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:
June 4 was a busy day for democracy.
Democracy is having a big year — heck, it’s having a big month. More people will vote in 2024 than in any other year in human history, and many of those elections are happening right now: In just the past four days, Mexicans elected a climate scientist to the presidency; Indians braved extreme heat to reelect Prime Minister Narendra Modi; and Donald Trump’s pal Nigel Farage announced his return to the scrum of British politics in the hopes of holding off an historic win by the Labour Party on July 4.
Americans still have another few months of suspense before their own general election, but voting is well underway stateside, too. In Tuesday’s primaries, voters cast ballots for local offices in Iowa, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, and South Dakota — including in several races with significant implications for the climate.
While the results were a mixed bag, they also speak to the fact that climate change is increasingly unignorable by politicians, and it signals where campaigners and activists should focus their attention as the November election approaches. Here are six of the major takeaways:
What happened: Mariannette Miller-Meeks won the First District Republican primary in Iowa
Why it matters: Miller-Meeks is the head of the House’s Conservative Climate Caucus and has championed wind, solar, and nuclear energy; her opponent, David Pautsch, attacked her for not being conservative enough on issues like abortion, the national debt, and her support of tax credits for carbon pipelines. Though Miller-Meeks’ history isn’t likely to impress too many climate activists — she’s been particularly sympathetic to the liquified natural gas industry, claiming, “If you want a cleaner, healthier planet, the best thing you could do is to export American oil and gas” — her victory over Pautsch in deep-red Iowa proves that being associated with the word “climate” isn’t an automatic black mark against a Republican in 2024. Still, it wasn’t a comfortable victory: Early Tuesday evening, the returns had looked pretty worrying for Miller-Meeks, and the slim margin in some areas suggested the risk of breaking with the party line.
What happened: Democratic voters in New Jersey weren’t convinced by Hoboken Mayor Ravi Bhalla, who lost the Eighth Congressional District primary to Rep. Rob Menendez, Jr.
Why it matters: Of all the candidates who ran in contested primaries on Tuesday, none seemed to position themselves more overtly as a climate candidate than Bhalla. As mayor of Hoboken, Bhalla created a Department of Climate Action & Innovation in part to adapt to a future of extreme flooding in the city, has sued Exxon Mobil for climate-related damages, and centered climate as a campaign priority, earning endorsements from environmental groups like the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters and Food & Water Action. While many different factors go into winning — and losing — a campaign (especially in a state like New Jersey), one lesson of the night is that “climate,” at least in so many words, might not be the selling point that progressives sometimes think it is. Case in point: Bhalla’s campaign page on climate framed electrification as a means of reducing the state’s “carbon footprint”; Menendez’s focused mainly on the economy and jobs.
What happened: Tim Sheehy won the Republican Senate primary, setting him up to take on Democrat Jon Tester in one of the most nail-biting races of November
Why it matters: Retired Navy SEAL and aerial firefighter Tim Sheehy overcame a scandal involving a lie about his gunshot wound to take on Tester in a race that could decide the balance of the U.S. Senate — and, by extension, Biden’s climate agenda — in five months’ time. A Trump endorsee, Sheehy is not afraid of a good old-fashioned culture war, as evidenced by Bridger Aerospace, his aerial firefighting company, quietly removing references to environmental, social, and governance issues from its website after Sheehy entered the race. Any mention of climate change? That was gone, too. But Sheehy’s rhetoric during his primary campaign also reeked of the green boogeyman, with the candidate repeatedly using the term “climate cult” to dismiss Tester, Biden, and other perceived enemies. Though Tester, a working farmer, has championed climate-related causes in a way that has resonated even with many Republicans, Sheehy hasn’t yet appeared interested in debating the finer points of things like federal subsidies for going electric. Expect the attacks to get more colorful in the coming months; polls show Sheehy and Tester neck-and-neck.
What happened: Voters in Montana winnowed downa crowded field of six Republican utility board candidates to three finalists
Why it matters: Utility boards are some of the most influential elected bodies that almost nobody pays attention to, and Republicans in red and red-leaning states like Arizona and Alaska tend to hold the edge even in bluer urban areas. In Montana, the Public Service Commission decides the energy mix of the region in and around Billings, Missoula, Bozeman, Helena, and Butte, and has been in Republican hands for two decades. That explains the high level of Republican interest in the primary races on Tuesday, where five candidates played musical chairs for two available seats. The apparent winners — Brad Molnar in District 2 and Jeff Welborn in District 3 (in addition to incumbent commissioner Jennifer Fielder, who ran unopposed) — have hit-and-miss records when it comes to renewable energy. Molnar, who was reelected to the seat he held from 2005 to 2012, told the Montana Free Press he’s concerned about the “xenophobia” of conservatives in his state and has been known to break from party lines in his votes, in addition to voicing some belief in climate change (though he doesn’t say we can do anything about it). Welborn, meanwhile, described himself to the Free Press as a “free market guy” interested in preventing rate hikes with an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy that includes new nuclear plants and hydrogen, though he’s previously sided with the local utility over Montana’s consumer advocate. In November, Welborn will face Leonard “Lenny” Williams, the uncontested Democrat in the race, who’s called the gerrymandered utility board districts a “racket.”
What happened: Angel Charley easily won the New Mexico Democratic primary in Senate District 30, to the west of Albuquerque, on an environmental justice platform
Why it matters: With around 63% of the vote as of Wednesday morning, first-time candidate Angel Charley appeared to be the clear winner in her race against former state Senator Clemente Sanchez. Charley, the former director of the Coalition to Stop Violence Against Native Women, convinced voters in the recently redrawn district that climate goals aren’t different from popular policies like protecting vulnerable women living near extractive industries in their area, and can be pursued with projects like community solar development. As the experts I’ve spoken with have told me, sometimes the best way to move emissions-abating policies forward is by focusing on what climate activists might view more as positive externalities, but are more immediate to the communities in question. Charley’s victory on environmental justice grounds seems like further proof of concept. A Native American activist, Charley’s campaign focused largely on “lessening dependence on oil and gas and extractive industries, because there’s a correlation with violence against Native women when extractive industries are present.” Meanwhile, Sanchez’s campaign was heavily financed by corporate interests, including donations from an oil company, an auto dealer trade group, lobbyists, and utilities.
What happened: 17 out of 19 Republican and Democratic sponsors of a recent bill attempting to block a CO2 pipeline in the state who were up for reelection won their primaries
Why it matters:Located between the shale oil fields of North Dakota and the storage terminals of Texas, South Dakota is no stranger to pipeline proposals. Plans for a new pipeline that would funnel carbon dioxide produced by the local ethanol industry to North Dakota to be stored underground, however, have become a contentious wedge issue in the state and appeared to be behind some of the primary results on Tuesday night. Of the more than a dozen sponsors of a recent failed bill that would have prohibited the use of eminent domain for the construction of pipelines carrying carbon oxide, all but two who ran appeared to have been reelected as of Wednesday morning; some of the state’s losing incumbents, on the other hand, were behind a compromise bill that attempted to split the difference between protecting landowners and allowing the pipeline project to proceed. The slim margins in some races — The South Dakota Searchlight points to Mykala Voita, a landowner rights candidate who beat incumbent Republican Sen. Erin Tobin by 48 votes, within the margin to trigger a recount — speak to the deep divides and disagreements in the state. That also goes for divisions within the major parties about the use of eminent domain and suspicions about the technology of carbon capture and storage more largely.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
It was a curious alliance from the start. On the one hand, Donald Trump, who made antipathy toward electric vehicles a core part of his meandering rants. On the other hand, Elon Musk, the man behind the world’s largest EV company, who nonetheless put all his weight, his millions of dollars, and the power of his social network behind the Trump campaign.
With Musk standing by his side on Election Day, Trump has once again secured the presidency. His reascendance sent shock waves through the automotive world, where companies that had been lurching toward electrification with varying levels of enthusiasm were left to wonder what happens now — and what benefits Tesla may reap from having hitched itself to the winning horse.
Certainly the federal government’s stated target of 50% of U.S. new car sales being electric by 2030 is toast, and many of the actions it took in pursuit of that goal are endangered. Although Trump has softened his rhetoric against EVs since becoming buddies with Musk, it’s hard to imagine a Trump administration with any kind of ambitious electrification goal.
During his first go-round as president, Trump attacked the state of California’s ability to set its own ambitious climate-focused rules for cars. No surprise there: Because of the size of the California car market, its regulations helped to drag the entire industry toward lower-emitting vehicles and, almost inevitably, EVs. If Trump changes course and doesn’t do the same thing this time, it’ll be because his new friend at Tesla supports those rules.
The biggest question hanging over electric vehicles, however, is the fate of the Biden administration’s signature achievements in climate and EV policy, particularly the Inflation Reduction Act’s $7,500 federal consumer tax credit for electric vehicles. A Trump administration looks poised to tear down whatever it can of its predecessor’s policy. Some analysts predict it’s unlikely the entire IRA will disappear, but concede Trump would try to kill off the incentives for electric vehicles however he can.
There’s no sugar-coating it: Without the federal incentives, the state of EVs looks somewhat bleak. Knocking $7,500 off the starting price is essential to negate the cost of manufacturing expensive lithium-ion batteries and making EVs cost-competitive with ordinary combustion cars. Consider a crucial model like the new Chevy Equinox EV: Counting the federal incentive, the most basic $35,000 model could come in under the starting price of a gasoline crossover like the Toyota RAV4. Without that benefit, buyers who want to go electric will have to pay a premium to do so — the thing that’s been holding back mass electrification all along.
Musk, during his honeymoon with Trump, boasted that Tesla doesn’t need the tax credits, as if daring the president-elect to kill off the incentives. On the one hand, this is obviously false. Visit Tesla’s website and you’ll see the simplest Model 3 listed for $29,990, but this is a mirage. Take away the $7,500 in incentives and $5,000 in claimed savings versus buying gasoline, and the car actually starts at about $43,000, much further out of reach for non-wealthy buyers.
What Musk really means is that his company doesn’t need the incentives nearly as bad as other automakers do. Ford is hemorrhaging billions of dollars as it struggles to make EVs profitably. GM’s big plan to go entirely electric depended heavily on federal support. As InsideEVsnotes, the likely outcome of a Trump offensive against EVs is that the legacy car brands, faced with an unpredictable electrification roadmap as America oscillates between presidents, scale back their plans and lean back into the easy profitably of big, gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks. Such an about-face could hand Tesla the kind of EV market dominance it enjoyed four or five years ago when it sold around 75% of all electric vehicles in America.
That’s tough news for the climate-conscious Americans who want an electric vehicle built by someone not named Elon Musk. Hundreds of thousands of people, myself included, bought a Tesla during the past five or six years because it was the most practical EV for their lifestyle, only to see the company’s figurehead shift his public persona from goofy troll to Trump acolyte. It’s not uncommon now, as Democrats distance themselves from Tesla, to see Model 3s adorned with bumper stickers like the “Anti-Elon Tesla Club,” as one on a car I followed last month proclaimed. Musk’s newest vehicle, the Cybertruck, is a rolling embodiment of the man’s brand, a vehicle purpose-built to repel anyone not part of his cult of personality.
In a world where this version of Tesla retakes control of the electric car market, it becomes harder to ditch gasoline without indirectly supporting Donald Trump, by either buying a Tesla or topping off at its Superchargers. Blue voters will have some options outside of Tesla — the industry has come too far to simply evaporate because of one election. But it’s also easy to see dispirited progressives throwing up their hands and buying another carbon-spewing Subaru.
Republicans are taking over some of the most powerful institutions for crafting climate policy on Earth.
When Republicans flipped the Senate, they took the keys to three critical energy and climate-focused committees.
These are among the most powerful institutions for crafting climate policy on Earth. The Senate plays the role of gatekeeper for important legislation, as it requires a supermajority to overcome the filibuster. Hence, it’s both where many promising climate bills from the House go to die, as well as where key administrators such as the heads of the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency are vetted and confirmed.
We’ll have to wait a bit for the Senate’s new committee chairs to be officially confirmed. But Jeff Navin, co-founder at the climate change-focused government affairs firm Boundary Stone Partners, told me that since selections are usually based on seniority, in many cases it’s already clear which Republicans are poised to lead under Trump and which Democrats will assume second-in-command (known as the ranking member). Here’s what we know so far.
This committee has been famously led by Joe Manchin, the former Democrat, now Independent senator from West Virginia, who will retire at the end of this legislative session. Energy and Natural Resources has a history of bipartisan collaboration and was integral in developing many of the key provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act — and could thus play a key role in dismantling them. Overall, the committee oversees the DOE, the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, so it’s no small deal that its next chairman will likely be Mike Lee, the ultra-conservative Republican from Utah. That’s assuming that the committee's current ranking member, John Barrasso of Wyoming, wins his bid for Republican Senate whip, which seems very likely.
Lee opposes federal ownership of public lands, setting himself up to butt heads with Martin Heinrich, the Democrat from New Mexico and likely the committee’s next ranking member. Lee has also said that solving climate change is simply a matter of having more babies, as “problems of human imagination are not solved by more laws, they’re solved by more humans.” As Navin told me, “We've had this kind of safe space where so-called quiet climate policy could get done in the margins. And it’s not clear that that's going to continue to exist with the new leadership.”
This committee is currently chaired by Democrat Tom Carper of Delaware, who is retiring after this term. Poised to take over is the Republican’s current ranking member, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia. She’s been a strong advocate for continued reliance on coal and natural gas power plants, while also carving out areas of bipartisan consensus on issues such as nuclear energy, carbon capture, and infrastructure projects during her tenure on the committee. The job of the Environment and Public Works committee is in the name: It oversees the EPA, writes key pieces of environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, and supervises public infrastructure projects such as highways, bridges, and dams.
Navin told me that many believe the new Democratic ranking member will be Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, although to do so, he would have to step down from his perch at the Senate Budget Committee, where he is currently chair. A tireless advocate of the climate cause, Whitehouse has worked on the Environment and Public Works committee for over 15 years, and lately seems to have had a relatively productive working relationship with Capito.
This subcommittee falls under the broader Senate Appropriations Committee and is responsible for allocating funding for the DOE, various water development projects, and various other agencies such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
California’s Dianne Feinstein used to chair this subcommittee until her death last year, when Democrat Patty Murray of Washington took over. Navin told me that the subcommittee’s next leader will depend on how the game of “musical chairs” in the larger Appropriations Committee shakes out. Depending on their subcommittee preferences, the chair could end up being John Kennedy of Louisiana, outgoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, or Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. It’s likewise hard to say who the top Democrat will be.
Inside a wild race sparked by a solar farm in Knox County, Ohio.
The most important climate election you’ve never heard of? Your local county commissioner.
County commissioners are usually the most powerful governing individuals in a county government. As officials closer to community-level planning than, say a sitting senator, commissioners wind up on the frontlines of grassroots opposition to renewables. And increasingly, property owners that may be personally impacted by solar or wind farms in their backyards are gunning for county commissioner positions on explicitly anti-development platforms.
Take the case of newly-elected Ohio county commissioner – and Christian social media lifestyle influencer – Drenda Keesee.
In March, Keesee beat fellow Republican Thom Collier in a primary to become a GOP nominee for a commissioner seat in Knox County, Ohio. Knox, a ruby red area with very few Democratic voters, is one of the hottest battlegrounds in the war over solar energy on prime farmland and one of the riskiest counties in the country for developers, according to Heatmap Pro’s database. But Collier had expressed openness to allowing new solar to be built on a case-by-case basis, while Keesee ran on a platform focused almost exclusively on blocking solar development. Collier ultimately placed third in the primary, behind Keesee and another anti-solar candidate placing second.
Fighting solar is a personal issue for Keesee (pronounced keh-see, like “messy”). She has aggressively fought Frasier Solar – a 120 megawatt solar project in the country proposed by Open Road Renewables – getting involved in organizing against the project and regularly attending state regulator hearings. Filings she submitted to the Ohio Power Siting Board state she owns a property at least somewhat adjacent to the proposed solar farm. Based on the sheer volume of those filings this is clearly her passion project – alongside preaching and comparing gay people to Hitler.
Yesterday I spoke to Collier who told me the Frasier Solar project motivated Keesee’s candidacy. He remembered first encountering her at a community meeting – “she verbally accosted me” – and that she “decided she’d run against me because [the solar farm] was going to be next to her house.” In his view, he lost the race because excitement and money combined to produce high anti-solar turnout in a kind of local government primary that ordinarily has low campaign spending and is quite quiet. Some of that funding and activity has been well documented.
“She did it right: tons of ground troops, people from her church, people she’s close with went door-to-door, and they put out lots of propaganda. She got them stirred up that we were going to take all the farmland and turn it into solar,” he said.
Collier’s takeaway from the race was that local commissioner races are particularly vulnerable to the sorts of disinformation, campaign spending and political attacks we’re used to seeing more often in races for higher offices at the state and federal level.
“Unfortunately it has become this,” he bemoaned, “fueled by people who have little to no knowledge of what we do or how we do it. If you stir up enough stuff and you cry out loud enough and put up enough misinformation, people will start to believe it.”
Races like these are happening elsewhere in Ohio and in other states like Georgia, where opposition to a battery plant mobilized Republican primaries. As the climate world digests the federal election results and tries to work backwards from there, perhaps at least some attention will refocus on local campaigns like these.