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.
Congressional Democrats will have to trust the administration to allow renewables projects through. That may be too big an ask.
How do you do a bipartisan permitting deal if the Republicans running the government don’t want to permit anything Democrats like?
The typical model for a run at permitting reform is that a handful of Republicans and Democrats come together and draw up a plan that would benefit renewable developers, transmission developers, and the fossil fuel industry by placing some kind of limit on the scope and extent of federally-mandated environmental reviews. Last year’s Energy Permitting Reform Act, for instance, co-sponsored by Republican John Barrasso and Independent Joe Manchin, included time limits on environmental reviews, mandatory oil and gas lease sales, siting authority for interstate transmission, and legal clarity for mining projects. That passed through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee but got no further.
During a House hearing in July, California Representative Scott Peters, a Democrat, bragged that a bill he’d introduced with Republican Dusty Johnson to help digitize permitting had won support from both the Natural Resources Defense Council and the American Petroleum Institute — two advocacy groups not typically speaking in harmony. (He’s not the only one taking a crack at permitting reform, though: Another bipartisan House effort sponsored by House Natural Resources Committee chairman Bruce Westerman and moderate Maine Democrat Jared Golden would limit when National Environmental Policy Act-mandated reviews happen, install time limits for making claims, and restrict judicial oversight of the NEPA process.)
But unless Democrats trust the Trump administration to actually allow renewables projects to go forward, his proposal could be dead on arrival. Since the signing of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 4, the executive branch has been on the warpath against renewables, especially wind. With the Trump administration’s blessing, OBBBA restricted tax credits for renewable projects, both by accelerating the phaseout timeline for the credits (projects have until July of next year to start construction, or until the end of 2027 to be placed in service) and by imposing harsh new restrictions on developers’ business relationships with China or Chinese companies. Mere days after he signed the final bill into law, Trump directed the Internal Revenue Service to write tougher guidance governing what it means to start construction, potentially narrowing the window to qualify still further.
“I think all of this fuzz coming out of the Trump administration makes trust among Democrats a lot harder to achieve,” Peters told me this week.
In recent weeks, Trump’s Department of the Interior has issued memos calling for political reviews of effectively all new renewables permits and instituting strict new land use requirements that will be all but impossible for wind developments to meet. His Department of Transportation, meanwhile, insinuated that the department under the previous administration had ignored safety concerns related to radio frequencies while instituting onerous new setback requirements for renewables development near roadways.
Peters acknowledged that bipartisan permitting reform may be a heavy lift for his fellow Democrats — “a lot of Democrats didn’t come to Congress to make permitting oil and gas easier,” he told me — but that considering the high proportion of planned projects that are non-emitting, it would still be worth it to make all projects move faster.
That said, he conceded that his argument “loses a lot of force” if none of those planned non-emitting projects that happen to be solar or wind can get their federal permits approved. “How can I even make a deal on energy unless I get some assurance that will be honored by the President?” Peters told me.
Other energy and climate experts broadly supportive of investment-led approaches to combatting climate change still think that Democrats should push on with a permitting deal.
“All of this raises the importance of a bipartisan Congressional permitting reform bill that contains executive branch discretion to deny routine permits for American energy resources,” Princeton professor and Heatmap contributor Jesse Jenkins posted on X. “Seems like there's a lot of reasons for both sides to ensure America's approach to siting energy resources doesn't keep ping-ponging back and forth every four years.”
But permitting reform supporters are aware of the awkward situation the president’s unilateral actions against renewables puts the whole enterprise in.
“The administration’s recent measures are suboptimal policy and no doubt worsen the odds of enacting a technology-neutral permitting reform deal,” Pavan Venkatakrishnan, an infrastructure fellow at the Institute for Progress, told me.
At the same time, he argued that Democrats should still try to seek a deal, pointing to the high demand for electrons of any type. Not even the Trump administration can entirely choke off demand for renewables, so permitting reform could still be worth doing to ensure that as much as can evade the administration’s booby traps can eventually get built.
“Projects remain at the mercy of a burdensome regulatory regime,” Venkatakrishnan said. “Democrats should remain committed to an ambitious permitting deal — the best way to reduce deployment timelines and costs for all technologies, including solar-and-storage.”
Venkatakrishnan also suggested that Democrats could, in a bipartisan deal, seek to roll back some of the executive branch actions, including the Interior memo subjecting wind and solar to heightened review or the executive order on the definition of “begin construction.” There would be a precedent for such an action — the 2024 Manchin-Barrasso permitting reform bill attempted to scrap the pause on liquified natural gas approvals that the Biden administration had implemented. But then of course, that didn’t ever become law. (Manchin and congressional Republicans were able to clear the way to permitting a specific project, the Mountain Valley Pipeline in a larger bipartisan deal.)
What could unlock a deal, Yogin Kothari, a former congressional staffer and the chief strategy officer of the SEMA Coalition, a domestic solar manufacturing group, told me, would be the Trump administration getting actively involved. “The administration is probably going to have to lead,” Kothari said. “It’s going to be up to folks in the administration to go to the Hill and say, We do need this, and this is what it’s going to mean, and we’re going to implement this in good faith.”
This would require a delicate balancing act — the Trump administration would have to think there’s enough in a deal for their favored energy and infrastructure projects to make it worth perhaps rolling back some of their anti-renewables campaign.
“The administration is going to have to convince Democrats that it’s not permitting reform just for a subset of industries,” i.e. oil, gas, and coal, “but it is really technology neutral permanent reform,” Kothari said. “On the Senate side, it comes down to whether seven Senate Democrats feel like they can trust the admin to actually implement things in a way that is helpful across the board for energy dominance.”
One reason the administration itself may have to make commitments is because Congressional Democrats may not trust Republicans to stand behind legislation they support and vote for, Peters told me.
“Obviously we’d have to get some face-to-face understanding that if we make a deal, they’re going to live by the deal,” he said.
Peters pointed to the handful of Republicans who successfully negotiated for a longer runway for renewable tax credits, only to see Trump move almost immediately to tighten up eligibility for those tax credits as reason enough for skepticism. He also cited the cuts to previously agreed-upon spending that the Trump administration pushed through Congress on a party line vote as evidence that existing law and deals aren’t necessarily stable in Trump’s Washington.
“If we do a deal — Republicans and Democrats in Congress, the House and Senate, get together and make an agreement — we have to have assurance that the President will back us,” Peters told me.
No bipartisan deal is ever easy to come by, but then historically, “everybody lives by it,” he said. “I think that may be changing under this administration, and I think it makes everything tougher.”
And more of the week’s most important conflicts around renewable energy.
1. Sussex County, Delaware – The Trump administration has confirmed it will revisit permitting decisions for the MarWin offshore wind project off the coast of Maryland, potentially putting the proposal in jeopardy unless blue states and the courts intervene.
2. Northwest Iowa – Locals fighting a wind project spanning multiple counties in northern Iowa are opposing legislation that purports to make renewable development easier in the state.
3. Pima County, Arizona – Down goes another solar-powered data center, this time in Arizona.
4. San Diego County, California – A battery storage developer has withdrawn plans to build in the southern California city of La Mesa amidst a broadening post-Moss Landing backlash over fire concerns.
5. Logan and McIntosh Counties, North Dakota – These days, it’s worth noting when a wind project even gets approved.
6. Hamilton County, Indiana – This county is now denying an Aypa battery storage facility north of Indianapolis despite growing power concerns in the region.
They don’t have much to lose, Heiko Burow, an attorney at Baker & Mackenzie, tells me.
This week, since this edition of The Fight was so heavy, I tried something a little different: I interviewed one of my readers, Heiko Burow, an attorney with Baker & Mackenzie based in Dallas, Texas. Burow doesn’t work in energy specifically – he’s an intellectual property lawyer – but he’s read many of my scoops over the past few weeks about attacks on renewable energy and had legitimate criticism! Namely, as a lawyer who is passionate about the rule of law, he wanted to send a message to any developers and energy wonks reading me to use the legal system more often as a tool against attacks on their field.
The following conversation has been abridged for clarity. Let’s dive in.
So Heiko, you reached out to me after my latest scoop about how the Trump administration is now trying to create national land use restrictions on wind projects through the Department of Transportation. In your email, you said the Trump administration “cannot invent a setback requirement by executive fiat.” What does this mean?
Something you need to understand from my point of view is, there’s all these things coming out of the White House, the executive. Like the setback requirement: If the law says they have the right to do that, then okay. But the viewpoints of the administration do not replace the law.
There’s no requirement in the law that the Secretary of Transportation can require a setback. He can’t just come in and say here’s a required setback. The government can only do what the law allows a government to do.
For example, a CEO can’t come into a company and say all the contracts are null and void. The president, in the same way, can’t say everything that’s legally binding is no longer legally binding. There are two ways that creates a problem: one is that it is a breach of contract, and the courts will say there’s a different remedy for that. But there’s also a constitutional problem with that.
Why did you reach out to me about this story, in particular?
I’m just concerned about the environment, and our country, and our democracy.
As someone who works with corporations navigating the legal system under Trump, why do you think companies – like renewable developers – aren’t suing left and right in this moment?
I think they’re timid.
It’s not just companies – it’s stakeholders in general. In 2017, there was pushback on Trump. That is missing. Look at the tech industry – and a lot of investments in renewable energy come from the tech area – and how they lined up with Trump on Inauguration Day.
That is fear. I’d say other stakeholders too are now ruled by fear.
As someone who advises companies in other areas of law, what posture do you think renewable energy companies should take?
Band together. Renewable energy companies, you don’t have much to lose. He’s persecuting you.
I know people stay under the radar, like community solar entities that he could have forgotten about. But he didn’t forget about them. So they need to band together and fight.
Everybody’s just lying low and being afraid. But how much more can renewable energy companies lose? Right now they’re still surviving, because the business case for renewable energy works and states are supporting it. But they’re quiet about it on the national level.
If people start believing what Trump says is the force of law, then it’ll just be that way. And I don’t see a coordinated response to that.