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:
Two years in, union leaders say Biden’s big climate law is making a difference.
The Inflation Reduction Act is by far the most important climate law ever passed in the U.S. But it also may go down as one of the most important labor laws of recent history. Overnight, jobs installing solar farms that were largely performed by an itinerant, low-wage workforce had the potential to become higher-paid positions occupied by skilled tradespeople — maybe even union jobs.
That’s because in order to qualify for a 30% tax credit on their investment or operating costs, clean energy developers now have to follow two key labor standards. They have to pay construction workers the federally determined prevailing wage for their region, plus hire a designated number of apprentices, who are provided with paid classroom instruction in addition to on-the-job-training.
“I don’t think people have a sense of the scale and the scope of what this law has done and is going to do,” Rick Levy, the president of the Texas AFL-CIO, told me. “From our perspective, putting community well-being and labor standards in the very fabric of this industrial expansion is going to pay dividends for generations.”
On the eve of the IRA’s two-year anniversary, a new report provided exclusively to Heatmap has identified 6,285 utility-scale clean energy projects planned, under construction, or already operating, that are likely candidates for these tax credits. Together, they represent an estimated 3.9 million jobs, according to the Climate Jobs National Resource Center, a nonprofit that supports unions fighting for worker-centered climate action, which compiled the data.
There’s no way to know, at least right now, how many of the projects still in progress will actually get built, or how many have or will adhere to labor standards. Safe harbor provisions in the law also allow developers to claim the full tax credit without adhering to the rules as long as they started construction by the end of January 2023, so the full effect of the provisions will take some time to be realized.
But the report reveals the vast potential for the law to create higher-quality jobs in clean energy all over the country. Based on my reporting, that potential is starting to materialize. Union leaders told me they’re now having conversations with developers who never returned their calls before. And renewable energy developers and tax credit consultants told me it was a no-brainer to meet the labor standards, even though they create substantial administrative burdens. Otherwise, they’ll only be eligible for a 6% credit, leaving a huge amount of money on the table.
Mike Fishman, the executive director of the Climate Jobs National Resource Center, told me that when he first started advocating for high-road climate jobs, he found that many trades workers were afraid of clean energy. “If they had a good job in the fossil fuel industry, then saying, we’re going to reach these goals and shut down all the fossil fuel plants, that was very scary to people.” But since the IRA passed, he’s seen a change in workers’ attitudes about supporting climate action. “It creates a sense that there’s a future for everyone — an economic future, as well as a climate future,” Fishman said.
The IRA’s potential to spur well-paid jobs and training opportunities is actually even larger than the Resource Center’s estimate indicates. The report only covers clean energy generation projects like wind and solar farms, but the law also tied labor standards to tax credits for the construction of clean energy manufacturing plants, EV chargers, carbon capture projects, hydrogen plants, clean fuel factories, and new, energy-efficient buildings.
The standards are likely to affect each of these industries in different ways, but it’s instructive to look at what’s already happening in renewable energy development. To do so, you first have to understand that developers sit near the top of a ladder of companies involved in bringing an energy project into the world. Above them sits investors; below, a series of contractors and subcontractors who manage the project on the ground and hire the workers who ultimately build it.
Before the IRA, everyone along this ladder had an incentive to keep costs as low as possible. At the top, developers are competing for power contracts with utilities. Contractors would try to win bids by quoting the lowest construction costs. Staffing agencies would source temporary workers from all over the country and negotiate wages and benefits on a case by case basis. An investigation into solar work by Vicefound that it was “common to have two workers doing the same job for vastly different pay and living stipends.” Some would travel to a new place for a gig and “pile into motel rooms with other workers on the same projects in order to save money.”
The IRA disrupts that incentive structure, creating a new regime whereby the top priority is getting that 30% tax credit. The law also extended the ladder, creating new rungs of accountability thanks to new tax credit transferability rules that allow developers to sell their tax credits to third parties. That means there are a host of other companies looming over developers’ shoulders with a stake in making sure they don’t cheat the rules. Tax credit buyers don’t want to end up in a situation where the IRS audits the developer who sold them the credits, finds that there weren’t enough apprentices on the project, and claws back the money. The risk is serious enough that buyers also purchase insurance for these transactions, adding another layer of oversight.
“The lawyers are scaring everyone about this,” Derek Silverman, the co-founder and chief product officer of Basis Climate, a startup that matches tax credit buyers and sellers, told me. For example, the law contains a loophole for companies to claim the credit without hiring the required number of apprentices as long as they show they made a “good faith effort.” Treasury defines that as having reached out to at least one registered apprenticeship program in the area every year the project is operating. Silverman said he’s seen lawyers challenge companies that are trying to get around the requirement, asking them who they reached out to and berating them if it wasn’t a legitimate effort.
“They’re saying, you have a huge part of your capital stack that’s based off this tax credit,” said Silverman. “It’s not worth the downside of the government questioning through an audit that you didn’t meet these requirements, and then, boom, you owe them $20 million when it would have cost you $100,000 to do the documentation and get that all square.”
The upside is valuable enough that it’s generated a whole new cottage industry in tax credit compliance. Empact Technologies, for example, is a software company that collects and evaluates payroll data from contractors to make sure they are paying the correct wages and have the right number of apprentices. “Then we have to go back and essentially fix all of the mistakes that they made every single week” — like classifying workers incorrectly and paying them the wrong amount, or falling behind on apprenticeship hours — “which every single contractor does. It’s insane,” Charles Dauber, Empact’s founder, told me.
All of this has added much complexity — and cost — to renewable energy development. David Yaros, who co-leads Deloitte’s US Tax Sustainability Practice, told me that the cost of compliance, including hiring companies like Empact and Deloitte to compile all the documentation, could eat into 5% to 20% of the tax benefits.
“This has raised our costs,” Rodrigo Inurreta Acero, a government affairs manager at the international developer EDP Renewables, confirmed, referring specifically to the added cost of consultants rather than the mostly negligible cost of paying prevailing wages. “But, we are very, very happy to comply with this, because the juice is worth the squeeze.”
There’s clear incentives for developers to do everything in their power to meet the labor standards. The key question is whether these two little provisions — prevailing wage and apprenticeships — are strong enough to “build a strong pipeline of highly-skilled workers” and “ensure clean energy jobs are good-paying jobs,” as the Biden administration has said.
The need is definitely there. A census of U.S. solar jobs in 2022 found that 52% of solar installation and project development companies found it “very difficult” to find qualified workers, with electricians and construction workers being among the most difficult positions to fill.
But even if armies of lawyers are scaring companies into making serious efforts to hire apprentices, that doesn’t mean they are actually finding them. “It’s not clear at this stage whether apprenticeship programs are scaling up fast enough to match labor supply to project demand,” Derrick Flakoll, a policy associate at BloombergNEF told me. He pointed to an announcement made by the White House just last month of $244 million in grants to expand the Registered Apprenticeship system throughout the country. “I’d be skeptical that apprenticeship programs have been able to scale up yet,” said Flakoll.
There’s a catch with the wage requirement, too: “Prevailing wage” doesn’t necessarily mean a living wage, and it can vary dramatically from place to place. The rate is determined by surveys sent out to contractors and labor organizations, and is typically higher in jurisdictions with active labor unions. For example, in Falls County, Texas, where the 640 megawatt Roseland Solar project is under construction, prevailing wage for a general laborer is $8.75 an hour. In Sangamon County, Illinois, where the 800 megawatt Black Diamond Solar project is being built, prevailing wage for a laborer is $34.04 an hour plus benefits worth $29.26 an hour.
Nico Ries, the lead organizer for the Green Workers Alliance, which organizes solar and wind workers, told me solar wages seem to have only increased in places with higher union density. That’s because unions are now on a more even playing-field to compete for jobs in those areas, since their typical rates have become the de facto minimum.
To be clear, the prevailing wage and apprenticeship provisions do not require developers to hire union workers to build their projects. And there are plenty of non-union, registered apprenticeships. Ries told me that the temp staffing agencies that have served the solar industry in the past are quickly standing up apprenticeship programs to stay on top of the market under the IRA. The main problem with that, they said, is that unlike union apprentices, these workers have no representation.
“There’s a lot of misinformation,” Ries said. “People think they are joining an apprenticeship and it’s going to be a whole thing, but it’s really just a little training or two, and then they slap a sticker on your hard hat.”
Nonetheless, unions are starting to make inroads in solar in places that have long been hostile to organized labor. Ethan Link, the assistant business manager for the Southeast Laborers’ District Council, which has members in right-to-work states throughout the south, told me that before and after the IRA was like “night and day.” For the first time, solar developers are calling the union directly to talk about projects on the horizon and to figure out how to work with them. As a result, the union is investing in more solar-specific training for its apprenticeship instructors.
“The Inflation Reduction Act is one of the most consequential and, I think, also most innovative ways of inducing the market to have broad based benefits for the community,” Link said. “The way I’ve experienced it, it’s changed the landscape on the ground with these developers within a matter of months, rather than a matter of years.” He said they don’t yet have a lot of workers actually assigned to projects, but “we’re really optimistic about where things sit right now.”
Kent Miller, president of the Wisconsin Laborers’ District Council, told me his union has been able to double its apprenticeship program from around 300 to 400 students a few years ago to closer to 700 to 800 post-IRA. It’s now looking to build another training campus to expand its capacity. Not all of that growth is thanks to renewable energy, he said, but the union now has a significant portion of its membership that just works in utility-scale solar.
Earlier this year, Wisconsin’s four biggest electric utilities pledged to employ local, union labor on all future renewable energy projects. Miller doesn’t think this would have happened without the incentives in the IRA. Though every wind farm in Wisconsin has been built by union labor, the more nascent solar industry was starting to bring in non-union workers from out of state to build projects. The IRA incentives gave Miller’s union leverage in negotiations with the utilities, because future projects were going to need to be able to find registered apprentices. “Unions run the best registered apprenticeship programs,” he said. “It was showing what we could do, what we could bring to the table.”
There is one more small but potentially powerful incentive for developers to work with unions. The Internal Revenue Service has said that if companies sign a project labor agreement — an agreement with one or more unions, made prior to hiring, that establishes wages and benefits — then they are less likely to be audited, and won’t have to pay penalties if they are found to be non-compliant.
To Levy, of the AFL-CIO in Texas, and others in the labor movement, getting workers to support clean energy is essential to tackling climate change. “Unless workers see themselves and their interests reflected in these new energy technologies, there’s never going to be the kind of political support that we need to be able to do the things we need to do to save the planet,” Levy said. The first step to achieve that, he said, is making sure these jobs are “good union jobs.”
The Climate Jobs National Resource Center connected me with Kim Tobias, a union electrician in Maine, as an example of how union jobs can change lives. Tobias used to work in call centers, providing customer service for healthcare software companies, before leaving to join the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. She was making $16 an hour in her last call center job after more than 10 years in the field, and was fed up after getting passed over for a promotion. When she started as an electrical apprentice in 2019, she essentially doubled her salary overnight once benefits were taken into account.
Today, in part because of the IRA, but also because of a state law that requires developers to pay prevailing wage on all large renewable projects in Maine, Tobias mainly works on solar projects. The work isn’t always ideal — she told me she once had to commute 75 miles away for a solar job — while she was pregnant, no less. “Then again, a year and a half later, I worked a solar job that was 0.9 miles away from my house. So it’s give and take,” she said.
But Tobias also said she sees potential to create high-quality clean energy jobs beyond solar in Maine, where, she lamented, “people under the age of 30 are leaving in droves.” She noted that an old paper mill in Lincoln, Maine, is being turned into an energy storage site, and the developer has already said it would establish a collective bargaining agreement with the Maine Building and Construction Trades. Illustrating Levy’s point about political support, the union is also now advocating for the construction of a new port to support the offshore wind industry, which would have to be built with union labor under a recent state law.
Even if the IRA’s labor provisions are starting to work, which it seems they are, they contain one significant weakness. The rules only apply to the construction of projects — not to their operations. It’s an improvement to have labor standards for construction jobs. But once they are built, wind and solar farms don't take many people to operate. The federally subsidized clean energy manufacturing plants springing up around the country due to the IRA will create a lot more jobs, but, at least right now, those jobs don’t have to be “good.”
“I think that people need to understand the opportunity here,” said Levy, and make sure that we continue to build on it and not turn back.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to clarify the “good faith effort” exception to the apprenticeship provision and that both provisions apply only to construction.
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 EV-maker is now a culture war totem, plus some AI.
During Alan Greenspan’s decade-plus run leading the Federal Reserve, investors and the financial media were convinced that there was a “Greenspan put” underlying the stock market. The basic idea was that if the markets fell too much or too sharply, the Fed would intervene and put a floor on prices analogous to a “put” option on a stock, which allows an investor to sell a stock at a specific price, even if it’s currently selling for less. The existence of this put — which was, to be clear, never a stated policy — was thought to push stock prices up, as it gave investors more confidence that their assets could only fall so far.
While current Fed Chair Jerome Powell would be loath to comment on a specific volatile security, we may be seeing the emergence of a kind of sociopolitical put for Tesla, one coming from the White House and conservative media instead of the Federal Reserve.
The company’s high-flying stock shed over $100 billion of value on Monday, falling around 15% and leaving the price down around 50% from its previous all-time high. While the market as a whole also swooned, especially high-value technology companies like Nvidia and Meta, Tesla was the worst hit. Analysts attributed the particularly steep fall to concerns that CEO Elon Musk was spending too much time in Washington, and that the politicization of the brand had made it toxic to buyers in Europe and among liberals in the United States.
Then the cavalry came in. Sean Hannity told his Fox News audience that he had bought a Model S, while President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that “I’m going to buy a brand new Tesla tomorrow morning as a show of confidence and support for Elon Musk, a truly great American.” By this afternoon, Trump had turned the White House lawn into a sales floor for Musk’s electric vehicles. Tesla shares closed the day up almost 4%, while the market overall closed down after Trump and his advisors’ furious whiplash policy pronouncements on tariffs.
Whether the Tesla put succeeds remains to be seen. The stock is still well, well below its all-time highs, but it may confirm a new way to understand Tesla — not as a company that sells electric vehicles to people concerned about climate change, but rather as a conservative culture war totem that has also made sizable investments in artificial intelligence and robotics.
When Musk bought Twitter and devoted more of his time, energy, money, and public pronouncements to right wing politics, some observers thought that maybe he could lift the dreadful image of electric vehicles among Trump voters. But when Pew did a survey on public attitudes towards electric vehicles back in 2023, it found that “Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, younger adults, and people living in urban areas are among the most likely to say they would consider purchasing an EV” — hardly a broad swathe of Trump’s America. More than two-thirds of Republicans surveyed said they weren’t interested in buying an electric car, compared to 30% of Democrats.
On the campaign trail, Trump regularly lambasted EVs, although by the end of the campaign, as Musk’s support became more voluminous, he’s lightened up a bit. In any case, the Biden administration’s pro-electric-vehicle policies were an early target for the Trump administration, and the consumer subsidies for EVs passed under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act are widely considered to be one of the softest targets for repeal.
But newer data shows that the tide may be turning, not so much for electric vehicles, but likely for Tesla itself.
The Wall Street Journalreported survey data last week showing that only 13% of Democrats would consider buying a Tesla, down from 23% from August of 2023, while 26% of Republicans would consider buying a Tesla, up from 15%. Vehicle registration data cited by the Journal suggested a shift in new Tesla purchases from liberal urban areas such as New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, towards more conservative-friendly metropolises like Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, and Miami.
At the same time, many Tesla investors appear to be mostly seeing through the gyrations in the famously volatile stock and relatively unconcerned about month-to-month or quarter-to-quarter sales data. After all, even after the epic fall in Tesla’s stock price, the company is still worth over $700 billion, more than Toyota, General Motors, and Ford combined, each of which sells several times more cars per year than Tesla.
Many investors simply do not view Tesla as a luxury or mass market automaker, instead seeing it as an artificial intelligence and robotics company. When I speak to individual Tesla shareholders, they’re always telling me how great Full Self-Driving is, not how many cars they expect the company to sell in August. In many cases, Musk has made Tesla stockholders a lot of money, so they’re willing to cut him tremendous slack and generally believe that he has the future figured out.
Longtime Tesla investor Ron Baron, who bought hundreds of millions of dollars worth of shares from 2014 to 2016, told CNBC Tuesday morning, that Musk “believes that digitization [and] autonomy is going to be driving the future. And he thinks we’re … on the verge of having an era of incredible abundance.”Baron also committed that he hasn’t, won’t, and will never sell. “I’m the last in, I’ll be the last out. So I won’t sell a single share personally until I sell all the shares for clients, and that’s what I’ve done.”
Wedbush Securities’ Dan Ives, one of the biggest Tesla bulls on the street, has told clients that he expects Tesla’s valuation to exceed $2 trillion, and that its self-driving and robotics business “will represent 90% of the valuation.”
Another longtime Tesla bull, Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas, told clients in a note Monday that Tesla remained a “Top Pick,” and that his price target was still $430, compared to the stock’s $230.58 close price on the day. His bull case, he said, was $800, which would give the company a valuation over $2.5 trillion.
When the stock lags, Jonas wrote, investors see Tesla as a car company. “In December with the stock testing $500/share, the prevailing sentiment was that the company is an AI ‘winner’ with untapped exposure to embodied AI expressions such as humanoid robotics,” Jonas wrote. “Today with the stock down 50% our investor conversations are focused on management distraction, brand degradation and lost auto sales.”
In a note to clients Tuesday, Ives beseeched Musk to “step up as CEO,” and lamented that there has been “little to no sign of Musk at any Tesla factory or manufacturing facility the last two months.” But his bullishness for Tesla was undaunted. He argued that the scheduled launch of unsupervised Full Self-Driving in June “kicks off the autonomous era at Tesla that we value at $1 trillion alone on a sum-of-the-parts valuation.”
“Autonomous will be the biggest transformation to the auto industry in modern day history,” Ives wrote, “and in our view Tesla will own the autonomous market in the U.S. and globally.”
The most effective put of all may not be anything Trump says or does, but rather investors’ optimism about the future — as long as it’s Elon Musk’s future.
The uncertainty created by Trump’s erratic policymaking could not have come at a worse time for the industry.
This is the second story in a Heatmap series on the “green freeze” under Trump.
Climate tech investment rode to record highs during the Biden administration, supercharged by a surge in ESG investing and net-zero commitments, the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction Act, and at least initially, low interest rates. Though the market had already dropped somewhat from its recent peak, climate tech investors told me that the Trump administration is now shepherding in a detrimental overcorrection. The president’s fossil fuel-friendly rhetoric, dubiously legal IIJA and IRA funding freezes, and aggressive tariffs, have left climate tech startups in the worst possible place: a state of deep uncertainty.
“Uncertainty is the enemy of economic progress,” Andrew Beebe, managing director at Obvious Ventures, told me.
The lack of clarity is understandably causing investors to throw on the brakes. “We’ve talked internally about, let’s be a little bit more cautious, let’s be a little more judicious with our dollars right now,” Gabriel Kra, co-founder at the climate tech firm Prelude Ventures, told me. “We’re not out in the market, but I would think this would be a really tough time to try and go out and raise a new fund.”
This reluctance comes at a particularly bad time for climate tech startups, many of which are now reaching a point where they are ready to scale up and build first-of-a-kind infrastructure projects and factories. That takes serious capital, the kind that wasn’t as necessary during Trump’s first term, or even much of Biden’s, when many of these companies were in a more nascent research and development or proof-of-concept stage.
I also heard from investors that the pace of Trump’s actions and the extent of the economic upheaval across every sector feels unique this time around. “We’re entering a pretty different economic construct,” Beebe told me, citing the swirling unknowns around how Trump’s policies will impact economic indicators such as inflation and interest rates. “We haven’t seen this kind of economic warfare in decades,” he said.
Even before Trump took office, it was notoriously difficult for climate companies to raise funding in the so-called “missing middle,” when startups are too mature for early-stage venture capital but not mature enough for traditional infrastructure investors to take a bet on them. This is exactly the point at which government support — say, a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office or a grant from the DOE’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations — could be most useful in helping a company prove its commercial viability.
But now that Trump has frozen funding — even some that’s been contractually obligated — companies are left with fewer options than ever to reach scale.
One investor who wished to remain anonymous in order to speak more openly told me that “a lot of the missing middle companies are living in a dicier world.” A 2023 white paper on “capital imbalances in the energy transition” from S2G Investments, a firm that supports both early-stage and growth-stage companies, found that from 2017 to 2022, only 20% of climate capital flowed toward companies at this critical inflection point, while 43% went to early-stage companies and 37% towards established technologies. For companies at this precarious growth stage, a funding delay on the order of months could be the difference between life and death, the investor added. Many of these companies may also be reliant on debt financing, they explained. “Unless they’ve been extremely disciplined, they could run into a situation where they’re just not able to service that debt.”
The months or even years that it could take for Trump’s rash funding rescission to wind through the courts will end up killing some companies, Beebe told me. “And unfortunately, that’s what people on the other side of this debate would like, is just to litigate and escalate. And even if they ultimately lose, they’ve won, because startups just don’t have the balance sheets that big companies would,” he explained.
Kra’s Prelude Ventures has a number of prominent companies in its portfolio that have benefitted from DOE grants. This includes Electric Hydrogen, which received a $43.3 million DOE grant to scale electrolyzer manufacturing; Form Energy, which received $150 million to help build a long-duration battery storage manufacturing plant; Boston Metal, which was awarded $50 million for a green steel facility; and Heirloom, which is a part of the $600 million Project Cypress Direct Air Capture hub. DOE funding is often doled out in tranches, with some usually provided upfront and further payments tied to specific project milestones. So even if a grant has officially been awarded, that doesn’t mean all of the funding has been disbursed, giving the Trump administration an opening to break government contracts and claw it back.
Kra told me that a few of his firm’s companies were on the verge of securing government funding before Trump took office, or have a project in the works that is now on hold. “We and the board are working closely with those companies to figure out what to do,” he told me. “If the mandates or supports aren’t there for that company, you’ve got to figure out how to make that cash last a bunch longer so you can still meet some commercially meaningful milestones.”
In this environment, Kra said his firm will be taking a closer look at companies that claim they will be able to attract federal funds. “Let’s make sure we understand what they can do without that non-dilutive capital, without those grants, without that project level support,” he told me, noting that “several” companies in his portfolio will also be impacted by Trump’s ever-changing tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China. Prelude Ventures is working with its portfolio companies to figure how to “smooth out the hit,” Kra told me later via email, but inevitably the tariffs “will affect the prices consumers pay in the short and long run.”
While investors can’t avoid the impacts of all government policies and impulses, the growth-stage firm G2 Venture Partners has long tried to inoculate itself against the vicissitudes of government financing. “None of our companies actually have any exposure to DOE loans,” Brook Porter, a partner and co-founder at G2, told me in an email, nor have they received government grants. If you add up the revenue from all of the companies in G2’s portfolio, which is made up mainly of sustainability-focused startups, only about 3% “has any exposure to the IRA,” Porter told me. So even if the law’s generous clean energy tax credits are slashed or the programs it supports are left to languish, G2’s companies will likely soldier on.
Then there are the venture capitalists themselves. Many of the investors I spoke with emphasized that not all firms will have the ability or will to weather this storm. “I definitely believe many generalist funds who dabbled in climate will pull back,” Beebe told me. Porter agreed. “The generalists are much more interested in AI, then I think in climate,” he said. It’s not as if there’s been a rash of generalist investors announcing pullbacks, though Kra told me he knows of “a couple of firms” that are rethinking their climate investment strategies, potentially opting to fold these investments under an umbrella category such as “hard tech” instead of highlighting a sectoral focus on energy or climate, specifically.
Last month, the investment firm Coatue, which has about $70 billion in assets under management, raised around $250 million for a climate-focused fund, showing it’s not all doom and gloom for the generalists’ climate ambitions. But Porter told me this is exactly the type of large firm he wouldexpect to back out soon, citing Tiger Global Management and Softbank as others that started investing heavily during climate tech’s boom years from 2020 to 2022 that he could imagine winding down that line of business.
Strategic investors such as oil companies have also been quick to dial back their clean energy ambitions and refocus their sights on the fossil fuels championed by the Trump administration. “Corporate venture is very cyclical,” Beebe told me, explaining that large companies tend to make venture investments when they have excess budget or when a sector looks hot, but tighten the purse strings during periods of uncertainty.
But Cody Simms, a managing partner at the climate tech investment firm MCJ, told me that at the moment, he actually sees the corporate venture ecosystem as “quite strong and quite active.” The firm’s investments include the low-carbon cement company Sublime Systems, which last year got strategic backing from two of the world’s largest building materials companies, and the methane capture company Windfall Bio, which has received strategic funding from Amazon’s Climate Pledge Fund. Simms noted that this momentum could represent an overexuberance among corporations who just recently stood up their climate-focused venture arms, and “we’ll see if it continues into the next few years.”
Notably, Sublime and Windfall Bio both also have millions in DOE grants, and another of MCJ’s portfolio companies, bio-based chemicals maker Solugen, has a “conditional commitment” from the LPO for a loan guarantee of over $200 million. Since that money isn’t yet obligated, there’s a good chance it might never actually materialize, which could stall construction on the company’s in-progress biomanufacturing facility.
Simms told me that the main thing he’s encouraging MCJ’s portfolio companies to do at this stage is to contact their local representatives — not to advocate for climate action in general, but rather “to push on the very specific tax credit that they are planning to use and to talk about how it creates jobs locally in their districts.”
Getting startups to shift the narrative away from decarbonization and climate and toward their multitudinous co-benefits — from energy security to supply chain resilience — is of course a strategy many are already deploying to one degree or another. And investors were quick to remind me that the landscape may not be quite as bleak as it appears.
“We’ve made more investments, and we have a pipeline of more attractive investments now than we have in the last couple of years,” Porter told me. That’s because in spite of whatever havoc the Trump administration is wreaking, a lot of climate tech companies are reaching a critical juncture that could position the sector overall for “a record number of IPOs this year and next,” Porter said. The question is, “will these macro uncertainties — political, economic, financial uncertainty — hold companies back from going public?”
As with so many economic downturns and periods of instability, investors also see this as a moment for the true blue startups and venture capitalists to prove their worth and business acumen in an environment that’s working against them. “Now we have the hardcore founders, the people who really are driven by building economically viable, long-term, massively impactful companies, and the investors who understand the markets very well, coming together around clean business models that aren’t dependent on swinging from one subsidy vine to the next subsidy vine,” Beebe told me.
“There is no opportunity that’s an absolute no, even in this current situation, across the entire space,” the anonymous climate tech investor told me. “And so this might be one of the most important points — I won’t say a high point, necessarily — but it might be a moment of truth that the energy transition needs to embrace.”
On the energy secretary’s keynote, Ontario’s electricity surcharge, and record solar power
Current conditions: Critical fire weather returns to New Mexico and Texas and will remain through Saturday • Sharks have been spotted in flooded canals along Australia’s Gold Coast after Cyclone Alfred dropped more than two feet of rain • A tanker carrying jet fuel is still burning after it collided with a cargo ship in the North Sea yesterday. The ship was transporting toxic chemicals that could devastate ecosystems along England’s northeast coast.
In a keynote speech at the energy industry’s annual CERAWeek conference, Energy Secretary Chris Wright told executives and policymakers that the Trump administration sees climate change as “a side effect of building the modern world,” and said that “everything in life involves trade-offs." He pledged to “end the Biden administration’s irrational, quasi-religious policies on climate change” and insisted he’s not a climate change denier, but rather a “climate realist.” According toThe New York Times, “Mr. Wright’s speech was greeted with enthusiastic applause.” Wright also reportedly told fossil fuel bosses he intended to speed up permitting for their projects.
Other things overheard at Day 1 of CERAWeek:
The premier of Canada’s Ontario province announced he is hiking fees on electricity exported to the U.S. by 25%, escalating the trade war kicked off by President Trump’s tariffs on Canadian goods, including a 10% tariff on Canadian energy resources. The decision could affect prices in Minnesota, New York, and Michigan, which get some of their electricity from the province. Ontario Premier Doug Ford estimated the surcharge will add about $70 to the monthly bills of affected customers. “I will not hesitate to increase this charge,” Ford said. “If the United States escalates, I will not hesitate to shut the electricity off completely.” The U.S. tariffs went into effect on March 4. Trump issued another 30-day pause just days later, but Ford said Ontario “will not relent” until the threat of tariffs is gone for good.
There was a lot of news from the White House yesterday that relates to climate and the energy transition. Here’s a quick rundown:
The EPA cancelled hundreds of environmental justice grants: EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency nixed 400 grants across environmental justice programs and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs worth $1.7 billion. Zeldin said this round of cuts “was our biggest yet.”
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy rescinded Biden memos about infrastructure projects: The two memos encouraged states to prioritize climate change resilience in infrastructure projects funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and to include under-represented groups when planning projects.
The military ended funding for climate studies: This one technically broke on Friday. The Department of Defense is scrapping its funding for social science research, which covers climate change studies. In a post on X, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said DOD “does not do climate change crap. We do training and war fighting.”
Meanwhile, a second nonprofit – the Coalition for Green Capital – filed a lawsuit against Citibank over climate grant money awarded under the Inflation Reduction Act but frozen by Zeldin’s EPA. Climate United filed a similar lawsuit (but targeting the EPA, as well as Citibank) on Saturday.
A new report from the Princeton ZERO Lab’s REPEAT Project examines the potential consequences of the Trump administration’s plans to kill existing EV tax credits and repeal EPA tailpipe regulations. It finds that, compared to a scenario in which the current policies are kept in place:
“In other words, killing the IRA tax credits for EVs will decimate the nascent renaissance in vehicle and battery manufacturing investment and employment we’re currently seeing play out across the United States,” said Jesse Jenkins, an assistant professor and expert in energy systems engineering and policy at Princeton University and head of the REPEAT Project. (Jenkins is also the co-host of Heatmap’s Shift Key podcast.)
REPEAT Project
The U.S. installed nearly 50 gigawatts of new solar power capacity last year, up 21% from 2023, according to a new report from the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and Wood Mackenzie. That’s a record, and the largest annual grid capacity increase from any energy technology in the U.S. in more than 20 years. Combined with storage, solar represents 84% of all new grid capacity added in 2024.
SEIA and Wood Mackenzie
Last year was “the year of materialization of the IRA,” with supply chains becoming more resilient and interest from utilities and corporate buyers growing. Installations are expected to remain steady this year, with little growth, because of policy uncertainty. Total U.S. solar capacity is expected to reach 739 GW by 2035, but this depends on policy. The worst case scenario shows a 130 GW decline in deployment through 2035, which would represent $250 billion in lost investments.
“Last year’s record-level of installations was aided by several solar policies and credits within the Inflation Reduction Act that helped drive interest in the solar market,” said Sylvia Levya Martinez, a principal analyst of North America utility-scale solar for Wood Mackenzie. “We still have many challenges ahead, including unprecedented load growth on the power grid. If many of these policies were eliminated or significantly altered, it would be very detrimental to the industry’s continued growth.”
Tesla shares plunged yesterday by 15%, marking the company’s worst day on the market since 2020 and erasing its post-election stock bump.