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:
White House policy might not even be the biggest issue.

If you look at the polls, the presidential election — now exactly two weeks away — is very close. If you listen to the prognosticators, Trump has a slight edge. And if you look at the markets, whether prediction markets or Wall Street, Trump’s chances are looking pretty good, with a sweep of the White House and both houses of Congress now firmly on the table.
“Politics prediction market data have tilted toward a win by former President Trump, and markets have responded in line with this development,” Morgan Stanley analyst Michael Wilson wrote in a note to clients Monday. “Such an outcome should now be taken seriously,” wrote Jefferies global head of equity strategy Christopher Wood in a separate note last week.
And seriously is exactly how the market appears to be taking it, with a range of assets now seeming to be pricing in a Trump victory. Yields on Treasury bonds are also rising, which may be because traders see fewer interest rate cuts coming in a more inflationary Trump economy fueled by tax cuts, spending, and an icing of tariffs on top. Gold and Bitcoin prices have risen in the past month as well.
But what about the clean energy economy? Trump often speaks critically of the Inflation Reduction Act, clean energy in general, and wind energy in particular. With Republicans in control of Congress, those sentiments are more likely to be be turned into policy ... of some kind.
For investors in clean energy companies, Trump's improving odds make for nervous times. In the initial days after a Trump victory, as the reality solidifies, you’ll likely see some big price swings. Eight years ago, on Wednesday, November 9, 2016, an exchange traded fund that tracks around 100 clean energy stock called iShares Global Clean Energy, which is used as a benchmark for the industry as a whole, fell almost 5%, even as stocks overall jumped. In 2020, the fund rose more than 6.5% percent between close on election day and the following Monday, after networks had called the race for Joe Biden.
“I think stocks will trade on sentiment” following a win in either direction, Maheep Mandloi, an analyst at Mizuho, told me. “We’ll probably see that knee-jerk reaction.”
The iShares fund has been falling recently, dropping from $14.77 on September 27, when Kamala Harris peaked at 58.1% in Nate Silver’s polling models, to 47% on Monday, when Trump’s probability to win reached 52.7%.
“Renewables underperformed last week,” Mandloi wrote in a note to clients on Tuesday, with the iShares ETF down compared to the S&P 500 index. That sluggishness mostly came from solar stocks, particularly residential companies like Sunnova, Sunrun, Enphase, and Solaredge — “likely due to election, concerns” Mandloi added.
The fall has been even more dramatic for companies more exposed to Trump’s particular (dis)taste in energy, namely wind. U.S.-traded shares in Vestas, the Danish wind turbine manufacturer, have fallen over 16% since Harris peaked in the forecasts last month through Monday.
But a number of analysts are more sanguine about the fate of the IRA and the clean energy economy it has fostered. For one, the politics of repeal might not hold up in a Trumpified Washington. In August, 18 House Republicans in competitive districts wrote a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson asking him not to target the clean energy tax credits at the core of the law. These same House Republicans have supported Johnson’s speakership where he’s taken flack from the body’s most conservative members, so this is hardly a constituency he can afford to ignore.
Even if a reconciliation bill passed next year were to scrap some or all of the IRA’s clean energy tax credits, the Internal Revenue Service could — as it has in the past when tax credits were about to expire — write rules that allow projects to claim the credits for years to come, Mandloi told me.
In any case, people in the tax credit market don’t seem to think the IRA tax credits are particularly at risk. “Political uncertainty has slowed the development of some industries,” analysts at LevelTen, a clean energy financial infrastructure company, wrote in a report last week. “It it hasn’t stopped the tax credit market from growing.” They assigned a low likelihood to a complete gutting of the IRA, noting that “there is bipartisan support for the investments catalyzed by the IRA across the nation.”
While it's possible that the bipartisan enthusiasm for investments stemming from the Inflation Reduction Act could protect much of the bill, the parts of the bill that directly support manufacturers may be the safest, namely the advanced manufacturing tax credit that has been especially popular in the solar industry.
These credits have been complemented by aggressive trade policy as well. Some of Trump’s earliest tariffs were on solar panels, and the Biden administration has also tried to protect the domestic solar manufacturing industry from “overproduction” in China and Southeast Asia. First Solar has thrown itself into domestic manufacturing with the wind of the Inflation Reduction Act’s manufacturing tax credits at its back. Bonuses for solar developers whose systems are made up of “domestic content” have helped, as well.
Morningstar analyst Brett Castelli wrote to investors a note last month acknowledging the risk to solar stocks from a change in White House party control. First Solar specifically, however, “would likely benefit from proposed trade policies, such as higher tariffs, under a Republican administration.”
The company’s stock is up 14% so far this year through Monday, although it has dipped as Harris has dipped in election forecast. The Invesco Solar ETF, which tracks the broad solar industry, is down 13% on the year.
“First Solar is unique in our view in the fact that it is relatively indifferent regardless of outcome,” Castelli told me this week. It’s helped by sheer size. “They have the largest U.S. presence for manufacturing solar panels here, domestically,” he said. “The biggest competitive threat to those factories would be cheap imports from China or Southeast Asia.”
But while the renewable energy industry is always at the risk of public policy shifts, for good and for ill, there’s another, harder to predict and harder to tame factor: interest rates.
Despite the spigot from Washington due to the IRA, many renewables companies have not been doing great in the stock market in recent years, and high interest rates are likely the reason why.
For renewables, most of the cost comes from simply building the thing. The “fuel,” whether it be photons or wind, is free. This means that renewables projects are highly sensitive to the price of the borrowed money they need for construction. While the Federal Reserve has finally begun to cut rates and anticipates continuing doing so through the end of next year, it’s by no means something it’s mandated to do, especially if there's a major change in fiscal policy going forward.
Predicting the path of interest rates is something people get paid far, far more than journalists’ salaries to do, and they’re often wrong. That being said, it’s not hard to see a world where a sizable Trump win keeps rates elevated.
As president, he showed zero appetite for fiscal restraint, and going into round two has indicated a desire for sizable tax cuts and almost nothing specific for any large scale cuts in spending, policy preferences that may be more likely to be indulged in a Washington under unified Republican control. “Interest Rates Will Be Higher in the Future, Especially if Trump Is President,” the Wall Street Journal declared earlier this month.
The “downside scenario” for stocks envisioned by Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. equity strategist at UBS investment bank, largely follows this scenario. “A combination of fiscal and monetary stimulus causes a reacceleration in inflation, forcing the Fed to abandon their rate cut plans,” he wrote to clients earlier this month. Clean energy could be hardest hit, no matter what happens to the IRA.
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 Trump administration has started to weaken the rules requiring cars and trucks to get more fuel-efficient every year.
In a press event on Wednesday in the Oval Office, flanked by advisors and some of the country’s top auto executives, President Trump declared that the old rules “forced automakers to build cars using expensive technologies that drove up costs, drove up prices, and made the car much worse.”
He said that the rules were part of the “green new scam” and that ditching them would save consumers some $1,000 every year. That framed the rollback as part of the president’s seeming pivot to affordability, which has happened since Democrats trounced Republicans in the November off-cycle elections.
That pivot remains belated and at least a little half-hearted: On Wednesday, Trump made no mention of dropping the auto tariffs that are raising imported car prices by perhaps $5,000 per vehicle, according to Cox Automotive. Ditching the fuel economy rules, too, could increase demand for gasoline and thus raise prices at the pump — although they remain fairly low right now, with the national average below $3 a gallon.
What’s more interesting — and worrying — is that the rules fit into the administration’s broader war on innovation in the American car and light-duty truck sector.
The United States essentially has two ways to regulate pollution from cars and light trucks: It can limit greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and trucks, and it can require the fuel economy from new vehicles to get a little better every year.
Trump is pulling screws and wires out of both of these systems. In the first category, he’s begun to unwind the Environmental Protection Agency’s limits on carbon pollution from cars and light duty trucks, which he termed an “EV mandate.” (The Biden-era rules sought to require about half of new car sales be electric by 2030, although hybrids could help meet that standard.) Trump is also trying to keep the EPA from ever regulating anything to do with carbon pollution again by going after the agency’s “Endangerment Finding” — a scientific assessment that greenhouse gases are dangerous to human wellbeing.
That’s only half of the president’s war on air pollution rules, though. Since the oil crises of the 1970s, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has regulated fuel economy for new vehicles under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards. When these rules are binding, the agency can require new cars and trucks sold in the U.S. to get a little more fuel-efficient every year. The idea is that these rules help limit the country’s gasoline consumption, thus keeping a lid on oil prices and letting the whole economy run more efficiently.
President Trump’s signature tax law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, already eliminated the fines that automakers have to pay when they fail to meet the standard. That change, pushed by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, effectively rendered the regulation toothless. But now Trump is weakening the rules just for good measure. (At the press conference on Wednesday, Cruz stood behind the president — and next to Jim Farley, the CEO of Ford.)
Under the new Trump proposal, automakers would need to achieve only an average of 34.5 miles per gallon in 2031. Under Biden’s proposal, they needed to hit 50 miles per gallon that year.
Those numbers, I should add, are somewhat deceptive — because of how CAFE standards are calculated, the headline number is 20% to 30% stricter than a real-world fuel economy number. In essence, that means the new Trump era rules will come out to a real-world mile-per-gallon number in the mid-to-high 20s. That will give automakers ample regulatory room to sell more inefficient and gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles and pickups, which remain more profitable than electric vehicles.
Which is not ideal for air pollution or the energy transition. But the real risk for the American automaking industry is not that Ford might churn out a few extra Escapes over the next several years. It’s that the Trump proposal would eliminate the ability for automakers to trade compliance credits to meet the rules. These credit markets — which allow manufacturers of gas guzzlers to redeem themselves by buying credits generated by cleaner cars — have been a valuable revenue source for new vehicle companies like Tesla, Lucid, and Rivian. The Trump proposal would cut off that revenue — and with it, one of the few remaining ways that automakers are cross-subsidizing EV innovation in the United States.
During his campaign, President Trump said that he wanted the “cleanest air.” That promise is looking as incorrect as his pledge to cut electricity costs in half within a year.
How will America’s largest grid deal with the influx of electricity demand? It has until the end of the year to figure things out.
As America’s largest electricity market was deliberating over how to reform the interconnection of data centers, its independent market monitor threw a regulatory grenade into the mix. Just before the Thanksgiving holiday, the monitor filed a complaint with federal regulators saying that PJM Interconnection, which spans from Washington, D.C. to Ohio, should simply stop connecting new large data centers that it doesn’t have the capacity to serve reliably.
The complaint is just the latest development in a months-long debate involving the electricity market, power producers, utilities, elected officials, environmental activists, and consumer advocates over how to connect the deluge data centers in PJM’s 13-state territory without further increasing consumer electricity prices.
The system has been pushed into crisis by skyrocketing capacity auction prices, in which generators get paid to ensure they’re available when demand spikes. Those capacity auction prices have been fueled by high-octane demand projections, with PJM’s summer peak forecasted to jump from 154 gigawatts to 210 gigawatts in a decade. The 2034-35 forecast jumped 17% in just a year.
Over the past two two capacity auctions, actual and forecast data center growth has been responsible for over $16.6 billion in new costs, according to PJM’s independent market monitor; by contrast, the previous year’s auction generated a mere $2.2 billion. This has translated directly to higher retail electricity prices, including 20% increases in some parts of PJM’s territory, like New Jersey. It has also generated concerns about reliability of the whole system.
PJM wants to reform how data centers interconnect before the next capacity auction in June, but its members committee was unable to come to an agreement on a recommendation to PJM’s board during a November meeting. There were a dozen proposals, including one from the monitor; like all the others, it failed to garner the necessary two-thirds majority vote to be adopted formally.
So the monitor took its ideas straight to the top.
The market monitor’s complaint to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission tracks closely with its plan at the November meeting. “PJM is currently proposing to allow the interconnection of large new data center loads that it cannot serve reliably and that will require load curtailments (black outs) of the data centers or of other customers at times. That result is not consistent with the basic responsibility of PJM to maintain a reliable grid and is therefore not just and reasonable,” the filing said. “Interconnecting large new data center loads when adequate capacity is not available is not providing reliable service.”
A PJM spokesperson told me, “We are still reviewing the complaint and will reserve comment at this time.”
But can its board still get a plan to FERC and avoid another blowout capacity auction?
“PJM is going to make a filing in December, no matter what. They have to get these rules in place to get to that next capacity auction in June,” Jon Gordon, policy director at Advanced Energy United, told me. “That’s what this has been about from the get-go. Nothing is going to stop PJM from filling something.”
The PJM spokesperson confirmed to me that “the board intends to act on large load additions to the system and is expected to provide an indication of its next steps over the next few weeks.” But especially after the membership’s failure to make a unified recommendation, what that proposal will be remains unclear. That has been a source of agita for the organizations’ many stakeholders.
“The absence of an affirmative advisory recommendation from the Members Committee creates uncertainty as to what reforms PJM’s Board of Managers may submit to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and when stakeholders can expect that submission,” analysts at ClearView Energy Partners wrote in a note to clients. In spite of PJM’s commitments, they warned that the process could “slip into January,” which would give FERC just enough time to process the submission before the next capacity auction.
One idea did attract a majority vote from PJM’s membership: Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative’s, which largely echoed the PJM board’s own plan with some amendments. That suggestion called for a “Price Responsive Demand” system, in which electricity customers would agree to reduce their usage when wholesale prices spike. The system would be voluntary, unlike an earlier PJM proposal, which foresaw forcing large customers to curtail their power. “The load elects to not take on a capacity obligation, therefore does not pay for capacity, and is required to reduce demand during stressed system conditions,” PJM explained in an update. The Southern Maryland plan tweaks the PRD system to adjust its pricing mechanism. but largely aligns with what PJM’s staff put forward.
“There’s almost no real difference between the PJM proposal and that Southern Maryland proposal,” Gordon told me.
That might please restive stakeholders, or at least be something PJM’s board could go forward with knowing that the balance of its voting membership agreed with something similar.
“We maintain our view that a final proposal could resemble the proposed solution package from PJM staff,” the ClearView note said. “We also think the Board could propose reforms to PJM’s PRD program. Indeed, as noted above, SMECO’s revisions to the service gained majority support.”
The PJM plan also included relatively uncontroversial reforms to load forecasting to cut down on duplicated requests and better share information, and an “expedited interconnection track” on which new, large-scale generation could be fast-tracked if it were signed off on by a state government “to expedite consideration of permitting and siting.”
Gordon said that the market monitor’s complaint could be read as the organization “desperately trying to get FERC to weigh in” on its side, even if PJM is more likely to go with something like its own staff-authored submission.
“The key aspect of the market monitor’s proposal was that PJM should not allow a data center to interconnect until there was enough generation to supply them,” Gordon explained. During the meeting preceding the vote, “PJM said they didn’t think they had the authority to deny someone interconnection.”
This dispute over whether the electricity system has an obligation to serve all customers has been the existential question making the debate about how to serve data centers extra angsty.
But PJM looks to be trying to sidestep that big question and nibble around the edges of reform.
“Everybody is really conflicted here,” Gordon told me. “They’re all about protecting consumers. They don’t want to see any more increases, obviously, and they want to keep the lights on. Of course, they also want data center developers in their states. It’s really hard to have all three.”
Atomic Canyon is set to announce the deal with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Two years ago, Trey Lauderdale asked not what nuclear power could do for artificial intelligence, but what artificial intelligence could do for nuclear power.
The value of atomic power stations to provide the constant, zero-carbon electricity many data centers demand was well understood. What large language models could do to make building and operating reactors easier was less obvious. His startup, Atomic Canyon, made a first attempt at answering that by creating a program that could make the mountains of paper documents at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, California’s only remaining station, searchable. But Lauderdale was thinking bigger.
In September, Atomic Canyon inked a deal with the Idaho National Laboratory to start devising industry standards to test the capacity of AI software for nuclear projects, in much the same way each update to ChatGPT or Perplexity is benchmarked by the program’s ability to complete bar exams or medical tests. Now, the company’s effort is going global.
On Wednesday, Atomic Canyon is set to announce a partnership with the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency to begin cataloging the United Nations nuclear watchdog’s data and laying the groundwork for global standards of how AI software can be used in the industry.
“We’re going to start building proof of concepts and models together, and we’re going to build a framework of what the opportunities and use cases are for AI,” Lauderdale, Atomic Canyon’s chief executive, told me on a call from his hotel room in Vienna, Austria, where the IAEA is headquartered.
The memorandum of understanding between the company and the UN agency is at an early stage, so it’s as yet unclear what international standards or guidelines could look like.
In the U.S., Atomic Canyon began making inroads earlier this year with a project backed by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operators, the Nuclear Energy Institute, and the Electric Power Research Institute to create a virtual assistant for nuclear workers.
Atomic Canyon isn’t the only company applying AI to nuclear power. Last month, nuclear giant Westinghouse unveiled new software it’s designing with Google to calculate ways to bring down the cost of key components in reactors by millions of dollars. The Nuclear Company, a startup developer that’s aiming to build fleets of reactors based on existing designs, announced a deal with the software behemoth Palantir to craft the software equivalent of what the companies described as an “Iron Man suit,” able to swiftly pull up regulatory and blueprint details for the engineers tasked with building new atomic power stations.
Lauderdale doesn’t see that as competition.
“All of that, I view as complementary,” he said.
“There is so much wood to chop in the nuclear power space, the amount of work from an administrative perspective regarding every inch of the nuclear supply chain, from how we design reactors to how we license reactors, how we regulate to how we do environmental reviews, how we construct them to how we maintain,” he added. “Every aspect of the nuclear power life cycle is going to be transformed. There’s no way one company alone could come in and say, we have a magical approach. We’re going to need multiple players.”
That Atomic Canyon is making inroads at the IAEA has the potential to significantly broaden the company’s reach. Unlike other energy sources, nuclear power is uniquely subject to international oversight as part of global efforts to prevent civilian atomic energy from bleeding over into weapons production.
The IAEA’s bylaws award particular agenda-setting powers to whatever country has the largest fleet of nuclear reactors. In the nearly seven decades since the agency’s founding, that nation has been the U.S. As such, the 30 other countries with nuclear power have largely aligned their regulations and approaches to the ones standardized in Washington. When the U.S. artificially capped the enrichment levels of traditional reactor fuel at 5%, for example, the rest of the world followed.
That could soon change, however, as China’s breakneck deployment of new reactors looks poised to vault the country ahead of the U.S. sometime in the next decade. It wouldn’t just be a symbolic milestone. China’s emergence as the world’s preeminent nuclear-powered nation would likely come with Beijing’s increased influence over other countries’ atomic energy programs. As it is, China is preparing to start exporting its reactors overseas.
The role electricity demand from the data centers powering the AI boom has played in spurring calls for new reactors is undeniable. But if AI turns out to have as big an impact on nuclear operations as Lauderdale predicts, an American company helping to establish the global guidelines could help cement U.S. influence over a potentially major new factor in how the industry works for years, if not decades to come.