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:
Despite record sales, America’s most affordable EV gets the axe.
The hottest new car debut of 2023 probably isn’t anything you’ve ever heard of. Unless you live in China, it’s not even something you can buy. It’s the BYD Seagull, a compact electric car from a rising giant in the EV space. And with a range of up to 252 miles and a price tag of 78,000 yuan (only $11,300), it’s expected to become China’s best-selling car within months.
If you want anything even close to that in the United States, good luck. Your outlook got a little dimmer this week when General Motors announced the Chevrolet Bolt EV and its slightly larger sibling, the Bolt EUV, would be discontinued. The decision brings an end to a massively successful line of smaller, affordable, high-range EVs from America’s largest automaker.
Granted, the Bolt’s demise had been expected for at least a year. GM is in the midst of launching a new generation of EVs with modern hardware, software, and batteries as it aims to become an all-electric car company by 2035. And the Bolt was becoming inferior to newer cars with quicker charging times.
But what doesn’t seem to be in the cards right now is anything that will directly replace the Bolt: something small and inexpensive, as well as great on electric range.
“When the Chevrolet Bolt EV launched, it was a huge technical achievement and the first affordable EV, which set in motion GM’s all-electric future,” Chevrolet spokesman Cody Williams told CNBC in a statement. “Chevrolet will launch several new EVs later this year based on the Ultium platform in key segments, including the Silverado EV, Blazer EV, and Equinox EV. ”
The problem is that all of those vehicles are bigger and more expensive than the Bolt. GM is hinging a lot of its entry-level hopes on the Equinox EV, which should start around $30,000 before any tax incentives. But it dwarfs the compact Bolt, and further proves that America is a truck and SUV market now — and that reality will carry over into the electric era too.
Sales of small cars and sedans have been on the decline for years, thanks in part to cheap gas, changing buyer tastes, loopholes that allow larger vehicles to face less-strict fuel economy and emissions regulations, and the thirst for profit margins among car companies.
Nonetheless, it would be a mistake to think the Bolt and Bolt EUV were failures. Very much the opposite, and GM CEO Mary Barra wrote as much in a letter to shareholders about Q1 2023 results.
“In addition, we delivered more than 20,000 EVs, thanks to the third consecutive quarter of record Chevrolet Bolt EV and Bolt EUV deliveries and rising Cadillac Lyriq sales,” Barra wrote. “We are now no. 2 in the U.S. market, and we increased our EV market share by 8 percentage points.”
If you’re asking, “Why kill a car like that?,” know that it is not a crazy question. One possible answer is GM thinks it can do even better with the bigger Equinox EV, much as Tesla’s Model Y crossover is its global best-seller.
Yet it brings me no pleasure to write the eulogy for the Chevrolet Bolt. With 259 miles of electric range and a starting price of just $26,500 (and that’s before any tax incentives, which in recent months made it an almost hilarious steal), it has long been one the best cars in GM’s portfolio.
The Bolt arrived in late 2016, right as the world was only barely starting to take EVs seriously. At the same time, Tesla, which had proven its ability to make high-speed, high-end luxury cars like the Model S, was trying to become a mainstream volume-selling manufacturer with the Model 3 sedan.
For a good couple of years, the modern electric market in the U.S. was essentially just the Bolt, the Model 3, and the Nissan Leaf, another compact EV stalwart set to be discontinued so its parent company can focus on crossovers. The Bolt and the Model 3 were unlikely competitors by virtue of arriving around the same time, having the same mass-appeal mission and running on electricity. I always thought that comparison was a bit unfair; the Model 3 is a sport sedan at heart, and nobody seriously compares a BMW 3 Series to a Toyota Corolla.
The Bolt had a few other marks against it as the Model 3 increasingly took the spotlight. Admittedly, the Chevy’s tall hatchback design just wasn’t very sexy. It screamed “economy car” right as Tesla was successfully changing the golf-cart image that had dogged EVs for too long. And the front-wheel-drive Bolt simply couldn’t match the Model 3 in sheer driving dynamics. It had no “Performance” version with supercar-crushing 0-60 mph times.
But none of that takes away from how good the Bolt actually was. The range was incredible for its time and still quite respectable today. GM initially promised 200 miles of range, but the end result did even better at 238 miles. Over its life, the range was upgraded even further. And while it wasn’t the barnstormer the Model 3 was, it was surprisingly quick and fun to drive, almost on par with a hot hatchback like a Volkswagen GTI.
I remember being deeply impressed after spending a week with a Bolt in 2018 when I was editor-in-chief of the automotive website Jalopnik. (More so than some members of my staff, in fact, who thought the Bolt was ugly and that I was crazy for liking it.) EVs were much more novel five years ago than they are now, but here was something affordable, highly practical, and with enough range that it could easily fit many people’s lifestyles.
Tesla’s cars felt like spaceships; to me, the Bolt felt like proof that normal, everyday electric driving could be possible for anyone.
Certainly, its nearly eight-year run hasn’t been perfect. Bolt sales went up and down over the years (although it’s been shattering records lately thanks to the tax incentives) and it was repeatedly hit with recalls over devastating lithium-ion battery fires. Still, it had its best year ever in 2022, with nearly 40,000 sold. Sure, Tesla sells more EVs in a month in the U.S., but again, the intense demand for the Bolt lately proved there’s a place for all kinds of electric cars in our landscape.
Over its lifespan, the Bolt spawned the bigger EUV version and also became incredibly popular in municipal fleets and as delivery vehicles. How could it not? It was a near-perfect car for any city dweller looking to go green and not take up a lot of space. It’s hard to imagine the longer, taller Equinox EV filling those needs the same way.
So with the concept proven by the Bolt, what comes next? Unfortunately, the answer seems to be bigger EVs. Chevrolet itself makes very few actual cars anymore; the Bolt was one of the remaining few. Ford has stopped making cars and sedans entirely, and even the popular Mustang Mach-E is a crossover. Hyundai offers an impressive lineup of EVs, but so far only one in that family is a sedan, the Ioniq 6. And EVs in America still averaged around $60,000 at the end of last year, a far cry from the Bolt — to say nothing of BYD’s Seagull.
For critics who say that the forthcoming EV revolution will repeat many of the auto industry’s sins by putting pedestrians, cyclists, and even parking garages further at risk with massive curb weights, the death of the Bolt gives them plenty of ammunition.
On one hand, it makes sense that new technology needs to be expensive at first in order to scale; in my lifetime alone, that’s happened with everything from VHS tapes to smartphones. Automakers need hefty profit margins to pay for this EV transition. But our own buying habits, what we’ve been offered so far, and our terrible approach to regulation has made us addicted to big cars. All of it feels like a far cry from the humble, cheap, get-stuff-done Bolt.
If the Model 3 proved electric cars could be sexy and built at scale, the Bolt proved what traditional, legacy automakers could do if they actually took EVs seriously. It should be remembered as such, a game-changer in its own way. It’s just a shame that nothing seems poised to step up and take its place.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The birthplace of electricity has more recently been known more for smokestacks and traffic jams than world-changing energy breakthroughs. But that could be about to change.
Why New Jersey? I’ll admit, that’s what I was wondering as my S.U.V. took a Sopranos-adjacent route from midtown Manhattan to an industrial park in Kearny, the Newark suburb bounded by the Passaic River to the west and a landfill to the east, where the holy grail of energy may soon be forged.
I was visiting the nuclear fusion company Thea Energy, which is in the process of designing a stellarator, a kind of torqued donut — French crullers were mentioned several times by Thea cofounder and chief executive Brian Berzin during my time there — that, with the help of 450 magnets and about 15 megawatts of power, could one day hold plasma in place, thereby creating the conditions for the same nuclear reaction that powers the stars to happen here on Earth.
The New Jersey facility was, to my eyes, part tech startup and part laboratory, with rows of desks in an open office and then, once the requisite eye-safety equipment was applied, a laboratory and small-scale manufacturing site.
There were workers winding high-temperature superconductor tape using what can only be described as an oversized VCR-like device named “Zeus” (Greek mythology is the company’s primary motif; the eventual fusion device will be called “Eos,” the goddess of dawn, while Thea is the goddess of light) to make the magnets that could one day make up the stellarator.
We walked past a precision cutting device known as a CNC machine for milling parts on site. Berzin was particularly proud of Thea’s ability to quickly iterate this part of the manufacturing process. A year ago, “when we wanted a new piece of stainless steel in that very specific configuration, we sent out engineering drawings to a third party — sometimes in the United States, sometimes abroad — for them to mill that piece of metal.”
That process “takes a couple of weeks, and then they send it back to you. Sometimes it’s not perfect — you have to get rid of a burr. The quality control is all over the place.” By milling on-site, Thea engineers can make parts and components faster and figure out more quickly what they actually need.
The last stop on the tour was the Canis, a kind of aluminum gougère held up by spindly legs that contained within it an array of nine magnets, with each magnet connected to 50 sensors that could dynamically control and adjust for any errors or misalignments in the magnetic fields. These mass-manufactured magnets could eventually allow the stellarator to be something more like a standard off-the-line product than a finnicky, boutique, one-of-a-kind science project that can only be installed and monitored by plasma physics PhDs.
“We can use very basic manufacturing technologies,” Berzin said. “Here we’re sitting in New Jersey right now. Things are built by local trade laborers, unionized laborers. As much as I love PhDs, power plants are not built by people that have PhDs from MIT or Harvard.”
The facility had a well-worn aura of frugality, a virtue rarely associated with fusion research, which is famous for international consortia taking decades and billions of dollars to come up with working devices, if they ever do. Last year, the team behind the ITER fusion reactor, whose history stretches back to 1985, announced that operation would be delayed until the mid-2030s, a nine-year setback that will likely tack on another €5 billion (around $5.8 billion) to the total cost of over €20 billion.
By contrast, Berzin told me, “when investors and stakeholders come to visit our labs, the one reaction that occurs frequently is, Wow, you’ve done all of this with only $20 million?”
Thea’s primary competitors in the booming private fusion industry, which has attracted over $7 billion in private investment globally, can be found outside Boston, where Commonwealth Fusion Systems spun out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or north of Seattle, where Sam Altman-backed Helion is located, well known centers of scientific research and technology businesses.
Some of these competitors are incredibly well funded, especially CFS, which has raised around $2 billion — a substantial portion of all money raised by fusion companies everywhere.
Thea, by contrast, has raised around $30 million all told, with $20 million coming in a Series A backed by Prelude Ventures, Lowercarbon Capital, and other venture investors.
Berzin attributed this cost efficiency in part to the company’s heavy use of software in design and operations, which is a “more scalable, more cost-efficient thing,” he told me. “We’ve been able to go very far with our Series A compared to our peers,” which he credits to a “pretty gritty mindset.”
And yet still I wondered: Why North Jersey, an area better known for turnpikes, swamps, and pharmaceutical companies? “New York, New Jersey, the greater New York City area, I think notoriously within the investor-VC-tech community, is seen as being behind the ball,” Berzin said.
“I'm really proud to be here in the tri-state area. You have some great industries, people move to New York City to be in the center of the universe for one of many fields, and that has been something we've been able to leverage. All these different skill-sets and engineering talent pools weren't necessarily in fusion before,” Berzin said. “Control systems, optimization, manufacturing — these people exist within the New York City area.”
Northern New Jersey itself is something of an energy crossroads. It lies between two centers of fusion research — the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, where the stellarator was first dreamed up and from which Thea itself was spun out, and Columbia University, which has its own fusion and plasma physics research programs.
Northern New Jersey is also centrally located within PJM Interconnection, the United States’s largest electricity market. Northern New Jersey is also centrally located within PJM Interconnection, the United States’s largest electricity market. While there isn’t yet a site for Thea to actually install their system in a power plant, executives did point to brownfield sites such as a decommissioned coal plant in Jersey City, which already has interconnection with the grid.
Not for nothing, New Jersey has been a center for electricity innovation for just about as long as there’s been a commercial market for electricity. Thomas Edison’s Menlo Park lab was located about 20 miles south of Thea. The company’s co-founder David Gates is a winner of the Edison Patent Award for the stellarator work at the Princeton lab.
Plus, “I live in New York City,” Berzin added. “It’s the center of the universe.”
If you can make fusion happen here — or at least across the Hudson from here — you might be able to make it happen anywhere.
The widely circulating document lists more than 68 activities newly subject to upper-level review.
The federal government is poised to put solar and wind projects through strict new reviews that may delay projects across the country, according to a widely circulating document reviewed by Heatmap.
The secretarial order authored by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Gregory Wischer is dated July 15 and states that “all decisions, actions, consultations, and other undertakings” that are “related to wind and solar energy facilities” will now be required to go through multiple layers of political review from Burgum’s office and Interior’s Office of the Deputy Secretary.
This new layer of review would span essentially anything Interior and its many subagencies would ordinarily be consulted on before construction on a project can commence — a milestone crucial for being able to qualify for federal renewable energy tax credits under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The order lists more than 68 different activities newly subject to higher-level review, including some basic determinations as to whether projects conform with federal environmental and conservation laws, as well as consultations on compliance with wildlife protection laws such as the Endangered Species Act. The final item in the list sweeps “any other similar or related decisions, actions, consultations, or undertakings” under the order’s purview, in case there was any grey area there.
In other words, this order is so drastic it would impact projects on state and private lands, as well as federal acreage. In some cases, agency staff may now need political sign-offs simply to tell renewables developers whether they need a permit at all.
“This is the way you stall and kill projects. Intentionally red-tape projects to death,” former Biden White House clean energy adviser Avi Zevin wrote on Bluesky in a post with a screenshot of the order.
The department has yet to release the document and it’s unclear whether or when it will be made public. The order’s existence was first reported by Politico; in a statement to that news outlet, the department did not deny the document’s existence but attacked leakers. “Let’s be clear: leaking internal documents to the media is cowardly, dishonest, and a blatant violation of professional standards,” the statement said.
Interior’s press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Heatmap about when this document may be made public. We also asked whether this would also apply to transmission connected to solar and wind. You had better believe I’ll be following up with the department to find out, and we’ll update this story if we hear back from them.
Two former Microsoft employees have turned their frustration into an awareness campaign to hold tech companies accountable.
When the clean energy world considers the consequences of the artificial intelligence boom, rising data center electricity demand and the strain it’s putting on the grid is typically top of mind — even if that’s weighed against the litany of potential positive impacts, which includes improved weather forecasting, grid optimization, wildfire risk mitigation, critical minerals discovery, and geothermal development.
I’ve written about a bunch of it. But the not-so-secret flip side is that naturally, any AI-fueled improvements in efficiency, data analytics, and predictive capabilities will benefit well-capitalized fossil fuel giants just as much — if not significantly more — than plucky climate tech startups or cash-strapped utilities.
“The narrative is a net impact equation that only includes the positive use cases of AI as compared to the operational impacts, which we believe is apples to oranges,” Holly Alpine, co-founder of the Enabled Emissions Campaign, told me. “We need to expand that conversation and include the negative applications in that scoreboard.”
Alpine founded the campaign alongside her partner, Will Alpine, in February of last year, with the goal of holding tech giants accountable for the ways users leverage their products to accelerate fossil fuel production. Both formerly worked for Microsoft on sustainability initiatives related to data centers and AI, but quit after what they told me amounted to a string of unfulfilled promises by the company and a realization that internal pressure alone couldn’t move the needle as far as they’d hoped.
While at Microsoft, they were dismayed to learn that the company had contracts for its cloud services and suite of AI tools with some of the largest fossil fuel corporations in the world — including ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Shell — and that the partnerships were formed with the explicit intent to expand oil and gas production. Other hyperscalers such as Google and Amazon have also formed similar cloud and AI service partnerships with oil and gas giants, though Google burnished its sustainability bona fides in 2020 by announcing that it would no longer build custom AI tools for the fossil fuel industry. (In response to my request for comment, Microsoft directed me to its energy principles, which were written in 2022, while the Alpines were still with the company, and to its 2025 sustainability report. Neither addresses the Alpines’ concerns directly, which is perhaps telling in its own right.)
AI can help fossil fuel companies accelerate and expand fossil fuel production throughout all stages of the process, from exploration and reservoir modeling to predictive maintenance, transport and logistics optimization, demand forecasting, and revenue modeling. And while partnerships with AI hyperscalers can be extremely beneficial, oil and gas companies are also building out their own AI-focused teams and capabilities in-house.
“As a lot of the low-hanging fruit in the oil reserve space has been plucked, companies have been increasingly relying on things like fracking and offshore drilling to stay competitive,” Will told me. “So using AI is now allowing those operations to continue in a way that they previously could not.”
Exxon, for example, boasts on its website that it’s “the first in our industry to leverage autonomous drilling in deep water,” thanks to its AI-powered systems that can determine drilling parameters and control the whole process sans human intervention. Likewise, BP notes that its "Optimization Genie” AI tool has helped it increase production by about 2,000 oil-equivalent barrels per day in the Gulf of Mexico, and that between 2022 and 2024, AI and advanced analytics allowed the company to increase production by 4% overall.
In general, however, the degree to which AI-enabled systems help expand production is not something companies speak about publicly. For instance, when Microsoft inked a contract with Exxon six years ago, it predicted that its suite of digital products would enable the oil giant to grow production in the Permian Basin by up to 50,000 barrels by 2025. And while output in the Permian has boomed, it’s unclear how much Microsoft is to thank for that as neither company has released any figures.
Either way, many of the climate impacts of using AI for oil and gas production are likely to go unquantified. That’s because the so-called “enabled emissions” from the tech sector are not captured by the standard emissions accounting framework, which categorizes direct emissions from a company’s operations as scope 1, indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy as scope 2, and all other emissions across the value chain as scope 3. So while tailpipe emissions, for example, would fall into Exxon’s scope 3 bucket — thus requiring disclosure — they’re outside Microsoft’s reporting boundaries.
According to the Alpines’ calculations, though, Microsoft’s deal with Exxon plus another contract with Chevron totalled “over 300% of Microsoft’s entire carbon footprint, including data centers.” So it’s really no surprise that hyperscalers have largely fallen silent when it comes to citing specific numbers, given the history of employee blowback and media furor over the friction between tech companies’ sustainability targets and their fossil fuel contracts.
As such, the tech industry often ends up wrapping these deals in broad language highlighting operational efficiency, digital transformation, and even sustainability benefits —- think waste reduction and decreasing methane leakage rates — while glossing over the fact that at their core, these partnerships are primarily designed to increase oil and gas output.
While none of the fossil fuel companies I contacted — Chevron, Exxon, Shell, and BP — replied to my inquiries about the ways they’re leveraging AI, earnings calls and published corporate materials make it clear that the industry is ready to utilize the technology to its fullest extent.
“We’re looking to leverage knowledge in a different way than we have in the past,” Shell CEO Wael Sawan said on the company’s Q2 earnings call last year, citing AI as one of the tools that he sees as integral to “transform the culture of the company to one that is able to outcompete in the coming years.”
Shell has partnered since 2018 with the enterprise software company C3.ai on AI applications such as predictive maintenance, equipment monitoring, and asset optimization, the latter of which has helped the company increase liquid natural gas production by 1% to 2%. C3.ai CEO Tom Siebel was vague on the company’s 2025 Q1 earnings call, but said that Shell estimates that the partnership has “generated annual benefit to Shell of $2 billion.”
In terms of AI’s ability to get more oil and gas out of the ground, “it’s like getting a Kuwait online,” Rakesh Jaggi, who leads the digital efforts at the oil-services giant SLB, told Barron’s magazine. Kuwait is the third largest crude oil producer in OPEC, producing about 2.9 million barrels per day.
Some oil and gas giants were initially reluctant to get fully aboard the AI hype train — even Exxon CEO Darren Woods noted on the company’s 2024 Q3 earnings call that the oil giant doesn’t “like jumping on bandwagons.” Yet he still sees “good potential” for AI to be a “part of the equation” when it comes to the company’s ambition to slash $15 billion in costs by 2027.
Chevron is similarly looking to AI to cut costs. As the company’s Chief Financial Officer Eimear Bonner explained during its 2024 Q4 earnings call, AI could help Chevron save $2 to $3 billion over the next few years as the company looks towards “using technology to do work completely differently.” Meanwhile, Saudi Aramco’s CEO Amin Nasser told Bloomberg that AI is a core reason it’s been able to keep production costs at $3 per barrel for the past 20 years, despite inflation and other headwinds in the sector.
Of course, it should come as no surprise that fossil fuel companies are taking advantage of the vast opportunities that AI provides. After all, the investors and shareholders these companies are ultimately beholden to would likely revolt if they thought their fiduciaries had failed to capitalize on such an enormous technological breakthrough.
The Alpines are well aware that this is the world we live in, and that we’re not going to overthrow capitalism anytime soon. Right now, they told me they’re primarily running a two-person “awareness campaign,” as the general public and sometimes even former colleagues are largely in the dark when it comes to how AI is being used to boost oil and gas production. While Will said they’re “staying small and lean” for now while they fundraise, the campaign has support from a number of allies including the consumer rights group Public Citizen, the tech worker group Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, and the NGO Friends of the Earth.
In the medium term, they’re looking toward policy shifts that would require more disclosure and regulation around AI’s potential for harm in the energy sector. “The only way we believe to really achieve deep change is to raise the floor at an international or national policy level,” Will told me. As an example, he pointed to the EU’s comprehensive regulations that categorize AI use cases by risk level, which then determines the rules these systems are subject to. Police use of facial recognition is considered high risk, for example, while AI spam filters are low risk. Right now, energy sector applications are not categorized as risky at all.
“What we would advocate for would be that AI use in the energy sector falls under a high risk classification system due to its risk for human harm. And then it would go through a governance process, ideally that would align with climate science targets,” Will told me. “So you could use that to uplift positive applications like AI for methane leak detection, but AI for upstream scenarios should be subject to additional scrutiny.”
And realistically, there’s no chance of something like this being implemented in the U.S. under Trump, let alone somewhere like Saudi Arabia. And even if such regulations were eventually enacted in some countries, energy markets are global, meaning governments around the world would ultimately need to align on risk mitigation strategies for reigning in AI’s potential for climate harm.
As Will told me, “that would be a massive uphill battle, but we think it’s one that’s worth fighting.”