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:
Hikers plan and climate change laughs.
Mini Chimi was taking a nero with her tramily when she replied to my email. “I believe there is a lot of fear out there associated with the high snow year on the [Pacific Crest Trail],” she told me. “I want to be a positive voice out here.”
Mini didn’t need to worry about coming across as anything else; her writing on The Trek, ablogging platform for long-distance, end-to-end “thru-hikers,” is punctuated by joyous clumps of exclamation points.
“WE ARE DOING IT!!!!” celebrates one post. “COWBOY CAMPING IS SO FUN!!!!!” she raves further on, about sleeping without a tent. Even “snow around mile 35!!!” — a section of high desert just north of the Mexican border — warrants Mini Chimi’s excitement, although it is snow that most hikers of the Pacific Crest Trail, or PCT, are dreading the sight of this year.
In the little more than a decade since Cheryl Strayed published her bestselling memoir about hiking the PCT, Wild (adapted into a movie starring Reese Witherspoon in 2014), interest in thru-hiking the 2,650-mile Mexico-to-Canada trail in a single season has skyrocketed. But in the same span of time, the Pacific Crest Trail Association (PCTA) — the nonprofit stewards of the trail — has grown increasingly worried that thru-hiking as we know it is on the verge of going extinct. Wildfires now regularly close vast sections of the trail in the late summer, and water sources in the desert and high Sierras are drying up, making remote regions virtually impassable. Hiking the trail end-to-end in one year, a bucket-list item for many long-distance backpackers, is now “almost impossible” due to climate change.
Though Mini Chimi is keeping her chin up, 2023 thru-hikers — who’ve quit jobs, bought one-way international flights, and sunk thousands of dollars into new gear — are already watching their odds of completing the trail this year evaporate, some before they’ve even begun (northbound hikers continue to start their trips through the end of May). But ironically, it isn’t extreme heat or wildfires that are scuttling plans. It’s the snow.
“This time of year, there is always snow on the trail,” Scott Wilkinson, the content development director of the PCTA, explained to me. “But this year, obviously, we’re talking about an order of magnitude much, much bigger.”
Due to the parade of atmospheric rivers that slammed the West Coast this winter, California remains buried under once-in-a-generation levels of snow. Ski areas are promising to stay open until “AT LEAST July,” and the Sierra Nevada might not melt out until well into August. This has caused a number of problems that aren’t typical of the trail, which has otherwise trended hotter and drier: A recent post in the Class of 2023 PCT Facebook group, which is administered by the PCTA, suggested that the precipitation this winter has resulted in a lush desert underbrush that is making it harder to spot rattlesnakes, increasing the likelihood of bites. The trail will likely get insufferably buggy this summer, and the West Coast superbloom is also expected to dry into fodder for wildfires.
But fires, one of the most foreboding late-season obstacles on the trail, still seem a world away. In parts of the southern Sierra Nevada, which hikers usually aim to hit around mid-June, the snowpack is still 300% above normal levels. “Right now, about 660 miles of the PCT in the Sierra Nevada are under snow,” Wilkinson told me last week. “That, at a normal trail hiking pace of 20 to 30 miles a day — I mean, that’s a month’s worth of hiking. In snow, it’s likely to be considerably slower than that.” He noted that while there are “a few people that are leading the pack” who have experience in snow conditions, for the most part, that level of snow is “pretty much a nonstarter.”
Firefly is one such hiker who is hoping to push through the Sierras (thru-hikers traditionally refer to each other by their trail names, which I’m honoring here). A retired San Diego Fire Department fire captain, Firefly left the trail in March at mile 151, just south of the San Jacintos, the first major mountain range that hikers encounter headed north. With a high point of over 9,000 feet (or 10,804 feet, if one detours off trail to bag Mt. San Jacinto), the San Jacintos will mark the highest elevation many of the less experienced thru-hikers will have ever stood at, and the steep, bare slopes are “nerve-racking under normal conditions, and downright treacherous if it’s icy,” as they are now, the Fatmap PCT guide cautions.
Part of the reason Firefly left trail was to take a snow travel class offered by the Sierra Mountain Center, which she'd signed up for in October 2022, before even knowing how bad this season was going to be. In the class, she learned how to use crampons, traverse steep snow slopes, and, critically, how to self-arrest using an ice ax. “It feels that a lot of hikers have already decided to skip the Sierra without even setting up to try it,” she wrote to me. “And that’s totally fine for them because it really looks overwhelming. It just feels like an opportunity for me to do something amazing, scary, challenging, and hard.”
Refill, a thru-hiker from northern Germany, managed to make it through the San Jacintos “as probably the third or fourth group,” by his estimate. He’s reflected in a Trek journal entry that “since the start of my planning, San Jac was the mountain range that scared me the most” — a sentiment that is common among PCT hikers, especially after a thru-hiker slipped on a patch of ice on Apache Peak and slid to his death in 2020. In the Class of 2023 PCT group, hikers have been busy exchanging beta about the conditions; one offered up a handy flowchart titled “So You’re Considering the Apache-Onward Section??” with the most common outcome being: Skip it! The local search-and-rescue group is getting to the point even quicker, urging hikers to entirely bypass the 60-odd miles through the San Jacintos, while the PCTA has posted sternly-worded reminders on Facebook that spots on the trail “will require mountaineering skills” and pose avalanche dangers: “Do not assume it will be okay or easy.”
Refill, for his part, is planning to take the skills he practiced with his tramily — that is, his “trail family” — in the San Jacintos and use them in the Sierra Nevada. “All in all, this sketchy and steep mountain range was very good training; we will probably start hiking at 3 a.m. every night in the Sierras,” he told me, describing a mountaineering technique that ensures traversing hard, firm, and more navigable snow during colder hours. “I WAS nervous about San Jacinto, as this range is known to be deadly and steep,” he went on. “I AM nervous about the river crossings in the Sierras.”
The water crossings are also what is keeping Firefly up at night. Outdoor educator Andrew Skurka lists over 30 PCT “High Sierra creek hazards” that still lay ahead of hikers on his website, some with ominous notes like “PCT hiker died here in 2017.” Already, a “critical backcountry bridge” in a section of trail about a month ahead of the lead thru-hikers “has been badly damaged [by snow] and will almost certainly mean long-distance hikers will have to reroute their trips around one of the most picturesque stretches of the High Sierra this summer,” the San Francisco Chronicle reports. The news isn’t encouraging from the PCTA, either: “Without a bridge, crossing the river is not possible anywhere in the general vicinity during high water,” a blog post from the organization warns. “The record-breaking snowpack this year essentially guarantees that high water conditions will exist into August, if not longer.” (White water rafters, meanwhile, are thrilled).
Serendipity is an experienced thru-hiker who completed the Appalachian Trail in 2022; her plans look more like the typical 2023 thru-hiker’s. “My tramily and I are planning to skip the Sierra and possibly come back later in the year, depending on conditions,” she wrote to me from a water cache on the trail just short of the 100-mile mark last week. “We are taking a cautious approach.” It’s not that she doesn’t want to thru-hike — “if the conditions were passable, we would have” — but “I am keeping a take-it-as-it-comes attitude, and [planning] accordingly as we get information,” she went on. “I don’t feel any pressure to attempt to take on unsafe conditions.”
Firefly was staying realistic too: “If there is significant warming or rain before the end of May or while I am in the Sierra, and the river crossings are gnarly or too difficult, then I will bail out, skip up to Northern California, and return in August to finish the Sierra,” she said, describing, like Serendipity, a strategy known as “flip-flopping” — skipping temporarily impassible or challenging trail conditions and returning to complete the sections when they’ve cleared up. Mini Chimi said she has already reworked her plans in this way: “We are ... having to skip around [in order to] avoid large amounts of dangerous snow,” she wrote to me during her “nero,” a “near-zero” mileage rest day. “We will be going back when the conditions are better to complete these sections.”
One day, even elaborate flip-flopping likely won’t allow hikers to complete all the PCT sections in a single season — such as if the Sierra has a snowless year, as is anticipated — but Wilkinson said the hikers I spoke to all have the right mindset. “A lot of hikers are rolling with it; they’re getting creative,” he told me. “They’re beginning to let go of this continuous journey concept in their minds.”
Among those who are on trail, though, letting go can still be easier said than done. “Last year on my [Appalachian Trail] thru-hike, I felt a certain ‘do it now!’ urgency, in part due to my age,” Serendipity said. “I feel a similar ‘do it now’ urgency on the PCT because of my age and also how the uncertainty of extreme weather conditions will affect the PCT.” Those not on trail feel this anxiety too: Thru-hiking the PCT has long been a dream of mine, one that I may now never realistically be able to complete — at least, not in the way I’d envisioned it. Losing that possibility is sad: I’ve alternated between denial (maybe I could still get lucky and pull it off?) and anger that this is our reality.
But like Mini Chimi, Wilkinson remains almost impossibly upbeat about the future of the PCT. “None of this spells the end of the trail,” he said. “This isn’t necessarily gloom-and-doom. It’s change, right? And change is never easy, especially when it’s as difficult to predict as what we’re experiencing now.”
The PCT is nothing if not a patient teacher of change: on the journey, spring turns to summer turns to fall; the trail weaves through six of the country’s seven eco-zones; and sometimes, years-in-the-making plans have to be reworked due to hydroclimatic events, a washed out bridge, or a dry lightning storm. The only way anyone ever gets from one border to the other is by surrendering to whatever the unknowable mile ahead may bring. Mini Chimi is right; you might as well be positive about each step, in that case. None of them can be taken for granted; every one of them, each year, becomes a more precious gift.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On changes at the EPA, New York’s climate superfund, and a failed merger
Current conditions: Winter storm Garnett could drop up to 9 inches of snow on parts of New England this weekend • A blast of warm air is breaking temperature records in Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado • Two people were killed in Tennessee by a possible tornado. If confirmed, this would be the first deadly tornado of 2025.
The Federal Highway Administration issued a letter to state Departments of Transportation on Thursday declaring that states were no longer authorized to spend billions of dollars previously approved for electric vehicle charging networks. The decree pertains to the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program, or NEVI, a program created in 2021 under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which allocated $5 billion to states to strategically build electric vehicle charging networks along major roads. As Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo explains, advocates believed the NEVI program was untouchable because money that’s already been allocated can’t be recalled, but the FHWA apparently thinks it has found a workaround. Under NEVI, states are each allocated a certain amount of money every year for five years, and they have to submit an annual plan for how they intend to use the funds. Those plans must align with overall program guidance published by the secretary of transportation. The new leadership at the Department of Transportation has decided to rescind the previously issued guidance. That means the state plans that were previously approved are no longer valid. The letter says states will still be able to get reimbursed for expenses related to previously awarded projects, “in order to not disrupt current financial commitments.” But the more than $2.6 billion that has not been awarded will be frozen.
The Environmental Protection Agency put 168 employees on administrative leave yesterday evening. The workers focused on “environmental justice,” specifically addressing pollution in underserved communities. Molly Vaseliou, an EPA spokeswoman, said these employees “did not relate to the agency’s statutory duties or grant work.” As The New York Times reported, the agency cannot put employees on leave for more than 10 days in a year, so “observers said they interpret the administrative leave notices as a first step toward the eventual shuttering the office.” Meanwhile, new U.S. attorney general Pam Bondi told the Justice Department to get rid of its environmental justice and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, and identify basically anyone connected to these initiatives or who might have received federal funding to advance their causes.
New York is being sued by 22 other states and a handful of fossil fuel companies hoping to block its Climate Change Superfund Act, which requires major polluters to pay for their emissions. Starting in 2028, the companies would end up paying $3 billion each for 25 years – amounting to some $75 billion total – and the money would go towards climate adaptation and mitigation projects. The states challenging the law say only the federal government can regulate air quality. In other legal news, the Supreme Court yesterday denied the Trump administration’s request to pause a case weighing whether California should be able to set its own vehicle emissions standards.
Norwegian clean tech company Freyr Battery has canceled its plans to build a $2.6 billion lithium-ion battery plant in Georgia. The project was expected to bring more than 700 new jobs to the state. In a letter to the Coweta County Development Authority, Freyr said the decision “was made reluctantly, as the Company has realigned its near-term strategic goals.”
The Nissan/Honda merger is reportedly dead, and Nissan is looking for new partners. The two companies had been in talks to create the world’s third-largest automaker by sales, but the negotiations fell apart after Honda pushed for Nissan to become a subsidiary of Honda, instead of creating a joint holding company. Both companies were hoping the merger would allow them to share resources to produce electric vehicles to compete with market leaders like Tesla and BYD. Back in December, when the merger was first reported, one consultant toldThe New York Times that “if Nissan and Honda are not able to achieve this, they will not survive. Times are truly that tough.”
“The overall trend in cost reductions is so strong that nobody, not even President Trump, will be able to halt it.”
–Matthias Kimmel, head of Energy Economics at BloombergNEF. A new report from BNEF says the costs of renewables will continue to fall quickly in 2025, with production costs for new wind and solar farms already undercutting those of new fossil fuel plants.
A former head of the American Meteorological Society on whether the weather agency will wither under Trump.
There is a lot of uncertainty in the federal government right now. Some functions of critical agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers are paused, or maybe they’re not. Tariffs are on and then off again. Other government agencies are shutting down most of their operations at the direction of Elon Musk’s Efficiency Department, even if such moves are technically unconstitutional.
Amid all this uncertainty stands the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which Musk’s team breached earlier this week and which Project 2025 has targeted for breakup. Per Thomas F. Gilman, who wrote the chapter on reforms for the Department of Commerce, NOAA is “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry,” and its National Weather Service ought to be “fully commercialize[d]” since “Americans rely on weather forecasts and warnings provided by … private companies.”
Created during the Nixon administration, NOAA was designed to bring together disparate scientific agencies to release coordinated emergency weather alerts and responses. Today, it employs almost 7,000 scientists and engineers, although Musk’s team reportedly wants to cut that by 50%. In addition to hosting a trove of valuable climate science, NOAA remains responsible for issuing emergency alerts through its divisions such as the NWS and the National Hurricane Center. If you’re among the 99% of the American population who experienced some form of extreme weather last summer, you’ve likely interacted with NOAA in some small way.
To make sense of the plan to break up NOAA and what it would mean to “privatize” weather forecasting in the United States, I spoke to Keith Seitter, the former executive director of the American Meteorological Society and a current professor at the College of the Holy Cross. Our conversation has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.
What is the argument for privatizing weather reporting? Why do folks at places like the Heritage Foundation think this is a good idea?
That’s a really good question — because it’s not. Weather services are provided to the nation through a wonderful cooperative process in which the government and the private sector work collaboratively to provide the best possible services to the people. It is all well thought out, with the National Weather Service and other parts of the government getting observations, running the numerical models, and providing warning services. Then the private sector takes the output from those government projects or processes and creates tailored, value-added forecasts and information that can be provided to commercial organizations in different sectors of the economy.
All of this is done with each component knowing what the other is doing, supporting the other, and tailoring their processes to the maximum efficiency. That’s one of the reasons that the U.S. has the best provision of weather services to the nation — and to the nation’s economy — of any country.
So the National Weather Service and NOAA are the ones with the actual monitors out there gathering the data, and then they give that information to the people who, let’s say, make the apps on your phone. What would it mean to “privatize” weather forecasting, then? What would that entail?
It’s not exactly clear what it would look like. Project 2025 suggests that the government should keep taking all the observations and essentially do nothing else. But the government is also quality-controlling its observations and assimilating them into numerical models. This process requires vast resources and must be completed before you can make the best use of that data.
You’d have to do everything the National Weather Service is doing now before the private sector could take over and tailor it for others. It’s unclear how you could move that line between what the government does and what the private sector does any further toward the private sector without impeding its ability to actually do a good job.
What would privatizing weather mean on the business side? What challenges would the private sector face in trying to make up the gap left by NOAA?
It would be very hard for them to make up that gap. There may be a few large private sector companies like The Weather Company, which has a lot of resources, and maybe AccuWeather — they could probably invest more in computer resources and do some of that stuff themselves, but it’s not an efficient way to get it done. I think the people at those companies would say that’s not the direction they want to move in. [Privatizing weather forecasting is] a solution being proposed where there isn’t a problem because almost anything you do to change the current balance will make weather forecasting less efficient and provide less service to the country.
So it’s not like private weather companies are agitating for this change?
Oh, gosh, no. They’re looking to get even more of that data and content from the government. Part of what happens is the observations and the numerical models — all those things that the government does — are provided to the country for free. The more of that information that the private sector can pull into their systems at no cost, the more products they can create and disseminate in ways that make them more money than if they had to do any of that work themselves. That cost would now fall on them. They clearly don’t want to be in a position where they have to do a lot of the [collection and data processing] that is currently being given to them for free.
What would this mean for users? Is there a risk that people will no longer receive extreme weather warnings?
The warnings are a big issue. Right now, the government is responsible for protecting life and property. The warnings from the National Weather Service are only possible because it’s doing all of the other processes of gathering the data and processing it and running forecasts.
You don’t want 10 different private companies trying to offer warnings to people and deciding who’s going to evacuate and who isn’t — that puts those companies in a position of liability if they make the decision incorrectly. It is a fundamental government responsibility to protect the people, so warnings are intrinsically something that has to come from the government. There’s no other way to get that done without incurring a lot of legal liability.
What frightens you the most about the potential for privatization of weather forecasting in the U.S.?
The loss of the balance that we have now. Almost any aspect that you mess with will make things work less well. There is also the potential for serious problems with the warnings many people depend on in life-or-death situations. We need to ensure that those are preserved and that we are doing the things that protect people and businesses.
What may seem like a way to save a few bucks in the federal government’s budget could lead to the loss of life, property, and business capacity. These could have very large downstream impacts for a relatively small amount of financial savings in the budget.
Is there anything keeping you optimistic?
The Secretary of Commerce that was approved, Howard Lutnick, said in the Senate hearings that he has no intention of breaking up NOAA, and that he’s not going to implement some of those ideas that were part of the Project 2025 handbook. I’m optimistic that as long as he lives up to what he said in those hearings, that’s a better place for us to be.
The other thing is, the nominee for the new NOAA administrator, Neil Jacobs, was the acting administrator in the first Trump administration, and he’s a very good person. He’s very knowledgeable and understands these things well; he’s a well-qualified individual to be put in charge of NOAA. If the Senate confirms him, I feel that he understands these issues and will do everything he can to ensure that NOAA lives up to its mission requirements and fulfills its goals of protecting life and property for the country.
The Federal Highway Administration believes it has found a workaround to a court-ordered stay of execution.
The Federal Highway Administration issued a letter to state Departments of Transportation on Thursday declaring that states were no longer authorized to spend billions of dollars previously approved for electric vehicle charging networks. The decree pertains to the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program, or NEVI, a program created in 2021 under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which allocated $5 billion to states to strategically build electric vehicle charging networks along major roads.
The program has been under threat since the day Donald Trump stepped into the White House. His executive order “Unleashing American Energy,” which ordered agencies to pause the disbursement of funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, specifically called out NEVI as a program to freeze. Twenty-two Democrat-controlled states quickly took legal action, and a U.S. District court issued a temporary restraining order requiring the Trump administration to keep congressionally-approved funds flowing, at least to those states.
In general, advocates believed the NEVI program was untouchable. The program’s “safeguards make it nearly impossible to claw back money already allocated, except in cases of misuse or noncompliance.” Beth Hammond, a senior advocate for EV infrastructure at the Natural Resources Defense Counsel wrote in a recent blog post.
But the Federal Highway Administration apparently thinks it has found a workaround.
Under NEVI, states are each allocated a certain amount of money every year for five years, and they have to submit an annual plan for how they intend to use the funds. Those plans must align with overall program guidance published by the secretary of transportation.
Now, the new leadership at the Department of Transportation has decided to rescind the previously issued guidance. That means the state plans that were previously approved are no longer valid, the letter says: “Therefore, effective immediately, no new obligations may occur under the NEVI Formula Program until the updated final NEVI Formula Program Guidance is issued and new State plans are submitted and approved.”
Advocates for NEVI don’t believe this strategy will hold up in court. “This should be carefully scrutinized by states and the legal community,” Justin Balik, the senior state program director for Evergreen Action told me, “as it looks like an attempt to sabotage the program based on ideology that’s dressed up in bureaucratic language about plan and guidance revisions.” Balik said NEVI was “one of the most important resources states have been given by the feds to fight climate change.”
An important thing to understand about NEVI is that after a state has its annual plan approved, it is legally entitled to that year’s allocation of funding. That doesn’t mean said funding immediately gets transferred into the state’s coffers, however. States have to continually request reimbursement from the federal DOT as they implement their programs. So, for example, if a state puts out a request for proposals for NEVI projects, it can then invoice the federal government for the related administrative costs. Once the state awards grants to specific projects, those projects have to reach certain benchmarks before they get any money. If the first benchmark is getting permits, for example, then once a project is permitted, its developer can invoice the state government for the associated costs, and then the state government can file with the federal government for reimbursement.
According to Paren, an EV charging data analytics firm that has been closely following the rollout of the NEVI program, states are legally entitled to spend roughly $3.27 billion on NEVI. That accounts for plans approved for fiscal years 2022 through 2025. To date, states have awarded about $615 million of the funds to just under 1,000 projects — with 10% of those projects being led by Tesla.
The letter says states will still be able to get reimbursed for expenses related to previously awarded projects, “in order to not disrupt current financial commitments.” But the more than $2.6 billion that has not been awarded will be frozen.
“This has been a learning curve for state DOTs and we’re just beginning to hit our stride in a lot of ways,” said Balik. “Exactly the worst time to cut this off at its knees.”
Prior to the memo issued Thursday, states had been divided over how to respond to the chaos of executive orders and court orders. At least six states — Alabama, Ohio, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Missouri, and Oklahoma — had already suspended their programs indefinitely.
“We are still working with FHWA to understand specific impacts to NEVI funding,” a spokesperson for the Ohio DOT told me on Thursday prior to the federal letter being released. Ohio had been an unexpected early leader for the NEVI program. It was the first state in the country to bring a NEVI-funded charging station online, in October 2023. It has since opened 18 additional stations, more than any other state, and has selected awardees to build 24 more. Missouri, by contrast, had been lagging behind. The state had not yet issued a single request for proposals.
But at least until Thursday evening, other states, such as Oregon and California, were advancing their programs. The Oregon DOT posted an informational notice about federal grants on its website earlier this week saying that NEVI funding was not frozen. A spokesperson for the California DOT told me on Thursday afternoon that, “For now, federal courts have prohibited federal agencies from pausing or terminating payment of federal financial assistance funds,” and that “Caltrans’ services remain fully operational.” When I followed up asking if these comments took into account the new letter issued Thursday, the agency said it would need to get back to me on Friday.
The decision to rescind the guidance and invalidate state plans is sure to face court challenges. The Federal Highway Administration, for its part, said it plans to issue new draft guidance for NEVI in the spring, which will then be subject to public comment before being finalized — so the agency doesn’t seem to be trying to throw the program out altogether.
This is a developing story and we will update it with perspectives on the letter as we learn more.