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:

During Alan Greenspan’s decade-plus run leading the Federal Reserve, investors and the financial media were convinced that there was a “Greenspan put” underlying the stock market. The basic idea was that if the markets fell too much or too sharply, the Fed would intervene and put a floor on prices analogous to a “put” option on a stock, which allows an investor to sell a stock at a specific price, even if it’s currently selling for less. The existence of this put — which was, to be clear, never a stated policy — was thought to push stock prices up, as it gave investors more confidence that their assets could only fall so far.
While current Fed Chair Jerome Powell would be loath to comment on a specific volatile security, we may be seeing the emergence of a kind of sociopolitical put for Tesla, one coming from the White House and conservative media instead of the Federal Reserve.
The company’s high-flying stock shed over $100 billion of value on Monday, falling around 15% and leaving the price down around 50% from its previous all-time high. While the market as a whole also swooned, especially high-value technology companies like Nvidia and Meta, Tesla was the worst hit. Analysts attributed the particularly steep fall to concerns that CEO Elon Musk was spending too much time in Washington, and that the politicization of the brand had made it toxic to buyers in Europe and among liberals in the United States.
Then the cavalry came in. Sean Hannity told his Fox News audience that he had bought a Model S, while President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that “I’m going to buy a brand new Tesla tomorrow morning as a show of confidence and support for Elon Musk, a truly great American.” By this afternoon, Trump had turned the White House lawn into a sales floor for Musk’s electric vehicles. Tesla shares closed the day up almost 4%, while the market overall closed down after Trump and his advisors’ furious whiplash policy pronouncements on tariffs.
Whether the Tesla put succeeds remains to be seen. The stock is still well, well below its all-time highs, but it may confirm a new way to understand Tesla — not as a company that sells electric vehicles to people concerned about climate change, but rather as a conservative culture war totem that has also made sizable investments in artificial intelligence and robotics.
When Musk bought Twitter and devoted more of his time, energy, money, and public pronouncements to right wing politics, some observers thought that maybe he could lift the dreadful image of electric vehicles among Trump voters. But when Pew did a survey on public attitudes towards electric vehicles back in 2023, it found that “Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, younger adults, and people living in urban areas are among the most likely to say they would consider purchasing an EV” — hardly a broad swathe of Trump’s America. More than two-thirds of Republicans surveyed said they weren’t interested in buying an electric car, compared to 30% of Democrats.
On the campaign trail, Trump regularly lambasted EVs, although by the end of the campaign, as Musk’s support became more voluminous, he’s lightened up a bit. In any case, the Biden administration’s pro-electric-vehicle policies were an early target for the Trump administration, and the consumer subsidies for EVs passed under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act are widely considered to be one of the softest targets for repeal.
But newer data shows that the tide may be turning, not so much for electric vehicles, but likely for Tesla itself.
The Wall Street Journal reported survey data last week showing that only 13% of Democrats would consider buying a Tesla, down from 23% from August of 2023, while 26% of Republicans would consider buying a Tesla, up from 15%. Vehicle registration data cited by the Journal suggested a shift in new Tesla purchases from liberal urban areas such as New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, towards more conservative-friendly metropolises like Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, and Miami.
At the same time, many Tesla investors appear to be mostly seeing through the gyrations in the famously volatile stock and relatively unconcerned about month-to-month or quarter-to-quarter sales data. After all, even after the epic fall in Tesla’s stock price, the company is still worth over $700 billion, more than Toyota, General Motors, and Ford combined, each of which sells several times more cars per year than Tesla.
Many investors simply do not view Tesla as a luxury or mass market automaker, instead seeing it as an artificial intelligence and robotics company. When I speak to individual Tesla shareholders, they’re always telling me how great Full Self-Driving is, not how many cars they expect the company to sell in August. In many cases, Musk has made Tesla stockholders a lot of money, so they’re willing to cut him tremendous slack and generally believe that he has the future figured out.
Longtime Tesla investor Ron Baron, who bought hundreds of millions of dollars worth of shares from 2014 to 2016, told CNBC Tuesday morning, that Musk “believes that digitization [and] autonomy is going to be driving the future. And he thinks we’re … on the verge of having an era of incredible abundance.” Baron also committed that he hasn’t, won’t, and will never sell. “I’m the last in, I’ll be the last out. So I won’t sell a single share personally until I sell all the shares for clients, and that’s what I’ve done.”
Wedbush Securities’ Dan Ives, one of the biggest Tesla bulls on the street, has told clients that he expects Tesla’s valuation to exceed $2 trillion, and that its self-driving and robotics business “will represent 90% of the valuation.”
Another longtime Tesla bull, Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas, told clients in a note Monday that Tesla remained a “Top Pick,” and that his price target was still $430, compared to the stock’s $230.58 close price on the day. His bull case, he said, was $800, which would give the company a valuation over $2.5 trillion.
When the stock lags, Jonas wrote, investors see Tesla as a car company. “In December with the stock testing $500/share, the prevailing sentiment was that the company is an AI ‘winner’ with untapped exposure to embodied AI expressions such as humanoid robotics,” Jonas wrote. “Today with the stock down 50% our investor conversations are focused on management distraction, brand degradation and lost auto sales.”
In a note to clients Tuesday, Ives beseeched Musk to “step up as CEO,” and lamented that there has been “little to no sign of Musk at any Tesla factory or manufacturing facility the last two months.” But his bullishness for Tesla was undaunted. He argued that the scheduled launch of unsupervised Full Self-Driving in June “kicks off the autonomous era at Tesla that we value at $1 trillion alone on a sum-of-the-parts valuation.”
“Autonomous will be the biggest transformation to the auto industry in modern day history,” Ives wrote, “and in our view Tesla will own the autonomous market in the U.S. and globally.”
The most effective put of all may not be anything Trump says or does, but rather investors’ optimism about the future — as long as it’s Elon Musk’s future.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Everything is getting more expensive — except for government debt.
Across the developed world, yields on government debt are rising, driving up the cost of borrowing with potentially particularly dire effects for renewable and clean energy.
“Nearly every issue of government bonds at every maturity for all G7 countries is trading at a higher rate today than it was in February, pushing up the amount that governments must pay to sell new debt,” the Financial Times reported on Sunday.
These government bonds — especially U.S. government bonds — serve as benchmarks for lending across the economy. The 10-year Treasury is currently trading at a yield of 4.8%, up from 4% in February before the war in Iran began.
The rising yields are due in part to the ongoing war being waged by the United States and Israel, which has driven up the prices of core commodities and touched off inflation across the globe. A number of wealthy countries, including the United States, are also running large budget deficits, which means there’s lots of government debt floating around. Inflation erodes the value of that debt, however, driving up the returns investors demand for government bonds and driving down what they’re willing to pay.
I have written extensively about how high borrowing costs exact an especially steep toll from renewable energy development. That’s because the bulk of spending on a renewable project — say a solar farm — comes up front as capital expenditure that often has to be financed through borrowing. For a gas-fired power plant, on the other hand, the spending is split more evenly between upfront costs and operational costs (namely fuel), which can be paid for out of cash flow from operating the plant. Where the cost of operating a gas plant is at the mercy of natural gas prices, for a renewables project, interest rates can dominate the economics.
Sure enough, that inflationary pressure showed up in the second-quarter results of America’s renewables companies. Solar installer Sunrun, for instance, has seen declining sales growth. In an August earnings call, Sunrun CEO Mary Powell said the company’s results were “reflecting a higher capital cost as interest rates have inched up.” Wind developer Orsted, meanwhile, told investors that it had incurred a nearly $200 million loss on its U.S. offshore wind business “as a result of an increase in the long-dated U.S. interest rates.”
But macroeconomic indicators like deficits, inflation, and interest rates show just one side of the picture. After all, it’s not just governments that borrow, and it’s not just money that’s necessary for any sort of big project, including renewable and clean energy.
At the same time governments are borrowing more, bond market investors are also being offered hundreds of billions of dollars of debt from hyperscalers and other technology companies looking to build out data centers to power artificial intelligence. Bond markets will have to ingest over $500 billion of AI-related debt issuance this year, according to Morgan Stanley, and they’ll be called upon again to help fund an estimated $1.2 trillion in capital expenditures in 2027. Across the economy as a whole, “more than half of the capex growth this year can likely be ascribed to the buildout related to AI,” Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh said in a speech last week.
That boom is driving economic activity — and high prices — throughout a number of sectors, including materials and labor.
Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack told CNBC in June that inflation was “too high,” citing “insatiable” demand from data center developers for inputs such as electric switchgears. (Hammack was a dissenting voice at the July meeting of the Federal Open Markets Committee, voting for a higher interest rate against the Fed majority who decided to keep rates unchanged.)
And it’s not just software engineers who are seeing high salaries as a result of the AI boom. The technology buildout has also raised the wages of laborers and tradespeople essential to both data center and energy projects, especially for specialized trades like electricians.
“Skilled workers were difficult to find in a range of fields, notably technicians and tradespeople,” the Federal Reserve reported in its July report on economic conditions.
While this is great news for electricians and their families, it’s also the type of thing that can make central bankers nervous.
The “AI investment surge could trigger nonlinear price increases,” Dallas Fed President Lorie Logan said in July. “The risk is that the pressures broaden as AI demand touches construction, power generation, and other sectors.”
That’s the silver lining for renewable energy — and all energy developers. While the costs of capital, materials, and labor are going up, electricity itself has never been in greater demand.
The energy developer and utility NextEra told investors on its July earnings call that it’s been able to sign new contracts on existing assets at a $20 per megawatt-hour premium over recent prices, a process known as “recontracting,” indicating solid demand for power.
Overall, NextEra chief executive John Ketchum said, “Hyperscalers and other large load customers are increasingly focused on speed, certainty, and scalability. That plays directly to our strengths.”
Chirag Lala, vice president of research at the Center for Public Enterprise, explained to me that it’s this demand that’s balancing out the higher financial and material costs renewable developers face. “That’s why we are still getting solar and battery builds. There’s demand on the system,” he told me.
The industry is in a kind of tug of war between financial and structural factors pulling it back, and demand factors pushing it forward. “That buildout could absolutely be faster and bigger if a variety of structural and financial variables were mitigated,” Lala said.
The Supreme Court will decide once and for all.
Good evening from New York, where a district court judge struck down a law the state passed in 2024 to extract $75 billion from fossil fuel companies to fund its response to climate change. The ruling is a sign that so-called “superfund”-style laws may not be the winning strategy many climate advocates had hoped.
You may know the New York law as the Climate Change Superfund Act, and it mirrors similarly-named legislation passed in Vermont and introduced in about a dozen other states. The law’s backers — environmental groups, consumer advocates — pitched it as a new approach after earlier attempts to sue energy companies directly for damages had either failed or were stuck in procedural arguments over whether the cases belonged in state or federal court.
Get Heatmap Daily in your inbox
Unlike those lawsuits, the climate superfund laws don’t accuse the companies of doing anything wrong. They are modeled on the federal Superfund program, which allows the Environmental Protection Agency to request funding from companies to clean up industrial waste years after the contamination occurred, and despite the fact that the pollution was lawful at the time. The theory was that this federal precedent might give the states a leg up when energy companies inevitably fought the policy.
That comparison does not seem to have meant much to Judge Brenda Sannes. Instead, her decision focused on the similarities between the climate superfund law and a lawsuit New York City brought against Chevron and other oil companies that federal courts dismissed several years ago. Sannes concluded that just like the city’s lawsuit, the superfund law would in effect regulate interstate greenhouse gas emissions, which is a federal responsibility under the Clean Air Act.
Notably, Sannes also disregarded the Trump administration decision to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, which underpinned the federal government’s responsibility to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act, writing that it had “no impact” on her analysis.
To me, the idea that these climate lawsuits and superfund laws are akin to emissions regulation has been one of the more confounding aspects of covering these court fights. None of the suits concern greenhouse gas regulations in any traditional sense — they are about oil companies’ deception and responsibility for climate change-related damages. Still, several courts have agreed with oil companies that the financial penalty levied on them amounts to a form of oversight of emissions.
Climate advocates are not giving up just yet, and are urging New York Attorney General Letitia James to appeal. A press release from the group Fossil Free Media argued the ruling was “based on a deeply flawed analysis” and was “an early, appealable decision in a developing legal fight.” James has not yet issued a response.
Regardless, the superfund concept will get another test in the federal court for the district of Vermont, where the same groups challenging New York’s law — the American Petroleum Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, Republican states, and the Trump administration — are also challenging Vermont’s version.
Much more rides on an upcoming Supreme Court case, however. The high court has agreed to hear oral arguments in a lawsuit brought by Boulder County, Colorado against Exxon and a Canadian oil sands company, Suncor. The county originally filed the case in 2018, and it’s one of the ones that’s been held up for years in procedural arguments. Last year, the Colorado Supreme Court decided it could finally advance toward a trial, leading the oil companies to appeal to the federal Supreme Court. They are asking the justices to decide once and for all whether federal law preempts states from seeking relief for climate damages.
Oral arguments begin on October 5.
On Palisades’ progress, Taliban minerals, and New York’s climate superfund
Current conditions: Tropical Depression Five is barreling northwest from the Caribbean to Houston • In the Pacific, Hurricane Karina has strengthened into a Category 4 storm, but it’s unlikely to make landfall anywhere • The surface temperature of the Yellow Sea is nearly 85 degrees Fahrenheit, fueling storms across South Korea.
President Donald Trump is among the few politicians in America willing to stand 10-toes-down in defense of the need to build out more data centers. In a post Monday on Truth Social, the president admonished communities that reject data centers as misguided and foolish. “The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want data centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor,” Trump wrote. “If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let data reign.” Still, he said “plenty of other places” want them. “If we kill the Golden Goose, you will only have yourselves to blame,” he wrote. “China could not be happier with this anti data center movement.” It’s not a popular stance. Heatmap Pro’s latest polling shows that three-quarters of Americans now oppose data centers built in their backyards.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York struck down the state’s Climate Change Superfund Act on Monday, ruling that the 2024 law is invalid under the federal Clean Air Act. The law set up a cost recovery scheme whereby fossil fuel companies would pay into a fund used to finance climate change adaptation-related infrastructure projects. The state’s argument rested in part on the Trump administration’s decision earlier this year to rescind the Environmental Protection Agency’s endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, which gave the agency authority to regulate climate pollution. That move “cannot be reconciled” with the administration’s argument that the CAA preempts New York’s law, the state said. Judge Brenda K. Sannes dismissed that reasoning in her decision, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in American Electric Power v. Connecticut from 2011, which, as my colleague Emily Pontecorvo put it, “established companies’ protection from federal public nuisance claims over greenhouse gas emissions. That decision sprang from the Court’s earlier 2007 decision that the Clean Air Act covers greenhouse gas emissions — which the EPA is now contesting.”
The case was one of at least four the Trump administration has pursued against states attempting to make fossil fuel companies cover the costs of adapting to climate change. Judges have already ruled against its attempts to prevent Hawaii and Michigan from suing fossil fuel companies, however a case against a similar superfund law in Vermont is still pending. “New York’s law would have expropriated $75 billion from energy companies around the world during an energy emergency and in direct defiance of American foreign policy and federal law,” Adam Gustafson, principal deputy assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s Energy and Natural Resources Division and the administration’s lead attorney in this case, said in a statement. “We will continue to fight for affordable, reliable energy for all Americans.”
A sign of how much an industry is really booming is whether startups begin popping up to provide ancillary services. Here’s a prime example of the artificial intelligence buildout’s energy boom: The AI energy software provider Verse told Heatmap exclusively for this newsletter that it now has 30 gigawatts of power under its platform’s management. The company’s flagship product, Aria, is an intelligence platform for data center companies that brings utility bills, contracts, power purchase agreements, and live power usage data under one dashboard. The company also helps manage on-site assets such as batteries. “You can't solve for speed, cost, risk, and carbon while your supply contracts, your load, and your flexible assets sit in separate silos,” Seyed Madaeni, Verse’s chief executive and co-founder, said in a statement.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
When Holtec International starts the Palisades nuclear plant back up, the facility in western Michigan will be the first in the nation to return to life after a permanent shutdown. Once complete, the Palisades restart will set off a series of other projects, including some to repower defunct nuclear plants in Pennsylvania and Iowa. That makes each milestone in the Palisades project notable — but the one it reached Monday is particularly promising. Holtec started loading fuel into the reactor, setting the stage for it to return to service potentially before the end of the year, months before the official March 2027 start date. “Loading fuel into the Palisades reactor is an important milestone and a reflection of the tremendous effort of the men and women who have brought this plant to this point,” Fadi Diya, Holtec’s chief nuclear officer, said in a statement. Palisades’ completion won’t just kick off more restarts. Holtec also plans to build its first two 300-megawatt small modular reactors at the site. Based on the industry’s standard pressurized water technology, the company has received hundreds of millions from the Department of Energy to support its construction.

Commerce can, at times, be the ultimate salve. Raw materials flowed from the U.S. to British factories even after the American Revolution and the War of 1812. Japanese and German automobiles dominate American roads decades after those nations’ defeats in World War II. As memories of war fade, Americans buy nearly $200 billion in Vietnamese goods each year, helping to transform the Southeast Asian country into a top manufacturing hub. Now the Taliban is making its pitch to Washington’s wallet. The Islamist group now leading Afghanistan said it would “absolutely” welcome U.S. investments in the rural, mountainous, and underdeveloped Central Asian country’s mining, infrastructure, or agriculture industries. “Relations between Afghanistan and the United States should not be assessed through the lens of the past 20 years of war, but rather on the basis of future co-operation,” Taliban foreign minister Amir Khan Muttaqi told the Financial Times at his office in Kabul. “Our economic policy is open.”
Meanwhile, from China to the U.S., lithium producers are posting what Bloomberg called “bumper profits.” Demand for energy storage is soaring, especially as countries seek to insulate themselves from the effects of the Iran War energy shock. As a result, Chinese companies such as Tianqi Lithium and Ganfeng Lithium Group reported their strongest net income in three years during the first six months of 2026. North Carolina-based Albemarle said global lithium demand had grown 45% compared to a year earlier. Australia’s PLS Group, meanwhile, “swung a $377 million profit in the 12 months to June 30 from a loss the year before,” the newswire reported.
You don’t need to be an expert in emerging markets to recognize the potential for solar. Countries that haven’t yet extended grid networks into rural areas can electrify villages using panels that are increasingly cheap and flooding into places such as sub-Saharan Africa, as I told you last week. You won’t need deep connections in those countries to start investing in that renewable energy potential, either. The startup Odyssey Energy Solutions, as my colleague Katie Brigham put it, “acts as a middleman between local installers and global capital providers that want exposure to developing markets but typically wouldn’t take the risk of financing small companies in unfamiliar environments.” This morning, the company told Katie exclusively, it’s announcing that it has raised another $74 million to fund its buildout.