water usage, attracting public dollars to geothermal projects, and upgrading geophysical data to guide geothermal development.
Michael O’Connor, a former DOE staffer who worked on the department’s geothermal programs, is the director of the consortium. He told me that the organization has done financial and geotechnical modeling to entice funding for earlier stage geothermal development that traditional project finance investors have seen as too high-risk.
“We think that the public sector should be a part of the capital stack, and so what we’re trying to do is build investment programs that leverage the state’s ability to provide the early concessionary capital and match that with private sector capital,” O’Connor said. “The consortium has done a whole bunch of financial modeling around this, and we’re now working with energy offices to build that into actual programs where they can start funding.”
The consortium is also trying to make it easier for utilities to agree to purchase power from new geothermal developments, O’Connor said. This includes helping utilities model the performance of geothermal resources over time so that they can be included more easily in utilities’ integrated resource plans.
“Most Western utilities either have no data to incorporate geothermal into their IRPs, or the data they’re using is generalized and 15 years old,” O’Connor told me. This type of data is easy to find for, say, natural gas or solar, but has not existed until recently for geothermal.
“Offtakers want the same kind of assurance that infrastructure investors want,” O’Connor said. “Everyone wants a guaranteed asset, and it takes a little bit more time and effort.”
The third area the consortium is working on is permitting. Many geothermal projects are located on land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and therefore have to go through a federal permitting process. There are also state-specific permitting issues, most notably around water, a perennially contentious and complicated issue in the West.
How water is regulated for drilling projects varies state by state, creating an obstacle course that can be difficult for individual firms to navigate as they expand across the thermally rich intermountain west. “You’re always working with this sort of cross-jurisdictional permitting landscape,” Fervo policy chief Ben Serrurier told me. “Anytime you’re going to introduce a new technology to that picture, it raises questions about how well it fits and what needs to be updated and changed.”
Fervo — which sited its flagship commercial geothermal plant in Cape Station, Utah — has plenty of experience with these issues, and has signed on as an advisor to the consortium. “How do we work with states across the West who are all very eager to have geothermal development but, aren’t really sure about how to go about supporting and embracing, encouraging this new resource?” Serrurier asked. “This is policymakers and regulators in the West, at the state level, working together towards a much broader industry transformation.”
The Center for Public Enterprise, a consortium member think tank that works on public sector capacity-building, released a paper in April sketching out the idea for the group and arguing that coordinated state policy could bring forward projects that have already demonstrated technological feasibility. The paper called for states to “create new tools to support catalytic public investment in and financing for next-generation geothermal.”
Like many geothermal policy efforts, the geothermal consortium is a bipartisan affair that builds on a record of western politicians collaborating across party lines to advance geothermal development.
“There is sort of this idea that the West is an area that we collectively are still building, and there is still this idea of collaboration against challenging elements and solving unique problems,” Serrurier said.
Cox, a Republican, told Heatmap in a statement: “Utah is working to double power production over the next decade and build the energy capacity our state will need for generations. Geothermal energy is a crucial part of that future, and Utah is proud to be a founding member of the Mountain West Geothermal Consortium.”
Polis, a Democrat, said, “Colorado is a national leader in renewable energy, and geothermal can provide always-on, clean, domestic energy to power our future. Colorado is proud to partner on a bipartisan basis with states across the region to found the Mountain West Geothermal Consortium.”
O’Connor concurred with Fervo’s Serrurier. “Western states are better at working together on ’purple issues’ than most states,” he told me.
In this moment, O’Connor said, the issue at hand is largely one of coordinating and harmonizing across states, utilities, and developers. “Several pieces of good timing have fallen upon the industry at this moment, which has led to a positive news cycle,” he told me. “Making sure that gets to scale now means we have to solve thorny or bigger dollar problems — and that’s why we’re here.
“We’re not an R&D organization,” he added, referring to the consortium. “We’re here to get over the hurdles of financing and of offtake and of regulatory reform.”
The founder of one-time sustainable apparel company Zady argues that policy is the only that can push the industry toward more responsible practices.
Everlane’s reported sale to Shein has left many shocked and saddened. How could the millennial “radical transparency” fashion brand be absorbed by the company that has become shorthand for ultra-fast fashion? While I feel for the team within the company that cares about impact reduction, I am not surprised by the news.
Everlane was built around a theory of change that was always too small for the problem it claimed to address — that better brands and more conscientious consumers could redirect a coal-powered, chemically intensive, globally fragmented industry.
The theory had real appeal, but it was wrong. Yes, it created some better products, but it was never going to remake the fashion industry on its own.
This is the tension at the center of sustainable fashion: Consumer demand can create a niche, even a meaningful one, but it cannot reconfigure the economics of global supply chains. What is needed are common sense laws that require all significant players to play by the same basic rules: reduce emissions, ban toxic chemicals, and maintain basic labor standards.
A company I used to run, Zady, was an early competitor to Everlane, and we were part of the same cultural and commercial moment. When we raised money, we told investors that while our Boomer parents may have thought that changing the world meant marching on the streets, we knew better. Change was going to happen through business.
The problem was that, while our market was growing, fast fashion was growing faster. There was a small but passionate group of consumers trying to buy better, but the overall system drove companies to produce more — more units, more emissions, more chemicals, and more waste.
The truth is that brands do not have direct control over the environmental impacts of their products. Most of the emissions and applications of chemicals are not happening at the brand level, but are instead in fiber production, textile mills, dyehouses, finishing facilities, and laundries, all of which the brands do not own. These factories operate on the thinnest of margins, and the open secret is that brands share these suppliers. No one brand wants to pay the cost for their shared factories to make the necessary upgrades to address their impacts. It’s a classic collective action problem.
Everlane’s capital story matters here, too. Unless a founder arrives with substantial personal wealth, outside investment is often the only path to scale. A company can remain small, independent, and slow-growing, but then it will likely be more expensive, more limited in reach, and less able to influence factories.
Everlane chose the other path. It took institutional growth capital from storied venture firms more closely associated with the digital revolution (including some that also fund clean energy technologies) and became a recognizable national brand. This obligated the company to operate inside a financial structure that leads inexorably toward some kind of exit, whether through a sale, an initial public offering, or some other liquidity event. Once that is the operating system, sustainability can remain a real and important goal, but it is not the final governing logic — investor return is.
“Radical transparency” was never enough to solve the fashion industry’s or venture capital model’s structural problems. Naming a factory is not the same as knowing what happens inside it. Publishing a supplier list does not tell us whether the facility runs on coal, whether wastewater is treated before being released back into the ecosystem, or whether restricted substances are present in dyes, finishes, trims, or coatings.
We already have many forms of transparency in American capitalism. Public companies, for example, are required to disclose executive compensation and the average pay of their workers; this transparency has done exactly nothing to close the pay gap. A disclosure is not the same thing as a legal standard.
So what does this mean for all of us? We don’t know exactly how Shein will absorb Everlane. I could guess that this is a Quince play for Shein, a way to access higher-end consumers that would otherwise never go on the Shein site.
What this tragicomedy reveals is that the idea born from Obama-era optimism, that the arc of history naturally bends toward justice and sustainability, was ephemeral.
The work to make this coal-powered industry sustainable will come from regulation. The technology to decarbonize is there, and unlike with aviation, for instance, it would cost the apparel industry a mere 2 cents per cotton t-shirt to get it done. But unlike with aviation, there are no requirements or incentives that these investments be made, so they are not.
The electric vehicle industry got a head start through direct subsidies and fuel efficiency standards. Apparel needs the same.
If you’re disappointed or angry about this turn of events, I ask you to channel those feelings into citizenship. Help pass the New York or California Fashion Acts that would require all large fashion companies that sell into the states to reduce their emissions and ban toxic chemicals. It’s currently legal to have lead on adult clothing, and Shein is consistently found to have it on their products. The industry is pushing back through their trade associations, so people power is needed so that legislators know it needs to be their priority.
But if you want to shop sustainably, you don’t need a brand. What is most helpful is understanding your own style and lifestyle — that’s how we know what we actually need and what we don’t. There are apps to help on that front. (I love Indyx, for instance, but there are others.)
The only way forward is together, and that means political solutions — emissions requirements, chemical requirements, labor requirements — not just consumer ones.