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:
The PJM Interconnection can’t seem to figure out supply and demand anymore, which could be good news for natural gas.
Here’s a dilemma: Large chunks of fossil fuel-powered energy generation are scheduled to fall off the U.S. electric grid in the next decade thanks to economic and regulatory pressures. Even larger chunks of renewable energy generation have not yet been approved to connect to the grid and may not be for years, if ever. Meanwhile, data centers and electrification have kicked off the first notable demand growth for electricity markets in over 20 years. On top of all that, the grid has become increasingly vulnerable to climate change-fueled disruptions, whether from solar power being knocked out by hail or natural gas lines freezing in an ice storm.
In some parts of the country, the solution to this dilemma is relatively simple. In much of the Southeast and -west, large utilities that own power plants are simply building more natural gas power plants. In California, regulators are mandating that utilities procure enormous amounts of energy storage, and have rejiggered residential solar rules to encourage more combinations of solar panels and batteries. And Texas is planning to lend billions of dollars at low interest rates to help finance natural gas plant construction.
Then there’s the PJM Interconnection, the 13-state electricity market serving much of the East Coast and Midwest, run by the country’s largest regional transmission organization. Despite PJM’s constant warnings about natural gas and coal generation retiring, it has not been able to bring new generating resources online in a reasonable timeframe. The grid operator — technically a non-profit — has neither the regulatory muscle nor the financial firepower to shape new energy generation to its preferences; its interconnection queue got so long, it instituted a two-year pause on reviewing new applications.
While many of PJM’s problems are unique to its particular circumstances, they’ve gotten so severe in recent months, it calls into question whether the decades-long project of structuring electricity generation, transmission, and distribution into something like a market is even working anymore.
“The whole premise is that a capacity market is about efficient entry and efficient exit,” Abe Silverman, an assistant research scholar at Johns Hopkins and former New Jersey utility regulatory official, told me. “We’re squeezing the tube on the entry side and letting very few new entrants in.”
According to PJM’s independent market monitor, at the end of last year, there were just over 7 gigawatts of natural gas projects in the queue, about half of which it expected to go into service eventually, while some 24 gigawatts to 58 gigawatts of coal and natural gas is expected to retire by 2030. There were over 200 gigawatts of renewables projects in the queue, the market monitor said, but only around 30 gigawatts that’s expected to go into service, and for the purpose of a capacity auction, only about 11 would count.
But for power market observers, the sirens really started going off at the end of July, when PJM held what’s called a capacity auction, which determines the price companies get paid to supply energy-generating capacity over and above forecasted peak demand in order to avoid blackouts. By the end of the five-day process, the cost of that capacity came out almost 10 times higher for than the previous PJM capacity auction — $14.7 billion, compared to just over $2 billion in 2022 — a signal that supply, demand, and reliability dynamics within PJM are seriously imbalanced.
That almost certainly means rate increases for consumers. In Maryland specifically, some residential electricity bills could rise anywhere from 2% to 24%, a monthly change of $4 to $18, according to the state’s Office of People’s Counsel.
What that almost certainly does not mean is a huge amount of new generation coming online. “In an efficient capacity market structure, the market starts sending higher price signals and generators start coming on-line,” Silverman told me. “Usually when you see high prices, you would expect more of a response from the supply side.”
In PJM, however, “new generation cannot come online quickly,” according to a letter from a group of consumer advocates in PJM states, therefore “the high capacity market prices are not an effective signal for new entry but instead a windfall for the owners of existing generation.”
Ironically, the high prices were due, in part, to PJM applying a formula it typically reserves for renewables to coal and gas plants, which “derates” the capacity they’re able to offer in times of stress, e.g. during a winter storm. Historically, coal and gas got high ratings because high winds and cold temperatures was considered unlikely to disrupt their production, while solar and wind scored much lower. But after 2022's Winter Storm Elliott, during which natural gas lines froze and caused a mass blackout, PJM knocked down the rating for combined cycle gas plants — the most efficient kind of gas plant, which recaptures heat exhaust to produce more power — from 96% to 79%, and for combustion turbine natural gas plants from 90% to 62%. Wind got a bump, while solar was rated down.
In other words, “PJM doesn’t view all these megawatts as reliably as they did before Elliott,” Nicolas Freschi, a senior associate at Gabel Associates, which does energy and environmental consulting for federal agencies, told me. That meant some 26 gigawatts of projected coal and gas capacity disappeared from the auction, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights.
The environmental activist community has long argued that gas is less reliable than utilities and the public seem to think it is, and that this should be taken into account with grid planning. The gas derating was “a good thing,” Claire Lang-Ree of the Natural Resources Defense Council told me, “because that means what we're paying for in this auction is actually reliable. It's a truing-up of the system.”
At the same time, she acknowledged, the auction result was “a bad thing insofar as it was the driving cause of the price spike,” which also means huge payouts for power companies.
“Despite the decrease in capacity credit, the higher capacity prices will impact the capacity revenue received for projects in PJM, generally increasing it,” S&P analysts wrote in August. By way of example, S&P looked at one natural gas plant in Ohio and found that its project per-megawatt-hour net revenue in 2026 would increase by 40%.
Morgan Stanley estimated that major power producers such as Texas-based Vistra and Maryland’s Constellation Energy would see a boost to their earnings before interest, taxes, and amortization of $700 million to $800 million each.
And yet in both Texas and PJM, many analysts (not to mention the gas industry) still see gas as the solution to a shortfall exacerbated by gas’s documented vulnerability. That’s due to its ability — at least on paper — to generate large amounts of power at any time of day.
So far, however, only one power producer with a large natural gas fleet, Calpine, has publicly indicated that it will aggressively pursue development in PJM. Calpine operates a 76-facility fleet that includes 66 fossil fuel-fired plants from California to Massachusetts. “The PJM market needs and values reliable, dispatchable, non-duration-limited power” the company said in a press release. (These are all industry code words for natural gas.) Calpine said it was “accelerating its PJM electricity generation development program following market signals indicating higher demand for reliable power,” and that it was looking at “multiple new locations in the PJM region, particularly in Ohio and Pennsylvania.”
Other companies have been more cautious. “It is only one auction, of course, and not long enough out in the future to be starting a new project,” Vistra chief executive Jim Burke said in an August earnings call. Morgan Stanley analysts noted that because the next auction is in December, “we don't foresee enough time to build significant new generation capacity. There are only 18 months between the auction and the start of the delivery year, which doesn’t leave time for permitting, interconnection queue timing, and construction because they are behind.”
S&P forecast that only one natural gas project under construction in Ohio could possible bid into the next auction. And while stock and bond analysts are more focused on the prospects for new natural gas plants, they are not particularly optimistic they’ll come online any time soon. “Merchant newbuilds remain marginal under our assumptions, indicating price signals may need to improve further to incent merchant new entry,” Guggenheim analyst Shahriar Pourreza wrote in a note.
Todd Snitchler, the head of the independent power generator trade group Electric Power Supply Association, noted to me that the July auction price was “coming off a record low,” and that the “abnormally” low prices in the previous two auctions — which were then followed by a lengthy delay — “suggested that assets should be leaving, and not coming on” — a trend PJM and other electricity market overseers have been warning about for years.
“One auction does not make a trend make,” Snitchler said.
If prices stay high, however, some analysts think power producers will eventually start trying to build new natural gas plants in PJM. “Investors don’t want to start building extremely expensive projects until they’re sure this price environment is sustainable,” Freschi told me.
Instead of beckoning new gas construction, clean energy and ratepayer advocates want PJM to focus on interconnection reform so that its existing queue — which is overwhelming renewables — can finally make its way onto the grid.
In a statement to Heatmap, PJM said its new system of evaluating projects in groups instead of on a first-come, first-served basis will lead to 230,000 megawatts being processed over the next three years. The PJM spokesperson also pointed to Calpine's announcement as a sign that the capacity auction was bringing new investment.
“We need investment in real projects that can get connected to the grid quickly, as opposed to the speculative projects that have clogged the queue in the past,” the spokesperson said. “Our reformed interconnection process encourages projects with the best chance of being built, and we are weeding out some of those that have been hanging on for years past receiving an interconnection agreement from PJM and who have not moved to construction.”
“Generators should submit their new project queue positions today,” the spokesperson added.
But like so many projects clogging the queue, these reforms are speculative, and in the end the restructured market, where new supply supposedly responds to high prices, simply may not work on its own terms. Some of this is due to policy in PJM states — you’re unlikely to be able to build a new natural gas plant in Democratic-controlled states like Maryland, New Jersey, or Illinois, and Guggenheim’s Pourreza wrote that “any new gas generation will be clustered in [Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia],” which could both lead to lower capacity prices in some areas and a more unbalanced market as new gas capacity becomes concentrated geographically.
But even in areas that are famously friendly to fossil fuels and have less complicated market and interconnection processes, demand for new gas has not smoothly resulted in gas plant construction. In Texas, which has closest thing to a free electricity market that exists in the United States, the state has had to turn to a multibillion low interest rate financing program to entice developers to build new natural gas plants.
May that be a warning to regional transmission planners everywhere. As S&P analysts wrote, “High prices signal the need for new generation, but do not guarantee it.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And how ordinary Americans will pay the price.
No one seems to know exactly how many employees have been laid off from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — or, for that matter, what offices those employees worked at, what jobs they held, or what regions of the country will be impacted by their absence. We do know that it was a lot of people; about 10% of the roughly 13,000 people who worked at the agency have left since Donald Trump took office, either because they were among the 800 or so probationary employees to be fired late last month or because they resigned.
“I don’t have the specifics as to which offices, or how many people from specific geographic areas, but I will reiterate that every one of the six [NOAA] line offices and 11 of the staff offices — think of the General Counsel’s Office or the Legislative Affairs Office — all 11 of those staff offices have suffered terminations,” Rick Spinrad, who served as the NOAA administrator under President Joe Biden, told reporters in a late February press call. (At least a few of the NOAA employees who were laid off have since been brought back.)
Democratic Representative Jared Huffman of California, the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, said in recent comments about the NOAA layoffs, “This is going to have profound negative consequences on the day-to-day lives of Americans.” He added, “This is something that [Elon Musk’s government efficiency team] just doesn’t even understand. They simply have no idea what they are doing and how it’s hurting people.”
There is the direct harm to hard-working employees who have lost their jobs, of course. But there is also a more existential problem: Part of what is driving the layoffs is a belief by those in power that the agency is “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry,” according to the Project 2025 playbook. As one recently fired NOAA employee put it, “the goal is destruction,” and climate science is one of the explicit targets.
NOAA is a multifaceted organization, and monitoring climate change is far from its only responsibility. The agency researches, protects, and restores America’s fisheries, including through an enforcement arm that combats poaching; it explores the deep ocean and governs seabed mining; and its Commissioned Officer Corps is one of the eight uniformed services of the United States, alongside the Army, Marines Corps, and Coast Guard. But many of its well-known responsibilities almost inevitably touch climate change, from the National Hurricane Center’s forecasts and warnings to drought tools for farmers to heat forecasts from the National Weather Service issued on hot summer days. Cutting climate science out of NOAA would have immediate — and in some cases, deadly — impacts on regular Americans.
And it’s likely this is only the beginning of the purge. Project 2025 calls for the complete disbanding of NOAA. Current agency employees have reportedly been told to brace for “a 50% reduction in staff” as part of Elon Musk’s government efficiency campaign. Another 1,000 terminations are expected this week, bringing the total loss at NOAA to around 20% of its staff.
Here are just a few of the ways those layoffs are already impacting climate science.
NOAA collects more than 20 terabytes of environmental data from Earth and space daily, and through its paleoclimatology arm, it has reconstructed climate data going back 100 million years. Not even Project 2025 calls for the U.S. to halt its weather measurements entirely; in fact, Congress requires the collection of a lot of standard climate data.
But the NOAA layoffs are hampering those data collection efforts, introducing gaps and inconsistencies. For example, staffing shortages have resulted in the National Weather Service suspending weather balloon launches from Kotzebue, Alaska — and elsewhere — “indefinitely.” The Trump administration is also considering shuttering a number of government offices, including several of NOAA’s weather monitoring stations. Repairs of monitors and sensors could also be delayed by staff cuts and funding shortfalls — or not done at all.
Flawed and incomplete data results in degraded and imprecise forecasts. In an era of extreme weather, the difference of a few miles or degrees can be a matter of life or death.
In the case of climate science specifically, which looks at changes over much longer timescales than meteorology, “I think you could do science with the data we have now, if we can preserve it,” Flavio Lehner, a climate scientist at Cornell University who uses NOAA data in his research, told me.
But therein lies the next problem: the threat that the government could take NOAA climate data down entirely.
Though data collection is in many cases mandated by Congress, Congress does not require that the public have access to that data. Though NOAA’s climate page is still live, the Environmental Protection Agency has already removed from its website the Keeling Curve tracker, the daily global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration measurement that Drilled notes is “one of the longest-running data projects in climate science.” Many other government websites that reference climate change have also gone dark. Solutions are complicated — “downloading” NOAA to preserve it, for example, would cost an estimated $500,000 in storage per month for an institution to host it.
“At the end of the day, if you’re a municipality or a community and you realize that some of these extreme weather events are becoming more frequent, you’ll want to adapt to it, whether you think it’s because of climate change or not,” Lehner said. “People want to have the best available science to adapt, and I think that applies to Republicans and Democrats and all kinds of communities across the country.” But if the Trump administration deletes NOAA websites, or the existing measurements it’s putting out are of poor quality, “it’s not going to be the best possible science to adapt moving forward,” Lehner added.
I wouldn’t want to be a NOAA scientist with the word “climate” attached to my title or work. The Trump administration has shown itself to be ruthless in eliminating references to words or concepts it opposes, including flagging pictures of the Enola Gay WWII airplane for removal from the Defense Department’s website in an effort to cut all references to the LGBT community from the agency.
“Climate science” is another Trump administration boogey-word, but the NOAA scientists who remain employed by the agency after the layoffs will still have to deal with the realities of a world warmed by the burning of fossil fuels. “Ultimately, what we’re dealing with are changes in our environment that impact ecosystems and humans, and whether you think these changes are driven by humans or not, it’s something that can now be seen in data,” Lehner told me. “From that perspective, I find it hard to believe that this is not something that people [in the government] are interested in researching.”
Government scientists who want to track things like drought or the rapid intensification of hurricanes going forward will likely have to do so without using the word “climate.” Lehner, for example, recalled submitting a proposal to work with the Bureau of Reclamation on the climate change effects on the Colorado River during the first Trump administration and being advised to replace words like “climate change” with more politically neutral language. His team did, and the project ultimately got funded, though Lehner couldn’t say if that was only because of the semantics. It seems likely, though, that Trump 2.0 will be even stricter in CTRL + F’ing “climate” at NOAA and elsewhere.
Climate research will continue in some form at NOAA, if only because that’s the reality of working with data of a warming planet. But scientists who don’t lose their jobs in the layoffs will likely find themselves wasting time on careful doublespeak so as not to attract unwanted attention.
Another major concern with the NOAA layoffs is the loss of expert knowledge. Many NOAA offices were already lean and understaffed, and only one or two employees likely knew how to perform certain tasks or use certain programs. If those experts subsequently lose their jobs, decades of NOAA know-how will be lost entirely.
As one example, late last year, NOAA updated its system to process grants, causing delays as its staff learned how to use the new program. Given the new round of layoffs, the odds are that some of the employees who may have finally figured out how to navigate the new procedure may have been let go. The problem gets even worse when it comes to specialized knowledge.
“Some of the expertise in processing [NOAA’s] data has been abruptly lost,” Lehner told me. “The people who are still there are scrambling to pick up and learn how to process that data so that it can then be used again.”
The worst outcome of the NOAA layoffs, though, is the extensive damage it does to the institution’s future. Some of the brightest, most enthusiastic Americans at NOAA — the probationary employees with under a year of work — are already gone. What’s more, there aren’t likely to be many new openings at the agency for the next generation of talent coming up in high school and college right now.
“We have an atmospheric science program [at Cornell University] where students have secured NOAA internships for this summer and were hoping to have productive careers, for example, at the National Weather Service, and so forth,” Lehner said. “Now, all of this is in question.”
That is hugely detrimental to NOAA’s ability to preserve the institutional knowledge of outgoing or retiring employees, or to build and advance a workforce of the future. It’s impossible to measure how many people ultimately leave the field or decide to pursue a different career because of the changes at NOAA — damage that will not be easily reversed under a new administration. “It’s going to take years for NOAA to recover the trust of the next generation of brilliant environmental scientists and policymakers,” Spinrad, the former NOAA administrator, said.
Climate change is a global problem, and NOAA has historically worked with partner agencies around the world to better understand the impacts of the warming planet. Now, however, the Trump administration has ordered NOAA employees to stop their international work, and employees who held roles that involved collaboration with partners abroad could potentially become targets of Musk’s layoffs. Firing those employees would also mean severing their relationships with scientists in international offices — offices that very well could have been in positions to help protect U.S. citizens with their research and data.
As the U.S. continues to isolate itself and the NOAA layoffs continue, there will be cascading consequences for climate science, which is inherently a collaborative field. “When the United States doesn’t lead [on climate science], two things happen,” Craig McLean, a former assistant administrator of NOAA for research, recently told the press. “Other nations relax their own spending in these areas, and the world’s level of understanding starts to decline,” and “countries who we may not have as collegial an understanding with,” such as China, could ostensibly step in and “replace the United States and its leadership.”
That leaves NOAA increasingly alone, and Americans of all political stripes will suffer as a result. “The strategy to erase data and research, to pull the rug from under activism — it’s time-tested,” Lehner, the Cornell climate scientist, said. “But that’s where it’s very infuriating because NOAA’s data is bipartisanly useful.”
Rob and Jesse talk with Heatmap senior reporter Jael Holzman.
Donald Trump’s second term has now entered its second month. His administration is doing much to slow down renewables, and everything it can to slow down offshore wind. Jael Holzman is a senior reporter at Heatmap and the author of our newsletter, “The Fight,” about local battles over renewable permitting around the country.
On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob and Jesse talk to Jael about the bleak outlook for offshore wind, the use of presidential authority to impede energy development, and why solar has been spared — so far. Shift Key is hosted by Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University, and Robinson Meyer, Heatmap’s executive editor.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Robinson Meyer: It seems like there’s a mix here of, you know, some projects are now facing active legal trouble because they still had major permits to secure and the Trump administration is now denying those permits. But some projects, as you were saying, seemed safe, but now they’re not. They’re worried about getting these kind of iterative findings from the government that you need to conduct any major work in federal waters.
How much of the chill that we’re seeing is about active permitting denials, versus how much of it is developers being like, we don’t want to risk getting a permit denied, or asking for something that would be very normal to get a normal approval in the course of normal business operations, getting it rejected and then just being stuck. And so we’d rather just pause, not ask for anything for four years, and then come back and start asking again?
Jael Holzman: Offshore wind industry executives won’t say this on the record, but they have anonymously told me, in many words, that they view what is happening to them in the federal permitting system as not only a barometer check for where the energy transition is, but even broader, it is a risk, it is a challenge, it is a threat to integrity.
With respect to our federal permitting processes, generally what we’re seeing here is, I’ve had some folks in conservative energy circles compare it to the Keystone XL-ification of the energy sector, where the political party that doesn’t like a particular technology weaponizes the permitting system against one particular sector. Now, obviously, it’s politically advantageous for conservatives to describe it this way, but I actually find it to be very useful because what it means is as the politics becomes more fraught for the party in power around a technology, there’s increasingly a willingness to step beyond the realm of what the permitting system is legally supposed to do. And that’s a danger if it’s weaponized against an entire sector.
You know, Keystone pipeline, that was one project. It was exemplary — there was a lot of fervor around that one project — that is not an entire sector having the thumb put on its scale by political officials to derail it, especially one that had been a decade-plus in the works and is required for the energy grids to remain stable in various parts of our country. You know, what we’re seeing here is federal officials not even being willing to schedule meetings for permitting processes that are legally required under the law.
For example, my reporting indicated that at least one project that was prioritized under a permitting reform law to have at least an idea public and put out there for when they would expect to get all their permits — this was the Blue Point Wind offshore wind proposal off the coast of New England and New Jersey, New York. And what we’re seeing here is essentially the obscuring of even what permitting reform ostensibly was supposed to do, right?
There was this conversation in D.C. before Trump took office that maybe if you couple statutory reforms that streamline the processes that currently exist, and you put some sort of timetable into the statute, and you combine that with some gimmes to the oil and gas people, right, at least you could grease the skids enough to have everyone benefit. But my reporting on what’s happened to offshore wind has truly revealed that in many respects, “all of the above” is really a Lucy-with-the-football moment for many proponents of an energy transition.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
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.