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 Federal Reserve giveth and the Federal Reserve taketh away.
Shares in climate-related companies — green hydrogen, residential solar, renewables developers — have been flagging in the past few months, and it seems like the damage may have spread to the private markets as well, where fledgling companies seek funding from individual venture capital firms.
The S&P Clean Energy Index — a group of 100 “global clean energy-related businesses from both developed and emerging markets” — has declined around 30% so far this year, compared to the broader stock market going up 12%.
While there are many different types of clean energy companies, the widespread malaise across the sector’s shares can mostly be attributed to high interest rates and changing public policy.
Many in the environmental business, advocacy, and public policy worlds are optimistic that clean energy can eventually become — or even already is — cost competitive with fossil fuels (not to mention better for the planet), but much of the sector is still both largely future oriented and heavily tied to government-provided incentives and policy preferences.
This means in sectors like hydrogen or offshore wind, big fights over tax credits and contract adjustments can meaningfully impact the future profitability of, or at least investor excitement around, clean energy companies if those battles go the “wrong” way.
The hydrogen company Plug Power is down around 45% this year, as is the residential solar company Sunrun. The energy company NextEra, which has massive wind and solar investments and is looking to be a big player in hydrogen, is down by more than a third. The Northeast energy company Avangrid, which paid $48 million to get out of an offshore wind deal in Massachusetts, is down by about a quarter this year. Orsted, the Danish wind company with projects up and down the East Coast, many now in some form of limbo due to rapidly accelerating costs, is down almost 50% this year.
And there’s evidence that capital may be becoming scarcer in the private markets as well. According to the audit and consulting firm PwC, overall funding from venture and private equity investors for climate technology companies fell by about 40%, taking it down to a level last seen five years ago.
Much of the fall can be chalked up to an overall decline in start-up funding — which fell 50% — the PWC analysis said. Indeed, the portion of all start-up investment that’s devoted to climate investments has actually gone up in the last year. This might be welcome news for the long-term prospects of the sector, but it’s still cold comfort for climate tech companies hunting for cash to stay afloat or expand.
While stock prices and business outlooks are not always the same — a stock price can decline because investors decided they were overly optimistic about a company’s prospects even if it’s still growing — there are some unifying causes to the troubles the clean tech industry is facing.
The one that pops up everywhere is interest rates, which are at the highest level in decades in the United States.
When the Federal Reserve raises interest rates and keeps them high, money becomes more expensive to borrow (just ask anyone who’s trying to buy a house right now). This matters a lot for a bevy of clean energy companies, because they often need to spend now — to, say, build a utility-scale solar array — in order to secure flows of payments in the future. When interest rates are high, funding is not only costlier, but future payments are less attractive compared to, say, buying low risk government bonds, which can offer a sizable return with less risk.
“Recently investors have been concerned that higher interest rates mean shrinking NPV, or value creation, for new renewable projects … lack of access to capital, prohibitively high renewables costs, lower renewables demand, and significantly lower value of future growth pipelines,” Morgan Stanley analysts wrote in a note earlier this week. (They ultimately described the sell-off as “overdone”).
Much of the sell-off, the Morgan Stanley analysts said, was attributable to an announcement made last month by NextEra, which is both a leading renewables company and the owner of a Florida utility. NextEra said that the growth rate of dividends paid out by an affiliated company that buys its renewable projects would be cut in half in order “to reduce financing needs and better position the partnership to continue to deliver long-term value for unitholders.”
That’s a mouthful, but it essentially means that a source of capital for a leading renewables developer is less optimistic about the business and decided to cut what it paid to its investors instead of acquiring another solar, wind, or battery project.
This announcement led to a quick, sudden decline in the company’s stock price, knocking around $30 billion off its market value and dragging the broader sector’s valuations down by about 12% soon after the announcement.
For specific companies and sectors, they’ve had their own challenges that have brought down stock prices.
Publicly traded residential solar companies have seen their valuations fall dramatically in the last year, which can be chalked up to, Morgan Stanley analysts argue, “the combination of higher interest rates and policy changes in California,” referring to a new state policy which dramatically cuts back payments to homeowners selling solar power to the electric grid. “Overall, we expect another rough quarter for residential solar companies,” Citi analysts said, in a note downgrading two solar companies, SunPower (stock down two thirds this year) and Sunnova (down 47%).
“Interest rates are highly relevant for the renewables space as installers are effectively financing companies and as renewable project expected returns are sensitive to interest rate changes,” analysts at Citi said in a note this week.
In August, Sunrun, a leader in residential solar, told investors that “recent interest rate increases, inflationary pressures, and working capital needs have prevented us from generating meaningful cash generation.”
And in offshore wind, there have been declines across the board. “The U.S. offshore wind market has run into challenges as project returns have declined due to cost inflation and higher cost of capital,” Morgan Stanley analysts said in a note. “While some offshore wind projects have proven to be NPV-negative and companies have cancelled contracts, we do not see risk of onshore wind, solar, and storage contracts facing these same issues.”
For companies looking to invest in green hydrogen, there is a lot of money being poured into the sector by the federal government, but also a lot of uncertainty around which projects will qualify for tax benefits. Morningstar analyst Brett Castelli described Plug Power as “a high-risk high-reward investment in the green hydrogen economy” with “operating losses and heavy capital investment associated with its green hydrogen network.” The company, Castelli said, would do better, “the more flexible the [federal] rules.”
There is still, of course, a tidal wave of money from the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act set to flood into the energy sector, but there’s no guarantee it will go to specific companies or startups. Meanwhile, the rollout of the bills has been, well, let’s say methodical, as rules get written and spending programs get built out.
And that leaves investors asking “show me the money.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
It was a curious alliance from the start. On the one hand, Donald Trump, who made antipathy toward electric vehicles a core part of his meandering rants. On the other hand, Elon Musk, the man behind the world’s largest EV company, who nonetheless put all his weight, his millions of dollars, and the power of his social network behind the Trump campaign.
With Musk standing by his side on Election Day, Trump has once again secured the presidency. His reascendance sent shock waves through the automotive world, where companies that had been lurching toward electrification with varying levels of enthusiasm were left to wonder what happens now — and what benefits Tesla may reap from having hitched itself to the winning horse.
Certainly the federal government’s stated target of 50% of U.S. new car sales being electric by 2030 is toast, and many of the actions it took in pursuit of that goal are endangered. Although Trump has softened his rhetoric against EVs since becoming buddies with Musk, it’s hard to imagine a Trump administration with any kind of ambitious electrification goal.
During his first go-round as president, Trump attacked the state of California’s ability to set its own ambitious climate-focused rules for cars. No surprise there: Because of the size of the California car market, its regulations helped to drag the entire industry toward lower-emitting vehicles and, almost inevitably, EVs. If Trump changes course and doesn’t do the same thing this time, it’ll be because his new friend at Tesla supports those rules.
The biggest question hanging over electric vehicles, however, is the fate of the Biden administration’s signature achievements in climate and EV policy, particularly the Inflation Reduction Act’s $7,500 federal consumer tax credit for electric vehicles. A Trump administration looks poised to tear down whatever it can of its predecessor’s policy. Some analysts predict it’s unlikely the entire IRA will disappear, but concede Trump would try to kill off the incentives for electric vehicles however he can.
There’s no sugar-coating it: Without the federal incentives, the state of EVs looks somewhat bleak. Knocking $7,500 off the starting price is essential to negate the cost of manufacturing expensive lithium-ion batteries and making EVs cost-competitive with ordinary combustion cars. Consider a crucial model like the new Chevy Equinox EV: Counting the federal incentive, the most basic $35,000 model could come in under the starting price of a gasoline crossover like the Toyota RAV4. Without that benefit, buyers who want to go electric will have to pay a premium to do so — the thing that’s been holding back mass electrification all along.
Musk, during his honeymoon with Trump, boasted that Tesla doesn’t need the tax credits, as if daring the president-elect to kill off the incentives. On the one hand, this is obviously false. Visit Tesla’s website and you’ll see the simplest Model 3 listed for $29,990, but this is a mirage. Take away the $7,500 in incentives and $5,000 in claimed savings versus buying gasoline, and the car actually starts at about $43,000, much further out of reach for non-wealthy buyers.
What Musk really means is that his company doesn’t need the incentives nearly as bad as other automakers do. Ford is hemorrhaging billions of dollars as it struggles to make EVs profitably. GM’s big plan to go entirely electric depended heavily on federal support. As InsideEVsnotes, the likely outcome of a Trump offensive against EVs is that the legacy car brands, faced with an unpredictable electrification roadmap as America oscillates between presidents, scale back their plans and lean back into the easy profitably of big, gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks. Such an about-face could hand Tesla the kind of EV market dominance it enjoyed four or five years ago when it sold around 75% of all electric vehicles in America.
That’s tough news for the climate-conscious Americans who want an electric vehicle built by someone not named Elon Musk. Hundreds of thousands of people, myself included, bought a Tesla during the past five or six years because it was the most practical EV for their lifestyle, only to see the company’s figurehead shift his public persona from goofy troll to Trump acolyte. It’s not uncommon now, as Democrats distance themselves from Tesla, to see Model 3s adorned with bumper stickers like the “Anti-Elon Tesla Club,” as one on a car I followed last month proclaimed. Musk’s newest vehicle, the Cybertruck, is a rolling embodiment of the man’s brand, a vehicle purpose-built to repel anyone not part of his cult of personality.
In a world where this version of Tesla retakes control of the electric car market, it becomes harder to ditch gasoline without indirectly supporting Donald Trump, by either buying a Tesla or topping off at its Superchargers. Blue voters will have some options outside of Tesla — the industry has come too far to simply evaporate because of one election. But it’s also easy to see dispirited progressives throwing up their hands and buying another carbon-spewing Subaru.
Republicans are taking over some of the most powerful institutions for crafting climate policy on Earth.
When Republicans flipped the Senate, they took the keys to three critical energy and climate-focused committees.
These are among the most powerful institutions for crafting climate policy on Earth. The Senate plays the role of gatekeeper for important legislation, as it requires a supermajority to overcome the filibuster. Hence, it’s both where many promising climate bills from the House go to die, as well as where key administrators such as the heads of the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency are vetted and confirmed.
We’ll have to wait a bit for the Senate’s new committee chairs to be officially confirmed. But Jeff Navin, co-founder at the climate change-focused government affairs firm Boundary Stone Partners, told me that since selections are usually based on seniority, in many cases it’s already clear which Republicans are poised to lead under Trump and which Democrats will assume second-in-command (known as the ranking member). Here’s what we know so far.
This committee has been famously led by Joe Manchin, the former Democrat, now Independent senator from West Virginia, who will retire at the end of this legislative session. Energy and Natural Resources has a history of bipartisan collaboration and was integral in developing many of the key provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act — and could thus play a key role in dismantling them. Overall, the committee oversees the DOE, the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, so it’s no small deal that its next chairman will likely be Mike Lee, the ultra-conservative Republican from Utah. That’s assuming that the committee's current ranking member, John Barrasso of Wyoming, wins his bid for Republican Senate whip, which seems very likely.
Lee opposes federal ownership of public lands, setting himself up to butt heads with Martin Heinrich, the Democrat from New Mexico and likely the committee’s next ranking member. Lee has also said that solving climate change is simply a matter of having more babies, as “problems of human imagination are not solved by more laws, they’re solved by more humans.” As Navin told me, “We've had this kind of safe space where so-called quiet climate policy could get done in the margins. And it’s not clear that that's going to continue to exist with the new leadership.”
This committee is currently chaired by Democrat Tom Carper of Delaware, who is retiring after this term. Poised to take over is the Republican’s current ranking member, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia. She’s been a strong advocate for continued reliance on coal and natural gas power plants, while also carving out areas of bipartisan consensus on issues such as nuclear energy, carbon capture, and infrastructure projects during her tenure on the committee. The job of the Environment and Public Works committee is in the name: It oversees the EPA, writes key pieces of environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, and supervises public infrastructure projects such as highways, bridges, and dams.
Navin told me that many believe the new Democratic ranking member will be Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, although to do so, he would have to step down from his perch at the Senate Budget Committee, where he is currently chair. A tireless advocate of the climate cause, Whitehouse has worked on the Environment and Public Works committee for over 15 years, and lately seems to have had a relatively productive working relationship with Capito.
This subcommittee falls under the broader Senate Appropriations Committee and is responsible for allocating funding for the DOE, various water development projects, and various other agencies such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
California’s Dianne Feinstein used to chair this subcommittee until her death last year, when Democrat Patty Murray of Washington took over. Navin told me that the subcommittee’s next leader will depend on how the game of “musical chairs” in the larger Appropriations Committee shakes out. Depending on their subcommittee preferences, the chair could end up being John Kennedy of Louisiana, outgoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, or Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. It’s likewise hard to say who the top Democrat will be.
Inside a wild race sparked by a solar farm in Knox County, Ohio.
The most important climate election you’ve never heard of? Your local county commissioner.
County commissioners are usually the most powerful governing individuals in a county government. As officials closer to community-level planning than, say a sitting senator, commissioners wind up on the frontlines of grassroots opposition to renewables. And increasingly, property owners that may be personally impacted by solar or wind farms in their backyards are gunning for county commissioner positions on explicitly anti-development platforms.
Take the case of newly-elected Ohio county commissioner – and Christian social media lifestyle influencer – Drenda Keesee.
In March, Keesee beat fellow Republican Thom Collier in a primary to become a GOP nominee for a commissioner seat in Knox County, Ohio. Knox, a ruby red area with very few Democratic voters, is one of the hottest battlegrounds in the war over solar energy on prime farmland and one of the riskiest counties in the country for developers, according to Heatmap Pro’s database. But Collier had expressed openness to allowing new solar to be built on a case-by-case basis, while Keesee ran on a platform focused almost exclusively on blocking solar development. Collier ultimately placed third in the primary, behind Keesee and another anti-solar candidate placing second.
Fighting solar is a personal issue for Keesee (pronounced keh-see, like “messy”). She has aggressively fought Frasier Solar – a 120 megawatt solar project in the country proposed by Open Road Renewables – getting involved in organizing against the project and regularly attending state regulator hearings. Filings she submitted to the Ohio Power Siting Board state she owns a property at least somewhat adjacent to the proposed solar farm. Based on the sheer volume of those filings this is clearly her passion project – alongside preaching and comparing gay people to Hitler.
Yesterday I spoke to Collier who told me the Frasier Solar project motivated Keesee’s candidacy. He remembered first encountering her at a community meeting – “she verbally accosted me” – and that she “decided she’d run against me because [the solar farm] was going to be next to her house.” In his view, he lost the race because excitement and money combined to produce high anti-solar turnout in a kind of local government primary that ordinarily has low campaign spending and is quite quiet. Some of that funding and activity has been well documented.
“She did it right: tons of ground troops, people from her church, people she’s close with went door-to-door, and they put out lots of propaganda. She got them stirred up that we were going to take all the farmland and turn it into solar,” he said.
Collier’s takeaway from the race was that local commissioner races are particularly vulnerable to the sorts of disinformation, campaign spending and political attacks we’re used to seeing more often in races for higher offices at the state and federal level.
“Unfortunately it has become this,” he bemoaned, “fueled by people who have little to no knowledge of what we do or how we do it. If you stir up enough stuff and you cry out loud enough and put up enough misinformation, people will start to believe it.”
Races like these are happening elsewhere in Ohio and in other states like Georgia, where opposition to a battery plant mobilized Republican primaries. As the climate world digests the federal election results and tries to work backwards from there, perhaps at least some attention will refocus on local campaigns like these.