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:
It’s already getting better, I promise.
My wife used to speedrun to San Francisco. A full tank of gas powered the little truck from Los Angeles to the halfway-point pit stop near Coalinga, California, where the L.A. radio stations have faded into static and the “Mr. Brightside” broadcasts from the Bay Area have yet to reach over the horizon. With just that single stop, the trip could be completed in under six hours.
It’s not that way these days in the EV. We stop twice for half-hour recharging sessions — maybe three times if we leave home with a less-than-full battery, and climbing over the Grapevine mountain pass punishes the range. Altogether, it makes the journey seven hours or longer.
I don’t mind too much. Frankly, I’d rather take the occasional break from holding my place in an endless line of cars all headed to the same destination and all trying to pass the same tomato truck than make slightly better time. If the day is already dedicated to a road trip, then it doesn’t really change my life to arrive in six hours rather than seven. Still, every time I undertake the I-5 marathon, the experience makes it clear: the true cost of owning an electric vehicle is your time.
Posts on platforms like Reddit about the hidden costs of EV ownership make me think I’m not alone in this notion.
In strictly monetary costs, one can make a straightforward case that EV life is better. Government rebates and tax credits bring down the upfront front cost to be closer to or nearly competitive with combustion cars. Some recurring routine maintenance costs, like oil changes, are absent. And depending on where you live and the current state of the ever-changing calculus of gas vs. electricity costs, going electric could save you a lot when prices soar at the pump. A New York Times graphic from 2021 illustrates that EV owners really can have it all: lower emissions and lower lifetime cost of ownership at the same time.
There are hidden EV costs in terms of dollars and cents, yes. States have begun to institute extra fees to register an electric car, which is nominally to offset the fact that EVs don’t pay the highway tax built into the price of gasoline yet smacks of political theater. Serious repairs can be expensive. EVs, because they’re powerful and heavy, seem to burn through tires at a faster rate. While the cost of a gallon of gas varies relatively little across town, the price of a kilowatt-hour of electricity can vary wildly from overnight residential electricity to the surge pricing one pays at a Los Angeles Supercharger in the middle of day. If you don’t have home charging, you’re stuck paying the higher rate — or going to get cheap electricity at odd hours, which is another tax on your time.
A lot of those extra financial costs can be strategically mitigated. The time penalty, not so much. While it mostly doesn’t matter, at least for those who can plug in at home and keep their batteries always full enough for their local driving, stopping on a long trip still takes far longer than simply topping up a gas tank. Fast-charging has seen technological leaps forward; whereas a lot of Tesla’s early Superchargers built in the 2010s maxed out at 72 kilowatts, many DC fast-chargers can now provide 250 or 350 kilowatts. But it still takes 15 to 20 minutes to refill the battery from nearly empty back to the 80% or 90% you’ll want for the next leg of a road trip.
Then there’s the not-insignificant time you spend thinking about charging. Some people who haven’t driven an EV seem to think range anxiety is an all-consuming cloud of negative energy, that every mile is driven in a panic about where the next plug will be. Yes, I’ve had my share of worried drives, mostly because I pushed my older standard-range Tesla Model 3 to its limit by trying to jump between distant chargers in the boonies of Arizona or Utah. In truth, worrying about the battery is more of a low-level mental white noise — something you must always be slightly aware of, as opposed to the old days of just noticing the needle is a little close to E and pulling off the freeway. (Again, the penalty here is higher on renters and those without home charging.)
Some of this, I’m afraid, may be unavoidable. To break free from burning fossil fuels in your car is to give up the deal with the devil that gave us the freedom to rarely think about energy.
The good news: As time goes on, these time penalties are fading. My Model 3 that started life with (an over-promised) 240 miles of range requires a lot of extra stops on a very long trip. As the range of a decent EV creeps up to 300 miles or more, we’re approaching a world where you’re not stopping much more than you would in a gas-burning car, unless you’re one of those drivers who refuses to take bathroom breaks to make good time. With range and the number of fast-chargers on the road both ticking upward, the anxiety of not making it to the next plug is dissipating, too, giving you back some of your brain time to think about something else.
EVs may never reach the two minutes it takes to fill a gas tank. They may always ask just a little more of you than a hybrid or plug-in hybrid that conserves the gas engine to keep the range worries at bay. But they might get close enough to gas-pump speed that, by the time you stretch your legs, relieve yourself, and buy another colossal can of Monster Energy, the car says it’s ready for you to resume your trip.
Besides, if those few extra minutes make you feel a little saner while also reducing the emissions of your road trip, then that’s time well spent.
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 state has binding emissions cut goals but still no regulations to meet them.
When New York Governor Kathy Hochul gave her State of the State address on Tuesday, climate advocates expected her to unveil an overdue plan to implement and fund the state’s climate law, which was enacted in 2019. Instead, she implied that she was delaying the plan indefinitely. In doing so, legal experts say Hochul would be breaking the law.
New York has a statutory requirement to cut emissions 40% from 1990 levels by 2030, and 85% by 2050. The deadline to draw up regulations to achieve this passed in January 2024. Hochul’s administration has been working on a solution — a cap and invest program, which would set a limit on total greenhouse gas emissions from the state that would decline over time and put a price on those emissions, bringing in revenue that could be reinvested in carbon reduction projects. The state expects decarbonization to cost $15 billion per year by 2030, and $45 billion in 2050.
As recently as a few weeks ago, New York climate advocates were hearing that Hochul planned to preview the program in her State of the State address before including it in her proposed budget. “All indications were that this was all systems go,” Justin Balik, the senior state program director for Evergreen Action, told me.
But Hochul didn’t mention cap and invest once in her speech. Her State of the State policy book, published Tuesday, acknowledges the program and notes that in the coming months, her administration will propose new emissions reporting regulations “while creating more space and time for public transparency and a robust investment planning process.” Advocates interpreted the message as a kiss-off.
“There have to be enforceable regulations that ensure we can meet the emission reduction mandates,” Rachel Spector, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, told me. “Those were supposed to be in place a year ago. Now they are late and there’s no clear date when we are getting those regulations, and that’s a really troubling situation.”
Get the best of Heatmap in your inbox daily.
Governments miss statutory deadlines all the time. But without any clear timeline on when the regulations might happen, the state’s overarching climate law could become impossible to carry out. “We have a [presidential] administration that’s coming in that's extremely hostile to moving forward on climate mitigation, and is going to potentially take us backwards,” Balik told me. “And so we need states to be the bulwark like they were during the last Trump term.”
There are a few possibilities for what can happen next.
Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change at Columbia University, likened the situation to when Hochul tried to impose an indefinite delay on congestion pricing in New York City last June, just days before it was set to go into effect. “I helped coordinate an effort that led to two lawsuits in New York state court claiming that Hochul did not have the power to do that,” he told me in an email. “We won the lawsuits, congestion pricing survived several lawsuits against it, and it launched on January 5.”
Gerrard added that some of the groups involved in those suits and others are now considering challenging Hochul’s indefinite delay of cap and invest. The text of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, which created the emissions targets, “allows citizens to bring proceedings in state court for violations of the statute,” he said. And there does not appear to be any pathway for achieving the targets without cap and invest, he added.
Liz Moran, a policy advocate for Earthjustice, said that cap and invest was never going to be enough anyway, and is urging the legislature to make progress on sector-specific policies. She called for the state assembly to pass the New York Heat Act, for instance, a bill that would remove barriers to transitioning away from the use of natural gas for home heating and set in motion a plan for mass conversion to efficient electric heating.
Early outlines of New York’s cap and invest program indicate that regulators were considering a relatively low price ceiling on pollution, making it easier for companies to buy their way out of compliance with the cap. As New York Focus has reported, the state’s own modeling shows that the program alone would not achieve the 2030 target. “Given what the governor has outlined as the ambition of the cap and invest program, there was always going to need to be additional sectoral mandates or policies that come from the legislature to drive emission reductions,” Moran told me.
In theory, the legislature could also put forward a bill outlining its own cap and invest program. Assemblywoman Anna Kelles, from Ithaca, New York, introduced a cap and invest bill last year, though it never left the environmental conservation committee.
Hochul spoke at length in her speech about affordability, and her stalling of cap and invest may be related to concerns that it would raise costs for consumers — or at least the perception that it would. “New York needs to get the transition right and keep our state affordable for families,” her policy book says. This would not be the first time Hochul’s fears about the cost of climate action (and potential backlash to it) have caused her to do an about-face. In 2023, Hochul tried to change the way the state accounted for greenhouse gas emissions under the idea that it would lower the cost of decarbonization. Her backpedaling on congestion pricing is another example.
The state’s own analysis, however, found that cap and invest would likely raise costs slightly for some New Yorkers while lowering them for others. Low-income residents would be eligible for direct rebates that would more than offset the higher cost of fuel. Depending on how the remaining revenue is spent, it could bring further cost reductions by helping New Yorkers pay for energy efficiency improvements that lower their bills.
“The governor is rightly focused on affordability, which is why extensive consumer rebates were baked into this,” said Balik. “From our perspective, the way that the state was planning on moving forward with this was perfectly in line with the governor's affordability agenda.”
The one bit of climate action Hochul did commit to on Tuesday was to call for spending $1 billion of the next budget on climate action — the “largest climate investment in the history of the state budget” — though she did not say where the money would come from or where it would go. Her State of the State book gives little more detail, noting only that it will “span different sectors of our economy and across the state’s geography,” with nods to clean heating and transportation projects. Cap and invest, meanwhile, is expected to bring in $3 billion to $5 billion in its first year.
“It's a start,” Spector said of the $1 billion. “But it’s definitely not enough.”
If even only a few of these ideas are enacted, it would be a harbinger of doom for wind energy in America.
Major groups in the anti-offshore wind movement are going big, submitting a lengthy policy wish list to the Trump transition team, according to documents obtained and first reported by Heatmap News.
Key organizations in the movement against offshore wind submitted a draft executive order “on the suspension of offshore wind development” to the transition team. According to the draft, not only are activists asking for a pause on new permits for offshore wind but also for a stop-work order on all projects currently under construction. They’re also asking for the Health and Human Services Department to become a weapon against the growth of renewable energy, requesting studies into the health and environmental effects of wind turbines and transmission cables.
If the Trump team follows through on even some of the ideas in the draft executive order, it would be a huge win for a nascent anti-renewables uprising in America. It would also be a harbinger of pain to come for wind energy in America under Trump. At the very least, it shows activists believe the next president has many powers at his disposal to make offshore wind developers’ lives miserable.
Mandy Davis, president of REACT Alliance, told Heatmap it had submitted the draft executive order to the transition team, and that REACT was the primary group behind the document. Davis is also head of the National Offshore-Wind Opposition Alliance, a new country-wide coalition of local groups opposed to offshore wind.
Davis said the draft order demonstrates the myriad ways she thinks the incoming administration can curtail wind development beyond a pause on new permits. “Our role is going to be determined to a great degree by what our new administration is doing,” she told Heatmap. “We also have to be really, really cognizant of the fact that even though the federal government is going to put major monkey wrenches in the works … it’s going to take a while.”
We’re still watching and waiting to see if Trump follows through with his promise to stop offshore wind in its tracks on Day 1. New Jersey Republican congressman Jeff Van Drew said in a statement Monday that Trump’s team is working with his office to draft an order that “halt[s] offshore wind turbine activities” on the East Coast and the “proposed order” is “expected to be finalized within the first few months of the administration.”
It is worth noting that Van Drew is one of the anti-offshore wind’s favorite allies in Congress. But it is unclear to what extent – if any – that the activists’ draft executive order obtained by Heatmap is winding up in the product Van Drew and his staff are working on with the Trump team. Representatives for Van Drew’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the draft executive order.
It’s hard to fathom the extent of damage even a work stoppage order would have on the American offshore wind industry. Roughly 5.8 gigawatts of electricity capacity are under construction offshore and more than 8 gigawatts of projects have been fully permitted but haven’t begun construction, according to a data shared with Heatmap News that was compiled by Christian Roselund, a policy analyst seasoned in the renewables industry. At least 10 gigawatts of additional capacity is currently in the federal review process and would be stymied by a halt at the permitting level. Taken together, the proposals in the draft could take millions of homes’ worth of carbon-free electricity off the table indefinitely.
A source within the offshore wind industry who requested anonymity to speak candidly said, if enacted, the proposals in the draft executive order would “lay off thousands of Americans” and potentially lead to work stoppages in other links in the industry’s supply chain, like shipyards in Louisiana and steel plants in the Midwest.
What’s in the draft order?
In addition to pausing permits, the draft executive order calls on the incoming administration to:
According to emails and other documents reviewed by Heatmap, the draft executive order also involved the work of Lisa Quattrocki Knight, president of the Rhode Island anti-offshore wind organization Green Oceans and a board member of the National Offshore-Wind Opposition Alliance.
Along with the draft executive order, Heatmap obtained other documents with Green Oceans’ letterhead addressed to the incoming administration, calling on it to “justify removing all permitted wind farm projects off the eastern coast of the U.S.” under multiple potential legal authorities including the National Emergencies Act, the Defense Production Act, and Federal Power Act.
Knight did not respond to requests for an interview. A spokesperson for Green Oceans contacted by Heatmap confirmed the organization played a role in crafting the draft executive order and provided a statement that the “draft Executive Order was developed as part of our broader efforts to provide science-based, actionable recommendations to decision-makers, regardless of political affiliation.”
“We believe that meaningful environmental progress requires bipartisan cooperation, and we remain committed to working with all leaders who share our vision of a sustainable future,” the statement read.
The documents also show the draft was endorsed by key groups fighting offshore wind in the New Jersey and New York region, including Protect Our Coast Long Island and Save the East Coast, as well as local opposition groups based on the West Coast and in New England. Many of these organizations will be participating in a national day of protest this Saturday.
Trump’s pick for Energy Secretary had an easy go of it.
With Donald Trump due to take office in less than a week and a Republican Congress already sworn in, much of the Biden administration’s effort to advance clean and especially renewable energy is now in doubt. The fate of the Inflation Reduction Act is likely to be a major flashpoint — and yet the confirmation hearing for Chris Wright, a literal fracking executive, for Secretary of Energy proved to be relatively low-key and collegial among senators from both parties.
Here are three takeaways from the day’s proceedings:
Wright is not one of Trump’s more controversial nominees, so it’s no surprise that his hearing went smoothly — and that Wright was introduced by his fellow Coloradan, Democratic Senator John Hickenlooper, was an early strong signal that will likely pass through confirmation with ease. To the extent there were any fireworks, they came not from the legislators on the dais but rather from several quickly muffled protests in the hearing room. One protester shouted, “I'm 18 years old and I want a future!" before being removed, while another one yelled, “Will your fracking liquid put out fires in L.A.?”
The questioning before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources was a mix of parochial concerns from senators about their own states — the committee’s ranking Democrat, Martin Heinrich, for instance, asked if Wright would visit Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories, located in his home state of New Mexico, while Pennsylvania Senator David McCormick, a Republican, asked about the prospects of a liquefied natural gas export terminal in Pennsylvania.
That’s not to say climate change didn’t come up. Wright repeatedly avowed that climate change is happening and is caused by the combustion of hydrocarbons, although he demurred that it was a “global” problem and turned his responses repeatedly to developing energy resources in the United States.
“If you shut down industry, those emissions don’t go away, they go somewhere else,” Wright claimed. “The only pathway to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve quality of life is energy innovation.”
Wright generally stayed away from specifics on spending levels or individual programs, aside from expressing generalized enthusiasm for the Department of Energy’s network of national laboratories and the importance of its work maintaining the nuclear stockpile. In his opening statement, he identified one of his goals as to “unleash American energy at home and abroad to restore energy dominance.”
Over the course of the hearing, what he meant became at least marginally clearer. Under questioning from McCormick about the Department’s Office of Fossil Energy — renamed the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management under outgoing President Joe Biden and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm — Wright lamented that fossil fuel had “fallen out of fashion and out of favor. There’s less interest in investing in it and less interest in talking about it,” he said, before declaring, “I don’t share that aversion.”
He did, however, expressed enthusiasm for certain clean energy technologies, including next-generation geothermal (“It’s an enormous, abundant energy resource below our feet”) and nuclear power. He also went along with Democratic senators who asked about reforms to existing federal permitting regulations to facilitate the buildout of long-distance energy transmission, a focus of the last Congress’s failed permitting reform bill and a key precursor to cleaning up the grid. (Nuclear and geothermal are also two areas where Wright’s company, Liberty Energy, has investments.)
To the extent Wright was willing to talk about solar — there was barely any mention of wind in the entire hearing — he had to be prodded by Democrats in sun-rich states, such as Heinrich and Nevada’s Catherine Cortez Masto. Wright also called into question some estimates of how cheap renewables are, arguing that a popular measure for comparing energy resources with each other, the levelized cost of energy, “misses the boat on electricity generation because it’s like, would you take Uber that was 10% cheaper in cost if you didn’t know when the Uber would pick you up or where it would drop you off?” essentially arguing that the low price of energy generated by renewables doesn’t take into account their unavailability during certain times of day or in certain weather conditions.
Wright’s relatively easy reception reflects the fact that there actually are wide areas of bipartisan agreement on the kind of energy research and technology development work the Department of Energy does. Members on both sides of the aisle saw their enthusiasm for nuclear power — especially small modular reactors — reflected back by Wright, with Arizona Democrat Ruben Gallego saying “I appreciate your enthusiasm for nuclear energy.”
The Energy and Natural Resources Committee is also stocked with Senators who represent states where the DOE has a substantial presence, including New Mexico, California, Utah, Idaho, Colorado, and Washington, which can lead to more collegial hearings if the nominee, as Wright does, affirms the importance and value of the Department’s national laboratories. Agencies that spend money broadly across the country tend to be popular with lawmakers.
But Wright is just the first nominee for a major energy and environment related post to face the Senate. Other nominees, including Doug Burgum for Secretary of the Interior and Lee Zeldin for Environmental Protection Agency administrator, may endure more contentious hearings, as they will likely face questions on issues that are sharply divisive, like opening up public lands for fossil fuel extraction and rules on power plant and tailpipe emissions.