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:
Money is pouring in — and deadlines are approaching fast.
There’s no quick fix for decarbonizing medium- and long-distance flights. Batteries are typically too heavy, and hydrogen fuel takes up too much space to offer a practical solution, leaving sustainable aviation fuels made from plants and other biomass, recycled carbon, or captured carbon as the primary options. Traditionally, this fuel is much more expensive — and the feedstocks for it much more scarce — than conventional petroleum-based jet fuel. But companies are now racing to overcome these barriers, as recent months have seen backers throw hundreds of millions behind a series of emergent, but promising solutions.
Today, most SAF is made of feedstocks such as used cooking oil and animal fats, from companies such as Neste and Montana Renewables. But this supply is limited by, well, the amount of cooking oil or fats restaurants and food processing facilities generate, and is thus projected to meet only about 10% of total SAF demand by 2050, according to a 2022 report by the Mission Possible Partnership. Beyond that, companies would have to start growing new crops just to make into fuel.
That creates an opportunity for developers of second-generation SAF technologies, which involve making jet fuel out of captured carbon or alternate biomass sources, such as forest waste. These methods are not yet mature enough to make a significant dent in 2030 targets, such as the EU's mandate to use 6% SAF and the U.S. government’s goal of producing 3 billion gallons of SAF per year domestically. But this tech will need to be a big part of the equation in order to meet the aviation sector’s overall goal of net zero emissions by 2050, as well as the EU’s sustainable fuels mandate, which increases to 20% by 2035 and 70% by 2050 for all flights originating in the bloc.
“That’s going to be a massive jump because currently, SAF uptake is about 0.2% of fuel,” Nicole Cerulli, a research associate for transportation and logistics at the market research firm Cleantech Group, told me. The head of the airline industry’s trade association, Willie Walsh, said in December at a media day event, "We’re not making as much progress as we’d hoped for, and we’re certainly not making as much progress as we need.” While global SAF production doubled to 1 million metric tons in 2024, that fell far below the trade group’s projection of 1.5 million metric tons, made at the end of 2023.
Producing SAF requires making hydrocarbons that mirror those used in traditional jet fuel. We know how to do that, but the processes required — electrolysis, gasification, and the series of chemical reactions known as Fischer-Tropsch synthesis — are energy intensive. So finding a way to power all of this sustainably while simultaneously scaling to meet demand is a challenging and expensive task.
Aamir Shams, a senior associate at the energy think tank RMI whose work focuses on driving demand for SAF, told me that while sustainable fuel is undeniably more expensive than traditional fuel, airlines and corporations have so far been willing to pay the premium. “We feel that the lag is happening because we just don’t have the fuel today,” Shams said. “Whatever fuel shows up, it just flies off the shelves.”
Twelve, a Washington-based SAF producer, thinks its e-fuels can help make a dent. The company is looking to produce jet fuel initially by recycling the CO2 emitted from the ethanol, pulp, and paper industries. In September, the company raised $645 million to complete the buildout of its inaugural SAF facility in Washington state, support the development of future plants, and pursue further R&D. The funding includes $400 million in project equity from the impact fund TPG Rise Climate, $200 million in Series C financing led by TPG, Capricorn Investment Group, and Pulse Fund, and $45 million in loans. The company has also previously partnered with the Air Force to explore producing fuel on demand in hard to reach areas.
Nicholas Flanders, Twelve’s CEO, told me that the company is starting with ethanol, pulp, and paper because the CO2 emissions from these facilities are relatively concentrated and thus cheaper to capture. And unlike, say, coal power plants, these industries aren’t going anywhere fast, making them a steady source of carbon. To turn the captured CO2 into sustainable fuel, the company needs just one more input — water. Renewable-powered electrolyzers then break apart the CO2 and H2O into their constituent parts, and the resulting carbon monoxide and hydrogen are combined to create a syngas. That then gets put through a chemical reaction known as “Fischer-Tropsch synthesis,” where the syngas reacts with catalysts to form hydrocarbons, which are then processed into sustainable jet fuel and ultimately blended with conventional fuel.
Twelve says its proprietary CO2 electrolyzer can break apart CO2 at much lower temperatures than would typically be required for this molecule, which simplifies the whole process, making it easier to ramp the electrolyzers up and down to match the output of intermittent renewables. (How does it do this? The company didn’t respond when I asked.) Twelve’s first plant, which sources carbon from a nearby ethanol facility, is set to come online next year, producing 50,000 gallons of SAF annually once it’s fully scaled, with electrolyzers that will run on hydropower.
While Europe may have stricter, actually enforceable SAF requirements than the U.S., Flanders told me there’s a lot of promise in domestic production. “I think the U.S. has an exciting combination of relatively low-cost green electricity, lots of biogenic CO2 sources, a lot of demand for the product we’re making, and then the inflation Reduction Act and state level incentives can further enhance the economics.” Currently, the IRA provides SAF producers with a baseline $1.25 tax credit per gallon produced, which gradually increases the greener the fuel gets. Of course, whether or not the next Congress will rescind this is anybody’s guess.
Down the line, incentives and mandates will end up mattering a whole lot. Making SAF simply costs a whole lot more than producing jet fuel the standard way, by refining crude oil. But in the meantime, Twelve is setting up cost-sharing partnerships between airlines that want to reduce their direct emissions (scope 1) and large corporations that want to reduce their indirect emissions (scope 3), which include employee business travel.
For example, Twelve has offtake agreements with Seattle-based Alaska Airlines and Microsoft for the fuel produced at its initial Washington plant. Microsoft, which aims to reduce emissions from its employees’ flights, will essentially cover the cost premium associated with Twelve’s more expensive SAF fuel, making it cost-effective for Alaska to use in its fleet. Twelve has a similar agreement with Boston Consulting Group and an unnamed airline
Eventually, Flanders told me, the company expects to source carbon via direct air capture, but doing so today would be prohibitively expensive. “If there were a customer who wanted to pay the additional amount to use DAC today, we'd be very happy to do that,” Flanders said. “But our perspective is it will maybe be another decade before that cost starts to converge.”
No sustainable fuel is even close to cost parity yet — Cerulli told me that it generally comes with a “roughly 250% to over 800%” cost premium over conventional jet fuel. So while voluntary uptake by companies such as Microsoft and BCG are helping drive the emergent market today, that won’t be near enough to decarbonize the industry. “At the simplest level, the cost of not using SAF has to be higher than using it,” Cerulli told me.
Pathway Energy thinks that by incorporating carbon sequestration into its process, it can help the world get there. The sustainable fuels company, which emerged from stealth just last month, is pursuing what CEO Steve Roberts told me is “probably the most cost-efficient long-term pathway from a decarbonization perspective.” The company is building a $2 billion SAF plant in Port Arthur, Texas designed to produce about 30 million gallons of jet fuel annually — enough to power about 5,000 carbon-neutral 10-hour flights — while also permanently sequestering more than 1.9 million tons of CO2.
Pathway, a subsidiary of the investment and advisory firm Nexus Holdings, has partnered with the UK-based renewable energy company Drax, which will supply the company with 1 million metric tons of wood pellets, to be turned into fuel using a series of well-established technologies. The first step is to gasify the biomass by heating the pellets to high temperatures in the absence of oxygen to produce a syngas. Then, just as Twelve does, it puts the syngas through the Fischer-Tropsch process to form the hydrocarbons that become SAF.
The competitive advantage here is capturing the emissions from the fuel production process itself and storing them permanently underground. Since Pathway is burying CO2 that’s already been captured by the trees from which the wood pellets come, that would make Pathway’s SAF carbon-negative, in theory, while the best Twelve and similar companies can hope for is carbon neutrality, assuming all of their captured carbon is used to produce fuel.
The choice of Drax as a feedstock partner is not without controversy, however, as the BBC revealed that the company sources much of its wood from rare old-growth forests. Though this is technically legal, it’s also ecologically disruptive. Roberts told me Drax’s sourcing methodologies have been verified by third parties, and Pathway isn’t concerned. “I don't think any of that controversy has yielded any actually significant changes to their sourcing program at all, because we believe that they're compliant,” Roberts told me. “We are 100% certain that they’re meeting all the standards and expectations.”
Pathway has big growth plans, which depend on the legitimacy of its sustainability cred. Beyond the Port Arthur facility, which Roberts told me will begin production by the end of 2029 or early 2030, the company has a pipeline of additional facilities along the Gulf Coast in the works. It also has global ambitions. “When you have a fuel that is this negative, it really opens up a global market, because you can transport fuel out of Texas, whether that be into the EU, Africa, Asia, wherever it may be,” Roberts said, explaining that even substantial transportation-related emissions would be offset by the carbon-negativity of the fuel.
But alternative feedstocks such as forestry biomass are finite resources, too. That’s why many experts think that within the SAF sector, e-fuels such as Twelve’s that could one day source carbon via direct air capture and then electrolyze it have the greatest potential for growth. “It’s extremely dependent on getting sustainable CO2 and cheap electricity prices so that you can make cheap green hydrogen,” Shams told me. “But theoretically, it is unlimited in terms of what your total cap on production would be.”
In the meantime, airlines are focused on making their planes and engines more aerodynamic and efficient so that they don’t consume as much fuel in the first place. They’re also exploring other technical pathways to decarbonization — because after all, SAF will only be a portion of the solution, as many short and medium-length flights could likely be powered by batteries or hydrogen fuel. RMI forecasts that by 2050, 45% of global emissions reduction in the aviation sector will come from improvements in fuel efficiency, 37% will be due to SAF deployment, 7% will come from hydrogen, and 3.5% will come from electrification.
If you did the mental math, you’ll notice these numbers add up to 92.5% — not 100%. “What we have done is, let's look at what we are actually doing today and for the past three, four, five years, and let's see if we get to net zero or not. And the answer is, no. We don't get to net zero by 2050,” Shams told me. And while getting to 92.5% is nothing to scoff at, that means that the aviation sector would still be emitting about 700 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent by that time.
So what’s to be done? “The financing sector needs to step up its game and take a little bit more of a risk than they are used to,” Shams told me, noting that one of RMI’s partners, the Mission Possible Partnership, estimates that getting the aviation sector to net zero will require an investment of around $170 billion per year, a total of about $4.5 trillion by 2050. These numbers take a variety of factors into account beyond strictly SAF production, such as airport infrastructure for new fuels, building out direct air capture plants, etc.
But any way you cut it, it’s a boatload of money that certainly puts Pathway’s $2 billion SAF facility and Twelve’s $645 million funding round in perspective. And it’s far from certain that we can get there. “Increasingly, that goal of the 2050 net-zero target looks really difficult to achieve,” Shams put it simply. “Commitments are always going up, but more can be done.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
After a string of high-profile failures, this sodium-ion startup has a proprietary chemistry and a plan to compete on cost.
It’s been a bad year for batteries. Grand plans to commercialize novel chemistries and build a manufacturing base outside of China have stumbled, with the collapse of both Northvolt and Natron casting a shadow over the sector. But just as many may be losing faith, there’s a new player in the space: Alsym Energy announced today that it’s rolling out a sodium-ion battery designed for stationary storage that it says will be cheaper than lithium-ion systems from day one.
“It’s always the darkest before the sunrise,” Alsym’s co-founder and CEO Mukesh Chatter told me, saying that past failures in the battery space are irrelevant to the specific tech his company is pursuing. The startup, which raised a $78 million Series C round last April, is targeting the battery energy storage market across utility-scale, commercial, and industrial applications — everything from grid-connected systems to power for data centers, high rise buildings, and mining operations.
Alsym’s chemistry is called sodium iron pyrophosphate, or NFPP+. The “plus” represents dopants — small amounts of additional elements — which are added to the chemistry to improve performance. While the specific dopants and the battery’s electrolyte are proprietary, Chatter told me that the technology doesn’t require the critical minerals lithium, cobalt, or nickel, and that the company will source raw materials entirely from the U.S. or its allies.
The product, which is scheduled to deploy on a small scale next year and reach higher volumes in 2027, follows a decade of research into nonflammable lithium-ion alternatives. The company spent years testing different chemistries after it spun out of MIT in 2015, before settling on NFPP+ chemistry within the last 18 months. Chatter remained tight-lipped about the specifics of that process, noting only that the company faced “a couple of false starts,” coupled with supply chain challenges earlier this year.
Now, though, those years of research might have finally paid off. “I believe we are farthest ahead than anyone else in that space today in the United States,” he told me.
One of Alsym’s key advantages, Chatter explained, is that its battery has been certified by the independent safety body Underwriter Laboratories as nonflammable, compared to lithium-ion batteries, which are notoriously not. Alsym’s battery also offers superior performance at both high and low temperatures. The company’s cells will be cost-competitive with the leading lithium-ion chemistry right off the bat, Chatter told me, and the overall system will be 30% cheaper because the battery’s thermal stability and ability to perform at high temperatures eliminates the need for the costly, maintenance-heavy cooling systems. It’s a similar value proposition to that of Peak Energy, another startup seeking to deploy sodium-ion battery storage systems.
While sodium-ion cells are less energy dense than lithium-ion, eliminating the entire HVAC system means that the system itself isn’t all that much bulkier, making it possible to deploy in space-constrained environments such as commercial or residential buildings.
Alsym aims to manufacture its sodium-ion cells in the U.S., both for supply chain security and to take advantage of the country’s abundant sodium reserves. The latter, Chatter told me, means that “it will be cheaper to build it in the United States than anywhere else.”
While Alsym operates a pilot plant making sodium-ion cells, the company plans to scale its production through partnerships with third parties who either operate existing lithium-ion cell facilities or are in the process of building them, as sodium-ion cells can be produced on the same lines. “We want to partner with somebody who has that scale,” Chatter told me, explaining that a company of Alsym’s size could never compete with China by going at it alone. “But if we can partner with a much larger player who has the heft and the skill set and expertise to build large plants — or already has lithium ion plants — then we can compete head to head.”
Tata Energy, a leading power company in India worth about $14 billion, led Alsym’s Series C round. Chatter said the company also has strategic support from several mining companies, with other early use cases likely to include microgrid installations as well as primary or backup power for data centers and telecom companies.
“It’s not exactly the most glamorous space right now,” Chatter admitted, acknowledging the string of recent battery company failures. “But things happen in ebbs and flows.” He thinks the sodium-ion sector just needs one big success to prove its potential as a safer, cheaper alternative. “It really is all about cost and revenue opportunities,” he told me. If all goes according to plan for Alsym, we won’t have to wait much longer to see if he’s right.
Economist Philippe Aghion views carbon taxes as a tool to decarbonize, but not a solution in themselves.
Philippe Aghion — one of three Nobel laureates in economics announced Monday — is a theorist of innovation. Specifically, his work concerns “creative destruction,” the process by which technological innovation spreads throughout the economy as new businesses replace old ones, sparking economic growth.
If that reminds you of the energy transition, i.e. the process by which cleaner fuels and new, more efficient ways of generating energy replace fossil fuel combustion, well, you’re not alone.
“I think innovation is the best hope for climate change,” Aghion said in a 2023 interview with VoxTalks Economics. “Of course, we need to innovate in our day to day behavior, but we’ll fight climate change because we will find new sources of energy that are cleaner than coal or gas, and because we will also find ways to produce with energy-saving devices.”
Along with Brown University economist Peter Howitt, Aghion developed mathematical models to describe how creative destruction works, building on foundational work by the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter. Along the way, Aghion also worked with 2024 Nobel laureate Daron Acemoglu, who won his prize for describing the institutions that best foster economic growth.
Aghion and Acemoglu have tangled with fellow laureate William Nordhaus, whose models of how the harms of climate change slow down economic growth practically invented the field of climate economics. In Nordhaus’ framing, climate change is the ultimate externality — that is, an economic factor not reflected in the market. The most efficient way to solve climate change, then, is to price in the externality by putting a tax on carbon emissions. Once the price of highly emitting goods reflects the true cost of producing them, the market will naturally favor lower-emitting goods.
Aghion instead sees carbon prices as another way to spur climate-friendly innovation throughout the economy.
In a 2014 paper written with Cameron Hepburn, Alexander Teytelboym, and Dimitri Zenghelis, Aghion argued that “product and process innovation” will ultimately drive decarbonization. Previous approaches to climate economics, Aghion wrote, use inadequate models for the effects of innovation, and so “significantly bias the assessment of the cost of future low-carbon technologies” to be higher than they are in reality.
To be clear, Aghion isn’t against a carbon tax. “A carbon tax or carbon price is a tool to redirect natural charge but it’s not the only tool,” Aghion said during the 2023 interview. “You need other tools, as well,” including “subsidies to green innovation, and more generally green industrial policy.” The point is less to discourage emitters and more to encourage the producers of non-emitting technologies.
Aghion argues that climate policy needs to hit hard and hit quickly, precisely to induce the kind of competitive innovation that he thinks drives economic growth. “If you wait longer, firms will be even better at dirty technologies, and it will take longer before their skills on clean technologies catch up with their skills on dirty technologies, and so you need to act promptly,” he said in 2023.
In a 2012 paper on the auto industry written with Antoine Dechezleprêtre, David Hemous Ralf Martin, and John Van Reenen, Aghion tracks patents in the auto industry and finds that “higher fuel prices induce firms to redirect technical change towards clean innovation and away from dirty innovation.”
He also finds that the nature of the firms matters. Companies that have a background in green technology innovate more in green technology, while companies that specialize in carbon-emitting or “dirty” technologies are more likely to find better ways to emit carbon. You’d expect Porsche or Ferrari to come up with a better internal combustion engine than Tesla, for instance, but for Tesla to invest more in pushing the capabilities of electric drivetrains.
Tesla is in many ways the ideal example of this kind of policy mix working. The company has benefited both from federal and state taxes on gasoline (as well as California’s unique emissions rules), which suppress demand for fossil fuels, and from subsidies and other financial support, which helped it reach economies of scale and performance parity with internal combustion vehicles more quickly.
While theoretically every auto company had the same incentives in both California and the nation as a whole to develop electric vehicles, Tesla made up the bulk of the entire market for years as it never had to split its focus between a legacy internal combustion business and a battery electric business.
Aghion’s work supports this kind of “belt-and-suspenders” approach to climate policy, where fossil fuel emissions are made more expensive and subsidies are provided to advance green innovation.
This may sound pretty familiar. While America’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, eschewed carbon taxes in favor of incentives and subsidies, the overall policy mix pursued by the Biden administration — including a fee on methane emissions, regulations on tailpipe and power plant emissions, and increased fuel economy standards — approximated this mix.
Aghion clearly recognized the IRA as a real life version of his ideas. When asked in 2023 about the kind of industrial policy he envisioned, he said, “The Americans are doing it now with the IRA.”
This kind of policy mix wasn’t just optimal policy economically, but also necessary politically.
Pointing to France’s experience with fuel taxes, which led to country-wide protests beginning in 2018, he cautioned that if policy makes dirty fuels more expensive without making clean technology technology cheaper, “then people riot.”
Of course, the IRA and other U.S. climate policies have not been as politically durable as their supporters hoped for. This is despite the fact that, alongside trying to boost green businesses, recent attempts at industrial policy explicitly tried to support “dirty” business, as well, whether by subsidizing older auto companies’ investments in electric vehicles or by supporting carbon capture and hydrogen investments by big oil companies.
But the power of dirty business remained immense — and opposed to climate policy.
The oil and gas industry were some of the biggest supporters of President Trump’s reelection campaign. Since he took office, one of their own — former fracking executive Chris Wright — has overseen the dismantling of much of the Energy Department’s investments in clean energy.
The basic calculus of Aghion’s approach may very well persist as rich countries struggle with growth and the harms attributed to climate change continue to add up.
“I think now we made progress on the idea that innovation is a big part of the solution and … that carbon price is not enough,” he said. “You need smart industrial policy aimed at green innovation. That’s the idea.”
On Corpus Christi’s drought, China’s Scottish factory, and no more ships to give
Current conditions: Texas declared a wildfire disaster in 179 counties as hot, dry, windy weather puts more than half the state at risk • Floods caused by torrential rain from Tropical Storm Raymond and the remnants of Hurricane Priscilla killed at least 41 people in Mexico over the weekend • A heat wave in Central Asia is spiking temperatures as high as 95 degrees Fahrenheit.
Utah Governor Spencer Cox.Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
Republicans are growing frustrated with President Donald Trump’s rollbacks of policies to support solar energy, the cheapest and fastest-growing source of electricity at a moment when power prices are soaring nationwide. In Georgia, voters who backed the president say the repeal of programs that offered free panels to low-income Americans is making them second-guess their ballots. One of those voters, 39-year-old Jennifer McCoy told The New York Times, “I like a lot of Trump’s outlooks on things, but there are some things, like the solar panels, that I don’t like, now that I know.”
Utah Governor Spencer Cox, meanwhile, went on a tear on X over the Bureau of Land Management’s quashing of the nation’s largest solar project, the 6.2-gigawatt Esmeralda 7 in Nevada. In a post that linked to the scoop Heatmap’s Jael Holzman published last week on the cancellation, Cox said, “This is how we lose the AI/energy arms race with China.” While he noted that “intermittent sources have been overvalued in the past (and offshore wind is a disaster and should be discontinued), the incredible leaps in battery technology completely change the value proposition of solar in the right places.” He went on to re-post messages from three think tank researchers criticizing the move and warnings about the energy needs of data centers.
Corpus Christi is the main water provider for South Texas, a region that has drawn the likes of Tesla, Exxon Mobil, fuel refineries, plastic producers, and lithium processors with what The Wall Street Journal called “the promise of land, cheap energy and, perhaps most critically, abundant water.” But a crippling drought is depleting the region’s reservoirs, and the city may fail to meet the area’s water demand in as little as 18 months. “Cue the panic,” the newspaper wrote. Industrial plants are bracing for rate hikes. “The water situation in South Texas is about as dire as I’ve ever seen it,” said Mike Howard, chief executive of Howard Energy Partners, a private energy company that owns several facilities in Corpus Christi. “It has all the energy in the world, and it doesn’t have water.”
China last week ratcheted up restrictions on exports of rare earths, including for electric vehicle batteries and semiconductors, kicking off another round of the trade war with the United States. But in Scotland, one of China’s biggest wind turbine manufacturers is investing more than $2 billion in building a new factory. Guangdong-based Ming Yang announced plans for its new plant to churn out parts for offshore turbines on Friday, though the company said the move was “subject to final approvals from the U.K. government,” the Financial Times reported.
In the U.S., meanwhile, the Trump administration’s crackdown on offshore wind is so severe the oil industry is stepping in to complain, warning that it’s setting a dangerous precedent for other energy sectors, as I reported in this newsletter last week. But private actors are, at least, responding to the Trump administration’s push to re-shore critical industries to the U.S. On Monday morning, JPMorgan Chase announced plans to invest $10 billion into mineral production and infrastructure for artificial intelligence.
Equinor’s 810-megawatt Empire Wind project off the coast of New York’s Long Island has faced real challenges, with the Trump administration halting construction in April before allowing it to resume in May. The latest hurdle? The developers can’t get hold of the specially-made vessel for installing wind turbines it was counting on having by next year. As Canary Media’s Clare Fieseler wrote on Friday, two shipbuilding companies broke into a public skirmish, with one unexpectedly canceling a contract and the other threatening legal action over the construction of the specialized ship. The vessel, which is more than 98% complete, is anchored in Singapore, its fate now uncertain. “We have been informed by Maersk of an issue concerning its contract with Seatrium related to the wind turbine installation vessel originally contracted by Empire Offshore Wind LLC for use in 2026,” an Equinor spokesperson told Fieseler. “We are currently assessing the implications of this issue and evaluating available options.”
The episode shows how the Trump administration’s “total war on wind power,” as Jael once put it, makes companies more vulnerable to other setbacks. The White House tasked a half-dozen federal agencies, as I previously wrote, with trying to block construction of offshore turbines. But the general lack of ships capable of carrying giant turbines was a problem even before Trump returned to office.
California lawmakers last week passed Senate Bill 655, a first-in-the-nation framework to set maximum standards for safe indoor temperatures in residential housing. The bill requires state agencies to achieve the standard as heat deaths surge across the country. While the state has long required homes to maintain a minimum indoor air temperature of 68 degrees Fahrenheit, there was no equivalent standard for heat. “SB 655 responds to the public health emergency of California’s deadly heat waves,” Senator Henry Stern, the bill’s lead author, said in a statement. “This bill proactively requires the state to include safe residential indoor temperatures in its policies and programs so that Californians, especially renters and low-income households who are most at risk, have life-saving cooling.”
It’s part of a bigger wave of state legislation on climate and energy that California just passed, as Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo outlined recently. Among them: Families who lose everything in future wildfires will now be able to collect the bulk of their insurance payout without having to catalog every item burned in the blaze under new legislation Governor Gavin Newsom signed Friday. Starting in 2026, as The New York Times reported, insurers must pay at least 60% of a homeowner’s personal-property coverage — up to $350,000 — without requiring a detailed inventory of everything lost. That’s double the 30% of the dwelling’s value that insurers were required to pay out in advance, with a payout capped at $250,000.
As the Trump administration is gutting funding for America's polar research, the British are stepping in. The British Antarctic Survey’s RRS Sir David Attenborough, a state-of-the-art ship named after the famed naturalist, will bolster research on everything from “hunting underwater tsunamis” to tracking glacier melt and whale populations. “The saying goes 'what happens in Antarctica doesn't stay in Antarctica,’” BAS oceanographer Peter Davis told reporters during a tour of the vessel as it prepared to depart Harwich, eastern England, last week.