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:
An interview with architect Marc Thorpe on building a cool house powered by the sun.
Architect and Industrial designer Marc Thorpe runs a multi-disciplinary studio in New York. His innovative approach to architecture, branding and furniture design for clients including Under Armour, Moroso and Ligne Roset is rooted in the belief in an architecture of responsibility. His original designs aim to be sustainable and affordable. He recently collaborated with Stage Six (who scale social enterprise) and affordable housing social enterprise group, Échale International on a sustainable and ecologically responsible housing development in Uganda. Each home, constructed of soil bricks, has its own water tower to collect rainwater in case of drought.
I spoke with Marc about Fremont House, he and his wife’s concept home built to showcase how off-grid living can be both stylish and affordable. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
What is your general architecture approach/design?
Our approach is straightforward, simple, and legible. In the case of the several homes I’ve built upstate, it’s really been more about just trying to bring some degree of taste and sophistication to the language of architecture upstate using local vernacular. But at the same time, I’m approaching it utilizing renewable technology. The short of it is to keep everything tight and local, integrate renewable tech, and push for that 100% win/win.
Marco Petrini
How did you achieve this at the Fremont House?
We wanted to test out the solar concept along with the rectilinearity of the house. How can we keep the house as passive as possible so it doesn’t lose heat and cooling?
To start, we made the entire house solar-powered. It is not tied to the grid out of the gate. So, a zero dollar energy bill. The panels are all on the roof and are designed to accommodate southern exposure. The solar powers everything — lights, internet, appliances.
We all focused on the rectilinearity of the house, which is a passive move. We used platonic forms as a square, with 90 degree angles which make for an easier opportunity to lock it up and not lose cool. It’s also naturally cross-ventilated. There is no AC in the house whatsoever.
It’s heated with a wood burning stove and an energy efficient dyson heater inside the utility room which provides heat for piping and is always maintained at 55 degrees.
In winter, we make a fire, and because it’s square, the house doesn’t lose energy. It’s easier to heat than a house with different angles. Also the house has very few windows, so we are not losing heat that way.
Marco Petrini
How did you adapt the design for different seasons? Doesn’t it get boiling hot in summer?
Summer doesn’t get boiling hot here. The house is between Roscoe and Callicoon, New York, near Lake Tana. The area stays cool and rarely gets above 80 degrees. The cross ventilation allows the heat to move through the house naturally, it rises and goes straight out the window.
It’s also possible, if you need it, to put in an electric heat pump and a mini-split would provide AC.
Your Habitable score shows … wow, you barely have any climate risk! Not even for heat! Were you aware of that when you built here?
I didn’t know this when we were building, but I always knew the climate was super moderate here. There is lots of rain, lots of sun. It’s sort of a perfect place and also gets a lot of snow.
What decisions did you take to build the Catskill House for its environment?
We mostly had to work around hot and cold.
Also the roof panels are black and the roof is black so it retains heat. And when there is snowfall on it, the black has a faster heat coefficient to warm the snow so it melts quicker. The roof also is on an angle so the snow will fall right off — a natural cleaning too.
Marco Petrini
What would you have done differently now that you are living in it?
We finished Fremont House at the end of last year. So as of December 1, it will have been one full year.
Lessons learned? Its’ a two-story. In the future, we will build a one story. There’s just an ease of access to the roof when you need to get up there. Cleaning windows on the second level is a pain.
Otherwise, everything works perfectly. In the dead of winter, the house can heat up from freezing to 70 within a few hours. It has a small footprint, only 1,000 square feet (500 up and 500 downstairs) so a fire warms the whole house.
For the next house we do in North Branch that we are building to sell, we will execute a lot of these lessons. We will use the same approach and build according to the same concepts.
What are your three top takeaways for people who want to live off grid
1. Just take the position of being autonomous. Understand that you don’t need to rely on the system, on the grid. You don’t need to rely on anything. You can take responsibility for yourself and do it on your own.
2. You don’t need to sacrifice design to have a sustainable home. There’s a stigma around some of this stuff that is unjustified. It’s possible to have a well-designed home that is fully functioning without the powers pushing fossil fuels as the only solution.
3. There are so many opportunities to get off the grid: solar, geothermal, and other technologies. It’s worth the effort.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Empire Wind has been spared — but it may be one of the last of its kind in the U.S.
It’s been a week of whiplash for offshore wind.
On Monday, President Trump lifted his stop work order on Empire Wind, an 810-megawatt wind farm under construction south of Long Island that will deliver renewable power into New York’s grid. But by Thursday morning, Republicans in the House of Representatives had passed a budget bill that would scrap the subsidies that make projects like this possible.
The economics of building offshore wind in the U.S., at least during this nascent stage, are “entirely dependent” on tax credits, Marguerite Wells, the executive director of Alliance for Clean Energy New York, told me.
That being said, if the bill gets through the Senate and becomes law, Empire Wind may still be safe. The legislation would significantly narrow the window for projects to qualify for tax credits, requiring them to start construction by the end of this year and be operational by the end of 2028. Equinor, the company behind Empire Wind, maintains that it aims to reach commercial operations as soon as 2027. The four other offshore wind projects that are under construction in the U.S. — Sunrise Wind, also serving New York; Vineyard Wind, serving Massachusetts; Revolution Wind, serving Rhode Island and Connecticut; and Dominion Energy’s project in Virginia — are also expected to be completed before the cutoff.
Together, the five wind farms are expected to generate enough power for roughly 2.5 million homes and avoid more than 9 million tons of carbon emissions each year — similar to shutting down 23 natural gas-fired power plants.
Still, this would represent just a small fraction of the carbon-free energy eastern states are counting on offshore wind to provide. New York, for example, has a statutory goal of getting at least 9 gigawatts of power from the industry. Once Empire and Sunrise are completed, it will have just 1.7 gigawatts.
If the proposed changes to the tax credits are enacted, these five projects may be the last built in the U.S.
That’s not the case for solar farms or onshore wind, Oliver Metcalfe, head of wind research at BloombergNEF told me. They can still compete with fossil fuel generation — especially in the windiest and sunniest areas — without tax credits. That’s especially true in today’s environment of rising demand for power, since these projects have the additional benefit of being quick to build. The downside of losing the tax credits is, of course, that the power will cost marginally more than it otherwise would have.
For offshore wind farms to pencil out, however, states would have to pay a much higher price for the energy they produce. The tax credits knock off about a quarter of the price, Metcalfe said; without them, buyers will be back on the hook. “It’s likely that some either wouldn’t be willing to do that, or would dramatically decrease their ambition around the technology given the potential impacts it could have on ratepayers.”
Part of the reason offshore wind is so expensive is that the industry is still new in the U.S. We lack the supply chains, infrastructure, and experienced workforce built up over time in countries like China and the U.K. that have been able to bring costs down. That’s likely not going to change by the time these five projects are built, as they are all relying on European supply chains.
The Inflation Reduction Act spurred domestic manufacturers to begin developing supply chains to serve the next wave of projects, Wells told me. It gave renewable energy projects a 10-year runway to start construction to be eligible for the tax credits. “It was a long enough time window for companies to really invest, not just in the individual generation projects, but also manufacturing, supply chain, and labor chain,” she said.
Due to Trump’s attacks on the industry, the next wave of projects may not materialize, and those budding supply chains could go bust.
Trump put a freeze on offshore wind permitting and leasing on his first day in office, a move that 17 states are now challenging in court. A handful of projects are already fully permitted, but due to uncertainty around Trump’s tariffs — and now, around whether they’ll have access to the tax credits — they’re at a standstill.
“No one’s willing to back a new offshore wind project in today’s environment because there’s so much uncertainty around the future business case, the future subsidies, the future cost of equipment,” Metcalfe said.
The House budget bill may have kept the 45Q tax credit, but nixing transferability makes it decidedly less useful.
Very few of the Inflation Reduction Act’s tax credits made it through the House’s recently passed budget bill unscathed. One of the apparently lucky ones, however, was the 45Q credit for carbon capture projects. This provides up to $180 per metric ton for direct air capture and $85 for carbon captured from industrial or power facilities, depending on how the CO2 is subsequently sequestered or put to use in products such as low-carbon aviation fuels or building materials. The latest version of the bill doesn’t change that at all.
But while the preservation of 45Q is undoubtedly good news for the increasing number of projects in this space, carbon capture didn’t escape fully intact. One of the main ways the IRA supercharged tax credits was by making them transferable, turning them into an important financing tool for small or early-stage projects that might not make enough money to owe much — or even anything — in taxes. Being able to sell tax credits on the open market has often been the only way for smaller developers to take advantage of the credits. Now, the House bill will eliminate transferability for all projects that begin construction two years after the bill becomes law.
That’s going to make the economics of an already financially unsteady industry even more difficult. “Especially given the early stage of the direct air capture industry, transferability is really key,” Giana Amador, the executive director of an industry group called the Carbon Removal Alliance, told me. “Without transferability, most DAC companies won’t be able to fully capitalize upon 45Q — which, of course, threatens the viability of these projects.”
We’re not talking about just a few projects, either. We’re talking about the vast majority, Jessie Stolark, the executive director of another industry group, the Carbon Capture Coalition, told me. “The initial reaction is that this is really bad, and would actually cut off at the knees the utility of the 45Q tax credit,” Stolark said. Out of over 270 carbon capture projects announced as of today, Stolark estimates that fewer than 10 will be able to begin construction in the two years before transferability ends.
The alternative to easily transferable tax credits is a type of partnership between a project developer and a tax equity investor such as a bank. In this arrangement, investors give project developers cash in exchange for an equity stake in their project and their tax credit benefits. Deals like this are common in the renewable energy industry, but because they’re legally complicated and expensive, they’re not really viable for companies that aren’t bringing in a lot of revenue.
Because carbon capture is a much younger, and thus riskier technology than renewables, “tax equity markets typically require returns of 30% or greater from carbon capture and direct air capture project developers,” Stolark told me. That’s a much higher rate than tax equity partners typically require for wind or solar projects. “That out of the gate significantly diminishes the tax credit's value.” Taken together with inflation and high interest rates, all this means that “far fewer projects will proceed to construction,” Stolark said.
One DAC company I spoke with, Bay Area-based Noya, said that now that transferability is out, it has been exploring the possibility of forming tax equity partnerships. “We’ve definitely talked to banks that might be interested in getting involved in these kinds of things sooner than they would have otherwise gotten involved, due to the strategic nature of being partnered with companies that are growing fast,” Josh Santos, Noya’s CEO, told me.
It would certainly be a surprise to see banks — which are generally quite risk averse — lining up behind these kinds of new and unproven technologies, especially given that carbon capture doesn’t have much of a natural market. While CO2 can be used for some limited industrial purposes — beverage carbonation, sustainable fuels, low-carbon concrete — the only market for true carbon dioxide removal is the voluntary market, in which companies, governments, or individuals offset their own emissions by paying companies to remove carbon from the atmosphere. So if carbon capture is going to become a thriving, lucrative industry, it’s likely going to be heavily dependent on future government incentives, mandates, or purchasing commitments. And that doesn’t seem likely to happen in the U.S. anytime soon.
Noya, which is attempting to deploy its electrically-powered, modular direct air capture units beginning in 2027, is still planning on building domestically, though. As Santos told me, he’s eyeing California and Texas as promising sites for the company’s first projects. And while he said that the repeal of transferability will certainly “make things more complicated,” it is not enough of a setback for the company to look abroad.
“45Q is a big part of why we are focused on the U.S. mainly as our deployment site,” Santos explained. “We’ve looked at places like Iceland and the Middle East and Africa for potential deployment locations, and the tradeoff of losing 45Q in exchange for a cheaper something has to be significant enough for that to make sense,” he told me — something like more cost efficient electricity, permitting or installation costs. Preserving 45Q, he told me, means Noya’s long-term project economics are still “great for what we’re trying to build.”
But if companies can’t weather the short-term headwinds, they’ll never be able to reach the level of scale and profitability that would allow them to leverage the benefits of the 45Q credits directly. For many DAC companies such as Climeworks, which built the industry’s largest facility in Iceland, Amador and Stolark said that the domestic policy environment is causing hesitation around expanding in the U.S.
“We are very much at risk of losing our US leadership position in the industry,” Stolark told me. Meanwhile, she said that Canada, China, and the EU are developing policies that are making them increasingly attractive places to build.
As Amador put it, “I think no matter what these projects will be built, it’s just a question of whether the United States is the most favorable place for them to be deployed.”
House Republicans have bet that nothing bad will happen to America’s economic position or energy supply. The evidence suggests that’s a big risk.
When President Barack Obama signed the Budget Control Act in August of 2011, he did not do so happily. The bill averted the debt ceiling crisis that had threatened to derail his presidency, but it did so at a high cost: It forced Congress either to agree to big near-term deficit cuts, or to accept strict spending limits over the years to come.
It was, as Bloomberg commentator Conor Sen put it this week, the wrong bill for the wrong moment. It suppressed federal spending as America climbed out of the Great Recession, making the early 2010s economic recovery longer than it would have been otherwise. When Trump came into office, he ended the automatic spending limits — and helped to usher in the best labor market that America has seen since the 1990s.
On Thursday, the Republican majority in the House of Representatives passed their megabill — which is dubbed, for now, the “One Big, Beautiful Bill Act” — through the reconciliation process. They did so happily. But much like Obama’s sequestration, this bill is the wrong one for the wrong moment. It would add $3.3 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years. The bill’s next stop is the Senate, where it could change significantly. But if this bill is enacted, it will jack up America’s energy and environmental risks — for relatively little benefit.
It has become somewhat passé for advocates to talk about climate change, as The New York Times observed this week. “We’re no longer talking about the environment,” Chad Farrell, the founder of Encore Renewable Energy, told the paper. “We’re talking dollars and cents.”
Maybe that’s because saying that something “is bad for the climate” only makes it a more appealing target for national Republicans at the moment, who are still reveling in the frisson of their post-Trump victory. But one day the environment will matter again to Americans — and this bill would, in fact, hurt the environment. It will mark a new chapter in American politics: Once, this country had a comprehensive climate law on the books. Then Trump and Republicans junked it.
The Republican megabill will make climate change worse. Within a year or two, the U.S. will be pumping out half a gigaton more carbon pollution per year than it would in a world where the IRA remains on the books, according to energy modelers at Princeton University. Within a decade, it will raise American carbon pollution by a gigaton each year. That is a significant increase. For comparison, the United States is responsible for about 5.2 gigatons of greenhouse gas pollution each year. No matter what happens, American emissions are likely to fall somewhat between now and 2035 — but, still, we are talking about adding at least an extra year’s worth of emissions over the next decade. (Full disclosure: I co-host a podcast, Shift Key, with Jesse Jenkins, the lead author of that Princeton study.)
What does America get for this increase in air pollution? After all, it’s possible to imagine situations where such a surge could bring economic benefits. In this case, though, we don’t get very much at all. Repealing the tax credits will slash $1 trillion from GDP over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan group Energy Innovation. Texas will be particularly hard hit — it could lose up to $100 billion in energy investment. Across the country, household energy costs will rise 2% to 7% by 2035, on top of any normal market-driven volatility, according to the energy research firm the Rhodium Group. The country will become more reliant on foreign oil imports, yet domestic oil production will budge up by less than 1%.
In other words, in exchange for more pollution, Americans will get less economic growth but higher energy costs. The country’s capital stock will be smaller than it would be otherwise, and Americans will work longer hours, according to the Tax Foundation.
But this numbers-driven approach actually understates the risk of repealing the IRA’s tax credits. The House megabill raises two big risks to the economy, as I see it — risks that are moresignificant than the result of any one energy or economic model.
The first is that this bill — its policy changes and its fiscal impact — will represent a double hit to the capacity of America’s energy system. The Inflation Reduction Act’s energy tax credits were designed to lower pollution and reduce energy costs by bringing more zero-carbon electricity supply onto the U.S. power grid. The law didn’t discriminate about what kind of energy it encouraged — it could be solar, geothermal, or nuclear — as long as it met certain emissions thresholds.
This turned out to be an accidentally well-timed intervention in the U.S. energy supply. The advent of artificial intelligence and a spurt of factory building has meant that, in the past few years, U.S. electricity demand has begun to rise for the first time since the 1990s. At the same time, the country’s ability to build new natural gas plants has come under increasing strain. The IRA’s energy tax credits have helped make this situation slightly less harrowing by providing more incentives to boost electricity supply.
Republicans are now trying to remove these tax bonuses in order to finance tax cuts for high-earning households. But removing the IRA alone won’t pay for the tax credits, so they will also have to borrow trillions of dollars. This is already straining bond markets, driving up interest rates for Americans. Indeed, a U.S. Treasury auction earlier this week saw weak demand for $16 billion in bonds, driving stocks and the dollar down while spiking treasury yields.
Higher interest rates will make it more expensive to build any kind of new power plant. At a moment of maximum stress on the grid, the U.S. is going to pull away tax bonuses for new electricity supply and make it more expensive to do any kind of investment in the power system. This will hit wind, solar, and batteries hard; because renewables don’t have to pay for fuel, their cost variability is largely driven by financing. But higher interest rates will also make it harder to build new natural gas plants. Trump’s trade barriers and tariff chaos will further drive up the cost of new energy investment.
Republicans aren’t totally oblivious to this hazard. The House Natural Resource Committee’s permitting reform proposal could reduce some costs of new energy development and encourage greater power capacity — assuming, that is, that the proposal survives the Senate’s byzantine reconciliation rules. But even then, significant risk exists for runaway energy cost chaos. Over the next three years, America’s liquified natural gas export capacity is set to more than double. Trump officials have assumed that America will simply be able to drill for more natural gas to offset a rise in exports, but what if higher interest rates and tariff charges forbid a rise in capacity? A power price shock is not off the table.
So that’s risk No. 1. The second risk is arguably of greater strategic import. As part of their megabill, House Republicans have stripped virtually every demand-side subsidy for electric vehicles from the bill, including a $7,500 tax credit for personal EV purchases. At the same time, Senate Republicans and the Trump administration have gutted state and federal rules meant to encourage electric vehicle sales.
Republicans have kept, for now, some of the supply-side subsidies for manufacturing EVs and batteries. But without the paired demand-side incentives, American EV sales will fall. (The Princeton energy team projects an up to 40% decline in EV sales nationwide.) This will reduce the economic rationale for much of the current buildout in electric vehicle manufacturing and capacity happening across the country — it could potentially put every new EV and battery factory meant to come online after this year out of the money.
This will weaken the country’s economic competitiveness. Batteries are a strategic energy technology, and they will undergird many of the most important general and military technologies of the next several decades. (If you can make an EV, you can make an autonomous drone.) The Trump administration has realized that the United States and its allies need a durable mineral supply chain that can at least parallel China’s. But they seem unwilling to help any of the industries that will actually usethose minerals.
Does this mean that Republicans will kill America’s electric vehicle industry? Not necessarily. But they will dent its growth, strength, and expansion. They will make it weaker and more vulnerable to external interference. And they will increase the risks that the United States simply gives up on ever understanding battery technology and doubles down on internal combustion vehicles — a technology that, like coal-powered naval ships, is destined to lose.
It is, in other words, risky. But that is par for the course for this bill. It is risky to make the power grid so exposed to natural gas price volatility. It is risky to jack up the federal deficit during peacetime for so little gain. It is risky to cede so much demand for U.S.-sourced critical minerals. It is risky to raise interest rates in an era of higher trade barriers, uncertain supply shocks, and geopolitical instability.
This is what worries me most about the Republican megabill: It takes America’s flawed but fixable energy policy and replaces it with, well, a longshot parlay bet that nothing particularly bad will happen anytime soon. Will the Senate take such a bet? Now we find out.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the units in the sixth paragraph from megatons to gigatons.