You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
The market picture is at least slightly more mixed than you might think.
While many investors and analysts had anticipated a Donald Trump victory Tuesday — Maheep Mandloi of Mizuho Securities wrote earlier this week that stocks had “priced in” a 70% chance of Trump winning — that hasn’t stopped markets from twitching reflexively now that he’s actually done it.
The clean energy industry, for its part, is already preparing to sell itself to a Republican Washington. The trade group Advanced Energy United’s president Heather O’Neill congratulated Trump in a statement and said it was “committed to working with the Trump-Vance Administration to meeting America’s energy challenges with advanced energy solutions.”
But the market isn’t convinced the gambit will pay off.
The first and most obvious effect of the decisive election result is that clean energy stocks are down. The iShares Global Clean Energy exchange traded fund, whose biggest holdings are the solar panel company First Solar and the Spanish utility and renewables developer Iberdola, was down about 7% in early trading versus yesterday. The iShares U.S. Energy ETF, meanwhile, whose largest holdings are Exxon and Chevron, is up over 3% compared to yesterday and just over 10% on the year.
Some specific publicly traded clean energy stocks have sunk so far today, especially residential solar companies like Sunrun, which was down over 25% in early trading. Sunrun competitor Sunnova was also down over 40%, while the inverter company Solaredge is down over 20%. Solar panel company First Solar, which some analysts think could be protected from a Trump revision of the Inflation Reduction Act due to its U.S. manufacturing presence, is still down over 12%.
“Manufacturing credits will likely stick,” Greg Brew, an analyst at Eurasia Group, told me. “Why touch a whole of bunch of jobs in red districts?”
That doesn’t mean manufacturing will be unaffected. This morning FREYR, a Norwegian battery companies, announced that it will acquire the U.S. assets of Trina Solar, a Chinese solar module manufacturing company. These include a plant in Texas that started production just last week, according to the announcement, indicating worry that a Trump administration could see more trade conflict with China and Chinese companies while also trying to boost domestic manufacturing, even in the renewables sector.
That renewables companies are falling more than fossil energy companies are rising, however, indicates that the market is not expecting a Trump White House to do much to improve oil and gas profitability or production, which has actually increased in the Biden years thanks to the spikes in energy prices following the Russian invasion of Ukraine and continued exploitation of America’s oil and gas resources through hydraulic fracturing. And while the Biden administration attempted to issue a formal pause on approvals of new export terminals for liquified natural gas, a federal judge blocked that move in July. In September, the Department of Energy approved exports for a terminal on the Mexican Gulf Coast using American gas.
“He’s going to come in and say ‘drill baby drill,’” Brew said of Trump. He will also likely increase leasing on federal land and toss the ban on new facilities for liquefied natural gas exports. But the overall effect may be limited. “I don’t think the Biden administration did anything to get in the way of exploration and production investment” for the fossil fuel sector, Brew said.
Cheniere Energy and Energy Transfer, two companies with existing or planned LNG terminals, did see their shares rise a touch in morning trading. Companies that operate oil refineries have also gotten a nice boost today. Phillips 66 and Valero shares are up 4.5% and 5%, respectively, as the market is anticipating an overhaul of Environmental Protection Agency mileage standards designed to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles. “Anything on mileage standards and/or EV credit reduction is likely positive for duration of refining as it pushes out the EV adoption curve,” the investment bank Jefferies wrote in a note to clients.
On the other hand, the wind energy industry has long been the target of specific ire from Trump and is taking a hit Wednesday. U.S.-traded shares of Vestas, the Danish turbine manufacturer, are down almost 15% and have hit their lowest point this year. GE Vernova, meanwhile, the GE energy spinoff that makes both wind turbines and the turbines that go into natural gas power plants (as well as electrical equipment) is up over 3%. Unlike pure-play green energy companies, GE Vernova is positioned to profit from any increase in electricity demand, whether served by renewables or fossil fuels.
And of course, there’s the most valuable green technology company in the world, one that manufactures electric vehicles and batteries (and robots). In early trading, Tesla stock is up over 13%, bringing it to its highest price per share — $285 — since September 2022.
Renewables companies are at risk from both changes in tax policy as well as the potential for Trump’s tax cut and spending plans to keep interest rates high. While the market is focused on the prospects of new legislation and regulation in Washington, renewables companies may be looking just as warily at the Federal Reserve, which will announce an interest rate decision on Thursday. The market expects the federal funds rate to fall another 0.25 percentage points, following the half-point mega-rate cut in September. What happens after that is anyone’s guess.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Voters don’t hate clean energy, but they also don’t want to work for it.
The re-election of Donald Trump all but assures that the next four years of climate policy will have to unfold at the local level. With a climate change denier who previously wreaked havoc on longstanding environmental regulations, opened wildlife refuges to drilling, and put the U.S. at odds with its international partners now set to return to the White House in January, the country will almost certainly fall far short of its 2030 emission reduction targets. But state and local policies can still achieve meaningful progress on their own: On Wednesday morning, green organizers like Climate Cabinet were already stressing that “it will now be up to state leaders to hold the line against Trump and to ensure continued progress toward clean energy.”
Will Americans defend and advance that progress, though? The results of several climate-related ballot measures that were put to vote Tuesday night are giving mixed signals.
On the one hand, there were a number of victories worth celebrating. Most significantly, Washington voters confirmed their state’s cap-and-invest carbon trading program, which pumps millions of dollars into local transit, environmental, and decarbonization projects. Voters across the country also signed off on creating climate- and conservation-related bonds and funds, including in Honolulu, Louisiana, Jefferson County, Iowa, Minnesota, and (likely) the state of California. Local transit-related measures also, on the whole, had a good night.
But there were some concerning rejections, too. Two counties on the southern Oregon coast expressed overwhelming (though non-binding) opposition to offshore wind development in their region, with some 80% of voters in Curry County signaling their objection. Two-thirds of voters in Berkeley, California — one of the most liberal cities in the country — also rejected what would have been a first-in-the-nation tax on natural gas in large buildings. In Washington, early results on an initiative that is still too close to call show voters on track to approve a measure that would bar cities, towns, and the state from “prohibiting, penalizing, or discouraging” gas appliances in buildings — “discouraging” being the operative, ill-defined, and all-encompassing word — threatening Seattle’s 2050 net-zero emissions target.
South Dakotans also rejected a bill that would have smoothed the permitting process for a carbon dioxide pipeline that would carry CO2 from ethanol plants to an injection well in North Dakota as a means of dealing with planet-warming emissions. Though CO2 pipelines are controversial and have “strange politics,” as Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo has written, the citizen-led backlash was often couched in the language of opposing out-of-state interests who were “going to make a buck from the future energy transition.”
My read of the night’s referenda and ballot measures is that voters largely seem willing to do the passive work of supporting climate and environmental policy (for instance by directing the use of property taxes or reconfirming a law already in place) and less willing to voluntarily take on some of the burden themselves, in the form of hosting new development in their communities or opting into transitions away from climate-polluting fuels. This isn’t terribly surprising — local battles over the energy transition are common and frequent enough that we have a whole weekly newsletter here at Heatmap addressing them — but it also suggests that there isn’t nearly enough momentum to prevent potentially catastrophic backsliding under four more years of Trump.
There is good news, though. Local policy is often nimbler and more responsive than state- or federal-level policy. It’s also something anyone can get involved in, and there is presently a wide-open opportunity to convince Americans to embrace a clean energy economy and build things. The seemingly total failure of the current administration to capitalize on the benefits of the Inflation Reduction Act, however, does mean that climate, transit, environmental justice, decarbonization, and conservation organizers and activists will have their work cut out for them in the next years to come.
But it isn’t impossible, even if it is uphill sledding. As Climate Cabinet’s Caroline Spears put it in her Wednesday morning note, “It’s time to go back to our roots, dig deep, and rebuild our democracy and climate progress from the local level up.”
South Dakotans successfully fought back against a law that would have made it easier to permit and build.
South Dakota voters have rejected a ballot measure that would have eased the permitting process for a highly contentious carbon dioxide pipeline. The planned $8 billion project, developed by Summit Carbon Solutions, would carry CO2 captured from ethanol plants to sequestration wells in neighboring North Dakota. But if the company had been banking on legislative relief for its siting challenges, it will have to figure out a new plan to move forward.
Referred Law 21, as the measure was called, was a citizen-led veto referendum on a bill that passed the South Dakota legislature and was signed by the governor in March. The bill would have preempted all local land use regulations and ordinances related to the siting of carbon dioxide pipelines and other transmission infrastructure, including power lines. Full authority to permit these projects would have been handed to the state’s utility commission, an elected three-member body that regulates utilities.
Summit Carbon Solutions is trying to build what would be the largest pipeline designed to carry carbon dioxide in the United States. From a climate perspective, putting debates on land use and local control aside, the calculus of the project is complicated.
Ethanol refineries are ripe for carbon capture — they emit a very pure stream of CO2 that is technologically easy to capture, and it’s better that it be buried underground than dumped in the atmosphere. But the long term prospects for ethanol in a low-carbon future are murky at best, and investing $8 billion in carbon capture and pipeline infrastructure could help justify its continued use over other, potentially better solutions. Though it’s clear electric cars will eventually crowd out ethanol from the passenger vehicle fuel market, some advocate for the industry to pivot to aviation fuel.
The pipeline faces opposition throughout the Midwest from a diverse coalition of stakeholders, including landowners in the pipeline’s path, environmental groups like the Sierra Club that oppose carbon capture in general, and Republican legislators who question the project’s merits on the grounds that climate change is merely a “hypothesis.” Though CO2 pipelines generally have a good track record for safety, a high-profile rupture in Mississippi in 2020, which sent 45 people to the hospital, has also amplified concerns.
At least five municipalities in South Dakota have passed rules governing the siting of the pipeline, Chase Jensen, a senior organizer for the environmental nonprofit Dakota Rural Action told me on a call last week. For example, Minnehaha County, the home of Sioux Falls, adopted setback rules last year that require pipelines to be laid 330 feet away from residential areas, businesses, and churches. An ordinance in Lincoln County requires 1,855 feet, and prohibits construction on sites of historical or archeological significance.
“Everybody who's going to make a buck from the future energy transition is licking their chops at this,” Jensen said of Referred Law 21, which would have preempted these ordinances. “It's a lot easier to just make campaign donations to three public utility commissioners than the 300-plus county commissioners across the state.”
The bill signed into law in March was painted as a compromise. Though it weakened local control, it gave counties the ability to charge pipeline companies a tax of $1 per linear foot of pipe installed. It also included a so-called “Landowner Bill of Rights” that enshrined certain protections like ensuring the pipeline’s developer is liable for damages caused by the project, and designating a minimum depth at which the pipeline must be buried.
But Jensen and others who opposed argued it didn’t offer landowners anything new — some of its provisions are already afforded by South Dakota law, and others had already been negotiated with Summit Carbon Solutions. Jensen pointed out that the utility commission already has the ability to override local ordinances if it finds them to be overly restrictive.
Now, with control over pipeline siting back squarely in the hands of local authorities, the future of the Summit project in South Dakota is unclear. The utility commission already rejected the company’s initial application for construction permits last year; Summit has since altered its route and reapplied.
Martin Lockman, a climate law fellow at Columbia Law School, told me it was difficult to take away a clear message from the fight, in part because CO2 pipelines have strange politics. Coalitions for and against them don’t break down over party lines or traditional groups like environmentalists versus fossil fuel companies. Some climate advocates, as well as experts in the U.S. Department of Energy, say we’ll need to build many thousands of miles of new carbon pipelines in order to help us sequester carbon captured from industrial facilities and from the atmosphere.
The specific arguments over the Summit project may not apply to projects proposed elsewhere, Lockman told me, but its fate could still have ripple effects. “Any kind of high profile failure might make investors a little bit more leery to participate in this kind of project,” he said.
On the future of the energy transition, Elon Musk’s moment to shine, and heat records
Current conditions: Power outages are likely to spread across windswept California today as PG&E tries to prevent fires • A snowstorm is brewing in Colorado • It is 80 degrees Farenheit and raining in West Palm Beach, where Donald Trump delivered his 2024 presidential victory speech early this morning.
Donald Trump has won the 2024 presidential election. Votes are still being tallied, but he has so far taken the swing states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. At the time of publishing, he had secured 277 electoral college votes to Vice President Kamala Harris’ 224. Republicans also took control of the Senate, but the status of the House of Representatives remains unclear.
The energy and environmental implications of a Trump victory are profound, writes Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer. He is likely to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement, approve a new tranche of liquified natural gas export terminals, and block and then begin to roll back the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate rules for power plants, cars, and light-duty trucks. “Not all of these rollbacks will make themselves felt at first,” Meyer writes. “The current set of EPA clean car rules, for instance, apply to vehicles sold through model year 2026. That is close enough to the present that automakers have already begun to make the necessary investments to meet those standards. But vehicles sold in the latter half of this decade will likely face much weaker rules or none at all.” He may also try to repeal or otherwise hinder the Inflation Reduction Act, which would set the country and world back in the fight against climate change. But it would also significantly raise taxes on energy companies (and automakers) while hurting Trump’s own voters, as the IRA’s hundreds of billions in investments, which are largely tax credits, have overwhelmingly flowed to Republican districts.
“For every step back that Trump takes on climate policy, China will step forward and take more of a global leadership role,” Meyer writes. “As Trump’s White House steers American climate policy for the rest of the 2020s, they will not just be deciding what direction the U.S. will go in — they will be acting with, or against, the rest of the world.”
Reactions to Trump’s victory are trickling in from climate organizations and analysts. Here are a few:
Heatmap has been keeping tabs on 36 of the most important climate elections, from seats in the House and Senate down to local ballot measures and attorneys general. Here’s where some of those stand so far:
In addition, the Republican-backed effort to repeal Washington state’s new cap and invest program failed; voters in Berkeley rejected a ballot measure that would have functionally reinstated the city’s first-in-the-nation prohibition against gas hookups in new buildings; and California looks likely to pass Proposition 4, which authorizes $10 billion in bonds for water quality, coastal resilience projects, wildfire prevention, and climate-risk protections.
Donald Trump has ascended to the White House with the assistance of a strange coalition, which includes Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who is supposedly going to oversee a new Department of Government Efficiency. In his victory speech, Trump devoted a verse to Musk. “A star is born: Elon,” Trump said, praising Musk’s efforts on the campaign trail, his “beautiful” rockets, and Starlink. “The future is gonna be fantastic,” Musk said on X. As Heatmap’s Meyer noted: “Musk has said that repealing the IRA could benefit Tesla by kneecapping its competitors. Yet much of Tesla’s profit comes from selling regulatory credits created by California and the federal government’s climate policies. If Trump repeals those policies, what will happen to Tesla’s profitability?”
Across the United States, millions of voters cast their ballots in record or near-record daily heat, including in Rochester, New York, where it hit a sweltering 81 degrees Fahrenheit (it was also the city’s hottest November day on record). It also hit a record 81 degrees in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which has not seen rain since October 6, and a record 78 degrees in Columbus, Ohio. In Hartford, Connecticut, the mercury likewise reached 78 degrees, tying the previous Nov. 5 record set in 2022. New York City and Washington, D.C., meanwhile, experienced their warmest Election Days since President Franklin D. Roosevelt defeated the Republican governor of Kansas, Alf Landon. It was the hottest Election Day in a century in Cleveland, Ohio, the hottest Election Day since 2003 in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and the hottest November 5th on record in Jackson, Kentucky.
“There is an antidote to doom and despair. It’s action on the ground, and it’s happening in all corners of the Earth.” –Christiana Figueres, the former UNFCCC executive secretary who helped secure the landmark Paris Agreement, reacts to the election results.