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 tough to generate enough power to make them worth it, but two new companies are trying.
Here’s something to chew on over the holiday break: The top of a car is wasted space. Sure, you can put a sunroof there to let in a little light and breeze or install a roof rack to take your surfboard to the beach. But for the most part, the roof is just a field of metal to keep the elements out of the cabin.
In an electric vehicle, that square footage could have a job. What if solar panels embedded in the roof generated juice to recharge the battery as the car flies down the highway or sits in the middle of a parking lot, blasted by the summertime sun? It’s an idea that’s starting to get more traction. It’s about time.
The idea of a car slathered in solar panels is well-worn territory. For decades, engineers have staged solar car races such as the World Solar Challenge, contested by vehicles running solely on sun power. It takes a lot of real estate to generate enough solar energy to move something as heavy as a car, though. That is why solar challenge competitors are often stripped-down, super-lightweight pods.
The question for a commercial car is, can embedded solar produce enough energy to make it worth the trouble and expense? A few, like the Lightyear One concept vehicle, have dared to try. Aptera keeps trying to sell the solar car. Among real production EVs, the doomed Fisker Ocean offered a solar roof on its most expensive version. Toyota’s Prius Prime plug-in hybrid offers a solar roof as an add-on. In some places around the world, the popular Hyundai Ioniq 5 comes with enough solar capability to add 3 miles of range per day.
EV solar hasn’t caught on in the mainstream, however. The world’s top EV maker, Tesla, has long been standoffish about the idea. When CEO Elon Musk is asked about EVs with solar, as he was on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast in 2023, he typically dismisses the idea. After Rogan pressed him, Musk estimated that a square meter of PV would be exposed to just 1 kilowatt of energy and could probably only harvest 25% of that, a tiny contribution that’s nowhere near what you’d need to push a Tesla down the road. (Modern DC fast-chargers discharge energy in the hundreds of kilowatts.)
In other words, what solar panels on a car could harvest amounts to a drop in the bucket. But if you leave out enough buckets for long enough, those drops eventually add up to something. For example: At the same time he was pooh-poohing car solar, Musk acknowledged the promise of a kind of fold-out system, something that unfurled like a satellite to expose a large surface area of PV. Imagine those backcountry panels you can fold out at a campsite to harvest solar power for charging your phone, scaled up.
Los Angeles-based DartSolar is trying to sell just that. The startup has begun offering a package of solar panels that can sit on the roof of an EV just like that big Thule roof box riding on the top racks of so many Subarus. When closed, just two of the six available solar panels are exposed, gathering up to 320 watts of energy as the car drives or sits in an outdoor parking stall. Find yourself at a campground, the beach, or anywhere else there’s room for the package to expand, then all six panels can start generating electricity at a maximum of 960 watts, or nearly a kilowatt.
The company claims that you could add 10 to 20 miles of driving range per day this way, which is nothing to sneeze at. It’s like a green range extender that just lives on top of your car and, at 87 pounds, doesn’t weigh so much that it’s killing your mileage. But it’s not exactly cheap: DartSolar says the package will ultimately cost around $3,500, meaning it would take quite a while to recoup the upfront from free solar energy, even if the system does qualify for some incentives.
Another startup, GoSun, offers a slightly different take on the same idea. Instead of expanding into a flat plane of PV, its panels cascade from the roof down the front and back to gather up to 30 miles of range per day. GoSun promises to deliver in 2025 for about $3,000.
Of course, the smartest way to power your EV with solar is to put PV on the roof of your home, a place with much fewer square footage and weight constraints than the surface of a vehicle. But as solar continues to get more efficient, it will make less and less sense to ignore the real estate on a car. After all, every watt of extra energy from the sun is one you don’t have to get somewhere else.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Let’s talk more about Denali ... that is, Mt. McKinley.
President Donald Trump signed 46 presidential actions during his first 12 hours in office, including overturning 78 of former President Joe Biden’s executive orders. Between Trump’s moves with major ramifications (like ending all wind permits) and those that seem to represent more personal grievances (like free-flowing showerheads), there has been much confusion over what they all mean.
Some would argue that is the entire point: “The more bizarreness Trump generates,” the journalist Edward Luce wrote last year for The Financial Times, “the less people notice.” Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist during his rise to power in 2015 and 2016, memorably described this as a deliberate technique of “flood[ing] the zone with shit.”
Whatever way you frame it, though, where there’s Trump, there’s noises, which means news can fall through the cracks. Here’s our list of what you might have missed during Trump’s first hours as president and what might happen next.
In one of his first actions in office, Trump repealed almost seven-dozen Biden-era executive orders, including Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.”
Signed on Biden’s Inauguration Day, the policy called for the government to take a “comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality.” That meant that the Environmental Protection Agency considered things like race and socioeconomic status — given the historic burdens put on frontline communities — during its permitting processes. Trump also signed a new executive order, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” which limits government agencies from considering the impacts on disadvantaged communities. The administration has reportedly gone as far as to warn government employees that they could face consequences for failing to report on colleagues whose diversity and inclusion efforts might slip past its notice.
As Dan Farber writes for Legal Planet, however, to carry out this anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion executive order, “agencies will have to eliminate their own environmental justice regulations. At that point, the door will be open to judicial review. I think agencies will have a hard time justifying the repeals.”
Trump further overturned Executive Order 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” another first-week Biden policy. In addition to declaring climate change a national security risk, the order also created the Justice40 initiative, directing 40% of federal climate spending to disadvantaged communities.
Jillian Blanchard, the Climate Change and Environmental Justice Program director at Lawyers for Good Government, told me this was also legally dubious. “There’s already existing infrastructure and policies in place that can’t be undone by an executive order,” she said — for example, grants for ongoing efforts to install EV chargers in disadvantaged communities, or clean-up projects in coal mining communities in Appalachia. “I think it’s important to take a minute and say, okay, what does this mean in practice?”
Blanchard added that, in particular, Trump’s moves on environmental justice “make me question what this administration plans to do with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act,” which prohibits race-based discrimination in programs that receive federal funding. “There’s really important questions here that are being raised that everyone should be paying attention to.”
Trump also repealed Executive Order 14030, “Climate-Related Financial Risk,” signed by Biden in May 2021. The executive order called for government-wide assessment and disclosure of climate-related financial risks to U.S. programs, and ordered the Secretary of Labor to submit a report on actions to protect U.S. workers’ savings and pensions from those same threats. Executive Order 14030 also established the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard, which called for government agencies to be more conservative when siting projects that could face sea-level rise or flood threats.
In addition to government agencies no longer being required to consider how extreme weather and climate risks might threaten their operations, Trump’s executive order “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” also takes aim at diversity, equity, and inclusion hiring practices, or the “social” aspect of ESG.
Though you’ve probably already heard about Trump’s attempt to spangle the Gulf of Mexico with a new name, the “ Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness” executive order also calls for reverting the name of North America’s highest peak, Denali, back to Mt. McKinley.
The political effort to change the mountain’s name to Denali, backed by the state’s Republican politicians, dates back to the 1970s. (It took until 2015 for the name to be changed to the Alaskan Athabaskan word meaning “the high one” because of the Ohio delegation’s insistence on honoring its native president.) Trump’s decision to restore the mountain’s colonial name is a pointed brush-off of Alaskan Natives and represents a troubling precedent by his administration of undermining promises made to Indigenous partners by the federal government.
Tribal partners have historically assisted the U.S. government on issues of land use, resource management, and climate resiliency, and can prove formidable opponents to projects that lack their support. By disregarding Alaskan Natives’ support of the name Denali, Trump risks alienating the greater Indigenous community and starting off on a contentious footing with one of the government’s most valuable allies.
When the Los Angeles County fires began earlier this month, Trump launched a renewed crusade against the “essentially worthless” Delta smelt, a nearly extinct two-inch-long fish. Per the then-president-elect, California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom had supposedly refused to sign a “water restoration declaration” that would have “allowed millions of gallons of water … from the North to flow daily into many parts of California,” where it allegedly could have helped to fight the devastating fires.
Only, there was no “water restoration declaration.” The vast majority of Los Angeles’ water doesn’t come from northern California, and the smelt have nothing to do with the water shortages some fire crews faced. That didn’t prevent Trump from issuing a memorandum to “stop radical environmentalism” and put “people over fish.” Still, it is so vague that it appears to be more of a nod to the Trump-supporting farmers in California’s Central Valley, who occasionally face water restrictions during droughts to protect the smelt.
“It’s all political posturing — it’s all an attempt to shock and awe,” Blanchard told me of the executive orders taken in sum. She added that “it’s going to be really important for people to take a deep breath and recognize that many of these things are not legal and challenges will be put in place.”
“Don’t become too distracted by fear and uncertainty,” she went on, “because that is one of their main goals.”
With plenty more to come.
A conversation with Bob Moczulewski, tax director for law firm Baker Tilly’s federal credits and incentives practice
Given the Trump administration’s new pause on grants under the Inflation Reduction Act, this week’s conversation is with Bob Moczulewski, tax director for law firm Baker Tilly’s federal credits and incentives practice. We asked him to explain this 90-day pause via executive order, because if anyone’s going to cut the nonsense and tell you what actually matters here, it’ll be a tax attorney.
The following chat was lightly edited for clarity.
Does Trump’s executive order actually impact the IRA’s tax credits?
The IRA had several components to it, most of which – the biggest things – are tax credits. Those are written into tax law. They are a legally binding ability for developers and users, creators of renewable energy that are allowed within the law – wind, solar, geothermal, battery storage, biogas – those are laws.
[The order] has a stop on those items that were more discretionary that had the control of the administration to delegate out: its grants, loans, and contracts. That has no impact on the tax credits, where the bulk of the IRA sits right now. A lot of that stuff was in anticipation of being heavily pushed through and sent out before January 20. There’s actual impact there. But tax credits are not appropriated funds.
This is not holding back the tax credits that are there.
You’ve said it is unclear if this covers all prospective funding, like direct pay?
If you’re a municipality and you put up a solar project that is eligible for tax credits and direct pay, that is the part with this potential slow play that could be done here. We really don’t know what the executive branch can do to hold back the payment of those direct payments. If you’re a business, you put up a solar, it’s a $10,000 tax credit, you can use it to reduce your taxable income. None of these orders impact that.
Now if you’re a municipality and you’re requesting a direct payment for those tax credits that are legally binding in tax law, I could see the possibility that an executive branch could have pressure on the Treasury Department, which has pressure on the IRS, to slow play those payments. But that’s only speculation. The law is stated, this is supposed to be paid out. This is in a realm of, y’know, almost a conspiracy theory-type of thing that could be done.
With respect to how a pause like this can impact the bankability of IRA, are you seeing it affect executives’ views on the durability of the law?
I would say there’s just a lot of caution as to [the] next steps around it. These are laws. Until the laws are repealed, if they are repealed, that would be the only way you’d know for certain.
As I’ve explained many times over, the history of tax credit laws is once they’re repealed or altered, those changes are prospective as to the time the law is changed. If I have a half a billion dollar solar project underway, I’ve met or begun a construction criteria. There has been no prior passing of tax laws that would revoke the ability to claim credits on that.
What are you watching for next for clarity?
There’s two things I’m looking for in the future. Where pundits around this really feel this is truly going. And the other part is to see if there’s any actual traction to repeal the tax credits that exist right now.
There’s a whole new realm of credits that begin in 2025 and continue through 2032. Will there be incentive to repeal those credits?
I have clients that are engaging in multi billions of dollars of projects that are in the heart of the southern tier of the United States of America, that would impact thousands of jobs. Those groups have strong ties to a lot of senators and congresspeople along the way. Just enough of a push and turn on this and all it takes is a few senators to not go along with it.
And more of the week's news in renewable energy fights.
1. Magic Valley, Idaho – It’s never a dull day for the Lava Ridge wind project.
2. Multiple counties, Ohio – Regulators in Ohio issued final decisions for two contested solar projects, clearing the way for one while all but stopping another.
3. Pender County, North Carolina – A solar project that was rejected late last year by the North Carolina Court of Appeals will be reconsidered by the same court, after the Democrat vote that decided the case was replaced by a Republican.
4. Lancaster County, Nebraska – in We have good news for solar in Nebraska, where county commissioners have approved a massive NextEra solar project.
5. Montgomery County, Alabama – Another solar project – Silicon Ranch – also got approval this past week from the local Board of Adjustments, meaning a Meta data center is now poised to receive renewable energy.
Here’s what else we’re watching ...
In Kansas, landowners are suing to stop a NextEra solar project in Jackson County.
In Oklahoma, a Woodside-backed hydrogen project has been paused citing the Trump administration’s changes in policy.
In Nevada, the Bureau of Land Management cleared the way for the Rough Hat solar project days before Joe Biden left office.