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:
Jesse and Rob download with Johns Hopkins professor Jeremy Wallace.
The rollbacks are coming. Donald Trump’s incoming administration is expected to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement, weaken the Environmental Protection Agency’s rules for power plants and tailpipe pollution, and — potentially — rewrite or repeal big swaths of the Inflation Reduction Act. Each of those actions would seem to provide an opening for the world’s No. 1 polluter — China — to assert global leadership and zip ahead in the next generation of clean energy technology.
How will it respond? On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob and Jesse chat with Jeremy Wallace, the A. Doak Barnett Professor of China Studies at Johns Hopkins University. Wallace, a Heatmap contributor, helps us understand how China is thinking about Trump, the current state of China’s economy, and why China sometimes flexes its climate leadership — but just as often doesn’t. Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap, and Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Jesse Jenkins: While we have no idea what is in Trump’s head, he does have a set of voices around him. To the degree that you can see and briefly summarize those camps, Jeremy, what, what do you … What is he going to be hearing? What are the dominant intellectual threads, or self-interested economic-motivated threads that he’s likely to hear from different parts of his coalition?
Jeremy Wallace: I would say three different camps. There will be as many as different advisors, but I think summarizing it into three different camps is helpful. There’s a Lighthizer camp that … Lightizer comes out of the steel industry, and thinking about domestic steel manufacturing and national security. So that’s a camp, and that’s a tariff, tariff, tariff world. We can China decouple in order to reduce their power.
There’s a Musk camp, who is probably just singular, that is simultaneously extremely kind of right-wing in its orientation, but also runs a multi-trillion-dollar company that is principally Chinese-produced, and Chinese demand — not only, by any means, but is a major portion of that business. And then there is the, there are the Wall Street billionaires that we’re talking about as Treasury Secretary, where there is an interest in continued economic relations and not destroying U.S. credibility to pay its own debts, to make sure that the economy continues to run.
And I think all of those would have very different views about what U.S.-China policy should be. There’s a Pentagon wing, right? There’s all kinds of other voices, as well. But I think from Trump world, I think those are probably the three principal voices that he actually cares about. And I don’t know what the right … I don’t know what the policies will be, other than my guess is that there would be a lot of cycling between those three different views.
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Watershed’s climate data engine helps companies measure and reduce their emissions, turning the data they already have into an audit-ready carbon footprint backed by the latest climate science. Get the sustainability data you need in weeks, not months. Learn more at watershed.com.
As a global leader in PV and ESS solutions, Sungrow invests heavily in research and development, constantly pushing the boundaries of solar and battery inverter technology. Discover why Sungrow is the essential component of the clean energy transition by visiting sungrowpower.com.
Intersolar & Energy Storage North America is the premier U.S.-based conference and trade show focused on solar, energy storage, and EV charging infrastructure. To learn more, visit intersolar.us.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
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’s landmark legislation to overrule local opposition to renewable energy is being challenged by over 70 local jurisdictions.
The most important legal challenge for the renewables industry in America may have just been filed in Michigan.
On Friday afternoon, about 70 towns and a handful of Michigan counties appealed the rule implementing part of a new renewable energy siting law – PA 233 – providing primary permitting authority to the Michigan Public Services Commission and usurping local approval powers in specific cases, Heatmap can first report. The law was part of a comprehensive permitting package passed last year by the state legislature and seen by climate advocates as a potential model for combatting NIMBYs across the country.
The appeal challenges multiple aspects of the law’s implementation, saying it went beyond statute, as well as the rulemaking procedure itself, claiming it failed to follow proper processes. The lawsuit aims to effectively undo the law going into effect, or at least enjoin what opponents say are the most onerous restrictions on municipalities and county governments.
Some of the places involved in the litigation have solar, wind, or battery storage proposed in their backyards. But while it’s certainly the case that some opponents may just want to stop projects from being built, one of the attorneys behind the litigation – Michael Homier at Michigan law firm Foster Swift – told me the case represents how these laws inflame broader tensions between communities and their governments.
“[Renewables have] to be sited appropriately, because each community has unique priorities and circumstances that relate to them,” Homier said. “I think what it says is that local voices matter and when you try and implement policy on a one-size fits all approach with all of these local communities, they don’t like it.”
Local control laws like Michigan’s exist because, well, climate change is an imperative that calls for rapid action. Delays stemming from dissent at the municipal or county level can totally gum up the works, as we’ve shown you time and time again. Michigan’s no stranger to this problem. Opponents of the Michigan law sought to repeal it via ballot initiative before the lawsuit was filed, but that effort failed, and some ballot petition backers have since gotten a campaign finance complaint.
But it’s important to note these laws feel like shots to the heart of small-d democracy, and the notion of locally-controlled land use planning, too. As these policies become a go-to for anxious Democratic politicians trying to get shovels into the ground to bring down carbon emissions, one should hardly expect towns and counties to take it lying down.
Take Maryland, where legislators have sought to pass bills similar to Michigand’s. Despite the state’s ambitious climate goals, the Maryland Association of Counties has vociferously opposed bills to ban counties and towns from setting ordinances that restrict renewable development and let community-scale solar advance without strenuous local review. Or take New Jersey, where transmission cables for offshore wind may produce similar litigation to what’s in Michigan, testing the constitutionality of the state’s local control law.
In Michigan, it’ll take upwards of a year or two for the case to wind its way through court proceedings. Until then, we’ll pour one out for any developer or climate wonk who thought that the state's stab at “permitting reform” was going to help.
Whatever happens to the Inflation Reduction Act, high interest rates could still hurt.
The Federal Reserve’s interest rate cuts were supposed to be a bonanza for the clean energy business. Renewables, with their high upfront costs compared to their costs of operating (the “fuel” — i.e. the wind and the sun — is free), are especially sensitive to the cost of borrowing money. When rates go up, it becomes more difficult for projects to hit the profitability targets necessary to lure investors without jacking up prices for customers beyond the realm of the possible. When rates comes down — which the Fed has been working on doing since September — suddenly those investments start to look a lot more appealing.
But there’s more to financing costs than the Fed. There’s also the president.
While much of the focus on Donald Trump’s electoral victory has been trying to discern what a Republican trifecta could do to the Inflation Reduction Act, Trump’s effect on the bond market may be just as important. We may still living in James Carville’s world, where the bond market can “intimidate everybody.” And it’s rearing its head against the president-reelect.
Since Trump came to be seen as the likely winner in the months before election day, yields on U.S. government debt — that is, the returns bondholders and issuers have to offer to entice investors — began to shoot up. Interpreting moves in the bond market is always tricky, but many market commentators interpreted the recent run-up as at least in part a reaction to Trump, whether they thought he was going to juice economic growth or stoke inflation, or some combination of the two.
“If Trump is proposing a broadly inflationary high-tariff, low-tax agenda, anyone expecting inflation is looking for a higher return,” explained Advait Arun, a climate and infrastructure finance analyst at the Center for Public Enterprise.
Each of these policies — high tariffs and low taxes — could have an inflationary effect. Tariffs could lead to higher consumer prices (especially the kind of broad-based tariffs Trump has proposed) while tax cuts act as stimulus by keeping more cash in the economy. Combined with higher defense spending and a reduced labor force if Trump follows through on his plan for mass deportations, the whole policy agenda could wind up reversing some of the progress the economy has made recovering from the high inflation of the immediate post-COVID period, or at least make it so the Federal Reserve sees no further need to cut interest rates.
“Tariffs, especially if universally placed on all imports, is broadly viewed as an inflationary policy, which may pose a risk to the outlook for lower interest rates,” Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Perocco wrote in a note to clients. “All else equal, higher rates are seen as a headwind for the renewable energy sector due to higher financing costs.”
Yields on the 10-year Treasury note, a widely used benchmark throughout the global economy, were sitting at around 3.6% in mid-September when the Fed began cutting rates, but had risen to 4.36% the week before the election. Yields shot up again last week after Trump’s win, which confirmed the market’s suspicion that his inflationary plans will be realized. Today they’re around 4.43% and rising.
“Interest rates are moving higher in much the same way they did when he won in 2016,” aid Skanda Amarnath, executive director of Employ America told me. “There’s a Trump trade people do — the dollar gets stronger, interest rates are higher.” These policies may be “more stimulative to the economy on some level,” and in turn, “maybe this means the Fed is more cautious about lowering interest rates.”
The market certainly seems to think Trump will run the economy hot. Expectations for where the federal funds rate could end up by the end of 2025 have risen from 3% in September to about 3.8%, Gautam Jain, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. Several analysts have scaled back their forecasts for the number of future Federal Reserve rate cuts next after the Fed lowered rates by another quarter percentage point last week. Yields on two-year Treasury notes, which are considered to be highly sensitive to expectations of Federal Reserve action, have risen from 3.55% in mid-September to 4.34% today, the highest level since July.
And sustained high rates mean sustained high costs for renewable energy companies. Jain had previously estimated that a 2 percentage point drop in the cost of debt would lower offshore wind costs by as much as $10 per megawatt-hour and utility-scale solar by as much as $12 per megawatt-hour, which would help make them more competitive even in the absence of federal subsidies. If the cost of capital stays high, that potential boost goes away.
“For renewables, they are more capital intensive, so they are more impacted” by rising rates, Jain told me. “The headwind will hurt them more.”
Bipartisan budget watchdogs have been skeptical of Trump’s policies, typically projecting larger deficit increases than would have arisen from the policy agenda of Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. That said, not everyone is worried.
The hedge-fund investor Scott Bessent, widely tipped to be Trump’s pick for Treasury Secretary, has been promoting a “3-3-3” plan — deficits reduced to 3% of gross domestic product from around 7% currently by the end of Trump’s term; annual growth kicked up to 3% from around 2.8% today; and oil production increased by 3 million barrels, all of which could allow the Federal Reserve to bring down rates.
Trump “understands financial markets and the bond markets. He would not want deficits to get out of control,” Stephen Miran, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and former Trump Treasury official told me. “There's a lot of focus to rein that in.”
Current conditions: The Philippines is bracing for another major storm, the fifth in under a month • Warnings are in place for Guam as Tropical Storm Man-Yi approaches • It is about 60 degrees Fahrenheit and sunny in Washington, D.C., where Congress is back in session.
A Dutch court has overturned a 2021 ruling that ordered oil giant Shell to significantly curb its greenhouse gas emissions. The decision is a “big set back for efforts to use the courts to compel companies to transition faster,” wrote Tom Wilson, an energy correspondent with the Financial Times. The original ruling, issued by a lower court in a case brought by Friends of the Earth and 17,000 Dutch citizens, said Shell had to reduce its emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. The landmark decision marked the first time a court ordered a private company to align its efforts with the goals of the Paris Agreement. But Shell appealed, arguing that it was already working to reduce its emissions (aiming for a 15-20% reduction by 2030 compared to 2016), that it can’t be held responsible for how customers use its products, and that such rules should be made by governments, not courts. “The Dutch court case may serve as a bellwether, with potential ripple effects on future decisions across the region,” saidBloomberg. The case could go to the Dutch Supreme Court, but it would likely take years to play out.
It’s day two of the COP29 climate summit in Baku. Yesterday began with “more than nine hours of backroom bickering over what should be on the agenda,” The Associated Pressreported. But even so, there has been some noteworthy progress:
COP figureheads are giving forceful keynote speeches in an attempt to set the tone for the summit at the outset. “The sound you hear is the ticking clock,” said UN Secretary General António Guterres. “We are in the final countdown to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. And time is not on our side.” He called 2024 a “masterclass in climate destruction,” and urged countries to deliver on their promise to move away from fossil fuels, accelerate the energy transition, and put forward bold NDCs in line with the Paris Agreement. And he said “developing countries must not leave Baku empty-handed. A [climate finance] deal is a must.”
Ahead of Guterres’ speech, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev slammed Western critics of his country’s fossil fuel industry. As Reutersput it, “the airing of these opposing views on the main stage underscore the challenge at the heart of the climate negotiations: many Western states remain dependent on fossil fuels while at the same time seeking to pressure others who produce them into shifting to greener energy sources.”
President-elect Donald Trump tapped former Long Island Congressman and New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Lee Zeldin as head of the Environmental Protection Agency. In his four terms in Congress as the representative from New York’s easternmost congressional district on Long Island, Zeldin did not cut any particular profile on climate, environment, or energy issues, and was best known for his hawkish foreign policy position, reported Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin. To the extent Zeldin has defined himself on the environment beyond standard-issue Republican opposition to restrictions on fossil fuels and car purchasing, it’s been in the context of issues specific to his coastal Long Island constituency. During his 2018 congressional campaign, he pointed to his membership in the “shellfish and national estuary caucuses,” as well as federal programs for estuaries and his opposition to expanded offshore drilling exploration at an event hosted by the League of Conservation Voters. Throughout his surprisingly close run against Kathy Hochul for New York’s governor’s mansion in 2022, Zeldin assailed New York’s ban on fracking and criticized New York’s planned phase-out of sales of internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035, as well as the proposal to institute congestion pricing in Lower Manhattan.
The Biden administration today finalized a rule that sets a fee for excessive methane emissions for major oil and gas producers. Fossil fuel operations are the largest industrial source of methane emissions in the U.S., and the Environmental Protection Agency estimates this rule would prevent 1.2 million metric tons of methane emissions through 2035. The new fees start at $900 per metric ton of methane emitted this year, increasing to $1,200 next year, and $1,500 thereafter. The rule is paired with incentives for companies that fix their leaky infrastructure, and mandated under the Inflation Reduction Act, which CNN reported could make it harder for the incoming Trump administration to revoke.
“Are we facing new headwinds? Absolutely. But we won’t revert back to the energy system of the 1950s. No way.” –U.S. climate envoy John Podesta on the challenges facing the energy transition under a Trump administration.