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:
This year set a high bar for climate writing, from fiction like Eleanor Catton’s terrific Birnam Woods andLydia Kiesling’s sharp and prescientMobility to nonfiction like John Vaillant’s best-of-list-topping Fire Weather and Jeff Goodell’s timelyThe Heat Will Kill You First. Needless to say, next year has its work cut out for it.
But after spending the past several weeks digging through publisher catalogs and publicist emails (so … many … emails), I feel confident that the coming year of climate writing will be able to hold its own. Here are 17 books I immediately added to my to-be-read pile for 2024. (We’ve made it easy to add them to yours, too. Just check out our curated list on Bookshop here.)
Author Christy Lefteri first encountered wildfire in 2017, when she was working in Greece as a volunteer at a refugee shelter for women and children displaced by the Syrian Civil War. “I woke up one morning and the sky was filled with smoke,” she recalled to Publishers Weekly. “There was a fire in a nearby town. It haunted me.” The Book of Fire — which follows up Lefteri’s 2019 bestseller The Beekeeper of Aleppo — centers on a Greek family whose lives are forever altered when a forest fire destroys their home and village. The Guardiancalled it a “poignant, intimate family” story. Preorder it here.
Hannah Ritchie is the deputy editor of Our World in Data, one of my favorite resources for climate information, and her debut book has been described as a “surprisingly optimistic and often counterintuitive story, one that completely contradicts the doomsday-ism in most climate change conversations” by none other than — wait for it — Bill Gates. While many climate handbooks do a lot of handwringing, Ritchie aims to give readers actionable and data-backed ways to address urgent environmental problems. Not the End of the World has already earned a starred review from Kirkus Reviews and counts Margaret Atwood among its growing fans. Preorder it here.
If you want to get a jump on the book everyone will be talking about this winter, you should preorder Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto now. Already an international bestseller — the English translation arrives in January — Slow Down makes a Marxist argument that growth-focused solutions to inequality and climate change like the Green New Deal are a “dangerous compromise.” Instead, Saito argues for decarbonization through shorter working hours and an end to mass consumption. The book has received starred reviews from the major trade publications and excited intellectuals including philosopher Slavoj Žižek, critic and editor Malcolm Harris, and Fire Weather author John Vaillant, among others. You’ll want to have an opinion on this one. Preorder it here.
What do we owe the places we love? In 2017, Manjula Martin and her partner moved from San Francisco to a peaceful refuge in the forest of California’s Sonoma County. On the night of their housewarming party, however, a fire tore through the region; Martin’s new home survived, but it would only become under greater threat in 2020, one of the state’s worst fire seasons in recorded history. “Humans have evolved with fire,” Martin explained to my colleague Neel Dhanesha earlier this year, “and the more I engage with fire, the more I learn about it, the more I understand its role in both the land and the history of this place, the less afraid I feel.” Kirkuspraised her memoir as “insightful and alarming, hopeful, and consistently engaging.” Preorder it here.
I’ve been hearing great things about Ray Nayler since the release of his debut novel, The Mountain in the Sea, in 2022, and if I’m not careful, I will soon be playing catch-up: His sophomore book will be out in just a few weeks. In this novella, Russian scientists have managed to bring woolly mammoths back from extinction, but the creatures need to learn how to survive in the modern day. Enter elephant behavior expert Damira Khismatullina — who was murdered trying to protect the world’s last herds from ivory poachers. Luckily, Damira’s consciousness was uploaded to the cloudbefore she was killed, and the scientists are able to implant it in the woolly mammoths’ matriarch. Library Journal named this book its sci-fi pick of the month and “highly” recommends it for “readers of eco-terrorism thrillers and climate fiction.” And the premise might not be as far-fetched as it sounds: At COP28 this year, a Russian billionaire hawked a plan to bring back woolly mammoths to Siberia. Preorder it here.
“Near-future thrillers don’t come much better than this stellar effort,” according to Publishers Weekly. Set in a post-apocalyptic future, Ben’s fiancee Cara takes a job working for a billionaire on a private island called Sanctuary Rock — then writes Ben to say she isn’t coming back. Ben, worried, decides to track down Cara by joining the community while poking around for clues into what he’s sure must be a dark plot. This climate thriller is already out in the U.K. and I keep hearing about its “effective shocker of an ending” — pick up this one before someone spoils it for you. Preorder it here.
Aboriginal-Australian author Alexis Wright’s newest novel is aptly named: Praiseworthy has received tons of acclaim abroad, with The Guardian marveling, “How can one novel contain so much?” The book centers on a small town in north Australia threatened by a strange haze — though a precise description of the plot is difficult to come by. “The Ancestors of contemporary Aboriginal people are key to a story that also addresses issues of sovereignty, colonial violence, and the devastation caused by global climate change,” reads one attempt. “In addition, Praiseworthy is a tale of migrations and family connections elsewhere. And it is a story about donkeys.” But as “freewheeling” as its plot might be, the raves for Praiseworthy are impossible to ignore. It’s a “heartbreaking masterpiece,” said Publishers Weekly, adding: “This is unforgettable.” Preorder it here.
Former HuffPost climate reporter Sarah Ruiz-Grossman makes her debut with A Fire So Wild, which its publisher describes as Little Fires Everywhere meets Disappearing Earth. On Abigail’s 50th birthday, she decides to throw a party to raise funds for a new affordable housing project in Berkeley. But while the haves mingle with the have-nots — Willow, whom Abigail met at a soup kitchen, is working as a server at the party — a wildfire burns closer and closer to the gala. This novel sounds juicy — and ripe for Hollywood. Enjoy the bragging rights of saying you read the book first. Preorder it here.
Birding to Change the World shares its name with a course that its author, Trish O’Kane, teaches at the University of Vermont, pairing college students with elementary school children and having them go birdwatching together. But O’Kane wasn’t always a birder; it wasn’t until Hurricane Katrina struck her home in New Orleans that she “took a cup of coffee and sat on the back stoop. About a dozen small brown sparrows clung to a few spindly trees. Where did they go during the hurricane? How did they survive?” In a starred review, Publishers Weeklypraised the memoir for knitting together personal and natural history to share how O’Kane’s interest in birds grew to the point that she “quit her journalism career, [returned] to school at age 45 ... and [became] an ardent conservationist.” Preorder it here.
“My grandmother Mabel Raboteau fled the coastal town of Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, and the terror of Jim Crow along the northern pathway of the Great Migration, to Michigan, to save her life and the lives of her children.” So begins a 2019 essay by Emily Raboteau in The New York Review of Books titled “Lessons In Survival,” which goes on to review two other books. Now, though, it is Raboteau’s turn to tell her story. Lessons for Survival: Mothering Against “the Apocalypse” is “a probing series of pilgrimages from the perspective of a mother struggling to raise her children to thrive without coming undone in an era of turbulent intersecting crises,” per its publisher, and touches on themes of Black womanhood, art and history, and, of course, what it means to be a mother in an uncertain world. Preorder it here.
I can lose myself for hours looking at photographs by Virginia Hanusik, whose work explores how climate change is reshaping the Mississippi River delta. Into the Quiet and the Light is an apt title for her debut collection; her photos are often subdued, unpopulated, and symmetrical, a combination that gives them the quality of being both painterly and lonely. The collection will include texts from a number of writers, including architects, historians, activists, and organizers. Get a feel for Hanusik’s work with her 2022 photo essay for Bitter Southernerhere before smashing that preorder link. Preorder it here.
A little over a year ago, Elizabeth Kolbert published a lengthy essay in The New Yorker under the title “Climate Change From A to Z.” It delivered on its premise: In 26 short essays ranging from “Arrhenius” to “Zero,” Kolbert tackled the uncertainty — and breadth — of the climate crisis. H Is for Hope expands on the original concept and, thankfully, doesn’t drop the lovely accompanying illustrations by Wesley Allsbrook. A must-have for your climate shelf. Preorder it here.
The planet is changing; more and more places around the globe are becoming uninhabitable. The United States is not immune: By journalist Abrahm Lustgarten’s estimate, by 2070, “at least 4 million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life.” Where will we be forced to leave? And if we leave, where will we go? Lustgarten seeks answers in his forthcoming data-driven book, On the Move, which explores what a mass migration might look like in the U.S. as fires in the West, floods on the coasts, and extreme heat and drought in the South drive populations inland. You might want to read this one before buying a house. Preorder it here.
I love history, science, and animals, so I feel pretty confident I’ll love Every Living Thing, which tells the story of Carl Linnaeus and Georges-Louis de Buffon’s dueling attempts to identify all life on Earth. I mean, pffft, how hard could it be? Author Jason Roberts reportedly spent more than a decade researching this book, which follows up his 2006 biography of James Holman, A Sense of the World, a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award. Preorder it here.
It might seem like everyone is into birding these days — and you can count The Joy Luck Club author Amy Tan among them. She hasn't always been curious about her avian neighbors, however. That changed in 2016, when Tan was desperate for a distraction from the world. Soon, she was sketching the birds; next, she signing up to have 10,000 mealworms delivered each week for her new friends. “I have identified 56 species in my yard,” Tan told the Sierra Club, admitting “I went a little overboard” on the whole birding thing. But it’s because she went overboard that we get to enjoy The Backyard Bird Chronicles, which gathers Tan’s journal entries and original sketches. Preorder it here.
A longtime editor for the Times Literary Supplement, Roz Dineen is set to publish her debut novel, a dystopian tale of a mother raising three children while her husband is overseas. As things worsen in the city, Cass decides to take the children to her mother-in-law’s house in the country — and when that no longer seems safe, either, to a commune on the coast. The book description brings to mind Rumaan Alam’s Leave the World Behind, Emily St. John Mandel’s Station Eleven, and Lydia Millet’s A Children’s Bible, with the publisher writing that “against a wider backdrop of a world imploding, [Briefly Very Beautiful] is an exploration of hope and fear, beauty and joy, as well as seismic betrayal.” Preorder it here.
Lake Powell and the Glen Canyon Dam provide power for 5.8 million homes and businesses across seven states. But since 2000, the lake has been drying up. At a certain point, if the level falls too low, it will reach “dead pool,” a state when there is only a weak amount of water flowing through the dam — what Bob Martin, the deputy power manager at Glen Canyon, has called “a complete doomsday scenario” to The Washington Post. At the same time, activists are increasingly pushing to drain Lake Powell and restore the Colorado River. Journalist and passionate river rafter Zak Podmore explores the issue further in his forthcoming book, Life After Dead Pool, which is “not a dour story of climate disaster” but rather “an original account of Glen Canyon’s resurrection,” according to its publisher. Preorder it here.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
How well-organized opposition is killing renewable energy in a state that’s desperate for power
The Commonwealth of Virginia is clamping down on solar farms.
At least 39 counties in Virginia – 41% of all the state’s counties – now have some form of restriction on solar development, according to a new analysis of Heatmap Pro data. Many of these counties adopted ordinances significantly reducing how much land can be used and capping the total acreage of land allowed for solar projects. Some have gone further by banning new solar facilities altogether.
I wanted to get to the bottom of the Virginia dilemma after we collected this data and crunched these numbers because, simply put, it didn’t make a lot of sense.
Historically Virginia, like Texas, has been a relatively favorable state for energy infrastructure. Culturally, it would make sense for people to welcome new forms of energy. The state is an epicenter in the American data center boom, home to about 35% of all hyperscalers in the world – an economic boon that’ll require inordinate amounts of power. One would assume people want that energy to come from cleaner sources!
Yet counties across the state have been rolling up the red carpets. Mecklenburg recently banned new solar projects. Surry limited solar projects to a tenth of the county’s acreage. Buckingham has put a firm limit on development to 7,500 megawatts of solar projects in total. Why?
Well, here’s where I’ve landed: the opposition’s well organized and benefits from a history of conflicts over other forms of development.
Citizens for Responsible Solar – an anti-renewables organization headquartered in Culpepper, Virginia, founded by a former special adviser to President George W. Bush – has been active in the state since at least 2018. Although it is a national organization in name, and does have factions in other states, its website primarily boasts “success stories” in Virginia counties, including Augusta, Culpepper, Fauquier, Gloucester, Henry, Madison, Mecklenburg, and Page counties.
CRS is primarily focused on opposing solar on agricultural lands – a topic we’ve previously covered thoroughly – as well as forested areas. It claims to not be entirely against solar energy but only wants projects on industrial-zoned acreage. But the organization is also well documented to spread misinformation about solar energy itself.
Dr. Faith Harris of Virginia Interfaith Power & Light told me this week that her experience speaking with individuals opposed to renewable energy in the state indicates that falsehoods and conspiracy theories are playing a large role in turning otherwise friendly counties against solar energy. In her view, this has become an even bigger problem since the state turned red with the election of Governor Glenn Youngkin, who this week vetoed a slate of climate bills, including one that would make it easier to permit small solar farms and battery storage facilities.
“We’ve had a lot of misinformation and directions and narratives changed trying to initiate a resurgence of more fossil fuels,” Harris said. “It’s part of the movement to prevent and stop renewable energy.”
There’s something else going on, too, and it’s historically linked to systemic social inequities in some of these counties. They’ve been burned before, Harris noted, over the construction of other forms of industrial energy.
For years, Buckingham County residents resisted the construction of a gas compression station smack dab in the middle of a historically Black neighborhood. I covered this conflict early in my environmental journalism career because it was central to the construction of the now-defunct Atlantic Coast gas pipeline. It was a fight Buckingham won, in no small part due to the support of organizations like Virginia Interfaith Power & Light.
Now, Buckingham has capped solar projects. I asked Harris why a county that was so aggressive in fighting gas power would be against renewable energy, and she bluntly replied that these two fights are “pretty much directly related” – with the added conspiracy factor making matters worse for solar projects. For example, she’s heard complaints from residents in Buckingham about trees that could be cut down for solar, echoing the claims spread by organizations like CRS.
“People in the communities have been challenged and frightened in some way that solar is somehow going to have an impact on them, and not really even recognizing that they’re constantly being exposed to air and water contamination,” she said. “I don’t think the average person understands how they get their energy.”
She added: “This is still an ongoing challenge and in many ways we – the climate movement – have failed to educate the public well enough.”
On striking down the California waiver, the tax bill, and BYD
Current conditions: Showers and thunderstorms in the South and cool weather in the Northeast will make Memorial Day weekend “more reminiscent of late March than late May”• At least four people are dead and 50,000 stranded in New South Wales, Australia, due to torrential rainfall that is expected to ease Friday evening• Evacuation orders are in place around Oracle, Arizona, to the north of Tucson, due to the growing Cody Fire.
It’s official: After weeks of speculation and run-up, the Senate voted 51 to 44 on Thursday to overturn California’s waiver from the Clean Air Act to set stricter-than-federal emissions limits on cars and trucks. The vote was along party lines, with the exception of Michigan Democrat Elissa Slotkin, who joined Republicans in passing the disapproval resolution under the Congressional Review Act. California required companies to stop selling new gas vehicles by 2035, which Republicans had criticized as an “electric vehicle mandate” due to the size of the state and its influence over the automotive market.
The Senate’s parliamentarian and the Government Accountability Office had determined that the Senate could not use the CRA to prevent California from setting stricter emissions standards, as it has done since 1967, because the waiver is not a federal rule and therefore not subject to a simple 50-vote threshold repeal vote. To get around the technicality, Republicans voted Wednesday night on what Rhode Island Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse called the “double nuclear option” — essentially declaring they were “within their rights to skirt a filibuster and muscle through measures to deny” California its unique emissions-setting authority, The New York Times writes. But that also means the door is now open “to challenges against all sorts of other federal program waivers — without having to worry about the Senate filibuster,” Capitol Hill correspondent Jamie Dupree wrote in his newsletter Thursday, adding, “it certainly is a substantial change in the precedents of the Senate. And now it’s the new regular order.” California Governor Gavin Newsom called the vote “illegal” and vowed to “fight this unconstitutional attack on California in court.”
We’re continuing to track the repercussions of the House reconciliation bill that passed early Thursday morning, including its “full-frontal assault on the residential solar business model,” in the words of my colleague Matthew Zeitlin. Though an earlier draft of the bill shortened the availability of the Residential Clean Energy Credit, 25D, for people who purchased home solar systems from 2034 to expiring at the end of this year, Matthew explains that the new language says no credit “shall be allowed under this section for any investment during the taxable year” if the entity claiming the tax credit “rents or leases such property to a third party during such taxable year” and “the lessee would qualify for a credit under section 25D with respect to such property if the lessee owned such property.” That’s “how you kill a business model in legislative text,” Matthew continues. The repercussions were immediate: By midday, shares of Sunrun were already down $37.5%, an erasure of almost $1 billion.
For the first time, BYD has outsold Tesla in Europe. In April, the Chinese automaker sold 7,231 electric vehicles, up 169% from the year prior, while Tesla sold 7,165 EVs, down 49% in the same period, Bloomberg reports based on market research by Jato Dynamics.
As we covered in AM earlier this month, the first quarter of 2025 was the second-best month ever for BEV sales in the European Union, despite “the name Tesla [becoming] toxic for so many, limiting its appeal,” Clean Technica wrote at the time. But while BYD marked a milestone in beating the American automaker, it remained in the 10th spot overall for electric vehicle sales, with Volkswagen the clear winner for the month with 23,514 sales. But BYD is “about to reinforce its EV lineup in Europe with the Dolphin Surf, a fully electric hatchback that will sell for” around $22,700 in Germany until the end of June, Bloomberg writes.
NOAA
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its forecast for the 2025 Atlantic hurricane season, with a higher estimated upper limit for named storms than earlier predictions from private forecasters. According to NOAA, we can expect between 13 and 19 named storms this year, of which six to 10 could become hurricanes and three to five could develop into major Category 3 or higher hurricanes. That puts the season on track to be more active than the average Atlantic hurricane season, when 14 named storms, seven hurricanes, and three major hurricanes can be expected.
Private forecasters also rely on NOAA data to inform their predictions, but arrived at slightly different conclusions. Colorado State University’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences forecasts 17 named storms for 2025, while AccuWeather predicts 13 to 18 named storms. Though the Atlantic has cooled slightly from its historic highs last year, it is still warmer than usual — part of what is spurring the above-average estimates for the season. Still, as I’ve reported, there are lingering concerns about the reliability of NOAA’s data in future years as the agency hemorrhages the personnel who repair the sensors that monitor sea temperatures or run quality control on the data.
Microsoft announced its commitment to purchase nearly 623,000 metric tons of low-carbon cement from the startup Sublime Systems on Thursday. The contract, which runs over a six- to nine-year period, is intended to “reduce emissions — both at Microsoft and globally,” Jeff Leeper, the vice president of global datacenter construction at Microsoft, said in a press release about the deal. The company aims to use the cement on its construction projects “when geographically possible,” including incorporating it in data centers, office buildings, and other infrastructure. The companies declined to share how much the deal was worth, Bloomberg writes.
My colleague Emily Pontecorvo profiled Sublime earlier this year, noting that cement is a significant source of carbon emissions — 8% of the global total — due to a chemical reaction with limestone kilns required for production. But Sublime has “developed a new way to make reactive lime that does not require limestone,” Emily explains. “Instead of heating up rocks in a kiln, they drive the chemical process with electric currents. This enables the company to avoid limestone and use a variety of other raw materials that do not contain carbon to produce lime.” The company is working to construct its first 30,000-ton commercial plant, which is expected to be completed in 2027.
Pakistan imported 22 gigawatts of solar panels in 2024, more than the entire country of Canada. “That’s not a typo or a spreadsheet rounding error. That’s the kind of number that turns heads at IEA meetings and makes policy analysts double-check their databases,”Clean Technica writes.
Investing in red states doesn’t make defying Trump any safer.
In the end, it was what the letters didn’t say.
For months — since well before the 2024 election — when asked about the future health and safety of the clean energy tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act, advocates and industry folks would point to the 20 or so House Republicans (sometimes more, sometimes fewer) who would sign on to public statements urging their colleagues to preserve at least some of the law. Better not to pull out the rug from business investment, they argued. Especially not investment in their districts.
These letters were “reassuring to a lot of folks in clean energy and climate communities,” Chris Moyer, the founder of Echo Communications and a former staffer for longtime Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, told me.
“I never felt reassured,” Moyer added.
Plenty of people did, though. The home solar company Sunrun, for instance, told investors in a presentation earlier this monththat a “growing number of Republicans in Congress — including 39 overall House members and four Senators — publicly support maintaining energy tax credits through various letters over the past few months.” The company added that “we expect a range of draft proposals to be issued, possibly including draconian scenarios, but we expect any extreme proposals will be moderated as they progress.”
Instead, the draft language got progressively worse for the residential solar industry, with the version that passed the House Thursday morning knocking billions of dollars off the sector, as tax credits were further squeezed to help make room for other priorities that truly posed an existential threat to the bill’s passage.
What Sunrun and others appear to have failed to notice — or at least publicly acknowledge — is that while these representatives wanted to see tax credits preserved, they never specified what they would do if their wishes were disregarded. Unlike the handful of Republicans who threatened to tank the bill over expanding the deduction for state and local taxes (each of whom signed one of the tax credit letters, at some point), or the Freedom Caucus, who tend to vote no on any major fiscal bill that doesn’t contain sizable spending cuts (so, until now, every budget bill), the tax credit Republicans never threatened to kill the bill entirely.
Ultimately, the only Republicans to outright oppose the bill did so because it didn’t cut the deficit enough. All of the House Republicans who signed letters or statements in support of clean energy tax credits voted yes on the legislation, with a single exception: New York’s Andrew Garbarino, who reportedly slept through the roll call. (He later said he would have voted for it had he been awake.)
“The coalition of interests effectively persuaded Republican members that tax credits were driving investment in their districts and states,” Pavan Venkatakrishnan, an infrastructure fellow at the Institute for Progress, told me in a text message. “Where advocates fell short was in convincing them that preserving energy tax credits — especially for mature technologies Republicans often view skeptically — should take precedence over preventing Medicaid cuts or addressing parochial concerns like SALT.”
The Inflation Reduction Act itself was, after all, advanced on a party-line basis, as was Biden’s 2021 American Rescue Plan. Combined, those two bills received a single Democratic no vote and no Republican yes votes.
In the end, Moyer said, Republican House members in the current Congress were under immense political pressure to support what is likely to be the sole major piece of legislation advanced this year by President Trump — one that contained a number of provisions, especially on SALT, that they agreed with.
“There are major consequences for individual house members who vote against the president’s agenda,” Moyer said. “They made a calculation. They knew they were going to take heat either way. They would rather take heat from clean energy folks and people affected by the projects.”
It wasn’t supposed to be this way.
White House officials and outside analysts frequently touted job creation linked to IRA investments in Republican House districts and states as a tangible benefit of the law that would make it politically impossible to overturn, even as Congress and the White House turned over.
“President’s Biden’s policies are leading to more than 330,000 new clean energy jobs already created, more than half of which are in Republican-held districts,” White House communications director Ben LaBolt told reporters last year, previewing a speech President Biden would give on climate change.
Even after Biden had been defeated, White House climate advisor Ali Zaidi told Bloomberg that “we have grown the political consensus around the Inflation Reduction Act through its execution,” citing one of the House Republican letters in support of the clean energy tax credits.
One former Biden White House climate official told me that having projects in Republican districts was thought by the IRA’s crafters to make the bill more politically sustainable — but only so much.
“A [freaking] battery factory is not going to save democracy,” the official told me, referencing more ambitious claims that the tax credits could lead to more Democratic electoral victories. (The official asked to remain anonymous in order not to jeopardize their current professional prospects.) Instead, “it was supposed to make it slightly harder for Republicans to overturn the subsidies.”
Congresspeople worried about jobs weren’t supposed to be the only things that would preserve the bill, either, the official added. Clean energy and energy-dependent sectors, they thought, should be able to effectively advocate for themselves.
To the extent that business interests were able to win a hearing with House Republicans, they were older, more traditionally conservative industries such as nuclear, manufacturing, agriculture, and oil and gas.The biofuels industry (i.e. liquid Big Agriculture) won an extension of its tax credit, 45Z. The oil and gas industry’s favored measure, the 45Q tax credit for carbon sequestration, was minimally fettered. Nuclear power was the one sector whose treatment notably improved between the initial draft from the House’s tax-writing committee and the version voted on Thursday. Advanced nuclear facilities can still claim tax credits if they start construction by 2029, while other clean energy projects have to start construction within 60 days of the bill’s passage and be in service by the end of 2028.
“I think these outcomes are unsurprising. In places where folks consistently engaged, things were protected,” a Republican lobbyist told me, referring to manufacturing, biofuels, and nuclear power, requesting anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly. “But assuming a project in a district would guarantee a no vote on a large package was always a mistake.”
“The relative success of nuclear is a testament to the importance of having strong champions — predictable but notable show of political might,” a second Republican lobbyist told me, who was also not allowed to speak publicly about the bill.
But all hope isn’t lost yet. The Senate still has to pass something that the House will agree with. Some senators had made noises about how nuclear, hydropower, and geothermal were treated in the initial language.
“Budget reconciliation is, first and foremost, a fiscal exercise,” Venkatakrishnan told me. “Energy tax credits offer a path of least resistance for hitting lawmakers’ fiscal targets. As the Senate takes up this bill, the case must be made that the marginal $100 billion to $200 billion in cuts seriously jeopardizes grid reliability and energy innovation.” Whether that will be enough to generate meaningful opposition in the Senate, however, is the $600 billion question.