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:
Mr. President, your commitment to radical climate and economic policy really does astound me.

Dear Mr. Trump,
What can I say? You astound me. You enthrall me. I am, in short, very impressed!
Why? Well, earlier this month, I sent you an open letter in which I confessed that I finally understood your secret plan. It’s true, I wrote, that you campaigned as a scourge of climate activists. You publicly called global warming a “hoax,” a “scam,” and something that you “don’t believe.”
Sure, that’s what you said. But, as I wrote in my letter, you have governed very differently. You are clearly terrified of climate change. Because upon being handed the reins of power, you have executed the extreme environmentalist playbook to a T.
You imposed a 10% tax on Canadian crude oil — which is the dirtiest and most carbon-intensive oil burned by Americans. You levied new fees on single-family-home building materials, putting an end to suburban sprawl. You even threatened to tax cars.
In short, you seemed to declare war on the dirty, polluting, carbon-choked American way of life.
Yet even as I sent that letter, I still had doubts. I even added a note of warning. I said that you are a much more radical environmentalist than I am — that while I want to see carbon emissions fall, I would never take the kind of extreme actions you are.
But since my last note you have plunged on. In the past few days, we’ve gotten new confirmation of just how committed you are to the radical climate agenda. You have taxed oil imports. You have declared war on cars like some kind of radical urbanist. You have hawked Teslas on the White House lawn. Even your diplomatic fights are bearing fruit: Your trade war on Canada has led to cross-border air travel falling by 70%, and your anti-European rhetoric has even started to drive down trans-Atlantic bookings now. Less tourism, fewer flights, less carbon pollution!
Last time, I called you a “Green New Donald.” Clearly that did not go far enough. You are even more opinionated, climate-crusading, and radical than I thought. You are committed to reducing the amount of stuff that Americans use — no matter where we get it from or what it does. You want to decrease the economy’s material intensity.
You, Mr. Trump, are a DEGROWTH DONALD.
And the fossil fuel industry is just starting to catch on to the extent of your fervor.
How do I know? Just look at what the oil industry itself is saying. Every quarter, the Dallas Federal Reserve asks fossil fuel executives about the state of their industry. The most recent survey came out on Wednesday, and in it those leaders do nothing but whine. They hate that you are going much further than President Biden ever went — that you are trying to drag them into bankruptcy.
“The key word to describe 2025 so far is ‘uncertainty’ and as a public company, our investors hate uncertainty. This has led to a marked increase in the implied cost of capital of our business, with public energy stocks down significantly more than oil prices over the last two,” one of them writes.
Well done, Mr. Trump! Democrats like Elizabeth Warren have long sought to raise borrowing costs for oil and gas companies through financial regulation. But you have figured out a way to actually do it with your tariff agenda.
One of the most impressive parts of your energy agenda, Mr. Trump, is that you keep calling for oil to fall to $50 a barrel. (It now trades at $69.) You must know — because you are surrounded by expert oilmen such as Energy Secretary Chris Wright — that such a low price will hand market share to OPEC and cause American oil companies nothing but pain. You must have seen that in the same Fed survey, U.S. drillers said that oil had to go for at least $61 a barrel before they could profitably drill new wells in the Permian Basin.
But you and your advisers plunge on anyway and keep insisting on that magic $50 number! You are heroes. What’s so delightful, Mr. Trump, is that this is clearly starting to irritate the oil executives who helped fund your campaign. Some of them have even started to cut their spending on future oil drilling.
“The threat of $50 oil prices by the administration has caused our firm to reduce its 2025 and 2026 capital expenditures,” writes one of them. “‘Drill, baby, drill’ does not work with $50 per barrel oil. Rigs will get dropped, employment in the oil industry will decrease, and U.S. oil production will decline as it did during COVID-19.”
Another adds: “There cannot be ‘U.S. energy dominance’ and $50 per barrel oil; those two statements are contradictory. At $50-per-barrel oil, we will see U.S. oil production start to decline immediately and likely significantly.”
Perfectly executed, Mr. Trump! They are going to keep it in the ground!!!! You have pulled off the rare rope-a-dope: Your political action groups raised more than $75 million from the oil industry to help get you elected. But now that you’re in office, you’re shutting them in. And the best part is that voters have no idea: Americans continue to think that you support U.S. oil and gas drilling — and they like it.
The most impressive comment from the oil executives, though, is this one: “I have never felt more uncertainty about our business in my entire 40-plus-year career.”
Think about that. This executive has seen the fall of Communism, the Asian crash, 9/11, the Global Financial Crisis, and the pandemic — and all of them pale next to you.
At the same time that these oil leaders are whining, you have plunged ahead with your tariffs on cars. These new fees are so complicated that many automakers are still working out exactly what they will mean for their supply chains. (More uncertainty! You dazzle me.)
But one thing is clear: They are going to raise the cost of new vehicles. “You're going to see price increases,” Ivan Drury, the director of insights at automotive research site Edmunds, told USA Today. “Virtually nothing goes unscathed.”
One analyst at Goldman Sachs even predicted that soon the average monthly price for a new vehicle could rise by $90. He said the tariffs are so unbelievably disruptive that there is no way they could become permanent. The hit to auto demand has already caused the steelmaker Cleveland Cliffs to lay off more than 600 steelworkers.
Mr. Trump, you really do impress me. I do worry about your popularity, though. I mean, are you trying to cause mass layoffs across the auto sector? If you keep this up, you might put the Democrats back in office — and you know what will happen then. I mean, last year, the U.S. produced more oil than any other country in history. I know you don’t want to see that happen again.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
New guidelines for the clean fuel tax credit reward sustainable agriculture practices — but could lead to greater emissions anyway.
The Treasury Department published proposed guidance last week for claiming the clean fuel tax credit — one of the few energy subsidies that was expanded, rather than diminished, by Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. There was little of note in the proposal, since many of the higher-stakes climate-related decisions about the tax credit were made by Congress in the statute itself. But it did clear up one point of uncertainty: The guidance indicates that the administration will reward biofuel crops cultivated using “climate-smart agriculture” practices.
On the one hand, it’s a somewhat surprising development simply because of Trump’s record of cutting anything with climate in the title. Last April, the U.S. Department of Agriculture terminated grants from a Biden-era “Climate-Smart Commodities” program, calling it a “slush fund,” and refashioned it into the “Advancing Markets for Producers” initiative.
On the other hand, depending on how the Trump administration implements it, integrating climate-smart agriculture into the clean fuel tax credit could become its own kind of slush fund, paying out billions in taxpayer dollars for questionable benefits and with little accountability.
The clean fuel tax credit, known by its section of the tax code as 45Z, subsidizes the production of low-carbon transportation fuels for vehicles and aviation. Companies can earn up to $1 per gallon depending on the carbon intensity of the production process.
Sourcing corn and soy from farms that use climate-smart agriculture practices is one potential way for biofuel producers to claim more of the credit. “Climate-smart agriculture” can refer to a wide variety of techniques that increase the amount of soil stored in carbon or otherwise reduce emissions, such as reducing soil disturbance, planting cover crops, or implementing nutrient management practices that reduce nitrous oxide emissions. But to date, the federal government has not issued guidance for how to account for these practices.
The Biden administration put out proposed rules just before leaving office that were quite controversial, Nikita Pavlenko, the fuels and aviation program director at the International Council on Clean Transportation, told me. The methodology relied entirely on modeling and did not require farmers to take any real-life measurements of soil carbon before or after adopting the climate-smart practice. The rules also assume that these climate-smart practices would be implemented anew, when in reality many farms have been practicing some of them for years without subsidies. That means ethanol producers could potentially get free money to buy corn from farms that adopted no-till practices long ago, with no additional benefit for the climate.
“These climate-smart ag practices are a rare example of bipartisanship, for what it’s worth, and there’s a lot of money to be made in it,” Pavlenko told me. “But I’m not sure exactly how much actual greenhouse gas reduction or sequestration.”
According to estimates by Pavlenko’s group, the lack of an additionality requirement could lead to the government paying $2.1 billion in subsidies for farms to keep doing what they were already doing, with no new benefits for the climate.
I should note that the climate integrity of the clean fuel tax credit, also known as 45Z, was already compromised by changes made in the OBBBA. Subsidies for crop-based biofuels can indirectly drive deforestation. Prior to Trump’s tax law, producers would have had to take into account emissions related to land use changes when they calculated the carbon intensity of their fuel. Now they don’t. The change will make it much easier for a fuel like ethanol, which is already heavily subsidized through other programs, to qualify.
That, in turn, could cost taxpayers an estimated five times as much per year. When the subsidy was first created in the Inflation Reduction Act, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would cost taxpayers $2.9 billion over three years. After the OBBBA passed, extending the credit by two years, the committee’s estimate was $25.7 billion.
The existing proposal for incorporating climate-smart agriculture practices into the tax credit calculation would likely push that estimate even higher. After the Biden administration released its proposal last January, groups like Pavlenko’s submitted comments critiquing the methods and suggesting changes. But after the Trump administration took over, it was unclear what would happen with it, he said.
Last week’s guidance was still somewhat vague about what’s next for the climate-smart agriculture calculations, saying only that the proposal published in January is still “undergoing testing, peer review, and public comment,” and that the Treasury expects it to be ready some time in 2026. In the meantime, the Treasury will be taking public comments on the broader 45Z guidance through April 6 and hold a public hearing on May 28.
On Tesla’s sunny picture, Chinese nuclear, and Bad Bunny’s electric halftime show
Current conditions: The Seattle Seahawks returned home to a classically rainy, overcast city from their win in last night’s Super Bowl, though the sun is expected to come out for Wednesday's victory parade • Severe Tropical Cyclone Mitchell is pummeling Western Australia with as much as 8 inches of rain • Flash floods from Storm Marta have killed at least four in Morocco.
Orsted’s two major offshore wind projects in the United States are back on track to be completed on schedule, its chief executive said. Rasmus Errboe told the Financial Times that the Revolution Wind and Sunrise Wind projects in New England would come online in the latter half of this year and in 2027, respectively. “We are fully back to work and construction on both projects is moving forward according to plan,” Errboe said. The U.S. has lost upward of $34 billion worth of clean energy projects since President Donald Trump returned to office, as I wrote last week. A new bipartisan bill introduced in the House last week to reform the federal permitting process would bar the White House from yanking back already granted permits. For now, however, the Trump administration has signaled its plans to appeal federal courts’ decisions to rule against its actions to halt construction on offshore turbines.
The fight over the billions in federal funding the White House is holding up for the Gateway rail project between New Jersey and New York, meanwhile, heated up over the weekend. On Friday night, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze the nearly $16 billion to the project, just hours after construction ground to a halt as funding ran dry. In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Southern District of New York wrote that “plaintiffs have adequately shown that the public interest would be harmed by a delay in a critical infrastructure project.” Trump had his own idea in mind. Over the weekend, the White House proposed releasing the money only if Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York agreed to rename Penn Station after Trump.
Tesla has started hiring staff to ramp up production of solar panels as the company looks to build 100 gigawatts of panel-manufacturing capacity supplied with raw materials produced in America. In a job posting on LinkedIn, Seth Winger, Tesla’s senior manager for solar products engineering, wrote that the panel-producing buildout was “an audacious, ambitious project.” For that, he wrote, “we need audacious, ambitious engineers and scientists to help us grow to massive scale. If you want to solve tough manufacturing problems at breakneck speed and help the U.S. breakthrough on renewable energy generation, come join us.” One of the listings indicated that the target date for bringing the new factories online was the “end of 2028,” giving an indication of timing that Reuters noted had been previously absent from Elon Musk’s public statements. Bloomberg reported last week that Tesla is already looking at sites in New York, Arizona, and Idaho for its manufacturing expansion.
The Trump administration tried to yank permits from the offshore wind projects off New England on the grounds that the towering turbines caused more ecological destruction than the electricity is worth. On Friday, however, Trump signed a proclamation reopening a giant marine preserve in the Atlantic Ocean to commercial fishing. First established at the end of the Obama administration, the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument lies 130 miles off the coast of Cape Cod, encompassing what The New York Times described as “an area the size of Connecticut that is home to dolphins, endangered whales, sea turtles, and ancient deep-sea corals.” While Trump lifted the ban on commercial fishing in the zone during his first administration, President Joe Biden reinstated the restrictions. But this isn’t the first time Trump reopened a national marine national monument to fishing. In April, he ended protections for the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument located 750 miles west of Hawaii and designated by President George W. Bush in 2009.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Connecitcut’s Department of Insurance has launched a website that displays extensive information about the climate risk of every property in the state in what E&E News called “an unprecedented move to alert residents and to promote flood insurance.” The details include each property’s history of damage from floods and other events predicted to get worse as the planet warms. “A single risk score does not fully convey flood and climate risk,” department spokesperson Mary Quinn said. The department plans a marketing campaign this year with ads on radio, TV, and social media, and workshops for insurance agents on how to use the website. Nationwide, climate change is already raising household costs by $900 per year, as Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin reported last year. Wildfires have already “destroyed California’s insurance market,” according to an interview with Heatmap's Shift Key podcast last year with an expert at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.
Unit 1 of the Taipingling nuclear power station in China’s Guangdong has reached criticality seven years after construction began on the gigawatt-sized Hualong One reactor. The debut atom-splitting means the newest reactor is months, if not weeks, from entering into commercial operation. If that enticingly single-digit number of years to build a piece of infrastructure that takes the U.S. more than a decade wasn’t enough of a sign of China’s nuclear strengths, the country this week hit another milestone on a separate atomic station. At the Zhangzhou-3 nuclear reactor, workers last week installed the inner steel dome of the containment building.

Nearly a decade after Puerto Rico’s power grid collapsed and plunged America’s most populous territory into the second-longest blackout in world history, the island’s biggest musical star performed a Super Bowl halftime show that included linemen working on transformers. Bad Bunny’s performance, a revue of his reggaeton hits, served as an ode to what he called “my motherland, my homeland, Puerto Rico.” The grid still suffers regular outages. When it’s working, the power system sends occasional surges through wires that fry appliances. Electricity rates are higher than almost any state, despite Puerto Rico suffering worse poverty rates than Mississippi. At one point, Bad Bunny climbed a utility pole on stage waving a light-blue Puerto Rican flag, a symbol of the movement to establish the island territory as its own independent nation. It was a powerful political statement at America’s most-watched sporting event. For energy nerds, it was a rare opportunity to reflect on one of the worst, most prolonged infrastructure disasters in modern American history.
Rob talks with the lawmaker from New Mexico (and one-time mechanical engineer) about the present and future of climate policy.
The permitting reform conversation is heating up.
On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob talks to Senator Martin Heinrich about whether Republicans and Democrats will reach a permitting reform deal this year. They chat about what Democrats would need to see in such a deal, how it could help transmission projects, and why such a deal will ultimately need to constrain President Trump in some way.
They also discuss the future of Democratic energy and climate policy — what Heinrich learned from the Biden administration, what the Inflation Reduction Act got right (and wrong), and why data centers are becoming a new kind of energy villain.
Heinrich is the senior senator from New Mexico (and a well-known transmission policy nerd). He’s also a trained mechanical engineer and the son of a utility lineman. 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. Jesse is off this week.
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:
Robinson Meyer: There’s one bill we reported on yesterday at Heatmap called the FREEDOM Act. It just came out of the House. It has a bipartisan group behind it, including [Republican] Mike Lawler from New York and [Democrat] Adam Gray in California. It tries to prevent federal agencies from terminating work on a fully permitted project or affecting ongoing construction on a fully permitted project. And it would establish this fund that a company that has seen its permits get yanked could pull from in the Treasury Department, up to $5 million.
Does this bill meet your concerns? Have you looked at it? Is this the kind of text that you would need to see to say, okay, we could put a deal together?
Senator Martin Heinrich: We’re very intrigued in digging into that legislation right now, and I do think that anything we can do to create more certainty in the market — and that’s true for both renewables and for traditional energy. Because the truth is, we can’t have a system where, when one party controls the White House, they attack this set of energy, and then when it changes hands, that group attacks this other set of energy. We just need to set policy and then have predictable flows of capital into the market. And so I think this is a positive step forward. And we should look at all the things the House does and evaluate them on their merits.
I will say that if the figure is $5 billion for this fund, you could exhaust that on one wind project. And thank goodness the court stepped in as quickly as they did because those offshore wind projects were on the scale of tens of billions of dollars. And effectively, if you’re going shut those off, that’s a takings, in my view. That’s like actually stealing someone’s capital, stealing someone’s money.
And we can’t — that’s third world stuff. We can’t have that in the United States of America. But I give credit to the House for coming forward with this kind of thing because we do need to constrain it.
You can find the full transcript of this episode here.
Mentioned:
SunZia: The Untold Saga of America's Biggest Power Line, by Robinson Meyer
The FREEDOM Act: New Bipartisan House Bill Would Keep President From Yanking Permits
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Accelerate your clean energy career with Yale’s online certificate programs. Explore the 10-month Financing and Deploying Clean Energy program or the 5-month Clean and Equitable Energy Development program. Use referral code HeatMap26 and get your application in by the priority deadline for $500 off tuition to one of Yale’s online certificate programs in clean energy. Learn more at cbey.yale.edu/online-learning-opportunities.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.