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 Federal Highway Administration believes it has found a workaround to a court-ordered stay of execution.
The Federal Highway Administration issued a letter to state Departments of Transportation on Thursday declaring that states were no longer authorized to spend billions of dollars previously approved for electric vehicle charging networks. The decree pertains to the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program, or NEVI, a program created in 2021 under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which allocated $5 billion to states to strategically build electric vehicle charging networks along major roads.
The program has been under threat since the day Donald Trump stepped into the White House. His executive order “Unleashing American Energy,” which ordered agencies to pause the disbursement of funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, specifically called out NEVI as a program to freeze. Twenty-two Democrat-controlled states quickly took legal action, and a U.S. District court issued a temporary restraining order requiring the Trump administration to keep congressionally-approved funds flowing, at least to those states.
In general, advocates believed the NEVI program was untouchable. The program’s “safeguards make it nearly impossible to claw back money already allocated, except in cases of misuse or noncompliance.” Beth Hammond, a senior advocate for EV infrastructure at the Natural Resources Defense Counsel wrote in a recent blog post.
But the Federal Highway Administration apparently thinks it has found a workaround.
Under NEVI, states are each allocated a certain amount of money every year for five years, and they have to submit an annual plan for how they intend to use the funds. Those plans must align with overall program guidance published by the secretary of transportation.
Now, the new leadership at the Department of Transportation has decided to rescind the previously issued guidance. That means the state plans that were previously approved are no longer valid, the letter says: “Therefore, effective immediately, no new obligations may occur under the NEVI Formula Program until the updated final NEVI Formula Program Guidance is issued and new State plans are submitted and approved.”
An important thing to understand about NEVI is that after a state has its annual plan approved, it is legally entitled to that year’s allocation of funding. That doesn’t mean said funding immediately gets transferred into the state’s coffers, however. States have to continually request reimbursement from the federal DOT as they implement their programs. So, for example, if a state puts out a request for proposals for NEVI projects, it can then invoice the federal government for the related administrative costs. Once the state awards grants to specific projects, those projects have to reach certain benchmarks before they get any money. If the first benchmark is getting permits, for example, then once a project is permitted, its developer can invoice the state government for the associated costs, and then the state government can file with the federal government for reimbursement.
According to Paren, an EV charging data analytics firm that has been closely following the rollout of the NEVI program, states are legally entitled to spend roughly $3.27 billion on NEVI. That accounts for plans approved for fiscal years 2022 through 2025. To date, states have awarded about $615 million of the funds to just under 1,000 projects — with 10% of those projects being led by Tesla.
The letter says states will still be able to get reimbursed for expenses related to previously awarded projects, “in order to not disrupt current financial commitments.” But the more than $2.6 billion that has not been awarded will be frozen.
Prior to the memo issued Thursday, states had been divided over how to respond to the chaos of executive orders and court orders. At least six states — Alabama, Ohio, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Missouri, and Oklahoma — had already suspended their programs indefinitely.
“We are still working with FHWA to understand specific impacts to NEVI funding,” a spokesperson for the Ohio DOT told me on Thursday prior to the federal letter being released. Ohio had been an unexpected early leader for the NEVI program. It was the first state in the country to bring a NEVI-funded charging station online, in October 2023. It has since opened 18 additional stations, more than any other state, and has selected awardees to build 24 more. Missouri, by contrast, had been lagging behind. The state had not yet issued a single request for proposals.
But at least until Thursday evening, other states, such as Oregon and California, were advancing their programs. The Oregon DOT posted an informational notice about federal grants on its website earlier this week saying that NEVI funding was not frozen. A spokesperson for the California DOT told me on Thursday afternoon that, “For now, federal courts have prohibited federal agencies from pausing or terminating payment of federal financial assistance funds,” and that “Caltrans’ services remain fully operational.” When I followed up asking if these comments took into account the new letter issued Thursday, the agency said it would need to get back to me on Friday.
The decision to rescind the guidance and invalidate state plans is sure to face court challenges. The Federal Highway Administration, for its part, said it plans to issue new draft guidance for NEVI in the spring, which will then be subject to public comment before being finalized — so the agency doesn’t seem to be trying to throw the program out altogether.
This is a developing story and we will update it with perspectives on the letter as we learn more.
The political marriage of President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, the EV mogul and world’s richest man, has significantly changed the outlook for what the Trump administration might mean for energy policy, decarbonization, and the rule of law.
Musk has taken over numerous offices responsible for crucial functions within the federal government, including the Office of Personnel Management at the White House. Musk has snatched control of the federal government’s payments system, and he and his team have illegally tried to use it to block payments to federal programs, according to CNN and The New York Times. Conservative budget experts say that such a move violates the Constitution, which grants sole control over the power of the purse to Congress.
What’s the issue? The problem here is not primarily that Musk is unelected — there are lots of powerful people in every administration who are not elected (though few have ever had as many conflicts of interest as Musk, the CEO of the world’s most valuable automaker in Tesla and the holder of many government contracts via the rocket company SpaceX and satellite internet provider Starlink). Nor would it be a problem if Musk were merely trying to modernize the government’s IT systems.
The problem is that Musk has used his control of a technical system — the software that the government uses to send more than a billion payments a year — to assert effective control over federal programs and policies. This is why Musk trying to shut off payments that have been appropriated by Congress matters: He is in essence saying that because he can do something with the software, he may do it.
The issue is that the government can do many things that it broadly does not do because they are illegal.
But Trump and Musk together are now testing the limits of the law.
The Trump administration is operating on a legal theory that the president can simply decide not to spend money that has been appropriated by Congress. Key officials in the Trump administration argue that Congress sets a ceiling, but not a floor, when it appropriates federal funding. It also believes that the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which Congress passed during the Nixon administration, is unconstitutional.
I find it hard to believe that the Supreme Court — which last year severely limited the executive branch’s ability to interpret congressional laws which create and govern agencies — agrees with Trump that the president can ignore those same laws when they govern federal spending. But the Court has reached shocking decisions on Trump’s behalf before.
Trump’s team seems to be trying to make this legal theory central to how his entire administration works. Impoundment underpinned the White House’s attempt last month to block all outgoing federal grants and loans, which briefly threw the government into chaos before it was blocked by a judge and ultimately rescinded.
Musk’s ploy, seemingly, is to move so fast that these legal and constitutional questions become moot. If he can close a federal agency’s offices, put its workers on leave, and cut off funding to its programs, then perhaps it won’t matter what a judge says about impoundment itself. And if Musk can control the tap of public money, turning it on and off at will, then he can usurp the operation of the United States government.
In the world of climate and energy, Musk’s prominence — and the lack of precedent for his situation — raises important questions for businesses and policy makers. Here is what we do not know about Musk today:
In 2010, the federal government issued a $465 million loan to Tesla so that it could build a factory in California for its Model S sedan.
In recent years, the government has made similar deals, lending tens of billions of dollars to other companies that make electric vehicles or that mine and refine critical minerals.
Last month, the Biden administration closed a $6.57 billion loan to Rivian, the electric truck maker, so that it could build a new factory in Georgia.
Some of these new borrowers, including Rivian and legacy automakers like Ford, compete with Tesla. It is still unclear whether Musk will be able to use his control of the federal government’s checkbook to cut off some loans and allow others to proceed. Doing so would ultimately stifle competition in the EV sector, benefitting Tesla, where Musk remains CEO.
The White House said this week that Trump is allowing Musk to police his own conflicts of interest.
In December, Musk called for Congress to “get rid” of the clean energy tax credits created by the Inflation Reduction Act.
Most tax credits are claimed by companies against what they owe on their taxes, meaning that they result in negative revenue to the government. But the IRA created a new kind of credit — a so-called “direct payment” — that allowed states, schools, churches, tribes, and other entities without federal tax liability to claim money for installing clean energy or buying electric vehicles.
Those payments — and any other tax refunds — ultimately run through the Treasury Department’s computer systems. It remains unclear whether Musk can use control of the federal government’s checkbook to block the payout of these payments.
One of Musk’s initiatives, the U.S. DOGE Service, is housed at the General Services Administration, or GSA.
The GSA is the government’s internal landlord and facilities manager — it owns, builds, and manages federal office space. It also operates parts of the federal vehicle fleet.
Under the Biden administration, it undertook a number of energy sustainability and efficiency initiatives. Some of these programs were canceled by President Trump’s initial set of executive orders, but the full scope of Musk’s authority in the agency remains unclear.
Last year, the U.S. military was investigating whether Elon Musk complied with the rules of his security clearance, according to The New York Times.
At the time, Musk’s rocket company, SpaceX, had already declined to pursue the highest level security clearance for Musk, in part because of reports around his open drug use and contact with foreign leaders, according to The Wall Street Journal. Musk is reported to hold a “Top Secret” clearance.
The Journal has also previously reported that Musk conducted secret conversations with Vladimir Putin and that Musk’s drug use worries Tesla and SpaceX executives.
Tesla has deep ties in China. It achieved record sales in China last year, although its market share has fallen as Chinese EV companies have out-competed its aging vehicle line-up. Tesla is reportedly opening a new factory in Shanghai this month. Musk has also staked out public positions that favor the Chinese Community Party’s views. In 2022, he suggested that Taiwan could become a “special administrative zone” of the People’s Republic of China.
It’s unclear how these commitments might affect his work for the U.S. government.
Three tactics from Erin Burns, executive director of Carbon180, on how the industry can use this time wisely.
Erin Burns has been here before. The executive director of Carbon180, a carbon removal research and policy nonprofit, joined the organization as its first policy director in 2018, partway through Donald Trump’s first term as president. It was under that administration that she helped win the first ever dedicated federal research and development funding for carbon removal, a modest $60 million in 2019.
It’s a very different world today than it was then, so she wasn’t exactly here. There’s now billions of dollars in federal funding appropriated to pull carbon from the atmosphere — not just for research and development, but also for building commercial-scale projects and purchasing carbon removal services. At the same time, this new Trump administration is moving more quickly and aggressively than the last one to undo anything resembling climate policy, and future attempts to re-allocate some of that money are not out of the question.
I recently spoke to Burns about how she’s looking to make progress on carbon removal under these circumstances. Here are my big takeaways from the conversation.
It’s not yet clear how the Trump administration or new Congress is going to act on existing carbon removal programs. Although the industry has a history of receiving bipartisan support and federally-funded carbon removal projects are happening in Republican states and districts, that doesn’t mean these programs are safe. “The rollback of certain policies are not ultimately going to be about how people feel about direct air capture or carbon removal,” Burns told me. “It’s going to be a broader ideology around the role of a place like the Department of Energy, and what kinds of supports the federal government should provide.”
With that in mind, Burns’ motto is “the best defense is a good offense.” That means working with the congresspeople who supported the direct air capture hubs to highlight why the government should continue investing in them. It also involves working with labor unions with members in heavy industry who see the jobs potential. It’s time to double down on a more expansive argument for the benefits of these projects, she said. “There are additional benefits to every carbon removal pathway. We should always be talking about them. Climate’s not going to be the argument that gets you those really durable political coalitions.”
Playing offense also means planning for the next opening. The reason the Biden administration made so much progress on carbon removal, Burns said, is that advocates like her spent two years under the Trump administration meeting weekly, developing policy and “socializing” it, so that it was “ready to go.” As policy enactment in Washington slows down, advocates will have more capacity to sit down and develop the next wave of ideas. To Burns, that means thinking about a more tailored, ground-up approach.
“To be honest, we don’t really have carbon removal policy in the United States,” Burns told me. “We have direct air capture policy, and even that is, like, point-source carbon capture policy that’s been tweaked to fit direct air capture.” An example is the 45Q tax credit, which was originally created to support projects that capture carbon from the smokestacks of coal plants, but was expanded to support direct air capture projects as well.
But carbon removal is not just direct air capture — it’s also planting trees and grinding rocks, activities that likely require different policies and supports than big air-sucking machines to scale up. Leveraging all that to its fullest extent will require a more expansive policy regime.
“Let’s start from scratch,” Burns said. “Start to grapple with the fundamental nature of carbon removal as a unique thing that isn’t going to be deployed only with the policies that we’ve used to deploy technologies like solar. Because carbon removal is not going to create electricity, for example. It’s not just about making it cheap enough that there’s going to be this market force. Making it cheaper is great, but you also have to think about the other barriers.”
Before coming to Carbon180, Burns worked at the center-left think tank Third Way on carbon capture and nuclear energy policy. While she was there, Trump proposed dramatically slashing the Department of Energy’s budget for energy efficiency and renewable energy research and eliminating the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, which supports the early development of technologies that are too risky for private investment.
“You can get some unusual bedfellows together when you have an administration that’s trying to cut, say, all of the Department of Energy,” Burns said. Instead of renewable developers and nuclear power companies and carbon removal startups all fighting for a piece of the pie, there’s incentive to come together and “make sure the pie still exists.”
It’s not just about preserving funding. The carbon removal industry also needs to be making inroads with adjacent industries because they have common interests. Direct air capture facilities need renewable energy to operate. and right now the future of renewable energy is under major threat. Similarly, direct air capture projects need the Environmental Protection Agency to be well-staffed enough to continue permitting carbon sequestration wells — a process that was slow to start but starting to pick up at the end of Biden’s term. “I think there’s value in us thinking about what it means to not just defend carbon removal, but defend all of this climate infrastructure that is going to be necessary for us to be successful.”
In her past work on carbon capture, Burns grew familiar with a divide between players who were genuinely trying to fight climate change and those for whom carbon capture was just a line in their advertising budget. In her view, the carbon removal industry has been different, with most companies genuinely trying to do the right thing for the climate. It’s an open question as to whether that might change in this new political environment, she said.
Under the Biden administration, the Department of Energy was staffed with some of the leading carbon removal experts in the country. Now there may be less pressure on companies to have high standards for measuring, reporting, and verifying carbon removal outcomes — meaning more of an opening to fudge the truth of how much benefit their projects are providing.
The Trump administration is also scaling back the size of agencies’ staff and removing requirements for companies that receive financial assistance to do things like ensure that the communities hosting their projects also benefit from them. Burns said the onus is on organizations like Carbon180 and on corporate carbon removal buyers to maintain high standards not just for measurement, but also for community engagement. “If you care about deploying CDR, you need to care about local support for those projects,” she said.
For one, community opposition can shut down a project. But also, bringing benefits to host communities helps build political support for carbon removal that can lead to more federal aid down the line. “Those are keys for long-term success.”