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.
We got a much better sense of the Trump administration’s nuclear buildout plans today.
The Energy Department announced its long-awaited loan program that will aim to build a new fleet of nuclear reactors across the country. The department’s in-house bank will provide low-interest loans of up to $17.5 billion to help utilities and power developers buy up to 10 Westinghouse AP1000s, the third-generation nuclear reactor that is that company’s flagship product.
I can’t say this program was entirely a surprise: If you read Heatmap, you’ll remember we reported on the existence of this program — and the discussions between the government, utilities, power developers, and Westinghouse — back in February. Gregory Beard, who leads the Energy Department’s in-house bank, also teased the program at a Houston conference in April.
The program looks roughly as anticipated: It will aim to construct up to 10 new reactors, with two AP1000 Westinghouse reactors across five sites. That could add up to 11 gigawatts of nearly around the clock zero-carbon electricity to the power grid. What’s new is that Westinghouse and the utility will jointly own the power plants.
According to The Wall Street Journal, utilities and Westinghouse will each own part of the plants once they’re built. Five loans will become available; the department is already in talks with seven utilities.
At the high level, it’s a cool program — or at least I think so. Nuclear support has become surprisingly bipartisan, at least at the elite level, in recent years. In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul is trying to develop new nuclear plants. As we’ve noted before, the countries with some of the cleanest power grids in the world, such as France and Sweden, achieved their low carbon emissions in part by undertaking large, state-led nuclear energy buildouts. France, in particular, harmonized its nuclear power plants to a single reactor design and then built them to spec across the landscape. China is engaged in a similar buildout now with a variant of the AP1000. By getting behind the AP1000 in the United States, the Trump administration is following a global best practice.
The idea of a mass buildout makes sense for other reasons, too. Recent nuclear projects in the United States have often faced delays because construction and manufacturing timelines don’t line up. AP1000s are manufactured partly off-site in Westinghouse facilities and then shipped in; when a part arrives late, an expensive construction crew has to sit idle while they wait for it to arrive. (These timing misalignments drove part of the Vogtle plant’s runaway costs in Georgia.) By placing what is in essence a bulk order for AP1000 parts, the new program aims to bring down the cost of production and even allows project sites to swap identical parts as they come available — if one site isn’t ready to receive a pressure vessel, for instance, it can go somewhere else.
I hesitate to praise the project's climate bonafides at the risk of discouraging the Trump administration, but it is worth noting that if this project were to succeed, it would be one of the largest state-assisted build-outs of zero-carbon electricity in recent American history. But it would still take some time to arrive: These reactors aren’t forecast to come online til 2035.
Let me note one more irony. For a long time, the country’s policymakers and nuclear industry (to the extent the latter exists) have dreamt of small modular reactors: petite fission plants that can be manufactured in a factory and would produce a few hundred megawatts. The AP1000, in both its American and Chinese iterations, is a very large reactor — but it has become, in a sense, modular and manufacturable.
Cameco, which owns about half of Westinghouse, saw its stock rise 1.8% in the day’s trading. Brookfield Renewable Partners, which owns the other half, was flat. It was otherwise a choppy day in the markets, with the S&P 500 falling 1.4% and some tech and AI-exposed companies continuing their slide.
There will be much more to say about this program, and we look forward to covering it at Heatmap.
Hyperscalers might be paying billions to avoid blame for rising electricity prices.
Here is a mystery for you: On Wednesday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will take up the Ratepayer Protection Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Colorado Republican Gabe Evans and Florida Democrat Kathy Castor that seeks to enshrine Trump’s similarly named pledge into law.
Among the bill’s supporters is Kentucky Representative Brett Guthrie, a Republican and the chair of the committee. Guthrie is no opponent of artificial intelligence, saying in a statement praising the bill that “Winning the race to AI dominance is essential to securing America’s future global leadership, and that means expeditiously building the power infrastructure needed to support new technologies, while doing so in a responsible way.” Guthrie did not respond to a request for comment.
Microsoft, one of seven large technology companies that agreed to cover any additional grid infrastructure costs stemming from their data centers under Trump’s original Ratepayer Protection Pledge, supports the bill, describing it as an “important step to help ensure American families are protected from rising electricity costs.” Google, another signatory, generally backs the idea of specialized large load tariffs that allocate network costs back to the hyperscalers.
But … why? After all, these companies are voluntarily putting themselves on the hook for what could be billions of dollars in costs that would typically be socialized to all the customers on the grid.
The Data Center Coalition, a trade group including several hyperscalers, has been more circumspect about the bill. Cy McNeill, the group’s senior director of federal affairs, told me in a statement that the group “is reviewing the details of the Ratepayer Protection Act with our members and looks forward to engaging with policymakers on this important topic.”
Evans, Castor, Guthrie, and and the rest appear to be acting not out of hostility towards the AI industry, but rather from a desire to protect it from public backlash fed by rising electricity prices. Earlier this month, Guthrie co-signed a letter to FBI Director Kash Patel, among others, raising concerns that China had “engaged in a coordinated effort to slow U.S. growth in AI development and the building of infrastructure supporting AI data centers” by fomenting domestic opposition — hardly the interpretation of someone working against the industry.
The explanation, perhaps, lies in the answers to two big questions about the Ratepayer Protection Act:
1. Are data centers responsible for higher electricity prices now, or will they be in the future?
2. And would the approach taken in the law actually work to protect ratepayers?
As to the first question, analysts have come up with a nuanced answer. The electricity cost increases we’ve seen in the last five or so years have been largely driven by expenses associated with the distribution grid, including the poles and wires themselves. In some states, like California, the costs come back to wildfires; in others, like Maine, to storm remediation. Looking backwards to 2019, researchers have not been able to find a regular relationship between load growth and price hikes.
In fact, several states “absorbed large industrial and data center load additions while reducing inflation-adjusted retail prices,” according to researchers at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. By contrast, some states with little load growth from industry or data centers, such as Maine or California, have seen prices rise substantially.
Many analysts expect electricity prices to continue rising nationally, and data centers could be a driver going forward as demand hits a grid whose capacity to generate and transmit electricity is increasingly strained. This is likely already happening in the country’s largest electricity market, PJM Interconnection, where the system’s independent market monitor has claimed that current and forecasted data center demand has cost customers over $23 billion from recent capacity auctions.
To get prices to actually fall — or at least grow more slowly —it would require that “low-cost supply is available, existing infrastructure is more fully utilized, and cost allocation ensures that new demand contributes to system efficiency,” the Columbia researchers write. Under business as usual however, prices will likely continue to rise.
On the second question, there is much more cynicism.
Critics of the original Ratepayer Protection Pledge, including Harvard Law School’s Ari Peskoe, pointed out that the actual parties to ratemaking — utilities and state regulators — were not involved in the pledge at all. Already, there are accusations that projects developed by pledge signatories could lead to higher prices. Meta's sprawling planned data center project in Louisiana is responsible for the utility’s plans to buy a Texas natural gas-fired power plant, according to documents filed by regulators reviewed by the Times-Picayune. The $1.8 billion deal could lead to $8 a month in additional costs for typical Louisiana ratepayers.
The Ratepayer Protection Act would go a bit further than the pledge, amending the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act to “establish a Federal standard relating to the recovery of the full, incremental costs of upgrades that serve large-load customers.” Peskoe, however, described this to me in an email as “largely symbolic” and noted that “Congress may not force state regulators to do anything” under current Supreme Court jurisprudence. “This section of PURPA is basically Congress asking state regulators to please take a look at the ratemaking standard.”
That being said, Peskoe noted that “many states and non-regulated utilities do tend to consider PURPA ratemaking standards,” but that there’s “no enforcement mechanism,” depriving the law of any teeth. “States can reject the ratemaking standards or adopt them in a way that deviates from what Congress may have intended.”
Still, it is likely in the political interest of state regulators to come up with something on large load tariffs, the Cato Institute’s Travis Fisher told me. He recommended that the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners “spearhead an initiative to get every state regulator to sign a ratepayer protection pledge,” if only to insulate themselves from political backlash and maintain their power over retail ratemaking.
But even if states do adopt the cost allocation principle, determining exactly which infrastructure is being installed due to a data center and what serves all users can be tricky.
“Any real-world example of this is going to be quite complicated, and the devil’s always in the details,” Ben Schifman, a senior technology fellow at the Institute for Progress and a former attorney at the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice, told me. While it might be possible to conclude that “a given substation is simply only needed for that data center,” he said, “as soon as you start zooming out into the larger, big-ticket investments, it’s quite complicated to attribute the cost to one user or one group of users.”
In summary, the Ratepayer Protection Act will ask state regulators to consider an approach to data center cost allocation that may not capture all of their costs and will likely do little to arrest the fundamental drivers of higher electricity costs. Viewed through this lens, the logic of the coalition supporting both the original Ratepayer Protection Pledge and the beefed-up Ratepayer Protection Act comes into focus.
Electricity prices are likely to continue to rise, and data center construction has powerful interests behind it. The public’s attitude towards data centers is rapidly souring, and no matter how many nuanced PDFs are published on the topic, people continue to blame data centers for higher electricity costs.
And if prices continue to rise, the big data center developers may be able to point to the Ratepayer Protection Act and say “well, it wasn’t me.”
On simplified oil and gas leases, lawsuits over plastic and coal, and a new climate research database
Current conditions: The U.K.’s Met Office issued its second-ever Red Extreme Heat Warning for Wednesday and Thursday • A wildfire near Eureka, Utah forced the town’s evacuation • Flash flood warnings are in effect today for Southern Massachusetts.
Lucid Motors is downsizing, again. The electric vehicle maker is laying off 18% of its staff just a few months after a 12% reduction in force in February, according to Electrek. The company also eliminated a second production shift at its factory in Casa Grande, Arizona. EV sales plummeted in the U.S. after the federal EV tax credit expired in September. While many automakers are canceling new electric vehicle lines in the U.S., Lucid hasn’t axed any plans yet, and will be releasing its first lower-cost EV, the Lucid Cosmos SUV, later this year with a price tag under $50,000. It’s also preparing to launch a robotaxi service later this year in partnership with Uber and the autonomous driving technology company Nuro. According to Lucid’s new CEO, Silvio Napoli, the staff cuts will help “simplify the company, sharpen execution, and position Lucid to become more competitive over time.”

Trump’s environmental deregulation crusade continues. The Interior Department proposed several changes to the rules governing oil and gas leasing on federal lands Monday that would limit public input and cut costs for companies. Under existing rules, which were updated during the Biden administration, companies must maintain a minimum bond of $500,000 for each state where they hold leases to cover the cost of capping oil and gas wells when they are done drilling. Trump’s proposal would reduce the requirement to $25,000, shifting the financial risk of remediation to state taxpayers. The new rules would also shorten public participation periods from 90 days to 10, and get rid of a requirement that companies include plans to minimize methane emissions when they apply for drilling permits.
Red states are going after California, this time for its nation-leading plastic regulations. In 2022, the Golden State passed a law setting plastic waste reduction targets and requiring companies to cover the cost of recycling of their own products. The state aims to cut single-use plastic packaging on products by 25% by 2032. Now, 17 attorneys general from red states have teamed up with the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, a trade group, to sue California, arguing that the rules represent an “unprecedented overreach” that will increase the cost of goods throughout the country.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
In the first case of its kind, 10 Australians are suing the government for violating their human rights by failing to limit fossil fuel production. The claimants, each of whom has been personally affected by climate change-fueled extreme weather, brought the case to the United Nations’ Human Rights Committee on Monday. Some of them have lost their homes to wildfires and floods, while others have experienced health impacts from heat waves. The case follows a 2025 ruling by the International Court of Justice that all governments have an obligation to protect people from climate change, citing support for fossil fuel production and consumption as a potential violation of this obligation. While that ruling didn’t have any enforcement power, it teed up the potential for country-level claims like this one in Australia. The country is the second largest exporter of coal in the world and the third largest exporter of liquified natural gas.
The rumors were true. The Trump administration has appointed Travis Kavulla, a former utility regulator and power company executive, to lead the Bonneville Power Administration, a federal agency that sells electricity from the government’s hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest. Kavulla arrives as the agency prepares for a controversial exit from California’s real-time electricity trading market to join a new day-ahead market overseen by the Southwest Power Pool, a regional transmission organization. Environmental groups are urging Kavulla reconsider the decision, arguing that it risks raising energy costs for Northwest ratepayers.
The climate change research and news site Carbon Brief debuted Project Cosmos on Monday, the world’s largest database of research on the warming planet. It includes more than 1.8 million publications and “captures the vast body of human knowledge about climate change that has accumulated over more than a century of academic study.” The architects created a stunning “star” map that visualizes the collection by clustering of fields of study, such as medicine, chemistry, or agriculture. They also identified the 500 most-cited studies and scientists, with French carbon cycle modeler Philippe Ciais earning the top spot.